THE CAPHAVE YOUR SAY

MODERNISING AND

SIMPLIFYING THE CAP

WORKSHOPS FOR IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Best practices addressing environmental and climate needs

Brussels, 23-24 March 2017

#FutureofCAP

Agriculture

and Rural

Development

Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111

Date: 23-24 March 2017

Venue: DG AGRI, L102 - 00/25 Auditorium, Brussels (BE)

Disclaimer: This summary is based on abstracts provided by speakers and a synthesis of

questions and answers. More details are available in the presentations. These documents

solely represent the views of their authors and cannot be regarded as the official position

of Constituencies/the European Commission.1

1Acknowledgements

Contributions made by all participants should be acknowledged, in particular Maria Bielza from the Joint Research Centre (JRC) concerning the drafting of the present report, as well as for the setting-up, organisation of the workshop and/or further editing of the report: Speakers (abstracts), Sophie Thoyer (Rapporteur, University of Montpellier), Jesus Barreiro-Hurlé, Maria Bielza, Els De Rademaeker, Jean-Michel Terres (JRC) and Fabien Santini, Florence Buchholzer, Mark Cropper, Benjamin Van Doorslaer, Lukas Visek (Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development).

- 2 -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. SUMMARY TAKE-AWAY MESSAGES ............................................................ - 5 -

2. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. - 6 -

2.1. Scope of the workshop ................................................................................. - 6 -

2.2. Some tools available for assessing the environmental needs at EU level .............................................................................................................. - 7 -

2.3. Modelling practices and technologies: the experience in climate mitigation and the potential for environment with CAPRI and IFM-CAP .............................................................................................................. - 7 -

2.4. Questions and answers of Session 1 ............................................................. - 8 -

3. SESSION 2 IDENTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL NEEDS TO BETTER TARGET MEASURES .......................................................................................... - 9 -

3.1. Experience from the environmental analysis by Member States – Austria .......................................................................................................... - 9 -

3.2. Experience from the environmental analysis by Member States – Emilia Romagna region (Italy) ................................................................... - 10 -

3.3. Use of the EFA calculator to target areas for biodiversity measures ......... - 10 -

3.4. Netherlands lessons from the implementation of greening ........................ - 11 -

3.5. Question and answers of Session 2 ............................................................ - 12 -

4. SESSION 3 PRACTICES AND THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL / ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE (1) .................................................................... - 13 -

4.1. Using CAP to enhance farm biodiversity ................................................... - 13 -

4.2. Integrated Pest Management – A successful case study ............................ - 14 -

4.3. Nutrient management plans ........................................................................ - 16 -

4.4. Manure management techniques ................................................................ - 17 -

4.5. Questions and answers of Session 3 ........................................................... - 18 -

5. SESSION 4 POLICY DESIGN FOR MODERNISATION AND SIMPLIFICATION .............................................................................................. - 20 -

5.1. How to improve uptake of measures: behavioural insights in agricultural policy ....................................................................................... - 20 -

5.2. Innovative technologies in agriculture and the potential for policy design and control ....................................................................................... - 21 -

5.3. New technologies in agriculture and the potential for policy design and control: the farmers’ perspective ......................................................... - 22 -

5.4. Questions and answers of Session 4 ........................................................... - 22 -

6. SESSION 5 PRACTICES AND THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL / ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE (2) .................................................................... - 24 -

- 3 -

6.1. Practices addressing environmental needs: Agroforestry ........................... - 24 -

6.2. Best practices for soil organic carbon management in agricultural systems ....................................................................................................... - 24 -

6.3. Beef Genomics and Emissions - The Beef Data and Genomics Programme in Ireland ................................................................................. - 25 -

6.4. Questions and answers of Session 5 ........................................................... - 26 -

7. OPEN DISCUSSION ........................................................................................... - 27 -

Summary of conclusions ...................................................................................... - 27 -

References ............................................................................................................ - 30 -

- 4 -

Abbreviations

AE Agri-environmental (programmes, payments, schemes)

AECM Agri-environmental and climate measures

AEM Agri-environmental measures

AEP Agri-environmental programmes

AES Agri-environmental schemes

ANC Areas with Natural Constraints

BHD ‘Birds’ and the ‘Habitats’ Directives

CAP Common Agricultural Policy

DP Direct Payments

EFA Ecological Focus Areas

EO Earth Observation

ESPG Environmentally sensitive permanent grassland

FBI Farmland Bird Index

GHG Greenhouse gas

GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System

HNV High Nature Value

IA Impact Assessment

IACS: Integrated Administration and Control System

IPM Integrated Pest Management

LPIS Land Parcel Identification system

MS (EU) Member States

NVZ Nitrate Vulnerable Zones

OF Organic farming

RCT Randomized Control Trial

RD Rural Development

RDP Rural Development Programmes

SOC Soil organic carbon

- 5 -

This event was part of a series of four workshops aimed at gathering evidence in the context of the impact assessment on modernising and simplifying the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). This workshop provided an opportunity to gather evidence on selected issues and to exchange with external experts/stakeholders and with interested staff of various Directorates General of the European Commission. Outcomes of the workshops were shared in the Conference CAP have your say, taking place on 7 July 2017.

This workshop was organised jointly by the Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI) and the Joint Research Centre (JRC) on March 23 and 24 in Brussels.

1. SUMMARY TAKE-AWAY MESSAGES

1. "One size fits all" solutions to agri-environmental challenges are rarely efficient.

2. Implemented / recommended environmentally-friendly practices must match the local environmental/climate needs and challenges.

3. Mandatory and voluntary approaches have their pros and cons – one does not exclude the other. There were mixed views across participants on what is the best combination of both approaches.

4. Greening or Entry Level Schemes should be based on knowledge and evidence.

5. There is a need to make a better use of existing and new technologies for transforming agriculture and make it more environmentally /climate friendly.

6. The role of public advisory services and the innovation complex should be strengthened.

7. More flexibility means more complexity – technology and connected agriculture can be part of the solution for more efficient implementation and monitoring.

The following issues deserve further consideration:

1. What should be "mandatory" and what "voluntary"?

2. How to foster the role of public advisory services?

3. How to mainstream technologies and which ones and for what?

4. How to extend these technologies to small farmers?

5. Availability of environmental data should be improved.

- 6 -

2. SESSION 1: INTRODUCTION

Chair: Florence Buchholzer, Adviser DG AGRI C, Foresight and Impact

Assessment

The workshop on “Best practices addressing environmental and climate needs” took place in the framework of the Impact Assessment for the Communication on “Simplification and modernisation of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)” to maximise its contribution to the Commission's priorities and to the Sustainable Development Goals.

The process of the impact assessment (IA) involves a first phase of consultation and knowledge gathering, where the challenges need to be identified, and which leads to the definition of the policy options and their assessment.

Among other activities, the Commission services organise a series of thematic workshops on different topics of interest. These workshops aim at gathering evidence/knowledge from experts on CAP related issues and include presentations by experts, exchanges and discussion.

Participants to the workshops include experts invited ad personam from academia, national/ regional administrations, stakeholders and Commission services. A Rapporteur will present the outcomes of each workshop to stakeholders at the final Conference of the Consultation Strategy on July 7th, 2017. In the workshop on "Best Environmental & Climate Practices" the Rapporteur role was held by Sophie Thoyer (Montpellier Supagro).

2.1. Scope of the workshop

Speaker: Lukas Visek, DG AGRI C1, Policy perspectives

The workshop focused on "Best practices addressing environmental and climate needs". First, it is necessary to identify the environmental and climate challenges / problems to be addressed in the different European areas depending on the farm systems concerned, then to identify which are the best practices available to address them.

The challenges or needs for the CAP in the environmental and climate domain can be summarised under three objectives:

Climate change, mitigation and adaptation: - a. prevent or reduce greenhouse gas emissions - b. increase carbon storage

- c. increase farms’ adaptation capacity and loss of soil organic matter Sustainable management of natural resources:

- a. Improve soil condition - b. Reduce air pollution

- c. Improve water quality/use - d. Improve farm related biodiversity

Preserve nature and landscapes - a. Maintain and increase HNV farming - b. Increase value of farms for natural areas and wildlife

- 7 -

It is necessary to link environmental and climate change needs with practices. For this reason, the workshop has been structured in two main blocks, feeding a discussion on policy aspects and options: • Presentations on how to identify the needs (Sessions 1 and 2) • Presentations on best practices (sessions 3 to 5)

2.2. Some tools available for assessing the environmental needs at EU level

Speaker: Jean-Michel Terres, DG JRC D5, Food Security

The Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission is the only Commission Directorate General carrying out direct research. It works in support of other Commission services, EU Institutions, and Member States by providing EU policies with evidence-based scientific support throughout the whole policy cycle. As a research centre, it has the advantage of being independent.

