Common criteria for the redefinition of Intermediate Less Favoured Areas in the European Union

environmental science & policy 13 (2010) 766–777

available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

Common criteria for the redefinition of Intermediate Less Favoured Areas in the European Union ˚ . Eliasson a,*, R.J.A. Jones b, F. Nachtergaele c, D.G. Rossiter d, J.-M. Terres a, A J. Van Orshoven e, H. van Velthuizen f, K. Bo¨ttcher a, P. Haastrup a, C. Le Bas g a

Institute for Environment and Sustainability, EU-DG, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy School of Applied Sciences, Cranfield University, United Kingdom c Land and Water Division, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Rome, Italy d International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), Enschede, The Netherlands e Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium f The International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria g French National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA), Olivet Cedex, France b

article info Published on line 22 September 2010 Keywords: Agricultural indicators Land evaluation Natural handicap payments Rural development policy

abstract This article defines eight key climate, soil and terrain criteria that have been developed for the future delimitation of the Intermediate Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) support, a measure of the Common Agricultural Policy. The LFA scheme has existed since 1975 and is a broad mechanism for improving the viability of agriculture in areas with natural handicaps. The common criteria have been developed for the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development to satisfy the objectives in the Rural Development Policy 2007–2013 (Axis II), which aim to improve the environment and the countryside by more sustainable land management. The criteria were developed by experts, coordinated by the European Commissions Joint Research Centre, to meet the requirement for a robust and harmonised approach of identifying areas that experience natural constraints to agriculture throughout the EU 27 Member States. The criteria proposed are: temperature, heat stress, drainage, soil texture and stoniness, soil rooting depth, soil chemical properties, soil moisture balance and slope. Each criterion is described and an indicative threshold for assessment of its impact on agriculture is provided. The criteria are currently being tested by the EU Member States for a future possible legislation. # 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1.

Introduction

For the period 2007–2013, the Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) measure is part of Axis II of the Rural Development Policy (EC, 2005), which aims ‘‘to protect and enhance natural resources, as well as preserving high value nature farming and forestry systems and cultural landscapes in Europe’s rural areas’’ by promoting sustainable land management. Examples of envi-

ronmental values associated with low intensity management farming and LFA are: traditional open landscapes and seminatural grasslands; important biodiversity areas depending on farming activities; and reduced vulnerability to soil erosion, desertification, forest fires and other hazards (IEEP, 2006). At present, there are three categories of LFA (EC, 1999), the second Intermediate LFA being the focus of the revision and this research:

* Corresponding author. ˚ . Eliasson). E-mail address: [email protected] (A 1462-9011/$ – see front matter # 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.08.003

environmental science & policy 13 (2010) 766–777

i. Mountain areas that are handicapped by a short growing season due to high altitude, or by steep slopes, or by a combination of the two. They also include areas north of the 62nd parallel whether mountainous or not. ii. Intermediate LFA in which there is a danger of abandonment of agricultural land and where the conservation of the countryside is necessary. Present handicaps relate to low productivity and low and declining agricultural population. iii. Areas affected by specific handicaps in which farming should be continued in order to conserve or improve the environment, maintain the countryside, and preserve the tourist potential of the areas, or to protect the coastline. For the category Intermediate LFA, the objectives in the Council Regulation 1698/2005 (EC, 2005) have recently changed. The new objectives are designed to identify areas of low soil productivity and poor climate, whereas the earlier objectives in Council Regulation 1257/1999 (EC, 1999) relating to productivity as such and agricultural population have disappeared. To implement the new objectives a revision of the Intermediate LFA delimitation is required. In 2005, under the present scheme, 57% (91 million hectares) of the agricultural areas in the European Union (EU) were classified as LFA and the scheme supported approximately 1.4 million farmers (13% of total). The category Intermediate LFA corresponds to 31% of the agricultural areas and 7% of the total number of farmers. The allocation of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development amounts to s 12.6 billion (13.9%) of the total Rural Development Community funding for 2007–2013 (EC, 2009a).1 In 2004, the weighted average payment per hectare for LFA was s 75, but payments ranged from 15–50 s/ha in Spain, Estonia, Sweden, Poland and Lithuania to 170–250 s/ha in Austria, Finland, Belgium and Malta. Land evaluation is an important tool to identify land that requires improved and sustainable management. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO, 1976) defines land evaluation as ‘‘the process of assessment of land performance when used for a specified purpose, involving the execution and interpretation of surveys and studies of land forms, soils, vegetation, climate and other aspects of land in order to identify and make a comparison of promising kinds of land use in terms applicable to the objectives of the evaluation’’. Many land evaluation tools originate from the Land-use Capability Classification System (Klingebiel and Montgomery, 1961) developed by the United States Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service. The Land Capability Classification groups soils primarily on the basis of their capability to produce common cultivated crops and pasture plants without degrading the soil over a long period of time. Land is classified according to the level of limitation to farming (Rossiter, 1994). The Framework for Land Evaluation, developed by the FAO (1976, 2007), has been 1 The statistics refer to the European Union 25 Member States, the data for Romania and Bulgaria being unavailable for this study.

767

extensively applied and computerised. The framework provides a set of principles and general guidelines for application at different scales. Detailed guidelines are available for application within forestry, rainfed agriculture, irrigated agriculture, extensive grazing and land-use planning. The Agro-ecological Zoning methodology (FAO, 1996) is directly based on the FAO Framework and has been developed in collaboration with the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and applied globally (Fischer et al., 2002). The Problem Land Approach is a straightforward approach for identifying broad types of agricultural problem soils and limitations in climate (FAO, 1990a), and has been applied for Europe (Nachtergaele, 2006). Expert System for Constraints to Agricultural Production in Europe (ESCAPE) is a land evaluation approach that has been developed by INRA (French National Institute for Agricultural Research) and applied Europe-wide in collaboration with the EC Joint Research Centre. The approach is based on key soil and climate criteria, with a minimum set of parameters, which vary according to different crop groups namely: cereals, maize, root crops, oilseed crops, grasslands, olive trees and vineyards. Three sets of limitations are evaluated: soil, temperature and soil–water constraints (Le Bas et al., 2001, 2002). Examples of agro-meteorological land qualities or indicators applied in the above methods are: length of growing period, temperature conditions (frost, flowering, ripening and heat constrains), moisture conditions, soil drainage conditions and oxygen availability to roots, nutrient availability, rooting conditions, texture/stoniness constraints, flood hazard, soil chemical constraints—excess of salts and toxicities, soil potential for mechanisation and erosion hazard. The reason why these more advanced land evaluation systems cannot be applied for the redefinition of the LFA in a straightforward way is mainly because the new policy requires a simple scientific framework that can be applied uniformly by all Member States. Pan-European soil data are not sufficiently detailed or harmonised to permit delimitation of Intermediate LFA (at municipality or submunicipal level) using the complexity that would be encountered by applying any advanced land evaluation system. The objective of this research was to identify and describe a set of common biophysical criteria capable of indicating the overall suitability of land for agriculture for the future classification of the Intermediate LFA in Europe (EC, 2005). More specifically, two sub-questions are studied:  What are the soil and climate characteristics or land qualities having a major and sufficiently independent contribution to the suitability of land for agriculture in a European perspective?  Can an indicative threshold be given for these characteristics and qualities to separate land having major constraints (natural handicaps) to agriculture from nonconstrained land? In this context, the definition of ‘characteristics and qualities’ is similar to OECD’s definition (1999) of agrienvironmental indicator, i.e. an attribute of land, which is policy relevant, analytically sound, easy to interpret and measurable. Also, the term criterion is used.

