MEASURING THE IMPACT OF NORWEGIAN AGRICULTURE ON HABITATS Wendy Fjellstad Plenary Session 2 --
|
|
- Myra Wells
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 MEASURING THE IMPACT OF NORWEGIAN AGRICULTURE ON HABITATS Wendy Fjellstad 1 -- Plenary Session 2 -- Ecosystem/Habitats Impacted by Agricultural Activities Tuesday 6 November 2001 Paper presented to the: OECD Expert Meeting on Agri-Biodiversity Indicators 5-8 November 2001 Zürich, Switzerland 1 Institute of Land Inventory, Norway.
2 MEASURING THE IMPACT OF NORWEGIAN AGRICULTURE ON HABITATS Wendy Fjellstad, Institute of Land Inventory, Norway. ABSTRACT This paper discusses the potential and limitations of the indicators for wildlife habitat that are being developed by the OECD. We examine the six indicators that have been suggested under this theme and comment on data availability and policy relevance for Norway. As a contribution to further indicator development, the paper presents simple methods for measuring landscape heterogeneity and fragmentation, drawing on experience from the Norwegian Monitoring Programme for Agricultural Landscapes. Heterogeneity has previously been outlined by the OECD as an important landscape characteristic for wildlife, however, concern has been expressed over its interpretability. This paper examines the issues involved. We conclude with a recommendation to begin implementation of the OECD indicators for wildlife habitats. THE PROPOSED WILDLIFE HABITAT INDICATORS. Current work under the auspices of the OECD Joint Working Party of the Committee for Agriculture and the Environment Policy Committee (JWP) has lead to the development of a number of environmental indicators for agriculture. Indicators are grouped according to various themes of interest and are intended to provide information to support the agri-environmental policy process. Under the theme Wildlife Habitats, six indicators have been proposed in the report Environmental indicators for agriculture: methods and results (OECD, 2001). These are: The share of each crop in the total agricultural area The share of organic agriculture in the total agricultural area The share of the agricultural area covered by semi-natural agricultural habitats Net area of aquatic ecosystems converted to agricultural use The area of natural forest converted to agricultural use Habitat matrix 1
3 In Norway, the data necessary for reporting these indicators will come from a variety of sources. The share of each crop in the total agricultural area and the share of organic agriculture in the total agricultural area are relatively straightforward to report, and are data that are also reported internationally for other purposes. The challenge will be to interpret how these agricultural statistics relate to wildlife habitats and conditions for biological diversity. The establishment of habitat matrix data, linking species information with crop type, will aid in this endeavour (see below). The share of the agricultural area covered by semi-natural agricultural habitats is a more difficult indicator to calculate, yet its relevance as wildlife habitat is very clear. It is estimated that about half of the European network of Natura 2000 sites designated under the Habitats and Species Directive (92/43/EEC) are farmed environments (Macdonald et al., 2000). These are ecosystems associated with low intensity agricultural use. The Norwegian Monitoring Programme for Agricultural Landscapes (the 3Q programme ) will provide the standardised data that is required at a national level, for landscapes that are dominated by active agriculture. An important point for this programme is to capture data on the entire landscape, not just different types of agricultural land or the most valued habitats. Thus small biotopes within agricultural areas will also be monitored. These areas may not be of high value but they make the landscape more hospitable to wildlife. By also ensuring that we take care of the common, everyday species of the farming landscape we may more easily ensure that these species do not become the red-listed species of future generations. Figure 1 shows an example of a 3Q monitoring square, where newly collected data from the first year of the monitoring programme (1998) is compared with historical data from an aerial photograph from 1965 (mapped using the same methods). This historical example illustrates the types of changes that it will be possible to quantify in the future from the 3Q programme. 2
4 Figure 1: Map of a monitoring square (1 x 1 km) from the national monitoring programme for agricultural landscapes in a) 1965 and b) 1998, illustrating the simplification of agricultural land in a relatively intensively cultivated part of Norway. Many small biotopes have disappeared from the landscape, being replaced by either arable fields (light coloured areas) or forest (dark). a) 1965 b) 1998 The 3Q monitoring programme provides a good overview over in-bye farmland and associated areas, gives information about the landscape that isn t available elsewhere and is to be updated every fifth year. However, the programme only provides data about the actively managed agricultural landscape not about very marginal areas or the outfields (mountain grazing) that comprise large areas of Norway. Three categories of land have been defined in the OECD work: Intensively farmed agricultural habitats Semi-natural agricultural habitats Uncultivated natural habitats 3Q can be said to provide good data for intensively farmed agricultural habitats and for uncultivated natural habitats and semi-natural habitats that are associated with farmland, but poor data for some important categories of semi-natural agricultural habitats. A very important point in the discussion of the indicator semi-natural agricultural habitats is how these habitats are defined. It is very likely that there will be differences in the practical definitions used by the different member countries. The contribution of definitions from Switzerland is particularly useful (Anon. 1999), but the degree of information about land management (fertilization, cutting regimes etc.) is not currently available for Norway. 3
5 The outfield grazing lands are semi-natural grasslands, created by agriculture s domestic animals and having a special biological interest. They cover vast areas in Norway and are very much subject to change, due to abandonment of this type of farming practice. This is a common trend throughout Europe. Over half of the EU utilised agricultural area falls within the definition of Less-Favoured Areas and much of this comprises mountain areas (MacDonald et al., 2000). Data on the Norwegian outfields are not available from existing maps, and although mapping projects are now beginning, these are likely to be long-term projects and will not provide regularly updated information. Sampling data is likely to be the best/only source of land cover data. At a national level, subsidies are paid to farmers to encourage outfield grazing and there are therefore good records of numbers of different species of domestic animals using the outfield grazing-lands. This provides a relatively sensitive indication of the degree of this type of extensive land use, since changes in land cover will be preceded by changes in numbers of animals grazing. Norway can supply data on the net area of aquatic ecosystems converted to agricultural use, through information from land-owners applications to cultivate land. Cultivation of new land must be applied for according to a regulations under Land Act of 1995 and this information is collated and stored by the Norwegian Agricultural Authority. The general international importance of this indicator is very clear. One important aspect which is not