Alternative Distribution Systems
for Organic Produce
in Japan
by
Natsuko Kumasawa
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirernents
for the degree of Master of Environmental Studies
Dalhousie University
Halifax, Nova Scotia
April, 1998
Q Copyright by Natsuko Kumasawa, 1998
National Library
Bibiiithèque nationale
du Canada
Acquisitions and
Bibliographi Sewices
Acquisitions et
services bibliographiques
395 w d t i i m srnt
OttawaûN KiAûiW
395, nie Wellington
OttawaON K 1 A W
Canada
canada
The author has granted a nonexclusive licence allowing the
National L h m y of Canada to
reproduce, Ioan, distribute or seU
copies of this thesis in microfom,
paper or electronic formats.
L'auteur a accordé une licence non
exclusive permettant à la
Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de
reproduire, prêter, &stri%uou
vendre des copies de cette thèse sous
la forme de microfiche/film, de
reproduction sur papier ou sur format
électronique.
The author retains ownership of the
copyright in this thesis. Neither the
thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it
may be printed or otherwise
reproduced without the author's
permission.
L'auteur conserve la propriété du
droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse.
Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels
de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés
ou autrement reproduits sans son
autorisation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
""
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . wu
List of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
x
1.Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1 The Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4.1 LiteratureReview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4.2 Visituig and Informai InteMews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.5 The Signtficance of This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.6 Outhe of the Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
3
4
4
4
9
11
12
2.The Füse of Organic Agriculture in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1 Agriculture in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.2 Agriculture Policy in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.The Necessity of an Alternative Distribution System for Organic Produce . . . . . . .
3.1 Conventional and Alternative Distribution Systerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Conventional Distribution Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.1 The Structure of Conventional Distribution Systems . . . . . . . .
3.2.2 The Conventional Distribution Systems and Organic Roduce . .
23
23
23
23
26
4 .How C m Alternative Distribution Systems for Orgaaic Roduce
be Defined and Describeci . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 31
4.1 Teikeis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.1.1 Definitionof Teikeis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.1.2 Histury of the Teikei Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.2 Organic Food Specialized Distributors (OFSDs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.2.1 Defînition of OFSDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.2.2 History of OFSDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.3 ComrnUILity Shared/Supported Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.3.1 Definition of CSAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.3.2 History of CSAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5 . The Use of Case Studies to Illustrate Differences Between Teikeis and OFSDs
...
5.1 Teikeis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1.1 The ShimosatoFarm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1.2 The Yokohama Soi1 Preservation Association (YSPA) . . . . . . .
5.1.3 Midon no Sato (Green Viage) group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1.4 Comparison of Teikei Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 OFSDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.1 The Ninjin Club . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.2TheDaichiwoMamomKai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.3 The Radish Boya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45
45
46
49
51
55
58
59
60
63
5.2.4 The Shizenha Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.5 The Japan Agriculture Co~lll~lunity
(JAC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
....................
5.2.6 The Poran Hiroba
5.2.7 Cornparisons of OFSD case studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3 Similatities and Diffe~ncesbetween Teikeis and OFSDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
66
67
68
70
73
6.Sources of Conflicts between Teikeis and OFSDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1 How Teikeis and OFSDs Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2 Why Conflict Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.1 Conflicts Threaten Sumival of Teikeis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.2 Standards and Certification for Organic Produce . . . . . . . . . .
80
80
82
82
85
7 .Coexistence Strategies for Teikeis and OFSDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.1 Advantages of Co-existing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.1.1 The Roles of Consumers. Producers and Distributors . . . . . . .
7.1.2 The Differences in Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.1.3 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Teikei and
the OFSD system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2 Interna1 Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2.1 The way to co-operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2.2 Teikei Prhciples and Increased Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2.3 Teikei as a Niche Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.3. Extemal Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
86
95
98
99
101
8.Recommendations and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.1 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.2 The Road Ahead for Distributhg Organic Food ..................
8.3 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
103
103
105
109
....................................
112
......................
114
Appendix 1. Hanno Declaration
Appendix 2. Teikei Survey by Masugata and Kubota
References
..................................................
86
88
91
94
95
118
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
The Changes in the Japanese Agriculture.....................
Table 2
Organic Agriculture Policy in the 1980s....................... 18
Table 3
Organic Agriculture Policy in the 1990s....................... 19
Table 4
The Standard of Organic Agriculture Food...................
21
Table 5
The Vegetables and Fruits Handled by Wholesale
Markets .............................................................
24
Table 6
Strategies for Efficiency in Conventional Agriculture and
Organic Agriculture ..............................................
27
Table 7
The Three examples of Teikeis.............
.
.
.....
.
....... 45
Table 8
Cornparisons of Teikei Case Studies........................... 55
Table 9
The Six OFSDs in Japan ....................................... 58
Table IO
Cornparisons of OFSD Case Studies........................... 70
Table 11
The Roles of Consumers. Producers and Distributors of
Teikeis and OFSDs............................................... 88
Table 12
...
Strengths and Weaknesses of Teikeis..................
Table 13
Strengths and Weaknesses of OFSDs.......................... 95
Table 14
Environmental Movemeot by Teikeis...........................
15
94
117
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Locations of Teikeis and OFSDs Selected for Case
Studies.. ....,..,.....................,...-...-..-......-..-....-.-...
Figure 2
Conventionai Markets in Japan .................................
Figure 3
The History of Teikeis.....................
........
Figure 4
The Position of
Figure 5
Shirnosato Farm Teikei.,........,..............-.................
Figure 6
Yokohama Soil Preservation Association Teikei,.............
Figure 7
Midori no Sato .....................................................
Figure 8
Ninjin Club .............................................
..........
Figure 9
Daichi wo Mamoni Kai ...........................................
Figure 10
Radish Boya .................................... ..-...............
Figure 11
Shizenha Network.. ...-..............................-.....-...-.
Figure 12
JAC (TOKYO) .............
.
.....................................
Figure 13
Poran Hiroba .........................
Figure 14
Community and
Figure 15
Community and Teikei B .......................................
Figure 16
Community and OFSDs..........................................
Figure 17
The Nurnber of Member Families of the OFSDs..............
The Number of the JOAA Members ............- ...............
Figure 18
Figure 19
Web of Teikeis
.......,...
OFSD...........................................
........................,
Teikei A ........................ .
..............
and OFSDs..................................... 107
ABSTRACT
Organic produce has been important to hedth conscious consumers in Japan, and the
existence of appropriate disaibution systems is a key for M e r development of organic
agriculture. This thesis first clarifies the necessity of the alternative distribution systems for
organic produce in Japan. The conventional distribution systems have not handled organic
produce because of its inefficient distribution and there is low consumer interest
This thesis describes and defines two Japanese alternative distribution systems for organic
produce, teikeis and Organic Food Specialized distributors (OFSDs). Teikeis are food
distribution systerns based on direct contracts between producers and consumes since the
1970s. OFSDs are entities that specialize in the distribution of organic, low-input, and
natural foods, developed in Japan since the 1980s. Community shared/supported
agriculture (CSA), a form of direct marketing of agriculhual products that comect f m e r s
and consumers, is more common in North America and is compared to teikeis.
By using case studies of three teikeis and six OFSDs,this thesis illustrates differences
between teikeis and OFSDs. Teikeis and OFSDs have different roles for consumers,
producers and distributors, and the approaches, strengths and weaknesses are different.
There are also conflicts between teikeis and OFSDs. This thesis elucidates the conflicts and
recommends their resolution. The CO-existenceof both systems is essential, since it is
preferable for consumers to have a choice between two systems.
This thesis argues that teikei and OFSDs must improve their systems and adopt intemal and
extemal strategies for ccxxistence. Intemal strategies include CO-operationbetween teikeis
and OFSDs, an improved efficiency in the teikei system and development of teikeis as a
niche market. Extemal strategies include land transfomation and the protection of urban
agriculture. This thesis recommends coexistence of teikeis and OFSDs for their fwther
development of the alternative distribution systems of organic produce in Japan.
LIST OF ACRONYMS
CSA
Community Shared (Suppofled) Agriculture
ECA
Environmental Conservation Agricdture
IFOAM
International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement
JAC
Japan Agriculture Comrnuflity
JCIC
Japan Consumer Information Center
JOAA
Japan Organic Agriculture Association
MAFF
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery
OFSD
Organic Food S p e c i W Distributor
YSPA
Yokohama Soi1 Preservation Association
1 would like to thank my cornmittee Dr. Ralph Martin, Dr. Leslie Brown, Dr. Kenneth
Beesley. and Prof. A m Dwire for providing encouragement, guidance, and assistance
throughout the research and writing of thïs thesis. 1 would also like to thank my farniiy and
Iino who always supported me. Completion of this thesis would not have k e n achieved
without their warm encouragement. 1 would also Like to thank Susan Rolston and al1 the
others involved with my thesis for their contribution and ail my fnends for their support.
1. Introduction
Since the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) published Our
Cornmon Future in 1987, the term sustainable development has k e n used widely (WCED,
1987). For me. the most important component of sustainable development is the
establishment of sustainable food distribution systerns because we cannot survive without
food.
My interest in food safeg stems from my family background in Japan. My family has been
very sensitive about food safety issues since my childhood. My mother was a member of a
food c o o p which sold healthy foods. As children, we were not even permitted to have
colourful chocolates with artificial additives. After 1990, my family began to purchase
organic food once a week from a convenient delivery system Company, an Organic Food
Specialized Distributor (OFSD). After studying econornics as an undergraduate in Japan,
I became interested in food safety issues and the role of food distribution systems for
sustainable development. 1 began to understand how food distribution systems affect Our
environment. When 1came to Canada in 1995, the first thing 1 did was to fmd a supplier of
healthy food, including organic food. 1 soon found the weekly farmer's market, joined a
food CO-op,and 1 participated in the Pumpkin Ecological Fann (a community shared
agriculture f m in Nova Scotia) during the summer of 1996. These experiences prompted
me to undertake this study of alternative food distribution systems for organic produce.
Living in two countries, Japan and Canada, 1began to realize there are both differences and
similarities in the organic food distribution systems in these countries. In my thesis 1 will
explore organic food distribution systems by focusing mainiy on the Japanese systems. 1
2
hope that this thesis wiii contribute to the development of organic food distribution systems
and sustainable development.
1.1 The Issue
Organic agriculture in Japan has developed in conjunction with alternative food
distribution systems. These systems bypass normal wholesale markets. The alternative
distribution systems developed because organic produce has no? been priced competitively.
The value of produce in wholesale markets is determined more by its size and appearance,
as well as the efficiency of delivery than by its safety and quality. Consumers and
producers together developed small-scale direct-contract operations called teikeis to
distribute organic produce. At the beginning of the 1970s, the teikei system was the only
alternative distribution system in Japan.
Afier the developrnent of teikeis, another alternative distribution system appeared, the
Organic Food Speciaiized Distributors (OFSDs). OFSDs play the role of intermediq
between producers and consumers and provide customers with convenient weekly
deliveries. As the scale of OFSDs became larger, teikeis and OFSDs began to compete
with each other. Some proponents of teikeis began to criticize the activity of the OFSDs
and vice-versa. The conflict arose because teikeis and OFSDs are not only business rivals,
but they also have different strategies and guiding principles.
According to research on environmental conservation agriculture (ECA)l by Japan's
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery (MAFF) (1997), farmers consider the
development of appropriate distribution systems for organic produce as the rnost important
strategy for the development of organic agriculture2 (MAFF, 1997). This finding implies
that alternative distribution systems are indispensable to organic agriculture. The conflict
between teikeis and the OFSDs must be resolved in order for organic agricultural
production to expand coherently.
1.2 Research Questions
The research questions for this thesis are:
l.
Why is an alternative food distribution system necessary for the development of
organic agriculture in Japan?
2.
How c m current alternative distribution systems be described and defmed?
3.
How do teikeis and OFSDs differ as Wustrated by case studies?
4.
Why are there conflicts between teikeis and OFSDs?
5.
What are the strategies of cwxistence among teikeis and OFSDs?
Environmental conservation agriculture (ECA, Kankyo Hozengata Nogyo in Japanese) is
agriculture that uses less agriculture chernicals and synthetic fertilizers than "normal", and includes lowinput agriculture and organic agriculture. ECA produce includes low agriculture chernical p d u c e , organic
transitional produce, and organic produce. This term is used in the MAFF since there are no effective
standards of organic produce in Japan.
1
2 MAFF surveyed 6.500 farmers who carrieci out ECA. Other strategies for the development of
organic agriculture which farmers thought were: education for consumers (second most important strategy)
and development of appropriate skills and techniques for organic agriculture (third most important strategy).
Research Question 5 is particulary important in this thesis, as the answer to this question
wiil help to inform an agenda for action to further development of organic agriculture in
Japan.
1.3 Objectives
1.
To cl-
the necessity of alternative distribution systerns for organic produce for
the development of organic agriculture in Japan.
2.
To describe and define teikeis and OFSDs-
3.
To use case studies to illustrate the differences between teikeis and OFSDs.
4.
To cl-
5.
To identify strategies of CO-existencebetween teikeis and OFSDs.
the conflicts between teikeis and OFSDs.
1.4 Methodology
1.4.1 Literature Review
A literature review was conducted by the researcher to identify issues and the research
questions. At this stage, despite the limited information available on Japanese issues in
Canada. the researcher tried to review al1 information available. including academic
literature by researchers of organic agriculture. the food industry, food distribution
systems. Literature on agriculture in general, newsletten published by groups that handle
organic produce, govemment documents. and the Intemet.
For a deeper understanding of the literature, the researcher contacted Professor Masugata at
Shukutoku University in Japan, a researcher of distribution systems for organic produce.
and the Japan Organic Agriculture Association (JOAA) by phone. Professor Masugata was
contacted because she has published and conducted significant research on this topic. The
JOAA is the only non-profit organization concemed with organic agriculture in the central
Tokyo area. This organization has promoted the organic agriculture movement since the
1970s.
Data Collection
1.
Data was coilected in the following areas:
-
ciifferences between conventional and alternative distribution systems [objective 1]
-
the description and definition of teikeis and OFSDs [objective 21
-
teikeis and OFSDs that could be used for case studies to iiiustrate the differences
between these systerns [objective 31
-
the nature of the conflicts between teikeis and OFSDs [objective 41
-
strategies for coexistence of teikeis and OFSDs [Objective 51
2.
Data coilected included academic Literature, journals, brochures, newsletten, books
published by people involved in alternative distribution systems for organic
produce, and records of conferences and meetings on alternative distribution
systems for organic produce. The information collected was written mainly by
supporters of alternative distribution systems for organic produce, dthough sorne
was available through academic journals. The researcher could not collect data
from people who do not support alternative distribution systems for organic
produce because of t h e consaaints [Limitations 11.
Case Studies
The research literature and information published by teikeis and OFSDs. including
newsletters, helped to identify which teikeis and OFSDs should be used as research
samples. The foilowing criteria were used to select examples of teikeis and OFSDs.
Teikeis
1.
Al1 examples of teikeis were selected by Iimiting the geographical area under
consideration to near T o h o for three reasons: ( 1) availability of documentation on
organic agriculture, (2) cultural differences between regions in Japan make it
necessary to limit the geographical area for comparative purposes, and (3) thne and
financial constraints to conduct visits and interviews meant a site near Tokyo was
preferable for the researcher [limitation 21. (See Figure 1 for the location of each
teikeis. )
2.
The literature review reveaied two categories of teikeis: type A have traditional
characteristics of teikeis and are initiated by an organic farmer, in contrast to Type B
that have more modem characteristics of teikeis and are initiated by a consumer
group. An exarnple was selected from each type. The Shimosato farm was
selected from type A because it most closely represents the ideal form of teikeis.
Yokohama Soil Preservation Association and Midori no Sato were selected from
arnong approximately 20 teikeis as representatives of type B teikeis. The availability
of detailed written information was an important consideration when initially
identifying suitable cases to be examined in this study [limitation 31.
OFSDs
The examples of OFSDs were chosen based on research conducted by the Japan Consumer
Information Center (JCIC) in 1990. The JCIC conducted research on activities of OFSDs
throughout Japan by using the snowbd technique to search out d existing OFSDs. The
JCIC found ten OFSDs and selected six OFSDs for case studies: the Ninjin Club, the
Daichi wo Marnoru Kai (the Daichi), the Radish Boya, the Shizenha Network, the Japan
Agriculture Community (JAC), and the Poran Hiroba The six OFSDs were selected on the
basis of the scale of their operations and their representativeness of each system of OFSDs
(JCIC,1990:7-9).Section 5.2 highlights the differences between these six OFSDs.
Although the researcher could assume there were more than ten OFSDs in 1998. the
researcher did not search for other OFSDs [limitation 41. Rather, further investigation of
these six OFSDs was conducted since the researcher agreed that these six are representative
of the different types of OFSDs. In addition, except for the Ninjin Club, these OFSDs have
at least one office in or near Tokyo. Thus, it was preferable to compare them with exarnples
of teikeis that were also located in or near Tokyo area. (See Figure 1 for the location of
each OFSD.)
Figure 1. Locations of Teikeis and OFSDs Selected for Case Studies
-
* Poran Hiroba has six offices throughout Japan.
1.4.2 Visiting and
Informal Interviews
Cornparison of teikeis and OFSDs and identification of the conflicts between them could
not be achieved merely by a literature review. The Literature was old enough that it could
not provide the curent number of menibers and recent activities of the teikeis and OFSDs.
The Iiterature did not detail the conflicts between teikeis and OFSDs. The iiterature was
insufficient for the researcher to get a sense of the characteristics of the activities of teikeis
and OFSDs.
To make up for these problems in data collection, visits and informal interviews were
conducted. Two teikek and two OFSDs among the selected case studies were visited
[limitation 51. The foiiowuig teikeis and OFSDs visited were visited:
Shimosato Fann (August 24, 1996)
Yokohama Soi1 Preservation Association (August 6.1996)
Daichi wo marnoru Kai (July 25, 1996)
Radish Boya (July 27, 1996)
The researcher conducted informai interviews at each teikei and OFSD. However, it was
dificult to taik about sensitive issues, especially the conflict between teikeis and OFSDs.
Many people did no&want to talk about these conflicts and the researcher had limited
success in getting people to provide the information sought [limitation 61.
To make up for the fact that the researcher could not visit al1 the teikeis and OFSDs
selected, interviews with Professor Masugata (July 26 and August 23, 1996) and telephone
interviews with the Japan Organic Agriculture Association were conducted (August 10.
1996 and December 1997). These interviews provided the data for teikeis and OFSDs that
1codd not visit.
Limitations of the Research
1.
The researcher could not collect data from people who were uninterested in
alternative distribution systems for organic produce because of tirne constraints. As
a result, the researcher has written this thesis based on the assumption that
alternative distribution systems are preferable for organic produce and alternative
distribution systems should be developed firther.
2.
The researcher limited the research area to in and near Tokyo. The case studies in
this thesis may not be a representative sarnpling of teikeis throughout lapan.
3.
Since the researcher selected three teikeis based on their detailed written
information, it is possible that case studies have been selected on teikeis that are
more active compared to other teikeis. Active teikeis tend to publish more written
information such as newsletters and brochures than inactive teikeis. The
information on teikeis on this thesis rnay represent a sample of active teikeis.
4.
The researcher selected OFSDs based on 1990 JCIC research. Eight years have
passed since the research was conducted, and it is possible that other types of
OFSDs have emerged. The researcher did not conduct research on this possibility
and focused instead on the six OFSDs which were selected by the JCIC. This
information may be dated.
5,
The researcher codd not visit aU the teikeis and OFSDs selected for case studies.
Despite the interviews with Professor Masugata and the JOAA. the arnount, qualiîy
and credibiiity of information collected may not be equal for each teikeis and OFSD.
6.
The informal interview process imposed Limitations. especiaiiy when attempting to
extract sensitive information on topics such as the conflict between teikeis and
OFSDs.
7.
The limited sample of this research has made it difficult to make generalizations.
Thus, the recommendations are limited.
1.5 The Significance of This Study
This thesis describes the two Japanese alternative distribution systerns: teikeis and OFSDs.
