Let's look at how biodiversity conservation on farmland - has been promoted in the European Union - and what it would take to make it successful. After all, the union is a major producer of agricultural goods - also in the global market. It also presents its farming model among most sustainable in the world.
But what do European farmers know about nature in their fields - and do they value it? In the European Union, - just as in many other large agriculturally producing countries, - agricultural production is heavily regulated - through policies and public subsidies. This means that farmers are not entirely free to choose what they can - and what they cannot do on their privately owned land.
Under the common agricultural policy of the European Union, - farmers received about 38 billion euros - from 2014 to 2020 for volunteer activities to protect the environment, - including biodiversity, and to use resources efficiently. This is many times larger than the combined national funding - given to environmental protection. Farmers who receive such public money called agri-environmental support, - can for example protect or restore a wetland among fields, - manage grasslands so that they have a diversity of plant species, - keep traditional breeds of cattle and sheep, - plant all varieties of crops, create grass verges along field borders, - or retain and manage hedges, stone walls, and tree groups.
They can also protect bird nests during farming operations and much more. Many of these measures have been developed in collaboration among - farmers, scientists, and administrators to ensure that they work. Yet, a lot of money is channeled on activities - that do not make sense to farmers.
Or activities that are designed to attract farmers - but was for the efficiency for the environmental protection. Furthermore, even much higher sums on the common agricultural policy - support the further intensification of agricultural production - at the expense of biodiversity. This way the policy gives conflicting signals to producers.
And biodiversity is often the victim. There are many positive examples from across Europe - that show that conservation efforts can maintain and enhance biodiversity - and save species from disappearing from the countryside. Many research studies criticize such subsidized management of farmland - as having at best mixed ecological results or being harmful.
As long as there is money, farmers care about biodiversity, - but they stop once the money runs low or prices for cereals go up. Caring becomes short-lived and dependent entirely on monetary reward. The heart of the problem is that conservation in agricultural areas, - just like conservation generally, is a true social challenge.
It is not a problem of having sufficient ecological knowledge, - but above all, of deeply engaging people around the idea of conservation, - of putting biodiversity into the core value of the social organization. Only through the active support of the farming community, - that is farmers, advisors, and local administrators, - agricultural policy for conservation can be effective in the long run. This happens only with farmers and other actors.
First, understand the challenge that is biodiversity loss. And second, agree that they can be a part of solving it. Evidence from several countries show that most farmers accept - that what they do in their fields has profound impacts on species, - also those that are not targeted by agricultural management.
Do farmers agree about the decline of biodiversity? The evidence shows that by now they mostly do. Unfortunately, biodiversity as a term - doesn't easily translate to people outside of academia - despite it being in use for decades.
For example, many researchers discovered - that using the term 'biodiversity' complicates common understanding. Other terms in various languages - that refer to natural diversity or wildlife may work much better. Studies show that farmers avoid thinking of species harmful to their production.
That is pests and weeds, as a part of biodiversity. Even if those species can be beneficial in some ways, - for example, many pests are also important food for birds - and weeds can protect soil from erosion. Such indirect benefits are seldom noticed.
Many studies also demonstrated that public payments work best - if farmers do things they feel positive about, - rather than just working for financial reward. For example, farmers know and in some way value certain species - as a part of their heritage or tradition, - such as white storks nesting on rooftops, - or swallows as harbingers of spring. In countries where many formerly common species of birds rapidly declined, - many farmers had a sense of personal loss when such species disappeared.
For example, lapwings or swallows. Something I remember so well from my childhood - is not there anymore and I miss it. Focusing on such species in conservation may work better, - especially if payment is based on actual numbers of such species.
That the sum depends on the ecological result itself - and not on what must be done or must not be done. You can explore an example of so-called results-based payments - for conservation on this site. However, such feeling of personal loss - does not generally extend to less conspicuous visible unknown species, - and lots of such are among water breeds or they live in waters and soil.
Yet, those species are among the most important groups for production. They maintain soil fertility, they provide pollination. Their conservation will depend on - farmers understanding those important roles.
There is one serious caveat about such studies on knowledge and attitudes. It is very difficult to generalize from them. Even if researchers invite a randomly chosen group of farmers - to participate in their study, - most often than not, people who already have some interest in the topic, - for example, concerning biodiversity, are likely to join the research.
And so it is impossible to say - what European or Finnish farmers know about nature in their fields - or how they as a diverse group of human beings value it. Our results may paint a rather optimistic picture. This also stresses the importance of diverse approaches to conservation.
For some people, a public subsidy will be an incentive. For some, a label for nature-friendly production will work better. For some producers, - change can be induced through a more direct connection to consumers.
Yet, in some cases, only strict legal protection, - even against immediate private interests - can save a species or a population from extinction. As a general principle, - to change food production towards maintaining biodiversity and farmland, - the society should aim to influence farmers' motivations - and behavior in the ways that are engaging - and not threatening to their identity of being produces of food. Or in words of some researchers: "We should aim to place farmland biodiversity - 'in the hands and minds of farmers'".
Conservation should not shift the blame but share the responsibility. This is a task for all of us, because all of us eat what farmers produce. So, go and meet your farmers.
Let them know that you value not only potatoes - but also the butterflies on their fields.
