Abstract: The ISO 14001 voluntary international environmental management standard, mostly used in the manufacturing industry, could be used in agricultural settings to increase quality of environmental management and decrease risk of environmental problems. Associated benefits might include reduced operating costs, increased competitiveness, and circumvention of future trade barriers. To see whether experts thought such benefits were likely, I sent an Internet-based survey to 306 of them: 91 agricultural academic faculty in California, Colorado, and Wisconsin, 124 agricultural consultants throughout the US and Canada, and 91 ISO registrars/auditors, mostly in the US. I obtained 86 responses, a 28% response rate. All three groups agreed that dealing with environmental issues is an important aspect of agricultural management, and somewhat less strongly that there is a need for systematic management of environmental issues in agriculture. The consultants and registrars also agreed that most environmental issues at agricultural operations should be addressed with a formal environmental management system. The academics were generally unaware of the ISO 14001 standard, and hence were, of necessity, neutral on its utility, but none of the three groups was strongly familiar with the standard. Subsequent questions dealing with the utility of the standard generally met with lukewarm responses, with the registrars tending to be more positive than the consultants who were in turn, more positive than the academics. Most of the responses were highly variable within each group, however, indicating a range of opinion at this stage, and certainly no consensus.

ISO 14001 is a voluntary international environmental management system standard, developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), a consortium of most of the world’s countries’ national standards agencies. The committees that set the standards are primarily made up of representatives of industry. Hence, they are non-governmental and non-regulatory ... essentially industry self-help groups that normally serve to keep manufactured product standards uniform worldwide. A few years ago ISO ventured into the management arena with its ISO 9000 total quality management series of standards. These have become widely adopted as indicators of systematic quality manufacturing. Essentially, ISO 9000 requires a company to document how it does things in detail, to work to achieve continuous improvement, then to monitor (audit) itself to be sure it continues to do what it says it is doing. Companies usually hire third-party registrars and auditors to formalize certification and to enhance credibility. ISO 9000 has been widely adopted and is commonly thought to pay for itself in cost savings and often, to provide competitive advantage.

Because of the success of ISO 9000, industry felt that a similar cost-saving and competitively valuable effort could be made in dealing with environmental issues. ISO 14001, promulgated in 1996, was the result. ISO 14001 provides general direction for setting up an environmental management system (EMS) to identify and monitor an organization’s environmental aspects, head off problems, and plan responses for incidents. It is a common sense notion but, like ISO 9000, it can become complicated and expensive to implement and to achieve third-party certification. Nevertheless it is much in the minds of large multinational corporations, and many are becoming certified, at least in some of their operations. MacDonalds Inc., for example, has certified all of its restaurants in Finland; IBM is certified at the corporate level and is in the process of certifying all of its manufacturing facilities world wide; Johnson & Johnson has committed itself to certification at all of its facilities world wide; Bristol-Meyers Squibb is gradually certifying all its facilities; and so forth.

Details of the EMS itself are not specified in the standard; depending on the complexity of the organization, it can range from a few pages of instructions in a loose-leaf binder to a complex computerized system of documents available world-wide over the web. However it is formulated, though, it must include an environmental policy, a commitment to meeting all regulatory requirements, an accounting of significant environmental aspects and a systematic way to identify them, a way to discover failure to meet regulatory requirements, and what to do if such a failure occurs. It also requires periodic revisiting, usually including formal audits.

There are at least three quite different reasons why organizations become certified:

1. They are already using environmental management systems and it is not much trouble to become certified.
2. They foresee the need to establish an environmental management system, and ISO 14001 seems like a reasonable vehicle.
3. They believe some competitive advantage will accrue.

It is usually large corporations that fall into the first category. They have already had or foreseen enough environmental problems to know they need to manage their environmental matters formally. Most design their own EMS, and ISO 14001 is sufficiently open that most of these meet the requirements of the standard or can be modified to do so.

The latter two categories, particularly the need to formulate some kind of environmental management system, seem the most likely reasons in the near future. If there is a need for an environmental management system, why not develop it in accordance with ISO 14001 principles? ISO allows self-certification—no consultants are required. And if any competitive advantages are detected, third-party certification could follow at any time.

Are there any competitive advantages? Probably not yet. But in my view, ISO 14000 will become very visible in the next few years, and some larger firms will refuse to do business with any firm not certified. This may become particularly important in international trade. When enough firms become certified, there will be no reason to do business with uncertified ones, and restricting business to certified firms will become an easy way to garner environmental respectability. The degree to which this may occur in the agricultural sector, however, is completely unknown.

Thank you for the opportunity to share our experience with you today. It is my belief that the environment and various products treatment of the environment will become the key issue of the next century. I hope today to simplify and demystify Environmental Management Systems specifically ISO 14001.

ISO 14001 is an international environmental management system recognised in 54 countries and audited by independent organisations. There has been in New Zealand’s brief history a proliferation of quality marks and quality systems often created by the industries concerned. There is nothing wrong with creating your own quality system but to be effective in the international trading environment they must have international standing and recognition. What surprised our group – The Living Wine group (CJ Pask, and Vidals of Hakes Bay and Martinborough Vineyards and Palliser Estate of Martinborough) was not that we achieved the standard but that we were the first wineries in the world to achieve this standard. We were also the first to achieve the standard as a group.

