Agricultural Production and Biodiversity Conservation: Four Typical Land-Use Patterns
Photo: Gabriela Brändle,
Agroscope
Swiss farms must decide on the extent to which they produce agricultural goods and provide biodiversity services. Agroscope has analysed and typified the diversity of farm-level land-use patterns.
Farms must decide what they use the scarce production factor ‘land’ for. How strongly should they focus on the production of agricultural goods versus biodiversity conservation within the federal direct payment schemes? Up until now, relatively little has been known about the land-use behaviour of Swiss farms and their diversity in this respect. Agroscope researchers conducted a study to address this question and developed a typology of farm-level land-use patterns for Swiss farms using cluster analysis. The study takes a comprehensive, whole-farm approach that considers not only Ecological Focus Areas (EFAs) but also non-EFAs and therefore encompasses the whole farm area. The study is based on a sample of 2341 farm observations from the Swiss Agri-Environmental Data Network and the Farm Accountancy Data Network.
Four variables were used to develop the typology:
- the whole-farm agricultural production intensity
- the extent of participation in direct payment schemes that promote biodiversity
- the impact of farm practices on the biodiversity of EFAs
- the impact of farm practices on the biodiversity of non-EFAs.
Four land-use types identified
The analysis showed four distinct land-use types beyond the traditional dichotomy of low shares of EFAs and high agricultural production intensity versus high shares of EFAs and low agricultural production intensity:
- extensive farms with a strong focus on EFA production
- intensive farms with biodiversity-friendly practices
- intensive farms with less biodiversity-friendly practices
- neither highly intensive nor particularly biodiversity-friendly farms (this type was found only in the plain region).
High production intensity and biodiversity-friendly practices are not incompatible
Our results show that biodiversity conservation can also take place outside EFA direct payment schemes. Farms belonging to the second type managed to achieve high agricultural production intensity alongside highly biodiversity-friendly farm practices. This suggests that these two dimensions are not mutually exclusive per se. The low or moderate use intensity of mineral fertilisers, pesticides and bought-in feedstuffs combined with high use efficiency of these inputs seems to be the key to reconciling agricultural production and biodiversity conservation.
Conclusions
- Four distinct whole-farm land-use types were identified based on production intensity, share of EFAs and biodiversity friendliness of farm practices on EFAs and non-EFAs.
- These land-use types go beyond the traditional dichotomy of low share of EFAs and high agricultural production intensity versus high share of EFAs and low agricultural production intensity.
- One of the four land-use types identified shows that high agricultural production intensity and high biodiversity friendliness of agricultural practices are not mutually exclusive per se. Both can be achieved simultaneously if intermediate consumptions relevant to biodiversity (mineral fertilisers, pesticides and bought-in feedstuffs) are used with low or moderate intensity in combination with high efficiency.
Bibliographical reference
Agricultural production and biodiversity conservation: A typology of Swiss farmers’ land use patterns.
