{"title":"EuroChoices authors benefit from the rigours of the peer review process","authors":"John Davis","doi":"10.1111/1746-692x.12400","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692x.12400","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44823,"journal":{"name":"EuroChoices","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2023-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41783705","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"EuroChoices Authors Benefit from the Rigours of the Peer Review Process\u0000 Avec EuroChoices, les auteurs bénéficient de la rigueur du processus d'évaluation par des pairs\u0000 Autorinnen und Autoren von EuroChoices profitieren von einem gründlichen Begutachtungsprozess","authors":"John Davis","doi":"10.1111/1746-692X.12400","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12400","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44823,"journal":{"name":"EuroChoices","volume":"22 2","pages":"3"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2023-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50135755","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Exuberant expectations about what EU agriculture can and should deliver in policy areas beyond its scope often contrast sharply with both farm realities and contradictions in the behaviour of individuals as citizens and consumers. This has polarised the CAP policy debate, and erroneously pushes for a choice between prioritising either climate action or food security. Recent developments, including the war in Ukraine, added to concerns about uncertain and volatile future price prospects. Food price prospects and population growth impacts are pivotal in the debate about food security as higher food costs, prospects for higher energy costs driven by the green transition and increasing income inequalities put households in both developed and the developing world at risk with respect to food affordability. Adding trends of global population growth, especially in Africa, creates a clear challenge of availability in certain products and regions. The EU's underestimated and misunderstood record of producing more with less could help EU agriculture to positively contribute to addressing both food security and climate change. However, further improving its performance requires re‐opening the debate in three priority areas where the EU must come clear on its stance and future contribution – productivity, science and trade.
{"title":"The Global Dimension of the CAP Debate: Between a Rock and a Hard Place","authors":"T. Haniotis","doi":"10.1111/1746-692x.12402","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692x.12402","url":null,"abstract":"Exuberant expectations about what EU agriculture can and should deliver in policy areas beyond its scope often contrast sharply with both farm realities and contradictions in the behaviour of individuals as citizens and consumers. This has polarised the CAP policy debate, and erroneously pushes for a choice between prioritising either climate action or food security. Recent developments, including the war in Ukraine, added to concerns about uncertain and volatile future price prospects. Food price prospects and population growth impacts are pivotal in the debate about food security as higher food costs, prospects for higher energy costs driven by the green transition and increasing income inequalities put households in both developed and the developing world at risk with respect to food affordability. Adding trends of global population growth, especially in Africa, creates a clear challenge of availability in certain products and regions. The EU's underestimated and misunderstood record of producing more with less could help EU agriculture to positively contribute to addressing both food security and climate change. However, further improving its performance requires re‐opening the debate in three priority areas where the EU must come clear on its stance and future contribution – productivity, science and trade.","PeriodicalId":44823,"journal":{"name":"EuroChoices","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2023-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42668150","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article elaborates the role of economic analysis in influencing the reform path of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) between 1992 and 2022 on the basis of publicly available information from a personal career experience in the European Commission. Analyses about the trade distorting impact of the pre‐1992 CAP were dominant in influencing the internal Commission debate before the Uruguay Agreement on Agriculture, and were mostly external from academia and international organisations. Developments leading to the Fischler reform in 2003 led to the broadening of analytical scope to cover the impact of food safety issues on market developments, non‐tariff barriers to trade, or alternative scenarios about an enlarged EU based on the increasing use of internal and external models. Evaluations and Impact Assessments played a major role in assessing options for CAP reforms after 2007, with the increasing role of NGOs and think tanks gradually shifting the analytical and policy focus in identifying CAP weaknesses in its environmental delivery. The new institutional reality of co‐decision complicated the link between analysis and policy decision making. However, though economic analysis is clearly not sufficient, it is still necessary and essential to jointly address the twin challenges of food security and climate change.
