Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 18.1
Conceptual models presented in the chapters on social responsibility, tertiary
education and farmer education
Conceptual model
Source
Learning = regulation
×
cooperation
Pyburn
et
al
. (see
Chapter 14
)
Sriskandarajah
et
al
. (see
Chapter 16
)
Knowledge = information
×
processing
Knowledge creation = knowledge acquisition
×
participation
Seppänen and Francis (see
Chapter 17
)
dichotomy of 'thinking and doing' (matter and energy) as the common factors required to
produce an action or outcome, in this case learning. As the manager of a complex agroecosys-
tem, a capable organic farmer or student will need to be able to think and do simultaneously,
compile and integrate information from different sources, make and implement decisions,
review past performance and revise future strategies. A good conventional farmer would do
the same, but he or she would have greater recourse to finding people to do the thinking for
them - the commercial agronomists, long established marketplaces and supply lines, a shared
history of production methods within a district, the industry magazines and so on. However,
organic growers have traditionally not had those options, and acquiring generic, ready-made
knowledge is likely to be insufficient (see
Chapter
17
). In addition to the lack of information
and infrastructure, organic farmers are obliged to achieve production goals with less reliance
on externally inputs and to pursue non-economic values such as maintaining and creating
social and ecological capital. These demands create a high level of biological diversity and
managerial complexity that, again, conventional growers may choose not to pursue, instead
focusing simply on maximising yields and profitability.
Auditing and quality assurance systems
The organic standards setting and certification systems were developed to ensure that organic
produce is genuine, potentially the most important strategy in the marketing of organic goods
(see
Chapter
11
). Three main regulatory challenges facing organic agriculture are:
(a) international harmonisation and the tensions between regulatory agencies;
(b) ensuring stringency in assurance systems for global consumers while also allowing for
locally appropriate adaptations; and
(c) and ensuring equitable access to organic certification systems, particularly in developing
countries (see
Chapter
9
and
Special
topic
3
).
An underlying theme in such challenges is one of balancing competing needs.
The organic movement now has many more stakeholders than in the mid-1980s, and these
voices all deserve to be heard in such an overtly democratic movement (e.g. IFOAM 2005).
Although it will take considerable time and cooperation, international harmonisation is a nec-
essary and possibly inevitable process (see
Chapters
9
and
10
). The International Task Force on
Harmonisation brings regulatory agencies together to compare each others' systems and
evaluate various other programs and models (see
Chapter
9
), but countries without their own
standards will be at a disadvantage (see
Chapter
10
) and separate national disputes will
continue to hinder progress (Lotter 2003, Alexandra and May 2004).
In Chapter 14, Pyburn
et
al
. advocate a mixture mechanism to stimulate and provide incen-
tives for social responsibility throughout the supply chain. To achieve more than superficial
change in social responsibility, a learning approach can provide a hands on, direct experience
for people and groups affected by social issues in agriculture. Standard setting needs to be
based on support by several stakeholders in the organic food chain, including collaboration
between organic certifiers and other social certifiers, such as FairTrade Labelling Organiza-
tions International and the International Labor Organization. Internal Control Systems have
