This book looks at agriculture and the environment, placed within the dynamic context of post-communist societal change and entry into the European Union (EU). Scrieciu explores developments in eleven Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries and argues for agriculture’s natural place in these societies. The history of these countries is significant in how it has shaped the institutions and influenced the outcomes. In many cases, during communism, agriculture was not considered a strategically. An ecological consciousness did not figure high on the agendas of authoritarian regimes. After 1990, some post-communist farm economies progressed slower than others, and environmental pressures mostly diminished with agricultural restructuring. In parts of CEE, increases in numbers of low-input small farms have resulted in some, though largely unintended, ecological benefits. A dual environmental challenge has nevertheless surfaced. On one hand, environmentally unsustainable practices have been attributed to some low-input farming. On the other hand, risks of farm over-intensification and resource overexploitation are on the rise. Also, environmental regulatory and institutional frameworks are not always effectively in place. EU membership is not creating the anticipated benefits for farm growth. There are a number of systemic structural barriers preventing many farmers from drawing on Common Agricultural Policy incentives and support. The presence of many vulnerable poor farms is clearly problematic, particularly economically. However, small-scale farms could be made more acceptable and profitable by ensuring EU policies acknowledge their value and by building institutions to support alternative farm growth strategies, aside from the traditional European model of individual corporate farm expansion. The voluntary uptake of grassroots rural cooperation and farm associations may represent such an alternative. Future European farm policy reforms need to reach the small and vulnerable, and better tackle issues of farm equity, poverty, and agricultural sustainability in the new Europe. This is a timely contribution as this type of "transition" has just begun. This book should be of use to students and researchers looking at agricultural and environmental economics, post-communist rural societal change, European integration and the Common Agricultural Policy.
This book offers an up-to-date review of our current understanding of climate change in the North Sea and adjacent areas, as well as its impact on ecosystems and socio-economic sectors. It provides a detailed assessment of climate change based on published scientific work compiled by independent international experts from climate-related disciplines such as oceanography, atmospheric sciences, marine and terrestrial ecology, using a regional evaluation and review process similar to that of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It provides a comprehensive overview of all aspects of our changing climate, discussing a wide range of topics including past, current and future climate change, and climate-related changes in marine, terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. It also explores the impact of climate change on socio-economic sectors such as fisheries, agriculture, coastal zone management, coastal protection, urban climate, recreation/tourism, offshore activities/energy, and air pollution.
The patterns of land use that have evolved in Europe reflect the boundaries set by the natural environment and socio-economic responses to the needs of the population. Over the centuries man has been able to overcome increasingly the constraints placed on land use by the natural environment through the development of new technologies and innovations, driven by an increasing population and rising material expectations. However, activities are still ultimately constrained by natural limitations such as climatic characteristics and associated edaphic and vegetational features. A major problem for land management, in its broadest sense, can be a reluctance to foresee the consequent ecological changes. This means that mitigating strategies will not be implemented in time to prevent environmental degradation and social hardship, although in many parts of Europe, over some centuries, demands have been met in a sustainable way, by sound, prudent and temperate expectations that have dictated management regimes. The management of land in Europe has always been a complex challenge: land is the primary, though finite resource. DeciSions regarding the use of land and manipulation of ecosystem dynamics today may affect the long-term primary productivity of the resource. Decisions to change land use may be virtually irreversible; urbanization is an illustration of the influence of population density on the land resource.
Low-carbon transition is a shift from an economy that depends heavily on fossil fuels to a sustainable, low-carbon energy economy. This book analyzes the role of renewables in driving the low-carbon transition in agriculture, explores the circular bio-based economy, and examines policies and strategies designed to facilitate low-carbon transition in agriculture, greenhouse gas mitigation, and adaptation trends in the European Union agriculture sector. It provides new knowledge and understanding about the impact of low-carbon energy transition, emphasizes the key role of renewable energy in a wide range of agricultural activities, and offers alternative sustainable solutions to current practices. Features Discusses a novel approach on low-carbon transition that is not considered by the majority of studies Emphasizes the urgent need to minimize the carbon and environmental footprint of the EU agriculture and food system through low-carbon energy transition Provides theoretical background of sustainable agriculture and explains the decarbonization path of agriculture. Investigates the role of renewables, new technologies, business models, and practices in agriculture while assessing their socioeconomic and environmental effects. Presents a case study on the applications of low-carbon transition policies in selected EU member states and analyses in details various implications. This book is suitable for senior undergraduate and graduate students, professionals in agriculture, researchers, and policy makers interested in sustainable agriculture and renewable energy usage and their economics.
This report examines the economic and policy issues related to the impacts of climate change on agriculture and adaptation responses and to the mitigation of greenhouse gases from agriculture.
Agriculture is a crucial component of the economies of many of the countries in transition from a centrally-planned to a market economy and the sector is by no means immune to the environmental and socioeconomic problems confronting the countries as a whole. The concept of sustainable development provides a convenient framework for the formulation of government environmental policy for such countries, especially those of them that aspire to join the EU and would thus be expected to meet EU environmental standards. For agriculture, this inevitably involves appropriate strategies for balancing crop and animal production while protecting the quality of the national soil and water resources. There is thus an urgent need to compile, exchange and evaluate current information on the quality of soils in these countries, and to assess the potential impact of new management practices on the soil and on the wider environment.
