1
UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI PISA
Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, Alimentari ed Agro-ambientali
Corso di Laurea in Produzioni Agroalimentari e Gestione degli Agroecosistemi
Curriculum in Agricoltura Biologica e Multifunzionale
Resilient or vulnerable? Looking critically at the Organic
Food and Farming System in the European Union through
lenses of System Archetypes
Candidato: Sara Zambon
Primo relatore:
Prof. Gianluca Brunori Secondo relatore: Natalia Brzezina Correlatore: Fabio Bartolini
2
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking
we used when we created them”.
3
Index
1. Introduction ... 4
1.1 Literature Review ... 4
1.1.1 Challenges to FNS in the EU ... 4
1.1.2 Organic Food and Farming System as a Way Forward ... 11
2. Research Questions ... 18
3. Aim & Objectives ... 19
4. Methodology: Seeing Through System Archetypes Lenses ... 20
4.1 General methodological scheme ... 20
4.2 Conceptual framework ... 20
4.3 Data collection ... 24
4.4 Data analysis ... 26
4.5 Development of system archetypes for organic food and farming system ... 27
5. Results ... 28
5.1 Limits to Growth: entry points for external disturbances ... 28
5.2 Shifting the Burden: dependence on trade ... 32
5.3 Fixes that Fail: dependence on governmental support ... 35
5.4 Success to the Successful: loss of alternatives ... 38
5.5 Escalation: efficiency maximization treadmill ... 40
5.6 Eroding Goals: standardized system ... 43
6. Discussion: Policy Recommendations ... 46
6.1 Limits to Growth: develop strategies for managing the limits rather than continue to drive the reinforcing processes of growth ... 46
6.2 Shifting the Burden: encourage domestic production and sustainable consumption ... 47
6.3 Fixes that Fail: internalize externalities ... 48
6.4 Success to the Successful: invest in alternatives ... 50
6.5 Escalation: encourage collaborative competition based on larger goals than profitability ... 51
6.6 Eroding Goals: reward continuous improvement ... 51
7. Conclusions ... 52
4
1. Introduction
1.1 Literature Review
1.1.1 Challenges to FNS in the EU
Food system
In a world where goods and services are in a continuous flow, a simple definition of the word food is no more sufficient to understand all the dynamics that occur within the sector (Mittermayer, 2015). A broader vision is given by looking at the whole food system: but what is a food system? A food system is defined as a system that includes all those activities and elements that relate to the production, processing, packaging and distribution, retailing and consumption of food (Food and Agriculture Organization et al., 2015). These activities are referred to as the food chain, which is seen as a continuum from source (primary production) to the final use (consumption) (Ingram, 2009). The interactions of all the activities on different scales and levels among the food chain create a complex system (Gerber, 2014), that leads to a series of outcomes inter alia food security as well as environmental security and social welfare. By linking both the activities and the outcomes a more holistic and comprehensive vision of the food system is provided (Ingram, 2009).
Food and nutrition security
Definition
The definition of food security has continuously evolved since the first introduction of the concept in the early 1940s (Pangaribowo et al., 2013). At that time the main challenge to food security were the unmet needs and widespread hunger (Lang and Barling, 2013). Productivism, namely a combination of science, technology and capital investments to increase crop production and hence reduce food prices and improve access, was promoted as the key to resolve the challenge to food security (Lang and Barling, 2012).
In the 1980s, however, the persistence of food crises in the global South led to extension of the focus from food production and agricultural activities to include also the structure and processes governing entire economies and societies (Sen 1981, Brunori et al. 2013). In this way, the socio-economic context became important in the discussions on solving the problem of food insecurity. This broader scope of food security has been reflected in the FAO’s (1996) definition, namely “food
security exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.”. The 1996 definition is still widely used and quoted today.
5
With this definition, the term “nutrition security” emerged. In the mid 90’s the mid-1990s with this term the nutritional aspects of food security gained particular attention in discussions. It has been highlighted that nutritional aspects are also necessary to an individual to be defined as food secure. Following, the terms food security and nutrition security have been merged, in order to combine both security concepts in a more integrated way (Pangaribowo et al., 2013). The expression “food and nutrition security” has been used to stress the need of adding the concept of nutrition into food security policies and programs. Inserting the term “nutrition” between “food” and “security” underlines the importance of nutrition as the ultimate goal to reach with food security. Many institutions have been used this term, like FAO, UNICEF, IFPRI, SCN, WFP and the UN System High Level Task Force on Global Food Security (HLTF) (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2012), for instance:
- UNICEF, 2008: “Food and nutrition security is achieved when adequate food (quantity,
quality, safety, socio-cultural acceptability) is available and accessible for and satisfactorily used and utilized by all individuals at all times to live a healthy and active life.”
- Weingärtner, 2010: he defines food and nutrition security is a condition under which adequate food (quantity, quality, safety, socio-cultural acceptability) is available and accessible for and satisfactorily utilized by all individuals at all times to live a healthy and happy life.
- FAO, 2011: “Food and nutrition security exists when all people at all times have physical,
social and economic access to food of sufficient quantity and quality in terms of variety, diversity, nutrient content and safety to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life, coupled with a sanitary environment, adequate health, education and care.”
Dimensions
Four different dimensions can be identified form the FAO’s food and nutrition security definition: food availability, access to food, food utilization and their stability. Each of these dimensions can be investigated globally, nationally, regionally or locally, that is from a macro- to a micro-level (Brunori et al., 2013). For food security objectives to be realized, all four dimensions must be fulfilled simultaneously (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2008).
Food availability is determined by the level of food production, net trade and stock levels (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2008), and can be measured locally, regionally or globally (Brunori et al., 2013), as we already mentioned above. If we focus on the global level, the following question comes out: how can we feed and make food available for a population expected to rise to nine billion by 2050? It has been pointed out that, in the whole planet, there is enough food in terms of calories per capita to feed everybody; the problem is that it is not well distributed, and we should really re-think how to make markets work more efficiently, to smooth out barriers to distribution and to raise the amount of food for the next future (Sustainable Development Commission, 2009). Other
6
concerns regard climate change, water stress, pressures on land use, finite fossil fuel sources, soil fertility and more; all this is correlated to food production and, consequently, to food availability. Moving to a national level, we can say that availability is strictly connected to transitory situations, like short-term shocks concerning crop production and fluctuations of markets: this can generate a surplus of food in one country and a deficit in some other and it is relatively unpredictable. On regional level, food availability is strictly connected with social and environmental issues: when agro-ecosystems resources are overexploited, the demand is too high and no other economic alternative is available to rural population, the system collapses and the region becomes dependent on external food supply (Brunori et al., 2013).
