Land Use Policy 65 (2017) 93–108

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

j ournal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

The EU’s ecological focus areas – How experts explain farmers’ choices in Germany

a,b,∗ b,c a a b

Yves Zinngrebe , Guy Pe’er , Stefan Schueler , Jonas Schmitt , Jenny Schmidt , a,∗

Sebastian Lakner

a

Department for Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Platz der Göttinger Sieben 5, 37073 Göttingen, Germany

b

Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental research (UFZ), Permoserstr. 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany

c

German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Deutscher Platz 5e, 04103 Leipzig, Germany

a

r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Ecological Focus Areas (EFAs) have recently been introduced as key element in the greening of the EU’s

Received 22 July 2016

Common Agricultural Policy. In 2015, farmers across the EU have implemented EFAs for the first time. Data

Received in revised form 16 March 2017

for German federal states indicate a strong variance in EFA decisions with an overall dominance of catch

Accepted 21 March 2017

crops, nitrogen fixing crops and fallow land – two of which bear limited benefits for biodiversity conserva-

Available online 10 April 2017

tion. This article explores how experts explain EFA choices. We conducted 35 qualitative, semi-structured

interviews with representatives from the Ministry for Agriculture, farm advisory services, and farmers’

Keywords:

associations in each federal state. Applying content analysis we clustered the factors mentioned as deter-

Common agricultural policy

Greening minants for farmers’ EFA choices into the categories administrative considerations, economic considerations,

local factors, ecosystem considerations and policy incentives. According to the interviewed experts, farmers

Biodiversity conservation

Farmer decisions have primarily registered measures that already existed on their farms. Administrative considerations

Administrative constraints dominate the identified determinants for farmers’ EFA decisions, and together with economic consid-

Policy integration erations appear to function as a negative incentive for EFA options that are beneficial for biodiversity,

such as landscape elements and buffer strips. We conclude that conditions for EFA implementation were

found to not effectively incentivise a higher share of biodiversity supporting characteristics in German

agricultural landscapes. Based on a detailed discussion we extract recommendations on how to improve

EFA implementation.

© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction EU-28) means about D 12.6 billion/year for the period from 2015 to

2020 (see also Hart, 2015a). It is thus in the interest of EU citizens,

The European Union (EU) reformed its Common Agricultural policy makers and tax-payers to see that these payments are spent

Policy (CAP) in 2013 and introduced greening measures to help as cost-effectively as possible to produce their aspired ecological

improving the ecological conditions of agricultural landscapes outcomes.

under existing subsidies. The greening of the CAP focuses on the When establishing EFAs as a policy instrument, the Euro-

direct payment scheme (pillar 1), and includes three measures: Per- pean Commission (EC) particularly highlighted its expectations on

manent Pasture, Crop Diversification, and Ecological Focus Areas ecological impacts on farms: “Ecological focus areas should be estab-

(EFAs). According to article 47 of EU-regulation 1307/2013, 30% of lished, in particular, in order to safeguard and improve biodiversity on

the ‘national envelopes’ (i.e. pillar 1 payments) are now directly farms” (EC, 2013: recital 44). Farmers with >15 ha arable area are

1

linked to the greening obligations, which on average (across the now obliged to implement EFAs on 5% of their arable land. Among

the various EFA options, EU member states approved two to 15

options as eligible for national implementation. Greening imple-

∗ mentation started in 2015, and member states were requested to

Corresponding authors.

report on farmers’ uptake decisions to the EC by December 2015.

E-mail address: [email protected] (Y. Zinngrebe).

1

In contrast to other instruments of P1 like the ‘Flexibility between pillars’ (article Thus, it is now possible to assess farmers’ choices and understand

14 of EU-Regulation 1307/2013), ‘Redistributive payments’ (article 42), ‘Payment the factors affecting them.

for areas with natural constraints’ (article 49), ‘Payment for young farmers’ (article

Understanding EFA uptake is imperative given a range of con-

51) and ‘Voluntary coupled support’ (article 53) the 30% of P1 for greening is fixed

cerns made about whether EFAs would fulfil their potential for

without any choice of the EU member state in financial terms.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.03.027

0264-8377/© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

94 Y. Zinngrebe et al. / Land Use Policy 65 (2017) 93–108

3

protecting farmland biodiversity (Pe’er et al., 2014; Dicks et al., ber of EFA options for farmers. Table A1 in Appendix A presents an

2014; Hart, 2015b). Additionally, some of the options offered as overview of the different EFA options offered in Germany, including

EFAs, especially the ones without management specifications, fail a short description of the administrative requirements. Weight-

to consider the available knowledge regarding effectiveness for bio- ing factors were applied to calculate the effective area that an EFA

diversity (Pe’er et al., 2014; Dicks et al., 2014; Oppermann et al., receives when registered. For instance, one hectare (ha) of catch

2015; Sutherland et al., 2015). A particular concern was that farm- crop would be calculated as 0.3 ha EFA area, while 1 ha registered as

ers may choose EFA options that are less effective for biodiversity. buffer strip (including strips along forest edges and running waters,

A recent EU-wide assessment of EFAs in terms of ecological useful- and flower strips adjacent to arable land) is counted as 1.5 ha.

ness versus uptake by farmers confirms the concern that farmers’ While EFAs and greening are part of the direct payments entailed

choices do not meet ecological needs: while ecologists rated field in pillar 1 of the CAP, there are overlaps and a varying degree

margins, buffer strips, fallow land, and landscape features as the of complementarity with the pillar 2’s agri-environment mea-

beneficial options for biodiversity, farmers mostly implemented sures (AEMs) provided through the European Agricultural Fund

‘catch crops and green cover’, nitrogen-fixing crops, and fallow land for Rural Development (EAFRD). Depending on the EFA option

(Pe’er et al., 2016). These circumstances require asking what factors and the federal state, farmers can voluntarily register conservation

guide farmers’ decisions. Here, one must note that EFA implemen- activities on their farms as AEMs and receive financial compen-

tation can collide with farming practices and goals (Schulz et al., sation for somewhat similar environmental services as provided

2014; Schmidt and Hauck, submitted) and can conflict with objec- by EFAs. In Germany, the federal (national) and federal state gov-

tives of other policies, potentially resulting in incoherent incentives ernments finance AEMs within the framework of the joint task for

to farmers (Huttunen, 2015). The provision of (different) ecosystem the “Improvement of Agricultural Structures and Coastal Protec-

services varies strongly among the options eligible as EFAs, and tion” (German abbreviation: GAK) (BMEL, 2015a). This programme

their relevance and significance for stakeholders strongly depend provides a general list of AEMs and defines to what extent they

2

on farmers’ perceptions and preferences (Hauck et al., 2014). can be financially supported while at the same time being regis-

Analysing farmers’ motivations and other determinants of deci- tered as EFAs. According to those rules, nitrogen fixing crops, catch

sions on EFAs is thus crucial for a more effective implementation crops, buffer strips and landscape elements can be supported, yet

in terms of achieving the ecological aims set by the European Com- with a lower rate of support compared to AEM contracts. Further-

mission. more, while the GAK defines rules for co-funding procedures with

Our paper focuses its analysis on Germany. Beyond being one of federal programmes, the 13 territorial federal states design the pro-

the largest countries in the EU, Germany is implementing EFAs on grammes themselves and can apply support rates deviating from

the federal state (“Bundesland” in German) level. We collected and the general GAK-regulations. Table 1 presents the federal states

structured information on the uptake of EFA options across fed- offering additional AEM support for EFA measures (see Table A2 in

eral states, and presented the statistics to experts from all federal Appendix A for specific rates and details).

states. We then conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews Overall, buffer strips and nitrogen fixing crops can receive addi-

asking experts to explain the uptake of EFA options and related tional funding as AEMs in most states, whereas EFAs like fallow land

motives for farmers’ decisions. Experts were identified within three and landscape elements can only be additionally registered in two

groups involved in EFA implementation: Ministries of Agriculture, states (Table 1). Catch crops and forestry options do not receive any

Farm Advisory Services (FAS), and farmers’ associations. Applying a additional financial support. It is possible to separate EFAs in federal

qualitative research approach we characterize and structure factors states with and without additional support of AEM (Table A3 in the

that experts used to explain EFA decisions, as well as recommended Appendix). About 60% of the area dedicated to EFA implementation

improvements of EFA implementation as indicated by the experts. is eligible for AEM support. The figures in Table A3 suggest higher

Based on these results we discuss potentials and obstacles, and shares for catch crops and nitrogen fixing crops in the states that

develop policy recommendations. allow a combination of EFA and AEM. However, we could not find

a substantial increase of neither buffer strips, landscape elements

nor fallow lands in any of the federal states that could be explained

2. Background: greening in Germany with this additional support.

In Germany EFAs are implemented on the federal state level, 2.2. Farmers decisions in Germany

offering spatial and geopolitical differentiation between regions.

While the CAP reform took place in December 2013, the German Farmers registered an area of 1.368 Mio. ha as EFAs, which is

Ministry for Food and Agriculture only defined the national regu- 11.5% of arable land (BMEL, 2015b). After applying the weight-

latory framework for the administrative and legal implementation ing factors, the arable land registered as EFAs sums up to 5.8%,

of EFAs in early 2015 (BMEL, 2015a). Consequently, only little time which indicates a slight ‘overbooking’ compared to the required

was left for farmers to define their greening strategy for the planting 5%. Weighed EFAs coverage within federal states ranged from 4.5%

season of 2015. in Saarland to 6.7% in Brandenburg (Table 2).