The JRC has a strong experience on different tools for environmental analysis, mainly biophysical, geo-spatial and agro-economic modelling and land evaluation methods at pan-European level, but also some tools to assess the impacts of farming practices on the environment. Some of the pan-European models and datasets that can help identifying the main challenges faces by EU agriculture are:

Organic carbon in European agricultural soils modelling Soil erosion by water modelling Water quality measurements reported by member states based on a Water

Information System for Europe (WISE) developed by the JRC Water quality modelling (share of agricultural N and P pollution compared to

other sources) Water abstraction for irrigation in agriculture modelling Climate change impact on agricultural production modelling (under different

scenarios and adaptation strategies) Biodiversity features in agriculture (observations from satellite and model): HNV,

woody vegetation, semi-natural vegetation in agricultural land, grassland, etc. Geo-spatial assessment of risk of farm land abandonment

Some examples of tools for the evaluation of farming practices impact are: Carbon Calculator or Low Carbon Farm: to assess farm contributions to GHG

emissions and to promote low carbon farming practices SOSTARE (developed by the Lombardy Region): holistic assessment of farm

performance (environmental, economic and agronomic assessment) EFA calculator to evaluate potential impacts on the environment of Ecological

Focus Areas

2.3. Modelling practices and technologies: the experience in climate

mitigation and the potential for environment with CAPRI and IFM-

CAP

Speaker: Jesus Barreiro Hurlé, DG JRC D4, Economics of agriculture

The JRC uses agro-economic models to simulate in a comprehensive manner the impacts due to changes in policies on markets, income and the environment. The use of models allows to incorporate unexpected effects into the policy analysis and provides insights into the trade-offs. The JRC modelling framework includes different models, among which two allow the inclusion of farming practices and environmental analysis:

- 8 -

CAPRI2 (partial equilibrium model) models regions as one single unit using Eurostat and national data sources. It can cover market feedback via an international markets module.

IFM-CAP3 (farm level model) models individual farms using FADN data. Prices are fixed or taken from price changes from CAPRI.

Best practices are implicitly reflected in the models as production and cost data used reflect the current use of those practices. The challenge is to move from implicit to explicit simulations, where farmers can choose whether to implement one or the other practice.

In the CAPRI model, such an approach has been used for the adoption of climate mitigation policies. To do so data on the net costs/revenues from mitigation practices are used. When these measures impose costs on farmers there is no adoption under baseline conditions. To model farmer behaviour incentives to promote the uptake of the measures (e.g. subsidies) or the introduction of obligations such as binding targets on GHG emissions are needed. CAPRI can calculate nutrient balances and GHG savings to see to what extent these practices lead to environmental benefits.

While in theory the IFM-CAP model could potentially capture the adoption process by the different farms, data restrictions only allow at this stage modelling a limited set of agricultural measures (e.g. crop diversification). The major restriction relates to the fact that FADN data does not include information on uptake of practices, on input use in quantities, etc. However, with the inclusion of additional data in the model, more practices could be simulated (e.g. catch and cover crops, protection of grassland, etc.).

Both models can be used in a combined manner to assess some best practices. However, currently, the representation is far from perfect. Aggregated models need strong assumptions about costs and farmer behaviour. IFM-CAP has limited coverage of environmental impacts. Linkage between them is currently being developed to use the strengths of both models, but this is work-in-progress. For these reasons, instead of modelling the adoption of technologies with high detail, an alternative might be to provide up-front assumptions (e.g. share of farmers or area implementing the measures, production cost increase, environmental benefits expected, etc.) and run the models with the new parameters to see the market impacts.

2.4. Questions and answers of Session 1

On climate change, mitigation measures are important, but it is also necessary to consider adaptation (important for farmers), resilience and competitiveness of agriculture, as there is a risk of farm abandonment under future changing climate.

The databases described under section 1 are being used to validate the models. However, often there are problems of data quality and homogeneity between Member states. All Institutions collecting data should make an effort to improve data availability, accuracy and harmonisation: on environmental reporting, on costs, on the economic and environmental impacts of farming practices.

2 www.capri-model.org

3 DOI 10.2791/14623

- 9 -

3. SESSION 2: IDENTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL NEEDS TO BETTER TARGET MEASURES

Chair: Claudia Olazabal, Head of Unit DG ENV D1, Land Use & Management

3.1. Experience from the environmental analysis by Member States –

Austria

Speaker: Thomas Neudorfer, Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and

Water Management, Austria

Due to the topographical structure with a share of 2/3 less favoured areas, a high proportion of organic farms, relatively low production intensity, and a high willingness of farmers to participate in agri-environment programmes Austria’s environmental situation is basically good, with some specific challenges to address. The main challenges for Austria identified in the SWOT-process are intensification of potentially high-yield land and abandonment of low-productivity and difficult-to-use areas. Pillar II-payments represent around 2/3 of total CAP payments and are important for Austrian agriculture (50 % national co-financing-rate). Within pillar II, 40 % of payments are spent for the Austrian agri-environment programme ÖPUL 2015 (including Agri-environmental and climate measures [AECM], organic farming, animal welfare, and Natura 2000) and payments for less favoured areas account for around 23 %.

Although having a federal structure, Austria offers one single rural development programme and there is a federal paying agency. Involvement of stakeholders was very important in designing the AECM and enhanced the acceptance of the measures. The main strategy for the Austrian agri-environment programme ÖPUL 2015 was translated in 23 types of operations were designed which offer:

broad measures with targeted commitments and an area wide effect all over

Austria (e. g. maintenance of landscape elements, biodiversity areas) and

specific, area focussed commitments which address specific challenges on

selected areas (e. g. nature protection, alpine pasturing, improving water quality

or biodiversity).

During the design process, commitments were specified in order to achieve clear, controllable and effective requirements and to make the programme as easy to understand as possible (simplification). This approach enhances acceptance of the payments by the citizens and by the farmers. Requirements have to be easy to understand and effective – trainings of farmers can help to acceptance and understanding of the commitments. Further information about the Austrian agri-environmental programme is available.4

The Austrian RDP programme as a whole uses an integrated approach to strengthen rural areas. Apart from the strong focus on area-based measures (AECM, OF, ANC) and animal welfare, there is a wide range of different project-measures which are contributing to revitalise rural areas by supporting investments and infrastructure, increasing knowledge transfer and fostering collaboration. Austrian companies and traders were successful to value ecosystem services by establishing special products and labelling them with strong labels (e.g. organic products or haymilk). For such success, an integrated RDP-approach with a combination of area-related payments accompanied by project/investment measures is very important and financial allocation is crucial.

4 https://www.bmlfuw.gv.at/english/agriculture/Rural-development/-pul2015until2020.html

- 10 -

3.2. Experience from the environmental analysis by Member States – Emilia

Romagna region (Italy)

Speaker: Carlo Malavolta, Region Emilia Romagna

In order to identify environmental needs to better target measures of the Rural Development Program 2014-2020, an Ex ante environmental analysis was applied in the Emilia Romagna region. It consisted of a SWOT analysis on several agricultural and environmental items: biodiversity, water quality, soil quality and erosion, energy consumption, GHG emission. The results of the Ex-post evaluation of RDP 2007-2013 were also incorporated into the analysis and the most performing measures/actions in terms of environmental impact were considered.

Integrated production and organic production benefitted from a high percentage of the total available support for environmental measures because of their high environmental performances in terms of reduction of water-polluting agricultural inputs (pesticides and fertilisers) and increase of the stable organic matter contents in soil and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions e.g. by driving down nitrous oxide emissions following the reduced use of nitrogen fertilisers. These agronomic synergies created by such holistic measures should be capable to improve performances and maintain low cost (less than through the implementation of specific actions for each environmental target). In addition, the final product can be recognized/promoted from/to consumers through appropriate labelling, allowing longer term benefits.

Specific selection methods were applied to concentrate support on farms located in areas more sensitive from an environmental point of view (e.g. NVZ).

3.3. Use of the EFA calculator to target areas for biodiversity measures

Speaker: Vincenzo Angileri, DG JRC D5, Food Security

The EFA calculator is a software tool to support farmers’ decisions on Ecological Focus Areas (EFA). It was developed by the University of Hertfordshire, UK (John Tzilivakis et al.) in 2015 and commissioned and coordinated by the JRC. The main objectives of the software are:

Help farmers to calculate and allocate the 5% EFA target

Calculate the potential impact of different features on ecosystem services, biodiversity and management (labour costs)

Guide farmers towards features which offer the greatest potential benefits to the

environment

Each of the EFA types is assigned impact scores for different ecosystem services and biodiversity group (birds, fungi, invertebrates, mammals, etc). Impact assessment results are not absolute, they depend on the specific circumstances of the farm (e.g. climate, soil, etc.)

Although the EFA calculator was initially designed to be used at farm level, it has also been used to represent the EFA potential impacts at NUTS3 level, by introducing regional data as if it was applied in an average farm of the region. However, this approach introduces some bias due to the aggregation, and the parameters describing spatial and management factors cannot be used. The assessment performed at regional (NUTS3) level uses EFA data notified by the MS in 2015, and was applied to 121 selected regions in 17 MS. Results showed that regions where more than 50% of EFA

- 11 -

declared as landscape features, had the highest potential impact score for biodiversity, and regions with more than 70% of EFA declared as catch crops. Overlaying the impact score for biodiversity at NUTS3 region level with other information relevant to represent the biodiversity needs, for example semi-natural vegetation, allows highlighting areas where the policy implementation is inadequate or not in-line with the goal of favouring biodiversity.

