Organic olive orchards on sloping land: More than a specialty niche production system?

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Environmental Management 89 (2008) 99–109 www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Organic olive orchards on sloping land: More than a specialty niche production system? Jose´ A. Gomeza,, Mariana Amatob, Giuseppe Celanob, Georgios C. Koubourisc a

Instituto de Agricultura Sostenible, CSIC, Apartado 4084, 14080 Cordoba, Spain Dipartimento di Scienze dei Sistemi Colturali, Forestali e dell’Ambiente, Universita` degli Studi della Basilicata (DSSCFA—Unibas), Via N. Sauro 85, 85100 Potenza, Italy c Institute of Olive Trees and Subtropical Plants of China, National Agricultural Research Foundation, Agrokipio, 73100 Chania, Greece b

Received 1 June 2006; received in revised form 7 September 2006; accepted 16 April 2007 Available online 1 October 2007

Abstract Five organic Sloping and Mountainous Olive Plantation Production Systems (SMOPS) have been studied in four olive-producing areas in four European countries (Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal). Results indicate that these SMOPS provide ecological, economic and social benefits to the regions in which they are located, although most of these benefits are not strictly limited to the organic production systems. Erosion control and organic matter balance remain significant issues in four of the SMOPS and we suggest that subsidy support should be conditional on the implementation of additional soil and water conservation measures that should be provided with specific funding. Most of the SMOPS will remain dependent on a similar level of support in order for olive production to remain economically feasible. The lower profitability compared to non-organic olive production systems suggests that there is limited scope for expansion of organic olive production, although in the study areas where there is little such production, such as Western Crete (Greece) and Basilicata–Salerno (Italy) the scope remains great. The analysis of the reasons for the beneficial effects of olive cultivation in the areas studied indicates that in most cases soil management techniques adopted in or recommended for organic production systems could provide similar benefits in other production systems as well. r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Organic; Olive; Economic; Ecological; Social

1. Introduction Olive is the main oil crop in the Mediterranean countries of the EU, although a significant proportion is also grown for table olives. The EU is the leading olive oil and table olive producer, accounting for, respectively, 76% and 42% of world production (average 1990–2005; EUROSTAT, 2005). There are approximately 4.3 Mha of olive trees in the EU, with most of that acreage located in Spain (50%), Italy (27%) and Greece (16%). Specialisation in olive cultivation in the Mediterranean regions of Europe dates back to Greek and Roman times, and reflects the Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 957 499210; fax: +34 957 499252.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.A. Gomez), [email protected] (M. Amato), [email protected] (G. Celano), [email protected] (G.C. Koubouris). 0301-4797/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.04.025

adaptation of the olive tree to the Mediterranean conditions of limited rainfall supply concentrated in autumn and winter, dry and hot summers, and periodic droughts. The olive’s hardiness contributed to the expansion of olive cultivation to sloping areas with shallow soils where other crops were not feasible. Specialisation in olive cultivation means that in some regions of the EU, olive is by far the most important crop and sometimes is the most important land use. This is the case in Andalusia, the southern region of Spain, which has 17% of its total area covered by olive trees (Consejerı´ a de Agricultura y Pesca and Junta de Andalucı´ a, 2003). Since the mid-1990s, oil and table olive production have been increasing in the EU countries, due to an expansion in acreage and an improvement in agronomic techniques, such as the extension of irrigation. This increase has been driven by a world market where supply barely meets demand (International Olive Oil

ARTICLE IN PRESS 100

J.A. Gomez et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 89 (2008) 99–109

Council, 2005), and—in the case of the EU—the beneficial effect of the Common Agricultural Policy. For these reasons, olive cultivation remains an important form of land use in many sloping Mediterranean areas, where it contributes decisively to farmers’ income and to the overall economic activity of the region. In the erosion-prone Mediterranean region (Van der Knijff et al., 2000), rain-fed olive cultivation has traditionally been based on wide olive tree spacing, limitation of tree transpiration by pruning, and tillage to avoid water losses by weed transpiration. This management has led to erosion problems due to the limited ground cover, especially on sloping areas, as noted by several authors (e.g. Raglione et al., 2000; Go´mez, 2005a). These erosion problems became especially acute after the 1950s, with the advent of farm mechanisation in the Mediterranean olive-producing countries. Given the extent of olive cultivation in Mediterranean regions, water erosion has been identified as one of the most important environmental issues in these regions by several authors (e.g. Pastor et al., 1999). Mechanised tillage enabled the farmer to keep the soil weed-free, but at the same time exposed it completely to erosion by water. Even today, mechanical tillage is the most widespread soil management system in many olive-growing regions, such as southern Spain (Go´mez, 2005a). In recent decades, however, new soil management systems have been developed and expanded as alternatives to mechanical tillage, partially in response to concern about soil erosion. Among the most effective alternative soil management strategies against water erosion is the use of a cover crop, either sown or allowed to establish naturally from the soil (weed) seed bank in autumn, and then subsequently mowed or grazed at some time, usually early in spring. A complete description of soil management practices can be found in Pastor et al. (1999). Another key issue in farm sustainability and environmental protection is the management of organic matter (OM) in farm practices. Actions aimed at increasing or maintaining soil OM levels and increasing their stability in time are of paramount importance for soil quality and may play a significant role in the sequestration of greenhouse gases. Such practices are especially relevant for organic farms, where sustainability is centred on a soil system which is capable of performing several functions: from buffering inputs, to controlling pests. The prohibition of chemicals in organic agriculture will result in a durable, profitable and environment-friendly production system only if accompanied by appropriate management focusing on the improvement of soil functions. Organic agriculture should therefore promote the conservation of natural resources and the development of sustainable farming practices, and not just focus on banning synthetic fertilisers and pesticides (El-Hage Scialabba and Hattam, 2002). Within that framework, the expansion of organic olive production in the producing countries of the EU may represent an opportunity for improving the conservation of natural resources in the sloping olive-growing areas where water erosion problems

