focus group hnv farming - european commission · focus group hnv farming report of the first...

1

Focus Group HNV FARMING REPORT OF THE FIRST MEETING

12-13 June 2014 Madrid, Spain

Background There is a pressing need to ensure that HNV farming becomes more economically viable without losing its important HNV characteristics. Whilst it is obvious that various forms of policy support are critically important for achieving this (including several systems of direct payment), other alternative approaches to enhancing the economic viability of HNV farming do exist and should be explored. For example, significantly less is known / understood about the scope for improving the profitability of HNV farming by re-interpreting, enhancing and complementing the traditional principles and practices of HNV farming with new perspectives, contemporary scientific knowledge and – where appropriate - novel technologies and social innovations. The aim of this Focus Group (FG) is to discuss these alternative approaches in the specific context of the EIP-AGRI – a new policy instrument for the 2014-2020 that aims to stimulate innovation and seek practical down-to-earth solutions to practical on-farm problems by bridging the gap between the science and practice of agriculture. The specific objectives of the first Focus Group meeting were to:

1. Reach agreement on a general concept of “profitable HNV farming”

2. Identify the range of potential pathways for making HNV farming more profitable

3. Identify the ‘fail factors’ that can limit / constrain these pathways

4. Use specific examples (case studies) to explore how to overcome these ‘fail factors’ through more innovative actions / approaches without losing the important HNV characteristics


2

Day 1, 12 June The meeting was kicked-off by Mr Iman Boot from DG Agriculture, who briefly introduced the scope and the purpose of the meeting and the main expectations from the Focus Group. Mr Sergiu Didicescu introduced the role and functions of EIP-AGRI Service Point and also the agenda of the meeting. Mr Mark Redman (Key Expert of the FG) then presented the Starting Paper. He explained that the purpose of the Paper was to: Help establish a common understanding about the purpose and scope of the Focus Group; Identify some preliminary points of discussion for the first meeting of the Focus Group, and; Begin drawing together some relevant thoughts / materials as a basis for the outcomes of the

Focus Group (Final Report) The paper had provoked some response by e-mail prior to the Focus Group meeting and further comments were made by the experts participating in the meeting. During this discussion the scope and purpose of the Focus Group was also questioned. It was pointed out that improving the “profitability of HNV farming” was a rather narrow perspective and actually part of a bigger question of “how to ensure the social and economic sustainability of HNV farming?” It was agreed by participants that the Focus Group should continue to work with this broader perspective. It was also pointed out by several members of the Focus Group that it is not realistic to entirely separate on-farm innovation from the policy and regulatory contexts, as these can either facilitate or block innovation. The next part of the meeting used the World Café method to dig deeper into the experience and knowledge of the participating experts’ in order to develop a common understanding of how the sustainability of HNV farming can be improved. There were three rounds of discussion based upon 3 questions (see below) – each conversation lasted 30-40 minutes. The three questions agreed for discussing were:

1. What are the relevant elements of “sustainable HNV farming”?

2. What are the acceptable development pathways for making HNV farming more sustainable over the next 20 years?

3. What are the ‘fail factors’ that may limit / constrain these pathways?

The outcomes of each discussion were recorded and “harvested” on cards which were collected, clustered and processed as appropriate.


3

1. What are the relevant elements of “sustainable HNV farming”?


4

2. What are the acceptable development pathways for making HNV farming more sustainable over the next 20 years? The outcomes of this second discussion were initially clustered into 7 broad groups – of which 5 were then identified as “acceptable development pathways”: HNV Specific Research Better understanding of traditional / HNV farming practices

Better understanding of the role of innovation in HNV farming (beware the seeds of intensification)

What are the specific research needs of HNV farming Technological development must be adapted to local conditions

Knowledge Transfer Use of knowledge for decision-making Learning communities, advocacy and “will of action” Knowledge flows (media, ICT) Local animateurs / facilitators Bottom-up – building on local successes Mobilising local resources Know how transfer between generations

Pathway 1: Selling HNV Products

Value of what HNV farmers produce (products / services) Adding value through on-farm processing “Valorisation” of HNV landscapes (hiking, tourism, bird-watching) Demand for quality food Branding of regional / ecological identity – niche products Geographical indications and traditional specialities New products (e.g. energy) Develop appropriate/adapted marketing channels

