Farmer Survey Final Report…
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
OPINION POLL REPORT MAY 2019 IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PRODUCTION IN CENTRAL SERBIA UNDP SERBIA The opinions presented in this report are those of its authors and do not necessarily reflect positions of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). All words/terms used in this report in the masculine gender are to be understood as including persons of both male and female gender they refer to. 1 Table of Contents: 1. METHODOLOGICAL NOTES ................................................................................................................................ 3 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE ......................................................................................................................... 4 3. FARM INFORMATION ........................................................................................................................................ 10 3.1. FRUIT-GROWING FARMS ............................................................................................................................................. 13 3.2 VEGETABLE-GROWING FARMS ..................................................................................................................................... 20 4. IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGES ON FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PRODUCTION ...................................... 29 4.1 SUBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF ANNUAL YIELDS OF FRUIT AND VEGETABLES .................................................................... 31 5. ADAPTATION TO CHANGING CLIMATE CONDITIONS ............................................................................... 36 5.2 ADAPTATION TO CHANGING CLIMATE CONDITIONS BY VEGETABLE GROWERS ............................................................ 37 5.3 ATTITUDES TOWARDS AND USE OF IRRIGATION .......................................................................................................... 43 5.4 AWARENESS OF OPTIONS TO MITIGATE IMPACT OF FLOODING AND DROUGHT ON FARMING ...................................... 50 5.5 ATTITUDES TOWARDS BORROWING AND USE OF LOANS IN SUPPORT OF FARMING ...................................................... 51 5.6 POTENTIAL IRRIGATION SYSTEMS: RESPONDENTS’ ATTITUDES AND READINESS TO PARTICIPATE ................................. 53 6. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 71 2 1. METHODOLOGICAL NOTES Survey carried out by CeSID Opinion Polling Agency and UNDP Serbia Fieldwork Between 5 and 22 April 2019 Random representative sample of 597 farming households in Sample type and size 15 Central Serbian municipalities Sample frame Serbian Register of Farming Households Random sampling of fruit and vegetable growers without Selection of households replacement Selection of respondents by Responsible person for each farming household household Survey method Face-to-face at each farming household Survey instrument Questionnaire This opinion poll was performed by CeSID and UNDP Serbia between 5 and 22 April 2019 in fifteen Serbian local authorities. The survey sample comprised 597 farming households registered in any of the 15 local authorities covered by the opinion poll: Aleksinac, Leskovac, Malo Crniće, Merošina, Paraćin, Pirot, Smederevo, Smederevska Palanka, Valjevo, Velika Plana, Veliko Gradište, Žabari, Zaječar, Kruševac, and Požarevac. The survey instrument used was a questionnaire developed in collaboration with the client that contained 69 questions for a total of 200 variables. Respondents were interviewed directly, using the face-to-face method, at their farms. The respondents were the persons in charge of production or farming operations in each farming household. 3 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE The survey, performed by CeSID and UNDP in fifteen Central Serbian local authorities, encompassed a total of 597 farms. Chart 1 shows the percentage of farming households for each local authority. Chart 1. Percentage of farms surveyed by local authority in % and in total number Leskovac 13.4 80 Kruševac 11.7 70 Smederevo 11.1 66 Valjevo 9.2 55 Zaječar 7.5 45 Požarevac 7.5 45 Paraćin 6.7 40 Pirot 6.2 37 Smederevska Palanka 5.9 35 Aleksinac 5.9 35 Velika Plana 4 24 Veliko Gradiste 3.4 20 Žabari 2.5 15 Merošina 2.5 15 Malo Crnice 2.5 15 In order to fulfil the goals, set in the RFP, CeSID used a three-stage random representative sample of agricultural holdings in 15 municipalities selected by the UNDP. The first stage in the sample design was the selection of agricultural holdings from the Registry of Agricultural Holdings, a database developed and maintained by the Ministry of Agriculture. In order to fulfil representativeness of the