Agricultural and Food Science, Vol. 13 (2004): 229–246. 229 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E Vol. 13 (2004): 229–246. © Agricultural and Food Science Manuscript received October 2003 On diversity effects of alternative agricultural policy reforms in Finland: an agricultural sector modelling approach Antti Miettinen MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Economic Research, Luutnantintie 13, FI-00410 Helsinki, Finland, e-mail: antti.miettinen@mtt.fi Heikki Lehtonen MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Economic Research, Luutnantintie 13, FI-00410 Helsinki, Finland Reija Hietala-Koivu Department of Applied Biology, PO Box 27, FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland The European Union has decided to reform its agricultural policy and decouple Common Agricultur- al Policy support partially from production. The aim of this study is to predict the diversity effects of agricultural policy reforms in which direct aid payments are disconnected from production, and com- pare the outcomes with the effects of a policy in which Common Agricultural Policy support is cou- pled to production. The study employs a dynamic regional sector model of Finnish agriculture. The sector model predicts regional agricultural land use, numbers of livestock, stocking densities, pesti- cide application areas, and nutrient balances. Diversity of agricultural land use is measured by Shan- non’s diversity index. The results indicate that if agricultural support is independent from production, the amount of fallow land will increase considerably in the future. This will decrease the diversity of agricultural land use at landscape level, but may not be harmful at species level since green fallow has some positive effects, especially on the densities and abundance of farmland birds. Instead, the decrease in bovine animals is likely to run down biological diversity, since it simplifies crop rotation and diminishes grazing. Key words: agricultural policy reform, agricultural sector model, biodiversity, landscape diversity, land use, nutrient balances, pesticides, production intensity 230 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E Miettinen, A. et al. On diversity effects of agricultural policy reforms Introduction Diversity within an ecosystem enables it to sur- vive and be productive. Species diversity, in terms of both natural plants and crop species and their varieties, may also provide a buffering ef- fect against losses to diseases and pests or ad- verse weather conditions (Olson and Francis 1995, Collins and Hawtin 1999). Therefore, di- versity at agroecosystem level contributes to greater food security and employment opportu- nities, and a risk-averse farmer may prefer to cultivate various crops in order to reach a higher expected profit. The European Union (EU) Council of Agri- cultural Ministers reached an agreement on the fundamental reform of the Common Agricultur- al Policy (CAP) in June 2003. The key element of the reformed CAP will be a single farm pay- ment, the size of which will become independ- ent from agricultural production (Council of the European Union 2003). In Finland as well as in the other EU countries, agricultural support plays a significant role in the composition of farmers’ income. The agricultural support in Finland con- sists of CAP support, compensatory allowances paid for less-favoured areas (LFA support), agri- environmental support and national aids. The approved reform will apply only to CAP pay- ments for arable crops and livestock. In 2003, those payments totalled €447 million and made up 26% of agricultural income subsidies in Fin- land (MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Econom- ic Research and Pellervo Economic Research Institute 2004). The environmental and social effects of ag- ricultural policy reforms are important public concerns. The environmental effects of policies may be identified with the help of the pressure- state-response framework (OECD 2001). Agri- cultural policy measures (i.e. pressures) influ- ence the state of the environment via farmers’ input use and production decisions. Different agricultural production lines compete for the lim- ited agricultural land. Hence, land use reflects relative profitability of different products and crops. The diversity of agricultural land use is a particularly important ecological and economic indicator, because land-use patterns capture and combine the effects of several simultaneous pol- icy measures and provide information concern- ing economic, social and biological dimensions of diversity (Olson and Francis 1995, OECD 2001). Therefore, a change in the indicators measuring the state of the environment may trig- ger responses. Altogether, the evaluation of land use, diversity and other environmental indicators may provide relevant information for policy- makers who consider various effects when for- mulating new policies. The two policy reforms studied here and com- pared with the baseline scenario are the on-go- ing reform of the CAP and the liberalised agri- cultural trade which is a radical trade liberalisa- tion scenario. Extended Agenda 2000 represents the baseline scenario. These reforms differ in terms of policy parameters, i.e., support for farm- ers and institutional prices of agricultural prod- ucts. In addition, in the on-going CAP reform and trade liberalisation scenarios, agricultural support is decoupled (i.e. direct aid payments are disconnected) from production. The effects of farm policy reforms on Finnish agricultural sec- tor are predicted and evaluated using a dynamic regional sector model of Finnish agriculture (Lehtonen 2001, 2004). This particular model has been used in this study because it is detailed in terms of agricultural products and policy de- scription. The sector model simulates agricul- tural production along with land and input use resulting from a given policy alternative. The dy- namic sector model can also deal with several simultaneous or sequential changes in policy in- struments. The recent applications of agricultural sec- tor models include Topp and Mitchell (2003) who forecasted the environmental and socio-econom- ic effects of the Agenda 2000 proposal on the Dumfries and Galloway region in Scotland. Their environmental sub-model estimated that approx- imately 2.6% of the land area would change its vegetation type, and the authors concluded that diversity in landscape would be reduced by the 231 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E Vol. 13 (2004): 229–246. Agenda 2000. Cooper et al. (2003), in turn, ana- lysed trade liberalisation impacts on US agricul- ture and reported only marginal aggregate chang- es. There were, however, regional variations, which indicate specialisation of production in the most feasible and competitive regions. The lit- erature also includes impact analyses of the mid- term review proposals of the Common Agricul- tural Policy (European Commission 2003a, b). However, these analyses, which evaluated im- pacts on agricultural production, income and land use at EU level, did not explicitly consider diversity effects. In addition to diversity in agricultural land use, we also discuss the potential biodiversity effects of policy scenarios. According to Duelli (1997), biodiversity evaluation at regional level can be based on landscape parameters. Even though landscape diversity indicators give an overview of biological diversity, there are no general models which relate overall species di- versity to landscape diversity (Jeanneret et al. 2003). Thus, the