Abstract
AbstractThe European Union’s common agricultural policy (CAP), in addition to its primary production and farm income goals, is a large source of funding for environmentally friendly agricultural practices. However, its schemes have variable success and uptake across member states (MS) and regions. This study tries to explain these differences by demonstrating differences between policy levels in the understanding of the relationship between nature and farming. To compare constructs and values of the respective policy communities, their discursive construction as it appears in the main strategic EU and MS agricultural policy documents is analysed. The theoretical framework integrates elements from existing frameworks of CAP and environmental discourse analysis; specific agri-environmental discourses, their elements and interplay, are identified. The six discourses suggested here are ‘Productivism’, ‘Classical neoliberal’, ‘Ecological modernisation’, ‘Administrative’, ‘Multifunctionality’ and ‘Radical green’. The discourse analysis of selected documents reveals that there are indeed differences in how farming and the environment are generally conceptualised at different levels of CAP decision-making. At EU level, farming is primarily understood as a sector whose main task is to produce food (‘Productivism’), and the environment is used as a justification for CAP payments (‘Multifunctionality’). At the national/regional level, Rural Development Programmes reflect different value systems: in England, environmental protection is mainly seen as sound management of natural capital (‘Classical neoliberal’); in Finland, a benefit for producers and conscious consumers (‘Ecological modernisation’); in Croatia, a necessity limiting productivity (‘Productivism’) and imposed by an external authority (‘Administrative’ discourse). This diversity shows that differences can visibly manifest despite the Commission constraining the discursive space, helping to explain the differential implementation and success of environmental measures.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Agronomy and Crop Science
Reference133 articles.
1. Åkerman, Maria, Minna Kaljonen, and Taru Peltola. 2005. Integrating Environmental Policies into Local Practices: The Politics of Agri-Environmental and Energy Policies in Rural Finland. Local Environment 10 (6): 595–611.
2. Alliance Environnement. 2021. Evaluation Support Study on the Impact of the CAP on Sustainable Management of the Soil Final Report. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/85bd465d-669b-11eb-aeb5-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.
3. Almås, Reidar, and Hugh Campbell. 2012. Introduction: Emerging challenges, new policy frameworks and the resilience of agriculture. In Rethinking agricultural policy regimes: Food security, climate change and the future resilience of global agriculture, 18: 1–22. Emerald Group Publishing Limited
4. Alons, Gerry. 2017. Environmental policy integration in the EU’s common agricultural policy: greening or greenwashing? Journal of European Public Policy 24: 1604–1622. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1334085
5. Alons, Gerry. 2020. Agriculture and Environment: Greening or Greenwashing? In Governance and Politics in the Post-Crisis European Union, ed. Ramona Coman, Amandine Crespy, and Vivien A. Schmidt, 140–158. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献