Search results

The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 aims to halt the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the European Union (EU). One major driver in the loss of biodiversity is the agricultural management in many European landscapes. There is a growing pressure that far more efficient biodiversity measures in a much wider extent have to be taken in order to achieve the aims of the EU Biodiversity Strategy. However, up to now an implemented monitoring of biodiversity in agricultural landscapes is widely missing. Thus the need for a robust and coherent monitoring methodology is apparent. Such a monitoring would also enhance the data availability for the biodiversity indicators used for the evaluation of European policy, e.g. the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and would help to specify detailed targets on national and regional levels. For the development towards such a European monitoring approach the European Commission launched the project EMBAL ("European Monitoring of Biodiversity in Agricultural Landscapes") in 2017. In this approach a rapid assessment of the structure of the agricultural landscape and the state of farmland biodiversity was developed considering the results of a thorough analysis and elements of 13 existing monitoring approaches at national and European scale. Elements of the High Nature Value (HNV-) Farmland indicator (Peppiette et al 2012), the LISA-approach (IFAB 2015 / 2017) and other approaches in Europe (Herzog et al. 2016) were included in the new approach and a concrete manual was drafted and agreed on European level. A field test in five European countries has been carried out and the applicability of the drafted methodology could be approved. The EMBAL methodology is based on field surveys of plots with a size of 25 ha (500 x 500 m). The survey follows a three-fold approach: (1) an area survey (mapping), where parameters on agricultural parcels and landscape elements are recorded, (2) a vegetation survey based on transect walks, during which parameters of the vegetation and key species are assessed and (3) a photo documentation, which is a useful tool for the visual characterization of the plots as well as tracking change over time. The presentation gives an overview on current approaches and the overarching EMBAL-approach. Further results of pilot investigations of the European monitoring of biodiversity are shown. Literature: Herzog, F. & Franklin, J. (2016). State-of-the-art practices in farmland biodiversity monitoring for North America and Europe. Ambio, 45(8), 857–871. IFAB (2015 / 2017). Landscape Infrastructure and Sustainable Agriculture (LISA). Reports from two European monitoring studies on farmland biodiversity. Available under www.ifab-mannheim.de Peppiette, Z. et al. (2012): Approaches to monitoring HNV farming – EU-framework and country examples. Chapter 5.8 in Oppermann, R., Beaufoy, G., Jones, G., 2012 (eds.) High Nature Value farming in Europe. Ubstadt-Weiher. Pages 502-516. ; peerReviewed

A large proportion of European biodiversity today depends on habitat provided by low‐intensity farming practices, yet this resource is declining as European agriculture intensifies. Within the European Union, particularly the central and eastern new member states have retained relatively large areas of species‐rich farmland, but despite increased investment in nature conservation here in recent years, farmland biodiversity trends appear to be worsening. Although the high biodiversity value of Central and Eastern European farmland has long been reported, the amount of research in the international literature focused on farmland biodiversity in this region remains comparatively tiny, and measures within the EU Common Agricultural Policy are relatively poorly adapted to support it. In this opinion study, we argue that, 10 years after the accession of the first eastern EU new member states, the continued under‐representation of the low‐intensity farmland in Central and Eastern Europe in the international literature and EU policy is impeding the development of sound, evidence‐based conservation interventions. The biodiversity benefits for Europe of existing low‐intensity farmland, particularly in the central and eastern states, should be harnessed before they are lost. Instead of waiting for species‐rich farmland to further decline, targeted research and monitoring to create locally appropriate conservation strategies for these habitats is needed now. ; Volkswagen Foundation

