geoforum volume 40 issue 2 2009 [doi 10.1016%2fj.geoforum.2008.12.007] geoff a. wilson -- the...

8/10/2019 Geoforum Volume 40 Issue 2 2009 [Doi 10.1016%2Fj.geoforum.2008.12.007] Geoff a. Wilson -- The Spatiality of

1/12

The spatiality of multifunctional agriculture: A human geography perspective

Geoff A. Wilson

School of Geography, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 27 March 2007

Received in revised form 24 November 2008

Keywords:

Multifunctional agriculture

Geography of multifunctionality

Non-productivism

Multifunctional scales

Nested hierarchies

Gobal-level multifunctionality

a b s t r a c t

Based on reconceptualisations of multifunctional agriculture as a normative spectrum of decision-making

(strong to weak multifunctionality) bounded by productivist and non-productivist action and thought

[Hollander, G.M., 2004. Agricultural trade liberalization, multifunctionality, and sugar in the south Florida

landscape. Geoforum 35, 299312; Holmes, J., 2006. Impulses towards a multifunctional transition in

rural Australia: gaps in the research agenda. Journal of Rural Studies 22, 142160; Wilson, G.A., 2007.

Multifunctional Agriculture: A Transition Theory Perspective. CAB International, Wallingford], this paper

argues that there is currently insufficient research into the geography of multifunctionality. Building on

current human geography debates about issues of scale, the paper suggests that we should conceive of

multifunctionality as a spatially complex nested hierarchy comprising different interlinked layers of

multifunctional decision-making ranging from the farm level to the national and global levels. It suggests

that the notion of multifunctional agriculture only makes sense if it is applied at the farm level as the

most important spatial scale for the implementation of multifunctional action on the ground. Multifunc-

tionality can be interpreted as having direct expression only at the lower geographical scales (i.e. farm,

community and regional levels in particular) while the regional, national and global levels show indirect

expressions of multifunctionality that are mediated by local level actors in order to find tangible expres-

sion on the ground. The notion of global-level multifunctionality is the most challenging, as this level

lacks political and ideological coherence about the required directions necessary for implementation of

strong multifunctionality pathways. The paper concludes by arguing that much work still awaits those

investigating the spatiality of multifunctionality, in particular with regard to the question whether glo-bal-level strong multifunctionality is possible, or whether strong multifunctionality in one territory is

predicated on weak multifunctionality in others.

2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Spatial issues and the reconceptualisation of

multifunctionality

The last two decades have seen some of the most interesting

and challenging theoretical debates about the nature, changes

and future trajectories of agricultural and rural systems from a

variety of economic, social, political and environmental stances.

Some commentators have argued that we are witnessing the end

of conventional agriculture that had, as its sole purpose, produc-tivist food and fibre production (Marsden, 2003). It is suggested

that a new multifunctional agricultural regime may be emerging

that has much wider purposes, including the production of nature

and new spaces for leisure.

Since the late 1980s, the notion of multifunctional agriculture1

has been used in a variety of contexts. AsHollander (2004)empha-

sised, the notion of multifunctional agriculture was already implicitly

apparent in official policy documents of the late 1980s, reflecting a

range of issues from political legitimation of the EU farm subsidy

model, changes in the development pathways of agriculture and rur-

al areas, and changes in societal views about what agriculture

should be about. In 1988 the Commission of the European Commu-

nities in its publication The future of rural society highlighted the

multiple contributions that agriculture could make to economic

development, environmental management, and the viability of rural

communities (CEC, 1988). One of the first applications of the notionof multifunctional agriculture, meanwhile, can be traced back to the

Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, where Article 14 of Agenda

21 stated that agricultural policies should take into account the

multifunctional character of agriculture (Belletti et al., 2003). The

term multifunctional agriculture was officially used for the first

time in 1993 by the European Council for Agricultural Law in an ef-

fort to harmonise agricultural legislation across Europe and to pro-

vide a legal basis for sustainable agriculture.

Multifunctionality has been approached from various stances

including policy-based approaches that see policy as a key driver

for multifunctionality (e.g.Hollander, 2004; Potter and Tilzey, 2005),

economistic approaches that focus on commodities generated by

0016-7185/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.12.007

E-mail address:[email protected] Multifunctional agriculture is used here to describe a process that provides

multiple functions, including food and fibre production, environmental health, and

social capital (Holmes, 2006; Wilson, 2007).

Geoforum 40 (2009) 269280

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geoforum

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / g e o f o r u m
mailto:[email protected]://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00167185http://www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforumhttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforumhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00167185mailto:[email protected]


2/12

modern agriculture and associated externality problems (e.g.Dur-

and and van Huylenbroek, 2003), and more holistic approaches

that also incorporate the strengthening of social capital as a key

component (e.g.Clark, 2005). There have been many critics of the

relatively structuralist policy-based and economistic interpreta-

tions of multifunctionality (e.g.Holmes, 2002; Wilson, 2007). This

is particularly reflected in recent calls for a more normative evalu-

ation of multifunctionality that suggests that multifunctionalityshould not only be seen as a mere concept describing agricultural

change (and as a term appropriated by European policy-makers to

defend the European farm subsidy culture), but as a normative pro-

cess explaining what is happening on the ground (e.g. Holmes,

2006). This normative view of multifunctionality provides a con-

ceptual framework that argues that transitions are often character-

ised by non-linearity, heterogeneity, complexity and inconsistency

(Wilson, 2007). AsFig. 1suggests, several authors have argued that

agricultural transitional pathways should, therefore, be conceptua-

lised as a multifunctional spectrum (e.g.Hollander, 2004; Holmes,

2006) bounded by productivist and non-productivist action and

thought (Wilson, 2008a).

This normative view enables conceptualisation of weak, moder-

ate and strong multifunctionality pathways at various actor scales

(seeFig. 1). As I have argued in detail elsewhere ( Wilson, 2007),

strong multifunctionality is characterised by strong social, eco-

nomic, cultural, moral and environmental capital, where high envi-

ronmental sustainability plays a key role, as does the focus on

agro-food chains that reduce the need for long-distance food trans-

port. Strongly multifunctional systems will also display low farm-

ing intensity and productivity, in most cases characterised by a

reluctance to use Green Revolution or genetically modified crops.

Environmental sustainability is, therefore, a key ingredient of

strongly multifunctional systems, but it needs to be emphasised

that it is only one of many characteristics of strong multifunction-

ality i.e. environmentally sustainable farming systems are not

necessarily strongly multifunctional per se. In addition, actors in

the strongly multifunctional agricultural regime show strong ten-

dencies for local and regional embeddedness, and strongly multi-functional systems will also be characterised by high(er) food

quality associated with more differentiated food demand and

enlightened visions about food and health. There will also be a

revaluation of existing farm household knowledge, and a greater

likelihood for farms to embark on diversification pathways that

lead to reduced farm activity.

Strong multifunctionality should be seen as the best type of

multifunctionality or, indeed, the type of multifunctionality with

the bestquality and weakly multifunctional agricultural systems

should be moved towards strong multifunctionality with the help

of policy and/or changing actor behaviour (Wilson, 2008a). Not

only is strong multifunctionality predicated on ensuring the pro-tection of the environment, healthy farming and rural communi-

ties, but it can also be seen as the most moral system.

Intuitively, there is something good about strong multifunctional-

ity, as most of its dimensions resonate positively with what pro-

ducers, rural stakeholders and wider society would see as the

optimum type of agricultural regime. This means that, in the long

term, economic efficiency and survival of farming systems may be

predicatedon development or maintenance of strong multifunc-

tionality pathways.

However, there is still much confusion in the literature about

both the constituents of multifunctionality and the geographical

processes associated with making agricultural pathways more

multifunctional (Wilson, 2008a). Thus, in line with Knickel and

Renting (2000), I argue that for multifunctionality to become more

than a mere conceptual issue with potentially limited applicability

on the ground, we need to know in more detail the nature and geo-

graphical scale of this ground. From a human geography perspec-

tive in particular, multifunctionality should ultimately be aboutterritorial expression, as different actors and stakeholder groups at-

tempt to impose their specific multifunctional strategies within

specificspatial contexts. In other words, multifunctionality should

have tangible expression rooted in specific localities, in the farmed

landscape, and in what has increasingly been termed multi-level

governance structures that permeate various scales of decision-

making (Brenner, 2001).

