Background material

EEA report No 1/2004

High nature value farmland

Characteristics, trends and

policy challenges

Cover: EEA. Photos by Vincent Wigbels (centre), Peter Veen (bottom 2x), Olavi Hiiemäe (top right) Layout: EEA

Legal notice

The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of the European Commission or other institutions of the European Communities. Neither the European Environment Agency nor any person or company acting on the behalf of the Agency is responsible for the use that may be made of the information contained in this report.

All rights reserved

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage retrieval system without the permission in writing from the copyright holder. For rights of translation or reproduction please contact EEA project manager Ove Caspersen (address information below).

Information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2004 ISBN 92-9167-664-0 © EEA, Copenhagen 2004

Environmental production

This publication is printed according to the highest environmental standards. Printed in Denmark by Scanprint A/S

Environment Certificate: ISO 14001

Quality Certificate: ISO 9001: 2000

EMAS registered; licence no. DK- S-000015

Approved for printing with the Nordic Swan environmental label, licence no. 541 055

Printed on recycled and chlorine-free bleached paper The Nordic Swan label

European Environment Agency  UNEP Regional Office for Europe Kongens Nytorv 6  International Environment House DK-1050 Copenhagen K   11, Chemin des Anémones Denmark  CH-1219 Chatelaine

Tel. (45) 33 36 71 00  Geneva, Switzerland

Fax (45) 33 36 71 99  E-mail: roe@unep.ch

E-mail: eea@eea.eu.int   Internet: http://www.unep.ch Internet: http://www.eea.eu.int

iii

List of contributors

Project team:

Ybele Hoogeveen, project manager (EEA) Jan-Erik Petersen (EEA)

Katalin Balazs (EEA)

Ivonne Higuero (UNEP)

Advisory commiee:

David Stanners (EEA) Ulla Pinborg (EEA) Ronan Uhel (EEA)

Graph and map editing: EEA Acknowledgements

David Baldock (IEEP), Harriet Benne (IEEP), Gerard van Dk (Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Food Quality), Erling Andersen (Skov and Landskab), Berien Elbersen (Alterra), Wim Nieuwenhuizen (Alterra), Peter Veen (VeenEco) and Peder Gabrielsen (EEA) are kindly acknowledged for their valuable contributions to this publication.

Contents

Foreword .....................................................................................1 Executive summary .....................................................................2 What is high nature value farmland and why is it important?......4 Trends in high nature value farmland ..........................................7

Intensification ................................................................................................. 7 Abandonment ................................................................................................. 7 Impacts on nature value .................................................................................. 8

Policy responses........................................................................11

Site protection ...............................................................................................11 Wider countryside ..........................................................................................12 Agri-environment schemes ..............................................................................12 Less favoured areas ........................................................................................14 Considerations ..............................................................................................15

Conclusions ...............................................................................16 References ................................................................................17 Appendix A: High nature value farmland definition ................... 19

General concept .............................................................................................19 Land cover approach.......................................................................................19 Farm system approach ....................................................................................19 Species approach ...........................................................................................20

Appendix B: Addenda to the figures ..........................................23

Foreword 1

Foreword

Europe's rich cultural and natural heritage is reflected in its traditional agricultural landscapes. A wide variety of natural conditions and farming traditions has created unique landscapes that are not only pleasing to the eye but provide the living conditions for many plants and animals. High nature value farmland comprises the hot spots of biological diversity in rural areas and is oen characteristic of extensive farming practices.

Over the last few decades, however, biodiversity on farmland has declined seriously. Large scale rationalisation and intensification of agricultural production has taken its toll. Many marginal and extensively farmed areas were either improved or abandoned, resulting in considerably reduced habitat and species diversity. Semi-natural vegetation has declined rapidly and roughly two thirds of the currently endangered bird species depend on agricultural habitats.

This has not gone unnoticed and the conservation of biodiversity on agricultural land is now high on the political agenda. Of the many relevant conservation efforts at European level, we would like to mention the pan-European biological and landscape diversity strategy (PEBDLS), the Bern Convention, the European Landscape Convention, and, at EU level, the habitats and birds directives and the biodiversity action plan for agriculture.

In the sixth environment action programme, the EU has commied itself to halt biodiversity decline by 2010. Conserving high nature value farmland is key to achieving this target. Pan-European data on distribution and conservation status of high nature value farmland are currently

lacking, however. In the Kyiv Resolution on Biodiversity, the European environment ministers therefore agreed to identify high nature value farmland and take adequate conservation measures.

As a contribution to this process, EEA and UNEP have commissioned a study on agriculture and biodiversity and a study to quantify and delineate high nature value farmland areas. The outcome is this joint report, in which preliminary data on the distribution and conservation status

of high nature value farmland and the current targeting of policy instruments are presented.

At a time when the EU common agricultural policy is increasingly focused on non-trade concerns, and sustainability is a keyword, we would like to draw aention to those rural areas in Europe that represent the highest nature value. We sincerely hope that this joint report will spur the policy debate and encourage countries and institutions to elaborate and refine the high nature value farmland concept, and further focus their conservation efforts.

Jacqueline McGlade,

Executive Director, European Environment Agency

Frits Schlingemann

Director, UNEP Regional Office for Europe

Executive summary

Traditional agricultural systems have shaped the European landscape and created habitats for a wide range of species, many of which are of particular conservation concern. High nature value farmland comprises hot spots

of biodiversity in rural areas and is usually characterised by extensive farming practices. Its conservation value is acknowledged in several EU policy documents such as the EU Regulation on rural development (EC 1257/1999). Distribution and conservation status of high nature value farmland, however, has not yet been assessed at the pan- European level.

In their Kyiv Resolution on Biodiversity, the European environment ministers agreed to complete the identification

of all high nature value farmland areas by 2006 and commied themselves to support their economic and ecological viability. The target is to cover 'a substantial proportion' of such areas with rural development and agri- environment measures by 2008. A high nature value farmland indicator is currently under preparation within the framework of IRENA[1]. This joint report highlights the preliminary results of this indicator and analyses the current targeting of high nature value farmland by policy measures.