In comparison to many Western European countries, in Romania the use of common pastures remains widespread and is strongly linked to the predominance of subsistence and semi-subsistence farming in much of the country. The majority of permanent pasture in the country is under state or community ownership, and these areas are of high natural and cultural, as well as economic importance for Romania. Whilst traditional governance systems of the commons are still partly intact, or at least within living memory here, new institutions are forming in response to substantial changes in agriculture and rural life that have been occurring, particularly since Romania's accession to the EU in 2007. We describe the changing role of common pastures for local communities in the case study region of Târnava Mare in Southern Transylvania, Romania. The number of active users here is decreasing, and those who have more animals are increasingly grazing their animals on long-term leased or private land, thus effectively no longer participating in the commons. This is encouraged by the current system of relatively low prices for agricultural products and EU agricultural support payments, which for smallholders and larger farmers alike are now a major factor in the financial viability of farming in Romania. The future of the commons in the study region will hinge on the success of the communities to self-organise and take advantage of the opportunities presented by the changing rural context of pastoral commons use. ; peerReviewed

In comparison to many Western European countries, in Romania the use of common pastures remains widespread and is strongly linked to the predominance of subsistence and semi-subsistence farming in much of the country. The majority of permanent pasture in the country is under state or community ownership, and these areas are of high natural and cultural, as well as economic importance for Romania. Whilst traditional governance systems of the commons are still partly intact, or at least within living memory here, new institutions are forming in response to substantial changes in agriculture and rural life that have been occurring, particularly since Romania's accession to the EU in 2007. We describe the changing role of common pastures for local communities in the case study region of Târnava Mare in Southern Transylvania, Romania. The number of active users here is decreasing, and those who have more animals are increasingly grazing their animals on long-term leased or private land, thus effectively no longer participating in the commons. This is encouraged by the current system of relatively low prices for agricultural products and EU agricultural support payments, which for smallholders and larger farmers alike are now a major factor in the financial viability of farming in Romania. The future of the commons in the study region will hinge on the success of the communities to self-organise and take advantage of the opportunities presented by the changing rural context of pastoral commons use.

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.

Ecological Focus Areas (EFAs) are one of the three new greening measures of the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). We used an interdisciplinary and Europeanscale 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 socioeconomic 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.

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.

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. ; peerReviewed

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.

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.

A large proportion of European biodiversity today depends on habitat provided by low-intensity farming practices, yet this resource is declining as European agriculture intensifies. Within the European Union, particularly the central and eastern new member states have retained relatively large areas of species-rich farmland, but despite increased investment in nature conservation here in recent years, farmland biodiversity trends appear to be worsening. Although the high biodiversity value of Central and Eastern European farmland has long been reported, the amount of research in the international literature focused on farmland biodiversity in this region remains comparatively tiny, and measures within the EU Common Agricultural Policy are relatively poorly adapted to support it. In this opinion study, we argue that, 10 years after the accession of the first eastern EU new member states, the continued under-representation of the low-intensity farmland in Central and Eastern Europe in the international literature and EU policy is impeding the development of sound, evidence-based conservation interventions. The biodiversity benefits for Europe of existing low-intensity farmland, particularly in the central and eastern states, should be harnessed before they are lost. Instead of waiting for species-rich farmland to further decline, targeted research and monitoring to create locally appropriate conservation strategies for these habitats is needed now.

A large proportion of European biodiversity today depends on habitat provided by low-intensity farming practices, yet this resource is declining as European agriculture intensifies. Within the European Union, particularly the central and eastern new member states have retained relatively large areas of species-rich farmland, but despite increased investment in nature conservation here in recent years, farmland biodiversity trends appear to be worsening. Although the high biodiversity value of Central and Eastern European farmland has long been reported, the amount of research in the international literature focused on farmland biodiversity in this region remains comparatively tiny, and measures within the EU Common Agricultural Policy are relatively poorly adapted to support it. In this opinion study, we argue that, 10 years after the accession of the first eastern EU new member states, the continued under-representation of the low-intensity farmland in Central and Eastern Europe in the international literature and EU policy is impeding the development of sound, evidence-based conservation interventions. The biodiversity benefits for Europe of existing low-intensity farmland, particularly in the central and eastern states, should be harnessed before they are lost. Instead of waiting for species-rich farmland to further decline, targeted research and monitoring to create locally appropriate conservation strategies for these habitats is needed now.