Opportunities and challenges for Common Agricultural Policy reform to support the European Green Deal

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the European Union's main instrument for agricultural planning, with a new reform approved for 2023-2027. The CAP intends to align with the European Green Deal (EGD), a set of policy initiatives underpinning sustainable development and climate neutrality in the European Union (EU), but several flaws cast doubts about the compatibility of the objectives of these 2 policies. We reviewed recent literature on the potential of CAP environmental objectives for integration with the EGD: protection of biodiversity, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and sustainable management of natural resources. The CAP lacks appropriate planning measures, furthering instead risks to biodiversity and ecosystem services driven by landscape and biotic homogenization. Funding allocation mechanisms are not tailored to mitigate agricultural emissions, decreasing the efficiency of climate mitigation actions. The legislation subsidies farmers making extensive use of synthetic inputs without adequately supporting organic production, hindering the transition toward sustainable practices. We recommend proper control mechanisms be introduced in CAP Strategic Plans from each member state to ensure the EU is set on a sustainable production and consumption path. These include proportional assignment of funds to each CAP objective, quantitative targets to set goals and evidence-based interventions, and relevant indicators to facilitate effective monitoring of environmental performance. Both the CAP and the EGD should maintain ambitious environmental commitments in the face of crisis to avoid further degradation of the natural resources on which production systems stand.

The hedgerow: industrial farming's "useful idiot"?: The contributions and limitations of radical criticism in sociological analysis

What can we, as sociologists, do with radical political criticism? The publication of the book Reprendre la terre aux machines (Reclaiming the land from the machines) by the cooperative L'Atelier Paysan (2021) offers a particular answer to this age-old question. The starting point of this "manifesto for peasant and food autonomy" is the authors' dissatisfaction with the results of their own efforts. The aim of this paper is then to address the following question: are hedgerows, and with them all those who defend their greater consideration in agricultural policies, the "useful idiots" of the dominant agricultural model? The discussion is therefore organised in two stages. Firstly, it presents the arguments showing that hedgerows can support consensual ecologisation that marginalises a more profound transformation of the agricultural economy. Secondly, however, it then explores the limitations of this position by arguing that if greening via hedgerows is indeed marginal, it is not reduced to being a useful idiot but participates in ecologisation from the margins. The main lesson of this paper is to highlight the benefits for sociology to take seriously the political analyses of stakeholders, not only as objects of study but also as sparks to inspire the sociological imagination.

Assessment of agri-environmental situation in selected EU countries: a multi-criteria decision-making approach for sustainable agricultural development

In recent years, humanity has faced with multiple crises, both of economic and environmental nature. Among the key reasons for such turbulences, the deteriorating agri-environmental situation appears as an important facet. This article evaluates agri-environmental situation of selected European Union (EU) countries using the multi-criteria decision making methods (SAW, TOPSIS, and EDAS) to identify the potential strategies for improvement of agricultural activities and environmental situation in general. The set of indicators, compiled from the database, prepared by the European Commission (EC) was used for this research. The empirical results show that the trends in agri-environmental situation of selected EU countries are similar under all the methods used. The best agri-environmental situation both at the beginning and at the end of the research period was in Finland, Ireland, and Sweden. On contrary, the worst situation was identified in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany. The only case of decline in the agri-environmental performance is observed for Lithuania, whereas ascension in ranks is observed for Austria and Poland. The results are of particular importance in the period of development of agri-environment and climate schemes for the European Union Common Agricultural Policy post-2020.

A multi-actor, participatory approach to identify policy and technical barriers to better farming practices that protect our drinking water sources

