“Pretty much just ‘fluffing’ around”
The complexity of safeguarding farmland biodiversity in Scania through the Greening
Desirée Goldring and Ingrid Petersson
Environmental Science Bachelor thesis 15 hp
VT-2021
Supervisors: Fredrik Björk and Anders Edvik
“It [The Greening] is very complicated. You start with a good ambition and then it is bargained down by the many members of the European Union. From a Swedish perspective it did not make it greener. It was pretty much just ‘fluffing’
around.” (Per, 29/4–2021)
Abstract
Intensified agriculture has led to a dramatic decline of farmland biodiversity in Europe during the 20th century, making farmland policies of utmost importance within the European Union [EU]. The Greening, which is a part of the Common Agricultural Policy [CAP] was created to combat the negative effects of intensified agriculture. However, the policy did not achieve the goal of safeguarding farmland biodiversity and will be replaced in the upcoming CAP-reform.
This study researches if a landscape perspective and nature-inclusive farming can increase the efficiency of the Greening in Scanian farmlands. Through semi-structured interviews with professionals on a regional level, we investigated: What are the obstacles that hinder regional solutions to farmland biodiversity issues in Scania, Sweden? Through the lens of governance, the results emphasized a need for new arrangements between all stakeholders in order to solve the issue of declining farmland biodiversity in Scania. The main obstacles for incorporating a landscape perspective and nature-inclusive farming are the lack of regional influence in the Greening, short program periods, and low profitability for farmers. We argue that these obstacles stem from the complex, multilevel governing system of the EU, and the projectification of the CAP. We suggest adopting a Common Pool Resource [CPR] framework for farmland biodiversity in Scania as an efficient way of surpassing the obstacles. However, further research is needed to create a cohesive view of the use value of farmland biodiversity.
We concluded that although the results might be applicable to other regions within the EU, it is important to further research other regions in terms of local landscape conditions and local governance for effective results.
Key words: Common Agricultural Policy, Common Pool Resources, Diversity of institutions, Farmland biodiversity, Governance, Greening, Landscape perspective, Projectification, Scanian farmland
Sammanfattning – Swedish
Intensifierat jordbruk har inneburit en dramatisk minskning av den biologiska mångfalden i jordbrukslandskap i Europa under 1900-talet, vilket gör jordbrukspolitiken central inom Europeiska unionen [EU]. Förgröningsstödet, som är en del av EU:s gemensamma jordbrukspolitik, skapades för att motverka de negativa effekterna av intensifierat jordbruk.
Förgröningsstödet uppnådde emellertid inte målet att skydda den biologiska mångfalden i jordbrukslandskap, och kommer att ersättas i nästkommande reform. Den här studien undersökte om ett landskapsperspektiv, samt naturinkluderande jordbruk kunde öka ändamålsenligheten av Förgröningsstödet i det skånska jordbrukslandskapet. Genom semi- strukturerade intervjuer med tjänstemän på en regional nivå, undersöktes: Vilka är hindren som motarbetar regionala lösningar på problem som berör biologisk mångfald inom det skånska jordbruket? Utifrån ett governance-perspektiv, betonade resultaten ett behov av nya arrangemang mellan samtliga aktörer för att lösa problemet med minskad biologisk mångfald inom skånskt jordbruk. De främsta hindren för att inkludera ett landskapsperspektiv samt naturinkluderande jordbruk var bristen på regionalt inflytande, de korta programperioderna, samt låg lönsamhet för jordbrukare. Vi hävdar att hindren härrör från den komplexa flernivåstyrningen inom den gemensamma jordbrukspolitiken, samt projektifiering av den. Vi föreslår att anta ett Common Pool Resource [CPR] ramverk för biologisk mångfald inom skånskt jordbruk som ett effektivt sätt att övervinna hindren. Ytterligare forskning behövs dock för att skapa en enhetlig bild av användningsvärdet av biologisk mångfald i jordbrukslandskap.
Avslutningsvis menar vi att även om resultaten kan gå att applicera på andra regioner inom EU, ligger det stor vikt vid att undersöka lokala förhållanden inom landskap och styrning för att nå effektiva resultat.
Nyckelord: Biologisk mångfald inom jordbruk, Common Pool Resources, EU:s gemensamma jordbrukspolitik, Förgröningsstödet, Governance, Landskapsperspektiv, Mångfald av institutioner, Projektifiering, skånskt jordbrukslandskap
Table of Contents
List of definitions and abbreviations ... 6
1. Introduction ... 7
1.1 Purpose and framing of question ... 8
2. Background ... 9
2.1 The Common Agricultural Policy and the Greening ... 9
2.3 The landscape structure of Scania ... 10
2.4 Scania and the Greening ... 13
2.5 The future of the Common Agricultural Policy ... 14
3. State of Knowledge ... 16
3.1 Evaluation of the Greening ... 16
3.2 Common Pool Resources ... 17
3.3 Landscape complexity ... 18
3.4 Nature-inclusive farming practices ... 19
4. Theoretical Framework ... 20
4.1 Governance ... 20
4.2 Projectification of the EU ... 21
5. Method ... 23
5.1 Selection ... 23
5.2 Procedure ... 23
5.3 Ethical considerations ... 25
5.3 Analysis ... 25
6. Results ... 26
6.1 Governing agricultural policy ... 26
6.2 Looking back at the Greening ... 28
6.3 Landscapes – differences and complexity ... 29
6.4 Aspects of nature-inclusive farming ... 31
6.5 High nature values in Scania ... 33
6.6 The future of CAP ... 34
6.7 Main findings ... 36
7. Discussion ... 38
7.1 Methodological discussion ... 40
8. Conclusion ... 41
References ... 42
Appendix 1. Layers Included in the GIS-analysis ... 50
Appendix 2. Interview Guide ... 53
Appendix 3. Examples of translated quotations ... 54
List of definitions and abbreviations
CAP: EU’s Common Agricultural Policy is a partnership between agriculture and society and between Europe and its farmers. The CAP is the highest regulatory institution for agricultural policies within the EU.
CBA: County Boards of Administration are the representatives for the government in a county, there is one for each Swedish county.
EC: The European Commission is the EU’s politically independent executive arm and promotes the general interest of the EU.
Eco-schemes: A key element to the proposed reform of the CAP. Payments schemes aimed at protecting environment and climate within agriculture.
EFAs: Ecological Focus Areas are a part of the Greening and are intended to safeguard and improve farmland biodiversity.
Farmland biodiversity: Abundance and species richness in agricultural landscapes.
Greening: Greening is a part of the CAP and is aimed to support farmers who adopt or maintain farming practices that help safeguard and maintain biodiversity in agricultural areas.
Greening measures: The measures included in the Greening are crop diversification, permanent grasslands and EFAs.