{"title":"Down (my) Memory Lane: Has Economic Analysis Impacted CAP Reforms?","authors":"T. Haniotis","doi":"10.1111/1746-692x.12401","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692x.12401","url":null,"abstract":"This article elaborates the role of economic analysis in influencing the reform path of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) between 1992 and 2022 on the basis of publicly available information from a personal career experience in the European Commission. Analyses about the trade distorting impact of the pre‐1992 CAP were dominant in influencing the internal Commission debate before the Uruguay Agreement on Agriculture, and were mostly external from academia and international organisations. Developments leading to the Fischler reform in 2003 led to the broadening of analytical scope to cover the impact of food safety issues on market developments, non‐tariff barriers to trade, or alternative scenarios about an enlarged EU based on the increasing use of internal and external models. Evaluations and Impact Assessments played a major role in assessing options for CAP reforms after 2007, with the increasing role of NGOs and think tanks gradually shifting the analytical and policy focus in identifying CAP weaknesses in its environmental delivery. The new institutional reality of co‐decision complicated the link between analysis and policy decision making. However, though economic analysis is clearly not sufficient, it is still necessary and essential to jointly address the twin challenges of food security and climate change.","PeriodicalId":44823,"journal":{"name":"EuroChoices","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2023-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43061505","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
S. V. D. van den Burg, Sophie Koch, Justine Raoult, Bobby Tsvetkov, T. Selnes
The EU has proposed a voluntary framework for certification of carbon removals which remains vague on blue carbon and in particular, carbon removal through use of seaweeds. Seaweed is considered an emerging blue carbon option. Various studies have confirmed the potential of seaweed to contribute to long‐term carbon removal, storing it away from the atmosphere for 100 years and more. Certification of seaweed carbon sequestration is promoted, even in other EU communications. This article reviews early experiences with certification of carbon and nutrient removal by aquaculture using the QU.A.L.ITY criteria proposed by the EU. Examples reviewed include the Seaweed Company, Venice Bay, Yokohama Bayside marine, and Chesapeake Bay in the USA. After reviewing these examples, we call on the European Commission to move forward towards certification of blue carbon. If the EU is to lead global climate mitigation efforts, including carbon removal, it should take seaweed blue carbon seriously and include it in its voluntary framework. To enhance the awareness of the relevance and the acceptance of the carbon credits from seaweed, a methodology has to be developed that, building on experiences gained, deals with inherent uncertainties.
{"title":"Time to Include Blue Carbon from Seaweed in Voluntary Carbon Removal Certification","authors":"S. V. D. van den Burg, Sophie Koch, Justine Raoult, Bobby Tsvetkov, T. Selnes","doi":"10.1111/1746-692x.12398","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692x.12398","url":null,"abstract":"The EU has proposed a voluntary framework for certification of carbon removals which remains vague on blue carbon and in particular, carbon removal through use of seaweeds. Seaweed is considered an emerging blue carbon option. Various studies have confirmed the potential of seaweed to contribute to long‐term carbon removal, storing it away from the atmosphere for 100 years and more. Certification of seaweed carbon sequestration is promoted, even in other EU communications. This article reviews early experiences with certification of carbon and nutrient removal by aquaculture using the QU.A.L.ITY criteria proposed by the EU. Examples reviewed include the Seaweed Company, Venice Bay, Yokohama Bayside marine, and Chesapeake Bay in the USA. After reviewing these examples, we call on the European Commission to move forward towards certification of blue carbon. If the EU is to lead global climate mitigation efforts, including carbon removal, it should take seaweed blue carbon seriously and include it in its voluntary framework. To enhance the awareness of the relevance and the acceptance of the carbon credits from seaweed, a methodology has to be developed that, building on experiences gained, deals with inherent uncertainties.","PeriodicalId":44823,"journal":{"name":"EuroChoices","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2023-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49558341","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Long‐term land leasing offers a viable alternative to land ownership in relation to increasing efficiency of agricultural production, economies of scale, and delivering environmental improvements in terms of land management. However, with no significant tenanted sector in Northern Ireland, access to land via long‐term land leasing is limited. This study analysed the barriers and enablers of long‐term land leasing. To achieve our objective, we employed a mixed methods approach. The results show that the main barriers to long‐term land leasing were environmental concern (around how the land will be managed), inheritance tax implications and the potential effect of long‐term land leasing on future succession plans of the farm business. We also found that as much as 70 per cent of the farmers surveyed believe the inclusion of a ‘break clause’ and the introduction of income tax incentives will encourage the adoption of long‐term land leasing, while 61 per cent of the farmers stated that the environmental management of the land will encourage long‐term land leasing. The study concluded that any model designed to encourage long‐term land leasing in Northern Ireland should include clauses which cover the environmental management of the land and break clauses. Income tax incentives for landowners could also be considered.
