More recently, a number of studies have appeared which discuss research topics and funding. In 1998 FAO facilitated a workshop on research methodologies, and in early 1999 the European International Federation for Organic Agricultural Movements Conference held a session on research needs in organic agriculture. Lampkin et al. (1998) detailed funding for organic agriculture in 18 European countries, and summarised and analysed research needs expressed in other publications. In Scandinavia, lists of projects in organic agriculture are available for different years in individual countries, and an analysis of present projects and future needs has just been completed (Nordic Joint Committee for Agricultural Research (NJC) 1999). In the UK, the Ministry for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries has commissioned a study for which information is being gathered about research projects in other European countries.

The purpose of this paper is to selectively review some of the current research agendas and suggest future directions. While our assessment may be somewhat subjective, we have attempted to base it on sound principles - to allocate limited research funds as efficiently as possible to achieve maximum benefits. This, of course, will depend on the objectives espoused. We look first at the different objectives held by the various stakeholders, keeping in mind that the overall target is the adoption of organic agricultural practices by all farmers. Then we examine some of the factors that determine the benefits likely to result from research expenditure. Next we summarise the main areas of research in organic agriculture in Europe, Australia and the USA. The research needs as recorded in different studies are then compared with the theory, and a refocusing of the organic research agenda is suggested.

In the past, before any measurable government involvement in organic agriculture, much of the research was initiated and undertaken by producers who, often by trial and error, established what did and did not work. The increase in government funding over recent years means that a rethink of priorities for the whole of organic agriculture is in order. It is becoming clear that interests and objectives may conflict and that some trade-offs are necessary. Some of the divergent interests and motivations and the relationships between them are illustrated in Figure 1.

Producers are likely to be concerned with enhancing farm productivity, producing more output with the same inputs (or the same output with less inputs) and price of the product. Producers and other groups may have other objectives, such as improving environmental benefits (or reducing costs) and enhancing food safety. Along with (wholesale and retail) market traders, they may also be interested in increasing the size of the organic agriculture industry.

Consumers are concerned with food safety, nutrition, availability and price. Some may also be concerned with environmental impacts associated with the production, distribution and consumption of the products they purchase. They have few means of influencing the agricultural production process except by exercising consumer sovereignty and reflecting preferences in their purchases.

Wholesale and retail traders, providing the marketing functions in between the producer and consumer, are interested in availability of supply of a consistent quality, and are generally motivated by commercial considerations.

Environmentalists emphasise the effect agricultural production has on the rest of the natural environment. They may also be consumers or producers.

Research is determined as often as not by the individual researcher's interests or inclination rather than an assessment of the overall costs and benefits of available funds. Individual researchers may enjoy working on their pet projects, may wish to employ particular techniques or work with a set of data with which they are familiar even if their project is not the most productive.

In summary, the objectives of different groups are probably rather diverse within the groups, and certainly between the groups.

Governments are likely to, or at least should, take a wider perspective, as it is the responsibility of government to make decisions for the benefit of all of society. Governments use research as the basis for policy decisions, and are concerned about consumer safety, industry profitability, environmental issues and strategic research capability. It is assumed here that the overall objective of government funding into organic agriculture is to stimulate growth of organic agriculture in an efficient way.

Much research funding is provided by government sources. How can the taxpayers' money be put to most efficient use? Funding bodies invariably have a limited budget and numerous potential projects to fund. How should they decide what to fund and what not?

To focus the mind on efficient ways to allocate research money it is useful to consider the relationship between the different types of research. The pipeline model or concept is the traditional approach to analysing research benefits. This model sees a linear relationship from basic research through applied research and new technology to productivity (see Figure 2).

Money spent in basic research (for example, to find out how soil organisms, such as mycorrhiza, operate or are stimulated) leads to applied research (effect of presence of organism on crop yield) to new technology (crop management which stimulates the organism) and finally to increased productivity (higher crop yields). Traditionally, the four groups are seen as distinct with no feedback, but there may be considerable lags, risks and scope for unforeseen consequences in the process. Despite its limitations, the simple pipeline model highlights some relevant issues. The benefits of basic research take much longer to come to fruition than those of applied research as the latter is closer to implementation. Benefits obtained now are worth more than the same benefit not received until later. This favours investing in applied research, innovation and extension.

A second influence concerns obsolescence. Most researchers could probably recall work that seemed useful at the time, but rapidly became irrelevant. Research is a risky business. Obsolescence is more likely to occur when long lead times are involved, such as with plantation crops. Plenty of wine growers have been caught out developing the wrong variety when tastes have changed.

