EC Regulation 2078/92 is implemented through Programmes for Organic Farming of which there have been two up to now. The first programme approved by the EU ran from 1995-1997 and included a total national target of 6 000 ha organic farmland. According to the ministry
representative, the programme was successfully completed in 1997 with the absorption of all the land and respective allocations, which leaves about 4 000 hectares of organic land left without public support (see Figure 5-1 and Foster and Lampkin 1999, 2000). In this first programme, priority and approval was given to applications from mountainous and island regions (mostly olive producing) and there was no upper limit of the amount of land to be included per prefecture. As a result, the first
programme was implemented in certain prefectures only, such as those of Achaia, Messinia, Lakonia and Chania. The premise behind the first programme appears to be an attempt to encourage an integrated
development of cultivation systems in areas where the intensive model of farming does not dominate, that is, in island and mountain areas. Hence, organic farming is used as a means to encourage economic development in these areas. In the words of one interviewee:
”We see organic farming as a kingpin for regional development”(s: organic agriculture administrator).
After a period of assessment and evaluation of the first programme, the Second Programme for Organic Farming was designed and submitted for approval to the EU. In this Second Programme, the Ministry is aiming for “a more regionally balanced development of organic farming and a proportionately better representation of the country’s main products
”
(s: agricultureadministrator).
In order to reduce the geographic dispersion of organic farms within each region organic farming zones are being created, based on an equal number of hectares in each prefecture with an upper limit of 200 ha per prefecture. Each prefecture is required to design a Programme Implementation Plan, which is then approved by the ministry, thus involving local authorities in the implementation of the Programme. Due to a delay in the approval of this programme by the EU Commission, there were no new inclusions under EC Reg. 2078/92 during 1998.
The Regional Divisions of Agricultural Development are responsible for the implementation of the programmes at ground level. This process is particularly bureaucratic and time consuming for the divisions and imposes many extra administrative obligations on the farmer, which have to be controlled by the regional divisions. The regional divisions are also responsible for information and advice to farmers about the programmes. However, the human and financial resources available to carry out this work effectively are scarce (s: national and local agriculture
administrators) and this has not been done in an equally effective or co- ordinated way throughout all prefectures. This seems to have led to
tensions with the certification bodies. Poor communication between the national ministry and the regional divisions does little to help this
situation. At the regional level, a dialogue on organic farming between the various agencies (co-operatives, organic farming associations, prefectures, etc.) has not developed. This is partly evident from the fact that the Programme Implementation Plans were exclusively designed by the Regional Divisions of each Prefecture without the involvement of other local agencies (s: organic agriculture administrator).
Although the shift in emphasis in the second programme brings the Ministry closer to the attitude of certification bodies, there are still differences in opinion on the premise behind the policy. The certification bodies believe that a long-term aim should be the complete conversion of the current mainstream system of food-production. For this reason, the certification bodies did not agree with the high priority given in the First Programme to subsidies for the island and mountain areas, nor did they agree in the equal distribution of hectares between all of the country’s prefectures in the Second Programme. They claim that organic farming should be developed in those parts of the country where mainstream farming is already well developed, and where the agri-environmental costs are therefore larger. They also believe that more attempts should be made to direct policy towards areas of market demand (s: organic farming consultant).
Aside from the possible need to re-define the aims and strategy of national policy, better organisation and mode of application of this policy seem to be an urgent need, as well as the necessity to make the agents involved in its application far more effective (s: all interviewees).
“There is a lack of organisation and an inconsistency in the way it [i.e. the Ministry (editor’s note)] acts.”(s: organic organisation representative). This is attributed less to negative attitudes, and more to lack of resources and staff.
5.3.2
5.3.2
5.3.2
5.3.2
Consequences and results of national Consequences and results of national Consequences and results of national Consequences and results of national policypolicypolicypolicy
Prior to the application of EC Reg. 2092/91, in 1993, and EU Reg. 2078/92, in 1996, Greece had no national policy on organic farming. Nor was there any private certification system for organic products, apart from foreign certification bodies operating in Greece for export purposes. As such, the application of the EU regulations had as an initial and most important positive effect, the formation of an official policy on organic farming (s: all interviewees). Along with this came the first wave of information
dissemination on the issue, which raised awareness of organic farming by all involved in agriculture.
