Aniol Esteban

Click here to load reader

  • date post

    18-Dec-2014
  • Category

    Technology

  • view

    166
  • download

    5

Embed Size (px)

description

 

Transcript of Aniol Esteban

  • 1. Farming for public benefit UK case-study [email protected] www.neweconomics.org nef (new economics foundation)
  • 2. Two key messages Sustainable food production makes economic sense Some types of farming / food production create value to society others destroy it which ones should we favour?
  • 3. nef (new economics foundation) Working towards an economy which delivers high well-being and social justice within ecological limits The current economic model is inefficient delivering well-being returns per use of natural resources
  • 4. The standard model Growth Output Inputs Resources Labour
  • 5. The new model Output Input Resources e.g. economy Mediator Well-being
  • 6. The value of different professions
  • 7. The value of different professions Childcare workers Hospital cleaners Waste recycling workers Positive Value 7 to 12 of value per 1 paid City bankers Tax accountants Advertising executives Negative value -7 to -47 per 1 paid (Note: theres diversity within the sectors. Cant put everyone in same pot)
  • 8. The value of different fishing techniques Gillnet Trawling
  • 9. The value of different fishing techniques Gillnets Positive Value 865 of value per Tm of cod landed Trawlers Negative Value -116 to -1992 per Tm of cod landed
  • 10. The value of different fishing techniques Gillnets Positive Value 865 of value per Tm of cod landed Trawlers Negative Value -116 to -1992 per Tm of cod landed % of quota Subsidies Gillnets 1% 38/Tm landed Trawler 99% 216/Tm landed
  • 11. How does all this apply to the farming context?
  • 12. Agricultural systems are multifunctional ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL revenues operational costs annualised capital costs subsidies taxes profitability productivity tourism impact upstream/downstream impacts GHG emissions - fuel - bovine methane - land use change - energy GHG capture - afforestation soil erosion nutrient run-off air pollution waste treatment biodiversity energy use/intensity diversification/crop rotation visual landscape employment - quantity - quality skills/education local social capital - trust - community cohesion social services resilience/security animal welfare housing nutrition quality of life working conditions self-sufficiency cultural heritage
  • 13. Impacts with market values ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL revenues operational costs annualised capital costs subsidies taxes profitability productivity visual landscape employment - quantity - quality tourism impact upstream/downstream impacts skills/education local social capital - trust - community cohesion social services resilience/security animal welfare housing nutrition quality of life working conditions self-sufficiency GHG emissions - fuel - bovine methane - land use change - energy GHG capture - afforestation soil erosion nutrient run-off air pollution waste treatment biodiversity energy use/intensity diversification/crop rotation
  • 14. Impacts: no market value but easy to monetise ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL revenues operational costs annualised capital costs subsidies taxes profitability productivity visual landscape employment - quantity - quality tourism impact upstream/downstream impacts skills/education local social capital - trust - community cohesion social services resilience/security animal welfare housing nutrition quality of life working conditions self-sufficiency GHG emissions - fuel - bovine methane - land use change - energy GHG capture - afforestation soil erosion nutrient run-off air pollution waste treatment biodiversity energy use/intensity diversification/crop rotation
  • 15. Impacts: no market values and hard to monetise ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL revenues operational costs annualised capital costs subsidies taxes profitability productivity tourism impact upstream/downstream impacts GHG emissions - fuel - bovine methane - land use change - energy GHG capture - afforestation soil erosion nutrient run-off air pollution waste treatment biodiversity energy use/intensity diversification/crop rotation visual landscape employment - quantity - quality skills/education local social capital - trust - community cohesion social services resilience/security animal welfare housing nutrition quality of life working conditions self-sufficiency cultural heritage
  • 16. Case study: UK farming business in terms of value to society
  • 17. net income (/ha) 498 428 405 341 312 220 216 173 Cropping Non-organic Dairy Lowland grazing Organic Source: Farm Business Survey (2011-2012) Grazing in less favoured areas
  • 18. Malcolm Mconventional 200 ha arable farm Grows winter wheat Uses 160 kg of artificial fertiliser (N) and 19.4 kg of farm yard manure (FYM) per hectare Generates a net income of 428 / ha Employs 4.38 workers (Full time equivalent)
  • 19. Oliver Organic 200 ha arable farm Grows winter wheat Uses 97 kg of farm yard manure (FYM) Generates a net income of 341 / ha Employs 8,66 workers (Full time equivalent)
  • 20. net value (/ha) 428 341 Net income Conventional - carbon costs Organic - nitrogen costs
  • 21. net value (/ha) 428 395 341 Net income Conventional 333 - carbon costs Organic - nitrogen costs
  • 22. net value (/ha) 428 395 341 333 232 Net income Conventional - carbon costs Organic 259 - nitrogen costs
  • 23. Parameter Conventional Organic Net income + 428 + 341 Carbon costs - 33.1 - 8.12 Nitrogen costs - 162.8 - 74.2 Net value 232 / ha 259 / ha Carbon cost: 54 / Tm of CO2 eq Costs of Nitrogen (health) (environment) Nitrogen 64p / kg 25p / kg Farm Yard manure 83p / kg 25p / kg
  • 24. Employment: negative cost or positive externality? Option 1 (wages) Treat it both as cost and externality. If not employed they find another job. Value of 1 FTE = wage Option 2 (wages + added value) Treat as above + additional value of one less person unemployed. If not employed, X% chance to find job (depends on unemployment) Value of 1 FTE = wage + (wage * unemployment rate) Employing someone with small chance to get a job delivers additional value to nearly twice the value of the salary. Value of 1 FTE = wage + (wage * 97%)
  • 25. Employment: negative cost or positive externalit