768

environmental science & policy 13 (2010) 766–777

The background to the LFA measure and its classification is outlined below, followed by procedures and protocols for implementation. The criteria are then described with their agronomic importance, followed by some concluding remarks. The term LFA is used in this article for the measure now called Natural Handicap Payments (EC, 2009b).

2.

Background

2.1. From social to environmental requirements and equal treatment of farmers The LFA scheme, originally aimed at preventing agricultural land abandonment and rural depopulation, dates back to 1975. Subsequent reforms have increased focus on maintaining certain agricultural land use and general protection of the environment. In 2003, the LFA scheme was criticised by the European Court of Auditors (2003) because the heterogeneous range of indicators applied in the EU Member States was seen as a possible source of unequal treatment of beneficiaries. The Court recommended a review of the LFA classification and an overall evaluation of the support scheme to better target the aid. Especially the need for a clearer definition in the regulation of the Intermediate LFA was pointed out. Recently, under Axis II in Council Regulation 1698/2005 (EC, 2005) it was proposed that for land to be categorised as Intermediate LFA it ‘‘must be affected by significant natural handicaps, notably low soil productivity or poor climatic conditions and where maintaining extensive farming activity is important for the management of the land’’. However, a European-wide system for classifying LFA could not be agreed upon by the EU Council (EC, 2005), thus the existing LFA classification was retained and the European Commission (EC) was asked to review the implementation of the LFA measure and to propose a future classification and payment system for a Council Decision. The Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI) subsequently requested the Directorate-General Joint Research Centre (JRC) for scientific and technical support in the derivation of key common classification criteria for the Intermediate LFA, to be applicable throughout the EU 27 Member States for the agricultural sector. A comprehensive evaluation of the LFA measure was carried out for the EC by the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP, 2006), which highlighted the needs for: (i) revision of the classification criteria and eligibility criteria (criteria defining which type of farms are eligible); (ii) clarification of the criteria and of the flexibility for the EU Member States to put them in practice; and (iii) data in relation to land abandonment. In spring 2009, the EC presented the official Communication ‘‘Towards a better targeting of aid to farmers in areas with natural handicaps’’ (EC, 2009b) that was adopted by the Council. The communication is based on the common criteria presented in this research and forms the base for a possible delimitation of the future Intermediate LFA, identifying areas with poor soil and climate conditions for agriculture. It is a considerable achievement that there is agreement on scientific criteria to be tested by Member States. This is particularly

true for soil data, which by their very nature are diverse in their characteristics, classification and definition. The aim is for EU Member States to apply the common criteria with national data and report their findings by 2010. Simultaneously, the proposal, i.e. list of indicators and definitions and thresholds are currently the base for discussions on a future legislative proposal made by DG AGRI, which then would be presented in a co-decision process to both the EU Council of Agriculture and the European Parliament by 2011. A new delimitation of the future Intermediate LFA could then be in place in 2014 (EC, 2009a). Meanwhile the current classification will remain in force.

2.2.

Current delimitation and criteria

Current delimitation of the Intermediate LFA is based on a wide range of indicators of land productivity, economic performance of agriculture, and population. Fig. 1 shows the spatial distribution of municipalities in Europe that are now classified as LFA. Current criteria of poor land productivity currently used throughout the EU for classifying Intermediate LFA are: farm structure indicators (arable yield compared to national average, livestock density, percentage of grassland in utilized agricultural areas), physical indicators (terrain characteristics, number of days without frost, unfavourable drainage conditions) and country specific index systems-combination of physical and productivity criteria (IEEP, 2006). Across the EU, there is a difference between designation of areas and farmers that receive payments (eligibility). Within the LFA, only a limited proportion of farmers active within LFA do actually receive aid, since payments are often differentiated and target specific farming conditions such as: type of land use, stocking rate, zones (on land quality, yields), farm size, full time or part time farmer (IEEP, 2006). Eligibility criteria have been set by the individual EU Member States in agreement with the EC.

3.

Method and materials

3.1.

Scientific support to policy design

The set of new common biophysical criteria have been constructed by: i. Setting boundaries and recommendations: Conceptualising aims of the new definition of the Intermediate LFA and recommendations provided by DG AGRI, Court of Auditors and experts during discussions; ii. Identification of the most relevant soil, climate and terrain characteristics likely to restrict agriculture; iii. Selection of biophysical criteria for the identified characteristics: These were analysed on the basis of their definitions, strengths and weaknesses, feasibility and data availability. The criteria were compared with alternative criteria, i.e. recommended by EU Member States, and criteria applied in the soil thematic strategy (Eckelmann et al., 2006); iv. Provision of technical recommendations on selected common criteria: Scientific justification, thresholds and recommen-

environmental science & policy 13 (2010) 766–777

[(Fig._1)TD$IG]

769

Fig. 1 – Current classification of Less Favoured Areas in Europe by category. This research focuses on Intermediate Less Favoured Areas.

dations for implementation by EU Member States to DG AGRI.

conditions (EC, 2005, Article 50, 3) and should conform to the following principles:

The working group of experts met with representatives of the EC (Eliasson et al., 2006, 2007; Van Orshoven et al., 2008), employing participatory methods and tools such as technology of participation, focused conversation and workshops (Spencer, 1989). EU Member State authorities have reviewed the biophysical criteria, which were subjected to wide public consultation (EC, 2008) before being finalised (EC, 2009a).

i. The criteria should be based on key soil, climate and terrain characteristics. Agricultural areas include permanent grasslands, permanent crops and arable land, but exclude forest areas. ii. The application of the criteria should be transparent, straightforward and scientifically clear to enable translation into a policy framework. They should be applicable across all EU 27 Member States. iii. The classification should only relate to areas having natural handicaps and not to how the land is used or to payment mechanisms, i.e. eligibility rules and level of payments.

