Suchergebnisse

Despite significant efforts, investments and some local successes, the EU's Common Agricultural Policy CAP) has not succeeded in halting the loss of farmland biodiversity. To address these weaknesses, the CAP post-2020 proposes a new "Green Architecture" comprising, inter alia, compulsory elements (enhanced conditionality through Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions - GAEC), voluntary Agri-Environment-Climate Measures (AECM), and a new instrument called "Eco-schemes". Will this new Green Architecture, combined with a result-based orientation of the CAP, help address the biodiversity crisis? To provide science-based feedback on this proposal, more than 300 scientists from 22 MSs have provided their expertise through 13 workshops that took place between October-December 2020, and a follow up online survey. The results are published in Thünen Working Paper 175 comprising three volumes: Volume 1 is a synthesis of the results from all workshops and expert inputs as submitted through the online survey. Volume 2 contains the full reports from all MS Workshops as well as all expert inputs regarding their opinions on the Flagship-Eco-schemes proposed by the European Commission. Thünen Working Paper 175 – Volume 3 (this document) offers a policy brief summarizing the results. Although the Working Paper focuses on the proposed CAP's performance for biodiversity as a core topic, benefits for climate change mitigation and other environmental aspects were highlighted by workshop participants; and economic considerations were highlighted where relevant. . .

Despite significant efforts, investments and some local successes, the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has not succeeded in halting the loss of farmland biodiversity. To address this (and other) weaknesses, the CAP post-2020 proposes a new Green Architecture" comprising (inter alia) compulsory elements (enhanced conditionality through Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions - GAEC), voluntary Agri-Environment-Climate Measures (AECMs), and a new instrument called "Eco-schemes". Will this new Green Architecture, combined with a result-based orientation of the CAP, help address the biodiversity crisis? To provide science-based feedback on this proposal, more than 300 scientists from 22 Member States (MSs) have provided their expertise through 13 workshops that took place between October and December 2020, and a follow up online survey. The results are published in Thünen Working Reports with 3 volumes. The Thünen Working Paper175 – Volume 1 contains all results of the workshops with experts' assessment. The present Thünen Working Paper 175 – Volume 2 contains all reports of the Member-State-Workshops as well as an overview of the experts' opinions on the Flagship-Eco-schemes proposed by the EU Commission. In addition, a policy brief on the results was published in Thünen Working Paper 175 – Volume 3.

Despite significant efforts, substantial investments and some local successes, the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has not succeeded in halting the loss of farmland biodiversity. To address these weaknesses, the CAP post-2020 proposes a new "Green Architecture" comprising, inter alia, compulsory elements (enhanced conditionality through Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions - GAEC), voluntary Agri-Environment-Climate Measures (AECMs), and a new instrument called "Eco-schemes". Will this new Green Architecture, combined with a result-based orientation of the CAP, help address the biodiversity crisis? To provide science-based feedback on this proposal, more than 300 scientists from 22 Member States (MSs) have provided their expertise through 13 workshops that took place between October-December 2020, as well as a follow up online survey. The results are published as Thünen Working Paper 175 comprising three volumes: Thünen Working Paper Vol. 1 (this document) contains a comprehensive synthesis of the results of the workshops alongside experts' assessments of the flagship Eco-schemes proposed by the European Commission. Thünen Working Paper Vol. 2 contains the full reports of the Member State Workshops (Annex I) and the inputs submitted by the experts' regarding their opinions on the Flagship-Eco-schemes proposed by the EU Commission (Annex II)2. A policy brief is published as Thünen Working Paper Vol. 3. Although the Working Paper focuses on the proposed CAP's performance for biodiversity as a core topic, benefits for climate change mitigation and other environmental aspects were highlighted by workshop participants; and economic considerations were highlighted where relevant.

Despite significant efforts, substantial investments and some local successes, the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has not succeeded in halting the loss of farmland biodiversity. To address these weaknesses, the CAP post-2020 proposes a new "Green Architecture" comprising, inter alia, compulsory elements (enhanced conditionality through Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions - GAEC), voluntary Agri-Environment-Climate Measures (AECMs), and a new instrument called "Eco-schemes". Will this new Green Architecture, combined with a result-based orientation of the CAP, help address the biodiversity crisis? To provide science-based feedback on this proposal, more than 300 scientists from 22 Member States (MSs) have provided their expertise through 13 workshops that took place between October-December 2020, as well as a follow up online survey. The results are published as Thünen Working Paper 1751 comprising three volumes: Thünen Working Paper Vol. 1 (this document) contains a comprehensive synthesis of the results of the workshops alongside experts' assessments of the flagship Eco-schemes proposed by the European Commission. Thünen Working Paper Vol. 2 contains the full reports of the Member State Workshops (Annex I) and the inputs submitted by the experts' regarding their opinions on the Flagship-Eco-schemes proposed by the EU Commission (Annex II)2. A policy brief is published as Thünen Working Paper Vol. 33. Although the Working Paper focuses on the proposed CAP's performance for biodiversity as a core topic, benefits for climate change mitigation and other environmental aspects were highlighted by workshop participants; and economic considerations were highlighted where relevant. [ .]