Building on this normative view of multifunctionality, the aim

of this paper is to investigate in detail the spatial implications of

the multifunctionality spectrum. As various human geographers

have emphasised, questions about the geography of multifunc-tionality assume particular importance if we consider the hitherto

relatively narrow debate based on instrumentalist notions of mul-

tifunctionality as a policy concept (geographically largely relegated

to the European policy model of multifunctionality) with virtually

Fig. 1. Farm development pathways and the multifunctionality spectrum (Source: author; after Holmes, 2006; Wilson, 2007).

270 G.A. Wilson / Geoforum 40 (2009) 269280


3/12

no relevance to the non-European context (Cocklin et al., 2006).

This paper should be seen, therefore, as an extension to human

geography debates on the spatiality of multifunctional agricultural

processes.

2. Situating debates on multifunctionality within spatial

enquiries in geography

Many commentators have emphasised the importance of spa-

tial scale issues in human geography and cognate disciplines (e.g.

Marston et al., 2005). This has been equally important in conceptu-

alisations of multifunctionality as a geographically conditioned

process (Holmes, 2006).Peterson et al. (2002: p. 441), for example,

argued that because of the spatial diversity of the agricultural

landscape, some have advanced the notion that many policies

aimed at addressing the multifunctional nature of agriculture must

be administered at sub-national, regional or local levels. This was

reiterated byBryden (2005: p. 8)who emphasised that there is a

continuing debate on the relationship between multifunctionality

and territorial development in rural areas. Although there is a long

lineage of thought on the spatial hierarchies in agriculture going

back to the early 1990s (e.g. Munton et al., 1990; Whatmore

et al., 1990; Marsden et al., 1993; Whatmore, 1995), none of the

debates on multifunctionality have yet shed sufficient light on

how the notion of multifunctionality can be approached as a geo-

graphical process with potential global repercussions for agricul-

tural and non-agricultural actors.

It is here that human geographers, with their various disciplin-

ary inter-linkages, are situated in an ideal position, as the lens of

human geography possibly more than any other social science

discipline provides an ideal platform from which to re-evaluate

current thinking on the spatiality of multifunctional agriculture.

Indeed, human geographers have highlighted that the social rela-

tions which constitute space are not necessarily organised into

scales so much as into constellations of temporary coherences (e.g.

Thrift, 1999; Massey, 2001). These coherences are set within a so-cial space which is the product of relations and interconnections

from the local to the global. Conceptualisations of agricultural mul-

tifunctionality should, therefore, be closely intertwined with issues

of scale the geography of multifunctionality and we need to

know to which specific spatial territories the normative notions

of weak, moderate and strong multifunctionality pathways apply.

However, there continues to be confusion about scale-related is-

sues, with some authors suggesting conceptualisations of multi-

functionality at the smallest geographical scale (e.g. individual

field level;Rapey et al., 2004; Winter and Morris, 2004), while oth-

ers have focused on the global level (e.g. Potter and Burney, 2002).

Recent interventions about human geography without scale

(Marston et al., 2005), reflections on the scale debate in human

geography (Jonas, 2006), and the spatialities of contentious humanprocesses (Leitner et al., 2008), have highlighted both the complex

nature and importance of scale in contemporary debates. Criticis-

ing the predominance of hierarchical conceptions of scale,Marston

et al. (2005) even suggest abandoning the concept of scale alto-

gether. On the other hand, many argue that scale continues to have

an ontological hierarchical and nested structure which exists and

is important in the real world (e.g. Brenner, 2001). Critics of the

conception of space as a nested hierarchy have argued that hori-

zontal spatial relations are equally important, especially with re-

gard to highly differentiated actor networks (e.g. Leitner et al.,

2008). Nonetheless, authors have also continued to suggest that

the social ... transformation of the world is inserted in a series

of scalar spatialities (Swyngedouw, 2004: p. 19). Jonas (2006: p.

399), in particular, argued that to reject scale altogether wouldbe to miss out on an important dimension of thinking about and

acting upon contemporary economic, political, social and environ-

mental change. I agree with this latter argument, especially with

Jonas suggestion that important causal processes operate in a sca-

lar dimension of multiple scales, and that viewing human decision-

making asenmeshed in scalar nested hierarchies is a way of con-

ceptualising complex processes of change that occur around mul-

tiple sites and scales, and in ever-changing spatial, temporal and

scalar settings (Jonas, 2006: p. 400).Thus, while acknowledgingSmiths (1992)earlier caution about

scalar hierarchies as socially constructed and problematic entities,

in this study I will side with the hierarchy theory argument of ver-

tical scalar relations based on nested hierarchies, in which multi-

layered actor spaces are seen to shape possibilities at the local

scale2 (Brenner, 2001; Jonas, 2006). This suggests that vertical scalar

issues continue to be important in any understanding of rural geog-

raphy processes as a whole, and agricultural multifunctionality path-

ways more specifically. I base this argument on three key

assumptions about the functioning of agricultural spaces. First, agri-

cultural actors continue to be a relatively coherent actor group

operating predominantly at the local level. Second, most agricultural

processes are strongly rooted in a specific locality based on their

dependence on a geographically well defined land base of produc-

tion (i.e. the farm as the spatial decision-making unit). This pre-de-

fines the local level as an important scale for any investigation of

agricultural processes. Third, agricultural actors, especially the more

than one billion subsistence farmers in the developing world, are the

stakeholder group most affected by top-down decision-making

structures that affect local decision-making processes on the ground

(e.g. through national/international neo-liberal policies or national/

international consumer demand) (Potter and Tilzey, 2005). This

highlights that we need to better understand the complex spatial

interactions between different multifunctionality processes.

3. The geography of multifunctionality

3.1. The nested hierarchy of multifunctional processes

Fig. 2 shows the multiple spatial scales of multifunctionality

based on the concept of a multifunctionality spectrum bounded

by productivist and non-productivist action and thought, ranging

from the farm level, to the rural community, regional, national

and global level. These scales should be seen as constellations of

temporary coherences with relatively open boundaries (Massey,

2001) rather than fixed entities in space and time.

The figure highlights several spatial issues. First, and building

onBrenners (2001)scalar structuration and the assumption that

scale exists as an ontological structure, the spatiality of multifunc-

tionality can be seen as anested hierarchyin which individual spa-

tial components of multifunctionality interact with each other,

resulting in implementation of manifold multifunctionality actions

at the local level. This nested hierarchy is predicated on theassumption that there is a relationship between levels with hierar-

chical relations among vertically differentiated spatial units. These

different levels show spatial overlap (e.g. farm/rural community le-

vel), suggesting a concept of scale as a nested hierarchy of differ-

entially sized and bounded spaces (Marston et al., 2005: p. 417).

Each of the scales will show spatially differential adoption of mul-

tifunctional pathways. Indeed, Brenner (2001: pp. 605606) sug-

gested that scales evolve relationally within tangled hierarchies

and dispersed interscalar networks ... Each geographical scale is

constituted through its historically evolving positionality within

2 AsJones (1998) and Brenner (2001)highlighted, and as discussed further below, a

framework based on vertical nested hierarchies does not negate the existence and

importance of horizontally embedded spatial processes, as amply illustrated inClarks(2005, 2006)regional analysis of multifunctional actor spaces.

G.A. Wilson / Geoforum 40 (2009) 269280 271


4/12

a larger relations grid of vertically stretched and horizontally dis-

persed sociospatial processes, relations and interdependencies.

Second, as we move away from the local level (farm level)

where multifunctionality finds moredirectexpression through tan-

gible actions on the ground multifunctionality is expressed more

indirectly(e.g. at national level). Intermediate levels (e.g. regional),

therefore, act as filters for top-down multifunctionality policies/

ideas/decision-making for implementation of multifunctional pro-

cesses on the ground (cf. Storper, 1997).

Third, while nested hierarchies of multifunctionality up to and

including the nation state level are relatively straightforward to

conceptualise, the link between national-level and global-level

multifunctionality is more complex. The reason for this is largely

related to the geographical scales of national/global policy-making.

As Wilson and Bryant (1997) argued, while the nation state still

provides the main geographical framework within which most pol-

icies that affect farmer decision-making on the ground are formu-

lated and implemented, global level policies are (still) mediated

by nation states to suit their own needs (e.g. different implementa-

tion of European Union [EU] agri-environmental policies by mem-

ber states; cf. Buller et al., 2000). The discussion below willhighlight that this global/national policy mediation and scalar

power geometries, makes it more difficult to situate the influence

of the global on local multifunctional action and thought.

