Thesis Final Draft

SETTING UP A SUSTAINABLE RURAL DEVELOPMENT MODEL IMPLEMENTATION BASED ON ORGANIC AGRICULTURE: BEST PRACTICE MODEL OF PILOT AREA OF KOLYMVARI
BY Voudouri, IOANNA
Chania, Greece 2004
Acknowledgements
I wish to express my gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Dr. Kostas Mattas of the Aristotle University of Thessalonica, for his valuable advice, guidance and encouragement throughout the course of this study. Next, I am grateful to the Studies Coordinator of the Department of Economic and Management Science, Dr. George Baourakis, for both the opportunity he gave me to pursue my studies here and for his support during my time at MAICh. I would like to offer my appreciation to the Director of the Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Chania, Mr. Alkinoos Nikolaidis, to the staff in my department, Mrs. Carmen Clapan, Mrs. Eleni Stamataki, Mr. Periklis Drakos, Mrs. Peggy Tsakiraki and Mrs. Penelope Vlandas for both their support and assistance throughout my period of study and work at MAICh. Special thanks addressed to Mrs. Marina Papadaki, for their irreplaceable help in the course of this work. I am thankful to Mrs. Irene Maravelaki for her final editing of the thesis. I extend many thanks to my special friends Eleni Lianou and Louiza Zerva, with whom I shared memorable moments during my stay in Chania. In addition, I would like to acknowledge the librarians at MAICh, Mrs. Maria Archaki, Mr Andreas Lourantakis and Mrs. Vicky Andonopoulou, for their assistance in obtaining the relevant literature. Last but not least, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my family, especially to my brothers, for standing by me and offering me support during my studies at MAICh.
ii
Table of contents
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................ii List of Tables ...........................................................................................................vii List of figures ..........................................................................................................viii Abstract.....................................................................................................................ix
Introduction................................................................................................................1
Part one: Programming Sustainable Rural Development based on Organic
Chapter 1 New trends in Rural Development and Agriculture
1.1 Agricultural and rural development issues ....................................................................... 5 1.2 New rural development model ............................................................................................ 6 1.2.1 The evolution of the new EU Rural Development Model ............................ 8 1.3 Alternative Agriculture for sustainability ......................................................................... 9 1.3.1 Organic Agriculture ............................................................................................ 10 1.3.2 Issues that need to be reconsidered for New Agriculture ........................... 11
iii
Chapter 2 Organic farming and Sustainable Development Policy in the E.U. context
2.1 A cursory background of Organic Farming as a policy tool ....................................... 13 2.1.2 The evolution of the Organic Farm Sector in the E.U. Framework.......... 14 2.2 Action Plans for Organic Farm Sector............................................................................. 15 2.3 Overview of the Organic Agricultural Policy in Greece.............................................. 16
Chapter 3 CAP evolution in programming Rural Development
3.1 Evolution of CAP structure ................................................................................................ 20 3.1.2 A change in CAP Architecture ......................................................................... 20 3.1.2.1 Agenda 2000 and Rural Development ........................................... 22 3.1.2.2Mid-term reviews of CAP 2003 ....................................................... 25 3.1.2.2.1 Price Policy: Single Area payment scheme-decouple payments ....................................................................................................................................... 27 3.1.3Salzburg conference on Rural Development .................................................. 28 3.1.3.1Article 33 .............................................................................................. 29 3.1.3.2Leader .................................................................................................... 30 3.1.4EU Enlargement and Rural development ........................................................ 31 3.1.5New draft for rural development regulation ................................................... 32
iv
Part two: Research Methodology
Chapter 4 Survey area and methodology
4.1 Overview of the Research Project to derive the Best Practice Model....................... 37 4.2 Delphi method....................................................................................................................... 38 4.3 Basic ingredients of the Delphi technique ...................................................................... 39 4.4 Stakeholders selection ....................................................................................................... 40 4.5 Applying the Delphi method.............................................................................................. 40 4.5.1 Data analysis ............................................................................................................. 43
Chapter 5 Results and Discussion
5.1 First Survey ........................................................................................................................... 45 5.1.1 Evolution of organic and/or multifunctional farming development in the territory ............................................................................................................................ 45 5.1.2 Problems that constraint the organic and/or multifunctional farming evolution in the territory .............................................................................................. 46 5.1.3 Producers role in the creation, spread and adoption of innovations ....... 48 5.1.4 Degree of correlation among productions obtained and land use (landscape) ...................................................................................................................... 49 5.1.5 Capacity to activate integration processes (horizontal and vertical integration processes) and formal and informal inter-relations ........................... 50 5.1.6 The objectives for a sustainable rural development strategy/policy......... 51 5.1.7 SWOT Analysis and Empirical results ........................................................... 51
5.2 2nd Survey: A coherence analysis of the survey ........................................................... 54 5.2.1 Stakeholders contingency ................................................................................ 54 5.2.2 Best Practice Model for Organic and Competitive Agriculture ................ 56 5.2.2.1 Agronomic aspects............................................................................. 60 5.2.2.2 Environmental aspects ...................................................................... 61 5.2.2.3 Socio-economic aspects .................................................................... 62 5.2.2.4 Institutional and Infrastructural aspects......................................... 63 5.3 Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 64 5.2.1 Regional Initiatives ............................................................................................. 65 5.2.2 National Initiatives .............................................................................................. 65 5.2.3 European Community Initiatives ..................................................................... 66
Chapter 6
Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 67
Appendix A ..............................................................................................................68 Appendix B .............................................................................................................74 Appendix C ..............................................................................................................93 Appendix D ............................................................................................................ 100 Reference List ........................................................................................................ 114
vi
List of Tables
Table 1: OECD set of Basic Indicators by Four Main Development Concerns ............7 Table 2: Territorial scale of the factors and developmental causes ..............................7 Table 4: Total Retail sales of packaged organic products (cereals etc) from 1999-2003 in Greece (2003 is forecasted). .................................................................................17 Table 5: Market share of olive oil in tons 1999-2002 (2003 is forecasted).................18 Table 6: Market share of vine yard grapes in tons for 1999-2003 (forecast 2003)......18 Table 7: Market share of citrus in tons for 1999-2003 (forecast 2003).......................19 Table 8: AGENDA 2000 Rural development financial resources ...........................24 Table 9: Community Funding Rural Development...................................................26 Table 10: Swot Analysis of the territory: Integrated evaluation of the Pilot Area ......52 Table 11: Best-Practice Model for organic and competitive agriculture Pilot Area of Kolymvari, Crete......................................................................................................56
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Local systems, the outside system and the type and level of integration. ......3 Figure 2: A change of Archi-tecture of the CAP .......................................................21 Figure 3: Relations between the 1st and the 2nd pillar: .............................................23 Figure 4: Rural Development Policy.........................................................................23 Figure 5: Hypothetical Changes to Production Incentives .........................................27
viii
Abstract Rural Development is mainly a policy issue that had been viewed until now by economic factors only. The problem is that due to this approach society had been led to inequalities, food safety and security problems, resource reliance problems, and environmental distortions. Over the last two decades sustainability has become a major important topic in the political and scientific fields. This is because it is considered as a growth solution realized due a multifunctional strategy. Multifunctional development can be realized when economic, social, cultural, environmental and institutional objectives take part in the contribution of micro and macro development. Organic farming development is considered as one policy whicj aims to fulfill the aforementioned dimensions. Beyond this establishment, persistent links among various agencies and strong long lasting networks among stakeholders is required. The aim of this thesis is to come up with a new rural development model that integrates tourism, environment and farming to a common policy framework. The installation of a best Practice Model and a bottom-up approach with rural stakeholders designing rural development measures, at the local level, that best suits their requirements are considered the first step that can contribute towards this direction. For this reason a study was conducted in Chania, Crete whereby Kolymvari was the selected Pilot area used to set up the implementation model. Delphi methods were adopted to analyze the data. Analysis results prioritized the most important action needed to be implemented as well as the contingency among the stakeholders viewpoint on this actions.
Key words: sustainable rural development, organic agriculture, multifunctionality, EU policy, Best Practise Model, Delphi technique, stakeholder approach
ix
Introduction
Introduction Over the past two decades, sustainability has become a major element of political, social and economic concern. Traditional approaches to rural development focus primarily on economic issues, such as the improvement of output, income and employment. However, connecting rural development to the concept of sustainability, a rather more multifaceted perspective has emerged, relating conservation of environment resources with social and cultural dimensions. The notion of sustainability is directly linked to the conservation and preservation of the environment and of its natural recourses. Thus, Agriculture is considered as a crucial factor contributing to sustainability. As both Van der Ploeg (2000) and Marsden et al. (2002) have argued, farming plays a central role in this process through the mobilization, combination and utilization of resources at farm level, in order to take advantage of its broader linkages with off-farm employment and the safeguarding of the quality of rural landscapes and ecosystems. Although many definitions have been proposed, Brydens (1994) suggestion stating that sustainable rural development should be the capacity of a community to evolve in economic, social, cultural, land and ecological sense without detracting from possibilities of such evolution from other communities and moreover, on future generation communities. In order for agriculture to become multifunctional, cultural and ecotourism activities must be connected with environmentally responsible forms of farm and forestry production (Fishler 2003a, Potter and Burney, 2002) Complex interrelationships in rural development describing functional transformations in the use of resources such as land, labour, knowledge, substitution effects and the importance of synergy in defining and quantifying micro-macro relationships are covered by Knickel and Renting (2000). Pugilese (2001) identifies innovation, conservation, participation and integration as essential, overlapping characteristics. In essence, these characteristics can be identified by a number of overlapping stakeholder groups whose interests need to be taken into account. Thus, it is important to analyse the entire market environment, including the power of local key actors and stakeholders (Scott, 2002; Midmore et al, 2004).
Introduction
It is in this context where it is necessary to try to understand the inter and intra relationship among the most important actors of the system as well as the factors affected in the territorial and sectorial level (Figure 1). Consequently, methodological approaches which have studied networks among local actors are very important. Such analyses will allow the representation of local actors and their potential network development rebuilding in order to represent the organization of the whole local area. In this context, the structure of organic farms significantly influences rural development and the strengthening of local networks. The analysis will focus mainly on aspects, which mostly focus on organic, multifunctional and competitive agriculture for territorial and sectoral integrated and sustainable development. For that reason, primary data are going to be gathered and monitored under the umbrella of E.U. support which is also going to identify how and whether, organic farming and multifunctional agriculture, can contribute to sustainable rural development. The related area analyzed is going to address in subsequent chapters of this thesis. Specifically concerning the research implemented in Kolymvari, (Chania, Crete) twenty-two key stakeholders were selected. The choice of the appropriate stakeholders was crucial, as they would constitute a representative sample from each interrelated sector in the specific region. A standard stakeholder analysis (Dich, 1997) aiming to classify stakeholders in terms of influence and involvement in a rural system were implemented. It is extremely important to choose the right variety of actors to help formulate and bring about change. But it is critical to ensure that everyone understands his/her responsibility to give constructive, solution-oriented ideas, and to bring forward positive alternatives, rather than create obstacles to progress. Information will be gathered by means of different tools: literature review, available official statistical information and direct (1st round) and indirect surveys (2nd round) due to e-mail. The surveys will be carried out both through open ended and structured questionnaires for the 1st and the 2nd round, respectively. The objective is to support policy making, using a Delphi technique to evaluate those factors that contribute to sustainable development based on organic farming and likely to influence sustainable Rural Development as well as Policy Regulation. The Delphi method also reveals how expert opinions about rural development are contingent and
Introduction
contested by contradictions emerging within, as well as between, rounds (Brian Ilbery et. al., 2003).
Vertical integration process
Primary sector Farmer/Non Farmers
Secondary sectortransporting, extraction, storing, packaging, standardizing
Tertiary sector/Marketing ,trading
Price / inputs prices/ tarrifs/ quotas/ ex. subsidies Local Rural development Model (structural/environmental/social/cultural)
NGO initiatives (EU or international)/ private initiatives
Government/ National schemes
E.U. Regulation
Figure 1: Local systems, the outside system and the type and level of integration.
Part One: Programming Sustainable Rural Development based on Organic Farming
Chapter 1
New trends in Rural Development and Agriculture

1.1 Agricultural and rural development issues Nowadays, the main engine of development is the private sector government which provides strategic policy and investment support for infrastructure, service delivery and marketing. Participation is encouraged (perhaps more in some models than others), and safety nets is provided. Agriculture is an important aspect for rural development even if the national workforce and GDP contribution are facing declining trends. People must be fed, and agriculture is challenged to produce food for a rapidly growing world population whilst maintaining the worlds natural resources (Maxwell, 1998) also known as Food security which is the principle objective of Agriculture. Food security is defined as existing when all people at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life(FAO, 1996: para 1). Though, until now development had been considered from the viewpoint of economic size since scientists would refer to ware speaking for "growth rather than development. However, some current trends regarding development are these that are realised due globalisation, post-Washington Consensus and Aid. Under globalisation, agricultural livelihoods can be facilitated if linkages are established. As Held et al. observed (ibid: 436) what is especially notable about contemporary globalization, is the confluence of globalizing tendencies within all the key domains of social interaction. While Washington Consensus established NGOs to relief emergencies Striglitz (1998) who questioned the role of the market (left by it-self) undertook a systematic review of the Washinghton Consensus and re-determined the role of the government, which according to him is: To provide human capital; To provide research and development in new technology; To establish the quality of a country's institutions which determine economic outcomes;
Chapter 1
To enhance the voice and partnerships through state capability (Stringlitz 1998).
The functions required for succesful government intervention which aims to aid markets to work well are information to flow smoothly . . . side-effects on third parties to be curtailed, and competition to be fostered (McMillan). A final area of current debate is in reference to the disputable role of aid, where financial assistance leads to faster growth, poverty reduction and gains in social indicators in developing countries with sound economic management (World Bank, 1998), but has much less impact elsewhere. In addition there are many models that rely on donor recipient partnership but are usually characterized from a one-way and potentially coercive partnership at one extreme, to a genuine partnership with mutual accountability at the other (Maxwell and Conway, 2000). Finally, reference should be made to the new-style Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, despite the fact that concerns have been expressed about whether or not productive sectors will receive sufficient recognition and funding in PRSPs (Belshaw, 2000).
1.2 New rural development model The new rural developmental model is based on the perception of the rural areas. Each rural area offers its own special economic, social cultural and environmental qualities. All these factors should be analyzed in order to remunerate the developmental level of rural areas and to differentiate them from urban areas. The scientific community has developed a set of demographic, economic, social, and environmental indicators that classifies territories according to analytical
requirements, such as rural/urban and lagging/leading. By setting these indicators, national policies can also be applied efficiently and effectively. If sustainable agriculture is to gain prominence as a new guiding vision, a broad social dialogue will be necessary between the scientific community and the other segments of society (Olaf Christen, 2003). The issue of sustainability indicators is considered a political idea because good sustainability indicators are something that a political system has to have. A consensus of content and procedure will certainly not be reached in all cases, but a discussion throughout the process of elaborating and testing an indicator system
Chapter 1
will help to ensure wide acceptance. In 1996, the OECD Territorial Development Service proposed four main development concerns relevant to rural areas (see Figure 2). Table 1: OECD set of Basic Indicators by Four Main Development Concerns Population and migration Social well-being and equity Density Income Change Housing Structure Education Households Health Communities Safety Economic Structure and Performance Environmental and Sustainability Labour force Topography and Climate Employment Land Use Changes Sectorals Shares Habitats and Species Productivity Soils and Water Investment Air Quality Source: OECD, 1996 In a simple model, development in less developed areas and general rural areas can be caused by two human factors, residence and work. The motivation for finding income, intrinsic satisfaction and professionalism derive from an individuals ideals and principles concerning work in its entirety. In addition people prioritize factors differently concerning the environment, the place they are located, which, in general terms, is the home and the natural and social environment (Osti, 1997). Table 2: Territorial scale of the factors and developmental causes
Territorial scale of the factors Local Overlocal Neo-ruralism Metropolitan development Making the most of rural Lower costs of housing; culture and communication good road networks; way of life Search for good quality environment Endogenous development; Productive Making the most of local decentralization; resources; Keeping the Less costly and more wealth within the area; compliant workers; developing local Search for public funds cooperation
Factors linked to the residence Causes of development Factors linked to the work
Chapter 1
Source: Osti, 1997. Whatever the results are in either direction, the new political dimension enhances sustainable development, emanating from a system having flexible capacity and ability to adjust successfully to the ever-emerging socio-economic conditions without causing irreversible negative effects in the process (Osti, 1997). While Sustainable development on our planet cannot be achieved without rural and agricultural contribution, institutions are going to maintain an active role concerning rural and agricultural policy (Olaf Christen, 2003).
1.2.1 The evolution of the new EU Rural Development Model The traditional academic agro-economics were oriented to farm management, agricultural and food marketing and commodity policy analysis (Midmore, 1998 (b)) Midmore advocates that the EU policy to rural development relied on the belief that agriculture is the backbone of the rural economy (2004 a). Thus, the agro-industrial dynamic is dominated by intensive cultivation practises and large agro-food companies for conventional products. Mass production of food is encouraged due to yield subsidy support and highly globalised and mobilised networks encouraged mass production of food. The industrial revolution increased the spatial socio-economic disequilibrium whereby the non-urban areas were no longer able, to participate fully in the benefits of economic growth. Initial responses have sought to correct the imbalances, which have emerged; The major emphasis has been on raising employment levels and wages, particularly as out-migration have made the delivery of services (education, health, transport) a more expensive drain on public resources. This Agro-industrial model unfortunately caused environmental
degradation, farm indebtedness and, significantly, rising public concern over food safety scares as BSE, E. Coli and Foot and Mouth Disease (Ilbery, 2002). A new approach emerged in response to the ineffectiveness of industrialisation and relied heavily on soft approaches: self-reliance, participation, and empowerment. This approach mainly followed a route to poverty alleviation in the Third World. The new understandings for rural development were that the economic relationships were embedded in the social and the cultural frameworks like those already implemented in
Chapter 1
the Northern hemisphere. Moreover, sustainability was established by the Rio Summit as a key concept in rural development, as global environmental problems resulting from unfettered economic growth were increasingly recognised (Midmore, 2004(a)). Together, these trends fostered a powerful critique of old approaches to rural development like these of Post Productionist and Post post productionist. Post productionist former view agriculture as a non-important issue for rural development. They view rural use as consumption of leisure, tourism, manufacturing processes and environmental conservation. The latter headline the indirect importance of agrarian rural development, mainly underlying the importance of land and the major forces in shaping and managing the landscape. The new framework established, called post positivism is derived more from an empirical approach based on social and cultural aspects where the integration between agro-environment and rural development policies becomes crucial. In particular, the cultural and eco-tourism activities must be connected with environmentally responsible forms of farm and forestry production, which meet an increasingly sophisticated and diversifying consumer demand. Developmental policies that can support these activities should be coherent and integrated, flexible and adaptable and should promote participation of the related stakeholders of the whole demographic and social structure of the European countryside (Fishler, 2003). This rural development dynamic distinguishes itself from the post productivist dynamic (Evans et al., 2002) by re-positioning farm based production back to the centre stage. Thus, agricultural alternatives have become one of the central features of the new rural development dynamics. Specifically, organic agriculture is based on small scale, quality products, systems that promote and protect food products, such as PDO (Protected Designation of Origin), PGI (Protected Geographical Indication) and TSG (Traditional Speciality Guaranteed), close relationships between locally based producers, consumers and institutions and all aspects that engender greater endogenous sustainable rural development. 1.3 Alternative Agriculture for sustainability There are alternative agricultural systems that strive towards the above-mentioned goal of sustainability. Many different terms have been employed to define the term
Chapter 1
alternative: biological, organic, bio-ecological, low external input and sustainable agriculture (L.E.I.S.A.), and so on, each one indicating a slightly different farming logic. The interest in alternative forms of agriculture and, more specifically, in organic farming - as opposed to conventional ones- has increased due to increasing consumer interest in food free of pesticide residues, policy makers and pressure group's aim to stop degradation of the natural environment through science-based agricultural practices. Today's consumers are willing to pay for new dimensions of a product like quality including food safety, environmental benevolence, conservation of landscape, soil, etc (Stamataki, 1995).
1.3.1 Organic Agriculture In 1940, Alber Howard introduced organic cultivation in his book, Agricultural Will. The EU definition of organic farming involves a holistic production system for crops and livestock, with the implementation of cultural, biological and mechanical methods instead of synthetic materials. The term organic is best thought of as an organism, in which all the components the soil minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, insects, plants, animals and humans- interact to create a coherent, self regulating and stable whole. Reliance on external inputs whether chemical or organic, is reduced to a great extent. In many European countries, organic agriculture is known as ecological or biological agriculture reflecting the reliance on ecosystem management rather than external inputs (Lampkin, 1999). In addition, there are other agricultural systems that are very close to organic agriculture like biodynamic agriculture, organobiological agriculture and ecological agriculture: Biodynamic Agriculture refers to the philosophical movement based on human wisdom. Rudolf Stainer introduced the belief that people have hidden physical and mental power as well as mysteries of nature. Thus, fertilizers should not be applied to earth because earth is a living organism. Later, another advocator, Erhenfried
Pfeiffer, introduced theories that could lead to environmental harmonization. Organobiological agricultural objectives are economical as well as social. Miller
10
Chapter 1
introduced it in 1930. It aims to verticalize the production and to shorten the distance between production and consumption. It is an ecological movement that believes in technological innovations. Ecological agriculture is related to Natural agriculture whereby in both cases the belief is that nature should be free of any human intervention. Nature suffers, with respect to Fukuoka Msanobu, in order to rectify the damaged caused by human activities. It starts from the theory of Mu, some religion rank of Boudism that lead to a principle of doing nothing. Human activities towards the natural ecosystem are to serve it. The ecosystem is wealthy enough to feed humans. Fuoka claims that the ecosystem has two stages which are called Mahagiana and Chinagiana. Mahagiana is self-sufficient and does not require anything from the farmer. It refers to the pure cultivation of nature. Chinagiana is the system that prepares nature to become Mahagiana, which is related to ecological agriculture.
1.3.2 Issues that need to be reconsidered for New Agriculture Nevertheless, there are several related arguments to the lower yields concerning organic agriculture due the rejection of external inputs. Critics are concerned about the reliability of organic farming to produce sufficient food for everyone, the necessity of increasing imports, the high prices of organic food, potential fraud and whether the environmental effects are needed less harmful than those of other farming systems (Zanoli, 2004). For that reason Alternative routes to sustainability have also been explored, like integrated farming, Precision agriculture or low input agriculture that are patterns with different farming logic and principles. These alternative agricultural systems should be considered in such a way that it should enable the creation of further ideas enhancing sustainable development with respect to environmental and human priorities. Agriculture is not only faced with the challenge to produce food. In particular, agricultural alternatives are going to hold future potential for the countryside, related to cultural and ecotourism activities that could contribute to the development of social, cultural, economic and environmental indicators. Agronomic Research should focus on the development of new farming methods so as to enlarge the array of options for the farmers. This vulnerability could lead to a new competitive
11
Chapter 1
cultivation pattern, which should be better in terms of profit, social acceptability and environmental protection. With the already existing agricultural policy oriented towards small-scale credit, sustainable livelihood, inter and intra sectoral participation processes and quality aspects, organic farming is considered as a solution to sustainable rural development. In conclusion, beyond these multifunctional agriculture potentials, other aspects needed in order to derive an Action Plan for Sustainable Rural Development are the E.U. Regulation measures, the national, regional and institutional conditions and the linkages that are established. These aspects are first priority issues to be considered prior to any action taken that could secure sustainability.
12
Chapter 2
Organic farming and Sustainable Development Policy in the E.U. context
2.1 A cursory background of Organic Farming as a policy tool
Organic farming has emerged as one of the key themes in European Agriculture and regional policy in the recent past. A significant cause of this hightened policy profile is the ability of the organic concept to unite issues across a broad variety of themes (Lampkin and Padel, 1996). These, in terms of policies, provide governments with an opportunity to reduce commodity based support payments, improve environmental quality, strength consumer demand, support premium prices and increase margins for farms in an increasing competitive agricultural field. Moreover, in terms of consumers demand, organic products increase confidence in relation to contemporary concerns, particularly the safety and healthiness of nutrition but also the welfare of farm animals. Finally, the growing associations with traditional methods of production and local origins, are offset by concern with environmental impact of long distance transport of large volumes of food. All these aspects have further combined to enhance the attractiveness of one of the most easily recognized, generic brands of sustainable produced food (Midmore, 2004(a). This product status is related with well recognized characteristics, many of which are intangible and related to ethical, environmental, cultural and lifestyle aspirations, as much as the intrinsic qualities of the products. The EU support for organic farming is justified as an element in stimulating/ regulating the agricultural sector to be more supportive of rural development, diversification and reduction of environmental weight on agriculture. In central and Eastern European countries there is also growing interest in organic production methods, mainly because these patterns are expected to offer a more profitable and sustainable production system based on low input. It appears that organic farming systems have to reflect different expectations (Midmore, 2004(a)).
13
Chapter 2
2.1.2 The evolution of the Organic Farm Sector in the E.U. Framework Policymakers interest towards organic farming increased in the 80s, after the budgetary and surplus problems and the inflexibility of controlling them, were established by CAP Regulations. From its early origins as an insignificant, almost invisible alternative of the industry prior to the 1990s, organic farming has emerged as a major force in most countries of the E.U. (Hamm and Gronefeld, 2004). It had the merit of lower yields, the viewpoint of lower negative environmental impacts and a market driven by growing consumer demand. Some member states (notably
Germany) experimented in the 1980s with the Intensification Programme to provide support for organic farms, and the approach was mainstreamed in the 1992 McSharry reforms. This support integrated agri-environment measures with surplus reduction, and was qualified for enclosure in the green box measures which are exempt from the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations. The contribution of organic farming to rural development was also recognised, in a limited way, in structural support for agriculture: organic processing and marketing was given special recognition in the EAGGF measures introduced in 1987. The Organic sector has continued to be emphasised upon in more recent rural development policies, but it was only after the publication of the most recent reform proposals for 2007-2013 that the specific potential contribution of organic farming was recognised (Midmore, 2004(b)). However, the matching of organic farming with mainstream policymaking was much in question; the movement had evolved in opposition to the introduction of industrial technique applications, particularly agrochemicals applications that were blamed for the damage incurred to the long-term natural environment. In addition, pioneers rejected the increase in scale and moreover the supply chains involving retailers, food processors and distributors thus showed their opposition to a new agro-industrial model evolution. Their opposition was justified by many well accepted incidents caused by this agribusiness model. Additionally, an increasing concern about employment and output indicators to the rural communities continued to evolve, reflecting the emerging needs and expectations of the urban communities to the countryside (Van de Ploeg, 2000). All this pressure increased the weight and the responsibility of organic agriculture as a policy guide.
14
Chapter 2
2.2 Action Plans for Organic Farm Sector Between the organic farming approach and the needs of sustainable rural development a new potential and promising convergence had been introduced. Pugilese (2001) identified innovation, conservation, participation and integration as the
characteristics of organic farmers and their organisations, which link strongly to current perspectives on rural development, emphasising resource conservation, selfreliance, improvement of the resilience of production systems, and concern for the health of both the system of agriculture and of the products for consumers. Organic farmers have successfully grouped together patterns of problem solving sustainable agriculture which are transferable to other kinds of development. Moreover, countryside sustainability is a function highly related to cultural and traditional aspects, market situation, local opportunities, local synergies (vertical or horizontal co-operations), the local image as well as the potential of traditional artisan knowledge(Gertler, flora 1995). In the context of rapidly growing markets (Lampkin and Midmore, 2000), the potential for organic systems to act as the basis or catalyst to regenerate prospects for the countryside economy seem promising. This overall policy framework has yet to be fully taken into account in the typical study, as no clear and broadly acceptable definition of sustainable rural development exists. These types of development have a highly intricate character and are increasing as rural change itself has become fragmented (Midmore, 2004). A new policy approach based on Action Plans for Organic Farming emerged. First, the Danish Government in response to organic oversupply promoted such Action Plan in the late 1990s (Denmark has consistently been a trailblazer in terms of development of the sector). Complementing supply-side measures, the plan emphasises the orderly development of organic production utilising a range of demand-stimulating measures. Several other member states followed suit, and in 2004 the EU published an overall Action Plan. It comprises an improved balance of support between the products based on agroenvironmental issues on grassland, supporting measures for increased research on production methods and markets, backing for consultancy, education and vocational
15
Chapter 2
training of farmers, processors and marketers, consumer information campaigns, and further development of organic food standards (Midmore, 2004). Beyond these traditional methods that are usually enhanced by EU agricultural policy, the new trend speaks for environment, farming and tourism integration across different sectoral and territorial interactions and as well as for stakeholders formal and informal cooperation and participation.
2.3 Overview of the Organic Agricultural Policy in Greece An Action Plan for Organic Farming in Greece is not yet applicable so Greeces support towards organic agriculture is not extensive. In Greece, it is evident that the approach towards rural development was sectoral and not integrated based on special programmes that have to be implemented by each authority individually (top-down). The overall framework of government intervention related to planning organic farming has been organised around two major activities: Legislative reinforcement of the standards to be attained in order to qualify for organic status (based on EU Reg. 2091/92), and support offered to conventional producers through the financially
demanding process conversion, during which yields are depressed and other significant adjustments are required (in most European countries, support for organic producers continues after conversion, although at a lesser rate (based on the EU Reg. 1257/99)). Within the E.U., certification and direct aid both to converting and continuing producers are established in a common structure, although member governments provide further support, especially in research and extension services: An overview of applied European Policies in Greece towards organic agriculture based on E.U Report project contracted with Wales University, Aberystwith, (Lampkin, 2003) is provided in Appendix A . Despite starting from a negible base, over the last decade the areas farmed organically in Greece have increased and volumes of production of organic food have both grown remarkably, even if at particular times this pace has sometimes slowed. The level of production is a very important factor for acquainting interested parties with the structure and the growth of the sector. In 2003, the accelerated aggregate number of total area under organic agriculture was 38.993,22 ha where the area under conversion
16
Chapter 2
is 25.052,47 Ha and the area under total organic conversion was 13.940,74 ha. The total area corresponded to 0.9% of the total cultivated area in the E.U. One of the measure announced during the IFOAM conference held in 2003, aimed to increase the European organic agricultural area from 3.3% in 2003 to 10% by 2008. The international market of organic products is increasing and high turnover is already realised in developed countries. This fact creates significant opportunities for Greece to increase production and exports to already developed countries. There is a need for a common international certification framework to be established and the competitive advantage of each country needs to be exploited. The competitive advantage of Greece is particularly marked with regard to wines, olive oil, and other Mediterranean crops that require specific agro-climatic conditions for their production. However, local organic markets have not been able to absorb production. Products have been sold through conventional market channels, without the benefit of premium prices and at generally higher cost than can be realised by conventional producers. See trade 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.
Table 3: Retail sales of packaged organic products (cereals, etc) imported from 19992003 in Greece (2003 is forecasted). Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Value 1.900.000 3.100.000 5.500.000 9.500.000 >15.000.000 Rate of change of Market Share (%) 63.2 77.4 72.7 -
Source: ICAP, 2002 Table 4: Total Retail sales of packaged organic products (cereals etc) from 1999-2003 in Greece (2003 is forecasted). Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Value 7.600.000 12.900.000 15.500.000 18.500.000 20-20.5 Rate of change of market share(% ) 69.7 20.2 19.4 10
Source: ICAP, 2002
17
Chapter 2
The market value is the aggregate retail value of all the organic products produced in Greece except for the industrial crops and organic livestock feed. The Greek Market is considered to be a developing one, mainly in terms of food producing under the European standards. Organic product prices are 40-50% more expensive than the conventional products. Only organic wine prices fluctuate or even have the same prices as conventional wine. The value of exported domestic organic products was, in 1999, around 9.000.000 euros, while in 2002, it was 18.500.000 euros, with an increasing annual percentage rate of 27% (1999-2002). The main exported products are citrus and olive oil and to a smaller extent, vineyard grapes (table 10, 11 and 12). Table 5: Market share of olive oil in tons 1999-2002 (2003 is forecasted). Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Production 1050 1350 1400 1580 1950 Exports 765 970 1000 1130 1400 Domestic Consumption 285 380 400 450 550 (%) of exports 72.9 71.9 71.4 71.5 71.8
Source: ICAP, 2002 There are no imports because demand is overlapped by the domestic production. Table 6: Market share of vine yard grapes in tons for 1999-2003 (forecast 2003). Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Production 480 690 1150 1850 2000 Exports 70 145 250 360 350 Domestic consumption 410 545 900 1490 1650 % of exports 14.6 21 21.7 19.5 17.5
Source: ICAP, 2002 The competition that Greece is facing is strong as it produces almost the same variety of grapes as the other Mediterranean countries.
18
Chapter 2
Table 7: Market share of citrus in tons for 1999-2003 (forecast 2003). Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Production 3700 8450 8600 9000 12000 Exports 3450 7700 6900 6750 7800 Domestic Consumption 250 750 1700 2250 4200 % of exports 93.2 91.1 80.2 75.6 65
Source: ICAP, 2002 The main volume of organic citrus is exported to England and Germany (table 12). The localised mismatch between supply and demand, in conflict with overall European trends, is usually due to lack of distribution and marketing infrastructures, reflecting the fact that the overall development of the market has been uneven in one further respect. With rapid compound growth in traded volumes of organic products, however, conventional channels of retailing have become the predominant means of fulfilling consumer organic demand (Midmore, 2004(a)). The lack of supply outlets characterise the Greek Market. The lack of a specific distribution channel limits the optimal operation of the sector. The lack of information does not improve the domestic consumption so the supply is driven abroad by the retailers. The low domestic consumption is also due to low product availability towards different kinds of outlets. Hamm and Gronefeld (2004), provide the most recent, detailed quantitative assessment of the development of organic farming, suggesting that the most important way in which continued growth in organic food production and consumption can be maintained is to strengthen links between primary producers and the supermarket sector of retailing.
19
Chapter 3
CAP evolution in programming Rural Development

3.1 Evolution of CAP structure An overall evolution of CAP provides a general view of the existing situation and future prospects of agricultural practices. It further aims to help us solve problems generated under this policy. Moreover, it helps us to clarify all the policy aspects related to EUs multifunctional and sustainable rural development model based on organic and competitive agriculture. The focus of the EU rural development policy will inevitably be conditioned by the context in which the policy has evolved. It cannot be separated from its role as 2nd pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy, with emphasis on the word common, i.e. the choice that has been made to organise the agricultural sector at EU level (COM, 2004).
3.1.2
A change in CAP Architecture
Agriculture is a sector that usually receives attention by policy makers and becomes subject to government intervention, aimed at guaranteeing a minimum income level for farmers, safeguarding adequate food supplies, stabilizing the markets. Such were the actual Common Agricultural Policy objectives at the time of its establishment. Other goals were also put forward such as an increase in productivity by promoting the national use of resources and the guarantee of reasonable prices to consumers. The main mechanism used under the CAP framework was the common organization of the markets and the market price support system (Diamianos, 1998). The CAP evolution as was realised from McScharry 1996 till 2002 (Figure 3) comprised the facts that established the present architecture of the CAP.
20
Chapter 3
Figure 2: A change of Archi-tecture of the CAP McScharry, 1996

Market support
Agenda, 2000
Market support
Reforms, 2002
Market support Funds recouped through imposition of Crosscompliance and Modulation
compesation payments Compensation payment
Agrienvironment structural
National Envelopes Rural Development Regulation
Source: Lowe et.al., 2002 The general situation established by Maastricht in 1992 was the thought to reduce overprotection of European agriculture. The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 reinforced the conviction for an economic and social cohesion throughout the Union. The Treaty provided for the establishment of the New Cohesion fund that would make additional funding available in order to serve the purpose of reducing disparities among the various levels of development in different regions, including rural ones (Ritson, et.al., 1997). The basic elements of the reform were: 1) the improvement of competivenes of EC products as well as the gradual reduction of prices 2) introduction of direct (compensatory) payments regardless of quantity of production but related to the hectares of the arable cultivated area, 3) surpluses control (production control),
measures like set-aside, quotas, extentification incentives, limits to premia were introduced and finally 4) environmental consideration into CAP regulations by introducing accompanying measures/ incentives such as: An agro-environmental package (EU Reg., 2078/92)
21
Chapter 3
An early retirement scheme, social scheme (EU Reg., 2079/92) Aforestation of previously cultivated farmland (EU Reg., 2080/92) (Louloudis, 2001 ( gr.))
3.1.2.1 Agenda 2000 and Rural Development Farming unions and most agricultural ministries had little enthusiasm for the reopening of a CAP reform, and the gathering by BSE (Bovines Spongodes Engefalopathia). This crisis was also fostering a mood of political retrenchment. Under these circumstances, in November 1996, Fischler (2003a) convened a conference on rural development at Cork in an attempt to engender some broader support for his ideas for reform. It was argued that the existing funds and schemes ought to be brought together, to simplify the plethora of policy mechanism. Subsidiary was seen as an important mechanism in achieving the objective on an integrated rural policy, greater transparency and bottomup participation (Lowe, 2002). The ambitious nature of Cork Declaration generated a political reaction of farmer leaders and ministers who feared that rural policy would be promoted at the expense of support for agriculture. To rescue his new strategic view, Fischler then sought to detach the promotion of rural policy from the question of CAP reform: the two, he argued, should proceed in parallel but separately (Lowe, 2002). With these objectives in mind, a menu of 22 measures was put at the disposal of the Member States who can choose those measures that respond best to the needs in their rural areas. The rural development Regulation (council regulation 1257/99, EC 1999) has been added to the agenda 2000. This included revisions of the budget of structural funds and introduced a Rural development pillar to the cap. This second pillar complemented the market price support and direct payments pillar (Pillar I) and was designed to support the non-market objectives of the CAP, notably the social and environmental dimension on sustainable agriculture (IUNK, 2004). The following diagrams depict the proposal for a Council Regulation in support of Rural Development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development:
22
Chapter 3
Figure 3: Relations between the 1st and the 2nd pillar:
Market policy/ Income Support
RD Policy/ Public Goods
Food Production
Environmental Function
Rural Function
Source: COM (2004a) The 2nd pillar of the CAP supports agriculture and rural areas, in particular agriculture as a provider of public goods in its environmental and rural functions. Three main domains of intervention can be identified: agricultural restructuring, environment/land management and wider rural development. Figure 4: Rural Development Policy
Rural Development Policy
Food Production
Rural Function Rural Economy/Rural Communities
Restructuring/ Competiveness in the Farm Sector
Environmental/Farm Management
Source: COM (2004a) The rural development measures eligible under this Regulation fall into two groups: Accompanying measures of the 1992 Reform (Eu Reg., 2078/92): early retirement, agri-environment and afforestation, as well as the less-favoured areas scheme;
23
Chapter 3
Measures to modernise and diversify agricultural holdings (Eu Reg., 1257/99): farm investment, setting-up of young farmers, training, investment aid for processing and marketing facilities, additional assistance for forestry, promotion and conversion of agriculture (Horizontal policy) (Wayne Moyer et. Al., 2002).
The reform processes of the CAP under Agenda 2000 double the available financial resources for environmentally sensitive and mountainous areas (less favoured areas) under the following objectives: Objective 1: This objective deals with the development and structural adjustment of regions whose development is lagging behind as well as of regions with low density population. These regions were defined as those in which the per capita Gross Domestic Product was less than 75% of the Communitys average in the previous three years. Objective 2: This objective shows emphasis to the socio-economic revitalization of the regions facing structural difficulties. Objective 3: Under this objective, Rural Development measures would be applied horizontally and implemented in a decentralized way. The main target is the modernization and reestablishment of a new policy, a new system of education, training and employment promotion for young people, for people threatened by discrimination as well as for man and woman (E. C., 1999, Annual Report). The sources of financing of rural development measures are surmised for simplification in the following table (Table 5). Table 8: AGENDA 2000 Rural development financial resources
Objective 1 regions RD 1 financed by EAGGF Guarantee RD 2 financed by EAGGF Guidance and integrated into structural fund programming Objective 2 regions RD 1 and RD2 financed by EAGGF Guarantee RD 2 Under the legal framework of the General Structural Funds Regulation All other rural areas RD 1 and RD2 financed by EAGGF Guarantee Single program per member state (region) Source European Commission per Member State DGVI
Source: Wayne Moyer and Tim Josling , 2002.
24
Chapter 3
The Agenda 2000 proposal declared a prominent role for agri-environmental instruments and reinforced and extended relevant measures. It made three suggestions. First, the Commission should develop a proposal on cross-compliance, enabling MS to make direct payments conditional on the respect for environmental provisions. Second, account could be taken of the overlap between less-favoured areas and areas of high nature value. This suggests that the current support system based on livestock numbers or crop specified areas per farm, might gradually be transformed into an instrument to maintain and promote low input systems. Third, as Tracy supported (EU 1997) targeted agri-environmental measures should be re-enforced and encouraged through increased budgetary resources, and with new, higher co-financing rates. This would apply particularly to the statement that services call for extra effort by farmers such as organic farming, maintenance of semi-natural habitats, setting up of traditional orchards or hedgerows, continuation of alpine cattle keeping, etc. However, Agenda 2000 provided no specific provision for financing these measures (Wayne Moyer and Tim Josling, 2002).
3.1.2.2 Mid-term reviews of CAP 2003 Under Midterm Review of CAP 2003, accompanying measures are enhanced to support steps to force food safety and quality, and animal welfare, including the possibility of more help for organic farming (EC, 2004). Nevertheless, it didnt differ much from the Agenda 2000 Regulation concerning the Rural Development framework. Community funding and measures are depicted in table 5 verifying that CAP has not changed drastically. Despite that, the latest proposal for reform drawn up by the European Commission strengthens the CAPs environmental dimension: boosting farm output has often been at the root of many of the environmental impacts of the industry. Farmers would instead receive a flat rate (less arable to more arable land). Cross compliance standards would be strengthened (coupling aid to environment requirements). This and other conditions on income payments would add pressure for better environmental management and higher animal welfare. In the case of non-respect of cross-compliance requirements, direct payments will be reduced in proportion to the risk or damage concerned (OECD, 2003). However, as
25
Chapter 3
regards the Single Area Payment Scheme (SAPS), it seems appropriate to maintain the concept of facultative application of cross compliance as it results from the relevant arrangements in the Act of Accession (EU No 1259/1999). Finally, countries are required to shift 20% of direct farm payments to rural development goals, including the agro-environmental schemes; less favoured areas, support for early retirement, afforestation, sectoral as well as regional support (dynamic modulation). Table 9: Community Funding Rural Development
Community Funding Rural Development EAGGF Guarantee Throughout the EU I) The 4 accompanying measures Early retirement Less favoured areas Agri-environmental Afforestation agricultural land II) CAP Reform Measures 2003 Meeting Standards - temporary support Meeting Standards, support advisory services Food Quality-incentive scheme Food Quality -Promotion III) Semi- Subsistence farming (non MS) IV) Complements to direct payments (non MS) V) 2 SAPARD specific Measures (non MS) Setting up producer groups Technical Assistance EAGGF Guidance Inside /outside objective 1 VI) Other measures Investment in agricultural holdings Young farmers Training Other forestry Processing and marketing Adoption and development of rural areas (art 33) VII) Leader+ (programmes/measures)
Source: EU, 2003. While the Cap 2003 Reform was directed towards a diminishing financial support, the funds are oriented to those farmers that do not disturb the trade. The main objectives are the reduced payment levels and subsidization. This objective will be accomplished by reinforcing farmers market orientation, the entrepreneurial role and production, while at the same time improving the transfer efficiency of direct payments. This is going to be realized by implementing an integration administration and control system (IACS) in order to target aids towards active farmers only.
26
Chapter 3
3.1.2.2.1 Price Policy: Single Area payment scheme-decouple payments A single farm payment will replace most of the existing premia (deficiency payment or guarantee price) under different common market organisations. Farmers will be allotted payment entitlements based on historical reference amounts received during the period 2000-2002. The payment can be established in two ways: first at the farm level and second at the regional level. Farmers receiving the new SFP will have the flexibility to produce any commodity on their land, except fruit, vegetables and table potatoes. In addition, they will be obliged to keep their land in good agricultural and environmental condition (see figure below). The single payment scheme can enter into force as of 2005 or at the latest 2007. In order to limit the dereliction of agricultural land as well as take into consideration the concerns over land management of some Member States, the agreement allows part of the direct aids to farmers to remain coupled. Payment entitlements may be transferred, with or without land, between farmers within the same Member State or regions, but it is an optional provision. In the case of transfers without land, the buyer has to possess eligible land to match the payment entitlements (OECD, 2003). Figure 5: Hypothetical Changes to Production Incentives
Agenda 2000 Regime Premia Subject to ceilings New EU Policy Single Farm Payment
Source: Analysis of the 2003 CAP Reform (OECD, 2004)
27
Chapter 3
3.1.3
Salzburg conference on Rural Development
The Commission also proposes introducing new accompanying measures to widen the scope of Community support without changing the basic regulatory framework at this intermediate stage in the current programming period (2000-06). This communication is made not only in the context of the mid-term review of the CAP as defined by Agenda 2000 but also on the basis of the conclusions of the Brussels European Council of October 2002 fixing a future limit on agricultural expenditure. In Salzburg, 1214 November 2003, the EU Conference on Rural Development announced a new measure which is addressed first and foremost to farmers. The MS and Regions will be responsible for deciding whether or not to integrate them into their rural development programmes. The new measures that have primarily been pointed out by the MS and the Regions, are the need for new quality incentives for farmers. Two new measures are introduced under this heading: 1st Incentive payments will be available for farmers who participate in recognised schemes designed to improve the quality of agricultural products and the production process used. Specifically, the following EU quality schemes are eligible for support: Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs; Certificates of specific character for agricultural products and foodstuffs; Organic production of agricultural products and indications referring to these; and Quality wine produced in specified regions. The 2nd Support will be enable producers to inform consumers about their products, and promote the relative quality ones (Fact Sheet, 2003). Moreover, the need to add new support to help farmers meet standards is being highlighted by the MS and the Regions. Standards introduction means establishment of a priority list of 18 statutory European standards in environment, food safety, and animal health and welfare. Farmers will be sanctioned for non-respect of these standards, in addition to the sanctions generally applied, through cuts in direct payments. A new "Farm Advisory System" will be voluntary for Member States until 2006. As of, 2007 Member States must offer advisory systems to their farmers. Farmers
28
Chapter 3
participation will be voluntary. In 2010, the Council will decide whether the advisory system should become compulsory for farmers. Another important measure that has been extremely underlined as important is farmers support, which enters into commitments for at least five years to improve the welfare of farm animals, using techniques which go beyond usual good animal husbandry practices (COM, 2004).
3.1.3.1 Article 33 The Council Commission proposes adding to the Chapter on the adoption and development of rural areas the so called article 33 measures (see table 7). This supports both non farmers and non agricultural activities having access to the central part of the CAP budget (Lowe and Ward, 1998). Member states are required to consider economic, environmental and social impacts, thus rural development regulation encompasses into the core of the CAP a set of alternative management principles, including those of decentralization, partnership, multi-annual programming and co-financing (Lowe and Ward, 1998). Land improvement Land reparceling Setting up of farm relief and farm management services Marketing of quality agricultural products Basic services for the rural economy Renovation and development of villages , protection and conservation of the rural heritage Diversification of agricultural activities close to agriculture Agricultural water resource management Development and improvement of infrastructure connected with the development of agriculture Encouragement for tourist and craft activities Protection of the environment in connection with agriculture, forestry and landscape conservation as well as with the improvement of animal welfare
29
Chapter 3
Restoration of agricultural production potential damaged by natural disasters and introduction of appropriate prevention instruments Financial engineering (Source: Lowe et. al., 2002)
3.1.3.2 Leader Leader + will continue to operate until the end of 2006. Leader in many ways epitomises the EUs approach to rural development policy as it involves: a broad policy framework, strategic aims and common rules and financing, established at the EU level by the Member States and the European Commission; a bottom-up approach with rural stakeholders designing rural development measures, at the local level, that best suits their requirements; regional and national selection and approval processes for Local Action Groups (LAGs) This distinctive feature of Leader is the implementation of integrated development programs for local rural areas, drawn up and implemented by broad-based local partnerships, called Local Action Groups (LAGs) (Fact sheet, 2003). The priority themes for LAG strategies under Leader + are: making the best use of natural and cultural resources, including enhancing the value of sites of the total number of LAGs; improving the quality of life in rural areas; adding value to local products, in particular by facilitating access to markets for small production units via collective actions; The use of new know-how and new technologies to make products and services in rural areas more competitive National networks have been set up so far in 10 out of 15 Member States to disseminate information from the national level to the LAGs and to act as a forum for information exchange on experience and know-how. They also deliver assistance for local and transnational cooperation (E.U., 2003).
30
Chapter 3
3.1.4
EU Enlargement and Rural development
For the ten new MS joining in 2004, certain adaptations of the CAP in the light of their situation have been necessary. These alterations are supported by a Special Assistance Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development (SAPARD), an EU support fund agreed under Agenda 2000. SAPARD supports different measures to allow pre-accession countries to align their agricultural sectors with that of the EU. So far, most of the budget allocation is spent on classic agricultural activities, structural adjustments and investments for processing and marketing (COM, 2002). In addition, several specific rural development measures are available such as support for semisubsistence farming. For the new MS, ten RDPs (Rural Development Programmes) and nine Objective 1 programmes (SPDs/SOPs, Single Programming
Documents/sectoral operational programmes) were added during the programming period 2004-2006. For the implementation of the RDPs a new transitional financial instrument has been created under Guarantee with differentiated appropriations. LEADER+ will not have a separate programming, but can be integrated as a measure in the mainstream programmes under special transitional provisions in the Accession Treaty (EU, 2003). At present it is uncertain whether current CAP support policies, particularly those relating to compensatory payments, will be introduced unchanged into accession countries, whether a two-speed system will evolve (with acceding countries receiving lower levels of price support than existing Member States) or whether the CAP is radically altered or replaced by a different system less geared to direct price support. All the evidence suggests that introducing the CAP in its current form to accession countries (highly unlikely because of the huge costs involved) would result in intensification patterns similar to those recorded in western Europe (COM, 2002). To join the E.U., the accession countries must adapt their agriculture to meet the rural development acquis.
31
Chapter 3
3.1.5
New draft for rural development regulation
The Commission proposal programming rural development reflecting the Salzburg conference conclusions (November, 2003) and the strategic orientations of the Lisbon and Gteborg European Councils emphasised the economic, environmental, and social elements of sustainability. The proposed reform is axed around three major policy objectives for the period 20072013. The main elements of the Commission Proposal are summarized by the Commission Staff Working Document Proposal for Council Regulation on support to Rural Development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (COM, 2004(a)). The proposed reform will improve the implementation and governance of E.U. rural development programmes as follows: One funding and programming instrument, the European Agriculture Rural Development Fund (EARDF); A genuine EU strategy for rural development with better focus on EU priorities; Reinforced control, evaluation and reporting. Clearance of an accounts audit system which will be extended to all parts of rural development; A strengthened bottom-up approach. Member States, Regions and Local Action Groups will have more say in attuning programmes to local needs. The new policy has three major objectives or priority axis: 1) Increasing the competitiveness of the agricultural sector through support for restructuring 2) Enhancing the environment and countryside through support for land management 3) Strengthening the quality of life in rural areas and promoting diversification of economic activities through measures targeting the farm sector and other rural actors (Press Releases, 2004). Thus action groups will have the following priorities. Concerning the first Priority axis the restructuring strategy would be built on measures relating to human and physical capital and to quality aspects. Specifically under: Article 19 which states: (a) Measures are aimed at improving human potential through: (i) Vocational training and information actions for persons engaged in the Agricultural and forestry sectors;
32
Chapter 3
(ii) Setting up of young farmers; (iii) Early retirement of farmers and farm workers; (iv)Use of advisory services by farmers and forest holders; (v) Setting up of farm management, farm relief and farm advisory services, as well as of forestry advisory services. (b) Measures are aimed at restructuring physical potential through: (i) Farm modernisation; (ii) Improvement in the economic value of forests; (iii) Added value in primary agricultural and forestry production, (iv)Improvement and development of infrastructure related to the development and adaptation of agriculture and forestry, (v) Restoration of agricultural production potential damaged by natural disasters and introduction of appropriate prevention actions. (c) Increasing competitiveness, must on the other hand, also take advantage of the opportunities offered through diversification of economic activities, an orientation towards quality and value added products that consumers demand, including non-food products or biomass production, as well as cleaner and more environmentally friendly production techniques. Measures aimed at improving the quality of agricultural production and products are: (i) Helping farmers to adapt to demanding standards based on Community legislation; (ii) Supporting farmers who participate in food quality schemes; (iii) Supporting producer groups for information and promotion activities for products under food quality schemes; (iv)Undertaking transitional measures for the new Member States such as: (a) Supporting semi-subsistence farms undergoing restructuring, (b) Supporting setting up of producer groups. Concerning the second Priority axis, the Agri-environmental measures are a compulsory component. Cross compliance is the baseline for CAP 1st pillar payments. The same baseline will apply to the area based measures of axis 2. In reference to agri-environment payments conditions for fertilizer and pesticide use will be set. Specifically as in:
33
Chapter 3
Article 34 which states: (a) Measures targeting the sustainable use of agricultural land will be undertaken through the following payments: (i) Natural handicap payments to farmers in mountain areas; (ii) Payments to farmers in areas with handicaps, other than mountain areas; (iii) NATURA 2000 payments; (iv) Agri-environment and animal welfare payments; (v) Support for non-productive investments. (b) Measures taken to target the sustainable use of forestry land are: (i) First afforestation of agricultural land; (ii) First establishment of agroforestry systems on agricultural land; (iii) First afforestation of non agricultural land; (iv) NATURA 2000 payments; (v) forest-environment payment; (vi) Restoring forestry production potential and introducing prevention actions; (vii) Support for non-productive investments. Concerning the third Priority axis, the preferred implementation method is through local development strategies targeting sub-regional entities, either developed in close collaboration between national, regional and local authorities or designed and implemented through a bottom up approach using the LEADER approach (selection of the best local development plans of local action groups representing public-private partnerships). Specifically under: Article 49 which states: (a) Measures to diversify the rural economy are comprised of: (i) Diversification into non-agricultural activities; (ii) Support for the creation and development of micro-enterprises with a view to promoting entrepreneurship and developing the economic fabric; (iii) Encouragement of tourism activities; (iv) Protection, upgrading and management of the natural heritage, contributing to sustainable economic development. (b) Measures to improve the quality of rural life in the rural areas are comprised of: (i) Essential services for the economy and rural population;
34
Chapter 3
(ii) Village renovation and development; conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage; (c) A vocational training measure for economic actors operating in the fields covered by priority axis 3; (d) A skills-acquisition and animation measure with a view to preparing and implementing a local development strategy.
35
Part two: Research and Methodology
Chapter 4
Survey area and methodology

