DOCSLIB.ORG

Thünen Working Paper 175

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Thünen Working Paper 175 The Common Agricultural Policy post-2020: Views and recommenda� ons from scien� sts to improve performance for biodiversity Volume 2 – Annexes Guy Pe’er, Maren Birkenstock, Sebas� an Lakner, Norbert Röder Thünen Working Paper 175 Dr. Guy Pe’er German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig and UFZ – Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Dept. Ecosystem Services Puschstraße 4 D-04103 Leipzig Prof. Dr. Sebastian Lakner University of Rostock Justus-von-Liebig-Weg 7 D-18059 Rostock M. Sc. Maren Birkenstock und Dr. Norbert Röder Thünen Institute of Rural Studies Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries Bundesallee 64 D-38116 Braunschweig Phone: +49 531 596-5240 Fax: +49 531 596-5599 E-Mail: [email protected] Thünen Working Paper 175 – Volume 2 Braunschweig/Germany, May 2021 Workshop leads i Workshop leads Austria: Stefan Schindler1 Bulgaria: Yanka Kazakova2 Croatia: Sonja Karoglan Todorovic3 Cyprus: Menelaos Stavrinides4, Ioannis Vogiatzakis5 France: Herve Guyomard6 Germany: Guy Pe’er, Maren Birkenstock, Norbert Röder, Sebastian Lakner Ireland: Alan Matthews7, John Finn8 Italy: Davide Viaggi9, Stefano Targetti9 Poland: Edward Majewski10 Slovakia: Peter Bezák11, Jana Špulerová11 Slovenia: Tanja Šumrada12, Ilona Rac12 Spain: Mario Diaz13, Elena D. Concepción13, Manuel B. Morales14 Sweden: Juliana Dänhardt15, Lovisa Nilsson15 1) Umweltbundesamt, 2) University of National and World Economy Department of Economics of Natural Resources, 3) Environmental Institute ECOLOGICA, Croatia, 4) Cyprus University of Technology, Department of Agricultural Sciences, Biotechnology and Food Science, 5) Open University of Cyprus, 6) Institut national de recherche pour l’agriculture, l’alimentation et l’environnement – INRAE, 7) Trinity College, Dublin Department of Economics, 8) Teagasc, Crops, Environment and Land Use Programme, 9) Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, 10) Warsaw University of Life Sciences - SGGW Faculty of Economic Sciences, 11) Slovak Academy of Science, Institute of Landscape Ecology, 12) University of Ljubljana Biotechnical faculty, 13) Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (CSIC) Biogeografía y Cambio Global, 14) Department of Ecology, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 15) University of Lund Centre for Environmental and Climate Science ii Views and recommendations from scientists to improve performance for biodiversity – Synthesis Report Abstract Despite significant efforts, investments and some local successes, the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has not succeeded in halting the loss of farmland biodiversity. To address this (and other) weaknesses, the CAP post-2020 proposes a new “Green Architecture” comprising (inter alia) compulsory elements (enhanced conditionality through Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions - GAEC), voluntary Agri-Environment-Climate Measures (AECMs), and a new instrument called “Eco-schemes”. Will this new Green Architecture, combined with a result-based orientation of the CAP, help address the biodiversity crisis? To provide science-based feedback on this proposal, more than 300 scientists from 22 Member States (MSs) have provided their expertise through 13 workshops that took place between October and December 2020, and a follow up online survey. The results are published in Thünen Working Reports with 3 volumes.1 The Thünen Working Paper 175 – Volume 1 contains all results of the workshops with experts' assessment.2 The present Thünen Working Paper 175 – Volume 2 contains all reports of the Member-State-Workshops as well as an overview of the experts' opinions on the Flagship- Eco-schemes proposed by the EU Commission. In addition, a policy brief on the results was published in Thünen Working Paper 175 – Volume 3.3 Keywords: CAP, Common Agricultural Policy, AECM, Eco-schemes, European Union, Biodiversity JEL: Q15, Q18, Q57, Q58 1 Thünen Working