Protocols for spatial analysis to be implemented in the domain editor by WP5 - Allocation of farm types spatially including the new Member states

Agricultural and Food Policy, Environmental Economics and Policy, Land Economics/Use, Production Economics,

How much would it cost to monitor farmland biodiversity in Europe?

International audienceTo 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. 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. 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 budgetallocation required for the proposed farmland biodiversity monitoring. 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.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. Editor's Choic

Nutrient Recovery and Emissions of Ammonia, Nitrous Oxide, and Methane from Animal Manure in Europe : Effects of Manure Treatment Technologies

Animal manure contributes considerably to ammonia (NH3) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Europe. Various treatment technologies have been implemented to reduce emissions and to facilitate its use as fertilizer, but a systematic analysis of these technologies has not yet been carried out. This study presents an integrated assessment of manure treatment effects on NH3, nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4) emissions from manure management chains in all countries of EU-27 in 2010 using the MITERRA-Europe model. Effects of implementing 12 treatment technologies on emissions and nutrient recovery were further explored through scenario analyses; the level of implementation corresponded to levels currently achieved by forerunner countries. Manure treatment decreased GHG emissions from manures in EU countries by 0-17% in 2010, with the largest contribution from anaerobic digestion; the effects on NH3 emissions were small. Scenario analyses indicate that increased use of slurry acidification, thermal drying, incineration and pyrolysis may decrease NH3 (9-11%) and GHG (11-18%) emissions; nitrification-denitrification treatment decreased NH3 emissions, but increased GHG emissions. The nitrogen recovery (% of nitrogen excreted in housings that is applied to land) would increase from a mean of 57% (in 2010) to 61% by acidification, but would decrease to 48% by incineration. Promoting optimized manure treatment technologies can greatly contribute to achieving NH3 and GHG emission targets set in EU environmental policies.</p

Data from: How much would it cost to monitor farmland biodiversity in Europe?

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. 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. 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. 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 0·01%–0·74% of the total CAP budget and to 0·04%–2·48% of the CAP budget specifically allocated to environmental targets. 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