1 Towards a new policy narrative for agriculture: capturing social sustainability issues 1 Jesús Antón1*, Masayasu Asai2 and Francesco Vanni1 2 1: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 3 2: Division of Natural Resource Economics, Graduate School of Agriculture, Kyoto 4 University, Kyoto, 606-8502, Japan 5 *corresponding author 6 This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been 7 through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to 8 differences between this version and the Version of Record. 9 Please cite this article as: 10 Anton J., Asai M., Vanni F. (2025). Towards a new policy narrative for agriculture: capturing 11 social sustainability issues, Just Accepted. DOI: 10.36253/bae-17303 12 13 Highlights: 14 • Climate change analysis has created a new agri-environmental policy narrative. 15 • Tackling social and inequality issues has gained increasing policy relevance. 16 • Missing definition and metrics of social sustainability in agriculture is a bottleneck 17 (92 characters) 18 • Measuring income inequalities could trigger change towards inclusive transition. 19 Abstract: 20 Awareness about issues related to inequality and well-being in agriculture is increasing, with 21 some evidence of inequalities affecting e.g. women, youth, and migrant farmworkers, that 22 hinder their access to income, land, health, education, and training. Despite the increasing 23 2 policy interest around social sustainability, tackling social issues in agriculture is complex due 24 to lack of consensus in definition, contextual specificities, data gaps and needs to apply non-25 sectoral policies. Two decades ago, environmental sustainability faced similar challenges but 26 is now mainstreamed in agricultural policy making. Climate change measurement and analysis 27 played a pivotal role in creating a new agri-environmental policy narrative. Expanding 28 agricultural sustainability from the green transition towards a just transition will require a game 29 changer that is measurable and highly correlated with main social issues. Could an investment 30 in measuring income inequalities play this role and facilitate a new social sustainability 31 perspective in agricultural policies? 32 Keywords: Social sustainability, green transition, income inequalities, inclusiveness, well-being 33 1. Introduction 34 The goal of sustainability over time is recognised as one of the most fundamental principles 35 in global policy making, typically covering three pillars: economic, environmental and social 36 sustainability (Giddings, et al., 2002). To advance sustainable development, the agricultural 37 sector thus needs to contribute to all three dimensions (Janker & Mann, 2020; FAO, 2022). 38 Traditionally, the sustainability debate in agriculture has focused mainly on economic aspects 39 and, more recently, on the environment. Economic sustainability, building competitiveness 40 and productivity growth, has been prominent in agricultural policies. Over the past two 41 decades, together with other environmental concerns, climate change and its effects on 42 economic growth and environmental outcomes have come to the forefront of global 43 agriculture policy dialogues (Olesen & Bindi, 2002; Howden, et al., 2007). The need to 44 accelerate a green transition in agriculture has led to an increased focus of agriculture and 45 food systems policies on climate-smart strategies to move farms and rural communities 46 towards net zero emissions and better management of the environment (Asai, et al., 2023). 47 3 The income gap between agriculture and other economic sectors has been a long-lasting 48 argument to justify support to farmers, in particular in the early times after the Second World 49 War (Gardner, 1992). Recent data show that farm income in the EU Member States has been 50 increasing, even if there may still be in some cases a gap compared to other sectors 51 (Matthews, 2024). On the other hand, the lack of economic opportunities for the farming 52 sector, declining services and lower well-being standards in rural areas remained prominent, 53 witness the farmer protests that emerged in Europe in 2023-2024 (Finger, et al., 2024; 54 Matthews, 2024). 55 In recent decades, the social aspects have been rarely discussed as main policy drivers in 56 agriculture and are seen as a cause or a consequence of environmental or economic 57 problems, rather than a stand-alone goal. However, recent evidence shows that farmers, 58 farmworkers and their families in rural areas of OECD countries are facing a diversity of social 59 issues that are of an increasing concern for policy makers (Asai & Antón, 2024). For instance, 60 in Switzerland, female farm family workers work around 75-80 hours a week, but only about 61 half of them (55%) are paid for their work (Moser & Saner, 2022). In the United Kingdom, over 62 50% of workers in agriculture, forestry and fishing were suffering from work-related 63 Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs) (HSE, 2023), while in Australia one farmer dies by suicide 64 every 10 days, a rate 59% higher than non-farmers (Sartor, 2021). In the United States, the 65 net farm income of African American farmers is 10% of the average of other farmers (Collins, 66 et al., 2023). 67 Most of these issues are related to inequality and quality of life (e.g. physical and mental 68 health) that are not a new phenomenon in agriculture. However, people’s awareness of the 69 related risks is increasing. For instance, more frequent extreme weather events result in farm 70 4 income losses, which may be perceived as critical risks by famers, exacerbating the 71 uncertainty on the sustainability of the sector and, potentially, impacting mental illness and 72 higher rates of suicide (Daghagh Yazd, et al., 2019; Riethmuller, et al., 2023). Social issues are 73 returning from a new lens: skewed distribution of income and of low-income risk among 74 farmers and farmworkers reflect inequalities and potential social exclusion, which is a concern 75 for citizens and policy makers. 76 Tackling social issues has gained increasing policy importance, also in agriculture, as reflected 77 in the food systems approach (OECD, 2021). However, the lack of data and evidence has been 78 identified as a constraint to identify and address some social issues, including related to 79 gender, illness and injuries in the farm, and immigrant farmworkers (Giner, et al., 2022; 80 Merisalu, et al., 2019; Antonioli, et al., 2023). Accordingly, there is no widely acknowledged 81 methodology for quantifying and analysing the social dimension of sustainability, neither on 82 the criteria to be used when assessing the concept (Saleh & Ehlers, 2023; Janker & Mann, 83 2020). 84 The overall goal of this paper is to identify opportunities to advance towards social 85 sustainability goals in agriculture when designing, implementing and monitoring policies1. 86 How can the agriculture and food policy community develop a narrative and the required 87 evidence to respond to existing social sustainability issues? We first review the green 88 transition in agriculture according to recent agricultural policy trends in OECD countries. In 89 particular, we assess critical conditions that transformed the policy narrative by 90 mainstreaming environmental sustainability, led by climate change and the efforts to 91 1 This paper is mainly built on the findings from the recent OECD works on agricultural policy reviews (OECD, 2023; OECD, 2024) and social issues in agriculture (Asai & Antón, 2024), and on a keynote presentation at the AIEAA Conference in Bari (Italy) in July 2024 (Antón, et al., 2024). 