Ecological Entrepreneurship

Geoforum 36 (2005) 440–451 www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

Ecological entrepreneurship: sustainable development in local communities through quality food production and local branding q Terry Marsden *, Everard Smith Centre for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and Society, School of City and Regional Planning, Glamorgan Building, King Edward VII Avenue, Cardiff University, Wales, CF 103 WA, UK Received 5 August 2003; received in revised form 25 May 2004

Abstract The paper explores the importance of specialised networks in shaping local/regional responses to the deepening crisis of conventional agriculture in the EU, as well as potentially creating a more sustainable platform for rural development. The emphasis will be on the problem-solving aspects of network creation and maintenance within a broader and not necessarily supportive competitive and regulatory environment. This involves examining, both over time and space, how networks function to shape knowledge and create a competitive willingness to innovate to achieve mutually beneficial goals. Through a process which we call ecological entrepreneurship, key actors facilitate sustainable development in the countryside by a combination of fragmentation, specialisation and quality building strategies. We empirically explore these evolutionary and spatial factors through two farming-centred networks— an organic farming network in the UK: the Graig Farm Producer Group; and a regional quality brand in the Netherlands: the Waddengroup Foundation. The analysis of these two networks is used to examine in-depth the significance and construction of the social and spatial milieu for providing the individual and collective capabilities to establish viable problem-solving responses. This raises questions of: (i) how such networks are and can be sustained over time; (ii) the extent to which there are common evolutionary pathways which reproduce and embed problem-solving network building; (iii) how different spatial relations are engendered and (iv) whether such ÔlocalÕ projects can advance to wider counter-movements in the context of the prevailing political economy.
2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Sustainability; Spatial networks; Quality food production; Local branding

1. Introduction: sustainability through agro-food? There is much discussion and critical analysis of the extent to which real progress has been made towards sustainable development during the decade since the Rio Earth Summit. And, whilst at the global level, many voices question the ability of international agreements to q This paper was originally presented at the AAGÕs 99th Annual Meeting, New Orleans, March 9, 2003. * Corresponding author. E-mail address: marsdentk@cardiff.ac.uk (T. Marsden).

0016-7185/$ - see front matter
2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.07.008

deliver sustainable development, in many localities, patterns of intra- and inter-community relationships have begun to emerge to offer some optimism for a bottomup approach to the wider sustainability goal. Creating sustainability in rural spaces across the EU is one domain in which local initiatives have been playing an important and encouraging role. The ongoing crisis in European agriculture, and its links to sustainable rural development, may be characterised as a persistent struggle against stagnant or declining food consumption levels, increasing competition from foreign producers and novel foods, declining

T. Marsden, E. Smith / Geoforum 36 (2005) 440–451

farm incomes and a producer-based Ôcost-price squeezeÕ in conventional farming, and increasing public demands for higher quality in food and in the rural environment. Two responses to this plethora of challenges to EU agriculture and rural development have been a sharp increase in organic farming in all EU member states, as well as, more intense communication of quality in production through local and regional brand-building (see Renting et al., 2003). Our aim in this paper is to examine the importance of specialised food networks in shaping local/regional responses to the deepening crisis in EU agriculture; and to assess whether such locally and regionally-based networks have the capacity to contribute to more sustainable rural development (see Marsden, 2003). As such, the emphasis will be on the problem-solving aspects of local and regional network building; i.e. how networks function and evolve to shape knowledge and create a collective willingness to innovate to achieve mutually beneficial goals (using a combination of fragmentation, specialisation and quality building strategies). Data collected on two farming-centred networks—an organic farming network in the UK: the Graig Farm Producer Group, and a regional quality brand: the Waddengroup Foundation in the Netherlands—will be used to illustrate how local innovation and non-conventional thinking can foster sustainable economic, environmental and social development. Special emphasis will be placed on examining the underlying political and economic backdrop that shaped the operating contexts out of which these two successful case studies emerged, and, as importantly, are being maintained. Attempts will also be made to outline past, current and likely future constraints/opportunities to these local/regional initiatives, as well as the likelihood of these particular case studies acting as working examples for other localities.

2. The competing dynamics of globalisation and re-localisation A crucial part of sustainable development is sustainable wealth creation, or what we might regard as ÔvaluecaptureÕ. This requires that social and entrepreneurial initiatives be merged with respect for ecological, human, social and manufactured capital. This is an identifiable part of ecological modernisation as capacity building (see Lundquist, 2000; Murphy, 2000; Evans et al., 2002; and Jokenin, 2000). It also requires that the disposal of the wealth thus created shows a careful balance between satisfying consumption needs and maintaining re-investment levels that will assure the long-term future of both ecology and enterprises. Overall then, sustainable wealth creation and local economic development within the wider context of sustainable development require new entrepreneurial initiatives that focus on

