Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) in Norway - A ... - SIFO

Paper to the Second CCN (Consumer Citizenship Network) International conference 26-27May at the University of Economics, Bratislava, Slovakia: Taking Responsibility .Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) in Norway -A context for shared responsibilityBy Maria Bjune 1 and Hanne Torjusen 2IntroductionWhen consumer s f r om t he over developed Nor t h bit e int o a banana, t hey bit e int o a chain ofproduction processes that links them directly not only to landlessness and labour conditionson plantations in Costa Rica or Venezuela, but also to the misuse of pesticides and thedest r uct ion of t r opical f or est s . (J ack Kloppenbur g and Shar on Lezber g, 1996)Through our consumption of commodities, we take part in complex networks of relations toother people and we are linked to environmental realities and the welfare status of animals aswell as fellow human beings across the globe.These interrelations, which are eloquently described by Kloppenburg and Lezberg, are evidentbut how consciously do we engage in these realities in our everyday-lives? And to whatdegree are we surrounded by structural and social environments, which encourage suchinvolvement?In this paper, we will present the concept of Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) as oneway of bringing the citizen to the forefront as opposed to the mere consumer - in ourdealings with one of the main everyday commodities, namely food. CSA may also beregarded as primarily a space for non-market relations, with focus on community, valuesharing,and the celebration of interdependence.We will discuss the concept of CSA as a potential means for consumer/citizen involvementand shared responsibility in the food production referring to the concept of CSA inprinciple, as well as preliminary findings from an on-going study of the up-start of CSAs inNorway.1The Royal Norwegian Society for Development, P.O. Box 115, 2026 Skjetten, Norway2 National Institute for Consumer Research, P.O.Box, 4682 Nydalen, N-0405 Oslo, Norway

1.4. What do shareholders pay for?At our recent seminar for the CSA pilot-farms 8 , an interesting discussion from BuschberghofCSA in Germany was referred by Wolfgang Stränz. The issue at stake was whether or notvegetarians should pay less than meat-eaters because they did not use any meat. From aproduct-point of view, this was of course true, but from other perspectives, the case mightlook differently. From a diet-point of view, the vegetarians did get their full diet covered in anequal manner as the meat-eaters. And from a point of view that the shareholders are payingfor the maintenance of the farming activity as such (they are passive farmers), it is beside thepoint what particular products they get from it. Another point is the interconnectedness(particularly in organic agriculture) between crop production and animal husbandry: also thecarrots have been produced with the application of manure.By the formulation we are all farmers , Stränz implicates that taking (co-) responsibility fora particular piece of land and the maintenance of a sound food production (on that site)qualifies for using the term. The active farmers are involved with the physical labour and takethe agronomic responsibility, while the passive farmers contribute economically by buying ashare. And then they don t count their carrots or litres of milk afterwards.At our CSA pilot-farms, there are some specific examples of common goods which couldbe regarded as worth paying for in a similarly unspecific way:1. At the urban farm close to Oslo, the issue of land protection has been on the agenda.Recently, surrounding farming areas have been converted into golf courses, andseveral of the citizens in the neighbourhood would rather keep these areas for foodproduction and keeping them accessible as traditional cultural landscapes.2. At one of the rural CSA, with cooperation between three organic farms, in situprotection and maintenance of grain genetic resources is highly relevant. At one of thefarms, there is production and research on rare varieties of grain, traditional to theNordic region. Making use of baking facilities at another of the farms involved, thereare plans for the development of particular recipes and baking of breads etc. with thesespecial types of grain. Bread is a type of commodity with potentially a very long andcomplex chain, and where the origins of the grain, as well as information about thegenetic variety may be obscured for the end-consumer. At the same time, the issue ofsecuring genetic diversity is very much on the agenda. Membership and responsibilityfor local food production might be a nice supplement to signing up for saving the rainforest.3. And as a more general concern, the offer of organic food in the general food market inNorway does not seem to satisfy the demand (neither in terms of volume nor in termsof product variety). In this regard, being a shareholder in any of the CSAs currentlystarting up means securing the production of organic food and even being given anopportunity to have a say in the types of food being produced.8 Fokhol Farm, February 16th2004, seminar about Community Supported Agriculture.4