relationship depends strongly on the organism examined. Furthermore, accord- ing to Southwood and Way (1970), cited in Al- tieri (1999), the degree of biodiversity in agroe- cosystems depends on four main characteristics: 1. The diversity of vegetation within and around the agroecosystem 2. The permanence of the various crops within the agroecosystem 3. The intensity of management 4. The extent of the isolation of the agroeco- system from natural vegetation. In this study, we predict policy-driven chang- es in the diversity of areas under arable crops, set-aside and uncultivated agricultural land, and consider the effects of agricultural land use on the diversity of some natural species. Further- more, we discuss the permanence of vegetation as a result of different land use forms and evalu- ate the intensity of management resulting from a given policy alternative. The policy scenarios and the main elements of the modelling strategy are introduced in the second section of this paper. The third section presents agricultural land use predictions and the corresponding values of Shannon’s diversity in- dex. In addition to diversity index values, envi- ronmental indicators quantifying intensity of agricultural production, i.e., stocking densities, aggregate nutrient balances and pesticide appli- cation areas, are used to improve the analysis of potential policy effects on the state of the envi- ronment and biodiversity. It is especially inter- esting to see the environmental performance of the CAP reform scenario, because the EU Com- mission has announced that the on-going CAP reform will promote the environment. Finally, implications on biological diversity are discussed and conclusions are drawn in the last section of the study. Methods Dynamic regional sector model of Finnish agriculture Our study employed the dynamic regional sec- tor model of Finnish agriculture (DREMFIA), which, when given the reform-specific policy parameters, simulated the Finnish agricultural sector till year 2020. The main elements of the DREMFIA model are briefly presented in the Appendix, and a thorough description of the model is found in Lehtonen (2001). The sector model assumes that farmers maximise their prof- its when there are fixed resources (land) and competitive markets. Hence, the relative profit- ability between different products, affected by agricultural and environmental policy measures, determine the long-term changes in land use. The outcomes of the sector model include hectares planted to 13 different crops, areas of bare and green set-asides, and the amount of marginal land left out of agricultural production. This last cat- egory consists of areas in which land rent in ag- ricultural use is negative. The sector model also predicts stocking densities, regional farm gate aggregates of nutrient balances and pesticide 232 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E Miettinen, A. et al. On diversity effects of agricultural policy reforms application areas which indicate the intensity of agricultural production. Because agricultural support varies region- ally in Finland, it is logical to examine the ef- fects of policy reforms in differing geographical areas. The sector model includes four main re- gions, northern Finland, Ostrobothnia, central Finland, and southern Finland (Fig. 1). Accord- ing to Uusitalo (2003), most of the crop produc- tion in Finland is located in southern and south- western Finland and in Ostrobothnia. Dairy farm- ing is regionally quite evenly distributed, but with a dominant line of production in central and northern Finland. Most of the piglet and pork farms are located in southern and western Fin- land. The location of livestock production is re- flected in the regional distribution of land use; the share of grassland in the cultivated area is large outside southern Finland. Policy scenarios The base scenario (i.e. extended Agenda 2000) provided the baseline forecast for the develop- ment path of agriculture in Finland. The predic- tions of alternative policy scenarios, the on-go- ing CAP reform and the liberalised agricultural trade, were compared with the results of the base scenario. Since adjustment to a policy change takes a long time, we compared the diversity of agricultural land use and production intensity between policy scenarios based on the sector model predictions of agricultural land use and production in 2015. The scenarios were chosen because they represent different degrees of de- coupling of direct aids. In the base and on-going CAP reform scenarios, the LFA, agri-environ- mental and national supports were assumed to remain at 2003 levels. Agenda 2000 On the basis of Agenda 2000 agreement, adopt- ed at the European Council in 1999, the price support for cereals and beef was reduced in 2000 and 2001. The resulting income losses to agri- cultural producers were partly compensated by increasing direct support, a share of which was paid from national funds. In the Agenda 2000 CAP reform, Finland was granted a permission to pay silage maize support (paid in the other EU countries) for grass, since maize is not grown in Finland. A special supplementary compensa- tion for the drying costs of cereals and oilseed plants (a.k.a. drying aid) was implemented ex- clusively in Finland and in northern Sweden. The reform of milk and milk products will be real- ised starting from the marketing year 2005/06. The administrative prices of butter and skimmed- milk powder will be cut by 15% in total until the marketing year 2007/08 (Ala-Mantila et al. 2000). On-going reform of the Common Agricultural Policy The on-going CAP reform scenario (from now on REF scenario) followed the CAP reform agreement made in June 2003, according to � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Fig.1. Main regions in the dynamic regional sector model of Finnish agriculture (DREMFIA). 233 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E Vol. 13 (2004): 229–246. which most direct CAP subsidies will be decou- pled from production and paid in a single, lump- sum farm payment based on 2000–2002 histori- cal production levels (Council 2003). On options given for the EU member states, the Finnish gov- ernment has decided that the implementation of the reform will start in 2006. From there on, all CAP arable area payments will be decoupled from production and a regionalised flat-rate pay- ment will be paid for all farms and all crops (in- cluding set-aside, but excluding some permanent crops). Also decoupled CAP animal support, based on 2000-2002 production, will be paid for individual farms. However, 75% of bull premia and 100% of suckler cow premium will remain coupled to production, i.e. paid per animal. The sum of coupled bull and suckler cow premia will not exceed 75% of the bull premia paid in the reference period 2000–2002. The farm-specific payments of decoupled animal support will be later included in the flat-rate payment (MMM 2004). Receiving decoupled CAP support will not require any agricultural commodity production. However, farmland has to be kept in good agri- cultural and environmental condition, and this means in practice that land has to be either cul- tivated or kept as set-aside land. In the REF sce- nario, no change in the EU level cereal prices is assumed. The intervention prices of butter and skimmed-milk powder will decrease by 25% and 15%, respectively, in 2004–2007. In 2007, it is assumed that the overall decrease in the average producer price of milk at the EU level will be 16% down from the 2003 price level. The price cuts will be compensated