High Nature Value Farmland as an European evaluation indicator

1,267 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,267
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
13
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

High Nature Value Farmland as an European evaluation indicator

  1. 1. High Nature Value Farmland as an European evaluation indicator Andreas Bartel 26. Mai 2009 SALVERE Project Workshop AREC Raumberg-Gumpenstein 1
  2. 2. Overview  What is HNF F  Indicator for Evaluation of rural development programmes (=RDP)  History: Priciple and Definition (IRENA, EEA,  RDP)  From area approach to system approach  What for: Indicator whithin CMEF (Baseline - Result - Impact)  What: farming charateristics – Land cover (Habitats) – Species  How: implementation in AT (so far); DE (Fr,BE)  outlook: four steps proposed 2
  3. 3. Definition HNV Farmland: EEA/JRC HNV farmland comprises those areas in Europe where agriculture is a major (usually the dominant) land use and where that agriculture supports, or is associated with, either a high species and habitat diversity or the presence of species of European , and/or national, and/or regional conservation concern, or both’ (Andersen et al. 2003/2007). 3
  4. 4. Definition of HNV Farmland: EEA/JRC  Type 1: Farmland with a high proportion of semi-natural vegetation  Type 2: Farmland with a mosaic of low intensity agriculture and natural and structural elements, such as field margins, hedgerows, stonewalls, patches of woodland or scrub, small rivers etc.  Type 3: Farmland supporting rare species or a high proportion of European or World populations. 4
  5. 5. HNVF in Austria -what we have in mind Alpine pastures, extensive grassland with hedges, orchards, … 5
  6. 6. HNVF in Austria -what we have in mind Mosaic landscapes, vineyard terraces, narrow passes, species rich field margins 6
  7. 7. HNVF in Austria -what we don‘t have in mind Monotone fields of maize, rape, cereals, vegetables, … 7
  8. 8. Limits of the „area-approach“  CLC Class 322 (moors and heathland) - Problem inconsistant picture across Europa  Representation on 1km² cells: Share of HNV area and UAA (Alpen!)  Coarse spatial resolution (CLC-based) –> scale gap between management and evaluation  Not suitable as a change Indicator (static picture)  Grassland focused  Intensivly used areas in Upper Austria  Mixed cultivation patterns in Lower Austria 8
  9. 9. RD 07-13: Evaluation Indicator  CMEF: Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework  DG Agri (IEEP): guidelines 2007/2008 9
  10. 10. The system approach 10
  11. 11. Implementation in Austria  study Umweltbundesamt 2008 (Birdlife)  Based on the „area-approach“: - Verification & identification of HNVF 2007-2008 - from viewpoint biodiversity - landscape-level  Distribution of habitat-types and bird species - „farming Habitat-types“ - Land use - Farmland bird species  Share of „habitat suitable land use“  Species number of birds: difference to an expected mean value  Threshold and combination 11
  12. 12. Draft HNV Areas 13
  13. 13. Open questions  Striking discrepancy between criteria  Biodiversity and height  HNVF share related to area or UAA?  Implementation as RD-indicator:  Scale of evaluation ?  Dynamics ?  AEM as indicators for HNVF ? 14
  14. 14. Implementation in Germany  Sample area approach, (coupled to bird monitoring); stratified sampling design  2 a mapping rythm (n=2357), begin 2009  Level of detail: habitat types; selected HNV types  Goal: national area sum and changes (yearly)  For qualitative indication a bigger sample is needed  First guess: ca. 5% of UAA is HNVF 15
  15. 15. Four steps towards a RDP-Indicator  1. Describing and characterising the main types of HNV farming and forestry; (habitats, management, nature values associated)  2. Developing indicators to identify the extent of HNV farming - representative local case studies;  3. Developing indicators for monitoring changes in the extent and condition of HNV farming and forestry;  Monitoring of extent indicators and the agricultural practice  sample surveys of farming practices and biodiversity (condition);  4. Assess quantitative (extent) and qualitative (condition) changes in HNV farming in the context of the rural development programmes. 16
  16. 16. Conclusions  RD - Indicator is not yet developed to out of the box evaluation  Will not be an one value indicator, rather a set of different single aspects  HNV is strictly conservation focused; (re)development of HNV-systems is not its objective 17

×