{"title":"Barriers and Enablers of Long‐term Land Leasing: a Case Study of Northern Ireland","authors":"A. H. Adenuga, C. Jack, Ronan McCarry, P. Caskie","doi":"10.1111/1746-692x.12404","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692x.12404","url":null,"abstract":"Long‐term land leasing offers a viable alternative to land ownership in relation to increasing efficiency of agricultural production, economies of scale, and delivering environmental improvements in terms of land management. However, with no significant tenanted sector in Northern Ireland, access to land via long‐term land leasing is limited. This study analysed the barriers and enablers of long‐term land leasing. To achieve our objective, we employed a mixed methods approach. The results show that the main barriers to long‐term land leasing were environmental concern (around how the land will be managed), inheritance tax implications and the potential effect of long‐term land leasing on future succession plans of the farm business. We also found that as much as 70 per cent of the farmers surveyed believe the inclusion of a ‘break clause’ and the introduction of income tax incentives will encourage the adoption of long‐term land leasing, while 61 per cent of the farmers stated that the environmental management of the land will encourage long‐term land leasing. The study concluded that any model designed to encourage long‐term land leasing in Northern Ireland should include clauses which cover the environmental management of the land and break clauses. Income tax incentives for landowners could also be considered.","PeriodicalId":44823,"journal":{"name":"EuroChoices","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2023-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41977034","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>Il existe un décalage persistant au sein de l'Union européenne (UE) entre un objectif officiel majeur déclaré de la dernière version de la politique agricole commune (PAC), qui fait toujours référence à la garantie d'un "niveau de vie équitable pour la communauté agricole" (un objectif clairement social), et la manière dont les revenus des agriculteurs sont officiellement mesurés et les interventions conçues. Le mauvais ciblage des cas de faibles revenus, qui devraient correspondre à des niveaux de vie inférieurs à l’équité, est susceptible de rendre la PAC vulnérable aux critiques pour son gaspillage de ressources publiques, mais cela a été ignoré pour des raisons politiques. Suite au retrait du Royaume-Uni de l'UE (‘Brexit’), la PAC ne s'y applique plus et les politiques agricoles britanniques ont pu abandonner l'objectif explicite de garantir le niveau de vie des ménages agricoles. Il n'existe aucune preuve fiable que, en tant que groupe, les ménages agricoles britanniques se caractérisent par une relative pauvreté en terme de revenu; bien que l'instabilité soit un problème, ils ont souvent de multiples sources de revenus et détiennent des richesses substantielles, ce qui a un impact sur leur niveau de vie potentiel. En l'absence de preuves de faibles revenus des ménages parmi ses agriculteurs, l'UE devrait-elle suivre l'exemple du Royaume-Uni et, en fait, transférer la responsabilité de la réduction de la pauvreté aux systèmes nationaux conçus pour résoudre ce problème dans la communauté?</p><p>In der EU besteht eine anhaltende Diskrepanz zwischen einem offiziell erklärten Ziel der jüngsten Version der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik (GAP), welche sich noch immer auf die Gewährleistung einer ‚angemessenen Lebenshaltung für die landwirtschaftliche Bevölkerung‘ (eindeutig ein soziales Ziel) bezieht, und der Art und Weise, wie die Einkommen der Landwirtinnen und Landwirte offiziell überwacht und Interventionen konzipiert werden. Eine unzureichende Ausrichtung auf einkommensschwache Fälle, in denen ein geringerer Lebensstandard zu erwarten ist, macht die GAP anfällig für den Vorwurf der Verschwendung öffentlicher Mittel, was jedoch aus politischen Gründen ignoriert wurde. Nach dem Austritt des Vereinigten Königreichs aus der EU (‚Brexit‘) gilt die GAP dort nicht mehr und die Agrarpolitik des Vereinigten Königreichs konnte das ausdrückliche Ziel, den Lebensstandard der landwirtschaftlichen Haushalte zu gewährleisten, aufgeben. Es gibt keine verlässlichen Belege dafür, dass landwirtschaftliche Haushalte im Vereinigten Königreich im Allgemeinen von relativer Einkommensarmut betroffen sind; obwohl Instabilität ein Problem darstellt. Sie verfügen häufig über mehrere Einkommensquellen und beträchtliche Vermögen, was sich jeweils auf ihren potenziellen Lebensstandard auswirkt. Mangels Beweisen für niedrige Haushaltseinkommen unter ihren Landwirtinnen und Landwirten: Sollte die EU dem Beispiel des Vereinigten Königreichs folgen und die Verantwortung für die
