1

SoCo project Sustainable Agriculture and Soil

ConservationKick-off meeting

Brussels, 10 October 2007

2

STRUCTURE OF THE PROJECT

(a)  classification of the nature and amplitude of the soil protection problem

IES, SOIL Report ID1.1(a) Task2.1 IPTS Methodology and guidelines for CS

(b)   the relevant practices their economics and effectiveness

Task2.2 IPTS Methodology and guidelines for CS

(c-d)  environmental effectiveness

(a) French Case study

IES, AGRI-ENV

Report on CS (a)

Task1.2 IPTS Direct input to D1

(b) Case study Marche, Italy

IES,SOIL Report on CS (b)

Task1.3 IPTS Direct input to D1

(c) Eight case studies

IPTS A set of reports on CS (c)

Task1.4 IPTS Minutes D2 Task 2.5: IPTS

French national IES/AGRI-ENV

D3 - Intermediate reportItalian IES/SOIL

3 regional linked to CSs 2.3. (c)

IPTS

Task 3.1 IPTS Direct input in D6

(a) Scenarios - conventional and conservation practices

(b) Classification of regions according to the env. benefit

Task4.1 IES/AGRI-ENV

Material for technical training ID4.1

D7

(a) the consistency of the finding

Task4.2 IPTS D8 - translations(b) Policy-relevant

conclusions Task4.3 IPTS D9 - web

Task4.4 IPTS D -10 Policy seminar

D5

- R

egio

nal

wor

ksho

ps

WP

4

Scheme of work flow within the SoCo project

Cas

e s

tudi

es

A common agri-environmental framework for the CS

D4

-Sum

mar

y re

port

on

case

stu

dies

A common framework for policy analysis.

Task2.3 Case studies

Summary of case studies

Task2.4 Regional workshops (WS2):

inculded in respectve deliverables of Task2.3

Policy seminar:

Direct input in D6

Report ID3.2IES

Summarising the results

Model calculations (EPIC) model – environmental benefits of adopting soil conservation

IES, AGRI-ENV

Dis

sem

inat

ion

Stakeholder workshop (WS1)

Report ID1.1(b,c-d)

Materials for technical training

Agricultural soil degradation problem and the corresponding soil conservation practices.

Con

clus

ions

/rec

omm

enda

tions

Drawing up of EU-wide conclusions concerning soil conservation practices and policy measures/implementation.

IPTS

WP

3

Task1.1

Task3.2

Task3.3

Sto

ck-t

akin

g, t

he a

sse

ssm

ent

of

the

curr

ent

situ

atio

n

WP

1

WP

2

Match between the problem, the conservation practices and policy measures (mapping)

A review of the regulatory environment and policy instruments

Uploading of all project outputs to the JRC project website.

Translation of the materials for technical training and the executive summary of the final

D1

- W

P1

rep

ort

D6 - Final report

3

WP1 - Stock-taking, assessment of the current situation Task 1.1 Assessment of the extent of the agricultural soil degradation problems and the corresponding soil conservation practices

Task 1.1 a) Assessment of the nature and amplitude of the soil protection problem, a classification (typology)

4

WP1, Task 1.1. a) nature and amplitude of the soil protection problems

COM(2006) 231

Soil Strategy

Soil Threats

Soil Erosion

SOM Decline

Soil Compaction (soil structure)

Salinization

Contamination

COM(2006) 232

Soil Framework Directive

Common Agriculture Policy

Rural Development Policy

Soil conservation

measures

5

Set a common areas of interest for SoCo project

The analysis will be carried out for agriculture areas (Moss, D. (1998): EUNIS habitat classification).

Agricultural areas based on CLC90Agricultural areas based on CLC2000

6

Link with other WP1 Tasks

}Task 1.1 a)

Assessment of the extent of the agricultural soil degradation problems and the corresponding soil conservation practices Task 1.1 b)

Description of the relevant practices/technologies including generally available information on their economics and effectiveness under various (natural, geographical, climatic and agri-environmental) conditions

Overlay between soil degradation and agricultural conservation practices

7

Task 2.2 Developing a common framework for policy analysis. This framework shall take into account the

different types of policies, institutional settings, actors, etc. It will also specify the policy assessment

criteria to be applied in the case studies.

Task 2.3 Case studies Sub-task 2.3(b) Case study Marche, Italy

8

Task 2.3 Case studies Sub-task 2.3(b)

Case study Marche, Italy

Why the Marche region?

Analysis and evaluation of sustainable agriculture and soil conservation at local scale (regional scale)

Possibility to answer simple questions:

Are the conservation measures applied in areas at risk of soil degradation?

Is it possible to evaluate the effectiveness of the conservation measures (monitoring)?

Possibility to extend the results to the Apennines areas of Italy

9

How will Task 2.3 be managed?

- Collaboration Agreement with the Marche Region

Analysis of the Rural Development Plan 2000-2006 (ex post evaluation) and 2007-2013 (ex ante evaluation) Ref. UE STAR Indicators

Definition of the soil degradation processes in the Marche region and link with the agri-environmental measures.

- Framework Contract for study on soil degradation /agricultural conservation measures

10

Task 2.3 Case studies Sub-task 2.3(b) Case study Marche, Italy

Cross-compliance (CAP)

Rural Development Plan Marche Region

Soil degradation Processes

Policy Analysis, effectiveness of the

measures

Analysis of Rural Development Plan 2000-2006 (ex post evaluation) and 2007-2013 (ex ante

evaluation) Ref. UE STAR Indicators

Soil Monitoring

11

Task 2.3 Case studies Sub-task 2.3(b) Case study Marche, Italy

Soil Monitoring

Analysis of Rural Development Plan 2000-2006 (ex post evaluation) and 2007-2013 (ex ante

evaluation) Ref. UE STAR Indicators

Policy Analysis, effectiveness of

the measures

12

TIME TABLE