4.1 Overview of the Research Project to derive the Best Practice Model The overall goal of the thesis is to find an applicable model for Sustainable Development mostly for the rural and less developed areas based on organic and multifunctional agriculture. This applicable and optimal Action Plan can be derived only if the related EU Regulations are known and only if there is a common orientation development strategy by the stakeholders. This model drawing should use a predominantly qualitative approach and, as far as possible, put the actors themselves at the centre of developing insights for analysis. The outcome will be critical in fulfilling the ultimate purpose to provide policy recommendations in order to help develop a coordinated policy of support for organic and competitive agriculture and the dissemination of integrated rural development practices. The end of this work of information gathering will lead to an analysis of the development potential and a new strategy for sustainable development based on growth of organic farming of the area under consideration, which can be a model applied to other areas. For the current study, Kolymvari, a region on the Greek island of Grete, with a competitive advantage in producing high quality agricultural products was selected. The majority of the farmland (80%) is occupied by perennial cultivations, mainly olive trees, while the rest is cultivated by vegetables (2.40%) and vineyards (3.80%). the remaining land is arable (8.75%) and set-aside (5.08%). Organic farming, still in its early stage includes thirteen organic producers, cultivating an area of about 80.6 hectares. Most organic farms are devoted to olive oil production, as almost 80 % of the land is occupied by olive trees, while the rest is cultivated by vegetables, citrus fruits and vineyards. The Delphi technique will be used to evaluate the factors likely to influence organic farmers development and performance in the area of Kolymvari. These factors will be fully explored in later surveys conducted with producers, local administrators; companies related to marketing and processing agro-food products, companies related to non agro-food products, agencies aiding local development, bodies for providing
37
Chapter 4
technical advice and certification services and Research and experimentation bodies involved in the organic sector. The need for an organic movement composed of these actors becomes essential in order to respond to this policy influence. Moreover, the need for communication is demanding.
4.2 Delphi method N.C. Dalkey and his associates at the Rand Corporation developed the Delphi technique in the 1950s. It is used extensively in Information System research to identify and rank issues for management attention (Delbecq, Van de Ven, & Gustafson, 1975). Since then, Delphi has been applied in industry, government and academia (Kaynak et al., 1994). The method consists principally of knowledgeable and expert contributors individually completing a form and submitting the results to a central coordinator. The coordinator processes the contributions, looking for central and extreme tendencies, and the rationales. The results are then fed back to the respondent group, whereby interviewees are asked to resubmit their views and are assisted by the new input provided by the coordinator. The process may result in either a consensus or several different opinions, and a single solution is not obligatory. The most significant difference between the Delphi technique and other methods of joint decision-making is that respondents do not communicate directly with one another (Delbecq et al., 1975). Thus, the method facilitates the exchange of information and ideas by enabling each participant to have an equal input, preventing bias caused by position, status or dominant personalities. Respondents can speculate individually and then reach consensus collectively (Ilbery, 2003). The key objective of most Delphi studies is the consistency and investigation of ideas or the production of suitable data for the decision-making process (Martino et al, 1993). The actual word Delphi refers to the hallowed site of the most revered oracle in ancient Greece. Delphi was not a term with which either Helmer or Dalkey (the founders of the method) were especially happy. Dalkey (1968) felt that the term implied something smacking a little of the occult, whereas, in fact, the opposite is involved; it is primarily concerned with making the best you can with a less than perfect kind of information.
38
Chapter 4
4.3 Basic ingredients of the Delphi technique The basic characteristic of the method is that several rounds are applied until a consensus amongst the panel (i.e. Delphi results) is produced. However, responses may become stabilised, as there is no guarantee that panel members will change their views. If this is the case, a range of responses rather than a consensus view may be produced. The main steps involved in designing a Delphi survey involve (Shon and Swatman, 1998): 1. Identifying, contacting and recruiting participants; 2. Designing and circulating the first-round questionnaire; 3. Producing feedback from the first-round; 4. Designing and circulating the second-round questionnaire; 5. Analysing the results of the second round; and 6. Preparing a final presentation. The First Round of the questionnaire usually contains a number of open-ended questions, whereas the second round and any subsequent rounds typically involve more closed questions. The Delphi for this study involved two rounds, so steps 35 were repeated. Four key criteria characterise the Delphi method (Martino, 1983): 1. Anonymity is necessary to remove social pressures (mail questionnaires are usually used); 2. Iteration (or round) is important to allow panel members to review and change forecasts (a structured questionnaire is presented over a number of rounds until consensus or stability is reached); 3. Controlled feedback is important within iteration, where panellists receive a copy of the synthesised responses to allow them to review their previous results and assumptions based on the group responses; 4. Statistical aggregation where, at the end of the procedure, the result is typically given as a group median. The spread of results can be used as a measure of the consensus reached. In this research the conceptual model was based on a two rounds survey. The objective of the surveys is to construct a best/potential policy/strategy model for
39
Chapter 4
development of a specific territory.
Specifically, a Best Practice Model should
provide answers to the controversial subject of Organic agriculture, and achieve sustainable development objectives towards specific actions. Moreover, some
relevant quantitative data were considered in order to obtain an overview for the demographic historical characteristic of the area.
4.4 Stakeholders selection Finally, another part of an initial rough market analysis is to establish who the stakeholders will be. Stakeholders have been considered as key individuals: of interest groups among prominent knowledgeable individuals of local agencies, institutions etc. These parties play a key role in the policy process by identifying problems and getting them on a policy agenda, starting a process that can result in new policies and programs. Without a doupt, the boundaries of these stakeholders interests will overlap considerably but, accordingly, this provides an initial template for the exploration of networks in which a variety of actors will function. Stable relations and target orientation require the new actor to set a passage point to channel all interests in one direction. This leads to the macro-actor that acts as a single entity. Depending on the type of actor, either horizontal or vertical networks, or a combination of both, can result. In the context of rural development, horizontal networks will have a greater territorial dimension to integration, assimilating actors from various stakeholders groups in a given region (public administration or business level). Vertical networks are built up along the supply chain linking producers, processors, wholesalers, retailers and possibly even consumers (Murdoch, 2000). Consequently, it is assumed that in order to derive the best practice model for organic farming that has not yet been realised, one must start with the players who can initiate the policy process.
4.5 Applying the Delphi method The applied Delphi method defined key criteria and went on to prioritise those criteria. It is a variation of the classic Delphi technique adapted to fit the particular problems of corporate criteria prioritizing. The prioritizing process enumerated below will allow the stakeholders and subject matter experts to produce a list of criteria rankings, or
40
Chapter 4
several lists, from which the decision makers in upper management may apply other criteria to make a decision. The information and ratings were supplied by experts identified for each of the seven types of stakeholders participants. The process of identifying experts used a reputation approach (Sanders, 1966): each selected expert had to be an acknowledged leader or recognized authority in the given sector, or be recommended by at least two consultants for this project. This generated a list of 20 potential panellists: 3 from local administration; 4 farmers (three organic, one conventional); 3 companies related to marketing and processing agro-food products; 3 companies related to non agro-food products (agrotourism, handcrafts etc); 2 local development agencies; 3 bodies providing technical advice and certification services; 2 Research and experimentation bodies. For the fist round each panellist was contacted by telephone and invited to participate during the first round. Response rates were 100% in the first round. The final
instrument, a questionnaire was comprised of open ended/unstructured questions. Specifically: The first round of the survey covered: (I) evolution of organic farming in the territory 1) Which are the factors that foster organic farming spread? 2) Which are the problems concerning Community support for the spread of Organic Agriculture? 3) Which are the general factors that constrained or limited the spread of OA (II) Producers role in the creation, spread and adoption of innovations 4) indicate the innovative aspects for the management marketing processes; 5) indicate the marketing mechanism responsible for the spread of organic products; 6) indicate the knowledge elements which were introduced after the introduction of organic farming; 7) Indicate the future (prospects) expectations for sustainable rural development. (III) Degree of correlation among productions obtained and land use 8) How does organic farming foster the conservation of the environment and landscape?
41
Chapter 4
(IV)Capacity to activate integration processes (horizontal and vertical integration processes) and formal and informal inter-relations 9) What are the main difficulties one runs into while activating processes of interaction with other sectors? (V) Objectives for Sustainable rural development 10) Which are the objectives for a sustainable rural development strategy/policy? 11) Which could be a project whose main aim is sustainable development? During this first Delphi round, a ranked list was derived based upon the concerns that were repeated and/ or seemed to be of major importance, less frequent and or less important as well as concerns that occurred infrequently and/ or seemed relatively unimportant. The survey items were ranked with an importance rate with ordinal scales depending on the frequency of objectives repeated (ordinal scale) (see appendix B. an Overall 1ST Round). In the second round, each panellist was contacted by e-mail, a structured questionnaire was sent to confirm the results of the first round, and evaluate the importance of
the variables derived related to sustainable development policy issues. Due to the high burden on stakeholders time, as well as to the difficulty in getting a high rate of response, a third round was neglected. Some participants answered the first round but not the second round. Moreover, 85% responded in the second round. However, the purpose of this round was to verify the results of the first survey. The method used was to allow each participant to state a level of importance in range 17, for each of the issues per question. Score 1 represents the highest importance of each variable analysed. Score 7 represents the positive but very marginal variable used to achieve the objectives for a sustainable rural development policy (The alternative method of expecting each respondent to rank all issues in descending sequence of importance was felt to be unrealistic). The resultant response analysis document showed substantial agreement with the round-two frameworks in terms of the qualitative assessments. Therefore, the main purpose of the second survey was to ask the experts to weigh their answers given in the first survey in order to derive the best practice model and the priorities that should be met. The frequencies, the means for the rating items related to the different level of
42
Chapter 4
stakeholders, as well as the overall ratings of the two Delphi rounds for each descriptive objective are presented in Appendix B.
4.5.1 Data analysis In order to compare the spread of the two rounds and to remunerate the contingency among the stakeholders the data were entered in the SPSS programme. Two correlations on the ranks were performed for comparison. Kendalls tau and Spermans rank correlation were conducted. The Kendalls tau and Spearmans correlation yielded similar results, which are depicted in Appendix C. Correlations of the rank scores were significant at the 5% and 1% level of significance with only one exception in 9th question. This can be explained by random effect. When the last objective (last answer in the table of the 9th question) was extracted and the Spearman correlation test was performed (because of the ordinary scale of the data), correlations of the scores proved to be significant. A graph performance showed that there are no highly distributed prices (appendix C: graph 1). These descriptive statistical methods were used because of the relatively small sample size (the number of experts) and the relatively detailed questionnaires. Moreover, the means for the 7 categories for each of the issues derived by each question were compared. It was difficult to perform an Anova test due to lack of degrees of freedom. So the Pearson correlation was performed and it indicated that in terms of overall mean scores of the objectives derived, groups do not differ over all the issues. However, between the groups there are some different tendencies (Appendix D). The statistical tests comparing the stakeholder categories suggest that most of the results can be used with confidence, but it is suggested that any findings by stakeholder categories are used with caution. Moreover, the sample size of any of the stakeholder categories is smaller than that advocated by Delbecq et al. (1975). The overall correlation among all stakeholders is significant in order to conduct an analysis for the best practice model. Generally, the opinions among the stakeholders converge and have a very small spread. Only for question 9 does one run into difficulties while analysing the data because of non convergence of stakeholders view points about the
43
Chapter 4
opinions related to the level/kind of processes of interaction with other sectors. The above drawbacks imply that further and deeper investigation is required but will not be explored in this study.
44
Chapter 5
Results and Discussion

5.1 First Survey The first survey was crucial for the diagnosis of the situation concerning Organic and/or multifunctional farming applications and the developmental potential of the rural territory. Moreover, through actors the discussion, a series of territory and sectoral tendencies appeared concerning the specific region as well as the issues that they are mainly engaged in.
5.1.1 Evolution of organic and/or multifunctional farming development in the territory
The territorial evolution of the area of Kolymvari is related to the organic and multifunctional agricultural aspect mainly because of the agricultural geography and the national soil and climatic conditions also known, as territorial intellectual property or place specific factors of production (Ray, 2002). Concerning the production size, organic olive cultivation does not differ in many aspects from traditional cultivation; it does not require complex intervention whereas the European subsidy per hectare based on Regulation E.E. 2078/92 offers a motivation for the exploitation of small, abandoned olive groves in mountainous areas. As one of the stakeholders mentioned, One of the aspects that spread organic farming in the area is related to the easy cultivation techniques of organic cultivation specifically for olive trees and citrus (Delphi 1st round, January). Moreover, pioneer initiatives are considered important factors for the spread of organic and competitive agriculture. They endeavour to verticalize their production process in order to control products quality throughout the whole chain and to minimize the cost because of increased economies of scale. One of the experts mentioned ... there are examples of success, like "Biolea" company, who organised a vertical integration process. Nevertheless technical-agronomic infrastructures do not
45
Chapter 5
exist, so small farmers cannot undertake the whole process alone. There is a need to integrate... (Delphi 1st round, January). From the demand side, international demand has increased for high-quality olive oil in combination with the existence of some trading institutions for organic olive oil (private or unions). Thus, the new rural development dynamic, are attempts to differentiate food on the basis of a range of socially constructed quality criteria (Ilbery and Kneafsey, 2000), or what Allaire and Sylvander (1997) describe as logic of quality. This coincides with rising consumer demands for local, organic food and drink products with authenticity of geographical origin and traceability. Regional administration is interested in the development of synergies and alliances. The individuals should be able to create a dynamic situation and thus push the Agendas Organic Idea into the path of development. Community support is considered an important factor for an entrepreneur/producer since it can back up his/her operational cost through area support payments or enable him/her to take risks and acquire assistance in the business set-up, through various projects. Leader, Agenda 21, Protected Area of Origin and other territorial programmes and policies can be exploited by regional administration and private initiatives and enhance synergies and coherence to fulfil sustainable development aspects. However, the Community supports only big investors.
5.1.2 Problems that constraint the organic and/or multifunctional farming evolution in the territory While most panellists willingly accept the agro-environmental socioeconomic and institutional values that can be gained by introducing organic ideas as a pathway of development, they also recognise a number of important barriers that question the emergence of such an agrarian rural based development dynamic. The main problem is the multi-chopping of arable areas and the lack of means and inputs as well as their cost. There are not enough nutrition elements in biomedicines to fight against plant enemies. In fact, one of the stakeholders mentioned that, the Nitrogen problem and monoculture problem resulted in the disturbance of the environment and the development of specific pests. Moreover, there are inputs
46
Chapter 5
appropriate for organic farming which are available in the market but are much more expensive. And last but not least, concerning the agro-environmental difficulties, organic farming is a labour intensive production method which can also increase the cost (Delphi 1st round, January). The Socioeconomic difficulties are connected to the lack of organised organic producers organizations because of the limited number of organic farmers that consider such relations not necessary. Moreover, a multi-actor constellation of political, social and economic actors has yet to negotiate and discuss a policy on a day-to-day basis or even represent groups that are consulted on an adhoc basis. Furthermore the data derived from the universities and institutions are not passed on to producers through mass media or applicable region programmes. Concerning the distribution channels of the local products they are not specialized in order to penetrate niche markets locally, supralocally and internationally. Thus the conventional channels distribute organic products where all the negative aspects are now transferred to organic products. So the organic products reach consumers at a much more expensive price than if it were to be distributed by a specific network like direct marketing, sales on the gate etc. Moreover there is the risk that organic products may lose their quality characteristics starting from the very root of the process (i.e. the supply process). Another panellist commented that, There is continuously no availability thereby creating a time lag and lack of interest in the local distributors to supply such products (Delphi 1 ST Round, January). Generally, there are not many
dedicated suppliers of local, organic, PDO, GDO products and such to provide important potential opportunities to small producers and regular availability to the outlets. Another important factor responsible for the difficulties related to the organic farming sector spread is the Institutional inefficiency. Specifically, the national involvement is limited to the EU supporting funds for organic farming. Greeces negligible public administration and the existence of different funds supporting mainly infrastructures left the sector at a marginal survival level. There is a lack of non specialised infrastructures, to support organic producers products due to the inexistence of pioneers willing to invest in innovative ideas such as a specific plant or specific network. One of the stakeholders emphasised that, There is an abundance of olive oil
47
Chapter 5
mills for conventional olive producers. However, these olive oil mill owners are not interested in processing small amounts of organic oil. Even if they are interested they dont care about hygiene conditions or a system of control (Delphi 1ST Round, January). Moreover, the cost of controling and certification is considered very high. The cost of certification does not exist for conventional farmers. For a small organic farmer, it is between 1-40 stremmas (1 stremmas = 1/10 ha) and 300 euros per year. The need for a Certification and Control Body to continuously secure organic production as far as credibility/reliability is concerned is highlighted many times by the stakeholders. As it will improve valued added of the product and not generate additional cost paid by the farmers.
5.1.3 Producers role in the creation, spread and adoption of innovations A Producers role is very restricted, thus his contribution is very limited. The reasons are because there are only very small producers and the level of integration with the input suppliers and the traders is random. Also, they are not linked to institutions or programs thus; there is no collaboration among them. Close collaboration between national, regional and local authorities is also not existent. The linkages are very weak while producers insist on not being organised in clusters to strengthen their power. As one of the experts said, Farmers do not act as entrepreneurs. They are very narrow minded, predetermined and inflexible. Generally, as the farmer has a small field he cannot have a profitable enterprise. His income is very small and he is not even insured for that. Moreover, there are also a lot of small enterprises and agricultural cooperatives, so they dont have market power in order to react to price changes. The small farmer cares only about surviving. (Delphi 1ST Round, January). Under these circumstances, the realization of the diversification of rural areas and the sustainability of social, cultural and economic development factors is difficult. Nevertheless, in the wider area of Chania there are some organised actions that are good examples to determine producers role. For instance, there are auction centres, like the ones existing in Kountoura and Ierapetra (Eastern Crete), which help farmers to enhance their entrepreneurial skills and solve the problem of non continuous
48
Chapter 5
availability mainly because the number of related producers is limited. As one stakeholder stated, Organic farming expanded internationally through labelling (brand name) and because of the demand for certified products. Due to the need for specialised certified stores and specialized departments or super market shelves, niche marketing of locally organic products could be enhanced too(Delphi 1ST Round, January). In addition, while measures of the New Cap aimed to restructure physical potential that could enhance the competiveness of farmers. For this innovation to occur the age of the farmer composes plays an important role. Younger farmers of the region have been found to be more knowledgeable about new practices and trends and may be more willing to bear risk.
5.1.4 Degree of correlation among productions obtained and land use (landscape) Agricultural activity influences several aspects of the environment such as the water and soil resources, the landscape etc. The intensiveness of the agricultural farming determines the effects on the aforementioned factors. The olive culture has both positive and negative environmental effects. These effects depend on several factors including prevailing environmental conditions in and around the plantation (soil type, slope, rainfall, presence of water supply bodies and farm management practices). The main categories of actual and potential environmental effects are associated with the management of the olive plantations such as soil, water, air, landscape, and biodiversity. The majority of the plantations that are found in the area of Kolymvari can be characterised as Intensified traditional plantations. They follow traditional patterns but are under intensive management making systematic use of fertilisers. There is a tendency to intensify further by means of irrigation, increased tree density, use of chemicals and mechanical harvesting. Nevertheless, the organic alternative proposes the application of animal manure and green manure rather than the use of chemical fertilisers and the use of biological methods (e.g. traps). Instead, the conventional treatment of Dacus Olea, is used. Each stakeholder repeated that there is a high correlation among productions obtained and land use (landscape).
49
Chapter 5
5.1.5 Capacity to activate integration processes (horizontal and vertical integration processes) and formal and informal inter-relations Coherence between the emerging sectors (tourism) and the existing ones (agriculture) is of crucial importance. When referring to the Municipality of Kolymvari, it is obvious that there is a continuous interrelation / interdependence between those two sectors. Farming supports tourism that seems to add value to local products and provides an alternative /additional source of income. Furthermore, the development of tourism as well as agro-tourism is based on the existence and the exploitation of the local resources. However, there is an increasing competition among the agricultural and tourism sector with regard to the use of the available natural, capital and human resources. Unfortunately, there is very limited cooperation among the farmers. Vertical integration is not yet realized by the most of the farmers, so farmers realise direct linkages among the primary (farming and animal breeding), secondary (industry) and tertiary (tourism and other services) sectors. Moreover, no healthy relationship is established among them, so they cannot activate any interaction processes with the Institutions, programmes, Unions or organizations. However, an Organic Consumers and Producers Cooperation called GAIA that could promote their production under a common name drew up a proposal. Exhibitions, Internet, and an organic certification sign promoted this initiative. Moreover, there is an inter-Municipalities Developmental enterprise, but it doesnt offer much assistance. It is not very efficient mainly because of the bureaucracy and the low level of organization. In addition, all departments of the Prefecture and the Municipality related to the environment, training and culture are not being motivated enough or involved in an integration process. As one of the respondents mentioned, There was neither specific infrastructure nor the motivation to undertake rural sustainable development projects by the Municipality or the regions. A framework that recognizes the development of human resources and information infrastructures can be improved by enriching networks of relationships between people and forming closer bonds in the exchange of products, information and encouragement (Murdoch, 2000).
50
Chapter 5
5.1.6 The objectives for a sustainable rural development strategy/policy Preconditions require the implementation of a sustainable development strategy related to the territory and specifically to the indigenous characteristics, like the basrelief of the land, the weather conditions, and the infrastructure of agriculture. An additional precondition for sustainable development is the application of integrated and organic culture which is based firstly on rational use of chemicals and secondly on standards that need to be met on the field and with regards to the product. One of the characteristics of these culture activities are that it unite many development issues concerning environment, farming, culture and tourism. As one actor mentioned It should be a combination of many factors (cost, locals, local authorities, etc.) for this integration and should mainly put an emphasis on the human rather than the technical factors (Delphi, 1 ST Round, January). Falk and Kilpatrick, (2000) argued that rural social capital can, through self-confidence and community identity, raise productive efficiency and local and regional competiveness. This capacity can be extended by wider participation and inclusion: engaging in social learning is, in Leeuwis; (2000) view, an important instrument to promote sustainability in a rural context. With regard to the specific territory one stakeholder pointed out, There are conditions for a strategy of sustainable growth for the rural region, based on the integrated and organic agriculture, but nobody knows if it is a common/ integrated acceptance (Delphi, 1ST Round, January). What is missing is the Central Body, which consists of administrative institutions and social partners, who not only undertake the promotion and marketing of the production but also provide the know-how for the organic production and foster the diversification and institutional cooperation.
5.1.7 SWOT Analysis and Empirical results The survey also provides some critical rural development insights concerning overall strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the organic sector in the specific area. While most panellists willingly accept the socio-economic, agro-environmental and institutional values demanded by the New EU Regulations, they also recognise a
51
Chapter 5
number of important barriers that question the emergence of such an agrarian based rural development dynamic. The SWOT analysis is a means for evaluating the overall strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the organic sector. Strengths and Weaknesses are about the development of the sector in the specific region now; Opportunities and Threats refer to where the sector is going. In other words opportunities are attractive areas for action where the sector is likely to have some advantages or make a special contribution. Threats are critical trends of specific disturbances in the environment that could lead to stagnation, decline or demise of the sector or a part of it (Schmid O. et. al., 2004). The SWOT analysis was derived from the first Delphi round of the questionnaires. A rough SWOT analysis can be helpful to improve the performance of the organic and agricultural sectors in Kolymvari (Table 13). Table 10: Swot Analysis of the territory: Integrated evaluation of the Pilot Area (Sentences in quotes have been cited by a specific interviewee in the 1st Delphi round)
Opportunities Agronomic, pedologic, environmental -Application of farm management with innovative aspects -Good Agricultural Practices e.g. pest management control for organic farming -Concern for the environment by applying inputs that are environmentally friendly -Standards imposed by the E.U. with the intent to enhance the abandonment of agrochemicals and minimize the threshold contamination issue Socio-economic -Contribution of Food security and environment safety demand to the development of the demand of organic livestock productions -Leader projects are seen as some of the drivers of the current organic farming systems -Low EU subsidies to conventional farmers -Enhancement of Community support and local developmental programs -Decoupling of CAP to effectively contribute to the development of environmentally friendly cropping systems in Kolymvary, which are easily compatible to organic farming prescriptions -Active involvement of the local population in shared initiatives such as festivals, feasts and so on, can be considered as evidence of the ability of the local community to share objectives and strategies for their own development Constraints Agronomic, pedologic, environmental -input problems -nitrogen pollution problem -lack of inputs -high input cost -insufficient availability of manure
Socio-economic -No significant motives offered by CAP through various regulations to organic producers and entrepreneurs -Lack of support by State to exploit the related Regulations and Projects -Structural inertia of the agricultural system (on average, farmers have a low level of education level and a low attitude to innovations). -Lack of familiarity of Organic quality products to the consumers.
52
Chapter 5
Opportunities Infrastructural Nearby location of the area from the urban market Institutional Subsidies from the Regional Rural Development Plan (Pillar II) are considered vital for the consolidation of organic farming in the area, has been proved by the boost in the surface area allocated to organic farming surface as a consequence of the implementation of reg. 2078/92.
Constraints Infrastructural Institutional -Existence of Bureaucracy and strict rules for organic farming systems (an organic farmer selling certified organic products to a non certified holding outlet or establishment would loose the added value of certification). -Unstructured education and information programs to aid in developing a continuous learning platform -Actors interaction deemed unnecessary by organic farmers -No information organization or independent body concerning available information offered to the farmer and subsidization offered by the state exists. -No mutual trust between producers and information bodies Weaknesses of organic and multifunctional agriculture Agronomic, pedologic, environmental -Ecological factors constrain potential production of main agricultural crops (slope, etc.) -Monoculture of olive oil -Limited potential production due to the dealing with the dacus olea problem in a biological manner Socio-economic -Fragmented and Small agricultural holdings -constrained crop choice by CAP, hence biased the market of agricultural land and products for a long time -Lack of trained administrators to initiate / implement /coordinate projects and take advantage of these favorable conditions. -Deficiencies in entrepreneurial skills. -Lack of knowledge and information -Low added value of organic products: e.g. organic is sold at the same price as conventional -Lack of interaction between farmers and agronomists The agronomists have moved away from the fields. -High cost of production concerning organic products -Insufficiency of structured distribution channels -Organic market is still a niche market which is difficult to penetrate -High certification cost -Limited information with regard to special funding. -Lack of structured intersectoral relations
Strengths of organic and multifunctional agriculture Agronomic, pedologic, environmental -Favourable rich natural environment, geomorphology and the climatic conditions. -Increasing concern on low-input weed control and pest management strategies
Socio-economic -Cooperatives and associations among farmers, create higher bargaining power and guarantee a minimum critical mass -High value of landscape, monuments and cultural events which are suitable for integration of tourism with rural activities (multifunctional agriculture) -Higher price of some organic productions (e.g. grain crops) than conventional ones. -Increasing development of agrotourism in the area -Existence of a competitive sector between pioneer initiatives and organic farming -Following up of vertical integration processes by some pioneers -Increased horizontal integration processes with other sectors, e.g. the interaction with rural tourism
53
Chapter 5
Opportunities
Infrastructural -The proximity to the city of Chania (the Municipality of Kolymvari is located 25 km away) through a new national road Institutional -Regional support to organic farming through E.U. subsidies (reg. 2078/92, Rural Development Plan) -Presence of institutional development programs (e.g., Leader)
Constraints among farmers and those that work in the agricultural inputs supply industry. Relations do not take a formal and continuous form but are rather developed by coincidence. Infrastructural -Lack of specific infrastructure to support organic agriculture and organic olive oil mill -Insufficient agricultural road network and infrastructure within the farming areas Institutional -Lack of effective institutional support for coordination of marketing initiatives. -Lack of information channels / news centres. -Environmental awareness is not promoted by the local authorities -Lack of a well structured network to promote agrotourism
5.2 2nd Survey: A coherence analysis of the survey Generally, the results confirmed the situation that exists in Greece concerning the actors of the agricultural sector that operate under common organizational structure, facing more qualitative administrative problems while they associate in a participatory and collective way. The viewpoint of all the stakeholders were analysed in order to derive a common decision making strategy, which can be applied and approved of by all. Stakeholders views were converted into a macro-actor that acts as a single entity. It was determined that the dissemination of the best practice model is considered a very difficult task for the decision-making process whereby stakeholders unanimity was demanded.
5.2.1 Stakeholders contingency The overall correlation among all stakeholders is significant in order to conduct an analysis for the best practice model. Generally, the opinions among the stakeholders converge in only few cases with a very small spread. The convergence of the stakeholders shows the political tone in their attitude, the problems that have been generated following a specific policy and what is requested to overcome the obstacles. However, there is an opposition among some groups of stakeholders who embrace organic farming as a policy goal differently. Particularly there is a spread in the
54
Chapter 5
opinion among food processors / distributors and the other stakeholders concerning Community support problems for the spread of Organic Agriculture. Food processors do not rate very highly the problematic Community support for the limited spread of organic agriculture, because the private sector does not expect support from the State or Community to operate. Another issue which seems to be controversial, is related to the marketing mechanism responsible for the spread of organic product. The research certification bodies do not converge with the other stakeholders mainly because these bodies concentrate on the role of controlling and analysing the production factors, and regard this process as a marketing mechanism. For the question regarding whether organic farming fosters the environment and landscape conservation, the view of food processors and distributors do not converge with the other stakeholders viewpoint. When, in the supply chain, big retailers, processors and distributors are intervening, friendly environmental aspects are not taken into consideration. Big supply chain establishments lead to high resource consumption and over explosion of the environment. Organic agriculture principles support small supply chains, which is an absent issue in an agro-industrial model. Thus, these actors are not sensitised and informed about environmental issues and thus cannot estimate organic agricultural contribution to landscape conservation and environment preservation and revitalization. Some respondent groups give a negative value to the objectives related to the mainstream difficulties one runs into, while activating processes of interaction with other sectors. So, the view of Local authorities, the Non food processors and distributors and technical and certification bodies are not contingent with the overall stakeholders views. In particular, very important factors for both local authorities and research bodies is considered the lack of mutual trust between producers and information bodies responsible for the interaction process with other sectors in opposition, non food processors emphasize to the lack of organized supply availability (because OF is in an initial phase). However, the need for a regeneration of an organic farming movement is significantly high for non-food processors and distributors as well as by Technical and certification bodies but not by local administration authorities. This is because mainly organization/enterprises-pioneers with social concerns are keen on organized movements for empowerment and interactions with
55
Chapter 5
other sectors. Thus, the need for the establishment of a component center that is going to activate the interaction process among the stakeholders is derived. 5.2.2 Best Practice Model for Organic and Competitive Agriculture Rural Sustainability can be realized only if multifunctional development indicators are optimized. These indicators correspond to certain the fulfilment of theoretical objectives such as environmental, agronomic, socioeconomic and institutional concerns. Thus, each of these categories contains indicators/criteria that need to be fulfilled for verifying sustainability. Subject to the specific territory, certain constraints and advantages take place, which enhance or limit the evolution of the organic sector and signify the level of the existing indicators. Guided by the potential theoretical objective in the specific territory, actions/sub criteria are derived that verify the realization of these objectives. Moreover, in the Best Practice Model depicted in the table 14, each action or situation mentioned during the qualitative research was prioritized (number in quotes) in order to aquire a common and efficient decision making plan. From the second round of the Delphi Technique, the most important factors, these with the lowest average mean, by each category, constitute a proposed recommendation for organic and multifunctional agriculture as a driver for sustainable development. Table 11: Best-Practice Model for organic and competitive agriculture Pilot Area of Kolymvari, Crete.
Theoretical Objectives Analysis of the Region of Kolymvari Draft of the conceptual model specific actions to achieve theoretical objectives -Know how and lifelong education for the farmers (non-farmers of the agricultural sector) due to Cooperation between farmers and research bodies. Particular attention should be given to improving information, education, technology development, research and extension support (5.18) -Distribution of a respected area proportion for organic cultivation by EU (1.94) -Application of integrated and organic farming cultivation techniques (3.94)
Agronomic aspects Encourage and enhance biological -Easy cultivation techniques of organic cycles within the farming system farming (mainly for olives & citrus) (3.53) -Limitation of the production output because of cultivation techniques (4.76) -Multi-chopping and limited proportion of area under organic cultivation (5.18)
56
Chapter 5
-Carrying out studies curried out to deal with new application techniques and inputs (1.94) -Carrying out studies and observation of the cultivation process (3.12) Use as far as possible renewable resources in locally organised agricultural systems -Input problems the Agricultural inputs supply industry mainly deals with agrochemicals used in conventional farming. The problem of dacus olea, high cost of biological inputs, non availability and transferability of manure (1.76) -Enhancement of intersectoral relations among farmers and inputs supply industries (5.06) -Maintenance of up to date farming systems with the modern tendencies dealing with Dacus Olea, biological inputs and machines (2.82) -Improved farm management with innovative aspects (1.35) -New pest management application (1.65) -Education seminars of conventional and young farmers (New entrants) about organic farming (1.76) -More efficient organization of producers to verticalize whole production process. Low energy spending (2.94) -Forcing of local industries to decrease the production of chemicals (4.35) -Application of environmentally friendly inputs (1.41) -Imposition of the new restrictions for the abandonment of agrochemicals (2.12) -Adoption of environmentally friendly resources for the technological applications and industrial establishments (3.59)
Environmental aspects Avoid/reduce all forms of pollution that may result from agricultural techniques: air, water, soil
-Increasing concern in health aspects (3.12) -Limited organic farming in the area because of high risk of conversion to organic farming. (1.88) -Limited organic outputs so the impact to the environment is limited (3.53) -Limited farms income due to the small size of farms presented in the area and to cultivation techniques used. The farmer do not thing to reduce the pollution but to be viable (2.88).
Maintain the genetic diversity of the agricultural system and its surroundings, including the protection of plant and wildlife habitats
Provide a landscape management aimed at preserving the quality of rural environment
- disturbance of the environment and the -Diversification of crops and cultural development of specific pests brought practices enhancing the biological and about the olive culture. (3.82) economic stability and the overall sustainability of the farm (4.76) -Use of new and old traditional inputs. Preservation of indigenous knowledge and wisdom on traditional farming and herbs (2.71) -Overexploitation of land and Natural -Improvement of the environment. Resources (3.82) Specific strategies must be applied according to topography, soil characteristics, climate, pests, local availability of inputs and the individuals farmers set goals (3.53). -Increase in farm income (4.71) -Diversification and non specialization of farmer occupation (seasonality aspect) (5.71) -Limited number of O.F. so interaction -Rural development and reconstruction of is not considered necessary (1.88) rural areas based on objectives of -Lack of interaction because of the small sustainable development (3.35) size of agricultural enterprises (2.88) -Increase of local stakeholder awareness
Socio-economic aspects Discourage land and rural abandonment
Enhance the sustainability and multifunctionality of the pilot areas in terms of interaction with other rural development
57
Chapter 5
initiatives;
-Lack of interaction due to irregular product availability (3.53) -Lack of mutual trust among producers, processors and distributors (3.12) -Lack of leader figures (3.41)
Improve quality and added value annexed in the products
(through lifelong education) of their responsibility in enhancing sustainable rural development (3.41) -Enhancement of producer & consumer organizations (networks) with respect to consumer welfare (5.65) -Linkages with agro tourism and restoration activities (4.94) -Non family oriented organic farms (5.12) -Involvement of agro tourism businesses in the production (1.59) -Increase in organic output and value (3.18) -Encouragement vertical integration of organic farmers (1.59) -Increase in rate of employment through investment initiatives (4.76) -Encouragement of personal contacts or good relations between pioneers and institutions (3.41) -Applied market initiatives: vertical -Need for marketing knowledge for integration of product supply chain promotion of the specific agricultural (4.76) products (5.41) -Applied Promotional initiatives: brand -Diversification of the agricultural name (4.18) production/product (value added) (4.76) -Few and private certification and - Improvement in the quality level of the control bodies. (There is no certification products (healthy products) (3.41) and control body in the area to -Enhancement of motivation of producers continuously secure organic products as to care about quality attributes of the far as credibility and reliability are product (intrinsic & extrinsic concerned. Moreover, high Certification characteristics) (5.59) cost should be afforded by farmers) -Increased in business skills of the organic (2.06) farmers (3.29) -Improved product quality Branding (sponsor, quality, family brand, brand name) (3.35) -Development of labeling (common logo) and certification of the quality products possibly based on EU Regulation 2092/91 and subsequent legislation (3) -Increased in consumer awareness about the production process of the product and the certification standards (Consumers are unaware of the specific attributes that differentiate organic products from conventional ones) (4.82) -Need for improvement and support of Certification and inspection bodies already in the area (3.53) -Promotion of new bottling materials for recycling as well environmentally friendly packing (4.41) -Increased control and analysis of production factors. Reliable systems of monitoring and verification for certifying the organic nature of products should be established in order to support consumers
58
Chapter 5
confidence (1.82) Increase the possibilities of niche marketing of typical products -Increasing international demand for organic products (2.94) -Lack of trade knowledge for specialized products (5.12) -Lack of agricultural marketing for health and environmental friendly products (3.47) -Inexistence of an organization to combine organic products with pdo/ traditional etc (5.65) -Lack of specialized distribution channels (2.94) -Irregular supply availability (4.06) -High processing and standardization cost (4.82) -Lack of leadership (5.12) -Lack of cooperation among farmers (4.76) -Lack of measures enhancing specialized distribution channels. (There are minimal of structured distribution channels and organized processing, promotion and marketing organizations) (2.12) -High market price of organic products (1.12). -Existence of the main distributional channel in the conventional thus, all negative aspects of conventional farming are also attributed to organic farming (5.24) -Need for production of quality products which are at the same time pdo and traditional (5.12) -Provision of motivations to more pioneers to take initiatives and be innovative (4) -Intervention between local private processors and distributors with organic agriculture. Well-structured and diversified distribution channels (local markets, agro tourism, specialized shops, super markets, etc.) need to be developed to distribute organic products (5.59) -Establishment and integration of supply chain nodes (3.29) -Increased International interactions to penetrate the distribution channels abroad (2.06) -Promotion through exhibitions or new pilot programs (4.12) -Exports of the new markets abroad (gourmet, luxury, specialty) (3.76) -Increase in specialized certified stores (3.53) -Marketing through cooperatives, unions or by word of mouth (3.82) -Hiring of commercial representatives and agents appointed by local farmers to promote the selling of their products (1.71) -Acquisition of references through local news, media, magazines (3.47) -Stabilization of price fluctuation of organic products as they cannot vary significantly from the corresponding conventional products (1.12) -Limitation standards imposed by the regulations (6) -Increase in the publics ecological sensitation (2.82) -Provision of economical and technical support to the rural population by the State in order to prevent mobility and migration (1.24) -Application of EU projects (4.76) -Need for a standard profit margin for the farmer-non farmer of the agricultural sector (5.41) -Application of a 'bottom up' approach policy (1.53) -The State must to favor it (1.76) -Implementation of the strategy of the Community programs that support individual initiatives & innovations programs (Leader) (3)
Institutional and Infrastructural aspects Apply of sustainable and -Limited existing policies in the area; no multifunctional rural development motivation to support young farmers to policies become organic (5) -Lack of organization to design all the production stages (supply chain) up to the consumer (4.94) -Lack of comprehensible agricultural policy (5.29) -Insufficient significant motives through various regulations to producers/entrepreneurs (1.88) -State administration problems to apply the EU Regulations (4.06) -Lack of State support for exploitation of the related EU Regulations and Projects (2.29) -Insufficient information concer-ning available subsidization by the state (2.94)
59
Chapter 5
-Provision of support only to big investors (3.65) -No market organization for establishing certain price (4.41)
Encourage interaction between regional and local institutions
-Community support and local developmental programs (1.41). -No central bodies responsible for the realization of a specific infrastructure (3.47) -Inadequate support for investments of new agro business companies specializing in organic products (5.47) -No organized movement of O.F (3.88) -No mutual trust between producers and information bodies (2.82)
Assess of infrastructural aspects of the pilot areas in terms of interaction with rural development initiatives
-Lack of specific infrastructure (3.94) -Lack of subsidies for specific agricultural infrastructures (3.06) -Direction of national support is mainly towards basic infrastructures (irrigation and roads) (4.18)
-Organized producer organization, lobbies (3) -Consumer oriented product supply. Policies with regard to consumer information and awareness should be supported (3.82) -Application of a sustainable development concept of organic agriculture (4.71) -Need for Product quality policy orientation and for the creation of an organization aiming to provide information on organic products (4.59) -Creation of new valid information system in terms of interaction with other sectors (1.47) -Creation of a organization of bio cultivators that will undertake the control and trade (2.18) -Organization of producers in order to acquire constant workforce (lobbies) (4.53) -Application of regional support programs by the Region Directorate (3.12) -Need for open minded stakeholders in institutions, research centers, local authorities (2.24) -Enhancement of investment, expansion and export activities of specific agro farms and operations (4.53) -Application of good infrastructures (airport, shipping companies, logistics, net etc) (5.88)
5.2.2.1 Agronomic aspects For actions that are important to encourage and enhance biological cycles within the farming system, experts tended to first rank high, the distribution of a respected area in proportion with organic cultivation by the EU (Delphi 2nd round July, (1.94)) and second the importance of studies carried out to deal with new application techniques and inputs (Delphi 2nd round July, (1.94)). Additionally, the easy cultivation techniques of some organic farming cultures (mainly for olives & citrus) (Delphi 2nd round July, (3.53)) could delimitate the barriers that one can face while applying biological cycles within the farming system. For Actions that enhance the use of renewable resources in locally organized agricultural systems, many Delphi panellists define organic farming management as a Farm management with innovative aspects (Delphi 2nd round July, (1.35)) which is
60
Chapter 5
considered an important action for locally environmental resource preservation. Panellists criticized the input problems very strongly (Delphi 2nd round July, (1.76)). Specifically, the drawbacks include the high cost of organic inputs, the agricultural inputs supply industry, that mainly deals with agrochemicals used in conventional farming and not with those used in organic farming, the limited suppliers information for organic inputs (i.e. information spread concerning the use and usefulness of these inputs is limited), and the inefficient availability and transferability of manure. Concerning the threats of olive trees, the problem of dacus olea has not been solved yet. All these negative aspects imply the need for research and development in the agronomical field, the simplification of the organic patterns culture and the importance of knowledge spread, obtained in the research field, towards all actors.
5.2.2.2 Environmental aspects For actions to avoid/reduce all forms of pollution that may result from agricultural techniques: air, water, soil the importance of education of organic farming to conventional and young farmers (New entrants) was highly significant (Delphi 2nd round July, (1.76)). Also, the need for regulation for environmentally friendly inputs utilization was extremely highlighted by the interviewees (Delphi 2nd round July, (1.41)). Nevertheless, many respondents claimed, that Organic farming is still limited in the area because of the high risk of conversion (Delphi 2nd round July, (1.88)). Producers are facing the dilemma of whether or not to convert because they are afraid of a limited output production, so the effects to the environment and the development of the sector are difficult to detect. In order to maintain the genetic diversity of the agricultural system and its surroundings, including the protection of plant and wildlife habitats, new and old traditional inputs should be re-applied. The preservation of indigenous knowledge and wisdom on traditional farming and herbs has been highlighted (Delphi 2nd round July, (2.71)) to maintain the genetic diversity of the agricultural system. Added concern for the environment is a first priority issue after intensification and monoculture effects. The olive culture, the most spread crop in the area, resulted in the disturbance of the environment and the development of specific pests (Delphi 2nd
61
Chapter 5
round July, (3.82)). The EU CAP Regulation as a solution to environmental disturbance introduces the aspect of farm diversification. Landscape management is becoming a very important issue for preserving the quality of the rural environment. Specific strategies must be taken according to topography, soil characteristics, climate, pests, local availability of inputs and the individuals farmers set goals to accomplish this goal (Delphi 2 nd round July , (3.53)).
5.2.2.3 Socio-economic aspects One of the most important aspects of the EU policy base is the production support aimed to discourage land and rural abandonment. Allowing agricultural producers an adequate return is not highly approved of by the panellists as a top priority objective (Delphi 2nd round July, (4.71)). In term of job satisfaction and a safe working environment, no interviewees mentioned job creation even if it is considered by EU regulation as a high priority issue that satisfies sustainability. Organic agriculture satisfies these aspects if successfully achieved by individuals, to a relatively higher degree than conventional farming does. Nevertheless, the case of Organic farming contribution to the enhancement of the pilot area in terms of interaction with other rural development initiatives is considered the most important issue for sustainability. Two interactions are considered most important: (1) the horizontal networks introduction (clusters), specifically the involvement of agrotourism businesses in the organic production (Delphi 2nd round July, (1.59)) and (2) the vertical integration processes of organic farmers (vertical networks) (Delphi 2 nd round July, (1.59)). This integration process implies Farmers transition into entrepreneurs. Nevertheless, many experts stressed that the barrier that constraints these interactions is the limited number of organic farming, so interaction is not considered necessary (Delphi 2nd round July, (1.88)) because of the limited power force that can be obtained to influence policy regulation. Sustainability can be obtained only if high quality and added value of the product is attained. The Control and certification bodies apply the mechanism responsible for this verification. Specifically, concerning Greece, only three such Bodies exist. There are private institutes which are expensive and inefficient to administrate and to apply
62
Chapter 5
regular and systematic control of the production process. The need for a certification and control body-center in the area is rated very high (Delphi, 2nd Round, July, (2.06)). This responsibility, however, is going to be taken by an establishment of the Ministry of Rural Development Food and an organization called, Agricultural product inspection & certification scheme (AGROCERT). Moreover, a competence center carrying out monitoring and verification responsibilities and supporting consumers confidence should be established too (Delphi 2nd round July, (1.82)). The increase in the possibilities provided by niche marketing of typical products is an aspect generally accepted as a path of sustainable development. Respondents noted this requires commercial representative and the appointment of agents involvement, agents appointed by local farmers to promote the selling of their products in order to provide them with potential trading opportunities (Delphi 2nd round July, (1.71)). Moreover, niche markets of typical products could be increased substantially only if the prices of organic products do not vary significantly from the corresponding conventional products (Delphi 2nd round July, (1.12)). A strong argument appears regarding the probability of typical products not becoming a mass product due to lack of: structured distribution and processing channels, promotion and marketing organizations and measures enhancing specialized distribution channels (Delphi 2nd round July, (2.12)). The aspect of retail power is generally considered a constraint factor to increase market share. Only if the willingness to pay for typical products is increased and the short supply chains are introduced, could niche markets expand.
5.2.2.4 Institutional and Infrastructural aspects Policies in reference to EU application of sustainable and multifunctional rural development require State support (Delphi 2nd round July, (1.76)). The Rural population must be supported economically and technically in order to prevent mobility and migration (Delphi 2nd round July, (1.24)). The 'Bottom up' approach social policy must be favored by EU regulation (Delphi 2nd round July, (1.53)). Leader projects follow this policy direction, where projects take place regarding the local populations needs, skills and perspectives. Clearly, the respondents questioned
63
Chapter 5
the motives offered by various regulations to producers and entrepreneurs (Delphi 2nd round July, (1.88)). The crucial aspect for Interaction between regional and local institutions (pilot areas) is a high priority issue for verifying sustainability, accomplished by a new valid information system in terms of interaction with other sectors (Delphi 2nd round July, 1.47). Community support and local developmental programs support the establishments of vertical and/or horizontal, institutional and entrepreneurial networks (Delphi 2nd round July, 1.41). Assessment of infrastructural aspects of the pilot areas in terms of interaction with rural development initiatives is considered an important aspect for Sustainable Rural Development by different National States and EU CAP Regulation. In order to enhance sustainable rural development and innovative investments and expansion, export activities of specific agro farms and operations should be enhanced (Delphi 2nd round July, 4.53). However, the respondents argued strongly that there is lack of subsidies for specific Agricultural infrastructures in the area. An olive oil mill has not been built for the process standardization and trade of organic olive oil (Delphi 2nd round July, 3.06).
5.3 Discussion Generally a rural production model involves encouragement of the vertical integration processes, focusing on production, processing, marketing and distribution in order to maximize member returns. In addition there is an influx of local developmental companies, which encourage local initiatives. Nevertheless, the institutes do not take into consideration the new aspect of diversification. The integration across tourism, environment protection and farming is not yet enhanced as a rural development expectation (Midmore, 2004 (b)). This direction needs the collaborative action of the institutes in order to promote equity, completion and appropriate managerial function through their positive actions. Organic producers themselves and the communities in which they are embedded should generate the ideas and realize the effort. Each informed individual can become a model that contributes to sustainability. Communication and integration is required for the promotion of organic products.
64
Chapter 5
Finally, further responsibility and cooperation is demanded from the regional, national and EU agencies.
5.2.1 Regional Initiatives Once the organic sector achieves critical mass, particularly in peripheral parts that rely heavily on primary production, regional development can further be enhanced. A series of responsibilities can be regenerated for the Regional Development Agencies. A process of dialogue could help to strengthen the potential of initiatives to contribute to the aims of regional policymakers and at the same time enhance the performance of the enterprises even if it pursues its targets. Regional development agencies aim to provide specific public sector support for pioneer initiatives, by identifying and facilitating appropriate networks of organic producers, and assisting conventional farmers to explore the advantages of conversion. They further aim to assist the formation of collaborative initiatives between producer groups, and allow farmers to take advantage of the Rural Development Program and other structural funds to support consumer research. Finally, they support the enhancement of smallmedium sized enterprises and processing/trade, and the establishment of young farmers holdings (Midmore, 2004 (b)). However, the responsibility in implementing all these actions should not be left only to the Regional Development Agencies since they need to be specialized in all the various socio-economic, agro environmental and institutional aspects contributing to sustainable rural development. There is a need for State interest in order to provide guidance concerning their activities.
5.2.2 National Initiatives National governments have a clearly defined role in supporting the organic sector; they are responsible for setting organic standards and providing aids for conversion and maintenance to primary organic and traditional agriculture patterns. They also carry out research and provide extensive technical and certification services. Beyond
65
Chapter 5
this national support there is a need for monitoring and supervising the organic supply chain, as well as providing support beyond the direct marketing or farm gate sales. Unfortunately the compromise on the 2003 CAP reform, leaves very little available funding for Rural Development. In the short term, national governments need to consider the contribution of their own resources to supplement the Rural Development Plans scope. In the longer term, the realization of greater shifts from Pillar One to Pillar two are possible (Ifoam, 2002; Friends of the Earth Europe, 2003).
5.2.3 European Community Initiatives The European Commission, acting in consultation with national governments in the European Economic Area, should act as a catalyst to establish a continent-wide network of producer initiatives, which market sustainable-produced primary products (Midmore, 2004(b)). The objective should be to build on the experience of this project in order to disseminate a best practice model, in alliance with a wide range of formal and informal relations and organizations.
66
Chapter 6
Conclusions
Chapter 6
Conclusions The main objective of the present study was to define a new strategy for sustainable and multifunctional rural development, based on the development of a Best Practice Model of organic farming. Stakeholders selection, participation and integration to a single entity through a Delphi technique were the means to meet this objective. Conscious effort is needed to improve the standing of the organic approach among conventional farmers, in order to foster mutual respect and understanding as the basis for long term collaboration. A process of continuous dialogue with regional policymakers and various stakeholders could facilitate the strengthening of the potential initiatives conducive to development. Regional development agencies should be ready and prepared to provide any available support for pioneer initiatives. Identifying and facilitating appropriate networks of organic producers, and assisting conventional farmers to explore the advantages of conversion will help to establish a stable organic production. Finally, support of small-medium sized processing/trade enterprises, and the establishment of young farmers holdings constitute a must for the rural society. The responsibility for implementing all necessary actions should not be left only to the Regional Development Agencies. State agencies should also play a determinant role to provide constant guidance. Beyond the huge responsibility for each different level of agencies, demand to tighten the links among them is required. These links can be strengthened by intermediaries, like private initiatives, NGOs, or other independent entities. Organic producers themselves and the active community should generate the ideas, undertake the effort and implement them. For a sustainable development based on the growth of organic agriculture, consumers must be aware of the intrinsic value of organic products and the differences from the conventional ones. Thus, though organic farming and marketing can be met in very small areas, this does not constitute a Best Practice Model for a sustainable rural development. Persistent links among various agencies and strong long lasting networks among stakeholders is required.
67
Appendix A: Organic Farming and Policy Review in Greece
Appendix A
Appendix A: Greece: Review of national and regional administration documents to document measures relevant to organic farming implemented in the context of agri-environmental, rural development and other policy measures.
Table a: Specific organic farming policy measures in Greece

