Barreiro Hurlé, Jesús

citaREA Repositorio Electrónico Agroalimentario

Cómo se utiliza el conocimiento científico para mejorar la política agraria europea? La economía agraria en el Centro Común de InvestigaciónJesus Barreiro-HurleUnidad de Economía Agraria – Centro Común de Investigación(Sevilla)Zaragoza, 26 Noviembre 2021 Ciclo de Seminarios de la Unidad de Economía Agroalimentaria y de los Recusos NaturalesCITA de AragónIspra, 1967 –MetallurgyDepartment: two techniciansplacing uraniumcarbide in the special airtightcontainers.Ispra, 1962 –Euratom’s ScientificData Processing Centre: any nuclearinstallation requireselectronic equiment.Ispra, 1966 –Decontamination of Ispra-1 reactor.Ispra, 1963 –The ECO reactorand the ESSOR reactorconstruction site.JRC: the birthJoint Research Centre (JRC)"As the science and knowledge service of the Commission our mission is to support  EU policies with independent evidence throughout the whole policy cycle"3000 staff Almost 75% are scientists and researchers. Headquarters in Brussels and research facilities located in 5 Member States: • Belgium (Geel)• Germany (Karlsruhe)• Italy (Ispra)• The Netherlands (Petten)• Spain (Seville)The JRC within the CommissionD4 Economics of AgricultureDG AGRIAgro-economic modellingCGE’sPartial EquilibriumGlobal levelRegional levelFarm LevelFood chainBehaviourDG SANTETechno-economic analysisPlant Health EconomicsDG INTPAAgro-economic modellingFarm level analysisEvaluación ex-ante utilizando modelos agro-económicos: los objetivos de las estrategias de la granja a la mesa y de biodiversisadDG AGRIEX-ANTEBackground2019Background20202018!Approachthe CAPRI modelDetailed representation of some technologiesNitrogen and carbon cycleRegional diversity on farm systemsApproachCAP LP textsF2F and BD strategiesLatest MFF figuresAssumptions for CAPRI modelScenarios:Baseline (2014-2020 CAP)Selected F2F and BDS targets (2014-2020 CAP)Selected F2F and BDS targets + CAP LPSelected F2F and BDS targets + CAP LP + NGEULand useSupplyTrade flowsPrices, revenues and costsGHG and GNBTechnology adoption sharesLeakageApproachCAP LP textsF2F and BD strategiesLatest MFF figuresAssumptions for CAPRI modelScenarios:Baseline (2014-2020 CAP)Selected F2F and BDS targets (2014-2020 CAP)Selected F2F and BDS targets + CAP LPSelected F2F and BDS targets + CAP LP + NGEU• Most direct relationship with the agricultural sector• Most adequate for targeting CAP support4 targets of the F2F and BDS StrategiesReduction of overall use of pesticides and risk of chemical pesticides by 50% and the use of more hazardous pesticides by 2030Reduction of 50% of the costs of plant protection productsIncrease of other costs to reflect alternative management options10% decrease of yieldReduce nutrient losses by at least 50% while ensuring that there is no deterioration of soil fertility. This will reduce the use of fertilizers by at least 20% by 2030Progressive reduction of nitrogen surplus depending on 2030 levelsTechnologies to enhance the nitrogen efficiency use available for farmers (i.e. precision farming, nitrification inhibitors)reach the objective of at least 25% of the EU’s agricultural land under organic farming by 2030 and a significant increase in organic aquaculture.Increase of organic farming taking into account project baseline level for 2030 (i.e. 12% - shock +13%)No mineral fertilizer or plant protection products + reduce yield based on actual differences from FADNAt least 10% of agricultural area is under high-diversity landscape features.Increase of  fallow land taking into account project baseline level for 2018 (i.e. 4.7% - shock + 5.3%)No inputs no outputs• Action plans to facilitate the transition• Integrated nutrient management plan• Action plan on organic farming• Changes in taxation of food products• Food labelling initiativeWhat is missing from the F2F and BDS Strategies• Other targets• Reduction of food waste• Planting of 3 billion trees• Broad-band in rural areas• Sales of antimicrobials• Budget- latest figures of the 2018 proposals for the Multi-Annual Financial Framework (MFF)• 25% of the Basic Direct Payments Budget is allocated to Eco-Schemes (ECS)• 30% of the Rural Development funds are allocated to Agro-environmental and Climate Measures (AECM) excluding payments for Areas with Natural Constraints (ANC)• Voluntary Coupled Support • Extensive beef, sheep and dairy• Includes the additional 2% of Pillar I for protein crops.