Papers cover selected subjects from the present research of the Thünen Institutes and are not peer-reviewed 2 https://www.thuenen.de/media/publikationen/thuenen-workingpaper/ThuenenWorkingPaper_175_Vol1.pdf 3 https://www.thuenen.de/media/publikationen/thuenen-workingpaper/ThuenenWorkingPaper_175_Vol3.pdf Views and recommendations from scientists to improve performance for biodiversity – Synthesis Report iii Contributions funding information and acknowledgements In co-operation with DG AGRI and the office of European Commission Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans, this independent study was led by the German Centre for integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, & UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Thünen Institute of Rural Studies and University Rostock. The study was conducted voluntarily by all participating scientists. Guy Pe’er is funded by iDiv’s strategic project iCAP-BES: “Impacts of the Common Agricultural Policy on Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and people” (under DFG – FZT 118, 202548816; www.idiv.de/de/icap-bes). Contributions: Guy Pe’er led the initiative and developed the synthesis report. Maren Birkenstock coordinated the workshops, designed and implemented the online survey. All authors contributed to writing and editing the document. The report has also been reviewed and further edited by John Finn, Herve Guyomard, Alan Matthews, and Mario Diaz. Norbert Röder and Juliana Dänhardt contributed to the climate chapter. Workshop coordinators wrote their respective country reports, with minimum editing and interventions by the authors. We are thankful to all workshop participants and the individuals contributing to the online survey, for having provided their valuable knowledge and expertise. In addition, we would like to thank Manuela Schoon and Sandra Göbbels (both: Thünen Institute of Rural Studies) for their support in editing the document. Table of Contents I Table of Contents Workshop leads i Abstract ii Contributions funding information and acknowledgements iii Table of Contents I ANNEX I: FULL COUNTRY REPORTS I Reply Bulgaria 1 Q1: How can the different Green-Architecture elements optimally complement each other? (What key factors and considerations should be made in ensuring the Green Architecture operates best?) 1 Q2: What should be the specific role(s) of Eco-schemes in the Green Architecture, and accordingly, how could they best be designed and implemented? 11 Q3: How can the EU and MSs set S.M.A.R.T. targets that are coherent both with the CAP objectives and relevant strategies (Farm-to-fork, Biodiversity)? 19 Q4: How can science contribute on indicators and the way they are used for performance evaluation of the CAP? 21 Reply Croatia 25 Q1: How can the different Green-Architecture elements optimally complement each other? 26 Q2: What should be the specific role(s) of Eco-schemes in the Green Architecture, and accordingly, how could they best be designed and implemented? 30 Q3: How can the EU and MSs set S.M.A.R.T. targets that are coherent both with the CAP objectives and relevant strategies (Farm-to-fork, Biodiversity)? 31 Q4: How can science contribute on indicators and the way they are used for performance evaluation of the CAP? 32 Reply Cyprus 35 Q1: How can the different Green-Architecture elements optimally complement each other? (What key factors and considerations should be made in ensuring the Green Architecture operates best?) 35 II Table of Contents Q2: What can be the role(s) of Eco-schemes in the Green Architecture, and accordingly, how could they best be designed and implemented? 41 Q3: How can the EU and MSs set S.M.A.R.T. targets that are coherent both with the CAP objectives and relevant strategies (Farm-to-fork, Biodiversity)? 48 Q4: How can science improve the way indicators are used for performance evaluation of the CAP? 51 Reply France 55 Q1: How can the different Green-Architecture elements optimally complement each other? 55 Q2: What should be the specific role(s) of Eco-schemes in the Green Architecture, and accordingly, how could they best be designed and implemented? 