Defensive versus Progressive Views of Sustainable AgricultureAccording to the World-Bank-sponsored report of theInternational Assessment of Agricultural Science andTechnology for Development (IAASTD, 2008), agricul-tural modernization in the 20th Century produced manynegative externalities for society and the environmentwhich must be addressed by recognizing the publicgood character of agriculture. This view is largely inline with the underlying philosophy of the concept ofmultifunctional agriculture (Altieri, 1995; Van Huylen-broeck, & Durand, 2003), which frames technologicaland economic change as a threat to sustainable agricul-ture rather than an opportunity. Framing change as athreat to sustainable agriculture is a common phenome-non in affluent European countries where governmentsand large retailers tend to respond to and, at the sametime, reinforce popular beliefs that new technologiesand international trade endanger social and environmen-tal sustainability of domestic agriculture. This largelydefensive view of sustainable agriculture is reflected inagricultural policies that aim at protecting domesticagriculture from international trade and technologicalchange, as well as private standards (designed by largeretailers) that claim to promote ‘good agricultural prac-tices’ by asking producers to comply with burdensome
private standards, in addition to the already existingrestrictive public standards. But do such policies andretailer strategies really promote best practices in sus-tainable agriculture or do they just cater to popular anxi-eties among well-funded, lifestyle-oriented urbandwellers (Aerni, Rae, & Lehmann, 2009)? Many legalexperts believe in the defensive view of sustainability.They regard new technologies in agriculture implicitlyas a threat to intergenerational equity and biodiversity(Bail, Falkner, & Marquard, 2002; Francioni, 2001) andendorse the use of a strong version of the precautionaryprinciple to protect consumers and the environmentfrom the potential risks of genetically modified organ-isms (GMOs; Cooney & Dickson, 2007; Raffensberger& Tickner, 1999). The strong version of the precaution-ary principle, which is largely applied in the EuropeanUnion when it comes to chemicals and GMOs, placesthe burden of proof on those who argue that a proposedactivity will not cause significant harm, and make theresponsible parties liable for environmental harm. In itsCommunication Paper on the Precautionary Principle,the European Commission argues that “decision makersfaced with an unacceptable risk, scientific uncertainty,and public concerns have a duty to find answers”(2000). The fact that public concerns were included
Philipp AerniUniversity of Bern and ETH Zurich, Switzerland
Most countries claim to be committed to sustainable agriculture.Yet, the meaning of the term ‘sustainable agriculture’ is largelyshaped by influential stakeholders in the public debate and theirrespective agendas. The resulting national policies to promotesustainability may therefore not always be conducive to improv-ing the economic, social, and environmental conditions of thefarming sector. Two recent surveys on sustainable agricultureconducted with stakeholders in Switzerland and New Zealandhighlight how such political interests and attitudes determine therole of technology in promoting sustainable agriculture.Whereas stakeholders in Switzerland largely consider precisionagriculture and agricultural biotechnology to be a threat to sus-tainable agriculture, their counterparts in New Zealand thinkthese factors must be essential components of the future of sus-tainable agriculture. The progressive attitude about sustainableagriculture in New Zealand is related to the influence of innova-tive food research organizations and entrepreneurial producerassociations in public policy. The defensive attitude in Switzer-land is largely due to the importance of government institutions,NGOs, and large retailers in particular.
Key words: sustainable agriculture, agricultural biotechnology, Switzerland, New Zealand.
Is Agricultural Biotechnology Part of Sustainable Agriculture? Different Views in Switzerland and New Zealand
AgBioForum, 13(2), 2010 | 159
gave many European governments sufficient reason toinvoke a ban on GMOs in agriculture without having topresent scientific evidence.
In all these efforts to prevent potential risks to theenvironment as well as human, animal, and plant health,there is also an increasing real risk arising from inactionin efforts to find solutions to current problems of sus-tainability (Sunstein, 2005). This is the main pointraised by those who favor a more progressive view ofsustainability. Such a progressive view starts from thebaseline assumption that technological and economicchange is necessary for society to become more sustain-able because the continued use of existing, often pollut-ing or inefficient technologies, and the ideologicalorientation (e.g., the continued belief in the predictabil-ity of models with a pre-defined and limited set of futureoutcomes) in risk management is a recipe for futureenvironmental and economic crises (Aerni, 2009). Thisis especially true for agriculture where the future chal-lenges related to climate change, food security, landdegradation, biodiversity loss, and animal welfare can-not be addressed with a business-as-usual approach(Aerni, 2008; Beckerman, 2003). Deficiencies oforganic agricultural practices need to by addressed byinvesting more in research and development (R&D) andcombining it with the modern tools of agricultural bio-technology (Ronald & Adamchak, 2008). A progressiveview does, however, not advocate a ‘technological fix’but emphasizes the responsibility of policymakers todesign an institutional setting that incentivizes tailor-made solutions that encourage investment in R&D, localentrepreneurship, and the use of technology as a tool ofempowerment (Nordhaus & Shellenberger, 2007; VonHippel, 2006). Those who endorse the progressive viewemphasize the fact that the use of new technologies inagriculture is not just meant to increase productivity butalso helps improve food quality and environmentalmanagement (Kingsbury, 2009; Ronald & Adamchak,2008). In this context, they tend to be highly sceptical ofagricultural subsidies that largely serve well-organizedpolitical interest groups with an interest in preservingthe status quo at the expense of innovators and domesticagriculture in developing countries. Developing coun-tries find it increasingly hard to compete with subsi-dized agricultural exports from affluent countries intheir domestic market and are increasingly excludedfrom access to affluent food markets because they can’tafford to comply with the burdensome private standardsrequired by the large retailers (Paarlberg, 2008). Yet,while export subsidies are to be phased out by 2013, pri-vate standards as a tool to shut out innovative competi-
tors from developing countries are likely to increase inimportance, as the following section will illustrate.
The Problem with Private StandardsThe framing of sustainable agriculture as an ‘avoidanceof risk’ has been embraced most decisively by largesupermarket chains (Freidberg, 2007). These globallyactive retailers realized that they could benefit fromsuch a defensive view of sustainability. By forcing sup-pliers to undergo a lengthy and arduous audit process inorder to get standard certification, they would signal toconsumers that they share their values by caring aboutfood safety, animal welfare, environmental protection,and worker welfare. The audit culture gives them a sortof moral legitimacy through rituals of verification, eventhough the objectives behind such a culture are not verytransparent (Power, 1997). The audit culture also allowsthem to fend off legal liabilities more easily, forcesmaller and more innovative competitors to adopt theirrules or leave, and improve their brand image. In theirefforts to introduce an audit culture in the agriculturalsupply chain and set benchmarks to promote a ‘greenerand fairer food system’ they closely collaborate withnon-governmental organizations (NGOs) and foodactivists who see organic farming as the solution andagricultural biotechnology as the big threat to sustain-able agriculture. Since most of these NGOs have a repu-tation of acting in the public interest and for the benefitof the planet, retailers once again benefit by presentingthemselves as allies of those who care about the envi-ronment and the poor. It also decreases the likelihood ofbecoming a target of NGO protests against corporatepower. In fact, NGOs effectively endorsed both theretailer’s self-interested use of good practice codes andthe broader post-‘Washington consensus’ faith in corpo-rate social responsibility as a force for development andpoverty reduction (Dolan, 2004; Vives, 2001). As such,retailers and NGOs contributed to the increasing substi-tution of practical knowledge and experience for codi-fied epistemic knowledge that is supposed to beapplicable everywhere and anytime. This epistemicknowledge has its roots once again in the European con-viction of the superiority of its knowledge and applica-tions (Drayton, 2000). The export of its ‘superior’standards and regulations into other parts of the worldthrough its ‘global partnership for safe and sustainableagriculture’ (EurepGAP has become GLOBALGAP) istherefore portrayed not just as a blessing to other coun-tries but a moral right (Campbell, 2005). In this sense,the current conquest of standard practices in agricultural
Aerni — Is Agricultural Biotechnology Part of Sustainable Agriculture? Different Views in Switzerland and New Zealand
AgBioForum, 13(2), 2010 | 160
and environmental management pushed by retailers andNGOs strongly resembles earlier exports of imperialEuropean ideology (Freidberg, 2007).
