Suchergebnisse

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.

•Agricultural monocultures have societal costs •Role for agroforestry •Introducing AGFORWARD •Two case studies on the financial and economic benefits of agroforestry in Europe ; European Union's Seventh Framework Program for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 613520

This study assesses the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and sequestration of a silvoarable system with poplar trees and a crop rotation of wheat, barley, and oilseed rape and compares this with a rotation of the same arable crops and a poplar plantation. The Farm-SAFE model, a financial model of arable, forestry, and silvoarable systems, was modified to account for life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions from tree and crop management were determined from life-cycle inventories and carbon storage benefits from the Yield-SAFE model, which predicts crop and tree yields in arable, forestry, and silvoarable systems. An experimental site in Silsoe in southern England served as a case study. The results showed that the arable system was the most financially profitable system, followed by the silvoarable and then the forestry systems, with equivalent annual values of EUR 560, 450 and 140 ha−1, respectively. When the positive and negative externalities of GHG sequestration and emissions were converted into carbon equivalents and given an economic value, the profitability of the arable systems was altered relative to the forestry and silvoarable systems, although in the analysis, the exact impact depended on the value given to GHG emissions. Market values for carbon resulted in the arable system remaining the most profitable system, albeit at a reduced level. Time series values for carbon proposed by the UK government resulted in forestry being the most profitable system. Hence, the relative benefit of the three systems was highly sensitive to the value that carbon was given in the analysis. This in turn is dependent on the perspective that is given to the analysis.

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

Project context The European Union has targets to improve the competitiveness of European agriculture and forestry, whilst improving the environment and the quality of rural life. At the same time there is a need to improve our resilience to climate change and to enhance biodiversity. During the twentieth century, large productivity advances were made by managing agriculture and forestry as separate practices, but often at a high environmental cost. In order to address landscape-scale issues such as biodiversity and water quality, we argue that farmers and society will benefit from considering landuse as a continuum including both agriculture and trees, and that there are significant opportunities for European farmers and society to benefit from a closer integration of trees with agriculture. Agroforestry is the practice of deliberately integrating woody vegetation (trees or shrubs) with crop and/or animal systems to benefit from the resulting ecological and economic interactions. ; AGFORWARD (Grant Agreement N° 613520) is co-funded by the European Commission, Directorate General for Research & Innovation, within the 7th Framework Programme of RTD. The views and opinions expressed in this report are purely those of the writers and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission

Developing models to predict the effects of social and economic change on agricultural landscapes is an important challenge. Model development often involves making decisions about which aspects of the system require detailed description and which are reasonably insensitive to the assumptions. However, important components of the system are often left out because parameter estimates are unavailable. In particular, measurements of the relative influence of different objectives, such as risk, environmental management, on farmer decision making, have proven difficult to quantify. We describe a model that can make predictions of land use on the basis of profit alone or with the inclusion of explicit additional objectives. Importantly, our model is specifically designed to use parameter estimates for additional objectives obtained via farmer interviews. By statistically comparing the outputs of this model with a large farm-level land-use data set, we show that cropping patterns in the United Kingdom contain a significant contribution from farmer's preference for objectives other than profit. In particular, we found that risk aversion had an effect on the accuracy of model predictions, whereas preference for a particular number of crops grown was less important. While nonprofit objectives have frequently been identified as factors in farmers' decision making, our results take this analysis further by demonstrating the relationship between these preferences and actual cropping patterns.

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