Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
level where the consequences of policy reform are
'played out'. Bowler (1992) and Bowler et al ..
(1996) referred to these adjustments as 'pathways
of farm business development'. While one possible
pathway for some farmers is the continuation of
the productivist model of industrialised farming,
most options involve a redistribution of farm
resources into different types of agricultural de-
intensification. This may involve an extensification
of production through either the maintenance/re-
creation of traditional farming systems or the
adoption of AEPs. It might also involve a
diversification of the income base into different
types of agricultural (e.g. non-conventional crops
and livestock enterprises, woodlands) and/or
structural (e.g. farm tourism, direct marketing and
processing of food) diversification. Finally, it may
involve the re-localisation and thus the dispersion
of the agro-food system in which locally produced
quality products, with real authenticity of
geographical origin and traceability, can act as
niche markets (Marsden 1996). This is one possible
way in which marginal agricultural areas can
exploit the increasing demand for local and
wholesome food products. These three applied
aspects of the PPT are not mutually exclusive and
could be interlinked through developments in, for
example, organic farming (Park and Lohr 1996).
Nevertheless, for the rest of this chapter, each
dimension is examined in isolation, drawing on
case study evidence where appropriate.
(subsidies) should be withdrawn if specified
conservation conditions are not met (the concept
of cross-compliance ).
The first signs of incorporating environmental
dimensions into EU agricultural policy came in a
Commission 'Green Paper' in 1985 (CEC 1985).
This recommended the withdrawal of land along
environmentally strategic buffer zones, within
ecological corridors along field boundaries, and
around water bodies. The Green Paper suggested
the designation of environmentally sensitive areas
(ESAs), within which farmers would receive an
annual premium to introduce or maintain farming
practices that were compatible with the protection
of the environment and natural resources. These
ideas were incorporated into the new Structures
Regulation of 1985 (797/ 85), and EU funding
for ESAs was confirmed in 1986. Indeed,
continuous policy developments between 1985
and 1992, including extensification (Regulation
1760/87) and arable set-aside (Regulation 1094/
88), were based on the principle of financial
compensation for reducing agricultural output.
Although the major reforms of the CAP in
1992 were economically driven (Ritson and
Harvey 1997), Regulation 2078/92 stated that
member states must implement a package of
'accompanying measures', to include AEPs. Each
country had to have approved an
agrienvironmental package by 1993. The schemes
were to be voluntary over five years, and farmers
would be financially compensated for loss of
income if they abided by one or more of the
following:
Extensification: agri-environmental
programmes
Although initially conceived as an attempt to
reduce agricultural production by paying farmers
to de-intensify their farming systems, the main
thrust of extensification in European agriculture
has come through the adoption of different
agrienvironmental programmes (AEPs). AEPs can
be interpreted as a political compromise between
the demands of the farm lobby and the calls for
change by environmental groups (Potter 1998).
Whereas the former group demanded payments
for environmental management in the EU, the
latter group argued that payments to farmers
substantial reduction in the use of fertilisers
and/or the introduction/continuation of
organic farming methods;
change to more extensive forms of crop/
livestock production;
use of other farming practices that are
beneficial to the environment and natural
resource protection;
upkeep of abandoned land;
long-term set-aside of agricultural land for
environmental reasons;
land management for public access and leisure.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search