Suchergebnisse

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.

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.

Meeting European renewable energy production targets is expected to cause significant changes in land use patterns. With an EU target of obtaining 20% of energy consumption from renewable sources by 2020, national and local policy makers need guidance on the impact of potential delivery strategies on ecosystem goods and services to ensure the targets are met in a sustainable manner. Within agroecosystems, models are available to explore consequences of such policy decisions for food, fuel and fibre production but few can describe the effect on biodiversity. This paper describes the integration and application of a farmland bird population model within a geographical information system (GIS) to explore the consequences of land use changes arising from different strategies to meet renewable energy production targets. Within a 16,000 ha arable dominated case study area in England, the population growth rates of 19 farmland bird species were predicted under baseline land cover, a scenario maximising wheat production for bioethanol, and a scenario focused on mix of bioenergy sources. Both scenarios delivered renewable energy production targets for the region (> 12 kWh per person per day) but, despite differences in resultant landscape composition, the response of the farmland bird community as a whole to each scenario was small and broadly similar. However, this similarity in overall response masked significant intra- and inter-specific variations across the study area and between scenarios suggesting contrasting mechanisms of impact and highlighting the need for context dependent, species-level assessment of land use change impacts. This framework provides one of the first systematic attempts to spatially model the effect of policy driven land use change on the population dynamics of a suite of farmland birds. The GIS framework also facilitates its integration with other ecosystem service models to explore wider synergies and trade offs arising from national or local policy interventions.

This paper reports the results of a study conducted in Italy, within the AGFORWARD (2014–2017) project, aimed at promoting innovative agroforestry practices in Europe. Agroforestry offers a means for maintaining food production whilst addressing some of the negative environmental effects of intensive agriculture. This study aims to elicit the positive and negative points of view and perceptions of local stakeholders in Italy in relation to three types of agroforestry systems. The Participatory Research and Network Development was implemented in three workshops conducted in Sardinia, Umbria, and Veneto regions, and applied adopting a common methodological protocol. Qualitative data were obtained using open discussions with stakeholders on key issues, challenges and innovations. Quantitative data were obtained from stakeholders completing questionnaires during the workshops. A statistical analysis was applied to elicit the differences in stakeholders' positive and negative perceptions in relation to production, management, environment and socio-economy aspects. Although the participants in the study came from different geographical and socioeconomic contexts with varied educational and cultural backgrounds, the different professional groups (farmers, policy-makers and researchers) and the three workshops generally shared similar perceptions of the benefits and constraints. The effects of agroforestry on production and the environment were generally perceived as positive, whilst those related to management were generally negative. The process of bringing the groups together seemed to be an effective means for identifying the key research gaps that need to be addressed in order to promote the uptake and maintenance of agroforestry.

There is an increasing demand to study the long-term effects of land use from both local farm and wider societal and environmental perspectives. This study applied an approach to evaluate both the financial profitability of arable, agroforestry, and tree-only systems and the wider societal benefits over a period of 30-60 years. The biophysical inputs and yields from the three systems were modelled for three case study sites in the United Kingdom, Spain, and Switzerland, using a tree and crop simulation model called Yield-SAFE. A bio-economic model called Farm-SAFE was then used to compare the financial (EAVF) and economic (or societal) equivalent annual values (EAVE) by including monetary values for five environmental externalities: carbon dioxide emissions, carbon sequestration, soil erosion by water, and nitrogen and phosphorus balances. Across the three case studies, arable farming generated higher farm incomes than the agroforestry or tree-only systems, but the arable systems also created the greatest environmental costs. By comparison the agroforestry and tree-only systems generated lower CO2 emissions and sequestered more carbon. Applying monetary values to the environmental externalities meant that the EAVE of the agroforestry and tree-only systems were greater or similar to that for the arable system in the UK case study. In Spain, the slow predicted growth of the trees meant that, even after including the environmental externalities, the arable system created greater societal benefit than the agroforestry and tree-only systems. In Switzerland, including the environmental externalities increased the attraction of the tree-only system, but the high subsidies for arable and agroforestry systems meant that the EAVE for the agroforestry and arable systems were the most attractive from a farmer's perspective. A breakeven analysis was used to determine the environmental externality values at which the agroforestry and tree-only systems produced the same societal return as the arable system in each case study. In the UK, a carbon price of ₠16 (t CO2)-1 allowed the EAVE of the agroforestry system to attain parity with the arable EAVE. In both the UK and Spain, an environmental nitrogen cost of ₠3-6 (kg N)-1 was sufficient for the EAVE of the agroforestry and tree-only systems to match those of arable farming. Because trees on farms provide ''economies of multifunction'' for environmental benefits, the breakeven values will be less if environmental benefits are considered together as packages. The described approach provides a method for governments and others to examine the cost effectiveness of new agri-environment measures

The successful promotion of agroforestry in Italy depends on both a recognition of tradition and the opportunities for innovation. In Italy, agroforestry has traditionally been a key component of landscape management. Complex systems, based on the integration among crops–livestock–fruit/forest trees, provided a wide variety of products (e.g. food, feed, fibers, fuelwood and timber) and other ecosystem services (e.g. soil erosion control and biodiversity preservation). Silvopastoral systems have been used for centuries and are still managed in marginal areas. The integration of fruits trees (in primis olive trees) with crops and grazing was widely practiced and is still profitable. Coltura promiscua was historically developed integrating fruit and forest trees and particularly multifunctional trees (e.g. Juglans regia L. and Prunus avium L.) to support vines and intercrops. Building on recent research, projects have also focused on innovation in agroforestry. The adoption of shade tolerant forage species and crops has been studied in silvopastoral and olive systems. Silvopastoral systems can significantly offset the greenhouse gas emissions produced by livestock and shield grazing animals from "heat waves". Integration of fast growing timber trees (like Populus) in arable systems can help reverse the decline in plantation forestry in Italy. Finally, the constraints imposed by the EU agricultural policy, especially the prevalent provisions for monocrops severely limiting the introduction of innovative agroforestry approaches, are discussed. New political measures and certification actions are strongly required.

