Response from the
Welsh Agri-food Partnership Organic Strategy Group
prepared by Organic Centre Wales
(University of Wales , Aberystwyth ,
SY23 3AL
21st July 2006
to the Welsh Assembly Government consultation on
Rural Development Plan for Wales
2007 – 2013
1. Introduction:
1. Organic farming represents a knowledge and skill intensive approach to agriculture, where external inputs are replaced by system management. Successful organic management demands and inspires skills development. In addition, organic farming’s reliance on local, specialist premium markets stimulates innovation and investment in the food chain.
2. Organic Farming can act as a role model for economic-environmental win-win initiatives by combining a high level of environmental performance with specialist markets for organic food.
3. Organic Farming makes strong contributions to most of the Strategic Goals outlined in the Community Strategic Guidelines for Rural Development. See appendix 1.
2. Response to Consultation questions.
SWOT analysis and Strategy Chosen to Meet Strengths and Weaknesses
Q1. Do you have any comments on the
SWOT analysis?
4. Under ‘Strengths’ we suggest including organic sector.
- Existing
niche markets, including organic,
ripe for further development
- High proportion of new entrants
chose to farm organically
Under weaknesses, we suggest:
·
Lack of cooperation between producers
·
there is a severe decline in those wishing to go into
farming, due to the draw of easier and better paid occupations, and that the
farming population is elderly and therefore less flexible and adaptable
·
English horticultural land support through SPS
·
biodiversity loss.
Under Opportunities, we suggest:
Axis 1
·
Increasing premium
prices from organic, welfare friendly, and
extensive agricultural methods
·
Market demand for products from
environmentally-friendly, organic land management, including access to the
hospitality sector
·
Many new entrants select organic management
Axis 2
·
Mitigating
climate change by exploiting opportunities for renewable energy and recycling
·
Increasing the
extent of organic farming
·
Recovery from
over-grazing due to CAP reform and the SPS.
Axis 3 & 4
·
Increasing
community interest in shorter food chains, box schemes, and local consumption.
·
Developing food
tourism based on quality Welsh produce.
Additional threats:
- GM
5.
The issue of climate change has been omitted – which is
clearly a threat, but also an opportunity, given
Q2 Do you have any comments on the measure implemented? Is there anything listed as not being implemented that you feel should be included?
6. Axis 1: We interpret 5.3.1.3.1. as referring to measure Article 20 (c) i, and Article 31 – aimed to assist farmers to meet ever increasingly stringent Community legislation, therefore it should be implemented.
The comment in the consultation concerning 5.3.1.3.1 (ending in ‘ not have an appetite for more’) we believe misinterprets the measure, which does not propose the setting up of new quality schemes, but talks of assisting farmers to meet ‘standards … newly introduced in national legislation implementing Community law…’.
Further, the mention of Food Quality Schemes in paragraph
3.2.2. suggests that other measures ii and iii in Article 20 (c) may not be
implemented. We are particularly concerned that (c) iii be implemented. There are around 300 organic and
quasi-organic small scale horticultural producers in
7. Organic farming should be included in the list of Quality schemes eligible for support in paragraph 5.3.1.3.2.
8. Axis 2: Concerning 5.3.2.1.5 Animal welfare payments. We are largely in agreement with paragraph 3.2.5, with the caveat that welfare status in the poultry and pig sectors falls far short of public expectation, and their willingness to pay through market mechanisms does not extend to cover the considerable costs of production to such standards. Therefore, we believe this measure should be implemented for these sectors only.
9. We are also disappointed at the decision to not implement agroforestry schemes (5.3.2.2.2) which could have supported an increase in more diverse pastures providing shelter for livestock and increased biodiversity, and potentially an increase in timber for chipping for the rapidly developing wood-chip heating systems. Generally, we believe that the integrated management of woodlands and agriculture should be encouraged, and this measure could be used to assist that aim.
Axis 1
Q3. Do you agree that the correct
links have been made between the key actions identified under the Community
Strategic Guidelines and the areas identified as a priority for investment?
