Are land sparing and land sharing real alternatives for European agricultural landscapes?

There is a lively debate on whether biodiversity conservation and agricultural production could be better reconciled by land sparing (strictly separating production fields and conservation areas) or by land sharing (combining both, agricultural production and biodiversity conservation on the same land). The debate originates from tropical countries, where agricultural land use continues to increase at the expense of natural ecosystems. But is it also relevant for Europe, where agriculture is withdrawing from marginal regions whilst farming of fertile lands continues to be intensified? Based on recent research on farmland biodiversity we conclude that the land sharing – land sparing dichotomy is too simplistic for Europe. Instead we differentiate between productive and marginal farmland. On productive farmland, semi-natural habitats are required to yield ecosystem services relevant for agriculture, to promote endangered farmland species which society wants to conserve even in intensively farmed regions, and to allow migration of non-farmland species through the agricultural matrix. On marginal farmland, high-nature value farming is a traditional way of land sharing, yielding high quality agricultural products and conserving specialized species. To conserve highly disturbance-sensitive species, there is a need for nature reserves. In conclusion, land sparing is not a viable olution for Europe in both productive and marginal farmland but because of different reasons in each type of farmland.

Adapting agricultural land management to climate change: a regional multi-objective optimization approach

In several regions of the world, climate change is expected to have severe impacts on agricultural systems. Changes in land management are one way to adapt to future climatic conditions, including land-use changes and local adjustments of agricultural practices. In previous studies, options for adaptation have mostly been explored by testing alternative scenarios. Systematic explorations of land management possibilities using optimization approaches were so far mainly restricted to studies of land and resource management under constant climatic conditions. In this study, we bridge this gap and exploit the benefits of multi-objective regional optimization for identifying optimum land management adaptations to climate change. We design a multi-objective optimization routine that integrates a generic crop model and considers two climate scenarios for 2050 in a meso-scale catchment on the Swiss Central Plateau with already limited water resources. The results indicate that adaptation will be necessary in the study area to cope with a decrease in productivity by 0–10 %, an increase in soil loss by 25–35 %, and an increase in N-leaching by 30–45 %. Adaptation options identified here exhibit conflicts between productivity and environmental goals, but compromises are possible. Necessary management changes include (i) adjustments of crop shares, i.e. increasing the proportion of early harvested winter cereals at the expense of irrigated spring crops, (ii) widespread use of reduced tillage, (iii) allocation of irrigated areas to soils with low water-retention capacity at lower elevations, and (iv) conversion of some pre-alpine grasslands to croplands.

A Preliminary Impact Assessment of Doha Round Results on Agricultural Policies in Turkey

Turkish agriculture has been experiencing a period of unique policy experiment over the last couple years. A World Bank-initiated project, called the Agricultural Reform Implementation Project (ARIP), has been at the forefront of policy change. It was initially promoted by the Bank as an exemplary reform package which could also be adopted by other developing countries. It was introduced in 2001 as part of a major International Monetary Fund (IMF)/World Bank-imposed program of “structural adjustment” after the country had been hit by a major financial crisis. The project has finally come to an end in 2009, and there is now an urgent need for a retrospective assessment of its overall impact on the agricultural sector. Has it fulfilled its ambitious objective of reforming and restructuring Turkish agriculture? Or should it be recorded as a failure of the neo-liberal doctrine? This book aims at finding answers to these questions by investigating the legacy of ARIP from a multi-disciplinary perspective.

Market Access in Switzerland and in the European Union for Agricultural Products from Least Developed Countries

The introduction of the so-called “duty free quota free” treatment (DFQF) for all products from least developed countries (LDCs), in particular by the European Communities (EC) and by Switzerland, raised expectations of increased agricultural exports for these 49 countries. Despite the high tariff differential LDCs now enjoy over their competitors, especially for agricultural products and particularly in Switzerland, the results until 2007 are dismal: with the exception of sugar exports to the EC, LDCs have not been able to substantially increase their agricultural exports to Europe. This study analyses the result-ing tariff situation and the remaining non-tariff barriers. In many instances it is not cus-toms duties but the sanitary and phytosanitary barriers which turn out to be the single most important hurdle preventing trade. For instance, almost no LDC-based company can supply animal-based products. Similarly, certain private standards set by proces-sors and retailers prevent imports, particularly from LDCs, far more effectively than tar-iffs. Several gateways into this “European cordon sanitaire” are proposed. Only if offered in the context of a package of various carefully coordinated measures, DFQF could yet have a real impact on trade from LDCs. As it stands, this treatment constitutes only a nice-to-have but still largely ineffective instrument of trade development.

