Download as a PDF - CiteSeerX

More documents

Recommendations

Info

enough scale and for a wide enough scope of objectives. The challenges here are numerous, including budgetary restrictions, jurisdictional boundaries, changing agency remits, competing stakeholder interests and pressures of new European legislation. In this context, the introduction of Land Management Contracts (LMCs) offers a significant opportunity for far greater integration of objectives in delivery. However, the other challenge – co-ordination – has remained relatively underdeveloped in both UK research and policy terms. Undoubtedly this reflects the underlying land ownership structure where examples of collective land management are now largely confined to the management of common grazings. However, the emphasis on collective action is gaining prominence and reflects a new frontier for environmental working. COLLECTIVE INITIATIVES – PULLING MULTIPLE LEVERS Engagement in collaborative activities can be defined along a spectrum from Individual to Collective (Figure 1). At the individualistic end of the spectrum, farm actions are focused within a single farm boundary and without reference to wider objectives. At the other, collective, end of the spectrum lies full community land ownership, under which the entire decision-making process involves collective action. Collaborative or collective activities involving multiple land managers occur along this spectrum, and their advantages in delivering on both agri-environmental and rural policy objectives have received some – though quite limited – attention in past research (e.g. Slangen 1994; Hagedorn, 2002; Franks, 2003). From the individual land manager’s perspective, there are some clear advantages to both modes of operation (Table 2). Although the benefits of co-operation are easily listed, the benefits of individual operation are far more familiar to most land managers. Currently, it is apparent that incentives to move towards more collective forms of action for environmental outcomes are notably weak (Davies et al., 2004). Various types of zoning regulation are the clearest examples aimed at delivering a broad degree of spatial co-ordination, with specific catchment and habitat initiatives targeting specific objectives more closely. A principal advantage of collective action lies in its ability to address multiple objectives simultaneously, and to harness Boulding’s power of the ‘hug’ alongside more structured policy instruments. It can create a group which has the capacity to challenge traditional practice, and in which practices can be redefined, while simultaneously delivering – with the right supporting structures – direct benefits to participants either in efficiency savings or opening up new sources of revenue (either directly or indirectly) (Hagedorn, 2002). Four key elements of collective action can be characterised as co-learning, co-planning, co-acting and co-funding. Some activities may be limited to only one of these, but the more intangible elements – co-planning and co-learning – offer the greatest potential to secure attitudinal change over time. 167
Figure 1: Individual-collective spectrum in farm management However, the impetus required to move land managers to a more collaborative approach in environmental management is very substantial. Collaboration is costly in terms of time, is potentially risky, may take time to develop, can have uncertain objectives and threaten to constrain flexibility (Franks, 2003). Faced with this prospect, the rewards from collaboration need to be clear, significant and timely. Commercial co-operative ventures struggle with all these factors and their limited penetration in UK agriculture has long been evidence of the difficulty of turning theoretical advantages into reality. Table 2: Benefits to land managers of Individual and Collective management approaches Individual benefits Speed of decision making Flexibility in management Personal pride in outcomes Simplicity in control Clear lines of responsibility Direct capture of benefits Enjoyment of autonomy Collective benefits Access to wider expertise More powerful resource base Supportive learning environment Sharing of burdens Potential capacity to specialize Realise economies of scale and scope Stronger voice in negotiation The driving forces for collaboration in