Suchergebnisse

The number of pastoralists maintaining production systems with small numbers of traditional breeds of cattle decreased dramatically with the modernisation and industrialisation of agriculture in Europe during the twentieth century. While these pastoral systems were not compatible with agricultural industrialisation policies, they provide a far better match to current European Union (EU) policy with its emphasis on high nature values and various cultural heritage protection measures. Today, these farms can obtain EU funding for preserving natural and/or cultural heritage values rather than producing agricultural goods. Although such EU subsidies make a welcome contribution to the livelihood of traditional farmers, the critical definitions that have to be made regarding what is considered traditional or non-traditional can be problematic. This paper provides an example from Swedish fäbodbruk, a smallholder system of forest pasturing with traditional breeds of cattle, goats and sheep in northern Sweden. As policymaking and agricultural subsidies during the twentieth century reflected the contemporary political agenda of that time, farmers have been subjected to many changes in priority in political decision making. The contemporary push for traditional farming and heritage has made policymaking potentially even more difficult, e.g. as regards the question of what should be considered traditional and what makes up natural and cultural heritage. This paper examines how farmers are affected by valuations and assessments made by the relevant authorities on whether they are producing natural and/or cultural heritage.

Bergslagen in south-central Sweden is an informal region with a long history of intensive land use. The legacies of than 2000 years of integrated use of ore, forests and water major national and international economic importance now involve several challenges for the maintenance of landscapes. This includes sustainability of rural and urban communities, of green infrastructures for natural capital and human well-being as well as of forests, river basins and mining. In response to this cross-sectoral integration necessary at multiple levels of public, private and civil as well as academia and schools. Landscapes need thus to be viewed as integrated socio-ecological systems. Collaboration and continuous learning among actors and stakeholders are needed for sustainable use and management of landscapes' goods, services and values. To support this requires (1) data, monitoring and assessment of different aspects of sustainability, (2) continuous knowledge production about material and immaterial landscape values relevant for the management of ecological, economic, social and cultural dimensions, (3) information and communication using both traditional media, as well as (4) through art and culture. the vision to contribute to satisfying these requirements Sustainable Bergslagen initiative emerged gradually since 2004 as a multi-level partnership for sustainable landscapes (www.bergslagen.org). By joining the International Model Forest Network (IMFN), and the network for Long Term Socio-Economic and Ecological Research (LTSER), actors and stakeholders can learn from other regions' sustainable development processes, and make Bergslagen more visible internationally.

In Latin America, the immense existing biodiversity is associated with the abundance of enormous practically unknown regions and the presence of indigenous peoples, in some cases uncontacted. Along with the profusion of life forms that have been preserved over the years, the danger of genetic erosion caused by indiscriminate exploitation stands out on the one hand, and on the other the attempts at appropriation by institutions and natural persons, at the expense of the prejudice of the communities that inhabit those areas, of their habits of life and of their cultural practices. The purpose of this article is to reflect on these issues, based on the documentary information published by various authors. The examples presented also demonstrate that the region can take advantage of biodiversity for its own development, under a bioeconomy model, in which the efforts of science, education and production institutions coexist, supported by government policies of respect for the environment, indigenous populations and the legal protection of heritage.

Heritage cereals, a group of cereals that have not been subjected to modern crop breeding, have been getting attention due to their generally high genetic diversity, traits like high drought and disease tolerance as well as high nutritional values. Knowledge about how consumers relate to heritage cereals in Sweden is limited, and therefore this thesis aims to, firstly, explore acceptance, awareness and preferences among a specific consumer group; students in the agriculture program at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, and, secondly, quality perception in relation to heritage cereals among consumers, bakers and retailers, in a Swedish context. The thesis used a mixed-method approach, and is based on quantitative data from a survey to capture perspectives from the student consumer group and semi-structured interviews with bakers and retailers to gain additional perspectives about food quality. The findings from this study suggests that the awareness of heritage cereals is high among the specific consumer group. Bread and pasta make up the most preferred food products, and supermarkets were the most preferred shopping location. Gender had some influence on differences within the group, while high similarities were found between the different educational backgrounds. Results from the survey indicate that taste and Swedish food production are two very important food quality aspects for heritage cereals. Additionally, quality aspects like health, environmental impact, organic and local production were also found to be important to consumers, bakers and retailers. Consuming heritage cereals can also be seen as a tool to support sustainable food systems and different political discourses, avoiding risks associated with industrial farming and express belonging to certain cultural identities. These were also important dimensions of heritage cereal food quality. ; Kulturspannmål, en grupp av spannmål som inte genomgått modern växtförädling, har under de senaste åren fått allt mer uppmärksamhet på grund av ...