2. The CSA project in NorwaySomet hing has t o be changedThe Leopar d )otherwise ever yt hing will be changed (Guiseppe di Lampedusa in2.1. Relevant backgroundThe government give clear signals towards a more consumer oriented agriculture in thefuture. All links from farm to fork is responsible for improved information about products andproduction. More and more consumers want information about the origin of their food, andthe consciousness of different ethical aspects, environmental aspects as well as regionalism isslowly increasing.A political aim is to increase the organically grown land from about 4% today to 10% in2009. The main obstacle for this goal is the market situation. The processing units, as well asretailers, are concentrated to a handful of companies, and their structure is not at all adapted tosmall product-groups. The path from farm and fork is thorny for small products like organicor regional specialities. In 2004, about 80% of the organic milk produced in Norway was soldas conventional. The number for organic meat was about 90%.The Royal Norwegian Society for Development received economic support from the Ministryof Food and Agriculture, to develop examples of CSAs adapted to the Norwegian reality(Bjune 2003). The project is implemented in close cooperation with National Institute forConsumer Research. Two organizations promoting organic products and production are alsoincluded in the project, - i.e. Oikos and Grønn Hverdag.2.2. Products; From multifunctional agriculture?Most CSA-farms focus on vegetables, and present a long list of different vegetables and freshsalads delivered all year. We started to study CSA in early 2003, with the cold and snowoutside and imported organic vegetables on the table inside. Examples from USA showing 46different kinds of vegetables delivered from the local CSA-farm 8 months pr. year almostkilled our enthusiasm, and hence the continuation of the project. We had to think differentlyabout the product range.Due to trade agreements with WTO and EU, the border is slowly opening up for import.Hence the need is definitely not food products with standard quality, competing on low price.High cost agriculture, like the Norwegian, must compete on quality and not quantity. One ofthe qualities might be closeness to and knowledge about a clean production.The relevant questions were:1. What do modern people need from the Norwegian agriculture?2. What products, services and activities can Norwegian agriculture offer, withoutloosing the competition with import products from countries with lower productioncosts?3. Are there anybody out there who prefer locally produced products, and pay the priceof local costs?5

CSA can be seen as one possible alternative to the WTO-policy: It provides local argumentsfor a local agriculture. And the cost of this agriculture is transparent to the shareholder.2.3. Three pilot-CSAs2.3.1. Øverland farmThe farm is located in the outskirt of Oslo towards the best west . It is a point of departurefor hikes and skiing into the surrounding forest area. The farm is owned by Norges Vel, - theorganization running this project. One problem is that the present production is dominated bymonoculture of grain, - it will take some time to achieve a manifold in the product spectre.The potential is substantial. In this CSA, there is a special opportunity for extended learningactivities by cooperation with two local schools. Their first season is well in progress, and aparticular part of the CSA-farm is devoted to a school garden. The curriculum refers to thefarm as the extended classroom .2.3.2. Solør two farmsSolør is a region located 2,5 -3 hours drive NE of Oslo, in a very scarcely populated area.There are two family farms already cooperating about machinery and marketing, and theywant to extend their cooperation into a CSA. Together they have a wide range of organicproducts like vegetables, different kinds of meat, grain, as well as forest products, hunting andfishing. One of the farms is involved with social work as well, offering work for people withspecial needs.2.3.3. Hadeland/Ringerike three farmsThis is situated about one hour NW of Oslo in a middle populated area. Two family farmsand one farm owned by a trust doing social work want to cooperate. Together they offer awide range of products, like Solør.2.4. Models for organizationOne level is to organize the cooperation between the farms within one CSA. Another level isto organize the cooperation between the farm(s) and the consumers. The latter is the mostinteresting here, and there are many alternatives; There are examples of trusts, different kindsof companies with limited responsibility, or simply a looser association. This is partly aquestion of attitudes and ideals, and partly a question of more pragmatic legal adaptations.3. How can CSA contribute to consumer responsibility?We ar e all f ar mer s act ive or passive , (W. Stränz, member of Buschberghof CSA, Germany).3.1. Sharing of responsibility and rewardsCSA is based on the idea of cooperative ownership to the production, but not necessarily thefarm. Consumers share the responsibility for the production by buying shares in theproduction for one year ahead, participate in the planning of the season, and in most casesthey pay part of the cost in advance. In this way the consumers very directly share the risk andrewards of any agronomic and climatic variation of the produce.6

