Will farmers cooperate to conserve biodiversity? The use of collective bonus in the High Nature Value farmland in Slovenia

Tanja Šumrada; Emil Erjavec

doi:10.3986/AGS.11015

Avtorji

Tanja Šumrada University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical faculty, Ljubljana, Slovenia https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1297-9108
Emil Erjavec University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical faculty, Ljubljana, Slovenia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.11015

Ključne besede:

kmetijsko-okoljski ukrepi, skupinski bonus, prostorska koordinacija, sodelovanje med kmetovalci, ohranjanje travišč, Skupna kmetijska politika, Slovenija

Povzetek

Varstvo narave v kmetijskih ekosistemih pogosto temelji na primernih kmetijskih praksah, ki se morajo izvajati na velikih površinah in morajo biti učinkovito usklajene na krajinski ravni. Naprednejši pristopi politik k prostorskemu usklajevanju zato pogosto zahtevajo sodelovanje med kmetijskimi gospodarstvi. S kvantitativno analizo 521 anket in kvalitativno tematsko analizo 123 intervjujev na območjih Natura 2000 v Halozah in na Krasu v Sloveniji smo raziskali preference kmetovalcev do skupinskega bonusa, ki bi lahko spodbudil večje vključevanje v ukrepe za ohranjanje travišč. Kot ključne ovire za sodelovanje med kmeti v okviru kmetijsko-okoljske politike smo prepoznali opuščanje kmetovanja, nizek interes za kmetijsko-okoljske ukrepe in spremembe družbenih odnosov, kot sta individualizacija kmetovanja in nezaupanje med akterji.

Prenosi

Podatki o prenosih še niso na voljo.

Literatura

Acock, A. C. 2014: A gentle introduction to Stata. 4th ed. Texas.

Ansell, C., Gash, A. 2007: Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032

Batáry, P., Dicks, L. V., Kleijn, D., Sutherland, W. J. 2015: The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology 29-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12536

Braun, V., Clarke, V. 2006: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Chen, X., Lupi, F., He, G., Liu, J. 2009: Linking social norms to efficient conservation investment in payments for ecosystem services. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0809980106

Donaldson, L., Wilson, R. J., Maclean, I. M. D. 2017: Old concepts, new challenges: adapting landscape-scale conservation to the twenty-first century. Biodiversity and Conservation 26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1257-9

Erjavec, E., Šumrada, T., Juvančič, L., Rac, I., Cunder, T., Bedrač, M., Lovec, M. 2018: Vrednotenje slovenske kmetijske politike v obdobju 2015-2020: Raziskovalna podpora za strateško načrtovanje po letu 2020. Ljubljana.

European environment agency 2012: Updated high nature value farmland in Europe: An estimate of the distribution patterns on the basis of CORINE Land Cover 2006 and biodiversity data. Copenhagen.

European network for rural development 2019: RDP analysis: Support to environment and climate change. M10.1 Agri-environment-climate commitments. Brussels. Internet: https://ec.europa.eu/enrd/sites/default/files/rdp_analysis_m10-1.pdf (8. 5. 2023).

Franks, J. R., Emery, S. B. 2013: Incentivising collaborative conservation: Lessons from existing environmental Stewardship Scheme options. Land Use Policy 30-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.06.005

Gamero, A., Brotons, L., Brunner, A., Foppen, R., Fornasari, L., Gregory, R. D., Herrando, S. et al. 2017: Tracking progress toward EU biodiversity strategy targets: EU policy effects in preserving its common farmland birds. Conservation Letters 10-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12292

Jepsen, M. R., Kuemmerle, T., Müller, D., Erb, K., Verburg, P. H., Haberl, H., Vesterager, J. P. et al. 2015: Transitions in European land-management regimes between 1800 and 2010. Land Use Policy 49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.07.003

Jogan, N., Kaligarič, M., Leskovar, I., Seliškar, A., Dobravec, J. 2004: Habitatni tipi Slovenije. Tipologija. Ljubljana.

Kaligarič, M., Ivajnšič, D. 2014: Vanishing landscape of the “classic” Karst: Changed landscape identity and projections for the future. Landscape and Urban Planning 132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.09.004

Kirbiš, N., Čuš, J., Rode, J., Žogan Čokl, N., Klavž, D., Žvikart, M., Jelenko Turinek, I. et al. 2020: Analiza izvajanja ukrepov Programa upravljanja območij Natura 2000 2015-2020 za obdobje 2015-2019: Sektor kmetijstvo. Verzija 2.0. Ljubljana.

