Farming in the European Union: from organic to sustainable. An assessment of a legal transition ...

69 Pages·2015·1.85 MB·English

Farming in the European Union: from organic to
sustainable
An assessment of a legal transition based on land stewardship
and participatory guarantee systems
Javier Munoz-Blanco Garcia
Master Thesis Series in Environmental Studies and Sustainability Science,  
No 2015:002 
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of Lund University 
International Master’s Programme in Environmental Studies and Sustainability Science 
(30hp/credits) 
LUCSUS

Lund University Centre for
Sustainability Studies

Farming in the European Union: from organic to sustainable
An assessment of a legal transition based on land stewardship and participatory
guarantee systems

Javier Munoz-Blanco Garcia

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Lund University International
Master’s Programme in Environmental Studies and Sustainability Science
Submitted May 13, 2015
Supervisor: Mine Islar, LUCSUS, Lund University

Abstract
The conventional agricultural production system is not sustainable. Organic agriculture is assumed to
be sustainable from the environmental perspective, and its production and labelling has been
regulated in the European Union (EU). The EU organic regime has been challenged by proponents of
agroecology, a philosophy that merges agriculture and ecology and considers environmental and social
aspects. Some other initiatives at the local and regional level propose different ways of producing food
sustainably. In 2015, a Spanish environmental NGO called RCTCMM launched a market of products
coming from land stewardship (LS) agreements certified with participatory guarantee systems (PGSs),
claiming it to be a sustainable alternative to the products certified as EU organic.
Using strong/weak and soft-path/hard-path sustainability frameworks I analyse the sustainability
features of the EU organic regime, agroecology, LS, and PGSs from the environmental and social points
of view. I also do a SWOT analysis on the implementation of RCTCMM’s project. My analysis finds: 1)
the EU organic regime is not sustainable because it does not take into account important local and
global environmental impacts, and leaves out of the market responsible farmers who cannot compete
in the global markets, afford the cost of certification, or participate in the selection of the certification
criteria; 2) agroecology is a strong sustainability, soft-path solution from both social and environmental
dimensions; 3) LS and PGSs can solve some of the current EU organic regime’s sustainability issues,
with multifunctional agriculture, short commercial channels, and inclusiveness and participation of
farmers in the certification process; and 4) RCTCMM’s project needs to improve some organisational
aspects for the successful implementation of their initiative in Spain, although there are other external
risks that require changes at the EU-level to dissipate.
Using transition theory, I offer three legal transitions towards a less unsustainable EU regime: A) a
‘patch’ to the current EU organic regime with an update of the current criteria and the allowance of
group certification; B) a parallel alternative system of incentives for initiatives like PGSs and LS; and C)
a reform of the whole EU agricultural regime conforming to agroecological principles. I suggest Option
B because it is a strong sustainability alternative and it is the easiest to implement considering the
transaction costs involved in the other two.

Keywords: organic farming, agroecology, land stewardship, participatory guarantee systems, legal
transition, multifunctional agriculture

Word count: 13,757

i
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Montse Masó and José Ignacio Gómez for their time, predisposition, and help
provided for this work. I also would like to thank Molly MacGregor and Chad Boda for their valuable
advice and support. I am also grateful to my thesis group, supervised by Mine Islar, for their
involvement, moral support, and for their suggestions for improvement.

ii
Abbreviations

CAP Common Agricultural Policy
CNC Critical Natural Capital
EU European Union
FRECT Foro de Redes y Entidades de Custodia del Territorio
GMO Genetically Modified Organism
IFOAM International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements
LS Land Stewardship
LSN Land Stewardship Network
LSO Land Stewardship Organisation
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
PGS Participatory Guarantee System
RCTCMM Red de Custodia del Territorio de Castilla-La Mancha y Madrid
TTIP Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
WTO World Trade Organisation
XCT Xarxa de Custòdia del Territori

iii
Table of contents
1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Problem identification and research questions .................................................... 1
1.2 Relevance for sustainability science ..................................................................... 2
2 Background ................................................................................................. 3
2.1 The EU regime of organic farming ............................................................................ 3
2.2 Agroecology: the union of ecology and agriculture ................................................... 4
2.3 Land Stewardship (LS) .............................................................................................. 5
2.3.1 Definition for this thesis and its use in Spain....................................................... 5
Definition and main elements .............................................................................................................. 5
LS agreements ..................................................................................................................................... 5
LS in Spain: organisation in regional networks .................................................................................... 6
2.3.2 LS in the rest of the world .................................................................................. 7
2.3.3 Other uses of the term ....................................................................................... 7
2.4 Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGSs) .................................................................. 7
3 Methodology ............................................................................................... 9
3.1 Ontology and epistemology ..................................................................................... 9
3.2 Research structure ................................................................................................... 9
3.2.1 Phase 1: Analysing sustainability on the EU organic regime, LS, and PGSs .......... 9
Methods .............................................................................................................................................. 9
3.2.2 Phase 2: Case study of LS and PGSs in Spain ..................................................... 10
Case presentation of RCTCMM’s project ............................................................................................ 11
iv
Methods ............................................................................................................................................ 13
3.2.3 Limitations ...................................................................................................... 14
4 Theoretical framework ............................................................................... 15
4.1 Conception of sustainability ................................................................................... 15
4.1.1 Strong vs weak sustainability ........................................................................... 15
4.1.2 Hard-path vs soft-path solutions ...................................................................... 15
4.1.3 Dimensions of sustainability ............................................................................ 16
4.2 Transition theory ................................................................................................... 16
4.3 Legal positivism standpoint .................................................................................... 18
5 Findings and analysis .................................................................................. 20
5.1 Agroecology: a strong sustainability perspective on farming................................... 20
5.1.1 Strong sustainability ........................................................................................ 20
5.1.2 Soft-path solution ............................................................................................ 20
5.1.3 Holistic approach ............................................................................................. 20
5.2 The EU regime on organic farming through a sustainability lens ............................. 21
5.2.1 Social aspects .................................................................................................. 21
Globalisation and conventionalisation............................................................................................... 21
Participation constraint ..................................................................................................................... 22
Certification costs .............................................................................................................................. 23
5.2.2 Environmental aspects ..................................................................................... 23
Local impacts ..................................................................................................................................... 23
Global impacts ................................................................................................................................... 24
v
5.3 Solutions for the EU regime from PGSs ................................................................... 25
5.3.1 Horizontality ................................................................................................... 25
5.3.2 Peer-certification ............................................................................................. 25
5.3.3 Transparency and traceability .......................................................................... 26
5.4 Solutions for the EU regime from LS ....................................................................... 26
5.4.1 Multifunctional agriculture and ecosystem services ......................................... 26
5.4.2 Partnership perspective ................................................................................... 27
5.4.3 Local production and short distribution channels ............................................. 27
5.5 PGSs and LS combined as a solution ....................................................................... 28
5.5.1 Synergies between LS and PGSs ....................................................................... 28
5.5.2 Alignment with agroecology ............................................................................ 29
5.6 SWOT analysis for the implementation of RCTCMM’s LS market ............................. 31
5.6.1 Strengths ......................................................................................................... 31
5.6.2 Weaknesses ..................................................................................................... 32
5.6.3 Opportunities .................................................................................................. 32
5.6.4 Threats ............................................................................................................ 33
5.6.5 SWOT analysis interpretation .......................................................................... 34
6 Discussion .................................................................................................. 36
6.1 Transitions to sustainability ................................................................................... 36
6.2 From a private agreement among local NGOs to an EU-level regulation .................. 37
6.3 Different options for the EU policy ......................................................................... 37
vi