Knowledge is generally recognised as power – ask any lawyer. In my experience those companies which share knowledge and have regular and free exchange of information and ideas are markedly more innovative, progressive and profitable than those that operate in isolation.

The four wineries involved are all small companies and we found the joint approach to accreditation reduced the costs of:

1. Consultancy fees
2. Certification
3. Auditing costs

The reduction in cost from the joint approach was significant.

More important than the significant savings was that the shared information (particularly of the different vineyard and winery practises) enabled us to speed up the process of accreditation considerably. Companies are naturally competitive and in the initial stages there was some resistance to the concept of shared information giving greater power. As the process developed what we discovered was that peer support drove us forward as a group. The collective knowledge and experience was a huge bonus.

Being the first wineries to meet ISO 14001 standard enabled us to create the standard within the parameters established by JAZ-ANZ. It is a process of continuous improvement and our peers within the group are our watchdogs as opposed to the auditors. Our manual will never be finished and we must remember that success is a journey not a destination. Peer pressure is a remarkable force. Imagine the feeling if Palliser Estate was the first winery in the group to fail to meet the standards.

1. Achieve a sustainable balance between business and environment.
1. Gain control over environmental or resource management issues.
• Internalise the cost of environmental management through adequate planning and effective implementation of environmental improvements.
• Reduce the effects of ‘non-commercial’ organisations, eg. Councils, NGO’s, on business sustainability, by increasing Program participant’s environmental understanding and environmental improvement outcomes.
2. Protect the value of the organisation’s assets, eg. productive capability.
3. Demonstrate corporate citizenship.
2. Contribute to the preservation of the local and global environment
3. Encourage other organisations and individuals to follow suite.

1. Time.
1. Requirements to complete proper review of business activities and implement solutions.
2. Existing time commitment of senior organisational staff. For example, a Winemaker is a process manager, process worker, staff manager, laboratory staff member, research co-ordinator, responsible for Health & Safety, Resource Management etc. In a small organisation staff cannot be job specific they must be prepared and able to do a range of tasks.
2. Cost
1. Staff time during set up and continuing operation. 21 days
2. Consultancy and external expertise.
3. Cost of monitoring and testing.
4. Ongoing certification costs (if required). $16-$18,000 over 3 years )$4-$6,000 per annum
3. Complexity of environmental issues.
4. Demands for action on other more pressing projects such as Food Safety.
5. Current consumer apathy/lack of understanding with regards environmental management.
6. Interference from external ‘non-commercial’ organisations.

1. Perform analysis of participant’s sites and activities, using a HACCP based approach.
2. Review existing local and national legislation.
3. Pick a limited number of activities from the HACCP/site analysis and outline environmental objectives and targets and set out improvement project timeframes, set out operational control methods, measures and emergency responses.
4. Set out system administration policies.

1. Implement the environmental management system
2. Achieve ISO 14001 certification.
3. Join current or form new environmental network.

1. Effective use of time.
1. The pre-set documentation requires less time to set up and implement, allowing more time to devote to increasing environmental outcomes.
2. Cost reduction
1. Staff time requirements. Last project, (Ata Rangi), required about 20 man-days by one staff member, to achieve ISO 14001 certification.
2. Consultancy and external expertise. Where possible consultancy is provided on a group basis in workshops. External expertise is provided in the scientifically based material.
3. Cost of monitoring and testing. Monitoring and test methods are generally low cost field measures using approved scientific methods (eg. USEPA approved Chemical Oxygen Demand methodology) or methods created for field measurement (eg. the Soil Science Society of America’s, ‘Methods for Assessing Soil Quality’). All monitoring and testing methods are backed up with pre-set records sheets and most are spreadsheet supported, for quick reporting.
4. Ongoing certification costs (if required). The LPEM Program participants are the only companies to achieve a JAS-ANZ accredited group ISO 14001 certification. Certification cost reduction for a 250-500 tonne winery is from approximately $16-18,000 over three years, to $4-6,000, over three years.
3. Complexity of environmental issues.
1. The material provided by the Program attempts to assist participant’s to address a wide range of environmental issues.
2. The network approach allows for the participating companies to develop a pool of understanding and experience, a living library of practical solutions to complex environmental issues.
4. Demands for action on other more pressing projects such as Food Safety.
1. Increasingly regulators are requiring companies to instigate risk management programs that relate to their specific activities, eg. Health & Safety & Food Safety. The Program’s HACCP based approach allows for the effective integration of environmental, food and health & safety systems.
5. Current consumer apathy.
1. The network approach allows for greater market awareness of participant’s environmental improvement activities, eg. ‘Living Wine’.

Maintain a register of significant environmental impacts
Gather information on current soil structure and ion/nutrient content
Record and control winery and other wastes
Reduce energy and material wastes
Reuse and recycle packaging materials
Conserve biological diversity, water resources & ecosystems
Maintain & improve quality of surface and ground water
Maintain and improve air quality
Promote sustainable methods of pest, disease and weed control
Maintain compliance with ISO 14001
Train and educate staff
Investigate the impact of our products on the environment
Comply with legal & statutory requirements

There is no argument that we all have a better understanding of our own company processes and the environmental consequences. In some instances the process has improved company structure with resulting cost efficiencies.

