THE INFLUENCE OF POLICY ON SOIL CONSERVATION: A CASESTUDY FROM GREECE

N. BARBAYIANNIS1, K. PANAYOTOPOULOS1, D. PSALTOPOULOS2 AND D. SKURAS2*1Faculty of Agriculture, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

2Department of Economics, University of Patras, University Campus–Rio, Patras, GR 26504, Greece

Received 23 September 2009; Revised 29 July 2010; Accepted 31 August 2010

ABSTRACT

Erosion of topsoil, loss of organic matter and irrigation water salinisation are the major soil conservation issues in Greek agriculture. Cross-compliance measures applied under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) form the backbone of the soil conservation policy in Greece.CAP reforms and especially the transition to decoupled farm payments, instability in world agricultural commodity prices and contradictingagricultural policy signals are the major causes of changing farming practices. The incapability of institutional structures to follow theobserved changes is attributed to the lack of appropriate infrastructure and low levels of human capital in quantitative and qualitative terms inthe region. Soil conservation efforts are strongly influenced by a piecemeal policy framework and institutional rigidities. The present workuses case studies presenting failures and success in applying soil conservation policy in Greece Institutional capacity, building is necessary tosupport the implementation of conservation policy at local and regional levels. Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

key words: soil erosion; soil conservation; water salinisation; Common Agricultural Policy; cross-compliance; Institutional Capacity; Greece

INTRODUCTION

Land degradation is one of the major threats to sustainable

development and a major environmental issue in the

Mediterranean area. In Greece, land degradation is revealed

by soil erosion and desertification, loss of organic matter,

salinisation–alkalisation and soil compaction. About 20 per

cent of the land surface in Greece is subject to high erosion

risk (CORINE, 1992; Kirkby et al., 2004; Kosmas et al.,

2006) caused by surface. The effect of land use on runoff and

soil erosion revealed that olives grown under semi-natural

conditions, restrict soil loss to nil values (Kosmas et al.,

1997). Tillage operations affect soil displacement, clay,

organic matter, rock fragment content, phosphorus and137Cs; the soil mainly being turned-over by moldboard

plowing (Kosmas et al., 2001). Once erosion has become

marked, the alternatives open for changing cultivation, and

thus, erosion are limited and demand new land use (Bakker

et al., 2005). Loss of organic matter and the associated

decline in soil fertility is closely related to the risk of erosion

and runoff. Evidence shows that microbial functions help

maintain available nutrient stability (Kennedy and Gewin,

1997). However, microbial communities are affected by

plant diversity resulting from tillage, overgrazing and the use

of various chemical fertilisers or pesticides (Zalidis et al.,

2002). Soil salinisation is an important issue especially in

coastal areas of Greece (Pisinaras et al., 2010). Excessive

groundwater withdrawals for irrigation cause salt-water

intrusion into coastal acquifers.

Most farming activities affecting land degradation

processes are shaped, largely, by current agricultural policies

and commodity markets influencing farmers’ choice of cash

crops. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has under-

gone a series of major reforms that have direct and indirect

effects on soil conservation. The long tradition of good

agricultural practices embedded in traditional Greek

agriculture (Beopoulos and Skuras, 1997), was institutio-

nalised for the first time under a set of obligatory cross-

compliance rules. At the same time, the way farm subsidies

were calculated and paid also changed. These reforms have

direct impacts on soil conservation by enforcing certain farm

practices but, at the same time, re-directing farm decisions

more towards the free market in order to give farmers greater

freedom to produce according to market demands.

Institutions play a multidimensional role in bridging the

agricultural policy framework with farm decisions and soil

conservation efforts. The major nodes of the institutional

network include various state agencies administered to

design, deliver and monitor policy at national, regional

and local level, farm cooperatives representing farmers’

interests and non-governmental organisations. It is possible

land degradation & development

Land Degrad. Develop. 22: 47–57 (2011)

Published online 14 October 2010 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/ldr.1053

*Correspondence to: D. Skuras, Department of Economics, University ofPatras, University Campus–Rio, Patras, GR 26504, Greece.E-mail: skuras@econ.upatras.gr

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

that past agricultural policy decisions as well as the

historical evolution of institutions had a negative effect

on conservation efforts. The central hypothesis of this work

is that current soil conservation efforts are limited by path

dependence, i.e. the agricultural policy decisions made in

the past and which are no longer relevant, as well as by the

historical evolution of institutions to their present circum-

stances. The hypothesis is tested using data from a Greek

case study: the Greek Prefecture of Rodopi in the region of

Thrace. Extensive interviews with all soil conservation

stakeholders, provide the material on which soil conserva-

tion case studies are analysed and presented. Both, good

practice examples and policy failures are identified and path

dependence is revealed.

BACKGROUND SITUATION

Farm decisions are usually made under the influence of the

farm’s assets and the market prospects of the crop. The

farm’s assets refer to the farm’s human, physical and

economic capital. These include the quantity and quality of

human capital that imposes constraints on the choice of cash

crop, the availability and quality of land and water and the

accumulated economic capital in the form of machinery and

buildings. In Greece, larger family households with

abundant labour that are located in areas distant from off-

farm employment opportunities specialise in labour inten-

sive cash crops such as the oriental sun-cured types of

tobacco (Damianos et al., 1998; Caraveli, 2000; Daskalo-

poulou and Petrou, 2002).

In recent years, the market for agricultural outputs and

inputs has been unstable for a series of products. On the

output side, since 2006, the world has experienced a very

turbulent grain market with high volatility in the price of

wheat and maize that give various signals to farmers. On the

input side, the cost of most chemical inputs and especially of

fertiliser and pesticides was also very volatile following the

turbulent oil market. Market prospects are not always clear

and some spontaneous incidents sometimes result in

contradictory signals.

Farm decisions are regulated and influenced by the current

agricultural policy framework and the action of regulatory

and monitoring institutions. The CAP is the major policy

framework applied in Greek agriculture. The CAP has

undergone significant reforms since 1992 with the aim of

unlinking farm subsidies from produced quantities. Decou-

pling, introduced by the 2003 reform of the CAP, is the

removal of the link between direct payments and production.