Key biotopes: Areas with high nature value trees which are often residues of environments that have disappeared in surrounding landscapes.
LRF: (Lantbrukarnas Riksförbund) The federation of Swedish farmers. A federation for people and businesses within the agricultural sector.
Nature-inclusive farming: In this study, agroecology, organic farming and small-scale farming is defined as nature-inclusive farming.
SBA: The Swedish Board of Agriculture. It is Sweden’s administrative authority within agriculture, fishing and rural areas.
SEPA: The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, is a public authority for environmental issues.
SLU: (Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet) The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences is one of the biggest centers for research on ecology in Scandinavia and is involved in many projects regarding sustainable agriculture.
SCA: Scania County Administration is the representative for the government in Scania.
SMCLRA: The Swedish Mapping, Cadastral and Land Registration Authority, is the authority who surveys Sweden and provides data about the landscape.
Värdetrakt: An area with higher ecological values compared to surrounding areas. A green infrastructure tool created by the County Boards of Administration.
1. Introduction
Industrialized agriculture has done a successful job in terms of delivering ‘the good’, making the post-industrialized world take food for granted. It does, however, come at a steep price.
Among several consequences, intensified agriculture leads to destruction of natural habitats, loss of biodiversity, increases the vulnerability and decreases resilience to disturbances in agroecosystems (Gliessman, 2015:3-14). As the European landscape is shaped by agricultural practices, many species have adapted to inhabit farmlands (Van Vooren et al., 2016). Despite this adaptation, an increased use of agrochemicals and loss of complex landscape structures have led to a dramatic decline in farmland biodiversity throughout the 20th century (Belfrage et al., 2005; Gabriel et al., 2013; Marja et al., 2014). As approximately 50% of land in the European Union [EU] is cultivated (García-Feced et al., 2015; Tarjuelo et al., 2020), farmland management is vital to policy making in the EU. The Common Agricultural Policy [CAP]
creates general policies for all the member states and is financed and managed through the common EU budget (EC, n.d. a). CAP institutes numerous policies to combat the negative effects of agricultural intensification. One important CAP tool is the Greening, which is designed to recuperate as well as protect farmland biodiversity and is mandatory for many EU farms (Ottoy et al., 2018). However, the policy did not fulfill the purpose of biological safeguarding and will be replaced by another system in the upcoming CAP-reform (Nilsson et al., 2019). The Greening was mostly aimed at the intensely cultivated areas, through implementing measures in homogenous landscapes. In Scania, in southern Sweden, many farms had to implement these measures, but the policy was criticised for not having logical goals and regulations. Scanian farming consultants described the Greening as ‘idiotic’ and criticized that the policy seemed to lack an impact assessment (Eborn, 2015). Farmers believed that the policy merely contained administrative environmental goals, as the measures did not have a clear environmental benefit. In some cases, it even had the opposite effect. To meet the Greening demand, farmers frequently had to plow permanent grasslands that supported high biodiversity (Eborn, 2015). This thesis is elaborating why the Greening failed to provide biodiversity in Scania, as well as throughout the EU, and attempts to distinguish how the future CAP-reform can be improved in Scania. This will be done through qualitative interviews with experts from authorities relevant for Scanian agricultural politics.
1.1 Purpose and framing of question
The purpose of the thesis is to research how a landscape perspective and nature-inclusive farming could increase the efficiency of the Greening to safeguard farmland biodiversity as well as the obstacles of incorporating these perspectives. By conducting interviews, and viewing our empirical findings through the lens of governance, we seek to answer the question:
What are the obstacles that hinder regional solutions to farmland biodiversity issues in Scania, Sweden?
A delimitation of the study was needed. Scania was chosen because of the conflicting interests within the county regarding the vast number of threatened species on one hand and highly cultivated land on the other (Gärdenfors, 2010; Enghag et al., 2013; Lagerås
& Fredh, 2020). A regional level was chosen as previous research (Stöhr, 2013; Pe’er et al., 2016; Sterner et al., 2019) highlighted a lack of regional influence on multilevel policy.
Simultaneously, research also shows that a regional landscape perspective is an important aspect to increase farmland biodiversity (Wingqvist et al., 2013; Cole et al., 2020).
2. Background
2.1 The Common Agricultural Policy and the Greening
CAP was first introduced in 1962 to ensure food security and stabilize food prices within the EU (Tarjuelo et al., 2020). Within the agricultural sector, trade-offs between different utilities occur. As the demand for food will increase with a growing population, it becomes increasingly important to ensure sustainable farming systems. Policies to further sustainable farming practices were introduced as awareness of environmental issues rose on the agenda in the EU.
Primarily, CAP focused on lowering emissions and stabilizing phosphorus flows, but as of the early 1990s a focus on biodiversity was initiated through direct payments (Larkin et al., 2019).
The payments provided by CAP are distributed under two pillars. The first pillar is direct payments and the second is market expenditures (Pe’er et al., 2016). As of the latest CAP- reform which lasted over the years 2014-2020, almost 8% of EUs entire budget is linked to Greening obligations (Larkin et al., 2019). This accounts for just over 12 billion euros every year, making it in the interest of EU-citizens that the payments lead to tangible results.
According to the European Commission [EC] (n.d.b), the aim of the Greening payment is to reward farmers who maintain and enhance the environmental goals.
Farmers only receive the Greening payments if they fulfill three mandatory demands. The demands are based around benefitting biodiversity and include; crop diversification, maintenance of permanent grasslands and Ecological Focus Areas [EFAs].
Crop diversification means that some farms, depending on the size of the land, are required to grow more than one type of crop. The maintenance of permanent grassland means that each member state designates areas which are environmentally sensitive, where the land cannot be plowed or converted. In Sweden, pastures or hayfields within Natura 2000 areas, as well as arable land which has not been cultivated for at least five years are designated as permanent grasslands (SBA, 2021a). EFAs seeks to increase biodiversity on farms by separating 5% of the arable land for environmental purposes instead of production purposes (Hauck et al., 2014).
The EU member states approve a list of EFAs which they find suitable for national implementation (Zinngrebe et al., 2017). In Sweden, these include; land lying fallow, short rotation coppice, nitrogen-fixing crops, field borders and catch crops (Dänhardt et al., 2017).
From the list of approved options, farmers are free to choose which EFA they want to implement on their land. For many farms, EFAs are mandatory (Hristov et al., 2020). However, there are also many exemptions, such as organic farms, small-scale farms and farms in afforested regions (Beer & Theuvsen, 2020; Hristov et al., 2020). According to Johnsson and
Törnquist (2021) half of the arable land in Sweden is exempt from EFAs. In the Scanian agricultural landscape EFAs were frequently used because of the intense cultivation and homogenous landscape (Johnsson & Törnquist, 2021).