Switzerland and New Zealand: Two Countries with Different Approaches to Sustainable AgricultureEven though Switzerland was never a colonial power, itsretail industry, civil society, and government have fullyembraced the European concept of multifunctional agri-culture and the audit culture associated with it to ensureagricultural sustainability. These stakeholders are alsoactively exporting this defensive approach to develop-ing countries by promoting ‘good agricultural practices’(meaning GMO-free, organic agriculture) via foreignaid projects as well as the compliance with public andprivate food and environmental standards required toget market access and foreign aid (Aerni & Bernauer,2006). The strategy of Swiss stakeholders may be drivenby a feeling of moral superiority but also by the fact thatSwiss farmers are still heavily dependent on govern-ment support (mainly via various kinds of conditionaldirect payments), and therefore non-tariff trade-barriershave been erected in order to shield them from foreigncompetition (Häberli, 2008). The legitimacy of promot-ing and financing multifunctional agriculture in Swit-zerland is largely derived from the agricultural article(Article 104) in the Swiss constitution. This article wasapproved by the Swiss people in a national referendumin 1996. It states that the government must ensure a mar-ket-based but sustainable agricultural sector that alsotakes into account the need for the conservation of natu-ral resources and decentralized settlement. It is based onthe assumption that farming provides public servicesthat are not remunerated by the market and thereforejustify government intervention.
Partly in response to the new policy, Swiss agricul-ture has become less intensive compared to the early1990s. The adoption of integrated management prac-tices (IP) increased from 10% in 1990 to 100% in 2000and organic farming from 2% to around 12% of allSwiss farms. In the same period, the surface of ecologi-cal restoration area (ökologische Ausgleichsflächen)increased from roughly 20,000 hectares to more than110,000 hectares (Bundesamt für Landwirtschaft[BLW], 2007). Yet, over the past four years all the adop-tion curves have flattened, indicating that a ceiling maybe reached in the willingness of Swiss farmers to adoptsuch practices.
As for chemical input, significant reductions havebeen achieved thanks to the use of more efficient meansof plant protection. (Schweizerischer Bundesrat [SwissFederal Council], 2006). In turn, the goals to reduce theuse of nitrogen fertilizer, energy intensity, and green-house gas emissions have not been achieved(Binswanger & Jochen, 2005; BLW, 2007).
‘Agricultural Policy 2011,’ as the new governmentplanning period is called, continues to be dedicated tothe paradigm that structural change is inevitable butmust be socially acceptable. Even though AgriculturalPolicy 2011 contains a lot of reforms that will eventu-ally lead to more market orientation in agriculture, theproblematic past experiences with the multifunctionalityapproach are not addressed. Experience shows, forexample, that structural change has slowed down quite abit because direct payments increase the value of agri-cultural land (and therefore make inefficient farmersmore reluctant to sell or lease land to more efficientones), indirectly raise agricultural input and food con-sumer prices, and discourage farmers to focus on inno-vation and entrepreneurship (NZZ Online, 2009;Rentsch, 2006). Moreover, the state of biodiversity hasfurther deteriorated in Switzerland in spite of all themeasures put in place by the government(Koordinationsstelle Biodiversitäts-Monitoring [Biodi-versity Monitoring Coordination Unit], 2009).
Furthermore, Agricultural Policy 2011 hardlyaddresses the question of how the national agriculturalresearch institutes (Agroscope) could play an enablingrole in supporting farmers to become more competitiveand innovative. The budget for R&D in agriculture wasreduced significantly over the past decade and theresearch priorities shifted from production-relatedresearch to agro-ecological research. This shift was alsoaccompanied by a stronger focus of the Agroscope Insti-tutes on monitoring at the expense of active participa-tion in the R&D of agricultural goods and technologiesin collaboration with farmers and the local private sec-tor. The low priority given to agricultural R&D is alsoreflected in the rejection of the use of GM crops inSwiss agriculture. In 2005, the Swiss voted in a nationalreferendum in favor of a 5-year moratorium on the useof genetic engineering in agriculture. In 2009, the fed-eral council proposed to roll over the ban for anotherthree years in view of ongoing public scepticism. Thepolitical preferences of the Swiss people as expressed intheir vote in favor of the agricultural article in the con-stitution in 1996 and the temporary ban on GMOs inSwiss agriculture in 2005 is also a success for the stake-holders that shaped this public view of sustainable agri-
Aerni — Is Agricultural Biotechnology Part of Sustainable Agriculture? Different Views in Switzerland and New Zealand
AgBioForum, 13(2), 2010 | 161
culture. After succeeding at home, domesticstakeholders such as retailers, NGOs, and the Swissagency for development and cooperation (SDC) feltencouraged to export this defensive attitude towardsagriculture to poor developing countries with com-pletely different conditions. Such activities could thenbe marketed back home as a contribution to fairer andgreener food system (Aerni & Bernauer, 2006).
Overall, this top-down approach to sustainable agri-culture as practiced in Europe in general and Switzer-land in particular may not be conducive to addressingthe long-term sustainability problems, especially in poordeveloping countries where the problems result fromlack of access to new technology rather than the poten-tially risky use of new technologies. Rather than pre-serving existing agricultural practices, many of thesecountries desperately need change fuelled by technolog-ical innovation and local entrepreneurship, the twofoundations of endogenous rural development (Romer,1994).
An important question is whether there is any alter-native to the rather patronizing European view of sus-tainable agriculture that could serve as a flexibletemplate for promoting home-grown development, ruralempowerment and sustainable agriculture alike? NewZealand may be a candidate in view of its bold unilateralliberalization experiment in the 1980s and its subse-quent focus on assisting farmers in coping with the pro-cess of globalization through public privatepartnerships. Its policy approach largely reflects a pro-gressive view of agricultural sustainability. It sees eco-nomic and technological change as an opportunityrather than a problem in making agriculture more sus-tainable.
