Search

The series of decision models produced in this Deliverable (D8.2) will be integrated into a model for the assessment of overall sustainability of legume systems, with respect to the identification of key legume-based system indicators for the three pillars of sustainability. The decision model will be then used for evaluation of the relative sustainability of transition pathways to more effective scenarios.&nbsp

This Deliverable presents the result from the application of a policy Delphi and highlights how experts assess the potential of governance contexts that may favour therealisation of legume-supportedvalue chains.

Feeding the world's growing human population is increasingly challenging, especially as more people adopt a western diet and lifestyle. Doing so without causing damage to nature poses an even greater challenge. This book argues that in order to create a sustainable food supply whilst conserving nature, agriculture and nature must be reconnected and approached together. The authors demonstrate that while the links between nature and food production have, to some extent, already been recognized, until now the focus has been to protect one from the impacts of the other. Instead, it is argued that nature and agriculture can, and should, work together and ultimately benefit from one another. Chapters describe efforts to protect nature through globally connected protected area systems and illustrate how farming methods are being shaped to protect nature within agricultural systems. The authors also point to many ways in which nature benefits agriculture through the ecosystem services it provides. Overall, the book shows that nature conservation and food production must be considered as equally important components of future solutions to meet the global demand for food in a manner that is sustainable for both the human population and the planet as a whole.

This document provides guidance for the environmental risk assessment (ERA) of genetically modified (GM) plants submitted within the framework of Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003 on GM food and feed or under Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This document provides guidance for assessing potential effects of GM plants on the environment and the rationales for the data requirements for a comprehensive ERA of GM plants. The ERA should be carried out on a case-by-case basis, following a step-by-step assessment approach. This document describes the six steps for the ERA of GM plants, as indicated in Directive 2001/18/EC, starting with (1) problem formulation including hazard identification; (2) hazard characterisation; (3) exposure characterisation; (4) risk characterisation; (5) risk management strategies; and (6) an overall risk evaluation. The scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA GMO Panel) considers seven specific areas of concern to be addressed by applicants and risk assessors during the ERA (1) persistence and invasiveness of the GM plant , or its compatible relatives, including plant-to-plant gene transfer ; (2) plant-to-micro-organism gene transfer; (3) interaction of the GM plant with target organisms and (4) interaction of the GM plant with non-target organisms, including criteria for selection of appropriate species and relevant functional groups for risk assessment; (5) impact of the specific cultivation, management and harvesting techniques; including consideration of the production systems and the receiving environment(s); (6) effects on biogeochemical processes; and (7) effects on human and animal health. Each specific area of concern is considered in a structured and systematic way following the above-mentioned steps (1 to 6). In addition, the guidance document is supplemented with several general cross-cutting considerations (e.g. choice of comparator, receiving environment(s), general statistical principles, long-term effects) that need to be considered in the ERA.

Changes in the weed seedbank were monitored between 1991 and 1998 in two experiments that were established to compare organic crop rotations at two sites in NE Scotland. Two rotations, replicated twice at each site, were compared and all courses of both rotations were present every year. There were relatively minor changes in weed species diversity over time, but major changes in seedbank abundance. Weed seed numbers were relatively low in rotations with a high proportion of grass/clover ley. Differences in level of seedbank across the rotation were relatively predictable at Tulloch but much less so at Woodside where factors such as the effect of the grass/clover ley seemed to play a lesser role. Other factors, such as weather and its influence on the effectiveness of weed control operations, and higher populations of ground-living arthropods, may be affecting the Woodside seedbanks.

