4,149
edits
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Though most cooperatives adapt their organisational structures to meet their own specific needs, the coop system is fundamentally based on 7 founding notions: the Rochdale Principles. Originally wrote in England in 1844 by the 28 founders of an early worker co-operative food store<ref>This store gave the members of the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers access to goods they would otherwise not have access to, now being left unemployed as a result of the mechanisation of work</ref>, this set of principles paved the way to our contemporary cooperative movement. (click on each reference tag for more detailed principles) | Though most cooperatives adapt their organisational structures to meet their own specific needs, the coop system is fundamentally based on 7 founding notions: the Rochdale Principles. Originally wrote in England in 1844 by the 28 founders of an early worker co-operative food store<ref>This store gave the members of the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers access to goods they would otherwise not have access to, now being left unemployed as a result of the mechanisation of work</ref>, this set of principles paved the way to our contemporary cooperative movement. (click on each reference tag for more detailed principles) | ||
<b><u>Up to date version:</b></u> | <b><u>Up to date version:</b></u><i</i>”>“ | ||
<ol> | <ol> | ||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
</ol> | </ol> | ||
<b><u>Original version</b></u> | <b><u>Original version</b></u><i</i>”>“ | ||
<ol> | <ol> | ||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
<u><b>Food cooperative/cooperative supermarket:</u></b> | <u><b>Food cooperative/cooperative supermarket:</u><i>“</i>”</b> | ||
A food cooperative is directly owned by both its employees and its members. People who shop at the cooperative typically pay a yearly nominal fee and share the work (accounting, selling, merchandising, cleaning) fairly throughout the year. In general, membership is open to any community member, with stores adopting official policies of nondiscrimination. Often distributing food items from a range of local farms and organic products dealers, these structures are more often found in cities and urban environments, where access to farms is limited. | A food cooperative is directly owned by both its employees and its members. People who shop at the cooperative typically pay a yearly nominal fee and share the work (accounting, selling, merchandising, cleaning) fairly throughout the year. In general, membership is open to any community member, with stores adopting official policies of nondiscrimination. Often distributing food items from a range of local farms and organic products dealers, these structures are more often found in cities and urban environments, where access to farms is limited. | ||
<u><b>Community supported agriculture (CSA):</u></b> | <u><b>Community supported agriculture (CSA):</u><i>“</i>”</b> | ||
Community Supported Agriculture (otherwise known as crop sharing) is a partnership between a farm and consumers where the risks and rewards of farming are shared. Often, CSAs allow the consumer to subscribe to the harvest of a certain farm or group of farms. CSA is a solidarity contract, based on a financial commitment from consumers, who pay all of their consumption in advance over a defined period. This system therefore operates on the principle of consumer confidence and responsibility. | Community Supported Agriculture (otherwise known as crop sharing) is a partnership between a farm and consumers where the risks and rewards of farming are shared. Often, CSAs allow the consumer to subscribe to the harvest of a certain farm or group of farms. CSA is a solidarity contract, based on a financial commitment from consumers, who pay all of their consumption in advance over a defined period. This system therefore operates on the principle of consumer confidence and responsibility. | ||
Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
These two programs often work in concert in rural areas, and are associated with each other by consumers. | These two programs often work in concert in rural areas, and are associated with each other by consumers. | ||
== | == Common types of organisational CSA structures == | ||
<u><b>Community/consumer-driven:</u></b> | <u><b>Community/consumer-driven:</u><i>“</i>”</b> | ||
Consumers participate in or may even run the scheme working closely with the farmer who produces what they want. | Consumers participate in or may even run the scheme working closely with the farmer who produces what they want. | ||
<u><b>Farmer led:</u></b> | <u><b>Farmer led:</u><i>“</i>”</b> | ||
A farmer sets up, organises and maintains a CSA. The farmer might also recruit subscribers. The members financially subscribe, with little other involvement. | A farmer sets up, organises and maintains a CSA. The farmer might also recruit subscribers. The members financially subscribe, with little other involvement. | ||
