Farmers in Adopting Climate Adaptation Measures in Itay: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Catherine Yang and Version 3 by ANTONELLA DI FONZO.

Concerns raised about climate risks on agriculture indicate that adaptation of the agricultural sector to climate change is necessary to mitigate the negative consequences of climate change. Despite many opportunities to implement climate adaptation measures at farm level, there are several obstacles to their adoption. Farmers’ decision to implement adaptation measures lies in the difficulty of accessing knowledge about adaptation practices and in the lack of resources for upfront investments required by adaptation.

  • climate change
  • resilience
  • cost and benefit assessment

1. Introduction

Concerns about global warming are currently attracting interest among global policy makers and the issue is central to political and scientific debate. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is the United Nations body for assessing science related to climate change, affirmed the urgency of a global action to restrain climate change and address its effects that are difficult to control [1]. Climate change is becoming a source of significant additional risks for agriculture and food systems, and climate risk to agriculture can have several effects [2]. The European Severe Weather Database (ESWD)—the European database on extreme weather events—demonstrated in 2021 that there were about 1500 extreme events; an increase of 65% for cloudbursts, floods, tornadoes, hailstorms, and heat waves, compared to previous years (https://eswd.eu/ accessed on 10 October 2022). At an EU level, climate change mitigation is a policy objective. A Special Report by the European Court of Auditors revealed that more than 100 billion euros (over a quarter of EU agricultural expenditure in 2014–2020) were devoted to climate change mitigation. Despite this, greenhouse gas emissions produced by agriculture have not decreased for over a decade. The report further revealed that most of the measures financed by the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) have limited potential for mitigating climate change because it failed to incentivize the adoption of effective environment friendly practices. However, the fight against climate change continues to be one of the strategic objectives of the CAP.
The European Commission included three general objectives in its new strategy, including “to bolster environmental care and climate action and to contribute to the environmental and climate objectives of the EU” and nine strategic goals focused on social, environmental, and economic factors, including “contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation” (Reg. 2021/2117) [3]. The CAP explicitly provides financial facilities and programs for the ex-ante subsidization of agricultural insurance contracts; similar measures have been extended to the transition period before the enforcement of the upcoming CAP [4].
The effect of climate change in Italy is revealing. In 2021 a Eurobarometer survey emphasized that climate is the fourth emergency in Italy after diseases, the economy, and world hunger [5]. This has raised major concerns among Italians, with eight out of ten Italians considering climate change a “very serious” problem (84% higher than the EU average of 78%). More than six out of ten (63%, equal to the EU average) consider national governments rather than the European Union to be responsible for initiating measures to curb climate change. The National Strategic Plan (NSP) 2023–2027 provides an opportunity to curb climate change through community funding. Public funding of adaptation measures in the agricultural sector may relax farmers’ financial constraints associated with adopting climate smart agriculture practices. This may help to sustain agricultural activities.