A related implication concerns the impact of one component in the pipeline on the next. To what extent, for example, does applied research contribute to a new technology? Funds should be invested where these relationships are closest. Research into mechanical weeding methods is one area where results can be immediately adapted and productivity gains obtained immediately. Plant breeding is much more subject to risk.

The transfer of knowledge abroad is an important aspect of research, and relates to capturing the benefits. While individual researchers may like their new-found knowledge to be spread far and wide, this does not necessarily apply to funding bodies. Productivity enhancements that are taken up by farmers in other countries imply that the gains from research, which accrue mainly to consumers, will ultimately benefit many who have not funded the research. This is a variation of a point made in a national context in an earlier paper by Wynen (1997), namely that most of the benefits of productivity enhancement ultimately accrue to consumers rather than producers. Such developments, through improved plant breeding for example, provide temporary gains for domestic farms until other farmers catch up and adopt similar technology. New technologies that prove to be effective are quickly taken up by farmers within an industry. Competitive forces keep farm profits down to a minimum (see, as an example in organic production, Hamm and Michelsen (1996, p.211), who discuss the drop in farm-gate price in Germany when more organic wheat came into the EU market from Eastern Europe). With an efficiently operating marketing system, the productivity gains ultimately accrue to consumers and others at the end of the marketing chain, including foreign consumers. Although, from the point of view of those involved in organic agriculture national boundaries may not be important, a national government is likely to keep these relationships in mind when funding research. This is the case especially if uptake of the technology can be rapid, and adoption by other countries would hasten the downward pressure on domestic producer prices. Some governments have attempted to limit the leakage of gains to foreign competitors by prohibiting the export of breeding stock or other genetic material, for example.

In countries where organic agriculture does not receive much funding, those countries may be better off by not undertaking their own research and merely using the knowledge generated elsewhere. The UK study recognises that by including the option of transfer of research results specifically in its objectives. However, for agriculture in general and organic management in particular, direct technology transfer may not always be applicable. Differences in soils, climate and ecology imply that research knowledge can be very specific and not readily transferred between locations. While the use of particular machinery may possibly be widely applied, the transfer of disease resistant varieties may not be so relevant, as different diseases may be specific to particular localities. Research funding bodies need to assess these possibilities in each case.

Estimating the likely benefits from research is difficult, yet essential for effective decision making. Estimates must be made of the chances of a successful outcome, the benefits to individual stakeholders if adoption of the new technology or technique occurs, the probability of adoption, and the time profile of the costs and benefits. Models exist to help funding bodies to weigh the importance of these various factors. One example is the REVS model (1994), developed by the West Australian Department of Agriculture. While such models greatly assist thinking, much subjectivity remains. However, the results can help in prioritising projects, when funding is scarce.

A final important point concerns trade-offs. This is probably the main difference in thinking between economists and other scientists. With a limit to the availability of funds, advances made in one area come at the cost of little being achieved in others. Furthermore, some successful research outcomes may have detrimental impacts on other objectives. An example is the increased livestock used in organic rotations that may cause increased methane emissions to the detriment of global warming objectives.

Apart from those points, which are valid for research in general, there are some matters specific to organic agriculture. One issue is the holistic approach to farming, based on the view that the total system is more than the sum of its parts - the notion of synergism. Organic agriculture has struggled with this concept over the years. Niggli and Lockeretz (1996) mention that researchers had made little progress in finding ways to implement it in practice. Lund (1998) notes that, in the Nordic countries, this topic is seen as an essential element of research into organic agriculture, and mentions methods of analysis which have drawn attention as promoted by Odum (1988), Checkland (1981) and Bawden (1995). However, progress is slow, and perhaps less than 10 per cent of projects is being undertaken in this way. Few researchers have been trained to use holistic techniques.

A second issue specific to organic agriculture is that of separate funding. Because organic agriculture is often seen as a threat to the dominant paradigm, there is an argument that funding allocation for research into organic agriculture should be separate from that in conventional agriculture. The main reason is that those not familiar with organic agriculture would not be able to adequately judge the priorities within organic agriculture, nor be able to decide on an appropriate distribution of funds between projects of the different paradigms. A more efficient way of allocating organic research funds is by having a separate amount set aside for organic agriculture, and using experts in organic agriculture to adjudicate on the topics for which it is to be used (for more details see Wynen 1996).

