A Foresight Study of European East-West Agrifood Trade Options

Taking a trade perspective with a focus on agrifood markets, the current foresight study employs a computable general equilibrium simulation model to quantify the implications of different future pathways of European East-West trade relations for the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), thereby providing insight on how best to orientate their political and trade strategies. Comparing with a baseline, two optimistic pathways explore greater market access, both within Europe (‘Deep integration’) and globally (‘trade liberalisation’). In contrast, an isolationist ‘trade bloc’ pathway reflecting a deteriorating political situation between Russia and the West is also examined. In the ‘baseline’, Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA) members realise market gains, whilst intra-CIS trade diversion effects are small. The ‘deep integration’ scenario (‘liberalisation’ scenario) generates significant relative benefits for DCFTA signatories’ agrifood (non-agrifood) activities. In both of these trade reform narratives, the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU) economic gains are biased in favour of Russia’s energy sector resulting in greater import dependence on agrifood commodities from the EU. The isolationist trade narrative nurtures EAEU agrifood activity, although at the cost of its macroeconomic growth

Drivers of the European Bioeconomy in Transition (BioEconomy2030): an exploratory, model-based assessment

The bioeconomy comprises sectors that use renewable biological resources to produce food, materials and energy. It is at the centre of several global and EU challenges in the near future such as the creation of growth and jobs, climate change, food security and resource depletion. “Bioeconomy 2030†projects a reference scenario (‘business as usual’) and compares it with two distinct policy narratives (‘Outward-looking’ and ‘Inward-looking’) to understand the drivers of EU’s bioeconomy up to 2030, assess its resilience to fulfil such diverse policy goals and identify potential trade-offs. As a motor of jobs and growth, the results indicate that the importance of the bio-based sectors is expected to dwindle somewhat. The factors underlying this result are mainly structural and related to comparably lower macroeconomic growth rates in the EU. It is, however, conceivable that improved economic development or productivity improvements linked to EU investments in, for instance bio-based innovation, would produce a recognisably more optimistic outlook for the EU bioeconomy.Publishe

Drivers of the European Bioeconomy in Transition (BioEconomy2030) - an exploratory, model-based assessment

Employing a state-of-the-art multi-region market simulation model and database, the aim of this research is to further build on existing research which has attempted to tackle some of these questions at a global scale (von Lampe et al., 2014), in three ways. Firstly, it complements the broader global view provided by previous initiatives with a detailed one for the European Union, with some focus at the member state level. Secondly, different narratives or story lines are developed which reflect different philosophical outlooks resulting from government policy (as opposed to different assumptions pertaining to macroeconomic growth, technological change and biophysical constraints). As a result, this research sets its gaze more firmly on a more medium term future, rather than ‘blue sky’ research initiatives which examine the inherent uncertainty which is characteristic of long run (2050) and very long run (2100) time horizons (von Lampe et al., 2014). Finally, the scope of bio-based activities goes beyond the standard definitions inherent within national accounts data to encompass sources of biomass supply, bio-fuels and bio-chemicals, whilst also taking account of ‘new’ technologies (i.e. second generation fuels) which, hitherto, are still in their infancy but may be expected to play a key role in shaping the bio-economy in the medium term. The structure of this report is as follows. Section 2 describes the data and model framework employed for this study. Section 3 outlines the experimental implementation of the study (i.e., data aggregation, modelling assumptions, scenario design etc). Section 4 presents the baseline results, whilst section 5 examines the resilience of EU bio-economic sectors by comparing the results of two alternative policy visions with those of the baseline. Additional analysis is also conducted to examine the sensitivity of bio-based sectors to divergent changes in world fossil fuel prices. Chapter 6 provides a summary of the key results and some final conclusions.JRC.J.4-Agriculture and Life Sciences in the Econom

China's Pork Miracle?

