Just Accepted Manuscripts
Short Communications

Custodian farmers’ perspectives on improving Common Agricultural Policy payments for local-breed conservation in northern Italy

Just Accepted
  • Anna Francesca Corradini,
  • Maria Elena Marescotti,
  • Eugenio Demartini,
  • Anna Gaviglio
Anna Francesca Corradini
Università degli Studi di Milano
Maria Elena Marescotti
Department of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences (DIVAS) – University of Milan, Italy - Via dell’Università, 6 – 26900 Lodi, LO, Italy
Eugenio Demartini
Department of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences (DIVAS) – University of Milan, Italy - Via dell’Università, 6 – 26900 Lodi, LO, Italy
Anna Gaviglio
Department of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences (DIVAS) – University of Milan, Italy - Via dell’Università, 6 – 26900 Lodi, LO, Italy
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/rea-16039

Published 2025-09-22

Keywords

  • Livestock biodiversity conservation,
  • CAP payments on subsidies,
  • Farmer perceptions,
  • Direct subsidies,
  • Genetic resources,
  • Policy effectiveness
    • ...More
    Less

How to Cite

Corradini, A. F., Marescotti, M. E., Demartini, E., & Gaviglio, A. (2025). Custodian farmers’ perspectives on improving Common Agricultural Policy payments for local-breed conservation in northern Italy. Italian Review of Agricultural Economics. https://doi.org/10.36253/rea-16039

Copyright (c) 2025 Anna Francesca Corradini, Maria Elena Marescotti, Eugenio Demartini, Anna Gaviglio

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

The purpose of this short communication is to draw attention to the issue of farmers’ perception of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) payments for the conservation of livestock biodiversity. We gathered data through semi-structured interviews with a sample of nine farmers located in north-western Italy (Lombardy and Piedmont). Based on these interviews, we identified the main challenges of the current subsidy mechanisms, including bureaucratic complexity, insufficient financial support, and concerns about long-term dependency. The farmers emphasised the need for policy refinements, such as the improved allocation of funds, active conservation strategies (e.g. genetic improvement programmes) and market-oriented solutions (e.g. niche product development). This study highlights a discernible gap between short-term subsidies and sustainable breed conservation, underscoring the significance of community-based approaches and consumer awareness in enhancing economic viability. The necessity for participatory policy and customised support to align conservation objectives with farmers’ socioeconomic realities is emphasised, offering insights into more effective agrobiodiversity conservation within the CAP.