to by a direct payment of €35.50 per ton of milk quota. This payment becomes fully decoupled in 2007. Furthermore, 5% of all direct EU payments will be cut (mod- ulated) from 2007. Liberalised agricultural trade In the liberalised agricultural trade scenario (later LIB scenario), it was assumed that the global trade liberalisation will lead to the following drastic adjustments and reforms in agricultural policy. From 2010 onwards all agricultural sup- port, including national, LFA and agri-environ- mental support, will be decoupled from produc- tion and transformed into an area-based flat-rate support. Direct area payments will thus be equal for all crops and set-aside. Receiving support includes a requirement of maintaining land in good agricultural condition. The total sum of agricultural support will be reduced by 15% by year 2014. The prices of agricultural products in the EU will fall to world market price levels which are assumed to be 5–20% lower than the price levels in the REF scenario. EU cereal pric- es will decrease by 8% whereas beef and poul- try meat prices will decrease by 20% and pork prices by 10% from the 2002 level until 2010. These price cuts will not be compensated to pro- ducers. In the LIB scenario, the milk quota sys- tem was presumed to be abolished by 2010. It is assumed that the consequent reduction in butter prices will be 35% and 17.5% in skimmed-milk powder prices, resulting in a 28% reduction in the producer price of milk at EU level. Compen- sation paid for dairy farms would be €40.10 per ton of quota, fully decoupled after the abolition of the quotas. Diversity of agricultural land use The diversity of agricultural land use comprises of richness and evenness (Olson and Francis 1995). Richness of agricultural land use refers here to the number of different land-cover class- es, i.e. cultivated crops as well as bare and green fallow and uncultivated marginal agricultural land (Table 1). Evenness of agricultural land use, for its part, refers to the uniformity of distribu- tion of the area among land-cover classes. Shannon’s diversity index (SHDI) was ap- plied in the land-cover diversity calculations (McGarigal and Marks 1995). The index is based on information theory (Shannon 1948) and it is frequently used in diversity quantifications (cf. Di Falco and Perrings 2003, Hietala-Koivu et al. 2004). The values of SHDI were calculated ac- cording to the formula: 234 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E Miettinen, A. et al. On diversity effects of agricultural policy reforms m SHDI = – Σ (Pi × lnPi), i=1 where m is the number of land-cover classes, Pi measures the proportion of area covered by land- cover type i and ln denotes natural logarithm. SHDI is equal to zero when the agricultural area contains only one land-cover class (i.e. no di- versity). The value of Shannon’s diversity index increases as the number of different land-cover classes increases and/or the proportional distri- bution of the area among land-cover classes be- comes more equitable. Hence, for a given number of land-cover classes, SHDI reaches its maxi- mum when the proportions of land-cover class- es are uniform, i.e. P1 = P2 = … = Pm = 1/m (McGarigal and Marks 1995). Stocking density, livestock number, nutrient balance and pesticide application area Livestock stocking densities measure the inten- sity of animal production. Low density typical- ly benefits the environment. Stocking density for bovines was calculated by dividing the livestock units (LU) by hectares of area under grass. In- stead, when calculating stocking densities for pigs and poultry, hectares of fodder cereals (bar- ley, oats and mixed cereals) were used as a de- nominator. We also reported the total number of bovine animals because of their biodiversity- enhancing link to grazing and grass feed produc- tion. The aggregate surface balances (surplus/def- icit) for nitrogen and phosphorus per cultivated area, excluding set-aside, were calculated by adding the nutrient content of fertilisers, organ- ic manure, and nitrogen depositions, and by sub- tracting the mineral content of the harvest and losses to the atmosphere. The calculated nutri- ent surplus (kg ha-1) provides an indicator of the production intensity, and of the potential nutri- ent losses and environmental damage to surface and ground waters. The amount of pesticide application area was also reported. Chemical pesticides enhance ag- ricultural productivity but also pose potential risks to human health and the environment. They may, for example, cause contamination of sur- face water. Links to biological diversity The whole spectrum of biodiversity is complex and impossible to measure thoroughly (Duelli 1997). Therefore we focused on agricultural land use and measured its diversity at landscape lev- el. According to Jeanneret et al. (2003), the re- lationship between landscape and species diver- sities strongly depends on the organism exam- ined. Since agricultural land provides habitat area for both crops and wildlife (especially weeds, vascular plants, insect pollinators and birds), we based our analysis on previous stud- ies. The effects of land use changes to wildlife species diversity were discussed by means of examples from the relevant literature. Further- more, in many OECD countries the expansion of farm production and intensification of input use are considered a major cause of the loss of biodiversity (OECD 2001). Our approach also caters for these things even though the share of agricultural land in Finland is less than 10% of the total area (Yearbook of farm statistics 2002). While the Finnish agricultural sector model is applicable when predicting agricultural land use diversity, there are also some shortcomings in the approach used. Most importantly, since not designed for that purpose, the sector model ignores areas of field verges, buffer zones, tra- ditional rural biotopes and other semi-natural habitats which are important from the point of view of biological diversity. Furthermore, to en- able more accurate spatial analyses and predic- tions of the environmental effects of agriculture, the land use predictions of the agricultural sec- tor model should have been disaggregated to field parcel level. 235 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E Vol. 13 (2004): 229–246. Results Diversity of agricultural land use The aggregate agricultural land use results of the base, REF and LIB scenarios for 2015 are pre- sented in Table 1. The table shows also the ini- tial land allocation which corresponds to year 2002 and was also calculated using the DREM- FIA model. Agricultural land use predictions for four re- gions (southern Finland, central Finland, Ostro- bothnia, and northern Finland) are summarised in Table 2, where certain land-cover classes are pooled and some others (i.e. oilseed plants, peas, potatoes and sugar beets) are excluded to save space. The diversity of agricultural land use in each region and in whole Finland was measured by Shannon’s diversity index, the values of which are reported in Table 3. Continuation of Agenda 2000 The base run of the agricultural sector model indicated with certain exceptions that if the Agenda 2000 policy continued, there would be no substantial changes in the proportional areas of land-cover classes in the future (Table 1). However, the total amount of cultivated area, including fallow and cultivated grassland, would decrease significantly. The most important change therefore concerns the amount of mar- ginal farmland taken out of production, the area of which would increase