EFA choices supporting agricultural productivity of soils were

particularly prominent. Among these, catch crops and green

2.1. General implementation framework in Germany

cover covered 68% of the registered EFA area and were particu-

larly dominant in Bayern, Baden-Württemberg, Niedersachsen and

Germany chose 17 EFA options (EU Commission, 2015) and is

Nordrhein-Westfalen. As other productivity supporting EFA option,

therefore one of the member states that offered the largest num-

nitrogen fixing crops were frequently registered (11.8%). Besides

the productive EFA options, the prevalent EFA option was fallow

land (16.2%), while landscape elements and buffer strips comprised

2

Ecosystem services are defined by Haines-Young and Potsching (2011: p. 2) as

“the contributions that ecosystems make to human well-being. They are seen as

3

arising from the interaction of biotic and abiotic processes, and refer specifically to Five member states offered between two and four EFA options, nice member

the ‘final’ outputs or products from ecological systems. That is, the things directly states between five and nine and 14 member states had more than 10 EFA options

consumed or used by people. “ (EU Commission 2015, p. 13)

Y. Zinngrebe et al. / Land Use Policy 65 (2017) 93–108 95

Table 1

Combined EFA support in agri-environment measures within the rural development programmes in Germany (own description, more detailed version in Appendix A). The

table only includes EFA options that can offer additional support within agri-environment measures (AEMs). Afforestation area and short rotation coppice are therefore not

included. X marks an explicit option, while (o) marks an option to register an AEM as EFA, which is neither explicitly mentioned nor excluded by the legal text.

a

Federal state Fallow land Buffer strips Landscape elements Catch crops Nitrogen fixing crops

b

Baden-Württemberg X (o) X

c

Bayern (o) X X X X

Brandenburgd

Hessen

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern X X

c,d e

Niedersachsen X X X X (o)

c

Nordrhein-Westfalen (o) X X X

c

Rheinland-Pfalz (o) X X

Saarland

Sachsen

c

Sachsen-Anhalt (o) X X

c,d

Schleswig-Holstein (o) X

c

Thüringen (o) X X

a

Buffer strips include a number of different options, such as strips alongside forest edges and running waters, and strips adjacent to arable land.

b

In Baden-Württemberg, the agri-environmental measure (AEM) ‘fallow land with flowering seeds’ is eligible as fallow land. Note that the option to alternatively register

this AEM as the EFA-option ‘buffer strips’ is not excluded if the requirements for EFA buffer-strips are met.

c

In these federal states, the AEM ‘flower strips’ can also be registered as EFA-option ‘buffer strips’. However, in some federal states, there is also the option to alternatively

register flower strips as ‘fallow land’. This option is explicitly mentioned in Niedersachsen and Thüringen. In the other federal states (Bayern, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Rheinland-

Pfalz, Sachsen-Anhalt and Schleswig-Holstein), there is no specification in the regulation, however it is not excluded. Farmers can therefore register flower strips as fallow

land. There is no indication to what extent this option is used.

d

Three of the 16 German federal states are the cities Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen. These city-states do not pursue a specific implementation of agricultural policy but

design their measures following the neighbouring federal states of Brandenburg, Schleswig-Holstein and Niedersachsen.

e

In Niedersachsen, the additional support of catch crops is formally included in the programme but not open for application.

Table 2

a

Share of Ecological Focus Area (EFA) coverage as implemented in the German federal states in 2015 (in%). WF = weighing factor.

Federal state (Bundesland) Fallow land Buffer Landscape Catch crops nitrogen Short Afforestation % EFA % EFA

strips elements and green fixing crops rotation area (without (after

cover coppice applying WF) applying WF)

Share of the total Ecological Focus Area (EFA) before applying weighting factors (WF) (%) Share of arable land (%)

Baden-Württemberg 11.4 0.6 0.3 70.6 17.0 0.1 0.0 12.1 5.6

Bayern 12.9 0.9 0.4 72.1 13.4 0.1 0.0 11.5 5.2

b

Brandenburg 29.7 0.6 1.8 48.0 19.0 1.0 0.0 11.0 6.7

Hessen 28.6 1.2 0.5 60.8 8.9 0.0 0.0 9.6 5.3

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 29.2 3.2 3.3 57.0 5.9 0.0 1.4 10.0 6.2

b

Niedersachsen 8.7 0.6 0.6 87.5 2.6 0.1 0.0 15.4 5.8

Nordrhein-Westfalen 6.8 1.6 1.2 87.1 3.4 0.1 0.0 15.0 5.9

Rheinland-Pfalz 33.0 0.9 1.1 55.4 9.6 0.1 0.0 10.4 6.1

Saarland 46.3 1.9 5.3 37.0 9.4 0.1 0.0 6.0 4.5

Sachsen 13.9 1.2 1.0 64.1 19.5 0.1 0.3 11.1 5.6

Sachsen-Anhalt 26.1 0.8 1.1 47.7 24.2 0.1 0.1 10.0 6.0

b

Schleswig-Holstein 9.4 3.3 47.7 35.7 3.7 0.1 0.0 5.9 6.0

Thüringen 18.5 2.3 1.4 35.9 41.9 0.0 0.0 9.0 5.8

Deutschland 16.2 1.2 2.4 68.0 11.8 0.2 0.1 11.5 5.8

Calculations based on data from BMEL (2015b).

Bold values highlight that these are total shares of EFAs.

a

The total area of EFAs varies between the states, and the proportions are affected by weighting factors. By choosing large areas of EFA options with low weighting factors

(e.g. catch crops with a weight of 0.3) the total area of EFA is increased. This leads to a lower share of other options with a high weighting factor.

b

Three of the 16 German federal states are the cities Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen. These city-states do not pursue a specific agricultural policy but design their policy

following the neighbouring federal states of Brandenburg, Schleswig-Holstein and Niedersachsen.

•

2.4% and 1.2%, respectively. Large variation, however, exists in the Landscape elements account for 47.7% of EFA area in Schleswig-

share of EFA options between federal states (Table 2). For a bet- Holstein, which strongly contrasts the German average of 2.4%. In

ter understanding of structural differences in Germany, we provide Schleswig-Holstein, a unique form of wall hedges (called ‘Knicks’)

hereafter some related background information: is highly abundant with a total length of more than 68.000 km.

96 Y. Zinngrebe et al. / Land Use Policy 65 (2017) 93–108

Knicks have been protected since the 18th century (Farmers 3.1. Selection of experts

Association Schleswig-Holstein, 2014; Beyer and Schleuß, 1991).

They serve as fences and a place to collect stones removed from In each federal state, three principal actor groups involved in

fields, but they were also found to benefit agricultural production greening implementation have been interviewed representing the

through wind protection − and by now offer a cultural heritage German farmers’ association, the corresponding Ministry of Agri-

as well. The federal state of Schleswig-Holstein also accepted culture (which administers the greening and collects greening

ditches as landscape elements that serve as drainage for the data), and governmental agencies providing Farm Advisory Ser-

coastal lowlands. vices (FAS). The Deutscher Bauernverband (DBV) is the largest

•

Fallow land was mainly chosen in the states of Saarland (46%), German farmers’ association and presents itself as a representative

Rheinland-Pfalz (33%) and Hessen (28%), which are characterised and advocate of all German farmers (DBV, 2011). According to its

by small fields. Diverging to this, high shares in the North-Eastern annual report, 90% of all 300,000 farms are voluntary DBV members

federal states Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (29%), Brandenburg (DBV, 2014). Federal states’ Ministries supervise implementation

(30%) and in parts of Sachsen-Anhalt (26%) are likely to correlate and registration of EFAs and authorise registered measures. FAS,

with lower land rental prices due to lower soil fertility. also known as “extension services”, counsel farmers on funding

•

The share of nitrogen fixing crops was higher in most eastern opportunities, legal and technical requirements of policies and the

German federal states (except in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern), as farm specific implementation of greening. In our sampling strat-

well as in Bayern and Baden-Württemberg. Federal states that egy, we asked responsible organisations in each of the 13 territorial

were formerly part of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) are federal states to name a suitable expert.

characterised by large farm and field sizes, allowing effective use The institutional arrangements for the provision of FAS vary

of the necessary machinery. The southern federal states Bayern among the German federal states. Some states centrally provide

and Baden-Württemberg are characterised by longer harvesting FAS as a part of their Ministries (Baden Württemberg). Bayern

periods, climatically benefiting these crops. has decentralised the FAS as competence to local governments.

Some states give financial support for an institutional service by the

chambers of agriculture (Nordrhein-Westfalen, Niedersachsen). In

The registration of these measures as EFAs has a significant other, mostly eastern German states, support is provided through

impact on land-use patterns and correlates with changes in the private consulting agencies. We contacted the relevant institutions

CAP regulations (see Fig. 1). to identify interviewees and arranged a telephone conversation.

Seen in the historical context, the set-aside scheme was intro- Applying the principal of theoretical saturation (Glaser and Strauss,

duced in 1988 and made compulsory in the 1992 CAP-reform 2012), the process was halted after 35 interviews when new inter-

(Berger et al., 2006). The objective of this policy reform was to views were found to only verify existing results without producing

reduce overproduction that had resulted from classical CAP market new perspectives.

policies. The specific scheme required farmers with arable areas

larger than 13.5–21 ha (depending on the federal state) to take 3.2. Interview process

15% of their land out of production (exempt were non-food crops;

EU Commission, 2015). Farmers received additional payments for Prior to each interview, a text containing a general description

these set-aside areas and were allowed to produce energy crops of the study and its intention, as well as the statistical data indi-

(see BML, 1993: 115 ff). The required share was changed sev- cating uptake levels in Germany and the respective federal state

eral times, mainly in the ‘Agenda 2000-reform’ of 1998, where a (taken from Table 2) was sent to the interviewees by email. The

flexible set-aside ranging from 10%–33% was introduced (BMELF, email was sent two days to a week before the interview to allow

2000: p.15). Finally, the set-aside was completely abolished in 2007 the interviewee to be prepared and to give an answer representing

(Berger et al., 2006). Following this policy change and high agricul- the perspective of her/his organisation. In order to not receive a pre-

tural commodity prices in 2006/07, the area registered as fallow pared answer and to allow for the interviewee to place emphasis on

land decreased substantially from 2005 onwards, followed by a whatever she or he assesses as most relevant, the emailed text did

strong increase due to the reintroduction of fallow land as one of not contain the questions which were asked during the phone inter-

the EFA options in 2015 (+68% from 2014 to 2016). Despite the views. Each interview opened with a general introduction followed

similarity of set-aside and fallow land options, the two measures by a question on the interviewee’s relation to EFA implementation.

differ in their stated objectives: In the first case, the aim of the EU A brief reference to the statistical data of EFA implementation in the

Commission was to reduce overproduction (environmental bene- federal state was given and then followed by the open question:

fits were a side effect), while now, fallow land (as one of the EFA Can you please explain farmers’ EFA decisions in your federal state

options) is perceived as a means to support farmland biodiversity based on your professional experience?

(see above). Similarly, EFA introduction also increased the cover of Depending on the answer, additional questions were asked,

nitrogen fixing crops by 74% between 2014 and 2016. Nevertheless, directed at explaining the EFA measure with the highest share in

fallow land areas are still far below 2005 levels. the federal state, followed by the second highest. Additionally, we

asked interviewees to explain the share of landscape elements and

buffer strips. Finally, we asked for general comments and recom-

mendations:

3. Material and methods

Could you please give us suggestions for the improvement of biodi-

versity conservation within the agricultural policy?