The industrialisation of agri-food systems and the demise of home-grown legumes in Europe P.P.M. Iannetta1,*, ±, B. Balázs2, G. Begg1, M. Debeljak3, K.T. Hamann4, B. Howard5, E. Kelemen2, A. Kolmans6, H. Maaß6, G. Ntatsi7,8, N. Quesada1, F. Tran1, A. Trajanov3, D. Savvas7, S. Shrestha9, D. Styles10, L. Toma9, M.W. Vasconcelos11, R. Vickers5, M. Williams12 and G.R. Squire1 1 Ecological Sciences, James Hutton Institute, Dundee, Scotland, UK 2 Environmental Social Science Research Group, Budapest, Hungary 3 Department of Knowledge Technologies, The Jozef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia 4 Institute for Food Studies & Agroindustrial Development, Hoersholm, Denmark 5 PGRO, The Research Station, Great North Road, Thornhaugh, Peterborough, England, UK 6 Research Centre Global Food Security and Ecosystems, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany 7 Agricultural University of Athens, Department of Crop Science, Athens, Greece 8 Institute of Plant Breeding and Genetic Resources, ELGO-DEMETER, Thermi, Thessaloniki, Greece 9 SRUC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH93JG, Scotland, UK 10 SNS, Bangor University, Bangor, Wales, UK 11 Universidade Católica Portuguesa, CBQF Laboratório Associado, Escola Superior de Biotecnologia, Porto, Portugal 12 Department of Botany, School of Natural Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland ∗ Speaker ± Corresponding author: pete.iannetta@hutton.ac.uk 1 Introduction The multiple benefits of well-managed legume-supported agri-food systems are known and include provision of: nutritious feed and food; natural nitrogen cycling; improved soil qualities; lowered greenhouse gas emissions; protection of biodiversity; and good-food culture and literacy. Yet, these benefits are all-but forfeited since the vast majority of the legume grains used in Europe are not home-grown, and only rarely (knowingly), consumed directly by humans. Legume grains are mainly imported in the form of soybean for use as animal feed. Consequently, European farmed systems are characterised by specialised and intensive approaches using crops dependent on synthetic nitrogen fertiliser and pesticide inputs - again mainly routed to meat production. Harmonising of ‘The Three Pillars of Sustainability’ (‘social’, ‘environmental’ and ‘economic’: Passet, 1979), demands that greater functional understanding (Figure 1) is applied and with respect to legumes. Figure 1.(see slide 21) An illustrative model (opposite) which aims to help re-define ‘The Three Pillars of Sustainability’, in functional- or relational-terms, Each www.true-project.eu Work Package (WP) will define indicators of new sub-pillar components. WP8 Transition Design (not shown), is developing a Decision Support System to identify indicators of sustainable function for each pillar individually, and collectively. 2 Materials and methods New insight was gained from knowledge sources, including: 1, the multi-stakeholder European Legume Innovation Network (LIN) workshops (www.true-project.eu/lin-workshops/); 2, the ECs report on, “Market developments and policy evaluation aspects of the plant protein sector in the EU” (https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/plants_and_plant_products/documents/plant-proteins-study-report_en.pdf); 3, abstracts and outputs made during the European Plant Protein Plan launch (https://ec.europa.eu/info/events/development-plant-proteins-europe-opportunities-and-challenges-2018-nov-22_en); 4, recent articles such as Eyhorn et al., (2019); and 5, the public Deliverable, ‘Coproduction of policy assessment’ (https://www.true-project.eu/publications-resources/deliverables/), published by the EU H2020 funded project TRUE. 3 Results Modern day agri-food systems in Europe are characterised by high input dependency and a low level of environmental and societal safeguarding. However, the rejection of legume-based cropping systems preceded the global trade in grain legumes and the introduction of synthetic nitrogen fertilisers by several decades. This coincided with a period of increasing specialisation and intensification of production units to serve high-throughput processing units which demanded the highest possible yields - which could not be provided by grain legumes. These local market challenges have been exacerbated by current day global trade trends whereby political decisions permit the importation of soya and other legume-based protein products to the EU. These imports are allowed at low rates in exchange for low export-tariff rates on cereals and oilseeds. If sustainable agri-food systems are to be enabled in Europe, effective policies and capacities must recognise these historical, and forfeited socio-ecological contexts. 4 Discussion and Conclusions Consumers are no longer passive recipients in a global protein market and wish to realise more-sustainable consumption. They question the nature of their food, such as its nutritional value, environmental impact of production plus authenticity and provenance. Demitarianism is increasing and specific types of carbohydrate are sought to help offset obesity and diabetes. The diversification of cropping systems and good agronomy will not by themselves realise more-sustainable legume supported food- and feed-chains. Greater cooperation among all supply chain actors is essential to establish a more-effective policy environment to help realise consumers’ desires for access to the most-nutritious of food, affordably, and which is produced in a manner that ensures protection of the environment and biodiversity. Acknowledgments This research is supported by the European Union Horizon-2020 project ‘TRansition paths to sUstainable legume-based systems in Europe’ (TRUE, www.true-project.eu), Grant Agreement 727973; and the Scottish Government’s Strategic Research Programme. The James Hutton Institute (www.hutton.ac.uk) is supported by the Rural & Environment Science & Analytical Services (RESAS), a division of the Scottish Government. References Eyhorn et al., (2019). Sustainability in global agriculture driven by organic farming. Nature Sustainability, 253. Passet, R. (1979).L'économique et le vivant[The economic and the living] 23, Payot. &nbsp

