Research Unit Environmental Policy
(International Institute for Environment and Society) Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialfonschung
HUG rep 87-1
ALTERNATIVE USES FOR LAND AND THE NEW FARMWORKER:
SEGREGATION VERSUS INTEGRATION
,NACH p HUCK)
RF°RINT
Hobst Conrad
ISSN 0256-7296 ,SSENSCHAFTSZENTRUM BERLIN FUR SOZiALFORSCHUNG
Forschungsabteilung
’’Normbildung und Umwelt”
Reichpietschufer 50 D-1000 Berlin (West) 30
Tel.:25 491-0 This paper is a slightly revised second edition of the final report of the research project "Alternative Uses for Land and the New Farmworker:
Segregation versus Integration" which is led by Dr. Hobst Conrad. The partial funding of this project by the Commission of the European Com
munity (FAST II, RES 5/TWE 2, FST-074-D-B-) and by the Federal Ministry for Research and Technology (BMFT, PL I 1298 6) is gratefully
acknowledged.
HUG - Potsdamer Str. 58, 1000 Berlin (West) 30, Telefon (030) 26 10 71
Ill
7. TWO SCENARIOS ... 254
7.1 Underlying Assumptions ... 254
7.2 The Realistic Scenario ... 256
7.3 The Desirable Scenario ... 259
7.4 Conclusions ... 261
8. POLICY OPTIONS FOR THE EUROPEAN C O M M I S S I O N ___ '... 2 62 8.1 Status Quo Policy ... 263
8.2 The Market-Economy Option ... 266
8.3 The Socioecological Option ... 271
8.4 Is Regional Policy a Solution? ... 27 6 9. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ... 285
9.1 Recommendations ... 285
9.2 Supporting Arguments ... 288
10. LITERATURE 301
V
18. Animal Feed Initial Products (1982 - 1983) ... 100 19. Acreage Saved through Elimination of Milk
Overproduction ... 104 20. Supply and Demand of Major Fibrous Products in
the EC-10 (1982) ... 109 21. Potential Energy Feedstocks for Biomass in 2000 ... 116 22. Primary Agricultural Materials, Conversion and
Intendet Purpose in Industrial Use ... 122 23. Use of Products for Refining Starch ... ... 123 24. Fermentation Refinement of Carbohydrates ... 124 25. Possibilities for Using Oils and Fats in the
Chemical Industry ... 125 26. Chemicals from Ethanol ... ... 12 6 27. Chemicals from Wood ... 12 7 28. Prospects of Different Land Use Options ... 144 29. Comparison of the Promotion of Different
Land Use Options by Country ... 146 30. Changes in Land Use for the EC-10 under Different
Conditions, up to the Year 2000 ... 148 31. Position of Relevant Actors in West Germany to
Different Options for Land Use ... 158 32. Distribution of Less Favoured Areas in the
European Community in 1983 ... 222 33. Extent of Major Arable Crops in the EC-10 in
Relation to Climate and Region ... 224 34. Occurence and Extent of Areas most Ecologically
suited .to Specified Fermentation and Fiber Crops .... 225 35. Community Regions: Basic Indicators of Agri
culture (1983) ... 236 36. Main Features of the Policy Options ... 277
VI
List of Figures
1. Changes in Land Use in the Member Countries of
the EC between 1961 and 1971 ... 74
2. Approximate Change in Arable Land Use in the EC-9 (1973 - 1980) ... 75
3. Geographic Distribution of Wheat ... 83
4. Geographic Distribution of Wheat Yields ... 84
5. Geographic Distribution of Barley ... 85
6. Geographic Distribution of Barley Yields ... 86
7. Geographic Distribution of Sugar Beet ... 87
8. Geographic Distribution of Sugar Beet Root Yields .... 88
9. Regional Income Disparities in Agriculture ... 89
10. World Production and Prices of some Biotechnological Products ... 120
11. Chart of Base Chemicals in Terms of Usefullness and Technological Requirement ... 128
12. Roster of Nature Conservation Priorities ... 136
13. Dimensions and Types of Environmental Policy Strategies for Agriculture ... 290
VII
List of Abbreviations
BMBau •- Bundesministerium für Raumordnung, Bauwesen und Städtebau
BMELF ■- Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten
BMFT ■- Bundesministerium für Forschung und Technologie CAP - Common Agricultural Policy
CLA - Country Landowners' Association DM - Deutsche Mark
EC - European Community ECU - European Currency Unit
EKD - Evangelische Kirche Deutschlands
FAL - Bundesforschungsanstalt für Landwirtschaft
FAST -- Forecasting and Assessment in the Field of Science and Technology
FEOGA -- European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Funds FRG - Federal Republic of Germany
GATT -- General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade
IEEP -■ Institute for European Environmental Policy LFA - Less Favoured Area
MAFF -- Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Mha - Million Hectars
Mt - Million Tons
Mtoe - Million Tons of Oil equivalent NCC - Nature Conservancy Council NFU ■ National Farmers’ Union R & D -■ Research and Development
SSSI -• Site of Special Scientific Interest toe ■ Tons of Oil Equivalent
UAA • Utilized Agricultural Area UK • United Kingdom
USA • United States of America VAT - Value Added Tax
1
PREFACE
The farsightedness of the EC commission's effort to establish and prolong the FAST1 program, combined with the openminded- ness and active involvement of the FAST team in supporting study of central issues and probable future developments in West European countries, is what allows research to deal with problems and possible solutions of agriculture and the common agricultural policy in sometimes unconventional ways. The re
search project "Alternative Uses for Land and the New Farm
worker: Segregation versus Integration" focused on the socio
economic and political aspects of probable and potential trends in patterns of land use in the more rural areas. It tried to examine concerns about the utilization of land re
sources and the future of the farmer and the farmworker.
In a nutshell, the conclusions of this project strongly sup
port attempts to shift the focus of EC policy from agricul
tural to regional and environmental policy.
The project would not have been feasible without the results supplied by related, more techno-economic studies carried out by my colleagues in Athens, Dublin, Gembloux, and Glasgow as part of the activities undertaken through the FAST program.
In particular, I thank P. Commins, J. Herinckx, E. Koukios, J. Lee, and C. Lewis not only for their own work but also for many valuable comments and criticisms during several presen
tations and joint project meetings, and in a round table of experts. It is due to the insistence and efforts of B.