captured by this indicator is the conversion of aquatic ecosystems that are a part of agricultural ecosystems, to other land uses. In Norway, for example, there was a dramatic disappearance of farm ponds, following the introduction of a new law in 1957 (Brønnloven) that made land-owners responsible for safety in connection with wells and ponds. A study in Rakkestad municipality showed a reduction of more than 90 % of ponds (Fjellstad and Dramstad, 1999). Another example, is the abandonment of previously harvested or grazed water-meadows. This loss of aquatic environments is assumed to have led to a decline in the biodiversity of the agricultural landscape. Agri-environmental indicators should also be able to detect important changes in the state of the agricultural environment, even though the driving force of the change may not be directly linked to agricultural policy. Data on the area of natural forest converted to agricultural use can also be obtained through landowners applications to cultivate land. It has been suggested that this indicator could be expressed as net change, since agricultural land is also converted to forest. This would, however, be an over-simplification. It is recognised that the properties of regenerating forest on agricultural land are likely to be very different 4
6 from those of a natural undisturbed forest. Thus, in terms of ecological value and function, potential forest gain would not balance the loss of natural forest. There is considerable discussion about the definition of forest, in terms of tree height, tree density and species composition. The concept of natural forest is still more difficult to define. It must therefore be recognised that the data gathered from different countries may not be fully comparable. It should be added that there are also habitat types other than forest that may be lost through conversion to agriculture. The policy relevance of this indicator for Norway is rather interesting and highlights an important point in the interpretation of indicator values. Since the proportion of Norway available for agricultural production is very small (just 3 %), it is a national aim to cultivate those areas of land that can be cultivated. Until as recently as 1990, subsidies were given for cultivation of new land areas. The desire to maintain agricultural area in Norway is justified by the Ministry of Agriculture in terms of the nation s food security. In addition, since agricultural habitats are relatively scarce, they contribute additional species to the overall species pool in Norway. Abandonment of agricultural land and subsequent succession, a common trend in many parts of Norway, is thus seen as a threat to national biodiversity (see figure 2). National policies aim to reverse such trends and encourage cultivation. Thus, for agriculture in Norway, the area of agricultural land replaced by forest is at least as interesting as the amount of forest lost to agriculture. Figure 2: Map of a 1 x 1 km square from a) 1955 and b) 1993 illustrating forest re-growth due to the abandonment of agriculture. a) 1955 b)
7 In countries with a greater proportion of agricultural land and small area of forest, say for example Denmark with its 65 % agricultural land, the loss of forest areas to agriculture would be considered a negative trend and the reversion of agricultural land to natural forest would be considered positive for biological diversity. How will the reporting of indicators take into account the different goals suitable for the different OECD member countries? (see below). The habitat matrix indicator is an interesting attempt to link biological diversity with land types. To calculate this indicator, the degree of dependence of many different species on different agricultural land types must be identified, allowing assessment of which species are most likely to benefit from, or be adversely affected by, observed changes in land cover. The indicator can be calculated based on the collation and ordering of existing data on species biology and ecology, avoiding the need for detailed species monitoring data that currently do not exist for many OECD countries, including Norway. Calculation of the habitat matrix is seen as a very useful exercise to undertake. It will make explicit the habitat value of different agricultural habitats in the various OECD countries and will highlight areas of inadequate knowledge. However, there are many problems associated with this indicator, as reported in chapter 6 of the OECD publication Environmental indicators for agriculture: methods and results. Not least, the indicator will only be as good as the land cover/land use data used for its calculation. It is the combination of land cover and land management practices that determine habitat quality and thus value to biological diversity. If information on land cover/land use is too coarse, the indicator will be of little value. For example, it would be insufficient to define the habitat suitability of pasture without recognising the importance of grazing intensity, fertiliser application etc. Once the most important agricultural habitat types have been identified, it would be more straightforward to simply monitor the area of these habitat types. The theoretical link to potential species lists and habitat use units adds little extra meaning, and may in some respects be misleading, by implying a level of species monitoring where in practice there may be none. (In this respect the Natural Capital Index proposed by the Netherlands is better, being based on actual species data). In trying to add ecological meaning to measurements of the area of different land types, farming system has been suggested as a very coarse-scale indicator of habitat quality. There are, however, also limitations to the degree to which farming system can reflect quality. For the first, even though one farming system may generally be more species-rich than another, the complement of species (i.e. which species are present) will be different in the different systems such that interpreting whether changes are for the better 6
8 or worse may be difficult. Similarly, whilst organic agriculture has a set of clearly defined standards to follow and checks to ensure that these are upheld, other farming systems may vary immensely with regard to management and hence their quality as habitat. In addition, natural environmental conditions will lead to different levels of biodiversity even in areas having the same management. To assess quality, some field monitoring at the species level is essential. Ideally this intensive monitoring should be done in close connection with extensive monitoring so that estimates can be more easily made of the connection between changes in land use and changes in quality. FRAGMENTATION / HETEROGENEITY One type of change that is not captured by any of the proposed indicators, is changes in the spatial structure of agricultural habitats. Landscape ecological theory suggests that it is not only the amount and quality of habitat that affects biological diversity but also the spatial arrangement of this habitat (Forman, 1995). A simple way to monitor fragmentation of agricultural land, or fragmentation of natural areas by agriculture, is to monitor the size of coherent units of agricultural land and natural areas within agricultural land. Average size will provide an easily interpretable indicator that is applicable at a range of scales (local, regional and national). In Norway, for example, the average size of arable fields ranges from just over 2 ha in the most intensively cultivated counties, to around 1 ha in counties that are more marginal for agriculture. These field sizes are, of course, very small compared to those of many OECD countries. The indicator provides information about the landscape structure associated with Norwegian agriculture that cannot be assessed simply from data about the total area of agricultural land. Generally, it is in those countries with large areas of highly intensive agro-ecosystems that the problem of loss of biodiversity has been greatest and the issue of fragmentation of habitats has been most severe. In such countries, it is the natural habitats which form islands amidst a sea of agricultural land. In Norway, it is commonly the agricultural areas which are fragmented, forming patches in an expanse of forest. In order to achieve long-term sustainability in agriculture, the aim should be to improve the entire countryside not just to preserve isolated islands of habitat. Similarly, to preserve agro-ecosystems such as species-rich hay meadows, cultivated patches of the landscape should not become too isolated from one 7