10. Under Objectives, paragraph 5.1.11 we would like to see the inclusion of an aim to increase cooperation (as well as collaboration) between producers. This would not be covered by 5.3.1.1.1 as the role needed is more that of a facilitator than advisor, and the role should ideally be carried out by a producer who should be supported through information and case studies from the Rural Network.
11. Regard should be given to paragraph 5.2.5 in the consultation document, which points out the opportunities for innovation, the creation of new markets and increased competitiveness through well thought-out environmental policies. These synergies should be emphasized more in Axis 1 measures.
12. Given the recognised advantages of cattle grazing in the hills, we would like to see some capital investment element used to support for manure management facilities and cattle housing in hill land.
Q4. Do you have any comment on the
application of the measure being implemented?
13. 5.3.1.1.1 We would like to see the final point extended to make it clear that producer to producer connection is a focus of support.
14. 5.3.1.3.2 and 5.3.1.3.3 Food produced to organic standards should be specifically mentioned in both of these measures, as it is included in the suite of EU quality schemes. Specifically in 5.3.1.3.3. Annex 1 products should be listed, and organic should be included.
15. There is a need to maintain and improve the support offered to farmers considering conversion to organic farming, to provide an integrated farm management plan that tackles the environmental, animal welfare, resource management and business planning aspects of both conversion and the full organic system. Current systems deliver various aspects of such a plan, but in an uncoordinated way, which wastes resources, and sometimes includes conflicting advice resulting in farmer confusion. See Appendix 2 for a full discussion of the issues.
16. Additionally the very successful OCIS (Organic Conversion Information Service) should be continued in some form, perhaps through, or linked to, the FAS: this currently provides up to one and a half days free advice to farmers so that they can make an informed decision about the suitability of organic conversion for their farm. The funding stream for OCIS was withdrawn last year, but the recent independent review of OCIS for England concluded that the service there should be maintained but with a greater emphasis on business planning and marketing.
17. We would like the FAS offer, to organic farmers, advisors that are experienced in organic farming, with a lead advisor ensuring that information given is collated to produce a coherent management plan but also includes consideration of marketing.
18. We recommend that the FAS should be available for horticultural holdings from inception.
19. We would like to see more attention focussing on the development of strategic and organisational skills. Dynamic entrepreneurship will be largely expressed by the young and new entrants, to which more attention should be focussed.
We draw attention, in particular, to the findings of the
Defra project “Impacts of organic farming on the rural economy (CTE0216) (RE0117)”
which concludes “on average, organic farmers are 6 years younger than their
non-organic counterparts and have 51% have a higher education qualification
compared to 30% of non-organic farmers.
In addition, a significant proportion have entered agriculture as an
entirely new ‘career’. 31% of organic
farmers were ‘new entrants’ …”
“Many organic farmers also configure their business in a different way. They are more likely to run more enterprises
than their non-organic counterparts and those enterprises are much more likely
to be orientated away from providing services to the agricultural industry and
instead are focused on processing and/or retailing. For instance, 21% of organic farms had
diversified into a trading enterprise compared to just 5% of non-organic
farms.”
20. A cross axis measure that is of importance in building links between schools and farms, and may lead to shorter supply chains and public procurement opportunities, is increased support for school visits to farms. This should be done by supporting coordinators to make the links between farms and schools, and support the farm in making links with schools, sorting dates, programme setting, producing literature, health and safety and risk assessments and evaluation forms. Ideally this would link with increased support for educational visits for Tir Gofal farmers as noted in paragraph 24.
21. We would like to see indicators and targets separately identified for organic.
Axis 2
Q5. Do you agree that the correct links
have been made between the key actions identified under the Community strategic
Guidelines and the areas identified as a priority for investment?
22. We are pleased to note the inclusion of Organic Farming across three levels of agri-environment programmes in the diagram in paragraph 5.2.14. The synergy between Tir Gofal and the OFS is demonstrated by 50% of OFS land being in both schemes: 11% of Tir Gofal land is under organic management. We believe there is even greater opportunity to benefit from organic management in the proposed higher level scheme, such that there should perhaps be a presumption that the land would be managed organically other than under exceptional circumstances.