In the previous section we assumed that among the divergent aims and objectives of organic agricultural research, one predominant aim is to find the most efficient way of having organic agricultural methods adopted by the largest numbers of producers. In order to be able to reason ourselves towards answering the question of how best to do that, it is necessary to consider the whole scene of organic farming from production through to the final consumer of the product.

While organic production costs are often higher than those of conventional products, it is inevitable that some of the cost-increase is passed on to the consumer as higher prices. Without doubt, consumption of organic products would be much higher if prices of organic and conventional products were similar. And producers would be more confident about moving to organic agriculture if they were assured of demand, even when many farmers were to change management method. The question is then how lower consumer prices can be achieved.

One sometimes hears people blame the producer for high product prices. But it is often forgotten that the price paid to the producer is only a small part of the total price, which incorporates services such as transport, insurance, and distribution, that is, marketing. For example, Kleijn et al. (1990) compared organic and conventional prices of four products both at producer and consumer levels in The Netherlands (see Table 1). The consumer price incorporates not only the price paid to the producers, but also the marketing functions.

Source: De Kleijn et al. (1990, p.136)

In all cases, the difference between consumer and producer prices are considerably higher for organic products, implying that the marketing cost per kilogram of produce is considerably higher for organic produce. Organic tomatoes fetched four times the conventional price. Although the data are old and figures will have changed somewhat, there is no reason to believe that the general point would have changed.

High costs between the farm gate and the consumer come about at least partly because of low quantities traded. An increase in consumption will automatically lead to lower prices in an efficient market as, for example, transport cost per unit of produce reduces. The resulting higher demand (if perceived by farmers to be a permanent feature) will then lead to more farmers converting to organic agriculture, and so on. This realisation leads to the conclusion that the most cost-effective way to stimulate the uptake of organic agriculture could well be to devise ways to decrease consumer prices of organic products as compared with conventional products. This can be done in several ways (see Table 2).

Producer prices are influenced not only by how efficiently the farmer can work, assisted by technical research, but also by farm subsidies, which are converted (at least partly) into lower consumer prices. For consumers, the relative prices are important, especially for the basic products such as bread and milk. In other words, for consumers to choose organic produce, it is the price of organic relative to conventional produce that is important. In other words, the conventional price is also important in the organic market.

The price of conventional products, as with any products, is related to the production cost incurred by the producer. For agricultural products, apart from on-farm costs (paid by the farmer), there are usually also off-farm costs (not paid by the farmer). It has now been widely recognised that more environmental problems are likely to occur with conventional than with organic agriculture. This implies that the price of the conventional product reflects the true cost of the product less than that of the organic product.

Quantification of environmental costs due to agricultural systems is notoriously difficult. Efforts have been made, among others, by Pimentel et al. (1993), FAO (1996) and Redman (1996) (for a summary of their findings see Wynen (1997, pp.18-19)). But it is only when one can get a handle on the magnitude of these costs that more pressure can be put to bear on governments to ensure that farmers pay the full costs of production. Full-cost-recovery of all production will bring the relative prices of organic and conventional farming closer together, thereby automatically encouraging consumption of organic products. In other words, investing in research to quantify environmental problems may be a cost-effective way of spending research money into increasing the uptake of organic management methods by farmers.

Because of the nature of environmental costs to farmers, non-point pollution and differences in absorptive pollution capacities of different farms, it is somewhat difficult and therefore expensive to accurately determine the pollution cost of each farm. It may therefore be advisable at present to use a proxy for the pollution costs, such as quantity of polluting pesticide used. Some of the Scandinavian countries have been doing this for quite some time. For example, Denmark has levied a tax on pesticides since the mid-1980s. In 1996 it amounted to 14 per cent of the pesticide price, on average, and it was doubled in 1998 (Schou 1998). However, studies on the effect of such taxes on product prices and farmers' viability would help convince politicians to take action in this direction.

The organic movement has always maintained that organic produce has a superior quality compared with conventional produce, yet this is difficult to prove (Niggli (1999) attributes this to limited research facilities and inappropriate methods). Historically, attention was focused on the nutrient content, but more recently consumers are concerned with detrimental environmental impacts in the production process (Niggli and Lockeretz 1996, Table 1; Mattson 1996; Meier-Ploeger and Vogtman 1996).

Prices and environmental issues are not the only concern of consumers. Product characteristics, such as taste, appearance, nutrition, shelf life, brand, image and other factors make up the total package. Knowledge about the production process, such as the assurance that no child labour or the destruction of rain forests has been involved, is a further characteristic that some consumers are interested in purchasing. These various characteristics come in a bundle, be it an apple, a banana or a can of tuna. Sound marketing involves providing consumers with products containing the characteristics they want and avoiding the expense associated with unwanted characteristics. There is little point in producing a product with an extended shelf life if consumers intend to eat the product immediately. Identifying the particular characteristics that consumers in different markets want is important.