3.2.

Definition and recommendations

Common criteria are intended to identify areas with natural handicaps, land with low soil productivity or poor climatic

770

environmental science & policy 13 (2010) 766–777

Table 1 – Common soil, climate and terrain criteria for classifying land according to its suitability for generic agricultural activity. Threshold values separate non-limiting from severely limiting conditions. Criterion Climate Temperature

Heat stress

Soil Drainage

Texture and stoniness

Definition

Threshold

Length of growing period (number of days) defined by number of days with daily average temperature > 5 8C (LGPt5) or Thermal-time sum (degree-days) for growing period defined by accumulated daily average temperature > 5 8C

180 days or

Number and length of continuous periods (number of days) within the growing period for which daily maximum temperature (Tmax) exceeds the threshold

One or more periods of at least 10 consecutive days with daily Tmax > 35 8C

Areas which are water logged for significant duration of the year (lack of gaseous oxygen in soil for root growth or land not accessible for tillage)

Poorly drained soil

Relative abundance of clay, silt, sand, organic matter (wt.%) and coarse material (vol.%) fractions in topsoil material

>15% of topsoil volume is coarse material or

1500 degree-days

Unsorted, coarse or medium sand, loamy coarse sand or Heavy clay (>60% clay) or Organic or Vertisol, clay, silty clay or sandy clay with vertic properties or Rock outcrop, boulder within 15 cm of the surface <30 cm

Rooting depth

Depth (cm) from soil surface to coherent hard rock or hard pan

Chemical properties

Presence of salts, exchangeable sodium and gypsum (toxicity) in the topsoil

Salinity: >4 deci-Siemens per metre (dS/m) or Sodicity: >6 Exchangeable Sodium Percentage (ESP) or Gypsum: >15%

Number of days within growing period as defined by temperature > 5 8C (LGPt5), for which the amount of precipitation and water available in the soil profile exceeds half of potential evapotranspiration

90 days

Change of elevation with respect to planimetric distance (%)

>15%

Soil and climate Soil moisture balance

Terrain Slope

iv. The approach should not be crop specific. Suitability is to be considered for a conventional European mechanised family unit of adapted grain crops or adapted grasses for hay or silage. In a complete land evaluation approach specific Land Utilization Types (LUTs), crop(s) and management, would be specified and criteria developed with respect to these. By contrast, in the present approach there is an implicit general LUT which varies across Europe. This implies that only those land characteristics that affect these general LUT can be considered. v. The criteria should not change during the duration of the Rural Development Programme (7 years).

4.

Results: common criteria

4.1.

Criteria

The common criteria derived for identifying areas of natural handicap for agriculture in Europe are listed in Table 1.

The eight criteria are defined briefly below, with their agronomic importance, method of assessment and indicative threshold for a severe limitation. More detailed descriptions and explanations are given in Van Orshoven et al. (2008). In contrast to soil data, pan-European climate data are rather consistent with national data, when portrayed at the European scale. This justifies showing the temperature criterion based on pan-European daily weather data provided by the EC JRC Monitoring Agriculture with Remote Sensing database (MARS, 2010). Similar applications for the soil criteria cannot be shown because the pan-European soil data was compiled at the 1:1,000,000 scale, which is not sufficiently accurate for representation at municipality or sub-municipality level. National soil data are more detailed (Bullock et al., 2005), but would require further harmonisation for panEuropean use. Therefore, any maps based on the European Soil Database (King et al., 1994; ESDB, 2004) would be misleading and could jeopardise the ongoing decisionmaking process.

environmental science & policy 13 (2010) 766–777

[(Fig._2)TD$IG]

771

Fig. 2 – Temperature criterion assessed on a pan-European scale with the MARS agro-climatic daily data at 50 T 50 km resolution.

4.1.1.

Criterion 1: temperature

Agronomic importance: Low temperature is considered a characteristic of land for which thermal-time accumulation during the growing period is insufficient for plants to complete the growth cycle. Low temperatures limit crop growth and development through the impact on important physiological processes such as photosynthesis and leaf appearance or direct damage due to early or late frost. Agricultural crops are able to grow and develop only within well-defined ranges of temperature (Bonhomme, 2000; FAO, 1996; Porter and Gawith, 1999). For most agricultural crops negligible growth occurs at temperatures below 5 8C or above 35–40 8C (Porter and Semenov, 2005).

Characterisation: To assess low temperature as a land characteristic, the concepts of thermal-time sums (TSb, degree C days) or length of temperature growing period (LGPt, days) can be used. The length of the temperature growing period (LGPt5), i.e. the number of days with daily average temperatures (Tavg) above 5 8C, is calculated for each year to determine the number of days in which temperatures are conductive to crop growth (Fig. 2). Alternatively, thermal-time sum (TSb) requirements can be used as a reference to define thresholds below which the development of crop is hampered. In general, the adequate thermal-time requirement for most agricultural crops is above 1500 degree C days, calculated by accumulating the daily average temperature (Tavg) above 5 8C (TS5) (Boons-Prins et al., 1993).

772

environmental science & policy 13 (2010) 766–777

Threshold: If TS5 < 1500 degree C days or if Length of the Growing Period (LGPt5) < 180 days then conditions will be severely limiting for agriculture. Fig. 2 is a coarse scale portrayal of the LGPt5 using harmonised temperature data. It is important to emphasise that this criterion should be determined using national climatic data, which exists at finer spatial resolution.

4.1.2.