more than ten times from 2002 to 2015. Such a change results main- ly from investments in larger dairy facilities which, in turn, lead to a regional concentration of agricultural commodity production within each individual region studied. Consequently, the demand for feed (grain and grass) decreases in many areas. This weakens endogenous market prices and the profitability of grain production. Because also pork and poultry production con- 236 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E Miettinen, A. et al. On diversity effects of agricultural policy reforms tinue to concentrate into large production units, some agricultural land is left idle. The relative increase in the uncultivated land area will be larg- est in northern Finland, but the absolute chang- es are largest in southern and central Finland (Table 2). Of the single crops, the area under oats in- creases, and the area under barley decreases along with the continuation of Agenda 2000. Table 1 also indicates that cultivation of winter wheat becomes relatively unprofitable, and the area under winter wheat decreases markedly by 237 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E Vol. 13 (2004): 229–246. 2015. This is due to higher production costs of winter wheat compared to spring wheat, while there is little difference in the crop yields be- tween them. Also the amount of bare fallow land diminishes in the future. The above-mentioned changes in land allo- cation lead to a bit more uneven aggregate land- cover class distribution in 2015. Therefore, the value of Shannon’s diversity index in 2015 cal- culated for the whole of Finland is lower than the corresponding value in 2002 (Table 3). There are, however, regional differences. Under Agen- da 2000, the decline in agricultural land use di- versity occurs in central and northern Finland. Instead, in southern Finland, the value of SHDI will slightly increase along with the increase in the uncultivated agricultural area. Agenda 2000 vs. the on-going reform of Common Agricultural Policy When comparing the agricultural land use pre- dictions of the on-going CAP reform scenario for 2015 to the corresponding results of the ex- tended Agenda 2000 scenario, we found that the REF scenario resulted in an almost four times larger green fallow area than the base scenario (Table 1). Correspondingly the areas devoted to barley, oats and grass will be significantly small- er under the REF scenario. These differences are due to cuts in milk price and decoupled CAP payments which considerably reduce incentives to invest in milk production in the REF scenar- io. Since farms are small and production costs are high, most dairy farmers who exit milk pro- duction make only the minimum effort to receive the CAP payments, i.e., they leave their land as set-aside. Only the most feasible areas of earlier grasslands will be used for grain production. In relative terms, the difference in the green set- aside area between the two scenarios is largest in northern and central Finland. In both regions, green set-aside area will increase significantly as a result of the REF scenario. Table 1 also indicates that the cultivation of rye almost comes to an end as a consequence of the CAP reform proposals which include elimi- nation of the intervention system for rye. In ad- dition, the amount of winter wheat cultivated in 2015 is minimal as a result of both scenarios. As a whole, the land-use predictions for the year 2015 indicate that agricultural land-use di- versity, measured by SHDI, will typically be low- er due to the on-going CAP policy reform when compared to the continuation of Agenda 2000. The only exception occurs in northern Finland, where the distribution of land-cover classes will become more even under the REF scenario, and the corresponding value of SHDI higher com- pared to the base scenario (Tables 2 and 3). This is mainly because of a decrease in silage and green fodder areas, both of which are dominat- ing land-cover classes in northern Finland. In addition, opposite to the other regions, the on- going CAP reform will slightly increase the ce- reals area of northern Finland (Table 2). Thus, when northern dairy farmers exit unprofitable dairy production, this not only adds set-aside ar- eas, but will also lead to a small increase in grain areas on those former grasslands where the costs of feed grain cultivation can be covered. Further- more, there will be no marginal agricultural land in northern Finland under the REF scenario. 238 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E Miettinen, A. et al. On diversity effects of agricultural policy reforms Agenda 2000 vs. liberalised agricultural trade Under the LIB scenario, 38% of the agricultural land area will be devoted to green set-aside in 2015 (Table 1) the area of which will be approx- imately five times larger than under the base sce- nario. The relative difference between the sce- nario predictions in green set-aside areas is great- est in northern and central Finland. A dramatic increase in fallow area is due to the fact that the world market prices alone do not provide a suf- ficient incentive to carry on animal and cereals production on most farms in Finland. Since area- based flat-rate support can be obtained if farm- land is kept in good agricultural condition, which is the case in fallow land, the vegetated set-aside thus provides a low-cost alternative to bare fal- low, because the vegetation does not need to be renewed every year (MKL 1995). Under liberalised agricultural trade, the are- as under fodder cereals (especially under bar- ley), green fodder, and silage decrease marked- ly. Table 1 also implies that compared to the base scenario, the area under each cereal is smaller as a result of the LIB scenario. In addition, the liberalised trade of agricultural products will bring down potato and sugar beet areas in Fin- land. Due to the high dominance of vegetated fal- low land, the values of SHDI for the LIB sce- nario are clearly lower than that of the base sce- nario in every region except in northern Finland (Table 3). In northern Finland, trade liberalisa- tion will especially decrease the area under si- lage grass, which is initially a dominant land- cover class, and will thus make the distribution of land-cover classes more uniform. Stocking density, livestock number, nutrient balance and pesticide application area The effects of the different agricultural policies on livestock densities are shown in Table 4. At the whole country level, the policy scenarios re- sult in almost equal livestock densities. Instead, in Ostrobothnia and southern Finland, the den- sities of bovine animals will increase under the REF and LIB scenarios. This somewhat unex- pected result is due to the fact that the remain- ing dairy and beef production concentrates into these regions and into large production units. In consequence, the availability of grassland near large farms will decrease and become more cost- ly, which will lead to more intensive production despite of reduced agricultural product prices and dairy cow volumes in the REF and LIB scenarios. Table 5 indicates that the number of dairy cows will decrease in the future as a result of reductions in the producer price of milk and of decoupling support from production. Even in the base scenario, fixed milk quotas and increasing yields per dairy cow will lead to reductions in animal numbers. While the number of dairy cows and the aggregate beef production will decrease, the number of beef cattle will increase by 2015 in the base and REF scenarios. The increases in both