PARTE CONSIDERATIVA

UNT Corte Superior de Justicia de Amazonas

4.6.1 The institutionaThe institutionaThe institutionaThe institutional environmentl environmentl environmentl environment

The institutional environment of organic farming in Denmark is

illustrated in Figure 4-3 and will be summarised here for each domain. In the farming community, the Danish organic farming sector is

characterised by lack of competition and strong co-operation among the organic farming organisations. Two organisations developed separate organisational systems, which included certification bodies, but rather than competition they cooperated within a joint organisation. Soon LOJ appeared the largest and most dynamic organisation. A separate trade committee was established with public support in 1987, but in 1992 it was changed into a private organic producer organisation (OLC), which established a clear profile of representing organic producer interests. Soon a clear division of work appeared between LOJ and OLC within the auspices of a common House of Ecology where they draw on a joint management and staff team. LOJ has become the carrier of “organic ideology” in political negotiations whereas OLC promotes the more specific interests of organic farmers and in this capacity is able to communicate on a more pragmatic basis with general agriculture institutions such as general farmers’ unions and co-operatives.

In the general farming community, the union of family farms met the organic farmers with some sympathy, which also reflected an interest in supporting environmentally friendly farming systems. The main farmers’ organisation originally met organic farming with indifference, but agreed to join the OFC when it was established in 1987. As the number of organic farmers began to grow, the farmers’ unions’ interest increased and they started attempts to integrate activities of organic farming into their organisations. The special advisory system, developed for organic farmers was integrated into the general advisory system of the general farmers’ unions and special organisations were developed to attract organic farmer members or keep them within the general farmers’ organisations when they had converted.

Co-operation between general and organic farming organisations of the farming community developed on the basis of some conflicts, which appeared to be creative for the consolidation of organic farming within the farming community. The most obvious conflict was about Danish

agriculture’s ability to deliver organic food products in quantities sufficient to cover consumer demand. This conflict proved very obvious in 1994 and the situation was used by the OLC to establish an “Organic Summit” with the umbrella organisation, Agriculture Council of Denmark (ACD). The outcome was that ACD was forced to accept organic farming – and later on OLC became a member of ACD on a par with general agriculture organisations.

Figure 4-3:

The development of the institutional environment for organic farming in Denmark 1982-199

In the agriculture policy domain, organic farming already had some influence in the latter half of the 1980s and a political initiative soon materialised into an encompassing regulation based on a market-oriented approach. The policy included a state certification system combined with an information campaign directed at consumers and farmers, as well as support for farmers during the conversion period. A somewhat hesitant attitude by the ministry was replaced by activism after a change of government in 1993, which led to the elaboration of action plans for increasing growth in 1995 and for increasing exports in 1999. At the same time, the political debate on support of organic farming became still more influenced by an environment-oriented approach. Hereby a conflict is actualised regarding the perception of organic farming as more environmentally friendly than mainstream agriculture, which had hitherto been toned down due to the market orientation of both policy and practice. Within the food market domain, the largest Danish retailer, FDB, gained interest in organic food as early as 1981 and has acted as a patient but critical customer of organic produce. This spurred organic farmers to turn production towards supermarket sales and paved the way open for processors and traders to include an organic product line or product range. The market for organic produce developed step by step through conflicts that appeared constructive for growth in demand and supply, as well as for the quality and range of products – as illustrated by Figure 4-2. The figure shows how minor groups of organic dairy producers have entered into competition with the large dairy co-operatives and through

sometimes harsh competition have been able to increase the marketing of organic milk products up to about 25 per cent of the total domestic consumption.

Regarding the institutional setting, the OFC represents the aim of achieving co-ordination across the domains and has left a clear mark on the development of organic farming. The OFC includes farming interests and food production interests (consumers, industry) along with environmental and health interests in such a way that the members of OFC appear to have developed a sort of policy community with a low profile while also disseminating plans and proposals to the parent organisations of the council members. In this way outspoken conflicts between parent organisations might have been kept alive but at the same time, conflicts have not been allowed to seriously hamper the realisation of the proposals agreed upon within the OFC.

To sum up, the Danish organic sector expanded in the late 1990s after a period where initial growth was replaced by stagnation and decline. This change of development reflects the position of organic farming, on the one hand, as in conflict with general agriculture institutions in all domains. On the other hand, conflicts are resolved in such a way that they end up being creative for the development of organic farming as a separate part of agriculture.