2.3 The landscape structure of Scania
Scania has the most productive arable land in Sweden (Enghag et al., 2013; Lagerås & Fredh, 2020). This, in combination with Scania’s high nature values and vast number of threatened species (Gärdenfors, 2010), was the motivation for choosing Scania as a base for researching the Greening. The variations in topography, climate features and soil conditions in Scania create opportunities for the existence of a variety of habitats to a wide range of species (Berlin &
Rosquist, 2014). Figure 1 shows these vast differences in the Scanian landscape. Of the total area of Scania (11 245 km²), 4 668 km² is arable land.1
Figure 1: A map of Scania showing the differences in the landscape. For a full list of data layers included in this study, see Appendix 1.
1Arable land includes cultivated fields, orchards and plowed pastures. Based on vector layer my_12.shp from The Swedish Mapping, Cadastral and Land Registration Authority.
The agricultural plains of Southern Scania have the most productive arable land in Sweden (Lagerås & Fredh, 2020). Scania is the only Swedish county with class 10 arable land, which is arable land with the highest return value (Enghag et al., 2013). According to Persson et al.
(2009), the naturally fertile soils and the early introduction to artificial fertilisers made animal husbandry, pastures and meadows unprofitable in relation to crop cultivation in the most productive areas of Scania. Today, the southeastern areas of Scania almost completely lack meadows and most also lack pastures such as rough grazing areas, even though they are of importance for farmland biodiversity. According to the Scania County Administration [SCA]
(2021), only 1% of the rough grazing areas remains in Scania. Areas still rich in pastures are mostly located on soils with fairly low fertility, as in northwestern Scania (Persson et al., 2009).
To preserve and develop meadows and pastures, while animal husbandry is declining, the SCA suggests that grazing animals should be moved to the most valuable pastures, e.g., rough grazing, and local networks should be created for different actors who would benefit from cooperation (SCA, 2021). Furthermore, intensive production, mild climate and higher risk of pest invasions make many farmers believe that Scania is not suited for organic farming.
Therefore, there is a lower proportion of organic farming in Scania compared to the Swedish average (Hajdu et al., 2020). According to the Swedish Board of Agriculture [SBA] (2006), the usage of pesticides in Sweden is unequal, where Scanian agriculture uses half of the total amount.
Data sequestered from the Swedish Mapping, Cadastral and Land Registration Authority [SMCLRA], the County Boards of Administration [CBA] and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency [SEPA], show how both natural vegetation2 and semi-natural vegetation3 are unevenly distributed throughout the Scanian landscape. Previous studies (Wingqvist et al., 2011; Kremen & Miles, 2012; Arponen et al., 2013; Carrié et al., 2017) have shown that landscape complexity is an important aspect in terms of farmland biodiversity.
Hence, the distribution of arable land as well as natural and semi-natural vegetation throughout Scania indicates a broad variation in prerequisites to support biodiversity.
The Scanian landscape is rich in valuable nature with a high diversity of species.
Simultaneously, the pressure from intensive agriculture has an immense impact on Scanian
2Definition of natural vegetation in this thesis includes deciduous forest, coniferous and mixed forest, water surface and wetlands.
3Definition of semi-natural vegetation in this thesis includes separate trees in arable land as well as lines of trees and bushes in arable land, in accordance with García-Feced et al. (2015).
biodiversity (Berlin & Rosquist, 2014), making the Greening highly relevant for the county.
Further measures to map and protect high nature values and species are introduced in figure 2.
Figure 2: Protected areas and areas with high nature value in Scania. For a full list of data layers included in this study, see Appendix 1.
High pressure from exploration and the intensive cultivation of the landscape have contributed to the fact that Scania has the highest number of red-listed species in Sweden (Gärdenfors, 2010). Hence, one could argue that nature conservancy in Scania has a certain responsibility in safeguarding biodiversity for future generations (Berlin & Rosquist, 2014). Key biotopes are areas with high nature value trees and are often residues of environments that have disappeared in surrounding landscapes (Skogsstyrelsen, 2020). Värdetrakter are areas with higher ecological values compared to surrounding areas (CBA, n.d.). In figure 2, only värdetrakter in grassland and in deciduous forests are included, as they are relevant in the agricultural landscape. Natural reserves, national parks, animal welfare areas and biotope protection areas are represented as protected areas. Berlin and Rosquist (2014) state that important biotopes lay
in brushland, especially with deciduous forest. In open landscapes, dry grasslands and sandy soils are one of the most species rich biotopes in Scania.
2.4 Scania and the Greening
There are several stakeholders and responsible authorities for agricultural policy on a regional level in Scania, which are relevant for upholding CAP in the agricultural sector. SBA is the responsible authority for the environmental goal ‘A Varied Agricultural Landscape’ (SBA, 2021b). SEPA (2020) has a driving and coordinating role regarding environmental issues in Sweden and the EU. SCA offers support for farmers, such as Greening payments that are meant for agricultural measures that benefit the environment, climate and biodiversity (SCA, n.d.).
The Federation of Swedish Farmers [Lantbrukarnas Riksförbund, LRF] in Scania is a federation for individuals and businesses within the agricultural sector (LRF, 2021).
Through evaluating the Greening in Sweden, the SBA (2016) found that the only Greening measure that had any marginal effect on biodiversity were EFAs. In homogenous arable land, such as in southern Scania, EFAs showed the most environmental benefits. Even so the measures could have been used to a higher potential. According to Johnsson and Törnquist (2021), the most frequently used EFA in Sweden is fallow land. 10 000 ha of fallow land has been landscaped in Scania alone, covering almost 3% of the arable land. However, according to SBA, most farmers that registered fallow land as EFAs already had fallows prior to the Greening (SBA, 2016). The efficiency of fallow land is dependent on the type of fallow and for how long it is set-aside. Fallow land can be either overgrown or bare. Bare fallow has almost double the nutrient leakage compared to cultivated land. If the fallow is overgrown, there is no such leakage, but the efficiency depends on how long the fallow is set-aside. (SBA, 2006). Percentually, fallow land is less frequent in Scania compared to other counties. As fallow land is a non-productive option, it is not competitive in comparison to other alternatives in a county with as profitable cultivation as Scania. A majority of field margins in Sweden are located on Scanian arable land, possibly due to the high amount of root vegetables fields where field margins are an effective input (Johnsson & Törnquist, 2021). Both fallows and field margins can be an efficient measure for biodiversity in flatlands (Ottoy et al., 2018), but there were no requirements to have overgrown fallows or flowering field margins in the Greening.
However, according to SBA (2016), two out of three farmers that used these two measures, would have still chosen the same measure if there was a requirement for flowers and vegetation.