Criterion 2: heat stress

Agronomic importance: Heat stress is defined as the condition in which crop performance or survival is compromised by periods of exposure to high temperatures (Wheeler et al., 2000). Episodes of high temperatures (35–40 8C), particularly during critical stages of plant development, drastically reduce yields of field crops. The thermal-sensitive period usually spans one to two weeks around flowering (Brammer et al., 1988) or shorter periods (Matsui and Omasa, 2002). Exposure to short episodes of high temperature during thermal-sensitive periods reduces the setting of fruits and grains and limits grain filling. Characterisation: Thresholds for heat stress have been identified for important crops including wheat (Ferris et al., 1998), rice (Matsui et al., 2000), brassicas (Young et al., 2004), barley (Wallwork et al., 1998) and soybean (Salem et al., 2007). Thresholds vary between crops, but may also vary between cultivars of the same crop, e.g. Prasad et al. (2006). In general, the start of yield loss is observed at temperatures above 30 8C and losses are usually severe above 35 8C, increasing at higher temperatures until complete damage is observed at near lethal temperatures above 40–45 8C (Porter and Gawith, 1999; Challinor et al., 2005). Threshold: Heat stress is considered to be severely limiting when, one or more periods of at least 10 consecutive days with daily maximum temperatures above 35 8C, are observed within a year.

4.1.3.

Criterion 3: drainage

Agronomic importance: Soil drainage refers to the maintenance of the gaseous phase in soil pores by removal (or nonaddition) of water. It is referred to as oxygen availability to roots (FAO, 1983). A soil has internal drainage, i.e. the facility for removing excess water by gravity, and external drainage, which is the amount of water removed (or not added) by overland flow (runoff) or by deep percolation, which depends on its position in the landscape. The main effect of poor drainage is to reduce the space for the gaseous phase, in particular oxygen, in the rooting zone. Crops (with the exception of rice) suffer severely when their roots are deprived of oxygen. The length of time without oxygen that causes severe damage varies among species. A second effect is the increase of incidence and severity of soil-borne pathogens. A third effect is to make tillage difficult or impossible, because machinery becomes bogged down and soil structure is easily destroyed if the soil is tilled when too wet. Characterisation: Ideally, drainage status is determined by monitoring (dip-) wells (Daniels et al., 1971) or measurements of the soil redox potential (FAO, 1983). Dipwell data are rarely available, thus commonly soil morphology is used to assess drainage status, e.g. the Reference Groups (Gleysols and

Stagnosols) in the World Reference Base (WRB) for Soil Resources (IUSS Working Group WRB, 2006, pp. 80–81, 95). Soils show observable morphological features, which provide information on their average hydrodynamic behaviour. Most soil classification systems and soil maps worldwide include water-regime related criteria such as average, maximum or minimum values for: (i) depth to saturated layers; (ii) duration of saturation; and/or (iii) depth or occurrence of oxydoreduction mottles. Threshold: Soil drainage is said to be limiting if the soil is classified as poorly or very poorly drained, as defined by the Soil Survey Division Staff (1993, pp. 98–99).

4.1.4.

Criterion 4: soil texture and stoniness

Agronomic importance: The texture of a soil refers to the relative proportions of different-sized soil particles in the bulk soil, i.e. the particle-size distribution. Conventionally it is divided into two parts: coarse fragments >2 mm effective spherical diameter (ESD) and the fine soil (<2 mm ESD). Waterholding capacity and nutrient supply are directly related to soil texture. Texture affects workability (ease of tillage), water infiltration, runoff and water movement within the soil (both downwards and upwards). Characterisation: Commonly-used classifications of texture are defined by the Soil Survey Division Staff (1993, pp. 136–140) and the WRB (IUSS Working Group WRB, 2006; FAO, 2006, pp. 26–29). Strictly, texture is the felt or perceived resistance to various manipulations of soil samples in the field, the particle-size distribution being moderated by the amounts of organic matter and calcium carbonate present, and the type of dominant clay mineral. Particle-size analysis is time-consuming and thus expensive, and subjective field assessments, based on descriptive keys (FAO, 2006), are frequently used in the absence of particle-size measurements. In defence of such a qualitative approach, Hodgson et al. (1976) demonstrated that experienced field scientists are in close agreement estimating clay and silt contents when their assessments are regularly calibrated against reference samples whose particle-size distribution is known. Threshold: Soil texture is said to be limiting if any of the following properties are apparent in the soil: i. more than 15% (v/v) of coarse fragments (>2 mm) of any kind in topsoil; or ii. average texture class (fine earth <2 mm) of rooting zone is (a) unsorted, coarse or medium sand, loamy coarse sand; or (b) heavy clay (>60% clay) as defined by the texture triangle of FAO (2006, p. 27); or iii. organic soil material defined as having organic matter >30% in more than 40 cm of soil, either extending down from the surface or taken cumulatively within the upper 80 cm of the soil, i.e. a histic horizon as defined by WRB (IUSS Working Group WRB, 2006, p. 23, 109); or iv. texture class of clay, silty clay, or sandy clay with vertic properties as defined by WRB (IUSS Working Group WRB, 2006, pp. 39–40, 118–119); or v. any proportion of rock outcrops, boulders within 15 cm of the surface.

environmental science & policy 13 (2010) 766–777

4.1.5.

Criterion 5: rooting depth

Agronomic importance: Rooting depth is the maximum depth from the soil surface down to where most of the plant roots can extend. It is defined by the effective soil depth above any barrier to root extension (e.g. hard rock), excluding impediments to root extension such as compact (massive) structure. Roots grow into the soil to provide a physical anchor for the plant and to extract soil-bound water and nutrients. For annual grain crops and grasses, the anchoring function does not require great depth (except for tall varieties of maize); the first 10 cm of soil provides enough stability. However, water is rapidly exhausted from shallow depths by growing plants. Rooting depth is generally constrained where coherent hard rock or hardpans (dense soil layers) occur, or where the presence of waterlogging inhibits root extension. Physical limitations to rooting depth also impede normal tillage, such that if plant roots cannot grow easily, it is unlikely that the plough can cut easily into the soil. Standard tillage depth is 15–25 cm although in practice at least 30 cm of soil is needed if rock fragments are not to be lifted to the surface inhibiting further cultivation. Characterisation: During routine field survey, rooting depth is typically assessed by augering and excavating small inspection pits. The observed depths are then interpolated with reference to the landscape structure to produce rooting depth estimates for land areas or map units. Threshold: Physical rooting depth is said to be severely limiting where it is less than 30 cm.

4.1.6.