scenarios arise from the assumption that Finnish consumers have a strong preference for domestic meat, which, along with short supply, will keep domestic beef prices in Finland high. The simulated beef prices and beef cattle numbers in Table 5 are sensitive to the consum- er preference assumption. The calibrated substi- tution elasticities, which explain higher beef prices in Finland compared to the EU prices in the ex-post period, may exaggerate future do- mestic beef prices and hence the beef cattle num- bers in Finland. If Finnish consumers alter their consumption habits and shift to imported beef, then domestic beef prices and cattle numbers will go down in the future. Considerably lower beef prices and number of animals would also bring down phosphorous balances which tend to re- main high or even increase, as in Ostrobothnia in the current analysis (Table 6). One should also notice that, in the LIB scenario, the major de- crease in EU beef prices will result in decreas- ing beef prices in Finland, despite consumers’ strong preference for domestic beef. If the pref- erence becomes weaker, the decline of beef cat- tle numbers will be more rapid than the simulat- ed values in Table 5 point out. 239 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E Vol. 13 (2004): 229–246. The pig and poultry numbers are not present- ed in the table, but the decrease in their volume will be less radical than in the dairy sector. Lib- eralised agricultural trade will lead into the larg- est reduction in animal numbers. Instead, the differences between the effects of Agenda 2000 and the on-going CAP reform on pork and poul- try production volumes will be small. Regional differences in aggregate nutrient balances (kg ha-1) are considerable (Table 6). Both nitrogen and phosphorus surpluses are clearly largest in northern Finland already in 2002. This is due to the dominance of dairy pro- duction and the use of purchased feeds, such as concentrates and grain, in cattle feeding. In 2015, the LIB scenario will result in the lowest aggre- gate nitrogen and phosphorus surpluses in every region except in Ostrobothnia. This is because the liberalised trade of agricultural products con- centrates animal husbandry into Ostrobothnia, which together with low-cost imported feed grain results in a slightly higher phosphorus balance than the base or REF scenarios. Table 7 indicates that the agricultural areas treated with chemical pesticides will typically be smaller in future than today. The exceptions 240 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E Miettinen, A. et al. On diversity effects of agricultural policy reforms occur in Ostrobothnia under the base scenario and in northern Finland under the REF scenario, where larger cereal areas will lead to larger pes- ticide application areas. If we examine the land- use results at the whole country level in 2015, the pesticide application areas will be largest as a result of the base scenario and smallest as a result of the LIB scenario. When interpreting the results above, it is worth noting that the DREMFIA model does not include organic farming where no artificial fer- tiliser or pesticides are used. Hence only the rel- ative differences between the scenario results are important, not the absolute nutrient surpluses or pesticide application areas. Regional review of results Compared to the base scenario, decoupling of CAP support from production may slightly de- crease the area under cereals in southern Fin- land. The changes in dairy sector are clearly seen in the proportion of grassland area, which in southern Finland will be almost 25% smaller in 2015 as a result of the REF scenario. Instead, the fallow area may be over three times larger than under Agenda 2000 in 2015. These differ- ences in grassland and fallow areas due to de- coupling are also significant in absolute terms, since over a half of the total agricultural area is located in southern Finland. 241 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E Vol. 13 (2004): 229–246. Ostrobothnia is the second largest agricultur- al area included in the sector model. If direct aids are decoupled from production, the area under cereals in 2015 will be over 20% smaller than as a result of the base scenario. Fallow area, in turn, will be almost three times bigger. In grassland area, the deviation from Agenda 2000 is small, if CAP animal support is partially cou- pled to production. Instead, if it is fully decou- pled, the changes in proportions of land-cover classes and diversity measure by SHDI might be considerable in Ostrobothnia. When CAP support is disconnected from pro- duction, the cereals area will decrease relatively most in central Finland. In 2015, it will be ap- proximately 30% smaller than as a result of Agenda 2000 policy. The grassland area in turn will be at least 10% smaller, but the fallow area may be over five times larger. It is possible that the cereals area in northern Finland might increase slightly if CAP support is decoupled from production. The greatest in- crease is, however, in the fallow area, which, compared to the base scenario prediction in 2015, will be over 10 times larger as a result of the REF or LIB scenario. The area under grass, for its part, will be approximately 10% smaller. The agricultural production is intensive: both nitro- gen and phosphorus surpluses on cultivated area are high in northern Finland as a result of all scenarios studied. Discussion and conclusions The aim of this study was to predict and com- pare the diversity effects of alternative agricul- tural policy reforms in Finland. When we evalu- ated the effects of policies on agricultural land use, the main finding was that the amount of fal- low land, and especially that of green fallow, will increase considerably if agricultural support pay- ments are decoupled from production. Although establishing a green fallow is more expensive than establishing a bare fallow, the maintenance costs of green fallows are lower than the respec- tive costs of maintaining bare fallows. Based on the farm-level production cost calculations of the Union of Rural Advisory Centres (MKL 1995), this makes green fallows more profitable than bare fallows in a five-year period, and thus the predicted increase in the area of green fallows is justified. In addition, it should be noted that the above results depend on the environmental cross- compliance requirement of keeping the land in good agricultural condition included in the REF and LIB scenarios. Without this requirement, the decoupling of support payments may lead into land abandonment. At landscape level, those policy reforms, in which support is decoupled, change land use and decrease diversity of agricultural land-cover classes in almost all parts of the country, except in northern Finland. The effect on the biological diversity, however, may not be as harmful as Shannon’s diversity index implies, since at spe- cies level, green fallows seem to have some pos- itive effects, especially on the densities and abun- dance of farmland birds, game animals and over- wintering invertebrates (Haukioja et al. 1985, Helenius et al. 1995, Tiainen and Pakkala 2000, Tiainen and Pakkala 2001). Firbank et al. (2003) concluded that particularly rotational set-aside provides suitable habitats for breeding birds, but the benefits of short-term set-aside for rare ara- ble plants in England were little. Corbet (1995), on the other hand, considered long-term set-aside as a possibility to establish patches of undis- turbed perennial herbaceous vegetation and their associated