59 Q3: How can the EU and MSs set S.M.A.R.T. targets that are coherent both with the CAP objectives and relevant strategies (Farm-to-fork, Biodiversity)? 63 Q4: How can science contribute on indicators and the way they are used for performance evaluation of the CAP? 65 Reply Germany 67 Q1: How can the different Green-Architecture elements optimally complement each other? 67 Q2: What can be the role(s) of Eco-schemes in the Green Architecture, and accordingly, how could they best be designed and implemented? 76 Q3: How can the EU and MSs set S.M.A.R.T. targets that are coherent both with the CAP objectives and relevant strategies (Farm-to-fork, Biodiversity) 87 Q4: How can science improve the way indicators are used for performance evaluation of the CAP? 90 Reply Ireland 93 Q1: How can the different Green-Architecture elements optimally complement each other? 95 Q2: What can be the role(s) of Eco-schemes in the Green Architecture, and accordingly, how could they best be designed and implemented? 102 Q3: How can the EU and MSs set S.M.A.R.T. targets that are coherent both with the CAP objectives and relevant strategies (Farm-to-fork, Biodiversity)? 111 Q4: What landscape- and biodiversity indicators could be used to strengthen the indicator-system of the CAP? 115 Table of Contents III Reply Italy 119 Q1: How can the different Green-Architecture elements optimally complement each other? 119 Q2: What can be the role(s) of Eco-schemes in the Green Architecture, and accordingly, how could they best be designed and implemented? 122 Q3: How can the EU and MSs set S.M.A.R.T. targets that are coherent bothwith the CAP objectives and relevant strategies (Farm-to-fork, Biodiversity)? 124 Q4: How can science improve the way indicators are used for performance evaluation of the CAP? 125 Reply Poland 129 Q1: How can the different Green-Architecture elements optimally complement each other? 129 Q2: What should be the specific role(s) of Eco-schemes in the Green Architecture, and accordingly, how could they best be designed and implemented? 136 Q3: How can the EU and MSs set S.M.A.R.T.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2018 Farm Bill Primer: Support for Urban Agriculture
    May 16, 2019 2018 Farm Bill Primer: Support for Urban Agriculture Over the past decade, food policy in the United States has (2) Urban Clusters of between 2,500 and 50,000 people responded to ongoing shifts in consumer preferences and (Figure 1). An urban area represents densely developed producer trends that favor local and regional food systems territory encompassing residential, commercial, and other while also supporting traditional farm enterprises. This nonresidential urban land uses. In contrast, rural areas support for local and regional farming has helped to encompass all population, housing, and territory not increase agricultural production in urban areas within and included within an urban area. Results from the most recent surrounding major U.S. cities. The 2018 farm bill 2010 U.S. Census indicate that the nation’s urban (Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, P.L. 115-334) population increased by 12% from 2000 to 2010, outpacing provides additional support for urban, indoor, and other the nation’s overall growth of 10% for the same period. emerging agricultural production, creating new programs and authorities and providing additional funding for such Figure 1. Census Bureau Urban Designations, 2010 operations. The law also combines and expands existing programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to provide financial and resource management support for local and regional food production. Urban Farming Operations Urban farming operations represent a diverse range of systems and practices. They encompass large-scale innovative systems and capital-intensive operations, vertical and rooftop farms, hydroponic greenhouses (e.g., soilless systems), and aquaponic facilities (e.g., growing fish and plants together in an integrated system).