Legal basis/ regulation Initial plan/ report Scheme details Revisions Annual reports Mid-term review Official evaluations (& final reviews)
Not applicable -1998: review of organic aid scheme and proposals for reform. -2004: new measures concerning agroenvironmenta l priorities.
Other analyses & commentry
Organic action plans Organic farming schemes
Not applicable EU Reg. 2078/92 & 1257/1999 plus implementing regulations The Ministry of Rural Development and Food Directorate of land use planning and Environmental protection (DLUPEP) will oversee: a Rural development report containing 4 priorities actions for organic farming the main one being the 3rd priority of action which contains Agroenvironmental measures, specifically, measure 3.1 regarding organic farming and measure 3.2 regarding organic livestock Initial plan: 6000 ha of organic farm land will be set aside for this scheme -1997: implementation of organic aid scheme - 2000: 5 years economic support of organic farmer according to euros/ha related to the kind of crop or livestock and areas (EU reg# 428/2000) -2001: organic farming scheme Organic Agriculture to offer financial aid per hectare (hectare/subsidies) (EU reg# 233/2001) -2004: modified organic agricultural scheme offering financial aid to farmers.
Not applicable 2000-2006 new land distribution (50.000 ha) 2004: integration with other agro environmental schemes (EPAA)
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable Organic Farming CAP Conversion, (reading) Krystallis, Ath. Fotopoulos, Ch. Etc. The new invitation concerning the agroenvironmental measures has been forwarded by the Ministry of Rural Development and Food.
3.1 Measure Organic
EPAAAY: The Operational -Investments in agro farms programme for Rural Development and the (improvement plans). Reconstruction of the -Improvement of age index rural areas (EPAAAY) 2004 - Number of total accepted contractors: 2451
69
Appendix A
agriculture 3.2 Measure Organic Livestock Standards and regulations 2004 - Number of total accepted contractors: 553
EU Reg. 2092/91 & 1804/99 implementing regulations
Organisation for Certification and Supervision of Agricultural Products" (AGROCERT) (GG A 200, 27.08.98), under the inspection of the Ministry of Rural Development and Food
1999: livestock regulations (EU reg# 1804/1999) 2001: issuing imports certification licenses from third countries, (EU reg# 1788/2001) 2001:standardization and transportation for organic products (EU reg# 2491/2001) 2002: production, PDO/ PGI products (EU reg# 473/2002) 2003: forages regulation (EU reg# 223/2003).
(EPAY) Compendium of organic standards
5 year review of Agrocert. A new integrated Action Plan is going to be exhibited in Autumn 2004 under the supervision of Agrocert The scheme contains actions for provision of information and education of farmers on organic agricultural issues.
National regulations
250570/15-11-91
390748/7-10-92
332.221/11-01-01
The office of plantderived biological products was formed as part of the Directorate of Processing & Packaging and Quality Control of Agricultural Products Constitution of the committee for license permission to private control and certification bodies. Introduction of Agrocert or (OPEGEP)
Additional measures taken for the implementation of the EU reg# 2092/91
2001: OPEKEPE took on responsibility for domestic trade, export- input issues as well as approval for
70
Appendix A
usage of common logo for organic products (Governmental Journal: Fek 381 B) 2001: Some new responsibilities are delegated to the secondary inspection committee in reference to the operational programme. (Governmental Journal: Fek 1034 B) 2002: Certification Bodies grant approval to operate: DIO, Biohellas s.a and Fysiologiki ltd. (Governmental Journal: Fek 278) 2002: Approval of the operation of the BIOHELLAS s.a (institute of organic product) (Governmental Journal: Fek 1495) 2003: Approval granted to farmers to control the entire production process (demand for records and documents) (Governmental Journal: Fek 1579) 2004: Undermining standard regulation, suggestion of modified regulation and implementation of measure 4.3. (Governmental Journal:
71
Appendix A
Fek 404) 2004: No restriction for origin of propagation material (Governmental Journal: Fek 203) 2001: Responsibility allocated to Agrocert (OPEGEP) (Organization for Certification and Supervision of Agricultural Products) for the creation of a common logo for organic product identification. 2002: implementation of three different logos from the related certification bodies: Dio, Biohellas s.a. and Physiologiki Ltd.
Logos (EU/national or regional)
EU Reg. 2092/91 EU Reg. 1783/2003 (art 33) Agenda 2000 second pillar: art 16
Schemes are applied for the promotion of organic agriculture.
Commodity policy (1ST pillar) regarding marketing and logo regulations for organic/ pdo/ emas (environmental management standards for industries) as well as for the propagation material. 2000: Rural development regulation referring to the most important aspect of the new CAP: article 33, marketing of quality agricultural products (Second Pillar of Agenda 2000)
Private/NGO initiatives (e.g. logos) (please specify/add additional rows for each measure)
EU Reg# 2092/91
Governmental Journal Fek 278/2002 :N o 240901
Non Governmental Organizations: DIO, Biohellas s.a., Physiologiki Ltd. under the control of ESYD ( a company appointed by the Ministry of Development for controlling the Certifications Bodies). Ministry of Rural Development and Food granted approval to certification Bodies to operate
Dio, responsible for control and certification
Governmental Journal Fek 278/2002 No 240902 Governmental
Physiologiki ltd, responsible for control and certification Biohellas .s.a., responsible for
72
Appendix A
Journal Fek 278/2002 No 240903 Community guidance 83/189/ & 88/182/, & 94/10/K & 98/34/EK & 98/48/ EU Reg. 2601/98 control and certification ELOT, Hellenic Organization for standardization Establishment information process in the sector of models and technical regulations of directive 83/189/ establishment of HACCP system as well as the ISO standard/ http://www.elot.gr/home.htm Enhancement of investments for organic farmers, (i.e. green houses and standardized plants for organic agricultural products)
ELOT, Hellenic Organization for standardization
DEVELOPMENT AL PLAN
Ministry of Economy and finance of Greece
1997: No investments and restrictions of organic agricultural product categories (55472, Governmental Journal fek 390B/16-05-1997)
2004: new national regulation is elaborated upon.
Table b: Other agri-environmental policy measures in Greece

Legal basis/ regulation Initial plan/ report Scheme details Revisions Annual reports Midterm review Official evaluations (& final reviews) Other analyses & commentry
Other agrienvironmental measures (please specify/add additional rows for each measure)
Measures 3.1 Measures 3.2 Measures 3. 11 Measures 3.12 Measures 3.13 Natura 2000
2000: completion of A new invitation was some schemes exhibited by the Ministry (nitrate sensitive of Rural Development and areas, habitat Food scheme, biodiversity scheme) 2004: new scheme All regions and all cultures are eligible. Those who have completed a five-year period and fill the conditions required for program can be resubsidized Overseeing of sheep, goat, pig and pasturage bull breading. Maintenance of dry walls and re-establishment for landscape conservation (especially in the Prefectures of Eubro and Ioannina) Protection from soil erosion Protection of Wild Animal life, provision and support to farmers to help them to maintain the agricultural areas (NATURA 2000) 2001: From the 296 areas of the specific network, 64 which will be included in the Reg! 2078/92 2004: Under livestock extensification program there are some specific protection areas (SPA) as well as 20 spatial community interests (Psci) in
EU Reg. 2078/92 & 1257/1999 plus implementing regulations
Directorate of land use planning and Environmental protection (DLUPEP)
Countryside Stewardship Environmentally sensitive areas Unquoted reference yield, cross compliances.
73
Appendix A
Greece named regions A, and nine islands regions, named B. Program of water conservation of lakes and lagoons in Thrace. Regions of network Natura 2000 : "Delta Nestos and Keramoti lagoon " and the "Lake Andlagoons of Thrace" Program of water conservation (network natura 2000) "Lakes Volvis-Koronias" EU Reg. 1467/94. BAP 1)Natural resources, 2) fisheries, 3)development co-operation and 4)agriculture Extentification of livestock farm Programme for conservation of rare animal species (already implemented) Protection and re discovery of local crops and varieties that are facing the threat of extinction. RAMSAR Protection of water catchments areas Reduction of nitrate pollution of agricultural origin. Has already been implemented in Thessaly and in Fthiotida Environmental protection of Lake Pamvotidas. Decrease in fertilizers. Subsidization of Leguminous crops.
Measure 3.9: Measure 3.10: Biodiversity Action Plans
Measure 3.4 Measure 3.7 Measure 3.8 Water catchments areas Measure 3.5 Measure 3.6 Private/NGO initiatives (e.g. commercial utility company schemes) (please specify/add additional rows for each measure) Greek export organization in Greece. (OPE s.a.) -Ministry of Economy Agro-environmental Sector Number of Entitlements 2003 Organic Agriculture Organic Livestock Diminishment of Nitrate pollution Biodiversity Other, e.g. pesticide tax if relevant (please specify/add additional rows for each measure)
A programme called Eco Hellas Good Living. 2003-2006 is responsible for the promotion of organic products to the inner market by OPE s.a. national link of trade. Because of Athens Olympic Games 2004 there will be in an Exhibition of innovation products like organic products
EU Reg. 1257/99 or 2078
More details in the excel worksheet retrieved by OPEKEPE
Number of total accepted contractors 2451 Number of total accepted contractors 553 Number of total accepted contractors 459 Number of total accepted contractors 863
74
Appendix A
Table c: Other rural development and structural measures in Greece with specific relevance to or provision for organic farming
Legal basis/ regulation Initial plan/ report Scheme details Revisions Annual reports Midterm review One midterm review Official evaluations (& final reviews) Not applicable Other analyses & commentary
Agricultural / rural development policy framework documents
EU Decision No 845/2001
The Operational Programme for Rural Development and the Reconstruction of the rural areas: EPAAAY 2000-2006
Not applicable
Not applicable
3 annual reports 200120022003
Various to be identified
Less favored areas
EU Reg. 1257/1999 & previous & implementing regulations EU Reg. 1257/1999 & previous & implementing regulations EU Reg. 1257/1999 & previous & implementing regulations EU Reg. 1257/1999 & previous & implementing regulations
Capital investments Vocational training Processing and marketing/ producer marketing groups Art. 33 rural adaptation measures (please specify/add additional rows for each measure) Agro-environmental measures Forestry
Rural Development Plan for Greece & Committee for organizing and controlling the III CSF Rural Development Plan for Greece Rural Development Plan for Greece Rural Development Plan for Greece
Scheme information pack Scheme information pack Scheme information pack Scheme information pack
EU Reg. 1257/1999 & previous & implementing regulations
Rural Development Plan for Greece
Scheme information pack
Early retirement
EU Reg. 2080/92 & 1257/1999 previous & implementing regulations EU Reg. 2079/99
Young farmers
EU Reg. 2520/98
Rural Development Plan for Greece & Committee for organizing and controlling the III CSF Rural Development Plan for Greece & Committee for organizing and controlling the III CSF Greece Rural Development Plan
Indirect funding: Improvement of age index (young farmers)
75
Appendix A
Structural measures (Obj. 1, 2 etc.) EU Reg. 1260/99 & previous implementing regulations Objective 1: programming documents Direct funding, Investments in infrastructure, support local development initiatives and job creation as well as indirect funding Investment in agro-farms (improvement plans) and compensatory allowances etc.
Other EU-based or national schemes relating to above (please specify/add additional rows for each scheme) EU Reg. 1783/99 Measure 2.2 Pilot action Archi-Med, Article 10, ETPA (European Fund of Territorial Development) Directorate of land use planning and Environmental protection (DLUPEP) & Hellenic Ministry for the Environment Physical Planning & Public Works Environment enhancement for growth realization in the Mediterranean space (19982001)
OSDE: (under OPEKEPE monitoring) Leader plus
Regional operational programmes
Integrated managerial and Control system Intervention for quality assurance Exploitation of the farmers registration system (LPIS) MEASURE 1.2.3.5 Growth, certification and control of organic products in the modernization of a honey standardization plant. Budget expenditure: 1,415.00 euro to be allocated to the individual, Panagioti Vasilaki, in the prefecture of Kerkira (municipality of Parelion). MEASURE 1.2.3.5 The proposed project by the organic producers of the Union of Arcadia with 3 specific objectives had to implement the following tasks:1) Preparation of approval applications for PDO, PGI for four specific traditional products 2) certification of organic products, plants and livestock, from producers members of the Union (chestnut of Parnona, cherry of Tegeas and Potatoes and garlic of Tripoli) 3) certification of organic pastures and meadows of the following municipalities Kinoutrias, Apollonos, Falaisisas and Tegeas Budget expenditure:70.214,00 euro MEASURE: 1.2.3.5 Expenditure back up for 1) the certification procedures of organic pastures and meadows and 2) organic products (olive oil, citrus) Municipality of Malaon Prefecture of Lakonia Budget expenditure: Budget expenditure: 64.000,00 euro Economic support of new and existing enterprises for a standardization production process for high added value products (biological, ecological, high nutritional value, etc.) action n.2601/98 a' task.
76
Appendix A
Crete, budget: 4821875 euro One standardization unit in Thessaloniki 5 organic producers have been subsidized to cover technical costs under the improvement plan during the period 1997-2002 in the prefecture of Kilkis An improvement plan for the subsidization of specific cultivation and trade methods applied for organic vegetables In the Region of Sterea Greece Establishment of a small unit for organic marmalade production in the Region of Thessaly. Information to producers and to unions of producers for subjects related to the quality of certified products as well as for new applications systems concerning environmental Sectoral operational management in the rural sector programme budget expenditure: 646,000 euros Establishment of a unit for Collection, packaging and drying of organic products in the Prefecture of Messinia , Region of Central Greece. Total Budget 123.590 euros First proclamation of Measure 4.3 for the promotion of exports and collective institutions budget expenditure: 10,803,919 Marketing of Quality Agricultural Products of the Region of Epirous 1,116,110 Marketing of Quality Agricultural Products of the Region of Ionian Islands Budget expenditure: 310,030 Marketing of Quality Agricultural Products of Quality of the Region of Peloponnesus Budget expenditure: 935,750 Marketing of Quality Agricultural Products of Quality of the Region of East Macedonia-Trace Budget expenditure: 394,590 Marketing of Quality Agricultural Products of Quality of the Region of Cretan Budget expenditure: 837,650 Marketing of Quality Agricultural Products of Quality of the Region of South Aegean Budget expenditure: 338,210 Marketing of Quality Agricultural Products of Quality of the Region of North Aegean Budget expenditure: 338,210 Marketing of Quality Agricultural Products of Quality of the Region of West Greece Budget expenditure: 338,210 Marketing of Quality Agricultural Products of Quality of the Region of Thessaly Budget expenditure: 417,130 Marketing of Quality Agricultural Products of Quality of the Region of West Macedonia Budget expenditure: 586,240 Marketing of Quality Agricultural Products of Quality of the Region of Sterea Greece Budget expenditure: 969,550 Marketing of Quality Agricultural Products of Quality of the Region of Attica Budget expenditure: 39,450 Marketing of Quality Agricultural Products of Quality of the Region of Central Macedonia Budget expenditure: 845,530 Second proclamation of Measure 4.3 for the promotion of exports and collective institutions Budget Expenditure :17,084,736
77
Appendix A
Table d: Market organization (commodity) measures in England with specific relevance to or provision for organic farming
Legal basis/ regulation Initial plan/ report Scheme details Revisions Annual reports Mid-term review Official evaluations (& final reviews) Other analyses & commentary
Market organization measures - only those with specific provisions for organic farming (please specify/add rows below for each relevant scheme example) Special provisions in national envelopes Set-aside exemptions for organic producers Special exemptions in set-aside management rules Quotas exemptions (national reserve arrangements) CAP reform 2003 agreement implementation
EU Rer! 2081/92 (Art. 17) Not applicable Relevant EU Regulation
Food labeling, Quality Assurance
Set-aside scheme information pack Suckler cow and sheep quotas Horizontal EU Reg! 1782/2003 EU Reg. 795/2004 EU Reg. 796/2004 Not applicable Not applicable
Tax/levy/tariff adjustments
New Economics Foundation (2002) proposals for tax credits for organic farming investments
Table e: Information and other relevant policies in Greece

Please add rows for any items where multiple schemes or measures involved Public education/ consumer promotion campaigns (incl. schools) 2860/2000 Legal basis/ regulation Initial plan/ report Scheme details Revisions Annual reports Midterm review Official evaluations (& final reviews) Other analyses & commentry
Ministry of Rural Development and Food Ministry of Rural Development and Food (programme EPEAAK II) Operational Programme for Education and Initial Vocational Training
Not yet developed
Soil Association proposals
Eligibility applies to the Ministry of education and religion affairs and to Universities
78
Appendix A
Measure 2.6 "Programmes of Protection of Environment and Environmental Education", Research Publication of invitation on research support action the POLYTECHNIC COLLEGES - ARCHIMEDES ' 22/01/2003 Priority action 2.6.1 "Programs of Environment and Environmental Education Protection ", Category of Priority Action 2.6.1.i.d. "Aid of Inquiring Teams on issues concerning the Environment and Ecology in the polytechnic colleges (TEI)" (postmasters, masters and specialization) Reg! NAGREF, NAGREF. 36 research 349/333199/1314/2-3BENAKIO Extension/modification of the projects of 99 (Phytopathological programme Organic Agriculture NAGREF Institute and Laboratory) E.U. Regulation 2078/92. Biological control of pests insects and mites with special reference to Entomopthorales Duration 200-2005 Implemented by the Institution of Horticulture and Floriculture (NAGREF) Research of organic cultivation techniques for grapes in Ctrete. Co financed by ; Technical Educational Institute in Heraclion: total budget expenditure 3.668 euros The Region of Heraclion: total budget expenditure 45.913euros Nagref: total budget expenditure 11298 euros Implemented by the Institution of Phytosanitary Treatment
Statistics & market intelligence Benchmarking and financial data Training and education
Reg! 797/85, Reg! 2328/91 and Reg! 950/97
TEI Larisas TEI Kefalonia Agriculture university of Athens, department of ecology/ University of Harokopeio Sustainable development master program The University of Thessaly.
-education to the young farmers, - newcomers of the farming sector, - successors of farm exploitations, -to a lesser extent to the secondary vocational training research-education institute research-education institute research-education institute
Research and Education of the Department of Economy and Ecology One of the departments of the University of Thessaly is the Department of Agriculture, Crop Production and Agricultural Environment. The Department of Natural Resources and Enterprise Management Department of Environment
The University of Ioannina. The University of
79
Appendix A
Aegean OGEEKA Program: Organization of Agricultural vocational and educational training DIMITRA (Ministry of Rural Development and Food) 68 Dimitra Centers all over Greece are responsible for the implementation of Agroplan, Proterris programmes etc under the finance of Leonardo Da Vinci and Laboratory of Environmental Planning Short courses related to: 1. Organic agriculture. 2. Organic livestock-farming. OGEEKA DIMITRA organization aiming to provide the Green Certification to Farmers. In cooperation with the Ministry of Defence, the solders are educated on relative subjects. FRELECTRA Developed by: OGEEKA 20002006: second phase, DIMITRA The use of innovative technologies and improved vocational training for the production and marketing of fresh Executives of PASEGES are conducting a range of educational programs related to the agricultural sector.
Reg. 2520/97 (Governmental Journal 173//1-997) Reg. 2637/98 (Governmental Journal 200/27-898) and Reg. 2945/2001 (Governmental Journal 223/8-102001)
The Pan Hellenic Confederation of Agricultural Cooperations, through its Centers for Vocational Training OAED: Greek Manpower Employment Organisation, subordinate to the Ministry of Labour. EKEPIS: National Accreditation Centre of Continuous Vocational Training, subordinate to the Ministry of Labour. American Farming School of Thessalonica.
The Organization undertakes training programmes for Initial Vocational Training and for Continuing Vocational Training The Institute undertakes the certification of private continuous vocational training centers that provide training seminars to adults. It is an independent, non-profit educational institution that caters to students at the primary, secondary, postsecondary and adult levels.
Centre of Environmental
80
Appendix A
Education of public servants. Financed by the national funds politeia www.politeiaeu.org and the III CPF. Short course entitled: GMOs and GMPs Professional Education in the Management of Rural Exploitations, in the Planning of Production, the Business dexterity and the Innovation in the Rural Sector with the use of Information technology and Communication (2003 2005) Professions directed towards the exploitation of countryside resources and traditional products in the sectors of: agro-food nutrition, tourism and reformation (2003 2005) Centre of vocational training Egeas , Thessaly Pilot program '' IRIS '' with regard to the ecological agriculture coordinator I. R. M. A. (Spain). Pilot program "ECO - FIELD ", with regard to the ecological agriculture coordinated by the Center of Vocational training EGEAS Bureau of Organic Products Ministry of Agriculture Department B, (DLUPEP) education. Ministry of Interior, Public Administration and Decentralization.
LEONARDO DA VINCI. AGROPLAN: LEONARDO DA VINCI. PROTERRIS:
Advice/extension
Institutional structures/ capacity building Joint Ministerial Decision. 128877/12-62003 Ministry of Rural Development and Food. DIMITRA The 13 Institutes of Technical Education located in 10 different cities of Greece () where14 new agricultural specializations will be introduced. Exploitation of the three Practical Agricultural Schools. Operation of 71 Educational Centers DIIR (ex G). Public procurement Private/NGO initiatives (e.g. consumer information) (please specify/add additional rows for each scheme) http://www.elot.gr/home.htm
Community guidance 83/189/ & 88/182/, & 94/10/K & 98/34/EK & 98/48/
Organic food Network
Under the
Establishment of information process in the sector of models and technical regulations of directive 83/189/ establishment of HACCP system as well as the ISO standard/ SBBE-The Chamber of
81
Appendix A
http://biofood.sbbe.gr implementation of the regional programme Quality distinctions in Central Macedonia financed by EPAA 20002006 New Farmer Union industries of Northen Greece materialize the following action: establishment of a network for Organic Products: Development and Promotion of new organic farming commodities to farmers and agro-food companies Provision of information concerning the Union of New Farmers, the Network of Organizations, technical support, new organizations, Biological Agriculture and agri-tourism.
New Farmer Union [http://www.ena.idx.gr]
EFET. EAS Aegalias
EBA union of bio-consumers of Attica GAIA COOPERATIVE
Quality controls of food products are conducted by National Agency of Food Control (EFET) Agricultural Union Of Cooperatives, consumer association Despina Karathanou Terma Korinthou, Gefira Selinounta, EL - 25100 Aegio Greece Tel: +30 691 25928 Activities: producer association producer consumer association Vasilios Pelekanos Dimokratias 93-95, EL - 73100 Chania Greece Tel: +30 821 28783 Activities: producer association research-education institute Niki Makri Municipal Centre of the Municipality, EL - 22100 Tripoli Greece Tel: +30 71 243305 Fax: +30 71 243305 Activities: producer association, research-education institute Elias Rondogiannis Ktima Pyrgou Vassiliasis, EL - 10433 Athens Greece Tel: +30-1-2387227 Fax: +30-1-2387027 Activities: Producer Association EL - 64002 Limenaria Greece Tel: +30-593-51706 Fax: +30-593-51706 Activities: producer association Dr. A. Vassillou P.D Box 59, EL - 70400 Moires Greece Tel: 0030 81 32 6589 Fax: 0030 892 22026 or +0030 892 22828 agapi-v@otenet.gr Activities: Producer association, rural development, environment Velvendos, EL - 50400 Kozani Greece
AGESR-agricultural economics and social research Association of bio cultivators in Arcada
Association of Ecological Agriculture of Greece
Bioagros - Organic Olive Farmers of Thasos CAEG - Cretan AgriEnvironmental Group
Cooperative of Fruit Producers
82
Appendix A
of Velvendos Dimitra- association of bio cultivators of hellas Activities: producer association G. Stamatopoulos EL - 27100 Pyrgos Greece Tel: +30 621 71085 Fax: +30 621 33244 Activities: producer association, research-education institute Michalis Koulouroudis And. Metaxa 13-15, EL - 10681 Athen Greece Tel: +30-1-364-7766 Fax: +30-1-330-4647 Activities: producer association, research-education institute Krokos, EL - 50010 Kozani Greece Tel: +30 461 63283 Activities: producer association Palaios, EL - 59100 Alexandria Greece Tel: +30-331-95098 Activities: producer association Post Box 1077, EL - 71110 Iraklion Greece Tel: +30 81 741945 Fax: +30 81 741528 http://www.aias.net/peza_union/index.html Activities: producer association for olive oil in crete research-education institute Maltezos Athanasios Kefalas, EL - 23100 Sparti Greece Tel: 0030-731-77455 Fax: 0030-731- 81851 Activities: producer association, research-education institute Makedonias 2 73100 Chania po box 85 Activities: research-education institute research-education institute
EEVE-union of organic farmers of Greece-Athens
Farmers' Cooperative of Krokos Group of Kiwi Producers of Meliki PEZA UNION - Peza Agrarian Cooperatives Ass/n of Iraklion Prefecture Institute of fruits & olive trees of Kalamata Kefala-Sparti ae
MAICH- Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Chania
Union of Consumers of Organic Agricultural Products (Lefkon Oreon) HCL-consultants company
Limited Provides a range of technical assistance services in the following fields: Vasso Argyropoulou Tel.: +30 210 9240885 fax : +30 210 9240769 email: office@hcl-consultants.com www.hcl-consultants.com
83
Appendix B: Results of 1st and 2nd Delphi Round
Appendix B
Overall 2nd Round Rank 2nd Rou nd 1 2 7 4 3 6 5 8 9 Overall 2nd Round Rank 2nd Rou nd 3 1 2 Overall 1st Round Total means 1.12 1.41 3.53 3 2.94 4.18 3.12 3.82 4.76 Total means 2.29 1.88 2.12 Research Bodies 1 1 4.5 3.5 4 4 3.5 3.5 4.5 Rank 1st Roun d 1 1 3 5 5 6 6 6 7 Overall 1st Round Research Bodies Rank 1st roun d 1 1 2 2.5 2.5 2
1. Which were the main factors that fostered the spread of OF in the area of Kolymvari?
1st Round Frequency Producers Local authorities
2nd round by category of respondent(mean scores) Food processors & distributors No food processors & distributors Technical & Cert. Bodies 1 1.33 2.33 2.67 3.33 4 3 4.67 5.33 1 1 1.33 Technical & Cert. Bodies Local Agent 1 1 3.5 2.5 2 3.5 2.5 3 5 1 1 2 Local Agent
high market price of organic products community support and local development programs easy cultivation of organic farming (specifically citrus and olive trees) low subsidies to conventional farmers Increasing international demand Promotional initiatives (brand name) Increasing concern in health Added concern for the environment vertical integration of product supply chain (the producer tries to process., standardize and trade the product alone)
7 7 5 3 3 2 2 2 1
1 2.5 5.5 1.5 3 3.5 2.5 3.5 4.5
1 1.5 3.5 3.5 3 4.25 3 3.25 4.75
1.67 1.33 3.33 3.67 2.67 5.33 3.33 4.67 4.33
1 1 2 3 4 4 3 4 5
2. Which were the most important problems of community support mechanism for the spread of OF?
1st Round Local authorities Frequency Producers
2nd round by category of respondent(mean scores) Food processors & distributors No food processors & distributors 1 1 2
State does not support exploitation of the related EU Regulations and Projects No significant motives offered to agro-food producers/entrepreneurs by the Community lack of measures enhancing specialized distribution channels (directly at the farm gate, health and natural shops, specialized
7 7 6
3 1.5 1.5
1.5 1.75 2
4 3.67 3.67
85
Appendix B
retail outlets, supermarkets) Lack of subsidies for specific Agricultural Infrastructures Community supports mainly big investors National support is mainly directly towards basic infrastructures e.g. for irrigation and roads State administration problems when applying the measures Lack of secure high level of production (not regularly product availability in the market) Not enhancement investments of new agribusinesses specializing in organic products 5 3 2 2 2 1 4.5 1.5 3.5 6 4.5 6 2.25 5 5.25 4.5 4.5 5.25 3.33 3.67 3 3 5.67 5.67 3 4 5 5 6 7 3 3.5 4.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 2.67 3.33 4.33 3.33 3.67 4.33 3.5 3.5 3.5 3 4 5 3.06 3.65 4.18 4.06 4.71 5.47 3 5 6 6 6 7 Overall 1st Round Total means Research Bodies Rank 1st roun d 1 3 4 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 2.5 1.5 4 5 3 2 3.5 4.5 5.5 5 4.5 4.5 1.76 2.06 3.94 4.06 3.47 3.47 2.94 4.41 5 4.76 4.94 4.82 4 5 7 6 7 8 Overall 2nd Round Rank 2nd Rou nd 1 2 5 6 4 4 3 7 13 8 10 9
3. Which are the most important threats that constrained or limited the spread of OA in the area of Kolymvari?
2nd round by category of respondent(mean scores) Local Agent Food processors & distributors Technical & Cert. Bodies 1.67 1.67 4 3.67 3 3 2.33 4 4.33 4 4 4 No food processors & distributors 1 2 4 4 4 3 3 5 5 5 6 5 2.5 1.5 3.5 3.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Input problems, nitrogen problem, lack of inputs, dacus olea, high cost , irregular manure availability Problem of certification and control bodies (few bodies, private, expensive for the small business, no regular control) Lack of specific Agricultural infrastructures (like an establishment of an organic olive oil mill) Irregular supply availability Lack of agricultural marketing for health and environmentally friendly products Inexistent central bodies responsible for the realization of Agricultural infrastructures (roads, means of transportation etc) Lack of specialized distribution channels (brokers/agentswholesalers-retailers-customers-consumers) Inexistent market organization for establishing certain price Inexistent motivation to support young farmers to become organic Limitation of production output because of cultivation techniques Lack of cooperation among farmers High processing and standardization cost
13 11 10 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 5.5 5 4.5 6 3 3.5 5 6 6 6
1.25 2.5 3.75 4 3.5 3 2.75 4.25 5.25 4.25 3.75 4.75
1.67 2 3.33 3.67 4 4.67 3.67 5.33 5.33 5.33 5.33 5.33
86
Appendix B
No organization to combine organic products with pdo, traditional, local etc No trade knowledge for specialized products Multi-chopping and limited proportion of area under organic cultivation Lack of organization to design all the production stages up to the consumer Lack of leadership All negative aspects of conventional farming are also attributed to organic farming Lack of comprehensible agricultural policy 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 7 6.5 6.5 6.5 7 2 7 4.75 4.25 5.25 3.75 4 5.75 5.5 6.67 5.33 6 6.67 5.67 5.5 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 5.5 5.5 3.5 4.5 4.5 5.5 4 5 5.33 5 4 4 5.67 4.67 5.5 4 4 4.5 6.5 6.5 4.5 5.65 5.12 5.18 4.94 5.12 5.24 5.29 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 Overall 1st Round Total means Research Bodies Rank 1st roun d 1 3 4 4 2.5 3 3.5 3.5 1.59 2.06 3 3.29 3 4 4 4 3 3.53 4.12 4.41 3.76 4.59 4 5 5 6 7 18 14 15 10 14 16 17 Overall 2nd Round Rank 2nd Rou nd 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 6 9
4. Which could be the most significant innovative aspects for the management marketing processes?
2nd round by category of respondent (mean scores) Local Agent Food processors & distributors Technical & Cert. Bodies 1 1.33 3 2.67 4 4.33 5 4 4.67 No food processors & distributors 1 2 3 3
Vertical integration of the production process (the producer tries to process, standardize, trade the product alone) International interactions to penetrate the distribution channels abroad Labelling of common logo and certification of quality products Establishment and integration of food supply chain with other rural tourism companies, tourist industries and handcraft sectors. Specialized distribution channels (directly at the farm gate, health and natural shops, specialized retail outlets, sectors in supermarkets) Promotion through exhibitions or new pilot programme New bottling materials for recycling as well environmentally friendly packing Exporting to new markets (gourmet, luxury, specialty) Quality orientation of the agricultural food product
7 5 4 4
1.5 2.5 2 3.5
1 2 2.25 3
3 2.33 4.67 4.67
1 1.5 2.5 2.5
4 3 3 2 1
2 4 4 1 4.5
3.25 4 4.5 4.25 5.5
4.67 4.67 5 3.67 4.67
4 4 4 5 6
3.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 3.5
87
Appendix B
Overall 2nd Round Rank 2nd Rou nd 1 2 3 4 5 6 Overall 2nd Round Rank 2nd Rou nd 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 Overall 1st Round Total means 1.71 1.82 3.12 3.41 3.47 3.82 Total means 1.35 1.65 1.94 3.18 3.29 3.35 3.53 3.53 Research Bodies Rank 1st roun d 1 2 3 3 4 4 Overall 1st Round Research Bodies 1.5 3.5 3.5 2 2.5 2 3.5 4.5 Rank 1st roun d 1 1 3 5 7 7 7 8 4 1 3 5 4 4.5
5. Which of the mechanisms for the management marketing processes are considered more important?
1st Round Frequency Local authorities Producers
2nd round by category of respondent (mean scores) Food processors & distributors Technical & Cert. Bodies 1 2 3 3.33 3.67 4 1 1 1 2.67 3.33 4 3 3 Technical & Cert. Bodies Local Agent 1 2 3 3 3.5 3.5 1 1 1.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Local Agent No food processors & distributors 1 2 3 3 4 4 No food processors & distributors 1 1 1 3 4 4 4 4
Commercial representatives, an agent to promote/sell their product (international interaction) Increased control in and analysis of production factors (keep records of the production function as a whole) Study and observation of the cultivation process Personal contacts or good relations with all the organizations and individuals that are related to OF(organic farming) Reference made in news, media, magazines By cooperatives, unions or by word of mouth
5 4 3 3 2 2
1.5 1.5 3 3.5 3.5 4
2 1.5 3.5 3.5 2.75 3.5
1.33 2.67 3 2.67 3.67 3.67
6. Which are the most important knowledge elements that were introduced after OF?
1st Round Local authorities
2nd round by category of respondent (mean scores) Food processors & distributors 1.67 2 2 4 3.67 3.67 4 3.67
Frequency
Innovative aspects in farm management (new inputs) Pest management Studies curried out to deal the problem of nitrogen Increase organic output production and income Enhanced Business skills of organic farmers Improved quality of products Control and certification were introduced Improvement of the environment
9 9 7 5 3 3 3 2
1.5 1.5 2.5 4.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
1.5 1.5 2 3.25 3.5 3 3.3 3.25
Producers
88
Appendix B
Increase in consumer awareness as far as cultivating techniques are concerned Organization of associations related the supply process (women organizations) Sustainable development concept of the agriculture sector Local private processors and distributor interventions with organic products(hotels related with organic products, restaurants etc) 2 2 2 5.5 5.5 5.5 5 5.5 5.25 5.67 5.33 5.33 5 5 5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4 4.33 3.67 4 5 3.5 4.82 5.06 4.71 8 8 8 9 10 8
6.5
3.5
5.33
5.5
5.59
9 Overall 1st Round
11 Overall 2nd Round Rank 2nd Rou nd 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 8 Overall 2nd Round
7. Can you identify the future trends and prospects for Rural Development?
2nd round by category of respondent(mean scores) Food processors & distributors Technical & Cert. Bodies Local Agent Total means 1.59 1.65 3 3.82 4 4.24 5.12 5.71 5.59 No food processors & distributors Research Bodies
Need for involvement of agro tourism businesses the production On farm diversification ( production of quality food while increasing added value activities) Organized producer organization (lobby) Consumer oriented production Need for more pioneers to take initiatives and be innovative Vertical integration of production process (the producer tries to process, standardize and trade the product alone) Non family oriented organic farmers Diversification and non-specialization of farmer occupation (face the seasonality aspect of the labour and find other occupations) Need for producers to be careful about quality attributes of the product intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics
7 5 4 3 2 2 2 1 1
1.5 1 3 3.5 3.5 6 7 7 6.5
2 2 4 4.25 4.5 4.5 5.25 6 6.25
1.33 2 3.33 4 3.33 2.33 5 4.33 4
1 1 1 2 2 2 4 5 4
2.5 1.5 2 3 3.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 5
1.33 1.67 2.67 4.33 5 5.33 4.67 6.33 6.33
1 1.5 3 4 4.5 5 5 5.5 6
Rank 1st roun d 1 3 4 5 6 6 6 7 7 Overall 1st Round
8. How does organic farming foster the survival of agriculture and the landscape conservation?
1st Round
2nd round by category of respondent(mean scores)
89
Appendix B
Research Bodies Food processors & distributors Technical & Cert. Bodies Local Agent Total means No food processors & distributors Frequency Producers
Local authorities
By applying inputs that are environmentally friendly By imposing new restrictions for the abandonment of agrochemicals By using new and old traditional inputs without agrochemicals By improving the quality level of the products (healthy, convenient, certified, low price) By forcing local industries to decrease the production of chemicals
15 6 4 4 2
1.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4
1 1.75 2.5 3 4.25
3 3.67 3 3.33 5
1 2 3 5 4
1 2 2.5 3.5 3.5
1 2 2.67 3.67 4
1 1.5 3 3 5.5
1.41 2.12 2.71 3.41 4.35
Rank 1st roun d 1 8 10 10 11 Overall 1st Round
Rank 2nd Rou nd 1 2 3 4 5 Overall 2nd Round Rank 2nd Rou nd 2 1 4 3 7 5 6 4 Overall 2nd Round
9. Rank the most important difficulties that one runs into while activating the process of interaction with other sectors?
2nd round by category of respondent(mean scores) Food processors & distributors Local Agent Technical & Cert. Bodies Total means 2.82 1.88 2.94 2.88 3.53 3.12 3.41 2,52 No food processors & distributors Research Bodies
No mutual trust between producers and information bodies Limited number of OF so interaction is not considered necessary No information concerning available subsidization by the state Small size of agricultural enterprises No organized supply availability because OF is in an initial phase No mutual trust among producers(conventional or not) Lack of leader figures No organized movement of OF
8 6 6 5 5 5 3 2
1 1.5 2.5 3.5 5 2.5 3.5 6.5
3.25 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 2.5 2
2 2.67 3 3.33 3.67 3 3.67 2.67
5 2 4 3 3 3 3 2
3 1.5 3 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.5 1.5
4 2 3 2.33 2.67 3 3 2
2 1 3.5 2.5 4.5 3.5 5.5 1
Rank 1st roun d 1 3 3 5 5 5 7 8 Overall 1st Round
10. Which are the most important preconditions to start up a development strategy of the rural territory?
1st Round
90
Appendix B
Food processors & distributors Technical & Cert. Bodies Local Agent Local authorities Total means No food processors & distributors Frequency Producers Research Bodies
Rank 1st roun d
Rank 2nd Rou nd
"Bottom up approach" promoting the cooperation and communication among organizations and individuals that influence a policy agenda for sustainable growth. The state must favour it need for open minded stakeholders in institutions , research centres, local authorities Need for individual initiatives and innovative producers Need for regional support programmes. Application of interregional and organic agriculture culture techniques Need for physical and territorial properties such as arable land, untouched touristic places, weather Organized producers in order to acquire constant workforce Linkages with agro-tourism and restoration activities Enhancement for producing quality products which are at the same time pdo and traditional Diversification of the agricultural product/ production (value added) Need for standard profit margin for farmer, and non farmers in the rural areas Know how and lifelong education for the farmers as well for nonfarmers of the rural territories Need for marketing knowledge for promotion of specific quality products Good means of transportation(airport , shipping companies)
8 7 6 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 1 1
1.5 1 2 1.5 2.5 2.5 3.5 6.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 4 5 4.5 6
1.5 1.75 2 3 3 3.5 4.75 3.75 5 5.25 5 4.75 4 3.25 4.5
2.33 2.33 2.67 3 3.67 4 4 4 5.33 5.33 5.33 6.33 6.33 6.67 5.33
1 2 3 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 5 7 7
1 1.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 5 5 5 5.5 5 6.5 6.5
1 2 2.33 2.67 2.33 4 4.33 4.67 5.67 4.67 4.33 6 5 7 7
2 1.5 1.5 4 3.5 5 5.5 4.5 5 6.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 4.5 6.5
1.53 1.76 2.24 3 3.12 3.94 4.47 4.53 4.94 5.12 4.76 5.41 5.18 5.41 5.88
1 2 3 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 Overall 1st Round
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 9 13 12 13 14 Overall 2nd Round
11. Which would be the most important objectives of a development program and which are the priorities to be met?
1st Round
91
Appendix B
Technical & Cert. Bodies Local Agent Food processors & distributors Local authorities Total means No food processors & distributors Frequency Producers Research Bodies
Rank 1st roun d 1
Rank 2nd Rou nd 1
Economical and technical support of the rural population by the state in order to prevent mobility and migration Create new valid information systems in terms of interaction with network sectors (organizations and individuals that form around an issue problem) Education of conventional farmers and young farmers about organic farming Creation of an organization of bio cultivators that will undertake the control and trade Up to date Farming system with the modern tendencies (Dacus olea fight, biological inputs, machines) Organization of producers to verticalize the entire production process (from producer to consumer). Increase in peoples ecological sensitation Rural Development and reconstruction of rural development based on objectives of sustainable development Increase in local stakeholder awareness (through lifelong education) about their responsibility in enhancement of sustainable development Adoption of technologically friendly applications and industrial establishments in the environment Distribution of respected area proportion for organic cultivation Increase rate of employment- new type of work Increase farm income Enhancement of investments, expansions and the export activities of existing agro-farms and operations Applicable EU projects Limited standard restrictions imposed by the regulations Enhancement of producer & organization networks with respect to consumer welfare
1.5
1.24
7 5 5 4 4 4 3
2.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 2 1
1.25 1.75 2 3 2.75 2.75 3.5
2 2.33 2.67 2.67 3.67 3.33 4.33
1 2 2 3 3 3 4
1 1.5 2 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.5
1 2 2 3.33 3 3 3.33
1.5 1 3 2.5 3 3 3.5
1.47 1.76 2.18 2.82 2.94 2.82 3.35
1 3 3 4 4 4 5
2 3 4 5 6 5 7
3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1
2.5 1.5 3 4.5 4 4.5 3 7 4.5
3.5 4.25 4.5 5 5.25 4.5 5.25 6.25 6.25
3.33 2.67 4 4.67 4.67 4 4.67 5.33 5.33
4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6
3.5 3.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.5 5.5
4 4 5 5 4.33 5 5.67 6 6
3 5 4.5 4.5 5 4.5 4.5 6 5.5
3.41 3.59 4.35 4.76 4.71 4.53 4.76 6 5.65
5 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 7
8 9 10 13 12 11 13 15 14
92
Appendix C: Overall results correlations of the 1st and 2nd Delphi Round
Appendix C
Appendix C: Correlations of 1st and 2nd round results 1 st question Correlations Pearson Correlations
DELPHI 1_1 DELPHI1_1 Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 1 . 9 .733* .025 9 .733* .025 9 1 . 9 DELPHI2_1
DELPHI2_1
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
No parametric Correlation Spearman's rho Correlations

