Abstract
Biodiversity is declining and current strategies to halt biodiversity loss have not succeeded. In preparing the EU’s Biodiversity Strategy 2030, it is essential to unravel different visions about conservation targets for agriculture, and to understand potential trade-offs with food production. In this research, we translated the narratives of experts into two conservation scenarios on a case study area resembling the Dutch dairy sector. The scenarios reflected a targeted versus a generic approach towards conservation. In the targeted conservation (TC) scenario, extensive grassland, reduced drainage and delayed mowing were applied in core areas to enhance meadow bird abundance, whereas in the generic conservation (GC) scenario, networks of nature and extensive agriculture were created and no feed was imported, which required a change in local agricultural land use. Subsequently, total feed and food (milk and meat) production and potential impacts on biodiversity were assessed, using the total energy and protein value for dairy, dairy productivity and the potentially disappeared fraction (PDF) of plant species richness. Land use changed on 6% of the case study area in the TC scenario, and 69 % in the GC scenario. Feed production per ha (net energy for lactation) was reduced by 3% for the TC and 41 % for the GC scenario. Food production on the case study area reduced to the same extent in TC, and to a larger extent (by about two thirds) in GC because no feed was imported. In consequence, biodiversity increased, thus reducing the PDF from 0.17 in the baseline scenario to 0.16 in the TC scenario and 0.10 in the GC scenario. In both scenarios, extensive grassland offset part of the loss in plant species richness caused by cropland and intensive grassland. Implementing these opposing scenarios requires different policy approaches or incentives for the dairy sector. Moreover, judging whether measures are worth the expected benefits for biodiversity depends on stakeholders’ values. Lastly, potential displacement of food production and associated impact on biodiversity needs to be considered.
Highlights
Agriculture is widely recognised as a main driver of global biodiversity loss (Tilman et al, 2017)
Land use Implementation of conservation scenarios resulted in changes in land use in the case study area (Fig. 1)
In the Targeted Conservation (TC) scenario, land use changed from intensive to extensive grassland in 6% of the case study area compared with the baseline scenario (BL) scenario, and on an additional 2.3 %
Summary
Agriculture is widely recognised as a main driver of global biodiversity loss (Tilman et al, 2017). Agriculture is a driver of biodiversity loss, it is recognised as a major contributor to Europe’s biodiversity (Batáry et al, 2015; Herzog et al, 2012; LEAP, 2015). The value of specific agricultural landscapes for biodiversity is acknowledged, for example, in high nature value farmland, which includes semi-natural areas (e.g. moorland, saltmarsh), extensive mosaic landscapes, and areas that host species of conservation concern (e.g. wintering wild fowl, farmland birds) (Andersen et al, 2003; Lomba et al, 2014). Increasing intensification and abandonment of less productive agricultural land have reduced the area of high nature value farmland (Lomba et al, 2014). Populations of farmland birds have more than halved over the last three decades (EBCC, 2018)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
