Suchergebnisse

Agricultural industrialization alters rural landscapes in Europe, causing large-scale and rapid loss of important biodiversity. The principal instruments to protect farmland biodiversity are various agri-environmental measures (AEMs) in the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). However, growing awareness of shortcomings to CAP biodiversity integration prompts examination of causes and potential solutions. This thesis assesses the importance of structural heterogeneity of crop and non-crop habitats and evaluates some related aspects of the CAP for 2015-2020. This includes studies of crop diversification, organic farming and buffer strips, and their potential for supporting deteriorating farmland bird diversity in a forest-farmland gradient. It also evaluates the role of collaborative conservation, with particular attention to the Swedish Volunteer & Farmer Alliance (SVFA), as a tool for influencing farmers' engagement in AEMs as well as unsubsidized conservation. Structural crop diversity, rather than the number of crop types in itself, positively affected farmland birds, especially in arable-dominated landscapes. Still, as almost all farms already met the CAP requirements for crop diversification, this policy may miss an important opportunity to deliver biodiversity benefits by setting limits too low and by neglecting structural crop diversity. The establishment of buffer strips along ditches boosted Skylarks and invertebrate numbers in adjacent cereal fields, while organic farming had only small and mixed effects on farmland birds, with both positive and negative effects on field nesters in the most arable-dominated landscapes and more forest- dominated landscapes, respectively. In general, landscape composition had a major effect on species richness, with different habitat preferences among field-nesting and non-crop-nesting birds. Social factors were more important for farmers' engagement in AEMs than for unsubsidized conservation, suggesting that production-impeding AEMs may have poor chances of acceptance in regions with prevailing productivist norms. We also found that SVFA promoted both AEMs and unsubsidized conservation, and that measures positively affected farmland bird diversity in the most arable- dominated landscapes. However, low implementation rates of measures across SVFA limited the large- scale impact, highlighting the importance of following up stakeholders' involvement. This thesis suggests that farmland biodiversity conservation partly relies on policies that increase the structural heterogeneity of arable landscapes (e.g., through crop diversification and establishment of buffer strips). This is especially important in regions where arable farming is predominant and farmland heterogeneity is low. We conclude the future of AEMs for biodiversity protection partly lies in better integration into cultures of farming communities, possibly through volunteer-based approaches as an alternative to centralized solutions.

In the past century, European agriculture has undergone profound changes. Through technical advances and structural changes, productivity is snowballing while farmland ecosystems are increasingly affected. These changes are taking place not only at the field scale through increased inputs and outputs, but also at the landscape scale through landscape simplification, with ecological effects being attributable to changes at both scales. While the decline of many farmland organisms in response to agricultural intensification is the most apparent effect, many of the biological functions provided by the systems biodiversity (so called ecosystem services such as pollination, nutrient cycling etc.) are also threatened, which could have great economical implications. To counter negative effects of agricultural intensification, EU Member States are using agri-environmental schemes (AESs) to incite farmers to use environmentally friendly practices. However, the effects of these schemes have been questioned both on the uncertain effects on biodiversity and on farmers' reluctance to participate. Many studies have tried to relate AES participation to characteristics of schemes, or demographics of farms and farmers including attitudes. Farmers seem to prefer schemes with flexible contract terms that only infer small changes in farm management. However, linking AES participation to farm characteristics is problematic, and studies often reach opposing results. Regarding ecological effects, lack of clearly stated objectives and the low scientific quality of the CMEF evaluations cloud the assessment of measures. Further, the effects of AESs have been found to vary with landscape composition (cleared/complex) and between taxa. With a deeper understanding of how AES effects interact with the landscape and how farmers relate to conservation initiatives, there are opportunities to improve scheme design. Collection of baseline data, evidence‐based measures and result-­based payments are examples of ways to advance AESs. To increase farmer engagement in AESs, participatory approaches play an important part in bridging the attitudinal gap between conservationists, legislation and farmers.

Ecological compensation (EC) has been proposed as an important tool for stopping the loss of biodiversity and natural values. However, there are few studies on its actual operationalisation and there is high uncertainty about how it should be designed and implemented to be an effective way of performing nature conservation. In this study we focus on ecological compensation in Sweden, a country where it is in the process of being implemented more broadly. Using interviews and a workshop we investigate how the work with the implementation is carried out and what challenges exist. The results show that implementation of EC is at an early stage of development and there are many practical obstacles, linked to both legislation and routines in the planning processes. There is a lack of holistic perspective and large-scale thinking, a quite strong focus on a small number of individual species, and an overall attitude that anything is better than nothing, all of which can have negative consequences for biodiversity conservation overall. Based on the results we discuss the need for better integration of EC into the entire decision-making process and for a holistic approach to preservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services, by increasing the focus on landscape perspective and considering delays in compensation outcomes. There is also a need for a national level standard for EC, making good and worse examples of compensation measures available and systematic monitoring of EC projects. Finally, a spatially explicit database to document all EC areas should be introduced both to ensure consistency in protection from future development plans and to enable long-term monitoring of EC outcomes.

Ecological compensation (EC) has been proposed as an important tool for stopping the loss of biodiversity and natural values. However, there are few studies on its actual operationalisation and there is high uncertainty about how it should be designed and implemented to be an effective way of performing nature conservation. In this study we focus on ecological compensation in Sweden, a country where it is in the process of being implemented more broadly. Using interviews and a workshop we investigate how the work with the implementation is carried out and what challenges exist. The results show that implementation of EC is at an early stage of development and there are many practical obstacles, linked to both legislation and routines in the planning processes. There is a lack of holistic perspective and large-scale thinking, a quite strong focus on a small number of individual species, and an overall attitude that anything is better than nothing, all of which can have negative consequences for biodiversity conservation overall. Based on the results we discuss the need for better integration of EC into the entire decision-making process and for a holistic approach to preservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services, by increasing the focus on landscape perspective and considering delays in compensation outcomes. There is also a need for a national level standard for EC, making good and worse examples of compensation measures available and systematic monitoring of EC projects. Finally, a spatially explicit database to document all EC areas should be introduced both to ensure consistency in protection from future development plans and to enable long-term monitoring of EC outcomes. ; These authors contributed equally to this work: Malgorzata Blicharska and Lina A. Widenfalk