<u><b>Shareholder/subscriber:</u></b> | <u><b>Shareholder/subscriber:</u><i>“</i>”</b> | ||
Local residents set up a CSA and hire a farmer to grow crops. Shareholders/subscribers control most of the management. | Local residents set up a CSA and hire a farmer to grow crops. Shareholders/subscribers control most of the management. | ||
<u><b>Farmer cooperative:</u></b> | <u><b>Farmer cooperative:</u><i>“</i>”</b> | ||
Farmer-driven CSA where two or more farms cooperate to supply its members with a greater variety of produce. This model allows individual farms to specialise in the most appropriate farming for that holding (larger farms may concentrate on field scale production, smaller farms on specialist crops and upland farms on rearing livestock). | Farmer-driven CSA where two or more farms cooperate to supply its members with a greater variety of produce. This model allows individual farms to specialise in the most appropriate farming for that holding (larger farms may concentrate on field scale production, smaller farms on specialist crops and upland farms on rearing livestock). | ||
<b><u>Combining 2 models, an example<ref>Found in the comment section of this NY Times article. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/dining/csa-farm-share-community-supported-agriculture.html</ref>:</b></u><i</i>”>“ | |||
“<i>I belong to a CSA from Our Table Cooperative that offers a unique, viable solution to this issue. The basic share is a typical CSA box — weekly deliveries of just-harvested organic fruits and veggies from the Cooperative’s farm in Sherwood. The difference is that every week I can also add my choice of meats, cheeses, eggs, milk, pickles, grains, and other products from their co-op member farms and artisans, who are all from Oregon and meet the high standards of the Co-op. They have many pick up sites around Portland; mine is just 10 minutes from home.</i>” | |||
This system entails supporting a Community/consumer-driven farm on the long term and to combine this subscription by shopping for extra products through a farmer cooperative system. It is in fact involving two 2 models of cooperatives. | |||
Related CSA: [https://www.ourtable.us/local-food-boxes-csa.html#/ OurTable] | |||
== What problems does CSA seek to address?<ref name=handbook>Notes from the ‘<i>European Handbook on Community Supported Agriculture Sharing Experiences</i>’. Note: The document has been funded by, among other, the European Commission’s program for life-long learning</ref>== | == What problems does CSA seek to address?<ref name=handbook>Notes from the ‘<i>European Handbook on Community Supported Agriculture Sharing Experiences</i>’. Note: The document has been funded by, among other, the European Commission’s program for life-long learning</ref>== | ||
Line 91: | Line 99: | ||
== Benefits of CSA<ref name=handbook /> == | == Benefits of CSA<ref name=handbook /> == | ||
<u><b>For local communities:</u></b> | <u><b>For local communities:</u><i>“</i>”</b> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li>Consumers benefit from receiving fresh food from a known source</li> | <li>Consumers benefit from receiving fresh food from a known source</li> | ||
Line 99: | Line 107: | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
<u><b>For farmers:</u></b> | <u><b>For farmers:</u><i>“</i>”</b> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li> A more secure income which improves business planning and time to concentrate on farming</li> | <li> A more secure income which improves business planning and time to concentrate on farming</li> | ||
Line 115: | Line 123: | ||
Cooperative businesses have lower failure rates than traditional corporations and small businesses, after the first year of startup, and after 5 years in business. About 10% of cooperatives fail after the first year while 60 to 80% of traditional businesses fail after the first year. After 5 years, 90% of cooperatives are still in business, while only 3 to 5% of traditional businesses are still operating after 5 years. This is often because of the many people involved in starting a cooperative and the high level of community support for cooperatives. | Cooperative businesses have lower failure rates than traditional corporations and small businesses, after the first year of startup, and after 5 years in business. About 10% of cooperatives fail after the first year while 60 to 80% of traditional businesses fail after the first year. After 5 years, 90% of cooperatives are still in business, while only 3 to 5% of traditional businesses are still operating after 5 years. This is often because of the many people involved in starting a cooperative and the high level of community support for cooperatives. | ||
== How does CSA | == How does CSA foster and support communities in various localities? == | ||