23. 5.3.2.1.4. Organic Farming Scheme. We propose changes to the Organic Farming Scheme prior to the review of Axis 2 Land Management Schemes. Specifically, the increase in support rates for organic horticultural holdings, and secondly, a requirement that those entering the second phase of 5 years should be required to enter Tir Cynnal so there would be an organic stream to Tir Cynnal and the administration of the joint scheme could be through the SAF and CAPM. This joint scheme should require an organic management plan that included the current Resource Management Plan,
24.
5.3.2.1.4
Proposed refinements to Tir Gofal prior to the review of Axis 2.
We would like to see a change made available to all agreement holders that
provides for extra payments to farmers who take more than six educational
visits a year, maybe up to a limit of 25 as in
25. Given the recognised advantages of cattle grazing in the hills, we also advocate capital support for manure management facilities and cattle housing in hill land for Tir Gofal farmers.
Q6. Do you have any comment on the
application of the measures being implemented?
26. 5.3.2.1.4. The Organic Farming Scheme should be mentioned in the list of agri-environment schemes satisfying Article 39 of Council Regulation 1658/2005.
27. The Organic Farming Scheme could be improved through requiring the preparation of a Farm Management Plan, which also serves the needs of other agri-environment schemes, allowing an organic option to Tir Cynnal and Tir Gofal.
28. Greater support for horticultural enterprises should be provided through the Organic Farming Scheme, to enable certification and consumer assurances from existing, non-certified producers, and to support the greater production of fresh and local produce.
29. 5.3.2.1.3 We believe the provision of on-farm advice for RBD’s farms should routinely include an examination of the option of organic conversion.
30. 5.3.2.1.6 Capital support within the highest level scheme should also be provided for the housing of cattle and manure storage and handling facilities. This is vital to retain cattle in the hills when their economic viability is under considerable pressure. If necessary, the keeping of native breeds cattle or ponies for maintenance of habitats could be seen as non-productive investments.
Axis 3 & 4
Q7. Do you agree that the correct
links have been made between the key actions identified under the Community
strategic Guidelines and the areas identified as a priority for investment?
31.
5.3.7. In the areas for action we would like to see
emphasis on educational visits by school children to farms and the countryside,
to learn both about food production, and the environment and resource issues
and, vitally, increases awareness of rural issues in the younger
generation. As well as enhancing
communities, this potentially facilitates links for supplying school meals. We are concerned, however, that 5.3.8 states
that Axis 3 will operate only in “rural” areas, whereas the quality of life and
understanding of these issues may be more important for those in urban
areas. Many relatively small family
farms are ideal for such visits, and many would need to get paid for visits,
but most importantly they need someone to co-ordinate the visits: contacting
the schools; arranging the dates; planning the day; being available to take
over if a cow calves or a load of straw is delivered; plus deal with the
paperwork such as H & S, Risk Assessments and Evaluations.
To help this, we would like to see a change made available to all Tir Gofal
agreement holders that provides for extra payments to farmers who take more
than six educational visits a year, maybe up to a limit of 25 as in
32. Organic producers have been very active in the development of agri-tourism and in particular organic/eco agri-tourism with a focus on environmental as well as food issues. In particular there is potential for local organic groups to be represented in Local Action Groups, and integrated in Leader projects.
Q8. Do you have any comment on the
application of the measures being implemented?
33. As stated above, we would like to measures implemented to support school visits to farms, specifically measures to support coordinators to facilitate and support farmers and schools arrange visits.
Implementation
Q9. Do you have any comment on how
the Programme Monitoring Committee (PMC) will be set up or any comments on the
specified duties of the PMC.
34. No comment
Q10. Do you have any comment on the
proposed Communication Strategy?
35. Only to comment on the value of Gwlad as a communication medium, and to request that although appropriate references be made to websites, the (recycled) paper copy is retained for the future.
Q11.Do you have any comment on the
proposals set out for Technical Assistance?
36. As details are not available, it is difficult to comment. We are disappointed there is no mention in thematic areas for investigation of food tourism, food access or food security.
37. Scheme evaluation [16.4] – evaluations should be against objectives across all axes.
Q12. Do you have any comments on
proposals for the Rural Network?
38. We are concerned about how the selection of individuals representing ‘key sectors’ will be made.
39. We would like to see an integrated structure including Local Action Groups and the Wales Rural Network, including invitations to LAGs for the annual Network event.
