Silvestre García de Jalón

How is agroforestry perceived in Europe? An assessment of positive and negative aspects by stakeholders

Whilst the benefits of agroforestry are widely recognised in tropical latitudes few studies have assessed how agroforestry is perceived in temperate latitudes. This study evaluates how stakeholders and key actors including farmers, landowners, agricultural advisors, researchers and environmentalists perceive the implementation and expansion of agroforestry in Europe. Meetings were held with 30 stakeholder groups covering different agroforestry systems in 2014 in eleven EU countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom). In total 344 valid responses were received to a questionnaire where stakeholders were asked to rank the positive and negative aspects of implementing agroforestry in their region. Improved biodiversity and wildlife habitats, animal health and welfare, and landscape aesthetics were seen as the main positive aspects of agroforestry. By contrast, increased labour, complexity of work, management costs and administrative burden were seen as the most important negative aspects. Overall, improving the environmental value of agriculture was seen as the main benefit of agroforestry, whilst management and socio-economic issues were seen as the greatest barriers. The great variability in the opportunities and barriers of the systems suggests enhanced adoption of agroforestry across Europe will be most likely to occur with specific initiatives for each type of system.

Spatial similarities between European agroforestry systems and ecosystem services at the landscape scale

Agroforestry systems are known to provide ecosystem services which differ in quantity and quality from conventional agricultural practices and could enhance rural landscapes. In this study we compared ecosystem services provision of agroforestry and non-agroforestry landscapes in case study regions from three European biogeographical regions: Mediterranean (montado and dehesa), Continental (orchards and wooded pasture) and Atlantic agroforestry systems (chestnut soutos and hedgerows systems). Seven ecosystem service indicators (two provisioning and five regulating services) were mapped, modelled and assessed. Clear variations in amount and provision of ecosystem services were found between different types of agroforestry systems. Nonetheless regulating ecosystems services were improved in all agroforestry landscapes, with reduced nitrate losses, higher carbon sequestration, reduced soil losses, higher functional biodiversity focussed on pollination and greater habitat diversity reflected in a high proportion of semi-natural habitats. The results for provisioning services were inconsistent. While the annual biomass yield and the groundwater recharge rate tended to be higher in agricultural landscapes without agroforestry systems, the total biomass stock was reduced. These broad relationships were observed within and across the case study regions regardless of the agroforestry type or biogeographical region. Overall our study underlines the positive influence of agroforestry systems on the supply of regulating services and their role to enhance landscape structure.

Modelling and valuing the environmental impacts of arable, forestry and agroforestry systems: a case study

The use of land for intensive arable production in Europe is associated with a range of externalities that typically impose costs on third parties. The introduction of trees in arable systems can potentially be used to reduce these costs. This paper assesses the profitability and environmental externalities of a silvoarable agroforestry system, and compares this with the profitability and environmental externalities from an arable system and a forestry system. A silvoarable experimental plot of poplar trees planted in 1992 in Bedfordshire, Eastern England, was used as a case study. The Yield-SAFE model was used to simulate the growth and yields of the silvoarable, arable, and forestry land uses along with the associated environmental externalities, including carbon sequestration, greenhouse gas emissions, nitrogen and phosphorus surplus, and soil erosion losses by water. The Farm-SAFE model was then used to quantify the monetary value of these effects. The study assesses both the financial profitability from a farmer perspective and the economic benefit from a societal perspective. The arable option was the most financially profitable system followed by the silvoarable system and forestry. However, when the environmental externalities were included, silvoarable agroforestry provided the greatest benefit. This suggests that the appropriate integration of trees in arable land can provide greater well-being benefits to society overall, than arable farming without trees, or forestry systems on their own.

The potential for adoption of climate smart agricultural practices in Sub-Saharan livestock systems

Livestock systems play an important role in the livelihoods of many rural communities in Sub-Saharan Africa while being responsible for an important share of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions. This study aimed to evaluate the potential for adoption of climate smart agricultural practices in Sub-Saharan livestock systems, related to the improvement in feed, animal husbandry, and grassland management. These practices present productivity and mitigation benefits and in some cases may also contribute to enhance resilience. In this study, we used a data set of 1538 farm households across nine Sub-Saharan countries. A mixed logit model was used to assess the influence on adoption and to estimate the probability of adoption. Our results show that there seems to be stronger influence of physical and financial capitals on adoption than the other capitals. Different types of capitals influence the uptake of different agricultural practices. Yet the probability of adoption would change across countries. The results of this study could help to refine adoption estimates calculated through global or regional modelling approaches and to inform the design of policies to better target investments in order to foster adoption.

The Environmental Costs of Water Flow Regulation: an Innovative Approach Based on the ‘Polluter Pays’ Principle

The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) explicitly requires the full cost recovery of water services, including the environmental costs incurred from the damage that water uses inflict on the environment. Although flow regulation by river damming is one of the most prominent human impact on fresh water ecosystems its environmental costs are not properly included in water pricing. This paper presents a novel approach to assessing the environmental costs of flow regulation based on the polluter-pays principle. The methodology includes three steps: (i) assessing the admissible range of regulated flow variability, derived from the natural flow regime variability, (ii) estimating the daily environmental impact of regulated flows according to deviations from the admissible range of flow variability, and (iii) calculating the environmental costs of flow regulation. The procedure is applied to four river case studies in Spain, UK and Norway. The advantages over other water cost valuation methods are discussed. The methodology enlarges the current recognition of environmental costs of water use and represents a practical management tool within the WFD context, encouraging transparency and stakeholder communication.

The Role of County Surveyors and County Drainage Boards in Addressing Water Quality

Abstract Water quality problems stemming from the Midwestern U.S. agricultural landscape have been widely recognized and documented. The Midwestern state of Indiana contains tens of thousands of miles of regulated drains that represent biotic communities that comprise the headwaters of the state’s many rivers and creeks. Traditional management, however, reduces these waterways to their most basic function as conveyances, ignoring their role in the ecosystem as hosts for biotic and abiotic processes that actively regulate the fate and transport of nutrients and farm chemicals. Novel techniques and practices such as the two-stage ditch, denitrifying bioreactor, and constructed wetlands represent promising alternatives to traditional management approaches, yet many of these tools remain underutilized. To date, conservation efforts and research have focused on increasing the voluntary adoption of practices among agricultural producers. Comparatively little attention has been paid to the roles of the drainage professionals responsible for the management of waterways and regulated drains. To address this gap, we draw on survey responses from 39 county surveyors and 85 drainage board members operating in Indiana. By examining the backgrounds, attitudes, and actions of these individuals, we consider their role in advocating and implementing novel conservation practices.