Ecological focus areas (EFAs) are a key element of European agri-environmental measures, which aim at mitigating the negative impact of intensive agricultural practices on biodiversity. They are mostly implemented at local scale, such as action-based EFAs (prescribed minimum biodiversity-friendly management) and result-based EFAs (prescribed minimum biodiversity outcome). Implementation at the landscape scale as part of a collaborative landscape-targeted approach is less frequent. There, farmers of a given region jointly determine where and which measures are implemented in order to create a biodiversity-friendly landscape. The effectiveness of the three different, but often intertwined approaches to promote farmland biodiversity, has hardly ever been studied. To this end, we analyzed data from 121 1-km2 squares distributed across the Swiss agricultural landscapes. At local scale (10-m2 units), we found that plant species richness was higher in all EFA categories compared to management units outside EFAs, but tended to be highest in result-based and in collaborative landscape-targeted EFAs. At landscape scale (1-km2 units), plant species richness was positively related to a large total area of all EFAs, while butterfly and bird richness were positively related to a large total area of all EFAs with a high share of collaborative landscape-targeted EFAs. We conclude that while result-based, and especially collaborative landscape-targeted EFAs come along with higher transaction costs, they contribute substantially to farmland biodiversity at different spatial scales.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Meier et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: