You are on page 1of 10

Journal of Rural Studies 24 (2008) 422–431

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rural Studies


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrurstud

Rural development and the regional state: Denying multifunctional


agriculture in the UK
Terry Marsden*, Roberta Sonnino
School of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff University, Glamorgan Building, King Edward VII Avenue, Cardiff CF10 3WA, UK

a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Under the emerging rural development paradigm, we argue that to be multifunctional an activity must
Multifunctional agriculture add income to agriculture, it must contribute to the construction of a new agricultural sector that cor-
Rural development responds to the needs of the wider society and it must reconfigure rural resources in ways that lead to
UK rural and agricultural policies
wider rural development benefits. By evaluating UK rural policies on the basis of whether or not they
Local food
attempt to meet these conditions, this paper shows that an implicit recognition of agriculture’s multi-
Rural governance
functional character has occurred recently through the shift from a sectoral to a regional and territorial
perspective that reintegrates farming into rural development. However, in practice, and especially in
England, the UK government has been unable to turn multifunctional activities into a real rural
development option. In fact, by continuing to support agri-industrial/retailer interests on the one hand,
and post-productivistd environmental and amenityd interests on the other, the State is governing
mostly by setting up competitively organized ‘projects’ and schemes that continue to justify the
concentration (and limitation) of resources allocated to agriculture. Based upon a critique of policy
developments over the past decade, this paper emphasizes the need for more innovative forms of state
innovation that provide opportunities for new, creative and more spatially embedded forms of supply
and demand management in agri-food. In the conclusions, the paper also argues that more critical
research is needed to uncover the existing and potential role of both governments and producer
networks in progressing sustainable rural development through agricultural multifunctionality.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction: Conceptualizing ‘multifunctional character of farming’’ (Losch, 2004: 340) through policies that
agriculture’ reduce (especially EU) agricultural support and high levels of food
production and input use (OECD, 2001). At the EU level, this view
The concept of the multifunctionality of agriculture embraces all has informed the Agenda 2000 reforms, which propose a model for
goods, products and services created by farming activities. Used for change, often upheld as ‘‘European Model of Agriculture’’ (Potter
the first time in 1993 by the European Council for Agricultural Law and Burney, 2002: 35; Potter and Tilzey, 2005), designed to safe-
in an effort to harmonize agricultural legislation across Europe and guard farming ‘‘because of its multifunctional nature and the part it
to provide the general notion of ‘sustainable agriculture’ with a le- plays in the economy, the environment and society in general’’
gal definition (Losch, 2004: 340), in the last decade the expression (Gorman et al., 2001: 138).
‘multifunctional agriculture’ has steadily entered the political and Despite a growing consensus among both scholars and policy-
scholarly debate about the role of farming for the economy and the makers around the need for recognizing and valuing a wide range
society as a whole. The Cork declaration in 1996 articulated the of farm production outputsd including environmental amenities,
commitment of the European Commission to multifunctionality, agritourism, food quality, landscape management, preservation of
stressing that agriculture is a major interface between people and biodiversity, etc.d ‘multifunctional agriculture’ is by no means
the environment and that farmers have a responsibility as stewards clearly and uniformly conceptualized or understood (Wilson,
of the natural resources of the countryside (Gorman et al., 2001: 2007). Indeed, it would be more accurate to argue, as we shall see,
138). As a result of this commitment, in recent years the Organiza- that the term has been victim to discursive appropriation by the
tion for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has more competing paradigms of agri-food and rural development that are
practically emphasized the need ‘‘to express the multifunctional unfolding (see also Tilzey, 2006). In general terms, we propose that
there are three main and competing interpretations of this concept.
These correspond to the competing approaches to agriculture
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ44 29 20 875 736; fax: þ44 29 20 874 845. implicit in the three development paradigms that have been
E-mail address: marsdentk@cardiff.ac.uk (T. Marsden). shaping UK and European rural space and policies in recent years

0743-0167/$ – see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.04.001
T. Marsden, R. Sonnino / Journal of Rural Studies 24 (2008) 422–431 423

and they are accompanied by different types of state action and development potential. As Knickel and Renting (2000: 513) explain,
policy development. rural development consists of a wide variety of multi-dimensional
and integrated activities that fulfil a number of functions not just
1.1. Multifunctional agriculture as a palliative to the productivist for the farm, but also for the region and the society as a whole.
‘cost-price’ squeeze Resulting from serious objections to the (largely monofunctional)
productivist model of agriculture and its negative externalities,
First, there is an agro-industrial paradigm, associated with a neo- increased environmental awareness, demand for food security and
liberal ‘virtual’ logic of scale and specialization that ties farms and quality and criticisms of the scale of protection measures in
agri-food into an industrial bio-science dynamic. Historically, this industrialized countries (Losch, 2004: 339–340), this emerging
has tended to reduce multifunctional agriculture and enhance its paradigm considers multifunctional agriculture no longer simply as
productivist monofunctionality. In this context, the multifunctional a ‘survival strategy’ for farmers. Rather, multifunctionality is a pro-
character of agriculture is restricted to the notion of pluriactivity, active development tool to promote more sustainable economies of
conceived of as the combination of agricultural and non-agricultural scope and synergy (Marsden, 2003: 185). Under this emerging
incomes within the farm household (Gasson and Winter, 1992; paradigm, to be multifunctional and, hence, to contribute to rural
Bateman and Ray, 1994; Eikeland, 1999). Under this farm-based development, an activity, we argue, must meet at least three
approach, pluriactivity is interpreted mainly as a survival strategy conditions (Marsden, 2003: 186):
that helps the least productive farmers to combat increasingly harsh
market conditionsdor, in other words, as a symptom of poverty  it must add income and employment opportunities to the
and a palliative for it. In short, multifunctionality here becomes agricultural sector;
a variably adopted ‘agricultural adjustment’ for those producers  it must contribute to the construction of a new agricultural
unable to remain full players on the ‘technological treadmill’ sector that corresponds to the needs and expectations of the
(Cochrane, 1958). society at large;
 it must imply a radical redefinition and reconfiguration of rural
1.2. Multifunctional agriculture as spatial regulation of the resources, to varying degrees, in and beyond the farm
consumption countryside enterprise.

Second, there is a contested post-productivist paradigm, based on In this paper, we will evaluate recent agri-food and rural
a perception of rural areas as consumption spaces to be exploited development policies in the UK on the basis of whether or not they
not only by industrial capital, but by the growing urban and ex- attempt to meet those three conditions and to use multi-
urban populations. Emerging in the last two decades, the post- functionality as an integrated development mechanism and a critical
productivist paradigm challenges the agro-industrial paradigm assessment tool that potentially re-embeds agriculture in its envi-
through an emphasis on planning for local environmental pro- ronment to promote rural sustainability. Specifically, in Section 2 of
tection and amenity enhancement. Here agriculture begins to lose the paper we argue that in the UK an implicit recognition of agri-
its centrality in society, and nature is conceived mostly in terms of culture’s multifunctional character occurred during the 1990s, when
landscape value (as a consumption good). Under this model, then, an economic crisis in the farming sector, combined with the trau-
the farm-based approach to the multifunctionality of agriculture is matic effects of the BSE and Foot and Mouth disease, encouraged
replaced by a land-based approach that emphasizes the different (and a shift from a sectoral to a more regional and territorial perspective
demarcated) functions of agricultural land (see, for instance, that reintegrates farming into rural development. In policy terms,
Vereijken et al., 2005). In short, farm pluriactivity is replaced by this shift was reinforced by two factors. On the one hand, there was
farmland diversification. This is, for example, the interpretation pro- a process of regionalization of rurality, triggered by the availability of
vided by Gerowitt et al. (2003: 227) when they state that agricultural European Structural Funds, which, as exemplified by LEADER,
land-use has production, ecological, social and aesthetic functions, stimulated new project- and partnership-based approaches to rural
and that each of these functions can add to a farm’s income either by problems. On the other hand, the implementation of agri-
creating resources or by buffering resource consumption. In the UK, environmental initiatives also contributed to advance a broader and
the growth of planning and environmental restrictions on agricul- more differentiated view of agricultural services to society.
tural land and the use of agri-environmental schemes have rein- In Sections 3 and 4 we analyze both the ‘top-down’ and the
forced this post-productivist variant of multifunctionality, whereby ‘bottom-up’ effects of regionalization and the albeit partial
the rural land-base itself becomes multifunctionaldi.e., it is divided ‘greening’ of agricultural policy implicit in the UK’s interpretation
into specific and functional parcels. of CAP reform and multifunctionality. The UK’s aspirations for
a rural policy that de-emphasizes the role of farming convinced the
1.3. Multifunctional agriculture as part of sustainable government (especially in England) to commit to a more ‘rural’
rural development model of multifunctionality through the adoption of ‘modulation’.
Regionalization, however, has created an opportunity to design
Third, there is an emerging sustainable rural development par- alternative models of agriculture within the UK. Hence, while the
adigm, which redefines nature by re-emphasizing food production English Rural Development Plan (2001–2007) extended CAP sup-
and agro-ecology and it reasserts the socio-environmental role of port to various non-agricultural activities, through, for example, the
agriculture as a major agent in sustaining rural economies and Rural Enterprise Scheme, Wales has developed a more multifunc-
cultures (Altieri, 1987; Sevilla Guzman and Woodgate, 1999). This tional model based on the adoption of a ‘supply-chain’ approach
paradigm reconnects a priority of agricultural production to the that re-embeds agriculture into the rural economy and environ-
wider markets and social possibilities. Furthermore, in contrast to ment. As we will show in Section 5, this diversity reflects the
the other paradigms, which assume the atomistic nature of farms emerging and uneven devolved governance process that regulates
and the land associated with them, the rural development para- the implementation of new rural policies and food initiatives (such
digm suggests the potential symbiotic inter-connectedness as new supply chain strategies and public food procurement) in
between farms and the same locale. England and Wales. These governance shifts tend to suggest,
In this context, multifunctional agriculture acquires its most however, that the adoption of rural development definitions of
comprehensive meaning and displays its highest integrative multifunctionality has only been, at best, partial.
424 T. Marsden, R. Sonnino / Journal of Rural Studies 24 (2008) 422–431

