Search

This deliverable D7.6 of the LIFT project is the final scientific deliverable of the project that was carried out during four years from May 2018 till April 2022. The deliverable summarises the methodologies used and the key results for the main research activities that were carried out in LIFT: definition of ecological agriculture; adoption of ecological approaches; farm performance of ecological agriculture; territorial sustainability of ecological agriculture; trade-offs and synergies across sustainability dimensions and scales; impact of policies; role of stakeholders. Recommendations in terms of policies, data and research needs, are then provided.

We present in French the results of the LIFT project, in particular with respect to the LIFT typology, the analysis of farmer working conditions, the role of collective machinery use, and the role of policies, for ecological agriculture.

This deliverable investigates the socio-economic effects of ecological approaches to farming through implementing two participatory approaches, namely Delphi exercise and Q-method, at the level of a case study area (CSA). The focus is on how people and other productive assets are employed and remunerated by ecological approaches to agriculture, particularly those aspects that can influence employment, and drive the prosperity and vitality of local communities and some rural businesses. It is based on the collaborative research on Task 4.2 ‘Socio-economic impact of ecological agriculture at the territorial level’ of the LIFT project between UNIKENT (United Kingdom-UK) (Task Leader), BOKU (Austria), INRAE (France), VetAgro Sup (France), DEMETER (Greece), MTA KRTK (Hungary), UNIBO (Italy), IRWiR PAN (Poland), IAE-AR (Romania), SLU (Sweden), SRUC (UK). Beginning with the Delphi exercise, this deliverable presents qualitative information extracted from stakeholders in the following four steps. First, the researchers build a presentation of differences between ecological and conventional farming approaches in each CSA. Second, stakeholders elaborate on how they understand ecological farming approaches to exist in each CSA. Third, stakeholders develop a scenario of adoption of ecological approaches to farming depending on two factors: pattern (ecological farms forming clusters or randomly spread within the territory) and rate of adoption 10 years in the future. After establishing this scenario across two rounds, the stakeholders explore the socio-economic effects of their adoption scenario. The Q-methodology then presents a Q-set of statements that the Delphi has developed and, through factor analysis,studies the key stakeholder perspectives of the socio-economic effects of the perceived adoption of ecological practices in 10 years in the future. Four key results can be derived from the Delphi exercise and the Q-methodology. First, a higher adoption of ecological farming approaches, especially so at a 50% adoption rate, is mostly thought by stakeholders in the Delphi Exercise to lead to an increase in skill level and quality of life in on-farm employment. This is as a result of an increased diversity of farming enterprises on farms using ecological farming approaches, the interest generated from this, the knowledge of natural processes and biology required, engagement with nature and change in machinery that is coming into the industry. Strongly related to this need for skills is a predicted increase in the number of advisers and civil servants to deal with more complicated farms and incentives as well as monitoring of ecological effects on farm. An increase in required skill level is repeated across all Q-studies. Second, especially where farms are clustered together, Delphi Exercise respondents predict an increase in the trade of inputs such as manure and compost replacing synthetic fertiliser, as well as more sharing of capital and labour. Q-methodology highlights that these clusters may support a stronger social movement, more consumers buying local food and increase collaboration between farmers. Supply chains are expected to become shorter as farmers sell more directly and there are fewer intermediaries upstream of the farming sector. As farmers collaborate more with each other on environmental objectives, trading inputs and sharing best practices, farmer relationships should improve in rural communities. Third, Delphi exercise finds that contracting, machinery purchasers, and machinery traders and dealers could increase, decrease or display no change – the anticipated effects are mixed. Stakeholders are in no doubt that machinery use will change and therefore new skills will need to be learnt, but the wider effect on machinery purchase is uncertain. However, stakeholders conclude that a greater specialisation in machinery will occur leading to changes in farm management as well as the suppliers of this machinery. Q-methodology highlights that ecological practices will not mean the end of machinery and a lot more labour – often machinery will be useful in weeding and reducing physical labour as technology has significantly improved and skills are improving too in order to use these technologies. Fourth, Delphi respondents argued that although rural populations might be little affected by ecological farming, a shift in people moving from urban to rural settlements, and thereby a higher rural population density, seeking a more attractive rural environment, might contribute to higher local consumer demand. The Q-methodology highlights that where there is high adoption, rural areas are expected to become more attractive, as landscapes will have a much greater variety of crops instead of fields of monocrops. This variety of crops may include agroforestry (farmers interested in ecological approaches to farming may also be interested in agroforestry as a way of boosting their yields and protecting crops and livestock from the elements) as well as intercropping.

