Land Use Policy 47 (2015) 9097

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

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

Going sustainable or conventional? Evaluating the CAPs impacts on

the implementation of sustainable forms of agriculture in Greece
S. Papadopoulos, C. Karelakis , E. Zafeiriou, Th. Koutroumanidis
Democritus University of Thrace, Department of Agricultural Development, Pantazidou 193, 68200 Orestiada, Greece

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 28 April 2014
Received in revised form 27 January 2015
Accepted 10 February 2015
Keywords:
Sustainable
Organic
Conventional agriculture
Farmer
CAP effects

a b s t r a c t
The extensive use of conventional farming has brought about numerous negative effects in the environment and the quality of agricultural products, emerging the introduction of alternative forms of
agriculture, including organic and integrated farming. The recent reforms of the Common Agricultural
Policy (CAP) implemented a policy scheme to encourage the engagement in organic and integrated farming, in an effort to ensure the quality and safety of agricultural production and enhance environmental
protection. The objective of the present study is to investigate the main factors of the CAP that contribute
to the implementation of these two alternative farming systems in Greece, furthermore analysing the
farmers characteristics, opinions and attributes, towards the signicance of each factor. The results indicate that the three main CAPs measures that affect the application of organic and integrated farming
refer to the importance of farm certication, the products promotion by other EU programmes and,
predominantly the subsidized support of agricultural production.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction
Concerns about the negative effects of intensive/conventional
agriculture have increased signicantly through initiatives of nongovernmental organizations to promote a sustainable agricultural
policy (De Souza et al., 1999). Within this context, the trend was
to create sustainable and competitive farms with a satisfactory
income and reduced dependence upon subsidies (Papadopoulos,
2004). At the same time, the recent reform of the CAP encouraged the sustainable agriculture along with the negative reviews
of the existing conventional farming (Sundrum, 2001). Accordingly, new alternative farm management systems have introduced
the application of new cultivation techniques and procedures
with a perspective of sustainable farm management (Parra-Lpez
et al., 2007). Among these, the organic and integrated agriculture
are considered as cohesive management systems for production,
acknowledging their role in diminishing the negative environmental impacts (Pacini et al., 2003).
Organic agriculture is a farming system aiming at producing food with minimal harm to ecosystems, animals or humans
(FAO and WHO, 2007). This kind of farming employs new cultivation techniques and procedures to qualitatively differentiate from

Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 25520 41110.

E-mail address: chkarel@agro.duth.gr (C. Karelakis).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.02.005
0264-8377/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

conventional agriculture, forming an indisputable system that

meets all the criteria of sustainable environmental management
(Padel et al., 2002). The most important traits amplifying the concept of sustainable agriculture are the environmental benets, the
yield potential of organic agriculture, the impact of organic agriculture on farmers livelihoods and its accessibility to poor farmers
(Seufert et al., 2012). Furthermore, as far as the yields are concerned,
and according to the existing literature, organic yields are typically
lower than conventional yields and only in certain cases, organic
yields may even reach conventional yields (Seufert et al., 2012).
In addition, organic agriculture is considered to limit the vulnerability of farmers given that higher organic prices act as attractors
against the low prices and price volatility observed in conventional
markets. That is because organic systems are often more resistant to extreme weather conditions, while frequent diverse organic
croplivestock systems provide a diverse set of outputs.
On the other hand, integrated farming was introduced to meet
market requirements, in the mid-1090s, designed as a combination of the best practices including a versatile crop rotation, an
extended use of organic fertilizers and over winter cover crops,
use of pesticides only when needed in order to avoid crop failures, and others (Morris and Winter, 1999). Thus, an integrated
management system (IFS) is easily traceable with quality and environmental requirements less demanding than organic, capable of
mitigating the negative effects of various measures of conventional agriculture. It has been conrmed that suitable IFS may well