Although it focuses on Japanese alternative distribution systerns, these systems are useful
for Canadians who are interested in Comrnunity Shared/Supported Agriculture (CSA) and
other distribution systems for organic produce. Teikeis can be compared to CSAs in
Canada. OFSDs emerged in Canada in the L980s, for instance, with the development of
"Field to
able-3. While CSAs and OFSDs only began to develop in North America in the
1990s,Japanese teikeis and OFSDs bave operated since the 1970s. Since there is a lack of
3 Field to Table is a project of Food Share Metro Toronto and is a non-profit food distributor and
community development project. Among its programs is the Good Food Box. which delivers various kinds of
food boxes twice a month to dropoff places. These locations are established for 8-10 families or individuals who
want co buy boxes. Examples of boxes are: the Smdi Box ($10). the Staple Box ($20). the Caribbean Box ($20).
the Reach for five Basket which contains 30 serving s of fresh fruit and vegetables cut into manageable pieces
($10). and the Organic Food Box (large $25. srnaIl $15). In 1995, 901 households with approxirnately 3,000
people at 63 drop-off places throughout Metro Toronto participated in the program. Field to Table buys local
produce whenever it is available (Toronto Food Share, 1997 and Morgan. 1995).
12
English documentation on the topic of teikeis and OFSDs, this thesis can contribute to
informing the English-speaking audience of the Japanese experience in developing and
operating such systems. Teikeis have received attention from people in many Asian
countries, Canada and the United States, especiaiiy from those involved in CSA (Getz,
1991; Kneen, 1994).
Although there have been some studies on the distribution systems for organic food,
including Masugata and Kubota ( 1992) and Ahmed ( 1995), there are no snidies that focus
on the CO-existencebetween teikeis and OFSDs. Since the CO-existenceof teikeis and
OFSDs holds great promise for contributing to the future development of alternative
distribution systems of organic produce in Japan, it is necessary to review the nature of
these conflicts and discuss strategies for CO-existing.
In Canada, the limited number of OFSDs means that conflicts between the CSAs and
OFSDs are minimal. However, in the future,assuming OFSDs becorne popuiar, there is a
high probability that conflicts with CSAs wiil occur.
1.6
Outline of the Thesis
Chapter 2 provides background information on organic agriculture in Japan. Chapters 3 to
7 each ded with a research question. Chapter 3 is concemed with question 1, the necessity
of alternative distribution systems for organic produce. Chapter 4 deals with question 2,
how c m alternative food distribution systems be described and defined. In chapter 5, case
studies are used to illustrate the differences between feikeis and OFSDs to answer question
3. Chapter 6 deals with question 4, the source of conflicts between teikeis and OFSDs.
13
Chapter 7 is concerned with question 5, the strategies for CO-existencebetween alternative
distribution systems. Finaiiy, recommendatioas and conclusions drawn from this research
are presented in Chapter 8.
2. The Rise of Organic Agriculture in Japan
The purpose of this chapter is to provide the background information on how organic
agriculture has developed in Japan. Before examining organic agriculture in Japan, the fmt
section will bnefly review Japanese agriculture in general. The next section will examine
Japanese agricultural policies.
2.1 Agriculture in Japan
Japan consists of four major islands, Hokkaido, Honshu, Shikoku, and Kyushu and a
number of island chahs. The total of about 7,000 islands, lying off the eastem Coast of the
Asian continent, smtch in an arc 3,800 kilornetres long and cover an area of about 370,COO
square kilometres. The population of Japan is approximately 125 million (Management and
Co-ordination Agency, 1996). The climate is generally mild, and there are four distinct
semns. Rainfaii is abundant, ranging fiom 1,000 to 2,500 millimetres a year. The country
is mountainous and arable land is limited; about 13%of Japan is cultivated, and rice paddy
fields occupy 54.2% of this area. Total cultivated land in 1993 was 5,124,000 hectares,
making the average Japanese farm only 1.4 hectares in area. Taking advantage of the
country's climate, Japanese f m e r s produce a diverse range of agricultural producrs.
including rice. Japan had a national policy that mandated self-suffîciency in rice, however,
the country began to accept a set ratio of imported nce in 1995 (JA Zenchu, 1997 and
Asahi Shinbun, 1997).
Although the food self-suficiency rate (calorie-based rate) declined from 79% in 1960 to
42% in 1995 (MAFF, 1995) ( Table l), 90% of al1 vegetables and 60% of al1 fruit sold in
Japan are grown domestically. The foods with high self-sufficiency rates include milk and
dairy products (77%). eggs (98%),and pork products (74%). The foods with low self-
sufficiency rates include wheat (12%) and beans (6%). Japan relies heavily on imported
food (JA Zenchu, 1997).
Table 1. The Changes in Japanese Agriculture
Food Self-Sufficiency Rate (%)
Total Gross Domestic Product
(GDP)(billion yen)
Percent of GDP derived h m
agriculture production (%)
The number of fann workers
( 10,000 persons)
1
1
60
53
47
42
16,681
75,299
245,547
434,154
488,523
9.0
4.2
2.4
1-8
1.4
79
1,196
1
811
1
506
1
392
/
327
(MAFF, 1995)
In economic temis, the importance of agiculture has rapidly diminished since 1960 when
the high economic growth period began. This is demonstrated by the decline in the
percentage of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)accounted for by agricultural production
(Table 1). The number of fam workers also decreased during this penod (Table 1). In
1995, there were approximately 3.2 million farm workers, accounting for 5.1% of the total
working population. The age of farm workers increased during this period, with the
percentage of farm workers aged 65 years or oider constituting 39.8% of al1 f m workers
in 1995 (MAFF, 1995).
Agricultural land is mostly in rural areas, while most consumers are in urban areas. The
population of Tokyo, Osaka and Kanagawa, three prefectures which include the three
largest cities, arnounts to 23% of the total population of Japan. However, farm workers in
these three prefectures account for only 1.95% of al1 farm workers, and agricultural land
accounts for only one percent of total agricultural land. These statistics demonstrate the
16
distance between consumen and producers (Statistics Bureau, 1995 and MAFF, 1995).
This means that distribution systems are a cnticai component of Japanese agricultural
policy .
2.2
Agricultural Policy in Japan
After World War II to the 1970s
After World War II, Japan had a food famine, thus increasing the productivity of
agriculture was the most crucial component of agriculairal policy. During a p e n d of rapid
economic growth in the 1960s, there were two inter-reiated problerns that the MAFF faced:
a minimal growth of agricultural productivity and the low income of farmen. Productivity
and incomes of other industries increased dramatically in contrast to those of agriculture.
The difference in income becarne distinctive.
To resolve these two problems,
The
Fundamentals of Anriculture Act was enacted in 1961 (MAFF, 1995). Under this Act,
farmers were encouraged to use synthetic fertilizers, agricultural chemicals, modem
machinery, and large-scale and single-crop farming. Thus began the promotion of the
''modernization of agriculture." The result of this strategy was measured and appreciated,
given the i n c ~ a s ein productivity and the rate of labour saving (Hasumi, 1991).
Proponents of organic agriculture, such as Hasumi (199 1) and Ichiraku (199 1). argue that
the two problerns that the MAFF identified are actuaily not problerns. High productivity
and high income levels do not equate to the development of agriculture. The aim of
agriculture should not only be high productivity, but also protection of the environment and
producing safe and high quality food. In addition, a slow increase in productivity is natural
for agriculture because agriculture deals with nature which is not easily controlled by
humans. Hasumi (1991) noted that since f m e r s can grow their own food, even if their
income is lower than workers in other industries, it is possible for ihem to maintain a good
standard of living. Consequently, the income level of farmers is not an important measure
of the development of agriculture, it is meaningless to compare the incorne difference
between farrners and other industries' workers. However, the MAFF considered the lower
incorne to be a serious problem and tried to increase farmers' incomes by the modernization
of agriculture.
MAFF's promotion of modernization of agriculture has not included support for organic
agriculture. A 1975 book by Ariyoshi Sawako, Cornplex Pollution (Hukugo Osen)
explained the impact of agriculturai chemicals on the environment and the human body
(Ariyoshi, 1975). The book becarne a best seller in Japan, and Ariyoshi was considered to
be the Japanese equivalent to Rachel Carson. Consequently, many individuais began to
question the issues associated with the modernization of agriculture. Ln response to the
negative public opinion, the MAFF published The Role of Modern Agriculture which
justified the use of agricultural chemicals.
Organic Agricultural Policy from the 1980s
The MAFF became interested in organic agriculture in the late 1980s because of its potential
to generate a profit, not because organic agriculture is more environmentally friendly or
sustainable. The MAFF stiU places emphasis on bringing farm incomes more in line with
those of other industries. Thus it ernphasizes the agriculture that has the potential to
generate a high profit. The concept of "organic agriculture as a high profit industry" was
introduced in the agricultural white paper published in 1988 (MAFF, 1988). In the white
paper, the MAFF presented a group of organic fanners in the Chiba prefecture as an
example of farmers who practice high-profit agriculture. However, these organic farmers
18
began organic agriculture because it is more environmentally friendly, healthy, and
sustainable, not because it is highly profitable. Thus, the farmen were angered by their
characterization and protested to the MAFF(Miyoshi Seisan Group, 1989). The MAFF
admitted their mistake, and in their 1989 white paper noted that organic agriculture is not
ody a high profit industry, but that it is environmentaiiy fnendly, sustainable and good for
our health (Suzuki, 1995).
Table 2. Organic Agricultural Policy in the 1980s
- -
1985
The MAFF establishedhtemationalN a d Farming Research Foundation
1987
Members of Liberal Democratic Party formed Organic Agriculture Research
league
1988
Memben of Social Dernocratic Party formed Organic Agriculture Research
league
A town in Chiba Prefecture which practiced organic agriculture was
introduced in the agriculture white paper
1989
The MAFF established an organic farming section. (Later it is renamed as
"Environmental Conservation Agriculture section)
(Suzuki, 1995)
The Organic Farming Section of the MAFF was established in 1989. Currently, the
section's main activities are: (a) compiling information and statistics on the extent of
organic farrning, (b) disserninating information about organic farming, and (c ) verifying
clairns of organic farmers regarding the extent of their organic farming as weli as the types
of yields they are getting (Ahmed, 1995).
Table 3. Organic Agricultural Policy in the 1990s
The guideline for organic agriculture began to be discussed
The concept of "environmental conservation agriculture is introduced
The MAFF States that environmentai conservation agriculture is the key issue
for future agriculture
The guideline for organic agriculture is estaôlished
(Suzuki, 1995)
In the 1990s, the organic agricultural policy evolved further. In 1991, drafi guidelines for
organic agriculture were introduced. However, it was difficult to achieve a social
consensus on the standards to be set. Thus, the MAFF began to develop the concept of
Environmental Conservation Agriculture (ECA). ECA c m be defined as any "agriculture
which use less agricultural chemicals and synthetic fertilizers than normal use" including
organic agriculture and low-input agriculture (MAFF,1997). Since there is no clear
defmition of "normal use", the concept of ECA is ambiguous. Nonetheless, the MAFF
proposed the foiiowing three steps to promote ECA:
1.
2.
3.
kiforni people about ECA and establish a social consensus on ECA.
Develop appropriate techniques for ECA.
Encourage ECA to become ordinary agricultural practice (Suzuki, 1995: 23)
The importance that MAFF places on ECA is demonstrated by the increased budget
allocated for ECA. In 1993, the budget for the promotion of ECA was 210 million yen
(US $2.1 million). In 1994, the budget increased to a thousand million yen (US $10
million). This budget is used for subsidies to towns. cities and prefectures that practice
ECA or develop ECA techniques, to support environmental monitoring related to ECA, to
promote recycling of animal manure and plastic materials, and to conduct research on
revishg the levels of synthetic fertilizers and agricultural chernicals used (Suniki, 1995).
Since October 1992, the MAFF has provided interest-free loans to organic farmers for
expenses such as composting facilities, weeding machinery,p heromones and birds4. The
total arnount available increased from 100 million yen (US $1 million) in 1992 to 500
million yen (US $5 million) in 1994 (Suzuki, 1995).
In 1991, the MAFF began to discuss guidehes for organic produce. A set of guidelines
was issued in 1993. Although the guidehes were designed primarily to protect consumers
fkom fdse advertising, they are complex and may cause some confusion among consumers
(Table 4). Based on the standard, products are labelled as "Organic," b'Transitional
Organic," "Reduced Synthetic Chemicals," "Non Agricultural Chernicals" and "Reduced
Agricultural Chemicals." However, it is important to note that these guidelines are not
effective because there are no inspection svstems concerning labelling, the guidelines &
not have anv l e d force and there are no Denalties for false labelling. The JOAA and some
consumer groups have complained about the ineffectiveness of this standard and the
ambiguity of the words on the label (JA Zenchu, 1997).
Pheromone is a chernical substance which acts as sexud attractants to insects. Traps containing
pheromone may be used to entice pests away from crops (iampkin, 1990). Birds can be used in sustainable
agriculture practice since they eat weeds and insects. In Japan, duck- rice-farming method became popular in
the 1990s. Ducks are released in paddy fields, where they eat al1 weed but rice (Kaneko, 1996).
4
Table 4. The Standard of Organic Agiculture Food
use
L
More than
3 ycan
Non synthetic
fertilizer
product
chemicals
Mon than 3
yms
M~~ than 6
months
Non
agricultural
chernicals
product
Lrssthan504b
Rednced
agricaltural
chemicals
~ 0 r i - u ~ ~
usage
More than 6
months
0 t h
Reduced
synthetic
fertilizer
ri
Organic
! Transitional
organic
Use
Otha
(MAFF, 1992)
Although the organic agricultural policy, including increasing the budget for ECA and
setting standards, seemed to be a positive step for organic agriculture, not every one
agreed. Ichiraku (199 l), a founding member of IOAA, has been negative about the organic
agricultural policy, including the establishment of guidelines and the budget for ECA.
When the MAFF requested the budget for ECA from the Ministry of Finance in 1989,
Ichiraku sent in a petition to both the MAFF and the Ministry of Finance objecting to a
budget for ECA. Ichiraku rejected govermnent support for ECA on the grounds that the
MAFF had ignored organic agriculture for approximately 20 years and instead promoted
modernization of agriculture. Ichiraku did not trust the MAFF's changed attitude. Ichiraku
said, "If farmers reject conducting what the MAFF encourages, farmers become
22
successful" (Ichiraku, 1991:66). This attitude is prevalent arnong organic farrners, since
Japanese govemrnents tend to be bureaucratie and operate in a topdown approach.
Ichiraku considen that organic agriculture should be developed by the bottom-up approach.
Ichiraku believes that if famien and consumes reaiize the importance of organic agriculture
themselves, they will promote organic agriculture even without govenunent support. If
governent tries to lead the organic agicultural movement, it will be a topdown approach
as when the MAFF prornoted modernization of agriculture after WW II. Thus, Ichiraku
recommends that the MAFF research organic agriculture if they are truly interested in
organic agriculture. He recommended that the personnel of the MAFF should spend more
than one week at organic farms and participate in organic farming practice to research
organic agriculture. When personnel of the MAFF researched organic agriculture, they
only visited organic famis for a few hours to write a report. Ichiraku criticized this method
of research and recommended that the MAFF develop a sincere intention to learn organic
agriculture. In order to understand the true meaning of organic agriculture, Ichiraku
believes this type of research and attitudulal changes are required.
In conclusion, the MAFF promoted modernization of agriculture to increase the agricultural
productivity from the late 1940s to the late 1970s. The policy encouraged farmers to use
agricultural chemicals, synthetic fertilizers, modem machinery, and large-scale and singlecrop farming.
In the 1980s. the MAFF became interested in organic agriculture, and
began to develop organic agricultural policy, including the establishment of a research
foundation and guidelines, and budget allocations for organic agriculture. However,
proponents of organic agriculture, including Ichiraku have not reacted positively to these
governent actions to promote organic agriculture, since they utilize a topdown approach.
The appropriate d e of government in organic agriculture in Japan is controversial.
3.
The Necessity of an Alternative Distribution
System for Organic Produce
This chapter addresses the question of the necessity of an alternative distribution system for
organic produce and its impact on the development of organic agriculhire in Japan.
3.1
Conventional and Alternative Distribution Systems
In conventional markets, commodities are initiaiiy sold at wholesale markets. Wholesale
markets are nui under The Wholesale Market Law, enacted by the Japanese Diet in 1971.
Alternative distribution system bypass wholesale markets (Kobayashi et al., 1995).
3.2.
Conventional Distribution Systems
3.2.1.
The Structure of Conventional Distribution Systems
In 1992, 85.296 of al1 vegetables and 69.9% of di mUts were sold through conventionai
wholesale markets. Since 1985, the percentage of fkuits handled by wholesale markets has
decreased while that of vegetables has been relatively stable (Table 5). There are two
reasons for this decrease: the development of alternative distribution systems such as teikeis
and OFSDs and the increase in imports of vegetables and fruits (Kobayashi et al, 1995).
Table 5. The Vegetables and Fdts Handled by Wholesale Markets
Fruits
Vegetables
Total amount
The rate handled
by wholesale
The rate handled
by wholesale
markets
Conventional markets in Japan have many layers of wholesale dealers. Figure 2 outlines
these layen. This complexity means there is a great distance between consumers and
producers. This distance creates a chasm. Consumers and producers do not understand
each other, because consumen are not knowledgeable about agriculture and producers do
not know the consumers' demands.
Figure 2. Conventional Markets in Japan
t
PRODUCERS (FARMERS)
000
;
Agriculture
Import
Buyerd Shippers
Co-operatives
I
Export
Whoiesale
10
Market
0 0 0 0 0 Consumers
(Kobayashi et al, 1995)
Kneen's investigation (1989) of the Canadian food distribution system uses the tenn
"distancing to describe "the increasing physical distance between the points at which food
is
... grown... and the point at which it is consumed, as weii as the extent to which the
nnished product is removed nom its raw state by processing." (1989:3 1) This distancing is
not only through an increase in the physical distance between the farmer and the ultimate
consumer, but also through food processing and the differentiation of products, and
through improved preservation and packaging techniques. Consumers and producers have
divergent perceptions on agricufturai production. This chas- or "distancing", has occurred
in Iapanese conventional markets as weU.
3.2.2 The Conventional Distribution Systems and Organic Produce
The amount of organic vegetables and fÎuits available in conventional distribution systems
is very low. The wholesale markets of Tokyo handled only 0.6% of organic produce in
1995 (Minami Nihon Shinbun, 1996). MAFF research (1997) indicates that 15% of
environmental conservation agiculture @CA) products are placed into the wholesale
market. The remaindef are sent to alternative markets.
One reason why conventional market systems have not handled organic produce is their
"inefficient" distributions (Masugata and Kubota, 1992). This leads us to the question
"What is the definition of efficiency?" In conventional distribution systems, economic
efficiency is defined as: 1) rninimization of the detenoration of produce, e.g., rotting and
blemishing during transportation, and 2) selling a large amount of the same kind of
produce. Since there is a great distance between producers and consumers in conventional
distribution systems, it is crucial to minimize the deterioration of produce. In order to do
this, it is necessary for many products to be sprayed and then packed properly, which
means produce is selected according to its size. Consequently, perfectly shaped produce is
more bighly valued because it is easier to pack. Selling a large amount of the same produce
also encourages economic efficiency. Conventional agriculture has tried to rneet the
demands of the conventional distribution systems. In contrast, organic agriculture has not
tried to meet these dernands.
However, this does not mean that organic agriculture has not pursued efficiency. Organic
agriculture pursues a different efficiency, that of distnbuting fksh wholesome fwd. The
strategies for efficiency of organic agriculture are compared with those of conventional
agricuiture in Table 6.
Table 6. Strategies for Efficiency in Conventional Agricuiture and Organic Agriculture
Agrïcuihiral method
Conventional agriculture
ûrganic agricdtural
Use agricultural
chemicals, herbicides and
fertilizers
No agriculnnal chemicals
SW-scale rnixed agiculture
Mass production, monocrop agriculture
Shape of products
Selection
Food additives
Packaging
Uniformly shaped
According to nature
Produce are selected accordhg No selection
to size
Food additives such as wax,
No additives
agricdtural chemicals and
artificial colours are used
"Properly" packaged to
prevent bniising and
blemishing
Minimal packaging
Conventional farmers use agricultural chemicals, herbicides and synthetic fertilizers to
produce uniformly shaped, non-worm-eaten produce that obtains high prices in the
conventional markets. They produce a large arnount of the same produce for mass
distribution. They select produce according to size, polish it with wax,spray it with postharvest chemicals to reduce spoilage, and package it to prevent bruishg and to maximize
the price and quality of produce.