5 measure its linkages to agriculture. Second, we explore the main dimensions of social issues 92 in agriculture, and their data and measurement challenges that impede further understanding 93 and analysing social sustainability concerns. Finally, we explore the role of income as potential 94 catalyst to advance on the social sustainability agenda. Income is measurable and could be 95 analysed from a new social sustainability perspective, focused on income inequalities and 96 well-being, facilitating the advancement of the policy agenda from a necessary green 97 transition to a green and inclusive transition in agriculture. 98 2. How the environment became a main driver in recent agricultural policy trends 99 Agricultural policies were significantly reformed in the 1990´s and 2000s in the United States, 100 the European Union and in other OECD countries. For instance, the reforms of the EU´s 101 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) prior to the mid-2000s were successful in reducing 102 producer support, notably market price support, while progressively “decoupling” support 103 from production, with payments per hectare that do not require any specific production and 104 are more effective in transferring support to farmers. The main goal of these reforms was of 105 an economic nature: reducing the distortions associated to the government support to the 106 sector and reaching farmers more effectively. 107 A shift on composition and level of support was observed not only in the European Union, but 108 across OECD countries, where successive reforms have led to increased market orientation 109 and more efficient forms of support. It is also reflected in the share of the most production- 110 and trade-distorting forms of support, which has also decreased. Given that such support 111 (market price support, coupled direct payments and input support) potentially also 112 contributes to negative environmental outcomes, these reforms also contributed to improve 113 environmental sustainability, even if this was not the main objective (Bureau & Antón, 2022) 114 6 Since these reforms took place, there has also been an increasing scope of environmental 115 requirements attached to the CAP payments (Figure 1). Since 2010, the European Union’s 116 Producer Support Estimate (PSE) level and composition have remained almost unchanged, 117 though increasingly with input constraints attached to payments, reflecting a greater 118 integration of environmental and climate objectives (OECD, 2023; OECD, 2024). 119 120 Figure 1 Integration of policy instruments with environmental and climate objectives in the 121 Common Agricultural Policy in the European Union 122 (Bureau & Antón, 2022)To reflect this evolution of agricultural policy objectives and impacts, a 123 variety of agri-environmental indicators has been developed by countries and international 124 organisations to track the environmental performance of the farming sector, particularly 125 during the last two decades. For instance, the OECD agri-environmental database (OECD, 126 2023) shows trends and levels of a broad range of indicators, including on agricultural land 127 use change, fertiliser use, water abstraction, on-farm energy consumption, GHG emissions 128 and nutrient balances (Figure 2). These indicators were selected on the basis of data 129 availability, and environmental and policy relevance. They provide an accurate comparable 130 measurement of the main environmental pressures associated with agricultural activities. The 131 OECD agri-environmental database allows to assess performance comparing trends across 132 countries and between agricultural output growth and environmental outcomes. For 133 7 instance, in the last three decades OECD countries significantly increased output while, at the 134 same time, reduced nutrient balances. Trends in other environmental outcomes such as GHG 135 emissions and farmland bird index are less promising. 136 137 Figure 2 OECD Agri-environmental database 138 Source: OECD Agri-Environmental Indicator data base (OECD Data Explorer) 139 Regardless of the performance of each country, the development of agri-environmental 140 indicators has been an integral part of a new narrative that has increased the focus of 141 agricultural policies on environmental sustainability. The measurement of these sustainability 142 outcomes helps to develop a common understanding of the environmental goals and their 143 links with agricultural production, practices and policies. These indicators have also inspired 144 and informed attempts to combine economic and environmental performance into an 145 environmentally sustainable productivity index in agriculture (Cobourn, et al., 2024). 146 Climate change has been a global game changer or “catalysts” in the environmental policy 147 agenda and, to a great extent, also in the agricultural sustainability debate. Indeed, climate 148 change is a shared environmental concern and a global public good that has contributed to 149 growing awareness on environmental sustainability (Figure 3) reflected in the European 150 https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?tm=Agri-Environmental%20other%20indicators&pg=0&snb=48&vw=ov&df%5Bds%5D=dsDisseminateFinalDMZ&df%5Bid%5D=DSD_AGRI_ENV%40DF_AEI&df%5Bag%5D=OECD.TAD.ARP&df%5Bvs%5D=1.0&pd=2012%2C&dq=.A.TOTAGR_LAND....&ly%5Bcl%5D=TIME_PERIOD&ly%5Brs%5D=REF_AREA&to%5BTIME_PERIOD%5D=false 8 Green Deal EGD. Each country’s and each sector´s GHG emissions contribute cumulatively to 151 the increase of the overall concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, and then mitigating 152 climate change through reduced emissions is a common goal for which there are already 153 comparable methods to measure, and relevant indicators have been developed accordingly. 154 Climate change also brings multiple related agri-environmental issues together because there 155 are significant correlations among them. For instance, there are links between different 156 emissions, water quality and nutrient imbalance, and between emissions and biodiversity. 157 The work of the International Pannel on Climate Change (IPCC) has informed policymaking 158 and international negotiations, including the UNFCC and the Paris Agreement, and has 159 triggered and embedded a large body of research on measuring and understanding the 160 environmental impacts of different economic activities and alternative policies (Guerrero, 161 2021) (Lankoski, 2016) (OECD, 2022) (DeBoe, 2020). The analysis of climate change and of its 162 relations to the agricultural sector not only has contributed to a new narrative that 163 increasingly puts farmers in the driving seat of the contribution of agriculture to the 164 environment, but it has also stimulated the development of a broad range of agri-165 environmental policies and regulations. 166 167 Figure 3 Climate change as a game changer in environmental sustainability 168 9 3. What are the policy challenges to advance towards social sustainability? 169 The food systems approach to policy making has incorporated not only agri-environmental 170 concerns, but also consumer concerns and social issues (OECD, 2021), resulting in a growing 171 concern for policy makers and research communities to improve well-being of farmers and 172 their communities (Asai & Antón, 2024). Well-being of farmers is affected by a broad range 173 of factors, which can be classified in four main groups: (1) Factors affecting farmers’ economic 174 well-being (such as income and wealth); (2) Factors affecting the quality of life, including work 175 and job quality; (3) Factors affecting the well-being of the community; and (4) Factors 176 affecting the well-being of women, Indigenous Peoples and specific social groups. 