General Comments
40. We are disappointed that there is hardly a mention of horticulture throughout the plan. This is particularly poor considering focus on health and nutrition, local consumption, public procurement etc. all of which can be supported by increasing local production and supply of fresh fruit and vegetables. Although horticulture is included in agriculture in the 1947 Agriculture Act, we are concerned that the lack of focus may mean no attention is paid to horticulture, or result in programmes and schemes which inadvertently exclude horticulture.
41. The Table under 5.2.21 shows a flat-line spend for already committed funds for the Organic Farming Scheme, which appears to be inadequate to cover the suggested horticultural supplement and a modest increase (of 1% of Welsh agricultural land per year, in similar proportions to that already converted) in land area in conversion. The sector Action Plan target range (10% and 15% of land under organic management) at current rates would require in the order of £4M - £6M as shown below.
Table 1. Projected (approximate)
Organic Farming Scheme demands
|
|
2006 (5.2%) |
Current plus horticulture |
2007 +1% |
2008 +1% |
2009 +1% |
2010 +1% |
2011 +1% |
2012 +1% |
2013 +1% |
2013 10% |
2013 15% |
|
Organic Land area |
61551 |
61551 |
73421 |
85291 |
97161 |
109031 |
120901 |
132771 |
144641 |
118700 |
178050 |
|
OFS budget £k |
1760 |
2006 |
2315 |
2378 |
3040 |
3403 |
3765 |
4127 |
4489 |
3698 |
5509 |
42. Common Output and Result Indicators should be differentiated for organic across all areas.
43. Information Measure for Beneficiaries [para 13.6.] We are concerned that the requirement of priority Axis under which the funding has been granted will reinforce the temptation to think of, and fund projects solely from, one Axis only. We would like there to be a requirement for all applications for awards to consider how the project addresses aims of all axes.
44. Axis 2 consultation paragraph 4.14, third point. We would like an objective for all land should be managed sustainably, perhaps separately including an aim for the majority to be in agri-environment measures.
45. (Comment: Axis 2 consultation paragraph 4.14, fifth point. The reference here to sustainable development, we consider to refer to ‘a sustainable future’, rather than development. As there is so much confusion over the term ‘sustainable development’, omission of ‘development’ where appropriate, may help. )
Model for Integration?
46. In terms of coordinating activities in specific areas across teams, the organic sector may serve as a model for other areas of activity.
47.
It is envisaged that Huw Thomas from Norma Barry’s
team, Alan Starkey or
48. On the ground, the Organic Strategy Group – representing as it does a wide range of stakeholders involved in production, processing and marketing of organic food, could provide oversight of organic activity in each Axis. Organic Centre Wales could have a role in support of, and in liaison with Local Action Groups.
Figure 1. Potential Interaction mechanism for delivery of Rural Development Plan objectives.
This model would provide important coordination and efficient delivery and communication mechanisms for delivery of organic programmes across the axes, but may also serve as a useful model for other Strategy groups and development centres to follow.
Appendix 1
Contribution of organic farming to Community
Strategic Guidelines for Rural Development – programming period 2007-2013
(Council Decision 2006/144/EC OJ.(25.02.06) L55:20-29 – see ORGAPET Annex C1-1)
|
Strategic
goal |
Contribution
of organic farming |
|
2.1 Overall aim: Strong economic performance must go hand-in-hand with the sustainable use of natural resources |
Organic farming combines strong standards for sustainable resource use and a good record of actual achievement with a focus on quality food production and specialist marketing to meet consumer demand and maintain/enhance financial viability |
|
3.1: Axis 1: Improving the competitiveness of the
agricultural and forestry sectors |
|
|
Guideline: Axis 1 should contribute to a strong and
dynamic European agrifood sector by focusing on the priorities of knowledge
transfer, modernisation, innovation and quality in the food chain and on
priority sectors for investment in physical and human capital |
Organic farming represents a knowledge and skill intensive approach to agriculture, where external inputs are replaced by system management. Successful organic management demands and inspires skills development. In addition, organic farming’s reliance on local, specialist premium markets stimulates innovation and investment in the food chain |
|
i) restructuring and modernisation of the agricultural sector |
Organic farming does not specifically address this issue.