According to our preliminary estimates, roughly 15–25 % of the European countryside qualifies as high nature value farmland. The largest areas are found in eastern and southern Europe. They consist of habitats such as semi- natural grasslands, dehesas, montados and steppe areas. High nature value farmland is also relatively abundant

in mountainous regions. Examples are grazed uplands in the United Kingdom

and alpine pastures and meadows. Agriculture in these areas is usually extensive and vulnerable to change.

High nature value farmland areas are generally under severe pressure due to a vulnerable economy and depopulation. Predominant agricultural trends are intensification on the one hand and land abandonment on the other. Both are considered detrimental to biodiversity. Lile information exists on the exact conservation status of high nature

value farmland areas, but the overall population trends of characteristic species, such as the great bustard Otis tarda, black grouse Tetrao tetrix and corncrake Crex crex are negative.

Policy responses in the EU include site protection under the habitats and bird directives and environment measures under the common agricultural policy. The Natura 2000 sites, as proposed by the Member States, cover less than one third of high nature value farmland area. Their conservation status is again largely unknown. A monitoring system is under development but not yet operational.

Conservation of high nature value farmland areas relies to a large extent

on measures under the so-called 'second pillar' of the common agricultural policy, notably support to less favoured areas and agri-environment schemes. Less favoured areas overlap largely with

the high nature value farmland areas, but there is no relation between actual expenditure in the different countries and their share of high nature value farmland. Agri-environment schemes do not appear to be specifically targeted at high nature value farmland either.

In countries with a high share of high

Executive summary 3

nature value farmland, especially in southern Europe, agri-environment expenditure is relatively low.

Current policy measures appear insufficient to prevent further decline

in high nature value farmland areas and thus to reach the 2010 biodiversity target. The geographical targeting of agriculture subsidies, especially of

less favoured area support and agri- environment schemes, needs to be reconsidered. It should be kept in mind, though, that the current data do not allow for detailed geographical analysis. A major effort is needed to fill the data gaps on habitat and species distribution and the targeting and effectiveness of support measures.

What is high nature value farmland and why is it important?

Europe is famous for its unique rural landscapes that represent a rich cultural and natural heritage. Regionally differing farming practices have led to

a variety of agricultural habitats that host a large number of plant and animal species. The biodiversity of farmland, however, has rapidly declined across Europe in the last few decades, as illustrated here for common birds of the countryside (Figure 1, see also Donald et al., 2001).

Figure 1  Population trend common

birds

Population index (1980 = 100) 110

100 Woodland birds

90

80

Farmland birds 70

60

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Source: Birdlife International 2004 (see Appendix B for details).

That agriculture-related biodiversity

is under relatively high pressure is

also evident from the fact that roughly two thirds of the threatened and vulnerable bird species in Europe

occur on farmland (Tucker and Heath, 1994). Maintaining adequate farming practices is therefore key to biodiversity conservation.

Biodiversity generally decreases when the intensity of farming increases

(in terms of nutrient and pesticide

inputs, use of machinery and overall productivity) (see Figure 2). The most intensive arable and grassland systems are virtually monocultures. Despite their low intrinsic biodiversity, however, they may still provide wintering grounds for migratory waterfowl.

Highest biodiversity coincides with low agricultural inputs. Although extensive mixed arable systems may also support high biodiversity, the majority of

high nature value farmland consists

of semi-natural grasslands. They are the true hot spots for biodiversity. In the Dutch province of Friesland, for example, only 1.5 % of the land area is unfertilised semi-natural grassland, yet 60 % of terrestrial plants are more or less confined to this habitat (Schotsman, cited in Baldock and Benne, 2002).

Baldock et al. (1993, 1995) described

the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices and introduced the term high nature value farmland. Most of these farming systems are characterised by low stocking densities, low use of chemical inputs and oen labour intensive management practices, such as shepherding.

Typical examples of high nature value farmland are extensively grazed uplands in the United Kingdom, alpine meadows and pasture, steppic areas in eastern and southern Europe and dehesas and montados in Spain and Portugal. Particularly important for biodiversity are small-scale agricultural farming systems in central and eastern Europe, responsible for creating and maintaining species-rich semi-natural grasslands (see Figure 3).

The need for measures to prevent the loss of high nature value farmland is widely acknowledged. Its conservation is an explicit objective in the framework

What is high nature value farmland and why is it important? 5 Figure 2  General relationship between agricultural intensity and biodiversity

Intensity of agriculture

Source: after Hoogeveen et al., 2001 (see Appendix B for further explanation). Photos: Peter Veen (left); Vincent Wigbels (right).

of EU rural development policy. Article 22 of the EU regulation on

rural development (1257/99) states

that support shall be given to 'the conservation of high nature value farmed environments which are

under threat'. Unfortunately, until

now high nature value farmland has been only loosely defined. A lack of distribution and monitoring data has prevented insight into the targeting and effectiveness of policy measures. In May 2003, this was recognised by the

European ministers of environment in Kyiv. In their final resolution (UN/ECE 2003), they declared the following on agriculture and biodiversity:

'By 2006, the identification, using agreed common criteria, of all high nature value areas in agricultural ecosystems in the pan European region will be complete. By 2008, a substantial proportion of these areas will be under biodiversity-sensitive management by using appropriate mechanisms such

Figure 3  Typical HNV farmland and some associated species in Europe

Photos: Niall Benvie/RSPB-images (black grouse, top left), Ybele Hoogeveen (moorland, top left); Peter Veen (small scale landscape, orchid, top right); Olavi Hiiemäe (great bustard, bottom left; Jesus Valiente (steppe, middle left; dehesa, crane, bottom right).

as rural development instruments, agri-environmental programmes

and organic agriculture, to inter alia support their economic and ecological viability. By 2008, financial subsidy and incentive schemes for agriculture in the pan European region will take the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in consideration'.

