Suchergebnisse

[...] Ziel unserer Untersuchung ist es daher, das Potential der GI-Strategie am Beispiel der GAP zu beurteilen. Hierzu wird eine vergleichende Betrachtung der Maßnahmenausgestaltung des Greenings der GAP und der GI-Strategie durchgeführt. Die Analyse zeigt, wie Elemente der Politiken in Kombination einen Aufbau von grüner Infrastruktur befördern können und wo Hindernisse und Probleme liegen. Unsere Untersuchung macht das Themenfeld der grünen Infrastruktur einer politikfeldanalytischen Betrachtung zugänglich.[...] (Quelle: Verf.) Zitierte Vorschrifte u.a.; Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1306/2013 (GAP); Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1307/2013 (Direktzahlungen); Direktzahlungsdurchführungsgesetz; Direktzahlungsdurchführungsverordnung --SW:Gemeinsame Agrarpolitik, Greening, Grüne Infrastruktur, Ökosystemleistungen, Politikfeldanalyse, Politikintegration, Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse

Die Strategie für grüne Infrastruktur (GI) der Europäischen Kommission stellt einen noch jungen, aber zentralen Beitrag der EU zum Biodiversitätsschutz dar, und zielt auf die Förderung von Ökosystemleistungen. GI soll hierzu in verschiedenen Politiksektoren integriert werden. Im Bereich der europäischen Agrarpolitik (GAP) wird ein kombinierter Nutzen zwischen landwirtschaftlicher und ökologischer Entwicklung betont. Problematisch ist jedoch die bisher unscharfe Ausgestaltung der europäischen GI Politik, die eine konkrete Abschätzung von Implementation und Wirksamkeit verhindert. Ziel unserer Untersuchung ist es daher, das Potential der GI-Strategie am Beispiel der GAP zu beurteilen. Hierzu wird eine vergleichende Betrachtung der Maßnahmenausgestaltung des Greenings der GAP und der GI-Strategie durchgeführt. Die Analyse zeigt, wie Elemente der Politiken in Kombination einen Aufbau von grüner Infrastruktur befördern können und wo Hindernisse und Probleme liegen. Unsere Untersuchung macht das Themenfeld der grünen Infrastruktur einer politikfeldanalytischen Betrachtung zugänglich. Hierbei wird das Konzept der Politikintegration zugrunde gelegt und mit einer prozessorientierten und strukturierenden, qualitativen Inhaltsanalyse verbunden.

Die Strategie für grüne Infrastruktur (GI) der Europäischen Kommission stellt einen noch jungen, aber zentralen Beitrag der EU zum Biodiversitätsschutz dar, und zielt auf die Förderung von Ökosystemleistungen. GI soll hierzu in verschiedenen Politiksektoren integriert werden. Im Bereich der europäischen Agrarpolitik (GAP) wird ein kombinierter Nutzen zwischen landwirtschaftlicher und ökologischer Entwicklung betont. Problematisch ist jedoch die bisher unscharfe Ausgestaltung der europäischen GI Politik, die eine konkrete Abschätzung von Implementation und Wirksamkeit verhindert. Ziel unserer Untersuchung ist es daher, das Potential der GI-Strategie am Beispiel der GAP zu beurteilen. Hierzu wird eine vergleichende Betrachtung der Maßnahmenausgestaltung des Greenings der GAP und der GI-Strategie durchgeführt. Die Analyse zeigt, wie Elemente der Politiken in Kombination einen Aufbau von grüner Infrastruktur befördern können und wo Hindernisse und Probleme liegen. Unsere Untersuchung macht das Themenfeld der grünen Infrastruktur einer politikfeldanalytischen Betrachtung zugänglich. Hierbei wird das Konzept der Politikintegration zugrunde gelegt und mit einer prozessorientierten und strukturierenden, qualitativen Inhaltsanalyse verbunden.

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.

As part of a 'fitness check' evaluation of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), completed in autumn 2017, we conducted an in depth literature review to evaluate both direct and indirect effects of the CAP on biodiversity (BD) and ecosystem services (ESS). Beyond instruments that are designated towards the protection of BD and ESS, such as agri-environment(-climate) schemes (AECM), greening, and cross compliance (CC), we considered and evaluated non-designated instruments such as Direct Payments, that likely have indirect effects on BD and ESS by affecting land-use changes, farm structure and management. Although literature suggests that AECM can be locally effective (1), their effectiveness at the EU level remains limited due to a restricted budget and extent, low uptake and acceptance by farmers, lack of spatial design, and poor implementation in many cases. Greening measures are both ineffective and cost-inefficient since most farmers are either exempt or can comply with the greening requirements without any action (2). Additionally, administrative requirements bias farmers toward choosing the simplest and least effective measures (3) and management requirements and spatial design are lacking. With respect to supporting farming systems that can be considered as sustainable, our review indicates that the CAP offers adequate support to promote organic farming, but much greater support is given to unsustainable farming systems. Moreover, the protection of High Nature Value farming systems is scarce and inadequate. Concerning ESS, current measures (AECM, CC) are somewhat effective with respect to soil protection and water quality but the performance of the CAP is very low with regard to climate issues by failing to address the most important sources of greenhouse-gas emissions, namely livestock production and nitrogen fertilization. Overall, the CAP's design and implementation poorly takes up existing knowledge and experience with respect to necessary interventions and best indicators, and its various instruments operate with little coherence (e.g. AECM and organic farming) or even in conflict (e.g. AECM and greening). Moreover, the CAP only marginally addresses the EU's global ecological footprint and its contribution to land-use changes outside of Europe. Thus, the global efficiency and effectiveness of the CAP in terms of BD and ESS remains weak. Our literature review indicates the availability of a wealth of evidence to inform current and future policy design processes. Integration of all available knowledge, in collaboration with the scientific community, will be essential for achieving higher effectiveness, efficiency, and coherence within instruments and among the CAP and the EU's biodiversity strategy. A much more inclusive, transparent and evidence-based process will be necessary if the European Commission wishes to address the concerns over the CAP's performance with respect to public goods. ; peerReviewed