Valborg Kvakkestad
Research Scientist
(+47) 481 32 706
valborg.kvakkestad@nibio.no
Place
Ås O43
Visiting address
Oluf Thesens vei 43, 1433 Ås
Abstract
Closing nutrient cycles by bio-based fertilizer products (BFPs) can improve the environmental sustainability of food systems and facilitate a more circular economy. Although the theoretical potential for nutrient recycling has been explored in detail, BFPs still seldom replace mineral fertilizer products in practice. The aim of the present study was to explore the critical enabling and limiting factors for the use of BFPs as seen from the perspective of farmers, suppliers, and civil society. To this aim, qualitative interviews were conducted with seven conventional grain farmers, six suppliers of BFPs, and five representatives of civil society, limited to environmental non-governmental organizations. The presented results illustrate a mismatch between demand and supply. On the one hand, the interviewed farmers were only interested in using BFPs if they are practical to use, balanced with respect to nutrient contents, and potentially provide the same earnings as mineral fertilizers. Positive effects for soil quality were an important driver for many of the farmers. On the other hand, the suppliers of BFPs were generally not able to offer products that fulfilled the farmers’ demands without economic losses, and they emphasized that they have faced several regulatory challenges. Representatives of regional civil society organizations expressed concern that new technical solutions could cause new environmental challenges, and that BFPs could enable further intensification of livestock production. The central-level representatives from the same NGOs, however, were positive about that BFPs can solve environmental problems. Policy instruments will be needed to increase the adoption of PFPs. Fostering BFPs’ that contribute to a sustainable agriculture is important to consider when formulating these polices.
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
Integrated pest management (IPM) was introduced in the 1960s as a response to increasing pesticide use and has since evolved from being understood mainly as an economic issue to also including environmental and human health considerations. The EU has made IPM mandatory for all farmers through the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive (SUD). Using a mixed-methods approach, this paper examines how Norwegian cereal farmers have responded to this requirement. The qualitative results show that most farmers have an understanding of IPM that goes beyond economic considerations only. The quantitative results display that farmers’ intrinsic motivation for IPM changed after introduction of the SUD. There is increased emphasis on using methods other than spraying, producing grain without traces of pesticides, and preventing pesticide resistance. Farmers’ self-reported knowledge of IPM increased, and 41% of farmers stated that they use IPM to a greater extent than before the SUD was introduced. These results demonstrate that mandatory IPM requirements have been a successful strategy for increasing farmers use of IPM in Norway. Clearer IPM provisions and increased intrinsic motivation for IPM among farmers will, however, be important to reduce the risks from pesticides further.
Abstract
The EU has developed a Directive on Sustainable Use of Chemical Pesticides (2009/128/EC) (SUD) that aims to enhance the use of non-chemical alternatives to pesticides like microbial plant protection products (PPP). The number of authorized microbial PPP for plant protection has increased globally during the last decade. There is, however, variation between different countries. Sweden and Denmark have for example each authorized 20 microbial PPP while Norway has only authorized four microbial PPP. Norway has also received significantly fewer applications for authorization of microbial PPP than the other Scandinavian countries. We explore possible explanations for the observed differences. Our results show that that the regulations in the three countries had similar requirements for the authorisation of microbial PPP. The size of the market is somewhat smaller in Norway than in Sweden and Denmark, and could therefore explain some of the differences. We suggest, however, that the most important explanation is implementation differences in terms of different decisions made in the authorization process. By comparing the authorization process for three microbial PPP in the Scandinavian countries, we found that Norway used more time for the product authorization decisions. Norway assess the same types of microbial PPP more restrictively with respect to environmental aspects and especially human health risks.
Abstract
Within the last decade, implementing eight key principles of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) has become mandatory for all professional users of pesticides in the European Union (EU) and European Economic Area (EEA). Meanwhile, evidence of the level of implementation is lacking. In this study, the adoption of IPM principles among Norwegian grain farmers was measured using a novel IPM index based on self-reported levels of performing IPM practices. Three IPM experts weighted the principles and practices included in the index. They found prevention and suppression to be the most important principle, followed by monitoring and decisionmaking, while pesticide selection and evaluation were deemed least important. A survey of 1250 farmers showed that the principles with the highest adoption rates were evaluation and anti-resistance strategies, while non-chemical methods and reduced pesticide use had the lowest adoption rates. The results support previous suggestions that more complex principles, requiring a larger set of practices, are less readily adopted than those that are less complex. Nevertheless, the index scores showed that most Norwegian grain farmers are extensively practicing IPM; 75% of the respondents obtained scores between 60 and 80 on a 100-point scale, with an average score of 68. In the Norwegian context, it is more relevant to discuss the varying use of IPM rather than how to increase adoption in general.