3.2. The spatial levels of multifunctionality

3.2.1. Farm level multifunctionality

EchoingMarston et al. (2005: p. 419)who argued that focus on

the local [can act] as an entry point to understanding broader

processes, I argue that the farm level3 has to be thesmallest spatial

unitfor the implementation of multifunctional decision-making pro-

cesses such as diversification, intensification or environmental con-

servation. I, therefore, agree with Knickel and Renting (2000) and

Winter (2005)that multifunctionality should be seen as a land-based

concept in which the notion of multifunctionality applies to a speci-

fied unit of land (i.e. the farm). Similarly, Buller (2005: p. 2) high-

lighted that most policies seeking to promote multifunctionality

. . .focus predominantly upon the farm. Applying multifunctionality

to a smaller scale (e.g. individual fields within a farm; cf. Rapey et al.,2004) would be relatively meaningless, as the smallest common

denominator for multifunctionality pathways has to be the level of

the decision-making unit in other words, the farm. Whatmore

et al. (1990)already emphasised the importance of the production

unit of the farm as the basic scale, as most payments and subsidies

to farmers remain tied to the farm territory.

Indeed, productivist and non-productivist spaces can lie in close

vicinity within one farm, but as multifunctionality is about the

totality of decision-making processes bounded by productivist

and non-productivist action and thought, picking out individual

spatial subsets of a farm unit (e.g. a field) may result in compart-

mentalised multifunctionality that may give a distorted picture of

wider farm level multifunctionality pathways. A farmer may apply

specific farming strategies to one part of the farm that may be close

tonon-productivistaction and thought (e.g. withdrawing food and

fibre production on one upland field for conservation and biodiver-

sity preservation), while on other parts s/he may apply productivist

strategies (e.g. maximising food and fibre production on highly

productive soils with maximum agro-chemical inputs) (Wilson

and Hart, 2001). In other words, farm level multifunctionality is

not only about expression of the physical basis of food and fibre

production, but also about unravelling actions and thoughts of the

decision-maker for that space the farmer. Multifunctionality,

therefore, has to be about the link between human decision-making

and spatial expression of these decisions on the ground. Farmers

and farm households will adopt productivist or non-productivist

pathways, depending on factors exogenous to the farm level, but

also based on endogenous factors such as farmer attitudes, ideolo-

gies and identities (Burton, 2004; Burton and Wilson, 2006). Usingthe farm scale as the smallest common denominator allows the

bringing together of multiple compartmentalised multifunctional-

ity actions, providing a more complete picture of multifunctional-

ity quality on the wholefarm.

One farmer may not be the only decision-maker, and ownership

patterns may range from single owners, to family trusts in which

multiple farm household members (e.g. father and daughters)

make joint decisions, to complex ownership arrangements com-

prising shareholding companies and multiple farm owners. Fur-

ther, many farms are farmed by tenants or farm managers who

do not have ownership of the land, and where multifunctional

decision-making pathways may be based on a wide spectrum of

decision-making constraints and opportunities, ranging from com-

plete control by the landlord to (almost) complete control by thetenant. Thus, it is often difficult to disentangle the work of one

farmer from another. In particular, aspects of the farm that contrib-

ute to productivity such as soil structure and fertility and field con-

ditions . . . are not necessarily laid down by a single . . . farmer

(Burton, 2004: p. 206). Yet, complex ownership (even over longer

time scales) still means that the farm should be the smallest unit

for conceptualising multifunctionality strategies. While in many

parts of the world farm ownership patterns have changed consid-

erably over the past few decades towards a more corporate agri-

business model (Marsden, 2003), the notion of a clearly definable

farm property, with a distinctive and mappable boundary, has not.

3.2.2. Multifunctionality at rural community level

The second level inFig. 2concerns rural community level mul-tifunctionality. Van der Ploeg and Roep (2003: p. 50)emphasised

Fig. 2. Spatial scales and the nested hierarchies of multifunctionality (Source:

author; afterClark, 2003, 2005; Wilson, 2007).

3 The farm level contains any areas within the boundaries of a farm (either in oneblock or comprised of several units not necessarily in close vicinity to each other).



5/12

the re-emergence of the community as key in multifunctionality

concepts, while Belletti et al. (2003: p. 68) highlighted that the

collective level is very important in any analysis of multifunction-

ality. . . [as] multifunctional farm outcomes also have positive ef-

fects outside the farm referred to as the multifunctional local

system. Achieving strong multifunctionality at rural community

level is predicated on the need to achieve critical mass to build

up and sustain a multifunctional reputation for the area to exter-nal consumers (e.g. tourists), the possibility to gain from scale

economies in providing multifunctional connections between the

local system, markets and public institutions; and scope for the

successful joining of multifunctional elements in the local area.

Adoption of strongly multifunctional pathways is, therefore, not

only predicated on reinforcement of on-farm activities, but also on

synergies between these reproductive strategies and the impera-

tives of local or community-based territorial development more

generally a process referred to as the new associationalism be-

tween farmers and their community (Marsden et al., 2002). This

can be interpreted as the vehicle to transform the public goods

created by farming and agriculture into human welfare at the com-

munity level (Bryden, 2005). Thus, agricultural businesses need to

create and maintain new associations with a whole range of exter-

nal actors and institutions. . .

[by] constructing and optimising new

social networks [with] those involved at different points in the var-

ious supply chains, and those significant regional and local actors

who are able to facilitate [multifunctional] economies (Marsden

et al., 2002: pp. 814816).Belletti et al. (2003)even suggested that

the rural community level is the essential dimensionfor the imple-

mentation of multifunctionality, since a large number of functions

connected to agriculture require a territorial concentration of ac-

tions and networks (economies of scale) that may not have suffi-

cient weight at farm level.

Not all ingredients for successful rural community level multi-

functionality will always be in place. That potential for rural com-

munity level multifunctionality is often based on tourism

development is a particularly contentious issue, as not all farm

areas are suitable for attracting tourists (Clark, 2003). Nonetheless,

Vanslembrouck and van Huylenbroek (2003)showed that extensi-

fication of agriculture as part of strong multifunctionality trajec-

tories can have a positive influence on attracting tourists.

Establishing strongly multifunctional pathways at the rural com-

munity level can, therefore, act as a reinforcing mechanism for

increasing the potential for further multifunctional options

through increased tourism opportunities. It is, therefore, at the rur-al community level that the distinction between agricultural andrural multifunctionality is particularly important (Fig. 3). While

agricultural multifunctionality strategies at the rural community

level will be largely concerned with issues surrounding environ-

mental sustainability, farming intensity and productivity, the level

of integration of farms into the global capitalist market, and diver-

sification activities,rural multifunctionality issues will be focused

on local embeddedness between agricultural and rural actors (so-

cial capital). The nature, extent and durability of these agricul-

ture-community relationships will depend on weak or strong

multifunctionality pathways adopted by the community as a

whole (Belletti et al., 2003).

Landscape protection and environmental sustainability as key

ingredients of the multifunctional agricultural regime will play a

particularly important role at the rural community level. Strong

multifunctionality pathways are more likely in areas where an

integrated and holistic vision exists that helps farmers look beyond

their own farm boundaries, and that recognises that the choice of

individual multifunctionality pathways also has repercussions for

the rural community as a whole. Here, leadership offered by indi-

viduals in the community often proves crucial for acceptance of

innovations such as strong multifunctionality. The Australian

Landcare movement is a particularly apt example. Landcare oper-

ates at the rural community level (usually at river catchment scale)

and has been relatively successful in bringing farmers from one or

severaldistricts together to discuss issues of environmental degra-

dation and advantages and disadvantages of adopting different

multifunctionality pathways (Wilson, 2004). The key issue here is

Fig. 3. The nested geography of multifunctional agricultural and rural spaces (Source: author; after Marsden, 2003; Belletti et al., 2003; Wilson, 2007 ).



6/12

for farmers to recognise that implementation of strong multifunc-

tionality is virtually impossible at the farm level alone, and that the

entire communityhas to provide an enabling environment (van der

Ploeg and Roep, 2003). The rural community level also has a crucial

role for multifunctional food supply chain issues (Clark, 2003). In-

deed, (re)localisation of agro-commodity chains often depends on

opportunities for local sale of farm products at the rural commu-

nity level. Demand for local production will be key in making localfarm shop ventures a success, while community support (practical

and psychological) for farmers choosing strong(er) multifunction-

ality pathways is crucial for successful farm management

transitions.