Preliminary data on the distribution and conservation status of high nature value farmland are obtained on the basis of a European[1] indicator developed for the

European Environment Agency. The concept builds on analyses of land cover, farm systems (including scale, products, input use and management) and

species distribution. Figure 4 shows the estimated distribution for the current EU Member States on the basis of land cover data only3. Although the other aspects modify the picture to a certain extent, it is clear that the prevalence

of high nature value farmland is in

less productive areas, for example in southern Europe and mountainous regions.

Figure 4  Initial estimate of distribution of HNV farmland in Europe (EU-15,

minimum estimate)

Potential HNV farmland according to minimum Corine selection

Potential HNV framland Non HNV framland

Biased result due to data problems.  HNV coverage is overestimated here

Source: Andersen, 2003 (see Appendix A and B for details).

Trends in high nature value farmland

The extensive character of most high nature value farming systems can be explained by natural conditions which prevent the use of modern techniques and machinery, general socio-economic constraints, or a combination of

both. High nature value farmland is threatened by two contrasting trends: intensification and abandonment.

Intensification

Where natural and economic conditions allow, farming will intensify in order to increase yields and overall efficiency. This has been a continuous process

in most parts of western Europe for decades, reflected in a steady increase in fertiliser inputs and milk and cereal yields. In eastern Europe investment

in the agricultural sector has dropped substantially due to the political and economical changes during the 1990s.

Figure 5  N-fertiliser consumption in

selected central and eastern European countries* and the EU

kg/ha 80

70

60

50

40

30

20

CEE countries 10 EU–15

This is reflected in the sudden drop in the use of nitrogenous fertilisers (Figure 5).

Fertiliser use in western Europe appears generally to have levelled off. In central and eastern Europe, current input rates are comparably low, but the new agro- economic framework aer accession is expected to lead to some intensification in the new EU Member States from 2004 onwards (EEA, 2004).

Environmental pressures are expected to decrease somewhat in western Europe, whilst many areas in central and eastern Europe will experience increasing agricultural intensity. This means

that some of the high nature value farmland will probably be exposed to intensification in the near future.

Abandonment

The socio-economic conditions in rural areas with extensive agriculture are generally unfavourable. Depopulation is occurring in many rural areas, affecting the countryside and the environment profoundly. Low incomes, hard working conditions and a lack of social services in many areas make farming a less aractive option for young people. The proportion of the elderly is already very high amongst farmers. As a result, land abandonment is to be expected

(Heilig 2002a, b).

Land abandonment is already a common phenomenon in regions where agricultural productivity is relatively low (Baldock et al., 1996). The situation is particularly worrying in central and eastern Europe, where political and economic change has negatively affected the conditions for farming (EEA, 2004).

level is over 25 %. The corresponding figure for permanent grasslands is as high as 56 % (Mägi and Lutsar, 2001). Similar data sets for other countries are rare, since land abandonment is not easily detected in general agricultural statistics. Therefore no picture can be drawn up for Europe as a whole, but

on the basis of their generally lower viability (see Hellegers and Godeschalk, 1998) it is to be expected that extensive farming systems are most vulnerable to abandonment.

Figure 6  Percentage of abandoned

arable land in Estonia

% abandoned 50

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10

5 0

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Source: Statistical office of Estonia, 2000.

Impacts on nature value

Loss of semi-natural vegetations is a consequence of the above agricultural trends. Although many case studies exist (see for example Veen and Seffer, 1999), no reliable pan-European trend data are currently available for plant communities and habitats. The best data available are for birds. Farmland birds are indicative of overall biodiversity, since they depend on a variety of plant and animal food and diverse vegetation

structures for feeding, nesting and shelter against predators (see for example Pos, 1986). Tucker and Heath (1994) estimate that more than 40 % of all declining bird species in Europe are affected by agricultural intensification, whereas more than 20 % are affected by abandonment.

Figure 7 shows the cumulative distribution of 102 priority bird

species that are connected to farmland habitats and that have an unfavourable conservation status (selection according to Andersen, 2003, based on Tucker and Heath, 1994 and Tucker, 1997). Farmland species of particular conservation concern appear to occur throughout Europe, but many of them are associated with extensive farmland, particularly in southern Europe[1]. The following cases illustrate the conservation issues in some of these systems.

The black grouse Tetrao tetrix occurs

on grazed heaths and moorland, and is showing a rapid and almost Europe- wide decline (Tucker and Heath,

1994). Upland habitats in the United Kingdom suffer from overgrazing

and afforestation, causing moderate population decline. In lowland western Europe, this once rather common species is now practically extinct because of habitat destruction and agricultural intensification. In the Netherlands, for example, black grouse numbers fell from several thousands in the 1950s to less than 100 today (see Niewold, 1990).

Loss of extensive grassland habitat is reflected by the large-scale decline of the corncrake Crex crex. Its numbers have fallen by more than 50 % in 10 countries. Drainage of wet grasslands, intensification and the conversion of hay meadows into silage grasslands

are the main causes (Tucker and Heath, 1994). The corncrake is most common in central and eastern Europe, but habitat

loss and population decline also occurs there (Veen et al., 2000; Tucker and Heath, 1994).

The great bustard Otis tarda is characteristic of steppe habitats

in southern and eastern Europe. The species has declined seriously throughout its range (Tucker and Heath, 1994). In Hungary, the great

bustard population dropped from 2 500 individuals in 1985 to 1 100 individuals in 1990 (Fésüs et al., 1992). Reasons for this are intensified agricultural use

of meadows and pastures, as well as increasing cultivation of maize and sunflowers. In the 1990s the Hungarian great bustard population was stable (Faragó, 2003).

Figure 7  Cumulative distribution of 102 bird species with unfavourable conservation

status occurring on farmland

1 – 15 16 – 25 26 – 35 36 – 57

Black grouse: Species found on moor- and heathland. Photos: Ybele Hoogeveen, Niall Benvie/RSPB-images (insert).

Corncrake: Species found in extensive grassland. Photo: Peter Veen, Andy Hay/RSPB-images (insert).

Great bustard: Species found in steppic habitats. Photo: Jesus Valiente, Olavi Hiiemäe (insert).