Schmitz, the member of the FAST team responsible for super
vising this project, who organized these meetings where the exchange of ideas and criticisms occured while the research was in progress. B. Schmitz also aided the project on various 1 Forecasting and Assessment in the Field of Science and
Technology.
2
occasions in a remarkably unbureaucratic manner. Apart from other members of the FAST team at Brussels, I should also thank R. Petrella, its head, who let himself be convinced in 1984 that my research proposal was worth funding and who persuaded the West German Federal Ministry for Research and Technology to support this project as well. 2 Certainly, the project could not have been undertaken without the generosity of the Commission of the European Communities, the BMFT, and the Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.
My main thanks go to the members of the project team, who carried out the tedious and difficult fieldwork to provide the substantive basis for the analytical reasoning predomi
nating in this final report: B. Brüggemann, G. Cox, A. Flynn, P. Lowe, R. Riehle, and M. Winter. Whereas they have pres
ented the results of their work in the various interim re
ports of the project, I am solely responsible for the con
clusions reached and for any errors that may remain in this final report. C. Caspari and U. Hampicke, were especially helfpul in numerous discussions and greatly contributed to the development and refinement of the ideas and arguments presented in this report. I also thank G. Hünermann for his unfailing assistance during the last half year of the study, D. Antal for the translation of several German interim re
ports into English and in helping to edit the final report, and V. Ballsieper, M. Kelley-Bibra, ■ and A. Zierer for pain
stakingly transforming my cryptic handwriting into ä typed manuscript. Finally, I am indebted to all with whom we had contact in universities, research institutions, and minis
tries, for their willingness to share their valuable time, information, and suggestion with us.
Berlin, November 1986 Jobst Conrad
2 Bundesministerium für Forschung und Technologie (BMFT).
3
Executive Summary
Alternative Uses for Land and the New Farmworker: Segregation versus Integration
The research project "Alternative Uses for Land and the New Farmworker: Segregation versus Integration" is part of the FAST activities relating to alternative ufees for land and the agro-chemo-energy complex (RES 5) and to the end of the tra
ditional farmworker and the advent of the new farmworker (TWE 2). This final report summarizes the findings of the national case studies laid down in various interim reports and at
tempts to derive policy-oriented conclusions from a poli
tico-economic analysis of agricultural policy and alterna
tives for land use. Further empirical results of the research project can be found in the interim reports themselves:
- Brüggemann, B . ; Riehle, R . ; Alternative Uses for Land and the New Farmworker - Interests, Expectations, and Debate in the EC; IIUG-report 86-3, Berlin (English translation)
- Brüggemann, B.; Riehle, R.; Agriculture and the Prospects of Industrial Non-Food Biomass Utilization in West Germany;
IIUG-report 86-14, Berlin (English translation)
- Brüggemann, B , ; Riehle, R . ; Agriculture and the Prospects of Industrial Non-Food Biomass Utilization in Southern France, Ms., Berlin, 1986 (English translation)
- Brüggemann, B.; Riehle, R . ; Agriculture and the Prospects of Industrial Non-Food Biomass Utilization in Northern Italy, Ms., Berlin, 1986 (in German)
- Brüggemann, B . ; Riehle, R . ; Alternative Uses for Land and the New Farmworker - Scenarios, Ms., Berlin, 1986 (in German)
4
- Conrad, J . ; Land Use and Nature Protection in the FRG, Ms., Berlin, 1986
- Conrad, J.; Alternative Uses for Land in Selected European Regions: Political Conditions, Interests, and Prospects, Ms., Berlin, 1986
- Cox, G. ; Lowe, P.; Winter, M. ; Four Case Studies in Land Use Conflict and Rural Conservation, Ms., Bath/London, 1986 - Flynn, A.; Cox, G . ; Lowe, P .; Winter, M . ; The Possibilities , for Alternative Uses of Agricultural Land in Britain until
the Year 2000, Ms., Bath/London, 1986
- Flynn, A . ; Alternative Uses for Land - Scenario for England and Wales, Ms., London, 1986
The main findings of the project may be summarized as fol
lows :
1. Overproduction, productivity increase, and budgetary con
straints in agriculture have once again put reform of agricultural policy on the political agenda with the pro
spect of vast areas being either withdrawn from agricul
tural production or reassigned to other uses. Pressure to withdraw or reassign land partly corresponds to the in
terests of large farmers. Realizing that it is no'longer possible to increase farm subsidies, they are seeking to secure their markets by land retirement in less favoured, less competitive regions, and by using new or redirected subsidies to expand the range of agricultural products they produce.
2. The lands expected to be released consist mainly of cereal fields and permanent meadow and pasture.. Unless otherwise prevented, the anticipated release of land will
5
involve areas of relatively low-quality soils, particu
larly those in the Mediterranean regions. This release of land, however, is not expected to lead to a deintensi
fication of agriculture.
3. Economic advantages tend to lead to an expansion of "pro
ductive" forestry in England, France, and the Federal Republic of Germany, predominantly where grassland is abandoned, rather than in the Mediterranean regions.
4. For political as well as economic reasons, the wholesale substitution of imported animal feed through cultivation of protein-rich crops within the EC is not likely for the time being.
5. The land that might be withdrawn from agricultural pro
duction could particularly be used in the following ways on a larger scale:
- To increase cultivation of food crops for export,
- To increase substitution of the import of protein-rich crops for animal feed,
- To expand forestry,
- To produce biomass for generating energy,
- To produce biomass for use in chemicals (industrial crops),
- To provide large areas for the purposes of nature con
servation and environmental protection,
- To create fallow land not to be used for other pur
poses.
Because of the current constellation of interests and power relationships between the relevant actors, the fronts in the policy game have not completely hardened yet, a fact that often leads to strongly ideological con
troversies. The outlook, however, is not particularly good for any of the above options, especially as long as agricultural products continue to be heavily subsidized.
6
6. The debate about reassigning of land or withdrawing it from agricultural production is by no means intense in all countries belonging to the European Community.
7. Integrated types of agriculture with by-products like biogas or straw chips being used primarily for local needs can be discerned as one probable trend in devel
opment. Another is increased forestry and designation of land in less favoured areas as nature preserves. The re
sult will be that functions are broken up more and more in space.
8. As forestry and nature protection are not very labor in
tensive per hectare, in general, the rural population of such less favoured areas will have few, if any, realistic alternative sources of work and income unless specific regional and sociopolitical measures are taken.
