scholarly journals Cross compliance GAEC standards implemented in Italy: environmental effectiveness and strategic perspectives

2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (1s) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Bazzoffi ◽  
Camillo Zaccarini Bonelli
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Effectiveness ◽  
Cross Compliance

scholarly journals Environmental effectiveness of the cross compliance standard 4.6 ‘Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimens’

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (1s) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucia Sepe ◽  
Mauro Salis ◽  
Rosa Francaviglia ◽  
Marco Fedrizzi ◽  
Antonio Melchiorre Carroni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Animal Species ◽  
Maximum Level ◽  
Farming System ◽  
Climatic Conditions ◽  
Stocking Rate ◽  
Italian Regions ◽  
Environmental Effectiveness ◽  
The Cross ◽  
Stocking Rates ◽  
Cross Compliance

The paper presents the main results of the monitoring on the effectiveness of the cross compliance standard 4.6 ‘Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes’ carried out in two case studies within the project MO.NA.CO: sheep grazing in medium-rich pastures in southern Apennines and in the plain of Sardinia, Italy. The monitoring involved aspects related to soil, flora, livestock and economics (competitiveness differential). The study showed, although in the short term, that the minimum stocking rate 0.2 LU/ha/year was not effective and, conversely, the effectiveness of the maximum level of stocking rate (4 LU/ha) for the maintenance of the habitat. The generalization in applying minimum and maximum rate, not taking into account the climatic conditions, forage resources or farming system (including the species of grazing animal) may lead to a serious nullification of the conditions of the Standard. The authors recommend to identify homogeneous areas and eligible specific stocking rates from all Italian regions, also considering the animal species.

scholarly journals Environmental effectiveness of GAEC cross-compliance standard 4.1 (b, c) ‘Protection of permanent pasture land’ and economic evaluation of the competitiveness gap for farmers

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (1s) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mauro Salis ◽  
Lucia Sepe ◽  
Rosa Francaviglia ◽  
Marco Fedrizzi ◽  
Paolo Bazzoffi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Organic Matter Content ◽  
Biomass Productivity ◽  
Matter Content ◽  
Soil Tillage ◽  
Pasture Land ◽  
Permanent Pasture ◽  
Environmental Effectiveness ◽  
Productivity And Competitiveness ◽  
Cross Compliance

The paper presents the main results of the monitoring on the effectiveness of the cross-compliance Standard 4.1 ‘Permanent pasture protection: lett. b, c’ carried out in two case studies within the project MO.NA.CO. Soil, botanical, productive and economic (competitiveness gap) parameters have been monitored. In the short term, the Standard 4.1 showed its effectiveness on soil quality, biomass productivity and competitiveness gap in both case studies. Botanical parameters showed differing results, therefore their generalization is not applicable to the heterogeneity of the pasture land Italian system. Shallow soil tillage could be suggested, every 40-50 years, when an appropriate soil organic matter content and the absence of runoff phenomena occur.

scholarly journals Environmental effectiveness of GAEC cross-compliance Standard 1.1a (temporary ditches) and 1.2g (permanent grass cover of set-aside) in reducing soil erosion and economic evaluation of the competitiveness gap for farmers

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1s) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Bazzoffi ◽  
Rosa Francaviglia ◽  
Ulderico Neri ◽  
Rosario Napoli ◽  
Alessandro Marchetti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Soil Erosion ◽  
Vegetation Cover ◽  
Bare Soil ◽  
Runoff Water ◽  
Rusle Model ◽  
Environmental Effectiveness ◽  
Additional Costs ◽  
Soil Erosion By Water ◽  
Cross Compliance ◽  
Made In

