Browsing by Author "Mosquera-Losada, M. R."

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    AGFORWARD Project Final Report
    (Cranfield University, 2018-02-28) Burgess, Paul; den Herder, M.; Dupraz, C.; Garnett, Kenisha; Giannitsopoulos, Michail; Graves, Anil; Hermansen, J. E.; Kanzler, M.; Liagre, F.; Mirck, J.; Moreno, G.; Mosquera-Losada, M. R.; Palma, João H. N.; Pantera, A.; Plieninger, T.
    Executive summary: The AGFORWARD project (Grant Agreement N° 613520) had the overall goal to promote agroforestry practices in Europe that will advance sustainable rural development. It had four objectives (described below) which address 1) the context and extent of agroforestry in Europe, 2) identifying, developing and field-testing agroforestry innovations through participatory networks, 3) evaluating innovative designs and practices at field-, farm-, and landscape-scales, and promoting agroforestry in Europe through policy development and dissemination. Agroforestry is defined as the practice of deliberately integrating woody vegetation (trees or shrubs) with crop and/or animal systems to benefit from the resulting ecological and economic interactions. Context: European agroforestry has been estimated to cover 10.6 Mha (using a literature review) and 15.4 Mha using the pan-European LUCAS dataset (i.e. 8.8% of the utilised agricultural area). Livestock agroforestry (15.1 Mha) is, by far, the dominant type of agroforestry. The LUCAS analysis provides a uniform method to compare agroforestry areas between countries and over time. Identify, develop and field-test agroforestry innovations: 40 stakeholder groups (involving about 820 stakeholders across 13 European countries) developed and field-tested agroforestry innovations which have been reported in 40 “lesson learnt” reports, and in a user-friendly format in 46 “Agroforestry innovation leaflets”. The innovations for agroforestry systems of high nature and cultural value included cheaper methods of tree protection and guidance for establishing legumes in wood pastures. Innovations for agroforestry with timber plantations, olive groves and apple orchards include the use of medicinal plants and reduction of mowing costs. Innovations for integrating trees on arable farms included assessments of yield benefits by providing wind protection. Innovations for livestock farms included using trees to enhance animal welfare, shade protection, and as a source of fodder. Peer-reviewed journal papers and conference presentations on these and other related topics were developed. Evaluation of agroforestry designs and practices at field- and landscape-scale: a range of publicly available field-scale analysis tools are available on the AGFORWARD website. These include the “CliPick” climate database, and web-applications of the Farm-SAFE and Hi-sAFe model. The results of field- and landscape-scale analysis, written up as peer-reviewed papers, highlight the benefits of agroforestry (relative to agriculture) for biodiversity enhancement and providing regulating ecosystem services, such as for climate and water regulation and purification. Policy development and dissemination: detailed reviews of existing policy and recommendations for future European agroforestry policy have been produced. The support provided is far wider than the single specified agroforestry measures. The recommendations included the collation of existing measures, and that agroforestry systems should not forfeit Pillar I payments. Opportunities for farmlevel and landscape-level measures were also identified. The project results can be found on the project website (www.agforward.eu), a Facebook account (www.facebook.com/AgforwardProject), a Twitter account (https://twitter.com/AGFORWARD_EU), and a quarterly electronic newsletter (http://www.agforward.eu/index.php/en/newsletters-1514.html). The number of national associations in Europe was extended to twelve, and a web-based training resource on agroforestry (http://train.agforward.eu/language/en/agforall/) created. AGFORWARD also supported the Third European Agroforestry Conference in Montpellier in 2016 attracting 287 delegates from 26 countries including many farmers. We also initiated another 21 national conferences or conference sessions on agroforestry, made about 240 oral presentations, 61 poster presentations, produced about 50 news articles, and supported about 87 workshop, training or field-visit activities (in addition to the stakeholder groups).
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    AGFORWARD Third Periodic Report: July 2016 to December 2017
    (Cranfield University, 2018-03-01) Burgess, Paul; den Herder, M.; Dupraz, C.; Garnett, Kenisha; Giannitsopoulos, Michail; Graves, Anil; Hermansen, J. E.; Kanzler, M.; Liagre, F.; Moreno, G.; Mosquera-Losada, M. R.; Palma, João H. N.; Pantera, A.; Plieninger, T.
