Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Scaling down the European model of agriculture: the case of the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme in Ireland

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy have led to much discussion of the European multifunctional model of agriculture in both policy and academic circles. Accordingly, European agriculture provides numerous social and environmental benefits and as a result should be supported through a system of payments which directly target those benefits. The agri-environmental measures specified under pillar II of the Common Agricultural Policy are supposed to exemplify the multifunctional model of agriculture, and the macro-level debates surrounding the introduction and evolution of these measures have been the subject of much scholarly research. However, very little research has been conducted into how the actors responsible for implementing these measures at the local level react to the macro-level definitions and interpretations of agri-environmental problems and their solution. This article examines the specific case of the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme in Ireland, focusing on how this scheme is viewed by diverse actors (farmers, government officials, and environmentalists) in the environmentally sensitive area known as the Burren, how these views complement or contradict the narrative of multifunctional agriculture promoted at the EU level of governance, and how this narrative is mediated by a national agri-environmental policy community. Results suggest the need to consider how policy narratives and instruments prominent at the macro-global level of governance enter into the life-worlds, cultures, and ecologies of a variety of actors at the national and local levels of governance, and in the process are reinterpreted, resisted, and transformed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. According to neo-mercantilist ideology the purpose of the state is one of underwriting and safeguarding the productive capacity and export potential of the farming sector (Potter 2004).

  2. The success of the IFA in this endeavor reflects its powerful influence on and privileged access to the Department of Agriculture (Evans and Coen 2003).

  3. L’Instrument Financier pour L’environment—The European Commission’s financial instrument for the environment.

Abbreviations

CAP:

Common Agricultural Policy

REPS:

Rural Environmental Protection Scheme

References

  • Allen, P. 2004. Together at the table: Sustainability and governance in the American agri-food system. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alteiri, M.A. 2001. The nature and function of biodiversity in agriculture. Greenbook 2001, 5–8. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Department of Agriculture.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banks, J., and T. Marsden. 2000. Integrating agri-environmental policy, farming systems, and rural development: Tir Cymen in Wales. Sociologia Ruralis 40: 466–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baylis, K., G.C. Rausser, and L.K. Simon. 2005. Including non-trade concerns: The environment in EU and US agricultural policy. International Journal of Agricultural Resources Governance and Ecology 4 (3/4): 262–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromley, D.W. 2000. Can agriculture become an environmental asset? World Economics 1 (3): 127–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, J., J. Clark, and C.M. Harrison. 2000. Knowledges in action: An actor-network analysis of a wetland agri-environmental scheme. Ecological Economics 35 (1): 119–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, R.J.F. 2004. Seeing through the “Good Farmer’s” eyes: Towards developing an understanding of the social symbolic value of productivist behavior. Sociologia Ruralis 44 (2): 195–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buttel, F.H. 2000. Ecological modernization as social theory. Geoforum 31: 57–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buttel, F.H., and L. Zepeda. 2002. Multifunctionality: The European perspective and what it could mean for American agriculture. PATS Staff Paper No. 5 (January 2002). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Extension.

  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC). 1998. Council strategy on environmental integration and sustainable development in the common agricultural policy established by the Agricultural Council. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. http://eurlex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=52001DC0162(03)&model=guichett. Accessed 20 Dec 2005.

  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC). 1999a. Communication from the Commission to the Council: Directions towards sustainable agriculture. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/9922/9922_en.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2006.

  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC). 1999b. Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. http://www.ndp.ie/documents/publications/reg_cir/CR12571999.pdf. Accessed 11 Jan 2006.

  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC). 2001a. Communication from the Commission to the Council: Biodiversity action plan for agriculture. Brussels: Commission of the European Community. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/biodiv/162_en.pdf. Accessed 23 Dec 2005.

  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC). 2001b. Press release—WTO: “EU ready to walk the farm liberalisation walk,” Franz Fischler says. Brussels: Commission of the European Community. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/01/1315&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en. Accessed 4 Jan 2006.