Prior to the reform, farmers received direct payments only if

they produced particular commodities. After decoupling,

income support is calculated on the basis of the payments

received by the farmer during a reference period (historical

model) or the size of the eligible area farmed during the first

year of the implementation of the scheme (regional model).

Subsidies are paid under the Single Farm Payment, i.e. one

annual lump sum per farm (Vlahos et al., 2009).

Direct product subsidies mean that the profitability of

producing a particular product does not depend only on the

amount of money for which the farmer could sell the product

in the market, but also on the amount of the direct payment

that associated with the product. This in turn meant

that, when farmers made their business decisions regarding

which crops to grow or which type of animal to produce,

they would have taken account of both the market price and

the direct payment. As a result, farmers responded more to

the level of the direct product subsidy and less to signals

from the market. Furthermore, policy and market signals

affect farm practices and especially tillage and irrigation

(Bockstaller et al., 2009). Decoupling introduced a single

income support payment not linked to current production.

Thus, when farmers decide what to produce they do not take

into account the level of direct subsidy, which no longer

exists. Accordingly, partial decoupling linked part of the

subsidy to crop production as is the case for cotton. If

decoupled payment is a substantial proportion of the overall

payment, farmers have no incentive to produce, unless

market expectations provide a different signal. The overall

effect of decoupling is to move the agricultural sector more

towards the free market and give farmers greater freedom to

produce according to market demand. However, receipt of

the income support payment is made on condition that

farmers look after the farmland and fulfil environmental,

animal welfare and food safety standards or what is now

called cross-compliance. In Greece, the first cross-com-

pliance measures were introduced by Joint Ministerial

Decision 324032 of 24 December 2004 adopting European

Union Regulation 1782/2003.

Cross-compliance is the creation of a link between the

receipt of direct income support payments by a farmer and

his/her compliance with certain rules, which are in the

interests of society as a whole. The rules set out farm

practices for the protection of the environment, food safety,

animal health, animal welfare, public health, plant health

and environmental condition. If the rules are not respected, a

reduction or cancellation of direct payments is possible.

Among the many cross-compliance rules, Good Agricultural

and environmental condition. If the rules are not respected, a

reduction or cancellation of direct payments is possible.

Among the many cross-compliance rules, Good Agricultural

and Environmental Condition (GAEC) requires farmers to

respect certain minimum standards for maintaining their

land. These requirements are defined by the Member States

at national or regional level and include the protection of soil

against erosion, the maintenance of soil organic matter and

soil structure, and the avoidance of the deterioration of

habitats for wildlife. Thus, the GAECs constitute a major

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 22: 47–57 (2011)

48 N. BARBAYIANNIS ET AL.

soil conservation policy for countries like Greece which did

not have a coherent and robustly expressed policy of their

own.

The soil erosion standards require that on parcels with a

slope of over 10 per cent a green cover is obligatory during

the wet period, ploughing should follow the contour lines, be

carried out on the level or diagonally, or that stable

uncultivated strips should be created as containment zones,

at distances in keeping with the characteristics of the land

and the slope. On such parcels of land, irrigation may not

take the form of flooding and terraces or natural borders

should not be destroyed. The soil organic matter standards

require that farmers must cultivate grain legumes and

incorporate them into the soil, in addition to the main crop,

on 20 per cent of the cultivated area of their farm each year

so that in a period of 5 years all farmland has been rotated.

Furthermore, and depending on the local conditions, farmers

must choose to follow one or more of the following practices

for the remaining area of their crops: First, incorporation

into the soil, second grazing the stubble, or third mulching

the ground with the remains and incorporating them into the

soil the following spring. The only soil structure standard

requires that a farmer must not carry out mechanical field

operations on waterlogged or frozen soils. Finally, under

minimum level of maintenance, farmers should comply with

the minimum stocking density for pasture land, which was

set at 0�2 livestock units per hectare for all categories of

animals.

Besides cross-compliance, the Rural Development Plans

(RDPs) for Greece had introduced a series of measures that

had profound implications on soil conservation well before

cross-compliance was introduced. The 2000–2006 RDP

included 17 agri-environmental measures the most import-

ant of which referred to organic agriculture, extensification

of livestock production, measures against water nitrification

and the conservation of stone-walls and a number of region

specific programmes. In the current RDP (2007–2013) one

of the four axes is devoted to the ‘Improvement of the

Environment and the Countryside’ continuing the perspect-

ive introduced by the 2000–2006 RDP. Finally, other non-

environmental measures under the RDPs, such as the ‘Farm

Modernisation Scheme’ or the ‘Compensatory Allowances’

directed to farmers in mountainous and less favoured areas

have influenced both soil and water conservation. The

indirect impacts of such measures may be negative, when the

purchase of heavy machinery and water demanding

irrigation systems is subsidised or positive when rural

population in adverse environments is sustained and

supported. Table I provides a quick overview of the most

important policies having either a direct or indirect effect on

soil conservation.

The major institutions involved directly or indirectly

in the design, delivery and application of soil conservation

policy in Greece include the Ministry of Agriculture,

the Agricultural Payments Organization, Farmers Coopera-

tives, Administration Authorities of Natura 2000 sites

and Environmental NGOs. The central authorities of the

Ministry of Agriculture were responsible for the design of

the soil protection policy following a rather inadequate

public consultation process. The same authorities were

responsible for setting up the Farm Advisory Service (FAS)

which, following many delays and regressions, has not been

properly applied. The prefectural authorities of the Ministry

of Agriculture were, in the very first years of the policy’s

application, responsible for information dissemination,

consultation and control of the policy’s proper application.

Later on, their role was taken up by prefectural services of

the Agricultural Payments Organization. The Agricultural

Payments Organization is responsible for granting the Single

Farm Payment to farm households and for inspecting that

cross-compliance demands are respected by beneficiaries.

