Regional diversity, diversified farming styles and endogenous development are hot issues in the current political debate on European agriculture. This article presents a historical overview of development experiences and elaborates on the emergence of environmental co-operatives in Dutch farming. They are unique ‘field laboratories’ for innovations toward sustainable rural development. The achievements in terms of environmental gains and social cohesion are coupled with cost reduction for the farmers and the stat

Ploeg, J.D., van der

Renting, H.

English

Wageningen Yield 

7.2  ENVIRONMENTAL CO-OPERATIVES RECONNECT 
FARMING, ECOLOGY AND SOCIETY 
Jan Douwe van der Ploeg and Henk Renting, Wageningen University, the Netherlands
Regional diversity, diversified farming styles and endogenous development are hot issues in the current
political debate on European agriculture. This article presents a historical overview of  development
experiences and elaborates on the emergence of  environmental co-operatives in Dutch farming. They are
unique ‘field laboratories’ for innovations toward sustainable rural development. The achievements in terms
of  environmental gains and social cohesion are coupled with cost reduction for the farmers and the state. 
During the four last decades a seemingly unstoppable process has swept through the
European countryside. Farming and nature areas have been thoroughly reshuffled and
modernisation has managed to penetrate even the remotest corners of  the continent.
Local specificity appears to have lost its relevance, whilst entrepreneurship, the European
market, and adherence to latest technologies emerge as guiding principles. The European
Common Agricultural Policy is strongly supporting the use of  new genetic technologies
for enhancing productivity. But, the negative aspects related to this modernisation process
can no longer be obscured. 
Diversity in European agriculture. Although empirical evidence indicates that the
effect of modernisation in Europe has been one of  globalisation, its real scope and impact
has been dependent upon responses developed at the grass roots level. As much as the
modernisation model, characterised by intensification, larger scale, specialisation and inte-
gration into agribusiness chains, was internalised by some regions and some farmers, it
was also deconstructed and reshaped by others. Some groups have consciously taken dis-
tance from what appears to be the dominant blueprint. In fact, the impressive heterogene-
ity of  current European agriculture shows that agricultural development is a many-sided
and highly variable interaction between the local and the global, and that diversity contin-
ues to be one of  the main features of  European agriculture. Diversity is also becoming a
keyword in the debates taking place on common agricultural policy. Any European policy
on rural development must, therefore, be based on the recognition of  this diversity, which
can be viewed either as a problematic remnant of  the past, or as a major opportunity for
the future.
The diversity of  Europe’s agriculture can be attributed to differences in factors such as
climate, soil, distance from centres of  consumption, as well as historically created land-use
patterns. But above all, agriculture is a social construct: the way agriculture is organised
depends heavily on the individuals and organisations involved in it. They decide on the
strategies used and the ways practices are linked to markets and technological develop-
ments. And it is these decisions within a complex process that makes agricultural practice
what it is: a highly diversified whole.
222
The effects of  modernisation. The renewed interest in endogenous development can
be explained, theoretically, by the effects of  agricultural modernisation. Since the mid-
1950s modernisation of  European agriculture is increasingly a process originating from,
and driven by, institutions outside of  the agricultural sector. This view has been consoli-
dated by a concept of  development that implied, essentially, a rupture with the existing
discourse on the practices in the countryside. Agriculture was considered to be a stagnant
sector, and ‘getting agriculture moving’ and ‘transforming traditional agriculture’ were
amongst the main slogans in the 1960s. Those farmers able and willing to participate in
the modernisation process were classified as ‘modern’ and innovative. Their activities were
oriented towards urban dynamics, and fitted in well with mainstream economics, in which
agricultural development was considered a process of  adapting farming practices to glob-
al markets and modern technology.
Modernisation was, and still is, shaped by external interventions aimed at introducing
new organisational models, new linkages between farming, markets and market-agencies,
new technologies and knowledge, and new forms of  socialisation and training. This has