9 another. It is thus important in both cases that indicators should incorporate the entire landscape, not just the most valued ecosystems. One indicator for the entire agricultural landscape that is in use in Norway, is a simple indicator of landscape heterogeneity (Fjellstad et al., 2001). The heterogeneity index (Hix) was designed to distinguish between large-scaled landscapes with few elements per unit area, and small-scaled landscapes with many elements per unit area. Hix can therefore be seen as a measure of grain-size (sensu Wiens, 1989). Hix is calculated from land type recorded on a lattice of points spread out across the study area. The study area used in Norway comprises 1 km 2 sampling squares and the points are organised as a lattice within each square. The method would work equally well on a map of the entire country. Each point in the lattice has a number of neighbours, usually 8 but fewer along the edges of the study area. Land type is recorded for each point and all possible combinations of neighbouring points are compared to find the proportion of points that fall on different land types (as opposed to being on the same land type see figure 3). Figure 3: The heterogeneity index is calculated by recording land type in a lattice of points and then comparing each point with every possible neighbouring point. The heterogeneity index is the proportion of points that are on different land types. Hix will equal 1.0 in an extremely heterogeneous area where no two neighbouring points have identical land type and 0.0 in a completely homogeneous area where all points have the same land type. Hix represents the probability of finding identical land types when two points separated by a certain distance represented by the mesh of the lattice are compared. It is thus a very simple measurement of autocorrelation at this particular lag distance. 8
10 Figure 4: Two example squares from the 3Q monitoring programme for agricultural landscapes, illustrating differences in land type diversity -Shannon s diversity index: a) = 1.60 b) = 2.18 spatial structure -Heterogeneity index: a) = 0.23 b) = 0.77 a) b) The heterogeneity index is clearly dependent on the spacing of the points used in its calculation. In addition, the heterogeneity index, and indeed any index of spatial structure, will be highly dependent on the mapping system used to generate index values, both in terms of the map legend (classification system) and the mapping scale. Data will only be directly comparable (in time or in space) if the same methods are used in calculating the index. It should be emphasised that, whilst indicators of spatial structure provide objective descriptions of present day agricultural landscapes and can describe changes in the spatial configuration of these landscapes over time, more research is needed to enable interpretation of the indicators and it is stressed that great care must be taken when trying to apply the figures for these indicators (e.g. heterogeneity and diversity). An increase in the value of a given indicator of spatial structure may be a positive development in some areas, but a negative development in other areas. Interpretation of changes will depend upon the history of the landscape, present status and the desired landscape for the future. For example, an increase in landscape heterogeneity in a coastal heath landscape may be considered a negative change, as scrub and forest regenerate following cessation of grazing, and an ecosystem and cultural heritage loses its specific character. On the other hand, an increase in heterogeneity of a large- 9
11 scale, intensively farmed arable area may represent the achievement of goals associated with environmental enhancement, such as the establishment of grass banks to reduce erosion and increase the occurrence of natural enemies of crop pests. In terms of biodiversity, a change in landscape heterogeneity may be positive for some species and negative for other species within the same landscape. Changes in heterogeneity and other structural indices should therefore be interpreted in a wider context and to answer clearly defined questions. Use within a landscape typology may assist interpretation if clear goals can be set for the direction and degree of change that is acceptable/desirable in an area. To some extent, landscape heterogeneity and diversity, as objective descriptors, may also be useful in validating a landscape typology, since these structural qualities are important components of landscape character. However, care must be taken to standardise scale of measurement, since a landscape pattern will produce very different heterogeneity or diversity values depending on the size of the sample units (i.e. dependent upon whether the entire pattern is sampled or only a part of it). As a general rule, the interpretation of landscape indices requires an understanding both of what the indices describe and how this information relates to specific environmental targets. The indices cannot tell us how best to manage the landscape, only how well we are achieving pre-defined targets. DIFFERENT GOALS IN DIFFERENT LANDSCAPES The indicators that have been proposed are relatively straightforward descriptions of aspects of the agricultural landscape that are considered to be important for biological diversity. To date, however, there has been little discussion of the fact that these indicators may have different significance in different regions. Take for example, the issue of loss of forest area to agriculture or re-growth of forest on agricultural land. This particular issue of intensification versus extensification is a topic that has been raised frequently in OECD discussions. The trends of change that are typical for these two opposing processes may easily mask one another in national indicator estimates; a strong argument for a more regional presentation of indicator values and targets. To illustrate this point, the area of land under agriculture in Norway has declined by 8 % since However, regional differences are great due to differences in natural conditions for farming. So for example, the area of agriculture has increased by 2 % in an intensively cultivated municipality of South- 10