One of New Zealand’s greatest trading advantages is the purity of product found within these shores. Tony O’Reilly, Chairman of Heinz Corporation, has often referred to New Zealand as an environmental oasis. Virtually all industries refer to the clean green image of New Zealand. Our countries natural beauty is one of our greatest assets. But the reality is that we as individuals and collectively as a country have done little to protect the asset that we have been given. Imagine that instead of having 3.5 million people living here we had 60 million – it is my belief that instead of an environmental oasis we would have a rubbish dump.

Previously we have never measured power, chemicals and water (inside of 10 years water will become a scarce resource). We have made measured savings in each of these areas. Staff have become aware of the environment and how we can protect it by our inputs.

The wider community have benefited through the groups approach to waste. We are in the business of reducing pollution and preserving the environment. Wherever possible we will use recyclable bottles, packaging, labels and capsules.

The next generation do read the label as to what is in the product they are about to purchase.

Consumers worldwide are becoming rapidly aware of the environment and those companies or products who abuse it. Supermarket chains worldwide are becoming increasing stringent in assessing the products they will stock. Most companies follow or are reactive to standards imposed by their trading partners. We have attempted to lead rather than follow.

Through the group approach we can have a collective marketing approach. It will give us more strength in the market and a more interesting package to present to potential customers. It is not a matter of if but when the big international operators demand accreditation to ISO 14001 before they will consider purchasing your product. If any company is unable to trade internationally because they lack an environmental standard then the cost is huge. The potential value created by the Living Wine Group achieving ISO 14001 is considerable. The value created has far outnumbered the cost. We often look at cost in isolation without looking at the downstream value created.

The bottom up approach from the group meant that everyone had a strong sense of ownership.

Recent publicity from some rogue elements of the industry have highlighted the need for professional and transparent record keeping. The industry is moving rapidly to address the current lack of systems and put in place systems that can be enforced. The ultimate penalty will be that winemakers who abuse the systems will have their licence removed.

The wine industry approach to the environment has been through the IWGP scheme – it's designed to complement ISO 14001. It is an industry driven initiative. Currently the IWGP has 140 members in its first year of operation (slightly less than half the registered winemakers). It is designed to reduce the impact on the environment by achieving best practise across all processes both in the winery and vineyard. It is aimed to reduce for instance:

1. Soil compaction
2. Sward management
3. The vineyard environment
4. Regular and continued record keeping of diseases and pests
5. Measured inputs of chemicals

Contact:

A methodology has been developed which can be used to assess the environmental performance of a farm. The computer-based system, known as EMA, utilises a checklist auditing process based on both quantitative and qualitative data and looks, holistically, at the farm assessing a wide range of farming activities including crop production, crop protection, resource and waste management, livestock husbandry and conservation. The system relies on the use of eco-ratings which are activity based performance indices derived by comparing actual farm practices with what is perceived to be site specific best practice. The system utilises a similar approach to that used in standard environmental management systems, such as ISO14001, by providing a scale for performance measurement to allow monitoring of improvements and progress, and to permit performance highs and lows to be identified.

The system has recently under-gone piloting and evaluation in-house, on-farm and in collaboration with a major UK Retailer, Safeway Stores plc. This paper describes this process and presents the findings in the form of case studies. These include studies focusing on EMA’s ability to assess fertiliser, lime and pesticide usage, plus another study on animal husbandry. A brief description of the system is included for completeness.

The case studies reported show the scope and ability of the EMA software. Piloting and validation are still on-going with various organisations and farmers themselves. There has been no shortage of volunteers and the feed back process has helped to ensure that the software is simple to use, provides the type and level of information required and is not over demanding with respect to the input data required.

Authors note:
The EMA-2000 software is now in wide-spread use throughout the UK. It provides the benefits of assessment and monitoring that formal environmental management systems such as ISO140001 offer without the prescriptiveness. Its release is supported by a consortium of UK organisations including the pesticide and fertiliser industry and a major food retailer. As public good software it is priced at just £35 (approx. $50) which includes access to an Internet site for free updating.

The need for the agricultural industry to develop a sound environmental management system has become increasingly apparent over the last few decades, and has been emphasised by the problems at the moment within the UK cattle industry. There have been dramatic changes this century in terms of agricultural practices, numbers of farm workers, farm technology and the use of pesticides and fertilisers. Problems have been emerging of insect resistance to pesticides, eutrophication, partly caused by nitrate and phosphate losses, soil degradation, and loss of species diversity. Faced with these dilemmas, it is difficult for farmers to decide which actions to implement, there being a lack of simple diagnostic tools to evaluate the agronomic and environmental effects of agricultural practices.

Discussions are frequently found in the environmental press regarding the possible advantages to an organisation should they implement a formal environmental management system such as BS 7750, ISO 14001 or the EC Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS). It is also widely recognised that these formal systems, although theoretically applicable to all, are often seen by many organisations as being too unwieldy, too prescriptive, frequently too expensive and often too public.

However, there are many alternative options available to organisations which do not wish to commit themselves to a formal accredited system. This paper discusses the various options currently in use for informal environmental management in agriculture with particular reference to a computerised system being developed at the University of Hertfordshire. Application examples are taken from the agricultural industry.

