Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
1 Introduction and method .......................................................................................... 3
2 How farmers respond to external factors .................................................................. 4
2.1 Behavioural responses to deliver SI outcomes ............................................................ 4
2.2 Synthesis of evidence on farmer attitudes and practices ............................................ 5
2.3 Evidence gaps and research needs .............................................................................. 8
3 The influence of the food supply-chain on farm practice .......................................... 10
3.1 Synthesis of evidence on supply chains ..................................................................... 10
3.2 Supply chain influences on SI outcomes .................................................................... 13
3.3 Evidence gaps and research needs ............................................................................ 14
4 How policy and the food-chain can drive sustainable intensification ........................ 16
4.1 Synthesis of research evidence on external intervention mechanisms ..................... 16
4.2 Mechanisms for driving SI outcomes ........................................................................ 19
4.3 Evidence gaps and research needs ............................................................................ 20
5 Proposals for a full research project ........................................................................ 21
Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 25
Table 1: Relationship between SI outcomes and behavioural responses .............................................. 4
Table 2: Differences between a supply chain and a value chain approach .......................................... 10
Table 3: Relationship between SI outcomes and supply chain signals to producers ........................... 14
Table 4: Types of mechanism applied in agriculture in OECD countries .............................................. 17
Table 5: Policy instruments, changes in norms and potential "boomerang" effect ............................. 18
Table 6: Relationship between SI outcomes and supply chain mechanisms ........................................ 19
Table 7: Summary of evidence gaps and research proposals for SIP3 ................................................. 21
Figure 1: Innovation Roadmap ................................................................................................. 11
2
This scoping study is part of Defra’s Sustainable Intensification research Platform (SIP), which was
established to investigate ways in which farm productivity could be increased, while at the same
time reducing negative environmental impacts and enhancing ecosystems services. The work
reported here relates to SIP Project 3 (SIP3) and explores approaches to influencing sustainable
intensification and, in particular, focuses on farmer attitudes and practices, the role of the supply
chain in influencing farm practices, and mechanisms for driving change in those practices. The
research involved a review of the published literature in this area, consultation with the food supply
chain through a workshop and a survey of LEAF Marque farmers. Key findings are set out below.
Influencing farmer attitudes and practices The literature indicates that farmers’ responses to external factors depend on farm-level
opportunities and attitudes to associated risks and uncertainties. The role of others – family,
neighbours, supply chain and other networks – is also important. The study explored attitudes and
practices relating to sustainable production by LEAF farmers. It found that extensification activities
tend to be associated with public policy through regulation and incentives e.g. agri-environment
schemes, while the adoption of practices to increase production or productivity responds to a profit
motive. The supply chain, including farm suppliers and advisors, are the main factors influencing the
adoption of new practices by farmers, while the strongest barriers to adoption are financial.
Role of the supply chain The literature suggests that a ‘value chain’ approach is better suited to exploring the objective of
achieving sustainable intensification outcomes than the more traditional supply chain, as it is based
on improving efficiency and adding value through a consumer-orientated focus to production. Key
enablers in the value chain are common goals, open communications and the sharing of risks,
resources and rewards. In our survey of LEAF farmers, most described their relationships with buyers
as either excellent or good, with a secure market and a premium price identified as the most
important aspects of this relationship. A priority for research is to understand and address the
barriers to collaboration at each stage of the supply chain and explore opportunities for innovation.
Mechanisms to influence SI A wide range of mechanisms is available to influence production behaviours, from regulatory and
incentive-based mechanisms to market instruments, education and information or co-operation. The
most effective mechanisms are likely to be those that stimulate long-term changes in beliefs and
norms which then influence the behaviours that support sustainable intensification. Shared goals
across the supply chain are often absent but can be addressed by voluntary and collaborative
mechanisms that offer shared risks and rewards. Contracts provide security to farmers but better
data sharing across the chain would assist in the delivery of sustainable intensification objectives,
while effective communication can enhance buy-in to common goals.
SIP3 research proposals The scoping study identified evidence gaps and research needs relating to the implementation of
sustainable intensification. In response, 3 priorities have been identified for further SIP3 research:
1. Baseline research on SI practices and supply chain interactions on farms;
2. Understanding how the supply chain can foster sustainable intensification practices;
3. Real time research on implementing sustainable intensification practices.
These priorities will focus on informing how Government and industry can improve productivity and
sustainability in this sector and are critical in supporting the wider SIP research.
3
Defra established the Sustainable Intensification Research Platform (SIP) in 2014 to investigate ways
to increase farm productivity while reducing environmental impacts and enhancing ecosystem
services that land provides to society. The aim is to develop more integrated and collaborative ways
of funding, conducting and applying agricultural research. The SIP will establish a shared network of
research sites and form an expert community of practice to coordinate translational research on
farming systems and to engage in knowledge exchange activities. Defra has invested over £4m in the
SIP at the outset, focusing research on three component projects:
– Measuring sustainability and engaging farmers (SIP1)
– Coordinating action at a landscape scale (SIP2)
– Influencing change (SIP3)
This report relates to the SIP3, a scoping study on farmer attitudes and influences, the role of the
supply chain in farm practice and mechanisms for driving change and innovation in food production.
It provides a summary of the main evidence and findings and is supported by a number of annexes
(published separately) which detail the work done.
Research objectives The purpose of this project is to explore a range of external influences within the food supply chains
in England and Wales. The three key research objectives for SIP3 are:
Objective 3.1: Explore how farmers respond to opportunities and risks from combinations of
external factors within the SI platform study areas in the short, medium and long term.
Objective 3.2: Investigate the influence of the food supply-chain and other actors on farm
and landscape management decisions within the SI Platform study areas.
Objective 3.3: Identify market opportunities and non-market mechanisms to drive
sustainable intensification.
Research methodology The approach taken for this scoping study encompassed the following:
i. A review of the published literature on farmer behaviours, the role of the supply chain and
on mechanisms for influencing attitudes and practices (Annex 2);
ii. A workshop with supply chain representatives to explore research needs and priorities
(Annex 3);
iii. A survey of farmers to scope the uptake of sustainable practices and the role of the supply
chain in influencing these (Annex 4);
iv. Synthesis of the evidence and identification of proposals for a main Project 3 research phase
as part of the wider SI Platform work (Chapter 5).
The input of supply chain representatives (including farmers) in informing and validating the scoping
study has been critical and their continued participation in the SIP research is essential to ensure
that the focus and outputs are developed in the context of the market place. The proposed follow-
on SIP3 research needs to continue to function in this role and complement the wider Platform work
by aligning it with consumer demand, as manifested through the supply chain. Throughout the
scoping study, the researchers have been mindful of the wider SIP objectives and the work of
projects 1 and 2, engaging with the research teams and making links across projects where relevant.
This will continue to be an important role for Project 3, which provides the framework within which
SIP project 1 and 2 outputs will be implemented.
4
A range of external influences will affect farmer decisions on adoption of technologies and practices
that could be defined as ‘sustainable intensification’ (SI). Ultimately, all these influences relate to
the management of risk, response to uncertainty and possible opportunities at the farm level
(McConnell and Dillon, 1997). Most farmers are considered to be risk-averse (Just and Zilberman,
1983; Antle, 1987; Chavas and Holt, 1990; Just and Pope, 2002), that is, they will undertake changes
on the farm only when a certain personally prescribed threshold is exceeded. For instance, high
levels of risk aversion will prevent adoption of technologies or restrict seeking access to credit for
investment (Boucher et al., 2008; Dercon and Christiaensen, 2011). Farmers seek to minimise risks
in order to maintain stability for their wellbeing and income (De Pinto et al., 2013). Farm planning
trajectories are usually determined by ‘lock-in’ effects, predominantly due to lack of access to capital
(Wilson, 2007).