9. In principle, making agriculture more compatible with the environment creates jobs, but does not mitigate the com
petitive disadvantages of mountainous regions.
10. Three different agrostructural types of regions represent the range of probable developments of rural areas in the EC:
(a) Intensive use of land, chiefly for food crops in re
gions with high-grade soils and agricultural viab
ility .
(b) Agrarian-touristic periphery, where the endogenous potential of less favoured areas is developed and made attractive for new settlers through well-coor
dinated production processes and services in the pri
mary, secondary, and tertiary sectors, the production
7
of local specialities, and the manufacturing of goods for market niches.
(c) Less favoured areas, with no promising future and tending to turn into wasteland.
Countries with relatively few structural differences be
tween their individual regions are expected to suffer less from such spatial tripartite division of rural areas.
The following strategic policy recommendations can be made:
1. Impose limitations on intensive agriculture.
2. Conserve existing and establish new nature protection areas and network systems of biotopes.
3. Provide sufficient nature conservation around urban and intensely farmed areas.
4. Develop and carry out a variety of locally adapted for
estry programs.
5. Put major emphasis on regional structural and regional welfare policy.
6. Reduce direct and indirect subsidies for unprofitable agricultural activities.
7. Disentangle price policy, social policy, structural pol
icy, and environmental policy in agriculture.
8. Support investigations into profitable types of inte
grated land use.
8
9. Provide for better information and for a clearing-house function for alternative land-use options.
10. Stop supporting R & D or commercial activities for indus
trial production of biofuels, at present.
11. Increase temporarily agrosocial expenditures and measures for the present generation of farmers.
12. Select and design flexible, locally adaptable policy pro
grams and instruments that allow decentralization of de
cisions and improved participation.
9
Zusammenfassung
Alternativen der Landnutzung und die Zukunft der Landwirt
schaft: Segregation versus Integration
Das Forschungsvorhaben "Alternative Uses for Land and the New Farmworker: Segregation versus Integration" ist Teil der FAST-Aktivitäten, die sich auf Alternativen der Landnutzung und den Agrar-Chemie-Energie-Komplex (RES 5) und auf die Ver
änderungen im Berufsbild des Landwirtes (TWE 2) beziehen. Der vorliegende Endbericht faßt die Ergebnisse der nationalen Fallstudien zusammen, die in verschiedenen Zwischenberichten dokumentiert sind, und bemüht sich um die Ableitung politisch orientierter Schlußfolgerungen aus einer politisch-ökonomi
schen Analyse von Agrarpolitik und Alternativen der Landnut
zung. Weitergehende empirische Ergebnisse des Forschungspro
jekts finden sich in den Zwischenberichten selbst:
- Brüggemann, B . ; Riehle, R . ; Alternative Uses for Land and the New Farmworker - Interests, Expectations, and Debate in the EC; IIUG-report 86-3, Berlin (englische Übersetzung) - Brüggemann, B.; Riehle, R . ; Agriculture and the Prospects
of Industrial Non-Food Biomass Utilization in West Germany;
IIUG-report 86-14, Berlin (englische Übersetzung)
- Brüggemann, B , ; Riehle, R . ; Agriculture and the Prospects of Industrial Non-Food Biomass Utilization in Southern France, Ms., Berlin, 1986 (englische Übersetzung)
- Brüggemann, B . ; Riehle, R . ; Agriculture and the Prospects of Industrial Non-Food Biomass Utilization in Northern Italy, Ms., Berlin, 1986 (in deutsch)
10
- Brüggemann, B . ; Riehle, R . ; Alternative Uses for Land and the New Farmworker - Scenarios, Ms., Berlin, 1986 (in deutsch)
- Conrad, J . ; Land Use and Nature Protection in the FRG, Ms., Berlin, 1986
- Conrad, J . ; Alternative Uses for Land in Selected European Regions: Political Conditions, Interests, and Prospects, M s ., Berlin, 1986
-- Cox, .G. ; Lowe, P.; Winter, M, ; Four Case Studies in Land Use Conflict and Rural Conservation, Ms., Bath/London, 1986 - Flynn, A.; Cox, G . ; Lowe, P.; Winter, M . ; The Possibilities
for Alternative Uses of Agricultural Land in Britain until the Year 2000, Ms., Bath/London, 1986
- Flynn, A . ; Alternative Uses for Land - Scenario for England and Wales, Ms., London, 1986
Die wesentlichen Ergebnisse des Forschungsvorhabens lassen sich wie folgt zusammenfassen:
1. Überproduktion, Produktivitätssteigerungen und Finanzie
rungsgrenzen in der Landwirtschaft setzen eine Reform der Agrarpolitik zum wiederholten Male auf die politische Ta
gesordnung. Dabei wird die Option der Flächenfreisetzung . und -umwidmung intensiver erörtert. Der Druck zur Flä
chenfreisetzung und -umwidmung entspricht der Interes
senlage agrarischer Großproduzenten, die angesichts in
zwischen offenbar kaum mehr vermehrbarer Argrarsubventio- nen ihren Absatz dadurch zu sichern suchen, daß einer
seits Land vorwiegend in benachteiligten, ökonomisch we
niger konkurrenzfähigen Gebieten aus der agrarischen Pro
duktion genommen wird, und.daß zum zweiten die Produktpa-
11
lette landwirtschaftlicher Produktion mit neuen oder um
gelenkten Subventionsmitteln erweitert wird.
2. Die voraussichtlich freigesetzten Flächen betreffen ins
besondere den Getreideanbau sowie Wiesen und Dauergrün
land. Die abschätzbaren Flächenfreisetzungen werden über
wiegend Gebiete mit weniger fruchtbaren Böden, speziell in mediterranen Regionen betreffen, sofern dies nicht durch entsprechende Maßnahmen verhindert wird. Flächen
freisetzungen werden jedoch voraussichtlich nicht zu ei
ner Deintensivierung der Landwirtschaft führen.
3. Aufgrund wirtschaftsgeographischer Vorteile ist eine Aus
dehnung produktiver Forstwirtschaft eher in England, Frankreich und der Bundesrepublik Deutschland als in Mit
telmeerregionen zu erwarten, vorwiegend auf ehemaligen Grünlandflächen.
