Overview of the selection of biodiversity technical measures

Transcription

1 SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME PRIORITY 8: Policy-Oriented Research SPECIFIC TARGETED RESEARCH PROJECT n SSPE-CT Impact of Environmental Agreements on the CAP Document number: MEACAP WP5 D14 Dissemination level: Public Overview of the selection of biodiversity technical measures Authors: McCracken D. & Klockenbring, C. Author s Organisation(s): SAC & University of Humboldt Contact and comments: davy.mccracken@sac.ac.uk; Tel: Date: 31 July 2007 This document presents results obtained within the EU project SSPE-CT Impact of Environmental Agreements on the CAP ( It does not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission and in no way anticipates the European Union s future policy in this area.

2 Contents MEACAP MEACAP WP5 D14 1 KEY MESSAGES ARISING FROM WP5 WORK BUSINESS AS USUAL AGRICULTURAL BIODIVERSITY WHAT MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE Tier I: Improving the biodiversity value and potential of agricultural landscapes Mandatory 5m buffer strips along watercourses Mandatory protection of habitats and features of biodiversity value Mandatory establishment of Ecological Priority Areas on each farm Verification approach and advisory needs Tier II: Providing support for particular farming systems of biodiversity value Maintaining the extent of HNV farming systems and farmland Increasing the ha of organic farming occurring in the EU Tier III: Providing support for specific measures of biodiversity value Example measures of relevance to farms in the Continental zone Example measures of relevance to farms in the Mediterranean zone Examples of measures of relevance to farms in the Alpine zone ADDITIONAL ASPECTS WHICH NEED ADDRESSING INTRODUCTION AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY ISSUES ACROSS EUROPE APPROACHES TAKEN TO-DATE TO ADDRESS AGRICULTURAL BIODIVERSITY CONCERNS Nature conservation policies Halting Biodiversity Loss by Changes to agricultural support mechanisms CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS WITH REGARD TO AGRICULTURAL BIODIVERSITY CONCERNS AIM OF BIODIVERSITY WORK WITHIN MEACAP METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS DIFFICULTIES IN CONSIDERING AGRICULTURAL BIODIVERSITY ISSUES CONSIDERATIONS AT AN EU25, EU15 AND EU10 LEVEL SETTING THE DETAILED BIODIVERSITY FOCUS ON WHICH TO BASE THE SELECTION OF TECHNICAL MEASURES USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ZONES TO SPLIT EU25 INTO A SET OF MANAGEABLE REGIONS BROAD FARM TYPE AND BIODIVERSITY CONTEXT WITHIN EACH ENVIRONMENTAL ZONE THE MEASURE SELECTION PROCESS OUTPUT OVERVIEW OF BIODIVERSITY ISSUES OF CONCERN TO BROAD FARM TYPES ACROSS EUROPE Arable systems (Table 4.2) Horticulture & Permanent Crop systems (Table 4.3) Grazing Livestock & Mixed systems (Table 4.4) Subsistence and Semi-Subsistence systems (Table 4.5) BIODIVERSITY MEASURE SELECTION Improving the biodiversity value and potential of agricultural landscapes Mandatory 5m buffer strips along watercourses Mandatory protection of habitats and features of biodiversity value Mandatory establishment of Ecological Priority Areas on each farm Verification approach and advisory needs Providing support for particular farming systems of biodiversity value Maintaining the extent of High Nature Value farming systems and farmland Increasing the ha of organic farming Providing support for specific measures of biodiversity value Examples of measures of relevance to farms in the Continental Zone Examples of measures of relevance to farms in the Mediterranean South Zone Examples of measures of relevance to farms in the Alpine South Zone SETTING THE MEASURES SELECTED IN AN IMPLEMENTATION CONTEXT SUGGESTIONS ON TOOL KITS TO HELP ANY FUTURE BIODIVERSITY MEASURE SELECTION PROCESSES SUGGESTIONS ON WHAT SHOULD BE TAKEN FORWARD INTO WP SUGGESTIONS ON A GENERAL APPROACH TO IMPLEMENTATION OF BIODIVERSITY CONCERNS IN WP REFERENCES i

3 APPENDIX 1. BROAD DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND USE ACROSS THE EU27 (TAKEN FROM CEC 2006B) APPENDIX 2. THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE 13 ENVIRONMENTAL ZONES RECOGNISED IN EUROPE64 APPENDIX 3. BREAKDOWN OF THE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL ZONES BY EU25 MEMBER STATE APPENDIX 4. BROAD GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION OF THE 13 ENVIRONMENTAL ZONES RECOGNISED IN EUROPE APPENDIX 5. BROAD DESCRIPTION OF EACH OF THE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL ZONES OCCURRING IN EU APPENDIX 6. IMPORTANCE OF SEMI-SUBSISTENCE FARMING IN THE EU25 AND NMS10 IN APPENDIX 7: OVERVIEW OF NMS10 CASE STUDY SYNTHESIS PAPERS: SEMI-SUBSISTENCE FARMS APPENDIX 8: OVERVIEW OF NMS10 CASE STUDY SYNTHESIS PAPERS: LARGE-SCALE FARMS APPENDIX 9: OVERVIEW OF NMS10 CASE STUDY SYNTHESIS PAPERS: LAND ABANDONMENT ii

4 1 Key messages arising from WP5 work 1.1 Business as Usual agricultural biodiversity It has recently been highlighted that overall, progress towards the 2010 target to halt biodiversity loss on farmland in Europe is not visible and unlikely to be reached without additional integrated policy efforts (EEA 2006a). Across Europe, High Nature Value (HNV) farmland continues to be under threat from both intensification and abandonment of farm management practices with a subsequent loss in farmland biodiversity value. Conversely, already intensified farms have generally not made sufficient large-scale changes to their farming systems which are necessary to produce the conditions required for farmland biodiversity to recover. In recognition of this, the recent Biodiversity Communication (CEC 2006a) has highlighted that the European Commission's strategy for halting biodiversity loss on farmland by 2010 and beyond will focus on: putting greater emphasis on action for the EU s most important habitats and species. Securing these habitats requires greater commitment from Member States to propose, designate, protect and effectively manage Natura 2000 sites. It also requires that they strengthen coherence, connectivity and resilience of the network, including through support to national, regional and local protected areas. putting greater emphasis on complementing Natura 2000 and the conservation of threatened species through also encouraging a wider environment favourable to biodiversity. Key actions to this end include: optimising the use of available measures (such as agrienvironment schemes) under the reformed CAP, notably to prevent intensification or abandonment of HNV farmland, and advancing implementation of key environmental framework directives and thematic strategies which reduce pressures on biodiversity (notably by improving the quality of freshwater and of soils, and by reducing diffuse pollutant pressures). Hence, over the next 5 years there will be an increasing emphasis put on biodiversity and wider environmental concerns at both an EU, Member State and local level. At the same time though, it is clear not only that a focus on Natura 2000 will only cover a small proportion of farmland biodiversity concerns (e.g. the site protection measures employed to-date at best conserve a minority of HNV farmland and do not necessarily appear to be targeted at areas of high farmland biodiversity potential within the more intensively managed agricultural landscapes) but also that the level of funds made available in Pillar II of the CAP (the main funding route to support agrienvironment measures to help address biodiversity concerns on farmland) will not increase markedly. An increasing emphasis on other environmental concerns will also increase competition for these already limited Pillar II funds. For example: although the implementation of the Water Framework Directive should help freshwater biodiversity, an increased emphasis on funding diffuse pollution mitigation measures (aimed particularly but not necessarily exclusively at intensive farmland) will potentially places limits on the amount of funding available for measures aimed at specifically improving terrestrial farmland biodiversity concerns; as the extent of renewable energy production increases across Europe there is likely to be increasing pressure to site wind farms on High Nature Value farmland habitats; although an increase in the extent of bioenergy crops may introduce some habitat diversity into agricultural landscapes, the intensity of management required of such crops is unlikely to be favourable to habitats or species of farmland biodiversity concern. Farmers and their farming practices are needed to maintain and improve conditions for habitats and species of farmland biodiversity concern. The amount of income that these farmers can obtain from CAP and market sources will continue to drive farm management decisions and affect the overall 1

5 viability of each farm. Under the current reform of the CAP, there is unlikely to be any major shifts in support payments from one area of Europe to another or from one type of farmer to another. Hence, the overall amount of income that can be obtained from HNV farming systems is likely to remain low and such farmers will continue to be under pressure to either intensify their farming practices (to increase overall income levels) or abandon farming practices altogether (to reduce their overall burden of costs and maximise the level of support payments that they can retain as income). The biodiversity value of HNV farming systems (mainly occurring now in the less productive areas central and eastern Europe, the Mediterranean and in the mountains) is likely to continue to decline. Conversely, the more intensive, and hence biodiversity poor, farms which occur across most of lowland Europe and the more easily accessible uplands will (through modulation of the single farm payment) see an erosion of their main source of support and many will seek to compensate for this through maximising their income from Pillar II funds. However, with increasing pressures on the income to be made from farming as well as increasing pressures to address other environmental concerns, it is likely that there will be an increasing reluctance for many intensive farmers to spend time and money additionally addressing farmland biodiversity issues which limit the productivity of their farms. Most of their income will come from the sale of products from their farming enterprises and so there will be increasing push to keep any actions targeted at biodiversity concerns away from the productive areas of farmland. Hence the marked increases in habitat diversity which is required to increase biodiversity in and around fields on intensive farms is unlikely to occur. Although the Biodiversity Communication places an emphasis on taking action to address farmland biodiversity concerns, the main thrust is on encouraging Member States to use existing policy and support mechanisms to help achieve this. However, the farming industry and farming unions will push for environmental requirements/obligations put on farmers to be kept as low as possible. Without more of a push for Member States for increase funding levels for biodiversity actions and target these more appropriately, then the 2010 target of halting biodiversity loss on farmland will not be achieved. In particular, it is likely that (EEA 2006a): natural and semi-natural habitats will continue to be lost within intensively-farmed areas trends of farmland related species such as bird and butterflies will continue to decline High Nature Value farmland will continue to be abandoned 1.2 What more needs to be done It is therefore clear that despite the current increasing emphasis on farmland biodiversity concerns, without further major changes to the way that CAP support is targeted then farmland biodiversity will continue to decline across Europe. Landscape simplification is the key driver of biodiversity declines but it is also clear that this cannot be addressed at the scale required solely by using agrienvironment schemes within the Pillar 2 Rural Development Programme - the amount of funding available is too limited and unlikely to increase within the foreseeable future. However, landscape simplification could be addressed and the available limited Pillar 2 funds used more effectively if all farmers were required to do more in order to qualify for Pillar I support. In this way, the onus could be put on all farmers to achieve a minimum level of appropriate habitat diversity and/or management at the farm scale in order to qualify for their single farm payment and become eligible for additional Pillar 2 funding for additional specific actions. Such an approach would potentially increase (at no extra cost) the general biodiversity value of the more intensified farmland and increase the probability of more targeted agri-environment actions achieving their biodiversity goals. It should also mean that farms of existing HNV would be able to benefit from the types of 2

6 habitats already forming part of the on-farm resource and hence would be able to meet the qualification requirements. The main messages coming from the consideration of biodiversity issues within WP5 and which should be considered for incorporation into the WP7 strategy are therefore: There is a need to raise awareness that marked changes to CAP support mechanisms are required in order to address farmland biodiversity concerns adequately. In addition, there is a need to put more of an emphasis on the farm as being the most appropriate scale at which to focus the actions required. Farmland biodiversity concerns are potentially many and varied and as a result much of the action to-date to try to address these has been spread very thinly. Establishing broad priorities could help with the targeting of actions and ensure that sufficient attention is devoted to each. To this end it is recommended that greater attention should be placed on addressing: The simplification of agricultural landscapes The increasing pressures being put on HNV farming systems The documented declines in farmland bird populations The pressures being put on semi-natural vegetation It is suggested that this could be achieved by taking a three-tier approach: Tier I: Improving the biodiversity value and potential of agricultural landscapes: Which would be mandatory and which would be designed to ensure that all farmers in receipt of CAP support were required to take action on the ground to maintain or improve the basic biodiversity value and potential of the agricultural landscape of their farm. Tier II: Providing support for particular farming systems of biodiversity value: Which farmers would sign up to voluntarily and which would be designed to target support to two main farming systems of proven biodiversity value, namely High Nature Value (HNV) farming systems and organic farming. Tier III: Providing support for specific measures of biodiversity value: Which farmers would sign up to voluntarily and which would be designed to target support to specific measures considered to be important in helping address regionally-distinctive biodiversity concerns at the farm level. Tier I would therefore help improve the underlying habitat diversity occurring in many agricultural landscapes, Tier II would recognise and help highlight that in reality action at a whole farming system level is ideally the best approach to maintaining or improving biodiversity on any farm, while Tier III would allow for appropriate action to be targeted at specific issues of biodiversity concern on individual farms irrespective of their management intensity status. Tiers 1 and II therefore help serve to improve the overall biodiversity potential of agricultural landscapes and thereby increase the success of any specific actions taken at Tier III level on a farm. 3

7 1.2.1 Tier I: Improving the biodiversity value and potential of agricultural landscapes Mandatory 5m buffer strips along watercourses Under this tier, basic cross-compliance requirements would be strengthened, and made more consistent across Europe, to put a particular emphasis on achieving greater protection for watercourses (and hence would have the added value of helping further complement the implementation of the Water Framework Directive). This would entail stipulating 5m as the minimum distance from ditches, streams, watercourses and waterbodies in which no ploughing, fertiliser or pesticides were allowed. These buffers would be expected to be applied irrespective of field size and across all EU27 MSs Mandatory protection of habitats and features of biodiversity value This strengthened cross-compliance would also give greater protection to existing features and boundary habitats of biodiversity value (such as trees and hedgerows). It is proposed that the types of feature to be included, and the level of protection to be given to these under this strengthened cross-compliance, would generally be set at a Member State level, based at a minimum on features and habitats which are already protected under national or regional legislation in addition to those which feature in the Habitats & Species Directive. MSs would also be at liberty to consider making it a Tier I requirement that appropriate management of the features themselves be undertaken to ensure they maintain in good condition and/or making it mandatory to also establish buffer zones around such features. However, in general it would be expected that any buffer zones around features and habitats other than watercourse would not be made mandatory under Tier I but instead would be potentially indirectly encouraged under the Ecological Priority Area requirements (see below) and that detailed management of protected habitats/features would potentially be options more relevant to include as Tier III options for farmers to chose to take up as they desired Mandatory establishment of Ecological Priority Areas on each farm Under Tier I it would, however, be mandatory for farms to be required to have, or to establish, 7% of the farm s utilised agricultural area as Ecological Priority Areas (EPAs), following a similar approach to that taken in Switzerland (e.g. Herzog et al. 2005). The 5m buffer zones established alongside watercourses would qualify towards this proportion, as would habitats of greater biodiversity potential (e.g. species rich grassland, moorland) and areas of pastures, meadows and annual and permanent crops under more extensive management on the farm. In order to achieve added value and help spread EPAs across each farm, the area of any buffer zones established around protected habitats/features would count double towards to the overall 7% requirement. As the productive capacity of small farms would potentially be affected disproportionately by the EPAs, it is proposed that the full EPA requirement of 7% of UAA apply only to farms above 5 ha UAA (i.e. c. 25% of the total number of farms across the EU27) Verification approach and advisory needs It is envisaged that a three-tier approach could be used to verify that requirements are being met on individual farms. At the broader level, IACS data collection could be adapted to include information on amount and location of protected habitats and features and EPA on the farm. Aerial photography of a proportion of each Member State each year could then be used as a first-step in the verification process, since any 5m buffers and/or lines of hedgerows, trees and other features should readily be observable on such photographs. This could be complemented by a farm visit to a smaller 4

8 proportion of those farms each year to clarify any ambiguities on the photographs and assess the management practices on habitats and features not readily discernible from a photograph. Although no funding would be available for bringing farms up to these minimum requirements of watercourse buffers, protected habitats/features and EPA, it is recognised that off-farm knowledge may be required to conduct an audit of the existing conservation value/potential of the farm and provide advice on how best to achieve the qualification requirements. To this end, either funding could be made available to farmers for paying for conservation advice or project officers could be dedicated to particular regions/areas with a proactive remit Tier II: Providing support for particular farming systems of biodiversity value. Under this tier, support would be targeted at two main types of farming system of proven biodiversity value Maintaining the extent of HNV farming systems and farmland. This is currently a policy priority and the main rationale behind the support available would be to help maintain the HNV status of such farming systems and increase the financial viability of the farms themselves (and thereby prevent abandonment or intensification of the farming practices). A focus on such systems does, however, require each Member State to be able to identify, target and maintain the HNV resource within its borders. This would currently be difficult to achieve in practice given the current lack of detailed knowledge of HNV locations or characteristics that could be used to easily identify an HNV farming system from a conventional farming system. However, the work currently being funded by DG Agriculture is expected to provide guidance to Member States in this regard. In general though, it would be anticipated that it would be feasible to identify at MS level HNV farming systems and to target support at these to maintain their HNV status and ensure their financial viability and attractiveness to successors. In the latter regard, it should be noted that a wider suite of RDP measures would also be required to ensure that one incentive was not being nullified by other factors Increasing the ha of organic farming occurring in the EU27. There is increasing evidence that organic farming practised at a whole farm scale can be beneficial to a variety of groups of farmland biodiversity concern. However, not all organic management provides automatic biodiversity benefits and the intensity of management practices on some organic systems can be just as detrimental to farmland biodiversity than conventional practices. Hence, in order to increase the biodiversity benefits to be gained from such a focus, the current European organic status requirements and any amendments (e.g. CECc) would not only need to be applied more stringently across Europe but would also potentially need to incorporate additional restrictions on grazing densities and nutrient input levels at the field/farm scale in order to better reflect biodiversity concerns. It is proposed that targets for the increase in organic farming under this Tier would be set at the level of the individual MS level (following the route already taken by some MSs). For example, 10% of UAA by 2010 or 15% by 2015 (e.g. Stolze et al. 2006), although given the current overall low level of organic across Europe then 10% by 2015 may be more realistic target. It would however also be feasible for MSs to consider setting additional regional targets for organic farming under the Tier III options available to farmers in their MS (since this could potentially be better from a biodiversity perspective as organic farming per se can be more beneficial to biodiversity when introduced into an already simplified landscape as opposed to one where the landscape structure is already quite varied). 5

9 1.2.3 Tier III: Providing support for specific measures of biodiversity value. Under this tier, support would be available for measures deemed to be important to help address regionally distinctive biodiversity concerns at the farm level. The type of detailed measures that would be relevant to implement would however depend on the specific environmental zone/farm type combination. Examples of the type of measures that could be utilised under this tier on farms within the Continental Zone, Mediterranean Zone and Alpine zone are provided below Example measures of relevance to farms in the Continental zone Support for greater heterogeneity of cropped habitats on a farm. The use of the 7% of EPAs under Tier I is designed to help redress some of the habitat simplification which has had detrimental effects on the biodiversity of farms. However, this still leaves the potential for the remainder of any farm to be quite homogenous in terms of crop or non-cropped habitat diversity. This measure would support farmers who retain a certain level of crop heterogeneity per hectare of their farmed land. This could build on the minimum levels of crop rotation which are included within the crosscompliance measures in MSs like Germany and France. The conversion of arable to grassland. Across much of Europe, arable crops are quite intensively managed and hence arable-dominated farms and landscapes generally provide a biodiversity poor resource. The presence of agricultural grasslands alongside tilled land can be an important source of invertebrate food for breeding birds in comparison with heavily sprayed arable crops (although the value of these grasslands will be reduced the more intensively they are managed). Through this measure, the presence of uncultivated grasslands (even as strips along hedgerows and other field margins in arable-dominated areas) would help allow the persistence of populations of insect groups such as grasshoppers, ants and sawflies which are important bird food items but which are destroyed by cultivation. The planting of wild bird seed cover crops in both grassland and arable situations. Intensively managed arable crops and grassland generally provide little in the way of a seed resource for granivorous farmland birds to utilise during the winter months. This measure allows for the planting of small patches (0.5 ha within every 20 ha) of mixed crops (with seed sizes suitable for a range of farmland birds) at a number of places across a farm. These crops are allowed to set seed and generally remain in-situ for at least two years before being ploughed in and replanted. This can be an effective way of introducing a greater diversity of seed resource into arable or grassland situations where the already existing high nutrient status of the soil preclude sowing with speciesrich seed mixes. Placing limits on the size of large fields by requiring that they be split by the establishment of boundaries of grassland or other habitats. Increasing field size has contributed to the reduction in boundary features and the increased dominance of individual crop types and hence simplification of the landscape across Europe. In western Europe field sizes can be 20 ha or more but in many of the New Member States there can be ha forming one field under the same crop management. This measure would be directed especially at large fields containing intensively managed crop or grassland habitats and would encourage the establishment of boundaries of grassland or other habitats to help increase the diversity of non-cropped habitat richness on the farm. Rewetting drained areas and/or encouraging sympathetic watercourse management. Drainage of agricultural land has contributed to the decline of biodiversity on farmland across large parts of continental Europe. Even small-scale rewetting of such fields can be beneficial to foraging farmland birds, not only by increasing the range of plants and invertebrates which can occur in such 6

10 situations, but also by allowing the birds easier access to seeds and insects in the soil. This measure does not involve complete inundation of these fields, but rather encourages water to be held in parts of the field or along the sides of ditches and watercourses for a longer length of time each year Example measures of relevance to farms in the Mediterranean zone Promoting the use of traditional fallow in Mediterranean areas. Across parts of Spain and Portugal in particular, cereal steppes (open landscapes created by the extensive cultivation of cereals in rotation) are important habitats for several threatened bird species (such as great bustard, the little bustard, the sand grouse, etc). Because of the low rainfall and low nutrient status of the soil, multiple-year self-regenerating fallows are used in these rotations to help build up the nutrient status of the soil before the next crop. These fallows not only provide refuges for many plant species which otherwise would not survive in the cropped areas but can also provide an important foraging resource for the farmland bird communities concerned. This measure involves the support of these longer term fallows and their use in the rotation in place of reliance on inorganic fertilisers (which allows more continual cropping of the same fields). Discouragement of irrigation through support for dryland arable production in the Mediterranean areas. The conversion of such cereal steppes to irrigated agriculture has negative impacts on habitats and biodiversity (e.g. habitats linked to the steppe bird community can be largely eliminated). This measure involves encouraging farmers in an area to maintain less waterdemanding crops in their farming system through greater support for such dryland crops and discouraging the use of irrigation through reductions in payment rates depending on the amount of irrigation used. Management of traditional olive groves. Olive production is a significant land use in the southern Member States of the EU with important environmental, social and economic considerations. As a result of their particular plantation characteristics and farming practices, low-input traditional olive plantations have potentially the highest biodiversity value. However, these plantations are also the least viable in economic terms and hence most vulnerable to abandonment. This measure recognizes the important biodiversity contribution these plantations have over the more intensively managed ones by directing additional financial support to these Examples of measures of relevance to farms in the Alpine zone Management of species-rich meadows. Such open habitats in alpine areas are an important biodiversity resource in their own right but are susceptible to changes in the cutting and grazing practices brought about by abandonment or intensification of the farm management. This measures supports farmers continuing to manage these meadows with the relatively low fertiliser inputs and appropriate timing of cutting. Management of mountain pastures (where necessary incorporating livestock protection from carnivores). Species-rich pastures exist in many mountainous areas of Europe but are prone to scrub and subsequently woodland encroachment if they are not maintained by grazing by livestock. This measure encourages the continuation of livestock grazing of such habitats and also where necessary recognises that wild carnivores can cause damage to the flocks/herds grazing such areas and hence allows for support for protection measures to encourage the farmers and herders to continue to utilise this resource. 7

11 1.3 Additional aspects which need addressing MEACAP MEACAP WP5 D14 It must, however, also be recognised that currently a lack of detailed information places limits on the interpretation of likely success of individual measures or where best to target these. In particular: The approach of combining Farm Type and Environmental Zones was a useful way to objectively split Europe into a small number of different regions and identify where similar climatic constraints (and hence farming systems and biodiversity concerns) were likely to occur across EU MSs. However, when it comes to implementation on the ground by Member States, then the 84 strata forming the underlying Environmental Stratification (EnS) of Europe may prove much more helpful then the Environmental Zones when considering where any specific measure could be most relevant to targeted within any individual zone. There is a need to develop a better knowledge of the characteristics of farms and farm types in terms of the range of habitats that occur on them. The use of an initial conservation audit backed up by an annual/biennial survey (e.g. though IACS) could be used to obtain such information and help track trends in such habitats and features more closely. This would also help indicate how well the 7% level for EPAs indicated above (based on the approach taken in Switzerland) reflects a movement away from the current situation on EU farms. In the absence of such detailed information at the farm and regional level, then some form of surrogate of farmland biodiversity value would useful to have to not only help target where specific actions could be directed, but also where particular changes in land management could be prevented. Currently much biodiversity focus is on Natura 2000 sites and HNV Farming Systems. There is however scope to also make more use of in the future of Important Bird Areas and Important Plant Areas. The approaches suggested in Tier 1 and Tier II in particular would link well to existing IRENA indicators. But as highlighted by the European Environment Agency (EEA 2006b), the Biodiversity Action Plan for Agriculture does not set any tangible area, habitats or species related targets that would help in this process. It is essential that such targets are set in a clear and unambiguous way otherwise it is not only difficult to choose measures to help achieve the desired outcome but also it is extremely difficult to monitor objectively whether that outcome is in any way close to being achieved. 8

