Using cognitive mapping for assessing the adoption of
agroecological practices as related to Common Agricultural
Policy measures: A case study for viticulture
farmers’perspectives in the province of Trento, Italy.
1
Chiara Stefania Garini
August 2015
Farming Systems Ecology Group
Droevendaalsesteeg 1 – 6708 PB Wageningen - The Netherlands
2
Using cognitive mapping for assessing the adoption of
agroecological practices as related to Common Agricultural
Policy measures: A case study for viticulture farmers’
perspectives in the province of Trento, Italy.
Chiara Stefania Garini
Registration number student: 900811-250-040
Credits: 36
Code number/name course: FSE-80436/MSc Thesis Farming Systems Ecology
Supervisors: Johannes Scholberg, Alexander Wezel
3
Professor/Examiner: Jeroen Groot
4
Table of contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................ 1
1. Case study: viticulture sector in Trentino region, Italy. ..................................................... 5
2. Materials and Methods ...................................................................................................... 5
3. Results ................................................................................................................................ 8
3.1 General farm characterization per valley .................................................................... 8
3.2 Individual Cognitive Mapping ...................................................................................... 9
3.3 Social Cognitive Mapping .......................................................................................... 12
3.4 Factors of motivation ................................................................................................ 15
3.4.1 Microclimate ...................................................................................................... 15
3.4.2
Requirements winery ..................................................................................... 16
3.4.3
Access to equipment ...................................................................................... 17
3.4.4
Aesthetic values .............................................................................................. 17
3.4.5 Health Concern ................................................................................................... 17
3.4.6 Irrigation consortium ......................................................................................... 18
3.4.7 Legal requirements............................................................................................. 18
4. Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 18
4.1 Pedo-climatic conditions ........................................................................................... 19
4.2 Influence from wineries............................................................................................. 19
4.3 Materials availability.................................................................................................. 20
4.4 Personal values .......................................................................................................... 20
4.5 Formal institutional conditions ................................................................................. 21
4.6 Reflection on the methodology ................................................................................. 22
4.7 Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 23
5. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 23
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. 24
Bibliography.............................................................................................................................. 25
Appendix 1. Review about Common Agricultural Policy.......................................................... 32
Appendix 2. Purpose of the study ............................................................................................ 44
Appendix 3. Description of the case study area. ..................................................................... 46
Appendix 4. Complete materials and methods........................................................................ 52
Appendix 5. Online questionnarie to experts. ......................................................................... 57
Appendix 6. Results of the online questionnaire to experts.................................................... 58
Appendix 7. Questionnaire for in-depth interviews to farmers .............................................. 63
Appendix 8. Agroecological practices according to local experts of viticulture in Trentino ... 67
Appendix 9. Complete results of the online questionnaire to experts.................................... 69
Appendix 10. Complete results of interviews to farmers. ....................................................... 82
Appendix 11. Annotations from the coding process................................................................ 92
5
Abstract
Conventional agricultural practices are threatening the ecological foundations of the global
food system. Therefore, agroecological practices are being proposed as a viable and
desirable alternative to meet future food demand. The external biophysical, economic, social
and political stimuli, matched with the individual farmer’s attributes all may be governing
the choice of agricultural practices. Among all these factors, public policies can play a
significant role as they can stimulate the adoption of innovative farming practices. In Europe
the objectives of sustainable agriculture and environment protection are included in the
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). However, the generic nature of policy strategies tends to
be disconnected from the particular realm of farmers and their farming practices. The main
objective of this research was the evaluation of European CAP measures with respect to
their governing influence on the farmers’ adoption of agroecological practices in the
particular context of the viticulture sector in Central Trentino region, Italy. This evaluation
was based on farmers’ perceptions of their systems of practices, by applying the Cognitive
Mapping Approach for Analyzing Actors’ Systems Of Practices (CMASOP) methodological
framework. Based on information collected during in-depth interviews, a Social Cognitive
Map was generated, representing not only the most frequently adopted agroecological
practices, but also the major factors affecting the motivation to adopt such practices, as
spontaneously reported by the participants. From the analysis of the centrality values of
these motivational factors the farmers’ adoption of agroecological practices was observed
to be mainly affected by pedoclimatic conditions, requirements from private or cooperative
wineries, availability of material, personal values and institutional conditions. Among these,
a local legislation for Integrated Pest Management based on a CAP measure was also
reported. Overall, wineries seem to be the most influential actors in the social-ecological
system under study. Therefore, they could affect a further adoption of agroecological
practices in the study area. In addition to these results, the study demonstrated that
CMASOP is an effective tool to model social-ecological system for a specific aim and that
cognitive mapping approaches are suited for policy evaluation. Furthermore, the study
suggested that cognitive mapping could also be used as a supportive tool for environmental
policy decision making.
6
Introduction
Today’s global food system is quickly approaching the absolute ecological, socio-economic
and political limits of sustainability (McKeon 2015). Currently, there is much debate on how
to innovate agriculture and increase food production in order to ensure global food security
while halting environmental degradation (Tittonell 2013; Halbrendt et al. 2014). In this
debate both sustainable and ecological intensification are often used as guiding principles by
contending actors (Tittonell, 2014). Regardless, based on the broader definition of
sustainability, it is evident that the ecological aspects are intrinsically linked with the sociocultural, economic and political ones. Moreover, consumers increasingly demand that food is
produced in a sustainable manner while values chains are required to become more
transparent in terms of addressing specific sustainability goals including biodiversity, wellbeing of rural communities, and environmental quality. In this context, meeting
sustainability goals can create added value to agricultural commodities and therefore, the
concept of social-ecological systems appears to be useful as a lens to study agricultural
systems. This term merges the idea of social systems, as related to formal and informal
institutions that structure human interactions, to ecosystems, that refers to the overall
natural environment (Berkes et al. 1998; Berkes 2004). Social-ecological systems rely on the
ecological, social, economical and political realms, which undergo a constant evolution.
Current agricultural developments, such as intensification and marginilization of traditional
agricultural systems appear to jeopardize the sustainability of social-ecological systems both
at the local and global scale (Vanwindekens 2014). Undoubtely, agricultural systems come
under the definition of social-ecological system (Ortolani et al. 2010) and farming practices
are a clear expression of this linkage (Berkes et al. 1998). According to a recent UN report,
conventional agricultural practices are threatening the ecological foundations of the global
food system. Therefore, alternative approaches need to be adopted in order to lower the
impact of farming activities on natural resources (UNEP 2012).
Several schools of thought are disputing which agricultural options are the more suited to
face the challenge of ensuring productivity in a sustainable way (Wezel et al. 2014). Among
these, ”ecological-based” practices are being proposed as a viable and desirable alternative
to meet future food demand, by producing sufficient amounts of nutrious food while
avoiding negative impact on the environment and allowing farmers sufficient income in a
socially just environment. Inherently, these practices are rooted in common values that were
then defined as principles, that may be translated to specific practices. As such, many of
these practices have been promulgated since the seventies and may also be subscribed by
different groups but more recently they have been defined as ”agroecological practices”. As
such they aim to support the delivery of ecosystem services that foster ecological
relationships, processes and services. They may be captured by the following processes in
agroecosystems, which are often stated as the principles of agroecology (Altieri 2002):
1. Fostering the (re)cycling of carbon and nutrients to enhance availability and
balancing of resources.
2. Enhancing soil conditions in such manner that plant growth can be optimal.
3. Minimizing resource losses by using improved system design and management
techniques.
4. Improving diversification in time and space.
5. Promoting positive interactions and synergisms among biological organisms and
system components.
1
These five principles, that are inherently linked with the design of agroecological systems,
are to a large extent distinctly different from conventional input-dependent technologies.
The corresponding agroecological practices that evolve from these principles are
intrinsecally customized to local conditions and needs and they need to be adapted to the
diversity of farming systems (Altieri 2002). The site-specific environmental and socioeconomic conditions govern how these design principles are translated into actual farm
practices. Such practices that are being based on agroecological principles take advantage of
the biological regulation mechanisms at different levels. At the basis of this concept lies the
assumption that chemical or physical inputs can be replaced or reduced by biological or
ecological processes, therefore limiting costs, external input requirements, and negative
environmental externalities, which in turn produce societal costs (Tittonell 2013). Examples
of these biological processes include nutrient cycling, nitrogen fixation, soil and water
conservation, carbon sequestration or natural regulation of pests and diseases.
The farmers’ choice to adopt an agroecological practice usually requires an increased level of
diversification either at the crop scale or farm scale (e.g. mixed cultivars, intercropping,
integration of semi-natural landscape elements, agroforestry) (Wezel et al. 2014). In
accordance with the concept of social-ecological systems, the decision-making process
depends both on socio-economic and biophysical characteristics of the production
environment. Hence, the external biophysical, economic, social and political stimuli,
matched with the individual farmer’s attributes all may be governing the choice of
agricultural practices (Caporali, 2010).
Among all these factors, public policies can play a significant role as they can stimulate the
adoption of innovative farming practices through institutional arrangements including
subsidies (De Molina 2013). In Europe, since the Agenda 2000 and the 2003 Mid Term
Review reforms, the concepts of sustainable agriculture and environment protection, along
with the one of multifunctionality, were added to the goal of increased productivity, as key
objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) (European Commission, 2012).
When talking about sustainable agriculture, it is key to include different ecological functions,
in addition to merely focusing on productivity, as agriculture may also provide a much
broader suite of environmental, economical and social services (Knickel et al. 2009). These
functions are defined as ecosystem services, which are non-commodity effects, positive
externalities or public goods which benefit society as a whole (Ryszkowski and Kedziora,
2005; Le Cotty et al. 2005). Ecosystem services are classified into provisioning, regulating,
supporting and cultural services. Provisioning ecosystem services refer to the provision of
energy and material such as food and fibre. Examples of regulating services are climate
regulation, erosion prevention and water and nutrient retention; supporting services include
nutrient recycling, soil quality and soil conservation. Cultural services may include
recreational and aesthetic benefits, preservation of traditional landscapes, capacity building
and community development. (Rodríguez-Ortega et al. 2014; Harrison and Hester, 2010).
In the Rural Development Policy, the so-called second pillar of the CAP, several measures
promote the provision of ecosystem services (e.g. the agro-environment measures). These
are voluntary-based measures of financial supports for the use of environment-friendly
agricultural practices (e.g. maintanament of semi-natural hedgerows). Likewise, the first
pillar of the CAP influences the adoption of different farming practices. The cross-compliance
rule determines that each farmer receiving a direct payment should comply with a set of
Statutory Management Requirements and with the maintenance of land in Good Agricultural
2
and Environmental Conditions. The former includes European Directives for the protection
of the environment (e.g. Nitrates Directive), that set up a number of rules to be respected by
each farmer (e.g. maximum quantity of nitrates per hectare and per year allowed). The latter
are both compulsory and voluntary practices that farmers should adopt in order to meet
some general objectives such as soil and water protection (e.g. minimum soil cover is
required). See Appendix 1 for a more detailed description of the European Common
Agricultural Policy.
Thus, several measures in the CAP seem to encourage the adoption of agroecological
practices. However, there is still no coherent governmental strategy, neither at the
European nor at national level, to support a systematic spread of agroecological practices.
The problem is that the generic nature of policy strategies tends to be disconnected from
the particular realm of farmers and their farming practices (Ortolani et al. 2010).
Ascertaining the need of investigating this issue, this research zoomed from the European
scale of the policy realm to the farming system scale (Le Cotty et al. 2005). The main
objective was the verification of the extent to which the CAP objectives of sustainable
agriculture and environment protection are met in terms of operational farming choices in a
particular geo-political context.
The most common tools for policy evaluation (indicators for ex-post analysis and models for
ex-ante analysis) were found not to give sufficient credit to the local economic, social and
political context and to its complex interrelations (Knickel et al. 2009). Hence, a wider
qualitative approach, based on participatory processes, may be required for policy
evaluation (Knickel and Kroger 2008). Besides, in order to understand the process of
adoption of farming practices, not only the environmental and technical circumstances, but
also the farmers’ mindsets and their perceptions of their farms and of the world in general
should be considered (Vanwindekens 2014).
Given these premises, the methodological approaches based on modelling of people’ s
knowledge appeared to be most apropriate technique for this study. In fact, not only
farmers’ perceptions are central to farming system research (Delate 2002) but also farmers’
knowledge may give important contribution to research aimed at designing more
sustainable agroecosystems (Altieri 2004). Among these methods, cognitive mapping is
believed to be a meaningful tool for modelling social-ecological systems (Özesmi and Özesmi
2004). Especially, when used to represent farmers’ perceptions of their farming systems, it
can contribute to the debate related to sustainability of agriculture (Fairweather and Hunt
2011). Cognitive mapping approach is based on the assumption that people understand the
world around them by constructing mental models of interrelated concepts, and that these
constructs guide their actions towards the surrounding environment. Cognitive maps thus
are representations of these mental models (Gray et al. 2014). Fuzzy Cognitive Maps (FCM)
are an extension of cognitive maps, where fuzzy causal functions are being applied to the
relationships between concepts (Kosko 1986). FCM have proved their validity in modelling
systems where the level of uncertainty is high and data availability is scarce (Gray et al.
2014). FCM approaches have been used during the last decades by a variety of scientific
disciplines, ranging from environmental management (Kontogianni et al. 2012) to finance
(Koulouriotis et al. 2005, cited in Vanwindekens et al. 2013). Some scientific studies also
applied FCM approaches to agricultural systems (Hukkinen 1993, Popper et al. 1996, Ozesmi
and Ozesmi 2003, Newig et al. 2008, Papageoriou et al. 2009, Papageorgiou 2011,
Fairweather 2010, Ortolani et al. 2010, Rajaram and Das 2010, Fairweather and Hunt 2011,
3
cited in Vanwindekens et al. 2013; Botha and Verkerk 2002, Valentine et al. 1993, Naidoo
2002, Colfer et al. 1989, Wilson 1995 cited in Fairweather and Hunt 2011).However, only
two of them specifically addressed agricultural policies. On the one hand, Ortolani et al.
(2010) used FCM to model farmers’ perceptions about agro-environment measures. On the
other hand, Newig et al (2008) used cognitive maps in order to represent stakeholders’
perceptions related to problems and solutions with respect to the European Water
Framework Directive. Similarly, in this study the participatory process of FCM was used for
policy evaluation. Nevertheless, compared to previous studies that applied FCM to
agricultural policy analysis, in this paper the evaluation of the effectiveness of policy
measures in promoting sustainable and environment-friendly farming practices was built on
a more comprehensive analysis of a local social-ecological system. In fact, not only FCM ”can
be used for policy analysis in its own right” (Ortolani et al 2010), but also, by effectively
integrating qualitative information, it allows to model complex systems through unlimited
concepts and relations (Özesmi & Özesmi 2004).
Since the main focus of this study included farmers and specific set of practices, a sound
methodological framework, which was based on FCM techniques, was obtained from the
Cognitive Mapping Approach for Analyzing Actors’ Systems Of Practices (CMASOP),
developed by Vanwindekens et al. (2013). This methodology makes use of cognitive maps to
register the farmers’ perceptions about their systems of practices. Thus, oppositely to the
conventional methodological approaches for policy evaluation, actors’ knowledge was the
baseline of this work. In this context, a farmer’s system of practice is a group of relations
between a farmer’s professional and personal objectives, the choices he/she makes, the
actions he/she plans and realizes, the environmental and technical conditions that influence
him/her and his/her general world view (Vanwindekens 2014). This innovative method was
previously used for analyzing forage management in a grassland-based livestock farming
system with a descriptive intent and for a comparative and clustering analyses
(Vanwindekens et al. 2013; Vanwindekens et al. 2014). In this research, CMASOP was also
used as a descriptive tool. Nonetheless, the resulting cognitive maps were used to evaluate
the policy effectiveness according to the actors’ – besides the final recipients of the policy
measures – perspectives. CMASOP was applied to this research not only to describe which
are the most frequently adopted agroecological practices and their consequences on the
farming system itself or on the larger environment, but also to identify which are the main
driving forces boosting the farmers’ choice for agroecological practices. By analyzing what
are the main factors that farmers report as determiners for their adoption of agroecological
practices, CAP policy measures were being evaluated with respect to their governing
influence on the farmers’ adoption of such practices in a case study area. See Appendix 2 for
more detailed research objectives and questions.
This article will firstly introduce the case study area. Secondly, the methodology used for this
research will be described. Afterwards, the results will be presented and both findings and
implementation of this innovative methodology in the specific context of the case study will
be discussed as well.
4
1. Case study: viticulture sector in Trentino region, Italy.
The study was carried out in the central zone of the province of Trento, located in the heart
of the Alps, in northern Italy. The study area included three Valley communities: Val di
Cembra, Comunità Rotaliana and Valle dei Laghi (Fig. 1). The dominating land uses in the
case study area include vineyards (49.4%), followed by grasslands and pastures (28.9%) and
apple orchards (13.8%).The remaining agricultural area may be occupied by arable land
(4.5%) and vegetable gardens (0.3%) (ISPAT, 2013). Overall, the study area is characterized
by smallholder family farms. The professional agricultural sector features a big number of
very small-scale vineyards farms (average size 0.3 ha), followed by very small-scale apple
farms (average 0.4 ha) and small-scale pasture-based farms (average 12 ha) (ISPAT, 2013).
Vineyards was the key agricultural activity targeted in this research, as it represented the
most relevant land use in the case study area.
In terms of topography, the region is predominantly mountainous with mountain ranges
being interspersed by many valleys. The climate according to Koppen-Geiger classification is
warm-temperate, fully humid with hot summers (Climate-Data.org, 2015). See Appendix 3
for a further description of the case study area in terms of geo-morphologic conditions and
farm typology.
Figure 1. Position of Trentino in Italy and map of the “Valley communities” in Trentino. The study area,
Central Trentino (Val di Cembra, Comunità Rotaliana and Valle dei Laghi), is marked with a black line
2. Materials and Methods
The methodology of this research was structured according to the approach of analysis and
(re-)design of agroecosystems by Tittonell 2013. See Appendix 4 for a complete description
of the methodology according to this approach.
During a preliminary research phase, 71 experts of the local viticulture sector were
interviewed in order to contextualize the definition of “agroecological practice” to the
specific viticulture sector within the Trentino region. Key informants were asked to
complete an online questionnaire in order to understand the potential adoption of
agroecological practices in the perennial land use system with special reference to vineyards
in Central Trentino. In this manner it was aimed to define agroecological practices based on
the specific conditions of the case study region. The analysis of the questionnaire to experts
5
resulted in a list of agroecological practices that currently are or potentially could be most
effectively adopted for vineyards in Central Trentino, along with a list of the most
appropriate terminology to be used when communicating with local farmers. This
information formed the basis for conducting and analyzing the in-depth interviews of
farmers, which constitute the main body of this study and that are being described in detail
in the next paragraphs. See Appendix 6 for the results of the online questionnaire to experts.
For the core of this research, the Cognitive Mapping Approach for Analyzing Actors’ Systems
Of Practices (CMASOP) methodological framework was used, which was developed by
Vanwindekens et al. (2013). CMASOP is based on qualitative open-ended interviews to
farmers, which aim is to gather the actors’ perspectives about their systems of practices. In
the context of this study, the focus was on the ‘adoption of agroecological practices’,
therefore the definition of ‘system of practices’ was adapted to include:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
The set of technical operations (site-specific agroecological practices) and the
reasons for their adoption.
The factors influencing the motivation to adopt agroecological practices.
The elements affected by the adopted agroecological practices, being either
elements of the farming system itself or elements affecting the larger environment
such as ecosystem services.
The relationship between the first three items (i, ii, iii).
A total of 21 farmers were interviewed over the period from April to June 2015. The sample
size was considered adequate for the application of CMASOP, as a saturation of relationships
was reported to occur after about twenty interviews (Vanwindekens et al. 2013).
Participants were selected through snowball sampling (Goodman 1961) with the goal of
having a proportional sample based on fraction of the valleys and their contribution to the
total population. Farm interviews lasted about one hour and were structured into three
sections. The first one to generate a general description of the farm including resource
endowment, infrastructure and equipment along with basic information about the farmer’s
personal perspective and past experience. The second section mainly aimed to map current
agroecological practices based on proposed set of existing techniques provided by local
informants. For doing this, two papers were provided to the farmer. The first one contained
the five principles of agroecology by Altieri (2002) and the three most frequent definitions of
agroecological practices based on statements by local experts during the preliminary online
questionnaire. Namely: ”sustainable”, ”respectful for the environment” and “productive”.
The second paper was a comprehensive list of all possible agroecological practices that are
being adopted or may be implemented in viticulture-based systems in Trentino region,
based on information provided by local experts. The aim of this list was to show to the
farmer specific examples of what may be considered as an agroecological practice. This in
order to further clarify the context and to facilitate the interview process. In the third
section participants were asked to list the agroecological practices they adopt and to explain,
for each of the adopted agroecological practice, the elements affected by it and the factors
that affected the motivation to adopt it. See Appendix 7 and 8 for the complete
questionnaire and list of practices.
The interviews were recorded and accounted for a total of 15 hours and 55 minutes, and
statements were subsequently verbatim transcribed and amounted to a total of 102261
words. Later, the coding process was structured in two phases. Each transcription was read
through a first time and a total of 108 concepts found in the text were listed. The complete
6
list of coded concepts, along with some explanations, can be found in Appendix 10.
Concepts were grouped into 3 major code categories, namely: the adopted agroecological
practices (45), the elements affected by the adopted agroecological practice (29) and the
factors influencing the motivation to adopt agroecological practices (34). Secondly, all the
transcriptions were read through another time and the relations between the previously
coded concepts were marked with RQDA (Huang, 2014). Both the concept list and the
relations between these concepts were not set a priori but were drawn up during this stage.
A total of 661 quotations, referring to relationships between concepts, were marked, for a
total of 358 relationships. In each interview an average of 31.5 ± 10.8 quotations were
identified. See Appendix 10 for the accumulation curve of relationships.
Afterwards, the identified relationships between concepts were processed using R-package
RgraphViz (Gentry et al., 2010 cited in Vanwindekens et al. 2013). The outcome of the data
analysis was an Individual Cognitive Map (ICM) for each farmer and one Social Cognitive Map
(SCM) that aggregates all the 21 ICMs. In this context, an ICM is a cognitive map that is a
complex network of relationships between concepts, representing the actor’s mental model
of his/her system of practices, according to the information reported during the interview.
The SCM, on the other hand, represents the whole sample’s network of relations among
various concepts used to describe their systems of practice. In ICMs and SCM nodes
represent concepts and edges represent relationships.
From the SCM not only the most frequently adopted agroecological practices in the
viticulture sector in the Central Trentino region were listed, but also the major factors
affecting the farmers’ motivation to adopt such practices were identified. The analysis of
these factors of motivation was the core of the study as it allowed understanding to what
extent farmers perceive CAP policy measures to govern the adoption and use of
agroecological practices.
In order to describe and analyze the Social Cognitive Map, the commonly used outdegree,
indegree and centrality graph theory indicators were calculated for all the concepts. The
outdegree value is the number of relationships exiting from a concept, the indegree value is
the number of relationships entering the concept and the centrality is the sum of the two
(Vanwindekens et al. 2013; Özesmi & Özesmi 2004). Concepts with outdegree values greater
than indegree values have a transmitter character, meaning that they have more driving
functions instead of being governed by other variables. Oppositely, concepts for which
indegree values exceed outdegree values have a receiver character, implying that they have
more of a receiving functions rather than influencing other variables (Vanwindekens et al.
