4.6 Discussions about other important values
4.6.5 Summary of other important values
Animal health and welfare were discussed in most countries but they were rarely the central issue. The most detailed discussions on this topic were in groups in the Netherlands. Dutch participants considered that disease prevention and self-
regulation were important for animal health, and that respect for the integrity of the animal was the basis for animal welfare. There was some controversy about animal welfare in Italy, regarding whether or not organic farmers should be allowed to tether their cattle and what implications this has for meat quality. Some negative comments about the level of bureaucracy in Austria illustrate that animal welfare is not unanimously seen as important by all organic producers. However, discussions in the UK and Switzerland focused on the need of producers to respond to this area of growing importance to consumers.
Close proximity between production and consumption was generally discussed as a natural progression from other organic values. Especially in Austria this was seen as an alternative development path to globalisation. The discussions related to this value touched on various dimensions, such as increasing farm income by getting higher prices, direct communication and building trust with consumers, reducing food miles, and being able to provide a fresher and more authentic product.
In all countries the holistic approach was discussed as a central value or principle of organic agriculture, important beyond the farm gate. In all countries except Italy, the most detailed discussions on this topic occurred among researchers, followed by experienced organic producers; they considered the farm and the food network as systems, with reference to a cycle of health that begins with healthy soils and leads to healthy people. The systems approach was seen as important in problem solving. Participants considered that problems ought to be seen as indicators of a lack of balance or harmony in the system, and that solutions should be found by
understanding how the parts of the system work together. Many participants saw this systems perspective of organic agriculture as a feature that distinguishes it from the conventional sector.
Organic organisation staff in the IFOAM EU group referred to “unlearning” of agriculture, meaning that producers have to disregard or forget some of the things that they had learned in their agricultural education.
Six years they went to University, and they were taught just that one way of
farming. So it is very difficult to forget and sort of empty your brain of all the
things that you are taught and then try to understand something logical (IFOAM,
Of).
In most countries, producers displayed a considerable amount of pride about their profession; they were proud of the skills they had learned to become good organic farmers and of making their systems work. The UK and Italian producers referred to the need to re-learn (see 4.6.3 Holism and systems thinking) agricultural skills and to solve problems with a systems rather than input-oriented approach. They described organic production as a continuous challenge, demanding but flexible, and they enjoyed engaging with innovative ideas.
Producers commented on gaining greater personal and job satisfaction than they had done prior to organic conversion, and they attributed this to the recognition received from consumers and from society. They appeared to take their professional
responsibility seriously.
For many organic farmers it was important to work independently, and this contributed to their high levels of commitment and involvement in the production systems. Although some negative comments were made about too much
bureaucracy, the majority of participants did not seem to experience standards and rules as restrictions on their independence. The value-driven organic systems, adopted by their own free will, gave them greater freedom. An important element contributing to this feeling of independence was that they did not have to buy fertilisers and chemicals.
Only a few conflicts were mentioned in relation to other organic values. Swiss organic farmers felt “penalised” by organic outlets that sell a wide range of organic food products throughout the year from around the world. They also discussed the decreasing time and money spent on food and retailers ignorance about the real costs of production. It was thought that agriculture in general focuses on the needs of humans and necessarily involves interference with nature, but that organic agriculture tends to be more respectful towards the whole system. However, many producers were concerned that this “organic identity” might be under threat from external pressures and further market concentration.
5 Comparing and contrasting results
This penultimate chapter brings together important findings and groups them according to the objectives of the focus group work:
o to identify the range of values and related attitudes among organic producers in Europe
o to explore differences of values among groups of organic producers and between regions
o to explore differences between producers and other organic stakeholders, in particular through comparison with work on organic consumers in the OMIaRD project
The first section compares the importance of motives and values among the different stakeholder groups. Subsections compare the importance of values and motives between countries and then between different types of producers. The subsequent section compares first associations and value between of producers in this study with findings about consumers from the OMIaRD project. The final section examines how values related to each of the four principles of organic farming and other important value categories were expressed among all types stakeholders. This forms the basis for conclusions and recommendations presented in the final chapter.