Even if food is available, it does not mean that everybody has economic and physical access to it. Access to food can be achieved in different ways: it can be produced, bought, or donated. In any case, it is necessary to have a certain kind of resource, like land and facilities to harvest the crops, money or special aids. When we talk about food security, these resources become entitlements, that can be classified into three groups: (1) direct entitlements: for example, land; (2) indirect entitlements: money, (3) transfer entitlements: social ties or a state-recognized poverty status. As shown in Figure 1, entitlements can be conditioned by different factors. The amount of food that can be accessed through a single entitlement depends on the capacity of the single or of the family. To illustrate, different skills regarding land cultivation will lead to different levels of crop production, that is to different access to food (Brunori et al., 2013).
FIGURE 1-RELATION BETWEEN ENTITLEMENTS IN FOOD ACCESS
7
FAO defined food utilization as the way in which the body makes the most of various nutrients contained in consumed food; this is strictly connected to the nutritional status of individuals (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2008). Whether or not people sufficiently intake and absorb micronutrients can be assessed from their diet variety and from the anthropometric outcomes, such as body max index, weight for age, or weight for height (Pangaribowo et al., 2013). Wrong food utilization can lead to undernutrition or, vice versa, obesity and overweight. Food quality, unbalanced diets, health problems, poor nutritional knowledge and bad cooking skills have a key role in determining this kind of diet-related diseases. In addition, in some part of the world people still have difficulties to have clean water or cooking facilities that are precondition to food utilization (Brunori et al., 2013).
Even if food is available and an individual has access to food and utilize it in the best possible way, he/she cannot be considered food secure if this is only periodically. Food stability refers to the stability of the three dimensions listed above at all time (Pangaribowo et al., 2013). The main risks which might have adverse effects on availability, access and utilization, and ultimately food security status, are extreme weather events, energy scarcity, political instability, economic and social disruption and malfunctioning global markets (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2008). In this connection, stability dimension emphasizes the importance of having mechanisms which give availability, access and utilization the capacity of being adaptable to changes and avoid risks (Pangaribowo et al., 2013). From this narrative, sustainability and resilience emerge as characteristics of food systems needed to address such risks. They have to be the basis on which the world produces and consumes food, because at present is undeniable that food security can only be achieved if food systems become sustainable and resilient (Sustainable Development Commission, 2009).
Food and nutrition security in Europe: changing challenges & policy
In the past centuries, food problems have been faced by expanding the cultivated area, in order to meet the food need of a continuously growing population (Hazell and Wood, 2007). Food security started to be a concern worldwide and not only at a village, province or country level around the 1930’s. In this period world affairs were being dealt with by the League of Nations, which approach was to increase food production to meet human food needs and bring prosperity to agriculture, which would overflow into industry and bring the needed expansion of the world economy. In 1943, during the War, Nations of the World decided to establish the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). At that time, every effort was made to increase the food production in order to reduce the dependency towards outside as, due to the conflict, the supply was not guaranteed. For many years after the war, supply remained the main concern in many countries. Europe and North America created new policies to increase food production, with the aim to ensure that there would eventually be enough food for everybody and avoid hunger. In particular, in the new born European Union these new policies were reunited under the name of
8
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which was established in 1962. Initially CAP was concentrated on reinforcing food production trough guaranteed minimum prices to farmers and subsidies to production (European Union, 2012). The strategy of CAP was so successful that quickly, around the 1970’s, the production exceeded the consumption hence creating surpluses, which then had to be managed (Simon, 2012).
From the early 1980s, measures were introduced to reduce surpluses and bring production closer to market demand. The key instruments chosen by the European Commission can be summarized in the will to introduce guarantee thresholds, both financial and quantitative. These measures would have allowed, according to the intent of the Commission, to progressively scale back surplus production, while streamlining both the cost of storage as disposal of surpluses on the world market and on the domestic market. The common market organizations interested by these measures were milk and milk products, cereals, sugar, protein crops, olive oil, wine and tobacco (Pretolani, 2007). Then, starting from 1992, Europe decided to move from market support to producer support. Following, food quality, food safety and animal welfare became the main focus and through different measures farmers were made more aware of the importance of protecting the environment and using natural resources sustainably.
In the 2000s, Europe started concentrating on rural development. In 2003 a CAP reform cut the link between subsidies and production. In the last CAP reforms we can see how economic, environmental and territorial challenges became the main concern. In practice, Europe is now focusing on having a sustainable, efficient, secure and competitive food production (European Union, 2012) and we can say that food security still remains a core topic for CAP.
Nowadays, food and nutrition security is re-gaining attention also from policymakers and other stakeholders. FNS is now again considered to be one of the top priority for European citizens and policymakers which cannot be taken for granted anymore (Cockx, Francken and Pieters, 2015). New challenges to FNS in Europe can be identified across all FNS dimensions.
Regarding availability, food supply is achieved through internal food production and trade: Europe is still nowadays the largest food importer in the world. However, since the creation of the European Union overall food supply has never been a core issue for the food and nutrition security situation in Europe. Yet, considerable differences are still remarkable. Food supply is lower in the new Member States (NMS) and specific food products like fruit and vegetable tend to be less available in the North and East region of the EU. Moreover, food supply will have to confront with climate change and other adverse drivers of change which could affect agriculture production in the EU Member States.
Access does not seem a problem in many countries of Europe, since food is relatively affordable. However, beside a situation which is kind of normalized there are still disparities among the population and there are still people who are at risk of poverty or social exclusion. The most
9
vulnerable groups are women, children, ethnic minorities and the elderly (Cockx, Francken and Pieters, 2015). In countries like Romania, for example, food access is still a real issue; studies show that the number one factor which affect food and nutrition security is really income, and that the correlation between food security and income is about 70% or so (Roberts, 2015).
With regards to food utilization we have the biggest problems with overweight and obesity, as they are becoming real challenges both to adults and children. Obesity is estimated to cause 9-12 % and 16-20 % of deaths in the EU15 countries and the NMS respectively. The situation seems to be worst among people belonging to low socioeconomic groups and with a low income, which affect also diet quality; deficit in micronutrients like vitamins, folate, calcium and selenium, for example, are not uncommon.
