Enhancing farmers’ networking strategies for sustainable development1

Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 469–478 www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Enhancing farmers’ networking strategies for sustainable development1 Natasja Oerlemans a, Ge´rald Assouline bc,∗ a

Centre for Agriculture and Environment (CLM), P.O. Box 10015-3505 AA Utrecht, The Netherlands b University of Social Sciences, Grenoble, France c Chaˆteau Jail—38570 Theys, France Received 13 August 2002; accepted 19 June 2003

Abstract This paper analyses farmers’ networking strategies for sustainable agricultural development. The focus is on internal barriers of farmers’ networks with respect to the management of the group and collective learning processes. These aspects determine to an extent the success or failure of collective strategies. Based upon case study material we will draw lessons and present ideas on how management and learning can be enhanced. We argue that in collective strategies the focus should not only be on the goal of the group, but that attention to the process of cooperation such as safeguarding coherence, monitoring and evaluation of goals and views, shared responsibility and balanced leadership is a prerequisite for effective collective action.  2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Collective action; Sustainable development; Rural development; Agriculture; Networking strategies

1. Summary Farmers’ networks can be an effective means to contribute to sustainable agricultural development. Farmers can learn from each other, with each other, act as a negotiating partner, invest collectively and involve relevant partners. However the potential of farmers’ networks, they are often confronted with barriers, such as lack of institutional support and organisational aspects of the network. We analyse farmers’ networking strategies for sustainable agricultural development. The focus is on the internal barriers of farmers’ networks with respect to management of the group and collective learning processes. These aspects determine to a great extent the success or failure of networking strategies of farmers’ groups. The paper aims to contribute to the question: ‘How

can collective learning and group management be improved to strengthen the networking strategies of farmers for sustainable development?’ The analysis is based on twenty case studies in France, Latvia, Denmark, Spain and the Netherlands;2 we will present here a Dutch case study as an illustration. The case shows that in the process of building, maintaining and expanding a network of farmers and other actors, the management of the group itself is often neglected. There’s a tendency to focus mainly on the artefact that brings the network together, such as marketing the product and the exchange of knowledge on environmentally friendly farming practices. Little interest in management aspects such as balanced leadership, collective responsibility, coherence of the group and enrolling capacity, turned out to endanger the

2

∗

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (N. Oerlemans); [email protected] (G. Assouline). 1 A modified version of this paper was presented at the 15th ESEE Conference, August 2001, Wageningen, The Netherlands 0959-6526/$ - see front matter  2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0959-6526(03)00105-7

This presentation is based on an European research project, called MAS (Making Agriculture Sustainable), supported by EU CEC DG XII (Environment and Climate Programme, 1994–1998). In this project, we have followed up some twenty farmers’ projects and networks in European countries (Denmark, France, Latvia, The Netherlands and Spain) during more than two years (1998–2000). All reports and cases are presented on the MAS homepage.

470

N. Oerlemans, G. Assouline / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 469–478

continuity of the network in the future. Especially when new members join with different expectations or when the outside world (policy, market, etc.) changes. Furthermore, collective learning within the group is often seen by members as a means to overcome technical barriers only. Learning to improve group performance, for instance through monitoring and evaluating common goals, impacts, results and strategies does not get a high priority. This may hamper the realisation of the goals of the network in the future. In general terms, the main management barriers farmer’s networks are confronted with are: 앫 Lack of coherence among members due to differences in perceptions and goals. 앫 Lack of self-management capacity with respect to balanced leadership, collective responsibility, evaluation and monitoring of impact and results. 앫 Lack of tools for collective learning beyond technical problems. Strategic priorities for successful management of farmers’ networks are: 앫 Sufficient agreement concerning vision, goals and approach. 앫 Safeguarding coherence as a continuous activity of the group/network. 앫 Maintaining faith in the rationality of collective action and solidarity, both from a social, technical and economical perspective. 앫 Invest in collective learning, monitoring and evaluation of goals, approach, rules, procedures and results regularly to make adjustments if necessary. 앫 Finding a balance between leadership and shared responsibility. In the paper it is argued that these lessons give an outline to enhance network performance, but that this is easier said than done. Especially because these networks place a high demand on the capacities and qualities of the members, which are often busy enough in managing their farm. We therefore see an important role for facilitators and advisors in supporting farmer’s networks aiming to contribute to sustainable agriculture. They could play a supportive role in enhancing collective learning processes of the group to improve their management. After a conceptual introduction, in section 3, we present the case of the Zeeuwse Vlegel project; a well known example of sustainable agriculture in the Netherlands. In section 4, we will conclude the lessons learnt and provide recommendations for improving farmers networking strategies.

