Search

The Common Agricultural Policy reform 2013–2020 has conditioned 30 per cent of the direct payments to greening requirements. Our study investigates whether one of these requirements, the ecological focus area (EFA) obligation, has led to environmental improvements while preserving farms' economic sustainability. We apply a regression discontinuity design approach on a sample of Italian arable crop farms. Our results suggest that the EFA requirement has no significant effects on farms' application of fertilisers, pesticide expenditure, crop diversification or economic performance. However, farmers reacted to the EFA requirement by changing their crop mix, mostly by increasing their share of leguminous crops. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agri‐environment schemes (AESs), ecological focus areas (EFAs), and organic farming are the main tools of the common agricultural policy (CAP) to counteract the dramatic decline of farmland biodiversity in Europe. However, their effectiveness is repeatedly doubted because it seems to vary when measured at the field‐versus‐landscape level and to depend on the regional environmental and land‐use context. Understanding the heterogeneity of their effectiveness is thus crucial to developing management recommendations that maximize their efficacy. Using ensemble species distribution models and spatially explicit field‐level information on crops grown, farming practice (organic/conventional), and applied AES/EFA from the Integrated Administration and Control System, we investigated the contributions of five groups of measures (buffer areas, cover crops, extensive grassland management, fallow land, and organic farming) to habitat suitability for 15 farmland bird species in the Mulde River Basin, Germany. We used a multiscale approach to identify the scale of effect of the selected measures. Using simulated land‐use scenarios, we further examined how breeding habitat suitability would change if the measures were completely removed and if their adoption by farmers increased to meet conservation‐informed targets. Buffer areas, fallow land, and extensive grassland were beneficial measures for most species, but cover crops and organic farming had contrasting effects across species. While different measures acted at different spatial scales, our results highlight the importance of land‐use management at the landscape level—at which most measures had the strongest effect. We found that the current level of adoption of the measures delivers only modest gains in breeding habitat suitability. However, habitat suitability improved for the majority of species when the implementation of the measures was increased, suggesting that they could be effective conservation tools if higher adoption levels were reached. The heterogeneity of responses across species and spatial scales indicated that a mix of different measures, applied widely across the agricultural landscape, would likely maximize the benefits for biodiversity. This can only be achieved if the measures in the future CAP will be cooperatively designed in a regionally targeted way to improve their attractiveness for farmers and widen their uptake. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intensive animal production, vast amounts of biogas plants, and the spreading of manure and digestates, exerts strong pressure on water quality in the German federal state of Lower Saxony. Catch and cover crop (c&c) cultivation is seen as one measure to inhibit nitrate leaching into soils, and to prevent water pollution with nitrates. A document analysis was carried out, covering the time span of 1992 to 2020, and the findings were combined with available quantitative data of the same period, and with GIS analysis. From 1994 to the year 2020, the acreage of subsidized c&cs increased from ca. 10,000 ha to ca. 380,000 ha. In addition, there was an acreage of unsubsidized c&cs of about 100,000 ha declining to 50,000 ha. In comparison, the acreage of arable land remained at approximately 1,880,000 ha. We found that c&cs did not contribute substantially to water protection for the following reasons: the design of the measure, control of farmer's actions, and the antagonistic trend due to the increase in animal numbers and biogas plants. The development of c&cs over time and space reveals that frame conditions and management requirements of cultivating c&cs need to be well designed to be effective and efficient (with regard to N reduction and reduction of costs). It is vital to coordinate all programs and schemes in one region. From our evaluation, we conclude that a measure such as c&c cultivation, which is simple to introduce and easy to control, should be implemented over winter as a mandatory measure in order to achieve a greater uptake. Additionally, result-based measures could complement this scheme, as there is a strong link between subsidy level and the success of the measure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agricultural intensification and associated loss of high‐quality habitats are key drivers of insect pollinator declines. With the aim of decreasing the environmental impact of agriculture, the 2014 EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) defined a set of habitat and landscape features (Ecological Focus Areas: EFAs) farmers could select from as a requirement to receive basic farm payments. To inform the post‐2020 CAP, we performed a European‐scale evaluation to determine how different EFA options vary in their potential to support insect pollinators under standard and pollinator‐friendly management, as well as the extent of farmer uptake.A structured Delphi elicitation process engaged 22 experts from 18 European countries to evaluate EFAs options. By considering life cycle requirements of key pollinating taxa (i.e. bumble bees, solitary