12 2 Introduction MEACAP MEACAP WP5 D Agriculture and biodiversity issues across Europe Europe s countryside and cultural landscapes have been shaped by farming over centuries. Farmland, including arable land and permanent grassland, is one of the dominant land covers in Europe, covering over 45% (173 million hectares) of the EU-27. It has been estimated that 50% of all species in Europe depend on agricultural habitats (Kristensen 2003). Consequently, some of the most critical conservation issues today relate to changes to traditional farming practices on habitats such as hay meadows, lowland wet grasslands, heathlands, chalk and dry grasslands, blanket bogs, moorlands and arable land. All of these habitats have been created and need to be maintained by farming. In all cases taking the land out of agricultural production is not the appropriate choice for biodiversity conservation, but rather it is vital to ensure that the intensity of agricultural management is appropriate (Bignal & McCracken 1996). European agriculture is still very diverse, ranging from large and specialised commercial holdings to part-time farming using mainly traditional practices. However, agricultural modernisation and intensification over the last 60 years have had significant impacts on the biodiversity value of Europe s farmland. The mechanisation of agriculture has facilitated the elimination of many landscape elements and hedgerows, the drainage of wetlands and the ploughing up of semi-natural grasslands. Species richness and habitat diversity has also declined due to increased pesticide and fertiliser use and the simplification of crop rotations. This development of intensively-managed agricultural land has affected all agricultural sectors and has occurred across most of the lowland areas of Europe, but has been especially dominant in the north and west. Figure 2.1. Broad land cover distribution across Europe based on CORINE land cover classes (taken from CEC 2006b). Note that in 2000, the EU27 area distribution was: Agricultural Class 47.4%; Forest Class 30.9%; Nature Class 15.4%; Artificial Class 4.2%. 9

13 There are, however, still areas of Europe where soil and climatic constraints together with economic and policy constraints have meant that it was not possible to intensify the farming practices to the same extent. In some areas of Europe, planning considerations have also placed limitations (especially in recent years) on the scale of landscape change that can occur. Irrespective of the underlying reasons for their occurrence, such areas not only generally contain more of a patchwork of semi-natural and natural habitats but also the farmland is more varied and subject to a greater range of intensities of management. This diversity in turn leads to the farmland and associated habitats containing a higher biodiversity value than in the areas where intensification has occurred. Although such High Nature Value (HNV) farmland 1 occurs in association with traditional cropping systems in southern Europe, in general the majority of Europe s remaining HNV farmland is now largely associated with livestock grazing systems on semi-natural habitats in the mountains and other remote areas of Europe. Table 2.1 provides an indication of some of the agricultural biodiversity issues of relevance to broad farm types across Europe. The drainage (or in southern Europe use of irrigation) of farmland together with the mechanisation and modernisation of much of Europe s farming practices has resulted in negative effects on a wide range of farmland habitats and associated ecosystems. Of especial importance is the fact that many agricultural landscapes have become simplified through an increase in farm and field size (and the associated removal of features such as small woodlands and hedges) together with an increasing specialisation on either crops or livestock on any one farm. In contrast, high nature value (HNV) agricultural land generally retains a more diverse mixture of habitats in the agricultural landscape. As a result, such farmland maintains a wide variety of species, many of which are of particular conservation concern. According to calculations in a recent EEA study (EEA 2004a), approximately 15 25% of the European countryside is predicted to be under HNV farmland. The largest areas are found in eastern and southern Europe and contain habitats such as semi-natural grasslands, dehesas, montados and steppe areas. HNV farmland is also relatively abundant in mountainous regions across Europe and contain upland grassland and heathland habitats in association with pastures, hay meadows and small areas of crops from which additional winter fodder for the livestock is produced. No pan- European data on trends in the amount and distribution of HNV farmland is yet available, but it is known that such farmland areas are generally under severe pressure due to a vulnerable economy and agricultural depopulation. Many HNV farms are quite small and are really operating subsistence or semi-subsistence farming systems. Such small farms are especially vulnerable to changes in economic and social pressures and the unwillingness of successors to maintain the system. As a result, some HNV areas are suffering from intensification of the farming practices while others are undergoing abandonment of farmland. In most areas of Europe, both are considered detrimental to biodiversity. Figure 2.2 provides an indication of the average physical farm size across the EU. 1 Three broad types of High Nature Value farmland are recognised in Europe (EEA 2004a): Type 1 - farmland with a high proportion of semi-natural vegetation; Type 2 - Farmland dominated by low intensity agriculture or a mosaic of semi-natural and cultivated land and small-scale features; Type 3 - farmland supporting rare species or a high proportion of European or world populations. 10

14 Table 2.1 Overview of agricultural biodiversity issues of relevance to broad farm types across Europe (adapted from McCracken et al. 2005) Arable systems Horticulture and Permanent Grazing livestock and mixed Pigs and Poultry systems Subsistence and semisubsistence systems crops 2 systems systems Increasing size of farms together with specialisation in either crop or livestock production and associated decrease in mixed farms Increasing size of fields and decreasing amount and/or condition of non-productive landscape elements (hedgerows, woodlands, field margins) Increasing intensification, especially with regard to drainage, irrigation, nutrient input, pesticide use, grazing regimes and mowing practices Increasing mechanisation of farming practices and the use of bigger and heavier machinery leading to concerns over soil compaction and erosion Increasing focus on the more productive areas of farmland and decreasing utilisation of areas less suitable for machinery or too far from the farm Increasing concern over wider environmental impact of point-source and diffuse pollution from agricultural sources Decreasing genetic diversity with an increasing focus on fewer crop varieties and livestock breeds Decrease in variety of crops grown on individual farms Decrease in use of fallow in rotations Decrease in use of livestock on farm Decrease in amount and length of time stubbles are left before ploughing Increase in use of irrigation Decrease in variety of crops grown on individual farms Decrease in association with livestock and cropping systems Increase in the intensity and scale of practices Increase in livestock densities on farms Increase in mechanisation and intensity of cutting practices Increase in amount of fodder and forage sourced off-farm Increase in the intensity of fodder production sourced on-farm from either arable or grassland situations Decrease in semi-natural vegetation on farms Reduction or total abandonment of grazing practices of semi-natural habitats Loss of grassland and other open habitats through scrub/woodland encroachment All factors resulting in a decrease in the mixture of habitats and structures occurring at the field, farm and landscape scales Intensification of pig production in dehesa/montado systems Increase in housing of pigs and poultry and decrease utilisation of farmland habitats Increase in densities at which animals are kept within houses and hence in volume of waste produced per unit area from such units Increase in pollution impacts associated with disposal of high volumes of waste from such units Lack of recognition of importance of these for biodiversity and hence little or decreasing support for such systems at national or EU level Decrease in scale of practices and abandonment of individual farms/plots Decrease in number and distribution of systems in already vulnerable landscapes 2 Permanent crops (such as olives, fruit and vines) are an important component of farmland, especially in Mediterranean. Much of this cultivation has been intensified in recent years and the surviving systems of high biodiversity value are generally in the poorer area where farming is less specialised and inter-cropping (for example of olives, almonds, carobs and cereal with livestock grazing) is still practised. 11

15 Figure 2.2: Average physical farm size across the EU27 (taken from CEC 2006b). Note that the EU27 average in 2003 was 11.5 ha Table 2.2: Ecosystem quality estimates assigned to different farm types (adapted from Reidsma et al. 2006) Ecosystem Quality Farm types Production systems 100% No production Primary vegetation 40% Extensive grassland management Medium to high cattle density on natural grassland 35% Extensive organic management Low-External-Input & Sustainable Agriculture (LEIA); permaculture 25% Extensive farming Traditional farming; extensive farming, Low- External-Input Agriculture (LEIA) 20% Intensive organic farming Rainfed organic farming 20% Intensive grassland management Grassland production based on ploughing, reseeding and fertilisation 15% Highly intensive organic farming Organic farming in developed countries (where conventional agriculture is based on long-term soil; and water investments) 10% Intensive crop production systems Intensive arable; integrated cropping; High- External-Input-Agriculture (HEIA); conventional cropping 5% Highly intensive crop production Irrigation based cropping; integrated cropping; systems drainage based cropping; additional soil levelling practices; regional specialisation; specialisation of production at farm and landscape level 12

16 Reidsma et al. (2006) recently assigned an ecosystem quality score to different farm types across Europe (Table 2.2). This quality score was based on an assessment of the mean abundance of wild species relative to their abundance in undisturbed situations (based on a literature review of studies drawn from across Europe). Their maximum value of 100% therefore indicates an undisturbed natural situation, while 0% represents a completely transformed/destroyed ecosystem without any wild species left. Based on their literature review, Reidsma et al. (2006) assigned scores to cropping, grazing and organic systems as follows: Cropping systems: These were regarded in three broad classes: agroforestry systems with an average ecosystem quality of 50%; extensive cropping with an ecosystem quality of 25% and intensive cropping with an ecosystem quality of 10%. Extrapolation of this relationship for highly intensive crop production systems (on the basis of additional long-term water and soil investments such as irrigation, drainage and soil levelling practices) resulted in an ecosystem quality of 5%. Grassland systems: Intensification of extensively used grasslands and abandonment without replacement of natural grazers may both lead to decreased species richness and/or a decreased average abundance of species. The literature review by Reidsma et al. (2006) highlighted that maximum species richness was always found at light grazing regimes. They considered that for both pristine natural grassland ecosystems (where grazing by wild herbivores is part of the natural situation) and long-term highly valued semi-natural grasslands (where grazing by livestock takes place), the expected ecosystem quality ranges from % under light grazing ( livestock units per hectare) and 40-50% under heavy grazing (more than 0.7 LU/ha). They also considered that abandoned grassland suffers a loss in ecosystem quality of some 25% with reference to optimal grazing density, i.e. 75% ecosystem quality would remain. Organic farming systems: A consideration of pair-wise comparisons between very intensive conventional farming and organic farming highlighted an increase inorganic farming in the species abundance of five species groups: 2.1 times for birds; 2.9 times for plants; 3.2 times for insects; 2.4 times for mammals; and 1.8 times for earthworms. An in-depth meta-analysis by Bengtsson et al. (2005) estimated an increase in mean species abundance by 50%. The original starting point will, however, influence the degree of change with the conversion of more extensive land-use types into organic farming being expected to result logically in less of a gain. Reidsma et al. (2006) therefore considered that there would be an average absolute gain in ecosystem quality of 10% for conversion of any type of conventional cropland or grassland farming into organic farming. In other words, conversion to organic was taken to imply a tripling in ecosystem quality for very intensive systems (i.e. from 5% to 15%), a doubling for intensive agriculture (i.e. from 10% to 20%) and a 1.5 times gain for extensive agriculture (i.e. from 25% to 35%). Taking this approach, Reidsma et al. (2006) estimated that in 2000 ecosystem quality was on average 10% of its original pristine value in cropping and permanent cropping systems in the EU25, with a range of 6 24% among regions (Figure 2.2). The ecosystem quality in grazing systems was estimated to be much higher: 26% on average with a range from 15% to 82% (i.e. regions with mainly intensively fertilised and/or re-seeded permanent grassland and extensive semi-natural grazing, respectively). The lowest ecosystem qualities were estimated to occur in intensively used agricultural areas in lowlands (e.g. The Netherlands and northern France) and in irrigation systems (e.g. Greece). Ecosystem qualities for cropland were relatively high in the New Member States (e.g. 22% and 24% for cropland in Slovenia and Poland, respectively), the Iberian Peninsula, southern Italy and Scandinavia. These regions were also estimated to have a high ecosystem quality for 13

17 Figure 2.2: Ecosystem quality of (a) croplands and (b) grasslands as estimated by Reidsma et al. (2006) based on ecosystem quality scores assigned to different farm types across Europe (Table 2.2). (a) Cropland (b) Grassland grassland. The highest values for grassland were found in Scotland, southern Spain and the Alps. This was mainly due to the high abundance of rough grassland in these areas. The influence of organic farming was low over most of Europe as its percentage occurrence was below 4% in many regions. In Italy, Austria, Finland and Sweden organic farming covered around 10% of the area in 2000 and this increased the average ecosystem quality in these regions by c. 1%. 2.2 Approaches taken to-date to address agricultural biodiversity concerns Nature conservation policies The main policy instruments for site protection at EU level are the birds and habitats directives (79/409/EEC, 92/43/EEC). Annex I of the habitats directive lists natural and semi-natural habitat types that must be maintained in a favourable conservation status by the Member States. The Natura 2000 network will build on the proposed sites of communal interest (pscis) that have been listed by the Member States. Out of the 198 habitat types listed in Annex 1 of the Habitats Directive, 65 have been shown to be threatened by the intensification of agriculture practices, whilst 26 grazed pasture habitats and 6 mown grassland habitats are threatened by the abandonment of pastoral management practices (Osterman 1998). However, despite the dominance of farmland across Europe and its importance from a biodiversity perspective, agricultural habitats only form about 35% of the total area listed as pscis across the EU-15 and only three countries (Greece, Portugal and Spain) have included a greater proportion of such habitats within the pscis they have listed. In addition, it appears unlikely that the choice of farmland to enter into pscis has been influenced solely by its biodiversity value, since less than one third of the predicted distribution of HNV farmland areas across the EU-15 has been found to be covered by pscis (EEA 2004a). Consequently, it would appear that the site protection measures employed to-date will at best conserve a minority of HNV farmland and do not necessarily appear to be targeted at areas of high farmland biodiversity potential within the more intensively managed agricultural landscapes Halting Biodiversity Loss by 2010 The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was signed in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and has been ratified or acceded to by more than 180 parties, including the European Community and all its individual Member States. The Convention has three main goals: the conservation of biodiversity; sustainable use of components of biodiversity; sharing the benefits arising from the commercial and 14

18 other utilisation of genetic resources in a fair and equitable way. In 2002, the CBD Conference of Parties (COP) adopted a more concrete goal: to achieve a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level by The EC did, however, go further than this and in 2002 declared its own goal of halting the loss of biodiversity by Although there are no specific CBD objectives related to agricultural biodiversity, in Europe agriculture and agricultural biodiversity are considered to be important components of the 2010 target (Zdanowicz et al. 2005). The EC Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (ECBS), adopted in 1998, was developed to meet the EC s obligations as a Party to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Four associated Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs), covering agriculture, natural resources, fisheries and economic cooperation and development, were adopted in 2001 and each outlines in detail what actions should be taken within each sector to implement the strategy. The ECBS requires the Commission to make an assessment of implementation, effectiveness and appropriateness of the ECBS and BAPs and to report on these every three years. Consultative reviews conducted in 2003 and considered in greater detail at a stakeholder conference in Malahide (Republic of Ireland) in May 2004 have highlighted that although there have been some successes in implementation, there have also been shortfalls in achieving the integration of biodiversity concerns into EU policies 3. With regard to the BAP for Agriculture, the Message from Malahide highlighted that current opportunities under the existing Rural Development Regulation (Regulation1257/99) have not been fully utilised by the Member States (e.g. there has been little progress in implementing Article 16 schemes for areas faced with environmental restrictions in Natura 2000 sites). As a result, it was suggested that even greater emphasis should be placed in the coming years on the need to integrate environmental and biodiversity protection requirements into all aspects of the Common Agricultural Policy. In 1998, the European Council endorsed the principle that major policy proposals by the Commission should be accompanied by an appraisal of their environmental impact. In 1999, the Council adopted a strategy for integrating the environmental dimension into the CAP. This integration strategy stressed the key role of Member States in implementing the integration measures and highlighted the need for the development of appropriate agri-environment indicators to monitor such integration. To this end, the IRENA 4 process (Indicator Reporting on the Integration of Environmental Concerns into Agricultural Policy) was developed as a joint exercise between several Commission Directorates-General (DG Agriculture, DG Environment, DG Eurostat and DG Joint Research Centre) and the European Environment Agency. The main objective was to develop agri-environmental indicators for monitoring the integration of environmental concerns into agriculture policy in the EU-15. The main outputs have been: 35 agri-environmental indicators supported by datasets at NUTS 2/3 level (where data is available) and classified according to the DPSIR model (Driving force Pressure State Impact Response) an indicator report (Agriculture and environment in EU15: the IRENA indicator report, EEA 2005) providing an integrated environmental analysis of EU15 agriculture based on those 35 agri-environmental indicators as well as an assessment of the progress made in their development and interpretation 3 Message from Malahide. Halting the decline of biodiversity: priority objectives and targets for Outcome from stakeholders conference on Biodiversity and the EU: sustaining life, sustaining livelihoods held May 2004, Malahide, Ireland 4 Indicator fact sheets, supporting databases and IRENA reports can be found on the IRENA website: 15

19 an indicator-based assessment report on the integration of environmental concerns into agricultural policy (EEA 2006b) Changes to agricultural support mechanisms The European Union's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and associated national agricultural policies have been the main drivers behind conflicts between farming practices and biodiversity. The CAP initially aimed to increase productivity and provide more food at a lower cost for EU countries, while also achieving a fair standard of living for farmers. This was achieved through stabilisation of markets (through a single market with common prices) and a more autonomous approach with less reliance on imports and preference given to member states as well as free movement of goods (Young et al. 2005). However, by the 1980s, the CAP and its market and structural support policies were held responsible for increasing habitat degradation, overproduction of food products, intensification of farming practices, and the concentration of production from fewer, more specialised farms (Bignal et al. 2001). In the early 1980s the CAP experienced the first of a succession of changes in emphasis when measures were introduced to control surplus production and also to provide compensation to farmers for loss of income as a result of their adopting environmentally sensitive forms of farming. The subsequent 1992 reform further recognised the environmental role of farming by increasing the availability of agri-environmental schemes across the EU. In 1998, the Agenda 2000 reform took this further and introduced elements of environmental cross-compliance 5, as well as the opportunity for farmers to obtain support (under the Rural Development Regulation) for additional activities other than farming per se. The mid-term review of the CAP in 2003 removed the focus on production and increased the focus on environmental concerns within the CAP. Consequently, since 2005 most financial support provided to farmers is no longer dependent on them growing specific areas of crops or retaining a certain number of animals. Instead, farmers receive a Single Farm Payment (which in the EU15 is largely be based on their historic level of CAP support), provided they undertake to comply with a suite of EU Directives (including the Birds and Habitats Directives) and keep their land in Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition. In addition, the majority of farmers are seeing the level of their Single Farm Payment decrease annually to allow Member States to fund an increase in the amount of funding available via rural development measures. Although a wide suite of measures can be funded under the rural development heading, it is anticipated that in many Member States this modulation of the CAP will release funds to encourage more farmers to join agri-environment schemes. As already indicated, the most recent reform of the CAP represented a radical change in the system of farm support provided within the EU, and reflected in large part two of the demands of environmental NGOs, i.e. decoupling of support from production and mandatory environmental cross-compliance for all sectors supported by direct payments. There is also some interesting innovation, especially the establishment of a system of advice aimed at facilitating farmers adaptation to the new environmental, animal welfare and health requirements. Nevertheless, there is also strong concern amongst some environmental NGOs and others that the approach in the current 5 The new Member States have implemented the CAP direct support payments and by the payment rates will be fully aligned with those in EU15 Member States. Most of the new Member States (with the exception of Slovenia and Malta) started by making these payments under the Single Area Payment Scheme (SAPS) and by 2008 will transfer to the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) which now applies to the former EU15 Member States. Cross- Compliance does not apply fully to each of the EU10 New Member States until they have converted fully to SPS. See Anon (2005) and Gay, S H & Osterburg, B (2004) for more detail. 16

20 package is a high-risk way of CAP reform, with limited guarantees of sustainability and no fallback position if things do not work out as planned. The possible effects on farming practices and land-use patterns are still largely unknown, and hence the likely impacts on farmland biodiversity is currently unclear. Some environmental benefits (possible reductions in input use, stricter controls on impacts and increased effectiveness of agri-environment payments) are anticipated, particularly on farmland which was previously managed intensively. However, there is also the potential for important farmland biodiversity losses, especially through the decline of socially and economically fragile farming systems of high nature value. The retention of a focus on agri-environment schemes in the rural development measures is also good in principle. However, the reforms to-date have done little to address the question as to whether or not the programmes themselves have been effective in achieving their biodiversity objectives. In particular, many of the wide variety of schemes currently available suffer from the fundamental difficulty in attempting to manage biological features that have evolved as integral functional components of farming systems, as if they were simple material features. As a result, many schemes have a tendency to be over-prescriptive, are targeted too closely at specific material aspects or conspicuous species and some may have been over ambitious in their objectives. The ecological complexity of farmland and the fact that no two farms are the same has been difficult to address, as has making clear the distinction between high nature value farmland and the more impoverished systems of management and production associated with intensively managed areas (Bignal & McCracken 2000) 17

21 2.3 Current developments with regard to agricultural biodiversity concerns It has recently been highlighted that overall, progress towards the 2010 target to halt biodiversity loss on farmland in Europe is not visible and unlikely to be reached without additional integrated policy efforts (EEA 2006a). Across Europe, High Nature Value (HNV) farmland continues to be under threat from both intensification and abandonment of farm management practices with a subsequent loss in farmland biodiversity value. Conversely, already intensified farms have generally not made sufficient large-scale changes to their farming systems which are necessary to produce the conditions required for farmland biodiversity to recover. In recognition of this, the recent Biodiversity Communication (CEC 2006a) has highlighted that the European Commission's strategy for halting biodiversity loss on farmland by 2010 and beyond will focus on: putting greater emphasis on action for the EU s most important habitats and species. Securing these habitats requires greater commitment from Member States to propose, designate, protect and effectively manage Natura 2000 sites. It also requires that they strengthen coherence, connectivity and resilience of the network, including through support to national, regional and local protected areas. putting greater emphasis on complementing Natura 2000 and the conservation of threatened species through also encouraging a wider environment favorable to biodiversity. Key actions to this end include: optimising the use of available measures (such as agri-environment schemes) under the reformed CAP, notably to prevent intensification or abandonment of HNV farmland, and advancing implementation of key environmental framework directives and thematic strategies which reduce pressures on biodiversity (notably by improving the quality of freshwater and of soils, and by reducing diffuse pollutant pressures). Hence, over the next 5 years there will be an increasing emphasis put on biodiversity and wider environmental concerns at both an EU, Member State and local level. At the same time though, it is clear not only that a focus on Natura 2000 will only cover a small proportion of farmland biodiversity concerns (e.g. the site protection measures employed to-date at best conserve a minority of HNV farmland and do not necessarily appear to be targeted at areas of high farmland biodiversity potential within the more intensively managed agricultural landscapes) but also that the level of funds made available in Pillar II of the CAP (the main funding route to support agrienvironment measures to help address biodiversity concerns on farmland) will not increase markedly. An increasing emphasis on other environmental concerns will also increase competition for these already limited Pillar II funds. For example: although the implementation of the Water Framework Directive should help freshwater biodiversity, an increased emphasis on funding diffuse pollution mitigation measures (aimed particularly but not necessarily exclusively at intensive farmland) will potentially places limits on the amount of funding available for measures aimed at specifically improving terrestrial farmland biodiversity concerns; as the extent of renewable energy production increases across Europe there is likely to be increasing pressure to site wind farms on High Nature Value farmland habitats; although an increase in the extent of bioenergy crops may introduce some habitat diversity into agricultural landscapes, the intensity of management required of such crops is unlikely to be favourable to habitats or species of farmland biodiversity concern. Farmers and their farming practices are needed to maintain and improve conditions for habitats and species of farmland biodiversity concern. The amount of income that these farmers can obtain from CAP and market sources will continue to drive farm management decisions and affect the overall viability of each farm. Under the current reform of the CAP, there is unlikely to be any major shifts in support payments from one area of Europe to another or from one type of farmer to another. Hence, the overall amount of income that can be obtained from HNV farming systems is likely to remain low and such farmers will continue to be under pressure to either intensify their farming 18

22 practices (to increase overall income levels) or abandon farming practices altogether (to reduce their overall burden of costs and maximise the level of support payments that they can retain as income). The biodiversity value of HNV farming systems (mainly occurring now in the less productive areas central and eastern Europe, the Mediterranean and in the mountains) is likely to continue to decline. Conversely, the more intensive, and hence biodiversity poor, farms which occur across most of lowland Europe and the more easily accessible uplands will (through modulation of the single farm payment) see an erosion of their main source of support and many will seek to compensate for this through maximising their income from Pillar II funds. However, with increasing pressures on the income to be made from farming as well as increasing pressures to address other environmental concerns, it is likely that there will be an increasing reluctance for many intensive farmers to spend time and money additionally addressing farmland biodiversity issues which limit the productivity of their farms. Most of their income will come from the sale of products from their farming enterprises and so there will be increasing push to keep any actions targeted at biodiversity concerns away from the productive areas of farmland. Hence the marked increases in habitat diversity which is required to increase biodiversity in and around fields on intensive farms is unlikely to occur. Although the Biodiversity Communication places an emphasis on taking action to address farmland biodiversity concerns, the main thrust is on encouraging Member States to use existing policy and support mechanisms to help achieve this. However, the farming industry and farming unions will push for environmental requirements/obligations put on farmers to be kept as low as possible. Without more of a push for Member States for increase funding levels for biodiversity actions and target these more appropriately, then the 2010 target of halting biodiversity loss on farmland will not be achieved. In particular, it is likely that (EEA 2006a): natural and semi-natural habitats will continue to be lost within intensively-farmed areas trends of farmland related species such as bird and butterflies will continue to decline High Nature Value farmland will continue to be abandoned 2.4 Aim of biodiversity work within MEACAP There is therefore a need to consider what more could be done via the CAP to improve biodiversity situation across Europe. The overall aim of the biodiversity work within WP5 was to consider approaches/measures which: Were of relevance to farmland biodiversity issues across Europe and had the potential for significant biodiversity impact if implemented in relevant locations at an appropriate scale Were, if possible, generic and if not were of relevance to and could be targeted at the broad extent of farm types occurring within Member States Were, if possible, quantifiable in terms of how much would need to be implemented and/or what the biodiversity impacts were likely to be; and even if those aspects were not directly quantifiable, then the approaches were at least things that could have implementation costs developed/estimated for them (at farm and policy level) Could be linked, directly or indirectly, to an existing monitoring system so that their take-up could potentially be monitored without having to have an additional different system implemented 19