The qualitative, inductive research approach was chosen to

Interviews were conducted in German between December 2015

explore and structure the expert opinions on motivations guiding

and February 2016. Each interview lasted between 10 and 40 min,

the decisions taken by farmers. We interviewed experts from all

and all were audio-recorded and later transcribed.

German federal states involved in different stages of EFA imple-

mentation. Interviews were conducted without a-priori setting of

3.3. Evaluation of interviews

specific hypotheses and categories in order to avoid biases or to

limit the replies. Responses were then analysed using a qualitative

We used MAXQDA software to code the transcripts identify-

content analysis (Mayring, 2004).

ing different factors for EFA decisions. Applying qualitative content

Y. Zinngrebe et al. / Land Use Policy 65 (2017) 93–108 97

900 Fallow land 800 Nitrogen-fixing crops

in 1,000 hectares 700

600

500

400

300

200

100

-

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016*

Fig. 1. Development of fallow land and nitrogen fixing crops from 2004 to 2016.

Source: Area based on data of the Federal Statistical Office (Destati, 2005–2016): Harvesting statistics 2005–2016,

*The data for 2016 are just preliminary

1.) The EFA option ‘Fallow land’ is consistent with the ‘Set Aside’ from Destatis 2005–2014.

2.) ‘Leguminous plants’ are only part of nitrogen fixing crops, since small seed leguminous plants (Clover and Lucerne) are missing. Therefore the figures of Destatis for the

years 2015 might be slightly too small.

160 140 120 64 100 moves

of 80

60 38 24

Number 40 21 15 15 20 45 8 6 26 12 6

19 12

0 6

Administra ve Economic Locaon factors Ecological Policy incenves

consideraons consideraons consideraons

Mini stry of Agriculture Farm Advisory Services Farmers associaon

Fig. 2. Main categories of determinants explaining EFA choices by farmers as identified based on expert interviews. The numbers are based on counting single-coded

utterances that refer to motives used by interviewees to explain farmers’ decisions. Thus, a single interview could list several categories, as well as several references to the

same category due to the sub-categorization.

analysis (Mayring, 2004), the codes were then categorised in two 4. Results

reduction steps. In a first reduction, similar codes were merged.

In a second reduction, sub-categories were grouped again to form 4.1. Determinants of EFA decisions

main categories. The titles of these categories were chosen by the

authors to resemble groups of aspects that can be approached by The coded determinants of EFA decisions raised by the inter-

policy-makers to improve greening implementation. The specific viewed experts could be grouped into five categories consisting of

codes and categories are displayed in the results section (Fig. 2 and 317 stated motives. Sorting them according to the number of coded

Tables 3–7). Table 8 presents the categories of recommendations motives that could be counted in all interviewees those categories

extracted from the expert statements. We underline our results were administrative considerations (147 motives), economic con-

with direct quotes from the interviews (see table B1 in Appendix siderations (71), location factors relating to farm structure (49),

B for details on quotes). Statements were numbered consecutively ecological considerations (including biodiversity and ecosystem

and labelled with an abbreviation corresponding to the group of services; 26) and policy incentives (incentive structure or other

interviewees (MA for Ministry of Agriculture, FAS for Farm Advisory policies, e.g. cross compliance and protein strategy; 24). Fig. 1

Service and BV for Bauernverband as the German term for farmers’ presents the total number of statements mentioning each cate-

association). Quotes were translated into English based on content, gory by each of the three actor groups. A more detailed and in

not on literal translations. depth explanation of each of the categories is given below (see also

98 Y. Zinngrebe et al. / Land Use Policy 65 (2017) 93–108

Table 3

Motives for EFA choices included in the category of administrative considerations. Numbers in brackets indicate the number of motives raised by interviewees relating to

each category or sub-category.

Category of EFA-choices Sub-Category Motives for EFA choices (type of EFA that aspect relates to)

Administrative Technical requirements (103) • Specific requirements deterring certain EFA options:

•

considerations (147) Predefined width and complex use restrictions (buffer strips)

• Risk of failing approval of registered EFAs (landscape elements or

buffer strips)

• Complex coordination with permanent grassland regulations

(fallow land and buffer strips)

•

Strict distance requirements to other field elements (buffer strips

and landscape elements)

• Difficulty to fit into crop rotation design (catch crops)

• Available best practice guidelines for certain EFAs promotes their

selection (catch crops and nitrogen-fixing crops)

Technical support by FAS (25) FAS recommended certain EFAs (catch crops and nitrogen fixing crops)

while advising against the implementation of others (in particular

buffer strips)

Responsibility and property rights (11) Unclear property rights deter the choice of certain EFAs (in particular

landscape elements)

Conceptual design of categories (8) Vague general requirements for implementation as well as a complex

categorisation into subtypes (buffer strips)

Table 4

Motives for EFA choices in the category economic considerations. Numbers in brackets indicate the number of motives related to the respective category or sub-category.

Category of EFA choices Sub-Category Motives for EFA choices (and type of EFA affected by them)

Economic Implementation costs (30) • Low implementation costs of EFAs (catch crops, fallow land,

considerations (71) nitrogen fixing crops)

Transaction costs and risk aversion (18) • Continuation of established practices to reduce transaction costs or

possible risks (catch crops, fallow land)

Crop rotation set-up (23) • Practicability of fitting EFA measures into crop rotation set-up

without impeding production (catch crops)

Table 5

Motives for EFA choices that were categorised as location factors. Numbers in brackets indicate the number of statements that related to the respective category or sub-

category.

Category of EFA-choices Sub-category Motives for EFA choices (type of EFA that aspect relates to)

•

Location factors (49) Land qualities (21) Precipitation (catch crops, nitrogen fixing plants)

• Soil fertility (fallow land)

• Stagnosol (fallow land)

• Shading of crops (buffer strips, landscape elements)

•

Existing farm Registration of present natural structures as EFA measures

structures (28) (landscape elements)

• Historically grown structures (fallow land)

• Hedge banks and “Knicks” (landscape elements)

Table 6

Motives for EFA choices that were sorted into the category of ecological considerations. Numbers in brackets indicate the number of statements that related to the respective

category or sub-category. ES categories used in this table correspond to the CICES classification (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2011).

Dimension of EFA-choices Categories Motives for EFA choices (and EFA options affected by them)

Ecological Regulating ecosystem services (15) • Increased soil quality and/or fertility (catch crops)

•

considerations (26) Erosion control (catch crops)

• Water availability (catch crops)

•

Biodiversity protection (9) Ecological characteristics (buffer strips, fallow land, landscape

elements)

• Coverage used as shelter for wild animals (catch crops)

Cultural ecosystem services (2) • Aesthetics (buffer strips)

• Hunting (buffer strips)

Y. Zinngrebe et al. / Land Use Policy 65 (2017) 93–108 99

Table 7

Motives for EFA choices that could be categorised under policy incentives. Numbers in brackets indicate the quantity of interview statements that relate to the respective

category or sub-category.

Category of EFA-choices Sub-categories Motives for EFA choice (type of EFA that aspect relates to)

•

Policy incentives (24) agri-environment measures (13) potential to combine EFA-measures with agri-environment

measures, e.g. by planting “manifold crops” (mostly nitrogen fixing

crops) or FAKT and KULAP (mostly buffer stripes and nitrogen fixing

crops)

other political incentives (11) • Cross compliance

• Water protection policies

•

Legume strategy

Table 8

Experts recommendations to further develop biodiversity conservation within the framework of the Common Agricultural Policy (based on 78 statements). The number of

statements within each category is given in brackets.

1

Category (referring to policy area) Sub-category Expert recommendations for conservation within the CAP

(referring to policy aspect)

Pillar 1– Greening (13) Mandatory nature of greening (11) Compulsory nature of greening renders stronger environmental

impacts (in comparison to AEM) (5)

Greening should continue as it stimulates environmental awareness

and performance (3)

Against greening as component of Pillar 1 should provide income and compensation for risks and should

pillar 1 not be linked to environmental objectives (3)

Abolish greening as it has a low ecological impact (2)

Pillar 2 (33) Expand the use of AEMs (29) Expansion of pillar 2 can provide more financial resources and

incentives for conservation than EFAs (13)

AEMs are voluntary, which increases the acceptance of nature

protection measures by farmers (8)

Application of AEMs should be extended and diversified (8)

Adjusting individual AEMs (4) Individual measures should be adjusted for local implementation in

order to improve environmental performance

General recommendations (32) Reduce administrative obstacles (12) Reduce technical requirements and controls as they are

counterproductive for nature protection (9)

Reduce complexity and risks related to the implementation of

conservation measures (3)

Facilitate implementation within Practical and more flexible implementation with respect to farmers’

existing farm structure (20) needs can enhance participation and ownership (8)

Regionalising implementation including the integrating of existing

programmes and experiences will incentivise more farmers, including

those without greening obligations (6)

Integrate nature protection into the production systems

(integrative strategies for nature protection) (3)

Adapt legal framework in order to facilitate effective implementation

of conservation measures (3)

Fig. C1 in Appendix C for distribution among interviewee groups in Among the administrative considerations, the largest group of

percentages). motives are part of the sub-category technical requirements (103

Comparing the three interviewee groups (Ministries, Farm motives) that are seen a deterring farmers from implementing

Advisory Services and farmers’ associations) we found a general certain EFAs (Table 3). Those technical obstacles are specifically

consistency in the frequency they mentioned motives linked to the associated with complex implementation requirements, lack of

categories administrative considerations, economic considerations specific guidelines, or situations where an element extends spa-

and location factors. However, the largest number of references tially outside the farmers’ area of cultivation – with particular

to ecological factors (55%) was raised by representatives of the impact on the options buffer strips and landscape elements.

FAS, while most statements linked to policy stem from Ministry Firstly, respondents described predefined widths of buffer strips

representatives (45%) – (For more detailed distribution of motives as incomprehensible.

according to interviewee groups see figure C1 in Appendix C). Fur-

“[Buffer strips] have to measure a minimum width of 1 m and a

thermore, in a comparison of statements from the different federal

maximum of 20 m. Some others are limited to a maximum width of

states we found that aspects raised in the categories administra-

only 10 m and buffer strips at water bodies include riparian vege-

tive, economic and ecological consideration were equally balanced

tation, which is also limited to a maximum of 10 m. And if they

across German regions. Regional discrepancies in the categories

exceed the allowed maximum width, the additional area of the

location factors and policy incentives are addressed in the respec-

strip will not be taken into account. Thus, the conditions are hardly

tive sections below. In the following we elaborate on each of

acceptable.” (MA1)

the categories separately, focusing on their contents and sub-

categories. In some federal states such as Bayern and Sachsen, arable area is

geographically registered in blocks of farm land. In order to avoid

4.1.1. Administrative considerations a subdivision and structural conversion of part of the fields into

Administrative considerations form the largest group of motives EFAs, which would lead to a subsequent registration of smaller

explaining EFA choices by farmers (147 of 317 statements, Fig. 1). field areas, farmers preferred to implement EFA options that can

100 Y. Zinngrebe et al. / Land Use Policy 65 (2017) 93–108

be implemented within the existing field structures. Additionally, is determined by farmers, they have limited rights in changing the

there were some uncertainties concerning the use-restriction for structure of the arable land, especially on field edges and paths

buffer strips. For instance, it is difficult to understand to what extent or when the establishment of EFAs means that the land could lose

and under what conditions buffer strips can be grazed and mulched. value due to, for example, higher amounts of ‘pest seeds’ in the soil.