bees and hoverflies), each option was evaluated for its potential to provide forage, bee nesting sites and hoverfly larval resources.EFA options varied substantially in the resources they were perceived to provide and their effectiveness varied geographically and temporally. For example, field margins provide relatively good forage throughout the season in Southern and Eastern Europe but lacked early‐season forage in Northern and Western Europe. Under standard management, no single EFA option achieved high scores across resource categories and a scarcity of late season forage was perceived.Experts identified substantial opportunities to improve habitat quality by adopting pollinator‐friendly management. Improving management alone was, however, unlikely to ensure that all pollinator resource requirements were met. Our analyses suggest that a combination of poor management, differences in the inherent pollinator habitat quality and uptake bias towards catch crops and nitrogen‐fixing crops severely limit the potential of EFAs to support pollinators in European agricultural landscapes.Policy Implications. To conserve pollinators and help protect pollination services, our expert elicitation highlights the need to create a variety of interconnected, well‐managed habitats that complement each other in the resources they offer. To achieve this the Common Agricultural Policy post‐2020 should take a holistic view to implementation that integrates the different delivery vehicles aimed at protecting biodiversity (e.g. enhanced conditionality, eco‐schemes and agri‐environment and climate measures). To improve habitat quality we recommend an effective monitoring framework with target‐orientated indicators and to facilitate the spatial targeting of options collaboration between land managers should be incentivised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Farmland bird populations have declined sharply due to agricultural intensification. In Europe, these negative population trends have been linked to the loss of semi‐natural vegetation types, particularly fallow land. The work of Sanz‐Pérez et al. (2019) has far‐reaching implications for the conservation of farmland biodiversity. We argue that it supports a new paradigm for the understanding and management of fallows that should be integrated into the forthcoming post‐2020 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).Following the abolition of mandatory set‐aside by the European Union in 2008, fallows declined steadily in Europe until 2015, when the CAP implemented greening measures. These restored the requirement to leave 5% of arable land as ecological focus areas (EFAs) to enhance biodiversity. While fallows are one of the most beneficial forms of EFA for farmland birds, farmers prefer the less conservation effective planting of nitrogen‐fixing and catch crops (currently more than 70% of EFAs). CAP incentives have been insufficient to make unproductive EFAs such as fallows more attractive to farmers.Sanz‐Pérez et al. (2019) evaluated the impact of different fallow land management practices on the abundance of specialist farmland birds. They concluded that extensive practices – such as tilling or shredding once or twice per year before the breeding season – were more beneficial to these declining species than leaving fallows unmanaged and recommended their incorporation into agri‐environment schemes. But such schemes have had low uptake, and thus a limited potential to drive the widespread recovery of farmland birds at either national or European levels. The post‐2020 CAP, currently under development, should integrate simple fallow management practices within new conditionalities or eco‐schemes to address this problem.Synthesis and applications. The loss of fallow land underlies the decline of farmland birds. The post‐2020 CAP must overcome past mismatches between incentives to farmers and biodiversity benefits and increase farmers' uptake of the most beneficial options for biodiversity, including fallows. Promoting light management of fallow land within the new CAP eco‐schemes is a win–win strategy because it would simultaneously allow farmers to continue extensive weed control and enhance habitat quality for farmland birds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are many concerns regarding the effects of climate change including threats to ecosystem services. Rural land use can influence these services and there is scope for associated policies to steer decisions towards maximising benefits and minimising burdens. In Europe, for example, ecological focus areas (EFAs), introduced in the last reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, can have impacts on ecosystem services which vary with location, including potential trade-offs between benefits and burdens in some regions. This study combines the outputs from two continental-scale projects to provide a new perspective on the potential impact of EFAs for water-related ecosystem services under threat from climate change. An ecosystem service impact indicator framework was applied in conjunction with a climate change vulnerability assessment. This resulted in vulnerability and area weighted performance scores for dilution, filtration, water provision, and flood regulation services for 10 EFAs in 1256 regions. Best, average and worst case scenario maps were created that highlight the relative benefits and burdens of EFAs. Six EFAs have been identified which have not been activated in nine European Member States but which have potential to provide benefits. Eleven Member States have been identified which have regions where 3 EFAs should be avoided due to potential burdens. This analysis facilitates broad spatial targeting on a continental-scale of specific EFAs which may help maintain (and ideally increase) ecosystem service capacity and