Study on Input/Output Accounting Systems on EU agricultural holdings

Of 241 questionnaires sent out to 20 countries 55 completed forms were returned. No information could be obtained about systems in Portugal or the USA. The subject of nutrients was covered by 91% of systems, pesticides 38%, energy 29% and other subjects including wastes 44%. Nearly half of the systems covered more than one subject, the most common single subject system was nutrients. The arable sector was covered most often by the systems (76%), with dairy (62%) and pig (56%) the most prominent of the livestock sectors. The respondents judged that 65% of systems were at least moderately effective in improving the ratio of inputs to outputs. The highest levels of ratio reduction tended to occur with systems which included the livestock sectors or protected horticultural crops. Over half (56%) of farmers had a good opinion of the system, indifferent or bad opinions were more likely to be due to effect on income than the type of system or who managed it. High uptake was more likely in compensated systems. Farm incomes in the arable and dairy sectors were most likely to be improved by systems, negative effects were most likely in the horticultural sector. Government was the main driving force in 38% of the systems, but government was not necessarily the driving force behind the 15% compulsory systems and only one of these was compensated. Increasing concern about environmental issues was the driving force behind development of each of the systems studied. In most cases a major part of the funding to develop the system or run pilot projects came from government. Benefits in terms of increased awareness of problem areas were identified by several systems originators. Anecdotal evidence suggests that farmers are encouraged to make actual changes to their management on the basis of the systems, if they receive detailed help from an adviser associated with the system, or if the system results in a marketing advantage. It seems likely that input output accounting systems could be used to increase awareness and provide evidence of the impact of management changes, they may need to be linked to supporting systems of technical advice. More than 40 IOA systems representing very different approaches have been developed and applied on farms in European countries with the aim of improving environmental performance. Major differences regard especially two characteristics: The no topics covered (single or multiple) and the way indicators are presented. In many systems the indicators used are presented as calculations of input related to output and are derived from accounts based data. Other systems present indicators that are transformed to a standard scale and often these indicators are based on a combination of practise and account data compared with norms for Good Agricultural Practices. Moreover, the systems differ in their origin and driving force: Only a few systems have been developed for mandatory use or for labelling and formal auditioning. Most systems have been developed for the use by advisory services on a voluntary basis. A number of very different systems seem to have been successful. Effectiveness is defined here as the combination of a system with high (potential) impact on the participating farmers in combination with high uptake in terms of the no of farmers willing to use the system. Generally documentation of effects and uptake is poor and more investigations into this are needed. It seems that many systems have not passed the pilot phase, even though some of them did get a positive evaluation by the farmers. In several examples the effort of researchers to develop a scientifically valid concept was not matched by efforts to secure the uptake by advisors or other institutions afterwards. The right institutional setting and political context seems to be more important than the character of the indicators used for the question of farmer uptake. But that does not mean that the choice of indicators is not important from another point of view. In none of the reviewed systems were the use of confidence intervals or variation coefficients an established part of the procedure. Only few reports exist that analyse the variation between farms or between years on specific farms in order to decide to which degree differences are due to systematically different management practices

Book illustration

Book synopsis: William Blake, poet and artist, is a figure often understood to have 'created his own system'. Combining close readings and detailed analysis of a range of Blake's work, from lyrical songs to later myth, from writing to visual art, this collection of thirty-eight lively and authoritative essays examines what Blake had in common with his contemporaries, the writers who influenced him, and those he influenced in turn. Chapters from an international team of leading scholars also attend to his wider contexts: material, formal, cultural, and historical, to enrich our understanding of, and engagement with, Blake's work. Accessibly written, incisive, and informed by original research, William Blake in Context enables readers to appreciate Blake anew, from both within and outside of his own idiom

Policy Cycle

The policy cycle framework originates from the idea of organizing and ordering the complexity of policymaking. It is a heuristic tool through which different stages of the ongoing and never-ending dynamics of policy processes can be segmented and then analyzed. It was originally proposed by Lasswell (1956), the founder of modern policy analysis and public policy, and is still considered one of the essentials in the conceptual toolbox of policy scholars. The policy cycle – also called the “stages approaches to policy process” (De Leon, 1999) – does not have any explanatory relevance and is thus not at the theoretical core of public policy (where there is a richness of different theoretical frameworks). However, it is a powerful conceptual tool to simplify and make “workable” the complexity of policymaking. Overall, it holds a relevant descriptive capacity that is still useful, despite many critics having underlined that it risks oversimplifying the interconnected and intertwined density of the policy process flux. The cycle is usually divided into five stages: agenda setting, formulation, decision-making, implementation, and evaluation

Impact of bioenergy crops in a carbon dioxide constrained world: an application of the MiniCAM energy-agriculture and land use model

Bioenergy, Global energy scenarios, Climate change, Carbon dioxide, Integrated assessment,