The search for approaches to a holistic sustainable agriculture requires the development of new cropping systems that provide additional ecosystem services beyond biomass supply for food, feed, material, and energy use. The reduction of chemical synthetic plant protection products is a key instrument to protect vulnerable natural resources such as groundwater and biodiversity. Together with an optimal use of mineral fertilizer, agroecological practices, and precision agriculture technologies, a complete elimination of chemical synthetic plant protection in mineral-ecological cropping systems (MECSs) may not only improve the environmental performance of agroecosystems, but also ensure their yield performance. Therefore, the development of MECSs aims to improve the overall ecosystem services of agricultural landscapes by (i) improving the provision of regulating ecosystem services compared to conventional cropping systems and (ii) improving the supply of provisioning ecosystem services compared to organic cropping systems. In the present review, all relevant research levels and aspects of this new farming concept are outlined and discussed based on a comprehensive literature review and the ongoing research project “Agriculture 4.0 without Chemical-Synthetic Plant Protection”.

By combining qualitative scenarios and life cycle assessment (LCA), we place the latter in a larger context. This study outlines the importance of the integration of future perspectives into LCA, and also the significance of taking changes in the environment of technology into account, rather than just technological development itself. Accordingly, we focused on adapting the background system of an attributional LCA in the agri-food sector. The proposed technology was assumed not have evolved in the considered time horizon. In this context, the objectives of this paper were twofold: (i) to methodologically prove the applicability of integrating qualitative scenarios into LCA and (ii) to focus on changes in the background system, which is sometimes overlooked in the context of future-oriented LCA. This allowed to evaluate the future potential of different technologies, assessing their environmental impact under uncertain future developments. Methodologically, the qualitative information from scenarios was transformed into quantitative data, which was successively fed into the life cycle inventory (LCI) of the LCA approach. This point of integration into the second phase of LCA translates into future changes in the entire environment in which a technology is used. This means that qualitatively described scenario narratives need to be converted into value estimates in order to be incorporated into the LCA model. A key conclusion is that changes in the background of an LCA—the changing framework expressed through the inventory database—can be very important for the environmental impact of emerging technologies. This approach was applied to a food processing technology to produce apple juice. The proposed methodology enables technology developers to make their products future-proof and robust against socioeconomic development. In addition, the market perspective, if spelled out in the scenarios, can be integrated, leading to a more holistic picture of LCA with its environmental focus, while simultaneously empowering actors to make the right strategic decisions today, especially when considering the long investment cycles in the agri-food sector.

This article defines the term valorization of biodiversity and ecosystem services (BES) measures, as distinguished from their valuation, and underpins it with an assessment of private valorization examples along the agri-food value chain. Valorization incentivizes measures for promoting BES, while valuation refers to its quantification. Valuation can be a step of valorization but is not indispensable. In scientific literature, the terms valorization and valuation are often used interchangeably. In addition, there is a lack of research on private options versus conventional, public policy options. Therefore, we searched for private valorization options primarily in public sources (gray literature and websites). This led to the identification of four clusters (markets for voluntary services, labeling, and certification, environmental management/CSR, and tradable permits and quotas). Based on these clusters the options were assessed from a legal and systems dynamics perspective. In addition, the viability of selected valorization options in different future scenarios was examined. The analysis revealed a wide range of private valorization options, which in contrast to public policy options that focus almost entirely on the production stage, are spread across the agri-food value chain. Their suitability differs under different future scenarios, legal and systems conditions.

Two major global challenges related to agriculture are climate change and the unbalanced nitrogen cycle. For both, national and international reduction targets have been defined to catalyse policy support for more sustainable farming systems. Miscanthus cultivation in water protection areas has been proposed as a contribution to achieving these targets. However, a thorough understanding of the underlying system dynamics at various spatial levels is required before recommendations for policy development can be provided. In this study, a model framework was established to provide economic and environmental indicator results at regional and sub‐regional levels. It presents a consequential Life Cycle Assessment coupled with an agro‐economic supply model (Economic Farm Emission Model) that simulates crop and livestock production, and an agricultural hydrology model (DAISY) that assesses effects on the nitrogen cycle. The framework is applied to Baden‐Württemberg, a federal state in southwest Germany with eight agro‐ecological regions. Scenarios investigating the differences between mandatory and voluntary miscanthus cultivation were also explored. While the results show the high potential of miscanthus cultivation for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (−16% to −724%), the potential to reduce nitrate leaching (−4% to −44%) is compromised in some sub‐regions and scenarios (+4% to +13%) by substantial effects on the crop rotation. Furthermore, the cultivation of miscanthus reduces gross margins in most sub‐regions (−0.1% to −9.6%) and decreases domestic food production (−1% to −50%). However, in regions with low livestock density and high yields, miscanthus cultivation can maintain or increase farmers' income (0.1%–5.8%) and improve environmental protection. The study shows that the heterogeneity of arable land requires a flexible promotion programme for miscanthus. Voluntary cultivation schemes were identified as most suitable to capture sub‐regional differences. Policies should address the demand for miscanthus, for example, support the development of regional value chains, including farmers, water suppliers and the biobased industry.

Agricultural land provides many different services resulting in a high competition between agricultural production, residential purposes and nature conservation. To give more insight into the competition between nature conservation and agriculture, this study empirically analyzes the impact of nature conservation on German standard farmland values by including the shares of different protected areas in a spatiotemporal regression model. The results indicate that nature conservation can influence standard farmland values, but the magnitude and direction of the effect differ depending on the type of protected area, the type of land use and by region. While there is evidence that protected areas can have a price-decreasing impact on arable land, standard farmland values for grassland tend to be mainly affected positively in the study area. Thus, the results suggest that there is not only land-use competition, but also compatibility between agricultural production and nature conservation.