2013; Gray et al. 2014). The values of centrality show the contribution and significance of
each variable in terms of the overall map (Özesmi & Özesmi 2004). Concepts with higher
centrality values have an overall greater importance in the model (Gray et al. 2014). In this
study, the concepts with a centrality value equal to or higher than 11 were considered to be
the most central ones, meaning that they were most frequently mentioned by different
farmers. This cut-off value was calculated based on values used by Vanwindekens et al.
2013, considering the total number of interviews and the maximum centrality value. A
simplified version of the SCM was also generated by only including the most central
variables and their intrinsic relationships.
Finally, the most central factors of motivation and the corresponding interconnecting
relationships were described in detail and discussed, as they appear to be the core concepts
7
that governed farmers’ perceptions and management choices and these were analyzed
according to the main research objective. During this stage, the quote retrieving module was
utilized in order to describe and discuss the meaning of each relationship and to
contextualize it to specific production settings. As a final note, it should be highlighted that
all the interviews were carried out and transcribed in Italian. The quotations reported in the
next paragraph, as well as the English definition of the concepts are being based on
translation by the researcher who is proficient in both languages.
3. Results
3.1
General farm characterization per valley
In Table 1 an overview of the main farm characteristics across the different valley
communities is presented. These were extracted from the first section of the interviews.
From this table it is evident that the average farm size in Val di Cembra was smaller (6.9 + 2.6
ha) than the other two valley communities (13.5 + 8.8 ha in Valle dei Laghi and 12 + 4 ha in
Comunità Rotaliana). In Val di Cembra none organic farms were included in the interviews,
while one was included in Valle dei Laghi and two in Comunità Rotaliana. In Comunità
Rotaliana the majority of interviewed farmers were not members of cooperative wineries
but vinified grapes on farm (74 + 0.12 %). Both in Valle dei Laghi and Val di Cembra instead,
the majority of farmers were members of cooperative wineries (100% and 66.7%
respectively), and only an average of 25% vinified grapes on farm. In Valle dei Laghi only 33.3
% of the farms were vines monoculture, the others producing also other crops such as
apples. In the other valley communities vines monocultures were more frequent (75 % in Val
di Cembra and 72.7 % in Comunità Rotaliana). Overall, the number of hired external workers,
not including family members, was low with values being lowest in Val di Cembra (0.3 + 0.3)
and higher in Comunità Rotaliana (3.3 + 1.8). In all the valley communities the farmers’ age
range was on average between 40 and 50 years. Almost the totality of the participants was
born in a vine growers’ family, meaning that parents or grandparents were already involved
in viticulture. Only in Valle dei Laghi one farmer reported not to be part of a vine growers’
family. Overall, a low number of farmers had a university-level education, with values being
lowest in Comunità Rotaliana (6.4%) and highest in Valle dei Laghi (25%).
Table 1. Farm characteristics across different valley communities. For the variables marked with *, the mean
and standard error values are shown
Variable
Farm size (ha) *
% Organic farms
% Vinification on farm *
% Vine monoculture
External workers (n)*
Farmer’ s age range (average)
% Vine growers family
% University-level education
% Cooperative wineries members
Valle dei Laghi
(n=4)
13.5 + 8.8
25
25 + 0.25
33.3
2.7 + 2.7
40-50
75
25
100
Val di Cembra
(n=6)
6.9 + 2.6
0
25 + 0.17
75
0.3 + 0.3
40-50
100
16.7
66.7
Comunità Rotaliana
(n=11)
12 + 4
18.2
74 + 0.12
72.7
3.3 + 1.8
40-50
100
6.4
27.3
8
See Appendix 10 for a complete table of general descriptive data related to the participants’
farms and additional information about participants’ personal experiences.
3.2
Individual Cognitive Mapping
The relationships between concepts identified in each interview were used to generate 21
Individual Cognitive Maps (ICM). The ICM from farmer no. 4 in Val di Cembra is shown in Fig.
2 as an example and the quotations related to each relationship are presented in Table 2.
Concepts, represented in boxes in the ICM, are either adopted agroecological practices or
elements affected by the adopted practices or factors affecting the motivation to adopt
agroecological practices. The relationships between concepts, represented by the arrows in
Fig. 2 and listed in Table 2, are either between a factor of motivation and an adopted
practice or between an adopted practice and an element affected by it.
9
Figure 2. Example of an Individual Cognitive Map (ICM) for farmer number 4 in Val di Cembra
10
Table 2. List of relationships between concepts in the individual cognitive map of farmer number 4 in Val di
Cembra along with quotations linked to each relationship.
Relationship
From concept…
…to concept
Legal requirements
Use of pheromone traps
Use of pheromone
Increased costs
traps
Legal restriction
Reduced pesticide use
Weather conditions
Reduced pesticide use
Requirements
winery
Economic
perspective
Reduced pesticide use
Reduced pesticide
use
Economic
perspective
Economic
perspective
Ecological
perspective
Use of processed
organic amendments
Health concern
Dependence on
weather conditions
Precision fertilization
Single mowing
Enhanced biodiversity
Single mowing
Optimization farm
operations
Aesthetic values
Microclimate
Maintenance of terrace
walls
Maintenance of terrace
walls
Maintenance of terrace
walls
Drip irrigation
Irrigation consortium
Drip irrigation
Historical heritage
Microclimate
Reduced pesticide use
Use of processed
organic amendments
Use of processed
organic amendments
Increased vine vigour
Reduced herbicide
application
Contextualization (Farmers’ quotation)
“The use of pheromone traps is obligatory…”
“The use of pheromone traps is good for the environment,
however not for the costs...”
“Once there was Mancozeb that now they took it away…It
would be more resistant to water, however they decided
like this...”
“If the weather is constant, I know that every 7-8 days I can
treat with the less invasive one”
“When you go to the reunion they tell you not to
exaggerate with treatments”
“I prefer less invasive treatments essentially for the cost
because here we have to save money because, due to the
crisis, we do not get much money from the winery. We do
whatever possible in order to save money.”
“the disadvantage of using copper is that you must give
more attention to the weather forecast”
“I use as least chemical fertilizers as possible because they
are expensive. Then in autumn I use organic amendments,
dry horse manure, where you see that they need it most.”
“I have decided to use organic amendments instead of
chemical ones because, hey this is natural fertilizer!”
“Where I put dry horse manure I can see it, I realize that
vines have more vigour”
“I want to use as least chemical weeding as possible
because it is less poison that you release, after all we are
the ones that eat it”
“Having grass that remain is advantageous and I realize
that there are many more animals when I do so, because I
see roe deers, hares everywhere and birds”
“I mow grass only when it is mature. If you look, there is a
species of grass that is very high, but it is better for me
because when I enter with the tractors and it is wet,
otherwise I would slide”
“Dry walls are more beautiful and it is more typical from
Val di Cembra”
“I make stonewalls with dry technique if it is very difficult to
get close with machinery”
“We chose to make drip irrigation systems because we do
not have enough water here”
“for the irrigation there is the irrigation consortium, I am
also in the directive. The water comes from Piazze lake and
we drip irrigate the whole Val di Cembra”.
11
3.3
Social Cognitive Mapping
The complete SCM aggregating all concepts and relationships is shown in Appendix 10. Due
to the high level of complexity of this SCM, it was appropriate to focus only on those
relationships that were mentioned at least three times. In Fig. 3 the SCM showing only
relationships with a weight greater than or equal to 3 is shown. The weight of a relationship
is the number of times that that relationship was mentioned by the farmers. In Fig. 3 the
weight of relationships is shown by the thickness of edges and by the numbers on their
sides. The different colors characterize the kind of concepts. The adopted agroecological
practices are in blue; the elements affected by the adopted agroecological practices are in
red and the factors affecting the motivation to adopt agroecological practices are in green.
The centrality values of the concepts in the SCM showing only relationships with a minimum
weight of 3 are reported in Table 3.
Table 3. List of all the concepts in the SCM, listed by representative vine growers (n-21) in three valleys in
Trentino, showing only relationships with a min. weight of 3, along with the corresponding centrality values.
Concepts reported by farmers and their centrality values
Reduced pesticide use
59
Ecological perspective
Reduced herbicide application
41
Quality of wine
Microclimate
30
Guyot trellising system
Enhanced soil quality
28
Maintenance of terrace walls
Mechanical weeding
21
Use of processed organic amendments
Use of pheromone traps
18
Grass-based row cover
Requirements winery
18
Customized pruning
Use of biodegradable material
17
Dependence on weather conditions
Drip irrigation
16
Leaf pruning and cluster thinning
Use of wooden poles
16
Shoot training
Increased labour demand
16
Single mowing
Vine resistence and health
15
Use of local varieties
Use local manure
14
Improved waste disposal
Green manure
14
Increased CO2 emission
Optimization farm operations
14
Legal restriction
Access to equipment
14
Organic certification
Aesthetic values
13
Plant equilibrium model
Use site-specific varieties
12
Sustainability goals
Health concern
12
Regional certification
Irrigation consortium
11
Control of pesticide drift
Legal requirements
11
Reduced copper application
Increased costs
10
Site-specific harvesting
Advice from FEM
10
Sulphur application
IPM guidelines
9
Critical timing operations
Weather conditions
9
Improved grape health and maturity
Precision fertilization
8
Reduced vegetative growth
Economic perspective
8
Fertilization requirements
Market trend
8
Reduced water stress
8
7
6
6
6
6
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
12
13
Figure 3. Social Cognitive Map of vine growers (n=21) accross three valley communities in the Trentino region showing only those relationships whose weight is greater than or equal to 3
The most central concepts are listed in Table 4, and they were grouped into the three concept
categories, together with their outdegree and indegree values, as well as their main character
(transmitter vs receiver). As expected, all factors related to motivation have a predominantly
transmitter character while the impacted elements have a receiver character.
The relationships linked to these concepts are shown in a simplified version of SMC (Fig. 4). The
weight of relationships is represented by the thickness of edges and the numbers.
Table 4. Concepts with a centrality values equal to or higher than 11, along with the corresponding outdegree and
indegree values, and their transmitter (T) or receiver character (R), for adopted agroecological practices, elements
affected by the adopted agroecological practices and factors affecting the motivation to adopt agroecological
practice.
Concept
Centrality
Outdegree
Indegree
Character
59
41
21
18
17
16
16
14
14
8
6
18
5
3
0
12
14
11
51
35
3
13
14
16
4
0
3
R>T
R>T
T>R
R>T
R>T
R
T>R
T
T>R
28
16
15
14
3
0
0
0
25
16
15
14
R>T
R
R
R
30
18
14
13
12
11
11
30
18
14
13
12
11
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Adopted practices
Reduced pesticide use
Reduced herbicide application
Mechanical weeding
Use of pheromone traps
Use of biodegradable material
Drip irrigation
Use of wooden poles
Use local manure
Green manure
Affected elements
Enhanced soil quality
Increased labor demand
Vine resistance and health
Optimization farm operations
Factors of motivation
Microclimate
Requirements winery
Access to equipment
Aesthetic values
Health concern
irrigation consortium
Legal requirements
14
Figure 4. Simplified version of the Social Cognitive Map for vine growers in the Trentino region (n=21), showing only
those concepts with a centrality equal to or higher than 11. The weight of relationships is represented by the
thickness of the arrows and by the numbers. Adopted practices are in blue; affected elements in red and factors of
motivation in green
3.4
Factors of motivation
The factors of motivation included the core concepts to be analyzed according to the main
research objective. Therefore, the relationships linked to the most central factors of motivation
are hereby described in more detail. Some quotations linked to these relationships are also
included to contextualize and exemplify their meanings. These factors of motivation will be further
discussed in the next section.
3.4.1
Microclimate
The concept microclimate was the most central factor of motivation reported by the farmers.
Elements like site-specific ventilation, humidity, water availability, soil structure, altitude, sun
exposition and slope were mentioned thirty times as the reasons to choose and adopt an
agroecological practice.
As shown in Fig. 4, this factor influence the farmers’ motivation to adopt two of the most
frequently adopted agroecological practices, namely reduced pesticide use (relationship
mentioned by 3 farmers) and mechanical weeding (relationship mentioned by 3 farmers). The
following quotations exemplify these relationships.
15
“Doing organic for us is very easy thanks to the locations we have, that are very favorable in terms
of ventilation, sun exposition, and those kind of things” [Farmer no. 2, Comunità Rotaliana]
“Where the land is relatively flat we do mechanical weeding” [Farmer no. 2, Val di Cembra]
As shown in Fig. 3, microclimate also affects the use of site-specific varieties (relationship
mentioned by 8 farmers) and the use of drip irrigation (relationship mentioned by 5 farmers).
“For sure the choice of variety is according to the area. You do not plant Pinot Grigio and neither
Pinot Nero close to Avisio creek. You try to plant more calm varieties that are more strawny, less
vigorous, in more humid areas and vice versa. In areas that are dryer, more ventilated and on the
hills, you plant Pinot Grigio, Pinot Nero and Traminer”. [Farmer no. 1, Comunità Rotaliana]
“We use a drip irrigation system in order to give the least possible water because in that area there
is very little available water; and also because the soil is quite loose and it does not retain water,
thus the water requirement is higher than in other areas” [Farmer no. 1, Comunità Rotaliana]
Furthermore, by looking at the SCM in Fig. 3, we can see how this factor also affects the
motivation to adopt other three agroecological practices: precision fertilization (relationship
mentioned by 4 farmers), leaf pruning and cluster thinning (relationship mentioned by 4 farmers)
and Guyot trellising system (relationship mentioned by 3 farmers).
“It depends: if the soil is poor, where I have Chardonnay, that is a sandy soil with gravel, I always
have to fertilize. Here instead, the soil is different, therefore you can also avoid to fertilize
sometimes” [Farmer no. 5, Val di Cembra]
“Here the territory is tough so we still have to do manual operations” [Farmer no. 3, Val di Cembra]
“In Cavedine everything is Guyot because it is 600 m a.s.l. and climatic conditions are different”
[Farmer no. 1, Comunità Rotaliana]
3.4.2 Requirements winery
The concept requirements winery is the second most frequently mentioned factor that affects the
farmers’ motivation to adopt agroecological practices in the case study area. It includes
requirements imposed by the cooperative winery, of which farmers are members or by private
winery, to which farmers sell their grapes. The term requirements implies either general advices or
real rules or economic incentives given by the wineries for the adoption of specific farming
practices. As shown in Fig. 4 wineries affect the farmers’ motivation to reduce the use of pesticides
(relationship mentioned by 3 farmers), to reduce the application of herbicides (relationship
mentioned by 7 farmers), to use green manure (relationship mentioned by 3 farmers) and to use
pheromone traps (relationship mentioned by 5 farmers). The following quotations exemplify these
relationships.
“When you go to the reunions they tell you not to exaggerate with treatments” [Farmer no. 4, Val
di Cembra]
“In order to give grapes to Ferrari it is forbidden to do chemical weeding” [Farmer no. 3, Val di
Cembra]
“I started using green manure not because it was obligatory, but because in Ferrari they were
happier, when they were collecting the grapes, if we were using green manure, as they said these
were agronomic practices that enhance soil conditions”. [Farmer no. 4, Valle dei Laghi]
“I am using pheromone traps now because the winery gives you the traps according to your
surface” [Farmer no. 1, Val di Cembra]
16
3.4.3 Access to equipment
The concept access to equipment is the third most frequently mentioned factor that affects the
farmers’ motivation to adopt agroecological practices. It includes the availability of different
machineries such as drift-reducing nozzles, machines for tying shoots or vineyard sprayers.
Farmers mainly reported that this factor influences their motivation to use biodegradable material
(relationship mentioned by 11 farmers). In Fig. 3 it is shown how the access to equipment also
affects the motivation to control pesticide drift.
“With the battery machine for tying, the machine by Pellenc, we all use biodegradable laces”
[Farmer no. 9, Comunità Rotaliana]
“We do control of pesticide drift because we are equipped with machineries that have driftreducing nozzles” [Farmer no. 1, Comunità Rotaliana]
3.4.4 Aesthetic values
Aesthetic values were mentioned thirteen times as a factor affecting the motivation to adopt
agroecological practices. As shown in Fig. 4, aesthetic values drive the adoption of one of the
most common agroecological practice: reduced herbicide application (relationship mentioned by 3
farmers). Furthermore this factor was reported by farmers as a motivation to use wooden poles
(relationship mentioned by 3 farmers) and to use biodegradable material (relationship mentioned
by 3 farmers). Additionally, looking at Fig. 3 we can see how aesthetic values also affect the
farmers’ motivation to maintain terrace walls (relationship mentioned by 3 farmers).
“I am convinced not to do chemical weeding because seeing the grasses brown, it is an ugly color,
it is death. Green is hope, is life. Just for the colors…” [Farmer no. 1, Valle dei Laghi]
“I use wooden poles because aesthetically they are much more beautiful” [Farmer no. 5, Comunità
Rotaliana]
“For tying the shoots we use biodegradable laces because of aesthetic; so you do not see all the
plastics on the soil that looks very bad” [Farmer no. 2, Valle dei Laghi]
“We have to respect. If there is a nice stone wall, well- made of stones, it is much more beautiful
than concrete” [Farmer no. 5, Comunità Rotaliana]
3.4.5
Health Concern
Health concerns were reported twelve times as factors affecting the motivation to adopt
agroecological practices. Farmers referred to concerns related to their own health as they are the
firsts to be exposed to toxic products by entering the vineyards and eating the grapes. Specifically,
health concerns were reported by eight farmers as factors affecting their motivation to reduce the
application of herbicides and by four farmers as factors affecting their motivation to reduce the use
of pesticides. The following quotations exemplify these relationships.
“Our intention is to reduce the application of herbicides first of all because we are the ones that
enter in the fields” [Farmer no. 6, Comunità Rotaliana]
“Personal safety of the farmer, essentially for our health. I care about this topic. I try to limit the
active ingredients and I use copper, mainly for me”. [Farmer no. 1, Val di Cembra]
17
3.4.6
Irrigation consortium
Eleven farmers reported about the irrigation consortia as a factor affecting their motivation to
adopt an agroecological practice. Predictably, the agroecological practice they referred to is the
adoption of drip irrigation systems.
“The drip irrigation system was done around 30 years ago in our areas. By means of the irrigation
consortium we do have drip irrigation systems”. [Farmer no. 6, Val di Cembra]
3.4.7
Legal requirements
Legal requirements were reported eleven times as factors affecting the motivation to adopt
agroecological practices. These are both local and national legal legislation. Legal requirements
were reported as the main reason to use pheromone traps (relationship mentioned 8 times) and
three farmers mentioned legal requirements as the factor affecting their motivation to maintain
terrace walls.
“We are obliged to use pheromone traps in Trentino” [Farmer no. 4, Val di Cembra]
“They don’t let you reconstruct terrace walls only with concrete. The municipality is the first that
does not allow it for the environment, if you have a wall with stones and you make a part with
concrete… Only in some cases, where the wall is big, they let you make it with concrete but then
you have to cover it with stones” [Farmer no. 4, Valle dei Laghi]
4. Discussion
The main objective of this research was the evaluation of European CAP measures with respect to
their governing influence on the farmers’ adoption of agroecological practices in the viticulture
sector of Central Trentino region, Italy.
This evaluation was entirely based on integrating farmers’ perceptions with an inclusive approach.
Similarly, Camargue rice farmers’ perceptions were analyzed to assess the underlying motivations
governing their preferences for environment-friendly practices with the aim of identifying useful
policy incentives to their adoption, by Jaeck and Lifran (2014). By means of a choice experiment,
the authors generated thorough quantitative results. Differently, the use of cognitive mapping in
this study allowed to represent how farmers spontaneously perceive their systems by listing the
relevant concepts on theirselves, instead of relying on attributes a priori established by the
researchers. Another analogue study by Saint-Ges and Bélis-Bergouignan (2009) investigated
Bordeaux vinegrowers’ adoption of innovations in relation to environmental regulations. Once
again, detailed quantitative results were generated. However, both the adopted innovations and
reasons for their adoption were previously listed by the researchers. Likewise, the study by
Greiner and Gregg (2011) analyzed farmers’ motivations and constraints to the adoption of
conservation practices in Northern Australia, in relation to policy incentives. The closed
questionnaire presented to farmers allowed the authors to generate detailed results by applying
statistical analysis. These three researches may be very similar to this one with respect to the
issues under study. However some distinctions can be highlighted. On the one hand, the accuracy
of the information resulted from CMASOP may not be comparable to the quantitative results of
the above-mentioned studies. On the other hand, the cognitive mapping approach allowed to
capture important farmers’ views and behaviours by not limiting the respondents’ expression to a
close set of answers. At the same time, the researcher’ s interference might have been limited by
not selecting variables based on prior theorizing. In this regard, the approach of this study was
more that of ”research with people rather than research on people” (Oreszczyn et al. 2010).
18
Accordingly, Oreszczyn et al. (2010), by means of cognitive mapping, investigated what influences
farmers’ adoption of new practices, with particular reference to genetically modified crops. For
this, the authors used purely qualitative methods based on interactive participative mapping
techniques. Differently, in this study, the analysis of the motivational factors, as spontaneously
reported by the participants, was semi-quantitative, as it was based on their centrality values.
Results showed what different aspects were involved in the motivation to adopt agroecological
practices. These were, in order of importance: pedo-climatic conditions > influence from
cooperative or private wineries > availability of materials > personal values related to aesthetics
and health > guidelines of formal institutions, as the local irrigation consortia and local legislations.
With regards to local legislations, a provincial law setting the obligatory use of pheromone traps,
was found to be an implementation of a national decree law, based on a Statutory Management
Requirement of the first pillar of CAP. Therefore, even if indirectly, one CAP measure was found to
be among the most central factors affecting the motivation to adopt an agroecological practice in
the case study area. The most central factors of motivation are hereby discussed.
4.1
Pedo-climatic conditions
Pedo-climatic conditions were the most frequently mentioned factors affecting the motivation to
adopt agroecological practices. Improved air circulation, humidity and sun exposition were
reported among the reasons to reduce the use of pesticide as they lead to less favorable
conditions for pest development. General topography conditions appeared to govern the choice of
mechanical weeding. Predictably, soil conditions and altitude (m.a.s.l), which is associated also to
microclimate including circulation, humidity and sun exposition, were mentioned as the reasons to
choose site-specific varieties. While limited water availability and loose soil structure were
reported as the factors affecting the motivation to adopt a drip irrigation system.
Soil conditions were reported also as the factor affecting the motivation to use precision
fertilization; farmers reported to supply amendments only where soils were prone to nutrients
deficiency or low in soil organic matter content. Altitudes drive the choice for Guyot trellising
systems. Two farmers mentioned they prefer to use Guyot on high hills; oppositely one farmer
said that he prefers to use Guyot on flat land and Pergola trellising system on the hills. Finally,
steep slopes were reported as the key reason to pursue manual operations such as leaf pruning
and cluster thinning. It has to be noted that this relationship was only reported by farmers from
Val di Cembra, due to the steep topography of this valley.
4.2
Influence from wineries
Farmers frequently expressed the significant influence that either cooperative or private wineries
have on their practices. Wineries take care of the vinification and selling of wine. In the sample of
this study only 57 % of the farmers processed their grapes via wineries. Statistical data show
instead that 94% of the total wine production in the Province of Trento is carried out by
cooperative or private wineries (respectevly 83% and 11%) and only 6 % of the wine is produced
on farm (Camera di Commercio I.A.A. Trento, 2011). This data disclose how rooted wineries are in
the viticulture sector of Trentino, already suggesting the strong influential power they have on
farmers, which is confirmed by the results of this study.
