Agriculture is inherently multifunctional. It jointly produces more than food, fibre or oil, having a profound impact on many elements of economies and ecosystems. A comprehensive framework is used to present new data on annual external costs in Germany ( 1.2 billion; US$2 billion), in the UK ( 2.3 billion; US$3.8 billion) and in the USA ( 21 billion; US$34.7 billion). These costs are equivalent to 49-208/ha (US$81-343/ha) of arable and grassland. Agriculture also produces positive externalities, and though there is no comprehensive valuation framework, the public benefits in the UK appear to be in the range of 10-30 (US$16-49) per household, or some 20-60/ha (US$32-100/ha) of arable and pasture land. These external costs and benefits raise important policy questions. In particular, should farmers receive public support for the multiple public benefits they produce? Should those that pollute have to pay for restoring the environment and human health? Policy options available for encouraging behavioural changes are of three types: advisory and institutional measures; regulatory and legal measures; and economic instruments. Three of the most promising options for discouraging negative externalities and encouraging positive ones are: (1) environmental taxes; (2) subsidy and incentive reform; and (3) institutional and participatory mechanisms. The greatest challenge, however, will be to find ways to integrate such policy tools into effective packages that will increase the supply of desired environmental and social goods whilst ensuring farmers' livelihoods remain sustainable.

The United Kingdom introduced the first agri‐environmental scheme in the European Union in 1986. Since then, the United Kingdom has developed and implemented several other schemes that also feature stewardship payments to improve agriculture's environmental performance. In this article, lessons learned from the United Kingdom's agri‐environmental programs are identified. Using the concept of “multifunctionality,” which increasingly is influencing agricultural policy in Western Europe, the authors examine key issues associated with potential major expansions of stewardship payment schemes on both sides of the Atlantic.

No abstract

We compared the agronomic, economic, and ecological performance of alternative (organic), conventional, and reduced-till farming systems over a 7-year period. We evaluated the sustainability of the various systems regarding several concerns, including soil erosion, pollution potential, whole-farm productivity, energy use, environmental stress, economic performance, and farm size. The alternative systems relied primarily on forage legumes (alfalfa or clover) as substitutes for the pesticides and commercial fertilizers used in the other systems.Two studies were established in northeastern South Dakota in 1985. Study I emphasized row crops, Study II small grains. The alternative system in Study I, which included alfalfa hay in the rotation, was the most productive, both agronomically and economically. In Study II, the alternative system included a green manure crop (clover) in the 4-year rotation and had the lowest agronomic production; however, its economic performance was similar to the conventional system's. Year-to-year variability in production was lowest in the alternative systems. The alternative systems in both studies were the most energy-efficient, and the reduced-till systems the least. Judged by the distribution ofnitrate-N in the soil profile, the potential for groundwater pollution was higher in the conventional and reduced-till systems in Study I than in the alternative system. The alternative systems in both studies depended less on government payments for their profitability. Results in Study I also showed that more widespread adoption of alternative systems would tend to halt or slow the trend of ever-increasing farm size. These studies suggest that alternative systems are more sustainable in this agro-climatic area.