The permanent grassland measure, installed as a measure within In the past, property rights of landscape elements in Schleswig-

the new CAP as another greening element, produces further uncer- Holstein systematically remained with the farmers, whereas in

tainties for farmers. This is because buffer strips or fallow land other federal states, the property was sometimes put out of the

would turn into permanent grassland after 5 years of registration Utilizable Agricultural Area. Schleswig-Holstein also offered the

as EFA. To prevent this transformation, farmers plan to either shift option to register ditches as landscape-elements, which was not

their grassland to other areas or apply other EFA measures to still possible elsewhere. In other federal states however, unclear prop-

be able to meet their EFA greening requirements, while converting erty rights caused farmers not to choose landscape elements or

those former EFA plots back to agricultural production. reforestation as EFA measures.

Landscape elements present strong administrative challenges

for farmers as well, due to the requirements of registering exact

4.1.2. Economic considerations

structures, dimensions and management practices. Governmental

The second most important category of factors determin-

controls on the exact compliance with the requirements set for

ing farmers’ EFA decisions were economic considerations. The

landscape elements and buffer strips further seemed to deter farm-

respective 71 motives could be grouped into the sub-categories

ers from choosing those EFA options. Accordingly, experts criticised

implementation cost, habits and risk aversion as well as practicability

the complexity of requirements for those EFAs and question their

of crop rotation set-up (Table 4).

practical applicability:

Experts stated that farmers tend to favour options that require

the lowest expenditures and working time, and are comparatively

“There is a very low uptake of buffer strips – just as in all of Germany.

easy to technically implement. Although the weighting of catch

And the same counts for landscape elements. That is very likely to

crops and green cover as well as fallow land is low, their implemen-

be due to the – let’s say – rather difficult registration process. You

tation complies with common agricultural practices in large parts of

have to stick to the exact meters and you don’t know what else

Germany. Furthermore, experts explained favourable cost-benefit

to take into account – and therefore it was only very cautiously

calculations for catch crops with the arguments that no additional

implemented.” (BV4)

transaction costs for land conversion occur, and possible risks con-

As a specific hurdle for the implementation of EFAs in 2015,

nected to uncertain impacts of other land-uses are avoided. The

farmers had to wait until technical requirements for EFAs were

advantages of implementing catch crops were described by an 4

finally defined :

interviewee as follows:

The national implementation was delayed, because the EU- . .

“[ .] obviously catch crops fit well into agricultural practices and

standards were published very late. Within the frame of national

farmers anticipate the highest benefits and lowest costs with regard

implementation there were many detailed questions which

to greening implementation.” (MA4)

couldn’t be resolved in time. Thus, farmers suspended their

Similar considerations explain the choice of fallow land as a sim-

cultivation-planning until the EU-regulations were published.”

(MA3) ple and less costly EFA option. Respondents suggested that most

registered EFA-fallow lands were land parcels that had already been

As a result, farmers tended to select EFA options that were easier

taken out of production before. Furthermore, fallow land as an EFA

to implement on their arable land, such as catch crops and nitro-

option is chosen in regions where tenure prices are relatively low.

gen fixing crops (see Section 4.1.2 for further explanations). But

Hence, outcomes of the registration of catch crops and fallow land

the implementation of these EFAs imposes technical challenges

were regarded as predictable and additional costs are low, while

as well. For instance, farmers still have to identify crop rotation

other EFA options such as landscape elements and buffer strips

set-ups to fit both legal requirements and farm production. Accord-

were connected to uncertainties and risks, additional costs of land-

ing to one of the interviewees, 2014 was an experimental year for

conversion, technical requirements and possible sanctions (see also

testing some different catch crop combinations in the light of pro-

paragraph 4.1.1).

ductivity and pest control in anticipation of the upcoming greening

Another important economic determinant is the integration of

requirements.

EFA options into existing crop rotation practices. Catch crops and

The advice of FAS was found to have a strong impact on farm-

nitrogen fixing crops can be integrated into established manage-

ers’ decisions. Especially due to the technical obstacles mentioned

ment practices and existing crop-rotation set-ups that additionally

above, FAS advised farmers to refrain from implementing complex

support the productivity of soils, thus potentially enhancing both

EFAs, especially buffer strips:

production and revenue without producing additional cost for

implementation. Particularly in regions with a dominant cultiva-

“Advising farmers I always said: ‘something like buffer strips, I

tion of summer crops, introducing catch crops in off-seasons are

would rather not touch at all – categorically’. [. . .] Many things,

described as the most appropriate way of meeting EFA obligations

such as administrative burdens resulted in a relatively low uptake

without reducing the productive area:

of buffer strips.” (FAS3)

“Integrating the implementation [of EFA measures] into produc-

Instead, FAS recommended the adoption of fallow land, catch

tion patterns is a priority in order not to convert cultivation areas.

crops and nitrogen fixing crops due to easy handling and more

Otherwise, you’d practically reduce your economically productive transparent technical requirements.

area.” (BV1)

The distribution of rights and obligations in the relation of land

owners and land users raises questions on who is eligible and/or

responsible for implementing EFAs. While the cultivation of fields 4.1.3. Location factors

The location of farms, and with it the relevant environmental

conditions (climate, soil, topography etc.), formed a further cate-

4 gory of factors determining EFA choices. We divided 49 statements

Decisive technical requirements have been published in February 2015 (see

BMEL, 2015a) into the sub-categories land qualities and existing farm structures

Y. Zinngrebe et al. / Land Use Policy 65 (2017) 93–108 101

(Table 5). Land qualities refer to environmental conditions includ- nitrogen fixing crops. Farmers can register the same fields in both

ing the pedological, meteorological and hydrological properties of KULAP and as an EFA. Subsidies to farmers are, however, adjusted. A

the pertained area. similar funding mechanism for Agricultural Environment, Climate

These motives were found relevant especially for the implemen- Protection and Animal Well-Being (FAKT in the German terminol-

tation of field-grown EFAs such as catch crops and nitrogen-fixing ogy) exist in Baden-Württemberg. An example for the impact of

crops: AEM on decision making can be exemplified by an interviewee’s

statement regarding nitrogen fixing crops:

“We are located in a dry area in central Germany and we have to

ensure that the share of catch crops on our fields remains within a “It is possible to register nitrogen fixing plants that are mandatory

certain limit, to avoid them drying the soils for succeeding crops.” for the crops diversity scheme and at the same time register them

(FAS4) as agri-environment measure. Despite of the small reduction in the

premium payment, it could overall be well combined.” (FAS3)

Thus, catch crops were mainly implemented in regions where

precipitation and soil water content are adequate. By contrast, Examples for other political incentives that experts regarded

experts from areas with less precipitation, such as Thüringen, Bran- as relevant for farmers’ decisions were cross compliance, water

denburg and (Northern) Bayern indicated that catch crops were of body protection policies (mentioned for Schleswig-Holstein) and

minor importance. Apart from that, interviewees delineated field the legume strategy for promoting the cultivation of legume plants

boundaries as suitable areas for implementing fallow land, since (mentioned for Hessen and Bayern). No explicit mentioning of the

nutrient conditions and soils affected by stagnosol (redox processes Birds’ and Habitats’ Directives was made.

in stagnating surface water) do not favour agricultural production.

Moreover, 28 statements were made concerning the practice

of registering existing farm structures as factor explaining the reg-

4.2. Expert recommendations for improvements

istration of landscape elements or fallow land. Both landscape

features and buffer strips were regarded as part of the natural envi-

As second part of the expert survey, interviewees were asked to

ronment that already exists on farms. In Schleswig-Holstein, the

give recommendations on how to improve biodiversity conserva-

appearance of traditional “Knicks” resulted from cultural, historic

tion outcomes under the CAP. Answers were structured into three

developments (see Section 2.2). Interviewees mentioned that the

categories (Table 8). The first category addresses pillar 1 aspects,

registration of the already-existing “Knicks” structures was wel-

specifically the obstacles and challenges relating to the existing

comed by farmers, partly because it only requires small additional

EFA-framework (13 statements). The second category of recom-

effort in comparison to the other EFAs. Similarly, experts indicated

mendations referred to conservation potentials of applying and

that the small fragmented areas registered as fallow land in Saar-

improving the implementation of agri-environment measures as

land were also ‘historically grown structures’.

part of pillar 2 (33 statements). The third category included more

general recommendations (32 statements). Statements come from

4.1.4. Ecological considerations

different interviewees and hence, some recommendations clearly

Ecological considerations were mentioned by experts in 26

contrast each other.

statements. The raised motives were grouped into the sub-

A first category of statements assesses characteristics of the

categories regulating ecosystem services, biodiversity protection and

existing EFA policy and extract recommendations on the future

cultural ecosystem services (Table 6). The regulation and mainte-

design of pillar 1 payments. A first argument claims that link-

nance of ecosystem services (ES) highlights benefits of EFAs on farm

ing conservation measures to mandatory payments is leading

land, such as increased soil fertility, erosion control and the poten-

to a stronger uptake by farmers than voluntary measures (e.g.

tial to support water availability. For instance, one expert stated:

AEMs). This opinion was however contradicted by other experts

“Catch crops offer different uses to farmers. Firstly, they provide who suspect a rather low ecological impact of EFAs due to its

green cover, secure water provision and increased water storage compulsory nature (see recommendations on pillar 2 below). Addi-

capacity on the field. Secondly, they enrich the topsoil and cover the tionally, experts suggested that continuing to implement greening

fields over winter. Thirdly, they offer protection for wild animals in as a mandatory prerequisite for receiving subsidies will support

this period, which is also valued by hunters.” (BV1) awareness and stimulate conservation activities. By contrast, three

experts recommended the complete exclusion of both greening

Interviewees also mentioned cultural ecosystem services, such

in pillar 1 and conservation payments from pillar 2, questioning

as landscape aesthetics and opportunities for hunting. The protec-

their ecological impact and regarding direct payments as a tool

tion of biodiversity as a factor for farmers’ decisions was explicitly

which should compensate farmers for income losses and possible

mentioned in nine statements. In this context, the interviewed

business risks related to farm management changes. One ministry

experts assigned high ecological values to buffer strips, fallow

representative stated:

land and landscape elements. One expert indicated the correla-

tion between the level of assigned weighting factors and ecological “I think we have reached the moment to redefine the objectives of

value of respective EFA-options. the agricultural policy, before other [objectives] are implemented.