177 As regards as the economic factors, regional inequalities and the urban-rural divide challenge 178 the well-being of rural areas (Meloni, et al., 2024; OECD, 2020). Based on the analysis of 179 household disposable income in 25 European countries, Meloni et al. (2024) found that the 180 income of rural households is lower than that of non-rural households. The proximity to urban 181 centres plays an important role in shaping well-being of rural residents, including farmers 182 (OECD, 2020). Rural places situated in closer proximity to urban centres exploit benefits from 183 infrastructure development (e.g. hospitals and schools) and transportation because of 184 improved access to human capital, external markets, and a wide array of services and 185 environmental amenities. Remote areas, in contrast, face the largest challenges regarding 186 connectivity, causing higher costs for transportation, infrastructure and service provision that 187 affect the well-being of residents in these areas (OECD, 2020; OECD/EC-JRC, 2021). 188 Given that agricultural sector faces double challenges of aging and rural depopulation, 189 encouraging generational renewal is a top priority for many countries. Nevertheless, young 190 farmers encounter multiple obstacles both prior to entry and once in the sector (Campi, et al., 191 10 2024). These obstacles include capital constraints, regulatory complexities, access to land and 192 housing, lower access to services compared to other jobs, and lack of the networks needed 193 to access resources. Negative social views of farming due to e.g. hard-working conditions, 194 degrade the attractiveness of the profession and discourage new entrants (Campi, et al., 195 2024). Furthermore, a ‘brain drain’ of young talents from rural areas challenges generational 196 renewal (Kalantaryan, et al., 2021; Zagata & Sutherland, 2015). Other studies also show that 197 farms in more isolated regions are less prone to be inherited by the following generation 198 (Aldanondo Ochoa, et al., 2007). 199 As for the factors affecting the quality of life, agriculture is known for one of the most 200 hazardous sectors worldwide, with numerous studies reporting elevated levels of 201 occupational fatalities, injuries, and illnesses (WHO, 2004). As regards the working conditions, 202 farmers may face long working hours, in particular during peak production seasons and under 203 labour shortages (Marlenga, et al., 2010; Hostiou, et al., 2020). It was recently found that 204 farmers working longer than 40 hours per week may be at higher risk for fatigue-related injury 205 and illness (Elliott, et al., 2022). In many cases farmers and those working in agriculture are 206 also exposed to chemical pesticides, and this is linked to chronic illnesses such as cancer, and 207 heart, respiratory and neurological diseases (Dhananjayan & Ravichandran, 2018). 208 Occupational stress, associated with longer working hours, compliance with increasing 209 government regulations, weather volatility, and financial pressures is another factor that may 210 have negative effects on quality of life and in some cases it can lead to mental health issues 211 for farmers and their families (Farm Management Canada, 2020; Brennan, et al., 2021; 212 Daghagh Yazd, et al., 2019). A range of ongoing occupational stressors associated with 213 farming may contribute to place farmers at an elevated risk of suicide (Purc-Stephenson, et 214 11 al., 2023): evidence from Australia, France and the United States shows higher suicide rates 215 of farmers than those working in other sectors (Miller & Rudolphi, 2022; Page & Fragar, 2002; 216 Bossard, et al., 2016; Hostiou, et al., 2020). 217 Securing equal opportunities to work in safe conditions and the same access to care and 218 health services is highly important for the individual well-being. The literature shows that in 219 the farming sector such conditions are not always met and are challenged by climate change 220 and structural transformations. Studies in Canada highlight three barriers for providing 221 mental care services for farmers: accessibility of health services in rural areas; stigma around 222 mental health in the agricultural community; and lack of health professionals who are familiar 223 with the agricultural context (Farm Management Canada, 2020; Hagen, et al., 2019). 224 Social capital is another important dimension of social sustainability and is key for higher 225 community well-being. Inclusiveness may be achieved through better connections between 226 people and in particular cultural events and leisure activities can lead to a higher sense of 227 civic engagement for farmers and improved co-operation with other members of the 228 community (Halstead, et al., 2021; Rivera, et al., 2018). Moreover, community involvement, 229 trust and support can help people tackle challenges and opportunities, and contribute to 230 improve individual well-being and resilience, helping individuals and communities to recover 231 from, and more successfully adapt and transform in response to adverse events (Aldrich & 232 Meyer, 2014; Adger, 2010). In contrast, rural crime, discrimination and social isolation lead to 233 distrust among community members and lack of a sense of belonging, adversely impacting 234 community well-being (Deller & Deller, 2010; Smith, 2020). The ongoing ageing and 235 depopulation trends in rural areas may exacerbate this negative phenomenon. 236 12 Finally, there are unique challenges often faced by Women, Indigenous Peoples, and specific 237 social groups, such as migrant farmworkers and people with disabilities, due to social and 238 economic barriers and biases that hinder their access to income, land, food, health, education 239 and training, and other services (OECD/FAO, 2016; Todd, et al., 2024; ILO, 2023). Women tend 240 to encounter longer unpaid working hours more often than men and have lower social 241 security entitlements (FAO, 2020). In the European Union, only 31.6% of farm managers were 242 female in 2020 (OECD, 2023), while in the United States, 7% of all farms were operated solely 243 by women in 2017-2020 (Todd, et al., 2024). These figures imply that women’s role in 244 agricultural decision making, and farm and land ownership remains relatively modest. 245 For Indigenous Peoples the main inequalities concern their access to land (including land that 246 was taken from their ancestors), education and training, as well as capital, which remains a 247 significant barrier for Indigenous entrepreneurs and business owners (OECD, 2019). Migrant 248 farmworkers often are (informally) hired on a casual, piecework or seasonal basis, and their 249 work often involves long hours and difficult conditions under high risk of illnesses and injuries, 250 while being insufficiently covered by social security (UN, 2009; Martin, 2016). 251 The actors and territories involved on these social issues are very heterogeneous and the 252 challenges facing farmers and farmworkers are diverse. Different social circumstances may 253 require different policies and tools and need targeted analysis. Furthermore, the bargaining 254 position of farmers and farmworkers differs across locations and sectors and is a main source 255 of inequalities both along the agrifood value chain and within the farming sector. 256 In the past decade, several OECD countries have incorporated social issues in the policies and 257 programmes led by their respective ministries of agriculture. For example, generational 258 renewal and social conditionality on employment conditions and on-farm safety and health 259 13 are part of the goals and measures included under the European Union’s Common 260 Agricultural Policy 2023-27 (OECD, 2023). Both Canada and New Zealand implement specific 261 agricultural measures for Indigenous Communities, while, in the United States, the 262 Department of Agriculture administers programmes that benefit the so defined “socially 263 disadvantaged farmers and ranchers” (Todd, et al., 2024; Asai & Antón, 2024). In Italy and 264 Japan, the ministries fund “social farming” initiatives to create more inclusive opportunities 265 for vulnerable groups at community level, such as promoting agricultural employment for 266 persons with disabilities (Guirong & Oba, 2023; Borsotto & Giarè, 2020). 