A final point on expanding consumption and hence production of organic products concerns taking advantage of opportunities when they arise. Such opportunities are most likely to relate to scares surrounding conventional food. Concerns over BSE and growth hormones in beef, and more recently the advent of genetically modified foods, raise in consumers' minds the importance of thinking about what they eat. Such events are likely to provide an opportunity for the organic industry to increase its market share if it can respond quickly enough to the change in consumer preferences.

Promotion (advertising) may seem in some ways to be a waste of resources, but has an important role in expanding the organic market. For example, in the early 1990s the organic market in many European countries was rather stagnant. In 1993, a combination of lower prices and advertising campaigns in which consumers learned about the availability and prices of organic products in Denmark meant a sudden increase in consumption of organic produce, which was maintained (Hamm and Michelsen 1996, p.217), and has expanded since that time. An assessment of the value of such campaigns and the scope for replication in other markets may well be a useful expenditure of research funds.

Governments and corporate bodies, (such as airlines or hotel chains) with a policy on buying only organic products, could make a huge difference to the total demand, especially at current levels. Some corporate bodies could be convinced that to be seen to provide or consume organic food could enhance their clean and green image. For example, in Denmark about one third of the total consumption of organic food is accounted for by institutional and commercial kitchens in the public and private sector. In the public sector are mentioned hospitals, nursing homes, prisons and residential and day-care institution; in the private sector hotels, restaurants, teaching institutions and the commercial transport catering sector (Danish Directorate for Development 1999). In Sweden, all train restaurants and cafe's on the main railway stations have at least one organic dish on the menu, leading to the expectation that 19,000 organic meals will be served per month (Ecology and Farming 1999, p.6).

So far we have identified the diversity of interests among stakeholders and discussed the scope for expanding the organic market by focusing on consumer needs and preferences. No mention has been made yet of other - overarching - kinds of research which has the potential to convince governments to change policies, for example to make organic agriculture easier to pursue for producers, or to increase research funding. Topics for such research could include present policies, pointing out where they discriminate against organic farmers (such as the EU policies of subsidies on area under certain crops), or potential gains from stimulating organic agriculture, although environmental research, mentioned above, would fall under this heading. This kind of research can, of course, also contribute in no small way to improving conditions such that the adoption of organic farm management methods becomes more likely. An example of this work is that carried out by five European universities over the last few years, funded by the European Commission in 1996 (European Network for Scientific Research Coordination in Organic Farming).

Next we look at current research priorities and expenditures before assessing whether better targeting of effort towards goals may be desirable.

Some of the research priorities in the European Union and the European Free Trade Association are shown in Table 3. These priorities were assembled by Willer and Zerger (1999), although those for the Scandinavian countries were updated with data from the NJC (1999). Where Willer and Zerger recorded no 'needs', 'research fields' were substituted and those countries are indicated with '*' in the table.

The table has been organised such that geographically close countries are grouped together. In addition, five countries have been taken out of the main group (Group 1) and placed at the end of the table. These countries are Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Austria and Switzerland (Group 2). The decision to group them separately was made to test the hypothesis that, since these five countries are somewhat advanced in adoption of organic agriculture, they may also have a different research agenda. No data were available for The Netherlands.

Before the analysis, first some words of warning:

1. Topics mentioned can overlap with others in the table, even if they are not mentioned under that heading. For example, nutrient cycles are directly related to crop nutrient availability and management and to environmental effects.
2. Advice on research needs in particular countries are sometimes provided by one or a few individuals (Willer, personal communications, October 1999). It is therefore likely to reflect the biases of those people. A good example is the Mediterranean countries, where two sources of information for one country show mostly different priorities. However, in other cases different sources are rather similar, such as for the Scandinavian countries (only one source is shown in the table).
3. Willer and Zerger (1999) did not rank the priorities, neither by money invested in the past or planned in the future, nor by number of projects. Similarly, a positive indication in the table of a research topic in a particular country does not provide an indication of the importance of the topic for the country. For example, Zanoli (1998) mentions that, in Italy, some people do some work in the economics of organic agriculture, but that this is rather minimal. It is not possible to distinguish this from some extensive work done in this area in, for example, Austria or Switzerland. Neither does work carried out in this area in some other countries, such as the UK (extensive work by Lampkin over the years), Germany (for example Nieberg) and Denmark (for example Wynen 1998) show in the table.
4. The table is likely to show mainly areas in which work was carried out at the time of registration of priorities. Together with the fact that some headings may hide other activities, the absence of earlier research in the table does not necessarily mean that the research is not considered important.