DELPHI1_1 Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N DELPHI 1_1 1.000 . 9 .787* .012 9 DELPHI2_1 .787* .012 9 1.000 . 9
DELPHI2_1
* Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed). 2 nd question Correlations Pearson Correlations
DELPHI1_2 Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N DELPHI1_2 1 . 9 .957** .000 9 DELPHI2_2 .957** .000 9 1 . 9
DELPHI2_2
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
No parametric Correlation Spearman's rho

DELPHI1_2 Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N DELPHI1_2 1.000 . 9 .957** .000 9 DELPHI2_2 .957** .000 9 1.000 . 9
DELPHI2_2
94
Appendix C
** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). 3 rd question correlations Pearson Correlations
DELPHI2_3

DELPHI2_3
** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
4rth question Pearson Correlations

DELPHI2_4

DELPHI2_4
95
Appendix C
DELPHI2_5

DELPHI2_5
6th question Pearson Correlations

DELPHI1_6 Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N DELPHI1_6 DELPHI2_6 1 .921** . .000 12 12 .921** 1 .000 . 12 12
DELPHI2_6

DELPHI1_6 Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N DELPHI1_6 DELPHI2_6 1.000 .963** . .000 12 12 .963** 1.000 .000 . 12 12
DELPHI2_6
7th question Pearson Correlations 96
Appendix C
DELPHI2_7

DELPHI2_7

DELPHI1_8 Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N DELPHI1_8 1 . 5 .856 .064 5 DELPHI2_8 .856 .064 5 1 . 5
DELPHI2_8

DELPHI2_8
** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). 9th question Pearson Correlations
DELPHI2_9
97
Appendix C

DELPHI1_9 Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N DELPHI1_9 DELPHIH2_9 1.000 .587 . .126 8 8 .587 1.000 .126 . 8 8
DELPHI2_9
10
DELP1_9
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
DELPH2_9
Graph: Question 9
No parametric Correlation Repeated spearmans correlation ones extracted the last answer given.
DELPHI1_9 Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N DELPHI1_9 DELPHIH2_9 1,000 ,730 , ,063 7 7 ,730 1,000 ,063 , 7 7
DELPHIH2_9
10nth question Pearson Correlations

DELPHI1_10 Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) DELPHI1_10 DELPHI2_10 1 .973** . .000
98
Appendix C
DELPHI2_10 N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 15 .973** .000 15 15 1 . 15

DELPHI2_10

DELPHI2_11

DELPHI2_11
99
Appendix D: Overall & by category of respondent correlations
Appendix D
Appendix D: Stakeholders response Correlations In each case we have 8 variables explaining the creation of an at are why an 8*8 correlation matrix. 1 ST question: stakeholders Correlations
LOCAL AUTHORITY LOCAL AUTHORITY Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 1,000 , 9 ,642 ,062 9 ,468 ,204 9 ,410 ,273 9 ,746 ,021 9 ,523 ,149 9 ,701 ,035 9 ,702 ,035 9 FARMER FOOD NO FOOD LOCAL CERT/TECHN. RESEARCH OVERALL PROCESSOR COMPANIES AGENCIES BODIES BODIES ,642 ,062 9 1,000 , 9 ,872 ,002 9 ,852 ,004 9 ,935 ,000 9 ,850 ,004 9 ,916 ,001 9 ,973 ,000 9 ,468 ,204 9 ,872** ,002 9 1,000 , 9 ,799 ,010 9 ,808 ,008 9 ,841 ,004 9 ,761 ,017 9 ,908 ,001 9 ,410 ,273 9 ,852** ,004 9 ,799** ,010 9 1,000 , 9 ,763 ,017 9 ,961 ,000 9 ,786 ,012 9 ,877 ,002 9 ,746* ,021 9 ,935** ,000 9 ,808** ,008 9 ,763* ,017 9 1,000 , 9 ,831 ,005 9 ,842 ,004 9 ,952 ,000 9 ,523 ,149 9 ,850** ,004 9 ,841** ,004 9 ,961** ,000 9 ,831** ,005 9 1,000 , 9 ,749 ,020 9 ,916 ,001 9 ,701* ,035 9 ,916** ,001 9 ,761* ,017 9 ,786* ,012 9 ,842** ,004 9 ,749* ,020 9 1,000 , 9 ,908 ,001 9 ,702* ,035 9 ,973** ,000 9 ,908** ,001 9 ,877** ,002 9 ,952** ,000 9 ,916** ,001 9 ,908** ,001 9 1,000 , 9
FARMER
FOOD PROCESSOR
NO FOOD COMPANIES
LOCAL AGENCIES
CERTIFICATION & TECHNICAL SUPPORT BODIES RESEARCH BODIES
OVERALL
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The variables correlations that are not significant, probably because these groups rate the objectives differently, concerning the factors of organic farming spread, are: Local authority and food processors & distributors, (r=,468, df=7, p=.204) 101
Appendix D
Local authority and no food processors and distributors, (r=,410, df=7, p=.273) Local authority and Technical & certification bodies, (r=,523, df=7, p=.149). In conclusion only, the opinions among these groups is not converging, however the overall correlation among all stakeholders is significant thus converging. 2 nd question: stakeholders Correlations
LOCAL FARMER FOOD NO FOOD LOCAL CERT/TECHN. AUTHORITIES PROCESSOR COMPANIES AGENCIES BODIES LOCAL AUTHORITY Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 1,000 , 9 ,466 ,206 9 ,313 ,412 9 ,714 ,031 9 ,733 ,025 9 ,621 ,074 9 ,651 ,058 9 ,738 ,023 9 ,466 ,206 9 1,000 , 9 ,246 ,523 9 ,907 ,001 9 ,882 ,002 9 ,946 ,000 9 ,741 ,022 9 ,897 ,001 9 ,313 ,412 9 ,246 ,523 9 1,000 , 9 ,486 ,185 9 ,506 ,165 9 ,265 ,490 9 ,621 ,074 9 ,523 ,149 9 ,714* ,031 9 ,907** ,001 9 ,486 ,185 9 1,000 , 9 ,998 ,000 9 ,947 ,000 9 ,864 ,003 9 ,987 ,000 9 ,733* ,025 9 ,882** ,002 9 ,506 ,165 9 ,998** ,000 9 1,000 , 9 ,938 ,000 9 ,874 ,002 9 ,985 ,000 9 ,621* ,074 9 ,946** ,000 9 ,265 ,490 9 ,947** ,000 9 ,938** ,000 9 1,000 , 9 ,839 ,005 9 ,942 ,000 9 RESEARCH OVERALL BODIES ,651 ,058 9 ,741* ,022 9 ,621 ,074 9 ,864** ,003 9 ,874** ,002 9 ,839** ,005 9 1,000 , 9 ,908 ,001 9 ,738* ,023 9 ,897** ,001 9 ,523 ,149 9 ,987* ,000 9 ,985* ,000 9 ,942* ,000 9 ,908* ,001 9 1,000 , 9
FARMER
FOOD PROCESSOR
NO FOOD COMPANIES
LOCAL AGENCIES
OVERALL
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
102
Appendix D
The variable correlations that are not significant are probably so because these groups rate the objectives differently concerning Community support problems for the spread of Organic Agriculturea, are: Local authority and farmers(r=, 466, df=7, p=.206) Food processors and no food companies (r=, 246, df=7, p=.523) However, the overall correlation among all stakeholders is significant Only the following correlations by type of stakeholders, as well as their overall correlation are not significant. Food processors & distributors and Local authorities and (r=, 313, df=7, p=.412) Food processors & distributors and no food processors and distributors, (r=, 486, df=7, p=.185) Food processors & distributors and Local agent (r=, 506, df=7, p=.165) Food processors & distributors and Technical &Certification bodies (r=, 265, df=7, p=.490) Overall correlation of Food processors & distributors with the all others stakeholders objectives is not significant (r=, 523, df=7, p=.149) In conclusion, the opinions among these groups do not converge. 3 rd question: stakeholders Correlations
LOCAL FARMER FOOD NO FOOD AUTHORITY PROCESSOR COMPANIES LOCAL AUTHORITY Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation 1,000 , 19 ,423 ,072 19 ,593 ,007 19 ,648 ,003 19 ,407 ,084 19 ,494 ,032 19 ,287 ,423 ,072 19 1,000 , 19 ,675 ,002 19 ,851 ,000 19 ,711 ,001 19 ,897 ,000 19 ,720 ,593** ,007 19 ,675** ,002 19 1,000 , 19 ,811 ,000 19 ,778 ,000 19 ,762 ,000 19 ,652 ,648** ,003 19 ,851** ,000 19 ,811** ,000 19 1,000 , 19 ,810 ,000 19 ,893 ,000 19 ,733 LOCAL AGENCIES ,407 ,084 19 ,711** ,001 19 ,778** ,000 19 ,810** ,000 19 1,000 , 19 ,872 ,000 19 ,826 CERT/TECHN. BODIES ,494* ,032 19 ,897** ,000 19 ,762** ,000 19 ,893** ,000 19 ,872** ,000 19 1,000 , 19 ,739 RESEARCH OVERALL BODIES ,287 ,234 19 ,720** ,001 19 ,652** ,002 19 ,733** ,000 19 ,826** ,000 19 ,739** ,000 19 1,000 ,668* ,002 19 ,884* ,000 19 ,873* ,000 19 ,964* ,000 19 ,876* ,000 19 ,934* ,000 19 ,797*
FARMER
FOOD PROCESSOR
NO FOOD COMPANIES
LOCAL AGENCIES
103
Appendix D
Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N ,234 19 ,668 ,002 19 ,001 19 ,884 ,000 19 ,002 19 ,873 ,000 19 ,000 19 ,964 ,000 19 ,000 19 ,876 ,000 19 ,000 19 ,934 ,000 19 , 19 ,797 ,000 19 ,000 19 1,000 , 19
OVERALL
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). The variable correlations that are not significant are probably so because these stakeholders rate the objectives differently, related to the general factors that constrained/ limited the spread of OA, are: Local Authorities and Research bodies (r=, 287, df=18, p=.234) In conclusion, only the opinions among these two groups are not converging However, the overall correlation among all stakeholders is significant. 4rth question: stakeholders Correlations
LOCAL FARMER FOOD AUTHORITIES PROCESSOR LOCAL AUTHORITY Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation 1,000 , 9 ,593 ,093 9 ,532 ,140 9 ,404 ,281 9 ,182 ,639 9 ,499 ,172 9 ,233 ,593 ,093 9 1,000 , 9 ,606 ,084 9 ,955 ,000 9 ,853 ,003 9 ,914 ,001 9 ,537 ,532 ,140 9 ,606 ,084 9 1,000 , 9 ,588 ,096 9 ,603 ,086 9 ,792 ,011 9 ,488 NO FOOD LOCAL COMPANIES AGENCIES ,404 ,281 9 ,955** ,000 9 ,588 ,096 9 1,000 , 9 ,898 ,001 9 ,886 ,001 9 ,463 ,182 ,639 9 ,853** ,003 9 ,603 ,086 9 ,898** ,001 9 1,000 , 9 ,902 ,001 9 ,697 CERT/TECHN. BODIES ,499 ,172 9 ,914** ,001 9 ,792* ,011 9 ,886** ,001 9 ,902** ,001 9 1,000 , 9 ,638 RESEARCH OVERALL BODIES ,233 ,546 9 ,537 ,136 9 ,488 ,183 9 ,463 ,209 9 ,697* ,037 9 ,638 ,065 9 1,000 ,620 ,075 9 ,959** ,000 9 ,789* ,011 9 ,913** ,001 9 ,872** ,002 9 ,976** ,000 9 ,636
FARMER
FOOD PROCESSOR
NO FOOD COMPANIES
LOCAL AGENCIES
104
Appendix D
OVERALL
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). The variable correlations that are not significant are probably so because some groups of stakeholders rate the objectives related the importance indication concerning innovative aspects for management marketing processes differently. The groups are: Local authority, food processors & distributors (r=, 532, df=7, p=.140) Local authorities, not food processors & distributors (r=, 404, df=7, p=.281) Local authorities and local agent (r=, 182, df=7, p=.639) Local authorities, technical and certification bodies (r=, 499, df=7, p=.172) Local authorities and Research bodies (r=,233, df=7, p=.546) Research bodies and farmers (r=, 537, df=7, p=.136) Research bodies, food processors & distributors (r=, 488, df=7, p=.183) Research bodies, not food processors & distributors (r=, 463, df=7, p=.209) However the overall correlation among all stakeholders is significant. 5 th question: stakeholders Correlations
LOCAL AUTHORITIES LOCAL AUTHORITY Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 1,000 , 6 ,885 ,019 6 ,787 ,063 6 ,924 ,008 6 FARMER FOOD NO FOOD LOCAL PROCESSOR COMPANIES AGENCIES ,885* ,019 6 1,000 , 6 ,520 ,290 6 ,695 ,125 6 ,787 ,063 6 ,520 ,290 6 1,000 , 6 ,958 ,003 6 ,924** ,008 6 ,695 ,125 6 ,958** ,003 6 1,000 , 6 ,926** ,008 6 ,748 ,087 6 ,943** ,005 6 ,986** ,000 6 CERT/TECHN. BODIES ,955** ,003 6 ,769 ,074 6 ,923** ,009 6 ,984** ,000 6 RESEARCH BODIES ,659 ,155 6 ,679 ,138 6 ,094 ,859 6 ,369 ,471 6 OVERALL
FARMER
FOOD PROCESSOR
NO FOOD COMPANIES
,998** ,000 6 ,886* ,019 6 ,812* ,050 6 ,938** ,006 6
105
Appendix D
LOCAL AGENCIES Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N ,926 ,008 6 ,955 ,003 6 ,659 ,155 6 ,998 ,000 6 ,748 ,087 6 ,769 ,074 6 ,679 ,138 6 ,886 ,019 6 ,943 ,005 6 ,923 ,009 6 ,094 ,859 6 ,812 ,050 6 ,986 ,000 6 ,984 ,000 6 ,369 ,471 6 ,938 ,006 6 1,000 , 6 ,990 ,000 6 ,344 ,504 6 ,945 ,004 6 ,990** ,000 6 1,000 , 6 ,423 ,404 6 ,966 ,002 6 ,344 ,504 6 ,423 ,404 6 1,000 , 6 ,616 ,193 6 ,945** ,004 6 ,966** ,002 6 ,616 ,193 6 1,000 , 6
OVERALL
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The variable correlations that are not significant are probably so because these groups rate the objectives related to the marketing mechanism responsible for the spread of organic product differently. The groups are: Farmer, food processor & distributors(r=, 520, df=4, p=.290) Farmer, not food processor & distributors (r=, 695, df=4, p=.125) However the overall correlation among farmers and the other stakeholders is significant. Moreover other groups include; Research bodies and local authorities (r=, 659, df=4, p=.155) Research bodies and farmers (r=, 679, df=4, p=.138) Research bodies and food processors & distributors (r=, 094, df=4, p=.859) Research bodies and no food processors & distributors (r=, 369, df=4, p=.471) Research bodies and local agent (r=, 344, df=4, p=.504) Research bodies, technical and certification bodies (r=, 423, df=4, p=.404) The overall correlation among research bodies and the other stakeholder opinions is either not significant (r=, 616, df=4, p=.193) In conclusion, only the opinions among these groups do not converge. 6 th question: stakeholders Correlations
LOCAL FARMER FOOD NO FOOD LOCAL CERT/TECHN. AUTHORITIES PROCESSOR COMPANIES AGENCIES BODIES LOCAL AUTHORITY Pearson Correlation 1,000 ,950** ,958** ,871** ,785** ,858** RESEARCH OVERALL BODIES ,607* ,950**
106
Appendix D
Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N , 12 ,950 ,000 12 ,958 ,000 12 ,871 ,000 12 ,785 ,002 12 ,858 ,000 12 ,607 ,036 12 ,950 ,000 12 ,000 12 1,000 , 12 ,978 ,000 12 ,935 ,000 12 ,863 ,000 12 ,908 ,000 12 ,652 ,022 12 ,987 ,000 12 ,000 12 ,978** ,000 12 1,000 , 12 ,957 ,000 12 ,891 ,000 12 ,927 ,000 12 ,591 ,043 12 ,988 ,000 12 ,000 12 ,935** ,000 12 ,957** ,000 12 1,000 , 12 ,931 ,000 12 ,974 ,000 12 ,554 ,061 12 ,969 ,000 12 ,002 12 ,863** ,000 12 ,891** ,000 12 ,931** ,000 12 1,000 , 12 ,871 ,000 12 ,458 ,134 12 ,899 ,000 12 ,000 12 ,908** ,000 12 ,927** ,000 12 ,974** ,000 12 ,871** ,000 12 1,000 , 12 ,512 ,089 12 ,945 ,000 12 ,036 12 ,652* ,022 12 ,591* ,043 12 ,554* ,061 12 ,458 ,134 12 ,512 ,089 12 1,000 , 12 ,665 ,018 12 ,000 12 ,987** ,000 12 ,988** ,000 12 ,969** ,000 12 ,899** ,000 12 ,945** ,000 12 ,665* ,018 12 1,000 , 12
FARMER
FOOD PROCESSOR
NO FOOD COMPANIES
LOCAL AGENCIES
OVERALL
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). The variable correlations that are not significant are probably so because these groups rate the objectives differently related to the knowledge elements which were introduced after the introduction of organic farming. These groups are: Research bodies and local agents (r=, 458, df=10, p=.134) However, the overall correlation among all the stakeholders is significant. In conclusion, only the opinions among these groups do not converge. 7 th question: stakeholders Correlations
LOCAL FARMER FOOD NO FOOD LOCAL CERT/TECHN. AUTHORITIES PROCESSOR COMPANIES AGENCIES BODIES LOCAL AUTHORITY Pearson Correlation 1,000 ,918** ,733* ,889** ,910** ,887** RESEARCH OVERALL BODIES ,922** ,954**
107
Appendix D
Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N , 9 ,918 ,000 9 ,733 ,025 9 ,889 ,001 9 ,910 ,001 9 ,887 ,001 9 ,922 ,000 9 ,954 ,000 9 ,000 9 1,000 , 9 ,830 ,006 9 ,863 ,003 9 ,892 ,001 9 ,944 ,000 9 ,970 ,000 9 ,986 ,000 9 ,025 9 ,830** ,006 9 1,000 , 9 ,772 ,015 9 ,692 ,039 9 ,690 ,040 9 ,762 ,017 9 ,828 ,006 9 ,001 9 ,863** ,003 9 ,772* ,015 9 1,000 , 9 ,960 ,000 9 ,820 ,007 9 ,811 ,008 9 ,908 ,001 9 ,001 9 ,892** ,001 9 ,692* ,039 9 ,960** ,000 9 1,000 , 9 ,887 ,001 9 ,863 ,003 9 ,931 ,000 9 ,001 9 ,944** ,000 9 ,690* ,040 9 ,820** ,007 9 ,887** ,001 9 1,000 , 9 ,981 ,000 9 ,959 ,000 9 ,000 9 ,970** ,000 9 ,762* ,017 9 ,811** ,008 9 ,863** ,003 9 ,981** ,000 9 1,000 , 9 ,977 ,000 9 ,000 9 ,986** ,000 9 ,828** ,006 9 ,908** ,001 9 ,931** ,000 9 ,959** ,000 9 ,977** ,000 9 1,000 , 9
FARMER
FOOD PROCESSOR
NO FOOD COMPANIES
LOCAL AGENCIES
OVERALL
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). The opinions of the stakeholder related to the future (prospects) expectations for rural sustainable development, converge. 8 th question: stakeholders Correlations
LOCAL AUTHORITIES LOCAL AUTHORITY Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 1,000 , 5 ,952 ,012 5 FARMER FOOD NO FOOD LOCAL CERT/TECHN. PROCESSOR COMPANIES AGENCIES BODIES ,952* ,012 5 1,000 , 5 ,623 ,261 5 ,769 ,128 5 ,901* ,037 5 ,831 ,082 5 ,930* ,022 5 ,929* ,023 5 ,955* ,011 5 ,962** ,009 5 RESEARCH OVERALL BODIES ,919* ,027 5 ,979** ,004 5 ,965** ,008 5 ,997** ,000 5
FARMER
108
Appendix D
FOOD PROCESSOR Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N ,623 ,261 5 ,901 ,037 5 ,930 ,022 5 ,955 ,011 5 ,919 ,027 5 ,965 ,008 5 ,769 ,128 5 ,831 ,082 5 ,929 ,023 5 ,962 ,009 5 ,979 ,004 5 ,997 ,000 5 1,000 , 5 ,379 ,529 5 ,566 ,320 5 ,626 ,259 5 ,789 ,113 5 ,753 ,142 5 ,379 ,529 5 1,000 , 5 ,969 ,007 5 ,947 ,015 5 ,721 ,169 5 ,866 ,058 5 ,566 ,320 5 ,969** ,007 5 1,000 , 5 ,994 ,001 5 ,840 ,075 5 ,950 ,013 5 ,626 ,259 5 ,947* ,015 5 ,994** ,001 5 1,000 , 5 ,892 ,042 5 ,977 ,004 5 ,789 ,113 5 ,721 ,169 5 ,840 ,075 5 ,892* ,042 5 1,000 , 5 ,962 ,009 5 ,753 ,142 5 ,866 ,058 5 ,950* ,013 5 ,977** ,004 5 ,962** ,009 5 1,000 , 5
NO FOOD COMPANIES
LOCAL AGENCIES
OVERALL
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The variable correlations that are not significant are probably so because these groups rate the objectives differently regarding on; whether organic farming fosters the environment and land scape is conserved: Non food companies and Research Bodies (processors and distributors) (r=, 721, df=3, p=.169) Nevertheless, the overall correlation among non food companies and the other stakeholders have a significant level. In addition: Food processors & distributors and Local authorities (r=, 623, df=3, p=.261) Food processors, distributors and farmers (r=, 769, df=3, p=.128) Food processors, distributors and no food processors and distributors, (r=, 379, df=3, p=.529) Food processors, distributors and Local agent (r=, 566, df=3, p=.320) Food processors, distributors and Technical & Certification bodies (r=, 626, df=3, p=.259) Food processors, distributors and Research Bodies (r=, 789, df=3, p=.113) Overall, the correlation among food producers & distributors and the remaining stakeholders objectives have a low level of significance (r=, 753, df=3, p=.142) In conclusion, these groups opinions do not converge. 109
Appendix D
9 th Question: stakeholders Correlations
LOCAL FARMER FOOD NO FOOD LOCAL CERT/TECHN. AUTHORITIES PROCESSOR COMPANIES AGENCIES BODIES LOCAL AUTHORITY Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 1,000 , 8 -,178 ,674 8 ,444 ,270 8 -,537 ,170 8 -,307 ,460 8 -,536 ,171 8 ,079 ,852 8 ,266 ,524 8 -,178 ,674 8 1,000 , 8 ,157 ,710 8 ,474 ,235 8 ,418 ,303 8 ,556 ,152 8 ,437 ,279 8 ,646 ,083 8 ,444 ,270 8 ,157 ,710 8 1,000 , 8 -,343 ,406 8 ,297 ,474 8 -,299 ,472 8 ,760 ,029 8 ,632 ,092 8 -,537 ,170 8 ,474 ,235 8 -,343 ,406 8 1,000 , 8 ,714 ,047 8 ,927 ,001 8 ,229 ,585 8 ,358 ,384 8 -,307 ,460 8 ,418 ,303 8 ,297 ,474 8 ,714* ,047 8 1,000 , 8 ,764 ,027 8 ,783 ,022 8 ,733 ,038 8 -,536 ,171 8 ,556 ,152 8 -,299 ,472 8 ,927** ,001 8 ,764* ,027 8 1,000 , 8 ,364 ,376 8 ,457 ,255 8 RESEARCH OVERALL BODIES ,079 ,852 8 ,437 ,279 8 ,760* ,029 8 ,229 ,585 8 ,783* ,022 8 ,364 ,376 8 1,000 , 8 ,890 ,003 8 ,266 ,524 8 ,646 ,083 8 ,632 ,092 8 ,358 ,384 8 ,733* ,038 8 ,457 ,255 8 ,890** ,003 8 1,000 , 8
FARMER
FOOD PROCESSOR
NO FOOD COMPANIES
LOCAL AGENCIES
OVERALL
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Some variable correlations were not significant and some were negatively correlated. So, some respondent groups provided a negative value to the objectives that to others that gave a positive value. An objective that is important for one group is less important for the other, depending on to the main difficulties one runs into while activating processes of interaction with other sectors. Specifically: Local authority and farmers (r=, -178, df=6, p=.674) 110
Appendix D
Local authority, food processors & distributors (r=, 444, df=6, p=.270) Local authorities, no food processors & distributors (r=, -537, df=6, p=.170) Local authorities and local agent (r=, -307, df=6, p=.460) Local authorities and technical and certification bodies (r=, -536, df=6, p=.171) Local authorities and Research bodies (r=,079, df=6, p=.852) Farmer, food processor & distributors(r=, 157, df=6, p=.710) Farmer, no food processor & distributors (r=, 474, df=6, p=.235) Farmer and local agents (r=, 418, df=6, p=.303) Farmer, technical and certification bodies (r=, 556, df=6, p=.152) Farmer and Research bodies (r=, 437, df=6, p=.279) Food processors & distributors and no food processors and distributors, (r=, -343, df=6, p=.406) Food processors, distributors and Local agents (r=, 297, df=6, p=.374) Food processors, distributors and Technical & Certification bodies (r=, -299, df=6, p=.472) No food processors, distributors and Research bodies (r=, 229, df=6, p=.585) Technical & certification bodies and Research bodies (r=, 079, df=6, p=.852) Moreover, the overall correlation among the following groups was not significant, thus the opinions did not converge; Local authorities and overall stakeholders (r=,266, df=6, p=.524) No food processors, distributors and overall stakeholders (r=, 358, df=6, p=.385) Technical and certification bodies and overall stakeholders (r=, 266, df=6, p=.524) 10th question: stakeholders Correlations
NO FOOD LOCAL FARMER FOOD AUTHORITIES PROCESSOR COMPANIES LOCAL AUTHORITY Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation 1,000 , 15 ,541 ,037 15 ,655 ,008 15 ,687 ,541* ,037 15 1,000 , 15 ,737 ,002 15 ,837 ,655** ,008 15 ,737** ,002 15 1,000 , 15 ,870 ,687** ,005 15 ,837** ,000 15 ,870** ,000 15 1,000 LOCAL CERT/TECHN. AGENCIES BODIES ,745** ,001 15 ,794** ,000 15 ,896** ,000 15 ,987** ,754** ,001 15 ,727** ,002 15 ,891** ,000 15 ,936** RESEARCH OVERALL BODIES ,677** ,006 15 ,868** ,000 15 ,785** ,001 15 ,821** ,786** ,001 15 ,870** ,000 15 ,922** ,000 15 ,960**
FARMER
FOOD PROCESSOR
NO FOOD COMPANIES
111
Appendix D
Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N ,005 15 ,745 ,001 15 ,754 ,001 15 ,677 ,006 15 ,786 ,001 15 ,000 15 ,794 ,000 15 ,727 ,002 15 ,868 ,000 15 ,870 ,000 15 ,000 15 ,896 ,000 15 ,891 ,000 15 ,785 ,001 15 ,922 ,000 15 , 15 ,987 ,000 15 ,936 ,000 15 ,821 ,000 15 ,960 ,000 15 ,000 15 1,000 , 15 ,955 ,000 15 ,846 ,000 15 ,972 ,000 15 ,000 15 ,955** ,000 15 1,000 , 15 ,777 ,001 15 ,950 ,000 15 ,000 15 ,846** ,000 15 ,777** ,001 15 1,000 , 15 ,907 ,000 15 ,000 15 ,972** ,000 15 ,950** ,000 15 ,907** ,000 15 1,000 , 15
LOCAL AGENCIES
OVERALL
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The opinions of the stakeholder related to the objectives for a sustainable rural development strategy/policy, converge. 11th question: stakeholders Correlations
LOCAL FARMER FOOD NO FOOD AUTHORITIES PROCESSOR COMPANIES LOCAL AUTHORITY Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation 1,000 , 17 ,771 ,000 17 ,742 ,001 17 ,739 ,001 17 ,758 ,000 17 ,744 ,771** ,000 17 1,000 , 17 ,912 ,000 17 ,983 ,000 17 ,986 ,000 17 ,973 ,742** ,001 17 ,912** ,000 17 1,000 , 17 ,919 ,000 17 ,924 ,000 17 ,885 ,739** ,001 17 ,983** ,000 17 ,919** ,000 17 1,000 , 17 ,996 ,000 17 ,983 LOCAL CERT/TECHN. AGENCIES BODIES ,758** ,000 17 ,986** ,000 17 ,924** ,000 17 ,996** ,000 17 1,000 , 17 ,978 ,744** ,001 17 ,973** ,000 17 ,885** ,000 17 ,983** ,000 17 ,978** ,000 17 1,000 RESEARCH OVERALL BODIES ,708** ,001 17 ,949** ,000 17 ,843** ,000 17 ,926** ,000 17 ,941** ,000 17 ,902** ,818** ,000 17 ,992** ,000 17 ,934** ,000 17 ,986** ,000 17 ,991** ,000 17 ,976**
FARMER
FOOD PROCESSOR
NO FOOD COMPANIES
LOCAL AGENCIES
CERTIFICATION &
112
Appendix D
TECHNICAL SUPPORT BODIES RESEARCH BODIES Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N ,001 17 ,708 ,001 17 ,818 ,000 17 ,000 17 ,949 ,000 17 ,992 ,000 17 ,000 17 ,843 ,000 17 ,934 ,000 17 ,000 17 ,926 ,000 17 ,986 ,000 17 ,000 17 ,941 ,000 17 ,991 ,000 17 , 17 ,902 ,000 17 ,976 ,000 17 ,000 17 1,000 , 17 ,944 ,000 17 ,000 17 ,944** ,000 17 1,000 , 17
OVERALL
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The opinions of the stakeholder related to a projects objectives aiming for sustainable development, converge.
113
Reference List
Reference List
Allaire, G., Sylvander , B., (1997), Qualitie specifique et systeme dinnovation territo-riale. Cahiers deconomie, Sociologie Rurales 4, 30-59. Belshaw, D., (draft) (2000), Strategic options for the reduction of poverty in sub-Saharan Africa: welfares human development versus small-scale commodity production, Mimeo, UEA, Norwich, UK (in: Simon Maxwell, Robin Heber Percy (2001), New trends in development thinking and implications for agriculture (assessed in: http: // www.fao.org /docrep /003/ x9080e/j)). Bryden, J., (1994), Towards sustainable rural communities, Guelph University, School of Rural Planning and Development. COM, (2003), 640 final, Proposal for a Council Regulation, Brussels, (Assessed in: http://europa.eu.int/ eurlex/en/com/pdf/2003/com2003_0640en01.pdf). COM, (2004), 490 final, Proposal for a Council Regulation on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, (EAFRD) {SEC (2004)931} Brussels, 14.7.2004, 2004/0161(CNS). COM, (2004a), 490 final, Proposal for a Council Regulation on support to Rural Development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, Extended Impact Assessment, Commission staff working document. Dalkey, N.C., (1968), The Delphi Method: an Experimental Study of Group Opinions, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica (in: Brian Ilbery et al., (2003), Forecasting food supply chain developments in lagging rural regions: evidence from the UK Journal of Rural Studies). Daoutopoulos, G., (2004), 7 lessons of development, Macedonia University of Thessaloniki (ed), Name of the publisher, 2002. Delbecq, A. L.; Van de Ven, A. H.; Gustafson, D. H., (1975), Group techniques for program planning, Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company. Desai N., (2002), The World Summit on Sustainable Development: Implementing Agenda 21, (assessed in: http:// www.isuma.net/ v03n02/desai/desai_e.pdf). Diamanos, D.; Dimara, E.; Hassapoyannes, K.; Skuras, D., (1998), The CAP Reform and the Uruguay Round and The pre-and post accession agricultural regional and structural policies, Greek Agriculture in a changing International Environment Published by Ashgate Publishing Ltd. England, British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data. Dick, B., (1997), Stakeholder analysis, (available at: www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/ arp/stake.html). Dimopoulos, D., (2004), The background of CAP: Principles, Objectives, key concepts, Ministry of Rural Development and Food (GR) (ed.), Seminar Maich, Chania. Donald, P. F.; Pisano, G.; Rayment, D. M.; Pain J. D.; (2002), Review: The Common Agricultural Policy, EU enlargement and the conservation of Europes farmland birds, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 89, 167182. 114
Reference List
E.C. (1999), Re-legislation of the structural funds 2000-2006 comparative analysis, Annual Report on the implementation of the reform of structural funds. E.C. (2004), Information Policy on Agriculture and Rural Development, Rural Development Programs 2000-2006 (assessed in: http://europa.eu.int/ comm/agrculture/ index.htm). E.U. (2003), Rural development in European Union European Commission Agriculture and Rural Development, fact sheet (assessed in: http://europa.eu.int/comm/ agriculture/publi/fact/rurdev2003/en.pdf). E.U. Council Directive (1997), The novel foods regulation 258/97/EEC of 27th January 1997 E.U. Press Release (2002), Towards sustainable farming, Commission presents EU farm policy mid term review, Brussels, IP/02/1026 (assessed in: http://europa.eu.int /rapid/pressReleasesAction). E.U. Press Release (2004), Rural development in the EU, Brussels, (assessed in: http://europa.eu.int/ rapid/pressReleasesAction). E.U. Press Releases (2004), Rural development in the EU, Brussels, (assessed in: http://europa.eu.int/ rapid/pressReleasesAction). European Parliament (1994), Fact sheets on the European Parliament and the activities of the European Union (6th edition), Directorate General for research, Luxemburg. Evans, N.; Morris, C.; Winter, M., (2002), Conceptualising agriculture: a critique of post productivism as the new orthodoxy, Progress in Human Geography 26 (3), 313-332 (in: Brian Ilbery et al., (2003), Forecasting food supply chain developments in lagging rural regions: evidence from the UK Journal of Rural Studies). Falk, I.; Kilpatrick, S., (2000), What is social capital? A study of interaction in the rural community, Sociologia Ruralis, 40(1), 87-111. FAO, (1996), Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action, Rome (in: Simon Maxwell, Robin Heber Percy (2001), New trends in development thinking and implications for agriculture (assessed in: http:// www.Fao. org/docrep/003/x9080e/j)). Fishler, F., (2003), The communitys agricultural policy 2003: the year of decisions, Speech opening, International Green Week , Berlin (in P. Midmore, C. Foster and M. Schermer Organic Producer Initiatives and Rursal Development four European Case Studies Volume 3, The University of Wales, Aberystwyth, United Kingdom, School of management and Business). Fishler, F., (2003a), Europes rural areas: an invaluable asset for us all, Opening Speech, Salzburg European Conference on Rural Development (http://europa.eu.int /rapidReleaseAction.do?reference=speech/03/534&format=html&aged=0&language=en&guila nguage=en). Flora, C.B., (1995), Social capital and sustainability: agriculture and communities in the Great Plains and Corn Belt, Research in Rural Sociology and Development, 6, 227-246. Friesbie, WP.; Hasarda, J.D., (1988), Spatial processes, in Smeler, N.J. (ed), Handbook of Sociology , Sage: London, Sustainable Rural Development (in: Hank de Haan, Babis Kasimis, 115
Reference List
Michael Redclift (Eds), European society for Rural Sociology, (1997), Published by Ashgate Publishing Ltd., England, British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data). Gardner, G., (2002), From Rio to Johannesburg: Growing Awareness, Sluggish Response (assessed in: http://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/2002/02/28/) Gertler, M., (1999), Sustainable communities and sustainable agriculture on the Prairies, Pierce, J.T. and Dale, A (eds), Communities development and sustainability across Canada, Vancouver: UBC Press , 121-139 (in P. Midmore, C. Foster and M. Schermer, Organic Producer Initiatives and Rursal Development four European Case Studies, Volume 3, The University of Wales , Aberystwyth, United Kingdom, School of management and Business). Hamm, U.; Gronefeld, F., (2004), The European market for organic food, Organic Marketing Initiatives and Rural Development, Volume 5, Aberystwyth: School of Management and Business (University of Wales) (in: P. Midmore, C. Foster and M. Schermer, Organic Producer Initiatives and Rursal Development four European Case Studies Volume 3, The University of Wales, Aberystwyth, United Kingdom, School of management and Business). Held, D.; McGrew, A., (1999), The global transformations teader: an introduction to the globalization debate, Cambridge: Polity Press (in: Simon Maxwell, Robin Heber Percy (2001), New trends in development thinking and implications for agriculture (assessed in: http://www.fao.org/ docrep/003/x9080e/j)). Helen, N., (2004), What are the possible influences affecting the future environmental agricultural policy in the European Union? An investigation into the main factors, Journal of Cleaner Production, 12 , 461468. ICAP, (2003), Sector Study on Biological Cultivations - Biological Products (assessed in: http://www.icap.gr/ news/index_uk_2440.asp). IFOAM, (2002), A sustainable agricultural policy for Europe, Brussels, IFOAM EU Regional Group. Ilbery, B., (2002), Geographical aspects of the 2001 outbreak of Foot and Mouth Diseease in the UK, Geography 87, 142-147 (In: Brian Ilbery et al., (2003), Forecasting food supply chain developments in lagging rural regions: evidence from the UK Journal of Rural Studies). Ilbery, B., et al., (2003a), Forecasting food supply chain developments in lagging rural regions: evidence from the UK, Journal of Rural Studies. Ilbery, B.; Kneasfsey, M., (2000), Producer constructions of quality in regional speciality food production: a case study from South West England, Journal of Rural Studies, 16, 217-230 (In: Brian Ilbery et al., (2003), Forecasting food supply chain developments in lagging rural regions: evidence from the UK Journal of Rural Studies). Ilbery, B.; Maye D.; Kneasfey M.; Jenkins T.; Walkley C., (2003), Forecasting food supply chain developments in Lagging Rural Regions: evidence from the UK, Elsevier, Journal of Rural Studies. INRA, (2000), The Europeans and biotechnology Eurobarometer, 52.1. IUNK, (2004), Brussels in Brief, Institute for European Environmental Policy, The World Conservation Union, Volume 3, Agriculture and Biodiversity.
116
Reference List
Kaynak, E.; Bloom, J.; Leibold, M., (1994), Using the Delphi technique to predict future tourism potential, Marketing Intelligence and Planning 12 (7), 1829 (in: Brian Ilbery et al., (2003), Forecasting food supply chain developments in lagging rural regions: evidence from the UK Journal of Rural Studies). Knickel, K.; Renting, (2000), Methodological and conceptual issues in the study of multifunctionality and rural development, Sociologia Ruralis, 40 (4), 512-529. Lampkin, N., H., (2003), Organic farming conversion Models, Unpublished report to Defra, Institute of rural studies, University of WALES. Lampkin, N.; Foster C.; Padel S.; Midmore, P., (1999), The policy and regulatory environment for organic Farming in EU, Organic Farming in Europe: Economics and Policy, Volume 1, Hohenheim. Lampkin, N.; Midmore, P., (2000), Changing fortunes for organic farming in Europe: policies and prospects, Agricultural Economics Society, Manchester (in: P. Midmore, C. Foster and M. Schermer, Organic Producer Initiatives and Rural Development four European Case Studies, Volume 3, The University of Wales , Aberystwyth, United Kingdom, School of management and Business). Lampkin, N.H.; Padel S., (eds) (1996), The economics of organic farming: an international perspective, Wallingford (in P. Midmore, C. Foster and M. Schermer Organic Producer Initiatives and Rural Development four European Case Studies, Volume 3, The University of Wales , Aberystwyth, United Kingdom, School of management and Business). Leeuwis, C., (2000), Recoceptualizing participation for sustainable rural development, towards a negotiation approach, Development and Change, 31(5), 931-959 Liesbet, H.; Gary M., Types of Multi-Level Governance, Department of Political Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill. Louloudis, A., (2001), We are walking to an agriculture that will operate under restrictions, New Agriculture, chapter 1/01, gr. Lowe P.; Henry B.; Ward N., (2002), Setting the next Agenda? British and French approaches to the second pillar of the Common Agriculture Policy, Journal of Rural Studies, No 18 (2002) 117. Lowe, P.; Ward, N., (1998), A Second Pillar for the CAP Reform? The European RDR and its implications for the UK, University of Newcastle upon Tyne Centre for rural economy, Working Paper 36. Marsden, T.; Banks, J.; Bristow, G., (2002), The social management of rural nature: Understanding agrarian based rural development, Environment and Planning A, 34(5), 809825. Martino, J., (1983), Technological forecasting for Decision Making, (Discussion Draft), (in: Brian Ilbery et al., (2003), Forecasting food supply chain developments in lagging rural regions: evidence from the UK Journal of Rural Studies). Maxwell, S.; Conway, T., (2000), Perspectives on partnership, OECD, Working Paper Series, No. 6, World Bank, Washington, DC (in: Simon Maxwell, Robin Heber Percy (2001), New trends
117
Reference List
in development thinking and implications http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x9080e/j)).
for
agriculture
(assessed
in:
Maxwell, S.; Riddell, R., (1998), Conditionality or contract: perspectives on partnership for development, Journal of International Development, 10: 257-268 (in: Simon Maxwell, Robin Heber Percy (2001), New trends in development thinking and implications for agriculture (assessed in: http:// www.fao.org /docrep /003/x9080e/j)). Midmore, P,; Foster, C.; Schermer, M., (ed.) (2004(a)), Organic producer initiatives and Rural Development four European Studies, OMIARD Volume 3, published by School of management and Business, the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, United Kingdom. Midmore, P., (2004(b)), Organic farming policy and rural development, Short Course for researchers - Researching Development & Organic farming in the EU-25 context, SIMOCA project, INTEREG IIIB-CADSES, WP5: Capacity building training, awareness and dissemination with innovative systems. Midmore, P.; Tzouvelekas V., (1998), Sustainability and Agricultural Economics, 4 rth PanHellenic Congress of Rural Economy Competitiveness and Completed Growth of Rural Sector: The New Challenges for Greece, Zioganas, Ch., (Ass.), Publications Ziti, Thessalonica 1998, p. 440-452. Moyer W.; Josling, T., (2002), Agricultural Policy Reform Policies and process in the EU and US in the 1990s, Ashgate Publishing. Murdoch, J.; Marsden, T.; Banks, J., (2000), Quality nature and embedednees: some theoretical considerations in the context of the food sector, Economic Geography, 76(2)107-125. OECD, (1996), Development Assistance Committee, International Development Goals, Paris (Assessed in: http://www.fao.org/ docrep/003/x9808e/j). OECD, (2003), Analysis of the 2003 CAP Reform, (Assessed in: www.oecd.org / dataoecd /62/42/32039793.pdf). Olaf, Christen, Zita O Halloranetholtz, (2003), Indicators for a sustainable Development Agriculture, (assessed in: www.sustainabl-agriculture.org/ilu-eisa .doc) Osti, G., (1997), Sustainable Development in the Italian mountains, Sustainable Rural Development, Hank de Haan, Babis Kasimis, Michael Redclift (Eds), European society for Rural Sociology, Published by Ashgate Publishing Ltd., England, British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data. Pezzaros, D. P., (2002), The environmental Dimension of the Common Agricultural Policy-An Overview (included as Chapter 1, in Pavlos D.Pezaros & Martin Unfried (Eds), The Common Agricultural Policy and the Environmental Challenge Instruments, Problems and Opportunities from Different perspectives URBAN III, European Institute of Public Administration, Maastricht (NL)). Pezzaros, D. P., (2004), The rural development concept in the evolution of CAP, Short course for administrators, Rural Development and Organic Farming in the EU-25 context, WP5SIMOCA Project, INTEREG IIIB CADSES, published by MAICH . Potter, C.; Burney, J., (2002), Agricultural multifunctionality in the WTO-Legitimate non-trade concern or disguised protectionism? Journal of Rural Studies, 18(1), 35-47. 118
Reference List
Potts, G.R., (1997), Cereal farming, pesticides and grey partridges, (In: Pain, D.J., Pienkowski, M.W., (Eds.), Farming and Birds in Europe: The Common Agricultural Policy and its Implications for Bird Conservation. Academic Press, London, pp. 150177). Pugliese, P., (2001), Organic Farming and sustainable rural development: a multifaceted and promising convergence, Sociologia Ruaralis , 41(1). 112-131 (in: P. Midmore, C. Foster and M. Schermer Organic Producer Initiatives and Rursal Development four European Case Studies Volume 3, The University of Wales, Aberystwyth, United Kingdom, School of management and Business). Ray, C., (2002), A mode of production for fragile rural economies: the territorial accumulation of forms of capital, Journal of Rural Studies, 18(3), 225-23 (in: P. Midmore, C. Foster and M. Schermer Organic Producer Initiatives and Rural Development four European Case Studies Volume 3, The University of Wales , Aberystwyth, United Kingdom, School of management and Business). Ritson C.; Harvey D., (eds) (1997), The Common Agricultural Policy, CAB International. Robson, N., (1997), The evolution of the Common Agricultural Policy and the incorporation of environmental considerations (In: Pain, D.J., Pienkowski, M.W. (Eds.), Farming and Birds in Europe: The Common Agricultural Policy and its Implications). Sanders, (1966), IT Allocation Power in the Community: An introduction to the Social System, 2nd (ed) Ronald Press, NY (in: Steverson O. Moffata, Frederick W. Cubbageb, Thomas P. Holmesc, Elizabethann OSullivand, (2001), Characterizing the sustainable forestry issue network in the United States, Forest Policy and Economics (2 ) p.307_318). Schmid, O.; Richter T.; Hamm U.; Dahlke A., (2004), A guide to successful Organic Marketing Initiatives, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (fibl), Frick, Switzerland and University of Kassel, Germany. Scott, M., (2002), Delivering integrated rural development and sustainability, insights from Northern Ireland, European Planning Studies, 10 (8), 1013-1025. Scoullos, et. al., (1999), Planning Sustainable Regional Development: principles, tools and practices. The Case study of Rhodes Island, (MIO-ESSDE) SUDECIR project. Seers, D., (1963), The limitations of the special case, Bulletin of the Oxford Institute of Economics and Statistic, 25(2) ((in: Simon Maxwell, Robin Heber Percy (2001), New trends in development thinking and implications for agriculture (assessed in: http: // www.fao.org /docrep /003/ x9080e/j)). Shon, T.-H.; Swatman, P.M.C., (1998) Identifying effectiveness criteria for Internet payment systems Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy 8 (3), 202218. (in: Brian Ilbery et al., (2003), Forecasting food supply chain developments in lagging rural regions: evidence from the UK Journal of Rural Studies). Simoca Project, (2003), Setting up implementation of sustainable and multifunctional rural development based on organic and competitive agriculture, SIMOCA project - W.P. 2 (CODE 2AO18 INTEREG IIIB CADSES). Stamataki, E., (1995), Searching for endogenous development possibilities: the case of the organic olive oil production in Crete, MSc. Thesis, MAICh (eds). 119
Reference List
Staraki, M., (1997), Farmers attitudes towards rural development policy instruments implemented in the lagging rural and coastal regions of Greece MAICH (eds). Stiglitz, J., (1998), More instruments and broader goals: Moving towards the post-Washington consensus, World Institute for Development Economics Research, Annual Lecture, Helsinki (in: Simon Maxwell, Robin Heber Percy (2001), New trends in development thinking and implications for agriculture (assessed in: http: // www.fao.org /docrep /003/ x9080e/j)). Swinbank, A.; Ritson, C., (1995), The Impact of the GATT Agreement on EU fruit and vegetable policy, Food Policy Ed. Swinbank, A.; Tanner, C., (1996), Farm Policy and Trade Conflict: The Uruguay Round and Common Agricultural Policy Reform, University of Mitsigan (Ed.), Press, Ann Arbor. Tagermann, S., (1991), A bond Scheme for supporting Farm incomes, In John Marsh (ed), The changing role of the common agricultural policy: The future of farming Europe, Belhaven Press, London. Van der Ploeg, J.D., (2000), Revitalizing Agriculture: farming economically as starting ground for rural development, Sociologia Results, 40, (4) , 497-512 (in: P. Midmore, C. Foster and M. Schermer Organic Producer Initiatives and Rural Development four European Case Studies, Volume 3, The University of Wales, Aberystwyth, United Kingdom, School of management and Business). World Bank, (1998), Global economic prospects and the developing countries 1998/9, World Bank, Washington, DC (in: Simon Maxwell, Robin Heber Percy (2001), New trends in development thinking and implications for agriculture (assessed in: http: // www.fao.org/ docrep / 003 / x 9080e / j)). WTO, (2002), Agricultural negotiations, (assessed in: http:// www.wto.org/ english/tratope/agric-e/negs-bkgrnd05-intro-e.htm#objective Zanoli, R., (ed.), (2004), The European Consumer and Organic Food, Organic Marketing Initiatives and Rural Development, Volume four, published by School of management and Business, Aberystwyth, university of Wales, United Kingdom.
120
SETTING UP A SUSTAINABLE RURAL DEVELOPMENT MODEL IMPLEMENTATION BASED ON ORGANIC AGRICULTURE: BEST PRACTICE MODEL OF PILOT AREA OF KOLYMVARI
BY Voudouri, IOANNA
Chania, Greece 2004
Acknowledgements
I wish to express my gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Dr. Kostas Mattas of the Aristotle University of Thessalonica, for his valuable advice, guidance and encouragement throughout the course of this study. Next, I am grateful to the Studies Coordinator of the Department of Economic and Management Science, Dr. George Baourakis, for both the opportunity he gave me to pursue my studies here and for his support during my time at MAICh. I would like to offer my appreciation to the Director of the Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Chania, Mr. Alkinoos Nikolaidis, to the staff in my department, Mrs. Carmen Clapan, Mrs. Eleni Stamataki, Mr. Periklis Drakos, Mrs. Peggy Tsakiraki and Mrs. Penelope Vlandas for both their support and assistance throughout my period of study and work at MAICh. Special thanks addressed to Mrs. Marina Papadaki, for their irreplaceable help in the course of this work. I am thankful to Mrs. Irene Maravelaki for her final editing of the thesis. I extend many thanks to my special friends Eleni Lianou and Louiza Zerva, with whom I shared memorable moments during my stay in Chania. In addition, I would like to acknowledge the librarians at MAICh, Mrs. Maria Archaki, Mr Andreas Lourantakis and Mrs. Vicky Andonopoulou, for their assistance in obtaining the relevant literature. Last but not least, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my family, especially to my brothers, for standing by me and offering me support during my studies at MAICh.
ii
Table of contents
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................ii List of Tables ...........................................................................................................vii List of figures ..........................................................................................................viii Abstract.....................................................................................................................ix
Introduction................................................................................................................1
Part one: Programming Sustainable Rural Development based on Organic
1.1 Agricultural and rural development issues ....................................................................... 5 1.2 New rural development model ............................................................................................ 6 1.2.1 The evolution of the new EU Rural Development Model ............................ 8 1.3 Alternative Agriculture for sustainability ......................................................................... 9 1.3.1 Organic Agriculture ............................................................................................ 10 1.3.2 Issues that need to be reconsidered for New Agriculture ........................... 11
iii
2.1 A cursory background of Organic Farming as a policy tool ....................................... 13 2.1.2 The evolution of the Organic Farm Sector in the E.U. Framework.......... 14 2.2 Action Plans for Organic Farm Sector............................................................................. 15 2.3 Overview of the Organic Agricultural Policy in Greece.............................................. 16
3.1 Evolution of CAP structure ................................................................................................ 20 3.1.2 A change in CAP Architecture ......................................................................... 20 3.1.2.1 Agenda 2000 and Rural Development ........................................... 22 3.1.2.2Mid-term reviews of CAP 2003 ....................................................... 25 3.1.2.2.1 Price Policy: Single Area payment scheme-decouple payments ....................................................................................................................................... 27 3.1.3Salzburg conference on Rural Development .................................................. 28 3.1.3.1Article 33 .............................................................................................. 29 3.1.3.2Leader .................................................................................................... 30 3.1.4EU Enlargement and Rural development ........................................................ 31 3.1.5New draft for rural development regulation ................................................... 32
iv
Part two: Research Methodology
4.1 Overview of the Research Project to derive the Best Practice Model....................... 37 4.2 Delphi method....................................................................................................................... 38 4.3 Basic ingredients of the Delphi technique ...................................................................... 39 4.4 Stakeholders selection ....................................................................................................... 40 4.5 Applying the Delphi method.............................................................................................. 40 4.5.1 Data analysis ............................................................................................................. 43
5.1 First Survey ........................................................................................................................... 45 5.1.1 Evolution of organic and/or multifunctional farming development in the territory ............................................................................................................................ 45 5.1.2 Problems that constraint the organic and/or multifunctional farming evolution in the territory .............................................................................................. 46 5.1.3 Producers role in the creation, spread and adoption of innovations ....... 48 5.1.4 Degree of correlation among productions obtained and land use (landscape) ...................................................................................................................... 49 5.1.5 Capacity to activate integration processes (horizontal and vertical integration processes) and formal and informal inter-relations ........................... 50 5.1.6 The objectives for a sustainable rural development strategy/policy......... 51 5.1.7 SWOT Analysis and Empirical results ........................................................... 51
5.2 2nd Survey: A coherence analysis of the survey ........................................................... 54 5.2.1 Stakeholders contingency ................................................................................ 54 5.2.2 Best Practice Model for Organic and Competitive Agriculture ................ 56 5.2.2.1 Agronomic aspects............................................................................. 60 5.2.2.2 Environmental aspects ...................................................................... 61 5.2.2.3 Socio-economic aspects .................................................................... 62 5.2.2.4 Institutional and Infrastructural aspects......................................... 63 5.3 Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 64 5.2.1 Regional Initiatives ............................................................................................. 65 5.2.2 National Initiatives .............................................................................................. 65 5.2.3 European Community Initiatives ..................................................................... 66
Chapter 6
Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 67
Appendix A ..............................................................................................................68 Appendix B .............................................................................................................74 Appendix C ..............................................................................................................93 Appendix D ............................................................................................................ 100 Reference List ........................................................................................................ 114
vi
List of Tables
Table 1: OECD set of Basic Indicators by Four Main Development Concerns ............7 Table 2: Territorial scale of the factors and developmental causes ..............................7 Table 4: Total Retail sales of packaged organic products (cereals etc) from 1999-2003 in Greece (2003 is forecasted). .................................................................................17 Table 5: Market share of olive oil in tons 1999-2002 (2003 is forecasted).................18 Table 6: Market share of vine yard grapes in tons for 1999-2003 (forecast 2003)......18 Table 7: Market share of citrus in tons for 1999-2003 (forecast 2003).......................19 Table 8: AGENDA 2000 Rural development financial resources ...........................24 Table 9: Community Funding Rural Development...................................................26 Table 10: Swot Analysis of the territory: Integrated evaluation of the Pilot Area ......52 Table 11: Best-Practice Model for organic and competitive agriculture Pilot Area of Kolymvari, Crete......................................................................................................56
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Local systems, the outside system and the type and level of integration. ......3 Figure 2: A change of Archi-tecture of the CAP .......................................................21 Figure 3: Relations between the 1st and the 2nd pillar: .............................................23 Figure 4: Rural Development Policy.........................................................................23 Figure 5: Hypothetical Changes to Production Incentives .........................................27
viii
Abstract Rural Development is mainly a policy issue that had been viewed until now by economic factors only. The problem is that due to this approach society had been led to inequalities, food safety and security problems, resource reliance problems, and environmental distortions. Over the last two decades sustainability has become a major important topic in the political and scientific fields. This is because it is considered as a growth solution realized due a multifunctional strategy. Multifunctional development can be realized when economic, social, cultural, environmental and institutional objectives take part in the contribution of micro and macro development. Organic farming development is considered as one policy whicj aims to fulfill the aforementioned dimensions. Beyond this establishment, persistent links among various agencies and strong long lasting networks among stakeholders is required. The aim of this thesis is to come up with a new rural development model that integrates tourism, environment and farming to a common policy framework. The installation of a best Practice Model and a bottom-up approach with rural stakeholders designing rural development measures, at the local level, that best suits their requirements are considered the first step that can contribute towards this direction. For this reason a study was conducted in Chania, Crete whereby Kolymvari was the selected Pilot area used to set up the implementation model. Delphi methods were adopted to analyze the data. Analysis results prioritized the most important action needed to be implemented as well as the contingency among the stakeholders viewpoint on this actions.
Key words: sustainable rural development, organic agriculture, multifunctionality, EU policy, Best Practise Model, Delphi technique, stakeholder approach
ix
Introduction
Introduction Over the past two decades, sustainability has become a major element of political, social and economic concern. Traditional approaches to rural development focus primarily on economic issues, such as the improvement of output, income and employment. However, connecting rural development to the concept of sustainability, a rather more multifaceted perspective has emerged, relating conservation of environment resources with social and cultural dimensions. The notion of sustainability is directly linked to the conservation and preservation of the environment and of its natural recourses. Thus, Agriculture is considered as a crucial factor contributing to sustainability. As both Van der Ploeg (2000) and Marsden et al. (2002) have argued, farming plays a central role in this process through the mobilization, combination and utilization of resources at farm level, in order to take advantage of its broader linkages with off-farm employment and the safeguarding of the quality of rural landscapes and ecosystems. Although many definitions have been proposed, Brydens (1994) suggestion stating that sustainable rural development should be the capacity of a community to evolve in economic, social, cultural, land and ecological sense without detracting from possibilities of such evolution from other communities and moreover, on future generation communities. In order for agriculture to become multifunctional, cultural and ecotourism activities must be connected with environmentally responsible forms of farm and forestry production (Fishler 2003a, Potter and Burney, 2002) Complex interrelationships in rural development describing functional transformations in the use of resources such as land, labour, knowledge, substitution effects and the importance of synergy in defining and quantifying micro-macro relationships are covered by Knickel and Renting (2000). Pugilese (2001) identifies innovation, conservation, participation and integration as essential, overlapping characteristics. In essence, these characteristics can be identified by a number of overlapping stakeholder groups whose interests need to be taken into account. Thus, it is important to analyse the entire market environment, including the power of local key actors and stakeholders (Scott, 2002; Midmore et al, 2004).
Introduction
It is in this context where it is necessary to try to understand the inter and intra relationship among the most important actors of the system as well as the factors affected in the territorial and sectorial level (Figure 1). Consequently, methodological approaches which have studied networks among local actors are very important. Such analyses will allow the representation of local actors and their potential network development rebuilding in order to represent the organization of the whole local area. In this context, the structure of organic farms significantly influences rural development and the strengthening of local networks. The analysis will focus mainly on aspects, which mostly focus on organic, multifunctional and competitive agriculture for territorial and sectoral integrated and sustainable development. For that reason, primary data are going to be gathered and monitored under the umbrella of E.U. support which is also going to identify how and whether, organic farming and multifunctional agriculture, can contribute to sustainable rural development. The related area analyzed is going to address in subsequent chapters of this thesis. Specifically concerning the research implemented in Kolymvari, (Chania, Crete) twenty-two key stakeholders were selected. The choice of the appropriate stakeholders was crucial, as they would constitute a representative sample from each interrelated sector in the specific region. A standard stakeholder analysis (Dich, 1997) aiming to classify stakeholders in terms of influence and involvement in a rural system were implemented. It is extremely important to choose the right variety of actors to help formulate and bring about change. But it is critical to ensure that everyone understands his/her responsibility to give constructive, solution-oriented ideas, and to bring forward positive alternatives, rather than create obstacles to progress. Information will be gathered by means of different tools: literature review, available official statistical information and direct (1st round) and indirect surveys (2nd round) due to e-mail. The surveys will be carried out both through open ended and structured questionnaires for the 1st and the 2nd round, respectively. The objective is to support policy making, using a Delphi technique to evaluate those factors that contribute to sustainable development based on organic farming and likely to influence sustainable Rural Development as well as Policy Regulation. The Delphi method also reveals how expert opinions about rural development are contingent and
Introduction
contested by contradictions emerging within, as well as between, rounds (Brian Ilbery et. al., 2003).
Vertical integration process
Primary sector Farmer/Non Farmers
Secondary sectortransporting, extraction, storing, packaging, standardizing
Tertiary sector/Marketing ,trading
Price / inputs prices/ tarrifs/ quotas/ ex. subsidies Local Rural development Model (structural/environmental/social/cultural)
NGO initiatives (EU or international)/ private initiatives
Government/ National schemes
E.U. Regulation
Figure 1: Local systems, the outside system and the type and level of integration.
Part One: Programming Sustainable Rural Development based on Organic Farming
Chapter 1

