| 1. |
- Brady, Mark V., et al.
(författare)
-
Is Passive Farming A Problem for Agriculture in the EU?
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Journal of Agricultural Economics. - : Wiley. - 0021-857X .- 1477-9552. ; 68:3, s. 632-650
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We address a new agricultural policy concern following the decoupling of CAP direct payments in 2005: passive farming, whereby landowners maintain their agricultural area to collect payments without producing commodities. It is claimed that passive farming is hindering agricultural development by 'blocking' access to farmland for expanding farmers. We evaluate the links between the EU's Single Payment Scheme (SPS), passive farming, land use and agricultural development. Following identification of the rational landowners' optimal land-use choice, we evaluate the effects of the SPS using a spatial, agent-based model that simulates farmers' competition for land in a case-study region of Sweden. We show that passive farming does not constrain land from being used in production; on the contrary more land is used than would be the case without the SPS. We conclude that passive farming is not a problem for agriculture, but provides public goods that would otherwise be under provided: preservation of marginal farmland and future food security. However SPS payments on highly productive land inflate land values (capitalisation) and slow structural change, which hinder agricultural development. Consequently CAP goals could be better served by targeting payments on marginal land and phasing out payments to highly productive land.
|
|
| 2. |
- Cong, Rong Gang, et al.
(författare)
-
Managing soil natural capital : a prudent strategy for adapting to future risks
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Annals of Operations Research. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0254-5330 .- 1572-9338. ; 255:1-2, s. 439-463
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Farmers are exposed to substantial weather and market related risks. Rational farmers seek to avoid large losses. Future climate change and energy price fluctuations therefore make adaptating to increased risks particularly important for them. Managing soil natural capital—the capacity of the soil to generate ecosystem services of benefit to farmers—has been proven to generate the double dividend: increasing farm profit and reducing associated risk. In this paper we explore whether managing soil natural capital has a third dividend: reducing the downside risk (increasing the positive skewness of profit). This we refer to as the prudence effect which can be viewed as an adaptation strategy for dealing with future uncertainties through more prudent management of soil natural capital. We do this by developing a dynamic stochastic portfolio model to optimize the stock of soil natural capital—as indicated by soil organic carbon (SOC) content—that considers the mean, variance and skewness of profits from arable farming. The SOC state variable can be managed by the farmer only indirectly through the spatial and temporal allocation of land use. We model four cash crops and a grass ley that generates no market return but replenishes SOC. We find that managing soil natural capital can, not only improve farm profit while reducing the risk, but also reduce the downside risk. Prudent adaptation to future risks should therefore consider the impact of current agricultural management practices on the stock of soil natural capital.
|
|
| 3. |
- Sahrbacher, Amanda, et al.
(författare)
-
A combined approach to assess the impacts of Ecological Focus Areas on regional structural development and agricultural land use
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2425-6897 .- 2425-6870. ; 98:3, s. 111-144
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The 2013 reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) introduced compulsory ‘greening’ measures with the goal to mitigate environmental degradation caused by intensive agriculture. This paper aims to investigate how the implementation of the Ecological Focus Areas (EFA) obligation will affect regional agricultural development, the economic performance of farms and land use (including choices of EFA measures) in two representative EU regions. The research approach combines agent-based modelling (ABM) with stakeholder interactions to evaluate how farmers are likely to adapt to the new policy framework and the implications for their behaviour of the different components of the EFA obligation. Our results show that structural impacts of EFA measures are minor in both regions. The most preferred alternatives (fallow land in Sweden and catch crops in Germany) are income preserving for farmers rather than being effective for improving the environment. However, general concerns by farmers for biodiversity and the potential benefits for developing sustainable agriculture were revealed during the stakeholder workshops. We conclude that the large flexibility in choice of measures, watering down of the EFA regulations, implementation at the farm scale and lack of spatial targeting will all but eliminate any potential environmental benefits of the greening measures and subsequently, undermine farmers’ and citizens’ confidence in the CAP and its makers.
|
|
