Implementation Action Plan for organic food and farming research

The Implementation Action Plan completes TP Organics’ trilogy of key documents of the Research Vision to 2025 (Niggli et al 2008) and the Strategic Research Agenda (Schmid et al 2009). The Implementation Action Plan addresses important areas for a successful implementation of the Strategic Research Agenda. It explores the strength of Europe’s organic sector on the world stage with about one quarter of the world’s organic agricultural land in 2008 and accounting for more than half of the global organic market. The aims and objectives of organic farming reflect a broad range of societal demands on the multiple roles of agriculture and food production of not only producing commodities but also ecosystem services. These are important for Europe’s economic success, the resilience of its farms and prosperity in its rural areas. The organic sector is a leading market for quality and authenticity: values at the heart of European food culture. Innovation is important across the EU economy, and no less so within the organic sector. The Implementation Action Plan devotes its third chapter to considering how innovation can be stimulated through organic food and farming research and, crucially, translated into changes in business and agricultural practice. TP Organics argues for a broad understanding of innovation that includes technology, know-how and social/organisational innovations. Accordingly, innovation can involve different actors throughout the food sector. Many examples illustrate innovations in the organic sector includign and beyond technology. The various restrictions imposed by organic standards have driven change and turned organic farms and food businesses into creative living laboratories for smart and green innovations and the sector will continue to generate new examples. The research topics proposed by TP Organics in the Strategic Research Agenda can drive innovation in areas as wide ranging as production practices for crops, technologies for livestock, food processing, quality management, on-farm renewable energy or insights into the effects of consumption of organic products on disease and wellbeing and life style of citizens. Importantly, many approaches developed within the sector are relevant and useful beyond the specific sector. The fourth chapter addresses knowledge management in organic agriculture, focusing on the further development of participatory research methods. Participatory (or trans-disciplinary) models recognise the worth and importance of different forms of knowledge and reduced boundaries between the generators and the users of knowledge, while respecting and benefitting from transparent division of tasks. The emphasis on joint creation and exchange of knowledge makes them valuable as part of a knowledge management toolkit as they have the capacity to enhance the translation of research outcomes into practical changes and lead to real-world progress. The Implementation Action Plan argues for the wider application of participatory methods in publicly-funded research and also proposes some criteria for evaluating participatory research, such as the involvement and satisfaction of stakeholders as well as real improvements in sustainability and delivery of public goods/services. European agriculture faces specific challenges but at the same time Europe has a unique potential for the development of agro-ecology based solutions that must be supported through well focused research. TP Organics believes that the most effective approaches in agriculture and food research will be systems-based, multi- and trans-disciplinary, and that in the development of research priorities, the interconnections between biodiversity, dietary diversity, functional diversity and health must be taken into account. Chapter five of the action plan identifies six themes which could be used to organise research and innovation activities in agriculture under Europe’s 8th Framework Programme on Research Cooperation: • Eco-functional intensification – A new area of agricultural research which aims to harness beneficial activities of the ecosystem to increase productivity in agriculture. • The economics of high output / low input farming Developing reliable economic and environmental assessments of new recycling, renewable-based and efficiency-boosting technologies for agriculture. • Health care schemes for livestock Shifting from therapeutics to livestock health care schemes based on good husbandry and disease prevention. • Resilience and “sustainagility” Dealing with a more rapidly changing environment by focusing on ‘adaptive capacity’ to help build resilience of farmers, farms and production methods. • From farm diversity to food diversity and health and wellbeing of citizens Building on existing initiatives to reconnect consumers and producers, use a ‘whole food chain’ approach to improve availability of natural and authentic foods. • Creating centres of innovation in farming communities A network of centres in Europe applying and developing trans-disciplinary and participatory scientific approaches to support innovation among farmers and SMEs and improving research capacities across Europe

Characterisation framework of key policy, regulatory and governance dynamics and impacts upon European food value chains: Fairer trading practices, food integrity, and sustainability collaborations. : VALUMICS project “Understanding Food Value Chains and Network Dynamics” funded by EU Horizon 2020 G.A. No 727243. Deliverable D3.3

