Addressing the spatial resolution of agri-environmental indicators in Norway

Transcription

1 Addressing the spatial resolution of agri-environmental indicators in Norway WENDY FJELLSTAD, OSKAR PUSCHMANN AND GRETE STOKSTAD NORWEGIAN FOREST AND LANDSCAPE INSTITUTE ÅS, NORWAY

2 Executive Summary In Norway, agri-environmental indicators have been used both to evaluate the effectiveness of existing agri-environmental policies and to guide the development of new policies. This paper focuses on landscape indicators and indicators of biodiversity. Experience using these indicators had clearly demonstrated the importance of spatial resolution when analysing indicator values and interpreting the policy relevance of the data. For biodiversity indicators at the species level, there is relatively little data available in Norway. Due to the complexity of issues that influence biodiversity, todays monitoring at the species level is unable to provide sufficient data to evaluate the success of particular agri-environmental measures. However, there is a limited programme of monitoring of bird and plant species in agricultural landscapes that aims to reveal general trends in the occurrence of those species that are relatively common in today s agricultural landscapes, whilst also capturing some information about threatened (red-listed) species and about invasive (blacklisted) species. More information is available on biodiversity indicators at a habitat level. In a country as varied as Norway, some habitat types are specific to particular regions. Farm ponds, for example, occur in lowland agricultural landscapes, where they are important elements for landscape character, with aesthetical and cultural value in addition to their importance for biodiversity. The lowland landscapes are also the areas where cereal growing is concentrated, and farm ponds provide the valuable ecosystem function of protecting waterways from run-off from ploughed land by capturing nutrients and soil particles. Whilst the national monitoring system enables us to calculate all indicators in all regions, the relevance of the indicators varies from region to region. The results from the first inventory cycle of the monitoring programme were useful in illustrating these regional differences, and in some cases raised awareness within the regional management authorities and were used when formulating the Regional Environmental Programmes. Of all of the indicators provided by the Norwegian landscape monitoring programme, the two that have been the most widely used and discussed, both by policy makers and in the media, are the area of agricultural land converted to built-up land and the area of abandoned agricultural land. These indicators are linked to strong national political aims: to halve the loss of cultivated land to other land uses by 2010, to preserve agriculture throughout the country, and to increase grazing by domestic animals in order to maintain open landscapes. The case of Northern Norway is a good example of why indicator values must be analysed in context with other indicators and at a relevant spatial resolution. According to official statistics, the total area of agricultural land has remained relatively unchanged in Northern Norway, however the number of farms has declined by 83 % between 1969 and 2006, accompanied by large changes in farm structure. In many coastal and fjord districts the area of agricultural land has declined, whilst some inland municipalities have increased their agricultural area, such that there has been a redistribution of agricultural land within the region. Land ownership patterns have been shown to have an important influence on the probability of abandonment, with rented land more likely to be abandoned than land that is farmed by the owner (Puschmann & Stokstad, 2010). The probability of abandonment also increased the more distant a farm was from its nearest neighbours. Agri-environmental indicators are being used for policy purposes at a range of scales in Norway. Spatial variation is taken into account by interpreting indicators in relation to landscape types and regional environmental goals. We have seen that simple indicator values interpreted in isolation may be misleading (e.g. agricultural area in Norway), but that analysis of disaggregated data from indicator programmes can lead to important insights. Analyses to identify driving forces of change and explore the relationships between different indicators are dependent on data at a high spatial resolution. It is at this disaggregated level that indicators are most useful for evaluating the effects of agri-environmental policy tools. Importantly, the establishment of systems to monitor and report agri-environmental indicators has also raised awareness of agri-environmental issues amongst policy makers and management authorities at different levels of administration.

