EuroDairy – Recommendations for research or policy development

This page summarises research and policy development needs in relation to biodiversity. It has been collated from feedback obtained during workshops, farm biodiversity audits, farmer exchange visits and operational group interactions. This has involved farmers and, on occasion, stakeholders from policy, research, dairy supply chains and industry development bodies. 

Well-developed standard metrics are available for greenhouse gases (GHGs) and water use efficiency, but not yet for biodiversity.

Assessing biodiversity directly can be problematic, i.e. which species or indicator to measure, and a full on-the-ground audit is expensive and time consuming. For this reason, it is necessary to develop assessment methods and metrics that are comparable, robust, easy to use and credible.

The Biotex tool is an intermediate approach to addressing these challenges, assessing features on the farm which are known to have a positive impact on biodiversity, and drawing comparison with priorities for biodiversity in that locality. However, consideration of biodiversity impacts beyond the farm gate are not taken into account. Adding impacts beyond the farm gate could significantly alter the wider biodiversity performance of different production systems.

Another limit is that a one-size-fits-all tool does not always work for biodiversity, as demonstrated by the Finnish farm assessments, which did not account for specific northern climatic influences and farm circumstances.

Technology has the opportunity to offer future solutions, including assessment of biodiversity on a national scale. Aerial imagery is capable of distinguishing habitat with an accuracy of 96% and in identifying the type of habitat with an accuracy of around 80%.

Once sufficient data has been processed, and validated on the ground, machine learning can be used to automate the process and to increase the level of accuracy. This would enable the extent, type and quality of habitat to be calculated for parcels of land, specific farms, geographic areas, supply chains and at national levels.

Recommendations:

• There is a need to start measuring; otherwise, biodiversity will always be ignored in sustainability assessment, leading to wrong decisions
• Continue to improve and expand tools and techniques (including Life Cycle Analysis) that describe better the biodiversity impacts within, and beyond, the farm boundary
• Develop and refine remote measurement techniques to assess habitat presence and quality, adapted to the local context. Aerial mapping can provide a lot of useful quantitative and qualitative information
• Develop simple, comparable metrics which can be applied at the farm level to describe baseline biodiversity potential, and to measure/direct future improvement
• Refine and improve the biodiversity tools like Biotex, in particular regarding specific local conditions

Gaps in current knowledge on biodiversity and barriers to implementation were identified, which might be addressed by further research, such as:

• Demonstration projects which show the practical integration of biodiversity objectives into profitable production
• Better understanding of farmer attitudes to biodiversity, and from that, knowledge exchange needs
• More collective projects that bring together multiple stakeholders. Many practices that favour biodiversity need collective work and consequently more organisation at different scales, between farmers but also between farmers and municipalities, environmental and hunting associations, for example. The public actors have an important role to facilitate this collective work, and the main stakeholders in a region should be easily identified
• Broaden the biodiversity issue and its topics: soil biodiversity, dairy breed diversity, the impact of livestock buildings, etc
• Develop research about the social, political and economic dimensions of the regional biodiversity in a region or locality

Results from the biodiversity audits undertaken within the EuroDairy project suggest that there is greater biodiversity potential present on many dairy farms than it is currently given credit for, but more could be done. Small measures can make a difference, particularly if magnified by widespread farmer participation.

Most farmers are not aware of their impact on biodiversity, positive or negative. There is scope to embed consideration for biodiversity across a greater number of farms and the main body of producers. Having the majority of farmers creating 1–2% habitat could have greater impact than a smaller number with a relatively high proportion of land dedicated to biodiversity.

In some instances, biodiversity measures might entail very little additional cost. Therefore, a change in farm mindset can yield very real benefits, open up thinking by dairy farmers on the merits and opportunity of creating more space for biodiversity, and embed this in their overall offer to consumers. This would mean paying attention to valuing hedges and boundaries, as opposed to solely the productive part of field.

Local leadership, local action, peer-to-peer learning and farmer testimony are powerful motivators and credibility builders.

Farmers need information about how to measure, manage and communicate biodiversity on their farm. 

There is a need to integrate biodiversity in the advisory services for farmers and a change of mindset may be required for their advisers too.

At present, where advice on biodiversity is given, it is often divorced from advice on productivity. Farmers require advice on how best to incorporate biodiversity considerations into progressive farming systems, for which the primary focus is to make a good profit.

There is a need to show that biodiversity can go hand in hand with profitable business, through demonstration farms, research centres and processor initiatives, such as organised farm visits. Messages need to be targeted according to the type of farmer. 