are more severe. However, this will only be the case if the appropriate soil management plus soil and water conservation techniques are implemented on the organic farms, as noted by Millgroom et al. (2007). In recent years, the area under organic olive farming has been increasing steadily in the EU. For the four key producers: Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal it rose from 130,664 ha in 1998 to 225,510 ha in 2004, accounting for 5.1% of the area under olives in these four countries in 2004 (EUROSTAT, 2005). The increase has been promoted by several factors, among which are increasing consumer awareness about food safety and food quality, and agricultural policies oriented towards environment-friendly agricultural systems. The result has been higher prices for organic olive oil compared to conventionally produced olive oil, and subsidies that compensate for the first years of transition and that at least partially cover the increased cost and reduced yield of organic olive farming (Sa´nchez, 2003). In this paper, we present an analysis of the organic olive systems studied within the frame of the EU-funded OLIVERO project, carried out from 2003 to 2006 in the four leading olive-producing countries in the EU by seven research institutions of five member states. An overview of the project is given in Stroosnijder et al. (2006). The overall objective of OLIVERO was to evaluate the future of olive plantation systems on sloping and mountainous land, and also future scenarios for production and natural resource conservation. The objectives of the research presented in this paper are: 1. To provide a description of the organic olive production systems evaluated within the study areas of the OLIVERO project in four EU olive-producing countries. 2. To evaluate the feasibility of organic farming in the study areas of the OLIVERO project providing an economically viable future while at the same time conserving natural resources. 3. To indicate critical points to address for a more appropriate management of organic farms in view of their socio-economic and environmental roles.

2. Description 2.1. General orchard characteristics The OLIVERO project studied olive production on sloping land in five study areas located in four countries: Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal (Fig. 1). Within each area, the olive orchards were classified into homogeneous sloping and mountainous olive production systems, hereafter called Sloping and Mountainous Olive Plantation Production Systems (SMOPS). The criteria to define the SMOPS within each study area were based on topography and soil features, farm structure, socio-economic characteristics, and cultivation practices. The criteria were

ARTICLE IN PRESS J.A. Gomez et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 89 (2008) 99–109

101

Fig. 1. Location of the five study areas in the OLIVERO project.

adapted to each study area, so may differ slightly from one study area to another; they are described in detail by Metzidakis (2004) and Stroosnijder et al. (2006). Twentyfive SMOPS were defined by the different partners in the five study areas. In the Portuguese, Italian and Greek study areas, only one organic SMOPS was defined per area. In the Spanish study area corresponding to the provinces of Jae´n and Granada, the SMOPS classification was based mostly on geographical features and it did not distinguish a specific SMOPS for organic olive farming. In the Spanish study area corresponding to the province of Cordoba, the study was limited to organic orchards, and five SMOPS were defined within the organic orchards of the province, based on geographical criteria (Metzidakis, 2004). For the purposes of the present analysis and in accordance with previous studies (Millgroom et al., 2007), four of these five SMOPS were regrouped into one SMOP category because of their similar soil, climatic, agronomic and socioeconomic characteristics. The study presented in this paper deals with the five organic SMOPS described in Table 1. The main SMOPS characteristics described in Table 1 will be used to describe the situation of organic olive farming in the four olive-producing areas studied. The examples analysed in this study correspond to the average situation, which, after surveys and interviews, the national teams involved in the OLIVERO project considered to be representative of these SMOPS. They can be considered as giving a panoramic view of the various possibilities for organic olive farming in the EU. Two main groups of organic SMOPS can be distinguished in Table 1:



Rain-fed orchards in poorly productive locations with a large geographical distribution: CO1–4 (the Sierra region group) and PT5;



Organic SMOPS with intensive orchard management including significant use of irrigation, but with limited geographical extent: HE4 and IT5.

The remaining SMOPS, CO5 (Subbetica region), occupies an intermediate position and could be classified as a semi-intensive system (not irrigated but with comparatively high yields). 2.2. Biophysical characteristics Table 2 summarises the productivity and agronomic practices representative of the five SMOPS studied. The poorly productive SMOPS, PT5 and CO1–4, are systems characterised by a very limited degree of intensification and mechanisation of farm operations; the CO1–4 SMOPS in particular could be characterised as traditional systems. The main difference between the PT5 and CO1–4 SMOPS is the soil management: in PT5 it is based on tillage, while in CO1–4 it is based on a cover crop controlled by mowing or grazing. Even the alternative management in the Sierra region, which consists of low intensity tillage concentrated in early autumn and spring, allows a seasonal cover crop of spontaneous flora to develop during most of the rainy season (Millgroom et al., 2007). The other extreme in terms of productivity and intensification is represented by the CO5 and—in particular—by the HE4 SMOPS, which have a much higher olive yield. In the Subbetica region (CO5) of the Spanish province of Cordoba, the higher yield compared to the Sierra region (CO1–4) is associated with better soil conditions, depth and texture, and appropriate management practices. The higher oil yield and larger farm size in CO5 compared to CO1–4 are also associated with the

ARTICLE IN PRESS J.A. Gomez et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 89 (2008) 99–109

102

Table 1 Main characteristics of the five organic SMOPS considered in this study Country