3.2. Alternative to global world marketCitizens may choose to buy food through local alternatives to the global conventional foodsystem. CSA is such an alternative. Examples of the concerns one may address whenchoosing organic foods from the local community are the problems related to theenvironmental costs which are often externalised in the conventional food production.Calculations estimate that food in the United States travels an average of more than 2 000kilometres 9 before it reaches the end-consumer, and that food processing, packaging,transportation, and marketing accounts for approximately 75 to 85 per cent of the energyconsumed in the food system 10 (Hendrickson et al. 1995). There is reason to believe that thesituation is similar in Europe. In a recent calculation of the environmental costs of the UKfood basket, the authors concluded that it is clear that actions to reduce farm and food mileexternalities, and shift consumers decisions on specific shopping preferences and transportchoices would have a substantial impact on environmental outcomes (Pretty et al. 2005).In order to share responsibility in the consumer role, information, insight and knowledge isimperative. Several researchers have pointed out that the distance and complexity in the foodsystem is a severe challenge in relation to taking responsibility as a consumer/citizen. JackKloppenburg and Sharon Lezberg are among them:How can we act responsibly and effectively for change if we do not understand how the foodsystem works and our role within it? (Kloppenburg and Lezberg 1996)From this perspective, distance is a problem in terms of citizen involvement in how our foodis produced. Several aspects of distance come into play - both in terms of spatial distance,temporal distance, and distance of mind (Lieblein et al. 2001). It is by means of providing analternative to such situations characterised by distance, formalised systems of information,and trust in abstract systems that CSAs may offer a qualitatively different context for foodprovisioning and community building. Following the American author and ecologist WendellBerry (1992), we agree that direct experience is a powerful way to involvement and care.Here is his advice about how to eat responsibly :Learn as much as you can, by direct observation and experience if possible, of the lifehistories of the food species .He further elaborates on the connections he sees between the enjoyments of the food productsas such, and the insight into the history behind the food:The pleasure of eating should be an extensive pleasure, not that of the mere gourmet. ( )The knowledge of the good health of the garden relieves and frees and comforts the eater. Thesame goes for eating meat. The thought of the good pasture and of the calf contentedlygrazing flavors the steak. ( ) A significant part of the pleasure of eating is in one s accurateconsciousness of the lives and the world from which food comes. The pleasure of eating, then,may be the best available standard of our health. (Berry 1992; 378).91 300 miles (2 092 km). The Packer 1992 referred in Hendrickson et al. 199510Hendrickson, J. (1995) Energy Use in the Food System , Presentation given at Regional Food SystemsSeminar, Centre for Integrated Agricultural Systems, University of Wosconsin-Madison, referred in Hendricksonet al. 1995.7

Small-scale, alternative or direct systems have quite different character:- The producer is personally accountable and trust is placed in particular people- Transparency and traceability are high, and communication often takes place face-toface- Products are not standardised, often not packaged, and sometimes not labelled- Customer service is given high priority in this kind of marketing setting- Supplies are highly dependant on locality and season, and sometimes supplemented bynon-local, non-seasonal supplies- Feedback from consumers is provided in the form of personal communicationCommunication in this system is mainly limited by the time available for exchange ofinformation, which is likely to be highly variable. In principle, however, the consumer is freeto ask any number of questions, while the salesperson is offered the advantage of being ableto obtain first hand information about consumer requirements, preferences, wishes andconcerns. In cases in which farmers and growers take on the role of sales personnel,experience-based expert information is available, but all such systems tend to offer some levelof expertise as part of their customer service.In this broad outline of the polarities between the global and the local, we find the concept ofCSA to be a prime example of a personalised direct, marketing channel. CSAs may provide acontext where people can get to know real stories about real people . This is what DanielMiller (2003) set out to bring to school-children in his project concerning the internet as ameans to de-fetishising commodities.For commodities that are produced far away, such as cocoa or bananas, the internet may be anexcellent means of establishing direct contact between producers and consumers as well asto all the other people involved along the chain (such as managers, packers, transporters,planners etc.). Such contact is meant as a process of personalisation, where the commoditybecomes the personalised objectification of the relationships that it creates (Miller2003,10). But many of the goods that we consume may very well be produced in our moreimmediate environment, among them many of the basic food products in our diet. And forthese kinds of products, CSA may be an excellent way of bonding with the people behind theproducts.A combination of the direct and personal CSA-relations with people nearby and contact overthe internet with distant people with whom we also have food relations would be veryinteresting to try out. There are many ways in which such contact would make sense withinthe CSA-concept. For example, contact could very well be made with producers of inputfactors to the farm, such as producers of ingredients to animal fodder, or raisers of younganimals (such as chicken), or with people who provide other commodities that those whichcan be produced at a local farm (such as bananas, citrus fruits, tea, coffee).3.4. Concluding remarksStevenson (1998) has suggested the term food citizenship to grasp the way we mayparticipate consciously within the food system as eaters and citizens, and we find this termto be useful in exploring the potentials of CSA. Stevenson uses the notion of competencies,and explores what he sees as important dimensions of a human infrastructure for negotiatingalternative agrifood systems . He finds these key competencies to include analytical9