In other words, the table should not be seen as complete, and needs to be interpreted with care.

Despite these limitations, some observations can be made concerning popular topics and notable omissions. A feature of Table 3 is that there is an enormous range of topics. However, most of the topics mentioned are in the area of farm production techniques. General nutrient management, weed management, and plant health and protection are the most common areas listed. Health and disease prevention is also important in livestock. An 'appropriate livestock system', which means attention to the process, receives more attention in Group 2.

In organic farming, soil is very important yet few in Group 1 find this a priority. Research in soils (especially in biology and cultivation) are mentioned more by Group 2, where all five countries name at least one of the related topics. Nutrient cycling could well be considered an extension of the topic.

There is very little listed in Group 1 under environmental and social consequences of organic agriculture, marketing and policy development. Also bio-diversity is not high on the list of Group 1. It is possible that work is carried out on environmental aspects of conventional farming without it being charged to the organic research budget. Nonetheless, the lack of emphasis on these important areas is suggestive of the skew towards agronomic topics.

On the other hand, in those countries with a relatively high percentage of organic farmers, technical issues become less important, and 'process' issues become more important. This is somewhat noticeable from the table where, on average, Group 2 shows a stronger interest in food quality, environmental and social consequences of organic agriculture, policy development, marketing issues and especially energy than Group 1. This direction can also be gleaned from Lindenthal, Vogl and Hess (1996) who discuss research in Austria. Höök (1997) alluded to that tendency in general in the 1990s as compared with the 1980s.

It is interesting to note how research priorities vary across countries. Looking down the columns each country, not surprisingly, tends to undertake research in areas of economic importance to it. In other words, research into animal issues is carried out in countries where the livestock sector is important (Denmark, Ireland), horticultural crops where these crops are of significance, such as for exports (Mediterranean countries).

Available data on actual research funding are discussed in this section. Inevitably, the data are incomplete, and interpretation is a problem. One issue is which research to count - much conventional is also of interest to organic farmers. A considerable amount of basic research would need to be carried out even if only organic agriculture were being practised. This research is not counted below.

Lampkin et al. (1998) show details on expenditure in research on organic agriculture in 18 European countries. For four of those countries, DE, FR, IT and NL no data were available. Another four (BE, LU, PT, CZ) indicated zero expenditure for all years from 1993 to 1997 (see Table 4). Excluded from these data are university chairs, contract research projects, experimental farms and on-farm research.

Expenditure on organic research is by far the highest in Scandinavian countries, both in absolute and relative terms. Denmark leads at k ECU 6,160 in 1997 (with a level of the same magnitude, kECU 7459, in the previous year), considerably up from 1995. Sweden spent approximately half that amount (k ECU 3,294), and Norway, where expenditure was considerably lower at kECU 1,010, was still fifth of the 14 countries for which data were available. Other countries with high spending in absolute terms were Switzerland (kECU 2,895) and Great Britain (kECU 2,142).

When considering research funding for certain sectors, such as organic agriculture, the national level of priority for that sector can be measured by funding relative to total research funding in agriculture. As data for the latter were difficult to find, we employed a proxy in the form of total agricultural production. The second part of Table 4 shows total agricultural production for 1995 and the percentage of organic research in 1997 of this amount. Not surprisingly, these figures are very small. For example, in Austria 0.0031 per cent of total agricultural production was spent on organic research, and in Denmark 0.089 per cent.

In the last row in the table we calculated the percentage of total research funding allocated to organic agriculture, assuming that 2 per cent of total agricultural production is spent on research in each country (as is the case in Australia, see below). It is only the Scandinavian countries that reach a figure of over 1 per cent, with SE and DK being around 5 per cent, and Norway almost 3 per cent. In Denmark, the Directorate for Development (1999) proposed to double the amount of funding for organic research by the year 2003.

Denmark and Sweden are also countries in which research for organic agriculture is funded separately (NJC 1999), a characteristic mentioned above as desirable for facilitating a higher degree of efficiency in fund allocation for organic agriculture. In Finland and Norway funding for organic agriculture is not separate from the mainstream funding. Maybe it is not surprising that Denmark and Sweden also seem to have the most defined and co-ordinated organic research program.

The EU spent ECU 4.92 million on organic farming projects, and ECU 5.52 million on projects related to organic farming under the AIR and FAIR Programs (Lampkin et al. 1998, Table 9.6).

