SOWAP results are based on 3 years' evaluation of conservation tillage on arable farms in Belgium, Hungary and the UK, growing a variety of arable crops (wheat, oilseed rape, oats, maize, sugar-beet, potatoes and sunflower) on different soil types from sandy loams to clays.

SOWAP has shown that by reducing soil disturbance and covering the soil with crop residue, conservation tillage can protect our precious soil resource by dramatically reducing erosion; for example, soil losses from fields planted with sugar beet and maize were reduced by 80 %. Conservation tillage benefits above and below-ground biodiversity like birds and earthworms by providing improved food resources and habitat. Water quality is also improved, since run-off from conservation tillage fields contains lower levels of nutrients and sediment, delivering cleaner water to streams and rivers. As a result, the aquatic invertebrate and plant life in conservation tillage catchments can be enriched. These environmental benefits can be delivered without negatively affecting farmers' income, if losses in crop yield compared to conventional systems are offset by reduced crop establishment costs.

Conservation tillage is not widely practiced in Europe. Estimates put adoption rates at only 15% across Europe with an estimated 7% in Belgium, 11% in Hungary but higher at 46% in the UK (ECAF, 2005). It is clear that the decision taken by farmers to adopt conservation tillage is dependent on the complex interaction between the practice's agronomic, environmental, economic and social costs and benefits. The practice may not applicable or appropriate everywhere; in particular, soil type and climate are important constraints.

How then can the results of the SOWAP project help policymakers and advisors promote greater uptake of conservation tillage by farmers and gain maximum benefits for farm businesses and society? SOWAP has shown that conservation tillage is practical but that knowledge transfer is vital, with practical demonstration a cornerstone of such activities; satisfying the needs of farmers by assessing new techniques. Farmers were willing participants in the project's work because of the opportunity to contribute their opinions, their interest in the outputs and their readiness to share experiences with fellow farmers.

Important questions remain. If, as seen in some Member States, agri-environment schemes have encouraged adoption should such schemes be extended particularly in regions prone to erosion? Where could long-term payments be justified because society benefits but farmers do not? Where could short-term payments cover the conversion costs for farmers and thus be a sufficient incentive for adoption? SOWAP results suggest that there is a fundamental need for policy makers and advisors to address such questions as the overall benefits are clear but they will not be uniform across Europe.