DOCSLIB.ORG

Agriculture and Environment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Agriculture and Environment Agriculture and environment Contents 1. Agriculture and INPUT USE .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Farming intensity ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Livestock density ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Energy use in agriculture ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Energy use in the food industry .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Production of renewable energy ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 9 Fertilizer consumption .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 10 Pesticides consumption ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 11 2. Agriculture and SOIL ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Soil quality ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 12 Average Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) stock in agricultural soils ......................................................................................................................................................... 13 Soil erosion by water ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 14 Soil erosion by wind ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 17 Soil sealing ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 18 Potential threats to soil biodiversity in croplands and grasslands ............................................................................................................................................................. 19 3. Agriculture and CLIMATE/AIR........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Emissions from agriculture ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Air pollutant emissions ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 NH3 emissions per total agricultural area (UAA) ................................................................................................................................................................................. 26 NH3 emissions per amount of protein produced (emission intensity)................................................................................................................................................... 26 GHG emissions ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28 1 Extreme weather events ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Risk of forest fires ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 33 4. Agriculture and WATER ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 34 Water abstraction ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 34 Water exploitation and water stress .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Water quality ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 36 Nitrogen water pollution ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 36 Nitrates in fresh and ground water ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 38 Phosphorus water pollution ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 41 5. Agriculture and BIODIVERSITY .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 43 Number of agriculture-related habitats protected under the Habitats Directive .................................................................................................................................... 43 Conservation status of protected agriculture-related habitats ................................................................................................................................................................... 44 Farmland birds index ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 45 Grassland butterfly index.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 46 Protected forest ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 47 6. Agriculture and LANDSCAPE ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 48 Presence of linear elements ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 48 Farmland Heterogeneity Index ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 49 Useful links ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2013 Technology Map of the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan
    JRC SCIENCE AND POLICY REPORTS 2013 Technology Map of the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan Technology Descriptions Report EUR 26345 EN Joint Research Centre JRC13_TMAP_08AP14_P5-NS-Print.indd 1 09/04/2014 16:20:55 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Joint Research Centre Institute for Energy and Transport Contact: Johan Carlsson Address: Joint Research Centre, 3 Westerduinweg 1755 LE Petten the Netherlands E-mail: [email protected] Tel.: +31 224565341 Fax: +31 224565616 http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ This publication is a Scientific and Policy Report by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission. LEGAL NOTICE Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication. Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed. A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server http://europa.eu/ JRC86357 EUR 26345 EN ISBN 978-92-79-34721-4 (print) ISBN 978-92-79-34720-7 (pdf) ISSN 1018-5593 (print) ISSN 1831-9424 (online) doi: 10.2790/9986 (print) doi: 10.2790/99812 (online) Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014 © European Union, 2014 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Printed in Luxembourg JRC13_TMAP_08AP14_P5-NS-Print.indd 2 09/04/2014 16:20:55 2013 Technology Map of the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan) Technology Descriptions JRC13_TMAP_08AP14_P5-NS-Print.indd 1 09/04/2014 16:20:55 JRC13_TMAP_08AP14_P5-NS-Print.indd 2 09/04/2014 16:20:56 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Trillion Dollar Question: Tracking Public and Private Investment in Transport
