1 / 24

The Family Farm in a Flat World: Implications for Farm Household Data Collection

The Family Farm in a Flat World: Implications for Farm Household Data Collection. Mary Ahearn, Krijn Poppe, Cristina Salvioni, Koen Boone, and Aide Roest Presentation at FAO, Wye-Rome Meeting, 11-12 June 2009. Towards improvement in the Handbook. Development of an integrated framework

fayre
Télécharger la présentation

The Family Farm in a Flat World: Implications for Farm Household Data Collection

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Family Farm in a Flat World: Implications for Farm Household Data Collection Mary Ahearn, Krijn Poppe, Cristina Salvioni, Koen Boone, and Aide Roest Presentation at FAO, Wye-Rome Meeting, 11-12 June 2009

  2. Towards improvement in the Handbook • Development of an integrated framework • Explicit recognition of changing structure and cross-country differences • Data implications of emerging issues

  3. Integration • Firms and households are basic economic units and basic focus of economic analysis • A flat world means these units are able to adjust rapidly • Current frameworks are frameworks for ways to develop indicators, not frameworks for • how economic units behave and • the implication of those behaviors for things societies care about: in our case rural development and agriculture

  4. Go back a step • Once an integrated framework which links agricultural and rural development to each other and the rest of the world… • Then the indicator frameworks can follow • The integrated framework, if appropriately general, will provide the basis of future indicator development

  5. Turning to agriculture • Is it unique? • Why is it unique? • Differences in structure across countries are large and therefore require indicators that are disaggregated • This was recognized in the Handbook • But, was it recognized that the disaggregation should be based on a consistent structure? Why is that not possible?

  6. Some Recommendations • Indicators of well-being should be accompanied by indicators of structure • The Handbook should debate and recommend an inclusive definition of all farms • Focus on household indicators for family farms, but include indicators for nonfamily farms. What is a nonfamily farm? • Develop a data collection system that allows for a continually changing farm and household structure

  7. US examples of the need to change approaches to respond to real world changes • Household income • Contracting • Corporate farming

  8. Compare this storyline on “Per capita disposable personal income of farm and nonfarm residents, 1934-83” … Source: USDA, ERS. Economic Indicators of the Farm Sector: Income and Balance Sheet Statistics, 1983. ECIFS3-3, Sept. 1984.

  9. Compare this storyline on “Per capita disposable personal income of farm and nonfarm residents, 1934-83” … Source: USDA, ERS. Economic Indicators of the Farm Sector: Income and Balance Sheet Statistics, 1983. ECIFS3-3, Sept. 1984.

  10. …to this storyline: “Average farm operator household income by source compared to all U.S. household income, 1988-2009f” d

  11. Consideration of the Structure of farms: EU and US • Two dimensions of structure: size and off-farm work • Farm definition • Size definition • Compare the size distribution in 2007 • Dynamics are missing • Compare changes, 1997-2007 • Compare off-farm work, 1987-1997-2007

  12. Background to interpreting the comparative size distributions US EU NL IT Source: For EU, FFS. For US, ARMS.

  13. Figure 1. Size distribution of holdings, U.S. and EU-15, 1997-2007 (Size classes defined by hectares) Percent of holdings 56 54 34 26 24 24 22 22 21 18 17 16 13 12 11 10 6 5 5 3 EU U.S. Sources: For U.S., ARMS. For EU, FFS.

  14. Figure 2. Size distribution of holdings, U.S. and EU-15, excluding small holdings, 1997-2007 (Size classes defined by hectares) Percent of holdings 55 48 38 30 28 27 26 25 23 20 19 18 14 12 10 7 E.U. U.S. Source: For U.S., ARMS. For EU, FFS.

  15. Figure 3. Size distribution of holdings, Netherlands and Italy, 1997-2007 (Size classes defined by hectares) Percent of holdings 76 73 43 34 32 28 27 18 14 12 12 12 6 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 Italy Netherlands Source: FFS.

  16. Figure 4. Size distribution of holdings, Netherlands and Italy, excluding small holdings, 1997-2007 (Size classes defined by hectares) Percent of holdings 76 60 50 46 45 40 20 17 17 9 6 5 4 3 3 1 Italy Netherlands Source: FFS.

  17. Figure 5. Size distribution of holdings, U.S. and EU-15, 1997-2007 (Size classes defined by ESU) Percent of holdings 34 31 28 27 24 19 17 17 16 15 13 13 12 12 11 11 9 9 9 10 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 6 5 3 EU U.S. Sources: For U.S., ARMS. For EU, FFS.

  18. Figure 6. Size distribution of holdings, U.S. and EU-15, excluding small holdings, 1997-2007 (Size classes defined by ESU) Percent of holdings 30 28 26 24 24 24 23 23 23 22 20 19 18 17 16 15 15 15 9 6 E.U. U.S. Source: For U.S., ARMS. For EU, FFS.

  19. Figure 7. Size distribution of holdings, Netherlands and Italy, 1997-2007 (Size classes defined by hectares) Percent of holdings 46 35 34 30 30 25 21 19 17 17 17 14 12 12 11 10 10 9 9 7 5 3 2 1 1 1 Italy Netherlands Source: FFS. Note: No farms had <2 hectares in NL.

  20. Figure 8. Size distribution of holdings, Netherlands and Italy, excluding small holdings, 1997-2007 (Size classes defined by hectares) Percent of holdings 42 39 36 31 31 27 26 25 21 20 17 17 12 12 10 10 9 7 5 3 Italy Netherlands Source: FFS.

  21. Figure 9. Share of farms engaged in pluriactivity, US and EU-15, 2007 Percent 71 55 48 48 47 43 42 38 32 31 28 28 25 25 23 19 16 Sources: For U.S., Census of Ag. For EU, FFS.

  22. Figure 10. Structural characteristics by farm size, U.S., 2007 Farms with =>100 ESU’s are 10% of farms, 45% of hectares, and 81% of production. Percent of farms 92 79 70 54 48 48 26 23 16 6 Source: 2007 ARMS.

  23. Figure 11. Multifunctionality activities by farm size, U.S., 2007 Farms with =>100 ESU’s are 10% of farms, 45% of hectares, and 81% of production. Percent of farms 24 15 6 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 <1 Source: 2007 ARMS.

  24. Emerging issues • Accountability—new policy environment • Most critical issues extend beyond ag and rural areas—underscores the need for an integrated framework • Farm household issues: Measuring size (SO), Dynamics, Data collection from very large operations, Nontraditional business and production practices, Multifunctionality activities. MF varies by farm size.

More Related