In the concluding part of the paper, we argue that the UK gov- gradual greening of (CAP) agricultural policy through the imple-
ernment has been unable to progress real agricultural multi- mentation of a number of agri-environmental schemes and a pro-
functionality and that the scarcity of analyses on this issue, gressive move towards the economic and political regionalization
combined with an implicit acceptance of the ‘project State’ model of rurality (see Murdoch et al., 2003). This began to shift the
(Sjöblom, 2003), has significantly limited both policy development emphasis from the agri-industrial to a more post-productivist
and research on multifunctional agriculture in the UK. In this sense, model: through an emphasis on what amounted to agricultural
we see that UK policy as a whole has tended to straddle combi- ‘clean-up’ and widening amenity, the realities of the consumption
nations of both an agri-industrial and a post-productivist model of countryside were more clearly articulated (Marsden et al., 1993;
multifunctionality. At the same time, it has allowed for the continued Lowe et al., 1997).
intensification (and retailerization) of agricultural production. Finally, As a result, and keeping the more radical arguments about
as a justificatory means for reducing state supports (as pressured by multifunctionality at bay, the UK was relatively early in introducing
the WTO and the OECD), it has espoused the post-productivist logics agri-environmental schemes, which were applied in designated
of multifunctionality associated with the provision of environmental Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) in 1987d five years before
and amenity goods and services from rural land. they became part of the Accompanying Measures of the CAP
We argue that this state-based juxtaposition and conundrum, (Regulation 2078/92). Reflecting a long tradition of landscape and
based upon a restricted and increasingly ‘project-based’ approach nature protection policies, growing urban amenity pressure, as well
to multifunctionality, tend to limit the opportunities for a multi- as an increasing concern for the loss of valued landscapes and
functional rural development that meets our three criteria identi- environmental resources brought about by changing agricultural
fied above. As we conclude, much more work is needed to practices (Ward, 2000: 8), such schemes were instrumental in
understand how real multifunctional rural development can pro- progressing a broader view of agricultural services to society.
ceed in the UK agricultural sector and what role new producer Indeed, they were clearly based upon a post-productivist model
networks and a more proactive, innovative and decentralized state whereby the role of the state in agri-food was broadened from
could potentially play in this process. productivism alone towards meeting the needs of specific envi-
ronmental and amenity interests. This was especially true for the
2. Progressing multifunctionality in the UK political agenda ESA policy, which is fundamentally based on the idea that partic-
ular farming regimes must be safeguarded for their essential role in
The expression ‘multifunctional agriculture’ has failed to enter terms of environmental protection. In addition to reconnecting
the mainstream political discourse in the UK. Responsible for this is farming to the wider environment, the ESA scheme (which will end
a traditional, agro-industrial view of agriculture as a separate and by 2015) also attempts to provide benefits in terms of enhanced
distinct economic sector, set apart from local and regional recreation opportunities and rural employment (Hanley et al.,
economies. 1999: 69).
Over the last two decades, however, a worsening economic crisis From this perspective, one of the most pioneering (and rural
in the farming sector, brought about by the continued application of development focused) agri-environmental schemes in the UK has
this model, combined with traumatic effects of BSE and the Foot been recognized as Tir Cymen (meaning ‘Tidy Land’), in Wales.
and Mouth on consumers’ trust and on smaller farmers’ incomes, Unlike most other schemes, Tir Cymen was based on the principle
has prompted a serious reconsideration of the roles of agriculture that environmental goods and services have a market value and
and rural development, of their interrelationships and of the poli- that farmers should capitalize on these externalities, rather than
cies associated with them. This is favouring a radical shift from being paid for simply not maximizing the production of the land
a ‘‘national, sectoral and individualized notion of agriculture and (Banks and Marsden, 2000: 478). If, at an ideological level, this
agricultural competitiveness to a regional, territorial and collective principle well reflects the changing role of agriculture in society
notion’’ (Ward et al., 2003: 21) that is embracing some of the (Banks, 2002), thereby complying with a central tenet of multi-
opportunities for a rural development model of multifunctional functional agriculture, at a more practical level Tir Cymen also had
agriculture, thereby potentially creating a platform for it. significant implications in terms of adding value to farm business
This changed perception and questioning of the role of farming and local economies. In fact, this scheme raised the performance of
in the UK can be traced back to the late 1980s, when the conven- some livestock herds, it supported and created employment on
tional approach to rural development, largely associated with local farms, particularly through an increase in environmental work, and
‘bottom-up’ initiatives concentrated upon the regeneration of it stimulated new enterprise development across rural Wales
selected rural communities, began to reveal all of its limitations. (Banks and Marsden, 2000).
Indeed, it was becoming increasingly evident that many British The second key factor that led to a rethinking of the role of
farms were playing an active role in rural development by engaging agriculture in the UK during the 1990s was a process of
in diversification (McNally, 2001) and pluriactivity (Gasson and regionalization of rural development triggered by two main policy
Winter, 1992; Bateman and Ray, 1994). While raising questions initiatives: the availability of European Structural Funds and, more
about farm adjustment strategies (Ilbery, 1991) and the restruc- recently, the devolution reforms in Scotland and Wales.1 The
turing of agriculture (Evans and Ilbery, 1992), these trends also European Structural Funds, one of the earliest regional policies for
called for the implementation of farm-based, rather than just rural development purposes, required that a view be taken on the
community-based, rural policiesdespecially in the ‘marginal’ areas contribution of the agricultural sector to regional economic
of the uplands, which tended to be more reliant on farming for their development (Ward, 2000: 8; Marsden et al., 2004). Of the five
incomes, employment and cultural identity. One of the earliest Objectives of the EU Structural Funds, which were reformed in
examples of this approach was the 1988 Ministry of Agriculture’s 1988, Objective 5b is the one that has mostly contributed to
Farm Diversification Scheme (Ilbery and Stiell, 1991; Munton et al.,
1992), offering grants for enterprise feasibility studies, initial mar-
keting costs and the establishment of businesses ancillary to the
1
farm (Shucksmith and Winter, 1990). The process of devolution in the UK started with referendums in 1997, which
led to the creation of a Scottish Parliament (with primary legislative power and
During the 1990s, the reintegration of agriculture into rural a tax-varying power) and of a Welsh Assembly (with no primary legislative and
development strategies in the UK and the implicit recognition of its fiscal power but with the power to spend its allocated budget on the basis of its
multifunctional character were favoured by two factors: the own priorities and the power to regulate quangos).
T. Marsden, R. Sonnino / Journal of Rural Studies 24 (2008) 422–431 425