The report provides a framework that categorises the different European Union (EU) policies, laws and governance actions identified as impacting upon food value chains in the defined areas of: fairer trading practices, food integrity (food safety and authenticity), and sustainability collaborations along food value chains. A four-stage framework is presented and illustrated with examples. The evidence shows that European Union policy activity impacting upon food value chain dynamics is increasing, both in terms of the impacts of policies upon the chains, and, in terms of addressing some of the more contentious outcomes of these dynamics. A number of policy priorities are at play in addressing the outcomes of food value chain dynamics. unevenness of the distribution of profit within food value chains, notably to farmers. Regulation of food safety and aspects of authenticity has been a key focus for two decades to ensure a functioning single market while ensuring consumer health and wellbeing. A food chain length perspective has been attempted, notably through regulations such as the General Food Law, and the rationalisation of the Official Controls on food and feed safety. However, there are still gaps in the effective monitoring and transparency of food safety and of food integrity along value chains, as exemplified by misleading claims and criminal fraud. This has led to renewed policy actions over food fraud, in particular. EU regulations, policies and related governance initiatives provide an important framework for national-level actions for EU member states and for EEA members. The more tightly EU-regulated areas, such as food safety, see fewer extra initiatives, but where there is a more general strategic policy and governance push, such as food waste reduction or food fraud, there is greater independent state-level activity. Likewise, there is much more variation in the application of both national and European (Competition) law to govern unfair trading practices impacting upon food value chains. This report presents the findings of a survey of members from the VALUMICS stakeholder platform, that were policy facing food value chain stakeholders across selected European countries, including both EU and EEA Member States. The survey was conducted to check the significance of the main policies identified in the mapping exercise at EU and national levels and so to incorporate the views of stakeholders in the research. The responses suggest the policy concerns identified in EU and national-level research resonate with food value chain stakeholders in participating nations. The report concludes by exploring in more detail how the themes of fairness and of transparency are being handled in the policy activities presented. Highlighted are the ways that both fairness and transparency can be extended within the existing frameworks of EU policy activity. The findings in this report provide an important context for further and detailed research analysis of the workings and dynamics of European food value chains under the VALUMICS project

Training materials for different categories of users

Agricultural and Food Policy, Environmental Economics and Policy, Farm Management, Land Economics/Use, Production Economics, Teaching/Communication/Extension/Profession,

Using Eco-schemes in the new CAP: a guide for managing authorities

This guide has been developed primarily for policy makers and Member State officials involved in the national and regional programming processes of the CAP Strategic Plans (CSPs). This process might involve different administrative levels (national, regional, local), different political fields (agriculture, environmental, food and health ministries), different public bodies (paying agencies, environmental agencies, rural development offices) depending on the administrative setting of each MS. In addition, the guide provides support to other stakeholders and practitioners from the public and private sectors and civil society (including agricultural, environmental, food, health and consumer NGOs), with a direct or indirect involvement in the programming and evaluation process of the CSPs. Since these new plans will have a strong impact on MS environments, agricultural sectors, rural areas, etc., the engagement of all stakeholders will be an important asset for supporting an effective implementation of the CSP objectives. There are many others with potential interests in the contents of this guide. EU citizens have demonstrated their increasing interest in the contents of the CAP objectives and policy framework, as demonstrated both by civil society initiatives and consumption decisions. The contents of this guide may therefore also be of interest to other societal actors with interests in agricultural and environmental policies, such as researchers, journalists, trade unions, and civil society organizations. However, the guide is intentionally more focused on the technical needs of those involved in CSP development and implementation

The Bio-Economy Concept and Knowledge Base in a Public Goods and Farmer Perspective

Currently an industrial perspective dominates the EU policy framework for a European bio-economy. The Commission’s proposal on the bio-economy emphasises greater resource-efficiency, largely within an industrial perspective on global economic competitiveness, benefiting capital-intensive industries at higher levels of the value chain. However a responsible bio-economy must initially address the sustainable use of resources. Many farmers are not only commodity producers but also providers of quality food and managers of the eco-system. A public goods-oriented bio-economy emphasises agro-ecological methods, organic and low (external) input farming systems, ecosystem services, social innovation in multi-stakeholder collective practices and joint production of knowledge. The potential of farmers and SMEs to contribute to innovation must be fully recognised. This approach recognises the importance of local knowledge enhancing local capabilities, while also accommodating diversity and complexity. Therefore the bio-economy concept should have a much broader scope than the dominant one in European Commission innovation policy. Socio-economic research is needed to inform strategies, pathways and stakeholder cooperation towards sustainability goals