resilience in vulnerable regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Distribution, conservation status, trends, actions and ethnobotanical notes of segetal species growing in South Italy are presented and discussed. For the most threatened segetal species details and suggestions for their conservation are reported. Research work was made directly in the field for collecting samples and in the laboratory for checking several herbarium samples. To the best of our knowledges, a summary table of all species occurring in the field, of the investigated environments, and their ecological focus areas, is provided for the first time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The explicit and implicit aims of creating ecological focus areas (EFAs) and implementing greening measures in European agro‐ecosystems include the promotion of regulatory ecosystem services (ES) to sustain crop production in conventional cropping systems. However, the extent to which these goals are achieved with current policy measures remains poorly explored. We measured insect‐mediated pollination and natural pest control service provisioning in 18 winter oilseed rape fields as a function of the independent and interactive effects of local EFA establishment─sown wildflower strips and hedgerows─and landscape‐scale greening measures within a 1 km radius around focal fields and quantified their contribution to crop yield. Insect pollination potential and pest predation increased on average by 10% and 13%, respectively, when landscape‐scale greening measures share was increased from 6% to 26%. For pollination, the increase was stronger in fields adjoining an EFA (14%) than in fields without adjacent EFA (7%). Agricultural management practices were the main drivers of crop yield. Neither insect pollination potential or natural pest control (pest predation and parasitism) nor adjacent EFAs and landscape‐scale greening significantly affected crop yield in addition to agricultural management. Synthesis and applications. Local establishment of perennial, species‐rich wildflower strips and hedgerows, combined with landscape‐scale greening measures in agricultural landscapes, can promote multiple ecosystem services (ES) in conventional production systems. Benefits may be maximized when local and landscape measures are combined. However, enhanced pollination and natural pest regulation seem to contribute relatively little to final crop yield compared to local agricultural management practices in the high‐input conventional production system studied. Further research is needed to better understand how to improve the effectiveness of ecological focus areas and other greening measures in promoting regulatory ES. Potential improvements include minimising trade‐offs while promoting synergies between ES provision, food production and biodiversity conservation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Green infrastructure (GI) has been identified as helping to protect Europe’s natural capital by fostering environmental protection outside nature reserves and enabling better overall adaptation to changing conditions. The aim of Europe’s green infrastructure strategy is to integrate GI implementation into existing policies. In intensively farmed agricultural areas, this mainly means the greening measures of the Common Agricultural Policy, which are mandatory for farmers wishing to receive full direct payments. We explore how GI implementation might develop under different future scenarios. We use a participatory scenario development approach to explore the benefits and limitations perceived by local actors in the agricultural regions of Saxony-Anhalt, Germany. Limiting factors include ecosystem disservices, economic constraints relating to income, labour costs, investments and land tenure, and social considerations including the farmers’ self-image as primarily food producers and local people’s opinions regarding good farming practices. The limiting factors also include a lack of knowledge about the ecological usefulness of measures, and failings in the design of the measures regarding practicability, flexibility and reliability. Benefits are seen in various ecosystem services, job creation and in fulfilling society’s demands for environmental protection. We conclude by stating that GI implementation in agricultural landscapes requires reliable and flexible measures that fit farming practices and are well communicated, and that landscape level coordination and cooperation could enhance their effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In December 2013, the EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council formally adopted the new regulations for the reformed Common Agricultural Policy (2014-2020). The new regulations include three obligatory greening measures: ecological focus areas, maintaining permanent grassland, and crop diversification. We assess the impact of these measures on ecosystem services using scientific and gray literature. The literature review reveals that the adopted greening measures will have mixed effects, i.e., trade-offs and synergies across ecosystems services. Provisioning services, in particular crop production, are expected to decrease when the measures are implemented. All other service categories, i.e., regulating and cultural services, will increase – or are at least will not obviously be negatively affected – once the measures are implemented. However, in terms of tradeoffs and synergies, much depends on objectives being pursued, the baseline or alternative land use underlying the comparison, and on the prevalent farming systems and farm characteristics. Including the ecosystem services concept into the design and assessment of policies would allow a systematic review of the consequences of measures also for services otherwise easily ignored.