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Nutrition
    GCSE Agriculture and Land Use Animal Nutrition Food production and Processing For first teaching from September 2013 For first award in Summer 2015 Food production and Processing Key Terms Learning Outcomes Intensive farming Extensive farming • Explain the differences between intensive and Stocking rates extensive farming. Organic methods • Assess the advantages and disadvantages of intensive and extensive farming systems, Information including organic methods The terms intensive and extensive farming refer to the systems by which animals and crops are grown and Monogastric Digestive Tract prepared for sale. Intensive farming is often called ‘factory farming’. Intensive methods are used to maximise yields and production of beef, dairy produce, poultry and cereals. Animals are kept in specialised buildings and can remain indoors for their entire lifetime. This permits precise control of their diet, breeding , behaviour and disease management. Examples of such systems include ‘barley beef’ cattle units, ‘battery’ cage egg production, farrowing crates in sow breeding units, hydroponic tomato production in controlled atmosphere greenhouses. The animals and crops are often iStockphoto / Thinkstock.com fertilised, fed, watered, cleaned and disease controlled by Extensive beef cattle system based on pasture automatic and semi automatic systems such as liquid feed lines, programmed meal hoppers, milk bacterial count, ad lib water drinkers and irrigation/misting units. iStockphoto / Thinkstock.com Extensive farming systems are typically managed outdoors, for example with free-range egg production. Animals are free to graze outdoors and are able to move around at will. Extensive systems often occur in upland farms with much lower farm stocking rates per hectare. Sheep and beef farms will have the animals grazing outdoors on pasture and only brought indoors and fed meals during lambing season and calving season or during the part of winter when outdoor conditions are too harsh.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Milk Production in Different Dairy Cattle Systems and Valorisation of Environmental Chain on the Basis of Added Value
    Sustainable milk production in different dairy cattle systems and valorisation of environmental chain on the basis of added value Cassandro, M. Poljoprivreda/Agriculture ISSN: 1848-8080 (Online) ISSN: 1330-7142 (Print) http://dx.doi.org/10.18047/poljo.21.1.sup.4 Poljoprivredni fakultet u Osijeku, Poljoprivredni institut Osijek Faculty of Agriculture in Osijek, Agricultural Institute Osijek ISSN 1330-7142 UDK: 637.1:574.2 DOI: 10.18047/poljo.21.1.sup.4 SUSTAINABLE MILK PRODUCTION IN DIFFERENT DAIRY CATTLE SYSTEMS AND VALORISATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHAIN ON THE BASIS OF ADDED VALUE Cassandro, M. Scientific review SUMMARY Aim of this review is to estimate milk yield and predicted methane emissions added values in local and cosmopolitan cow breeds reared in Italian circumstances. Nowadays it is well known that over the next 50 years, the world’s farmers will be asked to produce more food than has been produced in the past thousand years, and in this concern it will be in environmentally sustainable way. The review will higlight the differences between intensive and extensive agricultural systems and this will be discussed and evaluated in dairy cattle production system context. In conclusion, animal genetic resources need to be evaluated not only per unit of output but for other direct and indirect output units related to social and human returns supporting different animal production systems, intensive or extensive ones. The intensive and extensive farming systems are not replaceable to each other, but they should be combined in order to respond to different social and envi- ronmental needs, so, to define the best sustainable production system.
    [Show full text]
  • Fiscal Policies for Sustainable Agriculture
    Fiscal policies to support Policy Brief sustainable agriculture Agriculture and the SDGs highlight, agriculture subsidies often tend to disproportionately benefit large farmers/corporations and there are more effective ways of providing The agriculture and food production sector is central to the 2030 Agenda for support to people at risk of poverty and hunger. Sustainable Development. As the world’s largest employer, the sector can Addressing these pricing distortions and perverse incentives in the play an important role in efforts to reduce poverty, promote social equity agricultural sector will be critical for delivering several SDGs including and improve people’s livelihoods. However, unsustainable agricultural SDG2 (Zero Hunger), SDG12 (Responsible Production and Consumption), practices and associated land-use change have contributed to biodiversity SDG13 (Climate Action), SDG15 (Life on Land which includes targets on loss, water insecurity, climate change, soil and water pollution, threatening delivery of several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). For example, forestry and biodiversity). The SDG targets recognize the importance of studies have found that agriculture related land-use change is causing over correct food pricing to prevent trade restrictions and distortions in world 70 per cent of tropical deforestation1 and accounts for around one quarter agricultural markets, including the elimination of all forms of agricultural of all greenhouse gas emissions. Agriculture and food production can also export subsidies (T2.b). have significant impacts on human health and well-being. For example, pesticides are among the leading causes of death by self-poisoning, Role of fiscal policy reforms for particularly in low- and middle-income countries2, with related economic sustainable agriculture implications on health care costs and reduced productivity among others.