2. Introduction 2.1. Towards a redefinition of agricultural development The agricultural revolution is often referred to as a period between the sixties and eighties during which an intense rationalisation of agricultural production took place. Scale enlargement, intensification and reduction of costs were the key elements in the realisation of higher yields and increased productivity in many western European countries. But it became also a story that has come up against its own intrinsic boundaries and contradictions [1]. Agricultural rationalisation and the enlarging gap between producers and societal demand took its toll (environmental problems, food crises. land pressure, lower prices, less opportunities to expand, world market forces, etc.) leading to a process of redefining the role of agriculture within society in many western European countries [2]. Now, twenty years later, a more silent but also a more radical agricultural revolution seems to take place. The changes do not only concern the contents and shape of agricultural production; the continuity of agricultural production itself and with this the future of thousands farms is at stake. In many cases throughout Europe it becomes clear that conventional production oriented agriculture is a dead end street for many smaller (family) farms [3]. Some of the farmers took up the challenge to reverse this process of marginalisation by exploring and developing new livelihoods, linked with their agricultural production. Resulting from this, a diversity of strategies to secure or regain income have emerged over the past years: conversion to organic farming, marketing of environmentally friendly products, agricultural nature conservation, agro-tourism, etc.[4, 5]. Many of the strategies include the notion of sustainability as a means to close the gap between societal demand and agricultural activities. Then, to assess the sustainability of projects and practices and make support policies efficient, we propose to use the normative proposition elaborated by Landais and Dockes [6]. A sustainable farm will have to be: 앫 Economically viable, taking into account the whole resources of the family unit. A question related to such a criterion is much debated: are public subsidies a contribution to economic viability or an element of fragility of the system? 앫 Psychologically liveable, which includes work conditions, mental pressure, density and quality of social relations with farmers and other actors of the local rural world. 앫 Ecologically reproducible, taking care of the renewal of natural resources, of landscape and biodiversity preservation.

N. Oerlemans, G. Assouline / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 469–478

앫 Transmissible, allowing new generations to live on/from the farm. According to this normative proposition, a farm needs to be based on those pillars to be sustainable; there is no compensation from one dimension to the other [7]. Those four dimensions are necessary conditions. In such a perspective, it is important to look at the limiting factors, the barriers; in fact, those limiting factors will determine the main efforts to be carried out to improve the degree of sustainability of the farm. In this paper we will focus on these strategies aiming at strengthening farmers’ networking activities for sustainable development. 2.2. The potential of collective strategies and networks The challenge is not only taken up individually. In many regions farmers organised themselves in informal groups, cooperatives, platforms, etc. [8]. It is evident that these regional initiatives might be an effective means in the exploration for sustainable development. Farmers can learn from each other, learn with each other, act as a negotiation partner, invest collectively and involve relevant partners (researchers, advisors). This collective search for new ways to secure the livelihoods of farmers, we call networking strategies [9]. Now that the World Wide Web exists anyone believes they understand what a network is. While twenty years ago there was still some freshness in the term as a critical tool against notions as diverse as institution, society, nation-state and more generally any flat surface, it has lost its cutting edge and is now the pet notion of all those who want to modernise modernization. “Down with rigid institutions”, they all say “long life to flexible networks” [10]. In the network literature, references are made at two different levels [11]: 앫 Considering network as an analytical device: this approach anchored into sociology (of science for instance, with the actor network theory) and organisation theory aims at illustrating social relations, whether in a firm, in inter-organisational ties, or in the construction of organisational environments. 앫 Viewing network as an organisational process, as a form of governance, a way to regulate relations among actors. In this, networking entails both the process that takes place within the group, between the members, as the process of involving other actors and getting engaged in relationships with the ‘outside’ world. In the actor network theory [12], techniques and actors

471

who participate in the conception process evolve together. Within the conception phase, actors will have to negotiate their initial objectives and interests; this negotiation will change their set of preference. Callon is quite close from Habermas [13] since the negotiation is not only the establishment of a compromise between given positions, but it is a creative process through which new “ visions of the world ” may be collectively invented (Joly, 1999); The set of actors who take part in the negotiation is not a closed set. At the opposite, it evolves during the process and one of the issues of an innovation process is to enlarge this set, in order not only to strengthen the process, but also to bring some variety within it. This enlargement of the process is presented as a translation process by Callon, ie the enrolment of an actor through the integration, the translation of its objectives within the project. This translation is the process of making two things that are not the same equivalent. Thus the network dynamic may be considered as a process of extension which is based on the integration of new technical characteristics, new objectives, and new actors. Despite the promising assets of farmers groups and farmers networking in the development of sustainable agriculture, farmers are often confronted with barriers. These barriers include outside factors, such as conflicting regulation, lack of institutional support, little room to experiment, lack of infrastructure, lack of adequate technical support, etc. But apart from the outside barriers, the groups are also confronted with their own barriers in terms effective management of the group and the organisation of collective learning [14]. The project networks we have analysed build a bridge between the farm and the spatial dimensions in terms of sustainability [15]: they are collective processes strongly anchored into a territory, with all its dimensions (physical, social, political, cultural, economic) for building sustainability. Former research [16] we have carried out shows quite clearly that unequal implementation process of sustainable agriculture largely depend on the local history and dynamic of stakeholders’ organisations. 2.3. Group management and collective learning Innovative farmers’ groups and networks have to deal with a large number of questions, topics and issues. When the group or network is organised around a marketable (set of) product(s) much attention is dedicated to the development of the concept of the product and of the rules and procedures for production. In addition the farmers spend time and energy in the construction of a distribution system and in finding and building a market for their products. This demands the enrolment of actors