23 3 Methodological considerations MEACAP MEACAP WP5 D Difficulties in considering agricultural biodiversity issues The term agricultural biodiversity encompasses an extremely wide suite of concerns (e.g. from genetic composition through species assemblages to ecosystem health) and biological foci (e.g. from soil micro-fauna through different habitat plant species compositions to the wide range of wildlife species and groups that utilise agricultural land in all its many forms throughout Europe). Hence in discussion about farmland biodiversity it is essential to be clear what is exactly is being talked about and considered. Therefore, right at the start of the biodiversity study in MEACAP it was evident that setting out to select a small suite of measures to address farmland biodiversity in general would be impossible to achieve in practice without ending up with a suite of measures that have few factors in common and which then would consequently appear disjointed and unclear how they were linked. It was therefore considered essential to set a narrower range of biodiversity issues to help form the focus for the study and the information gathering exercises. In addition, no one field, farm or landscape can be divorced entirely from its surroundings the type, amount and condition of the habitats and features occurring in those surroundings will impact on and influence the biodiversity potential of the site under consideration. In general, higher biodiversity potential will be directly linked to the heterogeneity (mixture) of plant types and structures that occur within the habitats. These are not just influenced by the condition of the habitats themselves (which can be affected by management but also by more natural processes such as exposure or flooding) but also by the age of the habitats. So for example, a young newly planted hedge will by its very nature have less biodiversity value than an older, mature hedge. The type of issues which therefore need to be taken into consideration when considering the biodiversity potential of any habitats and hence the likely success that any measure applied to that habitat may have include: The current (and potential future) size of the habitat itself What occurs within the immediate surroundings of the habitat The condition of the habitat and how this is likely to change with time The location of the habitat in the landscape, especially with regard to: The proximity to other habitats in the landscape with which it could interact Potential barriers to movement and/or spread of species across the landscape to and from that habitat The connectivity between habitats of importance to the condition of the habitat The topography of the landscape and how this impacts on the potential to maintain or enhance existing habitats or make provision for new habitats All these factors need to be taken into consideration when predicting whether any one measure may or may not be successful in achieving its biodiversity objectives in any given situation. However, while it is potentially feasible to obtain some information on the diversity of some types of habitat (at least for particular areas), it is far less easy to obtain such information from the wide range of the farms occurring within that area. For example, IACS collects little if any information on the amount, location or condition of any non-agricultural habitats on farms. Hence, little data is 20

24 available readily at the farm or regional level to be able to link these aspects together and form an impression of existing or potential biodiversity impact of the implementation of any particular measure. Finally, when looking to assess the effectiveness of the implementation of any measure it is important to be able to say how much of that measure may need to be applied in any given situation to achieve the desired effect. However, because of the complexities of the ecological relationships it is very rarely possible to be precise as to the exact amount of habitat or proportion of a farm or region that needs to be under a particular type of management in order to achieve any particular biodiversity goal. In addition, there are a very few instances of policy documents providing clear guidance to how much of a particular measure is desirable. For example, as highlighted by the European Environment Agency (EEA 2006b), the 2003 CAP reform stated that one strategic objective was to achieve an increase in both the area covered by agri-environment schemes and the resources dedicated to paying for these schemes, but no exact figures or targets were given. Similarly, although the Biodiversity Action Plan for Agriculture does list numerous indicators that could potentially allow the assessment of progress, the document does not set any tangible area, habitats or species related targets that would help in this process. 3.2 Considerations at an EU25, EU15 and EU10 level The biodiversity consideration within MEACAP had, like the rest of the wider project, an EU25 focus. However, different approaches were employed with regard to information gathering process from the EU15 and NMS10. This was necessary because the vast majority of farmland biodiversity studies to-date have had an EU15 focus and it was therefore unclear how much similarity there was in biodiversity issues between the EU15 and NMS10 MSs, especially given their different recent political and agricultural policy histories. In addition, while much agricultural statistic and broad biodiversity information and data was readily available for EU15 MSs, such information or at least ready access to it was known to be much more limited in the NMS10. For these reasons, the following approaches were taken to the information gathering exercise: An initial background document (Agricultural biodiversity issues to be aware of within MEACAP; McCracken et al. 2005) was prepared an used as a focus for the broad issues to be potentially aware of across the EU25. For the EU15, the scientific literature and the specifics and appraisals of many MS agrienvironment schemes were considered and from these expert judgement was used to select a range of measures that were considered both to have the potential of wider European relevance and to help address the 3 main biodiversity concerns detailed in the next section. This aspect of the work was led by SAC with input from HUB. For the NMS10, individuals with relevant expertise and knowledge were identified in each MS and these inputted to the data and information gathering exercise through sub-contract to HUB. Initially, in order to obtain a better understanding of agricultural and biodiversity issues in each of these MSs, the sub-contractors were asked to complete a questionnaire seeking information on: basic agricultural and biodiversity issues (and especially where these were different from that described in McCracken et al. 2005); the approaches taken to the conservation of genetic resources (to feed into the separate study by Nitsch, 2006)); and the availability of statistical information compatible with EU15 datasets. Following a NMS10 specific workshop held in Lithuania, it was decided to conduct three case-studies to draw out more detailed information on the biodiversity issues associated with three topics of especial relevance to the NMS10: Small-scale farming (drawing 21

25 especially on the situation in Poland, Slovenia, Cyprus and Malta); Large-scale arable farming (drawing especially on the experience of Slovakia, Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary); and Land abandonment (drawing especially on the experience of Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Cyprus and Malta). Following the collation of information at the national level on each of these three topics, three overview reports were provided summarising the key issues identified under each topic (Hiiemäe 2006; Karaczun et al. 2006; Macák et al. 2006). Abstracts for each of these reports are provided in Appendices 7-9. The information gleaned from both the EU15 and NMS10 approaches were combined to produce a small set of measures which were considered to be good examples of measures with a potentially wider European relevance and the potential to have a positive impact on biodiversity if implemented in appropriate situations at the appropriate scale. 3.3 Setting the detailed biodiversity focus on which to base the selection of technical measures The conservation of genetic resources is an important aspect of farmland biodiversity conservation. To this end, a separate small document dealing with approaches across the EU25 to the conservation of genetic resources was prepared by MEACAP project colleagues at FAL (Nitsch 2006). However, in the biodiversity-oriented work reported here, the focus was put specifically on wildlife species and habitats associated with and intimately linked to farmland and farming practices. As indicated above, it was recognised that there was a need to be more specific about the biodiversity focus in order to set a clear rationale for the selection of a manageable set of biodiversity measures within the MEACAP project. As detailed in McCracken et al. (2005), irrespective of whether one is dealing with High Nature Value farmland or non-hnv farmland, simplification of the agricultural landscape has been one of the primary causes of farmland biodiversity declines (Table 2.1.1). Hence maintaining or increasing habitat diversity at both the field and agricultural landscape levels was selected as the key issue with which help to focus the selection of biodiversity measures within MEACAP. However, the scale at which such habitat diversity needs to be maintained or created, and hence any likely positive outcome for biodiversity of any particular measure, not only depends on the starting point (in terms of the type, structure, condition and spatial/temporal location of the habitats under consideration) but also on what aspect of biodiversity is being targeted (e.g. plants, insects, birds and mammals all vary in the importance of field, farm and landscape scale in meeting their basic requirements of viable populations). Two additional farmland biodiversity issues were therefore also used to help narrow the focus of measures to consider: Reversing the decline of farmland bird populations. Farmland bird declines are a major area of concern across Europe and one where there is public desire and political willingness to reverse this situation. Changes in farmland bird populations with time can also be used as an indication of the general state of farmland biodiversity, since the diversity and abundance of plant and insect species on farmland directly affects the availability of food for birds. In addition, features such as hedgerows, uncultivated field margins, small woodlands and patches of scrub are important for many species of farmland birds and hence changes in the occurrence and distribution of these habitats will be reflected in changes in the bird population in the agricultural landscape. Maintaining existing semi-natural farmland habitats. Due to the relatively small area of undisturbed natural habitat that remains in Europe, semi-natural farmland habitats are 22

26 particularly important as a biodiversity resource. Heathlands and semi-natural grasslands depends for their maintenance on appropriate management by farmers through grazing and/or mowing, and are therefore particularly sensitive to intensification or abandonment of farming practices. All three of these issues (increasing farmland habitat diversity; reversing declines in farmland bird assemblages; maintaining semi-natural vegetation) will continue to be major issues of relevance to both biodiversity management and policy development over the next years. All three are also relevant to the wide range of farm types and farming systems occurring across Europe. 3.4 Use of Environmental Zones to split EU25 into a set of manageable regions But even with such a narrower focus on these three biodiversity issues, there is still a need to consider these in light of the differences in both farm types and biodiversity issues occurring within specific regions of Europe (since geographical location influences both farm type and the underlying particular biodiversity concerns and hence will influence the specific characteristics of the measures which need to be implemented both within and between specific farm types and within and between specific regions). Simply using Member State or sub-member State to provide such a regional definition across the EU25 was considered too detailed (and potentially repetitive) a level to consider within the time and resources available within MEACAP (though from an implementation perspective this is something that an individual MS would need to consider when establishing their own priorities). What was required was an objective approach that provided the potential a small set of regions to work with and which was also capable of linking with information in databases on farm system/farm type characteristics (in order to help characterise those regions). Biodiversity and farming potential are inter-related and both are strongly influenced by climatic and environmental considerations. In recognition of this, a detailed statistical stratification of the European environment has recently been developed based on objective multivariate analyses of twenty environmental variables (Jongman et al. 2006; Metzger et al. 2005). It was considered that this would provide a useful way of splitting Europe into regions with similar climatic and hence farming system potential and of thereby highlighting where any measures may be more appropriate to apply. Appendices 2-5 provide more detail of the Environmental Zone (EnZ) approach used to help form the broad regional focus for the consideration of biodiversity concerns and issues in this study. 3.5 Broad farm type and biodiversity context within each Environmental Zone In order to gain an impression of the broad farm types (and hence likely biodiversity issues) occurring within each of the 11 EnZs across Europe, data on the number and area of broad farm types (grouped as in Table 2.1 into: Arable Systems; Horticulture & Permanent Crop Systems; Grazing Livestock & Mixed Systems; Pig & Poultry Systems) occurring within each EnZ was drawn from Eurostat. Because the EnZ boundaries do not conform directly to statistical boundaries, it was not feasible to provide exact figures for the occurrence of each of these broad farm types within each EnZ. Instead, NUTS regions which were wholly or mainly within each EnZ were identified and the agricultural data drawn from these was taken as representative of each EnZ as a whole. Appendix 5 includes the resulting information obtained on breakdown by broad farm type within each EnZ. Once the broad farm type characteristics of each EnZ were known, this allowed an estimate to be made of the main biodiversity issues and concerns of relevance to the farm types with each zone, drawing on the issues highlighted in Table 2.1. This was done to help highlight farm type/enz combinations where the underlying biodiversity issues were likely to be similar and hence where 23

27 any measures chosen to address these issues were likely to be relevant. This identification of the importance of different biodiversity issues within each EnZ was done based on expert judgement, drawing on broad evidence for these concerns drawn from broad overview reports and papers and (in the case of the NMS10) the case study reports prepared by the NMS10 subcontractors. Note that Pig & Poultry Systems were not considered further in study since across Europe they are largely based on housed-systems and hence have little direct influence on the habitat diversity occurring on the farms on which they are practised. Although Vegetable & Permanent Crops were grouped together for compatibility with (and hence ease of access of information from) agricultural statistical datasets, in reality most vegetable production is likely to be comparable with annual arable crops. The consideration of biodiversity issues under the Horticulture & Permanent Crops header is therefore focused more on the permanent crops aspects. This broad overview of biodiversity issues by broad farm type was also used to provide an indication of how much movement (in terms of the changes required to the existing farming system production approach) would be needed on the ground to maintain or improve the biodiversity value. Although Semi-Subsistence & Subsistence farming systems were known to be an important component of HNV farming systems in some parts of Europe (especially in parts of the Mediterranean and NMS10 MSs), more of a focus was not directed on these until part way through the project (when the decision was taken to focus on small-scale farming as one of the three case studies arising specifically out of NMS10 concerns) and their extent within the NMS10 became even more clear (see Appendix 6). Consequently, estimates of the occurrence of these systems were not made for each EnZ instead, their distribution by MS was highlighted and their likely importance within each EnZ extrapolated from the distribution of each EnZ across the EU The measure selection process During the measure identification and assessment process, it quickly became clear that although it would be feasible to identify a suite of individual measures that may have the potential to address one or other of the three main issues forming the biodiversity focus of the study, the likely success of those measures would, as detailed above, in any situation would be very dependent on both the scale and on surroundings in which they were applied. It also became clear that one of the major criticisms of agri-environment schemes and their general lack of success in achieving their objectives in many situations was that they had been applied at small-scale in inappropriate situations. Rather than relying on individual farmers to voluntarily take up some agri-environment prescriptions, there was a need to increase the overall biodiversity potential of most agricultural landscapes by ensuring that all farmers were taking some action on the ground to maintain or improve the existing resource. The initial focus of the measure selection process therefore shifted away from small-scale specific examples drawn from around Europe to seeking a larger, generic approach that would be feasible to apply on all farms and which would have some form of proven potential to be of benefit to biodiversity concerns. Once the broad context of the main biodiversity issues in each Farm Type/EnZ combination was clearer, then it was more feasible to attempt to target the selection of specific measures of particular relevance to the narrower biodiversity focus being taken in the study (habitat diversity; farmland birds; semi-natural vegetation). However, it was recognised that this could be a detailed timeconsuming process and was one which would actually be more relevant to be conducted by each MS as part of their Rural Development planning and assessment processes. Once the broad biodiversity issues were assessed per farm type within each EnZ it was possible to recognise groups of EnZs based on their broad similarities in broad biodiversity issues. A decision was therefore taken to constrain the selection of specific measures by drawn on a selection of examples from a small number of EnZs. The EnZs Alpine South, Continental and Mediterranean South were found 24

28 to be consistently different from each other in both the broad farm types present and the biodiversity issues associated with these. These were then chosen as the focus for drawing out examples of detailed measures, since the choice of these three EnZs ensured that a range of farm types and biodiversity issues could be covered. Overall, measures were drawn from a consideration of what was needed to really tackle farmland biodiversity concerns in Europe coupled with a consideration of measures that have been tried in EU15 and the issues identified as important in the NMS10 case studies. The focus was put on highlighting the issues of concern, what needed to be done to address these and seeking measures which not only had proven to be effective but which also could be monitored in some way if they were implemented. To this end, particular attention was directed to selecting measures which not only were deemed to be effective from a biodiversity perspective but which also could be linked to the existing IRENA indicator process (in order that the monitoring of the effectiveness of the measures were covered, where possible, by an existing indicator and that we were not consequently suggesting measures which required additional monitoring resources directed at them). As indicated above, a particular emphasis was put on trying to establish a generic approach which could be investigated further in WP6/WP7 of the MEACAP project. Hence the intent was to produce an approach and provide a suite of example measures which could form part of the selection of measures that could be implemented on the ground as part of that approach in different parts of Europe. 25

29 4 Output MEACAP MEACAP WP5 D Overview of biodiversity issues of concern to broad farm types across Europe Table 4.1 provides an overview of the main existing farmland biodiversity interests and concerns across the 11 main EnZs in the EU25 and the following sections summarise the main concerns by broad farm type Arable systems (Table 4.2) These systems encompass the wide variety of non-permanent crop types which can occur on nonirrigated and irrigated cultivated land throughout Europe (for example, fallow land, stubbles, wheat, barley, rye, oats, maize, other cereals, potatoes, sugar beet, other root crops, sunflower, rape seeds, soya, cotton, tobacco, other fibre and oil crops, pulses). Annual horticulture crops (such as fresh vegetables, tomatoes, flower and ornamental plant production) have similar characteristics and hence are also considered here. By their very nature, all of these crop types involve the main crop plant being the dominant plant species in the situation in which it is growing. However, differences in soil type and growing conditions across the field, greater spacing being left between plants or limited use of crop protection strategies can all combine to allow a greater diversity of plant types to occur in association with the arable crop. Many of these arable-associated plants can be (given their rarity) considered to of biodiversity value in their own right, but irrespective of whether the plants associated with these crops are common or rare, their presence increases the diversity of plant types and structures within the crop. This in turn not only increases the range of other wildlife (such as invertebrates and farmland birds) which can occur in the crop while the crop is growing but also increases the likelihood of those other plants setting seed and hence there being more of a seed resource in the soil available for exploitation by wildlife in the stubbles or subsequent fallows after harvest. Historically arable systems across Europe involved a diverse range of crop types in the rotation and many were also mixed systems, utilising livestock and their products for additional income for the farm and as sources of nutrients for the cropped lands. However, intensification of arable farming practices (largely driven by increases in mechanisation and the availability of inorganic fertiliser and crop protection products, together with the use if irrigation in southern Europe) has led to a marked specialisation of many arable farming systems in one or two crops types. This has results in large areas of Europe being dominated by mono-cultures of crops (especially cereals) and to situations where field sizes have increased (and hence the occurrence of surrounding boundary and field margins have decreased) in order to accommodate machinery and increase the speed of cultivation and harvesting techniques. This single crop species dominance together with spacing at which the plants are planted and the intensity of any crop protection strategies employed generally limits the range of wildlife which is able to utilise such arable systems. Therefore, the majority of well-managed (from an agricultural production perspective) arable systems across Europe provide only limited opportunities for utilisation by wildlife and are of low farmland biodiversity interest but accordingly are of high farmland biodiversity concern. While field sizes have increased markedly in the former EU15 countries, in many of the NMS10 countries the former political structure has left a legacy of extremely large farm and field sizes. Arable systems in the Continental, Atlantic Central and Atlantic North EnZs are especially intensive and consequently measures to redress the adverse impacts of intensification on habitat diversity and here are a particular priority. Arable systems in the Boreal and Nemoral EnZs are also intensive but the occurrence of a large proportion of small, largely mixed semi-subsistence and subsistence farms in the Baltic States also means that ensuring their continued survival and maintenance of existing 26

30 Table 4.1: Broad overview of farmland biodiversity interests and concern across the 11 main EU25 Environmental Zones Sourced from the Cultural Landscape Database ( Further information on each EnZ is contained in Appendix 5 Environmental zone Alpine North and Boreal Nemoral Continental Atlantic North Main agricultural characteristics of existing farmland biodiversity interest Areas of existing high farmland biodiversity interest are found in upland, mountain and lowland areas with open semi-natural grasslands. These areas are strongly constrained by climate (long, very cold winters with long snow cover and very short growing season), topography (steep slopes), and isolation (very low population density). Agricultural activities have declined strongly in last century resulting in wide-spread abandonment of land. Main extensive agricultural activities include summer-grazing with cows, sheep and goats, reindeer pastoral systems and mixed farming systems. Areas of existing high farmland biodiversity interest are found in lowland areas dominated by open semi-natural grasslands. These areas are also constrained by climate (long, dark and cold winters). Agricultural activities have also declined strongly in last century resulting in widespread abandonment. Main extensive agricultural activities include summer grazing with cows and sheep. Areas of existing high farmland biodiversity interest are found in lowland but more often in upland areas dominated by extensive semi-natural, unimproved grasslands, hay meadows and/or a mosaic of small arable fields and grasslands. Agricultural land use is very important in this zone, in terms of share of land use, and can vary very strongly in intensity. Areas rich in farmland biodiversity in this zone still mostly coincide with areas where natural constraints are strongest in relation to topography (steep slopes and higher altitudes), soil quality (e.g. shallow, wet, peaty, alkaline soils) and/or climate (very arid zones e.g. semi-steppes or mountain ranges with long cold winters) and in regions where farm structures are dominated by small family holdings. Both intensification and land abandonment is a problem in this region. Main extensive agricultural activities include extensive grazing with cows, sheep and goats, with or without transhumance practices, mixed farming and low intensity arable cropping. Areas of existing high farmland biodiversity interest are found in lowland but more often in upland areas dominated by open semi-natural and/or wet grasslands, moors and heathlands. These areas are most often constrained by soil (wet, unfertile and shallow and /or salty) and/or topography (steep slopes) and remote location (island or inland location in low populated and isolated regions). Agriculture is the most important land use in this zone, but has generally intensified strongly although abandonment is also a problem in this region in some isolated regions. Main extensive agricultural activities include extensive grazing with cows and sheep and mixed farming. Main habitats of biodiversity interest and concern Extensive arable fields, hay meadows, semi-natural grasslands (e.g. Mountain and Alpine pastures), extensive permanent grasslands, grazed mires, moors and heathlands, grazed coast meadows, wooded hay meadows, wooded pastures, grazed salt meadows, grazed orchards, traditional orchards Rows of trees, vegetated margins, terrace boundaries Arable fields, hay meadows, semi-natural grasslands, extensive permanent grasslands, grazed mires, grazed coast meadows, moors and heathlands, wooded hay meadows, wooded pastures, grazed salt meadows, grazed orchards, traditional orchards Rows of trees, vegetated margins, terrace boundaries Extensive arable fields, hay meadows, semi-natural grasslands (e.g. Mountain pastures), extensive permanent grasslands, grazed mires, moors and heathlands, wooded hay meadows, wooded pastures, grazed salt meadows, grazed orchards, traditional orchards Hedges, rows of trees/shrubs, vegetated margins Hay meadows, semi-natural grasslands, extensive permanent grasslands, grazed mires, moors and heathlands, wooded pastures, grazed salt meadows Hedges, rows of trees/shrubs, vegetated margins 27

31 Environmental zone Atlantic central Lusitanian Alpine South Mediterranean Mountains Main agricultural characteristics of existing farmland biodiversity interest Very limited areas of existing high farmland biodiversity interest are found in this zone which is only lowland. These are mainly found in lowland areas dominated by semi-natural and/or wet permanent grasslands, moors and heathlands and (salt) marshes. These areas are most often constrained by soil (wet, unfertile and shallow and /or salty). Agriculture is the most important land use in this zone, but has generally intensified strongly. Main extensive agricultural activities include extensive grazing with cows and sheep. Areas of existing high farmland biodiversity interest are still found in lowland areas but more often in upland areas dominated by extensive semi-natural, unimproved grasslands, hay meadows and/or a mosaic of small arable fields and grasslands. Agricultural land use may vary very strongly in intensity but there is still a significant amount of extensive farming present. Areas of farmland biodiversity interest in this zone mostly coincide with areas where natural constraints are strongest in relation to topography (steep slopes and higher altitudes) and/or soil quality (e.g. shallow, wet and peaty soils) and some agricultural areas with very small family holdings. Both intensification and land abandonment is a problem in this region. Main extensive agricultural activities include extensive grazing with cows, sheep and goats, with or without transhumance practices, mixed farming and low intensity permanent cropping and agro-forestry. Areas of existing high farmland biodiversity interest are found in upland and mountain areas dominated by semi-natural, unimproved grasslands, hay meadows and/or a mosaic of small arable fields and grasslands. These areas are strongly constrained by topography (steep slopes and altitude), climate (cold and long snow cover above 1000 meters). Only a small part of the zone is still used for agricultural activities. Both intensification in the valleys and land abandonment in the mountains is a problem in this region. Main extensive agricultural activities include extensive grazing with cows and sheep with some transhumance practices and mixed farming. In these upland areas of existing high farmland biodiversity interest are dominated by extensive semi-natural, unimproved grasslands. Natural constraints are strong in this zone in relation to topography (steep slopes and higher altitudes) and/or soil quality (e.g. shallow, wet and alkaline soils) and/or climate (short growing season in higher mountains but generally low precipitation). Mostly land abandonment is a problem in this region. Main extensive agricultural activities include extensive grazing with cows, sheep and goats, with or without transhumance practices, mixed farming. Main habitats of biodiversity interest and concern Semi-natural grasslands, extensive permanent grasslands, grazed moors and heathlands, grazed salt meadows Hedges, rows of trees/shrubs, vegetated margins, ditches, dykes Extensive arable fields, hay meadows, semi-natural grasslands (e.g. Mountain pastures), extensive permanent grasslands, grazed mires, moors and heathlands, wooded hay meadows, wooded pastures, grazed orchards, traditional orchards, Montados Rows of trees, vegetated margins, terrace boundaries Hay meadows, semi-natural grasslands (e.g. Mountain and Alpine pastures), extensive permanent grassland, grazed mires, moors and heathlands, wooded hay meadows, wooded pastures, grazed orchards, traditional orchards Hedges, rows of trees/shrubs, terrace boundaries, vegetated margins Hay meadows, semi-natural grasslands (e.g. Mountain pastures), extensive permanent grasslands, garrigue, maquis, wooded hay meadows, wooded pastures, Dehesa Rows of trees, vegetated margins, terrace boundaries 28