resulted in a redefinition of  the role and identity of  farmers and their families. Meanwhile,
the implementation of  this integrated policy on agriculture has reinforced the break away
from existing practices, relationships and role definitions. 
Secondly, certain conditions, times and regions proved more favourable for moderni-
sation projects than others. Thus, modernisation increased inequalities, and has resulted
not only in growth, but also in marginalised rural areas. Consequently, the simple repeti-
tion of  the model based on so-called ‘growth poles’ and ‘centre economies’ became, with-
in the less favoured areas, an increasingly less convincing policy option.
Thirdly, it must be stressed that the practice of modernisation, based on introducing
exogenous elements into the farming sector, has caused dependency to be internalised
into the structure of  development. This emphasis on exogenous development has pro-
duced a bias in our approach to nature, and to mechanisms of  agricultural development.
Although considerable knowledge exists on how to design and implement projects for
exogenous development, there is a sad lack of  knowledge in how to conceptualise and
analyse endogenous development patterns, their impact and potential. This is expressed
by the widely shared belief  that endogenous development has little to offer when it comes
to resolving current problems. This ignorance, which has its historical roots, manifests
itself  today as one of  the main problems in rural and agrarian development throughout
the world. 
Internal and external elements. Diversity in agriculture is a multidimensional phenom-
enon. One of  the criteria we can use to analyse this diversity is the level of  autonomy in
relation to markets and technology supply. Of  course development patterns can neither
be defined as being exclusively based on local resources, nor as only on external elements;
they contain a specific balance between ‘internal’ and ‘external’ elements. The balance in
endogenous development is one in which the local resources figure both as the starting
point for farming and as the yardstick for measuring the utility of  external elements.
External elements will only be internalised if  they can strengthen the vitality of  local farm-
ing styles. This entails a process of  careful ‘deconstruction’ and ‘recomposition’ of  the
Environmental co-operatives reconnect farming, ecology and society    223
external technology, to guarantee the maximum fit with local conditions, perspectives and
interests. 
It could be argued that more often than not endogenous development is blocked, not
only by global factors, but also by factors in the locality itself. As such, it could be stated
that there is no general scheme for endogenous development. It is only the careful and
detailed exploration of  farming styles, and other local elements embedded in the particu-
lar frameworks of  interaction with external factors, that can render insights into the
prospects for endogenous development.
Re-embedding Dutch farming in its locality
In Dutch farming, the shift to exogenous development due to modernisation is much
greater than in many other parts of Europe. Over the past decades, farming has been
practically disconnected from its local social and natural environment, leading to environ-
mental pollution, animal welfare problems, as well as social disintegration. Currently,
Dutch rural society is deeply divided about the best way forward for the rural areas, with
distrust between farmers, the state and other actors. Many ‘traditional’ farming systems,
which were foreseen to disappear under the modernisation paradigm, are now moving to
the forefront of  the policy agenda and have been revalued for their positive impact on nat-
ural resources, or as providers of  quality regional food. Pluri-activity, once conceived as an
indication of  under-developed agriculture, is now increasingly recognised as a phenome-
non with important potentials for sustainable livelihood strategies [Kinsella et al., 2000].
A range of  new rural development activities has emerged, including organic farming,
tourism and marketing local produce, which are being adopted by farm households as a
224 Wageningen University and Researchcentre, the Netherlands
On-farm cheesemaking in the Netherlands. Forty percent of  Dutch farming families get additional income from ‘rural develop-
ment’ activities, such as nature management, agritourism and on-farm processing of  regional food products.
means of  strengthening their business. Many of  these new and revitalised ‘old’ practices
correspond to a fundamentally distinct development rationale in contrast to the moderni-
sation approach. They form the contours of  a new rural development paradigm, which
goes beyond modernisation [van der Ploeg & Renting, 2000; van der Ploeg, 2000].