• Additional 9 billion euros in constant prices proposed by the Commission in June 2020 as reinforcement of long-term budget not included • New green architecture• Mandatory measures (conditionality) and voluntary measures (incentives via ECS - 25% of direct payments and AECM -30% of rural development funds).CAP LP - Scenario assumptionsScenario assumptions (cont.)• CAP LP + NGEU  • Additional scenario incorporating NextGenerationEU budget – 15 billion euros supposed to support to digitalization and investments in the agricultural sector in line with the Green Deal Priorities • Assumption: 30% reduction in cost for technologies for which investments are needed (precision farming, anaerobic digestion, breeding measures and ammonia measures for housing and storage)ApproachCAP LP textsF2F and BD strategiesLatest MFF figuresAssumptions for CAPRI modelScenarios:Baseline (2014-2020 CAP)Selected F2F and BDS targets (2014-2020 CAP)Selected F2F and BDS targets + CAP LPSelected F2F and BDS targets + CAP LP + NGEULand useSupplyTrade flowsPrices, revenues and costsGHG and GNBTechnology adoption sharesLeakageProvision of environmental benefits• F2F and BDS targets improve environmental performance of the agricultural sector• The implementation of the CAP LP further increases the improvement• Again the most challenging aspect is the nitrogen balance of the agricultural sectorGross nitrogen surplusFrom reduced production to improved efficiency – the case of GHG emissions• The implementation of the CAP LP allows meeting the Climate targets via technology instead of via reduced production• The integrity of the effort improves as leakage to the rest of the world falls• Including technologies  and practices focusing on nitrogen could replicate this trend Change in agricultural production• Reduction in production mainly driven by the nitrogen restriction• The implementation of the CAP LP eases the pressure in agricultural production• Farm level analysis shows that it is possible to further reduce the impact via efficiency gainsImpact on prices and incomeTargets + CAP LP onlyConclusion • Our analysis confirms the positive impact of the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity strategies on our environment and climate, showing that agriculture is indeed essential to achieving the Green Deal objectives.• The environmental benefits of the F2F and BDS may come at a cost for the EU agricultural sector regarding production and income, but a strong EU policy can mitigate these effects by accelerating the transition towards sustainable food systems creating new opportunities for farmers.• The green architecture of the future CAP has the right tools to support such a transition through the enhanced conditionality, a ringfenced budget and the eco-schemes. The future CAP will be instrumental to implement the (production-related) targets of the Green Deal. What next?• Change of paradigm – from restriction to production inputs• The baseline is a moving target – i.e. impacts of no action on biodiversity loss need to be incorporated• Significant changes such as those implied by the level of targets put at risk the plausibility of many parameters • Models get out of their comfort zone• Examples of the impossible becoming reality exist (e.g. carbon free production processes for steel)• A supply side analysis - Systemic changes affect also fundamentals of behavior all along the value chain (processors, retailers & consumers)Evaluación ex-ante utilizando modelos agro-económicos: los objetivos de las estrategias de la granja a la mesa y de biodiversisadDG AGRIEX-ANTEApoyo a la implementación de actos delegados de la legislación: evaluando el impacto de plagas para suprioritizaciónDG SANTEIImplementation• Not present in the EU, present in a limited area or with scarce, irregular, isolated and infrequent presences. • Most severe economic, environmental or social impactAnnual surveys (Art. 24) Contingency plan (Art. 25)Simulation exercises (Art. 26) Action plan for eradication (Art. 27) Pest categorizationJRC & EFSA: integrating economics & pathologyA joint methodology on Priority PestsStructure of the I2P21. Indicators selection (Reg. criteria/data availability)Quantitative / qualitative measures by HOST / PEST3 DomainsEconomicSocialEnvironmental25 Indicators3 indicators4 indicators2 indicators2 