32 Environmental zone Mediterranean North Mediterranean South Pannonian Main agricultural characteristics of existing farmland biodiversity interest Areas of existing high farmland biodiversity interest are found in both lowland and upland areas dominated by extensive semi-natural, unimproved grasslands, dehesas/montados and/or a mosaic of small fields of arable, permanent crops and grasslands. Agricultural land use may vary very strongly in intensity. HNV areas in this zone mostly coincide with areas where natural constraints are strongest in relation to topography (steep slopes) and/or soil quality (e.g. shallow and alkaline soils). Both intensification and land abandonment is a problem in this region. Main extensive agricultural activities include extensive grazing with cows, sheep and goats, with or without transhumance practices, mixed farming, low intensity permanent cropping and agro-forestry. In these lowland areas of existing high farmland biodiversity interest are dominated by extensive semi-natural, unimproved grasslands, dehesas/montados and/or a mosaic of small fields of arable, permanent crops and grasslands. Agricultural land use may vary very strongly in intensity. Areas of biodiversity interest in this zone mostly coincide with areas where natural constraints are strongest in relation to topography (steep slopes and higher altitudes) and/or soil quality (e.g. shallow, wet and alkaline soils) and/or climate (very dry long summers). Both intensification and land abandonment is a problem in this region. Main extensive agricultural activities include extensive grazing with cows, sheep and goats, with or without transhumance practices, mixed farming, low intensity permanent cropping and agro-forestry. Areas of existing high farmland biodiversity interest are found in lowland areas dominated by extensive semi-natural, unimproved grasslands and/or a mosaic of small arable fields and grasslands. The whole zone can be categorised as lowland and agricultural land use is very important in this zone, in terms of share of land use, and may vary very strongly in intensity. Areas of biodiversity interest in this zone still mostly coincide with areas where natural constraints are strongest in relation to soil quality (e.g. shallow and alkaline soils) and/or climate (very arid zones e.g. semi-steppes) and in regions where farm structures are dominated by small family holdings. Both intensification and land abandonment is a problem in this region. Main extensive agricultural activities include extensive grazing with cows, sheep, goats and pigs and mixed farming. Main habitats of biodiversity interest and concern Hay meadows, semi-natural grasslands (e.g. Mountain pastures), extensive permanent grasslands, garrigue, maquis, wooded hay meadows, wooded pastures, grazed salt meadows, dehesa, montados, traditional olive groves Rows of trees, vegetated margins, terrace boundaries Hay meadows, semi-natural grasslands (e.g. Mountain pastures), extensive permanent grasslands, garrigue, maquis, wooded hay meadows, wooded pastures, grazed salt meadows, Dehesa, montados, traditional olive grove Rows of trees, vegetated margins, terrace boundaries s Extensive arable fields, hay meadows, semi-natural grasslands, extensive permanent grasslands, grazed salt meadows, grazed orchards, traditional orchards Rows of trees/shrubs, vegetated margins 29

33 Table 4.2: Main biodiversity concerns related to Arable Systems across the 11 main EU25 Environmental Zones The summary data from Appendix 5 on the breakdown of farm types per zone is inserted in the first line for each EnZ. The broad issues are scored by on a scale of 0-3 * in each relevant box with the aim of identifying groups of Zones with similar issues for each Farm Type (represented by similar shading of columns) ENVIRONMENTAL ZONE Farm type: Arable Systems BOR NEM CON ATN ATC LUS ALS MDM MDN MDS PAN Amount of Farm Type in EnZ (indicative % of UAA in EnZ): Intensification Issues Increasing the mixture of habitats and vegetation structures occurring at the field, farm and landscape scales (D, B) 6 ** ** *** *** *** ** * ** ** *** Increasing the amount and length of time stubbles/fallows are left before ploughing (D, B) ** ** *** *** *** ** ** ** ** Reducing the intensity of irrigation, nutrient input and pesticide use in cropping systems (B, D ** ** *** *** *** ** * ** *** *** ** Increasing the use of livestock on cropping systems (D, B) ** ** ** * * * * Reducing the intensity of nutrient input, grazing regimes and mowing practices in livestock systems (B, V, D) Re-establishing grazing and cutting practices on semi-natural grasslands and other semi-natural vegetation (V, B, D) Establishing ecologically-sound stocking rates, particularly with regard to the timing and intensity of grazing (V, B) Marginalisation & Abandonment Issues Maintaining the mixture of habitats and vegetation structures occurring at the field, farm and landscape scales (D, B) * ** ** ** * ** ** Maintaining the amount and length of time stubbles/fallows are left before ploughing (B, D) *** *** *** Maintaining the use of livestock on cropping systems (D, B) ** ** ** ** Maintaining grazing and cutting practices on semi-natural grasslands and other semi-natural vegetation (V, B, D) Maintaining ecologically-sound stocking rates, particularly with regard to the timing and intensity of grazing (V, B) Amount of change required on ground from farming system/production perspective to improve biodiversity ** ** *** *** *** ** * ** ** ** ** 6 In this list, an indication is given as to whether each issue is especially relevant to Habitat Diversity (D), Farmland Birds (B) or Semi-Natural Vegetation (V) biodiversity concerns 30

34 mixture of habitats is a priority in those EnZs. In the Mediterranean MSs and Hungary, both intensification (especially involving the use of irrigation) and abandonment of less-intensive arable production practices (such as the use of long term fallows in dryland situations and grazing of fallows and stubbles by livestock to help rebuild nutrient status) are of biodiversity concern Horticulture & Permanent Crop systems (Table 4.3) Horticulture systems based on annual crops have already been described in association with arable systems. Permanent Crop systems encompass vineyards, olive groves and the wide variety of fruit, berry and nut orchards that can occur throughout Europe. As with the arable crops, the majority of these features now occurring in Europe are relatively homogenous in structure and hence (because of this and the way in which they are managed, for example with bare soil as opposed to vegetation underneath the vines or trees or with the surface vegetation kept very closely cut) similarly offer relatively little of a resource for wildlife. However, where there is greater heterogeneity in the crops (for example in terms of the age and structure of the trees and vines themselves, the spacing between these trees or vines, the type and structure of the under-storey vegetation) then this can enhance the biodiversity interest. Permanent crops occur across the European EnZs, but they are a particularly large component of the agricultural landscape in Mediterranean EnZs. There traditional olive groves are of particularly high biodiversity value. However, much of the olive production in southern Europe comes from intensively managed olive groves, where the combination of close-spacing and even-age structure of trees together within intensive fertilisation and crop protection practices markedly reduced the value of the groves for wildlife. The lower yields from traditional groves mean that farmers operating these systems find it difficult to compete with products fro the more intensively managed groves. As such abandonment or the replacement of traditional groves is also a biodiversity concern in these EnZs. Intensification issues are especially important in the Mediterranean North and Mediterranean South EnZs, but abandonment concern also feature here and in the Lusitanian and Mediterranean Mountains EnZs Grazing Livestock & Mixed systems (Table 4.4) This category encompasses grazing systems where livestock farmers are utilising the wide range of pasture and meadow grassland, heathland, grass moorland and the wide variety of scrub in the transition to woodland habitats which occur across Europe (for example, heather moorland of the northern mountains of Europe, garigue and maquis in the Mediterranean). Many of these are seminatural habitats (in that management by humans preserves them in that stage and prevent further succession to shrub/woodland) and can be relatively species-poor in term of the overall number of plant species occurring in the vegetation assemblage. However, many of these habitats are relatively restricted in their overall range and occurrence across Europe and as such they have a very high biodiversity value in their own right. In addition, a range of other rare wildlife (from invertebrates such as butterflies through to predatory birds such as eagles) has also become adapted and closely associated with such features and this further increases the biodiversity value associated with them. As with the other farming systems, intensification of farming practices (through e.g. drainage, fertiliser and increased stocking densities) has meant that many permanent grasslands under agricultural management (and temporary grasslands forming part of an arable rotation) are very homogenous in terms of the dominance by a small number of agriculturally preferred grass species. The management of these is also such that there is little opportunity for other plant species to colonise and establish. Consequently, such grasslands are utilised by a relatively limited range of other wildlife species, most of which are relatively generalists and of low biodiversity value. 31

35 Table 4.3: Main biodiversity concerns related to Horticulture & Permanent Crop Systems across the 11 main EU25 Environmental Zones The summary data from Appendix 5 on the breakdown of farm types per zone is inserted in the first line for each EnZ. The broad issues are scored by on a scale of 0-3 * in each relevant box with the aim of identifying groups of Zones with similar issues for each Farm Type (represented by similar shading of columns) ENVIRONMENTAL ZONE Farm type: Horticulture & Permanent Crop Systems BOR NEM CON ATN ATC LUS ALS MDM MDN MDS PAN Amount of Farm Type in EnZ (indicative % of UAA in EnZ): Intensification Issues Increasing the mixture of habitats and vegetation structures occurring at the field, farm and landscape scales (D, B) 7 ** ** *** *** Increasing the amount and length of time stubbles/fallows are left before ploughing (D, B) Reducing the intensity of irrigation, nutrient input and pesticide use in cropping systems (B, D ** ** *** *** Increasing the use of livestock on cropping systems (D, B) ** ** Reducing the intensity of nutrient input, grazing regimes and mowing practices in livestock systems (B, V, D) Re-establishing grazing and cutting practices on semi-natural grasslands and other semi-natural vegetation (V, B, D) Establishing ecologically-sound stocking rates, particularly with regard to the timing and intensity of grazing (V, B) Marginalisation & Abandonment Issues Maintaining the mixture of habitats and vegetation structures occurring at the field, farm and landscape scales (D, B) *** *** *** *** Maintaining the amount and length of time stubbles/fallows are left before ploughing (B, D) Maintaining the use of livestock on cropping systems (D, B) *** *** *** *** Maintaining grazing and cutting practices on semi-natural grasslands and other semi-natural vegetation (V, B, D) Maintaining ecologically-sound stocking rates, particularly with regard to the timing and intensity of grazing (V, B) Amount of change required on ground from farming system/production perspective to improve biodiversity ** ** *** *** 7 In this list, an indication is given as to whether each issue is especially relevant to Habitat Diversity (D), Farmland Birds (B) or Semi-Natural Vegetation (V) biodiversity concerns 32

36 Table 4.4: Main biodiversity concerns related to Grazing Livestock & Mixed Systems across the 11 main EU 25 Environmental Zones The summary data from Appendix 5 on the breakdown of farm types per zone is inserted in the first line for each EnZ. The broad issues are scored by on a scale of 0-3 * in each relevant box with the aim of identifying groups of Zones with similar issues for each Farm Type (represented by similar shading of columns) ENVIRONMENTAL ZONE Farm type: Grazing livestock & mixed systems BOR NEM CON ATN ATC LUS ALS MDM MDN MDS PAN Amount of Farm Type in EnZ (indicative % of UAA in EnZ): Intensification Issues Increasing the mixture of habitats and vegetation structures occurring at the field, farm and landscape scales (D, B) 8 *** *** *** Increasing the amount and length of time stubbles/fallows are left before ploughing (D, B) Reducing the intensity of irrigation, nutrient input and pesticide use in cropping systems (B, D Increasing the use of livestock on cropping systems (D, B) ** ** ** * * * * Reducing the intensity of nutrient input, grazing regimes and mowing practices in livestock systems (B, V, D) * * *** *** *** ** * * ** ** ** Re-establishing grazing and cutting practices on semi-natural grasslands and other semi-natural vegetation (V, B, D) *** *** ** ** ** *** *** *** *** ** *** Establishing ecologically-sound stocking rates, particularly with regard to the timing and intensity of grazing (V, B) *** *** *** Marginalisation & Abandonment Issues Maintaining the mixture of habitats and vegetation structures occurring at the field, farm and landscape scales (D, B) ** ** ** ** ** Maintaining the amount and length of time stubbles/fallows are left before ploughing (B, D) Maintaining the use of livestock on cropping systems (D, B) ** ** ** ** Maintaining grazing and cutting practices on semi-natural grasslands and other semi-natural vegetation (V, B, D) *** *** ** *** ** *** *** *** ** ** *** Maintaining ecologically-sound stocking rates, particularly with regard to the timing and intensity of grazing (V, B) *** *** *** *** Amount of change required on ground from farming system/production perspective to improve biodiversity ** ** *** *** *** ** * * ** ** ** 8 In this list, an indication is given as to whether each issue is especially relevant to Habitat Diversity (D), Farmland Birds (B) or Semi-Natural Vegetation (V) biodiversity concerns 33

37 However, many semi-natural pastures, meadows, heathlands and moorlands are characterised by being more varied both in their species composition and vegetation structure. This variety is largely driven by the varied nutrient and moisture status of the soils in which they are growing. This encourages colonisation and establishment by other grasses and also annual and perennial broadleaved plant, and prevents an over-dominance by any one grass or plant species. Different plant species (and their associated invertebrates) are adapted to the different types of annual and perennial plant species which occur in association with grazing or cutting management. As with the arable systems, grazing livestock systems in Continental, Atlantic North and Atlantic Central EnZs are particularly intensive and the major biodiversity concerns there revolve around redressing the adverse effects of habitat homogenisation which has occurred. Maintaining appropriate grazing and cutting practices on existing areas of semi-natural vegetation is also a concern, especially in the mountains of the Atlantic North EnZ and in the large areas of seminatural grasslands which remain in many of the NMS10 countries in the Continental Zone. Although grazing system intensification issues are still of concern in the Boreal, Nemoral, Alpine South and Mediterranean Mountain EnZs, the major concern in these zones revolves around the marginal production capacity of semi-natural grasslands and hence the trend for these to be abandoned and their farmland biodiversity value lost. Abandonment of grazing and cutting practices on semi-natural vegetation is also a major biodiversity concern in the Lusitanian, Mediterranean North, Mediterranean South and Pannonian EnZs, but here there concern is more with maintaining grazing practices on dryland shrubland, scrub and woodland habitats Subsistence and Semi-Subsistence systems (Table 4.5) Semi-subsistence farming systems are particularly prevalent in the Mediterranean and especially NMS10 MSs (Appendices 6 and 7). In central and eastern Europe, these tend to be concentrated in the least collectivised countries such as Poland and Slovenia, and are often traditionally managed privately owned farms. In many areas of Europe, such farming systems are mixed in character and hence contribute greatly to the maintenance of high farmland biodiversity value. However, these farming systems are under increasing threat on two main fronts: they may not qualify as 'farms' or be eligible for support; and they may decline with the present generation of (pensioner) farmers as there is little interest from successors in continuing these practices. Subsistence and semi-subsistence farming systems do not consistently practices anyone farming system and so depending on where they occur in Europe, can be regarded as sub-categories of the Arable, Permanent Crop and Grazing Livestock & Mixed systems described above. However, small farms are not only an important expression of biodiversity but are also a functionally distinctive component of many HNV farmland areas. Hence in order to manage much farmland biodiversity and many HNV hot spots effectively, some attention needs to be directed to measures to protect the size and type of farm that has traditionally delivered the appropriate management techniques. 34

38 Table 4.5: Main biodiversity concerns related to Subsistence & Semi-Subsistence Systems across the 11 main EU25 Environmental Zones Appendix 6 highlights that such systems are especially prevalent in Mediterranean and the NMS10 MSs. This together with the distribution of each EnZ by MS has been used to indicate in the first line for each EnZ whether the amount of this farm type within each EnZ is low, medium or high. The broad issues are scored by on a scale of 0-3 * in each relevant box with the aim of identifying groups of Zones with similar issues for each Farm Type (represented by similar shading of columns) ENVIRONMENTAL ZONE Farm type: Subsistence & Semi-subsistence Systems BOR NEM CON ATN ATC LUS ALS MDM MDN MDS PAN Amount of Farm Type in EnZ (low, medium or high): * ** ** * * ** ** *** *** *** ** Intensification Issues Increasing the mixture of habitats and vegetation structures occurring at the field, farm and landscape scales (D, B) 9 Increasing the amount and length of time stubbles/fallows are left before ploughing (D, B) Reducing the intensity of irrigation, nutrient input and pesticide use in cropping systems (B, D Increasing the use of livestock on cropping systems (D, B) Reducing the intensity of nutrient input, grazing regimes and mowing practices in livestock systems (B, V, D) Re-establishing grazing and cutting practices on semi-natural grasslands and other semi-natural vegetation (V, B, D) Establishing ecologically-sound stocking rates, particularly with regard to the timing and intensity of grazing (V, B) Marginalisation & Abandonment Issues Maintaining the mixture of habitats and vegetation structures occurring at the field, farm and landscape scales (D, B) ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Maintaining the amount and length of time stubbles/fallows are left before ploughing (B, D) Maintaining the use of livestock on cropping systems (D, B) ** ** ** ** ** Maintaining grazing and cutting practices on semi-natural grasslands and other semi-natural vegetation (V, B, D) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Maintaining ecologically-sound stocking rates, particularly with regard to the timing and intensity of grazing (V, B) Amount of change required on ground from farming system/production perspective to improve biodiversity * * * * * * * * * * * 9 In this list, an indication is given as to whether each issue is especially relevant to Habitat Diversity (D), Farmland Birds (B) or Semi-Natural Vegetation (V) biodiversity concerns 35

39 4.2 Biodiversity measure selection MEACAP MEACAP WP5 D14 To-date most of the approaches taken to try to address biodiversity concerns in Europe have revolved around agri-environment schemes. Such incentive measures can be highly flexible and can be adapted to regional conditions and/or specifically target species. However they vary greatly in their objectives and requirements and their biodiversity effects are strongly influenced by the way they are designed and implemented. Kleijn & Sutherland (2003) suggest that schemes which are successful, and act for the benefit of wildlife, are those where the target is clearly defined in an operative way. In addition, as participation in the schemes is voluntary and generally on an individual field or farm basis, uptake may not match biodiversity requirements in spatial terms. As a result, in an otherwise intensively farmed landscape, there may only be small patches of sympathetic management. This may reduce the effectiveness of the measures as populations of species cannot disperse from one field to the next (Kleijn et al 2006). Hence, while carefully targeted and appropriately implemented agri-environment schemes clearly have a role to play in helping to address biodiversity concerns, there is an associated need to ensure that the overall landscape context in which they are operating is more sympathetic. However, it is also essential to bear in mind that most species and habitats of farmland biodiversity interest and concern have an intimate relationship with the farming systems and practices within the regions in which they occur. Hence the highest priority with regard to actions to maintain or improve conditions for such organisms has to be the relevant agricultural land and management practices. Actions should therefore not be restricted to marginal or uncultivated habitats in the farmed landscapes, but instead should focus on the agricultural-managed area itself (Buchs 2003) Landscape simplification is the key driver of biodiversity declines but it is also clear that this cannot be addressed at the scale required solely by using agri-environment schemes within the Pillar 2 Rural Development Programme - the amount of funding available is too limited and unlikely to increase within the foreseeable future. However, landscape simplification could be addressed and the available limited Pillar 2 funds used more effectively if all farmers were required to do more in order to qualify for Pillar I support. In this way, the onus could be put on all farmers to achieve a minimum level of appropriate habitat diversity and/or management at the farm scale in order to qualify for their single farm payment and become eligible for additional Pillar 2 funding for additional specific actions. Such an approach would potentially increase (at no extra cost) the general biodiversity value of the more intensified farmland and increase the probability of more targeted agri-environment actions achieving their biodiversity goals. It should also mean that farms of existing HNV would be able to benefit from the types of habitats already forming part of the onfarm resource and hence would be able to meet the qualification requirements. From the consideration of biodiversity needs and measure options, it is suggested that this could be achieved by taking a three-tier approach: Tier I: Improving the biodiversity value and potential of agricultural landscapes: Which would be mandatory and which would be designed to ensure that all farmers in receipt of CAP support were required to take action on the ground to maintain or improve the basic biodiversity value and potential of the agricultural landscape of their farm. Tier II: Providing support for particular farming systems of biodiversity value: Which farmers would sign up to voluntarily and which would be designed to target support to two main farming systems of proven biodiversity value, namely High Nature Value (HNV) farming systems and organic farming. Tier III: Providing support for specific measures of biodiversity value: Which farmers would sign up to voluntarily and which would be designed to target support to specific 36

40 measures considered to be important in helping address regionally-distinctive biodiversity concerns at the farm level. Tier I would therefore help improve the underlying habitat diversity occurring in many agricultural landscapes, Tier II would recognise and help highlight that in reality action at a whole farming system level is ideally the best approach to maintaining or improving biodiversity on any farm, while Tier III would allow for appropriate action to be targeted at specific issues of biodiversity concern on individual farms irrespective of their management intensity status. Tiers 1 and II therefore help serve to improve the overall biodiversity potential of agricultural landscapes and thereby increase the success of any specific actions taken at Tier III level on a farm Improving the biodiversity value and potential of agricultural landscapes Habitat heterogeneity is considered to be one of the most important factors (together with land use practices themselves) influencing large-scale patterns of biodiversity in agricultural landscapes (Benton et al. 2003). Many studies (e.g. Baudry et al. 2000; Weibull et al. 2000; Schweiger et al. 2005; Hendrickx et al. 2007) have shown that either heterogeneity or connectivity or area of seminatural elements in an agricultural landscape tend to have a positive influence on species richness and abundance across a range of wildlife groups. There is, however, a need to ensure that the patches of these habitats which are provided are of not only of sufficient quality but also of sufficient size (Whittingham 2007). Donald & Evans (2006) have suggested that restoring (or maintaining where it still exists) the agricultural landscape matrix is a necessary prerequisite to helping ensure that agri-environment schemes fulfil their full potential. To this end, it is suggested that this could be achieved by implementing the three main elements in this Tier. Tier I would therefore help improve the underlying habitat diversity occurring in many agricultural landscapes, Mandatory 5m buffer strips along watercourses The biodiversity value of the wide range of river, stream, ditch and irrigation channels which occur in farmed landscapes is closely related not only to the associated vegetation conditions at the side of these watercourses but also to vegetation occurring within these. The latter is very closely related to the structure of the feature itself, with rivers, streams and ditches with varying depths along their course and different shapes of the banks holding a greater diversity of plant and associated wildlife species. Hence while heavily man-modified and canalised watercourses generally are of low biodiversity value, the presence of even small amounts of more naturalised rivers, streams and ditches can provide an important biodiversity resource. However, the ecological quality of both the watercourse and its marginal vegetation can be adversely affected by farming operation either directly (such as ploughing) or indirectly (through run-off of nutrients or pesticides applied to neighbouring crops). The establishment of buffer strips along the sides of watercourses is an accepted way of providing additional protection for the watercourse from such actions and serves to increase the diversity of the farmed landscape (e.g. Marshall et al. 2006). However, not all MSs insist on buffer strips along watercourses and those that do vary markedly in the size of the buffers required. Under this measure, basic cross-compliance requirements would be strengthened, and made more consistent across Europe, to put a particular emphasis on achieving greater protection for watercourses (and hence would have the added value of helping further complement the implementation of the Water Framework Directive). This would entail stipulating 5m as the minimum distance from ditches, streams, watercourses and waterbodies in which no ploughing, fertiliser or pesticides were allowed but which otherwise could be grazed or cut as per normal practice (5m appears to becoming a generally accepted minimum width for such strips where water quality protection is the main aim). These buffers would be expected to be applied irrespective of 37

41 field size and across all EU27 MSs. Buffer strips would help increase habitat heterogeneity at the farm/catchment level and would therefore be expected to benefit wildlife (Benton et al. 2003; Bradbury & Kirby 2006). Measure: Description: Implementation: Potential biodiversity impact: Added environmental value: Relevance: Link to IRENA indicators: Mandatory 5m buffer strips along watercourses This measure would stipulate 5m as the minimum distance from ditches, streams, watercourses and waterbodies in which no ploughing, fertiliser or pesticides were allowed. Other management (such as grazing or cutting of vegetation) would still be allowed. These buffers would be expected to be applied irrespective of field size and across all EU MSs Such buffer strips would be expected to help the biodiversity quality in both the watercourse and in the bankside vegetation. Over time, the nutrient status of the 5m strip would be expected to decline and this would result in an greater variety of plant species being able to colonise these. Overall, the buffer strips would help add greater diversity into the agricultural landscape This measure would have the advantage of helping MSs complement the implementation of the Water Framework Directive by reducing the amount of fertiliser and pesticides applied in the immediate vicinity of waterbodies and thereby contributing to water quality protection. The farm types and Env Zones to which the measure is most relevant are: Farm Type: ALL Environmental Zones: ALL IRENA 32: Landscape state The landscape state indicator shows the variety of agricultural landscapes across Europe by analysing selected landscape parameters (presence of crops, linear elements, and patch density) with strong links to agricultural land use. These parameters have been calculated for selected regional case study areas representative of different European landscapes (e.g. montados of Portugal, open field landscapes in the central plateau of Spain, bocage in France, highlands of Scotland). The indicator is derived from data drawn from the following datasets: FSS: the percentage of agriculture crop types in total land area shows the contribution of each of the crop types (arable land, grassland and permanent crops) to the total amount of land surface; CLC number of agricultural classes illustrates the diversity of land cover types in each area. Corine land cover patch density provides an indication of the fragmentation of agricultural land. This is linked to the diversity of different land cover/uses in a certain area. LUCAS: the number of linear elements indicates the number of agriculturally linked linear elements per kilometre on the basis of transect observations. IRENA 35: Impact on landscape diversity This indicator shows the evolution of some of the indices used in IRENA 32 referring to crop type distribution and structure, and adds the analysis of change in linear features. The indicator is partly based on a study for Eurostat that provides landscape metrics for 12 case study areas representing a range of European landscape types. The following landscape parameters are used: Change in FSS percentage of agriculture crop types in total land area. This value shows the change in the contribution of each of the crop types (arable land, grassland and permanent crops) to the total amount of land surface between 1990 and 2000; Change in CLC number of agricultural classes. The parameter illustrates the change in diversity of crop types; Change in CLC patch density. By analysing this index an approximation to the fragmentation of the land can be extracted. It represents the change in diversity of land cover/uses in a certain area; Changes in linear features drawn from changes (km) in linear landscape features (bank, grass, fence, hedge, lines of trees, wall) observed in surveys in Great Britain and Sweden Mandatory protection of habitats and features of biodiversity value Natural and semi-natural boundary and marginal linear features (such as hedges, lines of trees, vegetated field margins and terraces) can add to the biodiversity value of the farmed landscape, especially where they provide contrasting conditions to that in the neighbouring fields and crops. They can also serve as refuges and breeding areas for a variety of plant species which are unable to exist in the surrounding features. However, in many intensively farmed landscapes such features are subject to inappropriate management (such as severe cutting or flailing of hedges) which adversely affects their ecological quality and that of the surrounding farmland. Providing these with mandatory protection would help encourage farmers to retain these features in the landscape. 38