Sheep production in Sweden is an agricultural sector that today exists merely as a small niche, despite its agroecological potential. Through literature research, a survey and 18 semi-structured interviews, this paper defines the sector's marginality and attempts to explain it. The effects of the sector's marginality on the sustainability of Swedish sheep farming and agriculture as a whole are evaluated. Finally, desirable directions for development of the Swedish sheep sector are suggested. The findings showed that the marginality of the Swedish sheep sector to a large extent is a product of socio-cultural factors that affect the structure of the sheep sector. Not least, the sector's marginality reinforces itself. In addition, bio-physical, historical and political circumstances have played a role in marginalising the sector. Several weaknesses and strengths regarding sustainability were recognized within the current, small-scale structures of Swedish sheep farming. Opportunities were identified through which the sheep sector could actually contribute to agricultural sustainability precisely through its marginality. Equally, threats to sustainability that arise from the sector being limited to its niche were acknowledged. Overall, the findings suggest that it would be beneficial for the Swedish sheep sector to grow if agroecological, sustainable farming is the ultimate goal. Whether this growth can and will be achieved, however, is questionable.

Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. is a troublesome weed, causing economic losses by reducing crop yield, increasing herbicide and tillage costs, and degrading soils due to increased tillage requirements. The major control method for C. arvense is herbicide application, but this poses socio-environmental and herbicide resistance risks. The European Union promotes reduced dependence and sustainable use of herbicides, combined with cultural and mechanical weed control. This thesis assessed the effects of integrated weed control on the population dynamics of C. arvense. For mechanical control, farmers are recommended to act when C. arvense is most sensitive to disturbance, i.e. at the point of minimum belowground weight, coinciding with 7-10 leaves per shoot. However, many farmers believe that this is too late. To estimate the compensation point (CP), defined as the minimum weight of the entire belowground structure of C. arvense, and identify links between initial root weight, planting depth and crop competition, three outdoor pot experiments were performed. For chemical control, farmers are recommended to spray when the majority of C. arvense shoots are 10-20 cm high. To assess the effects of timing and dose of herbicide application (MCPA), and crop competition on growth and development of C. arvense, one outdoor pot experiment and one field experiment were performed. The field experiment also assessed the effects of selective cutting. It was found that CP for C. arvense occurred before 3-leaf stage and that treatment effects were minor (<0.5 leaf stages). Depletion of planted root fragments ceased on average around leaf stage 3-4, indicating that CP occurs at early leaf stages. In the pot experiment, the strongest effect of herbicide treatment was obtained by spraying with the recommended dose in the presence of a crop when the largest C. arvense shoot had 3-4 leaves, corresponding to maximum height 13 cm and median height 6 cm. Crop competition reduced biomass, shoot height and leaf production of C. arvense regardless of herbicide dose. In the field experiment, herbicide treatment at 4-5 leaves or 8-10 leaves gave similar control effects as selective cutting. Herbicide application had a more immediate effect on growth and development of C. arvense while selective cutting depleted the below-ground structures more gradually. The results indicate that mechanical control of C. arvense should be performed earlier than previously recommended, probably before C. arvense reaches 3-4 leaves per shoot. Also early herbicide spraying seems to be as efficient as spraying later in the season.