441

investing in the local environment, creating/strengthening local institutions, and employing people and their resources. But key questions surround how these new more sustainable models of development can occur and how they evolve. In the agrarian sphere we can postulate that valuecapture at the producer end of food supply chains has at least three potential dimensions. First, it suggests that local producers and their networks attempt to capture more of the economic value of their products in a prevailing context when more of this value is being lost to the down-stream sectors (see Renting et al., 2003; Marsden, 2003). Second, it also suggests, as we will outline below, that in order to achieve this it also requires new innovations in the mechanisms for distributing value among producers and processors at the local level. This involves new types of entrepreneurial activity which is socio-ecological in the sense that it is based upon distinctly different types of networks and activities. Third, these two types of value-capture can lead to new potentialities with regard to forging synergies between agricultural practices and different types of multi-functional activities; such as agri-tourism, engagement in off-farm incomes activities and environmental schemes and projects. As a result, these can also stimulate further, multi-functional forms of value-capture. To engender the possibilities for such value-capture to occur, we argue here through our case study analysis, that new local network formation and new forms of what we term Ôecological entrepreneurshipÕ become critical; not just in initiating these new valorisation processes, but also in protecting and sustaining them in the context of significant countervailing forces. Such innovative regional and local forms of development need to be seen in the context of two major countervailing forces, within which local Ôvalue-captureÕ has to fit: globalisation and agrarian (agro-industrial) modernisation. First, against the backdrop of globalisation (for instance, the international pressures for free trade through the WTO), Ôwith global companies and global markets accounting for an increasing proportion of production and exchange, the very idea of a local economy may seem anachronisticÕ (Ekins, 1997, p. 19). Yet, despite the real threat to economic sustainability, social equity, cultural diversity and ecological integrity that globalisation poses for local communities, many believe that subsumed within this global transition is a strong justification for encouraging the development and strengthening of local economies. Therefore, whilst global competition—through rationalisation of production sites and techniques as well as market operations—offers certain important comparative advantages, the process itself tends to distribute cost and benefits unevenly across different spatial, temporal and social domains. Hence, communities that are not fortunate enough to be located on the benefit side of the global logistics scale,

442

T. Marsden, E. Smith / Geoforum 36 (2005) 440–451

tend to experience economic, political and social marginalisation. Local economic development therefore, can provide an effective counterforce against economic, political and social vulnerability due to the forces of global competition. Second, with respect to rural economies in particular, there has been the widespread application of a particular agrarian modernisation process (which by and large is still continuing). This process involves scale-enlargement and cost-price reduction in the producer sector, further intensification of the production unit, specialisation and a drastic reconstruction of the rural area so as to create the most favourable production conditions for maximising agricultural (and standardised) production volume. In addition, while this process holds considerable crisis tendencies, it has been further encouraged by logistical retailer-led supply chains and standardised quality regulation (see Van Der Ploeg, 2003; Smith et al., 2004). Under these conditions the analysis here explores the ways in which alternative ecological and quality food networks can be constructed and developed. These two sets of conditions provide a Ôprevailing landscapeÕ in which new anomalies, struggles, Ôsocio-technical nichesÕ have to be placed. As we shall explore, the future long-term success of local food networks depends upon both the robustness of their internal mechanisms, and the degree of interaction or boundedness with these prevailing external trends. 2.1. Contingent agrarian local economies and sustainability Whilst recognising the problems of over-dichotomising or disconnecting global processes with the local, it is important to consider Ôthe localÕ in this context as a form of social contingency; that is a space for rearranging possibilities which attempt to counter the prevailing forces in the agrarian landscape. ÔLocalÕ then becomes potentially a social space (a place to share some form of disconnection) for the re-assembling of resources and of value; a place for evolving new commodity frameworks and networks; a place of defence from the devalorisation of conventional production systems. As actors in their own right, local economies offer their own brand of comparative advantages. Through network building, local human capital–knowledge, skills, creativity, motivation and commitment to community and a shared vision of the present and the future–can be harnessed to build and cement mutually beneficial relationships between suppliers, producers and consumers. A sense of shared ownership of community resources and the responsibility for its viability and preservation, Ôcan inspire trust and commitment, effectively lowering transaction costs and facilitating the process of economic interactionÕ (Ekins, 1997,

p. 19); without marginalising social and environmental capital. This paper aims to outline two case studies in which the problem-solving aspects of partnership-building at the local community level, and the reliance on local capital,1 have developed to mitigate, if not reverse, several of the negative consequences that have been imposed upon two local communities as a result of the globalisation and modernisation of agro-food production and markets. In both of these local entrepreneurial networks, sustainable development in the wider sense, rather than merely sustainable economic development, was a major motivating factor. Like a number of other contributors to the recent network analysis literature, Roch et al. (2000) reject the contrasting notions that • individuals have full autonomy over the acquisition and use of information; and • available information, beliefs and values are fully determined by the prevailing social context. In fact, in RochÕs view Ôwhile the social milieu constrains the range of alternative discussants available to an individual, it also provides opportunities for the individual to meet and consult with new discussantsÕ (Roch et al., 2000, p. 778). This viewpoint relates to the trajectories of problem-solving network building which led to the Graig Farm and Waddengroup Foundation developments. In both cases an effective operating milieu was created in which new innovations could thrive. In the analysis we consider these network developments in detail and more particularly explore the interelationships between the development of new synergies in quality food production and marketing and their relationships to network construction and development. One central part of this is the development of a new form of Ôecological entreprenuershipÕ we contend, whereby key actors are committed to preserving cultural, ecological and environmental integrity yet find new pragmatic ways to create economic benefits (e.g. employment) in the local community. This involves the risky identification of potential high value traditional products and practices as well as using new regulatory and legal structures (e.g. logos and trademarks) to develop and to protect niche products. These network-based forms of ecological entrepreneurship can foster the wider development of Ôsociotechnical nichesÕ (Van Der Ploeg, 2003) in particular geographical spaces. These can be seen as collective attempts to resist the dominance of the globalisation and modernisation processes. In these ways, we argue, it is

1

on.