Organic farmers do not use agricultural chemicals, and they do not insist on producing
uniformly-shaped produce. Rather, they try to produce healthy produce. Most organic
farmers in Japan are smd-scale and produce smaU arnounts of various kinds of produce.
They try to minimize packaging. These strategies of organic farmers are not deemed to be
efficient in conventional distribution systems. However, when organic produce is sold in
alternative distribution systems such as teikeis and OFSDs, with the understanding of
consumers, these strategies promote the efficiency of distributing fresh wholesome food.
That is why organîc farrners rejected conventional markets.
The other m a i . reason that conventional markets do not hande organic produce is because
of low consumer interest. Although consumers are beginning to seek safer food,
consumers still want unblemished, large and perfectly-shaped produce (JOAA, 1994).
Organic produce is often blemished, smail and imperfectly-shaped (in other words, natural)
and does not meet the dernands of the mass consumer.
However, Hasumi (199 1) has pointed out that the conventional distribution systems forced
consumers to purchase non-blemished, large and perfectly-shaped produce. When
consumers go to a supermarket, they do not have the option to purchase any other kind of
produce as it is not available there.
If supermarkets made organic produce available, would consumers purchase it? This
depends on whether consumers have the skills and knowledge to recognize quality in food:
Does a blemish affect the taste of the produce? Does the shape or sue of the produce affect
its quality? Some blemishes do not affect the taste of produce. Depending on the method of
cooking, blemishes, imperfect shapes and s m d size do not affect the quality of food.
Consumers without the knowledge and skills will always choose non-blemished, perfectly-
shaped, large produce, since they believe those are the appropriate standards in choosing
food. Those consumers buy this produce not because they truly want non-blemished,
perfectly-shaped, large produce. but because they believe these are the better products.
There is a second point to consider. When consumers buy produce directly fiom producers
as in alternative distribution systems, producers are able to educate the consumer to
recognize quality in food. If producers teach consumen that blemishes, shape and size do
not necessarily affect the quality of produce, consumers are more willing to buy this
produce. Even when blemish or size affects the quality of produce, producers cm educate
consumers on how it shouid be cooked in order to taste delicious. They can explain why it
is blemished or srnaIl to the satisfaction of consumers. Learning the skills to distioguish
quality in foods is often carried out in the teikei system (Karasawa, 1991). In
supermarkets, producers are not available to educate consumers and consumers do not
l e m to identiQ quality in foods. As a result of these factors, organic produce, is not
atways of large size, is not handed by conventional distribution systems and consequently,
it is sold mainly through alternative distribution systems.
There is a third point to consider. The difference between the conventional and alternative
distribution systems is that the latter are free to educate consumers about organic agriculture
and to promote the virtues of organic food. However, in conventional markets, it is
diffïcult to do so since the main suppliers of conventional markets distribute food grown
with agriculturd chemicals. Thus, supporters of conventional markets have to wony about
aüenating their main suppiiers. Furthemore, if conventionai markets encourage customers
to pinchase organic food because it is healthier and safer, they are contradicting the fact that
they promote and sell food grown with agriculturai chemicals.
30
In conclusion, there are clear differences ktween conventional and alternative distribution
systems in Japan. Since the conventional distribution systems is not preferable for organic
produce, it is necessaq to develop alternative distribution systems for organic produce.
4. How Can Alternative Distribution Systems for
Organic Produce be Defined and Described
In this chapter, two Japanese alternative distribution systems, teikeis and OFSDs, and a
Canadian one, Community SharecUSupported Agriculture are defmed and described.
4.1 Teikeis
4.1.1 Definition of Teikeis
Teikeis have been the main alternative distribution system of organic food in Japan since
the 1970s (JOAA, 1994). At the fmt Asian Conference of the International Federation of
Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) in 1993, the Japan Organic Agriculture
Association (JOAA), a non-profit organization which consists of famers, consumers and
researchers of organic agriculture, advocated the teikei system as an appropriate system for
distributhg organic foods (JOAA, 1994). Since then, many Asian countries, including
Korea, China and Indonesia, have established similar systems (JOAA, 1994). The success
of teikeis in Japan resulted in its inclusion in the Hanno Declaration (Appendix l), a
statement put fonvard by the JOAA recommending that governments promote
environmentally-sound agricultural practices (JOAA, 1994).
To expand the teikei movement to other Asian countries, teikei intemhips were conducted
as a part of a study program of IFOAM Asia In the fmt teikei intemship prognun in May
1997, two representatives from The Philippines participated in a month-long program to
leam the concepts and practices of teikeis. While on this intemship, the participants stayed
at the homes of organic famiers and consumers involved in teikeis.
Based on mutual understanding of the need for organic produce, teikeis developed as a
food distribution system between producers and consumers (JOAA, 1994). Teikeis evolve
in two ways: (1) consumers fonn groups in order to obtain food that has not been treated
with pesticides, agrîculnual chemicals or ztificial additives, and find appropriate producers
to meet their needs; (2) producers fmd groups of consumers that want to purchase their
produce (JOAA, 1994). The food is delivered directly nom the producer to the consuml
bypassing wholesalers and commercial mass distribution system.
There is no fomal definition of a teikei because it is a system that describes any direct
distribution of food which is based on a mutual understanding between consumers and
producers. However, a typical teikei c m be described as foUows: consumer groups are
compnsed of three to ten neighbourhood families; consumers contract producers who
supply safer foods, such as organic, or at least pesticide-free food; the food is delivered to
the delivery stations that are located near the consumers' homes. Both the consumers and
the producers provide labour and capital to support the system (JOAA, 1994).
4.1.2 History of the Teikei Movement
The teikei movement has k e n promoted by three factors: (1) an inappropnate agricultural
policy (refer to chapter 2), (2) the lack of a distribution system for safer foods (chapter 3),
and (3) a rise of consciousness about the issue of food safety for both consumers and
fanners (Masugata and Kubota, 1992). These three factors also serve to promote organic
agriculture. The teikei movement has evolved in conjunction with the expansion of organic
agriculture (JCIC, 1981: 12).
agricuiture in Japan.
Figure 3 sets out the evolution of teikeis and organic
Figure 3. The History of Teikeis
1945 World War iI ends
I
Wldespread food shortages
1
1
I
Hi@-pductivity agricuiture,
mononopping, agriculturai
modernization policy
Inappropriate
agricutural policy
High economic growth contributeci to
air pollution, water contamination by havy
industries
Soii deterioration as a resuit of pesticides and
chernimi fertilizers are recorded by many farmers
and scientists
I
1970s
Pollution-related diseases
appear,e.g. Minamata disease
A rise of conciousness of the
issue of food safety for
consumers and farmers
Concemed farmers began
to carry out organic
agricuihue
The lack of
Concerned consumers focused on
obtaining safer food and discovered a
way of buying food directiy from
systems for saler,
WU-
1Tcikei wwas bom
(Asahi Shinbun, 1997; JCIC, 198 1; JOAA,
I
1994)
After 1945, Japan suffered widespread food shortages. In the 1950s, the developing trend
of agricdturd modernization supported high-productivity agriculture (JCIC,
1981;
Masugata and Kubota, 1992). Although Japan's agricultural production was among the
world's highests; it was also the world's Iargest consumer of synthetic feriüizer (Ahmed,
1995) 6.
The period of industrial growth throughout the 1960s resulted in annual GNP net growth
rates of more than ten percent (Asahi Shinbun, 1997). However, govemment and
companies prioritized economic growth, but did not take the environment into account
(Miyamoto. 1989: 1). As a resuit, pollution-related diseases such as the Mioamata disease
appeared? During this period. agricultural scientists, such as Ryutaro Tsuchida and
Shunichi Wakatsuki, began to argue that agrïcultural chernicals were harmfbl to human
health (JOAA, 1994). Ryutaro Tsuchida warned of the health dangers associated with
ammonium sulfate, the main component of synthetic fertilizers. Shunichi Wakatsuki
published 'The Danger of Agriculturd Chemicais" in 1965 (JCIC, 1981). Both of these
scientists questioned modem agricultural policies and their research contributed to the
development of organic agriculture.
The appearance of poilution-related diseases and the warnkgs of the dangers of agriculturai
chemicals led to concems about the environment and an increase in consciousness about
food safety in the 1970s for both consumers and farmers (Masugata and Kubota, 1992).
5 In 1991, Iapanese rice paddy yiefds of 5.8 tonha and potato yields of 30th were the sixth
highest among the world's major producers (FAO, cited in Ahmeci, 19957).
6 Japanese agriculture consumed 402 kgha of fertdizer in 1991. This consumption is over nine
times that of Canada (46 kgha) and four times that of the United States (99 kgha) (Seager, f 995:92-99).
7 Minamata is a disease of the nervous system caused by mercury poisoning. Identified in the
1950s and 1960s in the southern part of Japan, it was caused by effluent from factories dumped into nvers.
People who ate contaminated fish contracteci the disease. Accolding to governent statistics, the number
of patients with Minamata disease in 1989 was 2,903. Unofficial records show more than 10,000 people
had the disese (Miyamoto, 1989).
Concemed consumers began to focus on obtaining safer food while concemed fanners
began to conduct organic agriculture. Together, they discovered a way for consumers to
buy food directly fkom producers: hence, the teikei movement was bom.
The JOAA was established in 1971 to promote the organic agricultural movement.
(Masugata and Kubota, 1992). The 29 founding members included pioneers of organic
agriculture in Japan such as: Masanobu Fukuoka, an agricultural researcher who began the
natural way of farming without using agricultural chemicals and fertilizers in 1947
(Fukuoka, 1985); G j r o Yanase, a physician who documented the relationship between
human health and agriculhiral chemicals; Teruo Ichiraku, a former president of the Cooperative Research Institute; Jin Adachi and Toshinao Yokoi, authorities on microorganisms; and Yukio Tusyuki, an organic farmer since the 1950s (JOAA, 1994: 78). At
present, JOAA has approximately 3,300 members, 20% of whom are f m e r s , with the
remaining membership comprised of consumers, scientists, medical practitioners,
economists, CO-opworkers, and jomalists (JOAA, 1997).
The JOAA recommends that farrners seil their organic products through the teikei system,
and that consumers purchase organic products through this system (JOAA, 1994:79). At
the end of the 1970s, the JOAA published 'The Ten Principles of Teikei between
Producers and Consumers."
Face-to-face relationships based on fnendship not business.
Planned production based on agreements between farmers and consumers.
Acceptance of all the produce delivered from the producers.
Price setting based on mutual benefits.
Strengthenuig exchange programs between consumers and producers.
Direct delivery 6rom farmer to consumer without the use of any distributor
or k e d transport.
Democratic management of each group.
Emphasis on education programs.
Maintaining an appropriately shed group.
10.
Making efforts towards achieving the goals of organic agriculture and an
ecologically somd Me. (JOAA, 1994:79, my translation)
These principles clearly set out the objectives of teikeis. Although these principles are
voluntary, research conducted by Masugata and Kubota (1992) indicates that many teikei
groups have tri& to folIow these principles (Appendix 2).
The Ideal Form of a Teikei
The ideal form of a teikei is advocated by Ichîraku (1991), a founding member of the
JOAA. The ideal form of teikei can be initiated by self-sufncient farmers who grow various
kinds of produce in appropriate amounts, as well as raising some livestock. The labour is
iimited in these s e l f - s ~ c i e nfarms,
t
so the scale of management is not that large. S m d scale self-suficient fmers have more potential to utilize sustainable farming practices than
large-scde farmers. They use their own compost and livestock manure for fertiiizer and
seeds can be collected from their own crops (Ichiraku, 1991).
The JOAA equates making food a comrnodity with "food pollution" (JOAA, 1994).
Teikeis t
q not to commodify organic foods. Fannen do not seli produce, they give it to
those who need it. Consumes do not buy produce from f m e r s , they receive it. If selfsufficient fmers have a surplus. they give that surplus to consumers who do not grow
produce; the consumers give money, labour, or other gifts as a token of gratitude. That is
the traditional and ideal way of a teikei (Ichiraku, 1991). Consumers may give money, but
it is different fkom just paying the price of the produce. Money is given as a token of
gratitude.
In the teikei system, consumers visit their producen to help on the farm, a process known
as enno. The fkquency a . amount of their aid varies, depending on the group (JOAA,
1994). An enno is a good way to practice Principles 1. 5, and 8. Producers and
consumers meet each other through an emo so they can make "face-to-face relationships
based on niendship not business" (Principle 1). An enno is an "exchange program
between consumers and producers" (Principle 5). Through an enno, consumers can learn
what is involved in agriculture through their participation in fanning activities, and
producers cm hear the dernands and opinions of consumers directly (JOAA, 1994). An
enno is a learning oppominity, which means an enno is a type of "education program"
(Principle 8).
Based on Principle 3, consumer groups accept a i l produce delivered from the producers
(JOAA, 1994). By this principle, consumers who participate in a teikei may have to change
thek diet and shopping patterns (JOAA, 1994). Consumers who buy at a conventional
supermarket usually buy whatever they want and as much as they need In the reikei
system. however, consumers take, as a d e , ail the produce delivered from the farm,
regardless of the amount, size and appearance (JOAA, 1994). Consumers do not choose
what they want or how much they want. Prior to the growing season, consumers and
producers meet to decide what produce the farmers will grow and how much consumers
want (JOAA, 1994). However. given weather constrahts and other factors beyond a
farmer's control, plans go awry and consumers may receive tw little or too much of certain
products.
Two strategies are employed to overcome this imbalance of supply and demand. First,
consumers are educated in new cooking skills, including how to preserve food.
Consumers try to incorporate all the food provided into tasty meals (JOAA, 1994). The
second strategy is to form a network among teikei groups. Consumers can exchange
surplus quantities of produce with other teikei groups.
Principle 4, "price setting based on mutual benefits," is an important principle, though it is
diffkult
to maintain (JOAA, 1994). Ideaiiy, money should be paid o d y as a token of
gratitude, not as the price of the produce. However, in modern life, paying money for
produce is often the most convenient and rational way of exchange.
Prices are set once an agreement between consumers and producers has been reached
through direct negotiation. Such prices are, in most cases, higher than those found in the
wholesale market. However, consumers are delighted with the pnces because they are no
more expensive than those in grocery stores and the produce is safer and of better quality.
Teikei pices are usually set so as to parantee a moderate profit to cover the living
expenses and production costs of producers. Producers receive a relatively steady income,
that is not affected by annual fluctuations in harvested quantities or in market prices.
Producers obtain fmancial security through the "coexisting relationship" principle. Not all
teikeis work as the ideal form of teikei. However, groups strive to reach the ideal (JOAA,
1994).
4.2 Organic Food Specialized Distributors (OFSDs)
4.2.1 Definition of OFSDs
OFSDs can be defined as commercial entities that specialize in the distribution of o r g d c ,
low-input, and natural foods (Ahmed, 1995). Teikeis and OFSDs share several common
characteristics. The head office of an OFSD connects producers and consumers by
recruiting farmers and consumers. It undertakes negotiations, processes orders and
undertakes other business-related work (JCIC. 1990). The head office also plans
exchange programs that often take the form of tours of the producer's farm, parties and
harvest festivals.
The head office of OFSDs develop not only the distribution system, but aiso contribute to
social movements in areas such as organic agriculture, food safety and the natural
environment This characteristic is a controversial one. Ahmed states, "Aithough many of
them [OFSDs] consider their activities as social movements, they are actually run as
commercial enterprises" (199529). However, Masugata and Kubota conclude that OFSDs
not only operate as organic food businesses, but also as centres for social movements
(199263). The OFSDs' sexvices and activities in social movements Werentiate them fiom
other commercial enterprises such as supermarkets and department stores.
For the conceptualization of organic food marketing systems. OFSDs can be positioned
between the teikei systern and supermarkets (JCIC, 1990) (Figure 4).
Figure 4. The Position of OFSDs
Teikeis
OFSDs
Supermadre~
Not to
commodify food
CommodQ
Food
Social movement
Cornmemai
enterpises
promote connedion
betweenfmers
and consumers
,,
Localization
) consumers
sep""
and
ptQducers
Intedonali7ation
In order to understand OFSDs, four questions need to be answered:
1. How do OFSDs deal with food?
At supennarkets, food is treated as a commodity, the same as an industrial product. In
the teikei system, food is not a co~~~modity
but a connection between producers and
consumers (JCIC, 1990). OFSDs treat food as a commodity in that it is bought and
sold, but at the same time, food also connects producers and consumers.
2. What is the purpose of each system?
The teikei system is not a business, but a social rnovement focused on organic food,
sustainable agriculhire and various environmental issues. OFSDs are more businessIike compared to teikeis, however, they have also developed social movements.
Supermarkets are completely commercial enterprises and their goal is to maximize
profits.
3. What is the nature of the connection between consumers and producers?
The teikei system promotes the connection, by carrying out ennos, visiting farms and
holding meetings. OFSDs promotes connections between producers and consumers by
organizing f m visits and planning exchange programs. Supermarkets do not promote
direct connections between producers and consuners.
4. Where does food corne fiom?
The Food of teikeis comes from the local area. Teikeis prornote regional selfsufficiency and an eat-local movement. Teikeis promote localization of the economy.
The food of OFSDs comes from throughout Japan. OFSDs promote the eat-domestic
movement. Food of supennarkets comes from throughout the world. Conventional
markets promote intemationalization.
4.2.2 History of OFSDs
The fmt OFSD was established when problems pertaining to the teikei system developed in
the late 1970s (Masugata and Kubota, 1992). The Daichi wo Marnoru Kai (Daichi) was
established in 1975 and the Japan Agriculture Community (JAC) followed in 1977 (JCIC,
1990). In the 1980s, an increasing number of OFSDs were established in response to
consumer demand. Currently, there are about ten OFSDs in Japan (Masugata and Kubota,
1992).
4.3 Comrnunity SharedISupported Agriculture
4.3.1 Definition of CSAs
Community SharedlSupported Agriculture (CSA) is a form of direct marketing of
agriculnval products which connects fanners and consumers Consumers generally pay an
up-£?ont fee and receive a share of the weekly harvest. Consumers and farrners share the
risks and joys of farming as consumers are involved in farming and in management of the
CSA.
According to Kaktins (1997), Canadian use of the term Comrnunity Shared Agriculture
equates to the United States' use of the term Comrnunity Supported Agriculture. As Groh
and MacFadden write, the term community supported agiculture can be misleading as "it
implies that the problem is specid support for agriculture" (1990:6). As a result, farmers
such as Dao Wiens consider his CSA to be "community shared agriculture, not community
supported agriculture" (Kneen and Wiens, 1992). However, the support between farm
and community is reciprocai in both community supported agriculture and community
shared agriculture. We can use these t e m interchangeably (Salm, 1997; Kaktuis, 1997).
4.3.2 History of CSAs
The fxst CSA farm, the "Indian Line" farm was established in 1985 in Massachusetts
(Salm, 1997). Its founder, Jan Vander Tuin, studied new food-production CO-operativesin
Switzerland. The CO-operativesare organizations which "provide direct support for
fanners fiom the people who eat their food" (Groh and McFadden, 199050). In the cooperatives, farmers and shareholders divide the cost of the farm before the growing season.
Jan Vander Tuh practiced the concept of the CSA together with his fiiends. In 1988, a
shareholder paid about $300, depending on hisher financial status, and received one large
bag of fkesh vegetables and fruits every week for the eight months of the growing season,
and one large bag which included potatoes, beets and carrots once a month in the winter.
One share yielded enough vegetables for two vegetarians, or four non-vegetanans. When
they nrst began the CSA, each shareholder was supposed to work at the farm for two days
per year. However, that did not prove feasible because shareholders did not get involved
directly. For the fxst three years, shareholders had the option of picking up their shares
either at the garden or at the Co-op Market in their area. In 1989, the CSA begm home
deiivery. Comparing the energy use of each shareholder coming to pick up their produce
with that of producers delivering it by truck, showed that home delivery wouid Save energy
and cause less pollution in the long run (Groh and McFadden, 1990).
