How Does the Share of Farmland Classified as Ecological Focus Area Affect Farm Biodiversity?

Managing farmland as an Ecological Focus Area (EFA) has a positive impact on its biodiversity. Agroscope has now investigated the effect of implementing this agri-environmental measure on non-EFAs.

Intensive agricultural land use is one of the main reasons for loss of biodiversity. The purpose of agri-environmental programmes is to maintain and promote species and habitat diversity in line with the Direct Payment Ordinance. As part of the Proof of Ecological Performance (PEP) for receiving direct payments, farms must manage a minimum share of their utilised agricultural area as so-called Ecological Focus Areas (EFAs).

Effects of Ecological Focus Areas (EFAs) on non-EFAs

An empirical study investigated whether and how the farm-level share of EFAs affected the biodiversity-friendliness of management practices. In addition to analysing whole-farm effects, the impact on the EFAs and non-EFAs was assessed separately. If non-EFAs were managed in a more intensive manner due to the creation of EFAs, this would counteract the positive effect of the agri-environmental programme on the biodiversity of the EFAs.

Data from 2009 to 2020 from 410 farms were used for the analysis. As part of their involvement in the Swiss Agri-Environmental Data Network (SAEDN), these farms documented different management measures such as the application of different plant-protection products for each parcel. A biodiversity score was calculated based on these details and on a method previously developed by Agroscope to assess the potential impact of farm management practices on biodiversity. This score depicts the biodiversity-friendliness of the practices in terms of overall species diversity for different indicator-species groups (including e.g. amphibians and mammals).

A high share of EFAs for the farm does not lead to intensification of the remaining land

The results show that a higher share of EFAs leads to only small changes in whole-farm biodiversity-friendliness. At the same time, there is a small positive effect on the biodiversity score of the non-EFAs. This result contradicts the hypothesis of an increasing intensification on the non-EFAs as the share of EFAs increases, and can be explained in different ways. Firstly, the implementation of EFAs can lead to a whole-farm policy change where the non-EFAs are also affected by a change in management practices (‘management spillover’). Secondly, learning effects are a further possible explanation, i.e. positive experiences in the management of EFAs are also applied to the non-EFAs (‘learning spillover’). Lastly, non-EFAs may benefit from their spatial proximity to the EFAs (‘environmental spillover’).