Environmental co-operatives. The emergence of  environmental co-operatives in Dutch
farming can be understood against this background. These co-operatives are innovative
associations of  farmers at local or regional level, which promote activities related to sus-
tainable agriculture and rural development in their locality. In most cases, the activities
involve nature and landscape management, as well as the reduction of  environmental pol-
lution on the members’ farms. They also include water management, tourism, production
of  quality regional foods and organic farming. These co-operatives emerged in the early
1990s in response to the crisis of  high-tech agriculture, concerns over the deteriorating
public image of  farming and, most of  all, the increasing number of  environmental regu-
lations of  the government.
The number of  farms involved in environmental co-operatives is difficult to assess, as
there is no official registration. A study undertaken in 1999 [Polman & Slangen, 1999],
showed that 81 co-operatives had around 6,600 member farms, with about 134,000
hectares of  land. This implies 6% of  all Dutch farms and 7% of  the total agricultural land.
The co-operatives generally attract relatively large, full-time farms. The average size of  a
co-operative is about 70 members with 1,600 ha of  land. Regions with an environmental
co-operative count nearly 50% of  the farmers in its membership.
The factors that triggered the formation of  the environmental co-operatives were
often of  a highly localised nature. A clear example is the Vel&Vanla co-operative, a com-
bination of  the ‘Vereniging Eastermar’s Lansdouwe’ (VEL) and ‘Vereniging Agrarisch
Natuur en Landschapsbeheer Achtkarspelen’ (VANLA), in the province Fryslân in the
northern part of  the Netherlands. This co-operative represents an interesting field labo-
ratory for innovation towards sustainable rural development. In the case of  Vel&Vanla, it
was the state regulations on soil pollution, which threatened to block any further prospects
for farm development in the area. In other situations it was the obligation to apply manure
through injection techniques, which resulted in local discontent. 
Crucial elements for innovation. The following elements have been observed as crucial
in the process of  innovation towards sustainable development:
New institutional relations between the state and agriculture. The environmental co-operatives
question the overload of  state regulations that apply at farm level in the Netherlands. They
generally accept and endorse policy objectives set by state agencies, but claim substantial
reforms, and more flexibility in implementation. 
Rebuilding networks of  trust at the local level. At local level, the environmental co-operatives
have actively re-created networks and coalitions between the farming population and
other rural interest groups, such as nature conservation agencies and entrepreneurial
organisations engaged in tourism and leisure. They advocate integrated development of
land use and economic activities in their region. By going beyond distrust and conflicts,
doors have been opened for a range of  new coalitions at the local level. 
Environmental co-operatives reconnect farming, ecology and society    225
The re-embedding of  farming. At farm level, a wide range of  possibilities exists to realign
farming with ecology and wider society, although the exact lines along which to proceed
may vary substantially. The environmental co-operatives are an attempt to restore the
wholeness, context and specificity of  farming, by reinforcing the craftsmanship of  farm-
ers and their capacity to produce tailor-made innovations. Examples are nature manage-
ment plans, nutrient balances, ecological norms, codes of  conduct, and farm certification
schemes. Common to all these innovations is that they shift the control of  farming and
rural development back to the locality-specific coordination mechanisms. This renewed
embedding, however, requires adequate institutional back-up. 
Social, economic and environmental impact. The achievements of  the more devel-
oped environmental co-operatives give an indication of  their potential. The members of
the Vel&Vanla co-operative have reduced the level of  environmental pollution of  their
farming operations through reduced use of  external inputs and a more efficient use of
internal farm resources. Nitrogen surpluses on member farms have reduced from 346 kg
N/ha in 1995-96, to 269 kg N/ha in 1998-1999. The regional average during the same
period was 371 and 306 kg N/ha respectively. In fact, the N-loss level in the season of
1999-2000 was already in line with the national policy goals set for 2003. 
The farmers of  the Vel&Vanla co-operative also implement a range of  activities that
contribute to nature management. At present, 270 ha of  land belonging to member farms