A year after Jan Vander Tuin began the CSA, Trauger Groh established the Temple-Wilton
Community Farm in New Hampshire, based on his expenences in Gennany. The idea of
the Temple-Wilton Community Farm is to connect landowners, farmers and consumers.
The initial idea is as foiiows:
mndependent families in the area who wanted to would join together in an
association know as the Community Farm. Some of the members had land
suitable for famiing, most did not. Landholders would rnake their fields
available to those who were able and willing to use them. The rest of the
people would continue their lives independently, but through their
association in the Community Farm they would receive food from the land.
In order to make this possible, they would provide money (Groh and
McFadden, 199O:44).
In Canada, organic farmers were introduced to the concept of the CSA by American
farmers at meetings and workshops in late 1989 and early 1990. Today, the number of
CSAs in Canada is estimated at about 50 (Salm, 1997).
Although the direct origin of the CSA is European, Ehrhardt (1996) and Hendrickson
(1996) trace the origin of CSAs back to Japan.
In 1965, mothers in Japan concerned about the rise of imported food and
the loss of arable land started the first CSA project (Hendrickson, 1996).
CSAs began in Japan over 30 years ago. In 1965, a group of women
approached a farmer with a proposition: they would pay hun directly for his
produce, and he would give them all of his harvest. At present, in Japan,
about 50,000 families belong to these consumer/fmer clubs. One such
club links 1,500 families to 15 farmea who supply them with everything
nom vegetables and fniits to fish and tofu (Ehrhardt, 1996).
Although both Ehrhardt and Hendrickson did not use the term teikei, both are describing
teikeis in these quates. When the CSA's definition is used in its broadest sense, any
system in which producers and consumer contract directly to distribute organic produce can
be called a CSA. In this sense, teikeis c m be included in CSAs. However, there is one
clear difference between teikeis and CSAs: consumers of teikeis have stronger connections
to each other compared to those of CSAs. Consumers of teikeis are neighbours, and these
neighboun had ties in the cornrnunity even before they began teikeis.
In conclusion, teikeis can be defined as a Japanese alternative distribution system for
heaithy food based on direct contact between consumers and farmers. OFSDs can be
defined as entities that specialize in the distribution of organic, low-input and natural food,
and that loosely connect consumers and famiea. CSAs in North America can be defined
as a form of direct marketing of agricultural producers based on mutual understanding
between farmers and consumers. CSAs can be compared to teikeis in Japan.
5. The Use of Case Studies to Illustrate Differences
Between Teikeis and OFSDs
This chapter presents three examples of teikeis and six examples of OFSDs. These
examples represent various types of teikeis and OFSDs and help us to understand the
differences between teikeis and OFSDs.
5.1 Teikeis
The three exarnples of teikeîs were chosen to represent the two different types of teikeis
(Table 7). The Shimosato f m is a traditional and ideal teikei initiated by an organic
b e r . The Yokohama Soil Preservation Association (YSPA) and the Midon no Sato are
more modern forms of teikeis initiated by consumer groups.
Table 7. The Three Examples of Teikeis
Name and place
Shimosato
1
Year
established
1
197 1
F m (Saitama)
l
YSPA
(Yokohama)
1971
Midori no Sato
(Saitama)
1976
Nurnber of Members
1
Characterisucs
Traditional and ideal
50 consumers
teikei initiated by an
a f m e r famüy +
volunteer, apprentices organic farmer
(1995)
Modem teikei
200 consumers
initiated by consumer
30 farrners
( 1996)
PUPS
90 consumers
8 farmers
( 1990)
5.1.1 The Shimosato Farm
The Shimosato farm, a traditional teikei, is known as one of the most successful teikeis in
Japan, despite its later problems (JOAA, 1981). Kaneko began the Shimosato farm in
1971 by practicing organïc farmllig in the town of Ogawa in the Saitama prefecture. He
managed the farm with his family. He had a 1.5 ha paddy field, a 2.7 ha dry field, a 0.25
ha greenhouse, a 1.7 ha wood lot, three cows, 200 chickens, and bees (Kaneko, 1992).
In 1975, he began a teikei with consumers who iived near his farm. Kaneko provided food
to consumer members. and consumer members offered a certain amount of money (20000
yen approxirnately U S S 2 0 per month) and labour to support him (two hours per month).
(See Figure 5). Kaneko distributed vegetables, eggs and mille twice a week, and rice and
flour once a month. Kaneko and the consumer members had monthly meetings to
exchange opinions about management and to decide what kinds of foods to grow, and to
determine when and who would help with the farming.
Figure 5. Shimosato Fami Teikei
X
However, in 1977. this teikei experienced problems because some consumer memben
thought that the membership fee was too expensive and could not, or did not want to
provide labour to help with the farming. Thus, the relationship of mutual understanding
was broken (Kaneko, 1994 and 1996).
In 1977, Kaneko began a new self-sufficient farm called Orei-sei farm in the sarne
location. Orei means a gift giveo in response to a favour. This time, Kaneko did not
decide how much consumers should pay, or how much consumers should help with the
farming. Consumer mernbers volunteered to help on the fann and contributed as much
money as possible.
Kaneko also prepared vegetable packages with a fixed price.
Consumers purchased as many packages as they required and paid the fixed price. This
vegetable package system was convenient for consumes who did not know how much
they should pay for the produce.
In 1995. there were forty family mernbers in the f m . Of these, twenty live in Ogawa
town, ten in Hatoyama, a nearby town, and the remaining ten in Tokyo. Another twentyfive families are on a waiting list; they get any surplus food (Ahmed, 1995).
The Kanekos also deliver produce to Jiyu-no-Mon Gakuin, a nearby school, on a weekly
basis, and provide one ton of rice annually to a sake brewery that proclairns on its label
"Ogawa no Shizenshu" (Ogawa's naturd sake)a. Although Kaneko has expanded to sel1
his produce outside of the community, the main focus is still in Ogawa. Al1 deliveries are
either carried out by Kaneko himself or the consumers corne directly to his farm (Kaneko,
1996).
The retail price of this sake is 1300 yen; the usual price for a similar-size bonle is about 700
yen (Kaneko, 1994 and 1996; Ahmed. 1995).
8
The Kanekos are eager to train young apprentices who can later initiate similar organic
fanning operations of their own. The apprenticeship program is informai, and the people
who want to learn from the Kanekos usually live on the farm as members of the family for
1-2 years and help with chores such as cooking and cleaning, in addition to learning about
all aspects of organic fanning?
In the late 1980s, a number of golf courses were proposed for the town. Because the
construction of golf courses would result in the destruction of the natural envuonment,
including his fami, Kaneko and his teikei consumer members began an anti-golf course
movement in 1988 and succeeded in stopping the construction of two golf courses
(Kaneko. 1994 and 1996). The anti-golf course movement is an example of how teikeis
are involved with social movements.
In the town of Ogawa, where the Shimosato fann is located, the activities of the Shimosato
farm encouraged the formation of an organic producers' group which exchanges
idonnation between members. The membership includes the Kanekos and graduates from
their apprenticeship program. The producers' group has been active in promoting
exchange programs with consumers in urban areas to expand their knowledge about
organic agriculture. In Febmary 1997, the producer group conducted an introductory
week-long seminar on organic agriculture. Twenty-five participants were selected from
fifty applicants including students, office workers, housekeepers, and farmers . The
participants visited organic fanns in Ogawa, including the Shimosato farm, and learned
organic agriculture and cooking skills. The producers' group emphasize the educational
9 When I visited the fmin the summer of 1996, there were three trainees in their twenties, and
one part-time trainee who came only on weekends.
programs shce they consider the education of consumers to be the key to the future success
of organic agriculture (Ogawa, 1997).
5.1.2 The Yokohama Soi1 Preservation Association (YSPA)
Mrs. Toshiico Karasawa started the Yokohama Soil Preservation Association (YSPA,
Yokohama Tuchi wo Marnorukai in Japanese) in 1971 (Karasawa, 1991). She suffered
from allergies to agiculturd chernicals and at that t h e , could not find organic foods in
vegetable shops or supemarkets. This prompted her to seek out organic famers and form
a teikei (Ichiraku, 199 1).
The YSPA is composed of approximately 200 consumer members and 30 orgiinic farmea
(YSPA, 1993) (Figure 6). The YSPA is large for teikeis, since most teikeis are srnail scale
(Appendix 2).
Figure 6. Yokohama Soil Preservation Association Teikei
X X X X X X X X
30 organic fmers
40 delivery spots
200 consumers
X Producer
25 consumer members recieve
food h m an express
delivery companies
Organic produce such as rice, vegetables, wheat, beans, fruits. and dairy products, are
delivered twice a week to 40 locations (YSPA, 1993). Consumer members are divided
into 40 groups depending on where they live, and these groups share delivery spots
{YSPA, 1993).
The interesthg point about the YSPA is that they use the conventional market as a meeting
place for farmers and consumers. Both consumer volunteers and producers come to the
market which is located between the consumers' residences and the producers' farms. The
f m e r s bring the produce, and consumers receive the produce at the market. In this way.
both consumers and producers are involved in the delivery process. In addition, if
producers want to sel1 surplus produce at the conventional market. they c m do so when
they come to the market. After the consumen receive the food, they deliver the food to the
delivery spots. Twenty-five members who do not live near the delivery spots receive their
produce by an express delivery cornpany.
Consumer members and farmers hold meetings and parties to discuss and decide on the
varîety of produce, planting and acreage. Consumers order the produce annually and
guarantee to buy al1 produce. At the YSPA, farmers set the prices. Consumer members
visit the fa=
to help with the weeding, planting, harvesring, and other chores as required
by the famiers. About 15 members visit the farms per month (YSPA, 1993).The YSPA
guarantees farrner members a stable income. For example. the average yearly income of
three full-time affiliated farmen of the YSPA is around 5 million yen (approximatefy US$
50,000) (YSPA, 1993).
Mrs. Karasawa has a strong leadership role in the YSPA. She has a great deal of
knowledge on how to cook, preserve, and how to identify good food. By learning these
skills from her. the consumers of the YSPA attempt to make al1 produce into tasty rneals
(YSPA, 1996).
5.1.3 Midori no Sato (Green Village) group
In 1976, 15 consumer families in Saitama prefecture formed a teikei group with a farmer.
The farmer packed and delivered food and collected money. Consumers published
newslettea several times a year. Consumers accepted ail the produce provided, however.
there were not many meetings, and they were not as active as in other reikeir (Midori no
Sato, 1990).
in 1982, they decided to reform the group, renaming it "Midori no Sato (Green Village)"
and increasing the number of consumer members from 15 to 60. The consumers were
divided into six neighbourhood groups. Another farmer joined the group. Before 1982,
they accepted ail produce provided but the farmen had no way of howing how rnuch and
what kind of produce the consumers wanted. Al1 produce was equally divided between the
consumer families thus, some farnilies thought that they had too much, while others
thought they were not receiving enough produce. As a consequence, they developed a new
ordering system called "requested quantity plus the quota" system. Consumers requested
in advance the amount of produce they wanted, twice a year, in the spring and in the fail.
Subsequently. farmers planted seeds based on the consumen' requests. When there were
surpluses, quotas were established for all consumers. The two farmers prepared boxes for
each neighbourhood group and put the produce in the boxes. The arnount of produce
depended on the number of consumers in each neighbourhood group. Each group received
a box fiom each fanner, and since there were two farmers, each group received two boxes.
Then, the produce was divided between each consumer by volunteers. The price of the
produce was decided by negotiating among producers and consumers. However,
producers normdy took the initiative for price setting. The farmers delivered the produce
to the delivery spots, and consumers paid 100 yen (about US$l) each t h e to cover the
delivery cost (Midon no Sato, 1990).
Six months after they reformed the teikei, a f m e r complained that the delivery system was
too much of a burden for hun. Thus, the five groups that lived near the farmer decided to
go to the facmer's house thernselves to receive the boxes. The closest groups lived within a
five minutes waik from the farmer's house, and the farthest group lived within a 15
minutes drive. Although it was not easy for consumers to go to the f m ' s house once a
week, they managed to do so (Midori no Sato, 1990).
In 1984, the farmer had a friend who agreed to take over the delivery task. However, it
was difficult to decide what to pay him for the delivery service. Consumers used to pay the
delivery cost to f m e r s directly. But when the group hired other people to deliver, it was
unclear whether the consumers or farmen should pay the delivery fee. After much
discussion, it was agreed that consumers would pay 10% of the produce price for the
delivery service (Midori no Sato, 1990).
At the same tirne, consumers began to cornplain about receiving damaged produce.
Consumers discussed whether or not accepting damaged produce without complaining was
acceptable, and established niles for claiming damaged produce that set out the degree of
damage that should be accepted and how farmers could reduce the amount of damaged
produce. When consumers receive damaged produce above a certain level, farmers were
expected to refund the price of the produce (Midon no Sato, 1990).
By the end of 1984, six more farmers had joined this teikei group. Of the eight faimen,
one f m e r produced o d y fniits, one farmer produced mainly vegetables and the other five
farmers were small-scale subsistence farmers, producing a variety of produce in smaiier
quantities. Because the number of farmers had increased, it becarne necessary to change
the method of packaging and delivery. A farmer became a representative of the producer
group, coliecting produce from ail farmers, and packing the boxes (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Midon no Sato
1
X X X X X
X
8
Producer
Representative farmer
O Consumer
S w n after they began this system, the farmer complained that the collection of produce and
packaging was too much work for him. Thus, consumers began to help with packaging.
The consumers who helped received a small allowance. By assisting with packaging,
consumers were made aware of the mculties
associated with packaging. Consumes
who had requested changes in the quantity of produce after they had submitted their request
quickly realized how much extra work this created, and such requests becarne less
frequent.
The p ~ c i p l e that
s Midori no Sato has emphasized in its operations are:
1.
Democratic management
To carry out democratic management, they have meetings whenever possible. and
both cousumers and producers participate actively in management.
2.
Self-sufficiency in the bio-region
To achieve a self-suficient community, this group does not expand their activity to
other regions. The farthest consumers lives within a 30 minute bicycle ride of the
producers' fam.
3.
Volunteers receive an aUowance
When consumers volunteer to package produce, they receive an allowance. This
allowance makes it easier to get a sufficient numbers of volunteea. Even if there
are people who can not volunteer, people who volunteer do not feel it is unfair.
4.
Waste reduction
The group has tried to minimize the waste produced in the delivery processes.
They reuse the delivery boxes and try not to use plastic bags or other containers
which can not be recycled.
5.
Limit the size of the group
Midori no Sato does not want more than 100 consumers since they consider that to
be the Limit in a teikei group that depends on volunteen (Midori no Sato, 1990).
5.1.4 Cornparison of Teikei Case Studies
This section compares the three examples of teikeis based on the 10 pnnciples of teikeis
(Table 8).
Table 8. Cornparisons of Teiki Case Studies
1.
Face-to-face relationships based on f'riendship not business
Shimosato Farm
AU teikei groups formed face-to-face relationships to some extent.
The YSPA
Midon no Sato
Planned production based on agreements between fannen and consumen
The f m e r takes the initiative in planning production.
Shimosato Farm
Consumers and farmers plan together.
The YSPA
2.
Midori no Sato
3.
Consumers and producers plan production twice a year.
Acceptance of ail the produce delivered from the producen
Shimosato Farrn
The YSPA
Midori no Sato
Consumers accept al1 the produce prepared for them by the
Kanekos. Since Kaneko sells surplus produce to a school and the
people who are on a waiting list to become members, consumer
do not get too much food.
Consumers accept aii the produce from producers.
They developed a new order system called "requested quantity
1 plus the quota" system.
114.
Price sett&g based on mutual benefits
For consumer memben who pay as much money as they want,
consumers take the initiative in deciding on the price. For
vegetable packages, the Kanekos take the initiative to set the price.
In either case, both consumers and producer agree on the price.
Shimosato Farm
1
Famiers decide on the price. Consumers agree to the farmen'
decision.
Farmers take the initiative for pnce setting, but consumers and
producers negotiate the agreement.
Midori no Sato
1 5.
Strengthening exchange programs between consumers and producen
Since most consumers iive near Kanekos. they visit and help with
Shimosato F m
farming frequently, thus there are informal exchanges between
consumers and producers.
Consumer members visit the farms to help with the weeding,
planting, harvesting, and other chores.
Midori no Sato do not put too much emphasis on enno (helping on
the farm), since most consumes can not take the time to go to the
farm. However, they try to have frequent meetings to exchange
opinions between consumers and producers.
Midori no Sato
1
- --
-
Direct delivery from farmer to consumer without the use of any distributor or
hiredtransport
Al1 delivenes are either carried out by Kaneko himself, or
consumers corne directly to his f m .
Consumers and producers CO-operate to deliver food by
The YSPA
themselves. Some members receive food from a delivery
Company.
6.
1
Since 1984, a farmers' friend does the delivery. Consumen pay
the delivery cost.
~ i d ~no
r Sato
i
.
-
l n m o c r a t i c management of each group
By having as many meetings as possible, al1 three teikei groups
Shimosato Farrn
try to carry out democratic management.
lllvlidon no sato
I
II8-
Emphasis on education programs
There is an informai apprenticeship program.
Consumer members leam through visiting f a m .
The YSPA
Midori no Sato
Visiting farms is a good educational opportunity for consurnea.
Consumer members publish a newsletter every month.
Consumes and producers learn frorn each other by reading
newsletters. Mrs. Karasawa teaches cooking and preservation
techniques to other consumer memben.
Consumers have learned through experience the difficulties in
delivery, order systems. and volunteering.
Maintainhg an appropnately sized group
9.
Shimosato Farrn
Kaneko maintains an appropriate size for him to supply enough
food.
The YSPA
Midori no Sato
10.
The YSPA is big for teikeis. The YSPA have tried to form a
network between other teikei groups rather than expand their own
size.
They try to Limit the membership to a maximum of 100.
Making efforts towards achieving the goals of organic agriculture and an
ecologicaily sound life (Activities to achieve the sustainable Life)
Shirnosato F m
1 Anti-golf course movement.
The YSPA
Anti-pesticide movement, research on electromagnetic waves and
human health and anti-nuclear power plant movement.
Midori no Sato
Recycling program.
There are some variations on how each group follows the teikei principles. However, al1
three teikei groups have made substantial efforts to maintain their system by following the
guiding principles of teikeis.
5.2 OFSDs
Six examples of OFSDs, the Ninjin Club, the Daichi wo Mamoru Kai, the Radish Boya,
the Shizenha Network, the Iapan Agriculture Community, and the Poran Hiroba will be
examined in closer detail. The examples were chosen based on their size and their
representativeness of the different OFSDs identified by JCIC research (JCIC, 1990). Table
9 provides a brief description of the six distributors.
Table 9. The Six OFSDs in Japan
Name and
PIace
Year
Estabfished
Number of
Members or
Retailers.
- consists of six local systems
Ninjin Club
(Aichi)
- set box scherne
- emphasis on eating local food
Daichi wo
August
Mamoru Kai 1975
Vokyo)
Incorporated
in 1977
June
1988
June
1977
Incorporated
in 1980
Poran
Hiroba
- delivery system to individuals
and groups
- weekly order system
- choice of vegetable set box
- a wholesale company, restaurants.
food processing companies are
corporation members
- delivery system to individuals
- vegetable set box
Radish Boya
Shizenha
Network
Characteristics of Distribution
December
1983
(JCIC, 1990 and Ooyama, 1996)
- delivery system to individuais
- vegetable set box
- fanners initiative
- orgaaic food wholesale Company
-deiivery system to individuals by
order system
- orgauic food wholesale Company
- six local markets to put an
importance on local food selfsufficiency
5.2.1 The Ninjin Club
The Ninjin Club started in 1986 and consists of six groups of fanners and consumers in
different areas (Figure 8). Within each group, producers pack vegetable boxes and deliver
them to individual homes. It is similar to the teikei system in terms of direct delivery fiom
farrners to consumers, however, the difference is that ai.I business work and negotiations
between the consumers and farmers is conducted by the head office of the Ninjin Club
(JCIC, 1990).
