- Email: [email protected]
European Policy Review: Functional agrobiodiversity supporting sustainable agriculture
Journal for Nature Conservation 22 (2014) 193–194
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal for Nature Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.de/jnc
European Policy Review
European Policy Review: Functional agrobiodiversity supporting sustainable agriculture Ben Delbaere a,∗ , Veronika Mikos a , Mirjam Pulleman b a b
ECNC – European Centre for Nature Conservation, The Netherlands Wageningen University, The Netherlands
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 7 January 2014 Accepted 12 January 2014 Keywords: Knowledge base Ecosystem services Europe
a b s t r a c t This short communication introduces the concept of functional agrobiodiversity and how this provides ecosystem services in support of a transition towards a more sustainable agriculture in Europe. It describes the European policy framework for measures in support of functional agrobiodiversity and the role that knowledge and research play in stimulating their implementation. © 2014 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
Agriculture is the predominant land use in about half of Europe’s land area. Therefore it is one of the key sectors impacting on biodiversity, both positively and negatively. Over thousands of years farming practices have shaped Europe’s multifunctional landscapes, with many species and habitat types adapted to or dependent on these practices. At the same time, the drive for more efficient and productive agriculture has led to intensification of practices, mechanisation and increase of scale of farming. In certain parts of Europe, lack of profitability or capacity has also led to abandonment of agricultural land. These processes have a significant impact on the levels of biodiversity in farmland all over the continent. At a European scale this impact is largely negative, resulting in decreased population size or area for many species groups connected to farmland. Locally, however, adapted farming practices can show positive effects on aspects of biodiversity or individual species. Demands from society drive the agricultural sector to change in two ways. On the one hand, global consumption patterns, human population increase and competing demands for land area require further intensification and increased productivity on agricultural land. In this part of the discourse fits the plea of some to significantly increase productivity by higher artificial input on less land, which is expected to free other land for biodiversity conservation (also called land-sparing). On the other hand, increased awareness of consumers about environmental impacts of their behaviour together with a number of events connected to food safety as a result of high-intensive agriculture, demands for a move
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 13 5944944. E-mail address: [email protected] (B. Delbaere). 1617-1381/$ – see front matter © 2014 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2014.01.003
to more sustainable agriculture and a change in consumption patterns. This end of the debate includes the call for more organic agriculture, broader application of agri-environment measures, and multifunctional land use (called land-sharing). The different spatial approaches described above (sharing vs. sparing) are in Europe largely related to scale, location and the type of biodiversity one aims to protect. Many parts of Europe are so densely populated and dominated by agriculture that land sparing might be the only option with landscapes having developed historically into this direction. On the other hand, agriculture that is heavily reliant on external inputs is not robust in the long term, especially not when taking into account climate change and depletion of (non-renewable) natural resources. We focus here on possible solutions for a more sustainable agriculture at the landscape and farm levels. The key challenge in this respect is to identify, together with all stakeholders in a given area, solutions and measures that provide benefits to both agriculture and biodiversity (and other demands from society). Such solutions include crop diversification, improved soil management and increased efficiency of the use of fuel and agrochemicals, assisted by technological developments such as high-precision farming using remote sensing techniques and GPS. Policy measures, such as effective/dual purpose agri-environment measures, are another response to more sustainable agriculture (see e.g. Brussaard et al., 2010). Also, market mechanisms can be of help, such as labelling of biodiversity-friendly farming, branding, or payments for ecosystem services. In recent years, the concept of ecosystem services (benefits provided by ecosystems in support of human well-being) creates high expectations for the integration of biodiversity considerations into economic sectors, including agriculture. While it
194
B. Delbaere et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 22 (2014) 193–194
should be recognised that applying the concept should be done with great care with respect to biodiversity (conserving biodiversity for ethical reasons is still a must) it does provide great opportunities in terms of communicating with and involving other stakeholders. Basically, the challenge is to find ways that protect natural habitats and ecosystems (including the species they harbour) and that at the same time ensure the provision of services by these ecosystems in support of more sustainable agriculture. Agricultural practices in support of functional agrobiodiversity are based on the idea of strengthening ecosystem services. Functional agrobiodiversity (or FAB) is defined as ‘those elements of biodiversity on the scale of agricultural fields or landscapes, which provide ecosystem services that support sustainable agricultural production and can also deliver benefits to the regional and global environment and the public at large’ (Bianchi et al., 2013; ELNFAB, 2012). Examples of FAB include flower-rich field margins that host natural pest predators or pollinators, hedgerows that reduce soil erosion, or soil biodiversity that increases organic matter and therefore water retaining capacity or soil productivity. Measures in support of FAB typically aim at reducing artificial input for agriculture by offering natural alternatives and at the same time those measures benefit local biodiversity. Although FAB-measures have been implemented for many years (often referred to differently), there is increasing policy momentum for them to be more widely applied. Not only the general move towards more sustainable agriculture is of relevance, but also more specific policies such as the recent European Commission Green Infrastructure Strategy, the EU Natura 2000 network, and the reformed Common Agricultural Policy (CAP; European Commission, 2014) provide direct opportunities for FAB-implementation. The concept of Green Infrastructure includes ‘green spaces and other physical features in terrestrial areas, such as rural settings, designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services’ (adapted from European Commission, 2013). In the context of the reformed CAP the proposed greening measures, in particular, provide an opportunity for FAB. These greening measures include the maintenance of permanent grassland (which may reduce soil erosion and maintain grassland biodiversity), crop diversification (which may support more genetic diversity and a wider range of pollinators and other species), and ecological focus
areas (5% of arable land to be used for field margins, hedges, trees, fallow land, landscape features, biotopes, buffer strips, afforested area). While recognising that FAB is not a panacea that will halt the decline of biodiversity or turn agriculture into a fully sustainable mode, it is one of the measures that may provide a substantial contribution to these processes. However, for this to happen and for FAB-measures to be much wider applied across Europe, some conditions have to be met. Among these conditions (which include awareness raising and education of farmers) research and knowledge generation are essential. For example, there is an outstanding need to study the cause-effect relation between levels of biodiversity and the ecosystem services provided to agriculture. What elements of biodiversity provide what service where and when? And how can soil and crop management improvements within fields and FAB around fields complement or strengthen each other? On the social side, there is a need for more insight into the factors that drive farmers to opt for FAB-measures, or not. One of these might be of a financial nature, what financial benefit does a farmer get from investing in FAB-measures? So on the economic side there is a need for research on cost-benefits and on the business case for FAB. The knowledge generated by this research will then form the basis for educating young farmers and raising awareness of current farmers. This, in turn, will help implement policy measures and enhance their effectiveness in the framework of green infrastructure, a greener CAP and making agriculture more sustainable and biodiversity friendly. References Bianchi, F. J. J. A., Mikos, V., Brussaard, L., Delbaere, B., & Pulleman, M. M. (2013). Opportunities and limitations for functional agrobiodiversity in the European context. Environmental Science & Policy, 27, 223–231. Brussaard, L., Caron, P., Campbell, B., Lipper, L., Mainka, S., Rabbinge, R., et al. (2010). Reconciling biodiversity conservation and food security: Scientific challenges for a new agriculture. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(1–2), 34–42. ELN-FAB. (2012). Functional agrobiodiversity: Nature serving Europe’s farmers. Tilburg, The Netherlands: ECNC. European Commission. (2013). Green Infrastructure (GI) – Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital. COM(2013) 249 final. European Commission. (2014). Legal proposals for the CAP after 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/legal-proposals/index en.htm (last accessed: 27 January 2014)
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal for Nature Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.de/jnc
European Policy Review
European Policy Review: Functional agrobiodiversity supporting sustainable agriculture Ben Delbaere a,∗ , Veronika Mikos a , Mirjam Pulleman b a b
ECNC – European Centre for Nature Conservation, The Netherlands Wageningen University, The Netherlands
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 7 January 2014 Accepted 12 January 2014 Keywords: Knowledge base Ecosystem services Europe
a b s t r a c t This short communication introduces the concept of functional agrobiodiversity and how this provides ecosystem services in support of a transition towards a more sustainable agriculture in Europe. It describes the European policy framework for measures in support of functional agrobiodiversity and the role that knowledge and research play in stimulating their implementation. © 2014 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
Agriculture is the predominant land use in about half of Europe’s land area. Therefore it is one of the key sectors impacting on biodiversity, both positively and negatively. Over thousands of years farming practices have shaped Europe’s multifunctional landscapes, with many species and habitat types adapted to or dependent on these practices. At the same time, the drive for more efficient and productive agriculture has led to intensification of practices, mechanisation and increase of scale of farming. In certain parts of Europe, lack of profitability or capacity has also led to abandonment of agricultural land. These processes have a significant impact on the levels of biodiversity in farmland all over the continent. At a European scale this impact is largely negative, resulting in decreased population size or area for many species groups connected to farmland. Locally, however, adapted farming practices can show positive effects on aspects of biodiversity or individual species. Demands from society drive the agricultural sector to change in two ways. On the one hand, global consumption patterns, human population increase and competing demands for land area require further intensification and increased productivity on agricultural land. In this part of the discourse fits the plea of some to significantly increase productivity by higher artificial input on less land, which is expected to free other land for biodiversity conservation (also called land-sparing). On the other hand, increased awareness of consumers about environmental impacts of their behaviour together with a number of events connected to food safety as a result of high-intensive agriculture, demands for a move
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 13 5944944. E-mail address: [email protected] (B. Delbaere). 1617-1381/$ – see front matter © 2014 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2014.01.003
to more sustainable agriculture and a change in consumption patterns. This end of the debate includes the call for more organic agriculture, broader application of agri-environment measures, and multifunctional land use (called land-sharing). The different spatial approaches described above (sharing vs. sparing) are in Europe largely related to scale, location and the type of biodiversity one aims to protect. Many parts of Europe are so densely populated and dominated by agriculture that land sparing might be the only option with landscapes having developed historically into this direction. On the other hand, agriculture that is heavily reliant on external inputs is not robust in the long term, especially not when taking into account climate change and depletion of (non-renewable) natural resources. We focus here on possible solutions for a more sustainable agriculture at the landscape and farm levels. The key challenge in this respect is to identify, together with all stakeholders in a given area, solutions and measures that provide benefits to both agriculture and biodiversity (and other demands from society). Such solutions include crop diversification, improved soil management and increased efficiency of the use of fuel and agrochemicals, assisted by technological developments such as high-precision farming using remote sensing techniques and GPS. Policy measures, such as effective/dual purpose agri-environment measures, are another response to more sustainable agriculture (see e.g. Brussaard et al., 2010). Also, market mechanisms can be of help, such as labelling of biodiversity-friendly farming, branding, or payments for ecosystem services. In recent years, the concept of ecosystem services (benefits provided by ecosystems in support of human well-being) creates high expectations for the integration of biodiversity considerations into economic sectors, including agriculture. While it
194
B. Delbaere et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 22 (2014) 193–194
should be recognised that applying the concept should be done with great care with respect to biodiversity (conserving biodiversity for ethical reasons is still a must) it does provide great opportunities in terms of communicating with and involving other stakeholders. Basically, the challenge is to find ways that protect natural habitats and ecosystems (including the species they harbour) and that at the same time ensure the provision of services by these ecosystems in support of more sustainable agriculture. Agricultural practices in support of functional agrobiodiversity are based on the idea of strengthening ecosystem services. Functional agrobiodiversity (or FAB) is defined as ‘those elements of biodiversity on the scale of agricultural fields or landscapes, which provide ecosystem services that support sustainable agricultural production and can also deliver benefits to the regional and global environment and the public at large’ (Bianchi et al., 2013; ELNFAB, 2012). Examples of FAB include flower-rich field margins that host natural pest predators or pollinators, hedgerows that reduce soil erosion, or soil biodiversity that increases organic matter and therefore water retaining capacity or soil productivity. Measures in support of FAB typically aim at reducing artificial input for agriculture by offering natural alternatives and at the same time those measures benefit local biodiversity. Although FAB-measures have been implemented for many years (often referred to differently), there is increasing policy momentum for them to be more widely applied. Not only the general move towards more sustainable agriculture is of relevance, but also more specific policies such as the recent European Commission Green Infrastructure Strategy, the EU Natura 2000 network, and the reformed Common Agricultural Policy (CAP; European Commission, 2014) provide direct opportunities for FAB-implementation. The concept of Green Infrastructure includes ‘green spaces and other physical features in terrestrial areas, such as rural settings, designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services’ (adapted from European Commission, 2013). In the context of the reformed CAP the proposed greening measures, in particular, provide an opportunity for FAB. These greening measures include the maintenance of permanent grassland (which may reduce soil erosion and maintain grassland biodiversity), crop diversification (which may support more genetic diversity and a wider range of pollinators and other species), and ecological focus
areas (5% of arable land to be used for field margins, hedges, trees, fallow land, landscape features, biotopes, buffer strips, afforested area). While recognising that FAB is not a panacea that will halt the decline of biodiversity or turn agriculture into a fully sustainable mode, it is one of the measures that may provide a substantial contribution to these processes. However, for this to happen and for FAB-measures to be much wider applied across Europe, some conditions have to be met. Among these conditions (which include awareness raising and education of farmers) research and knowledge generation are essential. For example, there is an outstanding need to study the cause-effect relation between levels of biodiversity and the ecosystem services provided to agriculture. What elements of biodiversity provide what service where and when? And how can soil and crop management improvements within fields and FAB around fields complement or strengthen each other? On the social side, there is a need for more insight into the factors that drive farmers to opt for FAB-measures, or not. One of these might be of a financial nature, what financial benefit does a farmer get from investing in FAB-measures? So on the economic side there is a need for research on cost-benefits and on the business case for FAB. The knowledge generated by this research will then form the basis for educating young farmers and raising awareness of current farmers. This, in turn, will help implement policy measures and enhance their effectiveness in the framework of green infrastructure, a greener CAP and making agriculture more sustainable and biodiversity friendly. References Bianchi, F. J. J. A., Mikos, V., Brussaard, L., Delbaere, B., & Pulleman, M. M. (2013). Opportunities and limitations for functional agrobiodiversity in the European context. Environmental Science & Policy, 27, 223–231. Brussaard, L., Caron, P., Campbell, B., Lipper, L., Mainka, S., Rabbinge, R., et al. (2010). Reconciling biodiversity conservation and food security: Scientific challenges for a new agriculture. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(1–2), 34–42. ELN-FAB. (2012). Functional agrobiodiversity: Nature serving Europe’s farmers. Tilburg, The Netherlands: ECNC. European Commission. (2013). Green Infrastructure (GI) – Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital. COM(2013) 249 final. European Commission. (2014). Legal proposals for the CAP after 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/legal-proposals/index en.htm (last accessed: 27 January 2014)