These external influences on farmer decision making can be classified into four groups, namely i)
changes in the physical and natural environment, ii) changes in the social environment, iii) changes
in the economic and market environments, and iv) changes in the policy, support and regulatory
environment. All these will either hinder transition within the farm or provide a catalyst for change,
due to a shock or persistent impact on farming incomes or production.
A number of potential SI outcomes are identified in Table 1 below along and a summary of the farm
business responses necessary to deliver these.
Table 1: Relationship between SI outcomes and behavioural responses
SI outcome Behavioural responses
Increased food production Switching (more) land to (more) intensive
production
Increased non-food ecosystem service
provision
Switching (more) land to (more) extensive
production or land sparing for non-food ES
Adoption of more sustainable practices for
food production
Technological adoption - uptake of new
practices/technologies
Change in balance of food production Production transition - switching to new/other
enterprises
Landscape scale management Management transition - entering into
cooperative agreements or coordination of
practices locally
Optimal spatial and scale adoption of land
use for efficient food production and other
ES provision
Efficiency transition - investment to achieve future
economic gains
Uptake of mechanisms to ensure values and
risk are shared across supply chain
Market transition - involvement in pricing
contracts and local selling
These six outcomes refer to the provision of both food and non-food ecosystem services. They also
implicitly aim to capture SI at various scales, namely on agricultural productive land within the farm,
at the farm level and at landscape and supply chain levels. This highlights the multiple strategies
5
that farmers can adopt but does not capture the secondary impacts e.g. if increased food production
is pursued, what are the implications for other (non-food) ecosystem services and what is the role of
landscape scale management or risk management in any or all, of these outcomes.
This section briefly outlines the mapping of extensive literature on farmer decision making with
respect to SI outcomes. This was used as the basis for developing a survey of farmers to explore SI
attitudes and practices and the strength of external influences. This helped identify research gaps
and possible pathways to engender uptake of SI technologies.
SI outcomes mapped to farmer decision making studies Increased food production: it might be expected that intensifying production would be driven by
changing market factors, and this may be true of those who exhibit a certain productivist farming
style. However, the literature could only identify a generally low level response to market price
changes.
A greater number of studies were focused on the decision to extensify activities, which relate
primarily to policy reform e.g. Common Agricultural Policy ‘decoupling’ reforms in 2003 which
separated production from support payments and the effect on reduced stocking levels and
withdrawal of cropping activity on marginal land.
Regarding decisions about farm expansion, farms without successors may be least likely to decide to
expand the farm business (Karali et al, 2013). There is a large tranche of evidence that succession is
strongly tied to land use decision-making and it would be expected that increasing food production
is also reliant on the farming family life-cycle.
Increased non-food ecosystem service provision: Farmers have a mixture of economic and non-
economic goals, though in their extensive review Siebart et al (2006) argued that participation in
environmental schemes is strongly dictated by the level of economic support. Nevertheless, what
emerges throughout the literature are arguments that consider the farmer’s perception of an
environmental ecosystem service, and this is strongly related to their visibility, e.g. diversity of bird
species and hedgerows, as opposed to carbon savings or even water pollution.
When deciding to implement agri-environmental measures, the opinions of farming neighbours are
likely to be significant (DeFranscesco et al 2008). Similarly, the decision to get involved in
educational outreach programs to encourage involvement in organic or biological production
methods can be influenced by an enjoyment of networking with peers (Brodt et al 2006). When
deciding whether to implement more environmentally friendly production systems or to protect
traditional farming landscapes, decision making is likely to be influenced by likely social acceptance
and the social feedback received. Social identities, therefore, may be particularly important for
conservation behaviours.
Household structure, in particular, the number of household members can also be an influence,
examples cited included renewable energy generation and on-farm afforestation.
Adoption of more sustainable practices for food production: A number of studies seem to highlight
‘lack of fit to the farm’ as a reason for non-adoption of sustainable technologies, but do not offer any
solutions to overcoming this structural factor, nor indeed, much investigation towards the likelihood
that a proposed technology or technique was unsuitable for a particular farm.
6
Changes in the balance of food production: A number of studies in non-EU countries have found risk
aversion would lead to greater production transitions between enterprises, but also improved
management of natural resources such as soil nutrients and use of intensive irrigation (Berkhout et
al., 2011; Finger, 2013). However, market risk can be diffused through income support from the CAP
and a range of EU based studies tend to show little intention to change current activities. More
collaborative supply chain ventures tend to exhibit increased information sharing, evidence of
decision support tools and should lead farmers to explore greater awareness of market fluctuations.
On-farm decisions to adopt a technology that facilitates changes in enterprises is likely to be
influenced by the attitude of neighbouring farmers as well as the land manager’s own adoption
process. However, different neighbours are likely to have varying levels of influence on decisions.
Specifically, farmers recognised as being opinion leaders will have a stronger influence on switching
production.
Decisions regarding off farm work and whether or not to diversify into other non-farming ventures
are likely to be influenced by the role of the spouse and employment activity of the spouse on or off
farm.
Landscape scale management: The predominant drivers for co-ordination beyond the farm gate are
social interactions and relationships. For example, when considering watershed and riparian zone
management, group identities and group norms can be particularly important, and thus connection
to a group for watershed management is likely to be important to decision making. Knowing that
there is technical support from influential others e.g. advisors, is also likely to be important for some
aspects of farmer decision making.
Optimal spatial and scale adoption of land use: The predominant influence on transition at the farm
level is family. Most studies tended to find that identification of a successor was the predominant
factor in creating change and affecting long-term planning. Decisions regarding succession depend
on having family/parental support and emotional bonds between parents and offspring, particularly
between fathers and sons; the different expectations placed on male versus female offspring; and
the desire to maintain the family tradition. In addition, it has been argued that better profitability
and more stability will bring new entrants into the industry (Beechner et al., 2004).
Ensuring value is shared across the supply chain: This is driven by both the willingness of the farmer
to engage with other members along the supply chain and the nature of the supply chain itself.
There is little in the literature which looks at willingness to adopt different supply chain contracts,
arguably through issues of disclosure to public researchers. In addition, little is known concerning
the amount of negotiation available in contracts. Given the diversity of contracts and evolution of
supply chain agreements, it is difficult to generalise these findings. The decision to sell locally has
had a greater level of investigation and there is some literature that suggests organic farmers are
more likely to sell locally than conventional producers, driven by the demands of consumers.
Given this lack of knowledge about supply chain relationships and sustainable food production, a
survey was conducted with a sample of LEAF Marque farmers1. The full results and methodology are
outlined in Annex 4 and findings are discussed below.
1 LEAF (Linking Environment and Farming) is the leading organisation promoting sustainable agriculture, food and farming in the UK. Produce is identified in-store by the LEAF Marque logo.
7
Farmer survey of influences on decision making – headline findings The survey was administered through a web-platform to 429 members of the LEAF organisation in
August 2014. A return of 112 farmers provided the basis for the analysis of the questionnaire (a
response rate of 26%). The survey explored three main themes, as outlined below.
i. Main principles towards food production and environmental enhancement,
ii. Reasons and barriers towards uptake of practices towards food production and
environmental enhancement and,
iii. Perceptions and relationships with members of the supply chain.
