Agent-Based Life Cycle Assessment enables joint economic-environmental analysis of policy to support agricultural biomass for biofuels.

Production of agricultural biofuels is expected to rise due to increasing climate change mitigation ambitions. Policy interventions promoting targeted bioenergy solutions can be motivated by the large environmental externalities present in agricultural systems and the local context of biomass production co-benefits. Introducing energy crops in crop rotations in arable land with depleted Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) levels offers the potential to increase SOC stocks and future crop yields as a step towards more sustainable agricultural systems. However, the environmental performance of a policy incentive for energy crops with SOC co-benefits is less evident when considering its land-use effects within and outside of the target agricultural system. We study the potential impacts of a change in agricultural policy on regional agricultural structure and production, and the environment with an Agent-Based Life Cycle Assessment approach. We simulate a policy payment that would achieve adoption of grass leys in crop rotations corresponding to 25 % of the highly productive land in an intensive farming region of southern Sweden. Although enhancing soil health in SOC-depleted farming regions is a desirable environmental objective, its significance is limited within the life-cycle performance of the payment. Instead, crop-displacement impacts and the grass potential as biofuel feedstock are the main drivers. The active utilisation of grasses for biofuel purposes is key in reaching a positive environmental evaluation of the policy instrument. Our environmental evaluation is likely generalisable to other regions with similar technological levels and farming intensity, while our analysis on structural shifts is specific to the policy instrument and agricultural production system under study. Overall, our work provides a method to contrast regional effects and global environmental impacts of policy instruments supporting agricultural biomass for biofuels prior to implementation. This contributes to the environmental assessment of land-based biofuels at a time when their sustainability is highly debated.

How unnecessarily high abatement costs and unresolved distributional issues undermine nutrient reductions to the Baltic Sea.

This paper systematically reviews the literature on how to reduce nutrient emissions to the Baltic Sea cost-effectively and considerations for allocating these costs fairly among countries. The literature shows conclusively that the reduction targets of the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) could be achieved at considerably lower cost, if countries would cooperate to implement the least costly abatement plan. Focusing on phosphorus abatement could be prudent as the often recommended measures-wastewater treatment and wetlands-abate nitrogen too. An implication of our review is that the potential for restoring the Baltic Sea to good health is undermined by an abatement strategy that is more costly than necessary and likely to be perceived as unfair by several countries. Neither the BSAP nor the cost-effective solution meet the surveyed criteria for fairness, implying a need for side-payments.

Strengthening the policy framework to resolve lax implementation of the Baltic Sea Action Plan for agriculture.

In this perspective article, we provide recommendations for strengthening the policy framework for protecting the Baltic Sea from agricultural nutrient pollution. The most striking weakness is the lax implementation of prescribed abatement measures, particularly concerning manure management, in most countries. Institutions of the EU should also be leveraged for achieving Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) goals. In contrast to the Helsinki Convention, the European Union has economic, political and legal mandates to further implementation and compliance. Equally important is the need for strengthening of local institutions, particularly Water Boards and independent agricultural advisory services in the eastern Baltic Sea Region countries. There is also an urgent need for implementation of voluntary land-use measures where EU funding available to farmers is more broadly and effectively used by providing it on the basis of estimated abatement performance, which can be realized through modelling. The enormous potential for funding performance-based schemes, manure management infrastructure and advisory services through the EU's Common Agricultural Policy are currently underutilized.

Promise and performance of agricultural nutrient management policy: Lessons from the Baltic Sea.

Following decades of international collaboration to restore the Baltic Sea, we provide an assessment of the domestic implementation of measures agreed to limit diffuse agricultural pollution and the patterns of policy instruments applied. Despite the Helsinki Convention being unusually specific in detailing what measures countries should introduce, we find many shortcomings. These are most pronounced in the larger countries (Poland, Germany and Russia), while smaller countries perform better, notably Sweden and Estonia. The patterns of policy instruments applied differ, influenced by domestic politics. The limited use of complementary policy instruments suggests that other priorities overrule full and effective implementation, with engagement mirroring the advantages that a restored Baltic Sea can bring to countries. Using the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development to support farmers in managing nutrients, particularly advisory services and investments in modern manure management technologies, represents a significant opportunity for reducing agricultural pollution in most countries.

A harmonized and spatially explicit dataset from 16 million payments from the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy for 2015.

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the largest budget item in the European Union, but varied data reporting hampers holistic analysis. Here we have assembled the first dataset to our knowledge to report individual CAP payments by standardized CAP funding measures and geolocation. We created this dataset by translating, geolocating to the county or province (NUTS3) level, and consistently harmonizing payment measures for over 16 million payments from 2015, originally reported by EU member states and compiled by the Open Knowledge Foundation Germany. This dataset and code allow in-depth analysis of over €60 billion in public spending by purpose and location for the first time, which enables both individual payment tracing and analysis by aggregation. These data are representative of the distribution of annual CAP payments from 2014 to 2020 and are of interest to researchers, policy makers, non-governmental organizations, and journalists for evaluating the distribution and impacts of CAP spending.

Billions in Misspent EU Agricultural Subsidies Could Support the Sustainable Development Goals.

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the guiding policy for agriculture and the largest single budget item in the European Union (EU). Agriculture is essential to meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), but the CAP's contribution to do so is uncertain. We analyzed the distribution of €59.4 billion of 2015 CAP payments and show that current CAP spending exacerbates income inequality within agriculture, while little funding supports climate-friendly and biodiverse farming regions. More than €24 billion of 2015 CAP direct payments went to regions where average farm incomes are already above the EU median income. A further €2.5 billion in rural development payments went to primarily urban areas. Effective monitoring indicators are also missing. We recommend redirecting and better monitoring CAP payments toward achieving the environmental, sustainability, and rural development goals stated in the CAP's new objectives, which would support the SDGs, the European Green Deal, and green COVID-19 recovery.