the past have been essentially twofold – problem solving and income generation (see Davies et al., 2004) – and these principal motives are unlikely to change quickly. But securing benefits in response to either of these two motives is not inevitable even when the potential benefits of collaboration are clear. In the past, environmental collective initiatives have almost universally relied heavily on the driving force of project officers with time, expertise and access to funding to generate activity. The characteristics evident in generating enduring and productive collaborative action are complex and varied: • Critical mass to realize collective benefits at appropriate scale. • Clarity of purpose. • Rapid and self-evident initial results. • Outcomes exceed those available through individual effort alone. 168
Page 1 and 2:
International Water Association AGR
Page 3 and 4:
2006 Conference Organising Committe
Page 5 and 6:
Theme 2: Cost-effectiveness of Best
Page 7 and 8:
Poster Presentations The Farm Soils
Page 9 and 10:
viii
Page 11 and 12:
managers need support in understand
Page 13 and 14:
During the past 20 years, it became
Page 15 and 16:
infiltration); and (4) capture, sto
Page 17 and 18:
DOMINATING PARAMETERS OF IMPAIRMENT
Page 19 and 20:
Using the results of the unsupervis
Page 21 and 22:
Kohonen T (2001). Self-Organizing M
Page 23 and 24:
WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE IMPLEMENT
Page 25 and 26:
Table 1: Modelled total annual loss
Page 27 and 28:
• It should be possible to apply
Page 29 and 30:
Scottish Executive against 18 measu
Page 31 and 32:
REFERENCES Anthony S, Betson M, Lor
Page 33 and 34:
ased on the ‘drainage basin’ in
Page 35 and 36:
management practices’ (BMPs) toge
Page 37 and 38:
It is envisaged that these data wil
Page 39 and 40:
testing (including climate change)
Page 41 and 42:
Council of the European Communities
Page 43 and 44:
DECREASING THE NITROGEN SOIL SURFAC
Page 45 and 46:
Table 1: Overview of the measures c
Page 47 and 48:
Table 2: Costs (C), effects (E) and
Page 49 and 50:
Figure 2: Combination of ‘best av
Page 51 and 52:
MATERIALS AND METHODS At the 5-km 2
Page 53 and 54:
REFERENCES Jordan P, Menary W, Daly
Page 55 and 56:
Although the TMDL programme origina
Page 57 and 58:
grassland and heather moorland, sup
Page 59 and 60:
Given that the release of P from th
Page 61 and 62:
to the underlying causes, and thus
Page 63 and 64:
All water body use attainment infor
Page 65 and 66:
indicate the possible presence of p
Page 67 and 68:
DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF M
Page 69 and 70:
BMP is being implemented and the ap
Page 71 and 72:
THE USE OF PONDS TO REDUCE POLLUTIO
Page 73 and 74:
established pond/wetland for nutrie
Page 75 and 76:
Table 1: Hydraulic load, mean water
Page 77 and 78:
Comparable SS removals have been re
Page 79 and 80:
Reddy GB, Hunt PG, Phillips R, Ston
Page 81 and 82:
In general, the combinations of mea
Page 83 and 84:
final word on the POMs selection an
Page 85 and 86:
CONCLUSIONS The ERBD project team i
Page 87 and 88:
Table 1: A summary of the measures
Page 89 and 90:
Table 3: A summary of the represent
Page 91 and 92:
cost (£'000/farm) or reduction in
Page 93 and 94:
ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF MINIMISING
Page 95 and 96:
spread cattle slurry in the autumn
Page 97 and 98:
£25,000. The investment in trailin
Page 99 and 100:
Studies on a drained clay soil at B
Page 101 and 102:
REFERENCES Anon (2000). Fertiliser
Page 103 and 104:
(Haygarth and Jarvis, 1999). The vo
Page 105 and 106:
Application Representative farm sys
Page 107 and 108:
Table 2: Modelled cost-curve for th
Page 109 and 110:
ASSESSING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFU
Page 111 and 112:
In the absence of data on the sourc
Page 113 and 114:
Magnitude of Impacts The magnitude
Page 115 and 116:
D. Use relative area of farm and wh
Page 117 and 118:
ADAS has developed a matrix for Def
Page 119 and 120:
Dickson JW, Edwards T, Jeffrey WA,
Page 121 and 122:
60% phosphorus and 50% nitrogen of
Page 123 and 124:
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Landscape St
Page 125 and 126: was contributed to the low vegetati
Page 127 and 128: iological uptake in a grassed area.
Page 129 and 130: Tim US, Jolly R and Liao HH (1995).
Page 131 and 132: to control SS and P loads from agri
