Ecological Focus Areas (EFAs) are one of the three new greening measures of the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). We used an interdisciplinary and European‐scale approach to evaluate ...ecological effectiveness and farmers’ perception of the different EFA options. We assessed potential benefits of EFA options for biodiversity using a survey among 88 ecologists from 17 European countries. We further analyzed data on EFA uptake at the EU level and in eight EU Member States, and reviewed socio‐economic factors influencing farmers’ decisions. We then identified possible ways to improve EFAs. Ecologists scored field margins, buffer strips, fallow land, and landscape features as most beneficial whereas farmers mostly implemented “catch crops and green cover,” nitrogen‐fixing crops, and fallow land. Based on the expert inputs and a review of the factors influencing farmers’ decisions, we suggest that EFA implementation could be improved by (a) prioritizing EFA options that promote biodiversity (e.g., reducing the weight or even excluding ineffective options); (b) reducing administrative constraints; (c) setting stricter management requirements (e.g., limiting agrochemical use); and (d) offering further incentives for expanding options like landscape features and buffer strips. We finally propose further improvements at the next CAP reform, to improve ecological effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness.
Full text
Available for:
FZAB, GIS, IJS, IZUM, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
This article explores an integrative approach for dealing with wicked problems. Wicked problems not only require alternative action strategies but also alternative ways of observing and enabling. ...Four governance capabilities are essential: (a) reflexivity, or the capability to deal with multiple frames; (b) resilience, or the capability to adjust actions to uncertain changes; (c) responsiveness, or the capability to respond to changing agendas and expectations; (d) revitalization, or the capability to unblock stagnations. These capabilities form the basis for achieving small wins in wicked problems. We illustrate our argument with examples from sustainable food production of the Common Agricultural Policy.
Full text
Available for:
NUK, OILJ, SAZU, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
In the European Union (EU-27) and UK, animal farming generated annually more than 1.4 billion tonnes of manure during the period 2016–2019. Of this, more than 90% is directly re-applied to soils as ...organic fertiliser. Manure promotes plant growth, provides nutritious food to soil organisms, adds genetic and functional diversity to soils and improves the chemical and physical soil properties. However, it can also cause pollution by introducing toxic elements (i.e., heavy metals, antibiotics, pathogens) and contribute to nutrient losses. Soil organisms play an essential role in manure transformation into the soil and the degradation of any potential toxic constitutes; however, manure management practices often neglect soil biodiversity.
In this review, we explored the impact of manure from farmed animals on soil biodiversity by considering factors that determine the effects of manure and vice versa. By evaluating manure's potential to enhance soil biodiversity, but also its environmental risks, we assessed current and future EU policy and legislations with the ultimate aim of providing recommendations that can enable a more sustainable management of farm manures.
This review explored the relationship between manure and soil biodiversity by considering 407 published papers and relevant legislative provisions. In addition, we evaluated whether benefits and risks on soil biodiversity are considered in manure management. Thereafter, we analysed the current legislation in the European Union relevant to manure, an important driver for its treatment, application and storage.
This review found that coupling manure management with soil biodiversity can mitigate present and future environmental risks. Our analyses showed that manure quality is more important to soil biodiversity than manure quantity and therefore, agricultural practices that protect and promote soil biodiversity with the application of appropriate, high-quality manure or biostimulant preparations based on manure, could accelerate the move towards more sustainable food production systems. Soil biodiversity needs to be appropriately factored in when assessing manure amendments to provide better guidelines on the use of manure and to reduce costs and environmental risks. However, radical changes in current philosophies and practices are needed so that soil biodiversity can be enhanced by manure management.
Manure quality in the EU requires greater attention, calling for more targeted policies. Our proposed approach could be applied by European Union Member States to include soil protection measures in national legislation, and at the EU level, can enable the implementation of strategic goals.
Display omitted
•More than 1.4 billion t y−1 of manure are generated in the EU and UK and re-applied to soils with potential harmful effects.•Current European regulations on manure disposal are scattered across different legislations and ignore soil biodiversity.•This review of 407 documents revealed that manure quality is more important to soil biodiversity than manure quantity.•To promote soil biodiversity by manure amendments, a radical transformation in the way agriculture is conducted is needed.•This approach could reinforce EU MS' commitment to protect soils and improve future agricultural policies at the EU level.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
This study evaluates the extent to which farmers respond heterogeneously to the agri-environmental policies implemented in the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Our identification and ...estimation strategy combines a theory-driven research design formalizing all possible sources of heterogeneity with a Bayesian additive regression trees algorithm. Results from a 2015–2018 panel of Italian farms show that the responsiveness to these policies may differ substantially across farms and farm groups. This suggests room for improvement in implementing these policies. We also argue that the specific features of the CAP call for a careful implementation of these empirical techniques.
Full text
Available for:
IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
Agricultural intensification and associated loss of high‐quality habitats are key drivers of insect pollinator declines. With the aim of decreasing the environmental impact of agriculture, the 2014 ...EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) defined a set of habitat and landscape features (Ecological Focus Areas: EFAs) farmers could select from as a requirement to receive basic farm payments. To inform the post‐2020 CAP, we performed a European‐scale evaluation to determine how different EFA options vary in their potential to support insect pollinators under standard and pollinator‐friendly management, as well as the extent of farmer uptake.
A structured Delphi elicitation process engaged 22 experts from 18 European countries to evaluate EFAs options. By considering life cycle requirements of key pollinating taxa (i.e. bumble bees, solitary bees and hoverflies), each option was evaluated for its potential to provide forage, bee nesting sites and hoverfly larval resources.
EFA options varied substantially in the resources they were perceived to provide and their effectiveness varied geographically and temporally. For example, field margins provide relatively good forage throughout the season in Southern and Eastern Europe but lacked early‐season forage in Northern and Western Europe. Under standard management, no single EFA option achieved high scores across resource categories and a scarcity of late season forage was perceived.
Experts identified substantial opportunities to improve habitat quality by adopting pollinator‐friendly management. Improving management alone was, however, unlikely to ensure that all pollinator resource requirements were met. Our analyses suggest that a combination of poor management, differences in the inherent pollinator habitat quality and uptake bias towards catch crops and nitrogen‐fixing crops severely limit the potential of EFAs to support pollinators in European agricultural landscapes.
Policy Implications. To conserve pollinators and help protect pollination services, our expert elicitation highlights the need to create a variety of interconnected, well‐managed habitats that complement each other in the resources they offer. To achieve this the Common Agricultural Policy post‐2020 should take a holistic view to implementation that integrates the different delivery vehicles aimed at protecting biodiversity (e.g. enhanced conditionality, eco‐schemes and agri‐environment and climate measures). To improve habitat quality we recommend an effective monitoring framework with target‐orientated indicators and to facilitate the spatial targeting of options collaboration between land managers should be incentivised.
Resumen
La intensificación agrícola y la consecuente pérdida de hábitats de alta calidad son desencadenantes clave del declive de los insectos polinizadores. Con el objetivo de disminuir el impacto ambiental de la agricultura, la Política Agrícola Común (PAC) de la UE de 2014 definió un conjunto de medidas para hábitats y paisajes (Áreas de Enfoque Ecológico: EFA por sus siglas en inglés) que los agricultores podían seleccionar como requisito para recibir pagos agrícolas básicos. Para informar la reforma de la PAC a partir a 2020, realizamos una evaluación a escala europea para determinar cómo las diferentes opciones de EFA varían en su potencial para asistir a los insectos polinizadores bajo un manejo estándar y amigable con los polinizadores, así como su aceptación por parte de los agricultores.
El proceso estructurado de elicitación Delphi para evaluar las opciones de EFA involucró a 22 expertos de 18 países europeos. Se consideraron los requisitos de los diferentes taxones de polinizadores (es decir, abejorros, abejas solitarias y sírfidos) evaluando cada opción por su potencial para proporcionar forraje, sitios de nidificación y recursos para las larvas.
Las opciones de EFA variaron sustancialmente en la cantidad de recursos que se percibía que proporcionan y su efectividad vario geográfica y temporalmente. Por ejemplo, los márgenes de cultivos proporcionan un forraje relativamente bueno durante toda la temporada en el sur y el este de Europa, pero carecen de forraje a principios de temporada en el norte y oeste de Europa. Bajo el manejo estándar, ninguna opción de EFA logró puntuaciones altas en todas las categorías de recursos y en general se percibió una escasez de forraje al final de la temporada.
Los expertos identificaron oportunidades sustanciales para mejorar la calidad del hábitat mediante la adopción de un manejo amigable con los polinizadores. Sin embargo, mejorar la gestión por sí solo es poco probable que garantice que se cumplan todos los requisitos necesarios para los polinizadores. Nuestro análisis sugiere que una combinación de manejo inadecuado, diferencias de calidad inherentes a los distintos hábitat y el sesgo de aceptación hacia cultivos de cobertura y cultivos que fijan nitrógeno limitan severamente el potencial de los EFA para apoyar a los polinizadores en los paisajes agrícolas europeos.