472

N. Oerlemans, G. Assouline / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 469–478

such as distributors, retailers, processors, shopkeepers, etc. In other groups and networks the focus is on the development and transfer of knowledge and technology. This implies that farmers have to set up experiments and enrol researchers and extensionists. What is often forgotten, neglected or underestimated in the process of building, maintaining or expanding a network of farmers and other actors and their mutual relations and interactions, is the management of the group and the learning process itself. Management of groups and networks is an important issue: ‘good’ management enhances network performance while a lack of management or ‘bad’ management can be a barrier to realise sustainable farming. It is difficult to define the boundaries of good and bad management, but in this paper we aim to provide some insight in barriers and facilitating factors for the management of farmers’ groups and networks. Examples from the case of the Zeeuwse Vlegel network in the Netherlands will show how a farmers’ network is dealing with management issues, which obstacles they are confronted with and which lessons they have learned for the future. From this and the other twenty cases we studied in five European countries we will derive important general lessons for network management.

3. Collective strategies in practice: the Zeeuwse Vlegel Project 3.1. Background The undesirable side effects of the productivist era gave rise to an alternative route in wheat cultivation in the province of Zeeland: the Zeeuwse Vlegel. The objective of the Zeeuwse Vlegel was—and still is—the realisation of a sustainable and profitable cultivation of baking wheat and the coming about of a close contact between producers and consumers through the sale of bread and other products. The Zeeuwse Vlegel started in 1990 and has developed into a well-known example of sustainable regional quality production. The farmers who produce the wheat or other products for the Zeeuwse Vlegel constitute the heart of the Zeeuwse Vlegel foundation. The aim of the foundation is ‘to assess the feasibility of environmentally friendly agricultural production, to promote this production on conventional farms and to market the production. Furthermore the corporation aims to close the gap between consumers and farmers’ [17]. Since its start in 1990, the Zeeuwse Vlegel has established many connections in the province, on national and on international level, resulting in a large network of actors who support the Zeeuwse Vlegel in various ways. The network comprises agricultural research institutes, government bodies, processing and distribution compa-

nies, certification organisations, environmental organisations, financial institutes and education and advisory services. The reactions to the Zeeuwse Vlegel-approach were very sceptical at first, especially within the world of agriculture. Many farmers and agronomists did not believe in the possibility of cultivating baking wheat of a good quality, let alone without the use of chemical fertiliser and pesticides. Through the years, the farmers have gained the necessary experience of weed control, suitable varieties and the application of manure (see Table 1). They also managed to engage millers and bakers for selling the breads. At this moment, the Zeeuwse Vlegel is facing difficulties in the sales of its products. The sales of bread decreased slightly from 1996 onwards and the sale of other products such as beer and meat didn’t meet the expectations of the participants. Also the access to subsidies and financial support is decreasing, both because of the competition with emerging initiatives and the attitude of financiers. They think that the Zeeuwse Vlegel has to stand on its own feet after ten years and they perceive the Zeeuwse Vlegel as being less innovative. Last year the Zeeuwse Vlegel was celebrating its tenyear anniversary. Inevitably it was a time of reflection and of assessing the organisation, goals and results of the Zeeuwse Vlegel. It is clear that despite the successes and accomplishments of the Zeeuwse Vlegel, there are many questions to be answered and constraints to be tackled. In the following description we will focus on individual farmer strategies for being member of a collective, the networking strategies and the collective strategies the members of Zeeuwse Vlegel pursue. In the analysis we will focus on the barriers the Zeeuwse Vlegel is facing with respect to management of the network.

Table 1 Average annual production of wheat per hectare in the Zeeuwse Vlegel Year

Hectares

Net kg per ha.

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

5 25 155 103 65 60 74 72 69

5800 6240 6066 6770 5876 4810 6959 5706 5856

Source: annual report Zeeuwse Vlegel 1998. Note: the average net kg in conventional farming is 8500 kg per ha.

