Advertisement

Multifunctional farming, multifunctional landscapes and rural development

  • Tommy Dalgaard
  • Chris Kjeldsen
  • Nicholas Hutchings
  • Kathrin Happe
  • Amanda Osuch
  • Martin Damgaard
  • Peter Zander
  • Annette Piorr
Chapter

Abstract

The Common European Agricultural Policy (CAP) is under transformation towards a Common Agricultural and Rural Policy of Europe (CARPE). During this transformation, substantial parts of the previously direct support for agricultural production (1st pillar measures) are now decoupled from production. Moreover, a share of direct payments is modulated to the rural development programme, which is the 2nd pillar of the CARPE (Table 1).

Keywords

Rural Development Landscape Level Farm Type Study Landscape Farming Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berntsen J, Petersen BM, Jacobsen BH, Olesen JE, Hutchings NJ (2003) Evaluating nitrogen taxation scenarios using the dynamic whole farm simulation model FASSET. Agricultural Systems 76: 817–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. European Commission (2004) New Perspectives for EU Rural Development, Fact Sheet. http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/publi/fact/rurdev/refprop_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
  3. Dalgaard T, Rygnestad H, Jensen JD and Larsen PE (2002) Methods to map and simulate agricultural activity at the landscape scale. Danish Journal of Geography 3: 29–39.Google Scholar
  4. Damgaard M, Happe K, Zander P, Dalgaard T, Hutchings N (2004) A modelling framework for assessing policy impacts on the multifunctionality of agricultural landscapes. International Workshop: Integrated assessment of the land system. s 2.3.7. Institute for Environmental Studies, Amsterdam, pp. 28–30 October. http://www.lucc.nl/Google Scholar
  5. EEA (2000) The CORINE grid land cover, level III (1/100,000, in 44 categories). © The European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. (http://dataservice.eea.eu.int/dataservice/).Google Scholar
  6. European Commission (2005) Impact assessment guidelines. SEC(2005)791. European Commission, Brussels, June 15.Google Scholar
  7. Happe K, Balmann A, Kellermann K (2004) The agricultural policy simulator (AgriPoliS) — an agent-based model to study structural change in agriculture (version 1.0), IAMO Discussion paper, No. 71, IAMO Halle (Saale). [http://www.iamo.de/dok/dp71.pdf]Google Scholar
  8. Happe K (2004) Agricultural policies and farm structures — agent-based modelling and application to EU-policy reform. Studies on the Agricultural and Food Sector in Central and Eastern Europe, vol. 30, IAMO, 291 pp. [http://www.iamo.de/dok/sr_vol30.pdf]Google Scholar
  9. Hutchings N, Dalgaard T, Rasmussen BM, Hansen JF, Dahl M, Jørgensen LF, Erntsen V, Von Platen-Hallermund F, Pedersen SS (2004) Watershed nitrogen modelling. In: Hatch DJ et al. (eds) Controlling nitrogen flows and losses. Wageningen Academic Publishers. pp. 47–53.Google Scholar
  10. Kjeldsen C, Dalgaard T, Osuch A, Hutchings N, Mouritsen AK (2005) A framework for upscaling from farm to landscape. Deliverable 5.1 report for the MEA-scope project. www.mea-scope.org. Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Foulum, Denmark.Google Scholar
  11. McClintock J (1989) Farm accountancy Data network. An A to Z Methodology. Report, 1st edition. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.Google Scholar
  12. Piorr A, Müller K, Happe K, Uthes S, Sattler C (2006) Agricultural management issues of implementing multifunctionality: commodity and non-commodity production in the approach of the MEA-Scope project. In: Mander Ü, Helming K, Wiggering U (eds) Multifunctional land use: Meeting future demands for landscape goods and services. Springer, Heidelberg, Berlin. This book.Google Scholar
  13. Rounsevell MDA, Annets JE, Audsley E, Mayr T, Reginster I (2003) Modelling the spatial distribution of agricultural land use at the regional scale. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 95: 465–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sattler, C, Zander P (2004) Environmental and economic assessment of agricultural production practices at a regional level based on uncertain knowledge. (Pre)Proceedings of the Sixth European IFSA Symposium, 4–7 April, Vila Real, Portugal Vol. II, pp. 783–796.Google Scholar
  15. Vejre H, Abildtrup J, Andersen E, Andersen PS, Brandt J, Busck A, Dalgaard T, Hasler B, Huusom H, Kristensen LS, Kristensen S., Præstholm S (2006) Multifunctional agriculture and multifunctional landscapes — land use as interface. In: Mander Ü, Helming K, Wiggering U (eds) Multifunctional land use: Meeting future demands for landscape goods and services. Springer, Heidelberg, Berlin. This book.Google Scholar
  16. Waarts Y (2005) Indicators for agricultural policy impact assessment: The case of multifunctional beef production. Deliverable 2.4 report for the MEA-scope project. www.mea-scope.org. European Centre for Nature Conservation, Tilburg, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  17. Zander P (2003) Agricultural land use and conservation options: a modelling approach, Dissertation, Wageningen University, 222 pages, http://library.wur.nl/wda/dissertations/dis3372.pdfGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tommy Dalgaard
    • 1
  • Chris Kjeldsen
    • 1
  • Nicholas Hutchings
    • 1
  • Kathrin Happe
    • 2
  • Amanda Osuch
    • 2
  • Martin Damgaard
    • 2
  • Peter Zander
    • 3
  • Annette Piorr
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of AgroecologyDanish Institute of Agricultural Sciences (DIAS)TjeleDenmark
  2. 2.Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe (IAMO)Halle (Saale)Germany
  3. 3.Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF)MünchebergGermany

Personalised recommendations