IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v85y2019icp407-418.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Nilsson, Lovisa
  • Clough, Yann
  • Smith, Henrik G.
  • Alkan Olsson, Johanna
  • Brady, Mark V.
  • Hristov, Jordan
  • Olsson, Peter
  • Skantze, Karin
  • Ståhlberg, David
  • Dänhardt, Juliana

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 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Nilsson, Lovisa & Clough, Yann & Smith, Henrik G. & Alkan Olsson, Johanna & Brady, Mark V. & Hristov, Jordan & Olsson, Peter & Skantze, Karin & Ståhlberg, David & Dänhardt, Juliana, 2019. "A suboptimal array of options erodes the value of CAP ecological focus areas," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 407-418.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:85:y:2019:i:c:p:407-418
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.04.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837718319355
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.04.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cong, Rong-Gang & Smith, Henrik G. & Olsson, Ola & Brady, Mark, 2014. "Managing ecosystem services for agriculture: Will landscape-scale management pay?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 53-62.
    2. Evy Mettepenningen & Ann Verspecht & Guido Van Huylenbroeck, 2009. "Measuring private transaction costs of European agri-environmental schemes," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 649-667.
    3. Stallman, Heidi R., 2011. "Ecosystem services in agriculture: Determining suitability for provision by collective management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 131-139.
    4. Drechsler, Martin & Wätzold, Frank & Johst, Karin & Shogren, Jason F., 2010. "An agglomeration payment for cost-effective biodiversity conservation in spatially structured landscapes," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 261-275, April.
    5. Laure Kuhfuss & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Nudging farmers to enrol land into agri-environmental schemes: the role of a collective bonus," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 43(4), pages 609-636.
    6. Balmann, Alfons, 1997. "Farm-Based Modelling of Regional Structural Change: A Cellular Automata Approach," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 24(1), pages 85-108.
    7. Coggan, Anthea & Whitten, Stuart M. & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Influences of transaction costs in environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1777-1784, July.
    8. Sidemo-Holm, William & Smith, Henrik G. & Brady, Mark V., 2018. "Improving agricultural pollution abatement through result-based payment schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 209-219.
    9. Riley, Mark & Sangster, Heather & Smith, Hugh & Chiverrell, Richard & Boyle, John, 2018. "Will farmers work together for conservation? The potential limits of farmers’ cooperation in agri-environment measures," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 635-646.
    10. Cong, Rong-Gang & Ekroos, Johan & Smith, Henrik G. & Brady, Mark V., 2016. "Optimizing intermediate ecosystem services in agriculture using rules based on landscape composition and configuration indices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 214-223.
    11. Jeremy Franks, 2011. "The collective provision of environmental goods: a discussion of contractual issues," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(5), pages 637-660.
    12. Anna C. Jonsson & Lotta Andersson & Johanna Alkan Olsson & Madelaine Johansson, 2011. "Defining goals in participatory water management: merging local visions and expert judgements," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(7), pages 909-935, September.
    13. Happe, Kathrin & Kellermann, Konrad & Balmann, Alfons, 2006. "Agent-based analysis of agricultural policies: An illustration of the agricultural policy simulator AgriPoliS, its adaptation and behavior," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 11(1).
    14. Herzon, I. & Birge, T. & Allen, B. & Povellato, A. & Vanni, F. & Hart, K. & Radley, G. & Tucker, G. & Keenleyside, C. & Oppermann, R. & Underwood, E. & Poux, X. & Beaufoy, G. & Pražan, J., 2018. "Time to look for evidence: Results-based approach to biodiversity conservation on farmland in Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 347-354.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Herring, Matthew W. & Garnett, Stephen T. & Zander, Kerstin K., 2022. "Producing rice while conserving the habitat of an endangered waterbird: Incentives for farmers to integrate water management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    2. Carmelo Díaz-Poblete & María Carmen García-Cortijo & Juan Sebastián Castillo-Valero, 2021. "Is the Greening Instrument a Valid Precedent for the New Green Architecture of the CAP? The Case of Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-11, May.
    3. Giulio Fusco, 2021. "Twenty Years of Common Agricultural Policy in Europe: A Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-15, September.
    4. Francesca L. Falco & Eran Feitelson & Tamar Dayan, 2021. "Spatial Scale Mismatches in the EU Agri-Biodiversity Conservation Policy. The Case for a Shift to Landscape-Scale Design," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-24, August.
    5. Brown, Calum & Kovács, Eszter & Herzon, Irina & Villamayor-Tomas, Sergio & Albizua, Amaia & Galanaki, Antonia & Grammatikopoulou, Ioanna & McCracken, Davy & Olsson, Johanna Alkan & Zinngrebe, Yves, 2021. "Simplistic understandings of farmer motivations could undermine the environmental potential of the common agricultural policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    6. Bethwell, Claudia & Sattler, Claudia & Stachow, Ulrich, 2022. "An analytical framework to link governance, agricultural production practices, and the provision of ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    7. Jorge Ortega-Marcos & Violeta Hevia & Ana P. García-Nieto & José A. González, 2022. "Installing Flower Strips to Promote Pollinators in Simplified Agricultural Landscapes: Comprehensive Viability Assessment in Sunflower Fields," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-13, October.