Just Accepted

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Ahtiainen H., Pouta E. (2011). The value of genetic resources in agriculture: a meta-analysis assessing existing knowledge and future research needs. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services, Management, 7: 27-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2011.593557.
  2. Birol E., Smale M., Gyovai Á. (2006). Using a choice experiment to estimate farmers’ valuation of agrobiodiversity on Hungarian small farms. Environmental and Resource Economics, 34: 439-469. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-006-0009-9.
  3. Biscarini F., Nicolazzi E.L., Stella A., Boettcher P.J., Gandini G. (2015). Challenges and opportunities in genetic improvement of local livestock breeds. Frontiers in Genetics, 6: 33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2015.00033.
  4. Boaitey A., Goddard E., Hailu G. (2018). Conserving biodiversity in farm animals: do farmer and public biodiversity knowledge and awareness matter? Society & Natural Resources, 31(8): 960-976. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1450912.
  5. Boggia A., Paolotti L., Castellini C. (2002). Environmental and economic evaluation of organic and conventional poultry production systems. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 1(1): 47-56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933910000103.
  6. Braun V., Clarke V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2): 77-101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
  7. Buetow S. (2010). Thematic analysis and its reconceptualization as ‘saliency analysis’. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 15(2): 123-125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2009.009081.
  8. Candemir A., Duvaleix S., Latruffe L. (2021). Agricultural cooperatives and farm sustainability: a literature review. Journal of Economic Surveys, 35(4): 1118-1144. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12417.
  9. Cicia G., D’Ercole E., Marino D. (2003) Costs and benefits of preserving farm animal genetic resources from extinction: CVM and bio-economic model for valuing a conservation programme for the Italian Pentro Horse, Ecological Economics, 45: 445-459. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00096-X.
  10. Cusack D.F., Kazanski C.E., Hedgpeth A., Chow K., Cordeiro A.L., Karpman J., Ryals R. (2021). Reducing climate impacts of beef production: a synthesis of life cycle assessments across management systems and global regions. Global Change Biology, 27(9): 1721-1736. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15509.
  11. Demartini E., Vecchiato D., Marescotti M.E., Gibbert M., Viganò R., Giacomelli S., Gaviglio A. (2021). The more you know: the equivocal effects of prior knowledge on preferences for hunted vs. farmed wild boar meat. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 24, 100325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2021.100325.
  12. FAO (1999a). Agricultural biodiversity, multifunctional character of agriculture and land conference, background paper 1, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
  13. Fereday J., Muir-Cochrane E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1): 80-92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107.
  14. Galdas P. (2017). Revisiting bias in qualitative research: reflections on its relationship with funding and impact. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1609406917748992. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917748992.
  15. Granovetter M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3): 481-510.
  16. Haile A., Getachew T., Rekik M., Abebe A., Abate Z., Jimma A., Mwacharo J.M., Mueller J., Belay B., Solomon D., Hyera E., Nguluma A.S., Gondwe T., Rischkowsky B. (2023). How to succeed in implementing community-based breeding programs: lessons from the field in Eastern and Southern Africa. Frontiers in Genetics, 14, 1119024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2023.1119024.
  17. Hall S.J.G. (2019). Livestock biodiversity as interface between people, landscapes and nature. People and Nature, 1(3): 284-290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.23.
  18. Hess M. (2004). ‘Spatial’ relationships? Towards a reconceptualization of embedded ness. Progress in Human Geography, 28(2): 165-186. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132504ph479oa.
  19. Hermoso V., Carvalho S.B., Giakoumi S., Goldsborough D., Katsanevakis S., Leontiou S., Markantonatou V., Rumes B., Vogiatzakis I.N., Yates K.L. (2022). The EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: opportunities and challenges on the path towards biodiversity recovery. Environmental Science & Policy, 127: 263-271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.10.028.
  20. Hoffmann I. (2011). Livestock biodiversity and sustainability. Livestock Science, 139(1-2): 69-79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2011.03.016.
  21. Juvančič L., Slabe-Erker R., Ogorevc M., Drucker A.G., Erjavec E., Bojkovski D. (2021). Payments for conservation of animal genetic resources in agriculture: one size fits all? Animals, 11(3): 846. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11030846.
  22. Marsoner T., Egarter Vigl L., Manck F., Jaritz G., Tappeiner U., Tasser E. (2018). Local livestock breeds as indicators for cultural ecosystem services: a spatial analysis within the Alpine Space. Ecological Indicators, 94: 55-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.06.046.
  23. Marescotti M.E., Corradini A., Demartini E., Lodde V., Franciosi F., Luciano A.M., Gaviglio A. (2024). Act in favor of agricultural biodiversity: novel strategies for sustainable conservation and development of endangered livestock breeds. In The Italian Association of Agricultural Economists Conference (pp. 131-135). Springer, Cham. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-65168-7_21.
  24. Martin G., Magne M.A., Barth K. (2020). Agricultural diversity to increase adaptive capacity and reduce vulnerability of livestock systems against weather variability. A farm-scale simulation study. Agricultural Systems, 178, 102760. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.10.006.
  25. Miles M.B. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
  26. Ministero dell’Agricoltura, Sovranità Alimentare e Foreste (2023). SRA14 - ACA14 - Allevatori custodi dell’agrobiodiversità. Piano Strategico Nazionale PAC 2023-2027.
  27. Nardina A., Monteiro T.R., Wilfart A., Utzeri V.J., Batorek Lukač N., Tomažin U., Nanni Costa L., Čandek-Potokar M., Fontanesi L., Garcia-Launay F. (2019). Environmental impacts of pig production systems using European local breeds: the contribution of carbon sequestration and emissions from grazing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 237, 117843. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117843.
  28. Nowell L.S., Norris J.M., White D.E., Moules N.J. (2017). Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691773384.
  29. Patton M.Q. (2014). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
  30. Pirani A., Gaviglio A., Demartini E. (2010). Management tools for agricultural biodiversity: a model for the classification of autochthonous livestock breeds. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 9(1), e15.
  31. Schreiner J.A., Latacz-Lohmann U. (2024). Saving the breeds: farmers’ preferences for endangered dairy breed conservation programmes. Q Open, 4(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/qopen/qoae025.
  32. Staller K.M. (2021). Big enough? Sampling in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Social Work, 20(4): 897-904. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14733250211024516.
  33. Swagemakers P. (2021). To what extent do brands contribute to sustainability transition in agricultural production practices? Lessons from three European case studies. Ecological Economics, 185, 107256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107179.
  34. Tregear A., Cooper S. (2016). Embeddedness, social capital and learning in rural areas: the case of producer cooperatives. Journal of Rural Studies, 44: 101-110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.01.011.
  35. Velado-Alonso E., Gómez-Sal A., Bernués A., Martín-Collado D. (2021). Disentangling the multidimensional relationship between livestock breeds and ecosystem services. Animals, 11(9), 2548. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11092548.