support to agricultural policy - the impact of eu research (1998-2004)

8/9/2019 Support to Agricultural Policy - The impact of EU Research (1998-2004)

1/32

Support to Agricultural Policy - The impact of EU Research (1998-2004)

Support to Agricultural Policy

The impact of EU Research (1998-2004)

1

2005 EUR 21464Directorate-General for Research

cap brochure_Def.qxd 1/12/05 17:34 Page 1


2/32


Contents

Foreword 5

Introduction 7

QoL Fifth Framework Programme FP5 10

A better quality of life 10

Programme strategy 10

The diversity of key action 5 11

1. Sustainable agriculture and fisheries

2. Non-food uses of biological materials

3. Forestry

4. Support for common policies: common agricultural

and fisheries policies

5. Integrated and sustainable development

of rural and other areas

Objectives and concerns common to all projects 13

Review of QoL and project selection 14

Harvesting the input 14

Star projects 14

Pick of the projects 15

GROUP 1: Sustainable crop management 15

Insect invasion (DIABROTICA) 15

Assessing pesticide risk (EUFRAM) 16

2



3/32


3

GROUP 2: Feed and sustainable animal production 17

Antibiotic compliance (Feedstuffs-RADIUS) 17

Outdoor pigs are better pigs (SUSPORKQUAL) 18

GROUP 3: Scientific support to CAP 19

Bonds to remove shackles (BONDSCHEME) 19

Insight through models (CAP-STRAT) 20

Modelling animals (ELPEN) 21

GROUP 4: Sustainable rural development and biodiversity 22

Peripheral may be nearby (AsPIRE) 22

High investment in Mediterranean area (MEDMONT) 23

Farming the Alps (IMALP) 24

The market for organic (OMIaRD) 25

Measuring diversity (AEMBAC) 26

Checking the outcome (EASY) 27

Conclusions 29

List of publications 32



4/32



5/32


Foreword

As Director of EU Biotechnology, Agriculture andFood Research, it gives me great pleasure topresent to you here the findings of the impact ofAgricultural Policy support related research asfunded by the European Union under the FifthFramework Programme for Research andTechnological Development. This subtopic of KeyAction 5 has been an extremely importantmechanism in making research more relevant toagricultural policy makers across the EU.

The Commission research policy has beenchallenged in the past for continual funding ofresearch without full impact analysis of previousresults. However, under the Fifth FrameworkProgramme (FP5), which ran from 1998-2002, KeyAction 5 - with a total budget of520 M andcovering all aspects of food agriculture, fisheriesand forestry - has comprehensively addressed the research impact question through a seriesof external impact reviews covering the different sectors of the key action. This publicationis actually the seventh in the series and the Commission invited eight independent expertsto carry out an extensive review of the impact of 72 of the most relevant policy support projectsof the 400-plus projects funded in KA5. The review concluded that in most cases the projectscarried out important multidisciplinary and complementary research which has provided very

useful data and models for the purposes of policy development under the common AgriculturalPolicy. Thirteen of the 72 projects are presented in this publication as good case studyexamples of successful EU policy support projects which are available for the general publicbut also to policy makers and the scientific community.

There is no doubt that these review exercises have been a great success and have helpedus to concentrate and focus on future research needs and recommendations for improvingEU funded research from both the technical and administrative side. Indeed strategies forthe Seventh Framework Programme are currently being developed and debated across theEuropean Union, and this publication can be viewed as an important input to the processof drafting suitable future research topics for coverage under the annual work programme.In addition, the results in themselves have created a significant base for the furtherdevelopment of policy support research in Europe with important implications for theconsumer and farmer alike.

Christian PatermannDirector of Biotechnology,

Agriculture and Food Research

5



6/32



7/32


Introduction

The European Commissions FifthFramework Programme forresearch (FP5) ran from 1998 to20021. The Quality of Life andManagement of Living Resourceswas one of the four thematicprogrammes within FP5. It wasbased around six key actions aimedat enhancing the quality of life ofEuropean citizens and improvingthe competitiveness of European

industry. All EU policies mayrequire research and potentiallydraw on research conducted underthe Quality of Life Programme(QoL). The needs for research aremore clearly defined with respectto the Common Agricultural Policy(CAP). Since its creation in theRome Treaty, the CAP has had toadapt constantly to changes and to

establish new objectives. Along with increase in agricultural production and fair standardof living of the agricultural community, societal context was one of the drivers of the newtrends in agricultural policy development. Multifunctionality has become increasingly

important, as agriculture has played the role of providing services to the public. In addition,the situation in remote areas has enhanced the policy concerns regarding social andeconomic issues. Therefore, CAP requires research to assist with the policy developmentand implementation processes. However, it is not easy to see if research has contributed,as expected, to changes such as providing tools to support the implementation of theevolving CAP and its adaptation to the limited availability of natural resources, the evolvingsocietal needs and demands, the evolving world trade situation and globalisation of marketsand the EU enlargement.

No fewer than 340 research projects have been funded by the EU using around 520 millionover four years under the Sustainable Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Key Action. Amongthem, nearly 150 were directly related to the areas of sustainable agriculture, CommonAgricultural Policy support and rural development. The efforts of more than a thousandresearchers involved could provide valuable input for the CAP reform and for current and

future environmental, agricultural and rural development strategies. Important lessons arebeing learnt for future research, applied in FP6, and also for planning recommendations andguidelines for FP7.

Most of these projects have already finished or are in their final stages. Taking stock ofachievements so far, the Biotechnology, Agriculture and Food Research Directorate of theEuropean Commissions Directorate-General for Research recently singled out 13 projectsrelevant for their important impact in the area of agricultural policy.

1) Decision N 182/1999 adopting the Fifth RTD Framework Programme 1998-2002.

7



8/32


CAP initiation

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was initiated in the context of insufficient foodproduction in Western Europe. Consequently, its objectives were to provide a fair standard ofliving for the agricultural community while ensuring a sufficient supply of food at affordableprices. Measured against the criterion of production levels, the CAP has been almost toosuccessful and it had to control quantitative imbalances.

The CAP became increasingly complex to manage, in part because of the enormousdiversity of the EU. Farming methods and traditions, agricultural competitiveness andincome levels, and natural resources vary greatly between and even within Member Statesand regions.

Time for change

General economic change has thrown up new challenges to the European agricultural system.

New challenges that arose in the late eighties also concerned human health protection, safety,environment, and consumer expectations regarding food quality and safety. Moreover, CAP hadto face the challenge of enlargement to ten new members and to prepare its agricultural sectorfor international negotiations.

As a consequence of these diverse challenges, and the changing context of agriculture, the CAPrequired major reforms. Some of the issues remain unchanged: for example, maintaining ruraland farming incomes, ensuring a satisfactory food supply, and fulfilment of internationalobligations. To these are added an ever-greater concern for protecting the environment andfood safety throughout the entire production chain, and the desire for a more decentralised systemwith unambiguous rules and rigorous controls.

8



9/32


With the 1992 reform, the CAP embarked on a combination of lower institutional prices andmaking compensatory payments. Agenda 2000 then aimed at deepening and widening the 1992reform by replacing price support measures with direct aid payments, and accompanying thisprocess with a consistent rural policy.

As the basis for reform of the CAP, the European Council reaffirmed its desire formultifunctional, sustainable and competitive agriculture throughout Europe, including inthose regions facing particular difficulties. The European Parliament and the Committee ofthe Regions wanted to empower rural areas to enable them to contribute fully to the EU,both economically and territorially.

The multifunctionality of agriculture corresponds to a diversity of requirements andconstraints. Agriculture, and thus agricultural policy, is important in maintaining thelandscape and the countryside, and is crucial to environmental protection. Obviously, italso makes an essential contribution to the vitality of rural communities. In addition, itshould alleviate consumer concerns and fulfil demands regarding food quality and safety,and ensure appropriate animal welfare standards. The idea was to implement a systemwhereby subsidies should be made to support desirable activities other than agriculturalproduction, and the production function of farms should remain subject to free trade inthe market place.