SMOPS type codea

Tree density (tree ha1)a

Slope

Annual rainfall (mm)b,c,d

Irrigationd,c

Spain

CO1–4

134

433–817

No, o5% area

957

Spain

CO5

128

479–800

No, o5% area

2831

Greece

HE4

40–250

Moderate to very steep Moderate to steep Low to steep

500–800

4800

0.8

5

Portugal

PT5

100

900

6.0

15

Italy

IT6

277

Yes, 50–60% area Some, 19% area Yes

Very small

12

Low to moderate Low

400–600 676–1635

Average olive yield (kg ha1 y1)

2000

% Organic olive farms in regionb

Average farm size (ha)a,b,c

6.1

15 26

a

From Fleskens (2005). From Metzidakis (2004). c From Xiloyannis et al. (2004). d From Gil et al. (2003). b

Table 2 Main agronomic characteristics of the five organic SMOPS considered in this study Soil SMOPS Oil yield code (kg ha1 y1)a depth (m)b,c,d

Canopy Soil textureb diameter (m)c

Fertilisation

Pruninga,b

Harvesta,b

Dominant soil managementa,b,c,d

CO1–4

191

1.2

3.1

Sandy loam

Manual every 3 years

Manual

Cover crop Tillage, 2–3 times a controlled by tillage year (one pass) or grazing

CO5

566

2

5.1

Clay loam, loam

Semimechanised, 1.33 times a year Mechanised, once a year

HE4

1000

41.2

o5

Mechanised Cover crop controlled by mowing Manual Tillage

PT5

153

n/a

n/a

Sandy loam, clay loam, sandy-clayloam n/a

Manual every 2 years Manual every 2 years

Manual

Tillage, one to three times a year

IT6

371

n/a

n/a

Manual every 2 years Manual every year

Semimechanised

Seasonal cover crop, Spontaneous cover green manure crop controlled by spring tillage (1–2)

Loam, clay loam, clay

Mechanised, once a year

Manual, twice a year Mechanised, twice a year

Alternative soil managementa,b,c,d

Tillage, 2–5 times a year Cover crop controlled by mowing or grazing

None

a

From Fleskens (2005). From Metzidakis (2004). c From Xiloyannis et al. (2004). d From Millgroom et al. (2007). b

degree of mechanisation, which, with the exception of pruning, is high. HE4 has the largest oil yield of the organic SMOPS studied by OLIVERO; this is largely attributable to the use of irrigation (Table 1) as well as to appropriate management practices that remain semimechanised. In the Spanish SMOPS, the dominant soil management is based on the use of cover crops, and in the Greek organic SMOPS the dominant soil management is tillage. The organic SMOPS in the Italian study area, IT6, represents a situation intermediate between the both situations previously described, with an olive yield approximately double that of the less productive SMOPS,

semi-mechanised farm operations, and drip-irrigated olive orchards. Given the moderate increase in oil yield compared to the poorly productive rain-fed SMOPS, it is possible that in IT6 we are dealing with deficit irrigation (information not available). The dominant soil management is a cover crop, as IT6 is the only organic SMOPS of the five studied that includes regular use (every 2 or 3 years) of a green manure to increase soil fertility, although in some Greek and Spanish organic farms there are occasional examples of the use of green manure as well. Organic SMOPS occur in many geographical areas with large variability in slope and rainfall, as described in Table 1.

ARTICLE IN PRESS J.A. Gomez et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 89 (2008) 99–109

The function of the olive orchards as firebreaks is ranked as medium only, reflecting the existence of dry stubble resulting from the cover crop during the wildfire-prone dry season and the farmers’ awareness of that risk. 2.3. Socio-economic characteristics Fig. 2 presents the net revenues from the representative organic olive systems described in Fleskens (2005) and Stroosnijder et al. (2006) in the four leading producing countries in the EU. Only two SMOPS, CO5 and HE4, present substantial benefits, while two of them, IT6 and PT5, present losses. There are some similarities between SMOPS in different countries. Olive orchards located in steep areas under marginal conditions, such as CO1–4 and PT5, present low 2500 1975

2000 1500

Net revenue €/ha

Table 3 summarises some of the key environmental indicators in the organic SMOPS studied. Water erosion has been regarded as one of the most important environmental problems in sloping olive areas (Chisci, 1994; Raglione et al., 2000; Go´mez, 2005a, b), and in many of the SMOPS analysed it is still a highly relevant issue. This is indicated by the erosion predictions presented in Table 3, calculated using the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) (Renard et al., 1997). These erosion predictions were in most cases well above the theoretical maximum tolerable soil losses of 11.2 t ha1 year1 (Schertz, 1983), and the experimental values measured in less sloping areas: 8.5 t ha1 year1 (Go´mez et al., 2004), 0.03 t ha1 year1 (Kosmas et al., 1997). Nevertheless, given the limited validation of results in Table 3, the RUSLE-based erosion predictions presented here should be understood as indicative of the severity of water erosion; they are not the actual erosion rates (Wischmeier, 1978). Cover crops are widely used in CO1–4 and HE4. The beneficial effect of cover crop management is reflected in the relatively high soil cation exchange capacity (CEC), and OM content in HE4 (Metzidakis et al., 2005a) and CO1–4, which are not far from the theoretical maximum for the pedo-climatic conditions of these SMOPS (Amato, pers. comm.). Even in CO5, these values remain moderate: for the tillage soil management they are, respectively, 1.45% OM and 12.9 cmol kg1 (Millgroom et al., 2007). A survey of the farmers’ assessment of the diversity of insects, plants, birds and mammals shows that biodiversity is ranked as high in all SMOPS studied, and in many instances is attributed to soil management based on the use of a cover crop.

