This chapter concentrates on the case of Denmark; more precisely, the development of the leading organic organisation, Landsforeningen for Økologisk Jordbrug (hereafter LØJ) and the environment affecting the course of its development. Based on the empirical evidence, the development is divided into five phases: the pre-organic movement phase, the founding phase of the organic organisation, and the three phases of institu- tionalisation. Details of these phases will be introduced chronologically in most sections by depicting the development of organic agriculture, first in the policy field and then the strategies of the organisation. This is followed by an analysis of this single case based on the conceptual framework of the study.
Overview of Alternative Agriculture Community in the 1970s: Selection of Pre-
liminary Trajectory
This section begins by illustrating the biodynamic movement in Denmark, which is generally seen as the sole movement for alternative agriculture before the organic agriculture movement. It is followed by the stage of the unique co-existence of the biodynamic movement and the organic movement, though it is the latter that later took over the leading position from the former. The last part of this section focuses on the development in the 1970s, which influenced the trajectory of the organic agriculture movement in Denmark directly. Dur- ing this period, the attempts at alternative agriculture were consolidated under the frame of “ecology” via enhancement of the existing alternative farming community, which brought along its struggle with another option, namely the communist/socialist-oriented agricultural development.
Biodynamic movement
By the 1970s, the biodynamic movement had monopolised alternative agriculture (Holmegård, 1997:Ingemann, 2003:Brandt, 2005). The root of biodynamic agriculture is traced back to 1924, when the founder of anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner, held an Agriculture Course at Schloss Koberwitz in what was then Germany (today Wroclaw in Poland). This was 20 years before the term “organic agriculture” first ap- peared in 1943 in Agricultural Testament by English agronomist Albert Howard. The course was held as a response to some farmers detecting deterioration of soil and health of livestock after they started applying chemicals (Diver, 1999). The eight lectures at the course targeted the implementation of Steiner’s anthropo- sophical thoughts to agriculture, and a series of ideas to be tested in experimental farm were born. Those lectures and four supplemental experiments were soon put into a book entitled Spiritual Foundations for the Renewal of Agriculture (Geheimwissenschaftliche Grundlagen zum Gedeihen der Landwirtschaft).
The arrival of biodynamic agriculture in Denmark was punctuated with the foundation of the Association for Biodynamic Agriculture (Foreningen for Biodynamisk Jordbrug: hereafter FBJ) in 1936. FBJ was born when Danish agriculture, in particular the livestock production, was under crisis with the import restriction of Eng- land (Pedersen, 1988). It was also the time when modern livestock production was found problematic and the first boycott by “political consumers” against unethically produced food was organised (Jensen, 1996). Since then, Danish biodynamic agriculture has been operated in small communities of full-time and part-time farmers, businesses, consumers, associations and research centres for biodynamic agriculture in other Euro- pean countries, particularly West Germany and Sweden. Self-regulation and accreditation of biodynamic produce has operated under the label Demeter since 1963.
Despite those experiences, biodynamic agriculture remained a minor trend in society. It was hardly diffused among farmers. In 1973, there were only 45 members of FBJ37 (Foreningen for Biodynamisk Jordbrug,
37 According to Jens Holmegård, the number of biodynamic farms had grown from 35 to 100 until the 1970s. Holmegård, J. (1997). Økologiens Pionertid. Odense, Erhvervsskolernes Forlag.