In this report we aim to analyse the economic and environmental impacts of Pillar I direct payments, and to demonstrate alternative instruments that are better suited to achieve CAP objectives. The instruments—a targeted payment to land at risk of abandonment and a tax on mineral fertilisers—were selected on the basis of the Polluter Pays and Provider Gets Principles. We do this using two state‐of‐the‐art agricultural economic simulation models. The first model, CAPRI, is used to quantify the large‐scale or aggregate impacts for individual countries, the EU and the world. The other model, AgriPoliS, is used to quantify the fine‐scale or farm and field level impacts in a selection of contrasting agricultural regions, to consider the potential influence of the large spatial variability in agricultural and environmental conditions across the EU. The results show that direct payments are keeping more farms in the sector and more land in agricultural use than would otherwise be the case, and thus avoiding land abandonment, principally in marginal regions. Particularly the area of grassland is substantially higher, because it is generally less productive than arable land and hence more dependent on direct payments for keeping it in agricultural use. The magnitudes of the impacts of direct payments on land use therefore vary strongly across regions due to spatial variability in productivity: marginal regions with large areas of less productive land are heavily influenced by direct payments, while regions with large areas of relatively productive land are hardly affected, because this land would be farmed in any case. By keeping more farmers in the sector longer, direct payments are slowing structural change, which can hamper agricultural development. However the potential benefits of faster structural change vary considerably among our study regions. In relatively productive regions direct payments are hindering development, because too many farmers are staying in the sector and preventing the consolidation of land in larger farms, which would improve their competitiveness and increase farm profits. On the contrary, the mass departure of farms that is currently avoided, will not lead to the same general benefits in marginal regions. Instead of freed land being absorbed by remaining farms, large areas of relatively unproductive land are abandoned without payments. This land is unprofitable to maintain in agricultural land use, even if integrated into larger farms, because current market prices are too low to motivate farming it. Consequently direct payments pose a serious goal conflict: the avoidance of land abandonment on the one hand, which can have negative impacts on public goods, and restricting agricultural development on the other hand. Once again this goal conflict is rooted in the spatial variability of agricultural conditions in the EU. Maintaining extensively managed farmland, particularly semi‐natural pastures, is central for conservation of biodiversity and preservation of the cultural landscape. Therefore direct payments are contributing to the provisioning of these public goods, but principally in marginal areas. Further, abandonment of land can reduce its agricultural productivity due to erosion or afforestation. Thus, direct payments are contributing to food security by preserving the productive potential of land for the future, but only marginal land since relatively productive land is farmed in any case. Production of agricultural commodities is affected to a lesser degree by direct payments than land use per se. Nevertheless, food exports from the EU are higher and imports lower as a consequence of direct payments. However, the additional supply generated by direct payments also lowers output prices, which reduces the profitability of commodity production; thereby partially offsetting the additional revenues from direct payments. The higher agricultural output brought about by direct payments causes higher levels of environmentally damaging greenhouse‐gas emissions, nutrient surpluses and pesticide use. The higher greenhouse‐gas emissions for the EU are, to some extent, moderated by lower emissions in the rest of the world. Nevertheless, the net effect of direct payments is higher global emissions of greenhouse gases. The environmental impacts of higher nutrient surpluses and pesticide inputs are less conclusive, since these depend also on spatial factors, i.e., where the emissions occur. Although EU‐scale and regional emissions are higher due to direct payments, agricultural production is less intensive generally, on account of the lower output prices. Analysing the net effects of these two opposing forces requires additional biophysical modelling at relevant spatial scales, such as watersheds or landscapes, which is beyond the scope of this study. Pillar I direct payments generate a significant transfer of income to farmers and land owners who are not necessarily farmers; 40 billion euro annually. Of this transfer a substantial proportion goes to farmers in relatively productive regions and, further, to a minority of farmers that need them least. In relatively productive regions payments are not needed for continued agricultural production and preservation of farmland, but instead rather fuel higher land and rental prices, which hampers structural change. On the contrary, the need for support is greatest in marginal regions, because some form of payment to marginal land is needed to avoid its abandonment and the loss of associated public goods. Finally, the direct payments even come at the cost of lower market returns for farmers due to slower structural change (smaller and less competitive farms) and lower output prices (due to greater EU output). On the other hand the lower output prices lead to somewhat lower food prices, but at the greater cost of financing the direct payments. Our main conclusion is that Pillar I direct payments are generating serious goal conflicts due to spatial variability in conditions across the EU. On the one hand these payments are contributing to the provisioning of public goods by preserving marginal agricultural land. On the other hand they are hampering agricultural development, primarily in relatively productive regions. Payments to relatively productive land that would be farmed any way not only inflate land values (capitalisation) but also slow structural change, which are both likely to hinder agricultural development and hence the competitiveness of the EU on the global market. The direct payments also increase environmental pressure; by subsidising land use generally and the associated production, they are incapable of controlling environmentally damaging emissions, which is also in conflict with broad CAP objectives. The goal conflict arises because direct payments are universal, a payment principal that does not consider spatial variability in the EU and the associated trade‐offs in regard to development and environmental effectiveness. Our analysis considered two alternative policy instruments that have the potential to curb the identified goal conflicts associated with direct payments, by applying the Polluter Pays and Provider (of public goods) Gets Principles at appropriate spatial scales. Replacing direct payments with a payment targeted on marginal land (and associated public goods) prevents land abandonment at a lower cost, by avoiding payments to relatively productive land that is farmed in any case. This also allows surviving farms in regions with relatively productive land to compensate for lost direct payments through expansion and associated scale economies, as well as higher output prices. This instrument therefore finances the provisioning of public goods without adverse effects on development and the efficiency of agricultural production. The EU‐wide tax on mineral fertiliser demonstrates that this instrument has the potential to reduce nutrient surpluses. Since direct payments cause higher levels of polluting emissions, policy instruments targeting emissions at relevant spatial scales are needed to achieve cost‐effective abatement. Overall we find that Pillar I direct payments are not addressing the diversity of challenges facing European agriculture. In fact our quantitative analysis indicates that the potential for the current system to meet these challenges is seriously impaired by goal conflicts and spatial variability across the EU. A better policy requires that instruments are targeted on desired outcomes and designed according to sound principles, specifically the Polluter Pays and Provider Gets Principles. These principles would ensure that farmers are provided with appropriate incentives to i) generate public goods that otherwise would be underprovided; ii) mitigate environmentally damaging emissions at the lowest possible cost to society; and iii) continually strive to improve environmental performance. Such instruments are also fairer and promote a more competitive or viable agricultural sector by not obstructing structural change and hence agricultural development.