Results first of all showed that requirements from wineries led farmers to reduce the herbicide
application. Some wineries (the private winery Ferrari and the cooperative winery Roverè della
Luna, for the bottled product) explicitely prohibited the use of herbicides to farmers that supplied
them with grapes. In another case, a cooperative winery (Roverè della Luna) persuaded member
19
farmers not to apply too much herbicides in order to avoid the risk of having residues on grapes,
through advisory meetings.
Secondly, wineries appeared to promote the use of pheromone traps. More specifically, farmers
that are members of cooperative wineries are provided with technical support and also economic
incentives. Through diffusion mechanisms this had a much wider impact in the surrounding areas,
as other private winemakers may adopt similar measures as well.
Thirdly, farmers reported that wineries affect also their motivation to reduce the use of synthetic
pesticides. Particularly, one farmer reported to use only copper and sulphur because of a project
of the private winery Ferrari, which collects grapes cultivated in an ”almost organic” way (so-called
”simil-bio”). Cooperative wineries influence farmers both during meetings and by a post-harvest
control of grapes instead. In case the residues in grapes are above the limits, they give financial
sanctions to farmers. Finally, the private winery Ferrari also promotes the adoption of green
manure, by providing technical support and recommendations.
What it is interesting to highlight about the influences of the wineries is that this factor includes
not only market drivers but, to a certain extent, also faciliates dissemination of information and
guidelines provided by research and political institutions. The farmers who reported about a
winery influencing their adoption of agroecological practices, either sell their grapes to the private
winery Ferrari or they are member of one of the cooperative wineries, which are gathered in
CAVIT, a consortium of cooperatives. Both Ferrari and CAVIT strictly collaborate with the Edmund
Mach Foundation (CAVIT, 2015; Cantine Ferrari, 2015). The Edmund Mach Foundation (FEM) is a
local institution focusing on research, education and training as well providing technical assistance
and extension service. The foundation is a public-private partnership, implying that both the
Autonomous Province of Trento and other private companies (Fondazione Edmund Mach, Istituto
Agrario di San Michele all’Adige, 2013) are equal partners. In this sense, even if FEM did not occur
being among the major factors of motivation, it may be assumed that both the scientific and
political institutions indirectly affect the strategies of wineries, which in turn affect the farmers’
choice of practices.
4.3
Materials availability
Farmers reported that having the tying machine of a certain brand, that works with
photodegradable laces, is the reason for using biodegradable laces. Therefore, the market
availability of certain machinery led farmers to choose to adopt the agroecological practice of
using biodegradable material. In one case a farmer mentioned to adopt the traditional practice of
tying with willow-based strings, as this material was readily available on his farm. Furthermore,
the market availability of modern sprayer with drift-reducing nozzles is the factor driving the
agroecological practice of controlling pesticide drift. In this context, representatives of these
companies promoting their products and technical services may impact farmers’ behavior as well.
4.4
Personal values
The category personal values includes Health concerns and Aesthetic values.
In terms of health concern, the application of chemical herbicides and synthetic pesticides is
avoided or limited, because farmers are worried about the chemicals hazard and they report to
care about their own health as they are the firsts to be in contact with the toxic products.
Accordingly, Saint-Ges and Bélis-Bergouignan (2009) showed how personal health concern related
to pesticides use was one of the most important issues according to Bordeaux vinegrowers.
20
Surprisingly, aesthetic values were reported among the major factors governing the adoption of
agroecological practices. They were mentioned in relation to the use of wooden poles and to the
choice of biodegradable laces instead of plastic ones, that are considered visually unattractive.
Other farmers referred to the fact that chemical weeding is avoided because the brown/yellow
line below the vines is unsightly. Finally, terrace walls are reconstructured with the traditional dry
wall technique with stones because they are more beautiful compared to concrete walls.
4.5
Formal institutional conditions
This category includes the factor irrigation consortium and legal requirements. Concerning the
irrigation consortia, these are institutional organization at municipality level, that are united into a
larger provincial consortia, which play a primary role during the implementation and management
of land renovation and irrigation systems (CO.MI.FO. 2007). Irrigation consortia were reported as
the main reason to adopt drip irrigation systems.
In terms of legal requirements, farmers reported to reconstruct terrace walls with stones because
they would not be allowed to reconstruct them only with concrete due to a municipal landscape
legislation. They refer to municipal local strategic plans which decree that traditional terrace walls,
built with local stones with the dry wall technique, should be maintained and, in case of damage,
should be reconstructed using traditional materials and techniques. The use of concrete is also
allowed but it is obligatory to cover the facade of the walls with local stones (Comune di
Padergnone, 2013; Comune di Giovo, 2013).
Finally, farmers reported that they use pheromone traps because they are legally required. They
refer to the provincial Protocol for Integrated Pest Management in Viticulture (Protocollo d’intesa
per la difesa integrata in viticoltura), which is defined by the consortium for the protection of
wines from Trentino (Consorzio di tutela Vini del Trentino), by the Edmund Mach Foundation, by
the Province (Provincia Autonoma di Trento) and by the farmers’ union organizations
(Organizzazioni sindacali agricole) (Chemolli et al. 2011). The technical guidelines for integrated
pest management outline the criteria for specific interventions, possible agronomic solutions and
strategies to be adopted for pest management. This in order to reduce the impact on human
health and environmental quality, while allowing productions which are economically sustainable
(Provincia Autonoma di Trento, 2015). The specific procedural guidelines for viticulture state that
the use of pheromone traps against grapevine moth is mandatory (Provincia Autonoma di Trento,
2015 b). This policy document complies with the national Decree Law 22nd January 2014 (Decreto
22 Gennaio 2014), concerning the national plan for the sustainable use of pesticides. As reported
also in Appendix 1, this decree is based on the national implementations of the Council Directive
91/414/EEC, concerning the placing of plant protection product on the market and of the Council
Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna, that are
among the Statutory Management Requirements of the first pillar of the CAP (Decreto 22 Gennaio
2014; Council Regulation EC n. 73/2009). Therefore, it can be said that the adoption of the
agroecological practice use of pheromone traps is affected by a CAP measure and its national and
provincial implementations.
Similarly to what Oreszczyn et al. (2010) evidenced, the results of this study showed that the
influence of policy on farmers’ practices is perceived mainly through imposition of mandatory
requirements, rather than through voluntary-based incentives or advices.
To conclude, it is interesting to note that, even if these were not directly mentioned by farmers as
factors affecting their motivations to adopt agroecological practices, other points in the provincial
Protocol for Integrated Pest Management in Viticulture correspond to the most adopted
21
agroecological practices reported by the participants of this study. Specifically, the procedural
guidelines to set mandatory limits to the number of applications of synthetic pesticides, which are
in line with the adopted agroecological practice of reduction of pesticides use. Furthermore, they
set the mandatory rule that chemical weeding is prohibited in the row middles, which is in
agreement with the adopted agroecological practice of reduction of herbicide application.
Thus, the introduction of some mandatory practices for integrated pest management, through the
national decree 22 Gennaio 2014 and its provincial implementation, seem to be the only and most
influencing policy measure that affect the adoption of agroecological practices in the viticulture
sector in Trentino, Italy.
4.6
Reflection on the methodology
The Cognitive Mapping Approach for Analyzing actors’ Systems of Practices (Vanwindekens et al.
2013), proved to be a useful tool for modelling the farmers’ systems of practices. The qualitative
nature of CMASOP confirmed its strength in modelling complex social-ecological systems, such as
an agroecosystem at a regional scale. In addition, the graphical structure proved to be effective
when representing the general complexity of a system, and could be used as a communication
tool for participatory problem solving or decision-making among local stakeholders
(Vanwindekens et al. 2013, Kontogianni et al. 2012).
Meanwhile, the quantitative nature of CMASOP method further enhanced its robustness,
especially during the analytical phase. (Vanwindekens et al. 2013). The quantitative nature of
CMASOP allowed to generate a SCM by aggregating the ICMs. Some doubts exist about the
appropriateness of SCM in representing group knowledge (Gray et al. 2014). Considering that even
if a number of individuals are exposed to the same reality, their perception of this reality may be
completely different, this work may not present an universal truth or commonly shared
knowledge or value sets. Nevertheless, the SCM generated in this research captured the
commonalities among the farmers that participated to the study. The mathematical and statistical
nature of the graph theory indicators, allowed for some quantitative assesment as part of the SCM
analysis.
By looking at the saturation curve shown in Appendix 10, it is noticeable that a saturation occurred
after 20 interviews. Therefore, compared to the previous study by Vanwindekens et al. (2013), the
saturation occured at higher levels, as in that case the accumulation rate reached a stable value of
11 new relationships for each new interview. Undoubtedly, a follow up study with a larger sample
size may provide additional insights and could complement the current research and/or confirm
current observations and insights thereby allow development of a more representative model of
the system. One main limitation of this study was that both the interviews and the coding
processes were carried out by a single researcher. Therefore, a follow up study might involve more
researchers in order to limit the potential interferences of the researcher’ s interpretation
(Vanwindekens et al. 2013).
This study proved the soundness of CMASOP as a tool to model social-ecological system with a
descriptive aim (Vanwindekens et al. 2013). In addition, it showed that the methodology can be
used to focus on specific issues of a social-ecological systems and place these in a broader context
and link these to both regional and more global policies. In this regard, this study confirmed how
cognitive mapping approaches are not only suited for policy evaluation, but could also be used as
a supportive tool for policy-making (Hjortso et al. 2005, Kontogianni et al. 2012, Elsawah et al.
2015, Oreszczyn et al. 2010, Ortolani et al. 2010).
22
By adapting the definition of system of practice to the scope of the research, and accordingly
adapting the coding process, it is possible to analyse a social-ecological system only under a
specific lens. In the case of this study, the social-ecological system of viticulture in Central Trentino
was examined specifically with respect to agroecological practices as potentially affected by
current CAP policy measures and how this may affect their adoption. Similarly, another study by
Elsawah et al. (2015) used a multi-step cognitive mapping approach to understand the irrigation
decision making process of farmers in Mclaren Vale, South Australia. Future studies may use
CMASOP to explore other issues, such as the influence of market outlets on the adoption of
different farming practices.
In line with the studies described by Özesmi and Özesmi (2004), where FCM were used for solving
environmental conflicts, CMASOP might also be applied as a supportive tool for multi-stakeholders
negotiation in natural resource management. In addition, as Hjortso et al. (2005) used cognitive
mapping for assisting a project of conservation and management of mangrove forest in Vietnam,
CMASOP could be implemented to facilitate community-based conservation projects. Likewise,
future studies analogous to the one by Elsawah et al. (2015), might link CMASOP to simulation
tools, such as Agent Based Modelling (ABM), in order to support the decision-making process in
complex social-ecological systems. In this regard, Ortolani et al. 2010, already suggested how
combining ABM to FCM might also be a useful methodology for policy analysis.
4.7
Recommendations
Based on the results of this study, wineries should capitalize on their primary role in providing
leadership when facilitating farmers’ adoption of agroecological practices. Consequently, they
should also become aware of their responsibility in promoting additional agroecological practices
– that could provide still broader realm of ecosystem services throughout the Province of Trento,
Italy.
Furthermore, some recommendations may be given to local policy makers. On the one hand they
should be aware that the introduction of additional mandatory practices as part of Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) policy strategies, could facilitate increased adoption and use of agreocological
practices in the viticulture sector of Trentino region. On the other hand, this study suggested that
policy makers may benefit from the use of inclusive methodologies based on stakeholders’
cognitive mapping approaches, such as CMASOP. As thoroughly reported by Kontogianni et al.
(2012), FCM methodologies may considerably support environmental policy-making, as they
proved to be effective in identifying real trade-offs, therefore supporting negotiation, in order to
shape decision-making processess to local conditions and needs.
5. Conclusion
This study explored the impact of the Common Agricultural Policy on the adoption of
agroecological practices in the viticulture sector in Central Trentino region, Italy. It demonstrated
that CMASOP is an effective tool to model social-ecological system for a specific aim (e.g. to
assess the relevance of specific policies in terms of promoting stewardship) and that FCM can be a
useful tool for policy evaluation. The farmers’ adoption of agroecological practices was observed
to be mainly affected by pedoclimatic conditions, requirements from private or cooperative
wineries, availability of material, personal values and institutional conditions. Wineries seem to be
the most influential actors in the social-ecological system under study. Therefore, they could affect
a further adoption of agroecological practices in the viticulture sector in Central Trentino region,
Italy. Likewise, the introduction of additional mandatory practices in the frame of Integrated Pest
23
Management policy strategies, could result in a further application of agreocological practices in
the viticulture sector of Trentino region. Finally, the study suggested that FCM approaches could
also be used as a supportive tool for environmental policy decision-making.
Acknowledgements
The author wish to thank all the people that made this work possible. First of all, the participants
of the online questionnaire and to the interviews. Farmers deserve a special acknowledgement for
the fundamental inputs they voluntary gave to this study. In this regard, farmers confirmed their
primary role in contributing to the science of agroecology. Secondly, Johannes Scholberg from
WUR for his punctual supervision and stable support, as well as Alexander Wezel from ISARA-Lyon,
for motivating the initial phases of the study. Last but not least, a special thank goes to Dr.
Frédéric Vanwindekens, for the elaboration of CMASOP, as well as for his direct collaboration with
this study.
24
Bibliography
Altieri, M., 2002. Agroecology: The science of natural resource management for poor farmers in
marginal environments. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 93, 1–24.
Altieri M., 2004. Linking Ecologists and Traditional Farmers in the Search for Sustainable
Agriculture. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2, 1, 35-42.
Autonomous Province of Trento, 2007. Rural Development Programme 2007-2013 for the
Autonomous Province of Trento (Italy) - CCI N° 2007IT06RPO011.
http://www.reterurale.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeAttachment.php/L/IT/D/D.1589845da93bdb83bc11
/P/BLOB%3AID%3D324. [Retrieved 18/07/2015].
Berkes F., 2004. Rethinking Community-Based Conservation. Conservation Biology, 18 (3), 621–
630.
Berkes, F., Folke, C., Colding, J., 1998. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management
Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
New York, Melbourne, Madrid, pp. 4-10 Available at:
https://books.google.com/books?hl=it&lr=&id=XixuNvX2zLwC&pgis=1 [retrieved July 10, 2015].
Botha, C.A.J., Verkerk G.A., 2002. Factors influencing inducing decision-making in dairy cows: A
case study of scientists’ and producers’ views. 62nd Conference, Massey University, New Zealand,
24–26 June 2002. Proceedings of the New Zealand society.
Camera di Commercio I.A.A. di Trento, 2011. La vitivinicoltura in Trentino, 2011, Materiali di lavoro
di Economia Trentina, Anno VII, n. 1, Aprile 2011.
Cantine Ferrari, 2015. Sostenibilità. http://www.ferraritrento.it/la-casa/territorio [retrieved
03/08/2015].
Caporali F., 2010. Agroecology as a transdisciplinary science for a sustainable agriculture. In: Eric
Lichtfouse Editor, Biodiversity, Biofuels, Agroforestry and Conservation Agriculture, Dijon, pp. 171.
CAVIT, 2015. Cartella Stampa, Marzo 2015. http://www.cavit.it/company/ [retrieved 03/08/2015].
Chemolli M., Bona E., Tonon C., Malossini U., Bottura M., 2011. La Tutela della Vitivinicoltura in
Trentino. Consorzio Tutela Vini del Trentino, Provincia Autonoma di Trento, Fondazione Edmund
Mach - Istituto Agrario di San Michele all'Adige. Grafiche Futura, Trento, Italy. p.61.
Climate-Data.org, 2015. Clima: Sarche. http://it.climate-data.org/location/121504/ [Retrieved July
14, 2015].
Colfer, C., Newton J., Herman B., 1989. Ethnicity: An important consideration in Indonesian
agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 6 (3), 52–67.
CO.MI.FO., 2007. Federazione Provinciale dei Consorzi Irrigui e di Miglioramento Fondiario.
Cooperazione Trentina. http://www.comifo.it/attivita.php?Act=01 [retrieved 29/07/2015].
25
Comune di Giovo, 2013. Piano regolatore generale. Norme tecniche di attuazione. Giovo, 15
maggio 2013. http://www.comunegiovo.it/municipio/mun_prg.html [retrieved 30/07/2015].
Comune di Padergnone, 2013. Piano regolatore generale. Variante puntuale 2013. Norme tecniche
di attuazione. http://www.comune.padergnone.tn.it/Aree-tematiche/Attivita-edilizia/Normativaurbanistica-ed-edilizia/Piani-Urbanistici-Comunali/P.R.G [retrieved 30/07/2015].
Comunità della Valle dei Laghi, 2015. Il Territorio. http://www.comunita.valledeilaghi.tn.it/IComuni [retrieved July 14, 2015].
Comunità della Valle di Cembra, 2015. Il Territorio. http://www.comunita.valledicembra.tn.it/IlTerritorio/La-Valle-di-Cembra [retrieved July 14, 2015].
Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:31991L0414 [retrieved 05/08/2015].
Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31992L0043 [retrieved 05/08/2015].
Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct
support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes
for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001,
(EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000,
(EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32003R1782 [retrieved 05/08/2015].
Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct
support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain
support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC)
No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32009R0073 [retrieved 29/07/2015].
De Molina M.G., 2013. Agroecology and Politics . How To Get Sustainability ? About the Necessity
for a Political Agroecology. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 37, 45-49.
Decreto 22 Gennaio 2014. Adozione del Piano di azione nazionale per l'uso sostenibile dei prodotti
fitosanitari, ai sensi dell'articolo 6 del decreto legislativo 14agosto 2012.n. 150, recante :
"Attuazione della direttiva 2009/128/CE che istituisce un quadro perl'azione comunitaria ai fini
dell'utilizzo sostenibile dei pesticidi". Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana. Serie generale n.
35, 12/02/2014.
www.minambiente.it/sites/default/files/archivio/normativa/dim_22_01_2014.pdf [retrieved
30/07/2015].
Delate K., 2002. Using an Agroecological Approach to Farming Systems Research. Hortechnology,
12, 3, 345-354.
Elsawah S., Guillaume J.H.A., Filatova T., Rook J., Jakeman A.J., 2015. A methodology for eliciting,
representing, and analysing stakeholder knowledge for decision making on complex socioecological systems: From cognitive maps to agent-based models. Journal of Environmental
Management, 151, 500-516.
26
European Commission, 2012. The Common Agricultural Policy. A story to be continued.
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, p.24.
European Commission, 2013. Overview of CAP Reform 2014-2020. Agricultural Policy Perspectives
Brief, n. 5, December 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/policy-perspectives/policybriefs/05_en.pdf [retrieved 19/01/2015].
European Commission, 2014. CAP expenditure on the total EU expenditure. CAP post-2013: key
graphs and figures. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/graphs/graph1_en.pdf
[retrieved 18/01/2015].
European Qualifications Framework, 2015.
https://ec.europa.eu/ploteus/en/compare?field_location_selection_tid%5B%5D=453 [retrieved
08/04/2015].
Fairweather J., 2010. Farmer models of socio-ecologic systems: application of causal mapping
across multiple locations. Ecological Modelling 221, 555–562
Fairweather J.R., Hunt L.M., 2011. Can farmers map their farm system? Causal mapping and the
sustainability of sheep/beef farms in New Zealand. Agriculture and Human Values, 28, 55-66.
Fondazione Edmund Mach, Istituto Agrario di San Michele all’Adige, 2013. Statuto della
Fondazione E. Mach. http://www.fmach.it/Servizi-Generali/Lavora-con-noi/Documenti-diriferimento/Atto-costitutivo-e-statuto/Statuto-della-Fondazione-E.-Mach [retrieved 03/08/2015].
Franceschini, A., 2012. Inquadramento geografico-territoriale della comunità Rotaliana-Konisberg.
http://www.comunitarotaliana.tn.it/Aree-tematiche/Urbanistica-PTC/Piano-Territoriale-diComunita-PTC/Documenti-utili/Inquadramento-geografico-territoriale/Inquadramentogeografico-territoriale-della-Comunita-della-Rotaliana-Koenigsberg-anno-2012 [retrieved
05/08/2015].
Gentry J., Long L., Gentleman R., Falcon S., Hahne F., Sarkar D., Hansen K., 2010. Rgraphviz:
Provides Plotting Capabilities for R Graph Objects. R Package Version 1.28.0.
Goodman L.A., 1961. Snowball sampling. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 32, 1, 148-170.
Gray, S., Zanre E., Gray S.R.J., 2014. Fuzzy Cognitive Maps for Applied Sciences and Engineering,
54, 29–49.
Greiner R., Gregg D., 2011. Farmers’ intrinsic motivations, barriers to the adoption of conservation
practices and effectiveness of policy instruments: Empirical evidence from northern Australia.
Land Use Policy, 28, 257-265.
Halbrendt J., Gray S.A., Crow S., Radovich T., Kimura A.H., Tamang B.B., 2014. Differences in
farmer and expert beliefs and the perceived impacts of conservation agriculture. Global
Environmental Change, 28, 50-62.
Harrison R.M., Hester R.E., 2010. Ecosystem services. The Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge,
UK. p.4
27
Hjortso C. N., Christensen S. M., Tarp P., 2005. Rapid stakeholder and conflict assessment for
natural resource management using cognitive mapping: The case of Damdoi Forest Enterprise,
Vietnam. Agriculture and Human Values, 22, 149-167.
Huang R., 2014. RQDA: R-based Qualitative Data Analysis. R package version 0.2-7. http://rqda.rforge.r-project.org/ [retrieved 05/08/2015].
Hukkinen J., 1993. Institutional distortion of drainage modelling in Arkansas river basin. Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 119, 743-755.
ISPAT, 2013. 6° Censimento Generale dell’Agricoltura (dati definitivi) – Tavole HTML.
http://www.statistica.provincia.tn.it/statistiche/settori_economici/agricoltura_silvicoltura_pesca/
[retrieved 22/01/2015].
Jaeck M., Lifran R., 2014. Farmers' Preferences for Production Practices: A Choice Experiment
Study in the Rhone River Delta. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65, 112-130.
Knickel K., Kroger M., Bruckmeier K., Engwall Y., 2009. The Challenge of Evaluating Policies for
Promoting the Multifunctionality of Agriculture: When “Good” Questions Cannot be Addressed
Quantitatively and “Quantitative Answers are not that Good.” Journal of Environmental Policy &
Planning, 11, 347–367.
Knickel K., Kroger M., 2008. Evaluation of policies in terms of the multifunctionality of agriculture
and rural space: more integrative conceptual and analytical frameworks needed. International
Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, 7, 399.
Kosko B., 1986. Fuzzy cognitive maps. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 24, 65-75.
Kontogianni A.D., Papageorgiou E.I., Tourkolias C., 2012. How do you perceive environmental
change? Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping informing stakeholder analysis for environmental policy making
and non-market valuation. Applied Soft Computing, 12, 3725-3735.
Koulouriotis D.E., Diakoulakis I.E., Emiris D.M., Zopounidis C.D., 2005. Development of dynamic
cognitive networks as complex systems approximators: Validation in financial time series. Applied
Soft Computing 5, 157–179.
