4.7 Article

Constraints and opportunities for mainstreaming biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU's Common Agricultural Policy: Insights from the IPBES assessment for Europe and Central Asia

期刊

LAND USE POLICY
卷 88, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104099

关键词

Biodiversity; Ecosystem services; Common Agricultural Policy; Policy recommendations; Literature review

资金

  1. MOE (Ministry of Education in China) Liberal Arts and Social Sciences Foundation [17YJA630149, 18YJC840041]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2018B20814]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The European Union's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), being one of the strongest drivers of agricultural land use practices, has a substantial impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services in the Member States. The initial focus of the CAP to increase and intensify agricultural production affected water and land qualities and contributed to the degradation of traditional agricultural landscapes, cultural identities, and erosion of typical farmland biodiversity. Recent CAP reforms have begun to consider biodiversity and ecosystem services, but still fall short of a thorough mainstreaming approach. The objectives of this paper are to point out main findings regarding (i) key shortcomings of the current CAP, and (ii) major opportunities to enhance the mainstreaming of biodiversity and ecosystem services within the CAP. The paper is based on insights generated in the sub-global assessment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) for Europe and Central Asial. Our results illustrate the evolution of agricultural policy objectives and instruments applied in the CAP, and their effects on selected ecosystem services and biodiversity. We shed light on key shortcomings of existing policy and provide recommendations for further CAP reforms to achieve more effective biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of ecosystem services.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据