    Working Paper THE TRILLION DOLLAR QUESTION: TRACKING PUBLIC AND PRIVate INVESTMENT IN TRANSport BENOIT LEFEVRE, DAVID LEIPZIGER, MATTHEW RAIFMAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CONTENTS In a first step to quantify global public and private invest- ment in transport across all modes, WRI estimated annual Executive Summary............................................................1 capital expenditures (excluding consumer spending) at Introduction........................................................................2 between US$1.4 trillion and US$2.1 trillion annually Investment Estimates .........................................................3 (Figure 1). In aggregate, this investment consists of Conclusions .......................................................................6 slightly more private investment than public. Public investment, at US$569 billion to US$905 billion per year, Appendix ............................................................................8 consists almost exclusively of domestic budget expendi- References ........................................................................12 tures. In 2010, 2 percent of public investment was inter- national, mostly provided through official development assistance (ODA). Less than half a percent comes from Disclaimer: Working Papers contain preliminary climate-focused funds and institutions. Private investment, research, analysis, findings, and recommendations. They including both domestic and cross-border flows, is esti- are circulated to stimulate timely discussion and critical
    [Show full text]
  • Tobacco Control Policy-Making in Portugal: Vested Interests Or Public
    Tobacco Prevention & Cessation Industry Monitoring Letter Tobacco control policy-making in Portugal: vested interests or public health? Sofia Ravara1,2, Hilson Cunh Filho2,3, Paula Lobato Faria4, Natercia Miranda2, Jose Manuel Calheiros1,2 INTRODUCTION acceptance of the tobacco industry and interfere 4,14 Tobacco use remains a threat to global health in policy-making . AFFILIATION and socio-economic development1. In order to Currently, the EU has a window of opportunity 1 Faculty of Health Sciences, University of curb the tobacco epidemic, the World Health to advance TC: the implementation of the Tobacco Beira Interior, Covilha, Organisation (WHO) developed the Framework Products Directive (TPD)15. The challenge now Portugal 2 Centre for Advocacy, Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), facing EU MS is its transposition into national Treatment and which aims to protect populations from tobacco legislation, effective enforcement and subsequent Reabilitation, NGO(CATR), 2 monitoring. Lisbon, Portugal consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke . 3 Faculty of Social The FCTC binds its ratifying parties, such as The weaknesses of loopholes in tobacco Sciences and Humanities, 4, 16-17 NOVA University of Lisbon, the European Union (EU) and the EU Member control policy-making are well documented . Portugal States (MS), to implement evidence-based Following FCTC ratification by Portugal in 2005, 4 National School of Public 2 Health, NOVA University of tobacco control (TC) policies . Although FCTC a new tobacco law was approved in 2007 and Lisbon, Portugal policies are implementable at the EU and MS came into force in January 200818. Cunha-Filho et CORRESPONDENCE TO level, Europe still ranks first regarding smoking al., using the case of the Portuguese 2007 tobacco Ravara S.
    [Show full text]
  • SHORT REPORT Influenza Season 2012–2013 in Europe: Moderate
    Epidemiol. Infect. (2014), 142, 1809–1812. © European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) 2014 doi:10.1017/S0950268814001228 SHORT REPORT Influenza season 2012–2013 in Europe: moderate intensity, mixed (sub)types R. SNACKEN1*, E. BROBERG1,J.BEAUTÉ1,J.E.LOZANO2,P.ZUCS1 1 AND A. J. AMATO-GAUCI on behalf of the European Influenza Surveillance Network 1 European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), Stockholm, Sweden 2 Public Health Directorate General, Regional Ministry of Health. Government of Castilla y León, Valladolid, Spain Received 30 October 2013; Final revision 21 March 2014; Accepted 23 April 2014; first published online 9 May 2014 SUMMARY This paper summarizes influenza activity in the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) in 2012–2013. The influenza season 2012–2013 in Europe lasted from early December to late April. Overall the severity of the season could be described as moderate, based on the ILI/ARI consultation rates and the percentage of sentinel specimens positive for influenza compared to previous seasons. Both influenza A and B viruses circulating accounted for 47% and 53% of positive sentinel specimens, respectively, with both A(H1) and A(H3) varying for dominance. Compared to outpatients, the proportion of laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalized cases infected by A(H1N1)pdm09 was significantly higher in middle-aged patients (33% vs. 17%, χ2 =66·6, P<0·01). Despite a relatively good match between vaccine and circulating strains, vaccine effectiveness was estimated to be moderate. Key words:
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Socio-Economic Divide in Europe
    UNDERSTANDING THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC DIVIDE IN EUROPE 26 January 2017 UNDERSTANDING THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC DIVIDE IN EUROPE BACKGROUND REPORT 26 JANUARY 2017 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This background report is supported by a grant from the Open Society Foundations. This report has been prepared under the umbrella of the OECD Centre for Opportunity and Equality (COPE). It has been prepared and coordinated by the Social Policy Division (Michael Förster, Ana Llena Nozal and Céline Thévenot). The report is based on inputs from the International Migration Division (Thomas Liebig and Cécile Thoreau), the Health Division (Chris James and Gaetan Lafortune) and the Employment Division (Paolo Falco, Pascal Marianna). Technical assistance was provided by Nathalie Bienvenu, and statistical assistance was provided by Maxime Ladaique, both from the Social Policy Division. Authors are grateful to Stefano Scarpetta, (Director for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs ELS), Mark Pearson (Deputy Director, ELS,) and Shruti Singh (Manager, COPE) for their comments. This document is available online via http://oe.cd/cope-divide-europe-2017. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of OECD member countries or the European Union. This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Throughout this document, the OECD, OED-EU and EU averages refer to the unweighted average for the relevant countries for which data are available. (↘) (or ↗) in the legends relate to the variable for which countries are ranked from left to right in decreasing (or increasing) order.
