Agricultural landscapes as multi-scale public good and the role of the Common Agricultural Policy

Abstract

During the last 50 years, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has impacted the evolution of European agricultural landscapes by driving changes in land use and farming practices. We propose a typology characterising the scales relevant for agricultural landscapes management and argue that action is required on three scales: (1) a landscape oriented management at the farm level; (2) the coordination of land managers’ actions at the landscape level; and (3) the conservation of the diversity of agricultural landscapes in the EU. We provide evidence that until now the CAP has mainly focused on the first scale. We also illustrate how agricultural policy could encourage coordinated actions at the landscape- and EU-scales. In particular, we propose policy instruments to coordinate actions of individual land owners (e.g. collective bonus in agro-environmental contracts or support to environmental cooperatives (scale 2)). We also analyse how the recognition and transposition of the European Landscape Convention could promote trans-frontier landscape cooperation in order, not only to conserve high-quality rural landscapes, but also to ensure the conservation of the diversity of EU landscapes (scale 3). This paper provides a knowledge base to support an integrated CAP design in the direction of improved landscape management, as an important component of the EU project towards more sustainable agriculture.

Keywords:

• landscapes
• agriculture
• Common Agricultural Policy
• rural development
• collective action
• European Landscape Convention

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge funding from the European Commission, 7th Framework Programme through the project CLAIM (Supporting the role of the Common agricultural policy in LAndscape valorisation: Improving the knowledge base of the contribution of landscape Management to the rural economy, www.claimproject.eu). The authors would like to thank Régis Ambroise (Ministry of agriculture and agro-industry, France), Francesca D’Angelo (European Commission, DG Agriculture and Rural Development), Robert Lifran (INRA Montpelier) for providing initial ideas and valuable inputs. They would also like to thank the partners of the CLAIM FP7 project for inspiring discussions, and Manon Lefebvre for reviewing the paper and for providing suggestions that helped towards the improvement of the final version. Finally, thanks are due to Anna Atkinson for careful proofreading. The views expressed are purely those of the authors and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.

Notes

1. For the purpose of the present article Europe and EU are used as synonyms (authors apologise for this simplification).

2. Other examples of global public goods usually found in the literature include the conservation of genetic diversity, the mitigation of climate change, the control of emerging infectious diseases or the management of sea areas beyond national jurisdiction (Arriagada and Perrings 2011).

3. Moreover, a synergistic effect can be obtained by treating diversity of landscape and biological diversity in similar conceptual terms, as landscape structure is a key element for the understanding of species diversity (Walz 2011): diverse landscapes can provide habitats for a larger pool of genetic resources (e.g. tree varieties (Granke et al. 2009), cattle breeds have adapted to specific landscapes (Hiemstra et al. 2010) etc.).

4. The ‘landscape state and diversity’ indicator (AEI28) is based on three sub-indicators: (1) the dominance and internal structure of the rural-agrarian landscape in the context of the wider landscape matrix; (2) the hemeroby state (or degree of naturalness) which shows the distance from the natural state due to human (agricultural) activities; (3) the interest and perception that society has for the rural-agrarian landscape (tourism, local products) (Paracchini and Capitani 2011; Paracchini et al. 2012).

5. The only rural development measures with collective dimension we have identified in CAP pre-2014 are measures for which municipalities or groups of actors from the non-farming sector are also eligible (similar measures are considered in the CAP post 2013). In particular, measures 322 and 323 focused on the renewal and improvement of the overall appearance of the rural settlement and natural environment (main elements of the cultural landscape and touristic attractiveness). With the LEADER approach of measure 412, the establishment of partnerships at the sub-regional level to co-ordinate investments to enhance the cultural landscape, rural heritage and cultivation in High Nature Value areas were supported.