Pathway 2: Co-operation

Umbrella co-op and creation of networks Collaboration / co-operation (buying inputs, marketing, shared

resources, common activities) Collaboration and networking Concept of “Middle agriculture” Marketing strategies “Price-making” for HNV products

Pathway 3: Increasing productivity (without losing the HNV characteristics)

Intensification (e.g. with local varieties / breeds) – beware of risks Increasing outputs (e.g. with local breeds) – there are risks

involved, but do not rule out Reducing inputs for the same output

Pathway 4: Technological Developments

Large-scale, but low cost HNV farming Labour saving technologies Other ad hoc new technologies (building on HNV characteristics)

Pathway 5: Better Governance & Empowerment

Urgent need for social / political recognition of HNV farming More favourable implementation / interpretation of policies Do no harm! (avoid negative side-effects of regulatory frameworks) Better governance – representation of HNV farmers Targeted infrastructure – transport, ICT, schools, basic services etc. Public acquisitions to support HNV farming


5

It was agreed that HNV specific research and Knowledge transfer were not development pathways per se, but were more like “enabling conditions” that were needed to promote and support the development pathways identified. After reflecting upon this initial clustering, the following keywords / phrases were also added to the clusters for further consideration and discussion: Animation Entrepreneurship Diversification Payments for ecosystem services Increasing efficiency (without losing the HNV characteristics) Personal development (self-esteem) Creating a more favourable regulatory framework At the end of this discussion a broad common understanding was reached that: various acceptable development pathways for HNV do exist; some enabling conditions are also necessary (including, as agreed in preceding discussions, a

favourable policy and regulatory context); there is clearly scope for further refinement of the definition / description of these development

pathways.

3. What are the ‘fail factors’ that may limit / constrain these pathways? The outcomes of this discussion were initially clustered into 9 broad groups which can be considered as key fail factors limiting the development pathways identified above: Lack of HNV-specific Research

Researchers are interested in peer-reviewed publications instead of problem–solving

Lack of applied research on HNV related issues Lack of data on economic performance of HNV farms Industry currently tends to lead research so it is more orientated

towards intensive agriculture – this could be changed

Lack of Appropriate Knowledge Transfer

Lack of awareness / knowledge about HNV farming Lack of information / understanding / awareness of the ecological

services provided by HNV farming systems Lack of information, high cost of information, mistrust of

information Limited access to information which is available – there is a

dissemination gap (accentuated in many cases by a lack of advisors and/or by advisors lacking specific “HNV” knowledge)

Inappropriate methods of transfer (a very proactive and direct approach is needed)

Lack of understanding

Media has very limited vision / perspective Widespread dissemination of misinformation e.g. views on

greenhouse gas emissions from cattle Nature conservationists and farmers do not understand each other


6

Lack of consumer awareness

Consumer ignorance and lack of awareness No relevant labelling Consumers are alienated from farmers

Products for marketing are limited by various factors

Low productivity of HNV farms Some products cannot be sold directly to consumers (e.g. wheat

and store lambs) Hygiene rules are implemented in a too restrictive way by many

national and regional authorities (which blocks on-farm processing) Lack of infrastructure for getting products to market Local / short supply chains are not well supported HNV farming is a limited market for service-providing industries

(e.g. slaughterhouses, machinery suppliers etc.) Limited “market power” of HNV farms (farms are small and

scattered)

Finance

HNV farmers seen as non-productive farms Lack of access to capital / credit HNV farmers are not prioritised for financial support – with

exception of some Member States – and some CAP rules penalise HNV farming

Lack of system for rewarding environmental services

Risk aversion

Risk aversion of HNV farmers Risk aversion of national authorities regarding spending public

money on HNV farmers Policy / regulatory frameworks assume “one size fits all” and do not

consider specific risks HNV farmers are exposed to

Identity and confidence

Social stigma – HNV farmers are seen as “losers” View that HNV farmers are not “macho” and need to intensify Lack of motivation, confidence and self-belief Lack of social networks Lack of self-confidence and behavioural flexibility to adapt

Poor governance and disempowerment of HNV farmers

Policy makers do not understand HNV farming characteristics and needs

Dominance of agri-business (anti-HNV) EU and some national policies are skewed against HNV farmers and

penalise HNV characteristics Decoupled payments and limited access to land No real willingness of EU Member States to support HNV farming Main focus of CAP is still upon promoting competitiveness of EU

agriculture to challenge global markets

After reflecting upon this initial clustering, the following keywords / phrases were also added to the clusters for further consideration and discussion: Lack of animator / “catalyser” Access to resources


7

Day 2, 13 June The second day of the meeting began with some reflections on the outcomes of Day 1, including a summary of the development pathways and fail factors that had been identified. This was followed by an introduction to Day 2 by Iman Boot.