And as long as this is not done and direct payments function as

4.1.5. Policy incentives income compensation, I think it is not justified to overload them

This category contains 24 statements that indicated the role of with – let’s say – side-criteria that are not part of income compen-

other policies and regulations, beyond EFA requirements, affect- sation as the general objective.” (MA4)

ing farmers’ decisions. These were divided into the sub-categories

The second category of recommendations argued for a stronger

agri-environment measures (AEM; 13 statements) and other politi-

application of voluntary pillar 2 payments. Especially, financial

cal incentives (11), which partly vary among federal states due to

incentives for farmers to engage in conservation measures should

differences in their regional policies.

be increased:

Certain federal states, such as Thüringen and Baden Württem-

berg have developed regionally specific AEM mechanisms. The “In pillar 2 I am only allowed to compensate conservation according

cultural landscape programme (“Kulturlandschaftsprogramm”, to additional costs and income losses, I cannot give any additional

short KULAP) in Thüringen for instance promotes the cultivation of incentives. Thereby obviously farmers lose their interest. Maybe

102 Y. Zinngrebe et al. / Land Use Policy 65 (2017) 93–108

the EU has to reconsider to pay a certain premium to incentivise

conservation.” (MA5) Box 1: Policy Recommendations

Based on the issues raised by experts and in light of the

In this context, experts regarded AEMs, being voluntary in

aforementioned observations, we suggest the following rec-

nature, as more suitable to generate acceptance and ownership ommendations for EFA adjustments – aiming to improve their

of conservation activities among farmers. Some of the experts environmental performance, cost-effectiveness, and accep-

thus also recommended extending and improving AEMs. Also, the tance by farmers in the current CAP implementation period:

1.Reduce technical and administrative complexity

advantage of AEMs for individual, site-specific implementation of

The complexity of administration was shown to deter farmer’s

nature protection measures was mentioned:

choices of more complex EFAs. Clear and transparent technical

“We always observe that measures that are offered as AEMs and fit requirements for EFAs can facilitate the uptake of biodiversity

nicely into agricultural practices on farms and are relatively simply supportive EFAs (e.g. buffer strips and landscape elements).

2. Assure competent technical assistance

are frequently adapted. For instance AEMs that pay for manure

Centralised transparent information on less complex EFA

application with a drag hose, soil quality and fertilization do fit

requirements complemented with training of Farm Advisory

well [into existing management practices].” (FAS5)

Services (FAS) officers could provide the necessary technical

The third category of recommendations for improving nature assistance. This can further be complemented by the provision

of ecological knowledge to farmers through FAS.

protection within the CAP touched on technical requirements,

3. Increase the share of biodiversity supportive EFAs

controls, and administrative obstacles that were seen as nega-

Overbooking of EFA area and underrepresentation of biodiver-

tive incentives to the engagement of farmers in conservation. For

sity supportive EFAs can be either confronted by reducing the

instance:

number of EFA choices excluding options with low biodiversity

“We would welcome – as we have done for years – if AEMs value, and/or increasing the share for EFA to more than 5%.

4. Improve coordination with agri-environmental mea-

would not be implemented with such a strong promotion and con-

sures (AEM) to increase economic incentives for

trol system as it exists now, with all these detailed surveillance

biodiversity supportive EFAs

practices and demands for all kinds of verification to eliminate

While EFAs were shown to maintain existing practices, com-

the risk of being excluded from EU funding. These tight controls

plementing them with AEM payments could cover parts of the

of measures relevant for nature conservation, they are entirely

costs for establishing new EFAs (e.g. landscape elements). This

counter-productive for developing new methods and techniques

might also lower the proportion of catch crops and nitrogen

out in the field.” (MA6) fixing crops.

5. Highlight additional ecosystem services provided by

Experts recommended developing a more flexible implementa-

EFAs

tion that allows the integration of locally-developed experiences

Mainstreaming how EFAs generate ES and thereby directly and

and mechanisms. Experts suggested using integrative rather than

indirectly benefit both farmers and local communities could

5

segregative strategies for nature-protection. This implies that have an impact on decision making processes and the dispo-

measures would be better adapted to fit into production systems. sition to engage in more demanding EFAs.

Also, experts highlighted the need to adapt legal frameworks in a 6. Support sense of ownership / provide flexibility for

local conditions

way that would facilitate the implementation of conservation mea-

By adapting EFAs to local conditions integrating local knowl-

sures on farms while reducing uncertainties. For instance, it would

edge and maintaining flexibility to support what already

be necessary to clarify the distribution of responsibilities and com-

exists can both incentivise a sense of ownership among

petencies between land owners and land users in the decision to

local stakeholders and be more effective in producing

install options that alter farmland structures, such as landscape

environmental-friendly outcomes.

elements.

7. Replace EFAs with voluntary AEMs (as pillar 2 mech-

anism)

In the middle and long-term perspective, the AEM framework

5. Discussion

seems better suited for addressing the complex objective of

biodiversity protection, as it defines locally specific objectives,

Despite of an overbooking of EFAs in Germany covering 5.8% of

adjusts specific premium rates accordingly and foresees spe-

arable land (instead of the required 5%), the strong dominance of

cific evaluation processes.

catch crops and nitrogen fixing crops covering almost 80% of EFA

area fuels the critique on the ecological effectiveness of greening

(see Pe’er et al., 2014; Oppermann, 2015; Pe’er et al., 2016). While

ecologists see high potential for biodiversity conservation in buffer

that already existed on their farm or c) measures that were already

strips, fallow land and landscape elements, farmers have mostly

part of their farming practices, such as catch crops and nitrogen

chosen options that are considered less effective for biodiversity

fixing crops. Based on the findings and interpretation elaborated

(Pe’er et al., 2016). Enhancing the effectiveness of EFAs for biodi-

in this section, we provided a list of recommendations (see Box 1).

versity can only be achieved by understanding the perspectives of

We propose that incentives and disincentives for implementing the

farmers and political actors implementing EFA policy. Based on in-

different EFA options have to be reflected in further EFA design and

depth interviews with experts from Ministries, Farmers Advisory

prioritization (see Appendix D, “summary for policy makers” for an

Services (FAS) and farmers’ association representatives, the results

overview of political incentives for each EFA option in).

of this study indicate that EFA decisions were primarily guided by

Our results indicate that administrative complexities and strong

administrative aspects, technical complexities and economic con-

technical requirements lead to an underrepresentation of land-

siderations, and much less so by ecological reasons. We further

scape elements and buffer strips in EFA choices, which are

conclude that a) farmers tend to choose options with limited pos-

appreciated by ecologists as having high potential for biodiversity

itive impacts on biodiversity, b) farmers primarily registered EFAs

(Cormont et al., 2016; Pe’er et al., 2016). These obstacles (risks of

possible sanctions, and uncertainties concerning legal rights and

consequences of structural changes in farmland) need to be better

5 addressed. Confusing requirements, including the late publication

Integration versus segregation (see Hampicke, 1991) refers to the debate on

land-sharing versus land-sparing. of the technical specifications and requirements on the EFA reg-

Y. Zinngrebe et al. / Land Use Policy 65 (2017) 93–108 103

ulations by the German Ministry of Agriculture in February 2015 account direct benefits of EFAs, especially to productivity, there

(BMEL, 2015a) and the resulting cautionary technical advice given is much room for improvement in communicating the existing

by FAS, further discouraged these EFA options. Instead experts knowledge, and generating further understanding and awareness

explain the strong registration of catch crops and nitrogen fixing of those ecological functions and services that generate less obvi-

crops with an easy technical implementation and a feasible inte- ous or less visible benefits to farmers. For instance, while a range

gration into existing crop-rotation set-ups. Our results thus confirm of recent studies have shown that hedges offer habitats for pollina-

farmers’ concerns about administrative burdens (or “red tape”), tors and benefit pollination and pest control services (IPBES, 2016),

indicating that these should be carefully considered in the mid- these ES did not appear as factors influencing farmers’ EFA deci-

term review of the CAP, scheduled for spring 2017. We assume sions. Instead, it seems that FAS even advised against these EFA

that administrative considerations were particularly determinant option, on the basis of administrative aspects. While the number

in 2015, as it was the first year of implementation and adminis- of interviewees in the FAS sector was limited, it may be that farm

trative processes were new to all actors involved. Following the advisors are less aware of potential positive effects than of risks and

recommendations given by the experts, simplification and clarifica- implementation obstacles. This could indicate insufficient training

tions of administration and technical requirements is much needed or more generally a focus of FAS on conventional farming prac-

and should be part of the EU commission’s evaluation process. tices not yet adapted to more ecological requirements as aimed

Expert opinions revealed economic incentives as the second at with EFAs. Alternatively, it indicates insufficient involvement of

important driver of farmers’ EFA decisions. Farmers considered ecological experts among FAS providers.

both direct and opportunity costs (see also BMEL, 2015c; Lakner and Some of the recommendations mentioned by the interviewed

Holst, 2015; Lakner and Bosse, 2016). This explains the dominance experts (Table 8) specify how to improve EFA performance within

of catch crops and nitrogen fixing crops as they induce considerably the current framework, which can already be addressed in the mid-

low costs (BMEL, 2015c; Lakner and Holst, 2015) while generating term review in 2017. The recommendations emphasise on means to

multiple benefits for farmers, including both revenue and improved reduce administrative obstacles, risks, and disincentives to farmers.

soil productivity. By contrast, planting trees, hedges or setting aside They further indicate that those options that are considered by ecol-

part of the land for buffer strips or fallow land bears additional costs ogists as highly beneficial for biodiversity need to be better adjusted

for farmers. One option to incentivise EFAs that are more beneficial to fit into established farm practices. In order not to exacerbate

for biodiversity could involve a reduction of the weight, or limit- the negative perception of farmers towards greening, agricultural

ing the total area of EFA options like catch crops or nitrogen fixing policy has to sensitively incentivise ownership and collaboration

crops that have mixed or limited benefits to biodiversity (see Box among farmers.

