ABANDONMENT AND LOSSES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN CZECHIA SINCE 1990 FROM A REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE

Transcription

1 ABANDONMENT AND LOSSES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN CZECHIA SINCE 1990 FROM A REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE JAN KABRDA, Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague In cooperation with Přemysl Štychand Přemysl Vojáček, Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague and Gregory Taff, Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute

2 Structure of presentation Losses of agricultural land in Czechia since 1990 Processes of land use extensification Causes and driving forces economy and policy Our research: Whereand whydid these processes occur? A quantitative approach Different data and methods used to analyse different processes examples: Data for cadastres afforestation Data for districts grassing-over Data for parcels land abandonment Land use changes in Czechia (%) according to cadastral statistics Arable land Permanent cultures Permanent grasslands Forested areas Water areas Built-up areas Other areas 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

3 Losses of agricultural land since 1990 Processes and their results: land use changes in Czechia ABANDONED LAND Abandoned land est. up to km 2 3,8% Land abandonment Change in km 2 Change as % of Czech territory (Data from cadastral statistics) 574 km 2 0,7% FORESTED AREAS PERMANENT GRASSLANDS AGRICULTURAL LAND ARABLE LAND Afforestation BUILT-UP AND OTHER AREAS +262 km 2 +0,3% km 2 +2,0% Grassingover km 2 2,7% Development, (sub)urbanisation +245 km 2 +0,3% INTENSIFICATION EXTENSIFIACTION

4 Losses of agricultural land since 1990 Causes and driving forces of extensification: Economy Agricultural crisis, slump in agricultural production Caused by: 1. Liberalisationof the market price liberalisation, growing imports from the West, decreasing exports to the East 2. Dismantling of the excessive socialist ( ) system of agricultural supports and subsidies 3. Privatisationof farms, restitution of land sometimes unsuccessful, leading to many bankruptcies Areas under major crops( , hectares) Cereals (total) Potatoes Sugar beet Rape Perennial fodder crops Annual fodder crops Livestock( , thous. units) Cattle (total) Pigs Poultry Sheep

5 Losses of agricultural land since 1990 Causes and driving forces of extensification: Policy Subsidies and supports focused on afforestation, grassing-over and maintenance of grasslands : Socialist system of agricultural subsidies abolished; weak agricultural policy : First laws for maintenance of landscape in a cultural state : Agricultural policy gets stronger; gradual adoption of EU system LFAs, grassingover, maintenance of agricultural land / grasslands : EU accession; CAP rules accepted; Horizontal Rural Development Plan(HRDP) : Rural Development Programme(RDP) Area affected by land-use related subsidies (ha, approx. figures) Afforestation Grassing-over x x x Maintenance of grasslands x x x Grasslands in LFA x x x x

6 Losses of agricultural land since 1990 Spatial delimitation of Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) -Based mostly on local natural conditions H -mountanious O -other S -specific LFAs for HRDP H -mountanious O -other S -specific H -mountanious O -other S -specific LFAs in 2002 LFAs for RDP

7 Our research A quantitativeapproach whereand why did land use extensification occur? Different data and methodsused to analyse different processes examples: Data for cadastres afforestation Data for districts grassing-over Data for parcels land abandonment Share of permanent grasslands 2010(%) Land use (2010) in a selected model area

8 Afforestation Database of long-term land use changes in Czechia Basic Territorial Units (BTUs, average area = 8,9 km sq.) Five time horizons: 1845, 1896, 1948, 1990, 2000 Eight land use categories:arable land, permanent cultures, meadows, pastures; forested areas; water areas, built-up areas, remaining areas Share of forested areason total area of BTUs, 1990 (left)and 2000 (right)

9 Afforestation Forested areas1990: 33,34 % 2000: 33,41 % 2010: 33,70 % of Czech territory Changes both in total area and regional distribution rather small stability Hot-spots : mountains and higlands, peripheries, (former) military training areas Changing share of forests , % (% forested areas 2000 % forested areas 1990)

10 Land use database for districts Grassing-over 76 districts(average area = 1.020km sq.) Every fifth year between 1960 and 2010(i.e. 11 time horizons) Thirteen (in 1960) to ten (in 2010) land use categories:arable land, hop-gardens, vineyards, gardens, orchards, meadows andpastures; forested areas; fishing ponds and other water areas, built-up areas, bare land and remaining areas Distribution of permanent grasslands(meadows and pastures, %) in 1960 (left) and 2010 (right) Share of permanent grasslands 1960(%) Share of permanent grasslands 2010(%)

11 Grassing-over 1980s/1990s: a reversal of the historic trend of disappearance of grasslands Share of grasslands on total area of Czechia (%): Grasslands / arable land ratio: , , , ,33 14,0 Share of grasslands on total area Podíl TTP na celkové rozloze (%) (%) 0,35 Grasslands / arable land ratio Podíl TTP / OP 12,0 0,30 10,0 0,25 8,0 0,20 6,0 0,15 4,0 0,10 2,0 0,05 0, ,

12 Grassing-over Changes in spatial distribution of grasslands seem to reflect local natural conditions Especially after 1990 Grasslands 1990 grasslands 1960 (%) Changing share of grasslands (pp) Grasslands 2010 grasslands 1990 (%)