Le Cotty T., Caron P., Aumand A., Barthélémy D., 2005. Summary report: International analysis of
MFA, international negotiations and sustainable development. Capitalisation of research results
on the multifunctionality of agriculture and rural areas. Sixth Framework Research Programme
Global Change and Ecosystems, Multiagri Project, October 2005.
McKeon N., 2015. Food security governance. Empowering communities, regulating corporations.
Routledge, Oxon, UK and New York, NY, p. 6.
Naidoo, G. 2002. The use of information structures at the cognitive level in the daily management
of information by small-scale livestock keepers in a village in Mauritius. Paper presented at AMAS
2003, Food and Agricultural Research Council, Reduit, Mauritius, 8–9 May.
Newig J., Gaube V., Berkhoff K., Kaldrack K., Kastens B., Lutz B., Schlussmeier B., Adensam H.,
Haberl H., 2008. The role of formalization, participation and context in the success of public
28
involvement mechanisms in resource management. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 21,
423-441.
Oreszczyn S., Lane A., Carr S., 2010. The role of networks of practice and webs of influencers on
farmers’ engagement with and learning about agricultural innovations. Journal of Rural Studies,
26, 404-417.
Ortolani L., McRoberts N., Dendoncker, N., Rounsevell M., 2010. Analysis of farmers’ concepts of
environmental management measures: an application of cognitive maps and cluster analysis in
pursuit of modelling agents’ behaviour. In: Glykas, M. (Ed.), Fuzzy Cognitive Maps. Vol. 247 of
Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp. 363–381.
Özesmi, U., Özesmi, S.L., 2003. A participatory approach to ecosystem conservation: fuzzy
cognitive maps and stakeholder group analysis in Uluabat lake, Turkey. Environmental
Management, 31, 518-531.
Özesmi, U., Özesmi, S.L., 2004. Ecological models based on people’s knowledge: A multi-step fuzzy
cognitive mapping approach. Ecological Modelling, 176, 43–64.
Papageorgiou E.I., 2011. A new methodology for decisions in medical informatics using fuzzy
cognitive maps based on fuzzy rule-extraction techniques. Applied Soft Computing, 11, 500–513.
Papageorgiou E.I., Markinos A., Gemptos T., 2009. Application of fuzzy cognitive maps for cotton
yield management in precision farming. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 12399–12413.
Plantureux S., 2014. Agri-environment schemes in EU and France: grasslands role and situation.
Lecture given during the course Management of Agroecosystem, ISARA, Lyon, France on 24th
November 2014.
Popper R., Andino K., Bustamante M., Hernandez B., Rodas L., 1996. Knowledge and beliefs
regarding agricultural pesticides in rural Guatemala. Environmental Management, 20, 241-248.
Provincia Autonoma di Trento, 2014. Misura 19- LEADER.
http://www.trentinoagricoltura.it/Trentino-Agricoltura/Sviluppo-Rurale-20142020/Misure/Leader [retrieved 26/01/2015].
Provincia Autonoma di Trento, 2015. Linee tecniche di difesa integrata per l'anno 2015.
http://www.fmach.it/CTT/Consulenza-tecnica/DISCIPLINARI-DI-PRODUZIONE-INTEGRATA
[retrieved 29/07/2015].
Provincia Autonoma di Trento, 2015 b. Disciplinare di produzione integrata. Difesa vite 2015.
http://www.fmach.it/CTT/Consulenza-tecnica/DISCIPLINARI-DI-PRODUZIONE-INTEGRATA
[retrieved 29/07/2015].
Qualtrics software, Version 2015 of Qualtrics. Copyright © 2015 Qualtrics. Qualtrics and all other
Qualtrics product or service names are registered trademarks or trademarks of Qualtrics, Provo,
UT, USA. http://www.qualtrics.com [retrieved 05/08/2015].
R Core Team, 2015. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for
Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/ [retrieved 05/08/2015].
29
Rajaram T., Das A., 2010. Modeling of interactions among sustainability components of an agroecosystem using local knowledge through cognitive mapping and fuzzy inference system. Expert
Systems with Applications, 37, 1734–1744.
Rodríguez-Ortega T., Oteros-Rozas E., Ripoll-Bosch R., Tichit M., Martin-Lopez B., Bernués A., 2014.
Applying the ecosystem services framework to pasture-based livestock farming systems in Europe.
Animal: an international journal of animal bioscience, 8 (8), 1361–1372.
Ryszkowski L., Kedziora A., 2005. Multifunctionality of agriculture, ecosystem ervices and
landscape diversification. Sustainable Land Use in Intensively Used Agricultural Regions, Results of
the international conference on ‘Sustainable Land Use in Intensively Used Agricultrual Region’ 2023 September 2005, Leipzig. Burghard Christian Meyer Ed.
Saint-Ges V., Bélis-Bergouignan M.C., 2009. Ways of reducing pesticides use in Bordeaux
vineyards. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, 1644-1653.
The Cork Declaration – A living countryside. The European Conference on Rural Development,
1996. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rur/cork_en.htm [retrieved 15/01/2015].
Tittonell P., 2013. Farming Systems Ecology. Towards ecological intensification of world
agriculture. Inaugural lecture upon taking up the position of Chair in Farming Systems Ecology at
Wageningen University on 16 May 2013.
Tittonell P., 2014. Ecological intensification of agriculture - sustainable by nature. Current opinion
in environmental sustainability, 8, 53-61.
Tuttitalia.it, 2015. Comuni in Prov. di TN per altitudine. http://www.tuttitalia.it/trentino-altoadige/provincia-autonoma-di-trento/88-comuni/altitudine/ [retrieved 14 July, 2015].
UNEP, 2012. Avoiding future famines: strenghtening the ecological foundation of food security
through sustainable food systems. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi,
Kenya.
Valentine I., Hurley E., Glass W., 1993. Goals and management strategies of dairy farmers.
Proceedings of the New Zealand society of animal production, 53, 111–113.
Vanwindekens F. M., 2014. Les pratiques dans la gestion des systèmes socio - écologiques :
développements méthodologiques & application à la gestion des prairies en région herbagère
belge. Doctoral thesis, Université catholique de Louvain.
Vanwindekens F. M., Stilmant D., Baret P. V., 2013. Development of a broadened cognitive
mapping approach for analysing systems of practices in social-ecological systems. Ecological
Modelling, 250, 352–362.
Vanwidekens F.M., Baret P. V., Stilmant D., 2014. A new approach for comparing and categorizing
farmers' systems of practice based on cognitive mapping and graph theory indicators. Ecological
Modelling, 274, 1-11.
Wezel A., Casagrande M., Celette F., Vian J.F., Ferrer A., Peigné J., 2014. Agroecological practices
for sustainable agriculture. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 34, 1–20.
30
Wilson J., 1995. An Introduction to systems thinking: Changing agriculture, Second edition.
Kangaroo Press, Kenthurst, Australia.
31
Appendix 1. Review about Common Agricultural Policy
The European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), today accountable for 41% of the total European
Union (EU) expenditure (European Commission, 2014) was established in 1962, when the first
objective was to restore and increase the agricultural productivity after the devastation of the
world wars. The mere function of productivity, coupled with the objective of market
competitiveness since the early 1990s, has been the only focus of the European agricultural policy
for many years.
Only with the reforms of Agenda 2000 and the 2003 mid-term review, the environmental and
social public services provided by agriculture started to be taken into account in the European
policy and the concepts of sustainability and multifunctionality were included as key objectives of
the CAP (Knickel et al. 2009).
Looking more precisely at the history of the CAP, the first integration of the environment into the
European agricultural policy is found in two Council Regulations dated 1985 and 1991, while in
1992 the agro-environmental schemes became mandatory for all member states through the MacSharry reform (Plantureux 2014). In 1996 with the Cork Declaration, the European Union engaged
in the Rural Development policy, by encompassing ’within the same legal and policy framework:
agricultural adjustment and development, economic diversification ...the management of natural
resources, the enhancement of environmental functions and the promotion of culture, tourism
and recreation’(The Cork Declaration 1996). With the segragation of the CAP in two pillars in 2000,
all the political measures supporting the environment became part of the rural development
policy in the so-called second pillar, while the measures of the first pillar maintained the historical
objective of supporting production. In 2001 the European Union decided to shift all the policies
under the umbrella concept of ’sustainable development’(Knickel et al. 2009).
In the new CAP 2014-2020 ecological objectives are integrated also into the first pillar, with the
greening of direct payments. This means that 30% of the direct payments depend on the adoption
of three specific agricultural practices, namely the maintainance of permanent grasslands,
ecological interest areas and crop diversification (European Commission 2013).
1.1
First Pillar
The first pillar of the CAP, financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund, influences the
adoption of different farming practices. The cross-compliance rule, established by the Reg. (EC)
1782/2003, repealed by the Reg. (EC) 73/2009, determines that each farmer receiving a direct
payment must comply with a set of statutory management requirements and with the
maintenance of land in Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions. The former includes
directives for the protection of the environment (e.g. Nitrates Directive) that set up a number of
rules to be respected by each farmer (e.g. maximum quantity of nitrates per hectare and per year
allowed). The latter are both compulsory and voluntary practices that farmers should adopt in
order to meet some general objectives such as soil and water protection (e.g. minimum soil cover
is required).
1.1.1 Statutory management requirements
The statutory management requirements include a set of directives for the protection of the
environment that set a number of rules to be respected by each farmer. These acts shall apply as
in force and, in case of Directives, as implemented by the Member States.
32
The Directives that could affect the viticulture sector in the Trentino region are listed hereby, with
the relative national and provincial implementations.
Table 5. European Directives that could affect the viticulture sector in the Trentino region, with the relative national
and provincial implementations
Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds, substituted by the Council Directive
2009/147/CE and Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora
and fauna
National implementation:
• DPR 8 settembre 1997 n.357 Regolamento recante attuazione della direttiva92/43/CEE + DPR 12
marzo 2003 n.120 Regolamento recante modifiche ed integrazioni al DPR 8 Settembre 1997 n. 357
• Decreto del Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio 3 settembre 2002- Linee guida
per la gestione dei siti Natura 2000
• Decreto del Ministero dell’ambiente e della tutela del territorio e del mare del 17ottobre 2007
relativo alla Rete Natura 2000 - criteri minimi uniformi per la definizione delle misure di
conservazione relative alle zone speciali di conservazione (ZSC) e a zone di protezione speciale
(ZPS) vedi art. 3,4,5,6 –modificato dal Decreto 22 gennaio 2009
• Deliberazione 26 marzo 2008 ”classificazione aree protette”
• Decreto del ministero dell’ambiente e della tutela del territorio e del mare 19 giugno 2009 Elenco
delle zone di protezione speciale (ZPS) classificate ai sensi della direttiva 2009/147/CE
Provincial implementation:
•
Deliberazione della Giunta provinciale n. 1018 del 5 maggio 2000
•
Deliberazione della Giunta provinciale n. 3125 del 13 dicembre 2002
•
Deliberazione della Giunta provinciale n. 655 del 08 aprile 2005
•
Deliberazione della Giunta provinciale n. 2955 del 30 dicembre 2005
•
Deliberazione della Giunta provinciale n. 2956 del 30 dicembre 2005
•
Deliberazione della Giunta provinciale n. 2279 del 27 ottobre 2006
•
Deliberazione della Giunta provinciale n. 328 del 22 febbraio 2007
•
Decreto del presidente della provincia 3 novembre 2008, n. 50-157/Leg “Regolamento
concernente le procedure per l'individuazione delle zone speciali di conservazione e delle zone di
protezione speciale, per l'adozione e l'approvazione delle relative misure di conservazione e dei
piani di gestione delle aree protette provinciali, nonché la composizione, le funzioni e il
funzionamento della cabina di regia delle aree protette e dei ghiacciai e le disposizioni per la
valutazione di incidenza (articoli 37, 38, 39, 45, 47 e 51 della legge provinciale 23 maggio 2007,
n.11)
•
Deliberazione della Giunta provinciale n. 2348 del 02 ottobre 2009
•
Provvedimenti provinciali di designazione dei siti di importanza comunitaria e delle zone di
protezioni speciali, individuati ai sensi delle direttive 92/43/CEE e 2009/147/CE:
•
Deliberazione della Giunta provinciale n. 1799 del 5 agosto 2010 sono state individuate le Zone
speciali di conservazione (ZSC), ai sensi dell’art. 37 della legge provinciale 23 maggio 2007, n. 11, in
33
attuazione della direttiva 92/43/CEE del Consiglio del 21 maggio 1992. Oltre all’individuazione
delle zone speciali di conservazione, nella deliberazione (allegato B) è presente la tabella di
raffronto tra le nuove “zone speciali di conservazione” (ZSC) e gli originari “siti di importanza
comunitaria” (SIC) con le modificazioni introdotte per ciascuna di esse e le relative motivazioni
•
Deliberazione n. 259 del 17 febbraio 2011
•
Deliberazione n. 2742 del 20 dicembre 2013
Main contents:
In all the Special Protection Areas (ZPS, Zone di Protezione Speciale) it is forbidden to:
-
Eliminate natural and semi-natural elements which characterize the agrarian landscape with high
ecological value, as identified by the Province.
-
Eliminate existing terraces, delimited by stonewalls or by grassed slopes. Exceptions exist for
authorized cases of restoration of terraces due to economically sustainable management.
-
Do levelling operations which are not authorized by the managing authority; exceptions exist for
seedbeds preparations.
For each ZPS the Province indicates that organic and integrated agriculture should be promoted
and incentivized, in reference to the rural development programs.
In the ZPS with open alpine environment/forest alpine environment:
-
Favor the maintenance and the restoration of existing stonewalls and the building of new ones
with traditional construction techniques and stones.
In the ZPS with agrarian environment favor:
-
The maintenance and restoration of ecological and landscape interest elements such as
hedgerows, windbreaks, shrubs, hoods, agricultural residues, old fruit orchards and vineyards,
ponds.
-
The maintenance or creation of hedgerows as large as possible, either fallow or grassed or with
arboreal or shrub-like species, not treated with chemical products nor mowed out of the period
from 1st March until 31st August.
-
The adoption of organic agriculture farming systems
-
The adoption of other systems of reduction or control of chemical products in relation to products
with lower environmental impact and toxicity, to the less damaging times of application for wild
species (fall and winter), to the protection of areas that are of major interest for wild species
(ecotones, field margins, semi-natural elements)
-
The maintenance of field margins cultivated with grasses, at least 50 cm wide.
Integrated and organic agriculture.
In the Trentino region the network Natura 2000 consists of 129 areas Special Conservation
Area (ZSC , Zone Speciali di Conservazione) -145602 ha-and 19 areas ZPS -127137 ha.
Hereby the lists of ZSC in the case study area.
34
Table 6. List of Special Conservation Areas in the three Valley Communities of the Trentino region that were part of
the case study area.
Valley Community
Cembra
ZSC
Provincial Natural Reserve
(Special Conservation Area)
(biotopes + natural reserves)
Lagabrun (Cembra)
x
Laghetto di Vedes (Grumes)
x
Lago di Santa Colomba (Albiano)
RotalianaKonisgberg
Lona-Lases (Lona-Lases)
x
Monte Barco-Le Grave (Albiano)
x
Paluda La Lot (Grumes)
x
Prati di Monte (Valda)
x
Foci dell’Avisio (Zambana)
x
Foci dell’Avisio (Lavis)
x
Grotta Cesare Battisti (Zambana)
Valle dei Laghi
La Rupe (Nave San Rocco)
x
La Rupe (Mezzolombardo)
x
Foci dell’Avisio (Terlago)
x
Laghi e abisso di Lamar (Terlago)
Lago di Toblino (Calavino)
x
Terlago (Terlago)
Table 7. European Directives that could affect the viticulture sector in the Trentino region, with the relative national
and provincial implementations (continuation of Table 5).
Council Directive 80/68/EEC on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain
dangerous substances
National implementation:
•
Art. 103 e 104 del Decreto Legislativo 3 Aprile 2006 n. 152 “Norme in materia ambientale”
Provincial Implementation:
•
DPGP del 26 gennaio 1987, n.1-41/legsl. art. 93 art. 23 “Approvazione del testo unico delle leggi
provinciali in materia di tutela dell’ambiente dagli inquinamenti”
•
Deliberazione della Giunta Provinciale n. 2049 del 21 settembre 2007 “Piano Generale di
Utilizzazione delle Acque Pubbliche della Provincia Autonoma di Trento -Approvazione delle
modificazioni degli articoli 16, 17, 19, 21 e 32 delle Norme di attuazione del Piano Generale di
Utilizzazione delle Acque Pubbliche”
•
D.P.P. n. 22-129/Leg. d.d. 23/06/08 “Regolamento per la semplificazione e la disciplina dei
procedimenti riguardanti derivazioni e utilizzazioni di acqua pubblica
Main Contents:
35
Obligations and prohibitions for all the companies:
-
No dispersion of fuels, petroleum or mineral origin oils, lubricants, used filters and batteries,
phytosanitary or veterinary products, in order to avoid the diffusion of hazardous substances
through leaching in the soil or subsoil.
Council Directive 86/278/EEC on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil,
when sewage sludge is used in agriculture
National implementation:
•
D.L. 27 gennaio 1992 n. 99 “Attuazione della Direttiva 86/278/CEE
Provincial implementation:
•
DPGP del 26 gennaio 1987, n.1-41/legsl. Art. 93 “Approvazione del testo unico delle leggi
provinciali in materia di tutela dell’ambiente dagli inquinamenti”
•
Deliberazione n. 4420 della Giunta Provinciale di data 27 aprile 1990, pubblicata sul Bollettino
ufficiale della Regione del 5 giugno 1990 n. 27
•
Delibera della Giunta Provinciale n. 3233 del 30 dicembre 2005 approvazione “Piano Tutela
Acque”
Main contents:
It is forbidden to spread on the soil depuration muds for agronomic purposes
Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by
nitrates from agricultural sources
National implementation:
•
D.M. 19 Aprile 1999 “Approvazione del codice di buona pratica agricola”
•
D.L. 3 Aprile 2006 n. 152 “Norme in materia ambientale” e successive modifiche e integrazioni
(Art. 74 e Art. 92)
•
Decreto interministeriale 7 aprile 2006 recante “Criteri e norme tecniche generali
per la disciplina regionale dell’utilizzazione agronomica degli effluenti di
allevamento, di cui all’articolo 38 del decreto legislativo 11 maggio 1999, n. 152
•
Decreto Ministeriale 15414/2013 Modifica del Decreto ministeriale 22 dicembre 2009, n. 30125, e
ss.mm.ii., recante "Disciplina del regime di condizionalità".
Provincial implementation:
•
Legge provinciale 27 febbraio 1986 n.4 “Piano di Risanamento delle acque”.
•
Decreto del Presidente della Giunta Provinciale 26 gennaio 1987, n. 1-41/Legisl. “Approvazione del
testo unico delle leggi provinciali in materia di tutela dell’ambiente dagli inquinanti
•
Delibera della Giunta Provinciale n. 3233 del 30 dicembre 2005 approvazione “Piano Tutela
Acque”. Modifiche al Titolo IV delle norme di attuazione del Piano Provinciale di risanamento delle
acque (art. 27 e 29).
Main contents:
-
The use of manure and slurry is forbidden within existing residential areas except from mature
manure according to traditional agronomic practices. It is forbidden to use slurry for a strip of 10
36
meters from residential areas or houses, from public services structures and from surface water
bodies. The strip is 5 meters in case of manure.
-
It is forbidden to use inorganic fertilizers within 5 meters from water bodies (set by Province). The
farmer must do a grass strip in correspondence of surface water bodies such as creeks, rivers or
canals (5 meters width).
Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market
National implementation:
•
Decreto legislativo n. 194 del 17 marzo 1995 "Attuazione della dir. 91/414/CEE in materia di
immissione in commercio di prodotti fitosanitari
•
D.P.R. n. 290 del 23 aprile 2001 “Regolamento di semplificazione dei procedimenti di
autorizzazione alla produzione, alla immissione in commercio e alla vendita di prodotti fitosanitari
e relativi coadiuvanti” e successive modifiche e integrazioni
•
Circolare MiPAAF 30/10/2002 Modalità applicative dell'art. 42 del decreto del Presidente della
Repubblica 23 aprile 2001, n. 290, relativo ai dati di produzione, esportazione, vendita ed utilizzo
di prodotti fitosanitari e coadiuvanti di prodotti fitosanitari
•
Articolo 5 e allegato 5 del Decreto del Ministro della salute 27 agosto 2004 relativo ai “Prodotti
fitosanitari: limiti massimi di residui delle sostanze attive nei prodotti destinati all'alimentazione” e
successive modifiche e integrazioni
•
D.M. 14799 del 22/07/2013 Istituzione del Consiglio Tecnico Scientifico sull’uso sostenibile dei
prodotti fitosanitari
•
D. Intermin. 22/01/2014 Adozione del Piano di azione nazionale per l’uso sostenibile dei prodotti
fitosanitari, ai sensi dell’art. 6 del D.L. 150 del 14/08/2012
Main contents:
Obligations for all farms:
-
Availability, conformity and update of the treatments register (quaderno di campagna)
-
Respect of the utilization prescriptions written in the labels of the products
-
Use of individual protection devices.
-
Presence in the farm of a site for the correct storage of phytosanitary products to avoid the spread
in the environment.
-
For selling or consultancy qualification is necessary
-
From the 1st of January 2014 Integrated Pest Management is obligatory
[Integrated Pest Management principles:
1. The prevention and elimination of noxious organisms should be done or favored by:
Crop rotation - use of adequate farming techniques (e.g. false seed bed, seeding dates and density,
pruning and direct sowing) - use of resistant or tolerant cultivars and standard/certified
propagation material - use of balanced fertilization, irrigation/drainage – hygienic measures (e.g.
regular washing of machinery) – protection and growing of populations of beneficial organisms, by
use of ecological infrastructure inside and outside the production area.
2. The noxious organisms should be monitored with adequate instruments and methods. These
should include on-field observations, alert systems, forecast and fast diagnosis, qualified
consultancy opinions, technical assistance bulletin.
37
3. According to the results of the monitoring, the farmer should decide whether and when to apply
adequate control measures. Scientifically approved thresholds are essential for the decisionmaking.
4. Sustainable organic methods should be preferred to chemical methods
5. Phytosanitary products are as selective as possible and have minimum effects of human health,
non-target organisms and environment.
6. The farmer should maintain the use of phytosanitary products to the minimum required level, for
example by using reduced dosage, reducing the frequency of treatments or using localized
treatments; taking care that the hazard level for vegetation is acceptable and that the risk of
resistance development does not increase.
Obligation for farms that utilize also products classified as very toxic, toxic or harmful (T+, T, XN):
-
Availability and validity of the authorization for buying and using products (license); keeping for
one year the receipts and the purchase forms; these should contain the information about the
purchased product, personal details about the buyer, the data about the authorization.
1.1.2 Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions
The Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions are both compulsory and voluntary practices
that farmers should adopt in order to meet some general objectives.
These general European frameworks are then applied by the member states. The competent
national authority shall provide the farmer with the list of the good agricultural and environmental
condition to be respected. Member states shall define, at national or regional level, minimum
requirements for good agricultural and environmental condition on the basis of the framework
established, taking into account the specific characteristics of the areas concerned, including soil
and climatic condition, existing farming systems, land use, crop rotation, farming practices and
farm structures. Member states shall not define minimum requirements which are not foreseen in
that framework.
The following conditions may concern viticulture in Trentino (extracted from Reg. CE n. 73 /2009).
Table 8. Main issues that may concern the viticulture sector in the Trentino region and list of related compulsory
and optional standards.