N. Oerlemans, G. Assouline / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 469–478

3.2. Farmer’s strategies Farmers participating in the Zeeuwse Vlegel have chosen for an alternative strategy in wheat cultivation. This strategy entails a combination of low inputs (pesticides and fertiliser), lower yields, quality production and higher prices. In addition, the farmers involved collectively control processing, distribution and sales of their wheat. Reasons for farmers to participate in the project differ substantially, especially between the farmers who set up the project and the ones who joined in later. For the first group of participants the wish to ‘turn the tide’ was the leading motive. They shared the idea that farmers themselves have to take the bull by the horns if they want something to be changed. They rejected the passive and defensive attitude of many of the arable farmers and of the farmers’ associations. They considered the Zeeuwse Vlegel as a means to regain control and power over their own profession and to cultivate wheat in accordance with demands from society for ecologically sound production. Environmentally friendly wheat cultivation is linked to the production of high quality baking wheat. The higher price of the wheat compensated for the lower yields. A higher price could be obtained because the members themselves organised the processing and distribution of the wheat. In the past decades, the direct relationships with consumers diminished because of the rationalisation of production and distribution. Wheat cultivation has evolved into producing for an anonymous market. Restoring the link between production and consumption has been another driving force for the early members to participate. The opportunity to experiment with an environmentally friendly way of production is another aspect that binds most of the early participants. Because of the increasing dependence on pesticides and the increasing pressure from the government to reduce pesticide use, conventional wheat cultivation was seen as a dead end street. The Zeeuwse Vlegel offered an offensive strategy to tackle these threats. Some of the early members converted their farms into organic after a few years. In contrast to the early members, the participants who joined in later were mainly interested in other aspects of the Zeeuwse Vlegel, such as a higher price for their wheat and the labour extensiveness of growing the wheat. Looking at the future of the Zeeuwse Vlegel, most members like to continue growing the wheat. Many are sceptical though about the future, because the acreage is still limited after ten years. Some of the members hoped to expand the acreage on their farms over the years, but the demand for Zeeuwse Vlegel bread is not sufficient. There is even a waiting list for farmers who want to grow the wheat, but the present circumstances do not allow the project to expand. Apart from this scepticism about the future, most members also see opportunities

473

for the next ten years. To some of them it is clear that profound changes are needed to be able to continue in the future. Suggestions for changes range from more products to another bread recipe. 3.3. Network strategies The start of the Zeeuwse Vlegel brought many actors together who used to be opponents or did not have direct relationships with each other. At first the network was built around three pillars: ideology, market and the public sector. Ideology comprises the farmers’ organisation (ZLTO, ZAJK), the environmental federation (ZMF) and the consumers association (Consumentenbond). The activities of these groups are mainly focussed on interest promotion. These actors came together to initiate the project and to set the aims and objectives of the Zeeuwse Vlegel. The second group of actors, the market parties (millers and bakeries) was involved to concretise ideas and to develop the bread concept. For the public sector, especially the Province of Zeeland and the Ministry of Environment contributed to the start of the project and provided the project with several subsidies to facilitate the activities. Once the Zeeuwse Vlegel had been started, other parties were involved according to the emerging needs of the project. The Zeeuwse Vlegel established links with research centres the advisory service and quality control organisations. Presently, the Zeeuwse Vlegel is trying to expand the market for their products by getting involved in another regional initiative, Produce from the Zeeland Countryside. 3.4. Collective strategies The unique organisation of the Zeeuwse Vlegel, being involved production, knowledge generation, marketing and promotion of sustainable wheat products, offers many grounds to initiate collective action. The collective strategies of the Zeeuwse Vlegel project take place in the following fields: 앫 Lobby, interest promotion, pressure group. 앫 Developing production methods for sustainable wheat production. 앫 Distribution and marketing, linking producers and consumers, promotion. Being active in those three fields implies that the Zeeuwse Vlegel embodies three different types of networks: 1) socio-political, 2) technical, and 3) economic. 3.4.1. Interest promotion and lobby The Zeeuwse Vlegel is at first an initiative of arable farmers who wanted to turn the tide by exploring the possibilities of sustainable arable production. By getting

