Stakeholders’ views on improving the organic certification system: Results from an EU level workshop

The FP7 CERTCOST project has the overall objective to give recommendations to the public authorities and private actors in the whole organic certification chain on how to improve the organic food certification systems in terms of efficiency, transparency and cost effectiveness. According to the project description (the Description of Work, or DoW) this will be done based on a scientific economic in depth analysis of the certification systems from the farmer to the consumer in 5 EU countries (the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom), plus Switzerland and the candidate country, Turkey. To safeguard that the CERTCOST objectives, work plan and methodology is in line with the expectations of key stakeholders from all levels of the certification chain the DoW foresaw a Stakeholder workshop to be organised in the beginning of the project. The current report documents the main points of the discussions and recommendation given by the stakeholders at this CERTCOST Stakeholder workshop, which took place on November, 13-15, 2008 in Izmir, Turkey, 2.5 months after the project had started. A total of 20 stakeholders were invited, of whom 16 could participate in the workshop. The participant profile included both users and providers of the certification system at different levels such as representatives of farmers’ organizations certification/control bodies, government authorities, EU Commission, processors/ traders, private experts/consultants. Together with the representatives of the partner institutions in the CERTCOST project, the total number of workshop participants was 35 representing 12 European countries. Given the diverse backgrounds of the workshop participants, a working group approach (World Café approach) was applied in order to give the participants the opportunity to reflect their experiences and ideas on the implementation of the project in a synergetic, comfortable and free environment. After a brief presentation of the project, outlining the tasks of the work packages and describing the proposed links between the project and the stakeholders by the project coordinator, the stakeholders were divided into four groups according to their level in the organic certification chain, as farmers, processors/traders, certification bodies and consumers. Two working group sessions were carried out around the questions provided to the stakeholders before the workshop through electronic mails. The questions had been compiled based on input from the managers of the four work packages which were relevant to the workshop discussion. After the first working group session, a plenary discussion session for clustering of the output given by the working groups, their validation and assessment was carried out. In the second session of the working groups, it was rather aimed to harmonize the understanding between the diversified opinions mentioned in Session 1. The working group approach concluded in a final plenary discussion. On the second day, the CERTCOST work package managers presented how the discussions, comments and inputs of the working group sessions could impact on their working plans. In the final session the stakeholders were addressed directly for providing further ideas both on the project and on future collaboration options. The workshop was strongly focused on the identification of key characteristics of cost factors along the supply chain in relation to their impact on the quality of the given service. However a broad range of related subjects were discussed. The Stakeholder workshop put forward that, the ‘cost’ was among the most important topics relating to the certification system performance. The focus of the project aiming at cost effectiveness and not cost minimization was confirmed by the stakeholders. All of the stakeholders present in the workshop demonstrated elevated levels of interest on several outputs of the project. The workshop revealed very positive expectations among the stakeholders towards the risk based approach to be followed in the CERTCOST project. The detailed picture of the organic certification sector obtained through the workshop will constitute an important input to the CERTCOST project and the workshop is considered to be a successful first step in the project-stakeholder interaction. The Stakeholder workshop provided important insight into the many discussion subjects of the organic certification systems in the EU and worldwide, among others the following should be mentioned. Farmers expect to have, clear rules, fair implementation, and high skilled guidance in the inspection and certification process, and underline the need for training of farmers and certifiers and for better communication between all parties in the certification chain. Processors point out the need for a good relationship with the inspectors and certifiers as well as the fact that there existed different schemes in different countries regarding the inspection process and the related cost structure. They also highlighted the difficulty of managing the relations with increasing number of different standards and different certification bodies. It is agreed that consumers expect something they can trust and they can easily recognize, a label, a logo, a certifier, a brand, a farmer or the word ‘organic’; at local, regional, national, or EU-level. It is also concluded that whether, why and how much some consumers might be willing to pay more for particular logos was unknown and was needed to be investigated. Authorities/certification bodies stress that the issue of knowledge and education is extremely important and that there are complex legislations, no common standards, and differences within and between countries. They underline that there are different catalogues in different countries to deal with irregularities which should be harmonized. They emphasize that a clear definition of certification should be made covering its objectives, principles and tools. While on some of the issues there has been a highlighted consensus among the groups, on some others contrasting ideas became evident. Among those subjects of absolute agreement were the importance of and the need for a more clear understanding of the certification system, its components and rules by all the parties involved. Education and elevated levels of necessary skills from farmer to inspector and to consumer; increased transparency and information exchange, well defined relationships between parties were considered to be an indispensable basis for a well functioning and more efficient certification system. The inspection concept came into prominence, with a discussion on policing vs. development approaches. While an efficient and comparable control system was judged to be crucial, promising private governmental formulations were agreed to be based on country conditions. Complexity of the legislation and lack of transparency were the remarkable barriers to a more efficient control system. The EU logo and the new EU Regulation for organic certification were also discussed among stakeholders. It was suggested that the EU logo might have the potential to boost demand in the ‘less developed’ organic markets, but more promotion then currently planned would be needed. It was agreed that most consumers do not look for logos of particular standards but for the word ‘organic’ and/or an organic logo they are familiar with. This might be different for ‘committed’ organic consumers in more mature markets. Overall, it was agreed that ‘trust’ is the most crucial aspect of organic certification regarding the consumer side. The issue of multiple certification and standards appeared to be a factor deserving more attention in the certification world. Harmonization in certification of the same characteristic of a product was deemed necessary. On the other hand, exchange of experiences and cooperation with markets like ‘Fair Trade’ was agreed to be potentially beneficial