Regarding stability of the food and nutrition security dimensions, we can say that Europe in general has a very stable food security environment (Cockx, Francken and Pieters, 2015). However, food system in the EU is becoming over the years more and more specialized and standardized, requiring increasingly external inputs, as chemical products and diesel-powered machines. These and other features are making the system more and more vulnerable to various factors such as climate change, changing consumption patterns, outbreak of pests and diseases, political tensions and so on (Brzezina, Kopainsky and Mathijs, 2016). Furthermore, the system leads to different unintended consequences, which are impacting on society and environment. Soil degradation, gas emissions, loss of biodiversity and reduced competitiveness of rural areas are only some examples, which show how that is it not straight forward to sustain food and nutrition security granted for future generations.
FNS: which challenges should be faced?
This general overview shows that there are still many challenges to food and nutrition security in Europe and new are emerging. With the following chapter, further information and insights on the main challenges will be displayed and clarified.
1. Unhealthy dietary patterns
The “dietary transition” is a phenomenon which is occurring in both developed and developing countries, and which has brought to a higher consumption of food processed with sugar, salt and unhealthy fats. This is extremely encouraged by the fact that processed products and beverages are much more affordable and easy to find in every supermarket or grocery shop and that they are often already ready to be eaten without any preparation needed.
As already mentioned in the section regarding food utilization, these dietary patterns are leading to overweight and obesity, with an higher risk of cardiovascular diseases, certain types of cancer and diabetes (Colombo, Grando and Rahmanian, 2015). In the Netherlands, for example, poor dietary
10
patterns have contributed to the fact that more than half of the Dutch population is overweight and that 13 to 14 percent is obese (Melorose, Perroy and Careas, 2015)
In general, teenager and elders are the group most at risk, but also people with poor nutritional knowledge or cooking skills; lack of knowledge has been noticed also about how to preserve or even choose healthy food (Colombo, Grando and Rahmanian, 2015).
As a result of these outcomes we can say that nowadays, in Europe, malnutrition seems to represent the main food and nutrition security challenge, including both obesity and undernutrition (Roberts, 2015).
2. Price levels and volatility
After some years of price stability, around 2005 price volatility became a key concern for many European farmers.
The concept of price volatility describes how frequently the prices of one product change over time. Variations in the prices of agricultural foodstuff and food in general is something normal; however, when price movements become large and unpredictable, volatility turns out to be a problem. From the perspective of farmers, high levels of price volatility are seen as an obstacle since they do not guarantee standardized incomes. The financial risk is also enhanced by the threat of sudden price drops.
Moreover, price fluctuation makes farmers reluctant in making long-term investments, since the market is seen as unstable and unpredictable.
With the last CAP reform, Europe has tried to limit the effect of price volatility. The 2014-2020 reform seems, anyway, to compensate farmers for the negative effects of the fluctuations rather than directly trying to fix them concretely (Tropea and Devuyst, 2016).
3. Climate change
Climate change has lately started to be seen as a problem also in some developed regions. As already said above explaining the concept of availability, climate change could soon compromise not only Europe’s capacity of producing food but also of distribute it.
The debate is very variegated and changes between the different countries of the Union. In the UK, for example, heavy floods are seen as a key concern (Colombo, Grando and Rahmanian, 2015) while in the Netherlands the increasing of sea level and livestock greenhouse gas emissions are the main problematic factors (Melorose, Perroy and Careas, 2015). On the other hand, South of Europe has to face rising temperatures and water scarcity, but even if impacts are serious in countries like Spain the theme is not very discussed.
Mitigation approaches have been widely introduced but show some contradiction. The promotion of alternative farming methods or the introduction of measures to reduce GHG are seen as a luxury for some countries like Latvia. In fact, the measures seem way too harsh for farmers, who trying to respect them may lose the possibility to increase production (Colombo, Grando and Rahmanian, 2015).
11
4. Biodiversity loss
The decline in biodiversity in the European region is a problematic that is severely undermining food production (Melorose, Perroy and Careas, 2015). In fact, reduced biodiversity makes the farming system less flexible and able to cope with external factors that may occur, like new pathologies, pests, bad weather.
Intensive production systems, promoting monocultures (Colombo, Grando and Rahmanian, 2015) and concentrating only on a few number of animal species and plant varieties, increases pesticide use and pollution, which negatively impact on biodiversity and on climate.
Climate change is also a threat to biodiversity, since it affects and changes habitat where species live.
Biodiversity loss can be prevented by adapting some agronomical strategies like, for example, crop rotations or biological control methods, or by using different varieties (Colombo, Grando and Rahmanian, 2015).
After decades of experimenting with a system that “mines” the earth, a more sustainable and resilient food system is urgently needed (Lang & Barling 2009) since, according to many authors, this is the only way food and nutrition security can be achieved (Sustainable Development Commission, 2009).
1.1.2 Organic Food and Farming System as a Way Forward
Since the European food system is nowadays unsustainable and vulnerable to disturbances, a new approach to it is needed. Can organic food and farming system be a potential candidate?
Over the last thirty years, organic food and farming have continuously increased across Europe (Interational Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, 2016); but what is organic agriculture? The term “organic” has been first used in the 1940s, referring to the concept of the farm as a system in which all the different components interact synergistically. Starting from that period, the concept of organic agriculture has evolved, incorporating different issues from soil fertility, to animal well-being, biodiversity conservation, climate change and social concerns (Interational Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, 2010). As a result, IFOAM has defined organic agriculture as “a
production system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems and people. It relies on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects. Organic agriculture combines tradition, innovation and science to benefit the shared environment and promote fair relationships and a good quality of life for all involved."
Based on the ideas included in the definition, IFOAM has specified four fundamental principles of organic farming: the principle of health, the principle of ecology, the principle of fairness and the principle of care. This principle of health postulates that organic agriculture should ensure and
12
promote soil, environment, animal and human health as a whole and is intended to produce high-quality, nutritious and healthy food. The principle of ecology assumes that organic agriculture should be based on ecological system and cycles; these have to be understood depending on local conditions, ecology, culture and scale so that producers, processers and traders will be able to protect and benefit the environment and that specific agroecosystem. According to the principle of fairness organic agriculture should encourage and sustain equity, respect and justice among all the different actors, by reducing poverty and enhance food sovereignty and a good-quality life. Natural resources should be managed sustainably to keep them to future generations, and animals should be threatened according their natural behavior and physiology. Finally, the principle of care is strictly related to the fairness one. It states that organic agriculture has to develop and enhance efficiency through research and practical experience in order to ensure a healthy and safe environment for current and future generations (Interational Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, 2005).