This includes funds, knowledge, skills, labour, commitment, and so

T. Marsden, E. Smith / Geoforum 36 (2005) 440–451

important to examine not only the networks themselves, but also their substance and social ecologies. In particular, they have to contend on a dynamic basis with strong and often countervailing competitive forces. This puts more emphasis upon the new entrepreneurial abilities of the network members. We see here, therefore, a set of conceptual interrelationships between network building, the exploitation of production and marketing synergies based upon quality foods, and the new spatial development of socio-technical niches. So far in the growing literature on alternative food networks (see Goodman and Du Puis, 2002; Ilbery and Kneafsey, 1998; Goodman, 2003; Allen et al., 2003; Renting et al., 2003) these conceptual interrelationships have yet to be fully and critically explored. Several writers have questioned the somewhat easy assumptions associated with Ôspatial valorisationÕ; and the potentially unproblematised links between local foods, quality and sustainability (see Goodman, 2003; Winter, 2003). It is important to recognise that Ôbeing localÕ is not a sufficient pre-requisite in itself to engender the sorts of innovative frameworks we analyse in this paper. As Winter (2003) and Holloway and Kneafsey (2000) support: the valorisation of the local. may be less about the radical affirmation of an ethic of community or care, and more to do with the production of less positive parochialism and nationalism, a conservative celebration of the local as the supposed repository of specific meanings and values (quoted in Winter, 2003, p. 30). Such conceptualisations of Ôdefensive localismÕ (Winter, 2003) are clearly relevant in certain social and cultural contexts. However, with regard to agro-food, as we show here, it is not just the ÔlabelÕ of local which is important, it is: (i) how the local is constructed and used in relation to new forms of economic and social networks; which in turn provide a basis for innovation and new types of economic development; and (ii), how these new spatially-based networks then set up and continue to demarcate their spatial and competitive relations and boundaries with the conventional food system. Moreover, as we shall see through the prism of the two succeeding case studies, what mark these types of novel development out is only partly to do with the fact that they are producing a particular and more locally-based type of food. More significant conceptually is that they represent new forms of more (ecologically-based) social organisation which link producers with consumers both within and across spaces, at the same time as Ôre-rootingÕ (as well as re-routing) these supply chains in particular spaces. The creation of new quality food ÔspacesÕ is then in need of further critical attention. Not necessarily in presenting just additional cases of emerging trends, but also in conceptually identifying what is significantly distinc-

443

tive socially and economically in their evolutionary and highly competitive development. The two cases below begin to explore these spatial and social dynamics, and explore the evolutionary nature of alternative food networks in different rural spaces. In exploring the two cases, an overall question remains. Do they begin to represent the evolution of a more sustainable rural economy based around the re-definition of social, economic and ecological resources? Or are they destined to remain Ôsocio-technicalÕ niches amongst a wider economy which continues to devalue local and rural natures; and as a result aspatialise rural space?

3. Organic livestock production and marketing in midWales: the Graig Farm case As the recipient of the 2001/2002 UK Organic Retailer Award as well as a long list of other awards won over the years, Graig Farm Organics is one of the UKÕs best examples of small business innovation in the countryside. Graig Farm was established in 1988 by Bob and Carolyn Kennard following 10 years of work in tropical agriculture. Upon their return to Welsh farming, the Kennards came face to face with the early signs of what was later to become a full-blown economic and quality crisis in UK agriculture. In particular, the Kennards were concerned at certain developments in intensive livestock farming in the UK; and were disappointed with the bland taste of British meats compared to what they had been accustomed to in tropical agriculture. Their initial response was to attempt to produce chickens that were reared with compassion and which would taste like chickens. To do this, a 50 ha farm was acquired in the rural county of Powys, Mid-Wales, near to the midwestern border with England. Most of the county of Powys has been classified by the EU as a Less Favoured Area, and from the year 2000 has also been designated an Objective 2 region (i.e a region in receipt of some European regional funding for assisting economic and skills development). Agriculture contributes significantly to the economy of Powys, employing in 1998, some 9902 people or 20% of the total Welsh agricultural labour force (Banks, 2001). Over 75% of these are farmers, partners, other family members or directors, with the remainder comprising full-time hired and casual/seasonal workers (Banks, 2001). Following a challenging start-up, the farm began to deliver higher quality chicken meat, and soon customers started to ask for lamb, beef and pork from animals that have been reared in a similar manner to Graig Farm chickens. This led the Kennards to adopt the organic principle of farming, being, as they see it, Ôthe only standard which could not be debasedÕ. So, from producing high quality chicken meat, Graig Farm expanded into

444

T. Marsden, E. Smith / Geoforum 36 (2005) 440–451

the production of a range of organic livestock. And, as demand for organic meats increased beyond the capacity of the farm itself, closer ties were established with other organic farms in the area, creating a network of organic suppliers which, later, became known as the Graig Farm Producers Group. Graig Farm thus became the central marketing actor for the livestock that it produces, as well as those produced by other farmers within the Graig Farm network. Two principal aims of the network are to seek out new and large markets for organic meats, as well as ensuring that organic farmers receive a fair price for their produce. In addition to fostering a responsive and mutually beneficial supplier–marketer partnership, the Graig Farm network also offers significant benefits to consumers, all of which engage positively with the concern for creating sustainability in local communities through careful regard for ecological, human, social and manufactured (produced) capital. For instance, the preservation of ecological capital is facilitated by the utilisation of the organic farming practice which seeks to leave as small an Ôecological footprintÕ on nature as possible. The issue with regard for manufactured (produced) capital is, in this case, demonstrated through compassionate livestock rearing practices. By recognising the intrinsic rights of non-human species to a shared existence with mankind, organic farming also contributes to ecological sustainability in agriculture. At the same time, the Graig Farm network addresses the issue of sustainability of human capital from a number of perspectives: (a) Farmers’ advantages: • Producers become integral parts of a network that functions through group meetings, invited expert talks and farm visits, thereby improving the knowledge that allows them to Ôfarm the way they always wanted to farmÕ (Smith, 2002). These frequent opportunities to meet and discuss individual as well as shared problems have facilitated knowledge-building as well as problem-solving. • The levels of trust engendered within the network makes it easier for certain productive resources to be shared amongst the members. • With Graig Farm acting as the central marketing agent for the group, producers are spared the cost and effort of having to plan and execute individual marketing programmes. Hence there is an opportunity to concentrate rather than fragment farm resources with each party focusing on what it does best. Farmers with finished lambs, for instance, will notify Graig Farm who makes every effort to match the supply with market demandeither through its farm shop, mail order retailing, a chain of independent retailers, the multiple supermarket chains or via export.