Break-out Groups: Case study presentations A total of 17 case studies were received from the workshop participants and each was displayed as a poster. The meeting divided into 3 sub-groups to discuss 5-6 case studies in each sub-group. The experts bringing the case studies made a short 5-10 minute presentation in their sub-group and then the case studies were discussed in the context of the outcomes of Day 1. The following questions were asked about each case study:

1. What development pathway(s) have been followed in this case study? 2. Are there any critical success factors for achieving these development pathways? 3. Can we copy these development pathways elsewhere? What are the actual / potential fail

factors to be aware of? Feedback was taken from each sub-group and discussed. A summary of the discussions about development pathways and success / fail factors for each case study is included in Annex 1. This was a useful approach for a) generally validating the outcomes of Day 1 and b) elaborating them in more detail. Overall the outcomes of Day 1 appeared to be valid.

Brainstorm – using the available EIP-AGRI tools Iman Boot introduced the main tools available under the European Innovation Partnership for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability (EIP-AGRI), namely: EIP-AGRI Operational Groups under national / regional rural development programmes (RDPs),

and; Thematic Networks and Multi-actor Research Projects under Horizon 2020. For further information on these EIP-AGRI tools, please see the Factsheets here: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eip/documents/index_en.htm Working in sub-groups the meeting then brainstormed possible issues / themes that might be a priority for addressing using these tools: 1. New economic and social networks

2. Collaboration on all levels

3. Animation of HNV farmers

4. Group of farmers and wholesalers to improve production and selling together, sharing time and

machinery without money. Funds to employ animateur are needed. Also to bring in other stakeholders e.g. nature conservationists, practical applied researchers, monitoring experts etc.


8

5. Operational Group (RDP) at regional level to find out what are the main challenges facing HNV farms – a mix of farmers, experts, NGOs and others are needed to work on the governance and regulatory problems that exist

6. Thematic Network (Horizon 2020) on: HNV farming research and teaching Creating a favourable regulatory framework (a “policy innovation laboratory”)

7. Operational Groups (RDPs) to address the following development pathways (PW) and fail factors (FF): Animation (FF) Co-operation (PW) Investments in technological development (PW) Non-productive investments (PW) Selling HNV products (PW) Developing and testing new HNV products (PW) Innovation support for HNV farmers (FF)

8. Thematic Networks (Horizon 2020) on the theme of: Knowledge exchange on specific topics Good practices (including trans-national) Co-design through participatory involvement of end-users Animation

9. Multi-actor research projects (Horizon 2020) to address the following issues: Identification and characterisation of HNV farming Economic performance data of HNV farming Exploration and valorisation of ethnographic values Biological data on HNV farmland habitats Testing new technologies for HNV farming Market research for HNV products

Closing session The closing session was led by Iman Boot and focussed on next steps for the Focus Group. The idea of preparing a series of mini-papers to feed into the next Focus Group was introduced and discussed. It was agreed this would be a good idea and (using the outcomes of Day 1) a further discussion continued on possible themes. See Annex 2 for the list of agreed themes, plus guidelines for preparing the mini-papers. See Annex 3 for a full list of “homework”. Finally, the date and location of the second meeting were briefly discussed. Three dates were proposed: 21, 22 and 23 October and a “doodle link” will be circulated for participants to indicate their preference. Participants were also invited to indicate their willingness to host the second meeting.


9

ANNEX 1: Development pathways and success / fail factors of HNV farming examples HNV Farming Example

Development Pathways Critical Success Factors Actual / Potential Fail Factors Comments

Belgium (Flanders): “Natuurboerderij het Bolhuis” (HNV Bolhuis) www.bolhuis.be/

Availability and use of different type of machinery for management of different meadows

Use of ancient breed Direct selling of beef products Finding local and urban

markets (e.g. selling with 20% higher price in Brussels)

Linking farming with tourism Collaboration between

farmers and conservationists

Good advice from local consultant regarding choosing right breed

Cooperation with nature conservation groups and the Flemish Nature and Forestry Agency

Short supply chain

Existing policy (market is also a policy choice)