267 Table 1 presents an overview of five case studies from OECD countries with examples on how 268 governments have approached issues of inequality and other social issues in agriculture: the 269 definition of the issue, the policy rationale and the specific policy measures. Across these 270 policy examples, policy makers have looked beyond traditional sectoral policies and seek to 271 target social issues from a broader policy perspective, as agricultural policies are often not 272 designed for the purpose of tackling these issues. The main types of policies in the toolbox 273 applied in these examples are targeted measures on health, skills, training, social protection, 274 legal reforms, research and data. Existing agricultural policies are not targeted to identified 275 social issues and they are used only as accompanying measures (Switzerland) or potential 276 sources of funding (Italy). 277 Table 1 Policy examples and their policy interventions to address social issues 278 Country Social issues at stake Rationale for policy interventions Main policy instruments Canada (Case 1) Increasing number of farmers suffering from mental health problems. Mitigate factors of farmers’ stress that could affect mental health Support farmer mental health research Promote mental health literacy in agricultural communities Switzerland (Case 2) Many family members (e.g. wives) who work on the farm receive no financial renumeration and social protection. Equal treatment across workers in agriculture and with other sectors From 2027, extend social protection coverage to partners on farms as a precondition for direct payment 14 Italy (Case 3) Lack of effective social and health services in some rural areas, and limited care services for vulnerable groups. Inclusiveness opportunities for vulnerable groups through the Social Farming (SF) practices Set-up networks for diversification of agricultural activities, (e.g. healthcare, education) and to carry SF New Zealand (Case 4) Economic pressures, demographic and social changes, and mental health challenge well-being of farmers and other citizens in remote rural communities. Support “rural community hubs” to build social relationships and rural resilience Start-up funding to help establish the “rural community hub” where people meet, discuss issues, have workshops etc. Japan (Case 5) Limited job opportunities for people with disabilities while agricultural sector faces an acute shortage of labour force. Equal access to jobs and sources of income for persons with disabilities. Reduce labour shortages in agricultural sector Provide training courses and support to develop user-friendly facilities that reduce barriers to employment faced by persons with disabilities. Source: Based on Asai & Anton (2024) 279 Note: Information covers a selection of case studies from Table 2 collected from governments and experts in those case 280 study countries/regions in the period of June 2023 - Feb 2024. 281 4. Measuring social sustainability performance 282 The lack of appropriate data is a further challenge to advance in the social sustainability 283 agenda in agriculture, making important social issues invisible to both policy makers and 284 citizens. Greater understanding of issues around inequality and inclusiveness and the best 285 policy approaches to address them requires appropriate data, indicators and measurement 286 (Asai & Antón, 2024; Giner, et al., 2022). , which is challenging due to complexity, a missing 287 social sustainability framework, lack of data and unstandardized indicators (Brennan, et al., 288 2020; Janker & Mann, 2020). Figure 5 summarises the three main challenges associated with 289 measuring social sustainability performance in agriculture: the lack of a clear and agreed 290 definition of social sustainability; the data gaps to define and identify social issues; and the 291 challenge to quantify social issues in indicators. Even if agri-environmental sustainability faces 292 similar challenges, there has been a significant advancement in the last two decades as 293 reflected in the set of agreed OECD agri-environmental indicators in Figure 2. 294 15 295 Figure 4 - Schematic presentation of the challenges for the measurement of social 296 sustainability in agriculture 297 Despite the increasing interest, the common understanding of what constitutes social 298 sustainability and how it might be achieved is limited (Janker, et al., 2019; Asai & Antón, 2024; 299 Nowack, et al., 2022). Social sustainability is still considered as subjective and there is no 300 consensus on the different aspects it should entail (Janker & Mann, 2020; Saleh & Ehlers, 301 2023). A universal definition is lacking and there is no widely acknowledged methodology for 302 quantifying and assessing the social dimension of sustainability. Indicators on contracts, 303 gender gaps and socioeconomic characteristics of the farming population are a good starting 304 point. However, Janker & Mann (2020) performed an analysis of 87 farm-related social 305 sustainability assessment tools finding a diversity of approaches: some tools are based on 306 human rights and working rights according to the UN and ILO conventions and look for 307 working conditions indicators, while others assess farmers’ perceptions of their quality of life. 308 Social issues may remain hidden if there is no data able to identify and define them. Evidence 309 suggests that there is still a large gap between agricultural sector-specific (e.g. the Census of 310 Agriculture) and economy-wide data on social issues (Asai & Antón, 2024). In many OECD 311 countries, farmers represent a very small share of the total population and they are often 312 under-sampled in general surveys that tend to be non-representative of the farmer 313 16 population. For instance, although the EU’s Income and Living Conditions survey (EU-SILC) 314 was not created for the assessment of farmers’ welfare, it allows for the identification of 315 farmers and farm households (Marino, et al., 2023). An attempt to analyse the income gaps 316 between farm and non-farm households in EU Member states using EU-SILC was confronted 317 to too small samples of farm households to allow a representative distributional analysis 318 (Rocchi, et al., 2020; Marino, et al., 2021; Marino, et al., 2023)2. 319 Having a small sample size poses a critical limitation on the use of general datasets for 320 exploring social issues in agriculture, especially when focusing on smaller sub-groups within 321 farming populations, notably those that are disadvantaged or vulnerable. Considering that 322 the family farm remains the most common type of farm in many countries, women often 323 engage in family unpaid labour that might not be recorded in statistics, which makes it 324 difficult to acknowledge and assess (Giner, et al., 2022). Regarding the racial and ethnic 325 minorities in agriculture, some countries like the United States have a questionnaire on racial 326 and ethnic, under- or un-reported cases are frequent due to incomplete survey responses 327 with respect to race and ethnicity information (Lacy, 2023). 