S. Papadopoulos et al. / Land Use Policy 47 (2015) 9097

insulate the capacity of energy supply, medicinal plants, fodder,

water and farming communities against crop failure, food scarcity,
non-timber products and livestock rearing (Tuomisto et al., 2012).
The recent CAP reforms place particular emphasis on the quality of agricultural products and food safety (McSharry reform) and
extended its policy context to meet the increasing demands of citizens, to protect the environment (sustainable agriculture) and to
ensure product quality and food safety with the Fischler reform
in 2003. The CAP, with its various reforms since 1992, actually
subsidises the implementation of these alternative management
systems of farming, affecting the quality of agricultural products
and the impact of agricultural practice in the environment. At the
same time, it is called upon again to meet the increased nutritional
needs of the European market, since Eurostat statistics exhibit the
rising tide of European population due to natural increase, but
mainly because of immigration policy (Eurostat, 2011).
In Greece, organic farming was introduced with the application
of Regulation 2092/91, established in 1999, when the programme
launched subsidized organic farming under Axis 3 of the Ministry
of Agriculture. The rising integration of new organic farms continued until 2007, reaching almost 24,000 acres or so, as the last year
of the notication of the integration programme in organic agriculture. From 2011 onwards, a downward trend is evident, that may
well be attributed to the deciency in programmes, as well as to a
drastic reduction of the subsidy area given that the last call occurred
in 2012, which by mid -2013, was not completed. Accordingly, the
integrated farming in Greece is mainly applied to two standards, the
European GlobalGap and the Greek Agro 2.12.2. The rst one certies all Greek agricultural products that exist in the main European
markets as a prerequisite accompanying certication and covers
the 7% to 9% of the certied farmers. The second standard, which
is the main one, was developed by the Agency for Certication
and Supervision of Agricultural Products (O.P.E.GE.P. or Agrocert)
and it is recognized only in the Greek market. Through this system, more than 90% of the farmers are certied every year. Fig. 1
illustrates the development trend of the two main farming categories during the last ten years. Evidently, the integrated farming
in Greece represents a swift rise from 2004 to present, subsidized
mainly through operational programmes of recognized farmer
groups.
Based on the aforementioned, the present study aims to identify and assess the impact of CAP measures on the implementation
of the main management systems in agriculture (Organics, Agro
and GlobalGap), as well as their role for the production of certied agricultural products. The innovation of the study lies on the
fact that, it is the rst time that a survey focuses on the existing CAP measures on the implementation of alternative forms of
management systems in agriculture. Furthermore, ofcial statistics concerning integrated agriculture at national and at European
level are limited, implying that the dependency of policy measures
on primary data collection (questionnaires) appears as a necessity
within the context of the forthcoming CAP reform (Mzoughi, 2011).
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows; the next
section presents the existing literature on the evolution of conventional, organic and integrated agriculture, while the third describes
the data and the methodology employed in the present research.
The fourth section presents the results of the research and the paper
concludes with some remarks on the research ndings and policy
measures that may lead to an intended direction.

Theoretical background
Within the last decade, an increasing trend in the development
of private and national integrated management systems in agricultural products has been recorded (Dries and Mancini, 2006). A

91

series of food scandals as well as the market and food supply chain
globalization have led to the implementation of food safety standards and in particular to a rapid penetration of the food standards
to agrofood markets (Reardon and Farina, 2002; Lemeilleur, 2013).
The main feature of the particular standards is that they are noncompulsory while their role on sustainable production is manifold
including food safety, environmental and social dimensions as well
as traceability. They additionally affect quality and food safety along
the food supply chain, while entailing signicant implications for
the socioeconomic viability of small farmers (Hammoudi et al.,
2009; Lemeilleur, 2013).
The recent CAP reforms have introduced various measures that
played a pivotal role in the development of these systems and
still are a key determinant for their adoption by farmers. Most of
the studies in the existing literature support the adoption of targeted measures for agriculture policy, such as the development of
integrated farm management, including procedures to certify the
safety and quality of the product, in order to protect the ecosystem
and also to increase consumers satisfaction and condence. The
last CAP reform in 2003 directly affected the viability of the farming systems aiming to encourage high-quality production through
a number of mechanisms, including nancial incentives for the
adoption of European or national integrated management systems
that certify the quality of agricultural products, support of organic
farming and various ways that will make agriculture more environmentally friendly (European Communities, 2006).
As far as organic farming is concerned, the EU policy context promoted its use, mainly in the 1990s, primarily motivated
by economic and environmental factors; though that this form
of agriculture entails greater risk and uncertainty compared to
the conventional one. This was evident by the introduction and
implementation of relevant policies, beginning with Regulation
EC 2092/91 and then with EC 2078/92 referring to organic farming (Lampkin et al., 1999). In addition the Indicative of the rapid
growth of organic farming in Europe is the increase in the land
cultivated with organic farming ranging from the 1200 hectares
in 1994 to 63,000 in 2005, consisting 1.7% of the total cultivated
area (Abando and Rohnerthielen, 2007). This number varies across
Member States, the lowest observed in Poland and Portugal (less
than 0.5%) and the highest in Austria, Finland and Denmark (more
than 6%). In Greece, areas use organic farming increased, respectively, from 591 hectares in 1993 to 317,824 in 2009 covering 3.8%
of the total cultivated area (GOFS, 2009).
Policy interventions from the EU facilitated the development
of organic agriculture, reecting the multiple objectives set for
organic farming and agricultural policy (Stolze and Lampkin, 2009).
These policy schemes converge when it comes to mitigate the
impact of intensive agriculture on the environment, quality of products and promotion of the welfare of animals. On the other hand,
the introduction of integrated farming is mainly due to the farmers
effort, aiming to gain the trust of consumers, to certify quality
and environmentally friendly production systems (not as strict as
those of organic) and to limit the negative effects of different measures promoted within the CAP (Lobstein, 1999; Morris and Winter,
1999). The Agenda 2000 and the Fischler reform in 2003 provided
the producers and producer cooperatives with nancial incentives
to improve product quality and accordingly, this also increased the
economic subsidies for organic farming ([EC] 1804/1999) and put
into effect the reinforcement of system certication. Subsidies and
public expenditure appear as key factors for adopting organic agriculture in various Member States, where for instance in Austria,
high public expenditure resulted in the high percentage of organic
production, which is more than 6% of total production. Unlike in
Greece, the policy of low support, led to a reduced response of producers, resulting in that the organic production does not exceed
1.5% of total production.