As a consequence of the major agricultural reformsin the 1980s, government assistance in New Zealand istoday limited to support for research, pest and diseasecontrol, agri-environmental measures, and climaticdisaster relief. Its reforms also caused a shift in the focuson agriculture from commodity to added value businessand from a ‘command and control’ policy approach to amore bottom-up and incentive-based approach. At thesame time, the national Crown Research Institutes weresemi-privatized and encouraged to collaborate withfarmers and the private sector to address the challengesof environmental sustainability and develop new agri-cultural products. This collaboration is increasingly con-tributing to a modern agricultural economy that isconcerned with the constant improvement of productionmethods and the generation of high quality food prod-
ucts. At the same time, it encourages a more sustainableuse of natural resources.
In spite of the radical reforms in the 1980s, the num-ber of rural land holdings in New Zealand remainedmore or less constant at around 80,000 (approximatelyhalf are commercial farms and half are ‘lifestyleblocks;’ Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry [MAF],2003). By contrast, Switzerland today still has roughly63,000 farms (excluding the ‘life style blocks’ or hobbyfarms; BLW, 2007).
After the abolishment of subsidies in New Zealandin the 1980s the decision-making power moved fromgovernment to farmers. About 300 farms were not ableto cope with all the new business risks and the growinguncertainty. They decided to move out of agricultureand accept an early retirement package. One major rea-son for this low number of exits was the resourcefulnessand endurance of the farmers themselves (N. Fraser,April 10, 2006, personal communication). It was actu-ally the Federated Farmers (the largest farmer organiza-tion in New Zealand) that pushed for the tough reformsand assisted farmers in becoming innovative and cre-ative entrepreneurs. In addition to that, the banks coop-erated in the restructuring of farm debts while thegovernment assumed the role of a coach for those whowanted to stay in business. Even though there was hard-ship, none of the farmers (and even environmentalists)would want to return to a system that heavily relies ongovernment intervention (J. Sinner, April 11, 2006, per-sonal communication). Moreover, the resulting creativerural entrepreneurialism improved and diversified ruraleconomic activities, created more employment,improved food quality and choice, and made the coun-tryside of New Zealand a more attractive place to livethan ever before (Chamberlin, 1996). Ironically, theamount of land dedicated to agriculture decreased inNew Zealand over the past decade (with the exceptionof horticulture and exotic timber cultivation), while thefarm land in Switzerland slightly increased over thesame period of time.
The reforms in New Zealand also led to more differ-entiation of the farm work. Farms are often run as equitypartnerships with investors from the cities. Farmersthemselves often specialize on the strategic managementof the farm, while certain tasks are performed by profes-sionals from outside (milking, harvesting, marketing,etc). Farm decisions depend on market prospects, theparticular environmental conditions, and the regionalprice of labor and land (attractive tourist areas raise theopportunity costs of labor and the value of land). Farm-ers are also contributing to innovation in farm manage-
Aerni — Is Agricultural Biotechnology Part of Sustainable Agriculture? Different Views in Switzerland and New Zealand
AgBioForum, 13(2), 2010 | 162
ment and the development of new products. It oftenhappens that farmers come up with a new technique orproduct and approach one of the universities or CrownResearch Institutes to find out about its potential valueand ways to improve it to a stage that makes it attractivefor commercialization. In this context, farmers andresearchers in New Zealand have become partners in anational enterprise (J. Luo, April 6, 2006, personal com-munication).
At the same time, New Zealand is equally commit-ted to the goals of sustainable agriculture and its govern-ment is anxious to preserve the country’s image of being‘clean and green.’1 However, it tries to achieve sustain-ability in a different way. Rather than following the con-ventional social planning approach of multifunctionalagriculture, the New Zealand government sees itself as afacilitator of sustainable change through the promotionof technological innovation and rural entrepreneurship,strict biosecurity control, as well as incentives to adoptsustainable farming practices. The Resource Manage-ment Act (RMA), passed in 1991, pursues a decentral-ized bottom-up approach in environmental policy. TheNew Zealand government is authorized to issue nationalenvironmental standards, but it is up to the regionalauthorities (Regional Councils) to choose the bestapproach on how to implement them. There is a growingconcern that this decentralized approach is too slow inview of the rapidly increasing environmental problems(Parliamentary Commissioner of the Environment[PCE], 2004). New Zealand, however, cannot afford topromote sustainable agriculture at the expense of agri-cultural competitiveness, but must reconcile these twopillars of its agricultural economy by investing in inno-vation and best practices. The greatest share of govern-ment support therefore goes into the promotion ofapplied agricultural research and development throughthe Foundation for Research, Science, and Technology(FRST). The innovation focus of the Foundation alsosignalled to universities and the Crown Research Insti-tutes that they must show how their research contributesto a sustainable and innovation-driven economy. Thishas led to lots of public-private research projects thathave resulted in new products that benefit the environ-ment. For example, Lincoln University and the fertilizercompany Ravensdown have developed a nitrificationinhibitor (eco-n) for cows that reduces nitrate leaching
(resulting from cow urine patches) into the groundwaterand leads to an emission reduction of the greenhousegas nitrous oxide. Another example is a Rapid PastureMeter/Sensor, a product jointly developed by the Centrefor Precision Agriculture at Massey University and thecompany C-Dax. The technology helps farmers to opti-mize fertilizer and water application in livestock farm-ing (I. Yule, April 5, 2006, personal communication).Apart from these cases, numerous joint venturesbetween public and private research laboratories arededicated to use the new tools of agricultural biotech-nology to develop more sustainable and profitable newproducts, including genetically engineered crops. As anexport-oriented agricultural economy that is concernedabout the demand in its high value markets in Europe,however, New Zealand has not officially approved anyGM food for human consumption, nor GM crops forcultivation on a commercial scale.
The focus on creating value has not just triggeredentrepreneurial activity in the research centers that focuson precision agriculture and biotechnology, but also onthose that are dedicated to ecological agriculture. Unlikein Switzerland, where it is implicitly assumed that tradi-tional agro-environmental measures will contribute tobiodiversity, New Zealand researchers are activelysearching for plants that have a proven record to enlivenbiodiversity. For example, the bio-protection and ecol-ogy division at Lincoln University is adding value to itsdiscovery of plants (e.g., buckwheat, tansy leaf) thatattract beneficial insects (e.g., providing nectars for beesand enhancing biological control of wine pests) by col-laborating with wine farms that would like to add aneco-friendly label to their brand of wine (growing thesecolorful plants between the vine rows). The approach iscalled ecological engineering and differs largely fromthe classic forms of ecological pest management. If bio-diversity and ecosystem services would get a highervalue (e.g., by taxing agriculture without a contributionto these services), such activities could become a realbusiness (S. Wratten, April 12, 2006, personal commu-nication). Like Switzerland, the New Zealand govern-ment also funds large national research projects thatmainly monitor the environmental impacts of agricul-ture and issue political recommendations (e.g., ARGOSProject, Sustainable Land Use Research Initiative, Sus-tainable Development Programme of Action; T. Brais-den, April 3, 2006, personal communication). TheSustainable Farming Fund of the Ministry of Agricul-ture and Forestry (MAF) plays an important role in thefunding of these projects.
