The aim of this work was to identify procedures adopted by family farms in the centre and north of Portugal and Galicia (Spain), and to verify whether they resemble those used in organic farming. A checklist was prepared in Portuguese and Spanish and applied personally to managers of family farms. The participation was voluntary and 125 valid responses were collected.
This deliverable is a report of the work done in the framework of the Small Farms, Small Food Business and Sustainable Food Security (SALSA) project in task 2.3 of Work Package (WP2) as defined in the description of work (DOW) of the SALSA project. The title of the task according to the DOW is Task 2.3 - Small farms characterization in the reference regions.
The present document is the first deliverable from SALSA's Work Package 4 which includes, after an introductory section that explains the methodological approach and the workshops' preparatory process, a compilation of 11 reports from each region where the foresight analysis was undertaken. Each regional report contains the main outcomes from these foresight activities on the future potential role of small farms and small food businesses in food and nutrition security.
The present document is the second deliverable from SALSA's Work Package 4. It contains the comparative analysis carried out from the 13 regional reports (collected in D4.1) that were gathered from the outcomes of the participatory foresight workshop conducted in 13 different regions in Europe and Africa.
The aim of WP5 is to answer the question: What governs Small Farm and Small Food Business activities? The specific aim of this report (and the related task 5.1) is to identify and assess the forms of governance that influence, both positively and negatively, the contribution of small farms and small food businesses (SF/SFB) to Sustainable Food and Nutritional Security (FNS). In doing so, the work proceeds around the following objectives:
This report represents findings on the role of women in small-scale farming (defined as farms up to 5 ha or 8 ESU), particularly in relation to governance frameworks associated with food and nutrition security. It follows SALSA Deliverable 5.1, which assesses the governance arrangements which impact upon small-scale farms and small food businesses. Both reports utilise the data collected in SALSA WP3 (In-depth assessment of food systems in 30 regions).
Deliverable 5.3 is based on an internal report produced under Task 5.3 'Enabling governance frameworks' (UPV team), and Task 5.4 'Governance Framework analysis'. Task 5.3 provided further analysis of 3 governance forms that were identified in Deliverable 5.1. (The Governance of Small Farms and Small Food Businesses to support food and nutritional security) as most enabling small farms and small food business to contribute to food and nutrition security. These were: 1. Cooperative arrangements and associations; 2. State subsidies and financial assistance; and, 3.
This document presents the set of thirty Food System Regional Reports developed within WP3 of the SALSA project. This is the first out of the three deliverables planned for this WP.
Agriculture faces an enormous global challenge of feeding nine billion people by 2050. This means a comprehensive intensification of agriculture is required. Ecological intensification is gaining momentum as a clearly defined vision for increasing agriculture productivity and sustainability. How ecological intensification could be tailored to benefit smallholder farming systems in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) remains the major question. In this study, we develop pathways relying on ecological intensification technologies and suiting different farm types of smallholder agriculture.
This article therefore analyses whether agricultural advisors representing companies that do not sell pesticides (independent advisors) are more likely to recommend reduced pesticide use than agricultural advisors who represent companies with an economic interest in selling pesticides (supplier-affiliated advisors). However, we would not necessarily expect a crude relationship between economic incentive and higher pesticide recommendations. After all, advisors have to justify their recommendations to their customers, the farmers.