4. Die vollständige Substitution importierter Futtermittel durch den Anbau proteinreicher Pflanzen innerhalb der EG ist aus politischen und ökonomischen Gründen auf absehba
re Zukunft unwahrscheinlich.
5. Freigesetzte Flächen könnten prinzipiell in relevantem Ausmaß für folgende Zwecke genutzt werden:
- vermehrte Nahrungsmittelproduktion für den Export,
- vermehrte Substitution von importierten proteinreichen Futtermitteln,
- Ausdehnung forstwirtschaftlich genutzter Flächen, - großflächige Biomassenutzung zur Energieerzeugung,
- großflächige Biomassenutzung für Chemikalien (Indu
striepflanzen) ,
- Bereitstellung großer Flächen zu Natur- und Umwelt- schützzwecken,
- nicht genutzte Brachflächen.
12
Aufgrund der gegenwärtigen Interessen- und Machtlagen der relevanten Akteure liegen die Fronten im "Politikspiel"
um verschiedene Landnutzungsoptionen noch nicht gänzlich fest, was vielfach zu stark ideologisch geprägten Kontro
versen führt. Für keine der aufgeführten Optionen sind die Aussichten als sonderlich günstig einzustufen, insbe
sondere solange die massive Subventionierung der land
wirtschaftlichen Produktion fortbesteht.
6. Es findet keineswegs in allen EG-Ländern eine intensivere Flächenstillegungs- und -umwidmungsdebatte statt.
7. In absehbarer Zukunft werden integrierte Formen produk
tionsbezogener Landwirtschaft die einzige profitable Art der Biomassenutzung im größeren Maßstab darstellen, vor
wiegend in Form von Nebenprodukten wie Biogas oder Stroh für den lokalen (Direkt-)Verbrauch. Ebenso haben Auffor
stung und Naturschutz eine Chance, jedoch im wesentlichen begrenzt auf benachteiligte Gebiete mit qualitativ ge
ringerwertigen Böden. Dies führt zu verstärkter räumli
cher Aufspaltung von Forstwirtschaft, Landwirtschaft und Naturschutz.
8. Da Landschaftspflege und Forstwirtschaft im allgemeinen einen eher geringen Arbeitskräfteeinsatz pro Flächenein
heit verlangen, besitzt die ländliche Bevölkerung in solch benachteiligten Gebieten kaum realistische Alterna
tiven der Beschäftigung und des Einkommens, solange nicht spezifische regional- und sozialpolitische Maßnahmen zum Tragen kommen.
9. Grundsätzlich dürfte eine mehr umweltverträgliche Land
wirtschaft zur Schaffung von Arbeitsplätzen beitragen, ohne jedoch die Wettbewerbsnachteile von Bergregionen aufzuheben.
13
10. Drei unterschiedliche agrarstrukturelle Regionstypen mar
kieren die Spannweite möglicher Entwicklungspfade länd
licher Gebiete:
a) Regionen mit intensiver agrarischer Landnutzung, vor allem zur Nahrungsmittelproduktion, mit guten Böden und landwirtschaftlicher Konkurrenzfähigkeit.
b) Regionen der agrartouristischen Peripherie, wo land
wirtschaftlich eher benachteiligte Gebiete durch ge
schickte Nutzung aufeinander abgestimmter Produktions
prozesse und Dienstleistungen im primären, sekundären und tertiären Bereich, durch die Herstellung lokaler Spezialitäten und Nischenproduktion für regionale Märkte und für den Export ihr endogenes Entwicklungs
potential nutzen und für Zuzügler attraktiv sind.
c) Benachteiligte ländliche Gebiete ohne Zukunftsperspek
tiven mit der Tendenz zur Verödung.
Länder mit relativ geringen strukturellen Unterschieden zwi
schen ihren Regionen sollten unter einer solchen räumlichen Dreiteilung ländlicher Gebiete weniger leiden.
Die folgenden politikstrategischen Schlußfolgerungen werden unterbreitet:
1. Begrenzung der Intensivierung in der Landwirtschaft.
2. Erhaltung bestehender und Einrichtung neuer Naturschutz
gebiete und Biotopverbundsysteme.
3. Durchführung ausreichender Naturschutzmaßnahmen in Bal
lungsgebieten und in landwirtschaftlich intensiv genutz
ten Gebieten.
14
4. Entwicklung und Durchführung einer Vielfalt lokal ange
paßter Programme der Aufforstung und forstwirtschaftli
chen Nutzung.
5. Höherer Stellenwert und Stärkung regionaler Struktur- und
Sozialpolitik. 7
6. Reduzierung der direkten und indirekten Subventionen für volkswirtschaftlich unsinnige landwirtschaftliche Produk
te .
7. Entflechtung von Agrarpreispolitik, Agrarsozialpolitik, Agrarstrukturpolitik und Agrarumweltpolitik.
8. Förderung von Studien und Experimenten rentabler Formen integrierter Landnutzung.
9. Bereitstellung und Organisation von Informationen, Dis
kussion und Beratung bezüglich alternativer Landnutzungs
möglichkeiten.
10. Vorläufiger Verzicht auf Forschungs- und Wirtschafts
förderung der industriellen Herstellung von Biokraftstof
fen.
11. Vorübergehende Ausdehnung agrarsozialer Maßnahmen und Ausgaben für die heutige Betriebsleitergeneration.
12. Entwicklung und Auswahl flexibler, lokal angepaßter Poli
tikprogramme und -instrumente, die eine Dezentralisierung der Entscheidungsfindung und vermehrte Bürgerbeteiligung zulassen.
15
1. INTRODUCTION
As recently as twenty years ago, the Mansholt Plan (EC-Com
mission 1969) suggested putting agriculturally less pro
ductive farmland out of production altogether in order to re
duce agricultural surpluses. In the meantime, agricultural productivity has vastly increased the mountains of butter and meat, and the lakes of milk and wine, with the consequence that common agricultural policy (CAP) expenditures have mul
tiplied about tenfold. Although agricultural economists have always criticized the system of market regimes and production controls developed by the European Community (EC) for wider- economic reasons, EC expenditures for CAP may well be ap
proaching a ceiling for budgetary reasons as well. That is, further growth in these expenditures may well become poli
tically unviable. This would seem to suggest a major revision of CAP is required, at least from the perspective of its re
sponsible agents (cf. EC-Commission 1985b).
