What Does Ecological Farming Mean for Farm Labour?

Summary: Ecological farming, such as organic and low‐input farming, is gaining popularity in the public discourse. One question is how this type of farming may impact farm labour from a socio‐economic point of view. The article first discusses how low‐input farming practices (i.e. with lower reliance on inputs derived from fossil fuels) may affect the economic returns to labour, measured as the farm’s revenue per hour of labour input, on data from the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) in 2004‐‐2015 for four European countries. Returns to labour appear to be highest at the two extremes – very low‐input farms and highly intensive farms. Farms in the low‐input end of the spectrum are in the minority, while the overwhelming majority of farms are intensive and have internal economic incentives to intensify further. The article also analyses how working conditions differ between organic and conventional dairy farms in two European countries based on interviews with farmers in 2019. Results show that all dimensions of working conditions are affected by being an organic farm or not, but this is not the only factor. There are many influences on working conditions, such as the production context and workforce composition

What Does Ecological Farming Mean for Farm Labour?

Summary: Ecological farming, such as organic and low‐input farming, is gaining popularity in the public discourse. One question is how this type of farming may impact farm labour from a socio‐economic point of view. The article first discusses how low‐input farming practices (i.e. with lower reliance on inputs derived from fossil fuels) may affect the economic returns to labour, measured as the farm’s revenue per hour of labour input, on data from the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) in 2004‐‐2015 for four European countries. Returns to labour appear to be highest at the two extremes – very low‐input farms and highly intensive farms. Farms in the low‐input end of the spectrum are in the minority, while the overwhelming majority of farms are intensive and have internal economic incentives to intensify further. The article also analyses how working conditions differ between organic and conventional dairy farms in two European countries based on interviews with farmers in 2019. Results show that all dimensions of working conditions are affected by being an organic farm or not, but this is not the only factor. There are many influences on working conditions, such as the production context and workforce composition