欧盟（UE）一直存在着一种将其转变为农业社区政治（PAC）的客观官方主要宣言，即“农业社区公平生活水平”（非客观社会澄清），农业人员的收入不属于官方措施和干预措施。事实上，作为国际社会的一员，政治行动委员会很容易受到对公共资源匮乏的批评，这是对政治存在的忽视。在Royaume Uni de l'UE（“英国脱欧”）的务虚会上，政治行动委员会（PAC）的应用程序和英国农业政治机构放弃了提高农业管理水平的目标。目前，英国农业管理层的收入水平与相对贫困的人相当；在不稳定的情况下，有多种收入来源和大量财富，并对潜力水平产生影响。在没有农民管理层收入的情况下，欧盟的发展是以Royaume Uni为例的，事实上，它转变了国家扶贫体系的责任，以解决社区问题？在欧盟，最新版本的共同农业政策（CAP）的官方宣布目标与如何对农民收入进行官方监测和制定干预措施。对预期生活水平较低的低收入案件关注不足，使CAP容易受到浪费公共资金的指控，但由于政治原因，这一点被忽视了。英国退出欧盟（“脱欧”）后，CAP不再适用于英国，英国的农业政策已经能够放弃确保农业家庭生活水平的明确目标。没有可靠的证据表明英国的农业家庭普遍受到相对收入贫困的影响；尽管不稳定是个问题。他们通常有多种收入来源和可观的财富，每种来源都会影响他们潜在的生活水平。在没有证据表明其农民家庭收入低的情况下，欧盟是否应该效仿英国，有效地将扶贫责任移交给国家系统，以解决共同体中的这一问题？
{"title":"Do European Agricultural Policies Still Aim to Support the Living Standards of the Agricultural Community?\u0000 Les politiques agricoles européennes visent-elles toujours à soutenir le niveau de vie de la communauté agricole ?\u0000 Zielt die europäische Agrarpolitik noch auf die Förderung des Lebensstandards der landwirtschaftlichen Bevölkerung ab?","authors":"Berkeley Hill","doi":"10.1111/1746-692X.12405","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12405","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Il existe un décalage persistant au sein de l'Union européenne (UE) entre un objectif officiel majeur déclaré de la dernière version de la politique agricole commune (PAC), qui fait toujours référence à la garantie d'un \"niveau de vie équitable pour la communauté agricole\" (un objectif clairement social), et la manière dont les revenus des agriculteurs sont officiellement mesurés et les interventions conçues. Le mauvais ciblage des cas de faibles revenus, qui devraient correspondre à des niveaux de vie inférieurs à l’équité, est susceptible de rendre la PAC vulnérable aux critiques pour son gaspillage de ressources publiques, mais cela a été ignoré pour des raisons politiques. Suite au retrait du Royaume-Uni de l'UE (‘Brexit’), la PAC ne s'y applique plus et les politiques agricoles britanniques ont pu abandonner l'objectif explicite de garantir le niveau de vie des ménages agricoles. Il n'existe aucune preuve fiable que, en tant que groupe, les ménages agricoles britanniques se caractérisent par une relative pauvreté en terme de revenu; bien que l'instabilité soit un problème, ils ont souvent de multiples sources de revenus et détiennent des richesses substantielles, ce qui a un impact sur leur niveau de vie potentiel. En l'absence de preuves de faibles revenus des ménages parmi ses agriculteurs, l'UE devrait-elle suivre l'exemple du Royaume-Uni et, en fait, transférer la responsabilité de la réduction de la pauvreté aux systèmes nationaux conçus pour résoudre ce problème dans la communauté?</p><p>In der EU besteht eine anhaltende Diskrepanz zwischen einem offiziell erklärten Ziel der jüngsten Version der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik (GAP), welche sich noch immer auf die Gewährleistung einer ‚angemessenen Lebenshaltung für die landwirtschaftliche Bevölkerung‘ (eindeutig ein soziales Ziel) bezieht, und der Art und Weise, wie die Einkommen der Landwirtinnen und Landwirte offiziell überwacht und Interventionen konzipiert werden. Eine unzureichende Ausrichtung auf einkommensschwache Fälle, in denen ein geringerer Lebensstandard zu erwarten ist, macht die GAP anfällig für den Vorwurf der Verschwendung öffentlicher Mittel, was jedoch aus politischen Gründen ignoriert wurde. Nach dem Austritt des Vereinigten Königreichs aus der EU (‚Brexit‘) gilt die GAP dort nicht mehr und die Agrarpolitik des Vereinigten Königreichs konnte das ausdrückliche Ziel, den Lebensstandard der landwirtschaftlichen Haushalte zu gewährleisten, aufgeben. Es gibt keine verlässlichen Belege dafür, dass landwirtschaftliche Haushalte im Vereinigten Königreich im Allgemeinen von relativer Einkommensarmut betroffen sind; obwohl Instabilität ein Problem darstellt. Sie verfügen häufig über mehrere Einkommensquellen und beträchtliche Vermögen, was sich jeweils auf ihren potenziellen Lebensstandard auswirkt. Mangels Beweisen für niedrige Haushaltseinkommen unter ihren Landwirtinnen und Landwirten: Sollte die EU dem Beispiel des Vereinigten Königreichs folgen und die Verantwortung für die ","PeriodicalId":44823,"journal":{"name":"EuroChoices","volume":"22 2","pages":"53-58"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2023-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50122240","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Adewale Henry Adenuga, Claire Jack, Ronan McCarry, Paul Caskie