This Deliverable 1.4 (D1.4) presents the final version of the LIFT farm typology developed in WP1, together with a system of rules to assign individual farms to one or more of the categories defined in Deliverable 1.1 (Rega et al., 2018). These sets of rules, together with the set of data on farming practices to which they apply, have been named “Protocols”. The typology is defined as a combination of two main elements: type of farm and farming approach. The type of farm characterises the farm in terms of main production and specialisation and uses the nomenclature defined by Eurostat. The farming approach is a classification applicable to individual holdings based on their type of management, assessed from an ecological perspective. Classifying farms according to a defined typology is a necessary step in LIFT project, in order to carry out subsequent statistical analyses and investigate drivers and obstacles in determining the adoption of ecological farming practices, or to study environmental performances vis a vis other socio-economic aspects. Farming approaches have been identified considering four main ecological dimensions of farming: i) soil conservation; ii) overall input intensity; iii) internal integration and circularity; iv) ecological infrastructure. Building on these, six main farming approaches have been defined: 1) Standard farming; 2) Conservation agriculture; 3) Low-input farming; 4) Integrated/Circular farming; 5) Organic farming; 6) Agroecological farming. Standard farming is mutually exclusive with respect to the other five farming approaches, while the latter are not mutually exclusive. The protocols are devised as scoring systems whereby individual farms are assigned scores based on a set of examined items. Two main protocols have been developed, one based on microdata from the Farm Accountancy Data Network - FADN (FADN-based protocol) and one using the LIFT large-scale farmer survey (Survey-based protocol). In the FADN-based protocol, considered variables mainly represent costs incurred by farmers for different production inputs. Original FADN data were processed to make them comparable across countries and time by using Eurostat official adjustment coefficients for inflation and price levels across countries. Scores are based on the values that adjusted variables at the individual farm level assume, based on the range and distribution of such values in farms belonging to the same farm type across the entire European Union (EU). In the Survey-based protocol, a set of items from the LIFT large-scale farmer survey representing the level of adoption of farming practices are assessed using expert-based scores. Individual scores are then combined through a system of rules and weights to obtain final synthetic scores for each of the above mentioned farming approaches. The FADN-based protocol allows to assess the belonging of individual holdings to Low-Input farming, Integrated/circular farming, Organic farming and, based on these, on Agroecological farming. The Survey-based protocol enables to evaluate with greater detail the belonging to each farming approach and their combination. The developed protocols here are the results of an interactive and iterative approach where feedback from the pilot application of earlier versions by project partners were used to incrementally refine the protocol. The work on the FADN data also led to the identification of the main data gaps currently present in this database with regard to its use as an environmental sustainability evaluation tool. Suggestions to improve it are made, in the framework of its proposed transformation into a Farm Sustainability Data Network (FSDN).

