The AEMBAC Project: Final Report - Nando Peretti Foundation
The AEMBAC Project: Final Report - Nando Peretti Foundation
The AEMBAC Project: Final Report - Nando Peretti Foundation
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
5 th Framework Contract Ref: QLRT-1999-31666<br />
Definition of a common European analytical<br />
framework for the development of local agrienvironmental<br />
programmes for biodiversity<br />
and landscape conservation<br />
<strong>AEMBAC</strong><br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>AEMBAC</strong> <strong>Project</strong>:<br />
<strong>Final</strong> <strong>Report</strong><br />
April 2004<br />
Riccardo Simoncini<br />
(Annex 1 to this report has been written by Barbara Neumann;<br />
English revised by Simon Milward)
Table of contents<br />
PROJECT FINAL SUMMARY.............................................................................................................. 4<br />
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 8<br />
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS................................................................................................... 12<br />
3. RESULTS.......................................................................................................................................... 17<br />
3.1 STEP 1 - IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS............................. 17<br />
3.2 STEP 2 - IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL FUNCTIONS .. 23<br />
3.2.1 Identification of environmental functions to be studied within the area and<br />
description of the most important attributes and characteristics (critical<br />
aspects) for their performance..................................................................................................23<br />
3.2.2 Identification and description of indicators.............................................................................26<br />
3.2.3 Measurement of actual values of indicators (data from literature or from<br />
field measurements when feasible) and interpretation of results ..........................................34<br />
3.2.4 - Identification of EMR values and description of the methodology used to<br />
analyse data and of the rationale behind the definition of EMR for each<br />
single state indicator selected....................................................................................................39<br />
3.2.5 Assessment and analysis of impacts: Gaps between EMR and actual values on<br />
state indicators ...........................................................................................................................43<br />
3.3 STEP 3 - DESCRIPTION OF LOCAL AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS AND<br />
IDENTIFICATION OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PRESSURES AND DRIVING<br />
FORCES ON ENVIRONMENTAL FUNCTIONS..................................................................... 48<br />
3.3.1 Agricultural system: Qualitative and quantitative description of<br />
environmental characteristics...................................................................................................50<br />
3.3.2 Agricultural system: qualitative and quantitative description of economic<br />
characteristics.............................................................................................................................63<br />
3.1.3 Agricultural system: Qualitative and quantitative description of social<br />
characteristics.............................................................................................................................72<br />
3.3.4 Identification of most relevant pressures exerted on environmental functions<br />
by local agricultural system ......................................................................................................73<br />
3.3.5 Analysis of aspects acting as driving forces (environmental, economic and<br />
social) for the pressures identified............................................................................................76<br />
3.4 STEP 4 - ASSESSMENT OF ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY OF LOCAL<br />
AGRICULTURAL PRESSURES AND DEVELOPMENT OF RECOMMENDATIONS ON<br />
HOW TO LESSENING/ELIMINATING NEGATIVE IMPACTS AND ENHANCING<br />
POSITIVE ONES.............................................................................................................................. 81<br />
3.4.1 Identification of the part of the gap between EMR and actual value of state<br />
indicators directly imputable to agricultural pressures .........................................................84<br />
3.4.2 Assessment and linking of degrees of sustainability to agricultural pressures<br />
by looking at the impacts exerted .............................................................................................86<br />
3.4.2.1 Qualitative ranking system in reference to sustainability of local<br />
agricultural pressures...............................................................................................................87<br />
3.4.3 Recommendations on how to lessen/eliminate negative impacts and enhance<br />
positive ones................................................................................................................................90<br />
3.4.3.1 Feasibility analysis of the most important constraints and<br />
opportunities for implementation of recommendations .........................................................93<br />
3.4.4 Analysis of relations between degrees of sustainability and different<br />
hypothetical intensities of pressures of local agricultural systems. .......................................95<br />
3.4.5 Identification of the multifunctional character of the local agricultural<br />
2
systems in reference to the performance of more than one environmental<br />
function .......................................................................................................................................96<br />
3.5 STEP 5 – ECONOMIC VALUATION OF NEGATIVE/POSITIVE IMPACTS AND<br />
IDENTIFICATION OF EXTERNALITIES.............................................................................. 100<br />
3.5.1 Translation of results of environmental functions analysis into economic<br />
information. ..............................................................................................................................100<br />
3.5.2 Identification of externalities...................................................................................................107<br />
3.6 STEP 6 – STUDYING LOCAL SUSTAINABLE AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY<br />
TARGETS AND MEASURES...................................................................................................... 109<br />
3.6.1 Analysis of existing agri-environmental measures and comparison with<br />
recommendations developed ...................................................................................................109<br />
3.6.2 Analysis of aspects likely to be influenced by agri-envrionmental policy ............................111<br />
3.6.3 Analysis of aspects related to design and implementation of agrienvironmental<br />
measures..........................................................................................................112<br />
3.6.4 Studying locally sustainable agri-environmental policy targets and their<br />
definition ...................................................................................................................................113<br />
3.6.5 Studying locally suitable agri-environmental measures to reach policy<br />
targets........................................................................................................................................116<br />
3.6.6 Direct involvement of local farmers and administrators in the final definition<br />
of agri-environmental targets and measures .........................................................................121<br />
3.6.7 Identification of farms agri-environmental accounting systems...........................................126<br />
3.7 STEP 7 – STUDYING AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION:<br />
DEFINITION OF MONITORING, EVALUATION PROCEDURES AND CONTRACTS;<br />
ANALYSIS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND TRANSACTION COSTS AND OVERALL<br />
ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ASPECTS ............................................................................. 130<br />
3.7.1 Definition of monitoring procedures......................................................................................130<br />
3.7.1.1 Monitoring on achievements of agri-environmental objectives...............................131<br />
3.7.1.2 Monitoring on agri-environmental measures functioning .......................................134<br />
3.7.2 Evaluation procedures ..............................................................................................................135<br />
3.7.2.1 Effectiveness .................................................................................................................136<br />
3.7.2.2 Efficiency ......................................................................................................................137<br />
3.7.3 Studying procedures for drawing up contracts for the supply of<br />
environmental goods and services by farmers ......................................................................138<br />
3.7.4 Analysis of administrative and transaction costs. ..................................................................142<br />
3.7.5 Analysis of overall economic and financial aspects for the local<br />
implementation of agri-environmental measures. ................................................................146<br />
4. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................... 150<br />
5. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................ 154<br />
6. EXPLOITATION AND DISSEMINATION OF RESULTS...................................................... 155<br />
7. POLICY RELATED BENEFITS.................................................................................................... 156<br />
8. LITERATURE ................................................................................................................................... 157<br />
3
Section 1: PROJECT IDENTIFICATION<br />
Information to be provided for project identification<br />
<strong>Project</strong> <strong>Final</strong> Summary<br />
4<br />
NOT CONFIDENTIAL<br />
Title of the project<br />
Definition of a common European analytical framework for the development of local agri-environmental<br />
programmes<br />
Acronym of the project<br />
<strong>AEMBAC</strong><br />
Type of contract<br />
Additional cost action<br />
Total project cost (in euro)<br />
€ 2,260,370<br />
Contract number Duration (in months) EU contribution (in euro)<br />
QLRT-1999-31666 36 Months € 1,996,594<br />
Commencement date<br />
1 March 2001<br />
PROJECT COORDINATOR<br />
Name<br />
Riccardo Simoncini<br />
Telephone<br />
++39 055 437 4553<br />
Title<br />
Doctor<br />
Telefax<br />
++39 055 437 4905<br />
Period covered by the final report<br />
1 March 2001 – 29 February 2004<br />
Key words (5 maximum - Please include specific keywords that best describe the project.).<br />
Agri-environmental measures, agri-ecosystems, ecological thresholds, biodiversity, landscape<br />
World wide web address (the project’s www address ) www.aembac.org<br />
Address<br />
IUCN Regional Office for<br />
Europe, Contractor, Blvd Louis<br />
Schmidt 64, 1040 Brussels,<br />
Belgium<br />
E-mail address<br />
riccardo.simoncini@libero.it
List of participants<br />
Participant 1: IUCN Regional Office for Europe, Contractor, Blvd Louis Schmidt 64, 1040 Brussels, Belgium<br />
E-Mail: Europe@iucn.org; Tel.: ++32 2 732 82 99; Fax: ++32 2 732 94 99<br />
Name of principal researcher: Dr. Riccardo Simoncini.<br />
Other researchers: Dr. Barbara Neumann, Visi Garcia, Andrzej Nowakowski, Simon Milward, Dr. Andrew Terry,<br />
Participant 2. SAW, Contractor, Sächsische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Saxon Academy of Sciences), Neustädter<br />
Markt 19 (Blockhaus), 01097 Dresden, Germany<br />
E-Mail: olaf.bastian@mailbox.tu-dresden.de; Tel.: ++49 351 8141 6806; Fax: ++49 351 8141 6820<br />
Name of principal researcher: Prof. Karl Mannsfeld<br />
Other Researchers: Dr. Olaf Bastian, Michael Lütz, Dr. Matthias Röder, Dr. Ralf-Uwe Syrbe, Sub-contractors researchers:<br />
IfLS – the Institute for Rural Development Research at the University of Frankfurt, Dr. Karlheinz Knickel; Institute for<br />
Geography, Department of Landscape Ecology of the University of Technology, Christiana Unger<br />
Participant 3: WU-NL, Contractor, Wageningen University, Department of Environmental Sciences, Environmental<br />
Systems Analysis Group, Ritzema Bosweg 32, 6703 AZ Wageningen, <strong>The</strong> Netherlands<br />
E-Mail: dolf.degroot@wur.nl; Tel.: ++31 317 482 247; Fax: ++31 317 484839<br />
Name of principal researcher: Dr Rudolf de Groot<br />
Other researchers: Drs. Lars Hein, Prof. dr. Ekko van Ierland, Ir Erik Ansink, Ir Gerko Wessels<br />
Participant 4: FiBL, Contractor, Forschungsinstitut für biologischen Landbau (FiBL), Ackerstrasse, 5070 Frick,<br />
Switzerland<br />
E-Mail: Bettina.landau@fibl.ch; Tel.: ++41 62 865 7276; Fax: ++41 62 865 7273<br />
Name of principal researcher: Dr. Bettina Landau<br />
Other researchers: Gabriela Uehlinger, Christian Schlatter, Dr. Mathias Stolze, Heidrun Moschitz, Christian Rust, Lukas<br />
Pfiffner, Siegfried Hartnagel, Johannes Brunner,<br />
Sub-contractor’s Researchers: Agroscope FAL Reckenholz - Swiss Federal Research Station for Agroecology and<br />
Agriculture: Thomas Walter, Dr. Beatrice Schüpbach Erich Szerencsits; Agrofutura: Dr. Daniel Schaffner, Joseph Schmidlin,<br />
Manfred Lüthy<br />
Participant 5: DSE, Contractor, University of Florence, Department of Economic Sciences, Via delle Pandette 9, Firenze,<br />
Italy<br />
E-Mail: pacciani@cce.unifi.it; Tel.: ++39 055 437 4608; Fax: ++39 055 437 4905<br />
Name of principal researcher: Prof. Alessandro Pacciani<br />
Other researchers: Dr. Giovanni Belletti, Dr. Claudia Corti (University of Florence, Dep. animal genetic and biology), Dr.<br />
Marco Lebboroni, Dr. Andrea Marescotti, Dr. Silvia Scaramuzzi, Andrea Innocenti, Dr. Sandro Angiolini, Francesco Felici,<br />
Francesco Milani, Tania Gualdo, Raffaella Serchi, Erika Savelli. Sub-contractors Researchers: Ministry of Agriculture and<br />
Forestry policy, Experimental Institute for Soil Study and Conservation: Dr. Paolo Bazzoffi and Dr. Rosario Napoli; Istituto<br />
Nazionale di Economia Agraria: Dr. Lucia Tudini; Istituto Regionale per la Programmazione Economica della Toscana: Dr.<br />
Roberto Pagni; Accademia di Scienze Forestali: Dr. Paolo Degli Antoni; Associazione Italiana Agricoltura Biologica: Dr.<br />
Sandro Angiolini; Agenzia Regionale per lo Sviluppo ed Innovazione dell’Agricoltura: Dr Anna Luisa Freschi<br />
Participant 6: ENVIST, Contractor, Environmental Protection Institute of the Estonian Agricultural University, Akadeemia<br />
4, 51003 Tartu, Estonia<br />
E-Mail: tiit@envinst.ee; Tel.: ++372 7 427 433; Fax: ++372 7 427 432<br />
Name of principal researcher: Dr Kalev Sepp<br />
Other researchers: Prof. Mari Ivask, MSc. Annely Kuu, MSc. Marika Truu, Age Merila, MSc. Olavi Hiiemäe, Piret Palm,<br />
Margit Heinlaan, Tiit Lepasaar, Elviira Villa; Sub-contractor researchers: Centre for Ecological Engineering (CEET): MSc<br />
Merit Mikk, Argo Peepson<br />
Participant 7: UD-CEMP, Contractor, Debrecen University, (Hungary) <strong>The</strong> UD Team, Egytem ter 1, 4032 Debrecen,<br />
Hungary<br />
E-Mail: karacsonyiz@tigris.klte.hu; Tel.: ++36 52 512 921; Fax: ++36 52 512 928<br />
Name of principal researcher: Dr Zoltán Karácsonyi<br />
Other researchers: Tünde Szabo, Dr. Laszlo Stündl<br />
Subcontractor: Expert-Europe Consultants, Debrecen<br />
Participant 8: SLU, Contractor, Department of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Johan Brauners<br />
v.3, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden<br />
E-Mail: Ingrid.Ragnarsdotter@adm.slu.se; Tel.: ++46 18 671 437; Fax: ++46 18 673 556<br />
Name of principal researcher: Ass. Prof. Knut Per Hasund<br />
Other researchers: Josefin Kofoed, Jennie Åström, Jennie Sahlsten, Fredrik Nilsson, Paula Quintana, Anders Glimskär, Roger<br />
Svensson.<br />
Sub-contractors researchers - NaturGIS AB: Tommy Löfgren; Naturcentrum AB: Svante Hultengren; Department of Physical<br />
Geography and Quarternary Geology, Stockholm University: Helle Skånes<br />
5
Section 2: <strong>Project</strong> Summary <strong>Report</strong> NOT CONFIDENTIAL<br />
(2 pages maximum.. Use short sentences. Be factual. Avoid technical terms as much as possible )<br />
Objectives:<br />
<strong>The</strong> overall objective of the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project was to define a common European analytical framework on which<br />
to develop local agri-environmental programmes.<br />
Results:<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project has defined a common European analytical framework for the development of local agrienvironmental<br />
programmes for biodiversity and landscape conservation. <strong>The</strong> framework developed has been<br />
tested in 15 studies areas in 7 different European Countries.<br />
This result has been achieved by carrying out the project in three main phases:<br />
Phase 1: Definition of a methodology to assess the impacts exerted by agricultural pressures on the local<br />
environment:<br />
Phase 2: Definition of a methodology to develop Agri-environmental measures at local level<br />