103

1201

1439

1000 500

244

139

-510

-157

0 -500

-146

-339

-1000 -1203

-1500 CO1-4

CO5

HE4

PT5

IT6

Fig. 2. Net revenues with (left-hand bar) and without (right-hand bar) subsidies for the five organic SMOPS considered in the OLIVERO project.

Table 3 Main environmental indicators of the five organic SMOPS considered in this study SMOPS code

Topsoil organic matter (%)a,c,d

Topsoil CEC cmol (kg1)a,c,d

RUSLE predicted average soil loss (t ha1 y1)b,c

Soil and water conservation measuresc

Main erosion offsite effectsa

Firebreak functionc

Biodiversityc

CO1–4

2.7670.35e

14.171.4e

52

Damage to roads

Medium

High

CO5

1.8570.34e

13.971.1e

78

Damage to roads, dam siltation

Medium

High

HE4

2.8

17.9

2–20f

Damage to roads

Medium–high

High

PT5

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Medium

High

IT6

n/a

n/a

46.2b

Some traditional terraces, mostly abandoned Some rill control structures, mostly failed Terraces on 60% of the surface area Present on 14% of the surface area Very limited

n/a

Medium

High

a

From Go´mez (2005b). Adapted from Go´mez (2005b) with coastal area excluded. c From Metzidakis (2004). d From Millgroom et al. (2007). e Standard error. f Pan European Soil Erosion Risk Assessment model used (Gobin et al., 1999). CEC ¼ Cation Exchange Capacity. RUSLE ¼ Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation. b

ARTICLE IN PRESS J.A. Gomez et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 89 (2008) 99–109

productivity (Tables 1 and 2), which is the main reason for the negative or moderate revenues. CO1–4 presents benefits, due to the higher price for the olive oil, which is 1.46 times the conventional price according to Alonso (2002) and similar to the ratio presented by Sa´nchez (2002). Subsidies, fully linked to production in Portugal or supplemented with environmental subsidies in the Spanish SMOPS (amounting to approximately 60% of the total support), compensate for the limited farm output or contribute significantly to reduce losses (Table 4, Fig. 2). Labour costs remain relatively high compared to the income level of the farm (Table 4), representing approximately 56% of the total costs. A large proportion of labour is dedicated to harvesting, which—because of the steep slopes—is, in the best case, only partially mechanised. The persistence of production on these farms can be explained by several factors. One is the important role of family labour in the farm operations, which means that the farmer and relatives accept working on their own farm for wages lower than those that could be gained in a different activity. Furthermore, many farms combine olive production with other agricultural activities, such as extensive sheep or goat grazing, dairy production, or other rural activities such as rural tourism. Additionally, in CO1–4 and PT5, olive farmers do not depend on the olive orchards or other agricultural activity as their sole source of income. On PT5 farms, only 7% of income comes from agriculture, while around 50% comes from retirement pensions and around 25% from wages earned in the service industry (Metzidakis, 2004). In CO1–4, none of the farmers live solely from the olive farm income, and only 12% live exclusively from agricultural activities (Metzidakis, 2004). The other extreme of profitability is represented by CO5 and HE4, with net revenues above h1400 ha1 (Fig. 2). This high revenue level can be explained basically by the high yield level achieved in both SMOPS (Tables 1 and 2), due to favourable rain and soil conditions in CO5 and extension of irrigation in HE4 (Table 1), and the higher price obtained for organic olive oil compared to conventional oil (1.4 times higher in Crete: Fleskens, 2005). Despite the high output derived from the high yield and price, the profitability of the farm depends significantly on the subsidies received, especially in HE4, where it represents 90% of the net revenue (Fig. 2). As in the

previous comparison of poorly productive orchards, in the Greek SMOPS not all the subsidies are linked to production: there is also a subsidy per ha during the first 5 years of transition to the organic system. In the Spanish SMOPS, subsidies of this type represent approximately 75% of the total amount of support. The reason HE4 is more dependent than CO5 on support to achieve high profitability is the higher production costs (Table 4). The largest differences in costs among SMOPS occur in labour costs (Table 4), with more than h1000 ha1 saved in CO5 compared to HE4 (Fig. 3), mostly due to reduction of labour, although the other cost components are also higher in HE4 than in CO5. This reduction is mainly due to farming being mechanised in the Subbetica region, whereas it remains semi-manual in west Crete (Table 2). The single Italian SMOPS included in this analysis, IT6, is different from the other two cases described above. It has by far the lowest net revenue of the five organic SMOPS (Fig. 2), while at the same time it has a moderate yield (Tables 1 and 2), intermediate between the poorly and highly productive examples previously described. It also receives the highest oil price of the five SMOPS (Table 4). Its low net revenue compared to the other SMOPS can be explained by it having the highest costs of the five organic olive farm examples studied (Table 4). These higher costs are due to high labour costs, high variable and fixed costs, and also high intermediate consumption costs (Table 4). The higher labour costs are more a result of the high price

0.25 0.21

0.2 AWU

104

0.148

0.15

0.097

0.1 0.05

0.044

0.041

0 CO1-4

CO5

HE4

PT5

IT6

Fig. 3. Number of Annual Working Units (AWU, defined as the total labour hours per annum divided by 2200, as standard number) of the five organic SMOPS considered in the OLIVERO project.