<p>This paper shows the results of the monitoring carried out in three hilly farms of the MONACO project in order to verify the effectiveness of the Standard 1.1 <sub>(commitment a)</sub> (temporary ditches) and Standard 1.2 <sub>(commitment g)</sub> (Vegetation cover throughout the year in set-aside land) in the reduction in soil erosion, contained in Rule 1: ‘minimum land management that meets specific conditions’ of the decree Mipaaf 2009 and following modifications, until the recent decree No. 180 of January 23, 2015. In addition, the assessment of the competitiveness gap was done. That is the evaluation of the additional costs borne by the beneficiary of the single payment determined from agronomic commitments. Monitoring has also compared the erosion actually observed in the field with that predicted by RUSLE model (Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation) (Renard et al., 1997) in the two situations: with and without the presence of temporary ditches, i.e. assuming Factual (compliance rules) and in that Counterfactual (infringement). This comparison was made in view of the fact that the RUSLE model was chosen by the 'European Evaluation Network for Rural Development (EEN, 2013) as a forecasting tool for the quantification of' Common Indicator ‘soil erosion by water’. The results of soil erosion survey carried out by using a new  UAV-GIS methodology  on two monitoring farms in two years of observations have shown that temporary ditches were effective in decreasing erosion, on average, by 42.5%, from 36. 59 t ha<sup>-1</sup> to 21.05 t ha<sup>-1</sup> during the monitoring period. It was also evaluated the effectiveness of grass strips (at variance with the commitment of temporary ditches). The results showed a strong, highly significant, reduction in erosion by about 35% times respect soil erosion observed in bare soil and also a significant reduction in the volume of runoff water.  With regard to Standard 1.2 <sub>(commitment g)</sub> the statistical analysis shows a strong and highly significant decrease in the erosion due to the vegetation cover of the soil compared to bare soil. The economic competitiveness gap of  Standard 1.1<sub>(commitment a)</sub> stood at € 4.07±1.42 € ha<sup>-1</sup> year<sup>-1</sup>, while CO<sub>2</sub> emissions due to execution of temporary ditches was 2.58 kg ha<sup>-1</sup>year<sup>-1</sup>. As for the Standard 1.2 <sub>(commitment g) </sub>the average differential competitiveness gap amounted to  50.22±13.7 € ha<sup>-1</sup> year<sup>-1</sup> and an output of CO<sub>2</sub> equal to 31.52  kg ha<sup>-1</sup> year.</p>

scholarly journals Environmental effectiveness of GAEC cross-compliance Standard 4.2 on biodiversity in set-aside management and economic evaluation of the competitiveness gap for farmers, part I

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1s) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Mocali ◽  
Silvia Landi ◽  
Arturo Fabiani ◽  
Raimondo Piccolo ◽  
Alessandro Agnelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Soil Microorganisms ◽  
Biodiversity Monitoring ◽  
Soil Biodiversity ◽  
Agronomic Practices ◽  
Environmental Effectiveness ◽  
Soil Arthropod ◽  
Arthropod Fauna ◽  
Cross Compliance ◽  
Monitoring Activity

In 2005, the CAP reform introduced the principle of conditionality that enables the access to single payments for farmers only ‘on condition’ that a series of commitments, such as the Statutory Management Requirements (SMR) and Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC), are respected. In particular, the GAEC Standard 4.2 aims to ensure the proper management of the set-aside fields through specific agronomic practices consisting in mowing or equivalent operations in order to conserve and protect biodiversity. This is considered one of the main environmental challenges of the new CAP. In the present work, we report the results of a monitoring activity aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of the Standard 4.2 on soil biodiversity. Monitoring involved both, soil microorganisms and soil arthropod fauna, representing the so-called ‘invisible biodiversity’, a key element for soil fertility and sustainability, as well as the ground-dwelling arthropods. Two different managements of set-aside, with and without mowing, were compared in three different areas in Italy: Caorle (VE), Fagna (FI), and Metaponto (MT). The results showed a slight but significant increase in biodiversity in the plots where mowing was applied.

scholarly journals Environmental effectiveness of GAEC cross-compliance standard 2.2 "Maintaining the level of soil organic matter through crop rotation" and economic evaluation of the competitiveness gap for farmers