Criterion 6: chemical properties

Criterion 6.1: salinity Agronomic importance: Salinity is the presence of soluble salts (chlorides, sulphates, carbonates and bicarbonates) of alkalis (sodium, potassium, magnesium and calcium) on the land surface, in soil or rocks, or dissolved in water. Salinity can be caused by environmental (natural) factors or human induced factors that disturb natural ecosystems. Soil salinity refers to the total amount of soluble salt in soil. The consequences of soil salinity on agriculture include: (i) significant losses of productivity, with some land entirely out of production; (ii) damaged soil structure and increasing content of toxic substances that may be limiting plant growth; and (iii) more serious soil erosion, both by wind and by water, due to deteriorated soil structure and reduction in vegetation cover. Characterisation: Soil Reference Group of Solonchaks and soils with salic and petrosalic features in the WRB (IUSS Working Group WRB, 2006, p. 34, 92–94, 113, 115) are indicative of severe salinity. Salinity tolerance is influenced by plant species, soil and environmental factors and their interrelationships. Threshold: Although response to soil salinity is crop specific, overall there is good reason to define an electric conductivity (EC) of >4 dS/m as the threshold above which crop growth will be severely affected (Huber et al., 2008). Criterion 6.2: sodicity Agronomic importance: Soil sodicity is a characteristic of land for which the proportion of adsorbed sodium in the soil clay

773

fraction is too high for plants to perform or survive. Soil sodification is a process that leads to an accumulation of Na+ in the solid or liquid phases as NaHCO3 or Na2CO3 salts (Huber et al., 2008). The effects of sodicity are often indirect as they affect vital soil properties rather than crop growth itself. Sodicity at the soil surface results in soil crusting, decreased hydraulic conductivity and reduced available rooting depth. Consequently on flatter land, the sodic layer may not permit water to drain, leading to waterlogging at the surface. Sodic soils erode easily, topsoils in dry regions being vulnerable to dust storms. On sloping land, they are also subject to water erosion, which means that important fertile topsoil is lost from agricultural land. Characterisation: Soils having a high content of exchangeable sodium (Na) belong to the WRB Solonetz Reference Group or soils with natric or sodic features (IUSS Working Group WRB, 2006, pp. 26–28, 94–95, 112, 116), both characteristics indicating a severe sodicity constraints. Threshold: The effect of Exchangeable Sodium Percentage (ESP) on the yield, chemical composition, protein and oil content and uptake of nutrients is severe when soil sodicity is at ESP > 6 (Huber et al., 2008). Criterion 6.3: soil gypsum content Agronomic importance: Gypsiferous soils are soils that contain sufficient quantities of gypsum (calcium sulphate dehydrate) to interfere with plant growth (FAO, 1990b). Many factors affect plant growth in gypsiferous soils, including gypsum content within the root zone, depth to a gypsic layer, depth to impermeable layers, crop tolerance level and gypsum solubility. Furthermore physical properties are often unfavourable, causing low water availability, slaking of loamy top soils, piping and collapse of irrigation canals. In soils with gypsum, almost all crops show deficiency of most plant nutrients, in particular phosphorus and micronutrients. Characterisation: Gypsisols, and gypsic and petrogypsic soils in WRB (IUSS Working Group WRB, 2006, p. 61, 81–82, 108, 113) contain more than 15% gypsum. Threshold: Crop production (apart from special fruit trees) is severely limited once the gypsum content exceeds 15%.

4.1.7.

Criterion 7: soil moisture balance

Agronomic importance: Deficit in the soil moisture balance is defined as the condition in which crop performance or survival is compromised by limited water availability during the growing period, which is insufficient for normal growth and development of crops. A deficit soil moisture balance is a characteristic of land for which the ‘number of days, within growing period as defined by temperature, for which the amount of precipitation and moisture available in the soil profile is not sufficient as compared to the reference evapotranspiration, for plants to complete the production cycle. The soil moisture balance is a critical parameter for assessing the potential for crop production. Agricultural production is seriously impaired if soil water is limiting during the growing season causing adverse effects on plant growth and crop yields. Characterisation: For the calculation of the soil water balance the rather simple concept proposed by Thornthwaite and Mather (1955) is proposed. For the calculation of reference

774

environmental science & policy 13 (2010) 766–777

evapotranspiration, the Penman-Monteith equation is recommended (FAO, 1998). Threshold: On the basis of the minimum crop cycle duration a severe limitation is if there are less than 90 days within the growing period (as defined by temperature above 5 8C) for which the amount of precipitation and available water in the soil profile exceeds half of potential evapotranspiration. These days are called ‘non-dry days’.

4.1.8.

Criterion 8: slope

Agronomic importance: Slope is the angle the soil surface makes with the horizontal, expressed in degrees or as a percentage (45 degrees = 100 percent). The form of the slope may be important and influence the moisture status of the underlying soils, as happens in concave or convex slopes. Slope as such has little or no direct influence on the yield of crops. However, the steeper the slope the more difficult it becomes to manage the land and to grow crops. In particular, mechanization is hampered and may require specific equipment, while access to land and all agricultural operations become more time-consuming. Steeper slopes are also associated with shallower soils in general (e.g. Leptosols, Regosols) and with a higher risk for soil degradation and landslides. Characterisation: From neighbouring possible interpolated elevation data, slope can be determined by algorithms (Skidmore, 1989). The resulting ‘local’ slopes must be averaged over a larger area to be applicable as an indicator of land suitability. Threshold: Slopes above 15% are severely limiting for mechanised cultivation of the soil and specific equipment is required.

4.2.

Principles of application

Criteria are combined according to the agronomic law of the minimum (Liebig’s law) also applied in the Problem Land Approach (FAO, 1990a). As soon as a criterion is rated as severely limiting, the corresponding agricultural land is judged to present severe limitations for agricultural production. The criteria are not weighted nor given priority. To account for between-year variability, climate characteristics are classified as severely limiting in a probabilistic way. A characteristic is classified as being severely limiting if the probability of exceeding the threshold is more than 20% (i.e. constraint occurs at least in 7 years out of 30). A time series of daily meteorological data preferably for an International Standard (recent) period of 30 years (e.g. 1971–2000) is required for assessing the probability of exceedance. National soil data are less harmonised by comparison with national climate data. Different classification systems exists that hold different properties of the soils, which are represented in various ways, according to national and regional characteristics, needs and purposes in the respective countries (Jones et al., 2005). There is no single answer on how to assess the soil criteria appropriately at the European scale. Therefore, EU Member States must identify the most appropriate national data, with good resolution and high quality that correspond with the respective soil criterion.

5.