92

S. Papadopoulos et al. / Land Use Policy 47 (2015) 9097

Fig. 1. Trend for organic and integrated farming in Greece.

Materials and methods

Data sampling
The research area includes six Prefectures in the region of Anatoliki Makedonia and Thraki in Greece. In the particular region 24,604
integrated farming elds were recorded in 2012, in a total area of
634,000 ha, mainly cultivated with wheat, tobacco, cotton, olives,
asparagus, kiwi, grapes and potatoes. At the same time, the organic
farms reached the number of 871 elds, with 6500 ha cultivated
with of olives, alfalfa, corn, cereals, grapes, almonds and kiwi. The
sample size was based on the Neymans layered random sampling
distribution, which is an optimum sampling distribution among the
layers as it provides the most precision for estimating a population
mean given a xed total sample size. Thus it provides a sample that
is not large enough to lead to waste of resources, neither too small to
diminish the utility of the results (Cumming, 2012). Each layer was
dened by one of the six prefectures that make up the geographical
area of the research and therefore, the sample size dened by the
following formula;


n=

Nn sh

N 2 D2 +

2
Nn sh2

while the distribution of the layers by:

nh =

N sh

n

Nn sh

where D = the desired standard error given by D = d/z (where d = the

desired accuracy equal to half of the condence interval or subjects specied and z = the reliability coefcient corresponding
to a probability level). sh = standard deviation of prices of farm
size in each stratum, calculated from data on the population of
farms. Nh = sample population in each layer. N = sample population.
Accordingly, the sample comprised 150 conventional agriculture
farmers, 149 integrated management farmers and 122 organic
farmers, ranked in each county-layer per crop.
Data collection
In the present research, primary data were collected through a
survey (questionnaire) in the region of Anatoliki Makedonia and
Thraki, consisted of eighty questions based on a previous qualitative research conducted in a random sample of 42 farmers (10%
of the nal sample). The questionnaire was separated in four sections. The rst included the personal data of farmers, the second
the characteristics of farms, the third involved the personal opinion, while the fourth concerned the satisfaction of farmers from

the CAP, the organic and the integrated farming, as well as the factors that contribute to the adoption, with the come and go of the
aforementioned alternative forms of agriculture.
The impact of different CAP measures on the implementation
of organic and integrated farming was summarized in the question
What do you think are the main factors of the CAP that affect the
implementation of organic or integrated farming?. This question
entails four sub-questions/reasons measured via a 5-point Likert
scale ranging from 1 = very important to 5 = not at all important. The
reasons or factors involved the following: (a) direct nancial aid, (b)
indirect requirement for farmers to certify their products in order
to participate in other subsidized programmes, (c) points awarded
for the certied farmers when applying for other CAP programmes
and (d) enhancement of farmers training. Subsequently, the aforementioned factors/reasons were used as dependent variables in
individual logistic regressions.
Logistic regression
The logistic regression is a popular statistical technique in which
the probability of a dichotomous outcome (such as adoption or
non-adoption) is related to a set of explanatory variables that are
hypothesized to inuence the outcome (Hair et al., 2009). The purpose of this analysis was to estimate the impact of exogenous
variables on the odds or the probability of adoption of different
farm management systems.
Particularly, in the logistic regression, the dependent variable is
binary having only two categories, usually encoded with the values
1 and 0. The general model takes the following form:
P (Y = 1) =

1
1+e

(0 +1 X1i +...+n Xni )

(3.1)

where P(Y = 1) is the probability for someone to answer the rst category of the dependent variable and X1 , X2 . . .Xn , are the responses
of the i participant on each one of the n independent variables which
can be both quantitative and qualitative. However, given that Eq.
(3.1) violates the basic assumption of regression, which is hypothesis of linearity between the independent and dependent variable,
the form (3.2) was used instead, which actually occurs through the
logarithmic transformation of (1.1) (logit).
log it [P (Y = 1)] = 0 + 1 X1i + + n Xni

(3.2)

where
log it [P (Y = 1)] = log

P (Y = 1)
1 P (Y = 1)

(3.3)

S. Papadopoulos et al. / Land Use Policy 47 (2015) 9097

The quantity P(Y = 1)/1 P(Y = 1) is called yield probability

(odds) and expresses the ratio of the probability of an event occurring dividing by the probability of that event not occurring.
What is important in the interpretation of logistic regression is
the value of odds ratio for each one of the independent variables and
expresses the change in odds of the dependent variable caused by
a unit change in the value of the independent variable. That is actually the elasticity, implying that a 1% increase in the independent
variable leads to a change in the dependent equal to the estimated coefcient (Fu and Simonoff, 2014). The logistic regression
model is an example of generalized linear models. The parameters
are estimated with maximum likelihood, implying that given the
predictors values the estimated parameters are maximum likelihood estimates (Fu and Simonoff, 2014). To reduce the number of
independent variables, analysis was held with forward selection
(forward entry) procedure from indexing methods (stepwise procedures), since there is no prior research or theory, to determine
which of the variables should be excluded, in order the analysis to
be signicant (Field, 2009). The nal selection of the independent
variables was based on the existing literature, along with using the
backward elimination, starting with all candidate variables, testing
the deletion of each variable through a chosen model comparison
criterion, deleting the variable (if any) that improved the model the
most by being deleted and repeating the process until no further
improvement was possible.

