Agricultural work in European prisons: An exploratory analysis

Andreoli, Maria; Frieri, Francesca; Giordani, Giorgia; Giarè, Francesca Article Agricultural work in European prisons: An exploratory analysis Italian Review of Agricultural Economics (REA) Provided in Cooperation with: Firenze University Press Suggested Citation: Andreoli, Maria; Frieri, Francesca; Giordani, Giorgia; Giarè, Francesca (2024) : Agricultural work in European prisons: An exploratory analysis, Italian Review of Agricultural Economics (REA), ISSN 2281-1559, Firenze University Press, Florence, Vol. 79, Iss. 2, pp. 75-91, https://doi.org/10.36253/rea-15329 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/325686 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Italian Review of Agricultural Economics Vol. 79, n. 2: 75-91, 2024 Firenze University Press www.fupress.com/rea ISSN 0035-6190 (print) | ISSN 2281-1559 (online) | DOI: 10.36253/rea-15329 REA ITALIAN REVIEW OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS ITALIAN REVIEW OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS Citation: Andreoli, M., Frieri, F., Giordani, G., & Giarè, F. (2024). Agricultural work in European prisons. An exploratory analysis. Italian Review of Agricultural Economics 79(2): 75-91. DOI: 10.36253/ rea-15329 Received: May 13, 2024 Revised: October 13, 2024 Accepted: October 14, 2024 © 2024 Author(s). This is an open access, peer-reviewed article published by Firenze University Press (https://www.fupress.com) and distributed, except where otherwise noted, under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 License for content and CC0 1.0 Universal for metadata. Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Competing Interests: The Author(s) declare(s) no conflict of interest. Corresponding Editor: Catia Zumpano ORCID MA: 0009-0004-0499-2702 FF: 0000-0001-5845-8469 GG: 0000-0002-5825-3399 FG: 0000-0001-9541-908X Research article Agricultural work in European prisons. An exploratory analysis Maria Andreoli1, Francesca Frieri2,*, Giorgia Giordani3, Francesca Giarè4 1 University of Basilicata, School of Agricultural, Forestry, Food and Environmental Sciences (SAFE), Potenza, Italy 2 University School for Advanced Studies (IUSS), Department of Science, Technology and Society, Pavia, Italy 3 University of Tuscia, Department of Economics, Engineering, Society and Business Organization (DEIM), Viterbo, Italy 4 CREA – Research Centre for Agricultural Policies and Bioeconomy, Rome, Italy *Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract. Work in prisons has taken on various meanings over time. In European contexts, it serves as a valuable tool for enhancing inmates’ quality of life. Specifically, agricultural work is recognised for its benefits, such as physical and psychological rehabilitation, vocational training, job placement, education, and recreational activities. Some of these aspects align with Social Farming (SF), which attributes a socio-welfare role to agricultural practices. To identify any SF elements within European prisons, an exploratory analysis was carried out, examining experiences in four countries (Denmark, Greece, Italy, and Sweden) using a qualitative approach. The findings reveal that many aspects of these experiences align with the SF framework and contribute to the rehabilitation of prisoners engaged in agricultural work. Keywords: social farming, prison farms, agricultural work in prisons, European prisons. JEL codes: H53, I39, K14. HIGHLIGHTS · Social Farming elements can be found in the agricultural activities carried out in the experiences analysed. · In European prisons the direct involvement of inmates in agricultural activities is a key element in their rehabilitative path. · The economic value associated with inmates’ work contributes to giving them a sense of usefulness. 76 Maria Andreoli, Francesca Frieri, Giorgia Giordani, Francesca Giarè 1. INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES At international level, work in prisons has been regulated since the 1950s by the United Nations Organisation. During the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Prisoners, held in Geneva in 1955, “Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners” were adopted1. In drafting them, the wide variety of legal, social, economic and geographical conditions in the world was accounted for, and their adoption was unanimously accepted as minimum conditions by all members of the Organisation. With regard to work, the rules prohibit its afflictive nature, requiring – rather – that the occupation represents an opportunity for the maintenance or enhancement of the skills of inmates. In addition, the Organization requires that working conditions (in terms of time and remuneration, as well as security) should be comparable to those generally practised in society outside prison, “so as to prepare prisoners for the conditions of normal working life” (Standard 72-1). Later, in 1990, basic universal principles in the treatment of prisoners were established. Drafted by the UN OHCHR (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights), these include the resolution according to which “conditions must be created to enable prisoners to engage in meaningful paid employment, that facilitates their reintegration into the country’s labour market and enables them to contribute to their own economic livelihood and that of their families” (principle number 8)2. At European level, the prison system has been regulated since 1950 with the enactment of the European Convention on Human Rights3. The document represented a milestone in the path undertaken by the Allied Powers to prevent the most serious human rights violations that occurred during the Second World War. With regard to work (Art. 4), the document reads that no one shall be held in slavery or required to perform forced or compulsory labour. 