    [Show full text]
  • Agricultural Policy and Its Impacts in Rural Economy in Nepal
    Himalayan Journal of Development and Democracy, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2011 Agricultural Policy and its Impacts in Rural Economy in Nepal Rajendra Poudel 9 Division of Forestry & Natural Resources West Virginia University Introduction Nepal is considered a high population density developing country and a very high population density per unit of agriculture land. Comparative analysis with the region shows that the Bangladesh and Nepal have the lowest land to labor ratio (0.22 and 0.29 respectively), compared to India (0.61), Sri Lanka (0.51) and Pakistan (0.81). Small holding size of high land fragmentation in Nepal is one of the main reported causes of poverty in rural area. Nepal combines the status of least developed country, landlocked position between two giant protectionist countries (India and China), with attached castes system, armed conflict since 2002, very small farm size and high land fragmentation. The Agriculture Perspective Plan (1995- 2015) defined agriculture as the engine of growth with strong multiplier effects on employment and on other sectors of the economy. In 1995, the Agriculture Perspective Plan (APP) sets the objective of increasing average AGDP from 3% to 5%, and agricultural growth per capita to 3%. Statement of problem The agrarian and social structure of Nepal did not evolve quick enough to cope with the increasing demographic density over resources (contrary to India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Thailand). Participation for change is too late on several fronts (implementation of land reform, intensification techniques, mechanization, commercial alliance, production and trade groups, niche markets, quality control, minimum farm wage policy and monitoring etc.).
    [Show full text]
  • The Common Agricultural Policy: Separating Fact from Fiction
    THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY SEPARATING FACT FROM FICTION 2 Agriculture and Rural Development The Common Agricultural Policy: Separating fact from fiction Contents 1. The cost of the common agricultural policy to the taxpayer is far too high. ..................... 2 2. Subsidies end up in the wrong hands: the EU spends money without control. ............... 2 3. Nobody knows who receives CAP funds. ....................................................................... 2 4. The EU supports mainly intensive farming. .................................................................... 3 5. There is no need to grant direct payments to EU farmers. Farmers should survive in the free market like any other business. ......................................................................... 3 6. The CAP does not do enough to help protect the environment. ...................................... 3 7. Farmers do not have any negotiating power in the food chain. The EU should do something about this. ..................................................................................................... 4 8. Europe should erect new import barriers to protect our farmers. .................................... 4 9. Overregulation is the cause of many farmers' problems and the EU is imposing too many rules on farmers. ................................................................................................... 4 10. The EU does not guarantee food quality. ....................................................................... 5 11. Farmers are getting
    [Show full text]
  • National 4/5 Geography Rural Change Summary Notes and Past
    National 4/5 Geography Rural Change Summary Notes and Past Paper Questions 1 National 4/5 Geography Rural Change By the end of this unit you will: 1. Be able to explain key terms in farming 2. Be able to describe and explain the main characteristics of a rural landscape in a developed country (extensive commercial farming in East Anglia) 3. Be able to describe and explain changes that have taken place, the reasons and the impact of these, in a rural landscape in a developed country 4. Be able to describe and explain the main characteristics of a rural landscape in a developing country (intensive subsistence farming in India) 5. Be able to describe and explain changes that have taken place, the reasons and the impact of these, in a rural landscape in a developing country Introduction Types of Farming Intensive Farming Intensive farms generally take up a fairly small area of land, but aim to have a very high output, through massive inputs of capital and labour. These farms use machines and new technologies to become as efficient and cost-effective as possible. Extensive Farming Extensive farming is the direct opposite of intensive farming. The farms are large in comparison to the money injected into them or the labour used. The cattle ranches of central Australia area good example of extensive agriculture, where often only a few farm workers are responsible for thousands of acres of farmland. Subsistence Farming Subsistence farmers only produce enough to feed themselves and their family, without having any more to sell for profit.