Phase 3: Definition of a methodology to implement the Agri-environmental measures developed<br />
Phase 1 has identified the performance of environmental functions (e.g. related to biodiversity and landscape<br />
conservation) in different local agricultural systems, in the 15 study areas of 7 countries participating in the<br />
project.<br />
This has involved analysing the capacity of agri-ecosystems to perform selected environmental functions (i.e.<br />
biodiversity and landscape conservation, soil erosion and water run off related functions) through the use of a<br />
driving forces-pressures-state-impacts-responses model (DPSIR). <strong>The</strong> most important ecological aspects for the<br />
performance of environmental functions have been identified by state indicators, measuring, for instance, species<br />
diversity and composition, landscape features, soil fertility and water quality. For each state indicator identified,<br />
the respective Environmental Minimum Requirement (EMR) value to be matched in order to achieve the<br />
Environmental function performance was assessed. By looking at the gaps between actual values of state<br />
indicators and their corresponding EMR, positive or negative impacts on the performance of the environmental<br />
functions were identified. Ecological, economic and social aspects of agricultural systems have been then analysed<br />
and most important pressures on the environment and relative driving forces identified (e.g. pesticide and fertiliser<br />
application, land use and cultivation practices, etc).<br />
Phase 2 has built on the outcomes of the first phase. Starting from the analysis and identification of causality<br />
relationships between detected impacts on environmental functions performances and locally most relevant<br />
agricultural pressures, the research has focussed on developing an operational tool, capable of building a bridge<br />
between science and policy. Possible recommendations on adjusting agricultural pressures in order to overcome<br />
negative impacts and enhancing positive ones have been studied and ranked in Tiers of sustainability on respect of<br />
environmental function performances. <strong>The</strong> agri-environmental impacts resulting from the analysis carried out in<br />
Phase 1 have been translated into economic terms and externalities have been identified. Also the envisaged costs<br />
on the eventual implementation of proposed recommendations have been assessed. This information, coupled with<br />
studying the most relevant local socio-economic aspects, enabled the identification of agri-environmental policy<br />
targets tailored to local conditions, and the development of suitable agri-environmental policy instruments to<br />
achieve the targets. <strong>The</strong>se policy instruments have included regulatory and/or market based tools that can be used<br />
for both the supply of environmental goods and services by farmers and the abandonment of unsustainable<br />
agricultural practices.<br />
Whereas it was appropriate, depending on the local ecological and socio-economic aspects, detailed agrienvironmental<br />
measures based on a quasi-market approach have been developed and compared with already<br />
existing programmes in the study areas. <strong>The</strong> understanding of the agri-environmental measures proposed by<br />
stakeholders, namely local farmers and administrators, and the feasibility of eventual implementation, have also<br />
been assessed as well as the procedures for reporting (by farmers) the correct implementation of the Agri-<br />
Environmental Measures (AEMs). A study on the impact of EU enlargement on biodiversity and landscape<br />
conservation within the agricultural sector has been carried out in the countries concerned (Estonia and Hungary),<br />
but it has not been included in this report concerning the analytical framework to develop local agri-environmental<br />
measures (see ENVIST and UD-CEMP reports).<br />
6
Phase 3 has been built on the first two phases. In this phase the procedures and indicators for monitoring the<br />
effectiveness and efficiency of agri-environmental measures developed have been identified.<br />
An analysis of administrative and transaction costs (for administrators and farmers) has also been carried out in<br />
this phase. <strong>Final</strong>ly, the overall economic and financial aspects of the eventual implementation of the agrienvironmental<br />
measures proposed have been considered.<br />
In defining the common European analytical framework, the work carried out has allowed to identify scientific<br />
topics where further research will have to be carried out in order to enhance the scientific basis of the results<br />
achieved. <strong>The</strong> most important topics are the following:<br />
• Integration of different scales of analysis (field, farm, agri-ecosystem, region) and of socio-economic data with<br />
environmental data (e.g. ecological and administrative boundaries, FADN);<br />
• Validation of EMR and of dose-effect relationships between pressures and impacts by field research (e.g.<br />
Ecosystems functioning and resilience); and<br />
• Integration of ecological thresholds in economic evaluations and valuation of environmental benefits (e.g.<br />
consequences of irreversible ecological situations).<br />
<strong>The</strong> framework and the tools provided by <strong>AEMBAC</strong> can contribute to the development of a coherent,<br />
scientifically sound and transparent European agri-environmental policy taking into account the specific<br />
differences at the local level. <strong>The</strong> results obtained from the testing of the analytical framework defined in 15 study<br />
areas in 7 countries, show that the analytical framework for the development of local agri-environmental<br />
programmes is very promising in its foreseeable practical implementation and that it can be applied to very<br />
different ecological, economic, social, etc. situations.<br />
Benefits and Beneficiaries:<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>AEMBAC</strong> methodology is based on the idea of a knowledge driven Agro-environmental policy and<br />
Sustainable Rural Development and will contribute to the integration of scientific results into policy<br />
development both at local and European levels.<br />
<strong>The</strong> results of the project at the local level can contribute to:<br />
•<strong>The</strong> selection of scientifically based suitable indicators to analyse and measure the supply of environmental goods<br />
and services by agriculture;<br />
•Clear distinction between ecological sustainability in agriculture (i.e. respect of EMR) and realistically achievable<br />
results for the short term considering socio-economic aspects (i.e. agri-environmental policy targets);<br />
•More precise ecological, economic and social information to make trade-offs between different rural development<br />
objectives (e.g. scientific based definition of “good farming practices” at local level, clearer definition of risks and<br />
uncertainties with regard to unsustainable agricultural practices);<br />
•A more effective monitoring of impacts on the environment and consequently a better evaluation of AEM<br />
effectiveness and efficiency; and<br />
•Devolution to local farmers and administrators of the fine-tuning of policy measures in local agriculture, thereby<br />
creating an "evaluation culture”.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project at European level can contribute to:<br />
•<strong>The</strong> development of dynamic programmes for agricultural sustainability and conservation of European<br />
biodiversity and landscapes;<br />
•<strong>The</strong> enhancement of transparency and a wider application of the subsidiary principle in managing agrienvironment<br />
programmes;<br />
•<strong>The</strong> increase of environmental awareness amongst EU citizens;<br />
•<strong>The</strong> diversification of rural economies by enhancing the provision of environmental goods and services;<br />
•A smooth transition from compensation payments coupled to production to a more socially acceptable agrienvironmental<br />
payments for supply of environmental goods and services; and<br />
•Provision of scientific support to the concept of multifunctionality in agriculture (e.g. in relevant international<br />
fora such as WTO) by measuring the real supply of environmental goods and services.<br />
<strong>The</strong> results coming out from the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project will clearly be of use to EU institutions, Member States,<br />
Regional and local administrations, Universities, Farmers’ organisations, Environmental organisations, Rural<br />
Development Planners, etc.<br />
7
1. Introduction<br />
<strong>The</strong> overall objective of the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project was to define a common European analytical framework on<br />
which to develop local agri-environmental programmes.<br />
<strong>The</strong> project has achieved this overall objective and has defined a scientific methodology based on the<br />
concept of multifunctionality and of an ecosystem approach, to "internalise" positive and/or negative<br />
environmental externalities resulting from agricultural practices. This has been developed by adopting a<br />
comprehensive and interdisciplinary approach capable of identifying the value of the multiple environmental<br />
goods and services supplied by agriculture in Europe.<br />
From an ecological and socio-economic point of view, European agriculture is very diverse. In order to<br />
identify a common framework to develop agri-environmental measures, this diversity had to be taken into<br />
account. A representation of such diversity has been achieved by carrying out the proposed project in 15<br />
study areas in the 7 different countries participating in the project.<br />
<strong>The</strong> principal aim of the project was not to find common solutions to achieve sustainable agriculture across<br />
Europe, but to identify a common tool for the identification, development and evaluation of locally<br />
appropriate agri-environmental measures for biodiversity and landscape conservation.<br />
<strong>The</strong> choice of concentrating on the issues of biodiversity and landscape was due to the following reasons:<br />
Loss of biodiversity and its importance for agriculture.<br />
Biodiversity (at all levels: genes, species and ecosystems) is the basis of life on earth. Globally, the rate of<br />
loss of biodiversity has been estimated as being “at least 4 orders-of-magnitude greater than the typical rates<br />
seen in the fossil record” (Nowicky, 1999; Saether and Solhaung, European Commission, 1998a). Without<br />
biodiversity both natural environmental processes and human activities (such as food production) would be<br />
impossible.<br />
In fact biodiversity is a prerequisite of agricultural production: according to FAO (FAO, Netherlands<br />
Government, “Cultivating our future”, 2000) “…the main productive elements of agriculture and the genetic<br />
diversity within crops and livestock allows continued improvement and adaptation to changing needs<br />
through evolution and deliberate breeding.”. McNeely and Sherr (IUCN-Future Harvest, 2001) highlight the<br />
importance of biodiversity for soil fertility and quality, regulation of pest population, pollination, water<br />
quality and regulation of water run-off.<br />
<strong>The</strong> European Commission has adopted the Community biodiversity strategy (COM(98) 42 final) on 4<br />
February 1998. <strong>The</strong> strategy provides the framework for developing Community policies and instruments in<br />
order to comply with the CBD (which was signed by the EU at the United Nations Conference on<br />
Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, and ratified on 21 December 1993). Agriculture is<br />
one of the policy areas within the Community biodiversity strategy.<br />
From a more nature conservation policy perspective, a number of directives have been set up in order to<br />
conserve biodiversity, such as Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (Birds Directive,<br />
1979), Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora (the Habitats<br />
Directive, 1992) and financial instruments such as LIFE-NATURE which started in 1984.<br />
<strong>The</strong> implementation of these Directives and instruments is showing some progress in some areas, but the<br />
pressures on ecosystems such as wetlands (according to the European Commission, 1996, agricultural<br />
intensification has reduced wetland areas by 60%) and dry grasslands, is still high (EEA, 1999).<br />
It is important to point out that under the heading of Natura 2000 and following the Birds Directive and the<br />
Habitats Directive, it has been proposed to build a network of European areas where socio-economic<br />
activities must be in accordance with the conservation of high natural values.<br />
8
Primary sector impacts on biodiversity<br />
European agriculture covers more than 50% of land use (Commission Européenne, 1997). <strong>The</strong> consequences<br />
of not adequately paying consideration in agricultural and rural development policies to the pressures exerted<br />
by cultivation practices on the environment (e.g. the encouragement given by the CAP on intensive<br />
production methods), have resulted in significant adverse impacts on biodiversity (EU, 1998). One of the<br />
most important objectives for the CAP reform stated by EU Commission in Agenda 2000 (1997) was the<br />
integration of environmental objectives and the empowerment of farmers' roles as managers and conservators<br />
of natural resources and landscapes.<br />
<strong>The</strong> need to integrate Biodiversity and landscape conservation objectives in the CAP has been recently<br />
confirmed by the reform proposed in June 2003 and by the European Conference on Rural Development held<br />
in Salzburg, 12-14 November 2003.<br />
Other international organisations such as OECD (2001), FAO (2000) and IUCN (1999), have also pointed<br />
out the importance of the agricultural sector’s relationship with biodiversity. FAO has a programme of<br />
classification on agrobiodiversity, OECD on agro-biodiversity indicators (among a wider programme on<br />
agro-environmental indicators), and IUCN has recently started to develop a policy on agriculture and<br />
biodiversity.<br />
<strong>The</strong> main negative impacts on biodiversity exerted by agriculture are those related to conversion of natural<br />
ecosystems and biotopes, reduction in number of species and varieties through homogenisation of<br />
production, introduction of alien species, effects of pesticides on non-targeted species, soil and water<br />
pollution (EEA, 1995; European Commission, Biodiversity action plan for agriculture, 2000). Among the<br />
positive impacts are the maintenance of traditional landscape and knowledge, conservation of local<br />
agrobiodiversity, and proper monitoring and management of the land.<br />
<strong>The</strong> character of the European landscape<br />
<strong>The</strong> Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy, promoted by UNEP and the Council of<br />
Europe, and endorsed by 55 European countries at the Ministerial Conference held in Sofia in 1995,<br />
highlights conservation of landscapes as one of its thematic actions.<br />
Article 1 of the European Landscape Convention gives the following definition of the term “landscape”: an<br />
area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or<br />
human factors.<br />
It is the relationship between natural and human elements which makes the analysis of environmental<br />
functions related to the landscape strategic, when analysing interactions between agricultural activities and<br />
the environment.<br />
This is particularly true for Europe, where farmers have for centuries shaped the rural landscape. <strong>The</strong><br />
existing interactions between anthropological and natural factors in shaping the landscape are widely<br />
recognised in scientific disciplines such as that of landscape ecology (see Box 3 below).<br />
Box 1: Landscape - Different definitions (Bastian, 2001)<br />
“Regarding the position, development and future of landscape ecology, we should remember the existing – rather<br />
numerous – definitions of the term ‘landscape ecology’ and its two roots ‘landscape’ and ‘ecology’. First, the scientific<br />
term ‘landscape’ was shaped by geographers, essentially by the German geographer and scholar Alexander von<br />
Humboldt 200 years ago (‘the total character of a region’).<br />
In 1850, Rosenkranz defined landscapes as hierarchically organized local systems of all kingdoms of nature. Neef<br />
(1967) characterized landscape as a part of the earth’s surface with a uniform structure and functional pattern. Both<br />
appearance and components (geofactors: relief, soil, climate, water balance, flora, fauna, humans and their creations in<br />
the landscape) including their spatial position are concerned. Landscape is, however, not only the sum of single<br />
geofactors, but an integration of the geographical complex (or geosystem). Thus, landscape is from different spheres:<br />
9
inorganic spheres, biosphere and sociosphere. According to Naveh (1987): ‘landscapes dealt with in their totality as<br />
physical, ecological and geographical entities, integrating all natural and human (‘caused’) patterns and processes...’ or<br />
Forman and Godron (1986) defined ‘landscape as a heterogeneous land area composed of a cluster of interacting<br />
ecosystems that is repeated in similar form throughout’. Leser (1997) regards the landscape ecosystem as a spatial<br />