    [Show full text]
  • Nordic Alcohol Policy in Europe: the Adaptation of Finland's, Sweden's and Norway's Alcohol
    Thomas Karlsson Thomas Karlsson Thomas Karlsson Nordic Alcohol Policy Nordic Alcohol Policy in Europe in Europe The Adaptation of Finland’s, Sweden’s and Norway’s Alcohol Policies to a New Policy Framework, 1994–2013 The Adaptation of Finland’s, Sweden’s and Norway’s Alcohol Policies to a New Policy Framework, 1994–2013 Nordic Alcohol Policy in Europe Policy Alcohol Nordic To what extent have Finland, Sweden and Norway adapted their alcohol policies to the framework imposed on them by the European Union and the European Economic Area since the mid-1990s? How has alcohol policies in the Nordic countries evolved between 1994 and 2013 and how strict are their alcohol policies in comparison with the rest of Europe? These are some of the main research questions in this study. Besides alcohol policies, the analyses comprise the development of alcohol consumption and cross-border trade with alcohol. In addition to a qualitative analysis, a RESEARCH quantitative scale constructed to measure the strictness of alcohol policies is RESEARCH utilised. The results from the study clearly corroborate earlier findings on the significance of Europeanisation and the Single Market for the development of Nordic alcohol policy. All in all, alcohol policies in the Nordic countries are more liberal in 2013 than they were in 1994. The restrictive Nordic policy tradition has, however, still a solid evidence base and nothing prevents it from being the base for alcohol policy in the Nordic countries also in the future. National Institute for Health and Welfare P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Cover Fire Proneness in Europe Mario G
    Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA) Forest Systems 2014 23(3): 598-610 http://dx.doi.org/10.5424/fs/2014233-06115 ISSN: 2171-5068 eISSN: 2171-9845 OPEN ACCESS Land cover fire proneness in Europe Mario G. Pereira1,2*, Jose Aranha1 and Malik Amraoui2,3 1 Centro de Investigación e de Tecnologias Agro-Ambientais e Biológicas, CITAB, Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, UTAD, Quinta de Prados, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal. 2 Instituto Dom Luiz (IDL), University of Lisbon. Lisbon, Potugal. 3 Universidade de Trás-os-Montes, UTAD, Quinta de Prados, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal Abstract Aim of study: The characterization of the fuels is an important aspect of the fire regime in each specific ecosystem while fire is an important disturbance for global vegetation dynamics. This study aims to identify and characterize the spatial and temporal evolution of the fire incidence and of the vegetation types that are most affected by forest fires in Europe, with emphasis on the mixed forests. Area of study: Europe. Material and methods: Corine Land Cover maps for 2000 and 2006 (CLC2000, CLC2006) and burned area (BA) perimeters, from 2000 to 2013 in Europe are combined to access the spatial and temporal evolution of the types of vegetation that are most affected by fires using geostatistics and Geographical Information System (GIS) techniques. Main results: The spatial and temporal distribution of BA perimeters, vegetation and burnt vegetation by fires was performed and different statistics were obtained for Mediterranean and northern Europe, confirming the usefulness of the used land cover classification.