1). In the longer term, greater integration of biodiversity conserva-

Interviewees proposed that the costs of introducing new EFAs tion aspects with social and economic constraints is needed. The

could be partly covered by pillar 2 funds. For instance, dedicating effectiveness and efficiency of conservation in agricultural land-

AEMs to support the introduction of new EFAs, while using pillar 1’s scapes will have to be significantly improved to meet international

EFA measure to maintain them, could be a constructive approach (e.g. target 7 on sustainable agriculture as part of the strategic plan

of complementing the two policy instruments and enhancing the of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); EU biodiversity

overall ecological effectiveness, as experts from Thüringen and strategy) and national biodiversity targets. Experts’ opinions on

Baden Württemberg indicated (Section 4.1.5). However, figures the greening being linked to pillar 1 payments were often mixed

from the German federal states show that federal states which or even conflicting. Some experts suggested maintaining or even

combine EFAs with AEMs actually have not a substantial higher strengthening pillar 1 payments, while others assessed greening

uptake of the same EFA options than in states where no AEM sup- to be generally inappropriate or ineffective. Yet, overall, a much

port is offered (Table A3 in the Appendix A). This indicates that the larger number of experts suggested that agri-environment mea-

additional incentive of combining EFAs with AEMs is so far out- sures (AEMs), as voluntary mechanisms, are both more useful and

weighed by other factors. This highlights the necessity to improve cost-effective in promoting ecological outcomes (see Table 8). Our

policy integration between the greening of pillar 1 and the AEM study hence calls for a stronger use of pillar 2 measures (recommen-

mechanisms installed in pillar 2. dation 7, Box 1), stronger integration of pillar 1 and 2 mechanisms

Diverging EFA choices among the German federal states sug- (recommendation 4, Box 1), and an overall need to redesign nature

gest the need to localise EFA options and requirements. The protection within the CAP. This is also in line with the recommen-

expert interviews confirmed that location factors and ecological dations of the environmental and animal welfare NGOs in Germany

differences lead to diverging agricultural practices with different (Verbändeplattform, 2013; Oppermann et al., 2016) and scientists

potentials for implementation and thus for biodiversity conser- (Heinrich et al., 2013; Isermeyer et al., 2014; Lakner and Holst,

vation. For instance, sugar beet production in dry sandy soils of 2015).

northern federal states (Niedersachsen, Sachsen-Anhalt, Branden- Besides those aspects raised by the interviewed experts, we

burg and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern) combines well with catch observed the absence of other topics raised by scientific and politi-

crops, which is already an established practice. However, catch cal debates. For example, Hart (2015a,b) called for the integration of

crops and nitrogen fixing crops might reduce water availability in greening into the cross compliance framework to simplify admin-

the soils for following crops and might therefore be chosen less istration and monitoring. It is however likely that this would imply

often in some areas, e.g. eastern Germany with a more continental the same shortcomings as within the actual greening of pillar 1.

climate and lower precipitation. In Schleswig-Holstein, traditional An option suggested by some German NGOs is the strengthen-

“Knicks” are registered as landscape elements as property rights ing of environmental requirements within the existing greening

are clear and farmers can easily register these structures, which framework (Jasper and Ribbe, 2015). As our results indicate that

is different in other states. If the objective of EFA implementation farmers are not urged to change their behaviour by the current

is to support biodiversity in all German regions, political incen- policy design, this might be an option. With already overbooked

tives have to take into account existing preconditions and diverging registration of EFA areas (5.8% area registered as EFAs), an expan-

agricultural practices. sion of the required area from 5 to 7%, as suggested for the mid-term

Ecosystem services related to EFAs are an aspect that has been review, would incentivise farmers to intensify their efforts, but

mentioned by all interviewees, but were rarely mentioned as decid- may not promote the uptake of those EFA options that are more

ing factors for measures uptake. Considering that farmers take into beneficial for biodiversity.

104 Y. Zinngrebe et al. / Land Use Policy 65 (2017) 93–108

5.1. Limitations and outlook 6. Conclusion

This paper is based on qualitative expert interviews, offering This study has shown that according to expert opinions the

expert opinions on the factors affecting farmers’ EFA implemen- selection of EFAs mainly depends primarily on administrative,

tation decisions. While literature on conservation measures in technical and economic considerations. It shows that under the

agricultural landscape exists, greening as an instrument of the EU’s current policy design, greening does not provide incentives to

CAP has been introduced in 2015 only and literature on it is still introduce new ecologically valuable features to meet the EFA

limited. Our approach gains from the fact that experts accumu- requirements. The results are based on a qualitative study among

late valuable knowledge on a “meta-level”, as they accompany 35 experts in Germany, and our insights offer specific entry points

the political implementation process, interact with many differ- for EFA improvements (see Box 1 for recommendations). Despite

ent farmers and even advise farmers on EFA decisions. There are the explicit aim of ecological focus areas to protect biodiversity and

different methodological approaches to get insights into farmers’ ecosystem services, only few statements explicitly referred to eco-

decisions on greening. While purely quantitative methods (as e.g. logical criteria and thus these were not seen as a major determinant

the choice experiment presented in Schulz et al., 2014) can reveal in farmers’ decision-making. This outcome is particularly worrying

statistical correlations of variables, a qualitative social scientific as Farm Advisory Services were found to advice farmers against the

research approach allows the reconstruction of how stakeholders selection of the biodiversity-supportive EFA options (e.g. landscape

construct social reality independently from predefined categories elements and buffer strips) because of their high administrative

and hypotheses (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Hypotheses developed burdens.

during the research process are continuously tested throughout It has to be taken into account that EFAs were implemented for

the research process and confirmed with the principle of theo- the first time in 2015, and still much uncertainty exists among prac-

retical saturation (Flick et al., 2004). However, this only applies titioners. With growing experiences, the factors for EFA decisions

for the perspective that has been taken in the research process. could potentially shift away from technical and administrative con-

As experts are expected to argue within established discourses, siderations toward ecological and social ones, yet this requires

this can potentially lead to an underrepresentation of other cat- awareness to the gap between targets and implementation out-

egories of motivation for farmers’ conservation activities, such comes – and ensuring that the upcoming mid-term review fosters

as technological path-dependencies and the parallel developed greater engagement of the farming community, higher cooperation

technological knowledge, deeply held beliefs and values, ethical between farmers and ecological experts, and effective use of knowl-

motivations, and other unconscious motivations, etc. (Schiffer and edge regarding ecological requirements as these are the stated aims

Hauck, 2010; Vuillot et al., 2016). Other qualitative or quantitative of EFAs (see also recommendations in Box 1). In the meanwhile,

studies among farmers will most likely reveal further insights on local case studies will likely reveal more specific details on how

specific motivations as well as challenges and potentials for local to facilitate and localise EFA implementation. As a main result,

EFA implementation. however, it becomes transparent that under the current legal and

This paper is based on the outcomes of the first year of EFA technical setting, EFA policy does not provide sufficient incentives

implementation. The EFA requirements were only published late in for farmers to shift their behaviour towards the provision of more

2014, thus requiring rapid response by farmers. Farmers’ decisions biodiversity supportive EFAs and, hence, the purpose of EFA setup

and perceptions should therefore be examined in the coming years, within the CAP is not yet fulfilled.

once more experience has been gained, and ecological impacts

have been monitored and assessed. Some EFA decisions cannot be Acknowledgements

changed in the course of this CAP implementation period, but oth-

ers can be updated on a year-to-year basis. The EU’s member states The authors would like to thank Dr. Norbert Röder (Thünen-

should thus identify how remaining flexibility within the current Institute, Braunschweig) and two anonymous reviewers for

CAP implementation can be effectively used to improve the bene- constructive comments and suggestions. All remaining errors are

fits for biodiversity, ecosystems and farmers. Finally, the results of our own.

our study likely bear important implications for EU policy, but the

consistency of our results from Germany need to be further tested Appendix A.

and explored across the EU.

Table A1

Different options of the ecological focus area in Germany (including their weighting factors).

Source: own description based on BMEL, 2015a; p.46ff. and p.109; EU Commission, 2013: p.34.

Category Description Weighting

factor

(a) Fallow land Land without any crop production or grazing, but maintained for production in the following years. Sowing is 1.0

allowed after August for the following year.

(b) Terraces; Terraces without use of pesticides. 1.0

(c) Landscape features Elements subject to cross compliance like hedgerows, single trees, rows or groups of trees, boundary ridge, different

ditches, other landscape elements. Landscape elements have to be in property of the registering farmer. There factors:

is a list of details concerning minimum and maximum size of landscape elements (see BMEL, 2015a,b) 1.0–2.0

(d) Buffer strips Strips without productive use alongside a watercourse, beside arable land with a width from minimum 1 to 1.5

maximum 20 m. Buffer strips have to be exactly parallel to waters.

(e) Agro-forestry Not available in Germany. –

(f) Strips of eligible hectares Strips on arable land without production alongside of forest edges with a width between min. 1 and max. 10 m. 1.5

along forest edges

(g) Short rotation coppice Production of wood with specific, fast growing tree species, a list of species is available (BMEL 2015a,b; p.51). 0.3

(h) Afforested areas Areas with afforestation on former arable land (in most cases supported by second pillar measures). 1.0

(i) Catch crops, or green cover Catch crops are a mixture of productive crops and/or grass following a productive crop to protect soils and use 0.3

available nutrients during the winter.

(j) Nitrogen fixing crops A list of productive leguminous plants, which have to be on the field between May 15th and August 15th. 0.7

Y. Zinngrebe et al. / Land Use Policy 65 (2017) 93–108 105

Table A2

Combined EFA-support and level of support payments in agri-environment measures with in the rural development programmes in Germany.