    [Show full text]
  • Articulating and Mainstreaming Agricultural Trade Policy and Support Measures, Implemented During 2008-2010
    Articulating and mainstreaming agricultural trade policy support measures This book is an output of the FAO project, Articulating and mainstreaming agricultural trade policy and support measures, implemented during 2008-2010. With a view to maximizing the contribution of trade to national development, a process has been underway in many developing countries to mainstream trade and other policies into national development strategy such as the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP). A similar process of mainstreaming is strongly advocated, and underway, for trade-related support measures, including Aid for Trade. In view of this, there is a high demand for information, analyses and advice on best approaches to undertaking these tasks. It was in this context that the FAO project was conceived. Its three core objectives are to contribute to: i) the process of articulating appropriate agricultural RTICULATING AND trade policies consistent with overall development objectives; ii) the process of articulating trade support measures; and iii) the process A MAINSTREAMING of mainstreaming trade policies and support measures into national development framework. AGRICULTURAL TRADE The study is based on case studies for five countries - Bangladesh, Ghana, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Tanzania. The approach taken was to POLICY AND SUPPORT analyse how the above three processes were undertaken in recent years. The book presents, in 15 chapters, analyses for each country of the above three topics – agricultural trade policy issues, trade-support MEASURES measures and mainstreaming. Based on these country case studies, three additional chapters present the syntheses on these three topics. The implementation of the FAO project was supported generously by the Department for International Development (DFID) of the United Kingdom.
    [Show full text]
  • The Natural Way of Farming
    Soil and Health Library This document is a reproduction of the book or other copyrighted material you requested. It was prepared on Wednesday, 8 August 2007 for the exclusive use of Niklas Wagner, whose email address is [email protected] This reproduction was made by the Soil and Health Library only for the purpose of research and study. Any further distribution or reproduction of this copy in any form whatsoever constitutes a violation of copyrights. The Natural Way of Farming The Theory and Practice of Green Philosophy By Masanobu Fukuoka Translated by Frederic P. Metreaud Japan Publications, Inc. ©1985 by Masanobu Fukuoka Translated by Frederic P. Metreaud All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof in any form without the written permission of the publisher. Published by JAPAN PUBLICATIONS, INC., Tokyo and New York Distributors: UNITED STATES: Kodansha International/US A, Ltd., through Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 10 East 53rdStreet, New York, New York 10022. SOUTH AMERICA: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., International Department. CANADA: Fitzhenry & Whiteside Ltd., 195 Allstate Parkway, Markham, Ontario, L3R 4T8. MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA: HARLA S. A. de C. V., Apartado 30-546, Mexico 4, D. F. BRITISH ISLES: International Book Distributors Ltd., 66 Wood Lane End, Hemel Hempstead, Herts HP2 4RG. EUROPEAN CONTINENT : Fleetbooks–Feffer and Simons (Nederland) B. V., 61 Strijkviertel, 3454 PK de Meern, The Netherlands. AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND: Bookwise International, 1 Jeanes Street, Beverley, South Australia 5007. THE FAR EAST AND JAPAN: Japan Publications Trading Co., Ltd., 1-2-1, Sarugaku-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101.