Abstract
This paper analyses two strategies to reduce the use of pesticides in grain production. We study Norwegian farmers’ willingness to voluntarily forego income by reducing pesticide use as well as their responses to a doubling of the pesticide price (through increased pesticide taxes). We use mixed methods including an experiment, a survey and focus group discussions. The experiment shows that most farmers are willing to sacrifice some income to reduce environmental risks by using less pesticide. According to the survey, they are, at the same time, relatively insensitive to a 100% price increase on herbicides and fungicides. While the response to the price increase probably would have been stronger if differentiated between chemicals, our research indicates potential benefits from supporting voluntary action. Value orientations and agronomic conditions influence the stated responses in both circumstances. Respondents emphasizing environmental values are more willing to voluntarily reduce pesticide use and show a greater response to the economic incentive than farmers emphasizing economic outcome and issues such as clean fields. A hypothesized willingness to reduce pesticide use voluntarily to strengthen the reputation of the sector was, however, rejected. Farmers appear to have few alternatives to pesticides, but increased knowledge about the alternatives that do exist, seems able to promote some change. Our findings suggest that the extension service should put greater emphasis on these options, even if they may have negative effects on income.
Authors
Valborg KvakkestadAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
In this paper, we examine citizen and consumer attitudes towards, and preferences for, private and public goods from organic agriculture in Norway. The study is based on a survey among 939 Norwegians. The results show that in the role as citizens, the respondents hold a moderate belief in the superiority of organic farming concerning the production of public goods, but they give relatively low priority to prompting organic farming compared to other agricultural policy goals. In the role as consumers (choice experiment), the respondents were willing to pay for several attributes of organic food. Only 6% of the respondents buy organic food as often as they can. The most important reasons for buying organic food are health and environmental concerns, while animal welfare has little importance. Lack of perceived superiority regarding health benefits, taste, safety and environment are important reasons for not consuming (more) organic food among those who rarely or never buy organic food.
Authors
Marianne Stenrød Therese With Berge Ole Martin Eklo Alexander Melvold Engebretsen Andrea Ficke Valborg Kvakkestad Roar Lågbu Anne Prestvik Karen Refsgaard Divina Gracia P. Rodrigues Eivind Solbakken Jörn Strassemeyer Kirsten Tørresen Anne Falk ØgaardAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
In this paper, we apply grounded innovation platforms (GRIPs) as a tool for inclusive innovation in relation to forest-based bioenergy in Norway. We use cases studied in the Triple Bottom Line Outcomes for Bioenergy Development and Innovation in Rural Norway research project. We review the notion of GRIPs and classify them. We analyse forms of GRIPs and the hypothesis that forms of GRIP affect ‘triple bottom line’ outcomes of sustainable development. We relate our findings to the debates on inclusive innovation, which we argue is not simply an issue for ‘developing countries’. Development, being understood to be different from economic growth, is concerned with inclusion and exclusion, and, in a world of growing inequalities, is a universal issue everywhere.