Development of criteria and procedures for the evaluation of the European Action Plan for Organic Agriculture

This final report provides a synthesis of the results of the EU-funded ORGAP project, with the title “European Action Plan of Organic Food and Farming - Development of criteria and procedures for the evaluation of the EU Action Plan for Organic Agriculture”. This project started in May 2005 and was completed in April 2008. The overall objective of this project was to give scientific support to the implementation of the EU Organic Action Plan (EUOAP) by the development of an evaluation toolbox. In the project 10 partners from 9 countries (CH, UK, DE, IT, DK, SI, CZ, NL, ES) participated, as well as the European umbrella organisation of the Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM EU Regional group), ensuring a broad stakeholder consultation process and dissemination all over Europe. Chapter 1 describes the background and the objectives, structure and the outcome of the ORGAP Project. It shows that since the late 1980s, organic farming development in the European Union (EU) has been stimulated mainly by two factors, one related to strong consumer demand, supported by the EU regulation defining organic food, and the other to policy support for the provision of public goods. Responding to concerns that area payments as ‘supply-push’ measures can impact negatively on the markets for organic products, policy-makers have started to take a more integrated approach to policy using the ‘action plan’ mechanism. Action plans can be found in most EU member states. At national level, action plans provide a mechanism to ensure a balanced policy mix, reflecting different aims and the various supply-push and demand-pull policy instruments available, tailored to local conditions. In 2004 the European Commission launched the European Action Plan for Organic Food and Farming. The plan contained 21 action points, which relate to the following areas: • Consumer information and promotion campaigns; • Improved research, market intelligence and statistical data collection; • Full utilisation of the rural development programme and other existing options to support organic farming; • Improving the transparency, scope and implementation of the regulation defining organic farming In the meantime, the European Commission has started to implemented most of the actions. In chapter 2 a brief history about organic action plan development is given, in particular about the European as well as national organic action plan for organic food and farming. The European Action Plan for Organic Food and Farming (EC 2004) is the result of a three-year process of developing the Action Plan, starting in 2001. This process led to: a Commission staff paper exploring the options for an action plan in 2001; the establishment of an independent expert working group in 2002, a public internet consultation on specific options in February 2003; a European Parliament hearing on the action plan options in June 2003; and a public hearing on the action plan options in January 2004. In June 2004 the action plan was decided by the EU Council in June 2004, following significant internal debate within the Commission and the EU Parliament. The involvement of stakeholders in the development of the EUOAP was mainly in the explorative phases involving identification of organic sector development needs and possible solution phase. The actual action plan was prepared after the public hearing in January 2004, so that stakeholders were not able to comment on the action plan document or the balance of individual actual action points. During the subsequent implementation phase, primary responsibility also rests with the EU Commission, with input from the EU Council, EU Parliament and member-state government representatives, with only limited input from other stakeholder groups. The European Commission has started to implement the actions of the European Organic Action Plan, many of which have been achieved or are at an advanced stage of completion. The most significant initiatives are the publication of the new Council regulation (EC) 834/2004 on organic production and labelling of organic products and the consumer information campaign. The development of national organic action plans started in Europe in 1995 when Denmark introduced its first organic action plan. Denmark thus acted as a forerunner and pioneer in this field. Nowadays, most EU Member States have organic action plans for organic food and farming. Of those that don’t, some have plans in preparation. Under the framework of the ORGAP Project, six national (CZ, DK, DE, IT, NL, SI) and two regional (Andalucia (AND), England (ENG) action plans for organic food and farming were com-pared. As a consequence of the very different situation in the eight case-study countries, the action plans studied vary in their scope. The English and the Dutch action plans represent market-driven and demand-led approaches with a clear focus on market development measures. The German Federal Organic Farming Scheme on the other hand puts a distinct emphasis on informational policy instruments to strengthen the organic sector through consumer information as well as through research and development. Finally, the Andalusian, Czech, Danish, Italian and the Slovenian action plans represent quite broad approaches integrating a broad portfolio of measures targeted to supply and market development as well as to information and research. Apart from the Andalusian Action Plan, all other action plans studied include quantitative tar-gets. Most typically targets for organic adoption are set (CZ, DK, NL, SI and DE). However, the Dutch and Slovenian action plans include a combination of targets addressing the share of nationally produced organic products, the domestic organic market share in general, organic sales per capita and the development of tourist farms. The English action plan target was defined in terms of the proportion