•Analysis of determinants for farm diversification in the Netherlands.•Two step model approach: first a binomial logit model analysing the general diversification decision and then a multinomial ...probit model analysing differences amongst diversification activities.•Socio-demographic-, economic-, and geographical characteristics of farms are determined to be influencing the diversification decision.•Compared to other activities, largest differences in drivers for nature conservation.
Farm diversification has been prominently supported by agricultural policy makers aiming to support rural development. To increase the understanding of determinants influencing diversification and hence to increase the efficiency of policies aiming to support farm diversification this paper presents the results of an analysis of diversification determinants. The research investigates Dutch farms diversification strategies using Farm Structural Survey (FSS) data of 2011 including 70,392 farms. The study uses a binary logit model to determine the characteristics influencing the diversification decision in general. Furthermore, an in-depth analysis for six diversification strategies was conducted. Additionally the study categorised the specific diversification activities in order to estimate a multinomial probit model, analysing three choice categories simultaneously. This enables us to compare determinants of farm diversification in general with determinants of specific activities. The analysis includes socio- demographic, economic and geophysical farm characteristics assumed to influence the diversification decision. Even though diversification is largely influenced by similar determinants, we find differences that are most pronounced for the adoption of nature conservation strategies. Consequently, it is important for policy makers to target policies at specific diversification activities in order to increase efficiency.
Sustainable development of agriculture is at the core of agricultural policy debates in Europe. There is a consensus that diversification of cropping would support sustainable development. However, a ...reduction in legume cultivation has been observed in the EU during the last decades. This decline has induced, in turn, a deficit of proteins and a reduction of ecosystem services provided by legumes. Therefore, we analysed the mechanisms that shape agricultural systems to identify leverage points for reviving European legume production. Specifically, we reviewed the factors that affect the market and non-market value of legumes and the relevant agricultural policies. We characterized the decline in legume cropping as an outcome of the dominance of economic forces that favour specialization of production systems over diversification. We found that the value of market outputs of legumes per unit area is relatively low and volatile, with a 25â78 % variation in pea gross margins, which reduces market competitiveness. We observed that the value of system-internal outputs of legumes such as the nitrogen fixed, of 130 to 153 kg N haâ»Â¹; crop protection services that reduce agrochemical costs, by 20â25 % in cereals; and yield enhancements of subsequent crops, of 0.2 to 1.6 t haâ»Â¹ in cereals, are often underestimated. In addition, markets fail to translate external effects of legumes such as biodiversity enhancement, reduction in emissions, of up to 50 % in NâO, and soil improvements into economic benefits. Current policies support legumes through selected mechanisms such as ecological focus areas, agri-environmental programmes and sparse coupled support measures. Domestic cultivation of legumes could be supported through trade policies such as import restrictions on genetically modified soybean or new mechanisms to appreciate non-market outputs including payments for ecosystem services and carbon markets. In addition, development of new value chains, niche markets, scaling-up of plant breeding efforts and dissemination of information is required.
Contemporary policy making calls for scientific support to anticipate the possible consequences of optional policy decisions on sustainable development. This paper presents an analytical framework ...for ex ante assessment of economic, social, and environmental impacts of policy driven land use changes that can be used as an aid to policy making. The tasks were to (1) link policy scenarios with land use change simulations, (2) link land use change simulations with environmental, social, and economic impacts through indicators, and (3) valuate the impacts in the context of sustainable development. The outcome was a basis for dialogue at the science-policy interface in the process of developing new policies on the European level that impact on land and land use. The analytical approach provides a logical thread for ex ante impact assessment within the context of sustainable development, land use multifunctionality, and land use change and it provides a thorough discussion of achievements and open challenges related to the framework. It concludes with considerations on the potential for using evidence based ex ante assessments in the process of policy development. The paper is complemented by a B-paper providing exemplary results from two applications of the framework: a financial reform scenario of the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union, and a bioenergy policy scenario for the case of Poland (Helming et al. 2011).