  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC). 2001c. Agriculture and the environment. Fact sheet on agriculture and environment in the European Union. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/index_en.htm. Accessed 5 Jan 2006.

  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC). 2002. Press release—“We won’t let Finnish farmers down,” Commissioner Fischler presents CAP mid-term review in Finland. Brussels: Commission of the European Community. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/02/1106&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en. Accessed 3 Jan 2006.

  • Coughenour, C.M. 2003. Innovating conservation agriculture: The case of no till cropping. Rural Sociology 68 (2): 278–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • DAF. 2001. Speech transcript—REPS situation and outlook. Dublin: Irish Department of Agriculture and Food.

    Google Scholar 

  • DAF. 2006. Agri-vision 2015: Action plan. Dublin: Irish Department of Agriculture and Food.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeVries, B. 2000. Multifunctional agriculture: Protectionism, piffle, or path to the promised land? A report from the Land Stewardship Project. http://www.landstewardshipproject.org/programs_mba.html. Accessed 8 Oct 2005.

  • Durand, G., and G.V. Huylenbroeck. 2003. Multifunctionality and rural development: A general framework. In Multifunctional agriculture: A new paradigm for European agriculture and rural development, ed. G.V. Huylenbroeck and G. Durand, 1–16. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, M., and L. Coen. 2003. Elitist and agri-environmental policy in Ireland. In Public administration and public policy in Ireland, ed. M. Adshead and M. Millar, 1–19. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, N., C. Morris, and M. Winter. 2002. Conceptualizing agriculture: A critique of post-productivism as the new orthodoxy. Progress in Human Geography 26 (3): 313–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelats, F.L.I. 2004. A discursive approach to agricultural and rural policy in Europe. Paper presented at the 3rd Global Conference—Environmental Justice and Global Citizenship. Copenhagen, Denmark.

  • Gorman, M., J. Mannion, J. Kinsella, and P. Bogue. 2001. Connecting environmental management and farm household livelihoods: The rural environment protection scheme in Ireland. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 3: 137–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, A. 1998. Sustainable agriculture and conservation tillage: Managing the contradictions. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 35 (2): 221–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanrahan, C.E., and J. Zinn. 2005. Green payments in the United States and European Union Agricultural Policy. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harte, L., and J. O’Connell. 2003. How well does the rural environment protection scheme confirm with multifunctionality. In Faculty of agri-food and the environment research report, 5–8. Dublin: University College Dublin Faculty of Agri-Food and the Environment.

  • Higgins, V., and G. Lawrence. 2005. Introduction: Globalization and agricultural governance. In Agricultural governance: Globalization and the new politics of regulation, ed. V. Higgins and G. Lawrence, 1–16. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, V., and S. Lockie. 2002. Re-discovering the social: Neoliberalism and hybrid practices of governing in rural natural resource management. Journal of Rural Studies 18: 419–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hynes, S., and E. Murphy. 2002. An analysis of the rural environmental protection scheme. Working Paper No. 60. Galway: NUI-Galway Department of Economics.

  • Juntti, M., and C. Potter. 2002. Interpreting and re-interpreting agri-environmental policy: Communication, knowledge, and trust in the implementation process. Sociologia Ruralis 42: 215–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaljonen, M. 2006. Co-construction of agency and environmental management. The case of agri-environmental policy implementation at Finnish farms. Journal of Rural Studies 22 (2): 205–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleijn, D., R. Baquero, Y. Clough, M. Diaz, J. De Esteban, F. Fernandez, D. Gabriel, F. Herzog, A. Holzschuh, R. Johl, E. Knop, A. Kruess, E.J.P. Marshall, I. Steffan Dewenter, T. Tscharntke, J. Verhulst, T.M. West, and J.L. Yela. 2006. Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri-environment schemes in five countries. Ecology Letters 9: 243–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korsching, P.F., E.O. Hoiberg, G.L. Bultena, and S.G. Padgitt. 2001. Soil erosion as a community issue: Public perceptions of off-site impacts. Society and Natural Resources 14: 67–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroger, L., J. Aakkula, and P. Jokinen. 2004. The assimilation of the ideas of multifunctional agriculture into Finnish agri-environmental policy. In Multifunctional agriculture, policies, and markets: Understanding the critical linkages. 90th European Agricultural Economics Seminar, October 28–29, Rennes.