redefining the role of agriculture in more multifunctional terms. post-productivist era, the mid-1990s White Papers represented an
Concerned with the adjustment of agricultural structures and the essential step in the shift from a narrowly agricultural focus to
development of rural areas, Objective 5b allocated funds to 11 rural a rural (horizontal) re-orientation (Lowe, 1997: 391). These White
areas throughout the UK between 1994 and 1999. McNicholas and Papers were immediately followed by a deepening of the BSE crisis
Ward’s analysis of the strategic objectives identified in the Single in 1996, when it was admitted that the disease could be transferred
Programming Documents for those areas (McNicholas and Ward, from animals to humans. This further highlighted the urgency to
1997) shows that Objective 5b in the UK emphasized two ideas revive farming fortunes.
implicit in the general concept of multifunctionality. First, an This process culminated in 2000 with another Rural White
emphasis on ‘‘diversification of rural economies away from an Paper that urged farmers to become more entrepreneurial and to
overdependence upon [.] agriculture’’ (McNicholas and Ward, exploit the environmental economy. Specifically, by encouraging
1997: 18); second, a combination in some areas of the conservation farmers to ‘‘make the character of the countryside an economic as
and development of the natural environment priority with that for well as an environmental asset’’ (p. 11) through speciality foods,
the development of human resourcesdwhich, as McNicholas and provision of environmental services and development of farm-
Ward (1997: 25) state, ‘‘may signal an idealized notion of [.] rural based tourism (Lowe and Ward, 2001: 387–388), this White Paper
people as the natural custodians of valued landscapes’’. further advanced the ideals of a post-productivist mode of multi-
However, agriculture in itself did not receive much emphasis in functional agriculture. Agriculture is thus now generally perceived
the Objective 5b areas. In fact, only two of the eleven areas made in policy terms as a multifunctional activity di.e., as an activity that
specific reference to the agricultural sector in their strategic objec- can contribute to regional development by strengthening regional
tives, and only four priorities in total came under the primary sector supply chains, by promoting territorial development through the
diversification classification (McNicholas and Ward, 1997: 24). This provision of rural infrastructure and public goods and by contributing
reveals a general failure of the Structural Funds to reach an adequate to regional branding and identities (Ward et al., 2003: 210–211).
degree of integration across the agricultural/non-agricultural In short, even though the expression ‘multifunctional agricul-
divide. While reflecting the traditionally poorly-developed (and in ture’ is not used in the UK, by progressively discussing the need to
some spheres oppositional) relationship between agricultural reconnect farming to rural and regional development, UK policies
policy and rural development policy in the UK (Ward, 2000: 8), this in the last decade have increasingly embraced a general idea of
lack of integration also helps to understand why multifunctional multifunctionality. This trend, however, has not been characterized
agriculture as part of the rural development paradigm has been so by any serious consideration for the reconstituted agricultural com-
slow to take hold in the UK. Agriculture as a sector was (and still is) ponent of the emerging rural development paradigm; therefore, there
seen by many as being well catered for by the CAP and, consequently, has been a failure of policy to engage with all three criteria asso-
as necessarily excluded from broader rural development objectives ciated with the role of multifunctionality in rural development that
(Lowe, 2006). Nevertheless, the Structural Funds have stimulated we have outlined above. In other words, the political rhetoric
the development of new, project- and partnership-based surrounding agriculture in the UK tends to overemphasize (even
approaches to addressing rural problems that have indirectly con- celebrate) the multiple roles that farming can play for both the
tributed to progressing multifunctionality (Marsden et al., 2004). environment and the society at large. Much less attention has been
An example of this new approach is the LEADER programme, paid to the role that the environment and wider society can play to
a pilot community initiative introduced in 1991 that was designed add value and employment opportunities to the agricultural sector.
to stimulate innovative approaches to rural development at the Indeed, as we discussed above, the British discourse has not ade-
local level through small-scale actions and the valorization of local quately emphasized how these new sets of policy conditions can
resourcesdphysical and human (Ray, 2000: 166). Even though in stimulate, under a rural development paradigm, a more radical or
the UK only a few LEADER groups emphasized ‘process’ goals and profound reconfiguration of rural resources both in and beyond the
capacity building (Shucksmith, 2000: 212), this local development farm enterprise.
initiative was often very useful in constructing a territorial identity
linked to land-based local resources (Ray, 1998: 84). This, for ex- 3. Multifunctional agriculture and CAP reform (from above)
ample, enabled the LEADER II group in West Wales, Antur Teifi, to
develop a brand name and image for speciality food producers in its The Agenda 2000 reforms provide, at least on the face of it,
locality dan initiative that was later extended to incorporate small a dynamic context to analyze national interpretations of the ideals
food producers from the whole Objective 5b region in Wales of multifunctional agriculture. Conceived to be a compromise
(Bristow, 2000: 27). By reconfiguring local resources, redefining the between market liberalization and protectionism, Agenda 2000
social role of agriculture and increasing value-added on farm was in fact the EU’s response to the challenge of engaging ‘‘in wider
products, initiatives of this kind represent an important step to- processes of agricultural trade liberalization while, at the same
wards multifunctional agriculture as rural development. They have time, developing an agricultural and rural policy that recognises
been based upon reconnecting value-added supply chains, rather and accommodates agriculture’s multifunctional roles’’ (Lowe et al.,
than relying on a two-dimensional concept of agri-environmental 2002: 1). Indeed, the Rural Development Regulation (RDR) or
spatial designations. Second Pillar, which represents the most significant feature of
Regionalization was officially incorporated in the political dis- Agenda 2000 in terms of transforming the CAP from a sectoral
course on rural development with the publication of a set of Rural policy of farm community support to an integrated policy for rural
White Papers in the mid-1990s, which were conceived to spell out development, ‘‘adheres to the philosophy of the ‘public good’ model
the broad range of state initiatives in operation in rural areas. di.e. the voluntary provision by landholders of agri-environmental
Produced on a devolved (England, Scotland and Wales), rather than goods in return for compensatory payments for income foregone’’
UK-wide, basisda strategy that tended itself to highlight regional (Falconer and Ward, 2000: 273). In addition to incorporating nine
differences in rural conditions, the White Papers brought forward previously separate measures (less- favoured area payments, the
the idea that rural policy, as ‘horizontal’ rather than sectoral policy, accompanying measures, agricultural structural schemes and a set
should harness local variety in line with broader policy goals of wider rural development measures that used to be available only
(Murdoch et al., 2003). By recognizing the changing and hetero- in designated areas under the Structural Funds), the RDR also
geneous nature of the economy and society of rural areas and the introduced a new set of measures for ‘‘the adaptation and
diversity of demands made upon them by modern society in the development of rural areas’’ (Article 33) that extends the eligibility
426 T. Marsden, R. Sonnino / Journal of Rural Studies 24 (2008) 422–431