Policy responses

Agriculture in Europe is affected by a wide range of policies at both regional and national levels, including strategic initiatives such as the Pan-European biological and landscape diversity strategy and the EU biodiversity action plan for agriculture, environmental legislation such as the EU nitrates, birds and habitats directives, and sectoral support under the EU. They are either aimed at obligatory site protection or based on voluntary measures in the wider countryside.

Site protection

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 [1]) that have been listed by the Member States. Out of the 198 habitat types listed in Annex

I of the habitats directive, 28 require extensive agricultural management and can be regarded as high nature value farmland.

Figure 8 gives an overview of the share of these agricultural habitat types within the Natura 2000 network. The paern is rather consistent with the distribution

Figure 8  Extensive farmland within proposed Natura 2000 sites

Habitats directive. Annex I: targeted agricultural habitat types in Natura 2000 sites

0–5 % 5–15 % 15–25 % 25–35 % 35–50 %

> 50 %

NUTS region (*) Non EU-15

NUTS = Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics.

Eurostat 1999.

(*) NUTS 2: AT, BE, DE, GR,

IT, LU, NL & UK NUTS 3. DK, FI, FR, IE, PT, ES & SE

Source: EEA.

of high nature value farmland (compare with Figure 4). The average share of extensive agricultural habitats within pSCIs is 15 %, even exceeding 50 % in parts of Spain and the United Kingdom (see Figure 8). This underlines their conservation value.

Nonetheless, less than one third of the high nature value farmland areas is covered by pSCIs (see Appendix B). Furthermore, the formal designation

of protected areas is not a guarantee

for a favourable conservation status. Currently, there are no good monitoring data available about trends within

the Natura 2000 sites. All in all, it can be concluded that the site protection measures will at best conserve a minority of high nature value farmland.

Wider countryside

At an EU level the common agricultural policy (CAP) is the most relevant policy framework with regard to conservation of high nature value farmland, in particular outside protected areas. The CAP is composed of two 'pillars'.

The first pillar is a commodity-based regime. Originally it was a market intervention mechanism, providing price guarantees, production incentives and export subsidies for certain crops and livestock products. As such it was

a catalyst of agricultural productivity. Through successive reforms, the first pillar subsidies have become more

and more decoupled from production. Subsidies are now provided through direct payments on the basis of historic production levels. Since the 2003

CAP reform, first pillar payments are subject to environmental conditions. The reformed first pillar regime is less damaging to the environment, especially when providing incentives for farming in marginal areas (Hellegers and Godeschalk, 1998).

The second pillar of the CAP allows Member States to implement measures for alleviating or improving the ecological impacts of agriculture.

There is an array of measures that can be used to support environmentally friendly farming systems. However, the main elements relevant to high nature value farmland conservation are agri- environment schemes and less favoured area payments6. The following sections will analyse the geographical targeting of these policy measures.

Agri-environment schemes

Under the current rural development regulation, adopted in 20037,

Member States are obliged to put agri-environment schemes in place. Support can be granted to farmers for environmentally favourable measures, including conservation of high nature value farmed environments which are under threat.

The regulation is flexible, allowing Member States to design tailor-made schemes for regional environmental issues. As a consequence, agri- environmental schemes are highly variable and generally not targeted at distinct geographical areas on the basis of commonly agreed criteria. Figure 9 shows the coverage of agri-environment schemes in the EU Member States.

The level of implementation of agri- environment schemes in the different countries varies considerably. In Finland, Sweden, Luxembourg, Austria and Germany, relatively large proportions of the utilised agricultural area are under agri-environment schemes, in contrast with Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy and Greece.

In general, there is no clear relationship between the overall agri-environment expenditure per hectare and the

share of high nature value farmland (Figure 10, see Appendix B for

67 Further information can be found in EEA (2004) and Dwyer et al. (2002).

Regulation 1783/2003, replacing Regulation 1257/99.

Figure 9  Share of utilised agricultural area under agri-environment schemes

(1998 figures)

Share of UAA under agri-environmental scheme, 1998

< 5

5–10 10–20 20–40

> 40 Objective 1 Non EU-15

Source: EEA 2001, on the basis of data of the European Commission, DG Agriculture.

Figure 10  Agri-environment spending in relation to share of high nature value

farmland per country (% of utilised agricultural area)

180 AT

160

140

120 FI 100 LU

SE

80

IE

60

DE IT

40 PT 20 BE DK FR ES

UK

0 NL

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Share of HNV farmland area (%)

AT = Austria

BE = Belgium

DE = Germany

DK = Denmark

ES = Spain

FI = Finland

FR = France

IE = Ireland

IT = Italy

LU = Luxembourg NL = Netherlands

PT = Portugal

SE = Sweden

UK = United Kingdom

Note: Minimum estimate of HNV coverage is used (see Appendix A). AE spending figures according to proposed budgets 2000–2006.

Source: Dwyer et al., 2002.

details). Countries with large areas

of high nature value farmland, such

as Spain, have small budgets per hectare for agri-environment schemes. Although no precise data are available on geographical spending paerns within countries, the targeting of agri- environment measures at a European level seems far from optimal from a biodiversity conservation perspective. Furthermore, recent research shows that current agri-environment schemes aimed at biodiversity are not necessarily effective and that their monitoring

is mostly insufficient (Klein and Sutherland, 2003).

Less favoured areas

Farmers in less favoured areas are eligible for payments per hectare in addition to conventional CAP support. These compensatory payments

have a combination of social and environmental objectives and are part of the second pillar of the CAP. They will generally increase profitability

of farming in marginal areas under natural constraints. As such they

are potentially an effective tool for preventing abandonment of high nature

value farmland, provided that they do not create incentives for intensification and particularly overgrazing. The receipt of less favoured area support requires compliance with good farming practice as defined by Member States. In addition, there are ceilings on stocking densities in many regions, but these are oen set at a level that is too high from a conservation point of view. For example, in France ceilings of 1.8 livestock units per hectare apply in mountainous less favoured areas (Baldock and Benne, 2002).

