Search results

Since 2018, annual and perennial flower strips were integrated into sugar beet fields on the Südzucker AG's experimental farm Kirschgartshausen (Baden-Württemberg/ Germany). To measure the effects of the flower strips on biodiversity as well as on beneficial insects and pests in comparison to the sugar beet field, standardized sweep-net samples were analyzed from May to September. The captured individuals were divided into four functional groups: pollinators, natural enemies, pests and other invertebrates. In the flower strips, 4.6 times more invertebrate biomass and 2.4 times more individuals were captured than in sugar beet fields. Pollinators were recorded almost exclusively in the flower strips. Natural enemies were 4.7 times more abundant in flower strips than in sugar beet fields and were also much more diverse there. In addition, the number of braconid wasps, chalcid wasps, ladybugs, and damsel bugs increased between 2018 and 2020. Potential pests were 1.4 times more abundant in the flower strips than in the sugar beet field, but in the flower strips mainly bugs and pollen beetles occurred, which are not relevant pests in sugar beet cultivation. Whereas cicadas, the main pest in sugar beet fields, were 3.7 times less abundant in the flower strips than in the sugar beet fields. Overall, flower strips increase biodiversity. Perennial, species-rich mixtures are particularly valuable. Subdivided flower strips with staggered maintenance that offer habitat and refuge for insects in every season have proven successful.

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

In der neuen Förderperiode der europäischen Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik sollen die ökologischen Anforderungen für den Erhalt der Direktzahlungen angehoben und zu einem verpflichtenden Bestandteil der Prämien umgestaltet werden. Diese Greening-Maßnahmen sehen unter anderem vor, dass die landwirtschaftlichen Betriebe fünf Prozent ihrer Ackerflächen als ökologische Vorrangflächen (ÖVF) bereitstellen müssen. Um die naturschutzfachliche Eignung von Anbaukulturen bewerten zu können, wurden 2012 im vorliegenden Projekt "Naturverträgliche Nutzung ökologischer Vorrangflächen – ein Mehrwert für Biodiversität und Landwirtschaft?" insgesamt 82 verschiedene Energiepflanzen und extensive Anbaukulturen auf Standorten in neun Bundesländern untersucht. Zur Prüfung der ökologischen Eignung wurden mehrere Parameter herangezogen und die Kulturen entsprechend bonitiert.Die Untersuchung hat gezeigt, dass viele Kulturen eine Eignung als ÖVF zeigen, wenn bestimmte Anbaubedingungen eingehalten werden. Als entscheidende und unabdingbare Anbau-Rahmenbedingungen für die ökologische Wirkung der ÖVF konnten folgende Kriterien herausgearbeitet werden:• Keine Anwendung von Pflanzenschutzmitteln und Düngung.• Keine Bodenbearbeitung und keine Ernte im Zeitraum 15.04. - 01.08., kein Stoppelumbruch vor 30.11. eines Jahres, keine Bewässerung/Beregnung.• Anbau in weiten Reihenabständen bei Kulturen, die leicht mit klassischen Kulturen verwechselt werden können.Auf Basis der oben genannten Kriterien können die ÖVF eine vielfältige Wirkung für den Biodiversitäts-, Boden-, Wasser- und Klimaschutz erzielen. Durch die Integration von ÖVF in eine Fruchtfolge können die Flächen in der Landschaft "wandern" und so vielerorts Wirkung entfalten. Für die Feldvögel sind ein lichter Bestand, ein langer "ungestörter" Entwicklungszeitraum der Kulturen von Mitte April bis Anfang/Mitte August sowie ein Verbleiben von Stoppelbrachen bis in den Herbst oder bis ins nächste Frühjahr hinein förderlich.Stichwörter: Ökologische Vorrangflächen (ÖVF), Greening, GAP-Reform, FeldvögelEcological Focus Areas – Requirements for the Greening obligation from an avifaunistic point of viewAbstract33 projects and/or farms in Germany with 82 parcels comprising different cropping systems (e.g. biomass crops, extensive cultures, mixed crops, protein crops) have been analysed in 2012 with regard to their suitability as Ecological Focus Areas (EFA) under the EU's reformed Common Agricultural Policy. The ecological suitability has been assessed on the basis of seven criteria (diversity of sown species, diversity of wild species, cropping structure, significance for pollinators, significance for farmland birds and game, soil and water synergy effects, climate mitigation impact). Several crops showed a high ecological suitability, and the key criteria have been identified: no application of pesticides and fertilisers, no soil cultivation and no harvest between 15th April and 1st August, and no ploughing before 30th November. A wise implementation of Ecological Focus Areas can deliver high conservation benefits, while even bearing interesting economic perspectives for farmers.Keywords: Ecological Focus Area (EFA), Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), farmland bird

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.

There is a growing interest in the conservation potential of linking payments to land managers to ecological outcomes. We drew on the experiences of all schemes paying for biodiversity outcomes on farmland in European countries with the aim of identifying the decisive elements of the schemes' design and implementation as well as the challenges and opportunities of adopting the approach for biodiversity. We used evidence from peer-reviewed literature and technical reports, as well as 20 questionnaire responses and discussions with over 50 key experts in the field of agri-environment-climate policy and results-based schemes (RBS). We identified 36 payment schemes in nine countries that could be called RBS for biodiversity. The majority are in N and W Europe and half are in Germany. Based on the extent to which the schemes' 'payment' and 'control' mechanisms are dependent on a priori specified biodiversity outcomes, we constructed a RBS typology. Payments are based solely on results ('pure' RBS) in only five cases. Most RBS include some basic land management requirements. There is a growing body of research focusing on the approach, also with half of it from Germany. Most studies focus exclusively on the development and testing of ecological indicators and ecological performance. A handful of studies loot at attitudes of payment recipients to the approach. In two countries research integrated ecological, social and economic assessments. The evidence to date shows that there are at least 11 unique advantages to the RBS compared to management-based ones with similar objectives. These deal with environmental efficiency, farmer participation, and development of local biodiversity-based projects. Although results-based approaches have specific challenges at every stage of design and implementation, for many of these the existing schemes provide potential solutions. There is some apprehension about trying a results-based approach in Mediterranean, central and eastern EU Member States. We conclude that there is clear potential to expand the approach under the Rural Development programming period for 2021–2028. Evidence is needed about the approach's efficiency in delivering conservation outcomes in the long term, its additionality, impact on the knowledge and attitudes of land managers and society at large, development of ways of rewarding the achievement of actual results, as well as its potential for stimulating innovative grassroots solutions. We illustrate the approach with a Finnish case that explores ecological, social and economic dimensions. 1. Allen B, Hart K, Radley G, Tucker G, et al. 2014. Biodiversity protection through results-based remuneration of ecological achievement. Report prepared for the European Commission, DG Environment, Institute for European Environmental Policy, London. 2. Herzon I, Birge T, Allen B et al. 2018. Time to look for evidence: results-based approach to biodiversity conservation on farmland in Europe. Land Use Policy ; 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 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.