Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

A suboptimal array of options erodes the value of CAP ecological focus areas

Nilsson, Lovisa LU orcid ; Clough, Yann LU ; Smith, Henrik G. LU ; Alkan Olsson, Johanna LU ; Brady, Mark V. LU orcid ; Hristov, Jordan LU ; Olsson, Peter LU orcid ; Skantze, Karin ; Ståhlberg, David LU and Dänhardt, Juliana LU (2019) In Land Use Policy 85. p.407-418
Abstract

As a part of the greening of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy in 2013, Ecological Focus Areas (EFA) became mandatory for many European farmers, with the aim to enhance on-farm biodiversity. However, their effects on biodiversity have been disputed. In this interdisciplinary effort, we assessed the effects of current and alternative formulations of EFA regulations in Sweden. By complementing economic and ecological modelling with interviews with persons at administrative and advisory bodies and a narrative decision game with farmers, we were able to demonstrate key shortcomings of mandatory EFAs as a policy instrument. In particular, we evaluated if requirements to increase the quality of EFAs and regulations allowing their collective... (More)

As a part of the greening of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy in 2013, Ecological Focus Areas (EFA) became mandatory for many European farmers, with the aim to enhance on-farm biodiversity. However, their effects on biodiversity have been disputed. In this interdisciplinary effort, we assessed the effects of current and alternative formulations of EFA regulations in Sweden. By complementing economic and ecological modelling with interviews with persons at administrative and advisory bodies and a narrative decision game with farmers, we were able to demonstrate key shortcomings of mandatory EFAs as a policy instrument. In particular, we evaluated if requirements to increase the quality of EFAs and regulations allowing their collective implementation, have the potential to increase their effectiveness in benefitting functional biodiversity. We focused on how biodiversity underpinning crop pollination and natural pest control would be affected by alternative regulations. First, we show that several of the possible EFA measures have no or minimal actual effect on biodiversity. Second, we demonstrate the need for appropriate incentives for farmers to choose and place agri-environmental measures in an environmentally desirable way. The EFA regulation is experienced as complicated and without any clear environmental benefits for the participants in this study. As a result, the confidence in the policy is undermined. Third, we demonstrate the challenge of devising compulsory measures to improve biodiversity that also need to fulfil demands on being flexible and easy to administrate. Our results indicate that the latter goal has taken precedence over the former, and thus providing an explanation of the poor design of the EFA regulation from a biodiversity perspective. We argue that to enhance biodiversity in farmland through general agri-environmental measures, only measures with clear benefits for biodiversity can be on the menu. Further, better information as well as incentives for optimizing EFA placement for biodiversity on farms are needed and combined with stricter rules on quality and placement where appropriate.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Agri-environment, Agricultural policy, Ecological-economic modelling, Ecosystem services, Farmer collaboration, Functional biodiversity
in
Land Use Policy
volume
85
pages
12 pages
publisher
Elsevier
external identifiers
  • scopus:85064565438
ISSN
0264-8377
DOI
10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.04.005
project
Sustainable agricultural change through ecological engineering and optimal use of natural resources
Ekologiska fokus arealer i samverkan - Utvärdering av effekter på ekosystemtjänster, jordbruk och administration
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
2504f7de-358a-4663-80ff-4fa63c3069d2
date added to LUP
2019-05-03 09:53:46
date last changed
2024-05-14 06:59:15
@article{2504f7de-358a-4663-80ff-4fa63c3069d2,
  abstract     = {{<p>As a part of the greening of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy in 2013, Ecological Focus Areas (EFA) became mandatory for many European farmers, with the aim to enhance on-farm biodiversity. However, their effects on biodiversity have been disputed. In this interdisciplinary effort, we assessed the effects of current and alternative formulations of EFA regulations in Sweden. By complementing economic and ecological modelling with interviews with persons at administrative and advisory bodies and a narrative decision game with farmers, we were able to demonstrate key shortcomings of mandatory EFAs as a policy instrument. In particular, we evaluated if requirements to increase the quality of EFAs and regulations allowing their collective implementation, have the potential to increase their effectiveness in benefitting functional biodiversity. We focused on how biodiversity underpinning crop pollination and natural pest control would be affected by alternative regulations. First, we show that several of the possible EFA measures have no or minimal actual effect on biodiversity. Second, we demonstrate the need for appropriate incentives for farmers to choose and place agri-environmental measures in an environmentally desirable way. The EFA regulation is experienced as complicated and without any clear environmental benefits for the participants in this study. As a result, the confidence in the policy is undermined. Third, we demonstrate the challenge of devising compulsory measures to improve biodiversity that also need to fulfil demands on being flexible and easy to administrate. Our results indicate that the latter goal has taken precedence over the former, and thus providing an explanation of the poor design of the EFA regulation from a biodiversity perspective. We argue that to enhance biodiversity in farmland through general agri-environmental measures, only measures with clear benefits for biodiversity can be on the menu. Further, better information as well as incentives for optimizing EFA placement for biodiversity on farms are needed and combined with stricter rules on quality and placement where appropriate.</p>}},
  author       = {{Nilsson, Lovisa and Clough, Yann and Smith, Henrik G. and Alkan Olsson, Johanna and Brady, Mark V. and Hristov, Jordan and Olsson, Peter and Skantze, Karin and Ståhlberg, David and Dänhardt, Juliana}},
  issn         = {{0264-8377}},
  keywords     = {{Agri-environment; Agricultural policy; Ecological-economic modelling; Ecosystem services; Farmer collaboration; Functional biodiversity}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  pages        = {{407--418}},
  publisher    = {{Elsevier}},
  series       = {{Land Use Policy}},
  title        = {{A suboptimal array of options erodes the value of CAP ecological focus areas}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.04.005}},
  doi          = {{10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.04.005}},
  volume       = {{85}},
  year         = {{2019}},
}