LEAF farmers tended to see increased food production as central to their principles for farming.
This echoes a range of studies that align the identity of farmers with a productivist outlook. Survey
results suggest that selecting crop and animal varieties to meet market requirements is considered
the most effective practice for meeting farmer goals for food production. For environmental goals,
agri-environmental schemes are used to support biodiversity and habitats. While there was a desire
to improve the environment, no clear reasons for doing so were evident.
The main reason for adoption of practices for increasing food production is to increase profitability,
but there is also an element of responding to supply chain needs and access to new technologies
and techniques. The main influence on adoption of these practices were supply chain members.
This applied to both meeting food production and enhancing the environment. Advisors and private
farm suppliers also played an influence on adoption. Notably, social variables, such as other local
farmers and local discussion groups that have usually been identified as influencing farmer
behaviour were found to have the least amount of influence with these LEAF farmers. The strongest
barriers to adoption of practices for food production are the scale of investment required, followed
by specification from the buyer and risks of non-compliance breaches. Scale of investment is also
the most significant barrier to environmental enhancement.
The majority of farmers (78% of the responses) describe their relationships with the buyers as either
excellent or good while only a small number (4%) described their relationship as remote. Detailed
comments from the farmers emphasised the positive relationships between themselves and the
buyers, emphasising guidance, and open conversation. A secure market was highlighted as the most
important aspect of the relationship with a buyer. This was followed by a premium price, knowing
that the farmer meets high production standards and good feedback on what is produced.
Farmer survey of influences on decision making – discussion The LEAF farmers surveyed here tend to exhibit the characteristics of traditional productivist farmers
which have been identified in other studies of the farming sector. Their membership of LEAF is not
representative of the industry as a whole and has a bias towards the fresh produce sector, which
tends to be more market focused. The majority of LEAF respondents express a desire to increase the
visibility of the environmental work conducted within their farms as a mechanism for encouraging a
price differential for their commodities.
It is also noticeable that LEAF farmers place a lower emphasis on interactions with other farmers as a
driver for change within the farming business. This runs counter to the majority of literature on
farmers per se, and a number of Government and NGO initiatives from both the UK and abroad that
utilise social influences to facilitate behavioural change. It may be that farmers using prominent
marketing identities, such as LEAF Marque, are an identifiable group regardless of spatial proximity.
This perhaps argues for wider criteria for determining spatial scale and influence on farmer decision
making.
8
These farmers demonstrate strong relationships with supply chain buyers, valuing longer term
relationships and ensuring consistent visibility of standards. Ultimately for these farmers continual
engagement seems to be the most appropriate mechanism for ensuring that standards dictated by
the supply chain are met and the visibility of environmental work conducted at the farm level are
recognised. This enhances personal and social values but also ensures a pathway to negotiating
further price differentials from provision of higher quality produce.
LEAF farmers do tend to align with other farmers in terms of their outlook towards food production
but may differ in terms of their social interactions. The LEAF marque may be seen as a source of
pride. The prime influence of the supply chain on decision making for this group emphasises the
need to understand the supply networks under which different farmers operate as a key driver in
determining how to understand attitudes and practices and the response to technology uptake.
Analysing LEAF audit data offered access to a rich dataset on sustainability activities and this
approach may be applicable more widely. Sustainability audits are common within most supply
chains, often driven by retailer guarantees or processor demands for provenance. The extent of the
LEAF audit, which covers an integrated approach including animal health and welfare, nutrient
management and energy efficiency as well as social and landscape factors is comprehensive for such
an analysis as this and valuable in terms of assigning progress and drivers behind the adoption of
particular activities. Other audits may not be accessible and/or be less comprehensive. There is also
an element of ‘self-selection bias’ within the LEAF audits as these farmers would be expected to be
more progressive with respect to sustainable practices. Furthermore, an element of self-reporting in
audits has potential to further bias the data. Nevertheless, the use of audit data to inform
sustainability metrics could be an important opportunity for SI.
Evidence gaps
Comparative systems research: There are a paucity of academic papers which look at specific cases
within England and Wales of sustainable production technologies across comparative systems, for
example, low input vs. high input systems. This would be valuable as a means to control for some of
the environmental factors determining uptake, but also to address contextual factors with respect to
these different systems, such as response to regulations, quality assurance standards etc.
Temporal studies of change: Studies tend to emphasise two pillars of adoption for environmental
based technologies, namely farmer willingness and ability to adopt the technologies. Willingness is
driven by perception but also past adoption of similar technologies which may have failed. Due to
the practical nature of data collection, few studies take a longitudinal approach to behavioural
change where the influence of interventions can be researched in the context of site and farmer
specific factors. The stability of behaviours is crucial in this context and incorporating temporal
elements within the assessment of technology uptake would be a valuable addition to the literature.
Social identities: The influence of social identities may be worth examining, with respect to the issue
of lack of visibility of sustainable intensification-type practices, such a minimum tillage, within the
supply chain. That is, whilst there may be no labelling opportunities and price negotiation
opportunities, the position of the farmer within society may promote adoption of these techniques.
Linking with audit data: This study linked attitudinal data from the survey of LEAF Marque farms
with LEAF sustainability audit data. Within the case study areas proposed by the main SIP research
programme, the quality of these activity data may be more mixed and, in some cases, non-existent.
Access to retailer or buyer sustainability audits from across the main commodity supply chains
9
would prove increasingly valuable to the SIP researchers and we have provided a methodology on
how to link up and analyse these data. However, it should be noted that these audits are self-
reported and may, from a methodological point of view, operate under a range of coding and data
basing systems. Hence, this would require research investment to fully ensure value added from
these audits.
Research needs Production-focused engagement: There is considerable diversity across farming and its supply
chains. This heterogeneity needs to be respected for any engagement strategy. The LEAF farmers
surveyed here tend to exhibit the characteristics of traditional productivist farmers which have been
identified in other studies of the farming sector. A strong production element therefore may be
central to sustainable intensification agenda as a means to create engagement.
Functional communities of practice: The LEAF farmers did not see interactions with other farmers as
an important driver for change within the farming business. This is at odds with findings from
research on Government and NGO initiatives, which utilise social influences as an enabler of
behavioural change. Accordingly, it may be that farmers under prominent marketing identities, such
as LEAF Marque, are an identifiable group, regardless of spatial proximity. This perhaps argues for
wider criteria for determining the spatial context for influence on farmer decision making.
Specific supply chain focus: Supply chains are usually characterised around one significant player,
most often the retailer, and this dictates the parameters of decision-making at farm level.
Experiences of farmers within particular supply chains would therefore affect their perceptions
towards adoption of sustainable technologies. Evidence from the LEAF farmer survey suggests
strong relationships with the buyers, valuing longer terms relationships and ensuring consistent
visibility of standards. This could be an important mechanism for promoting the uptake of SI.
Transparent production practices: The majority of farmers within the LEAF farmer survey expressed
a desire to increase the visibility of the environmental work conducted on their farms as a
mechanism for encouraging a price differential for their commodities. Ultimately for these farmers,
ongoing engagement seems to be the most appropriate mechanism for ensuring that standards
dictated by the supply chain are met. In addition, the visibility of environmental work conducted at
the farm level is recognised as enhancing personal and social values, but also ensuring a pathway to
negotiating further price differentials from provision of higher quality produce.
10
The literature on the supply chain focuses on how it seeks to build long term competitive advantage
by placing the consumer first and everything else subordinate to their wishes (Porter 1985).
