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.

In the present deliverable, D5.3 of the LIFT project we present a framework which evaluates the over-all sustainability performance by incorporating farm and territorial level. The framework considers the sustainability along the economic, social and environmental dimensions. Matches and mismatches between the two spatial levels are considered by weighting farm level performance across said three dimensions. Weights are context-specific and reflect the importance of each dimension at the territo-rial level. Further, by evaluating sustainability performance across three different dimensions we are able to assess the synergies and trade-offs that exist between each and consider how these drive overall sustainability performance. The framework may also be used to inform policy decision-making by identifying which farming approaches are most sustainable within a particular case study area, and by identifying areas of focus to increase adoption rates of said systems. The deliverable includes three components. First, we provide a brief overview of the literature on sustainability performance assessments and position the present framework within it. Following this we provide a detailed explanation of how the framework is constructed, highlighting the input data used. Second, we apply the framework to five LIFT case study areas, namely Flanders (Belgium), Aus-tria, Romania, the United Kingdom and France. Here we detail the process of applying the data and discuss the results and how these can be interpreted. We also demonstrate how these results can be linked to drivers of change to help inform policy decision-making and identify target areas for increas-ing adoption of sustainable farming approaches. Finally, we provide insights into the assumptions that underpin the framework, highlighting the benefits and drawbacks of the proposed approach. We also provide insights and point of consideration for future application of the framework. The framework incorporates stakeholder’s sustainability objectives, multicriteria analysis, secondary data from the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) database, and further descriptive analysis to present an innovative multi-dimensional and multi-scale approach to evaluating farming approach sustainability performance. Though the framework has been developed within the LIFT project, it is highly flexible and can easily be adopted by interested parties outside of the LIFT project.

This deliverable presents the results of the research carried out in WP6 task 6.2 of the LIFT project, on the impact of policies on the adoption of ecological approaches and on the performance and sustainability of ecological agriculture. We first provide a short synthesis of the policy implications of the studies carried out in WP2, WP3 and WP4 of the LIFT project. These studies highlight some drawbacks of currently implemented schemes, such as the current Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) first and second pillar subsidies that may not be adequate for extensive technologies. In addition, these studies advocate policy compensation schemes that take into consideration the income forgone, given the regional potential, both in terms of agricultural production and environmental endowments. We then focus on the effect of Payments for Environmental Services (PES) using meta-analysis and quasi-experimental methods for about 150 PES-schemes implemented worldwide. We find that the effect of PES largely depends on their characteristics. Among others, eligibility of Ecosystem Services (ES) providers, contract length, reference design, payment constraint, monitoring system and the implementation zone of the PES schemes appear to be correlated with the probability of achieving positive environmental results. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of the PES-schemes investigated in this meta-analysis is shown to especially depend on the monitoring system implemented to ensure compliance and on the eligibility of ES providers. Using econometric analysis on French farm data, we also find that farmers’ incomes are not affected by their ecological practices, once the extra cost of these practices has been covered by the Agri-Environmental Schemes (AES) payment or promote some efficiency gains. The real cost of the transition is therefore on average well compensated by these payments. It does not imply that farms earn extra profit, and thus appears to respect World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules.

If we can decipher the content of opinions and evaluations of those involved in ecological agriculture then we could know the subjective fundamentals/resorts of the modernization and ecological development’s process at the level of the rural communities. The study mainly aims at identifying the opinions on the ecological farm’s evolutions, and, as general objectives: knowing the projections regarding employment in ecological farm, employment in agriculture’s support services, determining the way in which the consequences of using ecological practices on the supply chain and impact on rural communities are perceived. The scientific approach on the ecological subjectivity has turned to a structured communication method, Delphi, in three stages. The study was implemented in a rural area defined by concernments and ecological agricultural activities – Dornelor Basin, Suceava county and it has identified the content, persistence, flexibility and statements’ meaning (positive/negative) of opinions regarding the future of the ecological farms.