42 The types of feature to be included, and the level of protection to be given to these under this strengthened cross-compliance, would generally be set at a Member State level, based at a minimum on features and habitats which are already protected under national or regional legislation in addition to those which feature in the Habitats & Species Directive. Individual MSs could also consider making it a Tier I requirement that appropriate management of the features themselves be undertaken to ensure they maintain in good condition and/or making it mandatory to also establish buffer zones around such features. However, in general it would be expected that any buffer zones around features and habitats other than watercourse would not be made mandatory under Tier I. Instead it would be expected that the establishment of buffer zones would be encouraged indirectly through the Ecological Priority Area requirements (see below), and that any detailed management requirements of the protected habitats/features would potentially be options included as Tier III options for farmers to chose to take up as they desired Measure: Description: Implementation: Potential biodiversity impact: Added environmental value: Relevance: Link to IRENA indicators: Mandatory protection of habitats and features of biodiversity value This measure would give greater protection to existing features and boundary habitats of biodiversity value (such as trees and hedgerows) The types of feature to be included, and the level of protection and management required should be set at a MS level. At a minimum, this list would include features and habitats which are already protected under national or regional legislation in addition to those which feature in the Habitats & Species Directive. By giving protection to such features and habitats this would not only help retain them in the agricultural landscape but also give more of chance for them to reach their full ecological potential None direct. The farm types and Env Zones to which the measure is most relevant are: Farm Type: ALL Environmental Zones: ALL IRENA 32: Landscape state The landscape state indicator shows the variety of agricultural landscapes across Europe by analysing selected landscape parameters (presence of crops, linear elements, and patch density) with strong links to agricultural land use. These parameters have been calculated for selected regional case study areas representative of different European landscapes (e.g. montados of Portugal, open field landscapes in the central plateau of Spain, bocage in France, highlands of Scotland). The indicator is derived from data drawn from the following datasets: FSS: the percentage of agriculture crop types in total land area shows the contribution of each of the crop types (arable land, grassland and permanent crops) to the total amount of land surface; CLC number of agricultural classes illustrates the diversity of land cover types in each area. Corine land cover patch density provides an indication of the fragmentation of agricultural land. This is linked to the diversity of different land cover/uses in a certain area. LUCAS: the number of linear elements indicates the number of agriculturally linked linear elements per kilometre on the basis of transect observations. IRENA 35: Impact on landscape diversity This indicator shows the evolution of some of the indices used in IRENA 32 referring to crop type distribution and structure, and adds the analysis of change in linear features. The indicator is partly based on a study for Eurostat that provides landscape metrics for 12 case study areas representing a range of European landscape types. The following landscape parameters are used: Change in FSS percentage of agriculture crop types in total land area. This value shows the change in the contribution of each of the crop types (arable land, grassland and permanent crops) to the total amount of land surface between 1990 and 2000; Change in CLC number of agricultural classes. The parameter illustrates the change in diversity of crop types; Change in CLC patch density. By analysing this index an approximation to the fragmentation of the land can be extracted. It represents the change in diversity of land cover/uses in a certain area; Changes in linear features drawn from changes (km) in linear landscape features (bank 39

43 Mandatory establishment of Ecological Priority Areas on each farm Such a measure would be based on the Ecological Compensation Areas (ECAs) adopted in Switzerland since In order to qualify for area-related production subsidies, Swiss farmers are required to manage 7 per cent of their farmland as ECA (Herzog et al 2005). In 2002, over 140,000 ha (14% of the Swiss Utilised Agricultural Area) was under such designations (Herzog et al., 2005; Knop et al., 2006). The features that qualify as ECA include hay meadows, litter meadows, traditional orchards and hedgerows. The Swiss ECA approach involves setting regulations for the management allowed on ECAs (for example, late cutting, restrictions on fertilisers and pesticides etc), and also sets ecological quality criteria for the vegetation within the ECA. Herzog et al. (2005) considers that the Swiss agri-environmental policy has caused significant changes in farmers practices, which go beyond legal requirements, and so-called best practices. The fact that almost every farmer has assigned 7% of his or her UAA as ECA is considered a major achievement. From their assessment of the scheme s effectiveness, they concluded that 86% of ECA litter meadows and 50% of ECA hedgerows were of good ecological quality and attracted wetland and hedgerow birds. However, most ECA hay meadows and traditional orchards still reflected their former intensive management with only 20 and 12%, respectively, being of good ecological quality. Hardly any benefits for grassland and orchard birds were observed. They considered that extension activities needed to be concentrated on ECA hay meadows and ECA traditional orchards in order to help improve their environmental performance. Based on this approach, we suggest that each farm in the EU be required to establish a proportion of the farm agricultural area as an Ecological Priority Area (EPA) in order to receive their Single Payment. We prefer to call these priority as opposed to compensation areas as we feel this has a more positive resonance with farmer and their advisors. In order to encourage real changes on the ground on each farm (or recognise farms of existing biodiversity value) the type of habitats which would qualify as potential EPAs would be linked to those forming part of the Utilised Agriculture Area of each farm. The 5m buffer zones established alongside watercourses would qualify towards this proportion. In order to achieve added value and help spread EPAs across each farm, the area of any buffer zones established around protected habitats/features would count double towards to the overall 7% requirement. It is also suggested that MSs could choose to include other farmland habitats of known biodiversity interest or value (e.g. species-rich grassland, moorland, areas of pastures, meadows and annual and permanent crops under more extensive management on the farm) as eligible to be considered as EPAs. As the productive capacity of small farms would potentially be affected disproportionately by the EPAs, it is proposed that the full EPA requirement of 7% of UAA apply only to farms above 5 ha UAA (i.e. c. 25% of the total number of farms across the EU27). Measure: Description: Implementation: Potential biodiversity impact: Mandatory establishment of Ecological Priority Areas on each farm This measure would require farms to have, or to establish, 7% of the farm s Utilised Agricultural Area classified as Ecological Priority Areas (EPAs) Agricultural practices would, where relevant, still be allowed to occur on designated EPAs, but would be driven by the management requirements of the habitats concerned. Each MS would decide the list of habitats which would qualify as an EPA and draw up general management guidelines for these. The measure could be implemented as part of the Cross Compliance requirements. Alternatively, it may be more attractive, and would make ecological as well as political sense, if these measure was considered a potential biodiversity-oriented replacement to the current setaside requirements. Encouraging all large farms with over 5ha UAA to recognise and either maintain or create parts of their farms where the management practiced was driven by biodiversity needs would create a better framework over each farm as a whole. Making it a requirement of all large farms would increase the ecological networks existing in the landscape and hence potentially increase the overall potential value and utility of the landscape to a wider range of farmland biodiversity. 40

44 Added environmental value: Relevance: Link to IRENA indicators: MEACAP MEACAP WP5 D14 Establishing grazing density and/or nutrient input limits for some of the EPA habitats would serve to reduce the overall levels of input, and potential subsequent run-off, of soil, fertiliser and other nutrients from the EAP areas of the farm. The farm types and Env Zones to which the measure is most relevant are: Farm Type: ALL with above 5ha UAA Environmental Zones: ALL IRENA 32: Landscape state The landscape state indicator shows the variety of agricultural landscapes across Europe by analysing selected landscape parameters (presence of crops, linear elements, and patch density) with strong links to agricultural land use. These parameters have been calculated for selected regional case study areas representative of different European landscapes (e.g. montados of Portugal, open field landscapes in the central plateau of Spain, bocage in France, highlands of Scotland). The indicator is derived from data drawn from the following datasets: FSS: the percentage of agriculture crop types in total land area shows the contribution of each of the crop types (arable land, grassland and permanent crops) to the total amount of land surface; CLC number of agricultural classes illustrates the diversity of land cover types in each area. Corine land cover patch density provides an indication of the fragmentation of agricultural land. This is linked to the diversity of different land cover/uses in a certain area. LUCAS: the number of linear elements indicates the number of agriculturally linked linear elements per kilometre on the basis of transect observations. IRENA 35: Impact on landscape diversity This indicator shows the evolution of some of the indices used in IRENA 32 referring to crop type distribution and structure, and adds the analysis of change in linear features. The indicator is partly based on a study for Eurostat that provides landscape metrics for 12 case study areas representing a range of European landscape types. The following landscape parameters are used: Change in FSS percentage of agriculture crop types in total land area. This value shows the change in the contribution of each of the crop types (arable land, grassland and permanent crops) to the total amount of land surface between 1990 and 2000; Change in CLC number of agricultural classes. The parameter illustrates the change in diversity of crop types; Change in CLC patch density. By analysing this index an approximation to the fragmentation of the land can be extracted. It represents the change in diversity of land cover/uses in a certain area; Changes in linear features drawn from changes (km) in linear landscape features Verification approach and advisory needs It is envisaged that a three-tier approach could be used to verify that Tier I requirements are being met on individual farms. At the broader level, IACS data collection could be adapted to include information on amount and location of protected habitats and features and EPA on the farm. Aerial photography of a proportion of each Member State each year could then be used as a first-step in the verification process, since any 5m buffers and/or lines of hedgerows, trees and other features should readily be observable on such photographs. This could be complemented by a farm visit to a smaller proportion of those farms each year to clarify any ambiguities on the photographs and assess the management practices on habitats and features not readily discernible from a photograph. Although no funding would be available for bringing farms up to these minimum requirements of watercourse buffers, protected habitats/features and EPA, it is recognised that off-farm knowledge may be required to conduct an audit of the existing conservation value/potential of the farm and provide advice on how best to achieve the qualification requirements. To this end, either funding could be made available to farmers for paying for conservation advice or project officers could be dedicated to particular regions/areas with a proactive remit Providing support for particular farming systems of biodiversity value This Tier is considered necessary to recognise and help highlight that in reality action at a whole farming system level is ideally the best approach to maintaining or improving biodiversity on any farm. Farmers would sign up to voluntarily to the measures under this Tier which are designed to target support to two main farming systems of proven biodiversity value, namely High Nature Value (HNV) farming systems and organic farming. 41

45 Maintaining the extent of High Nature Value farming systems and farmland HNV farming systems and farmland is currently a policy priority. The development of the HNV farming system concept has arisen primarily from a recognition that throughout Europe, many of the habitats and species upon which we now place high nature conservation value have been created by, and need to be maintained by, farmers and their farming practices. Hence, the main focus of the term to-date has therefore been on semi-natural habitats and the associated groups of biota where the links with agricultural practices are well known and documented - hence primarily on the wide variety of semi-natural habitats, the plant species they contain and the associated farmland bird communities which occur throughout Europe. In more recent years more of an emphasis has also been placed on invertebrate groups such as butterflies and moths and mammals such as bats as more information has become available. By their very nature, the type of habitat and farm management combinations which are good for driving HNV across all the different levels from patch through to landscape are however incompatible with the production of large amounts of agricultural products from those farms. Hence farming systems considered of HNV are generally less productive in real terms compared to other farming systems which have intensified production over the past 50 years. This has the result that in purely economic terms, HNV are not viable based on their agricultural production capacity alone and need additional financial support if they are to continue and thus support the associated HNV. If such additional financial support is not available then to increase economic viability this runs the risk of the farm being forced to either intensify or abandon the farming system as a whole or aspects of the management practices. The main rationale behind the support available through this measure would therefore be to help maintain the HNV status of such farming systems and increase the financial viability of the farms themselves (and thereby prevent abandonment or intensification of the farming practices). A focus on such systems does, however, require each Member State to be able to identify, target and maintain the HNV resource within its borders. A document is currently in preparation by DG Agriculture to provide guidance to Member States in this regard. In order to be effective, it is, however, essential that each Member State does not focus simply on habitats or features of potential HNV, but need to develop a more detailed knowledge of the location of HNV farming systems and the farm characteristics that could be used to easily identify an HNV farming system from a conventional farming system. It is anticipated that it would be feasible to identify at MS level HNV farming systems and to target support at these to maintain their HNV status and ensure their financial viability and attractiveness to successors. In the latter regard, it should be noted that a wider suite of RDP measures would also be required to ensure that one incentive was not being nullified by other factors. Measure: Description: Implementation: Potential biodiversity impact: Maintaining the extent of High Nature Value farming systems and farmland This measure would provide additional financial support to farms operating farming systems regarded as being integral to the management and maintenance of the HNV status of the farmland Each MS level would need to define what they regard as HNV farming systems within their borders, establish where such farms occur, appreciate and monitor the general farm management characteristics of these systems and target additional support to farms operating these systems. By their very nature, HNV farming systems are important in supporting a large proportion of Europe s HNV farmland resource. The provision of additional targeted support to these farming systems would help reduce the pressure on the farms to intensify or abandon the farming practices favourable to the biodiversity on those farms. The measure would therefore serve to help maintain key core farms and areas of Europe where less-profitable farming systems are 42

46 Added environmental value: Relevance: Link to IRENA indicators: essential for the maintenance of the biodiversity resource. None direct. The farm types and Env Zones to which the measure is most relevant are: Farm Type: Arable systems; Horticulture & permanent crop systems; Grazing livestock & mixed systems; Subsistence & semi-subsistence systems Environmental Zones: ALL IRENA 26: High nature value (farmland) areas High nature value farmland comprises the core areas of biological diversity in agricultural landscapes. They are often characterised by extensive farming practices, associated with a high species and habitat diversity or the presence of species of European conservation concern. This indicator shows the share of the utilised agricultural area that is estimated to be high nature value farmland. The indicator is based on Corine land cover and the farm accountancy data network (FADN) Increasing the ha of organic farming There is increasing evidence that organic farming practised at a whole farm scale can be beneficial to a variety of groups of farmland biodiversity concern. However, not all organic management provides automatic biodiversity benefits and the intensity of management practices on some organic systems can be just as detrimental to farmland biodiversity than conventional practices. Hence, in order to increase the biodiversity benefits to be gained from such a focus, the current European organic status requirements and any amendments (e.g. CEC 2006c) would not only need to be applied more stringently across Europe but would also potentially need to incorporate additional restrictions on grazing densities and nutrient input levels at the field/farm scale in order to better reflect biodiversity concerns. It is proposed that targets for the increase in organic farming under this Tier would be set at the level of the individual MS level (following the route already taken by some MSs). For example, 10% of UAA by 2010 or 15% by 2015 (e.g. Stolze et al. 2006), although given the current overall low level of organic across Europe then 10% by 2015 may be more realistic target. It would however also be feasible for MSs to consider setting additional regional targets for organic farming under the Tier III options available to farmers in their MS (since this could potentially be better from a biodiversity perspective as organic farming per se can be more beneficial to biodiversity when introduced into an already simplified landscape as opposed to one where the landscape structure is already quite varied). Measure: Description: Implementation: Potential biodiversity impact: Added environmental value: Relevance: Increasing the ha of organic farming This measure would provide additional financial support to farms with or converting to organic status but which also, depending on the type of farmland involved, undertake to incorporate additional restrictions on grazing densities and nutrient input levels at the field scale to better reflect biodiversity needs Most MSs have a mechanism in place to record farms with organic status and many already direct specific support to these farms, at least for part of the conversion period. In addition to conforming to the standard organic requirements, each MS would set, where necessary, additional management requirements for specific farmland habitats. This measure would help increase the overall amount of farmland under a basic level of biodiversity-oriented management, and thereby increase the potential of the wider farm and agricultural landscape within each area to support a greater range or amount of farmland biodiversity groups. An increase in the number of farms practising organic farming would result in further reductions in the amount of inorganic fertilisers and pesticides being used across Europe. The farm types and Env Zones to which the measure is most relevant are: Farm Type: ALL Environmental Zones: ALL 43

47 Link to IRENA indicators: MEACAP MEACAP WP5 D14 IRENA 7: Area under organic farming This indicator provides trends in organic farming area, and in the share of organic farming area in total utilised agricultural area (UAA) at national level. Only the area certified under Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (sum of organic and in-conversion area) is taken into consideration. Providing support for specific measures of biodiversity value This Tier allows for appropriate action to be targeted at specific issues of biodiversity concern on individual farms irrespective of their management intensity status. Under this tier, support would be available for measures deemed to be important to help address regionally distinctive biodiversity concerns at the farm level. The type of detailed measures that would be relevant to implement would however depend on the specific environmental zone/farm type combination. Examples of the type of measures that could be utilised under this tier on farms within the Continental Zone, Mediterranean Zone and Alpine zone are provided below Examples of measures of relevance to farms in the Continental Zone Arable systems and Grazing Livestock & Mixed systems in the Continental EnZ are especially intensive and consequently measures to redress the adverse impacts of intensification on habitat diversity and here are a particular priority. Support for greater heterogeneity of cropped habitats on a farm. The use of the 7% of EPAs under Tier I is designed to help redress some of the habitat simplification which has had detrimental effects on the biodiversity of farms. However, this still leaves the potential for the remainder of any arable farm to be quite homogenous in terms of crop diversity. Hence in addition to support for especially valuable parcels of semi-natural habitats, maintenance of a diverse farmland structure overall will also help create a varied structure of vegetation and provide diverse resources in space and time (e.g. Benton et al. 2003). One way of helping counter the vast monocultures of crops which have developed with intensification would be support farmers who retain a certain level of crop heterogeneity per hectare of their farmed land (Herzon & O Hara 2007). This measure would support farmers who retain a certain level of crop heterogeneity per hectare of their farmed land. This could build on the minimum levels of crop rotation which are included within the cross-compliance measures in MSs like Germany (at least three different arable crops on a holding, each of at least 15% of the area) and France (at least three different arable crops on a holding, each of at least 5% of the area). The measure would need to recognise that some crops provide a similar resource to others and so rather than considering heterogeneity of individual crops (e.g. wheat, barley, beet) it would be more relevant to consider different categories of crops. The following (based on FADN categories) would be relevant categories to use: ::cereals (excluding durum wheat and rice) - ha ::orchards ha ::durum wheat - ha ::olive groves ha ::rice - ha ::other permanent crops - ha ::dry pulses - ha ::fodder roots + brassicas + other fodder plants ha ::root crops (potatoes+sugar beet) - ha ::temporary grass ha ::herbaceous oil seed and fibre crops including seed ::meadows and pastures - ha (excluding cotton) - ha ::hops, tobacco and other industrial crops - ha ::rough grazing ha :vegetables and flowers- ha :agricultural fallows ha :vineyards - ha :set aside area ha 44

48 Measure: Description: Implementation: Potential biodiversity impact: Added environmental value: Relevance: Link to IRENA indicators: Support for greater heterogeneity of cropped habitats on a farm This measure would support arable farmers who retain a certain level of crop heterogeneity on their farmed land, by growing at least 3 different categories of crops, each of at least 15% of the cropped area. This would use as a broad precedent the minimum levels of crop rotation which are included within the cross-compliance measures in MSs like Germany and France. This would complement the use of the 7% of EPAs under Tier I and help redress some of the habitat simplification which has had detrimental effects on the biodiversity of intensively managed farms in particular. None direct. The farm types and Env Zones to which the measure is most relevant are: Farm Type: Arable systems; Horticulture & permanent crop systems; Grazing livestock & mixed systems; Subsistence & semi-subsistence systems Environmental Zones: BOR, NEM, CON, ATN, ATC, LUS, MDN, MDS, PAN in particular IRENA 13: Cropping patterns Cropping patterns are indicated by trends in the share of the utilised agricultural area occupied by the major agricultural land uses (arable, permanent grassland and permanent crops). The indicator is derived from Farm Structure Survey data. IRENA 32: Landscape state The landscape state indicator shows the variety of agricultural landscapes across Europe by analysing selected landscape parameters (presence of crops, linear elements, and patch density) with strong links to agricultural land use. These parameters have been calculated for selected regional case study areas representative of different European landscapes. These are for instance: montados of Portugal, open field landscapes in the central plateau of Spain, bocage in France, highlands of Scotland. The following data sets have been used to derive the different parameters: FSS: the percentage of agriculture crop types in total land area shows the contribution of each of the crop types (arable land, grassland and permanent crops) to the total amount of land surface. CLC number of agricultural classes illustrates the diversity of land cover types in each area. Corine land cover patch density provides an indication of the fragmentation of agricultural land. This is linked to the diversity of different land cover/uses in a certain area. LUCAS: the number of linear elements indicates the number of agriculturally linked linear elements per kilometre on the basis of transect observations. The conversion of arable to grassland. Across much of Europe, arable crops are quite intensively managed and hence arable-dominated farms and landscapes generally provide a biodiversity poor resource. Overall, intensification and specialisation of arable and grassland systems is has reduced the availability of key invertebrate and seed foods for birds. However, there is also evidence that reversal of intensification, especially in arable systems can result in rapid recovery of these resources. The presence of agricultural grasslands alongside tilled land in mixed farming systems may be an important source of invertebrate food for breeding birds in comparison with heavily sprayed arable crops, although the value of these grasslands will be reduced, the more intensively they are managed (Wilson et al. 1999). For example, in the Baltic States, a positive association of the species richness and abundance of the farmland bird community with richness in residual habitats and crops was most prominent in open landscapes (Herzon & O Hara, 2007). This study indicated that annual crop fields neighbouring perennial grassland (including recently abandoned fields) was the most important combination of field types for declining farmland bird species. Crop and grass contrast most strongly in vegetation development, resource base, and management. In predominantly arable regions, grassland provides fledglings with a safe habitat and unimproved grassland sites themselves may provide rich sources of broad-leaved and grass seed. Studies in the UK have shown that grass margins support high densities of invertebrates and their provision at the edge of arable fields would benefit yellowhammers during the breeding season both as habitat for prey and as nesting habitat (Perkins et al. 2002). During the bird breeding season from May to August, management should create cut and uncut grass margins in close proximity to each 45

49 other. This could be achieved by cutting only the outer edge of the grass margin, maintaining cover next to the field boundary. Cut areas would provide easier access to food resources for birds and prevent weed encroachment to the crop, whilst adjacent uncut areas would maintain invertebrate sources and provide nesting cover for yellowhammers. Sown grass margins have also been shown to have positive effects on the diversity of plants, bee pollinators and grasshoppers (Marshall et al. 2002) Measure: Description: Implementation: Potential biodiversity impact: Added environmental value: Relevance: Link to IRENA indicators: The conversion of arable to grassland This measure would provide support to convert arable land to grassland on arable-dominated farms. The measure could be implemented by converting whole fields, part fields or by establishing grass margins around arable fields. Even small amounts of grassland can be beneficial in arable dominated areas, so there would be no need to set a minimum percentage to convert. The conversion would aim to provide good conditions for invertebrates and so the created grassland would also have restrictions set within regard to intensity of management that could be practiced. Through this measure, the presence of uncultivated grasslands (even as strips along hedgerows and other field margins in arable-dominated areas) would help allow the persistence of populations of insect groups such as grasshoppers, ants and sawflies which are important bird food items but which are otherwise destroyed by cultivation. The conversion of intensively managed arable to extensively managed grassland would serve to reduce the amount of fertilisers and pesticides applied on ay one farm The farm types and Env Zones to which the measure is most relevant are: Farm Type: Arable systems Environmental Zones: BOR, NEM, CON, ATC, PAN in particular IRENA 13: Cropping patterns Cropping patterns are indicated by trends in the share of the utilised agricultural area occupied by the major agricultural land uses (arable, permanent grassland and permanent crops). The indicator is derived from Farm Structure Survey data. IRENA 32: Landscape state The landscape state indicator shows the variety of agricultural landscapes across Europe by analysing selected landscape parameters (presence of crops, linear elements, and patch density) with strong links to agricultural land use. These parameters have been calculated for selected regional case study areas representative of different European landscapes. These are for instance: montados of Portugal, open field landscapes in the central plateau of Spain, bocage in France, highlands of Scotland. The following data sets have been used to derive the different parameters: FSS: the percentage of agriculture crop types in total land area shows the contribution of each of the crop types (arable land, grassland and permanent crops) to the total amount of land surface. CLC number of agricultural classes illustrates the diversity of land cover types in each area. Corine land cover patch density provides an indication of the fragmentation of agricultural land. This is linked to the diversity of different land cover/uses in a certain area. LUCAS: the number of linear elements indicates the number of agriculturally linked linear elements per kilometre on the basis of transect observations. IRENA 35: Impact on landscape diversity This indicator shows the evolution of some of the indices used in IRENA 32 referring to crop type distribution and structure, and adds the analysis of change in linear features. The indicator is partly based on a study for Eurostat that provides landscape metrics for 12 case study areas representing a range of European landscape types. The following landscape parameters are used: Change in FSS percentage of agriculture crop types in total land area. This value shows the change in the contribution of each of the crop types (arable land, grassland and permanent crops) to the total amount of land surface between 1990 and 2000; Change in CLC number of agricultural classes. The parameter illustrates the change in diversity of crop types; Change in CLC patch density. By analysing this index an approximation to the fragmentation of the land can be extracted. It represents the change in diversity of land cover/uses in a certain area; Changes in linear features drawn from changes (km) in linear landscape features The planting of wild bird seed cover crops in both grassland and arable situations. Intensively managed arable crops and grassland generally provide little in the way of a seed resource for granivorous farmland birds to utilise during the winter months (Wilson et al. 1999). This measure 46