pattern of abiotic, biotic and anthropogenic components which form a functional entity and serve as an environment for<br />
humans.<br />
Early definitions (19 th and beginning 20 th century) from Central and Eastern Europe (where the geographical and the<br />
biological roots of landscape ecology lie) reflect a holistic landscape conception. Later, influenced by the rising<br />
analytically working natural sciences, the ‘core of an all-embracing thinking was failing to be appreciated’ (Lehmann,<br />
1986).<br />
Still today, we also can observe repeated tendencies of reduction and specification. Landscapes consist of ‘structural<br />
components, or landscape elements, (which) are patches of several origins, corridors of four types, and a matrix“<br />
(Forman, 1981) or ‘<strong>The</strong> (ideal) landscape is a primarily aesthetic phenomenon, closer to the eyes than to the mind, more<br />
related to the heart, the soul, the moods than to the intellect’ (Hard, 1970). We also find the rejection of the landscape<br />
paradigm, if King (1999) asks: ‘Is there in fact a landscape level’, or if Widacki (1994) wants to turn away from<br />
geocomplexes because we could fall back now on ‘satellite images as well as the resulting possibilities of integration<br />
and transformation of data read into computer with the aid of GIS’.<br />
Generally we can realize, however, that in view of the environmental problems coming to the fore, landscape is<br />
regarded more and more as a complex, highly-integrated system.” (Bastian, 2001)<br />
Other important results have been achieved as by-products of the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project, for instance, in<br />
reference to the main elements for the evaluation of agri-environmental programmes 1 , the proposed project<br />
has achieved:<br />
• <strong>The</strong> identification of general and specific agri-environmental objectives at local level;<br />
• Collection of baseline data and establishment of systems to monitor impact;<br />
• Identification of elements to be monitored and evaluated: environmental, agricultural, socio-economic;<br />
• Selection of suitable indicators and creation of a data base; and<br />
• Assessment of relation to other policies, including competition with other land use schemes.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project has provided scientifically based information related to detailed environmental<br />
objectives, such as Environmental Minimum Requirements (from now on referred to as EMR), which help<br />
determining agri-environmental policy targets and measures.<br />
Following this approach a clear distinction has been made between ecological sustainability in agriculture<br />
and realistically achievable results in the short term (i.e. agri-environmental policy targets) at the local level.<br />
<strong>The</strong> framework and the tools provided by <strong>AEMBAC</strong> will help to build a European agri-environmental policy<br />
with specific differences targeted at the local level. At local level the adoption of the methodology developed<br />
is expected to enhance:<br />
• A more effective monitoring of agri-environmental effectiveness compared to current practices which<br />
usually focus more on the correct implementation of agri-environmental undertaking practices than on<br />
environmental benefits achieved;<br />
• <strong>The</strong> development of dynamic programmes for the transition phase towards sustainability;<br />
• <strong>The</strong> promotion of environmental awareness amongst EU citizens;<br />
• A clearer definition of risks and uncertainties with regard to unsustainable agricultural practices;<br />
• A trade-off between different objectives with more precise information; and<br />
• <strong>The</strong> devolution at local level (farmers and administrators) of the fine-tuning of policy measures in local<br />
agriculture which will make stakeholders more responsible, thereby creating an “evaluation culture”,<br />
fundamental for the development of an environmental ethic.<br />
<strong>The</strong> framework and indicators proposed will directly contribute to European policies concerning:<br />
• <strong>The</strong> growing demand for food quality and environmental conservation by EU citizens. This will require<br />
1 Listed by the Commission in the STAR Working Document VI/3872/97<br />
10
an increase in the supply of these goods and services;<br />
• <strong>The</strong> enhancement of transparency and promotion of a wider application of the subsidiarity principle in<br />
managing agri-environment programmes;<br />
• <strong>The</strong> diversification of rural economy by enhancing the multifunctional character of European agriculture;<br />
• <strong>The</strong> problem of EU CAP budget constraints. <strong>The</strong> framework proposed will offer a smooth shift from a<br />
highly criticised system of compensation towards a more acceptable system of agri-environmental<br />
payments; and<br />
• <strong>The</strong> envisaged requirement of a progressive and substantial reduction in support and protection in<br />
agricultural world markets e.g. subsidies. Only subsidies that do not distort trade will still be allowed,<br />
such as those related to decoupled agri-environmental measures, pre-retirement subsidies and structural<br />
payments for rural development (e.g. the so-called green box).<br />
<strong>The</strong> proposed methodology could also prove useful in evaluating and promoting the sustainability of other<br />
sectors such as forestry, fisheries, tourism and management of Protected Areas.<br />
Throughout the project, the methodology developed has been tested in 15 case studies in the 7 countries<br />
participating in the project. <strong>The</strong> objectives of the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project have been addressed by considering<br />
three interdependent project phases:<br />
• Phase 1: Definition of a methodology to assess the impacts exerted by agricultural pressures on the local<br />
environment<br />
• Phase 2: Definition of a methodology to develop Agri-environmental measures at local level<br />
• Phase 3: Definition of a methodology to implement the Agri-environmental measures developed<br />
Fig. 1 gives a schematic representation of the three phases and relative steps of the project<br />
Phase I<br />
Phase II<br />
Phase III<br />
Step 2 - Identification and analysis of<br />
environmental functions<br />
Fig. 1: <strong>AEMBAC</strong> methodology flow diagram<br />
Step 1 - Identification and description<br />
of study areas<br />
11<br />
Step 3 - Description of local agricultural systems and<br />
identification of the most important pressures and driving<br />
forces on environmental functions<br />
Step 4 - Assessment of ecological sustainability of local agricultural pressures and<br />
development of recommendations on how to lessening/eliminating negative impacts<br />
and enhancing positive ones<br />
Step 5 – Economic valuation of<br />
neative/positive impacts and<br />
identification of externalities<br />
Step 6 – Studying local<br />
sustainable agri-environmental<br />
policy targets and measures<br />
Step 7 – Studying agri-environmental measures implementation: Definition of monitoring, evaluation<br />
procedures and contracts; Analysis of administrative and transaction costs and overall economic and<br />
financial aspect
2. Materials and methods<br />
<strong>The</strong> overall objective of the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project was to define a common European analytical framework for<br />
the development of local agri-environmental programmes for biodiversity and landscape conservation.<br />
To achieve the definition of a European analytical framework for the development of agri-environmental<br />
programmes, there was the need to identify a common and clear scientific rationale to take into account the<br />
diversity of ecological, social and economic aspects amongst and within European countries and the inherent<br />
complexity of biodiversity, rural landscapes and agricultural systems.<br />
Diversity. From the ecological and socio-economic points of view, European agriculture is very diverse.<br />
Diversity is probably the most identifying character and richness of Europe together with the capacity and<br />
willingness of European citizens to be unified under the respect of such diversity.<br />
Diversity amongst and within European Countries should be taken into account and respected while defining<br />
a common framework for the development of agri-environmental schemes. Failure to do so will mean to<br />
define something which will not be “Europeanly” sustainable.<br />
In <strong>AEMBAC</strong> a representation of such diversity was achieved by carrying out the proposed project in at least<br />
two areas per each of the seven different countries involved. From the results of the analysis carried out in<br />
the seven country studies, a common European framework has been identified.<br />
<strong>The</strong> principal aim of the framework proposed in this project was therefore, not to find common solutions to<br />
achieve sustainable agriculture across Europe, but to identify a common tool for the identification,<br />
development and evaluation of locally appropriate agri-environmental measures.<br />
Complexity is in the topics to be analysed. Biodiversity and landscape conservation are very difficult topics<br />
to analyse because of their inherent comprehensive and interdisciplinary characters. Just looking at two<br />
definitions, one for biodiversity and one for landscape, is sufficient to give an idea of this complexity:<br />
Biodiversity has been defined by art. 2 of the Convention on Biological Diversity as follows: “Biological<br />
diversity means the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial,<br />
marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes<br />
diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems”.<br />
Landscape has been defined by art. 1 of the European Landscape Convention: “An area, as perceived by<br />
people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors”.<br />
Also it is important to point out that, while progress in knowledge and information on biodiversity and<br />
landscape has been considerable during the last century, many aspects of processes and components<br />
interacting in natural and agricultural ecosystems still need further investigation and understanding by<br />
natural and landscape sciences.<br />
To make things even more complex, <strong>AEMBAC</strong> also had to deal with economic and social issues, such as the<br />
economic valuation of biodiversity and rural development.<br />
Another issue to be taken into account when developing an analytical framework for the building up of agrienvironmental<br />
schemes locally tailored for the supply of multiple environmental goods and services and the<br />
reduction of negative impacts exerted by agriculture, was the practical implementation of the scientific<br />
results to be done by decision-makers, local farmers and administrators.<br />
In order to deal with such diversity and complexity some decisions on the approach to be adopted had to be<br />
taken from the very beginning.<br />
12
In fact to address effectively the topic of biodiversity and landscape conservation in different countries<br />
through the agricultural use of land there is a need for an approach that is:<br />
• Interdisciplinary and comprehensive (i.e. holistic): it has to be capable of reflecting the complexity of the<br />
topic studied;<br />
• Manageable: it has to be capable of synthesing the object of analysis while at the same time still<br />
retaining its complexity;<br />
• Realistic: suitable to facilitate the integration of analysis results in the development and implementation<br />
of agri-environmental programmes; and<br />
• Comparable between different countries: it has to be able to represent different ecological, economic,<br />
and social realities within the same analytical framework.<br />
Regarding the comprehensive and interdisciplinary character, it was decided to concentrate the analysis on the<br />
performance of environmental functions by (semi-)natural and agricultural ecosystems.<br />
Environmental functions in <strong>AEMBAC</strong> have been defined as “the capacity of natural processes and<br />
components to provide goods and services that satisfy human needs, directly or indirectly” (De Groot, 1992).<br />
<strong>The</strong> environmental functions approach synthesises much ecological information while at the same time<br />
retaining the complexity of biodiversity, landscape and agriculture systems.<br />
Studying environmental functions means to investigate natural processes and components through an<br />
ecosystem approach (comprehensive) and to link natural and social sciences (interdisciplinary) to analyse<br />
the satisfaction of human needs. This approach, while looking at the performance of environmental<br />
functions, is capable of providing information on the environmental goods and services supplied. This fact,<br />
which already points out the utilitarian and anthropocentric character of the benefits which can be derived<br />
from biodiversity and landscape conservation, facilitates integration between natural and social sciences. <strong>The</strong><br />
consideration of this aspect becomes important when the ecological results of analysis in phase 1 have been<br />
translated into economic values for the development of agri-environmental measures in phase 2.<br />
To make the environmental functions approach manageable what is needed is a definition of the scale of<br />
analysis and the thresholds against which to measure the performance of environmental functioning.<br />
Having defined the environmental functioning as the result of the interaction between ecosystems processes<br />
and components, the scale of analysis to be addressed in order to identify environmental functions and<br />
capable of reflecting both the ecological and agricultural systems is the local level, and in particular the agroecosystems/landscape<br />
level including cultivated fields and semi-natural habitats.<br />
Beside the above it is a well-accepted fact that evaluation of conservation of biodiversity and landscape tends<br />
to be site specific, covering complex systems of biotic, abiotic and aesthetic components within the<br />
ecological dimension, which rarely can be found in similar conditions and relationships elsewhere.<br />
On this point, the Commission of the European Communities(2000), while addressing indicators for the<br />
integration of environmental concerns into the CAP, states that “… if these indicators are to be meaningful,<br />
they must give a sufficiently accurate picture of the underlying processes and relationships that link human<br />
activities with the environment. This is particularly the case for agriculture where the relationship is highly<br />
complex and where farming itself involves a range of biophysical and site specific processes”.<br />
This view is supported also by A. Moxey, M. Whitby and P. Lowe (1998) cited in the EU DGVI<br />
Commission Working Document VI/7655/98 (p. 33). Adding considerations of social and economic<br />
characters to the picture only enhances the specificity of each evaluation.<br />
For what regards thresholds, there is wide recognition, both scientific and political, of the necessity of<br />
establishing baselines (temporal, counterfactual and benchmarking), against which to measure:<br />
• the state of health of an ecosystem;<br />
• the sustainability of the intensity of pressures exerted on this; and<br />
13
• the effectiveness and efficiency of policy interventions.<br />
For the definition of baselines, it is important to point out that the concept of sustainability adopted in<br />
<strong>AEMBAC</strong> is one of so-called “strong sustainability”. This means that natural and man-made capitals are<br />
considered substitutable only up to a certain point. In other words a certain minimum quality and quantity of<br />
ecological processes and components have to be present so as to allow the performance of the environmental<br />
functions selected. This is the benchmark necessary to evaluate the ecological sustainability of the local<br />
agricultural system. In other words, if environmental goods and services have to be supplied to satisfy human<br />
needs directly and indirectly, some natural resources need to be maintained in order to allow nature to<br />
provide these.<br />
This approach to identify baselines is also in line with:<br />
• Article 6(1) of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/CEE, where it is explicitly stated that the necessary<br />
conservation management measures have to correspond: ‘to the ecological requirements of the natural<br />
habitat types of Annex I and the species in Annex II present on the sites’;<br />
• STAR documents VI/12004/00 and VI/43517/02, where reference is made to compare effectiveness of<br />
rural development programmes against baselines: Temporal, Counterfactual situation, and<br />
Benchmarking (against Norm or best practice); and<br />
Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (on Rural Development), Article 2, where there is explicit reference to:<br />
“the preservation and promotion of a high nature value and a sustainable agriculture respecting<br />
environmental requirements”.<br />
By looking at the state of (semi-)natural and agricultural ecosystems processes and components, which are<br />
crucial for the performance of the environmental functions, the approach consists of detecting their conditions,<br />
after pressures from agriculture have been taken into account, and assessing, against thresholds, if these are<br />