Table 4 Key economic variables for the five organic SMOPS considered in the OLIVERO project SMOPS code

Output (h ha1)

Support (h ha1)

Price (h l1)

Total costs (h ha1)

Labour costs (h ha1)

Fixed costs (h ha1)

Intermediate consumption (h ha1)a

Variable costs (h ha1)

CO1–4 CO5 HE4 PT5 IT6

747 2208 3300 346 2040

389 773 1300 182 693

3.9 3.9 3.8 2.3 6.0

871 1007 3161 685 3243

520 596 1700 364 1452

18 58 39 62 410

239 200 679 100 541

72 134 454 101 186

a

Intermediate consumption includes costs of irrigation, fertiliser, correctives and phytopharmaceutics.

ARTICLE IN PRESS J.A. Gomez et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 89 (2008) 99–109

2.4. Organic versus non-organic orchards This study compared the economic results of the organic SMOPS studied in the OLIVERO project with those obtained for non-organic olive farming in the same, or nearby, study areas, which can be considered to be an alternative to organic olive production. The costs and description of these non-organic farms are taken from Fleskens (2005). For comparison with organic SMOPS we considered those non-organic SMOPS located in the same study area, presenting similar soil and topographical conditions, and with similar farm infrastructure. In the Spanish case, the study in the Cordoba area was limited to the organic olive farms. For that reason we looked for SMOPS in the nearby provinces of Granada and Jaen (GJ1 and GJ4, also described in Fleskens (2005)). Table 6

summarises the results for the alternative SMOPS, and Fig. 4 the net revenue for these systems. The net revenues presented in Fig. 4 show how the traditional, lowproductive SMOPS PT1 did slightly better than the organic systems (Fig. 2), though remaining below or just above profitability. For CO1–4, the higher oil price explains why the organic SMOPS (Fig. 2) have higher revenue than their non-organic counterpart (Fig. 4), despite a slightly lower yield. For the two situations that presented large positive net revenue, HE4 and CO5, the results for non-organic alternatives are similar (Fig. 4). In west Crete, the net revenue from the intensive SMOPS HE3 is slightly higher than the organic HE4, due to a much higher yield (Fig. 4). The higher price for the organic oil and the slightly lower costs (Tables 4 and 6) cannot compensate for the large difference in olive yield in the final revenue. For CO5, the differences in yield compared to GJ1 are smaller and the differences in olive oil price higher, and consequently 1857

2000 Net revenue €/ha

of labour rather than its high input: the input is intermediate among the SMOPS studied (Fig. 3). Table 5 summarises the available information on the social parameters for the SMOPS. The more productive organic SMOPS found in our study, HE4 and CO5, are characterised by the relatively young age of the farmers as well as by the significant contribution from employment. Despite the low age of the farmers, farm succession does not seem to be a problem, indicating that these farms have good long-term prospects. In the poorly productive SMOPS CO1–4, the farmers are significantly older, and this is probably also the case in PT5, given the large fraction of farmers receiving pensions (Fleskens, 2005), although in most cases the continuation of olive farming seems to be assured.

105

1500 884

1000 500 0

95

-132 36

-500 GJ4

GJ1

HE3

PT1

IT5

Fig. 4. Net revenue for five SMOPS that could be an alternative to the five organic SMOPS considered in the OLIVERO project.

Table 5 Key social variables for the five organic SMOPS studies in OLIVERO project SMOPS code

Farmer age

Successor

Farms inherited (%)

Farms purchased (%)

Employment AWU (person year1)

CO1–4 CO5 HE4 PT5 IT6

50 41 40 n/a n/a

86% Yes 83% Yes 67% Yes n/a n/a

62 n/a 80 n/a n/a

38 n/a 20 n/a n/a

0.6 1.2 1.6 2.1 1.2

AWU ¼ Annual Working Units (total labour hours per annum divided by 2200, as standard number).

Table 6 Key economic variables for the four SMOPS considered as alternatives with similar yield levels to the five organic SMOPS studied in the OLIVERO project SMOPS code

Oil yield (kg ha1 y1)

Output (h ha1)

Aid (h ha1)

Price (h l1)

Cost (h ha1)

Labour cost (h ha1)

Fixed costs (h ha1)

Intermediate consumption (h ha1)

Variable costs (h ha1)

GJ4 GJ1 HE3 PT1 IT5

330 550 1300 187 510

825 1375 3510 423 2295

462 682 1690 223 867

2.7 2.7 2.7 2.3 4.5

1251 1173 3342 778 3067

734 696 1483 553 1775

158 119 29 40 356

135 180 684 61 190

210 160 518 55 170

ARTICLE IN PRESS 106

J.A. Gomez et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 89 (2008) 99–109

the organic SMOPS present a higher profitability. The analysis of the Italian system that could be an alternative to the organic SMOPS (IT5) shows a marginal benefit (Fig. 4) as a result of higher yields (Table 6).

(Table 3). Only in HE4, when cover crop management is combined with broad use of terraces, are the soil losses very small and do not represent a threat to soil conservation. 3.2. Economic

3. Major constraints 3.1. Environmental The main weaknesses that threaten the future of olive production in organic SMOPS are summarised in Table 7. The high erosion rates presented in Table 3 are attributable to the steep slopes prevailing in the area and the high rainfall erosivity in the regions (Go´mez, 2005b), combined with the almost complete absence of soil and water conservation measures. The use of a soil management that includes a cover crop helps mitigate the intensity of water erosion that might be approximately two to three times higher in the case of a soil management based on tillage (Go´mez et al., 2004; Go´mez, 2005a). Chisci (1994) has also indicated the limitations of soil management to reduce erosion to acceptable levels in sloping areas of the Mediterranean basin unless additional soil and water conservation measures are implemented. In PT5, although soil loss rates could not be calculated from the available information, using tillage as soil management does contribute to erosion problems, as indicated by the national team in their survey (Metzidakis, 2004). The offsite erosion effects perceived by farmers (Table 5) are high, and this agrees with the predicted high erosion rates Table 7 Main weaknesses detected in the five organic SMOPS studied in the OLIVERO project, adapted from de Graaff (2005) Weakness