• The producers/marketer partnership allows farmers to have instant feedback on the quality of their animals and any changes that may be required to improve specific quality standards. • Farmers are also assured of a reliable market for their livestock at fair prices. • Significant developments have taken place with regard to the traceability of products from the farms to the point of consumer purchase. Label and bar-code systems are used at each stage, and maintained as products pass through the various stages of processing at Graig Farm. The identity of each farm is kept on the labels, and information of each farm can be found. Welsh Black Cattle meat is a main speciality, and specified butchery techniques, including vacuum (biodegradable) packaging have developed. A team of skilled butchers breakdown the carcasses into retail-sized packs. Orders can also be freshly butchered to customersÕ requirements. (b) Graig Farm benefits: • By working as part of a network, any problems of quality can be communicated instantly to the producer of each animal, thereby reducing the likelihood of small problems becoming systemic problems with significant long-term consequences. The same applies to risks associated with any deviation from the approved organic standards. • The partnership approach to future production planning allows Graig farm to be assured of a continuity of supply and quality to meet customer demand; which is good for business for both producers and the marketing agent. (c) Consumer benefits: • In an era dominated by food scares, consumers can have confidence in the organic farming system, which, by law, requires adherence to prescribed production techniques. • The Graig Farm network facilitates easy traceability of organic meats through personal knowledge of the farms and farmers; each farmerÕs personal knowledge of each animal he rears, and due to predominantly local sourcing. • With no external middle-men involved in sales that pass through Graig FarmÕs farm shop and by mail order (local) customers can enjoy prices that are as low as possible without negatively affecting producer margins. Through the development of Graig Farm and the Graig Farm Producers Group––assisted by knowledge borrowed from tropical agriculture, and the quality standards and economic support that have been available to UK organic farmers—many livestock farmers along the English/Welsh border of Mid-Wales have been able to mitigate the encroaching economic crisis that

T. Marsden, E. Smith / Geoforum 36 (2005) 440–451

445

Fig. 1. The Graig farm network.

they face in conventional UK agriculture. This has been assisted by the deliberate diversification of marketing outlets, and the corresponding independence from supplying the main corporate retail chains (see Fig. 1). In fact, this partnership has been so successful that, with economic prospects constantly worsening for conventional livestock farmers in the area, the number choosing to convert to organic production and become members of the Graig Farm network, has increased dramatically from 2 in 1990 to 20 in 1999 to over 180 in October 2001 (Banks, 2001; Smith, 2002). The job creation and job preservation impacts on local farms and within the wider local community, upstream and downstream of Graig Farm itself, have been considerable. In 2000, Graig Farm itself, created 16.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs (Banks, 2001). It is estimated that this also indirectly generates 15.2 FTEs (total 31 FTEs), and a total of 36.5 FTEs when the induced effect of spending generated by those employees in the economy is taken into consideration. Moreover, the value-added contribution of providing large quantities of high quality meat products that enjoy strong consumer demand and premium prices has helped to encourage sustainable economic, ecological and social development in the area, as opposed to the cultures of marginalisation, disempowerment, social and economic exclusion that have been the experience of large parts of the neighbouring and former predominantly coal mining community of the Welsh Valleys. The network can also act as a spur for other synergistic ecological innovations on the farms involved. For instance, several of the larger producers also participated in the agri-environmental schemes (Tir Gorfal), associated with landscape and amenity management; while others also regularly compete for organic association awards, as well as for sheep and beef

farming and conservation awards. In this sense a social landscape of agro-ecological improvement is instilled in and through the network.

4. The Waddengroup Foundation: quality production and location branding Like agriculture in the UK, Dutch agriculture epitomises the modernisation-productivist trajectory. The drive for production efficiency and cost reduction have, to a large extent, been achieved through specialisation, intensification of production, scale-enlargement and a philosophical reconstruction of the countryside into a large Ôagriculture factoryÕ (Roep, 2001). Over time, however, the notion that persistent modernisation and rationalisation would keep Dutch agriculture globally competitive came under severe stress as global markets continue to show an increasing appetite for ever cheaper products. And, those farmers and Dutch regions (like elsewhere) that were unable to remain viable participants in this agriculture race to the bottom, soon found themselves marginalised. Such was the case that preceded the Waddengroup Foundation initiative. The seeds of the Waddengroup initiative were planted in 1976 when the van Rijsselberghe family, owners of the Sint Donatus farm on Texel––the largest of the Dutch Wadden Islands––attempted to start the first organic farm in the Netherlands. This pioneering attempt to forge an economically viable, ecologically friendly disconnection with conventional agriculture encountered many obstacles and challenges especially during the early years. However, following encouraging successes in producing and marketing what was branded: ÔTexel Environmentally and Nature Friendly ProductsÕ, but