Permission and access to land (if not owning the land)

Suggestions for research: Bring together different type of knowledge and develop different models which farmers can SEE and IMPLEMENT

Bulgaria: “Besaparski Hills”

Co-operation Agro-tourism Higher value for local

products

Give more power to local NGO’s as they know better the situation in the area

Co-operation has to be more attractive for the farmers to join

Certification of organic products

Lack of funding Reticence to co-operate Lack of proper advice Lack of local empowerment and

recognition Loss of local knowledge and

practices - better access to knowledge is needed

Local specificities are not always taken into account from national level


10

HNV Farming Example


Croatia: “GAJNA – the first Pasturing Community in Croatia”

?? Existence of NGO that animates

Very dedicated and highly skilled local individuals committed to help the community

Good co-operation with the authorities

Social stigma for shepherds Complicated rules to follow for

financing High costs due to flooding They only produce meat so

there are problems with slaughterhouses

Absence of local markets and too far away from big city markets

Estonia: “NPO Liivimaa Lihaveis” liivimaalihaveis.ee/en

Promoting and marketing high quality beef from semi-natural (HNV) grasslands (with a specific focus upon export market)

Organic certification Development of own brand

and approved quality scheme (Livonian Beef)

Co-operation (currently 11 NPO members with 2 500 cattle grazing 10 000 ha of semi-natural grasslands)

Presence of active, well-educated persons (catalysts) to plan, develop and manage the non-profit organisation (NPO)

Big emphasis upon quality and customer satisfaction

Good use of mass media to promote the brand (Livonian Beef)

Strategic partnerships with “celebrity” chefs to high quality, grass-fed beef

Good partnership with reliable service providers for

Lack of consumer awareness about high quality beef from semi-natural (HNV) grasslands

Resistance of consumers to pay premium price for quality product

Competition from cheap beef imports from intensive feed-lot systems in USA, Australia and Brazil

High reliance on service providers for final preparation of high quality product may be risky

Liivimaa Lihaveis is a non-profit organisation (NPO) established by Estonian owners of Angus and Hereford beef cattle


11

HNV Farming Example


slaughter, cutting and packing

Finland: “Bosgård Farm – grazing organic beef cattle on HNV coastal grasslands” www.bosgard.com

Innovative development of family farm

Organic certification Development of own farm

brand Selling high quality HNV

products directly to discerning consumers

Diversification into tourism and recreation, including on-farm catering

Long-term focus on saving costs of external inputs

Co-operation with other local producers, including fishermen

Large size, diverse resources, good infrastructure and available machinery

Well-informed, educated and motivated farmers

Shared ownership of the farm (share-holders have invested in the farm) has allowed investment in renovation / modernisation

A “social contract” with loyal and committed consumers – a form of community-supported agriculture

Good use of ICT for promoting the farm products / services

Businesses like this will not succeed without i) good farm management knowledge / skills and ii) dynamic entrepreneurship

Beware of the risks of increasing productivity as the business gets more successful and demand for products increases

Further innovation may be limited by strict regulations, high labour costs and the Finnish climate!

This is a large farm by Finnish standards and is also close to Helsinki – it clearly has some competitive advantage, but is a very inspiring example

France: “Parc Natural Regional du Vercors – a wide spectrum of HNV challenges”

Landscape level management of farmland in Regional Nature Park

Better governance and empowerment through

Presence of active persons (catalysts) to initiate the local partnership and develop an integrated “HNV project” for the Park

Innovative projects like this are highly dependent upon the enthusiasm and energy of individuals – absence of such people will limit transferability

Regional Nature Park of 200 000 ha with mixed farming systems including large areas of HNV


12

HNV Farming Example


partnership between farmers and local (Park) authorities

Co-operation between farmers

Technological developments to increase outputs from the more intensive farms in the Park, whilst maintaining extensive practices on HNV farmland

Diversification and alternative economic activities e.g. tourism, direct selling

Use of PDO to help brand local products

Presence of many other active local partners, including an environmental NGO and applied research institute

Willingness of farmers to work together (e.g. exchanging cattle for grazing) essential for implementing project actions

Good development of organic farming in the Park brings positive mentality amongst farmers

to other regions Beware of “creeping

intensification” from intensive farms to HNV farms in the project

Lack of available advice for farmers on combining farm / business development with biodiversity management will limit transferability

farmland, plus some intensive dairy farms

Ireland: “Aran Islands”

Co-operation between stakeholders, farmers, government authorities and public to improve understanding and requirements for the future management of such areas

Gathering and use of local knowledge of islanders

Linkage to tourism

Availability of cultural landscapes

Understanding of farmers why it’s done

Financial support 70 farmers – looking for

solutions - trialling things

Harsh reality of local conditions – physical size of land, animal health, water availability etc.