of the organic market for indigenous products supplied by domestic producers. To conclude, the case study action plans vary with regard to the development process, targets, objectives and the emphasis of measures on certain areas. This is due to quite different political and socio-economic framework conditions for organic farming in these countries. The comparison revealed that the weaknesses identified in the status quo analyses have only partly been translated to the targets and measures included in the action plan documents. This is on the one side a result of the national priority and budget setting and on the other side on the interdependency between EU policies and national policies. However, as all action plans were developed together with stakeholders, the composition of the stakeholder groups and the power of the initiating actor are crucial to the target and priority setting. In chapter 3 the authors write about organic action plans – what we know and do not know. This includes success factors, stakeholder involvement, coherence and consistency issues and the how to evaluate organic action plans with ORGAPET. What makes a successful action plan? This question is much more difficult to answer than it looks at first sight. Many other economic, social and policy developments influence the organic sector and often instances occur which have not been foreseen when a certain action plan was devised. Because of this a simple measurement of the state of a specific objective might be too simplistic. Under certain circumstances an organic action plan could already be regarded as a success if the measures contribute substantially to a development in the right direction. The point of reference would be here: What would have happened if the organic action plan would have not been in place? The second point to keep in mind in judging the success of an organic action plan is to be aware of the fact that such action plans are often not complete in a sense that they fully include all political measures directly relevant for organic farming. In such cases it is important to keep in mind and to analyse the broader policy and market environment relevant to organic farming in order to judge success of the action plan. Organic farming policies can of course only be successful if they are successfully implemented and need sufficient care and knowledge with respect to the often numerously legal conditions outside the specific organic farming area that influence implementation. It also means that a clear mission of implementation agencies and qualified and motivated personal involved are a key to successful organic policies and to successful organic action plans. Is the concept of an organic action plan an outdate concept? Some policy makers believe that it has been a fashion and its time is over. The authors of this report are convinced that any at-tempt to unify elements that influence organic farming and organic farming policies and to bring policies into an integrated, coherent framework will still be necessary and welcome in the future. Whether such attempts in the future will be called organic action plans is a different issue. Currently some key challenges include the question whether the general trend in agricultural prices has actually been reversed. If agricultural prices which tended to decrease in real terms throughout the 20th century are actually moving upwards due to factors such as increased demand for agricultural products, climate change and a possible slowdown of technological progress. Such general developments will also influence the development of organic farming and the development of suitable measures to support it. Some of the implications of a higher price level for conventional agriculture and a higher volatility of prices both in the conventional and organic markets might challenge the continuation of the traditional per hectare organic support policies. If climate change is actually perceived as the key challenge for decades to come then effects with respect to mitigate climate change of organic farming and with respect to the adaptive capacity of organic farming are quite important for any policy justification in support of organic farming. And finally, there is the productivity issue. If the actually demand for food stuff is increasing rapidly throughout the world then the obvious limitations of organic farming in this respect reported from industrial countries become more serious. In that context research and development supporting increasing productivity in organic farming might become much more important than in the past. It is clear that just looking at the originally envisaged targets and objectives might not be sufficient to judge whether or not an action plan has been successful. One key argument going be-yond clear targets and well balanced measures is that embedding action plan development in the wider policy area seems to be absolutely essential to be successful. However, there are a number of other issues to be dealt with which are also quite important prerequisites for successful organic action plans such as stakeholder involvement, coherence and consistency of action plans and an evaluation monitoring capacity. Stakeholder involvement may be understood and carried out in quite different ways including the provision of information, providing opportunities to comment on proposals, and empowering stakeholders to make their own choices. When preparing the toolbox aimed for evaluating the European Organic Action Plan in the OR-GAP project, attempts were made to involve both organic and mixed stakeholders in various steps in eight different national/regional settings and with different methods. These experiences form the background for recommending stakeholders with a purely organic and/or mixed portfolio to involve through group discussions in order to increase and optimize their analytical capacities and thereby their delivery of relevant information regarding the preconditions