Member States have considerable discretion both in the level of expenditure they commit and in the precise design of the less favoured

area support payments. Figure 11 shows the distribution of designated less favoured areas. They cover more than half the utilised agricultural area in the EU, including all the higher

and more mountainous ground. Some high nature value farmland is within the more productive areas outside less favoured areas, such as saltmarshes, wet grasslands and hay meadows. However, the great majority falls within the less favoured areas (compare with Figure 4).

Figure 11  Less favoured areas

Less favoured areas

Mountain/hill areas (article 3.3)

Less favoured areas 50 in danger of

depopulation

(article 3.4)

Areas with specific handicaps

(article 3.5)

Non less favoured 60 areas of EU-15

Lakes

Non EU-15

Source: Baldock and Bennett, 2003 on the basis of European Commission data.

Figure 12  Less favoured area spending in relation to share of high nature value

farmland per country (% of utilised agricultural area)

200 FI

180

160

140

120 LU

100 AT

80

60 IE

40

20 BE DE FR SE UK ES PT

0 DK IT

0 NL 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Share of HNV farmland area (%)

AT = Austria

BE = Belgium

DE = Germany

DK = Denmark

ES = Spain

FI = Finland

FR = France

IE = Ireland

IT = Italy

LU = Luxembourg NL = Netherlands

PT = Portugal

SE = Sweden

UK = United Kingdom

Note: Minimum estimate of HNV coverage is used (see Appendix A). Proposed budgets 2000–2006.

Source: Dwyer et al., 2002.

Despite this large spatial overlap there is no clear relationship between the share of high nature value farmland and actual expenditure on less favoured area (Figure 12, see Appendix B for details). This suggests that the potential of less favoured area support for preventing abandonment of high nature value farmland is not fully utilised.

Considerations

The geographical targeting of subsidies should be reconsidered in view of

the changed rationale of the common agricultural policy. The increased

focus on sustainability and non-trade concerns justifies more investment in those areas that represent the highest environmental quality and are most vulnerable to change. The targeting of high nature value farmland areas should be improved.

In this respect, less favoured area payments and agri-environment schemes are not the only relevant instruments. The potential of the (now largely decoupled) first pillar support to enhance economic viability in high nature value farmland areas

is considerable, provided that the

minimum environmental standards introduced with the 2003 CAP reform are sufficient to avoid environmental damage and/or undergrazing. The current practice of providing support on the basis of historic production levels, however, is not optimal in this respect.

It should be kept in mind, though, that the current datasets still show large gaps that prevent a detailed analysis of recent trends in high nature value farmland and effectiveness of policy measures. There is a great need for:

• updating and refining the data on distribution of high nature value farmland (preferably on the basis of detailed national data sets);

• spatially explicit data on expenditure and corresponding environmental objectives of CAP instruments;

• pan-European monitoring of habitat and species abundance;

• sound comparative and analytical research into the effectiveness

of individual agri-environment schemes;

• comparable data on the situation in non-EU countries (both occurence

of high nature value farmland and policy measures).

Conclusions

• High nature value farmland has been widely recognised as a valuable asset of the European countryside, providing habitat for a wide range of species. Maintaining a good conservation status is key to reaching the 2010 target of halting the loss of biodiversity.

• High nature value farmland makes up about 15–25 % of the utilised agricultural area in Europe. It is unevenly distributed, with concentrations in peripheral parts of Europe.

• The conservation status of high nature value farmland is insufficiently known, but case studies indicate serious biodiversity decline. The main threats are intensification and abandonment.

• Site protection under the birds and habitats directives is an appropriate but insufficient conservation tool. At best about one third of the high nature value farmland area will benefit from this measure.

• Outside protected areas, conservation of high nature value farmland depends mainly on the application of instruments within the common agricultural policy, notably less favoured area support and agri-environment schemes. These instruments, however, do not appear to be well targeted at high nature value farmland areas. Southern European high nature value farmland areas in particular get relatively lile support.

• Overall, the 2010 biodiversity target is unlikely to be reached without additional policy efforts with regard to the conservation of high nature value farmland.

References  17

References

Andersen E. (ed.) (2003). Developing a high nature value farming area indicator. Internal report. EEA, Copenhagen.

Baldock D. and Benne H. (2002). An Introduction to biodiversity and agriculture in Europe. An interim report for EEA and UNEP. IEEP London.

Baldock D., Beaufoy G., Benne G. and Clark, J. (1993). Nature conservation and new directions in the common agricultural policy. IEEP London.

Baldock D., Beaufoy G. and Clark

J. (1995). The nature of farming. Low intensity farming systems in nine European countries. Report IEEP/ WWF/JNRC, London/Gland/Peterborough.

Baldock D., Beaufoy G., Brouwer F. and Godeschalk F. (1996). Farming at the margins: Abandonment or redeployment

of agricultural land in Europe. IEEP/LEI- DLO, London/Den Haag.

Bignal E.M. and McCracken D.I. (1996). 'Low-intensity farming systems in the conservation of the countryside'. Journal of Applied Ecology 33, pp. 413–424.

Birdlife International (2004). Biodiversity indicator for Europe. Population trends

of wild birds. Communication Birdlife International, RSPB, European Bird Census Council.

Boatman N.D. and Wilson P.J. (1988). 'Field edge management for game and wildlife conservation'. Aspects of Applied Biology 16, pp. 53–61.

Brouwer, F.M., Baldock D. and

la Chapelle C. (eds.) ( 2001). The relation between agriculture and nature management. High level conference on EU enlargement, Wassenaar, 22–24 January 2001.

CEC (2000). Indicators for the integration of environmental concerns into the common agricultural policy. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament COM(2000) 20 final. CEC, Brussels.

CEC (2001). Statistical information needed for indicators to monitor the integration of environmental concerns into the common agricultural policy. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament COM(2001) 144 final. CEC, Brussels.

Donald P.F., Green R.E. and Heath M.F. (2001). 'Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europe's farmland bird populations'. Proc. R. Soc. Lond., 268, pp. 25–29.

Dwyer J., Baldock D., Beaufoy G., Bene H., Lowe P. and Ward N. (2002). 'Europe's rural futures'. The nature of rural development II, p. 24.

EEA (2001). Environmental Signals. Environmental assessment report No 8. EEA, Copenhagen.

