Links between policy and organic farming in Europe

by Johannes Michelsen, Department of Political Science and Public Management, University of Southern Denmark.

Since the mid-1980s, organic farming has gained political support in Europe. In 1991 the EU harmonised regulations on organic farming and since 1992 the EU has contributed to the Member States’ financial support to organic farmers. During the same years, the share of organic production out of the EU’s total agricultural production has greatly increased.

Is it the political support which decides the size of the organic farming sector? This conclusion seems rather unlikely due to the fact that in 2005 the organic sector still ranged from being less than 0,5% in Poland and Portugal to 11,9% in Austria (see http://www.organic-europe.net/europe_eu/statistics-europe.htm), although the countries follow the same EU-regulation. Nor is there any direct connection between size of financial support to organic farmers in each Member State and size of the organic sector, as Denmark for instance gives limited financial support, but has a large organic sector. A comparison of the development of organic farming in 11 to 13 EU-countries does point to more varied links between policy and organic farming.


Analyses of the EU's environmental policy

The comparison extends analyses of the EU’s environmental policy, which states that the political and institutional relations in each individual Member State are decisive for the way in which environmental regulations are implemented. The theory can be summed up in two positions.

• One is that each EU Member State has its own way of dealing with the conflict between environmental consideration and economic growth, and that this is of immediate importance to the implementation of the environmental policy. Organic farming regulations may be considered environmental standards, triggering a unique conflict between organic and conventional farming in each Member State, expected to influence the policy directly.
  
  
• The second position is that the effect of the policy depends on organizational adjustments. Specifically, a greater effect of the organic policy can be expected the more and the greater the organizational changes are in the organic sector.
  
  

These theoretical positions have been applied in two analyses of the implementation of the two EU-regulations on organic farming in six old (Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Italy, the UK and Austria) and five new Member States (Estonia, Poland, Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Hungary).

• One analysis is about the transposition of the EU-regulations
  
  
• The other is about the effect of the EU-regulations on the national organic sectors
  
  

Economy is closely linked to the level of conflict

The analysis of the transposition of the two EU-regulations demonstrates that the new Member States are more eager to adopt them than the old ones and that it has nothing to do with the two theoretical positions (Michelsen 2008b). The new member states transposed the regulations several years before they had to, while transposition took several years in the old member states (see Table). Regarding the transposed level of financial support to organic farming, however, it is closely linked to the level of the political conflict between organic and conventional farming: Support was the greatest in Austria with a low level of conflict and the lowest in Belgium and the UK with high levels of conflict, while both support and conflict were at a medium level in Denmark and the Czech Republic.

Greece and a number of the new East European Member States represent however a position in which the level of both conflict and economic support was low. The reason for this is that in reality there are two aspects of the conflict between conventional and organic farming – an economic aspect and a value aspect. In Austria (and in Sweden and Finland) organic subsidies implied an option for continuing to pay high subsidies for parts of national farms after joining the EU in 1995. Hence, organic farming had mutual economic interests with national farming and this caused the emergence of many organic farms.

In the remaining countries with a low level of conflict, the national farming organisations found organic farming subsidies of no economic interest to them. The conflict thus came to be about the values of organic farming. The low level of conflict implied that the national agricultural policy in reality ignored the organic farming values and, consequently, the financial support became low. That is, a low level of conflict leads to higher economic support if the political conflict between organic and conventional farming is an economic issue, while the support is low, if the conflict is about values (Michelsen 2008b).

Effect on the development of organic farming

The finer points of understanding the relation between organic and conventional farming is also necessary when we wish to explain the effect of EU regulations on the development of organic farming in the six old and five new Member States. The effect is measured as the share of organic farming up to five years after the introduction of the EU regulations (see Table). The analysis includes level of conflict and organizational changes within the agricultural policy, as well as the agricultural sector and its organizations, the market for food products and the coordination of these three areas (Michelsen 2008a).

The conclusion is that the total level of conflict plays the same and decisive role in new and old Member States. Again Austria is at the top with a large organic share of aggregate farming and a low, general level of conflict, based on economic interests. Conversely, the UK and Belgium combine a low organic share with a high, general level of conflict, while Denmark and the Czech Republic again take up a middle position on both dimensions. Among the countries with a low level of conflict, based on values, the share of organic farms varies greatly however. Still, the variation is as could be expected, since several and rather extensive organizational changes led to greater shares of organic farms. At the same time it is found that the level of conflict and the organizational changes can explain the size of the organic sector, while transposition of the EU regulations has not in itself had any impact.

Promoting organic farming

The analysis shows that the EU-regulations introduced a political option for promoting organic farming. Exploiting the option presupposed either a low level of conflict based on economy, or an medium level of conflict irrespective of it being based on economy or values. In addition, the sector actors must be able to carry out organizational changes within the domains of policy, agriculture and the market for organic products which aim directly at strengthening the organic sector. In relation to new political initiatives to promote the organic food sector, the analysis suggests that their effect will increase if the level of conflict is kept low/medium and not based in values, and if there are private actors who can and will utilise the initiatives by taking action on the market for organic products and by adapting the organizations of organic food and farming.

References

Michelsen, J (2008a) ’A Europeanization deficit? The impact of EU organic agriculture regulations on new member states’. Journal of European Public Policy 15/1.

Michelsen, J. (2008b) ‘The Europeanization of organic agriculture and conflicts over agricultural policy’ Food Policy 1/2008.

http://www.organic-europe.net

Table 1. Transposition year of EU organic agriculture regulations and organic share of all
farms up to five years after. Five new and six old member states. ¹1998. ² 2003.