Influence of experimental soil disturbances on the diversity of plants in agricultural grasslands

Aims and Methods Disturbance is supposed to play an important role for biodiversity and ecosystem stability as described by the intermediate disturbance hypothesis (IDH), which predicts highest species richness at intermediate levels of disturbances. In this study, we tested the effects of artificial soil disturbances on diversity of annual and perennial vascular plants and bryophytes in a field experiment in 86 agricultural grasslands differing in land use in two regions of Germany. On each grassland, we implemented four treatments: three treatments differing in application time of soil disturbances and one control. One year after experimental disturbance, we recorded vegetation and measured biomass productivity and bare ground. We analysed the disturbance response taking effects of region and land-use-accompanied disturbance regimes into account.Important Findings Region and land-use type strongly determined plant species richness. Experimental disturbances had small positive effects on the species richness of annuals, but none on perennials or bryophytes. Bare ground was positively related to species richness of bryophytes. However, exceeding the creation of 12% bare ground further disturbance had a detrimental effect on bryophyte species richness, which corresponds to the IDH. As biomass productivity was unaffected by disturbance our results indicate that the disturbance effect on species richness of annuals was not due to decreased overall productivity, but rather due to short-term lowered inter- and intraspecific competition at the newly created microsites.Generally, our results highlight the importance of soil disturbances for species richness of annual plants and bryophytes in agricultural grasslands. However, most grasslands were disturbed naturally or by land-use practices and our additional experimental soil disturbances only had a small short-term effect. Overall, total plant diversity in grasslands seemed to be more limited by the availability of propagules rather than by suitable microsites for germination. Thus, nature conservation efforts to increase grassland diversity should focus on overcoming propagule limitation, for instance by additional sowing of seeds, while the creation of additional open patches by disturbance might only be appropriate where natural disturbances are scarce.

The Parables and Similes of the Rabbis agricultural and pastoral

Asher Feldman

Promoting Pollinating Insects in Intensive Agricultural Matrices: Field-Scale Experimental Manipulation of Hay-Meadow Mowing Regimes and Its Effects on Bees

Bees are a key component of biodiversity as they ensure a crucial ecosystem service: pollination. This ecosystem service is nowadays threatened, because bees suffer from agricultural intensification. Yet, bees rarely benefit from the measures established to promote biodiversity in farmland, such as agri-environment schemes (AES). We experimentally tested if the spatio-temporal modification of mowing regimes within extensively managed hay meadows, a widespread AES, can promote bees. We applied a randomized block design, replicated 12 times across the Swiss lowlands, that consisted of three different mowing treatments: 1) first cut not before 15 June (conventional regime for meadows within Swiss AES); 2) first cut not before 15 June, as treatment 1 but with 15% of area left uncut serving as a refuge; 3) first cut not before 15 July. Bees were collected with pan traps, twice during the vegetation season (before and after mowing). Wild bee abundance and species richness significantly increased in meadows where uncut refuges were left, in comparison to meadows without refuges: there was both an immediate (within year) and cumulative (from one year to the following) positive effect of the uncut refuge treatment. An immediate positive effect of delayed mowing was also evidenced in both wild bees and honey bees. Conventional AES could easily accommodate such a simple management prescription that promotes farmland biodiversity and is likely to enhance pollination services.

EU agricultural reform fails on biodiversity

In December 2013, the European Union (EU) enacted the reformed Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for 2014–2020, allocating almost 40% of the EU's budget and influencing management of half of its terrestrial area. Many EU politicians are announcing the new CAP as “greener,” but the new environmental prescriptions are so diluted that they are unlikely to benefit biodiversity. Individual Member States (MSs), however, can still use flexibility granted by the new CAP to design national plans to protect farmland habitats and species and to ensure long-term provision of ecosystem services