Despite an improvement of water quality across Europe there are many pollution hotspots for both nitrates and PPPs, mainly due to agricultural activities. The BMPs and MMs to reduce pollution from agriculture are well known, and there are policy instruments in place to ensure drinking water standards, but the current approach has not been efficient enough. Within the H2020 Water Protect project the premise was that there is a need for a multi-actor, participatory approach to tackle the issue from a new angle, and to assess why the uptake of known BMPs and MMs was not better among farmers. Seven "Action Labs" were selected that represent major physical, socio-economical, cultural and farming settings across Europe. A methodology of multi-actor engagement was chosen but with different approaches due to the local context. Initially the level of farmers' awareness about water quality issues was matched to the observed uptake rates of BMPs and MMs. In a second survey barriers hindering the uptake of measures were identified. The first survey revealed a low general awareness on the potential pollution to drinking water sources. Despite this, between 24% to 88% of the surveyed farmers per Action Lab were already voluntarily adopting one quarter of the selected BMPs and MMs. The second survey demonstrated the need to address organisational, legislative, sociological and technical barriers. The lack of coordination between different institutional bodies promoting measures and the financial incentives needed to invest and operate these often-costly measures need to be considered. The multi-actor, participatory approach with its improved awareness and collaboration made it possible to identify the crucial factors for improvement - to build a social acceptance among all actors and communicate the issues and solutions from the start.

Changes in land-cover within high nature value farmlands inside and outside Natura 2000 sites in Europe: A preliminary assessment

Low-intensity agriculture is important for the conservation of many European habitats and species. However, biodiverse farmlands-also referred to as high nature value (HNV) farmlands-are threatened by years of agricultural intensification and land abandonment. Considering the ongoing changes in land-cover-evident throughout Europe-it is important to assess how land transformation is affecting HNV farmlands. Here, we evaluate land-cover changes within HNV farmlands during 2006-2018. We find that HNV farmlands inside Natura 2000 sites are less likely than those outside to be converted to artificial surfaces and more likely to maintain mosaic farming. However, land transformation patterns vary between member states, suggesting that different processes are driving the land-cover changes within each state. We recommend that member states support HNV farmers by making a more effective use of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and that the EU prioritizes the protection of HNV farmlands during its next CAP reform post-2020.

Governance networks around grasslands with contrasting management history

Romanian grasslands have high nature value, being among the most important biodiversity hotspots at the European level. The European Union Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) contradicts the Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 objectives by hindering coordinated grassland governance and collaboration among the involved actors. At the European level, few attempts have been made in creating conceptual strategies for implementing conservation measures in a multi-actor and multi-scale governance setting. Our paper focuses on a comparative network analysis of grassland governance of three Romanian regions (Iron Gates Natural Park - SW; Sighisoara - Tarnava Mare - center; and Dobrogea - SE), representatives for grassland management in mountain and lowland landscapes. We investigated the structural characteristics of one-mode directed governance networks in the three protected areas (standard cohesion and reciprocity metrics, exponential random graph models), the position of actors participating in networks (node-level centrality metrics), and the perception of CAP influence on grassland governance by farmers benefiting of CAP agri-environmental payments. In Sighisoara, grassland governance has been centralized but biodiversity-friendly, while in Iron Gates, grasslands were traditionally managed through a decentralized, community-level system, and this type of governance continues to date. In Dobrogea, grassland governance was performed in an intensive, centralized state-run management regime during the communist time and by large landowners after the transition period ended. Our findings illustrate the structure of the three governance networks and dissimilar patterns of collaboration, indicating distinct particularities to be considered when exploring barriers to and options for successful governance in traditionally managed grasslands in the context of CAP measures-driven management.

Action needed for the EU Common Agricultural Policy to address sustainability challenges

Making agriculture sustainable is a global challenge. In the European Union (EU), the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is failing with respect to biodiversity, climate, soil, land degradation as well as socio-economic challenges.The European Commission's proposal for a CAP post-2020 provides a scope for enhanced sustainability. However, it also allows Member States to choose low-ambition implementation pathways. It therefore remains essential to address citizens' demands for sustainable agriculture and rectify systemic weaknesses in the CAP, using the full breadth of available scientific evidence and knowledge.Concerned about current attempts to dilute the environmental ambition of the future CAP, and the lack of concrete proposals for improving the CAP in the draft of the European Green Deal, we call on the European Parliament, Council and Commission to adopt 10 urgent action points for delivering sustainable food production, biodiversity conservation and climate mitigation.Knowledge is available to help moving towards evidence-based, sustainable European agriculture that can benefit people, nature and their joint futures.The statements made in this article have the broad support of the scientific community, as expressed by above 3,600 signatories to the preprint version of this manuscript. The list can be found here (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3685632).