1973), while the total number of farm-holds in Denmark counted 140,200 in 1970 (Dansk Landbrug og Landbrugsraadet, 2005). To some extent, this resulted from an internal conflict in the community about whether use of synthetic fertilisers should be allowed or not according to Demeter rules, which eventually led to the creation of another biodynamic organisation, the Co-operation for Biodynamic Agriculture (Bio- dynamisk Jordbrugssamvirke: hereafter BJS) in 1973. The fragmentation of an already small community was not received well among the new generation, who was about to enter the alternative agriculture community (Brandt, 2005). Yet a more substantial reason for the isolation of the biodynamic community can be found in the nature of this movement. Biodynamic agriculture often encountered harsh criticism, not only because its method emerged fundamentally from the criticism of conventional farming, but also due to its focus on spir- itual elements. This linkage of farming with the extra-scientific focus was simply rejected and even hostilely attacked by some agricultural professionals. For instance, an associate professor in agronomy wrote in an agricultural journal that the biodynamic movement was equivalent to “romanticism, illusionism, occultism, dilettantism, and fanaticism” (Kovacs, 1973). The biodynamic community has traditionally been quite pas- sive in the face of criticism. The generally non-aggressive attitude is well described by Niels Stokholm, who has been a leading figure in the biodynamic community over the past three decades;
I think developments differ from person to person. And if my neighbour, who is a conventional farmer, is happy about what he is doing, I think it is a good thing. I do not say what I am doing is the right thing and others should follow my way. If other people see what I am doing, and if they want to do the same thing as I do, that’s nice. That’s why I welcome people to come to my farm.38
All in all, the biodynamic movement tends to concentrate on self-development/realisation of individuals, rather than seeing its movement as a political project for agriculture or society as a whole. Indeed, the biody- namic community has a history with the political turbulent during the Nazi period. The regime changed dras- tically from enthusiastic support of biodynamic agriculture by agricultural minister Richard Walther Darré and Rudolf Hess to suddenly banning the method after Hess’ asylum in England in 1941. Except during the war period, the community has distanced itself from the major political ideologies and actions. For example, FBJ reacted negatively to the eco-socialist book linking biodynamic agriculture with Marxism. It was claimed in the organisation’s magazine that the politicisation of anthroposophy with Marxism was a result of a shallow understanding of the former and would harm the biodynamic movement. The words of Steiner were quoted to make this point: “Freedom –equity in the rights – lies in brotherhood in the life. The comple- tion of those is a revolution not outside of you but inside of you” (Hald, 1977). Politics – at least institutional politics – is conceived to be less important than a deeper understanding and practices of inner unity within oneself. Political ideologies are even understood to be “harmful,” since they could be intolerant of the diver- sity in individuals’ opinions. In the biodynamic community, neither Marxism nor liberalism was thought as a solution, but anthroposophy which cherishes individuality and benign relationships between people, animals, plants and nature was understood as “the only way” (Hald, 1977). Yet, perhaps due to this strong emphasis on individuals’ self-development, it has been difficult for the biodynamic movement to form a common defi- nition of how the future society should look like, and, more crucially, a collective programme for how to realise such a society. In addition, the engagement with Steiner’s philosophy was also perceived as unattrac- tive by the new generation of alternative agricultural community. As a leading pioneer organic activist said: “To believe in what one person told in so many years ago sounds dogmatic”.39
Introduction of organic agriculture
While the connection between agriculture and environment was not quite established in the public debates, some new initiatives for alternative agriculture started in the early 1970s. Among them was the magazine
Bio-Information started in 1973 by organic farmer Niels Erik Jensen (Ingemann, 2006). The aim of the mag- azine was to provide practical information to people who were interested in alternative ways of farming and gardening. Thus it targeted a wide population encompassing professional and hobby farmers and gardeners as well as consumers. At the same time, Jensen started operating an educational farm in middle Jutland, where people could learn about alternative farming methods. Since knowledge about alternative farming methods was mostly limited to the biodynamic network or foreign literature, often written in German, Swe- dish, or English, the practical and theoretical information provided by Jensen was influential at the time, particularly among those who started organic agriculture without farming experience (Holmegård, 1997, 13). Furthermore, the list of biodynamic/organic farms and their produce put on his magazine functioned as one of the few means for connecting those farmers and consumers in the 1970s. The growers on the list, which started with only 14 farms, reached 36 in 1979. This collectively organised consumer purchase was so suc- cessful that ten of them had to close for new customers (Brandt, 2005). Back then, non-chemical fresh vege- tables were only available at limited places, such as health and natural food shops, some farm-gate stands, and in the biodynamic community’s network.