3.2.3. Regional level multifunctionality

Recent human geography debates about scale have empha-

sised the continued importance of the region in scalar hierarchies

(see in particularStorper, 1997). At the regional level, ruralmulti-

functionality issues assume greater importance thanagriculturalis-

sues (seeFig. 3 above), as agriculture will, in most cases, be only

one of many economic sectors. Nonetheless, the regional level also

has important repercussions for enabling or disenabling multifunc-

tional agriculture pathways on the ground, not least due to recent

trends of the regionalisation of rurality. Clark (2003, 2006) and

Marsden and Sonnino (2005) emphasised how regionalisation in

the EU has been a particularly important driver for different na-

tional interpretations of multifunctional policies, while Ward

et al. (2003: p. 21)highlighted recent shifts away from a national,

sectoral and individualized notion of agriculture and agricultural

competitiveness to a regional, territorial and collective notion.

Clark referred to this process as the sub-national promotion of

multifunctional agriculture, and highlighted that for England, for

example, a whole tier of English regional governance now has di-

rect or indirect involvement in promoting multifunctionality

(Clark, 2006: p. 333). Marsden and Sonnino (2005) also empha-

sised how European Structural Funds have contributed towards a

regionalisation of multifunctionality opportunities since 1988,

while the EU LEADER programme (since 1991) has greatly aidedin reinforcing regionally-based territorial identities. In countries

such as the UK, recent political devolution has provided an addi-

tional platform for political empowerment of the regions and, as

a consequence, for more regionally-oriented multifunctional path-

way opportunities (Marsden and Sonnino, 2005).Clark (2006)also

highlighted how the development of Regional Development Agen-

cies in the UK has reinforced the importance of regional-level mul-

tifunctionality decision-making, while Murdoch et al. (2003)

suggested that the regionalisation of rurality has helped harness

local variety in line with broader policy goals. It is likely, therefore,

that regional level multifunctionality pathways may gain further

importance, at least in an EU context of increasing regionalisation

(Storper, 1997).

Knickel and Renting (2000) emphasised the particular signifi-cance of the regional level in conceptualisations of multifunction-

ality, especially for job creation and options for pluriactivity, but

positive synergies are only possible at the regional level where

favourable linkages between two or more multifunctional activi-

ties can be created. As a result, the development of strong multi-

functionality pathways can only be fully understood if we take

into account the synergiesand multiplier effects that exist between

the different geographical scales of the multifunctionality spec-

trum. At the regional level, five synergistic components will be par-

ticularly important, highlighting the existence of manifold tensions

within actor spaces in which multifunctional differentiation (both

in thought and action) are contested through actors attempting to

impose their respective representations of multifunctionality over

others. First, the regional level is often crucial in providing diversi-fication opportunities to farmers (e.g. based on tourism potential of

the region). If diversification activities are not available to a farm

household at the regional level, it is likely that economically mar-

ginal farms may give up farming altogether instead of moving their

farm business elsewhere, or seeking pluriactive income sources far

away fromthe farm. AsClark (2003)emphasised, a buoyant region

that places great emphasis on strong multifunctionality should

provide farmers with opportunities to embark on strongly multi-

functional pathways.Second, the positionality of a region in localglobal processes of

interaction (Swyngedouw, 2001) influences the embeddedness of

farm holdings in the global capitalist system. Regions that are

weakly embedded in the global capitalist system will often have

strong agricultural multifunctionality. Highly globalised regions,

meanwhile, will often contain weakly multifunctional intensive

productivist-driven agro-industrial farms geared towards income

maximisation and export of food and fibre (Goodman, 2004).

Third, the region also plays a key role in influencing food supply

chains. Geographically remote regions are more likely to have lo-

cally integrated food supply and consumption structures (i.e.

strongly multifunctional), while centrally located or highly urban-

ised regions provide farmers with opportunities forglobalisedagro-

commodity chains (i.e. often weakly multifunctional) (Marsden,

2003). However, location near urban agglomerations may also

open multiple and different multifunctionality opportunities for

farmers due to both higher purchasing power of urban populations

and more varied consumer demand for agricultural products.

Fourth, at the regional level open-mindedness of farming and

rural populations will be crucial. Implementation of strong multi-

functionality on the ground may be difficult for farmers if the re-

gional culture is reluctant to support such strategies. Although

there are examples where individual farmers go against the grain,

empirical evidence suggests that it is difficult for farmers to imple-

ment what may be perceived as radical actions that are not com-

patible with the way things are done4 (Burton, 2004).

Fifth, the region will also be important as the level in which

state-led policy is mediated through various filter and gatekeep-

ing processes (Wilson and Juntti, 2005). In particular, the regionoften acts as a vehicle for policy implementation in which interpre-

tation of policy as weakly or strongly multifunctional by regional

policy stakeholders may have repercussions for multifunctional ac-

tions on the ground. Although policy intentions at the state level

may be strongly multifunctional (e.g. some agri-environmental

policies), regional policy-makers may interpret such policies in a

different way. Key policy decisions may be made at regional level

thatdistortnational policy messages or that may lead tonon-imple-

mentationof policy on the ground. The latter is particularly true if

certain policies do not fit regional priorities. Although examples of

this regional policy filter are manifold, Mediterranean countries

exemplify particularly well the importance of this spatial layer

through frequent failure of implementation of strong multifunc-

tionality policies which are often perceived as leading to a reduc-tion in regional revenue. In many Mediterranean regions,

implementation of agri-environmental policies, for example, is of-

ten seen as the imposition of strong multifunctionality that does

not fit a weak multifunctionality model aimed at increasing agri-

cultural intensity, exports and profits (Buller et al., 2000).

3.2.4. Multifunctionality at national level

As with the regional level, national level action and thought can

have substantial repercussions for the implementation of strong

agricultural multifunctionality on the ground, in particular through

4 See in particularPretty (1995), Potter (1998), Marsden (2003) and Wilson (2007)

for detailed analyses of the tensions between how farmers would like to manage their

land/farms and the global pressures for change that often go against the grain andintuitions of farmers.



7/12

national political development pathways and the role that national

governments, non-governmental organisations and institutions

play in policy formulation and implementation (Wilson and Bry-

ant, 1997). Three key issues are of particular relevance here. First,

the political orientation of a country will define the chosen level

of a countrys embeddedness into the global capitalist market.

While many countries have now adopted neo-liberal free-marke-

teering ideologies that permeate every aspect of society, includingmany agricultural development pathways (e.g. Australia and New

Zealand;Primdahl and Swaffield, 2004), the example of North Kor-

ea highlights how political isolation of a country will also substan-

tially influence opportunities for the selection of different

multifunctionality pathways (Hale, 2005). While countries that

are globally well embedded would often spawn weakly multifunc-

tional agricultural regimes, the globalisation of agricultural trade

and production may also open multiple and different multifunc-

tionality opportunities for farmers. Countries such as North Korea,

meanwhile, may only offer very limited multifunctional opportuni-

ties to their farmers (based on a weak multifunctionality model

predicated on satisfying national food self-sufficiency). In these

countries, opportunities for strong multifunctionality pathways

at the farm level are, therefore, intrinsically linked to political deci-

sion-making pathways at the national level.

Second, the national level most often provides the framework in

which policy affecting multifunctional agriculture is formulated

(e.g. the Department for Food and Rural Affairs in the UK). This is

also largely the case in the supra-national EU, as subsidiarity en-

sures that most policy implementation powers are delegated to the

level of the nation state (Buller et al., 2000). In the strong state

political model (i.e. where the state has much coercive power), in

particular, multifunctionality is often orchestrated by the state by

command-and-control regulatory legislative instruments. We

can invoke the example of North Korea again as the most extreme

example of state control over human decision-making, and where

multifunctionality is equivalent tonationalagricultural multifunc-

tionality (Woo, 2006). Here, the boundaries between the nested

hierarchies inFig. 2are particularly blurred, and it may be difficultto differentiate between farm-level and state-level multifunction-

ality pathways. Yet, many other examples exist where the nested

hierarchies of multifunctionality also remain fuzzy. In China, for

example, while some decision-making powers are granted to the

hundred millions of small-scale farmers, the state still retains con-

trol over food policy, farming structures and, indeed, agricultural

ideologies. At the other extreme are countries such as Australia

and New Zealand, where neo-liberal agendas have led to a virtual

removal of state influence over individual farm level multifunc-

tionality decisions (Primdahl and Swaffield, 2004). There, farmers

are essentially left to fend for themselves, exposed to the vicissi-

tudes of the global market, resulting in often weakly multifunc-

tional farm trajectories driven by the need to survive

economically in what is often a harsh and unforgiving globalisedeconomic climate (Wilson and Memon, 2005). Countries in the

EU, meanwhile, occupy the middle ground. Here, states provide

an enabling policy framework (which can span entire multifunc-

tionality spectrum), mediated by regional policy stakeholders,

where farmers are often left with substantial flexibility about

which multifunctionality pathways they may wish to adopt.