1 Approved by the Economic and Social Council in resolutions 663 C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977. These standards were revised by the General Assembly in 2011. The revision process lasted until 2014. After that, the revisions were approved in Cape Town in 2015 and were named the Nelson Mandela Rules. 2 “Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners” – Resolution 45/111 by General Assembly of 14 December 1990. https://www.ohchr.org/ sites/default/files/basicprinciples.pdf. 3 Quote from the original 1950 text: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Archives_1950_Convention_ENG.pdf. The most recent version of the Convention follows the provisions of Protocol No. 15 (CETS No.213) as of its entry into force, i.e. as of 1 August 2021, and Protocol No. 14 (CETS No. 194) as of its entry into force, i.e. as of 1 June 2010. Article 4 remained, however, unchanged. In 1973, the Council of Europe developed its own Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (European Prison Rules), not binding on the Member States, which were adopted by the Committee of Ministers (Resolutions 73.5) and reformulated in 1987. European Prison Rules (Art. 26) also state standards regulating work, defining the positive and non-punitive nature of work in prisons, specifying that the work provided by prison authorities must enable them to maintain or improve the prisoners’ skills, with a view to a successful social and labour reintegration upon release. Moreover, the document mentions the need to equate as far as possible the organization and working methods used in detention facilities with the ordinary one used in working life (Art. 26.7). According to this statement, the work must be remunerated fairly and regulated, in terms of daily and monthly working hours, according to national rules or those protecting workers internationally, and the pursuit of profit in the production activities carried out within correctional institutions cannot prevail over interest in the personal growth of inmates. According to the international and European rules, agricultural work is broadly used to implement training and working programmes inside penal facilities. Agriculture in penal institutions has a great rehabilitation power: firstly, it allows prisoners to work in the open air, restoring a sense of freedom and proximity to civil society (Moran, Turner, 2019; Piccioni et al., 2022); secondly, it allows them to take care of other living beings (plants and animals), activating processes of accountability towards themselves and third parties (Payne et al., 2023), as well as processes of gradual assumption of autonomy; thirdly, since the outcome of their efforts has an economic value, they recover a sense of usefulness and self-realization (Borsotto et al., 2022); finally, it is an opportunity to learn a job and increase inmates’ employability (Ascencio, 2018; Bhuller et al., 2020; Borsotto et al., 2022). The agricultural work carried out inside prisons can be powerful because working on the land can provide inmates with a meaningful and purposeful endeavour (Ciaperoni, 2009a; 2009b). It needs to be underlined that in some cases the inmates work in farms inside the prisons, in other cases they can work in farms located outside, depending on the legal framework and local opportunity. Considering these elements, agriculture in detention centres can be traced back to Social Farming, which links agricultural practices to socio-welfare purposes (Ricciardi, Dara Guccione, 2018; Borsotto et al., 2022). The aim of this study is to identify the characteristics of agricultural work in European prisons and to highlight elements common to Social Farming that 77 Agricultural work in European prisons. An exploratory analysis can contribute to the social and occupational inclusion of inmates. To this end, an exploratory analysis was conducted by gathering information from existing literature and various European experiences. Labour and prison regulations were examined to develop a comprehensive framework and to gain a deeper understanding of legislative choices regarding rehabilitation through work. In the second section, we explore the interpretation and definition of Social Farming in the European literature and the value of agricultural work in prison settings. The third section outlines the method used to investigate the phenomenon and select relevant case studies. Finally, the results, discussion, and concluding reflections are presented. 2. THEORETICAL APPROACH In the last decades, many scholars used the concept of Social Farming (SF) in order to analyse a set of heterogeneous practices taking place in farms having social and ethical purposes in common, generally aimed to offer 1) pathways for the social and/or labour inclusion of people with disabilities, social disadvantage, addiction problems, mental or psychiatric problems, who experience or have experienced periods of imprisonment; 2) care and/or health services addressed to support the public system in their intervention at local level (Di Iacovo, 2009; Di Iacovo, O’Connor, 2009; Guirado et al., 2017; Hassink, Van Dijk, 2006; Hine et al., 2008; Jarábková et al., 2022; Moruzzo et al., 2019; Sempik, 2010). The European Economic and Social Committee defines SF as follows: “a cluster of activities that use agricultural resources – both animal and plant – to generate social services in rural or semi-rural areas, such as rehabilitation, therapy, sheltered jobs, lifelong learning and other activities contributing to social integration (according to the definition used in COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) Action 866 – Green Care). In this sense, it is about – among other things – making farms places where people with particular needs can take part in daily farming routines as a way of furthering their development, making progress and improving their well-being” (Willems, 2013). On the other hand, the European Economic and Social Committee suggests that it is not useful to include Social Farming in