Report on evaluation of the revision of council regulation (EEC) NO 2092/91, import regime in two exporting non-EU countries (TR, CH) and on an international level

This report provides an evaluation of the new EU import regulation for organic products (Council Regulation (EC) 834/2007, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008). To ensure that the evaluation addresses the issues and concerns of the stakeholders affected by the new import regulation and to increase the use of the evaluation results for upcoming decisions, this evaluation was organised as a stakeholder evaluation approach. Based on the results from two national workshops in third countries (Turkey and Switzerland) and from one international workshop, the report concludes in policy recommendations to improve the import system for organic products as well as the organic sector as a whole

How An Emergency Can Effect Urological Emergencies: COVID-19

Objective:Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has caused many changes in the health services since its inception. The change in the functioning of the emergency services and the decrease in admissions have also changed the form of consultations requested from the urology clinic. This study aims to reveal how the consultations requested from the urology clinic of a large hospital were affected during the COVID-19 period.Materials and Methods:In our study, one year before and after March 10, 2020, was divided into two groups as “pre-covid” and “covid era”. The gender, age, reason for consultation, result, date and time, hospitalization status of the patients were examined.Results:A total of 2018 consultations, 1242 in the pre-COVID period and 776 during the COVID period, were analyzed in the study. Although renal colic was the most common reason for consultation in both periods, its number and rate decreased significantly during the COVID period [384 (30.9%) vs. 165 (21.3%), p≤0.0001]. Proportionally, more patients were hospitalized during the COVID period [196 (15.8%) vs. 161 (20.7%), p=0.02]. In both periods, the most common reason for hospitalization was hematuria, but the difference was not statistically significant [26 (29.5%) vs. 20 (27.8%), p=0.261].Conclusion:COVID-19 has turned all health parameters upside down and has been one of the biggest factors affecting public health since the day it started. While the density and form of consultation requested from the urology clinic changed during the pandemic period, the hospitalization rates increased, so urology clinics should adapt accordingly for possible pandemic waves or epidemics in the future