for CAP support to non-farmers and non-agricultural activities environmental management, diversification and waste handling on
(Lowe et al., 2002: 4). farms (Dwyer and Baldock, 2000: 18). The English Plan, on the other
In many ways, the Second Pillar idea reflected the UK’s aspira- hand, tackled these measures through the Rural Enterprise Scheme
tions for a broader rural policy that de-emphasizes the role of (RES), funded under Article 33, which provides project-based
farming. However, the UK Government faced a serious difficulty in support for farming and non-farming activities in rural areas. In its
implementing the RDR. Since the allocation of funding for Pillar II operation, the RES confirms that the social justification of both
was largely based upon Member States’ historic spending com- modulation and the various Article 33 measures in the UK ‘‘is not so
mitments on agri-environment, agricultural structures and rural much agricultural survival as the provision of broader environ-
development measures (namely, the non-compulsory elements mental public goods for a society that places particular value upon
that UK Governments have always been unwilling to support), the them’’ (Lowe et al., 2002: 15). In fact, in its attempt to assist rural
UK was allocated only 3.5% of the European RDR budget for 2000– communities in ‘‘their regeneration and adjustment to the
2006 (Lowe et al., 2002: 8). As a result, the Government decided to declining importance of agriculture and other primary industries
use ‘modulation’ da mechanism made available to Member States and to the new demands of the rural economy’’ (Lowe et al., 2002:
to reduce compensatory payments to farmers and free up resources 13), the scheme extends CAP support to various non-agricultural
for additional spending on the RDR’s accompanying measures. The activities dsuch as improving rural services and infrastructure and
UK application of modulation confirms the national commitment to encouraging tourism and farm diversification. Finally, reflecting the
a ‘rural’, rather than ‘agricultural,’ model of multifunctionality. Not environmentalist agenda is also the fact that the proposed spend-
surprisingly, the decision to modulate in the UK was enthusiasti- ing on agri-environmental measures accounts by far for the largest
cally welcomed by countryside and conservation organizations but share of budget allocations in all three Plans di.e., for about 20% of
not by Scotland and Wales, where ‘‘there is more public and po- the annual budget in Scotland, 35% in Wales and 60% in England
litical sympathy for assistance to farmers despecially the smaller (Dwyer and Baldock, 2000: 24–25).
and remoter onesd on social grounds’’ (Lowe et al., 2002: 11). In part, the emphasis on non-agricultural, rather than value-
The RDR required each Member State to draw up territorially- adding, activities in all three Plans is counterbalanced by the
based 7-year Rural Development Plans (RDPs) ‘‘at the most appro- priority placed upon using the measures available to promote
priate geographical level’’. As a result of the recent emergence of marketing and processing of agricultural products dboth under
‘regionalized ruralities’ (Murdoch et al., 2003), Scotland and Wales Chapter VII of the Regulation and in relation to ‘quality agricultural
prepared dand are administeringd their own RDPs through their products’ under Article 33. This kind of support can potentially
devolved governments, whereas the English Plan has nine regional contribute to multifunctional agriculture, as it improves farm
chapters run through the UK Ministry (DEFRA).2 By emphasizing incomes without increasing production while also building new
different priorities for agriculture and rural development in separate links among farm products, environmental quality and community
regional contexts, the RDP process is fuelling debates about the British identity (Dwyer and Baldock, 2000: 37).
notion of multifunctionality dor ‘‘the contribution of agriculture to However, overall the RDPs, as well as the more recent (2006-7)
emerging regional objectives, such as for rural development, local revisions, demonstrate that the UK is still far from having
supply chains, regional competitiveness, countryside character and a coherent policy on multifunctional agriculture. In fact, even
amenity and regional sustainability’’ (Lowe et al., 2002: 12). though all three Plans express some sympathy for the current
In this respect, the regionalization of rurality recently occurring economic difficulties of the agricultural sector, they also make clear
in the UK has prompted different interpretations of CAP reform. In that rural development aid will not be used to ‘bail out the industry’
the context of Pillar I, the cornerstone of the reform is the in- in the short term (Dwyer and Baldock, 2000: 17). By keeping the old
troduction of the Single Farm Payment (SFP), which is independent ‘ruralist’ focus and by looking primarily to a diverse rural economy
from production and linked to complying with environmental, food (Lowe et al., 2002: 17), the English RDP in particular makes little or
safety and animal welfare standards (‘cross-compliance’). Under no effort to redefine the role of agriculture in a multifunctional
the reformed CAP, the SFP has been implemented at the regional sense.
level (except in England), from January 2005, following two pos- Taking our rural development conceptualization of multifunc-
sible modalities. Regions have the option to adopt an ‘area-based’ tional agriculture as a point of reference and evaluation, we can
approach, whereby the SFP includes all farmers, regardless of conclude that the UK approach has tended to prioritize a focus on
whether or not they are currently receiving CAP support, or to use the search for new opportunities to add income and employment to
an ‘historical’ approach that keeps the SFP linked to historical CAP the agricultural sector. The other two parameters of multi-
entitlement. While Wales has opted for an historical approach, functionality in the context of sustainable rural development di.e.,
which better responds to the needs of a narrow-based farming a redefinition of the agricultural sector and the radical reconfigu-
sector dominated by livestock and to the public support for the ration of rural resources dhave not been met in policy terms, ex-
smaller family farm, England started with an historical basis to cept through the variable implementation of agri-environmental
payment to then shift, over time, to an area-based SFP both to re- schemes. These schemes, however, have been driven by cost, the
flect the larger-scale of farms in its lowland and for environmental ability to ‘fit in’ with the price-support mechanisms of CAP and an
reasons (Marsden and Sonnino, 2005). environmental rationale, rather than by any coherent long-term
To a certain extent, these different approaches reflect different vision of how farm-based economic activity might be realigned
regional interpretations of the concept of multifunctional agricul- with rural sustainable resource use more generally. In England
ture that also characterize the regional RDPs. In fact, while the especially, multifunctional agriculture is then still defined at best in
Welsh Plan somewhat supported multifunctional agriculture by a combination of agri-industrial and post-productivist termsdi.e.,
identifying an integrated set of goals for Welsh farming, the English through a variable emphasis on production and diversification of
Plan proposed a more rural approach to multifunctionality in its the farm and the rural economy.
emphasis upon the creation of a productive and sustainable rural In short, in the context of a policy approach that recognizes the
economy (Lowe et al., 2002: 13). As a consequence, the Welsh Plan need to diversify income sources and enterprises, but not neces-
proposes to use the measure for investment aids to address better sarily to re-embed farming, agriculture is still caught very much in
between the agri-industrial and the post-productivist models (see
also Potter and Tilzey, 2005). Multifunctional agriculture in the UK,
2
Revisions to these plans are currently before the European Commission (2007). where it has occurred, has rather been a kind of rupture with the
T. Marsden, R. Sonnino / Journal of Rural Studies 24 (2008) 422–431 427