Figure 8. Ninjin Club
X Producer
0 Consumer
Head Office
Each group works independently, however they CO-operatewhen the need arises. Because
Group A and Group B are located in mountain areas, vegetables are not available during the
winter. Thus, Group C provides vegetables to Group A during the winter, and Group D
provides vegetables to B Group. In the Ninjin Club, when there are too many vegetables,
producers contact the head office, and the office passes on the information to consumers.
Consumers who want extra vegetables order them through the office. The office then
contacts the producers, and the producers send the vegetables to the consumers who have
ordered them (JCIC, 1990).
The head office of the Ninjin Club attempts to resolve the problems that fkequently arise in
the teikei system such as the difficulty of adjusting supply and demand and the lack of
communication between consumers and producers. The head office adjusts the supply and
demand and plays the role of intermediary between consumers and producers. The head
office does ali the business work, so that the producers do not have to worry about some
elements of the management of their produce and can devote themselves to farming (JCIC,
1990).
In addition, the Ninjin Club tries to promote an "eat local" rnovement. Producers of the
Ninjin Club grow various vegetables and processed foods depending on their regional
climate and culture. For example, Group B provides traditional North Japanese mountain
area foods such as pickled vegetables and rice cake, as well as vegetables. In this way,
consumers can enjoy local food This strategy contributes to sustaining the local economy
and culture (JCIC, 1990).
5.2.2 The Daichi wo Mamom Kai
The Daichi wo Mamoru Kai @aichi) was founded in 1975 and incorporated in 1977. The
motto of this company is "to expel pollution by agricultural chernicals and supply safe food
to consumers" (Fujita, and Komatsu, 199257). This company has developed as both a
social movement and a commercial business (Ooyama, 1996).
The association consists of generai membea, consumer members. farmer members, and
corporation members. Consumer members live in or near Tokyo, while farmer members
are located throughout Japan (Ooyama, 1996). Twelve independent companies, including
a wholesale company, food processing companies and restaurants, are corporation
mernbers @aichi, 1996) (Figure 9).
Figure 9. Daich wo Mamoru Kai
X Producer
0 Consumer
X X X X X X X
Centre
I
Twelve cooperations including a
wholesale company, restaurants and
f o o d processing companies.
0 0 0 0 0
The contracted farmers are trying to grow foods without chemicals. These farmers do not
have to be completely organic, they can use chernicals if necessary, but they are obligated
to inform the Daichi of the type and quantity of chemicals used. and why it was necessary
to use the chemical. The Daichi buys every crop that is grown in the contracted field, even
if the crop is small, blemished or wormeaten (Fujita and Komatsu, 1992).
Consumer members order food stuffs, such as vegetables, mùt, eggs. milk, seafood, and
processed foods, on a weekly basis. Consumers who find it inconvenient to place orders
every week can choose a vegetable set box at a fmed price. The Daichi informs the
consumers of the type of vegetables they are planning to put into the set box. Consumers
do not have to choose the vegetables they want, and they will receive seasonal fresh
produce automaticdy.
Food is delivered to the Daichi and sorted for each family by computerized conveyer belts
(Daichi, 1996). The fksh vegetables and fnllts are sorted within 24 hours, and delivered
to each family and group within 48 houn (Ahmed. 1995). Although the produce c m be for
either a group or an individual family, to date, 90% of the members order their food
individually, not as groups (Ooyama, 1996). Consumer members complete order f o m
and leave them at their front door. When the delivery person cornes, hdshe leaves the food
at the door and takes the order form. The consumer rnembers do not have to be at home
when the food is delivered (JCIC,1990). This rnethod is convenient for today's lifestyle
as both men and women are working and tend not to be at home (Masugata and Kubota,
1992).
The Daichi contracts with farmers before crops are grown based on estimates of how much
each farmer will supply. However, the supply is not constant. In the weekly order
systern, consumer members order whatever amount they need, so the demand is flexible.
Consequently, the system has to continuously adjust the supply to meet the demand.
If the supply is not sufficient to meet the consumer demands, the Daichi informs the
consumers and explains why their demands cannot be met. However, the Daichi usually
suffers from oversupply (JCIC, 1990). There are two strategies to resolve the problem of
oversupply. The fus<strategy is the vegetable set box as explained above. In the set box
system, it is easy to adjust the quantities of vegetables depending on the supply. The
second strategy explains the Daichi's success. The Daichi has a wholesale Company that
selis organic produce to other consumer groups, nahiral food stores or s m d distributors
(JCIC. 1990). If there is excess supply, the Daichi can distribute it to these groups for
sale. In addition, there are twelve companies, including restaurants and food processing
companies, that can use the excess food In this way, the Daichi adjusts to the fluctuations
in supply and demand (Ooyama, 1996). Other organic distributors, such as the Radish
Boya (to be discussed next), buy food kom the Daichi wholesaie Company and use it for
their own set box system (JCIC, 1990).
The Daichi promotes the consumption of locally-grown food through an "eat domestic
food' campaign and encourages organic agriculture. These social activities mean the Daichi
is more than a self-serving business.
The Daichi provides oppomuiities for consumer education. They organize more than ten
farm tours during the summer, publish newsletters on various environmental issues, and
host an open annual meeting. The Daichi includes producers' information (name of the
producer and address) for each food with each delivery so that consumers can contact
producers directly to give their thanks and opinions on the food. Whether or not consumer
members participate in these activities is their choice, however, the Daichi provides
opportunities for consumer members to become involved in the management and
production of their food.
5.2.3 The Radish Boya
The Radish Boya was established in 1988. At that tirne, the number of consumer members
was 8,000. Subsequently it has increased to 55,000 (Ooyama, 1996). The system
established by the Radish Boya is similai to the Daichi (Figure 10) . The Radish Boya
contracts farmers throughout Japan. These farmers must comply with the following
regdations
1.
Farmers must use organic compost.
2.
Fanners can not disinfect the soiII
3.
Fanners can not use herbicides.
4.
Farmers can not use agricultural chemicals in principle. If it is necessary to use
chemicais, they must report why they used the chemicds and type and quantity of
agricdtural chemicals used.
5.
Farmers m u t use these farming techniques for both self-sufficient and cash crops.
Figure 1O.
Radish Boya
X Producer
(JCIC, 1990)
Produce is delivered to the Radish Boya where it is sorted (JCIC, 1990). In contrast to the
Daichi, al] Radish Boya's consumer members buy set boxes of produce. Consumer
members do not order single items, but order a whole box. Consumers cannot choose
what kind of produce is in the box. There are sut sets of boxes that consumers can choose
fiom:
a.
Family set.
about 10 kinds of vegetabies for four people
b.
Family set + eggs
family set + 10 &-range eggs
c.
Couple set
approximately IO kinds of vegetables and fmits for two
people
d.
Couple set+ eggs
couple set + 10 eggs
e.
Single set
approximately eight kinds of vegetables + fdts + two kinds
of bread + six eggs
f.
Fruit basket
approximately five kinds of fiuits
n i e advantage of this box scheme is the ease of adjusting supply and demand (JCIC,
1990). Consumers may have to contend with too many vegetables, too few vegetables, or
the same vegetables every week. However, consumers do not have to place orders every
week,and can enjoy new varieties of vegetables (JCIC,1990).
Consumers also have the added convenience of ordering processed foods, fish, d a j r
products, meat, and daily necessities such as soaps and shampoos from a catalogue. These
items are packed using computerized conveyer belts, and delivered with the vegetable
boxes (Takami, 1993).
The delivery truck cornes in the Iate afternoon. The delivery person puts the boxes at the
door and collects order forms for the foilowing week (JCIC, 1990). This method is the
same as the Daichi. The boxes for dairy products, meat and fish are packed with ice packs,
so they stay fresh until the consumers retum home (Takami, 1993).
The Radish Boya also publishes newsletters with recipes, information about the producers
and various environmental issues. The Radish Boya also organizes farm tours to connect
fanners and consumers. In addition, the Radish Boya has developed a recycling program.
Consumers are asked to return cardboard vegetable boxes and mük and egg cartons. The
delivery person collects these recyclable materials when they deliver food (Takami, 1993).
5.2.4 The Shizenha Network
The Shizenha Network was established in 1988 in baragi. The number of consumer
members in 1990 was about 3,000, and that of f m e r members was 380 (Figure 11).
Figure 11.
Shizenha Network
X Producer
X X X X X X
0
Consumer
Farmer's
initiative
The system of delivery is similar to that of the Radish Boya At the centre of the network,
produce is packed as set boxes and delivered to consurners. The distinctive charactenstic
of this system is that farmers took the initiative in the management of the Network.
Tsukada Talceshi, the Company founder, is a farmer who wanted to encourage farmers to
take the initiative in promoting sustainable agriculture. Farmers take the initiative in making
decisions on what kinds of vegetables should be grown, as well as the pricing (JCIC,
When the organizers of the Shizenha Network recruit producers, they do not confine
themselves to organic farmers. In contrast to other systems, they recruit famiers who have
made an effort to maximize soil quality. The rationale is that fanners who maintain high
quality soil will eventually become involved in organic farmïng. If farmers convert to
organic agriculture before their soil is of high quaiity, they WUsuffer from a decrease in
productivity. The fact that 80% of products distributed by the Network are organic
indicates that this strategy is effective.
The office of the Shizenha Network plans meetings with consumers and producers once
every three months. The meetings are held either at the producers' houses or offices.
NormaUy about ten percent of consumen attend the meeting. These meetings contribute to
closer relationships between the consumers and producers. In addition, producers
accompany the delivery persons at least once a year to hear opinions directly from the
consumers.
Consumers can choose srnail or medium size vegetable set boxes. Free-range eggs are
included in the set box. When the consumers give birth to a baby, six eggs are given as
present.
Consumen c m order milk, rice, miits, seasouings, and seafood as well. A
newsletter is provided with each vegetable box indicating the producers' name, address,
and how the produce is grown.
5.2.5 The Japan Agriculture Community (JAC)
The Japan Agriculture Cornmunity (JAC) was established in 1977 and went directly into
the wholesale business. As mentioned in section 2.3, in a conventional market organic
vegetables are not evaluated properly because of their srnaIl size or imperkt shape. Thus,
it was necessary to f o m a special wholesale market for organic vegetables. In 1996, 250
68
producers sold organic produce to the JAC. The JAC in turn sold this produce to 120
organic vegetable shops and naturd food shops.
In addition to the wholesale business, in 1989, the JAC began a delivery service for
individual houses, similar to the Daichi or the Radish Boya (Figure 12). Five hundred
consumer members order vegetables each week (Ooyma, 1996).
Figure 12.
JAC ( TOKYO )
X Producer
X X X X X X X
0
A
Consumer
Retailer
5.2.6 The Poran EGroba
The Poran Hiroba is another OFSD that conducts wholesale business. In contrast to the
JAC, the Poran Hiroba distributes produce to six local organic food markets that ernphasize
local food and self-sufficiency (Figure 13).
Figure 13. Poran Hiroba
X Producer
A
retaikr
Producers sel1 organic food to each local market, and vegetable shops and naturai food
stores buy the vegetables fiom the local market. The office of Poran Kiroba connects the
local markets. If there is a surplus or shortage at any of the markets, the market contacts
the office and an exchange will be negotiated. In principle, consumers are able to eat local
food, and if there are no vegetables available, they can eat another area's produce (JCIC,
IWO).
5.2.7
Cornparisons of OFSD Case Studies
This section compares the six examples of OFSDs. 1 have chosen eight critena for
cornparisun that can dso be compared with teiki principles.
Table 10 . Comparisons of OFSD Case Studies
I
Planned production based on agreements between farmers and the OFSD (cf.
teihi principle 2)
1.
-
I ~ i n j i nClub
--- -
-
-
Farmers take initiative for planned production.
;
Fannefs and the head office plan production.
1 F m r s take initiative for planned production.
Shizenha Network
1 JAC
1
IIPoran Hiroba
-
Not applicable, since they are wholesde companies.
1
-
--
Strategies to adjust supply and demand (cf. teikei principle 3)
Ninjin Club
Set box system.
When there are too many vegetables, producer sel13
surplus to consumers through the head office.
Set box system, a wholesale company, restaurants, food
Daichi wo Marnom Kai
processing companies.
AU consumers have to subscribe to the set box system.
Radish Boya
2.
[~h&enhaNetwork
I
l
I
I
Not applicable, since they are wholesale companies.
113.
Price setting based on mutual benefits (cf. teikei principle 4)
Fmed price by negotiation between farmen and the head
office.
Fanners and the office negotiate before planting f d .
aic chi wo Mamoru Kai
II
1 Radish Boya
11Shizenha Network
11Poran Hiroba
/
1
1
1 Farrners take the initiative for pnce setting.
1
Exchange programs between consumers and producers (cf. teikei principle 5)
11 4.Ninjin Club
1 No i n f o d o n available.
IIa ai chi wo Mamom Kai
1 Radish Boya
I
-
-
- -
1 Fann tours and annual meetings.
1 Farm tours.
- -
-
Meeting hold every three month either at producee'
houses or offices.
Since they are wholesale companies, each retailer has
respoasibility for exchange programs.
~hizenhaNetwork
-
115
-
-
Delivery (cf. teikei principle 6)
Ninjin Club
Direct delivery fkom producers.
Efficient delivery using computerized conveyer belts and
Daichi wo Mamoru Kai
II
1
1II
11
Radish Boya
Shizenha Network
-
-
their own delivery system.
Established its own delivery system.
-
Poran Hiroba
Not applicable, since they are wholesale companies.
11
Emphasis on educational programs (cf. teikei principle 8)
Ninjin OU^
Prociucers publish newsletters to educate consumers.
~ a k hwo
i Mamoru ICaiKai E&ange program.
The office publishes newsletters includuig envkonrnental
Radish Boya
and produce information.
Shizenha Network
Not applicable, since they are wholesale Company.
1
1
--
- -
-
--
117.
Maintain an appropriately sized grotip (cf. teikei principle 9)
The size of a group has been maintained based on supply.
Ninjin Club
No strategy to maintain an appropnate size.
Daichi wo Mamom Kai
Radish Boya
Shizenha Network
1
bc
11 Poran Hïroba
No strategy to maintain an appropriate size.
Not applicable, since they are wholesde Company.
1
Social activities (cf. teiki principle 10)
Ninjin Club
I ~ o ~ - m o Kai
r u 1 Eat domestic movement.
Recycling.
~ a d ihsBoya
No information available.
Shizenha Nehvork
Rovide organic produce to the vegetable shops and nanual
food shops which can carry out environmentai movement.
Poran Hiroba
Eat local movement.
8.
- -
1
1
1
I
lrp
-
1
Since JAC and Poran Hiroba are organic produce wholesale companies, they differ from
the other four OFSDs. The cornmon characteristics of the four OFSDs are:
1.
Planned production is carried out on the farmers' initiative or by both fanners and
OFSDs.
2.
The set box system is used for adjusting supply and demand.
3.
Farmers and OFSDs, not consumers, set prices.
4.
OFSDs provide exchange programs such as farm visits or meetings.
5.
Delivery is done by their own efficient system.
6.
In addition to exchange programs, OFSDs publish educational newsletters.
7.
With the exception of the Ninjin Club, there are no strategies for maintainhg an
appropriately shed group.
8.
5.3
Various social movements have been carried out by OFSDs.
Similarities and Differences between Teikeis and OFSDs
This section summarizes the similarities and differences between teikeis and OFSDs that are
illustrated by the case studies. There are two similarities and eight differences that c m be
identified. The interaction of community theory with teikeis and OFSDs are also presented
to illustrate the differences between these systems.
Sirnilarities
1.
Both teikeis and OFSDs publish newsletters for educational purposes and provide
educationai opportunities such as fann tours.
2.
Both teikeis and OFSDs have developed social activities that relate to food safety,
orgaaic agriculture or environmental issues.
Differences
1.
Teikeis have tried to form face-to-face relationships based on friendship not
business. In teikeis, consumers aiways meet farmers to contract production.
Producers and consumers know each other, and there are face-to-face relationships.
.
In OFSDs, since the head offices have the responsibility of managing the system,
consumers join OFSDs without laiowing the producers. Although consumers of
OFSDs can participate in f m tours and other exchange programs, most consumen
of OFSDs do not know most farmers from who they obtain producers. In terrns of
closer relaûonships between consumers and producers, teikeis are supenor to
OFSDs.
2.
In teikeis, production planning is carried out by both consumers and farmers.
However, in OFSDs, farmers and the head office of OFSDs plans production.
Consumers are not involved in production planning.
3.
In teikeis, consumers try to accept aIl produce delivered from the producers. In the
case of the Kanekos, since Kaneko sells surplus produce to outside teikeis, there is
not much surplus for consumers. Midori no Sato developed a new order system
called "requested quantity plus the quota" system that contributes to adjusting
supply and demand. In OFSDs, the head offices plans the set box system to adjust
easily to supply and demand.
4.
In teikeis, pnce setting is based on mutual benefits between consumers and
producers. In contrast, in OFSDs, consumers are not involved in pnce setting.
5.
There are many exchange programs in teikeis and it is necessary for consumers of
teikeis to participate in these programs. The OFSDs have exchange programs,
however, participation is voluntary.
6.
With some exceptions, teikis deliver food directly from farmers to consumers
without the use of any distributor or hired transportation. Both consumers and
producers are involved in delivery chores even if they use hired transportation.
OFSDs have their own delivery systems, thus, delivery is carried out by the office
or fanners. Consumers are not involved in delivery chores.
7.
In teikeis, both consumers and producers participate in management and try to be
democratic. In OFSDs, it is the head offices that decides most management issues.
8.
In the teikei case studies, the number of consumers were less than 200 families, In
contrast, in OFSDs, the number of consumers is over 1,000 families or 50 retaiIers.
Teikeis try to limit the number of consumers. However, OFSDs have no strategy to
limit the number of consumers. With the exception of the Ninjin Club, most teikeis
try to expand the nurnber of consumers and retailers.
Other than these eight differences, considering the interatciton between cornmunity theoiy
and teikeis and OFSDs helps us to understand the differences between these two
distribution systems. According to Iijima (1993), the community theory developed by
Robert Momson MacIver affects Japanese community theory most. MacIver (1924) points
out the differences between community and association. He defmed a community as "a
focus of social life, the cornmon living of social beings" and an association as "an
organization of social life, definitely established for the pursuit of one or more common
interests" (MacIver, 1924:24). ui his definition, association is not a community, but
organization within a community. Community is a matrix of organization. He states, "to
deserve the name community, the area must be somehow distinguished from further areas,
and the common life may have some characteristic of its own such that the frontiers of the
area have some meaning" (MacIver, 1924: 23). Members of a community feel that they
belong to a community, and have a strong connection with other members. In a
community a concept of welfare for al1 cornmunity members is emphasized (MacIver,
1924).
The disappearance of communities in indusaial society has been pointed out by many
researchers including Iijima (1993). Sime MacIver defmed the terms "community" and
"association" in the 1920s, the current situation of communities has not been reconsidered.
MacIver (1924:23) defines association as an organization within a comrnunity. However,
the researcher believes an association can ernerge without a matrix of community. For
example, OFSDs are associations established without a matrix of community.
Since participants of teikeis and OFSDs pursue a common interest of disiributhg organic
food, both are associations. However, the difference between them is that teikeis are
associations that are established based on community, while OFSDs are associations
established without a comrnunity.
Proximity is an important factor in community because when people live together, they
share common characteristics and form a community. In the case of the Shimosato farm,
consumers and fanners live close together. The Kanekos have lived on the Shimosato farm
for three generations, over 100 years, and some consumers have lived near the Kanekos
for three generations as well (Kaneko, 1994). A community exists in this area, and the
Shimosato farm teikei was established within this community (Figure 14). Furthermore,
the activities of the teikei strengthened the community as demonstrated by the development
of the anti-golf course movement described above.
Figure 14. Community and Teikei A
-
Schooi
Association
In the case of Midon no Sato and YSPA, considering that consumer members Live close to
each other, there exists a strong comection between thern. Consumer members had a
relationship even before they began the teikeis, thus community existed among the
consumer members (Midori no Sato, 1990; YSPA 1996). Consumers and fanners may not
live in the same community, but the farmers live in the same community. Farmen of each
group live close to each other and socialued together even before the teikei began. Thus,
in the case of Midori no Sato and YSPA, teikeis emerged by combining two communities
(Figure 15). Although teikeis are associations, they form a type of community between
members of teikeis. In addition, the activities of teikeis strengthen the bond within the
consumers' communities and the fanners' community. Considering these examples,
teikeis are more than associations and can be defined as community development projects.