Issue
Compulsory Standard
Soil erosion: protect soil through
appropriate measures
-
Minimum soil cover
-
Minimum land management reflecting
site-specific conditions
Soil organic matter: maintain soil
organic matter levels through
appropriate practices
-
Arable stubble management
Soil structure: maintain soil structure
through appropriate measures
Minimum level of maintenance:
ensure a minimum level of
maintenance and avoid deterioration
of habitats
-
retention of landscape features,
including, where appropriate, hedges,
ponds, ditches trees in line, in group or
isolated and field margins
Optional Standard
-
Retain terraces
-
Standards for crop
rotation
-
Appropriate machinery
use
-
Minimum livestock
stocking rates or/and
appropriate regimes
-
Establishment and/or
38
-
Protection and management of water:
protect water against pollution and
run-off and manage the use of water
Avoiding the encroachment of
unwanted vegetation on agricultural
land
-
Establishment of buffer strips along
water courses
-
Where use of water for irrigation is
subject to authorization, compliance
with authorization procedures
retention of habitats
-
Maintenance of olive
groves and vines in good
vegetative conditions
Table 9. National and provincial implementation of Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions that could
apply to the viticulture sector in the Trentino region.
Reg. (CE) n. 73/2009
National and Provincial implementation
•
Delibera Giunta Provinciale 516 del 16 marzo 2012 Recepimento norme di applicazione del
regime di Condizionalità ai sensi del Regolamento (CE) n.73/2009, così come previsto dal Decreto
Ministeriale n. 30125 del 22 dicembre 2009 come da ultimo modificato dal Decreto Ministeriale n.
27417 del 22 dicembre 2011.
Main contents:
It is forbidden to do unauthorized levelling
Maintenance of
fields and habitats
Soil protection measures
Minimum management of land
Minimum soil cover
Maintenance or hydraulic network in the farm, in order to
manage and preserve ditches (at field margins) to guarantee
efficiency and functionality of water drainage +.
For all the fields that show erosion phenomena ensure a vegetal
cover for at least 90 consecutive days in the period between 15th
September and 15th May; alternatively, adopt techniques for soil
protection (such as leaving crop residues on soil), - derogation for
surfaces subject to extirpation/replanting of vineyards, according
to Reg. (CE) 1234/2007.
Maintenance of terraces
With the aim of ensuring soil protection from erosion in case of
terraced land, the standardly it is forbidden to eliminate existing
terraces, delimited downhill by a stone wall or by a grassed slope.
Adequate use of machineries
Farmers must ensure an adequate use of machineries during soil
operations. Operations should be carried out at the right soil
humidity conditions and in such a way to avoid the deterioration
of the soil structure.
Maintenance of olive orchards
and vineyards in good
vegetative conditions
In order to ensure a minimum level of maintenance of fields and
to avoid deterioration or abandonment of habitats, olive orchards
and vineyards are maintained in good vegetative conditions by
using appropriate cultural techniques which aim at maintaining a
balanced vegetative development, according to the trellising
systems, the local customs, and to avoid weeds propagation and
fire risk.
39
Maintenance of characteristics
landscape elements
It is forbidden to eliminate stonewalls, hedgerows, ponds, trees,
either isolated or grouped or in rows, when national or regional
legislations apply.
Protection and management of
water resources
-
Protect water from pollution and from run-off
-
Respect the authorization procedures in case the water use
for irrigation is subject to authorization
-
Introduction of buffer strips along water streams: in order to
protect surface and underground water from pollution
deriving from agricultural activities. In case the buffer strip is
not present the farmer must do it: a grass, shrub-like or
arboreal strip either sown or spontaneous, 5 meters wide.
This is valid for creeks, rivers or canals which are monitored
by the Provincial Authority for the Protection of the
Environment. The prohibition of inorganic fertilization is
respected with a 3 meters limit for fruit orchards or vineyards
that are integrated or organic production.
1.2
Rural Development Policy
In the Rural Development Policy (RDP) , the so-called second pillar of the CAP, which is financed by
the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, several measures promote the provision of
ecosystem services (e.g. the agro-environmental measures); these are voluntary-based measures
that provide financial support by which they promote the use of environmentally-friendly
agricultural practices (e.g. maintanament of semi-natural hedgerows)
Rural development strategic priorities for the CAP 2007-2013 were (according to the European
strategic guidelines):
- Improving competitiveness of agricultural and forestry sectors
- Improving the environment and the countryside
- Improving the quality of life in rural areas and encouraging diversification
- Building local capacity for employment and diversification
- Ensuring consistency in programming
- Complementarity between Community instruments
In the Province of Trento the “overall objective of conservation, valorization and review of the
rural mountainous landscape and its economic, environmental and cultural aspects” (Autonomous
Province of Trento, 2007) was expressed through the 3 axes:
Table 10. Measures of the Rural Development Plan 2007-2013 of the Autonomous Province of Trento
Axis 1 – Improving the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector
Measure
Main contents (only the ones that could apply to
viticulture)
111 “Vocational training and information actions”
-
Tutoring for young farmers
[3690 participants, 900 training days, 195 courses
activated ]
-
Professional adjournment and training of
agricultural sector
-
Training on agro-food and environmental issues
-
Information dissemination activities for agriculture
40
and forestry technicians.
112 “Setting up of young farmers”
-
Seminars for agriculture and forest operators
-
Single premium up to a max of 40.000 euros to
young farmers who are setting up for the first time
as head of holding.
-
Investments for fruit and vegetables production
sector (up to 50 % of eligible expenses): equipment
and machinery for crop management practices,
realization of irrigation systems, farm buildings,
purchase and installation of fixed hail protection
nets.
[400 young farmers, 40Meuro of total investments]
121 “Modernization of agricultural holdings”
[4000 farm holdings supported, 100MEuro
investments]
For wines only investments concerning Registered
Designation of Origin and IGT (typical geographical
indication) wines will be eligible.
123 “Adding value to agricultural and forestry
products”
[40 holdings supported for agricultural sector, 120
MEuro of total investments]
-
Introduction of new technologies
-
Improvement of quality control
-
Re-orientation of production
-
Promotion of new market outlets
-
Improvement of processing and marketing of
primary products
-
Introduction of new technologies for the utilization
or disposal of by-products and waste
-
Enhancement of environmental performances
-
Specific infrastructure for processing
For wine sector technological adaptation of plants and
machinery (30% of eligible expenses)
125 “Infrastructure related to the development and
adaptation of agriculture and forestry”
[750 initiatives supported, 111MEuro of total
investments – beneficiaries are consortia for land
improvement, drainage consortia and municipalities]
-
investments for drainage systems improvement
-
realization of new and investments for
extraordinary
maintenance
of
irrigation
infrastructure and land reclamation infrastructures
and wells respecting the environment;
-
improving management of water resources and
coupling of irrigation with other farming
techniques;
-
automation and tele control of irrigation systems;
-
realization and investments for extraordinary
maintenance of rural agricultural and forestry
roads only for common use
Axis 2 – Improving the environment and the countryside
Measure
211 “Natural handicap payments for farmers in
Main contents (only the ones that could apply to
viticulture)
One annual allowance will be granted to compensate the
excess costs or the income foregone due to permanent
41
mountain areas”
[1600 holdings and 19000 Ha]
214 “Agri-environment payments”
[2850 holdings, 50.000 Ha, 3000 environmental
contracts]
disadvantaged area (determined according to altitude,
slope level, dimension, livestock density, etc). Average
payments may not exceed 250 Euro/Ha, however at
holding level compensation allowance may vary from 80 to
600 Euro/Ha
In addition to the respect of cross-compliance,
compensation is given to farmers (mainly in mountain
areas) who: cultivate at least 2 Ha of UAA or 0.3 Ha in case
of olive or chestnut growing; to farmers who commit to
pursue the agricultural activity, on the same surface area,
for 5 years from the first compensation payment; who use
practices which respect the environment beyond the
minimum standards and especially who apply systems of
sustainable agricultural production.
A) Introduction and conservation of organic farming
methods: convert/maintain their holding to organic
farming in conformity with Reg. (EC) 2092/91. The
commitment lasts for at least 5 years. The minimum
surface area is 0.3 Ha. In case of grape vine 900
Euro/Ha.
B) Use of production methods especially destined to the
conservation of biodiversity and of animal species:
maintain or restore hedges with selected species; ban
of pesticides on respect areas (1 m on each side of the
hedge), and spontaneous vegetation (grasses) have to
be controlled manually or mechanically starting from
the second half of July - for row cropping and isolated
trees: maintain a respect area of at least 1 m wide on
each side; ban of chemical fertilizers, pesticides,
herbicides; maintenance operations only in periods of
vegetation rest; ban of pesticides on respect areas, and
spontaneous vegetation (grasses) have to be
controlled manually or mechanically starting from the
second half of July - for drainage trenches:
maintenance operations of riparian vegetation to be
carried out outside the nesting period of waterfowl;
trenches to be kept open air for at least 5 years; no
removal of local plant species; create alternate respect
areas on the banks where the removal of riparian
vegetation is banned; create special 2 m respect areas
where trench borders third party farmland; in these
areas use of pesticides is banned and mowing will have
to be manual or mechanical with ban between midApril and mid-July.
Ex novo: 0.60 Euro/m2 and up to 900 Euro/Ha for orchards
and vineyards
Existing: 0.40 Euro/m2 up to a max of 450 Euro/Ha of UAA
C) mowing not allowed in concerned areas between 5
May and 15 July in areas up to 1000 m a.s.l., and until
42
25 July for areas above 1000 m a.s.l.; ban of chemical
fertilizers and pesticides; cutting operations to be
carried out at low speed from the center to the outside
to allow flight to external areas and "shelter islands"
(i.e. small areas of non-cultivated surface to ensure
shelter to fauna).
450 Euro/Ha
Axis 3 – Quality of life in rural areas and diversification of the rural economy
Measure
Main contents (only the ones that could apply
to viticulture)
311 “Diversification into non-agricultural activities”
Investments within agricultural holdings for the
realizations
or
modernization
of
structures,
[100 beneficiaries, 20 MEuro total investments]
infrastructures or purchase of equipment and furniture
in order to pursue farm diversification towards nonagricultural activities such as rural tourism and local
product (non-agricultural) marketing and direct sale;
development of renewable energy sources from
agriculture or forests; supply of services for the
maintenance of the territory; adoption and
dissemination of information and communication and ecommerce of the rural tourism offer and nonagricultural products.
Axis 4 – Implementation of the Leader approach
Measure
Main contents (only the ones that could apply
to viticulture)
41 “Implementation of the local development
strategies”
[1 Local Action Group, 600 Km2 territory, 14000 people,
600 projects]
a) to promote local products (with special focus on
market access for small producers; b) promote natural
and cultural resources and support tourist promotion; c)
improve quality of life by improving and providing more
basic services in rural areas; d) promote the local
historical and cultural heritage, as basis for the
population and its "rural" identity; e) identify and
experiment new modalities of partnership to encourage
competitiveness of enterprises and areas. The
interventions will contribute to the priorities of axis 1
and 3.
All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are
required, throughout the whole of the holding, to comply with the regulatory obligations on
management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good
agricultural and environmental conditions laid down in the Regulation on the single payment
(Regulation No 73/2009).
43
Appendix 2. Purpose of the study
2.1 Research objectives
The objective of this research was to verify to what extent policy measures are governing farmers’
adoption of agroecological practices in Central Trentino, by analysing what are the main factors
determining the farmers’ choice and adoption of such practices. The study aimed to elucidate how
the CAP policy measures are potentially affecting the choice of farming practices.
By analyzing what are the main factors determining the farmers’ choice and adoption of
agroecological practices, it was possible to verify to what extent CAP policy measures are
governing farmers’ adoption of such practices in a case study area.
This explorative study was employed to investigate the main driving forces boosting the farmers’
choice for agroecological practices. Consequently, some suggestions were given to the local public
authorities on how to promote a further application of agroecological practices - meaning a
further provision of public ecosystem services – in Trentino, Italy. Particularly, the aim was to give
some indications to the local action group that will plan the strategic programmes of the LEADER,
which will be implemented in the study area of the Master thesis.
Furthermore, the second objective of the master thesis was to explore the potential efficacy of
using the term ”agroecology” in the socio-cultural framework of Trentino. The terms
”agroecological farming practices” were defined with a participatory approach involving local
stakeholders. In this way, any ambiguity was reduced and the terminology was shaped to the local
context.
2.2 Research questions
The general research question of the Master thesis was formulated as follows:
Do CAP policy measures, affect the adoption of agroecological farming practices in Central
Trentino, Italy, based on farmers’ perspectives?
The hypotheses that wanted to be verified was that the main driver for farmers’ adoption of
agroecological practices is not the policy but other socio-economic and cultural factors, such as
the level of education or the access to local direct markets.
The specific research questions that were also investigated are:
1. What are the major drivers/deterrents boosting/hampering the adoption of agroecological
practices in Central Trentino?
By identifying the major factors that drive the farmers’ choice for agroecological practices, it was
possible to evaluate what is the impact of policy measures on the adoption of such practices.
2. Are agroecological practices universal or are they shaped and governed by landscape
properties, land use and farm structure?
Investigating the farms’ biophysical and socio-economic characteristics contributed to the
definition of the main factors driving the adoption of agroecological practices.
3. How can specific ”agroecological farming practices” be defined and which agroecological
practices can be most effectively adopted in the Trentino region?
Through the participation of local stakeholders to the definition of ”agroecological practices” the
meaning of this term was shaped to the local context and the practices that could potentially be
44
adopted in the area were listed. Furthermore, the potential efficacy of using this term in the local
institutional debates was explored.
45
Appendix 3. Description of the case study area.
The study was carried out in the central zone of the autonomous province of Trento, located in the
heart of the Alps, in northern Italy. In this area, the LEADER measure of the new CAP 2014-2020
will be implemented. The LEADER (Links Between Actions of Rural Development) approach is a
method for implementing local development strategies through public-private partnership called
”local action groups”. LEADER is a bottom-up strategy for sustainable development applied to
clearly designated rural territories. In the province of Trento the aim of LEADER is to strengthen
the link between agriculture, environment and tourism (Provincia Autonoma di Trento, 2014). The
study area was chosen so that the results of the study would possibly be useful to the local action
group in charge of designing and implementing the LEADER strategy.
The study area is limited at three Valley Communities: Valle dei Laghi, Comunità Rotaliana and Val
di Cembra. Valley Communities are local authorities that have intermediate representative power
between municipalities and province. Even though the three Valley Communities are all adjacent
to the city of Trento, they present some major geomorphological and climatic differences.
Figure 5. Map of Valle dei Laghi
46
Figure 6. Picture of Valle dei Laghi (http://dolomitiparkhotel.com/laghi/valle%20dei%20Laghi%20e%20L.jpg)
Valle dei Laghi (Fig. 5 and 6) is a large valley of glacial origin and it is known for the several lakes
that characterize its territory. The valley is also famous for its climate that goes from alpine one in
the north to mediterranean one in the southern part, thanks to the mild influence of Garda Lake.
The climate is warm-temperate, fully humid with hot summers (according to Köppen-Geiger
climate classification) (Climate-Data.org, 2015). The annual average temperature is 12.4°C (1.1°C
in January, 22.6°C in July) and the annual average rainfall is 880 mm (45 mm in January, 97 mm in
November). Valley dei Laghi is characterized by a hilly plateau which is parallel to the main valley.
The main valley features a flat valley floor surrounded by higher mountains (Comunità della Valle
dei Laghi, 2015). Among the six municipalities that are part of the Community the average altitude
is 417 m.a.s.l. (minimum altitude is 286 m.a.s.l, maximum altitude is 504 m.a.s.l.)(Tuttitalia.it,
2015).
Comunità Rotaliana (Fig. 7 and 8) is characterized by a large flat valley floor and a smaller part of
hills on the eastern side. The valleyfloor plain was originated by the sedimentation of debris
transported by rivers. In fact, the plain is crossed by two main rivers and a third one that merges in
the southern part of the plain. Historically this was a marshy area (Franceschini 2012). The climate
is warm-temperate, fully humid with hot summers (according to Köppen-Geiger climate
classification) (Climate-Data.org, 2015). The annual average temperature is 12.4°C (1.0°C in
January, 22.7°C in July) and the annual average rainfall is 870 mm (42 mm in January, 93 mm in
August). Among the eight municipalities that are part of the Community the average altitude is
270 m.a.s.l. (minimum altitude is 206 m.a.s.l., maximum altitude is 591 m.a.s.l.)(Tuttitalia.it, 2015).
47
Figure 7. Map of Comunità Rotaliana
Figure 8. Picture of Comunità Rotaliana (http://www.sinestesie-enoiche.it/wp-content/gallery/nuova-strada-delvino-trentina/piana-rotaliana.jpg)
48
Val di Cembra (Fig. 9 and 10) is a steep valley that originated in the last section of a long mountain
creek. This creek flows at the valley floor and separate the right and the left slopes (Comunità
della Valle di Cembra, 2015). The climate is snowy, fully-humid, with warm summer (according to
Köppen-Geiger climate classification) (Climate-Data.org, 2015 ). The annual average temperature
is 9.8°C (-1.1°C in January, 19.8°C in July) and the annual average rainfall is 825 mm (36 mm in
January, 98 mm in August). Among the eight municipalities that are part of the Community the
average altitude is 270 m.a.s.l. (minimum altitude is 206 m.a.s.l., maximum altitude is 591
m.a.s.l.)(Tuttitalia.it, 2015).
Figure 9. Map of Val di Cembra
49
Figure 10. Picture of Val di Cembra (http://www.ladigetto.it/files/olds/Val%20di%20Cembra%20620.jpg
In terms of agricultural production, vineyards are the dominant land use in Val di Cembra (54.8%
of Utilized Agricultural Area, UAA), where terraces have historically shaped the landscape, and in
Rotaliana (70.2% of UAA), but not in Valle dei Laghi (24% of UAA), where the largest percentage of
UAA is occupied by permanent grasslands/pastures (53%). In Rotaliana the second dominant land
use is apple orchards (20.4%), while it is permanent grassland/pastures (29.8%) in Val di Cembra.
The definition of farm tipology is a crucial point in policy impact assessment, especially with
regards to the representativity and the possibility to generalize results to other farms (Häring
2003). For this study, the representativity of selected tipycal farms was based on farm size and
land use.
Overall, from the total surface of the study area (21491 ha), 7894 ha (36.7%) are defined as
Utilized Agricultural Area (UAA). From Fig. 11, it is clear how almost half (49.4%) of the total UAA is
dedicated to vineyards, almost 1/3 is grasslands or pastures and about 14 % of the UAA is
occupied by apple orchards. Only small percentages of land are used for arable or vegetable
productions (ISPAT, 2013).
Figure 11. The land uses of the total Utilized Agricultural Area in Central Trentino
50
The total number of farms in the study area is 2919. As shown in Fig. 12, the majority of farms
features vineyards (68.4%) and about ¼ of the farms features apple orchards or vegetables (18.7%
and 19.7% respectevily). Only a relatively small number of farms features grasslands/pasture or
arable land (12.9% and 6.3%) (ISPAT, 2013).
Figure 12. Number of farms per each land use.
Overall the study area is characterized by smallholder family farms. The professional agricutural
sector features a big number of very small-scale vineyards farms (average 0.3 ha), followed by very
small-scale apple producers (average 0.4) and small-scale pasture-based farmers (average 12 ha).
51
Appendix 4. Complete materials and methods
Figure 13. Diagram describing the approach needed for analyzing and (re-) designing agroecosystems. Adapted from
Tittonell 2013
In order to find long-term solutions for the problems of agriculture, cycles of analysis and (re)design of agroecosystems are needed. In this process, represented in the diagram in Fig. 13, the
first phase is describing the agroecosystem. Through observations, the factors involved are
explained in order to analyze the agroecosystem. From the analysis, implications are understood,
from which the second phase of design of an improved agroecosystem starts (Table 11). This
Master thesis is restricted to the first phase, as the research questions are analysis-oriented
(Tittonell 2013). The methodology of this Master thesis is hereby described, according to the
above-mentioned approach.
Table 11. Methodology of the Master thesis based on the agroecosystems analysis and design approach.
52
4.1
Description
In the first phase, a description of the system was required. This implied firstly the definition of a
farm tipology, in order to identify the most representative clusters of farms to be addressed
during the study. The farm typology was based on land use and farm size. Statistical database from
the 6° general census of agriculture of the Province of Trento were analysed in order to identify
the major land uses in the study area, the number of farms per land use, the average dimension of
the farms and socio-economic information about farmers (labour availability, resource
endowment) (see Appendix 3). Secondly, CAP documents were reviewed in order to clearly
delineate all the policy measures that affect the study area, in terms of governing the adoption of
agricultural practices (see Appendix 1). Finally, scientific literature was reviewed in order to
outline the state of art on the agroecological practices. Since very few publications expilicitely
referring to agroecological practices were found, their definition was based on the principles of
agroecology, which are universally applicable.
4.2
Observation
The observation phase corresponded to the field work. After conducting a preliminary online
questionnaire to local experts, the CMASOP (Cognitive Mapping Approach for Analyzing
Actors’Systems of Practices) methodology by Vanwindekens et al. 2013 was followed for the steps
of observation, explanation and evaluation of the system. Particularly the ‘systems of practices’, as
perceived by the farmers were identified and modelled. In the context of this study, the focus
wanted to be on the ‘adoption of agroecological practices’, therefore the definition of ‘system of
practices’ was adapted to include:
i.
The set of technical operations (site-specific agroecological practices) and the reasons for
their adoption.
ii. The factors influencing the motivation to adopt agroecological practices.
iii. The elements affected by the adopted agroecological practices, being either elements of
the farming system itself or elements affecting the larger environment such as ecosystem
service.
iv. The relationship between all of them.
Experts were firstly involved through an online questionnaire in order to understand the potential
adoption of agroecological practices in the perennial land use system of vineyards in Central
Trentino. Then, farmers were interviewed in order to identify and model their ’system of
practices’, which refers to the effective adoption of agroecological practices.
4.2.1 Online questionnaire to experts
In order to adapt the definition of “agroecological practice” to the viticulture sector of the
Trentino region, an online questionnaire was administered to 71 people that were considered
experts of the local viticulture sector. Three of them belonged to the regulatory sector (e.g.
Provincial office of agriculture), twelve belonged to the commercial sector (e.g. seller of
amendments for organic agriculture), three of them were journalists specialized in oenology and
53 belonged to the advisory sector (e.g. researcher of the Viticulture department of a local
agrarian research institute).
The questionnaire was administered through the Qualtrics software © (2015) after an invitation
was send via email to each expert. The questionnaire was structured into four sections. The first
one to gather personal information about the respondent’s level of education, professional
activity and expertise. The second one including questions about the previous knowledge of
53
agroecology; the third one about the principles of agroecology and the definition of agroecological
practices; the last section including some questions about the best terminology to be used in the
institutional framework of Trentino. See Appendix 5 for a copy of the whole questionnaire.
4.2.2 In-depth interviews to farmers
In order to answer to the main research question, farmers in-depth interviews were carried out.
The first farmers’ contacts were found on the internet or through personal knowledge; afterwards
other farmers were selected through snow-ball sampling (asking the first farmers to indicate other
colleagues that could take part in the interviews). They were contacted by phone and a meeting
was planned based on their availability. As the first three farmers preferred to schedule the
interview very soon after the phone call (e.g. the day after or two days after), it was decided to
contact the other farmers week by week and not all in the same day, in order to plan around three
interviews per week.