In southwestern Scania large arable fields are dominating the landscape and there
is a lack of permanent vegetation in a vast area of the land. Therefore, there is a risk that the fallow land is too isolated from other high nature values and will have a limited effect. A large variety of fallow land can be needed in flatlands, especially long-term fallow is important since such environments are scarce (SBA, 2006). In addition to this, the most efficient EFAs in terms of safeguarding biodiversity are options that increase heterogeneity of the local landscape (Langhammer et al., 2017), which are not available for Scanian farmers.
2.5 The future of the Common Agricultural Policy
CAP is reformed every 7 years. Long, multilevel processes with several stakeholders precedes the new reforms. The member states, the EU-parliament and the EC evaluate and negotiate to agree upon a new reform and budget (SBA, 2021c). A new reform was meant to take place in 2021-2027. Due to delayed negotiations the new reform has been postponed to 2023 and a transitional regulation has been approved for 2021-2022 (EC, n.d.c). According to the EC (2018) the policy will shift focus from rules and compliance towards results and performance.
Each member state will receive greater freedom to decide which measures are best suited to meet the common objectives (EC, 2018). The Greening payments will be removed and the new environmental- and climate compensation will go through eco-schemes. Eco-schemes will be introduced as annual environmental- and climate compensation in pillar 1 (SBA, 2021d). The EC (2021) has posted a list of potential agricultural practices that eco-schemes could support.
Practices that comprise biodiversity measures include, among others: agroecology, agroforestry, high nature value farming, precision farming and improved nutrient management.
An evaluation from the SBA (2016) highlighted proposals for changes in the Greening rules for CAP 2021. They proposed a withdrawal of the crop diversification requirement since it has only resulted in small environmental benefits, transforming permanent grassland to an EFA option, and developing the requirements for EFAs so they provide higher environmental benefits. Fallow land is an important EFA for biodiversity, however, SBA suggests that the conditions should be adjusted so that bare fallow is not approved. They also propose a differentiated and flexible policy design, to promote the EFA-measures that are relevant and needed in the region concerned.
In a memorandum from SEPA, SBA and the CBA, they state that rough grazing and its biodiversity might be negatively affected the most in the upcoming reform of the CAP.
In the new budget there are proposals to lower the single farm payments and increase the budget for environmental- and climate compensations. Consequently, a lower budget will result in
further decreased profitability for many natural pastures, such as rough grazing (SBA, 2021d).
According to SEPA (2014) rough grazing is a biotope that is characterised by a complexity of vegetation features and a very rich wildlife and flora, often including red-listed species. Instead of risking a further decline of these valuable biotopes, SBA (2021e) suggests direct support to safeguard rough grazing. The most important function of direct support is to move animals to pastures with the most valuable biodiversity. As the new reform is currently under negotiation it is uncertain if the SBAs suggestions will be taken into consideration since all stakeholders have to reach a mutual agreement.
3. State of Knowledge
3.1 Evaluation of the Greening
The Greening has been criticized for multiple reasons. Some problems occur on farm-level, where the ultimate implementations take place, and some problems stem from the design of the policy. According to Sterner et al. (2019), creating policy on a federal level can be very difficult, as the policy needs to be adapted to several conditions while still being cohesive. International cooperation is needed to manage key resources and broader threats to biodiversity, but it is mostly on national, regional and local levels where changes need to be made to maintain functioning ecosystems. For successful policymaking on these levels, it is important to incorporate dynamic aspects of socio-ecological systems, such as connectivity and variation (Sterner et al., 2019). According to Sahrbacher et al. (2017) farmers tend to use their least productive land as placement for the EFA options, as there are no site-specific requirements.
Hristov et al. (2020) states that within the current design of the Greening, EFAs are not necessarily tailored to specific landscape-conditions which would provide ecosystem services to a higher extent. To better create biodiversity throughout the landscape, interconnected habitats are needed (Cole et al., 2020). As of the current design, EFAs are implemented based on the structure of the farmland, not from a landscape perspective. This goes in line with Dänhardt et al. (2017) results, who after evaluating EFAs in Sweden states that green infrastructure would benefit from a landscape perspective during EFA allocation.
The EFAs that are most productive in terms of safeguarding biodiversity are permanent options that increase heterogeneity of the local landscape (Langhammer et al., 2017).
However, over 73% of the total EFA area is made up of productive options, which provide food or fodder rather than increase biodiversity (Hauck et al., 2014; Ottoy et al., 2018). In the design of the Greening, it is not required of farmers to implement new measures - they can register areas that are already on their land (Tzilivakis et al., 2019). This was, according to the SBA (2016), what occurred with many registered fallows in Scania. Due to this, only 1% of the EU landscape was changed due to EFA measures according to Larkin et al. (2019). Nilsson et al.
(2019) claims that one drawback to the Greening is that it contains options with lower administrative levels causing farmers to choose cheap and easy options. Zinngrebe et al. (2017) states that some experts even advise farmers against the most beneficial EFA options, as the administrative burdens are perceived as too complicated.
According to Pe’er et al. (2016) there is a lack of regional influence to the Greening, which leads to insufficient cooperation - both on farm-level and administratively. Both the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services [IPBES] highlight the need to create cooperation between the production and use of different resources within land use. It can, however, be hard to do on a regional level, and the challenge is to create a holistic perspective (Bergström et al., 2020). To create an efficient coordinated implementation, regional stakeholders - both private and public need to interact through a mutual platform (Arts et al., 2017).
3.2 Common Pool Resources
Hauck et al. (2014) and Pe’er et al. (2016) highlighted lack of local cooperation as one of the potential causes for lack of success in the Greening. Hence, local resource management might be of great importance for overcoming the obstacles in the policy design. One way of viewing local and regional governing of goods is through the perspective of Common Pool Resources [CPR]. Ostrom (2005) conceptualizes goods based on a matrix with two dimensions:
excludability and subtractability. A CPR is a good which inherits characteristics from both public and private goods. What distinguishes a CPR from a public good is how consumption of the good reduces the ability for others as the good has a fixed amount. To define what a CPR is can be complex as there needs to be a cohesive understanding of what use the good provides.
The perceived value of a good may vary, which in turn affects whether or not the use is subtractable. For example, some may view the use value of a wolf to be a hunting trophy, and some may view its value as being part of a greater ecosystem. In addition, some might see the wolf as having no use value and merely see the costs of endangering livestock (Stöhr, 2013).