indicators111 indicator4 indicators3 indicators81 indicator1 indicator4 indicators610 Sub-domainsProductionTradePriceOther sectors4EmploymentFood Security and Food SafetyRecreation and landscape heritage3Street trees and parksUndesired effects of control measuresBiodiversity and ecosystem services3Different data sourcesEFSA*Data on Hosts; Potential distribution; Y,Q loss; Spread/detection rate; Quarantine; Treatments   MS and experts Ad-hoc data requests on Forestry; Cultural heritage; street-park trees; pricesSecondary dataData on production (EUROSTAT,FAO); trade (COMEXT); Soil erosion(articles)Data calculated by JRC All indicators per pest*Note: data for a maximum spread scenario based on the current environmental conditions and production practices, within a time frame long enough to take into account the temporal variation Indicatorsby PESTStructure of the I2P21. Indicators selection (Reg. criteria/data availability)2. Normalization and weightingAggregate indicators and compare pests Quantitative / qualitative measures by HOST / PESTRANKING (pest affecting crops example)Xylella fastidiosa5.5 billion EUR of agricultural production at risk103 protected habitat and species potentially affectedNote - Results for the median scenarioPopillia japonica (Japanese beetle)2.4 billion EUR of agricultural production at risk158 countries we trade with might restrict imports from EUThaumatotibia leucotreta (Citrus codling moth)1.2 billion EUR of agricultural production at risk0.21% of total protein intake at riskSome figures for the pests in the podiumStructure of the I2P21. Indicators selection (Reg. criteria/data availability)2. Normalization and weighting3. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysisAggregate indicators and compare pests Quantitative / qualitative measures by HOST / PESTStakeholder consultationMS feedbackEvaluación ex-ante utilizando modelos agro-económicos: los objetivos de las estrategias de la granja a la mesa y de biodiversisadDG AGRIEX-ANTEApoyo a la implementación de actos delegados de la legislación: evaluando el impacto de plagas para su prioritizaciónDG SANTEImplementationApoyo a la implementación de actos delegados de la legislación: evaluando el impacto de plagas para suprioritizaciónDG AGRIExploratorioIntroduction Model and Methods Results ConclusionsCrowding out effect / mental accounting / Moral licensing – when mandatory increases voluntary decreases Crowding in effect – when mandatory decreases voluntary increases due to injunctive normsLower endowment leads to lower contribution in absolute termsSemi-contextualisedIncentivizedPre-registeredSelf-administrated600 farmers (200 x country)Soft quotas for size, age and farming activityIndividuals assigned randomly to one of two treatmentsLevels presented in random orderIncentivisationTOTAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE ENVIRONMENTSHARE OF ZERO CONTRIBUTIONSTOTAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE ENVIRONMENTSHARE OF ZERO CONTRIBUTIONSTOTAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE ENVIRONMENTSHARE OF ZERO CONTRIBUTIONSFAIRNES PERCEPTION OF OPTIONSEnhancing conditionality may not necessarily increase the overall adoption of environmentally friendly practices…… unless the increase in requirements is substantial.Decreasing BISS payments in favour of eco-schemes may not increase overall adoption of environmentally friendly practices.… but the picture could be different in real life and for higher compensation ratesVoluntary contribution more sensitive to variation of mandatory contribution than to equivalent variation of endowmentEvidence of moral licensing effect?Thank you© European Union 2020Unless otherwise noted the reuse of this presentation is authorised under the CC BY 4.0 license. For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the EU, permission may need to be sought directly from the respective right holders.

¿Cómo se utiliza el conocimiento científico para mejorar la política agraria europea?. La economía agraria en el Centro Común de Investigación

https://citarea.cita-aragon.es/citarea/bitstream/10532/5659/1/JBarreiro26Nov2021.pdf

¿Cómo se utiliza el conocimiento científico para mejorar la política agraria europea?. La economía agraria en el Centro Común de Investigación

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

citaREA Repositorio Electrónico Agroalimentario