The EFA calculator can be part of a bunch of farm level tools to enhance ecosystem and biodiversity performance. It is especially suitable for being used by farm advisory services, as it works best with detailed and updated field information on spatial conditions and management.

3.4. Netherlands lessons from the implementation of greening

Speaker: Anne van Doorn, Wageningen Environmental Research

Dutch agriculture is one of the most productive and intensive in the EU. Over recent decades environmental pressures from agriculture have declined impressively e.g. emissions from nitrous oxide and ammonia. Despite these positive trends, important environmental needs still exist, e.g. to halt the dramatic decrease of farmland birds.

With the introduction of the CAP greening measures in 2015 the Dutch government put special effort into the introduction of equivalent practices, such as the equivalent field margin package, combining managed field margins with landscape elements or the skylark certificate on sustainable arable farming. As for the implementation of the EFA the Dutch government selected only four options from the EU menu, among which was the catch crops option.

Evaluation of two years of the greening measures shows that two thirds of Dutch farmers, managing 90% of the UAA, are subject to them. This implies that Greening has potentially a wide influence on the Dutch countryside. Despite the efforts of the Dutch government on equivalent practices, only 320 farmers made use of them. The EFA measure is the one of the three Greening measures which has potentially most effect on farming practices. 18% of the farmers have to comply with this measure. However the vast majority (90% of the farmers that have to comply with the EFA measure) fulfil the obligation through catch crops. Although it is too early to measure impact indicators, we might conclude from literature that this will have little effect on some environmental objectives, especially for biodiversity. Catch crops may even have adverse effects on biodiversity, replacing cereal stubbles which are important for wintering birds.

The AECM in the Netherlands is only around 10% of the 1st pillar, in terms of money, number of farmers and area covered. From 2015 on, the Netherlands adopted an innovative approach for the implementation of AECM. The AECM-measures are exclusively targeted to the conservation of BHD-species, AECM contracts are only concluded with cooperatives of farmers, not with individual farmers and only favourable area for the protection of BHD-species are eligible for AECM payments. Based on LPIS data, environmentally sensitive permanent grassland (ESPG) were mapped on parcel level and compared with other environmentally sensitive grassland like HNV grassland. Similarly, spatial patterns of the EFA measure uptake were generated and compared this with spatial patterns of environmental needs and implementation of AECM. Spatial analysis shows that greening measures are hardly located at these priority areas in terms of environment.

- 12 -

From the Dutch experience we can conclude that although Greening is potentially a powerful instrument, current implementation is not entirely relevant to environmental needs. For the CAP post 2020 debate it is important to define clearly the agri-environmental issues that should be solved with Greening. Therefore measures should be relevant to the needs, which have to be identified at regional level, e.g. by means of a SWOT analysis. Finally, it is recommended to demand from MS a strategy to reach CAP objectives and a justification of the choices made for their implementation choices.

3.5. Question and answers of Session 2

Relationship between Greening and AECM

Issues of synergies between Greening measures and AECM have been discussed. In the Netherlands, Greening measures (EFA) are not applied on the areas of environmental concern for AECM (e.g. favourable areas for farmland birds), therefore double funding is avoided. AECM are applied on specific permanent grasslands outside Natura 2000 to promote biodiversity.

In Austria, Greening and AECM are both necessary and complementary. Many farms are too small to be concerned by Greening, but they can enter the AECM scheme. In intensive areas, Greening is important as often farmers do not enter AECM. In order to avoid double funding, the same measure cannot be declared both under Greening and under AECM. Sometimes, it is difficult to reconcile different environmental objectives and a balance needs to be found, e.g. a requirement to decrease herbicides use may impair the uptake of low-tillage practices.

In the Italian experience, Greening applies on larger areas than AECM, and resources from Pillar II can go to more ambitious and targeted measures.

While Greening consists of light measures applied broadly, the AECM uses a programmatic approach for specific measures and areas. There is a big distance between the two instruments. It was suggested that this distance should be reduced by making Greening more ambitious, getting rid of low profile measures or by broadening the scope of AECM. It was also proposed that, since first Pillar measures are associated to high payments, they should imply higher environmental requirements, while the second Pillar could be left for more specific programmes.

Individual vs collective implementation of Greening and AECM measures

AECM in the Netherlands are offered only to farmers associations (collaborative or cooperation groups), and there is a similar option for Greening, not widely implemented. Issues that can be seen for collective implementation relate to the determination of the responsibility in case of infringement and to the transaction costs when there a many farmers involved.

On the contrary, individual application against collective application can pose problems for measuring the programmes results. For example, given that biodiversity is not restricted to the farm level but needs a landscape approach, a farm performing well could be in a landscape with low biodiversity (and vice versa).

Evaluation of the programmes: SWOT analysis, EFA calculator

Some countries make strong efforts in terms of evaluation of the results, but these studies do not reach the EU level. There is a need to standardise the evaluation of the results. The tools available should be collected and standardised.

- 13 -

The application of the farm level scoring tools such as the EFA calculator as a policy tool, either for designing or monitoring a programme or for triggering a payment, is a possibility but would require further improvements, especially for calibration of scores and thresholds. Some initiatives are on-going to this respect for the EFA calculator. Nevertheless, if there is interest to use it as a policy tool, cooperation between DGs and allocation of resources would be necessary.

SWOT5 analysis (currently already used for the RDPs) can be used by MS to justify Greening choices and to prove that national implementation is relevant to the needs. SWOT analysis should be made at regional level and MSs/Regions are best suited to obtain the best information and data for this.

Spatial analysis and its developments due to new information technologies can do a lot to further improve the identification of environmental and climate needs. There is however a need to standardise the data and the indicators used so that this potential is fully implemented.

Boosting participation in the programmes and regionalisation

Regionalising is important to improve uptake, as soil and climate are different in different regions. Environmental needs are different regionally, therefore targeting should be regional.

Measures should be easy to apply, requirements must be few, very clear and easy to understand by farmers (e.g. request to leave grass on 5% of the area, and not specify that it must not be overly prescriptive as to the details e.g. ruling the precise width of field borders). It is important that farmers understand the usefulness of what they are doing.

4. SESSION 3 PRACTICES AND THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL / ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE

(1)

Chair: Jean-Michel Terres, JRC D5, Food Security

4.1. Using CAP to enhance farm biodiversity

Speaker: Lynn Dicks, University of East Anglia

Hundreds of research papers are published every year addressing the broad question of how the CAP affects farmland biodiversity. A wide range of evidence synthesis methods are available to collate and interpret all this evidence (Dicks et al. 2017). For example, a recent ‘meta-analysis’6 (Batáry et al. 2015) of 103 replicated, controlled trials found that agri-environment schemes generally increase the number of wild species on farmland, and schemes targeting non-productive areas, such as field boundaries, increase species numbers more than those targeting productive arable or grassland areas. A combination of ‘evidence summary’ and evidence assessment using ‘multiple expert consultation’ was used to assess the likely effectiveness of the proposed greening measures, before they were introduced (Dicks et al. 2014), based on 743 studies identified using a ‘systematic

5 SWOT is an acronym for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats and is a structured planning

method that evaluates those four elements of an organization, project or business venture.

6 Methods shown in ‘inverted commas’ have been defined by Dicks et al. 2017, and methodological guidance is provided by the Eklipse project (www.eklipse-mechanism.eu).

- 14 -

map’. This assessment found strong support for biodiversity benefits of grass field margins, fallow land and uncultivated margins, but not for crop diversity or buffer strips along water courses7. The evidence underlying this assessment is summarised in the Conservation Evidence website (for example, for fallow land, see http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/156). A similar approach is now being used to compare the outcomes of different measures across a range of ecosystem services, including pest regulation, crop production, pollination and climate regulation (Shackleford et al. unpublished data). Cost information can be incorporated to help farmers identify cost-effective actions (costs derived using methods demonstrated by Santangeli et al. 2016).

Biodiversity in the farming context can be understood as three different, overlapping, groups of species: functional biodiversity (‘heroes’ such as wild bees, which deliver ecosystem services), dysfunctional biodiversity (‘pests’) and well-known species, highly valued by society but not functional (‘icons’, such as many farmland birds for instance)8. Agriculture-related biodiversity policy should support icons and heroes while reducing pest densities. Measures that are effective at supporting functional biodiversity (‘heroes’), such as flowering field margins, are best placed as compulsory greening measures, because they represent maintenance of healthy, productive agricultural ecosystems. They should not entail lost income, at least after an initial transition period (Kovacs-Hostyanszki et al. 2017). Such measures are far more likely to be effective if farmers have a direct business interest in their biodiversity outcomes. Agri-environment schemes, on the other hand, compensate farmers for lost income. These are better suited to supporting iconic biodiversity that does not provide functional benefits. Here, evidence assessment identified restoring species-rich grassland (for butterflies and plants, for example) and skylark (Alauda arvensis) plots as effective actions.