2. Adaptation and Climate Change in Agriculture

Adaptation and mitigation represent global challenges for farmers. The OECD defines adaptation to climate change “[…] as an adjustment in ecological, social or economic systems in response to observed or expected changes in climatic stimuli and their effects and impacts, in order to alleviate adverse impacts of change or take advantage of new opportunities” [6]. Under this perspective the literature on the cost-effectiveness of CAMs for farmers contributes to the debate on reducing economic and environmental risks related to climate change. Although there is no unambiguous definition of adaptation in the literature, Bosello et al. [7] provide two main approaches to define and identify adaptation. The authors classify adaption into planned adaptation and autonomous adaptation. Planned adaptation is the measures to mitigate or neutralize negative impacts of climate change implemented by public or private bodies, while autonomous adaptation refers to the resilience of natural and socio-economic systems. In each case, adaptation has a cost to be compared with benefits, such as avoided damage, or capitalized benefits as a result of adopting and implementing adaptation measures. To this end, there is the need to assess costs and benefits of adaptations in agriculture to face climate risk, and to monitor the effectiveness of adaptation strategies and actions. However, quantifying costs and benefits may be a challenge. This is because of the uncertainty associated with climate change [8] complicating cost–benefit assessment relying on climate-change related models, data, and factors [9]. Some studies have focused on the impacts of climate change and the effects of climate risks on agriculture [10][11][12][13][14][15]. In the context of the CAP, as well as at farm level, the increase in extreme weather events has led to a strong adoption of tools to control different risks in agriculture [16]. Various classification criteria have been set to categorize risk in agriculture [17] and the negative events commonly associated with climate change, such as floods, drought, plant diseases, extreme weather events, soil erosion, and water eutrophication [18]. References [19][20] conclude that the increased frequency and intensity of extreme events can influence long-term yields, directly damaging crops at crucial developmental stages, and reducing the efficiency of farm inputs. According to some studies, there are barriers to the implementation of adaptation measures in agriculture [21][22] influenced by socio-economic factors such as age, education level, household size, household income, farm size, and agricultural experience [23][24][25][26][27]. These studies [28] demonstrate that the selection of adaptation strategies and their integration in farm management activities clashes with structural, contextual, and individual obstacles. According to [29] the impact of such events may largely vary according to local and context-specific conditions of production systems, for example, crop type characteristics, soil composition and structure, and hydrogeological profile. Some studies point out that farmers’ perceptions of adverse climate events may be influenced by the specific features of the farm and its pedoclimatic context, as well as by socio-economics aspects [30][31][32][33]. Consequently, because farmers have different experiences with extreme weather events, the perception of the need for adaptation and the selection of optimal strategies may vary. In contrast, some studies analyze the perception of the negative consequences of non-adaptation and its costs for the farm in the long-term [34][35]. According to [26] economic sustainability of the implementation measure is a critical requirement for its adoption. From an economic perspective, a literature review showed how few studies address a cost–benefit assessment, which may also be due to the difficulty of quantifying them. The goal is to contribute to the existing literature analyzing the economic convenience to implement CAMs in order to reduce climate risk damage. It is extremely clear and well-known that agriculture is exposed to numerous adverse climate events, not always controlled by farmers, that directly affect agricultural outcomes, such as yields, revenues, and incomes [36], thus making agriculture susceptible to climate change [37]. The agri-food sector is of fundamental importance in the achievement of environmental and climate objectives, particularly in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions (CO2, CH4, and N2O) and combating environmental degradation. In the next decades the intensification of hard-to-predict extreme weather events will put pressure on the agricultural sector, impacting farmers’ incomes and farms’ survival. The EU Strategies “Farm to Fork” and “Biodiversity 2030” presented by the EU Commission could play an important role in combating climate change. During the second Farm to Fork Conference on 14 and 15 October 2021(https://ec.europa.eu/food/horizontal-topics/farm-fork-strategy/farm-fork-conference_en accessed on 29 October 2022), the Commission reaffirmed this role, emphasizing that sustainable food production and consumption contribute to reducing the effects of climate change on production. It is important that consumers have clear information about nutritional characteristics, the health and safety of food [38], its origin and sustainability of cultivation systems, production, processing, and marketing that generate support to the local economy [39] and contribute to the reduction of waste [40]. This information could “win” over the skepticism of consumers and convince them to choose sustainable products, which have a “premium price” in good taste and quality important for health and the environment [41]. The response of agri-food companies towards processes and productions with low environmental impact is witnessed by an increasing number of certifications: 169 agricultural companies and 897 companies in the food industry comply with UNI EN ISO 14001—Environmental Management Systems (Accredia database, https://services.accredia.it/ppsearch/accredia_companymask_r mote.jsp?ID_LINK=1739&area=310, accessed on November 10, 2022). Moreover, for several years, there has been attention on a short supply chain on the part of various organizations (trade, producers, consumers) and national and regional public policies [42]; in particular, more than 20% of farms practice direct sales (ISTAT data). This spreads awareness of farmers and consumers on environmental issues related to trends in global climate change and their growing impact on agricultural productivity.

