Cole L.J., Kleijn D., Dicks L.V., Stout J.C., Potts S.G., Albrecht M., Balzan M., Bartomeus I., Bebeli P.J., Bevk D., Biesmeijer J.C., Chlebo R., Dautarté A., Emmanouil N., Hartfield C., Holland J.M., Holzschuh A., Knoben N.T.J. , Kovács-Hostyánszki A., Mandelik Y., Panou H., Paxton R.J., Petanidou T., Pinheiro de Carvalho M.A.A., Rundlöf M., Sarthou J.-P., Stavrinides M.C., Suso M.J., Szentgyörgyi H., Vaissière B.E., Varnava A., Vilà M., Zemeckis R., Scheper J.
A critical analysis of the potential for EU Common Agricultural Policy measures to support wild pollinators on farmland.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 57, (4), 2020, 681-694.
1. Agricultural intensification and associated loss of high-quality habitats are key
drivers of insect pollinator declines. With the aim of decreasing the environmental
impact of agriculture, the 2014 EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) defined
a set of habitat and landscape features (Ecological Focus Areas: EFAs) farmers
could select from as a requirement to receive basic farm payments. To inform the
post-2020 CAP, we performed a European-scale evaluation to determine how different
EFA options vary in their potential to support insect pollinators under standard
and pollinator-friendly management, as well as the extent of farmer uptake.
2. A structured Delphi elicitation process engaged 22 experts from 18 European
countries to evaluate EFAs options. By considering life cycle requirements of key
pollinating taxa (i.e. bumble bees, solitary bees and hoverflies), each option was
evaluated for its potential to provide forage, bee nesting sites and hoverfly larval
resources.
3. EFA options varied substantially in the resources they were perceived to provide
and their effectiveness varied geographically and temporally. For example, field
margins provide relatively good forage throughout the season in Southern and
Eastern Europe but lacked early-season forage in Northern and Western Europe.
Under standard management, no single EFA option achieved high scores across
resource categories and a scarcity of late season forage was perceived.
4. Experts identified substantial opportunities to improve habitat quality by adopting
pollinator-friendly management. Improving management alone was, however,
unlikely to ensure that all pollinator resource requirements were met. Our analyses
suggest that a combination of poor management, differences in the inherent
pollinator habitat quality and uptake bias towards catch crops and nitrogen-fixing
crops severely limit the potential of EFAs to support pollinators in European agricultural
landscapes.
5. Policy Implications. To conserve pollinators and help protect pollination services,
our expert elicitation highlights the need to create a variety of interconnected,
well-managed habitats that complement each other in the resources they offer.
To achieve this the Common Agricultural Policy post-2020 should take a holistic
view to implementation that integrates the different delivery vehicles aimed
at protecting biodiversity (e.g. enhanced conditionality, eco-schemes and agrienvironment
and climate measures). To improve habitat quality we recommend an
effective monitoring framework with target-orientated indicators and to facilitate
the spatial targeting of options collaboration between land managers should be
incentivised.