sample, CeSID ensured that a survey of 10 agricultural holdings is conducted in each of the selected municipalities, while the remaining 450 surveys were distributed proportionally across agricultural holdings in 15 selected municipalities. By using this approach, CeSID will provide representativeness of the entire region of Central Serbia. The second stage in the sample design consisted of a selection of agricultural holdings through a systemic random selection (Simple Random Sampling without Replacement–SRSWoR). The third stage included the selection of respondents inside selected agricultural holding. Potential respondents within each holding were (1) the owner of selected agricultural holding or (2) the person responsible for maintaining the holding who is involved in the decision-making process and aware of entire production/growing process. 4 2.1. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS Q62: How many people live with you in your household? Number of responses: 595 The average Serbian farming household numbers 4.3 members. Q63: How many adults (over 18 years of age) live in the household? Number of responses: 595 On average, there are 3.6 adult members of each household. Table 1. Average number of people in the household per local self-government Average no. of people in LSG No. of respondents the households Aleksinac 35 3,5 Kruševac 70 4,2 Leskovac 78 4,5 Malo Crniće 15 3,9 Merošina 15 3,9 Paraćin 40 5,6 Pirot 37 2,9 Požarevac 45 3,6 Smederevo 66 4,8 Smederevska Palanka 35 5,2 Valjevo 55 4,2 Velika Plana 24 5,0 Veliko Gradište 20 5,4 Žabari 15 3,7 Zaječar 45 3,8 Total 595 4,3 Number of people in the household is larger in the municipalities closer to Belgrade and those oriented to both fruit and vegetable production. Table 2. Average number of people in the household per type of production Average no. of people in the No. of respondents households Mostly fruit 314 4,1 Mostly vegetable 250 4,5 Both fruit and vegetables 24 4,9 Total 588 4,3 5 Q64: What is the highest level of education achieved by the most educated person in your household? Number of responses: 587 In two-thirds of all cases (67%), the best-educated member of the household has a secondary school diploma. In slightly fewer than one-quarter of cases (24%), the member with the highest educational attainment has a university degree; 2% have college degrees; and 7% of all households are headed by elementary school graduates. Chart 2. Structure of farming households by educational attainment (%) (Educational attainment of the best-educated member of household) 2 7 Primary education 24 completed Secondary education completed University education completed 67 College education completed Table 3. Highest level of education in the household per local self-government No. of Primary Secondary University LSG College respondents education education education Aleksinac 32 6,3 75,0 18,8 0,0 Kruševac 69 33,3 58,0 8,7 0,0 Leskovac 80 1,3 50,0 40,0 8,8 Malo Crniće 14 21,4 64,3 14,3 0,0 Merošina 15 0,0 60,0 40,0 0,0 Paraćin 40 0,0 75,0 25,0 0,0 Pirot 37 2,7 59,5 35,1 2,7 Požarevac 45 8,9 75,6 15,6 0,0 Smederevo 66 1,5 62,1 33,3 3,0 Smederevska Palanka 31 3,2 80,6 16,1 0,0 Valjevo 55 3,6 80,0 16,4 0,0 Velika Plana 24 0,0 83,3 16,7 0,0 Veliko Gradište 20 0,0 70,0 30,0 0,0 Žabari 15 13,3 80,0 6,7 0,0 Zaječar 44 0,0 70,5 29,5 0,0 Total 587 6,8 67,3 24,2 1,7 6 Table 4. Highest level of education in the household per type of production No. of Primary Secondary University College respondents education education education Mostly fruit 308 7,8 60,7 28,6 2,9 Mostly vegetable 249 6,0 74,3 19,3 0,4 Both fruit and 23 0,0 78,3 21,7 0,0 vegetables Total 580 6,7 67,2 24,3 1,7 Fruit growers seems to be a bit more educated than vegetable growers. Findings show above average number of those who had finished college or university among fruit growers. Pensions account for most household income derived from activities other than farming. Slightly under one-half of all members (46%) who reported non-farming income were pensioners. If we exclude those who are retired, most of the income that comes outside farm come from manual workers – 50% . Q65: What is the highest level of education achieved by the most educated person in your household? Number of responses: 295 Chart 3. Household non-farming income (%) 7 6 Employed Manual worker 37 Administrative 50 worker Expert Very few experts (i.e. highly-educated employed members of the public) engage in farming in addition to their regular work. 7 Q66: What was the total monthly income on average for your household? Number of responses: 284 Most respondents (more than one-half or 52%) were either unwilling or unable to report total average incomes for their household. Average household income among those who responded to the question is 46 355,6 RSD per month. Table 5. Reported average monthly household income