Fragmentation issues in parts of |
|
ii) improving integration in the agri-food chain |
Organic farming’s focus on specialist markets has required the development of specialist organic food chains, including producer groups, packers, processor and retailers to ensure the traceability and the maintenance of standards. The common commitment to organic standards encourages integration within the food chain, although there is scope for further improvement. |
|
iii) facilitating innovation and access to R&D |
Organic farming places renewed emphasis on traditional farming skills, management and applied biology/ecology, with organic producers needing to innovate to meet the specific challenges of organic standards while producing high quality, safe food. Increasing national and EU-funded R&D activity specifically targeted at organic farming is also relevant to non-organic producers |
|
iv) encouraging the take-up and diffusion of information and communications technologies (ICT) |
Organic farming can not be said to make a specific contribution in this area, although the management of box schemes and other direct marketing activities can require specialist ICT software and skills - many organic businesses are also engaged with internet marketing. There is significant scope to enhance the organic inspection and certification process, including traceability monitoring, through the application of ICT. |
|
v) foster dynamic entrepreneurship (with the development of strategic and organisational skills and encouraging entry of young farmers) |
Organic producers as well as specialist processing and marketing companies have demonstrated a high degree of entrepreneurship, because of the need to exploit specialist markets. This may reflect the pioneering nature of some of the individuals concerned, but there is evidence that a high proportion of young farmers and business people are engaged with organic food. |
|
vi) developing new outlets for agricultural and forestry products (with emphasis on higher value added, non-food production and renewable energy) |
Organic producers have made significant progress in developing high value-added food markets. There is less of an emphasis on non-food products, although medicinal and cosmetic herbs, fibres (wool, cotton, linen etc.) and ornamental plants are also produced organically. Organic forestry products are increasingly marketed as part of recognised sustainable forestry schemes. There is significant potential, as yet under-tapped, to develop organic renewable energy products – this would be compatible with organic farming sustainability objectives but also could make biofuel production less dependent on fossil energy inputs in the manufacture of pesticides and fertilisers. |
|
vii) improving the environmental performance of farms and forestry |
Organic farming has been shown to make a significant contribution to improving the environmental impact of agriculture, with respect to reducing pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions, promoting biodiversity and sustaining agricultural landscapes. |
|
Supporting generational renewal through targeting combinations of Axis 1 measures at young farmers |
In many countries, organic farming is proving a popular option for young farmers taking over parental holdings, as well as for new entrants in agriculture. |
|
3.2 Axis 2: Improving the environment and the
countryside |
|
|
Contribution
of organic farming |
|
|
Guideline: resources should contribute to three priority areas: 1. biodiversity and preservation of high nature value farming and forestry systems and traditional agricultural landscapes; 2. water; 3. climate change; - to be achieved by: |
Organic farming has been shown to make a significant contribution to biodiversity in lowland areas, and is believed to be able to contribute to the preservation of high nature value farming and forestry systems, particularly through the financial advantage to be derived from specialist markets. In hill and upland systems there is still scope for debate due to the comparative lack of research in these contexts. With respect to water, organic farming practices are encouraged by many water companies/authorities as a means of reducing pollution of water by pesticides and fertilisers and there is clear evidence that organic farming can contribute to improved water quality. The issue of reducing water consumption, particularly in low rainfall areas, is more complex, as some organic practices such as mulching can reduce water requirements, but the growing of high value crops such as vegetables tends to increase water use, which is not specifically addressed by organic standards. At the same time, organic practices encourage deeper rooting crops and reduced susceptibility to drought conditions, and arguably a reduced requirement for irrigation. With respect to climate change, organic farming practice can make a positive contribution in three ways:
|
|
i) promoting environmental services and animal friendly farming practices |
Organic farming standards require and deliver environmental protection (see above). The contribution to animal welfare is also potentially significant, as organic standards require free-range production and have specific standards for housing to encourage natural behaviour patterns. However, the full benefits for animals require a good understanding of issues, particularly with respect to health, and the effective development and implementation of animal health and welfare plans |