474

N. Oerlemans, G. Assouline / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 469–478

organised in the Zeeuwse Vlegel, the farmers became an interlocutor for both regional and national governments on issues on rural development and sustainable production. For the Zeeuwse Vlegel, the strategy of producing sustainable wheat and being an interlocutor at the same time has important advantages: instead of spreading only words, they can make their efforts visible because there’s a tangible artefact, the bread. As an interlocutor for government bodies, the Zeeuwse Vlegel also contributed to the debate on availability of varieties. Because conventional research on varieties is often focussed on productivity aspects only, new suitable baking varieties for sustainable production systems are hardly available. Having a difficulty to obtain suitable varieties for their wheat cultivation, the Zeeuwse Vlegel started a lobby to change the regulations concerning the breeding and spreading of varieties. The Zeeuwse Vlegel succeeded in replacing Sunnan on the List of Varieties. This implies that the farmers are officially allowed to reproduce and trade seeds of this variety. Organic farmers have also shown serious interest in Sunnan. This means that the Zeeuwse Vlegel will not only reproduce seeds of Sunnan for the project itself, but also for other groups of farmers interested in diseaseresistant, high quality baking wheat varieties. The role and experiences of the Zeeuwse Vlegel are often quoted in political debates on genetic resources and regulations concerning breeding and trade of seeds and planting materials. 3.4.2. Knowledge exchange The first years, the collective strategy of the members within the project was also focussed on the technical aspects of sustainable wheat production. As a group they could learn from each other and get in touch with research institutes and advisors to obtain the necessary knowledge. By experimenting, exchanging information and obtaining experience from earlier years, they managed to grow the wheat without any major difficulties. In the first years the group of members regularly came together in the summer season to look at the crops and discuss problems and solutions. After a few years, the need to get together to discuss the growing problems was not there anymore. This lack of occasions to meet each other also affects the feeling of being part of a group. When farmers refer to the Zeeuwse Vlegel Corporation, not all of them express being part of a collective initiative. Especially the ones, who joined later, talk about ‘them’ and ‘they’ when they give examples of what is happening. One other reason for the lack of the feeling to be part of a collectivity is the limited impact of the Zeeuwse Vlegel on the farm as a whole, because the wheat production only takes place at 4 hectares of a farm of an average of 40 hectares. Other reasons can be found in the lack of success in terms of market growth and therefore the lack of enthusiasm to get actively

involved in the corporation. The ones who have been a member from the start talk more in terms of ‘we’ and ‘us’ and give examples of collective strategies such as experimenting with new varieties. 3.4.3. Market & distribution Since the start of the Zeeuwse Vlegel much time and effort has been put into the distribution and marketing of the products. As this is a time-consuming activity, the farmers of the Zeeuwse Vlegel employed a ‘product manager’ to organise the distribution and marketing of bread and (later on) other products. The organisation of distribution and marketing, as a third collective strategy, was thus delegated to one professional employee. Since his appointment, the product manager has also been involved in the other collective activities, but most of his time was dedicated to this third collective strategy. In the first years the ‘marketing and distribution’ strategy focussed on increasing the sales of the bread. As it was one of the first initiatives for regional environmental production, it got a lot of attention and publicity. Besides this ‘free publicity’, the Zeeuwse Vlegel also invested in promotion material. Furthermore member farmers dedicated time to present the Zeeuwse Vlegel on fairs and markets. Especially the signposts in the field which state ‘Here grows your Zeeuwse Vlegel’ appeared to be effective. The publicity and promotional efforts did not meet the expectations of the members regarding the sale of the bread, however. In some years, more wheat was produced than could be sold. This was a drawback for the members of whom several thought expanding the acreage was possible. The main reason for this lack of sales is seen in the attitude of the consumer who seems not interested in environmentally friendly bread. Since the start of the Zeeuwse Vlegel, other regional products emerged on the markets in Zeeland, such as beer and bread. These products are usually individual marketing initiatives in which environmentally aspects play no role. They do however, seriously compete, with the Zeeuwse Vlegel products; as does the increasing availability of organic products. 3.5. Barriers in group management When focussing on the management of the network we discover several barriers which hamper the functioning of farmers’ networks in their activities towards more sustainable practices. The first barrier is the decreasing notion of collectivity among the members. Collectivity entails the feeling of shared responsibility, the idea that cooperation is more effective than individual action and the willingness to invest in the collective. These are all important aspects of effective networking. The notion of collectivity seems to have slowly disappeared after ten years. The dynamics of the project is centred on two persons: the chairman

N. Oerlemans, G. Assouline / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 469–478

of the board of the foundation and the product-manager. These two feel responsible for the future of the Zeeuwse Vlegel. Most of the participating farmers, let alone other actors involved in the economic network, do not share this feeling of responsibility. They more or less lay back and await suggestions and options from the ones feeling responsible. This also implies that most participants are reluctant to reflect on the shape, contents and goals of the project or to critically judge new options suggested by the few that do feel responsible. Another barrier is the declining cohesion of the group over the years due to differences in expectations, commitment and expected benefits, especially between the ones who started the project and the ones who joined in later. As the first members set up the network to turn the tide and to prove that quality production did have a future, the later members mainly joined in because of economic motives. In this sense, the network has been attractive to new members, but this attractiveness might also endanger the initial values and reasons of the network for getting together. Also the lack of new challenges and innovations turns out to be a barrier in securing group cohesion. In the beginning of the project many questions had to be answered and this triggered enthusiasm and collective action. Collective action took place in several, still to be explored fields: marketing and distribution of products, environmentally friendly cultivation methods, selection of suitable wheat varieties and network building through the enrolment of actors needed to secure success and development prospects. Related to this, is the fact that all efforts of the actors involved were dedicated to secure the continuation of the Zeeuwse Vlegel in the direction that was set out at the very start of the project. During the last ten years the value of the Zeeuwse Vlegel has never been an issue. In group discussions we experienced that the structure of the building was so evident to most members, that it was in fact unthinkable to question the foundation of the building, let alone transform it. Another barrier related to group management is the lack of assessment of impacts and results. Especially during the later years much of the collective effort has been dedicated to relationships between the project group and the surrounding actors. However, a collective strategy should also include the maintenance of relationships between group members, the evaluation of the strategy and to reflect the results. This has been neglected in the last years. The assessment of the collective strategy, and with this the assessment of the benificiality of co-operation is not really discussed in the Zeeuwse Vlegel network. A lot of questions and issues related to goals, achievements and management have only been tackled indirectly. For the Zeeuwse Vlegel, the importance of the assessment of impacts and results only got