    Project context The European Union has targets to improve the competitiveness of European agriculture and forestry, whilst improving the environment and the quality of rural life. At the same time there is a need to improve our resilience to climate change and to enhance biodiversity. During the twentieth century, large productivity advances were made by managing agriculture and forestry as separate practices, but often at a high environmental cost. In order to address landscape-scale issues such as biodiversity and water quality, we argue that farmers and society will benefit from considering landuse as a continuum including both agriculture and trees, and that there are significant opportunities for European farmers and society to benefit from a closer integration of trees with agriculture. Agroforestry is the practice of deliberately integrating woody vegetation (trees or shrubs) with crop and/or animal systems to benefit from the resulting ecological and economic interactions.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Farmers’ reasoning behind the uptake of agroforestry practices: evidence from multiple case-studies across Europe
    (Springer, 2017-10-11) Rois-Díaz, M.; Lovric, N.; Lovric, M.; Ferreiro-Domínguez, N.; Mosquera-Losada, M. R.; den Herder, M.; Graves, Anil; Palma, João H. N.; Paulo, J. A.; Pisanelli, A.; Smith, J.; Moreno, G.; García, S.; Varga, Anna; Pantera, A.; Mirck, J.
    Potential benefits and costs of agroforestry practices have been analysed by experts, but few studies have captured farmers’ perspectives on why agroforestry might be adopted on a European scale. This study provides answers to this question, through an analysis of 183 farmer interviews in 14 case study systems in eight European countries. The study systems included high natural and cultural value agroforestry systems, silvoarable systems, high value tree systems, and silvopasture systems, as well as systems where no agroforestry practices were occurring. A mixed method approach combining quantitative and qualitative approaches was taken throughout the interviews. Narrative thematic data analysis was performed. Data collection proceeded until no new themes emerged. Within a given case study, i.e. the different systems in different European regions, this sampling was performed both for farmers who practice agroforestry and farmers who did not. Results point to a great diversity of agroforestry practices, although many of the farmers are not aware of the term or concept of agroforestry, despite implementing the practice in their own farms. While only a few farmers mentioned eligibility for direct payments in the CAP as the main reason to remove trees from their land, to avoid the reduction of the funded area, the tradition in the family or the region, learning from others, and increasing the diversification of products play the most important role in adopting or not agroforestry systems.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Understanding agroforestry practices in Europe through landscape features policy promotion
    (Springer, 2018-02-17) Santiago-Freijanes, Jose Javier; Santiago-Freijanes, Jose Javier; Aldrey, J. A.; Moreno, G.; den Herder, M.; Burgess, Paul; Mosquera-Losada, M. R.
    Agroforestry understood as the combination of a woody component (forest tree, shrub, fruit tree) with an agricultural use of the understory is not clearly identified as such by the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Despite the protection and promotion of the woody component in different parts of the CAP political text, the identification of agroforestry is not clear, although it can be recognised in the description of some landscape features, such as isolated trees and different types of hedgerows. Moreover, it is important to identify the extent of such woody components promoted by the CAP in agricultural lands to validate the impact of current and future measures. This paper aims at the characterisation of the current extent of landscape features all over Europe by analysing the Rural Development Program (RDP) measures within the CAP 2007–2013 and 2014–2020 that promote said features in Europe to increase the ecosystem service delivery. Isolated trees and hedgerows are protected unsatisfactorily through the Cross-compliance and Greening of CAP Pillar I. In contrast, Agri-environment measures associated to Pillar II are used in most European countries to protect both isolated trees and hedgerows and to promote them as boundary elements. The promotion of hedgerows and isolated trees mainly related to silvoarable and silvopastoral agroforestry practices is aimed at the promotion of the ecosystem services (such as water protection and biodiversity) and improvement in resilience (such as adaptation to climate change) they provide; therefore, the agroforestry environment benefits are indeed recognised. Landscape features comprising woody perennials should be associated with agroforestry when present in arable and permanent grasslands.