MULTIFUNCTIONAL CONCEPT OF AGRICULTURE: JUST AN IDEA OR THE REAL CASE SCENARIO?

Multifunctionality as a feature of agriculture is subject to different interpretations, depending on the state and context. However, there is no comprehensive definition of this concept. Multifunctionality originates in the supposition that agriculture, apart from the production of food also has other broader social functions and aspects, such as maintaining production potentials, encouraging rural development (keeping the population in the country, cultivating the landscape), and protecting the environment. In the first chapter the authors present a view of the multifunctional nature of European agriculture, followed by a presentation of Slovene agriculture and its most important characteristics in different contexts – economic and social. If definitions of multifunctional agriculture published so far are taken into account, it may be stated that this process is well under way in Slovenia. A special part of this paper has been devoted to the empirical evaluation of this phenomenon, where the authors indicate an incomplete approach to testing and the difficulty in objective quantification of such a complex phenomenon. Above all, it is necessary to establish clear criteria for the follow-up of multifunctional agriculture and its influences on general social interests.

[1]  D. Stobbelaar,et al.  Comparison of landscape features in organic and conventional farming systems , 1998 .

[2]  G. Paudyal,et al.  Environmental–economic decision-making in lowland irrigated agriculture using multi-criteria analysis techniques , 1999 .

[3]  A. Barbič Cultural identity of the Slovenian countryside: Territorial integrity and cultural diversity from the perspective of rural communities , 1998 .

[4]  R. Munton,et al.  Constructuring The Countryside: An Approach To Rural Development , 1993 .

[5]  J. Kola,et al.  Cost-benefit analysis of multifunctional agriculture in Finland , 2001 .

[6]  Martin Rogers,et al.  A new system for weighting environmental criteria for use within ELECTRE III , 1998, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[7]  D. Moran,et al.  What does the public want from agriculture and the countryside? A review of evidence and methods , 2004 .

[8]  Romano Prodi,et al.  Living countrysides : rural development processes in Europe: the state of the art , 2002 .

[9]  P. Otorepec,et al.  Health impact assessment of agriculture and food policies: lessons learnt from the Republic of Slovenia. , 2003, Bulletin of the World Health Organization.

[10]  V. Pravdić Sustainable Development:its meaning, perception, and implementation. The case of ecotourism in Croatia , 2003 .

[11]  Č. Rozman,et al.  Agriculture in the Slovenian Transitional Economy: The Preservation of Genetic Diversity of Plants and Ethical Consequences , 2003 .

[12]  Katja Vadnal Konceptualizacija sistema socialnih storitev za osebe s posebnimi potrebami kot dopolnilne dejavnosti na kmetijah 1 , 2003 .

[13]  G. Huylenbroeck,et al.  Multifunctionality and rural development: a general framework , 2003 .

[14]  Martin Rogers,et al.  Choosing realistic values of indifference, preference and veto thresholds for use with environmental criteria within ELECTRE , 1998, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[15]  P. Swagemakers Novelty production: new directions for the activities and role of farming , 2003 .

[16]  R. Gasson,et al.  The economics of part-time farming , 1989 .

[17]  Theodor J. Stewart,et al.  Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis , 2001 .