A critical analysis of the potential for EU Common Agricultural Policy measures to support wild pollinators on farmland

Agricultural intensification and associated loss of high-quality habitats are key drivers of insect pollinator declines. With the aim of decreasing the environmental impact of agriculture, the 2014 EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) defined a set of habitat and landscape features (Ecological Focus Areas: EFAs) farmers could select from as a requirement to receive basic farm payments. To inform the post-2020 CAP, we performed a European-scale evaluation to determine how different EFA options vary in their potential to support insect pollinators under standard and pollinator-friendly management, as well as the extent of farmer uptake.A structured Delphi elicitation process engaged 22 experts from 18 European countries to evaluate EFAs options. By considering life cycle requirements of key pollinating taxa (i.e. bumble bees, solitary bees and hoverflies), each option was evaluated for its potential to provide forage, bee nesting sites and hoverfly larval resources.EFA options varied substantially in the resources they were perceived to provide and their effectiveness varied geographically and temporally. For example, field margins provide relatively good forage throughout the season in Southern and Eastern Europe but lacked early-season forage in Northern and Western Europe. Under standard management, no single EFA option achieved high scores across resource categories and a scarcity of late season forage was perceived.Experts identified substantial opportunities to improve habitat quality by adopting pollinator-friendly management. Improving management alone was, however, unlikely to ensure that all pollinator resource requirements were met. Our analyses suggest that a combination of poor management, differences in the inherent pollinator habitat quality and uptake bias towards catch crops and nitrogen-fixing crops severely limit the potential of EFAs to support pollinators in European agricultural landscapes. Policy Implications. To conserve pollinators and help protect pollination services, our expert elicitation highlights the need to create a variety of interconnected, well-managed habitats that complement each other in the resources they offer. To achieve this the Common Agricultural Policy post-2020 should take a holistic view to implementation that integrates the different delivery vehicles aimed at protecting biodiversity (e.g. enhanced conditionality, eco-schemes and agri-environment and climate measures). To improve habitat quality we recommend an effective monitoring framework with target-orientated indicators and to facilitate the spatial targeting of options collaboration between land managers should be incentivised.

Brexit and Animal Welfare Impact Assessment: Analysis of the Opportunities Brexit Presents for Animal Protection in the UK, EU, and Internationally

Simple Summary

The British people voted in 2016 to leave the European Union (EU). The UK has a unique history as a leader in animal protection policy. It has a relatively large economy and significant political power on a global basis. Brexit presents both threats and opportunities to animal protection in the United Kingdom (UK), EU, and internationally. This paper assesses the opportunities Brexit presents for animal protection in terms of five criteria. These are first, the political situation; second, regulatory changes; third, economic and trade factors; fourth, institutional considerations; and fifth, EU and international impacts. Brexit provides the opportunity to reform UK farming to promote high animal welfare outside of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Brexit means the UK can ban live animal exports and the import and sale of fur products and foie gras outside of the EU. Leaving the EU permits the UK to have stricter requirements for the Pet Travel Scheme (PETS) to control puppy smuggling. Brexit provides an opportunity for the UK Government to reform policy-making for sentient animals. New sentience legislation could establish a fully independent UK Animal Welfare Advisory body and mandate Government to use animal welfare impact assessments on all policy that affects sentient species. Despite such opportunities, the UK Government appears uncommitted to major reforms. The drafting of the Agriculture Bill does not suggest a progressive animal welfare agenda. For live exports, the Government will consult on how to improve welfare, rather than outright prohibition. Similarly, rather than ban the import and sale of fur, the Government will use its influence to improve the welfare of fur-farmed animals outside the UK. Brexit provides some opportunities for animal protection. Pre-Brexit, the Government has not demonstrated the political will and commitment to realise these opportunities.