In 1975, NOAH, a newly formed environmental group, published its fifth book, The industrialised agricul- ture (Det industrialiserede landbrug). It was based on a master thesis by eight students of University of Co- penhagen and claimed that the ongoing technological development in agriculture based on “specialisation, mechanisation, and application of chemicals” was the direct cause of the environmental problems “within and outside agriculture” (NOAH, 1999). It pointed out a series of problems, such as the excessive energy consumption caused by the use of synthetic fertilisers, pesticides, machines, and long-distance transportation, deterioration of groundwater quality by nitrogen, poor exploitation of organic fertilisers, application of syn- thetic fertilisers and pesticides, lack of crop rotation, burning of straw without using them as recyclable re- source, pollution of food, poor animal welfare, and unfair distribution of nutrition in the world (Ansbæk, Bennekou et al., 1975). It emphasized that these were consequence of the dominant mode of development fed by short-term economic interests. The suggested remedy was “ecological thinking” that understands ag- riculture as “an ecological system with structures, material, and energy stream” (Ansbæk, Bennekou et al., 1975:NOAH, 1999). Until today, agriculture has constituted a crucial part of NOAH’s agenda. However, as an environmental organisation, NOAH has been tackling many other issues, and its part in the alterna- tive/organic agriculture movement has been more likely to remain in a supporting role. Furthermore, its de- centralised structure built upon local groups tends to concentrate in relatively big cities, and in this way, its basis in rural communities, i.e. among farmers, has been very weak.40
Niels Erik Jensen’s and NOAH’s initiatives for alternative agriculture in the early 1970s were not directly linked. However, both had ecology as their core concept and used the term “organic”. Here it is important to note that organic agriculture was called “ecological agriculture (økologisk landbrug)” in Danish, while other terms for alternative agriculture, such as biological agriculture and biodynamic agriculture, were also used in and outside the country. After all, the activities in the 1970s as represented by Niels Erik Jensen have spread the term organic/ecology to others. The term was meant to signify a common definition of diverse alternative farming methods, of which biodynamic agriculture and others could constitute a part (Brandt, 2005). While it appears that the intention of using the term organic agriculture was not to subordinate biodynamic agriculture
40 Troels V. Østergaard mentioned it was difficult to be tightly connected with NOAH in the development of organic agriculture due to its decentralised form of organisation. Furthermore many in the organic movement did not live in the city, where NOAH’s activity mainly took place. Arranging regular meetings was also difficult. Interview on 19 July 2007.
under that, but rather to pursue the co-existence of the two, the embedding of organic agriculture in the sci- entific discipline of ecology fit well in the emerging environmental and political consciousness of the time, as also expressed strongly by NOAH. One of the pioneers in organic agriculture in Denmark, Troels V. Østergaard (the founder of the organisation Praktisk Økologi), explained that this preference for ecology over, say, biology in the alternative agriculture community, came from the intention to define the emerging alternative farming with a wider perspective on the dynamism of each farm, while biology as a scientific discipline tends to focus on plants or animals.41 As the term diffused, “ecology/ecologists” (økolo- gi/økologer) often referred to organic farming/organic farmers in Denmark.
Formation of grassroots’ political initiatives: Agricultural Study Group
In 1975, a new initiative for alternative development of agriculture was taken by two young students at a farming school, who established a group called the Agricultural Study Group (Jordbrugsgruppen). This group later evolved into the organisation for organic agriculture in the early 1980s (see below). The objective of the Group was to learn about and discuss the actual political, economic, and ecological situation of agri- culture in Denmark, and to develop “a tradition for economic and social communities inside Danish agricul- ture” (Jordbrugsgruppen, 1975). It attracted different types of people, ranging from students to the above mentioned Niels Erik Jensen, young farmers, academics interested in alternative technology in general, polit- ical gender equality activists, co-operativists for alternative housing etc. (Brandt, 2005:Ingemann, 2006). The group was de-centralised, based on local groups organising meetings and activities on their initiatives, while the common themes to be discussed in the local groups were decided collectively at general meetings held four times a year. The bond among them was criticism of the agricultural development in Denmark. Howev- er, as the Group was to be “cross-political” (Jordbrugsgruppen, 1975), the critical perspectives differed from the start and soon became manifest in the Group. In broad terms, there were two wings: one seeking a social- istic/communistic alternative to the agricultural development, and the other focusing on ecology with focus on organic agriculture (Brandt, 2005:Ingemann, 2006)42.
