Search results

This paper aims to assess agri-environment (AE) scheme options on cultivated agricultural land in England for their impact on agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It considers both absolute emissions reduction and reduction incorporating yield decrease and potential production displacement. Similarities with Ecological Focus Areas (EFAs) introduced in 2015 as part of the post-2014 Common Agricultural Policy reform, and their potential impact, are considered.

A life-cycle analysis approach derives GHG emissions for 18 key representative options. Meta-modelling is used to account for spatial environmental variables (annual precipitation, soil type and erosion risk), supplementing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change methodology.

Most options achieve an absolute reduction in GHG emissions compared to an existing arable crop baseline but at the expense of removing land from production, risking production displacement. Soil and water protection options designed to reduce soil erosion and nitrate leaching decrease GHG emissions without loss of crop yield. Undersown spring cereals support decreased inputs and emissions per unit of crop yield. The most valuable AE options identified are included in the proposed EFAs, although lower priority is afforded to some.

Recommendations are made where applicable to modify option management prescriptions and to further reduce GHG emissions.

This research is relevant and of value to land managers and policy makers. A dichotomous key summarises AE option prioritisation and supports GHG mitigation on cultivated land in England. The results are also applicable to other European countries.

How does the era of austerity affect flexibility and control in budget implementation? The execution phase of the budget has remained underexplored in the budgeting literature. Theoretically, a crisis and austerity period may trigger changes in budget execution in one of two key directions: either toward greater control or greater flexibility. This paper seeks to uncover which outcome is more likely.

The authors conducted elite interviews of key officials involved in the budget execution phases in two European countries: Portugal and Austria.

The cases demonstrate that the experience of a fiscal crisis and period of austerity tend to lead to greater control and constrained flexibility in budget execution.

The execution phase of the budget process has remained underexplored in the public budgeting literature, and there has been only limited discussion on how the experience of austerity affects it. This empirical study of Portugal and Austria helps to shed light on that question.