Suchergebnisse

Es hat in der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik der Europäischen Union (GAP) seit 1992 zahlreiche mehr oder weniger erfolgreiche Reformschritte gegeben, die die gemeinsame Agrarpolitik generell liberalisiert, ihre Budget-Kosten reduziert und die handels- und produktionsverzerrenden Wirkungen abgebaut haben. Gleichwohl werden immer noch 42% des EU-Haushaltes für die Agrarpolitik aufgewendet und die Umweltwirkungen werden kontrovers diskutiert. Auch die Verteilung der Direktzahlungen zwischen den Landwirten und zwischen den Mitgliedern der Europäischen Union wird teilweise kontrovers diskutiert. Der Einsatz von marktverzerrenden Instrumenten wie Exportsubventionen wurde zwar reduziert, aber nicht vollständig beendet. Parallel zu den Beschlüssen zur finanziellen Vorausschau 2013-2020 hat die Europäische Kommission unter der Federführung von Agrarkommissar Dacian Ciolos und dem Directorate General für Landwirtschaft (DG Agri) zunächst 2010 in einem Thesenpapier neue Ziele und Herausforderungen für die Agrarpolitik benannt und im Oktober 2011 weitere Gesetzentwürfe für die Reform 2013 vorgelegt (Europäische Kommission 2011). Die EU-Mitgliedstaaten müssen sich im Zuge des Entscheidungsprozesses zur Reform positionieren. Im Prozess der Positionierung der Bundesregierung, auf deren Grundlage die Verhandlungsstrategie und das Abstimmungsverhalten der Bundesministerin Ilse Aigner im Rat der Europäischen Union basiert, spielt auch der Deutsche Bundestag als wichtigstes Legislativorgan in Deutschland, und speziell der Bundestagsausschuss für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz eine wichtige Rolle. Das vorliegende Papier ist der Versuch, aus Sicht der verschiedenen agrarwissenschaftlichen Disziplinen der Fakultäten in Göttingen und Witzenhausen zu den Reformentwürfen Stellung zu beziehen. Die gesammelten Argumente sind in Pro- und Contra-Argumente unterteilt. Daneben haben wir versucht, offene Fragen zu formulieren. Die Argumente sind dabei auch teilweise widersprüchlich, da sie von den Vertretern verschiedener Teildisziplinen formuliert wurden. Daher lässt sich aus diesem Papier keineswegs eine vollständige oder abschließende Analyse des Reformvorschlags ableiten. Am 11. Januar 2012 fand in Göttingen eine öffentliche Diskussion zwischen dem Bundestagsausschuss für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz und den Studierenden, wissenschaftlichen Mitarbeitern und Professoren der Göttinger Fakultät für Agrarwissenschaften über den Entwurf der EU-Kommission zur GAP-Reform 2013 statt. Eine frühere Fassung dieses Papiers diente zunächst als Grundlage für die gemeinsame Diskussion am 11. Januar 2012 in Göttingen und als Sammlung von Argumenten für den Diskussionsprozess innerhalb des Bundestages. Als Wissenschaftler sehen wir uns jedoch auch in der Pflicht, zu einer breiteren öffentlichen Diskussion beizutragen und unsere Erkenntnisse zum Diskurs zur GAP-Reform, der uns vermutlich noch durch die Jahre 2012 und 2013 begleiten wird, beizutragen. Daher haben wir uns dazu entschlossen, diese Sammlung von Analysen, Argumenten und offenen Fragen zu veröffentlichen.

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.

AbstractIn Europe, various conservation programs adopted to maintain or restore biodiversity have experienced differing levels of success. However, a synthesis about major factors for success of biodiversity-related conservation programs across ecosystems and national boundaries, such as incentives, subsidies, enforcement, participation, or spatial context, is missing. Using a balanced scorecard survey among experts, we analyzed and compared factors contributing to success or failure of three different conservation programs: two government programs (Natura 2000 and the ecological measures of the Water Framework Directive) and one conservation program of a non-governmental organization (NGO; Rewilding Europe), all focusing on habitat and species conservation. The experts perceived the NGO program as more successful in achieving biodiversity-related aims than governmental conservation legislation. Among the factors perceived to influence the success of biodiversity conservation, several stood out: Biodiversity-damaging subsidies, external economic interests competing with conservation goals or policies conflicting with biodiversity conservation were recognized as major factors for the lack of conservation success. Outreach to raise societal interest and awareness as well as stakeholder involvement were perceived as closely related to the success of programs. Our expert survey demonstrated that external factors from economy and policy often hinder success of conservation programs, while societal and environmental factors rather contribute to it. This study implies that conservation programs should be designed to be as inclusive as possible and provides a basis for developing a standardized methodology that explicitly considers indirect drivers from areas such as economy, policy and society.

