Summary
Especially intensively used agricultural areas have increasing nature conservation and environmental problems. Agri-environmental measures are comparatively seldom implemented by farmers in these regions. There are a lot of obstacles for a wider implementation of conservation measures in these regions. The influencing factors can be assigned to the farm or the farm manager as well as to external conditions. Aim of this thesis was to analyse different starting points for the superordinate target – more nature conservation in intensive arable regions. The focus was laid on a) the investigation of implementation promoting and inhibiting factors on the part of the farmers and their discussion with nature conservation goals and b) the promoting and inhibiting impact of certain political regulations in Germany.

For a) following questions were analysed: The impact of design and subsidy level of certain agri-environmental measures (focus extensive arable strips); the role of the paying agency and way of delivering information or advising as well as the impact of farm structure, farm economy and farmers’ characteristics. To investigate these points, 4720 farmers in intensively used agricultural regions of the German federal states Lower Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and North Rhine-Westphalia were surveyed by written questionnaires. The response rate ranged from 13 to 26 % between the federal states. The overall response rate was 20.2 %. The survey results were mainly analysed by binary logistic regression (Method: Enter; Simple Contrast Method).

To test the significance of differences between the preferences of the farmers in the three federal states regarding the design of measures, the Kruskal–Wallis test (for medians of metric or ordinal-scaled variables) and the χ² test (for the most frequent answers of nominal-scaled variables) were used. To further specify differences between two regions for metric or ordinal-scaled variables, the Mann-Whitney test (asymptotic significance, 2-tailed) was used, and for nominal variables the χ² test was again used. The results regarding the measure design preferred by the farmers were discussed with nature conservation goals based on a literature review.

For b) on the one hand the impact of the German Plant Protection Act (PflSchG) modified in 2004 on the opportunity costs of extensive arable strips in the vicinity of aquatic or terrestrial biotopes was analysed. On the other hand the possibilities and obstacles for an implementation of production-integrated conservation measures within the context of the German Impact Regulation were investigated on federal level and on level of the German Federal states Lower Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and North Rhine-Westphalia. Backgrounds are the increasing land use conflicts between agriculture, nature conservation and building development in intensively used or high-density areas. The impact of the 2004 modified German Plant Protection Act was demonstrated by different gross margin calculations (Basis KTBL data). To investigate the possibilities and obstacles for an implementation of production-integrated compensation measures within the context of the German Impact Regulation the legal framework on federal level and in the German federal states Lower Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and North Rhine-Westphalia was analysed. Further 14 nature conservation experts in intensively used areas of Lower Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and North Rhine-Westphalia were surveyed in qualitative face-to-face interviews.

This thesis was written within the context of a scientific umbrella project of the project network „Lebensraum Boerde”. This project network consisted of 5 pilot projects that developed and tested from 2002 to 2007 nature conservation measures in intensively used arable regions in Germany (www.acker-als-lebensraum.de).

Results for a) Impact factors for farms/farm manger:

Agri-environmental measures on arable land which are implemented on a wider area of the farmland, like mulch seeding or no till methods, often have comparatively modest obligations. However, the results show that their implementation can increase the probability of a subsequent implementation of measures with a higher value for nature conservation.

Agri-environmental measures on arable land are more often adopted by farmers which are open towards new or unusual production methods and which have a high willingness to take risks. The probability of an implementation is also higher, if farmers have an interest in conserving or promoting biodiversity at their farm.

The paying agency has an important impact on the adoption of agri-environmental measures: The better the farmers estimate their relation with the paying agency, the bigger is the probability that they implement measures. Also the existence of determined contact persons within the paying agency is of importance: if they exist, the chance of an implementation of agri-environmental measures rises.

The probability of an implementation of extensive arable strips is bigger, if farmers already take part in agri-environmental measures on grassland or in mulch seeding/no till methods or arable extensification measures with regard to fertiliser or herbicide reduction. Extensive arable strips are also more often implemented by farmers being less risk-avers.

Regarding the design of field margins, farmers’ preferences hardly differ between the federal states, they also do not significantly conflict with nature conservation needs in intensive arable areas. The main fear is the risk of weed spreading. Therefore, farmers prefer sown field margins, mown at least once a year and treated with restricted herbicide applications. They also prefer short contract durations (1 year) with the possibility to prolong.

The main reasons why farmers don’t implement extensive arable strips as agrienvironmental measures are a) a too high bureaucratic effort for application and control and therefore too high transaction costs (68 % of responding farmers), b) too low subsidy levels (54% of responding farmers), c) feared problems with the landowner (33% of responding farmers) and d) feared production-related risks (32% of responding farmers).

Results for b) Impact of national political regulations:

The calculations (standard gross margin of the crop rotation sugar beat – winter wheat – winter wheat) show that the opportunity costs of subsidised extensive arable strips are 25-42 % lower on locations with plant protection obligations. Taking the subsidy level for flowering strips of the agri-environmental program of Lower Saxony (NAU) as an example (600 EUR/ha/a), it becomes clear that this subsidy can only cover the overall costs of strips sown with crop plants or crop- and wild plants, if these strips are implemented on locations with plant protection obligations.

For annual arable strips sown with crop plants this subsidy level generates a profit of 50 EUR/ha/a.

The results of the farmer survey confirm the calculation results: farmers preferably implement flowering or grass strips on locations where obligations in plant protection have to be fulfilled. Hence, the German Plant Protection Act modified in 2004 has a positive impact on the establishment of flowering field structures also in regions with high soil qualities and a lack of structural elements. Additionally, respective subsidy programs can positively influence the fulfilment of existing plant protection obligations.

The most common form of implementation of the German impact regulation (Eingriffs-und Ausgleichsregelung) intensifies the strong competition between different types of land use in intensively used areas, because compensation measures withdraw valuable land from agricultural production. Production-integrated compensation measures solve this problem, because they allow agricultural cultivation under certain nature conservation obligations. However, they are seldom implemented.

The research results show that the implementation of rotating flowering strips as compensation measures is basically legally allowed. They a) fulfil the requirements of the German Impact Regulation, b) exceed the Cross-Compliance obligations and c) their durability is assured by several legal instruments.

The main problems are the too low capacities of the lower nature conservation authorities and the qualification of the persons in charge of administration and control within these agencies. A solution is, to delegate the administration and control tasks to competent supporting organisations, e.g. foundations or Landscare associations.

Production-integrated measures on arable land with modest risks should be offered in the agri-environmental program of federal states with intensive arable regions, even if they have a comparatively low value for nature conservation. They can lead famers to measures with a higher value for nature conservation. Against this background it is further important to develop and offer measures with different levels with regard to obligation severity, production-related risks, nature conservation value and subsidy level. An abbreviated contract duration of one year with the possibility to prolong for farmers implementing a specific agri-environmental measure for the first time would also help to overcome famers inhibition threshold.

Especially in intensive arable areas measure obligations should be designed in a way that weed spread is minimised. Extensive arable strips sown with seed mixtures are suited for these regions for this reason. However, their subsidy levels should be adapted to the soil quality in these regions – by grading the subsidies according to the soil quality or by the definition of ring-fenced areas for a specific measure.