    [Show full text]
  • Overseas Voting Participation Beyond Borders by Bailey Kathryn Sanders
    Overseas Voting Participation Beyond Borders by Bailey Kathryn Sanders (Under the Direction of James Monogan ) Abstract Throughout the 20th century a growing number of states have taken proactive steps to ensure the political participation of their citizens residing abroad, even those citizens that have no intention of returning to the home state. I argue that to fully understand the rise of overseas voting we must consider it as a two stage process, one that is driven both by international norms of democratic participation and more state specific historical and political factors. I analyze the adoption of overseas voting in 73 countries from 1962 to 2013 in Europe and Latin America. I find that, though scholars often reference international remittances as a major reason for extending the overseas vote, state GDP, the timing of independence, and the number of educated emigrants abroad play more important roles in the rapid extension of overseas voting throughout the 20th century. Index words: Overseas voting, democratic norms, sociopolitical factors, policy diffusion approach Overseas Voting Participation Beyond Borders by Bailey Kathryn Sanders B.A., University of Alabama, 2010 A Masters Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts Athens, Georgia 2013 c 2013 Bailey Kathryn Sanders All Rights Reserved Overseas Voting Participation Across Borders by Bailey Kathryn Sanders Approved: Major Professor: James Monogan Committee: Ryan Bakker Darius Ornston Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia August 2013 Overseas Voting Participation Beyond Borders Bailey Kathryn Sanders Contents I Introduction .
    [Show full text]
  • Reasons for the Decline of Political Trust
    ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 22 July 2021 doi: 10.3389/fpos.2021.676672 Responsiveness, Performance and Corruption: Reasons for the Decline of Political Trust Mariano Torcal 1* and Pablo Christmann 2 1Departamento de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain, 2Department: Monitoring Society and Social Change, GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Mannheim, Germany We test the importance of responsiveness, performance and corruption to explain the evolution of political trust in Spain between 1997 and 2019. To this end, the study analyses two longitudinal datasets, namely, a repeated cross-sectional dataset from the Spanish samples of Eurobarometer and an individual-level panel survey conducted during a period of economic recovery in 2015. The study finds that perceptions about political corruption and responsiveness matter greatly in shaping political trust and to a lesser extent economic performance. Although the Great Recession is likely responsible for the sharp decline in trust towards political parties and the parliament between 2008 and 2012, the analysis suggests that trust in representative institutions remains low even after the Recession because of a series of devastating corruption incidents and a perceived lack of Edited by: responsiveness of the political system. On the other hand, the study finds indications Jennifer Rhian Gaskell, University of Southampton, that trust in the judicial system might have been mainly affected by perceptions of United Kingdom corruption. Reviewed by: Keywords: political trust, corruption, political responsiveness, political process, economic performance, Spain Lisanne De Blok, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands Patrick Van Erkel, INTRODUCTION University of Antwerp, Belgium *Correspondence: Political trust is in decline in many contemporary democracies.