Discussion and conclusions

The need for a redefinition of the Intermediate LFA has been recognised to target the new objectives in the Rural Development Policy for improving the environment and the countryside by sustainable land management. A limited number of criteria and indicative thresholds have been developed to be applied for a more homogenous treatment of beneficiaries of the Intermediate LFA policy to address a territory as large as the EU 27 and a sector as diverse as agriculture in the EU 27. Eight common criteria, identifying key soil, climate and terrain characteristics, which limit agriculture activities in Europe, have been defined: i. Two climate criteria (temperature and heat stress) to identify the need for sufficient heat and the absence of damaging hot periods. ii. The soil drainage criterion addresses the need for sufficient but not too much water. iii. The soil criteria on texture and stoniness on one hand and rooting depth on the other hand that characterise nutrient availability, available water capacity, drainage and plant stability. iv. The chemical criterion with three sub-criteria relates to the absence of toxic agents. v. The soil water balance is an integrated soil-climatic criterion that considers the interaction between soil and climate for water availability. vi. The topographic criterion on slope identifies constraints of potential use of agricultural machinery. Suitability has been considered for a European conventional, mechanised, family unit of adapted grain crops or adapted grasses for hay and silage. The criteria are combined according to the Law of Minimum. No weight or relative importance is assigned to the criteria. Each criterion is treated as providing an independent contribution, but some of the characteristics may interact. If the interaction changes the constraint, e.g. present of clayey layer in sandy soils, it should be treated as a special case. Some criteria will not be relevant in some countries and sub-national areas (e.g. soil salinity in north-western Europe). However, relevant criteria will be tested by the EU Member States during 2010. The criteria have been defined for application using national data sets, thus it would not be appropriate to include distribution maps using the European Soil Database at 1:1,000,000 scale (King et al., 1994; ESDB, 2004) because most EU Member States possess more detailed soil data. However, a map of the Length of growing period (temperature criterion) is included (Fig. 2) as an illustration only; a new delimitation of the Intermediate LFA is expected in 2014. The criteria developed have their origin in the Agricultural Problem Land Approach (FAO, 1990a; Nachtergaele, 2006), which was selected as the overall framework for its simplicity, robustness and transparency. A land evaluation based on Land Utilization Types (crop and input level specific), might provide a more complete suitability assessment, e.g. the Agroecological Zoning method (Fischer et al., 2002). However, to identify all necessary conditions to reach optimal production for each kind of crop was not the objective of this policy-driven

environmental science & policy 13 (2010) 766–777

research, where the aim has been to identify areas with natural handicaps to agriculture. The criteria are based on existing definitions many of which are recognised in other national and continental land evaluation frameworks (FAO, 1976, 1996, 2007; Klingebiel and Montgomery, 1961; Fischer et al., 2002; Le Bas et al., 2001, 2002). The criteria can also be found in some of the index methods used by EU Member States. The real challenge has been to agree on a limited set of criteria opposed to these more sophisticated approaches to provide a sound scientific basis that can be applied in all Member States. There is no criterion on soil fertility or soil acidity as these parameters can be related with other proposed criteria. There is a need for flexibility in the application of national soil data due to the difference in classification systems where the data with the highest spatial resolution and high quality need to be identified. Furthermore, the climatic data should be treated in a probabilistic way. However, there are several issues that make this apparent simple approach less evident in terms of quantification, quality and aggregation of the resulting maps. The amount and density of point observations, the spatial resolution of area estimates and the semantic resolution of all data do inevitably have a decisive influence on the spatial and semantic quality of any final delimitation produced to guide designation of Intermediate LFA. Also, the aggregation of the land classified as handicapped on the agricultural and administrative decision-level unit (commonly municipalities) has influence on the result. The decision unit should identify areas, which are relatively homogenous in natural production potential and for this some EU Member States will have problems with finding sufficiently detailed biophysical data. For a more evaluated answer one could compare the application of national methods and the resulting output with a pan-European approach to see whether pan-European delineations represent some general trends when compared with spatial distributions based on national data and methods. Finally, the results of this research provide a scientifically sound basis for the application of biophysical criteria for European rural development policy and are consistent with the policy requirements indicating land affected by natural handicaps, of low soil productivity or poor climate conditions. One of the reasons behind the acceptance of the common biophysical criteria in the communication for the Less Favoured Areas (EC, 2009) is that they are built on a robust technical framework. However, there is a need to assess the criteria together with the auxiliary rules proposed in the communication.

Acknowledgements This paper has been compiled in the context of an administrative arrangement between the JRC and DG AGRI. The authors external to the JRC have contributed mainly on a voluntary basis. The authors wish to thank a number of colleagues who have contributed to the project: Catharina Bamps, Bettina Baruth, Giovanni Bidoglio, Jean Dusart, Alberto Pistocchi and Fabien Ramos (JRC); Rene Gommes (FAO); Alexander Page and Antonella Zona (DG AGRI); Guenther

775

Fisher and Edmar Teixeira (IIASA). Valentinas Juskevicius (JRC) has kindly prepared the figures.

references

Bonhomme, R., 2000. Bases and limits to using ‘‘degree-day’’ units. European Journal of Agronomy 13 (1), 1–10. Boons-Prins, E.R., Koning, G.H.J., van Diepen, C.A., Penning de Vries, F.W.T., 1993. Crop specific simulation parameters for yield forecasting across the European Community. Simulations Reports CABO-TT No. 32, Wageningen, The Netherlands, p. 43. Brammer, H., Antoine, J., Van Velthuizen, H., 1988. Land resources appraisal of Bangladesh for agricultural development. Report on Agro-Ecological Regions of Bangladesh. FAO/UNDP, Rome, p. 121. Bullock, P., Jones, R.J.A., Houskova, B., Montanarella, L., 2005. Soil resources of Europe: an overview. In: Jones, R.J.A., Housˇkova´, B., Bullock, P., Montanarella, L. (Eds.), Soil Resources of Europe, 2nd ed. European Soil Bureau Research Report No. 9, 15–34, EUR 20559 EN, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, p. 420. Challinor, A.J., Wheeler, T.R., Craufurd, P.Q., Slingo, J.M., 2005. Simulation of the impact of high temperature stress on annual crop yields. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 135 (1–4), 180–189. Daniels, R.B., Gamble, E.E., Nelson, L.A., 1971. Relations between soil morphology and water-table levels on a dissected North Carolina Coastal Plain surface. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 35, 781–784. EC, 1999. Council Regulation No. 1257/1999 of 17.05.1999. Official Journal L 160/80, 26.6.1999. EC, 2005. Council Regulation No. 1698/2005 of 20.09.2005. Official Journal L 277/1, 21.10.2005. EC, 2008. Review of the ‘Less Favoured Area’ scheme, public consultation document for impact assessment, p. 14. http:// ec.europa.eu/agriculture/consultations/lfa/ consultationdoc_en.pdf. EC, 2009a. LFA website. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rurdev/ lfa/index_en.htm. EC, 2009b. Towards a better targeting of the aid to farmers in areas with natural handicaps of 21.04.2009. COM (2009) 161 final. Eckelmann, W., Baritz, R., Bialousz, S., Bielek, P., Carre, F., Housˇkova´, B., Jones, R.J.A., Kibblewhite, M., Kozak, J., Le Bas, C., Toth, G., Toth, T., Varallyay, G., Yli Halla, M., Zupan, M., 2006. Common Criteria for Risk Identification According to Soil Threats. European Soil Bureau Research Report No. 20, EUR 22185 EN, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, p. 94. ˚ ., Bamps, C., Terres, J.M., 2006. Land quality Eliasson, A assessment for the definition of the EU Less Favoured Areas focusing on natural constraints. In: Proceedings of expert meeting 16–17th May 2006, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy. JRC Technical Note (internal document), p. 25. ˚ ., Terres, J.-M., Bamps, C., 2007. Common biophysical Eliasson, A criteria for defining areas which are less favourable for agriculture in Europe. In: Proceedings of Expert Meeting 19– 20th April, 2007. EUR 22735 EN, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, p. 80. European Court of auditors, 2003. Court of Auditors—Special Report No. 4/2003. Official Journal C151, 27.06.2003. ESDB, 2004. European Soil Database (v 2.0), European Soil Bureau Network and the European Commission, EUR 19945