3 Introduction In Norway, agri-environmental indicators have been used both to evaluate the effectiveness of existing agri-environmental policies and to guide the development of new policies. Bjørn Huso of the Norwegian Agricultural Authority, in his paper for this conference, provides some background on agriculture in Norway and provides an overview of the Norwegian Environmental Programme that was introduced in 2005 with the aim to improve the targeting of agri-environmental measures. In this paper we focus on landscape indicators and indicators of biodiversity. Experience using these indicators had clearly demonstrated the importance of spatial resolution when analysing indicator values and interpreting the policy relevance of the data. Gradually a system of indicators and reporting has been established that incorporates data from different sources to address agri-environmental issues at relevant spatial scales. The first systematic monitoring of Norwegian agricultural landscapes - the 3Q Programme - was initiated in 1998 with the aim to quantify changes in agricultural landscapes and provide data to assess developments in relation to agri-environmental goals. 3Q involves detailed mapping of 1 x 1 km sample squares, based on the interpretation of true-colour aerial photographs (Dramstad et al. 2001). The sampling is designed such that the 1400 monitoring squares comprise a representative sample of Norwegian agricultural land. By combining 3Q data with various national databases, agricultural census data and the Norwegian Landscape Reference System, a range of indicators have been calculated, providing feedback to policy-makers at national and regional levels. The reporting includes biodiversity, cultural heritage, farm management and landscape indicators, and emphasises the links between these themes. Species level indicators For biodiversity indicators at the species level, there is relatively little data available in Norway. Breeding birds have been recorded in the field at 130 of the 1400 monitoring squares, and vascular plants have been recorded in selected habitat types (grasslands) at 100 squares. This is insufficient to provide indicators at a regional level, but can provide a minimum of standardised information at the national level. Although more time steps are needed before we can analyse change, the state data for breeding birds show a clear positive correlation between the number of species of farmland birds and the area of agricultural land per square. Number of species of farmland birds R 2 = 0, Agricultural area (hectares) Figure 1: Relationship between the area of agricultural land per monitoring square and the number of farmland bird species recorded per square. This result reflects the relatively small-scale nature of agriculture in Norway. We would not expect the number of species to be high if the entire 1 x 1 km square was occupied by intensively cultivated cereal fields. In Norway, however, natural conditions limit the total amount of agricultural land, even at local scales, such that agricultural landscapes typically contain considerable variation and a number of different types of habitat. In a country with just 3 % cultivated land, agricultural habitats are important for national biodiversity. Importantly, gathering different types of information at the same monitoring squares can provide the opportunity 2

4 to validate other, more indirect, indicators of biodiversity, as well as enabling research into the driving forces of changes and the responses of species to agri-environmental schemes or changes in farming practices. However, due to the complexity of issues that influence biodiversity, todays monitoring at the species level is unable to provide sufficient data to evaluate the success of particular agri-environmental measures. The limited monitoring of bird and plant species in the 3Q Programme is best suited for revealing general trends in the occurrence of those species that are relatively common in today s agricultural landscapes, whilst also capturing some information about threatened (red-listed) species and about invasive (black-listed) species. Habitat indicators Biodiversity indicators at the habitat level are derived from the entire national set of monitoring squares. In practice, however, in a country as varied as Norway, some habitat types are specific to particular regions. An example is the indicator number of farm ponds. Farm ponds occur in lowland agricultural landscapes, where they are important elements for landscape character, with aesthetical and cultural value in addition to their importance for biodiversity. The lowland landscapes are also the areas where cereal growing is concentrated, and farm ponds provide the valuable ecosystem function of protecting waterways from run-off from ploughed land by capturing nutrients and soil particles. Several counties have schemes within their Regional Environmental Programme to provide financial support for maintenance of farm ponds or establishment of new ponds. Figure 2: The photograph on the left, from 2003, shows soil erosion in a landscape that has previously been drained using underground pipes. The photograph on the right shows the same landscape in 2007, following establishment of a farm pond, financed by the Regional Environmental Programme. (Photographer: O. Puschmann). Although farm ponds may vary considerably in their quality as habitat, a decline in number is a clear indication of a negative change. This indicator can therefore be useful for comparing trends in the different regions that have farm ponds, and providing feedback as to which Regional Environmental Programmes are most successful in preserving or increasing numbers of ponds. In other regions however, this indicator has no policy relevance. The situation is similar for other indicators that reflect both habitat occurrence and landscape character, such as the length of rows of trees, stonewalls and ditches and streams. Thus, whilst the monitoring system enables us to calculate all indicators in all regions, the relevance of the indicators varies from region to region. The results from the first inventory cycle of the monitoring programme were useful in illustrating these regional differences, and in some cases raised awareness within the regional management authorities and were used when formulating the Regional Environmental Programmes. 3