Consumer preferences (e.g. provenance, convenience, value for money, taste) are not always
consistent with supply chain needs (e.g. higher rates of sale or lower levels of in-store waste) or
policy objectives (e.g. improved environment, healthier diets or more exports). However, whether
the objective is to build loyalty for individual brands or more sustainable communities and
environments, influencing peoples’ purchasing behaviour begins by understanding what motivates
them. This requires a focus on a ‘demand pull’ rather than a ‘supply push’ approach. This analysis
applies equally to the implementing changes to farm practices associated with the SI agenda.
In keeping with Porter’s consumer pull philosophy, the primary research in this study involved
engaging with a number of representatives from the food supply chain, as a proxy for consumers, to
get their perspective on research needs to develop SI. The two components were a workshop with
the supply chain representatives and a subsequent survey of LEAF Marque farmers.
Review of literature A key finding from the review of literature on supply chains is the changing perspective of how they
function – from a simple procurement role to a collaborative effort to manage value for all
participants. The primary focus in the traditional supply chain is on sourcing material/product to
meet a given demand; the emphasis is on efficiency and margin over their costs. By contrast, the
focus in a value chain approach is on eliminating waste and adding value in response to consumer
preference and/or corporate drivers. In value chains, the key enablers are information flow and
relationships which change the way businesses operate and view the world. Firms need to embrace
the principle of collaboration, which in turn requires clear and aligned objectives, open
communication and sharing of resources, risks and rewards. Supply chain collaboration - horizontal
and vertical - is important because of issues related to food safety and traceability, but also
regarding knowledge and data sharing to improve efficiency along the value chain.
A summary of the differences between these approaches is shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Differences between a supply chain and a value chain approach
Supply chain Value chain
Communication (information sharing) Little or none Extensive
Value focus Cost/price Value/quality
Product Commodity Differentiated product
Relationship Supply push Demand pull
Organisational structure Independent Interdependent
Philosophy Self-optimization Chain optimization
Source: Agriculture and Food Council of Alberta (2004)
11
A second element arising from the literature is the impact of the supply chain on behaviours. For
example, dialogue and communication between companies along food supply networks may have
the potential to improve environmental sustainability. Supply chains are an important conduit
between food consumer and food producer through “embedded information”, for example printed
on packaging or communicated personally at the point of retail. A value chain approach takes a more
consumer oriented focus to production and relies on providing signals back towards producers and
processors, with vital information exchange occurring at each link in the chain. A supply chain
approach is less interdependent, with chain participants seeking to sell those products which have
traditionally been produced and acting in isolation, competing with one another over margins and
with those at a similar point in other supply chains.
Fearne et al (2010) contend that in an effective value chain, firms do not operate in isolation but
instead partnerships between firms give rise to the opportunity for co-innovation. Co-innovation
becomes possible when there is a shared vision between the partners, compatible structures and
processes, opportunities for mutual benefits and co-operation, and the presence of trust and
commitment. Critically, partners must adopt a learning attitude in whatever they do together to
create an environment for co-innovation (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Innovation Roadmap
Some authors would argue that in order to achieve supply chain sustainability then not only are
changes in the way food is produced and distributed required, but also changes in consumption
patterns (Garnett 2011). However, this study focuses exclusively on sustainable production and how
that can be influenced through coordinated actions across the supply chain. Nevertheless, the role
of consumers in defining the values associated with sustainability (and with intensification) are
critical to market acceptance and support for this agenda. In this work, consultation with
representatives from the supply chain (retailers, processors and farmers) has been used as a proxy
for consumer requirements of SI.
12
Guides for assessing value chains abound and several are based on the developing country context.
Value chain analysis (VCA) has three main objectives (Fearne et al 2010):
1. To assess the innovation capacity of the chain by examining its ability and potential to improve
the efficiency and effectiveness of existing processes, and to introduce new products and
services that consumers value and are willing to pay for.
2. To identify improvement projects that would enable the chain to embrace the principles of value
chain management and to work towards collaborative solutions that involve multiple
stakeholders and an acceptance of the need to change what is done, as well as the way it is
done.
3. To provide a catalyst for change.
The methodology for VCA focuses on three key issues:
i. The dynamics of information in the value chain from final consumption through to primary
production and input suppliers and back again, namely:
ii. How inclusive, transparent and responsive are the information flows in the chain?
iii. The extent to which stakeholders’ decisions (what to produce, when to produce, how to
produce) are ‘pulled’ by what consumers value?
This is a methodology guide to identify opportunities for improvement which may include increased
efficiency through technology. It is very important to start with the consumer rather than the
changed/improved technology/way of doing things, to assess the current situation to identify
problem areas and opportunities for improvement, and then to look for solutions which may include
new technologies.
Consumers will only pay for something if it is something that they value - they might value improved
processes but may or may not be prepared to pay for them. For example, if a very "safe" product is
demanded, then they might avoid Retailer A but rather go to Retailer B where the latter has
developed a value chain to address customer concern about safety.
Supply chain workshop The purpose of workshop was to test and add to the initial desk-based analysis of this subject area.
The event was hosted by Defra at its London office and a total of 15 industry stakeholders attended
(see Annex 3). The main points arising from a facilitated discussion are set out below.
Farmers are not homogeneous and there is a significant disparity within and between sectors:
There is also a wide range of drivers, some conflicting e.g. food, energy, environment and lifestyle
but it is important to understand why some farmers are dynamic and respond to market
opportunities while others do not. There are options for more progressive farmers to farm on behalf
of (other) landowners e.g. contract farming and share farming but this needs to be facilitated.
Well managed farming systems rely on capturing and using data and this represents a key
opportunity to communicate sustainability credentials along the supply chain to the consumer:
Data is also key to efficient programming and monitoring within the supply chain. However there is a
need for a consistent set of metrics and data formats so that it can be shared along the chain for
mutual benefit. A commitment has been made to explore data needs and solutions via the Agri-tech
Informatics Centre and SIP1.
13
A more collaborative relationship between farmers and the wider supply chain through product
knowledge, data sharing and use of longer term contracts would allow farmers to better align
production with market needs and to invest in technology: While this seems entirely rational and
mutually beneficial, it is not widespread practice and may reflect differing time horizons for each
stage of the chain.
While government has a facilitating role in establishing a coherent policy framework and to
support R&D and knowledge transfer, the day-to-day implementation of SI will rely on commercial
actors to initiate change: It is also important that initiatives should recognise the primacy of
consumer-led (demand pull) action. Nevertheless, there needs to be much better transparency on
production specification, waste and value so that all elements of the supply chain are working
towards a common goal. This is difficult in a commodity-focused sector and in longer supply chains
but there are examples of effective joint working.
The promotion and dissemination of research and actions around SI needs to be well considered
and effectively communicated, not just to farmers but the whole supply chain: Impacts of new
practices and technology on productivity and on the environment are key but social responses
(business structure within farm holdings, consumer eating habits etc.) also need to be understood. SI
as a concept needs to be unpicked and more closely aligned with business objectives.
Stakeholders also noted that the structure of the farming industry is important for investment and
innovation. Engaging progressive farmers including entry of new people into farming is critical for
innovation but this is not helped by CAP subsidies and taxation rules which support the status quo
and encourage farmers not to retire. This highlights an action for policymakers to align wider policy
to support a more dynamic sector but is beyond the scope of this work.
LEAF Farmer survey – influence of the supply chain The LEAF farmer survey found that supply chain requirements were among the main drivers for
adoption of practices for producing more food but that buyer specification was also a key barrier.