EGE ÜNİVERSİTESİ ZİRAAT FAKÜLTESİ’NDE İNOVASYON SÜRECİ ve KÜLTÜRÜ

Objectives: Innovation process at Ege University Faculty of Agriculture, aims to reveal institutional and individual innovative features and to develop suggestions for improving the process. Material and Methods: In this study; the innovation process in Aegean University Faculty of Agriculture (EUZF) has been investigated by using the data collected from 112 academicians through the questionnaire. The data were interpreted by employing percentages, averages, T-test, regression analysis, factor analysis. Results: Some of the personal characteristics of academicians, their thoughts on Faculty education, research objectives, information and funding sources were identified. About 14% of the research findings in EUZF are adopted by farmers/target groups. The innovation process (from idea to the farmer’s field) takes 10.1 years. According to the result of factor analysis; organizational innovative components of the Faculty were defined into four factor groups as creative-sharing philosophy, research features, communication and trust. Despite being considered globally in the decision of course content and research topics in the Faculty, they are not treated locally. Conclusion: In the innovation process, local problems and priorities should be considered as opportunities for original ideas. Observed entropy obstructs innovative culture in the Faculty. For improving the innovation process; participatory, flexible and learning organization culture should be internalized. Transparent management approach, trustable working environment, healthy information sharing, team work, clearly defined targets, rapid support to projects, use of new techniques/ technologies in research, monitoring of contributions of research results, diversity in funding sources and strong relationship with sector will provide the sustainability of innovative culture in the FacultyAmaç: Ege Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi’ndeki inovasyon sürecinin, kurumsal ve bireysel inovatif özelliklerin ortaya konulması ve sürecin iyileştirilmesine yönelik önerilerin geliştirilmesi hedeflenmiştir. Materyal ve Yöntem: Bu araştırmada; Ege Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi’ndeki inovasyon süreci 112 akademisyenden anket yoluyla derlenen veriler kullanılarak, incelenmiştir. Veriler yüzdeler, ortalamalar, T-testi, regresyon analizi, faktör analizi yardımıyla yorumlanmıştır. Bulgular: Akademisyenlerin bazı kişisel özellikleri, Fakülte eğitimine yönelik görüşleri, araştırma hedefleri, bilgi ve finansman kaynakları saptanmıştır. EÜZF’deki araştırma bulgularının %14 kadarı çiftçiler/hedef gruplar tarafından benimsenmektedir. İnovasyon süreci (fikirden çiftçi tarlasına) 10.1 yıl sürmektedir. Faktör analizi sonucuna göre Fakültedeki kurumsal yenilikçilik unsurları; yaratıcıpaylaşımcı felsefe, araştırma özellikleri, iletişim ve güven şeklinde tanımlanan dört faktör grubu altında toplanmıştır. Fakültede ders içerikleri ve araştırma konularının kararlaştırılmasında küresel düşünülmesine karşın, yerel davranılmamaktadır. Sonuç: İnovasyon sürecinde yerel sorun ve öncelikler orijinal fikirler için fırsat olarak düşünülmelidir. Gözlenen entropi Fakültede inovatif kültürü engellemektedir. İnovasyon sürecinin geliştirilmesi için Fakültede katılımcı, esnek ve öğrenen örgüt kültürü içselleştirilmelidir. Şeffaf yönetim anlayışı, güvenilir iş ortamı, sağlıklı bilgi paylaşımı, ekip çalışması, net tanımlanan hedefler, projelere hızlı destek, araştırmalarda yeni tekniklerin/teknolojilerin kullanımı, araştırma sonuçlarının katkılarının izlenmesi, finansman kaynaklarında çeşitlilik ve sektörle güçlü ilişkiler Fakültede inovatif kültürün sürdürülebilirliğini sağlayacaktır

Innovation Process and Culture in Public Agricultural Research Organizations: Case of Aegean Region

Amaç: Türkiye’de Ege Bölgesindeki kamu tarımsal araştırma kuruluşlarındaki inovasyon sürecinin, kurumsal ve bireysel inovatif özelliklerin ortaya konulması ve sürecin iyileştirilmesine yönelik önerilerin geliştirilmesi hedeflenmiştir. Materyal ve Yöntem: Veriler karşılıklı görüşmelerle doldurulan anketlerle elde edilmiştir. Tamsayım planlanan anket çalışmasına araştırmacıların %60.8’i (303 kişi) katılmıştır. Veriler parametrik ve parametrik olmayan testlerle yorumlanmıştır. Çalışmada çok boyutlu ölçekleme (MDS) tekniği kullanılarak, kuruluşların birbirlerine ve inovatif kültür açısından ideal düzeye yakınlıkları görselleştirilmiştir. Bulgular: İki araştırmacıdan biri doktora yaparak, alanında uzmanlaşmıştır. Mesainin %44’ü araştırma çalışmalarına ayrılmaktadır. Araştırmalarda verim artışı ve kalite iyileştirme gibi geleneksel hedefler önceliklidir. Finansman ağırlıklı olarak Bakanlık kaynaklarından sağlanmaktadır. Fikrin tarlada uygulamaya dönüşümü (inovasyon süreci) için harcanan süre 11.5 yıldır. Bulguların %28 kadarı çiftçiler tarafından benimsenmektedir. Sonuç: Kuruluşlarda inovasyon sürecini geliştirmek için dinamik yapı, kaynak yeterliliği, güven ortamı, hedeflerin netliği; hızlı işleyiş, kurum içi iletişim ve işbirlikleri sağlanmalıdırObjectives: The innovation process in public agricultural research institutions in the Aegean Region in Turkey aimed to reveal the institutional and individual properties and the development of innovative proposals for improving the process. Material and Methods: The data were obtained via questionnaires filled in by mutual interviews. Although, all researchers were planned to interview but, 60.8% of them (303 researchers) participated in the study. The data were interpreted by employing the parametric and nonparametric tests. The ideal level in terms of proximity to each other and innovative cultures of the research organizations were visualized by using multidimensional scaling (MDS) technique. Results: One of the two researchers specializes in their field by doing Ph.D study. The researchers devote 44% of their working time to research activities. Traditional goals such as yield increase and quality improvement are priorities in the researches. Financing is mainly provided by the Ministry sources. The innovation process (from idea to the farmer’s field) takes 11.5 years. About 28% of the findings are accepted by farmers. Conclusion: The dynamic structure, adequacy of resources, confidence, clarity of objectives; rapid functioning, internal communication and strong collaborations should be realized in the organizations for improving the innovation process