An accurate and objective estimate on the extent of agroforestry in Europe is critical for the development of supporting policies. For this reason, a more harmonised and uniform Pan-European estimate is needed. The aim of this study was to quantify and map the distribution of agroforestry in the European Union. We classified agroforestry into three main types of agroforestry systems: arable agroforestry, livestock agroforestry and high value tree agroforestry. These three classes are partly overlapping as high value tree agroforestry can be part of either arable or livestock agroforestry. Agroforestry areas were mapped using LUCAS Land Use and Land Cover data (Eurostat, 2015). By identifying certain combinations of primary and secondary land cover and/or land management it was possible to identify agroforestry points and stratify them in the three different systems. According to our estimate using the LUCAS database the total area under agroforestry in the EU 27 is about 15.4 million ha which is equivalent to about 3.6% of the territorial area and 8.8% of the utilised agricultural area. Of our three studied systems, livestock agroforestry covers about 15.1 million ha which is by far the largest area. High value tree agroforestry and arable agroforestry cover 1.1 and 0.3 million ha respectively. Spain (5.6 million ha), France (1.6 million ha), Greece (1.6 million ha), Italy (1.4 million ha), Portugal (1.2 million ha), Romania (0.9 million ha) and Bulgaria (0.9 million ha) have the largest absolute area of agroforestry. However the extent of agroforestry, expressed as a proportion of the utilised agricultural area (UAA), is greatest in countries like Cyprus (40% of UAA), Portugal (32% of UAA) and Greece (31% of UAA). A cluster analysis revealed that a high abundance of agroforestry areas can be found in the south-west quadrat of the Iberian Peninsula, the south of France, Sardinia, south and central Italy, central and north-east Greece, south and central Bulgaria, and central Romania. Since the data were collected ...

Agroforestry, relative to conventional agriculture, contributes significantly to carbon sequestration, increases a range of regulating ecosystem services, and enhances biodiversity. Using a transdisciplinary approach, we combined scientific and technical knowledge to evaluate nine environmental pressures in terms of ecosystem services in European farmland and assessed the carbon storage potential of suitable agroforestry systems, proposed by regional experts. First, regions with potential environmental pressures were identified with respect to soil health (soil erosion by water and wind, low soil organic carbon), water quality (water pollution by nitrates, salinization by irrigation), areas affected by climate change (rising temperature), and by underprovision in biodiversity (pollination and pest control pressures, loss of soil biodiversity). The maps were overlaid to identify areas where several pressures accumulate. In total, 94.4% of farmlands suffer from at least one environmental pressure, pastures being less affected than arable lands. Regional hotspots were located in north-western France, Denmark, Central Spain, north and south-western Italy, Greece, and eastern Romania. The 10% of the area with the highest number of accumulated pressures were defined as Priority Areas, where the implementation of agroforestry could be particularly effective. In a second step, European agroforestry experts were asked to propose agroforestry practices suitable for the Priority Areas they were familiar with, and identified 64 different systems covering a wide range of practices. These ranged from hedgerows on field boundaries to fast growing coppices or scattered single tree systems. Third, for each proposed system, the carbon storage potential was assessed based on data from the literature and the results were scaled-up to the Priority Areas. As expected, given the wide range of agroforestry practices identified, the carbon sequestration potentials ranged between 0.09 and 7.29 t C ha−1 a−1. Implementing agroforestry on the Priority Areas could lead to a sequestration of 2.1 to 63.9 million t C a−1 (7.78 and 234.85 million t CO2eq a−1) depending on the type of agroforestry. This corresponds to between 1.4 and 43.4% of European agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Moreover, promoting agroforestry in the Priority Areas would contribute to mitigate the environmental pressures identified there. We conclude that the strategic and spatially targeted establishment of agroforestry systems could provide an effective means of meeting EU policy objectives on GHG emissions whilst providing a range of other important benefits. ; peerReviewed

Increasing concerns about global environmental change and food security have focused attention on the need for environmentally sustainable agriculture. This is agriculture that makes efficient use of natural resources and does not degrade the environmental systems that underpin it, or deplete natural capital stocks. We convened a group of 29 'practitioners' and 17 environmental scientists with direct involvement or expertise in the environmental sustainability of agriculture. The practitioners included representatives from UK industry, non-government organizations and government agencies. We collaboratively developed a long list of 264 knowledge needs to help enhance the environmental sustainability of agriculture within the UK or for the UK market. We refined and selected the most important knowledge needs through a three-stage process of voting, discussion and scoring. Scientists and practitioners identified similar priorities. We present the 26 highest priority knowledge needs. Many of them demand integration of knowledge from different disciplines to inform policy and practice. The top five are about sustainability of livestock feed, trade-offs between ecosystem services at farm or landscape scale, phosphorus recycling and metrics to measure sustainability. The outcomes will be used to guide on-going knowledge exchange work, future science policy and funding.