Thus, the Agricultural Payments Organization sets up the

framework for on field sampling procedures, carries out

remote sensing inspections, organises laboratory controls

and applies sanctions. Farmers’ cooperatives handle the

administrative issues related to the Single Farm Payments

scheme at local level and, in principle, disseminate

information on good farming practices and provide

consultation to farmers on soil protection issues. Admin-

istration authorities of Natura 2000 sites are the most

important local environmental agencies that have a direct

interface with farmers, especially those farming near to or in

a designated Natura 2000 site. Finally, several environmen-

tal NGOs at central level such as the WWF and the Greek

branch of BirdLife International, and some at local level

expressed their concerns at various stages of the design,

implementation and monitoring of the soil protection policy.

All NGOs mentioned the absence of a serious public

consultation stage and the lack of coordination between

various measures of the CAP.

Along with the policies and institutional changes

described above, a wide range of agricultural programmes

and schemes aiming at improving the efficiency and

competitiveness of Greek agriculture took place within

two consecutive Community Support Frameworks and

especially within the Rural Development Programme and

several regional operational programmes. One of the most

important measures that is directly related to soil protection

was the programme aiming at farm modernisation. This

programme provided capital subsidies to farmers for the

acquisition of, among other things, machinery and irrigation

systems. Through this programme heavier tractors and

harvesting machines were acquired with profound impact on

soil compaction and erosion. Furthermore, the ability to

irrigate more land promoted private water extraction

activities or drilling deeper at existing sites for pumping

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 22: 47–57 (2011)

THE INFLUENCE OF POLICY ON SOIL CONSERVATION 49

Table

I.A

selectionofpolicy

measureshavingmajordirectorindirecteffectsonsoilconservationeffortsin

Greece

Policy

measure

Origin

Aim

Prescriptions

GAEG

–Good

Agriculturaland

Environmental

Condition

EU

Cross-Compliance

Regulation

1782/2003

Confrontsoilerosion

Maintain

green

cover

duringwet

periods

Conserveandenrich

soil

organic

matter

Ploughinginstructions

Protect

soilstructure

Maintenance

ofterraces

andnaturalborders

Cultivationoflegumes

andincorporationin

thesoil

Instructionsto

managetheremainsofcrops

Prohibitionofmechanical

operation

onwaterlogged

andfrozensoil

Maxim

um

anim

alstock

toavoid

soilcompaction

Minim

isefarm

interventionsonpermanentpastures

SMR–Statutory

Managem

ent

Requirem

ents

EU

Cross-Compliance

Regulation

1782/2003incorporating:

Protectionofbirds

Prohibited

incorporationofgranularagrochem

icals

inthesoil

WildBirdDirective(79/409/EEC)

Protectionofgroundwater

from

pollution

Instructionsforusinganddisposingchem

icals

Groundwater

Directive(80/68/EEC)

Protectionofsoilfrom

pollution

Instructionsforapplyingsewagesludge

Sew

ageSludgeDirective(86/278/EEC)

Establish

nitrate

vulnerable

zones

Restricttheuse

ofnitrogen

fertiliser

NitratesDirective(91/676/EEC)

Protect

habitats

Maintain

naturalvegetationat

farm

borders

andpreservenaturalvegetationislands

Fauna,

Flora

andHabitat

Directive

(92/43/EEC)

Farmingin

Natura

2000

areas

TheRuralDevelopmentPlanforGreece

2007–2013im

plementingRegulation

1698/2005andannex

IIof

Regulation1974/2006

Protect

habitatsandsoilon

farm

slocatedwithin

Natura

2000designated

areas

Harvestinginstructions

Preservationofnaturalborders

Protectionofnaturalwater

collectionelem

ents

Organic

Farming

TheRuralDevelopmentPlanforGreece

2007–2013im

plementing

Regulation2092/91

Promote

organic

agriculture

GoodFarmingPractices

that

supporteffortsto

combat

soilerosion,enhance

organic

matter

andavoid

compactionfrom

theuse

of

heavymachinery

TheFarm

Modernisation

Schem

e

TheRuralDevelopmentPlanforGreece

2007–2013im

plementing

Regulation2092/91

Subsidiseinvestm

ents

aimingat

improving

productivity,

incomes

and

employmentin

ruralareas

Subsidizationofirrigationequipmentpromoting

rational

use

ofwater

resources

Subsidizationofheavymachinery

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 22: 47–57 (2011)

50 N. BARBAYIANNIS ET AL.

irrigation water. Of course, at the same time the farm

modernisation scheme promoted the installation of more

sound water management farming practices such as the

purchase of drip-irrigation systems.

CASE STUDY AREA AND DATA

The Case Study Area of Rodopi

The case study area of this work is the Prefecture of Rodopi

that covers an area of 2553 km2 and is one of the three

prefectures forming the region of Thraki in North-Eastern

Greece. Following the 2003 full decoupling of tobacco

cultivation in Greece, production has fallen by 80 per cent

and the number of growers shrunk from around 50 000–

15 000 (Vlahos et al., 2009). Rodopi is one of the Greek

prefectures where tobacco cultivation did not vanish

completely and thus, still offers the chance to examine

the effects of full decoupling (tobacco), partial decoupling

(cotton) and the grain regime. Furthermore, Rodopi’s

agriculture is typical of the type of survivalist agriculture

that dominates rural Greece (Daskalopoulou and Petrou,

2002), while Rodopi’s soil conservation issues are repre-

sentative of the problems met around major cultivation

regions in Greece, without any extremes (Pisinaras et al.,

2010).

Soil parent materials are formed from river deposits and

on alluvial plains, alluvial fans and terraces, while lacustrine

deposits cover a small area. The dominating soil types on the

lower parts of the alluvial plains are Fluvisols and are

characterised by successive layers of different texture more

common sandy-loam and sandy clay-loam. Soils on flat

areas are very well or well drained with very little or no

erosion while those on gentle slopes have suffered erosion

and lost part of the surface layer. Soils on the higher parts of

the alluvial plains and alluvial fans are classified as

Cambisols with a cambic horizon. In general, these soils

are well-drained with very little or no erosion. Soils on the

alluvial terraces are classified as Luvisols with an argillic

horizon. Luvisols of the area are well-drained soils and

those on the higher parts of the areas have suffered

from erosion. The climate of the region is typical

Mediterranean with cold winters and dry warm hot

summers. Mean annual temperature is 14�88C with mean

maximum in August 30�48C and minimum 1�48C in

December. A very important characteristic of the climate

in relation to agriculture is that from the beginning of June to

the end of August evapotranspiration demands are not

supplied by precipitation and irrigation is necessary.