1.1 Agricultural and rural development issues Nowadays, the main engine of development is the private sector government which provides strategic policy and investment support for infrastructure, service delivery and marketing. Participation is encouraged (perhaps more in some models than others), and safety nets is provided. Agriculture is an important aspect for rural development even if the national workforce and GDP contribution are facing declining trends. People must be fed, and agriculture is challenged to produce food for a rapidly growing world population whilst maintaining the worlds natural resources (Maxwell, 1998) also known as Food security which is the principle objective of Agriculture. Food security is defined as existing when all people at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life(FAO, 1996: para 1). Though, until now development had been considered from the viewpoint of economic size since scientists would refer to ware speaking for "growth rather than development. However, some current trends regarding development are these that are realised due globalisation, post-Washington Consensus and Aid. Under globalisation, agricultural livelihoods can be facilitated if linkages are established. As Held et al. observed (ibid: 436) what is especially notable about contemporary globalization, is the confluence of globalizing tendencies within all the key domains of social interaction. While Washington Consensus established NGOs to relief emergencies Striglitz (1998) who questioned the role of the market (left by it-self) undertook a systematic review of the Washinghton Consensus and re-determined the role of the government, which according to him is: To provide human capital; To provide research and development in new technology; To establish the quality of a country's institutions which determine economic outcomes;
Chapter 1
To enhance the voice and partnerships through state capability (Stringlitz 1998).
The functions required for succesful government intervention which aims to aid markets to work well are information to flow smoothly . . . side-effects on third parties to be curtailed, and competition to be fostered (McMillan). A final area of current debate is in reference to the disputable role of aid, where financial assistance leads to faster growth, poverty reduction and gains in social indicators in developing countries with sound economic management (World Bank, 1998), but has much less impact elsewhere. In addition there are many models that rely on donor recipient partnership but are usually characterized from a one-way and potentially coercive partnership at one extreme, to a genuine partnership with mutual accountability at the other (Maxwell and Conway, 2000). Finally, reference should be made to the new-style Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, despite the fact that concerns have been expressed about whether or not productive sectors will receive sufficient recognition and funding in PRSPs (Belshaw, 2000).
1.2 New rural development model The new rural developmental model is based on the perception of the rural areas. Each rural area offers its own special economic, social cultural and environmental qualities. All these factors should be analyzed in order to remunerate the developmental level of rural areas and to differentiate them from urban areas. The scientific community has developed a set of demographic, economic, social, and environmental indicators that classifies territories according to analytical
requirements, such as rural/urban and lagging/leading. By setting these indicators, national policies can also be applied efficiently and effectively. If sustainable agriculture is to gain prominence as a new guiding vision, a broad social dialogue will be necessary between the scientific community and the other segments of society (Olaf Christen, 2003). The issue of sustainability indicators is considered a political idea because good sustainability indicators are something that a political system has to have. A consensus of content and procedure will certainly not be reached in all cases, but a discussion throughout the process of elaborating and testing an indicator system
Chapter 1
will help to ensure wide acceptance. In 1996, the OECD Territorial Development Service proposed four main development concerns relevant to rural areas (see Figure 2). Table 1: OECD set of Basic Indicators by Four Main Development Concerns Population and migration Social well-being and equity Density Income Change Housing Structure Education Households Health Communities Safety Economic Structure and Performance Environmental and Sustainability Labour force Topography and Climate Employment Land Use Changes Sectorals Shares Habitats and Species Productivity Soils and Water Investment Air Quality Source: OECD, 1996 In a simple model, development in less developed areas and general rural areas can be caused by two human factors, residence and work. The motivation for finding income, intrinsic satisfaction and professionalism derive from an individuals ideals and principles concerning work in its entirety. In addition people prioritize factors differently concerning the environment, the place they are located, which, in general terms, is the home and the natural and social environment (Osti, 1997). Table 2: Territorial scale of the factors and developmental causes
Territorial scale of the factors Local Overlocal Neo-ruralism Metropolitan development Making the most of rural Lower costs of housing; culture and communication good road networks; way of life Search for good quality environment Endogenous development; Productive Making the most of local decentralization; resources; Keeping the Less costly and more wealth within the area; compliant workers; developing local Search for public funds cooperation
Factors linked to the residence Causes of development Factors linked to the work
Chapter 1
Source: Osti, 1997. Whatever the results are in either direction, the new political dimension enhances sustainable development, emanating from a system having flexible capacity and ability to adjust successfully to the ever-emerging socio-economic conditions without causing irreversible negative effects in the process (Osti, 1997). While Sustainable development on our planet cannot be achieved without rural and agricultural contribution, institutions are going to maintain an active role concerning rural and agricultural policy (Olaf Christen, 2003).
1.2.1 The evolution of the new EU Rural Development Model The traditional academic agro-economics were oriented to farm management, agricultural and food marketing and commodity policy analysis (Midmore, 1998 (b)) Midmore advocates that the EU policy to rural development relied on the belief that agriculture is the backbone of the rural economy (2004 a). Thus, the agro-industrial dynamic is dominated by intensive cultivation practises and large agro-food companies for conventional products. Mass production of food is encouraged due to yield subsidy support and highly globalised and mobilised networks encouraged mass production of food. The industrial revolution increased the spatial socio-economic disequilibrium whereby the non-urban areas were no longer able, to participate fully in the benefits of economic growth. Initial responses have sought to correct the imbalances, which have emerged; The major emphasis has been on raising employment levels and wages, particularly as out-migration have made the delivery of services (education, health, transport) a more expensive drain on public resources. This Agro-industrial model unfortunately caused environmental
degradation, farm indebtedness and, significantly, rising public concern over food safety scares as BSE, E. Coli and Foot and Mouth Disease (Ilbery, 2002). A new approach emerged in response to the ineffectiveness of industrialisation and relied heavily on soft approaches: self-reliance, participation, and empowerment. This approach mainly followed a route to poverty alleviation in the Third World. The new understandings for rural development were that the economic relationships were embedded in the social and the cultural frameworks like those already implemented in
Chapter 1
the Northern hemisphere. Moreover, sustainability was established by the Rio Summit as a key concept in rural development, as global environmental problems resulting from unfettered economic growth were increasingly recognised (Midmore, 2004(a)). Together, these trends fostered a powerful critique of old approaches to rural development like these of Post Productionist and Post post productionist. Post productionist former view agriculture as a non-important issue for rural development. They view rural use as consumption of leisure, tourism, manufacturing processes and environmental conservation. The latter headline the indirect importance of agrarian rural development, mainly underlying the importance of land and the major forces in shaping and managing the landscape. The new framework established, called post positivism is derived more from an empirical approach based on social and cultural aspects where the integration between agro-environment and rural development policies becomes crucial. In particular, the cultural and eco-tourism activities must be connected with environmentally responsible forms of farm and forestry production, which meet an increasingly sophisticated and diversifying consumer demand. Developmental policies that can support these activities should be coherent and integrated, flexible and adaptable and should promote participation of the related stakeholders of the whole demographic and social structure of the European countryside (Fishler, 2003). This rural development dynamic distinguishes itself from the post productivist dynamic (Evans et al., 2002) by re-positioning farm based production back to the centre stage. Thus, agricultural alternatives have become one of the central features of the new rural development dynamics. Specifically, organic agriculture is based on small scale, quality products, systems that promote and protect food products, such as PDO (Protected Designation of Origin), PGI (Protected Geographical Indication) and TSG (Traditional Speciality Guaranteed), close relationships between locally based producers, consumers and institutions and all aspects that engender greater endogenous sustainable rural development. 1.3 Alternative Agriculture for sustainability There are alternative agricultural systems that strive towards the above-mentioned goal of sustainability. Many different terms have been employed to define the term
Chapter 1
alternative: biological, organic, bio-ecological, low external input and sustainable agriculture (L.E.I.S.A.), and so on, each one indicating a slightly different farming logic. The interest in alternative forms of agriculture and, more specifically, in organic farming - as opposed to conventional ones- has increased due to increasing consumer interest in food free of pesticide residues, policy makers and pressure group's aim to stop degradation of the natural environment through science-based agricultural practices. Today's consumers are willing to pay for new dimensions of a product like quality including food safety, environmental benevolence, conservation of landscape, soil, etc (Stamataki, 1995).
1.3.1 Organic Agriculture In 1940, Alber Howard introduced organic cultivation in his book, Agricultural Will. The EU definition of organic farming involves a holistic production system for crops and livestock, with the implementation of cultural, biological and mechanical methods instead of synthetic materials. The term organic is best thought of as an organism, in which all the components the soil minerals, organic matter, microorganisms, insects, plants, animals and humans- interact to create a coherent, self regulating and stable whole. Reliance on external inputs whether chemical or organic, is reduced to a great extent. In many European countries, organic agriculture is known as ecological or biological agriculture reflecting the reliance on ecosystem management rather than external inputs (Lampkin, 1999). In addition, there are other agricultural systems that are very close to organic agriculture like biodynamic agriculture, organobiological agriculture and ecological agriculture: Biodynamic Agriculture refers to the philosophical movement based on human wisdom. Rudolf Stainer introduced the belief that people have hidden physical and mental power as well as mysteries of nature. Thus, fertilizers should not be applied to earth because earth is a living organism. Later, another advocator, Erhenfried
Pfeiffer, introduced theories that could lead to environmental harmonization. Organobiological agricultural objectives are economical as well as social. Miller
10
Chapter 1
introduced it in 1930. It aims to verticalize the production and to shorten the distance between production and consumption. It is an ecological movement that believes in technological innovations. Ecological agriculture is related to Natural agriculture whereby in both cases the belief is that nature should be free of any human intervention. Nature suffers, with respect to Fukuoka Msanobu, in order to rectify the damaged caused by human activities. It starts from the theory of Mu, some religion rank of Boudism that lead to a principle of doing nothing. Human activities towards the natural ecosystem are to serve it. The ecosystem is wealthy enough to feed humans. Fuoka claims that the ecosystem has two stages which are called Mahagiana and Chinagiana. Mahagiana is self-sufficient and does not require anything from the farmer. It refers to the pure cultivation of nature. Chinagiana is the system that prepares nature to become Mahagiana, which is related to ecological agriculture.
1.3.2 Issues that need to be reconsidered for New Agriculture Nevertheless, there are several related arguments to the lower yields concerning organic agriculture due the rejection of external inputs. Critics are concerned about the reliability of organic farming to produce sufficient food for everyone, the necessity of increasing imports, the high prices of organic food, potential fraud and whether the environmental effects are needed less harmful than those of other farming systems (Zanoli, 2004). For that reason Alternative routes to sustainability have also been explored, like integrated farming, Precision agriculture or low input agriculture that are patterns with different farming logic and principles. These alternative agricultural systems should be considered in such a way that it should enable the creation of further ideas enhancing sustainable development with respect to environmental and human priorities. Agriculture is not only faced with the challenge to produce food. In particular, agricultural alternatives are going to hold future potential for the countryside, related to cultural and ecotourism activities that could contribute to the development of social, cultural, economic and environmental indicators. Agronomic Research should focus on the development of new farming methods so as to enlarge the array of options for the farmers. This vulnerability could lead to a new competitive
11
Chapter 1
cultivation pattern, which should be better in terms of profit, social acceptability and environmental protection. With the already existing agricultural policy oriented towards small-scale credit, sustainable livelihood, inter and intra sectoral participation processes and quality aspects, organic farming is considered as a solution to sustainable rural development. In conclusion, beyond these multifunctional agriculture potentials, other aspects needed in order to derive an Action Plan for Sustainable Rural Development are the E.U. Regulation measures, the national, regional and institutional conditions and the linkages that are established. These aspects are first priority issues to be considered prior to any action taken that could secure sustainability.
12
Chapter 2
2.1 A cursory background of Organic Farming as a policy tool
Organic farming has emerged as one of the key themes in European Agriculture and regional policy in the recent past. A significant cause of this hightened policy profile is the ability of the organic concept to unite issues across a broad variety of themes (Lampkin and Padel, 1996). These, in terms of policies, provide governments with an opportunity to reduce commodity based support payments, improve environmental quality, strength consumer demand, support premium prices and increase margins for farms in an increasing competitive agricultural field. Moreover, in terms of consumers demand, organic products increase confidence in relation to contemporary concerns, particularly the safety and healthiness of nutrition but also the welfare of farm animals. Finally, the growing associations with traditional methods of production and local origins, are offset by concern with environmental impact of long distance transport of large volumes of food. All these aspects have further combined to enhance the attractiveness of one of the most easily recognized, generic brands of sustainable produced food (Midmore, 2004(a). This product status is related with well recognized characteristics, many of which are intangible and related to ethical, environmental, cultural and lifestyle aspirations, as much as the intrinsic qualities of the products. The EU support for organic farming is justified as an element in stimulating/ regulating the agricultural sector to be more supportive of rural development, diversification and reduction of environmental weight on agriculture. In central and Eastern European countries there is also growing interest in organic production methods, mainly because these patterns are expected to offer a more profitable and sustainable production system based on low input. It appears that organic farming systems have to reflect different expectations (Midmore, 2004(a)).
13
Chapter 2
2.1.2 The evolution of the Organic Farm Sector in the E.U. Framework Policymakers interest towards organic farming increased in the 80s, after the budgetary and surplus problems and the inflexibility of controlling them, were established by CAP Regulations. From its early origins as an insignificant, almost invisible alternative of the industry prior to the 1990s, organic farming has emerged as a major force in most countries of the E.U. (Hamm and Gronefeld, 2004). It had the merit of lower yields, the viewpoint of lower negative environmental impacts and a market driven by growing consumer demand. Some member states (notably
Germany) experimented in the 1980s with the Intensification Programme to provide support for organic farms, and the approach was mainstreamed in the 1992 McSharry reforms. This support integrated agri-environment measures with surplus reduction, and was qualified for enclosure in the green box measures which are exempt from the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations. The contribution of organic farming to rural development was also recognised, in a limited way, in structural support for agriculture: organic processing and marketing was given special recognition in the EAGGF measures introduced in 1987. The Organic sector has continued to be emphasised upon in more recent rural development policies, but it was only after the publication of the most recent reform proposals for 2007-2013 that the specific potential contribution of organic farming was recognised (Midmore, 2004(b)). However, the matching of organic farming with mainstream policymaking was much in question; the movement had evolved in opposition to the introduction of industrial technique applications, particularly agrochemicals applications that were blamed for the damage incurred to the long-term natural environment. In addition, pioneers rejected the increase in scale and moreover the supply chains involving retailers, food processors and distributors thus showed their opposition to a new agro-industrial model evolution. Their opposition was justified by many well accepted incidents caused by this agribusiness model. Additionally, an increasing concern about employment and output indicators to the rural communities continued to evolve, reflecting the emerging needs and expectations of the urban communities to the countryside (Van de Ploeg, 2000). All this pressure increased the weight and the responsibility of organic agriculture as a policy guide.
14
Chapter 2
2.2 Action Plans for Organic Farm Sector Between the organic farming approach and the needs of sustainable rural development a new potential and promising convergence had been introduced. Pugilese (2001) identified innovation, conservation, participation and integration as the
characteristics of organic farmers and their organisations, which link strongly to current perspectives on rural development, emphasising resource conservation, selfreliance, improvement of the resilience of production systems, and concern for the health of both the system of agriculture and of the products for consumers. Organic farmers have successfully grouped together patterns of problem solving sustainable agriculture which are transferable to other kinds of development. Moreover, countryside sustainability is a function highly related to cultural and traditional aspects, market situation, local opportunities, local synergies (vertical or horizontal co-operations), the local image as well as the potential of traditional artisan knowledge(Gertler, flora 1995). In the context of rapidly growing markets (Lampkin and Midmore, 2000), the potential for organic systems to act as the basis or catalyst to regenerate prospects for the countryside economy seem promising. This overall policy framework has yet to be fully taken into account in the typical study, as no clear and broadly acceptable definition of sustainable rural development exists. These types of development have a highly intricate character and are increasing as rural change itself has become fragmented (Midmore, 2004). A new policy approach based on Action Plans for Organic Farming emerged. First, the Danish Government in response to organic oversupply promoted such Action Plan in the late 1990s (Denmark has consistently been a trailblazer in terms of development of the sector). Complementing supply-side measures, the plan emphasises the orderly development of organic production utilising a range of demand-stimulating measures. Several other member states followed suit, and in 2004 the EU published an overall Action Plan. It comprises an improved balance of support between the products based on agroenvironmental issues on grassland, supporting measures for increased research on production methods and markets, backing for consultancy, education and vocational
15
Chapter 2
training of farmers, processors and marketers, consumer information campaigns, and further development of organic food standards (Midmore, 2004). Beyond these traditional methods that are usually enhanced by EU agricultural policy, the new trend speaks for environment, farming and tourism integration across different sectoral and territorial interactions and as well as for stakeholders formal and informal cooperation and participation.
2.3 Overview of the Organic Agricultural Policy in Greece An Action Plan for Organic Farming in Greece is not yet applicable so Greeces support towards organic agriculture is not extensive. In Greece, it is evident that the approach towards rural development was sectoral and not integrated based on special programmes that have to be implemented by each authority individually (top-down). The overall framework of government intervention related to planning organic farming has been organised around two major activities: Legislative reinforcement of the standards to be attained in order to qualify for organic status (based on EU Reg. 2091/92), and support offered to conventional producers through the financially
demanding process conversion, during which yields are depressed and other significant adjustments are required (in most European countries, support for organic producers continues after conversion, although at a lesser rate (based on the EU Reg. 1257/99)). Within the E.U., certification and direct aid both to converting and continuing producers are established in a common structure, although member governments provide further support, especially in research and extension services: An overview of applied European Policies in Greece towards organic agriculture based on E.U Report project contracted with Wales University, Aberystwith, (Lampkin, 2003) is provided in Appendix A . Despite starting from a negible base, over the last decade the areas farmed organically in Greece have increased and volumes of production of organic food have both grown remarkably, even if at particular times this pace has sometimes slowed. The level of production is a very important factor for acquainting interested parties with the structure and the growth of the sector. In 2003, the accelerated aggregate number of total area under organic agriculture was 38.993,22 ha where the area under conversion
16
Chapter 2
is 25.052,47 Ha and the area under total organic conversion was 13.940,74 ha. The total area corresponded to 0.9% of the total cultivated area in the E.U. One of the measure announced during the IFOAM conference held in 2003, aimed to increase the European organic agricultural area from 3.3% in 2003 to 10% by 2008. The international market of organic products is increasing and high turnover is already realised in developed countries. This fact creates significant opportunities for Greece to increase production and exports to already developed countries. There is a need for a common international certification framework to be established and the competitive advantage of each country needs to be exploited. The competitive advantage of Greece is particularly marked with regard to wines, olive oil, and other Mediterranean crops that require specific agro-climatic conditions for their production. However, local organic markets have not been able to absorb production. Products have been sold through conventional market channels, without the benefit of premium prices and at generally higher cost than can be realised by conventional producers. See trade 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.
Table 3: Retail sales of packaged organic products (cereals, etc) imported from 19992003 in Greece (2003 is forecasted). Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Value 1.900.000 3.100.000 5.500.000 9.500.000 >15.000.000 Rate of change of Market Share (%) 63.2 77.4 72.7 -
Source: ICAP, 2002 Table 4: Total Retail sales of packaged organic products (cereals etc) from 1999-2003 in Greece (2003 is forecasted). Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Value 7.600.000 12.900.000 15.500.000 18.500.000 20-20.5 Rate of change of market share(% ) 69.7 20.2 19.4 10
Source: ICAP, 2002
17
Chapter 2
The market value is the aggregate retail value of all the organic products produced in Greece except for the industrial crops and organic livestock feed. The Greek Market is considered to be a developing one, mainly in terms of food producing under the European standards. Organic product prices are 40-50% more expensive than the conventional products. Only organic wine prices fluctuate or even have the same prices as conventional wine. The value of exported domestic organic products was, in 1999, around 9.000.000 euros, while in 2002, it was 18.500.000 euros, with an increasing annual percentage rate of 27% (1999-2002). The main exported products are citrus and olive oil and to a smaller extent, vineyard grapes (table 10, 11 and 12). Table 5: Market share of olive oil in tons 1999-2002 (2003 is forecasted). Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Production 1050 1350 1400 1580 1950 Exports 765 970 1000 1130 1400 Domestic Consumption 285 380 400 450 550 (%) of exports 72.9 71.9 71.4 71.5 71.8
Source: ICAP, 2002 There are no imports because demand is overlapped by the domestic production. Table 6: Market share of vine yard grapes in tons for 1999-2003 (forecast 2003). Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Production 480 690 1150 1850 2000 Exports 70 145 250 360 350 Domestic consumption 410 545 900 1490 1650 % of exports 14.6 21 21.7 19.5 17.5
Source: ICAP, 2002 The competition that Greece is facing is strong as it produces almost the same variety of grapes as the other Mediterranean countries.
18
Chapter 2
Table 7: Market share of citrus in tons for 1999-2003 (forecast 2003). Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Production 3700 8450 8600 9000 12000 Exports 3450 7700 6900 6750 7800 Domestic Consumption 250 750 1700 2250 4200 % of exports 93.2 91.1 80.2 75.6 65
Source: ICAP, 2002 The main volume of organic citrus is exported to England and Germany (table 12). The localised mismatch between supply and demand, in conflict with overall European trends, is usually due to lack of distribution and marketing infrastructures, reflecting the fact that the overall development of the market has been uneven in one further respect. With rapid compound growth in traded volumes of organic products, however, conventional channels of retailing have become the predominant means of fulfilling consumer organic demand (Midmore, 2004(a)). The lack of supply outlets characterise the Greek Market. The lack of a specific distribution channel limits the optimal operation of the sector. The lack of information does not improve the domestic consumption so the supply is driven abroad by the retailers. The low domestic consumption is also due to low product availability towards different kinds of outlets. Hamm and Gronefeld (2004), provide the most recent, detailed quantitative assessment of the development of organic farming, suggesting that the most important way in which continued growth in organic food production and consumption can be maintained is to strengthen links between primary producers and the supermarket sector of retailing.
19
Chapter 3

3.1 Evolution of CAP structure An overall evolution of CAP provides a general view of the existing situation and future prospects of agricultural practices. It further aims to help us solve problems generated under this policy. Moreover, it helps us to clarify all the policy aspects related to EUs multifunctional and sustainable rural development model based on organic and competitive agriculture. The focus of the EU rural development policy will inevitably be conditioned by the context in which the policy has evolved. It cannot be separated from its role as 2nd pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy, with emphasis on the word common, i.e. the choice that has been made to organise the agricultural sector at EU level (COM, 2004).
3.1.2
A change in CAP Architecture
Agriculture is a sector that usually receives attention by policy makers and becomes subject to government intervention, aimed at guaranteeing a minimum income level for farmers, safeguarding adequate food supplies, stabilizing the markets. Such were the actual Common Agricultural Policy objectives at the time of its establishment. Other goals were also put forward such as an increase in productivity by promoting the national use of resources and the guarantee of reasonable prices to consumers. The main mechanism used under the CAP framework was the common organization of the markets and the market price support system (Diamianos, 1998). The CAP evolution as was realised from McScharry 1996 till 2002 (Figure 3) comprised the facts that established the present architecture of the CAP.
20
Chapter 3
Figure 2: A change of Archi-tecture of the CAP McScharry, 1996

Market support
Agenda, 2000
Market support
Reforms, 2002
Market support Funds recouped through imposition of Crosscompliance and Modulation
compesation payments Compensation payment
Agrienvironment structural
National Envelopes Rural Development Regulation
Source: Lowe et.al., 2002 The general situation established by Maastricht in 1992 was the thought to reduce overprotection of European agriculture. The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 reinforced the conviction for an economic and social cohesion throughout the Union. The Treaty provided for the establishment of the New Cohesion fund that would make additional funding available in order to serve the purpose of reducing disparities among the various levels of development in different regions, including rural ones (Ritson, et.al., 1997). The basic elements of the reform were: 1) the improvement of competivenes of EC products as well as the gradual reduction of prices 2) introduction of direct (compensatory) payments regardless of quantity of production but related to the hectares of the arable cultivated area, 3) surpluses control (production control),
measures like set-aside, quotas, extentification incentives, limits to premia were introduced and finally 4) environmental consideration into CAP regulations by introducing accompanying measures/ incentives such as: An agro-environmental package (EU Reg., 2078/92)
21
Chapter 3
An early retirement scheme, social scheme (EU Reg., 2079/92) Aforestation of previously cultivated farmland (EU Reg., 2080/92) (Louloudis, 2001 ( gr.))
3.1.2.1 Agenda 2000 and Rural Development Farming unions and most agricultural ministries had little enthusiasm for the reopening of a CAP reform, and the gathering by BSE (Bovines Spongodes Engefalopathia). This crisis was also fostering a mood of political retrenchment. Under these circumstances, in November 1996, Fischler (2003a) convened a conference on rural development at Cork in an attempt to engender some broader support for his ideas for reform. It was argued that the existing funds and schemes ought to be brought together, to simplify the plethora of policy mechanism. Subsidiary was seen as an important mechanism in achieving the objective on an integrated rural policy, greater transparency and bottomup participation (Lowe, 2002). The ambitious nature of Cork Declaration generated a political reaction of farmer leaders and ministers who feared that rural policy would be promoted at the expense of support for agriculture. To rescue his new strategic view, Fischler then sought to detach the promotion of rural policy from the question of CAP reform: the two, he argued, should proceed in parallel but separately (Lowe, 2002). With these objectives in mind, a menu of 22 measures was put at the disposal of the Member States who can choose those measures that respond best to the needs in their rural areas. The rural development Regulation (council regulation 1257/99, EC 1999) has been added to the agenda 2000. This included revisions of the budget of structural funds and introduced a Rural development pillar to the cap. This second pillar complemented the market price support and direct payments pillar (Pillar I) and was designed to support the non-market objectives of the CAP, notably the social and environmental dimension on sustainable agriculture (IUNK, 2004). The following diagrams depict the proposal for a Council Regulation in support of Rural Development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development:
22
Chapter 3
Figure 3: Relations between the 1st and the 2nd pillar:
Market policy/ Income Support
RD Policy/ Public Goods
Food Production
Rural Function
Source: COM (2004a) The 2nd pillar of the CAP supports agriculture and rural areas, in particular agriculture as a provider of public goods in its environmental and rural functions. Three main domains of intervention can be identified: agricultural restructuring, environment/land management and wider rural development. Figure 4: Rural Development Policy
Rural Development Policy
Food Production
Rural Function Rural Economy/Rural Communities
Restructuring/ Competiveness in the Farm Sector
Environmental/Farm Management
Source: COM (2004a) The rural development measures eligible under this Regulation fall into two groups: Accompanying measures of the 1992 Reform (Eu Reg., 2078/92): early retirement, agri-environment and afforestation, as well as the less-favoured areas scheme;
23
Chapter 3
Measures to modernise and diversify agricultural holdings (Eu Reg., 1257/99): farm investment, setting-up of young farmers, training, investment aid for processing and marketing facilities, additional assistance for forestry, promotion and conversion of agriculture (Horizontal policy) (Wayne Moyer et. Al., 2002).
The reform processes of the CAP under Agenda 2000 double the available financial resources for environmentally sensitive and mountainous areas (less favoured areas) under the following objectives: Objective 1: This objective deals with the development and structural adjustment of regions whose development is lagging behind as well as of regions with low density population. These regions were defined as those in which the per capita Gross Domestic Product was less than 75% of the Communitys average in the previous three years. Objective 2: This objective shows emphasis to the socio-economic revitalization of the regions facing structural difficulties. Objective 3: Under this objective, Rural Development measures would be applied horizontally and implemented in a decentralized way. The main target is the modernization and reestablishment of a new policy, a new system of education, training and employment promotion for young people, for people threatened by discrimination as well as for man and woman (E. C., 1999, Annual Report). The sources of financing of rural development measures are surmised for simplification in the following table (Table 5). Table 8: AGENDA 2000 Rural development financial resources
Objective 1 regions RD 1 financed by EAGGF Guarantee RD 2 financed by EAGGF Guidance and integrated into structural fund programming Objective 2 regions RD 1 and RD2 financed by EAGGF Guarantee RD 2 Under the legal framework of the General Structural Funds Regulation All other rural areas RD 1 and RD2 financed by EAGGF Guarantee Single program per member state (region) Source European Commission per Member State DGVI
Source: Wayne Moyer and Tim Josling , 2002.
24
Chapter 3
The Agenda 2000 proposal declared a prominent role for agri-environmental instruments and reinforced and extended relevant measures. It made three suggestions. First, the Commission should develop a proposal on cross-compliance, enabling MS to make direct payments conditional on the respect for environmental provisions. Second, account could be taken of the overlap between less-favoured areas and areas of high nature value. This suggests that the current support system based on livestock numbers or crop specified areas per farm, might gradually be transformed into an instrument to maintain and promote low input systems. Third, as Tracy supported (EU 1997) targeted agri-environmental measures should be re-enforced and encouraged through increased budgetary resources, and with new, higher co-financing rates. This would apply particularly to the statement that services call for extra effort by farmers such as organic farming, maintenance of semi-natural habitats, setting up of traditional orchards or hedgerows, continuation of alpine cattle keeping, etc. However, Agenda 2000 provided no specific provision for financing these measures (Wayne Moyer and Tim Josling, 2002).
3.1.2.2 Mid-term reviews of CAP 2003 Under Midterm Review of CAP 2003, accompanying measures are enhanced to support steps to force food safety and quality, and animal welfare, including the possibility of more help for organic farming (EC, 2004). Nevertheless, it didnt differ much from the Agenda 2000 Regulation concerning the Rural Development framework. Community funding and measures are depicted in table 5 verifying that CAP has not changed drastically. Despite that, the latest proposal for reform drawn up by the European Commission strengthens the CAPs environmental dimension: boosting farm output has often been at the root of many of the environmental impacts of the industry. Farmers would instead receive a flat rate (less arable to more arable land). Cross compliance standards would be strengthened (coupling aid to environment requirements). This and other conditions on income payments would add pressure for better environmental management and higher animal welfare. In the case of non-respect of cross-compliance requirements, direct payments will be reduced in proportion to the risk or damage concerned (OECD, 2003). However, as
25
Chapter 3
regards the Single Area Payment Scheme (SAPS), it seems appropriate to maintain the concept of facultative application of cross compliance as it results from the relevant arrangements in the Act of Accession (EU No 1259/1999). Finally, countries are required to shift 20% of direct farm payments to rural development goals, including the agro-environmental schemes; less favoured areas, support for early retirement, afforestation, sectoral as well as regional support (dynamic modulation). Table 9: Community Funding Rural Development
Community Funding Rural Development EAGGF Guarantee Throughout the EU I) The 4 accompanying measures Early retirement Less favoured areas Agri-environmental Afforestation agricultural land II) CAP Reform Measures 2003 Meeting Standards - temporary support Meeting Standards, support advisory services Food Quality-incentive scheme Food Quality -Promotion III) Semi- Subsistence farming (non MS) IV) Complements to direct payments (non MS) V) 2 SAPARD specific Measures (non MS) Setting up producer groups Technical Assistance EAGGF Guidance Inside /outside objective 1 VI) Other measures Investment in agricultural holdings Young farmers Training Other forestry Processing and marketing Adoption and development of rural areas (art 33) VII) Leader+ (programmes/measures)
Source: EU, 2003. While the Cap 2003 Reform was directed towards a diminishing financial support, the funds are oriented to those farmers that do not disturb the trade. The main objectives are the reduced payment levels and subsidization. This objective will be accomplished by reinforcing farmers market orientation, the entrepreneurial role and production, while at the same time improving the transfer efficiency of direct payments. This is going to be realized by implementing an integration administration and control system (IACS) in order to target aids towards active farmers only.
26
Chapter 3
3.1.2.2.1 Price Policy: Single Area payment scheme-decouple payments A single farm payment will replace most of the existing premia (deficiency payment or guarantee price) under different common market organisations. Farmers will be allotted payment entitlements based on historical reference amounts received during the period 2000-2002. The payment can be established in two ways: first at the farm level and second at the regional level. Farmers receiving the new SFP will have the flexibility to produce any commodity on their land, except fruit, vegetables and table potatoes. In addition, they will be obliged to keep their land in good agricultural and environmental condition (see figure below). The single payment scheme can enter into force as of 2005 or at the latest 2007. In order to limit the dereliction of agricultural land as well as take into consideration the concerns over land management of some Member States, the agreement allows part of the direct aids to farmers to remain coupled. Payment entitlements may be transferred, with or without land, between farmers within the same Member State or regions, but it is an optional provision. In the case of transfers without land, the buyer has to possess eligible land to match the payment entitlements (OECD, 2003). Figure 5: Hypothetical Changes to Production Incentives
Agenda 2000 Regime Premia Subject to ceilings New EU Policy Single Farm Payment
Source: Analysis of the 2003 CAP Reform (OECD, 2004)
27
Chapter 3
3.1.3
Salzburg conference on Rural Development
The Commission also proposes introducing new accompanying measures to widen the scope of Community support without changing the basic regulatory framework at this intermediate stage in the current programming period (2000-06). This communication is made not only in the context of the mid-term review of the CAP as defined by Agenda 2000 but also on the basis of the conclusions of the Brussels European Council of October 2002 fixing a future limit on agricultural expenditure. In Salzburg, 1214 November 2003, the EU Conference on Rural Development announced a new measure which is addressed first and foremost to farmers. The MS and Regions will be responsible for deciding whether or not to integrate them into their rural development programmes. The new measures that have primarily been pointed out by the MS and the Regions, are the need for new quality incentives for farmers. Two new measures are introduced under this heading: 1st Incentive payments will be available for farmers who participate in recognised schemes designed to improve the quality of agricultural products and the production process used. Specifically, the following EU quality schemes are eligible for support: Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs; Certificates of specific character for agricultural products and foodstuffs; Organic production of agricultural products and indications referring to these; and Quality wine produced in specified regions. The 2nd Support will be enable producers to inform consumers about their products, and promote the relative quality ones (Fact Sheet, 2003). Moreover, the need to add new support to help farmers meet standards is being highlighted by the MS and the Regions. Standards introduction means establishment of a priority list of 18 statutory European standards in environment, food safety, and animal health and welfare. Farmers will be sanctioned for non-respect of these standards, in addition to the sanctions generally applied, through cuts in direct payments. A new "Farm Advisory System" will be voluntary for Member States until 2006. As of, 2007 Member States must offer advisory systems to their farmers. Farmers
28
Chapter 3
participation will be voluntary. In 2010, the Council will decide whether the advisory system should become compulsory for farmers. Another important measure that has been extremely underlined as important is farmers support, which enters into commitments for at least five years to improve the welfare of farm animals, using techniques which go beyond usual good animal husbandry practices (COM, 2004).
3.1.3.1 Article 33 The Council Commission proposes adding to the Chapter on the adoption and development of rural areas the so called article 33 measures (see table 7). This supports both non farmers and non agricultural activities having access to the central part of the CAP budget (Lowe and Ward, 1998). Member states are required to consider economic, environmental and social impacts, thus rural development regulation encompasses into the core of the CAP a set of alternative management principles, including those of decentralization, partnership, multi-annual programming and co-financing (Lowe and Ward, 1998). Land improvement Land reparceling Setting up of farm relief and farm management services Marketing of quality agricultural products Basic services for the rural economy Renovation and development of villages , protection and conservation of the rural heritage Diversification of agricultural activities close to agriculture Agricultural water resource management Development and improvement of infrastructure connected with the development of agriculture Encouragement for tourist and craft activities Protection of the environment in connection with agriculture, forestry and landscape conservation as well as with the improvement of animal welfare
29
Chapter 3
Restoration of agricultural production potential damaged by natural disasters and introduction of appropriate prevention instruments Financial engineering (Source: Lowe et. al., 2002)
3.1.3.2 Leader Leader + will continue to operate until the end of 2006. Leader in many ways epitomises the EUs approach to rural development policy as it involves: a broad policy framework, strategic aims and common rules and financing, established at the EU level by the Member States and the European Commission; a bottom-up approach with rural stakeholders designing rural development measures, at the local level, that best suits their requirements; regional and national selection and approval processes for Local Action Groups (LAGs) This distinctive feature of Leader is the implementation of integrated development programs for local rural areas, drawn up and implemented by broad-based local partnerships, called Local Action Groups (LAGs) (Fact sheet, 2003). The priority themes for LAG strategies under Leader + are: making the best use of natural and cultural resources, including enhancing the value of sites of the total number of LAGs; improving the quality of life in rural areas; adding value to local products, in particular by facilitating access to markets for small production units via collective actions; The use of new know-how and new technologies to make products and services in rural areas more competitive National networks have been set up so far in 10 out of 15 Member States to disseminate information from the national level to the LAGs and to act as a forum for information exchange on experience and know-how. They also deliver assistance for local and transnational cooperation (E.U., 2003).
30
Chapter 3
3.1.4
EU Enlargement and Rural development
For the ten new MS joining in 2004, certain adaptations of the CAP in the light of their situation have been necessary. These alterations are supported by a Special Assistance Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development (SAPARD), an EU support fund agreed under Agenda 2000. SAPARD supports different measures to allow pre-accession countries to align their agricultural sectors with that of the EU. So far, most of the budget allocation is spent on classic agricultural activities, structural adjustments and investments for processing and marketing (COM, 2002). In addition, several specific rural development measures are available such as support for semisubsistence farming. For the new MS, ten RDPs (Rural Development Programmes) and nine Objective 1 programmes (SPDs/SOPs, Single Programming
Documents/sectoral operational programmes) were added during the programming period 2004-2006. For the implementation of the RDPs a new transitional financial instrument has been created under Guarantee with differentiated appropriations. LEADER+ will not have a separate programming, but can be integrated as a measure in the mainstream programmes under special transitional provisions in the Accession Treaty (EU, 2003). At present it is uncertain whether current CAP support policies, particularly those relating to compensatory payments, will be introduced unchanged into accession countries, whether a two-speed system will evolve (with acceding countries receiving lower levels of price support than existing Member States) or whether the CAP is radically altered or replaced by a different system less geared to direct price support. All the evidence suggests that introducing the CAP in its current form to accession countries (highly unlikely because of the huge costs involved) would result in intensification patterns similar to those recorded in western Europe (COM, 2002). To join the E.U., the accession countries must adapt their agriculture to meet the rural development acquis.
31
Chapter 3
3.1.5
New draft for rural development regulation
The Commission proposal programming rural development reflecting the Salzburg conference conclusions (November, 2003) and the strategic orientations of the Lisbon and Gteborg European Councils emphasised the economic, environmental, and social elements of sustainability. The proposed reform is axed around three major policy objectives for the period 20072013. The main elements of the Commission Proposal are summarized by the Commission Staff Working Document Proposal for Council Regulation on support to Rural Development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (COM, 2004(a)). The proposed reform will improve the implementation and governance of E.U. rural development programmes as follows: One funding and programming instrument, the European Agriculture Rural Development Fund (EARDF); A genuine EU strategy for rural development with better focus on EU priorities; Reinforced control, evaluation and reporting. Clearance of an accounts audit system which will be extended to all parts of rural development; A strengthened bottom-up approach. Member States, Regions and Local Action Groups will have more say in attuning programmes to local needs. The new policy has three major objectives or priority axis: 1) Increasing the competitiveness of the agricultural sector through support for restructuring 2) Enhancing the environment and countryside through support for land management 3) Strengthening the quality of life in rural areas and promoting diversification of economic activities through measures targeting the farm sector and other rural actors (Press Releases, 2004). Thus action groups will have the following priorities. Concerning the first Priority axis the restructuring strategy would be built on measures relating to human and physical capital and to quality aspects. Specifically under: Article 19 which states: (a) Measures are aimed at improving human potential through: (i) Vocational training and information actions for persons engaged in the Agricultural and forestry sectors;
32
Chapter 3
(ii) Setting up of young farmers; (iii) Early retirement of farmers and farm workers; (iv)Use of advisory services by farmers and forest holders; (v) Setting up of farm management, farm relief and farm advisory services, as well as of forestry advisory services. (b) Measures are aimed at restructuring physical potential through: (i) Farm modernisation; (ii) Improvement in the economic value of forests; (iii) Added value in primary agricultural and forestry production, (iv)Improvement and development of infrastructure related to the development and adaptation of agriculture and forestry, (v) Restoration of agricultural production potential damaged by natural disasters and introduction of appropriate prevention actions. (c) Increasing competitiveness, must on the other hand, also take advantage of the opportunities offered through diversification of economic activities, an orientation towards quality and value added products that consumers demand, including non-food products or biomass production, as well as cleaner and more environmentally friendly production techniques. Measures aimed at improving the quality of agricultural production and products are: (i) Helping farmers to adapt to demanding standards based on Community legislation; (ii) Supporting farmers who participate in food quality schemes; (iii) Supporting producer groups for information and promotion activities for products under food quality schemes; (iv)Undertaking transitional measures for the new Member States such as: (a) Supporting semi-subsistence farms undergoing restructuring, (b) Supporting setting up of producer groups. Concerning the second Priority axis, the Agri-environmental measures are a compulsory component. Cross compliance is the baseline for CAP 1st pillar payments. The same baseline will apply to the area based measures of axis 2. In reference to agri-environment payments conditions for fertilizer and pesticide use will be set. Specifically as in:
33
Chapter 3
Article 34 which states: (a) Measures targeting the sustainable use of agricultural land will be undertaken through the following payments: (i) Natural handicap payments to farmers in mountain areas; (ii) Payments to farmers in areas with handicaps, other than mountain areas; (iii) NATURA 2000 payments; (iv) Agri-environment and animal welfare payments; (v) Support for non-productive investments. (b) Measures taken to target the sustainable use of forestry land are: (i) First afforestation of agricultural land; (ii) First establishment of agroforestry systems on agricultural land; (iii) First afforestation of non agricultural land; (iv) NATURA 2000 payments; (v) forest-environment payment; (vi) Restoring forestry production potential and introducing prevention actions; (vii) Support for non-productive investments. Concerning the third Priority axis, the preferred implementation method is through local development strategies targeting sub-regional entities, either developed in close collaboration between national, regional and local authorities or designed and implemented through a bottom up approach using the LEADER approach (selection of the best local development plans of local action groups representing public-private partnerships). Specifically under: Article 49 which states: (a) Measures to diversify the rural economy are comprised of: (i) Diversification into non-agricultural activities; (ii) Support for the creation and development of micro-enterprises with a view to promoting entrepreneurship and developing the economic fabric; (iii) Encouragement of tourism activities; (iv) Protection, upgrading and management of the natural heritage, contributing to sustainable economic development. (b) Measures to improve the quality of rural life in the rural areas are comprised of: (i) Essential services for the economy and rural population;
34
Chapter 3
(ii) Village renovation and development; conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage; (c) A vocational training measure for economic actors operating in the fields covered by priority axis 3; (d) A skills-acquisition and animation measure with a view to preparing and implementing a local development strategy.
35
Part two: Research and Methodology
Chapter 4