This paper examines a number of different approaches including:

• Environmental Management Tools
• Environmental indicators
• Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) / Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA)
• COSHH
• Life cycle Assessment (LCA)
• Environmental Auditing.

It concludes that although the formal systems are theoretically applicable, they are rather unwieldy, too prescriptive, frequently too expensive and often too public but are useful in themselves as tools. EIA's are used widely and have been extended to cover certain agricultural practices. COSHH regulations allow control and monitoring of health and safety risks, which tend to also reduce environmental risks, for example, from operator exposure to pesticides. Similar benefits come from the use of ERA. Although LCA has been used by food producers, so far they have not been applied to any great extent in agriculture, and although individual applications can provide invaluable information, they do not provide an integrated approach. What is needed is an integrated approach covering all farm activities which needs to combined environmental auditing with environmental impact assessment or environmental indicators. This would allow assessment of current practices and prioritisation of areas in need of improvement, If carried out at field level and coupled with sound recording them not only would a process of review and monitoring be enabled but also product traceability to field level.

A computer-based informal environmental management system[1] for agriculture

This paper discusses a practical, computerised eco-management system for agriculture which has been developed at the University of Hertfordshire, UK for use by farmers and their advisers to encourage more sustainable practices. The research and software development has been funded by the UK’s Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Milk Development Council. The computerised system helps to measure environmental performance by evaluating an eco-rating that compares actual farm practices and site specific details with what is perceived to be the best practice for that site using an expert system together with scoring and ranking techniques. The eco-ratings system utilises a positive-negative scale to aid transparency and interpretation. In practical terms this means that undesirable and unsustainable activities will lead to negative eco-ratings. Activities which adhere to the principles of best practice and sustainable agriculture will lead to positive eco-ratings. The zero position may then be interpreted as representing an environmentally benign activity. In support of the assessment, the system incorporates modules to explore ’What-If’ scenarios and a hypertext information system. This paper describes the approaches and methodologies used to develop the eco-ratings and outlines the software which utilises these indices within a comprehensive decision-support framework.

[1] In press to Journal of Environmental Software.

M Bergström,[1] R Hellqvist[2] and M Ljung[3]

The implementation and use of quality and environmental management systems in Swedish agriculture has grown the last years. Today at least fourty-four Swedish farms are certified according to ISO 9002 and ISO 14001. In this paper we present a case study of the experiences made during implementation and use of these systems. The study reveals that there are many perceived benefits both from a managerial and environmental perspective. At the same time it is important not to confuse ‘good management practice’ with production under contracts. The paper emphasise the similarities between quality and environmental management systems and ‘good management practice’, and why these approaches in farm management are needed. Therefor we also analyse the potential for a broad implementation and use in Swedish agriculture, based on three different perspectives – a managerial, a communicative, and a systems perspective.

This ongoing research highlights the implementation and use of quality and environmental management systems in Swedish agriculture. In this paper three research questions are emphasised:

1. What are the experiences of Swedish farmers implementing and using quality and environmental management systems?
2. What are the relations between good management practice, standardised management systems, and contract production?
3. If society aim for a broad implementation and a widespread use of quality and environmental management systems within the Swedish farming community, what are the most important factors to pay attention to?

First some facts about Swedish agriculture. Sweden has 8.9 million inhabitants and up to 200.000 people is permanently or temporarily employed in agriculture. Only 36.000 of the total number of 85.000 farms in Sweden are so called full-time farms, i.e., one person is employed more than 1.800 hours a year (Statistics Sweden, 1999).

The total area of Sweden is app. 102 million acres (41.1 million hectare) from which app. 6.9 million acres (2.8 million hectare) are arable land. Most of the arable land (app. 65%) is used for production of green fodder and coarse grain to be used in the Swedish animal production. The most important crop for sale is winter wheat, which mainly is used as bread grain. The most important livestock are dairy cows and hogs. During 1998 there were app. 450.000 dairy cows and the total production of hogs were app. 2.2 million (Statistics Sweden, 1999).

Most of the products from the Swedish farms are purchased by the co-operatively farmer owned processing industries. During the latest years the total number of Swedish farms have decreased. The decrease is within farms of smaller or average size, e.g., 2.5-245 acres. The number of farms with 245 acres or more has increased, but still the arable land for an average farm is still app. 84 acres (Statistics Sweden, 1999).

Since January 1995 Sweden is a member of the European Union. The main differences, which strongly influence the development of Swedish agriculture, are the free European market and the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP). Because of the Swedish membership in the European Union the competition on the Swedish market has increased, but at the same time new opportunities to export Swedish food to other European countries have arised.

Farm certification (Gårdcertifiering^TM) is a tool for quality and environmental management developed for Swedish farming. The system integrates the two international standards ISO 9002 (quality assurance) and ISO 14001 (environmental management). The similarities of the two systems makes it easy to integrate them into one concept. Therefore farms can be certified simultaneously according to ISO 9002 and ISO 14001, something that of course is voluntarily. By February 2000 forty-four (44) Swedish farms were certified according to ISO 9002 and ISO 14001.