1. Overall, New Zealand agriculture is still more extensive than Swiss agriculture even though sustainability problems are on the rise, especially in the business of dairy farming.
Aerni — Is Agricultural Biotechnology Part of Sustainable Agriculture? Different Views in Switzerland and New Zealand
AgBioForum, 13(2), 2010 | 163
Why Conduct Stakeholder Perception Surveys on Sustainable Agriculture?Switzerland and New Zealand are both democracieswith vibrant public debates on sustainable agriculture.As a consequence, official definitions of sustainableagriculture are highly influenced by the public attitudetowards farming. Yet, who is ‘the public’ and what con-tributes to the formation of a ‘public attitude’? Often,people do not have the time to form an autonomousopinion about political issues that are unrelated to theirimmediate concerns in daily life. They therefore tend tomerely adopt the views of stakeholders that are believedto represent the public interest (Aerni & Bernauer,2006). Yet, no matter how civic-minded these stake-holders present themselves in public, they always try todefine the public interest in a way that also serves theirown interest (Sjöberg, 2003). In this sense, there is nosuch thing as ‘the public interest’ in a strict sense, butmerely political actors who claim to represent the publicinterest (Buchanan & Tullock, 1962). The mass mediaprovides these actors with the necessary public stagethat allows them to ‘socially amplify’ their views andconcerns (Kasperson et al., 1988; Luhmann, 1993).
Stakeholder perception surveys are a very useful toolto understand public opinion formation from an endoge-nous point of view. This is based on the assumption thatthe views and interests of relevant stakeholders involvedin a particular public debate respond as well as influencepublic perception. This again enables them to shape themeaning of the term ‘public interest,’ and, eventually,the respective policy outcomes.
Stakeholder Perception Surveys in Switzerland and New ZealandWe conducted two stakeholder perception surveys onsustainable agriculture in New Zealand (from April toAugust 2006) and Switzerland (from November 2006 toFebruary 2007).
In both countries, the most important stakeholderswere selected by means of key informants who werefamiliar with the national debate on sustainable agricul-ture and its participants. This method of stakeholderselection was adopted from policy network analysis(Laumann & Knoke, 1987).
The major results of the two surveys have been pub-lished in the journals Ecological Economics (Aerni,2009) and Food Policy (Aerni et al., 2009). This articlefocuses mainly on the results that look at the stakeholderassessments of the role of agricultural biotechnology insustainable agriculture and the policy networks that
shape the debate on sustainable agriculture in Switzer-land and New Zealand. The stakeholder attitudes towardagricultural biotechnology also reveal the perceivedcompatibility of agricultural sustainability and newtechnologies in each country.
Survey Participants and Return RatesIn New Zealand, 39 respondents completed and returnedthe questionnaires, which equated to an 81% returnrate.2 The respondents represented 33 different domesticinstitutions. In Switzerland, 41 questionnaires werecompleted and returned (a total return rate of 86%), rep-resenting 36 different domestic institutions.
Figure 1 shows the distribution of stakeholders inSwitzerland and New Zealand. There is a higher shareof representatives from academia and business in NewZealand. In turn, there were more participants from gov-ernment and the legislature in the Swiss survey. Thisreflects the overall weight and importance of these insti-tutions in the national public debates. Furthermore,
2. In cases where the selected stakeholder representatives felt unable to participate in the survey, we asked them to identify a proxy within their institution to replace them. The return rate takes into account the representatives that did not partic-ipate themselves but found a substitute that was willing to replace them.
Figure 1. Number of participants and shares of the differentstakeholder groups.
Aerni — Is Agricultural Biotechnology Part of Sustainable Agriculture? Different Views in Switzerland and New Zealand
AgBioForum, 13(2), 2010 | 164
respondents had the opportunity to object to the selec-tion of relevant stakeholders listed in the questionnaireeither by adding stakeholders that are missing, or afterthe survey, when workshops in Bern (September 2007)and Wellington (October 2007) were held with the sur-vey participants to discuss the outcome of the study.Overall, the feedback was positive and there were noobjections neither to the prior selection nor to the actualparticipation of stakeholders.
Survey ResultsThe perception analyses of the questionnaire data con-sisted of a descriptive analysis and a perception patternanalysis in each country.
Descriptive AnalysisIn Part 1.1 of the questionnaire, respondents in NZ andSwitzerland (CH) were asked to rate the importance of20 problems of sustainable agriculture on a scale from 1to 4. Table 1 presents the mean values (average ratings)and standard deviations of the assessed problems in CHand NZ.
It shows that ‘high use of nitrogen’ (nitrogen)3 and‘nutrient pollution’ (nutrients) are considered to be veryimportant problems in both countries (ranked 2nd and
3rd in NZ and 4th and 5th in CH, respectively). ‘Interna-tional trade competition’ (trade) was ranked as the mostimportant problem of sustainable agriculture in CH,whereas ‘high water consumption’ (water) took the leadin NZ.
In Part 1.2, stakeholders were asked to assess theappropriateness of different approaches to solve each ofthe listed problems. The assessment of the potential ofthe three approaches—biotechnology (Biotech), instru-ments of environmental economics (Env.Econ), and eco-payments (Eco-Pay)—applied to the four problemsnitrogen, greenhouse gas emissions, trade, and foodquality, yielded the most interesting results for a CH-NZcomparison.
Figure 2 shows how respondents assessed the poten-tial of three selected approaches to solve these prob-lems. The y-axis shows the sum of the averagerankings4 assigned to the different approaches for eachof the four problems in NZ and CH.
The figure reveals that NZ respondents generallybelieved that biotechnology can make an important con-
Table 1. The assessed importance of the problems in CH and NZ agriculture.
3. Words written in Italic represent the abbreviation of a prob-lem/statement/variable in the respective illustration.
4. The average value is based on the specific ranking. If a prob-lem was ranked most important (number one), it received 5 points, second most important = 4 points, third most impor-tant = 3 points, and so on. The numbers were added up for each problem then divided by the number of participants that assessed it.
Figure 2. The appropriateness of approaches to solve selected problems in agriculture.
Aerni — Is Agricultural Biotechnology Part of Sustainable Agriculture? Different Views in Switzerland and New Zealand
AgBioForum, 13(2), 2010 | 165
tribution to address the nitrogen problem, the green-house gas problem, and the problem of low food qualityin particular. This is a significant observation becausethe role of technology in agriculture is usually associ-ated with productivity increases rather than improve-ments in environmental and food quality.
In Part 1.3, respondents were asked to assess theimpact of six practices (including genetic engineering)on sustainable agriculture on a scale from 1 (very nega-tive) to 4 (very positive). Figure 3 shows the averageratings given in NZ and CH in the form of lines thatintersect with concentric angular circles in a spider web.
CH respondents rated the impact of organic agricul-ture and labelling eco-friendly agriculture to be verypositive for sustainable agriculture. NZ respondents doso as well but more moderately. Precision agriculturewas expected to have a positive impact in both countries(but less so in CH). Yet, CH respondents assessed theimpact of genetic engineering to be very negativewhereas NZ respondents expressed a more ambiguousview. This more moderate attitude towards genetic engi-neering in agriculture in New Zealand may be a confir-mation of the hypothesis that GMOs are currently notgrown in New Zealand for pragmatic rather than ideo-logical reasons.