4.2. Integrated Pest Management – A successful case study

Speaker: Lorenzo Furlan, Veneto Agricoltura - Agenzia Veneta per l’innovazione nel settore primario, and Filippo Codato, Associazione mutualistica dei Condifesa

del Veneto e Friuli VG

The prophylactic use of soil insecticides, such as systemic neonicotinoids on arable crops, results in direct costs for the farmer and in severe environmental impact, and also affects bees (van der Sluijs et al., 2015). In the Veneto region, a successful strategy against this problem has been implemented for maize. This strategy combines Integrated Pest Management (IPM, the principles of which should be applied by all professional users from 1 January 2014 according to Directive 2009/128/CE) with risk assessment and crop insurance .

IPM uses insecticides only where and when it is strictly needed after monitoring of harmful organisms by adequate methods and tools, including observations in the field as well as scientifically sound warning, forecasting and early diagnosis systems. Where a control strategy is needed, sustainable biological, physical and other non-chemical methods must be preferred to chemical methods if they provide satisfactory pest control. For example, in the case of Western Corn Rootworm (WCR – Diabrotica) crop rotation is the only full effective strategy, and treatments at sowing do not significantly affect WCR

7 There is little assessment or not of enough quality for buffer strips.

8 Based on original ideas from Professor Simon Potts, University of Reading

- 15 -

population dynamics. Therefore, insecticide treatments at sowing are unjustified. For virus diseases, specifically the Maize Rough Dwarf Virus, the use of resistant hybrids is as effective as the use of insecticides (Furlan et al., 2012). In the Italian case study (Furlan et al., 2017) and in Europe (Furlan et al., 2016), more than 95% of the damages by insects and other arthropods are caused by wireworms9. Knowledge to implement Integrated Pest Management (IPM) against wireworms is available. The first and most powerful alternative to insecticide use is planting crops where and when there is no serious economic damage risk. In this vein, Furlan et al. (2017) have identified the risk factors for wireworms: high soil organic matter content, poor drainage, high populations of most harmful species, etc. This allows mapping areas according to the risk level. No insecticide application should be done in no-risk areas. Only where one or more risk factors occur, monitoring of wireworms by bait traps should be done and the application of pesticides should be done only where monitoring has found a significant wireworm population.

Reliable information about risk assessment is available. An analysis on a 30 years dataset, including 16% of the land with the most important risk factors, makes clear that a risk of yield reduction occurs in less than 4% of the cultivated land (Furlan et al., 2017). Across Europe even a lower damage risk level has been found (Furlan et al., 2016). Based on risk factors the actual IPM target (in terms of maximum treated area) can be estimated region by region and risk maps can be drawn. Defining IPM target for each region should allow a decrease in soil insecticide use by 60 to 95% according to the presence of the risk factors in the area considered (while actually almost 100% of cultivated land is treated). An insurance (Mutual Funds – MF) approach has been implemented in support to this strategy. It is a no-profit instrument managed by a collective of farmers, aimed at compensating losses. Compensation is proportionate to the financial resources of the Fund. Risks covered are: insufficient plant density due to adverse weather conditions; insufficient plant density due to soil pests (including wireworms, black cutworms) or diseases; Diabrotica (WCR) damage; and loss of production caused by wild fauna. It also covers the risk of ineffectiveness of pesticides, of late treatment. Costs are between €3 and 5 /ha, and compensation up to €1000/ha. Mutual Funds make compulsory to follow the IPM guidelines of the Annual Crops Bulletin10.

A simulation of different strategies showed that the use of mutual funds (combined or no with IPM strategies implementation) in maize is always less costly than the prophylactic use of soil insecticides. Under the different strategies with mutual funds (mutual funds and zero pesticides, mutual funds with IPM based on risk factors, mutual funds with IPM based on risk factors + monitoring), there are trade-offs between the environmental and economic performances. It can be concluded that when the risk is low the mutual fund (insurance) approaches are more convenient for farmers and safer for people and the environment than prophylactic insecticide use. It can even fully replace pesticide use. With higher risk profiles MF can increase IPM application and the pesticides use reduction, making farmers comfortable with IPM implementation. Government institutions can contribute by: supporting risk assessment studies for all the crops, improving IPM strategies and cost evaluation for mutual funds; supporting independent advisory systems; giving precise targets for IPM; contributing to the set-up of mutual funds; supporting applied research for practical solutions and knowledge transfer.

9 Wireworms are the larvae of click beetles and live in the soil, feeding on plant early stages and roots.

10 http://www.venetoagricoltura.org/subindex.php?IDSX=120

- 16 -

4.3. Nutrient management plans

Speaker: Nicholas Hutchings, Aarhus University, Denmark, and Barbara Amon,

ATB, Germany

The main nutrients considered in nutrient management plans (NMP) are nitrogen and phosphorus. Under existing EU and/or national legislation, NMPs are already implemented at the farm scale.

Nitrogen enters the farm in a number of forms; as mineral fertiliser, imported manure, animal feed and bedding for livestock, and from the air via atmospheric deposition and nitrogen fixation in the leguminous plants (e.g. clover, pea). Nitrogen leaves the farm in agricultural products (e.g. grain, straw, milk), exported manure and in losses to the environment. Losses to the air include ammonia, nitrous oxide, nitric oxide and nitrogen gas, with all except the latter contributing to atmospheric pollution. Nitrogen is lost to the aquatic environment via the leaching of nitrates and dissolved organic nitrogen, and surface run-off. Phosphorus enters the farm in animal feed, fertiliser and manure and is exported in livestock and crop products, and manure. Losses occur only to the aquatic environment, mainly via erosion.

The aim of a NMP is to ensure that the nutrients available to a crop do not exceed the crop’s requirements. The requirements are partly supplied by fertiliser or manure and partly by other sources (e.g. from the soil or the atmosphere). The fertilisation limit for nitrogen application varies with soil type and climate, and is often defined as the application rate where the marginal cost of the fertiliser equals to the profit obtained from the resulting increase in crop production. However, environmental considerations may mean the fertilisation limit needs to be lower. The fertilisation can be supplied by fertiliser or manure. If the latter, the value of the nutrients is reduced using the Manure fertiliser equivalent, to account for their lower effectiveness for crop production. The lower effectiveness of manure is partly because losses are greater than from fertiliser and partly because some organic forms of nutrients are not immediately available to plants. For phosphorus, the fertilisation limit is designed to match the removal of phosphorus in crop products, to prevent accumulation in the soil. This limit is often only applied to soils where the accumulation of phosphorus is already high. If the total production of manure nutrients on the farm exceeds the total permissible application on the farm, manure must be exported.

The advantages of NMPs are that they may reduce the cost of crop production (if nutrients are currently supplied in excess) and the loss of a range of pollutants will be reduced. In addition, if the fertilisation limit is severe, the farmer has a strong incentive to reduce gaseous losses from the manure management system, to retain as much in the manure that is applied. The disadvantages are that they do not target specific losses and can be expensive for both the farmer and the regulator. The costs to the farmer occur through the need to collect data, in order to calculate the annual application of manure and fertiliser, and to report to the regulatory authorities. The costs to the regulator occur through the need to monitor at the farm scale, to access farm input data and to establish both application limits and manure gaseous emission standards.

NMPs can be monitored by calculating the difference between the farm inputs and outputs, then adjusting for nutrient losses that occur prior to application (from the manure management system). The inputs can either be calculated by obtaining purchase information from fertiliser and livestock feed suppliers, and information on the import of manure. The outputs can be calculated by obtaining documentation of sales of crop and animal products. The manure production can alternatively be calculated using standard

- 17 -

livestock excretion values, adjusted according to the level of production. This may be preferable for ruminant livestock farms, where much of the animal feed is produced on the farm and hence undocumented.

4.4. Manure management techniques

Speaker: Barbara Amon, ATB, Germany, and Nicholas Hutchings, Aarhus

University, Denmark

This presentation covered mitigation measures related to manure management, selected according to the following criteria: implementability, efficiency, impact on the environment, secondary effects, controllability and low or moderate costs. They can be summarised in:

1- Livestock feeding: reduce N excretion by adjusting animal diet to animal performance. It is important to avoid N surplus from the very beginning of the manure management continuum. In the case of pigs, (multi-)phase feeding is already widely implemented. In the case of cattle, for which N intake is not as easy to control, and diets are more variable and dependent on local conditions, the aim should be to increase roughage in the diet, to increase milk yield with moderate level of concentrates and to increase production cycles per cow11. It is necessary to find a compromise between high yields based on concentrates and environmental side-effects (other than low GHG emissions). Diets and production levels should be designed specifically for each region (according to roughage availability, climate, etc).

2- Livestock housing measures: animal houses should be cool, clean, manure should be stored outside. Most measures are applicable to new houses (e.g. smart barns with optimised ventilation). Effectivity of these measures is often less well researched, especially for naturally ventilated houses.