4.6.2 Institutional chanInstitutional chanInstitutional chanInstitutional changegegege

Several developmental trends are mentioned above and pictured in Figure 4-3. The development took off in 1981 when LOJ was established. In the food market LOJ established contact with the main Danish retailer, FDB, who agreed to promote organic food: in this way, a demand in the mass market was documented. The market demand and the organic farmers’ need for advice appeared important triggers for the first major

institutional change that took place roundabout 1987. The change, which encompasses all four domains, originates in the political decision of an Organic Law, not aiming at environment protection but at satisfying consumer demand. Hence the law included a public certification system implemented by existing public agencies, a separate extension and information campaign directed at farmers (supply) and consumers (demand) and last but not least the establishment of the OFC. Hence, the law involved direct changes in all domains other than the market, which it was supposed to influence – and which it did influence through the establishment of specialised firms and increasing sales. These changes thus imply that organic farming was established with some autonomy and strength in all four domains without being in overt opposition to general agriculture institutions. Within this environment, the first real growth in the number of organic farms took place.

The second institutional change involved only the institutional setting domain and was an internal change of the Organic Farming Council (OFC). No formal change took place, but the work of the OFC changed qualitatively around 1990. The change implied that the OFC became the main forum for discussion of organic farming topics. At the same time all board members (following a number of changes in board composition) appeared to be pro-organic. Hence, the OFC had changed from an unsettled organisation to that of a policy community, working on issues central to the daily working of organic farming and based on consensus about a positive view on organic farming among members.

The third institutional change took place roundabout 1993 and it encompassed all four domains. It originated in the farming community where the number of organic farmers entered a phase of stagnation – partly as an effect of the difficulties of selling the large quantities of products stemming from the growth prompted by the public support scheme. In attempts to solve these problems, the organic farmers’ established OLC. The activities of OLC to try and solve the problems in the market domain coincided with events taking place in the agriculture policy domain when EC Regs. 2092/91 (on certification) and 2078/92 (on support) were implemented. In July 1993, FDB released – together with the organic farmers’ producer organisations – a huge marketing campaign. Its effect on consumer demand was so strong that the stocks of organic produce were soon depleted. The commercial success of organic food in turn influenced the farming community where the organic farmers succeeded in pushing the umbrella organisation of general farming

organisations to accept organic farmers as a serious part of agriculture and soon the general farmers’ unions established separate organisational structures for organic farmers. In the agriculture policy domain a more pro-organic government had taken office and initiated a strategic development plan for organic farming – API – in response to the lack of supplies. The API was prepared by the OFC, and this involved a new qualitative change, as strategic planning had never before been an issue for OFC. In doing this work, the OFC continued to keep a low profile and seek consensus among the members. The growth of organic farms took off, when the general farmers’ co-operatives paid extra conversion support in 1995 and – later on – when changes in public support and information on the high profitability of organic farms relative to that of conventional farms – attracted new groups of farmers.

A fourth institutional change occurred around 1999, which affected three of the four domains with no change appearing in the institutional setting. This time, change was inspired by foreseeable problems of co-ordinating production and sales resulting from the growing interest among Danish farmers to convert to organic production. These problems led to the creation of a new Action Plan, APII, which concluded with a recommen- dation to consider exports. The organic farming associations introduced a double strategy or division of work according to which LOJ should work for organic farming purity while OLC should stand for producer

pragmatism. On this basis the two organisations established a joint House of Ecology with a joint management and staff but separate boards. In the food market domain, several large food sector firms merged with organic firms in attempts to strengthen the position of both. In the agriculture policy domain some tension arose because support for organic farming began to be justified by environmental concerns rather than by the original market concern.

As demonstrated for each domain, it is justifiable to talk of creative conflict rather than pure co-operation or pure competition within all domains. This is also reflected in changes in the growth of organic farming. The period of stagnation around 1993 occurred at the same time as organic farming appeared able to reorganise in such a way that it seemed possible to take action in developing strategies for initiating growth and coping with growth. Within all domains organic farming is clearly identified and has a well-defined general agriculture counterpart with which a complex interrelationship is developing. The only domain where conflict is not so clear is within the policy domain where organic farming receives increasing support. Here, conflict is, however, reflected in the fact that support increasingly has begun to originate in the Ministry of the Environment although still administered by the Ministry for Food. It also appears that the conflicts are not resolved but that they continue to produce policy issues and solutions in support of organic farming – in other words the conflicts continue to be creative. This seems to be

interrelated to the fact that in the three largest of the institutional changes there are close and direct links between events that took place in all domains. A development in one domain seems to release, or be released by,

action in other domains. In this way, institutional change may originate in any domain and have effects on all other domains and it seems that this promotes change and openness between domains, which in turn seems to have established a fertile climate for organic farming growth in Denmark.