Social NetworksIn the last part of the questionnaire, survey participantswere asked to evaluate a list of stakeholders in a policynetwork table according to their political influence andindicate whether they are cooperating with them, and ifso, in what sense (information exchange, financial sup-port).
The data was then used to conduct a social networkanalysis. It allows us to identify the stakeholders in thenational debates on sustainable agriculture by dint oftheir centrality in the different information and financialexchange networks. Social networks are increasinglypopular in the analysis of political processes becausethey reflect a decentralized concept of social organiza-tion and government that increasingly applies to thepolitical decision-making processes in contemporarygovernance structures of modern democracies (Peters &Pierre, 2003).
In addition to the formal institutional agreements,the network perspective helps further to integrate com-plex informal processes into the political process. Theconsideration of informal processes has become moreand more important since the crowded public debatesand the fragmentary character of the state draws anincreasingly fuzzy line between private and public (Car-rington, Scott, & Wasserman, 2005; Laumann & Knoke,1987).
A comprehensive evaluation of all the link-upsbetween the listed organizations in Switzerland andNew Zealand raises serious problems. Any attempt toillustrate the total collaboration networks may result in amaze of links that lacks clarity and is difficult to inter-pret. Therefore, the following evaluation concentrateson different forms of collaboration, such as financialsupport and information delivery, and portrays them inan appropriate and simplified way.
In the policy network table, respondents were askedto specify their form of collaboration as (a) receivers ofinformation, (b) providers of information, (c) receiversof financial support, or (d) providers of financial sup-port.
In view of the density of the information networks,we limit ourselves to the UCINET outputs of Network B(providers of information), which shows the main pro-viders of information in the social network and symme-trizes their respective links (symmetrization assumesthat those who were marked as receivers by the provid-ers also would have confirmed this by marking it corre-spondingly in Network A even though they did not takepart in the survey or did not fill in this part of the ques-tionnaire).
Figure 4 shows the information network in Switzer-land derived from Network B (the providers’ perspec-tive). The network shows the institutions that receivemost information from those who indicated that theygive information. Core institutions in the exchange ofinformation are NGOs such as N1—the Swiss FarmerAssociation (Schweizer Bauernverband)—and N4, the
Figure 3. The assessed impact of six different practices on sustainable agriculture.
Aerni — Is Agricultural Biotechnology Part of Sustainable Agriculture? Different Views in Switzerland and New Zealand
AgBioForum, 13(2), 2010 | 166
Swiss Research Institute for Organic Farming (Forsc-hungsanstalt for Biologischen Landbau, FIBL). More-over it contains B5—a large retailer, Migros—andM6—Swiss National Radio, Radio DRS. In the secondinner circle, we find A6—an academic institution, Agri-cultural Research Institute (Tänikon-Reckenholz,ART)—government institutions G3 and G2—FederalOffice of the Environment (BAFU) and Federal Officeof Agriculture (BLW), respectively—and business B4and B8—Coop, a large retailer, and Emmi, a large pro-ducer of dairy products, respectively. This somehowconfirms the powerful influence of Swiss non-stateactors (NGOs, retailers, mass media) and their strongrelations to government. Academic institutions (Agri-cultural research institutes, universities) in turn seem toplay a more marginal role (apart from A6).
In New Zealand, the maze is a little bit less dense.The network of information providers reveals that theParliamentary Commissioner of the Environment (L1),a legislative institution, plays the most central role inNetwork B as the main receiver and provider of infor-mation (see Figure 5).
Apart from this stakeholder, the Labor Party (L2),Agriquality (B11) and BioGro (B12; both involved inthe organic farming certification business), Rabobank(B7), Fonterra (B1; a large dairy company), AgResearch(A7; a Crown Research Institute), Lincoln University(A2), and Farmer’s weekly (M3; a weekly magazine)are seen as central actors in the distribution of informa-tion. The most important government institutions in theinformation network are the Regional Councils (G6)and the Foundation for Research, Science, and Technol-ogy (FRST; G4), which is part of the Ministry ofResearch, Science, and Technology (MORST). A cen-tral provider of information seems to be Dairy Insight(N9), an independent farmer-owned organizationresponsible for making investments into dairy industryresearch, development, extension, and education proj-ects and activities. Moreover, two NGOs—the Feder-ated Farmers (N1) as well as Fish & Game New Zealand(N6)—seem to also play important roles as providers ofinformation. It is conspicuous that government institu-tions play a far less prominent role in the informationnetwork than in Switzerland.
Figure 4. Swiss network of information exchange from the ‘provider perspective.’
Aerni — Is Agricultural Biotechnology Part of Sustainable Agriculture? Different Views in Switzerland and New Zealand
AgBioForum, 13(2), 2010 | 167
Financial Networks in Switzerland and New ZealandFewer respondents replied to the question whether theyprovide and/or receive financial support from therespective institution in the policy network table. Thishas advantages because there is more clarity about theexact linkages. Yet, the program UCINET which calcu-lates Network C (receive) and Network D (provide) isunable to merge networks. Since it makes more sense topack the relatively sparse information into one networkper country, the merging of networks was carried outmanually by combining the asymmetric ties of each net-work. This also allows the use of colors to highlight thecore actors and their function in the network.
Figure 6 shows the financial support network inSwitzerland. The most important providers of financialsupport (marked in blue) appear to be government insti-tutions related to environment (BAFU, G3) and agricul-ture (BLW, G2), followed by the European Union (I4),Coop (a retailer, B4), and the Social-Democratic Party(L7). The politician of the Social-Democratic Party whofilled in this part is also chairman of an NGO. This may
explain the financial support given by the Party to twointernational NGOs.
B2 (the organic farming company ‘Biosuisse’)receives financial support from Coop (B4) and givessupport to the organic farming research institute (FIBL,N4). FIBL also seems to be the most important receiverof financial support, followed by national and cantonalacademic institutions such as the Agricultural TechnicalUniversity in Zollikofen (A8), the Institute of Geogra-phy at the University of Bern (A3), ETH Zürich(Department of Agriculture and Food Science) (A1),and ART (A6; a national research institute). It is inter-esting to observe that only supermarket chains (B4 andB5) seem to be important business sponsors of researchin agriculture and they tend to focus on supportingorganic farming research. Even agro-chemical compa-nies such as Syngenta (B1) tend to sponsor merely envi-ronmental research (A2; Institute of EnvironmentalSciences, University of Zurich) and support business-related media coverage (M4, Schweizer Bauer, derLandfreund). The State Secretariat for Research andEducation (G5) seems to play a rather marginal role as asupporter of agricultural research compared to other
Figure 5. The NZ network of information exchange from the ‘provider perspective.’
Aerni — Is Agricultural Biotechnology Part of Sustainable Agriculture? Different Views in Switzerland and New Zealand
AgBioForum, 13(2), 2010 | 168
government institutes such as G2, the Swiss FederalOffice for Agriculture (BLW), and G3, the Swiss Fed-eral Office for the Environment (BAFU).