In 1978, a research program on forecasting and assessment in the field of science and technology (FAST) was established through a decision by the Council of the European Com
munities. In 1983, it was decided to continue the program until 1989 and to diversify it. One of its many research ac
tivities concerns alternative uses for land and the agro
chemo-energy complex (RES 5); another focuses on the end of the traditional farm worker and the advent of the new farm worker (TWE 2). These research activities are part of two subprograms, one on renewable natural resources, the other on technology, work and employment. The purpose of these ac
tivities is to assess, reflect upon, and develop perspectives for viable ways to use land beneficially for agriculture and for the farm worker of the future: "We must devise a strategy for agriculture based on equitable exploitation of each re
gion's potential, which is less harmful to the environment
16
and its resources and more heedful of developments in other sectors of the economy.” (EC-Commission 1985d). The FAST pro
gram falls under the responsibility of the General Director
ate for Science and Technology (DG XII) of the Commission of the European Communities. It is less subject to the con
straints of day-to-day politics than other sections of the EC Commission. So research projects carried out in its framework should provide a fresher, more'balanced, and more open view of probable future developments relevant for the EC and its member states, than if this program were designed to contrib
ute to the short term management of actual EC problems such as those related to CAP.
Many research projects within the FAST program are techno- economically oriented. In contrast, the research project
"Alternative Uses for Land and the New Farm Worker: Segre
gation Versus Integration”, which relates to both RES 5 and TWE 2 research activities, deals essentially with socioecon
omic and sociopolitical questions of land use and farm labor.
Certainly, analysis of these issues must give due regard to technological developments and feasibilities. In order to develop policy options, however, the analysis of problems related to power and interest, of institutional rigidities, and of policy games is at least as important as the consider
ation of the technical and economic viability of a given pro
duction scheme or land use. The agricultural sector provides one of the most prominent examples of how technical and econ
omic considerations are strongly influenced and shaped by political decisions affecting market organisations.
The research project "Alternative Uses for Land and the New Farm Worker: Segregation Versus Integration" has reviewed the present status of land use and investigated opportunities for various land-use options and their impacts on farm workers in four regions of the European Economic Community. On this basis, the project has also attempted to derive different
17
related policy options for the Commission of the European Communities. The final report on this project deals with these issues within a coherent analytical framework, taking into account results of more substantial investigations de
tailed in various interim reports (Brüggemann, Riehle 1986a, 1986b, 1986c, 1986d, 1986e; Conrad 1986a, Cox et al. 1986;
Flynn 1986; Flynn et al. 1986). For a more comprehensive overview of the facts, problems, and trends in the develop
ment of land-use patterns in the four EC-regions, including local case studies and various scenarios, the reader is re
ferred to these interim reports.
The final report is divided into several parts. Section 2 describes the project, its aim, design, methods, formal structure, and the process by which the concept and focus of the project changed as it was being conducted. Section 3 pro
vides the general background of agriculture and agricultural policy against which alternative uses of land have to be pre
sented as reasonable options. Section 4 investigates the feasibility of larger scale alternatives for the use of agri
cultural and forest land; it considers the present status of such options, their development over time, and their adequacy or appropriateness for the respective regions under investi
gation. Section 5 analyzes the vested interests and struc
tural ridigities that influence the policy game and the pol
icy outputs with respect to alternative uses for land and the future of the farmworker. This kind of knowledge is a precon
dition for tailoring any viable policy program. Section 6 deals with the debate over given options for land use. Con
cepts and proposed solutions, hidden premises and likely con
sequences, validity of the arguments, and characteristics of the problem structure are analyzed more rigorously without regard for their political relevance and viability. Section 7 presents a sketch of two scenarios for the year 2000, a so- called realistic scenario that points out the development I think is most probable in the future, and a so-called desir-
18
able scenario describing what I think is a more optimistic but nevertheless technically and economically feasible devel
opment in the future. Section 8 develops three strategic pol
icy options for the EC Commission's agricultural and land-use policy. Finally, section 9 makes several policy recommen
dations based on findings from the preceding analysis. Al
though these general recommendations are intended only to provide guidelines for the orientation of future EC land-use and agricultural policy programs, it is hoped that they will gain acceptance and that they can be elaborated further by EC administration and subsequently operationalized.
19
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
2.1 Aim and Purpose
The purpose of the study "Alternative Uses for Land and the New Farmworker: Segregation Versus Integration" is to analyze the socioeconomic and political circumstances and conditions that may lead to major changes in land use in the EC countries, to develop some scenarios for land use change on the basis of this problem analysis, to study the consequences for the farmer, and to derive policy options and recommen
dations for the Commission of the European Communities. For a policy analysis, it makes little sense to speculate about the situation after the year 2000. Special regard is given to the question of spatial integration or segregation of different options for land use.
Initially, the basic ideas behind the study were:
o More important than the issue of different forms of land use is the question of whether land-use patterns will come to be dominated by integrative strategies that combine various forms of land use or by segregative strategies that result in regional specialization.
o Because budgetary and other economic pressures on agricul
tural production have made economic conditions unfavorable for the development of biofuels in the foreseeable future, and because concern has increased about the detrimental en
vironmental effects of some agricultural•activities, en
vironmental goals and nature protection objectives should have a good chance of being incorporated into agricultural policy and land use. Under certain circumstances farmers and nature conservationists may have common interests, so
20
part of the farm worker's future may be in landscape man
agement .
Thus, the underlying aim of the study was to demonstrate that there are good reasons to put more emphasis on environmental and regional policy and less on agricultural policy programs in the future. Although the project retains this orientation, some aspects turned out to be more complicated than initially anticipated, and greater differentiation of the issues was therefore required.
•Since this study is oriented to policy analysis, it focuses on the policies and politics that might determine the future patterns of land use and farm work. Therefore, the debate and the conflict surrounding the various forms of land use are seen as policy games in which a number of actors will pursue their vested interests in one or more policy arenas, taking into account the existing power relations, institutional ar
rangements, and the goals and strategies of other actors. The outcome of these policy games will, in turn, influence changes in patterns of land use and farm work. Technical and economic determinants taken from the results of other inves
tigations are treated as boundary conditions in this study.
The orientation of this study towards policy analysis ex
plains thus largely the project design, the particular ap
proach chosen, and the type of issues addressed.