Federal state Agri-environment measures eligible for the Ecological Focus Area Support payment EUR/ha

(in English) (EFA) and the respective payment reduction (EUR/ha)

not eligible eligible

a

Baden-Württemberg E 2.2 Fallow land with flowering seeds (−400) 710 330

(Baden-Wuerttemberg)

A 1.1 D Diversification of Crops (includes leguminous plants) (−75) 75 –

Bayern (Bavaria) Payment reduction dependent of weighting factor (WF)

(F0,3: 75 D /ha; F1,0: 250 D /ha; F1,5 380 D /ha)

B34 Water and Erosion strips (according WF) 920

f

B48 Flowering strips alongside forests (−380) 600

D

B49 Renovation of hedges and field shrubs (no reduction) 2,70 /qm

B59 Structural and landscape elements (−510) 2.500 1.990

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 1. Nitrogen fixing crops (−20) 65–85 45–56

(Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania)

a

4. Erosion and protective strips (−380)

Water and erosions strips 610 230

b

Flowering strips 680 300

Protective strips 540 160

Niedersachsen u. Bremen (Lower AL 21 Wintering catch crops: (−75) 75 –

Saxony and Bremen)

c a

BS 1 One year flower strip (−380) 700 320

c a

BS 2 Perennial flower strips (−380) 875 495

a

BS 71 Green strips water erosion (−380) 750 370

c

BS 72 Water protection strips 540 160

B8/B9 Planting hedges (−510) 2.600 2.090

Nordrhein-Westfalen (North 7. Nitrogen fixing crops (−20) 90 70

Rhin-Westphalia)

9. Riparian strips/erosion strips (−380) 1.100 720

10. Flowering and protection strips (−380) 1.200 820

11. Catch crops (−75) 97 22

Rheinland-Pfalz (Rhineland Under sown grass and catch crops (−75) 75 –

Palatinate)

Diverse arable farming; nitrogen fixing crops (−20) 90 70

−

Water strips ( 380) 760 380

d

Fringe and edges structure in arable farming: 390 −1.000 reduction: 380

yearly or perennial green cover (−380)

Sachsen-Anhalt (Saxony-Anhalt) 2. Diverse cultures: Nitrogen fixing crops (−20) 90 70

3. Catch crops and under sown grass (−75) 75 –

5.4 Yearly flowering and protection strip (−380) 850 470

5.5 Perennial flowering and 670 290

5.6 Protection strip (−380)

Schleswig-Holstein Arable habitat and green cover (−382) 750 368

(Schleswig-Holstein)

Thüringen (Thuringia) A/V 11 Diverse cultures: nitrogen fixing crops (−20) 90 70

A/V 411 Yearly flowering strips (−380) 720 340

A/V 412 Perennial flowering strips (−380) 680 300

e

A/V 421 Flowering strips in specific regions (−380) 865 485

e

A/V 422 Perennial flowering strips in spec. regions (−380) 800 420

A/V 423 Protection strips (−380) 560 180

A/V 425 Water and erosion strips (−380) 660 280

Source: Own description based on the agri-environment programme of the federal states of Germany.

The federal states Brandenburg (Brandenburg) u. Berlin (Berlin), Hessen (Hesse), Saarland (Saarland) and Sachsen (Saxonia) do not provide additional support for EFAs.

General Note: Throughout the article we use the German names of federal states as we believe they are better known across Europe.

a

Eligibility as EFA in Baden-Württemberg and Niedersachsen is either as fallow land or as buffer strips.

b

Flowering strips restricted to 5 ha.

c

Restricted to 10 ha.

d

Rate of support dependent of the soil quality indicator ‘Ertragsmesszahl (EMZ)’.

e

Restricted are to be supported to 4 ha.

f

600 D /ha with <5.000 EMZ; and 15 D /ha for each additional 100 EMZ.

106 Y. Zinngrebe et al. / Land Use Policy 65 (2017) 93–108

Table A3

Impact of additional support by agri environmental measures on EFA uptake.

with AEM support without AEM support average

Fallow land (380 D /ha) 12,9% 25,9% 16,2%

Buffer strips (380 D /ha) 1,3% 0,9% 1,2%

Landscape features (510 D /ha) 0,5% 3,6% 2,4%

Catch crops and green cover (75 D /ha) 82,1% 54,1% 68,0%

Nitrogen fixing crops (20 D /ha) 13,9% 9,8% 11,8%

Total potential EFA-areaeligible to additional AEM-support 59,8% 40,2% 100,0%

Source: own calculations.

The figures describe the potential EFA in federal states with and without support (column 2 and 3) and the average EFA share (column 4). Note, that this does not reflect the

real additional support by AEM, which is not known so far. Note also, that the figures in the columns do not add up to 100 %, since the federal states use different options and

therefore, only the figures of one EFA-option can be directly compared.

Appendix B.

Table B1

List of quotes.

Abbreviation Institution Quote number

MA1 Ministry for Agriculture 1

BV1 Farmers association 2, 14, 16

MA2 Ministry for Agriculture 3

FAS1 Governmental Farm Advisory Service 4, 6

BV2 Farmers association 5

BV3 Farmers association 7

MA3 Ministry for Agriculture 8, 12

FAS2 Governmental Farm Advisory Service 9

BV4 Farmers association 10

FAS3 Governmental Farm Advisory Service 11, 17

MA4 Ministry for Agriculture 13, 18

FAS4 Governmental Farm Advisory Service 15

MA5 Ministry for Agriculture 19

FAS5 Governmental Farm Advisory Service 20

MA6 Ministry for Agriculture 21

Appendix C.

100

90 25.5 22.5 29.9 26.9 80 39.1

70 (%)

60 32.5 38.9 50 37.8 55.3 frequency 33.5 40

Relave 30 45.0 20 32.4 34.1 27.5 10 19.1

0

Administra ve Economic Locaon factors Ecological Policy incenves

consideraons consideraons consideraons

Mini stry of Agriculture Farm Advisory Service Farm associaon

Fig. C1. division of the proportion of responses in each category according to actor groups: Ministries of Agriculture (black), Farm Advisory Services (grey), Farmer Association

(light grey).

Y. Zinngrebe et al. / Land Use Policy 65 (2017) 93–108 107

•

Appendix D. Summary for Policy Makers also benefits soil protection from erosion

•

supports soil fertility

Based on the results certain incentives and disincentives can be

identified regarding the implementation of EFAs. In this section, Disincentives:

we present the incentive structure for each EFA option and discuss

our projection on the role of each of the five most dominant EFAs •

small markets for protein crops – not competitive (e.g. in Sachsen-

bringing in additional background information. Anhalt)

Catch crops (68% of EFA area in Germany before applying •

strong precipitation has negative impact on harvest, therefore

weighting factors (WF) – see Table 2)

certain regions might not be suitable

Incentive:

Projection: Nitrogen fixing crops were valued for supporting soil

•

integration in crop-rotation possible, continuing cultivation of fertility but seem to provide limited benefits for biodiversity. Their

the land considerably high uptake, especially in selected federal states, is

•

established management practices linked to farm structures and crop rotation set-up. They were val-

•

erosion protection, maintenance of soil fertility ued for supporting soil fertility and particularly popular in eastern

•

land cover as shelter for wild animals federal states with large fields, and southern federal states with

long harvest periods. When it is possible to integrate them into

Disincentive: crop-rotation design, farmers will most likely continue to plant

nitrogen fixing crop as an easy option with a considerably high

•

reducing water availability (especially in dry regions, such as weighting factor of 0.7.

Thüringen, Northern Bayern, Sachsen-Anhalt) Landscape elements (2.4% of EFA area in Germany)

•

challenge to determine possible crop combination Incentives:

•

Our projection: Due to easy implementation, catch crops make high ecological value (expressed also by high weighting factors)

•

up more than two thirds of the EFAs registered by German farm- possible to register existing elements especially in areas

ers. Considering that the benefits for biodiversity are limited, it is with abundant landscape structures (e.g. Saarland, Schleswig-

highly questionable if such a high share of catch crops – and there- Holstein)

•

fore the current policy design – contributes to assure the positive some are already registered in other agrarian subsidy pro-

biodiversity effect of the greening as envisioned by the EC. grammes (cross compliance)

Fallow land (16.2% of EFA area in Germany) Incentive: Disincentives:

• •

low additional costs for installation and management registration requires exact measures (size and position in the

•

low risks of sanctions and little uncertainties regarding manage- field) – risk of sanctions in case of irregularities

•

ment unclear property rights (on boundaries and between land owner

•

can be maintained as arable land over time (does not convert into and user)

permanent pasture)

•

can be integrated into crop rotation Projection: Landscape elements are regarded as supporting bio-

•

possibility to use land with low productivity – especially with low diversity, but it is estimated that most landscape elements are

land prices (e.g. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Saarland). not being registered (Isermeyer et al. (2014: p.15) assessed that

farmers registered only between 15 and 41.5% of the existing land-

Disincentive: scape elements and buffer strips). The low popularity of registering

landscape elements can be explained with the high administrative

•

more pressure on land in areas with high land prices and shortage requirements to define and register them as well as the immi-

of arable land (e.g. Baden-Württemberg) nent risk of sanctions. Additionally, diffuse property rights and

•

risk of conversion into permanent pasture after five years of high installation costs deter further developments of landscape ele-

implementation ments on farms. Considering the unequal distribution of landscape

elements in German federal states, it is likely that locally imple-

Projection: Fallow land is an interesting option for farmers when mented support systems can further incentivise the protection of

registering unused areas with lower productivity as EFAs. They are landscape elements, particularly in German areas with large fields.

also favoured by ecologists as a potentially beneficial measure for Buffer strips (1.2% of EFA area in Germany)

biodiversity (Oppermann et al., 2015). These areas will however Incentives:

turn into permanent pasture after five years of implementation.

•

While pasture land has increased after the introduction of green- high ecological value (expressed also by high weighting factors)

•

ing, shares of pasture land are considerably lower than in 2005 and experiences with registration in earlier agri-environment pro-

may continue to remain lower in areas with high land rents. There- grammes

•

fore the fallow land created as EFAs can counteract this trend and little negative impact on surrounding fields

•

substitute ecological functions of grassland. aesthetic value and visibility

•

Nitrogen fixing crops (11.8% of EFA area in Germany) combination with AEMs possible in certain cases (e.g. with KULAP

Incentives: programme in Thüringen)

•

possibility to combine with other programmes and incentives Disincentive:

(AEMs or KULAP)

• •

suits existing crop systems and crop-rotation set-ups (e.g. pea detailed and rigid technical requirements (e.g. width, distances)

cultivation in Sachsen) complicated registrations and associated risk of sanctions

108 Y. Zinngrebe et al. / Land Use Policy 65 (2017) 93–108

•

restricted possibilities for agricultural use (e.g. mowing the grass Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2011. Common International Classification of

Ecosystem Services (CICES): 2011 Update, European Environment Agency,

as feed)

• Centre for Environmental Management, School of Geography. University of

takes land out of production Nottingham, Nottingham.

•

may convert into permanent pastures after five years of imple- Hampicke, U., 1991. Naturschutz-Ökonomie. Ulmer, Stuttgart.

mentation Hart, K., 2015a. The fate of green direct payments in the CAP reform negotiations.