  • Lenihan, M. 2006. State, social movement, and producer perspectives on multifunctional agriculture in the global food regime. PhD Dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania.

  • Long, N. 2001. Development sociology: Actor perspectives. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsden, T. 2006. The road towards sustainable rural development: Issues of theory, policy, and practice in a European context. In The handbook of rural studies, ed. T. Marsden, P. Cloke, and P. Mooney, 201–212. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsden, T., J. Banks, H. Renting, and J.D. van der Ploeg. 2001. The road towards sustainable rural development: Issues of theory, policy and research practice. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 3: 75–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCright, A.M., and R.E. Dunlap. 2003. Defeating Kyoto: The conservative movement’s impact on US climate change policy. Social Problems. 50 (3): 348–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, C. 2004. Networks of agri-environmental policy implementation: A case study of England’s Countryside Stewardship Scheme. Land Use Policy 21: 177–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Napier, T.L., and M. Tucker. 2001. Use of soil and water protection practices among farmers in three midwest watersheds. Environmental Management 27 (2): 269–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, P.E., and H. Johnston. 2005. What a good idea! Ideologies and frames in social movement research. In Frames of protest: Social movements and the framing perspective, ed. H. Johnston, and J.A. Noakes, 195–203. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Rourke, E. 2005. Socio-natural interaction and the landscape dynamics in the Burren, Ireland. Landscape and Urban Planning 70: 69–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potter, C. 2004. Agricultural policy discourses in a European post-Fordist transition: Neo liberalism, neo-mercantilism, and multifunctionality. Paper presented at the International Dimensions on Sustainable Farmland Management Seminar, 16 September 2004, University of Exeter, UK.

  • Potter, C., and J. Burney. 2002. Agricultural multifunctionality in the WTO—legitimate non-trade concern or disguised protectionism? Journal of Rural Studies 18 (1): 35–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potter, C., and M. Tilzey. 2005. Agricultural policy discourses in the European post-Fordist transition: Neoliberalism, neomercantilism, and multifunctionality. Progress in Human Geography 29 (5): 581–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosset, P. 1999. The multiple functions and benefits of small farm agriculture in the context of global trade negotiations. Paper presented at the conference, Cultivating our futures: FAO/Netherlands Conference on the Multifunctional Character of Agriculture and Land, 12–17 September 1999, Maastricht, Netherlands.

  • Scott, J.C. 1990. Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, D., and R. Benford. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 611–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swinbank, A. 2001. Multifunctionality: A European euphemism for protection. Paper presented at the FWAG Conference Multifunctional agriculture—A European Model, 29 November 2001. Stoneleigh: National Agricultural Centre.

  • Tovey, H. 2001. Agricultural development and environmental regulation in Ireland. In Agricultural transformation, food, environment: Perspectives on European rural policy, planning, vol. 1, ed. H. Buller and K. Hoggart, 109–130. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, G.A. 2001. From productivism to post-productivism….and back again? Exploring the (un)changed natural and mental landscapes of European agriculture. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 26: 77–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, G.A., and K. Hart. 2001. Farmer participation in agri-environmental schemes: Towards conservation oriented thinking. Sociologia Ruralis 41 (2): 254–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wortman, C.S., A.P. Chritiansen, K.L. Glewen, T.A. Hejny, J. Muliken, J.M. Peterson, D.L. Varner, S. Wortmann, and G.L. Zoubek. 2005. Farmer research: Conventional experiences and guidelines for alternative agriculture and multifunctional agro-ecosystems. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 20 (4): 243–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathryn J. Brasier.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lenihan, M.H., Brasier, K.J. Scaling down the European model of agriculture: the case of the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme in Ireland. Agric Hum Values 26, 365–378 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9169-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9169-2

Keywords

Navigation