|
|
Brouwer, F., & Sinabell, F. (2015). Three years of collaboration in TradeM – Agricultural markets and prices. In FACCE MACSUR Reports (Vol. 6, pp. SP6–4). Brussels.
Abstract: Some farmers may claim that climate change adaptation is easy compared to the difficulties caused by policiesAction based on weather observations only, is insufficient for farmers to respond to climate change. Researchers need support from farmers in understanding the responses in practice.Policies might be too slow to respond to needs for change in agriculture. Winners and losers seem to be observed everywhere.The impacts of climate change is heterogeneous among farm types and regionsEffects beyond 2050 remain largely unclear, mainly because the effects of extreme events are not consideredVariability of yields is important to farm incomes, but most studies only consider average changesFarmers are ready to design their site-specific adaptation response providing that new knowledge and learning spaces are available. A learning process based on integrated models, assessment of short- and long-term effects, is needed for farmers to adapt to climate change, price fluctuations and policy change. No Label
|
|
|
|
Köchy, M., Aberton, M., Bannink, A., Banse, M., Brouwer, F., Brüser, K., et al. (2015). MACSUR — Summary of research results, phase 1: 2012-2015 (Vol. 6).
Abstract: MACSUR — Modelling European Agriculture with Climate Change for Food Security — is a knowledge hub that was formally created in June 2012 as a European scientific network. The strategic aim of the knowledge hub is to create a coordinated and globally visible network of European researchers and research groups, with intra- and interdisciplinary interaction and shared expertise creating synergies for the development of scientific resources (data, models, methods) to model the impacts of climate change on agriculture and related issues. This objective encompasses a wide range of political and sociological aspects, as well as the technical development of modelling capacity through impact assessments at different scales and assessing uncertainties in model outcomes. We achieve this through model intercomparisons and model improvements, harmonization and exchange of data sets, training in the selection and use of models, assessment of benefits of ensemble modelling, and cross-disciplinary linkages of models and tools. The project engages with a diverse range of stakeholder groups and to support the development of resources for capacity building of individuals and countries. Commensurate with this broad challenge, a network of currently 300 scientists (measured by the number of individuals on the central e-mail list) from 18 countries evolved from the original set of research groups selected by FACCE. In the spirit of creating and maintaining a network for intra- and interdisciplinary knowledge exchange, network activities focused on meetings of researchers for sharing expertise and, depending on group resources (both financial and personnel), development of collaborative research activities. The outcome of these activities is the enhanced knowledge of the individual researchers within the network, contributions to conference presentations and scholarly papers, input to stakeholders and the general public, organised courses for students, junior and senior scientists. The most visible outcome are the scientific results of the network activities, represented in the contributions of MACSUR members to the impressive number of more than 200 collaborative papers in peer-reviewed publications. Here, we present a selection of overview and cross-disciplinary papers which include contributions from MACSUR members. It highlights the major scientific challenges addressed, and the methodological solutions and insights obtained. Over and above these highlights, major achievements have been reached regarding data collection, data processing, evaluation, model testing, modelling assessments of the effects of agriculture on ecosystem services, policy, and development of scenarios. Details on these achievements in the context of MACSUR can be found in our online publication FACCE MACSUR Reports at http://ojs.macsur.eu.
|
|
|
|
Köchy, M., Bannink, A., Banse, M., Brouwer, F., Brüser, K., Ewert, F., et al. (2015). MACSUR Phase 1 Final Administrative Report: Public release (Vol. 6).
Abstract: MACSUR’s foremost charge is improving the methodology for integrative inter-disciplinary modelling of European agriculture. In addition to technical changes, improvements include the involvement of stakeholders for setting research priorities, scenarios (if-then evaluations), and model parameters to more realistic or region-specific values. The Knowledge Hub currently brings together 300 members from 18 countries and has generated 300 scientific papers, over 500 presentations and 20 workshops and conferences within the first three years. Scientific results are communicated in conferences and workshops, where policymakers take part by invitation or because of professional interest. These events also provide opportunities for direct dialogues between policymakers and scientists. The primary form of output of the research network is scientific publications that are cited in policy documents by relevant administrative departments, ministries, intergovernmental agencies, and directorate-generals, and non-governmental interest groups. MACSUR members also contribute directly to policy documents as authors, e.g. the EEA’s indicator report on CC impacts or the IPCC’s 5th assessment report’s chapter on food security.
|
|
|
|
Heinschink, K., Sinabell, F., & Tribl, C. (2016). An index-based production costs system to evaluate costs of adaptation and mitigation in dairy and cattle farming. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 7(03), 242–244.
|
|
|
|
Sinabell, F. (2016). Adaptation to climate change in the European agriculture: A new tool for explicit cost accounting (Vol. 9 C6 -).
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
|
|