EEA (2004). Agriculture and the environment in the EU accession countries. Implications of applying the EU common agricultural policy. Environmental issue report No 37. EEA, Copenhagen.

FAO (2002). Database of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. FAO, Rome.

Faragó S. (ed.) (2003). Akcióterv a túzok megmentésére Kézirat, Sopron Action Plan for rescuing the great bustard. Sopron, Hungary.

Fésüs I., Markus F., Szabo G., Tölgyesi I., Varga Z. and Vermes L. (1992). Interaction between agriculture and environment in Hungary. Environmental Research Series no 5. IUCN.

Hagemeer, E.JM. and Blair M.J. (eds.) (1997). The EBCC atlas of European breeding birds: Their distribution and abundance. T and A.D. Poyser, London.

Heath M.F. and Evans, M.I. (eds.) (2000). Important birdareas in Europe. Birdlife Conservation Series No 8. Birdlife International, Cambridge.

Heilig K.H. (2002a). Stirbt der ländliche Raum? Zur Demographie ländlicher gebiete inEuropa: Zahlen, Fakten, Schlussfolgerungen. Vortrag auf der Bayerisch-Österreichischen Strategietagung, 11–12 April 2002, Salzburg. IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria.

Heilig, K.H. (2002b). 'Demography

of Europe the extinction of the countryside?' In: Hoogeveen Y.R., Ribeiro T. and Henrichs T. (2002). Land use and agriculture in Europe. Proceedings of an Expert Meeting, 20 June 2002. EEA, Copenhagen.

Hellegers, P.J.G.J. and Godeschalk F.E. (1998). Farming in high nature value regions. The role of agricultural policy in maintaining HNV farming systems in Europe. Onderzoeksverslag 165. LEI- DLO, Wageningen.

Hoogeveen Y.R., Petersen J.E. and Gabrielsen P. (2001). Agriculture and biodiversity in Europe. Background report to the High-Level European Conference on Agriculture and Biodiversity, 5–7 June, Paris. STRA-CO/AGRI (2001) 17. Council of Europe/UNEP.

Klein. D., Berendse F., Smit R. and Gilissen, N. (2001). 'Agri-enviornment schemes do not effectively protect biodiversity in Dutch agricultural landscapes'. Nature, 413, pp. 723–725.

Klein D. and Sutherland W.J. (2003). 'How effective are European agri- environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity?' Journal of Applied Ecology 2003 (40), pp. 947–969. British Ecological Society.

LNV (2000). Natuur voor mensen, mensen voor natuur. Nota natuur, bos en landschap in de 21e eeuw. Ministerie van landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visser, Den Haag.

Mägi M. and Lutsar L. (2001). Inventory of semi-natural grasslands in Estonia, 1999–2001. Estonian Fund for Nature and Royal Dutch Society for Nature Conservation, 2001.

Niewold F.J.J. (1990). 'The decline of the black grouse in the Netherlands'. In: Lume J.T. and Hoogeveen Y.R. De toekomst van de wilde hoenderachtigen. Proceedings symposium. KNJV, Amersfoort.

Peeters A., Lambert J., Lambert R., and Janssens F. (1993). 'Diverse grasslands in Belgium: status, place in farming systems and factors limiting their reconstruction'. In: Floristic diversity in European grasslands. Proceedings of an IGER workshop, Devon, UK.

Pos G.R. (1986). The Partridge: Pesticides, predation and conservation. Collins, London.

RIVM (2001). Natuurbalans 2001. RIVM/ Alterra/LEI-DLO, Bilthoven.

Statistical Office of Estonia (2001). Agriculture 2000. Tallinn.

Tucker G.M. (1997). 'Priorities for bird conservation in Europe: the importance of the farmed landscape'. In: Pain D. and Pienkowski M.W. (eds.). Farming and birds in Europe: the common agricultural policy and its implications for bird conservation, pp. 79–116. Academic press, London

Tucker G.M. and Heath M.F. (1994). Birds in Europe. Their conservation status. Birdlife Conservation Series No 3. Birdlife International, Cambridge.

Tucker G.M. and Evans M.I. (eds.) (1997). Habitats for Birds in Europe.

A conservation strategy for the wider environment. Birdlife Conservation Series No 6. Birdlife International, Cambridge.

UN/ECE (2003). Kyiv resolution on biodiversity. Fih Ministerial Conference Environment for Europe', Kyiv, Ukraine, 21–23 May 2003. Document ECE/CEP/108. United Nations, Economic Commission for Europe.

Veen P.H., Molnar Z., Pärtel M. and Nagy S. (2000). Linkages between agriculture, nature and environment. Background report for Wassenaar Conference on EU enlargement, agriculture and environment.

Veen P.H. and Seffer J. (eds.) (1999). Proceedings of the workshop national grassland inventory. KNNV/Daphne, Bratislava, Slovakia.

Appendix A: High nature value farmland definition 19

Appendix A: High nature value farmland definition

General concept

The high nature value farmland indicator cf. Andersen (2003) distinguishes the following types of high nature value farmland:

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.

Type 1 and Type 2 areas are identified on the basis of land cover data

(Corine database) and agronomic and economic farm-level data (FADN). Combined, these two approaches

give information on distribution and farming characteristics. Type 3 areas can be identified only on the basis

of species distribution data. Due to

data limitations this was possible for breeding birds only (see Andersen, 2003, for details on species selection and aggregation method). It is not possible at this stage to merge fully the different results into one map, or to produce separate maps for the different high nature value farmland types.

Each of these approaches has its strengths and weaknesses. The species approach suffers from data gaps and should be regarded as an additional information source rather than a tool for delineating high nature value farmland. The land cover data give the best impression of the spatial distribution of high nature value farmland, whereas the farm data are considered a more reliable indicator for the total share of high nature value farmland.

Land cover approach

For the land cover analysis, a regionally differentiated selection was made of agricultural habitats where high nature value farmland may be expected (see Table A1 for all farmland habitats considered, for details see Andersen, 2003). Both maximum and minimum estimates were made. In the maximum estimate all land cover classes with potential high nature value farmland were included. In the minimum estimate only those land cover classes were included that have the highest probability of containing high nature value farmland. The map in Figure 4 is based on the minimum estimate.