Abstract

The British people voted in a 2016 referendum to leave the European Union (EU). Brexit presents threats and opportunities to animal protection in the United Kingdom (UK), the EU, and internationally. This paper discusses opportunities for animal protection in terms of five criteria. These are first, political context; second, regulatory changes; third, economic and trade factors; fourth, institutional- and capacity-related factors; and fifth, EU and international considerations. Brexit permits reform of UK agricultural policy outside of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to reward high welfare as a public good. The Agriculture Bill, however, does not suggest a radical reform agenda for animal welfare. Brexit permits a ban on live exports, but the UK Government is consulting on improving welfare, not prohibition. Brexit provides an opportunity to ban the import and sale of fur, but the UK Government has signalled it will work to improve welfare in fur farming. Brexit permits the UK to prohibit the import and sale of foie gras, but the Government has stated a ban may be challenged at the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Brexit allows more stringent Pet Travel Scheme (PETS) requirements to reduce puppy smuggling. Lucy’s Law and stricter enforcement will also mitigate the problem. New sentience legislation provides the opportunity for a fully independent and properly constituted UK Animal Welfare Advisory body conducting animal welfare impact assessments and ethical appraisal. The Government has proposed sentience legislation but there is a major risk it will not be in place before the UK leaves the EU. The Government has expanded the remit of the Farm Animal Welfare Committee, which is not fully independent and is dominated by veterinary members and agricultural interests. Brexit provides some opportunities for animal protection with radical reform of agricultural policy, prohibition of live exports, and banning the import and sale of fur and foie gras. Pre-Brexit, the Government has not demonstrated the political will and commitment to realise these opportunities.

Brexit and Animal Welfare Impact Assessment: Analysis of the Threats Brexit Poses to Animal Protection in the UK, EU and Internationally

The British people voted in a 2016 referendum to leave the European Union (EU). Brexit presents both threats and opportunities to animal protection in the United Kingdom (UK), EU and internationally. This paper discusses threats to animal protection in terms of five criteria. These are first, political context; second, regulatory changes; third, economic and trade factors; fourth, institutional and capacity-related factors; and fifth, EU and international considerations. The EU has the most progressive animal welfare laws in the world. The Conservative Government delivering Brexit has a mixed record on animal protection. Major time and resource constraints inherent in Brexit risk negatively impacting animal protection. Brexit is projected to have a negative economic impact, which is generally associated with lower animal welfare standards. The development of Brexit policy suggests there to be a substantial risk that the major threat of importing lower welfare products to the UK will materialise. Brexit will reduce the political influence of the progressive animal protection lobby in the EU. Post-Brexit, the politically and economically weakened EU and UK risks a detrimental impact on animal protection on an international scale. Brexit poses substantial threats to animal protection, with a high risk that many threats will materialise. Further research is needed to assess the opportunities presented by Brexit to judge whether Brexit will be overall positive or negative for animal protection.

Assessing the role of CAP for more sustainable and healthier food systems in Europe: A literature review

Today, the European food system is characterized by unhealthy dietary trends, environmentally unsustainable production, and a dependency on an ageing farming population. The ongoing reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) represents an opportunity to redress these issues. This literature review highlights trends in how academic and grey literature have received CAP attempts in addressing the (i) environmental issues, (ii) nutritional outcomes, and (iii) rural livelihoods. Additionally, future policy and research directions relating to the CAP have been identified from the selected literature. The reviewed literature varies in approach and perspective. In particular, since the environment and rural development are already part of the CAP, the reviewed studies analyze and propose improvements to existing mechanisms. While for nutrition, the reviewed studies assessed possible policy strategies for integrating this sphere within the CAP, highlighting both the complexity of this task as well as its potential benefits. Despite these differences, a clear commonality emerged from the policy recommendations: the CAP should promote the European Union (EU) policy integration and multi-disciplinary and participatory research as key strategies to meet food system sustainability targets.

Brexit and Animal Protection: Legal and Political Context and a Framework to Assess Impacts on Animal Welfare

Simple Summary

The British public voted to leave the European Union (EU) in a 2016 referendum and the United Kingdom (UK) is set to leave in March 2019. The UK has been part of the EU or the European Communities (EC) before it for around 50 years. Britain has had a major impact on EU animal protection laws and the UK as a member state has been substantially influenced by EU law. Brexit represents a major political change that will affect animal protection in the UK, the EU and internationally. Given the far greater numbers of animals used in agriculture, the impact of the UK’s departure from the EU on farm animals will determine whether Brexit is overall good or bad for animal protection. A major threat that Brexit poses is importing lower welfare meat and dairy products to the UK. A major opportunity post-Brexit is reform of agricultural policy to reward high animal welfare outside of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). A soft Brexit, where the UK remains aligned to the EU in policy and trade, reduces the risks Brexit poses to animal protection. A hard Brexit means major threats to animal welfare are more likely to materialise. Further research is required to investigate whether the various threats and opportunities are likely to materialise and whether Brexit will be, all things considered, good or bad for animal protection.

