Environmental Impacts of Pillar I and II with Specific Respect to Designated Areas – Results from the MEA-Scope Case Study in Germany

  • Claudia Sattler
  • Sandra Uthes
  • Uwe Heinrich


Impact assessment is a procedure that goes along with the preparation of policies and is a key instrument to support political decision-making. An environmental impact assessment (EIA) focuses on the likely environmental effects of a policy option. Of specific interest in this context are effects with respect to environmentally sensitive areas such as Natura 2000 areas. This chapter presents an indicator-based modelling approach for the assessment of environmental impacts of alternative policy scenarios with varying policy settings of pillar I and II of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The application of the modelling approach is presented for a case study region in North Eastern Germany. Results show that decoupling of direct payments leads to a trend towards intensification on arable land, which is associated with negative impacts for most of the analysed environmental indicators. On the contrary, on grassland an extensification takes place, which is beneficial for most of the indicators and can be seen as an effect of cross compliance regulations in pillar II and reduced livestock numbers. In the analysed liberalisation scenarios an intensifycation on both land cover types, arable land and grassland, can be observed. A large extent of agricultural land is abandoned and land use of the land remaining in agricultural production is intensified. This effect gets even more pronounced if pillar II measures are ceased.


environmental impact assessment designated areas modelling policy scenario analysis CAP pillar I and II 


  1. Brandenburg regional (2006) Brandenburg regional 2006 – eine räumliche Bestandsaufnahme der Regionen, Landkreise und kreisfreien Städte. Landkreis Ostprignitz-RuppinGoogle Scholar
  2. Damgaard M, Osuch A, Happe K, Uthes S, Reinhardt F, Sattler C, Zander P, Detlefsen N, Hutchings N (2006) Documentation of the MEA-Scope tool prototypes with special focus on their capabilities to analyse multifunctionality policies. Available at: Cited 24 January 2008
  3. Daunicht W, Salski A, Nohr P, Neubert C (1996) A fuzzy knowledge-based model of annual production of skylarks. Ecological Modelling 85: 67–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. EC (1979) Birds Directive: Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birdsGoogle Scholar
  5. EC (1992) Habitats Directive: Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and floraGoogle Scholar
  6. EC (2001a) A Sustainable Europe for a Better World: A European Union Strategy for Sustainable DevelopmentGoogle Scholar
  7. EC (2001b) SEA Directive: Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the EnvironmentGoogle Scholar
  8. EC (2003) EIA Directive: Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by 97/11/EC and 2003/35/ECGoogle Scholar
  9. EC (2004) The Common Agricultural Policy – A Policy Evolving With The TimesGoogle Scholar
  10. Mertens M, Huwe B (2002) FuN-Balance: a fuzzy balance approach for the calculation of nitrate leaching with incorporation of data imprecision. Geoderma 109: 269–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mitra B, Scott HD, Dixon JC, McKimmey JM (1998) Applications of fuzzy logic to the prediction of soil erosion in a large watershed. Geoderma 86: 183–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Oldham RS, Latham DM, Hilton-Brown D, Towns M, Cooke AS, Burn A (1997) The effect of ammonium nitrate fertiliser on frog (Rana temporaria) survival. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 61: 69–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Piorr A, Müller K, Happe K, Uthes S, Sattler C (2007) Agricultural management issues of implementing multifunctionality: commodity and non-commodity production in the approach of the MEA-Scope project. In: Mander Ü, Helming K, Wiggering H (eds) Multifunctional Land Use: Meeting Future Demands for Landscape Goods and Services. Springer, Berlin, pp 167–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sattler C, Schuler J, Zander P (2006) Determination of trade-off functions to analyse the provision of agricultural non-commodities. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance & Ecology 5: 309–325Google Scholar
  15. Schachtschabel P, Blume HP, Brümmer G, Hartge KH, Schwertmann U (1992) In: Scheffer F, Schachtschabel P (eds) Lehrbuch der Bodenkunde. Ferdinand Enke Verlag, Stuttgart, pp 1–491Google Scholar
  16. SEC (2005) Impact Assessment Guidelines. Available at: Cited 24 January 2008
  17. Silvert W (2000) Fuzzy indices of environmental conditions. Ecological Modelling 130: 111–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. van der Werf HMG, Zimmer C (1998) An indicator of pesticide environmental impact based on a fuzzy expert system. Chemosphere 36: 2225–2249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. van Elsen T (2000) Species diversity as a task for organic agriculture in Europe. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 77: 101–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wilson JD, Evans J, Browne SJ, King JR (1997) Territory distribution and breeding success of skylarks Alauda arvensis on organic and intensive farmland in southern England. Journal of Applied Ecology 34: 1462–1478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zadeh LA (1994) The role of fuzzy-logic in modeling, identification and control. Modeling Identification and Control 15: 191–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudia Sattler
    • 1
  • Sandra Uthes
    • 1
  • Uwe Heinrich
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Socio-EconomicsLeibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF)MünchebergGermany
  2. 2.Department of Landscape Information SystemsLeibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF)MünchebergGermany

Personalised recommendations