Figure 15. Community and Teikei B
Consumers'
Farmers'
Teikei
- - ..
Association
In the case of OFSDs, farmen and consumers do not live in the same community. OFSDs
are established in a place where community does not exist (Figure 16). By joinùig OFSDs,
some fanners and some consumers may f o m a relationship that is sunilar to that found in a
community. However, since there is no c o m u n i t y in place, these relationships will not
contribute to the development of a community. If the relationships become strong enough,
new community-like systerns may emerge. However, it will be mcult
to achieve this
result since most consumers and farmers do not communicate fiequently. Thus OFSDs are
likely to continue to be associations.
Figure 16. Commimity and OFSD
OFSD
There is a sigrufcant ciifference between teikeis and OFSDs in their relationship with the
community. Although both teikeis and OFSDs are associations that pursue distribution of
organic produce, teikei can be more than associations and contribute to community
development, while it is difncult for OFSDs to contribute to community development.
In conclusion, two similarities and eight differences were identified by case studies of
teikeis and OFSDs. In addition, the interactions between community theory and teikeis
and OFSDs are presented to show differences between the two distribution systems.
Despite the two similarities, it seems reasonable to conclude that teikeis and OFSDs have
different charactenstics.
6. Sources of Conflicts between Teikeis and
OFSDs
This chapter examines the nature of the conflict between teikeis and OFSDs. In Japan, as
OFSDs increased in size, teikeis and OFSDs began coiliding and conflicts arose. Both
these systems have different strategies and guiding principles. Roponents of teikeis.
especiaiiy the JOAA, began to criticize the activity of OFSDs, and OFSDs, in r e m ,
Cnticized the teikeis.
6.1 How Teikeis and OFSDs Conflict
The conflict between teikeis and OFSDs was observed both in the literature and through
visits. In this section, the confiict between JOAA and the Daichi, as described in the
fiterature, is presented. This is followed by a summary of the conflicts as observed by the
researcher during visits.
In 1981, at the annuai meeting of the JOAA, Ichiraku critically noted that "OFSDs were just
a business and c a ~ obe
t approved as part of the organic agriculture rnovement. OFSDs,
such as the Daichi is the same as conventional markets" (Fujita and Komatsu, 199253).
The Daichi responded that OFSDs have the same aim of promoting organic agriculture as
the JOAA, and that they are not merely a business entity. However, the JOAA continued
to criticize OFSDs. Ichiraku cornmented, "OFSDs pretend to promote the organic
agriculturd movement, but they are, in fact, just commercial middleman companies"
(Ichiraku, 199 1:80-81).
In return, OFSDs began to criticize the teikei system. The Daichi's criticisms are as
follows :
In teikeis, consumers are forced to receive a i l produce supplied by contracteci
fanners. If farmers provide tons of carrots to consumers, the proponents of
teikei recommend that consumers eat tons of carrots. They put a moral
pressure on consumers: consumers should accept al1 food provided by
producers happily; consumers should share the düficuities with producers;
consumers should face and solve troubles such as setting prices and
communicating with farmers, because these troubles are a necessary
procedure to become closer with consumer and farm members. But what
kind of consumers c a . accept ail those di"culties? Robably only those who
have a high rnoraliîy. Teikeis are only for th% eiite (Fujita and Komatsu,
1992: 156-157).
In addition, the Daichi criticized the JOAA.
The teikei system is one way to prornote organic agriculture, and so are
OFSDs. The activities of OFSDs are new experiments to promote organic
agriculture. These experiments themselves are part of the organic
agricultural movement. The JOAA should admit our way of doing organic
agriculture. The JOAA should not reject the OFSD's new rnethods, since
the JOAA's rejection rnay destroy potential ways of promoting organic
agriculture. The JOAA should welcome new innovative ways of
distributhg organic produce. OFSDs and the JOAA can share the problems
of distributing organic produce together, and CO-operatewith each other
(Fujita and Komatsu, 1992:154-155).
The Daichi's attitude which encourages CO-operationbetween teikeis and OFSDs is
noteworthy. This attitude may stem frorn the Daichi's confidence that OFSDs will becorne
increasingly popular. In contrast, "many people who have participated in small-scale
teikeis began to have a sense of crisis that OFSDs may destroy teikeis. The number of
consumers in OFSDs might increase dramaticaily in cities. Consumers choose OFSDs,
because the method of OFSDs is convenient for them" (Ichiraku, 1991:86). Thus, teikeis
do not have co-operative attitude towards OFSDs.
The conflicts between teikeis and OFSDs were observed by the researcher on visits to
teikeis and OFSDs. Despite the fact that many people did not want to taIk about this
82
conflict, at ieast four people who were involved in teikeis criticized the activitie of OFSDs.
They suggested that OFSDs do not provide organic food. Furthemore, at least two people
encouraged me not to joi. an OFSD.
6.2
6.2.1
Why Conflict Matters
Conflict Threatens Survival of Teikeis
Teikeis are threatened by the conflict with OFSDs. Membership of OFSDs has increased
dramatically, but there has been no similar increase in teikeis. The number of the teikeis
that belong to the JOAA has not increased signincantly since the late 1970s. According to
the JCIC research (JCIC, 1981), in 1974,28 teikei groups were members of the JOAA,
and this increased to 55 in 1979. The nwnber of the teikeis in 1996 in the JOAA is 60
(JOAA, 1997). Although the teikeis that belong to the JOAA are only a portion of the total
nurnber of teikeis, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that the number of teikeis has
not increased significantly since the 1970s.
The JOAA adrnitted that the activities of teikeis have not worked as weil as expected since
the 1970s when teikeis f i t started. The reasons for this Iack of success suggested by the
JOAA include 1) the principal leaders and members of teikeis who started teikeis in the
1970s have become aged and new leaders have not appeared 2) a decline in the number of
volunteers because more women were working outside the home 3) and changes in values
of people who prefer more convenient ways to obtain their food (JOAA, 1994).
Figure 17. The Number of Member Families of the OFSDs
Daichi
Radish Boya
80,000
a
70,000--
m 60,000
1
i
-.
-.
Sizenha Network
Nijin Club
50,000- 40,000 30,000--
s 20,000-
10,000 - 19751 9851 9861 9881 9901 9 9 1 19921 996Year
(Daichi, 1996;Radish Boya, 1996; Shizenha Network, 1997; and Ninjin Club, 1996)
Figure 17 shows the number of the member families of seIected OFSDs. The number of
the OFSDs' members has continued to increase since their establishment.
Figure 18 shows the change in the number of JOAA members. The JOAA's membership
peaked in 1983. With the introduction of OFSDs in the mid-1980s, the decline in
membership continued. The JOAA has emphasized on promotion of the teikei system and
excluded other means of distributhg organic produce to consumers. The JOAA's
exclusive approach may have led to the decline in the number of membea of the JOAA
(Getz,1991).
Figure 18. The Number of the JOAA Members
197182-83-84-85-86-87
-88-89-90-9i
-92-93-94-95-96Year
(JOAA, 1997)
According to Sakaino (l991), a consumer leader for teikei gmups, many people who were
involved in teikeir began to feel that their activities were threatened by OFSDs which attract
more people with their convenient systems. The number of the OFSDs increased
dramatically, while that of teikeis did not increase ~ i ~ c a n t lIny addition,
.
the number of
JOAA membea who are proponents of teikeis, has also decreased Conflict between teikeis
and OFSDs may result in the decline of teikei activities. The conflict should be resolved to
ensure the stmng existence of both teikeis and OFSDs. Teikeis provide a luik to Japanese
culture and tradition and demonstrate examples of CO-operationbetween consumers and
producers. It is not in the interest of OFSDs to eliminate these examples because the
cultural appreciation and support of organic food depends on an understanding between
85
consumers and producers. In the long rem, agriculture understood and supported by
consumers, wiU be more sustainable.
61.2 Standards and Certification for Organic Produce
In teikei systems, the standards and certification program for organic produce is
unnecessary since consumers and producers trust each other and consumers can check the
operation of the farms by visiting farms (JOAA, 1994). However, in OFSDs, since the
relationships between consumers and producers are not as close, standards and certification
are a valid concern. OFSDs have established limited standards for each system and seek
effective standards that will ensure the tnist of consumes in the produce they distribute
(Kubota and Masugata, 1992).
Although the JOAA has proclaimed that standards and certifications are unnecessary, if
OFSDs begin to use certification systems, it is possible that sorne consumers of teikeis
might fmd certified produce more creditable and preferable. Since the JOAA is the only
non-profit organization to promote organic agricufnire in the Tokyo area, the JOAA's
CO-
operation is necessary to establish effective standards and certifications. However, the
contlict between teikeis and OFSDs has precluded CO-operationin estabbshing standards
and certification (JOAA, 1994). This may delay the establishment of standards and
certification programs throughout Japan.
In conclusion, conflicts between teikeis and OFSDs exist because of their different
strategies and principles. The conflicts may threaten the survival of teikeis and delay the
establishment of the standards and certification for organic produce.
7. Co-existence Strategies for Teikeis and OFSDs
This chapter f i t looks at why teikeù and OFSDs should CO-exist.Advantages of co-
existence are presented fit. This is foilowed by a discussion of the strategies for coexistence, what strategies teikeis and OFSDs should apply to encourage co-existing
(intemal strategies), and how extemal environments should change for coexisting (extemal
strategies).
7.1
Advantages of Co-existing
Why should teikeis and OFSDs CO-exist? Co-existence is preferable for consumers,
farmers. teikeis. and OFSDs. B y CO-existing,alternative distribution of organic produce
cm have more d u e n c e on society.
For consumers, the existence of both teikeis and OFSDs is preferable since they offer
consumers a choice. When teikeis began, there was no alternative way to purchase organic
produce. Thus, consumers who did not have time to participate in a teikei could not obtain
organic produce. In the 1990s, however, consumers can choose either teikeis or OFSDs
depending on their needs and lifestyles. Thus more consumers c m obtain organic produce.
X consumers of teikeis do not like the teikeis, they can switch to OFSDs and vice versa.
Advantages for producers are almost the same as for consumers. Organic producers c m
choose whether to sel1 organic food through teikeis or OFSDs depending on their
preferences.
87
The existence of two different systems is preferable, since teikeis can leam from OFSDs.
Some members of teikeis consider overcoming problems in delivery, price setting and
adjusting supply and demand as leaming experiences, while others feel that it is
inconvenient to overcome these problems and want a more rational solution. OFSDs
provide convenient and rational solutions to these problems. The OFSDs' experience
shows teikeis the development of convenient ways for consumers c m result in new
problems, including the ambiguity of the organic food standards and a lack of
communication between consumers md producers. Teikeis must consider these factors
when they evaiuate OFSDs' operations. OFSDs' operation shows teikeis what kind of
convenient strategies c m be implemented for more convenient distribution, and by
implementing these strategies, how it will affect to the relationship between consumers and
producers. By leaming £kom OFSDs' experience, the teikei system can decide whether they
should implement these strategies or whether they should maintain the principles of teikei.
If there were no teikeis, OFSDs wouid not exist. OFSDs evolved from an evaluation of
teikeis. Even now, OFSDs compare themselves with teikeis when considering
irnprovements to their system. The OFSD system will be improved by learning from the
teikei experience.
Teikeis and OFSDs should coexist because they have dBerent strengths and weaknesses.
To clarify these differences, the following section describes the role of consumers,
producers and distributors (7.1.1 ), differences in approach (7.2.2) and strengths and
weaknesses of each system (7.2.3).
7.1.1
The Roles of Consumers, Producers and Distributors
The roles of consumers and producers in teikeis and OFSDs are very different, since there
are no distributors in teikeis. In teikeis. both consumers and producers take initiatives and
participate in management. In OFSDs, distributors take initiatives and responsibilities in
management. Table 11 compares the roles of consumers, producers and distributors in
each system.
Table 11.The Roles of Consumers, Producers and Distributors of Teikeis and OFSDs
II
I
1
Price setting Participate
/
Risk of crop Shared
llrulm
Teikeis
Producers
l
1
1 Consumers 1
OFSD
Producers
1 Distributors
Participate
Not
Participate
Responsible
Pamcipate
participate
Co-operate
Participate
Responsible
Shared
1
May share
1
May Share
1
Do not share
In teikeis, both consumers and producers participate in delivery, setting prices and
adjusting supply and dernand. Their participation is based on the teikei principles which
were discussed in section 2.4.1. Consumers and producers participate in delivery since
teikei principle 6 states that "direct delivery from farmer to consumer without the use of any
distributor or hired transportation" is preferable. Principle 4 refers to "price setting based
on mutual benefits," thus,consumers and producers participate in price setting. Based on
Rinciple 3, "to accept ail the produce delivered from the producers," consumers try to
employ their cooking skills to use dl the food supplied. These consumers' efforts
contribute to adjusting supply and demand.
in the OFSDs, there is no role for consumers in management. Consumers are not involved
in delivery or setting prices. If consumen are not satisfied with prices, ail they c m do is
cornplain to the distributor or Ieave the OFSD.
Roducers for the OFSDs participate in setting prices and adjusring supply and demand
with distributors. However, except in the Shizenha Network, estabiished by farmers,
distributors have responsibilities for deiivery, setting prices and adjusting supply and
demand. Distributors establish delivexy systems or hire deiivery companies.
The r i ~ kof crop failure is dealt with differently by teikeis and OFSDs. Since most teikeis
are small-scale compared to OFSDs, when one farmer of a teikeigroup has a crop failure, it
will cause considerable difficulty. In contrast, many farmers contract with OFSDs, as a
result the crop failure of sorne farmers wiii not cause as many problems. Consumers of
teikeis are prepared to share the risk. When there is insufficient produce, consumers share
the produce available. A study of 283 teikei groups by Masugata and Kubota (1992)
reveaied that 28 teikei groups had established relief funds for crop failure. Consumers of
these teikeis are aware of the hardships that farmers face when crops fail. This is
particularly important when the crop failure is caused by nahiral disaster such as a typhoon,
and farmers require extra money to repair the damage. Some may think that this consumer
action is inappropnate, and that consumers share too much risk. However, when
consumers and producers have a close relationship similar to that of a family, it is natural
that they will want to provide financial assistance in times of trouble. This close
relationship only occun in the teikei system.
There is also an exampie of risk sharing in OFSDs. h 1991, a severe typhoon swept
across Japan. The Daichi planned a "beat the typhoon set". The set box was comprised of
50 dollars worth of food. Farmers who had suffered damages fkom the typhoon provided
whatever they could when they were ready to do so. The Daichi packed the food and
delivered it to the consumers. Consumers did not know what kind of food would be
included in the box or when the box would be delivered. This "beat the typhoon set" was
planned by the Daichi and a f m e r whose orange crop had suffered serious damage in the
typhoon. This oppormnity encouraged farmers to regenerate and re-invest in their farrns.
Farmers tried to provide dried vegetables, seaweed, or preserved food to put in the box.
There were 2,200 consumers who bought this box, and f m e r s were able to get enough
money to restart their farming. The Daichi recognized that when consumers donate money
to cover typhoon damage, some farmers feel uncomfortable receiving the money. However
this system dlowed producers to receive money comfortably while satiswing consumers.
Although the risk is shared differentiy in teikeis and OFSDs, both systems encourage
providing assistance to farmers in trouble. This is a c1ea.r difference from the conventional
market.
The roles of consumers of teikeis and the OFSD are quite different. In teikeis, consumers
are not merely customers who buy food, but important members who participate in
management. However, consumers of the OFSD are customers. This results in a
difference in the number of leamhg oppominities available to consumers. In teikeis,
consumers are obliged to participate in management to maintain their system. Through
their participation, consumers can l e m about the difficulties faced by famers. In other
words, consumers are given responsibilities, and only consumers who carry this
responsibility can successfully participate in teikeis. In contnist, consumers of OFSDs
have fewer learning opportunities. OFSDs organize tours to farms, however, participation
is voluntary. In the Daichi, consumers c m participate in a general meeting to discuss the
system's management and strategies, however, there are very few consumers who avail
thernselves of this opportunity in these meetings (Fujita and Komatsu, 1992). Consumers
of OFSDs are not given any responsibility in the system, so anybody c m be a member of
an OFSD.
7.1.2
The Differences in Approach
The different approaches of teikeis and the OFSD suggests that the teikei system is
idealistic while OFSDs can be descnbed as realistic. This section explains why these
approaches are different, with each approach offering particula. advantages and
disadvantages to consumers and f m e r s .
In teikei, consumers have to help with the farining, volunteering and accepting too much
food or too Little food. As a result, the consumers and farmers can share the joys and
difficulties associated with organic farming. Consumers of teikeis need to take a high
moral position, whereby they share difficulties with farmers. This concept shows the
idealistic approach of teikei. In contrast, OFSDs do not place such demands on their
consurners. OFSD consider that what most consumers c m do is buy and eat organic
produce. This approach of the OFSDs is realistic compared to that of teikeis.
OFSDs and researchers such as Kubota and Masugata (1992) have pointed out that the
teikei system has problems such as inefficient delivery, limitations depending on consumer
volunteers, and diff~cultiesin setting price and adjusting supply and demand. However,
the proponents of teikeis such as Ichiraku (1991) do not consider these difficulties
as
problems which should be solved perfectiy. The proponents of teikeis consider these
difficulties as educationd opportunities, and they do not try to solve those problems.
Again, teikei puts a high mord pressure on consumers to face the problems and to
overcome these problems by themselves, and they are expected to l e m from the
difficulties. If participants of teikeis can learn from these difficulties, it is ided. However,
there is the potential for participants to discontinue their membership in the teikeis because
of these difficulties.
In contrast, OFSDs observed teikeis' problems, and considered those difficulties as
problems which shouid be solved. The proponents of OFSDs knew that not everyone can
have high moral commitments, and if people are under moral pressure, they might be
inconvenienced and quit. OFSDs developed consumer-friendly methods to alleviate the
moral pressure on consurners. In other words, the OFSD's approach is realistic compared
to that of teikeis. That is why the OFSD created a convenient rationd system which solved
the teikeis' difficulties including adjusting supply and demand and providing efficient
delivery.
In teikeis, because consumers and producers are close, even though there are no organic
food standards, they trust each other. According to 1980 JCIC research, 70% of
consumers in teikei groups check how the food is grown by visiting farms, and 38% of
consumers check by helping with the farming (Kubota and Masugata, 1992). However, in
the OFSD, consumers have fewer opportunities to know how their food is grown.
Furthemore, consumers of the OFSD have fewer oppominities to communicate with
producers. Thus, it is diffîcult to establish mutual trust. That is why consumers of the
OFSD want clear standards for organic food. It is necessary for the OFSD to have
strategies to address these two problems.
In teikei, as outlined by principfe 9 "maintainhg an appropriate size of a group", it is
important to be small scale in farming operations. The proponents of teikeis consider that
the groups should be srnail-scale to aüow for closer relationships and to support the srnailscale organic farmers. Smd-scde teikeir have a greater potential to achieve community-
based self-sufnciency as evidenced by the Shimosato f m in Sait-
The proponents of
teikeis believe that the establishment of smd-scale teikeis throughout Japan is the best way
to distribute organic produce. However, this approach is somewhat idealistic because there
are many places where the teikei system will not work. Kawarnura (1990) pointed out that
successful teikeis can be established when consumers and producers live close enough for
weekly delivery, both consumers and producers are willing to make efforts to maintain
teikeis' activities, and consumers have enough time to devote to teikei activities. OFSDs
realized that it is difficult to establish small-scale teikeis throughout Japan and thus, OFSDs
becarne large scale and are aimed at self-sufficiency on a national level.
Taniguchi (1990) describes OFSDs' approach as an engineer's approach, and teikeis
approach as an idealist's/spîrituaiist's approach. He uses an allegory of what engineers and
idealists do when a drainpipe becornes clogged because it is too small. Engineers replace
the drainpipe with a larger one. Ideaiïsts encourage the small drainpipe, "Work hard!