is under special meadow birds and botanic protection, 240 kilometres of  hedgerows and
220 ponds are actively managed, with a positive impact on local natural resources. In gen-
eral terms, the co-operatives have had their impact on socio-economic performance of
the member farms, as local leaders point at the ‘renewed spirit’ among farmers, leading to
positive effects on the local economy. More farmers would have given up farming if  not
for the co-operatives. 
The co-operatives also
facilitate members to take
up new activities to diversi-
fy farm revenues. This is
most obvious with respect
to payments for nature and
landscape management.
On the Vel&Vanla member
farms, payments for con-
servation activities con-
tribute on average to €
5,500 of  revenues, though
the disparities between
farmers are large. In the
case of  organic farms, the
farmers receive € 18,000
extra, while agri-tourism
activities add on an annual
226 Wageningen University and Researchcentre, the Netherlands
A Vel&Vanla farmer (left) explains the biodiversity value of  hedgerows to tourists
who camp on his farm. Agritourism adds to the family income and is one of  the
‘ways out’ of  the limitations of  agricultural modernisation.
average of  € 8,000 [Roep, 2000]. The activities with the local tourist agency have substan-
tially improved the reputation of  the area as a tourist destination, creating new opportu-
nities for the farms in the area, directly and indirectly. 
The practices of  environmental co-operatives have also resulted in important cost
reductions. A part of  these are reductions in transaction costs [Saccomandi, 1998], as
farmers spend less time on bureaucratic regulations, sometimes avoid unnecessary invest-
ments, and manage their farms more efficiently. These benefits at farm level are frequent-
ly combined with similar cost reductions for state agencies and third parties. Additionally,
there is a sharp reduction in state control costs. Monitoring is now conducted to a large
extent by the co-operatives themselves, while external state control is reduced to one visit
in several years. Other important cost reductions result from reduced environmental pol-
lution. Vel&Vanla has recognised the virtues of  low-external-input and sustainable agri-
culture, or LEISA, [van der Ploeg, 2000] when reducing nutrient losses. The co-operative
has started study groups and on-farm research on these subjects. This would have been
impossible without this organisational structure, as exemptions from standard state regu-
lations required contacts with research institutes. As a result of  these innovations, the
associated cost reductions amount to about € 315 per ha, which implies an annual bene-
fit of  € 4,000 for an average farm of  30 ha.
Concluding remarks
While public opinion and the Dutch parliament support further development of  environ-
mental co-operatives, doubts about this trend have been voiced at local government level,
especially within the Ministry of  Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries. Being
used to standard policy regulations that are applied uniformly, the legal experts of  this
ministry have started to question whether further development of  localised regulatory
frameworks could be adequately administered, and the results sufficiently monitored.
Although the co-operatives were given room for a policy experiment in 1995, and despite
positive results, the state bureaucracy has managed to block off  any option for the envi-
ronmental co-operatives to by-pass the standard regulations. 
While the co-operatives will receive no official policy status, and while further exemp-
tions from standard regulations are out of  the question, they continue their activities at
local level. In many cases support of  national state agencies is not needed for this. The
future of  environmental co-operatives depends, however, on their capacity to mobilise
other actors, including government agencies, and to establish alliances at local and region-
al levels. The rise of  these co-operatives is in line with general trends in other European
countries. With international policy favouring more decentralised, participatory and inte-
grated approaches, these co-operatives can probably show the way to a more diverse
European agriculture.
Environmental co-operatives reconnect farming, ecology and society    227
228
Local market in Valle Alto, Bolivia. A key strategy for endogenous development to reach its potential is regional economic
management, in which producers, consumers and traders are ensuring the retention of  most benefits within the region.
229


Environmental co-operatives reconnect farming, ecology and society

Name not available

http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/123885

Environmental co-operatives reconnect farming, ecology and society

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Wageningen Yield

Name not available

Name not available