Results
The rst step of the analysis involved the application of a
Nonparametric One-Way Analysis of Variance, because the basic
assumptions of the parametric ANOVA (homogeneity of the variances and normal distribution) were not met. Furthermore, the specic analysis can be robust to deviations from the normal distribution (Field, 2009). The objective was to identify whether signicant
differences existed between the factors that affect the implementation of alternative forms of agriculture, classifying them according
to their importance. The results indicate that there were signicant
differences between them, as revealed by the KruskalWallis test
(2 = 1079.358, df = 3, p < 0.05). Fig. 2 illustrates the mean rank of
the factors, showing their order of importance and differences.
The next step was to perform two logistic regressions, using as
dependent variables the factors/reasons namely Indirect requirement for farmers to certify their products in order to participate in
other grant programs and Points awarded to farmers who certify
their products for integration in various programs. The dependent
variables that were gauged through a 5-point Likert scale, were
assigned the value 1 = YES (for answers 1 to 3) and the value 0 = NO
(for answers 4 to 5). It is worth mentioning that the rst and the
fourth factor in terms of importance i.e. It provides direct nancial
aid and Enhances the training of farmers were not included in
the logistic regression because none of the respondents answered
the two extreme values of the scale. In both regressions, the same
independent variables were included for comparison reasons.
For the rst logistic regression where the dependent variable was whether the farmers consider as important the Indirect
requirement to certify their product in order to join other agricultural programmes mostly subsidised we employed Eq. (3.2). The
results demonstrate that the model ts the data (R2 > 0.5, Cox and
Snel = 0.594 and Nagelkerke = 0.810) that is also conrmed by the
tests of Hosmer and Lemeshow (2 = 42.388, df = 8, p < 0.05). Further, the independent variables have large percentages of correct
classication, indicating a correct prediction of 96.6% that someone considers this factor as a major reason and of 86.6% that is not.
The overall correct classication rate reaches 92.9%, which is very
satisfying. Table 1 illustrates the results from the preceded analysis.

93

Evidently, the variable seminar attendance seems to play a

key role, meaning that the farmer, who has attended a training
programme is more likely to answer that the main reason is the
requirement for farmers to certify their products in order to engage
in other programmes. Meaning that anyone who had some training is about 13.7 times more likely to provide this specic reason
as important, compared with someone who has not attended any
educational programme (B = 2.621 p < 0.01). The result is in line with
previous statistical analysis that conrmed the importance of education for the future of organic and integrated farming (Ferto and
Forgacs, 2009). Educated farmers are acquainted with methods on
how to acquire the maximum subsidy they can receive for their
crops.
Furthermore, the farmers dissatisfaction from the information
received about issues related to the CAP has also a signicant effect,
which means that those who are not satised with this information
(B = 3.264 p < 0.01) are more likely to answer that the main reason
for participating in integrated management systems is the requirement for farmers to certify their products, compared to those who
are very satised. In addition, farmers who have enough information about the CAP are 18.1 times more likely to respond that the
main factor is the requirement for farmers to certify their products
in order to engage in other grant programmes (B = 2.897, p < 0.01).
On the other hand, farmers who have a neutral opinion about the
CAP are less likely to respond that the main factor is the requirement to certify the products (B = 4.579, p < 0.01), compared with
someone who has a positive opinion.
Farmers perception about the CAPs exploitation also seems to
have a signicant negative effect since farmers, who have a positive view about the exploitation of CAP measures are less likely
to give as important reason to implement an integrated farming
system the certication of their products (B = 4.293, p < 0.01). The
same holds for farmers who have a neutral position regarding the
exploitation of the CAPs measures (B = 5.059, p < 0.01). Finally,
farmers who consider the organic agriculture (B = 4.537, p < 0.01)
or the integrated agriculture (B = 1.577, p < 0.01) as the future of
the farming systems, perceive the certication of their products as
a key factor to implement an integrated management system for
their crops.
The second logistic regression included as dependent variable the question whether the farmers consider as important
factor/reason the Points awarded to farmers who certify their
products for integration in various programs. The results indicate
that the model ts the data, although the Cox and Snel index is
slightly low (R2 Cox and Snel = 0.385 and Nagelkerke = 0.627) as
conrmed by checking Hosmer and Lemeshow (2 = 18.532, with
df = 8, p < 0.05). Furthermore, the independent variables have large
percentages of correct classication, which means that they can
predict correctly by 95.6% that someone believes that the points
awarded is an important reason and by 74% that is not. The overall
correct classication rate reaches 91.7%, which is very satisfying.
Table 2 indicates the signicant factors for implementing an
integrated management system involve the age of the farmers, the
place of residence, the seminar attendance, the problems in sale, the
farmers opinion about the exploitation of the CAPs measures and
their views about the organic or integrated future of agriculture. Specically, young farmers within the age classes of less than
35 years old (B = 3.515, p < 0.01) and 46 to 55 years old (B = 3.041,
p < 0.01) are more likely to consider the points awarded as the most
important factor in order to be involved in these systems compared to older farmers (B = 1.377, p < 0.01). The place of residence
(region of Kavala-Drama) also plays a signicant positive role in
the farmers perception about the points awarded as a reason for
implementing an integrated farming system (B = 1.343, p < 0.05).
As in the previous model, the monitoring of any training related
to alternative forms of agriculture seems to negatively affect the

