A suboptimal array of options erodes the value of CAP ecological focus areas | Land Portal

Resource information

Date of publication: 
June 2019
Resource Language: 
ISBN / Resource ID: 

As a part of the greening of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy in 2013, Ecological Focus Areas (EFA) became mandatory for many European farmers, with the aim to enhance on-farm biodiversity. However, their effects on biodiversity have been disputed. In this interdisciplinary effort, we assessed the effects of current and alternative formulations of EFA regulations in Sweden. By complementing economic and ecological modelling with interviews with persons at administrative and advisory bodies and a narrative decision game with farmers, we were able to demonstrate key shortcomings of mandatory EFAs as a policy instrument. In particular, we evaluated if requirements to increase the quality of EFAs and regulations allowing their collective implementation, have the potential to increase their effectiveness in benefitting functional biodiversity. We focused on how biodiversity underpinning crop pollination and natural pest control would be affected by alternative regulations. First, we show that several of the possible EFA measures have no or minimal actual effect on biodiversity. Second, we demonstrate the need for appropriate incentives for farmers to choose and place agri-environmental measures in an environmentally desirable way. The EFA regulation is experienced as complicated and without any clear environmental benefits for the participants in this study. As a result, the confidence in the policy is undermined. Third, we demonstrate the challenge of devising compulsory measures to improve biodiversity that also need to fulfil demands on being flexible and easy to administrate. Our results indicate that the latter goal has taken precedence over the former, and thus providing an explanation of the poor design of the EFA regulation from a biodiversity perspective. We argue that to enhance biodiversity in farmland through general agri-environmental measures, only measures with clear benefits for biodiversity can be on the menu. Further, better information as well as incentives for optimizing EFA placement for biodiversity on farms are needed and combined with stricter rules on quality and placement where appropriate.

Authors and Publishers

Author(s), editor(s), contributor(s): 

Nilsson, Lovisa
Clough, Yann
Smith, Henrik G.
Alkan Olsson, Johanna
Brady, Mark V.
Hristov, Jordan
Olsson, Peter
Skantze, Karin
Ståhlberg, David
Dänhardt, Juliana


Land Use Policy is an international and interdisciplinary journal concerned with the social, economic, political, legal, physical and planning aspects of urban and rural land use. It provides a forum for the exchange of ideas and information from the diverse range of disciplines and interest groups which must be combined to formulate effective land use policies.

Data provider

ScienceDirect logo

What is ScienceDirect

Elsevier’s leading platform of peer-reviewed scholarly literature.

University libraries and institutions offer ScienceDirect access to their communities of researchers.

Researchers, teachers, students, healthcare and information professionals use ScienceDirect to improve the way they search, discover, read, understand and share scholarly research.

Share this page