تجزیه و تحلیل اقتصادی از سناریوهایی برای پایداری پرورش دام درسطح گسترده تحت CAP در اسپانیا
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|29015||2012||10 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||8081 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Ecological Economics, Volume 74, February 2012, Pages 120–129
This paper proposes a change in the conditions of cross-compliance of CAP payments. Specifically, the eligibility criterion considered is compliance with minimal requirements of long-term economic and agroenvironmental sustainability. To this end, 69 range farms were surveyed in Extremadura (SW Spain). In these farms, sustainability was studied using the MESMIS framework. MESMIS is based on the evaluation of basic attributes of sustainability (adaptability, self-reliance, equity, stability, and productivity) formed from different indicators. The original indicators are then synthesized by means of qualitative, quantitative, or mixed techniques into a single value measuring the sustainability of the system (sustainability index). Alternative scenarios were then defined in which the perception of CAP subsidies was to a greater or lesser extent linked to levels of sustainability. For each of these scenarios, the economic indicators of the farms were compared with those of the baseline (present) situation. The analysis was completed using a logistic model classification to study the relationship between the maximum levels attainable by the economic indicators in terms of the sustainability indices. The results showed that including sustainability as a condition for receiving aid under the CAP can contribute to improving the economic results of traditional extensive farms.
This paper analyzes a possible change in the conditions of cross-compliance of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) subsidies, with an application to extensive dehesa range-farming systems.1 To this end, we consider the introduction of compliance with certain minimal sustainability requirements as a criterion of eligibility, after developing comprehensive indicators of sustainability which include the main aspects of this concept (environmental, social, and economic). The term “sustainability” is difficult to define. One of the most widely accepted definitions in agriculture is that of Conway (1987): “Sustainability can be defined as the ability of a system to maintain productivity even though it is subject to ’stresses’ or disturbances”. This was subsequently extended by Lynam and Herdt (1989) who defined it as: “The capacity of a system to maintain output at a level approximately similar to or greater than its historical average, with the approximation determined by its historical level of variability”. At present, there is some consensus in defining it via a mosaic approach which involves three basic dimensions: environmental, economic, and social. In particular, a system is considered sustainable if it meets the following criteria: (i) improvement and maintenance of soil fertility and productivity; (ii) satisfaction of human needs; (iii) economic viability; (iv) social acceptability; (v) ecological adaptation; (vi) long-term durability of the system (Gaspar et al., 2009a and Gómez-Limón, 2010). The perspective adopted in the study is that of public goods (goods and services that society values and would like to secure, but which are not delivered through the market) in the context of the CAP. Public goods oriented to sustainability represent a step beyond the multi-functionality of European agricultural systems. Future reforms of the CAP will therefore have to consider ever more explicitly a more efficient and equitable distribution of aid (Baldock et al., 2010 and García, 2009). In this sense, the dehesa in Extremadura (or montado, which is the name of these agricultural systems in Portugal) is an ecosystem of sufficient relevance (economic, social, and environmental) to be worthy of being regarded as a public good of general interest at the European level, not just limited to Spain or the Iberian Peninsula ( Gaspar et al., 2009a and Gaspar et al., 2009b). Specifically, its sustainable management and economic incentives to strengthen its capacity contribute to rural development, prevent the abandonment of the land, and promote the protection of natural ecosystems, biodiversity, and the better management of water resources. The dehesa system helps to combat climate change by controlling erosion, and increases the sustainability of production processes in the long term ( Campos et al., 2008, Eichhorn et al., 2006, Firmino, 1999, Pinto-Correia and Mascarenhas, 1999 and Schnabel and Ferreira, 2004). Some recent papers have studied various scenarios of sustainability in agroforestry systems in Spain (Campos et al., 2008 and Ibáñez et al., 2008), examining the interactions between socioeconomic factors and different types of rural landscape. In particular, Ibáñez et al. (2008) evaluated the relationship between sustainability and desertification in different agricultural systems in Spain according to various profit scenarios. Their results showed that high profit scenarios were able to determine final states of desertification, thus defining the specific threshold between sustainability and desertification in dehesas. Campos et al. (2008) examined different sustainability scenarios in the framework of the CAP for dehesas in SW Spain from the standpoint of private management, and observed that private landowner income was negatively affected when changes were made to achieve sustainable management of dehesas. The analysis of sustainability in agricultural holdings must always consider the economic component. The difference between a sustainable scenario and another that is unsustainable is given by the greater revenue that could be obtained in the latter. This would, however, be at the cost of depleting the system's natural resources. Unlike intensive farms, extensive holdings can innovate and diversify their productive activities so as to increase their revenue function without significantly reducing their level of sustainability. Dehesa farms, for example, which are basically extensive agricultural and livestock systems with different uses, can also integrate