The industrialisation of agri-food systems and the demise of home-grown legumes in Europe P.P.M. Iannetta1,*, ±, B. Balázs2, G. Begg1, M. Debeljak3, K.T. Hamann4, B. Howard5, E. Kelemen2, A. Kolmans6, H. Maaß6, G. Ntatsi7,8, N. Quesada1, F. Tran1, A. Trajanov3, D. Savvas7, S. Shrestha9, D. Styles10, L. Toma9, M.W. Vasconcelos11, R. Vickers5, M. Williams12 and G.R. Squire1 1 Ecological Sciences, James Hutton Institute, Dundee, Scotland, UK 2 Environmental Social Science Research Group, Budapest, Hungary 3 Department of Knowledge Technologies, The Jozef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia 4 Institute for Food Studies & Agroindustrial Development, Hoersholm, Denmark 5 PGRO, The Research Station, Great North Road, Thornhaugh, Peterborough, England, UK 6 Research Centre Global Food Security and Ecosystems, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany 7 Agricultural University of Athens, Department of Crop Science, Athens, Greece 8 Institute of Plant Breeding and Genetic Resources, ELGO-DEMETER, Thermi, Thessaloniki, Greece 9 SRUC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH93JG, Scotland, UK 10 SNS, Bangor University, Bangor, Wales, UK 11 Universidade Católica Portuguesa, CBQF Laboratório Associado, Escola Superior de Biotecnologia, Porto, Portugal 12 Department of Botany, School of Natural Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland ∗ Speaker ± Corresponding author: pete.iannetta@hutton.ac.uk 1 Introduction The multiple benefits of well-managed legume-supported agri-food systems are known and include provision of: nutritious feed and food; natural nitrogen cycling; improved soil qualities; lowered greenhouse gas emissions; protection of biodiversity; and good-food culture and literacy. Yet, these benefits are all-but forfeited since the vast majority of the legume grains used in Europe are not home-grown, and only rarely (knowingly), consumed directly by humans. Legume grains are mainly imported in the form of soybean for use as animal feed. Consequently, European farmed systems are characterised by specialised and intensive approaches using crops dependent on synthetic nitrogen fertiliser and pesticide inputs - again mainly routed to meat production. Harmonising of ‘The Three Pillars of Sustainability’ (‘social’, ‘environmental’ and ‘economic’: Passet, 1979), demands that greater functional understanding (Figure 1) is applied and with respect to legumes. Figure 1. (see slide 21) An illustrative model (opposite) which aims to help re-define ‘The Three Pillars of Sustainability’, in functional- or relational-terms, Each www.true-project.eu Work Package (WP) will define indicators of new sub-pillar components. WP8 Transition Design (not shown), is developing a Decision Support System to identify indicators of sustainable function for each pillar individually, and collectively. 2 Materials and methods New insight was gained from knowledge sources, including: 1, the multi-stakeholder European Legume Innovation Network (LIN) workshops (www.true-project.eu/lin-workshops/); 2, the ECs report on, “Market developments and policy evaluation aspects of the plant protein sector in the EU” (https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/plants_and_plant_products/documents/plant-proteins-study-report_en.pdf); 3, abstracts and outputs made during the European Plant Protein Plan launch (https://ec.europa.eu/info/events/development-plant-proteins-europe-opportunities-and-challenges-2018-nov-22_en); 4, recent articles such as Eyhorn et al., (2019); and 5, the public Deliverable, ‘Coproduction of policy assessment’ (https://www.true-project.eu/publications-resources/deliverables/), published by the EU H2020 funded project TRUE. 3 Results Modern day agri-food systems in Europe are characterised by high input dependency and a low level of environmental and societal safeguarding. However, the rejection of legume-based cropping systems preceded the global trade in grain legumes and the introduction of synthetic nitrogen fertilisers by several decades. This coincided with a period of increasing specialisation and intensification of production units to serve high-throughput processing units which demanded the highest possible yields - which could not be provided by grain legumes. These local market challenges have been exacerbated by current day global trade trends whereby political decisions permit the importation of soya and other legume-based protein products to the EU. These imports are allowed at low rates in exchange for low export-tariff rates on cereals and oilseeds. If sustainable agri-food systems are to be enabled in Europe, effective policies and capacities must recognise these historical, and forfeited socio-ecological contexts. 4 Discussion and Conclusions Consumers are no longer passive recipients in a global protein market and wish to realise more-sustainable consumption. They question the nature of their food, such as its nutritional value, environmental impact of production plus authenticity and provenance. Demitarianism is increasing and specific types of carbohydrate are sought to help offset obesity and diabetes. The diversification of cropping systems and good agronomy will not by themselves realise more-sustainable legume supported food- and feed-chains. Greater cooperation among all supply chain actors is essential to establish a more-effective policy environment to help realise consumers’ desires for access to the most-nutritious of food, affordably, and which is produced in a manner that ensures protection of the environment and biodiversity. Acknowledgments This research is supported by the European Union Horizon-2020 project ‘TRansition paths to sUstainable legume-based systems in Europe’ (TRUE, www.true-project.eu), Grant Agreement 727973; and the Scottish Government’s Strategic Research Programme. The James Hutton Institute (www.hutton.ac.uk) is supported by the Rural & Environment Science & Analytical Services (RESAS), a division of the Scottish Government. References Eyhorn et al., (2019). Sustainability in global agriculture driven by organic farming. Nature Sustainability, 253. Passet, R. (1979). L'économique et le vivant [The economic and the living] 23, Payot., For Figure 1 see slide (page) 21

