Search

The EU is developing a law to ban the placing on the market of products associated with deforestation and forest degradation. This report estimates the impact of this law on soy supply chains, on EU producers feeding their animals partly with soy (meal), and on consumer products where soy is embedded. More concretely, this study estimates the extra cost of deforestation-and conversion-free(DCF)soy supply from Argentina and Brazil to the EU and the impact on the price of production and consumption in the EU, for e.g. pig meat, chicken meat, milk, beef, salmon and eggs. The study points out that for Argentina, in the highest-cost scenario, for a single trader who sets up a segregated DCF supply to the EU, these extra costs are about 1% of the cost of producing and exporting soy to the EU. In a more probable scenario, where Argentinian traders collaborate to setup a 100% DCF supply,the costs per tonne are three times lower. For Brazil the costs are estimated to be 10-20timeslowerthan for Argentina. This is due to the larger volumes exported from Brazil and reflects actions already taken in Brazil, including to comply with the Amazon Soy Moratorium. These costs will have very limited impact in the EU.With the highest-cost scenario for Argentina, the extra cost represents up to 0.2% of the average turnover of specialized farms in The Netherlands producing pigs, chicken meat, eggs or dairy. We estimate a slight decrease in the income of these producers of animal products in a transition period, varying between 0.3% for dairy farmers and 3% for pig farms, laying hen farms and poultry farms.In the “most probable scenario” the income for the farmers is estimated to decrease by up to 0.6% in a transition period.When the EU regulation is implemented, however, all European producers will switch to DCF soy for animal feed, and this cost increase will be passed on to the subsequent links in the supply chain through the functioning of the market. After the transition period, which, The EU is developing a law to ban the placing on the market of products associated with deforestation and forest degradation. This report estimates the impact of this law on soy supply chains, on EU producers feeding their animals partly with soy (meal), and on consumer products where soy is embedded. More concretely, this study estimates the extra cost of deforestation-and conversion-free(DCF)soy supply from Argentina and Brazil to the EU and the impact on the price of production and consumption in the EU, for e.g. pig meat, chicken meat, milk, beef, salmon and eggs. The study points out that for Argentina, in the highest-cost scenario, for a single trader who sets up a segregated DCF supply to the EU, these extra costs are about 1% of the cost of producing and exporting soy to the EU. In a more probable scenario, where Argentinian traders collaborate to setup a 100% DCF supply,the costs per tonne are three times lower. For Brazil the costs are estimated to be 10-20timeslowerthan for Argentina. This is due to the larger volumes exported from Brazil and reflects actions already taken in Brazil, including to comply with the Amazon Soy Moratorium. These costs will have very limited impact in the EU.With the highest-cost scenario for Argentina, the extra cost represents up to 0.2% of the average turnover of specialized farms in The Netherlands producing pigs, chicken meat, eggs or dairy. We estimate a slight decrease in the income of these producers of animal products in a transition period, varying between 0.3% for dairy farmers and 3% for pig farms, laying hen farms and poultry farms.In the “most probable scenario” the income for the farmers is estimated to decrease by up to 0.6% in a transition period.When the EU regulation is implemented, however, all European producers will switch to DCF soy for animal feed, and this cost increase will be passed on to the subsequent links in the supply chain through the functioning of the market. After the transition period, which

Utilitarian cycling is recognized as an excellent way of being physically active on a regular basis and maintaining good health [1]. Unfortunately, some cyclists will be involved in an accident, will need medical care and may incur temporal or permanent physical injuries, which will induce costs to the cyclist and society. Aertsens [2] estimated, in Belgium, the average total cost of minor bicycle accidents at 841 euro (95% CI: 579‐1205) per accident or 0.125 euro per kilometre cycled. The aim of this study is to provide more insight into the resulting costs of major bicycle accidents in Flanders (Belgium). Data were collected in a retrospective study design. In 2008, 2364 bicycle accidents in Flanders were registered by the National Trust for Accidents (FAO). From those 2364 invited participants, 289 returned the questionnaire and 26 were classified as a major accident (hospitalised > 24 hours) and used for data analysis. Direct costs (e.g. material damage and medical costs), as well as indirect costs (e.g. productivity loss), intangible costs and Willingness To Pay (WTP) are calculated. For calculating of costs a differentiation was made between a recovery phase and a permanent disability phase. Costs were calculated over a period of 3 year after the accident. Nine respondents fully recovered and 17 had permanent damage. The average cost excluding WTP (€2011) per respondent (N=26) is €60,776±69,433, €35,190±39,317 for those who fully recovered and €74,322±78,718 for those who had permanent damage. When including WTP, the cost increases with +35% for the total group, +53% for those who fully recovered and +31% for those who had permanent damage. Total annual bicycle injury costs are huge, but these costs must be balanced against the benefits of bicycling, related to health and environment.

n/a

Voordelen van groen in een stedelijke context.

n/a

De EU, maar ook nationale en regionale overheden geven heel wat ondersteuning aan de biologische landbouwsector. Ook veel consumenten zijn bereid een meerprijs te betalen voor “biologische voeding”. Hebben biologische landbouwproductie en biologische voeding effectief een meerwaarde die deze ondersteuning en meerprijs verantwoordt? Dit onderzoek heeft als doelstelling op basis van wetenschappelijke argumenten een antwoord te geven op die vraag. Indien dit blijkt het geval te zijn, kunnen deze resultaten mogelijk ook leiden tot het toelaten van “voedingsclaims” en “gezondheidsclaims” die de consumenten correct kunnen informeren over deze mogelijke meerwaarde en op die manier ook de verkoop van bio kan promoten. Het gebruik van gezondheidsclaims voor biologische producten is tot op heden niet mogelijk, juist omdat er onvoldoende wetenschappelijke onderbouwing is om dit hard te kunnen maken. Dit rapport bespreekt de meerwaarde van biologische ten opzichte van “gangbare” productie en voeding. Dit gebeurt op basis van een meta-analyse van reeds bestaande wetenschappelijke literatuur. Er wordt gefocust op vier luiken. Het eerste luik van het onderzoek behandelt de vergelijking van de biologische en gangbare productie wat betreft “milieuvriendelijkheid”. Er wordt in belangrijke mate ook aandacht besteed aan de vergelijking van de mogelijke schadelijke impact van biologische en gangbare gewasbeschermingsmiddelen voor de gebruiker en het milieu. Het tweede en derde luik focussen op mogelijke verschillen tussen biologische en gangbare groenten inzake respectievelijk de voedingswaarde en de voedselveiligheid. Waar het in de eerste drie luiken gaat over onderzoek naar objectieve wetenschappelijke bevindingen inzake verschillen tussen biologische en gangbare productie en voeding, wordt in een vierde luik de perceptie van consumenten bekeken inzake verschillen tussen bio en gangbaar die zou kunnen leiden tot een subjectieve meerwaarde. Tenslotte wordt een vergelijking gemaakt tus