Search

The purpose of this article is to propose an improved methodology to determine a viable farm size for potential emerging farmers as land reform beneficiaries. Land reform in South Africa has been criticised because of poor implementation and slow pace, accompanied by poor productivity in redistributed land. To explain this, it has been suggested that commercial farms are too large for emerging farmers who have little or no experience in commercial farming. Thus, there have been calls for measures to make subdivision of land easier and cheaper. To this end, cross–sectional survey data from 833 potential emerging farmers in three rural provinces are analysed to determine a viable income for emerging farm households as a basis for calculating a viable farm size, using the income aspiration literature, farm household economics theory as a point of departure. Off–farm income, farm income and aspirational income are included in the calculation. The viable income was matched to the existing commercial farm enterprise gross margins per hectare obtained from the Bureau for Food and Agricultural Policy, which are then used as the basis for suggesting "viable farm sizes" for different emerging farm households. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Direct payments represent a large share of Swiss farmers' total household income but compliance with related requirements often entails a high administrative burden. This causes individuals to experience policy implementation as onerous. Based on a framework for administrative burden in citizen-state interactions, we test whether farmers' individual knowledge, psychological costs and compliance costs help to explain their perception of administrative burden related to direct payments. We refine this framework by testing different specifications of interrelations between psychological costs and perceived administrative burden based on findings from policy feedback theory and education research. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is applied to data collected from a representative sample of 808 Swiss farmers by postal questionnaire in 2019. We find that compliance costs and psychological costs contribute significantly to the perceived administrative burden. In contrast, farmers' knowledge level contributes to this perception not directly but indirectly, with higher knowledge reducing psychological costs. Our results support policy feedback theory, in that a high level of administrative burden increases psychological costs. Furthermore, well-educated and well-informed farmers show a more positive attitude toward agricultural policy and thus perceive administrative tasks as less onerous. Policy-makers should invest in the reduction of administrative requirements to reduce compliance costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Result- and multi-actor-oriented agri-environmental payment schemes are considered more cost-effective than action-oriented schemes in providing environmental public goods. This study analysed socio-economic determinants influencing the implementation of three types of agri-environmental scheme: action-, result- and multi-actor-oriented payment schemes. We relied on farm-level data from 2015 to 2017 retrieved from the Swiss Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) and individually linked with Swiss agricultural census data. The census data provided detailed information on the proportions of action-, result- and multi-actor-oriented ecological focus areas (EFAs) implemented on each FADN farm. We found evidence that farmers' knowledge and competences are more important for result- and multi-actor-oriented EFAs than for action-oriented schemes: farms managed by young full-time farmers with higher levels of education have significantly higher proportions of result-oriented EFAs. In addition, farmers with higher levels of education who manage larger farms have significantly higher proportions of multi-actor-oriented EFAs. Furthermore, institutional factors such as cantonal authorities strongly influenced the proportions of result- and multi-actor-oriented EFAs. In contrast, the implementation of action-oriented EFAs was strongly driven by farm type. We observed higher proportions of action-oriented EFAs for farm types where implementation led to little change in farming practices (for instance, extensive ruminant farms). This adverse selection behaviour resulting from low compliance costs was not observed for result- or multi-actor-oriented EFAs. • We empirically investigated socio-economic determinants influencing proportions of ecological focus areas (EFAs). • Determinants for proportions of action-oriented EFAs were compared with those for result- and multi-actor-oriented EFAs. • Farms managed by young full-time farmers with higher education levels tend to have significantly higher result-oriented EFAs. • High production intensity negatively affects the proportions of action-, result- and multi-actor-oriented EFAs. • Institutional factors play a crucial role in fostering the provision of environmental public goods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Food production causes large environmental impacts. In Switzerland, more than half of the initial potato production is not directly consumed by humans but lost. To analyze the environmental impacts caused by these losses, we conducted a Life Cycle Assessment concerning the demand for nonrenewable energy resources, the global warming potential, human toxicity and ecotoxicity (terrestrial and aquatic). We allocated these environmental impacts at each stage of the Swiss potato supply chain to marketable potatoes and potato losses. Furthermore, this study investigated how potential loss reduction scenarios and various loss treatments (animal feed, biogas, incineration) might affect the total ecological performance of the supply chain. The results showed that potato losses were responsible for 39% of the total terrestrial ecotoxicity, 31% of the total potato supply chain's global warming potential, 31% of its human toxicity, 27% of its aquatic ecotoxicity and 23% of its demand for nonrenewable energy resources. The results indicated in general that environmental benefits due to the loss treatments were bigger than benefits achieved by the loss reduction scenarios. Loss treatments, in particular feeding and fermentation, could reduce the examined impacts, but not generating losses represented a better option, especially at the household stage (the impacts here were 8–42 times as high as the impacts of losses at agricultural production). A combination of loss reduction and loss treatment could overcompensate the environmental impacts caused by potato losses because potatoes may be used to substitute for other goods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop a theory that is sufficiently adapted to sector competitiveness. The case of greenhouse vegetable production in The Netherlands and Switzerland is used to explain differences in sector competitiveness. Design/methodology/approach – Interviews focusing on the fields of spatial planning, labor, energy supply, and market organization were carried out with stakeholders and producers in both countries and evaluated by Grounded Theory. Findings – The work shows that the flexibility not only of producers, but also of the whole institutional framework in The Netherlands exceeds the flexibility on the Swiss side by far, which may be an important factor for explaining differences in competitiveness. Research limitations/implications – The result that it is a basic difference in flexibility and adaptability that determines sector competitiveness is valid for the vegetable sector. It should be examined whether similar patterns can be found in other sectors. Originality/value – The competitiveness discussion is transferred to a new economic level, namely the economic sector. Likewise, new answers are found in looking for explanations for differences in competitiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]