Research can contribute to securing multifunctional, sustainable and competitive agriculturein Europe. The measures included in the CAP and their related activities require improvedand innovative evaluation tools, particularly in the areas of production and environmentprotection.

This brochure presents the results of an independent review of the work carried in Key Action 5,in relation to its specific impact on agricultural policy development and implementation.

9



10/32


QoL Fifth Framework Programme FP5

A better quality of lifeEconomic and political developments in Europehave resulted in greater prosperity, but theavailability of natural resources does notcorrespond precisely to the requirements ofhuman activities. In recent years, ourunderstanding and knowledge of the structureand function of all living things has increasedtremendously, leading to diverse possibilities fornew developments in, for example, healthcare,pharmaceuticals, agriculture and food.

The Quality of Life and Management of LivingResources research programme (QoL), whichcovered the period 1998-2002, aimed to unlock theresources of the living world and thereby improvethe quality of life. It placed particular emphasis onnew technologies, including biotechnology, andaddressed the links between discovery, productionand end-use. The needs of society and therequirements of the consumer were central and theresearch funded was directed towards future wealthand job creation, while respecting the principles ofsustainable development.

The QoL programme was structured around sixspecific key actions that were goal-oriented anddesigned to solve problems: food, nutrition andhealth (key action 1); control of infectiousdiseases (key action 2); the cell factory (key action3); environment and health (key action 4);sustainable agriculture, fisheries and forestry, andintegrated development of rural areas includingmountain areas (key action 5); and the ageingpopulation and disabilities (key action 6). Therewere also generic activities intended to exploitRTD projects to develop the knowledge base inidentified areas of strategic importance for the

future.

Programme strategyThe strategy of QoL was to focus on areas whereimproving knowledge is expected to providesolutions to some of the pressing needs of societythat could appropriately be addressed on aEuropean scale. In line with the criteria laid downfor selecting the major research themes for theFifth Framework Programme, QoL emphasised thefollowing issues:

10

San

drine

Pe

tit,Suaci

Mon

tagne

/GISAlpes

du

Nord



11/32


The projects within the programme addressedcross-border challenges or, in other words,subjects of concern to more than one MemberState, or to regions in different states. Respectingthe principle of subsidiarity, issues of concern toonly one Member State were left to nationalprogrammes. Thus, the QoL programmeconcentrated on problems of wider interest, suchas exploiting renewable natural resources. In fact,due to their size and complexity, many of theactivities addressed in the programme, such as

genomic research, neurosciences, infectiousdiseases, ageing and disabilities, sustainablemanagement and utilisation of forestry resources,fish management and human, animal and plantdiseases, are more meaningful and more feasibleif addressed at the European level.

The research funded by the QoL programme hadclear social objectives. It had to contribute tohealth and quality of life, to improving foodquality and safety, to protecting and generatinga healthy environment, to promoting rural andcoastal communities, to improving responses toconsumer needs, and to optimising informationavailable to the consumer.

The third issue was that of economicdevelopment. The rapidly growing high-technology industries are currently dominatedby small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs).There is still massive potential for economicgrowth and job creation in these sectors, andthe projects financed had to contribute tofulfilling this potential as well as optimisingexploitation of traditional industries, particularlyagriculture. To ensure that the economicbenefits of research can be expressed, findings,results and know-how must be transferred fromresearch to commerce and industry.Consequently, the QoL programmeencouraged training, dissemination and

exploitation of research results, and stimulatedinnovation and entrepreneurship.

The diversity of key action 5European agriculture has to meet the demand forcheap, plentiful food and non-food products; butagriculture is multifunctional, and issues such assustainability, animal welfare, the local economyand the wider needs of the environment must alsobe considered. In this context, EU research seeks

to improve agricultural knowledge to supportfarmers, meet expectations of consumers, andgive sufficient rationale for decision-making topolicy-makers, and regulatory bodies.

Agricultural research was one of six key actions inthe European Commissions Quality of Life andManagement of Living Resources programme: KeyAction 5 covered sustainable agriculture, forestry,fisheries and rural development. A guiding principleof Key Action 5 was to support sustainable pro-

duction through the rational use of the Earthslimited resources; another was to promote inno-vative new technologies such as biotechnology. Thebudget for the Key Action was around520 millionfor the four-year period 1998-2002. Researchproposals and networks (RTD) were invited throughspecific calls published on a yearly basis andtargeting the following specific objectives: Enhancing competitiveness of rural economies

and recognising the changing demands thatsociety places upon the food chain;

Ensuring sustainable and long-term productionwithin all sectors for the benefit of futuregenerations;

Producing high-quality products, particularlyrelevant in a decade where Europe hasexperienced significant food scares such as BSE,foot-and-mouth disease, and Escherichia colioutbreaks in the food chain.

Within the Key Action, a small part of the budgetwas allocated to training and SME grants, andsupport measures through open calls for proposals.

The projects funded were classified into five areas:

1. Sustainable agriculture and fisheriesIn addition to improving systems of productionand exploitation of agricultural production

including breeding methods this area intendedto develop new approaches for sustainableagriculture, fisheries and aquaculture, improvingthe health and welfare of animals and reducingundesirable effects on the environment. Thediverse aspects concerned address sustainableproduction, farm technologies, organic farming,integrated fishery management, fish conservation,diversification of cultivated plant species, geneticimprovement of plants, and disease resistance andcontrol in plants and animals.

11



12/32


The following action lines were open for researchproposals: The diversification of agricultural production;

new and improved production and farmingsystems; new and sustainable systems ofproduction, including breeding methods inagriculture, fisheries and aquaculture;

Plant health, in particular novel and innatedefence mechanisms of plants and biologicalcontrol of plant diseases;

Animal health and welfare; Quality of agricultural products and farm-

processed products; Influence of different farm production systemson the food chain;

How to increase consumer confidence (waste,feed, veterinary products and their impact onpublic and animal health; impact of EU standardson the external competitiveness of Europeanagriculture);

The profitability and convenience of geneticallymodified and of non-genetically modified cropsat production level;

The role of genomics and post genomics inagricultural systems;

Scientific basis of fisheries management;interactions between environment, fisheries andaquaculture; improvement of aquacultureproduction; sustainable fisheries and aqua-culture.

2. Non-food uses of biological materialsProjects in this area considered both energy andthe environment, and the production of non-foodcrops for industrial and energy uses, includingassessments of the conditions for the economicprofitability of such crops.

3. ForestryProjects here covered Community forestrymeasures, such as the need to understand thekinds of natural hazards and other factors that putpressure on forest ecosystems. They also includedthe monitoring of forest conditions and theprotection, conservation and restoration of theforest ecosystem.

4. Support for common policies: common agri-

cultural and fisheries policiesThis area included analysis of the effects of tradeagreements, in particular the impact of bilateral,regional and international free trade agreements(involving, for example, the WTO). It also

considered the needs and consequences arisingfrom the inclusion of the new Member States inthe CAP. In addition, it covered the trade-relatedissue of intellectual property rights. Another targetsubject was pre-legislative research, that isresearch designed to provide a scientific andinformed basis for policy-making and EUlegislation. The objectives included studying theinternational context, particularly with the WorldTrade Organisation (WTO), monitoring andmodelling the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP),monitoring and enforcing the common fisheries

policy (CFP), and analysing factors affectingcoastal communities. The related tasks dealt withscientific support, world trade disputes, foodquality, rural development, fishing data, andmarket-support mechanisms.

5. Integrated and sustainable development ofrural and other areasThe last area included research underpinning themultifunctional European model of agriculture, andthe identification and development of indicators ofsustainable development at local, regional andEuropean scale. Work to analyse the composition,structure and vulnerability of Europes different ruraleconomies was supported, including assessments

of the changing role of agriculture, and theprospects for farm diversification. This area dealtwith the analysis of rural situations, changes andtrends, producing integrated developmentconcepts for rural and other relevant areas, andassessing rural and coastal development policies.It used modelling systems, trans-European transfer,landscape management, multifunction agricultureand the socio-economic importance of aquacultureand fisheries.