competencies (of making connections and evaluating contradictions), relational competencies(focussing on new forms of food citizenship involving alternative organizational relationshipsbetween actors in the food chain), ethical competencies (including the valuing of non-marketgoods and the linkages between ethics and emotions), and finally, aesthetic and spiritualcompetencies to connect agriculture and food with beauty and with what he calls sacramentalliving (Stevenson 1998).All the different types of competencies mentioned above may potentially be alluded to in aCSA context. By offering a rich variety of learning opportunities and a broad range of ways ofexperiencing and learning about food both through direct experience, and through makinginformation about the food available, we believe the concept of CSA may offer an opportunityfor food citizenship and sharing of responsibility.LiteratureBerry, Wendell (1992) The Pleasures of Eating. In: Curtin, D. W. and Heldke, L. M. (eds.)Cooking, eating, thinking. Transformative philosophies of food. Bloomington andIndianapolis: Indiana University Press, pp. 374-379.Bjune, M. (2003) Community Supported Agriculture tilpasning til norske forhold. Reportfrom feasibility-study, March 2003. Norges Vel report no. 2/2003.Cone, C. A. and Kakaliouras, A. (1995). Community Supported Agriculture: Building MoralCommunity or an Alternative Consumer Choice. Culture and Agriculture, 51/52: 28-31.DeLind, L. B. (1999). Close encounters with a CSA: The reflections of a bruised andsomewhat wiser anthropologist. Agriculture and Human Values, 16:3-9.Donahue, T. P. (1994). Community-Supported Agriculture: Opportunities for EnvironmentalEducation. Journal of Education, 25(2): 4-8-Fieldhouse, P. (1996). Community Shared Agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values,13(3):43-47.Henderson, E. (1999). Sharing the Harvest. A guide to Community Supported Agriculture.White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.Hendrickson, J., Hart, L., Gale-Sinex, M., Stevenson, S. (1995). Regional Food SystemsResearch: Needs, Priorities, and Recommendations. University of Wisconsin-Madison,Centre for Integrated Agricultural Systems.Kloppenburg, J. Jr. and Lezberg, S. (1996). Getting it Straight Before We Eat Ourselves toDeath: From Food Systems to Foodshed in the 21 st Century. Society & Natural Resources,9:93-96.Lieblein, G., Francis, C. A., and Torjusen, H. (2001). Future Interconnections AmongEcological Farmers, Processors, Marketers, and Consumers in Hedmark County, Norway:Creating Shared Vision. Human Ecology Review, 8(1):60-71.10

Miller, D. (2003). Could the Internet defetishise the commodity? Environment and PlanningD: Society and Space, 23:Pretty, J. N., Balla, A. S., Langb, T. and Morisona, J. I. L. (2005) Farm costs and food miles:An assessment of the full cost of the UK weekly food basket. Food Policy, 30(1):1-19.Soil Association (year not given): A share in the harvestSupported Agriculture.An action manual for CommunityStevenson, G. W. (1998). Agrifood systems for competent, ordinary people. Agriculture andHuman Values 15, 199-207.Torjusen, H., Kjærnes, U. and O Doherty Jensen, K. (2005). Social and Ethical Aspects. In:L. Lück & K. Brandt (eds.): Organic Food Production: Safety and Quality Assurance.Oxford: Blackwell (forthcoming 2005).11

This document was created with Win2PDF available at http://www.daneprairie.com.The unregistered version of Win2PDF is for evaluation or non-commercial use only.