Bioenergy has been proposed as both a problem and a solution for land use conflicts arising at the nexus between food security and environmental conservation. But such assessments need to be considered in light of differences in the way people value the use of land and the facts that are considered or excluded in making such judgements. While technical and policy appraisals of food security favour a target-based approach that considers land as a global resource to be managed in accordance with universal targets and technological innovation for food production and nature conservation, social researchers highlight the need for a context-based approach where considerations of the role of land in people’s everyday lives and its historical and cultural attachments ought to shape interventions. This Chapter highlights the assumptions and value judgements that underpin different visions of how land should be used by opening up conflicting judgements that arise when we position bioenergy in the context of current and future agricultural systems. We develop a ‘responsible innovation’ framework to highlight the fact that there are multiple pathways for any technological intervention. Drawing on research undertaken in the UK, we apply this framework to valuations of land use and biomass in agricultural systems. We identify a number of, often conflicting, value dimensions related to different uses of land (for food, fuel or fodder), to land quality (should marginal land be used for fuel production) and to different uses of biomass (including competition for the use of straw, the use of biomass for on-farm energy generation as opposed to national energy targets, and biomass for large-scale biorefining to meet multiple objectives at the food/fuel/environment nexus). By opening up to scrutiny the assumptions that reinforce particular innovation pathways we were able to look beyond technical innovation in agricultural systems and land use choices to consideration of social innovations that draw attention to alternative visions of land use in agricultural futures.