12 Eastern Norway (Rakkestad) but has declined by 36 % in a mountainous municipality (Hjartdal) with less favourable topographic and climatic conditions. Similarly, for some specific landscape types, an increase in biodiversity may reflect undesirable changes in the landscape. When agricultural land is abandoned, for example, species diversity often increases in the earlier stages of abandonment, but later declines. Certain habitat types, such as heath-land, are species poor, yet contribute particular species to the national species pool that otherwise would not occur. For indicators to be useful, they must be used at a resolution that enables observed changes in state to be linked to driving forces and pressures. Whilst indicator calculation by regions may be undesirable for international reporting at the level of the OECD, it may be worth considering a grouping of countries according to broad similarities in landscape type and in environmental goals. CONCLUSIONS Although the proposed indicators have their limitations, they are measures that it is realistic to obtain for the OECD countries. It must be accepted that there will be variations in definitions, and in the resolution at which data are gathered. The most important point is to monitor and report relative changes over time rather than actual numbers and amounts. Clearly it is easier for a country to project a positive image by making a small change to a small total area, compared with the same change or greater on a larger total area, and this should be recognised in reporting. It is also vital that the definitions used in data collection are explicitly presented and that every attempt is made to point out where data are not comparable. There have been many attempts to create international standards for mapping land cover, land use and biotope cover, such as the Land Cover Classification System (di Gregorio and Hansen, 2000), CORINE ( EUNIS ( etc. One reason that these have not been universally accepted is that, in trying to be useable by all they may become less suited for national use. Definitions, such as those for forest, are often relevant and appropriate for the areas for which they were intended to be used and are useful for regional comparisons within a country. In addition, once nationally useful data are being gathered, according to nationally appropriate methods, it may seem unreasonable to use resources to gather the data again in a different way, simply to be able to report internationally. 11
13 It therefore seems appropriate to accept some methodological differences between nations and to begin to report indicators for wildlife habitats. The sooner this begins, the sooner we will have some indication of the effects of agricultural activities on agricultural ecosystems. REFERENCES Anon. (1999). Identification des habitats agricoles semi-naturels et des habitats naturels non-exploites dans l ecosysteme agricole. OECD Expert meeting on biodiversity, wildlife habitats and landscape, 3rd 5th May Room document no. 9, Switzerland. di Gregorio, A. and Hansen, L.J.M. (2000). Land Cover Classification System (LCCS): Classification concepts and user manual. Rome: FAO. Fjellstad, W.J. and Dramstad, W.E. (1999). Patterns of change in two contrasting Norwegian agricultural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 45: p Fjellstad, W.J., Dramstad, W.E., Strand, G.-H. and Fry, G.L.A. (2001). Heterogeneity as a measure of spatial pattern for monitoring agricultural landscapes. Norwegian Journal of Geography 55: Forman, R.T.T. (1995). Land Mosaics: The ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. MacDonald, D., Crabtree, J.R., Wiesinger, G., Dax, T., Stamou, N., Fleury, P., Gutierrez Lazpita, J. and Gibon, A. (2000). Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: Environmental consequences and policy response. Journal of Environmental Management 59: OECD. (2001) Environmental indicators for agriculture Volume 3: methods and results. Paris: OECD Publications. White Paper No. 19. (1999). Om norsk landbruk og matproduksjon. Ministry of Agriculture, Oslo. White Paper No. 1. (2001). Nasjonalbudsjettet. Ministry of Agriculture, Oslo. Wiens, J.A. (1989). Spatial scaling in ecology. Functional Ecology 3,
Addressing the spatial resolution of agri-environmental indicators in Norway
Addressing the spatial resolution of agri-environmental indicators in Norway WENDY FJELLSTAD, OSKAR PUSCHMANN AND GRETE STOKSTAD NORWEGIAN FOREST AND LANDSCAPE INSTITUTE ÅS, NORWAY Executive Summary In
More informationNatura 2000: Benefits and Opportunities for Farmers. Małgorzata Siuta, CEEweb for Biodiversity and Olivia Lewis
Natura 2000: Benefits and Opportunities for Farmers Małgorzata Siuta, CEEweb for Biodiversity and Olivia Lewis EU Biodiversity Committments HD Art. 6: avoid deterioration of species and habitats: implement
More informationCAP Post Key issues from the Environmental Pillar
CAP Post-2013 Key issues from the Environmental Pillar The Environmental Pillar is a coalition of 26 national environmental NGOS. The Pillar and its constituent organisations work on a range of policy
More informationEnclosed farmland: Arable and Horticultural, Improved and Neutral Grasslands
executive summary Executive summary 1 Countryside Survey 2000 (CS2000) and the Northern Ireland Countryside Survey 2000 (NICS2000) have been designed to provide detailed information about the habitats
More informationRegione Marche. Development Programme Non techincal summary. Roma, June 2015
Regione Marche Environmental COMMITTENTE Report of the Rural Development Programme 2014-2020 Roma, June 2015 Non techincal summary INDICE 1 NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY... 3 1.1 Programme description... 3 1.1.1
More informationAgri-environmental reporting - a national experience
Agri-environmental reporting - a national experience By Ole Osvald Moss, Division for Primary Industry Statistics, Statistics Norway, NO-2225 Kongsvinger ole.osvald.moss@ssb.no October 2010 Abstract Statistics
More informationEU Agri-Environmental indicators and the Rural Development CMEF indicators (Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework): a coherent system of analysis
EU Agri-Environmental indicators and the Rural Development CMEF indicators (Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework): a coherent system of analysis Leysin (Switzerland) OECD Workshop on agri-environmental
More informationBirds, bugs and bees: how organic farming benefits nature
Birds, bugs and bees: how organic farming benefits nature Content The food and farming challenge The state of nature The benefits for nature of organic farming Other approaches to delivering for nature
More informationMeasure fiche NATURA 2000 AND WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE PAYMENTS. Measure 12
Version January 2014 Measure fiche NATURA 2000 AND WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE PAYMENTS Measure 12 Article 30 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 This fiche is based on the text of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013
More informationProtocol on Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development to the Framework Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the
Protocol on Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development to the Framework Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Carpathians THE PARTIES TO THIS PROTOCOL IN ACCORDANCE with their
More information24. Wildlife Habitat on Farmland
24. Wildlife Habitat on Farmland AUTHORS: S.K. Javorek, R. Antonowitsch, C. Callaghan, M. Grant and T. Weins INDICATOR NAME: Wildlife Habitat on Farmland Indicator STATUS: National coverage, 1981 to 2001
More informationLAND, WATER AND ENVIRONMENT FARM AFRICA S APPROACH
LAND, WATER AND ENVIRONMENT FARM AFRICA S APPROACH CONTENTS Farm Africa s vision Preface What s the issue? Theory of change Farm Africa s approach Methodology How to use Farm Africa s approach papers FARM
More informationLand Management and the Delivery of Public Goods
Land Management and the Delivery of Public Goods Peter Nowicki, Wageningen University and Research Europe s rural areas in action - Facing the challenges of tomorrow Limassol, Cyprus, October 16-17, 2008
More informationHigh Nature Value farming indicators: what are they really for?