Controversies around organic food and farming system
According to the four principles, organic agriculture might be an answer to the need of finding a sustainable and resilient food system and so ensure food and nutrition security (Darnhofer, 2014). Yet organic agriculture has its pros and cons as a prototype to a sustainable and resilient food production system.
1. Climatic resilience
As reported by FAO in 2008, organic agriculture “assists farmers in adapting to climate change by
establishing conditions that increase ecosystem resilience to stress. Increasing an agro-ecosystem’s adaptive capacity allows it to better withstand climate variability, including erratic rain- fall and temperature variations and other unexpected events”.
The use of local seeds, for example, which are normally more adapted to local climate is common in organic agriculture. Since they can better resist to climatic change and adversities, they make the system more resilient and production more predictable and stable in time (Azadi et al., 2011). Moreover, is demonstrated that organic fertilization compared to mineral fertilization increases soil organic carbon and thus, sequesters large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere to the soil. Other
studies show that if paradoxically all agricultural systems were managed organically GHG emissions (based on production area) will be substantially lower.
Lower greenhouse gas emissions for crop production and enhanced carbon sequestration, both together with additional benefits regarding environmental services, makes organic agriculture a farming method that considerably helps mitigating climate change (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2016). In this way, we can say that organic agriculture foster and promote sustainable food security (Azadi et al., 2011).
13
On the other hand, other results show that organic farming practices have a positive impact on the environment per unit area, and not necessarily per product unit. The main factor to explain this development is that the two methods show different yield: on average, an organically managed system yields 25% less than the conventional one. Moreover, notwithstanding the fact that GHG emissions are generally over in the organic farming system, there are some crops and products as milk, cereals and pork that show higher levels (Tuomisto et al., 2012).
2. Healthy and nutritious food
Some studies about nutritional value show that there are some differences between organic and conventional food.
Reduction of essential micronutrients of protein quality has been recognized in conventional food produced with high inputs and with specific varieties (Rundgren, 2007). On the other hand, organic food like meat from organic chickens, pigs, rabbits and both meat and milk from organic cows contain more recommended polyunsaturated fatty acids like omega-3 (around 50% more) (International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food systems, 2016).
Frequently consumed fruit and vegetables from organic agriculture present higher levels of antioxidants phenolic acids, flavonoids and polyphenols. This seems probably due to less use of pesticides and fertilizers, that makes the plant more reactive and constrained to high its self-defenses by producing more secondary metabolites.
Anyway, it has to be specified that plant and animal composition depends on intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Both genetic and environmental and agronomic aspects play a key role in define nutritional value and composition, so it hard and difficult to generalize with such varied conditions (Bellon and Penvern, 2014). Moreover, this area shows heterogeneity and generally poor quality of research and some authors argue that the differences in nutrient content which exist between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs are only a few and not relevant for public health (Dangour, Dodhia and Hayter, 2009). The topic is therefore still controversial.
As regards safety aspects, fertilizers and chemicals used in conventional agriculture may contaminate food and watercourses, becoming risky to the final consumer also in the long term (Rundgren, 2007). Percentages show that a large proportion of conventional foodstuff (41%) is contaminated, while only a very small fraction of organic food samples is.
Concluding, most of the organic vegetables revealed lower nitrate accumulation levels. Calculated on yearly basis, they showed percentages of at least 30-50% less nitrates. Nitrates are a matter of concern especially for new-borns and young children, pregnant women and elderly people (Bellon and Penvern, 2014).
3. Biodiversity increasing
14
Nowadays, only 10% of the crops that have been developed in the past years is still being used. Moreover, many local varieties have disappeared (Rundgren, 2007).
Alternative agricultural system, like organic farming, are able to promote, maintain and improve biodiversity. Organic farms generally present 30% higher species richness and 50% higher abundance of organisms than conventional farms (Tuomisto et al., 2012). In this context, recent studies show that plants, earthworms, spiders and bees are 10% more varied and numerous in organically managed fields than in conventional ones, and bees and plants especially (Schneider et
al., 2014). One of the reason can be find in a more moderate use of inputs and mechanical processes,
in the different cultivation techniques and in the practice of crop rotations or, summarizing, in the holistic approach to crop production that guarantee a various and diversified environment (Panetto, 2014).
Despite this, there is a wide variation between different studies. In 2012 Tuomisto et al. analyzed different cases: in sixteen per cent of the studies the authors found a negative effect of organic farming on species richness. The differences were more prominent at the plot scale than in matched landscapes and in intensively managed landscapes than in diverse landscapes with many non-crop biotopes (Tuomisto et al., 2012).
4. Resource efficiency
With a steadily growing population in Europe and worldwide, ensuring secure and nutritious food for everybody is becoming a challenge and developing ways to manage resources efficiently is now more than ever necessary.
Organic farming aims to use renewable resources, to increase system recycling and to reduce waste, providing many solutions to the resource efficiency challenge (Kukreja and Meredith, 2011). Soil fertility is fundamental in ensuring crop productivity and thus is inseparable from food security (Rundgren, 2007). For this reason, the expansion of soil degradation is nowadays one of the most serious problems. Organic farming, trough different agronomical techniques, improve and make a more stable soil structure that in turn helps making it more fertile. Fertility is also enhanced by micro and macro fauna, that are substantially more present due to the less utilization of pesticides. Moreover, macro fauna like worms and ants have a positive effect on water holding, infiltration and drainage, making the soil system less susceptible to drought and less dependent on irrigation (Azadi
et al., 2011). Again, restricted use of synthetic chemicals helps maintain water quality (Rundgren,
2007).
Organic systems are also more energy efficient than conventional farming. In Italy, Germany, Sweden and Switzerland, for example, organic farms were found to utilize less energy on a per-hectare basis (Reganold and Wachter, 2016) and study commissioned by the Danish government shows that organic system can save from 9 to 51% of energy compared to a conventional one. Lower energy consumption on organic farms is generally attributed to lower concentrate feeding, less irrigation, lower stocking rates and the absence of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, especially
15
synthetic nitrogen. Despite that, investments in research to improve energy efficiency further are still necessary (Kukreja and Meredith, 2011).
Despite this, it has to be pointed out how organically produced food requires 84% more land compared to conventional farming in Europe (Tuomisto et al., 2012).