Farming in Rodopi covers an area of 255 030 ha of which

38 per cent is utilised agricultural area (UAA) in the form of

arable land and permanent cultivation, 14 per cent is covered

by various types of grassland and the remaining 48 per cent

is covered by forests and mixed public grasslands and

forests. Natural protected land is distributed among seven

Natura 2000 sites covering an area of 104 244 ha. The rest of

the land is covered by inland waters (8260 ha) and urban

land and infrastructure (3550 ha). Farms in Rodopi are

characteristic by the structural problems of Greek agricul-

ture, i.e. the small size of holdings and extreme fragmenta-

tion The latest available Survey of the Structures of

Agricultural Holdings in 2005 (NSSG, 2007), records

16 678 farm holdings with an average farm size of around

4�8 ha and extreme fragmentation. Each household’s land is

distributed to an average of 7�78 plots and each plot has an

average size of 0�62 ha. This situation is aggravated by the

unequal distribution of farm holdings to land size categories

as almost 36 per cent of all farm holdings cultivate holdings

of <2 ha. Almost 80 per cent of the farms are pure crop

holdings, 18�5 per cent are mixed farm and livestock

holdings and only 1�5 per cent is pure livestock.

The major annual crops are cereals (37 256 ha), tobacco

(6920 ha), and cotton (23 575 ha). Recently, all of these were

subject to substantial policy reforms. The policy regime

of the common market organisation for tobacco and cereals

moved to full decoupling and for cotton to partial

decoupling. The markets for cereals and oil seeds have

experienced large market fluctuations due to the policy

supporting energy crops and the observed international

market shortages. As a result, areas under tobacco dropped

from 6400 ha in 2005 to 5000 ha in 2007 with the trend

continuing in most recent cultivation periods, and the total

non-cultivated land increased from 3000 ha in 2005 to

12 000 ha in 2007. An important development occurred in

cotton cultivation, which against all expectations increased

from 23 100 ha in 2005 to 28 000 ha in 2007 mainly due to

the price received for cotton seeds used by the oil seed

industry and the fact that cotton shows more resistance to

saline irrigation water.

In 2005, almost 88 per cent of farm households had access

to irrigation and a capability to irrigate 49 400 ha or 67 per

cent of UAA. In 2005, 9756 farm enterprises (almost 60 per

cent of the total number of households) owned their own

tractor. Taking into account that the respective national

percentage is around 30 per cent, Rodopi’s agriculture

should be considered as highly mechanised. Rodopi’s

agriculture is typical of the Greek family farm model with

restricted off farm employment opportunities. In 2005, the

recorded 16 674 farm households employed 38 746 mem-

bers of family of which 30 820 (almost 83 per cent) were

employed exclusively or mainly in their household, the rest

17 per cent being employed partly. Finally, it is important to

mention that, besides a marginal adoption of organic

agriculture no other agri-environmental measure either was

submitted by institutions or was voluntarily adopted by

farmers in Rodopi. Cotton producers demanded the

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 22: 47–57 (2011)

THE INFLUENCE OF POLICY ON SOIL CONSERVATION 51

application of a programme against water nitrification,

which in the region of Thessaly, was linked to a substantial

subsidy aiming at offsetting foregone production.

Data and Methods

In the framework of this work, we anticipated a wide

information collection process that targeted four segments of

the population involved in soil conservation policy in Greek

agriculture including soil experts, farmers, and personnel of

governmental and non-governmental bodies involved in the

design, implementation or control at local, regional or

central level. The survey does not aim to, and its sample size

does not allow for, any comprehensive statistical analysis.

The selection of stakeholders was based on expert knowl-

edge of the area and of the policy framework. As such,

farmers were selected according to the location and the size

of their farm in order to represent all dominant soil types and

the average area of major crops, namely tobacco, cotton and

cereals. The number of officials from governmental organ-

isations and non-governmental organisations was determined

from the number of organisations involved in the design and

implementation of policy. Respondents from non-govern-

mental organisations included all those who agreed to our

invitation to participate in our survey.

Information collection was carried out mainly through

face-to-face interviews in March and April 2008 with

members of the aforementioned groups. Interviews were

guided by questionnaires that contained closed questions

demanding from the respondent to fill in information or

a number or to tick a series of boxes. It also contained open

questions where the respondent could record his/her own

opinion more extensively or he/she could justify the

response provided to one of the closed questions. In general,

the questionnaires aimed at eliciting information about the

respondent, his/her perception of status of soils in the area,

farm practices being employed to conserve soils, the impacts

and motivation for taking up such practices, his/her

experiences of policies, approaches to policy administration

and implementation and his/her perceptions of the effec-

tiveness of soil protection measures. The survey resulted

in 25 completed and usable questionnaires including 12

farmers (five cotton, four tobacco and three cereal growers),

three soil experts, three government officials at the central

level and two at the local level, three members of non-

governmental environmental bodies and two officials

representing the local and the central union of farmers’

cooperatives respectively. Information collection was also

extended to organisations and agencies that were not directly

involved in the framework of this work but it was evident

from the interviews that their operation has a more-or-less

marginal impact either on policy formulation and design or

on policy implementation. From these institutions, we

collected reports, studies or information relevant to our work

from their websites or through telephone conversations.

According to all respondents, the most severe soil

conservation issue is related to the risk of soil salinisation

due to saline irrigation water followed by the two highly

related issues of soil erosion and loss of organic matter. In

general, the soil conservation issues are perceived to be less

acute by farmers and government officials and more acute by

non-governmental environmental organisations. In the course

of the interviews we were able to relate each one of the

identified soil conservation issues with associated farm

practices and agronomic impacts. Water salinisation is

caused by irrigation with saline waters from wells affected

by sea-water intrusion in the lowlands resulting in accumu-

lation of salt on topsoil. This reduces the yield of sensitive-to-

salt crops and prevents the cultivation of specific crops, e.g.

orchards, in areas affected by salt accumulation. Furthermore,

soil erosion is caused by surface runoff due to inappropriate

irrigation methods, leaving the soil bare during periods of

heavy rain, not ploughing along the contours and increasing

compaction from the use of heavy machinery during

ploughing or harvesting.