Page 133 and 134: Total P inputs in fertilisers and m
Page 135 and 136: Within the Teme catchment, largest
Page 137 and 138: A RISK ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION ST
Page 139 and 140: Environmental Monitoring The primar
Page 141 and 142: BMP measure 1 (exclusion of stock f
Page 143 and 144: (a) With reference to the increase
Page 145 and 146: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS SAC acknowledges f
Page 147 and 148: The Environment Sensitive Farming (
Page 149 and 150: improved further as a result of att
Page 151 and 152: to do more to reduce pesticide impa
Page 153 and 154: MANAGING DIFFUSE POLLUTION FROM A F
Page 155 and 156: turbulent air mixing. The effect th
Page 157 and 158: Although nitrate leaching can be re
Page 159 and 160: infiltration of water sheeting off
Page 161 and 162: Nisbet TR, Orr H and Broadmeadow S
Page 163 and 164: anthropogenic activities are pollut
Page 165 and 166: monitoring is determined up front b
Page 167 and 168: (USEPA). Nevertheless, by applying
Page 169 and 170: • Sampling equipment •Laborator
Page 171 and 172: Reinert RE, Knuth BA, Kamrin MA and
Page 173 and 174: Tier 3 - Tier 3 of LMCs is planned
Page 175: policy literature, although this is
Page 179 and 180: • tailoring activities to local c
Page 181 and 182: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The support of the
Page 183 and 184: THE EFFECT OF DIFFUSE POLLUTION FRO
Page 185 and 186: equires the Minister to designate a
Page 187 and 188: protection and restoration, sustain
Page 189 and 190: expensive. One-to-one contact becom
Page 191 and 192: farmers. In England, recent policy
Page 193 and 194: practices but, hopefully, the chang
Page 195 and 196: A CASE STUDY: ADOPTION OF BEST MANA
Page 197 and 198: The approaches taken by Brittany to
Page 199 and 200: MANURE TREATMENT By January 2005, t
Page 201 and 202: REGULATORY OPTIONS FOR THE MANAGEME
Page 203 and 204: There are also measures that contro
Page 205 and 206: widely recognised as needing much a
Page 207 and 208: ploughed, of rivers and streams tha
Page 209 and 210: is the only mechanism identified fo
Page 211 and 212: PHOSPHORUS STORAGE IN FINE CHANNEL
Page 213 and 214: structure and minimum level of main
Page 215 and 216: REFERENCES May L, Place C, O’Hea
Page 217 and 218: LOUND CATCHMENT PROJECT: WORKING WI
Page 219 and 220: MINIMISING THE PRESSURES AND IMPACT
Page 221 and 222: Predicting Bathing Water Quality Vi
Page 223 and 224: Risk of illness percentages were ca
Page 225 and 226: Table 4: Expected lifetime benefits
Page 227 and 228:
DETERMINATION OF THE VETERINARY ANT
Page 229 and 230:
Thin Layer Chromatography The sampl
Page 231 and 232:
Table 2: Regression functions and c
Page 233 and 234:
OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS FOR U
Page 235 and 236:
to land managers and agency staff t
Page 237 and 238:
stakeholders, together with their i
Page 239 and 240:
REFERENCES EC (2000). Directive 200
Page 241 and 242:
A third scenario was applied to Clu
Page 243 and 244:
Based on a detailed distribution of
Page 245 and 246:
could be misleading. The results of
Page 247 and 248:
TACKLING DIFFUSE NITRATE POLLUTION:
Page 249 and 250:
AMMONIA VOLATILISATION FROM CATTLE
Page 251 and 252:
and 27% of the soil surface at 80 m
Page 253 and 254:
FIELD TESTING OF MITIGATION OPTIONS
Page 255 and 256:
techniques can significantly reduce
Page 257 and 258:
NITRATE CONTAMINATION OF GROUNDWATE
Page 259 and 260:
MATERIALS AND METHODS At two UK sit
Page 261 and 262:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding of this wo
Page 263 and 264:
y standard methods and fresh, end o
Page 265 and 266:
comparable to those in water draini
Page 267 and 268:
Results may be influential in deter
Page 269 and 270:
• numbers and distribution of liv
Page 271 and 272:
Using this method of classification
Page 273 and 274:
Table 5: Results of land use scenar
Page 275 and 276:
CONCLUSIONS As a decision support t
Page 277 and 278:
types. This paper reports results f
Page 279 and 280:
N Losses in Drainage Water Mean nit
Page 281 and 282:
SOIL AND CROP MANAGEMENT EFFECTS ON
Page 283 and 284:
treatments, typically 10 storm even
Page 285 and 286:
Tramline Effects In both years, obs
Page 287 and 288:
Notes 278
show all

Download as a PDF - CiteSeerX

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?