For the socialist/communist wing, the primary problem was the subordination of farmers and agricultural workers in the capitalist system. Farmers were reduced to slaves of machines and financial institutions for surviving the ever increasing competition. Due to the pressure for rationalisation and optimisation, farmers were forced to carry heavy loan for better facilities and bigger lands. Moreover, the high interest rate and the rising land price deteriorated the farmers’ conditions even further. Based on these points, the com- munist/socialist wing put focus on the issue of alternative farm ownership, such as cooperative farms (an- delsbrug) and nationalisation of agricultural land (Jordbrugsgruppen, 1977b:Jordbrugsgruppen., 1978). With these interests, the Group often picked up the issue of agriculture in communist countries, such as China, DDR, Poland, Tanzania, and the Soviet Union. In addition to the seminars on this subject, a study trip to DDR was planned.
In 1977, cooperative farming was pursued by some members. Among the earliest were the two founders of the Group, farming school students affiliated with the Danish Communist Party (DKP). Their original aim for “truly” cooperative farm was not achieved, since the Agricultural Property Law at the time did not allow other forms of co-ownership than limited liability company (interessentskab; I/S). Yet, the attempt did not end in vain, when the idea of different forms of ownership was recognised by the authority as adjustable to
41
Interview with Troels V. Østergaard. 19 July 2007. 42
Ingemann categorised the members of the Agricultural Study Group into three by adding one more group of young people, i.e. hippies who envisaged alternative rural life. Ingemann, J., Holm (2006). The Evolution of Organic
the new objective of the Law for liberalisation of agricultural land. The proposal for further discussion on this issue was supported by the Ministry of Agriculture, the majority of the centre-left parties, i.e. Social Democrats, Social Liberals (Radikale Venstre: hereafter RV), Socialist People’s Party (Socialistisk Folkepar- ti: hereafter SF), and the Communist Party (Danmarks Kommunistiske Parti: hereafter DKP), and the Danish Family Farmers’ Association (Jordbrugsgruppen, 1977b:Brandt, 2005). The Board for Alternative Forms of Farm-ownership was established under the Ministry of Agriculture, and already in 1978 the official consid- eration which opened dispensation possibility for co-ownership was issued.
All in all, the intention of cooperative farms driven by the members of the Group gained some political suc- cess, since, firstly, it was understood as a liberalisation (de-regulation) of agricultural real estate, which did not conflict with the existing policy of “the Effective Farm” (Ingemann, 2006). Secondly, under the two oil crises and the subsequent drastic structural reform in this period, agricultural subsidy was one of the reform targets. Under these circumstances, collective ownership of farms was considered as an option for, in par- ticular, small-size farmers, who otherwise would be abandoned under the ongoing liberalisation and rational- isation. Yet, it is fair to say that support to the idea of an alternative farming community remained within a very small part of the policy and the traditional farming community. For instance, the then chairperson for a local family farmers’ association, who was also the chairperson for the committee for the Agricultural Prop- erty Law and a member of the Social Democratic Party, claimed that he did not consider cooperative farms as a plausible option, since it would be difficult for farmers to agree on things. This view reflected the gen- eral preference of farmers to own their land. He suggested that tenancy of state-owned land would be a better solution than cooperative farms (Jordbrugsgruppen, 1978b). Furthermore, the reaction of the traditional agri- cultural organisations to cooperative farms was far from supportive. The largest organisation, the Farmers’ Union, responded negatively, though a local family farmers’ organisation responded positively (Jordbrugsgruppen, 1977b).
Nationalisation of agriculture was taken up by the Group not only as a potential means to solve the financial instability of farmers in general, but also to overcome the particular difficulty of young farmers to start out due to the high price of agricultural land and facilities. This problem was widely considered as a main cause of exodus from rural communities. However, the idea was not received with full sympathy in the Group, and its political viability was questioned in discussions (Jordbrugsgruppen, 1978b).
In general, the ideas typically raised by the socialist/communist wing of the Group, such as collective farm- ing and nationalisation of agriculture, were supported by distinct socialist/communist parties at the time, namely, SF, DKP, and the Left Socialist Party (Venstresocialisterne: hereafter VS), which, however, did not see them as priority issues. After all, agriculture and rural issues were still underdeveloped areas for those parties, while their main supporters lived in the cities. A member of VS claimed that, as a socialist party, its