Farm system approach

The farm system classification builds on production, input and management characteristics and distinguishes the following main types:

• high nature value cropping systems: low intensity arable systems. Might have livestock, but this is not the dominant income source;

• high nature value permanent crop systems: low intensity olives and other permanent crop systems;

• high nature value off-farm grazing systems: systems with cale, sheep or goats grazing outside the farm, for example on common land;

• high nature value permanent grassland systems: cale, sheep or goat systems where the main forage resource is grass from permanent or rough grassland;

• high nature value arable grazing livestock systems: cale, sheep or goat systems where the main forage resource is arable crops;

• high nature value other systems: mainly low intensity pigs or poultry systems.

Analogous to the land cover approach, the farm system classification was differentiated in a minimum and maximum variant. For the calculations in this joint report only the minimum figures were used (see also Table A2 and Figure A1).

Species approach

Tucker and Heath (1994) conducted an assessment of the conservation status of all Europe's birds and provided a list of species of European conservation concern (SPECs). Four categories of species of European conservation

concern were identified according to their global and European status, and the proportion of their total of their world population occurring in Europe (Tucker, 1997, see Table A3). The SPEC designation has become accepted as highlighting bird species of especially high conservation concern.

A total of 102 species were chosen

for inclusion in the analyses. This list included all category 1–3 species which were considered to be potentially associated with farmland throughout Europe (see Andersen, 2003, and Tucker, 1997 for details). A cumulative distribution map was then drawn up on the basis of the EBCC Atlas of European Breeding Birds (Hagemeer and

Blair, 1997).

Table A1  The 19 Corine land cover classes (LCCs) which were regarded as being

potentially associated with agricultural land

Appenidx A: high nature value farmland definition 21

Figure A1  High nature value farming systems typology

Non-HNV All farming  farming systems systems

HNV other

HNV farms with cattle,  systems  HNV

or goats pigs and  systems HNV permanent crop systems sheep  (mainly  cropping

poultry)

Off-farm  Dryland  Systems with grazing  systems cattle, sheep

or goats systems

Arable  Fallow land  Systems without grazing  systems cattle, sheep livestock  or goats systems

Permanent

grassland

systems Rough

grassland systems

Permanent grassland systems

Note:   HNV= high nature value.

Appendix B: Addenda to figures 23

Appendix B: Addenda to the figures

Figure 1

Contributing countries:

EU: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom. Accession countries: Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary. Others: Norway and Switzerland.

Agricultural species:

skylark Alauda arvensis, lile owl Athene noctua, linnet Carduelis cannabina, goldfinch Carduelis carduelis, greenfinch Carduelis chloris, wood pigeon Columba palumbus, carrion crow Corvus corone, jackdaw Corvus monedula, quail Coturnix coturnix, yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella, reed bunting Emberiza schoeniclus, hobby Falco subbuteo, kestrel Falco tinnunculus, swallow Hirundo rustica, red-backed shrike Lanius collurio, corn bunting Miliaria calandra, yellow wagtail Motacilla flava, tree sparrow Passer montanus, magpie Pica pica, whinchat Saxicola rubetra, Eurasian turtle dove Streptopelia turtur, European starling Sturnus vulgaris, greater whitethroat Sylvia communis, northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus.

Woodland species:

Eurasian sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus, long tailed tit Aegithalos caudatus, tree pipit Anthus trivialis, buzzard Buteo buteo, great spoed woodpecker Dendrocops major, European robin Erithacus rubecula, chaffinch Fringilla coelebs, jay Garrulus glandarius, Eurasian wryneck Jynx torquilla, spoed flycatcher Muscicapa striata, gray tit Parus afer, blue tit Parus caeruleus, great tit Parus major, common redstart Phoenicurus phoenicurus, chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita, willow warbler Phylloscopus trochilus, dunnock Prunella modularis, goldcrest Regulus regulus, blackcap Sylvia atricapilla, garden warbler Sylvia borin, winter wren Troglodytes troglodytes, Eurasian blackbird Turdus merula, song thrush Turdus philomelos, mistle thrush Turdus viscivorus.

Figure 2

This is a conceptual graph, not directly derived from empirical data. Hence

the axes do not mention concrete variables. However, empirical data

that support this general relationship between agricultural intensity and biodiversity do exist. Baldock et al. (1995) presented a rather similar graph of the relationship between plant diversity and productivity, based on vegetation research by Peeters et al. (1993). Furthermore, the relationship depicted in Figure 2 suggests a low

cost effectiveness of agri-environment measures in intensive farming

systems (large input cuts will result

in lile increase in biodiversity). This

is consistent with the findings of

Klein et al. (2001), who reported low effectiveness of agri-environment measures in relatively intensive Dutch agricultural landscapes, and the theoretical graph of biodiversity against agricultural intensity as presented in Klein and Sutherland (2003). A second implication of the graph in Figure 2

is that biodiversity may gain from abandonment in intensive systems. This is consistent with the success of nature development in the Netherlands on former intensive agricultural land (LNV, 2000; RIVM, 2001).

Of course, the depicted relationship

is simplified and scale dependent. Instead of generally reducing inputs for increasing plant diversity, one might take small-scale measures in intensive farming systems, such as leaving cereal headlands unsprayed. This can be effective for increasing the abundance of wildlife, such as weeds, insects and gamebirds (Boatman and Wilson , 1988). The more critical species, however, will not benefit.

At the other end of the land use intensity scale, land abandonment may lead to lower species diversity

at field level, but natural habitats

and ecosystems may add to overall biodiversity in the wider landscape (Baldock et al., 1995). This is why conservation strategies should ideally be geographically differentiated and geared to local circumstances. Spatial optimisation (through creation of small- scale landscape elements or large-scale nature developemt) is generally the most valid in intensive systems, whereas maintenace of low-input farming is more appropriate in extensive systems. See Hoogeveen et al. (2001) for a more in-depth discussion of these issues.

