Different farm-level pathways

In-depth analysis of overall survey material further allowed the identification of dif- ferent farm-level pathways based on the overall diversity in lifespans of the first new rural development activity and the total number of new farm activities in 2011. Fig- ure 3.3 visualizes this diversity along both dimensions.

Starting from the premise that this number of rural development activities is a meaningful proxy indicator to assess farm-level multifunctionality in terms of stronger versus weaker, this enables the distinction between four trajectories with specific interrelations between lifespan (more recent versus longer) and strength of multifunctional agricultural pathways (stronger versus weaker). Again, in the follow- ing sections, these will be briefly described with a summary of underlying figures and percentages in Table 3.1.

3.10.1 Recent-weaker

A first group of farm-enterprises combines a more recent uptake, that is to say, less than the overall survey average of almost 11 years, with a lower total number of new rural development activities (less than the overall average of almost three ac- tivities). It concerns a group of relatively large farms, particularly in agricultural turn- over, where the economic importance of new farm activities is still somewhat lower, both in turnover as well as in percentage of total farm-family income. Except for a more outspoken wish for closer contact with consumers and citizens, the overall set

of drivers to engage in new farm activities differs little from the overall picture as presented before. Only ‘inspiring examples in the direct vicinity’ are somewhat more frequently mentioned, which suggests a growing presence and acceptance of new farm activities in farming and rural communities. This group of farmers continues to identify itself mostly with conventional farming and the agricultural growth-model corresponds with transition theory ideas about gradual changes in productivist ac- tion and thoughts and the relevance of transition boundaries. The higher percentage of farms that have reduced agricultural labour input and land use since the uptake of new activities, in combination with a somewhat lower confidence in farm suc- cession suggest still relatively weakly developed interrelations between agricultural and new farm activities. The vulnerability of this pathway further appears in the perceptions about future farm development prospects. More frequently than here- after presented pathways these are thought to depend on factors such as ‘approval of neighbours’, ‘potential tensions with other farms in the vicinity’ and ‘cooperation with other farmers and /or rural entrepreneurs’.

3.10.2 Longer-weaker

A second group of multifunctional farm-enterprises combines a beyond average longer history of engagement in new activities with a below average number of new activities. In transition theory vocabulary, the balance between non-productivist

Lifespan  of  first  MFL  ac1vity  

Number  of    MFL  ac1vi1es  

versus productivist action and thoughts shows relatively little change in time. An overall feature of this group of farm enterprises is that the uptake of new activities is more frequently motivated by family farm specific concerns such as ‘the wish for an own income by partner’ and ‘enlargement of farm succession opportunities’. It is also this pathway that most frequently combines additional income generation by new farm activities with off-farm income. Other family farm specificities appear in the importance attached to earlier work experience outside agriculture in relation to the uptake of new farm activities. As such, it is particularly this pathway that il- luminates the role of farmwomen. It is often their former professional experience, particularly in the health and educational sectors, that induces new farm activities during family life-cycle periods when off-farm income generation is more compli- cated (younger children) or during periods with relatively abundant available family labour (pre-succession periods). In addition to a relatively strong involvement in traditional activities such as agri-tourism and processing (e.g. cheese-making), this is also reflected in the frequency of care- provision and educational services, as more typical contemporary expressions of rural development activities with leading roles for farmwomen.

Another characteristic of this second pathway is that the longer lifespan of new farm activities on average goes along with greater financial significance, both in terms of turnover as well as contribution to family income. Compared to the foregoing pathway, this is accompanied by less confidence in conventional agricultural growth and a stronger conviction that own farming practices indeed differ fundamentally from conventional farming. In certain ways it confirms the importance of the time dimension in relation to alternative modes of the ordering of farm activity. However, this group of respondents also believes more frequently that overall farm activities are relatively weakly interwoven and certainly do not entail a clear rupture with conventional agricultural development. The new farm activities seem to be primarily driven by the wish to create an own labour domain among farm-women. This spe- cific family-farm feature goes along with less intention to expand the number of new farm activities, a more agriculturally oriented investment attitude, a stronger focus on global food markets and a less outspoken conviction that overall farm activities may enhance future farm succession opportunities. In short, the more prolonged engagement in new farm activities of this second group of farm-enterprises did not translate into a strong internalization of multifunctionality principles.