Cooperative businesses stabilise communities because they are community-based business anchors; and distribute, recycle, and multiply local expertise and capital within a community. Since most cooperatives are owned and controlled by local residents, they are more likely to promote community growth than an investor-oriented firm (a conventional supermarket promising jobs to a community, which is often one of the main arguments). | Cooperative businesses stabilise communities because they are community-based business anchors; and distribute, recycle, and multiply local expertise and capital within a community. Since most cooperatives are owned and controlled by local residents, they are more likely to promote community growth than an investor-oriented firm (a conventional supermarket promising jobs to a community, which is often one of the main arguments). | ||
Line 123: | Line 131: | ||
“<i>The farmer lives outside the city but sends weekly emails about life on the farm and hosts and open house each summer. Occasionally, he visits. He's also extremely responsive to members. And there is community at the distribution site in the form of members who come back year after year. I think that's the real secret of CSAs—the genuine, non-corporate ones—they blend first-rate produce with a way to feel connected. It's the exact opposite of ordering something on a website.</i>” | “<i>The farmer lives outside the city but sends weekly emails about life on the farm and hosts and open house each summer. Occasionally, he visits. He's also extremely responsive to members. And there is community at the distribution site in the form of members who come back year after year. I think that's the real secret of CSAs—the genuine, non-corporate ones—they blend first-rate produce with a way to feel connected. It's the exact opposite of ordering something on a website.</i>” | ||
== Where does | == Where does Community Supported Agriculture comes from? == | ||
<b><u>The case of Japan: 🇯🇵</b></u> | <b><u>The case of Japan: 🇯🇵</b></u><i</i>”>“ | ||
One of the oldest examples of the concept of CSA emerged in the 1960s in Japan. At the time, mothers of Japanese families worried about seeing agriculture industrialise with a massive use of chemicals (in 1957, the first victims of Minamata, poisoned with mercury, were declared). These mothers then founded in 1965 the first <i>teikei</i> (meaning in Japanese “cooperation”, “collaboration” or “partnership”) which primarily concerned dairy cooperatives. The principle of operation is as follows: in exchange for the purchase by subscription of the farmer's harvest, the latter agrees to provide food grown without chemicals. | One of the oldest examples of the concept of CSA emerged in the 1960s in Japan. At the time, mothers of Japanese families worried about seeing agriculture industrialise with a massive use of chemicals (in 1957, the first victims of Minamata, poisoned with mercury, were declared). These mothers then founded in 1965 the first <i>teikei</i> (meaning in Japanese “cooperation”, “collaboration” or “partnership”) which primarily concerned dairy cooperatives. The principle of operation is as follows: in exchange for the purchase by subscription of the farmer's harvest, the latter agrees to provide food grown without chemicals. | ||
<b><u>The case of the USA: 🇺🇸</b></u> | <b><u>The case of the USA: 🇺🇸</b></u><i</i>”>“ | ||
Alabama born and raised Dr. Booker T. Whatley is best known for his “regenerative farming system” as opposed to the term CSA. In combination with the direct marketing concept of <i>pick-your-own</i> (PYO), a customer harvesting operation managed by farmers and growers. Dr. Whatley also popularised the concept of subscription buyer's club for small farmers starting in the mid-50's. By doing so he also aimed to "generate an agrarian black middle class" in the post WWII USA. | Alabama born and raised Dr. Booker T. Whatley is best known for his “regenerative farming system” as opposed to the term CSA. In combination with the direct marketing concept of <i>pick-your-own</i> (PYO), a customer harvesting operation managed by farmers and growers. Dr. Whatley also popularised the concept of subscription buyer's club for small farmers starting in the mid-50's. By doing so he also aimed to "generate an agrarian black middle class" in the post WWII USA. | ||
<u>The 10 Commandments of Whatley's philosophy:</u> | <u>The 10 Commandments of Whatley's philosophy:</u><i</i>”>“ | ||
<ol> | <ol> | ||
Line 148: | Line 156: | ||
</ol> | </ol> | ||
<b><u>The case of Europe: 🇪🇺</b></u> | <b><u>The case of Europe: 🇪🇺</b></u><i</i>”>“ | ||