The network of financial support in New Zealand(Figure 7) looks slightly more dense and very differentin the distribution of colors. There seem to be manymore institutions that give and receive financial support.Apart from the Federated Farmers (N1), Fonterra (B1),Ravensdown (B8; a fertilizer company), and BioGro(B11), the Crown Research Institutes such asAgResearch (A7), Landcare (A5) and, to some extent,HortReserach (A8) and the Royal Society (A9) seem toplay a dominant role in the giving and receiving net-works of financial support. This can be explained by thefact that these national research institutes were semi-privatized in the 1990s and were therefore forced to col-laborate with the private sector and compete harder forresearch grants. By far the most important provider offinancial support is the Foundation for Research, Sci-ence, and Technology (G4). It supports research at theCrown Research Institutes and universities, as well asresearch conducted in the private sector (B1). Researchsponsored by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry(MAF; G1) and the Ministry for the Environment(MFE; G2) seems to be marginal in comparison.Another important provider of financial support seemsto be the ruling Labor Party (L2) that sponsors govern-ment agencies as well as research. However, the politi-cian who filled in this part also used to be the head ofthe MAF. This helps explain the apparent generosity ofthe Labor Party. Finally, there is Dairy Insight (N9),
which sponsors research in different academic institu-tions. The New Zealand Business Council for Sustain-able Development and Rabobank are importantsponsors in the private sector (Rabobank mainly investsin companies). Unlike the Crown Research Institutesthat play a role as receivers and providers of informa-tion, universities are the main receivers of financial sup-port, together with some environmental NGOs(Ecologic Foundation [N2] and Sustainability Councilof New Zealand [N8]).
Overall, the social networks reveal that researchinstitutes play a more dominant role in New Zealandthan in Switzerland. While organic farming institutionsplay an important role in both networks, they are moreat the core of information exchange and financial sup-port for sustainable agriculture in Switzerland. Whilebusiness closely collaborates with research institutes inNew Zealand in finding solutions to problems with sus-tainable agriculture, this collaboration is less establishedin Switzerland. Swiss business stakeholders are mostlyrepresented by retailers and they tend to sponsor advo-cacy groups rather than research institutes. The biggestdifference between the two countries is the central roleof research through FRST in New Zealand. It plays acore role as a distributor of information and is the mainsponsor of agricultural research (by comparison, theSwiss State Secretariat for Research and Education isnot represented in the Swiss social networks). The mis-sion of the FRST is to convert knowledge into usefulproducts and services for a sustainable and competitiveagricultural sector. In Switzerland, the Federal Office
Figure 6. The Swiss network of financial support. Figure 7. The New Zealand network of financial support.
Aerni — Is Agricultural Biotechnology Part of Sustainable Agriculture? Different Views in Switzerland and New Zealand
AgBioForum, 13(2), 2010 | 169
for Agriculture (BLW) and the Federal Office for theEnvironment (BAFU) have largely assumed this role.
Discussion and ConclusionsThe results of the stakeholder perception surveys inSwitzerland and New Zealand confirm the assumptionthat the definition of sustainable agriculture largely mir-rors the attitude and interests of the influential domesticstakeholders in each country. The dominant stakehold-ers in Switzerland are the Swiss farmer association, gov-ernment institutions concerned with agriculture and theenvironment, NGOs committed to the promotion oforganic farming, and large retailers who seek to gain animage as advocates of sustainability by banning GMfood from their shelves and aggressively promotingorganic products. All these stakeholders share a defen-sive view of sustainable agriculture, considering techno-logical change as a threat to sustainable agriculturerather than an opportunity. In particular, they do not seeany potential for biotechnology to help address theproblems of sustainable agriculture. The social networkconfirms the influential role of large retailers as the mostimportant actors in the food chain in Europe andincreasingly also in other parts of the world. They seemto be central in the information network as well as in thenetwork of financial support in Switzerland, whichseems to be in line with their role as gatekeepers of thefood chain (Fold & Pritchard, 2005). The large retailersare also the most prominent sponsors of advocacygroups for agricultural sustainability.
Furthermore, government institutions also play amajor role in sponsoring research at academic institutes.However, this research is largely focused on externalexpertise and agricultural and environmental monitoringwork rather than concrete product development.
The situation looks very different in New Zealand.This country also regards organic farming as an impor-tant, but not sufficient, contribution to sustainable agri-culture and emphasizes the importance of precisionagriculture and biotechnology in efforts to make NewZealand more competitive and more sustainable. Theygenerally reject the popular agricultural policy tools thatare supposed to promote sustainability in Switzerland,such as direct payments and taxing food miles. WhereasSwiss stakeholders regard international agriculturaltrade as the most important threat to sustainable agricul-ture, New Zealand stakeholders believe that economicand technological change is necessary to become sus-tainable. This more progressive view is also reflected inthe influence of the different stakeholders in the social
network analysis. Research institutes are more at thecenter of the information network and they receive gen-erous financial support from the public and the privatesector, not for doing mere monitoring of the agriculturalsector (as is the case in Switzerland) but for changing itthrough the development of new knowledge, services,and goods that help farmers cope with the economic andenvironmental challenges. It is therefore not surprisingthat the core public actor in the network of financialsupport is the FRST rather than the Ministry of Agricul-ture or the Ministry of the Environment, as it is the casein Switzerland. Interestingly, large retailers do notappear to play a significant role in the social networks ofsustainable agriculture in New Zealand.
The greater focus on change and innovation in NewZealand largely reflects the belief in a bottom-upapproach and the creativity of entrepreneurial farmersand researchers to find new solutions to important sus-tainability problems. Yet, this New Zealand approach issomewhat difficult to reconcile with the general norma-tive view of sustainable agriculture.
Sustainable agriculture rests on the general principlethat the needs of the present generation must be met in away that does not compromise the ability of future gen-erations to meet their own needs. This basic definitionof sustainability became generally accepted after thehighly influential Brundtland Report entitled Our Com-mon Future (Brundtland, 1987), which provided a firstcomprehensive concept of global sustainable develop-ment. In this concept, stakeholders involved in agricul-ture are expected to adopt a systems perspective, whichranges from the management of the individual farm, tothe interaction with the local ecosystem, and finally toall the communities that are affected by these farmingsystems both locally and globally. This systems perspec-tive takes into account social responsibilities such as theneeds of rural communities, consumer health and safetyin present and in the future, as well as environmentalresponsibilities such as maintaining and enhancing thevalue of the natural resources as our common resourcebase (vanLoon, Patil, & Hugar, 2005).