    [Show full text]
  • Working Paper Series Demosthenes Ioannou, Jean-François Jamet and Spillovers and Euroscepticism Johannes Kleibl
    Working Paper Series Demosthenes Ioannou, Jean-François Jamet and Spillovers and Euroscepticism Johannes Kleibl No 1815 / June 2015 Note: This Working Paper should not be reported as representing the views of the European Central Bank (ECB). The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the ECB ABSTRACT: During the crisis, support for the EU has declined noticeably in many European Union member states. While previous research on European public opinion has mainly focused on the impact of domestic country- and individual-level factors on public attitudes towards the EU, this paper argues that developments in other EU member states can also have a significant impact on domestic euroscepticism. Specifically, deteriorating economic and fiscal conditions in other member states can lead to concerns in domestic publics about possible negative spillovers on the domestic economy and the ability of the EU to deliver positive economic outcomes. This in turn may lead to rising euroscepticism at the domestic level. The analysis of a panel data set for the EU as a whole and the euro area countries lends support to these arguments by showing that higher unemployment rates and government debt levels in other European countries are systematically related to lower levels of trust in the EU domestically. KEYWORDS: European Union, Euroscepticism, Spillovers, Debt, Unemployment. JEL CLASSIFICATION: D72 (Political Processes), E02 (Institutions and the Macroeconomy), F15 (Economic Integration), H63 (Debt), J64 (Unemployment). ECB Working Paper 1815, June 2015 1 Non-Technical Summary The financial and economic crisis has led to a notable rise in euroscepticism in many European Union member states.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparator Report on Cancer in Europe 2019 −Disease Burden, Costs and Access to Medicines
    COMPARATOR REPORT ON CANCER IN EUROPE 2019 −DISEASE BURDEN, COSTS AND ACCESS TO MEDICINES THOMAS HOFMARCHER GUNNAR BRÅDVIK CHRISTER SVEDMAN PETER LINDGREN BENGT JÖNSSON IHE REPORT NILS WILKING 2019:7 COMPARATOR REPORT ON CANCER IN EUROPE 2019 – DISEASE BURDEN, COSTS AND ACCESS TO MEDICINES Thomas Hofmarcher Gunnar Brådvik Christer Svedman Peter Lindgren Bengt Jönsson Nils Wilking IHE - The Swedish Institute for Health Economics Updated version: October 2020 Please cite this report as: Hofmarcher, T., Brådvik, G., Svedman, C., Lindgren, P., Jönsson, B., Wilking, N. Comparator Report on Cancer in Europe 2019 – Disease Burden, Costs and Access to Medicines. IHE Report 2019:7. IHE: Lund, Sweden. This report was commissioned and funded by EFPIA - the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations and based on independent research delivered by IHE. EFPIA has had no influence or editorial control over the content of this report, and the views and opinions of the authors are not necessarily those of EFPIA. IHE REPORT 2019:7 e-ISSN: 1651-8187 ISSN: 1651-7628 The report can be downloaded from IHE’s website. www.ihe.se | [email protected] COMPARATOR REPORT ON CANCER IN EUROPE 2019 Foreword Cancer care remains one of the most intensely discussed health policy issues in Europe. Demographic factors such as an ageing population, in part driven by advancements in other medical fields, have led to an increased disease burden caused by cancer, both to patients and to the health care system as a whole. At the same time, there has been significant scientific advancements made, in some cases transforming cancer from a fatal to a chronic disease which in turn introduces new challenges that need to be addressed.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tobacco Control Scale 2013 in Europe
    The Tobacco Control Scale 2013 in Europe Luk Joossens1 & Martin Raw2 1. Advocacy Officer, Association of European Cancer Leagues, Tobacco Control Expert, Foundation against Cancer, Belgium [email protected] 2. Special Lecturer, UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies, University of Nottingham, England [email protected] Correspondence to Luk Joossens This report was launched at the Sixth European Conference on Tobacco or Health (ECToH), Istanbul, Turkey, 26-29 March 2014. www.ectoh.org Acknowledgements We warmly thank the correspondents for their crucial contribution to the project and the Dutch Cancer Society for their contribution to the printing of the report. Copyright ©2014 Association of European Cancer Leagues. All rights reserved. Responsible editor: Association of European Cancer Leagues (ECL), Chaussée de Louvain 479, B- 1030 Brussels, Belgium 1 Introduction In this report, we describe the results of a survey of tobacco control activity in 34 European countries in 2013 using the Tobacco Control Scale (TCS), first described in our 2006 paper, The Tobacco Control Scale: a new scale to measure country activity (1). Here we report the results of the 2013 survey, show changes in rankings from the last (2010) survey, and discuss the results. The TCS, which quantifies the implementation of tobacco control policies at country level, is based on six policies described by the World Bank (2) and which they say should be prioritised in a comprehensive tobacco control programme. The six policies are: Price increases through higher taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products; Bans/restrictions on smoking in public and work places; Better consumer information, including public information campaigns, media coverage, and publicising research findings; Comprehensive bans on the advertising and promotion of all tobacco products, logos and brand names; Large, direct health warning labels on cigarette boxes and other tobacco products; Treatment to help dependent smokers stop, including increased access to medications.
    [Show full text]