The first known CSA in Europe, <i>Les Jardins de Cocagne</i>, was founded in 1978 near Geneva, Switzerland. In the late 70s and through the 80s, only a few other CSA initiatives were started. Around the turn of the Millennium however the CSA movement gathered steam and started to spread. From then on we can observe a tremendous boom of the practice, largely in France thanks the elaboration of the AMAP (the french CSA) charter. | The first known CSA in Europe, <i>Les Jardins de Cocagne</i>, was founded in 1978 near Geneva, Switzerland. In the late 70s and through the 80s, only a few other CSA initiatives were started. Around the turn of the Millennium however the CSA movement gathered steam and started to spread. From then on we can observe a tremendous boom of the practice, largely in France thanks the elaboration of the AMAP (the french CSA) charter. | ||
Line 154: | Line 162: | ||
== CSA, a farming system associated with 2 core social movements == | == CSA, a farming system associated with 2 core social movements == | ||
<b><u>Food sovereignty:</b></u> | <b><u>Food sovereignty:</b></u><i</i>”>“ | ||
*Food sovereignty is a term coined by members of the Via Campesina (LVC) in 1996<ref>La Via Campesina comprises 182 local and national organisations in 81 countries from Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. Altogether it represents about 200 million farmers. Built on a strong sense of unity, solidarity between these groups, it defends peasant agriculture for food sovereignty as a way to promote social justice and dignity and strongly opposes corporate driven agriculture that destroys social relations and nature.</ref>, and asserts the right of people to define their own food systems. Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems. It puts those who produce, distribute and consume food at the heart of food systems and policies rather than the demands of markets and corporations. | *Food sovereignty is a term coined by members of the Via Campesina (LVC) in 1996<ref>La Via Campesina comprises 182 local and national organisations in 81 countries from Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. Altogether it represents about 200 million farmers. Built on a strong sense of unity, solidarity between these groups, it defends peasant agriculture for food sovereignty as a way to promote social justice and dignity and strongly opposes corporate driven agriculture that destroys social relations and nature.</ref>, and asserts the right of people to define their own food systems. Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems. It puts those who produce, distribute and consume food at the heart of food systems and policies rather than the demands of markets and corporations. | ||
<b><u>Solidarity economics:</b></u> | <b><u>Solidarity economics:</b></u><i</i>”>“ | ||
*The idea and practice of "solidarity economics" emerged in Latin America in the mid-1980s and blossomed in the mid to late 90s. Growing dissatisfaction with the culture of the dominant market economy led groups of more economically privileged people to seek new ways of generating livelihoods and providing services. From largely a middle-class" counter-culture" - similar to that in the Unites States since the 1960's- emerged projects such as consumer cooperatives, cooperative child care and people’s healthcare initiatives that are complementary to existing national health systems currently becoming eroded by the crisis, housing cooperatives, intentional communities, and eco-villages. There were often significant class and cultural differences between these two groups. Nevertheless, the initiatives they generated all shared a common set of operative values: cooperation, autonomy from centralised authorities, and participatory self-management by their members. | *The idea and practice of "solidarity economics" emerged in Latin America in the mid-1980s and blossomed in the mid to late 90s. Growing dissatisfaction with the culture of the dominant market economy led groups of more economically privileged people to seek new ways of generating livelihoods and providing services. From largely a middle-class" counter-culture" - similar to that in the Unites States since the 1960's- emerged projects such as consumer cooperatives, cooperative child care and people’s healthcare initiatives that are complementary to existing national health systems currently becoming eroded by the crisis, housing cooperatives, intentional communities, and eco-villages. There were often significant class and cultural differences between these two groups. Nevertheless, the initiatives they generated all shared a common set of operative values: cooperation, autonomy from centralised authorities, and participatory self-management by their members. | ||
Line 164: | Line 172: | ||
To this day, Ecuador 🇪🇨 and Bolivia 🇧🇴 have both included Solidarity Economy and Food sovereignty in their constitutions. | To this day, Ecuador 🇪🇨 and Bolivia 🇧🇴 have both included Solidarity Economy and Food sovereignty in their constitutions. | ||