|
ii) preserving the farmed landscapes and forests |
Organic farming contributes to the preservation of the
farmed landscape by maintaining the financial viability of small/family farms
and be encouraging mixed systems, including mixed crops and livestock and
mixed utilisation of grassland by cattle and sheep. |
|
iii) combating climate change |
Organic farming can contribute to combating climate change for the reasons outlined above. |
|
iv) consolidating the contribution of organic farming, including reinforcing environmental and animal welfare contribution |
This priority specifically addresses organic farming, recognising its potential contribution to the wider goals of rural development, but also recognises the need to continue developing (including through research) and reinforcing (through advice, training and standards) its potential contribution to environmental, animal welfare and other public good issues. |
|
v) encouraging environmental/ economic win-win initiatives |
By combining a high level of environmental performance with specialist markets for organic food, organic farming can act as a role model for such win-win initiatives. |
|
vi) promoting territorial balance |
This is a more complex priority to interpret and assess. Territorial balance can imply an appropriate mixture of economic activities as well as an appropriate balance of agricultural activities. Organic farming, by encouraging local processing and marketing activities, can contribute to a mixed economy, but this is not always the case if multinational food businesses dominate. Organic farming can also contribute to a more mixed agricultural sector, reducing the specialisation into arable in some regions and livestock in others, and re-establishing horticulture in areas which are no longer seen as viable conventionally. |
|
3.3 Axis 3 Improving
the quality of life in rural areas and encouraging diversification |
|
|
Guideline: Resources should contribute to the overarching
priority of the creation of employment opportunities, by: |
Organic farming has the potential to contribute to employment creation. Its potential at the farm level may have been overstated, but there is evidence that labour requirements are 10-20% higher on average on organic farms due to the presence of high value enterprises and that labour incomes are similar or higher than on conventional holdings. However, in some sectors, such as beef and sheep, this may not be the case. The employment potential associated with local processing and marketing initiatives, may be much more significant |
|
i) raising economic activity and employment rates in the wider rural economy |
See above. EU Farm Structure Survey data show a higher level of non-farming activities (processing, retailing, tourism) on organic farms than on farms in general. |
|
ii) encouraging the entry of women into the labour market |
Women have a notably higher profile in organic farming than in other agricultural sectors, as developers of the concept, farmers and leaders of food chain businesses, although whether this can be sustained as the sector becomes more mainstream is open to question. There is an argument that the nature-friendly approach of organic farming is more in tune with the feminine, but organic standards do not specifically address gender issues and cannot prevent gender discrimination problems arising. |
|
iii) putting the heart back into villages |
There are experiences in parts of |
|
iv) developing micro-business and crafts building on traditional skills |
Many organic farming businesses, whether production, processing or marketing, are micro-businesses with a strong emphasis on craft and traditional skills. This has been an important route to enable new entrants into agriculture. Some of these businesses have subsequently developed into significant small and medium sized businesses, acting as a motor for developing the rural economy. |
|
v) training young people in skills for diversification |
Many organic producers have demonstrated a high commitment to training of young people, but it is unclear that this will be sustained as more farmers convert as it is not a direct requirement of organic standards. However, organic producers’ reliance on traditional and craft skills to achieve their production, processing and marketing objectives means that they represent a significant resource for the maintenance of such skills, and could be utilised more effectively for training purposes. |
|
vi) encouraging the take-up and diffusion of ICT, in particular at village level |
Organic farming can utilise these developments, but is not a direct influence on their development. |
|
vii) developing the provision and innovative use of renewable energy sources |
Energy conservation is implicit if not explicit in organic standards, and the use of renewable energy resources is an important part of the organic farming concept. There is still scope to increase the uptake of renewable energy technologies on organic farms. Perhaps more important but under-researched is the potential for organic management to enhance the reduced fossil energy use and greenhouse gas emissions potential of biofuels such as oilseed rape and short rotation coppice - the use of fossil energy to produce fertilisers and pesticide to grow biofuel crops conventionally currently reduces the overall benefits that could be obtained from these crops. |