Supply chain and private sector schemes, such as the Red Tractor, were regarded has having a
positive influence on adopting sustainable production practices. It should be noted that the Red
Tractor scheme is a ‘baseline’ requirement for LEAF Marque.
A secure market was highlighted as the most important aspect of the relationship with a buyer,
followed by a premium price, knowing that the farmer meets high production standards and good
feedback on what is produced. However, the main driver for greater adoption of more sustainable
practices would be higher payment to cover associated costs. This aligns with profitability as one of
the main drivers for uptake of new practices and technologies. Ultimately, farmers would like to see
greater visibility of the higher environmental standards that farmers adopt within LEAF.
Overall, farmers within the survey identified the supply chain as a strong influence and emphasised
the strong level of dialogue relating to standards, as well as the importance of ensuring a long term
relationship.
Table 3 sets out the main supply chain actions which will encourage producers to take up SI and
deliver specific outcomes. These focus on an overall need for medium term security of a market and
sustainable prices to increase food production; this applies equally to other ecosystem services. The
supplier contract was seen as a key mechanism to communicate these terms – volumes, prices and
production standards – and the need for transparency between parties. Finally, LEAF farmers
14
highlighted the need to share risks and rewards, including provision of incentives to take up or trial
new practices and technologies.
Table 3: Relationship between SI outcomes and supply chain signals to producers
SI outcome Supply chain signals to producers
Increased food production Higher contract volumes or improved prices; security of market
access or prices.
Increased non-food ecosystem
service production
Incentives for ES production
Adoption of more sustainable
practices for food production
Availability of support for investment in innovation through
initiatives or better prices; communication of good practice or
new standards for production
Change in balance of food
production
Reduced demand for existing products as lower contract
volumes or prices; availability of support for investment in new
products or new standards for production
Landscape scale management Incentives for ES production e.g. via more highly specified
standards or payment for ecosystem services (PES);
communication with producers through groups and/or
encouragement for cooperation or coordination of land
management
Optimal spatial and scale
adoption of land use for
efficient production of food
and other ES
Communication with producers
Application of appropriate metrics
Incentives for ES production
Uptake of mechanisms to
ensure values and risk are
shared across supply chain
Sharing of risks and rewards via incentives to take up or trail
new practices and technologies; communication of corporate
values
The evidence gaps and research needs relating to supply chain influence reflect a need for greater
understanding of how a dynamic supply chain can drive innovation and some specific questions
which should be addressed by the SIP. These are considered separately below.
Metrics for supply chain research The VCA approach is based on the underlying premise that sustainable competitive advantage
requires a more holistic approach to the management of the supply chain and a more focused
approach to innovation, with stakeholders working closely and in a collaborative mode to ensure
maximum effectiveness with minimal resource allocation (Fearne et al. 2010). The scope of VCA is
much broader than the focus of this research, offering a tool for ongoing process and value
improvement in a commercial environment. However, it does appear to offer a potentially insightful
approach for exploring the adaptability of different supply chains and the extent to which they might
drive sustainable intensification practices at farm level in order to meet consumer needs and
potentially add value (Bonney et al, 2009).
15
For this project a more constrained analysis might be appropriate, focusing on the three parameters:
a. The flow of information in the supply chain from final consumption through to primary
production – how inclusive, transparent and responsive are the information flows in the chain;
to what extent are producers’ decisions (what to produce, when to produce, how to produce)
pulled by the consumer?
b. The flow of value, in the eyes of the final consumer – how many of the activities associated with
production are valued by the consumer?
c. The nature of relationships between the producer and the wider supply chain.
Using the value chain approach, SIP3 research could explore how a number of supply chains in the
case study areas – across key sectors – perform. The aim would be to test the hypothesis that a
value chain approach can secure change (to more sustainable practices) more effectively than a
traditional supply chain and perhaps also add value through connecting with consumer priorities.
The interface with SIP projects 1 and 2 is critical insofar as there needs to be consistency between
what is studied in the field, at the landscape scale and in the supply chain research. It is recognised
that many sustainable practices as evidenced by science may not be valued by consumers directly
and their development and take up by the industry are premised on being cost-effective through
efficiency gains rather than price premia. Some of these practices may contribute to composite
indicators such as carbon or water footprint. Nevertheless it would be important to explore those
practices which deliver on sustainability for farmers and also secure additional value in the supply
chain.
Supply chain priorities for SIP research The following research recommendations were made by supply chain representatives at the
workshop:
1. Assessing the profile of individuals (farmer age, new entrants etc.) and different business
models (land ownership, market focus etc.) across sectors to identify key characteristics
which could support the development of SI and capacity to respond to opportunities e.g.
export markets.
2. Understanding the roles of government, consumer and private sector influence and
communication of messages to producers (language, medium etc.).
3. Scoping potential opportunities and models for data sharing to support SI at a practical
business level along the supply chain, aligned to SIP project 1.
4. Understanding the barriers to collaboration at each stage of the supply chain, capturing
established approaches to address these and exploring innovation.
5. Identifying good practice (and identifying typologies) in terms of supply chain collaboration
(trust and transparency, structure and confidence, looking at value along the chain) and
consider how it can be used in the context of SI.
6. Research on SI impacts (including a clearer articulation of what SI means to different
partners in the supply chain) should be multidisciplinary and focus on agreed areas for pre-
competitive working.
16
Public policy interventions In response to a need to improve the environmental performance of agriculture, a large number of
public policy measures have been introduced over recent decades. These apply to situations of
market failure whereby certain ‘public goods’ such as landscape quality, biodiversity and water
quality are undersupplied, due to a cost being incurred and/or the absence of reward for
protecting/enhancing the environment and the services it provides. In agriculture, the mechanisms
used vary in the degree of choice the farmer has, from encouraging voluntary action through good
practice advice, where there may be some financial gain e.g. resource efficiency, to regulation of
practice where all farmers need to act and there is no financial gain for them in doing so.
While this will continue to be the case for ‘pure’ public goods (Cooper et al 2009), public
intervention is not always needed to secure the supply of public goods provided by agriculture. In
particular, more sustainable production systems can also deliver an element of these as a side-effect
of commercial production systems. While these systems in part reflect regulation and other public
policy mechanisms, such as Cross Compliance linked to CAP subsidies, the supply chain also has an
interest in how food is produced, through consumer demand. The latter is the focus for this analysis
but it is important to recognise that it operates in the context of wider public policy mechanisms.
Mechanisms available The mix of policy instruments applied to achieve environmental outcomes reflects the nature of
property rights related to the use of natural resources and societal concerns (Vojtech, 2010). As well
as traditional regulatory and incentive based policy options, mechanisms can take the form of
“suasive” measures that seek to change perceptions and priorities to increase environmental
awareness and responsibility, including training, knowledge, information sharing and moral suasion
(negotiation, social pressure, threat of regulation or retaliation by customers or society).
The main categories of policy instruments have been variously described as:
Regulation (command and control)
Price based or market based instruments (MBIs)
Voluntary approaches
Education and information
Cooperative agreements.
These approaches are not mutually exclusive; for example, all rely on information provision to some
degree, voluntary approaches include self-regulation, and economic instruments may be
underpinned by regulation.
Table 4 summarises, in broad terms, the main types of policy instruments used in a number of OECD
countries. The key issue highlighted is the mix of policy instruments used within a given country.
The common reliance on regulatory approaches is clear but there is more variation in the use of
community based measures, which refer to the exchange and transfer of information that make use
of local expertise in solving environmental problems. In such mechanisms, the environmental
improvements rely upon the self-interest of farmers and have been variously known as landcare
groups or conservation clubs.