Third, at the state level societal ideological multifunctionality

dimensions play the most important role often influenced by

the media, art and literature. The strong multifunctionality model

is predicated partly on open-minded societies who accept that the

nature of farming and agriculture is in the process of change.

While such ideologies may vary considerably from region to region

(i.e. a highly urbanised region is likely to have a different view of

the importance of agriculture than a remote agriculturally-basedregion), it is often ideologies on the position of agriculture in soci-

ety that define constraints and opportunities for the adoption of

strongly multifunctional pathways. Countries where society con-

tinues to see agriculture essentially as a guarantor of self-suffi-

ciency and high export earnings are unlikely to provide an

enabling environment for strong multifunctionality pathways. Just

as farmers will find it difficult to swim against the stream within

their own communities, they will also find it hard to implement

agricultural pathways that may seem to contradict societys wishesand aspirations. In democratic pluralistic societies this will be less

of an issue, as manifold expressions of multifunctionality will be

encouraged. But in countries with more restrictive socio-political

cultures, productivist societal ideologies may be the key factor in

dissuading farmers from leaving productivist farm development

trajectories (Wilson, 2008b).

4. Nested hierarchies: direct and indirect expressions of

multifunctionality

Application of the multifunctionality concept is ultimately asso-

ciated with implementing multifunctional pathways on the

ground atfarm level. Yet, the discussion so far has also highlighted

that expressions of multifunctionality differ depending on scale is-

sues, as multifunctional action and thought at any level will have

repercussions for how multifunctionality is implemented at the lo-

cal level. These different spatial expressions represent the nested

hierarchiesof multifunctionality, implying that the different multi-

functionality levels inFig. 1that constitute geographically condi-

tioned processes are interlinked and form mutually constituted

decision-making spaces that reflect individual national and regio-

nal governance structures.

This addresses Winter and Gaskells (1998) assertion that the

contemporary emphasis on the local (i.e. farm level) may enhance

certain kinds of sensitivities, but may also erase others and thereby

truncate rather than emancipate rural research. I also agree with

Bullers (2005: p. 20) suggestion that the assessment of multi-

functionality requires a holistic analytical framework that extendsbeyond the farm gate and beyond the individual farm and that

the true multifunctionality of agriculture [needs to be seen] as a

set of embedded and socially/spatially interlinked activities. Fur-

ther, as Marsden (2003: p. 29) emphasised, the relative signifi-

cance of food and food networks in and through space is

variable, according to the main activities in those networks, and

the relative power to capture the social value of food products.

Echoing recent human geography debates (e.g. Marston et al.,

2005; Jonas, 2006), Marsden (2003) argued that any agricultural

region has to be seen as verticallyembedded with national govern-

ments, horizontally through its engagement with the wider rural

community, and diagonally with sub-regional frameworks. Such

hierarchies and spatial networks can be seen as nested inasmuch

as they each form the basis for the existence and functioning of theother both in ascending and descending order from the local to

state level. This means, for example, that it is futile to conceptual-

ise multifunctionality at the farm level without also considering

multifunctionality drivers at other levels. Similarly, understanding

national level debates about multifunctionality (e.g. expressed

through policy formulation) will be difficult without understand-

ing the implementation of geographically conditioned multifunc-

tional ideas at the regional, rural community and farm levels.

However, expressions of multifunctionality are not similar

across all scales highlighted in Fig. 2. Multifunctionality is, first

and foremost, about implementation of productivist and non-pro-

ductivist processeson the ground. This means thatagriculturalmul-

tifunctionality finds its most direct expression at the farm level.

Ruralmultifunctionality, meanwhile, has its most direct expressionat the rural community level (but also, at times, with strong influ-



8/12

ence at the farm and regional levels) (see Fig. 3). National-level

multifunctionality, meanwhile, should be seen as the scale of deci-

sion-making for policy formulation and general societal interpreta-

tions of what multifunctionality means in a national context.

Thus, multifunctional agriculture will have more direct expression

at the farm level (i.e. where multifunctionality ideas and policies

are implemented), while pathways at the national level are charac-

terised byindirect expressionof multifunctionality. This emphasisesan important difference between the local and state levels, high-

lighting that national level policies and ideas on multifunctionality

need to betranslatedinto multifunctional actions on the ground. As

Hoggart and Paniagua (2001: p. 51)argued, change experienced at

the local level might be driven by broader forces, but this does not

mean it is accepted uncritically or unaltered at the local level, nor

does it deny the prospect of inter-local disparities in response to

the same inputs. Thus, to speak of multifunctional policies (e.g.

Potter and Tilzey, 2005; McCarthy, 2005) only makes sense

through the consideration of the effects of such policies on the

ground.

The regional and rural community levels are important media-

tors/conduits for both the trickling down of national multifunc-

tionality ideologies to the farm level and, conversely, for relaying

action and thought about multifunctionality at farm level to na-

tional decision-makers. Such mediation between the national and

farm levels can take various pathways. On the one hand, we wit-

ness frequent re-interpretation of national multifunctionality poli-

cies at the regional level in most democratic societies through

intermediate actors. On the other hand, we may see outrightimpo-

sition of national multifunctionality ideologies on the ground in

non-democratic countries with strong coercive state powers and

intermediate actor spaces closely aligned with state ideologies

(e.g. North Korea; China; Russia to some extent). In complex gover-

nance structures where many intermediate actors may mediate

multifunctionality policies formulated at the national level, the

further removed from the farm level decision-makers are, the more

difficult it may be for them to influence multifunctional trajecto-

ries on the ground. Recent empirical evidence from Southern Eur-ope regarding non-implementation of strongly multifunctional

policies would tend to support this distance-decay effect of strong

multifunctionality at the local level (Wilson and Juntti, 2005).

However, Clark (2003)also highlighted that even regional expres-

sion of multifunctionality pathways may vary substantially

between regions based on differences in mediation and re-inter-

pretation of national multifunctionality ideals by powerful regional

decision-makers. As a result, some regions may adopt more

strongly multifunctional development pathways than national-le-

vel multifunctionality ideologies (e.g. some of the German regions).

It can, therefore, be surmised that the more complex mediating

governance structures are, the more likely it will be that multifunc-

tional action on the ground will be highly varied and span the en-

tire spectrum of productivist and non-productivist action andthought shown in Fig. 1 (e.g. in most EU member states). This

may also have important repercussions for the flexibility in adop-

tion of changing multifunctionality pathways at different levels

of nested spatial hierarchies. In complex governance environ-

ments, farm level actors may not only have more possibilities in

the adoption of highly varied multifunctional farm trajectories,

but they may also be able to change the direction of these trajecto-

ries more quickly than actors at other levels. It will be more diffi-

cult for regional and national level decision-makers to change

multifunctional ideas and ideologies an assertion supported by

the quick adaptation of many farmers to changing market forces

and the rather lethargic pace of agricultural policy change at na-

tional and, indeed, supra-national levels (Wilson and Juntti,

2005). The more complex and multi-scalar a system in otherwords, the further removed it is from the local or farm level

the more difficult it will be for that system to change its multifunc-

tionality trajectories. This is probably best highlighted through

innovations such as genetically modified crops, which give added

influence to the often weakly multifunctional downstream sectors

(e.g. multinational agri-businesses) in shaping the nature of local

food production and controlling production schedules at arms

length (Pretty, 1995). This also explains why the embeddedness

of farmers in globalised agro-commodity production chains largelydefines whether farmers will be behind or ahead of regional or

national-level multifunctionality trajectories.

Thenotion of direct and indirect expressions of multifunction-

ality at various scales highlights one of the key strengths of those

advocating that a multifunctionality spectrum best describes cur-

rent agricultural/rural development trajectories, in particular as

the spectrum has an in-built localising tendency (i.e. focus on the

farm territory for direct implementation of multifunctionality ac-

tion) that allows temporal and spatial portability. The notion of a

normative multifunctional decision-making spectrum is, therefore,

more sensitive to local geographies than largely policy-based or

economistic interpretations of multifunctionality.

