Green-Growth Policies and Economic Effects: Lessons Learnt from Organic Farming in the Czech Republic

  • Radka RedlichováEmail author
  • Věra Bečvářová
  • Diana Mihaela Pociovălișteanu
  • Karel Vinohradský
  • Ivo Zdráhal
Part of the World Sustainability Series book series (WSUSE)


This chapter discusses the findings of research investigating the comparative economic performance of organic farms and conventional agricultural holdings in the Czech Republic. The system of organic farming has become an important component of the ecology-friendly alignment of agriculture in the Czech Republic. This system has extended extremely fast in the past fifteen years and it was stimulated to a large extent by state interference and the increase of subsidy payments, especially after the Czech Republic joined the European Union. A weak point in organic farming in the Czech Republic is its low productivity. In the period 2001 through 2012 organic farming (OrgF) holdings reached 30–40% of the value of agricultural production per ha of that achieved by conventional farming (CoF) holdings. Although OrgF operate with 50% of the inputs per 1 ha of CoF holdings, the overall material and labour demandingness of production is 1.4–1.7 times higher than that of CoF holdings—giving rise to the concept of “ecological paradox”. In effect this suggests that, OrgF holdings create a 1.5 times greater adverse ecological footprint per capita food production. Excluding operating subsidies, OrgF holdings reported a loss of 11,000 CZK per ha, which is twice that reported by CoF holdings. Subsidy payments during 2010 through 2012 amounted to 14,400 CZK/ha for OrgF holdings and 8,500 CZK/ha to CoF holdings. This interference has modified profit making. OrgF holdings, therefore, recorded slightly higher profit per ha and twice the profit per unit of the product when compared to CoF. Subsidies, therefore, represent the main financial source of stability in the financial management of organic farm holdings. Market prices of organic products from OrgF holdings contribute very little to cover higher costs of production. It is mainly caused by the nature of current price transmission in the food commodity chain, which leads to a redistribution of profit away from agricultural producers towards processors and, in particular, retailers. The increase of the contribution of operating subsidies to cost recovery and profit creation together with the development of subsidies per unit of product and per worker (AWU) in OrgF emphasizes the need for further development of the policy strategy for this type of farming. This should include new innovative thinking on improving management techniques, mechanisms for and changes to subsidy structure, particularly in relation to the balance in the market for organic products and income parity. Analyses of the economic aspects of organic agriculture (completed in this study) challenge agrarian policy thinking through highlighting the problem of the economic sustainability of organic farming holdings.


Organic farming Efficiency Profitability Subsidy payments Agriculture policy Agribusiness 



This study was elaborated within the research project: Czech economy in the integration and globalisation process and the agrarian and service sector development under the new conditions of the European integrated market; research branch “The development tendencies of agribusiness, the forming of the segmented markets of commodities’ strings and food networks in the integration and globalisation processes and agrarian policy changes” (VZ MSM 6215648904/04).