into their production educational and recreational activities such as "rural tourism". Several studies have shown the negative influence that the EU's policy of subsidies has had on the sustainability of farms in general (Barreiro and Espinosa, 2007, Firmino, 1999, Roeder et al., 2010 and Santos and Cabral, 2003), and of dehesa farms in particular (Campos et al., 2008, Eichhorn et al., 2006 and Plieninger, 2006). A recent study is the SEO/BirdLife and WWF (2010) report which shows a positive correlation between higher payments and decreasing environmental status. This is because holdings based on intensive systems—in the sense of their use of natural resources (land and water), fertilizers, and pesticides—are those receiving the bulk of the aid. Systems such as dehesas and others of high natural value (for example, those included in the Natura 2000 network2) receive only a small fraction of the EU budget earmarked for CAP subsidies. Another noteworthy fact is the lesser dependence on farm subsidies of holdings with multiple use systems (Gaspar et al., 2009a, Gaspar et al., 2009b and Ronchi and Nardone, 2003). The first CAP reforms (1992 and 2000) had a marked effect on dehesa farming systems. Their stocking rates increased steadily to maximize subsidies and grant revenues, and this led to a loss of sustainability (Gaspar et al., 2008). More recently, the 2003 CAP reform and its revision (the Health Check) were introduced due to problems of food safety and environmental protection. The 2003 reform was based on a single farm payment for EU farmers, decoupled from production. The 2008 Health Check deepened that reform, increasing the amount of subsidies decoupled from production. Both reforms have had a negative effect on the model of dehesa management because the decoupling of the subsidies has caused some farms to cease activity. This is a serious setback for the environmental management of dehesas, since the use of appropriate stocking rates maintains the wooded layer, thus avoiding the invasion of scrub and reducing the risk of major wildfires. Given this context, it has become increasingly important to conduct an in-depth study of farm sustainability based on the integration of environmental, social, and economic indicators. There is also a need to revise the cross-compliance system of CAP subsidies to include criteria that would take farm sustainability into account. This is particularly relevant for extensive farming systems which have often been neglected by government support and private sector investment, despite acknowledgement of the great potential benefits that would result from improving their economic contributions and strengthening their role in providing environmental services.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
One can conclude from the results that the most diversified farms are the most sustainable, and therefore are the best suited to be eligible for a new system of cross-compliance of aid linked to sustainability criteria. This system would mean a redistribution of the payments, as the less sustainable farms could face a reduction of the EU subsidies they currently receive, while there could be an eventual increase in premiums to the more sustainable farms. If this approach was applied, it would require the development of new sustainability indices corrected to neutralize the excessive importance that the productivity attribute provides the more intensive farms, and which leads these holdings to obtain proportionally higher sustainability scores. Various logistic growth models were estimated to analyze the relationship between the economic indicators and sustainability indices of the surveyed farms, concluding that it is still possible to increase their profitability without reducing their levels of sustainability. In particular, the maximum values of the economic indicators were slightly higher in the scenarios with reduced premiums than in the baseline scenario. This implies the suitability of the measure of cross-compliance analyzed in the sense that it does not discourage the farms seeking to raise their profitability levels together with higher sustainability indices. There need to be incentives for the more intensive holdings to re-invest part of their earnings in improvements that reduce the impact on and the degradation of their natural resources. This would imply that they would be eligible for grants in aid, subsidies, payments, or other compensation, and that they would only be penalized when the environmental balance of additional income was negative. Extensive farms can innovate and diversify their productive activities so as to enhance their revenue function without significantly reducing their level of sustainability. For example, extensive range-farming systems such as dehesas, which at present have different uses, can also integrate into their operations other alternative educational and recreational activities such as rural tourism. Nevertheless, one should not forget that extensive farms, per se, do not have to be more sustainable. In dehesas, for example, undergrazing may lead to a degradation of the system due to shrub invasion. Sustainability, whether directly or indirectly, is one of the priority objectives in the current context of the CAP. However, the measures so far put in place in no way have been sufficient incentive to get intensive farms to take steps to reduce their impact on natural resources. On the one hand, cross-compliance is so soft that almost any holding can fulfill it, and additional agroenvironmental subsidies are just a small percentage of the total CAP payments. On the other hand, extensive farms do not receive the sufficient extra subsidies that would recognize the value of their environmental and cultural services. In sum, there is clearly a need for Community policies to be reinforced or redirected. Sustainability has ceased to be just another element of rhetoric to become an ever more insistent demand of citizens and taxpayers. More research is needed to contrast the present results by extending the study to other ecosystems and countries. It would also be interesting if a major analytical effort could be made to reach a consensus throughout the EU on common sustainability criteria.