High Nature Value farming indicators: what are they really for? Guy Beaufoy www.efncp.org Vilm September 2010 EFNCP has been closely involved from the start, with major technical input to: EEA study that
More informationDriving forces of species diversity in unmanaged semi-natural grasslands and pastures
Driving forces of species diversity in unmanaged semi-natural grasslands and pastures Jutta Kapfer, Einar Heegaard, Svein O. Krøgli, Christian Pedersen, Gregory Taff & Wenche Dramstad 57th Annual Symposium
More informationLandscape differences between conventional and organic farms. Lisa Norton, CEH Lancaster
Landscape differences between conventional and organic farms Lisa Norton, CEH Lancaster Defra research project 1999-2004 Factors influencing biodiversity within organic and conventional systems of arable
More informationEnhancing the outreach of the EU Green Infrastructure
Enhancing the outreach of the EU Green Infrastructure Policy paper of the Rural European Platform 2015 1) 1) with inputs from the BEF Life Viva Grass project and reflecting a discussion 2) during the CEEweb
More informationGuidelines on the management of farmland in Natura 2000
Guidelines on the management of farmland in Natura 2000 Eeeurpean European Commission DGENV B3 Oliviero Spinelli Comunità Ambiente Farming and Natura 2000 More than 15 million hectares of land in Natura
More informationTHE HIDDEN TRUTH Italy Veneto Environmental impact of new Rural Development Programmes
THE HIDDEN TRUTH Italy Veneto Environmental impact of new Rural Development Programmes 2014-2020 One of the overarching aims of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform was to make it deliver more for the
More informationAgricultural Heritage Systems Conservations, views from the European Union. BEAUMOND Hans-Christian EU Delegation, Beijing 2011 June 9
Agricultural Heritage Systems Conservations, views from the European Union BEAUMOND Hans-Christian EU Delegation, Beijing 2011 June 9 GIAHS projects in the EU Polders (Netherlands) Formed from the 12th
More informationEuropean Learning Network on Functional AgroBiodiversity
European Learning Network on Functional AgroBiodiversity Meeting Rakvere 25-26 August 2010 Claus Goldberg: Wildlife and Sustainable Farming Initiative Project Wildlife and Sustainable Farming Project funded
More informationUse of CORINE Land Cover in delivering the EEA strategy
Use of CORINE Land Cover in delivering the EEA strategy Prof. Jacqueline McGlade Executive Director EIONET Member Countries national teams / co-funding Commission Services: Acknowledgements JRC: joint
More informationBuilding CSOs Capacity on EU Nature-related Policies EU Rural Development Policy
Building CSOs Capacity on EU Nature-related Policies EU Rural Development Policy Mark Redman Valjevo, 27 October 2011 Total of 11 different seminatural plant communities can be identified in
More informationChapter 8 Natural Resources
Chapter 8 Natural Resources 127-134 8.1 Introduction 8.2 Extractives Industry 8.3 Forestry 8.4 Fishing / Aquaculture 8.1 Introduction Kerry has a number of naturally occurring resources that contribute
More informationOlives ecosystems and biodiversity - considerations for action in the EU
Olives ecosystems and biodiversity - considerations for action in the EU IOC Madrid 18/11/09 Guy Beaufoy EFNCP 1 How important are olive ecosystems for European biodiversity? The EU aims to stop biodiversity
More informationSeminário New Deal - Innovation Apresentação de Wendy Fjellstad
Seminário New Deal - Innovation Apresentação de Wendy Fjellstad Land use in Europe Agriculture in Norway: Status and Trends Wendy Fjellstad Norway: a land of forests and mountains Source: EEA, ETC Land
More informationThe European Commission (EC) is due to present a proposal during 2000 for a new regime to be implemented from November 2001.
7KLVUHSRUWZDVSURGXFHGE\WKH(XURSHDQ)RUXPRQ1DWXUH&RQVHUYDWLRQDQG 3DVWRUDOLVPDQGWKH$VRFLDFLyQSDUDHO$QiOLVLV\5HIRUPDGHOD3ROtWLFD$JUR UXUDO 7KH YLHZV VHW RXW LQ WKH UHSRUW DUH WKRVH RI WKH DXWKRUV DQG GR QRW
More informationWhy are extensive grazing systems disappearing? Understanding socio economic drivers Findings from Pays d Auge (France)
Why are extensive grazing systems disappearing? Understanding socio economic drivers Findings from Pays d Auge (France) Vilm 21 Sept. 2010 Soizic JEAN-BAPTISTE Blandine RAMAIN, EFNCP How to advance in
More informationEstonian case study Evaluation of agri-environment schemes biodiversity objective
Estonian case study Evaluation of agri-environment schemes biodiversity objective Eneli Viik Agricultural Research Centre eneli.viik@pmk.agri.ee Good Practice Workshop. Assessing environmental effects
More informationFarming & the Delivery of Public Goods
Farming & the Delivery of Public Goods Prof. Thia Hennessy Dpt of Food Business, University College Cork, Ireland Overview Agriculture an important sector Economic benefits Non-economic benefits Public
More informationThe Provision of Public Goods through Agriculture in Europe
The Provision of Public Goods through Agriculture in Europe Tamsin Cooper tcooper@ieep.eu 15 October 2009 Presentation Structure Which public goods are associated with agriculture? Do all types of agriculture
More informationBIODIVERSITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION
BIODIVERSITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION Impacts of meat consumption on biodiversity Carolyn Imede Opio Food and Agriculture Organization - FAO Outline 1. Global livestock sector trends 2. Key features important
More informationLiquid Biofuels for Transport
page 1/11 Scientific Facts on Liquid Biofuels for Transport Prospects, risks and opportunities Source document: FAO (2008) Summary & Details: GreenFacts Context - Serious questions are being raised about
More informationPermanent grasslands in Europe
55 th Annual Meeting of the EAAP Bled, Slovenia, 5-9 Sept. 2004 S2 L+N+C+S Annick GIBON INRA - SAD Department UMR Dynafor Toulouse, France gibon@toulouse.inra.fr Permanent grasslands in Europe EU15 (1995)
More informationMainstreaming Biodiversity in Agriculture: The Experience of Switzerland
Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Education and Research EAER Federal Office for Agriculture FOAG International Sustainable Agriculture Unit International Workshop on Mainstreaming Biodiversity (COP
More informationolga.kikou@ciwf.org 6.11.2017 Agriculture and Biodiversity UN Convention on Biodiversity - food production: main driver of species extinction Connection between biodiversity loss and intensive agriculture
More informationFarmland and climate change: factors and lessons from farmed landscapes. ELO Biodiversity Conference Brussels 9 December 2015
Farmland and climate change: factors and lessons from farmed landscapes ELO Biodiversity Conference Brussels 9 December 2015 Europe s environmental challenges Marginal agricultural areas Challenges: maintain
