Blogging continues at http://ruralsociologywageningen.wordpress.com/

A few months ago I started this weblog with the aim to regularly report about research and education activities of myself and my group (the Rural Sociology Group of Wageningen University). As more of my colleagues were considering to blog about their activities, the decision was made to set up a group weblog. I therefore decided to stop with this weblog and to continue blogging through our Rural Sociology Weblog. The weblog is still under construction but we will start blogging from now onwards and aim to produce daily blogs about themes and topics such as multifunctional agriculture, rural development, food, regional development, rural governance and policies, research and education. Blogs will be partly in Dutch and partly in English and will be written by staff members, guest visitors and students.

From CAP to CRP and CFP

The Common Agricultural Policy is in a continuous process of reforms. Price and market regulation are gradually reduced, income support is increasingly linked to the provision of public goods and a gradually growing portion of the budget is made available for rural development activities. In general these reforms are inevitable and timely, yet I wonder if they are sufficient considering today’s realities and tomorrow’s challenges. In particular I am thinking of the blurring boundaries between urban and rural (in particular with regards to economic activities and employment opportunities), urbanisation of the countryside, the diminishing economic significance of agriculture in rural areas and the rapid increase of food-related health (obesity, malnutrition) and environmental (waste, food miles)problems. As many nation states as well as supranational governing bodies (e.g. the European Commission) fail to address these realities and challenges in a convincing and comprehensive way and also because of the regional/local specificity of problems and challenges, we are now witnessing the rapid rise of peri-urban regions engaged in developing rural development strategies (e.g. the PURPLE network) and cities (e.g. London, Amsterdam, Rotterdam) designing and implementing their own food strategies. Although I am strongly in favour of the subsidiarity principle I do believe that local/regional initiatives can develop more efficient and effective when they fit within a broader policy framework at (supra)national level. In that respect I think that it would be favourable if the ongoing CAP reforms ultimately result in a disappearance of the CAP and the appearance of two new policy frameworks arising out of the CAP: a Common Regional Policy (CRP) focusing on the sustainable development of regions (encompassing both urban and rural areas) and a Common Food Policy (CRP) addressing the multidimensionality (health, environment, equity, employment, etc.) of food. A CRP would require a ‘merger’  of current rural and regional development policies (and thus the integration of DG Regional Policy and the rural development part of DG Agriculture and Rural Development), whereas a CFP would be based upon an integration of policies in the domains of agriculture, health, consumer protection, environment, transport, social affairs and equal opportunities. I am fully aware that this is utopian at this moment, yet in the longer run the notions of CRP and CFP may serve as a guideline for further policy reforms.

Is diversification desirable?

Should farms and rural regions specialize or is it, both at farm and regional level, more desirable to diversify? Based on ample research carried out by my group during the past decade I’m inclined to plea in favor of diversification. At farm level there is much evidence that diversification of economic activities is desirable:

• New sources of income can augment otherwise stagnating agrarian incomes.
• Farm households are less dependent on sectoral fluctuations.
• Job satisfaction on diversified farms is quite often higher than on specialized farms.
• Due to more frequent and intensive contacts with consumers / customers multifunctional farmers are better able to adapt to changing consumer and societal demands
• Multifunctional farmers generally have more interaction with the local community and collaborations with local entrepreneurs and this enhances social capital and may strengthen the local economy.

However, I have also met very successful multifunctional farms that attract a lot of visitors. One of the consequences is an increase in car traffic to and from the farm and  this can lead to clashes with members of the local community who favor the quietness of rurality. In such cases social capital my weaken. Another negative aspect of diversity at farm level is the fact that multifunctional farms are quite often confronted with competing policy objectives and have to deal with a high administrative burden.

 

At regional level there are also several arguments in favor of diversification:

• Diversified regions can provide a desirable living and working environment due to the proximity of different products and services. This, in return, can maintain or improve the quality of life in rural regions.
• Greater regional diversity leads to greater regional economic stability as fluctuations in incomes and employment opportunities diminish because downturns in sectoral economies have a much less disastrous impact on a diversified economy than on a specialized one. 
• Advantage of economies of scope: the costs of joint production of different products and/or services are lower than the sum of specialized production of the same products and services.

Although there is much evidence that more diversified rural and regional economies perform better in terms of competitiveness of the regional economy and quality of life, there are also problems associated with diversification. For instance, the success of the wine routes in Tuscany (a good example of rural diversification) lead to a rapid and substantial increase in land prices. This implies that for some people it might become too expensive to continue living in the area. An increase in the quality of life for some might imply a decrease for others. And … from a ‘district’ or ‘learning regions’ perspective too much diversification may also be counterproductive in terms of innovation, regional competitiveness and economic development.

