A Scenario-Wise Analysis of Economic and Environmental Impacts in the MEA-Scope Case Study Regions

  • Sandra Uthes
  • Claudia Sattler
  • Amanda Sahrbacher
  • Vladimir Hutar
  • Georges Amon
  • Eric Perret
  • Heléne Rapey
  • László Podmaniczky
  • Arianna Ciancaglini
  • Jakub Wasilewski
  • Lisbeth Mogensen
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter summarises economic and environmental impacts of five CAP scenarios in seven European case study regions located in Germany, Denmark, Italy, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland and France. The spatially explicit MEA-Scope modelling approach based on three farm-level models – AgriPoliS (agent-based), MODAM (bio-economic), FASSET (bio-physical) – is used to dynamically simulate the behaviour of single farms. At regional level, the change in a range of economic (i.a. number of farms, farm size, farm income) and environmental indicators (related to soil, water and habitat quality) is analysed to compare the scenarios.

The scenario results differ widely reflecting the heterogeneity of the regions. In the EU-15 regions, for example, payment decoupling achieved the best results in conserving the structure of the farming sector, while Agenda 2000 conditions were more effective in maintaining extensive grassland areas. The New-Member-State regions showed the best overall performance in a special accession scenario.

Keywords

MEA-Scope economic and environmental trade-offs CAP scenarios multifunctionality model linking 

References

  1. COM – Commission of the European Communities (2006) General budget of the European Union for the financial year 2006. The figures. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, Luxembourg. ISSN 1680–2047Google Scholar
  2. Happe K, Damgaard M, Osuch A, Sattler C, Zander P, Uthes S, Schuler J, Piorr A (2006) CAP-reform and the provision of non-commodity outputs in Brandenburg. German Journal of Agricultural Economics 55(5/6): 268–279Google Scholar
  3. Kjeldsen C, Dalgaard T, Bøcher, PK (2006) Methodological issues of modelling farm and landscape scale indicators for sustainable land systems. Danish Journal of Geography 106(2): 35–43Google Scholar
  4. Piorr A, Ungaro F, Ciancaglini A, Happe K, Sahrbacher A, Sattler C, Uthes S, Zander P (2009) Integrated assessment of future CAP policies: land use changes, spatial patterns and targeting. Environmental Science and Policy (in press)Google Scholar
  5. Renda A (2006) Impact Assessment in the EU – The State of the Art and the Art of the State. Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  6. Sattler, C, Zander, P (2004) Environmental and economic assessment of agricultural production practices at a regional level based on uncertain knowledge. (Pre)Proceedings of the Sixth European IFSA Symposium, 4-7 April, Vila Real, Portugal Vol.II: 783–796.Google Scholar
  7. Sattler C, Schuler J, Zander P (2006) Determination of trade-off-functions to analyse the provision of agricultural non-commodities. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 5(2/3): 309–325Google Scholar
  8. Schader C, Stolze M, Moschitz H (2007) Case study on regional differences in social demand on commodity and non-commodity concerns. MEA-Scope Project report series, Volume 6Google Scholar
  9. Uthes S, Sattler C, Reinhardt F-J, Piorr A, Zander P, Happe K, Damgaard M, Osuch A (2008) Ecological effects of payment decoupling in a case study region in Germany. Journal of Farm Management 13(3): 219–230Google Scholar
  10. Waarts Y (2005) Indicators for the quantification of multifunctionality impacts. MEA-Scope Project report series, Volume 4Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandra Uthes
    • 1
  • Claudia Sattler
    • 1
  • Amanda Sahrbacher
    • 2
  • Vladimir Hutar
    • 3
  • Georges Amon
    • 4
  • Eric Perret
    • 4
  • Heléne Rapey
    • 4
  • László Podmaniczky
    • 5
  • Arianna Ciancaglini
    • 6
  • Jakub Wasilewski
    • 7
  • Lisbeth Mogensen
    • 8
  1. 1.Institute of Socio-Economics, Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF)MünchebergGermany
  2. 2.Department Structural Development of Farms and Rural AreasLeibniz-Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe (IAMO)HalleGermany
  3. 3.Soil Science and Conservation Research Institute (SSCRI)BratislavaSlovakia
  4. 4.CEMAGREF – Groupement de Clermont-FerrandUMR MétafortAubiere cedex 1France
  5. 5.Department of Environmental EconomicsInstitute of Environmental and Landscape Management, Szent István UniversityGödöllőHungary
  6. 6.Department of Agricultural and Land Economics (DEART)University of FlorenceFlorenceItaly
  7. 7.Research Centre for Agricultural and Forest EnvironmentPoznańPoland
  8. 8.Department of Agroecology and Environment, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (DJF)University of AarhusTjeleDenmark

Personalised recommendations