sufficient to allow a satisfactory performance for delivery of environmental goods and services.<br />
By recognition of the fact that without a certain level of environmental components, structures and processes<br />
both ecological and agricultural systems will experience a decrease in their performances, this project<br />
introduces a new scientific approach to look at thresholds.<br />
Thresholds are then defined by those Environmental Minimum Requirements (EMR) of agro-ecosystems<br />
components, structures, and processes which are necessary to allow for the performance of the selected<br />
environmental functions.<br />
Regarding the integration of project results into the agri-environmental policy development process, the<br />
environmental function approach points out the provision of environmental goods and services in a utilitarian<br />
and anthropocentric way, and offers the opportunity to develop an analytical framework which can be easily<br />
understood by policy-makers, farmers and the general public. This fact, together with the analysis of the<br />
social and economic aspects of agri-environmental measures, makes the practical implementation of project<br />
results more realistic.<br />
In order to have comparability amongst different countries and regions, common guidelines to carry out<br />
each Step of the methodology were developed by the scientific co-ordinator and sent to Partners whose<br />
comments were integrated into the guidelines. After this process, guidelines were produced which were to be<br />
followed in carrying out steps tasks.<br />
To achieve the definition of the analytical framework to develop AEMs, the project was divided into three<br />
phases as follows:<br />
Phase 1 has identified the performance of different environmental functions in different agro-ecosystems.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Driving forces, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses (DPSIR) approach, developed by international<br />
organisations such as OECD and EEA, has been adopted to analyse the impacts exerted by local agricultural<br />
systems on the performance of selected environmental functions.<br />
14
Environmental functions have been described and analysed by a set of locally relevant state indicators<br />
(environmental profile) describing ecological structures, processes and components at landscape/agroecosystem<br />
level. For instance the habitat function has been described by state indicators such as ecosystems<br />
extension, ecosystems diversity, abundance and richness of key species, etc.<br />
For each state indicator identified, the respective Environmental Minimum Requirement (EMR) value to be<br />
matched in order to achieve the Environmental function performance was assessed. By looking at the gaps<br />
between actual values of state indicators and their corresponding EMR, positive or negative impacts on the<br />
performance of the environmental functions were identified.<br />
Local agricultural pressures have been identified by using agri-environmental indicators proposed by<br />
international organisations such as EU, OECD, ECNC, etc. and adapting these at farm level.<br />
Four broad classes have been used in <strong>AEMBAC</strong>:<br />
• Nutrients management indicators;<br />
• Pest control management indicators;<br />
• Land and soil management indicators; and<br />
• Water and irrigation management indicators.<br />
Driving forces have been identified both at local/regional (e.g. local economies of scope, cultural identity,<br />
environmental endownement, etc.) and national/European level (e.g. markets and vertical integration<br />
processes, CAP, social policy, etc.)<br />
<strong>The</strong> overall objectives of Phase 2 were the identification and development of agri-environmental<br />
programmes locally tailored to the most relevant impacts exerted by agriculture, in order to foster the supply<br />
of environmental goods and services by farmers (and to discourage unsustainable agricultural practices).<br />
Starting from the identification and analysis of causality relationships between detected impacts on<br />
environmental functions performances and locally most relevant agricultural practices, the research has<br />
focused on developing an operational tool, capable of building up a bridge between science and policy. <strong>The</strong><br />
assessment of sustainability of local agricultural pressures in reference to environmental function<br />
performances has been carried out by developing a ranking system associating positive/negative tiers<br />
respectively to positive/negative impacts. Recommendations on locally tailored best agricultural practices to<br />
eliminate/lessen negative impacts and enhance positive ones have been developed.<br />
After studying the most important socio-economic aspects to be considered in order to assess the “socioeconomic<br />
carrying capacity” of the study areas, research teams carried out economic valuations of the<br />
envisaged costs (and where feasible, also the benefits) of proposed recommendations to scaling-up tiers. <strong>The</strong><br />
research then focused on the identification of externalities, along the rationale that economic values of the<br />
environmental impacts are not always reflected in current agro-economic market performances and/or in<br />
government interventions.<br />
As the above analysis showed that the economic values of environmental impacts were not yet internalised, it<br />
was necessary to study which approach would be the most suitable to internalise the economic value of<br />
externalities through agri-environmental policy on a local level. <strong>The</strong> ranked agronomic recommendations,<br />
the economic valuation and the socio-economic information constituted the basis for the identification of<br />
feasible agri-environmental policy targets and the corresponding policy instruments (e.g. market or<br />
command and control) needed to achieve them.<br />
Qualitative and quantitative comparisons between agri-environmental measures developed using the<br />
methodology defined and those already existing in study areas have been carried out. <strong>The</strong> impact of EU<br />
enlargement on biodiversity and landscape conservation within the agricultural sector has been considered in<br />
the countries concerned (e.g. see Hungarian and Estonian <strong>Report</strong>s).<br />
<strong>The</strong> agri-environmental measures defined by using the methodology developed in <strong>AEMBAC</strong> for the specific<br />
areas studied have been presented to local stakeholders. Interviews and discussion on the implementation<br />
15
feasibility of the AEMs developed for the local situation has been carried out with the involvement of these<br />
stakeholders, namely local farmers and administrators. A definition of agri-environmental reporting<br />
procedures (for farmers) on the implementation of AEMs has also been carried out in this phase.<br />
Phase 3 has built on the first two phases. A definition of monitoring the effectiveness of agri-environmental<br />
measures to be used in case of implementation has also been carried out in this phase. Procedures to issue<br />
agri-environmental contracts between farmers and public administrations have been defined and<br />
administrative and transaction costs have been assessed.<br />
<strong>The</strong> overall economic and financial aspects of the eventual local implementation of the agri-environmental<br />
measures have also been considered.<br />
<strong>Final</strong>ly, it is important to point out that a data base on indicators used and a co-ordination of the production<br />
of GIS maps was also achieved while carrying out the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project (cp Annex 1 for more detail).<br />
16
3. Results<br />
3.1 Step 1 - Identification and description of study areas<br />
<strong>The</strong> objective of this Step was to identify and describe areas in which to test the methodology to develop<br />
agri-environmental measures for biodiversity and landscape conservation.<br />
<strong>The</strong> choice of the scale of analysis needs to take into consideration the adoption of the approach of the<br />
environmental function analysis to define the analytical framework to develop AEMs.<br />
Having defined environmental functioning as the result of the interaction between ecosystem structures,<br />
processes and components, the scale at which analysis shall be carried out in order to identify environmental<br />
functions and to reflect both the ecological and agricultural systems is the agri-ecosystem/landscape level. In<br />
fact environmental functions need a minimum critical area to become measurable.<br />
As far as measurement of the impacts of human activities is concerned, the agri-ecosystem/landscape<br />
intended also, as “habitat of people” (European Commission, 1998), represents a critical level of analysis. In<br />
Europe agricultural practices have shaped natural and semi-natural areas for centuries into cultural<br />
landscapes. It therefore becomes strategic to assess agricultural impacts over environmental functions<br />
considering the aggregate effects of farming within the same landscape. This approach facilitates a further<br />
in-depth analysis at the farm level, which is the critical unit for the practical implementation of the agrienvironmental<br />
measures.<br />
Beside the above, it is a well-accepted fact that evaluation of conservation of biodiversity and landscape<br />
tends to be site-specific, covering complex systems of biotic, abiotic and aesthetic components within the<br />
ecological dimension, which rarely can be found in similar conditions and relationships elsewhere.<br />
Once defined the scale of analysis at the agri-ecosystem level, (consisting of rural landscape, natural and<br />
seminatural ecosystems, farms, and fields levels), it is important to underline that there is no fixed extension<br />
to be analysed in order to develop agri-environmental programmes, but on the contrary this depends on the<br />
ecological and agricultural systems studied.<br />
In <strong>AEMBAC</strong>, the local level was identified in approximate dimensions of study areas ranging from 5,000 to<br />
100,000ha. This wide range is due to different ecological situations present in different areas and has to be<br />
considered only as indicative. In fact, for certain environmental aspects the area to be interested by the<br />
development of agri-environmental programmes could be far greater than the upper level of the range<br />
adopted in <strong>AEMBAC</strong>, so creating economies of scale in the developing and eventually administering of agrienvironmental<br />
schemes.<br />
It is worth noting that the non-territorial coincidence of the ecological dimension with the socio-economic<br />
one and with administrative boundaries, is the norm rather than the exception. In other words the<br />
ecosystem/landscape level of analysis results in a non-coincident contextualised juxtaposition of the<br />
ecological, socio-economic, institutional and administrative dimensions of agriculture. This fact could create<br />
problems of significance of socio-economic data gathered within administrative boundaries, when these have<br />
to be used to develop agri-environmental measures which are studied following ecological boundaries.<br />
<strong>The</strong> influences on natural and agricultural systems from upper levels of the spatial hierarchical approach<br />
adopted, i.e. regional, national, global levels (e.g. WTO agreements, Global Warming) were acknowledged<br />
in <strong>AEMBAC</strong> but not analysed (see Fig. 2.1 below).<br />
17
World<br />
Country<br />
Fig. 2 Spatial hierarchical scales: some examples of different spatial relationships (in red circles levels<br />
analysed in <strong>AEMBAC</strong>)<br />
In order to facilitate the selection of study areas, some general criteria were given, while taking care not to<br />
restrict each Partner country’s freedom of choice, so that the selection would reflect the diversity of the<br />
European ecological, social and economic realities.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se criteria are:<br />
Commodities and Non-<br />
Commodities: e.g. C02<br />
emission, biodiversity<br />
Commodities and Non-<br />
Commodities: e.g.<br />
biodiversity, landscape<br />
Economic, social and<br />
ecological structures<br />
Landscape/<br />
Ecosystem<br />
Environmental<br />
goods and<br />
services<br />
Cultural<br />
Products<br />
identity<br />
Region Farm<br />
Field<br />
Markets & Economic<br />
infrastructures,<br />
investments, etc.<br />
Environmental, social<br />
and macro-economic<br />
policy, CAP, etc.<br />
Investment and purchases,<br />
Global environmental<br />
priorities, WTO<br />
agreements, etc.<br />
1. Importance and measurable extension of biodiversity and landscape aspects and/or severity of<br />
environmental problems in the area;<br />
2. Environmental and Agricultural aspects relevant at country level so as to address problems which<br />
may also be of interest to other areas of the country;<br />
3. Pedagogic properties of the area for testing the methodology the project will develop; and<br />
4. Availability of existing data.<br />
18<br />
Rural development<br />
and agrienvironmental<br />
policy<br />
Goods and<br />
services<br />
Processing and<br />
Market facilities<br />
Managemen<br />
t decisions<br />
Labour,<br />
machines and<br />
processed<br />
inputs
Tab. 1 - <strong>AEMBAC</strong> - Application of selection criteria to the choice of proposed pilot areas in Estonia<br />
Selection criteria Kihelkonna Community<br />
Palamuse Community<br />
(Saare County)<br />
(Jõgeva County)<br />
Size Total area – 24,595ha;<br />
Total area– 21,607ha;<br />
total agricultural land – 4,042ha; total agricultural land – 10,286ha;<br />
agricultural land in current use – 1,724ha agricultural land in current use – 9,349ha<br />
Contrasting natural Situated in lower Estonia* on Silurian Situated in higher Estonia<br />
factors<br />
limestones<br />
Maritime western climate<br />
2 on Devonian<br />
sandstone<br />
More continental eastern climate<br />
Contrasting<br />
An area of extensive agricultural An area of intensive agricultural production<br />
agricultural activity production on poor, drought-prone soils with relatively fertile soils<br />
and<br />
Encompasses valuable (high biodiversity) Unique (drumlin area) heritage landscape<br />
biodiversity/landscap<br />
e<br />
semi-natural habitats<br />
value<br />
<strong>Project</strong><br />
Kihelkonna Community<br />
Palamuse Community<br />
administration factors (Saare County)<br />
(Jõgeva County)<br />
Co-operative local Local government, Viidumäe Nature Local government, County government<br />
actors present Protection Area, West-Estonian<br />
Biosphere Reserve<br />
Availability of As above +<br />
As above +<br />
secondary data Local environmental adviser<br />
Estonian Agricultural University<br />
sources<br />
specialists from the protected areas<br />
Centre for Ecological Engineering<br />
Centre for Ecological Engineering<br />
Local political In both areas the community government is very interested in having their community as a<br />
support/approval pilot area and they recognise the need for agri-environment measures<br />
Once the areas (at least two per country) had been identified, a general description of the most relevant<br />
ecological, economic and administrative-social characteristics was needed in order to give an initial picture<br />
of the local situation. This description serves the purpose of introducing the basic aspects which have to be<br />
analysed and considered in the following steps. At this level of analysis, economic and social information<br />
(such as per capita income or population density) is likely to respect more administrative boundaries than<br />
those of selected agro-ecosystems. It was then suggested to point out the different scale regarding this type of<br />
information. In fact ecological aspects of the areas were to be analysed more in depth in the following step 2,<br />
while economic and social issues related to the agricultural system had to be analysed in step 3.<br />
<strong>The</strong> information required to draw the ecological profile of the study area was a territorial description of the<br />
morphology, geology, hydrology, ecology, climate, land use, and natural, semi-natural and agricultural<br />
ecosystems present in the area. Many of these data were acquired and analysed using GIS and other related<br />
digital data processing techniques (cp Annex 1.2). This information was to be used as background for the<br />
analysis in the following Steps.<br />
Box 2 - <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Ecological aspects in Oberes Fricktal case study, Switzerland (extract)<br />
Localisation and extent: <strong>The</strong> study area Oberes Fricktal is situated in the north of Switzerland, in the department<br />
(“Kanton”) Aargau. It includes both Jura landscape and parts of the river Rhine plain. In the north, the river Rhine<br />
forms a natural border on a length of 12 km. In the east it is the mountain of Besseberg, in the west the Kaistenberg that<br />
are confining the study area. <strong>The</strong> altitudes range between 300 m a.s. (Rhein) and 722 m a.s. (Schinberg near Ittenthal).<br />
<strong>The</strong> extension of the study area is 6.550 ha.<br />
Administrative Borders: <strong>The</strong>re are 11 municipalities in the study area: Hottwil, Etzgen, Gansingen, Ittenthal, Kaisten,<br />
Laufenburg, Mettau, Oberhofen, Schwaderloch, Sulz, Will. <strong>The</strong> administrative borders of these municipalities do not<br />
coincide with the limits of the study area.<br />