3- Manure storage and treatment measures: a. storage outside the barn, covered storage of slurry. It is necessary to raise

awareness for the availability of low cost covers. b. treatment of slurry to reduce dry matter content, and to increase NH4

content. Among the main available techniques, it is worth mentioning separation, anaerobic digestion and acidification. Manure treatment incurs costs.

4- Manure application measures: low trajectory application, immediate incorporation, in line with crop demand (amount and timing). There are costs associated to the application technology, and difficulties related to the application into growing crops (timing). Mineral fertiliser is easier to handle and the N value easier to calculate.

11 Increasing productivity from roughage serves several benefits: - Given that cows can only cope with a limited amount of concentrates, eating more roughage will keep

cows healthy. Therefore it allows increasing milk yield (with the associated reduction of methane emissions per kg of milk produced) and increasing longevity and animal welfare

- Decrease of the dependence on concentrates, therefore less consumption of concentrates imported from low-GHG-efficient countries, less competition with human food requirements, possibility to preserve or increase permanent grassland (higher Carbon sequestration on the soil), contribution to preservation of natural landscape, and less excess of N input due to imports of concentrate in areas where concentrates are not grown (e.g. Alpine areas).

- 18 -

For an efficient design of best practices strategies it is necessary to have a detailed understanding of emissions processes, including their drivers and controls. It is also necessary to take into account different types of pollutants and their interactions, as well as interactions with climate change, animal welfare and landscape issues. Strategies must be flexible to be adaptable to climate and site specific conditions and take into account economic and social issues, including potential conflicts of interest. Some suggestions are:

1- the creation of a guidance document on measures and their pros and cons 2- offering flexible tools for mitigation measures that can be adapted to local

conditions 3- striving at closing the science-policy gap 4- discussing implementation barriers with the farming community

4.5. Questions and answers of Session 3

Biodiversity

Some biodiversity oriented features (e.g. hedgerows) already existed before Greening requested them for EFA. The question is whether a Greening payment should be granted only for a change from the status quo (e.g. new hedgerows) or also for pre-existing features. The EFA calculator awards not only for the creation of EFA features but also for their maintenance. Moreover, farming systems that are environmentally-friendly in the baseline situation would be penalised in comparison with more intensive farming systems that need to improve, if only change of situation was to be rewarded. However, for the analysis of the impact of a policy, it can always be useful to compare the ex-ante and the ex-post situations.

The effect of agricultural subsidies on biodiversity may seem limited. Dedicating land only to nature protection could be more cost-effective. But then, land use would change and it would not be covered by agricultural policies any more. Options could be to put a share of farm land out of production, which in some cases can even result in increased yields (‘ecological intensification’)12 or to dedicate whole farms to conservation, and paying for this. Advice is key to show to farmers that biodiversity also brings advantages to farmers ("heroes"). Policy (AECM) cannot easily support such biodiversity when there are no costs and this limits the uptake.

If the scenario is to decrease agriculture in favour of biodiversity, then there might be an increase of weeds, parasites, etc. because an equilibrium is being broken.

In some analyses, landscape features such as hedgerows or buffer strips do not score very high in terms of biodiversity. This is due to the criterion used for the selection of the studies: they analysed only impacts of putting in new features.

IPM- Uptake challenges

Despite the developments due to the Directive on sustainable use of plant protection products, farmers are often slow or reluctant in implementing IPM. One of the reasons can be that farmers are risk averse, so that they fear more the possibility of a loss than they would enjoy a similar gain or profit. Another reason can be the relatively weak voice of IPM / independent advisory system as compared to that of the agro-chemical

12 Ecological intensification: If managed in the correct way, on certain farms, land taken out of

production can add to the yield, or the stability of yields.

- 19 -

companies. A farm advisor entering the farm can get a 93% success rate against a 10-20% rate of one not entering the farm. It is necessary to upscale, to establish and to support independent face to face advisory systems to farmers that can, for example, attend farmers' association meetings. The idea of banning / regulating direct advice to farmers from plant protection products producers was evoked (following the example of the pharmaceutical regulations). A programme for promotion of IPM or other environmental practices could foster face to face advisory system.

There are no common definitions and targets for IPM programmes. The current situation differs greatly between crops: while in orchards and vineyards IPM benefits of a higher uptake, for arable crops there is a big margin for improvement and the use of pesticides could be largely reduced in few years. A weakness is that, often, implementation of IPM programmes does not have a specific target before starting, nor an evaluation method, nor a time schedule.

Nitrogen

In areas at risk of nitrate pollution (e.g. Nitrate Vulnerable Zones), NMP are obligatory, however their implementation is not always simple (e.g. small, part-time farmers). Extending NMP to the landscape scale thus associating the full range of actors concerned could be useful. It is at this stage not possible to measure N leaching from the farms. However, it is possible to measure ammonia emissions with remote sensing technologies.

Adjusting feed to animal requirements is .of vital importance to avoid N surplus from the very beginning of the manure management process, but how easy is it for the farmers to know animal requirements? Data on feed is not widely available. It could be requested from business / professional farms, but less easily from small-scale and/or part-time farmers. Multi-phase-feeding is easy and standardised for pigs and poultry. However, only 50% of the farms in Austria use it. The reason behind it is that a big share of these farms is owned by part-time farmers, with limited willingness to invest due to lack of perspectives of a follow-up in the farming activity. So they use single-phase feeding. In the case of cattle, phase-feeding programmes are more complex because not based on standardised diets. The quality and composition of cattle feed varies with what is available in the area, it is not based on standardised products. Therefore, research should be oriented to breed cattle that can eat more roughage, or that can produce as much milk from roughage intake as possible. There is also a need for independent advice to farmers, while the feed industry is providing advice not necessarily neutral.

Manure should not be regarded as a waste but as a resource. We are moving towards a zero-waste economy or circular economy. Concerning the reduction of slurry dry matter content, this is not achieved by adding water but by separation of the solid and liquid fractions. Transporting only the solid fraction reduces costs of transport as well as emissions from transport.

The measures to be implemented should be decided through holistic approaches. But again it should be addressed regionally and based on the priority objectives, because there are trade-offs. For example, the increase of cow yields is good for decreasing GHG emissions, but it is not animal friendly nor landscape friendly. It also depends on the regions: it is different to increase cow yields in the Netherlands and in Austria.

- 20 -

5. SESSION 4: POLICY DESIGN FOR MODERNISATION AND SIMPLIFICATION

Chair: Jesus Barreiro Hurlé, DG JRC D4, Economics of agriculture

5.1. How to improve uptake of measures: behavioural insights in

agricultural policy

Speaker: Rene van Bavel and Francois Dessart, DG JRC I2, Foresight, Behavioural

Insights and Design for Policy

Behavioural advice to policy-making is increasing in popularity around the world. This refers to the integration into the policy-making process of an evidence-based analysis of human behaviour impact. It implies challenging policymakers’ assumption that citizens act as “econs” (i.e. responding in a rational way to economic incentives) and acknowledging the existence of biases and heuristics in our thinking and behaviour, such as loss aversion (i.e. people suffer more from a loss than they enjoy an equivalent gain), present bias (i.e. people value immediate rewards more than long-term benefits), social norms, and many more.

Behavioural research testing different policy options is run through different types of experiments: from simple laboratory experiments (e.g. computer based tests) to more complex and realistic randomized control trials (RCT) comparing intervention groups and control groups (Colen et al., 2015).

Behavioural insights are applicable to agricultural policy. The CAP presents some problems that include a behavioural element (e.g. limited adoption of new technology, lack of vertical integration, farmers' reluctance to cooperate, inappropriate farming practices).

Agricultural economics has been studying farmer behaviour for decades. For example, the low uptake of technology by farmers, especially during the Green Revolution, was explained by loss aversion. Farmers behave in the way they do because they are not only profit maximisers. Research has also shown that five categories of farmers with different behavioural patterns can be considered: custodians (i.e. proud to be farmers, old style), pragmatists, lifestyle choice, modern family business and challenged enterprises (UK Defra, 2008).

Behavioural insights are relevant for policies that rely on voluntary behaviour (vs. regulation). They do not replace incentives but may act additionally when incentives are not enough. In this case:

1- People can be ‘nudged’ into desirable behaviours. This means that you can change people’s behaviour without changing their minds, by other means, for example by setting a default option in a menu. An experiment showed the efficiency in terms of adoption of a practice of simply addressing a direct notification letter explaining that a high share of people in your town / region has already adopted it. Other important nudges are related to simplification and to administrative burden reduction.

2- Behavioural insights can help designing more effective policies (i.e. beyond nudging). For example, an RCT in Kenya (Duflo et al. 2011) showed that due to the present bias, an early small discount (covering the delivery costs) on fertilizer purchases induces the same increase in fertilizer adoption as a stronger (50%) subsidy offered later in the season.