12



13/32


Objectives and concerns commonto all projectsA multidisciplinary, integrated approach isdesirable, encouraging the active participation offarmers, end-users, consumers and regulatorybodies, with special attention being given to thedissemination and utilisation of the results. Theprogramme strongly encouraged the formation ofnetworks involving leading scientific and socio-economic stakeholders to enable a trulymultidisciplinary and integrated analysis.

The work was aimed at supporting competitiveness,and thereby having beneficial effects on: (i)employment and conditions in rural and otherrelevant areas; (ii) reduction of the vulnerability ofthe relevant sectors through diversification; (iii) theresponse to societys demands for soundenvironmental practices; and (iv) the sustainableproduction of renewable resources. The researchcontributes to supporting the implementation ofboth the evolving Common Agricultural Policy(CAP) and Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and theiradaptation to the limited availability of naturalresources, the evolving societal needs and

demands, the evolving world trade situation, andglobalisation of markets and EU enlargement. It alsosupports the implementation of internationalcommitments and Community measures on theprotection and sustainable management of forestsand other living resources.

To attain these objectives, the research wasexpected to deliver tools and methods in additionto information. The work involved developingtools and methods for production and othersystems of farming, fisheries and forestry, as wellas monitoring and assessing policy, ruraldevelopment, the environment, and economicand social indicators. The output of this researchthereby helps identify and describe future trends.

The technical and economic competitiveness ofbio-based industries will be improved byintegration of diverse scientific disciplines andconsideration of both the vulnerability ofenvironment and resources, and the characteristicsof markets, processes and production practices.The consequences will include improvedeconomic, social and environmental benefits fromthe sustainable management and responsible

utilisation of biological resources: sustainableproduction and clean and efficient processtechnologies providing new or improved productswith high added value and less environmentaldamage. The aim was to promote high-qualityproducts corresponding to consumer require-ments, with detailed data on life cycle, possibilities

for recycling, cost analysis, safety, and productperformance.

13

Davi

dKleijn



14/32


Review of QoL and project selection

The QoL programme was subdivided into six KeyActions, all of which were intended to enhance thequality of life of European citizens and tocontribute to the competitiveness of Europeanindustry. Policy, in particular that of the EU, shouldbe underpinned by knowledge and under-standing, and research funded by the Union,including the QoL programme, was designed toprovide such insight and knowledge, as well astools to generate better descriptions and analysisof the current situation and the impact of policydecisions. As one of the most important EUpolicies, the CAP is no exception indeed, theinput from research can make a significantcontribution to improving the CAP, and adaptingit to the changing political, social and economiccontext. Since its inception, the requirements ofthe CAP have evolved from increasing agriculturalproduction and providing a fair standard of livingfor the agricultural community towardsmultifunctionality and rural development.

The situation of remote and rural areas has led toconcern over social and economic issues as regardsagricultural communities. The CAP can thereforebenefit enormously from research to assist with thedevelopment and implementation of the policy,

especially in light of the change of emphasis fromstimulating production to decoupling. However, thecontribution, or even potential contribution, of EU-funded research may not be immediately apparent,whether it concerns developing and validatingtools, supporting the implementation of theevolving CAP and its adaptation to the limitedavailability of natural resources, assessing theevolving needs and demands of society, oranalysing the effects of the evolving world tradesituation and globalisation of markets.

Harvesting the input

As a consequence, the European Commissionlaunched an expert review of projects financedunder Key Action 5 of the QoL programme (1998-2002). The review was conducted between 29June and 2 July 2004 at the Directorate-Generalof Research. The aim was to assess the potentialpolicy impact of research projects funded in thearea of sustainable agriculture (excluding projectsconcerning non-food production, fisheries orforestry). A panel of ten independent experts wasselected and all projects in the pertinent sub-areas

of Key Action 5 were considered. All the expertshad international reputations, having participatedin similar exercises and relevant conferences, andestablished competence in research and therelevant policy areas. Their professional back-grounds, qualifications and expertise wereappropriate for the task of reviewing the scientificand technological aspects of the projects.

The review lasted four days and included a finaldiscussion to reach a consensual view. Thoseprojects (10 to 12), selected from all categories,with the largest impact on policy were identified.A total of 340 projects were funded during thefour-year period: most were shared-cost anddemonstration projects along with a small numberof concerted actions and thematic networks. Fromthese projects, 190 were in sub-areas relevant tothe review: 147 in the sub-area plant and animalsystems; 16 on CAP support; and 27 for ruraldevelopment. The list was further shortened byeliminating those projects in which the scope wastoo narrow to be expected to have broad policyimplications. In fact, many of the projects in theplant and animal systems sector considered onlyone crop type, or involved research of a veryfocused nature and, as such, were mostly valuable

for a particular field rather than wider policy issues.Consequently, 72 projects were reviewed in detail.

Star projectsThe outcome expected from the review was theidentification of some ten to 12 projects which wereparticularly important, having the greatest impacton policy. At the end of the review, 13 projects wereidentified as making a large impact on policy.Ten additional projects were found to have asignificant impact on policy. This brochure describesthe 13 projects with the greatest policy implications.

14



15/32


Pick of the projects

Group 1: Sustainable cropmanagement

Insect invasion (DIABROTICA) QLK5-CT-1999-01110Threat to European maize production by invasivequarantine pest, Western Corn Rootworm(Diabrotica virgifera virgifera): a new sustainablecrop management approach

Western Corn Rootworm (WCR) (Diabrotica virgifera)is a new insect pest posing an enormous andimmediate threat to maize production in Europe.The potential establishment of the pest in Italyconfirms theories that WCR will threaten maizeproduction in other EU Member States in CentralEurope in the very near future. The Unions policy onplant protection advocates the minimal use ofpesticides. Therefore, other approaches to themanagement of this insect pest are urgent if the EUis to continue its policy of sustainable,environmentally friendly, crop management practice.

Key strategies for the control of WCR have been

established under DIABROTICA. This project hasbeen the framework for the development andincorporation of sustainable, biologically based cropmanagement practices for European maizeproduction. These practices maintain high-yieldmaize production while requiring less chemicalpesticides. Specific objectives have been met to: (i)characterise plant stimuli which trigger the host plantpreferences and the egg-laying behaviour of WCR;(ii) test European corn varieties and related non-cultivated species for their potential as foodresources; (iii) identify natural enemies of WCR inEurope and improve mating disruptiontechniques; (iv) improve existing methods for the

monitoring of WCR; (v) model the potentialeconomic consequences of invasion of EUcountries by WCR; and (vi) analyse the cost andbenefits of containment strategies to preventfurther spread of WCR.

Ecological, distributional and behavioural studiescarried out within the DIABROTICA frameworkhave shown the positive impact of crop rotationon the abundance of WCR in Hungary, and havedemonstrated the preference of WCR for certainplant and weed species.

Chemical analyses on the influence plant surfaceshave on WCR behaviour have offered a realisticopportunity to enhance the resistance of new maizevarieties to cope with this pest within Europe. Also,a mating disruption technique has been establishedwhich demonstrates the potential of this uniquemethod to serve as an additional measure for thecontrol of WCR populations. Finally, theidentification of European areas with a high densityof maize production, in combination with climatedata, has made it possible to simulate the spreadingof the WCR population. The high-risk areas

identified should be regarded as focus areas wherethe results of the DIABROTICA project should beimplemented after WCR invasion.

These findings may have profound implications forthe recommendation for integrated crop-managing strategies. The communication of thesefindings, through technical bulletins, can providefarmers and breeding companies with guidelinesfor controlling and eradicating new invadingpopulations of WCR.

Coordinator:Prof. Stefan VidalInstitute for Plant Pathology and Plant Protection,Section Agricultural Entomology,D-37077 [email protected]

15

The results and conclusions of DIABROTICA have adirect effect on EU plant health policy. The project hasdemonstrated easily implemented systems to helpcontrol the disease at farm level, while respecting EUpolicy on sustainable growth and rural management.