Viability of islands generally very low

Amount of money which come for return is not enough


13

HNV Farming Example


Italy: “Apennines Mountains in Central Italy”

Co-operation to improve marketing and reduce transaction costs

On-farm processing Organic certification (meat,

milk and wool) Diversification e.g.

accommodation, farmhouse restaurants, educational activities etc.

Shortening of supply chain via direct selling from farm and mobile selling points during tourist season

Use of local knowledge Re-establishment of

traditional customs / practices – notably transhumance

Retro-innovation – adding value to traditional practices by re-inventing them for modern times (e.g. Adopt-a-Sheep)

Advocacy and lobbying for better regulatory / fiscal framework for local HNV farmers

Presence of well-educated, highly skilled and active persons (catalysts) with a vision

Presence of entrepreneurial spirit and skills - constant searching for new / niche markets

Innovation and risk-taking Effective use of ICT Creative “interpretation” of

regulations and legal standards

Willingness of local people to engage with the catalysts that were leading change (trust!)

Active networking between farmers and other local actors, including researchers

Participation and support of some local authorities (i.e. common land management, favourable policy implementation etc.)

Would this have happened without visionary individuals?

This approach will not work where farmers and other actors are risk averse

Lack of knowledge, skills, markets etc. will limit / block the transfer of these ideas / activities in other regions

Lack of awareness / understanding and willingness to support HNV farming by local authorities

A farmers’ initiative in an area dominated by extensive livestock grazing for sustainable management of natural resources, improvement of food safety and creation of better quality jobs


14

HNV Farming Example


North-Western / Central Europe: “HNV wetland farming - cultivation of reeds”

Co-operation (government + researchers + farmers + manufacturers of agricultural machineries + processing sector)

Technological innovations (right machinery)

Knowledge exchange (including cross-borders)

Engagement of scientists Having government /

administration involved

Getting subsidies (unclear whether and how to integrate such a system in the 1st and 2nd pillar of the CAP)

Extreme economies of scale in the processing sector (if profitable -> significant land use change -> might challenge local / regional public support)

Access to land

Portugal: “Dry area HNV farming in Évora, Alentejo”

Integrated crop management Management and

enhancement of specific biodiversity features on the farm

Increased outputs via appropriate technological / agronomic developments e.g. introduction of legumes into crop rotations, physical barriers to reduce soil loss

Agro-tourism

Presence of well-educated farmer with a clear vision and sense of social / environmental responsibility

Emphasis on increasing biodiversity first and productivity second

LIFE+ project has supported habitat creation / management on the farm

Not many large-scale, dryland farms have such a highly motivated owner / manager

Beware of “creeping intensification” on farms such as this whereby small incremental steps towards increased productivity eventually tip balance towards biodiversity loss

Large-scale dry land farming (2 000 ha) with 5 year crop rotation and extensive grazing of suckler cows, sheep, goats and pigs (under cork oak trees)

Romania: “HNV Pastoral Farms in Romania”

Co-operation Agro-tourism Development of local

Importance of strong local leader (was also a legal authority)

Unsustainable communities - younger generations are looking for other revenue sources

Suggestions for research: More research on


15

HNV Farming Example


production brands

Selling products directly from farm

Access to information and knowledge

Farmers co-operation to create local brands and develop local products

Importance of shepherds Co-operation with local

tourism agency

(abroad or in the cities) or to transform the farm into an intensive one

Low living standards on HNV farms

EU regulations (e.g. regarding hygiene conditions, possibilities to get investment support etc.)

Farms try to increase yields by crossing the local breeds

No conservation programme for local breeds

Powerful lobbying against HNV farming practices (even at government level)

Loss of local knowledge and practices - better access to knowledge is needed Restrictive access to public resources (land, non-refundable funds)

Land abandonment in marginal areas

Depopulation of the mountain villages – transhumance is disappearing

Land consolidation is becoming increasing problem

local traditional breeds (improving breeds) Socio-economic research of the HNV farming systems


16

HNV Farming Example


Slovakia: “HNV system in National Park Mala Fatra”

Co-existence and co-operation of 3 types of farms (family farms up to large business oriented farms)

Agro-tourism activities Direct sales from farm Promotion of local products

Importance of education, work with children

Creation of part time jobs, additional work to small scale farmers

??