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 paper explores what types of policy discourses are used by national policy makers to communicate the rationales of ecological farming practices in policy documents of the Rural Development Programmes (RDP) of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). A hybrid form of discourse analysis and content analysis is used to analyze both CAP and rural development discourses between six EU member states (MS) and across three different CAP periods. Findings indicate that over the whole period 2000-2020 ecological approaches are related with the multifunctionality discourse with two dominant sub-discourses: i) nature conservation in all considered EU MS (except in Sweden); ii) agri-ruralism (including Sweden). The neomercantilist discourse becomes more and more prominent over time, appearing in third position in the two last CAP periods of 2007-2013 and 2014-2020. Agroecology and organic farming are among the most frequently mentioned types of farming system cluster."

The main objective of the paper is to identify and understand how the Romanian farmers relate to ecological farming in terms of ecological practices and ecological products. To achieve this objective, qualitative research methods were used: hybrid forum method and in-depth interviews. The obtained results reveal that in the county Cluj-Napoca, the stakeholders opt for building an operational social system (balanced functioning of the education, production, research, distribution systems within multi-dimensional political programmes/projects). At the same time, the stakeholders from Suceava opt for building an operational social system where the ecological practices are the core of agricultural systems.

The deliverable D6.1 of the LIFT project explores what types of discourses are used in six European Union (EU) member states’ Rural Development Programs (RDP) and other agricultural policy documents and how they incorporate ecological approaches acrossthree Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) periods. This multiple case study highlights similarities and differences in the dominant discourses as emerging from national policy documents in the following selected EU member states: France, Germany (Bavaria), Hungary, Poland, Romania and Sweden. It also demonstrates how discourse analysis can be used to gain understanding about the dominant discourses expressed in these documents in relation to how ecological approaches are defined, the policy rationale for encouraging ecological approaches and the expected consequences of doing so. Conceptually, we focused on two types of discourses identified from the literature: 1) the three CAP discourses: i) neomercantilism; ii) neoliberalism and iii) multifunctionality, and 2) the five socio-political discourses of Rural Development (RD): iv) agri-ruralist, v) hedonist, vi) utilitarian, vii) nature conservation and viii) community sustainability. These types of discourses were together integrated in a model, where each policy discourse depicts agriculture as accomplishing a specific function. The theoretical framework is grounded within a political economy perspective. This means that policy develops because of confrontation between different concerned agents with different interest, pushing for different objectives. The state acts as an intermediary between these agents and aims at ensuring consensus and maintenance of agreement. Policy documents are therefore often the result of competing discourses and contradicting policy objectives. Across EU member states, the results show that ecological approaches are mainly depicted with the multifunctionality discourse with two dominating sub-discourses of nature conservation and agri-ruralism. Nevertheless, we observe an increase in the use of the neomercantilist discourse in the last CAP period. This parallels what the previous literature finds in Commissioners’ speeches: a reappearance of the traditional neomercantilist discourse in the CAP agenda 2014-2020. Farming systems (with farming practices) related to agroecology, biodiversity-based and organic farming are among the most commonly mentioned farming systems.

This report is a comparative analysis of nine regional case-studies selected in our project, based on original data collected through the PERCEIVE field survey that was conducted during the summer of 2017 and on the reports on regional case studies written by Perceive’s partners. Each report was based on the analysis of the focus group’s section that addresses the assessment of Cohesion Policy. The general objective of this report is to synthesize the citizens’ and practicioners’ views on EU Cohesion Policy and to compare them in order to understand if there are different perceptions of this policy and its implementation. For each region included in the study, the identification of the relevant regional needs are considered, followed by an assessment of the EU policy effectiveness in responding to the revealed issues. Both have been pursued at the level of citizens and of Cohesion Policy practitioners, and are followed by a comparative analysis that helps to understand whether the EU Cohesion Policy is perceived and understood by citizens in the same way as it has been conceived by practitioners.&nbsp

