Farmers’ Value Assessments A case study from Scania, Southern Sweden

Dr. Joachim H. Spangenberg, Biodiversity and SPAC, Belgrade 9.10. 07

Farmers’ Value Assessments A case study from Scania, Southern

Sweden

Joachim H. Spangenberg, Susanne Mauren

UFZ Helmholtz Centre for Environment Research, Dept. Community Ecology, Halle, GermanyJoachim.Spangenberg [at] ufz.de or [at] gmail.com, Vorsterstr. 97-99, 51103 Köln, Germany, Tel. +49-221-2168-94

7th Annual ESP Conference 2014

“Local action for the common good”September 8th – 12th, 2014, San Jose, Costa Rica

Juliana Dänhardt

Lund University, Centre for Environmental and Climate Research, Lund, SwedenJuliana Dänhardt <[email protected]>, http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se


The Case


Location

The case study was conducted in Skåne, Southern Sweden, a mostly agri-cultural area.


Participants

11 farmers and staff, interviewed in their homes,

by a 2 person team


Interviews

Qualitative interviews, with open questions and backed by a guideline.

Asking for kind of management (which cereals & vegetables, how aphid infestations are treated), the role of biocontrol and explicitly for financial considerations and criteria.

Asking for motivations (open question)


Objective & frame of the study

• Role of biocontrol in supressing aphids on cereals.

• Assessing the pest suppression potential.

• Identifying the values associated with management types.

• Evaluating potentials for substituting biocontrol for insecticide use.


Choice of interview partners

SEITE 7

Conventional Organic Flower strip

Homo-geneous 1 2 2

Hetero-geneous 2 2 2


Results


Results: by landscapeKnown from literature:• Higher infestation rates in homogenous,

lower in heterogenous landscapes.• Conventional farmers prefer homogenous,

organic farmers heterogenous landscapes.Finding: • no difference in responses and

management choice by landscape, farmers were not aware of its role in infestation/biocontrol.


Results: by management type

• Flower strip farmers were conventional.• All farmers are loss-averse; conventional farmers were risk-averse, practicing preventive spraying explicitly for reasons of risk avoidance.

• None of them based this decision on comparing potential harvest losses spraying to cost.


Results: by management type• Organic farmers did not undertake a CBA either, as in their business model, insecticide use was no option, and

• a cost calculation for this non-option recognized as useless.

• They relied on biocontrol for mini-mising pest damage, knowing it would not be avoided completely.

• They managed following a “whole system” approach, not one component.


Results: value types indicatedValues mentioned in the interviews include • existence, aesthetic and heritage value

of natural compounds (components of the Total Economic Value TEV), and

• hedonic values (self-esteem, life satisfaction, etc.) beyond the TEV;

However, the link to land management practices, and to biocontrol in particular, was not always obvious.


Discussion


A focus on the process: attributingvalues, mobilising, appropriating, commercialising services

Different farmers recognisedifferent use value potentials…(Spangenberg, v. Haaren, Settele 2014)


(cont.)… resulting in different species and varieties planted, depending on the location, the management philosophy and personal skills (and the willingness to demonstrate them).This requires different mobilisation (e.g. management), appropriation (e.g. har-vesting) and commercialisation after keeping a part as use value (markets differ and are volatile).


Conclusions


Conclusion 1: diverse values• The values mentioned by farmersincluded some elements of the TEV, but without reconising them aseconomic values, and others beyondthe TEV.

• Monetary values were important forthe base line, without detailed CBAs.

• Decision makers would be well advisednot to rely only on financial incentivesfor the implementation of agropolicies.


Conclusion 2: in capitalism, money always plays a role

Farms are enterprises and must survive in a competitive environment: permanent losses must be avoided or limited to what can be externally earned.Thus economic concerns as a necessity are never far away.Economic concerns as a motivation, however, seemed to play a minor role.


From cascade to stairways


In ecosytem service analysis, understanding the system and its multiple service potentials must come first -

monetisation is often not helpful or necessary


The case presented here is part of the APPEAL projectfunded by the BiodivERsA program (JHS, SM) and was supported by the SAPES project, funded by the Swedish

Research Council FORMAS.

Of course special thanks go to the farmers who dedicated their time and shared their knowledge without any monetary compensation – a clear statement of their

values.

Acknowledgements


“The best and the most beautifulthings in the world cannot be seen or even touched; they must be felt

with the heart”Helen Keller

Thank you for yourattention.For the presentation and other papers see

http://seri.academia.edu/JoachimHSpangenberg

Farmers’ Value Assessments A case study from Scania, Southern Sweden

Documents

Transcript of Farmers’ Value Assessments A case study from Scania, Southern Sweden