Enhancing key floral resources is essential to effectively mitigate the loss of pollinator diversity and associated provisioning of pollination functions in agro-ecosystems. However, effective floral provisioning measures may diverge among different pollinator conservation targets, such as the conservation of rare species or the promotion of economically important crop pollinators. We examined to what extent such diverging conservation goals could be reconciled., We analysed plant-bee visitation networks of 64 herbaceous semi-natural habitats representing a gradient of plant species richness to identify key resource plants of the three distinct conservation target groups: rare bees (of conservation concern), dominant wild crop-pollinating bees and managed crop-pollinating bees (i.e. honeybees)., Considering overall flower visitation, rare bees tended to visit nested subsets of plant species that were also visited by crop pollinators (46% and 77% nestedness in the dissimilarity between rare bees and wild crop pollinators or managed honeybees respectively). However, the set of preferred plant species, henceforth 'key plant species' (i.e. those species disproportionately more visited than expected according to their floral abundance) was considerably more distinct and less nested among bee target groups., Flower visits of all bee target groups increased with plant species richness at a similar rate. Importantly, our analyses revealed that an exponential increase in the flower abundance of the identified key plant species and complementarity in the bee visitation pattern across plant species ─ rather than total flower abundance ─ were the major drivers of these relationships., Synthesis and applications. We conclude that the multiple goals of preserving high bee diversity, conserving rare species and sustaining crop pollinators can be reconciled if key plant species of different target groups are simultaneously available. This availability is facilitated by a high floral resource complementarity in the plant community. The list of identified key resource plant species we provide here can help practitioners such as land managers and conservationists to better design and evaluate pollinator conservation and restoration measures according to their goals. Our findings highlight the importance of identifying and promoting such plant species for pollinator conservation in agricultural landscapes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Research Papers of the Wroclaw University of Economics / Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wroclawiu is the property of Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny we Wroclawiu and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Specialised literature on the uptake of agri-environmental schemes (AES) has paid little attention to how this can be influenced by the different types of agricultural systems. This paper analyses the heterogeneity of farmers' preferences towards these schemes, distinguishing between different subsystems within the same agricultural system. We use the choice experiment method to analyse the case study of three olive grove subsystems in southern Spain, with the subsystems ranging from extensive to intensive. The results reveal inter- and intra-subsystem heterogeneity of farmers' preferences towards AES, both in general and specifically related to scheme attributes. A variety of factors appear to lie behind inter-subsystem heterogeneity, especially those associated with subsystem specificities (principally, the type of joint production). Likewise, numerous factors play a role in intra-subsystem heterogeneity, most of them related to farm/farmer socio-economic and physical characteristics. These findings will help in the design of more efficient AES. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

AgrFarmland birds act as important bio-indicators for agricultural areas. Bird-based indicators reveal current negative trends in species diversity and landscape quality of German agricultural areas. Urgent, more effective nature protection and environmental measures are needed in agricultural areas to reach biodiversity targets. To this end, methods were developed to assess habitat suitability of indicator bird species, impacts of agricultural measures on farmland birds were analyzed and suggestions for a biodiversity-friendly land-use were derived. Research projects and local conservation measures are effective tools of biodiversity conservation in agricultural areas. Sustainable land-use forms that ensure biodiversity preservation inevitably need efficient nature protection measures in agricultural areas, as aimed by the EU’s Greening policy. Sufficiently beneficial effects could be reached through ecological focus areas, where these hold high habitat qualities and are large enough. Farmers should be off ered a choice of nature protection measures from which they can select the most operationally applicable to their situation. This, however, requires a weighting of measures of the ecological focus areas as a function of habitat quality. Also, a specific management way is necessary for this agricultural land.

Agri-environmental schemes (AES) in irrigated olive groves (IOG) in southern Spain were assessed based on farmers’ preferences toward these schemes. A choice experiment was used in this ex-ante assessment, with the inclusion of some innovative elements, such as collective participation and ecological focus areas (EFA). The results showed that farmers’ mean willingness to accept (WTA) participation in collective rather than individual AES was €124.5/ha. Their mean WTA for an additional 1% of EFA was €64.6/ha, while regarding the use of other agri-environmental practices, they showed a WTA of €6.3/ha and €114.7/ha for an additional 1% in the use of cover crops (CC) in olive grove areas and restrictive management of CC, respectively. These estimates were strongly influenced by farmers’ expectations and socio-economic characteristics, as well as farm management. We obtained that farmers’ expectations of no farm takeover reduce WTA for collective participation, whereas agricultural training and having at least a secondary-school education reduce farmers’ WTA for EFA and restrictive management of the CC, respectively. Conversely, harvesting ground olives increased farmers’ WTA for a high proportion of the area under CC. The analysis of the AES scenarios showed moderately high estimates of total WTA (€101-349/ha), especially when collective participation is required (€225-474/ha). The results supported the argument that there are efficient ways to encourage public goods provision, overcoming trade-offs with private goods provision by identifying the type of joint production.