Implicaciones políticas. Para conservar a los polinizadores y ayudar a proteger los servicios de polinización, nuestro estudio destaca la necesidad de crear una variedad de hábitats interconectados y bien administrados que se complementen entre sí en los recursos que ofrecen. Para lograr esto, la PAC post‐2020 debe integrar los diferentes vehículos de implementación destinados a proteger la biodiversidad (por ejemplo, condicionalidad mejorada, esquemas ecológicos y medidas agroambientales y climáticas). Para mejorar la calidad del hábitat, recomendamos un marco de monitoreo efectivo con indicadores orientados a objetivos y incentivar la colaboración entre los administradores de las tierras.
Résumé
L’intensification agricole et la perte associée d'habitats semi‐naturels sont les principaux moteurs du déclin des insectes pollinisateurs. Dans l'intention de réduire l'impact environnemental de l'agriculture, la politique agricole commune (PAC) de l'UE de 2014 a défini un ensemble d'habitats et d’éléments paysagers (surfaces d'intérêt écologique: SIE) dans la mise en place ou le respect desquels les agriculteurs pouvaient s'engager comme condition pour bénéficier d'aides économiques européennes (droit au paiement de base). Pour éclairer la PAC post‐2020, nous avons évalué à l'échelle européenne et à dire d'expert, d'une part les potentialités des diverses SIE à favoriser les insectes pollinisateurs, via une gestion standard et via une gestion optimisée, et d'autre part l'étendue de l'adoption de ces mesures par les agriculteurs.
Un processus structuré d’élaboration et d'agrégation des opinions (méthode Delphi) a fait appel à 22 experts de 18 pays européens pour évaluer les potentialités des diverses SIE. Considérant les traits bioécologiques des principaux taxons pollinisateurs (i.e. bourdons, abeilles solitaires et syrphes), chaque SIE a été évaluée pour son potentiel à fournir des ressources trophiques et des sites de reproduction (sites de nidification pour les bourdons et abeilles, sites de ponte et développement larvaire pour les syrphes).
Les SIE différaient considérablement les unes des autres sur les ressources qu'elles étaient censées offrir et leur efficacité variait géographiquement et temporellement. Par exemple, les bords de champ peuvent fournir des ressources trophiques tout au long de l'année en Europe du Sud et de l'Est mais pas en début de saison en Europe du Nord et de l'Ouest. En cas de gestion standard, aucun type de SIE n'atteint de score élevé pour aucun type de ressource, et une période de disette alimentaire survient en fin de saison.
Les experts ont mis en évidence de possibles et substantielles améliorations des SIE par le biais de leur gestion optimisée. Cependant, cette seule amélioration ne garantit pas la fourniture de ressources suffisantes aux pollinisateurs des paysages agricoles européens. Pour cela, des habitats spécifiques doivent être favorisés, dont la mise en place ne doit pas être entravée par un choix massif de SIE à base de cultures intermédiaires pièges à nitrates ou fixatrices d'azote.
Implications politiques. Pour préserver les pollinisateurs et le service de pollinisation des plantes entomophiles, notre étude souligne la nécessité de créer une diversité d'habitats interconnectés, gérés de façon optimale, qui se complètent mutuellement dans les ressources qu'ils offrent. Pour atteindre cet objectif, la PAC post‐2020 doit adopter une vision holistique de la mise en œuvre des différents leviers de protection de la biodiversité (e.g. éco‐conditionnalité renforcée, programmes verts ou ‘eco‐schemes’, mesures agro‐environnementales et climatiques). Pour réellement améliorer la qualité des habitats, nous recommandons des suivis efficaces de la biodiversité à l'aide d'indicateurs pertinents. Enfin, pour optimiser la disposition spatiale des SIE et leur connectivité, la collaboration entre les différents gestionnaires des espaces agricoles doit être encouragée.
Samenvatting
De achteruitgang van bestuivende insecten in het landelijk gebied is voornamelijk het gevolg van intensivering van de landbouw en het daarmee gepaard gaande verlies van geschikt voedsel‐ en nestelhabitat. Om de impact van de landbouw op het milieu te verminderen zijn in 2014 binnen het EU Gemeenschappelijk landbouwbeleid (GLB) een aantal Ecologische Aandachtsgebieden (Ecological Focus Areas, EFAs) vastgesteld die boeren kunnen implementeren om te voldoen aan de eisen voor directe inkomenssteun. In deze studie hebben we, ten behoeve van de hervorming van het GLB voor de periode na 2020, op Europese schaal een evaluatie uitgevoerd van de potentiële waarde van verschillende EFAs voor bestuivers. De waarde van EFAs is hierbij beoordeeld onder gangbaar beheer en in het geval het beheer voor bestuivers geoptimaliseerd zou worden.