State sector, rather than being achieved through policy incentives industry (WOAD, 1996: II–III). In this new system, three sector
per se. However, an emerging political discourse is currently trying groups were established to identify targets and develop action
to fill this policy vacuum through a new agenda for endogenous plans for the red meat, dairy and organic sectors. Again, these plans
rural development based upon a food chain perspective, rather advocate a ‘supply-chain approach’ to the farm crisis that empha-
than the old sectoral and corporatist system. By exhorting the sizes value-adding activities and re-embeds agriculture in the
farming and food industry to reconnect with markets, consumers, wider rural economy and environment. For example, the Strategic
the environment and other rural activities, this discourse is creating Action Plan for the Welsh Lamb and Beef Sector underlines the
new opportunities for multifunctional agriculture and sustainable ‘‘urgent need for all the players in the ‘traditional’ red meat supply
rural development. sector dproducers, auction markets, abattoirs and meat process-
orsdto work much more closely to differentiate their products
4. Local food and multifunctional agriculture (from below) further and gear up to meet the needs of a rapidly developing
consumer marketplace’’ (Agri-food Partnership, 1999: 3).
The Foot and Mouth crisis in 2001 clearly expressed the In the two years that followed the publication of the action
dependence of rural areas and agriculture upon rural tourism and plans, the Partnership took a series of initiatives that targeted dif-
consumption as much as agricultural activities per se. This ferent aspects of the food chain. Ranging from the development of
prompted a new agenda for rural policy in the UK that, by school programmes to encourage milk consumption among chil-
emphasizing the development of local food systems, is redefining dren to the establishment of the Farming Connect advisory system
agriculture in more multifunctional terms. In England, this new for producers, and from marketing initiatives to secure contracts for
discourse on the role of farming emerged for the first time in the Welsh lamb and beef in Safeway stores to financial investment in
Report on the Future of Farming and Food, known as the ‘Curry the organic food processing sector (Agri-food Partnership, 2001:
Report’, published by a Policy Commission in 2002 in an effort to 10–11), these initiatives have re-positioned farming as a neo-
chart a course out of the crisis. productivist activity that is, again, central for broader aspects of
In some ways, the Report supports multifunctional agriculture. sustainable rural development.
In fact, payments to farmers are advocated ‘‘only for public benefits This multi-dimensional supply chain approach is quite distinct
that the public wants and needs’’ (Policy Commission, 2002: 9). from the two-dimensional approaches based on land management
Similarly, this document emphasizes the ‘‘positive additional or in agri-environmental schemes. From the perspective of multi-
alternative employment and business opportunities’’ offered to functional agriculture, a supply-chain approach is likely to improve
farmers and their families by the wider rural economy (Policy policy infrastructures and interfaces and to provide better incentives
Commission, 2002: 9) as well as by forms of diversification such as for farmers to develop value-adding, organic and short-supply
tourism and alternative cropping (Policy Commission, 2002: 53–54). chains. This is, for example, one of the main goals of the Agri-food
However, paralleling this emphasis on non-agricultural pro- Partnership Strategy Review. In addition to emphasizing the benefits
duction, the Report also advocates local food as ‘‘one of the greatest of a ‘joined-up’ approach to the development of the food industry in
opportunities for farmers to add value and retain a bigger slice of terms of focus and delivery (Welsh Development Agency, 2004: 12),
retail value’’ (Policy Commission, 2002: 43). By encouraging this document rests its vision on a number of ‘cross-cutting’ strategic
farmers to reconnect with consumers, to develop local and regional goals aiming at improving simultaneously market focus, supply
foods and to add value through further processing and marketing chain linkages and the performance of processors and primary
(Policy Commission, 2002: 42–43), the Curry Report outlines producers (Welsh Development Agency, 2004: 16).
a more re-embedded, albeit market-led, model of agriculture. In short, in the context of a continuing and deepening conven-
Another promising market for locally-produced food and, tional agricultural crisis, Wales has chosen to promote a new type
through it, for multifunctional agriculture is, as stated in the Curry of neo-productivist and multifunctional agriculture that responds
Report itself (Policy Commission, 2002: 104), public procurement. to the logic and opportunities presented by the emerging rural
Ideally, the UK government is building on this new opportunity, as development paradigm, rather than the conventional agro-
demonstrated by the launch of the ‘Public Sector Food Procurement industrial model. As stated in Farming for the Future (Government of
Initiative’ in August 2003, followed by the publication of DEFRA’s the National Assembly for Wales, 2001: 9), a document prepared by
practical guidance to public sector bodies as to how they could a group of experts to advise the Welsh Government on the direction
legally build sustainable development criteria into their pro- the industry should take, ‘‘if Welsh farming and food processing
curement of food and catering (Morgan and Sonnino, 2007). The continue to try to compete on price alone in basic food commodity
Welsh Assembly Government has probably gone furthest of all, in markets, the result will be a strong continuation of the long-term
the UK, in trying to put sustainable food procurement into practice trends which have been eroding the pattern of the family farm.’’
through a strategy that attempts to calibrate the demand and The alternative envisioned in this document is ‘‘to move as far as
supply sides of the problemdor, in other words, to promote possible along the spectrum towards competing less on price and
demand by encouraging public sector bodies to purchase more more on quality’’ (Government of the National Assembly for Wales,
locally-produced food, whilst at the same time trying to build 2001: 13). In practice, this means ‘‘developing high-quality, value-
a supply-side capacity to meet that demand (Morgan and Morley, added, branded products which are aimed, where possible, at more
2002). Central to the Welsh strategy is the development of a ‘supply- special markets and niche markets’’ (Government of the National
chain’ approach to the farm crisis that, as we noticed with regard to Assembly for Wales, 2001: 13). Although clear about the key
Wales’ approach to CAP reform, is promoting an agricultural, rather economic challenge facing Wales on the route to a quality-driven
than rural, interpretation of the ideals of multifunctionality. agri-food sector, Farming for the Future does not propose a market-
One of the earliest official documents to be based on this ‘sup- led model of agriculture. In contrast with the Curry Report, the
ply-chain approach’ is A Food Strategy for Wales. Produced in 1996 Welsh document makes a direct connection between the quality of
by an advisory group that included politicians and representatives food production and the quality of life of the small food producer
from producers, consumers and farmer organizations, the strategy (Morgan et al., 2006). This shapes a more territorially-based model
rests on three pillars that embrace all actors in the food chain. These of agriculture that emphasizes, simultaneously, its social, economic
include: (1) supporting Welsh products in terms of ‘quality, range and ecological embeddedness. Under this approach, agriculture
and availability’; (2) developing markets for Welsh products; and becomes a multifunctional enterprise that delivers safe and healthy
(3) creating technical and business support services for the food food and non-food products, a visually attractive countryside and
428 T. Marsden, R. Sonnino / Journal of Rural Studies 24 (2008) 422–431

distinctive local food products that support tourism and a positive rural policy, RDAs have entered ‘‘a policy field that is long estab-
image of Wales (Government of the National Assembly for Wales, lished, with its own set of monolithic, dedicated institutions’’
2001: 12). In other words, agriculture is re-emphasized and (Ward et al., 2003: 210) dnamely, highly centralized agricultural
re-positioned for its contribution to achieving rural sustainability. ministries that traditionally view farming as a separate economic
sector and do not engage with the range of rural interests (Lowe
5. Implementing multifunctional policies? Regional variation and Ward, 1998: 472). So far, it seems that there have been limits as
in a decentralized governance context to the extent to which agricultural and food policies can be effec-
tively decentralized in the English regions, and this is likely to
These recent changes in rural and agricultural policy discourse thwart both endogenous forms of rural development and agri-food
have been accompanied by a considerable overhauling of state innovation.
administrative structures for food, farming and rural development. In short, even though ideally the evolution of the RDAs role in
In 2000, the responsibility for food safety and consumer protection rural development is a key element in the move away from
was transferred from the Ministry for Agriculture, Food and Fish- a national and centralized conception of rurality and a national
eries (MAFF) to the newly created Food Standards Agency (FSA). approach to rural policy (Ward et al., 2003: 211), in practice the
One year later, MAFF became part of the new Department for the regionalization of rurality has yet to show real development in
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), which aspires to be England. The implementation of the RDP is a case in point. In
less closely aligned with the ‘farming lobby’, and a number of questioning why the regional dimension to the ERDP has been
organizational changes in the regional structures and CAP payment developed so weakly despite the rhetoric surrounding it and the
systems affected the modalities for the delivery of the RDP. As Ward inclusion of separate chapters for each English region, Ward and
and Lowe (2004: 131–132) summarize, the Rural Development Lowe (2004) point to three main factors: the lack of a tradition of
Service, an agency of DEFRA, became responsible for the promotion regional discretion and administrative decentralization within
and delivery of the ERDP schemes; implementation issues were MAFF (now DEFRA); a weak organization of regional rural interest
transferred to a National Strategy Group and sister Regional Pro- groups; and the repercussions of devolution, which raised the need
gramming Groups; the national and regional ERDP Consultation for MAFF ‘‘to consolidate itself vis-à-vis the new devolved execu-
Groups, utilized for consultation on implementation, were fed into tives as the agricultural ministry for England’’ (Ward and Lowe,
the new Rural Affairs Forum and were broadened to include both 2004: 132).
governments and NGOs. With regard to the potential for the rural development para-
Paralleling these organizational changes, devolution and the digm and multifunctional agriculture, these forms of evolutionary
regionalization of rurality also contributed to the revised imple- governance reflect a fundamental political ambiguity in the UK that
mentation and administration of rural policies. As discussed above, creates significant barriers to the development and reconfiguration
Wales has begun to capitalize on the new opportunities for regional of the farming sector. While, on the one hand, the establishment of
distinctiveness offered by the CAP reform and devolution to the RDAs and the increased availability of grants for nature man-
develop an innovative and more endogenous form of rural and agement, new food chains and organic farming suggest positive
agricultural governance. Specifically, the development of its ‘sup- encouragement for some forms of sustainable rural development,
ply-chain’ approach to farming redefined the role of the State as an on the other hand a re-strengthened and centralized State is
orchestrator of agricultural, environmental and rural development attempting to assure the quality demands of both food and coun-
networks formed by state agencies that can only act in relation to tryside consumers by imposing highly restrictive planning, hygiene
others. As a major coordinator of rural activities, the Welsh and fiscal control. Resulting from a stream of food scares, this
Development Agency (now incorporated into the National Assem- ‘hygienic/bureaucratic’ mode of regulation of the countryside has
bly) has the challenging task to match and manage this process in (somewhat ironically) forced farmers wishing to diversify into non-
line with different strategies for agri-food, farming and rural industrially produced foods to comply with the logic and
development, so as to obtain as much synergy as possible between requirements of the conventional agri-food system. By constraining
the policy frameworks and the different types of rural and agri- the development of quality foods and on-farm processing, this
cultural needs. This socio-political transition in Wales is beginning highly rationalist system of risk management, endorsed by the
to provide a new platform for a neo-productivist and multifunc- major corporate retailers, the Food Standards Agency and DEFRA,
tional view of agriculture, emerging in the context of a strong now represents a major obstacle to the further development of
regional agri-environmental policy, which policy-makers explicitly multifunctional agriculture.
present as Welsh in both its essence and its goals (Marsden and This contradiction is especially evident in the vision of the future
Sonnino, 2005). of farming and food presented by the Curry Report, which implies
In England, decentralization began to occur in 1999 with the an agri-food model based on a bifurcated system. On the one hand,
establishment of the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs). In English farmers are urged to reconnect with their conventional
assuming responsibility for developing a strategy for coordinated markets by rediscovering ‘‘their businessman’s mind, their mar-
economic development and regeneration of both the urban and the keting skills and their eye for new opportunities’’ (Policy Com-
rural areas of their regions, the RDAs have ideally become impor- mission, 2002: 20). On the other hand, however, food producers are
tant actors in the planning and implementation of rural encouraged to develop the ‘alternative’ sector di.e., to increase the
development policies in England (Ward et al., 2003). However, so market share of niche products such as local, locality, regional and
far the RDAs have not really promoted regional models of organic foods.
development that re-position agriculture for its contribution to This bifurcated and increasingly regulated agri-food system is
achieving rural sustainability. There are two main reasons for this. likely to have different implications for the development of mul-
First, as Jones and MacLeod (2004: 434) argue, since RDA bound- tifunctional agriculture in England. The South West region, for
aries align with an administrative geography established in the example, is capitalizing on a strong tourist economy to develop
immediate post-war period for managing a pre-Fordist economy, a range of coordinated and network-based alternative agri-food
the economic imperatives that are at the heart of their initiatives at the regional and local levels (Marsden and Sonnino,
‘regionalization’ project may be confronted by locally-rooted forms 2005; Sonnino and Marsden, 2006). In this region, rural
of ‘regionalism’ more receptive to questions of political participa- development is then beginning to challenge the more established
tion and territorial identity. Second, with more specific regard to agro-industrial and post-productivist models, thereby creating
T. Marsden, R. Sonnino / Journal of Rural Studies 24 (2008) 422–431 429

