A critical analysis of the potential for EU Common Agricultural Policy measures to support wild pollinators on farmland

Abstract

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. 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. 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. 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. 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 agri‐environment 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.

Two enabling factors for farmer-driven pollinator protection in low- and middle-income countries

“…Assessments on the value of pollinators (An & Chen, 2011;Gallai et al, 2009) can trigger motivation to preserve pollinators. The importance of policies (Christmann, 2019c;Cole et al, 2020;Dicks et al, 2016b;EU, 2020;Gemill-Herren et al, 2021) and a structured policy dialogue including worst-case scenario, low-cost crosssector policy instruments and cross-cutting benefits have been highlighted (Christmann, 2020).…”

Virtual pollination trade uncovers global dependence on biodiversity of developing countries

“…Making agriculture more sustainable can involve investment in precision farming (e.g., the use modern technology to support more efficient management) to increase land productivity rather than cropland expansion, or ecological intensification of farming practices to boost ecosystem services such as crop pollination [e.g., intercropping hedgerows and flower strips (35,40,41)]. Recent environmental protection policies have been implemented in several developed regions, e.g., ecological focus areas in the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) (42) and Environmental Protection Agency Actions to Protect Pollinators in the United States (43). Yet, increased demand of pollinator-dependent products in such regions is being supported by wild pollinators from developing countries, where application of conservation programs is rare (44) and information on pollinators is scarce (10).…”

Scales matter: Maximising the effectiveness of interventions for pollinators and pollination

“…where 3% and 8% of the area, respectively, was converted to wildflower strips and other semi-natural habitat. Sown field margins can provide high sources of nectar and pollen seasonally, although, a recent European-wide analysis suggests that seasonal temporal trends can strongly differ geographically (Cole et al 2020). Cole et al (2020) also highlighted that field margins across Europe generally lack flowers that provide nectar and/or pollen resources for pollinators later in the season.…”