Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

European Countryside

The Journal of Mendel University in Brno

4 Issues per year


CiteScore 2016: 0.69

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.190
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.896

Open Access
Online
ISSN
1803-8417
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 8, Issue 1

Issues

Approaching Multifunctionality by a ‘Normative View’: Finnish Farmers’ Visions on Contemporary Agriculture

Fulvio Rizzo
  • Doctor of Social Sciences Fulvio Rizzo (PhD), Research Fellow, Department of Geographical and Historical Studies, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 111 80101 Joensuu;
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2016-04-09 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/euco-2016-0002

Abstract

Productivity alone is not the most important defining character of contemporary agriculture. On the grounds of the dominant models of market liberalization and multifunctionality, farmers have been urged to take new roles beyond food production. By deploying a ’normative’ view of multifunctionality, based on the acknowledgment of spatial heterogeneity, and on an actor-oriented explanation of agricultural change, this paper investigates Finnish farmers’ visions on the redefined and redifining role of contemporary agriculture. From a review and anaylsis of sixteen qualitative semi-structured interviews, it emerges that such visions — through their components of identity, opponent, and project — are constructed upon three factors which are linked to each other to a various extent: 1) farming contingent conditions (as location, climate, terrain); 2) externalities (including international policy environment, and market liberalization); 3) farmers’ personal views on profitability and risk. In a policy context dominated by uncertainty, decision-making has shifted mainly from the national to the international level, and the collected data supports the dominance of productivist actions and thoughts. On one hand, farmers still tend to prioritize the continuity of production, which contribute both to resistance identity, and to the identification of a variety of opponents. Yet on the other hand, farmers are, to an embryonic stage, upgrading themselves to meet the challenges faced by contemporary agriculture.

Keywords: multifunctionality; normative view; vision; territorial expression; productivism; non-productivism; resistance identity

References

  • [1] Almås, R. & Campbell, H. (2012). Introduction: emerging challenges, new policy frameworks and the resilience of agriculture (pp. 1-22). In Almås, R. & Campbell, H., eds., Rethinking agricultural regimes. Food security, climate change and the future resilience of global agriculture Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar

  • [2] Alsos, G. A. & Carter, S. (2006). Multiple business ownership in the Norwegian farm sector: resource transfer and performance consequences. Journal of Rural Studies, 22(3), 313-322. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.09.003.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [3] Atterton, J. & Ward, N. (2007). Diversification and Innovation in Traditional Land-Based Industries (pp. 12-23). In: Mahroum, S., Atterton, J., Ward, N., Williams, A., Naylor, R., Hindle, R. & Rowe, F. (eds.) Rural Innovation. London: National Endowment for Science Technology and the Arts.Google Scholar

  • [4] Baldock, D., Dwyer, J., Lowe, P., Petersen, J-E. and Ward, N. (2001). The nature of rural development: towards a sustainable integrated rural policy in Europe. A ten-nation scoping study for WWF and the GB Countryside Agencies (Countryside Agency, Countryside Council for Wales, English Nature and Scottish Natural Heritage). London: Institute for European Environmental Policy.Google Scholar

  • [5] Boonstra, W. J., Ahnström, J. & Hallgren, L. (2011). Swedish farmers talking about nature – a study of the interrelations between farmers’ values and the sociocultural notion of naturintresse. Sociologia Ruralis, 51(4), 420-435. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9523.2011.00547.x.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [6] Burton, R., Kuczera, C. and Schwarz, G. (2008). Exploring farmers’ resistance to voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Sociologia Ruralis, 48(1), 16-37.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [7] Burton, R. & Wilson, G. (2012). The rejuvenation of productivist agriculture: the case for cooperative neo-productivism. Research in Rural Sociology and Development, 18, 51-72.Google Scholar

  • [8] Burton, R. & Wilson, G. (2006). Injecting social psychology theory into conceptualisations of agricultural agency: towards a post-productivist farmer self-identity? Journal of Rural Studies, 22(1), 95-115. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.07.004.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [9] Carnegie Trust UK, 2010. A Common Rural Development Policy? Dunfermline: Carnegie Trust UK.Google Scholar

  • [10] Darnhofer, I. (2009). Organic farming and rural development: some evidence from Austria. Sociologia Ruralis, 45(4), 308-323. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9523.2005.00307.x.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [11] Evans, N. (2009). Adjustment strategies revisited: agricultural change in the Welsh Marches. Journal of Rural Studies, 25(2), 217-230. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.10.002.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [12] Evans, N., Morris, C. & Winter, M. (2002). Conceptualizing agriculture: a critique of postproductivism as the new orthodoxy. Progress in Human Geography 26(3), 313-332. DOI: 10.1191/0309132502ph372ra.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [13] Fairclough, N. (2004). Analysing discourse: textual analysis for social research. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar

  • [14] Feola, G. & Binder, C. R. (2010). Towards an improved understanding of farmers’ behaviour: the integrated agent-centered (IAC) framework. Ecological economics, 69 (12), 2323-2333. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.07.023.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [15] Finnish Rural Policy Committee (2009). Countryside for vigorous Finland. Government report to parliament on rural policy. http://www.ruralpolicy.fi/files/988/Countryside_for_Vigorous_Finland.pdf [Accessed on 10 November 2015].

  • [16] Gorton, M., Davidova, S. & Douarin, E. (2008). Attitudes to agricultural policy and farming futures in the context of the 2003 CAP reform: a comparison of farmers in selected established and New Member States. Journal of Rural Studies, 24(3), 322-336. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.10.001.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [17] Groenfeldt, D. (2009). Multifunctional Agricultural Policies and Practices in Europe and Relevance for Monsoon Asia. Santa Fe, Mexico: Water and Culture Institute. http://www.waterculture.org/uploads/Multifunctional_Report-Groenfeldt-Dec2009.pdf. [Accessed on 10 November 2015].

  • [18] Gundelach, P. (2005). Visions in agriculture. Sociologia Ruralis, 45(3), 245-262. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9523.2005.00303.x.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [19] Halfacree, K, (2010). Reading rural consumption practices for difference: bolt-holes, castles and life-rafts. Culture Unbound: Journal of Current Cultural Research, 2, 241-263. DOI: 10.3384/cu.2000.1525.1022.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [20] Huylenbroeck, V. & Durand, G. (2003). Multifunctionality and rural development: a general framework (pp. 1-18). In: Huylenbroeck, V. & Durand, G., eds., Multifunctional agriculture: a new paradigm for European agriculture and rural development. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited.Google Scholar

  • [21] Ilbery, B. (1992). State-assisted farm diversification in the United Kingdom (pp. 100-116). In: Bowler, I., Bryant, C., & Nellis, M., eds., Contemporary Rural Systems in Transition. Wallingford: CAB.Google Scholar

  • [22] Ilbery, B. & Bowler, I. (1998). From agricultural productivism to postproductivism (pp. 57-84). In Ilbery, B., ed., The Geography of Rural Change. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar

  • [23] Jokinen, P., Järvelä, M., & Puupponen, A. (2009). Local food systems and rural sustainability initiatives by small scale rural entrepreneurs in Finland. Maaseudun Uusi Aika, 2, 5-20.Google Scholar

  • [24] Kahila, P. (2010). Mainstreaming of LEADER approach to agri-environmental support in South-West Finland. [Case study report]. Stockholm: Nordregio.Google Scholar

  • [25] Kietäväinen, A. (2014). Narrated Agency and Identity of Settlement Farmers in the Changing Circumstance of Modern Society. Sociologia Ruralis, 54(1), 57-70. DOI: 10.1111/soru.12028.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [26] Lowe, P., Buller, H., and Ward, N. (2002). Setting the next agenda? British and French approaches to the second pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy. Journal of Rural Studies, 18(1), 1-17. DOI: 10.1016/S0743-0167(01)00025-0.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [27] Macias, T. (2008). Working toward a just, equitable, and local food system: the social impact of community-based agriculture. Social Science Quarterly, 89(5), 1086-1101. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2008.00566.x.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [28] Magnaghi, A. (2010). Il progetto locale. Verso la coscienza di luogo. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.Google Scholar