RESULTS

In this section, we present a critical review of the factors

affecting a serious soil deterioration risk, i.e. that of water

salinisation, and we review the experience from the

application of two soil conservation efforts, i.e. that of

the measures protecting soils from erosion and of the

measures protecting from loss of organic matter. Our critical

review is enriched by evidence provided by respondents of

our field survey. All cases reveal the crucial role played by

agricultural policy decisions in view of the contemporary

situation in agricultural products markets and the role played

by agricultural institutions. The case studies underline the

significant role of path dependence in policy decisions and

the evolution of institutions. All respondents stressed this

role during our in-depth interviews either by providing

examples and complaints or by supplying illuminating

empirical cases that assisted us to synthesise the presentation

of the case studies.

Water Salinisation

Soil salinisation in Rodopi is caused by saline irrigation

water. Electrical conductivity (ECe) values show a wide

variance ranging from a minimum of 0�35mS cm�1 in

December to a maximum of 25�7mS cm�1 in September

(Pisinaras et al., 2010). In most parts of Rodopi ECe values

exceed 4mS cm�1 which is the critical value reported by the

US Salinity Laboratory for soils that are stressed by

salinisation (Pisinaras et al., 2010). ECe increases during the

irrigation period starting with low rates in late March after

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 22: 47–57 (2011)

52 N. BARBAYIANNIS ET AL.

the drilling of the crops (mainly cotton), higher rates in June

with the application of fertilisers and reaches the maximum

during July and late August–early September during and

after harvesting. The lowland coastal zone suffers most, as

sea-water intrusion into aquifers has a long-term recorded

effect (Diamantis and Petalas, 1989).

Maize and cotton are the prime water demanding crops of

the area. Despite the fact that these were subject to different

policy treatment, both contributed to increased salinisation

of irrigation water. The cultivation of maize was fully

decoupled from production while the cultivation of cotton

was partly decoupled. This means that farmers could get a

percentage of the payment without cultivating their land and

the rest of the payment was given to the farmers growing

cotton up to the final stage (cotton ball) irrespective of

whether they delivered their product to ginners. Both crops

are irrigated by sprinklers and only few cotton farmers have

adopted drip irrigation methods. Almost all irrigation water

comes from private wells drilled by farmers on their own

land. The change in agricultural policy transmitted to

farmers two signals. First, the cultivation of maize should be

governed purely by market mechanisms. Second, the

cultivation of cotton is desirable insofar as the part of the

coupled payment plus the market price can cover cultivation

expenses and make a profit for the farmer. At the same time,

another policy supported the bio-fuel market, which

increased the price of cotton seed. Thus, the price of the

farm’s product made up by the price of cotton for ginning

and the price of cotton seed for oil and bio fuel was adequate

to sustain the cultivation of the product. On top of these, one

should consider first, that cotton is able to grow on basic top

soils resultant from saline irrigation water, second, that

many farmers had already invested in heavy machinery (e.g.

cotton harvesters) and irrigation equipment partly subsidised

by the farmmodernisation scheme and third, that alternative,

off-farm employment opportunities are restricted in this

area. Thus, it did not come to a surprise that the area

cultivated for cotton increased. In subsequent years, the

price of maize also increased as a result of the international

policies supporting the production of bio-ethanol, coupled

by maize and cereal shortages. Thus, as the cotton and

maize-growing farmers explained in the course of the

interviews, the prime water consuming crops in the area

expanded substantially and many wheat or durum wheat-

growing farmers who had the appropriate installation to

irrigate their land switched to maize or cotton. As a result,

water abstraction for agriculture increased to unprecedented

levels.

During this time of change, governmental institutions in

the area were unable to react for various reasons all rooted to

the historical evolution of agricultural institutional struc-

tures in the past 30 years. Since the country’s accession to

the then European Communities in 1981, agricultural

institutions at all spatial levels supported increased agricul-

tural production and, consequently, directed their resources

in sustaining production and increasing productivity and

managing the flow of subsidies to farmers. As a result most

funds were directed to schemes, such as the farm

modernisation scheme, that directly subsidised farm capital

in the form of unnecessary heavy machinery (e.g. high

powered tractors or capacity underutilised harvesting

machines) and unsuitable for water conservation purposes

irrigation equipment (e.g. sprinklers that can suit a wide

range of annual crops instead of drip irrigation that is

suitable for a narrower range of crops). On the other hand,

investment in baseline infrastructure was not carried out. As

a result, the area lacks a detailed soil-agronomic map, a

registration of irrigation water abstraction points, and is just

in the process of finishing a corrected farm cadastral map.

None of these is supported by a modern GIS planning and

decision base. Moreover, the institutional human capital

over years focused on managing the flow of payments,

product or capital subsidies to farms, in a bureaucratic way,

abandoned farm extension services, and lost track of its

agronomic and scientific duties.

Many governmental and non-governmental officials

stressed, in the course of the interviews, that inter- and

intra-institutional conflicts have postponed the establish-

ment or creation of new institutional structures. The officials

interviewed offered a wide range of examples where the

conflict between two or more different ministries or between

departments within the same ministry have postponed

the establishment of new institutional structures such as the

water catchment management authorities which are foreseen

by the water directive embodying the European Union’s

water policy or the FASs foreseen by the cross-compliance

policy. Officials from non-governmental organisations

underlined that semi-governmental or non-governmental

institutions such as the Natura 2000 managing authorities

remained for a long period understaffed and, in many

cases, without a management plan or clearly and legally

defined geographic boundaries. In conclusion, local institu-

tions were locked in a ‘managing for subsidies’ framework

drained from human and financial capital without adequate

baseline infrastructure to support their new roles in a

scientific way.