The use of science-based tools for impact assessment has increasingly gained focus in addressing the complexity of interactions between environment, society, and economy. For integrated assessment of ...policies affecting land use, an analytical framework was developed. The aim of our work was to apply the analytical framework for specific scenario cases and in combination with quantitative and qualitative application methods. The analytical framework was tested for two cases involving the ex ante impact assessment of: (1) a European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) financial reform scenario employing a modeling approach and combined with a comprehensive indicator analysis and valuation; and (2) a regional bioenergy policy scenario, employing a fully participatory approach. The results showed that European land use in general is less sensitive to changes in the Common Agricultural Policy, but in the context of regions there can be significant impacts on the functions of land use. In general, the implementation of the analytical framework for impact assessment proved to be doable with both methods, i.e., with the quantitative modeling and with the qualitative participatory approach. A key advantage of using the system of linked quantitative models is that it makes possible the simultaneous consideration of all relevant sectors of the economy without abstaining from a great level of detail for sectors of particular interest. Other advantages lie in the incontestable character of the results. Based on neutral, existing data with a fixed set of settings and regions, an absolute comparability and reproducibility throughout Europe can be maintained. Analyzing the pros and cons of both approaches showed that they could be used complementarily rather than be seen as competing alternatives.
What is Sustainability? Farrington, John; Kuhlman, Tom
Sustainability,
11/2010, Letnik:
2, Številka:
11
Journal Article, Book Review
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Sustainability as a policy concept has its origin in the Brundtland Report of 1987. That document was concerned with the tension between the aspirations of mankind towards a better life on the one ...hand and the limitations imposed by nature on the other hand. In the course of time, the concept has been re-interpreted as encompassing three dimensions, namely social, economic and environmental. The paper argues that this change in meaning (a) obscures the real contradiction between the aims of welfare for all and environmental conservation; (b) risks diminishing the importance of the environmental dimension; and (c) separates social from economic aspects, which in reality are one and the same. It is proposed instead to return to the original meaning, where sustainability is concerned with the well-being of future generations and in particular with irreplaceable natural resources—as opposed to the gratification of present needs which we call well-being. A balance needs to be found between those two, but not by pretending they are three sides of the same coin. Although we use up natural resources at the expense of future generations, we also generate capital (including knowledge) which raises future well-being. A major question is to what extent the one compensates for the other. This debate centres around the problem of substitutability, which has been cast into a distinction between ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ sustainability. It is argued that these two do not need to be in opposition but complement one another.
Natural ecosystems provide an attractive focus for tourism on small islands. However, at the same time tourism and other human actions can be detrimental to these ecosystems especially because ...governance of the ecosystem may be difficult due to the limited resilience of small island ecosystems. In this paper, we focus on the conditions under which self-governance will be the appropriate governance mechanism of ecosystem services on small islands. We apply Ostrom’s (2009) framework for common-pool resources in a socialecological system, and select the relevant indicators for small islands. We scored these indicators for three cases (environmental issues) in St. Eustatius, a Caribbean island under Dutch rule. These cases show that self-organization of ecosystem services is not an outcome easily achieved. The unevenly distributed benefits of potential measures are found to decrease community support of measures that could reinforce these ecosystem services.
Second-generation biofuels that produce biomass for combustion or ethanol production do not yet appear to be a viable alternative to agriculture as they are low-value products. This may change, ...however, when energy prices increase and their production is combined with the provision of other services. The current analysis explores the potential for the production of an often overlooked biomass feedstock that can be combined with water and nature management objectives: reed. This crop has the additional advantage that it can be grown under conditions that are unfavourable to most other crops. An economics-based land-use modelling approach is applied to simulate the local competition between reed and grassland used for dairy farming under four different future scenarios in the Netherlands. Based on a location-specific assessment of potential costs and benefits of these crops under scenario-based conditions this analysis shows that the cultivation of reed for bioenergy, in combination with providing additional land-use functions, while not viable option under current economic and political conditions, may become competitive within the next twenty years if any of the following developments occur: energy prices increase substantially; water tables rise in the low-lying western parts of the country due to climate change; a policy is implemented that increases bioenergy prices; or a policy is implemented that stimulates water buffering and the preservation of peat soils.
► Under what conditions could reed be a viable bioenergy crop in the Netherlands? ► Modelling the potential spatial distribution of reed cultivation. ► Reed can be feasible as multifunctional land use: bioenergy, water purification and retention. ► High energy prices, climate change and environmental policies favour reed cultivation. ► Reed may replace dairying on peat soils if suitable conditions come to pass.