475

attention in the past year, when reflecting on its ten year existence. 3.6. Zeeuwse Vlegel: success or failure? There is no straightforward answer to the question whether the Zeeuwse Vlegel is a success or a failure. The Zeeuwse Vlegel can be seen as a success for three reasons. In the first place, the Zeeuwse Vlegel has demonstrated that the environmentally friendly cultivation of high quality baking wheat is technically possible. Furthermore, for a couple of years, sustainable baking wheat cultivation according to self-imposed regulations turned out to be profitable. Secondly, the participating farmers, together with other actors, have succeeded in organising processing, distribution and marketing of Zeeuwse Vlegel products themselves. Finally, the Zeeuwse Vlegel has partly succeeded in bridging the gap between producers and consumers from the point of view of traceability of products. Their bread and other products can be traced from the field to the bakery shops. There are also a number of indirect effects of the Zeeuwse Vlegel as indicators for success. These are: 앫 An increase in Zeeland in the production and sales of regional products. 앫 More environmental awareness among conventional farmers and farmers’ unions. 앫 More institutional support for Zeeuwse Vlegel like types of sustainable agricultural development. 앫 A very tangible proof of the latter is the recent replacement of the wheat variety Sunnan on the List of Varieties. Despite a number of successful results, the Zeeuwse Vlegel can also be seen as a failure: 앫 The sales of bread and other products remain limited and are currently even declining. 앫 Only a limited number of participants is possible. 앫 The gap between producers and consumers is still present in the sense that many consumers do not share the philosophy of the Zeeuwse Vlegel. The Zeeuwse Vlegel also fails to adjust its production regime to changing consumer’ demands. Furthermore, the collective itself is facing barriers in the organisation of the network in maintaining the coherence among its members, in enhancing the individual responsibility for the collective, in developing new strategies and in adjusting the management to the changed circumstances. To improve and/or re-direct the dynamics of the network itself, it is important to work on restoring or redefining collective responsibility. For the group network this implies the necessity to define a new common inter-

476

N. Oerlemans, G. Assouline / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 469–478

est and new common challenges. Furthermore is important to define clear goals, to monitor to what extent these goals have been achieved and to undertake action on basis of this. This means that the group has to (re)consider on a regular basis what they want to achieve, how, why and with whom. In that respect it may be worthy to collectively invest in new options, instead of applying for subsidies, and thus create common interest and individual responsibility for the collective at the same time. Maybe stricter measures are needed to restore collectivity, for instance by only allowing farmers to continue when they are motivated, actively support collective action and are willing to invest (labour, time and/or money) in the Zeeuwse Vlegel. This implicitly implies that the board of the Zeeuwse Vlegel should reject passive farmers, who only participate for personal gain. One of the great challenges the Zeeuwse Vlegel is thus facing is how to incorporate moments of learning and evaluation in the project through which it becomes possible to collectively question whether collective action (i.e. networking strategies) are effective and in which way they are effective.

4. Lessons learned 4.1. Group management Based upon the case study of the Zeeuwse Vlegel and the nineteen other cases we studied, we can distinguish several factors that relate to the management of farmers’ networks. A lack of coherence within the group may hamper the realisation of collective goals and objectives. Different authors have shown that, in order to pursuit the development of sustainable agricultural practices, it is important for a group of farmers (and other actors) to have common goals, rules and procedures [18–20]. Allaire & Sylvander [21] demonstrate, in their analysis of the failure of a farmers’ project, that lack of coherence and lack of attention for maintaining coherence can result in the failure of a project. Shared beliefs and values are a prerequisite for success. Diversity in practices can be relevant or even useful to enhance the collective but when there is too much diversity in beliefs and opinions deadlocks tend to occur. A quite common phenomenon in the life span of a group is that it starts small with farmers who find one another on the basis of similar beliefs and values. In order to pursue their goals they have to enlarge their network by enrolling more farmers and/or other actors. Quite often beliefs and values tend to diverge when the network grows, making it more difficult to achieve original goals. In order to maintain a common perspective, beliefs and