The framework highlights how one form of management does not fit all goods, and the importance of empowering the local actors (Stern et al, 2002). A common application of CPRs is to natural capital, as a way of assessing the management of resources (Rosenbloom, 2014). According to Ostrom (1990) there are many archetypes of CPRs, which include for example groundwater basins, grazing lands and fishing grounds. However, previous research has explored the idea of considering nature itself as a CPR (Rosenbloom, 2014). When viewing nature as a CPR, identifying the relevant stakeholders is more effective, as it defines them based on the resource system as opposed to geographical or political boundaries. According to Rosenbloom (2014) applying CPR to nature could have a positive effect on how nature is managed, as it accounts for the wide effects of consumption. The CPR framework has received criticism for being insufficient in terms of application to higher levels of institution. In general,
according to Stöhr (2013) there is a lack of research regarding multi level governance, such as the EU, in the CPR field. According to Stern et al. (2002) self-organized institutions in the context of CPR management are dependent on three key factors: how salient the resource is perceived, autonomy for the relevant actors to invent and modify the rules, and ability for communication. To understand how a CPR should be managed, it is important to take the nature of the good into account, which varies greatly depending on the landscape.
3.3 Landscape complexity
In previous research (cf. García-Feced et al., 2015; Cole et al., 2019; Tzilivakis et al., 2019;
Hristov et al., 2020) landscape differences have been highlighted as an important factor behind the results of the Greening. Agricultural intensification has led to simplification of landscape structures and changes in local farming practices, which has affected farmland biodiversity. In Europe, former grassland and drained water bodies have been alternated into large arable fields, decreasing connectivity between natural habitats and farmlands. Thus, creating homogenous, uncomplex, landscapes (Arponen et al., 2013; Skokanova et al., 2020). Kehinde and Samways (2012) recommend that the distance from farmland sites to natural habitats should be no further than 600 meters since 50% of the abundance of important pollinator taxon can be lost beyond that distance. Implementation of semi-natural vegetation in agricultural landscapes increases farmland complexity (García-Feced et al., 2015), which can help ensure a closeness to natural vegetation as Kehinde and Samways (2012) recommend. Semi-natural vegetation features, such as EFAs, are essential in the supply of regulating ecosystem services such as pollination, climate regulation and soil fertility in agricultural landscapes (García-Feced et al., 2015).
A widespread measure of landscape complexity is associated with a greater diversity of many taxa, making its role vital for farmland biodiversity (Carrié et al., 2017). As mentioned in the background chapter, the Scanian landscape shows vast varieties in terms of complexity. Furthermore, according to Wingqvist et al. (2011), few studies cover the importance of landscape complexity and how it could affect the efficiency of future EU schemes. The Greening currently aims at a local level and omits a landscape perspective (Cole et al. 2020). Wingqvist et al. (2011) and Arponen et al. (2013) emphasize the importance of taking both local management and regional landscape complexity into account when developing future schemes to safeguard farmland biodiversity.
3.4 Nature-inclusive farming practices
For the future CAP reform to become more efficient in terms of promoting farmland biodiversity in Scania there are a variety of farming practices that could be beneficial. Biodiversity is affected by the intensity of local farming practices. According to Carrié et al. (2017) organic fields, when compared to conventional managed fields, are associated with higher species richness and abundance of a vast number of taxa. This goes in line with previous research (cf. Hole, et al., 2005; Wingqvist et al., 2011; Kremen & Miles, 2012; Marja et al., 2014; Tuck et al., 2014; Toffoli & Rughetti, 2017; Röös et al., 2018; Berbec et al., 2020) showing that organic farming supports approximately 30% higher biodiversity compared to conventional farming. According to Carrié et al. (2017) extensive farming increases local biodiversity in simple landscapes, but not in complex landscapes, meaning that the strength of local farming practices is dependent on the landscape context. In simple landscapes, extensive farming may compensate for the low amount of natural or semi-natural habitats in the vicinity of crop fields. In complex landscapes, arable land is in direct vicinity to semi-natural habitats and the excess of taxa and plants may mitigate the negative effects of intensive farming management (Carrié et al., 2017). Extensive farming does, however, lead to lower crop yields compared to intensive farming (Röös et al., 2018). This can explain the low number of organic farms in Scania that Hajdu et al. (2020) mentions.
Beyond organic farming, one way to create agricultural systems that are less dependent on agrochemicals and fertilizers is through agroecological intensification (Bommarco et al., 2013; Maes & Jacobs, 2015). According to the IPBES agroecology is a possible solution to the decline in biodiversity (Bergström et al., 2020). Agroecology emphasizes the need to study agricultural systems as a part and as a whole to get a holistic view (Bergström et al., 2020). By utilizing natural processes and creating biological interactions and synergies amongst the components in an agroecosystem the agricultural systems can be improved. This in turn minimizes the synthetic external inputs by harnessing the ecological processes and ecosystem services (Wezel et al., 2020).
Agroecology is inspired by small-scale farms, where diversity has always been an important tool. Along with the agricultural intensification the use of diversity in farming practices has seriously declined. Reintroducing greater diversity in crops, genotypes and habitats in modern agricultural systems may result in e.g., greater nutrient conservation, control of pests and diseases, and pollination (Aare et al., 2021). These farming practices will in this thesis be referred to as nature-inclusive farming.
4. Theoretical Framework
Evaluations and research on the current Greening have shown that cooperation between multi- level stakeholders and a regional landscape perspective are crucial in creating efficient Greening measures. Hence, governance will be applied to identify potential obstacles for regional solutions to biodiversity issues in Scania. Furthermore, to identify obstacles it is important to understand how the EU works. Therefore, our theoretical framework also includes projectification.
4.1 Governance
A keyword in this thesis is diversity. Nature-inclusive farming and landscape complexity cover the importance of biodiversity and diversity in agricultural landscapes. However, an institutional perspective is needed to fulfill the purpose of the study. Hence, governance is used as a theoretical framework. Ostrom (2010) found that many natural resources indeed require polycentric governance systems instead of relying on a single type or level of governance, making institutional diversity just as important as biodiversity (Ostrom et al., 1999).
As governance is applied in different fields of study, there are several definitions of the concept. For this thesis, governance is conceptualized in the following way: According to Arts et al. (2017) governance refers to ways in which both private and public stakeholders act and interact in an attempt to solve societal and environmental problems. Hence, governance can be conceptually characterized in terms of ‘arrangements’ between different stakeholders and the way they interact with each other. Hysing (2009) states that this can be explained as going from government to governance. This idea entails that state hierarchical steering has decreased in place of new forms of interaction between government and society. The development from government to governance is often deeply anchored in cooperation and coordination between private and public actors. According to Sjöblom and Godenhjelm (2009) government is associated with a top-down perspective, while governance refers to a self- governing group of actors working interactively as networks.
According to Arts et al. (2017), environmental issues are more difficult to govern when they are narrowly defined and not linked to values or objectives in the sectors or practices at issue. This can be explained by the often occuring complexity of environmental issues.