•It is possible to relate agri-environmental efforts to nature value indicators.•Spatial econometrics can be used to evaluate the impact of rural development measures on nature value indicators.•Not ...accounting for the spatial effects of rural development measures leads to severe biases.•Delayed effects over time are observed as regards the impact of rural development measures on nature value indicators.•Spatial resolution does matter since the impacts of policy measures differ according to the scale of the analysis.
This paper proposes an approach for assessing the effectiveness of those agri-environmental schemes and rural development measures aimed at enhancing the natural value of farmland and, more generally, aimed at releasing the pressure on the environment due to agriculture. First, based on fine scale data, indicators derived from the High Nature Value farmland concept are tested at different scales, resolutions and situations: LAU2 for The Netherlands and LAU1 for France. The effect of rural development measures on the evolution of these indicators is then explored. Significant cause-effect relationships are found in the French cases, while only relationships of correlations are observed from the Dutch case study, obviously caused by a lack of data. Using fine scale data on rural development measures related to both 2000–2006 and 2007–2013 programming periods of the Common Agricultural Policy, a spatial econometrics methodology is applied to France, at national level on the one hand, and at a selected NUTS2 level on the other. The results indicate that agri-environmental schemes and specific rural development measures affect the changes in the indicators, and that the spatial scale of the analyses matters. In particular, results indicate that trends observed at the national scale do not necessarily apply at the regional scale (e.g. impacts of conversion to organic farming, the grassland premium, payments for water and biodiversity protection) underlining the importance of multi-scale assessments. Interestingly, delayed effects of the measures implemented in the 2000–2006 programming period, such as machinery investment aids and less-favoured area payments, are detectable. As regards the 2007–2013 rural development measures, the most significant positive effects on the farm nature value indicator are found, at the national level, for locally targeted agri-environmental schemes focused on biodiversity and water issues and, at the NUTS2 level, for supporting organic farming schemes. Given that the farm nature value indicator is built from three different indices (addressing crop diversity, grassland share, and wooded and afforested farmland) the effect of rural development measures on each of these individual indices is also explored. This enables the main structure and the magnitude of policy impacts to be captured and helps with the understanding of why certain objectives were not met. Key findings are relevant in the context of policy monitoring and evaluation, while the methodology proposed, that incorporates spatial effects, is an important contribution to the implementation of the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework by Member States to account for national, regional or local characteristics.
Economics is about problems of choice. In erosion control, both public authorities and private land users are faced with such problems. What is the impact of erosion, both on-site and off-site, and ...to what extent can this impact be quantified? If we conceptualize this impact in terms of sustainability, how can we compare one type of effect against another? The former question can be answered only by natural scientists, the latter by economists and other social scientists. Weighing different aspects of sustainability requires value judgments, and economists are sometimes accused of having a jaundiced view of reality, wrongly supposing that decisions are based on rationality and denying the importance of emotion.
However, let us assume that there is some mileage to be gained out of attempting to estimate the cost of erosion in an economic sense—which consists of converting the various effects into a common denominator: euros. If we can predict the impact of erosion control measures on erosion rates, we can know the benefit of these measures. The cost also needs to be calculated, not in terms of money but in terms of resources expended (which could have been used for other purposes) and in terms of possible negative impacts of erosion control (for instance, increased use of herbicides in reduced-tillage systems).
There are important other considerations which economists may study. Firstly, there is the comparison of present versus future costs and benefits: how much can we sacrifice today for higher sustainability tomorrow?
Secondly, there is the issue of private versus public costs and benefits: how do the goals of private land users differ from (those of?) the public good, how can this help us to predict land users’ behaviour, and what incentives would be appropriate to make them behave in such a way as to maximize the public good? Thirdly, how do we deal with uncertainty and risk?
These problems loomed large in a study to support an extended impact assessment for the EU Soil Thematic Strategy, in 2005. Whereas much research has been done on erosion and its impact, much of this is on a small scale. The extent of the problem on a national, let alone a continental or a global scale, is still poorly known. The paper discusses how these problems were faced, which is not the same as saying they were resolved.
PDF