- 21 -

5.2. Innovative technologies in agriculture and the potential for policy

design and control

Speaker: Tamme van der Wal, Wageningen Environmental Research

Information systems allow a trace to be made all along the production chain, from the field to the consumer. On the production side, new technologies have allowed the implementation of precision agriculture. This set of techniques started in the 1990’s, and after a moderate growth in 2000’s, is experiencing an exponential growth during the 2010’s. It consists on the optimization of input use in crop production based on the combination of different technologies:

Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS): GPS, Galileo, Glonass, etc and the supporting systems like Real Time Kinematics (RTK) corrections (for cm accuracy);

Sensors: Satellite Earth Observation (EO), Weather, Soil sensors, and crop information in 3 spatial and the temporal dimension (XYZ-T);

Data processing: Algorithms, databases, alerts; Reacting technologies: variable rate technology (VRT) on seeders, sprayers,

spreaders, etc., selective harvesting.

Precision farming is able to respond to: agricultural challenges:

o To compete in world markets, to manage bigger farms (GNSS), to save inputs (avoiding double seeding, reducing fuel consumption from overlap, unnecessary fertilisation, etc.) (sensors).

o To produce more with a lower agricultural area in Europe and to feed an increasing population with limited resources in the world;

Climate challenge: to adapt to climate change, with more frequent and intense episodes of floods and droughts;

Societal challenges, for a more green, clean and lean agriculture: maximising use of renewables, zero emissions and zero N surplus, no waste.

Agricultural policies can also benefit from these technologies. LPIS/IACS can benefit from farmer measured boundaries (GNSS). It can allow implementing and controlling site specific nutrient management requirements, using a fertiliser rate combining the economic (yield) optimum with the ecological optimum (minimum leaching risk) (sensors, VRT). It can assist farmers on meeting legal obligations while allowing more flexibility (e.g. grassland mowing periods).

There are however some problems for implementation of precision farming technologies. Farmers are still uncertain and uneasy about the technology because of the technical complexity (knowledge gap, lack of standards, uncertainty of effects), the asymmetric business case (the farmer can make investments and others take the benefits) and the lack of data management models (data ownership, protection, interference). All these factors, in combination with risk aversion, keep farmers from a higher adoption rate. The data processing and data sharing allows for simplification, both for the farmer and the administrations (entering the data once, and re-using it for different purposes).

Progress could therefore be slow if adoption is not stimulated by public policies. Policies can benefit from GNSS, EO, internet of things (IoT), farm management information systems (FMIS) in the design of regulations and controls. Agriculture can also deliver in climate, environmental, soil and water policies, at least in the local implementation. With the application of high-tech farming technologies, agriculture can contribute to a better

- 22 -

environment while maintaining (or improving) its productivity. This is a win-win situation.

5.3. New technologies in agriculture and the potential for policy design and

control: the farmers’ perspective

Speaker: Niels Lindberg Madsen, Danish Agriculture and Food Council Association

Ltd

New technologies such as GPS-based precision farming, use of satellite images or drones, is already widely used in the agricultural sector, driven by the potential for optimizing the production. These opportunities should be incorporated into the design of the CAP after 2020. This is, however, not an easy task, as the technological development is an ongoing process whereas the policy development is taking place in the next couple of years. Other issues that need special attention are ownership of and access to data, but also farmers’ concerns that technology may allow 100% controls.

These concerns should however not prevent the significant potential advantages for the farmers. These could include:

Opportunity to move from a detailed ”deadline-based regulation” to agronomic best practices based requirements.

Farmers are often frustrated by deadlines requiring them to fulfil certain requirement before a certain date even when the agronomic or climatic conditions in the fields are not optimal. The use of new technologies should make it possible to be more flexible over or remove these deadlines.

Control of plant cover – e.g. catch crops and fallow land

It should be possible to control plant cover by e.g. satellite images. On the spot checks could be reserved to incidents where the images indicate non-compliance.

Mapping of landscape features, hedges etc.

The regulation should allow for the use of satellite images for the mapping of e.g. landscape features and hedges.

Automatically generated area aid applications

One of the most burdensome and costly parts of the CAP in relation to the administration is the area aid application. Due to its importance many farmers use advisors to fill in the application. To make this process more simple and less risky, official satellite images should (unless the farmer objects) be used to generate these aid applications. This could remove the risk of the farmers over-declaring their area.

New technologies are part of the future for a competitive European agricultural sector – the CAP should embrace and support that.

5.4. Questions and answers of Session 4

Behavioural insights

Behavioural insights are relevant for voluntary measures. Farmers' enrolment in a programme is very much influenced for example by their neighbour’s example.

- 23 -

However, even in the case of compulsory measures (i.e. Greening) farmers will prefer to have a choice among a series of alternative options and then behavioural insights also have their relevance.

The adaptation of the measures to each region can lead to problems of policy acceptance by MS and farmers. There is a bias associated to positional effects: “Econs” are sensitive only to individual revenues but humans are also sensitive to differences of treatment between individuals or regions.

Precision agriculture

Several projects under the EU Life Program (Life+Agricare13, Life+Agricarbon14) analysed precision farming in combination with conservation agriculture. The latter has found that it is possible to obtain cost reductions between 10% (wheat) and 20% (sunflower) while maintaining the same yields.

Precision agriculture uptake is lagging behind the technological developments. The reasons behind are not only of a behavioural nature but also linked to the initial investment required15. Promoting precision farming might increase the gap between wealthier and technology-oriented farms and smaller scale and less favoured farms. However, all farmers buy expensive tractors or machinery, also for reasons of comfort and status. Development of sharing economy or contractual services has long been used for expensive machines (e.g. harvesters). Returns are even more important than the cost of machinery and this explains that farm size matters, more from the economic size perspective than the area one.

There could also be a geographical bias, the more intensive and rich areas or northern-western Europe being the most benefitted by new technologies. However, it is also true that the biggest environmental issues take place in this zone of Europe.

Application of new technologies to CAP

New technologies can simplify area aid application but not completely replace it. Many crops look similar in the satellite imagery, although in some cases temporal aspects can be used to differentiate them (different growth rates, etc.). However, it is difficult to distinguish crops, in particular different cereals or types of grass.

New technologies can also be useful for helping farmers comply with CAP obligations, for example by providing alerts on pending measures (e.g. mowing, sowing a winter cover). Satellite imagery tools can also be used for control of CAP measures, helping to reduce the number of inspectors’ on-farm visits. Although farmers express dislike to be permanently controlled thanks to new technologies, they may like even less the presence of inspectors in the farms. However, the development and use of Sentinel images will not imply that all on-farm visits will disappear. Challenges might be the ownership of the data, farmers fear that this interferes in their activity (e.g. that price setting is influenced by different patterns of information diffusion).

13 Introducing innovative precision farming techniques in AGRIculture to decrease CARbon Emissions,

LIFE13 ENV/IT/000583

14 Sustainable Agriculture in Carbon Arithmetics, LIFE08 ENV/E/000129

15 Farm machinery has a high impact on farm revenue and an elastic demand, as it is possible to delay renovating it.

- 24 -

6. SESSION 5: PRACTICES AND THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL / ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE

(2)

Chair: Tom van Ierland, Head of Unit CLIMA C1, Strategy and Economic

Assessment

6.1. Practices addressing environmental needs: Agroforestry

Speaker: Rosa Mosquera-Losada, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela,

European Federation of Agroforestry Systems (EURAF)

Agroforestry corresponds to the integration of a woody component in the agricultural activity (for definitions, see FAO, 2017 and USDA, 2017). Agroforestry contributes to increase ecosystem services deliveries thanks to the optimization of the use of the resources (e.g. radiation, temperature, humidity), through ecointensification above and below the ground. Agroforestry is an excellent tool to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Mitigation is achieved thanks to (i) additional deep soil carbon storage linked to the woody vegetation and (ii) by the positive impact of less frequent forest fire due to consumption by animals in areas with high risk. Adaptation is supported by the modification of ecological factors caused by the tree (e.g. temperature, radiation, precipitation regime, wind) which reduce the impact of extreme weather events and favour crop production resilience.

The main agroforestry practices are identified as silvopasture, silvoarable, forest farming, riparian buffer strips and home gardens. Silvopasture and silvoarable practices have a huge implementation potential in Europe, where they are present in less than 10% and 0.1% of their respective potential areas. Agroforestry practices can be integrated on farms or at the landscape scale, and are then turned into agroforestry systems, which should also be promoted.

Sources: Mosquera-Losada et al. (2016);EURAF (2017), Eip-Agri (2017). .

6.2. Best practices for soil organic carbon management in agricultural

systems

Speaker: Julie Ingram, Countryside & Community Research Institute, UK

The presentation provided an overview of the SmartSOIL project16, which had two overall aims:

To identify agronomic practices in arable and mixed farming systems that result in an optimised balance between crop productivity and soil carbon sequestration.

To develop and deliver decision support guidelines for different European soils and categories of beneficiaries (farmers, farm advisory services, and policy makers).

This project developed an interdisciplinary approach, combining scientific insights and understanding of the farming socio-economic context. Five sets of interrelated best

16 The research presented here was conducted by partners in the project consortium, led by Professor

Jorgen Olesen. Specific publications authored by the partners are available on www.smartsoil.eu. The work was part of the project SmartSOIL (Grant Agreement N° 289694) funded by the European Commission, within the 7th Framework Programme of RTD.