776

environmental science & policy 13 (2010) 766–777

EN, March 2004. http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ ESDB_Archive/ESDB/index.htm. FAO, 1976. A Framework for Land Evaluation. Soils Bulletin 32. FAO, Rome, Italy, p. 72. FAO, 1983. Guidelines: Land Evaluation for Rainfed Agriculture. Soils Bulletin 52. FAO, Rome, Italy, p. 237. FAO, 1990a. Problem Soils of Asia and the Pacific. RAPA Report 1990/6. FAO/RAPA Bangkok, p. 283. FAO, 1990b. Management of Gypsiferous Soils. Soils Bulletin 62. FAO, Rome, Italy, p. 89. FAO, 1996. Agro-Ecological Zoning, Guidelines. Soils Bulletin 73. FAO, Rome, Italy, p. 78. FAO, 1998. Crop evapotranspiration – guidelines for computing crop water requirements – FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56. Land and Water Development Division, FAO, Rome, Italy, p. 300. FAO, 2006. Guidelines for Soil Profile Description, 4th ed. FAO, Rome, Italy, p. 97. FAO, 2007. Land evaluation: towards a revised framework. FAO Land and Water Discussion Paper 6. FAO, Rome, Italy, p. 107. Ferris, R., Ellis, R.H., Wheeler, T.R., Hadley, P., 1998. Effect of high temperature stress at anthesis on grain yield and biomass of field-grown crops of wheat. Annals Botany 82 (5), 631–639. Fischer, G., van Velthuizen, H., Shah, M., Nachtergaele, F., 2002. Global Agro-ecological Assessment for Agriculture in the 21st Century: Methodology and Results. Research Report RR-02-02. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, p. 119. Hodgson, J.M., Hollis, J.M., Jones, R.J.A., Palmer, R.C., 1976. A comparison of field estimates and laboratory analyses of the silt and clay contents of some west Midland soils. Journal of Soil Science 27, 411–419. Huber, S., Prokop, G., Arrouays, D., Banko, G., Bispo, A., Jones, R.J.A., Kibblewhite, M.G., Lexer, W., Mo¨ller, A., Rickson, R.J., Shishkov, T., Stephens, M., Toth, G., Van den Akker, J.J.H., Varallyay, G., Verheijen, F.G.A., Jones, A.R. (Eds.), 2008. Environmental Assessment of Soil for Monitoring: Volume I. Indicators & Criteria. EUR 23490 EN/1, Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, p. 339. IEEP, 2006. An Evaluation of the Less Favoured Area Measure in the 25 Member States of the European Union, a Report Prepared by the Institute for European Environmental Policy, for DG Agriculture, November 2006, p. 262. IUSS Working Group WRB, 2006. World Reference Base For Soil Resources 2006, 2nd ed. World Soil Resources Report 103. FAO, Rome, p. 128. Jones, R.J.A, Housˇkova´, B., Bullock, P., Montanarella, L. (Eds.), 2005. Soil Resources of Europe, 2nd ed. European Soil Bureau Research Report No. 9, EUR 20559 EN, Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities, p. 420. King, D., Daroussin, J., Tavernier, R., 1994. Development of a soil geographical database from the soil map of the European Communities. Catena 21 37–26. Klingebiel, A.A., Montgomery, P.H., 1961. Land-Capability Classification. Agricultural Handbook 210, Soil Conservation Service. US Govt. Printing Office, Washington, DC, p. 21. Le Bas, C., Boulonne, L., King, D., 2001. Expert System for Constraints to Agricultural Production in Europe, Rapport Final. INRA and European Soil Bureau, p. 31 (in French). Le Bas, C., Boulonne, L., King, D., Montanarella, L., 2002. A tool for assessing land suitability for Europe. INRA and European Soil Bureau. In: 17th World Congress of Soil Science, 14–21 August 2002, Bangkok, Thailand. Symposium 48, 256-1-11, p. 11. MARS, 2010. JRC/MARS STAT database, European Commission, interpolated data from national meteorological services. http://www.marsop.info.