Background and aims – Agricultural intensification and loss of farmland heterogeneity have contributed to population declines of wild bees and other pollinators, which may have caused subsequent declines in insect-pollinated wild plants. Material and methods – Using data from 37 studies on 22 pollinator-dependent wild plant species across Europe, we investigated whether flower visitation and seed set of insect-pollinated plants decline with an increasing proportion of arable land within 1 km. Key results – Seed set increased with increasing flower visitation by bees, most of which were wild bees, but not with increasing flower visitation by other insects. Increasing proportion of arable land had a strongly variable effect on seed set and flower visitation by bees across studies. Conclusion – Factors such as landscape configuration, local habitat quality, and temporally changing resource availability (e.g. due to mass-flowering crops or honey bee hives) could have modified the effect of arable land on pollination. While our results highlight that the persistence of wild bees is crucial to maintain plant diversity, we also show that pollen limitation due to declining bee populations in homogenized agricultural landscapes is not a universal driver causing parallel losses of bees and insect-pollinated plants. ; EU FP5 QLRT-2001-01495 ; Swiss Federal Office for Science and Technology (01·0524-2) ; FORMAS ; Estonian Ministry of Education and Research IUT (IUT20-33) ; Internal Grant Agency of the Faculty of Environmental Sciences Czech University of Life Sciences Prague 42900/1312/3166 ; MC-CIG BeeFun project: PCIG14-GA-2013-631653 ; DAFM ; IRC ; Formas (2018-01466) ; German Ministry of Research and Education (FKZ: 01LC1104A) ; NKFIH project (FK123813) ; NKFIH (KKP 133839) ; European Union in the 7th Framework Programme (grant 244090), ; MTA Bolyai Fellow ; Peer reviewed

1. Increasing landscape heterogeneity by restoring semi-natural elements to reverse farmland biodiversity declines is not always economically feasible or acceptable to farmers due to competition for land. We hypothesized that increasing the hetero-geneity of the crop mosaic itself, hereafter referred to as crop heterogeneity, can have beneficial effects on within-field plant diversity .2. Using a unique multi-country dataset from a cross-continent collaborative project covering 1,451 agricultural fields within 432 landscapes in Europe and Canada, we assessed the relative effects of compositional and configurational crop heteroge-neity on within-field plant diversity components. We also examined how these relationships were modulated by the position within the field. 3. We found strong positive effects of configurational crop heterogeneity on within-field plant alpha and gamma diversity in field interiors. These effects were as high as the effect of semi-natural cover. In field borders, effects of crop heterogeneity were limited to alpha diversity. We suggest that a heterogeneous crop mosaic may overcome the high negative impact of management practices on plant diversity in field interiors, whereas in field borders, where plant diversity is already high, landscape effects are more limited. 4. Synthesis and applications. Our study shows that increasing configurational crop heterogeneity is beneficial to within-field plant diversity. It opens up a new effec-tive and complementary way to promote farmland biodiversity without taking land out of agricultural production. We therefore recommend adopting manipulation of crop heterogeneity as a specific, effective management option in future policy measures, perhaps adding to agri-environment schemes, to contribute to the con-servation of farmland plant diversity. ; Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; German Ministry of Research and Education; Agence Nationale de la Recherche, Grant/Award Number: ANR-11-EBID-0004; Canada Foundation for Innovation; German Research Foundation; Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness; Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada; French National Research Agency, Grant/Award Number: ANR-11-EBID-0004; UK Government Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Environment Canada (EC)