The interviews, that were fully recorded, lasted about one hour, and were carried out with the
support of an open-ended questionnaire (see Appendix 7). The objective of the interview was to
capture the farmer’s perspective of his/her system of practice, therefore the questions were
purposely very open and every specific question that could suggest an answer was avoided. The
interview was divided into three sections. The first one about general description of the farm and
some information about the farmer’s personal experience.
In the second section the aim was to clarify the topic of agroecological practices. Two papers were
handed in to the farmer. The first one contained an explanation of what are agroecological
practices according to the scientific explanation based on Altieri (2002) and to the results of the
questionnaire to experts. The second paper was an exhaustive list of all the agroecological
practices that are adopted or adoptable in viticulture in Trentino region, according to the experts.
The aim of this list was to show more precise examples of what can be considered agroecological
practices to the farmer, in order to facilitate his responses. In the third section participants were
asked to list the agroecological practices they adopt and to explain, for each of the adopted
agroecological practice, the elements affected by it and the factors that affected the motivation to
adopt it. See Appendix 7 and 8.
In accordance with the accumulation curve shown by Vanwindekens et al. (2013), a saturation
occurs after about twenty interviews. Therefore the required sample size was set at minimum 20
farmers. In order to gain a realistic picture of the viticulture sector in the case study area, the
number of farmers to be interviewed per valley community was calculated according to the total
number of vineyards farms, as reported by ISPAT (2013). Six interviews were planned in Val di
Cembra, eleven in Rotaliana and four in Valle dei Laghi. The percentage of organic viticulture farms
was very low in the case study area (on average 1.5%. Respectively 0.25% in Val di Cembra, 0.96%
in Rotaliana and 3.22% in Valle dei Laghi.) However, also some organic farmers were interviewed
because of their availability to respond and in order to maximize the diversity within the sample.
Three organic farmers were interviewed in Rotaliana, none in Val di Cembra and two in Valle dei
Laghi.
4.3
Explanation
The explanation phase corresponded to the analysis of the data gathered during the field work.
54
4.3.1 Online questionnaire to experts
The respondents had three weeks to complete the online questionnaire. The response rate was 56
% (of which 36 questionnaires were completed and 4 were started but left uncompleted). The
results of the closed questions (e.g. Have you ever heard of the term agroecology? yes or no) were
analyzed by Qualtrics software © (2015), that provided a final report of the responses showing, for
each close question, the number of respondents that chose each answer, with the corresponding
percentage. The results of the open questions (e.g. How would you define the term agroecology
with your own words?) were analyzed through a content analysis. Each answer was red through in
order to identify the main concepts reported. These concepts were grouped into different sets.
The sets of concepts were not established a priori but were drawn up during this phase of analysis.
The analysis of the questionnaire to experts resulted in a list of agroecological practices that are or
could be most effectively adopted for vineyards in Central Trentino, but also in a list of the most
appropriate terminology to be used during the interviews of farmers. These information were the
basis for conducting and analyzing the in-depth interviews of farmers. See Appendix 6 for the
results of the online questionnaire to experts.
4.3.2 In-depth interviews of farmers
The data about the farms and the farmers collected during the first section of the interviews are
shown in Appendix 10.
After verbatim transcribing all the 21 interviews, these were analyzed using computer-assisted
Qualitative Data Analysis software in family R, RQDA (Huang, 2014; R Core Team 2015).
Each interview was read through a first time and a total of 108 concepts found in the text were
listed. These were grouped into 3 major code categories, namely:
i. the adopted agroecological practices
ii. the factors influencing the motivation to adopt agroecological practices
iii. the elements affected by the adopted agroecological practice (being either elements of the
farming system itself or elements affecting the larger environment such as ecosystem
services)
The coded practices were 45, the affected elements were 29 and the influencing factors were 34.
The concept list was not set a priori but it was drawn up during this phase. Only for the code
category “adopted agroecological practices” the list of agroecological practices resulted from the
questionnaire to experts was used as a baseline to define the codes. (E.g. the practices of using
copper and Sulphur were included in the code “reduction of synthetic pesticides”, as it was
expressed by the experts).
Each of the coded concepts was numbered in Excel file in order to facilitate the coding of relations
between concepts.
All the interviews were read through a second time and the relations between the previously
coded concepts were marked with RQDA (Huang, 2014). The relations between concepts were not
set a priori but were all drawn up during this phase.
The relationships could be of the following types: sequence of two operations, output of an
operation, use of a product, outcome of an operation or a state, influence of an operation or a
product, general statement (Vanwindekens et al. 2013). The RQDA package produces a complex
SQLite data base, where for each interview data are available about: the interviewed actor, the
identified relationships among variables and quotations linked to each relationship.
55
Afterwards, the identified relationships among concepts were processed to create an Individual
Cognitive Mapping (ICM), for each interviewed farmer, using R-package RgraphViz (Gentry et al.,
2010 cited in Vanwindekens et al. 2013). ICM is a graphical network illustrating the actor’s
perception and expression of the ’system of practices’, and its adjacency matrix.
Finally, a farmers’ Social Cognitive Mapping (SCM) was generated by aggregating all the ICM. The
SCM shows the most adopted agroecological practices for vineyards in Central Trentino, the main
factors that influence the motivation to adopt them and the main elements affected by the
adoption of such practices (being either on farm effects or ecosystem services). Furthermore one
SCM was produced for each of the three Valley Community (Val di Cembra, Rotaliana and Valle dei
Laghi), in order to highlight possible differences within the case study area.
4.4
Evaluation
4.4.1 Online questionnaire to experts
The experts’ questionnaires allowed firstly to define ”agroecological farming practices” according
to the local context. Secondly, to list which agroecological practices could be most effectively
adopted in the Trentino region. Finally, to define to what extent the term ”agroecological
intensification” is considered to be appropriate in place of ”sustainable agriculture” in the political
debate when promoting practices that will enhance farm livelihoods, biodiversity, soil quality and
environmental quality standards.
4.4.2 In-depth interviews of farmers
The farmers’ SCM allowed to delineate what are the most adopted agroecological practices in
Central Trentino, what are the major drivers boosting their adoption and what are the main
elements affected by the adoption of such practices.
4.5
Understanding implications
From the farmers’ SCMs it was be possible to answer the main research question, by evaluating if
and to what extent policy measures are reported as a factor influencing the motivation to adopt
agroecological practices. Therefore, the effectiveness of policies in supporting the adoption of
agroecogical practices in Central Trentino was verified. Furthermore, other major factors
influencing the farmers’ motivation to adopt agroecological practices were identified, as well as
the major elements affected by the adoption of such practices. Moreover, the potential efficacy of
using the term ”agroecological intensification” within the socio-cultural framework of Trentino
was understood.
Finally, some recommendations were given for further research and to the local policy-makers in
order to start the next design phase for promoting a further application of agroecological
principles in Trentino, Italy.
56
Appendix 5. Online questionnaire to experts.
Information about the respondent
⋅ Level of education
⋅ Current position and professional affiliation
⋅ Number of years of professional experience
⋅ Select the key words capturing your specific expertise, among the following list
Crop management – mechanization - soil management - cover crops - environmental quality –
biodiversity – IPM – marketing – research - capacity building and training – cooperation agricultural policies - organic agriculture – viticulture – agroecology - local and typical productions
- ecosystem services - biological control – Trentino - rural development - farmers’ association
Previous knowledge about agroecology
• Have you ever heard of the term agroecology?
• (IF YES) When? Where?
• Can you define it in your own words?
• Are you familiar with agroecological intensification?
• If yes can you explain what it would imply?
Agroecological practices
Listed below are the key agroecological principles, which are considered to be universally
applicable. However, the site-specific environmental and socio-economic conditions will
determine how these principles are translated into actual farm practices.
5 Fostering the (re)cycling of carbon and nutrients in agroecosystems to enhance availability
and balancing of resources;
6 Enhancing soil conditions in such manner that plant growth can be optimal;
7 Minimizing resource losses by using improved system design and management techniques;
8 Improve diversification in time and space;
9 Promote positive interactions and synergisms among biological organisms and system
components (Altieri, 2002).
• Based on these principles, how would you define an agroecological practice?
Now that you have an overview of what agroecological principles are:
•
Could you list some examples of agroecological farming practices that you have seen
adopted in vineyards in Trentino?
• Could you list other agroecological farming practices that you think could be effectively
adopted in vineyards in Trentino?
Use of terminology
• Do you think farmers will be familiar with the term agroecological practice? If not, what
other terms would use instead?
• Do you think that the term agroecological intensification would be more appropriate than
the term “sustainable agriculture” in the political debate when promoting practices that
will enhance farm livelihoods, biodiversity, soil quality and environmental quality
standards? Why?
57
Appendix 6. Results of the online questionnaire to experts
6.1
Information about the respondents
In terms of level of education, the majority of the respondents (36%) had an upper secondary
education, corresponding to the EQF Level 4 (European Qualifications Framework, 2015), followed
by PhD (23%) and Bachelor’s degree level (21%).
Figure 14. Level of education of the respondents to the online questionnaire to experts
The majority of the respondents belonged to the advisory sector, being technicians, researchers or
advisors. Most of them worked in the Institute for research and innovations for agriculture
Fondazione Edmund Mach (FEM), located in San Michele all’ Adige, Trentino. One respondent
belonged to the regulatory sector, being a Rural Development Plan evaluator; one was a retailer;
two were journalists; two defined themselves as farmers and one as oenologist. The average
number of years of professional experience was 20. The lowest number of years of professional
experience was 5 and the highest was 40.
Figure 15. Expertise selected by the participants to the online questionnaire to experts
58
The expertise that were more frequently selected by the participants were Viticulture and
Trentino (41% each), followed by scientific research (36%), crop management (33%), Integrated
Pest Management (28%), biodiversity (26%), organic agriculture and biological control (23%),
capacity building and training (21%). The remaining expertise were selected with a rate lower than
15 %. Specifically, the least selected expertise was cover crops (0%) and mechanization (5%). See
Appendix 9 for the complete answers to the questions about personal information.
6.2
Previous knowledge about agroecology
The majority of the respondents (68%) were familiar with the term agroecology. Most of the
respondents reported to have heard about the term agroecology in scientific journals,
publications, books and conferences in recent times.
The words given by the respondents as answers to the open question 7 (How would you define
the word agroecology with your own words?) were grouped into four categories, representing the
main concepts emerged. Namely, the four sets of concepts are:
I.
II.
agroecology defined as a science, particularly as a branch of the science of ecology;
agroecology defined as the relations between environment and agriculture / between
nature and human activity;
III.
agroecology defined as a practice / farm management, with particular reference to the
concept of system;
IV. agroecology defined as a kind of agriculture that is sustainable or with a low environmental
impact.
See Appendix 9 for the detailed answers divided into the four groups.
When asked about the concept of agroecological intensification, the large majority of the
respondents (82%) answered not to be familiar with it.
6.3
Agroecological practices
The words given as answers to the open question 10 (How would you define an agroecological
practice?), were grouped according to the major concepts mentioned. The two most frequent
concepts mentioned in defining an agroecological practice were sustainability and respect for the
environment. The concept of sustainability was reported 14 times, mainly referring to its more
ample meaning; only one respondent referred specifically to social and economic sustainability
(“Keep on living on agriculture”) and one referred specifically to environmental sustainability
(“ecologically sustainable”). The concept of respect for the environment was mentioned 14 times,
with particular references to the concept of natural equilibrium and low environmental impact.
Two respondents referred specifically to the importance of soil and other two to the importance
of biodiversity. Other concepts that emerged from the definition of agroecological practice, even
if to a lower extent, were the ones of system and of holistic approach, as well as the one of
reduction of external inputs. Surprisingly, also the concept of productivity was mentioned a large
number of times (6). Two respondents defined an agroecological practice as similar or equal to
integrated or organic farming. Three experts remarked the importance of meeting the principles
of agroecology. Other two defined an agroecological practice as essential or necessary to do
agriculture. Finally, one respondent highlighted the component of the quality of life that is
supposed to be enhanced by the agroecological practices, concept that is synthetized as taking
59
into consideration the Gross Domestic Happiness, beyond the mere Gross Domestic Product. See
Appendix 9 for the whole list of answers.
Figure 16. Groups of concepts emerged from the experts’ definitions of agroecological practice
The answers to the open question 12 (Could you list some examples of agroecological farming
practices that you have seen adopted in vineyards in Trentino ?) have been grouped according to
the major concepts that emerged in the responses. The majority of answers (23) referred to the
practice of grass-based row cover, in order to avoid the use of chemical herbicides. Specifically,
four respondents referred to the cultivation of grasses in the row middles, also one every other;
two referred to the cultivation of grasses in the row and the others just referred to grass cover
crops in general. Five respondents mentioned the use of mechanical weeding instead of chemical
one.
The second most frequent group of practices that was reported by the respondents was the use of
the technique of pheromone traps or biological control. A large number of experts (12) mentioned
pheromone traps as an agroecological practice that they have seen adopted in Trentino. Five of
them specified the use pheromone traps against moths. Some other respondents mentioned the
implementation of biological control. One highlighted the importance of the use of predictive
models in pest management. Two experts reported the use of trichoderma.
The third most frequent group of practices that was reported by the respondents is the use of
organic fertilization instead of chemical one. Two respondents referred about the supply of
manure and many (10) reported to have seen the agroecological practice of green manure applied
in Trentino.
Progressively, the care of semi-natural elements was mentioned as an agroecological practice that
was seen adopted in vineyards in Trentino (9). Specifically three experts reported about the
safeguard of terrace walls and nests for birds.
Seven respondents referred to training as an agroecological practice, highlighting the importance
of the education of farmers. Five respondents said to consider the use of low risk pesticides, both
for the environment and humans, an agroecological practice adopted in Trentino. Five experts
mentioned organic or biodynamic farming in general as an agroecological practice.
Three respondents referred to the use of resistant varieties as an agroecological practice adopted
in Trentino. Two of them mentioned the management of irrigation, specifically the use of drip
irrigation, as an agroecological practice.
The specific answers to question 11 and the practices that were mentioned by only one
respondent are to be found in Appendix 9.
60
Figure 17. Major sets of agroecological practices that the experts reported to have seen adopted in vineyards in
Trentino.
When asked to list other agroecological farming practices that they think could be effectively
adopted in vineyards in Trentino, the experts reported some different and some similar ones
compared to the agroecological practices that they have seen adopted in vineyards in Trentino.
The most frequent practice mentioned (8) is the use of resistant varieties, either resistant to
nematodes that are vectors of viruses, or to fungal diseases. One participant also mentioned the
importance of the choice of variety according to the area of cultivation; this concept is reclaimed
by another expert that reported the method of zonation as an agroecological practice. Seven
experts wrote that an enhancement of semi-natural elements, specifically the planting of
hedgerows, could be an agroecological practice to be adopted in vineyards in Trentino. With
regard to this practice, one participant wrote about the planting of a strip of olive trees between
the vineyards and the forest. With the same frequency (7) the practice of organic fertilization was
mentioned; specifically, unlike the list of adopted organic fertilization practices, the experts
referred to the use of compost as a potential effective agroecogical practice, adoptable in
vineyards in Trentino. Five experts reported increasing the awareness and knowledge among
farmers as a potential agroecological practice. The other practices reported as potentially
adoptable in vineyards in Trentino were also mentioned among the ones that are already adopted,
such as no weeding (4) and water management (4). Three experts wrote to avoid monoculture of
vineyards as an agroecological practice.
Figure 18. Major sets of agroecological practices that the experts reported to be potentially adoptable in vineyards
in Trentino
61
The specific answers to question 12 and the practices that were mentioned by only one
respondent are to be found in Appendix 9.
6.4
Use of terminology
The large majority (80%) of the experts that answered to the online questionnaire believed that
the local farmers would not have been familiar with the term agroecological practice.
When asked to write other terms that they would use instead of agroecological practice, the
majority (13) of the respondents reported they would use the term sustainable practice. Six
experts said they would use the term practice respectful for the environment. Two wrote
integrated or organic practice.
Figure 19. Terminology reported by the experts to be used with local farmers in the place of agroecological practice.
Finally, the large majority (77%) of the respondents also believed that the term agroecological
intensification would not be more appropriate than the term sustainable agriculture in the
political debate when promoting practices that would enhance farm livelihoods, biodiversity, soil
quality and environmental quality standards. The main reason is that the term agroecological
intensification is considered to be less immediate or too difficult; one respondent also mentioned
that the word “intensification” could be associated to the word “intense”. Other experts said that
they prefer the term sustainable because it is more familiar and more understandable. Finally,
some other respondents highlighted the trend of oversaturation of new terms that refer to the
same concepts that risk to be misleading.
The few experts that believed that the term agroecological intensification would be better than
the one sustainable agriculture in the political debate, reported as main motivation the fact that
the word sustainable is too vague and it can be used with different meaning by different people.
62
Appendix 7. Questionnaire for in-depth interviews to farmers.
[As I told you during our phone call, I am carrying out these interviews for my Master thesis.
First of all, I want to thank you for participating and for the great contribute that you are giving to my
work.
My Master thesis is about agricultural practices in vineyards in Trentino, therefore during the interview we
will be focusing on the practices on field and not on the ones of wine making.
To give you an idea of what you are going to face, during this interview I will firstly ask you about some
information about the farm and about your experience; later, we will try to understand together what
does agroecology and agroecological practice mean. Finally I will ask you some questions about the
practices that you adopt in the vineyards and about what are your motivations for choosing one practice
rather than another one.
Obviously, all the information that you will give me will be anonymous, meaning that neither your name
nor the one of your farm will appear in my thesis report. The recording of this interview will be
confidential as well.]
Demographic, bio-physical and socio-economic data about the farmer/farm
[If you are ready to start, I would ask you first of all to give me a general description of your farm, in
terms of dimension, vine varieties cultivated, whether there are particular characteristics in your fields or
in the area in general.]
LET THE FARMER TALK AND TICK THE INFORMATION GIVEN, THEN DO QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
MISSING INFORMATION
•
Information about the farm and about the production
Valley community and municipality
Total farm size owned by the household
Total farm size farmed by the household
Total area with cash crops / other crops
Total number of livestock
Rented or owned land
Biophysical characteristics of fields (slope, altitude, proximity to natural or semi-natural elements,
soil type, and risk of erosion) and land use patterns
Main productions (vine varieties and trellising system)
Type of production (conventional/organic/biodynamic)
Market outlet (direct selling, CSA, wholesalers, cooperative)
•
Information about the farmer
[Now I would ask you some questions more on your personal experience, whether you come from a
family of viticulturists or not and where have you learnt to do this job.]
Name, age, gender, level of education, first generation farmer or not?
[Then I would like to ask you whether you are the only worker in the farm or there is other staff (family
or external workers)?]
Labor availability
63
Number of family members that work on the farm, of which working temporarily/permanently offfarm
[The last thing I would like to ask you for this first section of the interview is if you are part of any
producers’ association or cooperative?]
Network associations / cooperatives
Introduction to agroecology
[OK, we have now concluded the first section and we can move to talk about agroecology. Have you ever
heard about this word?]
• Have you ever heard of the term agroecology?
• [If yes] When? Where?
• Could you define it with your own words?
[You should know that before starting with these interviews to farmers, that are the main body of my
thesis, I have administered a questionnaire to some experts of viticulture in Trentino, especially to people
of Fondazione Mach, but also some people from the Province and from the commercial institutions.
My thesis is about agroecological practices but, as the term is quite difficult and maybe unknown, I
wanted to ask to some local experts to help me to define it according to the local context of Trentino.
Now I give you this paper that I hope can be of help to clarify what agroecological practice means. On the
top you can see a scientific explanation, below you can find the experts’ definitions and finally some
examples of the most utilized agroecological practices in vineyards in Trentino, according to the experts.
I let you some time to read it, obviously if there is something that it is not clear do not hesitate to ask
questions.]
64
What is an agroecological practice?
According to the scientific community an agroecological practice…
… favours the accumulation of organic matter and the recycling of nutrients, enhancing the
resources availability and balance in the agroecosystems.
… safeguard the soil condition in order to allow an optimal plant growth.
…minimize the losses of resources (solar radiation, air, water and nutrients) by way of
microclimate management and soil cover.
… enhance the diversity, in time and space, of the species in the agroecosystem.
… enhance the positive interactions between biological organisms and other components
of the agroecosystem, favouring natural control mechanisms and promoting ecosystem
services.
An agroecological practice, according to the “local experts”:
-
Is an agricultural practice that is SUSTAINABLE
Is an agricultural practice that is RESPECTFUL FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
Is an agricultural practice that is PRODUCTIVE
Examples of agroecological practices, according to the “local experts”:
-
•
Grass cover crops and no use of herbicides
Use of pheromone traps and biological control
Organic fertilization (manure, green manure, compost)
Hedgerows, other trees or flowers in the vineyards + terrace walls and nests
Use of resistant varieties
65
Did you understand what kind of practices are we referring to?
IF NOT, OTHER DEFINITIONS GIVEN BY EXPERTS SEE PAPER
•
How would you describe them with your own words?
Agreocological practices’ adoption, reasons and consequences
[Now we finally move to the part where you are the expert, the practices on field]
•
The question I want to ask you is if you believe you are using any of these agroecological
practices, so sustainable, respectful for the environment and productive?
[Before this, in order to clarify a bit better what we are talking about, I give you the list of all the
practices that the local experts told me to be adopted or adoptable in vineyards in Trentino.
If you want to have a look at it, maybe you identify something that you are also using. Obviously, you
can also tell me about practices that are not included in this list but that, in your opinion are sustainable
or respectful for the environment and productive.]
GIVE THE LIST AND LET SOME TIME
•
Can you please tell me if you think you are using any? Can you list which one?
TAKE NOTE OF THEM, THEN,
[Ok, now to conclude, I would like to go more in detail for each of these practices you listed.
Starting from…]
•
•
Do you find any benefit or disadvantage from using this practice? Which one?
Why did you start using it?
66
Appendix 8. Agroecological practices according to local experts of
viticulture in Trentino
VARIETY
CHOICE
Choice of varieties depending on the best areas
Use of varieties that are tolerant and / or resistant to some diseases
Cultivation of local varieties
Use of rootstocks that are resistant to nematodes which are vector of viruses
SOIL MANAGEMENT
No chemical weeding
Limiting the use of chemical weeding
Mechanical operations alternative to chemical weeding
Grassing of row middles and rows
Mowing of row middles one every other
Fire weeding
Precision fertilization according to needs
NUTRITION
Reduction of chemical fertilizers use
Supply of manure
Green manure
Farm composting
Composting of pruning residuals with manure
Integrated pest management
Reduction of pesticides
PESTS/DISEASES MANAGEMENT
Use of pesticides with a low risk for humans
Use of eco-compatible products
No use of insecticides
Elimination of acaricidal
Control of pesticides drift
Respect of beneficial insects
Biological control
Use of predictive models in the management of plant diseases
Use if pheromone traps (against vine moth)
Mechanical pest control (against broad bordered yellow underwing)
Use of trichoderma ( against esca grape disease)
67
Use of copper strings that release copper protecting against late blight
SEMI-NATURAL ELEMENTS
MANAGEMENT
Planting of hedges along the borders with sensitive areas (bicycle paths, roads, etc.)
Respect of terrace walls, nests, etc.