This Deliverable 1.4 (D1.4) presents the final version of the LIFT farm typology developed in WP1, together with a system of rules to assign individual farms to one or more of the categories defined in Deliverable 1.1 (Rega et al., 2018). These sets of rules, together with the set of data on farming practices to which they apply, have been named “Protocols”. The typology is defined as a combination of two main elements: type of farm and farming approach. The type of farm characterises the farm in terms of main production and specialisation and uses the nomenclature defined by Eurostat. The farming approach is a classification applicable to individual holdings based on their type of management, assessed from an ecological perspective. Classifying farms according to a defined typology is a necessary step in LIFT project, in order to carry out subsequent statistical analyses and investigate drivers and obstacles in determining the adoption of ecological farming practices, or to study environmental performances vis a vis other socio-economic aspects. Farming approaches have been identified considering four main ecological dimensions of farming: i) soil conservation; ii) overall input intensity; iii) internal integration and circularity; iv) ecological infrastructure. Building on these, six main farming approaches have been defined: 1) Standard farming; 2) Conservation agriculture; 3) Low-input farming; 4) Integrated/Circular farming; 5) Organic farming; 6) Agroecological farming. Standard farming is mutually exclusive with respect to the other five farming approaches, while the latter are not mutually exclusive. The protocols are devised as scoring systems whereby individual farms are assigned scores based on a set of examined items. Two main protocols have been developed, one based on microdata from the Farm Accountancy Data Network - FADN (FADN-based protocol) and one using the LIFT large-scale farmer survey (Survey-based protocol). In the FADN-based protocol, considered variables mainly represent costs incurred by farmers for different production inputs. Original FADN data were processed to make them comparable across countries and time by using Eurostat official adjustment coefficients for inflation and price levels across countries. Scores are based on the values that adjusted variables at the individual farm level assume, based on the range and distribution of such values in farms belonging to the same farm type across the entire European Union (EU). In the Survey-based protocol, a set of items from the LIFT large-scale farmer survey representing the level of adoption of farming practices are assessed using expert-based scores. Individual scores are then combined through a system of rules and weights to obtain final synthetic scores for each of the above mentioned farming approaches. The FADN-based protocol allows to assess the belonging of individual holdings to Low-Input farming, Integrated/circular farming, Organic farming and, based on these, on Agroecological farming. The Survey-based protocol enables to evaluate with greater detail the belonging to each farming approach and their combination. The developed protocols here are the results of an interactive and iterative approach where feedback from the pilot application of earlier versions by project partners were used to incrementally refine the protocol. The work on the FADN data also led to the identification of the main data gaps currently present in this database with regard to its use as an environmental sustainability evaluation tool. Suggestions to improve it are made, in the framework of its proposed transformation into a Farm Sustainability Data Network (FSDN).

This deliverable (D2.3) of the LIFT project presents the results of a series of investigations around up-take of ecological approaches across the value chain. We use primary and secondary data collected utilising a number of methods, built on conceptual frameworks developed within LIFT and elsewhere. This provides a range of empirical investigations for an overview of farming, supply chains and consumption drivers which may constrain or enable uptake of ecological approaches. Both exogenous and endogenous drivers were considered for these studies. The report is presented as a set of summaries from academic paper outputs - to show the individual exercises across farmers, value chains and consumers – and to understand both the barriers and enablers for transition to more ecological approaches within European farming. A summary table is provided to show these investigations, as well as the approach used and the type of data collected. Specifically the following sets of studies are presented: Typologies of farm activity and farmer perceptions towards ecological practices.This allows us to partition a large scale farmer dataset (from the LIFT large-scale farmer survey) with multiple variables of interest [papers 1,2]. Examination of the exogenous and endogenous drivers behind ecological uptake, such as gender, the farm family life-cycle, neighbouring farms and supply chains.These papers take either a quantitative approach, through the application of behavioural models, or a qualitative approach to understand what drives this decision to adopt ecological practices [papers 3,4,5,6]. Examination of the value chain, collaboration and cooperation.These are explored through quantitative and qualitative routes to understand how value chains operate for ecological practices, compared to conventional practices, and how actors engage within specific value chains [papers 7,8,9,10,11]. Finally the role of consumption is explored, through market segmentation, labels or specific traits of food products that offer opportunities to promote ecological practices [papers 12,13,14]. Overall, we find much heterogeneity in both practice and attitudes towards production and consumption of ecological approaches. The investigations presented here provide illustrations of how these approaches and perceptions are driven by both personal, informal and formal institutional influences, such as the support from local market conditions or sharing of knowledge. This leads to us understand the relationships between economic and non-economic goals, which are key to eventual uptake of ecological approaches. Incentives were considered to balance the conflicts between endogenous and exogenous drivers, such as labelling and support for social incentives, but also as a means to overcome perceived or real barriers through mechanisms which support further collaboration between farmers.