values have to be continuously exchanged and negotiated [22]. Also maintaining solidarity within the group seems to be both an important basis and outcome for a successful network strategy and for strengthening the coherence between the members. In one way or another, the members have to believe in the rationality and power of collective. Solidarity can be created through the efforts to reduce the social risk of innovation and to maintain a social (technical) belonging to a group. Maintaining the solidarity amongst members should be a continuous activity of the network to ensure its future. Innovative networks cannot rely only on strong solidarity during the start. In the long run joining the network has to be meaningful to farmers to preserve their solidarity. If not two different thing could happen: either that the network moves to a ‘tea party’, or the network will be dissolved because of the lack of mutual interest and network rationality. Setting up and running a collective project calls for specific skills. It demands that farmers have the capacity to manage a group and possess the instruments, methods and tools to evaluate and, if necessary, adjust the goals and rules that were initially defined [23]. Self-management of farmers’ groups implies that farmers themselves are capable to find a balance between individual and collective goals and between leadership and shared responsibilities. The identified factors stress the importance of the internal management of the group, and the capacity to create and maintain the internal cohesion of the group in terms of common beliefs values and goals within the scope of the group project. They provide us with useful lessons for the management of groups and networks aiming to contribute to sustainable development. Some of the most general strategic priorities for successful management of innovative networks are: 1. Sufficient agreement concerning vision, goals and approach. Articulation of the values and goals of the network makes reflection and renegotiations of these easier, and makes the innovative network less vulnerable in the situation of expansion and enrolment of new actors. 2. Safeguarding coherence as a continuous activity of the group/network. Activities to reinforce the social belongings to the network are important within the group, like social events. This goes especially within networks that are organised around very technical objectives like marketing. Internal coherence strengthens the group’s ability to communicate, to manage the network democratically and to share responsibility. 3. Maintaining the faith in the rationality of collective action and solidarity, both from a social, technical and economical perspective. The studies illustrate the

N. Oerlemans, G. Assouline / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 469–478

importance of solidarity as a factor of coherence of the network. However the network needs continuously proving the rationality of the networking strategy for innovation, they need assessment tools to visualise the effect of the networking strategy. 4. Monitoring and evaluation of goals, approach, rules, procedures and results regularly to make adjustments if necessary. Networking is a dynamic process and not a just a structure. This can be organised in several ways, e.g. by capable leadership democratic organised tools and procedures to do this. Internal management of the network is decisive for successful networking, which call for strong leadership for guiding and maintaining this process. 5. Finding a balance between leadership and shared responsibility. Both leadership and shared responsibility/commitment are requested conditions for successfully management of innovative networks. 6. Benefit from collective action. Formalisation of the group/network (by establishing a foundation, co-operative, union, and corporation) is a means to get access to subsidies and to become a legitimate negotiation partner for governments and other actors. This is an added value to individual strategies and can therefore enhance/maintain the interest of individuals to invest in the collective. 4.2. The role of facilitators These lessons are however easier said than done. For instance, how can a group make sure that there is sufficient agreement concerning vision, goals and approach? Innovative farmers networks put a high demand on the capacities and qualities of their members concerning management of the group. Not only the networks, which are active for many years, but also the newly emerged farmers groups are confronted with tasks and responsibilities which go beyond the skills needed on a farm. Many networks expressed the need for selfevaluation tools and methods for process management. We found that apart from awareness of the importance to dedicate and invest time and energy in the management of the groups, keeping the lessons stated above in mind, there is a need for adequate tools to deal with these issues in practice. Networks place a high demand on the capacities and qualities of the members, which are often busy enough in managing their farm. We therefore see an important role for facilitators and advisors in supporting farmer’s networks aiming to contribute to sustainable agriculture. They could play a supportive role in enhancing collective learning processes of the group to improve their management. An important question remains: how? What is evident however is that these groups ask for a different role of

477

the facilitator? A role in which the facilitator activates reflection moments for instance.

5. Concluding remarks A crucial dimension of sustainable development is the governance style. The way farmers’ projects and groups are managed or manage themselves is as important as their goal. It determines the involvement of group members in the process and in the decision making. It is part of the social learning process generated by collective dynamics. Most of the successful experiences combine cleverly strong strategic autonomy of farmers’ groups and openness to external resources and partners; autonomy does not mean isolation. It means ability to build internal and external relations without “losing the track”. Supportive policies for sustainable agriculture and rural development need to change radically: they can’t limit themselves to individual farm support, whatever the criteria for this support. This support has to be redirected clearly towards collective projects and farmers’ networks which contribute to agricultural and rural sustainability. Sustainable agricultural development is predominantly a matter of learning and institutional embedding. Governments can and need to play a role as alignment actor to support the process of institutional embedding by assisting in the construction or modification of farmers networks engaged in sustainable agricultural development. Governments also should facilitate new learning strategies and the coming about of a new knowledge infrastructure. To stimulate the ‘bottom up’ initiatives such as farmers’ networks, requires another organisation and contents of the agricultural knowledge system that lies within the scope of governmental influence (state financed research and advisory programmes, education, etc.).