16/32


Assessing pesticide risk(EUFRAM) QLK5-CT-2002-01346Concerted Action to develop a EuropeanFramework for probalistic Risk Assessment ofthe environmental impact of pesticides

The use of pesticides, with their perceivedenvironmental risks, tends to get a negative pressand often has little support from the general public.The major concerns are environmental impact,consumer safety, and risks to health. However,

current methods for risk assessment are mostlydeterministic which means that a product has afixed effect, and findings are not easy to assess,much less make clear in a wider context. Factorssuch as the toxicity of pesticides are treated as ifthey were fixed, and precisely known, whereas inthe real world these factors are variable. Currentrisk-assessment methods allow for variability anduncertainty, but often fail to give a completedescription of the full range of possible risks. TheEUFRAM project builds on the keyrecommendations of the EUPRA workshop indeveloping probabilistic methods that is,considering the probability of an effect occurring for assessing the environmental risks of pesticides.It also looks to the implementation of standardsoftware and databases that would greatly facilitatethe adoption of probabilistic methods by end-users.These tools need to be appropriate for users in allparts of the expanding EU.

EUFRAM has developed a framework of basicprincipals for probabilistic assessment of pesticiderisks in the form of a guidance document. Theframework also includes worked examples and casestudies of probabilistic risk assessment, showinghow the methods are applied to assessing theimpact of pesticides on terrestrial and aquaticorganisms. These examples are required to: i) test

procedures and recommendations developedwithin the project; and ii) provide benchmarkexamples for dissemination to the scientific andregulatory community. Criteria have also beenestablished for evaluating the suitability of softwareand databases for probabilistic assessments.

A public network has been created for researchers,end-users and other stakeholders. The networkshares information about research, projects inprogress, and planned future activities relating to

the continuing development of probabilisticmethods for pesticides. This has helped todetermine priorities among outstanding researchneeds, and encourages initiatives aimed ataddressing those needs. The network has alsocirculated progress reports and outputs fromEUFRAM itself. This network is accessible via theproject website, including public pages describingEUFRAM.

Coordinator:Prof. Andy Hart

Central Science LaboratoryYork, [email protected]

16

EUFRAM provides methods for moving towards a

harmonised approach in Europe on environmentalpolicy (concerning, for example, soil protection andsustainable pesticide use), quality of life and consumersafety, and to improving the efficiency of the regulatoryprocess for pesticides. It also provides a framework forthe pooling of data and the sharing of information, thusreducing the duplication of research effort whilepromoting collaboration with stakeholders. TheEUFRAM framework will be made available for use byrisk assessors in government and industry.



17/32


Group 2: Feed and sus-tainable animal production

Antibiotic compliance (Feedstuffs-RADIUS) QLK5-CT-2000-00900Rapid Antibiotic Detection for Illegal andUnlicensed Substances in animal feedingstuffs

For many years now, antibiotics have been addedto feedstuffs as non-therapeutic agents. Their use in

poultry, swine and cattle feed at sub-therapeuticlevels over an extended period of time was intendedprimarily to optimise growth and, to a much lesserextent, prevent disease. Non-therapeutic antibioticuse has become a cause for real concern in the lastfew years. There is a risk that antibiotic residues inedible tissue could lead to the development ofresistant strains of bacteria in humans. Consequently,the EU made the sensible precautionary decision toban the use of a number of antibiotics as growthpromoters in animal feed. Five antibiotics weretargeted by the ban: avoparcin, spiramycin, tylosin,virginiamycin and zinc bacitracin. The existing Unionmethods of analysis are, unfortunately, not alwayswell suited for the effective policing of the ban. Theyare microbiologically based, non-specific andsusceptible to interference by other components offeed. Consequently, these methods of analysis lackthe specificity required to identify unknowncompounds. Therefore, new screening andconfirmatory tests were required.

Feedstuffs-RADIUS has the objective to developrobust dip-stick methods for the detection ofantibiotics in animal feedstuffs. These methods resultin robust, reliable and highly specific assays that areless susceptible to interference than previously usedimmuno-biological or microbiological tests.

Within Feedstuffs-RADIUS, a framework for thedevelopment of these methods was imple-mented, integrating five distinct steps:i) the development of immunoassay reagents for

each antibiotic;ii) the development, validation and inter-labo-

ratory collaborative testing of chemical assaysfor determination of these antibiotics;

iii) the development of prototype immunoassaytest kits for each antibiotic;

iv) the comparison of prototype kit performancewith chemical assays the validation step; and

v) the end-user testing of the kits confirmatoryanalysis of real samples.

Together with these dip-stick techniques, liquidchromatographic methods coupled to massspectrometry were developed to enable theunequivocal identification and quantification ofeach antibiotic. Finally, the results of thisdevelopment process were disseminated to end-users, partners and stakeholders.

The twin-track approach of microbiological andchemical confirmation methods has led to highlyefficient methods for ensuring that Member States

can check their compliance with the ban on non-therapeutic antibiotic use in animal feedstuffs. Theproject has produced an operational, commerciallyinteresting and widely applicable rapid test kit forthe detection of the presence of illegalconcentrations of five antimicrobial growthpromoters in ruminant, pig and poultry feed. Itproduced a complementary operational andhighly precise method for confirmation of thepositive results of the rapid test.

Coordinator:Dr Chris ElliottThe Queens University of BelfastBelfast, [email protected]

17

The use of collaborative testing has established thesemethods as definitive EU methods of analysis.

Feedstuffs-RADIUS provides an excellent example ofthe collaborative work that can have a major impacton the enforcement and effective implementation ofUnion policy.



18/32


Outdoor pigs are better pigs(SUSPORKQUAL)QLK5-CT-2000-00162Sustainability in the production of pork withimproved nutritional and eating quality usingstrategic feeding in outdoor pig production

The consumer is becoming increasinglysophisticated and demanding in the choices theymake. This is especially important for foodpurchases. Consumers demand increasingly high

standards regarding the diversity, quality and safetyof products. Furthermore, the environmental andanimal welfare aspects of food production arebecoming ever-more important in the choices madeby consumers. Outdoor sustainable pig production,which also includes organic production, is anobvious choice in the establishment of alternativeproduction systems as it can provide better animalwelfare, less environmental pressure, healthierproducts and better eating quality.

The aim of SUSPORKQUAL was to establish thegeneral framework for outdoor sustainable pigproduction systems which can subsequently beintroduced in all EU countries and prospective EU

countries. These systems should satisfy the in-creasing demands of European consumers re-garding safety, nutritional quality, eating quality andimproved shelf-life. More importantly, they shouldmeet calls for high standards of animal welfare andcare for the environment.

SUSPORKQUAL has shown that consumers expecthigher quality from free-range, outdoor-rearedpigs, but that they also expect consistency. It hasbeen established that consumers are prepared topay a 12% premium for pork labelled organic orfree-range, showing the economic benefits of a

well-thought-out and implemented sustainableagriculture policy. However, marketing strategy isvery important. Information about the nature ofthe outdoor systems used and nutritional qualitiesneeds to be included, as prior information has aneffect on the acceptability and willingness to buypremium pork products.

The new CAP policy is designed to reward qualityproduction. Animal welfare is one such measureof quality and is an important factor in consumerchoice. SUSPORKQUAL has defined the standardsneeded to attract a subsidy to reward qualityproduction. It has also shown that quality pro-duction in its own right can have added economic

benefits. It has described the use of alternativefarming systems for a sustainable agriculturepolicy, and has provided the scientific andknowledge basis for the development of new andimproved systems for meat production.

Coordinator:Dr Anders KarlssonDanish Institute of Agricultural [email protected]://web.agrsci.dk/anf/Susporkqual-Folder/Susporkqual/#

18

Optimal output of high-quality meat has beendeveloped, while taking account of environmentaland animal welfare aspects. SUSPORKQUALprovides a basis for the delivery of high-quality,sustainable pig production within the EU.