Geomorphology: <strong>The</strong> region is formed by the typical Jura mountains with smooth hills. <strong>The</strong> topography is of wide<br />
diversity. Different types of minerals and sediments built up the soils: Shelly limestone, “Gipskeuper”, opalinus tone.<br />
2 Estonia is divided into higher and lower Estonia. Lower Estonia has been more influenced by glacial lakes and by the<br />
sea, is more marshy, more densely wooded and flatter than higher Estonia, which has been untouched by flooding from<br />
glacial lakes and the sea.<br />
19
On the plateau along the Rhine river there is morainic scree and in the river valley there is river crushed stone.<br />
Hydrology: Less than 1% of the surface is water. <strong>The</strong> water shed of the study region Oberes Fricktal covers 6.570 ha.<br />
Several creeks in the study area flow into the river Rhine which evacuates the water of this area. Most creeks have<br />
water all the year because of relatively high precipitation.<br />
Climate: In the Rhine plain the average temperature last year was at 9° C, the middle temperature in July around 18 –<br />
19° C. <strong>The</strong> vegetation period lasted in the lower parts of the valleys 210 – 230 days, ca. 180 days in higher locations.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re are between 1000 and 1150 mm precipitation per year, the average rainfall in July was 80 mm. On 130 days per<br />
year, the daily precipitation is higher than 1mm per day. <strong>The</strong> region has less than 50 days of fog and there is low risk of<br />
hail.<br />
Land use:<br />
Tab. 2: Land use of the study area Oberes Fricktal (2000)<br />
Type of surface Area (ha) Area Share (%)<br />
Total (all the municipalities of the study area) 6.569 100,0<br />
Forests 2.844 43,3<br />
Agricultural land (arable crops, grassland) 2.923 44,5<br />
Settlements 460 7,0<br />
Source: Statistisches Jahrbuch des Kanton Aargau – 2000. Statistisches Amt des Kanton Aargau. Effingerhof AG,<br />
Druck und Verlag, Brugg (Schweiz). 363 pp.<br />
Agro-ecosystems: 45% of the landscape is used as agricultural land. Although in Switzerland agriculture is mostly of<br />
high input and high energy, almost all farms are producing under the label of integrated production which allows only a<br />
restricted and controlled use of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides.<br />
Arable fields: Almost 40 % of the agricultural land is used for arable crops, mainly cereals. <strong>The</strong>re is limited rape<br />
cultivation and very few potatoes, sugar beets or vegetables, especially in the flatter areas of the Rhine plane.<br />
Commonly cultivated are corn and wheat. <strong>The</strong> area covered by agricultural crops is currently decreasing in the Aargau<br />
Canton.<br />
Grassland (meadows and pastures): Fodder cultivation dominates the region. 60% of the agricultural land is made up<br />
of various types of pastures and meadows. Due to traditional cultivation practices, Mesobromion and Arrenatherion<br />
(meadow types with high biodiversity) were once widespread types of extensively used grassland. Today they are<br />
endangered due to intensification and abandonment of patches. Pastures are usually on rather steep slopes and used in<br />
an extensive way.<br />
Other agro-ecosystems: <strong>The</strong> fields or grasslands are often bordered by high stem fruit tree orchards, in particular<br />
cherries and plums. <strong>The</strong>se high stem orchards are the rests of traditional extensively used fruit plantations, which were<br />
dominating the landscape in former times (end of the 19 th and first half of the 20 th century). Vineyards sometimes cover<br />
the slopes of the Rhine plane. Usually they cover the Southern slopes. <strong>The</strong>re are many hedges which connect the<br />
different ecosystems of the landscape.<br />
Non-agricultural ecosystems:<br />
Forests: <strong>The</strong> rounded hilltops are covered with large and well connected forests. <strong>The</strong> forests represent an important part<br />
of the landscape, since they cover 43% of it. It mainly consists of Carpinion and Quercion pubescentis like forest types<br />
with Molinio pinetum areas on very steep and dry slopes.<br />
Waters: Rivers and creeks occupy less then 1% of the area. Besides the river Rhine there are only some creeks as the<br />
Galtersbach, Sulzerbach and Etzgerbach. A considerable part of the flowing surface waters – in particular small brooks<br />
– are now flowing underground.<br />
Settlements: 7% of the landscape is covered by settlements. <strong>The</strong> 9.000 inhabitants are live in heaped and concentrated<br />
small villages in 11 municipalities. It is expected that the settlement area will grow in the coming decades.<br />
Others (incl. natural and semi-natural ecosystems): 7% of the surface of the study region is covered by nature<br />
reserves. More than 650 plant species found, reflect the variety of the habitats. <strong>The</strong> plain of the Rhine with its crushedstone<br />
soils is an important migration corridor and site for the spawning amphibians.<br />
Future targets:<br />
<strong>The</strong> most important changes in the last 50 to 100 years occurred in extensively used meadows with a reduction of 99%.<br />
Since 1951 also 75% of the high stem fruit orchards were destroyed. Together with hedges, structurally rich forest<br />
borders, heaps of stones and bushes they were offering precious habitats for insects, birds and flowers that vanished at<br />
many places.<br />
<strong>The</strong> main aim in the region is to assure the maintenance of extensively used meadows. By integrating them with high<br />
stem fruit orchards, hedges, vineyards and creeks into the existing landscape elements, the structural diversity can be<br />
20
intensified. In the plane of the Rhine, new habitats have to be created and connected: extensively used meadows,<br />
fallows, ruderal spaces in gravel-pits...<br />
Analysis of local social, cultural, economic and institutional features.<br />
<strong>The</strong> objective of studying the local social structure, cultural identity, rural economic activities, institutional<br />
framework, legislation and relations between agriculture and other sectors, was that of understanding the<br />
socio-economic environment where farmers and their families live and work.<br />
Topics proposed to be analysed and commented upon were:<br />
Substrate for social development (e.g. analysis of educational and basic sanitation rates, unemployment<br />
rate, population density, population age and growth, poverty rate)<br />
Social identity/ethics/laws/values (e.g. historic, spiritual, religious, cultural and artistic information and<br />
value systems, institutional systems)<br />
Satisfaction of human material needs (e.g. food sufficiency, shelter, health services, etc.)<br />
Opportunities for satisfaction of human non-material and recreation needs (e.g. landscape attractiveness,<br />
leisure activities, etc.)<br />
Substrate for economic development (e.g. infrastructures for agriculture, tourism, fisheries, housing,<br />
transport, access to credit, etc.)<br />
Existing socio-economic sectors, local GDP, incomes and investments (e.g. per capita income,<br />
employment, etc.)<br />
Equitable sharing of economics benefits (e.g. income distribution)<br />
<strong>The</strong> importance of considering socio-economic factors in the building up of agri-environmental measures lies<br />
in at least three facts:<br />
Firstly they can act as driving forces for the agricultural pressures identified as exerting impacts on the<br />
environmental function performance. <strong>The</strong>refore their analysis allows those forces to be identified which are<br />
responsible for the pressures causing the impacts (see section 3.3.5 below).<br />
Secondly when developing agri-environmental measures, it is important to be aware of the possible effects<br />
that these, as any other policy, can have on socio-economics variables such as income distribution, per capita<br />
income, employment, etc. <strong>The</strong>se aspects had to be considered in Step 6 where the most suitable approach<br />
(e.g. market based or command and control) was proposed for the development of agri-environmental policy,<br />
given the local socio-economic and institutional situation.<br />
Thirdly some socio-economic aspects such as social values and institutional functioning could have a role in<br />
designing the agri-environmental measures. For instance, different environmental awareness held by the<br />
local community can influence the content and kind of agri-environmental measures proposed, or the<br />
institutional structures and functioning can have an impact on the transaction costs incurred in their<br />
implementation.<br />
Considering the above and suggestions from the task force, the following scheme was proposed for<br />
identification, description and analysis of socio-economic factors:<br />
• Provide a list of the most important socio-economic aspects to be analysed for the case study area. This<br />
had to include relevant aspects listed above plus any others which are considered crucial for the local<br />
situation.<br />
• For each selected aspect explain its importance and the indicators that measure it. <strong>The</strong> use of indicators<br />
already standardised at the European level would obviously facilitate comparisons between countries<br />
(such as the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) which has been used in Step 3).<br />
• Provide the actual measurement of the aspect analysed and historic trends if these were available.<br />
• Provide reference to the source of information and data.<br />
21
Box 3 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Socio-economic data in Egyek-Pusztakócs study area -Hungary (extract),<br />
Data and information from different sources: 1 - Mayor’s Office of Egyek, 2 - County Directorates of Hungarian Central<br />
Statistical Office, 3 - Regional Statistical Yearbook 2002, 4 - Micro-Regions of Hungary – North-Plain, 2002, 5 - National<br />
Health Insurance Office<br />
Tab. 3 Summary of social, cultural, economic and institutional features<br />
Socio-Economic<br />
aspect<br />
Indicator<br />
Egyek-<br />
Pusztakócs Pilot<br />
Area<br />
Balmazú<br />
jváros<br />
Microregion<br />
POPULATION<br />
22<br />
North-<br />
Plain<br />
Region<br />
Population Persons 6045 30548 1559073 10174853<br />
Area of<br />
settlement<br />
Population<br />
density<br />
Sex distribution<br />
Ageing index<br />
Natural growth<br />
rate<br />
km 2 104.8 731 17729 93029<br />
population per 1 km 2 58 42 88 109<br />
old-age population as a<br />
percentage of child<br />
population<br />
difference between birth<br />
rate and death rate - per<br />
1000 inhabitants<br />
Rate of<br />
population living under<br />
inhabitants<br />
the subsistence level in<br />
living under the<br />
the % of total population<br />
subsistence level<br />
Number of<br />
primary school<br />
students<br />
Education of<br />
Informatics<br />
Education of<br />
foreign<br />
languages<br />
Male: 49%<br />
Female: 51%<br />
-<br />
M: 47,9%<br />
F: 52,1%<br />
Hungary Importance<br />
M: 47,5%<br />
F: 52,5%<br />
79,7 - 74,8 93,5<br />
-4.9 -1.2 -1,7 -3,4<br />
19.8 - - -<br />
EDUCATION<br />
Persons 520 - - -<br />
available or not + - - -<br />
available or not + - - -<br />
Rate of students in the percentage of<br />
finishing students beginning<br />
secondar. school secondary school<br />
Population of<br />
working age<br />
Rate of<br />
employed in the<br />
agricult. sector<br />
Rate of<br />
employed in the<br />
industrial sector<br />
Rate of<br />
employed of the<br />
service sector<br />
Rate of<br />
employed of<br />
local<br />
government<br />
Unemployment<br />
rate<br />
economically active and<br />
inactive population as a<br />
percentage of total<br />
population<br />
number employed in<br />
agriculture as a<br />
percentage of employed<br />
number employed in<br />
industry as a percentage<br />
of employed<br />
number of employed in<br />
service sector as<br />
percentage of employed<br />
number of employed in<br />
local government as %<br />
of those employed in<br />
service sector)<br />
unemployed persons as %<br />
of economically active<br />
population aged 15-74<br />
Houses connected to public water conduit<br />
network as a percentage of dwellings<br />
Households consuming piped gas as a<br />
percentage of dwelling stock<br />
90 - - -<br />
EMPLOYMENT<br />
74.8 - 73.9 75.4<br />
88.7 15.1 - 6.2<br />
4.6 40.5 - 34.2<br />
6.7 44.4 - 59.6<br />
27 - - -<br />
22.5 11.3 7.8 5.7<br />
INFRASTRUCTURE<br />
99 93.2 91.6 92<br />
60 66.9 65.1 71.3<br />
aspect representing local driving<br />
force with direct impact on pressures<br />
aspect representing local driving<br />
force with direct impact on pressures<br />
aspect with indirect impact on<br />
pressures<br />
important aspect but not determinant<br />
relating to pressures<br />
aspect with indirect impact on<br />
pressures<br />
aspect with indirect impact on<br />
pressures<br />
aspect with indirect impact on<br />
pressures<br />
important aspect but not determinant<br />
relating to pressures<br />
aspect representing local driving<br />
force with direct impact on pressures<br />
aspect representing local driving<br />
force with direct impact on pressures<br />
aspect representing local driving<br />
force with direct impact on pressures<br />
aspect with indirect impact on<br />
pressures<br />
aspect representing local driving<br />
force with direct impact on pressures<br />
aspect with indirect impact on<br />
pressures<br />
aspect meaning local driving force<br />
with direct impact on pressures<br />
important aspect but not determinant<br />
relating to pressures<br />
aspect representing local driving<br />
force with direct impact on pressures<br />
aspect representing local driving<br />
force with direct impact on pressures<br />
aspect representing local driving<br />
force with direct impact on pressures<br />
Source<br />
of<br />
informat<br />
ion<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1; 3; 4<br />
1; 3; 4<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1; 2; 4<br />
1; 2; 3; 4<br />
1; 2; 3; 4<br />
1; 2; 3; 4<br />
1; 2; 3; 4<br />
1; 2; 3; 4<br />
1; 3<br />
1; 3
Telephone main lines per 1000 inhabitants 232 245 258 323<br />
Total paved roads as a percentage of all<br />
roads<br />
Households connected to public sewerage<br />
as a percentage of dwellings<br />
Inhabitants per General Practitioner and<br />
family pediatrist<br />
Accessibility of<br />
consultation by<br />
specialists<br />
distance from Egyek –<br />
km<br />
30 - 99.1 98.9<br />
30 27.8 35.3 53.5<br />
SANITATION<br />
3022 1697 1612 1516<br />
62 (Debrecen or<br />
Balmazújváros)<br />
- - -<br />
Dental service inhabitants per dentist 3023 - - 2100<br />
Pharmacy inhabitants per pharmacy 6045 5091 5029 5085<br />
ECONOMIC FEATURES<br />
GDP per capita €/persons 650 - 3236 5152<br />
Net income per<br />
capita<br />
Age of<br />
settlement<br />
Religious<br />
distribution<br />
Library<br />
Civil<br />
organisations<br />
€/persons 740 1509 1837 2025<br />
23<br />
aspect representing local driving<br />
force with direct impact on pressures<br />
aspect representing local driving<br />
force with direct impact on pressures<br />
aspect representing local driving<br />
force with direct impact on pressures<br />
aspect with indirect impact on<br />
pressures<br />
aspect with indirect impact on<br />
pressures<br />
aspect with indirect impact on<br />
pressures<br />
aspect with indirect impact on<br />
pressures<br />
aspect with indirect impact on<br />
pressures<br />
aspect with indirect impact on<br />
pressures<br />
HISTORIC-RELIGIOUS-CULTURAL INFORMATION<br />
Years ~700 - - -<br />
important aspect but not determinant<br />
relating to pressures<br />
religion of more than<br />
90% of religious popul.<br />
stock per 1000<br />
inhabitants<br />
Roman Catholic - - -<br />
4963 - 2941 4551<br />
number of organisations 8 - - -<br />
Recreational possibilities for inhabitants<br />
Rural tourism<br />
farmhouse accomodation<br />
- number of bed-places<br />
per 1000 inhabitants<br />
LEISURE ACTIVITIES<br />
angling, hunting,<br />
riding, River<br />
Tisza<br />
- - -<br />
16 51 23 31<br />
important aspect but not determinant<br />
relating to pressures<br />
aspect with indirect impact on<br />
pressures<br />
aspect representing local driving<br />
force with direct impact on pressures<br />
important aspect but not determinant<br />
relating to pressures<br />
aspect representing local driving<br />
force with direct impact on pressures<br />
3.2 Step 2 - Identification and analysis of environmental functions<br />
Once study areas had been identified and a first overview of their main ecological, social and economic<br />
aspects had been given, the objectives of Step 2 were to identify and analyse the environmental functions<br />
that are performed by natural and agricultural ecosystems in those areas.<br />
3.2.1 Identification of environmental functions to be studied within the area and description of the<br />
most important attributes and characteristics (critical aspects) for their performance<br />
As already stated above, environmental functions in <strong>AEMBAC</strong> have been defined as “the capacity of natural<br />
processes and components to provide goods and services that satisfy human needs, directly or indirectly”<br />
(De Groot, 1992).<br />
Many different types of environmental functions performed by natural, semi-natural and man-made<br />
ecosystems can be identified. Stig Wandén and Peter Schaber (1998) identify functions which have<br />
