A presentation at the WCCA 2011 event in Brisbane.

1. 1
The spatial aggregation of agricultural intensity
What opportunities for policy targeting?
F. Teillard, G. Allaire, E. Cahuzac, F. Léger, E. Maigné and M. Tichit
WCCA – Brisbane – September, 29th, 2011
FOOD
AGRICULTURE
ENVIRONMENT

2. Introduction 2
How to improve the efficiency of conservation policies?
One option : better spatial targeting (Feehan 2005, Uthes 2010)
Agri-environment budget ( 10 €)
1.0
French Farmland Bird Index
6
2000
0.9
1500
0.8
1000
500
0.7
0
0.6
1990 1995 2000 2005
Year

3. Introduction – Objectives 3
Map agricultural intensity on large scale, at resolution adequate
for policy targeting
.
• We develop an intensity indicator
computable on large scale
• We estimate it at infra regional
resolution
.
• We map agricultural intensity and
.
test for its aggregation

4. Methods – The intensity indicator 4
The Input Cost / ha intensity indicator (€ / ha)
• Relevant for the five main production types in France (84% of total UAA)
• Computed with FADN variables (Farm Accountancy Data Network)
• Estimated at higher resolution using other agricultural datasets

5. Methods – Spatial scale and resolution 5
National scale, Small Agric. Region (“SAR”) resolution
• Estimation
100
Region
accuracy/resolution 100km
Estimation accuracy
90
trade-off
80
Department SAR
70
County
60
50 Municipality
0 20 40 60 80 100
Estimation resolution
• The local Moran index of
spatial auto-correlation
High LM Low LM

6. Results – Agricultural intensity indicator 6
The IC / ha indicator displays a broad intensity gradient
0.0020
Frequency
0.0010
0.0000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Intensity - IC / ha (€ / ha)

7. Results – Agricultural intensity indicator 7
Production types and cost structure along the intensity gradient:
< 300 €/ha > 500 €/ha
Mainly All production Mainly
bovine livestock types indus. crops bovine dairy
Fertilizers
Feed
Pesticides
Seed
Other

8. Results – Agricultural intensity distribution 8
The distribution of agricultural intensity:
• Sharp regional contrasts
• Infra-regional heterogeneity
.
Random
100km
≠
Intensity - .
IC / ha (€ / ha)
600 Regional
500
400 averages
300
200

9. Results – Agricultural intensity aggregation 9
Segregation of agricultural intensity: clusters of significant
aggregation within the two intensity extremes
Aggregation (local Moran)
0.025
0.015
100km
0.005
Intensity -
IC / ha (€ / ha)
500
-0.005
0 200 400 600 800 1000
300
Significant NS
Intensity - IC / ha (€ / ha)
aggregation aggregation

10. Discussion 10
We show strong spatial segregation of agricultural intensity
.
+ Indicator and method usable in other countries
- Other intensity components should be combined with the IC/ha

11. Discussion 11
The theory (Primdahl 2003, Kleijn 2003) :
“Improvement” measures “Protection” measures
Target most sensitive area Target high quality areas
Reverse biodiversity decline? Current focus
Our results give opportunity for going from theory to practice
.

12. 12
Thank you
Submitted paper: The spatial aggregation of agricultural intensity: what implications
for conservation policies?
email: teillard@agroparistech.fr
Funding 2009-2012: FarmBird Project
“Coviability models of FARMing and BIRD biodiversity”