• In: Swinnen, J. (Ed.), The Political Economy of the 2014–2020 Common

unclear property rights (especially on rented land)

Agricultural Policy- An Imperfect Storm. Centre for European Policy Studies

(CEPS), Rowman and Littlefield International, Brussels, London.

Hart, K., 2015b. Green Direct Payments: Implementation Choices of Nine Member

Projection: Existing studies assume that farmers do not register

States and Their Environmental Implications. IEEP, London.

all existing buffer strips (see also landscape elements). Nonethe-

Hauck, J., Schleyer, C., Winkler, K.J., Maes, J., 2014. Shades of greening: reviewing

less, there is much room for improvements to enhance uptake of the impact of the new EU agricultural policy on ecosystem services. Change

this measure, considering the difficult administrative requirements Adapt. Socio-Ecol. Syst. 1 (1), 51–62.

Heinrich, B., Holst, C., Lakner, S., 2013. The reform of the common agricultural

and associated costs and risks as well as the risk of the conver-

policy: on the right track to become greener and fairer? GAIA 22–21, 20–24.

sion into permanent pasture land after five years- all strongly

Huttunen, S., 2015. Farming practices and experienced policy coherence in

dis-incentivising the registration of existing buffer strips and instal- agri-environment policies: the case of land clearing in Finland. J. Environ.

Policy Plann. 17, 573–592.

lation of new ones.

IPBES, 2016. Thematic Assessment of Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production.

Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn.

References Isermeyer, F., Forstner, B., Nieberg, H., Offermann, F., Osterburg, T., Schmidt, T.,

Röder, N., Weingarten, P., 2014. Stellungnahme im Rahmen Einer öffentlichen

Anhörung des Ausschusses für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft des Deutschen

BMEL, 2015a. Implementation of the EU Agricultural Reform in Germany (Issue

Bundestages am 7. April 2014 (url: https://www.bundestag.de/blob/195974/

2015) (in German). Federal Ministry for Food and Agriculture (BMEL), Berlin

b35aca7c2171260ff3d361dc47ec7894/adrs 18 10 052-e-data.pdf, File

(url: http://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/Broschueren/

accessed: December 2015).

UmsetzungGAPinD.pdf?blob=publication, File accessed: April, 2016).

Jasper, U., Ribbe, L., 2015. Das Greening ist da –es muss scharf gestellt werden

BMEL, 2015b. Experience with Greening in 2015. Answer of the Federal

(Eine Einschätzung aus Sicht der Koordination der deutschen

Government to a Parliamentary Request of the Member of Parliament Dr.

Verbände-Plattform zur Agrarpolitik). Nat. Landsch. 90 (6), 254–257.

Kirsten Tackmann, Caren Ley and Herbert Behrens and Other Members and the

Lakner, S., Bosse, A., 2016. Mühsames Abwägen (Zur ökologische Vorrangfläche in

Parliamentary Group Die Linke, Parliamentary Document No. 18/6397. German

Sachsen-Anhalt), Bauernzeitung 10/2016, 50–51.

Federal Parliament, Berlin.

Lakner, S., Holst, C., 2015. Betriebliche umsetzung der greening-Auflagen: die

BMEL, 2015c. Farmers Provide Additional Environmental Services Through

ökonomischen bestimmungsgründe (in german). Nat. Landsch. 90, 271–277.

Greening (in German). Press release No. 191 of the Ministry for Food and

Mayring, P., 2004. Qualitative content analysis. In: Flick, U., von Kardoff, E., Steinke,

Agriculture (BMEL), Berlin (url: http://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/

Pressemitteilungen/2015/191-SC-OekologischeVorrangflaechen. I. (Eds.), A Companion to Qualitative Research. Sage, London.

Oppermann, R., Gelhausen, J., Matzdorf, B., Reutter, M., Luick, R., Stein, S., 2015.

html;jsessionid=C6D1D6F15555195147BDA07B6D31CDDE.1 cid382, File

Common Agricultural Policy from 2014 – Perspectives for More Biodiversity

accessed: April, 2016).

and Environmental Benefits of Farming? – Policy Recommendations from the

BMELF, 2000. Agenda 2000–Pflanzlicher Bereich Und Agrarumweltmaßnahmen.

Project Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and Achievement of

Federal Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Forestry, Bonn.

the Biodiversity and Environment Goals. Institut für Agrarökologie und

BML, 1993. Agrarbericht Der Bundesregierung 1993. Federal Ministry for

Biodiversität, Leibniz-Zentrum für Agrarlandschaftsforschung Müncheberg,

Agriculture (BML), Bonn.

Hochschule für Forstwissenschaft Rottenburg, and the German Ministry for

Berger, G., Kaechele, H., Pfeffer, H., 2006. The greening of the European common

Environmental Protection (Bundesamt für Naturschutz) – BfN (url: https://

agricultural policy by linking the European-wide obligation of set-aside with

www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/themen/landwirtschaft/

voluntary agri-environment measures on a regional scale. Environ. Sci. Policy

CAPEnvironment-study-results-nov2012en Fin.pdf Accessed July 2016).

9, 509–524.

Oppermann, R., Fried, A., Lepp, N., Lepp, T., Lakner, S., 2016. Fit, Fair Und Nachhaltig

Beyer, L., Schleuß, U., 1991. The soils of wall-hedges in Schleswig-Holstein

– Vorschläge für Eine Neue EU-Agrarpolitik. Agricultural Study supported by

−classification and genesis (in German). German J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 154,

431–436. den Naturschutzbund e.V., Berlin (url: https://www.nabu.de/imperia/md/

content/nabude/landwirtschaft/agrarreform/161104-studie-

Cormont, A., Siepel, H., Clement, J., Melman, T.C.P., WallisDeVries, M.F., van

neueeuagrarpolitik-langfassung.pdf, File accessed: November 2016).

Turnhout, C.A.M., Sparrius, L.B., Reemer, M., Biesmeijer, J.C., Berendse, F., de

Oppermann, R., 2015. Option in practice from the biodiversity and farming

Snoo, G.R., 2016. Landscape complexity and farmland biodiversity: evaluating

perspective. Nat. Landsch. 6, 263–270.

the CAP target on natural elements. J. Nat. Conserv. 30, 19–26.

Pe’er, G., Dicks, L.V., Visconti, P., Arlettaz, R., Baldi, A., Benton, T.G., Collins, S.,

DBV, 2011. Leitbild Des Deutschen Bauernverbandes – Unsere Werte Und

Dieterich, M., Gregory, R.D., Hartig, F., Henle, K., Hobson, P.R., Kleijn, D.,

Orientierung für Die Zukunft. Deutscher Bauernverband (DBV), Berlin.

Neumann, R.K., Robijns, T., Schmidt, J., Shwartz, A., Sutherland, W.J., Turbe, A.,

DBV, 2014. Geschäftsbericht 2013/2014. Deutscher Bauernverband (DBV), Berlin.

Wulf, F., Scott, A.V., 2014. EU agricultural reform fails on biodiversity. Science

Destatis, 2006, 2011, 2014, 2015. Use of arable land on farms (Series 3, Issue 3.1.2)

344, 1090–1092.

Federal Statistical Office (Destatis), Wiesbade.

Pe’er, G., Zinngrebe, Y., Hauck, J., Schindler, S., Dittrich, A., Zingg, S., Tscharntke, T.,

Destatis, 2015. Sustainable Development in Germany: Indicators for Environment

Oppermann, R., Sutcliffe, L.M.E., Sirami, C., Schmidt, J., Hoyer, C., Schleyer, C.,

and Economics 2014, Report of the Federal Statistical Office (Destatis),

Lakner, S., 2016. Adding some green to the greening: improving the EU’s

27.11.2015, Wiesbaden.

Ecological Focus Areas for biodiversity and farmers. Conserv. Lett., http://dx.

Dicks, L.V., Hodge, I., Randall, N.P., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Siriwardena, G.M., Smith,

doi.org/10.1111/conl.12333 (online first).

H.G., Smith, R.K., Sutherland, W.J., 2014. A transparent process for

Schiffer, E., Hauck, J., 2010. Net-Map: collecting social network data and facilitating

evidence-informed policy making. Conserv. Lett. 7, 119–125.

network learning through participatory influence network mapping. Field

EU Commission, 2013. Regulation (EU) No. 1307/2013 of the European Parliament

Methods 22 (3), 231–249.

and of the council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments

Schmidt, J., Hauck, J., (submitted) Exploring farmers’ perspectives on green

to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common

infrastructure policy in the agricultural landscapes of Saxony-Anhalt, Germany.

agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and

Schulz, N., Breustedt, G., Latacz-Lohmann, U., 2014. Assessing farmers’ willingness

Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, Official Journal of the European Union, L

to accept ‘Greening’: insights from a discrete choice experiment in Germany. J.

347/608–670 (December 2013).

Agric. Econ. 65, 26–48.

EU Commission, 2015. Direct Payments Post 2014: Decisions Taken by Member

Strauss, A., Corbin, J., 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research, vol. 15. Newbury Park,

States by 1 August 2014 – State of Play on 07.05.2015. Information note by the

Sage, London.

EU Commission, Brussels (url: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/direct-support/

Sutherland, W.J., Dicks, L.V., Ockendon, N., Smith, R.K. (Eds.), 2015. What Works in

direct-payments/docs/implementation-decisions-ms en.pdf, File acessed: July,

2016). Conservation. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge.

Verbändeplattform, 2013. Eine andere Agrarpolitik ist möglich – Deutschland

Farmers Association Schleswig-Holstein, 2014. Schützenswerte

muss die großen Möglichkeiten der EU-Agrarreform nutzen für eine

Landschaftselemente Schleswig-Holsteins. Farmers Association

bäuerliche, umwelt- und tierschutzfördernde Landwirtschaft, Gemeinsame

Schleswig-Holstein, Rendsburg (url: http://www.bauern.sh/themen/knicks.

Forderungen zur Umsetzung der EU-Agrarreform: Position-paper fort he

html, File accesed March, 2015).

CAP-reform 2013 by peasant, environmental and animal welfare associations

Flick, U., von Kardoff, E., Steinke, I. (Eds.), 2004. A Companion to Qualitative

in Germany (Verbändeplattform), August 2013, Rheinbach/Hamm.

Research. Sage, London.

Vuillot, C., Coron, N., Calatayud, F., Sirami, C., Mathevet, R., Gibon, A., 2016. Ways of

Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L., 2012. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for

farming and ways of thinking: do farmers’ mental models of the landscape

qualitative research, Piscataway, New Jersey.

relate to their land management practices? Ecol. Soc. 21 (1), 1–24.