94

S. Papadopoulos et al. / Land Use Policy 47 (2015) 9097

Fig. 2. Mean Index ranking (mean ranks).

Table 1
Logistic regression coefcients for the indirect requirement for farmers.
Independent variables

(S.E.)

Exp(B)

Age < 35 years

Age 3655 years
Place of residence (Kavala-Drama)
Place of residence (Thrace)
Seminar attendance
Agricultural income >25% of total
No problems in sale
Some problems in sale
Many problems in sale
Poor informed for CAP measures
Medium informed for CAP measures
Enough informed for CAP measures
Positive opinion for CAP in general
Neutral opinion for CAP
Positive opinion for CAP exploitation
Neutral opinion for CAP exploitation
Point of view: organic farming of the future
Point of view: integrated farming of the future

0.345
1.012
0.349
0.219
2.621
0.810
2.008
1.828
0.404
3.264
1.727
2.897
1.379
4.579
4.293
5.059
4.537
1.577

(0.834)
(0.796)
(0.593)
(0.479)
(0.607)**
(0.601)
(1.184)*
(0.946)*
(0.908)
(1.151)**
(1.091)*
(1.043)**
(0.705)*
(1.280)**
(1.213)**
(1.096)**
(0.681)**
(0.595)**

0.708
0.363
0.706
1.244
13.746
0.445
0.134
6.220
1.498
26.165
5.625
18.119
0.252
0.010
0.014
0.006
93.436
4.841

*
**

95% C.I. for EXP(B)

Lower

Upper

0.138
0.076
0.221
0.487
4.181
0.137
0.013
0.973
0.253
2.740
0.663
2.347
0.063
0.001
0.001
0.001
24.592
1.508

3.633
1.730
2.256
3.180
45.195
1.445
1.366
39.752
8.869
249.814
47.729
139.863
1.004
0.126
0.147
0.054
355.004
15.539

p < 0.05.
p < 0.01, 2 = 42.388 with d.f = 8.

dependent variable. Hence, those who have attended a training

programme are less likely to answer that their motivation to
adopt an integrated farming system is the points awarded for the
certication of their products (B = 1.724 p < 0.01). The problems
confronted by a farmer to deliver his products affect the farmers
view on the impact of the CAP on alternative forms of agriculture, as
those who do not face any problems in marketing their products are
more likely to consider the points awarded as an important reason
in implementing organic or integrated farming (B = 2.480, p < 0.01).
Similarly, the farmers opinion regarding the exploitation of the
CAPs measures has also a signicant impact upon the farmers
decision, as a farmer who believes that the CAPs measures have
been exploited in a positive (B = 2.668, p < 0.05) or neutral manner

(B = 3.698, p < 0.01) is about 40 times more likely to consider the

points awarded as an important reason compared to someone,
who has a negative opinion. Finally, farmers who believe that the
future of agriculture is organic farming (B = 2.804 p < 0.01) or
integrated farming (B = 1.954, p < 0.05) compared to conventional
farming, deem the points awarded when they certify their products
as the key determinant reason to be involved in alternative forms
of agriculture.
Discussion
A growing interest has been observed regarding the organic and
integrated farming in the E.U., as a necessary tool to effectively

S. Papadopoulos et al. / Land Use Policy 47 (2015) 9097

95

Table 2
Logistic regression coefcients for points awarded to the farmers.
Independent variables

S.E.