Switzerland decided to fully embrace this definitionof sustainable agriculture in 1996 when Swiss citizensvoted in favor of Article 104 of the Swiss constitution. Itprovides the legal basis for the promotion multifunc-tional agriculture (which is based on such a systems per-spective) and can be seen as an explicit contractbetween farmers and society. A major task of the annualreport of the Swiss Federal Office for Agriculture(BLW, 2007) is to monitor and analyze Swiss agricul-tural policy and examine whether the performance of
Aerni — Is Agricultural Biotechnology Part of Sustainable Agriculture? Different Views in Switzerland and New Zealand
AgBioForum, 13(2), 2010 | 170
Swiss agriculture is satisfactory from a sustainabledevelopment perspective. For that purpose, it hasdefined indicators that are to measure social, environ-mental, and economic sustainability. Even though theseindicators are very much in accordance with the conceptof the Brundtland report (1987), they seem to imply thatit is merely the government’s responsibility to ensuresustainable agriculture, whereas farmers are just askedto provide the necessary data that are needed to assessoverall government performance. Farmers must complywith numerous standards and rules in return for accessto numerous forms of government payments (direct pay-ments, eco-payments). Such a system, however, is vul-nerable to the principal-agent problem in the sense thatthe agent (the farmer) takes advantage of the situation ofasymmetric information by passing on only the informa-tion that is required to get the payment from the princi-pal (Aerni, 2006). As a result, farmers may not feelresponsible themselves to manage their resources in asustainable way and their farm management decisionsmay be guided by a complex calculation on how to max-imize revenues from government payments rather thanhow to provide sustainable and innovative goods andservices that add value to food choice and the environ-ment. This principal-agent problem is not particular toSwiss agricultural policy but inherent in the Brundtlanddefinition of sustainable development. The implicitassumption of the Brundtland report (1987) is that a sus-tainable future must be organized by wise social plan-ners that seek the consent of rational and well-informedcitizens to jointly implement a strategy that ensures asustainable future. Yet, there is little discussion in theirdefensive view on how to activate the creative minds offarmers and researchers to think for themselves and findlocal solutions that may prove more effective and betterfor the environment than the solutions suggested by thesocial planners (the words ‘entrepreneur’ and ‘innova-tion’ do not appear in the index of the Brundtlandreport). In other words, the report tends to endorse arational social-planning approach at the expense of thetrial-and-error approach of innovative entrepreneurs thatexperiment with sustainable solutions on the ground.That does not mean that there is no role for government,but it may have to focus more on searching for bestpractices and rewarding innovation in the field of sus-tainable agriculture, and less on merely defining indica-tors of sustainable development and monitoring itsimplementation. This largely corresponds to the pro-gressive approach as practiced by the New Zealand gov-ernment.
Unlike Swiss agriculture, New Zealand agricultureliterally went through a process of renewal during theprocess of unilateral liberalization in the 1980s, and theresult was a more diversified and competitive agricul-tural sector, better food quality and vibrant rural com-munities that are actively involved in the politicalprocess of finding local solutions to emerging environ-mental problems. New Zealand nevertheless faces greatchallenges to make its agriculture more sustainablewithout undermining its global competitiveness. Yet itsbottom-up approach in environmental policy as well asits significant public investments in technological inno-vation in agriculture make the country a pioneer in thepursuit of a new concept of sustainable agriculture thatmight not be in accordance with the social-planningmodel but is all the more effective in environmentalmanagement and less harmful to poor developing coun-tries that face increasing non-tariff trade barriers inthose countries that maintain a defensive view of sus-tainable agriculture. The bottom-up approach might alsoempower farmers and enable them to do more than justimplement government and retailer directives andinstead become fully integrated participants of theglobal knowledge economy.
Many Swiss stakeholders would argue that NewZealand is a different story and its policies are not appli-cable to the Swiss context. The fact that the prevailingNew Zealand view is hardly represented by Swiss stake-holders seems to confirm this. However, Switzerlandused to pursue the New Zealand approach in the 19thCentury when it decided to set up agricultural researchinstitutes to help farmers coping with increasing interna-tional competition in agricultural production (Brugger,1956). At that time, the focus was on assisting farmersin solving agronomic problems with new technologiesand services (developed by researchers in collaborationwith the private sector and farmers) that make Swissfarming more productive and innovative. All the famousSwiss food products from cheese to chocolate have theirroots in this period of early globalization. Today, the sit-uation is different. Swiss agriculture is already quitecapital-intensive, and its productivity high. Growth insustainable agriculture must therefore happen throughvalue-added products and the more efficient use of inputrather than productivity increases. Since the use of newtechnologies is mainly associated with productivityincreases, it is not seen as a contribution to sustainableagriculture in the Swiss context, and value-added agri-culture is mainly associated with organic farming prac-tices and the preservation of agro-biodiversity throughthe promotion and marketing of rare traditional food
Aerni — Is Agricultural Biotechnology Part of Sustainable Agriculture? Different Views in Switzerland and New Zealand
AgBioForum, 13(2), 2010 | 171
products and their protection through geographical indi-cation. Yet, as the case of New Zealand demonstrates,new technologies such as agricultural biotechnology canbe applied to increase food quality, enhance the value oftraditional products, and reduce the environmentalimpact of agriculture. Switzerland might learn from thisexperience and redefine the role of agricultural researchand technology in sustainable agriculture and thusreturn to the successful roots of Swiss agricultural pol-icy in the 19th Century. That does not mean that theSwiss government should stop supporting the farmersbut should support them in a different way. Rather thanassuming the role of a nanny, it could assume the role ofa coach that assists farmers in their efforts to becomeinnovation-driven entrepreneurs. It could also finan-cially encourage Swiss researchers to collaborate moreclosely with farmers and the private sector in the devel-opment of sustainable technological innovation in agri-culture. This would constitute a valuable counter-weightto the increasing power of retailers. However, this isunlikely to happen as long as this alternative view ofsustainable agriculture is not represented in the publicdebate in Switzerland. A change of attitude by a singleinfluential stakeholder in the debate may change theentire public debate. In New Zealand, it was the Feder-ated Farmers that decided to do so in the 1980s whenthey created the critical political support for agriculturalreform because they worried about their dependence ongovernment support and the subsequent loss of deci-sion-making power. In Switzerland, the Swiss FarmerAssociation (Bauernverband), which turned out to bethe central player in the Swiss debate, may also decideto change from a defensive to a more progressive strat-egy and thus facilitate change in agricultural policy anda redefinition of sustainable agriculture. This wouldmake Swiss agriculture more compatible with the spiritof the WTO Agreement on Agriculture and, at the sametime, allow the government to continue to supportselected marginal small-scale farmers in the mountainregions that provide a genuine public service (throughgreenbox measures), assist its more competitive farmersin the lower regions with payments that are linked toperformance (measured not just in terms of compliancewith pre-determined ‘good agricultural practices,’ butinnovation and entrepreneurship), and invest in researchand technology that is of relevance to the farmers’ com-petitiveness and sustainability. Ultimately, only such anew approach may genuinely empower Swiss farmersas entrepreneurs and ensure the long-term sustainabilityof Swiss agriculture, because the conventional conceptof sustainable agriculture may no longer be sustainable.
ReferencesAerni, P. (2006). The principal-agent problem in development
assistance and its negative impact on entrepreneurship: Timefor new approaches. ATDF (African Technology DevelopmentForum) Journal, 3(2), 27-33.
Aerni, P. (2008). A new approach to deal with the global food cri-sis. ATDF Journal, 5(1/2), 16-32.
Aerni, P. (2009). What is sustainable agriculture? Empirical evi-dence of diverging views in Switzerland and New Zealand.Ecological Economics, 68(6), 1872-1882.