446

T. Marsden, E. Smith / Geoforum 36 (2005) 440–451

an absence of critical mass to make a real impact in the market-place; Marc van Rijsselberghe, in 1994, catalysed a network approach to solving this and other related problems that many of his colleague Wadden Island farmers shared (many of whom had already started to produce to organic standards). These shared problems included: • A sharp reduction in the number of farms and farm employment in the area. • Declining incomes and outward migration. • Significant environmental losses (especially of an uncharacteristic Dutch landscape of leafy hedgerows) due to scale-enlargement farming; hence, loss of spatial diversity and places of specific natural beauty as well as the loss of traditional breeds and architecture. • Standardisation of products for world markets, and ever declining prices were leading to the loss of ÔtraditionalÕ ways of producing, processing and consuming within the Wadden Islands. The cornerstones of the Waddengroup initiative were: • Combining local experiences and effort to build up a collective capacity in producing primary products (Texel sheep and a variety of cheeses, for instance), in processing, distributing and sales. • Using collective knowledge to support new members and others engaged in related businesses within the Wadden, area. • Implement, by means of a registered trademark and a common logo, a collective presentation for a wide assortment of products from the area on the basis of high quality and place of origin. (To qualify, processed products had to be at least 51% locally sourced.) The Waddengroup Foundation itself was formally established in 1996 under the sponsorship (and participation) of the Sint Donatus Foundation, the first organic dairy farm on Texel. Also, ÔStichting WraldfruchtÕ (World Fruit Foundation), was founded in 1992 to stimulate organic farming, processing and the marketing of typical products from the distinctive Northern Frisian area; and ÔWholesaler KroonÕ, played a role as a longstanding buyer of Sint Donatus dairy products, and supplier to a network of organic food shops in the Netherlands and Belgium. What develops, therefore, is a clustering of initiatives within the region which connect together around the Waddengroup. According to its Articles of Association, the Waddengroup co-operative Ôsupports the development of sustainable agriculture with a high value in the Wadden area by extending the production and marketing of regionally specific high quality productsÕ (Roep, 2001).

Although the area within which the Waddengroup Foundation operates is neither a governmental unit nor has any precise geographical boundary beyond abutting the Wadden Sea, the ultimate objective of the Foundation is for Waddenproducts to be fully produced (primary production and processing) within the area. Waddenproducts include the world famous Texel sheep, organic milk, cheeses, baked products, sauces, wines, ice-cream, cereals craft items and fruits. Creating synergy within the Wadden Sea community is a prime objective of the Foundation, with all members of the Waddengroup having a direct financial interest in the co-operative. A two-person, unpaid executive team, overseen between meetings by an elected supervisory board, carries out the day-to-day operations. Through a combination of funding from the three founding members, new members and grant funding under the EU Leader Programme; and a number of national economic regeneration schemes such as the Regional Stimulation Scheme for Economic Development in the North of the Netherlands, and the Agriculture MinistryÕs Schemes for Regional Innovation, R&D and marketing capabilities are developed and strengthened. The effect has been to stimulate new producers and processes in the area through the assurance of a guaranteed market for their produce at very attractive prices. Through the Foundation, raw material producers are put in close contact with dairy, fruit and cereal processors, creating both logistic and financial symbiosis. In 1998, for instance, the Foundation had 70 members, 45 of which were producers, and 25 being processors. Although not all products from the region covered by the Waddengroup Foundation are sold through the cooperative; in 1998, some 125 different products were marketed under the Waddenproducten brand producing gross turnover of €3.3 million (Roep, 2001). Five percent of net sales is dedicated to re-investment, and is placed in a general development and promotion fund. This is used for such purposes as research and development,2 registering new trademarks and seeking out additional markets overseas. Currently, the principal overseas markets are in Germany and Belgium. The assurance of high quality products that goes along with small-scale production, organic certification and location-specific marketing, has translated into high value-added products for the area. Unlike several other regions within the EU (including the UK) sharply rising sales of Waddenproducts are not associated with sales through supermarkets. Both at home and abroad, the principal sales channels are speciality shops and general grocers. With this level of heterogeneity within its supply chain, the Waddengroup network can retain greater

2 A number of the new products marketed under the Waddenproducts brand originate from old and traditional recipes.

T. Marsden, E. Smith / Geoforum 36 (2005) 440–451

447

Fig. 2. An organigram of the Waddengroup foundation (after Roep, 2002).

control over production levels, prices and the spatial distribution of gains. Although it is difficult to quantify precisely the extra net value-added that the Waddengroup Foundation has contributed to the area, estimates place this at 31% over what could have been gained from conventional agricultural practices. But this excludes the value created in upstream and downstream commercial activities and jobs created within the locality. And to this must be added the preservation, and in many cases, the rebuilding of fast diminishing environmental, social and cultural values. Consequently, after some six years since its formal inauguration, through collective action, the Waddengroup Foundation has delivered both economic success and political influence for the Wadden Sea community without sacrificing social or ecological capital. The organisational structure of the Waddengroup has facilitated more specifically the micro-economic producer-based synergies between organic, conventional production, and the growing significance of complementary ÔbroadeningÕ activities associated with amenity and welfare functions. Again, perhaps more starkly in this case, we see the development of multi-functional farms as part of their engagement in the network (Fig. 2). The Waddengroup network is rooted on the experience and skills of ÔpioneersÕ. Whereas the

formal-organisational structure and the new institutional arrangements can be relatively easily reproduced elsewhere, it is not the case with these personallybounded abilities. Roep (2001) argues that Ôthe immense Ôsea of ignoranceÕ and institutionalised inability are the main obstacles to be overcomeÕ. Also the relationship with policy frameworks is at best ambiguous, especially with regard to the national policy frameworks. As in the UK, some policies explicitly favour such initiatives while, more generally, many still support Ôold styleÕ modernisation. More hope can be given to regional and local policy initiatives.