Soil Erosion

Greece is one of the European countries suffering from

serious erosion with about 20 per cent of its land surface

subject to erosion risk (CORINE, 1992; Kosmas et al.,

2006). Erosion is caused by deforestation for agricultural

needs and overgrazing on well-drained loamy and clayey

soils (Zalidis et al., 2002), the use of heavy machinery that

causes top soil compaction, and the frequent occurrence of

forest fires and droughts. In the area of Rodopi, the risk of

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 22: 47–57 (2011)

THE INFLUENCE OF POLICY ON SOIL CONSERVATION 53

soil erosion is higher in the hilly and mountainous areas due

to the minimum or totally absent soil cover in spring and

autumn during storm events. Average soil loss is estimated to

1–2 t ha�1 y�1 which, in the mountainous areas increases to

2–5 t ha�1 y�1.

The soil conservation policy proposes three measures

against soil erosion. First, maintaining a green cover during

the wet period and on parcels with slopes exceeding 10 per

cent, second that ploughing on steep parcels should be

carried out along contour lines and, in cases where

ploughing along contours is not possible, an alternative

measure demanding diagonal ploughing or the maintenance

of stable uncultivated strips is provided. Third, maintaining

terraces and natural borders.

The major crops grown in the hilly and mountainous areas

of the prefecture are tobacco and wheat. Tobacco in the

study area is of the oriental sun-cured varieties which are

grown with the least mechanised and most labour intensive

farming practices in the whole of Greece. On the contrary,

wheat and durum wheat in the hilly areas are grown with

fully mechanised, labour extensive practices. Wheat

demands early ploughing, mechanised seeding and harvest-

ing up to early-June when heavy rains may occur. Tobacco

was a heavily subsidised crop and its market price was not

enough to cover even the operating expenses of the farm.

Agricultural policy measures subsidised the purchase of

tobacco ovens in order for farmers to convert from sun-cured

oriental varieties to flue-cured Virginia varieties. During

recent years and following the policy decision to fully

decouple tobacco cultivation, the trend to abandon this

cultivation has been almost complete in other regions of the

Country and quite strong in Rodopi. The tobacco growers

who participated in our study argued that the policy of full

decoupling for tobacco signalled the abandonment of the

cultivation. At the same time, the increase in the price of

wheat and of durum wheat attracted those tobacco farmers

whose parcels were agronomically suitable for cereal

cultivation. As a result, the mechanised cereal cultivation

expanded in hilly areas with a medium to high risk to

erosion.

The maintenance of a green cover during the wet period

on parcels having slopes of over 10 per cent is an old farming

practice in the area and thus, was already widely adopted.

The measure concerning with ploughing along contour lines

on steep parcels, i.e. on parcels with slopes of over 10 per

cent, is not widely adopted or respected. The fact is that on

certain parcels ploughing along contours is dangerous and

farmers adopt a more convenient ploughing pattern. Farmers

do not favour ploughing diagonally because as the tractor

crosses the ploughed field, is not easy to move and increases

the cost of petrol.

Furthermore, soil conservation measures aiming at

protecting the soil from erosion demand that farmers

maintain stone terraces where these exist and also maintain

natural borders. This measure also has wider environmental

benefits. Stone terraces are a significant element of the rural

landscape in the mountainous locations of the case study

area. Natural borders offer a niche to small mammals and

other animals and birds and increase rural biodiversity.

However, the cost of maintaining stone terraces is high.

Taking into account the ageing population that cannot carry

out stone maintenance works this implies that workers

should be hired and this is a costly operation.

The case of soil conservation measures aimed at

preventing soil erosion sheds light on two important issues.

First, the fact that social and economic norms are important

for adopting and respecting technical measures concerned

with soil conservation. In places where small-scale family

farming is maintained and especially on small labour

intensive tobacco farms, mechanisation of work is rather

limited and adverse environmental effects on soils are

minimised. Furthermore, the needs of the small family farm

for fodder have embedded the measure of maintaining a

green cover in the usual farm practice whereas, on larger

more entrepreneurial and consolidated farms that cultivate

cotton or maize, mechanisation and the use of larger

machinery increases soil erosion and allows ploughing

practices that do not comply with the measures.

Second, the decision to fully decouple tobacco cultiva-

tion, should have taken account of the past and of the future

of the rural economy. As concerns the past, policies that

subsidised conversion to tobacco varieties other than

oriental, incurred a cost to the farmer which, in some cases,

has not been repaid as yet. As concerns the future, the policy

should take account of the wider socio-economic impacts

that it may cause and prepare alternative action frameworks.

In the case of tobacco cultivation in Rodopi, farmers

received extremely contradictory policy signals in just a few

years. The policy regulating tobacco growth passed from the

stage of support through heavy subsidies for sun-cured

varieties to conversion to flue-cured varieties through capital

subsidies and finally to abandonment without providing even

the most basic alternative plans for the next day. The reason

for this should be sought in the inability of local and central

institutions to design and implement contingency RDPs and

target specific groups of the rural population in specific

geographical zones. Some of the interviewed farmers

pointed out that these continuous changes are seen as

evidence that short-term political interests of keeping the

farmers happy prevail over the serious design of long-term

rural development policies.

Loss of Organic Matter

The soil conservation measures targeting loss of organic

matter are vivid examples of one complete institutional

failure and one success. The two measures on soil organic

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 22: 47–57 (2011)

54 N. BARBAYIANNIS ET AL.

matter state that first, farmers must cultivate grain legumes

and incorporate these into the soil, in addition to the main

crop, on 20 per cent of the cultivated area of their farm each

year and, second that burning the crop residues, mainly

straw, is prohibited from the 1st of May to the 1st of October

each year. Depending on local conditions, farmers must

choose to incorporate the residues in the soil, use the stubble

for grazing purposes or mulch the ground with the remains

and incorporate them into the soil the following spring.

Being cross-compliance measures, both measures were

obligatory and related to the Single Farm Payment rules.

Rotation with legumes that are subsequently ploughed-in

enriches soils with natural nitrogen due to the nitrogen

binding processes of the legumes’ root system and enhances

organic matter because legumes are then ploughed-in the

soil. Farmers objected to this measure fiercely, the main

objection being that not all soils needed the same treatment

and, as long as there was no coherent soil map of Greece

covering all micro types of soils, the application of the

measure would create extra and unjust costs to farmers that

would have otherwise been excluded from the measure.