Main reasons

SMOPS

Low productivity

Environmental and farm conditions Low fertilisation Difficult pest and disease management

CO1–4, PT5, IT6

Lower productivity than conventional or integrated agriculture Erosion

Difficult pest and disease management

CO5, HE4

Environmental conditions Lack of S and WC measures

CO1–4 CO5, PT5, IT6

Low profitability

Low productivity High labour costs because reduced mechanisation Higher costs of organic inputs Low price of organic olive oil

CO1–4 PT5, IT6

Abandonment

Age of farmers Low profitability Migration Labour shortage

HE4 PT5

Low profitability appears as a key weakness in PT5 and CO1–4, areas with inherently low productivity given their environmental and soil conditions and difficulties for expanding irrigation (de Graaff, 2005) (Tables 1 and 2). In both SMOPS, productivity is less than their non-organic alternatives (Tables 2 and 6), but in the case of CO1–4 the higher price of organic oil compensates for this lower yield. The prices are not higher in the example studied for Tra´sos-Montes (PT5): here, reduced costs cannot compensate for the difference in productivity. In both cases, without subsidies the revenue would have been much lower and probably would not be acceptable for farmers who depend on agriculture as an additional source of income. Despite having a high oil price and moderate yield compared to the more marginal SMOPS, IT6 has the lowest negative net revenue of the five SMOPS studied (Fig. 2). It also has a large difference in net revenue compared with its nonorganic alternative (IT5), although this shows only a marginal benefit (Fig. 4). The reason for the negative revenue is the high costs in all the components of olive production, especially for labour. Compared to its non-organic alternative, CO5 remains more profitable, as a result of the much higher oil price; in the case of HE4, however, the higher yield in the intensive non-organic system compensates for the difference in olive oil price. 4. Is there a need for additional good agricultural practices for organic SMOPS? The five organic SMOPS analysed in the four EU countries show different typologies that can be classified in two basic groups. One group comprises organic farms in areas of favourable soil and rainfall conditions, or widespread irrigation, with relatively low costs compared to their farm output (HE4 and CO5). In these SMOPS, a combination of high price for organic olive oil, high yields and subsidies contributes to high net revenues. However, without agricultural subsidies, the benefit in HE4 would have been much less (Fig. 2, Table 4). Both organic SMOPS provide relevant ecological functions in their respective study areas, such as increased biodiversity, reduced risk of wildfire thanks to the firebreak function of the olive orchards, and improved soil quality. They also contribute to reducing erosion risk to almost negligible levels in the Greek situation in the presence of a cover crop. Nevertheless, erosion is still a significant issue in CO5, because of the lack of soil and water conservation measures beyond soil management (Table 3). The SMOPS in this group are also key demanders of labour, and help incorporate younger farmers in the area.

ARTICLE IN PRESS J.A. Gomez et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 89 (2008) 99–109

The second group comprises the SMOPS with low or negative net revenue: CO1–4, PT5, and IT6 (Fig. 2.). CO1–4 and PT5 are conditioned by their very low productivity due to environmental conditions and agronomic limitations (Tables 1 and 2). All three SMOPS provide relevant ecological functions in their study areas by increasing biodiversity, reducing wildfire risk thanks to the firebreak function of the olive orchards, improving soil quality, and contributing to reduce erosion risk in the Spanish and Italian SMOPS, although due to the lack of soil and water conservation measures in both areas, soil erosion remains a relevant issue. Soil erosion is also an issue in the Portuguese PT5, which not only lacks soil and water conservation but also has inappropriate soil management. In all cases, the SMOPS are relevant demanders of labour and contribute to the economic activity in the study areas (Table 5). An increase in oil price (which in the Portuguese case should be actively pursued), would help increase net revenue; given the low productivity; however, the net benefit will remain small, as can be seen in CO1–4. The area’s topography makes mechanisation difficult, especially harvesting, so labour costs will remain high and the margin for reducing costs seems small. Under these circumstances, subsidy support, at least at levels similar to today’s, seems necessary to ensure the continuation of olive production. The social and ecological benefits the SMOPS bring to the area (Table 8) add to the argument for defending such support level. It has to be noted that, with the exception of reducing agrochemical use in olive farms, all the other ecological benefits are mainly a consequence of a soil management strategy, cover crop, and in some cases extensification that are not specific to organic systems (Go´mez et al., 2003; Go´mez, 2005a; Millgroom et al., 2007). On the other hand, in certain study areas, such as western Crete, additional practices such as incorporation of Table 8 Main strengths detected in the five organic SMOPS studied in the OLIVERO project, adapted from de Graaff (2005) Strength