19/32


Group 3: Scientific supportto CAP

Bonds to remove shackles(BONDSCHEME) QLK5-CT-1999-01510An assessment of the practicalities andacceptability of a bond scheme as part ofCommon Agricultural Policy reform

The biggest change in the CAP reforms is thenotion of decoupling that is, payments to farmersare no longer linked to production volumes. Thismeans that EU farmers are given the freedom toproduce what the market, and they themselves,want. Subsidies or single farm payments will, ingeneral, be paid independently from the volumeof production. However, as prices will then bemarket-driven, there will be an inevitable loss ofincome to farm businesses due to reductions inprices at market. One problem of decoupling maybe the creation of an imbalance in the market byfarmers switching between sectors, since theywould no longer have to plant certain crops to

claim subsidies. A potentially more problematicconsequence of the decoupling approach is thatof land abandonment in marginal areas of themarket. This would have major implications for thesustainability of the environment and ruralcommunities.

The BONDSCHEME project sought to assess theso-called bond scheme as a way of providingtransitional relief to farm businesses experiencingreductions in prices and income support due todecoupling in the CAP reform. Its main objectivewas to design a workable bond scheme and to testits practicality and acceptability among policy-makers, farmers and other stakeholders in

agriculture. This was achieved through literaturereviews, conferences, postal surveys, case-studyinterviews with farmers, and workshops involvingstakeholders. The costed and worked-out schemewas applied to all types of farmers in the UK,Germany and Portugal, with the intention ofextending the scheme to the rest of the EU.

The devised bond scheme is based around fourkey features: (i) farmers would be issued withbonds on which the EU would make annualpayments for a certain number of years; (ii)

expected income loss and the amount of existingdirect payments would determine the value of thebonds issued; (iii) the bonds would be allocatedto individual farmers on the basis of their output,quota holding, or entitlement to direct paymentsbased on a recent reference period and would notbe affected by production decisions; and (iv) thebonds would be transferable and could be sold onthe private capital market.

BONDSCHEME has found that a wide range ofstakeholders, including farmers, thought theproposed scheme could work. Farmers responses

across the three study countries were very similar.Although a few said they would leave land idleafter receiving the bond, significant numbers saidthat they would use it to finance diversification orto make improvements to their farms. This wideconsultation amongst farmers, policy-makers andother stakeholders in agriculture has resulted inextremely encouraging responses which havebeen detailed in a resulting book.

The bond scheme indicates a change in theimplementation of direct payments withoutexcluding other instruments of aid. It removes theshackles which force farmers to plant some

hectares or keep some animals uneconomically,simply to receive payments. It allows farmers tomake more productive use of their resources. Italso makes it more feasible to implementalternative uses of farmland leading to ruraldevelopment and employment, and a sustainableenvironmental policy.

Coordinator:Prof. Alan SwinbankCentre for Agricultural Strategy,The University of Reading, [email protected]://www.reading.ac.uk/agristrat/bondscheme/home

19

BONDSCHEME has shown that, despite the changesin the CAP, policy can adapt to such change, leadingto the logical evolution of existing system of directpayments. The outcome of this work could becomean elegant way for a second set of adjustments ofdecoupled payment scheme of the reformed CAP.



20/32


Insight through models (CAP-STRAT) QLK5-CT-2000-00394Common Agricultural Policy strategy forregions, agriculture and trade

Within the FP5 work programme, one of the mainaction points specifically highlights the need toforecast the development of agriculture, identifyingthe necessary adjustments in the CAP andevaluating the potential impact of policy decisionstogether with the improvement of existing models.

A previous project within the context of the FAIRprogramme, entitled Common Agricultural PolicyRegional Impact Analysis (CAPRI), developed aregionalised model for the agricultural sector. Thismodel has been so successful in supporting thedeliberations of the Agriculture DG that it was usedas a starting point for the CAP-STRAT project Common Agricultural Policy Strategy for Regions,Agriculture and Trade.

One of the strengths of CAPRI is that it explicitlyconsiders regional diversity. Land use andproduction capacity obviously vary betweenregions within countries. Even policy may be

implemented at different rates. The CAPRI modelis being used to evaluate the three main policyimpacts, relating to further steps towardsdecoupling, measures supporting environmentallyfriendly production, and the review of dairy marketregulations. The CAP-STRAT project applies acomplex agricultural modelling system to theevaluation of policy options for the CAP, whichhave been defined in close co-operation with theAgriculture DG. The updating and adjusting of theexisting CAPRI system was broken down into fourinterrelated tasks: i) database improvement andupdating; ii) methodological improvements of theexisting modelling system; iii) comprehensivevalidation of the modelling system; and iv)scenario writing and application of the system.

The successful application of a complex agriculturalsector model requires up-to-date input data. Theconsortium used data from Eurostat, supplementedwith statistics from agencies in the different MemberStates, benefiting from networking between thepartners based in different countries and regions.The consortium conducted methodologicalresearch with the specific aim of improving someof the models modules, concentrating on those

concerning the three main issues addressed by theCAPRI project. The modules were validated,integrated into the model, and the model as awhole was validated. The different partnersdetailed knowledge of their regions was of greatvalue to this validation step, and participating in thevalidation gave the partners a better insight into thebehaviour of the system.

With the model up and running, the consortiumconsulted with the Agriculture DG to test possiblescenarios. They have included current policysettings, and the various assumptions concerningtechnical progress, farm structure, population,macroeconomic development, and demandpatterns. Extensive discussion among the differentpartners and consideration of the variousassumptions in the model has optimised therelevance of the forecasts.

Coordinator:Dr Wolfgang BritzInstitute for Agricultural PolicyMarket Research and Economic [email protected]://www.agp.uni-bonn.de/agpo/rsrch/capstr/capstr

20

CAP-STRAT is proving highly useful and important forthe evaluation and development of the CAP withinthe EU. The project represents a sound scientificapproach and basis, and benefits from the long-termexperience of the research team. The teamsambitious goal of forecasting developments in theagricultural sector over the next ten years shouldprovide policy- and decision-makers with the toolsto evaluate, redesign and reform agricultural policy

in an appropriate and sensible way.



21/32


Modelling animals (ELPEN) QLK5-CT-1999-01296European livestock policy evaluation network:development of a livestock policy decisionsupport system

In many rural areas, livestock production hashistorically been the main economic and socialactivity. Livestock production often has a profoundimpact on the environment, the economy and thesocial diversity of rural areas, and supports large

numbers of rural communities. Within the EU, withits great diversity of natural and human resources,there are, without question, large differences inlivestock production systems. Each system has itown merits and its own distinct impact on the localenvironment and rural economy. There is now anincreasing demand from policy-makers in thelivestock area to be able to assess, in anintegrated way, the economic, environmental andsocial impact of potential policy changes.However, the large differences in livestockproduction systems within the EU make suchassessments difficult to achieve in differentregions on a comparable basis.

The ELPEN project aimed to build a decision-support system for the appraisal and evaluation ofEuropean livestock policy. The system uses anintegrative, client-oriented, knowledge-based andspatially explicit approach and is capable ofassessing potential economic, environmental andsocial impacts. This was achieved by integrating: i)a dynamic, knowledge-based decision-supportsystem, using state-of-the-art technology that can

answer specific questions posed by policy-makersabout the economic, environmental and socialimpacts of livestock policy; ii) a network of expertsfrom different EU countries with specialist knowledgeon different aspects of livestock systems, providingthe knowledge needed to build the system; iii)biogeographic, technical, economic, environmentaland social data on livestock systems throughout theEU; and iv) policy-makers, researchers and end-usersin the design of the system.

The project has been completed and the ELPEN

decision-support system has been built. Itsfeatures include: Different European scales: EU, country, 5 km grid

and 1.1 km grid levels; A multidimensional database with new typology

of European farms and detailed reference farmdata;

Land cover, soil and altitude data at 5 km and1.1 km grid level;

Disaggregation and spatial allocation Economic cost analysis and farm behaviour

modelling; Economic, ecological and social indicators Maps, tables, documents and dynacubes

(allowing the detailed analysis of data at differentdimensions).