Establishment of nests for birds and wild insects
Planting of trees with large canopy in the peripheral areas of vineyards, where possible the
planting of a strip of olive trees between vineyards and forest
Planting of buffer strips
Planting of hedgerows with nectiferous plants
More space between the rows for the ecology of the row middles as a grass environment
TION
IRRIGA_
Better use of water with drip irrigation
Only aid irrigation
Parsimonious use of water
Care and respect for surface water
Use of biodegradable material (laces, supports)
OTHER PRACTICES
Use of wooden poles
Reduction of monoculture
Intercropping
Substitution with other crops
Reduced use of tractors
Harvesting of product depending on ripening level in each field
Adapting the dimension of family farms in order to have a fair income
68
Appendix 9. Complete results of the online questionnaire to experts
•
Question 1. What is your level of education? [total responses 39]
Level of education
Number of respondents
Percentage
EQF Level 1* (Diploma licenza
media – Lower secondary
education)
2
5%
EQFLevel 4 (Diploma istruzione
secondaria-Upper secondary
education)
14
36%
EQF Level 6 (Laurea – Bachelor’s
degree)
8
21%
EQF Level 7 (Laurea Magistrale –
Master’s degree)
6
15%
EQF Level 8 (Dottorato di ricerca PhD)
9
23%
Other
1
3%
*EQF Level = European Qualifications Framework (2015)
• Question 2. What is your current profession? [total responses 35]
Agrarian technician 12
Researcher 5
Advisor 4
Laboratory technician 2
Beekeeping technician
Director of the viticulture research and advisory department of Fondazione E. Mach
Director of the Plant protection and agroforestry biodiversity department of Fondazione E. Mach
Rural Development Plan evaluator
Employee of an agricultural professional organization
Retailer
Journalist 2
Farmer 2
Oenologist
•
Question 3. How many years of professional experience do you have? [total responses
36]
•
Question 4. Select the key words capturing your specific expertise, among the following
list [total responses 39]
69
Expertise
Number of respondents
Percentage
Crop management
13
33%
Mechanization
2
5%
Soil management
6
15%
Cover crops
0
0%
Environmental quality
6
15%
Biodiversity
10
26%
Integrated Pest Management
(IPM)
11
28%
Marketing
3
8%
Research
14
36%
Capacity building and training
8
21%
Cooperation
4
10%
Agricultural policies
5
13%
Organic agriculture
9
23%
Viticulture
16
41%
Local and typical productions
3
8%
Ecosystem services
5
13%
Biological control
9
23%
Trentino
16
41%
Rural development
5
13%
Farmers’ association
5
13%
• Question 5. Have you ever heard about the term Agroecology? [38]
YES: 68% (26)
NO: 32 % (12)
• Question 6. Where and when? [total responses 24]
Recently on magazine, publications since a few years, Scientific conferences, books 11
University and work 4
70
I don’t remember 2
Internet, media 2
At home
In the commercial sector
Often
•
Question 7. How would you define the word agroecology with your own words? [total
responses 31]
I.
SCIENZA / ECOLOGIA (17): Scienza – studio – studio – tentativo – ricerca - approccio –
studio – sviluppo – obiettivo - presentazione dettagliata di un qualsiasi modo di fare
agricoltura - applicare principi di ecologia all’agricoltura – basi biologiche – applicazione
concetti ecologici - contributo alla definizione delle reali problematiche agricole - ecologia
del sistema agricolo – ecologia ambienti agricoli – ecologia agricola
SCIENCE/ECOLOGY (17): science – study – study – attempt – research – approach – study –
development – objective – detailed presentation of any kind of farming management –
apply the principles of ecology to agriculture – biological basis – application of ecological
concepts – contribution to the definition of real agricultural problems – ecology of farming
system – ecology of farming environments – agricultural ecology
II.
RELAZIONI AMBIENTE-AGRICOLTURA (16): Rispetto naturalità - Rapporto agricoltura
ambiente – interazione componente naturale e coltivazione – relazioni organismi degli
ambienti agricoli con altri organismi e con l’ambiente circostante – interazioni attività
agricola con ecosistemi – agricoltura ecologica – rapporti ambiente naturale e attività
agricole - organismi viventi che insistono in un agroecosistema – ambienti agricoli da punto
di vista comunità biologiche e loro interconnessioni – relazioni fra un sistema agricolo e
l’ambiente che lo circonda – interrelazioni tra agricoltura ed ecologia – aree coltivate non
avulse dal contesto ambientale circostante - ciclo naturale vegetazione – rapporto tra
agricoltura(attività antropica) e ambiente naturale – ecosistema agricolo – Sistemi ecologici
specifici dell’ambito agricolo
RELATION ENVIRONMENT – AGRICULTURE (16): respect of naturalness – relation between
agriculture and environment – interaction between natural component and cultivation –
relations between the organisms of the agricultural environment with other organisms and
with the surrounding environment – interactions of the farming activity with the
ecosystems - ecological agriculture – relations between natural environment and farming
activities – living organisms that rest on an agroecosystem – agricultural environments
from the point of view of biological communities and their interconnections – relations
between a farming system and the surrounding environment – interrelations between
agriculture and ecology – cultivated areas that are not taken out of the surrounding
environmental context – natural cycle of vegetation – relation between agriculture
(anthropic activity) and natural environment – agricultural ecosystem – ecological systems
specific of the farming context
III.
GESTIONE/PRATICHE (11) fare agricoltura - Colture – adeguata gestione ecosistemi –
insieme pratiche agronomiche (lotta biologica, meccanizzazione) – insieme di pratiche
71
agronomiche - produzione alimenti e prodotti - Senza uso presidi chimici - gestione olistica
coltura – aree coltivate viste come parte integrante di un sistema più ampio e complesso –
senso olistico – sistemi di agricoltura
MANAGEMENT / PRACTICE (11): do agriculture – cultivations – appropriate management of
ecosystems – group of agronomic practices (biological control, mechanization) – group of
agronomic practices – production of food and products – no use of chemical products –
holistic management of cultivation – cultivated areas seen as integral part of a more ample
and more complex system – holistic sense – systems of agriculture
IV.
SOSTENIBILITà (9): Sostenibilità – agricoltura in modo ecocompatibile – agricoltura di basso
impatto ambientale – compatibile con sostenibilità ambiente – agricoltura rispettosa
dell’ambiente – meno impattante – sistemi compatibili ed ecologici - funzione primaria di
preservazione risorse naturali limitate -opportunità per differenziarsi dal passato –
SUSTAINABILITY (9): sustainability – agriculture in an eco-compatible way – agriculture with
a low environmental impact – compatible with environmental sustainability – agriculture
that respects environment – less impact – compatible and ecological systems – primary
function of preserving the limited natural resources – opportunity to differentiate from the
past
V.
Non saprei
I do not know
VI.
Evitare derive estremiste e demagogiche
Avoid extremist and demagogic deviations
•
Question 8. Are you familiar with the concept of agroecological intensification? [total
responses 33]
YES: 18 % (6)
NO: 82% (27)
• Question 9. If yes can you explain what it would imply? [total responses 5]
Impoverishment
Production of food utilizing less external inputs but favouring the biological potential of ecology
Adoption of cultural choices and agricultural practices that aim at enhancing the agroecological
aspects
Productive growth of the branch
With the same concept as before
•
I.
Question 10. Based on these principles, how would you define an agroecological
practice? [total responses 30]
SOSTENIBILITà (14) : Tenere conto della sostenibilità complessiva dell’intervento –
sostenibile – ambito della sostenibilità – favorire la sostenibilità delle attività agricole –
mantenere il sistema agricolo sostenibile – sostenibile – sostenibile – sostenibile –
sostenibile o consapevole – continuare a vivere di agricoltura – restituire alle generazioni
future la possibilità di continuare a vivere – preservare e salvaguardare – ecologicamente
sostenibile – sostenibile nel senso più completo del termine
72
SUSTAINABILITY (14): consider the overall sustainability of the intervention – sustainable –
sphere of sustainability – favor sustainability of farming activities – maintain the farming
system sustainable – sustainable – sustainable – sustainable – sustainable or aware – keep
on living on agriculture – give to future generations the possibility to keep on living –
preserve and safeguard – ecologically sustainable – sustainable in the more complete
meaning of the term
II.
RISPETTO DELL’ AMBIENTE (14): In equilibrio con l’ambiente – minimo impatto ambientale
– rispetto delle risorse naturali e dei loro equilibri – ecocompatibile – rispetto di ciò che ci
circonda – agricoltura rispettosa dei ritmi naturali – salvaguardare l’ambiente –
ecologicamente compatibile – atta al rispetto ambientale – a basso impatto - Considerare il
suolo uno strumento - equilibri e interconnessioni tra suoli coltivati e naturali - Biodiversa –
favorire la biodiversità delle attività agricole
RESPECT FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (14): in balance with the environment – minimum
environmental impact – respect of natural resources and their equilibria – ecocompatible –
respect of what surround us – agriculture that respects natural rhythms – safeguard the
environment – ecologically compatible – apt to the respect of the environment – consider
the soil as a tool – equilibria and interconnections between cultivated and natural soils –
biodiverse – favor the biodiversity of the farming activities
III.
PRODUTTIVITà (6): Ottenere produzioni agricole – assicurare le normali funzioni produttive
– produrre prodotti agricoli – ottenere produzione – massimo utile - per migliorare la
qualità e la quantità
PRODUCTIVITY (6): obtain agricultural productions – ensure the normal productive
functions – produce agricultural products – obtain production – maximum income –
enhance quality and quantity
IV.
SISTEMA/APPROCCIO OLISTICO (3): Tenere conto dei meccanismi di funzionamento dei
sistemi agroecologici – approccio olistico – olistica
SYSTEM/HOLISTIC APPROACH (3): consider the functioning mechanisms of the
agroecological systems – holistic approach – holistic
V.
MENO INPUT ESTERNI (3): Meno dipendente da input esterni - risparmiare lavoro e risorse
– minimo mezzo
LESS EXTERNAL INPUTS (3): less dependent on external inputs – save labour and resources
– minimum means
VI.
PRINCIPI AGROECOLOGIA (3): Raggiungere o mantenere i principi agroecologici – i principi
dell’agroecologia sono discussi da molti anni e sono documentati come basi del produrre–
soddisfi la maggiorparte dei principi agroecologia
PRINCIPLES OF AGROECOLOGY (3): reach or maintain the principles of agroecology – the
principles of agroecology have been discussed for many years and are proved to be the
basis for production – satisfy the majority of the principles of agroecology
VII.
NECESSARIA (2): Necessaria – principi dell’agroecologia sono indispensabili per fare
agricoltura
NECESSARY (2): necessary – the principles of agroecology are essential to do agriculture
73
VIII.
AGRICOLTURA INTEGRATA/BIOLOGICA (2): Molto simile a produzione integrata e biologica
– uguale a agricoltura integrata e biologica
INTEGRATED/ORGANIC AGRICULTURE (2): very similar to integrated and organic
production – equal to integrated and organic agriculture
IX.
QUALITà DELLA VITA (2): consente di comprendere una questione, di affrontarla e se
necessario risolverla, distribuendo sicurezza, tranquillità e prospettiva, per migliorare la
qualità della vita - oltre al pil considera il fil (felicità interna lorda)
QUALITY OF LIFE (2): allow to comprehend an issue, to face it and, if necessary to solve it,
distributing safety, tranquility e prospect, in order to enhance the quality of life – consider
the Gross Domestic Happiness, beyond the mere Gross Domestic Product
X.
Coniugare ciò che di positivo c’è in ogni modo di fare agricoltura.
Combine the positive that is in every kind of agriculture
XI.
PRATICA: Tecniche agricole – attività o comportamento in agricoltura – una pratica - gestire
in modo efficiente l’agroecosistema – pratica – un metodo – una pratica – pratica – pratica
– pratica – pratica – pratica
PRACTICE: farming techniques – activity or behavior in agriculture – a practice – manage
efficiently an agroecosystem – practice – a method – a practice – practice – practice - a
practice – practice – practice
•
Question 11. Could you list some examples of agroecological farming practices that you
have seen adopted in vineyards in Trentino? [total responses 27]
I.
INERBIMENTO (23): Non diserbo – diserbo manuale/meccanico - lavorazioni meccaniche
alternative al diserbo - lavorazione meccanica in sostituzione al diserbo chimico – gestione
del cotico del filare con la lavorazione meccanica - lavorazioni interceppo come alternativa
al diserbo – limitazioni diserbi – limitazione diserbi – limitazione diserbi – riduzione diserbi
–– inerbimento –– inerbimento– inerbimento – inerbimento permanente - inerbimento
terreni – inerbimento vigneto - inerbimento dell’interfila e sottofilare – inerbimento
interfilare – inerbimento del sottofilare – inerbimento degli interfilari in modo alterno–Sfalcio interfilari alternato – Spaglio - Lavorazione superficiale terreno sul filare
GRASS COVER CROPS (23): no chemical weeding – manual/mechanical weeding –
mechanical operations alternative to chemical weeding - mechanical operations
substituting chemical weeding – management of the weed in the row with mechanical
means – operations on the rows as alternative to chemical weeding – limiting chemical
weeding - limiting chemical weeding - limiting chemical weeding - reduction chemical
weeding – cultivation of grasses – cultivation of grasses – cultivation of grasses –
permanent cultivation of grasses – cultivation of grasses in the fields – cultivation of
grasses in the vineyards – cultivation of grasses in the interrows and in rows – cultivation of
grasses in the interrows - cultivation of grasses in rows – cultivation of grasses in the
interrows one every other – mowing of interrows one every other – sowing- surface
working of the soil in the row
II.
CONFUSIONE SESSUALE/CONTROLLO BIOLOGICO (22): Confusione sessuale – confusione
sessuale –– confusione sessuale - confusione sessuale – confusione sessuale – confusione
74
sessuale - confusione sessuale su vaste superfici – applicazione confusione sessuale per la
lotta tignole su larga scala - confusione sessuale per tignola e tignoletta - confusione
sessuale contro tignole– –confusione sessuale tignole – confusione sessuale dei lepidotteri
– difesa integrata - Difesa integrata delle colture/lotta guidata - lotta biologica introduzione delle tecniche di controllo come base essenziale per gestire ogni patogeno e
possibili equilibri naturali – Utilizzo dei modelli previsionali nelle gestione di fitopatologie agenti di controllo biologico - Rispetto insetti utili - lotta meccanica nottue ––uso del
trichoderma––– trichoderma contro armillaria mellea – fili di rame che rilasciano rame
proteggendo da peronospora
SEXUAL CONFUSION/BIOLOGICAL CONTROL (22): sexual confusion - sexual confusion sexual confusion - sexual confusion - sexual confusion - sexual confusion - sexual confusion
on large surfaces – application of sexual confusion against vine moth on large surfaces –
sexual confusion against vine moth and European grapevine moth - sexual confusion
against vine moth - sexual confusion against vine moth – sexual confusion of moths –
integrated pest management – integrated pest management – biological control –
introduction of the techniques of control as fundamental in order to manage any pests and
possible natural equilibria – use of predictive models in the management of plant diseases
– biological control agents – respect of beneficial insects - mechanical pest control against
broad bordered yellow underwing – use of trichoderma - use of trichoderma against
Armillaria mellea – copper strings that release copper protecting against late blight
III.
FERTILIZZAZIONE ORGANICA (18): riduzione concimi chimici - riduzione apporti
concimazione minerale - uso oculato dei concimi chimici - Apporto sostanza organica se
necessario - letamazioni –– letamazioni– concimazioni - concimazioni organiche concimazioni e sovescio - Sovescio – sovescio – sovescio – sovescio – sovescio - sovescio –
sovesci – semina di piante da sovescio –semina sovescio.
ORGANIC FERTILIZATION(18): reduction of chemical fertilizers – reduction supply of
mineral fertilizers – cautious use of chemical fertilizers - supply of organic matter if
necessary – supply of manure – supply of manure – fertilization – organic fertilization –
fertilization and green manure - green manure - green manure - green manure - green
manure - green manure - green manure - green manure – sowing of green manure plants –
sowing green manure
IV.
ATTENZIONE AGLI ELEMENTI SEMI-NATURALI (9): Mantenere il più possibile l’ambiente
esistente – evitare di ridurre le aree agricole - piantumazione di siepi sui confini con strade
- Controllo derive – rispetto muri a secco, nidificazioni, etc - applicazione di nidi per uccelli
e apoidei selvatici – salvaguardia ornitologica (casette nido, muri a secco, etc) – attenzione
alla biodiversità e al suolo – studio del suolo
CARE FOR SEMI-NATURAL ELEMENTS (9): preserving as much as possible the existing
environment – avoid to reduce the agricultural areas – planting of hedges on the borders
with streets – control of drift – respect of drywalls, nests, etc – respect of beneficial insects
– establishment of nests for birds and wild apoidea – safeguard of birds (nests, drywalls,
etc)- care for biodiversity and soil – study of soil
V.
FORMAZIONE (7): Fondamentale la formazione di viticoltori tecnici – istruzione agli
agricoltori -formazione degli addetti – informazione ai cittadini – approfondimenti salute
75
suolo biodiversità –– promozione di pratiche di agricoltura bio e integrata – promozione di
pratiche agronomiche
TRAINING (7): the training of vinegrower technicians is fundamental – education of farmers
– training of operators – information to citizens – in-depth analysis health, soil, biodiversity
– promotion of the practices of organic and integrated farming – promotion of agricultural
practices
VI.
FITOFARMACI BASSO RISCHIO (5): riduzione dei fitofarmaci - riduzione dosaggi prodotti
fitosanitari - limitazione e scelta di principi attivi, ponendo attenzione a salute umana e
ambientale - Utilizzo di fitofarmaci a basso rischio per uomo ––– utilizzo di prodotti
ecocompatibili
LOW RISK PESTICIDES (5): reduction of pesticides – reduction dosage pesticides – limitation
and choice of active ingredients, with attention to human and environmental health – use
of pesticides with a low risk for humans – use of ecocompatible products
VII.
AGRICOLTURA BIOLOGICA (5): Sistema di produzione biologico – produzione biologica –
Biodinamica – aziende biologiche – biodinamica
ORGANIC AGRICULTURE (5): Organic production system- organic production –biodynamic –
organic farms - biodynamics
VIII.
VARIETà RESISTENTI (3): Coltivazione varietà locali – utilizzo di varietà tolleranti e/o
resistenti a talune fitopatologie – utilizzo viti resistenti
RESISTENT VARIETIES (3): cultivation of local varieties – use of varieties that are tolerant
and / or resistent to some diseases – use of resistant vines
IX.
IRRIGAZIONE (2): Gestione dell’irrigazione – migliore utilizzo dell’acqua con impianti a
goccia
IRRIGATION (2): management of irrigation – better use of water with drip irrigation
X.
Biostimolanti -Tecnologia EM (Microrganismi effettivi)
Bio stimulants – EM (Effective Microorganisms) technology
XI.
Eliminazione acaricidi - Aumento fungicidi inorganici e riduzione degli organici
Elimination of acaricidal – more inorganic fungicides and less organic ones
XII.
Sfogliatura
Thinning out leaves
XIII.
Zonazione
Zonation
XIV.
Minor utilizzo delle trattrici
Less use of tractors
•
Question 12. Could you list other agroecological farming practices that you think could be
effectively adopted in vineyards in Trentino? [total responses 22]
76
I.
VARIETà RESISTENTI (8): coltivazioni varietà resistenti - adozione varietà resistenti impiego su larga scala di cultivar resistenti - Introduzione cultivar resistenti alle principali
crittogame - portinnesti resistenti ai nematodi vettori di virus – viti tolleranti alle malattie scelta varietale in funzione della zona vocata–– ricerca di nuove cultivar resistenti
RESISTANT VARIETIES (8): cultivation of resistant varieties- adoption of resistant varieties –
use of resistant cultivar on a large scale – introduction of resistant cultivar to the major
fungi – rootstocks that are resistant to nematodes which are vector of viruses – vines that
are tolerant to diseases – choice of varieties depending on the best areas – research of
new resistant varieties
II.
PIANTARE ELEMENTI SEMI-NATURALI (7): Maggiore ricorso a siepi – diffusione delle siepi
sui confini con aree sensibili (ciclabili, strade, ecc) – piantumazione di alberi a chioma
espansa nelle zone periferiche del vigneto, dove possibile fascia di olivo tra vigneto e bosco
(ecotono) – utilizzo di siepi per aumento biodiversità – fasce tampone – siepi di piante
nettariere - Controllo della deriva da fitofarmaci
PLANTING SEMI-NATURAL ELEMENTS (7): More use of hedgerows – spreading of
hedgerows along the borders with sensitive areas (bicycle paths, roads, etc.) –planting of
trees with large canopy in the peripheral areas of vineyards, where possible the planting of
a strip of olive trees between vineyards and forest (ecotone) – use of hedgerows to
enhance biodiversity – buffer strips- hedgerows with nectiforous plants – control of
pesticides drift
III.
CONCIMAZIONE ORGANICA (7): Maggiore ricorso ad ammendanti organici (es. compost) –
compostaggio aziendale – compostaggio residui potatura con letame – maggiore diffusione
dei sovesci – sovescio –sovescio con piante nematocide - Concimazione mirata secondo le
esigenze
ORGANIC FERTILIZATION (7): More use of organic fertilizers 8e.g. compost) – farm
composting - composting of pruning residuals with manure – more use of green manure –
green manure – green manure with nematocide plants – precision fertilization according to
needs
IV.
GESTIONE EFFICIENTE (7): Maggiore attenzione al terreno e al suo sfruttamento - Gestione
mirata delle operazioni nel vigneto - Raccolta del prodotto in base alla maturazione del
singolo campo -Potature – scelta portinnesti - Evitare trattamenti inutili – Razionalizzare la
meccanizzazione
EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT (7): More care for the soil and its depletion – precision
management of operations in vineyards – harvesting of product depending on ripening in
each field – pruning – choice of rootstock- avoid useless treatments – rationalize
mechanization
V.
CONSAPEVOLEZZA (5): Ponendo attenzione alla sostenibilità sia ambientale sia economica Diffusione di questo approccio su tutto il territorio - Diffusione conoscenze dei piccoli
vertebrati e degli invertebrati, scelta di un animale come mascotte (rospo smerladino?) –
diffusione conoscenze sul suolo e migliorare la consapevolezza del ruolo del viticoltore
nella sua osservazione - Maggiore consapevolezza negli agricoltori
AWARENESS (5): Pay attention to environmental and economic sustainability – diffusion of
this approach in the region – diffusion of knowledge about small vertebrates and
invertebrates, choice of an animal as a mascot –diffusion of knowledge about soil and
77
enhancement of awareness about the role of vinegrower in its observation – better
awareness among farmers
VI.
NO DISERBO (4): Azzeramento dell’uso di diserbanti – riduzione e laddove possibile
eliminazione della pratica del diserbo - Pirodiserbo - Inerbimenti con essenze a scarso
sviluppo
NO WEEDING (4): avoid use of herbicides – reduction and where possible elimination of
the practice of chemical weeding – flame weeding- grassing with reduced growing plants
VII.
GESTIONE ACQUA (4): Irrigazione solo di soccorso – irrigazione – attenzione alle acque
superficiali e loro rispetto – utilizzo parsimonioso dell’acqua
WATER MANAGEMENT (4): irrigation only to aid – irrigation – care and respect for surface
water - parsimonious use of water
VIII.