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (1s) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lamberto Borrelli ◽  
Roberta Farina ◽  
Paolo Bazzoffi ◽  
Antonio Melchiorre Carroni ◽  
Paola Ruda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Organic Matter ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Soil Organic Matter ◽  
Crop Rotation ◽  
Agricultural Research ◽  
Culture Technique ◽  
Climatic Conditions ◽  
Environmental Effectiveness ◽  
Lag Times ◽  
Cross Compliance

Within the Project MO.NA.CO was evaluated the Environmental effectiveness of GAEC cross-compliance standard 2.2 “Maintaining the level of soil organic matter through crop rotation” and economic evaluation of the competitiveness gap for farmers who support or not the cross-compliance regime. The monitoring was performed in nine experimental farms of the Council for Agricultural Research and Economics (CREA) distributed throughout Italy and with different soil and climatic conditions. Were also evaluated the soil organic matter and some yield parameters, in a cereal monocropping (treatment counterfactual) and a two-year rotation cereal-legume or forage (treatment factual). The two-years application of the standard “crop rotations” has produced contrasting results with regards to the storage of soil organic matter through crop rotation and these were not sufficient to demonstrate a statistically significant effect of treatment in any of the farms considered in monitoring, only in those farms subjected to more years of monitoring was recorded only a slight effect of the standard as a trend. The variations of organic matter in soils in response to changes in the culture technique or in the management of the soil may have long lag times and two years of time are not sufficient to demonstrate the dynamics of SOM associated with the treatment, also in consideration of the large inter annual variability recorded in different monitored sites.

scholarly journals Environmental effectiveness of GAEC cross-compliance standard 2.1 ‘Maintaining the level of soil organic matter through management of stubble and crop residues’ and economic evaluation of the competitiveness gap for farmers

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (1s) ◽  
Author(s):  
Domenico Ventrella ◽  
Nino Virzì ◽  
Francesco Intrigliolo ◽  
Massimo Palumbo ◽  
Michele Cambrea ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Organic Matter ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Soil Organic Matter ◽  
Crop Residues ◽  
Agricultural Research ◽  
Agricultural Practice ◽  
Soil Biodiversity ◽  
Good Agricultural Practice ◽  
Environmental Effectiveness ◽  
Cross Compliance

Within the Project MO.NA.CO. the Environmental effectiveness of GAEC cross-compliance standard 2.2 ‘Maintaining the level of soil organic matter through management of stubble and crop residues’ and economic evaluation of the competitiveness gap for farmers were evaluated. The monitoring was performed in eight experimental farms of the Council for agricultural research and economics (CREA), distributed throughout Italy and with different soil and climatic conditions. Yield parameters and several components of soil organic matter were evaluated in two contrasting treatments applied to one-year rotation of winter durum wheat and maize: i) incorporation into the soil of crop residues (Factual treatment) and ii) burning or removal of crop residues (Counterfactual treatment). The application of the standard ‘crop residue management’ has showed contrasting results with differences (for yield and soil) between the two treatments resulted almost always non significant. The analysis of economic competitiveness gap showed that the CR incorporation is more expensive than CR burning or removal, but the economic disadvantage can be considered rather small and thus easily compensated by Community aids. Therefore, the soil incorporation of crop residues can be considered a ‘good agricultural practice’ that does not penalize farmers in terms of production and cost and at the same time contributes to the maintenance of fertility and soil biodiversity. On the contrary, the removal and burning of residues result in a low or no-addition of organic matter into the soil. Moreover, burning can contribute to decrease the biodiversity and to increase the risk of air pollution, fires and road accidents.

scholarly journals Environmental effectiveness of GAEC cross-compliance Standard 3.1 ‘Ploughing in good soil moisture conditions’ and economic evaluation of the competitiveness gap for farmers