Hang on there, you c m do it, drainpipe!" Since drainpipes do not have minds, this
encouragement is absurd. However, in the case of people, such as consumers and
fanners, this encouragement might work. Engineers replace drainpipes without hesitation.
But ideaiists do not want to discard the s m d drainpipe so easily. What Taniguchi wanted
to illustrate with this allegory is that teikeis may sometimes be irrational, however. al1
members of the teikei, both consumers and producers, are valuable and necessary to the
system. In OFSD,the approach to solving problems is very redistic, but the individual
consumer or producer is only a part of the system (a mere cog in a machine), they are
replaceable and not absolutely necessary for the system (Taniguchi, 1990).
7.1.3
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Teikei and the OFSD Systems
This section summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of the teikei and the OFSD systems.
Table 12 outlines the strengths and weahesses of teikeis and Table 13 outlines those of the
OFSD. It should be noted that this table is based on my research, and proponents of either
system may not agree with my interpretation. Often the issues can be both a strength and a
weakness when examined kom a different perspective.
Table 12. Strengths and Weaknesses of Teikeis
Strengths
Active participation in management by
consumers and producers
Weaknesses
Supply and demand adjustment
Leaming experiences through
facing difnculties
Delivery efficiency
--
-
-
-
Muhial understanding between consumers
and producers
Do not require an organic food standard
Volunteer commitment
G d communication between consumers
Puts a moral pressure on consumers
and producers
Only consumers who have commitments to
fanners and teikei principles are welcomed
Table 13. Strengths and Weaknesses of OFSDs
Strengths
--
Rational and convenient system of
delivery, adjusting supply and demanci,
and setting prices
Minimum consumer participation in
II
Full time staff rather than consumer
volunteers
Realistic approach
Lack of commUlZication between
consumers and producers
Does not put moral pressure on consumers
Ali consumers are welcomed
The cornparison highlights that both system have different strengths and weaknesses, and
it is difficult to know which is better for the M e r development of organic food
distribution. The idealistic approach of teikeis and the realistic approach of OFSD
compensate for each other.
7.2 Interna1 Strategies
7.2.1 The Wsy to Co-operation
The h
t strategy for CO-existencebetween teikeis and OFSDs is co-operation. Considering
the fact that both teikeis and OFSD have different weaknesses and strengths, each system
bas the potential to develop independently as well as working cooperatively. This section
will explore CO-operativestrategies between teikeis and OFSDs. Co-operation will
minimize conflicts and encourage the overall development of an alternative distribution
system of organic produce.
The Daichi has been eager to CO-operatewith teikeis since the Daichi estabfished a
wholesale Company in 1980. After five years of successful business, the Daichi began to
think, "Our purpose is not only to make our own system bigger and more profitable. We
should share our experiences and know-how with teikeis and other organic food
distributors. To support other groups, organic agriculture will be developed more" (Fujita
and Komatsu, 1992:120).
The Daichi has developed a number of CO-operativestrategies. Consumers of the Kofu
Tsuchito Kenkou wo Mamont Kai (Kofb) contacted organic f m e r s in preparation for
establishing a trikei. However, they did not know how to purchase produce nor they did
have delivery trucks. Consumers of the Kofu contacted the Daichi to ask for help. The
Daichi taught them how to contract with f m e n and assîsted with deiivery. The f m e r s of
the Kofu were not ready to seil enough produce to meet consumer demand, thus consumers
of the Kofb bought produce from the Daichi. The management of the Kofu was
independent. The Daichi aIso helped in the deiivery of the teikei Shizen to Kurashi wo
Kangaeru Kai. The Simin Club Co-operatives and the Kita Tama Co-operatives purchased
organic produce fiom the Daichi when they first began teikei since it was diffcult to fmd
enough organic farmers to meet their consumer demand. The Simin Club Co-operatives
and the Kita Tama Co-operatives quit purchasing produce from the Daichi after they
established their own system. Thus, the Daichi assisted with the establishment of
independent teikeis. In addition, the Daichi began to introduce their organic farrners to
other teikei groups and OFSDs. This form of CO-operationbetween teikeis and OFSDs is
useful since some teikeis do not have a sufficient number of organic farmers available to
them, particularly when they starnip. Although the Daichi has argued wîth the JOAA, the
Daichi is eager to ceoperate with teikk that requKe assistance.
Considering the Daichi's example of co-operative strategies, the foIlowing sûategies should
be encouraged.
1.
OFSDs assist teikeis with deliveries
Since OFSDs have their own delivery systems, including trucks and staff, it is not
dificuit for OFSDs to assist with the delivery of teikeis' produce. Although
contracting delivery to any other organization is in opposition to the teikeis'
principles, many consumers and producers are conscious of the burden of delivery
work, and it becomes necessary for them to hire delivery companies. If they have
to hire a deiivery Company, the OFSD is preferable since both teikeis and OFSDs
support the goal of developing organic agriculture. The Daichi has already used this
CO-operativestrategy, and the Radish Boya has dso shown interest in utilizing this
strategy (Tokue, 1990).
2.
OFSDs help to start teikeis
When consumers and producers fmt begin teikeis, they faced many problems: how
to find consumers and producers, negotiate contracts, make deliveries, and adjust
supply and demand.
An OFSD can introduce producers with excess supply to
teikeis that are not ready or able to meet demand. The OFSD can support teikeis
until the teüceis are established enough to operate independently.
3.
Teikeis and OFSDs share knowledge and experiences in distributing organic
produce
One of the reasons for conflict between teikeis and OFSDs is a degree of mutual
misunderstanding. Teikeis and OFSDs should communicate with each other, and
it would be useful to have joint events, conferences or meetings to foster greater
understanding of each other. The focus of such events would be to share
knowledge and experiences. If proponeats of teikeis knew that the OFSD had been
trying to help the development of teikeis, they might support them or be willing to
work with them. The JOAA should lead the events as the leading Japanese organic
agriculture organization. However, as Getz pointed out, the JOAA has not
supported other means of distributhg organic produce to consumen. He continues,
'Vie organization [JOAA] codd expand its role in catalyzing the formation of new
groups or bolster a network to b
~ interested
g
parties [such as teikeis and the
OFSD] together, but at present it is not emphasizing those directions" (Getz,
199 1: 10). Teikeis and OFSDs should form a new organization to encourage cooperation.
7.2.2 Teikei Principles and Increased Efficiency
A further strategy for CO-existenceis to make teikeis more efficient while maintainhg the
p ~ c i p l e of
s teikeis. The two key principles that harnper efficiency are acceptance of all the
produce delivered from the producers and direct delivery from farmers to consumers
without the use of any disaibutor or hired transportation. This section looks at how teikei
can be made more efficient while maintaining these principles.
1.
Acceptance of al1 the produce delivered fiom the producen
Producers provide a l l produce they grow to consumers. However, it is possible that
food is not consumed efficiently, and both famers and consumers are not satisfied.
If f m e r s sold their surplus outside teikeis, they would eam extra income, and
encourage more people to consume organic food. Consumers of teikei would not be
forced too eat too much or waste food. The supply of food would be more
eff~cientlyreguiated, satisfiing both consumers and producers. However, it is
possible that increased numbea of consumers would mean that the farmers would
not be as close, geographically and sociaily, to the consumers.
2.
Direct delivery h m f m e r s to consumer without the use of any distributor or hued
transportation
If teikeis do not use any distributor or hired transport, either consumer volunteers
or producers have to deliver the produce. Often, however, it is difficult to fmd
people to deliver within the teikei groups. If this is the case, one way to solve this
problem would be to find delivery people outside the teikei groups. The teikei
groups would provide food to the delivery person, so the person would be treated
as a member. If the delivery person needs money, cash could be given as a token
of gratitude.
In other words, teikeis could recruit the consumer members
specificdy to provide delivery service. This would permit them to maintain their
principles while improving eficiency.
7.2.3 Teikeis as a Niche Market
The other strategy of CO-existenceamong alternative distribution systems is that teikeis
couid serve a niche market. Teikeis may not be as popular as OFSDs because of today's
lifestyle, however, there are people who prefer the concept of the teikeis. Teikeis should be
available to serve those people. In order to s w i v e in a niche market, teikeis should
maintain their principles and try to be as close as possible to the ideal form of the teikei.
Increased co-operation between teikei and OFSDs has the potential to make teikeis more
similar to OFSDs. Even if the teikeis adopt CO-operationstrategies with OFSDs, teikeis
could try to maintain their original chamcteristics. Some characteristics might be lost by COoperation and that would increase the cornpetition between the two systems. The rational,
convenient, large-scde system established by OFSDs makes it difficult for teikeis to be
cornpetitive.
The concept of teikeis overlaps with the theory of reciprocity introduced by Karl Polanyi.
Polanyi (1945) states that reciprocity implies that people produce goods and services for
which they are best suited and share them with those around them. His study of primitive
economies showed that the theory of reciprocity was dominant in human society before the
emergence of the market economy. He recognized that market places were operational
within the theory of reciprocity. Money existed in markets, but was not important
(Polanyi, 1945).
Polanyi defmed the rnarket economy as an economic system controlled by prices. The price
determines how rnuch is produced and how it is distributed. Social considerations have no
part in this systern. Money serves as purchasing power and enables its possessors to
acquire goods and services which are priced in monetary terms. People are motivated to
acquire money with which they can then purchase goods and services they require
(Polanyi, 1945).
Teikeis operate within the framework of reciprocity between consumers and producers.
Teikei system are established to oppose the market economy where social issues receive
little attention. Money exists in this system, but it is not important. Polanyi highlights the
importance of reciprocity and teikeis offer an example of a system based on reciprocity.
Whether teikeis can survive or not as a niche market is dependent on how people support
the concept of bbreciprocity"
and how well people practice the idea of reciprocity.
7.3 External Strategies
Coexistence between these alternative distribution systems requires effort Born both teikeis
and OFSD. However. extemal factors exist that affect the potential for successfui coexistence. Factors that must be considered include land transformation and protection of
urban agriculture.
A critical factor in successful teikeis is that cousumers and fanners live near each other.
This proximity offers three advantages: enhanced communication and understanding
between consumen and producers, delivery that minirnizes economic and environmental
costs and opportunities for consumers to participate in teikei activities that enhances the
management of teikeis (Kubota and Masugata, 1992; Kawamura, 1990). However,
urbanization means that consumers and producers do not live in close proximity. To
encourage teikeis, the transformation of land and the protection of urban agriculture is
necessary.
Urbanization is common throughout the industrialized world. In Canada, the percentage
of total population in urban areas is 78.1%, in Japan, it is 77.9% (WRI, 1994). In Japan,
the population in the three largest cities, Tokyo, Osaka, and Nagoya, exceeds 43% of the
total population (Asahi Shinbun, 1997).
To sustain the population in cities, urban agriculture must be developed. However,
agricdhual land in cities has declined throughout Japan. According to Kashiwara (1994),
the total area of agriculhual land in cities is 153,000 hectares, which is three percent of the
total agricultural land in Japan. This is a ciramatic decrease since the 1960s.
Under the 1961 urban planning legislation, the MAFF designated urbanization and non-
urbanization zones. In the urbanization zone, citizens were encouraged to form cities
within ten years. Agricultural lands in the urbanization zone were expected to disappear
within that time fiame. In the non-urbanization zone, land development without the
MAFF's permission was prohibited to protect a&cultural land and the environment.
Mizoguchi (1994) states that zoning should be used more efficiently to protect urban
agricultwe.
Urban sprawl has caused serious environmentai problerns throughout Japan. Wetlands
have k e n drained, natural habitats destroyed, rivers diverted, and wildlife habitats have
been pushed M e r and further into the margins. As the population of cities increases, the
urban environment deteriorates. The concentration of pollutants in urban centres and
detenorating living conditions means that land transformation is necessary. Land
transformation will encourage the formation of teikeis and, at the same tirne, improve the
urban environment.
In conclusion, teikeis and OFSDs shodd CO-existsince there are advantages for consumers
farmers, teikeis and OFSDs. Since the roles of consaers, producen and distributors are
different within teikeis and OFSDs and their approaches and strengths and weakness are
also different, each system has a different affect on society. The strategy for CO-existence
can be categorized into intemal and extemal strategies. Interna1 strategies include cooperation between teikeis and OFSDs,an improved efficiency in the teikei system and
development of teikeis as a niche market. Extemal strategies include land transformation
and the protection of urban agriculture.
8. Recommendations and Conclusions
8.1 Recommendations
Govemment support for alternative distribution systems for organic produce are a powemil
tool for the development of organic agriculture. However, considering the fact that some
proponents of organic agriculture have rejected govemment support as a bureaucratic t o p
d o m approach, the use of govemment support should be carefdly recommended.
As Ichiraku recommended (Chapter 2), a necessary hrst step for the MAFF is to l e m more
about organic agriculture, including the history of the organic agriculturd movernent,
teikeis and OFSDs. The MAFF should utilize its research budget in these areas in order to
ensure that its misunderstanding of organic agriculture, as reported in the agriculture white
papa in 1988 (chapter 2) is not repeated. The MAFF needs to acquire appropnate baselhe
data on organic agriculture and should utilize a participatory approach to research by
spending time at organic f m , listening and talking with farmers and consumers. Since
alternative distribution systems, especidy smaii-scale teikeis ' activities are infornial, the
research for these activities can not be achieved by a one-day site visit. Long-tenn,
participatory research in all regions of Japan should be undertaken by the MAFF.
The MAFF should also conduct research on organic agriculture in foreign countries. By
researching organic agriculture in North America, for example,the MAFF will leam how
the standards of organic agriculture are established. Since most standards in Noah
Amenca are established takuig organic famiers and consumers opinions into account using
democratic procedures, the MAFF will leam how the standard in Iapan should be
established. Effective standards will not be established by bureaucratic procedures.
When the standards are set, it is important to permit use of the organic label ody on
certified farms, companies and shops, as is the case in North America. However, since it
is important to protect s m d organic farmers, srnail f m exemptions might be considered.
Such exemptions would aliow s m d farms, for example those with less than $5,000 annual
incorne, to use the word "organic" officidiy without incurring the costs associated with
certification (OFMA, 1997). This exemption is especiaily useful for organic farmes
involved with small teikei groups, since consumers and producers have a mutuai
understanding and thus are not concemed about certification or labelling.
When the govemment provides grants and subsidies to organic agriculture, it is important
to listen to the opinions of organic farmers and consumers. Financial support is useful,
however, the use of such support should be decided in a bottom-up approach. The area
where financial support c m be used includes grants to f m e r s converting from
conventional to organic practices, grants for supporting the development of research,
extension and a marketing infrastructure for organic agriculture, and grants for direct
contracts between consumers and producers. Direct contracts promote regional selfsufficiency, organic agriculture and eventually, sustainable development of the community.
Currently, most local government grants are provided for community development
projects. Since teikeis are a community development project, the gants should be used for
teikei activities.
8.2 The Road Ahead for Distributing Organic Food
The problems which teikeis face are similar to those faced by CSAs. A question for future
research would be, Have conflicts between OFSDs und CSAs occurred in Canaàa? Ifso.
how is the conflct similar/different when compared to the Japanese case ? This research
should be conducted in areas where there are both OFSDs and CSAs. For example,
Toronto would be an ideal location because there is an OFSD,the Toronto Food Share,
and there are CSAs nearby. If sirnilar confîicts are identified, they may be resolved by
strategies identifid in the Japanese context
There are also many questions for future research focusing on Japanese issues. Since the
establishment of effective standards of organic produce has k e n discussed by governments
at both the national and local levels, and by a private certification body, both teikeis and
OFSDs must reconsider standards for organic produce. This is especially tnie for teikeis
that have proclaimed that standards and certification systems are unnecessary. The
advantages and disadvantages of standards and certification systems must be identified.
Thus a future research question might be How would standards for and certr~cationof
organicfood @ect the activities of teikeis and OFSDs ?
Since the 1970s, the values of Japanese society have changed making it increasingly
diKicult to operate the ideal form of teikeis. However, the Japanese c m be proud of this
system and its strong comection with Japanese tradition, culture and philosophy. Thus, an
important research question would be: What are the factors required to operate the ideal
fom of teikeis in contemporary Japrmese society?
106
Although the conventional markets dealt with only 0.6% of organic produce in 1996,
increasing demands for healthier food may result in demands for more organic produce to
be available in the conventional markets. A further research question wouid be How have
conventional markets handled organic produce? How would the en-
of conventional
distribution systems into the organicfood indwtry affect existing alternative disnibution
systems ?
Figure 19. Web of Teikeii and OFSDs
Social Movement
(Organic Agriculture Movement)
-
..........
....................................................................................................................... .
................................ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...................................
.....
.....
. * . . -
......
stmng connection
,
,
very weak / almost no comection
Figure 19 shows how teikeis and OFSDs interact with other concepts, institutions and
beliefs. There is a category of social movement and of commercial activities. Teikek c m be
categorized as a social movement, while conventional markets belong to the category of
commercial activities. OFSDs belong to both, since they share characteristics of both.
There are antithetical concepts, localization and internationalization, that must also be
considered Teikeis have strong comections with the concept of localization. Conventional
markets have strong connections with the concept of intemationalization. Japanese
agricultural policy and conventional markets have promoted intemationdization. Other
antitheticd concepts are economic eEciency and environmental efficiency. Teikeis have
pursued environmental efficiency, wMe conventional markets pursue economic efficiency.
OFSDs pursue both.
There are conflicts between organic and conventional agriculture. Japanese agricultural
policy has supported conventional agriculture. Co-operation with goverrunent wilI promote
further development of organic agriculture. Despite the conflicts between teikeis and
OFSDs, there is much potential for CO-operationbetween the two systems. Finding ways
of CO-existenceis the key for the M e r development of alternative distribution systems
and organic agriculture. Since organic agriculture and the organic food industry are
evolving in Japan there will be many research opportunities. It is critical to promote
sustainable agriculture for our sustainable development.
8.3 Conclusions
This thesis answered the five research questions. The following is the summary of the
answers to each research question.
1.
Why are alternative food distribution systems necessary for the development of
organic agriculture in Japan? [Chapter 31
The fact that organic produce has not been handled in conventional distribution
systems is indicated in this thesis. The reasons that organic produce have not k e n
handied in conventional distribution systems include its inefficient distribution and
the low level of consumer interest. Conventional producers have pursued economic
efficiency by using agiculturai chemicals and food additives, practicing monwrop
agriculture, producing a large amount of unifody-shaped cosmetically beautifid
produce, and packaging it properly to prevent bruising and blernishing. Organic
producers have rejected these strategies and instead pursue ecological efficiency by
not using agriculture chemicals and food additives, maintaining the srnail scale of
farms, and minimizing packaging. Since these strategies of the organic producers
are not accepted in conventional markets, alternative distribution systems are
necessary for the development of organic agriculture.
2.
How c m current alternative distribution systems be described and defined?
[Chapter 41
Teikeis are an alternative distribution system for organic produce that connects
consumers and producers directly. The operatioos of teikeis are based on mutual
understandings between consumers and producers. In typical teikeis, consumer
groups that are comprised of three to ten neighbourhood families contract with
producers who supply safer foods, such as organic, or at least pesticide-free food,
and the food is delivered weekly to the delivery stations located near the consumers'
homes. Teikeis can be cornpared to Community Shared Agriculture (CSA) in
North America.
Organic Food Speciaiized Distributors (OFSDs) are entities that specialize in the
distribution or organic, low-input and natural foods. The head office of an OFSD
connects producers and consumers by recniiting farrners and consmaners.The head
office undertakes negotiations, processes orders, delivers food, and plans exchange
programs. Some OFSDs deliver food to consumers weekly, and others seIl
produce to retailers.
3.
How do teikeis and OFSDs differ as illustrated by case studies? [Chapter 51
Teikeis and OFSDs share two commoo characteristics. Both teikeis and OFSDs
have emphasized education for consumers by publishing newsletters, and both have
developed social movements that relate to food safety, organic agriculture and
environmental issues. However, teikeis and OFSDs differ on eight points: (i) the
relationships between consumers and producers are stronger in teikeis as most
consumers in OFSDs do not know the producers, (ii) consumers of teikeis are
involved in planning production, while those of OFSDs are not, (iii) consumers of
teikeis try to accept ail produce from producers to adjust supply and demand while
in OFSDs, the head office adjusts supply and demand through the use of set box
systems, (iv) coasumers of teikeis participate in price setting, while those of
OFSDs do not, (v) involvement in exchange programs is necessary in order for
teikeis to maintain their system, whiie it is voluntary in OFSDs, (vi) consumers of
teikeis are involved in the delivery process, while those of OFSDs are not, (vii)
consumers of teikeis are involved in management, while those of OFSDs are not
and (viii) there are fewer consumers in teikeis than in OFSDs, and teikeis try to
limit number, while OFSDs tend to increase the number of consumers.