There are many reasons why strategic intelligence is required to support policy decisions. These primarily stem from the nature of today's kno- edge society with two contrasting trends. On the one hand, there is a trend of increasing human intelligence in the economic, social and political s- tems. On the other hand, there is a trend towards dissolving certainties about the problems and solutions of today's society. Clearly, more inf- mation does not necessary imply more certainties on how to act. What is more, the same facts are often interpreted in markedly different ways: the same policy relevant information can – and often does – results in confli- ing framing of a problem by different stakeholders. This is mainly due to competing assumptions, rather then because of inconsistent facts. The- fore, it is not surprising that policy-makers are calling for strategic intel- gence to support their understanding of today's challenges, including the relevant aspects of science and technology, their impact and their possible future developments. Over the last 15 years, Europe has rapidly adopted the practice of dev- oping and using Impact Assessment (IA) tools to support decision-making. Formal procedures and guidance for IA are well established within the European Commission and in most EU Member States. The adoption of IA procedures alone, however, does not guarantee that every policy domain is actually using the full potential of these assessment tools in the preparation of policies and legislation.
The risks and opportunities of climate change for agriculture can be effectively dealt only by aligning policies, developing institutional capabilities, and investing in infrastructure and farms, as per the experiences of Albania, FYR Macedonia, Moldova, and Uzbekistan.
Abstract: The European Union's (EU) Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) still fails to address the environmental and socioeconomic challenges of EU's agriculture. Agricultural ecosystems are further degrading, biodiversity is declining and agricultural Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions remain high. At the same time, farms are facing unresolved socio-economic challenges and rural areas struggle to remain viable. Knowledge, data, instruments and resources to address sustainability challenges are readily available. Missing is the CAP's appropriate design as well as prioritization, and the indispensable political will to improve these. While the Commission's 2018 proposal fell short of addressing the key weaknesses of the CAP, the amendment proposals of October 2020 by the Council and the Parliament significantly weaken the CAP's environmental instruments, while maintaining or even enhancing the inequitable and counterproductive distribution of payments. A weakened CAP puts both the environment and the future of farmers and farming at risk. Scientific evidence shows that it is possible and efficient to align sustainable farming, multifunctional agroforestry and long-term prosperity with the climate and biodiversity goals of the EU. Farmers' interests and environmental protection can be mutually reinforced and achieved through a CAP that is aligns with the EU's Green Deal and Biodiversity Strategy, while also conforming to the Paris Agreement. The proposed CAP post-2020 as it stands represents a business-as-usual model of agriculture against the viable alternative of a responsible and sustainable farm model that ensures the viability of rural communities. The narrative in support of this foundering approach, by stressing the importance of food production and the need to feed the world, is counteracted by a reality of more farmland taken for the production of fuel and feed for animals than for human consumption. The political positions also fail to represent the interests and needs of most farmers, who want to protect their living environment so in order to secure the long-term sustainability of their own farming - but rightly ask for public policy support. The CAP should provide better means to do so, and aim at a fair transition toward a sustainable future for farming. The trilogue negotiations are a last opportunity to rethink the CAP post-2020 design and propose legal texts that allow, rather than impede, environmental and social ambition in line with the EU's statement that the next CAP will be fairer and greener. Using the time gained by the transition period of two years, we strongly recommend to Member States, the Council and the Parliament to rethink the current proposal. We specifically urge to: 1. Maintain conditionality along the lines set by the Commission, and improve it by a) expanding permanent pasture protection beyond protected areas (Natura 2000) and b) maintaining or restoring at least 10% non-productive, semi-natural landscape features on all utilized agricultural area rather than only on arable land; 2. Ring-fence budgets for Agri-Environment-Climate Measures and allow Member States to expand their budgets beyond current levels; 3. Secure at least 30% of Pillar 1's budget for Eco-schemes and use current knowledge to ensure Eco-schemes are well designed (i.e., include only effective measures for biodiversity), monitored and re-evaluated to achieve measurable environmental impacts; 4. Place Areas of Nature Constraints in Pillar 1, or tie them strictly to environmental objectives and the protection of High Nature Value farmland regions, rather than unduly list them as an environmental instrument without substantive criteria; 5. Cancel a) ring-fencing for direct payments (especially coupled payments), b) the barrier on Member States' maximum investment in the environment, and c) the limitation for budget transfers to Pillar 2. These restrictions impede ambitious Member States from investing in rural areas and in public goods;Place a clear target for reducing, toward phasing out, of coupled payments (e.g. toward 5%) as subsidies that are harmful for both markets and the environment; 6. Place a clear target for reducing, toward phasing out, of coupled payments (e.g. toward 5%) as subsidies that are harmful for both markets and the environment; 7. If Direct Payments remain a political priority, and more equity among the recipients is the proposed means to address farmer's concerns, then the Council and Parliament should make the Capping and Redistribution mechanism mandatory for all Member States, and set strict capping rules; 8. Ensure the success of the new Delivery Model by means of a) linking Strategic Plans to the EU's Green Deal, b) retaining the yearly reporting of Result indicators, and c) improving the integration of scientists and other experts in the consultation processes offered by Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS). Science across all disciplines is available to address the agricultural sustainability challenge and improve the CAP. Over 3600 signatories have supported the call to improve the CAP. They underlined the feasibility of constructive changes and documented the readiness to assist in positively transforming and future-proofing the CAP and the EU's agriculture (Pe'er et al. 2020)