328 The surveys regularly conducted in the agricultural sector, including the Farm Accountancy 329 Data Network (FADN) in Europe and the Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) 330 in the United States, are primarily intended for economic purposes. Although there are 331 ongoing initiatives to expand the scope of these surveys (e.g. from FADN to Farm 332 Sustainability Data Network (FSDN) reflecting the CAP’s evolution towards sustainability), 333 they may still not be well-suited to analyse social issues. Furthermore, most of the existing 334 2 EU-SILC is a harmonised household survey that collects multidimensional microdata on income, poverty, social exclusion and living conditions in Europe. 17 sectoral surveys focus on farmers, yet there are substantial data gaps regarding farmworkers, 335 especially migrant and seasonal farmworkers, despite their important role in the agricultural 336 sector in many countries (Ryan, 2023; Ramos, et al., 2020). In economy-wide household 337 surveys farm households are under-sampled, and migrant and seasonal farmworkers are not 338 captured because they normally focus on the resident population (Kalantaryan, et al., 2021). 339 Some countries like Italy and the United States collect some data on seasonal foreign 340 farmworkers (Antonioli, et al., 2023; Castillo, et al., 2022). 341 The self-employed status of many farmers is likely resulting in the under-reporting of 342 incidents (e.g. accidents, injuries, illness and suicides). Studies from European countries found 343 that farmers and farmworkers are unlikely to report injuries if they do not have an incentive 344 such as insurance benefits (Merisalu, et al., 2019). In areas such as mental health, it is difficult 345 to ask sensitive questions on personal health or social relations through a survey (Brennan, et 346 al., 2020). Several studies highlight that a large share of actual cases of mental illness or 347 suicide may be underreported due to social stigma in rural areas (Purc-Stephenson, et al., 348 2023; Miller & Rudolphi, 2022). Finally, there are personal and social sensitivities that are 349 country specific and make data collection on social issues particularly challenging. For 350 instance, some countries such as Finland, Norway and Sweden, explicitly forbid the collection 351 of statistics on ethnic identity (OECD, 2019). These data gaps make it harder to develop 352 indicators to monitor and tackle social issues and to identify target groups. 353 Because social issues are complex and vary across countries and regions, context-specific data 354 and analytical methods are used, requiring more qualitative indicators than for environmental 355 and economic issues. Such indicators are subject to a high degree of subjectivity (Kelly, et al., 356 2018) and are difficult to harmonise. The choice of social sustainability indicators is not only 357 18 the result of a neutral scientific analysis, but also of societal choice reflecting a diversity of 358 views. 359 Finally, another challenge is identifying drivers that hinder some aspects of well-being in a 360 manner that is specific for farmers or their communities (Asai & Antón, 2024). This analysis is 361 critical to identify the need for policies that specifically tackle social sustainability in an 362 agricultural context. Information regarding these driving factors and causal relations is 363 frequently limited. There is a risk of a vicious circle between the shortage of data for 364 identifying policy demands and the lack of clear policy priorities for funding data initiatives. 365 5. Looking for a catalyst on social sustainability 366 Therefore, despite the increasing policy interest around the dimensions that affect the well-367 being of farmers, their families and farmworkers, and that of the communities in which they 368 live, defining and tackling social issues in agriculture is complex. There are four main 369 bottlenecks summarised in Figure 5. First, there is no consensus on what constitutes a social 370 issue. The nature of social sustainability includes social processes and interactions that 371 emerge within a community and makes it difficult to identify a coherent, clear and utilisable 372 definition (Eizenberg & Jabareen, 2017). Moreover, subjectivity often comes into play in 373 people’s judgments that a particular state of affairs constitutes a social issue (Kulik, 2023). 374 This is frequent in any analysis of agriculture, but in the case of social issues the driving factors 375 go beyond complex production conditions into personal, health and community linkages. 376 19 377 Figure 5 – The four main bottlenecks in addressing social issues 378 Second, social issues are often context specific and addressing them requires considering 379 different perspectives and sensitivities of stakeholders. Urban-rural inequalities play an 380 important role in shaping well-being of rural residents, including farmers (OECD, 2020; Meloni, 381 et al., 2023). Thus, social issues can benefit from a place-based approach because they are 382 associated with a specific location. Possible solutions often derive from the local context, and 383 policy interventions are often away from the traditional agricultural policy areas (OECD, 2020; 384 Asai, et al., 2023). 385 Third, tackling social issues requires policies that go beyond traditional sectoral programmes. 386 Agricultural policies focus mainly on economic and environmental outcomes of the sector, 387 often leaving social objectives and implications to other policy areas. However, the 388 agricultural sector is only a small player for social policy partners and its specificities and policy 389 context may be overlooked. As confirmed by the five policy examples in Table 1, defining and 390 tackling social issues in agriculture requires policies beyond traditional sectoral programmes 391 (Asai, et al., 2023; Janker & Mann, 2020; Saleh & Ehlers, 2023). 392 Finally, as discussed in section 4, social issues are often poorly measured due to the lack of 393 data and data infrastructure, and subsequent unstandardised indicators. The trade-offs 394 20 between social and economic sustainability are, therefore, difficult to assess. For instance, 395 how better working conditions affect productivity. 396 Considering these bottlenecks, a game changer seems necessary to advance on the social 397 sustainability agenda in agriculture, similarly to what climate change measurement and 398 analysis represented in the context of the green transition. This does not mean that social 399 sustainability must come after environmental sustainability in a sequential manner. Policy 400 trends towards environmental and social sustainability may have the same policy roots, but 401 they may need different triggers to effectively become main drivers of policy changes and 402 impacts. 403 The policy agenda for a more inclusive transition could benefit from an indicator that is easily 404 measurable and highly correlated with social sustainability issues, and that allows cross-405 comparison among countries, regions and social groups. Income inequality has a good 406 potential to play a catalyst role on social sustainability, since it meets several critical 407 conditions. Although not perfect, income inequality is a widely social concern and affects all 408 the population, and it is also correlated to many dimensions that are currently characterising 409 the social sustainability debate in agriculture, including health, gender, marginalized groups, 410 decent work and social capital. Of course, a complete analysis of social issues should also 411 include access to public services and infrastructure that also contribute to well-being. 