References [1] van der Ploeg JD. From structural development to structural involution: the impact of new development. In: van der Ploeg JD, van Dijk G, editors. Beyond modernisation: the impact of endogenous rural development. Assen: van Gorcum; 1995. p. 109–46. [2] Oerlemans N, Wiskerke J. Making agriculture sustainable: the case of the Netherlands. Utrecht: CLM, 2000. [3] Bove´ J, Dufour F. Le monde n’est pas une marchandise. Des paysans contre la malbouffe. Paris, France: La De´ couverte, 2000. [4] Oostindie et al. Atlas van het vernieuwend platteland. Assen: van Gorcum, 1997. [5] Pochon A. Les champs du possible. Plaidoyer pour une agriculture durable. Paris: Syros, 1998. [6] Landais E, Dockes AC. De´ veloppement durable: le temps de l’ac-

478

[7]

[8] [9]

[10] [11]

[12]

[13] [14]

[15]

N. Oerlemans, G. Assouline / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 469–478

tion [Sustainable development : time for action]. Special issue on “Collective actions towards sustainable agriculture”. In Travaux & Innovations, March 1999, no. 56, Paris Fleury Ph. Sustainability concepts as viewed by the rural world. In: Ha¨ kkinen L, editor. Regions—Cornerstones for Sustainable Development. Proceedings of the Second European Symposium. Joensuu, Finland, September 13–14, 1999. Finland: Academy of Finland; 2000. Hees E. Trekkers naast de trap. The Netherlands: Wageningen Universiteit en Research, 2000. Assouline G, Oerlemans N. Organisational changes for consolidating sustainable agriculture and rural development in Europe: the role of farmers’ networking strategies. Paper for the 7th European Roundtable on Cleaner Production IIIEE-Lund, Sweden; May 2–4, 2001. Latour B. On recalling ANT. In: Law J, Hassard J, editors. Actor Network theory and after. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers; 1999. Powell WW, Smith-Doer L. Networks and economic life. In: Smelser NJ, Swedberg R, editors. The handbook of economic sociology. Princeton Univeristy Press; 1994. Callon M. Technological conception and adoption network: lessons from the CTA [constructive technology assessment] practitioner. In: Rip A, Shot J, Misa T, editors. Managing Technology in Society. London, UK: Pinter Publisher; 1995. Habermas J. De l’e´ thique de la discussion. Paris, France: Cerf, 1992. Assouline G, Just F, editors. Making agriculture sustainable. The role of farmers’ networking and institutional strategies. Esjberg, Denmark: University of Southern Denmark; 2000. Drouot V. Introduction to special issue on “collective actions towards sustainable agriculture”. In: Travaux & Innovatins, March 1999, no. 56, Paris, France.

[16] Assouline G, Bernard C, David C, Just F, Reus J. Stimulating the implementation of environmentally sound agricultural practices in Europe: the role of farmers organisational dynamics. Theys, France: European Commission—DG XI, QAP Decision, 1996. [17] Annual Report: Zeeuwse Vlegel, 1997, 1998 [18] deB ruin R. Local co-operatives as carriers of endogenous development. In: van der Ploeg JD, van Dijk G, editors. Beyond modernization: The impact of endogenous rural development. Assen: Van Gorcum; 1995. p. 256–73. [19] Wiskerke JSC. “Zeeuwse Vlegel”: un noveau re´ seau pour une production de qualite´ durable. In: Stassart P, editor. Du savoir aux saveurs: 101 chemins pour une alimentation de qualite´ . Arlon/Leuven: Fondation Universitaire Luxembourgeoise/Vredeseilanden-Coopibo; 1999. p. 89–104. [20] Mormont M. Conclusions: de´ velopper des filie`res de qualite´ . In: Stassart P, editor. Du savoir aux saveurs: 101 chemins pour une alimentation de qualite´ . Arlon/Leuven: Fondation Universitaire Luxembourgeoise/Vredeseilanden-Coopibo; 1999. p. 137–42. [21] Allaire G, Sylvander B. Un example a` ne pas suivre: ou comment indentifier les chemins de la re´ ussite a` partir de l’autopsie d’un e´ chec. In: Stassart P, editor. Du savoir aux saveurs: 101 chemins pour une alimentation de qualite´ . Arlon/Leuven: Fondation Universitaire Luxembourgeoise/Vredeseilanden-Coopibo; 1999. p. 101–6. [22] Leeuwis C, Remmers G. Accomodating dynamics and diversity in integral design. In: Leeuwis C, editor. Integral design: innovation in agriculture and resource management. Wageningen University: Mansholt Studies 15; 1999. p. 267–77. [23] Abbot J. Beyond tools and methods: reviewing developments in participatory learning and action. Environment and Urbanization 1999;11(1):231–4.