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Agriculture As a Keystone Contribution Towards Securing Sustainable and Healthy Development for Cities in the Future
    © 2020 The Authors Blue-Green Systems Vol 2 No 1 1 doi: 10.2166/bgs.2019.931 Urban agriculture as a keystone contribution towards securing sustainable and healthy development for cities in the future S. L. G. Skara,*, R. Pineda-Martosb, A. Timpec, B. Pöllingd, K. Bohne, M. Külvikf, ́ C. Delgadog, C. M.G. Pedrash,T.A.Paçoi,M.Cujicj́, N. Tzortzakisk, A. Chrysargyrisk, A. Peticilal, G. Alencikienem, H. Monseesn and R. Junge o a Division of Food Production and Society, Dept. of Horticulture, Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomic Research (NIBIO), P.O. BOX 115, 1431 Aas/Reddalsveien 215, 4886 Grimstad, Norway b School of Agricultural Engineering, University of Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain c RWTH Aachen University (Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen), Germany d South-Westphalia University of Applied Sciences, Soest, Germany e School of Architecture and Design, University of Brighton, UK f Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Friedrich Reinhold Kreutzwaldi 1, Tartu 51006, Estonia g Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas – Interdisciplinary Center of Social Sciences – CICS.NOVA, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Av. de Berna, 26-C, 1069-061 Lisboa, Portugal h Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, University of Algarve, Faro, Portugal i LEAF, Linking Landscape, Environment, Agriculture and Food, Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal j Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, University of Belgrade, Mice Petrovica Alasa, Belgrade, Serbia k Department of Agricultural Sciences, Biotechnology and Food Science, Cyprus University of Technology, Anexartisias 33, P.O. BOX 50329, 3603, Limassol, Cyprus l USAMV Bucharest, Marasti Blv 59, Bucharest, Romania m Kaunas University of Technology, Food Institute, K.
    [Show full text]
  • World Bank Document
    PHN Technical Kote 85-19a Public Disclosure Authorized POPULATION GROWTH AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA by Teresa J. Ho Public Disclosure Authorized November 1985 Population, Health and Nutrition Department World Bank Public Disclosure Authorized The World Bank does not accept responsibility for the views expressed herein which are those of the author(s) and should not be attributed to the World Bank or to its affiliated organizations. Tne findings, interpretations, and conclusions are the results of research supported by the Bank; they do not necessarily represent official policy of the 3ank. The designations employed, the presentation of material, and any maps used in this document are solely for the convenience of the reader and do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsover on the part of the World Bank or its affiliates concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city area, or of its authorities, or concerning the Public Disclosure Authorized delimitations of its boundaries, or national afLiliation. PHN Technical Note 85-19a POPULATION GROWTH AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA A B S T R A C T This paper considers the consequences of rapid population growth on labor productivity in agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa. Observers have often pointed to the presence of large untapped land resources in the region to deny the presence of a population problem; in addition, a recent Food and Agriculture Organization study on potential population supporting capacities estimated that sub-Saharan Africa can support a population more than double its present size even with the most rudimentary of inputs and technology.
    [Show full text]
  • (7) Planning for Agricultural Uses in Hong Kong
    Planning for Agricultural Uses in Hong Kong October 2016 The overarching planning goal of the Hong Kong 2030+ is to champion sustainable development with a view to meeting our present and future social, environmental and economic needs and aspirations. In this respect, three building blocks, namely planning for a liveable high-density city (Building Block 1), embracing new economic challenges and opportunities (Building Block 2) and creating capacity for sustainable growth (Building Block 3) have been established as the framework for formulating our territorial development strategy under the Hong Kong 2030+. A sustainable agricultural sector in Hong Kong, despite its limited contribution to the overall economy could still present new economic opportunities in support of Building Block 2 by contributing to the diversity of economic sectors. This topical paper constitutes part of the research series under “Hong Kong 2030+: Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030” (Hong Kong 2030+). The findings and proposals of the paper form the basis of the draft updated territorial development strategy which is set out in the Public Engagement Booklet of Hong Kong 2030+. Hong Kong 2030+ Table of Contents Preface Part A: Agriculture as a Primary Production Sector 1 Contribution to the Hong Kong’s Economy Poultry and Livestock Keeping Industry Agricultural Land Part B: Types of Commercial Farming in Hong Kong 5 Conventional Farming Organic Farming Agriculture involving Advanced Technology Farmers’ Market FarmFest Part C: New Agriculture
    [Show full text]