These extra costs are associated with the foregone income of

not cultivating the land plus the cost of cultivating legumes

and incorporating them in the soil. Furthermore, if one takes

into account the conditions of family farming in certain areas

of Greece and especially the very small size and extreme

fragmentation it would be extremely difficult for many

economically marginal farms to apply the measure. Also,

one should consider the difficulties faced by the authorities

to really monitor and reinforce the application of this

measure. As a result, the measurewas suspended 1-year after

its introduction and will not be re-introduced until a unified

soil map of Greece is produced.

The second measure prohibited the widely applied

practice of burning the stubble, especially straw residues.

Greece is a Mediterranean country suffering from devastat-

ing forest and wilderness fires. In 2007, one of the worst

years for forest fires, 3000 individual fires caused the death

of 76 citizens, burned 270 000 ha of land and accounted for

55 per cent of all burned areas in the EU. Thus, the driver

behind the introduction of the measure and its strict

monitoring and control was to reduce the danger of

wilderness and forest fires. In terms of soil conservation,

however, the environmental effects of the measure are

significant. First, the measure directly contributes to

enriching organic soil matter by avoiding burning and

leaching of nutrients and organic matter. Second, the

measure protects soils from erosion especially when

mulching is the preferred alternative. Additionally, the

measure obviously improves rural landscapes.

Technically speaking, the measure’s application was not

easy especially in certain areas of Greece. As the

interviewed farmers argued, incorporation into the soil is

not easy when the soils are dry at the end of a prolonged dry

summer season. Mulching requires extra costs of labour and

machinery while grazing is not always feasible. After the

application of the measure the majority of the farmers had

chosen to incorporate residues in the soil while mulching has

been adopted only on a few larger farms. The drivers behind

the measure’s application and enforcement were two. First,

agronomic soil protection argues for the conservation of soil

organic matter and the protection of soils from erosion. This

driver may be considered as internal to agriculture. Second,

there was a wider social environmental request (external to

agriculture) for fire avoidance and protection of the rural and

wilderness landscape. Interviewed farmers that used to

incorporate their residues into the soil before the introduc-

tion of the measure and thus had a long standing experience

with the measure argued that their soils are evidently better

off than those of their neighbours who used to burn the straw.

They also argued that, when incorporation into the soil

becomes a practice, the farming costs are reduced because

certain cultivation operations (e.g. last irrigation before

harvesting, the way harvesting is implemented, etc.) are

carried out in view of residue incorporation. In that sense,

the introduction of the measure alters the way certain

cultivation practices are applied in order to create synergies

with either residue incorporation or mulching.

The application of the measure is indicative of the

resistance due to inertia created by well-established farming

practices aimed at short-term cultivation cost reduction. In

this case, burning of the farm’s residues was a long-

established practice of convenience that was further

supported by financial constraints. Farmers to increase

grazing places or enhance the capacity of deteriorated

grasslands especially when intrusion by not favourable

plants had taken place also used fires on wilderness areas.

On-the-other-hand, even the smallest farms became more

specialised and the few animals kept on farm were not

enough to sustain grazing of the residues. Also, many

parcels are far away from the farm’s main holding and

transferring the animals is not economically feasible.

However, public demand for controlling forest fires ignited

by residue burning has had an impact on changing farmers’

attitudes.

On the institutional front, the enforcement of the measure

concerned with prohibiting the burning of cultivation

residues was applied by the Greek Fire Service in

association with the Greek Forest Service. The Fire Service

is an organisation completely disengaged from any agricul-

tural or rural institution and was determined to stop the

farming practice of burning the residues from the first day

of the measure’s application. Furthermore, the Fire Service

had the resources to enforce the measure’s application and

the legal power to prosecute those who broke the law.

Furthermore, the Fires Service was assisted by a wide

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 22: 47–57 (2011)

THE INFLUENCE OF POLICY ON SOIL CONSERVATION 55

network of volunteers and civilians reporting fires to an

emergency call centre.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of soil conservation policy in Greece has

been institutionalised mainly through the introduction of the

cross-compliance rules and especially the GAECs. Exem-

plar case studies revealed that the proper implementation of

the soil conservation policy was severely affected by the fact

that institutions and agricultural policy are trapped in

historical pathways that discourages institutions from the

proper design, implementation and monitoring of soil

conservation policy and deters farmers from receiving and

interpreting policy decisions. Of course, it may be argued

that the growing interest of the CAP in the environment and

the institutionalisation of the conservation dimension with

cross-compliance rules have disengaged the policy and

institutional framework. Thus, we may witness the signs of a

long transitional period of ‘creative destruction’ where an

agricultural products policy is converted to rural and

environmental policy.

Agricultural policy and the evolution of institutions

followed a historical path depending on the subsidisation of

agricultural products and on increasing farm productivity

and efficiency. The turning point marked by agricultural

policy’s gradual disengagement from direct product sub-

sidisation and a higher orientation towards international

market demands was coupled by the simultaneous request

for cross-compliance including compliance with soil

conservation objectives. This inturn revealed that the

application of soil conservation policy contradicts with

the new directions of agricultural policy and especially the

demand for cost minimisation that will allow products to be

competitive in international markets. The new policy status

exposes institutional deficiencies for an effective design,

application and monitoring of the soil conservation policy.

All respondents agreed, unanimously, that, history has locked

agricultural policy and rural institutions into a situation,

which, if it is not discouraging for soil conservation, at least

makes very difficult the application, and the monitoring of

compliance with rules.

The historical evolution of agricultural policy sustained a

production system supported by agricultural product

subsidies and capital subsidies that oriented farm production

to higher quantities at lower cost at the expense of natural

resources including soil and water. The institutions

responded by developing a bureaucratic system adapted

to the management of product and capital subsidies. This

evolution deprived agricultural institutions of human and

capital resources that should have been devoted to the

development of basic infrastructure. As a result, the

implementation of the soil conservation policy unraveled

the deep structural deficiencies of the institutional network in

Greek rural areas. The case studies revealed that institutions

had not directed funds to prepare long-term infrastructure

necessary to design and manage soil conservation measures.

