| |
Records |
Links |
|
Author |
Marton, T. |
|
| |
Title |
Assessing the impact of agro-climatic factors and farm characteristics on the yield variation of the Norwegian fruit sector |
Type |
Report |
| |
Year |
2016 |
Publication |
FACCE MACSUR Reports |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
|
| |
Volume  |
9 C6 - |
Issue |
|
Pages |
Sp9-5 |
|
| |
Keywords |
|
|
| |
Abstract |
Main drivers of ag. yields:–Technology–R&D (new hybrids etc.)–Weather–Etc.•Common sense and anecdotal observations (remember the Tromsø presentation) revealed extreme events tended to impact wide geographic areas•This was called the «systemic» nature of agriculture No semi-aggregation farm-level•Not the boring corn, maize, wheat fruits•No OLS-like Pearson correlation or functional form approach for conditioning spatial correlations on weather SDM•Finally, if we are smart enough to set the explanatory proxies in a meaningful way presumably we can make the distinction between the effects of, say draught and extreme heat.•And much more in policy relevance |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4857 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Sinabell, F. |
|
| |
Title |
Adaptation to climate change in the European agriculture: A new tool for explicit cost accounting |
Type |
Report |
| |
Year |
2016 |
Publication |
FACCE MACSUR Reports |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
|
| |
Volume |
9 C6 - |
Issue |
|
Pages |
Sp9-10 |
|
| |
Keywords |
|
|
| |
Abstract |
farm structure in Austria and level of educationchallenges of more volatile markets / more uncertain yieldsmore uncertainty about revenues and costsspecialisation and liquidity problems – not alleviated by EU direct paymentspolitical measures: late, uncertain, no legal title, wrong incentivestax credits – not relevant in Austria for most farmsprice hedging instruments steep learning curve and intransparent marketsmost frequently used: service of buying co-operatives control of accumulation risksdetails of contract are attractive for farmerse.g. monthly benefits for milk producersbenefits at the time of sale for pig, piglet, grain producerscombination with production risk insurance with discountsgovernment support during introduction period / as a new policy instrumentmarketing and sales: wholesale buyers / dairies / producer organisations offer margin insurance as a service |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4860 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Wehrheim, P. |
|
| |
Title |
Agriculture and land use in the Commission proposals for the 2030 Climate and Energy Framework |
Type |
Report |
| |
Year |
2016 |
Publication |
FACCE MACSUR Reports |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
|
| |
Volume |
9 C6 - |
Issue |
|
Pages |
Sp9-12 |
|
| |
Keywords |
|
|
| |
Abstract |
Introduction: policy context•Impact Assessment: options, models, examples•Proposal for Effort Sharing Regulation and LULUCF Regulation•Conclusions and Outlook: more work for modellers 1. Fully in line with Paris Agreement, no backsliding on robustness and transparency2.Provides for continuity•Addresses Member States and not individual farmers or foresters•Stand-alone LULUCF pillar•No-debit rule (from KP)•Flexibility within LULUCF and from ESR to LULUCF3.Proposes limited innovations•Flexibility to the ESR up to 280 mt CO2•Aligning accounting rules (AF,CM/GM)•Defining EU-internal process to set national forest management levels•Simplifying administrationConclusions (2) |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4859 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Hoveid, Ø. |
|
| |
Title |
What are the risks of food price changes? A time series analysis |
Type |
Report |
| |
Year |
2016 |
Publication |
FACCE MACSUR Reports |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
|
| |
Volume |
9 C6 - |
Issue |
|
Pages |
Sp9-2 |
|
| |
Keywords |
|
|
| |
Abstract |
It is a widely held belief (IPCC) that climate change bringsmore risks to the worldI Since the start of MACSUR, TradeM has had risk on theagenda, but few results have so far come out. It has beenclaimed though, that there is no evidence for more risk in theglobal wheat market (Steen and Gjølberg 2014) (TradeMworkshop at Hurdalssjøen)I I have myself had the ambition of creating a dynamicstochastic model of the food system in which risk would be anintegral part, but time has been too shortI I have also pointed to methods from finance to reveal insights,and that is the road to be followed here, guided by Bølviken &Benth (2000) Buyer’s risk larger than seller’s risk — due to asymmetricdistribution of returns. Large price jumps are more likely thanequally sized price falls.I Long term positions much more risky than short term ones —as expectedI Agricultural commodities much less risky than crude oilI Price risk are related to volatility, and their changes over timewill have similar causal explanationsI Risks of producers and consumers of agricultural commoditieswill to some extent be related to the price risk, and also totheir portfolios and the co-variance between returns |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4831 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Sinabell, F. |
|
| |
Title |
Yield potentials and yield gaps in soybean production in Austria – a biophysical and economic assessment |
Type |
Report |
| |
Year |
2016 |
Publication |
FACCE MACSUR Reports |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
|
| |
Volume |
9 C6 - |
Issue |
|
Pages |
Sp9-11 |
|
| |
Keywords |
|
|
| |
Abstract |
context of analysis:• stakeholders. policy relevance: CC and protein crops• research problem:• how large is the yield gap and what can be done• data• approaches• findings• discussion and outlook yield gap analysis is a daunting task• what can be learned• economics matters: prices of crop and other crops• land expansion: more land becoming more marginal• management matters a lot but – not directly observable in data• significant knowledge gaps still there• way forward:• look at other crops• explore options to improve management |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4829 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