The EU Common Agricultural Policy regulations for the 2014-2020 period comprise three 'greening measures' aimed at climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation. These three greening measures consist of the maintenance of permanent pastures, crop diversification and ecological focus areas ( EFAs). Farmers are to assign 5% of their land as EFAs; this concerns for example grassland, hedges, buffer strips or nitrogen-fixing crops. Short rotation coppice ( SRC) as a perennial bioenergy crop is also considered as an eligible EFA within the EU greening measures, whereas Miscanthus is not. However, a quantitative comparison ( t-test) of SRC and Miscanthus revealed that both crops are similar in the delivery of a variety of ecosystem services, such as C storage and biodiversity. Moreover, Miscanthus may contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions due to a considerable CO2 mitigation potential. Due to the overall consensus of the ecological significance of Miscanthus in agro-ecosystems with the greening measures within the EU CAP reform, we recommend acknowledging Miscanthus as an eligible EFA with a similar payment as for SRC, boundary ridges or buffer strips. Along with Miscanthus, a number of other perennial renewables also may contribute to what the CAP intends. We predict that introducing Miscanthus and even other perennial energy crops could also make European agriculture more innovative and effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the current implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for 2014–2020, the European Commission wants to move towards “greener” farming practices in the European Union. Therefore, the EU funds both obligatory measures, such as Ecological Focus Areas (EFAs) through the Green Direct Payment program, and voluntary agri-environment measures. However, empirically evaluating the effectiveness of these measures is challenging. We therefore demonstrate here that mechanistic simulation models are a valuable tool for performing these evaluations. As an example, we use the Animal, Landscape and Man Simulation System (ALMaSS), an established simulation system that has been used to simulate a wide range of farmland species relevant to biodiversity. We analysed the benefits of seven greening scenarios for the European brown hare ( Lepus europaeus ), which has been in widespread decline throughout Europe since the 1960s. We examined the effects of the following EFA types on hare population dynamics: the cultivation of legumes such as (1) peas and (2) beans, (3) permanent and (4) rotational set-asides, (5) permanent extensive grasslands, and (6) herbaceous and (7) woody field margins. The cover of each type was increased separately up to 5% of the area in three Danish landscapes, which are characterised by low hare densities. The effects on female and yearling abundance were observed over a period of 30 years. All greening scenarios had significant positive effects on hare populations. The relative change in female abundance ranged from a factor of 0.4 in the peas scenario to 3.6 in the permanent set-aside scenario. However, only one EFA type, permanent set-asides, led to densities of more than 10 females per km 2 in all three landscapes, which we assumed to be the threshold for population viability. Herbaceous field margins were the second best EFA type, leading to population viability in two landscapes. Our results indicate that overall, 5% coverage with Ecological Focus Area is insufficient to improve the living conditions of the brown hare to a necessary degree. Permanent set-asides seem to be the most valuable type of EFA, but this needs to be confirmed for a wider range of species and landscapes. Using mechanistic simulation models for a suite of representative species, types of agricultural landscapes, and eco-regions could help in achieving the aim of the European Commission to promote biodiversity in the European community via greener farming practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ecological focus areas are one of the greening measures for CAP under which farm payments under Pillar 1 are made. The funds aim to conserve and improve biodiversity, when farms are choosing the support elements. The objectives of the study are to review the literature on the impact of biodiversity on agricultural land and the resources used. The benefits for farms are derived from the application of environmental practices and their impact on biodiversity. The potential ecological impact for the environment is also analyzed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Wallonia, organic farming continues to increase its share of agricultural activities, the number of organic farmers exceeding for the first time 10% of the total number of farmers in 2014, with 8.6% of the total agricultural area. Meadows represent 83% of the organic areas, general crops 15% and vegetables 1%. The number of cattle heads is still increasing, while poultry and laying hen recorded a significant progress during the last years. Organic products consumption is also increasing and the market share of organic products in food products reached 2.3% in 2014. On the other hand, the implementation of the new Common Agricultural Policy, and particularly its green payment, obliges 50% of Walloon farmers to practice crop diversification and 46% to have at least 5% of ecological focus area within their arable land in 2015, which represents more than 24,000 ha. So, organic farming and ecological focus areas do have today a significant share of the Walloon agricultural area, leading to a more sustainable agriculture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ecological focus areas are one of three greening measures that were introduced into the European Common Agricultural Policy by the reform in 2014, with the aim of enhancing the ecological function of agricultural landscapes. However, there are concerns that they will provide little or no additional ecological benefit (enhanced biodiversity