For example, the absence of a coherent and detailed soil

map prohibited the application of one of the two soil organic

matter conservation measures. The absence of modern

planning infrastructure such as GIS tools and register of

water pumping installations prohibited the effective manage-

ment of soil salinisation issues. Finally, the desire of many

existing institutions to control new institutional structures has

caused unnecessary delays in establishing new organisations

and agencies such as the Farm Advisory System, the

Watershed Management Authorities or the Natura 2000

management units.

Frequently, agricultural policy decisions have been incoher-

ent and contradictory and are sometimes inconsistent with other

non-agricultural policy decisions. In this work, we provided

many examples of agricultural policy decisions especially

regarding certain crops andmarketswhich have been incoherent

through time, e.g. changes in policy supporting tobacco

cultivation, or contradictory with each other, e.g. measures to

protect the soil from erosion and compaction while subsidising

the purchase of heavymachinery, or are not consistent with non-

agricultural policies such as energy and water management

policy. These inconsistencies have confused farmers because

they transmit contradictory signals and produce distrust towards

governmental organisations.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Work funded by European Commission’s Project on Sus-

tainable Agriculture and Soil Conservation (SoCo). Work

package 2: Soil Conservation and Policy Measures: the Case

Studies (SoCo-CS). Tender No. J05/21/2007. The authors

would like to thank the editor of this journal, the editors of

the special issue and two anonymous reviewers for their

helpful comments.

REFERENCES

Bakker M, Govers G, Kosmas C, Vanacker V, van Oost K, Rounsevell M.2005. Soil erosion as a driver of land use change. Agriculture, Ecosystemsand Environment 105: 467–481. DOI:10.1016/j.agee.2004.07.009.

Beopoulos N, Skuras D. 1997. Agriculture and the Greek rural environment.Sociologia Ruralis 37: 255–269.

Bockstaller C, Guichard L, Makowski D, Aveline A, Girardin P, PlantureuxS. 2009. Agri-environmental indicators to assess cropping and farmingsystems: A review. In Sustainable Agriculture, Lichtfouse E, NavarreteM, Debaeke P, Souchere V, Alberola C (eds). Springer, EDP Sciences:Dordrecht (The Netherlands); 725–738. DOI:10.1007/978-90-481-2666-8_44.

Caraveli H. 2000. A comparative analysis on intensification and extensi-fication inMediterranean agriculture: Dilemmas for LFAs policy. Journalof Rural Studies 16: 231–242. DOI:10.1016/S0743-0167(99)00050-9.

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 22: 47–57 (2011)

56 N. BARBAYIANNIS ET AL.

CORINE, 1992. Soil Erosion Risk and Important Land Resources in theSouthern Regions of the European Community. EUR 13233. Commissionof the European Communities: Luxembourg.

Damianos D, Dimara E, Hassapoyannes K, Skuras D. 1998. Greek Agri-culture in a Changing International Environment. Ashgate: Aldershot.

Daskalopoulou I, Petrou A. 2002. Utilising a farm typology to identifypotential adopters of alternative farming activities in Greek agriculture.Journal of Rural Studies 18: 95–103. DOI:10.1016/S0743-0167(01)00027-4.

Diamantis J, Petalas C. 1989. Sea water intrusion into coastal acquifers ofThrace and its impact on the environment. Toxicological and Environ-mental Chemistry 20–21: 291–305. DOI:10.1080/02772248909357389.

Kennedy AG, Gewin VL. 1997. Soil microbial diversity: Present and futureconsiderations. Soil Science 162: 607–617.

Kirkby M, Jones R, Irvine B, Gobin A, Govers G, Cerdan O, Van RompaeyA, Le Bissonnais Y, Daroussin J, King D, Montanarella L, Grimm M,Vieillefont V, Puigdefabregas J, Boer M, Kosmas C, Yassoglou N, TsaraM, Mantel S, Van Lynden G, Huting J. 2004. Pan-European Soil ErosionRisk Assessment: The PESERA MAP, Version 1, October 2003, Expla-nation of Special Publication Ispra 2004 No.73 (S.P.I.04.73). EuropeanSoil Bureau Research Report No.16, EUR 21176, 18 pp. and 1 map inISO B1 format. Office for Official Publications of the European Com-munities: Luxembourg.

Kosmas C, Danalatos N, Cammeraat LH, Chabart M, Diamantopoulos J,Farand R, Gutierrez L, Jacob A, Marques H, Martinez-Fernandez J,

Mizara A, Moustakas N, Nicolau JM, Oliveros C, Pinna G, Puddu R,Puigdefabregas J, Roxo M, Simao A. 1997. The effect of land use onrunoff and soil erosion rates under Mediterranean conditions. Catena 29:45–59. DOI:10.1016/S0341-8162(96)00062-8.

Kosmas C, Gerontidis St, Marathianou M, Detsis B, Zafiriou Th, NanMuysen W, Govers G, Quine T, Vanoost K. 2001. The effects of tillagedisplaced soil on soil properties and wheat biomass. Soil and TillageResearch 58: 31–44.

Kosmas C, Danalatos N, Kosma D, Kosmopoulou P. 2006. Greece. In SoilErosion in Europe, Boardman J, Poesen J (eds). John Wiley and Sons:Chichester; 279–288. DOI:10.102/0470859202.ch23.

National Statistical Service of Greece. 2007. Survey of the Structures ofAgricultural Holdings in 2005. Accessible at the NSSG’s portal: http://www.statistics.gr/portal/.

Pisinaras V, Tsihrintzis VA, Petalas C, Ouzounis K. 2010. Soil salinisation inthe agricultural lands of Rhodope District, northeastern Greece. Environ-mental Monitoring Assessment 166: 79–94. DOI: 10.1007/s10661-009-0986-6.

Vlahos G, Klonaris S, Dimopoulos D. 2009. CAP Reform Profile–Greece.Accessible at: http://cap2020.ieep.eu/member-states/greece.

Zalidis G, Stamatiadis S, Takavakoglou V, Eskridge K, Misopolinos N.2002. Impacts of agricultural practices on soil and water quality in theMediterranean region and proposed assessment methodology. Agricul-ture, Ecosystems and Environment 88: 137–146. DOI:10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00249-3.

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 22: 47–57 (2011)

THE INFLUENCE OF POLICY ON SOIL CONSERVATION 57