D5.3 Resilience assessment of current farming systems across the European Union

For improving sustainability and resilience of EU farming system, the current state needs to be assessed, before being able to move on to future scenarios. Assessing sustainability and resilience of farming systems is a multi-faceted research challenge in terms of the scientific domains and scales of integration (farm, household, farming system level) that need to be covered. Hence, in SURE-Farm, multiple approaches are used to evaluate current sustainability and resilience and its underlying structures and drivers. To maintain consistency across the different approaches, all approaches are connected to a resilience framework which was developed for the unique purposes of SURE-Farm. The resilience framework follows five steps: 1) the farming system (resilience of what?), 2) challenges (resilience to what?), 3) functions (resilience for what purpose?), 4) resilience capacities, 5) resilience attributes (what enhances resilience?). The framework was operationalized in 11 case studies across the EU. Applied approaches differ in disciplinary orientation and the farming system process they focus on. Three approaches focus on risk management: 1) a farm survey with a main focus on risk management and risk management strategies, 2) interviews on farmers’ learning capacity and networks of influence, and 3) Focus Groups on risk management. Two approaches address farm demographics: 4) interviews on farm demographics, and 5) AgriPoliS Focus Group workshops on structural change of farming systems from a (farm) demographics perspective. One approach applied so far addresses governance: 6) the Resilience Assessment Tool that evaluates how policies and legislation support resilience of farming systems. Two methods address agricultural production and delivery of public and private goods: 7) the Framework of Participatory Impact Assessment for sustainable and resilient farming systems (FoPIA-SURE-Farm), aiming to integrate multiple perspectives at farming system level, and 8) the Ecosystem Services assessment that evaluates the delivery of public and private goods. In a few case studies, additional methods were applied. Specifically, in the Italian case study, additional statistical approaches were used to increase the support for risk management options (Appendix A and Appendix B). Results of the different methods were compared and synthesized per step of the resilience framework. Synthesized results were used to determine the position of the farming system in the adaptive cycle, i.e. in the exploitation, conservation, release, or reorganization phase. Dependent on the current phase of the farming system, strategies for improving sustainability and resilience were developed. Results were synthesized around the three aspects characterizing the SURE-Farm framework, i.e. (i) it studies resilience at the farming system level, (ii) considers three resilience capacities, and (iii) assesses resilience in the context of the (changing) functions of the system. (i) Many actors are part of the farming system. However, resilience-enhancing strategies are mostly defined at the farm level. In each farming system multiple actors are considered to be part of the system, such as consultants, neighbors, local selling networks and nature organizations. The number of different farming system actors beyond the focal farmers varies between 4 (in French beef and Italian hazelnut systems) and 14 (large-scale arable systems in the UK). These large numbers of actors illustrate the relevance of looking at farming system level rather than at farm level. It also suggests that discussions about resilience and future strategies need to embrace all of these actors. (ii) At system level there is a low perceived capacity to transform. Yet, most systems appear to be at the start of a period in which (incremental) transformation is required. At system level, the capacity to transform is perceived to be relatively low, except in the Romanian mixed farming system. The latter may reflect a combination of ample room to grow and a relatively stable environment (especially when compared to the past 30 to 50 years). The relatively low capacity to transform in the majority of systems is not in line with the suggestion that most systems are at the start of (incremental) transformation, or, at least, reached a situation in which they can no longer grow. Further growth is only deemed possible in the Belgium dairy, Italian hazelnut, Polish fruit and Romanian mixed farming systems. (iii) System functions score well with regard to the delivery of high-quality and safe food but face problems with quality of rural life and protecting biodiversity. Resilience capacities can only be understood in the context of the functions to be delivered by a farming system. We find that across all systems required functions are a mix of private and public goods. With regard to the capacity to deliver private goods, all systems perform well with respect to high-quality and safe food. Viability of farm income is regarded moderate or low in the livestock systems in Belgium (dairy), France (beef) and Sweden (broilers), and the fruit farming system in Poland. Across all functions, attention is especially needed for the delivery of public goods. More specifically the quality of rural life and infrastructure are frequently classified as being important, but currently performing bad. Despite the concerns about the delivery of public goods, many future strategies still focus on improving the delivery of private goods. Suggestions in the area of public goods include among others the implementation of conservation farming in the UK arable system, improved water management in the Italian hazelnut system, and introduction of technologies which reduce the use of herbicides in Polish fruit systems. It is questionable whether these are sufficient to address the need to improve the maintenance of natural resources, biodiversity and attractiveness of rural areas. With regard to the changing of functions over time, we did not find evidence for this in our farming systems

WYZWANIA DLA SEKTORA BIOPALIW W KONTEKŚCIE POLITYKI KLIMATYCZNO-ENERGETYCZNEJ UNII EUROPEJSKIEJ

Celem pracy jest ocena skutków wprowadzania zmian do polityki klimatyczno-energetycznej UE w odniesieniu do sektora biopaliw. Materiałem badawczym i źródłem informacji były raporty i sprawozdania Ministerstwa Energii, Ministerstwa Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi, Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki, GUS, Komisji Europejskiej i Międzynarodowej Agencji Energii Odnawialnej. Badania obejmowały lata 2007-2015 z perspektywą do 2030 roku. Z przeprowadzonych analiz wynika, że realizacja założonych zobowiązań odnoszących się do minimalnego udziału energii odnawialnej zużywanej przez środki transportu, a wynikających z wniosku dotyczącego dyrektywy 2009/28/WE z 23.02.2017, w zaproponowanych terminach może być trudna do realizacji. Obecnie istniejące instalacje wytwarzające biopaliwa zaawansowane to przede wszystkim niewielkie, prototypowe linie technologiczne, których komercjalizacja narażona jest na wiele zagrożeń mogących uniemożliwić osiągnięcie zakładanych zdolności produkcyjnych