5. Higher farm and rural income
Many studies shows how organic food and farming system is often more profitable than the conventional one, mainly due to a combination of lower production costs and price premiums (Darnhofer, 2014). This is also shown in a study conducted by Nemes in 2009. The author examined the results of more than fifty cases that compared the economics of organic and conventional agriculture, mostly from the United States of America and Europe. Nemes reached the conclusion that production costs are generally lower in the organic system by examining fixed costs (purchase and rental of land, land charges and administrative costs, interest on farm-related loans, replacement values of machines including depreciation, interest and insurance), variable costs (ploughing and tillage, seeds and transplants, fertilizers, pesticides, energy, machine repair and maintenance, renting equipment, cold storage, transport, variable irrigation expenses, record keeping, certification costs, etc.) and labour costs. This is also due to the kind of inputs that the organic farming system requires (synthetic fertilizer and pesticide purchases are eliminated, herbicides are replaced with mechanical cultivation and other management practices, etc.). The author pointed out also the importance of price premiums: they depend on many different factors like location, access to the organic market, commodity and farmer’s marketing skills and generally make the organic system more profitable.
On the other hand, other authors affirm that reliance on price premium may be a problem, since it might jeopardize the long-term economic viability of organic farming. In fact, the organic market is ever-changing and this can make it unstable. This is visible, for example, when a high premium price for one crop lead many farmers to grow that crop. As a consequence, the market saturate the market and the price premium drop(Nemes, 2009).
Another key point is the one related to subsidies, which are considerable spent on organic farming in Europe starting from 2004 (Interational Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, 2014). They certainly make the organic food and farming system more attractive and play an important role in sustaining the income of organic farmers (European Commission, 2013), but some authors point out that European tend to create dependency (Darnhofer, 2014).
Finally, it is possible to affirm that it is not easy to make an economical comparison between these two food and farming system, because of their inherent difference and also because existing economic comparisons are heavily biased: firstly, they only focus on short-term efficiency and secondly they do not internalize externalities neither account for the fact that non-organic farms are provided with higher governmental support and better research (Nemes, 2009).
16
It is clear how organic food and farming system is the subject of intense debate. On the one hand organic agriculture leads to better environmental outcomes and higher profits (Brzezina, Kopainsky and Mathijs, 2016), and some expert point out its role in preserving rural employment, local knowledge and community cohesion (Transmango project, 2013). On the other, critics see it as an insufficient way to guarantee an adequate food production for years to come, due to lower yields. This would therefore require more land to produce the same amount of food as conventional farms, resulting in more widespread deforestation and biodiversity loss, and thus undermining the environmental benefits of organic practices (Seufert, Ramankutty and Foley, 2012).
Unprecedented development of organic food and farming system
Despite the controversies, organic food and farming system is the only of all the alternate approaches that has received significant attention from policymakers, consumers, environmentalists and farmers across Europe (Interational Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, 2016).
The beginning of organic farming could trace back to 1924 in Germany with Rudolf Steiner’s course on Social Scientific Basis of Agricultural Development.
In Switzerland in 1930, politician Hans Mueler gave impetus to organic-biological agriculture while doctor Hans Peter Rush adapted these ideas in Austria: the two laid the theoretical foundation for the organic-biological agriculture and its development in the Germanic speaking countries and regions.
Later, in the 1940s, Lady Eve Balfour and Sir Albert Howard developed organic agriculture in Britain (Ma and Joachim, 2006). In the United States, the movement grew thanks to J. I. Rodale while in Japan to Masanobu Fukuoka (Reganold and Wachter, 2016).
During 1950-1960s, European citizens became more aware of food and its effect on health and organic agriculture began to take hold in France.
By the 1970s, and specifically with the oil crisis of 1973 and the growing sensitivity to agro-ecological issues, organic food grew in popularity (Ma and Joachim, 2006). In Europe and the United States appeared the first organic certification standards, starting an ongoing evolution of certifiers that nowadays includes 283 organic certification bodies around the world, operating in 170 countries (Reganold and Wachter, 2016).
In the 1970s and in the 1980s the major organic agriculture associations and research institutions in the world, such as FNAB (Federation Nationale d’Agriculteurs Biologiques), FiBL (Forschungsinstitut für Biologischen Landbau), and IFOAM (International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements) were founded.
In the 1990s, the organic food and farming system entered a new stage of growth. The movement became even more popular and both governmental and non-governmental organizations implemented and promoted organic agriculture. In 1991, the European Commission adopted EU regulation 2091/91 on organic agriculture, which was then implemented in 1993 and was granted
17
in almost all European Union countries since 1994. This regulation provided an important basis for many of the market and policy initiatives that have followed (Ma and Joachim, 2006).
The original regulations have been substantially revised, resulting in Council Regulation (EC) No. 834/2007 defining core organic farming principles and most recently the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 889/2008 setting out the detailed implementing rules. Both regulations came into force in 2009. Other than legal support, other kind of supportive measures have been introduced in Europe, like financial (like direct payments to support conversion) and communicative (information activities, communication, research, training and advice support) instruments (Stolze and Lampkin, 2009).
As a result, over the last three decades organic food and farming has continued to grow year-on-year across Europe. Since the mid-1980s, the total area of farmland under organic production has increased steadily to 10.3 million hectares and the total value of the EU organic retail market has doubled in 10 years, passing from €11.1 billion in 2005 to €24 billion in 2014 (Interational Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, 2016).
Is organic food and farming system resilient?
Food system resilience is the ability of the food system to withstand disturbances that could lead to disruption of the food supply (Stave and Kopainsky, 2015). As it has been emphasized, the global food system is losing resilience and is becoming increasingly unstable and susceptible to conditions of crisis (Suweis et al., 2015). Actually, European food production has been able to show a strong resilience during the past decades (Brzezina, Kopainsky and Mathijs, 2016); but despite this, in the previous paragraphs it has been highlighted how it is gradually becoming more vulnerable, due to a wide range of disturbances which may reduce its resilience.
Thus, the question is: is organic food and farming system resilient?
Organic agriculture emphasizes resistance and site-specific adaptation to changing soil, water and natural resource conditions (Niggli, Earley and Ogorzalek, 2007), making the system more resilient to disturbances such as climate change and weather unpredictability (Brzezina, Kopainsky and Mathijs, 2016). Moreover, organic food and farming system promotes diversity at all levels on the farms, including crop, fields, whole rotations, polycultures, different farm activities, and landscape preservation and enhancement. This results in many ecological services that enhance farm resilience enormously (Niggli, Earley and Ogorzalek, 2007) (Paloviita et al., 2016).
A diversified agroecological farming system, like organic agriculture, is also crucial to guarantee livelihood resilience. Livelihood resilience refers to the ability of people to secure the capabilities,
assets and activities required to ensure a decent living, particularly in the face of shocks (e.g. economic crises or environmental disasters) (International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food
systems, 2016). For example, diversified systems help reduce the risks that come with inconstant yields and seasonal scarcities and high-value markets and premiums, that often come with
18
organically produced food, guarantee better livelihood benefits (International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food systems, 2016).