4.1 Overview of the Research Project to derive the Best Practice Model The overall goal of the thesis is to find an applicable model for Sustainable Development mostly for the rural and less developed areas based on organic and multifunctional agriculture. This applicable and optimal Action Plan can be derived only if the related EU Regulations are known and only if there is a common orientation development strategy by the stakeholders. This model drawing should use a predominantly qualitative approach and, as far as possible, put the actors themselves at the centre of developing insights for analysis. The outcome will be critical in fulfilling the ultimate purpose to provide policy recommendations in order to help develop a coordinated policy of support for organic and competitive agriculture and the dissemination of integrated rural development practices. The end of this work of information gathering will lead to an analysis of the development potential and a new strategy for sustainable development based on growth of organic farming of the area under consideration, which can be a model applied to other areas. For the current study, Kolymvari, a region on the Greek island of Grete, with a competitive advantage in producing high quality agricultural products was selected. The majority of the farmland (80%) is occupied by perennial cultivations, mainly olive trees, while the rest is cultivated by vegetables (2.40%) and vineyards (3.80%). the remaining land is arable (8.75%) and set-aside (5.08%). Organic farming, still in its early stage includes thirteen organic producers, cultivating an area of about 80.6 hectares. Most organic farms are devoted to olive oil production, as almost 80 % of the land is occupied by olive trees, while the rest is cultivated by vegetables, citrus fruits and vineyards. The Delphi technique will be used to evaluate the factors likely to influence organic farmers development and performance in the area of Kolymvari. These factors will be fully explored in later surveys conducted with producers, local administrators; companies related to marketing and processing agro-food products, companies related to non agro-food products, agencies aiding local development, bodies for providing
37
Chapter 4
technical advice and certification services and Research and experimentation bodies involved in the organic sector. The need for an organic movement composed of these actors becomes essential in order to respond to this policy influence. Moreover, the need for communication is demanding.
4.2 Delphi method N.C. Dalkey and his associates at the Rand Corporation developed the Delphi technique in the 1950s. It is used extensively in Information System research to identify and rank issues for management attention (Delbecq, Van de Ven, & Gustafson, 1975). Since then, Delphi has been applied in industry, government and academia (Kaynak et al., 1994). The method consists principally of knowledgeable and expert contributors individually completing a form and submitting the results to a central coordinator. The coordinator processes the contributions, looking for central and extreme tendencies, and the rationales. The results are then fed back to the respondent group, whereby interviewees are asked to resubmit their views and are assisted by the new input provided by the coordinator. The process may result in either a consensus or several different opinions, and a single solution is not obligatory. The most significant difference between the Delphi technique and other methods of joint decision-making is that respondents do not communicate directly with one another (Delbecq et al., 1975). Thus, the method facilitates the exchange of information and ideas by enabling each participant to have an equal input, preventing bias caused by position, status or dominant personalities. Respondents can speculate individually and then reach consensus collectively (Ilbery, 2003). The key objective of most Delphi studies is the consistency and investigation of ideas or the production of suitable data for the decision-making process (Martino et al, 1993). The actual word Delphi refers to the hallowed site of the most revered oracle in ancient Greece. Delphi was not a term with which either Helmer or Dalkey (the founders of the method) were especially happy. Dalkey (1968) felt that the term implied something smacking a little of the occult, whereas, in fact, the opposite is involved; it is primarily concerned with making the best you can with a less than perfect kind of information.
38
Chapter 4
4.3 Basic ingredients of the Delphi technique The basic characteristic of the method is that several rounds are applied until a consensus amongst the panel (i.e. Delphi results) is produced. However, responses may become stabilised, as there is no guarantee that panel members will change their views. If this is the case, a range of responses rather than a consensus view may be produced. The main steps involved in designing a Delphi survey involve (Shon and Swatman, 1998): 1. Identifying, contacting and recruiting participants; 2. Designing and circulating the first-round questionnaire; 3. Producing feedback from the first-round; 4. Designing and circulating the second-round questionnaire; 5. Analysing the results of the second round; and 6. Preparing a final presentation. The First Round of the questionnaire usually contains a number of open-ended questions, whereas the second round and any subsequent rounds typically involve more closed questions. The Delphi for this study involved two rounds, so steps 35 were repeated. Four key criteria characterise the Delphi method (Martino, 1983): 1. Anonymity is necessary to remove social pressures (mail questionnaires are usually used); 2. Iteration (or round) is important to allow panel members to review and change forecasts (a structured questionnaire is presented over a number of rounds until consensus or stability is reached); 3. Controlled feedback is important within iteration, where panellists receive a copy of the synthesised responses to allow them to review their previous results and assumptions based on the group responses; 4. Statistical aggregation where, at the end of the procedure, the result is typically given as a group median. The spread of results can be used as a measure of the consensus reached. In this research the conceptual model was based on a two rounds survey. The objective of the surveys is to construct a best/potential policy/strategy model for
39
Chapter 4
development of a specific territory.
Specifically, a Best Practice Model should
provide answers to the controversial subject of Organic agriculture, and achieve sustainable development objectives towards specific actions. Moreover, some
relevant quantitative data were considered in order to obtain an overview for the demographic historical characteristic of the area.
4.4 Stakeholders selection Finally, another part of an initial rough market analysis is to establish who the stakeholders will be. Stakeholders have been considered as key individuals: of interest groups among prominent knowledgeable individuals of local agencies, institutions etc. These parties play a key role in the policy process by identifying problems and getting them on a policy agenda, starting a process that can result in new policies and programs. Without a doupt, the boundaries of these stakeholders interests will overlap considerably but, accordingly, this provides an initial template for the exploration of networks in which a variety of actors will function. Stable relations and target orientation require the new actor to set a passage point to channel all interests in one direction. This leads to the macro-actor that acts as a single entity. Depending on the type of actor, either horizontal or vertical networks, or a combination of both, can result. In the context of rural development, horizontal networks will have a greater territorial dimension to integration, assimilating actors from various stakeholders groups in a given region (public administration or business level). Vertical networks are built up along the supply chain linking producers, processors, wholesalers, retailers and possibly even consumers (Murdoch, 2000). Consequently, it is assumed that in order to derive the best practice model for organic farming that has not yet been realised, one must start with the players who can initiate the policy process.
4.5 Applying the Delphi method The applied Delphi method defined key criteria and went on to prioritise those criteria. It is a variation of the classic Delphi technique adapted to fit the particular problems of corporate criteria prioritizing. The prioritizing process enumerated below will allow the stakeholders and subject matter experts to produce a list of criteria rankings, or
40
Chapter 4
several lists, from which the decision makers in upper management may apply other criteria to make a decision. The information and ratings were supplied by experts identified for each of the seven types of stakeholders participants. The process of identifying experts used a reputation approach (Sanders, 1966): each selected expert had to be an acknowledged leader or recognized authority in the given sector, or be recommended by at least two consultants for this project. This generated a list of 20 potential panellists: 3 from local administration; 4 farmers (three organic, one conventional); 3 companies related to marketing and processing agro-food products; 3 companies related to non agro-food products (agrotourism, handcrafts etc); 2 local development agencies; 3 bodies providing technical advice and certification services; 2 Research and experimentation bodies. For the fist round each panellist was contacted by telephone and invited to participate during the first round. Response rates were 100% in the first round. The final
instrument, a questionnaire was comprised of open ended/unstructured questions. Specifically: The first round of the survey covered: (I) evolution of organic farming in the territory 1) Which are the factors that foster organic farming spread? 2) Which are the problems concerning Community support for the spread of Organic Agriculture? 3) Which are the general factors that constrained or limited the spread of OA (II) Producers role in the creation, spread and adoption of innovations 4) indicate the innovative aspects for the management marketing processes; 5) indicate the marketing mechanism responsible for the spread of organic products; 6) indicate the knowledge elements which were introduced after the introduction of organic farming; 7) Indicate the future (prospects) expectations for sustainable rural development. (III) Degree of correlation among productions obtained and land use 8) How does organic farming foster the conservation of the environment and landscape?
41
Chapter 4
(IV)Capacity to activate integration processes (horizontal and vertical integration processes) and formal and informal inter-relations 9) What are the main difficulties one runs into while activating processes of interaction with other sectors? (V) Objectives for Sustainable rural development 10) Which are the objectives for a sustainable rural development strategy/policy? 11) Which could be a project whose main aim is sustainable development? During this first Delphi round, a ranked list was derived based upon the concerns that were repeated and/ or seemed to be of major importance, less frequent and or less important as well as concerns that occurred infrequently and/ or seemed relatively unimportant. The survey items were ranked with an importance rate with ordinal scales depending on the frequency of objectives repeated (ordinal scale) (see appendix B. an Overall 1ST Round). In the second round, each panellist was contacted by e-mail, a structured questionnaire was sent to confirm the results of the first round, and evaluate the importance of
the variables derived related to sustainable development policy issues. Due to the high burden on stakeholders time, as well as to the difficulty in getting a high rate of response, a third round was neglected. Some participants answered the first round but not the second round. Moreover, 85% responded in the second round. However, the purpose of this round was to verify the results of the first survey. The method used was to allow each participant to state a level of importance in range 17, for each of the issues per question. Score 1 represents the highest importance of each variable analysed. Score 7 represents the positive but very marginal variable used to achieve the objectives for a sustainable rural development policy (The alternative method of expecting each respondent to rank all issues in descending sequence of importance was felt to be unrealistic). The resultant response analysis document showed substantial agreement with the round-two frameworks in terms of the qualitative assessments. Therefore, the main purpose of the second survey was to ask the experts to weigh their answers given in the first survey in order to derive the best practice model and the priorities that should be met. The frequencies, the means for the rating items related to the different level of
42
Chapter 4
stakeholders, as well as the overall ratings of the two Delphi rounds for each descriptive objective are presented in Appendix B.
4.5.1 Data analysis In order to compare the spread of the two rounds and to remunerate the contingency among the stakeholders the data were entered in the SPSS programme. Two correlations on the ranks were performed for comparison. Kendalls tau and Spermans rank correlation were conducted. The Kendalls tau and Spearmans correlation yielded similar results, which are depicted in Appendix C. Correlations of the rank scores were significant at the 5% and 1% level of significance with only one exception in 9th question. This can be explained by random effect. When the last objective (last answer in the table of the 9th question) was extracted and the Spearman correlation test was performed (because of the ordinary scale of the data), correlations of the scores proved to be significant. A graph performance showed that there are no highly distributed prices (appendix C: graph 1). These descriptive statistical methods were used because of the relatively small sample size (the number of experts) and the relatively detailed questionnaires. Moreover, the means for the 7 categories for each of the issues derived by each question were compared. It was difficult to perform an Anova test due to lack of degrees of freedom. So the Pearson correlation was performed and it indicated that in terms of overall mean scores of the objectives derived, groups do not differ over all the issues. However, between the groups there are some different tendencies (Appendix D). The statistical tests comparing the stakeholder categories suggest that most of the results can be used with confidence, but it is suggested that any findings by stakeholder categories are used with caution. Moreover, the sample size of any of the stakeholder categories is smaller than that advocated by Delbecq et al. (1975). The overall correlation among all stakeholders is significant in order to conduct an analysis for the best practice model. Generally, the opinions among the stakeholders converge and have a very small spread. Only for question 9 does one run into difficulties while analysing the data because of non convergence of stakeholders view points about the
43
Chapter 4
opinions related to the level/kind of processes of interaction with other sectors. The above drawbacks imply that further and deeper investigation is required but will not be explored in this study.
44
Chapter 5

5.1 First Survey The first survey was crucial for the diagnosis of the situation concerning Organic and/or multifunctional farming applications and the developmental potential of the rural territory. Moreover, through actors the discussion, a series of territory and sectoral tendencies appeared concerning the specific region as well as the issues that they are mainly engaged in.
5.1.1 Evolution of organic and/or multifunctional farming development in the territory
The territorial evolution of the area of Kolymvari is related to the organic and multifunctional agricultural aspect mainly because of the agricultural geography and the national soil and climatic conditions also known, as territorial intellectual property or place specific factors of production (Ray, 2002). Concerning the production size, organic olive cultivation does not differ in many aspects from traditional cultivation; it does not require complex intervention whereas the European subsidy per hectare based on Regulation E.E. 2078/92 offers a motivation for the exploitation of small, abandoned olive groves in mountainous areas. As one of the stakeholders mentioned, One of the aspects that spread organic farming in the area is related to the easy cultivation techniques of organic cultivation specifically for olive trees and citrus (Delphi 1st round, January). Moreover, pioneer initiatives are considered important factors for the spread of organic and competitive agriculture. They endeavour to verticalize their production process in order to control products quality throughout the whole chain and to minimize the cost because of increased economies of scale. One of the experts mentioned ... there are examples of success, like "Biolea" company, who organised a vertical integration process. Nevertheless technical-agronomic infrastructures do not
45
Chapter 5
exist, so small farmers cannot undertake the whole process alone. There is a need to integrate... (Delphi 1st round, January). From the demand side, international demand has increased for high-quality olive oil in combination with the existence of some trading institutions for organic olive oil (private or unions). Thus, the new rural development dynamic, are attempts to differentiate food on the basis of a range of socially constructed quality criteria (Ilbery and Kneafsey, 2000), or what Allaire and Sylvander (1997) describe as logic of quality. This coincides with rising consumer demands for local, organic food and drink products with authenticity of geographical origin and traceability. Regional administration is interested in the development of synergies and alliances. The individuals should be able to create a dynamic situation and thus push the Agendas Organic Idea into the path of development. Community support is considered an important factor for an entrepreneur/producer since it can back up his/her operational cost through area support payments or enable him/her to take risks and acquire assistance in the business set-up, through various projects. Leader, Agenda 21, Protected Area of Origin and other territorial programmes and policies can be exploited by regional administration and private initiatives and enhance synergies and coherence to fulfil sustainable development aspects. However, the Community supports only big investors.
5.1.2 Problems that constraint the organic and/or multifunctional farming evolution in the territory While most panellists willingly accept the agro-environmental socioeconomic and institutional values that can be gained by introducing organic ideas as a pathway of development, they also recognise a number of important barriers that question the emergence of such an agrarian rural based development dynamic. The main problem is the multi-chopping of arable areas and the lack of means and inputs as well as their cost. There are not enough nutrition elements in biomedicines to fight against plant enemies. In fact, one of the stakeholders mentioned that, the Nitrogen problem and monoculture problem resulted in the disturbance of the environment and the development of specific pests. Moreover, there are inputs
46
Chapter 5
appropriate for organic farming which are available in the market but are much more expensive. And last but not least, concerning the agro-environmental difficulties, organic farming is a labour intensive production method which can also increase the cost (Delphi 1st round, January). The Socioeconomic difficulties are connected to the lack of organised organic producers organizations because of the limited number of organic farmers that consider such relations not necessary. Moreover, a multi-actor constellation of political, social and economic actors has yet to negotiate and discuss a policy on a day-to-day basis or even represent groups that are consulted on an adhoc basis. Furthermore the data derived from the universities and institutions are not passed on to producers through mass media or applicable region programmes. Concerning the distribution channels of the local products they are not specialized in order to penetrate niche markets locally, supralocally and internationally. Thus the conventional channels distribute organic products where all the negative aspects are now transferred to organic products. So the organic products reach consumers at a much more expensive price than if it were to be distributed by a specific network like direct marketing, sales on the gate etc. Moreover there is the risk that organic products may lose their quality characteristics starting from the very root of the process (i.e. the supply process). Another panellist commented that, There is continuously no availability thereby creating a time lag and lack of interest in the local distributors to supply such products (Delphi 1 ST Round, January). Generally, there are not many
dedicated suppliers of local, organic, PDO, GDO products and such to provide important potential opportunities to small producers and regular availability to the outlets. Another important factor responsible for the difficulties related to the organic farming sector spread is the Institutional inefficiency. Specifically, the national involvement is limited to the EU supporting funds for organic farming. Greeces negligible public administration and the existence of different funds supporting mainly infrastructures left the sector at a marginal survival level. There is a lack of non specialised infrastructures, to support organic producers products due to the inexistence of pioneers willing to invest in innovative ideas such as a specific plant or specific network. One of the stakeholders emphasised that, There is an abundance of olive oil
47
Chapter 5
mills for conventional olive producers. However, these olive oil mill owners are not interested in processing small amounts of organic oil. Even if they are interested they dont care about hygiene conditions or a system of control (Delphi 1ST Round, January). Moreover, the cost of controling and certification is considered very high. The cost of certification does not exist for conventional farmers. For a small organic farmer, it is between 1-40 stremmas (1 stremmas = 1/10 ha) and 300 euros per year. The need for a Certification and Control Body to continuously secure organic production as far as credibility/reliability is concerned is highlighted many times by the stakeholders. As it will improve valued added of the product and not generate additional cost paid by the farmers.
5.1.3 Producers role in the creation, spread and adoption of innovations A Producers role is very restricted, thus his contribution is very limited. The reasons are because there are only very small producers and the level of integration with the input suppliers and the traders is random. Also, they are not linked to institutions or programs thus; there is no collaboration among them. Close collaboration between national, regional and local authorities is also not existent. The linkages are very weak while producers insist on not being organised in clusters to strengthen their power. As one of the experts said, Farmers do not act as entrepreneurs. They are very narrow minded, predetermined and inflexible. Generally, as the farmer has a small field he cannot have a profitable enterprise. His income is very small and he is not even insured for that. Moreover, there are also a lot of small enterprises and agricultural cooperatives, so they dont have market power in order to react to price changes. The small farmer cares only about surviving. (Delphi 1ST Round, January). Under these circumstances, the realization of the diversification of rural areas and the sustainability of social, cultural and economic development factors is difficult. Nevertheless, in the wider area of Chania there are some organised actions that are good examples to determine producers role. For instance, there are auction centres, like the ones existing in Kountoura and Ierapetra (Eastern Crete), which help farmers to enhance their entrepreneurial skills and solve the problem of non continuous
48
Chapter 5
availability mainly because the number of related producers is limited. As one stakeholder stated, Organic farming expanded internationally through labelling (brand name) and because of the demand for certified products. Due to the need for specialised certified stores and specialized departments or super market shelves, niche marketing of locally organic products could be enhanced too(Delphi 1ST Round, January). In addition, while measures of the New Cap aimed to restructure physical potential that could enhance the competiveness of farmers. For this innovation to occur the age of the farmer composes plays an important role. Younger farmers of the region have been found to be more knowledgeable about new practices and trends and may be more willing to bear risk.
5.1.4 Degree of correlation among productions obtained and land use (landscape) Agricultural activity influences several aspects of the environment such as the water and soil resources, the landscape etc. The intensiveness of the agricultural farming determines the effects on the aforementioned factors. The olive culture has both positive and negative environmental effects. These effects depend on several factors including prevailing environmental conditions in and around the plantation (soil type, slope, rainfall, presence of water supply bodies and farm management practices). The main categories of actual and potential environmental effects are associated with the management of the olive plantations such as soil, water, air, landscape, and biodiversity. The majority of the plantations that are found in the area of Kolymvari can be characterised as Intensified traditional plantations. They follow traditional patterns but are under intensive management making systematic use of fertilisers. There is a tendency to intensify further by means of irrigation, increased tree density, use of chemicals and mechanical harvesting. Nevertheless, the organic alternative proposes the application of animal manure and green manure rather than the use of chemical fertilisers and the use of biological methods (e.g. traps). Instead, the conventional treatment of Dacus Olea, is used. Each stakeholder repeated that there is a high correlation among productions obtained and land use (landscape).
49
Chapter 5
5.1.5 Capacity to activate integration processes (horizontal and vertical integration processes) and formal and informal inter-relations Coherence between the emerging sectors (tourism) and the existing ones (agriculture) is of crucial importance. When referring to the Municipality of Kolymvari, it is obvious that there is a continuous interrelation / interdependence between those two sectors. Farming supports tourism that seems to add value to local products and provides an alternative /additional source of income. Furthermore, the development of tourism as well as agro-tourism is based on the existence and the exploitation of the local resources. However, there is an increasing competition among the agricultural and tourism sector with regard to the use of the available natural, capital and human resources. Unfortunately, there is very limited cooperation among the farmers. Vertical integration is not yet realized by the most of the farmers, so farmers realise direct linkages among the primary (farming and animal breeding), secondary (industry) and tertiary (tourism and other services) sectors. Moreover, no healthy relationship is established among them, so they cannot activate any interaction processes with the Institutions, programmes, Unions or organizations. However, an Organic Consumers and Producers Cooperation called GAIA that could promote their production under a common name drew up a proposal. Exhibitions, Internet, and an organic certification sign promoted this initiative. Moreover, there is an inter-Municipalities Developmental enterprise, but it doesnt offer much assistance. It is not very efficient mainly because of the bureaucracy and the low level of organization. In addition, all departments of the Prefecture and the Municipality related to the environment, training and culture are not being motivated enough or involved in an integration process. As one of the respondents mentioned, There was neither specific infrastructure nor the motivation to undertake rural sustainable development projects by the Municipality or the regions. A framework that recognizes the development of human resources and information infrastructures can be improved by enriching networks of relationships between people and forming closer bonds in the exchange of products, information and encouragement (Murdoch, 2000).
50
Chapter 5
5.1.6 The objectives for a sustainable rural development strategy/policy Preconditions require the implementation of a sustainable development strategy related to the territory and specifically to the indigenous characteristics, like the basrelief of the land, the weather conditions, and the infrastructure of agriculture. An additional precondition for sustainable development is the application of integrated and organic culture which is based firstly on rational use of chemicals and secondly on standards that need to be met on the field and with regards to the product. One of the characteristics of these culture activities are that it unite many development issues concerning environment, farming, culture and tourism. As one actor mentioned It should be a combination of many factors (cost, locals, local authorities, etc.) for this integration and should mainly put an emphasis on the human rather than the technical factors (Delphi, 1 ST Round, January). Falk and Kilpatrick, (2000) argued that rural social capital can, through self-confidence and community identity, raise productive efficiency and local and regional competiveness. This capacity can be extended by wider participation and inclusion: engaging in social learning is, in Leeuwis; (2000) view, an important instrument to promote sustainability in a rural context. With regard to the specific territory one stakeholder pointed out, There are conditions for a strategy of sustainable growth for the rural region, based on the integrated and organic agriculture, but nobody knows if it is a common/ integrated acceptance (Delphi, 1ST Round, January). What is missing is the Central Body, which consists of administrative institutions and social partners, who not only undertake the promotion and marketing of the production but also provide the know-how for the organic production and foster the diversification and institutional cooperation.
5.1.7 SWOT Analysis and Empirical results The survey also provides some critical rural development insights concerning overall strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the organic sector in the specific area. While most panellists willingly accept the socio-economic, agro-environmental and institutional values demanded by the New EU Regulations, they also recognise a
51
Chapter 5
number of important barriers that question the emergence of such an agrarian based rural development dynamic. The SWOT analysis is a means for evaluating the overall strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the organic sector. Strengths and Weaknesses are about the development of the sector in the specific region now; Opportunities and Threats refer to where the sector is going. In other words opportunities are attractive areas for action where the sector is likely to have some advantages or make a special contribution. Threats are critical trends of specific disturbances in the environment that could lead to stagnation, decline or demise of the sector or a part of it (Schmid O. et. al., 2004). The SWOT analysis was derived from the first Delphi round of the questionnaires. A rough SWOT analysis can be helpful to improve the performance of the organic and agricultural sectors in Kolymvari (Table 13). Table 10: Swot Analysis of the territory: Integrated evaluation of the Pilot Area (Sentences in quotes have been cited by a specific interviewee in the 1st Delphi round)
Opportunities Agronomic, pedologic, environmental -Application of farm management with innovative aspects -Good Agricultural Practices e.g. pest management control for organic farming -Concern for the environment by applying inputs that are environmentally friendly -Standards imposed by the E.U. with the intent to enhance the abandonment of agrochemicals and minimize the threshold contamination issue Socio-economic -Contribution of Food security and environment safety demand to the development of the demand of organic livestock productions -Leader projects are seen as some of the drivers of the current organic farming systems -Low EU subsidies to conventional farmers -Enhancement of Community support and local developmental programs -Decoupling of CAP to effectively contribute to the development of environmentally friendly cropping systems in Kolymvary, which are easily compatible to organic farming prescriptions -Active involvement of the local population in shared initiatives such as festivals, feasts and so on, can be considered as evidence of the ability of the local community to share objectives and strategies for their own development Constraints Agronomic, pedologic, environmental -input problems -nitrogen pollution problem -lack of inputs -high input cost -insufficient availability of manure
Socio-economic -No significant motives offered by CAP through various regulations to organic producers and entrepreneurs -Lack of support by State to exploit the related Regulations and Projects -Structural inertia of the agricultural system (on average, farmers have a low level of education level and a low attitude to innovations). -Lack of familiarity of Organic quality products to the consumers.
52
Chapter 5
Opportunities Infrastructural Nearby location of the area from the urban market Institutional Subsidies from the Regional Rural Development Plan (Pillar II) are considered vital for the consolidation of organic farming in the area, has been proved by the boost in the surface area allocated to organic farming surface as a consequence of the implementation of reg. 2078/92.
Constraints Infrastructural Institutional -Existence of Bureaucracy and strict rules for organic farming systems (an organic farmer selling certified organic products to a non certified holding outlet or establishment would loose the added value of certification). -Unstructured education and information programs to aid in developing a continuous learning platform -Actors interaction deemed unnecessary by organic farmers -No information organization or independent body concerning available information offered to the farmer and subsidization offered by the state exists. -No mutual trust between producers and information bodies Weaknesses of organic and multifunctional agriculture Agronomic, pedologic, environmental -Ecological factors constrain potential production of main agricultural crops (slope, etc.) -Monoculture of olive oil -Limited potential production due to the dealing with the dacus olea problem in a biological manner Socio-economic -Fragmented and Small agricultural holdings -constrained crop choice by CAP, hence biased the market of agricultural land and products for a long time -Lack of trained administrators to initiate / implement /coordinate projects and take advantage of these favorable conditions. -Deficiencies in entrepreneurial skills. -Lack of knowledge and information -Low added value of organic products: e.g. organic is sold at the same price as conventional -Lack of interaction between farmers and agronomists The agronomists have moved away from the fields. -High cost of production concerning organic products -Insufficiency of structured distribution channels -Organic market is still a niche market which is difficult to penetrate -High certification cost -Limited information with regard to special funding. -Lack of structured intersectoral relations
Strengths of organic and multifunctional agriculture Agronomic, pedologic, environmental -Favourable rich natural environment, geomorphology and the climatic conditions. -Increasing concern on low-input weed control and pest management strategies
Socio-economic -Cooperatives and associations among farmers, create higher bargaining power and guarantee a minimum critical mass -High value of landscape, monuments and cultural events which are suitable for integration of tourism with rural activities (multifunctional agriculture) -Higher price of some organic productions (e.g. grain crops) than conventional ones. -Increasing development of agrotourism in the area -Existence of a competitive sector between pioneer initiatives and organic farming -Following up of vertical integration processes by some pioneers -Increased horizontal integration processes with other sectors, e.g. the interaction with rural tourism
53
Chapter 5
Opportunities
Infrastructural -The proximity to the city of Chania (the Municipality of Kolymvari is located 25 km away) through a new national road Institutional -Regional support to organic farming through E.U. subsidies (reg. 2078/92, Rural Development Plan) -Presence of institutional development programs (e.g., Leader)
Constraints among farmers and those that work in the agricultural inputs supply industry. Relations do not take a formal and continuous form but are rather developed by coincidence. Infrastructural -Lack of specific infrastructure to support organic agriculture and organic olive oil mill -Insufficient agricultural road network and infrastructure within the farming areas Institutional -Lack of effective institutional support for coordination of marketing initiatives. -Lack of information channels / news centres. -Environmental awareness is not promoted by the local authorities -Lack of a well structured network to promote agrotourism
5.2 2nd Survey: A coherence analysis of the survey Generally, the results confirmed the situation that exists in Greece concerning the actors of the agricultural sector that operate under common organizational structure, facing more qualitative administrative problems while they associate in a participatory and collective way. The viewpoint of all the stakeholders were analysed in order to derive a common decision making strategy, which can be applied and approved of by all. Stakeholders views were converted into a macro-actor that acts as a single entity. It was determined that the dissemination of the best practice model is considered a very difficult task for the decision-making process whereby stakeholders unanimity was demanded.
5.2.1 Stakeholders contingency The overall correlation among all stakeholders is significant in order to conduct an analysis for the best practice model. Generally, the opinions among the stakeholders converge in only few cases with a very small spread. The convergence of the stakeholders shows the political tone in their attitude, the problems that have been generated following a specific policy and what is requested to overcome the obstacles. However, there is an opposition among some groups of stakeholders who embrace organic farming as a policy goal differently. Particularly there is a spread in the
54
Chapter 5
opinion among food processors / distributors and the other stakeholders concerning Community support problems for the spread of Organic Agriculture. Food processors do not rate very highly the problematic Community support for the limited spread of organic agriculture, because the private sector does not expect support from the State or Community to operate. Another issue which seems to be controversial, is related to the marketing mechanism responsible for the spread of organic product. The research certification bodies do not converge with the other stakeholders mainly because these bodies concentrate on the role of controlling and analysing the production factors, and regard this process as a marketing mechanism. For the question regarding whether organic farming fosters the environment and landscape conservation, the view of food processors and distributors do not converge with the other stakeholders viewpoint. When, in the supply chain, big retailers, processors and distributors are intervening, friendly environmental aspects are not taken into consideration. Big supply chain establishments lead to high resource consumption and over explosion of the environment. Organic agriculture principles support small supply chains, which is an absent issue in an agro-industrial model. Thus, these actors are not sensitised and informed about environmental issues and thus cannot estimate organic agricultural contribution to landscape conservation and environment preservation and revitalization. Some respondent groups give a negative value to the objectives related to the mainstream difficulties one runs into, while activating processes of interaction with other sectors. So, the view of Local authorities, the Non food processors and distributors and technical and certification bodies are not contingent with the overall stakeholders views. In particular, very important factors for both local authorities and research bodies is considered the lack of mutual trust between producers and information bodies responsible for the interaction process with other sectors in opposition, non food processors emphasize to the lack of organized supply availability (because OF is in an initial phase). However, the need for a regeneration of an organic farming movement is significantly high for non-food processors and distributors as well as by Technical and certification bodies but not by local administration authorities. This is because mainly organization/enterprises-pioneers with social concerns are keen on organized movements for empowerment and interactions with
55
Chapter 5
other sectors. Thus, the need for the establishment of a component center that is going to activate the interaction process among the stakeholders is derived. 5.2.2 Best Practice Model for Organic and Competitive Agriculture Rural Sustainability can be realized only if multifunctional development indicators are optimized. These indicators correspond to certain the fulfilment of theoretical objectives such as environmental, agronomic, socioeconomic and institutional concerns. Thus, each of these categories contains indicators/criteria that need to be fulfilled for verifying sustainability. Subject to the specific territory, certain constraints and advantages take place, which enhance or limit the evolution of the organic sector and signify the level of the existing indicators. Guided by the potential theoretical objective in the specific territory, actions/sub criteria are derived that verify the realization of these objectives. Moreover, in the Best Practice Model depicted in the table 14, each action or situation mentioned during the qualitative research was prioritized (number in quotes) in order to aquire a common and efficient decision making plan. From the second round of the Delphi Technique, the most important factors, these with the lowest average mean, by each category, constitute a proposed recommendation for organic and multifunctional agriculture as a driver for sustainable development. Table 11: Best-Practice Model for organic and competitive agriculture Pilot Area of Kolymvari, Crete.
Theoretical Objectives Analysis of the Region of Kolymvari Draft of the conceptual model specific actions to achieve theoretical objectives -Know how and lifelong education for the farmers (non-farmers of the agricultural sector) due to Cooperation between farmers and research bodies. Particular attention should be given to improving information, education, technology development, research and extension support (5.18) -Distribution of a respected area proportion for organic cultivation by EU (1.94) -Application of integrated and organic farming cultivation techniques (3.94)
Agronomic aspects Encourage and enhance biological -Easy cultivation techniques of organic cycles within the farming system farming (mainly for olives & citrus) (3.53) -Limitation of the production output because of cultivation techniques (4.76) -Multi-chopping and limited proportion of area under organic cultivation (5.18)
56
Chapter 5
-Carrying out studies curried out to deal with new application techniques and inputs (1.94) -Carrying out studies and observation of the cultivation process (3.12) Use as far as possible renewable resources in locally organised agricultural systems -Input problems the Agricultural inputs supply industry mainly deals with agrochemicals used in conventional farming. The problem of dacus olea, high cost of biological inputs, non availability and transferability of manure (1.76) -Enhancement of intersectoral relations among farmers and inputs supply industries (5.06) -Maintenance of up to date farming systems with the modern tendencies dealing with Dacus Olea, biological inputs and machines (2.82) -Improved farm management with innovative aspects (1.35) -New pest management application (1.65) -Education seminars of conventional and young farmers (New entrants) about organic farming (1.76) -More efficient organization of producers to verticalize whole production process. Low energy spending (2.94) -Forcing of local industries to decrease the production of chemicals (4.35) -Application of environmentally friendly inputs (1.41) -Imposition of the new restrictions for the abandonment of agrochemicals (2.12) -Adoption of environmentally friendly resources for the technological applications and industrial establishments (3.59)
Environmental aspects Avoid/reduce all forms of pollution that may result from agricultural techniques: air, water, soil
-Increasing concern in health aspects (3.12) -Limited organic farming in the area because of high risk of conversion to organic farming. (1.88) -Limited organic outputs so the impact to the environment is limited (3.53) -Limited farms income due to the small size of farms presented in the area and to cultivation techniques used. The farmer do not thing to reduce the pollution but to be viable (2.88).
Maintain the genetic diversity of the agricultural system and its surroundings, including the protection of plant and wildlife habitats
Provide a landscape management aimed at preserving the quality of rural environment
- disturbance of the environment and the -Diversification of crops and cultural development of specific pests brought practices enhancing the biological and about the olive culture. (3.82) economic stability and the overall sustainability of the farm (4.76) -Use of new and old traditional inputs. Preservation of indigenous knowledge and wisdom on traditional farming and herbs (2.71) -Overexploitation of land and Natural -Improvement of the environment. Resources (3.82) Specific strategies must be applied according to topography, soil characteristics, climate, pests, local availability of inputs and the individuals farmers set goals (3.53). -Increase in farm income (4.71) -Diversification and non specialization of farmer occupation (seasonality aspect) (5.71) -Limited number of O.F. so interaction -Rural development and reconstruction of is not considered necessary (1.88) rural areas based on objectives of -Lack of interaction because of the small sustainable development (3.35) size of agricultural enterprises (2.88) -Increase of local stakeholder awareness
Socio-economic aspects Discourage land and rural abandonment
Enhance the sustainability and multifunctionality of the pilot areas in terms of interaction with other rural development
57
Chapter 5
initiatives;
-Lack of interaction due to irregular product availability (3.53) -Lack of mutual trust among producers, processors and distributors (3.12) -Lack of leader figures (3.41)
Improve quality and added value annexed in the products
(through lifelong education) of their responsibility in enhancing sustainable rural development (3.41) -Enhancement of producer & consumer organizations (networks) with respect to consumer welfare (5.65) -Linkages with agro tourism and restoration activities (4.94) -Non family oriented organic farms (5.12) -Involvement of agro tourism businesses in the production (1.59) -Increase in organic output and value (3.18) -Encouragement vertical integration of organic farmers (1.59) -Increase in rate of employment through investment initiatives (4.76) -Encouragement of personal contacts or good relations between pioneers and institutions (3.41) -Applied market initiatives: vertical -Need for marketing knowledge for integration of product supply chain promotion of the specific agricultural (4.76) products (5.41) -Applied Promotional initiatives: brand -Diversification of the agricultural name (4.18) production/product (value added) (4.76) -Few and private certification and - Improvement in the quality level of the control bodies. (There is no certification products (healthy products) (3.41) and control body in the area to -Enhancement of motivation of producers continuously secure organic products as to care about quality attributes of the far as credibility and reliability are product (intrinsic & extrinsic concerned. Moreover, high Certification characteristics) (5.59) cost should be afforded by farmers) -Increased in business skills of the organic (2.06) farmers (3.29) -Improved product quality Branding (sponsor, quality, family brand, brand name) (3.35) -Development of labeling (common logo) and certification of the quality products possibly based on EU Regulation 2092/91 and subsequent legislation (3) -Increased in consumer awareness about the production process of the product and the certification standards (Consumers are unaware of the specific attributes that differentiate organic products from conventional ones) (4.82) -Need for improvement and support of Certification and inspection bodies already in the area (3.53) -Promotion of new bottling materials for recycling as well environmentally friendly packing (4.41) -Increased control and analysis of production factors. Reliable systems of monitoring and verification for certifying the organic nature of products should be established in order to support consumers
58
Chapter 5
confidence (1.82) Increase the possibilities of niche marketing of typical products -Increasing international demand for organic products (2.94) -Lack of trade knowledge for specialized products (5.12) -Lack of agricultural marketing for health and environmental friendly products (3.47) -Inexistence of an organization to combine organic products with pdo/ traditional etc (5.65) -Lack of specialized distribution channels (2.94) -Irregular supply availability (4.06) -High processing and standardization cost (4.82) -Lack of leadership (5.12) -Lack of cooperation among farmers (4.76) -Lack of measures enhancing specialized distribution channels. (There are minimal of structured distribution channels and organized processing, promotion and marketing organizations) (2.12) -High market price of organic products (1.12). -Existence of the main distributional channel in the conventional thus, all negative aspects of conventional farming are also attributed to organic farming (5.24) -Need for production of quality products which are at the same time pdo and traditional (5.12) -Provision of motivations to more pioneers to take initiatives and be innovative (4) -Intervention between local private processors and distributors with organic agriculture. Well-structured and diversified distribution channels (local markets, agro tourism, specialized shops, super markets, etc.) need to be developed to distribute organic products (5.59) -Establishment and integration of supply chain nodes (3.29) -Increased International interactions to penetrate the distribution channels abroad (2.06) -Promotion through exhibitions or new pilot programs (4.12) -Exports of the new markets abroad (gourmet, luxury, specialty) (3.76) -Increase in specialized certified stores (3.53) -Marketing through cooperatives, unions or by word of mouth (3.82) -Hiring of commercial representatives and agents appointed by local farmers to promote the selling of their products (1.71) -Acquisition of references through local news, media, magazines (3.47) -Stabilization of price fluctuation of organic products as they cannot vary significantly from the corresponding conventional products (1.12) -Limitation standards imposed by the regulations (6) -Increase in the publics ecological sensitation (2.82) -Provision of economical and technical support to the rural population by the State in order to prevent mobility and migration (1.24) -Application of EU projects (4.76) -Need for a standard profit margin for the farmer-non farmer of the agricultural sector (5.41) -Application of a 'bottom up' approach policy (1.53) -The State must to favor it (1.76) -Implementation of the strategy of the Community programs that support individual initiatives & innovations programs (Leader) (3)
Institutional and Infrastructural aspects Apply of sustainable and -Limited existing policies in the area; no multifunctional rural development motivation to support young farmers to policies become organic (5) -Lack of organization to design all the production stages (supply chain) up to the consumer (4.94) -Lack of comprehensible agricultural policy (5.29) -Insufficient significant motives through various regulations to producers/entrepreneurs (1.88) -State administration problems to apply the EU Regulations (4.06) -Lack of State support for exploitation of the related EU Regulations and Projects (2.29) -Insufficient information concer-ning available subsidization by the state (2.94)
59
Chapter 5
-Provision of support only to big investors (3.65) -No market organization for establishing certain price (4.41)
Encourage interaction between regional and local institutions
-Community support and local developmental programs (1.41). -No central bodies responsible for the realization of a specific infrastructure (3.47) -Inadequate support for investments of new agro business companies specializing in organic products (5.47) -No organized movement of O.F (3.88) -No mutual trust between producers and information bodies (2.82)
Assess of infrastructural aspects of the pilot areas in terms of interaction with rural development initiatives
-Lack of specific infrastructure (3.94) -Lack of subsidies for specific agricultural infrastructures (3.06) -Direction of national support is mainly towards basic infrastructures (irrigation and roads) (4.18)
-Organized producer organization, lobbies (3) -Consumer oriented product supply. Policies with regard to consumer information and awareness should be supported (3.82) -Application of a sustainable development concept of organic agriculture (4.71) -Need for Product quality policy orientation and for the creation of an organization aiming to provide information on organic products (4.59) -Creation of new valid information system in terms of interaction with other sectors (1.47) -Creation of a organization of bio cultivators that will undertake the control and trade (2.18) -Organization of producers in order to acquire constant workforce (lobbies) (4.53) -Application of regional support programs by the Region Directorate (3.12) -Need for open minded stakeholders in institutions, research centers, local authorities (2.24) -Enhancement of investment, expansion and export activities of specific agro farms and operations (4.53) -Application of good infrastructures (airport, shipping companies, logistics, net etc) (5.88)
5.2.2.1 Agronomic aspects For actions that are important to encourage and enhance biological cycles within the farming system, experts tended to first rank high, the distribution of a respected area in proportion with organic cultivation by the EU (Delphi 2nd round July, (1.94)) and second the importance of studies carried out to deal with new application techniques and inputs (Delphi 2nd round July, (1.94)). Additionally, the easy cultivation techniques of some organic farming cultures (mainly for olives & citrus) (Delphi 2nd round July, (3.53)) could delimitate the barriers that one can face while applying biological cycles within the farming system. For Actions that enhance the use of renewable resources in locally organized agricultural systems, many Delphi panellists define organic farming management as a Farm management with innovative aspects (Delphi 2nd round July, (1.35)) which is
60
Chapter 5
considered an important action for locally environmental resource preservation. Panellists criticized the input problems very strongly (Delphi 2nd round July, (1.76)). Specifically, the drawbacks include the high cost of organic inputs, the agricultural inputs supply industry, that mainly deals with agrochemicals used in conventional farming and not with those used in organic farming, the limited suppliers information for organic inputs (i.e. information spread concerning the use and usefulness of these inputs is limited), and the inefficient availability and transferability of manure. Concerning the threats of olive trees, the problem of dacus olea has not been solved yet. All these negative aspects imply the need for research and development in the agronomical field, the simplification of the organic patterns culture and the importance of knowledge spread, obtained in the research field, towards all actors.
5.2.2.2 Environmental aspects For actions to avoid/reduce all forms of pollution that may result from agricultural techniques: air, water, soil the importance of education of organic farming to conventional and young farmers (New entrants) was highly significant (Delphi 2nd round July, (1.76)). Also, the need for regulation for environmentally friendly inputs utilization was extremely highlighted by the interviewees (Delphi 2nd round July, (1.41)). Nevertheless, many respondents claimed, that Organic farming is still limited in the area because of the high risk of conversion (Delphi 2nd round July, (1.88)). Producers are facing the dilemma of whether or not to convert because they are afraid of a limited output production, so the effects to the environment and the development of the sector are difficult to detect. In order to maintain the genetic diversity of the agricultural system and its surroundings, including the protection of plant and wildlife habitats, new and old traditional inputs should be re-applied. The preservation of indigenous knowledge and wisdom on traditional farming and herbs has been highlighted (Delphi 2nd round July, (2.71)) to maintain the genetic diversity of the agricultural system. Added concern for the environment is a first priority issue after intensification and monoculture effects. The olive culture, the most spread crop in the area, resulted in the disturbance of the environment and the development of specific pests (Delphi 2nd
61
Chapter 5
round July, (3.82)). The EU CAP Regulation as a solution to environmental disturbance introduces the aspect of farm diversification. Landscape management is becoming a very important issue for preserving the quality of the rural environment. Specific strategies must be taken according to topography, soil characteristics, climate, pests, local availability of inputs and the individuals farmers set goals to accomplish this goal (Delphi 2 nd round July , (3.53)).
5.2.2.3 Socio-economic aspects One of the most important aspects of the EU policy base is the production support aimed to discourage land and rural abandonment. Allowing agricultural producers an adequate return is not highly approved of by the panellists as a top priority objective (Delphi 2nd round July, (4.71)). In term of job satisfaction and a safe working environment, no interviewees mentioned job creation even if it is considered by EU regulation as a high priority issue that satisfies sustainability. Organic agriculture satisfies these aspects if successfully achieved by individuals, to a relatively higher degree than conventional farming does. Nevertheless, the case of Organic farming contribution to the enhancement of the pilot area in terms of interaction with other rural development initiatives is considered the most important issue for sustainability. Two interactions are considered most important: (1) the horizontal networks introduction (clusters), specifically the involvement of agrotourism businesses in the organic production (Delphi 2nd round July, (1.59)) and (2) the vertical integration processes of organic farmers (vertical networks) (Delphi 2 nd round July, (1.59)). This integration process implies Farmers transition into entrepreneurs. Nevertheless, many experts stressed that the barrier that constraints these interactions is the limited number of organic farming, so interaction is not considered necessary (Delphi 2nd round July, (1.88)) because of the limited power force that can be obtained to influence policy regulation. Sustainability can be obtained only if high quality and added value of the product is attained. The Control and certification bodies apply the mechanism responsible for this verification. Specifically, concerning Greece, only three such Bodies exist. There are private institutes which are expensive and inefficient to administrate and to apply
62
Chapter 5
regular and systematic control of the production process. The need for a certification and control body-center in the area is rated very high (Delphi, 2nd Round, July, (2.06)). This responsibility, however, is going to be taken by an establishment of the Ministry of Rural Development Food and an organization called, Agricultural product inspection & certification scheme (AGROCERT). Moreover, a competence center carrying out monitoring and verification responsibilities and supporting consumers confidence should be established too (Delphi 2nd round July, (1.82)). The increase in the possibilities provided by niche marketing of typical products is an aspect generally accepted as a path of sustainable development. Respondents noted this requires commercial representative and the appointment of agents involvement, agents appointed by local farmers to promote the selling of their products in order to provide them with potential trading opportunities (Delphi 2nd round July, (1.71)). Moreover, niche markets of typical products could be increased substantially only if the prices of organic products do not vary significantly from the corresponding conventional products (Delphi 2nd round July, (1.12)). A strong argument appears regarding the probability of typical products not becoming a mass product due to lack of: structured distribution and processing channels, promotion and marketing organizations and measures enhancing specialized distribution channels (Delphi 2nd round July, (2.12)). The aspect of retail power is generally considered a constraint factor to increase market share. Only if the willingness to pay for typical products is increased and the short supply chains are introduced, could niche markets expand.
5.2.2.4 Institutional and Infrastructural aspects Policies in reference to EU application of sustainable and multifunctional rural development require State support (Delphi 2nd round July, (1.76)). The Rural population must be supported economically and technically in order to prevent mobility and migration (Delphi 2nd round July, (1.24)). The 'Bottom up' approach social policy must be favored by EU regulation (Delphi 2nd round July, (1.53)). Leader projects follow this policy direction, where projects take place regarding the local populations needs, skills and perspectives. Clearly, the respondents questioned
63
Chapter 5
the motives offered by various regulations to producers and entrepreneurs (Delphi 2nd round July, (1.88)). The crucial aspect for Interaction between regional and local institutions (pilot areas) is a high priority issue for verifying sustainability, accomplished by a new valid information system in terms of interaction with other sectors (Delphi 2nd round July, 1.47). Community support and local developmental programs support the establishments of vertical and/or horizontal, institutional and entrepreneurial networks (Delphi 2nd round July, 1.41). Assessment of infrastructural aspects of the pilot areas in terms of interaction with rural development initiatives is considered an important aspect for Sustainable Rural Development by different National States and EU CAP Regulation. In order to enhance sustainable rural development and innovative investments and expansion, export activities of specific agro farms and operations should be enhanced (Delphi 2nd round July, 4.53). However, the respondents argued strongly that there is lack of subsidies for specific Agricultural infrastructures in the area. An olive oil mill has not been built for the process standardization and trade of organic olive oil (Delphi 2nd round July, 3.06).
5.3 Discussion Generally a rural production model involves encouragement of the vertical integration processes, focusing on production, processing, marketing and distribution in order to maximize member returns. In addition there is an influx of local developmental companies, which encourage local initiatives. Nevertheless, the institutes do not take into consideration the new aspect of diversification. The integration across tourism, environment protection and farming is not yet enhanced as a rural development expectation (Midmore, 2004 (b)). This direction needs the collaborative action of the institutes in order to promote equity, completion and appropriate managerial function through their positive actions. Organic producers themselves and the communities in which they are embedded should generate the ideas and realize the effort. Each informed individual can become a model that contributes to sustainability. Communication and integration is required for the promotion of organic products.
64
Chapter 5
Finally, further responsibility and cooperation is demanded from the regional, national and EU agencies.
5.2.1 Regional Initiatives Once the organic sector achieves critical mass, particularly in peripheral parts that rely heavily on primary production, regional development can further be enhanced. A series of responsibilities can be regenerated for the Regional Development Agencies. A process of dialogue could help to strengthen the potential of initiatives to contribute to the aims of regional policymakers and at the same time enhance the performance of the enterprises even if it pursues its targets. Regional development agencies aim to provide specific public sector support for pioneer initiatives, by identifying and facilitating appropriate networks of organic producers, and assisting conventional farmers to explore the advantages of conversion. They further aim to assist the formation of collaborative initiatives between producer groups, and allow farmers to take advantage of the Rural Development Program and other structural funds to support consumer research. Finally, they support the enhancement of smallmedium sized enterprises and processing/trade, and the establishment of young farmers holdings (Midmore, 2004 (b)). However, the responsibility in implementing all these actions should not be left only to the Regional Development Agencies since they need to be specialized in all the various socio-economic, agro environmental and institutional aspects contributing to sustainable rural development. There is a need for State interest in order to provide guidance concerning their activities.
5.2.2 National Initiatives National governments have a clearly defined role in supporting the organic sector; they are responsible for setting organic standards and providing aids for conversion and maintenance to primary organic and traditional agriculture patterns. They also carry out research and provide extensive technical and certification services. Beyond
65
Chapter 5
this national support there is a need for monitoring and supervising the organic supply chain, as well as providing support beyond the direct marketing or farm gate sales. Unfortunately the compromise on the 2003 CAP reform, leaves very little available funding for Rural Development. In the short term, national governments need to consider the contribution of their own resources to supplement the Rural Development Plans scope. In the longer term, the realization of greater shifts from Pillar One to Pillar two are possible (Ifoam, 2002; Friends of the Earth Europe, 2003).
5.2.3 European Community Initiatives The European Commission, acting in consultation with national governments in the European Economic Area, should act as a catalyst to establish a continent-wide network of producer initiatives, which market sustainable-produced primary products (Midmore, 2004(b)). The objective should be to build on the experience of this project in order to disseminate a best practice model, in alliance with a wide range of formal and informal relations and organizations.
66
Chapter 6
Conclusions
Chapter 6
Conclusions The main objective of the present study was to define a new strategy for sustainable and multifunctional rural development, based on the development of a Best Practice Model of organic farming. Stakeholders selection, participation and integration to a single entity through a Delphi technique were the means to meet this objective. Conscious effort is needed to improve the standing of the organic approach among conventional farmers, in order to foster mutual respect and understanding as the basis for long term collaboration. A process of continuous dialogue with regional policymakers and various stakeholders could facilitate the strengthening of the potential initiatives conducive to development. Regional development agencies should be ready and prepared to provide any available support for pioneer initiatives. Identifying and facilitating appropriate networks of organic producers, and assisting conventional farmers to explore the advantages of conversion will help to establish a stable organic production. Finally, support of small-medium sized processing/trade enterprises, and the establishment of young farmers holdings constitute a must for the rural society. The responsibility for implementing all necessary actions should not be left only to the Regional Development Agencies. State agencies should also play a determinant role to provide constant guidance. Beyond the huge responsibility for each different level of agencies, demand to tighten the links among them is required. These links can be strengthened by intermediaries, like private initiatives, NGOs, or other independent entities. Organic producers themselves and the active community should generate the ideas, undertake the effort and implement them. For a sustainable development based on the growth of organic agriculture, consumers must be aware of the intrinsic value of organic products and the differences from the conventional ones. Thus, though organic farming and marketing can be met in very small areas, this does not constitute a Best Practice Model for a sustainable rural development. Persistent links among various agencies and strong long lasting networks among stakeholders is required.
67
Appendix A: Organic Farming and Policy Review in Greece
Appendix A
Appendix A: Greece: Review of national and regional administration documents to document measures relevant to organic farming implemented in the context of agri-environmental, rural development and other policy measures.
Table a: Specific organic farming policy measures in Greece