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Agriculture has helped fuel the “China miracle.” Since 1978, agricultural and food output has soared, Chinese agribusiness firms have become key players in domestic and international markets, and by all accounts, China has been highly successful in overcoming land and resource constraints to feed its population of 1.3 billion people. The country is celebrated for its successes in reducing poverty and hunger over the last 30 years, and more recently, for creating an agrifood system that makes eating “high on the hog” a possibility and reality for many Chinese people. Pork is at the heart of this miracle. A hallmark of the post-1978 agricultural development model is ramping up the production, sale, and consumption of meat. Processed and packaged meats are the fastest growing market segments, reflecting the increasing influence and operation of pork processors, and the more general trend towards processed foods that can be shipped, stored, and sold with a longer shelf-life in super- and hyper-markets. These trends are also reflected in the Shuanghui (now called the WH Group to take on a more international identity) buyout of Smithfield Foods, a move that will increase China’s pork supplies, strengthen Shuanghui’s brand within China as “safer” meat with higher consumer status because of its US origin, and further generate and shape consumer demand for industrial pork. The Shuanghui-Smithfield deal is a matter of political and economic interest, but also signals a much more basic insight: pork, and the systems and actors that produce it, are central in China’s agrifood system with increasingly global inter-linkages and implications. etc. ..

A Multi-Disciplinary Approach For Determining Adoption Of Agricultural Price Risk Management Strategies

Australian wool producers have been slow to adopt price risk management strategies to stabilise the income from their wool sales. The highly volatile auction system accounts for 85% of raw wool sales while the remainder is sold by forward contract, futures and other hedging methods. Qualitative analysis was used to find behavioural factors associated with the adoption of price risk management strategies (specifically futures and forward contracts) for selling raw wool. Consideration was given to Diffusion of Innovations and the Theory of Planned Behaviour as theoretical frameworks in order to answer the research question: Are there any non-traditional behavioural factors that need to be incorporated into existing frameworks to determine adoption of price risk management strategies for selling raw wool? In contrast to these prominent theories, data from four focus groups conducted with wool producers in regional Western Australia showed that trust, habit and social cohesion were the major behavioural determinants that governed the adoption of price risk management strategies. The significance of this paper lies in its multi-disciplinary approach to understanding the dimensions of farm-level decision making.Qualitative analysis, trust, habit, social cohesion, forward contracts, wool., Agricultural Finance, Risk and Uncertainty,

A review of the literature and knowledge of standards and certification systems in agricultural production and farming systems (NRI working paper series on sustainability standards No. 2)

In this review we closely follow the terms of reference set by RESOLV, with respect to the standards summarised below in Table 1.2, specifically: organic, GlobalGAP, Fairtrade, the Sustainable Agriculture Network standard (known as SAN, and sometimes referred to as the Rainforest Alliance (RA) standard), and Utz Certified), plus two newer standards – the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and the Roundtable on Responsible Soy (RTRS) standards. In most of the text the discussion focuses on the first five of these standards according to the availability of literature and the length of time that the standards have been in operation (RTRS only published its standard in June 2010 with its first certification in June 2011; RSPO Principles were agreed in 2005 followed by the criteria and indicators agreed 2007 and the first certification took place in 2008). So in section 1 we focus on the market for certified agricultural products exploring trends in supply and demand including reflections on how consumers and companies influence these trends. In section 2 we begin by discussing the evolving methodologies in use to assess impacts of standards and standards systems. Informed by this methodological understanding, we provide a summary of key findings from a variety of studies on particular standards or groups of standards in agriculture. In section 3 we consider the relative effectiveness of certification systems both in relation to each other and compared to other approaches to improving ‘sustainability performance’. Following this in section 4 we discuss communication of the standards to the public and public awareness of different standards. Here we explore the complex relationship with public regulation and also consider ways other than standards which may facilitate improvements. The concluding section summarises the key findings and presents our analysis of the gaps in knowledge that exist. We propose a research agenda that will enhance our understanding of standards and certification systems operating in agriculture, particularly with respect to how they meet their objectives and broader impacts, intended and unintended

