Socio-economic analysis of NAP regulation implementation Dr. Cathal Buckley Teagasc ACP Team Teagasc Colleagues: David Wall, Edel Kelly, Brian Moran, Thia Hennessy, Cathal O’ Donoghue, Aine Macken-Walsh, Kevin Heanue. Others: Paul Murphy (UCD), Sarah Mechan (EPA), Stephen Hynes, Stephen O’Neill, Patricia Carney (NUI Galway) Peter Howley (University of York)
29
Embed
Socio-economic analysis of NAP regulation im · 2019. 6. 25. · Socio-economic analysis of NAP regulation implementation Dr. Cathal Buckley Teagasc ACP Team Teagasc Colleagues: David
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
Socio-economic analysis of NAP regulationimplementation
Dr. Cathal BuckleyTeagasc ACP TeamTeagasc Colleagues: David Wall, Edel Kelly, Brian Moran, Thia Hennessy, Cathal O’Donoghue, Aine Macken-Walsh, Kevin Heanue.Others: Paul Murphy (UCD), Sarah Mechan (EPA), Stephen Hynes, Stephen O’Neill,Patricia Carney (NUI Galway) Peter Howley (University of York)
Introduction
Overview of Irish agriculture
ACP socio-economic research
Research in development
Agriculture in Republic of Ireland
Population of 4 million - produces enough food for 36 million people
Between 85-90% of production exported → Agri-food 10.6% of totalexports 6.3% of gross value added 7.4% of national employment
Milk and beef production are 60% of Ag. output - grazed grass systems
5th largest beef exporter in in the world (500,000 tonnes annually)
Dairying most intensive land based sector - 15,654 farms producing 5.6billion litres of milk 1% of world dairy cows 10th largest dairy export nation in world. 15% of the world’s infant milk formula
Between 2000-2010, highest average wheat and second highest averagebarley yields in the world
Terms of reference - ACP
Economic component
Nutrient management efficiency
Attitudinal / Behavioural Element
Uptake of NM best practices
Provision of ecosystem services
First Thematic Area -Nutrient management efficiency
Benchmarks farms against most efficient in the sample
Ratio of outputs to inputs (Milk and cereals → Fertiliser, feeds, labour, other variable costs.
Stratified by good & average soils using National Farm Survey 2008 data.
Results of this one year static analysis Some inefficiency in the system (83-87% technical efficiency)
23-33 Kgs N Ha-1 and 2.9-3.5 Kgs P Ha-1
€39-49 Ha-1 modelled fertiliser cost savings
Buckley, C. and P. Carney., 2013. "The potential to reduce the risk of diffuse pollutionfrom agriculture while improving economic performance at farm level." EnvironmentalScience & Policy 25:118-126.
More Recent Research – NM Efficiency
Policymakers - Indicators of environmental sustainability? EU Nitrates Directive – What if anything has changed?
Temporal trends in the sustainable use of N and P using theTeagasc National Farm Survey (Buckley, Murphy, Wall, &Moran) NFS part of the EU Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) National representativeness
Research outputs1. Indicators in the use of N & P across 6 different farm systems Baseline and benchmarking – base year of 2012
2. Improvement in the efficiency of use of N and P at farm levelbetween 2006-2012 using NFS specialist dairy farms? Effect of regulations
Sustainability Indicators - Measurement Metrics
1. Farm-gate balance (N & P) Inputs and outputs that go through the farm gate
P Other Imports Kgs Ha-1 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0
Total P Imports Kgs Ha-1 22.0 17.0 16.3 14.3 15.0 13.9 15.2
Exports (Mean)
P Milk Kgs Ha-1 5.6 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.6 5.7 5.5
P Other Exports Kgs Ha-1 4.3 4.1 3.9 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6
Total P Exports Kgs Ha-1 9.9 9.8 9.4 8.8 9.2 9.3 9.1
P Balance Kgs Ha-1 12.1 7.2 7.0 5.5 5.8 4.6 6.1
P use efficiency 59.2 72.9 77.6 79.5 80.0 88.3 78.0
Results 2006-2012
N balance decline of 24.9 kgs ha-1 & NUE increase of 2.4% isattributable to reduced chemical N imports mainly. Equivalent to reduction of 1,245 kgs of N across the average farm Saving of €1,344 per annum on the average farm
P balances has declined by almost 50% (6.0 kgs ha-1) and Puse efficiency has increased by circa 19 per cent across theaverage specialist dairy farm Equivalent to 300 kgs of P across the average farm Saving of €863 per annum across the average farm Soil P status unknown?
Win-win double dividend scenario
Regulation – No counterfactual, other drivers? Fertiliser prices, stocking rates, land use potential – soils, contact with
extension services, rainfall and temperature.
Second Thematic Area -Ecosystems services provision
Sustainable Intensification Provision of environmental non-market public goodsAgri-environment schemes
If a 5 year scheme was introduced → 10 metres fenced buffer zone,capital cost covered. Participation? (N=247, 12 catchments)
A = I would not participate in such a scheme (53%)
B = I would participate in the scheme on free-of-charge basis (7%)
C = I would participate if I was provided with an appropriate financialincentive (40%)
Participation affected – Lower opportunity cost to land, environmentalprotection attitudes, history of agri-environment participation …
Price demanded – €1.53 metre
Willingness of farmers to adopt riparian buffer zones
Buckley, C., Hynes, S., Mechan, S. 2012. Supply of an ecosystem service –Farmers willingness to adopt riparian buffer zones in agriculturalcatchments. Environmental Science & Policy, 24, 101-109.
Critical Source Areas Work in ACP Targeting measures
Paper under review – International Journal of Agriculturalmanagement
Baseline established – Survey about to be repeated
Wider survey of slurry management practice NFS 2009/10 52 % of all slurry was applied between the end of the closed period
in January and April 30th. 35% of slurry was applied in the spring ina 2003 survey
6 per cent of dairy farmers reported using the trailing shoe
Full report Hennessy et al (2009) – Being built into normal NFScollection schedules
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
CountyCouncil
DEHLG
EPANon
Teagascagricultural consultant
DAFF
Thefarm
organisations
Accountant / taxconsultant
Discussiongroup
Farmw
alks/information
events
Farming
press
Other farm
ers
Family
Teagasc Adviser
Mo
tiv
ati
on
Motivation to follow opinion or advice regarding NMpractices (N=402)
Mean Scores (1 to 5)
Survey of ACP and Control catchments (N=401)
58% of farmers in REPS indicated they didn’t use aNMP
What form do farmer wants their NM advice to take?
What do advisors need to provide this?
Focus groups of advisors & farmers to examine thesefundamental questions
NM Plan Development – Open Innovation
Participatory Research with FarmersFarmer focus group – Design Ideal Nutrient Management Plan
Farmers tend not to be that heavily involved in NMP development process. This is arole generally undertake by an advisor.
There was a general consensus that farmers should develop and use NMPs asfertilisers are expensive and it’s important from an agronomic and environmentalperspective to use correctly.
Farmers would welcome more exposure to information around managing soils.
A NMP needs to be useful to farmer and not just deal with compliance
A NMP has to be simple and flexible.
The farmer focus group recommended a 1 page laminated A4 sheet with a map on thefront and table on the back.
Decision supports tools – text messaging.
Conclusion Snapshot overview of ACP socio-economic research
6 years of work so just giving a flavour
Didn’t touch on collaborative work on going
Nutrient management efficiency
Baselines established
Improvement in efficiency since NAP measures in 2006 across dairysystems
Opinions and attitudes
NM practices subject to a range of influence – Policy?
Baselines established
Set up to do a lot of exciting analysis – Phase 3?