References

  1. AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/ (accessed on 10 October 2022).
  2. Mahato, A. Climate change and its impact on agriculture. Int. J. Sci. Res. Publ. 2014, 4, 1–6.
  3. Regulation (EU) 2021/2117 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 Amending Regulations (EU) No 1308/2013 Establishing a Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products, (EU) No 1151/2012 on Quality Schemes for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs, (EU) No 251/2014 on the Definition, Description, Presentation, Labelling and the Protection of Geographical Indications of Aromatised Wine Products and (EU) No 228/2013 Laying down Specific Measures for Agriculture in the Outermost Regions of the Union Special Reports-European Court of Auditors (2021). Common Agricultural Policy and Climate Half of EU Climate Spending but Farm Emissions Are Not Decreasing. Publication Office of European Union. Available online: https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR21_16/SR_CAP-and-Climate_IT.pdf (accessed on 21 October 2022).
  4. Pieralli, S.; Pérez Domínguez, I.; Elleby, C.; Chatzopoulos, T. Budgetary impacts of adding agricultural risk management programmes to the CAP. J. Agric. Econ. 2021, 72, 370–387.
  5. Eurobarometrer Special 513. Climate Change. March–April 2021. Available online: https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2273 (accessed on 11 November 2022).
  6. OECD. Climate Change and Agriculture Impact, Adaptation and Mitigation. 2010. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/climate-change-and-agriculture-9789264086876-en.htm (accessed on 12 October 2022).
  7. Bosello, F.; Kuik, O.; Tol, R.S.J.; Watkiss, P. Costs of Adaptation to Climate Change: A Review of Assessment Studies with a Focus on Methodologies Used; EEA Report, 6th Specific Agreement No 3602/B2005.EEA under the Framework Contract No. EEA/AIR/04/004; EEA: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.
  8. Hallegatte, S. Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2009, 19, 240–247.
  9. Pindyck, R.S. Uncertainty in environmental economics. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2007, 1, 45–65.
  10. Rosenzweig, C.; Parry, M.L. Potential impact of climate change on world food supply. Nature 1994, 367, 133–138.
  11. Parry, M.; Rosenzweig, C.; Iglesias, A.; Fischer, G.; Livermore, M. Climate change and world food security: A new assessment. Glob. Environ. Chang. 1999, 9, S51–S67.
  12. Parry, M.; Rosenzweig, C.; Iglesias, A.; Livermore, M.; Fischer, G. Effects of climate change on global food production under SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2004, 14, 53–67.
  13. Parry, M.; Rosenzweig, C.; Livermore, M. Climate change, global food supply and risk of hunger. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Biol. Sci. 2005, 360, 2125–2138.
  14. Fischlin, A.; Price, J.; Leemans, R.; Gopal, B.; Turley, C.; Rounsevell, M.; Dube, P.; Tarazona, J.; Velichko, A. Ecosystems, their properties, goods, and services. In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J., Hanson, C.E., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg2-chapter4-1.pdf (accessed on 10 December 2022).
  15. Calicioglu, O.; Flammini, A.; Bracco, S.; Bellù, L.; Sims, R. The future challenges of food and agriculture: An integrated analysis of trends and solutions. Sustainability 2019, 11, 222.
  16. Meuwissen, M.P.; de Mey, Y.; van Asseldonk, M. Prospects for agricultural insurance in Europe. Agric. Financ. Rev. 2018, 78, 174–182.
  17. Marin, L. Classification of risks in agricultural insurance. Scientific Papers Series Management. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural. Dev. 2019, 19, 173–178.
  18. McBean, G.; Ajibade, I. Climate change, related hazards and human settlements. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2009, 1, 179–186.
  19. Porter, J.R.; Semenov, M.A. Crop responses to climatic variation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. 2005, 1463, 2021–2035.
  20. Antle, J.M.; Capalbo, S.M.; Elliott, E.T.; Paustian, K.H. Adaptation, Spatial Heterogeneity, and the Vulnerability of Agricultural Systems to Climate Change and CO2 Fertilization: An Integrated Assessment Approach. Clim. Chang. 2004, 64, 289–315.
  21. Le Dang, H.; Li, E.; Bruwer, J.; Nuberg, I. Farmers’ perceptions of climate variability and barriers to adaptation: Lessons learned from an exploratory study in Vietnam. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2004, 19, 531–548.
  22. Woods, B.A.; Nielsen, H.Ø.; Pedersen, A.B.; Kristofersson, D. Farmers’ perceptions of climate change and their likely responses in Danish agriculture. Land Use Policy 2017, 65, 109–120.