Legal basis/ regulation Initial plan/ report Scheme details Revisions Annual reports Mid-term review Official evaluations (& final reviews)
Not applicable -1998: review of organic aid scheme and proposals for reform. -2004: new measures concerning agroenvironmenta l priorities.
Other analyses & commentry
Organic action plans Organic farming schemes
Not applicable EU Reg. 2078/92 & 1257/1999 plus implementing regulations The Ministry of Rural Development and Food Directorate of land use planning and Environmental protection (DLUPEP) will oversee: a Rural development report containing 4 priorities actions for organic farming the main one being the 3rd priority of action which contains Agroenvironmental measures, specifically, measure 3.1 regarding organic farming and measure 3.2 regarding organic livestock Initial plan: 6000 ha of organic farm land will be set aside for this scheme -1997: implementation of organic aid scheme - 2000: 5 years economic support of organic farmer according to euros/ha related to the kind of crop or livestock and areas (EU reg# 428/2000) -2001: organic farming scheme Organic Agriculture to offer financial aid per hectare (hectare/subsidies) (EU reg# 233/2001) -2004: modified organic agricultural scheme offering financial aid to farmers.
Not applicable 2000-2006 new land distribution (50.000 ha) 2004: integration with other agro environmental schemes (EPAA)
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable Organic Farming CAP Conversion, (reading) Krystallis, Ath. Fotopoulos, Ch. Etc. The new invitation concerning the agroenvironmental measures has been forwarded by the Ministry of Rural Development and Food.
3.1 Measure Organic
EPAAAY: The Operational -Investments in agro farms programme for Rural Development and the (improvement plans). Reconstruction of the -Improvement of age index rural areas (EPAAAY) 2004 - Number of total accepted contractors: 2451
69
Appendix A
agriculture 3.2 Measure Organic Livestock Standards and regulations 2004 - Number of total accepted contractors: 553
EU Reg. 2092/91 & 1804/99 implementing regulations
Organisation for Certification and Supervision of Agricultural Products" (AGROCERT) (GG A 200, 27.08.98), under the inspection of the Ministry of Rural Development and Food
1999: livestock regulations (EU reg# 1804/1999) 2001: issuing imports certification licenses from third countries, (EU reg# 1788/2001) 2001:standardization and transportation for organic products (EU reg# 2491/2001) 2002: production, PDO/ PGI products (EU reg# 473/2002) 2003: forages regulation (EU reg# 223/2003).
(EPAY) Compendium of organic standards
5 year review of Agrocert. A new integrated Action Plan is going to be exhibited in Autumn 2004 under the supervision of Agrocert The scheme contains actions for provision of information and education of farmers on organic agricultural issues.
250570/15-11-91
390748/7-10-92
332.221/11-01-01
The office of plantderived biological products was formed as part of the Directorate of Processing & Packaging and Quality Control of Agricultural Products Constitution of the committee for license permission to private control and certification bodies. Introduction of Agrocert or (OPEGEP)
Additional measures taken for the implementation of the EU reg# 2092/91
2001: OPEKEPE took on responsibility for domestic trade, export- input issues as well as approval for
70
Appendix A
usage of common logo for organic products (Governmental Journal: Fek 381 B) 2001: Some new responsibilities are delegated to the secondary inspection committee in reference to the operational programme. (Governmental Journal: Fek 1034 B) 2002: Certification Bodies grant approval to operate: DIO, Biohellas s.a and Fysiologiki ltd. (Governmental Journal: Fek 278) 2002: Approval of the operation of the BIOHELLAS s.a (institute of organic product) (Governmental Journal: Fek 1495) 2003: Approval granted to farmers to control the entire production process (demand for records and documents) (Governmental Journal: Fek 1579) 2004: Undermining standard regulation, suggestion of modified regulation and implementation of measure 4.3. (Governmental Journal:
71
Appendix A
Fek 404) 2004: No restriction for origin of propagation material (Governmental Journal: Fek 203) 2001: Responsibility allocated to Agrocert (OPEGEP) (Organization for Certification and Supervision of Agricultural Products) for the creation of a common logo for organic product identification. 2002: implementation of three different logos from the related certification bodies: Dio, Biohellas s.a. and Physiologiki Ltd.
Logos (EU/national or regional)
EU Reg. 2092/91 EU Reg. 1783/2003 (art 33) Agenda 2000 second pillar: art 16
Schemes are applied for the promotion of organic agriculture.
Commodity policy (1ST pillar) regarding marketing and logo regulations for organic/ pdo/ emas (environmental management standards for industries) as well as for the propagation material. 2000: Rural development regulation referring to the most important aspect of the new CAP: article 33, marketing of quality agricultural products (Second Pillar of Agenda 2000)
Private/NGO initiatives (e.g. logos) (please specify/add additional rows for each measure)
EU Reg# 2092/91
Governmental Journal Fek 278/2002 :N o 240901
Non Governmental Organizations: DIO, Biohellas s.a., Physiologiki Ltd. under the control of ESYD ( a company appointed by the Ministry of Development for controlling the Certifications Bodies). Ministry of Rural Development and Food granted approval to certification Bodies to operate
Dio, responsible for control and certification
Governmental Journal Fek 278/2002 No 240902 Governmental
Physiologiki ltd, responsible for control and certification Biohellas .s.a., responsible for
72
Appendix A
Journal Fek 278/2002 No 240903 Community guidance 83/189/ & 88/182/, & 94/10/K & 98/34/EK & 98/48/ EU Reg. 2601/98 control and certification ELOT, Hellenic Organization for standardization Establishment information process in the sector of models and technical regulations of directive 83/189/ establishment of HACCP system as well as the ISO standard/ http://www.elot.gr/home.htm Enhancement of investments for organic farmers, (i.e. green houses and standardized plants for organic agricultural products)
DEVELOPMENT AL PLAN
Ministry of Economy and finance of Greece
1997: No investments and restrictions of organic agricultural product categories (55472, Governmental Journal fek 390B/16-05-1997)
2004: new national regulation is elaborated upon.
Table b: Other agri-environmental policy measures in Greece

Legal basis/ regulation Initial plan/ report Scheme details Revisions Annual reports Midterm review Official evaluations (& final reviews) Other analyses & commentry
Other agrienvironmental measures (please specify/add additional rows for each measure)
Measures 3.1 Measures 3.2 Measures 3. 11 Measures 3.12 Measures 3.13 Natura 2000
2000: completion of A new invitation was some schemes exhibited by the Ministry (nitrate sensitive of Rural Development and areas, habitat Food scheme, biodiversity scheme) 2004: new scheme All regions and all cultures are eligible. Those who have completed a five-year period and fill the conditions required for program can be resubsidized Overseeing of sheep, goat, pig and pasturage bull breading. Maintenance of dry walls and re-establishment for landscape conservation (especially in the Prefectures of Eubro and Ioannina) Protection from soil erosion Protection of Wild Animal life, provision and support to farmers to help them to maintain the agricultural areas (NATURA 2000) 2001: From the 296 areas of the specific network, 64 which will be included in the Reg! 2078/92 2004: Under livestock extensification program there are some specific protection areas (SPA) as well as 20 spatial community interests (Psci) in
EU Reg. 2078/92 & 1257/1999 plus implementing regulations
Directorate of land use planning and Environmental protection (DLUPEP)
Countryside Stewardship Environmentally sensitive areas Unquoted reference yield, cross compliances.
73
Appendix A
Greece named regions A, and nine islands regions, named B. Program of water conservation of lakes and lagoons in Thrace. Regions of network Natura 2000 : "Delta Nestos and Keramoti lagoon " and the "Lake Andlagoons of Thrace" Program of water conservation (network natura 2000) "Lakes Volvis-Koronias" EU Reg. 1467/94. BAP 1)Natural resources, 2) fisheries, 3)development co-operation and 4)agriculture Extentification of livestock farm Programme for conservation of rare animal species (already implemented) Protection and re discovery of local crops and varieties that are facing the threat of extinction. RAMSAR Protection of water catchments areas Reduction of nitrate pollution of agricultural origin. Has already been implemented in Thessaly and in Fthiotida Environmental protection of Lake Pamvotidas. Decrease in fertilizers. Subsidization of Leguminous crops.
Measure 3.9: Measure 3.10: Biodiversity Action Plans
Measure 3.4 Measure 3.7 Measure 3.8 Water catchments areas Measure 3.5 Measure 3.6 Private/NGO initiatives (e.g. commercial utility company schemes) (please specify/add additional rows for each measure) Greek export organization in Greece. (OPE s.a.) -Ministry of Economy Agro-environmental Sector Number of Entitlements 2003 Organic Agriculture Organic Livestock Diminishment of Nitrate pollution Biodiversity Other, e.g. pesticide tax if relevant (please specify/add additional rows for each measure)
A programme called Eco Hellas Good Living. 2003-2006 is responsible for the promotion of organic products to the inner market by OPE s.a. national link of trade. Because of Athens Olympic Games 2004 there will be in an Exhibition of innovation products like organic products
EU Reg. 1257/99 or 2078
More details in the excel worksheet retrieved by OPEKEPE
Number of total accepted contractors 2451 Number of total accepted contractors 553 Number of total accepted contractors 459 Number of total accepted contractors 863
74
Appendix A
Table c: Other rural development and structural measures in Greece with specific relevance to or provision for organic farming
Legal basis/ regulation Initial plan/ report Scheme details Revisions Annual reports Midterm review One midterm review Official evaluations (& final reviews) Not applicable Other analyses & commentary
Agricultural / rural development policy framework documents
EU Decision No 845/2001
The Operational Programme for Rural Development and the Reconstruction of the rural areas: EPAAAY 2000-2006
Not applicable
Not applicable
3 annual reports 200120022003
Various to be identified
Less favored areas
EU Reg. 1257/1999 & previous & implementing regulations EU Reg. 1257/1999 & previous & implementing regulations EU Reg. 1257/1999 & previous & implementing regulations EU Reg. 1257/1999 & previous & implementing regulations
Capital investments Vocational training Processing and marketing/ producer marketing groups Art. 33 rural adaptation measures (please specify/add additional rows for each measure) Agro-environmental measures Forestry
Rural Development Plan for Greece & Committee for organizing and controlling the III CSF Rural Development Plan for Greece Rural Development Plan for Greece Rural Development Plan for Greece
Scheme information pack Scheme information pack Scheme information pack Scheme information pack
EU Reg. 1257/1999 & previous & implementing regulations
Rural Development Plan for Greece
Early retirement
EU Reg. 2080/92 & 1257/1999 previous & implementing regulations EU Reg. 2079/99
Young farmers
EU Reg. 2520/98
Rural Development Plan for Greece & Committee for organizing and controlling the III CSF Rural Development Plan for Greece & Committee for organizing and controlling the III CSF Greece Rural Development Plan
Indirect funding: Improvement of age index (young farmers)
75
Appendix A
Structural measures (Obj. 1, 2 etc.) EU Reg. 1260/99 & previous implementing regulations Objective 1: programming documents Direct funding, Investments in infrastructure, support local development initiatives and job creation as well as indirect funding Investment in agro-farms (improvement plans) and compensatory allowances etc.
Other EU-based or national schemes relating to above (please specify/add additional rows for each scheme) EU Reg. 1783/99 Measure 2.2 Pilot action Archi-Med, Article 10, ETPA (European Fund of Territorial Development) Directorate of land use planning and Environmental protection (DLUPEP) & Hellenic Ministry for the Environment Physical Planning & Public Works Environment enhancement for growth realization in the Mediterranean space (19982001)
OSDE: (under OPEKEPE monitoring) Leader plus
Regional operational programmes
Integrated managerial and Control system Intervention for quality assurance Exploitation of the farmers registration system (LPIS) MEASURE 1.2.3.5 Growth, certification and control of organic products in the modernization of a honey standardization plant. Budget expenditure: 1,415.00 euro to be allocated to the individual, Panagioti Vasilaki, in the prefecture of Kerkira (municipality of Parelion). MEASURE 1.2.3.5 The proposed project by the organic producers of the Union of Arcadia with 3 specific objectives had to implement the following tasks:1) Preparation of approval applications for PDO, PGI for four specific traditional products 2) certification of organic products, plants and livestock, from producers members of the Union (chestnut of Parnona, cherry of Tegeas and Potatoes and garlic of Tripoli) 3) certification of organic pastures and meadows of the following municipalities Kinoutrias, Apollonos, Falaisisas and Tegeas Budget expenditure:70.214,00 euro MEASURE: 1.2.3.5 Expenditure back up for 1) the certification procedures of organic pastures and meadows and 2) organic products (olive oil, citrus) Municipality of Malaon Prefecture of Lakonia Budget expenditure: Budget expenditure: 64.000,00 euro Economic support of new and existing enterprises for a standardization production process for high added value products (biological, ecological, high nutritional value, etc.) action n.2601/98 a' task.
76
Appendix A
Crete, budget: 4821875 euro One standardization unit in Thessaloniki 5 organic producers have been subsidized to cover technical costs under the improvement plan during the period 1997-2002 in the prefecture of Kilkis An improvement plan for the subsidization of specific cultivation and trade methods applied for organic vegetables In the Region of Sterea Greece Establishment of a small unit for organic marmalade production in the Region of Thessaly. Information to producers and to unions of producers for subjects related to the quality of certified products as well as for new applications systems concerning environmental Sectoral operational management in the rural sector programme budget expenditure: 646,000 euros Establishment of a unit for Collection, packaging and drying of organic products in the Prefecture of Messinia , Region of Central Greece. Total Budget 123.590 euros First proclamation of Measure 4.3 for the promotion of exports and collective institutions budget expenditure: 10,803,919 Marketing of Quality Agricultural Products of the Region of Epirous 1,116,110 Marketing of Quality Agricultural Products of the Region of Ionian Islands Budget expenditure: 310,030 Marketing of Quality Agricultural Products of Quality of the Region of Peloponnesus Budget expenditure: 935,750 Marketing of Quality Agricultural Products of Quality of the Region of East Macedonia-Trace Budget expenditure: 394,590 Marketing of Quality Agricultural Products of Quality of the Region of Cretan Budget expenditure: 837,650 Marketing of Quality Agricultural Products of Quality of the Region of South Aegean Budget expenditure: 338,210 Marketing of Quality Agricultural Products of Quality of the Region of North Aegean Budget expenditure: 338,210 Marketing of Quality Agricultural Products of Quality of the Region of West Greece Budget expenditure: 338,210 Marketing of Quality Agricultural Products of Quality of the Region of Thessaly Budget expenditure: 417,130 Marketing of Quality Agricultural Products of Quality of the Region of West Macedonia Budget expenditure: 586,240 Marketing of Quality Agricultural Products of Quality of the Region of Sterea Greece Budget expenditure: 969,550 Marketing of Quality Agricultural Products of Quality of the Region of Attica Budget expenditure: 39,450 Marketing of Quality Agricultural Products of Quality of the Region of Central Macedonia Budget expenditure: 845,530 Second proclamation of Measure 4.3 for the promotion of exports and collective institutions Budget Expenditure :17,084,736
77
Appendix A
Table d: Market organization (commodity) measures in England with specific relevance to or provision for organic farming
Legal basis/ regulation Initial plan/ report Scheme details Revisions Annual reports Mid-term review Official evaluations (& final reviews) Other analyses & commentary
Market organization measures - only those with specific provisions for organic farming (please specify/add rows below for each relevant scheme example) Special provisions in national envelopes Set-aside exemptions for organic producers Special exemptions in set-aside management rules Quotas exemptions (national reserve arrangements) CAP reform 2003 agreement implementation
EU Rer! 2081/92 (Art. 17) Not applicable Relevant EU Regulation
Food labeling, Quality Assurance
Set-aside scheme information pack Suckler cow and sheep quotas Horizontal EU Reg! 1782/2003 EU Reg. 795/2004 EU Reg. 796/2004 Not applicable Not applicable
Tax/levy/tariff adjustments
New Economics Foundation (2002) proposals for tax credits for organic farming investments
Table e: Information and other relevant policies in Greece

Please add rows for any items where multiple schemes or measures involved Public education/ consumer promotion campaigns (incl. schools) 2860/2000 Legal basis/ regulation Initial plan/ report Scheme details Revisions Annual reports Midterm review Official evaluations (& final reviews) Other analyses & commentry
Ministry of Rural Development and Food Ministry of Rural Development and Food (programme EPEAAK II) Operational Programme for Education and Initial Vocational Training
Not yet developed
Soil Association proposals
Eligibility applies to the Ministry of education and religion affairs and to Universities
78
Appendix A
Measure 2.6 "Programmes of Protection of Environment and Environmental Education", Research Publication of invitation on research support action the POLYTECHNIC COLLEGES - ARCHIMEDES ' 22/01/2003 Priority action 2.6.1 "Programs of Environment and Environmental Education Protection ", Category of Priority Action 2.6.1.i.d. "Aid of Inquiring Teams on issues concerning the Environment and Ecology in the polytechnic colleges (TEI)" (postmasters, masters and specialization) Reg! NAGREF, NAGREF. 36 research 349/333199/1314/2-3BENAKIO Extension/modification of the projects of 99 (Phytopathological programme Organic Agriculture NAGREF Institute and Laboratory) E.U. Regulation 2078/92. Biological control of pests insects and mites with special reference to Entomopthorales Duration 200-2005 Implemented by the Institution of Horticulture and Floriculture (NAGREF) Research of organic cultivation techniques for grapes in Ctrete. Co financed by ; Technical Educational Institute in Heraclion: total budget expenditure 3.668 euros The Region of Heraclion: total budget expenditure 45.913euros Nagref: total budget expenditure 11298 euros Implemented by the Institution of Phytosanitary Treatment
Statistics & market intelligence Benchmarking and financial data Training and education
Reg! 797/85, Reg! 2328/91 and Reg! 950/97
TEI Larisas TEI Kefalonia Agriculture university of Athens, department of ecology/ University of Harokopeio Sustainable development master program The University of Thessaly.
-education to the young farmers, - newcomers of the farming sector, - successors of farm exploitations, -to a lesser extent to the secondary vocational training research-education institute research-education institute research-education institute
Research and Education of the Department of Economy and Ecology One of the departments of the University of Thessaly is the Department of Agriculture, Crop Production and Agricultural Environment. The Department of Natural Resources and Enterprise Management Department of Environment
The University of Ioannina. The University of
79
Appendix A
Aegean OGEEKA Program: Organization of Agricultural vocational and educational training DIMITRA (Ministry of Rural Development and Food) 68 Dimitra Centers all over Greece are responsible for the implementation of Agroplan, Proterris programmes etc under the finance of Leonardo Da Vinci and Laboratory of Environmental Planning Short courses related to: 1. Organic agriculture. 2. Organic livestock-farming. OGEEKA DIMITRA organization aiming to provide the Green Certification to Farmers. In cooperation with the Ministry of Defence, the solders are educated on relative subjects. FRELECTRA Developed by: OGEEKA 20002006: second phase, DIMITRA The use of innovative technologies and improved vocational training for the production and marketing of fresh Executives of PASEGES are conducting a range of educational programs related to the agricultural sector.
Reg. 2520/97 (Governmental Journal 173//1-997) Reg. 2637/98 (Governmental Journal 200/27-898) and Reg. 2945/2001 (Governmental Journal 223/8-102001)
The Pan Hellenic Confederation of Agricultural Cooperations, through its Centers for Vocational Training OAED: Greek Manpower Employment Organisation, subordinate to the Ministry of Labour. EKEPIS: National Accreditation Centre of Continuous Vocational Training, subordinate to the Ministry of Labour. American Farming School of Thessalonica.
The Organization undertakes training programmes for Initial Vocational Training and for Continuing Vocational Training The Institute undertakes the certification of private continuous vocational training centers that provide training seminars to adults. It is an independent, non-profit educational institution that caters to students at the primary, secondary, postsecondary and adult levels.
Centre of Environmental
80
Appendix A
Education of public servants. Financed by the national funds politeia www.politeiaeu.org and the III CPF. Short course entitled: GMOs and GMPs Professional Education in the Management of Rural Exploitations, in the Planning of Production, the Business dexterity and the Innovation in the Rural Sector with the use of Information technology and Communication (2003 2005) Professions directed towards the exploitation of countryside resources and traditional products in the sectors of: agro-food nutrition, tourism and reformation (2003 2005) Centre of vocational training Egeas , Thessaly Pilot program '' IRIS '' with regard to the ecological agriculture coordinator I. R. M. A. (Spain). Pilot program "ECO - FIELD ", with regard to the ecological agriculture coordinated by the Center of Vocational training EGEAS Bureau of Organic Products Ministry of Agriculture Department B, (DLUPEP) education. Ministry of Interior, Public Administration and Decentralization.
LEONARDO DA VINCI. AGROPLAN: LEONARDO DA VINCI. PROTERRIS:
Advice/extension
Institutional structures/ capacity building Joint Ministerial Decision. 128877/12-62003 Ministry of Rural Development and Food. DIMITRA The 13 Institutes of Technical Education located in 10 different cities of Greece () where14 new agricultural specializations will be introduced. Exploitation of the three Practical Agricultural Schools. Operation of 71 Educational Centers DIIR (ex G). Public procurement Private/NGO initiatives (e.g. consumer information) (please specify/add additional rows for each scheme) http://www.elot.gr/home.htm
Community guidance 83/189/ & 88/182/, & 94/10/K & 98/34/EK & 98/48/
Organic food Network
Under the
Establishment of information process in the sector of models and technical regulations of directive 83/189/ establishment of HACCP system as well as the ISO standard/ SBBE-The Chamber of
81
Appendix A
http://biofood.sbbe.gr implementation of the regional programme Quality distinctions in Central Macedonia financed by EPAA 20002006 New Farmer Union industries of Northen Greece materialize the following action: establishment of a network for Organic Products: Development and Promotion of new organic farming commodities to farmers and agro-food companies Provision of information concerning the Union of New Farmers, the Network of Organizations, technical support, new organizations, Biological Agriculture and agri-tourism.
New Farmer Union [http://www.ena.idx.gr]
EFET. EAS Aegalias
EBA union of bio-consumers of Attica GAIA COOPERATIVE
Quality controls of food products are conducted by National Agency of Food Control (EFET) Agricultural Union Of Cooperatives, consumer association Despina Karathanou Terma Korinthou, Gefira Selinounta, EL - 25100 Aegio Greece Tel: +30 691 25928 Activities: producer association producer consumer association Vasilios Pelekanos Dimokratias 93-95, EL - 73100 Chania Greece Tel: +30 821 28783 Activities: producer association research-education institute Niki Makri Municipal Centre of the Municipality, EL - 22100 Tripoli Greece Tel: +30 71 243305 Fax: +30 71 243305 Activities: producer association, research-education institute Elias Rondogiannis Ktima Pyrgou Vassiliasis, EL - 10433 Athens Greece Tel: +30-1-2387227 Fax: +30-1-2387027 Activities: Producer Association EL - 64002 Limenaria Greece Tel: +30-593-51706 Fax: +30-593-51706 Activities: producer association Dr. A. Vassillou P.D Box 59, EL - 70400 Moires Greece Tel: 0030 81 32 6589 Fax: 0030 892 22026 or +0030 892 22828 agapi-v@otenet.gr Activities: Producer association, rural development, environment Velvendos, EL - 50400 Kozani Greece
AGESR-agricultural economics and social research Association of bio cultivators in Arcada
Association of Ecological Agriculture of Greece
Bioagros - Organic Olive Farmers of Thasos CAEG - Cretan AgriEnvironmental Group
Cooperative of Fruit Producers
82
Appendix A
of Velvendos Dimitra- association of bio cultivators of hellas Activities: producer association G. Stamatopoulos EL - 27100 Pyrgos Greece Tel: +30 621 71085 Fax: +30 621 33244 Activities: producer association, research-education institute Michalis Koulouroudis And. Metaxa 13-15, EL - 10681 Athen Greece Tel: +30-1-364-7766 Fax: +30-1-330-4647 Activities: producer association, research-education institute Krokos, EL - 50010 Kozani Greece Tel: +30 461 63283 Activities: producer association Palaios, EL - 59100 Alexandria Greece Tel: +30-331-95098 Activities: producer association Post Box 1077, EL - 71110 Iraklion Greece Tel: +30 81 741945 Fax: +30 81 741528 http://www.aias.net/peza_union/index.html Activities: producer association for olive oil in crete research-education institute Maltezos Athanasios Kefalas, EL - 23100 Sparti Greece Tel: 0030-731-77455 Fax: 0030-731- 81851 Activities: producer association, research-education institute Makedonias 2 73100 Chania po box 85 Activities: research-education institute research-education institute
EEVE-union of organic farmers of Greece-Athens
Farmers' Cooperative of Krokos Group of Kiwi Producers of Meliki PEZA UNION - Peza Agrarian Cooperatives Ass/n of Iraklion Prefecture Institute of fruits & olive trees of Kalamata Kefala-Sparti ae
MAICH- Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Chania
Union of Consumers of Organic Agricultural Products (Lefkon Oreon) HCL-consultants company
Limited Provides a range of technical assistance services in the following fields: Vasso Argyropoulou Tel.: +30 210 9240885 fax : +30 210 9240769 email: office@hcl-consultants.com www.hcl-consultants.com
83
Appendix B: Results of 1st and 2nd Delphi Round
Appendix B
Overall 2nd Round Rank 2nd Rou nd 1 2 7 4 3 6 5 8 9 Overall 2nd Round Rank 2nd Rou nd 3 1 2 Overall 1st Round Total means 1.12 1.41 3.53 3 2.94 4.18 3.12 3.82 4.76 Total means 2.29 1.88 2.12 Research Bodies 1 1 4.5 3.5 4 4 3.5 3.5 4.5 Rank 1st Roun d 1 1 3 5 5 6 6 6 7 Overall 1st Round Research Bodies Rank 1st roun d 1 1 2 2.5 2.5 2
1. Which were the main factors that fostered the spread of OF in the area of Kolymvari?
2nd round by category of respondent(mean scores) Food processors & distributors No food processors & distributors Technical & Cert. Bodies 1 1.33 2.33 2.67 3.33 4 3 4.67 5.33 1 1 1.33 Technical & Cert. Bodies Local Agent 1 1 3.5 2.5 2 3.5 2.5 3 5 1 1 2 Local Agent
high market price of organic products community support and local development programs easy cultivation of organic farming (specifically citrus and olive trees) low subsidies to conventional farmers Increasing international demand Promotional initiatives (brand name) Increasing concern in health Added concern for the environment vertical integration of product supply chain (the producer tries to process., standardize and trade the product alone)
7 7 5 3 3 2 2 2 1
1 2.5 5.5 1.5 3 3.5 2.5 3.5 4.5
1 1.5 3.5 3.5 3 4.25 3 3.25 4.75
1.67 1.33 3.33 3.67 2.67 5.33 3.33 4.67 4.33
1 1 2 3 4 4 3 4 5
2. Which were the most important problems of community support mechanism for the spread of OF?
1st Round Local authorities Frequency Producers
2nd round by category of respondent(mean scores) Food processors & distributors No food processors & distributors 1 1 2
State does not support exploitation of the related EU Regulations and Projects No significant motives offered to agro-food producers/entrepreneurs by the Community lack of measures enhancing specialized distribution channels (directly at the farm gate, health and natural shops, specialized
7 7 6
3 1.5 1.5
1.5 1.75 2
4 3.67 3.67
85
Appendix B
retail outlets, supermarkets) Lack of subsidies for specific Agricultural Infrastructures Community supports mainly big investors National support is mainly directly towards basic infrastructures e.g. for irrigation and roads State administration problems when applying the measures Lack of secure high level of production (not regularly product availability in the market) Not enhancement investments of new agribusinesses specializing in organic products 5 3 2 2 2 1 4.5 1.5 3.5 6 4.5 6 2.25 5 5.25 4.5 4.5 5.25 3.33 3.67 3 3 5.67 5.67 3 4 5 5 6 7 3 3.5 4.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 2.67 3.33 4.33 3.33 3.67 4.33 3.5 3.5 3.5 3 4 5 3.06 3.65 4.18 4.06 4.71 5.47 3 5 6 6 6 7 Overall 1st Round Total means Research Bodies Rank 1st roun d 1 3 4 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 2.5 1.5 4 5 3 2 3.5 4.5 5.5 5 4.5 4.5 1.76 2.06 3.94 4.06 3.47 3.47 2.94 4.41 5 4.76 4.94 4.82 4 5 7 6 7 8 Overall 2nd Round Rank 2nd Rou nd 1 2 5 6 4 4 3 7 13 8 10 9
3. Which are the most important threats that constrained or limited the spread of OA in the area of Kolymvari?
2nd round by category of respondent(mean scores) Local Agent Food processors & distributors Technical & Cert. Bodies 1.67 1.67 4 3.67 3 3 2.33 4 4.33 4 4 4 No food processors & distributors 1 2 4 4 4 3 3 5 5 5 6 5 2.5 1.5 3.5 3.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Input problems, nitrogen problem, lack of inputs, dacus olea, high cost , irregular manure availability Problem of certification and control bodies (few bodies, private, expensive for the small business, no regular control) Lack of specific Agricultural infrastructures (like an establishment of an organic olive oil mill) Irregular supply availability Lack of agricultural marketing for health and environmentally friendly products Inexistent central bodies responsible for the realization of Agricultural infrastructures (roads, means of transportation etc) Lack of specialized distribution channels (brokers/agentswholesalers-retailers-customers-consumers) Inexistent market organization for establishing certain price Inexistent motivation to support young farmers to become organic Limitation of production output because of cultivation techniques Lack of cooperation among farmers High processing and standardization cost
13 11 10 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 5.5 5 4.5 6 3 3.5 5 6 6 6
1.25 2.5 3.75 4 3.5 3 2.75 4.25 5.25 4.25 3.75 4.75
1.67 2 3.33 3.67 4 4.67 3.67 5.33 5.33 5.33 5.33 5.33
86
Appendix B
No organization to combine organic products with pdo, traditional, local etc No trade knowledge for specialized products Multi-chopping and limited proportion of area under organic cultivation Lack of organization to design all the production stages up to the consumer Lack of leadership All negative aspects of conventional farming are also attributed to organic farming Lack of comprehensible agricultural policy 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 7 6.5 6.5 6.5 7 2 7 4.75 4.25 5.25 3.75 4 5.75 5.5 6.67 5.33 6 6.67 5.67 5.5 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 5.5 5.5 3.5 4.5 4.5 5.5 4 5 5.33 5 4 4 5.67 4.67 5.5 4 4 4.5 6.5 6.5 4.5 5.65 5.12 5.18 4.94 5.12 5.24 5.29 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 Overall 1st Round Total means Research Bodies Rank 1st roun d 1 3 4 4 2.5 3 3.5 3.5 1.59 2.06 3 3.29 3 4 4 4 3 3.53 4.12 4.41 3.76 4.59 4 5 5 6 7 18 14 15 10 14 16 17 Overall 2nd Round Rank 2nd Rou nd 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 6 9
4. Which could be the most significant innovative aspects for the management marketing processes?
2nd round by category of respondent (mean scores) Local Agent Food processors & distributors Technical & Cert. Bodies 1 1.33 3 2.67 4 4.33 5 4 4.67 No food processors & distributors 1 2 3 3
Vertical integration of the production process (the producer tries to process, standardize, trade the product alone) International interactions to penetrate the distribution channels abroad Labelling of common logo and certification of quality products Establishment and integration of food supply chain with other rural tourism companies, tourist industries and handcraft sectors. Specialized distribution channels (directly at the farm gate, health and natural shops, specialized retail outlets, sectors in supermarkets) Promotion through exhibitions or new pilot programme New bottling materials for recycling as well environmentally friendly packing Exporting to new markets (gourmet, luxury, specialty) Quality orientation of the agricultural food product
7 5 4 4
1.5 2.5 2 3.5
1 2 2.25 3
3 2.33 4.67 4.67
1 1.5 2.5 2.5
4 3 3 2 1
2 4 4 1 4.5
3.25 4 4.5 4.25 5.5
4.67 4.67 5 3.67 4.67
4 4 4 5 6
3.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 3.5
87
Appendix B
Overall 2nd Round Rank 2nd Rou nd 1 2 3 4 5 6 Overall 2nd Round Rank 2nd Rou nd 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 Overall 1st Round Total means 1.71 1.82 3.12 3.41 3.47 3.82 Total means 1.35 1.65 1.94 3.18 3.29 3.35 3.53 3.53 Research Bodies Rank 1st roun d 1 2 3 3 4 4 Overall 1st Round Research Bodies 1.5 3.5 3.5 2 2.5 2 3.5 4.5 Rank 1st roun d 1 1 3 5 7 7 7 8 4 1 3 5 4 4.5
5. Which of the mechanisms for the management marketing processes are considered more important?
1st Round Frequency Local authorities Producers
2nd round by category of respondent (mean scores) Food processors & distributors Technical & Cert. Bodies 1 2 3 3.33 3.67 4 1 1 1 2.67 3.33 4 3 3 Technical & Cert. Bodies Local Agent 1 2 3 3 3.5 3.5 1 1 1.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Local Agent No food processors & distributors 1 2 3 3 4 4 No food processors & distributors 1 1 1 3 4 4 4 4
Commercial representatives, an agent to promote/sell their product (international interaction) Increased control in and analysis of production factors (keep records of the production function as a whole) Study and observation of the cultivation process Personal contacts or good relations with all the organizations and individuals that are related to OF(organic farming) Reference made in news, media, magazines By cooperatives, unions or by word of mouth
5 4 3 3 2 2
1.5 1.5 3 3.5 3.5 4
2 1.5 3.5 3.5 2.75 3.5
1.33 2.67 3 2.67 3.67 3.67
6. Which are the most important knowledge elements that were introduced after OF?
1st Round Local authorities
2nd round by category of respondent (mean scores) Food processors & distributors 1.67 2 2 4 3.67 3.67 4 3.67
Frequency
Innovative aspects in farm management (new inputs) Pest management Studies curried out to deal the problem of nitrogen Increase organic output production and income Enhanced Business skills of organic farmers Improved quality of products Control and certification were introduced Improvement of the environment
9 9 7 5 3 3 3 2
1.5 1.5 2.5 4.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
1.5 1.5 2 3.25 3.5 3 3.3 3.25
Producers
88
Appendix B
Increase in consumer awareness as far as cultivating techniques are concerned Organization of associations related the supply process (women organizations) Sustainable development concept of the agriculture sector Local private processors and distributor interventions with organic products(hotels related with organic products, restaurants etc) 2 2 2 5.5 5.5 5.5 5 5.5 5.25 5.67 5.33 5.33 5 5 5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4 4.33 3.67 4 5 3.5 4.82 5.06 4.71 8 8 8 9 10 8
6.5
3.5
5.33
5.5
5.59
9 Overall 1st Round
11 Overall 2nd Round Rank 2nd Rou nd 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 8 Overall 2nd Round
7. Can you identify the future trends and prospects for Rural Development?
2nd round by category of respondent(mean scores) Food processors & distributors Technical & Cert. Bodies Local Agent Total means 1.59 1.65 3 3.82 4 4.24 5.12 5.71 5.59 No food processors & distributors Research Bodies
Need for involvement of agro tourism businesses the production On farm diversification ( production of quality food while increasing added value activities) Organized producer organization (lobby) Consumer oriented production Need for more pioneers to take initiatives and be innovative Vertical integration of production process (the producer tries to process, standardize and trade the product alone) Non family oriented organic farmers Diversification and non-specialization of farmer occupation (face the seasonality aspect of the labour and find other occupations) Need for producers to be careful about quality attributes of the product intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics
7 5 4 3 2 2 2 1 1
1.5 1 3 3.5 3.5 6 7 7 6.5
2 2 4 4.25 4.5 4.5 5.25 6 6.25
1.33 2 3.33 4 3.33 2.33 5 4.33 4
1 1 1 2 2 2 4 5 4
2.5 1.5 2 3 3.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 5
1.33 1.67 2.67 4.33 5 5.33 4.67 6.33 6.33
1 1.5 3 4 4.5 5 5 5.5 6
Rank 1st roun d 1 3 4 5 6 6 6 7 7 Overall 1st Round
8. How does organic farming foster the survival of agriculture and the landscape conservation?
1st Round
89
Appendix B
Research Bodies Food processors & distributors Technical & Cert. Bodies Local Agent Total means No food processors & distributors Frequency Producers
Local authorities
By applying inputs that are environmentally friendly By imposing new restrictions for the abandonment of agrochemicals By using new and old traditional inputs without agrochemicals By improving the quality level of the products (healthy, convenient, certified, low price) By forcing local industries to decrease the production of chemicals
15 6 4 4 2
1.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4
1 1.75 2.5 3 4.25
3 3.67 3 3.33 5
1 2 3 5 4
1 2 2.5 3.5 3.5
1 2 2.67 3.67 4
1 1.5 3 3 5.5
1.41 2.12 2.71 3.41 4.35
Rank 1st roun d 1 8 10 10 11 Overall 1st Round
Rank 2nd Rou nd 1 2 3 4 5 Overall 2nd Round Rank 2nd Rou nd 2 1 4 3 7 5 6 4 Overall 2nd Round
9. Rank the most important difficulties that one runs into while activating the process of interaction with other sectors?
2nd round by category of respondent(mean scores) Food processors & distributors Local Agent Technical & Cert. Bodies Total means 2.82 1.88 2.94 2.88 3.53 3.12 3.41 2,52 No food processors & distributors Research Bodies
No mutual trust between producers and information bodies Limited number of OF so interaction is not considered necessary No information concerning available subsidization by the state Small size of agricultural enterprises No organized supply availability because OF is in an initial phase No mutual trust among producers(conventional or not) Lack of leader figures No organized movement of OF
8 6 6 5 5 5 3 2
1 1.5 2.5 3.5 5 2.5 3.5 6.5
3.25 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 2.5 2
2 2.67 3 3.33 3.67 3 3.67 2.67
5 2 4 3 3 3 3 2
3 1.5 3 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.5 1.5
4 2 3 2.33 2.67 3 3 2
2 1 3.5 2.5 4.5 3.5 5.5 1
Rank 1st roun d 1 3 3 5 5 5 7 8 Overall 1st Round
10. Which are the most important preconditions to start up a development strategy of the rural territory?
1st Round
90
Appendix B
Food processors & distributors Technical & Cert. Bodies Local Agent Local authorities Total means No food processors & distributors Frequency Producers Research Bodies
Rank 1st roun d
Rank 2nd Rou nd
"Bottom up approach" promoting the cooperation and communication among organizations and individuals that influence a policy agenda for sustainable growth. The state must favour it need for open minded stakeholders in institutions , research centres, local authorities Need for individual initiatives and innovative producers Need for regional support programmes. Application of interregional and organic agriculture culture techniques Need for physical and territorial properties such as arable land, untouched touristic places, weather Organized producers in order to acquire constant workforce Linkages with agro-tourism and restoration activities Enhancement for producing quality products which are at the same time pdo and traditional Diversification of the agricultural product/ production (value added) Need for standard profit margin for farmer, and non farmers in the rural areas Know how and lifelong education for the farmers as well for nonfarmers of the rural territories Need for marketing knowledge for promotion of specific quality products Good means of transportation(airport , shipping companies)
8 7 6 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 1 1
1.5 1 2 1.5 2.5 2.5 3.5 6.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 4 5 4.5 6
1.5 1.75 2 3 3 3.5 4.75 3.75 5 5.25 5 4.75 4 3.25 4.5
2.33 2.33 2.67 3 3.67 4 4 4 5.33 5.33 5.33 6.33 6.33 6.67 5.33
1 2 3 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 5 7 7
1 1.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 5 5 5 5.5 5 6.5 6.5
1 2 2.33 2.67 2.33 4 4.33 4.67 5.67 4.67 4.33 6 5 7 7
2 1.5 1.5 4 3.5 5 5.5 4.5 5 6.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 4.5 6.5
1.53 1.76 2.24 3 3.12 3.94 4.47 4.53 4.94 5.12 4.76 5.41 5.18 5.41 5.88
1 2 3 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 Overall 1st Round
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 9 13 12 13 14 Overall 2nd Round
11. Which would be the most important objectives of a development program and which are the priorities to be met?
1st Round
91
Appendix B
Technical & Cert. Bodies Local Agent Food processors & distributors Local authorities Total means No food processors & distributors Frequency Producers Research Bodies
Rank 1st roun d 1
Rank 2nd Rou nd 1
Economical and technical support of the rural population by the state in order to prevent mobility and migration Create new valid information systems in terms of interaction with network sectors (organizations and individuals that form around an issue problem) Education of conventional farmers and young farmers about organic farming Creation of an organization of bio cultivators that will undertake the control and trade Up to date Farming system with the modern tendencies (Dacus olea fight, biological inputs, machines) Organization of producers to verticalize the entire production process (from producer to consumer). Increase in peoples ecological sensitation Rural Development and reconstruction of rural development based on objectives of sustainable development Increase in local stakeholder awareness (through lifelong education) about their responsibility in enhancement of sustainable development Adoption of technologically friendly applications and industrial establishments in the environment Distribution of respected area proportion for organic cultivation Increase rate of employment- new type of work Increase farm income Enhancement of investments, expansions and the export activities of existing agro-farms and operations Applicable EU projects Limited standard restrictions imposed by the regulations Enhancement of producer & organization networks with respect to consumer welfare
1.5
1.24
7 5 5 4 4 4 3
2.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 2 1
1.25 1.75 2 3 2.75 2.75 3.5
2 2.33 2.67 2.67 3.67 3.33 4.33
1 2 2 3 3 3 4
1 1.5 2 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.5
1 2 2 3.33 3 3 3.33
1.5 1 3 2.5 3 3 3.5
1.47 1.76 2.18 2.82 2.94 2.82 3.35
1 3 3 4 4 4 5
2 3 4 5 6 5 7
3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1
2.5 1.5 3 4.5 4 4.5 3 7 4.5
3.5 4.25 4.5 5 5.25 4.5 5.25 6.25 6.25
3.33 2.67 4 4.67 4.67 4 4.67 5.33 5.33
4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6
3.5 3.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.5 5.5
4 4 5 5 4.33 5 5.67 6 6
3 5 4.5 4.5 5 4.5 4.5 6 5.5
3.41 3.59 4.35 4.76 4.71 4.53 4.76 6 5.65
5 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 7
8 9 10 13 12 11 13 15 14
92
Appendix C: Overall results correlations of the 1st and 2nd Delphi Round
Appendix C
Appendix C: Correlations of 1st and 2nd round results 1 st question Correlations Pearson Correlations
DELPHI 1_1 DELPHI1_1 Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 1 . 9 .733* .025 9 .733* .025 9 1 . 9 DELPHI2_1
DELPHI2_1
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

DELPHI1_1 Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N DELPHI 1_1 1.000 . 9 .787* .012 9 DELPHI2_1 .787* .012 9 1.000 . 9
DELPHI2_1
* Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed). 2 nd question Correlations Pearson Correlations
DELPHI2_2
No parametric Correlation Spearman's rho

DELPHI2_2
94
Appendix C
** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). 3 rd question correlations Pearson Correlations
DELPHI2_3

DELPHI2_3

DELPHI2_4

DELPHI2_4
95
Appendix C
DELPHI2_5

DELPHI2_5

DELPHI2_6

DELPHI2_6
7th question Pearson Correlations 96
Appendix C
DELPHI2_7

DELPHI2_7

DELPHI2_8

DELPHI2_8
** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). 9th question Pearson Correlations
DELPHI2_9
97
Appendix C