De evaluatie is uitgevoerd door middel van de Delphi‐methode, waarbij 22 experts uit 18 Europese landen betrokken waren. Op basis van de levenscyc
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
Investigating the impact of public subsidies on farm technical efficiency is becoming a critical issue in applied agricultural policy analysis. This article presents a meta-analysis of empirical ...results on this issue, based on data gathered from a systematic literature review. We find that, in the empirical literature, subsidies are commonly negatively associated with farm technical efficiency. Meta-regression estimation results show that the direction (significantly negative, significantly positive or non-significant) of the observed effects is sensitive to the way subsidies are modelled in the empirical studies.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
The empirical literature suggests that farmland prices and rents capitalise agricultural subsidies and that the 2003 reform of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, which decoupled subsidies from ...production and attached them to land, may have increased the extent of the phenomenon. Employing a farm‐level dataset, the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) for Italy, we investigate this issue while accounting for selectivity, endogeneity and unobserved individual heterogeneity. To understand the impact of the reform we compare the estimates of capitalisation rate for decoupled payments with those for coupled payments. After correcting for unobserved individual heterogeneity and selectivity, our results reveal no capitalisation of coupled payments and only limited capitalisation of decoupled area payments into farmland rents in Italy.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
•We compare literature and interviews on farmers’ decision-making.•Literature suggests a wide range of interacting factors affect farmer choices.•Policy-maker interviews reveal a narrow focus on ...economic and structural factors.•Simplistic design of environmental subsidies may limit uptake and effectiveness.•Better understanding of farmer motivations can help achieve environmental goals.
The European Union Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has failed to achieve its aim of preserving European farmland biodiversity, despite massive investment in subsidies to incentivise environmentally-beneficial farming practices. This failure calls into question the design of the subsidy schemes, which are intended to either function as a safety net and make farming profitable or compensate farmers for costs and loss of income while undertaking environmental management. In this study, we assess whether the design of environmental payments in the CAP reflects current knowledge about farmers’ decision-making as found in the research literature. We do so on the basis of a comprehensive literature review on farmers’ uptake of agri-environmental management practices over the past 10 years and interviews specifically focused on Ecological Focus Areas with policy-makers, advisors and farmers in seven European countries. We find that economic and structural factors are the most commonly-identified determinants of farmers’ adoption of environmental management practices in the literature and in interviews. However, the literature suggests that these are complemented by – and partially dependent on – a broad range of social, attitudinal and other contextual factors that are not recognised in interview responses or, potentially, in policy design. The relatively simplistic conceptualisation of farmer behaviour that underlies some aspects of policy design may hamper the effectiveness of environmental payments in the CAP by over-emphasising economic considerations, potentially corroding farmer attitudes to policy and environmental objectives. We conclude that an urgent redesign of agricultural subsidies is needed to better align them with the economic, social and environmental factors affecting farmer decision-making in a complex production climate, and therefore to maximise potential environmental benefits.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
•Key discourses of the CAP were transformed in a way that emphasised the environment.•The productivist discourse was also strengthened at the level of budget distribution.•The study has shown the ...usefulness of critical discourse analysis for policy analysis.
Existing studies have employed discourse analysis to examine the reform of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) but have only partially studied the implementation of the discourse in the context of CAP measures and budgetary distribution. The present study tries to fill this gap. By conducting a discourse analysis of the latest CAP reform (2014–2020) documents, we attempted to determine which discourses and discourse strategies predominated in the reform’s documentation and how they were implemented into measures and budgetary distributions. The findings show that in the process of CAP reform decision-making, European institutions justified the CAP with a transformation of key discourses (productivist, multi-functional and neo-liberal) by emphasising the hugely popular environmental element while, at the same time, employing a strong productivist discourse at the level of measures and the budgetary distribution between the EU member states and farmers’ groups. In order to retain a strong CAP as well as the current distribution of financial resources, the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Council employed greening as a justification strategy as well as a productivist discourse as a major component in determining CAP measures.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Abstract
We theoretically examine the gains of the decentralisation of agri-environmental policy design. We consider a model with homogeneous regions and joint production of local and global public ...goods from agriculture. Assuming that governments are characterised by different agency costs and knowledge of the PG values, we evaluate whether decentralisation is a suitable strategy to improve the efficiency of agri-environmental payments. We find that partial decentralisation always improves the welfare. We apply our theoretical model to the case of abandoned wetlands in Brittany. We find that national governments are the most suitable to design agri-environmental policies. Our results contribute to reflections on future Common Agricultural Policy.
PDF
