Search

This research employs two alternatively framed but formally equivalent discrete choice ex- periments that examine UK consumer preferences regarding chlorine washed chicken. One is framed in a common purchase format, the other employs a format that endows respondents with a voucher that they can use to redeem for a chicken product, or exchange, in part, for an alternative chicken product or cash. We find that the difference in our value estimates is small regardless of how we implement our choice experiment. Our analysis also differentiates the value estimates by respondent attitude to Brexit. The results reveal that being positively disposed toward Brexit means that respondents are less likely to value chlorine washed chicken negatively. Yet, of equal or greater significance, those respondents who hold positive attitudes with regard to Brexit still value EU food safety standards and quality assurance schemes such as Red Tractor highly. This suggests that attitudes to Brexit and preferences regarding food do not necessarily align in support of trade agreements that may require the UK to lower ex- isting food safety and animal welfare standards. Potential policy solutions to ensure consumer preferences are satisfied are discussed.

We report the findings from a hypothetical discrete choice experiment (DCE) examining UK consumer attitudes for food produced using agricultural production methods currently prohibited in the UK i.e., hormone implants in beef; Ractopamine in pig feed; chlorine washed chicken; and Atrazine pesticide. Our results reveal that on average the public have very negative values for these forms of agricultural production methods. We also find that respondents highly value food products that observe EU food safety standards. Our willingness to pay estimates show that the positive values for food safety are frequently greater than negative values placed on the food production methods examined. Similarly, UK country of origin was highly valued but organic production was not valued as highly. These results clearly indicate that the only attribute that is negatively valued across all DCE are the production methods that are currently not allowed within the EU or UK.

This report has been prepared by Areté s.r.l. – Research & Consulting in Economics, Agra CEAS Consulting Ltd | IEG Agribusiness intelligence | Informa and Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (European Commission), Marketing standards have been a feature of the CAP since its early days, with a view to taking into account the expectations of consumers and to contributing to the improvement of the economic conditions for the production and marketing of agricultural products, as well as to the improvement of their quality. The evaluation aims at assessing the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value of marketing standards established by Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, by secondary CMO legislation and by the “Breakfast Directives”. Recommendations aimed at addressing the most significant issues emerged from the assessment focus on: i) the need to investigate on the implications of improper use of protected dairy terms (e.g. milk, butter) for marketing plant-based substitutes for dairy products; ii) possible updates to specific provisions concerning poultry meat and olive oil; iii) improving consumer awareness about marketing standards; iv) clarifying to national competent authorities the hierarchical relationship between EU marketing standards and EU legislation on food safety and provision of food information to consumers; v) promoting empirical research on the potential implications of EU marketing standards in terms of increased/reduced food losses and waste; vi) investigating the possible benefits of establishing a harmonised EU definition for cider.

There is concern among part of the UK policy community that Brexit may damage the contribution that the farming industry makes to social networks, social capacity, community resilience and other aspects of social and cultural capital in rural areas. There is a perception that the current contributions may be particularly significant in the more remote and least densely populated parts of the UK. A lack of hard evidence could result in possible under- or over-estimates of the importance of agriculture’s social contributions to rural communities and thus inappropriate policy responses (over- or under-reacting) to mitigating any likely damage from Brexit. The Welsh Government commissioned a study2, the genesis of this paper, to examine the available evidence and to propose ways of filling gaps. The paper discusses the issued involved in identifying and evaluating evidence of agriculture’s social contributions and the proposals for further research to fill evidence gaps, with specific reference to Wales.

This study investigates the cost of and good practices for FADN data collection in EU Member States during the period 2012-2014 using evidence gathered from existing literature, a survey of EU-28 FADN Liaison Agencies, nine case studies, and interviews with senior policy officials within the European Commission and the OECD. Costs were assessed both in money terms and by labour input along the data supply chain; total annual public costs of FADN averaged €59 million. A variety of institutional arrangements are used by Member States to provide data to FADN. Within these, three types of organisation carry out the process of data collection: FADN Liaison Agencies; public advisory bodies; and, accounting firms. Data collection by accounting firms from accounts drawn up at the expense of farmers for tax purposes provides data at the lowest public cost per farm. At the other extreme, highest costs per farm are where advisory agencies combine data collection with provision of extension services. FADN data are widely used by Member States and therefore bring substantial, if unquantified, benefits. Examples of good practices which can be shared between Member States and that are reflected principally in costs and benefits are identified