As way to unify these two movements in one term, sociologist Thomas Lyson coined the term “<b><u>Civic Agriculture</b></u> | As way to unify these two movements in one term, sociologist Thomas Lyson coined the term “<b><u>Civic Agriculture</b></u><i>“” in 1999 to describe “<i>the emergence and growth of community-based agriculture and food production activities that not only meet consumer demands for fresh, safe, and locally produced foods but create jobs, encourage entrepreneurship, and strengthen community identity</i</i>”>”. | ||
== The question of land ownership for CSA == | == The question of land ownership for CSA == | ||
Line 170: | Line 178: | ||
In many countries, the key issue for young would-be CSA farmers is the difficulties that they face in terms of access to land. | In many countries, the key issue for young would-be CSA farmers is the difficulties that they face in terms of access to land. | ||
<u>In practice (data from largest European census on CSA to date)<ref>This census was answered by 70,865 people fed in 403 CSAs https://urgenci.net/french/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Hitchman_CASS1.pdf Note: CSA initiatives being mostly independent, it is still rather tricky for Urgenci (which aimes to represent and lobby for | <u>In practice (data from largest European census on CSA to date)<ref>This census was answered by 70,865 people fed in 403 CSAs https://urgenci.net/french/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Hitchman_CASS1.pdf Note: CSA initiatives being mostly independent, it is still rather tricky for Urgenci (which aimes to represent and lobby for CSAs worldwide), to get enough CSAs to answer to their censuses.</ref>:</u><i</i>”>“ | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
Line 191: | Line 199: | ||
Connecting customers and farmers is a tricky business. It demands time, research and effort on both sides. Even after much research, it is still hard to know who and how to take part in this system. As expected in a liberal system of goods and services, many (often US based) companies have swooped in as “relay” between farmers and consumers. Often providing software, these companies have made it more efficient and simple to organise structures (buying vegetable boxes online, secured payment, live schedule etc) but have actually given shape to a system of intermediaries against which “CSAs” were originally fighting for. Indeed, these new companies<ref>*Peapod, FreshDirect, LocalRoots, Farmigo, etc…</ref> need to make profit (which is not a bad thing in essence) but therefore take a percentage of every transaction as well as using the term CSA as a sort of label to advertise their products — which is easy for them to do as the CSA system is decentralised and therefore has no real legal status and representative body. Hence, as customers are offered a large and confusing variety of providers, they are increasingly led to believe that they are supporting multiple farms at once. To that end, the CSA system comes to be weakened. To prevent these types of predicaments, the US state of California included the definition of the CSA into its legal system, it is therefore protecting any use of the term by other parties for profit purposes.<ref>http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB224&showamends=false</ref> | Connecting customers and farmers is a tricky business. It demands time, research and effort on both sides. Even after much research, it is still hard to know who and how to take part in this system. As expected in a liberal system of goods and services, many (often US based) companies have swooped in as “relay” between farmers and consumers. Often providing software, these companies have made it more efficient and simple to organise structures (buying vegetable boxes online, secured payment, live schedule etc) but have actually given shape to a system of intermediaries against which “CSAs” were originally fighting for. Indeed, these new companies<ref>*Peapod, FreshDirect, LocalRoots, Farmigo, etc…</ref> need to make profit (which is not a bad thing in essence) but therefore take a percentage of every transaction as well as using the term CSA as a sort of label to advertise their products — which is easy for them to do as the CSA system is decentralised and therefore has no real legal status and representative body. Hence, as customers are offered a large and confusing variety of providers, they are increasingly led to believe that they are supporting multiple farms at once. To that end, the CSA system comes to be weakened. To prevent these types of predicaments, the US state of California included the definition of the CSA into its legal system, it is therefore protecting any use of the term by other parties for profit purposes.<ref>http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB224&showamends=false</ref> | ||
“<i>If you don't know the first name of the person who grew your food, you are not a member of a CSA.Stop stealing grassroots ideas and turning them into big business. Get your own ideas!</i>” Comment written in the comment section of the New York Times article. | |||