Potential building blocks for the research and innovation agenda of the future Europe – Africa strategic partnership on sustainable intensification of the African agri-food systems. Delivrable 2.4

D2.4 is the fourth and last deliverable of WP2. It presents a wide review of the potential building blocks on which a Europe/Africa partnership on research and innovation in Agro food systems can be constructed. The document comprises two sections: Section I provides general considerations on intensification of agrifood systems, the options ProIntensAfrica has taken to understand the intensification dynamics, and the ways research and innovation can appropriately support this process. Section II presents the themes of the expected agenda, analysing first megatrends and challenges, food systems, trade and access to market, natural resources. Then, the document explores different cropping systems in order to identify the needs of a large diversity of stakeholders, at different scales, in different ecological zones to support the decision-making process. Finally, a wide spectrum of cross cutting themes are explored (biosciences and technologies, genetic diversity, large scale land acquisitions, innovation in partnership, collective actions, multi-criteria evaluation, ecosystem services, foresight capabilities, critical technologies, urban and peri-urban agriculture). If relevant, all the items are analysed with the ProIntensAfrica option that different visions of agricultural intensification address diversified (and complementary) research agendas. The content of the Agenda is mainly based on the PROIntensAfrica literature review. The full contributions of the authors, including lists of references, are available on an online platform, accessible on: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bz1YBNqX1eprNEc2UGJoRHMyV2c These building blocks will be later in the project confronted (i) to the case studies conclusions, (ii) to the vision and criterion developed by the other WPs, and (iii) to a realistic future Europe / Africa partnership. From these confrontations, the final ProIntensAfrica R&I agenda will be defined.(Résumé d'auteur

Managing Intellectual Property to Foster Agricultural Development

Over the past decades, consideration of IPRs has become increasingly important in many areas of agricultural development, including foreign direct investment, technology transfer, trade, investment in innovation, access to genetic resources, and the protection of traditional knowledge. The widening role of IPRs in governing the ownership of—and access to—innovation, information, and knowledge makes them particularly critical in ensuring that developing countries benefit from the introduction of new technologies that could radically alter the welfare of the poor. Failing to improve IPR policies and practices to support the needs of developing countries will eliminate significant development opportunities. The discussion in this note moves away from policy prescriptions to focus on investments to improve how IPRs are used in practice in agricultural development. These investments must be seen as complementary to other investments in agricultural development. IPRs are woven into the context of innovation and R&D. They can enable entrepreneurship and allow the leveraging of private resources for resolving the problems of poverty. Conversely, IPRs issues can delay important scientific advancements, deter investment in products for the poor, and impose crippling transaction costs on organizations if the wrong tools are used or tools are badly applied. The central benefit of pursuing the investments outlined in this note is to build into the system a more robust capacity for strategic and flexible use of IPRs tailored to development goals

Private Capacity and Public Failure: Contours of Livestock Innovation Response Capacity in Kenya

Globalization, urbanization and new market demands - together with ever-increasing quality and safety requirements - are putting significantly greater pressures on agrifood stakeholders in the world. The ability to respond to new challenges and opportunities is important not just for producers but also for industries in developing countries. This paper aims to present what "innovation response capacity" entails, especially for natural resourcebased industries in a developing country context. It will also provide an analytical framework that draws elements from agricultural innovation capacity and the innovation systems framework. This is provided through case study research conducted in Kenya by exploring two livestock product companies: Farmer's Choice and Kenchic. The cases show how companies had worked around the problem of weak interaction with the various livestockrelated agencies of the public sector by developing links with international sources of knowledge and technology. This allowed the sector to respond rapidly to different challenges. While the country's historical development explains this pattern of innovation response capacity, public policy appears to be failing in its role of nurturing and contributing to the capacities needed for development in emerging economies, such as that of Kenya.Livestock, agriculture, innovation, innovation response capacity, Kenya