The focus of the study on the analysis of patterns of and changes in land use in rural areas necessarily implies cer
tain limitations for policy conclusions. Land use is but one major aspect of societal development processes around agri
culture. Other aspects, such as rural cultural traditions, the labor market, or technological change, have not been dealt with extensively in this study. However, any broad pol
icy concept has to take into account these other aspects,
21
too. When coming to the policy recommendations, the reader should be aware of the limited scope of this study.
Finally, it is important to note that problem-oriented social science research, of which this project is an example, is normally unable to develop unequivocal, recipe-like solutions to problems or to provide specific, concrete scientifically derived recommendations. Within their specific and often tur
bulent environment, practitioners or administrators will nearly always know better than the scientists how to deal with a specific problem under given local circumstances. What social science can do, however, is provide more differen
tiated and rigorous problem analyses, produce more general
ized hypotheses about probable causes for and the structure of specific practical problems, offer new perspectives on given problems, and develop concepts and methods of data ac
quisition relevant for the information-processing needed to solve problems.
The results of research in the social sciences will have rel
evance for practical situations only insofar as perception, definition, and interpretation of practical problems pre
sented in such research are adopted by local practitioners.
Hence, the social relevance of the social sciences can at best be only i n d i r e c t . T h e ultimate aim of this study, therefore, is to help adequately reshape the decision-maker's perception and interpretation of problems in land use and agricultural policy by providing a systematic analysis and an analytical framework for the interpretation of the policy areas influencing future patterns of land use and farm work.
1 For an overview of the structure of the relationship be
tween (social) science and (political) practice see Conrad, Krebsbach-Gnath 1980.
22
2.2 Project Design
According to the aims of this investigation, the primary sub
jects of analysis are:
o the present state of and future trends in food production and forestry as major land-use activities;
o the inventory and assessment of nonfood related land uses such as energy, fibres, or chemicals production from bio
mass, or the allocation of land for recreational amenities, - tourism, or conservation;
o the present state of and probable future trends in farm work;
o the socioeconomic and political conditions and forces underlying changes in land use and farm work;
o the policy options with respect to new forms of farm work and alternative uses for land.
Since the results of this analysis may vary for different countries or regions, these subjects are investigated not only on the EC level but also on the macroregional level for the four geographic areas selected, namely, England and Wales, the Federal Republic of Germany, southern France, and northern Italy. These regions cover a considerable range of agricultural structures. For example, largescale captital-in- tensive farming in England and northern Germany exhibit fea
tures similar to those in Denmark, northern France, and the Netherlands. Southern Germany has many small, part-time farmers. Southern France and northern Italy typify farming patterns for southern EC countries i n general. 2 At the same
2 The overall analysis is limited to the ten-member European Community (EC-10), because Spain and Portugal were not mem-
23
time, these countries differ in their regulatory frameworks, 3 their policy styles, their economic positions within the European Economic Community, and in their approches to alternative land use. Nevertheless, some features are common to one degree or another to all four regions: agricultural overproduction for different products, the onset of the de
bate over changes in land use in one direction or another, and the availability of necessary resources for corresponding investment.
The policy options and recommendations have been developed essentially for the Commission of the European Communities only, for the available options and those options most advis
able will differ significantly for various political actors.5 Two levels were chosen for assessing the determinants and im
pacts of change in land use and farm work: first, the ana
lysis of the actual situation and features of land use and agricultural policy in the mid-1980s; secondly, the elabor
ation of two scenarios for the year 2000. On this basis, some general policy options are highlighted for the Commission of the European Communities, assuming specific, desired ends.
Finally, by coupling the desirable scenario with a socioeco- logical policy orientation, several policy recommendations are derived and then defended.
ber states at the time this study commenced.
For the sake of simplicity, the terms "region" and
"country" are used interchangeable to refer to the four macro-regions under investigation.
The selection of these particular countries reflects an at
tempt to cover different but typical regions of the European Economic Community. It was not based on any for
mal, systematic preliminary analysis of all EC regions ac
cording to any special criteria of selection.
This emphasis in part reflects the fact that this study was carried out under the aegis of the European Economic Com
munity's FAST Programme.
24
It is self-evident that this study can neither take into con
sideration all possible variations of influencing variables and boundary conditions nor state and justify every argument.
Nevertheless, it provides an analytical framework for inter
preting data and arguments as part of the overall, general picture of determinants and features of land use and farm work. The analysis is not concise enough for comparative testing of specific public policy theories such as sociologi
cal policy theory, political regime theory, political coa
lition theory, and international systems theory. Rather, the study provides a problem-oriented, descriptive analysis that points to some general features of land use and farm work under given political, economic, and social conditions.7
2.3 Methods
Formally, the study consists of a thorough problem analysis, an impact analysis, a presentation of scenarios, and a policy analysis. Information sources used in this investigation es
sentially consisted of statistical materials, bibliographical data, and interviews conducted with knowledgeable persons and experts. After completing a study of the present state of and probable trends in nonfood related land use, food production, and farm work, a roundtable discussion of experts with ten participants was held for the purpose of critically evaluat
ing the results and for prestructuring the scenarios. Gener
ally speaking, more weight was given to wellstructured prob
lem description and evaluation and to wellfounded estimates 6
That this analytical framework and the prevailing way of reasoning sometimes has a northern in particularly German bias is due to the background of the scientists involved in this project.
This analysis could, in principle, be channelled into a specific theoretical perspective and subsequently upgraded to test such theories.
7
25
of orders of magnitude than to exact, detailed quantitative figures. Since the investigation was carried out mainly on the macrolevel, detailed local conditions and specifications were hardly taken into account. Nevertheless, a few in-depth analyses of specific subjects were conducted. They concerned an experiment with planting the Canne de Provence in southern France and four case studies on sites of special scientific interest as well as the negotiation of management agreements in areas around Exmoor, the Berwyns, West Sedgemoor, and the Halvergate Marshes in England.
The analysis presented in this study heavily depends on re
sults of other projects that supplied the relevant data on technical, geographical, and economic boundary conditions, especially results obtained from the investigations of other research teams within the FAST program's RES 5 and TWE 2 (Koukios 1985a, 1985b; Lee 1985a, 1985b; Lewis, Kristiansen 1985; Commins, Higgins 1985a, 1985b; and Herinckx, Moyart 1986a, 1986b). For purposes of clarity, the analysis is div
ided into two parts: an evaluation of the rigor and validity of lines of argument concerning alternative uses for land and an analysis of vested interests and structural rigidities re
lated to policy and politics concerning agriculture and land use. Just as the correctness of an argument cannot guarantee its political success, the consensus of all major groups con
cerned, for instance, to spend public money on the research and development of biofuels, does not imply that such a pol
icy should actually be implemented. This distinction should serve to separate more clearly in the mind of the reader the issues concerning the validity of certain arguments and con
clusions and the interests underlying them.