Long-term land leasing offers a viable alternative to land ownership in relation to increasing efficiency of agricultural production, economies of scale, and delivering environmental improvements in terms of land management. However, with no significant tenanted sector in Northern Ireland, access to land via long-term land leasing is limited. This study analysed the barriers and enablers of long-term land leasing. To achieve our objective, we employed a mixed methods approach. The results show that the main barriers to long-term land leasing were environmental concern (around how the land will be managed), inheritance tax implications and the potential effect of long-term land leasing on future succession plans of the farm business. We also found that as much as 70 per cent of the farmers surveyed believe the inclusion of a ‘break clause’ and the introduction of income tax incentives will encourage the adoption of long-term land leasing, while 61 per cent of the farmers stated that the environmental management of the land will encourage long-term land leasing. The study concluded that any model designed to encourage long-term land leasing in Northern Ireland should include clauses which cover the environmental management of the land and break clauses. Income tax incentives for landowners could also be considered.
{"title":"Barriers and Enablers of Long-term Land Leasing: a Case Study of Northern Ireland\u0000 Obstacles et catalyseurs de la location foncière à long terme : une étude de cas de l'Irlande du Nord\u0000 Hindernisse und Voraussetzungen der langfristigen Landpacht: Eine Fallstudie aus Nordirland","authors":"Adewale Henry Adenuga, Claire Jack, Ronan McCarry, Paul Caskie","doi":"10.1111/1746-692X.12404","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12404","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Long-term land leasing offers a viable alternative to land ownership in relation to increasing efficiency of agricultural production, economies of scale, and delivering environmental improvements in terms of land management. However, with no significant tenanted sector in Northern Ireland, access to land via long-term land leasing is limited. This study analysed the barriers and enablers of long-term land leasing. To achieve our objective, we employed a mixed methods approach. The results show that the main barriers to long-term land leasing were environmental concern (around how the land will be managed), inheritance tax implications and the potential effect of long-term land leasing on future succession plans of the farm business. We also found that as much as 70 per cent of the farmers surveyed believe the inclusion of a ‘break clause’ and the introduction of income tax incentives will encourage the adoption of long-term land leasing, while 61 per cent of the farmers stated that the environmental management of the land will encourage long-term land leasing. The study concluded that any model designed to encourage long-term land leasing in Northern Ireland should include clauses which cover the environmental management of the land and break clauses. Income tax incentives for landowners could also be considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":44823,"journal":{"name":"EuroChoices","volume":"22 2","pages":"20-27"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2023-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1746-692X.12404","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50122556","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Sander van den Burg, Sophie Koch, Justine Raoult, Bobby Tsvetkov, Trond Selnes
The EU has proposed a voluntary framework for certification of carbon removals which remains vague on blue carbon and in particular, carbon removal through use of seaweeds. Seaweed is considered an emerging blue carbon option. Various studies have confirmed the potential of seaweed to contribute to long-term carbon removal, storing it away from the atmosphere for 100 years and more. Certification of seaweed carbon sequestration is promoted, even in other EU communications. This article reviews early experiences with certification of carbon and nutrient removal by aquaculture using the QU.A.L.ITY criteria proposed by the EU. Examples reviewed include the Seaweed Company, Venice Bay, Yokohama Bayside marine, and Chesapeake Bay in the USA. After reviewing these examples, we call on the European Commission to move forward towards certification of blue carbon. If the EU is to lead global climate mitigation efforts, including carbon removal, it should take seaweed blue carbon seriously and include it in its voluntary framework. To enhance the awareness of the relevance and the acceptance of the carbon credits from seaweed, a methodology has to be developed that, building on experiences gained, deals with inherent uncertainties.