To rely on third parties also is risky farmers but also for consumers. In 2 weeks, 15,000 households in New York, New Jersey, Seattle and Northern California that had subscribed to CSAs through a company called Farmigo received boxes that would be their last, as the company abruptly shut down its food distribution operation — in the middle of the harvest season — to return to its core business: software. Farmigo, which started deliveries in 2013, raised on the strength of a food distribution software platform which claimed would eventually replace supermarkets altogether. “We built an online farmers’ market with 700 items.” But the real-world logistics of washing, packing, refrigerating, distributing and delivering those items to 400 locations proved overwhelming. So Farmigo members lost out on this growing season, and scores of Farmigo farmers were left with fields and trailers full of unsold produce. There are financial risks for farmers in working through middlemen, and they are precisely the risks CSAs were designed to eliminate. | |||
Again, a central issue is the idea of “comfort”. If delivery service LocalRoots argues that customers are more likely to quit CSAs because of the lack of food options and lack of flexibility provided by original CSAs, the fact it that contributing to a resilient food system relies also on the willingness for customers to relinquish some of their comfort and accept the fact that they cannot access the same variety they would in a conventional supermarket. To that end, with one of the founding principles of Community supported agricultural practices being education, CSA communities, activists and farmers must educate the public to the idea of seasonality, good/bad harvest, weather etc. as being a integral part of our future diets. | Again, a central issue is the idea of “comfort”. If delivery service LocalRoots argues that customers are more likely to quit CSAs because of the lack of food options and lack of flexibility provided by original CSAs, the fact it that contributing to a resilient food system relies also on the willingness for customers to relinquish some of their comfort and accept the fact that they cannot access the same variety they would in a conventional supermarket. To that end, with one of the founding principles of Community supported agricultural practices being education, CSA communities, activists and farmers must educate the public to the idea of seasonality, good/bad harvest, weather etc. as being a integral part of our future diets. | ||
== Empirical legal framework for CSA == | |||
Community Supported Agriculture is a booming sector, which seems to be sketching its own legal framework for sratch. Legislation analysts and researchers often emphasize the dimension of experimentation, without creation of a specific model. The notion of trust is therefore capital, with an emphasis on personal and relational trust rather than institutional. CSAs and their corpus of rules are being developed empirically, would there, to that end, not be the emergence of a system of legal self-regulation? | |||
To illustrate this notion, the french CSA network AMAP (<i>“Une association pour le maintien d'une agriculture paysanne”</i>, which can translate to “Association for the preservation of peasant agriculture”) appears to be a telling example. Indeed, the AMAP network is structured around a precises charter to which all AMAPs must agree to in order to be called AMAP, which utlimately leaves very little place for fraud or disruption. | |||
<u>Excerpt from the AMAP charter:<ref>https://miramap.org/IMG/pdf/charte_des_amap_mars_2014-2.pdf</ref></u><</i>”i>“ | |||
“A supportive contractualised relationship with no intermediary | |||
<ul> | |||
<li>Each contract must be established between an Amapians and a farmer, by name. Farmers cannot be bound by contract with a group of Amapians.</li> | |||
<li>It is imperative that the goods be paid directly to the farmers. Checks cannot be made through the cooperative bank account, otherwise they may be considered a commercial intermediary.”</li> | |||
</ul> | |||
When looking at European CSAs, the partnership, most often formalised in a written contract, takes the form of a long term agreement of at least 1 production season. That is in fact the case for <u>56% of them</u><i>“.<ref>http://urgenci.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Overview-of-Community-Supported-Agriculture-in-Europe-F.pdf</i>”</ref> | |||
<u>Example of binding contract for shares of Oregon based CSA [https://www.ourtable.us/#/ OurTable]:</u><i>“ | |||
</i>”<ul> | |||
<li>[https://www.ourtable.us/uploads/1/7/0/6/17066100/articles_of_incorporation_-_2014-03-09.pdf/ Main contract]</li> | |||
<li>[https://www.ourtable.us/uploads/1/7/0/6/17066100/bylaws_-_2014-03-25.pdf/ By-laws]</li> | |||
</ul> | |||