50 allows for the planting of small patches (0.5 ha every 20 ha of farmland) of mixed crops (with seed sizes suitable for a range of farmland birds) at a number of places across a farm. These crops are allowed to set seed and generally remain in-situ for at least two years before being ploughed in and replanted. This can be an effective way of introducing a greater diversity of seed resource into arable or grassland situations where the already existing high nutrient status of the soil preclude sowing with species-rich seed mixes. Measure: Description: Implementation: Potential biodiversity impact: Relevance: Added environmental value: Link to IRENA indicators: The planting of wild bird seed cover crops in both arable and grassland situations This measure provides support for providing small patches of mixed seed-bearing crops around a farm One 0.5 ha patch is placed within a 20 ha area of farmland. Additional patches can be placed across the farm. Stipulating no more than 0.5 ha per 20 ha serves to encourage placing the resource throughout the farm, and maximises the availability to seed-eating birds. It is easier to implement on arable farms as no fencing (to prevent livestock access) is required This is an effective way of providing a winter seed resource for many granivorous birds in otherwise intensively managed and resource poor arable and grassland dominated situations. The farm types and Env Zones to which the measure is most relevant are: Farm Type: Arable systems; Horticulture & permanent crop systems; Grazing livestock & mixed systems Environmental Zones: ALL None direct IRENA 32: Landscape state The landscape state indicator shows the variety of agricultural landscapes across Europe by analysing selected landscape parameters (presence of crops, linear elements, and patch density) with strong links to agricultural land use. These parameters have been calculated for selected regional case study areas representative of different European landscapes. These are for instance: montados of Portugal, open field landscapes in the central plateau of Spain, bocage in France, highlands of Scotland. The following data sets have been used to derive the different parameters: FSS: the percentage of agriculture crop types in total land area shows the contribution of each of the crop types (arable land, grassland and permanent crops) to the total amount of land surface. CLC number of agricultural classes illustrates the diversity of land cover types in each area. Corine land cover patch density provides an indication of the fragmentation of agricultural land. This is linked to the diversity of different land cover/uses in a certain area. LUCAS: the number of linear elements indicates the number of agriculturally linked linear elements per kilometre on the basis of transect observations. IRENA 35: Impact on landscape diversity This indicator shows the evolution of some of the indices used in IRENA 32 referring to crop type distribution and structure, and adds the analysis of change in linear features. The indicator is partly based on a study for Eurostat that provides landscape metrics for 12 case study areas representing a range of European landscape types. The following landscape parameters are used: Change in FSS percentage of agriculture crop types in total land area. This value shows the change in the contribution of each of the crop types (arable land, grassland and permanent crops) to the total amount of land surface between 1990 and 2000; Change in CLC number of agricultural classes. The parameter illustrates the change in diversity of crop types; Change in CLC patch density. By analysing this index an approximation to the fragmentation of the land can be extracted. It represents the change in diversity of land cover/uses in a certain area; Changes in linear features drawn from changes (km) in linear landscape features Reduction of the size of large intensively managed fields. Increasing field size has contributed to the reduction in boundary features and the increased dominance of individual crop types and hence simplification of the landscape across Europe. In western Europe field sizes can be 20 ha or more but in many of the New Member States there can be over ha forming one field under the same crop management (Macak et al. 2006). Such large fields have very low ratio of boundary habitat to field crop and hence provide very little of a varied resource for wildlife to utilise. 47

51 However, it is essential to realise that large field size is not always automatically adverse for biodiversity. For example, Báldi et al. (2005) highlighted that 45% of grassland fields in Hungary were over 50 ha in size and this, coupled with less intensive grazing management, was largely beneficial to the grassland bird assemblages associated with these Pannonian steppe grasslands. Any fragmentation of these semi-natural habitats would be considered damaging to the farmland bird needs. In addition, in central Europe there are several regions (e.g. Sachsen-Anhalt, Schleswig- Holstein, Bavaria, central and north Poland, Hungarian Puszta, Austrian eastern Burgenland) where large fields (e.g. field plots of c. 20 ha) and a landscape poorly equipped with structural elements have existed since the beginning of the 19th century (Buchs 2003). In such situations, any attempts to increase biodiversity by introducing landscape elements would conflict with the historically grown type of landscape in this region. Hence careful consideration needs to be given to the existing biodiversity value of the habitats in each field, irrespective of its size, before implementing this measure. Nevertheless, this measure would be directed especially at large fields containing intensively managed crop or grassland habitats and would encourage the establishment of boundaries of grassland or other habitats to help increase the diversity of non-cropped habitat richness on the farm. Measure: Description: Implementation: Potential biodiversity impact: Added environmental value: Relevance: Link to IRENA indicators: Reducing the size of large intensively managed fields This measure involves support for reducing the size of large intensively managed field by splitting them through the establishment of boundaries of grassland or other habitats The measure would be of particular relevance to the very large field sizes found in CEECs, where the establishment of margins around the edges of existing fields would proportionately add very little additional resource. The maximum field size to be created by this measure would be set by each MS, but would be relevant to set this between ha. This measure would help increase the diversity of non-cropped habitat richness on the farm and hence the amount of edge habitat available for exploitation by farmland plants and wildlife None direct The farm types and Env Zones to which the measure is most relevant are: Farm Type: Arable systems; Grazing livestock & mixed systems Environmental Zones: CON, PAN in particular IRENA 32: Landscape state The landscape state indicator shows the variety of agricultural landscapes across Europe by analysing selected landscape parameters (presence of crops, linear elements, and patch density) with strong links to agricultural land use. These parameters have been calculated for selected regional case study areas representative of different European landscapes. These are for instance: montados of Portugal, open field landscapes in the central plateau of Spain, bocage in France, highlands of Scotland. The following data sets have been used to derive the different parameters: FSS: the percentage of agriculture crop types in total land area shows the contribution of each of the crop types (arable land, grassland and permanent crops) to the total amount of land surface. CLC number of agricultural classes illustrates the diversity of land cover types in each area. Corine land cover patch density provides an indication of the fragmentation of agricultural land. This is linked to the diversity of different land cover/uses in a certain area. LUCAS: the number of linear elements indicates the number of agriculturally linked linear elements per kilometre on the basis of transect observations. IRENA 35: Impact on landscape diversity This indicator shows the evolution of some of the indices used in IRENA 32 referring to crop type distribution and structure, and adds the analysis of change in linear features. The indicator is partly based on a study for Eurostat that provides landscape metrics for 12 case study areas representing a range of European landscape types. The following landscape parameters are used: Change in FSS percentage of agriculture crop types in total land area. This value shows the change in the contribution of each of the crop types (arable land, grassland and permanent crops) to the total amount of land surface between 1990 and 2000; Change in CLC number of agricultural classes. The parameter illustrates the 48

52 change in diversity of crop types; Change in CLC patch density. By analysing this index an approximation to the fragmentation of the land can be extracted. It represents the change in diversity of land cover/uses in a certain area; Changes in linear features drawn from changes (km) in linear landscape features Rewetting drained areas and/or encouraging sympathetic watercourse management. Habitats with moist untilled soil provide several benefits for foraging farmland birds (Bradbury & Kirby 2006). Firstly, maintaining moisture close to the soil surface is important in determining the availability of earthworms and other large soil invertebrates to probing birds. Secondly, damp soil is easier for birds beaks to penetrate, increasing accessibility to soil invertebrates. Finally, the damp microclimate at the soil surface, created by a combination of rank vegetation and soil moisture, creates good habitat for snails, an important food for species such as thrushes. Agriculture field drainage has been a major factor in the intensification of both arable and grassland based production systems in northern and central Europe. Better drainage allows soil to be cultivated with greater ease and encourages better plant development, leading to more effective uptake of fertilisers and slurries and higher crop yields. However, in intensely drained farmland landscapes, birds such as thrushes have been found to stop breeding earlier in the summer (as the ground dried out), thereby reducing the number of broods raised and hence their overall reproductive output (Bradbury & Kirby 2006). While much of a focus in agri-environment schemes has been put on large pond and wetland recreation, it has been suggested that even very small water bodies (such as ditches or small ponds) can be beneficial to foraging birds provided they retain water within them, and especially at their edges, for reasonable period throughout the year. This not only increases the range of plants and invertebrates which can occur in such situations, but also allows foraging birds easier access to seeds and insects in the soil and the rank vegetation can provide nesting cover for farmland birds such as reed bunting.. Measure: Description: Implementation: Potential biodiversity impact: Added environmental value: Relevance: Link to IRENA indicators: Rewetting of drained areas and/or accompanying sympathetic watercourse management This measure does not involve complete inundation of fields, but rather encourages water to be held in parts of the field or along the sides of ditches and watercourses for a longer length of time each year than in conventionally drained fields. Ditches would be modified to stay wet for longer, possibly all year round, by constructing a bund upstream of one field-drain exit and placing a simple sluice in the bund at such a height that water can back up the ditch no further than the next field-drain exit. The profile of the ditch could also be altered, if necessary, to provide gently sloping banks which would help both with water retention and access by birds. The emergent vegetation associated with such wet ditches would provide a range of benefits for farmland birds: it provides habitat for emergent aquatic invertebrates; it provides a source of terrestrial invertebrates and molluscs; it provides nesting substrate for birds Depending on the size and extent of the wetland resource created, such wet ditches may serve to help reduce the amount and slow the transfer of diffuse pollutants such as soil, pesticides and nutrients into larger watercourses. The farm types and Env Zones to which the measure is most relevant are: Farm Type: Arable systems; Grazing Livestock & Mixed Systems Environmental Zones: ATN, ATC, CON, BOR, NEM in particular None direct Examples of measures of relevance to farms in the Mediterranean South Zone In the Mediterranean South EnZ, both intensification (especially involving the use of irrigation) and abandonment of less-intensive arable production practices (such as the use of long term fallows in dryland situations and grazing of fallows and stubbles by livestock to help rebuild nutrient status) 49

53 are of biodiversity concern. Permanent crops are also a particularly large component of the agricultural landscape in this EnZ, with traditional olive groves being of particularly high biodiversity value but under ever increasing threat from intensification and abandonment. Promoting the use of traditional fallow in Mediterranean areas. Across parts of Spain and Portugal in particular, cereal steppes (open landscapes created by the extensive cultivation of cereals in rotation) are important habitats for several threatened bird species (such as great bustard, the little bustard, the sand grouse, etc) (Pinto Correo 2000). Because of the low rainfall and low nutrient status of the soil, multiple-year self-regenerating fallows are used in these rotations to help build up the nutrient status of the soil before the next crop. These fallows not only provide refuges for many plant species which otherwise would not survive in the cropped areas but can also provide an important foraging resource for the farmland bird communities concerned. This measure involves the support of these longer term fallows and their use in the rotation in place of reliance on inorganic fertilisers (which allows more continual cropping of the same fields). Measure: Description: Implementation: Potential biodiversity impact: Added environmental value: Relevance: Link to IRENA indicators: Promoting the use of traditional fallow in Mediterranean areas This measure involves providing support to encourage arable farmers in Mediterranean areas to incorporate self-regenerating fallows into their arable crop rotations The measure would build on the success of the use of such a measure in programmes such as the cereal steppe programme in Castilla-Leon (EEA 2006b). Payments per has would be offered for incorporating fallows into the existing crop rotation The retention or increase in fallow would be expected to improve habitat quality, change the homogenous landscape structure and have a marked beneficial effect on steppe bird species in particular. This measure helps rebuild nutrient status in soils without the use of inorganic fertilisers. The reduction in continual cropping would also help reduce soil loss. Fertiliser use would be expected to decrease as would the area of land treated with pesticides in any one year The farm types and Env Zones to which the measure is most relevant are: Farm Type: Arable systems; Grazing livestock & mixed systems Environmental Zones: MDN, MDS, LUS in particular IRENA33: Impacts on biodiversity The indicator IRENA 28 describes trends in general, widespread farmland bird populations as a measure for species richness on agricultural land. This indicator focuses on reported threats in Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and Prime Butterfly Areas (PBAs) as well as butterfly population trends as indications for the impact of agriculture on habitats and biodiversity. Important Bird Areas are probably the widest and currently bestmonitored network of sites of conservation importance in Europe. Butterflies are good indicators for overall species richness on farmland since they are closely associated with seminatural grasslands that are dependent on extensive agricultural use. Discouragement of irrigation through support for dryland arable production in the Mediterranean areas. The conversion of such cereal steppes to irrigated agriculture has negative impacts on habitats and biodiversity (e.g. habitats linked to the steppe bird community can be largely eliminated). The increased use of agricultural inputs in irrigation schemes may also affect a range of other species, including aquatic organisms, while alterations to the local water table regime as a result of large water quantities abstracted from rivers or reservoirs may affect riparian habitats. There is a need to discourage the use of irrigation while at the same time ensuring the continued growth of a diversity of arable crops (to maintain the conditions required by the farmland bird community). Agri-environment schemes in Spain in which farmers received payments in return for converting to crops that are less water demanding were costly but resulted in a notable shift in cropping patterns (e.g. from sugar beet and maize to wheat) and were successful in reducing abstraction rates. (EEA 2006b). Measure: Description: Discouraging irrigation through the support of dryland arable production in Mediterranean areas This measure involves encouraging farmers in an area to maintain less water-demanding crops 50

54 Implementation: Potential biodiversity impact: Added environmental value: Relevance: Link to IRENA indicators: in their farming system through greater support for such dryland crops. Given the importance of water resources in Mediterranean countries, it is currently debateable whether this measure should be encouraged or required of the farmers. However, while a reduction in abstraction rates may be achievable by setting limits on abstraction levels, or setting irrigation limits as a cross compliance requirement, neither of these would necessarily ensure the continued growth of arable crops necessary for the steppe bird communities. Therefore while costly, there will be situations where the measure needs to be supported under an agri-environment approach. MSs should however give careful consideration as to what may be achievable by the various routes and what the likely impact on steppe birds would be The support of dryland arable production would be expected to improve habitat quality, change the homogenous landscape structure and have a marked beneficial effect on steppe bird species in particular. This measure would help with the protection of existing finite water resource in Mediterranean areas An indication should be provided as to the farm types and Env Zones to which the measure is relevant Farm Type: Arable systems; Horticulture & permanent crop systems; Grazing livestock & mixed systems; Subsistence & semi-subsistence systems Environmental Zones: LUS, MDS, MDN in particular IRENA 10: Water use (intensity) Trends in irrigable area (area covered with irrigation infrastructure) and trends in total area irrigated at least once a year (actual area irrigated) are used as proxy indicators of water use (intensity). The Farm Structure Survey provides information on the irrigable area for all EU-15 Member States, but the information on farms reporting to have irrigated at least once during the year is only available for southern EU-15 Member States. Information is provided for the ten most important crops irrigated (durum wheat, grain maize, potatoes, sugar beet, sunflower, soy, fodder plants, fruit and berries, citrus fruit and vines). The sub-indicator shows the change in total irrigable area as share of UAA. This indicates the importance of irrigated agriculture within a Member State, and how this is evolving with time. Management of traditional olive groves. Olive production is a significant land use in the southern Member States of the EU with important environmental, social and economic considerations (Beaufoy 1999). The size of farms practicing olive production range from the very small (<0.5ha) to the very large (>500ha) and from the traditional, low-intensity grove to the intensive, highly mechanised plantation. Overall, three broad types of plantation can be identified: Low-input traditional plantations and scattered trees, often with ancient trees and typically planted on terraces, which are managed with few or no chemical inputs, but with a high labour input. Intensified traditional plantations which to some extent follow traditional patterns but are under more intensive management making systematic use of artificial fertilisers and pesticides and with more intensive weed control and soil management. There is a tendency to intensify further by means of irrigation, increased tree density and mechanical harvesting. Intensive modern plantations of smaller tree varieties, planted at high densities and managed under an intensive and highly mechanised system, usually with irrigation. As a result of their particular plantation characteristics and farming practices, the low-input traditional plantations have potentially the highest natural value (biodiversity and landscape value) and most positive effects (such as water management in upland areas) as well as the least negative effects on the environment. These plantations are also the least viable in economic terms and hence most vulnerable to abandonment. The intensified traditional and modern intensive systems are inherently of least natural value and have potentially, and in practice, the greatest negative environmental impacts, particularly in the form of soil erosion, run-off to water bodies, degradation of habitats and landscapes and exploitation of scarce water resources. Soil erosion is probably the most serious environmental problem associated with olive. Inappropriate weed-control and soilmanagement practices, combined with the inherently high risk of erosion in many olive farming 51

55 areas, is leading to desertification on a wide scale in some of the main producing regions, as well as considerable run-off of soils and agro-chemicals into water bodies. The negative environmental effects of intensification could be reduced considerably by means of appropriate farming practices; and that, with appropriate support, traditional low-input plantations could continue to maintain important natural and social values in marginal areas. Measure: Description: Implementation: Potential biodiversity impact: Added environmental value: Relevance: Link to IRENA indicators: Management of traditional olive groves This measure provides additional support to traditional, low-input olive groves This measure recognizes the important biodiversity contribution that low-input olive plantations have over the more intensively managed ones by directing additional financial support to the former. MSs would need to categorise the groves into one of three categories in order to identify those to direct support to Traditional olive plantations generally support a high diversity of wildlife, including reptiles, butterflies and other invertebrates, birds and small mammals. As well as many passerine species, typical nesting birds include hoopoe (Upupa epops), roller (Coracias garrulus) and scops owl (Otus scops). The little owl (Athene noctua) traditionally is associated with old olive plantations where it nests in the hollows of older trees and hunts insects, lizards and small mammals. The trunks of older trees are also used by mammals, such as the genet (Genetta genetta), and by reptiles. The spontaneous vegetation which develops between tillage can be of a high floral diversity, if sufficient time is allowed for it to develop. Encouragement of soil erosion management and the preservation of scarce water resources The farm types and Env Zones to which the measure is most relevant are: Farm Type: Horticulture & permanent crop systems; Subsistence & semi-subsistence systems Environmental Zones: LUS, MDN, MDS None direct Examples of measures of relevance to farms in the Alpine South Zone Due to the relatively small area of undisturbed natural habitat that remains in Europe, semi-natural farmland habitats are particularly important as a biodiversity resource. Semi-natural grassland depends for its maintenance on appropriate management by farmers through mowing and/or grazing, and is therefore particularly sensitive to intensification or abandonment of farming practices. In the Alpine South EnZ, maintaining appropriate grazing and cutting practices on existing areas of semi-natural vegetation is a particular concern. The marginal production capacity of such means that the trend is for these to be abandoned and their farmland biodiversity value lost. Management of species-rich meadows. Such open habitats in alpine areas are an important biodiversity resource in their own right but are susceptible to changes in the cutting and grazing practices brought about by abandonment or intensification of the farm management. This measures supports farmers continuing to manage these meadows with the relatively low fertiliser inputs and appropriate timing of cutting. The integral part of such a measure is mowing after seeding that enables the survival of plant species that bloom late, and successful breeding of progeny to nesting birds. To prevent encroachment by tress and bushes, the measure should also incorporate a requirement to cur or remove saplings and bushes each year or every second year. Measure: Description: Implementation: Management of species-rich meadows This measures supports farmers continuing to manage these meadows with the relatively low fertiliser inputs and appropriate timing of cutting. The payment provides the income equality of farmers who decide to implement this measure with those farmers that do not implement such a measure and consequently, do not suffer the loss of income. The measure would not only incorporate basic stocking rate limitations (e.g. between LU/ha depending on the type of meadow) but would also stipulate that the 52

56 Potential biodiversity impact: Added environmental value: Relevance: Link to IRENA indicators: stocking rate should be low (e.g. < 0.75 LU/ha) in the spring and early summer each year (to encourage seeding of plants within the meadow). A relevant date should also be stipulated after which mowing would be allowed. Semi-natural grasslands are an important but threatened biodiversity resource in Europe. This measure would ensure the maintenance of the cutting and grazing practices necessary to maintain the species-rich nature of these meadows and especially prevent abandonment and subsequent encroachment by trees and shrubs None direct The farm types and Env Zones to which the measure is most relevant are: Farm Type: Grazing livestock & mixed systems; Subsistence & semi-subsistence systems Environmental Zones: ALL None direct Management of mountain pastures (where necessary incorporating livestock protection from carnivores). Species-rich pastures exist in many mountainous areas of Europe but are prone to scrub and subsequently woodland encroachment if they are not maintained by grazing by livestock. This measure encourages the continuation of livestock grazing of such habitats and also where necessary recognises that wild carnivores (such as brown bears) can cause damage to the flocks/herds grazing such areas and hence allows for support for protection measures to encourage the farmers and herders to continue to utilise this resource. Measure: Description: Implementation: Potential biodiversity impact: Added environmental value: Relevance: Link to IRENA indicators: Management of mountain pastures (where necessary incorporating livestock protection from large carnivores) This measure supports farmers continuing to graze species-rich mountain pastures and preventing scrub and woodland encroachment. The payment provides an incentive for farmers to continue to graze mountain pastures and compensates for some of the costs necessary in these action. Following the example of the measure implemented in Slovenia, three types of payment could be made available: (1) an areabased payment for mountain pasture alone, (2) area-based payment for mountain pasture and the associated cost of a shepherd; (3) a payment to support, where necessary, the implementation of protective measures (fences, pens, etc) to protect against large carnivores. The measure would not only incorporate basic stocking rate limitations (e.g. between LU/ha depending on the type of pasture) but would also stipulate that the livestock graze the pasture for a minimum period of 80 days each year and that the pasture has to be greater than 5 ha in extent. Semi-natural grasslands are an important but threatened biodiversity resource in Europe. This measure would ensure the maintenance of the grazing necessary to maintain the species-rich nature of these pastures and especially prevent abandonment and subsequent encroachment by trees and shrubs None direct The farm types and Env Zones to which the measure is most relevant are: Farm Type: Grazing livestock & mixed systems; Subsistence & semi-subsistence systems Environmental Zones: CON, LUS, ALS, MDM, MDN, MDS in particular None direct 53

57 5 Setting the measures selected in an implementation context 5.1 Suggestions on tool kits to help any future biodiversity measure selection processes Farmland biodiversity is a very broad subject area. In any consideration of it in a general sense, there is a real danger of becoming lost in the morass of conflicting priorities and/or potential approaches to taken on the ground. Taking a systematic approach in which clear a clear focus is set (together with quantifiable targets) for the biodiversity concerns under consideration is essential if anyone is looking to make progress and help select potentially useful measures from the range of those which have been implemented across Europe over recent years. The Environmental Zones approach was a useful way to objectively split Europe into a small number of different regions and identify where similar climatic constraints were likely to be acting on the farming systems being practiced across EU MSs. Taking this approach is therefore to be recommended in any future pan-european study. At a individual Member State level, the use of the Environmental Zones themselves are likely to be less relevant, as at this level individual MSs are generally dominated by only 1 or 2 EnZs at the most. However, where time and computing resources allowed, then the 84 strata forming the underlying Environmental Stratification (EnS) of Europe are likely to prove helpful when considering where any specific measure could be most relevant to targeted within any individual zone. Knowing the underlying biodiversity resource on European farms would provide a better starting point for the consideration of the relevance or likely effectiveness of any particular measure on any one farm or region. There is therefore a need to develop a better knowledge of the characteristics of farms and farm types in terms of the range of habitats that occur on them. The use of an initial conservation audit backed up by an annual/biennial survey (e.g. though IACS) could be used to obtain such information and help track trends in such habitats and features more closely. This would also help indicate how much, if any, the suggested 7% of UAA set for EPAs (based on the approach taken in Switzerland) reflects a movement away from the current situation on most EU farms. In the absence of such detailed information at the farm and regional level, then some form of surrogate of farmland biodiversity value would useful to have to not only help target where specific actions could be directed, but also where particular changes in land management could be prevented. Currently much biodiversity focus is on Natura 2000 sites and HNV Farming Systems. There is however scope to also make more use of in the future of: Important Bird Areas: a network of 3,619 Important Birds Areas (IBAs) have been identified covering over 7% of Europe in its wider geographical sense. IBAs encompass all major habitat types in Europe, with wetlands, forests, grasslands and cultivated/grazed habitats being the most frequent. Each of these habitat types is considered to hold a distinctive but diminishing bird fauna which needs recognition and protection against development. Not all IBAs have any form of legal protection on them. Although all IBAs cover wider issues than agriculture, it is suggested that the IBA network should be considered indicative of high biodiversity value and where policy would want to restrict adverse developments. Figure 5.1. highlights IBAs in the EU15 which are considered to be under threat from agricultural intensification or abandonment of agricultural practices 54

58 Figure 5.1. Important Bird Areas in the EU15 classified as threatened by (a) agricultural intensification and (b) agricultural abandonment. Figures obtained from IRENA 33 (Impacts on habitats and biodiversity) fact sheet. (a) IBAs threatened by intensification (b) IBAs threatened by abandonment Semi-natural vegetation: there is no equivalent wider European network of Important Plant Areas currently available. Currently nearly 800 IPAs covering nearly 15 million has have been identified in seven CEECs 10 (Belarus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia). Agricultural intensification is considered to threaten 29% of these IPAs while land abandonment is a threat to 27%. Other countries across Europe are developing their IPA databases. The IPA approach uses a similar approach to the IBA identification process. Both approaches therefore have the potential to complement each other and together could be used to highlight at MS level areas with a particular high biodiversity priority, especially with regard to HNV farming systems (which are likely to be closely associated with many of the agriculturally-related IBAs and IPAs). Figure 5.2. Important Plant Areas in central and eastern Europe. Figure sourced from Plantlife website (see footnote 10) The approaches suggested in Tier 1 and Tier II in particular would link well to existing IRENA indicators. But simply having an indicator of relevance does not automatically mean that one is then to be able to assess the effectiveness of the implementation of any measure. As highlighted by the European Environment Agency (EEA 2006b), the Biodiversity Action Plan for Agriculture does not set any tangible area, habitats or species related targets that would help in this process. It is essential that such targets are set in a clear and unambiguous way otherwise it is not only difficult to choose measures to help achieve the desired outcome but also it is extremely difficult to monitor objectively whether that outcome is in any way close to being achieved

