Multifunctionality of Agriculture: An Inquiry Into the Complementarity Between Landscape Preservation and Food Security



In figure 1 we have drawn the production possibility frontier PP. The slope of PP equals -γ 2 ∕γ1 .

Suppose that the crisis menu is given by XM = (X1M , X2M ) marked as A in the figure. The
land requirement for producing
X M is denoted LM , and the production possibility frontier given this
land requirement is the solid line MM.

Assume that we choose a level of land use that is not sufficient to guarantee complete food
security, thus we are only able to produce a share
, λ, of the crisis menu. Define X=(X1,X2)= λXM . For
the moment we abstract from stockpiling and aid, and imports of the two commodities,
μi, is treated as
uncertain. (1) can then be written as:

Pr(X+μ≥XM) ≥π;      μ≥0,

where μ=(μ1, μ2). Pr(λXM+μ≥XM)< 1 for λ<1, and the probability is 1 when λ≥ 1.

The point of departure for Gulbrandsen and Lindbeck is an inefficient agricultural sector. This
means that the
net cost per hectare land, NCHi, is positive:

(3)


NCHi


Pl - Pw ɪ 0

l          xi

i γi


for both commodities. Without support nothing will be produced. Food security is an argument for
agricultural support, i.e. land must be available when a crisis arises.

Assume that it is more costly (per hectare) to produce X1 than X2, so NCH2<NCH1, and assume
that we require complete food security (
λ=1).




More intriguing information

1. An Attempt to 2
2. Self-Help Groups and Income Generation in the Informal Settlements of Nairobi
3. Imitation in location choice
4. Correlation Analysis of Financial Contagion: What One Should Know Before Running a Test
5. Testing Gribat´s Law Across Regions. Evidence from Spain.
6. Text of a letter
7. The name is absent
8. Short- and long-term experience in pulmonary vein segmental ostial ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation*
9. Fighting windmills? EU industrial interests and global climate negotiations
10. The name is absent