Kleijn, D., Baquero, R. A., Clough, Y., Díaz, M., Esteban, J., Fernández, F., Gabriel, D. et al. 2006: Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri-environment schemes in five European countries: Biodiversity effects of European agri-environment schemes. Ecology Letters 9-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00869.x

Kleijn, D., Rundlöf, M., Scheper, J., Smith, H. G., Tscharntke, T. 2011: Does conservation on farmland contribute to halting the biodiversity decline? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 26-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.05.009

Kuhfuss, L., Begg, G., Flanigan, S., Hawes, C., Piras, S. 2019: Should agri-environmental schemes aim at coordinating farmers’ pro-environmental practices? A review of the literature. Proceedings of the 172nd EAAE Seminar ‘Agricultural policy for the environment or environmental policy for agriculture?’. Brussels. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.289774

Kuhfuss, L., Préget, R., Thoyer, S., Hanley, N. 2016: Nudging farmers to enrol land into agri-environmental schemes: the role of a collective bonus. European Review of Agricultural Economics 43-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbv031

Levers, C., Schneider, M., Prishchepov, A. V., Estel, S., Kuemmerle, T. 2018: Spatial variation in determinants of agricultural land abandonment in Europe. Science of The Total Environment 644. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.326

Mamine, F., Fares, M., Minviel, J. J. 2020: Contract design for adoption of agrienvironmental practices: A meta-analysis of discrete choice experiments. Ecological Economics 176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106721

Nguyen, C., Latacz-Lohmann, U., Hanley, N., Schilizzi, S., Iftekhar, S. 2022: Spatial coordination incentives for landscape-scale environmental management: A sy https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105936stematic review. Land Use Policy 114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105936

Organisation for economic co-operation and development 2013: Providing agri-environmental public goods through collective action. Paris. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264197213-en

Organisation for economic co-operation and development 2015: Public goods and externalities: Agri-environmental policy measures in selected OECD countries. Paris. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239821-en

Prager, K. 2015: Agri-environmental collaboratives for landscape management in Europe. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.10.009

Reed, M. S., Moxey, A., Prager, K., Hanley, N., Skates, J., Bonn, A., Evans, C. D. et al. 2014: Improving the link between payments and the provision of ecosystem services in agri-environment schemes. Ecosystem Services 9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.06.008

Riley, M., Sangster, H., Smith, H., Chiverrell, R., Boyle, J. 2018: Will farmers work together for conservation? The potential limits of farmers’ cooperation in agri-environment measures. Land Use Policy 70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.049

Slovenc, M. 2019: Can a “good farmer” and a “bad farmer” cooperate?: An examination of conventional and organic farmers’ perceptions of production and environmental protection. Intertwining of Diverse Minds in(to) Political Ecology: Scientific Texts of Doctoral Students Participating in the Summer School of Political Ecology. Ljubljana.

Slovenc, M., Erjavec, E. 2021: Cooperation among farmers through the lens of their future orientations: A case study from Slovenia. Anthropological Notebooks 27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5789103

Šumrada, T., Erjavec, E. 2020: Zasnove kmetijsko-okoljskih ukrepov in njihove značilnosti. Acta agriculturae Slovenica 116-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14720/aas.2020.116.1.1775

Šumrada, T., Japelj, A., Verbič, M., Erjavec, E. 2022: Farmers’ preferences for result-based schemes for grassland conservation in Slovenia. Journal for Nature Conservation 66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2022.126143

Šumrada, T., Kmecl, P., Erjavec, E. 2021a: Do the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy funds negatively affect the diversity of farmland birds? Evidence from Slovenia. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.107200

Šumrada, T., Vreš, B., Čelik, T., Šilc, U., Rac, I., Udovč, A., Erjavec, E. 2021b: Are result-based schemes a superior approach to the conservation of High Nature Value grasslands? Evidence from Slovenia. Land Use Policy 111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105749

Sutcliffe, L. M. E., Batáry, P., Kormann, U., Báldi, A., Dicks, L. V., Herzon, I., Kleijn, D. et al. 2015: Harnessing the biodiversity value of Central and Eastern European farmland. Diversity and Distributions 21-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12288

Valentinov, V. 2007: Why are cooperatives important in agriculture? An organizational economics perspective. Journal of Institutional Economics 3-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137406000555

Villamayor-Tomas, S., Sagebiel, J., Olschewski, R. 2019: Bringing the neighbors in: A choice experiment on the influence of coordination and social norms on farmers’ willingness to accept agro-environmental schemes across Europe. Land Use Policy 84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.006

Vlada Republike Slovenije 2015: Natura 2000. Management Programme (2015–2020). Ljubljana.

Žiberna, I. 2012: Spreminjanje rabe zemljišč v Halozah v obdobju med letoma 2000 in 2011. Geografski obzornik 59-1,2.

Žvikart, M. 2010: Uresničevanje varstvenih ciljev iz programa upravljanja območij Natura 2000 v kmetijski kulturni krajini. Varstvo narave 24-24.