Some results from the Farmer Consumer Partnership project

(1)

n

tr

e

h

Ce

n

ear

ch

_Some

_results

_from

_the

_Farmer

Consumer Partnership project

c Res

e

_Consumer

_Partnership

_project

rgani

c

Susanne

Padel

h

e O

r

T

h

(2)

n

tr

e

_Farmer

_Consumer

_Partnership

_project

(CORE FCP)

h

Ce

n

_(CORE

_‐

_FCP)

ear

ch

•

Look for innovative generic communication

c Res

e

arguments that can strengthen the link between

producers and consumers in the European organic

rgani

c

sector

•

5 countries AT, CH, DE, IT, UK

h

e O

r

5 countries AT, CH, DE, IT, UK

T

(3)

n

tr

e

Project

Objectives

h

Ce

n

j

•

Identify Organic Plus values (more than EU

ear

ch

Identify Organic Plus values (more than EU

organic regulations)

c Res

e

•

What was used by more then 100 SME

companies on websites and leaflets

rgani

c

•

Testing of the most promising communication

arguments with consumers (Different

h

e O

r

arguments with consumers (Different

methods)

•

R d ti

T

h

_•

_{Recommendations}

(4)

Resources Biodiversity GI C A L Landscape Care farms EC O L O Care farms Social projects & charity Family farms & farmers in need Working conditions of employees

S

OC

IA

L

Working conditions of employees

Added value in the region

S

C

Fair price - farmer oriented Fair price - farmers and consumers Fair price - additional value

E

C

ON

OM

I

Local & regional Communication & information

R

AL

/

R

(5)

Generic

arguments

tested

Protection of Biodiversity

Protection of the diversity of wild plant and animal varieties on the farms

Protection of traditional plant varieties and traditional

animal breeds

Animal Welfare

When the animals are transported to the slaughterhouse, they are

accompanied and looked after by a

Animal husbandry according to the animals' physical,

physiological and behavioural

Welfare

person they know in order to reduce unnecessary stress.

physiological and behavioural Needs

Regional P d ti

Using regional supply chains to reduce

f d il Support of the local economy

Production food miles pp y

Fair prices

Of the total price for every litre of milk, five cents are additionally paid to local Farmers

The farmers get fair prices that allows them to secure their livelihood and future

Farmers their livelihood and future

Care farms Integration and participation of

disabled people in the work place

Providing support and work for disadvantaged young people and former convicts people and former convicts

Social Support for family farms Good working conditions for farm workers

C lt ral Re i al of traditional artisan Preser ation of the local

Cultural features

Revival of traditional artisan processing methods

(6)

n

tr

e

Information-Display-Matrix (1200 consumers, May/June 2008)

h

Ce

n

ear

ch

c Res

e

rgani

c

h

e O

r

T

(7)

n

tr

e

Most

important

attributes

by

Fi

i

(%)

h

Ce

n

_First

_accessions

_(%)

0 5 10 15 20 25

ear

ch

Animal welfare

c Res

e

Regional production

Fair prices for farmers

rgani

c

Product price

Care farming

All UK

h

e O

r

Care farming

Social criteria

T

h

Biodiversity

Cultural features

(8)

n

tr

e

Focus

groups

h

Ce

n

g

p

•

3 per country in April

ear

ch

3 per country in April 2009 (1 with regular)

c Res

e

•

Animal welfare <

regional, followed < fair

rgani

c

price

•

Most participants

h

e O

r

Most participants

disliked

Emotional touch (hearts)

T

h

Emotional touch (hearts)

and cartoon pictures Lack of relevant info

(9)

n

tr

e

h

Ce

n

Willingness

to

pay

ear

ch

c Res

e

80 consumers per

country

rgani

c

Nov 2009

6 choice sets

h

e O

r

6 choice sets

with and without

T

h

_OrganicPlus arguments

(10)

n

tr

e

Results

h

Ce

n

•

Many organic companies use arguments not covered

ear

ch

Many organic companies use arguments not covered

by standards in communication

c Res

e

•

Consumers are most interested in

‘regional/ local production’

rgani

c

‘animal welfare’

‚fair prices to farmers’

h

e O

r

‚fair prices to farmers

T

(11)

n

tr

e

Local

and

regional

production

h

Ce

n

g

p

•

Not really covered

Local/regional

ear

ch

in in any organic

y

standards

Local/regional supply and

markets

c Res

e

•

Environmental,

PGI/PDO

rgani

c

,

economic

and

cultural

aspects

•

requirements

New

labelling

EU agriculture or

h

e O

r

EU agriculture or

Country code

T

h

(12)

n

tr

e

What

we

learned

about

“local”

h

Ce

n

ear

ch

_•

_Specific_labelling_of_the_place_of_production

e g from Berkshire (or farm address) rather than more

c Res

e

.e.g. from Berkshire (or farm address) rather than more

abstract terms “regional product”