Ostrom (2010) states that actors who attempt to govern a complex resource face a variety of incentives that often complicate collective efforts and following outcomes. The higher the complexity of a resource, the more wicked incentives tend to exist, unless a well-fitted set of
institutional arrangements offsets these incentives (Ostrom, 2010). Agri-food chains, for example, are currently optimized in terms of production and economic values. Transforming agriculture to become more nature-inclusive will therefore not be done spontaneously. There are several stakeholders who interact in the agricultural sector, such as governments, agri-food chain companies, banks and farmers (Runhaar, 2017). Governing towards nature-inclusive agriculture will require that all these actors, not only farmers, are stimulated to contribute to a transformation of agricultural practices (O’Rourke et al., 2016). This, in turn, requires new forms of institutional interactions, such as intensified cooperation between stakeholders. There is a need for new incentives in rewarding farmers who minimize their ecological impacts.
However, this will not be developed automatically, particularly when nature-inclusive farming does not align with the current main interest of intensified production and profit involved (Runhaar, 2017). On the other hand, there is no assurance as to governance solving these issues.
Asaduzzaman and Virtanen (2016) address that governance is not static, and the outcomes of governance cannot be assessed by its theoretical assumptions. Good performance of governance is associated with desired outcomes, which in this case is referred to increased farmland biodiversity. Therefore, the efficiency of governance can only be evaluated afterwards.
Governance can also be characterized by decentralization, which could increase municipalities autonomy and opportunities to develop their local interests, while simultaneously increasing the interest of cooperation between local stakeholders (Löfström, 2010). Decentralization can, according to Rodden (2006), be seen as one of the most important trends in governance over the last 50 years. This has, as stated by Faquet (2014), spiked research seeking to identify the effects of decentralization. However, the research is mainly focused on the outputs of public sectors, and not on the quality of governance. Hence, there are uncertainties how decentralization may affect the outcomes of the Greening. Therefore, governance will be used to analyse possibilities to increase cooperation, coordination and decentralization of the Greening to enhance farmland biodiversity in Scania. This leads us to another category of governance, projectification (Löfstrom, 2010), which will be explained in the following section to create a further understanding of how the theoretical framework will be applied on the empirical results in this thesis.
4.2 Projectification of the EU
According to Godenhjelm et al. (2015) projectification is one of the most important structural developments in the EU. One meaning of the word projectification is that work within an
organisation is transformed to be run as a project. According to Sjöblom et al. (2013) a project- run policy is defined by its temporality and adaptability. In a well-planned and organised society, projects create opportunities to make changes (Löfström, 2010). According to Raatikainen (2018) the reliance on these types of action-based projects has increased in Europe.
However, the success of producing beneficial outcomes for biodiversity varies. Greater results are associated with result-based agri-environment schemes, where payments are directly linked to the desired environmental outcomes rather than to compensation of management costs.
Godenhjelm et al. (2015) emphasize that without contextually sensitive interlinking between temporary and permanent structures there is a risk of losing the flexibility and innovative qualities of projects. It is essential to adjust projects with long term goals of permanent organisations and at the same time promote the innovative capacities of projects. To fulfill the goals of biodiversity for example, more attention should be paid to mechanisms and principles for knowledge transfer between permanent and temporary projects (Godenhjelm et al., 2015). Söderlund (2005) emphasizes that projects become a means to handle the complexity and answer towards an increasing need for change. This need for change can thus result in a form of “wear and tear organisations” because of the often occurring short time periods (Löfström, 2010). According to Stöhr (2013) it is highly important to have sufficient linkages across scales: supranational, national, and local governing stakeholders. This is necessary to highlight the differences between the levels. High level institutions, such as the EU, often lack in terms of considering regional singularities regarding the knowledge and interests of local stakeholders, as well as the conditions of the landscape (Stöhr, 2013).
As CAP is run as a project, the projectification aspect of governance will be applied to analyze the time frame of the CAP and the autonomy of the regional level. The theoretical framework will be applied using the constant comparative technique, which is further explained in the methodology section.
5. Method
5.1 Selection
To answer the question of framing, an interview study was conducted. The informants were selected based on purposive sampling in accordance with Bryman (2016:408). The authorities selected for the study is based on the criterion that they are involved in the Scanian agricultural sector. Recruitment of officials was made by direct contact through email with people in relevant positions at: The Swedish Board of Agriculture [SBA], Scania County Administration [SCA], The Federation of Swedish Farmers [LRF] and Swedish Environmental Protection Agency [SEPA], who all provided different perspectives to the thesis. The inclusion criterion for the informants chosen from each organisation were that they have worked with EU- measures to increase farmland biodiversity. In addition to these authorities, an informant from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences [Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet, SLU] was chosen for the study to get a scientific perspective of farmland biodiversity. The informants were chosen for their expertise, however, their answers do not represent their respective organisation as a whole.
5.2 Procedure
The interview questions were constructed based on Bryman (2016:468) guide for semi- structured interviews. To research what obstacles hinder regional solutions to biodiversity issues, we sought to gain deeper knowledge from involved professionals. Thus, the research approach in this study is of a qualitative character. The interpretative approach gives the method an hermeneutic character, as we sought to analyze the results from the perspective of the informants. Hermeneutics emphasizes the need to study parts of the problem and tie them together to see the whole picture (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2008:193). The empirical results, together with the background and state of knowledge resulted in a perception of the bigger picture. Therefore, this method creates the ability to answer the research question, enhancing the validity of the study (Hjerm, 2014:94).
Based on the background and state of knowledge, four themes for our interview guide were created: i) difficulties regarding the Greening, ii) cooperation, iii) landscape perspective and iiii) nature-inclusive farming. This process was made in accordance with Bryman (2016:469-478). For the first interview, ten questions were constructed based on the background and state of knowledge. Using the constant comparative technique, in accordance
previous interviews were considered for the following interviews. Therefore, each informant's expertise steered the direction of the interviews. See appendix 2 for our main questions. Eight interviews were conducted from the 19th of April to 7th of May 2021. To retain anonymity each informant was given pseudonyms. Although some informants were open to participating with their full name and position, some wanted to remain anonymous. Hence, as to not create a disbalance between the informants, we chose to anonymize all of them. The pseudonyms are not reflections of the informant's age, ethnicity or gender, but are merely a tool to ease the readability of the result. Following is a table with the informants' fictitious names (see table 1).
Table 1: shows the informants in the study, their pseudonyms as well as their respective organisation.
Informants Pseudonym Authority/organisation Date
1 Max Swedish Board of Agriculture 19/4 - 2021
2 Liv Swedish Board of Agriculture 21/4 - 2021
3 Kim Swedish Board of Agriculture 21/4 - 2021
4 Otis The Federation of Swedish Farmers 23/4 - 2021
5 Per Scania County Administration 29/4 - 2021
6 Ali Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 4/5 - 2021
7 Kai Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences
4/5 - 2021
8 Rut Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 6/5 - 2021
All interviews were conducted via Zoom and were recorded and transcribed with consent from the informants, in accordance with Bryman (2016:479-481). The interviews were held in Swedish. After transcription of the recorded material, the interviews were translated by the authors. To increase the validity of our study, samples of translated quotations were sent to the informants for approval. Examples of translated quotations are presented in appendix 3.