  • [29] Marsden, T. (1998). Agriculture beyond the treadmill? Issues for policy, theory and research practice. Progress in Human Geography, 22(2), 265-275. DOI: 10.1191/030913298669229669.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [30] Mather, A. S., Hill, G., & Nijnik, M. (2006). Post-productivism and rural land use: cul de sac or challenge for theorization? Journal of Rural Studies, 22(4), 441-455. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2006.01.004.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [31] McElwee, G., & Bosworth, G. (2010). Exploring the strategic skills of farmers across a typology of farm diversification approaches. Journal of Farm Management, 13(12), 819-838.Google Scholar

  • [32] Morgan, S. L., Marsden, T., Miele, M. & Morley, A. (2010). Agricultural multifunctionality and farmers’ entrepreneurial skills: a study of Tuscan and Welsh farmers. Journal of Rural Studies, 26(2), 116-129. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2009.09.002.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [33] Morris, C. & Evans, N. (2004). Agricultural turns, geographical turns: retrospect and prospect. Journal of Rural Studies, 20(1), 95-111. DOI: 10.1016/S0743-0167(03)00041-X.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [34] Muilu, T., & Rosenqvist, O. (2006). Maaseutu – tuotannon tilasta kulutuksen kohteeksi. Terra, 118 (3-4), 141-142.Google Scholar

  • [35] Natural Resources Institute Finland (2014). Other entrepreneurship in agriculture and horticulture. http://stat.luke.fi/muu-yritystoiminta [Accessed on 15 January 2016].

  • [36] Niemi, J. & Kola, J. (2005). Renationalization of the Common Agricultural Policy: mission impossible? International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 8(4), 23-41.Google Scholar

  • [37] Page, B. (1996). Across the great divide: agriculture and industrial geography. Economic Geography, 72(4), 376-397.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [38] Pohjois-Karjalan TE-keskus (2007). Joensuu: Pohjois-Karjalan alueellinen maaseutuohjelma 2007-2013.Google Scholar

  • [39] Pohjois-Savon ELY Keskus (2013). Kuopio: ELY Keskus. http://www.ely-keskus.fi/documents/10191/2526230/PohjoisSavon+maaseudun+kehitt%C3%A4missuunnitelma+2014-2020.pdf/a217e5b1-57fd-4292-907c-b411fa38f79a [Accessed 10 September 2015].

  • [40] Pro Agria (2014). About Pro Agria. http://www.proagria.fi/en/about-proagria [Accessed 10 September 2015].

  • [41] Pro Agria Pohjois Karjala (2013). Maatilaselvitys Liperin Kirkonkylä. Vuorovaikutteiset toimintatavat kaavoituksen tukena-LEADER hanke (Farm report on the village of Liperi. LEADER Project: interactive approach to support land use and planning). http://www.proagriapohjois-karjala.fi/media/sisalto/hankkeet/Maatilaselvitys_yhteenveto.pdf [Accessed on 20 November 2014].

  • [42] Rickard, S. (2004). CAP reform, competitiveness and sustainability. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 84(8), 745-756. DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.1696.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [43] Riley, M., & Harvey, D. (2007). Oral histories, farm practice and uncovering meaning in the countryside. Social & Cultural Geography, 8(3), 391-415. DOI: 10.1080/14649360701488823.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [44] Rizzo, F., (2012). Co-evolution of Agriculture and Rural Development in Different Regional Institutional Contexts: Case Studies from Finland and Italy. Joensuu: Publications of the University of Eastern Finland Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies No 38.Google Scholar

  • [45] Rural Policy Committee (2009). Countryside for vigorous Finland. Government report to Parliament on rural policy. http://www.ruralpolicy.fi/files/988/Countryside_for_Vigorous_Finland.pdf [Accessed 15 September 2015].