    8. Kernecker, Maria & Seufert, Verena & Chapman, Mollie, 2021. "Farmer-centered ecological intensification: Using innovation characteristics to identify barriers and opportunities for a transition of agroecosystems towards sustainability," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jordan Hristov & Yann Clough & Ullrika Sahlin & Henrik G. Smith & Martin Stjernman & Ola Olsson & Amanda Sahrbacher & Mark V. Brady, 2020. "Impacts of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy “Greening” Reform on Agricultural Development, Biodiversity, and Ecosystem Services," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(4), pages 716-738, December.
    2. Berthet, Alice & Vincent, Audrey & Fleury, Philippe, 2021. "Water quality issues and agriculture: An international review of innovative policy schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    3. Clements, Jen & Lobley, Matt & Osborne, Juliet & Wills, Jane, 2021. "How can academic research on UK agri-environment schemes pivot to meet the addition of climate mitigation aims?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    4. Huber, Robert & Zabel, Astrid & Schleiffer, Mirjam & Vroege, Willemijn & Brändle, Julia M. & Finger, Robert, 2021. "Conservation Costs Drive Enrolment in Agglomeration Bonus Scheme," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    5. Niskanen, Olli & Tienhaara, Annika & Haltia, Emmi & Pouta, Eija, 2021. "Farmers’ heterogeneous preferences towards results-based environmental policies," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    6. Westerink, Judith & Jongeneel, Roel & Polman, Nico & Prager, Katrin & Franks, Jeremy & Dupraz, Pierre & Mettepenningen, Evy, 2017. "Collaborative governance arrangements to deliver spatially coordinated agri-environmental management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 176-192.
    7. Mark V. Brady & Jordan Hristov & Fredrik Wilhelmsson & Katarina Hedlund, 2019. "Roadmap for Valuing Soil Ecosystem Services to Inform Multi-Level Decision-Making in Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-20, September.
    8. Matteo Zavalloni & Meri Raggi & Davide Viaggi, 2019. "Agri-environmental Policies and Public Goods: An Assessment of Coalition Incentives and Minimum Participation Rules," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(4), pages 1023-1040, April.
    9. Cong, Rong-Gang & Ekroos, Johan & Smith, Henrik G. & Brady, Mark V., 2016. "Optimizing intermediate ecosystem services in agriculture using rules based on landscape composition and configuration indices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 214-223.
    10. Villamayor-Tomas, Sergio & Sagebiel, Julian & Olschewski, Roland, 2019. "Bringing the neighbors in: A choice experiment on the influence of coordination and social norms on farmers’ willingness to accept agro-environmental schemes across Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 200-215.
    11. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    12. Mark Brady & Konrad Kellermann & Christoph Sahrbacher & Ladislav Jelinek, 2009. "Impacts of Decoupled Agricultural Support on Farm Structure, Biodiversity and Landscape Mosaic: Some EU Results," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 563-585, September.
    13. Heinrich, F. & Appel, F., 2018. "Do investors ruin Germany s peasant agriculture?," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277171, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Ostermeyer, Arlette & Balmann, Alfons, 2011. "Perception of dairy farming from different views - results of a stakeholder discussion in the region Altmark, Germany," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114578, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Brady, Mark V. & Hristov, Jordan & Sahrbacher, Christoph & Willhelmsson, Fredrik, 2015. "Passive farming in Europe: hindering agricultural development or preserving valuable landscape," 147th Seminar, October 7-8, 2015, Sofia, Bulgaria 212248, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Coronese, Matteo & Occelli, Martina & Lamperti, Francesco & Roventini, Andrea, 2023. "AgriLOVE: Agriculture, land-use and technical change in an evolutionary, agent-based model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    17. Robert Huber & Hang Xiong & Kevin Keller & Robert Finger, 2022. "Bridging behavioural factors and standard bio‐economic modelling in an agent‐based modelling framework," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(1), pages 35-63, February.
    18. Phan, Thu-Ha Dang & Brouwer, Roy & Davidson, Marc David, 2017. "A Global Survey and Review of the Determinants of Transaction Costs of Forestry Carbon Projects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 1-10.
    19. Banerjee, Simanti & Cason, Timothy N. & de Vries, Frans P. & Hanley, Nick, 2017. "Transaction costs, communication and spatial coordination in Payment for Ecosystem Services Schemes," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 68-89.
    20. Bareille, Francois & Boussard, Hugues & Thenail, Claudine, 2020. "Productive ecosystem services and collective management: Lessons from a realistic landscape model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:85:y:2019:i:c:p:407-418. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.