Main reasons

SMOPS

High farm income

Higher olive oil price Relatively high yields Agricultural aids

CO5

Soil management Low chemical inputs S and WC structures Occupation of rural area

CO1–4 CO5

Oil output

CO1–4

Agricultural aids

CO5, HE4, PT5, IT6

Ecological benefit

Labour and income provider for the region

HE4

HE4 PT5, IT6

107

pruning material, legumes and composts are mainly implemented on organic farms. Erosion risk nevertheless remains an issue in these study areas. This suggests that a similar plea for subsidy support could be made for integrated pest management or conventional management following good agricultural practice that uses cover crops to manage soil. For the previous reason, monetary support should be conditional on the use of a cover crop as soil management, as a part of a mandatory package of Good Agricultural Practices. The implementation of additional soil and water conservation measures should also be mandatory, but given the expense of such measures, they should be supported by specific funding and technical assistance. These measures should be directed not only at organic farming but also to all the other olive production systems, which continue to predominate in the areas (Table 1). Given that integrated production results in a smaller price differential for organically produced oil than for conventionally produced oil (see Tables 4 and 6 for IT4), the differences in net revenue between integrated and conventional production could probably be larger. As a consequence, it seems unlikely that organic olive production will become the dominant production system in these areas. IT4 also shows negative profitability, but this is mainly due to the high costs of inputs and labour (Table 4). Mechanisation of farm operations, especially harvesting, could lead to a significant cost reduction, as can be seen by comparison with SMOP CO5, where harvesting is mechanised (Table 4). Additionally, since irrigation seems to be a realistic option in the Basilicata–Salerno area (Table 1), there is scope for yield increase combining an expansion of irrigation with improved fertilisation and pest management; a good example of this can be found in HE4. Maintenance of the current level of support appears to be necessary in order to provide enough incentive for commercial orchards that will rely on olive production as their main source of income. The rationale for maintaining such support is similar to that for PT5 and CO1–4: the beneficial impact on the area. The same provisos apply, about linking that support to adequate soil and water conservation measures. Although improved farm fertilisation and pest management through farmer training and access to technical support should be pursued in these two areas, the benefit in yield may be small and not enough to change the overall picture of low productivity, as is also happening in the alternative conventional systems (Table 6). In the absence of sources of nutrients and OM external to farm operations, low yields may be viewed as a result of the equilibrium between productivity and low levels of natural resources. HE4 and CO5 are two SMOPS in which low profitability does not seem to be an issue (Table 7), although it is much lower than in non-organic systems. As long as the difference in olive price compared to non-organic systems remains high, there is no reason to expect changes in CO5.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 108

J.A. Gomez et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 89 (2008) 99–109

Organic oil producers in these study areas have achieved consumer appreciation and recognition, and will probably remain organic producers as long as they keep receiving a similar level of price and support (Metzidakis et al., 2005b). In HE4 the losses in revenue compared to the more intensive and more productive intensive system are large, suggesting that the margin for a significant expansion of organic olive production is limited in the study area (Table 1). The ecological function of olive production in HE4 is probably the most beneficial of the five SMOPS studied, with no erosion problems when the extension of soil and water conservation measures is combined with a cover crop management. In CO5 the scarcity of these soil and water conservation measures has led to a high erosion risk. The comments made for the other SMOPS, about linking support to specific soil and water conservation measures, and not limiting them to organic production systems, also apply here. 5. Conclusions Organic olive production has achieved a significant presence in two of the four countries studied, while remaining very small in the Greek and Italian areas. Cost analyses indicate that organic farming in the Subbetica area of Cordoba province (SMOPS CO5) is very profitable as a result of a combination of favourable soil and rainfall conditions, mechanisation, oil price and support. The other four SMOPS, however, are confronted by alternative nonorganic systems that provide higher net revenues. This is a combined consequence of costs being higher and yield lower compared to the non-organic alternative; this can be regarded as a general feature, not one specific to these SMOPS (Sa´nchez, 2003; Lotter, 2003), and as such can only partly be compensated for by a higher oil price. In almost all cases, subsidy support seems essential to maintain a revenue level that will provide enough incentive to olive production as an additional source of income (PT5, CO1–4), or as a main source of income (CO5, IT6, and HE4). The justification for maintaining the current level of aid is the beneficial social, economic and ecological impact of olive production in the study areas. That being the case, support should be linked to cover crop soil management, OM management and the implementation of additional soil and water conservation measures. This implies the need to improve soil management techniques in four of the SMOPS; the fifth (HE4) has already attained a satisfactory level of resource conservation and environmental protection. Many of the beneficial impacts of olive farming in these areas are not linked to the specific production system, but rather to soil and farm management and a level of economic activity promoted by olive production (supported by a significant level of subsidies from the EU). Thus, the moderate extent of organic farming compared to other olive production systems, and the higher revenue of