Organic farming has potential to bring resilience to the European food system. Anyway, some contradictions in its endogenous structure must be overcome (Brzezina, Kopainsky and Mathijs, 2016), as the fact that it still remains a niche and it is falling into a conventionalization process that risks to end up infringing its core principles (Darnhofer, 2014).
In any case, no practical options other than organic agriculture have been proposed to address climate change, for example (Niggli, Earley and Ogorzalek, 2007). Moreover, organic farming is the fastest growing of all alternatives to the conventional food system (Brzezina, Kopainsky and Mathijs, 2016).
Melorose, Perroy and Careas recommend that to enhance resilience of the food system it is necessary to adopt policies that take into account (1) variety stimulation (2) sustainable management of resources organization and (3) learning capacity development (Melorose, Perroy and Careas, 2015). So far, the only system that can answer to these requisites is the organic food and farming system. It is effectively regulated at EU level and it receives public financial support (Brzezina, Kopainsky and Mathijs, 2016). This can be seenin the last CAP reform, where the central role of organic agriculture in climate change resilience is reaffirmed (Interational Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, 2014), or in some countries like Denmark, France, Germany and in Scotland, where improving sustainability and resilience is present in specific objectives and action points in their Organic Action Plans (Interational Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, 2015). Moreover, in 2014, the European Commission has adopted the legislative proposals for a new Regulation on organic production and labelling of organic products, with the objectives of: (1) removing obstacles to the sustainable development of organic production in the EU,
(2) guaranteeing fair competition for farmers and operators and allowing the internal market to function more efficiently,
(3) maintaining or improving consumer confidence in organic products (European Commission, 2014b).
The organic movement is also moving, and has recently been working towards an organic vision for fairer, more environmentally conscious and healthier food and farming systems by 2030, with expectations of 50% of Europe’s agricultural land being managed according to the four organic principles (Interational Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, 2016).
2. Research Questions
Taking into consideration the efforts from both policymakers and the sector itself, Organic Food and Farming System has potential to develop further. However, in face of the numerous challenges the following research questions arise:
19
• What are the lines of vulnerabilities in the European Organic Food and Farming System (OFFS)?
• How to make OFFS a major contributor to sustainable and resilient food and nutrition security (FNS) in Europe?
The OFFS is highly complex in nature and thus these questions cannot be addressed and answered in isolation and with single dimensional mindsets and tools. The increasing dynamic complexity of the organic food and farming system necessitates a systemic approach to develop solutions addressing the challenges holistically and deliver high-leverage interventions for problematic system behavior. Following this, an additional question arises:
• How useful are System Archetypes as tools for operationalizing the concept of food system resilience?
3. Aim & Objectives
The overall aim of this research can be summarized in several key-points, as follows:
• to explore the application of System Archetypes to serve as effective tools for gaining insights into resilience of the Organic Food and Farming System in the EU and
The aim will be achieved by fulfillment of the following objectives:
• To gain insights into the underlying system structures from which the selected vulnerabilities of the organic food and farming system emerge;
• To pinpoint and alert policymakers/organic sector to unintended consequences of current and proposed solutions for the resilience of the organic food and farming system;
• To investigate and consider the merits of the fundamental solutions for the organic food and farming system to develop sustainably.
20
4. Methodology: Seeing Through System Archetypes
Lenses
4.1 General methodological scheme
FIGURE 2-OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
OFFS is a complex and controversial system, which has for sure to face numerous challenges but has also the possibility to develop further. To see if OFFS can effectively be a major contributor to sustainable and resilient food and nutrition security (FNS) in Europe and to answer to the other research questions, methodology based on different sources has been developed.
The process has been divided in (1) data collection (2) data analysis and (3) development of the model. An overview of this approach is presented in Figure 2.
To understand at its best why I chose this method and which is its behavior, it is important to firstly understand what is system thinking and what are system dynamics tools.
4.2 Conceptual framework
The approach of systems thinking is fundamentally different from that of traditional forms of analysis. Traditional analysis focuses on separating the individual pieces of what is being studied while systems thinking, in contrast, focuses on how the thing being studied interacts with the other constituents of the system—a set of elements that interact to produce behavior—of which it is a part. This means that instead of isolating smaller and smaller parts of the system being studied,
21
systems thinking works by expanding its view to take into account larger and larger numbers of interactions as an issue is being studied. This results in sometimes strikingly different conclusions than those generated by traditional forms of analysis, especially when what is being studied is dynamically complex or has a great deal of feedback from other sources, internal or external (Aronson, 1996).
There are at least 10 distinct types of systems thinking tools. They fall under four broad categories: brainstorming tools, dynamic thinking tools, structural thinking tools, and computer-based tools. Although each of the tools is designed to stand alone, they also build upon one another and can be used in combination to achieve deeper insights into dynamic behavior.
More particularly, the category “dynamic thinking tools” contains two different approaches that are used in my research and that are strictly correlated:
1. Causal Loop Diagrams
Causal Loop Diagrams (CLDs) provide a useful way to represent dynamic interrelationships (Kim, 1994). They are graphic representations that aim aids in visualizing how different variables in a system are interrelated. CLDs consist of one or more feedback loops that are either reinforcing or balancing processes. A reinforcing (positive, amplifying) loop occurs when a small disturbance increases the magnitude of the perturbation. In contrast, a balancing (negative, stabilizing) loop befalls when the feedback loop effect counteracts or opposes the original change.
CLDs are constructed by using arrows and names of variables. Arrows represent the causal links between variables, which indicate both the direction of causality. If the variables change in the same direction, we have a positive link (+). Oppositely, if they change in the opposite direction, a negative link is created (-). Figure 3 shows an explicative example: if price is a cause and supply is an effect, a positive link indicates that an increase in price leads to an increase in supply. On the other hand, if supply is a cause and price is an effect, a negative link means that an increase in supply causes a decrease in price or vice versa a decrease in supply causes an increase in price (Brzezina, Kopainsky and Mathijs, 2016).