412 Together with wealth, income largely determines the ability of individuals to meet their basic 413 needs (e.g. food, housing, healthcare, transportation, education) and to make choices that 414 contribute to security, satisfaction and personal fulfilment (Meloni, et al., 2024; OECD, 2020; 415 Meloni, et al., 2023). Thus, addressing income-related inequalities is critical to achieve overall 416 economic well-being. In the agricultural policy debate, such issues have been discussed for a 417 21 long time to justify policy support aiming to address the assumption of lower income in 418 agriculture business as compared to other production activities (Rocchi, et al., 2020; Katchova, 419 2008). However, the social sustainability debate would benefit from a broader perspective on 420 income, by looking not only at the level of farm income, but also looking at: the farm 421 household income and income of those working in farming and food sector; the income 422 distribution differences by gender and with other sectors; and the differences among 423 agricultural, rural and non-rural households. It should also entail by focusing on policies 424 tackling income inequalities and their impacts on low household income and poverty among 425 those making their living from agriculture, rather than focusing solely on increasing farm 426 income (OECD, 2023; OECD, 2003). 427 Recent studies show that in the European Union farm household incomes on average are not 428 particularly lower compared to non-farm household incomes (Rocchi, et al., 2020; Marino, et 429 al., 2021; Mittenzwei, et al., 2024), while others have shown that income inequality and 430 poverty are greater in the farm community compared to the non-farm community (de Frahan, 431 et al., 2017). However, the lack of data is the main constraint for an accurate assessment. 432 Administrative, political, and technical obstacles hinder the collection of comprehensive farm 433 household data and currently there is no reliable system to allow income comparisons among 434 farmers, farm workers and those in other sectors of the economy (Hill & Bradley, 2015; ECA, 435 2016; OECD, 2023). 436 Improving the understanding of the income distribution issues related to farms, farm 437 households and rural households could help to move forwards the social sustainability agenda 438 also from an agricultural policy perspective. As showed in figure 6, in the context of the CAP, 439 direct payments to farmers decoupled from production, which represent an important part 440 22 of farm income, have been increasingly linked to several environmental requirements under 441 conditionality. However, direct payments are distributed to households based on the amount 442 of land used rather than on their overall household income. A full sustainable (social and 443 environmental) transition would lead to a shift in the policy mix towards more targeted 444 payments to farm households suffering from low-income, and to result-based agri-445 environmental payments (OECD, 2023). 446 447 Figure 6 - Policy pathways towards a green and inclusive transition in agriculture 448 In addition to these targeted payments, other EU and national agricultural policies could 449 contribute to the inclusive transition. For example, EU rural development policy includes a 450 range of measures some of which may increase the attractiveness of rural areas and promote 451 agricultural entrepreneurship. The provision of public services such as education, health and 452 transport is particularly relevant to improve wellbeing and social sustainability. Social 453 conditionality was also introduced in the CAP 2023-27, with the overall objective of linking 454 farmer payments to compliance with certain labour laws. Although all these policy tools have 455 potential to improve, among other, the well-being and working conditions of farmers and the 456 agricultural labour force, they are not targeted to income distribution issues. 457 Stronger evidence on disposable income could allow to have a better understanding of the 458 standard of living of farmers, since income is strongly interlinked with key dimensions of well-459 being including, among other, job quality, housing, health and work-life balance. Thus, 460 23 improving the availability and access to micro-economic datasets for the assessment of the 461 income aspect of policies not only at farm level but at the household level could be a very 462 important step in monitoring and tackling social sustainability issues in agriculture. 463 Such a data investment would provide policy makers with a proxy for the well-being of farm 464 households and then a tool to better define the rationale of income support and to target it 465 to legitimate social objectives (OECD, 2023). A more accurate measurement of total farm 466 household income would also allow to assess the potential impact of agriculture policies as 467 compared to non-sectoral policies such as social policies on income and ensuring livelihoods, 468 as well as to contributing to other social sustainability objectives. Data availability and needed 469 investments to measure farm household income deserves a separate in-depth analysis. 470 6. Conclusions 471 Social issues are gaining momentum in research and policy discussions on agricultural 472 sustainability. This is the result of multiple drivers, including increasing anecdotal evidence of 473 inequalities and quality of life issues that are specific to the agricultural sector. Similarly to 474 environmental issues twenty years ago, social sustainability today lacks a clear and shared 475 definition, and a common and well-established metrics to tackle its complexity and its 476 multiple and interrelated dimensions. Measuring and analysing climate change, together with 477 other agri-environmental indicators, has contributed to create a new agri-environmental 478 policy narrative based on metrics related to the environmental sustainability of agriculture. 479 Recently, governments have made efforts to focus their policies on achieving agricultural 480 “sustainable productivity growth” (SPG) (OECD, 2024). The concept of SPG is based on the 481 idea of increasing productivity while reducing the pressures on the environment. The need to 482 also cover the social aspects of sustainability has emerged in the discussion on measuring the 483 24 SPG (OECD, 2024). The main difficulty of measuring social sustainability performance is its 484 many dimensions and context-specificity (Asai & Antón, 2024; Janker & Mann, 2020) 485 Despite this limitation and other existing bottlenecks in addressing social sustainability, an 486 increasing number of governments has started to approach the issues of inequality, 487 inclusiveness and other social issues in agriculture. Since agricultural policies are often not 488 designed for the purpose of tackling social issues, seeking for cross-sectoral approaches and 489 collaboration with other policy areas and stakeholders can help to design policy mixes 490 targeted to the sector’s social concerns. However, the lessons from agri-environmental 491 sustainability show that to advance on the social sustainability agenda a new narrative is 492 needed based on clear definitions and metrics. The design and implementation of suitable 493 policy mixes needs an evidence-based approach to respond to the most pressing social issues. 494 In a context where available statistical tools are not sufficient to measure the well-being of 495 farm households and farm workers, measuring income inequalities could be a catalyst to 496 advance on the research and policy agenda on social sustainability through both a new 497 narrative and a new set of indicators. In particular, more reliable data on agricultural 498 household income could be an important first step to design more effective and targeted 499 income support that responds to social sustainability concerns. Investing on data to build a 500 new evidence-based narrative on the sustainable transition of agriculture, that needs to be 501 greener, but also more inclusive and socially sustainable. 