More informationJournal of Environmental Management
Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 902e909 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Environmental Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman Assessing the environmental
More informationAcknowledging the role of agriculture in a differentiated European countryside: example from a typology applied to Portugal
Acknowledging the role of agriculture in a differentiated European countryside: example from a typology applied to Portugal Teresa Pinto-Correia University of Évora, Portugal RUFUS Final Conference, Brussels,
More informationProtocol on Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development to the Framework Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the
Protocol on Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development to the Framework Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Carpathians THE PARTIES TO THIS PROTOCOL IN ACCORDANCE with their
More informationEVALUATION OF AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES
EVALUATION OF AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Novembre 2005 Oréade-Brèche 64, chemin del prat 31320 AUZEVILLE FRANCE Tél. : 05.61.73.62.62 Fax : 05.61.73.62.90 oreade-breche@oreade-breche.fr
More informationCYPRUS REPORT FOR COMBATING DESERTIFICATION
CYPRUS REPORT FOR COMBATING DESERTIFICATION CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 INTRODUCTION 3 DESERTIFICATION FACTORS IN CYPRUS CLIMATE 5 SOIL 5 WATER MANAGEMENT 5 ANTHROPOGENIC FACTORS 6 GENERAL MEASURES TO
More information8/5/2011. Lesson Overview. Disturbance/Fragmentation. Shifting Mosaic. Number one cause of biodiversity loss. Types of disturbance. - Scale, frequency
Lesson Overview Disturbances Fragmentation Types Measuring Corridors Effects Texas Example 1 Shifting Mosaic Landscape a shifting mosaic. - Made up of patches in different phases of successional development.
More informationDesigning economic instruments to maintain and enhance hay meadow biodiversity in South-West European mountain areas
27 TH EUROPEAN GRASSLAND FEDERATION GENERAL MEETING CORK Sustainable Meat and Milk Production from Grasslands Ireland 17 th - 21 st June 2018 Designing economic instruments to maintain and enhance hay
More informationAssessing the risk of farmland abandonment in the EU
Assessing the risk of farmland abandonment in the EU Technical assistance from JRC to DG AGRI to define key factors and drivers, process datasets, and provide results Administrative arrangement #AGRI-2011-0295
More informationEXPLANATORY DOCUMENT: METHODS OF THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT
EXPLANATORY DOCUMENT: METHODS OF THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PREMIA CALCULATION TO EXCLUDE DOUBLE FUNDING (ART.28-30) 1. THE PRINCIPLE OF NON- DOUBLE FUNDING AND ITS IMPLICATIONS Rural development provides for
More informationThe High Nature Value farming concept: Copernicus contribution
The High Nature Value farming concept: Copernicus contribution Next Generation Copernicus Space Component User Requirements Gathering Agriculture and Forestry Applications User Requirements workshop on
More informationCBD Workshop Isle of Vilm The EU conceptual 4-level model on ecosystem restoration. Imagine the result
CBD Workshop Isle of Vilm The EU conceptual 4-level model on ecosystem restoration Imagine the result 3 rd June 2014 1 Johan Lammerant Restoration Several definitions of restoration, degraded (EC, CBD,
More informationREALIZATION OF AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM IN WESTERN POMERANIA IN THE YEARS
REALIZATION OF AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM IN WESTERN POMERANIA IN THE YEARS 2007-2013 Monika Pradziadowicz¹, PhD Abstract. This article presents the assumptions of agri-environmental program implemented
More informationThe integrated planning and ecosystem services of grasslands
The integrated planning and ecosystem services of grasslands Žymantas Morkvėnas, Justas Gulbinas, Baltic environmental forum, Lithuania LIFE Viva Grass LIFE13 ENV/LT/000189 2018 www.vivagrass.eu Nature
More informationKent Biodiversity 2020 and beyond a strategy for the natural environment
Kent Biodiversity 2020 and beyond a strategy for the natural environment 2015-2025 Introduction Action for the natural environment in Kent and Medway will be delivered by many organisations and individuals
More information6. Land take by intensive agriculture
6. Land take by intensive agriculture Key message Intensive agriculture attributes mainly to South of Europe, particularly to Mediterranean region. Outside this region land areas taken by intensive agriculture
More informationDeveloping a Diagnostic Species and Biotope Index for Europe: A Methodological Note
Developing a Diagnostic Species and Biotope Index for Europe: A Methodological Note Paper prepared for discussion at the expert meeting on ecosystem accounting organised by the UNSD, the EEA and the World
More informationA Framework for Land Accounting - Draft Set of Tables
A Framework for Land Accounting - Draft Set of Tables Note: an earlier version of this set of tables was discussed by the Eurostat Task Force on Land Accounting at its meeting 5-6 July 1999 in Luxembourg
More informationTHE HIDDEN TRUTH Spain Castilla y León Environmental impact of new Rural Development Programmes
THE HIDDEN TRUTH Spain Castilla y León Environmental impact of new Rural Development Programmes 2014-2020 One of the overarching aims of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform was to make it deliver more
More informationUpdating the Defra Biodiversity Metric
Updating the Defra Biodiversity Metric 1. Introduction We are proposing to update the metric approach to quantifying biodiversity net gain. The metric selected is an evolution of the one piloted by Defra
More informationEco-innovation through public involvement: everyone s nature conservation
Eco-innovation through public involvement: everyone s nature conservation Aveliina Helm aveliina.helm@ut.ee www.botany.ut.ee/macroecology University of Tartu Estonia We have not halted biodiversity loss
More informationAgriculture and Climate Change
Agriculture and Climate Change in the UK 8 November 2010 Dr Mike Segal Deputy Chief Scientific Adviser & Director of Strategy and Evidence Group Overview The UK Climate Projections (June 2009) show that
More informationTuesday, 28 October 2014 The Killeshin Hotel, Dublin Road, Portlaoise, Ireland
Regional Conference Closing the mineral cycles at farm level Good practices to reduce nutrient loss in Southern and Eastern Ireland (Conference Proceedings) Tuesday, 28 October 2014 The Killeshin Hotel,
More informationThe Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the first common policy adopted by the
Evaluation of Agricultural Policy Reforms in the European Union OECD 2011 Executive Summary The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the first common policy adopted by the European Community under the Treaty