  23. Bryan, E.; Deressa, T.T.; Gbetibouo, G.A.; Ringler, C. Adaptation to climate change in Ethiopia and South Africa: Options and constraints. Environ. Sci. Policy 2009, 12, 413–426.
  24. Masud, M.M.; Akhtar, R.; Nasrin, S.; Adamu, I.M. Impact of socio-demographic factors on the mitigating actions for climate change: A path analysis with mediating effects of attitudinal variables. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 26462–26477.
  25. Masud, M.M.; Azam, M.N.; Mohiuddin, M.; Banna, H.; Akhtar, R.; Alam, A.S.A.F.; Begum, H. Adaptation barriers and strategies towards climate change: Challenges in the agricultural sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 156, 698–706.
  26. Kabir, M.H.; Alam, M.M. Developing a conceptual model for identifying determinants of climate change adaptation. J. Clim. Chang. 2021, 7, 25–35.
  27. Chenani, E.; Yazdanpanah, M.; Baradaran, M.; Azizi-Khalkheili, T.; Najafabadi, M.M. Barriers to climate change adaptation: Qualitative evidence from southwestern Iran. J. Arid Environ. 2021, 189, 104487.
  28. Eakin, H.; York, A.; Aggarwal, R.; Waters, S.; Welch, J.; Rubiños, C.; Smith-Heisters, S.; Bausch, C.; Anderies, J.M. Cognitive and institutional influences on farmers’ adaptive capacity: Insights into barriers and opportunities for transformative change in central Arizona. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2016, 16, 801–814.
  29. Tarolli, P.; Straffelini, E. Agriculture in hilly and mountainous landscapes: Threats, monitoring and sustainable management. Geogr. Sustain. 2020, 1, 70–76.
  30. Azadi, Y.; Yazdanpanah, M.; Mahmoudi, H. Understanding smallholder farmers’ adaptation behaviors through climate change beliefs, risk perception, trust, and psychological distance: Evidence from wheat growers in Iran. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 250, 109456.
  31. Mirzaei, A.; Azarm, H.; Yazdanpanah, M.; Najafabadi, M.M. Socio-economic, social-capital, and psychological characteristics and climate change adaptive behavior of farmers in Iran. Clim. Res. 2022, 87, 1–12.
  32. Tran, T.T.; Chen, H. Climate change risk perception and adaptive behavior of coffee farmers: The mediating role of climate-related attitudinal factors and moderating role of self-efficacy. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2021, 12, 354–368.
  33. Yin, S.; Yang, X.; Chen, J. Adaptive behavior of farmers’ livelihoods in the context of human-environment system changes. Habitat Int. 2020, 100, 102185.
  34. Pickson, R.B.; He, G. Smallholder farmers’ perceptions, adaptation constraints, and determinants of adaptive capacity to climate change in Chengdu. SAGE Open 2021, 11.
  35. Wu, H.; Mweemba, L. Environmental self-efficacy, attitude and behavior among small scale farmers in Zambia. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2010, 12, 727–744.
  36. Komarek, A.M.; De Pinto, A.; Smith, V.H. A review of types of risks in agriculture: What we know and what we need to know. Agric. Syst. 2020, 178, 102738.
  37. Parker, L.; Bourgoin, C.; Martinez-Valle, A.; Läderach, P. Vulnerability of the agricultural sector to climate change: The development of a pan-tropical Climate Risk Vulnerability Assessment to inform sub-national decision making. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0213641.
  38. Di Fonzo, A.; Liberati, C. Consumers are unaware about European legislation on communication of the health benefits conveyed by claims. An empirical survey. Ital. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2020, 75, 51–59.
  39. Bimbo, F.; Russo, C.; Di Fonzo, A.; Nardone, G. Consumers’ environmental responsibility and their purchase of local food: Evidence from a large-scale survey. Br. Food J. 2021, 123, 1853–1874.
  40. Perito, M.A.; Di Fonzo, A.; Sansone, M.; Russo, C. Consumer acceptance of food obtained from olive by-products: A survey of Italian consumers. Br. Food J. 2020, 122, 212–226.
  41. Giuca, S.; Meo, R.; De Leo, S.; Macrì, M.C.; Scornaienghi, M. L’Italia e la PAC Post 2020. Policy Brief 9 OS 9. Migliorare la Risposta Dell’agricoltura dell’UE alle Esigenze della Società in Materia di Alimentazione e Salute, Compresi Alimenti Sicuri, Nutrienti e Sostenibili, Sprechi Alimentari e Benessere degli Animali 2020. RRN-MIPAAF. Available online: https://www.reterurale.it/PAC_2023_27/PolicyBrief (accessed on 14 December 2022).
  42. Giarè, F.; Giuca, S. (Eds.) Farmers and Short Chain. Legal Profiles and Socio-Economic Dynamics; INEA: Rome, Italy, 2013.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback