Optionen für mehr Biodiversität in derAgrarlandschaft –Erkenntnisse aus dem F.R.A.N.Z.-Projekt
Creators: name: Reiter, Karin
name: Reiter, Karin
Publisher: name: Unknown
Year: 2021
Subjects: subject: Agribusiness
subject: Agricultural and Food Policy
subject: Agrarumweltmaßnahmen
subject: Regelförderung
subject: Verwaltungshandeln
subject: Deutschland
subject: agri-environmental measures
subject: regular support schemes
subject: administrative action
subject: Germany

description: This report builds on a previous study in the context of the F.R.A.N.Z project (Joormann and Schmidt, 2017) that sought to identify barriers for farmers’ participationin area-based biodiversity measures. Joormann and Schmidt conducted a survey with German farmers and advisors. In the present report we discuss the barriers addressed in the earlier study in the light of the funding regulations for agri-environmental and climate measures (AECMs) financed by the European Union (EU) and/or the German federal government. The main findings of Joormann and Schmidt are that: • the farmers’ assessed AECM restrictions in parts as to be too complex, • uncertainties about content and extent of AECM restrictions exist, • payment levels – in particular in conditions favourable for agricultural production - are considered being too low, • fixed deadlines and time periods for field work as well as the required accuracy regarding field size and locationare criticised.• farmers would like to get more feedback on the success of AECMs. In parts, like insufficient (area) payments for sites with favourable conditions for agricultural production, barriers are of economic nature. On high-yielding arable and grassland as well as in areas with intensive animal production payments do not cover the opportunity costs. Furthermore, there is a relatively high risk of non-compliance. Key reasons for non-complianceare (1) deviations in the extent and location between reported and actually managed areas, often caused by unfavourable area cuts and (2) only partial fulfilment of the frequently extensive documentation requirements. Our analysis showed that some of the existing barriers are cause by lack of information.This can be overcome or at least being mitigated by increasing transparency in administrative action and improving information services. Based on the earlier findings, we identify leverages that are already being used in some federal states when implementing AECMs. These are (1) market-oriented revision clauses to compensate for price fluctuations in the agricultural production, (2) temporal management restrictions to be complemented by phenological development status or (3) result-based biodiversity measures that work without management restrictions. Our key recommendations for the design and implementation of area-based biodiversity measures are: •Requirements and restrictions of area-based biodiversity measures should be primarily geared towards the intended ecological impact. •Regional differentiation of payments for AECMs should be expanded, in view of increasing participation in areas with favourable production conditions. •Transaction costs of 20% should be granted to applicants to compensate for higher organisational and administrative costs (e.g. due to size and shape of fields). •Compulsory management requirements should be limited to what is ecologically necessary. This presupposes the avoidance of target overloading of biodiversity measures. Documentation obligations should be limited to those that are necessary for the achievement of the environmental objective or contributeto increase the knowledge of the participants. •Biodiversity measures often target small-sized plots or unfavourably cut areas. This makes agri-environmental measures extremely prone to sanctions, if the same sanction mechanism as pillar 1 are applied. Therefore,i t is necessary to adapt the sanction mechanism to the specificities of area-based measures under pillar 2 of the CAP. •It is important to improve the provision of information about ecological objectives, funding contents and the success of biodiversity measures in a simple language and by keeping informationup to date at all times. This also serves the purpose of strengthening the self-responsibility of the participants by means of content-related explanations of technically necessary funding requirements. •Biodiversity advisory service free of charge, with a modular design should be established or expanded. In addition to communicating the range of funding opportunities, one module should specifically geared towards showing practitioners the achievable ecological successes. Furthermore, within this module the support should be offered to the practitioners regarding the maintenance of the land use recording and the annual submission of applications. This all could contribute to mitigate the likelihood of sanctions.
description: DOI:10.3220/WP1610358911000