information values (aesthetic, educational, scientific, orientation, signal), functions which have ethical values<br />
(e.g. right to existence for all living creatures), functions which have production values (e.g. production of<br />
food, fibre, fruits) and functions which have life support values (e.g. carbon fixation by green plants,<br />
protection of the soil against erosion, the maintenance of soil structure and fertility by a healthy soil flora and<br />
fauna, biological control of crops and fruits by insects).<br />
<strong>The</strong> Saxon Academy of Sciences (SAW) have elaborated such an approach since the 60s and 70s (see also<br />
references in SAW report to Neef, 1966, 1967 and 1969, Haase, 1978, and Mannsfeld, 1979, 1998). Rudolf<br />
1; 3<br />
1; 3<br />
1; 3<br />
1; 5<br />
1<br />
1; 5<br />
1; 2; 5<br />
1; 4<br />
1; 3; 4<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1; 3<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1; 3
de Groot and others (2002), provide a useful list of environmental functions from which Table 4 below has<br />
been drawn.<br />
Tab. 4 Environmental functions, ecosystems’ critical aspects and performances (delivering of<br />
environmental goods and services) Adapted from Costanza et al, (1997), de Groot (1992), de Groot et al, (2002).<br />
FUNCTIONS ECOSYSTEM PROCESSES & GOODS AND SERVICES<br />
(examples)<br />
COMPONENTS (examples) (examples)<br />
Regulation Functions Maintenance of essential ecological processes and life support systems<br />
1 Gas regulation Role of ecosystems in biogeochemical<br />
cycles (e.g. CO2/<br />
•<br />
•<br />
UVb-protection by O3 (preventing disease)<br />
Maintenance of (good) air quality<br />
O2 balance, ozone layer, etc.) • Influence on climate (see also function 2.)<br />
2 Climate regulation Influence of land cover and biol. • Maintenance of a favorable climate (temp.,<br />
mediated processes (e.g. DMS- • precipitation, etc) for, for example, human<br />
production) on climate<br />
• habitation, health, cultivation<br />
3 Disturbance<br />
Influence of ecosystem structure • Storm protection (e.g. by coral reefs)<br />
prevention<br />
on dampening env. disturbances • Flood prevention (e.g. by wetlands and forests)<br />
4 Water regulation Role of land cover in regulating • Drainage and natural irrigation<br />
runoff & river discharge • Medium for transport<br />
5 Water supply<br />
Filtering, retention and storage • Provision of water for consumptive use (e.g.<br />
of fresh water (e.g. in aquifers) drinking, irrigation and industrial use)<br />
6 Soil retention Role of vegetation root matrix • Maintenance of arable land<br />
and soil biota in soil retention • Prevention of damage from erosion/siltation<br />
7 Soil formation Weathering of rock, • Maintenance of productivity on arable land<br />
accumulation of organic matter • Maintenance of natural productive soils<br />
8 Nutrient regulation Role of biota in storage and re- • Maintenance of healthy soils and productive<br />
cyling of nutrients (eg.N,P&S) ecosystems<br />
9 Waste treatment Role of vegetation & biota in • Pollution control/detoxification<br />
removal or breakdown of xenic • Filtering of dust particles<br />
nutrients and compounds • Abatement of noise pollution<br />
10 Pollination Role of biota in movement of • Pollination of wild plant species<br />
floral gametes<br />
• Pollination of crops<br />
11 Biological control Population control through • Control of pests and diseases<br />
trophic-dynamic relations • Reduction of herbivory (crop damage)<br />
Habitat Functions Providing habitat (suitable living space) for wild plant and animal species<br />
12 Refugium function Suitable living space for wild • Maintenance of biological & genetic diversity<br />
plants and animals<br />
(and thus the basis for most other functions)<br />
13 Nursery Function Suitable reproduction habitat • Maintenance of commercially harvested species<br />
Production Functions Provision of natural resources<br />
14 Food Conversion of solar energy into • Hunting, gathering of fish, game, fruits, etc.<br />
edible plants and animals • Small-scale subsistence farming & aquaculture<br />
15 Raw materials Conversion of solar energy into • Building & Manufacturing (e.g. lumber, skins)<br />
biomass for human construction • Fuel and energy (e.g. fuel wood, organic matter)<br />
and other uses<br />
• Fodder and fertilizer (e.g. krill, leaves, litter).<br />
16 Genetic resources Genetic material and evolution • Improve crop resistance to pathogens & pests,<br />
in wild plants and animals • Other applications (e.g. health care)<br />
17 Medicinal resources Variety in (bio)chemical sub- • Drugs and pharmaceuticals<br />
stances in, and other medicinal • Chemical models & tools<br />
uses of, natural biota<br />
• Test- and essay organisms<br />
18 Ornamental resources Variety of biota in natural • Resources for fashion, handicraft, jewelry, pets,<br />
ecosystems with (potential) worship, decoration & souvenirs (e.g. furs, feathers,<br />
ornamental use<br />
ivory, orchids, butterflies, aquarium fish, shells, etc.)<br />
Information Functions Providing opportunities for cognitive development<br />
19 Aesthetic information Attractive landscape features • Enjoyment of scenery (scenic roads, housing , etc.)<br />
20 Recreation Variety in landscapes with • Travel to natural ecosystems for eco-tourism, outdoor<br />
(potential) recreational uses<br />
sports, etc.<br />
21 Cultural & artistic Variety in natural features with • Use of nature as motive in books, film, painting,<br />
information<br />
cultural and artistic value<br />
folklore, national symbols, architect., advertising, etc<br />
22 Spiritual and historic Variety in natural features with • Use of nature for religious or historic purposes (i.e.<br />
information<br />
spiritual and historic value<br />
heritage value of natural ecosystems and features)<br />
23 Science & Education Variety in nature with scientific • Use of natural systems for school excursions, etc.<br />
and educational value<br />
• Use of nature for scientific research<br />
24
<strong>The</strong> environmental functioning approach can be seen as the most meaningful synthetic and holistic approach<br />
to study the biotic and abiotic components and ecological processes existing within the ecosystem complex.<br />
In fact, in the Information Paper “Sustainable Use within an Ecosystem Approach” prepared by the IUCN<br />
Sustainable Use Initiative for the 5th meeting of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific, Technical and<br />
Technological Advice to the Convention on Biological Diversity, held in Montréal, Canada on the 31<br />
January–4 February 2000, “ecosystem” is defined as “A complex of plant, animal and micro-organism<br />
communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit”.<br />
Joanna Treweek (2001) refers to the approach of Noss (1990) of viewing biodiversity “in terms of<br />
composition, structure and function for different levels of biological organisation,[which] … mix purely<br />
biological definitions (genes, species, populations, communities) with ecological concepts that also take<br />
account of relationships between biotic and abiotic factors (habitats, ecosystems and landscapes).”.<br />
According to her, this approach runs the risk of being interpreted as too wide, trying to include everything,<br />
but instead it has the merit of pointing out that it is also unavoidable to consider, while analysing<br />
biodiversity, the complex interactions between components and processes of the ecosystem, if impacts of<br />
human activities have to be identified and assessed through “...the responses of ecosystems to external<br />
development pressures” (Treweek, 2001).<br />
Fig. 3 Ecosystem complex and human activities<br />
Ecosystems abiotic and<br />
biotic components<br />
Human activities<br />
Ecosystems functioning<br />
Ecosystems ecological processes,<br />
structure, organisation<br />
In order to allow for the performance of environmental functions by (semi-)natural and agricultural<br />
ecosystems, certain ecological conditions have to be present. <strong>The</strong>se ecological conditions are critical<br />
ecological processes, abiotic and biotic components of ecosystems and their inter-relationships. Identifying<br />
these critical ecological aspects is a possible way to describe what are the most important attributes and<br />
characteristics necessary for the performance of environmental functions (i.e provision of environmental<br />
goods and services) in a specific ecosystem.<br />
Because of resources and time constraints, in <strong>AEMBAC</strong> only some of what are believed to be the most<br />
important characteristics and attributes necessary for selected environmental functions performance have<br />
been analysed. Moreover, it is important to stress that existing scientific knowledge on ecosystem<br />
functioning is far from complete, so a possible significant lack of information can impair the possibility of<br />
achieving precise results on some ecological issues, or can orient the choice on the aspects which can be<br />
analysed.<br />
However, even a partial analysis of these aspects can offer much more detailed and reliable scientific<br />
information to the process of developing agri-environmental measures than what is currently done (e.g.<br />
25
considering the impacts of pesticide use on biodiversity by the quantity sold or used).<br />
<strong>The</strong> approach proposed also has the merit of reorganising the scientific information available in a structured<br />
form, suitable to give some indication on the environmental functions performance and also to point out<br />
where there is a lack of information and scientific knowledge to draw out more significant conclusions. This<br />
last fact can be very useful in showing where future research is needed, so increasing the effectiveness of<br />
research funding.<br />
In <strong>AEMBAC</strong>, two environmental functions, one related to biodiversity and one related to landscape (such as<br />
habitat functions and information functions respectively as in Table 4 above), were analysed by all partners.<br />
Other functions, such as maintenance of soil fertility and soil erosion control, water quality and groundwater<br />
recharge, etc., were studied by partners on a voluntary basis (see final reports from UNIFI-DSE, SAW, and<br />
UD-CEMP).<br />
3.2.2 Identification and description of indicators<br />
<strong>The</strong> identification of the most crucial aspects for environmental performance in the previous section (see<br />
Table 4 above) was just a starting point for a further detailed description of environmental functions.<br />
In fact it is possible to describe environmental functions more analytically by using indicators of the<br />
qualitative and quantitative state of those crucial aspects, attributes and relationships among these, which are<br />
necessary for allowing the supply of environmental goods and services. Within the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project these<br />
were referred to as state indicators.<br />
In <strong>AEMBAC</strong>, the complexity of environmental functions performance has been studied through:<br />
• Indicators measuring some of the most important aspects and attributes of environmental functions;<br />
• Acknowledgement of the direct relationships between these indicators while leaving out of the analysis<br />
the secondary aspects (feedback effects from relationships);<br />
• Making the best of existing information and knowledge because of time and resources constraints to<br />
carrying out exhaustive field research; and<br />
• Identification of plausible relationships between state and function performance capacity, not definition<br />
of the performance level.<br />
<strong>The</strong> criteria for indicator selection were adapted from Robert Prescott-Allen, (1998), and are as follows:<br />
“Characteristics of a high quality indicator are that it is:<br />
Relevant – It relates to a specific objective;<br />
Representative – It covers the most important aspects of the issue concerned;<br />
Accurate – It correctly reflects how far the objective is met and the state of the issue;<br />
Measurable;<br />
Feasible – It depends on data that are readily available or obtainable at reasonable costs;<br />
Analytically sound – It is well founded and uses standardised measurement whenever possible to permit<br />
comparison;<br />
Sensitive – It shows trends over time; and<br />
Responsive – It reflects changes in condition and differences between places”<br />
In selecting indicators it was also considered desirable to bear in mind subsequent requirements for the<br />
development of agri-environmental measures and monitoring procedures in phases 2 and 3 of the project:<br />
Clear, transparent and standardised methodology for indicators selection, data gathering, processing;<br />
Availability of financial, human, and technical resources for indicators monitoring;<br />
Political acceptability at the appropriate level (local, regional, national, international); and<br />
Participation of, and support from, the public in the development process of indicators.<br />
(Adapted from Gallopìn, 1997)<br />
26
Given the difficulties in selecting indicators which fulfil all the above criteria, it was suggested to make two<br />
lists:<br />
1. One selecting indicators to represent the most significant and crucial attributes for the environmental<br />
functions to be performed considering the most meaningful indicators from a scientific point of view;<br />
this being the theoretical/scientific list.<br />
2. <strong>The</strong> other including all the indicators realistically feasible to carry out the analysis in the study area (i.e.<br />
considering time, human and financial resources constraints in <strong>AEMBAC</strong>). This being the<br />
practical/manageable list.<br />
In selecting indicators it is important to adopt a hierarchical approach linking the indicators to their<br />
respective level of analysis, such as field/farm and ecosystem/landscape.<br />
This is a very important point because some indicators can have relevance at specific scales of analysis,<br />
while others can be used at different spatial levels. For instance the indicator diversity of the scenery has<br />
significance at the level of landscape whereas the indicator length of field boundaries is meaningful both at<br />
the level of field and of agro-ecosystem.<br />
Coming to the relationships between indicators it is important to point out that the project adopted the<br />
general DPSIR (Drivers-Pressures-State-Impact-Responses) framework to promote the development of agrienvironmental<br />
programmes. This is a framework proposed by international organisations such as OECD and<br />
EEA to integrate the complex information concerning the environment into the decision-making process.<br />
<strong>The</strong> establishment of such a framework is for developing and integrating indicators to measure the state of<br />
the environment, the driving forces (e.g. human socio-economic activities) which exert pressures over<br />
natural resources, the impacts on the environment resulting from pressures and finally the societal responses<br />
to the changes in the state of the environment. While the DPSIR framework itself could probably be<br />
improved, it was useful to adopt common tools of analysis at the international level in order to facilitate<br />
communication and comparisons.<br />
In <strong>AEMBAC</strong> only the main relationships between state indicators contributing to performance, such as for<br />
instance that between the number of species and ecosystem size in reference to the performance of habitat<br />
function, have been considered. <strong>The</strong>se kinds of relationships were named horizontal relationships 3 , because<br />
they exist between aspects measured by state indicators (i.e. relationship between the same DPSIR category<br />
of indicators).<br />
Other relationships consisting of causality assumptions to be addressed by associating the values of<br />
indicators measuring the pressure of the local agricultural systems (to be identified in step 3, see below) to<br />
certain impacts on environmental functions measured by the values of state indicators, such as the<br />
relationship between the use of pesticide (pressure indicator) on species richness (state indicator), were<br />
named vertical relationships (i.e. relationship between a different DPSIR category of indicators) and were<br />
addressed in Step 4 below.<br />
Both these types of relationships probably have interesting secondary effects but these couldn’t be addressed<br />
in <strong>AEMBAC</strong>, only pointed out.<br />
An important aspect that has been taken into account was the value judgement that can be expressed when<br />
dealing with indicators. Sometimes this is built into the indicator itself (e.g. presence/absence of certain<br />
species) resulting in a more objective measurement. In other cases the value judgement is expressed directly<br />
in the measuring or observation process by researchers (e.g. aesthetic value of a landscape), so giving room<br />
for more subjective assessments. Clearly the increase in scientific knowledge in analysed aspects will reduce<br />
the subjectivity of the relative judgements.<br />
Another fundamental aspect when addressing sustainability issues was the reference to the time frame. <strong>The</strong><br />
3 This kind of horizontal relationship can also exist among pressure indicators measuring the most relevant pressures<br />
exerted by local agricultural systems on the performance of environmental functions to be addressed in step 3 (e.g. crop<br />
rotations can have relationships with the management of fertilisers and at the same time on landscape management).<br />