Exp(B)

95% C.I. for EXP(B)

Lower

Age <35 years

Age 3645 years
Age 4655 years
Place of residence (Kavala-Drama)
Place of residence (Thrace)
Seminar attendance
Agricultural income >25% of total
No problems in sale
Some problems in sale
Many problems in sale
Positive opinion for CAP exploitation
Neutral opinion for CAP exploitation
Point of view: organic farming of the future
Point of view: integrated farming of the future
Constant
*
**

3.515
3.041
1.377
1.343
0.418
1.724
0.165
2.480
0.453
0.502
2.668
3.698
2.804
1.954
34.92

(0.761)**
(0.696)**
(0.504)**
(0.633)*
(0.449)
(0.519)**
(0.502)
(1.211)*
(0.672)
(0.628)
(1.135)*
(0.762)**
(0.808)**
(0.754)*
9409.75

33.600
20.931
3.961
3.830
0.658
0.178
0.848
11.942
1.573
1.652
14.415
40.358
16.504
7.057
1.5E + 15

7.565
5.347
1.476
1.107
0.273
0.064
0.317
1.112
0.421
0.483
1.558
9.066
3.388
1.612

Upper
149.232
81.934
10.631
13.247
1.587
0.493
2.267
128.266
5.870
5.654
133.352
179.660
80.392
30,906

p < 0.05.
p < 0.01, 2 = 18.532, d.f = 8.

correspond to the changing needs and demands of the society,

supported by various policy interventions (Lyon, 2009; Stolze and
Lampkin, 2009). The inuence of the CAP on the implementation of sustainable farming systems (organic and integrated) has
not been previously adequate researched. The existing literature
mainly deals with the impact of the CAP either on the environment, or on preferences (demands) of consumers (Carbone and
Sorrentino, 2006; Schmid et al., 2007). Many studies have also
assessed these assurance schemes, though their focus was mainly
on the impact of these schemes on the environment or the contribution they may be making towards a number of environmental policy
outcomes (Maravegias et al., 2002; Lewis et al., 2010; Starmer and
Kulick, 2009). Other studies argued that these systems have been
developed mainly due to marketing purposes and not for environmental sustainability (Jin and Zhou, 2011).
The present research focused on the factors of the CAP that inuenced the decision of farmers to implement these alternative farm
management systems in their production. More than anything else,
the factor direct nancial aid seems to play the most important
role of the CAP impact on the conversion to organic and integrated farming reafrming results from previous research, where
the direct payments have been favourable for these farming systems (Sanders et al., 2008; Offermann et al., 2009; Tzouramani et al.,
2009).
The results also highlight the relation between the two alternative forms of agriculture as not being competitive. Though that
these two systems are growing independently, there are similar factors that inuence farmers to hold a positive or negative position
towards each form. Specically, the training of farmers (seminar
attendance) affects their decision to implement organic or integrated farming a result that corroborates earlier research (Morris
and Winter, 1999; Dimara et al., 2004; Ferto and Forgacs, 2009).
Producers, who have attended a training program on alternative
forms of management, are more likely to adopt organic and integrated farming and hence every policy measures (not necessarily
subsidized) that enhance the farmers education also increase the
development prospects of alternative agriculture.
Age has also been conrmed as a determinant for the adoption
of organic or integrated system, conrming other relevant research
(Karagkiozi et al., 2012). It seems that the current CAP has a positive
inuence on young people for the adoption of organic farming and
on the elderly farmers for the adoption of the integrated form. A
rst interpretation that could be given concerns the sensitivity of
young farmers towards the environment and food security, mainly

through better education and information than older ages, while

the increased condence and security that the integrated farming provides leads older producers resort to this form. Another
important impact of the CAP on the implementation of integrated
management systems is the given points awarded to certied
producers, in order to participate in most agricultural policy measures, denoted mainly by young farmers as the key motivation to
adopt an integrated production system. A typical example is the
extra points awarded when getting certied producers to apply for
inclusion in the measure 121 of farms modernization.
Furthermore, the farmers who believe in the future of these
alternative farming systems consider that all the four examined
factors of the CAP affect positively the development of organic
and integrated agriculture. Another feature arisen from the results
concerns the ease availability and accessibility to marker channels (Cristoiu et al., 2007). In particular, the farmers of organic
and integrated agriculture, who believe in the easy delivery of
their products, also consider the direct subsidy support and points
awarded as the main determinant factors for the development of
these alternative farming systems.
Summarizing the factors that affect the implementation of integrated management systems and specically, the biological and
the integrated agriculture, these could be associated directly or
indirectly with (a) the direct payments which are the most important reason for the implementation of integrated farming and
quite important (but not the most important) for the adoption of
biological agriculture, (b) the training of farmers, which has the
ability to change attitudes and perceptions they have towards alternative forms of agriculture, affecting thus their implementation
and mainly the future of organic, (c) the continuous information
of existing and potential producers, as concerns the importance
and the role of agricultural policy, the existing measures and the
upcoming notices, obligations and opportunities arising from them,
thereby impacting signicantly on the development of organic and
integrated farming, (d) the adoption of an additional point system awarded to producers of certied products when applying for
inclusion in other programs of the CAP, which is considered by producers to leave, stay or adopt an alternative form of agriculture,
(e) the establishment of indirect producers obligation to certify
their products in order to receive grants from other programs as
well.
Particular attention should be given to information campaigns
and training of farmers. Detailed and accurate information will help
the producers of integrated agriculture to acquire knowledge and