To begin with the farm managers have to put together relevant laws and regulations, existing contracts (agreed contracts with customers), and all other demands which directly or indirectly affect the farm and its business. Based on such a situational map, including an understanding of the impact that the farm has on the environment, the company develop guidelines for future actions – in this case a quality and environmental policy, long and short term goals, action plans. By following up the outcome and doing internal quality and environmental audits one gather important information that is analysed, evaluated, and used in the continual improvement process. The data is also used in the strategic decision making when revising quality and environmental policies, objectives, and targets. Further, the information is used in the operative decision making that leads to immediate improvements by revising the actionplan. This is illustrated with the thicker arrow in figure 1. The management process in Farm certification is summarised in figure 1.

The underlying principle is management by objectives, which means that the manager himself define the goals he wants to achieve. There is no prescribed level of compliance defined by the system itself, but existing laws and regulations are of course necessary to follow in order to be certified. In accordance with Farm certification the farmer commit himself to work with continuous improvements, thus when a quality or environmental goal is met it is time to set a new goal.

The Federation of Swedish Farmers (LRF) together with the two cooperatives Swedish Meats and Skåne Dairies started a project in 1997 called Swedish Farm Assured (SFA). A fourth stakeholder is Swegro (a vegetable retailer). The concept is built upon the idea that the production of food has to be certified all through the food-chain, from the farm to the processing industry, according to current international standards for quality and environmental management systems. The main purpose with the project is that products from certified farms will help the cooperative companies efforts on the international markets and to profile specific brands. In light of this concept the Federation of Swedish Farmers developed an integrated quality (ISO 9002) and environmental management system (ISO 14001) – Farm certification – to be used on farms. Initially there were 39 farms with different productions (hog, milk, and vegetables) participating in the project.

The experiences made and presented in this chapter are based on a master thesis ‘Small Business Management with an Quality and Environmental Management Approach’ (Bergström and Hellqvist, 1999).

In order to identify some basic differences between the farms in the study and their response to implementing and using Farm certification, the studied firms were divided into different categories (table 1). The investigated farms had different production orientation – milk production, hog production, or vegetable production, but they also differed when it comes to if and, if so, how many employees (beside the family) they had.

Table 1. Number of farms in respective production orientation and category.

Especially there seems to be some correlation between how many externally employed the farm has, and how the farm manager perceive some aspects of the new management approaches. We will elaborate these issues in the following.

The motives for implementing Farm certification differed among the farm managers. Almost every farmer had been asked by an adviser if they were interested in participating in a project aiming to certify their farm. A financial support were given to those who participated, covering the cost for formal certification procedures. Farms in category I and II perceived the financial support as a prerequisite for them to work towards a certification at all.

But there were other reasons for the high interest. Some farmers believed that it could be a way of differentiating their products, and as a potential consequence get higher payment for what they produced. Some believed that a certification would be demanded from customers in the future. Thus, they argued, it is better to start out early and be pro-active, instead of being forced into these systems. Only some of the farm managers, and only those with big farms, i.e. category III, hoped that a certified system and the process of using it would help them improve their management practices and formal, strategic planning.

A certified system put high and new demands on documentation, for instance written working routines, checklists, and goal-specifications. Most farmers perceived these demands as positive and had experienced benefits from working with them. When documenting, the managers felt that they gained more knowledge and control over what happened on their farm. Moreover, it would be easier for them to remember how they solved problems from one time to another.

By measuring environmental and quality performance, the manager were able to build a platform for future decisions. As such, documentation support the decision making process and decrease uncertainty. Also, the collected data and information is especially important for long term and strategic decisions.

But some managers were not all that positive. Some had difficulties in formulating what they experienced in a written and formalised form, for instance to write down what routines they used, which goals they had committed to, and how a policy should be formulated. In general, the farmers perceived it as problematic to really know what had to be documented, and in what detail.

An important part of the documentation is to write down the non-conformances that have occurred during the year. A non-conformance is by definition the difference between what is planned and what is achieved. The process of reporting non-conformances helps managers check and analyse problems that occur in the production system. As a consequence, preventive action can be taken.

Information about those environmental and quality goals that are not reached has to be reported, as well as all necessary corrective action taken in order to prevent the same non-conformances to occur again. Corrective and preventive actions, external reactions (complaints, but also praises) etc, have to be documented. At start, some managers felt that it was difficult to know exactly which non-conformances that ought to be reported or not.

The relation to the personal also changed. According to farm managers with employees, the relationships became more professional. Well defined and more accurate routines and job descriptions, created better guidelines, but this did not result in a stronger hierarchy between the employer and the employees. On the contrary, the farm managers perceived that this created more involvement and participation in the management process among all the employees. Two formal activities that support these statements, are the demands for regularly meetings with the personnel and the documentation of all measures and activities taken in the production.

Being certified you have to be aware of and in control of all business relations. It is about putting together all customer contracts, as well as relevant information about your suppliers. The managers valued both these aspects, and some real benefits had already come out of it. Some stakeholders, for instance local authorities, banks, and insurance companies, have responded positively to farms being certified (e.g., local authorities giving subsidies when carrying through their legal controls on farms). Colleagues, i.e., other farmers, were perceived to be more hesitant.

When working through all aspects of the business and its relations, most farm managers perceived that they got a better understanding of their farm as a system. They also had been able to improve the structural conditions. This was especially evident among farms with employees. Some farmers felt more self-confident, something that also characterised the feelings of many employees. As a result, the farm as a whole had higher status.