This Deliverable 1.4 (D1.4) presents the final version of the LIFT farm typology developed in WP1, together with a system of rules to assign individual farms to one or more of the categories defined in Deliverable 1.1 (Rega et al., 2018). These sets of rules, together with the set of data on farming practices to which they apply, have been named “Protocols”. The typology is defined as a combination of two main elements: type of farm and farming approach. The type of farm characterises the farm in terms of main production and specialisation and uses the nomenclature defined by Eurostat. The farming approach is a classification applicable to individual holdings based on their type of management, assessed from an ecological perspective. Classifying farms according to a defined typology is a necessary step in LIFT project, in order to carry out subsequent statistical analyses and investigate drivers and obstacles in determining the adoption of ecological farming practices, or to study environmental performances vis a vis other socio-economic aspects. Farming approaches have been identified considering four main ecological dimensions of farming: i) soil conservation; ii) overall input intensity; iii) internal integration and circularity; iv) ecological infrastructure. Building on these, six main farming approaches have been defined: 1) Standard farming; 2) Conservation agriculture; 3) Low-input farming; 4) Integrated/Circular farming; 5) Organic farming; 6) Agroecological farming. Standard farming is mutually exclusive with respect to the other five farming approaches, while the latter are not mutually exclusive. The protocols are devised as scoring systems whereby individual farms are assigned scores based on a set of examined items. Two main protocols have been developed, one based on microdata from the Farm Accountancy Data Network - FADN (FADN-based protocol) and one using the LIFT large-scale farmer survey (Survey-based protocol). In the FADN-based protocol, considered variables mainly represent costs incurred by farmers for different production inputs. Original FADN data were processed to make them comparable across countries and time by using Eurostat official adjustment coefficients for inflation and price levels across countries. Scores are based on the values that adjusted variables at the individual farm level assume, based on the range and distribution of such values in farms belonging to the same farm type across the entire European Union (EU). In the Survey-based protocol, a set of items from the LIFT large-scale farmer survey representing the level of adoption of farming practices are assessed using expert-based scores. Individual scores are then combined through a system of rules and weights to obtain final synthetic scores for each of the above mentioned farming approaches. The FADN-based protocol allows to assess the belonging of individual holdings to Low-Input farming, Integrated/circular farming, Organic farming and, based on these, on Agroecological farming. The Survey-based protocol enables to evaluate with greater detail the belonging to each farming approach and their combination. The developed protocols here are the results of an interactive and iterative approach where feedback from the pilot application of earlier versions by project partners were used to incrementally refine the protocol. The work on the FADN data also led to the identification of the main data gaps currently present in this database with regard to its use as an environmental sustainability evaluation tool. Suggestions to improve it are made, in the framework of its proposed transformation into a Farm Sustainability Data Network (FSDN).

This deliverable (D2.3) of the LIFT project presents the results of a series of investigations around up-take of ecological approaches across the value chain. We use primary and secondary data collected utilising a number of methods, built on conceptual frameworks developed within LIFT and elsewhere. This provides a range of empirical investigations for an overview of farming, supply chains and consumption drivers which may constrain or enable uptake of ecological approaches. Both exogenous and endogenous drivers were considered for these studies. The report is presented as a set of summaries from academic paper outputs - to show the individual exercises across farmers, value chains and consumers – and to understand both the barriers and enablers for transition to more ecological approaches within European farming. A summary table is provided to show these investigations, as well as the approach used and the type of data collected. Specifically the following sets of studies are presented: Typologies of farm activity and farmer perceptions towards ecological practices.This allows us to partition a large scale farmer dataset (from the LIFT large-scale farmer survey) with multiple variables of interest [papers 1,2]. Examination of the exogenous and endogenous drivers behind ecological uptake, such as gender, the farm family life-cycle, neighbouring farms and supply chains.These papers take either a quantitative approach, through the application of behavioural models, or a qualitative approach to understand what drives this decision to adopt ecological practices [papers 3,4,5,6]. Examination of the value chain, collaboration and cooperation.These are explored through quantitative and qualitative routes to understand how value chains operate for ecological practices, compared to conventional practices, and how actors engage within specific value chains [papers 7,8,9,10,11]. Finally the role of consumption is explored, through market segmentation, labels or specific traits of food products that offer opportunities to promote ecological practices [papers 12,13,14]. Overall, we find much heterogeneity in both practice and attitudes towards production and consumption of ecological approaches. The investigations presented here provide illustrations of how these approaches and perceptions are driven by both personal, informal and formal institutional influences, such as the support from local market conditions or sharing of knowledge. This leads to us understand the relationships between economic and non-economic goals, which are key to eventual uptake of ecological approaches. Incentives were considered to balance the conflicts between endogenous and exogenous drivers, such as labelling and support for social incentives, but also as a means to overcome perceived or real barriers through mechanisms which support further collaboration between farmers.