59 5.2 Suggestions on what should be taken forward into WP6 Within MEACAP WP6 there is scope to consider some of the findings or suggestions arising from WP5 in more detail and investigate the practicalities of some of the suggested approaches. The following suggestions are for what FAL in particular could consider looking at with the datasets and facilities available to them. Can any useful indication of what agricultural land cover diversity is like at a farm level be obtained from existing datasets such as FADN? It would be interesting to investigate the practicalities of using FADN to construct a diversity index for all agricultural habitats on a farm. To this end it would be worthwhile considering whether any useful or meaningful agricultural land cover diversity index can be obtained when considering agricultural land cover to fall into 18 classes (as drawn from FADN) ::cereals (excluding durum wheat and rice) - ha ::orchards ha ::durum wheat - ha ::olive groves ha ::rice - ha ::other permanent crops - ha ::dry pulses - ha ::fodder roots + brassicas + other fodder plants ha ::root crops (potatoes+sugar beet) - ha ::temporary grass ha ::herbaceous oil seed and fibre crops including seed ::meadows and pastures - ha (excluding cotton) - ha ::hops, tobacco and other industrial crops - ha ::rough grazing ha :vegetables and flowers- ha :agricultural fallows ha :vineyards - ha :set aside area ha Consideration of ways to characterise HNV farming systems, using Germany as an example. FAL have FADN, CORINE 2000 and Natura 2000 site distribution data available for Germany. This allows the possibility to look at the distribution of presumed HNV farms (based on FADN data analyses) and how this compares with regional distribution of Natura 2000 sites, etc. To this end, it would be interesting to investigate whether FADN contains any variables that could be taken as a simple indicator of intensity of management on a farm - the three that would be of immediate interest would be grazing density per ha (which it is known that FADN can be used to provide LU/ha estimates); nutrient input per ha; and yield of arable Assuming such three variables can be found in FADN, then it would be interesting to see what effects if any there are of using different thresholds for each variable. (e.g. in terms of whether there any other differences in the characteristics of farms falling each side of the threshold; or in terms of does altering the threshold levels alter the distribution of farm types across regions and their relationships with Natura 2000 concentrations in those regions) If it was feasible to access data from another EU15 country (especially a southern European one like Italy or Portugal) then it would be interesting to see whether the thresholds for those same three indicators (grazing intensity, nutrient input, yield of arable) which appeared of relevance in Germany were also of potential relevance on farms drawn from a southern European country Using the FADN-based classification of HNV used in the Anderson et al. (2004) to identify HNV and non-hnv farms in Germany, it would be interesting to characterise and compare and contrast these in terms of livestock densities, arable yields, proportion of farm income coming from LFA, agri-environment etc. Consideration of the potential impacts on farm viability of the introduction of EPA concept. One of the major recommendations from WP5 is that in order to qualify for their Single Farm Payment all farms should be required to have a basic minimum proportion of their farm being given over to 56

60 Ecological Priority Areas. So farms that already have an existing biodiversity resource would qualify automatically, while those that are of little current biodiversity interest would need to move towards something more biodiversity-friendly in order to qualify for their SFP. It would, therefore, be useful if WP6 could provide some indication of the likely practicalities of taking such an approach. The main objective would be to consider what the potential effects would be if farmers had to give over a proportion of their farm to Ecological Priority Areas. It would be interesting to know (1) where across Germany the biggest impacts (in terms of farm economics) would be felt?, (2) even if only for a few examples, what the impacts would be on different types of farm? and (3) at both regional and example farm level, what would the impact be of varying the level at which this proportion was set? It is suggested that the impacts of setting this required proportion at 3%, 5%, 7.5%, 10% and 15% of UAA be considered. 5.3 Suggestions on a general approach to implementation of biodiversity concerns in WP7 It is clear that despite the current increasing emphasis on farmland biodiversity concerns, without further major changes to the way that CAP support is targeted then farmland biodiversity will continue to decline across Europe. The main messages coming from the consideration of biodiversity issues within WP5 and which should be considered for incorporation into the overall WP7 MEACAP strategy are therefore: There is a need to raise awareness that marked changes to CAP support mechanisms are required in order to address farmland biodiversity concerns adequately. In addition, there is a need to put more of an emphasis on the farm as being the most appropriate scale at which to focus the actions required. Farmland biodiversity concerns are potentially many and varied and as a result much of the action to-date to try to address these has been spread very thinly. Establishing broad priorities could help with the targeting of actions and ensure that sufficient attention is devoted to each. To this end it is recommended that greater attention should be placed on addressing: The simplification of agricultural landscapes The increasing pressures being put on HNV farming systems The documented declines in farmland bird populations The pressures being put on semi-natural vegetation It is suggested that this could be achieved by taking a three-tier approach: Tier 1: Which would be mandatory and which would be designed to ensure that all farmers in receipt of CAP support were required to take action on the ground to maintain or improve the basic biodiversity value and potential of the agricultural landscape of their farm. Tier II: Which farmers would sign up to voluntarily and which would be designed to target support to two main farming systems of proven biodiversity value, namely High Nature Value (HNV) farming systems and organic farming. Tier III: Which farmers would sign up to voluntarily and which would be designed to target support to specific measures considered to be important in helping address regionallydistinctive biodiversity concerns at the farm level. 57

61 Tier I would therefore help improve the underlying habitat diversity occurring in many agricultural landscapes, Tier II would recognise and help highlight that in reality action at a whole farming system level is ideally the best approach to maintaining or improving biodiversity on any farm, while Tier III would allow for appropriate action to be targeted at specific issues of biodiversity concern on individual farms irrespective of their management intensity status. Tiers 1 and II therefore help serve to improve the overall biodiversity potential of agricultural landscapes and thereby increase the success of any specific actions taken at Tier III level on a farm. 58

62 6 References MEACAP MEACAP WP5 D14 Anderson, E, Baldock, D., Bennett, H., Beaufoy, G., Bignal. E., Brouwer, F., Elbersen, B., Eiden, G., Godeschalk, F., Jones, G., McCracken, D.I., Nieuwenhuizen, W., van Eupen, M., Hennekens, S. & Zerva, G. (2004) Developing a high nature value farmland indicator. Report for the European Environment Agency, Copenhagen Anon (2005) Land abandonment, biodiversity and the CAP. Outcome of an International Seminar in Sigulda, Sweden, 7-8 October Institute for European Environmental Ecology & Veenecology. Báldi, A., Batáry, P., & Erdös, S. (2005) Effects of grazing intensity on bird assemblages and populations on Hungarian grasslands. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment Baudry, J., Burel, F., Thenail, C. & le Coeur, D. (2000) A holistic landscape ecological study of the interactions between farming activities and ecological patterns in Brittany, France. Landscape & Urban Planning Bengtsson, J., Ahnström, J. & Weibull, A.C. (2005). The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, Benton, T.G., Vickery, J.A. & Wilson, J.D. (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends in Ecology & Evolution Beaufoy, G. (1999) The environmental impact of olive oil production in the EU: practical options for improving its environmental impact. DG Environment, European Commission. Benton, T.G., Vickery, J.A. & Wilson, J.D. (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends in Ecology & Evolution Bignal, E.M. and McCracken, D.I. (1996). Low-intensity farming systems in the conservation of the countryside. Journal of Applied Ecology, 33, Bignal, E. & McCracken, D.I. (2000). The nature conservation value of European traditional farming systems. Environmental Reviews 8 pp Bignal, E., Jones & McCracken, D. (2001). Comment: Future directions in agriculture policy and nature conservation. British Wildlife 13 pp Birdlife (2006) Good natured? Cross Compliance as an environmental baseline for Europe's farmed countryside. Birdlife International Agriculture Task Force, Brussel. Boatman, N., Stoate, C., Gooch, R., Rio Carvalho, C., Borralho, R., Snoo, G. & Eden P. (1999). The environmental impact of olive oil production in the EU: practical options for improving its environmental impact. DG Environment, European Commission. Bradbury, R.B. & Kirby, W.B. (2006) Farmland birds and resource protection in the UK: crosscutting solutions for multi-functional farming? Biological Conservation Büchs, W. (2003) Biodiversity and agri-environmental indicators: general scopes and skills with special reference to the habitat level. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment Buguñá Hoffmann, L. Ed. (2000) Stimulating positive linkages between agriculture and biodiversity: Recommendations for building blocks for the EC-Agricultural Action Plan on Biodiversity. European Centre for Nature Conservation, Tilburg. Carey, P.D., Barnett, C.L., Greenslade, P.D., Hulmes, S., Garbutt, R.A., Warman, E.A., Myhill, D., Scott, R.J., Smart, S.M., Manchester, S.J., Robinson, J., Walker, K.J., Howard, D.C. and Firbank, L.G. (2002) A comparison of the ecological quality of land between an English agrienvironment scheme and the countryside as a whole. Biological Conservation 108, CEC (2006a) Communication from the Commission. Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond: Sustaining ecosystem services for human well being. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels CEC (2006b) Rural development in the European Union: statistical and economic information. DG Agriculture & Rural Development, Brussels. CEC (2006c) Proposals for Council Regulations on organic production and labelling of organic products /06. Note from General Secretariat of the Council to Special Committee on Agriculture 59

63 Donald, P.F. and Evans, A.D. (2006) Habitat connectivity and matrix restoration: the wider implications of agri-environment schemes. Journal of Applied Ecology 43, Donald, P.F., Pisano, G., Rayment, M.D., Pain, D.J., The common agricultural policy, EU enlargements and the conservation of Europe s farmland birds. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment EEA (2004a) High nature value farmland: characteristics, trends and policy challenges. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency. EEA (2004b) Agriculture and the Environment in the EU Accession Countries. Environmental issue report No. 37. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency. EEA (2005) Agriculture and environment in the EU15: the IRENA indicator report. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. EEA (2006a) Progress towards halting the loss of biodiversity by European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. EEA (2006b) Integration of environment into EU agriculture policy: the IRENA indicator-based assessment report. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. Gay, S H & Osterburg, B (2004) MEACAP Deliverable 4: Initial paper on ground rules. Hendrickx F., Maelfait J.P., Van Wingerden W., Schweiger O., Speelmans M., Aviron S., Augenstein I., Billeter R., Bailey D., Bukacek R., Burel F., Diekotter T., Dirksen J., Herzog F., Liira J., Roubalova M., Vandomme V. & Bugter R. (2007) How landscape structure, land-use intensity and habitat diversity affect components of total arthropod diversity in agricultural landscapes.. Journal of Applied Ecology Herzog, F., Dreier, S., Hofer, G., Marfurt, C., Schüpbach, P., Spiess, M. & Walter, T. (2005) Effect of ecological compensation areas on floristic and breeding bird diversity in Swiss agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment Herzon, I & O Hara, R.B (2007) Effects of landscape complexity on farmland birds in the Baltic States. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment Hiiemäe. O. (2006) Agriculture and biodiversity: the impact of land abandonment in CEEC. A synthesis report of the situation in Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Malta. MEACAP Project Internal Document [incomplete draft] Hole, D.G., Perkins A.J., Wilson J.D., Alexander I.H., Grice P.V. & Evans A.D. (2005) Does organic farming benefit biodiversity? Biological Conservation 122, Jeanneret, Ph., Schüpbach, B. & Luka, H. (2003) Quantifying the impact of landscape and habitat features on biodiversity in cultivated landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 98, Jongman, R.H.G. (2002) Homogenisation and fragmentation of the European landscape: ecological consequences and solutions. Landscape & Urban Planning 58, Jongman, R.H.G., Bunce, R.G.H., Metzger, M.J., Mücher, C.A., Howard, D.C. & Mateus, V.L. (2006) Objectives and applications of a statistical Environmental Stratification of Europe. Landscape Ecology Karaczun, Z.M., Papastrvros, C., Sammut, S., Perpar, A. & Udovc, A. (2006) Agriculture and biodiversity: the impact of semi-subsistence farms on biodiversity. A synthesis report of the situation in Cyprus, Malta, Poland and Slovenia. MEACAP Project WP5 Internal Document Kleijn, D., Berendse, F., Smit, R., Gilissen, N., Agri-environment schemes do not effectively protect biodiversity in Dutch agricultural landscapes. Nature Kleijn, D. & Sutherland,W.J. (2003) How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? Journal of Applied Ecology Kleijn D, Baquero R A, Clough Y, Diaz M, De Esteban J, Fernandez F, Gabriel D Herzog F, Holzscuch A, Jöhl R, Knop A, Kruess A, Marshall E J P, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T, Verhulst J, West T M, Yela J L (2006) Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri-environment schemes in five European countries, Ecology Letters, 9, Knauer, N., Ökologie und Landwirtschaft. Ulmer, Stuttgart, 60

64 Kristensen P. (2003). EEA core set of indicators: revised version April Technical report. EEA, Copenhagen. Knop, E., Kleijn, D., Herzog, F. and Bernhard S. (2006) Effectiveness of the Swiss agrienvironment scheme in promoting biodiversity. Journal of Applied Ecology 43, McCracken, D., Klockenbring, C., Zdanowicz, A. & Baldock, D. (2005) Agricultural biodiversity: issues to be aware of within MEACAP. MEACAP Project WP5 Internal Document. MacDonald, D., Crabtree, J.R., Wiesinger, G., Dax, T., Stamou, N., Fleury, P., Gutierrez Lazpita, J. & Gibon, A. (2000). Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: environmental consequences and policy response. Journal of Environmental Management (2000) 59, Marggraf, R., Comparative assessment of agri-environment programmes in federal states of Germany. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 98, Marshall, E.J.P.West, T.M. & Kleijn, D. (2006) Impacts of an agri-environment field margin prescription on the flora and fauna of arable farmland in different landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment Macák, M., Kováč, K, Pražan, J., Harsányi, G., Ferenczi, T. & Karaczun, Z.M. (2006) Agriculture and biodiversity: the impact of arable farming in large-scale farms. A synthesis report of the situation in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Poland. MEACAP Project WP5 Internal Document Metzger, M.J., Bunce, R.G.H., Jongman, R.H.G., Mücher, C.A. & Watkins, J.W. (2005) A climatic stratification of the environment of Europe. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 14, Metzger, M.J., Leemans, R., Schröter, D., Cramer, W. and the ATEAM consortium (2004) The ATEAM vulnerability mapping tool. Quantitative approaches in systems analysis no. 27, CD- ROM publication, Office C.T. de Wit Graduate School for Production Ecology & Resource Conservation (PE&RC), Wageningen, the Netherlands. Muller, S., Appropriate agricultural management practices required to ensure conservation and biodiversity of environmentally sensitive grassland sites designated under Natura Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 89, Nitsch, H Case study on genetic resources in food and agriculture. MEACAP Project WP5 Internal Document. OECD (2002) Biodiversity, landscapes and ecosystem servies of agriculture and forestry in the Austrian Alpine region: an approach to economic (e)valuation. Working Group on Economic Aspects of Biodiversity. Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development, Paris. Orlowski, G, (2005) Endangered and declining bird species of abandoned farmland in southwestern Poland Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment Ostermann, O.P. (1998) The need for management of nature conservation sites designated under Natura Journal of Applied Ecology Perkins, A.J., Whittingham, M.A., Morris, A.J. & Bradbury, R.B. (2002) Use of field margins by foraging yellowhammers Emberiza citrinella. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment Pinto-Correia. T. (2000) Future development in Portuguese rural areas: how to manage agricultural support for landscape conservation Landscape and Urban Planning Reidsma, P., Tekelenburg, T., van der Berg, M. & Alkemade (2006). Impacts of land-use change on biodiversity: an assessment of agricultural biodiversity in the European Union. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment Schweiger O, Maelfait JP, Van Wingerden W, Hendrickx F, Billeter R, Speelmans M, Augenstein I, Aukema B, Aviron S, Bailey D, Bukacek R, Burel F, Diekotter T, Dirksen J, Frenzel M, Herzog F, Liira J, Roubalova M & Bugter R. (2005) Quantifying the impact of environmental factors on arthropod communities in agricultural landscapes across organisational levels and spatial scales. Journal of Applied Ecology Stolze, M, Stolz, H. & Schmid, O. (2006) Documentation about national Action Plans for Organic Food & Farming. ORGAP Project document

65 Suárez-Seoane, S., Osborne, P.E., Baudry, J., Responses of birds of different biogeographic origins and habitat requirements to agricultural land abandonment in northern Spain. Biol. Conserv. 105, Sutherland, W.J., Restoring a sustainable countryside. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17, Sutherland, W.J., Armstrong-Brown, S., Armsworth, P.R., Brereton, T., Brickland, J., Campbell, C.D., Chamberlain, D.E., Cooke, A.I., Dulvy, N.K., Dusic, N.R., Fitton,M., Freckleton, R.P., Godfray, H.C.J., Grout, N., Harvey, H.J., Hedley, C., Hopkins, J.J., Kift, N.B., Kirby, J., Kunin, W.E., Macdonald, D.W., Marker, B., Naura, M., Neale, A.R., Oliver, T., Osborn, D., Pullin, A.S., Shardlow, M.E.A., Showler, D.A., Smith, P.L., Smithers, R.J., Solandt, J.L., Spencer, J., Spray, C.J., Thomas, C.D., Thompson, J., Webb, S.E., Yalden, D.W. and Watkinson, A.R. (2006) The identification of 100 ecological questions of high policy relevance in the UK. Journal of Applied Ecology 43, Weibull, A.C., Bengtsson, J. & Nohlgren, E. (2000) Diversity of butterflies in the agricultural landscape: the role of farming system and landscape heterogeneity. Ecography Whittinham, M.J. (2007) Will agri-environment schemes deliver sufficient biodiversity gain, and if not why not? Journal of Applied Ecology 44, 1-5. Wilson, J.D., Morris, A.J., Arroyo, B.E., Clark, S.C., Bradbury, R.B., A review of the abundance and diversity of invertebrate and plant foods of granivorous birds in northern Europe in relation to agricultural change. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 75, Young, J., Watt, A., Nowicki, P., Alard, D., Clitherow, J., Henle, K., Johnson, R., Laczko, E., McCracken, D., Matouch S. & Niemela, J. (2005) Towards sustainable land use: identifying and managing the conflicts between human activities and biodiversity conservation in Europe. Biodiversity & Conservation Zdanowicz, A, Miller, C. & Baldock, D. (2005) The Convention on Biodiversity and its potential implications for the agricultural sector in Europe. MEACAP WP5 Project Internal Document. 62

66 Appendix 1. Broad distribution of agricultural land use across the EU27 (taken from CEC 2006b). Note that in 2003, the EU27 share of UAA was: Arable Crops 60.7%; Permanent Pastures 32.7%; and Permanent Crops 6.5% The type and mixture of agricultural land use determine habitat availability and quality for farmland species. The above figure shows that arable land is the dominant agricultural land use in large parts of Europe. Permanent grassland dominates agricultural areas in parts of lowland western Europe and mountainous areas. Landscapes dominated by olive groves, vineyards and other permanent crops, are mostly restricted to areas in southern Europe. Due to urbanisation and the conversion to forest and non-agricultural land cover, the utilised agricultural area (UAA) for the EU-12 decreased by 2.5 % ( ha) between 1990 and Permanent grassland and permanent crops decreased by 4.8 % ( ha) and 3.8 % ( ha), respectively. However, those general trends mask even stronger regional changes that have potential negative implications for biological and landscape diversity. The decline in permanent grassland area reduces the land use mosaic in landscapes, which are already used intensively. The decrease of permanent crops, in particular vineyards, in Mediterranean regions can reduce landscape and habitat diversity in these areas (EEA 2005) 63

67 MEACAP MEACAP WP5 D14 Appendix 2. The distribution of the 13 Environmental Zones recognised in Europe ALN2 ALN3 ALN1 ALN3 BOR1 ALN4 ALN4 BOR1 ATN2 ATN2 BOR2 ALN2 ALN3 BOR3 ATN2 ATN2 ATN2 ATN2 ATN2 BOR5 BOR4 ALN4 BOR2 ALN4 Environmental Zone BOR6 ATN1 ALN4 ATN2 ALN3 BOR8 ATN1 ATN1 ATN2 BOR7 CON2 ALN - Alpine North NEM1 NEM3 ATN3 ATN3 ATN1 NEM6 ATN1 ATC1 BOR - Boreal ATN4 BOR6 ATN5 ATC3 NEM2 CON9 ATN5 NEM1 ATN1 CON4 ATN3 NEM - Nemoral ATC3 ATC2 ATN5 NEM5 ATC3 CON9 ATN4 ATN - Atlantic North CON5 ATC2 CON10 CON6 ATC3 CON5 ALS - Alpine South ATC4 PAN1 CON3 ALS4 ALS4 CON9 CON7 CON4 CON10 CON3 ALS4 ATC5 CON - Continental CON7 CON6 LUS2 CON2 ATC - Atlantic Central PAN - Pannonian MDM5 MDN5 MDN6 MDN7 MDM3MDM6 MDM7 MDN10 LUS - Lusitanian MDM3 MDN3 LUS1 MDN3 MDN1 MDN6 MDN5 MDN6 MDS3 MDS2 MDM3 MDN4 MDN2 MDN2 MDN5 MDS1 CON2 MDM5 MDN8 MDM7 MDN4 MDM3 MDS6 MDS7 MDM3 CON11 PAN3 PAN1 CON11 CON8 CON11 MDN2 MDS3 CON2 CON6 CON12 CON2 CON2 PAN2 MDN4 MDN7 MDS2 MDN7 MDS3 MDN8 MDS5 MDS3 MDM7MDM8 MDM7 MDM7 MDN4 ALS6 MDM2 MDN3 MDM2 MDS2 MDN8 MDS4 MDN4 MDM6 MDM5 MDM3MDN6 MDN8 MDN6 MDN8 MDS 6 MDS2 MDS8 MDM10 MDN7 MDS5 MDN4 MDM5 MDS 4 ANA2 ANA1 MDN9 MDS2 MDM8 ANA2 MDS8 MDS 4 MDS5 MDS7 MDN1 MDS5 MDM7 MDN8 MDS 7 MDS7 MDN5 MDS1MDN6 MDN6 MDS2 MDS1 MDM7 MDN6 MDS1 MDM5 MDM3 MDN4 MDN7 MDM10 MDS6 MDM1 0 MDS7 MDN3 MDN1 MDN5 MDM2 MDN1 MDN9 MDS6 MDN - Mediterranean North ALS2 ALS2 CON2 MDS3 MDM - Mediterranean Mountains ALS2 CON6 ALS6 MDN2 CON2 MDM4 MDN7 MDS2 MDN9 MDM8 MDS2 MDM10 MDS6 MDN3 MDN3 MDM7 MDN8MDS2 MDS2 MDM3 MDM6 MDM3 MDS4 MDS7 CON8 PAN3 MDM1 CON12 MDS5 ANA - Anatolian PAN1 MDN9 MDM6MDM3 MDN6 MDM5 CON4 CON8 MDN1 MDM7 MDM3 PAN2 CON5 ALS2 PAN1 ALS6 MDM10 MDS1 MDS5 MDN9 MDN7 ALS2 CON1 MDM4 MDN4 MDM3 MDN4 ALS5 MDN6 MDM5 MDN4 MDS2 MDM5 ALS5 CON9 MDM2 MDM2 MDM5 MDM2 LUS3 MDM1 MDN5 MDN4 MDM2 PAN2 ALS5 ALS6 MDM4 MDM2 LUS4 MDM2 MDN3 LUS4 LUS3 ALS3 ALS6 LUS4 ALS1 ALS1 ALS6 CON4 CON9 ALS3 MDM1 CON2 CON2 ALS4CON4 CON9 CON6 CON2 CON8 LUS4 ALS4 CON2 CON6 LUS4 LUS3 LUS1 LUS4 MDM3ALS6 MDM2 MDM5 MDM3 CON2 CON10 MDM8 MDM9 MDM7 MDN8 MDS2 MDS8 MDM9 MDS7 MDM11 MDM8 MDS8 MDS9 MDS2 MDS7 MDS - Mediterranean South It was considered relevant to use this stratification because it has also been used within the EU Fifth Framework project BioHab (Coordination of Biodiversity and Habitats in Europe) to provide the stratification for a framework for consistent monitoring of the occurrence and distribution of habitats in Europe. In addition, the EU Fifth Framework project ATEAM (Advanced Terrestrial Ecosystem Analysis and Modeling) has used the Environmental Zones (EnZs) as a basis for summarizing and comparing outputs from a suite of global change impacts models (Metzger et al., 2004). Although the 84 strata that form the underlying Environmental Stratification (EnS) of Europe were considered too detailed and complex a level to consider in MEACAP11, these have been aggregated into 13 Environmental Zones (shown above), or 11 across the EU25 when the Anatolian zone is excluded together with the Alpine North Zone. These 11 Environmental Zones were therefore used to form the initial geographical focus for the selection of biodiversity measures across Europe. A breakdown of each environmental Zone by EU Member State is provided in Appendix 2, a broad overview of the regions occurring in each EnZ is provided in Appendix 3 and a more detailed description of each zone if provided in Appendix However, the strata within these zones may help form a more specific focus (a) when considering where the measures selected could be targeted within a zone and (b) may also form a useful focus when considering where within a zone may be more sacrosanct from a biodiversity perspective since there is likely to be some links between the strata, natural constraints and hence vegetation/biodiversity that is actually on the ground in those areas (or at least some strata may be more likely to have been intensified while others may be less conducive to the agriculture having intensified). 64

68 65

69 Appendix 3. Breakdown of the 12 Environmental Zones by EU25 Member State Area (square km) of each EU25 MS falling within each EnZ ALN ALS ATN ATC BOR CON LUS MDM MDN MDS NEM PAN Total area of MS across EnZs AT 38, , , , BE 20, , , CY 9, , CZ 12, , , , DE 6, , , , , , DK 27, , , EE 23, , , ES 15, , , , , , , FI 26, , , , FR 45, , , , , , , , , GR 1, , , , , HU , , , , IE 7, , , IT 36, , , , , LT 1, , , LU 1, , , LV 19, , , , MT NL 10, , , PL , , , , PT 30, , , , SE 98, , , , , SI 15, , , , SK , , , , UK 138, , , Total area of EnZ in EU25 125, , , , , , , , , , , ,