5 Rural landscapes Of all of the indicators provided by the Norwegian landscape monitoring programme, the two that have been the most widely used and discussed, both by policy makers and in the media, are the area of agricultural land converted to built-up land and the area of abandoned agricultural land. These indicators are linked to strong national political aims: to halve the loss of cultivated land to other land uses by 2010, to preserve agriculture throughout the country, and to increase grazing by domestic animals in order to maintain open landscapes. Agricultural census statistics show there has been a dramatic decline in the number of farms in Norway, from in 1999 to in 2008 or an average annual decline of 3.4 % (Statistics Norway). By 2008, 22 % of agricultural properties with residential houses were without residents. Changes in indicator values over a five year period revealed land abandonment even in South Eastern Norway, in regions generally considered to be more at risk from urbanisation than abandonment. In Northern Norway, scrub encroachment and reversion of agricultural land to forest are very obvious landscape changes that are well known to policy makers. Here, the usefulness of the indicators comes through combining different data sources to analyse the driving forces of change. The case of Northern Norway is a good example of why indicator values must be analysed in context with other indicators and at a relevant spatial resolution. According to official statistics, the total area of agricultural land in Norway has remained relatively unchanged over recent decades. This is also true in Northern Norway and might give an impression of stability. Yet the number of farms in Northern Norway has declined by 83 % between 1969 and 2006, accompanied by large changes in the structure of farm ownership. These changes clearly affect the landscapes of Northern Norway. In 1969, the majority of farms (71 %) had less than 5 hectares of land, whilst in 2006 most farms were in the category 10 to 50 hectares and only 9 % had less than 5 hectares. If we look at changes in agriculture at the level of municipalities, we see great variation (figure 3). In many coastal and fjord districts the area of agricultural land has declined, whilst some inland municipalities have increased their agricultural area. There has been a redistribution of agricultural land within the region. Those municipalities that had the highest proportion of small farms have had the greatest reduction in number of active farms. In addition to the proportion of small farms, the total agricultural area per municipality also explains some of the variation. Those municipalities that could convert new areas of land to agriculture and/or merge small properties into larger units have preserved more agriculture than those municpalities that did not have these options. In many coastal and fjord districts, such rationalisation was not possible due to natural constraints. In inland municipalities in the landscape region Forest districts of Northern Norway, however, it was possible to cultivate larger fields on the alluvial plains in the valleys. Another important factor that has influenced the development of agriculture from place to place is land ownership. In many parts of Northern Norway, agricultural production was for home consumption and a supplement to other forms of income, particularly fishing. Virtually every family had a small patch of farmland. Although these small farms ceased farming, they did not sell their land. The number and complexity of rental agreements that would have been necessary, prohibited attempts to continue farming the land in larger, more rational units. The decline of farming in parts of Northern Norway has thus been greater than might have been expected based on the total amount of land theoretically available for farming. In inland municipalities, farming was more likely to be the main occupation and thus farms were slightly larger and the ownership pattern less fragmented, providing more opportunities for expansion. Combining data on land cover from the 3Q Monitoring Programme with data on land ownership, provides an even finer spatial resolution than statistics at the municipal level and shows that land ownership has direct implications for landscape and environmental qualities. Analysis of these data (Puschmann & Stokstad 2010) has shown that the proportion of farmland in early stages of abandonment 4

6 Figure 3: Change in agricultural area per municipality in the three most northerly counties of Norway, from 1969 to Red arrows show municipalities with the greatest decline in area; green arrows show municipalities that have increased their agricultural area. (From Puschmann & Stokstad, 2010) 5