NO MONOCULTURA (3): Ridurre la monocultura – Consociazione - Sostituzione con altre
colture
NO MONOCULTURE (3): reduce monoculture – intercropping – substitution with other
crops
IX.
Trichoderma contro mal dell’esca
Tricoderma against esca grape disease
X.
Azzeramento dei trattamenti insetticidi
No use of insetticides
XI.
Dimensionare le aziende su base familiare per avere un reddito giusto
Adapt the dimension of family farms in order to have a fair income
XII.
Maggior ampiezza delle file per ecologia interfilare come ambiente prativo
More space between the rows for the ecology of the interrows as a grass environment
XIII.
Gestione centralizzata preparazione miscele prodotti fitosanitari
Centralized management for the preparation of the mix of pesticides
XIV.
Utilizzo di materiali biodegradabili (legacci, tutori)
Use of biodegradable material (laces, supports)
XV.
Maggiore uso dei bottinatori nei vigneti
More use of pollinators in vineyards
XVI.
Tecnologia EM
Effective Microorganism technology
XVII.
Maggiore studio esteso delle fitoplasmosi
More large scale studies on parasites
XVIII.
Bilancio del carbonio effettivo sulle colture
Effective Carbon balance on crops
78
•
Question 13. Do you think farmers will be familiar with the term agroecological practice?
[total responses 30]
YES: 20% (6)
NO: 80% (24)
•
Question 14. If not, what other terms would use instead ? [total responses 23]
I.
SOSTENIBILE (13): Sostenibile – sostenibile – sostenibilità – agricoltura sostenibile –
agricoltura sostenibile – agricoltura sostenibile – sostenibile o consapevole – pratica
ecologicamente sostenibile –agricoltura ecologicamente sostenibile – agricoltura
ecosostenibile – agricoltura ecosostenibile - ecosostenibilità in agricoltura –sostenibilità
ambientale - mantenimento di status ottimale
SUSTAINABLE (13): sustainable – sustainable – sustainability – sustainable agriculture sustainable agriculture – sustainable agriculture – sustainable or aware – ecologically
sustainable practice –ecologically sustainable agriculture –eco sustainable agriculture – eco
sustainable agriculture – eco sustainability in agriculture ––environmental sustainability –
preserving the optimal status
II.
RISPETTOSA DELL’AMBIENTE (6): Pratica rispettosa dell’ambiente – agricoltura
ecocompatibile – pratica rispettosa dell’ambiente in generale e dell’uomo in particolare –
norma di rispetto ambientale –cura della biodiversità - Strategia agroambientale
RESPECTFUL FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (6): practice that is respectful for the environment –
eco compatible agriculture – practice that is respectful for the environment in general and
for human in particular – norm of respect for the environment – care for biodiversity –
agroenvironmental strategy
III.
INTEGRATA O BIOLOGICA (2): Produzione integrata o biologica – agricoltura integrata,
agricoltura biologica
INTEGRATED OR ORGANIC (2): integrated or organic production – integrated agriculture,
organic agriculture
IV.
Agricoltura naturale – pratica olistica agro vegetale
Natural agriculture – agro plant holistic practice
V.
Pratica agronomica
Agronomic practice
•
Question 15. Do you think that the term agroecological intensification would be more
appropriate than the term “sustainable agriculture” in the political debate when
promoting practices that will enhance farm livelihoods, biodiversity, soil quality and
environmental quality standards? [total responses 30]
YES: 23% (7)
NO: 77% (23)
•
NO:
Question 16. Why? [Total responses 28]
79
I.
MENO IMMEDIATO / TROPPO DIFFICILE (12): Termine complesso - termine più difficile e
meno immediato - poco immediate - è meno immediata ed è più familiare "pratica
ecologica" - meno esplicito - termine meno chiaro - espressione linguistica poco
trasparente non è così immediato e la parola "intensificazione" può essere associata
all'aggettivo "intensivo" - termini poco gradevoli, confusione tra i due, poco diretti Difficoltà nell'interpretare cosa si intende per INTENSIFICAZIONE AGROECOLOGICA. Limitata conoscenza del significato - già è difficile far capire il concetto di
sostenibilità...agroecologico mi sembra ancora più difficile- NON PENSO SIA IL NOME
LESS IMMEDIATE / TOO DIFFICULT (12): complex term – more difficult and less immediate
term – little immediate – is less immediate and “ecological practice” is more familiar – less
explicit – less clear term – linguistic expression that is little transparent, is not so
immediate and the word ”intensification” could be associated to the adjective “intensive”
– little pleasant terms, confusion between the two, little direct – difficulty in interpreting
what agroecological intensification means – limited knowledge of the meaning – it is
already difficult to explain the concept of sustainability… agroecological looks to me even
more difficult – I do not think this is the name
II.
SOSTENIBILE è Più FAMILIARE (5): sostenibile è un termine attuale - agricoltura
ecosostenibile è un termine che comincia ad essere compreso in quanto molto utilizzato - li
considero sinonimi, ma il secondo è familiare nella realtà agricola e quindi più facilmente
riconoscibile e comprensibile - agricoltura sostenibile è un termine più comune Agricoltura sostenibile è di più immediata comprensione
SUSTAINABLE IS MORE FAMILIAR: sustainable is a current term – eco sustainable
agriculture is a term that starts to be more understood as it is very utilized – I consider
them thesaurus, but the second one is familiar in the agriculture realm, thus it is more
easily recognizable and understandable – sustainable agriculture is a more common term –
sustainable agriculture is more immediately understandable
III.
NON C’è BISOGNO DI NUOVI TERMINI (4): si cercano sempre nuovi termini ma i concetti
sono gli stessi c'è una fatidiosa ( per me ) inflazione dei termini - termine nuovo (viene
dopo la "sostenibilità", la "multifunzionalità", la "resilienza" ...) e difficile (molto tecnico e
poi sono 12 sillabe!) - verum stabile cetera fumus.... cioè questo continuo florilegio di
termini potrebbe disorientare - perchè è ormai tempo di pensare più a costruire fatti che
continuare a cambiare definizioni che alla fine hanno gli stessi scopi. sarebbe molto più
importante costruire fatti e divulgarli: anche il nostro mondo agricolo si è riempito di
cacciatori di fama personale più che di bene sociale
NO NEED FOR NEW TERMINOLOGY (4): people always look for new terms but the concepts
are the same, there is an annoying (in my opinion) oversaturation of terms – new term (it
comes after “sustainability”, “multifunctionality”, “resilience”…) and difficult (very
technical and it is composed of 12 syllables!) – verum stabile cetera fumus… meaning that
this continuous string of terms could disorient – because the time has come to think more
about building facts rather than keep on changing the definitions, that finally all have the
same scope. It would be much more important to build facts and divulgate them: also our
agricultural world is filled with hunters of personal fame rather than social wealth.
YES:
I.
SOSTENIBILE è TROPPO VAGO (5): il termine sostenibile è fuorviante - perchè la
sostenibilità in senso generale può essere mal interpretata. quello che può essere
80
sostenibile per l'agricoltore non può necessariamente esserlo per il cittadino, ambiente ecc
- diverse declinazioni di sostenibilità - sostenibile è abusato e deviante - Sostenibile è un
termine generalizzato che può dir tutto o niente
SUSTAINABLE IS TOO VAGUE: the term sustainable is misleading – because sustainability in
general could be misunderstood, what can be sustainable for a farmer could not
necessarily be for a citizen, environment, etc. – different declinations of sustainability –
sustainable is abused and misleading – sustainable is a generalized term that could mean
everything or nothing
II.
Ecologia è un termine di moda oggi
Ecology is a term in fashion nowadays
III.
Pensa meno al puro profitto
It thinks less to the mere profit
81
Appendix 10. Complete results of interviews to farmers.
Figure 20. Accumulation curve of relationships
82
Table 12. Data about farms and personal data about the participants to the in-depth interviews
Data about farm
Interview
Valley
Farm
community dimension
(ha)
Cultivated vine varieties
Trellising
System
Farmer's personal data
Tree Certification
Age
(years)
Other
On Farm Cooperative Farmer's
productions vinification vinification
age
Viti_ Farmer's level
N. of
of education workers in
culture
the farm
family
Farmer's
associations
Ever heard Other words
agroecology
for
agroecology
Rot_1
Rotaliana
6
Pinot Nero, Sauvignon Blanc,
Chardonnay, Moscato Rosa, Traminer
Aromatico, Pinot grigio, Pinot bianco
Guyot
(87%),
Pergola
(13%)
0-25
Organic
no
100%
0%
30-40
yes
Secondary,
agrarian
(FEM)
0 (but third Vignaioli
party
Indipendenti
operation)
no
Rot_2
Rotaliana
12
Lagrein, Chardonnay, Traminer,
Teroldego, Pinot Nero, Pinot Bianco,
Sauvignon, Muller, Chardonnay
Pergola
for white
and
Guyot for
red
0-44
In conversion no
to organic
100%
0%
60-70
yes
University
(NOT
agrarian)
4 (2 are
sons)
Vignaioli
Indipendenti
no
Rot_3
Rotaliana
20
Traminer, Muller,Solaris
Pergola
(60%),
Guyot
(40%)
6 - 40 Organic only
on 5 ha
(resistent
variety)
Quince (2ha) 100%
0%
30-40
yes
20 total (8
in the
fields)
Vignaioli
indipendenti
yes and no
integration
within the
environment
Rot_4
Rotaliana
6
Teroldego, Pinot nero, Sauvignon
Bianco, Pinot Bianco, Chardonnay
Guyot,
pergola
15-90 no (but
organic
mgmt)
no
100%
0%
30-40
yes
University
(oenology)
1+1
seasonal
Vignaioli
indipendenti
yes and no
Respectful
for
environment
, smart.
Rot_5
Rotaliana
50
Teroldego, Lagrein,Rossara, Pinot
grigio, Chardonnay
Pergola,
cordone
libero,
Guyot,
cordone
speronat
o
5 - 80 no
no
30-40%
60-70%
(private
wineries)
30-40
yes
University
(oenology)
10 (1 son)
Vignaioli
indipendenti
no
Respectful
for
environment
Rot_6
Rotaliana
10
Teroldego, Pinot girgio, Chardonnay,
Schiava
Pergola
no
no
100%
0%
30-40
yes
secondary,
agrarian (3
years FEM)
2 cousins + Vignaioli
2 seasonal Indipendenti
yes
organic
Rot_7
Rotaliana
5,5
Teroldego, lagrein
Pergola,
guyot
no
no
100%
0%
50-60
yes
secondary,
agrarian
(FEM)
0 (but
Vignaioli
sometimes Indipendenti
seasonal)
no
ecology
applied to
agriculture
Rot_8
Rotaliana
7
Pinot Nero, Lagrein, Chardonnay,
Pergola,
Sauvignon, Traminer, muller,pinotgrigio guyot
no
7 cows (for
50%
own
consumption)
50% (cantina
sociale di
Trento)
20-30
yes
secondary,
agrarian
(FEM)
Father,
Mother,
Son
Cantina
Sociale di
Trento,
Vignaioli
Indipendenti
no
sustainable
Rot_9
Rotaliana
4
Pinot grigio, Traminer,pinot Nero
no
Apples (1ha)
100%
40-50
yes
primary
0 (only
Cantina
no
integrated
Guyot,
0-25
0%
83
pergola
(old
vines)
(Cantina
Sociale di
Roverè della
Luna)
seasonal)
Sociale di
roverè della
Luna
Rot_10
Rotaliana
4
Nosiola, Chardonnay, manzoni bianco,
Cabernet franc, Cabernet sauvignon,
teroldego
Pergola,
Guyot
25-45 Organic
no
85%
15% (private
winery)
40-50
yes
secondary,
agrarian
(FEM)
0 (only help Vignaioli
from
Indipendenti,
friends)
Dolomitici,
Strada del vino
e dei sapori
Val di Cembra)
no
Rot_11
Rotaliana
8
Teroldego, Pinot grigio, Chardonnay,
Lagrein
Pergola
recent no
no
0%
100%
(Mezzocorona
)
50-60
yes
University
(oenology)
2 brothers, Cantina
mother + 1 Sociale
Mezzocorona
no
respectful
for
environment
Organic only a Apples (6ha)
part (for
Ferrari)
0%
100%
(Cantina
Sociale
Mezzocorona
and organic
part to
private winery
Ferrari)
50-60
yes
secondary,
agrarian
(FEM)
0 (but
Cantina
seasonal for Sociale di
harvest)
Mezzocorona
yes
organic,
nature,
green
Organic
100%
0%
40-50
yes
secondary,
agrarian
(FEM)
11 +
seasonal
Cantina
Toblino
no
organic
Average Rotaliana
12 ± 4
Lag_1
Valle dei
Laghi
3,5
Chardonnay, pinot grigio
pergola,
guyot
Lag_2
Valle dei
Laghi
40
Chardonnay, Pinot grigio, Sauvignon
bianco, Incrocio manzoni, Traminer,
Gold Traminer,Pinot nero, Merlot,
Cabernet; sauvignon franc, Lagrein,
rebo; Teroldego, Sennen
Guyot
(70%),
Pergola
(30%)
0-33
Lag_3
Valle dei
Laghi
5,5
Rebo, Schiava,
chardonnay,nosiola;pinot nero
Pergola
1- 39 In conversion no
to organic
0%
100%(Cantina
Toblino and a
project of
private winery
Ferrari)
40-50
no
0 (only one Cantina
seasonal)
Toblino
yes
ecology
Lag_4
Valle dei
Laghi
5
Pinot nero, Chardonnay;
cabernet,Suavignon grigio
Guyot
(80%),
pergola
(20%)
5- 35 In conversion no
to organic
0%
100%
(Cantina
Toblino)
30-40
yes
0 (only
seasonal)
no
sustainable,
semi-bio
0 (but help Cantina
from
Rotaliana
relatives)
Mezzolombar
do
yes
Biodynamic,
respect for
environment
2+
seasonals
yes
Much of
organic but
verge on
no
Cantina
Toblino
Average Valle dei Laghi 13,5 ± 8,8
Cem_1
Val di
Cembra
3
Chardonnay, Muller, Pinot Nero,
Sauvignon, Lagrein
Pergola
(mostly),
Guyot
no
Apples
(3500mq)
0%
100%
(Cantina
Rotaliana
Mezzolombar
do)
30-40
yes
Cem_2
Val di
Cembra
13
Muller, Kerner, Riesling, Incrocio
Manzoni, Pinot grigio, Chardonnay,
Schiava, Pinot nero, Lagrein
Guyot
(60%),
Pergola
no
Apples (5ha)
100%
0%
30-40
yes
Secondary,
agrarian
(FEM)
Vignaioli
Indipendenti;
Cembra vini
84
(40%)
Cem_3
Val di
Cembra
17
Cem_4
Val di
Cembra
3,5
Muller Thurgau, Traminer, Riesling
Renano
Cem_5
Val di
Cembra
2,5
Chardonnay, Muller thurgau, Pinot nero Pergola
Cem_6
Val di
Cembra
2,2
Muller thurgau, Chardonnay
Average Val di Cembra
Average TOTAL
DOC
Pergola,
Guyot
Pergola(9
0%),
guyot
Pergola,G
uyot
(20%)
no
x - 48 no
4-5, no
only
2000 m
are 31
0-10
no
no
50%
integrated
50% (Private
winery
Ferrari)
30-40
yes
primary
3 brothers +
seasonals
Apples (1000 0%
mq)
100%
(Cantina
sociale di
Roverè della
Luna)
50-60
yes
primary
0
Apples (1ha)
100%
(Cantina
sociale di
Roverè della
Luna)
60-70
yes
primary
0 (only help Cantina
from
Sociale di
family)
roverè della
Luna
yes
ecosustainable
100%(Cantina
Sociale di
Roverè della
Luna)
40-50
yes
University
(NOT
agrarian)
0 (only help Cantina
from
Sociale di
family)
roverè della
Luna
no
organic
0%
He has
0%
another job,
viticulture is a
secondary
activity
no
Cantina
Sociale di
roverè della
Luna
maybe
organic
6,9 ± 2,6
10,8040404
85
Figure 21. Social Cognitive Map showing all the relationship mentioned by the 21 farmers.
86
Table 13. List of coded concepts, their category and some further explanations.
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Name
Use site-specific
varieties
Use of local
varieties
Use of resistent
varieties
On-farm
propagation
Guyot trellising
system
Cutomized
pruning
Shoot training
Fallow practices
Reduced
herbicide
application
Mechanical
weeding
Ridging vines
Grass-based row
cover
Single mowing
Mowing
alternate row
middles
Mulching with
jute bags
Retention of
prunings
Precision
fertilization
Use of compost
Use local manure
Use of processed
organic
amendments
Green manure
Control of
pesticide drift
Reduced
pesticide use
Sulphur
Category
practice
Further explanation
Choice of variety depending on best area
practice
practice
e.g. variety Solaris, that is resistant to late bight and powdery
mildew.
practice
Propagation of vines from selected own cuttings
practice
practice
Specific techniques
practice
practice
Manual operation
Before planting new orchard
practice
It means also NO chemical weeding
practice
Mechanical desuckering; water weeding (new idea); fire weeding;
derivates of rapeseeds that change the Ph of weeds (new idea);
blades; brush cutter
practice
practice
of row middles or rows
practice
of row middles
practice
practice
practice
practice
it means according to needs; it also means NO fertilization
practice
practice
practice
chicken manure, dried cow manure ; it means also limiting/avoiding
chemical fertilizers
practice
practice
practice
practice
It means the use of only Copper and Sulphur; or the reduction in use
of synthetic pesticides
ventilated
87
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
49
application
Use of
surfactants
Ommision of
insecticides
Use of natural
insecticides
Use of
pheremone traps
Mechanical pest
control
Use of B.
thuringensis
Use of IPM
models
Promote
beneficial insects
Maintenance of
terrace walls
Planting hedge
rows
Planting flower
strips
Planting olive
trees
Use of
biodegradable
material
Use of wooden
poles
Drip irrigation
Use of
supplemental
irrigation
Single pass
mechanization
Leaf pruning and
cluster thinning
Site-specific
harvesting
Non-inversion
tillage
Reduced copper
application
Increased CO2
practice
to Copper/Sulphur
practice
insecticide VS. bordered yellow underwig
practice
It means naturally derived insecticides. Pyrethrum VS. Scafoideus
titanus; Spinosad VS.Drosofila suzuki; white oil VS. bordered yellow
underwig
practice
practice
of bordered yellow underwig
practice
in addition to pheromone traps
practice
in disease management
practice
practice
It means rebulding of stone walls with dry technique
practice
practice
roses on top of the rows
practice
A strip between vineyards and houses
practice
Also tying with willow
practice
practice
practice
practice
reduction of use of tractors
practice
leaf removal;bunch removal
practice
practice
It means harvesting of product depending on ripening level in each
field
It means "airing" of soil, a light mechanical operation, without
turning the clod
practice
element
It means also more oil consumption
88
50
51
52
53
54
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
70
71
73
74
75
emmision
Improved grape
health and
maturity
Reduced
vegetatative
growth
Enhanced
sprouting
Vine resistance
and health
Reduced water
stress
Improved
disease
management
Enhanced soil
quality
Soil degradation
Adequate
drainage
Insect
eradication
Pest resistence
Enhanced
biodiversity
Fertilization
requirements
Input
requirements
Increased labour
demand
Reduced labour
demand
Increased costs
Reduced costs
Yield reduction
Dependence on
weather
conditions
Improved waste
disposal
Human health
hazard
Reduced wine
quality
element
At harvest more healthy and more mature
element
It means braking effect on vine growth; less vigour
element
element
It means resistent to Esca grape disease and to disease in general;
less sensitive to external variables; more resistent to strong rain
element
element
element
element
It means more efficient disease management
Soil Organic Matter; oxygenation and lightening of soil; no risk of
erosion; more microrganisms
compaction; copper pollution
element
element
element
Development of pest resistence
element
plants; animals; insects (including beneficial insects)
element
element
element
element
element
element
element
It means also a tolerated lost of harvest of 20%
element
Strong dependence on weather forecast
element
element
Hazard for farmer's health
element
89
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Critical timing
operations
Optimization
farm operations
Increased
revenues
Increased vine
vigour
Higher wine
quality
element
Constant availability of timely work
element
pruning; movements with tractors;mechanical weeding; enter in the
fields with tractors when wet; tying with machinery
element
guaranteed revenues
element
element
Either cooperative or private wineries. Either advice or rule or
motivation economic incentive. E.g. if you want to give grapes to Ferrari
chemical weeding is forbidden
Edmund Mach Foundation, a local institution of research, education
Advice from FEM motivation
and training as well as technical assistance and extension services
Irrigation
motivation
consortium
Influence from
motivation Federation of cooperative consortia / Consortium Trentino Vini
consortia
Urban
motivation
composting plant
Legal
Obligatory treatment for Scaphoideus titanus (American grapevine
motivation
requirements
leafhopper,vector for the disease flavescence dorée)
Organic
motivation obligations
certification
IPM guidelines motivation Integrated pest management
Regional
motivation Protected Designation of Origin
certification
Regional
motivation It means economic incentive
subsidies
Ecological niche motivation
Legal restriction motivation Products forbidden by law
Also intended as zero pesticide residual in grapes; often in contrast
Quality of wine motivation
with the objective of quantity
Farmers'
It means sharing ideas among farmers. Both local and foreign; it also
motivation
network
means complaints by beekeepers; Pruning course at one farm
Aesthetic values motivation
Ecological
concern for pollution; sustain a natural cycle; reducing products
motivation
perspective
derived from oil; idea of natural
Economic
motivation It also means reduction of work; better market
perspective
Health concern motivation personal
Sustainability
motivation
goals
Environmental
motivation
considerations
Requirements
winery
90
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
Carbon neutral
goals
Image and status
Role model
function
Passion
Historical
heritage
Market Trend
motivation
motivation
motivation
motivation
motivation It means also tipicality
motivation
Objective of balanced plant conditions. Do not force too much the
Plant equilibrium
motivation vines; care about the whole life cycle of the vines; try to lenghten the
model
lifetime of the vines
Soil equlibrium
motivation Objective of balanced soil conditions
model
ventilation, humidity, water availability, soil structure, altitude, sun
Micro climate motivation
exposition, slope
weather
motivation and forecast
conditions
Drift-reducing nozzles; Machine for tying shoots, vineyard sprayers;
Access to
motivation mini-skirt for bordered yellow underwig; manure from local animal
equipment
farms; organic fertilizers
Access to local
motivation own manure; wood; willow
inputs
Education
motivation Agrarian education
Stewardship and
motivation Interpreting own land
connectedness
91
Appendix 11. Annotations from the coding process
•
When the researcher’s question was biased (e.g. the question was formulated in a
way to strongly suggest an answer to the respondent) the relation was not coded
e.g. (Researcher):” Do you use pyrethrum because you are limited by the Organic
certification rules?”
(Respondent): “Exactly.”
-
The relation Organic certification obligation > Use of naturally derived insecticides
was not marked because the answer was strongly suggested by the researcher
• Sometimes a relation between two factors of motivation was coded.
e.g. “the technicians from FEM, during some courses we do, push on the concept that
active ingredients in pesticides should be limited for ourselves, for the farmers’ safety
and health.”
- In this case the relations coded were:
Health concern > reduction of synthetic pesticide use
Advice from FEM > health concern
• Sometimes a relation between two practices was coded
e.g.” after I started using the sexual confusion I do not need to treat anymore (with
insecticides)”
- In this case the coded relation was:
Sexual confusion > no use of insecticides
92