5. Reclaiming sustainable rural spaces through the development of socio-technical niches As part of our analysis of the cases it was seen as important to attempt to enumerate how these new networked developments do actually facilitate Ôvalue captureÕ for producers involved; and second, demonstrate (rather than just assert) that this value is innovatively shared amongst the producers and the local buyers in different types of partnership arrangements. In the Graig farm case lamb prices, for instance, were compared between those inside and outside the network.

448

T. Marsden, E. Smith / Geoforum 36 (2005) 440–451

In 1999, for instance, there was a 50% premium on large lambs and a 100% premium on small lambs. Also, comparing conventional livestock auction market prices for beef cattle with those received by Graig producers showed a premium (see Banks, 2001) of 27% in some cases. There was some evidence that this was not just associated with the traditional premium on organic lamb and beef, given that conventional prices through Graig also showed a premium compared to conventional prices associated with the traditional livestock markets. The producer network has grown significantly since 1999 as a result of the relative economic attractiveness (not least in the reductions in transaction costs) of supplying through Graig; and the protection from the further falls in farm gate prices in the conventional sector. Indeed, one economic advantage is the creation of more stability in farm prices more generally as long as partnership arrangements can be effectively maintained. There is, therefore, an active and dynamic process of value-capture occurring which is socially and spatiallybased. In the Waddengroup case, being a part of the network implied a range of new opportunities for participating farmers. The marketing channels (partly internal circuits), the protection of the hallmark, involvement in new networks, and an increased flow of clients, offer considerable potential to consolidate and generate further income, and thus broadening and deepening agricultural production. Several new on-farm activities can lead to more solid forms of Ômulti-functionalityÕ. One case study farm reached extra returns of 21% (Roep, 2002). Much of this is over and above the usual premium for organic production. If the extra activities are included (like agri-tourism, environmental schemes), the extra returns reach 44%. It is the food supply chain links, however, which contribute most significantly to extra returns. Case study analysis of farm accounts show significant premiums from being involved in the network. In one case, the Sint Donatus farm, returns from food supply chain innovations reached 335% in comparison with convenrtional producers, through value-adding processes especially in dairy products. This case offers full-time employment to 10 people, compared to 1–1.5 on the average dairy farm of the same size (i.e., the same milk quota). This difference underlines the significance of enabling Ôeconomies of scopeÕ through network development and the financial opportunities of developing synergies between food value capturing activities, direct selling of farm products and agri-tourism activities. Both of the above case studies show that the problem-solving capacity of networks can be enhanced with the emergence of entrepreneur-type facilitators, and the openness of the network to ideas that originate from outside as well as inside of the action milieu (Roch et al., 2000). Whilst sustainable development in local commu-

nities will depend on how successfully local capital (funds, knowledge, labour, culture, a shared vision and environment) can be merged with local entrepreneurial ability towards agreed objectives, much can also be learned from the external community to enhance local initiatives. Hence, these cases are not just about new forms of localism. Rather, they display ways in which re-localisation can contingently create spaces which bring together new assemblages of local and external knowledges and practices. In the above two cases, the problems of economic marginalisation and creeping rural decay (not least through the continuing crisis in agricultural modernisation and its policy frameworks), have been successfully arrested by the move to quality farming and food production, facilitated by organic farming standards that are stipulated in EU law. And, whilst the problem of sustainable rural development is by no means solved in these localities, important progress has been made. At a more conceptual level, the development of these alternative and locally-derived networks raise some important questions concerning the degree to which they are sustainable economically and socially over time; the degree to which they could become more diffused over larger areas of rural space as the crisis in agricultural modernisation continues; and what the social, economic and environmental conditions and obstacles are for the capacity-building witnessed. Our wider research, conducted across six European countries (see Van Der Ploeg et al., 2002) estimates, for instance, that up to 50% of farmers are, to varying degrees, following broader or deeper rural development strategies; with many of them combining these with continued participation in conventional agricultural markets. While our two examples here represent particularly well-developed countermovements to conventional and more aspatialised agro-food systems, they are emerging in a more widespread fashion; increasing the total amount of locally dependent initiatives (see Renting et al., 2003). These developments are, however, much more ÔhiddenÕ from official data sources (like Eurostat), even though in operational terms they are often (as we see in our two cases here) far more open to their public and customer base about their supply chain organisation than conventional chains. They are in general terms both a response to the recent deepening crises in conventional agricultural costs and prices, and at the same time, opportunistic and entrepreneurial attempts to capture more value-added from a larger segment of ÔqualityseekingÕ customers. More conceptually, we can see these new networking activities as distinct socio-technical niches which begin to reclaim parts of the rural land- and social-scape back from the homogenising tendencies of the conventional system (see Van Der Ploeg, 2003; Marsden, 2003). As