  • [46] Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N. & Foley, J. A. (2012). Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature, 485, 229-234. DOI: 10.1038/nature11069.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [47] Seuneke, P., Lans, T., & Wiskerke, J. S. C. (2013). Moving beyond entrepreneurial skills: key factors driving entrepreneurial learning in multifunctional agriculture. Journal of Rural Studies, 32(2), 208-219. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.06.001.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [48] Shortall, S. (2008). Are rural development programmes socially inclusive? Social inclusion, civic engagement, participation, and social capital: Exploring the differences. Journal of Rural Studies, 24(4), 450-457. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.01.001.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [49] Spencer, J. & Stewart, N. (1973). The nature of agricultural systems. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 63(4), 529-544. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8306.1973.tb00946.x.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [50] Spilková, J., Fendrychová, L. & Syrovátková, M. (2013). Farmers’ markets in Prague: a new challenge within the urban shoppingscape. Agriculture and Human Values, 30(2), 179-191. DOI: 10.1007/s10460-012-9395-5.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [51] Statistical Yearbook of Finland (2014). Tilastokeskus, Helsinki. http://www.stat.fi/tup/julkaisut/tiedostot/julkaisuluettelo/yyti_stv_201400_2014_10374_net.pdf [Accessed on 15 January 2016].

  • [52] Uudenmaan TE-keskus (2012). Uudenmaan maaseutuyritysstrategia vuoteen 2012. Uudenmaan TE-keskus.Google Scholar

  • [53] Vesala, H. T. & Vesala, M. (2010). Entrepreneurs and producers: identities of Finnish farmers in 2001 and 2006. Journal of Rural Studies, 26, 21-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2009.06.001.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [54] Vihinen, H. (2006). Impact of agricultural policy on rural development in the northern periphery of the EU: the case of Finland (pp. 217-230). In: Diakosavvas, D., ed., Coherence of agricultural and rural development policies. Paris, OECD.Google Scholar

  • [55] Voutilainen, O., (2012). Relationship between agricultural and rural development within the context of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy: the Case of Finland. [Doctoral Dissertation] Oulu: University of Oulu.Google Scholar

  • [56] Wilson, G. A. (2009). The spatiality of multifunctional agriculture: a human geography perspective. Geoforum, 40, 269-280. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.12.007.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [57] Wilson, G. A. (2007). Multifunctional agriculture. A transition theory perspective. Oxfordshire: CAB International.Google Scholar

  • [58] Wilson, G. A. (2001). From productivism to post-productivism… and back again? Exploring the (un)changed natural and mental landscapes of European agriculture. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 26(1), 77-102. DOI: 10.1111/1475-5661.00007.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [59] Wilson, G. A. & Burton, R. J. F. (2015). ‘Neo-productivist’ agriculture: spatio-temporal versus structuralist perspectives. Journal of Rural Studies, 38, 52-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.02.003.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [60] Winter, M. (2003). Geographies of food: agro-food geographies – making reconnections. Progress in Human Geography, 27(4), 505-513. DOI: 10.1191/0309132503ph446pr.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [61] Winter, M. (2005). Geographies of food: agro-food geographies – food, nature, farmers and agency. Progress in Human Geography, 29(5), 609-617.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [62] Woods, M. (2009). Rural geography: blurring boundaries and making connections. Progress of Human Geography, 33 (6), 849-858. DOI: 10.1177/0309132508105001.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [63] Woods, M. (2005). Rural geography. Processes, responses, and experiences in rural restructuring. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2015-09-02

Accepted: 2016-03-18

Published Online: 2016-04-09

Published in Print: 2016-03-01


Citation Information: European Countryside, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages 16–32, ISSN (Online) 1803-8417, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/euco-2016-0002.

Export Citation

© 2016 Fulvio Rizzo, published by De Gruyter Open. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in