DELPHI1_9 Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N DELPHI1_9 DELPHIH2_9 1.000 .587 . .126 8 8 .587 1.000 .126 . 8 8
DELPHI2_9
10
DELP1_9
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
DELPH2_9
Graph: Question 9
No parametric Correlation Repeated spearmans correlation ones extracted the last answer given.
DELPHI1_9 Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N DELPHI1_9 DELPHIH2_9 1,000 ,730 , ,063 7 7 ,730 1,000 ,063 , 7 7
DELPHIH2_9

DELPHI1_10 Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) DELPHI1_10 DELPHI2_10 1 .973** . .000
98
Appendix C
DELPHI2_10 N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 15 .973** .000 15 15 1 . 15

DELPHI2_10

DELPHI2_11

DELPHI2_11
99
Appendix D: Overall & by category of respondent correlations
Appendix D
Appendix D: Stakeholders response Correlations In each case we have 8 variables explaining the creation of an at are why an 8*8 correlation matrix. 1 ST question: stakeholders Correlations
LOCAL AUTHORITY LOCAL AUTHORITY Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 1,000 , 9 ,642 ,062 9 ,468 ,204 9 ,410 ,273 9 ,746 ,021 9 ,523 ,149 9 ,701 ,035 9 ,702 ,035 9 FARMER FOOD NO FOOD LOCAL CERT/TECHN. RESEARCH OVERALL PROCESSOR COMPANIES AGENCIES BODIES BODIES ,642 ,062 9 1,000 , 9 ,872 ,002 9 ,852 ,004 9 ,935 ,000 9 ,850 ,004 9 ,916 ,001 9 ,973 ,000 9 ,468 ,204 9 ,872** ,002 9 1,000 , 9 ,799 ,010 9 ,808 ,008 9 ,841 ,004 9 ,761 ,017 9 ,908 ,001 9 ,410 ,273 9 ,852** ,004 9 ,799** ,010 9 1,000 , 9 ,763 ,017 9 ,961 ,000 9 ,786 ,012 9 ,877 ,002 9 ,746* ,021 9 ,935** ,000 9 ,808** ,008 9 ,763* ,017 9 1,000 , 9 ,831 ,005 9 ,842 ,004 9 ,952 ,000 9 ,523 ,149 9 ,850** ,004 9 ,841** ,004 9 ,961** ,000 9 ,831** ,005 9 1,000 , 9 ,749 ,020 9 ,916 ,001 9 ,701* ,035 9 ,916** ,001 9 ,761* ,017 9 ,786* ,012 9 ,842** ,004 9 ,749* ,020 9 1,000 , 9 ,908 ,001 9 ,702* ,035 9 ,973** ,000 9 ,908** ,001 9 ,877** ,002 9 ,952** ,000 9 ,916** ,001 9 ,908** ,001 9 1,000 , 9
FARMER
FOOD PROCESSOR
NO FOOD COMPANIES
LOCAL AGENCIES
OVERALL
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The variables correlations that are not significant, probably because these groups rate the objectives differently, concerning the factors of organic farming spread, are: Local authority and food processors & distributors, (r=,468, df=7, p=.204) 101
Appendix D
Local authority and no food processors and distributors, (r=,410, df=7, p=.273) Local authority and Technical & certification bodies, (r=,523, df=7, p=.149). In conclusion only, the opinions among these groups is not converging, however the overall correlation among all stakeholders is significant thus converging. 2 nd question: stakeholders Correlations
LOCAL FARMER FOOD NO FOOD LOCAL CERT/TECHN. AUTHORITIES PROCESSOR COMPANIES AGENCIES BODIES LOCAL AUTHORITY Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 1,000 , 9 ,466 ,206 9 ,313 ,412 9 ,714 ,031 9 ,733 ,025 9 ,621 ,074 9 ,651 ,058 9 ,738 ,023 9 ,466 ,206 9 1,000 , 9 ,246 ,523 9 ,907 ,001 9 ,882 ,002 9 ,946 ,000 9 ,741 ,022 9 ,897 ,001 9 ,313 ,412 9 ,246 ,523 9 1,000 , 9 ,486 ,185 9 ,506 ,165 9 ,265 ,490 9 ,621 ,074 9 ,523 ,149 9 ,714* ,031 9 ,907** ,001 9 ,486 ,185 9 1,000 , 9 ,998 ,000 9 ,947 ,000 9 ,864 ,003 9 ,987 ,000 9 ,733* ,025 9 ,882** ,002 9 ,506 ,165 9 ,998** ,000 9 1,000 , 9 ,938 ,000 9 ,874 ,002 9 ,985 ,000 9 ,621* ,074 9 ,946** ,000 9 ,265 ,490 9 ,947** ,000 9 ,938** ,000 9 1,000 , 9 ,839 ,005 9 ,942 ,000 9 RESEARCH OVERALL BODIES ,651 ,058 9 ,741* ,022 9 ,621 ,074 9 ,864** ,003 9 ,874** ,002 9 ,839** ,005 9 1,000 , 9 ,908 ,001 9 ,738* ,023 9 ,897** ,001 9 ,523 ,149 9 ,987* ,000 9 ,985* ,000 9 ,942* ,000 9 ,908* ,001 9 1,000 , 9
FARMER
FOOD PROCESSOR
NO FOOD COMPANIES
LOCAL AGENCIES
OVERALL
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
102
Appendix D
The variable correlations that are not significant are probably so because these groups rate the objectives differently concerning Community support problems for the spread of Organic Agriculturea, are: Local authority and farmers(r=, 466, df=7, p=.206) Food processors and no food companies (r=, 246, df=7, p=.523) However, the overall correlation among all stakeholders is significant Only the following correlations by type of stakeholders, as well as their overall correlation are not significant. Food processors & distributors and Local authorities and (r=, 313, df=7, p=.412) Food processors & distributors and no food processors and distributors, (r=, 486, df=7, p=.185) Food processors & distributors and Local agent (r=, 506, df=7, p=.165) Food processors & distributors and Technical &Certification bodies (r=, 265, df=7, p=.490) Overall correlation of Food processors & distributors with the all others stakeholders objectives is not significant (r=, 523, df=7, p=.149) In conclusion, the opinions among these groups do not converge. 3 rd question: stakeholders Correlations
LOCAL FARMER FOOD NO FOOD AUTHORITY PROCESSOR COMPANIES LOCAL AUTHORITY Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation 1,000 , 19 ,423 ,072 19 ,593 ,007 19 ,648 ,003 19 ,407 ,084 19 ,494 ,032 19 ,287 ,423 ,072 19 1,000 , 19 ,675 ,002 19 ,851 ,000 19 ,711 ,001 19 ,897 ,000 19 ,720 ,593** ,007 19 ,675** ,002 19 1,000 , 19 ,811 ,000 19 ,778 ,000 19 ,762 ,000 19 ,652 ,648** ,003 19 ,851** ,000 19 ,811** ,000 19 1,000 , 19 ,810 ,000 19 ,893 ,000 19 ,733 LOCAL AGENCIES ,407 ,084 19 ,711** ,001 19 ,778** ,000 19 ,810** ,000 19 1,000 , 19 ,872 ,000 19 ,826 CERT/TECHN. BODIES ,494* ,032 19 ,897** ,000 19 ,762** ,000 19 ,893** ,000 19 ,872** ,000 19 1,000 , 19 ,739 RESEARCH OVERALL BODIES ,287 ,234 19 ,720** ,001 19 ,652** ,002 19 ,733** ,000 19 ,826** ,000 19 ,739** ,000 19 1,000 ,668* ,002 19 ,884* ,000 19 ,873* ,000 19 ,964* ,000 19 ,876* ,000 19 ,934* ,000 19 ,797*
FARMER
FOOD PROCESSOR
NO FOOD COMPANIES
LOCAL AGENCIES
103
Appendix D
OVERALL
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). The variable correlations that are not significant are probably so because these stakeholders rate the objectives differently, related to the general factors that constrained/ limited the spread of OA, are: Local Authorities and Research bodies (r=, 287, df=18, p=.234) In conclusion, only the opinions among these two groups are not converging However, the overall correlation among all stakeholders is significant. 4rth question: stakeholders Correlations
LOCAL FARMER FOOD AUTHORITIES PROCESSOR LOCAL AUTHORITY Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation 1,000 , 9 ,593 ,093 9 ,532 ,140 9 ,404 ,281 9 ,182 ,639 9 ,499 ,172 9 ,233 ,593 ,093 9 1,000 , 9 ,606 ,084 9 ,955 ,000 9 ,853 ,003 9 ,914 ,001 9 ,537 ,532 ,140 9 ,606 ,084 9 1,000 , 9 ,588 ,096 9 ,603 ,086 9 ,792 ,011 9 ,488 NO FOOD LOCAL COMPANIES AGENCIES ,404 ,281 9 ,955** ,000 9 ,588 ,096 9 1,000 , 9 ,898 ,001 9 ,886 ,001 9 ,463 ,182 ,639 9 ,853** ,003 9 ,603 ,086 9 ,898** ,001 9 1,000 , 9 ,902 ,001 9 ,697 CERT/TECHN. BODIES ,499 ,172 9 ,914** ,001 9 ,792* ,011 9 ,886** ,001 9 ,902** ,001 9 1,000 , 9 ,638 RESEARCH OVERALL BODIES ,233 ,546 9 ,537 ,136 9 ,488 ,183 9 ,463 ,209 9 ,697* ,037 9 ,638 ,065 9 1,000 ,620 ,075 9 ,959** ,000 9 ,789* ,011 9 ,913** ,001 9 ,872** ,002 9 ,976** ,000 9 ,636
FARMER
FOOD PROCESSOR
NO FOOD COMPANIES
LOCAL AGENCIES
104
Appendix D
OVERALL
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). The variable correlations that are not significant are probably so because some groups of stakeholders rate the objectives related the importance indication concerning innovative aspects for management marketing processes differently. The groups are: Local authority, food processors & distributors (r=, 532, df=7, p=.140) Local authorities, not food processors & distributors (r=, 404, df=7, p=.281) Local authorities and local agent (r=, 182, df=7, p=.639) Local authorities, technical and certification bodies (r=, 499, df=7, p=.172) Local authorities and Research bodies (r=,233, df=7, p=.546) Research bodies and farmers (r=, 537, df=7, p=.136) Research bodies, food processors & distributors (r=, 488, df=7, p=.183) Research bodies, not food processors & distributors (r=, 463, df=7, p=.209) However the overall correlation among all stakeholders is significant. 5 th question: stakeholders Correlations
LOCAL AUTHORITIES LOCAL AUTHORITY Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 1,000 , 6 ,885 ,019 6 ,787 ,063 6 ,924 ,008 6 FARMER FOOD NO FOOD LOCAL PROCESSOR COMPANIES AGENCIES ,885* ,019 6 1,000 , 6 ,520 ,290 6 ,695 ,125 6 ,787 ,063 6 ,520 ,290 6 1,000 , 6 ,958 ,003 6 ,924** ,008 6 ,695 ,125 6 ,958** ,003 6 1,000 , 6 ,926** ,008 6 ,748 ,087 6 ,943** ,005 6 ,986** ,000 6 CERT/TECHN. BODIES ,955** ,003 6 ,769 ,074 6 ,923** ,009 6 ,984** ,000 6 RESEARCH BODIES ,659 ,155 6 ,679 ,138 6 ,094 ,859 6 ,369 ,471 6 OVERALL
FARMER
FOOD PROCESSOR
NO FOOD COMPANIES
,998** ,000 6 ,886* ,019 6 ,812* ,050 6 ,938** ,006 6
105
Appendix D
LOCAL AGENCIES Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N ,926 ,008 6 ,955 ,003 6 ,659 ,155 6 ,998 ,000 6 ,748 ,087 6 ,769 ,074 6 ,679 ,138 6 ,886 ,019 6 ,943 ,005 6 ,923 ,009 6 ,094 ,859 6 ,812 ,050 6 ,986 ,000 6 ,984 ,000 6 ,369 ,471 6 ,938 ,006 6 1,000 , 6 ,990 ,000 6 ,344 ,504 6 ,945 ,004 6 ,990** ,000 6 1,000 , 6 ,423 ,404 6 ,966 ,002 6 ,344 ,504 6 ,423 ,404 6 1,000 , 6 ,616 ,193 6 ,945** ,004 6 ,966** ,002 6 ,616 ,193 6 1,000 , 6
OVERALL
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The variable correlations that are not significant are probably so because these groups rate the objectives related to the marketing mechanism responsible for the spread of organic product differently. The groups are: Farmer, food processor & distributors(r=, 520, df=4, p=.290) Farmer, not food processor & distributors (r=, 695, df=4, p=.125) However the overall correlation among farmers and the other stakeholders is significant. Moreover other groups include; Research bodies and local authorities (r=, 659, df=4, p=.155) Research bodies and farmers (r=, 679, df=4, p=.138) Research bodies and food processors & distributors (r=, 094, df=4, p=.859) Research bodies and no food processors & distributors (r=, 369, df=4, p=.471) Research bodies and local agent (r=, 344, df=4, p=.504) Research bodies, technical and certification bodies (r=, 423, df=4, p=.404) The overall correlation among research bodies and the other stakeholder opinions is either not significant (r=, 616, df=4, p=.193) In conclusion, only the opinions among these groups do not converge. 6 th question: stakeholders Correlations
LOCAL FARMER FOOD NO FOOD LOCAL CERT/TECHN. AUTHORITIES PROCESSOR COMPANIES AGENCIES BODIES LOCAL AUTHORITY Pearson Correlation 1,000 ,950** ,958** ,871** ,785** ,858** RESEARCH OVERALL BODIES ,607* ,950**
106
Appendix D
Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N , 12 ,950 ,000 12 ,958 ,000 12 ,871 ,000 12 ,785 ,002 12 ,858 ,000 12 ,607 ,036 12 ,950 ,000 12 ,000 12 1,000 , 12 ,978 ,000 12 ,935 ,000 12 ,863 ,000 12 ,908 ,000 12 ,652 ,022 12 ,987 ,000 12 ,000 12 ,978** ,000 12 1,000 , 12 ,957 ,000 12 ,891 ,000 12 ,927 ,000 12 ,591 ,043 12 ,988 ,000 12 ,000 12 ,935** ,000 12 ,957** ,000 12 1,000 , 12 ,931 ,000 12 ,974 ,000 12 ,554 ,061 12 ,969 ,000 12 ,002 12 ,863** ,000 12 ,891** ,000 12 ,931** ,000 12 1,000 , 12 ,871 ,000 12 ,458 ,134 12 ,899 ,000 12 ,000 12 ,908** ,000 12 ,927** ,000 12 ,974** ,000 12 ,871** ,000 12 1,000 , 12 ,512 ,089 12 ,945 ,000 12 ,036 12 ,652* ,022 12 ,591* ,043 12 ,554* ,061 12 ,458 ,134 12 ,512 ,089 12 1,000 , 12 ,665 ,018 12 ,000 12 ,987** ,000 12 ,988** ,000 12 ,969** ,000 12 ,899** ,000 12 ,945** ,000 12 ,665* ,018 12 1,000 , 12
FARMER
FOOD PROCESSOR
NO FOOD COMPANIES
LOCAL AGENCIES
OVERALL
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). The variable correlations that are not significant are probably so because these groups rate the objectives differently related to the knowledge elements which were introduced after the introduction of organic farming. These groups are: Research bodies and local agents (r=, 458, df=10, p=.134) However, the overall correlation among all the stakeholders is significant. In conclusion, only the opinions among these groups do not converge. 7 th question: stakeholders Correlations
LOCAL FARMER FOOD NO FOOD LOCAL CERT/TECHN. AUTHORITIES PROCESSOR COMPANIES AGENCIES BODIES LOCAL AUTHORITY Pearson Correlation 1,000 ,918** ,733* ,889** ,910** ,887** RESEARCH OVERALL BODIES ,922** ,954**
107
Appendix D
Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N , 9 ,918 ,000 9 ,733 ,025 9 ,889 ,001 9 ,910 ,001 9 ,887 ,001 9 ,922 ,000 9 ,954 ,000 9 ,000 9 1,000 , 9 ,830 ,006 9 ,863 ,003 9 ,892 ,001 9 ,944 ,000 9 ,970 ,000 9 ,986 ,000 9 ,025 9 ,830** ,006 9 1,000 , 9 ,772 ,015 9 ,692 ,039 9 ,690 ,040 9 ,762 ,017 9 ,828 ,006 9 ,001 9 ,863** ,003 9 ,772* ,015 9 1,000 , 9 ,960 ,000 9 ,820 ,007 9 ,811 ,008 9 ,908 ,001 9 ,001 9 ,892** ,001 9 ,692* ,039 9 ,960** ,000 9 1,000 , 9 ,887 ,001 9 ,863 ,003 9 ,931 ,000 9 ,001 9 ,944** ,000 9 ,690* ,040 9 ,820** ,007 9 ,887** ,001 9 1,000 , 9 ,981 ,000 9 ,959 ,000 9 ,000 9 ,970** ,000 9 ,762* ,017 9 ,811** ,008 9 ,863** ,003 9 ,981** ,000 9 1,000 , 9 ,977 ,000 9 ,000 9 ,986** ,000 9 ,828** ,006 9 ,908** ,001 9 ,931** ,000 9 ,959** ,000 9 ,977** ,000 9 1,000 , 9
FARMER
FOOD PROCESSOR
NO FOOD COMPANIES
LOCAL AGENCIES
OVERALL
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). The opinions of the stakeholder related to the future (prospects) expectations for rural sustainable development, converge. 8 th question: stakeholders Correlations
LOCAL AUTHORITIES LOCAL AUTHORITY Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 1,000 , 5 ,952 ,012 5 FARMER FOOD NO FOOD LOCAL CERT/TECHN. PROCESSOR COMPANIES AGENCIES BODIES ,952* ,012 5 1,000 , 5 ,623 ,261 5 ,769 ,128 5 ,901* ,037 5 ,831 ,082 5 ,930* ,022 5 ,929* ,023 5 ,955* ,011 5 ,962** ,009 5 RESEARCH OVERALL BODIES ,919* ,027 5 ,979** ,004 5 ,965** ,008 5 ,997** ,000 5
FARMER
108
Appendix D
FOOD PROCESSOR Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N ,623 ,261 5 ,901 ,037 5 ,930 ,022 5 ,955 ,011 5 ,919 ,027 5 ,965 ,008 5 ,769 ,128 5 ,831 ,082 5 ,929 ,023 5 ,962 ,009 5 ,979 ,004 5 ,997 ,000 5 1,000 , 5 ,379 ,529 5 ,566 ,320 5 ,626 ,259 5 ,789 ,113 5 ,753 ,142 5 ,379 ,529 5 1,000 , 5 ,969 ,007 5 ,947 ,015 5 ,721 ,169 5 ,866 ,058 5 ,566 ,320 5 ,969** ,007 5 1,000 , 5 ,994 ,001 5 ,840 ,075 5 ,950 ,013 5 ,626 ,259 5 ,947* ,015 5 ,994** ,001 5 1,000 , 5 ,892 ,042 5 ,977 ,004 5 ,789 ,113 5 ,721 ,169 5 ,840 ,075 5 ,892* ,042 5 1,000 , 5 ,962 ,009 5 ,753 ,142 5 ,866 ,058 5 ,950* ,013 5 ,977** ,004 5 ,962** ,009 5 1,000 , 5
NO FOOD COMPANIES
LOCAL AGENCIES
OVERALL
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The variable correlations that are not significant are probably so because these groups rate the objectives differently regarding on; whether organic farming fosters the environment and land scape is conserved: Non food companies and Research Bodies (processors and distributors) (r=, 721, df=3, p=.169) Nevertheless, the overall correlation among non food companies and the other stakeholders have a significant level. In addition: Food processors & distributors and Local authorities (r=, 623, df=3, p=.261) Food processors, distributors and farmers (r=, 769, df=3, p=.128) Food processors, distributors and no food processors and distributors, (r=, 379, df=3, p=.529) Food processors, distributors and Local agent (r=, 566, df=3, p=.320) Food processors, distributors and Technical & Certification bodies (r=, 626, df=3, p=.259) Food processors, distributors and Research Bodies (r=, 789, df=3, p=.113) Overall, the correlation among food producers & distributors and the remaining stakeholders objectives have a low level of significance (r=, 753, df=3, p=.142) In conclusion, these groups opinions do not converge. 109
Appendix D
9 th Question: stakeholders Correlations
LOCAL FARMER FOOD NO FOOD LOCAL CERT/TECHN. AUTHORITIES PROCESSOR COMPANIES AGENCIES BODIES LOCAL AUTHORITY Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 1,000 , 8 -,178 ,674 8 ,444 ,270 8 -,537 ,170 8 -,307 ,460 8 -,536 ,171 8 ,079 ,852 8 ,266 ,524 8 -,178 ,674 8 1,000 , 8 ,157 ,710 8 ,474 ,235 8 ,418 ,303 8 ,556 ,152 8 ,437 ,279 8 ,646 ,083 8 ,444 ,270 8 ,157 ,710 8 1,000 , 8 -,343 ,406 8 ,297 ,474 8 -,299 ,472 8 ,760 ,029 8 ,632 ,092 8 -,537 ,170 8 ,474 ,235 8 -,343 ,406 8 1,000 , 8 ,714 ,047 8 ,927 ,001 8 ,229 ,585 8 ,358 ,384 8 -,307 ,460 8 ,418 ,303 8 ,297 ,474 8 ,714* ,047 8 1,000 , 8 ,764 ,027 8 ,783 ,022 8 ,733 ,038 8 -,536 ,171 8 ,556 ,152 8 -,299 ,472 8 ,927** ,001 8 ,764* ,027 8 1,000 , 8 ,364 ,376 8 ,457 ,255 8 RESEARCH OVERALL BODIES ,079 ,852 8 ,437 ,279 8 ,760* ,029 8 ,229 ,585 8 ,783* ,022 8 ,364 ,376 8 1,000 , 8 ,890 ,003 8 ,266 ,524 8 ,646 ,083 8 ,632 ,092 8 ,358 ,384 8 ,733* ,038 8 ,457 ,255 8 ,890** ,003 8 1,000 , 8
FARMER
FOOD PROCESSOR
NO FOOD COMPANIES
LOCAL AGENCIES
OVERALL
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Some variable correlations were not significant and some were negatively correlated. So, some respondent groups provided a negative value to the objectives that to others that gave a positive value. An objective that is important for one group is less important for the other, depending on to the main difficulties one runs into while activating processes of interaction with other sectors. Specifically: Local authority and farmers (r=, -178, df=6, p=.674) 110
Appendix D
Local authority, food processors & distributors (r=, 444, df=6, p=.270) Local authorities, no food processors & distributors (r=, -537, df=6, p=.170) Local authorities and local agent (r=, -307, df=6, p=.460) Local authorities and technical and certification bodies (r=, -536, df=6, p=.171) Local authorities and Research bodies (r=,079, df=6, p=.852) Farmer, food processor & distributors(r=, 157, df=6, p=.710) Farmer, no food processor & distributors (r=, 474, df=6, p=.235) Farmer and local agents (r=, 418, df=6, p=.303) Farmer, technical and certification bodies (r=, 556, df=6, p=.152) Farmer and Research bodies (r=, 437, df=6, p=.279) Food processors & distributors and no food processors and distributors, (r=, -343, df=6, p=.406) Food processors, distributors and Local agents (r=, 297, df=6, p=.374) Food processors, distributors and Technical & Certification bodies (r=, -299, df=6, p=.472) No food processors, distributors and Research bodies (r=, 229, df=6, p=.585) Technical & certification bodies and Research bodies (r=, 079, df=6, p=.852) Moreover, the overall correlation among the following groups was not significant, thus the opinions did not converge; Local authorities and overall stakeholders (r=,266, df=6, p=.524) No food processors, distributors and overall stakeholders (r=, 358, df=6, p=.385) Technical and certification bodies and overall stakeholders (r=, 266, df=6, p=.524) 10th question: stakeholders Correlations
NO FOOD LOCAL FARMER FOOD AUTHORITIES PROCESSOR COMPANIES LOCAL AUTHORITY Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation 1,000 , 15 ,541 ,037 15 ,655 ,008 15 ,687 ,541* ,037 15 1,000 , 15 ,737 ,002 15 ,837 ,655** ,008 15 ,737** ,002 15 1,000 , 15 ,870 ,687** ,005 15 ,837** ,000 15 ,870** ,000 15 1,000 LOCAL CERT/TECHN. AGENCIES BODIES ,745** ,001 15 ,794** ,000 15 ,896** ,000 15 ,987** ,754** ,001 15 ,727** ,002 15 ,891** ,000 15 ,936** RESEARCH OVERALL BODIES ,677** ,006 15 ,868** ,000 15 ,785** ,001 15 ,821** ,786** ,001 15 ,870** ,000 15 ,922** ,000 15 ,960**
FARMER
FOOD PROCESSOR
NO FOOD COMPANIES
111
Appendix D
Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N ,005 15 ,745 ,001 15 ,754 ,001 15 ,677 ,006 15 ,786 ,001 15 ,000 15 ,794 ,000 15 ,727 ,002 15 ,868 ,000 15 ,870 ,000 15 ,000 15 ,896 ,000 15 ,891 ,000 15 ,785 ,001 15 ,922 ,000 15 , 15 ,987 ,000 15 ,936 ,000 15 ,821 ,000 15 ,960 ,000 15 ,000 15 1,000 , 15 ,955 ,000 15 ,846 ,000 15 ,972 ,000 15 ,000 15 ,955** ,000 15 1,000 , 15 ,777 ,001 15 ,950 ,000 15 ,000 15 ,846** ,000 15 ,777** ,001 15 1,000 , 15 ,907 ,000 15 ,000 15 ,972** ,000 15 ,950** ,000 15 ,907** ,000 15 1,000 , 15
LOCAL AGENCIES
OVERALL
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The opinions of the stakeholder related to the objectives for a sustainable rural development strategy/policy, converge. 11th question: stakeholders Correlations
LOCAL FARMER FOOD NO FOOD AUTHORITIES PROCESSOR COMPANIES LOCAL AUTHORITY Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation 1,000 , 17 ,771 ,000 17 ,742 ,001 17 ,739 ,001 17 ,758 ,000 17 ,744 ,771** ,000 17 1,000 , 17 ,912 ,000 17 ,983 ,000 17 ,986 ,000 17 ,973 ,742** ,001 17 ,912** ,000 17 1,000 , 17 ,919 ,000 17 ,924 ,000 17 ,885 ,739** ,001 17 ,983** ,000 17 ,919** ,000 17 1,000 , 17 ,996 ,000 17 ,983 LOCAL CERT/TECHN. AGENCIES BODIES ,758** ,000 17 ,986** ,000 17 ,924** ,000 17 ,996** ,000 17 1,000 , 17 ,978 ,744** ,001 17 ,973** ,000 17 ,885** ,000 17 ,983** ,000 17 ,978** ,000 17 1,000 RESEARCH OVERALL BODIES ,708** ,001 17 ,949** ,000 17 ,843** ,000 17 ,926** ,000 17 ,941** ,000 17 ,902** ,818** ,000 17 ,992** ,000 17 ,934** ,000 17 ,986** ,000 17 ,991** ,000 17 ,976**
FARMER
FOOD PROCESSOR
NO FOOD COMPANIES
LOCAL AGENCIES
CERTIFICATION &
112
Appendix D
TECHNICAL SUPPORT BODIES RESEARCH BODIES Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N ,001 17 ,708 ,001 17 ,818 ,000 17 ,000 17 ,949 ,000 17 ,992 ,000 17 ,000 17 ,843 ,000 17 ,934 ,000 17 ,000 17 ,926 ,000 17 ,986 ,000 17 ,000 17 ,941 ,000 17 ,991 ,000 17 , 17 ,902 ,000 17 ,976 ,000 17 ,000 17 1,000 , 17 ,944 ,000 17 ,000 17 ,944** ,000 17 1,000 , 17
OVERALL
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The opinions of the stakeholder related to a projects objectives aiming for sustainable development, converge.
113
Reference List
Reference List
Allaire, G., Sylvander , B., (1997), Qualitie specifique et systeme dinnovation territo-riale. Cahiers deconomie, Sociologie Rurales 4, 30-59. Belshaw, D., (draft) (2000), Strategic options for the reduction of poverty in sub-Saharan Africa: welfares human development versus small-scale commodity production, Mimeo, UEA, Norwich, UK (in: Simon Maxwell, Robin Heber Percy (2001), New trends in development thinking and implications for agriculture (assessed in: http: // www.fao.org /docrep /003/ x9080e/j)). Bryden, J., (1994), Towards sustainable rural communities, Guelph University, School of Rural Planning and Development. COM, (2003), 640 final, Proposal for a Council Regulation, Brussels, (Assessed in: http://europa.eu.int/ eurlex/en/com/pdf/2003/com2003_0640en01.pdf). COM, (2004), 490 final, Proposal for a Council Regulation on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, (EAFRD) {SEC (2004)931} Brussels, 14.7.2004, 2004/0161(CNS). COM, (2004a), 490 final, Proposal for a Council Regulation on support to Rural Development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, Extended Impact Assessment, Commission staff working document. Dalkey, N.C., (1968), The Delphi Method: an Experimental Study of Group Opinions, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica (in: Brian Ilbery et al., (2003), Forecasting food supply chain developments in lagging rural regions: evidence from the UK Journal of Rural Studies). Daoutopoulos, G., (2004), 7 lessons of development, Macedonia University of Thessaloniki (ed), Name of the publisher, 2002. Delbecq, A. L.; Van de Ven, A. H.; Gustafson, D. H., (1975), Group techniques for program planning, Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company. Desai N., (2002), The World Summit on Sustainable Development: Implementing Agenda 21, (assessed in: http:// www.isuma.net/ v03n02/desai/desai_e.pdf). Diamanos, D.; Dimara, E.; Hassapoyannes, K.; Skuras, D., (1998), The CAP Reform and the Uruguay Round and The pre-and post accession agricultural regional and structural policies, Greek Agriculture in a changing International Environment Published by Ashgate Publishing Ltd. England, British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data. Dick, B., (1997), Stakeholder analysis, (available at: www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/ arp/stake.html). Dimopoulos, D., (2004), The background of CAP: Principles, Objectives, key concepts, Ministry of Rural Development and Food (GR) (ed.), Seminar Maich, Chania. Donald, P. F.; Pisano, G.; Rayment, D. M.; Pain J. D.; (2002), Review: The Common Agricultural Policy, EU enlargement and the conservation of Europes farmland birds, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 89, 167182. 114
Reference List
E.C. (1999), Re-legislation of the structural funds 2000-2006 comparative analysis, Annual Report on the implementation of the reform of structural funds. E.C. (2004), Information Policy on Agriculture and Rural Development, Rural Development Programs 2000-2006 (assessed in: http://europa.eu.int/ comm/agrculture/ index.htm). E.U. (2003), Rural development in European Union European Commission Agriculture and Rural Development, fact sheet (assessed in: http://europa.eu.int/comm/ agriculture/publi/fact/rurdev2003/en.pdf). E.U. Council Directive (1997), The novel foods regulation 258/97/EEC of 27th January 1997 E.U. Press Release (2002), Towards sustainable farming, Commission presents EU farm policy mid term review, Brussels, IP/02/1026 (assessed in: http://europa.eu.int /rapid/pressReleasesAction). E.U. Press Release (2004), Rural development in the EU, Brussels, (assessed in: http://europa.eu.int/ rapid/pressReleasesAction). E.U. Press Releases (2004), Rural development in the EU, Brussels, (assessed in: http://europa.eu.int/ rapid/pressReleasesAction). European Parliament (1994), Fact sheets on the European Parliament and the activities of the European Union (6th edition), Directorate General for research, Luxemburg. Evans, N.; Morris, C.; Winter, M., (2002), Conceptualising agriculture: a critique of post productivism as the new orthodoxy, Progress in Human Geography 26 (3), 313-332 (in: Brian Ilbery et al., (2003), Forecasting food supply chain developments in lagging rural regions: evidence from the UK Journal of Rural Studies). Falk, I.; Kilpatrick, S., (2000), What is social capital? A study of interaction in the rural community, Sociologia Ruralis, 40(1), 87-111. FAO, (1996), Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action, Rome (in: Simon Maxwell, Robin Heber Percy (2001), New trends in development thinking and implications for agriculture (assessed in: http:// www.Fao. org/docrep/003/x9080e/j)). Fishler, F., (2003), The communitys agricultural policy 2003: the year of decisions, Speech opening, International Green Week , Berlin (in P. Midmore, C. Foster and M. Schermer Organic Producer Initiatives and Rursal Development four European Case Studies Volume 3, The University of Wales, Aberystwyth, United Kingdom, School of management and Business). Fishler, F., (2003a), Europes rural areas: an invaluable asset for us all, Opening Speech, Salzburg European Conference on Rural Development (http://europa.eu.int /rapidReleaseAction.do?reference=speech/03/534&format=html&aged=0&language=en&guila nguage=en). Flora, C.B., (1995), Social capital and sustainability: agriculture and communities in the Great Plains and Corn Belt, Research in Rural Sociology and Development, 6, 227-246. Friesbie, WP.; Hasarda, J.D., (1988), Spatial processes, in Smeler, N.J. (ed), Handbook of Sociology , Sage: London, Sustainable Rural Development (in: Hank de Haan, Babis Kasimis, 115
Reference List
Michael Redclift (Eds), European society for Rural Sociology, (1997), Published by Ashgate Publishing Ltd., England, British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data). Gardner, G., (2002), From Rio to Johannesburg: Growing Awareness, Sluggish Response (assessed in: http://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/2002/02/28/) Gertler, M., (1999), Sustainable communities and sustainable agriculture on the Prairies, Pierce, J.T. and Dale, A (eds), Communities development and sustainability across Canada, Vancouver: UBC Press , 121-139 (in P. Midmore, C. Foster and M. Schermer, Organic Producer Initiatives and Rursal Development four European Case Studies, Volume 3, The University of Wales , Aberystwyth, United Kingdom, School of management and Business). Hamm, U.; Gronefeld, F., (2004), The European market for organic food, Organic Marketing Initiatives and Rural Development, Volume 5, Aberystwyth: School of Management and Business (University of Wales) (in: P. Midmore, C. Foster and M. Schermer, Organic Producer Initiatives and Rursal Development four European Case Studies Volume 3, The University of Wales, Aberystwyth, United Kingdom, School of management and Business). Held, D.; McGrew, A., (1999), The global transformations teader: an introduction to the globalization debate, Cambridge: Polity Press (in: Simon Maxwell, Robin Heber Percy (2001), New trends in development thinking and implications for agriculture (assessed in: http://www.fao.org/ docrep/003/x9080e/j)). Helen, N., (2004), What are the possible influences affecting the future environmental agricultural policy in the European Union? An investigation into the main factors, Journal of Cleaner Production, 12 , 461468. ICAP, (2003), Sector Study on Biological Cultivations - Biological Products (assessed in: http://www.icap.gr/ news/index_uk_2440.asp). IFOAM, (2002), A sustainable agricultural policy for Europe, Brussels, IFOAM EU Regional Group. Ilbery, B., (2002), Geographical aspects of the 2001 outbreak of Foot and Mouth Diseease in the UK, Geography 87, 142-147 (In: Brian Ilbery et al., (2003), Forecasting food supply chain developments in lagging rural regions: evidence from the UK Journal of Rural Studies). Ilbery, B., et al., (2003a), Forecasting food supply chain developments in lagging rural regions: evidence from the UK, Journal of Rural Studies. Ilbery, B.; Kneasfsey, M., (2000), Producer constructions of quality in regional speciality food production: a case study from South West England, Journal of Rural Studies, 16, 217-230 (In: Brian Ilbery et al., (2003), Forecasting food supply chain developments in lagging rural regions: evidence from the UK Journal of Rural Studies). Ilbery, B.; Maye D.; Kneasfey M.; Jenkins T.; Walkley C., (2003), Forecasting food supply chain developments in Lagging Rural Regions: evidence from the UK, Elsevier, Journal of Rural Studies. INRA, (2000), The Europeans and biotechnology Eurobarometer, 52.1. IUNK, (2004), Brussels in Brief, Institute for European Environmental Policy, The World Conservation Union, Volume 3, Agriculture and Biodiversity.
116
Reference List
Kaynak, E.; Bloom, J.; Leibold, M., (1994), Using the Delphi technique to predict future tourism potential, Marketing Intelligence and Planning 12 (7), 1829 (in: Brian Ilbery et al., (2003), Forecasting food supply chain developments in lagging rural regions: evidence from the UK Journal of Rural Studies). Knickel, K.; Renting, (2000), Methodological and conceptual issues in the study of multifunctionality and rural development, Sociologia Ruralis, 40 (4), 512-529. Lampkin, N., H., (2003), Organic farming conversion Models, Unpublished report to Defra, Institute of rural studies, University of WALES. Lampkin, N.; Foster C.; Padel S.; Midmore, P., (1999), The policy and regulatory environment for organic Farming in EU, Organic Farming in Europe: Economics and Policy, Volume 1, Hohenheim. Lampkin, N.; Midmore, P., (2000), Changing fortunes for organic farming in Europe: policies and prospects, Agricultural Economics Society, Manchester (in: P. Midmore, C. Foster and M. Schermer, Organic Producer Initiatives and Rural Development four European Case Studies, Volume 3, The University of Wales , Aberystwyth, United Kingdom, School of management and Business). Lampkin, N.H.; Padel S., (eds) (1996), The economics of organic farming: an international perspective, Wallingford (in P. Midmore, C. Foster and M. Schermer Organic Producer Initiatives and Rural Development four European Case Studies, Volume 3, The University of Wales , Aberystwyth, United Kingdom, School of management and Business). Leeuwis, C., (2000), Recoceptualizing participation for sustainable rural development, towards a negotiation approach, Development and Change, 31(5), 931-959 Liesbet, H.; Gary M., Types of Multi-Level Governance, Department of Political Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill. Louloudis, A., (2001), We are walking to an agriculture that will operate under restrictions, New Agriculture, chapter 1/01, gr. Lowe P.; Henry B.; Ward N., (2002), Setting the next Agenda? British and French approaches to the second pillar of the Common Agriculture Policy, Journal of Rural Studies, No 18 (2002) 117. Lowe, P.; Ward, N., (1998), A Second Pillar for the CAP Reform? The European RDR and its implications for the UK, University of Newcastle upon Tyne Centre for rural economy, Working Paper 36. Marsden, T.; Banks, J.; Bristow, G., (2002), The social management of rural nature: Understanding agrarian based rural development, Environment and Planning A, 34(5), 809825. Martino, J., (1983), Technological forecasting for Decision Making, (Discussion Draft), (in: Brian Ilbery et al., (2003), Forecasting food supply chain developments in lagging rural regions: evidence from the UK Journal of Rural Studies). Maxwell, S.; Conway, T., (2000), Perspectives on partnership, OECD, Working Paper Series, No. 6, World Bank, Washington, DC (in: Simon Maxwell, Robin Heber Percy (2001), New trends
117
Reference List
in development thinking and implications http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x9080e/j)).
for
agriculture
(assessed
in:
Maxwell, S.; Riddell, R., (1998), Conditionality or contract: perspectives on partnership for development, Journal of International Development, 10: 257-268 (in: Simon Maxwell, Robin Heber Percy (2001), New trends in development thinking and implications for agriculture (assessed in: http:// www.fao.org /docrep /003/x9080e/j)). Midmore, P,; Foster, C.; Schermer, M., (ed.) (2004(a)), Organic producer initiatives and Rural Development four European Studies, OMIARD Volume 3, published by School of management and Business, the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, United Kingdom. Midmore, P., (2004(b)), Organic farming policy and rural development, Short Course for researchers - Researching Development & Organic farming in the EU-25 context, SIMOCA project, INTEREG IIIB-CADSES, WP5: Capacity building training, awareness and dissemination with innovative systems. Midmore, P.; Tzouvelekas V., (1998), Sustainability and Agricultural Economics, 4 rth PanHellenic Congress of Rural Economy Competitiveness and Completed Growth of Rural Sector: The New Challenges for Greece, Zioganas, Ch., (Ass.), Publications Ziti, Thessalonica 1998, p. 440-452. Moyer W.; Josling, T., (2002), Agricultural Policy Reform Policies and process in the EU and US in the 1990s, Ashgate Publishing. Murdoch, J.; Marsden, T.; Banks, J., (2000), Quality nature and embedednees: some theoretical considerations in the context of the food sector, Economic Geography, 76(2)107-125. OECD, (1996), Development Assistance Committee, International Development Goals, Paris (Assessed in: http://www.fao.org/ docrep/003/x9808e/j). OECD, (2003), Analysis of the 2003 CAP Reform, (Assessed in: www.oecd.org / dataoecd /62/42/32039793.pdf). Olaf, Christen, Zita O Halloranetholtz, (2003), Indicators for a sustainable Development Agriculture, (assessed in: www.sustainabl-agriculture.org/ilu-eisa .doc) Osti, G., (1997), Sustainable Development in the Italian mountains, Sustainable Rural Development, Hank de Haan, Babis Kasimis, Michael Redclift (Eds), European society for Rural Sociology, Published by Ashgate Publishing Ltd., England, British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data. Pezzaros, D. P., (2002), The environmental Dimension of the Common Agricultural Policy-An Overview (included as Chapter 1, in Pavlos D.Pezaros & Martin Unfried (Eds), The Common Agricultural Policy and the Environmental Challenge Instruments, Problems and Opportunities from Different perspectives URBAN III, European Institute of Public Administration, Maastricht (NL)). Pezzaros, D. P., (2004), The rural development concept in the evolution of CAP, Short course for administrators, Rural Development and Organic Farming in the EU-25 context, WP5SIMOCA Project, INTEREG IIIB CADSES, published by MAICH . Potter, C.; Burney, J., (2002), Agricultural multifunctionality in the WTO-Legitimate non-trade concern or disguised protectionism? Journal of Rural Studies, 18(1), 35-47. 118
Reference List
Potts, G.R., (1997), Cereal farming, pesticides and grey partridges, (In: Pain, D.J., Pienkowski, M.W., (Eds.), Farming and Birds in Europe: The Common Agricultural Policy and its Implications for Bird Conservation. Academic Press, London, pp. 150177). Pugliese, P., (2001), Organic Farming and sustainable rural development: a multifaceted and promising convergence, Sociologia Ruaralis , 41(1). 112-131 (in: P. Midmore, C. Foster and M. Schermer Organic Producer Initiatives and Rursal Development four European Case Studies Volume 3, The University of Wales, Aberystwyth, United Kingdom, School of management and Business). Ray, C., (2002), A mode of production for fragile rural economies: the territorial accumulation of forms of capital, Journal of Rural Studies, 18(3), 225-23 (in: P. Midmore, C. Foster and M. Schermer Organic Producer Initiatives and Rural Development four European Case Studies Volume 3, The University of Wales , Aberystwyth, United Kingdom, School of management and Business). Ritson C.; Harvey D., (eds) (1997), The Common Agricultural Policy, CAB International. Robson, N., (1997), The evolution of the Common Agricultural Policy and the incorporation of environmental considerations (In: Pain, D.J., Pienkowski, M.W. (Eds.), Farming and Birds in Europe: The Common Agricultural Policy and its Implications). Sanders, (1966), IT Allocation Power in the Community: An introduction to the Social System, 2nd (ed) Ronald Press, NY (in: Steverson O. Moffata, Frederick W. Cubbageb, Thomas P. Holmesc, Elizabethann OSullivand, (2001), Characterizing the sustainable forestry issue network in the United States, Forest Policy and Economics (2 ) p.307_318). Schmid, O.; Richter T.; Hamm U.; Dahlke A., (2004), A guide to successful Organic Marketing Initiatives, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (fibl), Frick, Switzerland and University of Kassel, Germany. Scott, M., (2002), Delivering integrated rural development and sustainability, insights from Northern Ireland, European Planning Studies, 10 (8), 1013-1025. Scoullos, et. al., (1999), Planning Sustainable Regional Development: principles, tools and practices. The Case study of Rhodes Island, (MIO-ESSDE) SUDECIR project. Seers, D., (1963), The limitations of the special case, Bulletin of the Oxford Institute of Economics and Statistic, 25(2) ((in: Simon Maxwell, Robin Heber Percy (2001), New trends in development thinking and implications for agriculture (assessed in: http: // www.fao.org /docrep /003/ x9080e/j)). Shon, T.-H.; Swatman, P.M.C., (1998) Identifying effectiveness criteria for Internet payment systems Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy 8 (3), 202218. (in: Brian Ilbery et al., (2003), Forecasting food supply chain developments in lagging rural regions: evidence from the UK Journal of Rural Studies). Simoca Project, (2003), Setting up implementation of sustainable and multifunctional rural development based on organic and competitive agriculture, SIMOCA project - W.P. 2 (CODE 2AO18 INTEREG IIIB CADSES). Stamataki, E., (1995), Searching for endogenous development possibilities: the case of the organic olive oil production in Crete, MSc. Thesis, MAICh (eds). 119
Reference List
Staraki, M., (1997), Farmers attitudes towards rural development policy instruments implemented in the lagging rural and coastal regions of Greece MAICH (eds). Stiglitz, J., (1998), More instruments and broader goals: Moving towards the post-Washington consensus, World Institute for Development Economics Research, Annual Lecture, Helsinki (in: Simon Maxwell, Robin Heber Percy (2001), New trends in development thinking and implications for agriculture (assessed in: http: // www.fao.org /docrep /003/ x9080e/j)). Swinbank, A.; Ritson, C., (1995), The Impact of the GATT Agreement on EU fruit and vegetable policy, Food Policy Ed. Swinbank, A.; Tanner, C., (1996), Farm Policy and Trade Conflict: The Uruguay Round and Common Agricultural Policy Reform, University of Mitsigan (Ed.), Press, Ann Arbor. Tagermann, S., (1991), A bond Scheme for supporting Farm incomes, In John Marsh (ed), The changing role of the common agricultural policy: The future of farming Europe, Belhaven Press, London. Van der Ploeg, J.D., (2000), Revitalizing Agriculture: farming economically as starting ground for rural development, Sociologia Results, 40, (4) , 497-512 (in: P. Midmore, C. Foster and M. Schermer Organic Producer Initiatives and Rural Development four European Case Studies, Volume 3, The University of Wales, Aberystwyth, United Kingdom, School of management and Business). World Bank, (1998), Global economic prospects and the developing countries 1998/9, World Bank, Washington, DC (in: Simon Maxwell, Robin Heber Percy (2001), New trends in development thinking and implications for agriculture (assessed in: http: // www.fao.org/ docrep / 003 / x 9080e / j)). WTO, (2002), Agricultural negotiations, (assessed in: http:// www.wto.org/ english/tratope/agric-e/negs-bkgrnd05-intro-e.htm#objective Zanoli, R., (ed.), (2004), The European Consumer and Organic Food, Organic Marketing Initiatives and Rural Development, Volume four, published by School of management and Business, Aberystwyth, university of Wales, United Kingdom.
120

Thesis Final Draft

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Thesis Final Draft

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

SETTING UP A SUSTAINABLE RURAL DEVELOPMENT MODEL IMPLEMENTATION BASED ON ORGANIC AGRICULTURE: BEST PRACTICE MODEL OF PILOT AREA OF KOLYMVARI

Chania, Greece 2004

Part one: Programming Sustainable Rural Development based on Organic

Chapter 1 New trends in Rural Development and Agriculture

Chapter 3 CAP evolution in programming Rural Development

Part two: Research Methodology

Chapter 4 Survey area and methodology

Chapter 5 Results and Discussion

Vertical integration process

Primary sector Farmer/Non Farmers

Secondary sectortransporting, extraction, storing, packaging, standardizing

Tertiary sector/Marketing ,trading

NGO initiatives (EU or international)/ private initiatives

Government/ National schemes

Part One: Programming Sustainable Rural Development based on Organic Farming

New trends in Rural Development and Agriculture

Chapter 1 New trends in Rural Development and Agriculture

New trends in Rural Development and Agriculture

New trends in Rural Development and Agriculture

New trends in Rural Development and Agriculture

New trends in Rural Development and Agriculture

New trends in Rural Development and Agriculture

New trends in Rural Development and Agriculture

New trends in Rural Development and Agriculture

Organic farming and Sustainable Development Policy in the E.U. context

Organic farming and Sustainable Development Policy in the E.U. context

Organic farming and Sustainable Development Policy in the E.U. context

Organic farming and Sustainable Development Policy in the E.U. context

Organic farming and Sustainable Development Policy in the E.U. context

Source: ICAP, 2002

Organic farming and Sustainable Development Policy in the E.U. context

Organic farming and Sustainable Development Policy in the E.U. context

CAP evolution in programming Rural Development

Chapter 3 CAP evolution in programming Rural Development

A change in CAP Architecture

CAP evolution in programming Rural Development

Figure 2: A change of Archi-tecture of the CAP McScharry, 1996

compesation payments Compensation payment

National Envelopes Rural Development Regulation

CAP evolution in programming Rural Development

CAP evolution in programming Rural Development

Figure 3: Relations between the 1st and the 2nd pillar:

Market policy/ Income Support

RD Policy/ Public Goods

Rural Function Rural Economy/Rural Communities

Restructuring/ Competiveness in the Farm Sector

CAP evolution in programming Rural Development

Source: Wayne Moyer and Tim Josling , 2002.

CAP evolution in programming Rural Development

CAP evolution in programming Rural Development

CAP evolution in programming Rural Development

Source: Analysis of the 2003 CAP Reform (OECD, 2004)

CAP evolution in programming Rural Development

Salzburg conference on Rural Development

CAP evolution in programming Rural Development

CAP evolution in programming Rural Development

CAP evolution in programming Rural Development

EU Enlargement and Rural development

CAP evolution in programming Rural Development

New draft for rural development regulation

CAP evolution in programming Rural Development

CAP evolution in programming Rural Development

CAP evolution in programming Rural Development