4.
Why are there conflicts between teikeis and OFSDs? [Chapter 61
Despite the limitations of the researcher in not being able to coilect information on
conflict through informa1 i n t e ~ e w sthe
, researcher observed the conflicts between
teikeis and OFSDs through literature and visits. The conflict arose nom differences
in their guiding p ~ c i p l e and
s concepts, it is clear that this conflict threatens the
survival of teikeis and WU delay the formation for standards and a certification
program of organic produce.
5.
What are the strategies of coexistence between teikeis and OFSDs? [Chapter 71
Teikeis and OFSDs have different roles for consumers, fanners and distributors,
and have different approaches,
strengths and weaknesses. Despite these
differences, the CO-existenceof both teikeis and OFSDs is preferable for consumers
and producers, since it provides them each with choices. For teikeis and OFSDs,
coexistence is also preferable since they can learn fiom each other and improve
their respective systems. The strategies of coexistence can be divided into intemal
and external strategies. Interna1 strategies includes CO-operation,increasing the
efficiency of teikeis, and developing teikei as a niche market. Extemal strategies
includes land transformation and the protection of urban agriculture.
The development of alternative distribution systems for organic produce is a key for
organic agriculture. The researcher feels that organic agriculture can contribute to
sustainable development and M e r research on this topic should be conducted.
We, members of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM)
Asian Network, coming together for its fmt continental conference and representing the
organic movement fiom 13 Asian countries, strongly believe that:
Asian agriculture with its history of thousands of years has developed in deep comection to
culturd and ecological diversity. This agriculturai diversity has supported food selfsufficiency and stability in each country. However, this balance has been undermined in
the past colonial occupation in most Asian countries and subsequentiy fiom mis-directed
govemment development policy.
The impact of the so-caIïed modem agriculiural system has continued to plague the üves of
Asian fanners and Mother Nature. In spite of elusive successes of this systern, the people
of Asia are SUfacing imbaiances in food supply.
The heavy use of agricultural chemicals has created great dependency among farmers and
has resulted in the degradation and depletion of soi1 fertility, pollution of water resources,
contamination of food and hedth hazard impacts.
The Green Revolution also resulted in the elimination of biodiversity, especially traditional
crop and animal species in Asia, destroying the natural ecological balance.
We can neither perpetuate nor accept sociaily unjust farming systems even if they may
appear to be technically sound
We want to pursue and restore an ecologically-sound agricultural systems which promotes
and adheres to peoples' culturai values and traditions. One which promotes people-based
distribution and marketing of agriculturai products towards ensuring food security and
basic needs of the people.
With these in mind, we strongly urge:
Government of Asian countries to adopt and implemeat environmentally and socially sound
agricultural policies and development strategies without forgetting the lessons fiom the
fatlure of the Green revolution.
Farmers and consumers to develop partnership like the Iapanese community supported
agriculture system "teikd', towards ensuring availability of healthy food for alI and greater
food self-reliance.
AU concerned, to develop, consolidate and broaden their base in order to push forward
organic agriculture movement in aii Asia
Hanno City, Saitama, Japan
22nd August, 1993
(JOAA, 1994)
Appendix 2: Teikei Survey by Masugata and Kubota (1992)
Masugata and Kubota collected data fiom 238 teikei groups. Although they did not actually
survey how each teikei follows the teikei principles, there are a lot of data related to the
principles in the s w e y . The following is the summary of related data which 1 selected
from the s w e y .
1.
Face-to-face relationship based on friendship not business
The fact that membea of teikeis have tned to form c'face-to-face relationships based
on fnendship not business" is demonstrated by the purposes of teikeis. In 69% of
teikeis, consumer members agree that supporthg producers is one of the purposes
of teikeis, and 60% of teikeis they agree that comrnunicating with organic farmers is
one of the purposes of the teikei.
2.
Planned production
based on agreements between farmers and
consumers
In 33%of the teikei groups surveyed, producers took the initiative to determine a e
suitable variety and quantity of products. In 28% of teikei groups surveyed, not
only producers but consumers participated in deciding the variety and quantity of
products. In total, 61% of teikeis have carried out planned production based on
agreements between f m e r s and consumers.
3.
Acceptance of aIi the produce delivered from the producers
In 6 1% of teikeis that canied out planned production based on agreements between
fanners and consumers, consumers accept a l l the produce delivered from the
producers.
4.
Price setting based on mutual benefits
In 60% of the teikei groups, producers took the initiative to determine price. In
30% of the teikeis, both consumers and farmers participated in price setting. In two
percent of the teikeis, consumers took the initiative to set the price setkg.
5.
Strengthening exchange programs between consumers and producers
The results of the survey show that there are a lot of opportunities for producers
and consumers to communicate. In nearly 60% of the groups, members exchanged
information with famiers at the time of delivery. Over 40% of the teikei groups
helped to farm (enno) at harvest time and at other busy times.
6.
Direct delivery from farmer to consumer without the use of any
distributor or hired transport.
Ln 47% of theteikei groups surveyed, producers delivered to a delivery station. In
three percent of the teikei groups, producers deIivered to each consumer's house. In
13% of the teikeis, consumer members of teikeis deLivered the produce. About four
percent of teikeis have formed their own delivery Company. About three percent of
consumers of teikeis go to the producers' house to pick up produce. In total, 70%
of teikeis camed out direct delivery h m farmer to consumer without the use of any
distributor and hired transportation.
Democratic management of each group
No data available.
Emphasis on educational programs
The educational programs include informa1 exchanges between fanners and
producers and helping on the farm (enno). As mentioned in data conceming
exchange programs, these activities are carried out widely.
Maintainhg an appropriately sized group
The definition of an appropnately sized group varies depending on each t e h i
group, thus it is difncult to Say whether teikei have tried to maintain an appropriate
size of a group. However, about 60% of
teikei groups are less than 199
households. The number of consumer households in teikei groups:
less than 50
27%
from 50 to 99 ---- 16%
from 100 to 199 - 16%
from 200 to 499 -- 23%
[unkno~n
---
18%]
Making efforts towards aehieving the goals of organic agriculture
and ecologically sound lifestyle
Many teikei groups have demonstrated their concem about environmental issues.
The following subjects which teikei groups have addressed and the rate of teikei
groups that developed the environmental movement among the 238 teikeis
surveved.
Table 14. Environmental Movement by Teikeis
Subject of EnWoumental Movement
Participation
Rate of
Groups
Anti-synthetic detergents
8 1.5%
Food additives
79.4%
Food contamination
Long life mille
Nuclear-power plants
Gahage
Pesticides
School lunches
69.7%
48.7%
Agriculture and food
55.5%
Tap water and sewerage
34.9%
Nature conservation
25.6%
Anti-golf course
L o d environmental issues
35.7%
Global environmental issues
35.3%
35.3%
55.0%
60.5%
36.2%
6.7%
6.3%
Industrial pollution issues
Health, the hannful effects of a medicine
16.8%
Cost of food
31.1%
ûther
None
12.2%
4.2%
AU the data kom this appendix is derived fiom Masugata and Kubota (1992:132-214).
References
Ahmed Saleem.
.
1995 The Production and Marketing of Oreanic Produce in J a ~ a n : b t i c e Problems,
and PotentiaI. Hawaii: East-West Center.
Ariyoshi, Sawako.
1975 Comdex Contamination (Fukirgo Osen1 Tokyo:Shincho-sha In Japanese.
Asahi Shinbun.
1997 Jaoan Almanac 1998. Tokyo: Asahi Shinbun Sha
Daichi wo Mamoru Kai.
1996 Personal Communication.
Ehrhardt, Syivia.
1996 "Cornmunity Supported Agriculture." In electronicjournal The Earth 5-96.
URL:http://www.digma~azine.com/95/56-96/sysvia-hm.
Fujita Kazuyoshi and Komatsu Kouichi.
1992 A Com~anvwhich Protect Lives (Inochi to Kurashi wu Mamoru Kabushiki
Kaisha). Tokyo:Gakuyo Shobo. In Japanese.
Fukuoka, Masanobu.
1985 The Natural Wav of Fannine The Theory and Ractice of Green Philosoohv.
Tokyo and New York: Japan Publications Inc.
Getz, Arthur.
1991 '6Consumer-ProducerCo-partnerships:A Direct marketing Approach," Permaculhue
Activist. 1991-92 Winter VII, 3: 1- 10.
Groh, Trauger M and Steven S. H.MacFadden.
1990 Farms of Tomorrow. Community Su~portedFarms. Farm Syported
Communities. PA: Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association Xnc.
Hasumi, Takeyoshi.
1991 Devotion to Oreanic Amiculture (YukVrowo ni Kakeml Tokyo: Nihon Keizai
Hyoron Sha. In Japanese.
Hendrickson, John.
1996 "Community Supported Agriculture: Growing good... And community. A
Research Brief prepared October 21, 1996. URL: http://w.wisc.edu/cias
"
Ichiraku, Teruo.
1991 "Talk about Organic Agriculture (Yukinogyo wo Kataru )"
in Yoneko Sakaino (ed.) Life with ûrganic Amiculture (Yükinoavo ni Ikitel.
Fukushima: Fukushirna Tuchi to Inochi wo Mamoru Kai: 5- 13 1. In Japanese.
Iijirna, Nobuko.
1993 Environmental Sociolom (Kunkyo Shaknipaku). Tobo: Yuhikaku Books. in
Japanese.
Japan Consumer Information Center [ed.] (JCIC).
1981 Organic Aszriculture Movement in Ja~an(Nihon no Yukinowo Undo).
Tokyo: Nhon Keizai Hyoron Sha
Japan Consumer Information Center.
1990 How do Organic Food Specialized Distributon handle food ? (SenmonRvutsu
&potai ni vom Yukinousanbutsu Toriatsukai no Jinai).
Tokyo: Japan Consumer Mormation Center. In Japanese.
Japan Organic Agriculture Association [ed.] (JOAA).
1994 The F i t IFOAM Asian Conference 1993. Tokyo: Japan Organic Agriculture
Association
Japan Organic Agriculture Association.
1997 Personal Communication.
JA Zenchu.
1997 URL: http://www.rim.or~p/ci/ja/ejahome.hal(English Homepage)
Kaktins, Sy svia-Linda.
1997 Communitv Shared/ Sumorteci Agriculture: Overcomïne the Barriers.
Halifax: Daihousie University, MES Thesis.
Kaneko Yoshinon.
1992 From a farm that protect Life(1nochi wu Mwnoru Noio Kara). Tokyo: Ieno Hikari
Kyokai. In Japanese.
Kaneko, Yoshinori.
1994 The Farmwith Future-(Miraiwo Mitsumeru No@In English and in Japanese.
Tokyo: Kuroujin Shuppan.
Kaneko Yoshinori.
1996 fersonal Communication.
Karasawa, Toshiko.
1991 "Organic Agriculhire to live (Ikirutmeni Yukinogyo wo)", In Yoneko Sakaino
(ed.) Life with Organic A-icdture (Y&noavo ni Ikite). F h h i r n a : Fukushima
Tuchi to Inochi wo Mamoru Kai: 154- 165.
Kashiwara, Masato.
1994 'The role and meaning of the Urban Agriculture in urban environment (Toshi
Kankyo Keisei ni Okem Toshi Nogyo no Igi to Yakuwan]", Research on Urban
Problems (Toshi Mondai Kenbul. 46(4): 55. Tokyo. In Japanese.
Kawamura, Takeshi,
1990 'The Future of Teikei Movement (Teikei Undo no Yukue)"
In Saitama Yukinogyo Kenkyu kai Seinen bu (ed.), Discussion with Radish Bova:
Consider the Distribution Svstem for Organic Produce (Tettei touron:
Yukinousanbutsu no Rvutsu wo Kanaaeru
Radish Bova tono Taiwa Zen
Kiroh): 78-79. In Japanese.
Kneen, Brewester.
1989 From Land to Mouth. Toronto: NC Press Lirnited.
Kneen, Brewster, and Dan Wiens.
1992 'The Story of Farmer Dan." The R a d s Hom. No. 100 (December).
Kneen, Brewster.
1994 "From West to East: Open -Pohated Orgaaizations." The R a d s Hom.
No. 118 (September).
Kobayashi, Kouhei (ed.), with Satoshi Kai, Yoshinori Morooka, Seiichi Fukui, Atsuyuki
Asami, and Keishuke Suganuma.
1995 The Transforrninrr of Aericdtural Produce market in^ Svstems - International
Comoarison of Wholesale Markets for Fruit and Veeetables. Tokyo: Noson Gyoson
Buunka Kyokai.
Lampkin, Nicolas.
1990 Oreanic Famÿng. UK:Farming Press Books and Videos.
MacIver, Robert Momson.
1924 Communitv A Sociological Studv. Toronto:The M a d a n Co.
Management and Coordination Agency. Govemment of Japan.
1996 The Census. 1996 (October).
Masugata, Toshiko, and Hiroko Kubota
1992
for Farmers and Consumers (Tqoka suruYuki Nosanbutsu no Rvutsu).
Gakuyo Shobo. In Japanese.
Tokyo:
Midori no Sato.
1990 "About Midori no Sato", in Saitama Yukinogyo Kenkp kai Seinen bu (ed.),
Discussion with Radish Bova: Consider the Distribution Svstem for Organic
Produce (Tettei touron: Yukinousanbutsuno Rvutsu wo Kanaaeru Radish Bova
ton0 Taiwa Zen Kirukzik 78-79. In Japanese.
Minami Nihon Shinbun.
1996 URL: http:// ~~~.minc.or.jp/minami/syokuno/syoku~end/sy~end.
htm
MUiistry of Agriculture, Fishery and Foreshy (MAFF), Govemment of Japan.
1988 Amiculture White Pamr ( N u e 0 Hakusho). Tokyo: MAFF. In lapanese.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fishery and Forestry ,Govemment of Japan.
1995 Amiculture White Paoer (Nowu H a M o ) . Tokyo: MAFE In Japanese.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fishery and Forestry ,Government of Japan.
1997 Summarv of Research on Environmental Conservation Arrriculture (Kanbo
Hozennata Noue0 Chose Koushubumon Chousa K e k h no Gaiyo). Govemment
Document No.9-226 (Seisan-45) October 23, 1997. In Japanese.
Miyamoto, Kenichi.
1989 Economics of Environment (Kanbo Keizaigaku.1Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. In
Japanese.
Miyoshi Seisan Group.
1989 "Objection to the 1987 Agriculture White Paper, organic agriculture as a high
profitable agricdture.(62 nendo Nogyo H a b h o ni Okem Kouhukakachigata
Nougyo to shiteno Ichùuke ni Taisuru Kougi)." In JOAA (ed.), Soi1 and Health
(Tuchi to Kenko).(March) No. 199: 30-3 1. Tokyo: Japan Organic Agriculture
Association.
Miniguchi, Toshinori.
1994 "The Planning System for Agriculture Field in Urbanization Areas and Inducement
for Appropriate Use of Land (Shigaiku Kuiki Nai Nouchino Keikaku Seido tu
Tochi W o u no Yudo)"Urban Plannine (Toshi Keikakul 189: 3742. Tokyo. In
Japanese.
Morgan, Mary Lou.
1995 Newsletter Food Action. Toronto: Toronto Food Share (March)
Ninjin Club.
1996 Personal Communication.
Nosei no Kai.
1995 How to Promote Sustainable Amiculture (Kankvo Hozenma N o e o wo Dou
SusumenuGah Tokyo: Norintoukei Kyokai.
Ogawa Organic Producers' Group.
1997 Report: "Organic Agriculture Introductory Seminar (Yukinogyo Nyumon Koura,
Houkoku)". In JOAA. Soi1 and Health [Tsuchi to Kenko).No.296. 1997 JuIy: 30
-33
Ooyama, Toshio.
1996 "The Activities of ûrganic Food Specialized Distributors in 1995 (Yukinousaubu~su
Senmon Ryutsu Gyousha no Doukou 1995 nen)"
in Co-operatives and Direct Deiiverv from ~roducersbv 1-8 million peopleActivities of Super Network !JCCU 180 &amin no Seikvo Sanchoku--- Kvodai
network he no Tuido). Tokyo: Co-op Shuppan. In Japanese.
Organic Food Marketing Association (OFMA).
1997 URL: http://web.iquest.net/ofma
Polanyi Kar1.
1945 Orieins of Our Time: The Great Transformation. London: Goliancz.
Radish Boya.
1996 Personai Communication.
Sakaino, Yoneko (ed.).
1991 Life witb Organic Amiculture (Yukinomo ni Ikite). Fukushima:Fukushima Tuchi to
Inochi wo Mamoru Kai: 5- 13 1. In Japanese.
S a h , Amunda
1997 Direct Connections: Farmer-Consumer Communication in a Local Food Svstem
Communitv Shared AeRculture in Canada. The Netherlands: Wageningen
AgriculturaI ~niversiq,M.S.Thesis.
Schumid, Otto.
1994 "Agriculture Policy and Impacts of National and Regional Govemment
Assistance for Conversion to Organic Farming in Switzerland," in N.H. Lampkin,
and S.Pade1. The Economics of Organic Farrning: International Persmctive.
UK, Oxon: CAB International,
Seager, Joni.
1995 The Earth A h . 2nd Edition. New York: Touchstone.
Sizenha Network.
1996 Personal Communication.
Statistics Bureau.
1995 URL: http://www/stat.go.jp/0611rnmhîm
Suniki,Shinki.
1995 "Environmentai Conservation Agriculture by MAFF (Nourin Suisamhou no
Kankyo Hozengata Nougyo)" in Nosei Journalkt no Kai,
How to Promote Environmental Conservation Amiculture (Kankvo Hozenaata
Nouwo wo Dou Suswneruka). Tokyo: Nourin Toukei
Kyoukai: 17-27, In Japanese.
Takami, Yuichi.
1993 'Welcome to Radish Boya (Radishi Boya no Gomviaz~'
In Soecial Edition. Tree of Lives (KuaraFhi no Ki Zoukangoub Tokyo: Nippon
Ecology Network.
Taniguchi Yoshunitsu.
1990 "Teikei as a Disiribution System (RyutsuSisutemu to site mita Teikew
In Saitama Yukinogyo Kenkyu kai Seinen bu (ed.), Discussion with Radish Bova:
Consider the Distribution Svstem for Oreanic Produce (Tettei touron:
Yukinousanbutsuno Rvutsu wo Kannaeru Radish B o y tono Taiwa Zen
Kirom: 80-87. In Japanese.
Tokue, Michiaki.
1990 'The Future of Teikei Movement (Teikei Undo no Yukue)"
in Saitama Yukuiogyo Kenkyu kai Seinen bu (ed.), Discussion with Radish Bo~a:
Consider the Distribution Svstem for Organic Produce (Tettei touron:
Yukinousonbutsuno Ryutsu wo Karipaeru Radish Bova tono Taiwa Zen
KirokuJ:49. In Japanese.
Toronto Food Share.
1997 Field to TabIe the Good Food Box Guide, Toronto: Toronto Food Share.
Ueno, Chiniko.
1994 The formation and the end of modem farnily Midi K . o h no Seirirsu to Suen).
Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. In Japanese.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED).
1987 Our Cornmon Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
World Resource Institute (WRI)
1994 WorId Resources 1994-95. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Yokohama Soil Preservation Association.
1993 About Yokohama Soil Preservation Association (Yokohmna Tuchi wo M m o r u Kai
ni TsuiteL Brochure.
Yokohama Soil Preservation Association.
1996 Personal Communication.
IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (QA-3)
APPLIED 1 IMAGE. lnc
5 1653 East Main Street
-.------
Rochester. NY 14609 USA
Phone: 716f482-0300
Fax: 71MW-5989