fauna. Furthermore, Steffan-Dewenter and Tscharntke (1997), Critchley and Fowbert (2000) and Kuussaari and Heliölä (2004) re- marked that green fallows are poorer habitats than meadows when considering species diver- sity of vascular plants or butterflies and other insects. It is also interesting to note that if CAP sup- port remained coupled to production, i.e. if the Agenda 2000 policy were to continue, there would be a risk that the area of land taken out of agricultural production might increase especial- ly in southern and central Finland. This is be- 242 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E Miettinen, A. et al. On diversity effects of agricultural policy reforms cause it may be economically rational to leave land as it is, since agricultural support under Agenda 2000 is linked to production and the es- tablishment of set-aside or fallow includes costs. Pykälä (2001) and Paukkunen and Raatikainen (2004) have assessed that the soil of fields is so enriched with nutrients that uncultivated fields will convert into forest fast if they are not regu- larly grazed or mown and plant biomass collect- ed. In this case, the loss of visual landscape is evident, since, as a general rule, the scenic beauty of agricultural landscapes in Finland decreases with increasing intensity of afforestation (Tah- vanainen et al. 1996, Hietala-Koivu et al. 1999, Tyrväinen and Tahvanainen 1999). Large-scale abandonment of agricultural land decreases also habitats of species living in agricultural environ- ments, and they will be partly replaced by spe- cies thriven in woody habitats. The degree of decline in biodiversity in agricultural environ- ments may also depend on initial land use (i.e. whether the abandoned areas are open fields or species-rich traditional rural biotopes). We com- pared agricultural land use at the aggregate lev- el and found only minor changes between sce- narios in the proportional distribution of the land- cover classes that remain under cultivation or set- aside. Most abandoned land will doubtlessly come from low-productive set-aside and grass- land areas, but the increase in the marginal land area in the base scenario is so remarkable that also areas from other land-cover classes are left uncultivated. Studying this topic in more detail would require examining changes on field par- cel level. Of the single crops, it seems that the culti- vated area of winter wheat will decrease from the current level as a result of each scenario stud- ied. This is an unfavourable development from the points of view of biological diversity and potential nutrient leaching, since winter cereals offer vegetation cover for soil during winter. The area under another winter cereal, rye, is highly dependent on the crop price paid. In the calcula- tions above, it was assumed that the 2002 price level for rye is retained only under Agenda 2000. The amount of cultivated grassland, on the oth- er hand, is closely linked to the effects of re- forms in the dairy sector. The differences in grassland area and dairy cow numbers are mod- erate between the base and REF scenarios, but both scenarios differ significantly from the out- come of liberalised agricultural trade which re- sults in smaller livestock units and grass area. Everywhere except in northern Finland, the chemical pesticide application area is smaller under the REF and LIB scenarios than as a re- sult of the base scenario, since cereal, potato and sugar beet areas will decrease if direct aid pay- ments are decoupled from production. This will benefit, for example, farmland birds since re- duced use of pesticides may increase the amount of insect prey. In the aggregate level of Finland, the LIB scenario results in lower nitrogen and phospho- rus surpluses than the base or REF scenarios in 2015. This is because livestock production, and especially the number of dairy cows, decreases if CAP animal support is fully decoupled. Al- though decrease in nutrient surpluses is desira- ble, a decline in livestock farming has also neg- ative environmental effects since outdoor graz- ing tends to decline. Furthermore, the crop rota- tion on a farm becomes more simplified when the farmer exits animal husbandry, since grass- land is no longer needed in the farm (Pitkänen 2001). It is also important to notice that decou- pling direct aids from production will not nec- essarily lead into lower nutrient leaching poten- tial from cultivated agricultural lands. This is because the cultivated area may relatively de- crease even more than the number of livestock units, and this is exactly what happens under the on-going CAP reform scenario which in many areas leads into higher nutrient surpluses per cultivated area than the base scenario. In other words, although agricultural land use in future will be extensive at aggregate level, there may be some large production units and intensive geographical regions in Finland where animal production is concentrated. On one hand, this may cause environmental problems, but on the other hand, concentration of farming activities may facilitate the control of these problems. 243 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E Vol. 13 (2004): 229–246. Acknowledgements. The authors are indebted to Prof. Anni Huhtala for her constructive comments and cheerful en- couragement. We also like to thank Ms. Anja Yli-Viikari for commenting on an earlier version of this paper. Fur- thermore, Reija Hietala-Koivu and Antti Miettinen espe- cially acknowledge the contributions of Prof. Ilkka P. Lau- rila and the other members of the BIAPIA/Fibre research group in valuable discussions. We were privileged to be- long to such a research group. Funding from the Academy of Finland and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is gratefully acknowledged. Appendix Main elements of the dynamic regional sector model of Finnish agriculture The dynamic regional sector model of Finnish agriculture (DREMFIA) is a dynamic recursive model which simu- lates the development of agricultural investments and mar- kets from 1995 to 2020. The structure of the model is pre- sented in Figure A-1. The model consists of two major parts: (1) a technology diffusion model which determines sector level investments in different production technologies, and (2) an optimisation routine which simulates annual produc- tion decisions (within the limits of fixed factors) and price changes, i.e., supply and demand reactions, by maximising producer and consumer surpluses subject to regional prod- uct balance and resource (land and capital) constraints. The most important medium- and long-term driving force of agricultural production in the model is the module of technology diffusion. Nevertheless, if major changes take place in production, price changes, as simulated by the op- timisation model, are also important to consider. The Arm- ington assumption, which means that imported and domes- tic products are imperfect substitutes, is utilised. The chang- es in domestic production and foreign trade of agricultural products imply price changes. Parameters of the demand system have been calibrated in order to replicate the ex- post price development in 1995–2002. Optimisation pro- vides the annual market balance using the outcome of the previous year as the initial value. There are, however, re- strictions on the annual changes of some production varia- bles. The restrictions represent short-run technical and bio- logical constraints in each production line. The restrictions are validated so that annual changes may be at least as large as the average annual changes