Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
created decreasing yields and increased costs. There is evidence that some farmers could
not cope well with organic farming practices (interview data). Consequently, organic
farming gained a bad reputation among many farmers (including other organic farmers) in
the region. As SWM, the principal actor in the initiative, was detached from the production
process, farmers were not supported adequately in terms of technical issues. In fact,
advisory services were provided by organic farming associations but these were not
specifically focused on the initiative. The relationship between the principal agent and
contractors has gradually evolved and improved over the years. Contract farmers organized
themselves as an interest group and became an important partner for the SWM, increasing
their negotiating power. At the last renewals of the support programme in 2010 and 2011,
SWM proposed a contract of 1 year, as they anticipated extension of the water protection
area. Eventually, the deal struck was for 15 years and at a higher premium per hectare
(+22%), indexed to the cost of living.
The dairies collecting milk in the SWM catchments started establishing sales channels
for organic dairy products and paid a premium for organic milk. In addition, an attempt was
made to create a catchment farmers' market in the SWM headquarters but due to limited
quantities, contract farmers ceased their participation in this market. The organic support
programme seems to have reinforced the slowdown of structural change, hence dairy
farming and the resulting distinct cultural landscape was conserved. Consequently SWM
promoted the 'Munich Water Way', a bicycle tour through the water catchment area.
However, conflict still exists in the process of expansion of the water protection area.
Although contract farmers and the SWM are partners in water protection, all farmers are
reportedly firmly against expansion of the water protection area, as they are concerned that
they will not receive compensation.
The agri-food regime prevailing in Imathia up to the mid-1990s was not viable in
economic terms. Change in the CAP, which was radical and abrupt unlike other policy
shifts, found producer groups in the area facing a situation where export markets had either
been lost or were maintained through disguised export subsidies. The latter appears to have
been countered with technical barriers to trade, such as strict food safety regulations (for
example, concerning pesticide residues) founded on increasing consumer awareness, and
this resulted in the rejection of whole shipments of canned peaches in 1998/1999. The
option to check all shipments before leaving the country was neither effective nor practical
hence the urgent need to ensure that the final product could comply with restrictions in
order to maintain export markets. In Imathia, AGROCERT's (a standardization and
certification organization controlled by the Ministry and thus by definition a regime actor)
hybridization towards the role of a niche instigator is the first evidence of institutional
anchoring.
Local professionals (mainly agronomists) who, until then had been committed to input
provision accompanied by the relevant technical advice, were the first to adopt innovations
and adapt to changes. AGROCERT collaborated with the existing network of experts to
enrol producer groups to the niche, unlike other attempts in Greece which focused on
regime actors (Koutsouris, 2008). Thus, technical anchoring took place with the
transformation of an existing well established network of private professionals
(agronomists), from input providers to providers of advisory services. This was due in part
to socio-technical landscape pressures which were gradually rendering their activities
obsolete. First, changes in Common Market Organisation (CMO) rules concerning
subsidies for withdrawal of production and then, almost immediately after, a new set (and
Search WWH ::
Custom Search