5. Global-level multifunctionality?

So far, we have only explored scales of multifunctionality to the

national scale, largely because it is still at the nation state level that

most policy decisions with tangible expressions on the ground are

formulated. Yet, socio-political developments over the past few

decades have highlighted that, increasingly, global-level multi-

functionality drivers need to be taken into account when explain-

ing multifunctionality actions at local level (Losch, 2004). The

nation state may be getting weaker regarding policy influence

(hollowing-out of the nation state), while supra- or international

decision-making structures may be gaining ground. However, as

Buller (2005: p. 18) emphasised, there is a general absence of

any systematic attempt to globally assess the multifunctional im-

pacts of agriculture and agricultural support mechanisms. In thisfinal section I, therefore, wish to explore whether we can concep-

tualise global-level multifunctional agriculture based on norma-

tive conceptualisations of multifunctionality.

Four key issues need to be considered. The first relates to the

question of global-local spatial interactions (Swyngedouw, 2001).

Indeed, direct expression of multifunctionality on the ground can

not be understood without acknowledging global level decision-

making pathways that affect national, regional and, at times, rural

community level development pathways. Notwithstanding the

possibility that global phenomena emerge unbidden from interac-

tions among lower-level entities (OSullivan, 2004: p. 285), and

Urrys (1984) cautionary note that the local cannot be taken as

the national or global writ small, increasing globalisation trends

suggest that the global level is assuming ever increasing impor-tance for multifunctional decision-making pathways on farms

(Shiva and Bedi, 2002). The boundaries of the global/local are

unstable and blurred, with the global and local increasingly under-

stood as embedded with one another rather than as dichotomous

categories. As a result, when global and local are inevitably inter-

twined, approaches to the study of multifunctionality which look

at only one spatial scale will miss much of interest. Global level

studies may, thus, fail to take into account local outcomes and re-

sponses to global processes by individual actors in the multifunc-

tionality spectrum, while local studies may omit global economic

and socio-cultural influences. Gupta and Ferguson (1997) argued

that the reterritorialisation of space requires researchers to recon-

ceptualise fundamentally the politics of community, solidarity,

identity and cultural difference. Such glocalisation (Swyngedouw,2001), characterised by mutually constituting sets of practices, also



9/12

influences multifunctionality decisions on individual farms. Mars-

den et al. (1999: p. 299) suggested that these glocalisation pro-

cesses are associated with the conflict between globalised

aspatial systems of production and locally situated ecological

systems.

There is ample literature that discusses the effects of globalisa-

tion on individual farm decision-making pathways (e.g.Shiva and

Bedi, 2002; Goodman, 2004). What is important for multifunc-tional agriculture conceptualisations is that influences of globalisa-

tion affect different agricultural territories in different ways. While

decision-making pathways on super-productivist agro-businesses

often occur entirely within the realm of the global, there still are

many farming communities that have not, or only barely, been

touched by globalisation (Wilson and Bryant, 1997). Although such

remote communities are increasingly rare, their existence empha-

sises that global influences on local level multifunctionality path-

ways cover a wide spectrum. At the regional level, meanwhile, it

is almost impossible to find examples where entire regions are

shielded from globalisation processes, while at the national level

even the most protectionist and isolationist approaches can not

shield states from the vicissitudes, fashions and trends of the glo-

bal market (Shiva and Bedi, 2002). Even multifunctional national

policy trajectories of North Korea will be influenced by market

and political developments beyond its borders (the recent need

for food imports to stave off starvation in North Korea is a case

in point) (Hale, 2005).

Second, global level influences play a key role in conceptualisa-

tion of weak and strong multifunctionality, as globally embedded

agricultural stakeholders may be more likely to adopt weak(er)

multifunctionality pathways (Wilson, 2008b). This may occur out

ofchoice(e.g. an agro-business in New Zealand opting for intensi-

fication through opportunities of direct sales of live animals to the

Middle East) or out ofnecessity(e.g. an Indian farmer caught in the

globalisation treadmill by having to opt for Green Revolution

seeds and fertilisers on his/her formerly more strongly multifunc-

tional subsistence-oriented farm) (Shiva and Bedi, 2002). Rural

sociologists (e.g. McMichael, 1995) have highlighted how suchscaling-up processes to supra-national decision-making often en-

tail the loss of democracy and local/regional decision-making pow-

ers. Globally weakly embedded farms, on the other hand, often

have strongly multifunctional characteristics, as they are often

extensively farmed and more likely to produce (healthier) foods

for the local market or for subsistence (Pretty, 1995). Global level

drivers, thus, have repercussions for decision-making on the

ground, and often these influences lead towards a weakening of

multifunctional processes at farm level. Globalisation, yet again,

emerges as the great leveller leading to a more uniform, more

monofunctional and less socially rich agriculture.

Third, global level influences can not be fully understood with-

out considering the rising importance of political and policy-re-

lated drivers of agricultural change coming from supra-nationaldecision-making frameworks. AsPotter and Tilzey (2005) argued,

the role of the state as a protector of national interests is

increasingly undermined by neo-liberal globalisation. The rising

importance of World Trade Organisation (WTO) discussions needs

to be particularly acknowledged, as these are increasingly shaping

ideological and practical approaches of national agricultural poli-

cies. WTO negotiations have become an important influence on

policy decisions at the nation state level. For example, Common

Agricultural Policy (CAP) reforms can partly be interpreted as a

response to WTO pressures to reduce and, eventually, abolish

farm subsidies. As McCarthy (2005) argued, the recent rowing

back by the EU from multifunctionality in trade discussions

exemplifies the increasing global pressure exerted by powerful

WTO actors such as the United States or the Cairns Groupattempting to force a liberalisation of EU agricultural markets.

This, in turn, is likely to reduce multifunctional quality of Euro-

pean farms in the long term, and will influence multifunctional

decision-making pathways further down the spatial levels (Potter

and Burney, 2002).

However, there is a reason why inFig. 2the state level bound-

ary has been drawn as a relatively firm line separating it from the

global level. As with the complex issue of trickle down of multi-

functionality drivers from the state to the farm level, so too thecomplexity of global level policy influence on national decision-

making needs to be acknowledged. Many commentators have

highlighted the continuing lack of a global Leviathan that dictates

what nation states should do (Wilson and Bryant, 1997). This

makes it difficult to conceptualise global-level multifunctionality,

as it continues to be unclearwhoseglobal multifunctionality notion

is advocated (e.g. that of the EU, the Cairns Group, the WTO, the

United Nations, or just the G7/G20 countries?). Although recent

ratification of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change indicates a

gradual change in how national environmental policy is increas-

ingly influenced by global level decision-making, enforcement

and monitoring of implementation of such international policy re-

mains weak. Yet, even the more structured CAP does not ensure

implementation of EU-based policies in individual member states

(see above). This highlights that the influence of the supra-national

and global level on multifunctional decision-making at national le-

vel is highly complex and that this influence will vary greatly

depending on specific policy contexts (e.g. whether suggested pol-

icy change fits broadly with national policy goals), the coercive

powers underlying supra-national policy suggestions, and the gen-

eral willingness of a nation state to work towards the greater good

beyond narrow needs and expectations of the state and its citizens.

In particular, there continues to be much flexibility concerning

acceptance of WTO guidelines by individual nation states.

Although this is likely to change over the next decades, at the

beginning of the 21st century it is too early to argue that the

WTO influences multifunctionality actions on the ground of all

agricultural actors. WTO negotiations can, therefore, at best be

seen as anenablingfactor for implementation of multifunctionalityon the ground that will often lead to weaker multifunctionality

pathways. For the time being, national-level multifunctionality

decisions partly mediated by global pressures may, thus, con-

tinue to have more influence on direct expressions of multifunc-

tionality at the local level.