non-organic but environment-friendly alternatives in many areas, suggest that although organic olive production has a share in olive production in the EU, there is no strong reason to expect that this production system will become dominant. The relative importance of SMOPS in the EU will probably be determined by the number of consumers willing to pay more for organic oil and olives, and the different level of support from agricultural and environmental policies compared to other agricultural systems. Acknowledgements The support of the EC through the OLIVERO project QLK5 CT-2002-01841 that fully funded the study is gratefully acknowledged. References Alonso, A., 2002. El olivar ecologico en la comarca de los Pedroches. In. La pra´ctica de la agricultura y ganaderı´ a ecolo´gicas. C.A.A.E. Sevilla, pp. 245–250. Chisci, G., 1994. Perspectives on soil protection measures in Europe. In: Rickson, R.J. (Ed.), Conserving Soil Resources: European Perspectives. CABI, Cambridge, pp. 339–353. Consejerı´ a de Agricultura y Pesca, Junta de Andalucı´ a, 2003. El olivar andaluz. Servicio de Publicaciones y Divulgacio´n, Junta de Andalucı´ a. Sevilla. De Graaff, J. (Ed.), 2005. Perspectives of different types of sloping and mountainous olive plantation systems (SMOPS). OLIVERO Working Paper No. 4. El-Hage Scialabba, N., Hattam, C. (Eds.), 2002. Organic Agriculture, Environment and Food Security. FAO, Rome. EUROSTAT, 2005. Agricultural main indicators. Available at /http:// epp.eurostat.cec.eu.intS. Consulted in December 2005. Fleskens, L. (Ed.), 2005. Overview of production costs for sloping and mountainous olive plantation systems (SMOPS) under different circumstances. OLIVERO Working Paper No. 3. Gil, J., Rodero, I., Odierna, C., 2003. Inventario de los suelos de la provincia de Co´rdoba. Diputacio´n de Co´rdoba, Co´rdoba. Gobin, A., Govers, G., Kirkby, M.J., Le Bissonnais, Y., Cosmas, C., Puigdefabregas, J., Van Lynden, G., Jones, R.J.A., 1999. PESERA Project technical annex. Contract No: QLKS-CT-1999-10323 European Comission. Go´mez, J.A., 2005a. Effects of soil management on soil physical properties and infiltration in olive orchards: implications for yield. In: FAO land and water Bulletin 10. FAO. Rome, pp. 65–69. Go´mez, J.A. (Ed.), 2005b. Assessment of land degradation in project olive areas, with on- and off-site effect. OLIVERO Project Communication No. 6. Go´mez, J.A., Battany, M., Renschler, C.S., y Fereres, E., 2003. Evaluation of the impact of different soil management on soil losses in olive orchards in Southern Spain using RUSLE. Soil Use and Management 19, 127–134. Go´mez, J.A., Romero, P., Gira´ldez, J.V., Fereres, E., 2004. Experimental assessment of runoff and soil erosion on a Vertic soil in southern Spain as affected by soil management. Soil Use and Management 20, 426–431. International Olive Oil Council, 2005. Statistics available at /http:// www.internationaloliveoil.orgS. Consulted in December 2005. Kosmas, C., Danalatos, N., Cammeraat, L.H., Chabart, M., Diamantopoulos, J., Farand, R., Gutierrez, L., Jacob, A., Marques, H., Martinez-Fernandez, J., Mizara, A., Moustakas, N., Nicolau, J.M., Oliveros, C., Pinna, G., Puddu, R., Puigdefabregas, J., Roxo, M., Simao, A., Stamou, G., Tomasi, N., Usai, D., Vacca, A., 1997. The

ARTICLE IN PRESS J.A. Gomez et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 89 (2008) 99–109 effect of land use on runoff and soil erosion rates under Mediterranean conditions. Catena 29, 45–49. Lotter, D.W., 2003. Organic agriculture. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 21, 59–128. Metzidakis, I., 2004. (Ed.), An overview of productive, ecological and socio-economic functions of SMOPS. OLIVERO Project Communication No. 2. Metzidakis, I., Kosmas, C., Moustakas, N., Koubouris, G., Kassidonis, E., Sergentani, C., 2005a. Financial and environmental aspects of organic olive tree culture in Crete. In: International Symposium on Organic Agriculture in the Mediterranean—Problems and Perspectives, Chania, Greece. Metzidakis, I., Koubouris, G., Papanagiotou, I., Sergentani, C., 2005b. Projections and pathways for development in organic olive plantation system of Crete. In: International Symposium on Organic Agriculture in the Mediterranean—Problems and Perspectives, Chania, Greece. Millgroom, J., Soriano, M.A., Garrido, J.M., Go´mez, J.A., Fereres, E., 2007. The influence of a shift from conventional to organic olive farming on soil management and erosion risk in Southern Spain. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22 (1), 1–10. Pastor, M., Castro, J., Vega, V., Humanes, M.D., 1999. Sistemas de manejo del suelo. In: Barranco, D., Ferna´ndez-Escobar, R., Rallo, L. (Eds.), El cultivo del olivo. Mundi Prensa, Madrid. Raglione, M., Toscano, P., Lorenzoni, P., Angelini, R., Bricolli-Bati, C., Spadoni, M., De Simone, C., 2000. Influenza di differenti gestioni del suolo sulla perdita di nutrienti e sulla produzione di un oliveto in

109

ambiemti collinare dell’Italia meridionale. National congress: La scienza del suelo per l’ambiente. Venice, June 12–16, 2000, pp. 229–235. Renard, K.G., Foster, G.R., Weesies, G.A., McCool, D.K., Yoder, D.C., 1997. Predicting soil erosion by water: a guide to conservation planning with the revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE). US Dep. Agric., Agric. Handb. No. 703. Washington, DC. Sa´nchez, S., 2002. El cultivo del olivar desde una perspectiva de gestio´n. Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Jae´n. Sa´nchez, J.L., 2003. Evaluacio´n de sustentabilidad de sistemas de manejo de olivares ecolo´gicos y convencionales en Los Pedroches. Premio Andres Nu´n˜ez de Prado (Ed.), A.C.A.d.A.E. (CAAE). CAAE, Sevilla. Schertz, D.L., 1983. The basis for soil loss tolerances. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 38, 10–14. Stroosnijder, L., Mansinho, I., Palese, A.M., 2006. OLIVERO: the project analyzing the future of olive production systems on sloping land. Journal of Environmental Management, this issue, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.05.025. Van der Knijff, J.M., Jones, R.J.A., Montanarella, L., 2000. Soil Erosion Risk Assessment in Europe. EUR 19044 EN. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Wischmeier, W.H., 1978. Use and misuse of the universal soil loss equation. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 31, 5–9. Xiloyannis, C., Celano, G., Amato, M., Palese, A.M., 2004. An overview of crop management, land husbandry and soil & water conservation measures within the project areas OLIVERO Project Communication No. 3.