Abstract

The British people voted to leave the European Union (EU) in a 2016 referendum. The United Kingdom (UK) has been a member of the EU since the Maastricht Treaty was signed in 1993 and before that a member of the European Communities (EC) since 1973. EU animal health and welfare regulations and directives have had a major impact on UK animal protection policy. Similarly, the UK has had a substantial impact on EU animal protection. Brexit represents a substantial political upheaval for animal protection policy, with the potential to impact animal welfare in the UK, EU and internationally. Brexit’s impact on farmed animals will determine the overall impact of Brexit on animals. A major threat to animal welfare is from importing lower welfare products. A major opportunity is reform of UK agricultural policy to reward high welfare outside the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). A soft Brexit, in which the UK remains in the single market and/or customs union, mitigates the threat of importing lower welfare products. A harder Brexit means threats to animal welfare are more likely to materialise. Whether threats and opportunities do materialise will depend on political considerations including decisions of key political actors. The Conservative Government delivering Brexit has a problematic relationship with animal protection. Furthermore, Brexit represents a shift to the political right, which is not associated with progressive animal protection. There is significant political support in the Conservative Party for a hard Brexit. Further research is required to investigate whether the various threats and opportunities are likely to materialise.

Adoption of Farm Management Systems for Cross Compliance - An empirical case in Germany

In Germany, Farm Management Systems (FMS) have been introduced as a support to farmers' compliance with environmental and other regulations, aiming at the increase of farm level performance and sustainable farming practices. Different kinds of FMS were developed and promulgated with various approaches, determined by each federal state's agricultural advisory system. Knowledge on the FMS' uptake and effectiveness has been lacking so far. The overall aim of this paper is to provide an analysis of the implementation process and selected outcomes of the policy-driven instrumental innovation of FMS. In particular, the objectives are i) to reveal how and with what success the introduction of FMS has been realised in Germany and ii) to analyse and discuss the FMS' adoption in the federal state of Brandenburg. For the first part of the study, we elaborate a situational analysis of the policy implementation through a desk study and expert interviews. In the second part, selected results from a farmers' survey in Brandenburg are presented and a switching regression model is developed to assess the factors responsible for the uptake of FMS and to understand the role of FMS in improving the confidence in complying with Cross Compliance regulations. We found a high degree of diversity among FMS developed in the different federal states. FMS adoption rates varied, but were generally low. Institutional environment seems to have a significant influence as the same FMS had very different adoption rates among federal states. For Brandenburg, our findings show that farmers' confidence to face CC check was increased by the adoption of FMS. However, counterfactual scenario analysis proved that especially farmers who did not adopt FMS would have benefitted most if they had adopted the tool. Our study shows that there is a need for systems supporting farmers in dealing with bureaucratic requirements. Future FMS should be easy to understand, adaptable to individual farmers' needs and be available at low costs. Furthermore, there is a need to design FMS in a participatory way that integrates farmers' expectations.

Changes in grassland management and plant diversity in a marginal region of the Carpathian Mts. in 1999-2015