in 1990–2002. Hence, the changes in land use may be relatively large (10–50%) an- nually, and very large until 2015. The model reaches a steady-state equilibrium in a 10 to 15 year period when all variables, including capital, have reached an endogenous optimal solution. The sector model includes four main regions, southern Finland, central Finland, Ostrobothnia, and northern Fin- land, and the production of these is further divided into sub- Policy scenarios Crop yield functions - optimal level of fertilisation Steering module - bounds for land use variables; validated to observed data - trends in consumption - inflation - increase in crop and animal yield potential Model of technology diffusion - endogenous sector level investment and technical change - investments depend on relative profitability and accessibility of each technique - gradual shifts of capital to best performing techniques Results/Initial values production land use consumption prices imports exports transportation t = t + 1 MAX: producer and consumer surplus - annual market equilibrium - different yields and inputs in regions - feed use of animals changes endogenously - constraints on energy, protein and roughage needs of animals - non-linear milk yield functions for dairy cows - domestic and imported products are imperfect substitutes - processing activities of milk and sugar - export cost functions Optimisation Fig. A-1. Basic structure of the dynamic regional sector model of Finnish agriculture (DREMFIA). 244 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E Miettinen, A. et al. On diversity effects of agricultural policy reforms regions on the basis of agricultural support areas. The final and intermediate products can be transported between the main regions at certain transportation costs. Milk products and sugar are priced at the retail level. All other products are priced at the producer price level. The optimal fertilisation level is determined by the fer- tilisation response function and by crop and fertiliser pric- es. Animal yields grow linearly in time, although feeding affects the milk yield of dairy cows. Certain energy, rough- age and protein needs have to be fulfilled. No explicit con- nections to the other sectors of the economy are made. In- flation rate, price of labour, price elasticity of demand and exogenous trends for consumption represent general eco- nomic conditions and consumers’ preferences. The sector model caters for the most important pro- duction lines of agriculture, including crop production, dairy production, production of beef, pork and poultry meat, as well as egg production. The arable crops, as an example, comprise barley, oats, malting barley, mixed cereals, rye, wheat, oil-seed plants, sugar beets, potatoes for human con- sumption, starch potatoes, silage, green fodder, dry hay, and peas. Bare and green set-asides are also included in the model. References Ala-Mantila, O., Lehtonen, H., Aakkula, J., Knaapinen, P., Laurila, I.P. & Niemi, J. 2000. Agenda 2000:n vai- kutus Suomen maatalouteen. Maatalouden taloudel- linen tutkimuslaitos. Tutkimuksia 244. Helsinki, Fin- land. 148 p. Altieri, M.A. 1999. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Envi- ronment 74: 19–31. Collins, W.W. & Hawtin, G.C. 1999. Conserving and us- ing crop plant biodiversity in agroecosystems. In: Collins, W.W. & Qualset, C.O. (eds.). Biodiversity in Agroecosystems. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL, USA. p. 267–282. Council of the European Union 2003. CAP reform – pres- idency compromise (in agreement with the commis- sion). Cited 2 July 2004. Available on the Internet: h t t p : / / r e g i s t e r. c o n s i l i u m . e u . i n t / p d f / e n / 0 3 / s t 1 0 / st10961en03.pdf. Cooper, J., Johansson, R. & Peters, M. 2003. Some do- mestic environmental effects of U.S. agricultural ad- justments under liberalized trade. A preliminary anal- ysis. Accepted Paper. In: International Conference “Agricultural policy reform and the WTO: where are we heading?” Capri, Italy; June 23–26, 2003. Cited 2 July 2004. Available on the Internet: http://www. e c o s t a t . u n i c a l . i t / 2 0 0 3 a g t r a d e c o n f / C o n t r i b - u t e d % 2 0 p a p e r s / C o o p e r, % 2 0 J o h a n s s o n % 2 0 and%20Peters.pdf Corbet, S.A. 1995. Insects, plants and succession: ad- vantages of long-term set-aside. Agriculture, Ecosys- tems and Environment 53: 201–217. Critchley, C.N.R. & Fowbert, J.A. 2000. Development of vegetation on set-aside land for up to nine years from a national perspective. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 79: 159–174. Di Falco, S. & Perrings, C. 2003. Crop genetic diversity, productivity and stability of agroecosystem. A theo- retical and empirical investigation. Scottish Journal of Political Economy 50: 207–216. Duelli, P. 1997. Biodiversity evaluation in agricultural land- scapes: An approach at two different scales. Agricul- ture, Ecosystems and Environment 62: 81–91. European Commission 2003a. Mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy. July proposals. Impact analyses. February 2003. European Commission, Directorate-General for Agriculture, Brussels. Cited 9 September 2003. Available on the Internet: http:// europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/publi/reports/mtrim- pact/rep_en.pdf European Commission 2003b. Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. A long-term perspective for sus- tainable agriculture. Impact Analysis. March 2003. European Commission, Directorate-General for Ag- riculture, Brussels. Cited 9 September 2003. Availa- ble on the Internet: http://europa.eu.int/comm/agri- culture/publi/reports/reformimpact/rep_en.pdf Firbank, L.G., Smart, S.M., Crabb, J., Critchley, C.N.R., Fowbert, J.W., Fuller, R.J., Gladders, P., Green, D.B., Henderson, I. & Hill, M.O. 2003. Agronomic and eco- logical costs and benefits of set-aside in England. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment 95: 73–85. Haukioja, M., Kalinainen, P. & Nuotio, K. 1985. Maatalou- den vaikutus peltolinnustoon: esitutkimusrapor tti. Ympäristöministeriön ympäristön- ja luonnonsuoje- luosaston julkaisu A:34. Ympäristöministeriö. Helsin- ki, Finland. 50 p. Helenius, J., Tuomola, S. & Nummi, P. 1995. Viljely-ym- päristön muutosten vaikutus peltopyyn ravintoon. Suomen Riista 41: 42–52. Hietala-Koivu, R., Lankoski, J. & Tarmi, S. 2004. Loss of biodiversity and its social cost in an agricultural land- scape. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment 103: 75–83. Hietala-Koivu, R., Tahvanainen, L., Nousiainen, I., Heik- kilä, T., Alanen, A., Ihalainen, M., Tyrväinen, L. & He- lenius, J. 1999. Visuaalinen maisema maatalouden ympäristöohjelman vaikuttavuuden seurannassa. Maatalouden tutkimuskeskuksen julkaisuja. Sarja A 50. Maatalouden tutkimuskeskus. Jokioinen, Finland. 27 p. Jeanneret, Ph., Schüpbach, B. & Luka, H. 2003. Quanti- fying the impact of landscape and habitat features on biodiversity in cultivated landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment 98: 311–320. Kuussaari, M. & Heliölä, J. 2004. Perhosten monimuotoi- suus eteläsuomalaisilla maatalousalueilla. In: Kuus- saari, M. et al. (eds.). Maatalouden ympäristötuen merkitys luonnon monimuotoisuudelle ja maisemal- le: MYTVAS-seurantatutkimus 2000–2003. Suomen ympäristö (in press). 245 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E Vol. 13 (2004): 229–246. Lehtonen, H. 2001. Principles, structure and application of Dynamic Regional Sector Model of Finnish agricul- ture. Agrifood Research Finland, Economic Research (MTTL). Publications 98. Helsinki, Finland. 