In Australia, research funding for organic agriculture is carried out via two different systems. One research organisation, the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) allocates funding especially to organic agriculture. A committee, with members drawn from the organic industry, has the task of allocating the available funds. Their priorities for funding allocation are shown in Table 5. Other research organisations can also allocate funding to organic projects, but there is no funding set aside especially for organic research, and little is funded presently through this venue.

It is interesting to see that, although the total amount of funding of organic agriculture is rather low in Australia (approximately 0.1 per cent of the total research funding available in agriculture), one fifth of the budget is used on networking and education. Also the conversion phase attracts considerable funding, which is only moderately important in Europe. The other topics, soil management, pest and diseases and plant and animal nutrition, are also popular in Europe. As Australian agriculture is very export oriented, it is not surprising that marketing receives a special allocation.

Source: RIRDC (1998)

In the USA, a comprehensive study on research into organic agriculture was made by Lipson (1997). In that process, the US Department of Agriculture’s database (Current Research Information System) was analysed for research projects relevant to organic agriculture. Only those projects which were relevant to organic agriculture, both in content and context, were included. In other words, projects that focussed on, for example, the integration of non-chemical methods such as cover crops into a conventional farming system were not included. Five different categories were discerned within the category of 'strong organic' (including projects where the application indicated explicitly an organic farming setting or application). This constitutes 0.1 per cent of USDA projects, which received slightly less than 0.1 per cent (US$1.5 million) of the annual research and education budget. 267 projects were weakly organic, which meant that the organic context could only be inferred. The majority of such projects were focussed on bio-control, especially projects that investigated the introduction of biocontrol organisms from an external source. The number of projects, and the percentage of total number of projects, are shown in Table 6.

In 1988 the Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture Program (LISA) was implemented. Although not strictly organic, this is considered a more acceptable form of alternative agriculture in the USA by many. Funding for organic projects is undoubtedly less easy to obtain due to the presence of this program.

Source: Lipson (1997).

We see here once again the available data reflecting a focus on production techniques, with little emphasis on post-farm processing. Also notable are the benefits to the organic sector that are spin-offs from conventional agricultural research. Most of the projects on bio-control are not directly aimed at assisting organic agriculture, but may do so indirectly. Expenditure on education and/or extension is similar to Australia, highlighting the perceived importance of encouraging farmers to adapt existing technologies. Some of these funds may also be allocated to market development.

Basic research is not carried out extensively with organic funding, neither in Europe nor in Australia and the USA. When there are few funds available this may be the least tempting area to put resources. In addition, as Niggli and Lockeretz (1996) pointed out, although this kind of research is needed, many see it as of value for researchers rather than for farmers. This neglect of basic research may be shortsighted. If organic production is seen as a different paradigm rather than a slight modification of conventional agriculture, as Wynen (1996) has argued, then greater attention to basic research may be rewarding. The reason why it is important in that case is because a new paradigm, by definition, means that the world (agricultural processes) can be explained better in a different way than hitherto has been done. In order to demonstrate this, or to make use of the knowledge or to convince others that moving in that direction is justified, the principles (to be detected by basic research) need to be understood. One possible example of basic research shown in Table 3 is the Swiss attempts to 'strengthen the self-regulatory mechanism'. This may well have the overall aim of 'encouraging beneficial organisms to overcome problems with soils and pests' (Wynen 1996). Perhaps research into soils and soil biology, more predominant in Group 2, could be seen as tending more towards basic research, depending on the nature of the specific project. Certainly, the NJC (1999, p.21) is of that opinion, where it refers to four projects on biology which it co-ordinates. It calls it basic research although, perhaps, it may be better referred to as research which can also apply to organic agriculture, as well as to conventional agriculture. This does not necessarily mean basic research.

Most research in Europe, Australia and the United States is in the area of farm production, and is either applied research or an application of new technologies (possibly imported). Specific topics within agricultural crops, horticulture and animal husbandry are all mentioned, apart from the more general issues such as nutrient and nutrient cycles, pest management, cultivation and rotation systems. Some of this will be applicable in countries other than where the research was carried out, that is, those countries can import those technologies. Research funding bodies need to assess these possibilities in each case. These points are recognised in the Nordic countries, where the NJC (1999, p.26) mentions that '...For more widespread pests and diseases, European research co-operation should be preferred. However, some pests do have larger impact in the Nordic countries than elsewhere, and research efforts within the region are needed'.