EGE BÖLGESİ TARIMSAL İNOVASYON SİSTEMİNDE KAMU ARAŞTIRMA KURULUŞLARI ve ZİRAAT FAKÜLTELERİ

Amaç: Ege Bölgesindeki kamu tarımsal araştırma enstitüleri ve ziraat fakültelerindekiinovasyon sürecinin karşılaştırılarak bölgede inovatif kapasitenin artışı için neleryapılacağının ortaya konmasıdır.Materyal ve Yöntem: Anket yardımıyla 11 araştırma enstitüsü ile dört ziraatfakültesinden toplam 490 araştırmacıdan derlenen veriler parametrik ve parametrikolmayan testlerle analiz edilmiştir. Faktör analizi ve çok boyutlu ölçekleme (MDS)kullanılarak, araştırmacılar ve kuruluşlar gruplandırılarak karşılaştırılmıştır.Bulgular: Araştırma süreleri ortalama 3,3 yıl olup, fikrin geliştirilip çiftçi tarlasındaürüne/uygulamaya dönüşümü için geçen süre 11,1 yıldır. Bölgede yaklaşık üç yıldaaraştırmacı başına 1,9 araştırma ve 2,2 yayım önerisi geliştirilmiştir. Araştırmacılara görebulgularının %22,2’si çiftçiler tarafından benimsenmektedir. Faktör analizi sonucundainovatif değerler işleyiş, etkileşim ve özgürlük olarak üç grupta toplanmıştır. Fakültegrubunun Ar-Ge becerisinin yüksekliğine karşın, inovasyona dönüşüm düzeyi düşüktür.Sonuç: Bölgedeki araştırmalarda verim ve kalite iyileştirme öncelik konular olup,enerji ve girdi maliyetlerinin düşürülmesi, çevre, işletme güvenliği gibi konuların payıarttırılmalıdır. Kamuda stratejik araştırmalara daha fazla yer verilmelidir. Yerel sorunlarınve koşulların daha fazla dikkate alınması ve aktör ilişkilerinin kurumsallaşması inovasyonsistemin kırsal kalkınmaya katkısını artıracaktır

Factors affecting the adaptation of farmers to innovations according to extension workers: The case of Aegean Region

Objective: In this study, the adoption of innovations, which is the main performance indicator in extension organizations examined with the help of data collected from 966 extension workers in the Aegean Region. The main purpose of the study was to determine the effective factors in the adoption of innovations in agricultural extension. Material and Methods: The research was data collected from public, private companies, extension workers working in farmers' organizations, and dealers by using a survey in eight provinces in the Aegean Region. In the interpretation of data, descriptive statistics such as percentages, and averages, and Kruskal Wallis, chi-square, T, reliability tests and factor, correlation, and logistic regression analyses were employed for interpret the data. Results: An extension worker in the region averagely serves 1559 farmers. Although one-fourth of the extension workers in the region are women, the levels of benefiting of services by women farmers are low. The rate of extension activities in working hours (26.4%) and farmers' adoption rates of innovations/suggestions (56%) are low. Extension workers give 1.5 suggestions/innovations per year to farmers in the region. The adoption levels of innovations are high for fruits and vegetables production. Conclusions: The age of extension workers, their occupational satisfaction, extension share in the working hours, and the number of days devoted to farmers' visits, the number of farmers reached, the farmers' education levels, attending in-service training, as information sources to utilize the market mechanisms, and giving the place for economic, social, and environmental dimensions besides technical increase the adoption rates of the farmers to innovations in the region