This report is a comparative analysis of nine regional case-studies selected in our project, based on original data collected through the PERCEIVE field survey that was conducted during the summer of 2017 and on the reports on regional case studies written by Perceive’s partners. Each report was based on the analysis of the focus group’s section that addresses the assessment of Cohesion Policy. The general objective of this report is to synthesize the citizens’ and practicioners’ views on EU Cohesion Policy and to compare them in order to understand if there are different perceptions of this policy and its implementation. For each region included in the study, the identification of the relevant regional needs are considered, followed by an assessment of the EU policy effectiveness in responding to the revealed issues. Both have been pursued at the level of citizens and of Cohesion Policy practitioners, and are followed by a comparative analysis that helps to understand whether the EU Cohesion Policy is perceived and understood by citizens in the same way as it has been conceived by practitioners. The comparative analysis helped shed light on the convergence and divergence points between citizens and experts with regard to the public intervention needs through Cohesion Policy and in the evaluation of the effectiveness of these interventions, thus contributing to a better understanding of the general perception of the EU by the large public.

In the recent period, public actions and policies have been increasingly oriented towards the improvement of economic competitiveness on account of numerous studies that signal the problems generated by the loss of performance from this perspective. This study attempts to identify the main factors that make the regional economies in Romania vulnerable in the face of competitors, mainly for the regions with strong and medium rurality features, i.e. the Predominantly rural (PR) counties and the Intermediate counties – classified according to the OECD methodology. The results of the study showed that the factors that largely contribute to widening the regional disparities with regard to rural competitiveness, making the PR counties more vulnerable are the following: (i) access to innovation and (2) the value of exports, in both the non-agricultural and agrifood economy.

In the present context marked by ever increasing global climate changes, the use of irrigations in agriculture represents not only an option but more and more a necessity for ensuring a higher yield of agricultural products whose demand increases every year based on population growth. The present paper focuses on the specific elements of the irrigation systems from Brăila County, the way the farmers have access to and the different implications derived by using these systems. The paper turns to quantitative analysis of available statistical data and qualitative analysis of the interviews with local farmers focused on economic efficiency of the water used for irrigations.

In our paper we tried to investigate the organisation and functioning of the Agricultural Knowledge System in Romania. On the basis of system analysis approaches, we critically examined the set of public and private organisations dedicated to research, education and extension, and their interaction with knowledge users (traditional farmers) and the main system failures and strengths in the innovation process in agriculture were identified. The empirical research in this study had a heuristic value.

The concept of a ‘just transition’ is gaining traction in international policy discourses. It has particular significance in relation to achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions and the need for ensuring rights and responsibilities of all actors in transitions to agroecological farming systems. Research plays an important role in accompanying this transformation. It explores pathways for more sustainable and fair food systems, barriers to them being achieved, and where and what risks arise for communities of interest and of place. Researchers and practitioners across levels and sectors were brought together in H2020 projects LIFT and UNISECO using processes of stakeholder engagement. Both projects analysed the perceptions of actors towards agroecological farming, and their active involvement in the transitions required. This article summarises lessons learnt regarding multi-actor engagement in different participatory settings in both projects, including a Multi-Actor Platform approach, Q method, DELPHI and Hybrid forum workshops. The interactions involved several hundred actors from 18 countries across Europe. The article reflects on implications of the Covid-19 pandemic on the processes and effectiveness of multi-actor engagement, and assessments of the impacts on the empowerment of the actors. The findings are contextualised by contemporary European Union and national policy objectives of tackling climate change, the loss of biodiversity, and inequalities.

In our paper we tried to investigate the organisation and functioning of the Agricultural Knowledge System in Romania. On the basis of system analysis approaches, we critically examined the set of public and private organisations dedicated to research, education and extension, and their interaction with knowledge users (traditional farmers) and the main system failures and strengths in the innovation process in agriculture were identified. The empirical research in this study had a heuristic value.

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.