17
Vojtech (2010) states that whilst such programmes offer a large variety of measures, most of the
payments are related to the support of extensive forms of farming and the targets are defined
generally in terms of specific farming practices rather than outcomes.
Table 4: Types of mechanism applied in agriculture in OECD countries
Source: Vojtech, V. (2010). NA – not applied or marginal; X – low importance; XX – medium importance; XXX –
high importance.
How policy instruments influence behaviours Kinzig et al (2013) point out that any policy tool will be most effective when it can stimulate long-
term changes in beliefs and norms, creating and reinforcing the behaviours needed to support,
maintain, and enhance the public good. They further state that frequently the short term
acceptability rather than their long term efficacy determine the scope and deployment of potential
policies. Any process to develop policy should account for both timescales. However there is limited
evidence on the coevolution of social norms and different policy instruments, thus hampering
optimal policy design.
Table 5 shows how a number of policy instruments can be used to influence choices and behaviours.
They affect personal and social norms in different ways and each can backfire (boomerang effect),
eroding compliance and reducing the prevalence of the desired behaviour. The final column in Table
5 suggests some of the unintended consequences (the boomerang effect) of the different policy
instruments. Those suggested for regulation and financial intervention suggest the possibility of
negative unintended consequences. Those instruments that involve a more direct appeal to a
stakeholder could have a virtuous unintended consequence in that those who do not participate are
revealed; this, in turn, could potentially lead to a positive shift in the social norm.
More recently, there has been an increasing emphasis within environmental governance away from
a predominantly regulatory approach to price based and voluntary approaches (Jenkins et al, 2004;
Mansfield, 2006) with greater responsibility passed to individuals “either directly through the market
as a policy instrument or through policy discourses individualising the primary responsibility for land
management” (Lewis et al, 2002).
Broadly speaking, greater involvement of stakeholders in sharing responsibility for improvements in
environmental quality centre around voluntary approaches (e.g. standards, best practice) and
cooperative agreements (a range of stakeholders working collaboratively). It is recognised that
partnership approaches cannot replace essential legislation but they can work alongside it to embed
good practice and add value. This can come about via allowing the co-design/co-development of
interventions as well as incorporating synergies with existing (or planned) regulatory and
incentivised approaches.
18
Table 5: Policy instruments, changes in norms and potential "boomerang" effect
Policy
instrument
Examples Process of norm change Potential boomerang effect
Active norms
management
Advertising,
information,
appeals
Directly influencing
personal norms,
influencing belief about
what others are doing
Revealing that others are not
doing their part
Changing
architecture
Making desired
behaviours more
convenient or
more visible
Cognitive dissonance,
increasing social
disapproval for failure to
engage in easy behaviours,
creating targets for social
norms (visible behaviours)
Revealing that others are not
doing their part
Financial
interventions
Taxes, fines,
allowances,
subsidies
Regulations Laws, standards Signalling the importance
society places on certain
behaviours, repeated
behaviour and experience
Creating incentive to regain
lost freedoms, revealing that
bad behaviours are more
pervasive than previously
believed, crowding out
“other-regarding” behaviour
Source: Kinzig et al (2013)
Supply chain perspectives Approaches that involve different stakeholders in the supply chain will need to have flexibility,
realistic expectations, shared goals, be voluntary and industry-led (Defra 2013). A workshop held
with a range of supply chain stakeholders considered the role of supply chains in shaping productive
and sustainable farm practices. The workshop considered the three broad areas that the literature
review covered with responses from each issue providing interesting insight for the prospects of
further analysis and assessment of potential mechanisms. Key findings are discussed below.
Drivers and barriers to farmer behaviours: Workshop participants remarked upon the absence of
shared goals across the supply chain (which included the different decision-making timescales for
different stakeholders), patchy communication, and farmer caution (including to technology
adoption). Clearly voluntary and collaborative mechanisms have the potential to share the risks and
rewards of addressing these barriers and drivers.
Influence of the food supply chain: Comment was made as to the types of supply chains that were
better able to incorporate effective communication and that those where initiatives have developed
could serve as a catalyst for wider implementation. The importance of getting the message right
was highlighted in the recognition of the need for “translators” who can enhance buy-in from the
different parts of the supply chain. It was also suggested that there is evidence that farmers will
commit to a product when they are more integrated to the whole supply chain and can see their role
in supplying a high quality product.
19
Mechanisms for delivering SI: The key issues brought up dealt with some of the characteristics that
might be required within a mechanism rather that the mechanism itself. The retailers can engage
with and influence consumers at many different levels and there is a need for greater consumer
engagement with regard to understanding how food is produced. The role of contracts to provide
certainty to farmers was also mentioned along with the role of data sharing and the need for
Government to ensure a coherent policy framework. The role of contracts and data sharing could
be simply applied as bilateral agreements but would have greater power and influence if more
widespread.
Table 6 sets out the main mechanisms which will encourage producers to take up SI and deliver
specific outcomes. There is a considerable role for basic mechanisms such as a well specified and
secure supply contract that can provide producers with the necessary security to invest. However,
‘softer’ mechanisms such as building trust and relationships with producers and integration into the
supply chain through sharing of values and data are also important. The (limited) evidence e.g. from
the LEAF Marque survey in this study, supports the concept that value can be secured through
building a brand around shared values such as sustainability.
Table 6: Relationship between SI outcomes and supply chain mechanisms
SI outcome Supply chain mechanisms used
Increased food production Data sharing and supply contracts which provide security to
invest
Increased ecosystem service
production
More highly specified standards or payment for ecosystem
services (PES)
Adoption of more sustainable
practices for food production
More highly specified standards and/or contracts which
provide security to invest; effective communication with
producers and integration into the supply chain
Change in balance of food
production
Incentives to switch production focus and support/training;
supply contracts which provide security to invest
Landscape scale management PES and incentives/support for joining agri-environment
schemes; data sharing and supply groups / networks
Optimal spatial and scale adoption
of land use for efficient production
of food and other ES
Contracts which offer security to invest and premia for
environmental quality; data sharing and incentives to invest
in technology and metrics
Uptake of mechanisms to ensure
values and risk are shared across
supply chain
Open pricing contracts and longer term contracts to build
trust and relationships; effective communication with
producers and integration into the supply chain
Companies implementing environmental obligations with their suppliers are engaging in a private
business relationship that can generate positive external impacts for society. The authority of
private businesses derives from their market position and power which, in general, are less coercive
than the powers of Government. Suppliers can withdraw from any private scheme depending upon
the contractual underpinning. There are a number of sanctions that can be imposed under public
regulation – fines, name and shame etc. while for private schemes the ultimate sanction would be
the loss of access to a market, a potentially a very powerful sanction. Such sanctions could simply be
20
at the discretion of the firm rather than as part of a legal process and this could alienate
stakeholders with less influence.
Applying a private mechanism within a complex supply chain with many different interest groups
(who can exert different levels of power) will be determined by the inter-relations of the supply
chain actors and likely to be a contested process. Sustainable intensification is a social construct and
the concept is somewhat fluid and open to different interpretations and actions from actors. Thus,
in order to assess the process of introducing SI practices requires analysis of these interpretations
and discourses to reveal attitudes and values held by the principal actors, including the underlying
tensions and power relations between them.
The literature review and the feedback from workshop participants reflects a number of knowledge
gaps as to how supply chain stakeholders have influenced the uptake of SI practices in the past and
how they could be developed in future. A key question for the SIP research is to understand what
supply chain mechanisms currently apply across the sectors and what response they have prompted.