|
viii) encouraging the development of tourism including use of ICT |
Organic producers have been very active in the development of agri-tourism and in particular organic/eco agri-tourism with a focus on environmental as well as food issues. There have been a number of ICT initiatives to link organic agri-tourism businesses. |
|
ix) upgrading local infrastructure, particularly in new member states |
Initiatives to upgrade local infrastructure are more likely to be successful if there is a positive perception in the community that concerning the economic potential of the region. To the extent that organic farm may provide this positive outlook, there is potential for synergy between organic farming initiative and the upgrading of local infrastructures. |
|
3.4 Axis 4 (Leader) Building Local Capacity for Employment
and Diversification |
|
|
Strategic
goal |
Contribution
of organic farming |
|
Guideline: Contribute to other Axes, in particular Axis 3, and improve governance and mobilise the endogenous development potential of rural areas |
Organic farming, processing, marketing and tourism initiatives have been an important part of many Leader projects in the past. With the emphasis on local consumption and production, and an increased interest in the potential of public procurement to support local economic activity, organic farming still has a key role to play in local endogenous development of rural areas. |
|
i) building local partnership capacity |
Local organic producer groups, whether based around technical or marketing issues, can form an important catalyst for new initiatives and an opportunity to engage in building local partnership capacity. The sense of partnership can be strengthened by the need for organic producers to find solutions to common problems that are specific to the sector. |
|
ii) promoting private-public partnership |
Particularly in the area of public procurement (of fibres and timber as well as food) organic producers are helping to meet public policy goals and therefore can provide a strong input into private-public partnerships. |
|
iii) promoting co-operation and innovation |
Due to common interests in marketing and input procurement, there is a strong incentive for organic producers to engage in co-operation and a partnership approach to innovation, and there are many examples of this working in practice, although, as elsewhere, not all such initiatives are successful long-term. |
|
iv) improving local governance |
Organic farmers’ commitment to public good issues can also mean that they are actively engaged in issues of local governance, including campaigns for improved school food, education and environmental amenities. |
|
3.5 Translating
priorities into programmes |
|
|
Guideline: Ensure synergies between and within the axes are maximised and potential contradictions avoided. Take account of other EU strategies such as organic action plan, renewable energy, climate change and forestry strategies |
As the above analysis demonstrates, and the Commission’s guidelines recognise, organic farming has significant potential to exploit synergies between the axes, and it would be a mistake to confine organic farming initiatives to one specific axis or another. The Commission’s reference to the European Action Plan for Organic Food and Farming is significant in this context, highlighting the Commission’s (albeit more implicit than explicit) understanding that organic farming policies could be implemented as cross-axis measures. As has also been argued above, organic farming as a positive contribution to make to the renewable energy and climate change strategies, and also, perhaps arguably to the forestry strategy. |
|
3.6 Complementarity between Community instruments |
|
|
Guideline: Encourage synergy between structural, employment and rural development policies |
The overlap with organic food processing and retailing on a larger scale means that the synergy between structural, employment and rural development policies is relevant in this context. Many organic farming projects have been supported by structural funds in recent years. |
Appendix 2
The Role of Organic Management Plans and the future of OCIS
1. Concept and background
The aim of this proposal is to develop a means to provide coordinated support for the production of a single, comprehensive management plan for organic farmers and those in, or considering, conversion.
Organic farming is based on a systems approach, where all aspects of the farm and the enterprises interact to produce a sustainable, productive system. Current publicly funded-services (described in Table 1) deal with aspects of the system but from a farmers’ point of view, the end result is a series of reports, each focusing on a different area of management, which are rarely linked to one another. This means there is duplication of effort on the part of advisors and makes it difficult for farmers to assimilate the necessary information to draw up a coherent plan of action.
Under this proposal, each of the separate services would contribute a section to a single document, culminating in a single action plan that covers all key management areas, and will also serve to satisfy some requirements of organic certification. This would require the role a lead organic advisor to coordinate the services and draw the report together. The proposed content is discussed in more detail in Section 2 and an outline is presented in Table 2.