3.10.3 Longer-stronger

A third pathway combines a longer lifespan with a gradual expansion of total new farm activities in time. With an average of 4 new activities in 2010, this group may be indeed classified as strong multifunctional farm-enterprises. ‘Risk spreading’, ‘more influence on own business development’ and ‘logical additional activity since the start of new activities’ appear as relatively important drivers within this pathway. It is particularly in this third group where respondents refer to the contingencies in their business development. As emphasized in all kinds of ways, this development is certainly not strictly planned and should be perceived more as the unforeseen

outcomes of meeting with new people, of confrontations with new ideas and/or of the participation in new networks after starting the first new farm activity. Table 3.1 demonstrates that this resulted in, on average, large farm-holdings in terms of agricultural turnover and land use, the latter also by establishing lease constructions with professional nature organizations for extensive management in nature areas. More than within previous pathways, this coincides with a strong belief in multi- functionality, as expressed in ideas about the interdependencies of overall business activities, the distinctiveness in comparison to conventional farming, the signifi- cance of agricultural activity for overall business activities and the most outspoken rejection of the agricultural growth model. The relatively large scale of the different business activities appears also in overall farm employment, including a stronger dependency on external labour mobilisation. With an average of 5 fulltime labour equivalents, about 25% of this labour force originates from outside the family. An- other indicator for the gradual transformation of typical family farm logic concerns the strong conviction that farm continuity will require new organizational models to surpass the limitations and problems of inter-generational succession. It may be one of the reasons why, especially within this group, ‘support of public administrations’ is thought to be of crucial importance for future farm development.

3.10.4 Recent-stronger

The fourth and last pathway combines a more recent start with an already larger number of new activities, partly through a more frequent combined uptake of differ- ent new farm activities. Especially compared to the foregoing pathway, it concerns on average smaller agricultural holdings. Their already stronger multifunctionality is driven by ‘pulling new rural markets’, ‘additional income needs’ and - although in absolute terms still of little importance - ‘active institutional support’ and ‘interest- ing subsidies’. Thus, a specific combination of prominently present ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors transforms into an accelerated transition pathway towards strong multifunc- tionality. This focus on multifunctionality is also clearly expressed in ideas about the interwovenness of overall farm activities, the significance of agricultural activity for overall business development opportunities and relatively little trust in the agricul- tural growth model. The qualitative survey material reveals that this has often been accompanied by an extensification of agricultural activity through, e.g., a shift from intensive animal husbandry production to extensive cattle breeding, sometimes partly also motivated as providing opportunities to mobilise financial resources for investments in new farm activities through the sale of production or pollution rights. This specific way of mobilising farm-internal financial resources resonates with a more cautious overall farm investment attitude, although this may sometimes also be explained by the reluctance of financial institutions to finance new farm activi- ties. In any case, it is this fourth pathway that mostly clearly reflects a fundamental re-positioning of the role of agricultural activity in overall business strategy. That is: agricultural activity is often primarily perceived as a crucial instrument to create at- tractive environments for and to enlarge the distinctiveness of other business activi- ties. This re-positioning relatively often builds upon previous work experience out- side agriculture by family members and goes along with little concerns regarding the

impact of globalizing food markets on further business development opportunities. Surprisingly, representatives of this trajectory are less convinced about the impor- tance of new forms of territory based cooperation to strengthen their farm de- velopment potentials. Again, available qualitative material suggests that this may be explained by a relative strong reliance on the complementarity of overall farm- household internal skills and competences. Although it is admitted that cooperation with other farmers or rural enterprises is certainly of relevance, this, at the same time, is often seen as difficult to realize in practice and time consuming. Involved farm-families, therefore, seem to trust primarily own resources in the creation of new activities, skills, relationships and networks. In addition, the specific features of their new activities may explain their somewhat more reluctant attitude towards collective action. New activities such as care-provision and educational services are strongly overrepresented, whereas particularly these activities require new institu- tional arrangements with public actors regarding issues such as quality control and monitoring systems, price agreements, etc. Hence, it may be especially this group of multifunctional farms that simultaneously experiences the need for as well as the difficulties of new forms of collective action. Finally, overall survey material suggests that assumed degrees of formalization of new forms of cooperation may have been interpreted differently by respondents, which requires a more cautious interpreta- tion of the figures in Table 3.1.