potential for a more multifunctional agricultural system. In the the idea of new forms of state assistance for a multifunctional ag-
more industrialized agricultural areas of Eastern England, in turn, riculture, given the history of significant but inefficient support for
where farmers increasingly have to accommodate the private- the agri-industrial (CAP) model and the overall public distrust this
interest models of regulation and governance led by the corporate brought to previous administrations. The real ideological politics of
retailers (Marsden, 2003: 151), there is very little (if any) potential agri-food in the UK is to let ‘the markets’ (increasingly dominated
for the development of a more re-embedded and multifunctional by the corporate retailers, of course) become more ‘liberalized’ and
model of agriculture. These differential trends indicate that prog- to avoid any deviations from the principles of European competi-
ress towards multifunctionality as rural development must be tion policy that might strengthen local and regional protectionism.
assessed in relation to both its regional market and its regional Meanwhile, UK competition policy continues to allow the oligop-
governance context; and that, as a result of these processes of olistic behaviour of the downstream corporate agri-food processors
regionalization, it is likely to be unevenly developed. and retailers (see Marsden, 2004a) and the UK as a whole becomes
In contrast to England, for example, Wales is unambiguously significantly less self-sufficient in food production.
committed to an integrated model of agriculture that aims at eco- There are then severe political as well as policy restraints to the
nomic, environmental and social sustainability (Government of the promotion of agricultural multifunctionality that extend far deeper
National Assembly for Wales, 2001: 12). Unlike the Curry Report, into the political frameworks and fabric of the UK than simply those
Farming for the Future encouraged Welsh farmers to develop high- associated with delivering rural and agricultural policy per se.
quality, value-added and branded products aimed at specialist and Successive Ministers for Agriculture are reluctant to contradict the
niche markets, rather than trying to compete in the markets for flow of policies from the Department for Business, Enterprise and
basic agriculture and food commodities. At the heart of this strategy Regulatory Reform and, or especially, from the Treasury. At the
is an emphasis on the social and cultural dimension of sustain- same time, there is also a reluctance on the part of DEFRA to
ability, which expresses itself in the Assembly’s strong support for decentralize too many powers to the regions and, in particular, to
the family farm. This commitment also explains another significant do this around a more vibrant notion of multifunctionality. It is in
difference between Wales and England with regard to the direction fact strategically easier for them to maintain central functions and
given to the farming sector under the reformed CAP. While Wales then govern by allowing competitive projects. Moreover, the fate of
elected to implement the reform by adopting an historic payment the annual agricultural budget is partly determined on the basis of
system that, by calculating the SFP on the average claims made by a series of quid pro quos in which wider macro-economic concerns
Welsh farmers between 2000 and 2002, is helping small producers, increasingly play a role. One of these has been the growing envi-
England selected a flat-rate area payment, based on hectarage, ronmental agenda, which is largely about a spatial and land-based
which rewards larger farms. protection of the post-productivist countryside. This role, however,
In short, devolution and regionalization, combined with essentially complements the neo-liberal approach to agricultural
regional measures under the reformed CAP (e.g., the RDR), mean markets, while also supporting CAP reform towards more envi-
that multifunctional agriculture will develop very unevenly in the ronmental compliance of farmers. As such, this frames a restrictive
UK. As we have attempted to show, it is likely to hold more and largely contradictory context within which to develop more
potential in regions, such as Wales and the South West of England, positive rural and agri-food policies that could help British farmers
which are, to a different extent and in different ways, committed to to step off the ‘race to the bottom’ productivist treadmill.
the principles of the rural development paradigm, whereas in At the central government level, then, policy development is
regions such as the East of England, where the agro-industrial and still ‘locked in’ to placating agri-industrial interests, on the one
post-productivist paradigms prevail, multifunctional activities are hand, and the continued vibrancy of post-productivist (environ-
not yet a development option. mental and amenity) interests on the other. It has yet to develop
a more autonomous break or rupture with this paradigmatic
6. Conclusions: The denial and marginalization of real conundrum (Frouws and Mol, 1999). As a result, it does not display
agricultural multifunctionality in the UK a real form of sustainable rural development with respect to agri-
cultural multifunctionality, as defined by the three criteria outlined
As the last section of the paper indicates, it is important to earlier. More specifically, the current complex and multi-level
contextualize multifunctional agriculture in the UK as being located governance system tends to actively marginalize the process of
at the heart of a broader contradiction concerning the evolution of constructing a new and more integrated agricultural sector that
UK policy towards agri-food and rural development. This is the corresponds to the real needs of civil society, thereby severely
contradiction between the stimulation for an increasingly ratio- hampering (regional and local) initiatives and mobilizations that
nalist and retailer-led food supply system (based on a highly may lead to a more radical redefinition and reconfiguration of
innovative and state-supported agri-industrial model) and a series agricultural and rural resources.
of attempts (largely, but variably) at the regional level to Interestingly, however, it is in the devolved administrations and
decentralize and diversify the agricultural and rural base. In some more peripheral rural regions that there is both a perceived need,
cases, these attempts do add up, as we have seen, to the beginnings and at least some potential, for political and social mobilization in
of a shift towards multifunctionality as rural development, even this regard. It is in fact in these regions de.g. South West England
though this term is still conveniently side-stepped in established and parts of Walesdwhere we see more intense bottom-up
UK policy-discourses. entrepreneurial and ecological enterprise initiatives designed to
In this sense, therefore, multifunctional principles are still achieve agricultural multifunctionality by creating innovative
largely restricted to the agri-industrial or post-productivist models ruptures, rather than compromises, with prevailing contradictory
introduced at the start of the paper. Moreover, a more radical and state policies.
agriculturally-centred approach to multifunctional agriculture, as These reflections and arguments point to some severe limitations
part of the sustainable rural development paradigm, is hindered in in both the ‘policy-development’ and indeed critical social science
policy terms not only by a timidity in DEFRA, but also by the research in this area in the UK. In one sense, these are both highly
watchful eye of both the UK Department of Trade and Industry linked, especially since the Blair government of 1997, and its
(recently re-named Department for Business, Enterprise and Reg- espousal of ideas of post-productivism influencing policy debates
ulatory Reform) and, more profoundly, by the UK Treasury. These at the national level. There is now a real need for some serious
two government departments are severely antipathetic towards critical analysis of this process. Indeed, despite the opportunities
430 T. Marsden, R. Sonnino / Journal of Rural Studies 24 (2008) 422–431