All farms had started out by doing an environmental review. When doing such a review the most important negative (and positive) environmental impacts were identified (impacts being the consequences caused by the analysed farm). For many farmers this were perceived as a hard task. Especially the valuation and comparison of different environmental problems were difficult, and thus the trade-offs between different impacts. The question were: What is really most important to start working with in order to minimise the negative environmental impact, while at the same time fulfil product quality demands, and being viable?

A certified company has to show that it fulfils existing environmental legislation, and also how this is done. For many farm managers, not being used to reading law and especially not environmental law, this is difficult. To understand the purpose behind a certain legislation or regulation is one thing, to be able to understand how it effects your own farm, and perhaps also use it in practice, is even harder.

Some managers had problem understanding how Farm certification were designed, and why. The different demands were hard to grasp, especially how they would effect your own farm. Thus, the time for implementation often becomes long. Using systems like these are in many ways something completely new and unfamiliar – a new way of doing things and getting used to a new terminology. Our believe is that a farm manager wanting to implement these systems should not rush, but let the learning and decision making process take its time.

The case study also shows that the time needed for a full implementation varies a lot between companies. Important factors seems to be the amount of external employees, the diversity of on-farm production systems, and how structured and well-managed the farm were at the outset. Many small farms, and especially part-time farmers, lack time and capital to participate in this often time-consuming and information-intensive process.

An auditing process, in order to be certified, costs app. 30.000 SEK (app. 3.500 USD). The certificate is valid for three years, on the premises that you will do a yearly audit. A yearly audit costs app. 10.000 SEK (app. 1.200 USD).

But there are of course other costs that have to be taken into account, for instance, the time spent on implementing and using the system, both for the manager and the employees. How much time that is spent differs a lot, but according to our studies one should count with at least 200 hours a farm. In addition, the farm manager also must pay attention to the costs for the soft ware Farm certification (Gårdcertifiering^TM) and advisory service.

These costs are too high for many farmers. The total cost correspond to two months salary for an average farm employee in Sweden. To many farmers two months labour is much more valuable then a farm certificate. Especially when the market signals still are weak.

In Swedish food production contract production is becoming more common. It means that the farmers production is connected to a contract, in which specific conditions and requirements on the product and the business are defined, e.g., special quality or environmental care, or produced for a specific customer. Our opinion is that contract production is here to stay and will be increasingly common in the future. In light of this development it is interesting to analyse how contract production will affect the management of the farm.

Our opinion is that there are some risks that certain aspects of 'good management practice' could be lost when a farm is connected to contracts (see the summary in table 2). Contract production implies that the initiative comes from the customer and not from the manager of the farm, and the farmer wait for the contract and the conditions and requirement defined by it. This means that the farm is going to be managed by the conditions and requirement that the customer has expressed in the contract, i.e., management by regulations. Even the farmers’ need of knowledge in different areas is controlled by the contract. The farmer becomes an executor and works in order to fulfil the demands in the contract. There is also a risk that the farmer do not notice the need to develop his business, i.e. find and take advantage of new opportunities. Instead, the farmer only value access to contracts. Another risk with contracted production is that all the actions on the farm, e.g., the allocation of resources, focuses on the fulfilment of the contract and thus there is a risk that the manager forget other important parts of the business. Further, the manager may tend not to observe the value of formal planning, why the manager do not develop his skills in this area. Because of the communication with only one customer the manager do not experience a strong need of having knowledge of what is going on in the world around the farm. Finally, there is a risk that the manager do not search any knowledge except the knowledge needed to fulfil the contract.

In this paper we define a manager that possesses a ‘good management practice’ as a manager that is in control of the farm and where the initiatives comes from the manager himself. Further, management by objectives and the managers supervision are fundamental elements of such a view. ‘Good management practice’ means that the farm manager has the ability to take advantage of different opportunities that occur in the surrounding world, on the market, and to solve problems in the business. Knowledge about the context is of great importance if one are to talk about ‘good management practice’. ‘Good management practice’ also concern the capacity to co-ordinate all of the conditions and requirements on the farm and its products, as well as all processes in the business, e.g., crop husbandry and animal production, and to allocate the resources in an optimal way between these different processes. Its about taking the right decision at the right time (see also Nitsch, 1990). Other vital factors in ‘good management practice’ are the ability to use formal planning and actively search for knowledge when a specific need occur.

An important remark is that contract production may, or even often ought to be included in ‘good management practice’. When a manager effectively work to fulfil a specific contract at the same time as he conducts and supervises the business as a whole, he is of course working in accordance with what we call ‘good management practice’.

When a farm use quality and environmental management systems according to ISO 9002 and ISO 14001 it implies that the farm has to have documented routines to check all the conditions and requirements on the business and its products, and the business’ impact on the environment. The farm manager shall formulate a quality and environmental policy, objectives and targets from the conditions and requirements, and the impact on the environment. From policy, objectives and targets an actionplan is created, where resources, deadlines, responsibilities and authorities are distributed and co-ordinated. The follow up of the outcomes and an internal quality and environmental audit adds information that is analysed and evaluated for the use in the work for continual improvements. Management by objectives and formal planning are thus fundamental elements in quality and environmental management systems.

We are of the opinion that the components in quality and environmental management systems stimulates ‘good management practice’. The use of quality and environmental management systems support the farm managers work with fulfilling different conditions and requirements, e.g., his personal aspirations, contracts and environmental legislation.