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (1s) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosa Francaviglia ◽  
Antonio Melchiorre Carroni ◽  
Paola Ruda ◽  
Mauro Salis ◽  
Paolo Bazzoffi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Soil Moisture ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Water Content ◽  
Bulk Density ◽  
Packing Density ◽  
Soil Tillage ◽  
Structure Degradation ◽  
Environmental Effectiveness ◽  
Moisture Conditions ◽  
Cross Compliance

<p>Within the MO.NA.CO. Project<em> </em>the environmental effectiveness of GAEC cross-compliance Standard 3.1 ‘Ploughing in good soil moisture conditions’ was evaluated, as well as the economic evaluation of the competitiveness gap for farmers which conform or do not conform to cross-compliance. The monitoring has been carried out at nine experimental farms with different pedoclimatic characteristics, where some indicators of soil structure degradation have been evaluated, such as bulk density, packing density and surface roughness of the seedbed, and the crop productive and qualitative parameters. In each monitoring farm two experimental plots have been set up: factual with soil tillage at proper water content (tilth), counterfactual with soil tillage at inadequate water content (no tilth). The monitoring did not exhibit univocal results for the different parameters, thus the effectiveness of the Standard 3.1 is ‘contrasting’ (class of merit B), and there was an evident practical problem to till the soil at optimum water content, even in controlled experimental condition. Bulk density was significantly lower in the factual treatment although in soils with very different textures (sandy-loam and clayey). Packing density (PD) showed a high susceptibility to compaction in soils with low PD and medium texture. The tortuosity index, indicating the roughness of the seedbed, was lower and generally significantly different in the factual treatment. Results showed that the ploughing done in excessive soil moisture conditions is more expensive due to the increased force of traction of the tractor, which causes an increase in slip of the tractor wheels, with a speed reduction and increase in the working times and fuel consumption. Moreover, the crop yield is also reduced considerably according to the cultivated species.</p>

scholarly journals Environmental effectiveness of GAEC cross-compliance standard 1.1c ‘Maintenance of farm channel networks and field convexity’ and economic evaluation of the competitiveness gap for farmers

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1s) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Bazzoffi ◽  
Sergio Pellegrini ◽  
Silvia Carnevale ◽  
Lamberto Borrelli ◽  
Marisanna Speroni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Roughness Parameter ◽  
Practical Significance ◽  
Channel Networks ◽  
Environmental Threats ◽  
Cultivated Soil ◽  
Agricultural Enterprise ◽  
Environmental Effectiveness ◽  
Structural Fragility ◽  
Additional Costs ◽  
Cross Compliance

<p>This paper shows the results of the monitoring carried out in three farms of the project MO.NA.CO. in order to verify the effectiveness of the cross-compliance standard 1.1c which obliges the farmer to the ‘Maintenance of farm channel networks and field convexity’ in order to ensure its efficiency and functionality in draining water. It was also examined the competitiveness gap induced to the agricultural enterprise by the application of the standard, that is to say the additional costs borne by the beneficiary of the single payment determined by cleaning farm collector channels. Effectiveness was determined by evaluating the degradation of soil structure at the end of winter, on flat fields  sown in autumn with winter wheat, in the two cases: a) Factual (channels along the field edges not clogged and no waterlogging present on the cultivated soil) b) Counterfactual (channels clogged and waterlogging present on the cultivated soil). The monitoring confirmed a positive effect of the adoption of this standard on predisposing soil to the ideal conditions for the maintenance of the structure. Despite the statistical evidence found, it must be said that the change in the surface roughness factor was so small as not to take any practical significance in order to affirm that the functional maintenance of collectors channels have been effective in reducing erosion. Overall, the soils were unstructured and crusted at the end of the observation period. Indexes Icli, NTU, and DS show a structural fragility from medium to high for soils of the three monitoring farms. This explains the lack of appreciable differences in the soil roughness parameter, especially in relation to   heavy rains and long waterlogging periods in the cropping years of monitoring. The competitiveness gap induced by the application of this standard, amounted to 19.89±€ 6.35 ha<sup>-1</sup> year<sup>-1</sup>. Atmospheric emission of CO<sub>2</sub>, was equal to 14.53±6.62 kg ha<sup>-1 </sup>year<sup>-1</sup>. It is considered important to point out that at the present Annex II: ‘Rules of cross-compliance’ of Regulation (EU) No. 1306/2013 includes a BCAA not taking into account the environmental threats determined by waterlogging in cultivated land to soil, crops and to atmosphere, due to the possible production of greenhouse gases. As regards the infringement criteria to the standard it is suggested the introduction of the verification of the presence of convexity on cultivated fields in the plain.</p>

