1 / 21

The Fuchsia Brands Initiative and the Living Countryside The Impact on Farm Households

The Fuchsia Brands Initiative and the Living Countryside The Impact on Farm Households. Dr. Deirdre O’ Connor and Siobhan Cahalane Dept. of Agribusiness, Extension and Rural Development Faculty of Agriculture, UCD . Study Context. Ongoing change in agricultural and rural policy in Europe

kathie
Download Presentation

The Fuchsia Brands Initiative and the Living Countryside The Impact on Farm Households

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Fuchsia Brands Initiative and the Living Countryside The Impact on Farm Households Dr. Deirdre O’ Connor and Siobhan Cahalane Dept. of Agribusiness, Extension and Rural Development Faculty of Agriculture, UCD

  2. Study Context • Ongoing change in agricultural and rural policy in Europe • Increasing recognition of more diverse model of rural economies compared to productivist agricultural model • Production of food and fibre just one among other activities to contribute to rural areas • Need to deliver high quality and varied foodstuffs, green services and amenities

  3. Study Context • Changing societal and consumer demands also profound impact on context in which agricultural and rural policy operates • Farm households response to this changing context has been to embark on a range of development paths • i.e. engaging in a range of “broadening, deepening and regrounding” activities at farm level

  4. Study Context • Regrounding – reconfiguring the way in which on-farm resources are used, changing farming systems, pluri-activity • Broadening – Farm enterprise becomes involved in markets for non-food products and services; non-agricultural activities realised within the farm; agritourism, sports, energy production • Deepening – reposition the farm within the agri-food supply chain – organic farming; regional quality food products; on-farm processing; direct sales

  5. Purpose of Study • To determine nature and extent of broadening/deepening activities within farm households in WCLC/Fuchsia Brands initiatives • To ascertain role of WCLC/Fuchsia Brands in development of these activities • To assess members’ views re involvement with WCLC/Fuchsia Brands

  6. Study Methodolgy • Interviews with WCLC staff and Brand Members • Telephone Questionnaire • 96% response rate from survey!! • Key involvement of WCLC staff in facilitating the study

  7. Study Findings • In mid-2003, 11 of 40 food enterprises within Fuchsia Brands were farm-based (28%). • 15 of 71 tourist establishments within the Brand are farm-based (21%). • Overall, farm-based operators represent 26 of 111 businesses with Fuchsia Brands (23%).

  8. Profile of Farm Households • Questionnaire answered by the owner of the business in 80% of cases. • 56% of respondents were female • 8% of respondents younger than 40 years of age • 44% between 40 and 50 years • 4% older than 65 years

  9. Profile of Farm Households • Vast majority working full time on farm work with full time assistance of family members in many cases • 36% employing full time or part time labour to run the farm • On-farm activities (farming plus others) account for total family income in 2/3 of cases • Off-farm incomes features in less than 1/3 of cases

  10. Engagement in On-Farm Activities • Over 2/3 of respondents engaged in “broadening” activities, with over half engaged in agri-tourism • Remainder engaged in landscape management schemes • 48% engaged in on-farm food processing • 32% engaged in direct selling of produce • N.B. Households engagement in multiple activities

  11. Interest in On-Farm Activities • None engaged in organic farming, but 28% interested • 12% engaged in agri-environment or landscape management activities but 44% interested • None engaged in energy production on-farm but 52% interested

  12. Contribution of Rural Development (RD) Activity to Family Income • Activities appear to make a substantial contribution to family incomes of respondents • 20% reported it constituted more than 80% of total farm-based family income • 20% said it contributed less than 20% of total income generated from “farm-based” activities

  13. Contribution of RD Activities to Employment • In all cases, RD activity requires full time family labour input with between 1 and 4 family members involved • In 60% of cases, additional family labour is involved on a part-time basis • 76% of those surveyed take on hired labour on a full-time, part-time or casual basis. • 52 people employed full time, 15 part time and 12 casuals.

  14. Other Effects of New RD Activity • 80% of respondents said it had a positive effect on the farm • Reasons included additional income generated • Allowed the family to stay on the farm • Farm would not be viable in the absence of the activity

  15. Driving Forces/Constraints on RD Activities • Following were described as “very important” drivers • Identified area as suitable for the activity (84%) • Needed the income (80%) • Personal interest/skills (68%) • Saw a market for the product/service (60%)

  16. Principal Constraints • Lack of access to grant aid/financial support (20%) • Problems in building up markets (16%) • Picture with respect to drivers quite similar to results from EU IMPACT study which included analysis for Ireland

  17. Role of Institutions in Enabling RD Activities • Role of WCLC/Fuchsia regarded by 72% as favourable • Teagasc regarded favourably by 68% of respondents • European Union seen favourably by 64%, closely followed by national governments at 60%. • Local governments/county councils regarded favourably by 36% of respondents

  18. Comparison with Irish IMPACT Results • European Union seen favourably by 84% • Teagasc regarded favourably by 75% of respondents • Development agencies favourably regarded by 68% of respondents • Nationa/local governments/county councils regarded favourably by 45% of respondents

  19. Respondents Views re Fuchsia Brands Initiative • High level of satisfaction with initiative evidenced by 92% of respondents who wish to continue involvement with the brand • 80% of respondents rated themselves as having a high level of awareness of other Brand products and services • Over 90% recommend and promote other Fuchsia products and services on a “very frequent” basis • High level of satisfaction with quality criteria standards for Brand membership – seen as the main benefit of the Initiative

  20. Respondents Views re Fuchsia Brands Initiative • Access to Training considered next most important benefit • Extra sales of products identified by 36% of respondents • Development potential within the Initiative identified with respect to establishing more individual and group-based marketing initiatives • Especially relevant for tourism providers • Marketing coverage of the Brand extended

  21. Concluding Remarks • Evidence of “localisation” effects • Evidence of “synergy effects” especially with respect between components of the brand but also with environmental quality • Evidence of multiplier effects through employment and through backward and forward linkages

More Related