70 Appendix 3. Breakdown of 12 Environmental Zones by EU25 Member States (continued) Proportion of each EnZ falling in each EU25 MS ALN ALS ATN ATC BOR CON LUS MDM MDN MDS NEM PAN AT BE CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT SE SI SK UK

71 Appendix 3. Breakdown of 12 Environmental Zones by EU25 Member States (continued) Proportion of each EU25 MS falling in each EnZ ALN ALS ATN ATC BOR CON LUS MDM MDN MDS NEM PAN AT BE CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT SE SI SK UK

72 Appendix 4. Broad geographic location of the 13 Environmental Zones recognised in Europe ENZ name Alpine North Boreal Nemoral Continental Atlantic Central Broad geographic location Swedish-Finnish Lappland, Norwegian coast north of Lofoten, Swedish-Norwegian High Mountains (Jottunheimen), Lofoten-Nordland Naerdale, Romsdal, Sogneflford Telemark (Norway), Norwegian fjords Alesund-Stavanger (Norway) Southern Finnish Lappland, Murmanskaya Oblast (Russia), Västerbotten-Norbotten (Sweden), Soer- Froendelag Hedemark (Norway), Central Finland, North-Eastern Sweden, North-Western Russia, Central and Southern Finland, North-Western Russia, Swedish Botnian coast, Jämtland Koppaberg, Soloer Halligdal (Norway), Turku-Pori, Salpauselkä (Finland), Ladoga Lake, Lovat valley (Russia), Novgorod (Russia), Eastern Latvia and Estonia, Westfold-Oestfolen (Norway), Vänern- Örebro, South Botnian coast (Sweden) Jönkoping (Sweden), Aland (Finland), Western Estonia, Pskov (Russia), Northern Belarus, Saarema (Estonia), Latvia, Lithuania, Oestfold (Norway), Skaraborg, Kalmar, Öster Gotland, Stockholm (Sweden), Southern Lithuania, Southern Belarus, Gdansk (Poland), South-West Sweden Carpathian foothills and Transilvanian uplands (Romania), Medium elevation mountains and foothills Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Czech republic, Poland, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Macedonia, Northeastern Poland, Northern Ukraine, central Czech Republic, Northeast Jutland (Denmark), Balitic Swedish coast, Northern Bavaria, Thüringen (Germany),Baltic coast (Lithuania, Latvia), Carpathian foothills (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Romania, Ukraine), Brandenburg, Sachsen, Pfalz (Germany), Romanian Moldavia, Ardennes (Belgium), Vosges (France), Schwarzwald-Schwaben (Germany), Bosnian Plateau (Bosnia Herzegovina). Bavarian Plateau (Germany), North- Eastern Alpine foothills (Germany, Austria). Foothill of Tartra (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland), Foothills of Southern Carpathians (Romania, Bulgaria), Northern Balkan (Bulgaria), North German plain (Germany, Poland), Middle Danube Plain (Hungary, Slovakia, Ukraine), Moldavian Plateau (Moldavia, Romania, Ukraine), Great Polish plain, Lubland plateau, Silesian plateau (Poland), Western Ukraine, Low mountains of South-Eastern Europe (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania), Low mountains and undulating plains of South-Eastern Europe (Croatia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria) Central Ireland, South Eastern England (UK), South-Western Dutch lowlands (Netherlands), Northrhine-Westphalia (Germany), Western Ireland, Southwest Wales, Cornwall (UK), Western Brittany, Dordogne (France), Flanders (Belgium), Picardie, Champagne, Haute Marne (France), Bassin de Paris, Normandy (France) 69

73 Atlantic North Lusitanian Alpine South Mediterranean Mountains MEACAP MEACAP WP5 D14 Faroes, Shetlands, Orkneys, Western Isles, Scottish Highland, Grampian Mountians, Lake District, Snowdonia (UK), South- West Norwegian coast, Northern Ireland, South-East Scotland, Pennines, Lancashire, East Wales (UK), Schleswig Holsten, Niedersachsen, Sachsen Anhalt, Sauerland (Germany), Tyne region, Edinburgh (UK), Jutland (Denmark), Groningen (Netherlands) Foothills of the Cantabrian Mountains and West Pyrenees (Spain), Atlantic plains of France (Vendée, Saintonge, Médoc, Graves), Foothills and low mountains in Galicia and Cantabria (Spain) and Beira Litoral (Portugal), Les Grandes Landes (France), West Cantabrian Coast (Spain), Minho-Beira Baixo (Portugal) High Alps (France, Switzerland, Austria), Southern and Eastern Carpathians (Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Ukraine), Northen periphary of Alps (France, Switzerland, Germany, Austraia, Slovenia, Lower parts of Western and Eastern Carpatians (Germany, Czech Republic, Poland, Slvakia, Romania, Ukraine), Pyrenees (Spain, France), and South-Western Alps (France, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia), Picos de Europa, Sierra de la Demanda (Spain), Massif Central (France), outer ranges of western Alps (Switzerland), Outer ranges of Eastern Alps (Austria, Slovenia, Croatia), Dinaric Alps (Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, Macedonia, Greece) East Cantabrian Mountains (Spain), Kapela Mountains (Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina), Cevennes, Turin, Valane, Grenoble (France), Meseta Burgos-Leon (Spain), Pohorje (Slovenia), Northern Croatia, Matra (Hungary), region Ohrid-Prespa (Macedonia), Kaïmakchalan (Greece, Macedonia), Ardeche, Drome, Alpes Maritime (France), Sierra cabrera, Gredos, de Molina, de Gudar (Spain), Abruzzo, Alto Adige, Appeninos liguros, Mountains Torino (Italy), Pindos (Greece), Foothills of Central and Eastern Alps (Italy, Slovenia, Croatia), and the western ranges of the Dinaric Alps (Croatia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Montenegro, Albania), Eastern Montes de Toledo, southern foothills of Cordillera Cantabrica and Pyrenees (Spain), Southern foothills of Massif Central (France), Appenines (Italy), Western Montes de Toledo, Sierra de Albarrracin, Sierra de Guadar, southern periferee of the Pyranees (Spain), Olypus (Greece), Peaks of the Sierra Nevada, Sierra de Segovia (Spain), Corsican mountains (France), Calabrian Apennines (Italy), South Pindos and Erymanthos (Greece), Rey Dalari, Bulgaz (Trurkey), Sierra Nevada, Sierra de Segura (Spain), Gölgel Dag (Turkey), Sierra de Ronda (Spain), Massif de Maures (France), Ionian islands (Greece), Algeria 70

74 Mediterranean North Northern Sierra de la Demanda, Ppadua-Venetian Plain (Italy), Southern foothills of Cordillera Cantabrica (Spain), Paikon (Greece), East Rodopi (Bulgaria and Greece), low mountain of North Western Analtolia (Turkey), Coastal plains of East adriatic coast (Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Albania), Middle Duoro (Portugal, Spain), Gascogne (France), coast of Maroc (Italy), Dinara coast (Croatia), Western Black Sea coast of Turkey, Eastern Beira Baixa (Portugal and Spain). Southern foothills of Massif Central (France), foothills of the Apennines (Italy), Tomorr and Ostrovice (Albania), Plains of the Castilla Léon (Spain), Po Valley (Italy), Northern Egean coast (Greece), Low mountains of Sierra de Guadarrama, Sistema Ibérica, and Southern Pyranees (Spain), Chalkidiki, Vermion, Oluympus, Ossa (Greece), Serra de Gata (Portugal), Sierra de Moncaya (Spain), Herault (France), Coast of Livorno-Roma Pescara Brindisi (Italy), Central Albania, South coast sea Marmara (Turkey), Coast of Corsica (France), Central Sardinia, Coast of Rome region (Italy), Ionian coast (Greece), Sierra de Toledo, Coastal mountains Catalunya, mountains Murcua, Albacete (Spain), Vaucluse, Aix en Provence (France), Low Dinarian Alps, Velebit (Hungary), Thessalin (Greece), Akhisar Usna (Turkey), Ribatejo, Alentejo (Portugal) Mediterranean South Southern Meseta, Zaragoza-Tarragona (Spain), Tessaloniki, Tessalia (Greece), Turkish coast north of Lesbos, Balehesir (Turkey), South Peleponessos (Greece), North Sicily, Sardinian Lowlands (Italy), Majorca, Sierra de Frenegal, da Ronda, coast Barcelona Perpigan (Spain), Camargue (France), Central Albanian coast, South Italian coast, South Sardinian coast (Italy), Western Algarve, Eastern Alentejo (Portugal), Turkish valleys, Sierra Morena and coastal mountains Southern and Eastern Spain, Euboia-Attica -Nauplion (Greece), Southern Sicily (Italy), Estremadura-Quadalquivir, Cartagena-Valencia (Spain), Cadiz, Males-Crete, Zakinthos Kefalinia (Greece), Aegean Islands (Greece), South Sicily coast (Italy), Las Marismas (Coto Doñana) (Spain), Cabo de Gato (Spain), Turkish coast, Tunisia, Algeria Pannonian Anatolian Balkans (Romania), Foothils of the Carpahians (Romania, Moldavia), Vosges (France), Middle Danube Plain (Hungary, Slovakia, Austria, Yugoslavia), Black Sea Lowland (Moldavia, Ukraine), Valley of Struma (Bulgaria, Greece), Middle and Lower Danube Plain (Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria), Southern Ukraine lowlands West Anatolia (Turkey), Central Anatolia (Turkey) 71

75 Utilised agricultural area (ha, 2003) No of farms (2003) Arable Hort&perm crop Grazig+mixed Pig&poultry non-class Arable Hort&perm crop Grazig+mixed Pig&poultry non-class MEACAP MEACAP WP5 D14 Appendix 5. Broad description of each of the 12 Environmental Zones occurring in EU25 These broad descriptions of the individual EnZs were sourced from the Cultural Landscape Database ( The data on broad agricultural land-use was sourced from Eurostat after first identifying those NUTS regions which sat wholly or largely within each EnZ. The sum of the totals for those regions were taken as representative of the general spread of broad farm types across each EnZ and was of help in identifying the major farming systems occurring within each zone. Details of the NUTS regions taken as representative of each zone are available on request. The Environmental zone Alpine North covers medium and low mountains and uplands in Scandinavia. Climate of western slopes is strongly influenced by the North-Atlantic current, meanwhile eastern uplands are influenced by continental air masses. The growing season lasts in average 130 days ( , low); sum of active temperatures is in average 1416 ( , low). Landscapes are dominated by arctic tundra (uplands in the north), arctic-alpine tundra (high mountain regions) and various forest and dwarf-scrub tundras changing on the southern uplands and less elevated eastern plateaus to sparse coniferous forests. The relief bears fresh traces of the last glaciation The environmental zone Boreal occupies low plateaus, undulating plains and lowlands of North- East Europe. The climate is continental. The growing season lasts in average 157 days ( ); the sum of temperatures above +10 is in average 1966 (1471 C to 2523,3 C). Both values are in the low category. The most typical habitat is taiga composed by evergreen coniferous trees. Bogs are very common. The agricultural lands are dominated by grasslands. The main crop is barley; the North of the region is used mainly for forestry and grazing. Boreal Zone Total Boreal Total Utilised agricultural area (ha, 2003) abs % Arable 862, Hort&perm crop 20, Grazig+mixed 848, Pig&poultry 104, non-class total 1,835, No of farms (2003) abs % Arable 30, Hort&perm crop 2, Grazig+mixed 23, Pig&poultry 2, non-class total 58,

76 Utilised agricultural area (ha, 2003) No of farms (2003) Utilised agricultural area (ha, 2003) No of farms (2003) Arable Hort&perm crop Grazig+mixed Pig&poultry non-class Arable Hort&perm crop Grazig+mixed Pig&poultry non-class Arable Hort&perm crop Grazig+mixed Pig&poultry non-class Arable Hort&perm crop Grazig+mixed Pig&poultry non-class MEACAP MEACAP WP5 D14 The Nemoral environmental zone covers the lowlands and undulating plains of South Scandinavia and the north-west of the Russian Plain including the Baltic countries. The growing season lasts in average 196 days ( ), the sum of temperatures above +10 is in average 2717 C ( ). This is rather low. The most characteristic in the Nemoral zone are well developed forms of glacial accumulation (moraine and fluvioglacial) and mixed and evergreen coniferous forests. The land cover of this zone is Taiga forest wetlands and bogs. Most of the natural forests have been converted into agricultural lands or into production forests (in particular in Scandinavia). The main arable crops are barley and wheat. Bogs and large floodplain marches are very common. The agricultural use is dominated by dairy farming ad cattle farming. Forestry is an important form of land use. Nemoral Zone total Nemoral Total Utilised agricultural area (ha, 2003) abs % Arable 2,784, Hort&perm crop 47, Grazig+mixed 2,983, Pig&poultry 254, non-class total 6,069, No of farms (2003) abs % Arable 171, Hort&perm crop 7, Grazig+mixed 240, Pig&poultry 20, non-class total 441, The Environmental zone Continental is mostly on the plains and lowlands of Central and Eastern Europe and uplands and low mountains of the Balkan peninsula. It is situated from the Ardennes in the west to the Ukraine in the east. The climate is continental, with clear summer maximum of precipitations and difference in the average monthly temperatures. The growing season lasts 227 ( ) days, the sum of active temperatures is 3294 C ( ). The highest values are reached in the continental parts of the Balkan peninsula. The soil is rich and fertile, This means that most of the area are agricultural lands used for crop production. In the hills and mountains forestry dominates. In the eastern part of Poland and in Belarus larger remnants of natural forest still exist. Continental Zone total Continental Total Utilised agricultural area (ha, 2003) abs % Arable 12,191, Hort&perm crop 628, Grazig+mixed 14,352, Pig&poultry 4,561, non-class 49, total 31,784, No of farms (2003) abs % Arable 1,048, Hort&perm crop 196, Grazig+mixed 824, Pig&poultry 450, non-class 28, total 2,547,

77 Utilised agricultural area (ha, 2003) No of farms (2003) Utilised agricultural area (ha, 2003) No of farms (2003) Arable Hort&perm crop Grazig+mixed Pig&poultry non-class Arable Hort&perm crop Grazig+mixed Pig&poultry non-class Arable Hort&perm crop Grazig+mixed Pig&poultry non-class Arable Hort&perm crop Grazig+mixed Pig&poultry non-class MEACAP MEACAP WP5 D14 The Environmental zone Atlantic North covers uplands and low mountains in Central and Northern Britain, Northern Ireland and Western coast of Scandinavia, and lowlands and plains of Jutland and North Germany. The Atlantic ocean has a strong influence on the climate. The growing season lasts in average 255 days ( ), the sum of temperatures above +10 is in average 3198,1 ( ). Both values are in the middle category. Agricultural lands occupy most of the area. They are mostly crops in the densely populated continental segment, and grasslands in much emptier North Britain and Scandinavia. The dominating land cover is grassland, bogs heathlands and oligotrophic birch-pine forests and birch-oak forests. Land use is dominated by dairy cattle holding and sheep breeding. Large parts of the bogs in Scotland are currently planted with pine Atlantic North Zone total Atlantic NorthTotal Utilised agricultural area (ha, 2003) abs % Arable 4,081, Hort&perm crop 73, Grazig+mixed 10,390, Pig&poultry 1,309, non-class total 15,856, No of farms (2003) abs % Arable 61, Hort&perm crop 7, Grazig+mixed 154, Pig&poultry 24, non-class 7, total 255, The Environmental zone Atlantic Central is situated in Ireland, South Britain, North and Central France, Belgium, the Netherlands and West Germany. The climate is Atlantic, influenced by the Atlantic ocean. The sum of precipitations does not vary much during a year; the contrast in average monthly temperatures is usually within 10. The growing season lasts 296 days ( ) and the sum of active temperatures (above +10 C) is 3849 (3497 C-4092 C). The potential vegetation consists of deciduous forests, Oak and Beech). The agriculture is intensive and still intensifying. Most of the area is occupied by crops (wheat, barley, sugar-beet, potatoes and vegetables); The western part of the continent (Netherlands, Bretagne, Ireland, western England, Wales are dominated by grassland farming. It is the most intensive farming area of Europe as well as the most densely populated and urbanised region Atlantic Central Zone total Atlantic CentralTotal Utilised agricultural area (ha, 2003) abs % Arable 11,321, Hort&perm crop 535, Grazig+mixed 16,421, Pig&poultry 1,086, non-class 1, total 29,367, No of farms (2003) abs % Arable 134, Hort&perm crop 65, Grazig+mixed 412, Pig&poultry 47, non-class 22, total 681,

78 Utilised agricultural area (ha, 2003) No of farms (2003) Utilised agricultural area (ha, 2003) No of farms (2003) Arable Hort&perm crop Grazig+mixed Pig&poultry non-class Arable Hort&perm crop Grazig+mixed Pig&poultry non-class Arable Hort&perm crop Grazig+mixed Pig&poultry non-class Arable Hort&perm crop Grazig+mixed Pig&poultry non-class MEACAP MEACAP WP5 D14 The most characteristic in the environmental zone Lusitanian is the relatively humid Atlantic climate with Mediterranean-like distribution of precipitation within a year (maximum in winter). The growing season lasts 353 days ( ), the sum of temperatures above +10 is 4749 C ( ). flora is dominated by Atlantic species, rather than Mediterranean. A large proportion of land is used for rainfed crops. The main agricultural products are wheat and wine. The soil is poor, so production is rather low. It is the area of the southern European heathlands; grazing with sheep is one of the traditional forms of agriculture. Lusitanian Zone total Lusitanian Total Utilised agricultural area (ha, 2003) abs % Arable 2,249, Hort&perm crop 925, Grazig+mixed 4,510, Pig&poultry 524, non-class 208, total 8,419, No of farms (2003) abs % Arable 147, Hort&perm crop 127, Grazig+mixed 218, Pig&poultry 62, non-class 1, total 558, The Environmental zone Alpine South covers high, medium and low mountains of Central and Southern Europe. Most of them belong to the Alpine orogenic belt (Pyrénées, Alps, Carpathians, Tatr and mountains of the Balkan peninsula) or to Hercynian Europe (Schwarzwald, Thüringer Wald, Harz, Etzgebirge and Sudety) and, respectively, are classic Alpine landscapes with deep, relatively inaccessible valleys and permanent snow cover on the highest peaks, or low mountains and uplands. The climate and vegetation vary greatly from west to east and also depend on the orientation of slopes. The growing season lasts 220 days (middle), the sum of temperatures above +10 C is 3005 C (low). Alpine South Zone total Alpine South Total Utilised agricultural area (ha, 2003) abs % Arable 246, Hort&perm crop 113, Grazig+mixed 2,450, Pig&poultry 276, non-class total 3,087, No of farms (2003) abs % Arable 34, Hort&perm crop 38, Grazig+mixed 148, Pig&poultry 27, non-class total 249,

79 Utilised agricultural area (ha, 2003) No of farms (2003) Utilised agricultural area (ha, 2003) No of farms (2003) Arable Hort&perm crop Grazig+mixed Pig&poultry non-class Arable Hort&perm crop Grazig+mixed Pig&poultry non-class Arable Hort&perm crop Grazig+mixed Pig&poultry non-class Arable Hort&perm crop Grazig+mixed Pig&poultry non-class MEACAP MEACAP WP5 D14 The Environmental zone Mediterranean Mountains consists of low- and medium mountains in the northern part of the Mediterranean and high mountains in the southern Mediterranean. Unlike the Alpine classes, glacial abrasion is not important or nonexistent in this zone; instead the relief is severely affected by water erosion. Compared to other Mediterranean zones the Mediterranean Mountains receive more precipitation. This and difficult access to the mountains preserve the natural vegetation of the region deciduous and coniferous forests. Primary and secondary (various stages of degradation) shrub formations (e.g. maquis, garrigue, carrascal, phrygana, shibliak) are also very common. The growing season lasts 298 days ( ), the sum of temperatures above +10 C is 4548 ( ). The land use is dominated by grazing of transhumance flocks and small scale agriculture mostly on terraces. Mediterranean Mountain total Med MountainTotal Utilised agricultural area (ha, 2003) abs % Arable 316, Hort&perm crop 102, Grazig+mixed 288, Pig&poultry 7, non-class total 713, No of farms (2003) abs % Arable 76, Hort&perm crop 87, Grazig+mixed 31, Pig&poultry 5, non-class total 201, Environmental zone Mediterranean North occupies lowlands in northern, uplands and low mountains in southern Mediterranean. Common landforms are lowlands of intermountain troughs and coastal plains, plateaus with isolated mountains, mountain piedmonts, low mountains and uplands. Climate is Mediterranean, typical for the winter maximum of precipitations and dry summer. Growing season lasts 335 days ( ), sum of active temperatures is 5104 C ( ). Agricultural lands dominate the region; major products are wheat, wine, olives and fruits. In Spain the Meseta is dissected by long distance drove roads (cañadas) of sheep grazing. There are many regional agricultural products varying from fruits and meat to wine. Mediterranean North total Med North Total Utilised agricultural area (ha, 2003) abs % Arable 6,866, Hort&perm crop 1,737, Grazig+mixed 3,286, Pig&poultry 321, non-class 470, total 12,682, No of farms (2003) abs % Arable 513, Hort&perm crop 588, Grazig+mixed 121, Pig&poultry 31, non-class 8, total 1,264,

80 Utilised agricultural area (ha, 2003) No of farms (2003) Utilised agricultural area (ha, 2003) No of farms (2003) Arable Hort&perm crop Grazig+mixed Pig&poultry non-class Arable Hort&perm crop Grazig+mixed Pig&poultry non-class Arable Hort&perm crop Grazig+mixed Pig&poultry Arable Hort&perm crop Grazig+mixed Pig&poultry MEACAP MEACAP WP5 D14 The description of this zone is restricted to the European part of the Mediterranean. The Environmental zone Mediterranean South occupies plains and uplands in southern Mediterranean and some lowlands in the northern. Most of the zone is in the Iberian peninsula, where relief consists of plateaus with residual mountains, denudational plains and accumulative lowlands. Climate is Mediterranean with hot and dry summer and maximum of precipitations in winter. Growing season lasts 363 days ( ), sum of active temperatures is 6021 C ( ). Agriculture is partly in a phase of abandonment, partly intensifying. Major products are wheat, wine, olives and fruits. In the western parts of this zone dehesas and montados are important landscape structures. Here the main production zone in the world of cork is situated in this zone (Quercus suber). Mediterranean South total Med South Total Utilised agricultural area (ha, 2003) abs % Arable 3,424, Hort&perm crop 3,786, Grazig+mixed 3,692, Pig&poultry 983, non-class 441, total 12,329, No of farms (2003) abs % Arable 194, Hort&perm crop 781, Grazig+mixed 83, Pig&poultry 36, non-class 20, total 1,116, The Environmental zone Pannonian occupies lowlands, valleys and mountain peripheries on the Middle- and the Lower-Danube Plains and the Black-Sea Lowland. In the classification also a small part of the Rhine Valley (Rheingraben) has been included due to its specific climatic conditions. This zone is characteristic for the flat relief, dry continental climate (maximum of precipitations in summer, the yearly amplitude of temperature is 20 ) and steppe-like natural vegetation. The formations dominated by trees grow only along the rivers (willow, black poplar) and in the mountain peripheries (oak). The growing season lasts 250 days ( ), the sum of temperatures above +10 is 4099 C ( ). The potential natural vegetation is dominated by mixed Acer and Turkish oak forests as well as steppe vegetation (Stipa sp. grasslands). Therefore, historically the area the area is dominated by grassland farming; nowadays many areas are converted into crops. The Rheingraben has a long tradition of viticulture. Pannonian Zone Total Pannonian Total Utilised agricultural area (ha, 2003) abs % Arable 2,809, Hort&perm crop 228, Grazig+mixed 878, Pig&poultry 429, non-class 6, total 4,352, No of farms (2003) abs % Arable 209, Hort&perm crop 137, Grazig+mixed 34, Pig&poultry 386, non-class 5, total 773,

81 Appendix 6. Importance of semi-subsistence farming in the EU25 and NMS10 in 2003 This table shows the percentage of farms in each MS in 2003 which were classed as < 1 ESU in the Farm Structure Survey database (adapted from CEC 2006b). Mediterranean MSs New MSs Other MSs Cyprus 37.1% Czech Republic 43.3% Austria 19.1% Greece 20.6% Estonia 60.5% Belgium 4.1% Italy 27.4% Hungary 79.2% Denmark 0.0% Malta 33.6% Latvia 58.4% Finland 1.1% Portugal 27.2% Lithuania 67.2% France 7.8% Spain 14.2% Poland 51.4% Germany 5.4% Slovakia 83.0% Ireland 6.3% Slovenia 20.4% Luxembourg 6.0% Netherlands 0.2% Sweden 11.3% United Kingdom 35.2% This table shows the percentage of the total Utilised Agricultural Area (UAA) in each MS in 2003 which was on farms classed as < 1 ESU in the Farm Structure Survey database(source: Eurostat). Mediterranean MSs New MSs Other MSs Cyprus 4.9% Czech Republic 1.0% Austria 16.9% Greece 2.3% Estonia 11.6% Belgium 0.2% Italy 3.3% Hungary 6.2% Denmark 0.0% Malta 12.0% Latvia 19.3% Finland 0.1% Portugal 4.2% Lithuania 26.7% France 0.4% Spain 9.7% Poland 10.6% Germany 0.4% Slovakia 2.0% Ireland 2.0% Slovenia 7.8% Luxembourg 0.5% Netherlands 0.0% Sweden 2.0% United Kingdom 3.8% This figure shows the importance of semi-subsistence farming in the NMS of the EU (taken from CEC 2006b). Note that the EU27 average figure in 2003 was 47.2%, reflecting the high proportion of farms in Bulgaria and Romania classed as semi-subsistence. 78