ELPEN has proved an extremely ambitiousmodelling project that has come to fruition in thedevelopment of freely available software(www.objectvision.nl). This tool will be useful infurther reform of the CAP and in the harmonisationof EU policies in relation to agriculture,environment and rural development.

Coordinator:Dr Iain A. WrightMacaulay Land Use Research [email protected]://www.macaulay.ac.uk/elpen

21

Livestock production has a profound impact on theregions within which it is situated, and both createsand supports the landscape. ELPEN should allow

policy-makers to achieve a balance between thenegative and positive economic, social andenvironmental impacts of livestock production.



22/32


Group 4: Sustainable ruraldevelopment and biodiversity

Peripheral may be nearby(AsPIRE) QLK5-CT-2000-00783

Aspatial peripherality, innovation and the ruraleconomy

Throughout history, some regions have had moreeconomic activity and higher incomes than others.In recent times, areas including large cities havetended to be more prosperous and dynamic thanoutlying rural areas. Aspatial peripherality (AsP) is aterm describing a range of processes and phe-nomena which increasingly compound or distort theeffects of physical remoteness. In simpler terms,peripheral areas, or those furthest away from coreareas, are often underdeveloped.

Conventional thinking about the imbalancebetween regions tends to focus on concepts ofdistance costs. Increasing the distance to marketsand pools of skilled labour obviously inhibitseconomic development. However, it is increasingly

obvious that physical distance is only one of adiverse range of factors that affect a regionseconomic performance. Indeed, travel and freightcosts are diminishing as an impediment toeconomic activity. The benefits due to the reductionof these distance constraints may be enhanced ormasked by a range of essentially non-geographicprocesses. These include information and societytechnology, business linkages and networks, socialcapital, governance, and tourism.

AsPIRE is investigating the reasons why someregions appear to underperform. The researchconsortium comprised five teams from Finland,Germany, Greece, Ireland, Spain and the UK. Itsprinciple aims were to establish the concept ofaspatial peripherality based on 12 regional casestudies. Robust methodology for measuring andmapping aspatial peripherality was developedwhich provided best practice and policy evaluationguidelines. The understanding of aspatialperipherality was enhanced through a set ofthematic studies, focusing on: (i) the role andeffectiveness of information society technology inrural and peripheral regions; (ii) the nature and roleof business networks and innovation among smalland medium-sized enterprises; (iii) the effect of

different forms of governance; (iv) the functionalityof social capital in overcoming geographicaldisadvantages; and (v) the character and role of thetourism industry in peripheral regions.

Data from 600 telephone interviews and 1 250 face-to-face interviews with entrepreneurs, and therepresentatives of various public sector and thirdsector organisations were conducted, collated andanalysed across all 12 case study areas for each ofthe five themes. The results were made available inthe form of thematic and regional reports. A set ofoperational indicators of aspatial peripherality has

been set up together with a corresponding statisticaldatabase for the entire EU. Statistical and carto-graphic methods have been developed to analysethe relationship between aspatial peripheralityindicators and economic performance indicators. Aweb-based diagnostic tool has been designed tohelp regional development agencies assess thedegree to which their region is peripheral in boththe conventional and aspatial sense.

AsPIRE has proved invaluable in identifying thefactors contributing to good economic performancein some regions and the reasons for relativeweakness in others. It appears that, rather than any

one single feature, synergy between variousaspatial factors is required for regions to exploit theirpotential. It has made a significant contribution tothe knowledge base relating to the overall EUcohesion objective and the implementation of theEuropean Spatial Development perspective. It hasoffered a web-based diagnostic tool for regionaldevelopment agency staff throughout Europe. Thistool generates a benchmarked profile of a region,illustrating which soft/aspatial factors may be actingas constraints to economic performance, andmaking broad recommendations as regards typesof intervention which should be considered.

Coordinator:Dr A. CopusThe Scottish Agricultural College, [email protected]://www1.sac.ac.uk/management/External/Projects/AspireExternal/Default.asp

22

AsPIREs findings can clearly contribute to thedevelopment of adapted and effective regionalpolicy and provides strategic guidelines for ruraldevelopment policies.



23/32


High investment in Mediterraneanarea (MEDMONT) QLK5-CT-2000-01031Tools for evaluating investment in theMediterranean mountain areas an integratedframework for sustainable development

The mountainous zones in the Mediterranean areasof Europe present a series of particular problems asregards sustainable rural development. Theseregions have been marginalised, and have a weaksocial and economic fabric. Although their naturalresources are potentially valuable assets, they aresubject to severe environmental problemsconcerning water, erosion and resourcedegradation. There are also institutional issues, withless efficiency from public administrations and poorimplementation of programmes. Little attention hasbeen given to the decision-making process in theMediterranean mountain areas. In this context,investment decisions or individual projects relatedto integrated mountain sustainable developmentshould be based on balanced information aboutthese numerous issues.

MEDMONT assessed the natural resource baseand evaluated the capability specific to agriculture,forestry, livestock, recreation, wildlife and water. Italso evaluated socio-economic, institutional andwelfare concerns using an integrated model basedon multiple criteria analysis and cost benefit

analysis. Spatial entities suitable fordevelopment analyses wereidentified and mapped for theMediterranean mountain areas.These thematic maps have beenmade available for evaluationby end-users. The variety ofmountain landscape types, naturalresources, and socio-economic andinstitutional situations in the casestudies make the MEDMONTframework applicable throughout

Mediterranean mountain regions.With suitable modifications, theframework can also be applied toother mountain areas in Europe.

Such an integrated framework andtools will allow the interested targetgroups to obtain objective trade-off

information about the multiple impacts ofsustainable development investment projects inthe mountain areas, and to select the bestcombination of evaluation tools in terms of costand accuracy of the attained goals within theirbudget limits, when they need to supportevaluation and monitoring investment decisions.The MEDMONT evaluation framework alsoincludes local actors in the evaluation process,through measurements of social preferences.

Coordinator:Dr Vassiliki KazanaMediterranean Agronomic Institute of [email protected]://www.maich.gr/medmont/

23

MEDMONTs integrated tools make it possible toassess sustainable development projects in terms ofthe trade-off between environmental and socio-economic indicators. Although the methods arecomplex, the comprehensive evaluation processmakes them ideal for the evaluation of investmentprojects in Mediterranean mountain regions.

Ange

los

Kaza

klis



24/32


Farming the Alps (IMALP) QLK5-CT-2001-01099Implementation of Sustainable Agriculture andRural Development in Alpine Mountains

For many the Alps mean tourism. Indeed,economically, the Alps are becoming more andmore dependent on tourism, with agriculture beingreplaced progressively by winter sports and summertourism. With the number of small farms decreasingin this region, maintaining sustainable agricultural

activities and promoting rural development areparticular challenges. This leads to the question: isrural development an opportunity for alpineagriculture, or is alpine agriculture, and its associatedskills, an opportunity for rural development?

Based on a previous R&D project (FAIR-CT97-3798), IMALP has developed an innovativeapproach comprising four key methods andtools:i) the creation of a local group of farmers, elected

officials and civil partners;ii) the development and implementation, by group,

of action plans for sustainable agriculture;

iii) the evaluation of the impact of the action plansby an interdisciplinary team of scientists andexperts; and

iv) the proposal of methods and tools to disseminatethe results.

These tools and methodologies have beendeveloped and their value demonstrated in fourvoluntary pilot Alpine regions (Moyenne Tarentaise,France; Murau, Austria; Val di Sole, Italy and ValdHrens, Switzerland). A comprehensive and con-sistent series of actions has been implemented atthree different levels: at the farm level, wherefarming practices are adjusted to social, territorialand environmental demand; at the farmersorganisation level, where groups can better addressproblems of work overloads, organise themselves tosupply services for the community or to promotefood products; and at the local level, where newpartnerships between agriculture, communities andlocal societies can be investigated.