502 acknowledgements 503 This paper does not represent the views of the OECD or of its member countries. The opinions 504 expressed and arguments employed are those of the authors. 505 25 This paper builds on the findings from the recent OECD works on agricultural policy reviews 506 (OECD, 2023; OECD, 2024) and social issues in agriculture (Asai & Antón, 2024), and on a 507 keynote presentation at the AIEAA Conference in Bari (Italy) in July 2024 (Antón, et al., 2024). 508 The authors wish to acknowledge the valuable supports made by Helena Rasch and Leonie 509 Gollisch during their internship at the OECD. The authors are also grateful to members of the 510 OECD Farm-Level Analysis Network and country experts who provided case studies. 511 References 512 Adger, W. N., 2010. Social Capital, Collective Action, and Adaptation to Climate Change. In: Der 513 Klimawandel. s.l.:VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 327-345. 514 Aldanondo Ochoa, A. M., Casanovas Oliva, V. & Almansa Sáez, C., 2007. Explaining farm succession: 515 the impact of farm location and off-farm employment opportunities. Spanish Journal of Agricultural 516 Research, 5(2), pp. 214-225. 517 Aldrich, D. P. & Meyer, M. A., 2014. Social Capital and Community Resilience. American Behavioral 518 Scientist, 59(2), pp. 254-269. 519 Antonioli, F., Severini, S. & Vigani, M., 2023. Visa for competitiveness: foreign workforce and Italian 520 dairy farms’ performance. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 50(1), pp. 115-150. 521 Antón, J., Asai, M., Rasch, H. & Vanni, F., 2024. Reconciling productivity and sustainability: are 522 agricultural policies in OECD countries changing compass?. Bari, 13th AIEAA Conference. 523 Asai, M. & Antón, J., 2024. Social issues in agriculture in rural areas, Paris: OECD Publishing. 524 Asai, M., Dwyer, J., Antón, J. & Garcilazo, E., 2023. Fostering agricultural and rural policy dialogue. In: 525 OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers. s.l.:OECD Publishing, Paris. 526 Borsotto, P. & Giarè, F., 2020. L’agricoltura sociale: un’opportunità per le realtà italiane. In: Rapporto 527 2020. s.l.:Programma Rete Rurale Nazionale 2014-2020. 528 Bossard, C., Santin, G. & Guseva Canu, I., 2016. Suicide Among Farmers in France: Occupational 529 Factors and Recent Trends. Journal of Agromedicine, 21(4), pp. 310-315. 530 Brennan, M., Hennessy, T. & Dillon, E., 2020. Towards a better measurement of the social 531 sustainability of Irish agriculture. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 23(3/4), p. 263. 532 Brennan, M., Hennessy, T., Meredith, D. & Dillon, E., 2021. Weather, Workload and Money: 533 Determining and Evaluating Sources of Stress for Farmers in Ireland. Journal of Agromedicine, 27(2), 534 pp. 132-142. 535 Bureau, J. & Antón, J., 2022. Agricultural Total Factor Productivity and the environment: A guide to 536 emerging best practices in measurement. In: OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers. s.l.:OECD 537 Publishing, Paris. 538 26 Campi, M. et al., 2024. The evolving profile of new entrants in agriculture and the role of digital 539 technologies, Paris: OECD Publishing. 540 Castillo, M., Philip, M. & Zachariah, R., 2022. The H-2A Temporary Agricultural Worker Program in 541 2020, s.l.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 542 Cobourn, K., O'Donnell, C., Antón, J. & Henderson, B., 2024. An Index Theory Based Approach to 543 Measuring the Environmentally Sustainable Productivity Performance of Agriculture. In: OECD Food, 544 Agriculture and Fisheries Papers. s.l.:OECD Publishing, Paris. 545 Collins, L. A., McDonald, T. M., Giri, A. K. & Subedi, D., 2023. The relative financial performance of 546 African American farms in the United States since the Great Recession. Applied Economic 547 Perspectives and Policy, 46(1), pp. 32-51. 548 Daghagh Yazd, S., Wheeler, S. & Zuo, A., 2019. Key Risk Factors Affecting Farmers’ Mental Health: A 549 Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Volume 16, p. 550 4849. 551 de Frahan, B. H., Dong, J. & De Blander, R., 2017. Farm Household Incomes in OECD Member 552 Countries over the Last 30 Years of Public Support, s.l.: s.n. 553 DeBoe, G., 2020. Economic and environmental sustainability performance of environmental policies 554 in agriculture, Paris: s.n. 555 Deller, S. C. & Deller, M. A., 2010. Rural Crime and Social Capital. Growth and Change, 41(2), pp. 221-556 275. 557 Dhananjayan, V. & Ravichandran, B., 2018. Occupational health risk of farmers exposed to pesticides 558 in agricultural activities. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health, Volume 4, pp. 31-559 37. 560 ECA, 2016. Is the Commission's system for performance measurement in relation to farmers' incomes 561 well designed and based on sound data?, Luxembourg: European Court of Auditors. 562 Eizenberg, E. & Jabareen, Y., 2017. Social Sustainability: A New Conceptual Framework. 563 Sustainability, 9(1). 564 Elliott, K. C. et al., 2022. Working hours, sleep, and fatigue in the agriculture, forestry, and fishing 565 sector: A scoping review. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 65(11), pp. 898-912. 566 FAO, 2020. Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment in the context of Food Security and 567 Nutrition. s.l.:s.n. 568 FAO, 2022. Sustainable Food and Agriculture . s.l.:s.n. 569 Farm Management Canada, 2020. Healthy Minds, Healthy Farmers: Exploring the Connection 570 between Mental Health and Farm Business Management. [Online] 571 Available at: https://fmc-gac.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/finalreport.pdf 572 Finger, R. et al., 2024. Farmer Protests in Europe 2023–2024. EuroChoices. 573 Gardner, B. L., 1992. Changing Economic Perspectives on the Farm Problem. Journal of Economic 574 Literature, 30(1), pp. 62-101. 575 Giddings, B., Hopwood, B. & O'Brien, G., 2002. Environment, economy and society: fitting them 576 together into sustainable development. Sustainable Development, Volume 10, pp. 187-196. 577 27 Giner, C., Hobeika, M. & Fischetti, C., 2022. Gender and food systems: Overcoming evidence gaps. In: 578 OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers. s.l.:OECD Publishing, Paris. 579 Guerrero, S., 2021. Characterising agri-environmental policies: Towards measuring their progress. In: 580 OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers. s.l.:OECD Publishing, Paris. 581 Guirong & Oba, S., 2023. Potential People of Disability in Agriculture, as Social Farming in Japan, 582 Compared with Other Countries. Reviews in Agricultural Science, Volume 11, pp. 181-202. 583 Hagen, B. N. M. et al., 2019. Research trends in farmers’ mental health: A scoping review of mental 584 health outcomes and interventions among farming populations worldwide. PLOS ONE, 14(12), p. 585 e0225661. 586 Halstead, J. M., Deller, S. C. & Leyden, K. M., 2021. Social capital and community development: 587 Where do we go from here?. Community Development, 53(1), pp. 92-108. 588 Hill, B. & Bradley, B. D., 2015. Comparison of farmers’ incomes in the EU member states, Brussels: 589 European Parliament. 590 Hostiou, N., Vollet, D., Benoit, M. & Delfosse, C., 2020. Employment and farmers’ work in European 591 ruminant livestock farms: A review. Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 74, pp. 223-234. 592 Howden, S. et al., 2007. Adapting agriculture to climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Volume 593 104, p. 19691–19696. 594 HSE, 2023. Agriculture, forestry and fishing statistics in Great Britain, 2023, s.l.: Health and Safety 595 Executive. 