Report on the development of political institutions involved in policy elaborations in organic farming for selected European states

As organic farming has become an instrument of European agricultural policy the organic sector is required more and more to get politically active. This report presents results from the EU-funded project EU-CEEOFP on the development of organic farming institutions for the period of 1997-2003 in eleven European countries. Institutions of the organic farming sector in new EU member states are still developing and their relation with mainstream farming institutions is characterised by a state of competition. In (old) EU 15 countries and Switzerland this relation is more oriented towards co-operation and has been described as in a state of creative conflict. Countries with a high share of organic farming show signs of consolidation of their institutions. The report concludes with recommendations for a succesful development of organic farming institutions

Stakeholder involvement in action plans and/or policies for organic food and farming – ORGAP project recommendations

Stakeholder involvement in action plans and/or policies for organic food and farming are seen as part of good governance. Within the EU project ORGAP (www.orgap.org) recommendations are made how to consider and evaluate the level und degree of stakeholder involvement. Different stakeholder perspectives (organic principles, market, public goods) have to bee taken into account in the different stages of an action plan/policy (the design, decision, implementation and evaluation). Participatory methods can be useful if sufficient resources and time are available

Die Vermarktung von Öko-Lebensmitteln in Europa [The Marketing of Organic Food in Europe]

Der Markt für ökologische Lebensmittel in Europa ist sehr dynamisch. In einer Studie wurden fördernde und hemmende Faktoren für die Realisierung eines größeren Marktanteils von Ökoprodukten ermittelt

Institutionelle Rahmenbedingungen der Ausdehnung des ökologischen Landbaus - Erfahrungen aus drei europäischen Ländern

Der Beitrag gibt einen Überblick über die Entwicklungstendenzen des Ökolandbaus in europäischen Ländern im Verhältnis zu den institutionellen Rahmenbedingungen. Anhand von drei Ländern wird die Beziehung zwischen Organisationen des ökologischen und des konventionellen Landbaus in den Bereichen Berufsstand, Agrarpolitik und Vermarktung exemplarisch dargestellt. Der Vergleich zeigt, dass ein offener Dialog mit gegenseitigem Respekt und vielfältige Initiativen in allen Bereichen für eine kontinuierliche Entwicklung des ökologischen Landbaus förderlich zu sein scheinen

Institutionelle Rahmenbedingungen der Ausdehnung des ökologischen Landbaus - Erfahrungen aus drei europäischen Ländern

The paper reviews the development of the organic sector and the institutional conditions in European countries. On the basis of three case studies the interrelationship between organisations of organic and conventional agriculture in the areas of farming community, agricultural policy and food marketing is illustrated. The comparison shows that an open dialog based on mutual respect and a number of initiatives in all three areas appear to be supporting a continuous development of the organic sector.organic farming, institutions, agricultural policy, Agricultural and Food Policy, Institutional and Behavioral Economics,

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

Samspillet mellem landbrugsproduktion, landbrugeres værdier og regler

An analysis of the relation between organic farmers values on their production methods and the regulation of organic farming

ORGAP Project – Evaluation toolbox for the evaluation of action plans for organic food and farming

The ORGAP-Project has developed an evaluation toolbox for the evaluation of the European and/or national action plans based on analysis of national action plans and expert/stakeholder consultation

Simulated rhizosphere deposits induce microbial N-mining that may accelerate shrubification in the subarctic

Climate change is exposing high-latitude systems to warming and a shift towards more shrub-dominated plant communities, resulting in increased leaf-litter inputs at the soil surface, and more labile root-derived organic matter (OM) input in the soil profile. Labile OM can stimulate the mineralization of soil organic matter (SOM); a phenomenon termed “priming.” In N-poor subarctic soils, it is hypothesized that microorganisms may “prime” SOM in order to acquire N (microbial N-mining). Increased leaf-litter inputs with a high C/N ratio might further exacerbate microbial N demand, and increase the susceptibility of N-poor soils to N-mining. We investigated the N-control of SOM mineralization by amending soils from climate change–simulation treatments in the subarctic (+1.1°C warming, birch litter addition, willow litter addition, and fungal sporocarp addition) with labile OM either in the form of glucose (labile C; equivalent to 400 µg C/g fresh [fwt] soil) or alanine (labile C + N; equivalent to 400 µg C and 157 µg N/g fwt soil), to simulate rhizosphere inputs. Surprisingly, we found that despite 5 yr of simulated climate change treatments, there were no significant effects of the field-treatments on microbial process rates, community structure or responses to labile OM. Glucose primed the mineralization of both C and N from SOM, but gross mineralization of N was stimulated more than that of C, suggesting that microbial SOM use increased in magnitude and shifted to components richer in N (i.e., selective microbial N-mining). The addition of alanine also resulted in priming of both C and N mineralization, but the N mineralization stimulated by alanine was greater than that stimulated by glucose, indicating strong N-mining even when a source of labile OM including N was supplied. Microbial carbon use efficiency was reduced in response to both labile OM inputs. Overall, these findings suggest that shrub expansion could fundamentally alter biogeochemical cycling in the subarctic, yielding more N available for plant uptake in these N-limited soils, thus driving positive plant–soil feedbacks