for implementing the EUOAP and for assessing its policy impacts. Parallel to this, relevant non-organic stake-holders could be involved on the basis of individual interviews or small group interviews. When deciding on which stakeholders to involve in any stage it is thus necessary to identify all stakeholders considered relevant to the issue and to clarify for each of them which perspective they represent in first priority. Therefore a general model for analysing stakeholder involvement in public policy on organic food and farming has been developed in the project. It includes a distinction of expertise involved in the three main perspectives of organic action plans realised in Europe up to now: the specific values defining organic food and farming; the market perspective as organic food in most plans is expected to develop in response to consumer demand; and a political recognition of the public goods delivered as a consequence of performing organic farming practices. With regard to each of these three perspectives, it is possible to specify expertise of stakeholders acting in the core or periphery of the perspective and to distinguish expertise of purely organic stakeholders and other stakeholders with a mixed or even non-organic expertise relevant for the development of policies in support of organic food and farming. The degree to which participatory methods realise their potential contribution depends critically on how carefully they are used and in what context. There is no one set of techniques to be mechanically applied in all contexts for all participants, but a diverse range of possible techniques which need to be flexibly adapted to particular situations and needs. Stakeholder involvement helps improving the information basis and the legitimacy of public policies. This is especially important on complex issues such as organic action plans, which involves actors with stakes in issues as different as the values of organic food and farming, the food market and the public goods of organic food and farming at one and the same time. Successful stakeholder involvement thus demands: careful preparations of which stakeholders to include at any stage of the policy process and of the methods used to promote participation; sufficient time for the stakeholder to react; this means at least 8-12 weeks of time for allowing substantial and broad participation, in particular in the case of involvement of farmers organisations, and good communication and transparency in each of the five stages of the policy process. Although this results in higher costs and more resources for those administrating the process, the outcome of such a process will improve the legitimacy and acceptability of the decisions and will facilitate very much the implementation (e.g. through public private partnerships). Such a more participative, transparent and time-balanced process helps to avoid unnecessary discussions and misunderstandings, which at the end might be more effective and cost-efficient. Project Synthesis For an evaluation of the internal and external coherence of the EU Organic Action Plan (OAP), the ORGAP project team generally made use of empirical methods and techniques suggested for analysing the synergy of programmes as well as their cross-impacts. A policy analysis of key synergies (positive and negative) was performed by means of a matrix of cross impacts as specified in the MEANS framework (EC, 1999). Two separate matrices were constructed: to appraise the internal coherence between the various measures of the EU Organic Action Plan; and to appraise the external coherence between the EUOAP and some national organic action plans. Experts involved in this evaluation process (Evaluation team) identified any synergy which may exist between pairs of measures or categories of measures. The effects of synergies or conflicts have been rated with the help of 2 electronic consultation rounds. After validation of these ratings, the calculation of the “synthetic” coefficient of synergy was performed, in order to evaluate the overall level of synergy/conflict within the European Organic Action Plan. The analysis suggests that Actions 9 (ensure integrity) and 10 (harmonisation of standards) are essential for the success of the EUOAP, given their synergetic effects. They in addition enter into synergy with many other actions. Interesting is also Action 13 (risked based-inspections) wit

Value Sharing and Food System Dynamics for Milk, Tomato, and Cereals Food Chains

The aim of the paper is to analyse value sharing and food system dynamics of milk, tomato, and cereals food chains, so to explore the agro‐food enterprises capacity to be competitive and sustainable. The paper is based on the functionalist approach of Malassis and the notion of the system of the General Systems Theory. The methodology is aimed at creating a consolidated financial statement for each food chain so to re‐create the chain value and identify how this is shared among the different food chain stages. The analysis is carried out on primary and secondary data: around 2400 financial statements concerning 480 enterprises from 2003 to 2007 and stakeholders’ interviews. Results show that value is usually created in the processing and distribution stages, to the detriment of the primary sector, and that the retail managing practices tend to impose damaging structural changes on farms whose profitability is at times becoming sustainable only thanks to European subsidies. To conclude, there is evidence of inadequate definition of strategic and network alliance along the chain. Competitiveness is still a concept achieved by single food chain stages against others and food chain internal competition entails a declining sustainability of small farms and enterprises.food chain, value system, economic performance, potato, fruit, cheese., Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety, Food Security and Poverty, Industrial Organization, Risk and Uncertainty,