Agri-environmental schemes have been in place for 30 years – but habitat quality continues to decline in many categories. This is partly due to a lack of recognition and inflexible prioritisation/targeting of important habitats.

Many dairy farms already contain biodiversity areas that are not recognised or valued. The market is increasingly seeking good environmental and biodiversity credentials in the products consumed, but this does not necessarily imply that the market will be willing to pay for biodiversity.

Also, farmer action usually follows payments – to ensure Single Farm Payment is not put at risk or to follow the most lucrative (and permissible) measures supported within an agri-environmental scheme.

In this way, certain important habitats can currently be removed to ensure area compliance with Single Farm Payment.

More generally, there is a strong demand from the farmers that the different policies (agricultural or environmental) fully recognise the major role of dairy farming in addressing the complex biodiversity issue.

If biodiversity is not recognised by market forces and/or policy incentives, it will decline because the majority of farmers tend to be driven by economics, and towards greater intensification.

To address these risks, it is important to consider:

• How future CAP measures are orientated will be critically important to drive biodiversity. Policy has a big role to play in incentivising the most appropriate measures for that farm or region and avoiding perverse outcomes
• In some contexts, the supply chain is moving ahead of policymakers in measuring and promoting measures for the preservation and promotion of biodiversity. Policymakers should get closer to the industry, working more synergistically with corporate drivers and market signals
• By bringing together farmers, scientists with an understanding of farming and policymakers, it is possible to design support measures that are more targeted and more effective
• While the current round of CAP is fixed, future CAP arrangements should seek to allow more national or regional flexibility to design schemes and measures better targeted at local conditions (pressure, status, response), which will facilitate the maintenance of biodiversity at the farm level
• At a national level, policymakers should give better recognition to valuing broader ecosystems services, particularly if other efficiency metrics are not looking favourable, e.g. carbon footprint of beef/dairy produced from marginal areas
• Further use of the EIP model is recommended, to co-create and test out local and regional projects, with a focus on biodiversity. Biodiversity is a local issue that needs to be discussed and developed with local experts, including farmers, scientists, the supply chain and policymakers, to design the right action plans. Good examples of successful practical projects, which incorporate payments for action on biodiversity, exist (e.g. BRIDE project). Further opportunities should be sought to engage more closely with these kinds of projects
• Ensure the recognition of the positive impacts of dairy farming on ordinary biodiversity at all societal levels (farmers, institutions, consumers and citizens) so the applied research supports consumer education. This strategy will improve the systemic approach that favours dairy farming and ease the links between farmers and societies with common objectives
• Contribute to the promotion of knowledge and competence of farmers on the subject of biodiversity. It could be possible to provide financial support for the creation or integration of biodiversity into agricultural school programmes
• Defend the maintenance of farmland, and curb the urban sprawl to favour agro-natural areas (grassland, hedges, ponds, etc.) valued by dairy farming, among others. Dairy farming can also help to keep a more open environment and, in some areas, to reduce wildfire risk
• Greater knowledge and understanding are required by all organisations within the dairy sector to enable actors to assure the link between dairy farming and biodiversity, on a scientific basis
• Researchers and advisers have an important role to play by promoting concepts and methods that can be easily applied on farms, supported by the appropriate tools

Individual farm businesses selling directly to the public have the opportunity to embed biodiversity as part of their overall offer on provenance to the consumer.

There are successful examples of this within the EuroDairy project, e.g. Fattoria Rossi in the Italian operational group. However, for the mainstream, large-scale supply chains, it is not thought that a consumer premium based on biodiversity is likely anytime soon.

This does not mean that the supply chain is disinterested. Positive credentials for biodiversity are increasingly being sought by retailers and processors, as part of Corporate and Social Responsibility (CSR) charters.

It is important that the dairy sector is proactive in pursuit of protecting and/or enhancing biodiversity present within milk production systems. Failure to do so constitutes a reputational risk for industry and a failure of policy delivery. The industry needs to be forward looking and prepared.

While it is difficult to recoup premia from consumers from the mainstream market, dairy retailers and processors are actively trying to incorporate biodiversity into their CSR. A big challenge are metrics and measurement for their value chain. However, new technologies are moving fast to enable rapid accurate measurement of habitat.

More could potentially be done by the industry, as well as individual farmers, communicating and promoting what they are doing for biodiversity.

There is a need to fix a minimum standard (‘what is the minimum level of acceptability’) for biodiversity, recognized by stakeholders, industry and NGOs.

This project has received funding from the European Union`s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 696364.