More informationBackground Paper. Sustainable Bioenergy cropping systems for the Mediterranean. Expert Consultation
Background Paper Sustainable Bioenergy cropping systems for the Mediterranean Expert Consultation Introduction Bioenergy is a key issue in the context of policies to mitigate global warming, to reduce
More informationA new policy framework for a more sustainable EU agriculture. Pierre Bascou DG Agriculture and rural development European commission
A new policy framework for a more sustainable EU agriculture Pierre Bascou DG Agriculture and rural development European commission 2 Objectives of the CAP Policy objectives Reform objectives Viable food
More informationHABITAT ACTION PLAN FOR LOWLAND CALCAREOUS GRASSLAND
HABITAT ACTION PLAN FOR LOWLAND CALCAREOUS GRASSLAND AUTHOR: LEAD AGENCY: Dr Peter Shepherd Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust The Old Ragged School Brook Street Nottingham NG1 1EA MOST RECENT UPDATE: June
More informationGeneral socio-economic situation in rural areas in Lithuania
Rural Development Programme (RDP) of Lithuania Kaimo plėtros 2007 2013 metų programa Rural Development Programme for Lithuania 2007-2013) 1 Relevant Contact Details Address: Ministry of Agriculture of
More informationProperty Rights, Collective Action and Plant Genetic Resources
Property Rights, Collective Action and Plant Genetic Resources Conservation of genetic resources contributes to plant genetic diversity, which includes both the combination of species in agricultural ecosystems,
More informationLIFE GRASSSERVICE - Alternative use of biomass for maintenance of grassland biodiversity and ecosystem services LIFE12 BIO/LV/001130
LIFE GRASSSERVICE - Alternative use of biomass for maintenance of grassland biodiversity and ecosystem services LIFE12 BIO/LV/001130 Project description Environmental issues Beneficiaries Administrative
More informationAgri-environmental indicators for biodiversity in the rice paddy landscape
OECD Workshop on Agri-Environmental Indicators Leysin, Switzerland, 23-26 March 2010 Agri-environmental indicators for biodiversity in the rice paddy landscape David S. SPRAGUE, Shori YAMAMOTO, Tatsuya
More informationGeneral socio-economic situation in rural areas in Slovenia
Rural Development Programme (RDP) of Slovenia Program razvoja podeželja (PRP 2007-2013) 18.2.2007 1 (Rural Development Programme RDP 2007-2013) Relevant Contact Details Managing Authority Website: http://www.mkgp.gov.si/
More informationBiodiversity is the variety of life on our planet. It underpins our wellbeing and the economy
NATURE AND BIODIVERSITY What s in it for you? Biodiversity is the variety of life on our planet. It underpins our wellbeing and the economy We depend on nature for our food, water, air, health, soil fertility
More informationAn initial study into New Zealander s perceptions of vegetated landscapes in rural areas
237 An initial study into New Zealander s perceptions of vegetated landscapes in rural areas T.G. PARMINTER 1, R.M. FORD 2, J.A. WILSON 1, L.H. PARMINTER 3 and H. ROTH 1 1 AgResearch, Ruakura Research
More informationEuropean pastoralism and land abandonment: the experience of the PASTORAL project
European pastoralism and land abandonment: the experience of the PASTORAL project Davy McCracken Scottish Agricultural College Picture from presentation by: Veen,, P. & Kabucis,, I. (2004). Semi-natural
More informationCAP and farmland birds Conference CAP Towards sustainable agriculture. Ines Jordana, SEO/BirdLife - Tallinn, 1 st September 2017
CAP and farmland birds Conference CAP 2020. Towards sustainable agriculture Ines Jordana, SEO/BirdLife - Tallinn, 1 st September 2017 BirdLife International & BirdLife Europe BirdLife International The
More informationUsing CAP to enhance farm biodiversity
@LynnDicks Using CAP to enhance farm biodiversity Dr Lynn Dicks University of East Anglia Workshop 'Best practices addressing environmental and climate needs' 23 March 2017 What does biodiversity mean
More informationHNV Farmland in Bulgaria. Vyara Stefanova Conference High Nature Value Farmland in Europe June 2010, Vilm
HNV Farmland in Bulgaria Vyara Stefanova Conference High Nature Value Farmland in Europe 14 18 June 2010, Vilm Facts and figures Total area of Bulgaria = 11.1 million ha UAA = 5.3 million ha - Arable land
More informationUse of Grasslands in the Republic of Serbia
Use of Grasslands in the Republic of Serbia Best practices for sustainable use of common grasslands in the Western Balkans and Europe SEE Round table 15 April 2013, Sofia, Bulgaria Agricultural land Agricultural
More informationThe trajectories and determinants of agricultural land-use change over the last two decades in post-soviet European Russia
The trajectories and determinants of agricultural land-use change over the last two decades in post-soviet European Russia Alexander V. Prishchepov 1, Daniel Mueller 1,Anika Sieber 2, Tobias Kuemmerle
More informationTHE ROLE OF THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR IN BIODIVERSITY OFFSETTING
THE ROLE OF THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR IN BIODIVERSITY OFFSETTING Jussi Lankoski OECD Trade and Agriculture Directorate Environment Division Biodiversity Offsets: Opportunities and challenges for their effective
More informationFRANCE GERS. Agro-forestry
FRANCE GERS Agro-forestry The case study described here can be characterised as a typical example of an activity which can potentially affect in a positive way the existence of higher linkages between
More informationTHE HIDDEN TRUTH Italy Piedmont Environmental impact of new Rural Development Programmes
THE HIDDEN TRUTH Italy Piedmont Environmental impact of new Rural Development Programmes 2014-2020 One of the overarching aims of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform was to make it deliver more for
More informationEcoagriculture: Agricultural landscapes for people, food and nature
Ecoagriculture: Agricultural landscapes for people, food and nature Abigail Hart, EcoAgriculture Partners 23-26 September 2011 Inception Workshop for the Project Community Development and Knowledge Management
More informationContinuous Monitoring of Agricultural Biodiversity in the Alpine Region: The Alpine Delphi. Photo: Pommiers Vallouise, M-F Tarbouriech
Monitoring Institute for Rare Breeds and Seeds in Europe Schneebergstr. 17 CH-9000 St. Gallen Switzerland Phone: +41-71/222 74 10 Fax: +41-71/222 74 40 Web: http://www.monitoring.eu.com email: info@monitoring.eu.com
More informationDRY GRASSLAND - Dry Grassland in Denmark - Restoration and Conservation LIFE08 NAT/DK/000464
DRY GRASSLAND - Dry Grassland in Denmark - Restoration and Conservation LIFE08 NAT/DK/000464 Project description Environmental issues Beneficiaries Administrative data Read more Contact details: Project
More informationIs there enough land for growing energy crops?