13 Grassing-over A quantitative assessment of changes in the overall spatial distribution of grasslands 1. Coefficient of Variation(Cv, %) Coefficient of Variation = standard deviation / mean [* 100 %] Higher coefficient greater variability Cv of the share of grasslands on total area(%) 45,13 46,77 50,33 51,74 57,73 57,25 Cv of the grasslands / arable land ratio 80,59 82,66 88,69 92,48 119,68 128,49

14 Grassing-over 2. Influence of natural conditions Official Price of agricultural land1992 (CZK/m 2 ) OP An aggregate indicator of suitability of natural conditions for farming Expresses theoretical financial income from farming on a given land-plot Based on estimated natural productivity of land, enriched by monetary indicators Higher OP better natural conditions

15 Influence of natural conditions: Occurence of grasslands in districts with Lower(N=38) and Higher(N=38) Official Price of agricultural land (OP) Lower OP worse natural conditions, Higher OP better natural conditions Grassing-over Share of grasslands on total area(%) Lower OP Higher OP L H difference Grasslands / arable land ratio Lower OP Higher OP L H difference ,84 8,86 6,98 0,46 0,17 0, ,89 8,11 6,78 0,44 0,15 0, ,83 7,34 6,49 0,41 0,14 0, ,45 6,93 6,52 0,41 0,14 0, ,93 7,36 8,57 0,53 0,15 0, ,50 7,63 8,87 0,57 0,15 0,42

16 A detailed research of land use extensification on the level of individual parcels / plots Arable land grasslands; agricultural land forested areas; agricultural land abandoned land Selected squares (2 x 2,5 km) in different conditions accross Czechia Ca 1990: cadastral map 1:5.000, ca 2010: field mapping spatial overaly analysis in GIS Land abandonment Supplemented with interviews with farmers and other local actors Land use map from late 1980s (section)

17 Land abandonment Example: land use changes in a selected 2 x 2,5 km square (Pavlov at Světlánad Sázavou) ca Meadows Pastures Abandoned agricultural land Forests Arable land Water areas Built-up areas Other areas 2010 Source: Vojáček (2012)

18 Land abandonment Whydid grassing-over / afforestation / land abandonment occur on these particular plots and not on the others? A quantitative analysisaimed at revealing factors explainingspatial localisation of extensified plots A set of quantifiable factors / variablesfor each plot in each square : Natural variables: Land / soil productivity Soils unfavourable for farming (wet, shallow and/or stony soils) Average slope and altitude Spatial variables: Area Area / perimeter ratio Neighbourhood (land use on adjacent plots) Socio-economic variables: Distance from the nearest settlement and the nearest road Number of owners Distance of the plotfrom the owner s place of residence

19 Land abandonment Results examples Average soil productivity(0 worst 100 best) of selected land use categories in two squares in 2010 arable land meadows pastures abandoned land (Hošťka, district Tachov) arable land meadows (Pavlov at Světlá nad Sázavou) pastures abandoned land Distance of the plotfrom the owner s place of residence place of residence of owners of plots in selected land use categories in the square Pavlov at Světlánad Sázavou in 2010 other villages Prague neighbouring villages Pavlov Source: Vojáček (2012) abandoned land grassed-over arable land arable land

20 Source: Vojáček (2012) Land abandonment Results examples "Square" Hošťka (district Tachov) Abandoned agricultural land (ha) Used agricultural land (ha) Average area (ha) 1,3 6,2 Soil productivity (0 worst best) Wet soils (%) Slopes above 7 (%) 0 6 Average distance to a settlement (m) Average distance to a road (m) "Square" Pavlov (at Světlá nad Sázavou) Abandoned agricultural land (ha) Used agricultural land (ha) Average area (ha) 1,2 3,1 Soil productivity (0 worst best) Wet soils (%) 34 9 Slopes above 7 (%) 6 5 Average distance to a settlement (m) Average distance to a road (m) "Square" Mokřany (SE of Prague) Abandoned agricultural land (ha) Used agricultural land (ha) Average area (ha) 1,2 1,7 Soil productivity (0 worst best) Wet soils (%) 1 16 Slopes above 7 (%) Average distance to a settlement (m) Average distance to a road (m) TO BE CONTINUED...

21 Conclusions Losses of agricultural especially arable land in Czechia since 1990 due to processes of land use extensification Mostly grassing-over(over km 2 ) and land abandonment(est. up to km 2 ); partly afforestation (over 250 km 2 ) Caused by economic and political factors Agricultural crisis, slump in agricultural production Subsidies(LFAs, maintenance of grasslands, grassing-over, afforestation, etc.) Environmental, socio-economic and cultural impacts Environmental benefits(floods, erosion, biodiversity, ecological stability) Socio-economic threats(marginalisation, depopulation, general rural decline) Land use changes in Czechia (%) according to cadastral statistics Arable land Permanent cultures Permanent grasslands Forested areas Water areas Built-up areas Other areas 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

22 Visible regional patternof land use extensification Conclusions Influence of local natural(altitude, slope, soils) and socio-economic conditions (core x periphery) concentration of new grasslands, forests and abandoned land in peripheraland naturally less favouredareas growing land use differentiation and concentration Grasslands 2010 grasslands 1990 (%) Caused mostly by economic driving forces(competition, profitability, efficiency differential rent in a free-market economy) but also by political factors (e.g., LFAs) arable land meadows pastures abandoned land Average soil productivity in the square Pavlov in 2010

23 THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION! Supported by Czech Science Foundation, project GAČR no. 205/09/0995 Regional differentiation and possible risks of land use as a reflection of functional changes of landscape in Czechia