Abstract
Greening of the Common Agricultural Policy as proposed by the European Commission for the 2014–2020, CAP reform raised interest in measuring crop diversity. Based on a sample of the 12,258 farms recorded in the Polish 2009 FADN (FADN—Farm Accountancy Data Network—an instrument for evaluating the income of agricultural holdings and the impacts of the Common Agricultural Policy. For details see http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rica/ (FADN 2013)), the authors verify the suitability of the most popular biodiversity indices for measuring the level of diversification of cropping structure for assessing fulfillment of CAP greening criteria. None of the most known biodiversity indicators provided a possibility of a proper delimiting of “green” farms based on FADN data. Modification of the Simpson index was proposed to allow proper distinguishing of “not-green” farms within FADN records. Using biodiversity indices for measuring crop diversification on large areas is related to spatial aggregation. Different indices have been calculated for Polish NUTS 2 (Nomenclature of Units for Territorial Statistics—geocode standard for referencing the subdivisions of countries for statistical purposes. The standard is developed and regulated by the European Union, and thus only covers the member states of the EU in detail. Poland consists of 16 NUTS 2 regions called voivodeships.) regions, based on FADN single-farm records as well as official statistical data on cropping structure for NUTS 2 regions. Results show that there is a very small correlation between regional indices calculated based on aggregated crop structure data and the share of “not-green” farm area in the regions. This suggests that biodiversity indices calculated using regional data are strongly biased and should not be used for verification of fulfilling the EC crop diversification criteria.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
It means maintaining the areas of permanent grassland (PG) with the right to reduce the area by not more than 5 % compared to the base year.
- 2.
It means a minimum of three crops in rotation, with maximum participation of one of them at the level of 70 % and a minimal share in the crop structure at the level of 5 %.
- 3.
An area equivalent to at least 7 % of a farmer’s eligible hectares (permanent grassland is excluded from the calculation) should be used for ecological purposes. Habitats and features that would be eligible to fulfill the EFA requirement may include: fallow land, terraces, landscape features, buffer strips, and areas afforested under CAP Pillar 2.
- 4.
Each farm in the FADN sample represents a number of farms in the population.
References
Britz, W., & Witzke, P. (Ed.). (2012). CAPRI model documentation 2012. Bonn University.
European Commission. (2011). Legal proposals for the CAP after 2013—Agriculture and rural development. European Commission Proposal of 12 October 2011, Brussels.
EUROSTAT (2013). Database Agriculture/Regional Agricultural Statistics [table:agr_r_crops]. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database.
FADN. (2013). Farm Accountancy Data Network. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rica/.
GUS—Central Statistical Office Poland (2011). Uprawy rolne i wybrane element metod produkcji roślinnej. PowszechnySpisRolny2010. Warsaw, pp 1–152.
Hiep, C., & Engels, P. (1974). Comparing species diversity and evenness indices. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 54, 559–563.
Jones and Stokes Associates. (1987). Sliding toward extinction: the state of California’s natural heritage. CA: Sacramento.
Khan, S. A. (2006). Methodology for Assessing Biodiversity., Centre of Advanced Study in Marine Biology Parangipettai: Annamalai University.
Majewski, E., Czekaj, S., & Was, A. (2013). Impacts of Greening of the Common Agricultural Policy on Financial Results of Cereal Farms in Poland After the Year 2013., Sustainable Development and Agribussiness Warsaw: Warsaw University of Life Science.
McFadden D. (1973). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics, (pp. 105–142). New York: Academic Press.
McIntosh, Robert P. (1967). An index of diversity and the relation of certain concepts to diversity. Ecology, 48, 392–404.
Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379–423, 623–656.
Simpson, E. H. (1949). Measurement of diversity. Nature, 163, 688.
Turkmen G., & Kazanci N. (2010). Applications of various diversity indices to benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in streams of a natural park in Turkey. Ankara: Hacettepe University. http://balwois.com/balwois/administration/full_paper/ffp-1765.pdf.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Was, A., Kobus, P. (2014). Measuring Biodiversity of Cropping Structure with the Use of FADN Data. In: Zopounidis, C., Kalogeras, N., Mattas, K., van Dijk, G., Baourakis, G. (eds) Agricultural Cooperative Management and Policy. Cooperative Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06635-6_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06635-6_21
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-06634-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-06635-6
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)