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Marianne Stenrød Kirsten Tørresen Therese With Berge Andrea Ficke Ole Martin Eklo Anne Falk Øgaard Ola Flaten Karen Refsgaard Valborg KvakkestadAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Marianne Stenrød Kirsten Tørresen Therese With Berge Andrea Ficke Ole Martin Eklo Anne Falk Øgaard Ola Flaten Karen Refsgaard Valborg KvakkestadAbstract
In Europe there is an on-going process on implementing regulations aimed at reducing pollution from agricultural production systems, i.e. the Water Framework Directive and the Framework Directive for Sustainable Use of Pesticides. At the same time, there is an increasing focus on food security possibly leading to continued intensification of agricultural production with increased use of external inputs, such as pesticides and fertilizers. Application of sustainable production systems can only be achieved if they balance conflicting environmental and economic effects. In Norway, cereal production is of large importance for food security and reduction of soil and phosphorus losses, as well as pesticide use and leaching/runoff in the cereal production are of special concern. Therefore, we need to determine the most sustainable and effective strategies to reduce loss of top soil, phosphorus and pesticides while maintaining cereal yields. A three-year research project, STRAPP, is addressing these concerns. A catchment area dominated by cereal production is our common research arena within STRAPP. Since 1992 a database (JOVA) with data for soil erosion, nutrient and pesticide leaching/runoff (i.e. concentrations in stream water), yield, and agricultural management practices (fertilization, use of pesticides, soil tillage and rotations) has been established for this catchment allowing us to compare a unique diversity in cropping strategies in a defined location. An important part of STRAPP focuses on developing ‘best plant protection strategies’ for cereal fields in the study area, based on field inventories (manual and sensor based) of weeds and common diseases, available forecast systems, and pesticide leaching risk maps. The results of field studies during the growing seasons of 2013 and 2014 will be presented, with a focus on possible integrated pest management (IPM) strategies for weeds and fungal diseases in cereal production. We will also present the project concept and methods for coupling optimized plant protection strategies to (i) modelling of phosphorus and pesticide leaching/runoff, as well as soil loss, and (ii) farm-economic impacts and adaptations. Further, methods for balancing the conflicting environmental and economic effects of the above practices, and the evaluation of instruments for increased adoption of desirable management practices will be outlined.
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Karen Refsgaard John Marshall Bryden Biancha Cavicchi Nicholas Clarke Stig Strandli Gezelius Valborg KvakkestadAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Marianne Stenrød Kirsten Tørresen Ole Martin Eklo Anne Falk Øgaard Gudbrand Lien Karen Refsgaard Valborg KvakkestadAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
This ESEE 2011 conference paper examines attitudes to private and public goods and bads from agriculture in Norway with a particular focus on organic agriculture. The issue is based on a survey among 939 Norwegians. The results show that the respondents strongly value public attributes of agriculture like a vivid countryside and cultural landscapes. Almost 60 percent of the sample emphasise that the government should aim to increase the production and sale of organic food. Respondents’ behaviour as consumers were investigated by collecting and analysing data that indicate which conditions respondents find most important when they buy milk, eggs, carrots and ketchup. Important conditions were taste, fresh, produced in Norway and no use of pesticides or fertilizers. The most important reasons for buying organic food were avoidance of pesticides, health and environmental concerns.
Abstract
This paper analyzes the capabilities of three different governance regimes for adequately handling uncertain and unknown effects of genetically modified (GM) crops. Adequate handling requires the development of sound procedures for identification of uncertainty and ignorance (U&I), reduction of U&I, decisions on how to treat irreducible U&I and monitoring of unexpected effects. The nature of U&I implies, however, that these procedures will be highly incomplete. Governance mechanisms that facilitate cooperative adaptation and communicative rationality are therefore needed. The three governance regimes (GRs) compared are: GM-crops are produced by private firms and these firms are made liable for harm (GR1); GM-crops are produced by private firms and the government decides whether the crops should be marketed (GR2); and GM-crops are produced and the government decides whether the crops should be marketed (GR3). The effect of bringing the civil society into the decision-making process is also analyzed. GR3 will be stronger in cooperative adaptation and communicative rationality than GR2. Public research organizations have fewer conflicts of interest with the government than private firms, and academic norms are important. Difficulties in proving harm and identifying the responsible firm will make GR1 weak in cooperative adaptation and communicative rationality.
Division of Food Production and Society
CircAgric - Strategies for Circular Agriculture to reduce GHG emissions
CircAgric-GHG will unravel mechanisms by which farming systems can enhance circularity whist reducing GHG emissions and provide ecosystem services at multiple scales.
Division of Food Production and Society
Risk management of imported plants and seeds: possibilities for improved pest detection to prevent the introduction and spread of new pests
Plant pathogens and invertebrates harmful to plants continue to threatenfood security and natural habitats. In Norway, the responsibility of performingplant health inspections on imported plants has gradually shifted to importersof plants who are currently responsible for internal pest control and mustbe registered with the Norwegian Food Safety Authority.
Division of Food Production and Society
Agricultural mitigation measures and the value of water quality improvements
Agriculture is one of the main sources of water pollution in Norway, and an important contributor to GHG emissions.