This deliverable investigates the socio-economic effects of ecological approaches to farming through implementing two participatory approaches, namely Delphi exercise and Q-method, at the level of a case study area (CSA). The focus is on how people and other productive assets are employed and remunerated by ecological approaches to agriculture, particularly those aspects that can influence employment, and drive the prosperity and vitality of local communities and some rural businesses. It is based on the collaborative research on Task 4.2 ‘Socio-economic impact of ecological agriculture at the territorial level’ of the LIFT project between UNIKENT (United Kingdom-UK) (Task Leader), BOKU (Austria), INRAE (France), VetAgro Sup (France), DEMETER (Greece), MTA KRTK (Hungary), UNIBO (Italy), IRWiR PAN (Poland), IAE-AR (Romania), SLU (Sweden), SRUC (UK). Beginning with the Delphi exercise, this deliverable presents qualitative information extracted from stakeholders in the following four steps. First, the researchers build a presentation of differences between ecological and conventional farming approaches in each CSA. Second, stakeholders elaborate on how they understand ecological farming approaches to exist in each CSA. Third, stakeholders develop a scenario of adoption of ecological approaches to farming depending on two factors: pattern (ecological farms forming clusters or randomly spread within the territory) and rate of adoption 10 years in the future. After establishing this scenario across two rounds, the stakeholders explore the socio-economic effects of their adoption scenario. The Q-methodology then presents a Q-set of statements that the Delphi has developed and, through factor analysis, studies the key stakeholder perspectives of the socio-economic effects of the perceived adoption of ecological practices in 10 years in the future. Four key results can be derived from the Delphi exercise and the Q-methodology. First, a higher adoption of ecological farming approaches, especially so at a 50% adoption rate, is mostly thought by stakeholders in the Delphi Exercise to lead to an increase in skill level and quality of life in on-farm employment. This is as a result of an increased diversity of farming enterprises on farms using ecological farming approaches, the interest generated from this, the knowledge of natural processes and biology required, engagement with nature and change in machinery that is coming into the industry. Strongly related to this need for skills is a predicted increase in the number of advisers and civil servants to deal with more complicated farms and incentives as well as monitoring of ecological effects on farm. An increase in required skill level is repeated across all Q-studies. Second, especially where farms are clustered together, Delphi Exercise respondents predict an increase in the trade of inputs such as manure and compost replacing synthetic fertiliser, as well as more sharing of capital and labour. Q-methodology highlights that these clusters may support a stronger social movement, more consumers buying local food and increase collaboration between farmers. Supply chains are expected to become shorter as farmers sell more directly and there are fewer intermediaries upstream of the farming sector. As farmers collaborate more with each other on environmental objectives, trading inputs and sharing best practices, farmer relationships should improve in rural communities. Third, Delphi exercise finds that contracting, machinery purchasers, and machinery traders and dealers could increase, decrease or display no change – the anticipated effects are mixed. Stakeholders are in no doubt that machinery use will change and therefore new skills will need to be learnt, but the wider effect on machinery purchase is uncertain. However, stakeholders conclude that a greater specialisation in machinery will occur leading to changes in farm management as well as the suppliers of this machinery. Q-methodology highlights that ecological practices will not mean the end of machinery and a lot more labour – often machinery will be useful in weeding and reducing physical labour as technology has significantly improved and skills are improving too in order to use these technologies. Fourth, Delphi respondents argued that although rural populations might be little affected by ecological farming, a shift in people moving from urban to rural settlements, and thereby a higher rural population density, seeking a more attractive rural environment, might contribute to higher local consumer demand. The Q-methodology highlights that where there is high adoption, rural areas are expected to become more attractive, as landscapes will have a much greater variety of crops instead of fields of monocrops. This variety of crops may include agroforestry (farmers interested in ecological approaches to farming may also be interested in agroforestry as a way of boosting their yields and protecting crops and livestock from the elements) as well as intercropping.

