| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> [11–20] |
|
Tantari, A. (2015). The role of CAP direct payment in the support and stabilisation of farm income: empirical evidences from a constant sample of Italian farms (Vol. 5).
Abstract: The main objective of CAP Direct payments (DP) has been to increase and stabilise farm income together with a large number of additional goals (Gardner, 1991). Despite its importance, there are limited empirical evidences on farm income variability over time at farm level apart Vrolijk and Poppe (2008) and Vrolijk, de Bont, van der Veen, and Poppe (2009). The analysis focuses of the following research questions:• What is the amount of the support provided by DP? How the income of Italian farms will be affected by reductions of DP levels?• What is the extent of farm income variability over time? Is it the same in all types of farms?• Where is this variability coming from?• Do CAP direct payments reduce farm income variability? How do DP affect it? Are DP targeted to stabilise the income of those farms facing larger income variability? The analysis has been developed on the individual farms belonging to the whole Italian sample of the EU FADN farms during all years of the decade 2003-2012. The variability of farm income (FI) is assessed by calculating variance and Coefficient of Variation (CV) over the 10 year period for each farm for each relevant income component. The role of DP on income stabilisation is assessed by means of variance decomposition by income sources (Burt and Finley, 1968; El Benni and Finger, 2013; Mishra and El-Osta, 2001).The presence of DP allows for a reduction of the variability of farm income: the variability of FI when DP are not accounted for is higher than that of the whole FI. Finally, DP seem to be not targeted to those farms facing the highest level of market income variability. These results support the hypothesis that there is a potentially large room for better design the DP policy to reduce income variability. No Label
|
|
Stewart, D. (2013). A strategy for the dissemination outputs at the national, EU and global levels (Vol. 2).
Abstract: To effectively communicate and disseminate the outputs of CropM and MACSUR per se at national, EU and global levels it is essential that we engage with the appropriate audiences and tailor the level and depth of the outputs accordingly. Consequently for the range of stakeholder outputs there will be a staged period of engagement with stakeholders in the policy and industry sectors (and where appropriate others). This will be driven by the strategies outlined in WP6.3-4 (Strategies for engagement on adaptation and mitigation with national and EU policy makers and with the agro-food chain sector). Once enacted and the feedback collated these response will facilitate the co-construction of an appropriate dissemination strategy. Aligned with this will be a series of standardised dissemination routes that will deliver globally but will then often be followed up by a more local (national) output/dissemination activity tailored for that region. The dissemination strategy will include but will not be limited to multiple and various methods of information distribution including Scientific papers and presentations. Agricultural sector/industry focused talks/presentations and workshops. A fully developed and interactive website (part of the larger project). Social Media Podcasts and WebTV with key actors in the crop and climate change arena including scientists, and stakeholders (policy, agriculturalists and industry representatives). Integration with the cognate EU platforms, e.g. EIP Agricultural and Sustainability, EIT-KIC Climate Change(ETP), the appropriate ETPs (http://cordis.europa.eu/technology-platforms/individual_en.html) and major EU projects such as SUSFOOD etc. No Label
|
|
Steen, M. (2015). Warmer, Wetter, Wilder? Climatic Evidence from the Grain Markets (Vol. 4).
|
|
Smith, P. (2015). Addressing the joint challenges of climate change and food security (Vol. 5).
Abstract: Feeding 9–10 billion people by 2050 and preventing dangerous climate change are two of the greatest challenges facing humanity. Both challenges must be met while reducing the impact of land management on ecosystem services that deliver vital goods and services, and support human health and well-being. While supply-side mitigation measures, such as changes in land management, might either enhance or negatively impact food security, demand-side mitigation measures, such as reduced waste or demand for livestock products, should benefit both food security and greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation. Demand-side measures offer a greater potential (1.5–15.6 Gt CO2-eq. yr-1) in meeting both challenges than do supply-side measures (1.5–4.3 Gt CO2-eq. yr-1 at carbon prices between 20 and 100 US$ tCO2-eq. yr-1), but given the enormity of challenges, all options need to be considered. Supply-side measures should be implemented immediately, focusing on those that allow the production of more agricultural product per unit of input. For demand-side measures, given the difficulties in their implementation and lag in their effectiveness, policy should be introduced quickly, and should aim to co-deliver to other policy agendas, such as improving environmental quality or improving dietary health. No Label
|
|
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
|