There are follow-on questions around supply chain relationships, sharing of data and value
associated with particular practices.
The difficulty in assessing private sector led mechanisms in aggregate, is that they will reflect the
specific needs and aspirations of individual supply chains and their customer base. The effectiveness
of a private supply chain scheme in delivering SI outcomes will depend not only in its intrinsic
effectiveness but also on the nature of supply chain relationships through contracts, investments,
and communication. Whilst a number of supply chain metrics can be applied, it is not obvious how
the effectiveness of Business-to-Business relationships in influencing SI outcomes can be measured.
Questions that are important in an SI context include:
What are the key relationship attributes that are essential to underpin a contract?
What do the key players in the relationship actually think about how it is working?
Is anyone focussed on the joint enterprise?
Who is thinking ahead about the sustainability and longevity of the relationship?
Is anyone investing in the “well-being” of the relationship?
Any mechanism needs to have legitimacy across the relevant stakeholders. This will include aspects
of transparency, influence (of all stakeholders on the design, process etc.), responsiveness to
changing circumstance and so on.
The range of private schemes and the incentives they provide will need to be explored in more detail
together with the relationship between schemes (many farms belong to more than one) and with
public policy. As schemes are often specific to supply chains, each of the case study areas in the SI
Platform is likely to encompass participation in a range of private and public schemes. For public
schemes and broad-based private schemes (e.g. Red Tractor), this could allow comparison across the
case study areas in terms of how they affect relationships and encourage the adoption of enhanced
practices. However, for more targeted schemes there is an opportunity to compare and contrast
mechanisms and their efficacy across different sectors, different contexts (case study areas) and
over time.
It may not be practicable to study the introduction of SI practices in a 2-year SIP3 project but the
relationship with various schemes over time (and how these change) could be measured, including
current initiatives on sustainable practice.
21
Key gaps and priorities identified for further research across the three themes (chapters 2-4) from
the reviews of the literature and primary research on farmer attitudes and practices, supply chain
influences and mechanisms are summarised in the matrix below. These are then brought together in
a set of three proposals for SIP3 research detailing the objectives, approach and outputs for each
and links and to the wider SIP research. This is summarised below in Table 7.
Table 7: Summary of evidence gaps and research proposals for SIP3
Farmer behaviour Supply chains Mechanisms
Farm level What SI practices do
farmers currently
adopt and what are
the barriers to others?
How can supply chains
influence farm
practices and uptake
of technology?
How can SI practices
be effectively
promoted to farmers?
Supply chain scale How do farmers
perceive the influence
of the supply chain on
farm practices?
What SI practices are
promoted by supply
chains across sectors
and why?
What mechanisms are
used to drive SI
practices and how
effective are they?
National (consumer /
society) scale
How can farmers
realise value from SI
practices with
consumers?
What SI practices are
recognised by
consumers and how
are they perceived?
How do supply chain
mechanisms for SI fit
with the wider (public)
policy context?
SIP3 project
proposals to address
thematic research
questions?
Baseline research
with SI study farms
on the uptake of and
barriers to SI
practices, the
influence of the
supply chain and
value realised by
farmers.
Supply chain mapping
and analysis to
establish the
characteristics of a
resilient supply chain
that fosters improved
productivity and
sustainability among
supplying farmers.
Action-based
research with the
supply chain to
identify effective
mechanisms for SI
uptake and what
novel approaches can
be used to implement
step change in farm
practice.
Links to SIP projects 1
and 2
P1: Develop metrics
and decision support
tools for SI practices.
P2: Map farmer data
on practices against
the landscape
typology.
P1: Scope data held by
the supply chain e.g.
audit data.
P2: Assess fit between
supplier base and
land-use opportunities
and risks spatially.
P1: Test metrics for
and communication of
SI practices.
P2: Explore scope for
supplier coordination
to deliver landscape-
scale actions.
22
1. Baseline research with SI study farms on the uptake of and barriers to SI practices, the
influence of the supply chain and value realised by farmers.
Objective: There are 2 key objectives: –
i. To build on existing knowledge of supply chains across the main food sectors, detailing key
characteristics and evidence on how they influence production practices. This will form part
of the baseline for these farms for the SIP3 project research.
ii. To provide essential supply chain context and feedback for the work of SIP1 metrics and SIP2
landscape typology insofar as the supply chain promotes or constrains particular SI attitudes
and practices across a range of landscapes and contexts.
Approach: This would involve collecting data on existing supply chains from the collaborating farms,
their evolution, characteristics and influences. The data would be captured at the same time as
wider data SIP surveys/visits where possible to minimise the burden on farmers.
Output: The data would represent a baseline for the uptake and experience of SI practices and for
supply chain relationships and mechanisms used, across a range of farms, sectors and geographies. It
would inform a typology and help steer the wider SIP3 research work as well as that of SIP1 and
SIP2.
2. Supply chain mapping and analysis to establish the characteristics of a resilient supply chain that fosters improved productivity and sustainability among supplying farmers.
Objective: There are 3 key objectives: –
i. To characterise a number of the supply chains across key sectors on the basis of value chain
characteristics (data and value flow, and relationships). This would also establish what
sustainability metrics already exist within supply chains e.g. carbon footprint, and inform
understanding of corporate priorities e.g. supply resilience, environmental credentials, etc.
ii. To research the mechanisms used in these chains to influence production practices,
including the interface with markets, public policy and sector characteristics. This would
identify barriers and help build consensus on how best to promote uptake of evolving SI
practices.
iii. To research how SI practices can be encouraged and rewarded by making reference to
consumer priorities. This would include how economic value can be realised and highlight
those practices which are not valued by consumers or that they perceive as negative.
Approach: This would involve working with a number of supply chains (across different sectors),
either those associated with the study farms for projects P1 and/or P2, or through project links to
retailers, to undertake an analysis of characteristics, mechanisms and influence. This work would
require the cooperation of supply chain companies and would focus on issues in the ‘pre-
competitive space’ will all chains contributing and benefiting. However, we recognise that ‘point of
difference’ is a strong driver for retailers and processors and we would need to protect commercial
sensitivities.
The consumer aspect would draw on a review of the literature on consumers’ priorities for a range
of product characteristics and associated farm practices but also on SIP3 action-based research with
the supply chain (see research proposal 3).
23
Output: The analysis would provide an insight into the scope for supply chains to influence farm
practices, mechanisms used and value secured. It would highlight key characteristics and conditions
for a resilient supply chain e.g. sector, farmer, landscape-scale actions, supply chain model etc.
3. Action-based research with the supply chain to identify effective mechanisms for SI uptake and what novel approaches can be used to implement step change in farm practice.
Objective: There are 3 key objectives: –
i. To observe how a number of SI practices are being promoted to one or more supply chains over the course of the research project, drivers for and barriers to uptake, and issues of implementation and audit.
ii. To use the metrics from SIP1 to identify and estimate the costs and benefits (private and public) of implementation of the SI practices on farm.
iii. To consider the scope for supplier coordination to deliver landscape-scale actions as developed through SIP2.
Approach: This action-based research would be undertaken in partnership with a number of retailers
or processors who are promoting new technology or sustainable practices to a supply chain group,
working with all parties to innovate in this area. It would involve securing cooperation from the
supply chain and establishing a monitoring programme to include regular communication with key
actors, use of diaries etc. to capture issues in real-time and how they impact on attitudes and
behaviours. We would also work closely with participating farmers to monitor issues and outcomes
for them as they arise. This might utilise supplier groups which many retailers / processors have
already established.
