AGROFORESTRY

Systems And Practices In The Cap

An important factor in understanding the place of agroforestry in the CAP and agricultural policies in the EU is the conceptual separation between forestry and agriculture: what constitutes a “forest” and what agricultural land (therefore by definition eligible for the CAP). Scientists that work on “forests” in Central and Northern Europe, but also in the Mediterranean, and scientists that work on agricultural production and development, do not agree on the relationship between forestry and agricultural production. In Southern Europe mostly, the issue of grazing from livestock inside forests is at the center of these differences, in tandem with the so-called “forest plant species”; namely, which species should be considered as “forest” and which as “agricultural” ones (and therefore can be grazed by livestock or not).

need to strive for the integration of agroforestry practices in the “hard core” of the CAP, namely the Single Farm Payments, Compensatory Payments, but also in investment schemes such as the Farm Investment Schemes, Young Farmers’ Scheme, etc.

All these disagreements ignore practices that can be characterized as agroforestry, for which such differences between “forest” and “agriculture” do not exist (Pantera et al., 2018; Debolini et al., 2018). This separation and the subsequent ignorance of agroforestry practices is evident in the existence of two separate policies: forest policy was a responsibility of the Member States and in some cases part of environmental policies, while agricultural policies were shaped by the CAP. Besides conceptual ambiguity, the intensification of agriculture reinforced the spatial and production separation between forestry and agriculture, as practices that combined agriculture with livestock management stopped or significantly decreased.

Agroforestry systems and practices were almost completely ignored for a long time by policies for agricultural and rural development (Varela et al., 2020). In the 1992 CAP reform, forestry was for the first time discussed as part of agricultural production, while after the 2000 reforms, Member States have been allowed the flexibility to plan and apply their own agroforestry measures, as part of agri-environmental measures within their OPs.

However, what did not happen then and has not happened since is:

The integration of agroforestry practices in the “hard core” of the CAP, namely the Single Farm Payment (especially regarding grazing in shrublands, where the presence of “forest species” or woody vegetation decreases the eligibility of the area as grazing land) and the Compensatory Payments, but also in investment schemes such as the Farm Investment Schemes, Young Farmers’ Scheme, etc.

The realization that some cultivated trees and tree crops are essentially forest ecosystems, but also the opposite, that some of the so-called “forest species” can be actively managed by means of agricultural practices and this is desirable from an environmental and ecosystem services perspective (Plieninger et al., 2022).

The use of new technologies and techniques for monitoring more efficiently the impacts of agricultural and forestry practices on biodiversity and ecosystem services in different spatial scales (from the tree to the field and the landscape) (Georgiadis et al., 2022). In general, new methods and approaches to assess the spatial impacts of policies, especially agri-environmental measures, and evaluate their effectiveness are missing. These could be used to differentiate payments according to the results at the farm / landscape level (with the so-called Result Based Policy Schemes).

WHAT CAN BE DONE?

The CAP, but also forest policies, moves in incremental steps. Although the proposals that follow are rather limited in scope, they are realistic and can be integrated thematically and spatially.

A. Cultivated trees and tree crops: extensive tree crops such as olive groves, oaks, chestnuts, carobs, are in essence agro-forestry systems when they are managed extensively, i.e. without many inputs. Typically, agroforestry systems require cultivation and/or grazing of the arboreal understory. Thus, an olive grove that is not grazed or where no cultivation of the understory is practiced, cannot be considered as an agroforestry system. Yet despite this, it is probably a good time for policies to move beyond system definitions on the basis of production to definitions based on intensity and ecosystem services. In terms of planning and implementation, it is feasible to immediately establish a specific framework of extensive management for the production of agricultural products, forest products where possible and the provision of forest ecosystem services and climate mitigation goals. It is not clear if this is also politically feasible, as it would potentially decrease payments to farmers who do not apply such services, but it could constitute a brave effort to integrate agri-environmental schemes and Single Farm Payments. In Greece, the approach to the so-called ‘regionalization’ in the application of the Single Farm Payments includes three virtual “regions”: one for arable crops, one for permanent crops and one for grazing lands. Although this model ignores real spatial differences within Greece, it could be used to facilitate the realization of such payments.

We need to realize that some cultivated trees and tree crops are essentially forest ecosystems, but also the opposite, that some of the so-called “forest species” can be actively managed by means of agricultural practices and this is desirable from an environmental and ecosystem services perspective.

Β. Grazing of forest areas: This is an issue that is largely “not up for discussion” for many foresters and environmentalists, especially in Southern Europe. Yet extensive grazing was always an important part of forest ecosystems’ ecology and contributes to conservation and an increase in biodiversity, particularly by preserving open areas inside or around extended forests. It is possible to return to such extensive practices. In this case also, the framework for planning, monitoring and auditing the practices is available, but again political decisions need to be made.

C. Instalment of new agroforestry systems: although this scheme was included in the overall list of agri-environmental measures in the two previous CAP periods (2007-13 and 2014-2020) for Greece, it was completely ignored (unfortunately this seems to be the case for the next period as well). It is now mature enough to be integrated in support schemes such as the Farm Investment Scheme and the Young Farmers’ Scheme. Thorough descriptions of the systems and the practices are required, but it could be the first indirect recognition of the importance of such systems in the “hard core” of the CAP. Since these systems can be linked with biodiversity and climate change mitigation objectives, they could also potentially provide higher payments.

A small reference should be made to isolated trees, namely trees inside cultivated or grazed lands. Despite the fact that many studies display their importance as refugia and biodiversity enhancers, most Member States have ignored them so far. They are included in the so-called “landscape features” of the new CAP implementation period, but without a clear plan for their management and conservation. It is true that any such measure would be hard to manage, but pilot application in the next programming period can provide blueprints for a more general application in the future.

To conclude, this is a potentially favourable period to discuss the direct link between agroforestry practices and systems and the CAP, not as a small, complementary measure, but as one of the most important practices for payment schemes. This is not a management issue, but mostly a conceptual and political one.