26
2.4 Project Setting
The total duration of the project was 18 months during 1985 and 1986; about 25 person-months, excluding secretarial work, were devoted to this project.
The various country studies were carried out by small groups of scientists in accordance with a common analytical frame
work prepared under the responsibility of the project leader.
The responsibilities for the various country reports were distributed as follows:
o The European Community as a whole: Brüggemann and Riehle o England and Wales: Cox, Flynn, Lowe, and Winter
o West Germany: Brüggemann, Conrad, and Riehle o Southern France: Brüggemann and Riehle
o Northern Italy: Brüggemann and Riehle o Final report: Conrad
For each macroregion, both the actual debate over alternative land use and the local situation were investigated; scenarios were then constructed. For each country study, an individual interim report was prepared, followed by two papers elaborat
ing the scenarios. A complication arose out of the necessity to have several interim reports translated from German into English. The final report was prepared by the project leader in order to integrate the results obtained by various members of the research team into a common framework for interpret
ation and to attempt a more policy-oriented analysis.
27
The following timetable reproduces the working schedule of the study.
May 1985 : Commencement of the project; elaboration of a preliminary analytical framework to structure the investigations.
June 1985 : First workshop for the research team; in
itial coordination meeting of FAST project teams on RES 5 and TWE 2, with presentation of the concept for the study.
July - October 1985 : EC level investigation on the interests, expectations, and debate surrounding alter
native uses for land.
October 1985 - February 1986: Completion of the four country studies.
November 1985 December 1985
February 1986
March 1986
March - May 1986 May - August 1986 September 1986
October - November 1986
: Project meeting with British co-workers.
: Participation in a coordination meeting of FAST project teams on RES 5.
: Presentation of the preliminary results of the study at a FAST workshop on RES 5 and TWE 2.
: Roundtable discussion of experts to evalu
ate the project results and assumptions on which the scenarios are based.
: Elaboration of the scenarios.
: Preparation of the final report.
: First discussion and revision of the final report.
: Circulation and second revision of the fi
nal report.
28
2.5 Basic Assumptions
In order to reduce contingency, no external turbulences or radical changes were assumed for the world outside agricul
ture and forestry (as is customary for this type of ana
lysis), like warfare between EC member states or dissolution of the EC. It appeared reasonable to assume that there would be, on the average, only slight economic growth in real terms. Most forecasts made since at least 1976 which assumed average economic growth rates of 3 percent or more have been exposed as propaganda. Present gross national products in EC member .states can therefore be expected to remain at about the same order of magnitude until the year 2000 (between + 20 % and - 10 %).
Energy consumption rates are not expected to increase sig
nificantly as a result of further progress that will be made in energy efficiency. Unemployment is expected to continue at high levels, although the present situation might ease somewhat by the 1990s. More equal distribution of the total social workload cannot be excluded as a solution to the un
employment problem; but it will take time to achieve this even if it were accepted on principle within the EC.
Aside from the distribution pattern, the overall internal demand for food products is unlikely to rise significantly, if at all. Moreover, no significant increase in the popu
lation is to be expected. Therefore, the solution to the problem of agricultural surplusses in the European Community cannot lie in the growth of indigenous demand, although Por
tugal's entry into the EC may increase demand somewhat.
Although a fifteen-years time horizon (up to the year 2000) is relatively broad for policy analysis, it is brief with respect to major changes in actual land-use patterns. For example, extensive efforts to enhance forestry'production in
29
order to reduce timber imports would yield significant re
sults only after the year 2000, even if an' afforestation program were to begin today. This is not true, however, for every type of land use: consider land retirement programs for instance. Nevertheless the political and social inertia vis-ä-vis rapid change implies that most efforts to alter policy during the next decade will bear fruit only after the year 2000.
In this context, it is important to remember that the EC does not act as a homogeneous block. Competing national in
terests between member states and diverging objectives, as illustrated in the antagonism between agricultural and en
vironmental policy, offer more the picture of rather inco
herent, piecemeal decision making and muddling through. Sig
nificant policy change and innovation tend to be blocked by the pattern of bargaining processes, the significance of diverging (national) interests, and the necessary consensus on the least common denominator, which is further compli
cated by the unanimity rule in the Council of Ministers.
This study deals with alternative uses for land mainly in a rural context. It is not concerned with potential changes in urban agglomerations. Therefore, urban land use development is taken into account only as a semi-quantitative boundary condition, where a decreasing rate of expansion is assumed.
With the exception of the local case studies in this report, the investigation is interested in those changes in land use that are relevant for the Commission of the European Com
munities. Therefore, the analysis concentrates on larger potential changes in land use of an order of magnitude of - taken together - 10 percent of the land currently devoted to agriculture and forestry. Major changes may occur as aggre
gations of many minor local changes in land use, but this study does not confine its interest to locally important changes having no relevance for the macrolevel. It is not
30
assumed that only or just about 10 percent of the alterna
tive uses for land will be introduced by the year 2000.
First, it is the sociopolitical compatibility and the econ
omic viability of different types of land use that will de
termine their success or failure. Economic viability is partly determined and modified by the given structure of different socioeconomic interests, by the distribution of power and political influence. The common agricultural pol
icy (CAP) provides an outstanding example of this phenom
enon.
Secondly, the assessment of probable trends in development requires reasonable judgement of the likely lines of con
flict and the kinds of coalitions among different social ac
tors. This implies a consideration not only of parties ac
tually involved, like agriculturalists, the food industry, and environmentalists, but also of the energy industry, the chemical industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and the tourism industry.
Thirdly, the politics and policies of alternative uses for land will be shaped and influenced by more formal struc
tures, which may either enhance or prevent change from oc
curring in traditional agriculture and forestry. These structures include patterns of landownership and land-use planning; the national regulatory structures governing the energy, chemical, agricultural, and forestry sectors; and the social structure of rural areas (such as the relative role of agriculture; income distribution among farmers;
large-scale versus small-scale, part-time farming; and the Q
migration of urban population to rural areas.