In this report we present our findings and conclusions on the economics of country of\ud origin food labels (CoOL) as they apply to meat sold to consumers in the UK. The\ud need for this research was motivated by recent EU legislation regarding how meat\ud products can and might be labelled with respect to CoOL. The main objectives of the\ud research were:\ud \ud 1. To review and synthesise the existing literature to identify and understand UK\ud consumer preferences regarding CoOL of meat products.\ud \ud 2. To design and implement a series of hypothetical choice experiments (CEs) to\ud ascertain consumer perception of the relative importance of different labelling\ud requirements in terms of average UK consumer willingness-to-pay (WTP).\ud \ud 3. To cover a broad range of meat products (i.e., unprocessed swine, sheep,\ud goat and poultry) in fresh, chilled, frozen format plus meat used as an\ud ingredient (including beef).\ud \ud To address these objectives we undertook three specific but related pieces of\ud research:\ud \ud 1. We designed and conducted 12 hypothetical CEs via six online survey\ud instruments. To inform the design and implementation of our CEs we undertook an\ud extensive review of the antecedent literature. This review revealed an extensive set\ud of attributes to consider for use in our CEs. We then refined this set of attributes after\ud extensive discussions and a small pilot study. The scope and coverage of products\ud examined reflect the wide ranging scope of the legislation. For all 12 products we\ud estimated WTP for CoOL and various other product attributes.\ud \ud 2. We designed and implemented an additional hypothetical CE employing eyetracking (ET). The ET CE examined respondent attention and attendance to\ud attributes during the CE. The results from the ET were compared to the online\ud survey results yielding information in relation to how well respondents engaged with\ud the CEs, magnitude of estimates as well as consistency. The results from our ET CE\ud provide a means by which to assess the internal validity of the results provided by\ud our 12 online CEs.\ud \ud 3. We undertook an analysis of market transaction data; a revealed preference\ud study using data obtained from Kantar. This piece of analysis allowed us to see the\ud extent to which consumers have already responded to CoOL and if there exists a price premium being paid for CoOL in the UK. The results obtained from the Kantar\ud data allowed us to assess the external validity of our CE results.

Demonstrating the impact of Knowledge Transfer activities and advisory services aimed at farmers is important to justify their use in the achievement of policy goals and in the spending of public funds. Experience gained in evaluating Farming Connect in Wales, the programme delivering these services using a wide range of activities, is drawn on to illustrate issues faced in detecting economic impacts at farm and sector levels, in particular in establishing the counterfactual. The various methodological tools employed are compared, including the common but 'naïve' approach of asking farmers about impacts on their business, and the 'quasi-experimental' one of comparing samples of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. Rather different results are obtained (farmer responses suggesting a far greater level of impact) and reasons for these are sought. Lessons have been learned that need to be taken into account in the future design of monitoring and evaluation and for the selection of the types of activities that receive public support.

The aim of the study was to review the policy instruments under the framework of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), 2007-13, by: • reviewing intervention rationales and instruments and their use against the objectives, priorities and key actions in the EU Strategic Guidelines; • assessing whether and how RD rationales and instruments should be adapted to deliver these more effectively. The study involved 8 tasks, grouped into 3 themes of analysis: 1) the targeting of EU-27 rural development expenditure, 2000-13, including the development of databases of EU-27 rural area characteristics and ‘indicators of need’ for RD; 2) consideration of the adequacy of the current EAFRD framework, based upon an evaluation of instruments’ cost-effectiveness; the a priori development of a typology of RD interventions and catalogue of instruments; an analysis of delivery mechanisms; and assessment of instruments in ‘fiches’; 3) conclusions and recommendations. In the event, progress in finalising national and/or regional RDPs 2007-13 was delayed,over the study period. Thus, the approach was modified to incorporate more qualitative analysis and the expenditure analysis was made using incomplete figures (July 2007), so 4% of total EAFRD planned expenditure was missing.