5.3 Ethical considerations
To provide a fair perception of the informants an ethical review was granted by Malmö universities Ethical Council. An information letter with a description of the thesis purpose and the interest in their expertise was sent to each informant. They were also informed that their participation was completely voluntary and that they had the right to withdraw their consent at any given time. By providing a fair view of our informants, the authenticity and reliability of the study was increased, in accordance with Bryman (2016:386).
5.3 Analysis
This thesis aims to research the opportunities and obstacles of incorporating a landscape perspective and nature-inclusive farming in Scania. In order to do that, we sought to gain insight into the relations between professionals in the agricultural sector and how they perceive the Greening. Hence, the study is characterized by its inductive features in accordance with Bryman (2008:366). Furthermore, an inductive method in accordance with Hjerm and Lindgren (2014:25) was used to analyze the collected data. Due to the qualitative nature of the empirical material, the analysis was made through thematic analysis, a systematic approach that uses identification of themes. First, the material was coded, followed by categorization from the codes and finally thematization using the constant comparative technique. Through the coding and categorization of the data, six themes emerged: Governing and cooperation, issues with the Greening, landscape perspective, nature-inclusive farming, high nature values in Scania and the future of CAP. These were used to compile the data and draw conclusions from the material (Lindgren, 2014:29-43). In accordance with Lindgren (2014:33) throughout the process the material was constantly compared to the theoretical perspectives and thereafter summarized in the results and analysis parts of the thesis. Governance was chosen as the main theory as it reflects how a multi-level organisation, such as the EU, can work towards cooperation and coordination instead of hierarchical steering. Thus, it might reveal what obstacles emerge within the Greening.
6. Results
6.1 Governing agricultural policy
The majority of our informants highlight how the EU is a complicated apparatus. Kim mentions how the Greening negotiations start with the need for biodiversity but end up where there is the highest amount of agreement: “It is not that we do not know what creates effects [for biodiversity] and what does not, but it is the political dimension that follows which steers how it [EU-policies] will be designed” (Kim, 2021). When asked about the biggest obstacles regarding the Greening, Liv stated that it is difficult to turn such a large ship around. Kim adds that it is important to remember the different conditions within EU member states: “We have to realize that we are on different levels in different parts of the union [...] it depends on whether agriculture is big or not within the country.” (Kim, 2021). Although both Liv and Kim, as well as Max, recognize the differences within the member states, they believe it might be complicated to tailor EU-policies towards them:
“After all, the EU needs to have terms that apply within the whole union, to keep it somewhat competitively neutral. [...] To gain trust and acceptance, having overall terms that apply to the whole union, is probably one of the most important aspects in terms of getting anything done at all.” (Kim, 21/4-2021)
Regarding decentralizing the political process, the informants have differing views. Max, Per and Otis believe that a decentralization of the policy design could be beneficial for biodiversity in Scania. Per stated that the current measures are not applicable in the entirety of the EU - the measures and restrictions need to have a connection to the local climate and conditions of the concerned land. Max stated that the SBA has little freedom in terms of shaping EU-policies.
Ali believes that a positive aspect of the current system is how Sweden can impact the politics in other member states. A decentralization of policies regarding pastures might lead to negative consequences according to Ali, as it would separate it from other measures, as well as being turned into four-year periods - making it even more short term than the way it is regulated in the EU. Small scale cooperation is frequently mentioned during all the interviews, and could be a key factor in creating connectivity within EFAs or similar biodiversity measures:
“In principle, I believe that cooperation is good, and you can manage things that cannot be managed in isolation. It is better if farmers in a larger area could create
field strips and fallow lands within a network. Then it would be possible to work from a landscape ecological perspective, which of course is better. However, that does not mean that if such a network doesn't exist, that it is not worthwhile for an individual farmer to do something.” (Kai, 4/5 – 2021)
Otis has a positive attitude towards farmers cooperating regarding EU-measures, as long as there is a voluntary element to it. Kai believes that instead of controlling coordination from an authority level, it would be good to find examples of how biodiversity measures could be implemented, which could work as a source of inspiration for others. Otis believes that promoting biodiversity and sustainability is in the interest of most farmers, but agricultural policies have failed to capture those efforts. By creating measures that farmers do not see the advantages of and that do not work in practice, politics actually stand in the way of farms becoming more sustainable according to Otis.
Otis pointed out that many farmers are dependent on the EU-aids in order to run a profitable business. Therefore, they do not have a lot of freedom in regard to the policies as they need to be implemented in the ways that are required: “What they give is what we get.”
(Otis, 2021). Furthermore, Otis stated that it varies whether farmers get enough room in the political process. When asked about disbalanced focus in the process, Ali mentioned how problems with the SBA database led to simplified directives:
“But nature is not simple. There is no downpipe thinking and everything is connected. Nature does not care if there is a complicated data system, and I think it is a shame that such a thing has that much of an impact on environmental politics.” (Ali, 4/5 – 2021)
The system in place is complex and multilevel, making a lot of the efforts yield lower results than the work put into them, both in terms of economic means and time. As the EU mostly focuses on economic questions, with measures in place to safeguard fair trade between member states and subventions to stabilize food prices - integrating biodiversity is complicated both for farmers and regional authorities. Even in a policy explicitly aimed at safeguarding biodiversity, the complex governing system overshadows the focus on nature. In this system, everyone is dependent on the money given by the EU, and safeguarding biodiversity is not economically viable. From a governance perspective, it is impossible for it to become economically viable for farmers to focus on biodiversity as long as the main interest is intense production and profit
(Runhaar, 2017). This fuels the question of whether biodiversity policies should be separated from, and perhaps decentralized, from the supranational level. Currently, neither the SBA nor the Swedish farmers have sufficient ways of influencing the policy - leading to a distrust for the policy and a tension between relevant actors. Informants highlight the complexity of coordinating different stakeholders and mean that for it to be efficient there need to be a will from the farmers themselves.