5.1 BackgroundBackgroundBackgroundBackground

The development of organic farming in Greece can be divided into two phases as indicated in Figure 5-1. The first period includes the 1980s when growth only occurred in certain areas (in particular, the Peloponnese) where foreign trading companies contracted farmers to produce organic products for export. As no Greek inspection and certification bodies existed at that time, certification was carried out by SKAL of the

Netherlands, Naturland of Germany and other foreign organisations. The second period of development followed the implementation of EC Regs. 2092/91 and 2078/92 in the mid-1990s and is characterised by a very rapid increase in organic land. Between 1993 and 1997, the organic land area experienced annual growth rates of over 50 per cent, reaching a figure of 10,000 ha on 2,514 holdings in 1997. However, organic farming support paid on the basis of EC Reg. 2078/92, was only received by owners to about sixty per cent of the converted land (5 694 ha) in 1997 because the EU Commission, up to 1999, only agreed to cover the expenses of support paid to an upper limit of 6 000 ha of organic farm land.

Figure 5-1: Development of the land area and number of organic producers in Greece from 1985 to 1998

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98

Land area ('000 ha)Land area ('000 ha)Land area ('000 ha)Land area ('000 ha)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

No. of farmsNo. of farmsNo. of farmsNo. of farms

Land area ('000 ha) No. of farms

Source: Foster and Lampkin (2000)

9_{Prepared by Carolyn Foster, Kennet Lynggaard and Johannes Michelsen on the basis of interviews carried}

Today, the structure of Greek organic farming is quite different from that of most other European countries as 88 per cent of the area (in 1998) is used in horticulture and perennial crops production (mainly olives for export) while the EU average for organic horticulture is just over 12 per cent (Foster and Lampkin 2000). The largest concentration of organic farms is still in the Peloponnese.

During the 1980s the main actors influencing the development of organic farming in Greece were foreign companies, which contracted organic farmers and developed the Union of Agricultural Co-operatives of Aegialia. In the 1990s, however, two types of national players began to dominate. Firstly, the Ministry of Agriculture established the Office for Organic Products and set up of specific programmes within the framework of the EU regulations. Secondly, the two major Greek certification bodies, DIO and SOYE, developed.

5.1.1 Main questions Main questions Main questions Main questions for the in-depth studyfor the in-depth studyfor the in-depth studyfor the in-depth study

The point of departure for the Greek in-depth study is why conversion to organic farming developed so quickly in spite of the apparent low uptake of public support, the apparent lack of organisations other than certification bodies interested in initiating and backing up the development of organic farming within the farming community and, finally, a poorly developed market for organic food. To sum up these issues: Is there a national basis for promoting the support of organic farming when it meets bureaucratic barriers? Or, did the national development of organic farming take place in the absence of any strong institutional basis? The main issue is illuminated by questions regarding the four domains of the farming community, agriculture policy, the food market and the institutional setting. As part of the in-depth study, eight interviews were undertaken in Greece. The interviewees were all officials of the institutions the four domains mentioned.10

10_{The respondents were: a representative of the Office of Organic Products within the Ministry of}

Agriculture (organic agriculture administrator), a representative of the Department of Environmental Protection within the Ministry of Agriculture (agriculture administrator), a representative of the Panhellenic Confederation of Farmers' Co-operatives of Greece PASEGES (general farmers’ co-operative representative), a representative of the Union of Agricultural Co-operatives of Aegialia (general farmers’ co- operative representative), a representative of Division of Agriculture Development of Achaia (local agriculture administrator), a representative of the Association of Ecological Farming of Greece (SOYE) (organic farmers’ organisation representative), a representative of the certification body DIO (organic certification representative) and an organic farming consultant (organic farming consultant). All interviews were done in May 1999.

5.

In document Prueba indiciaria e impunidad en casos: ausencia de prueba directa en los juzgados penales de la provincia de chachapoyas 2015 2016 (página 93-106)