Search results

This article looks at the development of the politics of nitrate pollution control in Britain between its emergence on the agenda in the early 1970s and 1988. Using and adapting Blowers' development of the key approaches to policy analysis it explores the way in which the issue, which was for a long while treated as a minor one, of concern only to the experts within the water industry, has moved towards the centre of the political stage as a consequence of British difficulties in complying with the requirements of the EEC Drinking Water Directive, the privatisation of the water industry and a decline in the political influence of agriculture. It suggests, however, that this shift has been slow and tentative, and that it remains unclear to what extent actual controls will be imposed upon farmers and who will bear the cost of those controls.

International audience ; The EU Rural Development Regulation (RDR) was launched in 2000 as the new 'second pillar' of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The rhetoric surrounding the Regulation emphasised decentralised delivery and a territorial and multi-sectoral focus – relatively new and unfamiliar principles for the CAP. Evidence from a study of RDR Programmes is used to evaluate how this experiment has performed in the initial years, highlighting the need for institutional adaptation to enable effective delivery. The prospects for achieving this are assessed in the light of recent policy developments. Despite the restricted funds available for 2007-13, Member States still have many opportunities to improve the cost-effectiveness of rural development under the CAP.

The EU Rural Development Regulation (RDR) was launched in 2000 as the new 'second pillar' of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The rhetoric surrounding the Regulation emphasised decentralised delivery and a territorial and multi-sectoral focus – relatively new and unfamiliar principles for the CAP. Evidence from a study of RDR Programmes is used to evaluate how this experiment has performed in the initial years, highlighting the need for institutional adaptation to enable effective delivery. The prospects for achieving this are assessed in the light of recent policy developments. Despite the restricted funds available for 2007-13, Member States still have many opportunities to improve the cost-effectiveness of rural development under the CAP.

ENARPRI Working paper ; 010 ; Contrat ; B04817 ; European network of agricultural and rural policy research institutes [ENARPRI] Diffusion du document : INRA Unité d'Economie et Sociologie rurales 4 Allée Adolphe Bobierre CS 61103 35011 Rennes cedex (FRA) ; (Côte : HG 151) ; Le document de travail propose différents scénarios "emboîtés" permettant d'analyser les impacts potentiels des réformes multilatérales des politiques agricoles à l'OMC sur la multifonctionnalité de l'agriculture européenne.

Agriculture generates roughly one-quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions. By 2050, without major mitigation efforts, agricultural emissions are likely to reach levels that would make meeting global climate targets practically unachievable. Meanwhile, countries that produce two-thirds of the world's agricultural output provided US$600 billion per year in agricultural financial support on average from 2014 to 2016. By evaluating these support programs, both overall and with six case studies, this report finds that many governments have moved to make their farm support less likely to distort what farmers produce, but only a modest portion of programs support environmental objectives, and even fewer support the mitigation of climate change. Out of US$300 billion in direct spending, only 9 percent explicitly supports conservation, while another 12 percent supports research and technical assistance. Instances in which receiving government funding is contingent upon supporting environmental objectives provide models on which to build but so far have produced only modest environmental benefits. Because crop and pasture yields need to grow dramatically to avoid more deforestation and other conversion of native habitats, mitigation priorities include help for farmers to boost yields and livestock productivity. Yet to avoid inadvertently encouraging more conversion, this aid must be conditioned on the protection of forests and other native areas. Overall, climate-oriented support for agriculture should have as a guiding principle increasing the efficient use of land and other natural resources. Incentive programs should be structured so that they offer graduated payments for higher climate performance. Governments should also prioritize coordinated projects across multiple producers to explore critically needed innovations in farm management, and should support those projects with research and technical assistance.

Leaving the European Union will present significant challenges to the farming industry, and creative change is required for a new agricultural policy after the transition period. Many farms rely on public support and there is a need to review possible solutions that will replace and improve on the Common Agricultural Policy, for both the industry and wider society. In particular, could the resources currently spent on CAP basic and coupled payments be redirected to pay for the delivery of public environmental goods? This study aims to contribute to preparing the evidence for post-Brexit agricultural and environmental support in this context. The results are intended to provide a basis for discussion and an illustration of how various proposals for supporting agriculture and the environment after exiting the EU could be applied. The objectives of this study are to:  illustrate how the concept of public money for public goods could be realised across a range of farm types in Scotland;  using case studies, make a comparison of current agricultural support with alternative proposals for rewarding farmers for the delivery of environmental public goods;  assess the impact on farm income of the various proposals compared with current pillar 1 and pillar 2 payments on the selected farms; and  discuss the feasibility