Organic Action Plans. Development, implementation and evaluation. A resource manual for the organic food and farming sector

In 2004, the European Action Plan for Organic Food and Farming was launched. Many European countries have also developed national Organic Action Plans to promote and support organic agriculture. As part of the EU funded ORGAP project (“European Action Plan of Organic Food and Farming - Development of criteria and procedures for the evaluation of the EU Action Plan for Organic Agriculture”) a toolbox to evaluate and monitor the implementation of national and European Action Plans has been developed. In order to communicate the results of this project as widely as possible, a practical manual for initiating and evaluating Organic Action Plans has been produced. This manual has been created to inspire the people, organisations and institutions involved, or with an interest, in the organic food and farming sector to engage in the initiation, review, revision and renewal of regional, national and European Organic Action Plans. The objectives of the manual are to provide: • a tool for stakeholder involvement in future Action Plan development and implementation processes at EU, national and regional level • a guide to the use of the Organic Action Plan Evaluation Toolbox (ORGAPET) developed through the project The manual summarises the key lessons learnt from more than 10 years experience of development, implementation and evaluation of Organic Action Plans throughout Europe. The Organic Action Plan Evaluation Toolbox (ORGAPET), which includes comprehensive information to support the Organic Action Plan development and evaluation process is included with the manual as a CD-ROM, and is also accessible on-line at www.orgap.org/orgapet. The ORGAP website www.orgap.org provides a further information on the project and the European and national organic action plans. Published by: Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Frick, Switzerland; IFOAM EU Group, Brussels Table of contents Foreword 1 1 Introduction 3 1.1 About this manual 3 1.2 Organic farming – origins, definition & principles 6 1.3 Development of organic food & farming in Europe 8 1.3.1 Organic food and farming regulation in Europe 10 1.3.2 Policy support for organic food and farming in Europe 11 2 Organic Action Plans – what are they about? 16 2.1 Why Organic Action Plans? 16 2.2 European Organic Action Plan 21 2.3 Overview of national and regional Organic Action Plans 23 3 Planning and implementing Organic Action Plans 28 3.1 Policy development 28 3.2 Defining organic sector development needs and potential 31 3.3 Defining policy goals and objectives 34 3.4 Involving stakeholders 40 3.4.1 The case for stakeholder involvement 40 3.4.2 Identifying relevant stakeholders 42 3.4.3 Participatory approaches for stakeholders involvement 44 3.5 Decision making: selecting, integrating and prioritising relevant measures 46 3.5.1 Deciding on policy instruments and action points 47 3.5.2 Priorities for action – allocating resources 50 3.6 Implementing Organic Action Plans 52 3.7 Including monitoring and evaluation of Organic Action Plans from outset 56 3.8 Managing communication 58 3.9 Development of Action Plans in countries that joined the EU in 2004 and later 59 4 Evaluating Organic Action Plans 61 4.1 Principles of evaluation 61 4.2 Conducting an evaluation 64 4.3 Evaluating Action Plan design and implementation 70 4.3.1 Evaluating programme design and implementation processes 70 4.3.2 Evaluating programme coherence 72 4.3.3 Evaluating stakeholder involvement 74 4.4 Evaluating Action Plan effects 78 4.4.1 Developing and using indicators for evaluation 78 4.5 Overall evaluation of Organic Action Plans – judging success 85 4.6 Evaluating Action Plans in countries that joined the EU in 2004 and later 89 5 Organic Action Plans – the Golden Rules 91 5.1 Key elements of Organic Action Plan development 91 5.2 The Golden rules for Organic Action Plan 93 References 96 Annex Detailed synopsis of ORGAPET 10