T. Marsden, E. Smith / Geoforum 36 (2005) 440–451

Van Der Ploeg (2003, p. 379), echoing Kautsky (1899) a century earlier, argues: A particular ordering of space is implicit in all labour and production processes. Different farming styles result in different spatial constellations, just as a particular spatial constellation lends itself to certain development patterns and hampers others. Not for nothing is the struggle for accelerated scale enlargement translated into the compartmentalisation of rural areas, in the creation of ÔfreehavensÕ or ÔenclavesÕ. We can see these new socio-technical niches as demarcating in one sense such Ôfree-havensÕ; that is, areas within which new social and environmental landscapes begin to take shape; free in the sense that they are released from the traditionally regulated ÔgripÕ of the modernisation project. In both regions considered here, for instance, it is noticeable that the new agro-food developments have also spawned new labour and community practices, which then contribute to the further economic capture of value for the regions. In this sense it is possible that the social and economic reach of such agro-food developments can be far greater than the some of their parts; creating new capacities in a more diversified rural landscape. There are, of course, significant tensions in this process, because of the continued dominance of conventional chains and their attendant and competitive regulatory systems. They continue to dominate the landscape as well. In the UK case, the onset of the Foot and Mouth crisis in 2001, and the dominant role of the corporate retailers in both procuring and selling over 70% of organic products, suggest the strong tendency for the replication of the conventional Ôcost-priceÕ squeeze affecting the overall organic sector (see Smith and Marsden, 2004). This is a large concern for networks like Graig Farm, which partly find their economic strength not only through the diversification of farm production, but also in diversifying their retail markets. Over-dependence on the large retail multiples holds considerable dangers, and their large slice of the organic market in the UK means that they play an influential role in overall organic product price setting. It is important to recognise, however, that retail-led chains hold a different economic and social relationship with the local and regional landscape than that outlined here. They are concerned with abstracting value from it, rather than capturing value for it. Here lies a significant difference in the spatial relations between conventional agro-food chains and those analysed in this paper. Moreover, this leads to the competitive co-production of the overall, or wider rural landscape; with the compartmentalisation and abstracting processes associated with conventional production lying contiguous to the more heterogeneous and re-valorising processes associated with these quality-based

449

Ôsocio-technical nichesÕ. Many farmers in the new networks are also practising in both systems. In one sense this is the new value-based dualism affecting rural areas in Europe; and it is one which implicates the social, economic and environmental aspects of rural landscape. In another important sense, however, and partly as a consequence of the arguments outlined here concerning divergent landscape ÔcaptureÕ, is the finding from our analyses of the importance for the new networks of locally and regionally-based institutional support and involvement. These networks, in order to prosper, need more spatialised (rather than sectoralised) institutional involvement. A major barrier to their development, and a major reason why their diffusion is hampered, concerns the domination of competitive forms of conventional regulation. These concern aspects of regulation associated with competition policy, food safety and hygiene, environment and planning, and the private forms of regulation increasingly implemented by corporate retailers. The new networks need alternative forms of regulation and support in order to counter and to give legitimacy to their actions. This can occur through R&D and marketing support, for instance, in the establishment of the new knowledge and skills capacities needed; but also support is needed to defend rural spaces and niches from the devalorising tendencies of the ÔoldÕ style, and corporatist and clientelistic CAP policy instruments. As Brusa (2003) has convincingly argued with respect to such new forms of local development in Southern Italy, rather paradoxically, it is the actual degree of distance that producers and processors can create from the CAP and associated regulatory system, which influences the degree of real success in creating new quality networks. This is a distance from the lockin effects of production-based subsidy structures, intensively-based production systems, low value-added chains, and, often traditional corporatist and clientelistic farmer-farm union-state relationships, which in themselves still derive power from lock-in. To enable their development, therefore, such new networks not only need to create alternative internal quality assurance systems, they also need external, institutional support to assure and defend their spatial and social boundaries; boundaries which can sustain the benefits of exit and Ôlock-outÕ from the Ôprevailing landscapeÕ; and help to bolster different types and packages of technologies and techniques. We see this regional institutional development, for instance, in cases in Italy around speciality cheeses and wines, and in organic production (see De Roest, 2000). In Wales and in the Netherlands, given the stronger application of the conventional system along modernisation lines, such regional and local strategies are starting from a much lower base. In Wales, since 1999 the Wales Agro-food Strategy and Partnership has been established to begin to provide this territorial approach

450

T. Marsden, E. Smith / Geoforum 36 (2005) 440–451

through the Welsh Development Agency. This is a new territorial approach to agro-food, sitting alongside the conventional (sectoral) allocative system of the CAP (run through the National Assembly Government of Wales). Our case studies also highlight that a central distinctive feature of their development and potential sustainability rests with new forms of associational involvement, not only between producers but along newly formed (and potentially contested) supply chain themselves. In addition these come together, very often through the re-creation of what we might term backward–forward technological, or retro-innovation such as the recreation of old butchery and slaughtering, curing techniques, and ÔoldÕ forms of pest management (Stuiver and Marsden, under review). These again, rely upon new types of spatiality, new agro-ecological relationships (Guzman and Woodgate, 1997); and they require assistance in their development from external state organisations and policies. They need to combine the use of forward and backward technologies in new ways, as demonstrated by communications on their websites about the ÔtraditionalÕ nature of some of their production and processing techniques.

need to match an understanding to new forms of network development with ecological entrepreneurship on the one hand, and the wider social and political economy of rural and regional landscapes on the other. As we see, both are important components in shaping rural space, with the former being distinctive in harnessing social, natural and economic resources in new ways for the purposes of carving out new value-creating niches. Ecological entrepreneurship, therefore, deserves more attention in the new rural social and spatial transformations suggested in this analysis. Whilst the scholarly literature concerning alternative food movements and networks has expanded rapidly over recent years, our analysis here suggests that more conceptual effort is now needed concerning the distinctive geographical and social components of these trends. In particular, such concepts as spatial contingency and capture, the degree of disconnection from conventional systems (i.e. Ôlock-in and lock-outÕ), retro-innovation and ecological entrepreneurship, would seem to be salient areas for critical development if we are to continue to assess the real sustainability and contestablity of the new and distinctive agro-food geographies that confront us.

