Search results

In global terms, European farms produce high yields of safe and high quality food but this depends on the use of many off-farm inputs and the associated greenhouse gas emissions, loss of soil nutrients and other negative environmental impacts incur substantial societal costs. Farmers in the European Union receive support through a Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) that comprises direct payments to farmers (Pillar I) and payments related to rural development measures (Pillar II). This paper examines the ways in which agroforestry can support European agriculture and rural development drawing on the conclusions of 23 papers presented in this Special Issue of Agroforestry Systems which have been produced during a 4-year research project called AGFORWARD. The project had the goal of promoting agroforestry in Europe and focused on four types of agroforestry: (1) existing systems of high nature and cultural value, and agroforestry for (2) high value tree, (3) arable, and (4) livestock systems. The project has advanced our understanding of the extent of agroforestry in Europe and of farmers' perceptions of agroforestry, including the reasons for adoption or non-adoption. A participatory approach was used with over 40 stakeholder groups across Europe to test selected agroforestry innovations through field trials and experiments. Innovations included improved grazing management in agroforestry systems of high nature and cultural value and the introduction of nitrogen fixing plants in high value timber plantations and olive groves. Other innovations included shelter benefits for arable crops, and disease-control, nutrient-retention, and food diversification benefits from integrating trees in livestock enterprises. Biophysical and economic models have also been developed to predict the effect of different agroforestry designs on crop and tree production, and on carbon sequestration, nutrient loss and ecosystems services in general. These models help us to quantify the potential environmental benefits of agroforestry, relative to agriculture without trees. In view of the substantial area of European agroforestry and its wider societal and environmental benefits, the final policy papers in this Special Issue argue that agroforestry should play a more significant role in future versions of the CAP than it does at present.

Der Beitrag rekapituliert Ergebnisse der Studien des vorliegenden Sammelbands hinsichtlich der Frage, unter welchen Bedingungen Partizipation in der Transitionsphase von Jugendlichen ihre Leistungsbereitschaft und -motivation zu steigern vermag. Eingegangen wird auf die veränderten Bedingungen für eine gelingende soziale Integration und deren Implikation für die Jugendlichen als Bürger einer (europäischen) Gemeinschaft. Der Vergleich von neun EU-Ländern in der YOYO-Studie kann verschiedenen Typen von "Transitionsregimen" für Jugendliche und junge Erwachsene identifizieren, die Lernbiographien, Leistungsmotivation, soziale Ex- und Inklusion und soziale und anderweitige Kompetenzen entscheidend beeinflussen. Die Ausführungen zeigen insgesamt, dass in diesen "Regimen" der Glaube und das Vertrauen von Jugendlichen, ihr Leben durch und im Rahmen von Bürger- und Menschenrechten selbst gestalten zu können, von konstitutiver Bedeutung für das Erwachsenwerden zum "mündigen Bürger" ist. (ICA). Die Untersuchung bezieht sich auf den Zeitraum 2001 bis 2004.

Improved farm management of soil organic carbon (SOC) is critical if national governments and agricultural businesses are to achieve net-zero targets. There are opportunities for farmers to secure financial benefits from carbon trading, but field measurements to establish SOC baselines for each part of a farm can be prohibitively expensive. Hence there is a potential role for spatial modelling approaches that have the resolution, accuracy, and estimates to uncertainty to estimate the carbon levels currently stored in the soil. This study uses three spatial modelling approaches to estimate SOC stocks, which are compared with measured data to a 10 cm depth and then used to determine carbon payments. The three approaches used either fine- (100 m × 100 m) or field-scale input soil data to produce either fine- or field-scale outputs across nine geographically dispersed farms. Each spatial model accurately predicted SOC stocks (range: 26.7–44.8 t ha−1) for the five case study farms where the measured SOC was lowest (range: 31.6–48.3 t ha−1). However, across the four case study farms with the highest measured SOC (range: 56.5–67.5 t ha−1), both models underestimated the SOC with the coarse input model predicting lower values (range: 39.8–48.2 t ha−1) than those using fine inputs (range: 43.5–59.2 t ha−1). Hence the use of the spatial models to establish a baseline, from which to derive payments for additional carbon sequestration, favoured farms with already high SOC levels, with that benefit greatest with the use of the coarse input data. Developing a national approach for SOC sequestration payments to farmers is possible but the economic impacts on individual businesses will depend on the approach and the accounting method. ; Natural Environment Research Council (NERC): NE/L002493/1

Silvoarable agroforestry integrates the use of trees and arable crops on the same area of land, and such systems can be supported by national governments under the European Union's (EU) Rural Development Regulations (2014–2020). In order to improve the understanding of farmers' perceptions of such systems, detailed face-to-face interviews were completed with 15 farmers in Bedfordshire, England. Most of these farmers thought that silvoarable systems would not be profitable on their farms and that benefits would tend to be environmental or social rather than economic. Most farmers also thought that management and use of machinery would become more difficult. They felt that the tree component could potentially disrupt field operations and drainage and expressed concerns over the uncertain and long-term nature of timber revenue and the effect of intercrop yield reductions on crop revenue. Even so, 20% of the farmers stated they would use silvoarable systems if convinced that they were more profitable than conventional arable farming. A further 20% said they would farm the intercrop area belonging to someone else, if the rent was reduced to compensate for crop yield reductions. These results suggest that for most arable farmers, an economic advantage over current practice needs to exist before silvoarable systems are likely to be adopted. However, a minority might rent the crop component of a silvoarable system from another party or implement a full system for perceived environmental or social benefits.