Challenges for Modelling CAP 2014–2020 within CGE Model Framework

The paper discusses various approaches to modelling measures of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) within a computable general equilibrium (CGE) framework for the new budgetary period 2014–2020. The task of modelling such a complex policy as the CAP with the use of CGE is not easy at least for three reasons. First, the policy itself is very complex – Pillar 2 alone includes about 17 very heterogeneous measures, which differ in terms of implementation and eligibility criteria. Pillar 1 measures are not targeted (in terms of goods and services that may be bought with these funds) and thus the assessment of their impact requires additional knowledge on how they were spent. Second, although CGE models represent all sectors of the economy, yet they normally do not characterise individual sectors with such a precision as would be desired for modelling the nuances of the individual CAP measures. Third, the CAP evolves towards less tangible measures (risk management, quality improvements, conditionality based on environmental requirements), and towards increasing role of non-marketed goods (provision of public goods, environmental amenities, food safety). There is also an increasing role of human capital manifested by e.g. bottom-up approaches or co-operation measures. They, however, are difficult to grasp by the CGE models since they are not directly observed or linked to the exogenous variables controlled in this types of models. While taking all the challenges into account and relaying on a literature review the article presents some solution and makes suggestions for possible ways of modelling new CAP 2014–2020 within CGE modelling framework which may be useful in the policy evaluation

Potential of Straw for Energy Purposes in Poland—Forecasts Based on Trend and Causal Models

The mitigation of climate change poses a major challenge to the legal framework which aims to stimulate the development of renewable energy sources. The European Union’s direction for the use of renewable energy is distributed generation and an increased use of by-products and organic waste, especially in the production of next-generation biofuels. The main aim of this study is to evaluate the production potential of straw in Poland and the possibility of its use for energy purposes, including a forecast for 2030, on the assumption that the management of this resource is in accordance with the provisions of the Polish Code for Good Agriculture Practice. In Poland, in the years 1999–2018, the average annual surplus of straw harvested over agricultural consumption equalled 12.5 million tons (4.2 Mtoe). Its largest surpluses were in the Dolnośląskie, Kujawsko-Pomorskie, Lubelskie, Wielkopolskie, and Zachodniopomorskie voivodeships (NUTS2). Based on the developed panel models, forecasts for straw surpluses in Poland are presented in three perspectives: realistic, pessimistic, and optimistic. The forecasts show regional differentiation until 2030. Each of the three perspectives indicate a slow increase in these surpluses, and depending on the adopted version, it will range from 10.6% to 21.9%

D4.5: Policy recommendations for strengthening the Common Agricultural Policy’s resilience impacts

In its Communication on the future of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) after 2020, the European Commission (2017) declared their ambition to foster a ‘resilient agricultural sector’. Work package 4 of the SURE-Farm project has the double aim of assessing how the current CAP and adjacent policies perform in enabling European farming systems’ resilience – distinguishing between the resilience capacities of robustness, adaptability and transformability (Meuwissen et al., 2019) – and of formulating recommendations for improved policy outcomes. Previous tasks in this work package involved an expert assessment of the CAP’s enabling and constraining effects (Feindt et al., 2019), as well as a bottom-up analysis of how farming system actors experience the influence of multilevel policy configurations on their resilience. The study presented in this report builds on these previous analyses by identifying various promising options for the CAP, including national implementations, to maximise its contribution to greater resilience of EU farming systems. These options serve as input for ongoing political debates on the reform of the CAP post-2020, the development of the proposed National Strategic Plans that spell out national priorities and implementation choices, as well as the European Commission’s “From Farm to Fork Strategy”, which aims to foster a circular food system, as part of the European Green Deal. For the UK case study (see below), we reflect on promising courses of action for post-Brexit agricultural policy.In order to develop viable policy pathways, the study draws on various co-creation methods, through which SURE-Farm researchers engaged with a broad range of stakeholders. The core of the research consists of six national stakeholder workshops – in the Netherlands, Belgium, the UK, Spain, Poland, and Italy – as well as a final workshop with EU stakeholders in Brussels. Theseworkshops were complemented by an online deliberation exercise conducted on SURE-Farm’s cocreation platforms and a concise review of promising resilience-enabling policies in the six countries. The report proceeds as follows: after a more detailed discussion of the methods used in this study, section 3 presents the main findings of the four research activities. The report ends by recommending various policy directions that emerged from the analysis as offering the most potential for improving the CAP’s impact on the robustness, adaptability, and/or transformability of Europe’s farming systems