6.2 Looking back at the Greening
The Greening will be replaced in the upcoming reform, due to the lack of results in the previous CAP reform. There are three main themes brought up by the informants when asked about their opinions on why the Greening was not successful: i) complications in administration and design, ii) profitability and iii) short-term program periods. Max spoke about the complications for farmers if the measures are too complicated:
“The more rules there are, the harder it is to control and especially the harder it is for farmers to fulfill the demands and we want them to apply for the payments. Our angle of approach in these questions is that it needs to provide a good effect, but not at the expense of creating super complicated regulations. You need to try and find the middle road somehow.” (Max, 19/4 – 2021)
Kim believes that one shortcoming of the Greening is that a lot of freedom was left to the member states in terms of the policies: “If the EC had been more direct and pointed with the regulations and focused on measures with known positive effects for biodiversity, it would surely have been a very good contribution to biodiversity today.” (Kim, 2021). According to Per, the Greening had a good ambition to increase biodiversity, but it was bargained down by the member states. From a Swedish perspective, the Greening did not make any difference; “It was pretty much just fluffing around.” (Per, 2021). Per believes one main difficulty is how the Greening failed to make it profitable for farmers, which caused most EFAs to be placed on the farmers least productive land, counteracting the efficiency of the policy. Liv agrees that economic costs are crucial, in some areas, setting aside the required 5% of arable land for EFAs can create a big loss of production. Regarding the program periods, Otis stated: “Farming is a long-term business, we don’t only look at our generation, we are only a part of a long chain which often slips between the cracks in political short-term changes.” (Otis, 2021). Otis believes that the Greening could not possibly have any great effects in such a short time and
that it is merely viewed as a complicated set of regulations by farmers. The short-time periods are also an important contributory factor for the lacking environmental benefits of the Greening.
Kai stated that for it to be beneficial for biodiversity, biotopes and habitats need to be established over a longer time-period.
According to Godenhjelm et al. (2015) the long term goal of an organisation needs to be intertwined with the projects. The cornerstone of CAP has historically been to stabilize food prices and trade. Environmental work, and biodiversity specifically, entered the goals of the organisation relatively recently. Both biodiversity and the farmers themselves need long- term safety, which the projectified EU-policies fail to provide. Therefore, creating links between the projects and the long-term goals, which is crucial according to Godenhjelm et al.
(2015), has not been possible. There is a clear ambition in the Greening to find the middle-way between being too complicated and being insufficient. Instead, the policy is somehow too complicated and insufficient simultaneously. In the effort of not creating too much hassle for the member states or the farmers, the measures lost much of their biodiversity benefits. Due to the contrast between the short project times and the long-term perspective of the agricultural sector the Greening is seen as a complicated set of rules. Hence, the projectification of EU- policy furthers the distrust for the policies.
6.3 Landscapes – differences and complexity
Liv stated that the focus of the Greening was to increase biodiversity in the less complex arable lands:
“The aim of EFAs was to direct it towards the type of landscapes in Sweden that has a lot of arable land relative to other types of land usage such as pastures and forests. And we believe so in the future as well, when it [EFA] will be moved to conditionality, that it will be directed towards areas with a high amount of arable land and where there is less room for biodiversity in surrounding landscapes.” (Liv, 21/4 – 2021)
However, there are also compensational aids aimed towards regions with inferior agricultural conditions. Seeing as the small-scale farms would be overgrown and turned into forest without them, compensational aids are very important for keeping pastures and hayfields. This is, according to Kai, an important prioritization as natural pastures are the most valuable for farmland biodiversity. Kim, Max and Per all believe that landscape-optimized regulations
would be too complicated due to detailed regulations. Liv further highlighted the complications by stating that if it would have been easy, such a system would already have been put in place.
Rut stated that even though it is not ideal with isolated measures, any amount of biodiversity which can be created in intense farmland is positive. Per believes that viewing the Greening from a landscape perspective would solve the problem of isolated implementations. It is however not easy to figure out how to preserve and promote it long-term.
Regarding landscape perspective, Ali believes that there are many things that need to be considered: “Each site is very specific, in the best of worlds one would acknowledge that [...] It is not possible to have unlimited amounts of measures at once.” (Ali, 2021). As Otis highlighted, a policy that might be seen as an obstacle in afforested areas, can be seen as a very useful tool in flatlands. Otis went on to state that some farmers are dependent on the compensational aids:
“They have very small fields which are irrational to farm, so without the compensational support it would have only been forest in those areas. That is the option. We have a very small amount of arable land in Sweden [...] It is important that we seize it.” (Otis, 23/4 – 2021)
Furthermore, Otis stated that farmers have knowledge about their own farms and should be given appropriate tools where they can choose what suits their specific farm the best. To achieve measures tailored to landscape on a detailed scale, Rut believes there needs to be coordination between farmers and authorities:
“Those who cultivate land or forest are simply crucial for protecting biodiversity, and the will to protect it needs to come from them. Authorities can guide towards how we do it the best. An important perspective in green infrastructure work is that it should not be perceived as a burden.” (Rut, 6/5 – 2021)
From the interviews, we find that including a landscape perspective would be beneficial in two different ways. Firstly, through viewing the prerequisites of the landscape in a more detailed way - policies could become more efficient for biodiversity while simultaneously being able to provide tailored support for the farmers in that landscape. Secondly, by implementing measures from a broader, landscape perspective, connectivity could be created, and the effects of the measures would be greater. According to Ali, when landscape perspective actually was taken
into consideration, and a program period included a differentiated and site-specific measurement, it was removed after only one program period due to the project-based policies.
6.4 Aspects of nature-inclusive farming
The informants shared both similar and differentiated thoughts on nature-inclusive farming.
Kim believes that there is a possibility to view arable land as an agroecosystem and use the naturally occurring processes. Kim stated that within EUs pesticide regulation, all farmers should apply integrated plant protection using natural ecosystem services. This shows that there is ongoing work to build up more natural processes in the CAP. Per believes that there are incentives for farmers to get arable land to work more like an ecosystem as you can be helped by natural enemies and soil formation. However, Per also said that the benefits from natural processes could not replace the benefits of intense agriculture. It is important to remember that the land is used for food production:
“It is hard to become more efficient than you are in the big agricultural areas […]
with class 10 soils almost everywhere. We do have small fragments of that in Scania, and it is hard to imagine that agroforestry could ever reach the levels of production from industrialized agriculture.” (Per, 29/4 - 2021)
Similarly, Otis stated that with the knowledge we have today, it is not possible to rely barely on natural processes of the land because of the strongly reduced harvest that would most likely follow. In addition, Ali stated that in Scanian flatlands they have the prerequisites for large crop yields, whereas in afforested regions it is easier to convert to more natural processes without decreased profit. Liv and Ali believe that the main reason for farmers not converting to more nature-inclusive principles are the high conversion costs and that farmers need to see that there is a long-term demand for organic production. Ali also highlighted the importance of developing measures for biodiversity in all farming systems: “No system is complete. Organic farming is great, but I would say that there are a lot of areas for improvement in organic farming as well.” (Ali, 2021). Kim also stated that farmers have to be able to trust in the natural ecosystem processes protecting them from harvest loss. The same goes for diversification of crops as Otis stated:
” Generally, us farmers take an insane number of risks since we operate biological production. […] Introducing new crops increases that risk. There is usually a reason
