Biodiversity Target – Biodiversity Awareness in Agriculture and Forestry
The nationwide study surveyed each 500 farmers and foresters about their biodiversity awareness.
Agriculture and forestry use around 80% of the land area in Germany. They are therefore considered to be largely responsible for species extinction in Germany and are consequently faced with growing demands in the areas of environmental protection and biodiversity conservation. But what about biodiversity awareness in agriculture and forestry? And what about the willingness of stakeholders in these sectors to actively adopt biodiversity goals? What obstacles do farmers and foresters complain about when implementing these measures?
The nationwide study “Biodiversity Target – Biodiversity Awareness in Agriculture and Forestry,” commissioned by the BMFTR Research Initiative for the Conservation of Biodiversity (FEdA) and conducted in collaboration with the Institute for Social-Ecological Research (ISOE), surveyed around 500 farmers and foresters to find answers to these questions.
Aware of the problem and ready to take action
According to the study, 83% of respondents in forestry (FWS) and 67% in agriculture (LWS) are highly aware of the problem, with the majority feeling personally responsible for taking action to protect biodiversity (81% FWS, 85% LWS). However, there is also a not insignificant group that feels overwhelmed by the issue (45% FWS, 24% LWS). 87% of farmers are frustrated that they are being blamed for the causes of biodiversity loss. In both groups, there is a correlation between biodiversity awareness and the assessment of ecosystem services—the services that nature provides free of charge: those who see great value in biodiversity also have a higher awareness of the importance of preserving species diversity.
“The survey clearly shows that farmers and foresters have a high level of intrinsic motivation to contribute to the protection of biodiversity,” emphasizes Marion Mehring from ISOE, lead author of the study. “Difficulties in implementing biodiversity-promoting measures are mainly of a practical nature and not due to doubts about their usefulness.” 92% of both groups stated that they had already implemented measures to protect biodiversity on their own farms. However, a majority are dissatisfied and report a lack of options for action. Respondents see concrete obstacles in the lack of flexibility of the measures or excessive documentation requirements. Another hurdle is the concern about possible damage and disadvantages; biodiversity is also perceived as a risk in the form of pest infestation in the survey.
Biodiversity Target – Biodiversity Awareness in Agriculture and Forestry
Biodiversity Target – Biodiversity Awareness in Agriculture and Forestry
Better involving stakeholders in environmental and biodiversity protection
“Farmers and foresters have valuable expert knowledge about the local situation in which they work and are best placed to assess which measures really serve biodiversity protection without generating excessive additional operating costs,” explains Volker Mosbrugger, co-author of the study and spokesperson for the FEdA. “It was therefore essential for us to gain a better understanding of the motives and challenges of stakeholders with regard to biodiversity so that we can involve farmers and foresters in environmental and biodiversity protection in a targeted manner in the future.” This requires a target group-specific approach. The study “Zielvorstellung Biodiversität” (Biodiversity Targets) distinguishes between five (LWS) and four (FWS) groups based on biodiversity awareness, the assessment of the benefits of ecosystem services, and the assessment of their own options for action.
The relatively small group of “less convinced” individuals in agriculture and forestry (15% LWS, 10% FWS) has a low level of biodiversity awareness, which is the main barrier to biodiversity conservation. In contrast, the relatively large group with high biodiversity awareness is fundamentally more receptive to biodiversity conservation and can be further subdivided according to other barriers: The “cautious” (16% LWS, 44% FWS) see not only the benefits but also the potential risks of biodiversity and report a lack of options for action. The “cautious” group, which at 10% is only found in agriculture, is united by its concern about the risks of biodiversity, but does not tend to see a lack of options for action. The “willing to act” group, on the other hand, reports above all a lack of options for action, while the risks do not tend to be a problem for them (31% LWS, 28% FWS). The study also identifies the group of “convinced” individuals (26% LWS, 17% FWS). They have a high level of biodiversity awareness and do not see the risks of biodiversity or a lack of options for action as barriers to biodiversity conservation.
For a target group-specific approach, the study suggests winning over the “less convinced” with targeted information about the function and role of biodiversity. The “cautious” should be addressed by alleviating their concerns about possible risks. The “cautious” should be supported with best practice examples, and the “ready to act” should be enabled to break down barriers to taking action. “The ‘convinced’ group, in turn, can be actively addressed on the basis of their expertise and experience,” emphasizes Mehring. “Achieving a turnaround for biodiversity requires broad commitment and new alliances between all stakeholders. The study shows how this can be achieved by developing common goals based on a shared motivation to protect biodiversity.”
Review: Presentation and discussion
FEdA presented the study results in a panel discussion as part of the “Achtung Artenvielfalt!” action week. Dr. Marion Mehring (ISOE, lead author of the study), Prof. Dr. Volker Mosbrugger (spokesperson for FEdA), and Dr. Thomas Jahn (co-founder of ISOE) provided impetus for the discussion. The debate was led by Martin Häusling (Member of the European Parliament), Dr. Tina Baumann (Frankfurt City Forest) and Steffen Pingen (German Farmers’ Association). Science journalist Susan Schädlich moderated. The video of the discussion is available in German.
Dr. Marion Mehring (ISOE, leitende Studien-Autorin), Prof. Dr. Volker Mosbrugger (Sprecher der FEdA) und Dr. Thomas Jahn, (Mitbegründer des ISOE) geben Impulse zur Einleitung der Diskussionsrunde. Die Debatte führen Martin Häusling (Mitglied des Europäischen Parlaments), Dr. Tina Baumann (Stadtforst Frankfurt) und Steffen Pingen (Deutscher Bauernverband e.V.). Die Wissenschaftsjournalistin Susan Schädlich moderiert.