Despite significant efforts, investments and some local successes, the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has not succeeded in halting the loss of farmland biodiversity. To address this (and other) weaknesses, the CAP post-2020 proposes a new "Green Architecture" comprising (inter alia) compulsory elements (enhanced conditionality through Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions - GAEC), voluntary Agri-Environment-Climate Measures (AECMs), and a new instrument called "Eco-schemes". Will this new Green Architecture, combined with a result-based orientation of the CAP, help address the biodiversity crisis? To provide science-based feedback on this proposal, more than 300 scientists from 22 Member States (MSs) have provided their expertise through 13 workshops that took place between October and December 2020, and a follow up online survey. The results are published in Thünen Working Reports with 3 volumes. The Thünen Working Paper 175 - Volume 1 contains all results of the workshops with experts' assessment. The present Thünen Working Paper 175 - Volume 2 contains all reports of the Member-State-Workshops as well as an overview of the experts' opinions on the Flagship-Eco-schemes proposed by the EU Commission. In addition, a policy brief on the results was published in Thünen Working Paper 175 - Volume 3.

Despite significant efforts, investments and some local successes, the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has not succeeded in halting the loss of farmland biodiversity. To address these weaknesses, the CAP post-2020 proposes a new "Green Architecture" comprising, inter alia, compulsory elements (enhanced conditionality through Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions - GAEC), voluntary Agri-Environment-Climate Measures (AECM), and a new instrument called "Eco-schemes". Will this new Green Architecture, combined with a result-based orientation of the CAP, help address the biodiversity crisis? To provide science-based feedback on this proposal, more than 300 scientists from 22 MSs have provided their expertise through 13 workshops that took place between October-December 2020, and a follow up online survey. The results are published in Thünen Working Paper 1751 comprising three volumes: Volume 1 is a synthesis of the results from all workshops and expert inputs as submitted through the online survey. 2 Volume 2 contains the full reports from all MS Workshops as well as all expert inputs regarding their opinions on the Flagship-Eco-schemes proposed by the European Commission. 3 Thünen Working Paper 175 - Volume 3 (this document) offers a policy brief summarizing the results. Although the Working Paper focuses on the proposed CAP's performance for biodiversity as a core topic, benefits for climate change mitigation and other environmental aspects were highlighted by workshop participants; and economic considerations were highlighted where relevant. [.]

The "Greening" measures of the EU's CAP, implemented in 2015, have been intensively debated in terms of their effectiveness and efficiency for agricultural, environmental, and climate outcomes. This study explores the fine-scale spatiotemporal dynamics of Ecological Focus Areas (EFAs) (with a particular emphasis on fallow land). We use annual land-use data at the plot level from IACS for Brandenburg in Germany from 2005 to 2018 and apply quantitative spatial metrics. In result, we find EFA measures to represent a small percentage of the total area of agriculture, with catch crops dominating, followed by fallow land and nitrogen-fixing crops. Fallow land decreased until 2015 and slightly increased with the introduction of Greening. Half of the fallow land in 2015 was fallow land in the previous year, while the other half had been used for cereals, fodder and oil seed plants. A large share of fallow land shows a low permanency of 1 up to 4 years. EFAs and particularly fallow land hence may contribute to environmental performance in agricultural land use, yet currently they do so to a limited degree. We suggest a change in types of EFA measures, spatial optimisation to reduce fragmented patterns, and a higher permanency of fallow land by a better alignment of agricultural and landscape policies and planning.

The "Greening" measures of the EU's CAP, implemented in 2015, have been intensively debated in terms of their effectiveness and efficiency for agricultural, environmental, and climate outcomes. This study explores the fine-scale spatiotemporal dynamics of Ecological Focus Areas (EFAs) (with a particular emphasis on fallow land). We use annual land-use data at the plot level from IACS for Brandenburg in Germany from 2005 to 2018 and apply quantitative spatial metrics. In result, we find EFA measures to represent a small percentage of the total area of agriculture, with catch crops dominating, followed by fallow land and nitrogen-fixing crops. Fallow land decreased until 2015 and slightly increased with the introduction of Greening. Half of the fallow land in 2015 was fallow land in the previous year, while the other half had been used for cereals, fodder and oil seed plants. A large share of fallow land shows a low permanency of 1 up to 4 years. EFAs and particularly fallow land hence may contribute to environmental performance in agricultural land use, yet currently they do so to a limited degree. We suggest a change in types of EFA measures, spatial optimisation to reduce fragmented patterns, and a higher permanency of fallow land by a better alignment of agricultural and landscape policies and planning.

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.