Modelling Policies for Multifunctional Agriculture and Rural Development a Norwegian Approach

Transcription

1 Modelling Policies for Multifunctional Agriculture and Rural Development a Norwegian Approach FINAL CONFERENCE Brussels, 7 th May 2008 Karen Refsgaard, Sjur Prestegard and Arild Spissøy Norwegian Agricultural Economics Research Institute Karen.refsgaard@nilf.no 1

2 Problematic of TOPMARD How non-commodities (and commodities) are converted into territorial development and quality of life indirectly via a transformation process and directly via the quality of life impacts; How different policies affect these processes and territorial outcomes (sustainable territorial development). 2

3 km 2 mountains, fjords, glaciers islands Pop Bergen Rural pop 30% Domestic net migration 0% Employment Industry 16% (oil) Services 73% (tourism) Others 8% Agriculture 3% Parttime, 40% rented land, 12 ha per farm Hordaland in Norway

4 Income from steep land Farm tourism Culture Multiple functions from agriculture The farming landscape Dairy farming Fruit orchards Quality of life for residents and tourists Extreme sport

5 Status for Agriculture in Hordaland 2001/2006) Farmer 22% of total income from traditional ag activities (Hordaland) 31% for Norway Incl spouse 16% of total income from agriculture 7,2 mill hours/year in traditional ag activities Of this 0,4 mill hours in additional enterprises 60,000 50,000 40,000 Distribution of land on farms Total farms Dairy farms Beef 643 farms Sheep farms Other ag systems 253 farms Fruit orchards 333 farms Land haa Distribution of land Beef 2 % Dairy 4 % Sheep 4 % Other 1 % Fruit 1 % Forest 22 % ha 30,000 20,000 10,000 Rest land 66 % 0 Dairy Granivores Beef Sheep production system Other Fruit Annual Crop Land Permanent Crop Land Grass Land 5 Forest Land

6 Aim of Norwegian Agricultural and Rural Policy Rural policy to level out the economic conditions for an equal service offer between municipalities and counties to maintain the settlement structure and sustain viable local communities. Real freedom of choice about where to live Regional strategy to sustain the current pattern of settlements Facilitating economic developments in all parts of the country Facilitating fair distribution of growth between cities and rural areas Ag policy with figure showing %numbers + Norway general a district policy with price, hectarage, headage, prod system, grazing, mountain etc. support differing with zones and sizes. Generally small and remote get relatively most! 6

7 Agricultural and rural development expenditures Hordaland SUM P1 support - Direct Farm Payments Price support to product, animal, hectarage and farm Pillar 2 like support, Axis 1 Mio EU per year ( ) Share of total support Investment support in buildings and physical production equipment Pillar 2 like support, Axis 2 Support for cultivated land and pasture animals Regional environmental programe Special environmental measures in agriculture (SMIL) Pillar 2 like support, Axis 3 Development support to farms for diversification purposes. General district development support to businesses District development support to general measures Pillar 2 like support, Axis 4 Support to particullary innovative development projects This list includes means given by Innovation Norway, County administration, County agricultural office, and the governments office for agricultural support schemes

8 Direct payment subsidies P1 mainly (2006) Headage Area and cultural landscape (Cultural landscape P2 Axis2) Dairy farming Organic farming Grazing Mountain production Other NOK 79 mill. 124 mill. (63 mill.) 72 mill. 0,8 29 mill. 29 mill. 19 mill. Ref. Norwegian Agricultural Authority (SLF) 8

9 The POMMARD (interdisciplinary) model Problematic Rural regions Multifunctional Agriculture, Rural Development, Quality of Life Interconnections and dynamics Agronomic, ecologocial, economic, social and cultural dimensions Outcome indicators Estimation of economic, environmental and social outcomes Policy scenarios Simulations show interesting results from potential future scenarios 9

10 Outcome indicators Already shown by Bryden Economic Income per capita and ag income Employment structures Regional economic productivity and efficiency Environmental Utilized agricultural area and open cultural landscapes Biodiversity, Excess Nitrogen Social Quality of life Education 10

11 Scenario runs from Hordaland incl. assumptions 1. Initial baseline with 2001-prices and 2. Baseline with 2001-prices and existing policy scemes 1. Norwegian policy characteristics 3. 50% cut in direct payments to farmers 1. In prices, headage, area, dairy etc. 2. Land use: Less production intensive (labour and capital) and more area intensive => more forest, less dairy, more sheep and beef. 4. All to Axis 2 (farm environment) 5. All to Axis 3 (rural development) 1. Land use: dairy decrease as less to ordinary farm investments and land, more to other (non-traditional) ag systems (tourism, goats etc.) increase 2. Sectors: Double impact 1. first the initial impact on construction and services, 2. second from the output and income effect of the investments 6. 50% increase in regional investment (tunnels and high schools) 7. More tourism 11

12 Change in land use 1. Baseline 2. 50% red 3. Axis 3 Comparing 50% red and Axis 3 with Baseline 50% red Forest increase, High intensive (dairy) decrease, Sheep and beef increase Ax 3 Less highly intensive and capital heavy farming, other non-tradtional ag systems increas Double investment impact: construction and service, Later output and income effect on other rural enterprises 12

13 Regional household incomes and ag income 1. Baseline 2. 50% red 3. Axis 3 50% red In region 2015: regional gain on Euro per worker, loosing ag workers and gaining non-ag workers On farms: Decrease in ag income from Euro to Euro 8 times as high income for other activities than for trad ag activities Axis 3 In region: 13 On farms: Reduction in income from Euro to Euro. Lie and Mittenzwei confirms!

14 Employment, non-ag and ag 1. Baseline 2. 50% red 3. Axis 3 Comp Baseline with scenarios 50% red and Axis 3 Total labour force increases most with 50% red However Ag employment is very little reduced for Axis 3 as to change to non-trad activities. 14

15 Non-Commodities biodiversity and cultural landscapes 1. Baseline 2. 50% red 3. Axis 3 Comp Baseline with 50% red and Axis 3 Biodiversity linked to min. N use Excess N decreases most for 50% red due to red in intensive prod systems Open cultural landscapes Increased food prices Attitudes changed the last year with more value put to agr production May change the issue of wilderness importance Threshold value for proportion of open area landscapes/agriculture covers 15

16 Migration 1. Baseline 2. 50% red 3. Axis 3 Demand driven migration Traditional need for employees Supply driven migration Economic due to income increases QoL attractions due to increased nature benefits 16

17 Quality of Life (supply-driven migration ) 1. Baseline 2. 50% red 3. Axis 3 Comparing Baseline with 50% red More forest attracts seniors and family women Increased income outside agriculture keeps youth to stay Tourists to some extent more attracted to wilderness than to ag cultural landscapes

18 Conclusions POMMARD model Analyzing multifunctional agriculture, rural economies, population dynamics and quality of life Tracing impacts of policies through to a set of clear outcomes (economic, environmental and social) Dealing with dynamic and feedback relationships Comparisons across and within countries Showing that Policy and Governance shifts have implications for how COs and NCOs are transformed into territorial rural development and Qo Project/Model improvements/needs Lack of good data on NCOs (cultural landscapes, biodiversity etc.) QoL improvements (not only nature and income, also links to cultural, social and human capital) Understanding the impact of the different Axes - where to invest etc Norway/Hordaland in particular Dynamic area: Urban rural linkages with huge employment possibilities also for farmers Large differences from central to remote The importance of cultural landscapes not considered well enough Processes that are complex Can not be considered by partial or equilibrium models, Need models that consider dynamics and can simulate LIKE POMMARD 18