Restricting the eligible maintenance practices of permanent grassland - a realistic way towards more active farming?

Q2 Agricultural and Biological Sciences
A. Viira, K. Kall, Jelena Ariva, L. Oper, E. Jürgenson, S. Maasikamäe, R. Põldaru
{"title":"Restricting the eligible maintenance practices of permanent grassland - a realistic way towards more active farming?","authors":"A. Viira, K. Kall, Jelena Ariva, L. Oper, E. Jürgenson, S. Maasikamäe, R. Põldaru","doi":"10.15159/AR.20.018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As a result of agricultural, land and ownership reforms coupled with liberal agricultural policy during the transition, agricultural land use in Estonia became more fragmented. A significant portion of agricultural land users are now considered passive farmers who maintain their agricultural land (often permanent grasslands) in good agricultural and environmental conditions and are therefore eligible for single area and greening payment. The maintenance of permanent grassland is one of the objectives of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which contributes to the overall climate and biodiversity objectives of the EU. Until 2014, in Estonia, the minimum eligible activity for the maintenance of permanent grassland was to cut the grass and leave it on the ground. In 2015 and 2016, the area on which the cut grass could be left on the ground was restricted in order to increase incentives for more active agricultural land use. This paper analyses the likely effects of such restriction on the use and maintenance of permanent grasslands. The results of the study show that in the case of restrictions on the eligible practices of permanent grassland maintenance, passive land users as well as crop and mixed crop-livestock farms are likely to reduce the area of permanent grasslands (shrinking farms). At the same time, grazing livestock farms (expanding farms) would be willing to expand their permanent grassland area. More than 70% of the permanent grasslands of shrinking farms are located within 1 km and more than 90% within 2 km of expanding farms. However, in some regions it is likely that the maintenance of permanent grasslands is stopped as a result of the restrictions. It is argued that if permanent grasslands are to be maintained, it is necessary to introduce supports for grazing livestock farms, targeted supports for passive land users for their maintenance or more comprehensive land use policy that takes the climate change mitigation requirements into account.","PeriodicalId":7924,"journal":{"name":"Agronomy research","volume":"18 1","pages":"1556-1572"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agronomy research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15159/AR.20.018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

As a result of agricultural, land and ownership reforms coupled with liberal agricultural policy during the transition, agricultural land use in Estonia became more fragmented. A significant portion of agricultural land users are now considered passive farmers who maintain their agricultural land (often permanent grasslands) in good agricultural and environmental conditions and are therefore eligible for single area and greening payment. The maintenance of permanent grassland is one of the objectives of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which contributes to the overall climate and biodiversity objectives of the EU. Until 2014, in Estonia, the minimum eligible activity for the maintenance of permanent grassland was to cut the grass and leave it on the ground. In 2015 and 2016, the area on which the cut grass could be left on the ground was restricted in order to increase incentives for more active agricultural land use. This paper analyses the likely effects of such restriction on the use and maintenance of permanent grasslands. The results of the study show that in the case of restrictions on the eligible practices of permanent grassland maintenance, passive land users as well as crop and mixed crop-livestock farms are likely to reduce the area of permanent grasslands (shrinking farms). At the same time, grazing livestock farms (expanding farms) would be willing to expand their permanent grassland area. More than 70% of the permanent grasslands of shrinking farms are located within 1 km and more than 90% within 2 km of expanding farms. However, in some regions it is likely that the maintenance of permanent grasslands is stopped as a result of the restrictions. It is argued that if permanent grasslands are to be maintained, it is necessary to introduce supports for grazing livestock farms, targeted supports for passive land users for their maintenance or more comprehensive land use policy that takes the climate change mitigation requirements into account.
限制永久草地的维护实践——实现更积极农业的现实途径?
由于农业、土地和所有权改革,加上转型期间的自由农业政策,爱沙尼亚的农业土地使用变得更加分散。很大一部分农业用地使用者现在被认为是被动的农民,他们把自己的农业用地(通常是永久性草原)维持在良好的农业和环境条件下,因此有资格获得单一面积和绿化补贴。维持永久草原是欧盟共同农业政策(CAP)的目标之一,它有助于欧盟的整体气候和生物多样性目标。直到2014年,在爱沙尼亚,维持永久草地的最低标准是割草并将其留在地上。在2015年和2016年,割下的草可以留在地面上的面积受到限制,以增加对更积极的农业用地利用的激励。本文分析了这种限制对永久草地的利用和维护可能产生的影响。研究结果表明,在限制永久草地维持条件的情况下,被动土地使用者以及作物和作物-牲畜混合农场可能会减少永久草地的面积(缩小农场)。同时,放牧牧场(扩大化牧场)也愿意扩大其永久草地面积。缩小农场的永久草原70%以上位于扩大农场1公里范围内,90%以上位于扩大农场2公里范围内。然而,在一些地区,由于限制,可能会停止对永久草原的维护。本文认为,如果要维持永久草原,就必须引入对放牧畜牧场的支持,对被动土地使用者的维护提供有针对性的支持,或者考虑到减缓气候变化要求的更全面的土地利用政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Agronomy research
Agronomy research Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Agronomy and Crop Science
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
7 weeks
期刊介绍: Agronomy Research is a peer-reviewed international Journal intended for publication of broad-spectrum original articles, reviews and short communications on actual problems of modern biosystems engineering including crop and animal science, genetics, economics, farm- and production engineering, environmental aspects, agro-ecology, renewable energy and bioenergy etc. in the temperate regions of the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信