22
FIGURE 3- INDICATION OF CAUSAL LINKS, FEEDBACK LOOPS AND THEIR NATURE:(A)BALANCING LOOP (B);(B)REINFORCING LOOP (R)
WITH SIGNIFIED STOCK (RECTANGLE) AND DELAY (CROSSING THE CAUSAL LINK ARROW)
Source: Brzezina 2016
2. System Archetypes
The System Archetypes are highly effective tools for gaining insight into patterns of behavior, themselves reflective of the underlying structure of the system being studied (Braun, 2002). The Systems Archetypes represent a unique and distinctive combination of reinforcing and balancing processes, and some of them build on each other. They are:
1. Limits to Growth (aka Limits to Success): In a “Limits of Success” scenario, continued efforts initially lead to improved performance. Over time, however, the system encounters a limit which causes the performance to slow down or even decline, even as efforts continue to rise.
2. Shifting the Burden: In a “Shifting the Burden,” a problem is “solved” by applying a
symptomatic solution, which diverts attention away from more fundamental solutions. In an “Addiction” structure, a “Shifting the Burden” degrades into an addictive pattern in which the side-effect gets so entrenched that it overwhelms the original problem symptom. 3. Eroding Goals: In a “Eroding Goals” archetype, a gap between the goal and current reality
can be resolved by taking corrective action or lowering the goal. The critical difference is that lowering the goal immediately closes the gap, whereas corrective actions usually take time.
4. Escalation: In the “Escalation” archetype, one party (A) takes actions that are perceived by
the other as a threat. The other party (B) responds in a similar manner, increasing the threat to A and resulting in more threatening actions by A.
5. Success to the Successful: In a “Success to the Successful” archetype, if one person or group (A) is given more resources, it has a higher likelihood of succeeding than B (assuming they are equally capable). The initial success justifies devoting more resources to A, and B’s success diminishes, further justifying more resource allocations to A.
6. Tragedy of the Commons: In a “Tragedy of the Commons” structure, each person pursues
actions which are individually beneficial. If the amount of activity grows too large for the system to support, however, the “commons” becomes experiences diminishing benefits.
7. Fixes that Fail: In a “Fixes That Fail” situation, a problem symptom cries out for resolution. A
23
consequences of the “fix” exacerbate the problem. Over time, the problem symptom returns to its previous level or becomes worse.
8. Growth and Underinvestment: In a “Growth and Underinvestment” archetype, growth
approaches a limit that can be eliminated or pushed into the future if capacity investments are made. Instead, performance standards are lowered to justify underinvestment, leading to lower performance which further justifies underinvestment (Kim, 1994).
9. Accidental Adversaries: This archetype states that when teams or parties in a working
relationship misinterpret the actions of each other because of misunderstandings, unrealistic expectations or performance problems, suspicion and mistrust erode the relationship. If mental models fueling the deteriorating relationship are not challenged, all parties may lose the benefits of their synergy.
10. Attractiveness Principle: This archetype states that the result sought by a firm and which is
the target of a growing action may be subject to multiple slowing actions, each of which represent an opportunity and an opportunity cost to managers. Insight into the interdependencies between the slowing actions is a critical insight into deciding how scarce resources should be utilized to reduce or remove the slowing actions (Braun, 2002).
Each archetype represents a particular pattern of behavior over time that can be graphed and depicted in a causal loop diagram (Kim and Anderson, 1998).
FIGURE 4-GENERAL ARCHETYPE
Source: Braun 2002
The System Archetypes can normally be applied as diagnostic or prospective tools. Diagnostically, archetypes help recognize patterns of behavior that are already present and that need to be better understood. They serve as the means for gaining insight into the underlying systems structures from which the archetypal behavior emerges. This is the most widespread use of the archetype and is the one I mainly adopted in my research.
Prospectively, System Archetypes are very useful for planning. In fact, they can be applied to test whether policies and conditions and variables under consideration may be altering the system in such manner as to produce the archetypal behavior. If it is the case, remedial actions can be taken before the changes are adopted and embedded in the system’s structure.
24
However they are used, it is important to underline that they do not describe problems specifically, but only globally. For this reason, integrating them with other systems thinking tools that are available could be a better solution (Braun, 2002).
4.3 Data collection
I collect my data directly by participating in workshops and conferences and indirectly by reassembling the outcomes of a workshop that took place on 5 April 2016 in Driebergen, The Netherlands.
Specifically, this workshop occurred at the 10th European Organic Congress “Transforming food and
farming through organics” and involved approximately 150 policymakers, farmers, retailers, certification bodies, NGOs and other experts. They were asked to focus on the organic food and farming system, and especially on the production and consumption organic food. After a brainstorming session, the participants have been requested to answer the following questions: (1) What are the challenges for the sustainable development of organic food and farming system in Europe? (2) How can policymakers, the organic farming sector and organic movements address these challenges?
The outcomes have then been listed and ordered into a final report, and utilized in my “Result” and “Discussion” sections.
I had the opportunity to collect data also actively, by participating in the 2016 EU Agricultural Outlook Conference, that took place in Brussels on 6 and 7 December 2016.
FIGURE 5-PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION JEAN-CLAUDE JUNCKER OPENS THE 2016EUAGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK
CONFERENCE
25
During the first day, EU Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development Phil Hogan stressed the importance of having a sustainable agricultural production: “A […] principle which I firmly believe
we must all adhere to is a more sustainable system of agricultural production. […] The challenge of food security, like the challenge of climate change, is not going away.
”
The first day panel discussion focused on policies and political questions of agricultural sustainability and climate change. EU Commissioners for Climate Action and Energy, Miguel Arias Cañete, and for Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Karmenu Vella were present, and established high-level panel discussions. During his speech Cañete said:“We should take into account all environmental challenges (such asdeforestation, biodiversity, soil, air, water), and at the same time safeguard livelihoods for people in rural areas.”. Vella, for its part, underlined the need to use natural resources more efficiently;
specifically, he talked about soil, water and biodiversity, which are seriously endangered: “The first
element we need to produce healthy food, is healthy soil. […] The second element which is crucial for the sector is water. […] The third element is biodiversity […] we need to get agriculture back onto a more sustainable path. We need a more ecological approach, where we look at agriculture and farming as part of our wider environment. There are so many benefits from a more agro-ecological approach, especially for the productivity of our soils; but also for our water, and our biodiversity”.
During the second day, commissioners, experts, stakeholders and farmers discussed about medium-term prospects for the EU agriculture, considering arable crops and biofuels, income, sugar production, dairy, meat and wine, olive oil and fruit and vegetables markets.
The outcomes of this Conference show how a sustainable agricultural production in Europe is not a choice anymore, but a priority.
On the 9th of February, I joined a workshop entitled “Towards a Sustainable and Resilient Food and
Nutrition Security in Europe (FNS)” organized by the TRANSMANGO Consortium in Brussels.