Spain (Catalonia): “Agricultural Stewardship” www.landstewardship.eu

Social innovation & entrepreneurship

Farmer being put at the centre of the community

Strong engagement farmer-nature conservationists

Civic & local involvement in valuing & maintaining farm nature

Long-term Agriculture & conservation agreements (10+ years)

Networking (farmers, NGOs, local/regional government)

Existence of a strong regional network

Maintenance of agricultural activity which is beneficial for the environment and society

Participating in local fairs & other shorter ways to sell farm products & services

Involvement of government (policy, financial & institutional support)

Very difficult to finance new local products e.g. wool from a local breed

Challenge of long term deal to have an NGO-facilitator to keep the activity up.

Need of annual monitoring of agreement terms & conservation of farm values

LandLife is an ongoing LIFE+ project aimed at extending this methodology across Europe (see website)

Spain (Extremadura): “Uplands grazing”

Critical need for animation and empowerment

Use of local breeds Adding value to local products

Social value for tourism Local products of high value

(e.g. black market cheese) Milk prices going-up

Lack of awareness Lack of self esteem Lack of ideas Lack of agri-environment

Comments by Guy: In this example there is an obvious need for a local


17

HNV Farming Example


especially processing

Rewards for environmental services (fire prevention, biodiversity)

Co-operation between farmers

Important environmental services

schemes Lack of investment in common

land (poor management, infrastructure and pasture quality)

Blockages by hygiene regulations

Lack of a local project

project looking into finding innovative ways to make HNV farming more sustainable; improving governance is critical

Sweden: “Co-operation model for HNV management”

Co-operation / collaboration on all levels

Recognition / local empowerment

Identification of the area qualities

Willingness to preserve local landscapes and ways of farming

Empowerment of local people

Financial support available to some degree

Working on common goals and agreeing on work methods

Not starting with payments in mind, but from problem solving - payments are bonuses, getting them is not the end goal

Lack of long running support for an animator, motivator

This was presented as a model of an innovation support mechanism, where the motivators play a key role, but this doesn’t affect the priorities and methods being set as local people decide what is important for them and how to proceed


18

HNV Farming Example


United Kingdom (Wales): “Pontbren” www.coedcymru.org.uk/images/user/5472 Pontbren CS 20v12.pdf

Looking to improve the local system – use of local breeds

Initiated by a farmer – local empowerment

Co-operation can start from one objective but in the end can bring more benefits as trust is building.

More empowered individuals Facilitator has a critical role Availability of funding

allowed them to innovate

Markets failed to provide added value

Lack of sufficient funding Government not aware of

what’s going on

This project is a co-operation between 3 farmers. They went in different directions (wood chips production for bedding, composting, trees nursery, forest belts) and they benefited from unconventional sources of funding (national lottery funds)


19

ANNEX 2: Proposed ideas for mini-papers Proposed themes for mini-paper

Sub-themes / key concepts and terms of relevance Contributors

HNV specific research

Better understanding of traditional / HNV farming practices

Better understanding of role of innovation in HNV farming (beware the “seeds of intensification”)

Specific research needs of HNV farming

Technological development adapted to local conditions (good examples?)

Norbert Röder (co-ordinator) Rainer Luick Miroslava Plassman Xavier Poux

Empowerment of HNV farmers

Knowledge transfer Use of knowledge for decision-

making Learning communities Advocacy Knowledge flows / interaction

through ICT Networks and networking Collaboration / co-operation (buying

inputs, marketing, shared resources, common activities)

Animation Personal development (“self-

esteem” and “will of action”) Bottom-up – building on local

successes Mobilising local resources Value-based food supply chains

(including the concept of “middle agriculture”)

Irina Herzon (co-ordinator) Aine Macken-Walsh Katrin McCann Jordi Pietx

Selling HNV products

Entrepreneurship Diversification New products (e.g. energy) Niche products Multi-functional HNV farming (HNV

products and services) “Valorisation” of HNV landscapes

(hiking, tourism, bird-watching etc.) Marketing strategies “Price-making” for HNV products