The implementation of the action plan could then be supported by other
activities including demonstration farm and discussion group networks,
benchmarking, demonstration/ knowledge transfer projects, technical
2 Particular relevance for the organic sector
The integration of different services to the benefit of farmers and to avoid duplication of effort (and wastage of public money) by advisors is desirable for all sectors. However, it has particular relevance for the organic systems, because they are themselves more integrated. What happens in one part of the system inevitably has an impact on other parts. For instance:
· Conservation and efficient use of nutrients are at the heart of organic production systems, and careful management is vital to the success of the business. This is contrast to some conventional systems where manure/ slurry is often seen as a waste product and an environmental risk
· Environmental considerations are an integral part of the production system, whereas in some other systems they are treated as entirely separate issues
· Organic farming is more knowledge intensive, and relies heavily on long term strategic planning. Organic farmers have little or no recourse to short term solutions to correct mistakes. It therefore vital that where changes are made in one part of the system, the impact on the other parts are well understood.
· Positive promotion of good animal health is fundamental to system
· Organic conversion can have far reaching implications for all aspects of the business. These can only be fully understood when all parts of system are considered together, and family support and involvement are vital for the success of conversion. (Organisations involved in rural issues recognise the vital role of farmer health in the success of farm productivity and rural communities.[1][2])
3. Plan Content
The plan will cover the following key areas:
· Financial/ business issues
· Technical enterprise issues
· Animal Health and Welfare
· Environment
· Family and social issues
Table 2 gives details of the type of information that would be included, and identifies services which currently deliver this information
4. Administration issues
Linking different services as described presents a number of administrative and managerial challenges, including:
· Nature of the advice/services: In order to avoid duplication of effort, a review of the scope and content of the individual advisory services is needed to ensure that services build effectively on one another.
· Delivery: One of the key issues of delivery is continuity. Currently a range of different advisors deliver a number of different services leading, potentially, to a succession of different people visiting the farm. A revised system would ideally allow individual advisors to deliver more of the services. At the same time, we need to recognise not all that advisors have the necessary knowledge and skills to deliver all the elements of plan. The current OCW accreditation system could be modified to facilitate the process of deciding who is most appropriate for which elements. Deliverers of the plan would also make use of existing advisory and planning tools, including Orgplan, which has been developed specifically to facilitate planning of organic conversions
· Coordination: In order to work effectively the plans would need a coordinator, who could be based at Organic Centre Wales and who would have the following roles:
o To ensure that the most appropriate advisor delivers the most appropriate services at the most appropriate time
o Where more than one advisor is involved there is good communication between deliverers
o To pull the report together, in the same way an editor of a book would, and in particular to ensure the action points are clear and achievable in practice.
· Flexibility: One of the key challenges will be to introduce sufficient flexibility into the system such that it can respond to the needs of the individual farmers. This is all the more important if farmers themselves are contributing to the cost of the plan. There must be provision to build on existing work (e.g. if the farmer already has a recent business plan) rather than duplicate effort. One of the roles of the coordinator should be to ensure this done effectively.
5. Follow up visits
The plan is intended to be tool for management of the farm. If it is to remain relevant and useful, it will need to be updated regularly (annually during conversion, thereafter every 2-3 years) as the circumstances change. Follow up/ review visits should therefore be considered as part of the service.
6. Funding
Since the development of the plan in it is entirety cannot be resourced from a single budget, it is necessary to consider a range of options
· Farmer resources: Under the Farm advisory Service, farmers will have to contribute at least 20% of the costs of the Farm Advisory Service. They will also be expected to contribute a certain amount of time over and above that spent with advisors, for example providing data/ information, developing Animal Health & Welfare Plans and Marketing Plans and other areas.
· Organic Farming Scheme: The OFS includes a £600 lump sum for intended as a ‘contribution towards the costs of advice training and registration’. Part or all of this money could be used to contribute to the cost of developing the plan.
·
Farm
Advisory Service: Up to €1,500 of public money is available per farmer for
the delivery of advice, plus, as noted above, a contribution from the farmer.
The key purpose of FAS is to help farmers comply with cross compliance.
However, there is also a case to be made that farmers who deliver more ‘public
goods’ should also be supported and can act as role model for those struggling
to meet the requirement. This is likely to include a high proportion of organic
farmers.
·
Organic
Conversion Information Service. There is currently no specific budget
allocation to fund OCIS after March 2007. The case for OCIS type information
has made in relation to