and ecosystem services) as those that are declared may already exist and/or any new areas will be implemented on the basis of farm management burdens rather than ecological criteria, such as those which are the easiest or least costly to implement. To implement ecological focus areas to achieve greater benefits requires taking account of numerous spatial and management parameters, scientific understanding of ecosystem services, and the needs and behaviour individual and communities of species. Such an approach is not readily practical or feasible for many farm and land managers. This paper describes the development of an indicator framework which aims to distil this complex scientific information to aid decision making with regard to the implementation of ecological focus areas to enhance and increase benefits for ecosystem services and biodiversity. It involved collating scientific evidence from over 350 papers, reports and guides and then structuring this evidence to form the indicator framework. 230 impacts were identified for 20 land uses and landscape features, and these are characterised using 138 parameters and attributes, containing 708 descriptive classes. The framework aims to help land managers identify the potential benefits and burdens of different options for the specific spatial and management context of their farm, and thus select those with greatest benefits and least burden for their circumstances. Ecological focus areas are part of the first evolution of greening measures, so there is scope to improve them to make their implementation more ecological and more focused. Tools, such as the indicator framework presented herein, have the potential to support this process by educating and raising awareness of potential impacts, facilitating the transfer of scientific knowledge, and resulting in a more ecological aware industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agri-environmental schemes (AES) play a key role in promoting the production of environmental public goods by European Union agriculture. Although extensive literature has analyzed AES, some important issues remain understudied. This paper performs an ex-ante assessment of AES in permanent cropping, analyzing several issues that have received little attention from researchers, such as ecological focus areas (EFA) and collective participation. For this purpose, a choice experiment was used to assess farmers’ preferences toward AES in a case study of olive groves in southern Spain. Results show high heterogeneity among farmers, with different classes being identified, from potential participants to non-participants. As regards EFA, almost half of the farmers would be willing to accept it up to 2% for low monetary incentives (€8–9/ha per additional 1% of the farmland devoted to EFA) while the rest would do it for moderate-to-high monetary incentives (€41–151/ha per additional 1% of EFA). However, for a high share of EFA (e.g., 5–7%) higher incentives would presumably be required due to the intrinsic spatial restrictions of olive groves. With regard to collective participation, we find that it is unlikely that farmers would participate collectively with the incentive of the up to 30% EU-wide bonus. These results are relevant for policy-making now when new AES are being designed for the next programming period 2014–2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Semi-natural vegetation in agricultural land mainly includes extensively managed grasslands, agro-forestry areas and all vegetated features that are not used for crop production, such as hedgerows, buffer strips, field margins and woodlots. Semi-natural vegetation plays a major role in the supply of ecosystem services such as pollination, pest control, water quality control and erosion prevention. The efficiency of ecosystem services for agriculture should therefore depend upon the spatial distribution of semi-natural vegetation. In spite of such a relevance, semi-natural vegetation in agricultural land has never been mapped at the European scale. Therefore, we report here the first 1- km resolution map of semi-natural vegetation in agricultural land at the European Union scale. For that, we use an innovative convergence-of-evidence mapping method. We also present an assessment and a classification of the relation between semi-natural vegetation and ecosystem service supply at the regional scale. The major improvements in our mapping method are the following: (1) both large and small patches of perennial vegetation are detected in fine-resolution satellite images by incorporating the spectral rule-based preliminary classifier, (2) the identification of semi-natural grassland is enhanced, (3) European ancillary maps are used to help mapping of woody vegetation and identification of agro-ecosystems. Validation shows that our output map is 34.3 % more accurate than pre-existing components. In addition, results show that regulating ecosystem services increase with the abundance of semi-natural vegetation in agricultural lands with a coefficient R of 0.67. The results also show no specific trend in relation to provisioning ecosystem services. These findings mean that semi-natural vegetation is usually beneficial for regulating services, whereas the relation to provisioning services is strictly context-dependent. Overall our study supports greening measures design in the frame of the Common Agricultural Policy for 2014-2020. Results also will help to identify green infrastructure elements and priority areas for ecological restoration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Cavity-nesting bee, wasp reproduction was higher in landscapes with set-aside field. • Reproduction, richness of cavity-nesting bees, wasps increased by set-aside field %. • Wild bees, hoverflies from pan traps showed no preference for set-aside fields. • Set-aside fields had no effects on species composition and hyper abundant pollinators. • Sown set-aside fields in three-year crop rotation can have landscape-scale benefits. Wild