TY - JOUR
T1 - How much would it cost to monitor farmland biodiversity in Europe?
AU - Geizendorffer, Ilse R.
AU - Targetti, Stefano
AU - Brus, Dick J.
AU - Jeanneret, Philippe
AU - Jongman, Robert H. G.
AU - Knotters, Martin
AU - Viaggi, Davide
AU - Angelova, Siyka
AU - Arndorfer, Michaela
AU - Balázs, Katalin
AU - Báldi, András
AU - Bogers , Marion M.
AU - Bunce, Robert G. H.
AU - Choisis, Jean-Phillipe
AU - Dennis, Peter
AU - Eiter, Sebastian
AU - Fjellstad, Wendy
AU - Friedel, Jürgen K.
AU - Gomiero, Tiziano
AU - Griffioen, Arjan
AU - Kainz, Max
AU - Kovács-Hostyánszki, Anikó
AU - Lüscher, Gisela
AU - Moreno, Gerardo
AU - Nascimbene, Juri
AU - Paoletti, Maurizio
AU - Pointerreau, Philippe
AU - Sarthou, Jean-Pierre
AU - Siebrecht, Norman
AU - Staritsky, Igor
AU - Stoyanova, Siyka
AU - Wolfrum, Sebastian
AU - Herzog, Felix
N1 - EU 7th framework programme. Grant Number: KBBE 227161
EU BON project. Grant Number: 308454
French Government. Grant Number: ANR-11-IDEX-0001-02
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Austrian Ministry for Science and Research
PY - 2016/2/1
Y1 - 2016/2/1
N2 - 1. To evaluate progress on political biodiversity objectives, biodiversity monitoring provides information on whether intended results are being achieved. Despite scientific proof that monitoring and evaluation increase the (cost) efficiency of policy measures, cost estimates for monitoring schemes are seldom available, hampering their inclusion in policy programme budgets. 2. Empirical data collected from 12 case studies across Europe were used in a power analysis to estimate the number of farms that would need to be sampled per major farm type to detect changes in species richness over time for four taxa (vascular plants, earthworms, spiders and bees). A sampling design was developed to allocate spatially, across Europe, the farms that should be sampled. 3. Cost estimates are provided for nine monitoring scenarios with differing robustness for detecting temporal changes in species numbers. These cost estimates are compared with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) budget (2014–2020) to determine the budget allocation required for the proposed farmland biodiversity monitoring. 4. Results show that the bee indicator requires the highest number of farms to be sampled and the vascular plant indicator the lowest. The costs for the nine farmland biodiversity monitoring scenarios corresponded to 001%–074% of the total CAP budget and to 004%– 248% of the CAP budget specifically allocated to environmental targets. 5. Synthesis and applications. The results of the cost scenarios demonstrate that, based on the taxa and methods used in this study, a Europe-wide farmland biodiversity monitoring scheme would require a modest share of the Common Agricultural Policy budget. The monitoring scenarios are flexible and can be adapted or complemented with alternate data collection options (e.g. at national scale or voluntary efforts), data mobilization, data integration or modelling efforts.
AB - 1. To evaluate progress on political biodiversity objectives, biodiversity monitoring provides information on whether intended results are being achieved. Despite scientific proof that monitoring and evaluation increase the (cost) efficiency of policy measures, cost estimates for monitoring schemes are seldom available, hampering their inclusion in policy programme budgets. 2. Empirical data collected from 12 case studies across Europe were used in a power analysis to estimate the number of farms that would need to be sampled per major farm type to detect changes in species richness over time for four taxa (vascular plants, earthworms, spiders and bees). A sampling design was developed to allocate spatially, across Europe, the farms that should be sampled. 3. Cost estimates are provided for nine monitoring scenarios with differing robustness for detecting temporal changes in species numbers. These cost estimates are compared with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) budget (2014–2020) to determine the budget allocation required for the proposed farmland biodiversity monitoring. 4. Results show that the bee indicator requires the highest number of farms to be sampled and the vascular plant indicator the lowest. The costs for the nine farmland biodiversity monitoring scenarios corresponded to 001%–074% of the total CAP budget and to 004%– 248% of the CAP budget specifically allocated to environmental targets. 5. Synthesis and applications. The results of the cost scenarios demonstrate that, based on the taxa and methods used in this study, a Europe-wide farmland biodiversity monitoring scheme would require a modest share of the Common Agricultural Policy budget. The monitoring scenarios are flexible and can be adapted or complemented with alternate data collection options (e.g. at national scale or voluntary efforts), data mobilization, data integration or modelling efforts.
KW - agriculture
KW - agri-environment schemes
KW - biodiversity indicator
KW - common agricultural policy
KW - empirical data
KW - farming system
KW - habitat
KW - power analysis
KW - sampling design
KW - species trend
UR - http://hdl.handle.net/2160/36406
U2 - 10.1111/1365-2664.12552
DO - 10.1111/1365-2664.12552
M3 - Article
SN - 0021-8901
VL - 53
SP - 140
EP - 149
JO - Journal of Applied Ecology
JF - Journal of Applied Ecology
IS - 1
ER -