Changes within the instit Changes within the instit Changes within the instit Changes within the institutional setting utional setting utional setting utional setting

4.5

4.5

4.5

Changes within the institChanges within the institChanges within the institChanges within the institutional settingutional settingutional settingutional setting

The work and composition of the Organic Food Council (OFC) is a reflection of how the organic food sector has been subject to co-ordination efforts across the three domains of the farming community, the

agriculture policy and the food market – both within organic farming and in the interrelationships between organic farming and general agriculture institutions.

The official purpose of OFC is to follow and assess the possibilities for developing organic farming. OFC has, since its formation in 1987, included members representing the Structure Directorate and the Plant Directorate of the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries as well as represen- tatives of the Ministry of the Environment and Energy (the Environmental

Protection Agency) and the Ministry of Health. Moreover all organic farming and general farmers’ organisations are represented, i.e. FBJ, LOJ, CCOBA, ACD, DFF and DFU. In addition, OFC includes representatives of the Trade Council of the Labour Movement and the Consumer Council. Finally, the OFC includes a series of specific expert members.

According to an organic farmers’ organisation representative involved in early phase of OFC, the members of the OFC were, from the outset, not clear on what to do with this new forum. Although, the OFC had been established in order to promote, supervise and assess the potential for developing the organic sector, this competence was not fully appreciated by its members. Regarding the general farmers’ organisations, they had not entered into the work whole-heartedly and gave it a low priority. As soon as possible they vacated their seats, leaving them to organic farmer members. This shows that there was not even any perception of organic farming being in opposition to that of general farming. Thus, in 1990, the members of the OFC had all become pro-organic farming and not least the representatives of the general farmers’ organisations felt committed to advance organic farming. This development is considered very important, as it formed the basis of the further development that took place in the organic sector (s: organic farmers’ organisation representative). From then on, it seems that the question of whether organic farming ought to be developed was no longer relevant. Instead, the central theme became how organic farming should be developed.

Between 1990 and 1994, the OFC was mainly carrying out low-profile executive duties with very little intervention from outside (s: organic farmers’ organisation representative). It seems in this period that the foundations of the working relationships within the OFC were laid down. Today, they are firstly characterised as being strongly pragmatic (s: three general farmers’ and environmental organisation representatives). The pragmatism seems related to the fact that all members were pro-organic and agreed that organic farming had a development potential. Secondly, the working process of OFC is open (s: three general farmers’ and

environmental organisation representatives) in the sense that members of the OFC agree that discussions are governed by the “best available argument” rather than by predetermined interests and organisational powers. The open working process only characterises the internal work of the OFC.

Thirdly, regarding external interrelationships the OFC is characterised by a relatively low public profile, which, according to three representatives of general farmers’ environmental and consumer organisations, makes the OFC very attractive to the Ministry for Food as an advisory forum. The low profile thus contributes to making OFC influential on the organic agriculture policy. Finally, the most avowed characteristic of the work in the OFC is the endeavour to reach consensus (s: organic producer, general farmers’, environmental organisation and consumer representatives). From an analytical point of view, these characteristics of the OFC is in

accordance with the concept of policy community8_{, which seems rather} unusual in a situation where a commission is composed of apparently opposing interests.

The working relationships within the OFC are reflected in the work of the two Action Plans. The work on the first Action Plan (API) in 1994/95 is characterised by substantial work within the OFC, which differed strongly from the work on OFC’s executive tasks (s: general farmers’

representative). The working relationships were intensified and the frequency of meetings increased and so were the personal contacts in between meetings. Through the action plans, OFC is characterised by all interviewees as the most influential forum on organic farming policy – not least after the implementation of API, which is considered very successful. The development of the institutional setting of organic farming falls into three distinct periods. The first period (1987 – 1990) is characterised by the question of where to decide? No one forum dealt in particular with organic farming topics across domains or between organic farming and general agriculture institutions – the OFC only represented a meeting place. In 1990, however, there seems broad agreement that the OFC was the most important forum regarding negotiations on organic farming topics. Between 1990 and 1994 the OFC took the shape of a policy community for which the main question was how to decide? The beginning of the work on API in late 1994 marked the start of the final period where work has intensified and obtained more influence in policy-making, focussing on what to decide?