It is relatively easy for Greek farmers to obtain certification under EC Reg. 2092/91. It is mainly farmers with small agricultural land-holdings for whom the fee paid to the certification bodies is relatively high that
experience problems. In contrast, inclusion under support paid according to EC Reg. 2078/92 is difficult for Greek farmers. Procedures are partic- ularly bureaucratic and the application process is especially laborious and time-consuming. Organic farmers often encounter problems in relation to both the Regional Divisions for Agricultural Development and the Ministry.
The application of the programmes, especially the First Programme, encountered many administrative problems, and the farmers were constantly confronted with contradictions and inconsistencies (s: general farmers’ co-operative representative, local agriculture administrator, organic farmers’ organisation, certification, and consultant representa- tives). Regarding the Second Programme, it was presented to the EU at the beginning of 1998 but ratification procedures were not completed until the end of 1998 and hence implementation of the Second Programme could only begin at the start of 1999. This delay created problems for farmers in many areas who, due to lack of communication from the Ministry, were encouraged by the Regional Divisions to convert only to find that they could not after all be included in the programme in 1998. Problems have also been created by the limits set to the number of hectares in the new Programme and the creation of organic farming zones that excluded farmers with landholdings outside the zones (s: national and local agriculture administrators as well as general farmers’ co-operative representative).
Despite these problems, unknown to many farmers when they decided to convert, there is a significant interest among Greek farmers in applying for support under the Programme for Organic Farming. The interviewees attributed this to the following factors:
1. The incentive provided by the subsidies (s: all interviewees). The subsidies are not equally significant for all products and do not therefore provide the same incentive for all farmers. Hence, it is the level of subsidies paid rather than market demand that governs the composition of organic farm production (s: agriculture administrator). 2. A general crisis in Greek agriculture has led to decreasing prices and
lack of markets for agriculture products and hence an interest in products receiving price premiums and/or public subsidies (s: general farmers’ co-operative representative, organic farmers’ organisation and certification representatives).
3. It is relatively easy to convert for many farmers who apply Greek traditional methods of farming (s: national and local agriculture administrators, general farmers’ co-operative and organic consultant representatives).
4. Farmers see organic farming as a new niche, which is particularly suited to the small-scale, less intensive Greek agriculture (s: general farmers’ co-operative representative).
5. The availability of information and knowledge of organic farming has in itself made farmers consider organic farming as a new opportunity (s: general farmers’ co-operative representative).
6. To some Greek farmers, the intensive mainstream European model of farming is seen as a main cause for problems regarding for instance reduction of soil productivity and a permanent emergence of certain diseases in agricultural holdings (s: general farmers’ co-operative and organic consultant representatives).
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
Institutional chanInstitutional chanInstitutional chanInstitutional changes within the food mages within the food mages within the food marketges within the food marketrketrket
5.4.1
5.4.1
5.4.1
5.4.1
StructurStructurStructurStructure and development of the mare and development of the mare and development of the markete and development of the marketketket
Since the early/mid 1980s the sale of Greek organic produce was based mainly on exports, organised by a few foreign trading companies. There is no official data on exports, but estimates suggest that 75 to 90 per cent of Greek organic products are still exported, mostly to other European Union countries (Michelsen et al. 1999). In recent years, domestic actors have become involved in exporting organic products. The largest exporters are the Union of Agricultural Co-operatives of Aegialia (trading in organic currants, olive oil and lemons since 1982), Blauel in Mani, which began its activities with organic olive oil in 1988, BIOZEUS (founded in 1997) in Kalamata and the Union of Agricultural Co-operatives of Messara, which has been involved in the trading of olive oil since 1996. Other yet smaller companies export as well, as do a small number of individual organic farmers with larger landholdings. Most of the companies mentioned also export non-organic produce. Since 1995, a small number of local organic farmers' organisations have formed trading companies with the help of EU programmes such as LEADER. These companies trade only in organic products. In general, there are only minor conflicts between the farmers and the traders of organic products.
The certification bodies are not involved with the marketing of products. However, DIO publishes information on the development of demand in the international markets (s: organic and agriculture administrators; organic farmers’ organisation and certification representatives).
The international market is believed to become increasingly important for Greek organic producers as demand is expected to continue to increase. However, Greek organic products are not particularly competitive because of high costs of distribution and marketing (s: most interviewees). Greek organic production is limited regarding range of products (mostly olive production) and quantity and it restricts the extent to which traders can make contracts with foreign companies, which require large quantities of consistent supply. The fact that, aside from olive oil, all other organic products are farmed in small quantities has also prevented the develop-
ment of processing for organic products thereby reducing the value added which could accrue from these exports.