This deliverable investigates the socio-economic effects of ecological approaches to farming through implementing two participatory approaches, namely Delphi exercise and Q-method, at the level of a case study area (CSA). The focus is on how people and other productive assets are employed and remunerated by ecological approaches to agriculture, particularly those aspects that can influence employment, and drive the prosperity and vitality of local communities and some rural businesses. It is based on the collaborative research on Task 4.2 ‘Socio-economic impact of ecological agriculture at the territorial level’ of the LIFT project between UNIKENT (United Kingdom-UK) (Task Leader), BOKU (Austria), INRAE (France), VetAgro Sup (France), DEMETER (Greece), MTA KRTK (Hungary), UNIBO (Italy), IRWiR PAN (Poland), IAE-AR (Romania), SLU (Sweden), SRUC (UK). Beginning with the Delphi exercise, this deliverable presents qualitative information extracted from stakeholders in the following four steps. First, the researchers build a presentation of differences between ecological and conventional farming approaches in each CSA. Second, stakeholders elaborate on how they understand ecological farming approaches to exist in each CSA. Third, stakeholders develop a scenario of adoption of ecological approaches to farming depending on two factors: pattern (ecological farms forming clusters or randomly spread within the territory) and rate of adoption 10 years in the future. After establishing this scenario across two rounds, the stakeholders explore the socio-economic effects of their adoption scenario. The Q-methodology then presents a Q-set of statements that the Delphi has developed and, through factor analysis, studies the key stakeholder perspectives of the socio-economic effects of the perceived adoption of ecological practices in 10 years in the future. Four key results can be derived from the Delphi exercise and the Q-methodology. First, a higher adoption of ecological farming approaches, especially so at a 50% adoption rate, is mostly thought by stakeholders in the Delphi Exercise to lead to an increase in skill level and quality of life in on-farm employment. This is as a result of an increased diversity of farming enterprises on farms using ecological farming approaches, the interest generated from this, the knowledge of natural processes and biology required, engagement with nature and change in machinery that is coming into the industry. Strongly related to this need for skills is a predicted increase in the number of advisers and civil servants to deal with more complicated farms and incentives as well as monitoring of ecological effects on farm. An increase in required skill level is repeated across all Q-studies. Second, especially where farms are clustered together, Delphi Exercise respondents predict an increase in the trade of inputs such as manure and compost replacing synthetic fertiliser, as well as more sharing of capital and labour. Q-methodology highlights that these clusters may support a stronger social movement, more consumers buying local food and increase collaboration between farmers. Supply chains are expected to become shorter as farmers sell more directly and there are fewer intermediaries upstream of the farming sector. As farmers collaborate more with each other on environmental objectives, trading inputs and sharing best practices, farmer relationships should improve in rural communities. Third, Delphi exercise finds that contracting, machinery purchasers, and machinery traders and dealers could increase, decrease or display no change – the anticipated effects are mixed. Stakeholders are in no doubt that machinery use will change and therefore new skills will need to be learnt, but the wider effect on machinery purchase is uncertain. However, stakeholders conclude that a greater specialisation in machinery will occur leading to changes in farm management as well as the suppliers of this machinery. Q-methodology highlights that ecological practices will not mean the end of machinery and a lot more labour – often machinery will be useful in weeding and reducing physical labour as technology has significantly improved and skills are improving too in order to use these technologies. Fourth, Delphi respondents argued that although rural populations might be little affected by ecological farming, a shift in people moving from urban to rural settlements, and thereby a higher rural population density, seeking a more attractive rural environment, might contribute to higher local consumer demand. The Q-methodology highlights that where there is high adoption, rural areas are expected to become more attractive, as landscapes will have a much greater variety of crops instead of fields of monocrops. This variety of crops may include agroforestry (farmers interested in ecological approaches to farming may also be interested in agroforestry as a way of boosting their yields and protecting crops and livestock from the elements) as well as intercropping.