Allows consumer to judge themselves how local it is

rgani

c

Allows consumer to judge themselves how local it is

Concepts of ‘local/regional’ vary between consumers and

h

e O

r

_product_categories

•

Potential confusion with other labels

T

(13)

n

tr

e

Impact on animals

h

Ce

n

Impact

on

animals

Animal health d lf

ear

ch

_•

_Emphasis

_on

_principles

_in

the

EU

regulation

and welfare is enhanced

c Res

e

• Potential

conflicts

i h

h

l

• Some

coverage

in

rules

rgani

c

_with

_other

_goals

• Defining

animal

welfare?

• Welfare

certification

h

e O

r

welfare?

Wellbeing in the

sense of health and

welfare

protocols

e.g. Freedom food

Welfare quality project

T

h

welfare

Animals rights

Welfare quality project

(14)

n

tr

e

For

example

h

Ce

n

p

ear

ch

_Products:_Meat

A ti iti A i l l ht d th f t th

c Res

e

_Activities:_Animals_are_slaughtered_on_the_farm_or_at_the small local abattoir nearby to reduce the transport

rgani

c

distance. Slaughter is as quick and painless as

possible.

h

e O

r

Claims: ’Well Hung Meat company’; Tasty, organic and

produced to the highest standards of animal welfare

T

(15)

n

tr

e

_What

_we

_learned

_about

_animal

_welfare

t

h

Ce

n

_arguments

•

Consumers like animal welfare arguments and

ear

ch

Consumers like animal welfare arguments and

associate organic with high animal welfare

c Res

e

•

Several issues already in standards

Free range

rgani

c

Access to pasture

•

Difficult to justify additional premiums

h

e O

r

Difficult to justify additional premiums

•

Difficult to identify clear organicPlus arguments that

T

h

_can_be_verified

(16)

n

tr

e

h

Ce

n

_Economic

_impact

_&

_fairness

ear

ch

_•

_{Not addressed directly in}

any organic standard

Fair and equitable financial returns

for all operators

c Res

e

_{for all operators}

y

g

rgani

c

Products available and affordable to

consumer

h

e O

r

•

Fairtrade standards

•

Organic ethical trade

consumer

T

h

Organic

ethical

trade

(17)

n

tr

e

For

example

h

Ce

n

p

Products: Dairy

ear

ch

_Activities:_A_fair_price

for local farmers ensuring their

c Res

e

_for_local_farmers,_ensuring_their

existence and future

rgani

c

Claims: ’Fair prices for our dairy

h

e O

r

Claims: Fair prices for our dairy farmers: 5 cents directly; activ for the domestic organic farmers

T

h

for the domestic organic farmers

as fair prices ensure the future.

(18)

n

tr

e

Fair

price

arguments

h

Ce

n

p

g

•

Willingness to pay only in Germany and Switzerland

ear

ch

Willingness to pay only in Germany and Switzerland

Where argument has already been used for several

c Res

e

_years

•

Consumers in UK focus groups clearly disliked

rgani

c

thinking about farmer welfare

•

Appears product specific

h

e O

r

Appears product specific

Might work for dairy but not for eggs

Cl i d t b ifi bl

T

(19)

n

tr

e

Final

thoughts

h

Ce

n

g

•

EU regulation does not cover several areas that are of

ear

ch

•

EU regulation does not cover several areas that are of

concern to producers and consumers alike

c Res

e

•

Differences between what farmers like to say and what

consumers care about

rgani

c

•

Efforts for “additional claim” should be well targeted

Areas of clear difference

h

e O

r

Areas of clear difference That interest the consumer

T

h

_Where_claims_can_be_verified

•

Focus effort on communicating core concept of organic

(20)

n

tr

e

_{Acknowledgements}

_and

_further

i f

ti

h

Ce

n

_information

Thanks to all co‐workers and participants of the various

ear

ch

stages of the research

Financial support for the project provided by the

members of the CORE Organic Funding Body Network

c Res

e

members of the CORE Organic Funding Body Network

http://www.coreorganic.org/ is gratefully

acknowledged

Partners of the FP6 ERA NET project CORE Organic

rgani

c

_Partners_of_the_FP6_ERA_‐_NET_project,_CORE_Organic

(Coordination of European Transnational Research in

Organic Food and Farming, EU FP6 Project No.

011716)

h

e O

r

011716)

The UK member of this network is DEFRA

T

h

The UK member of this network is DEFRA