Aerni, P., & Bernauer, T. (2006). Stakeholder attitudes towardsGMOs in the Philippines, Mexico and South Africa: The issueof public trust. World Development, 34(3), 557-575.
Aerni, P., Rae, A., & Lehmann, B. (2009). Nostalgia vs. pragma-tism? How attitudes and interests shape the term sustainableagriculture in Switzerland and New Zealand. Food Policy,34(2), 227-235.
Altieri, M. (1995). Agroecology: The science of sustainable agri-culture. New York: Westview Press.
Bail, C., Falkner, R., & Marquard, H. (Eds.). (2002). The Carta-gena Protocol on Biosafety—Reconciling trade in biotechnol-ogy with environment & development? London: Earthscan.
Beckerman, W. (2003). A poverty of reason: Sustainable develop-ment and economic growth. Oakland, CA: The IndependentInstitute.
Binswanger, M., & Jochen, A. (2005). Entkoppelung vonWirtschaftswachstum und Umweltbelastung im Klimaschutz[Decoupling economic growth and environmental climateprotection]. Die Volkswirtschaft, 7/8, 18-27.
Brugger, H. (1956). Die Schweizerische Landwirtschaft in derersten Hälfte des 19 Jahrhunderts [Swiss agriculture in thefirst half of the 19th Century]. Frauenfeld, Switzerland: HuberVerlag.
Brundtland, G. (1987). Our common future: The World Commis-sion on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press.
Buchanan, J.M., & Tullock, G. (1962). The calculus of consent:Logical foundations of constitutional democracy. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan.
Bundesamt für Landwirtschaft [Federal Office for Agriculture](BLW). (2007). Agrarbericht 2007 [Agricultural report 2007].Bern, Switzerland: Author.
Campbell, H. (2005). The rise and rise of EurepGAP: European(re)invention of colonial foods relations? International Jour-nal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture, 13, 1-19.
Carrington, P.J., Scott, J., & Wasserman, S. (2005). Models andmethods in social network analysis. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Chamberlin, B. (1996). Farming and subsidies: Debunking themyths. Wellington, NZ: Euroa Farms Ltd.
Aerni — Is Agricultural Biotechnology Part of Sustainable Agriculture? Different Views in Switzerland and New Zealand
AgBioForum, 13(2), 2010 | 172
Cooney, R., & Dickson, B. (2007). Biodiversity and the precau-tionary principle. London: Earthscan.
European Commission. (2000). Communication on the precau-tionary principle. Brussels: Author. Available on the WorldWide Web: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/docum/20001_en.htm.
Francioni, F. (2001). Environment human rights and internationaltrade. New York: Oxford University Press.
Freidberg, S. (2007). Supermarkets and imperial knowledge. Cul-tural Geographies, 14(3), 321-342.
Dolan, C. (2004). Benevolent intent? The development encounterin Kenya’s horticulture industry. Journal of Asian and AfricanStudies, 40, 411-437.
Drayton, R.H. (2000). Nature’s government: Science, imperialBritain, and the ‘improvement’ of the world. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.
Häberli, C. (2008, July). Market access in Switzerland and in theEuropean Union for agricultural products from least devel-oped countries (NCCR Trade Regulation Working Paper2008/5). Bern, Switzerland: World Trade Institute, Universityof Bern.
International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technologyfor Development (IAASTD). (2008). Agriculture at a cross-roads. Washington, DC: Island Press. Available on the WorldWide Web: http://www.agassessment.org/.
Kasperson, R.E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H.S., Emel, J.,Goble, R., et al. (1988). The social amplification of risk: Aconceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177-187.
Kingsbury, N. (2009). Hybrid: The history & science of plantbreeding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Koordinationsstelle Biodiversitäts-Monitoring [BiodiversityMonitoring Coordination Unit]. (2009). Zustand der Biodi-versität in der Schweiz. Ergebnisse des Biodiversitätsmonito-rings (BDM) im Überblick [State of biodiversity inSwitzerland. Results of the Biodiversity Monitoring (DBM) ata glance] (Umwelt-Zustand Nr. [Environmental ConditionNo.] 0911). Bern, Switzerland: Bundesamt für Umwelt(BAFU) [Federal Office for Environment]. Available on theWorld Wide Web: http://www.biodiversitymonitoring.ch/eng-lish/aktuell/synthese.php.
Laumann, E.O., & Knoke, D. (1987). The organizational state:Social choice in national policy domains. Madison: The Uni-versity of Wisconsin Press.
Luhmann, N. (1993). Risk: As sociological theory. Hawthorne,NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF). (2003). Agricultureand forestry in New Zealand: An overview. Wellington, NewZealand: Author. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/overview/nzoverview004.htm.
NZZ Online (Neue Zürcher Zeitung). (2009, June 9). Auf derSuche nach dem Bauernsterben: Schleppender Strukturwan-del in der Landwirtschaft [In search of the Polish farming:Sluggish structural change in agriculture]. Zurich, Switzer-land: Author. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/schweiz/bauernsterben_1.2702869.html.
Nordhaus, T., & Shellenberger, M. (2007). Break through: Fromthe death of environmentalism to the politics of possibility.Boston. MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Paarlberg, R. (2008). Starved for science. Cambridge, MA: Har-vard University Press.
Parliamentary Commissioner of the Environment (PCE). (2004).Growing for good: Intensive farming, sustainability and NewZealand’s environment. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.
Peters, G., & Pierre, J. (2003). Handbook of public administration.New York: Sage Publications.
Power, M. (1997). The audit explosion. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Raffensberger, C., & Tickner, J. (1999). Protecting public healthand the environment: Implementing the precautionary princi-ple. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Rentsch, H. (2006). Der befreite Bauer: Anstösse für den agrarpo-litischen Richtungswechsel [The freed farmer: Impetus for theagricultural policy direction]. Zurich, Switzerland: VerlagNeue Zürcher Zeitung and Avenir Suisse.
Romer, P. (1994). New goods, old theory and the welfare costs oftrade restrictions. Journal of Development Economics, 43(1),5-38.
Schweizerischer Bundesrat [Swiss Federal Council]. (2006). Bot-schaft zur Weiterentwicklung der Agrarpolitik 2011 [Messageto the development of agricultural policy in 2011]. Bern,Switzerland: Author.
Sjöberg, L. (2003). Attitudes and risk perceptions of stakeholdersin a nuclear waste siting issue. Risk Analysis, 23(4), 739-749.
Sunstein, C.R. (2005). Laws of fear: Beyond the precautionaryprinciple. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Van Huylenbroeck, G., & Durand, G. (2003). Multifunctional agri-culture: A new paradigm for European agriculture and ruraldevelopment. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
vanLoon, G.W., Patil, S.G., & Hugar, L.B. (2005). Agriculturalsustainability: Strategies for assessment. New York: SagePublications.
Von Hippel, E. (2006). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.
Vives, A. (2001). The role of multilateral development institutionsin fostering corporate social responsibility. Development,47(3), 45-52.
Aerni — Is Agricultural Biotechnology Part of Sustainable Agriculture? Different Views in Switzerland and New Zealand