Q - “ —
This is not to overlook the fact that still the net mi
gration is from rural into urban areas and their surround
ings, within and across countries, although to a varying degree from country to country. Nevertheless, it is inter
esting to note that in West Germany, for instance, the mi-
31
Fourthly, analysis of regionally specific characteristics such as climate; level and type of agricultural production;
level and type of industry; and employment patterns must be broken down according to region. The regional analysis will be especially important for assessing- the impacts of changes in land use on the types and social distribution of farm work.
It is important to note the sequence of cause-effect re
lationships that is assumed in this project. Vested inter
ests, power relations, and institutional patterns of de
cision-making and regulation result in potential changes in land use. These changes, in turn, influence the type of farm work and the number of farm workers required. This is not to say that changes in farm work could not occur for other reasons, such as progress in biotechnology. Given the focus of this project, however, attention must be directed primar
ily to the factors that determine land-use patterns and secondarily to the possible emergence of a new farm worker.
Certainly, the focus on land use development and alterna
tives induces a specific perspective in the analysis of agricultural and regional policy. Therefore, the conclusions reached cannot be more than one major component of a re
vision of the CAP.
An additional categorical assumption is that alternative uses for land will not be as heavily subsidized on a con
tinual basis, as is the current practice in the agricultural sector. Although this assumption could prove to be empiri
cally invalid, it is made for two important reasons. First, almost every type of land use is viable if it is subsidized enough. Second, society has no interest in expanding the sorts of market organisations, that require huge public sub
sidies, to be transferred from the agricultural sector to gration balance of the age groups between 2 5 and 3 5 years has reversed in favor of rural areas during the eighties.
32
other sectors as well, except for special reasons such as welfare. This assumption has one immediate, important con
sequence. Alternative uses of land will prove to be viable only if they remain economically competitive with existing ways of using agricultural land, if they provide additional benefit, or if they are legally imposed.
2.6 Some Reorientation and N e w Tacks
As the. investigation progressed, its emphasis and orien
tation shifted several times.
1. At the outset we intended to examine changes in agricul
tural land use only. It soon became apparent, however, that forestry had to be included in our investigation of land use in rural areas. Other types of land use, such as land use in urban areas, were only peripherally con
sidered in this study.
2. The number of different ideal types of land-use options to be considered was increased from 4 to 7. Increased food export, import substitution of animal feedstuffs, and fallow land were added to the four original cate
gories, i.e. biofuel production, utilization of biomass for chemicals, nature conservation, and afforestation.
These seven types of land use should cover all major op
tions for rural areas. Tourism has not been included as a separate category for land use, for it does not require large areas of land to be reserved specifically for this purpose. Tourism has been included, however, in the re
gional policy analysis.
3. Although it was initially proposed to elaborate ideal- type scenarios for each land-use option, only two general
33
scenarios were ultimately described, one "realistic" and one "desirable". As our analysis shows, the' prospects are not bright for any of the land-use options proposed.
Therefore, ideal-type scenarios for individual land-use options were not crucial for the development of policy options in this study.
4. During this investigation, the price of oil dropped from
$ 25 per barrel to $ 10 to 15 per barrel. Although the price of oil is expected to rise again by the 1990s, it is probably unrealistic to expect it to rise above $ 6 0 per barrel before the year 2000. It was reasonable, therefore, to exclude the possibility that biofuel pro
duction would become competitive during this century.
Other grounds must be cited for defending this option for land use, for it would require large subsidies.
5. The original issue of integrated versus segregated forms of land use, namely, the question of whether to separate or integrate different agricultural production activ
ities, whether to include or exclude some form of nature conservation, proved to be less important than the ques
tions of vitality, endogenous development, the subsidiz
ation and the functionalization of rural (especially less-favoured) areas in general. To what extent can dif
ferent economic and social activities be developed and integrated in such regions while enabling them to main
tain a certain degree of autonomy? Regional planning and policy thus received much more attention in the present study than was originally anticipated.
6. In addition to the need to differentiate on a regional basis in this analysis, it also became important to es
tablish different time horizons for different types of land use. For example, agricultural surpluses and corre
sponding budgetary squeezes represent an urgent but
34
short-term problem. Land retirement or nature conser
vation programs, on the other hand, can be realized only in a medium term timespan, while afforestation programs designed to influence timber imports will take effects only in the long run. Analysis of policy proposals for solving a given rural or agricultural problem by changing the use for land must therefore consider the extent to which such proposals consider the different time horizons
involved.
35
3. CURRENT SITUATION ÄND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS OF AGRICULTURE
3.1 The General Situation and Outlook
There are two important reasons that this section concen
trates on the development of agriculture and agricultural policy. First, the use of land for agriculture accounts for approximately 101 Mio hectares (Mha) within the EC-10 (133 Mha within the EC-12), or 61 percent of all land in the EC
(EC-Commission 1986a). Agriculture and farmers will probably be the most severely affected by changes in land use. Second, deliberations and pressure pertaining to the development of alternative uses for land stem mainly from the present crisis in agriculture and the common agricultural policy.
The development of agriculture in the EC can be sketched as follows. The utilized agricultural area (UAA) within the old EC-10 has decreased slightly in recent decades, from 107.2 Mha in 1970 to 101.9 Mha by 1980 (Lee 1985b). The number of farmers and farm workers has diminished in all EC member states by about one third between 1970 and 1982 and by nearly 60 percent from 1960 to 1983 (Herinckx, Moyart 1986a, see Table 1). The percentage of agricultural workers in the total work force, however, varied widely from one EC country to the next in the early 1980s from 2 percent in the United Kingdom to about 27 percent in Greece (EC-Commission 1985b). The pro
portion of part-time farmers also varies significantly from country to country, from 6 percent in Belgium to 50 percent in West Germany (EC-Commission 1986a, BMELF 1 9 8 6 a ) . A n o t h e r feature worth noting is that by about 1980 75 percent of all farmholders were 45 years old or more (EC-Commission 1985b).
Since the entry of Spain and Portugal into the EC, nearly two thirds of all EC farmers and farmworkers are now located in Mediterranean regions (Herinckx, Moyart 1986a), and approxi-
1 The actual percentage of full-time farmers in Mediterranean regions is considerably lower than these figures indicate.