96

S. Papadopoulos et al. / Land Use Policy 47 (2015) 9097

make use of other measures of the CAP, whereas their training

will lead to an increase in the adoption of organic farming, as it
is clear denoted from the study results. Therefore, there are other
actions apart from direct payments that the policy schemes could
be focused to, in order to promote the alternative forms of agriculture. In addition, an effective control mechanism of producer
education should be included within the CAPs measures, because,
although certied producers must be trained annually, this does not
apply. Towards this direction is the announcement of the compulsory education measure of sprayers for plant protection products
in Greece that should be completed by the end of 2015. Undoubtedly, it would be useful to further study and compare between
trained and untrained certied producers of integrated agriculture, in order to highlight the differences and similarities between
these two groups in meeting both the rules of good agricultural practices and the procedures of the integrated management
protocol.
Conclusively, the signicant effect of the CAP on the implementation of integrated management systems, and particularly the
organic and integrated agriculture, may be highlighted through
subsidized and non-subsidized measures. The degree of this impact
lies on the whether the CAP seeks for further development of these
alternative forms of agriculture. In this way, a proper design and
a better implementation of the CAP could increase the funding
absorption that this policy places on alternative agriculture and at
the same time could contribute to the safety of agricultural products and the protection of the environment. The present study
clearly indicates that the subsidy is not the only tool of the CAP
for the development of alternative agriculture, but there are other
measures that may play a leading role, notably the right information
and the continuous training of producers.
Conclusion
The objective of this study was to identify and evaluate the
impact of the CAP measures on the implementation of the main
alternative farm management systems (Organic or Integrated agriculture), which are widely applied in Greece for the production
of certied agricultural products. Bearing in mind the lack of ofcial statistic data on integrated farming in the EU, this empirical
work with the employee of primary data managed to evaluate the
impact of the CAP measures on the development of organic and
integrated farming in Greece. According to the ndings of the study,
four main factors were conrmed as determinants of the farmers
decision to implement these alternative forms of agriculture. The
vital implementation is that the majority of farmers perceives that
the CAP mainly supports integrate and organic agriculture through
the provided subsidies. It is worth mentioning that farmers still
acknowledge and occasionally implement other policy schemes
and devalue education as the main determinant for their decision
to adopt alternative forms of agriculture. The results of this study
may offer in terms of policy decision making, since there is no corresponding study in the literature referring to the impact of the CAP
on the implementation of these alternative forms of agriculture,
related to the current needs.
References
Abando, L.L., Rohnerthielen, E., 2007. Different Organic Farming Patterns Within
EU-25. Statistics in Focus-Agriculture and Fisheries, Eurostat, Brussels.
Carbone, A., Sorrentino, A., 2006. The European policy for food quality and the Fischlers reform. In: Paper Prepared for Presentation at the 99th EAAE Seminar
Trust and Risk in Business Networks. February 810, 2006, Bonn, Germany.
Universit della Tuscia, Viterbo, Italy.
Cristoiu A, Cobos, B.L., Caceres, F., 2007. Farm-Level determinants of conversion to
sustainable farming practices in the new member states. In: IAAE104th EAAE
Seminar, September 68, 2007, Budapest, Hungary.