Acknowledgment 6. Conclusions: capturing spaces: creating opportunities Despite considerable obstacles and constraints, not least from the maintenance of the competitive regulatory, rural and agricultural policies which continue to Ôlock-inÕ producers into providing standardised food products at ever cheaper farm-gate prices, new and highly uneven network developments in agro-food are diffusing and contributing to a more diverse rural landscape in Europe. As we see from these two specific cases, this raises important conceptual questions on the capacity of local places to sustain these Ôcounter-movementsÕ. We have identified some of the key internal and external components which are shaping these new spatial relationships. Embodied in these is also the recognition of a new form of what we term Ôecological entrepreneurshipÕ, whereby key actors in the networks that develop play a decisive role in enrolling and mobilising other actors into the network; create and sustain its structures, and innovate in developing new interfaces between producers and consumers. We can postulate that this may be an important element in the progression of agrarian-based ecological modernisation more generally (Marsden, 2004); and it raises important theoretical issues which challenge the need to view ecological entrepreneurship as more than simply an oxymoron in the environmental policy literature and debates. It also takes us beyond the realms of generalised Ôsocial capitalÕ justifications for local rural development. What our cases demonstrate here is the

The paper is based upon research conducted under two projects. First, the EU funded IMPACT project entitled: The socio-economic impact of rural development policies: realities and potentials (CT-4288). In particular, the authors would especially like to recognise the work of Jo Banks and Dirk Roep for their empirical case study work. Second the arguments and analyses developing here form part of the UK Economic and Social Research CouncilsÕ Research Centre on Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and Society (BRASS) under one of its projects entitled: Engaging Local Communities. References Allen, P., Fitzimmons, M., Goodman, M., Warner, K., 2003. Shifting plates in the agri-food landscape: the tectonics of alternative agrifood initiatives in California. Journal of Rural Studies 19, 61–75. Banks, J., 2001. Organic food supply chains in Wales: impact and potential, Department of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff University, Working Paper. Brusa, L., 2003. Rural development, culture and environment in Southern Italy, unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Manchester, UK. De Roest, K., 2000. The Production of Parmigiano–Reggiano Cheese: The Force of An Artisanal System in An Industrialised World. Van Gorcum, Assen. Ekins, P., 1997. Sustainable wealth creation in the local economy. In Community Economic Development: Linking the Grassroots to Regional Economic Development, Conferences Proceedings from the Regional Studies Association, 1997, pp. 18–21.

T. Marsden, E. Smith / Geoforum 36 (2005) 440–451 Evans, N., Morris, C., Winter, M., 2002. Conceptualising agriculture: a critique of post-productivism as the new orthadoxy. Progress in Human Geography 26 (3), 313–332. Goodman, D., Du Puis, E.M., 2002. Knowing food and growing food: beyond the production–consumpiton debate in the sociology of agriculture. Sociologia Ruralis 42 (1), 6–23. Goodman, D., 2003. The quality ÔturnÕ and alternative food practices: reflections and agenda. Journal of Rural Studies 19, 1–7. Graig Farm, ÔWho is Graig Farm OrganicsÕ http://www.graigfarm.co. uk/who.htm. Guzman, S.E., Woodgate, G.R., 1997. Sustainable rural development: from industrial agriculture to agro-ecology. In: Redclift, M., Woodgate, G. (Eds.), The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Holloway, L., Kneafsey, M., 2000. Reading the space of the farmersÕmarket: a case study from the United Kingdom. Sociologia Ruralis 40, 285–299. Ilbery, B., Kneafsey, M., 1998. Product and place: promoting quality products and services in the lagging rural regions of the European Union. European Urban Regional Studies 5, 329–341. Jokenin, P., 2000. Europeanisation and ecological modernisation: agro-environmental policy and practices in Finland. Environment Politics 9 (1), 138–170. Lundquist, L.J., 2000. Capacity building or social construction. Exploring SwedenÕs shift towards ecological modernisation. Geoforum 31 (1), 1–119. Marsden, T.K., 2003. The Condition of Rural Sustainability. VanGorcum, The Netherlands. Marsden, T.K., 2004. The quest for ecological modernisation: respacing rural development and agro-food studies. Sociologia Ruralis 44 (2), 129–147. Murphy, J., 2000. Ecological modernisation. Geoforum 31 (1), 1–8.

451

Renting, H., Marsden, T.K., Banks, J., in press. Alternative food networks and rural development in Europe. Environment and Planning A. Roch, C.H., Scholz, J.T., McGraw, K.M., 2000. Social networks and citizen response to legal change. American Journal of Political Science 44 (4), 777–791. Roep, D., 2001. The ÔWaddengroepÕ Foundation: the added value of quality and region. EU IMPACT Project Working Paper, The Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Roep, D., 2002. Value of quality and region: the Waddengroup Foundation. In: Van Der Ploeg, J.D., Long, A., Banks, J. (Eds.), The Living Countrysides. Elsevier, The Netherlands (Chapter 7). Smith, E., (2002). Ecological modernisation and organic farming in the UK: does it pay to be ÔGreenÕ? Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Department of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff University, Cardiff. Smith, E., Marsden, T.K., 2004. Exploring the Ôlimits to growthÕ in UK organics: beyond the statistical image. Journal of Rural Studies 20, 345–357. Smith, E. et al., 2004. Regulating food risks: rebuilding confidence in EuropeÕs food? Journal of Environment and Planning C 22, 543– 567. Stuiver, M., Marsden. T.K., under review. The promise of retroinnovation for rural development: theorising beyond the modernisation paradigm. Van Der Ploeg, J.D., Long, A., Banks, J. (Eds.), 2002. The Living Countrysides. Elsevier, The Netherlands. Van Der Ploeg, J.D., 2003. The Virtual Farmer. Van Gorcum, The Netherlands. Winter, M., 2003. Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism. Journal of Rural Studies 19, 23–32.