Suchergebnisse

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

Seit 2015 sind Ökologische Vorrangflächen (ÖVF) ein Bestandteil der EU-Agrarpolitik. Auf der Basis von Felduntersuchungen, Befragungen und Massendatenanalysen wurde untersucht, wie dieses neue Instrument iin Deutschland umgesetzt wurde. Es zeigt sich, dass Brachen, Blühflächen, Pufferstreifen und auch Klee- bzw. Luzernefeldern eine positive Wirkung auf die Fauna haben. Auf welche Weise Landwirtinnen und Landwirte die ÖVF-Verpflichtung erfüllen, hängt von diversen betrieblichen und regionalen Fajktoren ab. Ein wichtiges Kriterium isat auch der mit der Umsetzung verbundene Verwaltungsaufwand. Um mit ÖVF einen flächendeckenden Mehrwert für die Biodiversität in Ackerlandschaften zu erreichen, bedarf es einer Fokussierung auf ÖVF-Typen, die in dieser Hinsicht ökologisch besonders wirksam sind, sowie eienr deutlichen Erhöhung des Flächenanteils und eines entsprechenden Managements dieser Flächen. Eine Umsetzung, die dem Naturschutz zugute kommt, sollte dabei nicht durch komplizierte und sanktionsanfällige Auflagen erschwert werden. ; Since 2015 ecological focus areas (EFAs) have been an integral part of EU agricultural policy. Based on field investigations, interviews and analysis of mass data we examined the implementation of this instrument in Germany. It became apparent that wild fauna benefit from land lying fallow, flowering fallows, buffer strips and also clover or lucerne fileds. In which way farmers conform to the EFA obligation, depends on various farm characteristics and regional factors. The administrative burden associated with implementation is also an important criterio. In order to achieve an area-wide additional value for biodiversity in arable landscapes, there is a need to focus on EFA types that are particularly effective in this respect. It also essential to focus on a significant increase in the proportion of EFAs and the appropriate management of such areas. Forms of implementation beneficial to nature conservation should not be hindered by complicated restrictions that are prone to give rise to sanctions.

Greening is a Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) subsidy that ensures that all EU farmers receiving income support produce climate and environmental benefits as part of their farming activities. To receive greening support, it is mandatory for the farmer to carry out three agricultural practices that are considered environmentally and climate friendly: (a) crop diversification; (b) maintenance of permanent meadows and pastures; and (c) presence of an Ecological Focus Area (EFA). Contributions are delivered and monitored by paying agencies (PP) that ordinarily perform administrative checks and spot checks. The latter are provided through photo-interpretation of high-resolution satellite or aerial images and, in specific cases, through local ground checks (GC) as well. In this work, stimulated by the Piemonte Regional Agency for Payments in Agriculture (ARPEA), a prototype service to support PPs' controls within the greening CAP framework was proposed with special concern for EFA detection. The proposed approach is expected to represent a valid alternative or supporting tool for GC. It relies on the analysis of NDVI time series derived from Copernicus Sentinel-2 data. The study was conducted in the provinces of Turin, Asti and Vercelli within the Piedmont Region (NW Italy), and over 12,500 EFA fields were assessed. Since the recent National Report No. 5465 stipulates that mowing and any other soil management operation is prohibited on set-aside land designated as an EFA during the reference period (RP) between 1st March and 30th June, a time series (TS) of NDVI in the same period was generated. Once averaged at plot level, NDVI trends were modelled by a first-order polynomial, and the correspondent statistics (namely, R2, MAE and maximum residual) was computed. These were assumed to play the role of discriminants in EFA detection based on a thresholding approach (Otsu's method), calibrated with reference to the training dataset. The threshold satisfaction was therefore tested, and, depending on the number of satisfied thresholds out of the possible three, EFA and non-EFA plots were detected with a different degree of reliability. The correspondent EFA map was generated for the area of interest and validated according to GCs as provided by the ARPEA. The results showed an overall accuracy of 84%, indicating that the approach is promising. The authors retain that this procedure represents a valid alternative (or integrating) tool for ground controls by PPs.

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.

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.

International audience ; AbstractThe 2013 reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) introduced compulsory 'greening' measures with the goal to mitigate environmental degradation caused by intensive agriculture. This paper aims to investigate how the implementation of the Ecological Focus Areas (EFA) obligation will affect regional agricultural development, the economic performance of farms and land use (including choices of EFA measures) in two representative EU regions. The research approach combines agent-based modelling (ABM) with stakeholder interactions to evaluate how farmers are likely to adapt to the new policy framework and the implications for their behaviour of the different components of the EFA obligation. Our results show that structural impacts of EFA measures are minor in both regions. The most preferred alternatives (fallow land in Sweden and catch crops in Germany) are income preserving for farmers rather than being effective for improving the environment. However, general concerns by farmers for biodiversity and the potential benefits for developing sustainable agriculture were revealed during the stakeholder workshops. We conclude that the large flexibility in choice of measures, watering down of the EFA regulations, implementation at the farm scale and lack of spatial targeting will all but eliminate any potential environmental benefits of the greening measures and subsequently, undermine farmers' and citizens' confidence in the CAP and its makers.