7 Figure 4: Location of active farms in 1999 (upper map) and 2006 (lower map) in Norway s two most northerly counties, Troms and Finnmark. Coloured points illustrate the number of neighbouring farms within a travelling distance of 3 km by road. (From Puschmann & Stokstad, 2010). 6

8 is higher for rented land than for land that is farmed by the owner. When land is rented, only the best areas are managed. On average, around a third of the agricultural area on a property seems to be abandoned when the property is rented out. Although accompanied by some land abandonment, the renting of farmland to neighbours has maintained the overall impression of managed agricultural landscapes in many parts of Northern Norway. In many areas, however, there are very few farms left that are actively producing food and maintaining these landscapes. If these farmers stop farming, the consequences in terms of landscape appearance and provision of agricultural habitats will be much greater than the consequences of previous declines in farm numbers. Figure 4 shows the location of farms in the two most northerly counties of Norway in 1999 and 2006, and uses a colour code to illustrate the number of active neighbours around each farm. Red points indicate farms with no active neighbours within three kilometres travelling distance (by road), yellow points show farms with one to three neighbours, light green points have four to seven neighbours and dark green points have more than seven neighbours within three kilometres travelling distance. Analysis has shown that the probability of farm abandonment increased the more distant a farm was from its nearest neighbours. Where the red points on the map from 1999 have disappeared, there are no longer any active farms. This means that all farmland, including that previously rented from neighbours, is no longer managed. The dark green points with many neighbours, which could be considered the cores areas for agriculture in this region, were the most resistant to farm abandonment. Nevertheless, whilst 30 % of farms had more than seven neighbours in 1999, only 16 % were in this category in It has been suggested that financial incentives to maintain current land-use can be most effective in remote areas of low productivity, where a modest payment may be sufficient to maintain a farm in operation (OECD 2009), whilst such payments are not needed in the agricultural core zone. We suggest that in Norway, due to the harsh conditions for agricultural production and the low population as a basis for alternative sources of income, payments may be needed in core zones as well as remote areas. Indicator data may be useful in modelling work to enable identification of remote farms at greatest risk of abandonment and clusters of farms that might have more chance of success if targeted in agrienvironmental schemes. Where agricultural output is too low for farming to be economically viable, agricultural payments may be inadequate policy tools to preserve agricultural landscapes. In such cases, much greater targeting of payments for landscape and biodiversity goals may be required. Conclusion To conclude, agri-environmental indicators are being used for policy purposes at a range of scales in Norway. National figures are calculated to fulfil international reporting requirements, whilst analysis of indicators at regional levels is more useful to inform policy development. Spatial variation in Norway is taken into account by interpreting indicators in relation to landscape types and regional environmental goals. We have seen that simple indicator values interpreted in isolation may be misleading (e.g. agricultural area in Norway), but that analysis of disaggregated data from indicator programmes can lead to important insights. Analyses to identify driving forces of change and explore the relationships between different indicators are dependent on data at a high spatial resolution, including both detailed maps of land use/ land cover (sampling) and farm management data at the level of the farm (Applications for Subsidies Database and agricultural census data). It is at this disaggregated level that indicators are most useful for evaluating the effects of agri-environmental policy tools. Importantly, the establishment of systems to monitor and report agri-environmental indicators has also raised awareness of agrienvironmental issues amongst policy makers and management authorities at different levels of administration. 7

9 Bibliography Dramstad, W.E., Fjellstad, W.J., Strand, G-H., Mathiesen, H.F., Engan, G. & Stokland, J.N. (2001). Development and implementation of the Norwegian programme for agricultural landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management 63, p OECD (2009). Farmland Conversion: The Spatial Dimension of Agricultural and Land- Use Policies. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Puschmann, O. & Stokstad, G Status og utvikling i jordbrukets kulturlandskap i Nordland, Troms og Finnmark [State and change in the agricultural landscape of Nordland, Troms and Finnmark]. In Norwegian. The Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute. Ås, Norway. 8