Matsui, T., Omasa, K., 2002. Rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivars tolerant to high temperature at flowering: anther characteristics. Annals Botany 89 (6), 683–687. Matsui, T., Omasa, K., Horie, T., 2000. High temperature at flowering inhibits swelling of pollen grains, a driving force for thecae dehiscence in rice (Oriza sativa L.). Plant Production Science 3 (4), 430–434. Nachtergaele, F., 2006. The FAO Problem Land Approach adapted to EU conditions. In: Presentation at the Expert Meeting ‘‘Land Quality Assessment for the Definition of the EU Less Favoured Areas focusing on Natural Constraints, 16–17 May 2006, JRC, Ispra, Italy. OECD, 1999. Environmental Indicators for Agriculture: Concepts and Frameworks, vol. 1. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, p. 45. Porter, J., Semenov, M., 2005. Crop responses to climatic variation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 360 (1463), 2021–2035. Porter, J.R., Gawith, M., 1999. Temperatures and the growth and development of wheat: a review. European Journal of Agronomy 10 (1), 23–36. Prasad, P.V.V., Boote, K.J., Allen, J.L.H., Sheehy, J.E., Thomas, J.M.G., 2006. Species, ecotype and cultivar differences in spikelet fertility and harvest index of rice in response to high temperature stress. Field Crops Research 95 (2–3), 398– 411. Rossiter, D.G., 1994. Lecture Notes: Land Evaluation. Cornell University, Department of Soil, Crop, and Atmospheric Science. August 1994. SCAS Teaching Series No. T94-1. Salem, M.A., Kakani, V.G., Koti, S., Reddy, K.R., 2007. Pollenbased screening of soybean genotypes for high temperatures. Crop Science 47 (1), 219–231. Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993. Soil Survey Manual. United States Department of Agriculture Handbook No. 18. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, p. 437. Spencer, L. (Ed.), 1989. Winning through Participation. Kendall/ Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque. Skidmore, A.K., 1989. A comparison of techniques for calculating gradient and aspect from a gridded digital elevation model. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 3 (4), 323–334. Thornthwaite, C.W., Mather, J.R., 1955. The water balance. Publications in Climatology 8 (1), 1–104 (Laboratory of Climatology, Centerton, NJ). ˚ ., (Eds.), 2008. Common Van Orshoven, J., Terres, J., Eliasson, A bio-physical criteria to D define natural constraints for agriculture in Europe. EUR. 23412 EN, Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities, p. 61. Wallwork, M.A.B., Jenner, C.F., Logue, S.J., Sedgley, M., 1998. Effect of high temperature during grain-filling on the structure of developing and malted barley grains. Annals Botany 82 (5), 587–599. Wheeler, T.R., Craufurd, P.Q., Ellis, R.H., Porter, J.R., Vara Prasad, P.V., 2000. Temperature variability and the yield of annual crops. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 82 (1–3), 159– 167. Young, L.W., Wilen, R.W., Bonham-Smith, P.C., 2004. High temperature stress of Brassica napus during flowering reduces micro- and megagametophyte fertility, induces fruit abortion, and disrupts seed production. Journal Experimental Botany 55 (396), 485–495. ˚ se Eliasson is a scientist in agriculture, water and land resources A currently working as a consultant. She has a PhD in Land and Water Resources from the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. She has worked at the Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome, on the Aquastat programme with water resources and agricultural water management in developing countries for sev-

environmental science & policy 13 (2010) 766–777

eral years. Since 2006 she has provided technical support for policy development in Europe on identifying farming areas with natural handicaps to agriculture for the EC’s Joint Research Centre, Italy. Robert Jones is principal research scientist in Cranfield University (UK) working on soil and land information system development in the UK and Europe. He has also worked overseas (Africa, Asia and South America) on soil and land evaluation projects and he was a senior research scientist (1998–2004) working for the EC’s Joint Research Centre (Ispra) on the European Soil Database and its application to Policy support. From 2002 to 2004, he was a Task Leader of Technical Working Groups on Soil Erosion and Organic Matter, under the EU Soil Thematic Strategy. Freddy Nachtergaele is an agronomist/soil scientist in Food an Agriculture Organization (FAO) in Rome since 1989. Before that time he was a land resources expert for FAO in field projects in North and East Africa and in Southeast Asia and Lecturer at the Institut National Agronomique in Algeria. He coordinates updates of the Soil Map of the World and the global agro-ecological zones project at FAO. He is also the Coordinator of the Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands (LADA) project. He is the author of numerous scientific articles in the field of agro-ecological zoning, land evaluation, land-use planning, and soil classification. David G. Rossiter is a Senior University Lecturer in the Earth Systems Analysis department of the International Institute for Geoinformation Science and Earth Observation (ITC), a faculty of the University of Twente in Enschede (NL), where he teaches geostatistics and research skills. He is the developer of the Automated Land Evaluation System (ALES) computer program to capture expert knowledge for FAO-style physical and economic land evaluation, and has worked in land evaluation in Venezuela, Ecuador, and Indonesia. Jean-Michel Terres is an agronomist by education with a Master degree in agro-meteorology. He has long-standing experience in impact of farming practices on the environment. He has contributed to the IRENA project (Indicator Reporting on the Integration of Environmental Concerns into Agricultural Policy) as well as to some methodological development of indicators selected for the CMEF (Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework). Mr. Terres has lead the EC’s Joint Research Centre Action AGRI-ENV for 5 years and is now involved in the elaboration of new criteria for defining the LFA intermediate zones.

777

Jos Van Orshoven obtained a Master degree in agricultural engineering (pedology) and a doctoral degree in quantified physical land evaluation. He is currently associate professor at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium where he teaches various geomatics-courses at Bachelor and Master-level and is engaged in research dealing with sustainability of agri-environmental systems, spatial data infrastructures and spatial decision support. Harrij van Velthuizen is a land resources ecologist and specialist in agro-ecological zoning. Since 1995 he has worked with the IIASA Land Use Change and Agriculture Program (LUC). With the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), he initiated the work on global agro-ecological zones assessments, published in 2000 and 2002. In 2001 he joined IIASA as senior research scholar. He is currently engaged in a major update of the LUC-IIASA/FAO global assessment of agriculture potentials (GAEZ 2009), and is setting up in LUC similar global assessments of bio-mass and bio-fuel production potentials Kristin Bo¨ttcher holds a position as researcher in the field of remote sensing at Finnish Environment Institute in Helsinki. She has a Diploma degree in Geoecology from Potsdam University. During the period from October 2004 to April 2009 she was Scientific Officer at the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission working in projects on land degradation and on the spatial assessment of areas with natural handicaps for agricultural production in the EU. Palle Haastrup is a senior scientist at the Institute for environment and sustainability at the EC’s Joint Research Centre, in charge of the project integration of Environmental concerns into Agriculture. He holds an MSc and a PhD from the Technical University in Denmark and holds an MBA from Harriot-Watt University in Edinburgh, UK. His research interests include information systems, multi-criteria decision support, GIS and sustainability issues. Christine Le Bas has a Master degree in agronomy. She is working in the Infosol Unit (French National Agronomic Research Institute) that is coordinating soil survey and soil monitoring in France. She is responsible in this Unit of a team dealing with soil data management and analysis. She is specialized in soil data management within GIS and in the use of spatial soil data for agricultural or environmental purposes especially at national or European level.