In the marketing area, there is little understanding of how consumers respond to changes in prices or other characteristics of the product. How soon would price premiums be eroded with the expansion of the organic market? What leads to a change in tastes or preferences? There is little evidence of research in this area in Australia and the USA, and it has little priority in most European countries. It received most emphasis in Group 2 countries in Europe.

Encouraging governments to appropriately tax environmental pollutants would greatly assist organic agriculture. Estimating the environmental costs of farming systems, as Group 2 in Europe does to a larger extent than other countries, helps in formulating policies.

It seems that not many individual countries are involved in policy analysis However, the work carried out by five European universities over the last few years, funded by the European Commission in 1996, undoubtedly will contribute significantly to the aim of policy development in years to come, if it has not already done so.

Cost-benefit analysis of projects does not receive much mention. While research costs are relatively easy to obtain, we have seen very little formal or even crude analysis of potential benefits. There is nothing in Willer and Zerger (1999) which indicates this, nor have we seen it referred to in other work. Lists of research priorities seem more like either 'wish lists' based on general knowledge of the industry, or inferred from work which is actually being carried out, and may be closely related to particular interests of researchers, as Zanoli (1998) noted for Italy. If the money comes from a general fund for research, where one project relevant to organic farming does not impinge on which other organic projects are going to be funded, then there is less loss to efficiency, at least from the point of view of organic agriculture. If money for such projects comes from money specifically set aside for organic agriculture then this can be a rather inefficient use of funding. In some countries, such as Australia, at least some attempt is made to indicate how much of the funding should go into specific research areas. That is, some effort is made to prioritise, at least between topics. It is not clear whether those priorities are based on expected returns, or more on guess work. In 1996 Sweden went through a process of organising, among others, a comprehensive program for research projects and co-operative international research support services. In this process it did name a number of topics as priorities. At present, it is in the process of adopting a platform for future research and formulating research priorities, but it is not clear whether any ranking of priorities is going to occur (Lund 1999).

There is little to suggest that an holistic methodology will be more widely used in the near future. Attempts are being made in the Scandinavian countries, though. Separate research programs and funding are difficult to comment upon, partly because of lack of data. However, the two countries with the highest relative funding (Denmark and Sweden) also have separate research funding, but the third highest, Norway, does not. May-be it can be said that there where separate funding exists, planning can take place on a less haphazard level, and it is easier to weigh the benefits and costs of the different projects relative to one another.

We have argued that, in research for organic agriculture, the objectives of funding agencies are likely to differ between different players. In allocating funds to attain these objectives, funding bodies need to consider the relationships between the different stages and types of research, the time lags involved, the risk of obsolescence, the extent to which the benefits are captured by producers, consumers and foreign countries, and the trade-offs between the various alternatives research proposals.

The question of what kind of research to support in order to facilitate the adoption of organic agriculture by producers leads us to the notion of economies of scale. At present, consumers are deterred by higher prices, among other reasons. These result mainly not from the higher costs of production, but the higher costs of processing, distribution and other post-farm marketing functions. These marketing costs would likely be much reduced if throughput were greater. Yet, the main areas of research in organic agriculture were found to focus on farm production. A re-orientation of research expenditure towards reducing marketing costs may be beneficial. Quantification of environmental costs of farming, and government policy issues are also areas considered important, though little attention seems to be given to these.

Greater emphasis on holistic projects might prove rewarding. The establishment of separate funding bodies for organic agriculture would be a useful step, as would a more systematic method of evaluating research expenditure and benefits. This is particularly important as the research budget for organic agriculture expands with the growth of the industry.

Limitations to our analysis should be noted. The available data on existing research is undoubtedly incomplete, although we hope these omissions would not alter our conclusions. Analyses such as these are invariably subjective, as researchers are able to think more constructively within their own area, and tend to view work in other disciplines as less relevant or interesting. No doubt a meteorologist would regard our coverage as inadequate. We acknowledge these limitations.

Finally, how can this work be taken further? A more detailed assessment of where the bottlenecks are in achieving enhanced productivity would be helpful. The aim should be to identify research that would provide a catalyst unleashing opportunities for growth from their constraints. Attempts to measure the benefits of previous or current research would also be instructive.

Bawden, R. (1995), 'On the system dimensions in FSR', Journal of Farming Systems Research and Education, Vol. 5, (2), pp.1-18.

Checkland, P. (1981), 'Systems Thinking: Systems Practice', New York.

Danish Directorate for Development (1999), 'Developments in organic farming - Action Plan II', Danish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, January.