The political change from socialism to democracy in countries of Central and Eastern Europe at the end of the 20th century induced broad changes in agriculture mostly due to land ownership changes and strong reduction of subsidies to agriculture. This resulted in agricultural decline, including grassland abandonment, which influenced grassland biodiversity and conservation. Between 1999 and 2015 we studied the grasslands in the area depopulated in the early 1980's in the Poloniny National Park (NE Slovakia, Carpathian Mts.). The aim of the study was to examine influence of environmental factors and grassland management driven by the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to plant community structure and taxonomical diversity. We identified altitude and soil properties as the main environmental factors: altitude determines climate gradient and probably also management intensity gradient and soil properties express soil fertility via A-horizon depth. We identified remarkable increase of proportion of managed grasslands from only 8% in 1999 to 40% in 2012-2015; other 7% of sampled grasslands were recently restored and prepared for future management. The average species richness in grasslands managed in 2012-2015 increased from 47.5 species per record in 1999 to 54.2 species in 2012-2015, the increase was found statistically significant. In 2012-2015, we observed statistically significant difference in the average species richness between managed (54.2) and abandoned grasslands (46.3). The agricultural subsidies of the CAP drive the grassland management in the study area. Therefore, we conclude that CAP enabled grassland biodiversity maintenance in significant part of the Poloniny National Park following start of its application in 2004 and above provided figures can be considered as indicators of the CAP effectiveness in our study area. However, the conservation of mountain meadows remains a challenge because of their poor accessibility.

Food and Agriculture Policy in Europe

Diet includes many risk factors for the most common non-communicable diseases (NCDs), but diets consumed in Europe and in other parts of the developed world are not being modified sufficiently to take account of health priorities concerning, in particular, the prevention of NCDs, while much excess mortality and morbidity could be prevented by government actions to regulate appropriately both the agricultural and food industries, and to apply appropriate taxes and subsidies to promote healthier nutrition. In Europe, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) continues to promote production of saturated fat rich foods and sugar, with scarce attempts to promote increased production of fruit and vegetables. Meanwhile, the food industry continues to market secondary food products rich in sugar, salt and saturated fats. Powerful lobbies seek to block reform; however, necessary reforms are indicated in the interests of improved nutritional health.

The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation and environmental management

Over half of the European landscape is under agricultural management and has been for millennia. Many species and ecosystems of conservation concern in Europe depend on agricultural management and are showing ongoing declines. Agri-environment schemes (AES) are designed partly to address this. They are a major source of nature conservation funding within the European Union (EU) and the highest conservation expenditure in Europe. We reviewed the structure of current AES across Europe. Since a 2003 review questioned the overall effectiveness of AES for biodiversity, there has been a plethora of case studies and meta-analyses examining their effectiveness. Most syntheses demonstrate general increases in farmland biodiversity in response to AES, with the size of the effect depending on the structure and management of the surrounding landscape. This is important in the light of successive EU enlargement and ongoing reforms of AES. We examined the change in effect size over time by merging the data sets of 3 recent meta-analyses and found that schemes implemented after revision of the EU's agri-environmental programs in 2007 were not more effective than schemes implemented before revision. Furthermore, schemes aimed at areas out of production (such as field margins and hedgerows) are more effective at enhancing species richness than those aimed at productive areas (such as arable crops or grasslands). Outstanding research questions include whether AES enhance ecosystem services, whether they are more effective in agriculturally marginal areas than in intensively farmed areas, whether they are more or less cost-effective for farmland biodiversity than protected areas, and how much their effectiveness is influenced by farmer training and advice? The general lesson from the European experience is that AES can be effective for conserving wildlife on farmland, but they are expensive and need to be carefully designed and targeted.

The alignment of agricultural and nature conservation policies in the European Union

Europe is a region of relatively high population density and productive agriculture subject to substantial government intervention under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Many habitats and species of high conservation interest have been created by the maintenance of agricultural practices over long periods. These practices are often no longer profitable, and nature conservation initiatives require government support to cover the cost for them to be continued. The CAP has been reformed both to reduce production of agricultural commodities at costs in excess of world prices and to establish incentives for landholders to adopt voluntary conservation measures. A separate nature conservation policy has established an extensive series of protected sites (Natura 2000) that has, as yet, failed to halt the loss of biodiversity. Additional broader scale approaches have been advocated for conservation in the wider landscape matrix, including the alignment of agricultural and nature conservation policies, which remains a challenge. Possibilities for alignment include further shifting of funds from general support for farmers toward targeted payments for biodiversity goals at larger scales and adoption of an ecosystem approach. The European response to the competing demands for land resources may offer lessons globally as demands on rural land increase.