Finally, any discussion of global-level multifunctionality needs

to take into account multifunctional interdependencies between

countries and territories. Although the nation state still provides

the platform for implementation of multifunctionality pathways,

national-level multifunctionality may be highly dependent on the

movement of food in and out of a country. This global spatiality

of multifunctional processes highlights the importance of conceiv-

ing multifunctionality as composed of all individual parts of an

agro-food system. Thus, just as calculations of the ecological foot-print of an individual or nation state have to take into account food

miles, international air travel, or the importing of energy that go

well beyond the boundaries of the nation state, so too do we need

to factor in processes of imported and exported multifunctional-

ity possibly best expressed through the notion of the multifunc-

tional footprint (Wilson, 2008b: p. 11; original emphasis). This

may well mean that a country is able to maintain relatively strong

levels of multifunctionality, precisely because this country imports

large amounts of food and fibre from weakly multifunctional coun-

tries. Indeed, the latter countries may follow a weak multifunction-

ality model precisely because their agricultural systems are

predicated on intensive export-oriented food and fibre production

(Wilson, 2008b). Japan (importer) and New Zealand (exporter) are

examples to invoke in this context. The former has been able tomaintain a relatively traditional agricultural sector that may be



10/12

moderately or even strongly multifunctional (low multifunctional

footprint). However, this national level strong multifunctionality

has only been possible due to massive food imports from less mul-

tifunctional countries with higher multifunctional footprints, such

as New Zealand or Australia that have partly adjusted their agricul-

tural trajectories to suit consumer needs of countries such as Japan

or EU member states (Wilson and Memon, 2005). As I suggested

elsewhere, global multifunctionality may, therefore, only be azero-sum-game, characterised by multifunctional competition in

which strongly and weakly multifunctional territories balance

each other out, rather than a winwin scenario in which all terri-

tories can simultaneously move towards strong multifunctionality

(Wilson, 2008b). This suggests that it may only be possible to

implement strong multifunctionality pathways in one region or

countryat the expense of other territories.

6. Conclusions

Based on reconceptualisations of multifunctional agriculture as

a normative spectrum of decision-making bounded by productivist

and non-productivist action and thought, this paper has argued

that there is currently insufficient research into the geography of

multifunctionality. The paper suggested that we should conceive

of multifunctionality as a spatially complex nested hierarchy com-

prising different interlinked layers of multifunctional decision-

making ranging from the farm level to the national and global

levels.

I argued that the notion of multifunctionality has so far been

analysed mainly from a policy-based or economistic perspective

and that only few studies have acknowledged the importance of

the spatial territory to which multifunctionality should apply.

Referring to recent human geography debates on issues of verti-

cally and horizontally embedded scales, this paper has challenged

the notion that agricultural multifunctionality should be inter-

preted simply as a policy-driven top-down process used by Euro-

pean policy-makers to justify the continuation of a subsidy-basedfarm support model. Simultaneously, the paper has challenged

economistic approaches that see agricultural multifunctionality

as a relatively aspatial externality issue. Instead, I have argued

that multifunctional agriculture has to be understood as a process

characterised by complex geographies ranging from the local to the

national and global in which issues of scale and the understand-

ing of actor space inter-linkages at different scales play signifi-

cant roles. Indeed, geography matters in multifunctionality

debates, and the notion ofnested hierarchiesprovides a robust sca-

lar model with which to explain the complex spatial interrelation-

ships between different layers of multifunctional decision-making.

In particular, we witness complex interactions between the farm

level where multifunctional processes are operationalised, and

other levels ranging from the regional to the global levels in thenested hierarchies of multifunctionality. This emphasises that mul-

tifunctionality should be aboutterritorial expressionof actions, and

that it should have tangible expression at the local level of the

farmed landscape. At the same time, I acknowledged the fallacy

of scale rigidities (Marston et al., 2005) and that the notion of

nested hierarchies does not negate the fact that within each hori-

zontal plain there can be multiple spatial expressions of multifunc-

tional decision-making processes. As Clark (2005, 2006)

emphasised, all depends on the agenda of those empowered by a

given scalar strategy (e.g. the quest for regional-level strong

multifunctionality).

With these caveats in mind, I began with the suggestion that the

notion of multifunctional agriculture only makes sense if it is ap-

plied at the farm level as the most important spatial scale for the

implementation of multifunctional action on the ground. As a re-

sult, multifunctionality can be interpreted as having direct

expression only at the lower geographical scales (i.e. farm, com-

munity and regional levels in particular) while the regional, na-

tional and global levels should be seen as having indirect

expressions of multifunctionality that need to bemediatedby local

level actors to find tangible expression on the ground. We should,

therefore, consider different levels of multifunctionality, ratherthan referring to a multifunctionality. The notion of global level

multifunctionality is, arguably, the most challenging, as this level

lacks political and ideological coherence about the required direc-

tions for strong multifunctionality pathways. It is still at the na-

tional level that most policies with implications for local level

multifunctionality actions are formulated, and, despite of the rising

importance of supra-national decision-making institutions such as

the WTO, the global level still only acts as a broad indirect frame-

work for multifunctional action and thought.

Many questions related to the geography of multifunctionality

still remain. It is here that human geographers are ideally placed

to both re-spatialise work on multifunctionality by often aspatial

rural sociologists, agricultural economists, environmental scien-

tists and policy analysts, as well as to provide empirically rich

studies based on both quantitative and qualitative methodologies

needed to unravel the full spatial complexities of the multifunc-

tional transition (Knickel and Renting, 2000). It is here that I dis-

agree with recent critical human geography studies that argue

for abandoning the notion of scale altogether (e.g. Marston

et al., 2005). Instead, specific focus of future research should be

placed on the interrelationships within nested hierarchies high-

lighted inFig. 2and, asBrenner (2001)emphasised, the possible

horizontal scalar issues within each of the hierarchical plains

(see alsoClark, 2005, 2006). Indeed, as different site-scalar config-

urations and territorial structures create opportunities for a variety

of different site-scalar-strategic actions (Jonas, 2006: p. 404),

more work is awaiting those interested in scalar issues of multi-

functional agricultural processes. In particular, as both the bound-

aries of what agriculture entails and the limits of policy decision-making at the nation state level are becoming increasingly blurred

(Marsden, 2003), a constant reassessment of the strong multifunc-

tionality dimensions that are important for the farm, rural commu-

nity and regional level will be necessary. This will also necessitate

further work on the spatial constituents of the (rather artificial)

boundary between agricultural and rural multifunctionality al-

luded to in Fig. 3. For example, could the same normative view

be adopted to understand different rural multifunctional quality

and at what scales would such a concept be most appropriate?

Finally, while much work exists on assessing the impact and

nature of state-level multifunctional policies, challenging ques-

tions still relate to global multifunctionality issues, in particular

with regard to the applicability and exportability of Northern-

based concepts (such as multifunctionality) to the South ( Wilsonand Rigg, 2003). These questions assume ever greater importance

if we consider the possibility that one countrys choice of strongly

multifunctional agricultural pathways may be predicated on an-

other countrys weak multifunctionality based on productivist ex-

port-oriented ideologies (Wilson, 2008b). Although researchers

will most likely be frustrated by methodological problems associ-

ated with the assessment of national-level (let alone global-level)

multifunctionality issues (Knickel and Renting, 2000), it is at the

nation state/global level interface that the most interesting geo-

graphical questions lie, in particular with regard to identifying

common indicators to assess and use empirical data on multifunc-

tionality across different cultural and institutional spheres. Ulti-

mately, it is hoped that such work will help better target state

policy and local action towards stronger multifunctionality.



11/12

References

Belletti, G., Brunori, G., Mascotti, A., Rossi, A., 2003. Multifunctionality and ruraldevelopment: a multilevel approach. In: van Huylenbroek, G., Durand, G. (Eds.),Multifunctional Agriculture: A New Paradigm for European Agriculture andRural Development. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 5580.

Brenner, N., 2001. The limits to scale? Methodological reflections on scalarstructuration. Progress in Human Geography 15, 525548.

Bryden, J.M., 2005. Multifunctionality, rural development and policy adjustments in

the European Union. Paper Presented at the Policy Research Institute, Ministryof Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Tokyo, Japan, February 2005.Buller, H., 2005. Evaluation of Policies with Respect to Multifunctionality of

Agriculture: Observation Tools and Support for Policy Formulation andEvaluation. (UK National Report [WP 6], EU Multagri Project). University ofExeter, Exeter.

Buller, H., Wilson, G.A., Hll, A. (Eds.), 2000. Agri-Environmental Policy in theEuropean Union. Ashgate, Aldershot.

Burton, R.J., 2004. Seeing through the good farmers eyes: towards developing anunderstanding of the social symbolic value of productivist behaviour.Sociologia Ruralis 44 (2), 195215.

Burton, R.J., Wilson, G.A., 2006. Injecting social psychology theory intoconceptualisations of agricultural agency: towards a post-productivist farmerself-identity? Journal of Rural Studies 22, 95115.

CEC [Commission of the European Communities], 1988. The Future of Rural Society.CEC, Brussels.