Ecology and Farming (1999), ' Organic food for Swedish travelers', IFOAM's International Magazine, No.20, p.6, January - April.

European Community (1997), 'Agricultural Situation in the Community', Brussels.

FAO (1996), ‘Environment, sustainability and trade linkages for basic foodstuffs’, Rome.

Hamm, U. and Michelsen, J. (1996), ‘Organic agriculture in a market economy. Perspectives from Germany and Denmark’. In T. Oestergaard (ed), Fundamentals of Organic Agriculture International Organisation for Organic Agricultural Movements, Tholey Theley, pp. 208-222.

Höök (1997), ‘Ecological agriculture and horticulture production - Research in seven European countries’. Report prepared for the Swedish Council for Forestry and Agricultural Research, Stockholm.

Kleijn, E., Groenwold, J., Hack, M., Jager, A. And Wijngaarden, G. (1990), 'Produktie en Afzet van BD- en EKO-Produkten', Landbouw-Economisch Instituut, The Hague, Med. No.425, May.

Lampkin, N., Foster, C., Padel, S. And Midmore, P. (1998), 'The policy and regulatory environment for organic farming in Europe'. Report supported by Commission of the European Communities, Agriculture and Fisheries, FAIR3-CT96-1794, September.

Lindenthal, T., Vogl, C. and Hess, J. (1996). Forschung im Oekologischen Landbau, Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Austria.

Lipson, M. (1997), 'Searching for the o-word', Organic Farming Research Foundation, Santa Cruz, California, USA.

Lund, V. (1998), 'Research in organic farming in the Nordic countries with specific focus on methodological problems'. Paper presented at FAO European Workshop on Research Methodologies in Organic Farming, Frick, Switzerland, September/October.

Lund, V. (1999), 'Swedish research in ecological animal husbandry: extent, issues, priorities'. Proceedings, NJF seminar 303, Horsens, Denmark 16-17 September 1999. In print.

Mattson, B. (1996), ‘Life cycle assessment (LCA) of agricultural and industrial food production’. In N. H. Kristensen & H. Hoegh-Jensen (eds.), New Research in Organic Agriculture, International Organisation for Organic Agricultural Movements, Tholey Theley, pp. 180-184.

Meier-Ploeger, A. and Vogtmann, H. (1996), ‘Product and Environment: Quality and public health’. In T. Oestergaard (ed), Fundamentals of Organic Agriculture, International Organisation for Organic Agricultural Movements, Tholey Theley, pp. 176-189.

Niggli, U. and Lockeretz, W. (1996), ‘Development of research in organic agriculture’. In T. Oestergaard (ed), Fundamentals of Organic Agriculture, International Organisation for Organic Agricultural Movements, Tholey Theley, pp. 9-23.

Niggli, U. (1999), 'Research in organic farming in Europe - Priorities and needs'. Paper presented at the IFOAM-EU Conference, May.

Nordic Joint Committee for Agricultural Research (1999), 'Organic Agriculture - Sustainability, Quality and Health: Nordic Research on Organic Agriculture'. Report from a NKJ Working Group on Organic Agriculture, October 1999.

Odum, H. (1988), 'Self-organization, transformity, and information', Science, Vol. 242, pp. 1132-1139.

Pannell, D. (1999), 'On the balance between strategic-basic and applied agricultural research', The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 43(1), 91-113.

Pimentel, D., Acquay, H., Biltonen, M., Rice, P., Silva, M., Nelson, J., Lipner, V., Giordano, S., Horowitz, A. and D'Amore, M. (1993), ‘Assessment of environmental and economic impacts of pesticide use’. In D. Pimentel and H. Lehman (eds.), The Pesticide Question: Environment, Economics and Ethics, Chapman and Hall, New York, pp. 47-84.

Redman, M. (1996), Industrial agriculture: counting the costs, Soil Association, Bristol, UK.

REVS (1994) 'Research EValuation Spreadsheet', Western Australian Department of Agriculture, Perth, (available on request from the Policy Evaluation Unit).

RIRDC (1998), 'R&D Plan for the Organic Produce Program 1998-2003', Canberra.

Willer, H. And Zerger, U. (1998), 'Demand of research and development in organic farming in Europe'. Paper presented at the FAO Europe Workshop on Research Methodologies in Organic Farming, Frick, Switzerland, September-October.

Zanoli, R.and Micheloni, C. (1998), 'The state-of-the-art of research on organic farming in mediterranean EU countries'. Paper presented at FAO Europe Workshop on Research Methodologies in Organic Farming, Frick, Switzerland, September/October.