a rigid definition, because of the many forms it can take (Willems, 2013). In fact, according to van Elsen (2016), it would be more correct to think of SF as a broad “concept”, i.e. something in the making that can take on new forms and evolve. As suggested by Di Iacovo (2020), in Europe these practices are identified with different locutions: “Farming for health”, “Green Care”, “Social Farming”, “Health Farming”, depending on the area in which it is practised, the different welfare models, historical evolution and meaning attributed to these practices. In the European context, two different models of Social Farming can be distinguished (Di Iacovo, O’Connor, 2009): the Northern European one, where agricultural activities are promoted and mainly financed by institutions for therapeutic and rehabilitative purposes (Green Care or Green Care in Agriculture or Care Farming); and the Mediterranean one, where Social Farming initiatives are aimed at population groups with low levels of contracting, i.e. who are unlikely to be employed for work tasks (Borsotto et al., 2022). Agricultural work in prison was introduced in the 18th century, when in several Western countries prisoners were forced to work, following the Protestant model of “communal living” and the idea of controlling them and imposing better behaviour on them. At first, it took on a punitive value and was implemented as a form of sentence reduction by the prisoner. Only during the second half of the 20th century, agricultural work became a means of re-educating prisoners (Foucault, 2005). The literature highlights the contribution of agricultural activity to reducing the risk of recidivism through increased employability skills and the positive impact of working outdoors (Welch, Eldridge, 2020). Studies on the use of plants and animals, focusing on farm animal care and husbandry, are particularly lacking, as Payne et al. (2023) show. However, other authors (Artz, Davis, 2017; Fitzgerald et al., 2021) state that, while animals used in therapeutic interventions bring benefits, the interactions with commodified and objectified animals are likely not facilitating empathy and rehabilitation, due to the violence animals have to suffer. There is also evidence that horticultural therapy (HT), which is considered a declination of SF (Makau et al., 2024), brings benefits to physical, social and mental health, and has a positive effect on inmate rehabilitation and recidivism (Ascencio, 2018). Also, Lee et al. (2021) observed positive changes in the health conditions of prisoners participating in the HT programme, i.e. decreased depression and increased self-esteem and life satisfaction. This kind of activity also allows offenders to learn specific skills (growing process, management, etc.) that will increase their employability in fields (Jiler, 2006; Borsotto et al., 2022; Ricciardi, Dara Giccione, 2018). Furthermore, a qualitative study of a horticulture programme in Canadian prisons shows both the positive impacts associated with planting, tending and harvesting, and those associated with donating food to local communities (Timler et al., 2019). 78 Maria Andreoli, Francesca Frieri, Giorgia Giordani, Francesca Giarè Another important aspect relates to the additional benefits linked to the adoption of organic farming, the benefits of which in prisoning contexts were broadly analysed by Italian researchers in the early 2000s (AIAB, 2007; Ciaperoni, Ferrante, 2008). These authors pointed out that the lower use of synthesis inputs for addressing plant pathologies provides operators with a far greater degree of safety for their health with respect to conventional farming techniques. Moreover, organic farming holds considerable value in terms of re-education, consenting the cultivation of a positive disposition and connection with the natural environment and encouraging a consciousness regarding sustainable practices. Consequently, it improves the sense of responsibility towards other human beings and all living creatures. (Giarè et al., 2017; Guirado et al., 2017; Nicli et al., 2020). Nevertheless, some authors (Chennault, Sbicca, 2023) provide a critical perspective, as prison agriculture can embody explicit forms of exploitation, highlighting how, in some contexts, the prison population is exploited to produce an economic profit that goes to “repay” the damage that the crime committed by the prisoner has caused to the public community. In the literature, this approach is associated with the concept of racial capitalism (Chennault, Sbicca, 2023; Hazelett, 2023). However, penal systems around the world are quite different, as is the historical and cultural evolution of prison work (Council of Europe Development Bank, 2021). 3. METHOD AND DATA Due to the lack of comprehensive data and information on agricultural activities within European penal institutions, an exploratory analysis was conducted, following a bottom-up qualitative research approach. Exploratory research is a methodology approach aimed at investigating research questions that have not previously been studied in depth. Data were collected by a literature review on agricultural practices in prisons and using questionnaires and interviews. Four phases were planned, each with an increasing depth of inquiry and information sought: (1) scouting phase, (2) a preliminary qualitative questionnaire, (3) a second qualitative questionnaire, and (4) interviews. The information has been collected in order to have a framework of agricultural activities in prisons and compare them with the main characteristics of SF, as defined in the literature. 3.1. Scouting phase The research started with a preliminary scouting phase through an online survey, using the same keywords for each European country in the main online search engine (Google): “prison farm”, “open prison”, “agriculture in prison”, “agriculture and detention”. This approach enabled the identification of 32 penal institutions engaging in agricultural activities across Europe (Figure 1). Italian experiences, on the other hand, were identified based on the literature (Borsotto et al., 2022) and direct knowledge. The entire exploratory phase was conducted between February and April 2022. 