- 25 -

practices for soil organic carbon management were identified as having the potential to increase soil carbon stocks and optimise productivity:

cover (and catch) crops. crop rotations.

residue management. conservation agriculture. manure management.

These were selected by drawing on an extensive review of research, project experimentation and project partner expertise. The project used meta-analyses of data from European long term experiments to model and predict the impact of these different practices on soil organic carbon and yield. Stakeholder engagement, a key element of the project, took place in six case study regions in: Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Scotland and Spain. This allowed understanding of the barriers and incentives to implementing the practices and the information (both content and format) needs of the farming community. Cost effectiveness analysis was also conducted for each of the practices in the case studies. Based on these inputs decision support guidelines were developed for the practices. These comprise Real Life Case leaflets, videos, FactSheets, a Decision Support Tool, policy recommendations, maps and scientific publications and are available at www.smartsoil.eu .

6.3. Beef Genomics and Emissions - The Beef Data and Genomics

Programme in Ireland

Speaker: Kevin Kinsella, Director of Livestock Irish Farmers Association

The Beef Data and Genomics Programme was introduced in Ireland in 2015 as a CAP Rural development scheme. The programme gets farmers to use data recording, innovative breeding technology of genomics and carbon navigation in the suckler cow herd to deliver accelerated genetic improvement and in turn improve the environmental and economic sustainability of the national herd. 25,000 farmers with 530,000 cows are participating in the scheme.

The Irish Cattle Breeding Federation (ICBF) through a genetic evaluation programme utilising a comprehensive data base provides each farmer with a star based system on the assessment of their animals.

Farmers commit to the scheme for 6 years and undertake 6 specific requirements which include recording calving details, undertaking surveys on stock, genotyping animals, implementing a replacement strategy, completing a carbon navigator and conducting training. They also have to meet set targets on genetic gain.

Applicants receive payments of €142.50 per ha for the first 6.66 ha and €120 per ha thereafter, which converts into €95 per cow on the first 10 cows and €80 per cow for remainder. The total annual budget is €52m. All applicants are subject to administrative checks as well as 5 % on the spot checks at farm level.

Analysis shows that in improving from the average 3 star cow to a 5 star cow, the potential GHG reduction is approximately 86kt CO2 eq per year by 2020, equivalent to 4.4% of marginal abatement potential from the suckler cow herd. The mitigation benefits could extend to 300kt CO2 eq by 2020 if all maternal traits were factored into the analysis. As the suckler breeding evolves, the breeding index also improves so that the current top 1% of animals could form the norm by 2030. The cumulative climate

- 26 -

mitigation benefits from this outcome are projected at 1.9 Mt CO2 by 2030 or 235,000 tonnes of CO2 annually in 2030, representing approximately 12% of marginal abatement from the suckler herd in 2030.

Through the adoption of greater flexibility and more realistic targets it is felt more farmers could participate in this positive programme and get them on the important double dividend journey of lowering GHG and improving income.

6.4. Questions and answers of Session 5

Agroforestry

Agroforestry is not very developed in Europe. One of the main reasons for the elimination of trees was the mechanisation of agriculture, the intensification of the land use and specialisation. The CAP contributed to this evolution, as well as the tendency to conceptually separate agriculture and forestry.

Although agro-forestry benefits crop and livestock production, the profitability of the whole-farm (as compared with the non-agro-forestry situation) depends on the crop-trees combinations chosen. For example, if trees used are fruit trees, the profitability of the farm will increase. Possibilities of mechanisation must also be taken into account e.g. rows must be separated enough to allow the use of machinery.

It was mentioned that a case study showed, in the framework of the Paris Agreement, that if conservation agriculture was a standard practice, emissions from the agricultural sector would be balanced by SOC accumulation (Gil-Ribes et al. 2017).

Soil organic carbon

Soil is the largest carbon sink, principally in permanent (non-tilled) grassland and peatland. The best measure to improve soil organic carbon (SOC) is no tillage. Even in grasslands and fallowland, if land is tilled every 2 to 5 years, part of the cumulated carbon is lost.

A good combined management of SOC and N progressively decreases the need of nitrogen fertilisation.

However, there are some challenges for the practical application of SOC measures:

SOC cumulation varies a lot with soil, slopes and climatic conditions. While in many regions (e.g. in Austria) C sequestration is very slow, in other places a non-negligible increase in SOC with no-tillage practices has been observed from the first year.

Minimum tillage on crops is only possible using herbicides for weed control. Its use can be reduced (-20%) in the medium-term with a good management (soil coverage).

In grasslands, in practice, after 5 years farmers may want to plough because otherwise it cannot be classified anymore as arable land and becomes permanent grassland for CAP payments.

- 27 -

Genomics

The Irish Genomics programme does not compare breeds, the star system is an across-breed system. The programme does not look into feeding rates to foster productivity. In Ireland feed is 90% grass.

In Scandinavian countries there were also attempts to improve breeds, but for dairy. Insemination, quick measurement of the improvement thanks to daily milk collection, concentration in less dairy breeds (in beef breeding there are 20 breeds) makes genomic improvement easier to implement. In the dairy sector significant progress has been made but not focusing on GHG emissions.

The programme presents challenges in terms of administrative burden at farm level similar to those of cross-compliance. However, it has been a tremendous success: 50% of the Irish suckler cows were under the programme in its first year. Now the main limit is the budget available. For the Administration, the challenge is to train, support and assist farmers. Also, initially, there can be conflicts relating to the policy of cattle-breeding (e.g. breed-societies can be reluctant to change their methods).

The length of the programme can also be an obstacle, for example for farmers of a certain age, which are losing money and rely only on direct payments (DP). A six-year commitment is long, and there is a rule obliging farmers to reimburse the money received if they quit before.

The Beef Data and Genomics Programme was introduced in Ireland in 2015 as a CAP Rural development scheme. The programme gets farmers to use data recording, innovative breeding technology of genomics and carbon navigation in the suckler cow herd to deliver accelerated genetic improvement and in turn improve the environmental and economic sustainability of the national herd. 25,000 farmers with 530,000 cows are participating in the scheme.

7. OPEN DISCUSSION

This session was opened by a panel discussion including several services of the Commission (DG CLIMA/ENV/SANTE/AGRI). All highlighted possible synergies in EU action, in particular how the CAP relates to climate, environmental and health objectives (e.g. sustainable use of pesticides). All agreed on the need to strike the right balance between those EU wide objectives and flexibility in implementation. They pointed towards performance and focus on results.

Summary of conclusions

The workshop on environment and climate focused on "Best practices addressing environmental and climate needs". It aimed at exploring the ways of identifying the environmental and climate challenges, and matching the local needs stemming from these challenges with best practices.

In the policy discussion, participants took stock of all contributions in order to make knowledge-based suggestions and recommendations on how the CAP could help to improve the delivery of needed environmental and climate outputs, in a modernized, targeted and simpler way.

There was a consensus that the "one size fits all solution" CAP does not respond

adequately to environmental challenges. More flexibility should be brought into the

- 28 -

first environmental layer of the CAP, above the baseline established by cross-compliance requirements. This would enable better targeting of environmental and climate needs. But there are data gaps to be filled. In some cases, data exist at national or regional level but they are often not available to the EU level (Eurostat or operational DGs) for monitoring and policy ex-ante or ex-post evaluation, in particular in the environmental domain. Additionally, with existing technologies, it is possible to combine or overlay different datasets already available (e.g. FADN, FSS, IACS, Nitrate Directive, etc.) at high resolution, even at farm level.

It was thus recommended that a clear framework for identifying environmental

priorities at the relevant scale (EU, national, regional or sub-regional level) be provided. It should be the responsibility of Member States or regions to establish and justify priorities in climate, biodiversity, air, water and soils issues, in coherence with EU objectives, within CAP and other policies such as environment, energy and climate. It also implies that additional efforts should be made in the monitoring of environmental data to assess and measure environmental needs.

As a first environmental layer of the CAP, one suggestion was to establish a list of best environmental practices from which Member States or regions could draw to set-up coherent measure menus, responding adequately to local environmental priorities and climate change mitigation and adaptation needs.

There was no consensus on whether this first environmental layer should be mandatory for farmers, leading to a reduction of income support payments if not respected, or could be open as a voluntary entry-level scheme in which farmers would be expected to participate thanks to incentive payments. The two approaches have pros and cons.

The mandatory approach builds on the Greening logic as it presently stands. It would apply to a large number of producers and would convey the message that public money pays for public goods. However, the risk is to limit the environmental ambition, and to see farmers not adhering and/or not understanding fully the rationale of such mandatory measures. From the farmers’ points of view, the greening measures can be a source of frustration. They sometimes do not see the perceive the environmental benefits of implementing greening measures as they currently stand and resent the additional administrative burden, the controls and the penalties. It is necessary to improve their perception and understanding that society pays for providing public goods, and that this might also present business opportunities. From a behavioural perspective, however, loss aversion (of subsidies) might play a role in inciting farmers to comply.