that a closer and more positive sets of relationships has created of markets and the creation of new institutional and associative
both for social scientists and for effective policy development (such frameworks in order to survive and prosper. For instance, they may
as Farming for the Future and the Curry Report, and their various need less high profile and time dependent ‘projects’ and more
follow-up policies and strategies), there is little critical research innovative forms of ‘demand management’ from the State. It is
that explores the contradictory nature of policy developments, their exactly in this areadthe area of demand management, pro-
impacts or their lack of effectiveness in rural areas. In addition, there curement and marketing, for exampledthat the ‘project State’ has
is an implicit acceptance of what we might term ‘the project State’. been most reluctant to intervene. Demand management and the
In other words, it is widely assumed that the only way to govern marketing of food products is seen as best left ‘to the market’.
now is through setting up more and more competitively organized However, that ‘market’ is highly regulated both by the hygienic-
‘projects’. As Sjöblom and Godenhjelm (under review: 1) more bureaucratic state and by the private quality and procurement
generally argue: schemes implemented by retailers. In this context, the State can
only promote selective ‘supply-side’ initiatives (like the Rural
During the past decades the systems of governance have been Enterprise Scheme and local food fairs).
transformed in response to supra-national as well as national In summary, then, the profound critical political economy that
demands. By consequence, the number of informal governance emerged in the 1980s and 1990s concerning the analysis of the
instruments has increased at all administrative levels. Among agricultural modernization process of the late 20th century has not
these instruments temporary project organisations are espe- been matched by a parallel project on how an alternative rural
cially important, serving as informal mechanisms of horizontal development model could establish itself in a more harmonious
as well as vertical coordination. Projects have become symbols way with both the rural and urban realm. Rather, with social sci-
of efficiency, innovation, adaptability. [.] Especially in fields entists recasting their functional relationships with a ‘project State’,
like environmental management, characterised by cross- academic research has become more fragmented, project-led,
sectoral and multi-level policy problems, it is [.] evident that functional and, hence, benign. The potential of real agricultural
an increasing temporality in public decision-making may chal- multifunctionality raises an awkward political and scientific ques-
lenge fundamental administrative values such as transparency tion: to what extent can we see the slow emergence and social
and democratic accountability. struggle of a more autonomous multifunctional process taking hold
in rural development processes? And if we can, what conceptual
As a result, limited resources can become both justified and
developments and (multifunctional social science) tools are needed
concentrated, usually on a competitive basis. As many farmers feel
to examine it and progress it?
excluded as included, and the central State can legitimate its poli-
cies by reference to ‘examples of good practice’.
Social scientists (especially since 1997) have been so busy de- Acknowledgements
scriptively following these various initiatives, schemes and projects
that they have tended to forfeit a more critical and structural The evidence and analysis contained in this paper have origi-
analysis of the contemporary State and of its profound role in nated from two research projects: the EU-sponsored project
conditioning and positioning its agricultures (see Tilzey, 2006). As MULTAGRI (505297) and an ESRC-sponsored project entitled Going
a result, for example, there has been limited critical research in Local? Regional Innovation Strategies and the New Agri-food Paradigm
examining how the three competing models of multifunctionality (Toe50021). These projects involved both secondary and primary
evaluated here actually play out in different rural regions; or how research (interviews with policy officials at the EU, UK and regional
struggles for multifunctionality as rural development continue to levels). The authors would like to thank three referees and the
remain marginalized in a context of prevailing agri-industrialism editor of the journal for their very helpful and constructive
and post-productivism. Moreover, as this analysis of recent policy comments.
suggests, we critically need to consider the roles of centralization
and decentralization in both policy formation and delivery with
regard to progressing more sustainable forms of multifunctionality. References
Central here would be more research on the role of the central State,
Agri-food Partnership, 1999. The Welsh Lamb and Beef Sector. A Strategic Action
as well as the devolved authorities, in creating the potential for more Plan. Prepared by the Welsh Lamb and Beef Industry Working Group. The
sustainable and multifunctional types of rural development. De- Welsh Development Agency, Cardiff, Wales.
volution has excited many social scientists; but it is also the complex Agri-food Partnership, 2001. Partnership in Action. Progress Report and Key Prior-
ities for the Wales Agri-food Partnership towards 2003.
tensions and compromised nature of the relationships between the Altieri, M., 1987. Agro-Ecology: The Scientific Basis of Alternative Agriculture.
devolved bodies and the central state that need more examination (see Westview Press, Boulder.
Sustainable Development Commission, 2006). There is little Banks, J., 2002. Tir Cymen: A whole farm agri-environmental scheme in Wales. In:
van der Ploeg, J.D., Long, A., Banks, J. (Eds.), Living Countrysides: Rural
contemporary political economy of these new sets of relationships; Development Processes in Europe: The State of the Art. Elsevier, Doetinchem.
therefore, there are few academic ‘road-maps’ as to how real Banks, J., Marsden, T., 2000. Integrating agri-environmental policy, farming systems
rural development could proceed in the agricultural sector and rural development: Tir Cymen in Wales. Sociologia Ruralis 40 (4), 466–480.
Bateman, D., Ray, C., 1994. Farm pluriactivity and rural policy: some evidence from
(Marsden, 2004b). Wales. Journal of Rural Studies 10 (1), 1–13.
A further area of research concerns the actual role of new Bristow, G., 2000. Structure, strategy and space: issues of progressing integrated
producer networks in shaping agricultural multifunctionality. The rural development in Wales. European Urban and Regional Studies 7 (1), 19–33.
Cochrane, W.W., 1958. Farm Prices: Myth and Reality. University of Minnesota Press,
onset of the ‘project State’, and more sophisticated critical
Minneapolis.
understandings of neo-liberalism in agri-food, has tended to Dwyer, J., Baldock, D., 2000. The Rural Development Regulation in Britain: Fulfilling
blinker a fuller understanding of the empowering and enriching the Promise. A Report on behalf of the Wildlife and Countryside Link. Institute
for European Environmental Policy.
role that the state could potentially play by releasing the innovative
Eikeland, S., 1999. New rural pluriactivity? Household strategies and rural renewal
potential of the rural land-based sector. It is clear from much of the in Norway. Sociologia Ruralis 39 (3), 359–376.
international recent empirical research on producer networks (see, Evans, N.J., Ilbery, B.W., 1992. Farm-based accommodation and the restructuring of
for example, Marsden and Murdoch, 2006) that these are often agriculture: evidence from three English counties. Journal of Rural Studies 8 (1),
85–96.
developing despite, rather than because of, existing state policies; Falconer, K., Ward, N., 2000. Using modulation to green the CAP: The UK case. Land
but that they require new mechanisms such as the re-governance Use Policy 17, 269–277.
T. Marsden, R. Sonnino / Journal of Rural Studies 24 (2008) 422–431 431