265 p. Lehtonen, H. 2004. Impacts of de-coupling agricultural support on dairy investments and milk production volume in Finland. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section C–Economy 1, 1: 46–62. McGarigal, K. & Marks, B.J. 1995. FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. USDA Forest Services. PNW-GTR-351. Portland, OR, USA. 122 p. MKL 1995. Mallilaskelmat. Suunnitteluosaston sarja A 24. Maaseutukeskusten liitto. Helsinki, Finland. 112 p. MMM 2004. Implementation of the CAP-reform in Fin- land. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Finland. Press release 26 May 2004. Cited 2 July 2004. Avail- able on the Internet: http://www.mmm.fi/tiedotteet2/ tiedote.asp?nro=1481 MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Economic Research & Pellervo Economic Research Institute 2004. The re- form of the European Union’s (EU) Common Agricul- tural Policy (CAP) in Finnish agriculture. In: Lehto- nen, H. (ed.). CAP-uudistus Suomen maataloudes- sa. Helsinki, Finland. MTT:n selvityksiä 62. p. 13–21. OECD 2001. Environmental indicators for agriculture. Methods and results. Volume 3. Organisation for Eco- nomic Co-operation and Development Paris, France. 409 p. Olson, R.K. & Francis, C.A. 1995. A hierarchical frame- work for evaluating diversity in agroecosystems. In: Olson, R. et al. (eds.). Exploring the role of diversity in sustainable agriculture. American Society of Agron- omy. Madison, WI, USA. p. 5–34. Paukkunen, J. & Raatikainen, K. 2004. Tuoreiden niittyjen eliöyhteisöihin vaikuttavat paikalliset ja alueelliset tekijät. In: Kuussaari, M. et al. (eds.). Perinnebiotoop- pien kasvi- ja eläinlajiston säilyttäminen. Suomen ympäristö (in press). Pitkänen, M. 2001. Plants. In: Pitkänen, M. & Tiainen, J. (eds.). Biodiversity of agricultural landscapes in Fin- land. BirdLife Finland Conservation Series No. 3. Helsinki, Finland. p. 13–32. Pykälä, J. 2001. Perinteinen karjatalous luonnon moni- muotoisuuden ylläpitäjänä. Suomen ympäristö 495. Suomen ympäristökeskus. Helsinki, Finland. 205 p. Shannon, C.E. 1948. A mathematical theory of commu- nication. Bell System Technical Journal 27: 379–423, 623–656. Southwood, R.E. & Way, M.J. 1970. Ecological back- ground to pest management. In: Rabb, R.C. & Guthrie, F.E. (eds.). Concepts of pest management. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA. p. 6– 29. Steffan-Dewender, I. & Tscharntke, T. 1997. Early suc- cession of butterfly and plant communities on set- aside fields. Oecologia 109: 294–304. Tahvanainen, L., Tyrväinen, L. & Nousiainen, I. 1996. Ef- fect of afforestation on the scenic value of rural land- scape. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 11: 397–405. Tiainen, J. & Pakkala, T. 2000. Population changes and monitoring of farmland birds in Finland. In: Linnut- vuosikirja 1999. BirdLife Suomi. Helsinki, Finland. p. 98–105. Tiainen, J. & Pakkala, T. 2001. Birds. In: Pitkänen, M. & Tiainen, J. (eds.). Biodiversity of agricultural land- scapes in Finland. BirdLife Finland Conservation Series No. 3. Helsinki, Finland. p. 33–50. Topp, C.F.E. & Mitchell, M. 2003. Forecasting the envi- ronmental and socio-economic consequences of changes in the Common Agricultural Policy. Agricul- tural Systems 76: 227–252. Tyrväinen, L. & Tahvanainen, L. 1999. Using computer graphics for assessing the aesthetic value of large scale landscapes. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 14: 282–288. Uusitalo, P. 2003. Finnish farm. In: Niemi, J. & Ahlstedt, J. (eds.). Finnish agriculture and rural industries. Agri- food Research Finland, Economic Research (MTTL). Publications 103a. Helsinki, Finland. p. 18–21. Yearbook of Farm Statistics 2002. Official statistic of Fin- land. Agriculture, forestry and fishery 2002:65. Infor- mation Centre of the Ministry of Agriculture and For- estry. Helsinki, Finland. 266 p. 246 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E Miettinen, A. et al. On diversity effects of agricultural policy reforms Euroopan unioni uudistaa yhteistä maatalouspolitiik- kaansa. Valtaosa EU:n kokonaan rahoittamista maa- taloustuista irrotetaan tuotannosta ja maksetaan vil- jelijöille tulotukena. Tutkimuksessa ennustettiin maa- talouden sektorimallin avulla kuinka CAP-tukien ir- rottaminen tuotannosta vaikuttaa maatalousmaan käyt- töön, tuotannon intensiteettiin sekä maiseman ja la- jien monimuotoisuuteen Suomessa. Tarkasteltavia ske- naarioita oli kaksi: yhteisen maatalouspolitiikan uudistusehdotusten mukainen skenaario ja vapaakaup- paskenaario. Politiikkavaihtoehtojen tuloksena saatuja ennusteita maatalousmaan käytöstä, maiseman moni- muotoisuudesta, torjunta-aineilla käsitellystä pelto- alasta, eläintiheyksistä ja ravinnetaseista vuonna 2015 verrattiin perusskenaarion ennusteisiin vastaavana ajankohtana. Perusskenaariossa oletettiin, että myös tulevaisuudessa jatketaan Agenda 2000:n mukaista politiikkaa, jossa CAP-tuet on sidottu tuotantoon. Yhteisen maatalouspolitiikan uudistusehdotusten mukainen CAP-tukien irrottaminen tuotannosta vä- SELOSTUS Maatalouspolitiikkauudistusten vaikutuksista pellonkäytön diversiteettiin Antti Miettinen, Heikki Lehtonen ja Reija Hietala-Koivu MTT (Maa- ja elintarviketalouden tutkimuskeskus) ja Helsingin yliopisto hentää viljelymaiseman monimuotoisuutta useilla alueilla Suomessa ja johtaa lähes neljä kertaa suurem- paan viherkesantojen pinta-alaan vuonna 2015 kuin Agenda 2000:n mukainen politiikka. Vapaakauppa- skenaarion seurauksena pellonkäyttö muuttuu saman- suuntaisesti, mutta voimakkaammin kuin CAP-uudis- tuksen perusteella. Maankäytön muutoksesta johtu- vat vaikutukset maatalousluonnon monimuotoisuu- teen eivät kuitenkaan todennäköisesti ole kokonaisuu- dessaan haitallisia, sillä viherkesantojen on todettu vaikuttavan myönteisesti etenkin peltolinnustoon. Sen sijaan kotieläintuotannon muutokset vaikuttavat to- dennäköisesti haitallisesti luonnon monimuotoisuu- teen, sillä erityisesti nautakarjan määrä vähenee, mi- käli viljelijän tuotantopäätös ei vaikuta tuen suuruu- teen. Tällöin ravinneylijäämät pienenevät, mutta sa- malla karjasta luopuneiden tilojen viljelykierto yksi- puolistuu, ja laiduntamisen hyödyt luonnon moni- muotoisuudelle vähentyvät. On diversity effects of alternative agricultural policy Introduction Methods Results Discussion and conclusions Appendix References SELOSTUS << /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /All /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Gray Gamma 1.8) /CalRGBProfile (Apple RGB) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Sheetfed Uncoated v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Warning /CompatibilityLevel 1.4 /CompressObjects /Tags /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJDFFile false /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams true /MaxSubsetPct 99 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile (Color Management Off) /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth 8 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /FlateEncode /AutoFilterColorImages false /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth 8 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /FlateEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages false /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None) /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org) /PDFXTrapped /Unknown /Description << /FRA /JPN /DEU /PTB /DAN /NLD /ESP /SUO /ITA /NOR /SVE /ENU >> >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [1200 1200] /PageSize [595.276 841.890] >> setpagedevice