To summarise, the use of quality (ISO 9002) and environmental management (ISO 14001) systems on farms help managers to (see also Mogensen, J et al, 1996);

• get independent verification and thus gain credibility to their stakeholders,
• communicate values on a market,
• achieve better reputation in society,
• demand high environmental and quality performance down the supply chain,
• implement an approach which helps them reach their farm-specific and personal objectives,
• lower their costs due to a better utilisation of on-farm resources,
• use a systematic and business-like method for environmental work, and thus
• minimise the negative effects on the environment, and
• deliver high quality products.

A company that receives a certificate according to ISO 9002 and ISO 14001 show proof of competence and competitiveness which directly and indirectly will affect the employees, farm performance, as well as its overall image. Farm certification is thus also a potential to improve the popular perception of agriculture and farming, and raise its status in society at large.

It seems that the potential for a broad implementation of quality and environmental management systems in Swedish agriculture, depends on the economical and managerial benefits that (mainly) a certification will have. The external benefits could, for instance, be improved relations with stakeholders and customers, and new potentials on existing or new markets.

Even though the farmer does not perceive an external benefit, for instance, higher payment or access to new markets, it still could be interesting to implement these managerial approaches for many farmers as shown earlier. Farm certification help the farmer develop a farm-specific, reliable and usable management system and tool, thus improving the internal efficiency and performance. Improvements could thus be less use of energy and other resources, and a more efficient organisation that save money and time for the farmer. If the farm choose not to apply for certification, the benefits could still be attained, at the same time as the costs of certification are avoided. Using ‘good management practice’ ought to be valuable for every farmer in Sweden.

Saying this, it´s important to emphasise that if the farm will benefit or not from these management systems its crucial that the farm manager successfully adapt them to the specific conditions on the farm, and that they sooner or later become an integrated and natural part of the daily work and routines (a kind of habitualisation).

There are some powerful actors on the Swedish scene that wants a broad and quick implementation of these systems. We have shown that there certainly are some important benefits for Swedish farmers, as well as the environment. But in order to successfully implement these management practices, while at the same time appreciating a democratic process and disconnecting the concept from contract farming, with its programmatic approach, we believe that one has to work with a broad strategy and in many respect communicatively grounded process. The success of quality and environmental management systems, such as ISO 9002 and ISO 14001, will, in both environmental, social and economical respect, depend upon an integrated, comprehensive approach to implementation. Therefore, a successful implementation will hinge on the degree of comprehensiveness to which both the biophysical and socio-cultural systems affected by this policy are considered.

From a communicative perspective one has to start from the point of view of the farm manager. A farm manager has many different roles, for instance, working with external contacts and relations, internal leadership, and internal and strategic information management.

Working successfully with external contacts and relations are important if the farmer is to implement a certifiable management system. Of course he has to be aware of the potentials, but more so, the farmer has to be able to define and describe the environmental and quality performance on his farm, as well as all demands that external actors put on him. Nothing of this could be done with less than that he is aware of what is happening in the world around him. Also, in order to formulate a policy that enables him to be competitive he has to understand today’s and tomorrow’s market situation, ongoing and new trends, and what potentials there are to meet different consumer needs. Finally he ought to be interested in documenting and reporting what he actually does, and what he has achieved, either through relational marketing or advertising. All together, this role of the manager (farmer) show the need of good external contacts, with advisers, customers, and many, many more. If we are to succeed with a broad implementation and use in Swedish agriculture, we thus have to support the farmer in building and facilitating these contacts. The relevant information that the farmer need has to be accessible.

Being successful in ones internal leadership is neither that easy. It is often said that one is born a leader. Even though this perhaps is not all true, it is of course hard to change the style you have developed over the years as a manager. Therefore, it is necessary to support the farmers with educational opportunities and training in leadership and group dynamics.

Finally, being an information manager is for many something completely new. What many farm managers need are tools for gathering, systematising, and reporting the data collected. There seems to be a great need for developing such tools (soft wares), and also help farmers in the practice of using them effectively.

With the right support we believe that many Swedish farmers will be interested in and find it very helpful starting to work with formalised management systems, like ISO 9002 and ISO 14001.

Doing research in the field, its important to have a critical approach to the ongoing development, and thus also the idea of a broad implementation and use. By using a critical systems approach (Flood, 1999) we are able to better understand what structural preconditions that exists, as well as potential effects within the farming system. Sometimes the Swedish discussion about quality and environmental management systems is somewhat naive, in that one believe that the implementation process and use (especially in combination with production contracts) is unproblematic.

We believe that one can already identify adjustments to the new situation in the Swedish farming system (see also Ljung, 1998). First of all there seems to be a risk for a ‘big farm’ bias which would contribute to the perpetuation of socio-economic inequality within the farming sector. It is the fully commercialised farms that adapt to the expected and supported behaviour. Secondly, the implementation of certifiable management systems on farms can also result in infra-structural changes on regional level, with negative environmental and social effects.