  1. Bečvářová V (2002) The changes of the agribusiness impact on the competitive environment of agricultural enterprises. Agric Econ 48:449–455. ISSN 0139-570XGoogle Scholar
  2. Blažková I, Chmelíková G (2010) Analýza cenových relací v komoditní vertikále. [CD-ROM]. Brno: In: Sborník příspěvků z mezinárodní vědecké konference Region v rozvoji společnosti 2010, pp 13–17. ISBN 978-80-7375-435-8Google Scholar
  3. Butler G, Nielsen JH, Slots T, Seal C, Eyere MD, Sanderson R, Lleifert C (2008) Fatty acid and fat-soluble antioxidant concentrations in milk from high- and low-input conventional and organic system: seasonal variation. J Sci Food Agric 88:1431–1441.ISSN: 1097-0010Google Scholar
  4. Čechura L (2006) The nature of selected price transmissions in the agri-food chain and their consequences. In: Studies on the agricultural and food sector in Central and Eastern Europe, vol 33, Halle (Saale), IAMO, pp 430–448Google Scholar
  5. Dudová B (2014) Cenová transmise v zemědělsko-potravinářských vertikálách pšenice a hovězího masa na příkladu České republiky. In Hospodářská politika v členských zemích evropské unie, pp 10–20Google Scholar
  6. Gassner B, Freyer B, Leitner H (2008) Labour quality model for organic farming food chains. In: 16th IFOAM Organic World Congress, Modena, Italy, 16–20 June 2008 [online].
  7. Goodwin BK, Harper DC (2000) Price transmission, threshold behavior, and asymetric adjustment in the U.S. Pork Sector. J Agric Appl Econ 32(3). ISSN 1074-0708Google Scholar
  8. Hanibal J, Dykova E, Foltýn I, Medonos T, Zedníčková I (2004) Uplatnění „Zemědělské účetní datové sítě” (FADN) v České republice. Výzkumná studie č. 78. Praha: Výzkumný ústav zemědělské ekonomiky, 88 pp. ISBN 80-86671-23-2Google Scholar
  9. Hrabalová A, Darmovzalová I, Wollmuthová P (2013) Statistická šetření ekologického zemědělství – Základní statistické údaje 2012, TÚ 4212/2013. Výstup č. 2 [online]. ÚZEI, 52 pp.
  10. Hughner RS, McDonach P, Prothero A, Shultz CSI, Stanton J (2007) Who are organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase organic food. J Consum Behav 6, 94–110. ISSN: 1479-1838Google Scholar
  11. Kummeling I, Thijs C, Huber M, Van De Vijer LP, Snijders BE, Penders J, Stelma F, Van Ree R, Van Der Brandt PA, Dagnelie PC (2008) Consumption of organic foods and risk of atopic disease during the first 2 years of life in the Netherlands. Br J Nutrition 9(3), 598–605. ISSN 0007-1145Google Scholar
  12. Laurence GS, Adrian GW, Bruce DP (2013) The energy efficiency of organic agriculture: a review. In: Renewable agriculture and food systems [online], pp. 1–22, ISSN 1742-1705.
  13. Lechanová I (2006) The process of transmission of supply and demand shocks in Czech Meat Commodity Chain. Agric Econ 52. ISSN 0139-570XGoogle Scholar
  14. Lockie S, Lyons K, Lawrence G, Halpin D (2006) Going organic. mobilizing networks for environmentally responsible food production. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, 247 pp. ISBN: 9781845931582Google Scholar
  15. Malá Z (2011) Efficiency analysis of Czech organic agriculture. In: E + M Ekonomie a management [online], vol 1, pp 14–28. ISSN: 2336-5604.
  16. Niggli U, Slabe A, Schmid O, Halberg U, Schluter M (2008) Strategic research agenda for organic food and farming. Vision for an organic food and faming research agenda to 2025. IFOAM—EU a FiBL, 46 pp.
  17. Offermann F, Nieberg H (2000) Economic performance of organic farm in Europe. University of Hodenheim, Stuttgart, 68 pp. ISBN: 3-933403-04-9Google Scholar
  18. Pugliese P (2001) Organic farming and sustainable rural development. A multifaceted and promising convergence. Sociologia Ruralis 41(1):112–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Richter T (2008) Retailing organic food in Europe 2008: latest trends in distribution channels and driving forces. BioFach Congress, Nuernberg, Germany [online]. 21–24 Feb 2008, 19 pp [unpublished].
  20. Redlichová R, Bečvářová V, Vinohradský K (2014) Vývoj ekologického zemědělství ČR v ekonomických souvislostech. 1. vyd. Brno: Mendelova univerzita v Brně, 91 pp. 1. ISBN: 978-80-7509-173-4Google Scholar
  21. Sanders J (2007) Economic impact of agricultural liberalisation policies of organic farming in Switzerland. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Frick. ISBN: 978-3-03736-015-6Google Scholar
  22. Stefanos AN, Evangelos P, Savvas Z (2012) Productive efficiency of subsidized organic Alfalfa Farms. J Agric Resour Econ [online] 37(2):280–288. ISSN: 1061-5502.,Nastis.pdf
  23. Tuomisto HL, Hodge ID, Riordan P, MacDonald DW (2012) Does organic farming reduce evironmental impacts? A meta-analysis of European research. J Environ Manage 112:309–320. ISSN: 0301-4797.
  24. Valeška J (2010) Srovnávací test VI – výsledky červen 2010. Srovnávací test VI - výsledky listopad 2010Google Scholar
  25. Zdráhal I, Bečvářová V (2013a) Rozvoj zemědělství a venkova v evropském modelu agrární politiky - formování strategie v kontextu změn prostředí. 1. vyd. Brno: Mendelova univerzita v Brně,129 pp. ISBN: 978-80-7375-771-7Google Scholar
  26. Zdráhal I, Bečvářová V (2013b) The issues how to express the concentration processes in European agriculture. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, vol 61, č. 7, pp 2951– 2964. ISSN: 1211-8516Google Scholar
  27. Živělová I, Crhová M (2013) Organic food market in the Czech Republic. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis. 2013. sv. 61, č. 2, pp. 539–546. ISSN 1211-8516Google Scholar

Online Sources [Online During 2014-06 through 2014-10]

  1. ČSÚ (2014).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Radka Redlichová
    • 1
    Email author
  • Věra Bečvářová
    • 1
  • Diana Mihaela Pociovălișteanu
    • 2
  • Karel Vinohradský
    • 1
  • Ivo Zdráhal
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Regional and Business Economics, The Faculty of Regional Development and International StudiesMendel University in BrnoBrnoCzech Republic
  2. 2.Faculty of Economics“Constantin Brâncuși” University of Târgu-JiuTârgu-JiuRomania

Personalised recommendations