Suchergebnisse

This deliverable investigates the employment effects of ecological farming by analysing both the differences in the intensity of labour use and rewards to skills. It contributes to one of the main outcomes/achievements of the LIFT project, i.e. to "identify the sources of performance and sustainability differences between farms of different types, size and output complexity as observed in the landscape of the European Union (EU)". It is based on collaborative research on Task 3.5 'Employment effects of ecological farming at the farm level' of LIFT between UNIKENT (England) (Task Leader), INRAE (France), DEMETER (Greece), MTA KRTK (Hungary) and IRWiR PAN (Poland). The analyses reported consider the differences between farms on a scale from the most conventional farming systems to the most ecological as measured by the intensities of use of external inputs and labour, the receipt of agri-environmental payments (AEP), capital and involvement in organic production. This approach was used since, at the time of working on the deliverable the LIFT typology protocol on how to classify farms according to the different degrees of adoption of ecological approaches to farming has not been completed. The approach nevertheless makes use of the LIFT conceptual typology in Deliverable 1.1 (Rega et al., 2018). In the analysis, intensity of labour use is studied as a function of farming inputs (fuel, fertiliser, crop protection chemicals), capital and AEP. Dependent and independent variables have been standardised by dividing them by the output value and the resulting ratios named intensities of use. The standardisation by dividing by the overall output value was done to remove the effect of different farm sizes and to focus the discussion on the way output is produced, rather than how land is used. In order to reduce the impact of quality differences in the inputs, we make use of monetary value of input used to take account of quality differences that would be reflected in price differentials. Five EU Member States (MSs) are ...

The challenges faced by agricultural systems call for an advance in risk management (RM) assessments. This research identifies and discusses potential improvements to RM across 11 European Union (EU) farming systems (FS). The paper proposes a comprehensive, participatory approach that accounts for multi-stakeholder perspectives relying on 11 focus groups for brainstorming and gathering suggestions to improve RM. Data analysis is based on content analysis and coding of suggested improvements, and their assessment through the lenses of main challenges faced, farms' flexibility, and dependence on subsidies. First, the results show that necessary improvements differ depending on whether they have their origin in sudden shocks or long-term pressures. Second, farm dependence on direct payments determines a stronger need to improve financial instruments, whereas farm flexibility suggests a need for more accessible and tailored tools for low-flexibility FS, and increased know-what and know-how for high-flexibility FS. Third, our findings indicate a potential for extending stakeholder involvement in RM to new or unconventional roles. Underlying specific improvements, the paper suggests and discusses three main avenues to improve RM as a whole: i) a developed learning and knowledge network; ii) new forms of collaboration; and iii) integrated financial and policy instruments.

The challenges faced by agricultural systems call for an advance in risk management (RM) assessments. This research identifies and discusses potential improvements to RM across 11 European Union (EU) farming systems (FS). The paper proposes a comprehensive, participatory approach that accounts for multi-stakeholder perspectives relying on 11 focus groups for brainstorming and gathering suggestions to improve RM. Data analysis is based on content analysis and coding of suggested improvements, and their assessment through the lenses of main challenges faced, farms' flexibility, and dependence on subsidies. First, the results show that necessary improvements differ depending on whether they have their origin in sudden shocks or long-term pressures. Second, farm dependence on direct payments determines a stronger need to improve financial instruments, whereas farm flexibility suggests a need for more accessible and tailored tools for low-flexibility FS, and increased know-what and know-how for high-flexibility FS. Third, our findings indicate a potential for extending stakeholder involvement in RM to new or unconventional roles. Underlying specific improvements, the paper suggests and discusses three main avenues to improve RM as a whole: i) a developed learning and knowledge network; ii) new forms of collaboration; and iii) integrated financial and policy instruments.

The SURE-Farm project aims to analyse, assess and improve the resilience and sustainability of farming systems in Europe. Farming systems face a whole range of social, ecological, economic and political disturbances and changes, such as sharp market fluctuations, severe weather events, climate change, new technologies, changes in consumer preferences and in governance structures and so forth, operating at a range of scales (local, regional, national and global). Some stresses on the farm system can be predicted (e.g. retirement of farmers), while other shocks are more uncertain and unpredictable (e.g. flooding, sudden price drop, illness). Project's WP2 aims to comprehensively understand farmers' risk behaviour and risk management (RM) decisions, and to develop and test RM strategies and decision support tools that farmers can use to cope with increasing economic, environmental and social uncertainties and risks. WP2 contributes to the development of RM in EU farming systems by understanding and eliciting farmers' risk perceptions and preferences; learning about farmers' adaptive behaviour; learning capacity and preferred improvements of current RM tools; designing and analysing improved strategies to deal with extreme weather; and co-creating improved RM tools and map-related institutional challenges.