Action plans have been established within theframework of IMALP. Pilot regions have exchangedactions concerning diversification through on-farmeducational and tourism activities in partnerships

with schools, school teachers and tourism offices.Several very innovative contracts have beensigned between farmers and municipalities forsustainable landscape upkeep and rehabilitationin slope areas. IMALP also provides good tools forcommunication, ensuring information for localinhabitants and tourists, and exploiting discussionswith municipal representatives. This is particularlyvaluable as it makes progress towards theimportant target of exchange and communicationin the context of decentralisation.

IMALP facilitates the provision of information toother farmers through visits, phone calls andaccess to databases of available equipment andservices, enabling the implementation of localsustainable agriculture and rural projects.

Coordinator:Pt G. DucreyGroupement dIntrt Scientifique Alpes du NordService dUnit Agricole Comptences InterdpartementalesMontagne Alpes du Nord,[email protected]

24

IMALP provides the motivation for farmers to buildcollective structures for mutual help and theexchange of services. It also allows the assessmentof activities, methods and indicators and theadaptation of new policies for Alpine areas.



25/32


The market for organic (OMIaRD) QLK5-2000-01124Organic Marketing Initiatives and RuralDevelopment

As organic products generally have a higher addedvalue and therefore generate higher revenues,organic farming and production should maintain theincome of the producers. In addition, theenvironmental consequences of organic farming areobviously less damaging than those of standard

farming techniques. However, in recent years, therehas been an over expansion of organic farming,leading to the overproduction of products. Indeed,only a very small percentage of consumers buyorganic products, and even fewer do so on a regularbasis. This suggests that the marketing effortsassociated with these products have beeninsufficient. Organic producers share a variety ofcommon interests which are not necessarily sharedby other local producers. As a consequence,producers of organic products become involvedin networks that form between the like-minded,rather than joining in the local networks.

OMIaRD is the first major research project aimed ataddressing these questions and looking at the placeof organic products in the two key EU policy areasof sustainable agriculture and rural development.

Countries in Europe vary in the development of theirorganic food markets and many Organic MarketInitiative (OMIs) set themselves social and ethicalgoals that cannot be measured in economic terms.The OMIaRD team have found that internal andexternal competences, and sector and regionalconditions are so diverse that defining what makesa successful OMI is a very complex task. However,in-depth case studies have provided much valuablematerial for analysis. A range of different marketingchannels has been shown to be important, andOMIaRD has demonstrated that general foodretailers have an important role in the developmentof the market for organic products. Retail throughgeneral food shops and a single nationallyrecognised label for organic products may bothcontribute to the success of the organic sector.

OMIaRD has provided valuable insights andillustrative material that has resulted in thepublication of a popular marketing handbook for

the development of organic marketing initiatives.It has addressed such problems as the lack ofmarketing skills, the fragmented nature of themarket, high consumer prices, poor availability oforganic products, and lack of consumerinformation. These issues, together with thepossible conflict regarding the standards anddefinitions associated with the use of the termorganic, are considered the most importantconstraints upon supply and demand in theorganic food market.

Coordinator:Prof. P. MidmoreSchool of Management and Business,University of Wales, [email protected]://www.irs.aber.ac.uk/OMIaRD/

25

OMIaRD has proved very successful in delivering ahuge amount of new knowledge for the deeperunderstanding of the organic market. The work hascharacterised market structures and identifiedwhere improvements in regulations, policy and goodpractice can be made.

San

drine

Pe

tit,Suaci

Mon

tagne/

GISAlpes

du

Nord



26/32


Measuring diversity (AEMBAC) QLRT-1999-31666Agri-Environmental Measures for BiodiversityAssessment and Conservation

There are many and diverse reasons for the lack ofsustainability of agriculture. They include ecological,social and economic factors, as well as the obviousvariations between regions and countries. However,the objective of protecting the environmentreceives wide approval. Policies and actions that

promote a better environment are generallydesirable, particularly in the field of agriculture.However, defining what exactly is good for theenvironment, and identifying the impact of policiesand actions on the environment, is problematic.

The aim of the AEMBAC project was to establish acommon European methodology for assessingbiodiversity and landscape conservation,particularly as affected by agriculture at the agro-ecosystem level. It aimed to develop agri-environmental measures tailored to site-specificenvironmental needs and opportunities. Theproject is based on the notion that neglecting to

consider the complexity and the holistic nature ofmultifunctionality, for example, will inevitably resultin approaches that fail to deliver the desired results.This requires: (i) a detailed, flexible and transparentmethodology that integrates scientific results andecological objectives into agri-environmental policyformulation and implementation; (ii) a clear,science-based picture of current ecological andsocio-economic agricultural sustainability; and (iii)an evaluation of existing agri-environmental policiesthrough comparison with newly proposed agri-environmental policies.

Through the work of academic and researchinstitutions in seven European countries Estonia,Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Swedenand Switzerland the AEMBAC project hasdeveloped and tested a relatively simple, yetpowerful, method of creating local agri-environmental measures (AEM) with predictable,quantifiable and verifiable outcomes. This tool ishelping to ensure resources can be mobilised topromote sustainable development. The analysis ofimpacts exerted by local agricultural systems onenvironmental biodiversity and landscapeconservation has been implemented in 15 study

areas in these seven participating countries. Amethodology has also been developed toconnect science and policy in order to tailor agri-environmental measures to the most relevant localimpacts exerted by agriculture. This supports thesupply of environmental goods and services byfarmers and discourages unsustainableagricultural practices.

A key result of AEMBAC has been the selection ofscientifically based indicators for assessingenvironmental outcomes. It has provided invaluableinput into policy considerations, due to the detailedecological, economic and social information

provided. As AEMBAC generates quantifiablemeasures of environmental goods and services, theapplication of this methodology will providescientific support to the concept of multifunctionalityin agriculture. Although developed for agriculture,the methodology may also be appropriate forassessing environmental impact in other sectors,particularly forestry, fishing and tourism.

Coordinator:Mr R. SimonciniThe World Conservation UnionEuropean Regional OfficeThe [email protected]

26

The AEMBAC project demonstrates the economic,cultural, agricultural and ecological feasibility ofAEMs for biodiversity and landscape conservationat local level. In achieving this goal, the project willaid the development of agricultural and

environmental policy from local to European level.



27/32


Checking the outcome (EASY) QLK5-CT-2002-01495Evaluating current European agri-environmentschemes to quantify and improve natureconservation efforts in agricultural landscapes

Enhancing botanical diversity in intensively farmedfields is a continuing challenge that plays animportant role in sustainable rural development.There are currently a number of agri-environmentalschemes in Europe aiming to stabilise and reverse

biodiversity losses in farmland habitats. This isachieved through paying farmers to adapt themanagement on parts of their farms to the benefitof biodiversity, environment or landscape. Althoughthese schemes are making substantial contributionsto some policy objectives, their effectiveness, bothenvironmentally and economically, is difficult toquantify mainly because of the small scale of theschemes compared to the extensive farmland areainhabited by many of these species. Thus, there hasbeen no conclusive evidence that these schemesactually do contribute to the conservation ofbiodiversity.

Through EASY, a framework has been put in placeto evaluate the effectiveness of European agri-environment schemes in protecting biodiversity,and to determine their economic consequences.The primary processes and environmental factorsaddressed by EASY have been: (i) the spatial scalesmost suitable for conservation efforts aimed atspecies groups with different mobilities; (ii) theinfluence of landscape structure on theeffectiveness of schemes; (iii) the effect of the localspecies pool on the schemes; and iv) the effect thatschemes have on ecosystem processes such aspollination and pest control.

Five schemes in different European countries havebeen evaluated using pair-wise comparisons:Germany organic wheat fields vs conventionalwheat fields; Spain extensively farmed cereal fieldsvs conventional cereal fields; the Netherlands postponing grassland agricultural activities vsconventional grassland activities; the UK arablefields with 6m margin strips vs conventional arablefields; and Switzerland extensively used grasslandsvs conventional grasslands. A standardisedsampling protocol was developed to estimate thebiodiversity of schemes in these five regions. Birds,

vascular plants, spiders, grasshoppers and beeswere sampled and all species groups wereidentified. The spatial scales best suited toconservation efforts have been implemented onplants, bees, hover flies and birds. Factorsdetermining the effectiveness of schemes, such aslandscape context and structure, and agriculturalconnectivity, as well as the influence of the speciespool have been identified and described.

The most effective and reliable way to assess agri-environment schemes is to integrate evaluation

studies into agri-environment programmes fromthe very start. EASY, which evaluates ongoingschemes by a pair-wise comparison of fields withand without agri-environment schemes, yieldsextremely reliable results. This project has dev-eloped a framework by which authorities canevaluate the ecological outcome of agri-environment schemes, now and in the future, in anefficient and scientifically sound manner.

Coordinator:Dr David KleijnDepartment of Environmental SciencesWageningen UniversityThe [email protected]://www.dow.wau.nl/natcons/NP/EASY/

27

EASY is proving to be of great relevance and valueto policy-makers and should be helpful in the localimplementation of agri-environmental schemes andin the domain of rural development.

Davi

d

Kleijn



28/32



29/32


Conclusions

Key Action 5 addressed a wide range of areas

related to Sustainable agriculture, fisheries and

forestry, and integrated development of rural

areas including mountain areas. The aim was

to improve the quality of life through

sustainable production and rational utilisation

of natural resources through a multidisciplinary

approach considering environmental, social and

economic effects.

The review was expected to identify the potential

policy impact of those projects selected, withparticular relevance to rural development and theCommon Agricultural Policy, specifically after the1992 reform and the implementation of Agenda2000.

The success of the projects in supporting policiesin the various areas such as plant and animalhealth, farming methods, marketing of agriculturalproducts and rural development schemes hasbeen clearly demonstrated.

Projects have achieved the development oftoolsand methodologies and helped to adapt policy

instruments by evaluating these tools. Similarly,research supporting specific policy issues hasdemonstrated that it can provide a scientific basisfor decision-making in the field of the CAP andrural development. Some fields seem less relevantin terms of policy impact, such as the delivery ofhigh-quality products, even though they have clearconsumer relevance.

Coverage of the programme objectives wasstriking in its diversity, but some trends have beenidentified from the review. Analysis of areasretained in the review process suggests emphasison the following elements:

The area sustainable agriculture considered thevarious farming systems from a balancedapproach, and the multifunctional structure ofagriculture and socio-economic implications ofpolicy were largely addressed. The sustainablemanagement of resources was targeted primarilyat the protection of the landscape and naturalareas and also at soil and water resources. Geneticdiversity and waste management were studiedwell. Policy on quality aspects was analysed from

different angles, including policy support tostandards and marketing strategies, bearing inmind the international dimension.

The area CAP scientific support dealt withsupport schemes from the context ofinternational trade as well as agricultural policyin Central and Eastern European Countries.Numerous projects developed tools to controland assess CAP measures, in particular innovative

evaluation tools were created relating to theimplementation of Agenda 2000. Under the ruraldevelopment area, projects were spread acrossanalysis instruments of rural situations, changesand trends, and the role and impact ofmultifunctionality on rural economies and farmfamilies. Landscape management was alsoaddressed, as well as the conceptualisation ofintegrated development of rural and otherrelevant areas focusing on strategies and tools forthe transfer of experience, for integrated resourceutilisation and re-organisation of marketing. Lastly,the assessment of the performance of ruraldevelopment and the setting up of tools thatspecifically describe, forecast, monitor andevaluate policies were revised.

It is important to say that the follow-up of CAPmeasures, the multifunctionality of agriculture, thepreservation of biodiversity, and the internationalperspective in a world moving towardsglobalisation have been clearly addressed by theKey Action 5 projects.

29



30/32


The importance of having continuity in researchprojects supporting policy specificallysupporting agricultural policy was emphasised.

With Scientific support to policies as a specificpriority in the Sixth Framework Programme,there is a tool for precisely targeting innovativeresearch with respect to the needs of EU policy-makers. Its overall objective is to support theformulation and implementation of Communitypolicies, by providing scientific contributions topolicies that are demand-driven, coherentacross the various Community policy areas, andsensitive to changes in policies as they take place.

Scientific support to policies combines a flexibleprogramme of research requirements with aprecise specification of research objectives. Thework programme is adapted from year to year, inresponse to requirements identified by policy-makers and the scientific community. The tasksoften involve a requirement to address differentdisciplines, in view of the increasingly integratednature of Community policies. For example, theCommon Agricultural Policy reform includes notonly agricultural issues as such but alsoenvironmental, regional development, social,

economic and trade dimensions. In this context,scientific support to Sustainable management ofnatural resources in Europe was designated as avery important area driving 45% of the totalbudget of Scientific support to policies. Withinthis area, the budget dedicated to agriculturalresearch represents a total amount of70 millionfor four years.

The new market models developed have beeninstrumental for ex-ante analysis of policy op-tions. New features of the CAP, such as de-coupling, have been tested through researchprojects before implementation. New challenges

are now arising following the CAP reforms in2003 and 2004. Policy instruments will need tobe adapted to the evolution of the agriculturalsector and the continuous development of thepolicy.

The Commissions proposal for the SeventhFramework Programme2 emphasises the role ofresearch in agricultural products, defining aspecific theme Food, Agriculture andBiotechnology for research activities carried outin transnational co-operation at every scale

30



31/32


across the European Union and beyond. Theactivities are built on three pillars, all of which arerelated to agricultural products but from differentperspectives:

Sustainable production and management ofbiological resources from land, forest, andaquatic environments;

Fork to farm: food health and well-being; Life sciences and biotechnology for

sustainable non-food products and processes.

While there is no longer separate support for theCommon Agricultural Policy and ruraldevelopment, these areas are being taken intoconsideration when developing the specificprogramme of the theme to reflect the future ofagriculture in the EU after the 2003 and 2004reforms.

31

2) Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Seventh Framework Programmeof the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) COM(2005)119 of 6 April 2005.



32/32

List of publications

Plant Genomics and Biotechnology for sustainable and competitive agricultureISBN: 92-894-6374-0

Plant Health: Impact of EU Research (1998-2004)ISBN: 92-894-9026-8

The Forestry Wood Chain: The impact of EU research (1998-2004)ISBN: 92-894-8248-6

Genomics research in livestock. What does it offer?ISBN: 92-894-7091-7

Foot and Mouth Disease and Swine Fever: The impact of EU research (1998-2004)ISBN: 92-894-9032-2

Rural Development: The impact of EU research (1998-2004)

ISBN: 92-894-8247-8 Organic Food and Farming Research in Europe

ISBN: 92-894-9600-2

Towards a European knowledge-based bioeconomy, York University 2004ISBN: 92-894-8778-X

Renewable biological materials for non-food use: The impact of EU research (1998-2004)ISBN: 92-894-8977-4

Support to Common Agriculture Policy: The impact of EU research (1998-2004)ISBN: 92-894-9060.

Key Action 5 External Advisory GroupReport and opinion of research carried out under the European Commission's Fifth FrameworkProgramme [1998-2002]

ISBN: 92-894-5790-2 Science for society. Science with society. How can research on food and agriculture in Europe betterrespond to citizen's expectations and demands? Summary of EURAGRI conference, Brussels, 14-15October 2002ISBN: 92-894-5320-6

New vision on European food and agricultural research. Summary of EURAGRI conference Athens,8-9 May 2003ISBN: 92-894-6260-4

Science for society. Science with society. Summary of the EURAGRI conference Brussels, 3-4February 2005. How to adapt and use the knowledge base for an optimal functioning of the food-health-agriculture system in the European UnionISBN 92-894-9787-4

Key Action 5. Sustainable agriculture, fisherties and forestry. Research projects. Volume 1 (1999-2001).

ISBN: 92-894-0932-0 Impact of EU Research, 16 agricultural success stories under the FAIR programme

ISBN: 92-894-9685-1

Food Quality and Safety in Europe - Project synopsesISBN: 92-894-6811-4

32


support to agricultural policy - the impact of eu research (1998-2004)

Documents