The tension between rural and regional development

Last week I participated in a conference in Vienna entitled “Rural potentials for regional development“. One of the issues discussed in one of the workshops at that conference was the field of tension between rural development and regional development policies. Rural development policies focus on the sustainable provision of agriculture’s primary products (food, feed and fibre) and on the other good and services provided by farmers, such as biodiversity, landscape, tourism and care in rural areas. The importance of urban and peri-urban agriculture tends to be somewhat neglected. Regional development policies focus on spatial development and on the economic development of and employment in industry and non-agricultural or rural activities and services. The importance of agriculture in regional development largely remains unnoticed.  

The distinction between rural and regional development is becoming increasingly flawed as in large parts of Europe, especially in the more densely populated areas, boundaries between urban and rural are blurring resulting in the emergence of metropolitan regions. Furthermore all kinds of businesses (manufacturing industry as well as secondary and tertiary services), than once were typical for urban areas are now moving to and/or emerging in peri-urban and rural regions. Also we are beginning to see increasing interactions between different kinds of economic activities. Sustainable regional development, in particular in metropolitan and peri-urban regions, can only be achieved when regional development policies and rural development policies are better aligned (or even integrated into one new policy). This requires regional policies to take more notice of the importance of rurality in regional development and rural policies to acknowledge the need of supporting sustainable agricultural development in urban and peri-urban regions.

Rethinking US food policy

I have been out of office a lot the last weeks and in this era of e-communication this automatically means a full e-mail box. Yesterday and today I’ve made an effort to read, answer and either save or delete most of them. Among the many mails, was one that contained a link to an article written by Michael Pollan, entitled ‘Farmer in Chief’, in which he addresses the president-elect (the article was written before the elections) by saying “It may surprise you to learn that among the issues that will occupy much of your time in the coming years is one you barely mentioned during the campaign: food.”  In a very interesting article Pollan, well-known for his well-written and thought-provoking books ‘The omnivore’s dilemma’ and ‘In defence of food’, outlines his agenda for food policy reforms. What I particularly like and admire in his essay is his comprehensive approach to food, i.e. he convincingly demonstrates that food is related to a multitude of problems that contemporary society is facing: health problems (obesity and maltnutrition), environmental pollution, social and economic inequalities, etc… According to Pollan, the many food-related problems of contemporary society are on the one hand due to the reliance of the food system on fossil fuels and on the other hand due to an eating culture based on fast, cheap and easy food . The policy agenda he proposes to overcome the many problems and its causes are threefold: 1) to resolarize the farm, 2) to reregionalize the food system and 3) to rebuild eating culture. For those interested in Pollan’s vision, a 90 minute interview with him can be found on the website of the Dutch documentary programme Tegenlicht (Backlight).

The Good Food Movement in the USA

From 22 – 30 October 2008 Prof. Cornelia Butler Flora  (Professor of Agriculture and Life Sciences and Sociology and Director of the North Central Regional Center for Rural Development at Iowa State University, USA) visited the Netherlands to participate in the European Eemland Conference and the Agriculture in Transition Conference. She concluded her stay in the Netherlands with a seminar for the Mansholt Graduate School of Social Sciences of Wageningen University about the Good Food Movement in the USA. It was verty interesting to learn more about the genesis of this movement, in particular how a diversity of interests are somehow aligning around this broad notion of good food. To give some examples of this diversity of social movements and interests:

• The ‘labor movement’ emphasizing a fair income for agricultural workers;
• The ’social justice and economic security movement’ seeking affordable food (especially for the lower income groups);
• The ’anti-globalization movement’ in favour of locally produced food; 
• The ‘green movement’ focussing on strategies to reduce the environmental impact of food production;
• The ‘humane farming movement’ addressing animal welfare concerns in food production;
• The ‘anti-obesity movement’ advocating healthy eating as part of a healty lifestyle;
• The ‘farmers’ movement’ striving for a fair farmers’ price.

The notion of ‘community based economic development’ seems to be a development trajectory capable of uniting these sometimes competing (e.g. fair farmers’ price vs. affordable food for low-income groups) movements and interests. Although still a niche, the ‘good food movement’ is growing rapidly. It would be very relevant for many European countries, regions and cities to learn more about this ‘good food movement’ and the role played by the food policy councils that many states and cities in the USA have. These councils are also seen as a means to enhance food democracy.