3.2. Preliminary questionnaire The second phase involved the development of a structured, standardized and self-administered questionnaire (available in the supplementary material) based on the literature (AIAB, 2009: 45), aimed at gathering information about the activities carried out in prison farms. The questionnaire was delivered to the identified institutions via email, using “Google Forms”, between May and June 2022. A total of 15 responses were collected (Table 1, Q1). 3.3. Second questionnaire The development of the second questionnaire (available in the supplementary material), which was also Figure 1. Analysed prison farms per country. 79 Agricultural work in European prisons. An exploratory analysis structured, standardized and self-administered, was aimed at obtaining in-depth, detailed and specific information: the characteristics of the agricultural enterprises in terms of cultivated area; the activities carried out and use of the products; the organization of work activities; the methods for selecting and training inmates for work; inmates’ earnings; networking activities conducted by the prison; as well as social aspects, such as the criteria for selecting and hiring inmates. This phase of the research was conducted between July and September 2022, and 10 responses were collected (Table 1, Q2). 3.4. Interviews The respondents to the second questionnaire were invited to participate in a semi-structured focused interview (available in the supplementary material) to gain a deeper understanding of the specific experiences conducted within their respective institutions. The interview guide has been defined as a list of questions (Whiting, 2008; Krauss et al., 2009), in order to direct the conversation towards the research topic (Krauss et al., 2009). The flexible form of the semi-structured interview allowed dialogue during the interview (Whiting, 2008) and the possibility to deepen based on the specific context. All interviews were conducted online via the “Microsoft Teams” platform, digitally recorded, and transcribed with the participants’ consent. Each interview lasted around 60 minutes. This phase of the research took place between September and December 2022; a total of 7 interviews for 10 institutions were conducted as some interviewees were representatives of multiple penal institutions4. The analysis presented in the results therefore considers prison farms in Denmark, Greece, Italy and Sweden, which are the experiences from which we were able to get all the necessary information for the goal of our study. Prison farms in Austria and Belgium have not been included in the study because they replied only to the first questionnaire. Specifically, In Denmark, the interviewee works in the headquarter within the Danish penal and prison service at a political-administrative level and is responsible for the activities that prisoners have to attend while they are incarcerated (DK1). She replied collectively for all prison farms in Denmark (Søbysøgård, Sdr. Omme Fængsel, Kragskovhede Fængsel and Renbæk prisons). The respondent from Greece is an agronomist (EL1), who leads the agricultural department of Agia prison. In Italy, we interviewed people with different roles, due the variety of situations: the legal representative of the cooperative ORTO, who in 2017 started the social agriculture project “Semi Liberi” in Viterbo prison (IT1), the agricultural technician of the Penitentiary Institution of Ancona (IT2) and a member of the penitentiary police in charge of agricultural activities in Sant’Angelo dei Lombardi prison (IT3). In Sweden, we interviewed the farm manager responsible for all kinds of work for the prisoners in Svartsjö prison (SE1); 4 Further information on the prison farms analysed can be found in the supplementary material. Table 1. Contribution of the identified European prison farms to the study. Prison (Country) Q1 Q2 Interview Role of the interviewee Strafvollzugsanstalt Graz – Außenstelle Lankowitz Gutshof (AT) X Justizanstalt Sonnberg (AT) X Justizanstalt Schwarzau (AT) X Penitentiair Landbouwcentrum van Ruiselede (BE) X Søbysøgård Fængsel (DK) X X X Danish penal and prison service administrative staff Sønder Omme Fængsel (DK) X X X Danish penal and prison service administrative staff Kragskovhede Fængsel (DK) X X X Danish penal and prison service administrative staff Renbæk Fængsel (DK) X X X Danish penal and prison service administrative staff Agrotiko Katastima Kratisis Agias – Grammateia (EL) X X X Agronomist Casa di Reclusione Ancona Barcaglione (IT) X X X Agricultural technician Casa Circondariale Viterbo Mammagialla (IT) X X X Legal representative of the cooperative ORTO Casa di Reclusione Sant’Angelo dei Lombardi (IT) X X X Penitentiary Police in charge of agricultural activities Anstalten Rödjan (SE) X X X Prison staff who manages the agricultural activities Anstalten Svartsjö (SE) X X X Farm manager Sörbyns fängelse (SE) X Please, note that the names of the prisons are reported in the original language. 80 Maria Andreoli, Francesca Frieri, Giorgia Giordani, Francesca Giarè and the manager of agricultural activities from the Rödjan prison (SE2). For a conscious and clear reading of this analysis, it is important to emphasise that the opinions and points of view expressed in the work are not those of the inmates because it was not possible to obtain the required permissions to speak with them. From now on, we will only use the name of the place where prisons are located to illustrate results. 