bees, hoverflies and wasps are valuable ecosystem service providers in agricultural systems through pollination and biological control, and their species richness, abundance and reproductive success well indicate ecosystem health. However, they are often limited by foraging and nesting resources that are major drivers behind their steep decline. Although agri-environmental measurements improve resources for these groups, their wider landscape-scale impacts are basically unknown. Here, we questioned whether 2–3 years old, sown set-aside fields could have a potential in enhancing pollinator and predatory wasp communities at the landscape scale in a Central European agroecosystem. We measured reproductive success and parasitism of cavity-nesting bees and wasps by trapnests throughout the vegetation period, and sampled bee and hoverfly communities by colored pan traps in mid-summer, comparing landscapes with and without set-aside fields. We measured the effects of increasing distance from set-aside fields, the effects of share of different habitats and flower resources, and the effects of increasing set-aside field percentage area at landscape scale. The landscape scale effects of set-aside fields varied among taxa and/or at different time scales. Reproductive success of cavity-nesting bees and wasps was positively related to the presence of set-aside fields in the landscape and together with the number of cavity-nesting bee and wasp genera increased with the proportion of set-aside fields. Species richness or abundance of bees or hoverflies showed no difference between landscape plots with or without set-aside fields in the mid-summer period according to the pan trap samples, and flower abundance and distance from the set-aside fields had only a limited effect. Set-aside fields had no effect on either the most abundant wild bee species or on composition of species of intermediate abundance. Our results suggest that reproductive success of cavity-nesting bees and wasps can be enhanced by additional flower resources and nesting habitats through set-aside fields at the landscape scale. Other wild bees and hoverflies can be less sensitive to the presence of set-aside fields according to our results that might need different conservation approaches. But this might also suggest that such landscape-scale benefits of set-aside field management might be measureable only with samplings covering the whole vegetation period. We argue that well-defined measures specific to spatial scale and target groups are mandatory and should be adapted to the different histories and local contexts of agricultural landscapes in Europe to strengthen ecosystem service provider insects and have the highest benefit for agricultural production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We compare literature and interviews on farmers' decision-making. • Literature suggests a wide range of interacting factors affect farmer choices. • Policy-maker interviews reveal a narrow focus on economic and structural factors. • Simplistic design of environmental subsidies may limit uptake and effectiveness. • Better understanding of farmer motivations can help achieve environmental goals. The European Union Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has failed to achieve its aim of preserving European farmland biodiversity, despite massive investment in subsidies to incentivise environmentally-beneficial farming practices. This failure calls into question the design of the subsidy schemes, which are intended to either function as a safety net and make farming profitable or compensate farmers for costs and loss of income while undertaking environmental management. In this study, we assess whether the design of environmental payments in the CAP reflects current knowledge about farmers' decision-making as found in the research literature. We do so on the basis of a comprehensive literature review on farmers' uptake of agri-environmental management practices over the past 10 years and interviews specifically focused on Ecological Focus Areas with policy-makers, advisors and farmers in seven European countries. We find that economic and structural factors are the most commonly-identified determinants of farmers' adoption of environmental management practices in the literature and in interviews. However, the literature suggests that these are complemented by – and partially dependent on – a broad range of social, attitudinal and other contextual factors that are not recognised in interview responses or, potentially, in policy design. The relatively simplistic conceptualisation of farmer behaviour that underlies some aspects of policy design may hamper the effectiveness of environmental payments in the CAP by over-emphasising economic considerations, potentially corroding farmer attitudes to policy and environmental objectives. We conclude that an urgent redesign of agricultural subsidies is needed to better align them with the economic, social and environmental factors affecting farmer decision-making in a complex production climate, and therefore to maximise potential environmental benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"Greening", which was introduced during the last reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, targets the enhancement of ecological sustainability in European agriculture. Due to its association with such sustainability gains, growing agricultural wood, either as short rotation coppices or as agroforestry systems using for example the alley cropping system method, is one option to fulfil the Greening requirement of providing Ecological Focus Areas. However, agricultural wood in general or as an Ecological Focus Area is still of only minor relevance in most European countries. Particularly in Germany, where farmers are nowadays increasingly confronted with a conflict between the goals of realising their own profits and meeting societies' sustainability expectations, alley cropping systems are grown on a few field trials only. Reasons can likely