== Current state of European Community Supported Agriculture in numbers<ref>Data from largest European census on CSA to date (2015). Led by Urgenci (an organisation aiming to become the representative of CSAs worldwide), in partnership with the EU and FAO, this census was answered by 70,865 people fed in 403 CSAs http://urgenci.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Overview-of-Community-Supported-Agriculture-in-Europe-F.pdf/ Note: CSA initiatives being mostly independent, it is still rather tricky for Urgenci (which aimes to represent and lobby for CSAs worldwide), to get enough CSAs to answer to their censuses.</ref> == | |||
<b><u>Estimated number of CSA structures in Europe:</b></u><i</i>”>“ | |||
<ul> | |||
<li>1. France: 2000</li> | |||
<li>2. Belgium: 138</li> | |||
<li>3. Italy: 104</li> | |||
<li>4. Germany: 92</li> | |||
<li>5. UK: 80</li> | |||
<li>6. Spain: 75</li> | |||
<li>7. Switzerland: 60</li> | |||
<li>8. Netherlands: 47</li> | |||
</ul> | |||
<b><u>Estimated number of eaters fed by CSAs (great variation farms/production):</b></u><i</i>”>“ | |||
<ul> | |||
<li>1. France: 320 000</li> | |||
<li>2. Switzerland: 26 000</li> | |||
<li>3. Netherlands: 25 500</li> | |||
<li>4. Germany: 25 000</li> | |||
<li>5. Italy: 22 800</li> | |||
<li>6. Belgium: 14 500</li> | |||
<li>7. UK: 10 000</li> | |||
<li>8. Spain: 7 500</li> | |||
</ul> | |||
<u><b>Who puts together CSAs? Who is at the origin?</u><i>“</i>”</b> | |||
<ul> | |||
<li>Members of a community: 41%</li> | |||
<li>Farmers: 33%</li> | |||
<li>Farmers + community: 18%</li> | |||
<li>The remaining 8% are created by associations, foundations, businesses or institutions.</li> | |||
</ul> | |||
<u><b>Organic certification</u><i>“</i>”</b> | |||
<ul> | |||
<li>44% of responding CSAs are certified organic</li> | |||
<li>4% of responding CSAs are certified bio-dynamic</li> | |||
<li>41% of responding CSAs declare farming organic but are not certified (often because certification is too expensive).</li> | |||
<li>7% of responding CSAs are in transition</li> | |||
</ul> | |||
<u><b>Distribution modes</u><i>“</i>”</b> | |||
<ul> | |||
<li>Pick up of shares at collection points: 73%</li> | |||
<li>Pick up of shares at the farm: 35%</li> | |||
<li>Self-harvesting: 24%</li> | |||
<li>Home delivery: 20%</li> | |||
</ul> | |||
<u><b>Revenue of CSA farmers</u><i>“</i>”</b> | |||
<ul> | |||
<li>25% of revenue from CSA: 27% of farmers</li> | |||
<li>25-50% of revenue from CSA: 10% of farmers</li> | |||
<li>50-75% of revenue from CSA: 9% of farmers</li> | |||
</ul> | |||
Note: In most cases, farmers rely on other distribution channels (i.e. farmer's markets, local organic shops, etc), employment in other farms, or subsidies. | |||
== CSAs across the world == | |||
<ul> | |||
<li><u>Switzerland:</u><i>“ Agriculture contractuelle de proximité (ACP)</i>”</li> | |||
<li><u>Québec:</u><i>“ Agriculture soutenue par la communauté (ASC)</i>”</li> | |||
<li><u>Belgium:</u><i>“ Groupes d'achats solidaires de l'agriculture paysanne (GASAP)</i>”;</li> | |||
<li><u>English speaking countries:</u><i>“ Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)</i>”</li> | |||
<li><u>Japan:</u><i>“ Teikei</i>”</li> | |||
<li><u>Portugal:</u><i>“ Reciproco</i>”</li> | |||
<li><u>Netherlands:</u><i>“ Pergola-associatie</i>”</li> | |||
<li><u>Germany:</u><i>“ Solidarische Landwirtschaft</i>”</li> | |||
<li><u>Romania:</u><i>“ Asociatia pentru Sustinerea Agriculturii Taranesti</i>”</li> | |||
<li><u>Italy:</u><i>“ Gruppo di acquisto solidale (GAS)</i>”</li> | |||
<li><u>Spain:</u><i>“ Agricultura sostenida por la comunidad</i>”</li> | |||
</ul> | |||
== Where to find a CSA near you == | |||
As most CSA structures often want to stay independent from any institution or organisations, it is often rather tricky to find a nearby CSA, even if it is based only a few kilometers away from our home. To that end, we've listed below websites which try to map out as many CSAs per country as possible. Some of them might of course not appear on the lists but it is worth checking these websites to find one near you. | |||
<u><b>Glossary</u><i>“</i>”</b> | |||
<ul> | |||
<li>[https://communitysupportedagriculture.org.uk/find-csa/ UK]</li> | |||
<li>[http://www.communitysupportedagriculture.ie/farms/ Ireland]</li> | |||
<li>[https://www.localharvest.org/csa/ USA]</li> | |||
<li>[http://www.reseau-amap.org/recherche-amap.php/ France]</li> | |||
<li>[http://www.amap-idf.org/trouver_une_amap_33.php/ Ile de France]</li> | |||
<li>[https://e-circles.org/mappa-gruppi-di-acquisto/ Italy]</li> | |||
<li>[http://www.csa-netwerk.be/word-deelnemer.asp/ Belgium]</li> | |||
<li>[https://csanetwerk.nl/kaart/ Netherlands]</li> | |||
<li>[https://www.solidarische-landwirtschaft.org/solawis-finden/karte#/ Germany]</li> | |||
<li>[https://www.faellesgro.dk/bliv-medlem-1/ Denmark (as close as we could get)]</li> | |||
<li>[https://www.google.com/maps/d/embed?mid=1LySgImg8tVgKoDBz5NtlnVXgsL0&ll=-17.058983733415534%2C-47.461619899999945&z=4/ Brazil]</li> | |||
</ul> | |||
== Notes == | == Notes == |