27
assessment of sustainability has to be considered in a time dynamic dimension. Data on past and present<br />
ecological conditions and future trends are of obvious value when analysing sustainability allowing for<br />
changes to be assessed over time. In <strong>AEMBAC</strong> for some ecological analysis of the environmental functions<br />
performance, only current data and information were available given that these aspects were being studied<br />
for the first time in the study area. Past analyses were taken into consideration, whenever these data were<br />
available, to evaluate future trends (e.g. historical landscape development).<br />
Following the above considerations on criteria for indicator selection, hierarchical approach, identification of<br />
relationships and aggregation amongst indicators, value judgements, and time dimension, the methodology<br />
explained below has been recommended to identify indicators and to define their Environmental Minimum<br />
Requirement (EMR) values which are addressed in section 3.2.4 below:<br />
1 - Scale of analysis: entire study area<br />
Identification of different ecosystems (natural/semi-natural, agricultural/man-made) which are present in the<br />
study area (from step 2 above). Assessment of land cover and land use at different times for the area, e.g.<br />
potential natural vegetation, before the industrial revolution (1750–1800), before World War I (1900), just<br />
after World War II, the present time, others (see Box 4 below).<br />
Box 4 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Historical evolution in % land use Maremma study area, Italy (for<br />
references in the box, see <strong>AEMBAC</strong> final report, University of Florence, Department of Economics Sciences).<br />
In order to study the refugium function, it can be useful to look back at the types and extents of ecosystems in the past.<br />
<strong>The</strong> histogram depicted below, based on existing and affordable literature and theme mapping, shows the evolution of<br />
different ecosystems during the last 170 years that we have briefly introduced before. For this area enough information<br />
is available for this purpose.<br />
Different periods show us different land use patterns, according to different demographic, economic, and technical<br />
trends affecting agriculture. In the year 1830, 7% of the territory was natural wetland and 79% was covered with seminatural<br />
ecosystems, extensively used for seasonal activities. In the winter, charcoal makers inhabited the coppice on the<br />
hills and shepherds took advantage of the same coppice and of semi-natural grassland on the plain, partly flooded for<br />
short periods of the year, for feeding their nomadic livestock. <strong>The</strong> resident population was very small and agriculture<br />
was scarce and extensive. <strong>The</strong> main conversion of semi-natural ecosystem to agriculture was due to the reclamation<br />
policy adopted by the Absburgs Lorene, who were the sovereigns of the land until 1859 and simply the owners of the<br />
largest farm after that date, up to 1914.<br />
Mechanised ploughing was introduced in the late 19 th century which creates uninterrupted, square, bare, large fields,<br />
somehow reintroducing the classical centuriatio. In those regular fields, wheat was the most important culture in a<br />
traditional four-year rotation pattern. <strong>The</strong> land was used as meadow for the other three years. Intensive agriculture was<br />
confined to specialised permanent crops. In the plain included in the buffer zone, land reclamation was even more<br />
radical and proper wetland, such as the Alberese lagoon, previously covered with natural vegetation, was definitively<br />
dried out.<br />
<strong>The</strong> agriculture system changed greatly after the Absburgs were banned. A sort of share agriculture, similar to the<br />
traditional system dominant elsewhere in Tuscany, was introduced. It required a significant immigration of farmers<br />
from northeastern Italy. Unlike the rest of Italy, land reclamation here didn’t reach its peak until after World War II,<br />
when agriculture became intensive, also due to the introduction of modern methods of irrigation, and perennial<br />
meadows became rare.<br />
<strong>The</strong> current situation is characterised by a blend of extensification (set-aside of agricultural land within and around the<br />
park area has been strongly subsidised) and specialisation trends within the same territories. In this perspective the<br />
amount of woodland must be theoretically added to the percentage of land under extensive use. It is worth remarking<br />
that the Maremma Park has had an increasing influence on farmers’ choices of crop since the middle of the 1990s.<br />
28
Fig. 4 Historical evolution in % land use in the Maremma study area<br />
2 - Scale of analysis: whole area/ecosystems<br />
Definition of the most appropriate mix of ecosystem diversity and their extent which, on Best Professional<br />
Judgement (BPJ), (i.e. based on the most appropriate existing scientific evidence), are believed to provide the<br />
best circumstances for the performance of the environmental function studied (e.g. biodiversity-related<br />
functions, landscape-related functions, soil erosion control, maintenance of water quality and water recharge<br />
processes, etc.). This has served to assess the first EMR at the study area level for the indicators Typology of<br />
ecosystems and extension of ecosystems (see section 3.2.4 below).<br />
3 - Scale of analysis: ecosystem/landscape<br />
Once the extent (quantity) of each ecosystem has been defined, it is important to concentrate the analysis on<br />
the quality of each ecosystem selected. For instance, if we want to assess the quality of a wetland for the<br />
performance of habitat function, we could analyse the presence/absence of a key species which is known to<br />
be present only if the general conditions in the wetland (e.g. water quality, presence of other species, etc.) are<br />
optimal. <strong>The</strong> same holds true for the analysis of certain types of agro-ecosystems (e.g. presence of (semi-<br />
)natural habitats such as meadows, shrubland, marshland, hedgerows, ponds, lakes, etc. or animal species<br />
such as birds in the fields, insects, earthworms, etc.). Proceeding in this way facilitates the selection of<br />
indicators which are site-specific relevant, and the consequent assessment of their relative EMR. So<br />
following the example, in the wetland the presence of a minimum number of key species could be considered<br />
the EMR for the performance of the habitat function in that ecosystem.<br />
<strong>The</strong> result is the selection of one or more quality indicators for each ecosystem and the following assessment<br />
of EMR for each indicator in section 3.2.4. It is also important to consider that in principle, the EMR for<br />
each indicator had to be assessed considering the overall quality result at the level of study area. This meant<br />
that EMR values for quality indicators for each ecosystem present in the area had to be defined in such a way<br />
that the overall result of quality for the whole area will be that of performing biodiversity related functions or<br />
landscape related functions, etc. (for instance as it is supposed should be in the ecosystem mix selected), as<br />
illustrated in Figure 5 below.<br />
Fig. 5 Study area quality as a result of the quality of each ecosystem present and their interactions<br />
(N.B. interrelationships between different ecosystems should be taken into account as much as possible):<br />
Forests<br />
100%<br />
90%<br />
80%<br />
70%<br />
60%<br />
50%<br />
40%<br />
30%<br />
20%<br />
10%<br />
0%<br />
Historical evolution in % land use Maremma study area<br />
1830 1901 1953 2001<br />
Grasslands<br />
Study Area quality<br />
Wetlands<br />
29<br />
Urban/industrial/infrastructure<br />
Intensive agriculture<br />
Extensive agriculture<br />
(semi)Natural grass/shrubland<br />
Forest<br />
Unexploited wetland<br />
Agro-ecosystems<br />
Others
4 – Scale of analysis: Farm/field<br />
Following this spatial hierarchical approach downward the farm/field level was analysed to identify the<br />
indicators which were to be used in the developing of agri-environmental targets and measures. So looking at<br />
the results for agro-ecosystems, it was possible to define the type of indicators and their EMR values, to<br />
assess the most significant aspects for the performance of environmental functions at this scale of analysis.<br />
For instance it could emerge from the analysis that to have a certain quality of agro-ecosystem which<br />
contributes to biodiversity conservation at the study area level (e.g. habitat function for insects and birds),<br />
hedgerows have to be present at field margins in the farms. <strong>The</strong> EMR would then be calculated as the length<br />
and width of hedgerows needed to eliminate/mitigate on-farm negative impacts on agrobiodiversity (or when<br />
referring to off-farm impacts such as conserving biodiversity in nearby natural ecosystems with the creation<br />
of vegetation corridors of certain width). Another example can be that of maintaining a certain rate of soil<br />
erosion (EMR) in the fields so that sedimentation in the river in the valley below (off-farm impacts) is<br />
sustainable for the maintenance of the quality of that ecosystem.<br />
Fig. 6 Agro-ecosystem quality as a result of the state of seminatural habitats, farms and fields quality<br />
Semi-natural<br />
Habitats<br />
Farm 1<br />
Farm 2<br />
Agro-ecosystems<br />
quality<br />
Once the indicators were selected it was important to identify some of their important attributes to record<br />
information so as to allow comparison on their use amongst different national projects. This was done easily<br />
by filling in the following identification form for each single indicator selected to describe an environmental<br />
function:<br />
Table 5 - Indicator Identification Form<br />
Indicator n° Description<br />
Definition<br />
Scale (i.e. field/farm, ecosystem/landscape, whole study<br />
Farm 3<br />
Level of analysis for the indicator and unit of<br />
area) and unit of measurement<br />
measurement used<br />
Purpose What the indicator is used for<br />
Relevance to the analysis of the environmental<br />
How relevant is the indicator for the analysis of the<br />
function…. (i.e. measuring crucial aspects of<br />
selected environmental function<br />
performance)<br />
Limitations of the indicator What are the limits in terms of significance of<br />
measurements carried out?<br />
Alternatives Are there any other possible indicators to measure the<br />
same aspects?<br />
DPSIR category (e.g. state indicator or pressure indicator)<br />
Linkages (relationships) to other state or pressures Possible correlation with other indicators?<br />
indicators<br />
Measurement methodologies What are the methodologies to be applied to calculate the<br />
value of the indicator?<br />
Data needed to compile the indicator, What data are needed to measure the indicator?<br />
Data availability and sources (including time series) What is the availability and sources of data?<br />
International Conventions and agreements in which it is Is the indicator already in use in the international arena?<br />
addressed<br />
Source: Adapted from United Nations www.un.org/esa/sustdev/indisd/<br />
Table 6 below shows examples of indicators selected by the Estonian partner using the indicator<br />
identification form above.<br />
30<br />
Farm 4<br />
Farm n
Table 6 <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Some examples of biodiversity indicators selected to analyse the refugium function in Estonian case studies<br />
Definition Scale and unit Purpose Relevance to the<br />
analysis of<br />
environmental<br />
Abundance and<br />
species<br />
composition of<br />
plants in fields<br />
and field edges<br />
Number and<br />
diversity of<br />
carabids<br />
(Carabidae) in<br />
fields and field<br />
edges<br />
Number and<br />
diversity of soil<br />
earthworm<br />
(Lumbricidae)<br />
communities<br />
Functional<br />
structure and<br />
hydrolytical<br />
activity of soil<br />
micro-organisms<br />
Presence of<br />
indicator species<br />
in agricultural<br />
landscape (birds,<br />
bumble-bees)<br />
Field/farm:<br />
number of species<br />
Field/farm:<br />
number of<br />
species, number<br />
of carabids and<br />
occurring species<br />
(other groups of<br />
noxious insects)<br />
in fields and field<br />
edges, calculate<br />
the Shannon<br />
index<br />
Field, farm:<br />
number and<br />
species of<br />
earthworms,<br />
calculate the<br />
Shannon index<br />
Field/farm:<br />
number and<br />
activity of the<br />
micro-organisms<br />
of the soil and<br />
functional<br />
diversity of<br />
microbial<br />
community<br />
Entire area:<br />
list of species,<br />
number, number<br />
and diversity of<br />
indicator species<br />
in agricultural<br />
landscape<br />
Quantitative<br />
and<br />
qualitative<br />
assessment<br />
of<br />
biodiversity<br />
Quantitative<br />
and<br />
qualitative<br />
assessment<br />
of<br />
biodiversity<br />
Quantitative<br />
and<br />
qualitative<br />
assessment<br />
of<br />
biodiversity<br />
Qualitative<br />
assessment<br />
of<br />
biodiversity<br />
Qualitative<br />
assessment<br />
of<br />
biodiversity<br />
function<br />
DPSIR<br />
Category<br />
Connection<br />
with other<br />
indicators<br />
31<br />
Methodology Necessary data Data<br />
availability<br />
and<br />
Very high State In field edge (0.5–1.5m outwards from cultivated<br />
field), which doesn’t directly border (it means without<br />
at least 1–1.5 wide strip) with field (under the annual<br />
culture), the plant species are identified in three<br />
quadrates (1m²). <strong>The</strong> quadrates are marked. Three<br />
quadrates are also marked out in the middle of the<br />
field. Mean average number of quadrates per field is<br />
10–12.<br />
In total, data from 10 farms are collected.<br />
All existing species and the coverage of 5 dominant<br />
species are identified (June–July)<br />
Very high State Collection of data (April–September/October) is<br />
carried out in the same field as monitoring of botany.<br />
To each field edge, 2–3 pitfall traps (trap with roof,<br />
and 20% salt solution, kept in soil for 1 week) are<br />
located 5m in from field edges. 2–3 traps are also<br />
located 1m out from field edges.<br />
3 traps are placed in the middle of the field.<br />
In total, about 25 traps per field.<br />
Carabids are identified down to individual species<br />
level, other insects to group level.<br />
Very high State State of soil Collection of data is carried out (September–October)<br />
in the same field as monitoring of botany and insects.<br />
At each monitoring point, earthworms are collected<br />
from 10 identical soil blocks measuring 50x50x40cm<br />
(Meyer; Satchell, 1967); distance between digs is 3m.<br />
<strong>The</strong> number and species of earthworms are identified.<br />
High State State of soil Collection of data is carried out (September–October)<br />
in the same field as monitoring of botany, insects and<br />
earthworms.<br />
From each monitoring point, soil samples are<br />
collected (using a soil auger with 2cm diameter, up to<br />
a depth of 15cm). 10 samples are mixed to produce an<br />
average sample. <strong>The</strong> number and activity of soil<br />
microbiota (Schnürer and Rosswall, 1985) and the<br />
functional diversity of the microbial community<br />
(using microplates) is determined.<br />
Very high State /…/ on the ground of database the composition and<br />
number of species is determined (monitoring data of<br />
rare plant species, monitoring data of rare and<br />
threatened plant communities etc).<br />
List of existing<br />
plant species and<br />
the number of<br />
species on 1m²<br />
experimental<br />
plots in field and<br />
field edges.<br />
Bibliographic<br />
data, accurate<br />
inventories<br />
Bibliographic<br />
data, accurate<br />
inventories<br />
Bibliographic<br />
data, accurate<br />
inventories<br />
Bibliographic<br />
data, accurate<br />
inventories<br />
sources<br />
Special<br />
field<br />
studies<br />
Special<br />
field<br />
studies<br />
Special<br />
field<br />
studies<br />
Special<br />
field<br />
studies<br />
Special<br />
inventories<br />
International<br />
Conventions,<br />
agreements<br />
<strong>The</strong> Bern<br />
Convention,<br />
Convention on<br />
Biological<br />
Diversity,<br />
Habitats<br />
Directive<br />
<strong>The</strong> Bern<br />
Convention<br />
<strong>The</strong> Bern<br />
Convention,<br />
Habitats<br />
Directive<br />
<strong>The</strong> Bern<br />
Convention,<br />
Habitats<br />
Directive
Description of composite indicators and of the methodology to aggregate indicators<br />
Following the above, in <strong>AEMBAC</strong> the tool for describing an environmental function was a set of state<br />
indicators. It is worth noting that a set of indicators and a set of assumed relations among them constitute a<br />
“model” of the original system (Gallopìn, 1997).<br />
A number of indicators presented simultaneously to give a picture of environmental conditions (but not<br />
aggregated) were defined in <strong>AEMBAC</strong> as an “Environmental profile”. An environmental profile is a vector<br />
indicator (including non-numerical indicators). Conversely a single number generated by aggregation from<br />
two or more values is a scalar indicator.<br />
Choosing to represent an environmental function through a set of indicators means to “prefer data in their<br />