Greening, new frontiers for research and employment in the agro-food sector

The "greening" of the European Union's (EU) Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is meant to protect and enhance biodiversity as well as to make food production more sustainable by encouraging, for example, the responsible use of natural resources. The "greening" process seems to be driven by, first of all, the policy push through various policy and regulatory measures. Farmers have to invest time and resources in maintaining permanent grasslands, practice crop diversification and manage ecological focus areas for which they will receive compensation from the EU. "Greening" is also driven by the consumer or market pull generated by preferences for more sustainably produced food and sustainability initiatives along the agro-food chain. EU investments in research and development activities are required for the successful implementation of greening practices. Professionals from different disciplines are called upon to provide, in the next few years, solutions for all the new requirements in order to realize a sustainable and socially and economically healthy agricultural system. Besides this, farmers need support to implement and manage greening measures, but also to reap the benefits of their investments by networking and engaging with stakeholders higher in the agro-food chain, such as retailers and supermarkets. This is not only to assure sustainability at processing, packaging and storage, but also to increase visibility of farmers' practices to consumers through communication that may help influencing consumers' choices. These factors are currently not given the importance they need by the EU, but are crucial for a successful "greening".

Effort for money? Farmers' rationale for participation in agri-environment measures with different implementation complexity

European agri-environment programmes are based on the common principle that farmers deliver environmental services for which society pays. Due to the voluntary nature of agri-environment measures (AEM), the issue of farmers' motives or reasons for participation has been an important topic of investigation in past years. The present paper examines farmers' rationale for participation in AEM against the backdrop of continued debate over whether to develop relatively simple measures that can be readily applied by many farmers or give greater priority to measures that are more targeted - i.e. to the specific management requirement of particular habitats or species - but are often more complex. The paper draws on empirical material from a case study in the Dyle valley, Belgium, including in-depth interviews, expert consultations and a mail survey. It was sought not only to identify and quantify the importance of separate reasons for participation, but also to reveal how these reasons and other elements of relevance were logically interrelated in the explanation that farmers themselves give for their participation. As a result, six modes or styles of participation were identified: opportunistic, calculative, compensatory, optimising, catalysing and engaged. The analyses suggest that there were notable differences in that both separate reasons for and modes of participation do vary with the complexity of the measures' requirements. Overall, the study demonstrates that participation in AEM is not simply a matter of weighing the money against the effort for adoption. Whereas money is an important driver for participation (in particular, for those adopting complex AEM) it plays widely differing roles depending on the level of farmers' reasoning (farm enterprise, single practice or landscape feature) and the importance they give to other considerations (environmental effect, production potential of land, goodness of fit, etc.). Practical implications are drawn for both policy makers and programme managers who develop and make available tailor-made support.

Modelling the interactions between C and N farm balances and GHG emissions from confinement dairy farms in northern Spain

There is world-wide concern for the contribution of dairy farming to global warming. However, there is still a need to improve the quantification of the C-footprint of dairy farming systems under different production systems and locations since most of the studies (e.g. at farm-scale or using LCA) have been carried out using too simplistic and generalised approaches. A modelling approach integrating existing and new sub-models has been developed and used to simulate the C and N flows and to predict the GHG burden of milk production (from the cradle to the farm gate) from 17 commercial confinement dairy farms in the Basque Country (northern Spain). We studied the relationship between their GHG emissions, and their management and economic performance. Additionally, we explored some of the effects on the GHG results of the modelling methodology choice. The GHG burden values resulting from this study (0.84-2.07 kg CO2-eq kg(-l) milk ECM), although variable, were within the range of values of existing studies. It was evidenced, however, that the methodology choice used for prediction had a large effect on the results. Methane from the rumen and manures, and N2O emissions from soils comprised most of the GHG emissions for milk production. Diet was the strongest factor explaining differences in GHG emissions from milk production. Moreover, the proportion of feed from the total cattle diet that could have directly been used to feed humans (e.g. cereals) was a good indicator to predict the C-footprint of milk. Not only were some other indicators, such as those in relation with farm N use efficiency, good proxies to estimate GHG emissions per ha or per kg milk ECM (C-footprint of milk) but they were also positively linked with farm economic performance.