be found in national specificities of political support for alley cropping systems as Ecological Focus Areas and in psycho-economic determinants of farmers' acceptance; an under-researched topic so far. To close this research gap, this study aims at identifying determinants of farmers' acceptance of alley cropping systems as Ecological Focus Areas. The conceptual framework developed is based on the Technology Acceptance Model 2. Survey data from 238 German farmers were collected and analysed by means of Partial-Least-Squares estimation. The results show that farmers' experience with alley cropping systems as Ecological Focus Areas is rather low but they generally consider agricultural wood as useful in fulfilling Greening requirements. The intention to grow is explained by 44% of the model and actual growing behaviour by 48%. The perceived cost-usefulness-ratio, stakeholder influences and expected image effects are identified as the main drivers of farmers' acceptance of alley cropping systems as Ecological Focus Areas. Based on these results, important implications are derived, to address to politicians, agricultural consultants, chambers of agriculture or farmers' associations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bumble bees are important crop pollinators but are negatively impacted by agricultural intensification and concomitant loss of floral resources. Flower strips can increase the abundance and sometimes the diversity of bumble bees at local scales, but the importance of flower strips for bumble bee populations at larger scales remains poorly understood. We investigated the effect of flower strips on bumble bee colony growth and reproduction at landscape scales. Commercial bumble bee colonies of a native species (Bombus terrestris) were placed and monitored at different distances from flower strips that were sown on existing ecological focus areas (European Common Agricultural Policy) in southern Sweden. Both the average colony growth (weight) and the production of reproductives (drones and queens) were highest for colonies adjacent to flower strips and declined with increasing distance. Colonies close to the flower strip also produced more reproductives per colony weight. Colony foraging activity was negatively related to the distance to flower strips whereas worker size was not affected. Annual flower strips in ecological focus areas benefit bumble bee colonies by increasing foraging success, colony growth and finally boosting sexual reproduction, demonstrating potential benefits for pollination within and between seasons. These effects were spatially limited but extended to foraging ranges of bumble bees. However, effects of increased colony growth on the abundance of foraging bees in the landscape may extend to larger distances because of forager movements within seasons and queen dispersal between seasons, suggesting that voluntary or incentivised collaboration between farmers may be needed to achieve optimal implementation of flower strips. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Intensively managed farms retain almost 10% of their holding as wildlife habitat. • Linear features account for 43% of the total area of wildlife habitat surveyed. • Hedgerows account for almost 3% area of every farm surveyed. • 100% of Irish tillage farms exceed the current 5% EFA requirement. • Habitats equivalent to 10% area of arable farms not covered by Irish EFA requirements. Biodiversity and associated ecosystem services have declined globally with agricultural intensification identified as a major driver of this loss. The most recent reform of the Common Agricultural Policy resulted in the introduction of three mandatory 'Greening' measures aimed at improving the environmental performance of EU agricultural legislation. The Ecological Focus Area (EFA) measure within Greening was intended to help improve biodiversity associated with European tillage farms. To improve understanding of the implementation of this measure, data are needed on the areas within tillage farms that qualify as EFA. We also consider a scenario that implements an EFA measure on pastoral farming enterprises, assessing the percentage area of wildlife habitats contained within grassland farms. These data will aid in the implementation of appropriate management strategies to attempt to halt the decline of biodiversity and associated ecosystem services. We surveyed 119 intensively managed farms across three farming enterprises (tillage, beef and dairy) in Ireland to estimate the percentage of EFA and other farmland habitats occurring within these farms. Almost 10% of the total area of farms within this sample comprised habitats beneficial for wildlife, with linear features such as hedgerows, buffer strips and drainage ditches accounting for 43% of the total area of wildlife habitat surveyed. Hedgerows were the most abundant and frequently occurring wildlife habitat, present on 100% of farms surveyed and accounting for almost 3% of the total area of every farm. Other semi-natural wooded habitats (semi-natural woodland, isolated trees, field copse) accounted for a further 2% area of farms surveyed. All tillage farms and the majority of pastoral farms in our sample met the current 5% EFA requirement. Field margins were the most frequently encountered habitat that was ineligible under Irish EFA prescriptions, but which qualifies as EFA under EU legislation. Additionally, a large percentage area (6.8% after application of conversion and weighting factors) of tillage farms sampled was covered by habitats not classed as EFA under EU legislation. To facilitate enhanced environmental performance of EU agricultural legislation, a broader range of habitats beneficial for wildlife, already present on farms but not protected under legislation, may be incorporated into future prescriptions. Preserving these habitats can help reduce ecological losses, increase biodiversity and promote the sustainability of agricultural systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]