FIGURE 6-TRANSMANGO WORKSHOP
26
TRANSMANGO is an European project; its aim is “to obtain a comprehensive picture of the effects of
the global drivers of change on European and global food demand and on raw material production. The research focuses on the vulnerability and resilience of European food systems in a context of socio-economic, behavioral, technological, institutional and agro-ecological change and aims to enhance understanding of the new challenges and opportunities that the food sector will face in the future” (TRANSMANGO, 2017).
The workshop involved many experts coming from all over Europe, included my relator Natalia Brzezina who was also one of the organizers.
The participants have been divided into small groups, in order to better interact and discuss the following five points: (1) persisting food insecurity among vulnerable groups, (2) rising prevalence of obesity and other food-related diseases, (3) substantial food losses and waste, (4) deteriorating natural resources and (5) mounting pressure on human resources. The results brought to the formulation of recommendations and advices to overcome these challenges: alternative agriculture systems have been widely discussed and taken into account by the experts, as a potential solution. The general outcomes of the workshop will soon be used to feed a TRANSMANGO Policy Brief. I supported the outcomes recollected from these workshops and conferences with an extensive literature review, as well as secondary data. These included pertinent EU regulations, policies and research papers.
4.4 Data analysis
Data, outcomes, literature review and policy documents have successively been grouped and synthetized, with the intention of extrapolate relevant facts, figures and statistics to construct the System Archetypes. This has been done starting from some key points, which I used as main elements to build the Archetypes and commencing the reasoning. As the analysis was going on and taking a shape, correlations between different elements have then been researched and constructed while ensuring substance and significance of the links. This process has been successively verified by examining my group of data: in fact, every relation that I found is confirmed by studies, experiments and outcomes provided by the literature and experts.
Then, I created the loops, adding positive or negative feedbacks (Figure 7).
I will clarify this method with an example. In Limits to Growth Archetype (see Figure 11), a balancing loop B: labor requirements is present, showing a simple reasoning: more land converted to organic system more labor force requirements more time and frequency of field operations higher costs. This behavior, that could be seen as logic, is confirmed by different authors in their studies, like Schneeberger, Darnhofer and Eder and Crowder and Reganold.
27
FIGURE 7–EXAMPLE OF DATA ANALYSIS PROCESS
4.5 Development of system archetypes for organic food and
farming system
In the following chapter, the main challenges and factors that affect organic food and farming system will be analyzed and investigated by using six principal System Archetypes as lenses. This requires a basic level of analysis, necessary to understand which is the main problem, identify a proper solution and explore the implications.
Using System Archetypes as lenses is like wearing a special pair of glasses: if a certain situation is looked through the lenses of “Shifting the Burden” some different behaviors will appear than the ones that could be seen through the “Tragedy of the Commons” Archetype. The choice between different Archetypes must be made depending on what insight we want to achieve (Kim and Anderson, 1998).
After detecting the proper Archetype, I started to build it following the guidelines presented by Braun (Braun, 2002) and Kim and Andersen (Kim and Anderson, 1998). The guidelines describe and provide: (1) a general introduction to the Archetype (2) the dynamic theory (3) the general behavior over time and (4) applications of the Archetype and related examples; moreover, a template and instruction about how to construct a proper Archetype in seven action steps, starting from a scenario, are provided. Solutions and suggestions about how to manage the problem are presented as well.
Following this pathway, I mapped every single selected challenge and then developed a story, using all the recollected data, policy documents and literature reviewed over time. Afterwards, I fit it into the Archetype template, creating a proper System Archetype and representing a model of the organic food and farming system scenario.
In order to do that, I used a proper software called VENSIM. Vensim is a simulation software used for developing, analyzing and packaging dynamic feedback models. It provides a graphical modeling interface with stock and flow and causal loop diagrams and can be utilized for qualitative or quantitative analysis.
In this thesis, the research has been conducted qualitatively.
Key point/main element Correlated element n°1 Correlated element n°2 Correlated element n°3
28
5. Results
In the following sections I tried to represent the organic food and farming system scenario in Europe, by showing its main vulnerabilities through six selected System Archetypes Lenses. This will then allow me to answer the research questions, and in particular: what are the lines of vulnerabilities in the European Organic Food and Farming System? How to make OFFS a major contributor to sustainable and resilient food and nutrition security in Europe?
5.1 Limits to Growth: entry points for external disturbances
“This archetype states that a reinforcing
process of accelerating growth (or
expansion) will encounter a balancing process as the limit of that system is approached.” (Braun, 2002)
The European organic sector is continuously increasing. Data shows that in 2014 there were almost 260,000 organic producers, a number that grew by 57% over the past decade. Moreover, organic agricultural land area increased by 60% since 2005 (Interational Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, 2016) (Errore. L'origine riferimento non è stata trovata. & Figure 10).
FIGURE 9-DEVELOPMENT OF ORGANIC PRODUCERS AND PROCESSORS IN EU-28
Source: Meredith & Willer 2016
FIGURE 8–LIMITS TO GROWTH ARCHETYPE TEMPLATE
29
FIGURE 10-GROWTH OF ORGANIC FARMLAND IN EUROPE
Source: Meredith & Willer 2016
However, the growth proceeds at a decreasing rate: in 2014, organic land increased only by 1,1% and between 2013 and 2014 organic producers decreased by 0,2%. Moreover, in some Member States conversion has blocked completely (Interational Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, 2016).
It seems as if the sector reached a point of stagnation. But which are the main factors that are affecting this growth and making OFFS in Europe approaching its limits?
The growth of the organic sector and its main limiting factors resembles the System Archetype “Limits to Growth” (Figure 11). The feedback loop R: organic production growth is a reinforcing mechanism behind the development of the organic sector. It shows that more land area cultivated under organic management translates into more production of organic food. Higher production leads to more profitability and more farmers managing their farms according to organic rules. Accordingly, organic farmers invest to obtain more organic land, while at the same time conventional farmers being attracted by the experience of the organic farmers convert into the organic system. The delay mark on the connection between conversion and organic land signifies the delay of the conversion period (minimum 2 years) imposed by the Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 (European Commission, 2008).
Yet the reinforcing feedback loop R: organic production growth is limited by many different balancing processes. Figure 11 exemplifies some of them. I acknowledge existence of many others limiting processes, yet for clarity they are not included.
First set of balancing loops B: organic production and B: organic consumption relates to the interplay between supply and demand on the organic market that determines the price of organic food and hence the trade-off between the attractiveness of organic food to consumers and to producers. This interplay is crucial for the development of the organic sector. According to policymakers and