Is there enough land for growing energy crops? One question that often pops up in the debate about bioenergy, and not least biofuels, is the availability of land for energy crops. The EU Commission wants
More informationHigh Nature Value Farming in the Alps from the perspective of Piedmont
Fourth Panel: High Nature Value farming and rural livelihoods High Nature Value Farming in the Alps from the perspective of Piedmont Mario Perosino Regione Piemonte Direzione Agricoltura mario.perosino@regione.piemonte.it
More informationf. Support for agri-environmental practices compatible with organic production
f. Support for agri-environmental practices compatible with organic production Political justification Governments can provide subsidies to support the production of positive externalities by agriculture,
More informationCEEweb Contributions to the Commission s CAP Health Check Consultation Budapest, 15 th January 2008
CEEweb Contributions to the Commission s CAP Health Check Consultation Budapest, 15 th January 2008 e-mail address: AGRI-G1-HC-IA@ec.europa.eu Tassos HANIOTIS Head of Unit Agricultural Policy Analysis
More informationGREENING IN LATVIA. GAEC Workshop, Riga September 1
GREENING IN LATVIA GAEC Workshop, Riga 10-12 September 1 Plan of the presentation: 1. Framework of the greening requirements 1.1. crop diversification 1.2. permanent grassland 1.3. ecological focus area
More informationHow Much Habitat is Enough?
How Much Habitat is Enough? Canadian Wildlife Service 2017 Third Edition Page 2 April 19, 2017 Grasslands Forest Wetlands Riparian & Watershed Page 3 April 19, 2017 Significant impairment in stream At
More informationHigh Nature Value (HNV) in Denmark Targeting biodiversity
High Nature Value (HNV) in Denmark Targeting biodiversity Martin Brink, the Danish AgriFish Agency Jesper Bladt, Aarhus University Bonn the 7. and 8. of June 2016 Why spend time and money developing a
More informationBALTRIT - Protection of Triturus cristatus in Eastern Baltic Region LIFE04 NAT/EE/000070
BALTRIT - Protection of Triturus cristatus in Eastern Baltic Region LIFE04 NAT/EE/000070 Project description Environmental issues Beneficiaries Administrative data Read more Contact details: Project Manager:
More informationAdaptation Strategy of the Slovak Republic on Adverse Impacts of Climate Change Overview: Executive Summary
Adaptation Strategy of the Slovak Republic on Adverse Impacts of Climate Change Overview: Executive Summary Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic December 2016 Climate change has caused a wide
More informationDuring this time keywords/concepts could be added to the questions on the whiteboard.
Teaching notes Make 4 copies of each information sheet. Give one information sheet to each pair of students. They should read and summarise the information on their sheet using pictures and a word limit
More informationMapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES): An analytical framework for mapping and assessment of ecosystem condition
Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES): An analytical framework for mapping and assessment of ecosystem condition Joachim Maes European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra
More informationOrganic Production Requirements: Crop production and animal husbandry in general S S R A N A S R S C I E N T I S T
Organic Production Requirements: Crop production and animal husbandry in general S S R A N A S R S C I E N T I S T 3.1 CROP PRODUCTION AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY IN GENERAL 2 3.1.1 CONVERSION REQUIREMENTS 3.1.2
More informationBIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIODIVERSITY IN THE FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES FOR RESEARCH
BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIODIVERSITY IN THE FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES FOR RESEARCH John Claxton European Commission *, SDME 8/06, B-1049, Brussels, Belgium. John.Claxton@cec.eu.int Summary Collaborative research
More informationBenefits of SSSIs in England and Wales
Benefits of SSSIs in England and Wales Sites of Special Scientific Interest Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) are the best places for wildlife and geology nationally. There are 5,000 SSSIs in
More informationOverview of land cover & change
Note The results presented here are based on a change analysis of 44 land cover types mapped consistently on a 1:1. scale across Europe over the decade 199-2 - see Corine land cover programme for details.
More informationSouthern Finland regional analysis
Southern Finland regional analysis Background for the exercise Training example and data created originally for training of regional council of Southern Finland 2013 Aims at presenting a realitic, yet
More informationInitiative. Join the 4. Soils for food security and climate
Join the 4 Initiative Soils for food security and climate Building on solid, scientific documentation and concrete actions on the ground, the 4 Initiative : soils for food security and climate aims to
More informationCoastal Prairie Management and Conservation (2018)
Coastal Prairie Management and Conservation (2018) The coastal prairie region refers to the habitats that occur within the western gulf coast area and includes the coastal prairie grasslands as well as
More information