The voluntary programmed approach could help to alleviate the resentment feelings that farmers may have with compulsory Greening measures and overcome some of the behavioural factors hindering compliance. But experience shows that voluntary schemes are often underfunded and that it is difficult to engage a critical mass of farmers in voluntary programmes, especially those whose income loss and additional costs stemming from implementing these voluntary schemes are not matched by the payment. The risk is to face low enrolment unless payments are high, with the consequence of windfall gains for some farmers.

In both cases (mandatory or voluntary approach), there is a need to re-think the design of measures and the way they are communicated to farmers in order to overcome behavioural biases.

It was also strongly emphasized that this first environmental layer should be based on better knowledge and evidence of the efficiency of recommended practices. This is

- 29 -

particularly important in order to engage farmers in a positive dynamic of change. Not only do they need to master the change of practices, which requires the reinforcement of independent advisory services, including face-to-face encounters, but they should also see proof that these practices bring environmental and economic benefits.

A second more targeted and more ambitious environmental tier would be maintained to complete the overall system. It was stressed that payments in this tier would have to be triggered only for efforts or results significantly above the reference level established by the first tier.

Another strong point was the issue of monitoring and control. How to resolve simultaneously the need for more flexibility and the simplification requirements? Indeed, the existence of many options for farmers can result in an increase of transaction costs and of the burden of controls. The development of new technologies (i.e. satellite images, remote sensing and data collected from precision farming systems and other machinery) can provide useful monitoring information and enable distance control systems, less costly and less burdensome both for the payment agencies and farmers. They may also allow farmers to get away from 'calendar farming', where agricultural practices are dictated by control requirements rather than by sound environmental or agronomic purpose. They are also a very useful way to provide feedback to farmers on their environmental performance, guiding them towards self-assessment, for example, through performance-based holistic approaches where synergies and trade-offs between environmental objectives are also captured. This modernisation can only happen if access to these new technologies is also open to smaller farms via sharing and/or contractual services. The modernisation in technologies should be matched by a modernisation in the overall regulation and control chain. However, it was also underlined that support to the acquisition / investment in new technologies may not be the best way forward, as this might influence the price of such technologies and as some developments are fundamentally driven by cost reduction.

New technologies should allow control of criteria relevant to observable environmental performance at a lower cost. The fact that meeting certain environmental targets often does not only depend on the behaviour of the single farmer (e.g. biodiversity targets, water quality targets) should be recognised.

The research, innovation, advice complex is at the heart of the further implementation of best environmental practices in the agricultural sector, as mentioned several times above. Best farming practices, monitoring and assessment of the environmental performances, enhanced and simpler controls would all benefit from the adoption of new technologies and practices developed by research and innovation and from the reinforcement of independent advisory systems. The Farm Advisory System is there to help. It would be a good idea to directly consult farmers, advisors and paying agencies on what their needs are, regarding technologies and social innovation, as well as to assess what works, what does not work and why performance is not optimal. The European Innovation Partnership is a place where knowledge can be created and shared; further inclusion of advisers should be sought. Public advisory systems should be maintained and reinforced to counterbalance private advice by the agri-business

***

- 30 -

References

Batáry, P., L.V. Dicks, D. Kleijn, and W. J. Sutherland. 2015. 'The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation and environmental management', Conservation Biology, 29: 1006-16.

Colen, L., S. Gomez y Paloma, U. Latacz-Lohmann, M. Lefebvre, R. Préget, S. Thoyer (2015). (How) can economic experiments inform EU agricultural policy?. JRC Science and Policy Report 97340. EUR 27496 EN. http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC97340/jrc%20report%20final.pdf

Defra (2008). Understanding Behaviours in a Farming Context. Defra Agricultural Change and Environment Observatory Discussion Paper. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130123162956/http:/www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/files/defra-stats-foodfarm-environ-obs-research-behavious-aceopaper-nov08.pdf

Dicks, L. V., I. Hodge, N. P. Randall, J. P. W. Scharlemann, G. M. Siriwardena, H. G. Smith, R. K. Smith, and W. J. Sutherland. 2014. 'A Transparent Process for "Evidence-Informed" Policy Making', Conservation Letters, 7: 119-25.

Dicks, L.V., N. Haddaway, M. Hernández-Morcillo, B. Mattsson, N. Randall, P. Failler, J. Ferretti, B. Livoreil, H. Saarikoski, L. Santamaria, R. Rodela, E. Velizarova, and H. Wittmer. 2017. "Knowledge synthesis for environmental decisions: an evaluation of existing methods, and guidance for their selection, use and development – a report from the EKLIPSE project." In.: Eklipse D3.1, Version 1.0.

Duflo, E., M. Kremer, and J. Robinson (2011). “Nudging Farmers to Utilize Fertilizer: Theory and Experimental Evidence from Kenya.” American Economic Review 101 (October): 2350–90.

EIP-Agri (2017). Agroforestry: introducing woody vegetation into specialised crop and livestock systems. EIP-Agri Agroforestry Focus Group. https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/content/agroforestry-introducing-woody-vegetation-specialised-crop-and-livestock-systems

EURAF (2017). Newsletter: Featured Farm Section http://www.agroforestry.eu/newsletters

FAO (2017). Agroforestry definition http://www.fao.org/forestry/agroforestry/80338/en/

Furlan L, Chiarini F, Balconi C, Lanzanova C, Torri A., Valoti P, Alma A, Saladini MA, Mori N, Davanzo M, Colauzzi M (2012). Possibilità di applicazione della difesa integrata per il controllo delle virosi nella coltura del mais. Apoidea 1-2: 39 – 44.

Furlan L, Vasileiadis VP, Chiarini F, Huiting H, Leskovšek R, Razinger J, Holbe JI, Sartori E, Urek G, Verschweleg A, Benevegnù I, Sattin M. (2016). Risk assessment of soil-pest damage to grain maize in Europe within the framework of Integrated Pest Management. . Crop Protection, DOI 10.1016/j.cropro.2016.11.029

- 31 -

Furlan L, Contiero B, Chiarini F, Colauzzi M, Sartori E, Benevegnù I, Giandon P (2017). Risk assessment of maize damage by wireworms (Coleoptera: Elateridae) as the first step in implementing IPM and in reducing the environmental impact of soil insecticides. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 24 (1): 236-251, DOI: 10.1007/s11356-016-7692-z.

Gil-Ribes J.A., Ordóñez-Fernandez R., González-Sánchez E.J., Veroz-González O., Gómez Ariza M., Sánchez-Ruiz F. (2017). Beneficios de la Agricultura de Conservación en un Entorno de Cambio Climático. Edita: Asociación Española Agricultura de Conservación Suelos Vivos. pp127. http://www.agriculturadeconservacion.org/Estudio_AEAC.pdf

Kovacs-Hostyanszki, Aniko, Anahi Espindola, Adam J. Vanbergen, Josef Settele, Claire Kremen, and Lynn V. Dicks. 2017. 'Ecological intensification to mitigate impacts of conventional intensive land use on pollinators and pollination', Ecology Letters, in press.

Mosquera-Losada MR, et al. (2016). Extent and success of current policy measures to promote agroforestry across Europe. Deliverable 8.23 for EU FP7 Research Project: AGFORWARD 613520. (8 December 2016). 95 pp. http://www.agforward.eu/index.php/en/extent-and-success-of-current-policy-measures-to-promote-agroforestry-across-europe.html

PPI (2013). Wireworm (larvae of click beetles) bait traps – Agriotes spp. Plant Protection Institute, Centre for Agricultural Research, HAS, Budapest http://www.csalomontraps.com/4listbylatinname/pdffajonkentik/wireworms.pdf

Pywell, R.F., Heard, M.S., Woodcock, B.A., Hinsley, S., Ridding, L., Nowakowski, M., Bullock, J.M. (2015) Wildlife-friendly farming increases crop yield: evidence for ecological intensification. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 282.

Santangeli, Andrea, Beatriz Arroyo, Lynn V. Dicks, Irina Herzon, Aija S. Kukkala, William J. Sutherland, and Atte Moilanen. 2016. 'Voluntary non-monetary approaches for implementing conservation', Biological Conservation, 197: 209-14.

van der Sluijs J, Amaral-Rogers V, Belzunces L, Bijleveld van Lexmond M, Bonmatin JM., Chagnon M, Downs C, Furlan L, Gibbons D, Giorio C, Girolami V, Goulson D, Kreutzweiser D, Krupke C, Liess M, Long E, McField M, Mineau P, Mitchell E, Morrissey C, Noome D, Pisa L, Settele J, Simon-Delso N, Stark J, Tapparo A, van Dyck H, van Praagh J, Whitehorn P, Wiemers M (2015) Conclusions of the worldwide integrated assessment on the risks of neonicotinoids and fipronil to biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 22:148-154, DOI 10.1007/s11356-014-3229-5.

USDA (2017). Agroforestry. https://www.usda.gov/topics/forestry/agroforestry