Figure 4

The map in Figure 4 is based on

the minimum Corine estimate (see Appendix A for details). Although useful for a general impression of

the distribution of high nature value farmland, the map should be regarded as indicative only. There is a need

for future revisions on the basis of updated and more detailed data, and for refinements on the basis of national datasets.

Due to the limitations of the Corine land cover data, Type 2 high nature value farmland tends to be underrepresented in the minimum estimate (for example bocage landscapes in France). Type 3 farmland is also only partially included. Intensively used grassland may be important as wintering grounds for waterfowl but these areas, mainly concentrated in lowland western Europe, do not show up on the map in Figure 4.

Land cover data do not indicate local pressures such as overgrazing. The indicated distribution of high nature value farmland in the uplands of the UK, for example, may be optimistic because overgrazing is reported from

a number of locations. For Finland and Sweden, the distribution paern of potential high nature value farmland

is also optimistic due to interpretation problems of actual agricultural use. National data sources for Finland indicate a concentration in the southern part of the country.

Figure 7

(See Appendix A for details on the species approach)

Included bird species:

Levant sparrowhawk Accipiter brevipes, aquatic warbler Acrocephalus paludicola, cinereous vulture Aegyptius monachus, skylark Alauda arvensis, barbary partridge Alectoris barbara, chukar Alectoris chukar, rock partridge Alectoris graeca, red-legged partridge Alectoris rufa, garganey Anas querquedula, lesser-white-fronted goose Anser erythroptus, tawny pipit Anthus campestris, Spanish imperial eagle Aquila adalberti, golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos, greater spoed eagle Aquila clanga, imperial eagle Aquila heliaca, lesser spoed eagle Aquila pomarina, steppe eagle Aquila rapax, short-eared owl Asio flammeus, lile owl Athene noctua, eagle owl Bubo bubo, trumpeter finch Bucanetes githagineus, stone-curlew Burhinus oedicnemus, long- legged buzzard Buteo rufinus, short-toed lark Calandrella brachydactyla, lesser short-toed lark Calandrella rufescens, dunlin Calidris alpina, nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus, great rosefinch Carpodacus rubicilla, kentish plover Charadrius alexandrinus, Caspian plover Charadrius asiaticu, greater sand plover Charadrius leschenaultii, dupont's lark Chersophilus duponti, sociable plover Cheusia gregaria, houbara bustard Chlamydotis undulata, white stork Ciconia ciconia, black stork Ciconia nigra, short-toed eagle Circaetus gallicus, hen harrier Circus cyaneus,

pallid harrier Circus macrourus, roller Coracias garrulus, quail Coturnix coturnix, corncrake Crex crex, cream-coloured courser Cursorius cursor, black-winged kite Elanus caeruleus, ortolan bunting Emberiza hortulana, black-headed bunting Emberiza melanocephala, lanner falcon Falco biarmicus, saker falcon Falco cherrug, lesser kestrel Falco naumanni, peregrine Falco peregrinus, kestrel Falco tinnunculus, red- footed falcon Falco vespertinus, crested lark Galerida cristata, thekla lark Galerida theklae, great snipe Gallinago media, black-winged pratincole Glareola nordmanni, collared pratincole Glareola pratincola, crane Grus grus, lammergeier Gypaetus barbatus, griffon vulture Gyps fulvus, white-tailed eagle Haliaeetus albicilla, bonelli's eagle Hieraaetus fasciatus, booted eagle Hieraaetus

pennatus, olive-tree warbler Hippolais olivetorum, olivaceaous warbler Hippolais pallida, swallow Hirundo rustica, wryneck Jynx torquilla, red-backed shrike Lanius collurio, great grey shrike Lanius major, lesser grey shrike Lanius minor, masked shrike Lanius nubicus, woodchat shrike Lanius senator, black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa, woodlark Lullula arborea, calandra's lark Melanocorypha calandra, black lark Melanocorypha yeltoniensis, bee-eater Meropus apiaster, black kite Milvus migrans, rock thrush Monticola saxitilis, Egyptian vulture Neophron percnpterus, curlew Numenius arquata, night heron Nycticorax nycticorax, black-eared wheatear Oenanthe hispanica, great bustard Otis tarda, scops owl Otus scops, grey partridge Perdix perdix, grey-headed woodpecker Picus canus, green woodpecker Picus viridis, radde's accentor Prunella ocularis, pin- tailed sandgrouse Pterocles alchata, black- bellied sandgrouse Pterocles orientalis, red-billed chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax, stonechat Saxicola torquata, turtle dove Streptopelia turtur, orphean warbler

Sylvia hortensis, Dartford warbler Sylvia undata, black grouse Tetrao tetrix, Caspian snowcock Tetraogallus caspius, Caucasian black grouse Tetraogallus caucasicus, lile bustard Tetrax tetrax, redshank Tringa totanus, barn owl Tyto alba.

Figure 9

An update for 2001 is available, but these figures include agri-environment schemes under Regulation 2078/92 and Regulation 1257/99. The data show an overlap in the area covered and hence include double counting. For this reason the 1998 figures were used.

Figure 10/12

The share of high nature value farmland of the utilised agricultural area was calculated as the mean of the estimates on the basis of the land cover (Corine) and farm system (FADN) approaches.

The estimates of UAA are according to Eurostat 2000 figures. For Finland and Sweden only the FADN-based estimate of high nature value farmland coverage was used in the calculations because of unacceptable bias in the land cover data. The official UAA figure for Greece is a gross underestimate of total farmland, since the commons are not included in the statistics. Expenditure figures per hectare could therefore not be used here, and for this reason Greece was excluded from the calculations.

Figure 8

Figure 8 was drawn up within the IRENA indicator project and builds on data from the Natura 2000 database of the European Topic Centre for Nature Protection and Biodiversity, Paris (see also Table B1). The picture for Finland is believed to be biased, with too lile representation of extensive agriculture in the southern part of the country.

* Eurostat 2000 figure.

Table B2  Estimated share of high nature value farmland and agri-environment and

less favoured area expenditure