Collaboration or fragmentation? Biodiversity management through the common agricultural policy

Leventon, Julia; Schaal, Tamara; Velten, Sarah; Dänhardt, Juliana; Fischer, Joern; Abson, David J.; Newig, Jens

doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.02.009

Cited by 83 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Such documents would outline goals and actions for biodiversity conservation within that landscape (see the right of Figure 2). In this way, opportunities are created to overcome the actor fragmentation noted by Leventon et al (2017) and to fulfil calls for collaborative land management (Dallimer et al, 2010;Prager, 2015). Planning at a landscape scale allows for the creation of biodiversity measures that must be implemented by multiple land managers, for example, for multiple farmers to plant trees that collectively form a larger patch of woodland.…”

Section: An Alternative Governance System For Biodiversity In Agricmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Planning at a landscape scale allows for the creation of biodiversity measures that must be implemented by multiple land managers, for example, for multiple farmers to plant trees that collectively form a larger patch of woodland. In this way, opportunities are created to overcome the actor fragmentation noted by Leventon et al (2017) and to fulfil calls for collaborative land management (Dallimer et al, 2010;Prager, 2015). However, the bringing together of multiple actors and interests at this scale can also serve to reshape the space of governance by changing the way in which places, policies, and actors interact (Healey, 2006;Moss, 2004).…”

Section: An Alternative Governance System For Biodiversity In Agricmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Landscape‐scale biodiversity governance: Scenarios for reshaping spaces of governance

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we present an alternative governance system for managing biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Focusing primarily on the European Union (EU), we start with the premise that there is a need to rethink biodiversity governance to bring together land managers for collaboration and to close mismatches between levels of governance and ecological scales. We therefore create four archetypal governance scenarios that represent hypothetical extremes in two variables. The first variable is the scale of governance and differentiates between a primary focus on administrative units (e.g., country, state, and county) versus ecological scales (bioregion and landscape). The second variable is the degree of decentralization and devolution and differentiates between a top-down, central-state system, versus a bottom-up, broad actor-network system. On the basis of their considered strengths and weaknesses, we present a hybrid scenario as our proposed alternative governance system. This system brings together decision makers, land managers, and a broader range of stakeholders at a landscape scale to plan biodiversity goals and actions. This, in turn, will more closely match the biophysical conditions for effective biodiversity conservation than existing EU approaches, without overly increasing the administrative burden.

show abstract

Section: An Alternative Governance System For Biodiversity In Agricmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: An Alternative Governance System For Biodiversity In Agricmentioning

confidence: 99%

Landscape‐scale biodiversity governance: Scenarios for reshaping spaces of governance

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The CAP presents a budget of around 290 billion EUR between 2014and 2020(EC, 2017b. The CAP supports agricultural production in several regions across Europe and, therefore, can indirectly contribute to intensifying agricultural pressures such as nitrogen emissions, water abstraction and alterations to morphology (Leventon et al, 2017). Direct payments are however now decoupled from production, which reduces the incentive to intensify production.…”

Section: Protecting and Restoring Aquatic Biodiversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, a growing body of literature highlights the conflicts and trade-offs between biodiversity protection on the one hand and policies supporting economic growth and food security on the other (e.g. Gorenflo and Warner, 2016), such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) (Leventon et al, 2017;Vesterager et al, 2016;Meyer et al, 2014) and the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) (Elliott, 2014;Khalilian et al, 2010;Frost and Andersen, 2006). It is thus important to consider not only the multiple objectives set by environmental policies, but also the impact of sectoral, food security and growth policies on the protection of aquatic biodiversity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity across the Freshwater, Coastal and Marine Realms: Is the existing EU policy framework fit for purpose?

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While some progress has been made, Europe is far from achieving its policy objective of healthy aquatic ecosystems. This paper presents an integrated assessment of how EU policies influence aquatic biodiversity, in order to determine how EU policies and laws contribute to achieving and/or hindering EU and international biodiversity targets. The paper also discusses whether European policy has a synergistic or conflicting mix of instruments to address the main problems facing aquatic biodiversity, and whether gaps in the existing policy framework exist. The integrated policy review assessment presented in this paper is based on the application of the drivers-pressures-state-impact-responses (DPSIR) framework to six known pressures on aquatic biodiversity, selected to provide a representative range: nitrogen pollution, species extraction, invasive alien species, water abstraction, alterations to morphology, and plastic waste. The DPSIR framework is used to characterize these pressures and how they are influenced by underpinning socio-economic drivers and major European policies. The conclusions highlight that the policy framework is most developed when it comes to defining environmental targets and sets a number of instruments to reduce pressures by encouraging the adoption of more resourceefficient practices, but it becomes less specific when tackling sectors (drivers) and supporting more environmental sound economic development.

show abstract

“…Esta alternativa poderia promover a proteção ou recuperação à escala da paisagem, podendo agregar projetos individuais de propriedades privadas em um único programa de restauração. De acordo com Leventon et al (2017), embora a gestão da biodiversidade na escala de propriedade tenha efeitos positivos, os resultados da gestão da biodiversidade são melhorados quando implementados numa escala de paisagem.…”

Section: Incentivos Econômicos Para a Proteção E Recuperação Da Coberunclassified

Alternativas de restauração de florestas ripárias para o fornecimento de serviços ecossistêmicos.

Machado¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collaboration or fragmentation? Biodiversity management through the common agricultural policy

Cited by 83 publications

References 39 publications

Landscape‐scale biodiversity governance: Scenarios for reshaping spaces of governance

Landscape‐scale biodiversity governance: Scenarios for reshaping spaces of governance

Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity across the Freshwater, Coastal and Marine Realms: Is the existing EU policy framework fit for purpose?

Alternativas de restauração de florestas ripárias para o fornecimento de serviços ecossistêmicos.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About