4. RESULTS As already mentioned, the analysis considers prison farms in four countries: Denmark (4), Greece (1), Italy (3) and Sweden (2). Results are presented by topic in order to directly compare experiences in relation to: general information (4.1), agricultural activities (4.2), use of products (4.3), economic revenues (4.4), organization of work (4.5), inmates’ selection and job preference (4.6), training of prisoners (4.7), working conditions (4.8), role of work and agriculture in the legislative system and advantages of agricultural work (4.9), and networking (4.10). Given the exploratory nature of our research, we will be reporting in the results all the aspects that have emerged from the questionnaires and interviews, even when they are not strictly related to our research goal. Later on, in the discussion session, we will highlight the aspects emerging from our exploration that can be linked to SF. 4.1. General information The agricultural activities conducted within prisons vary in terms of the number of prisoners involved, which can range from 2 to 150, due to differences in the organization, size of the farm, and available working opportunities. The study considered only male prisoners. The exploratory analysis of the participating prisons highlighted that the farms associated with these institutions are of different sizes: the total agricultural area (TAA) varies between 0.4 and 1,100 hectares, while the utilized agricultural area (UAA) can take on a value ranging from less than 1 hectare up to 600. Table 2 summarises information about prisoners and agricultural area per prison analysed. 4.2. Agricultural activities The production orientation (Tables 3a and 3b) is in line with the agriculture of the examined countries. Northern European prison farms are characterized by large extensions and focus their activities mostly on cereals, forage, forestry and livestock. Instead, among the Southern European prisons, Italian farms have a rather small TAA and UAA, which they valorise with niche productions with high added value, such as small fruits in Ancona Barcaglione (IT), aloe vera and aromatic herbs in Viterbo (IT) and sericulture in Sant’Angelo dei Lombardi (IT). Differently, the Greek prison is characterised by productions typical of both small and large farms. The number of inmates employed in agricultural activities is generally higher in the north proportionate to the higher UAA. The prison farms are involved in diversification in non-agricultural activities (Table 4), such as direct sale, food and wood processing. Direct sale is typical of the Italian prisons, and is also done in Rodjan (SE). Product processing is rather widespread everywhere, while wood processing is more common in Northern EuropeTable 2. Number of prisoners and agricultural area (hectares). Prison (Country) Total prisoners Prisoners working in agriculture TAA (ha) UAA (ha) Søbysøgård Fængsel (DK) 3,600* 150* 230 200 Sønder Omme Fængsel (DK) 1,100 950 Kragskovhede Fængsel (DK) 1,000 600 Renbæk Fængsel (DK) 200 160 Agrotiko Katastima Kratisis Agias – Grammateia (EL) 85 2 138 101 Casa di Reclusione Ancona Barcaglione (IT) 80 5-10 2 2 Casa Circondariale Viterbo Mammagialla (IT) 503** 5 0.4 0.3 Casa di Reclusione Sant’Angelo dei Lombardi (IT) 180 10 1.2 1.15 Anstalten Rödjan (SE) 107 35 387 387 Anstalten Svartsjö (SE) 120 35-40 400 400 * Total for all Danish prisons. ** Data taken from the Italian Ministry of Justice website (09/09/2022), because the answer to the questionnaire was 5. 81 Agricultural work in European prisons. An exploratory analysis an countries. The prison of Rodjan (SE) is the only one producing energy. Table 5 summarizes the agricultural method used in the prison analysed. In Denmark, the move towards organic farming in prisons started in the 1990s. The EU organic certification was obtained with the support of a consultancy agency, which provided information on EU rules, regulations and financial aspects (i.e., access to fundings). The interviewee underlined the importance of this support as she claimed that bureaucracy in organic farming can sometimes constitute a limitation. The Danish administration pays great attention to sustainability and in the past promoted the analysis of the sustainability potentials of prison farms in Denmark, with the support of external consultants. Different aspects of sustainability are included, such as saving water, energy, biodiversity, life quality, economics management, soil management and animals. In Agias (EL), efforts are generally made to minimise fertilisers and other inputs to be as environmentally friendly as possible, but organic certification is only obtained for vegetables and herbs because it is considered too expensive (i.e., excluding forage production, fruit farming, olive growing, livestock and floriculture). None of the analysed Italian prisons complies with the EU organic standards, mainly due to the low production quantity and the difficulty in managing the administrative procedure on behalf of the prisons. Nevertheless, all the interviewees report a minimal use of chemical inputs, which can result in lower production. The interviewee from Sant’Angelo dei Lombardi claims that this low-input choice is both for environmental protection and because the final aim of the agricultural work that they do “is not to produce and make money but to re-educate and train prisoners” (IT3). The two Swedish prison farms produce under the Swedish organic certification KRAV; the Rodjan (SE) detention centre is one of the oldest farms that acquired the certification in the late 1980s. KRAV is a certificaTable 3a. Agricultural productions by prison. Prison (Country) Cereal Forage Fruit Horticulture Olive Aromatic herbs Forestry Livestock Gardening Søbysøgård Fængsel (DK) X X X X X Sønder Omme Fængsel (DK) X X X X X Kragskovhede Fængsel (DK) X X X X X Renbæk Fængsel (DK) X X X X X Agrotiko Katastima Kratisis Agias – Grammateia (EL) X X X X X X Casa di Reclusione Ancona Barcaglione (IT) X X X Casa Circondariale Viterbo Mammagialla (IT) X X X X Casa di Reclusione Sant’Angelo dei Lombardi (IT) X X X X Anstalten Rödjan (SE) X X X X X Anstalten Svartsjö (SE) X X X X Table 3b. Agricultural productions by prison. Prison (Country) Firewood Beekeeping Floriculture Edible sprouts Aromatic herbs Aloe farmingViticulture Sericulture Søbysøgård Fængsel (DK) X Sønder Omme Fængsel (DK) X Kragskovhede Fængsel (DK) X Renbæk Fængsel (DK) X Agrotiko Katastima Kratisis Agias – Grammateia (EL) X Casa di Reclusione Ancona Barcaglione (IT) X X Casa Circondariale Viterbo Mammagialla (IT) X X X Casa di Reclusione Sant’Angelo dei Lombardi (IT) X X X Anstalten Rödjan (SE) Anstalten Svartsjö (SE) X 82 Maria Andreoli, Francesca Frieri, Giorgia Giordani, Francesca Giarè tion more restrictive than the EU organic one, since there are more rules and controls5. Consequently, it is a strong brand, and its products are sold at higher prices with respect to EU organic certification. 