Cumming, G., 2012. Understanding the New Statistics: Effect sizes, Condence,
Intervals and Meta-analysis. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, New York,
NY.
De Souza, M.F., Young, T., Burton, M.P., 1999. Factors inuencing the adoption of
sustainable agricultural technologies. Evidence from the State of Esprito Santo,
Brazil. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 60, 97112.
Dimara, E., Petrou, A., Skuras, D., 2004. Agricultural policy for quality and producers
evaluations of quality marketing indicators: a Greek case study. Food Policy 29,
485506.
Dries, E., Mancini, M.C., 2006. Food Quality Assurance and Certication Schemes,
Background Paper. Food Quality Schemes Project, European Commission.
European Communities, 2006. Food Quality Assurance and Certication Schemes.
Stakeholder Hearing 11/12 May 2006, European Commission, Brussels.
Eurostat, 2011. Latest Figures on the Demographic Challenges in the EU,
Available at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY PUBLIC/3-01042011BP/EN/3-01042011-BP-EN.PDF.
FAO, WHO, 2007. Codex AlimentariusOrganically Produced Foods, Vol. 51., third
ed. World Health Organization (WHO) & Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations (FAO), Electronic Publishing Policy and Support Branch,
Rome.
Ferto, I., Forgacs, C., 2009. The choice between conventional and organic farminga
Hungarian example. In: 113th EAAE Seminar, December 911, Belgrade,
Republic of Serbia.
Field, A., 2009. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, third ed. Sage, London.
Fu, W., Simonoff, J.S., 2014. Unbiased Regression Trees for Longitudinal Data, Available at SSRN http://ssrn.com/abstract=2399976.
GOFS, 2009. Global Organic Farming Statistics, Available at http://www.organicworld.net/statistics-europe-production.html.
Hair, J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, L.R., Black, C.W., 2009. Multivariate Data Analysis,
seventh ed. Prentice Hall, Pearson, NJ.
Hammoudi, A., Hoffmann, R., Surry, Y., 2009. Food safety standards and agrifood supply chains: an introductory overview. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 36 (4),
469478.
Karagkiozi, R., Oxouzi, E., Papanagiotou, E., 2012. Comparative socio-economic analysis of bean farms under convetional and integrated crop management. Agron.
Res. 10 (12), 295302.
Lampkin, N., Foster, C., Padel, S., Midmore, P., 1999. The Policy and Regulatory Environment for Organic Farming in Europe. Organic Farming in Europe: Economics
and Policy 1. Universitat Hohenheim, Stuttgart.
Lemeilleur, S., 2013. Smallholder compliance with private standard certication: the
case of GlobalGAP adoption by mango producers in Peru International Food and
Agribusiness. Manage. Rev. 16 (4), 159180.
Lewis, K.A., Green, A., Tzilivakis, J., Warner, D.J., 2010. The Contribution of UK Farm
Assurance Schemes Towards Desirable Environmental Policy Outcomes. Agriculture and environment Research Unit, School of Life Sciences, University of
Hertfordshire, UK.
Lobstein, T., 1999. Why Consumers Have Lost Condence in the Food Industry. International Food Safety Handbook: Science, International Regulation and Control,
AA. VV. Ed. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY.
Lyon, G., 2009. Draft Report on the Future of the Common Agricultural Policy after
2013. Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (2009/2236(INI)).
Maravegias, N., Apostolopoulos, K., Mattas, K., Baltas, N., Moisidis, A., Papageorgiou,
K., Psaltopoulos, D., 2002. Sustainable agriculture in a developed countryside: a
ten year strategy for the agricultural development of Greece. In: Working Paper.
Greek Ministry of Agriculture, Athens.
Morris, C., Winter, M., 1999. Integrated farming systems: the third way for European
agriculture? Land Use Policy 16 (4), 193205.
Mzoughi, N., 2011. Farmers adoption of integrated crop protection and organic
farming: do moral and social concerns matter? Ecol. Econ. 70 (8), 15361545.
Jin, S., Zhou, J., 2011. Adoption of food safety and quality standards by Chinas agricultural cooperatives. Food Control 22, 204208.
Offermann, F., Nieberg, H., Zander, K., 2009. Dependency of organic farms on direct
payments in selected EU member states: today and tomorrow. Food Policy 34,
273279.
Pacini, C., Wossink, A., Giesen, G., Vazzana, C., Huirne, R., 2003. Evaluation of sustainability of organic, integrated and conventional farming systems: a farm and
eld-scale analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 95, 273288.
Padel, S., Lampkin, N., Dabbert, S., Foster, C., 2002. Organic farming policy in the
European Union. Adv. Econ. Environ. Resour. 4, 169194.
Parra-Lpez, C., Calatrava-Requena, J., De-Haro-Gimnez, T., 2007. A multi-criteria
evaluation of the environmental performances of conventional, organic and
integrated olive-growing systems in the south of Spain based on experts knowledge. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 22 (3), 189203.
Papadopoulos, A, 2004. The Challenge of Rural Development in A Multifunctional
Countryside. Gutenberg Publications, Athens, pp. 1350.
Reardon, T., Farina, E., 2002. The rise of private food quality and safety
standards: illustrations from Brazil. Int. Food Agribus. Manage. Rev. 4,
413421.
Sanders, J., Nieberg, H., Offermann, F., 2008. Impact of CAP reform on organic farming in Germany. In: 109th EAAE Seminar The CAP after the Fischler Reform
Italy.
Schmid, E., Sinabell, F., Hofreither, M.F., 2007. Phasing out of environmentally
harmful subsidies: consequences of the 2003 CAP reform. Ecol. Econ. 60,
596604.
Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N., Foley, J.A., 2012. Comparing the yields of organic and
conventional agriculture. Nature 458, 229234.

S. Papadopoulos et al. / Land Use Policy 47 (2015) 9097

Starmer, E., Kulick, M., 2009. Bridging the GAPs. Strategies to Improve Produce
Safety, Preserve Farm Diversity and Strengthen Local Food Systems. Institute
for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Washington, Available also at: www.iatp.org
and www.foodandwaterwatch.org.
Stolze, M., Lampkin, N., 2009. Policy for organic farming: rationale and concepts.
Food Policy 34, 237244.
Sundrum, A., 2001. Organic livestock farminga critical review. Lives Prod. Sci. 67
(3), 207215.

97

Tuomisto, H.L., Hodge, I.D., Riordan, P., Macdonald, D.W., 2012. Does organic farming reduce environmental impacts? A meta-analysis of European research. J.
Environ. Manage. 112, 309320.
Tzouramani, I., Liontakis, A., Sintori, A., Alexopoulos, G., 2009. Policy implementations for organic agriculture: a real options approach. In: The 83rd Annual
Conference of the Agricultural Economics Society, 30th March to 1st April 2009,
Dublin.