Clark, J., 2003. Regional innovation systems and economic development: thepromotion of multifunctional agriculture in the English East Midlands.Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Geography, University College

London, UK.Clark, J., 2005. The New Associationalism in agriculture: agro-food diversification

and multifunctional production logics. Journal of Economic Geography 5, 475498.

Clark, J., 2006. The institutional limits to multifunctional agriculture: subnationalgovernance and regional systems of innovation. Environment and Planning C:Government and Policy 24, 331349.

Cocklin, C., Dibden, J., Mautner, N., 2006. From market to multifunctionality? Landstewardship in Australia. The Geographical Journal 172 (3), 197205.

Durand, G., van Huylenbroek, G., 2003. Multifunctionality and rural development: ageneral framework. In: van Huylenbroek, G., Durand, G. (Eds.), MultifunctionalAgriculture: A New Paradigm for European Agriculture and Rural Development.Ashgatec, Aldershot, pp. 118.

Goodman, D., 2004. Rural Europe redux? Reflections on alternative agro-foodnetworks and paradigm change. Sociologia Ruralis 44, 316.

Gupta, A., Ferguson, J., 1997. Culture, power, place: ethnography at the end of anera. In: Gupta, A., Ferguson, J. (Eds.), Culture, Power, Place: Explorations inCritical Anthropology. Duke University Press, Durham (NC), pp. 129.

Hale, C.D., 2005. Real reform in North Korea? The aftermath of the July 2002economic measures. Asian Survey 45 (6), 823842.

Hoggart, K., Paniagua, A., 2001. What rural restructuring? Journal of Rural Studies17, 4162.

Hollander, G.M., 2004. Agricultural trade liberalization, multifunctionality, andsugar in the south Florida landscape. Geoforum 35, 299312.

Holmes, J., 2002. Diversity and change in Australias rangelands: a post-productivisttransition with a difference? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers27, 362384.

Holmes, J., 2006. Impulses towards a multifunctional transition in rural Australia:gaps in the research agenda. Journal of Rural Studies 22, 142160.

Jonas, A.E., 2006. Pro scale: further reflections on the scale debate in humangeography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 31 (3), 399406.

Jones, K., 1998. Scale as epistemology. Political Geography 17, 2528.Knickel, K., Renting, H., 2000. Methodological and conceptual issues in the study

of multifunctionality and rural development. Sociologia Ruralis 40 (4), 512528.

Leitner, H., Sheppard, E., Sziarto, K.M., 2008. The spatialities of contentious politics.Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 33 (2), 157172.

Losch, B., 2004. Debating the multifunctionality of agriculture: from tradenegotiation to development policies by the South. Journal of Agrarian Change4 (3), 336360.

Marsden, T., 2003. The Condition of Rural Sustainability. Van Gorcum, Assen (NL).Marsden, T., Banks, J., Bristow, G., 2002. The social management of rural nature:

understanding agrarian-based rural development. Environment and Planning A34, 809825.

Marsden, T., Murdoch, J., Lowe, P., Munton, R., Flynn, A., 1993. Constructing theCountryside. UCL Press, London.

Marsden, T., Murdoch, J., Morgan, K., 1999. Sustainable agriculture, food supplychains and regional development: editorial introduction. International PlanningStudies 4 (3), 295301.

Marsden, T., Sonnino, R., 2005. Setting up and Management of Public Policies withMultifunctional Purpose: Connecting Agriculture with New Markets andServices and Rural SMEs. (UK National Report [WP 5], EU Multagri Project).Cardiff University, Cardiff.

Marston, S.A., Jones III, J.P., Woodward, K., 2005. Human geography without scale.Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 30 (4), 416432.

Massey, D., 2001. Talking of space-time. Transactions of the Institute of British

Geographers 26, 257261.

McCarthy, J., 2005. Rural geography: multifunctional rural geographies reactionary or radical? Progress in Human Geography 29 (6), 773782.

McMichael, P. (Ed.), 1995. The Global Restructuring of Agro-Food Systems. CornellUniversity Press, Ithaca (NY).

Munton, R., Marsden, T., Whatmore, S., 1990. Technological change in a period ofagricultural adjustment. In: Lowe, P., Marsden, T., Whatmore, S. (Eds.),Technological Change and the Rural Environment. David Fulton, London, pp.114132.

Murdoch, J., Lowe, P., Ward, N., Marsden, T., 2003. The Differentiated Countryside.Routledge, London.

OSullivan, D., 2004. Complexity science and human geography. Transactions of theInstitute of British Geographers 29 (3), 282295.

Peterson, J.M., Boisvert, R.N., de Gorter, H., 2002. Environmental policies for amultifunctional agricultural sector in open economies. European Review ofAgricultural Economics 29 (4), 423443.

Potter, C., 1998. Against the Grain: Agri-Environmental Reform in the United Statesand the European Union. CAB International, Wallingford.

Potter, C., Burney, J., 2002. Agricultural multifunctionality in the WTO: legitimatenon-trade concern or disguised protectionism? Journal of Rural Studies 18, 3547.

Potter, C., Tilzey, M., 2005. Agricultural policy discourses in the European post-Fordist transition: neoliberalism, neomercantilism and multifunctionality.Progress in Human Geography 29 (5), 120.

Pretty, J.N., 1995. Regenerating Agriculture: Policies and Practice for Sustainabilityand Self-reliance. Earthscan, London.

Primdahl, J., Swaffield, S., 2004. Segregation and multifunctionality in New Zealandlandscapes. In: Brouwer, F. (Ed.), Sustaining Agriculture and the RuralEnvironment: Governance, Policy and Multifunctionality. Edward Elgar,Cheltenham, pp. 266285.

Rapey, H., Lardon, S., Josien, E., Servire, G., Fiorelli, C., Klingenschmidt, F., Matter, E.,2004. Multifonctionnalit de lespace agricole dun territoire: premiresconclusions issues dune demarche de recherche. Les Cahiers de laMultifonctionnalit 5, 7186.

Shiva, V., Bedi, G., 2002. Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security. Sage, London.Smith, N., 1992. Contours of a spatialized politics: homeless vehicles and the

production of geographical space. Social Text 33, 5481.Storper, M., 1997. The Regional World: Territorial Development in a Global

Economy. Guildford, London.Swyngedouw, E., 2001. Elite power, global forces, and the political economy of

global development. In: Clark, G.L., Feldman, M.P., Gertler, M.S. (Eds.), A Readerin Economic Geography. OUP, Oxford, pp. 541558.

Swyngedouw, E., 2004. Scaled geographies: nature, place and the politics of scale.In: Sheppard, E., McMaster, R.B. (Eds.), Scale and Geographic Enquiry. Blackwell,Oxford, pp. 129153.

Thrift, N., 1999. The place of complexity. Theory Culture and Society 16, 3169.Urry, J., 1984. Capitalist restructuring, recomposition and the regions. In: Bradley, T.,

Lowe, P. (Eds.), Locality and Rurality. Geo Books, Norwich, pp. 4564.

van der Ploeg, J.D., Roep, D., 2003. Multifunctionality and rural development: theactual situation in Europe. In: van Huylenbroek, G., Durand, G. (Eds.),Multifunctional Agriculture: A New Paradigm for European Agriculture andRural Development. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 3753.

Vanslembrouck, I., van Huylenbroek, G., 2003. The demand for landscape amenitiesby rural tourists. In: van Huylenbroek, G., Durand, G. (Eds.), MultifunctionalAgriculture: A New Paradigm for European Agriculture and Rural Development.Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 8399.

Ward, N., Lowe, P., Bridges, T., 2003. Rural and regional development: the role of theregional development agencies in England. Regional Studies 37 (2), 201214.

Whatmore, S., 1995. From farming to agribusiness: the global agro-food system. In:Johnston, R.J., Taylor, P.J., Watts, M.J. (Eds.), Geographies of Global Change:Remapping the World in the Late Twentieth Century. Blackwell, London, pp.3649.

Whatmore, S., Munton, R., Marsden, T., 1990. The rural restructuring process:emerging divisions of agricultural property rights. Regional Studies 24, 235245.

Wilson, G.A., 2004. The Australian landcare movement: towards post-productivistrural governance? Journal of Rural Studies 20, 461484.

Wilson, G.A., 2007. Multifunctional Agriculture: A Transition Theory Perspective.CAB International, Wallingford.

geoforum volume 40 issue 2 2009 [doi 10.1016%2fj.geoforum.2008.12.007] geoff a. wilson -- the...

Documents