|
|
Jancic, M. (2016). Climate change adaptation in maize production in Serbia (Vol. 9 C6 -).
Abstract: Climate change is noticed and well established phenomenon, described as change in the statistical properties of the climate system, considered over long period of time, regardless of cause (Houghton, 1996). This change has been monitored on global (Rosenzweig et al., 1994; Harrison et al., 1995; Wolf et al., 1995; Watson et al., 1996; Downing et al., 2000; Sathaye et al., 1997; Sirotenko et al., 1997) and regional scale (Alexandrov et al., 2002; Lalic et al., 2012; Vučetić, 2011) by researchers, organizations and part of various programmes (IPCC, UNESCO Climate Change Initiative). In a same time, it was analysed change in agroclimatic indices, soil and water balance, crop development and yield, that quantify climate change impact on agricultural production. In recent regional studies and research projects (COST 734, 2008; ADAGIO, 2009), it was estimated and quantified climate change impact on yield and development in crop production of Central and Eastern European countries and Mediterranean region. The research showed a decrease in yield in several major crops, important in national food production and part of economy. A high variability in yield from year to year and decrease in yield was showed for most cereals.
|
|
|
|
Lehtonen, H. (2016). Evaluating competitiveness of clover-grass as a resilient feed production option in Finland (Vol. 9 C6 -).
Abstract: Clover-grasses address the following objectives:– Decreased input use (N-fertilization), reduced dependency ofinorganic N => reduced GHG emissions– Possibility for increased protein content of silage, reduceddependency on purchased protein feed supplement (homegrown proteins, resilience)© Natural Resources Institute Finland– Better utilisation of farmland in the context of climate changein the north: Higher T – improved N fixation– Compatible with sustainable agriculture and sustainableintensification: more output with the same inputs / the sameoutput with reduced (non-renewable) inputs• In contrast: Shifting to silage maize increases N fertilisation– Major shift from grasslands to silage maize in e.g. Denmark 1. Small cost reductions in clover-grass cultivation, or clover-grasspremiums, may or may not increase clover cultivation- Their effectiveness is uncertain and subject to prices2. N tax is effective, but is not a suitable policy action in currentfinancial situation of farms (milk crisis 2015-2016)3. However, the results suggest that a 25% higher N price lead to© Natural Resources Institute Finlandsignificantly higher clover grass area and a small reduction ínmilk output – with no cost reductions or extra premiums!4. To increase clover cultivation, price ratios should be adjusted!5. If increasing clover -grass yield, a robust increase in clovergrass areas may realise, with small benefits for farm economyand overall production – How much more clover grass yieldcould be attained at low costs? A topic for further discussionand analysis
|
|
|
|
Marton, T. (2016). Assessing the impact of agro-climatic factors and farm characteristics on the yield variation of the Norwegian fruit sector (Vol. 9 C6 -).
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
Wehrheim, P. (2016). Agriculture and land use in the Commission proposals for the 2030 Climate and Energy Framework (Vol. 9 C6 -).
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)
|
|