Output: An analysis of the operational issues of implementing SI practices through supply chains,
including barriers to uptake, costs and benefits and unintended consequences. This would be
invaluable in highlighting the opportunities for supply chain influence for the SI agenda and its
limitations. With regard to SIPI and SIP2, we anticipate that the work would inform the development
of metrics, communication approaches and decision-support tools for farmers and provide insight on
how supplier groups might help deliver coordinated landscape-scale actions. Additionally, the
research would provide a basis for ongoing (longitudinal) research to improve understanding of
influences and refine approaches to uptake and implementation SI practices, building on protocols
and relationships established in this work.
Feedback on research proposals As part of the scoping work, the draft research proposals (above) were communicated to the supply
chain representatives who had attended the workshop for comment and validation using a web-
based survey. Of the fifteen attendees at the workshop, seven responded (a mix of retailers,
processors and farmers) and provided positive feedback to the four questions, as below.
a. Would you like to be involved in the SIP research?
Five of the seven participants responded positively – the others has too many existing
commitments. “Yes. There appears to be an opportunity to refine existing supply
chains for the benefit of all those involved in them.”
b. Do you think the 3 research questions set out above for Project 3 study are the right
priorities?
All seven participants thought the research proposals were broadly right. Comments
included “There appears to be some overlap between the first question and the scope
24
of the proposed Agri-informatics centre. It would be best to focus on the simple tools
and mechanics as well as the optimum vehicles for co-ordinated knowledge transfer.”
c. Would you be interested in working with the researchers to explore how sustainable
intensification can be (further) integrated into your supply chain?
All five of those who responded positively to (a) would be interested in working with
the researchers on their own supply chain. The only precondition stated (by most)
was that “Yes, providing I.P. and confidentiality are observed if the research is not of
a general, pre-competitive nature.”
d. Would you be interested in working collaboratively with SIP on a research project for one
of your supply chains?
All five of those who responded positively to (a) would be interested in working
collaboratively with SIP on a research project. One offered “… access to our supply
chains and our producer network that brings together over 2,500 suppliers.”
On the basis of this limited response, we feel that there is a good level of support from the supply
chain to participate in a SIP3 research project to underpin and add value to the wider SIP work.
25
Antle, J.M., 1987. Econometric estimation of producers' risk attitudes. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 69 (1987), pp. 509–522
Boucher, S.R., Carter, M.R., Guirkinger, C. (2008). Risk rationing and wealth effects in credit markets:
theory and implications for agricultural development. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 90 (2) (2008), pp. 409–423
Beechener, S., et al., 2004. Entry to and Exit from Farming in the United Kingdom (RMP 2037).
Report for Defra. Available at:
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/evidence/economics/foodfarm/reports/documents/Entry.pdf
Berkhout, E.D., Schipper, R.A., Van Keulen, H., Coulibaly, O. (2011) Heterogeneity in farmers’
production decisions and its impact on soil nutrient use: Results and implications from
northern Nigeria, Agricultural Systems 104( 1), 63-74,
Brodt, S., Klonsky, K., & Tourte, L. 2006. Farmer goals and management styles: Implications for
advancing biologically based agriculture. Agricultural Systems 89 90–105
Chavas, P., Holt, M.T. (1990). Acreage decisions under risk: the case of corn and soybeans.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 72, pp. 529–538
Cooper, T., Hart, K. and Baldock, D. (2009) The Provision of Public Goods Through Agriculture in the
European Union, Report for DG Agriculture and Rural Development, Contract No 30-CE-
0233091/00-28, Institute for European Environmental Policy: London.
Defra (2013). Study on farm assurance scheme membership and compliance with regulation under
cross compliance
DeFranscesco, E., Gatto, P., Runge F. & Trestini, S (2008). Factors Affecting Farmers’ Participation in
Agri-environmental Measures: A Northern Italian Perspective. Journal of Agricultural
Economics, Vol. 59, No. 1, 114–131
Dercon, S., Christiaensen, L., 2011. Consumption risk, technology adoption and poverty traps:
evidence from Ethiopia. Journal of Development Economics, 93 (2) (2011), pp. 159–173
De Pinto, A., Robertson, R.D., and Darko Obiri, B. (2013). Adoption of climate change mitigation
practices by risk-averse farmers in the Ashanti Region, Ghana, Ecological Economics 86, 47-54.
Fearne A, Dent B, Collins R, Bonney L, McNeil D, Soosay C, 2010, Value Chain Methodology Guide
Finger, R. (2013). Expanding risk consideration in integrated models - the role of downside risk
aversion in irrigation decisions. Environmental Modelling & Software 43: 169–172.
Garnett, T. 2011, "Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the
food system (including the food chain)?", Food Policy, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. S23-S32
Jenkins, M., Scherr, S., Inbar, M. (2004). Markets for biodiversity services: potential roles and
challenges. Environment 46, 33–42.
Just, R.E., Pope, R.D., 2002. (Eds.), A Comprehensive Assessment of the Role of Risk in U.S.
Agriculture, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell MA (2002)
Just, R.E., Zilberman, D. 1983. Stochastic structure, farm size and technology adoption in developing
agriculture. Oxford Economic Papers, 35 (1983), pp. 307–328
26
Karali E., Brunner, B., Doherty, R., Hersperger, A. & Rounsevell, M., 2013. The Effect of Farmer
Attitudes and Objectives on the Heterogeneity of Farm Attributes and Management in
Switzerland. Human Ecology, 41:915–926
Kinzig, A. P., Ehrlich, P. R., Alston, L. J., Arrow, K., Barrett, S., Buchman, T. G., Daily, G. C., Levin, B.,
Levin, S., Oppenheimer, M., Ostrom, E., & Saari, D. (2013). Social Norms and Global
Environmental Challenges: The Complex Interaction of Behaviors, Values, and Policy.
BioScience, 63(3):164-175
Latacz- Lohmann, U., Schulz, N., Breustedt, G. 2014. Assessing Farmers’ Willingness to Accept
“Greening”: Insights from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Germany. Contributed Paper
prepared for presentation at the 88th Annual Conference of the Agricultural Economics
Society, AgroParisTech, Paris, France 9 - 11 April 2014.
Lewis, N., Moran, W., Cocklin, C. (2002). Restructuring, regulation and sustainability. In: Bowler, I.,
Bryant, C., and Cocklin, C. (Eds.) The Sustainability of Rural Systems: Geographical
Interpretations. Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 97–121.
Mansfield, B. (2006). Assessing market-based environmental policy using a case study of North
Pacific fisheries. Global Environmental Change 16, 29–39.
McConnell, D.J. & Dillon, J.L. 1997. Farm management for Asia: a systems approach. FAO Farm
Systems Management Series 13. FAO, Rome, Italy. 355
Porter, M.E. 1985, Competitive Advantage, Free Press, New York.
Siebert, R., Toogood, M. and Knierim, A., 2006. Factors Affecting European Farmers’ Participation in
Biodiversity Policies. Sociologia Ruralis 46, 318-240
Vojtech, V. (2010). Policy Measures Addressing Agri-environmental Issues, OECD Food, Agriculture
and Fisheries Papers, No. 24, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kmjrzg08vvb-en
Wilson, G.A. (2007). Multifunctional agriculture: a transition theory perspective. New York (Oxford
University Press) and Wallingford (CAB International), 384 pp.
Related Documents