Background and aims: Agricultural intensification and loss of farmland heterogeneity have contributed to population declines of wild bees and other pollinators, which may have caused subsequent declines in insect-pollinated wild plants. Material and methods: Using data from 37 studies on 22 pollinator-dependent wild plant species across Europe, we investigated whether flower visitation and seed set of insect-pollinated plants decline with an increasing proportion of arable land within 1 km. Key results: Seed set increased with increasing flower visitation by bees, most of which were wild bees, but not with increasing flower visitation by other insects. Increasing proportion of arable land had a strongly variable effect on seed set and flower visitation by bees across studies. Conclusion:Factors such as landscape configuration, local habitat quality, and temporally changing resource availability (e.g. due to mass-flowering crops or honey bee hives) could have modified the effect of arable land on pollination. While our results highlight that the persistence of wild bees is crucial to maintain plant diversity, we also show that pollen limitation due to declining bee populations in homogenized agricultural landscapes is not a universal driver causing parallel losses of bees and insect-pollinated plants. ; The original idea was conceived aspart of the project 'STEP - Status and trends of Europeanpollinators' funded by the European Union in the 7thFramework Programme (grant 244090), which fundedRB, ISD, HGS, SP, MR, LH, JME, and KS. JE and PCwere funded by MULTAGRI/FORMAS. MA was fundedby the EU FP5 project 'Evaluating current European agri-environment schemes to quantify and improve natureconservation efforts in agricultural landscapes' (EASY;QLRT-2001-01495) and the Swiss Federal Office for Scienceand Technology (01·0524-2). AJ and EÖ were funded byFORMAS. TTe and VS were supported by institutionalresearch funding IUT (IUT20-33) of the Estonian Ministryof Education and Research, and TTe also received funding(grant no. 42900/1312/3166) from the Internal Grant Agencyof the Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech Universityof Life Sciences Prague. IB was funded by MC-CIG BeeFunproject: PCIG14-GA-2013-631653 and thanks the DoñanaNP staff members for granting access to the Park and CurroMolina for conducting the field work. JS, EFP, and SM werefunded by DAFM and IRC. LH was funded by a grant fromFormas to HGS and by a mobility grant from Formas (2018-01466). ALH was funded by the FarmLand project supportedby the German Ministry of Research and Education (FKZ:01LC1104A). AKH was supported by the NKFIH project 348Pl. Ecol. Evol.154 (3), 2021(FK123813) and was a Bolyai Fellow of MTA. PB wassupported by the NKFIH (KKP 133839).

Land-use transitions can enhance the livelihoods of smallholder farmers but potential economic-ecological trade-offs remain poorly understood. Here, we present an interdisciplinary study of the environmental, social and economic consequences of land-use transitions in a tropical smallholder landscape on Sumatra, Indonesia. We find widespread biodiversity-profit trade-offs resulting from land-use transitions from forest and agroforestry systems to rubber and oil palm monocultures, for 26,894 aboveground and belowground species and whole-ecosystem multidiversity. Despite variation between ecosystem functions, profit gains come at the expense of ecosystem multifunctionality, indicating far-reaching ecosystem deterioration. We identify landscape compositions that can mitigate trade-offs under optimal land-use allocation but also show that intensive monocultures always lead to higher profits. These findings suggest that, to reduce losses in biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, changes in economic incentive structures through well-designed policies are urgently needed.

A large proportion of European biodiversity today depends on habitat provided by low-intensity farming practices, yet this resource is declining as European agriculture intensifies. Within the European Union, particularly the central and eastern new member states have retained relatively large areas of species-rich farmland, but despite increased investment in nature conservation here in recent years, farmland biodiversity trends appear to be worsening. Although the high biodiversity value of Central and Eastern European farmland has long been reported, the amount of research in the international literature focused on farmland biodiversity in this region remains comparatively tiny, and measures within the EU Common Agricultural Policy are relatively poorly adapted to support it. In this opinion study, we argue that, 10 years after the accession of the first eastern EU new member states, the continued under-representation of the low-intensity farmland in Central and Eastern Europe in the international literature and EU policy is impeding the development of sound, evidence-based conservation interventions. The biodiversity benefits for Europe of existing low-intensity farmland, particularly in the central and eastern states, should be harnessed before they are lost. Instead of waiting for species-rich farmland to further decline, targeted research and monitoring to create locally appropriate conservation strategies for these habitats is needed now.

A large proportion of European biodiversity today depends on habitat provided by low-intensity farming practices, yet this resource is declining as European agriculture intensifies. Within the European Union, particularly the central and eastern new member states have retained relatively large areas of species-rich farmland, but despite increased investment in nature conservation here in recent years, farmland biodiversity trends appear to be worsening. Although the high biodiversity value of Central and Eastern European farmland has long been reported, the amount of research in the international literature focused on farmland biodiversity in this region remains comparatively tiny, and measures within the EU Common Agricultural Policy are relatively poorly adapted to support it. In this opinion study, we argue that, 10years after the accession of the first eastern EU new member states, the continued under-representation of the low-intensity farmland in Central and Eastern Europe in the international literature and EU policy is impeding the development of sound, evidence-based conservation interventions. The biodiversity benefits for Europe of existing low-intensity farmland, particularly in the central and eastern states, should be harnessed before they are lost. Instead of waiting for species-rich farmland to further decline, targeted research and monitoring to create locally appropriate conservation strategies for these habitats is needed now. ; Peer reviewed