TRATAMIENTO DE LA PRUEBA DE OFICIO

2.6.2

2.6.2

2.6.2

Institutional changInstitutional changInstitutional changInstitutional changeeee

The development of the institutional environment of Austrian organic farming is pictured in figure 2-2. The first organic farming organisations originated in the farming community and lived a relatively quiet life separate from general agriculture organisations and from the other three

domains of the institutional environment. Organic farming was

recognised formally in Austrian law, but it seems as if general agriculture institutions were either ignoring or in some instances opposing organic farming. The situation is characterised neither by pure co-operation nor by pure conflict but by a low level of conflict – a relevant position as organic farming only covered marginal shares of Austrian agriculture at the time. The first major change of the institutional environment took place in the years around 1988 and involved agriculture policy. Minister Riegler wished to re-orient Austrian agriculture policy towards social and ecological goals and saw organic farming as a means of effecting change. Hence, he intro- duced support for organic farmers, for the organic associations and for developing the market as part of this general agriculture policy strategy. The overall institutional setting of agriculture was, however, hardly affected. The tasks of support and development of organic farming were given to the existing general agriculture organisations while organic farming organisations remained excluded. Rather than seeking political influence through joint efforts, conflicts developed among the organic farming institutions and still more organisations were established. In any event, the number of organic farmers increased rapidly and the attitude of the general agriculture organisations became more positive. In this situation, the institutional interrelationship between organic farming and general agriculture is best understood as developing from a low level of conflict to a situation characterised as pure co-operation and near-by silence about differences in farming systems.

The second change of the institutional environment occurred around 1993 just before Austria’s accession to the EU and, for the first time, market actors also became involved. Changes appeared in all domains of the institutional environment, although the changes in the institutional setting were only small. Beside the increasing number of organic farms after the first changes in the institutional environment around 1988, there also appeared an increasing number of collaborations between the general agriculture institutions and organic farming organisations, mainly within the framework of the chambers, which in this relationship represented both the farming community and a sort of overall institutional setting. By 1993, organic farming had become so strong, that it could no longer be neglected or silenced out within Austrian agriculture and hence gradually more distinct institutions appeared within the general agriculture frame- work, such as the AMA Bio-label. It is somewhat paradoxical that the second institutional change, which manifested organic farming growth, in 1995 was followed by a stop in the growth in the number of organic farms. The main reasons for the halt in growth seem to be a wider availability of other agri-environmental support after Austria’s accession to the EU, allowing farmers to opt for other, less restrictive support schemes as well as problems in the marketing of organic food.

Within the theoretical framework of Chapter 1, it is possible to under- stand the stagnation and the reasons suggested for it as indicating a qualitative change in the interrelationship between organic farming and

general agriculture institutions. It seems that organic farming could no longer be neglected and differences could no longer be silenced out – its distinctiveness could not be concealed anymore. The total effect of this may be perceived as a change from co-operation in the direction of com- petition. However, it is not a change to pure competition since dialogue is intensifying. The organic producers and their associations have succeeded in obtaining a broader dialogue with general agriculture institutions and market actors and have obtained better interest represen-tation while strengthening the expression of the distinct profile of organic farming. In terms of the continuum defined in section 1.1.3, the situation should then be characterised as a change from pure co-operation in the direction of creative conflict. It appears, however, that only part of the preconditions for creative conflict is found while others are still missing. It seems obvious that one of the missing preconditions for developing creative conflicts is internal harmony among organic farming organisations and the expected effect in terms of an increase in the number of organic farms has also not appeared. On the other hand, the dismissal of pure co-operation has not led to a decline in the total number of organic farms either.

3

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.1

BackgroundBackgroundBackgroundBackground

Belgium is one of many European countries with a comparatively small organic farming sector in which growth remained unchanged after the introduction of EU regulations in support of organic farming in 1993. The main analytical interest in studying the development of organic farming in Belgium is, hence, to find explanations for the apparent lack of impact of EU regulations in support of organic farming. This interest is reinforced by the fact that Belgian organic farming, after experiencing a period

characterised by a fluctuating growth rate, has recently entered a phase of strong growth. Hence, it seems relevant to look for explanations of the change in growth pattern. Furthermore, Belgium represents a country in which organic farming is administered jointly by federal and regional administrative structures.

Figure 3-1: Development of organic land area (total and policy supported) and number of farms in Belgium from 1985 to 1998

Source: Foster and Lampkin (2000)

3 _{Prepared by Kenneth Lynggaard an Johannes Michelsen in the basis of interviews carried out and}

summarised by Alain Coppens and Johannes Michelsen. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98

Land area ('000 ha)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 No. of farms

Land area ('000 ha) No. of farms

It appears from Figure 3-1 that the development of the organic farming sector in Belgium started with few organic farms before 1985. In the period 1985-92 the number of certified organic farms increased. The speed of conversion in terms of the annual growth rate slowed down between 1987 and 1992 and in 1993 even a decrease in the number of certified farms appeared. This early period of growth took place after the intro- duction of national production standards and a national marketing organisation (Biogarantie) and may be seen as the outcome of a period of autonomous growth in the Belgian organic sector. This autonomous growth, however, ran out of steam in 1991/92 when a few years of decrease and stagnation in the organic farming sector began. 1995, however, marked a turning point showing an increasing growth rate over the remaining period of time considered. Interviewees identify the main explanations for this upturn to be the implementation of EC Reg. 2092/91 in 1993 along with regional support for demonstration farms in Wallonia. EC Reg. 2078/92 was not implemented until 1995 but expectations of its implementation and, hence, the first introduction of subsidies paid to organic farmers, affected the rate of conversion from 1994 onwards. Only recently, growth has begun in the other main region of Belgium, Flanders.