4.3. Use of products The interviews highlight that products obtained in prisons are both self-consumed (except for Viterbo prison) and sold, as shown in Table 6. In Denmark, the meat is sold to “Danish Crown” and the dairy products to ARLA, which is a large dairy production company, through periodic and structured contracts. They also sell to large scale distribution and specialized shops. The interviewee specified that they 5 For more information, see the following links: https://wwwkravse. cdn.triggerfish.cloud/uploads/sites/2/2022/12/krav-standards-2023-1670933646.pdf (KRAV standards); https://agriculture. ec.europa.eu/farming/organic-farming/legislation_en (European ones). sell to big companies because they can manage the strict regulations of organic farming. Also, in Agia prison part of the production is sold and part of it is self-consumed. Prisoners and employees can buy the products made in prison. The rules establish that first of all these products should be used to supply the prison, then the employees and finally the free market. Prisoners have the possibility to cook the food that they buy (and produce) in the central kitchen. Organic products are sold to specialized shops while not certified products are sold to any buyer in the free market. They only sell raw products and not in large quantities. They don’t have a registered brand. In Italy products are generally sold to companies or cooperatives that participate in tenders organised by the Ministry of Justice but they can also be used for self-consumption in accordance with the provisions of the national Law6. In Viterbo, products are sold to farmers’ markets, specialized shops, online, and in the shop located outside the prison. In Ancona prison, part of the production is for sale, which takes place through a registered trademark “Fattoria Barcaglione”, partly at the farm shop and partly at farmers’ markets and Christmas markets. The production from the prison voluntary social garden (about 0.3 ha) is given free of charge to the inmates; the excess of the social garden is distributed to needy families in the area indicated by the Social Services of the Municipality of Ancona. This activity is supported with the contribution of the Marche Region Department of Agriculture, the Regional Guarantor 6 Law no. 354/1975, art. 20, paragraph 12: “Prisoners may be allowed to engage in the activity of producing goods for self-consumption. A decree of the Minister of Justice, in consultation with the Minister of Economy and Finance, establishes the procedures for carrying out the activity for self-consumption, including through the use of prison administration goods and services”. For more information see: Troncone, P. 2014. Manuale di Diritto Penitenziario. Torino. Giappichelli Editore. Table 4. Activities related to agriculture by prison. Prison (Country) Direct sale Product processing Energy production Søbysøgård Fængsel (DK) X Sønder Omme Fængsel (DK) X Kragskovhede Fængsel (DK) X Renbæk Fængsel (DK) X Agrotiko Katastima Kratisis Agias – Grammateia (EL) Casa di Reclusione Ancona Barcaglione (IT) X X Casa Circondariale Viterbo (IT) X X Casa di Reclusione Sant’Angelo dei Lombardi (IT) X X Anstalten Rödjan (SE) XXX Anstalten Svartsjö (SE) X Table 5. Agricultural method by prison. Prison (Country) Organic Conventional Søbysøgård Fængsel (DK) X Sønder Omme Fængsel (DK) X Kragskovhede Fængsel (DK) X Renbæk Fængsel (DK) X Agrotiko Katastima Kratisis Agias – Grammateia (EL) X Casa di Reclusione Ancona Barcaglione (IT) X Casa Circondariale Viterbo (IT) X Casa di Reclusione Sant’Angelo dei Lombardi (IT) X Anstalten Rödjan (SE) X Anstalten Svartsjö (SE) X 89 Agricultural work in European prisons. An exploratory analysis Policies can play a significant role in developing new approaches to address both agricultural and social issues. However, at EU country level there are no specific laws on SF, except in Italy, while local health and social systems offer different opportunities and economic support for the implementation of SF initiatives. Due to the importance and complexity of the issues, further studies could be focused on the topic, in order to compare the situation at European and international level. The analysis had an exploratory approach using online surveys and interviews with prison staff, given the evident difficulty in contacting and involving prisoners. Consequently, the results come from the unique perspectives of the management and staff responsible for agricultural activities and may be very different from – or opposing – those of prisoners. In order to capture interpretations and experiences of these agricultural programmes or initiatives by prisoners, a specific study should be conducted. A more specific analysis could also allow us to fill the gap related to technical information (e.g. percentage distribution among end users or food consumed in prisons) or methodological or ethical issues (e.g. level of involvement of prisoners). In particular, addressing the issue of income generation in different countries, also considering the literature on prison labour exploitation, could offer the opportunity to understand whether prison workers’ rights have the same level of satisfaction compared to the outside and how social agriculture could contribute to create a more inclusive and fairer context. In conclusion, our work contributes to the improvement of existing scientific research on the topic, because – despite the limitations – to our knowledge, no previous study has linked the experience of agricultural work in prison to the characteristics of Social Farming. This element is important to understand the different declinations of SF in European contexts. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi: https:// doi.org/10.36253/rea-15329. This includes the appendices that are referred to in the main text of the article. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS M.A.: Investigation, Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Writing-Original draft preparation. F.F.: Investigation, Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Writing-Original draft preparation. F.G.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Visualization, Supervision. G.G.: Investigation, Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Writing-Original draft preparation. REFERENCES AIAB (2007). Bio agricoltura sociale. Buona due volte. Risultati dell’indagine di AIAB sulle bio-fattorie sociali Realtà, problematiche, prospettive di sviluppo. AIAB – Associazione Italiana Agricoltura Biologica. https:// prodottobiosociale.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/ agricsociale5.pdf. AIAB (2009). L’agricoltura oltre le mura: i risultati della ricerca di AIAB sulle attività agricole negli istituti penitenziari. AIAB – Associazione Italiana Agricoltura Biologica. Artz B., Davis B. (2017). Green care: A review of the benefits and potential of animal-assisted care farming globally and in rural America. Animals, 7(4), 31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7040031. Ascencio J. (2018). Offenders, work, and rehabilitation: Horticultural therapy as a social cognitive career theory intervention for offenders. Journal of Therapeutic Horticulture, 28(1): 21-28. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26598041. Auty K.M., Liebling A. (2020). Exploring the relationship between prison social climate and reoffending. Justice Quarterly, 37(2): 358-381. DOI: https://doi.org/10.10 80/07418825.2018.1538421. Bhuller M., Dahl G.B., Løken K.V., Mogstad M. (2020). Incarceration, recidivism, and employment. Journal of political economy, 128(4): 1269-1324. DOI: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1086/705330. Borsotto P., Giarè F., Ricciardi G. (2022). Inclusione sociale e lavorativa di detenuti: l’esperienza in campo agricolo. Agricoltura sociale: processi, pratiche e riflessioni per l’innovazione sociosanitaria, 22, 126. https://www.certifico.com/component/attachments/ download/29078#page=132. Bryans S. (2015). Handbook on Dynamic Security and Prison Intelligence.United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/UNODC_Handbook_on_Dynamic_Security_and_Prison_Intelligence.pdf Chennault C., Sbicca J. (2023). Prison agriculture in the United States: Racial capitalism and the disciplinary matrix of exploitation and rehabilitation. Agriculture and Human Values, 40(1): 175-191. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1007/s10460-022-10346-x. 90 Maria Andreoli, Francesca Frieri, Giorgia Giordani, Francesca Giarè Ciaperoni A. (2009a). Agricoltura e detenzione: Quando lavorare non stanca. Servizi Sociali Oggi, 4: 32-34. https://agricolturasocialelombardia.it/wp-content/ uploads/2016/04/agricoltura-e-detenzione.pdf Ciaperoni A. (2009b). Agricoltura e detenzione. Un percorso di futuro. Roma: Editore AIAB. Ciaperoni A., Ferrante A. (2008). Agricoltura biologica e sociale. Strumento del welfare partecipato. Council of Europe Development Bank (2021). Beyond Bars and Walls: Modernising Prison Systems to Unlock Social Inclusion. Technical brief. https://www.permicro.it/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Technical_Brief_ Modernising_Prison_Systems.pdf Di Iacovo F. (2009). Social farming: Dealing with communities rebuilding local economy. Journal of Farm Management, 13(7): 527-534. https://www.iagrm. com/content/large/journals/jofm/volume_13/jofmvol13-no7-pages-465-472.pdf Di Iacovo F. (2020). Social farming evolutionary web: From public intervention to value co-production. Sustainability, 12(13), 5269. DOI: https://doi. org/10.3390/su12135269. Di Iacovo F., O’Connor D. (2009). Supporting policies for Social Farming in Europe Progressing Multifunctionality in Responsive Rural Areas. Arsia • Agenzia Regionale per lo Sviluppo e l’Innovazione nel settore Agricolo-forestale. https://agriregionieuropa.univpm. it/it/content/article/31/19/supporting-policies-socialfarming-europe-progressing-multifunctionality. Fitzgerald A.J., Wilson A., Bruce J., Wurdemann-Stam A., Neufeld C. (2021). Canada’s proposed prison farm program: Why it won’t work and what would work better. Evolve Our Prison Farms. https://evolveourprisonfarms.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/PrisonFarm-Report-2021-Evolve-Our-Prison-Farms.pdf Foucault M. (2005). Sorvegliare e punire. Nascita della prigione. Einaudi, Torino. Giarè F., Borsotto P., De Vivo C., Gaito M., Pavoncello D., Innamorati A. (2017). Rapporto sull’agricoltura sociale in Italia. Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali–CREA–Rete Rurale Nazionale, 20142020, 436–455. https://www.google.it/url?sa=t&source=web &rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.reterurale.it/ flex/cm/pages/ServeAttachment.php/L/IT/D/b%2525 2F6%25252F3%25252FD.08168412cb921161037d/P/ BLOB%253AID%253D18108/E/pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi A2prakNuIAxVkh_0HHc46G4cQFnoECB4QAQ&us g=AOvVaw1XJbamcBOz2_xl8qfpOPpW. Giarè F., Borsotto P., Signoriello I. (2018). Social Farming in Italy. Analysis of an «inclusive model». Italian Review of Agricultural Economics, 73(3). DOI: https:// doi.org/10.13128/REA-25107. Guirado C., Valldeperas N., Tulla A.F., Sendra L., Badia A., Evard C., Cebollada À., Espluga J., Pallarès I., Vera A. (2017). Social farming in Catalonia: Rural local development, employment opportunities and empowerment for people at risk of social exclusion. Journal of Rural Studies, 56: 180-197. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.09.015. Hassink J., Van Dijk M. (2006). Farming for Health across Europe: Comparison between countries, and recommendations for a research and policy agenda. In: Hassink J., Van Dijk M. (a cura di), FARMING FOR HEALTH (pp. 345-357). Springer Netherlands. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4541-7_22. Hazelett E. (2023). Greening the cage: Exploitation and resistance in the (un) sustainable prison garden. Antipode, 55(2): 436-457. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ anti.12893. Hill L. (2020). A touch of the outside on the inside: The effect of animal contact on the pains/strains of imprisonment. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 59(8): 433-455. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2020.1808558. Hine R., Peacock J., Pretty J.N. (2008). Care farming in the UK: Evidence and Opportunities. University of Essex Colchester, UK. https://www.farmgarden.org. uk/sites/default/files/2024-07/care_farming_in_the_ uk_final_report_jan_08.pdf Jarábková J., Chreneková M., Varecha L. (2022). Social farming: A systematic literature review of the definition and context. European Countryside, 14(3): 540568. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/euco-2022-0027. Jiler J. (2006). Doing time in the garden: Life lessons through prison horticulture. New Village Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt21pxmb7. Krauss S.E., Hamzah A., Omar Z., Suandi T., Ismail I.A., Zahari M.Z. (2009). Preliminary investigation and interview guide development for studying how Malaysian farmers form their mental models of farming. The Qualitative Report, 14(2): 245-260. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2009.1382. Lee A.-Y., Kim S.-Y., Kwon H.J., Park S.-A. (2021). Horticultural therapy program for mental health of prisoners: Case report. Integrative medicine research, 10(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imr.2020.100495. Makau S.M., Senni S., Moretti C., Romanazzi G. (2024). Higher Education Institutions in Italy and Europe Offering Education and Training Programs in Social Agriculture. Sustainability, 16(7), 2893. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.3390/su16072893. Moran D., Turner J. (2019). Turning over a new leaf: The health-enabling capacities of nature contact in prison. Social Science & Medicine, 231: 62-69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.05.032. 91 Agricultural work in European prisons. An exploratory analysis Moruzzo R., Di Iacovo F., Funghi A., Scarpellini P., Diaz S.E., Riccioli F. (2019). Social farming: An inclusive environment conducive to participant personal growth. Social Sciences, 8(11), 301. DOI: https://doi. org/10.3390/socsci8110301. Nicli S., Elsen S.U., Bernhard A. (2020). Eco-social agriculture for social transformation and environmental sustainability: A case study of the UPAS-project. Sustainability, 12(14). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145510. Payne L., McMurran M., Glennan C., Mercer J. (2023). The Impact of Working with Farm Animals on People with Offending Histories: A Scoping Review. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 67(12): 1282-1302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X221102851. Piccioni F., Cecchini M., Grazini C., Bianchini L. (2022). The Therapeutic Value of a Green Roof in a Prison Facility: A Case Study in Central Italy. In Biocca M., Cavallo E., Cecchini M., Failla S., Romano E. (a cura di), Safety, Health and Welfare in Agriculture and Agro-food Systems (Vol. 252, pp. 139-148). Springer International Publishing. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-98092-4_15. Ricciardi G., Dara Guccione G. (2018). Lavorare con migranti, detenuti e persone con problemi psichiatrici. Il ruolo dell’agricoltura sociale. Pianeta PSR. https://www.pianetapsr.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB. php/L/IT/IDPagina/2023.http://www.pianetapsr.it/ flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/2023 Sempik J. (2010). Green care and mental health: Gardening and farming as health and social care. Mental Health and Social Inclusion, 14(3): 15-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5042/mhsi.2010.0440. Steven D. Brown, Lent R.W., Knoll M. (2013). Applying Social Cognitive Career Theory to Criminal Justice Populations: A Commentary. The Counseling Psychologist, 41(7): 1052-1060. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1177/0011000013482380. Timler K., Brown H., Varcoe C. (2019). Growing connection beyond prison walls: How a prison garden fosters rehabilitation and healing for incarcerated men. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 58(5): 444-463. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2019.1615598 van Elsen T. (2016). Soziale Landwirtschaft–ein Begriff in Bewegung. Deutsche Arbeitsgemeinschaft Soziale Landwirtschaft–DASoL (Hrsg.), 24: 4-6. https://agrikulturfestival.de/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Begriff_SozLWS_aus_RDBF_DASoL24.pdf Welch B., Eldridge H. (2020). An Action Plan for Greener Prisons. Sustainable Food Trust. https://sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/An-ActionPlan-for-Greener-Prisons.-SFT-Report-2020.pdf Whiting L.S. (2008). Semi-structured interviews: guidance for novice researchers. Nursing Standard, 22(23): 35-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7748/ ns2008.02.22.23.35.c6420. Willems J. (2013). Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on “Social farming”: green care and social and Health policies. Official Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52012IE1236.