596 ILO, 2023. Policy guidelines for the promotion of decent work in the agri-food sector – Meeting of 597 Experts on Decent Work in the Agri-food Sector: An Essential Part of Sustainable Food Systems 598 (Geneva, 8–12 May 2023), s.l.: s.n. 599 Janker, J. & Mann, S., 2020. Understanding the social dimension of sustainability in agriculture: a 600 critical review of sustainability assessment tools. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 601 Volume 22, p. 1671–1691. 602 Janker, J., Mann, S. & Rist, S., 2019. Social sustainability in agriculture – A system-based framework. 603 Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 65, pp. 32-42. 604 Kalantaryan, S., Scipioni, M., Natale, F. & Alessandrini, A., 2021. Immigration and integration in rural 605 areas and the agricultural sector: An EU perspective. Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 88, pp. 462-606 472. 607 Katchova, A. L., 2008. A Comparison of the Economic Well‐Being of Farm and Nonfarm Households. 608 American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(3), pp. 733-747. 609 Kelly, E. et al., 2018. Sustainability indicators for improved assessment of the effects of agricultural 610 policy across the EU: Is FADN the answer?. Ecological Indicators, Volume 89, pp. 903-911. 611 Kulik, R. M., 2023. "Social issue". [Online] 612 Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-issue 613 [Accessed 4 October 2023]. 614 Lacy, K., 2023. Race and Ethnicity of U.S. Farmers and Ranchers: Background, Data, and Recent 615 Trends. Presentation for the OECD Farm-Level Analysis Network (FLAN) 32nd Meeting. 616 28 Lankoski, J., 2016. Alternative Payment Approaches for Biodiversity Conservation in Agriculture. In: 617 OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers. s.l.:OECD Publishing, Paris. 618 Marino, M., Rocchi, B. & Severini, S., 2021. Conditional Income Disparity between Farm and Non‐619 farm Households in the European Union: A Longitudinal Analysis. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 620 72(2), pp. 589-606. 621 Marino, M., Rocchi, B. & Severini, S., 2023. Assessing the Farm–Nonfarm Households' Income Gap 622 along the Income Distribution in the European Union. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 623 62(2), pp. 318-340. 624 Marlenga, B. et al., 2010. Impact of Long Farm Working Hours on Child Safety Practices in 625 Agricultural Settings. The Journal of Rural Health, 26(4), pp. 366-372. 626 Martin, P. L., 2016. Migrant Workers in Commercial Agriculture. s.l.:s.n. 627 Matthews, A., 2024. Farmer Protests and Income Developments in the EU. The Political Quarterly, 628 Volume 95, pp. 344-349. 629 Meloni, C. et al., 2024. Are rural households poorer than non-rural households in Europe?. Journal of 630 Rural Studies, Volume 106, p. 103214. 631 Meloni, C., Rocchi, B. & Severini, S., 2023. A systematic literature review on the rural-urban 632 economic well-being gap in Europe. Bio-based and Applied Economics, 12(4), pp. 305-321. 633 Merisalu, E., Leppälä, J., Jakob, M. & Rautiainen, R., 2019. Variation in Eurostat and national statistics 634 of accidents in agriculture. Agronomy Research, 17(5), pp. 1969-1983. 635 Miller, C. D. M. & Rudolphi, J. M., 2022. Characteristics of suicide among farmers and ranchers: Using 636 the CDC NVDRS 2003–2018. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 65(8), pp. 675-689. 637 Mittenzwei, K. et al., 2024. Decomposing household income differences between farmers and non‐638 farmers: Empirical evidence from Norway. Journal of Agricultural Economics. 639 Moser, R. & Saner, K., 2022. Les femmes dans l’agriculture: Rapport sur l’étude 2022, s.l.: AGRIDEA. 640 Nowack, W., Schmid, J. C. & Grethe, H., 2022. Social dimensions of multifunctional agriculture in 641 Europe - towards an interdisciplinary framework. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 642 20(5), pp. 758-773. 643 OECD/EC-JRC, 2021. Access and Cost of Education and Health Services: Preparing Regions for 644 Demographic Change. In: OECD Rural Studies. s.l.:OECD Publishing, Paris. 645 OECD/FAO, 2016. OECD-FAO Guidance for Responsible Agricultural Supply Chains. s.l.:OECD 646 Publishing, Paris. 647 OECD, 2003. Farm Household Income: Issues and Policy Responses. Paris: OECD Publishing. 648 OECD, 2019. Linking Indigenous Communities with Regional Development. In: OECD Rural Policy 649 Reviews. s.l.:OECD Publishing, Paris. 650 OECD, 2020. How's Life? 2020: Measuring Well-being. 651 OECD, 2020. Rural Well-being: Geography of Opportunities. In: OECD Rural Studies. s.l.:OECD 652 Publishing, Paris. 653 29 OECD, 2021. Making Better Policies for Food Systems. s.l.:OECD Publishing, Paris. 654 OECD, 2022. Making Agri-Environmental Payments More Cost Effective. s.l.:OECD Publishing, Paris. 655 OECD, 2023. Measuring the Environmental Performance of Agriculture Across OECD Countries, Paris: 656 OECD Publishing. 657 OECD, 2023. Policies for the Future of Farming and Food in the European Union. In: OECD Agriculture 658 and Food Policy Reviews. s.l.:OECD Publishing, Paris. 659 OECD, 2024. Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2024. 660 Olesen, E. J. & Bindi, M., 2002. Consequences of climate change for European agricultural 661 productivity, land use and policy. European Journal of Agronomy, 16(4), pp. 239-262. 662 Page, A. N. & Fragar, L. J., 2002. Suicide in Australian Farming, 1988–1997. Australian & New 663 Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36(1), pp. 81-85. 664 Purc-Stephenson, Doctor & Keehn, 2023. Understanding the factors contributing to farmer suicide: a 665 meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Rural and Remote Health. 666 Ramos, A. K., Girdžiūtė, L., Starič, J. & Rautianinen, R. H., 2020. Identifying “Vulnerable Agricultural 667 Populations” at Risk for Occupational Injuries and Illnesses: A European Perspective. Journal of 668 Agromedicine, 26(3), pp. 340-345. 669 Riethmuller, M. L., Dzidic, P. L., McEvoy, P. M. & Newnham, E. A., 2023. Change, connection and 670 community: A qualitative exploration of farmers' mental health. Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 97, 671 pp. 591-600. 672 Rivera, M., Knickel, K., María Díaz‐Puente, J. & Afonso, A., 2018. The Role of Social Capital in 673 Agricultural and Rural Development:Lessons Learnt from Case Studies in Seven Countries. Sociologia 674 Ruralis, 59(1), pp. 66-91. 675 Rocchi, B., Marino, M. & Severini, S., 2020. Does an Income Gap between Farm and Nonfarm 676 Households Still Exist? The Case of the European Union. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 677 43(4), pp. 1672-1697. 678 Ryan, M., 2023. Labour and skills shortages in the agro-food sector. In: OECD Food, Agriculture and 679 Fisheries Papers. s.l.:OECD Publishing, Paris. 680 Saleh, R. & Ehlers, M., 2023. Exploring farmers’ perceptions of social sustainability. Environment, 681 Development and Sustainability. 682 Sartor, L., 2021. Farmer Suicides - Exploring Ten Yeas of Coronial Data (2009-2018). [Online] 683 Available at: https://www.ruralhealth.org.au/news/first-national-study-farmer-suicide-rates-using-684 coronial-data 685 Smith, K., 2020. Desolation in the countryside: How agricultural crime impacts the mental health of 686 British farmers. Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 80, pp. 522-531. 687 Todd, J., Whitt, C., Key, N. & Mandalay, O., 2024. An Overview of Farms Operated by Socially 688 Disadvantaged, Women, and Limited Resource Farmers and Ranchers in the United States, s.l.: s.n. 689 UN, 2009. Large-scale land aquisitions and leases: A set of minimum principles and measures to 690 address the human rights challenge Summary. 691 30 WHO, 2004. Health of workers in agriculture, s.l.: s.n. 692 Zagata, L. & Sutherland, L. A., 2015. Deconstructing the ‘young farmer problem in Europe’: Towards 693 a research agenda. Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 38, pp. 39-51. 694 695