We conclude that some potential negative effects and bottlenecks are:

• Standardised management systems combined with contract production is perhaps the most clear-cut case of conflict with the autonomy of the farmers decision-making process. The system must therefore be developed in a way that enables a managerial freedom of farmers to continue.
• Managerial demands from external actors threatens the individual process of skills versatility, and thus threatens the diversity in farming community.
• For many farmers today the threat is not ‘only’ viability or less profit, the problem is to get access to contracts, e.g. to get access to the ‘market’. It seems to be the big, fully commercialised farms that once again are the winners.
• Any system of regulation, even a standardised management system, depends on the ready compliance of the majority of the regulated if the system is to function smoothly. Paradoxically there is a need for a broad implementation, but in a short time. This could result in conflictual transformation process.
• Finally, the potential negative effects are presumed to arise on another systems level then the farm level. The possibility of infra-structural changes in Swedish agriculture could have negative environmental and socio-economic effects. If the ongoing structural changes continue, where marginal, small farms are forced out of business, the effect on landscape and biological diversity will be immense. Quality and environmental management system, applied on single farms will not help, but instead risk to enhance such a restructuring process.

Demographic factors, poor farm viability, a lack of interest from younger generations to continue farming etc, are perhaps the most important reasons for rapid structural changes in Swedish agriculture today, but the emerging trend described in this paper will probably in the short run enhance these changes. Thus, the overall aims with the implementation and use of certifiable management systems in Swedish agriculture will perhaps not be fulfilled. If only a limited number of farmers will gain from this development, the farming community as a whole and the environment will not be better of.

But applying a systems perspective one also can identify many potentially positive effects. As has been shown, there are a lot of favours and opportunities connected with the use of quality and environmental management systems on farms. They help farmers to manage their environmental work. In fact, one can already identify some positive effects. More filter strips, better energy-balances, and more nitrogen and phosphorus in circulation within the farm boundaries at the participating farms. ‘What gets measured, gets done’, and if the farmer has better knowledge about the resources used and the effect of different practices he or she is also able to improve the situation. It is clear that ‘good management practices’ improve the economic results of the farmer through better utilisation of resources like nutrients, chemicals, medicine, energy, water etc. Sometimes a simile is used which says that ‘the modern farmer use less physical resources, but exchange it with knowledge’.

One strong argument for using these systems on Swedish farms, on a broader scale, is that it reduces immediate risk (risk of environmental damage), future risk (new legislation, economic incentives and consumer trends) and makes it possible to get access to new or changing markets. A formalised management system can be a workable way for the farmers to change their production methods and thus to become more environmentally friendly.

Certifiable management systems are information-intensive, mainly due to all data gathering, documentation, and analysis. Herein lies a great potential: Farms will, if gathering relevant data, be able to develop production systems that uses methods that meets the demand of a sustainable farming system, e.g., an agro-ecosystems centred and integrated with a variety of local, natural biotic communities, as well as specific markets. This would definitely be a great step toward a sustainable agriculture.

But to conclude our critical analysis: When analysing the gains from ISO certification in the UK meat sector Zaibet and Bredahl (1997, p 383) concluded that "ISO certification could become a common business practice and a de facto conditions in doing business in the UK meat industry". This could be the case in Sweden also, and if such management systems are to become delivery-standards for farmers, it will certainly have big impact on the farming community. These changes have to be discussed by policy-makers as well as researchers.

As many others, we believe that these systems will have a compounding impact on Swedish agriculture and the farming community. The components in quality and environmental management systems stimulates ‘good management practice’, and enhance the development of a more environmentally friendly agriculture. The use of quality and environmental management systems support the farm managers work with fulfilling different conditions and requirements, from his most personal aspirations to the environmental legislation.

If a broad implementation and use is to be achieved some core problems have to be managed successfully. The transformation of management practices takes time, costs money, and is dependent on a high quality advisory service. But this is not enough. There is also a need for the development of new methods and approaches to implementation, where the context-specific knowledge and experiences of the farm manager are valued and taken into account. To us, what is crucial is that the broad implementation is achieved in such a process that the quality and environmental management systems are perceived and applied by the farmers in way that develops their ability for ‘good management practice’. If so, ISO 9002 and ISO 14001, is a very welcomed contribution to Swedish agriculture.

Bergström, M and R Hellqvist. 1999. Small Business Management with an Quality and Environmental Management Approach. Master thesis no 206 at the Department of Economy, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Uppsala: SLU. In Swedish.

Flood, R. 1999. Rethinking The Fifth Discipline: Learning Within the Unknowable. London: Routledge.

Ljung, M. 1998. Farmer Participation in Development of Environmental Management Systems in Swedish Agriculture. Paper presented at the 15^th International Symposium of the Association for Farming Systems Research-Extension, November 29^th – December 4^th. Pretoria, South Africa.

Mogensen, J et al. 1996. ISO 9002: Quality management at farm level. In Siardos, G and S Androulidakis (Eds.). Extension at the Cross-roads. Proceedings from the 12th ESEE seminar in Thessaloniki, Greece the August 28^th – September 2^nd. Thessaloniki, Greece.

Nitsch, U. 1990. Farmers and computers. In B Göranzon and M Florin (Eds.). Artificial Intelligence, Culture and Language: On Education and Work. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

Statistics Sweden, 1999. Yearbook of Agricultural Statistics. Official Statistics of Sweden. Stockholm: SCB. In Swedish.

Zaibet, L and M Bredahl. 1997. Gains from ISO certification in the UK meat sector. In Agribusiness, 13:4, pp 375-384.