Frouws, J., Mol, A., 1999. Ecological modernisation theory and agricultural reform. Morgan, K., Sonnino, R., 2007. Empowering consumers: creative procurement and
In: de Haan, H., Long, N. (Eds.), Images and Realities of Rural LifeWageningen school meals in Italy and the UK. International Journal of Consumer Studies 31
Perspectives of Rural Transformation. Royal van Gorcum, Assen, pp. 269–286. (1), 19–25.
Gasson, R., Winter, M., 1992. Gender relations and farm household pluriactivity. Morgan, K., Marsden, T., Murdoch, J., 2006. Worlds of Food: Place, Power and
Journal of Rural Studies 8 (4), 387–397. Provenance in the Food Chain. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Gerowitt, B., Bertke, E., Hespelt, S.K., Tute, C., 2003. Towards multifunctional agri- Munton, R.J.C., Lowe, P., Marsden, T., 1992. Forces driving land use change: the
culturedweeds as ecological goods? Weed Research 43, 227–235. social, economic and political context. In: Whitby, M.C. (Ed.), Land Use Change:
Gorman, M., Mannion, J., Kinsella, J., Bogue, P., 2001. Connecting environmental The Causes and Consequences. ITE Symposium no. 27, Proceedings, University
management and farm household livelihoods: the Rural Environment of Newcastle upon Tyne, pp. 15–27. HMSO, London.
Protection Scheme in Ireland. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 3, Murdoch, J., Lowe, P., Ward, N., Marsden, T., 2003. The Differentiated Countryside.
137–147. Routledge, London.
Government of the National Assembly for Wales, 2001. Farming for the Future. A OECD, 2001. Multifunctionality: Towards an Analytical Framework. Policy Com-
New Direction for Farming in Wales, Cardiff, Wales. mission on the Future of Farming and Food, 2002. Farming and Food. A
Hanley, N., Whitby, M., Simpson, I., 1999. Assessing the success of agri-environ- Sustainable Future. DEFRA, London.
mental policy in the UK. Land Use Policy 16, 67–80. Potter, C., Burney, J., 2002. Agricultural multifunctionality in the WTOdlegitimate
Ilbery, B.W., 1991. Farm diversification as an adjustment strategy on the urban non-trade concern or disguised protectionism? Journal of Rural Studies 18, 35–47.
fringe of the West Midlands. Journal of Rural Studies 7 (3), 207–218. Potter, C., Tilzey, M., 2005. Agricultural policy discourses in the European post-
Ilbery, B.W., Stiell, B., 1991. Uptake of the farm diversification grant scheme in Fordist transition: neoliberalism, neomercantilism and multifunctionality.
England. Geography 76 (3), 259–263. Progress in Human Geography 29 (5), 1–20.
Jones, M., MacLeod, G., 2004. Regional spaces, spaces of regionalism: territory, in- Ray, C., 1998. Territory, structures and interpretationdtwo case studies of the Eu-
surgent politics and the English Question. Transactions of the Institute of British ropean Union’s LEADER I programme. Journal of Rural Studies 14 (1), 79–87.
Geographers 29 (4), 433–452. Ray, C., 2000. The EU LEADER programme: rural development laboratory. Sociologia
Knickel, K., Renting, H., 2000. Methodological and conceptual issues in the study of Ruralis 40 (2), 163–171.
multifunctionality and rural development. Sociologia Ruralis 40 (4), 512–528. Sevilla Guzman, E., Woodgate, G., 1999. From farming systems research to agro-
Losch, B., 2004. Debating the multifunctionality of agriculture: from trade negoti- ecology. Technical and Social Systems Approaches for Sustainable Rural
ation to development policies by the South. Journal of Agrarian Change 4 (3), Development. European Commission, Brussels.
336–360. Shucksmith, M., 2000. Endogenous development, social capital and social inclusion:
Lowe, P., 1997. The British rural white papers: a comparison and critique. Journal of perspectives from LEADER in the UK. Sociologia Ruralis 40 (2), 208–218.
Environmental Planning and Management 40 (3), 389–400. Shucksmith, M., Winter, M., 1990. The politics of pluriactivity in Britain. Journal of
Lowe, P., 2006. European agricultural and rural development policies for the 21st Rural Studies 6 (4), 429–435.
century. In: Midgley, J. (Ed.). A New Rural Agenda. IPPR report, Newcastle. Sjöblom, S., October 2003. Towards the Projectified Society: on the Logic of the Project
Lowe, P., Ward, N., 1998. Regional policy, CAP reform and rural development in State. Paper presented at the Seminar: On Theory and Practice of Governance in
Britain: the challenge for New Labour. Regional Studies 32 (5), 469–474. the Project State, Swedish School of Social Sciences. University of Helsinki.
Lowe, P., Ward, N., 2001. New Labour, new rural vision? Labour’s rural white paper. Sjöblom, S., Godenhjelm, S., under review. Project Proliferation and Governanced
Political Quarterly 72 (3), 386–390. Implications for Environmental Management. Journal of Environmental Policy
Lowe, P., Clark, J., Seymour, S., Ward, N., 1997. Moralising the Environment. Coun- and Planning.
tryside Change, Farming and Pollution. UCL Press, London. Sonnino, R., Marsden, T.K., 2006. Towards a new agrarian eco-economy? The evo-
Lowe, P., Buller, H., Ward, N., 2002. Setting the next agenda? British and French lution of alternative food networks in the south west of England. In: Marsden, T.
approaches to the second pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy. Journal of K., Murdoch, J. (Eds.), Between the Local and the Global: Confronting Com-
Rural Studies 18, 1–17. plexity in the Contemporary Food Sector. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 299–323.
Marsden, T., 2003. The Condition of Rural Sustainability. Royal Van Gorcum, Assen. Chapter 12.
Marsden, T., 2004a. Theorising food quality: some key issues in understanding its Sustainable Development Commission, 2006. Reaching Higher: An Evaluation of
competitive production and regulation. In: Harvey, M., McMeekin, A., Warde, A. the Welsh Assembly’s Sustainable Development Scheme. In: Flynn, A.C.,
(Eds.), Qualities of Food. Manchester University Press, Manchester, pp. 129–155. Marsden, T.K. (Eds.). SDC, London, UK.
Marsden, T.K., 2004b. The quest for ecological modernisation: re-spacing rural Tilzey, M., 2006. Neo-liberalism, the WTO and new modes of agri-environmental
development and agri-food studies. Sociologia Ruralis 44 (2), 129–147. governance in the European Union, the USA and Australia. International Journal
Marsden, T.K., Murdoch, J. (Eds.), 2006. Between the Global and the Local: Con- of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 14, 1.
fronting Complexity in the Agri-Food Sector. Research in Rural Sociology and Vereijken, P.H., Hermans, C.M.L., Naeff, H.S.D., 2005. Impact of liberalisation of food
Development Series, Vol 12. Elsevier, Amsterdam. and land markets on agrarian land use in the EU. In: Bradley, R.S., Wiseman, J.
Marsden, T., Sonnino, R., 2005. Rural development and agri-food governance in (Eds.), Yields of Farmed Species: Constraints and Opportunities in the 21st
Europe: tracing the development of alternatives. In: Higgins, V., Lawrence, G. Century. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham.
(Eds.), Agricultural Governance: Globalization and the New Politics of Regula- Ward, N., 2000. Actors, Institutions and Attitudes to Rural Development: the UK
tion. Routledge, London. National Report. Research Report to the WWF and the Statutory Countryside
Marsden, T.K., Murdoch, J., Lowe, P., Munton, R., Flynn, A., 1993. Constructing the Agencies of Great Britain.
Countryside. UCL Press, London. Ward, N., Lowe, P., 2004. Europeanizing rural development? Implementing the
Marsden, T.K., Eklund, E., Franklin, A., 2004. Rural mobilization as rural de- CAP’s second pillar in England. International Planning Studies 9 (2-3),
velopment: exploring the impacts of new regionalism in Wales and Finland. 121–137.
International Planning Studies 9 (2-3), 79–100. Ward, N., Lowe, P., Bridges, T., 2003. Rural and regional development: the role of the
McNally, S., 2001. Farm diversification in England and Walesdwhat can we learn regional development agencies in England. Regional Studies 37 (2), 201–214.
from the farm business survey? Journal of Rural Studies 17, 247–257. Welsh Development Agency, 2004. Agri-Food Strategy Review 2004–2007. Draft
McNicholas, K., Ward, N., 1997. The European Union’s Objective 5b Programmes and Final Report. Cardiff, Wales.
the UK. University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, Centre for Rural Economy. Working Welsh Office Agriculture Department, 1996. A Food Strategy for Wales. Cardiff,
Paper 28. Wales.
Morgan, K., Morley, A., 2002. Relocalising the Food Chain. The Role of Creative Wilson, G.A., 2007. Multi-Functional Agriculture: A Transitional Perspective. CABI
Public Procurement. The Regeneration Institute. Cardiff University. International.

You might also like