Mariya Peneva (co-ordinator) Guy Beaufoy Airi Külvet Antonella Trisorio


20

Proposed themes for mini-paper

Sub-themes / key concepts and terms of relevance Contributors

Branding of regional / ecological

identity Geographical indications and

traditional specialities Demand for quality food

Payments / rewards for ecosystem services

No specific sub-themes / key concepts identified

Patrick McGurn (co-ordinator) Guy Beaufoy Clunie Keenleyside Pedro d’Orey Manoel Concha Salguero Kurt Sannen Sonja Todorovic

Increasing farm household income (without losing HNV characteristics)

Technological development (e.g. labour saving)

Increasing outputs (e.g. with local varieties / breeds)

Increasing efficiency Large-scale, but low cost HNV

farming

Xavier Poux (co-ordinator) Kurt Sannen Ionel-Mugurel Jitea

Creating a more favourable regulatory framework

Urgent need for social / political recognition of HNV farming now

Do no harm! (avoid negative side-effects of regulations)

Better governance – representation of HNV farmers

Targeted infrastructure – transport, ICT, schools and other basic services

Public acquisitions to support HNV farming

Guy Beaufoy (co-ordinator) Clunie Keenleyside Norbert Röder Concha Salguero Antonella Trisorio

Guidelines for preparing a mini-paper The objective of the mini-papers is to clarify, develop and communicate the initial “lines of thought” that emerged during the first meeting of the Focus Group. Preparation of the mini-papers should be collaborative and draw upon the diversity of the experience of the contributors. These are not scientific papers - they are “think pieces” that are meant to be thought-provoking and creative.


21

Please keep the mini-papers solution orientated. Take the opportunity to think “outside-of-the-box” Combine relevant background materials with your collective knowledge, professional experience and personal opinion. Inspire deeper thought in preparation for the second Focus Group meeting – and please do not exceed 5 pages! There are 6 proposed themes for mini-papers in the table above. Against each theme there is a list of i) relevant sub-themes / key concepts that were “harvested” from the group discussions, and ii) the contributors (including a co-ordinator) that volunteered to work together to prepare the mini-paper. There is no fixed template for the mini-papers. They should be concise and clearly structured with an opening Introduction and closing Conclusions that clearly link the mini-paper to the main topic of the Focus Group (as modified):

“How to make HNV farming more sustainable without losing the HNV characteristics?” The main content / body of the mini-paper will depend upon the theme and the “line of thought” that you wish to develop. However, relevant sub-sections might include: Summarising problems / solutions Taking stock of the state of the art Developing new perspectives Collecting relevant examples of good practice Identifying needs from practice and proposing directions for further research Proposing priorities for innovative actions Suggesting potential practical operational groups or other project formats to test solutions and

opportunities Ways to disseminate experience and practical knowledge Please include references / footnotes as needed. The 5 page limit is based on Tahoma 10 with single line spacing and 2.5 cm margins.


22

ANNEX 3: List of homework

Type of homework Responsible person(s) Related material/files Deadline Comment

1. Commenting on the minutes of the meeting Everyone 18 July Send us comments by e-mail

2. Revising HNV examples (especially development pathways / fail factors)

Everyone who provided examples 18 July Check Annex 1 and send us comments

by e-mail

3.

Deciding on themes, main points for content and teams of writing mini-papers

Everyone Annex 2 of the minutes of the meeting 18 July

Check Annex 2 and if you have further suggestions (you want to get involved with a different mini-paper or suggest content) please send them by e-mail

4. Preparation of draft mini-papers

Sub-groups identified in Annex 2

Drafts made available at the collaborative workspace.

By 1 September

5. Commenting draft mini-papers Everyone Drafts made available at the

collaborative workspace. By 15 September

6. Finalizing mini-papers Responsible persons Final drafts made available at the collaborative workspace.

By 30 September

7. Providing information about relevant research project

Fill in relevant E-forms at: https://googledrive.com/host/0B5UW-7uGlIJIbWVkN24tYlBLUEU/index.html

By 30 September

Please include at least relevant research projects (related to development pathways/fail factors pointed out by FG, etc.) where you are involved

8. Completing / revising expert profile document Sergiu Will be sent be sent by Sergiu in

preparation of the 2nd meeting. By second meeting

This information will be made public in Final Report as an annex

focus group hnv farming - european commission · focus group hnv farming report of the first...

Documents