Überblick zum aktuellen Rechtsrahmen der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik (GAP) auf EU- und nationaler Ebene

2016 ◽  
pp. 391-401
Author(s):  
Karsten Maier
Keyword(s):  
Cross Compliance

Mit der grundlegenden Reform der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik Ende 2013 wurden mit Wirkung ab Anfang 2014 für die 6 Bereiche Fonds, Europäischer Landwirtschaftsfonds für die Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums (ELER), Kontrollen, Direktzahlungen, gemeinsame Marktordnungen und Finanzierung Basisregelungen auf EU-Ebene erlassen. Sie wurden sukzessive durch entsprechende Durchführungs- sowie so genannte delegierte Rechtsakte ergänzt und zwischenzeitlich zum Teil bereits geändert. Deren nationale Umsetzung erfolgt im Wesentlichen über drei Gesetze und diesbezügliche Durchführungsverordnungen für Direktzahlungen, Cross Compliance und Kontrollen. Der folgende Beitrag schließt an den ersten Eckpunktebericht des Verfassers [1] zu den Reformbeschlüssen an. Der Artikel gibt einen textlichen, grafisch-schematischen sowie tabellarischen Überblick zu den vielfältigen und über 1000 Seiten umfassenden Rechtsregelungen auf EU- und nationaler Ebene. Einbezogen sind dabei zudem die relevanten Rechtsgrundlagen der früher eigenständigen Zuckermarktordnung (ZMO). Zugleich erfolgt damit auch eine Aktualisierung der vom Verfasser publizierten diesbezüglichen Tabellen im Zuckerwirtschaftlichen Taschenbuch 2016 [2].

scholarly journals Circular economy in the construction sector: advancing environmental performance through systemic and holistic thinking

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Magnus Sparrevik ◽  
Luitzen de Boer ◽  
Ottar Michelsen ◽  
Christofer Skaar ◽  
Haley Knudson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle ◽  
Circular Economy ◽  
Building Materials ◽  
Construction Sector ◽  
Recursive Structure ◽  
Effective Implementation ◽  
Environmental Effectiveness ◽  
Standards And Regulations ◽  
Management Schemes ◽  
Different Levels

AbstractThe construction sector is progressively becoming more circular by reducing waste, re-using building materials and adopting regenerative solutions for energy production and biodiversity protection. The implications of circularity on construction activities are complex and require the careful evaluation of impacts to select the appropriate path forward. Evaluations of circular solutions and their environmental effectiveness are often performed based on various types of life cycle-based impact assessments. This paper uses systemic thinking to map and evaluate different impact assessment methodologies and their implications for a shift to more circular solutions. The following systemic levels are used to group the methodologies: product (material life cycle declarations and building assessments), organisation (certification and management schemes) and system (policies, standards and regulations). The results confirm that circular economy is integrated at all levels. However, development and structure are not coordinated or governed unidirectionally, but rather occur simultaneously at different levels. This recursive structure is positive if the methods are applied in the correct context, thus providing both autonomy and cohesion in decision making. Methods at lower systemic levels may then improve production processes and stimulate the market to create circular and innovative building solutions, whereas methods at higher systemic levels can be used, for example, by real estate builders, trade organisations and governments to create incentives for circular development and innovation in a broader perspective. Use of the performance methods correctly within an actor network is therefore crucial for successful and effective implementation of circular economy in the construction sector.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document