{"title":"Time to Include Blue Carbon from Seaweed in Voluntary Carbon Removal Certification\u0000 Il est temps d'inclure le carbone bleu des algues dans la certification volontaire des absorptions de carbone\u0000 Es ist an der Zeit, blauen Kohlenstoff aus Meeresalgen in die freiwillige Zertifizierung des Kohlenstoffabbaus aufzunehmen","authors":"Sander van den Burg, Sophie Koch, Justine Raoult, Bobby Tsvetkov, Trond Selnes","doi":"10.1111/1746-692X.12398","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12398","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The EU has proposed a voluntary framework for certification of carbon removals which remains vague on blue carbon and in particular, carbon removal through use of seaweeds. Seaweed is considered an emerging blue carbon option. Various studies have confirmed the potential of seaweed to contribute to long-term carbon removal, storing it away from the atmosphere for 100 years and more. Certification of seaweed carbon sequestration is promoted, even in other EU communications. This article reviews early experiences with certification of carbon and nutrient removal by aquaculture using the QU.A.L.ITY criteria proposed by the EU. Examples reviewed include the Seaweed Company, Venice Bay, Yokohama Bayside marine, and Chesapeake Bay in the USA. After reviewing these examples, we call on the European Commission to move forward towards certification of blue carbon. If the EU is to lead global climate mitigation efforts, including carbon removal, it should take seaweed blue carbon seriously and include it in its voluntary framework. To enhance the awareness of the relevance and the acceptance of the carbon credits from seaweed, a methodology has to be developed that, building on experiences gained, deals with inherent uncertainties.</p>","PeriodicalId":44823,"journal":{"name":"EuroChoices","volume":"22 2","pages":"13-19"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2023-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1746-692X.12398","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50122555","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
There is a continuing mismatch in the EU between a key official stated objective of the latest form of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which still refers to ensuring a ‘fair standard of living for the agricultural community’ (clearly a social aim), and the way that farmer incomes are officially monitored and interventions designed. Poor targeting at low‐income cases where standards of living could be expected to be less than ‘fair’ is likely to make the CAP vulnerable to criticism for being wasteful of public resources, yet this has been ignored for political reasons. Following the UK's withdrawal from the EU (‘Brexit’), the CAP no longer applies in the UK, and UK agricultural policies have been able to abandon the explicit aim of guaranteeing living standards of farm households. There is no reliable evidence that, as a group, UK farm households are characterised by relative income‐poverty; though instability is a problem, they frequently have multiple income sources and hold substantial wealth, both of which impact on their potential standard of living. In the absence of evidence of low household incomes among its farmers, should the EU follow the UK's example and, in effect, transfer responsibility for alleviating poverty to national systems designed to tackle that problem in the community?
{"title":"Do European Agricultural Policies Still Aim to Support the Living Standards of the Agricultural Community?","authors":"B. Hill","doi":"10.1111/1746-692x.12405","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692x.12405","url":null,"abstract":"There is a continuing mismatch in the EU between a key official stated objective of the latest form of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which still refers to ensuring a ‘fair standard of living for the agricultural community’ (clearly a social aim), and the way that farmer incomes are officially monitored and interventions designed. Poor targeting at low‐income cases where standards of living could be expected to be less than ‘fair’ is likely to make the CAP vulnerable to criticism for being wasteful of public resources, yet this has been ignored for political reasons. Following the UK's withdrawal from the EU (‘Brexit’), the CAP no longer applies in the UK, and UK agricultural policies have been able to abandon the explicit aim of guaranteeing living standards of farm households. There is no reliable evidence that, as a group, UK farm households are characterised by relative income‐poverty; though instability is a problem, they frequently have multiple income sources and hold substantial wealth, both of which impact on their potential standard of living. In the absence of evidence of low household incomes among its farmers, should the EU follow the UK's example and, in effect, transfer responsibility for alleviating poverty to national systems designed to tackle that problem in the community?","PeriodicalId":44823,"journal":{"name":"EuroChoices","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2023-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49312124","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：