most complete form possible (environmental profile) but ... to accept the resulting complexity, while the other<br />
viewpoint (scalar indicators) prefers data in as simple a form as possible…, but is willing to accept distortion<br />
introduced in the simplification process” (Ott, 1978).<br />
In <strong>AEMBAC</strong>, both types, environmental profiles (set of vector indicators) and/or composite indicators<br />
(aggregation of different variables through a model resulting in a scalar value such as the Universal Soil Loss<br />
Equation (USLE)), have been used to describe important ecological aspects identifying the performance of<br />
the environmental function studied.<br />
Box 5 gives an example, drawn out by the SAW final report, of a set of indicators constituting an<br />
environmental profile of the biotope value (cp map 1 and map 2).<br />
Box 5 - Aembac project: Complex biotope values<br />
(for references in the box, see <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project, SAW, final <strong>Report</strong>)<br />
Complex biotope values characterise the performance of an area’s biotope to provide suitable living conditions for wild<br />
plants and animals, and their communities (biocoenoses). Such complex biotope values include various analytical<br />
indicators, and they can be calculated by different methodological approaches, e.g. by decision trees, combination<br />
matrices (e.g. Bastian, 1998; Bastian and Schreiber, 1999).<br />
<strong>The</strong> most usual criteria or indicators are:<br />
• degree of naturalness of vegetation;<br />
• regenerative capacity, age, duration of development;<br />
• diversity;<br />
• spatial criteria (biotope size, isolation, connectivity);<br />
• representativeness; and<br />
• rare, endangered.<br />
All of these indicators characterise very special aspects of animated nature, some of them are, however, marked by<br />
serious scientific-methodological problems and not undisputed.<br />
It is worth noting that the environmental profile can also include composite indicators as is the case with the<br />
index of naturalness in the example above. See Box 6 below for some examples of composite indicators<br />
drawn from the Italian and German final reports (for references in the box, see the respective national final<br />
report).<br />
32
Map 1: Biosphere reserve “Upper Lusatian Heath and Pond Landscape” – land use<br />
Map 2: Biotope values in the study area biosphere reserve “Upper Lusatian Heath and Pond<br />
Landscape”<br />
33
Box 6: <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Examples of composite indicators<br />
Natural Capital Index (Paolo degli Antoni, 2002, from UNIFI-DSE final report)<br />
In (semi-)natural ecosystems the Natural Capital Index is a composite synthetic indicator, calculated for the sum of<br />
(semi-)natural ecosystems as Ecosystem quantity x Ecosystem quality. Both ecosystem quantity and ecosystem quality<br />
are expressed as a % on a baseline. <strong>The</strong> value 100 for quantity is the total surface of (semi-)natural ecosystems in the<br />
pilot area in 1830, that is, immediately before industrialisation. Ecosystem quality has been esteemed as a number on a<br />
0–100 baseline, according to the best professional judgement. <strong>The</strong>oretical value 0 indicates the total absence of the<br />
typical characters of the considered ecosystems, theoretical value 100 indicates the maximum quality which is<br />
attainable in the inhabited pilot area (historic time).<br />
Naturalness/Artificiality Index (Paolo degli Antoni, 2002, from UNIFI-DSE final <strong>Report</strong>)<br />
In terms of landscape, the synthetic Index Naturalness/Artificiality (after Dugrand et al., 1974) measures the natural<br />
value of the blend of ecosystems, grouped in eight classes as follows:<br />
Tab.7 Naturalness/Artificiality Index<br />
Naturalness Artificiality Meaning of the degrees<br />
Degree 8 Degree 0 Primeval ecosystems with no human presence<br />
Degree 7 Degree 1 Climax vegetation with no transformations, nor wood cutting, nor grazing<br />
Degree 6 Degree 2 (Para)climax vegetation with wood cutting and/or grazing<br />
Degree 5 Degree 3 Degraded area due to fires, excessive grazing or wood cutting<br />
Degree 4 Degree 4 Areas where human culture has introduced exotic species and/or managed the soil<br />
Degree 3 Degree 5 Non-irrigated cropland<br />
Degree 2 Degree 6 Irrigated cropland<br />
Degree 1 Degree 7 Greenhouses, gardens, sport grounds, extensive building<br />
Degree 0 Degree 8 Urbanised/industrial areas, quarries, waste deposits<br />
<strong>The</strong> artificiality index is calculated as follows: (1 x % surface + 2 x % surface + 3 x % surface +4 x % surface +5 x %<br />
surface + 6 x % surface + 7 x % surface + 8 x % surface)/8.<br />
Naturalness is calculated as 100 - artificiality index.<br />
As one can see, naturalness degree 5 is the limit of self-regeneration. In that class ecosystems are borderline cases<br />
between natural and man-made. Ecosystems included in naturalness degrees 6, 7 and 8 are (semi-)natural and selfregenerating;<br />
those classed naturalness degrees 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 are man-made. Existing forests are mostly included in<br />
naturalness degree 6, partly in degree 5; conifer plantations are classed degree 4; intensive agriculture is classed degree<br />
3; urbanised and infrastructured areas are classed degree 0.<br />
Heterogeneity (Olaf Bastian et al., 2002, from SAW <strong>Final</strong> <strong>Report</strong>)<br />
<strong>The</strong>re are a lot of indices to describe and characterise the biotope pattern and heterogeneity. <strong>The</strong> data needed can be<br />
obtained from CIR-photographs (in digitised form). Main (generalised) biotope types (CORINE-classes) were used.<br />
Such indices have the following advantages: they are manageable and comparable. But there are also disadvantages: the<br />
ecological meaning of the heterogeneity is not clear. Diversity is not a measure for stability.<br />
Shannon’s Evenness Index (Olaf Bastian et al., 2002, from SAW <strong>Final</strong> <strong>Report</strong>)<br />
SHEI equals minus the sum, across all patch types (CORINE-classification), of the shareal abundance of each patch<br />
type multiplied by that share, divided by the logarithm of the number of patch types.<br />
−<br />
SHEI =<br />
m<br />
∑<br />
i=<br />
1<br />
( P o ln P )<br />
i<br />
ln m<br />
i<br />
3.2.3 Measurement of actual values of indicators (data from literature or from field measurements<br />
when feasible) and interpretation of results<br />
In order to have the opportunity also to compare the methodologies used in field research to gather data<br />
between countries, researchers were asked to describe these. This information, besides allowing scientists to<br />
acknowledge different methodologies and share their opinions about those used, also enabled them to assess<br />
the validity of the data gathered through field research methods.<br />
34
In cases where the data used were found in the scientific literature available, researchers were asked to<br />
indicate the methodology which was used for data gathering in the field by authors in the literature.<br />
Boxes 7 and 8 show examples drawn from the ENVIST and UNIFI-DSE <strong>AEMBAC</strong> final reports (for<br />
references in the box, see the respective final report).<br />
Box 7 - <strong>AEMBAC</strong> <strong>Project</strong>: Gathering data on Earthworms and soil microbial community in Estonia<br />
Agricultural activities have significant influence on soil organisms. <strong>The</strong> diversity of soil invertebrates in the soils of<br />
fields in ecologically and conventionally managed farms was studied.<br />
Earthworms were collected according to the internationally recognised methodology from soil blocks measuring<br />
50x50x40cm (Satchell, 1967). Earthworm samples were collected in September or October (on 19 September – from<br />
three fields in the Saare community; on 20 September – from three fields and on 21 September from four fields in the<br />
Palamuse community; on 26 and 27 September – from the Kihelkonna and Lümanda Communities (repeat samples<br />
were taken on 16 October)).<br />
September–October is the time of maximum density, greatest activity and lowest variability of individuals (Nordström<br />
and Rundgren, 1973). Three digs were made in each field. Soil from the digs was placed on plastic sheets and sorted by<br />
hand. All individual specimens were washed, kept in the refrigerator for 48 hours, counted and identified as to species.<br />
During this time their intestinal tract emptied and it was possible to distinguish the characteristics. <strong>The</strong> number of<br />
earthworms (Lumbricidae) was calculated as a mean of track per 1m².<br />
To study the response of earthworm species to environmental factors, a linear ordination method, Redundancy Analysis<br />
(RDA) (ter Braak and Prentice, 1988) was used. This technique is a multivariate form of regression analysis, in which<br />
the species data are modelled as a function of environmental data. <strong>The</strong> most important factors explaining the ordination<br />
can be extracted, i.e. those with the highest values of correlation coefficients. <strong>The</strong> programmes used for data analysis<br />
and graphical display were CANOCO 3.1 (ter Braak, 1986) and CanoDraw 3.0 (Smilauer, 1992).<br />
Soil samples were collected as composite samples. In all soil composite samples, the moisture content (in muffle oven<br />
at 105 ºC), organic matter content (in muffle oven at 360 ºC), nitrogen concentration (by the Kjeldahl method) and<br />
soluble phosphorus concentration (by lacate method) were determined. Source: (Mari Ivask, Kalev Sepp et al., 2002).<br />
Box 8 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Collecting data for Animal species biodiversity related state indicators in<br />
Italian case studies<br />
Concerning <strong>AEMBAC</strong>, most data have to be derived from specific zoological works in restricted areas (if published or<br />
available by local agencies). Recently, publications of distribution map for most species of vertebrates (Atlas method)<br />
has provided available information. Nevertheless, this kind of data suffers from both lack of sufficient precision in<br />
geographical position and absence of information on habitat typology. This is only useful at the higher spatial scale of<br />
<strong>AEMBAC</strong> project (whole study area level). <strong>The</strong> other problem is that information is a qualitative one. Nevertheless, an<br />
analysis of this kind can provide general information on medium-time variation in community composition. At this<br />
point of the work, references have been used using the following main sources: Atlante provvisorio degli anfibi e rettili<br />
italiani: <strong>The</strong> spatial unit is 10x10 km UTM, where data from 1980 up to 1996 were merged. Atlante Uccelli Nidificanti<br />
e Svernanti in Toscana: <strong>The</strong> spatial unit is 100 square km, where data referring to 1982-1992 were merged.<br />
Moreover, data coming from field works and/or occasional surveys in years 1990-2000 were used as references (C.<br />
Corti and M. Lebboroni, pers. obs.).<br />
Field data. Collecting data ad-hoc is a<br />
necessary step in order both to check<br />
reliability of bibliographic information<br />
and to analyse local situations to be<br />
specifically evaluated. Data have been<br />
collected during a series of surveys in<br />
both study areas. Surveys have been<br />
made in two ways: at ecosystem level<br />
(i.e. wood, mixed farmland); and at farm<br />
level.<br />
35<br />
Data collection at ecosystem level:<br />
<strong>The</strong>se data were collected from<br />
April2001 to October 2001. Quantitative<br />
data for birds were collected using BBS<br />
methodology (Robbins & Van Vezzel,<br />
1967; see Fig. 7).
Quantitative data for reptiles and butterflies were collected using line transects in about the same stations sampled for<br />
birds.<br />
Data collection at farm level<br />
Precise data collection at farm level have been obtained in spring and early summer 2002 in sunny or moderately cloudy<br />
days, avoiding in summer the midday hot hours. No data were collected during rainy and particularly windy days.<br />
Because data were collected along transects walked at regular speeds, duration of survey was generally related to the<br />
farm area. <strong>The</strong>se surveys have been carried out taking into account the different crops and habitats within the farm<br />
including, where present, ecotones.<br />
Example of data analysis of actual values of indicator “Density of lacertidis”<br />
We detailed the methodology of data collection on reptiles, because of the scanty specific literature available, if<br />
compared with that available for birds. Density of lacertids was obtained by line transects of different length along a<br />
sample of ecotones present inside farm boundaries. Density was relativized to 100 m. Transects were conducted in<br />
spring and early summer, in favourable temperature conditions (cp map 3: actual no. of reptile species).<br />
Fig. 8: An example of actual values of density<br />
of the different searched species of lacertids<br />
n. ind / 100 m<br />
2,5<br />
2<br />
1,5<br />
1<br />
0,5<br />
0<br />
Density of lacertids<br />
Podarcis muralis Podarcis sicula Lacerta bilineata<br />
Birds Species occurrence in natural and agricultural ecosystems<br />
For each study area each breeding species<br />
of birds and reptiles has been assigned to<br />
one of the following five groups:<br />
N - Species occurring only in natural<br />
habitat<br />
Na - Species occurring mainly in natural<br />
habitat but occurring also in agricultural<br />
ones<br />
na - Species occurring more o less equally<br />
in natural and agricultural habitats<br />
nA- Species occurring mainly in<br />
agricultural habitat but occurring also in<br />
natural ones<br />
A- Species occurring only in agricultural<br />
habitats<br />
Note that the same species can be assigned<br />
to different categories in the two study<br />
areas, also on the basis of different habitat<br />
selection. Percentages of presence were<br />
based were possible on fieldwork,<br />
otherwise on BPJ.<br />
crops<br />
ecotones<br />
relative abundance in<br />
agricultural habitats<br />
relative abundance in<br />
agricultural habitats<br />
100<br />
90<br />
80<br />
70<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
100<br />
90<br />
80<br />
70<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
36<br />
A<br />
Fig. 9: <strong>The</strong> situation assessed in Chianti farms<br />
of Podarcis sicula, (species linked to open landscape)<br />
n.ind. / 100 m<br />
overlappin<br />
4<br />
3,5<br />
3<br />
2,5<br />
2<br />
1,5<br />
1<br />
0,5<br />
0<br />
Density of Podarcis sicula in different crops<br />
nA<br />
g overlappin<br />
vineyard (bare<br />
ground)<br />
ABACO for assessment<br />
of species<br />
category<br />
g<br />
na<br />
vineyard (with grass) oliveyard<br />
overlappin<br />
Na<br />
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100<br />
relative abundance in natural habitats<br />
Phoenicurus<br />
phoenicurus<br />
Jynx<br />
torquilla<br />
Parus<br />
major<br />
g<br />
overlappin<br />
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100<br />
relative abundance in natural habitats<br />
g<br />
N<br />
Examples from field<br />
data on birds<br />
Aegithalos<br />
caudatus Phylloscopus<br />
collybita
Once indicators and the methodology for gathering relevant data were identified, it was possible to proceed<br />
to the measurement of their actual values at the relevant scale of reference. <strong>The</strong>se measurements were done<br />
by direct surveys in the field or by using existing data in the scientific literature (including maps and aerial<br />
photographs). <strong>The</strong> actual values measured by single indicators were then to be commented against the past<br />
measured values or by Best Professional Judgements.<br />
Map 3: Actual number of reptile species in the Chianti Area, Italy<br />
37
Box 9 - <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Examples of measurement of just some of the indicators used for the<br />
Moritzburg small-hill landscape study area – Germany<br />
(for references in the box, see SAW <strong>Final</strong> <strong>Report</strong>)<br />
<strong>The</strong> Moritzburg small-hill landscape is characterised by a small-scale pattern of small hills and low ridges with exposed<br />
rocks and flat hollows. <strong>The</strong> bedrock is dominated by monzonits, but granodiorite, sandy and holocene substrates also<br />
occur. <strong>The</strong> basic geomorphological pattern causes a high diversity of soil, water and climatic conditions which is<br />
responsible for the present vegetation cover and land use. Effective agricultural production is hampered by the complex<br />
natural conditions. Forests and woods are concentrated on the crests of the rocky and stony hills, arable fields on slopes<br />
and grassland in moist hollows. Land improvement (especially drainage) has been tried in order to diminish this natural<br />
heterogeneity but with little success. Drainage facilities fell into disrepair after a few years, and the thin soil cover on<br />
the hills is an insuperable obstacle to ploughing. <strong>The</strong> result is a richly structured rural landscape with notably high<br />
biodiversity and interesting scenery. <strong>The</strong> area is particularly rich in species which are adapted to less intensive<br />
agriculture, e.g. rare arable weeds, plants of field margins, edges and small coppices, birds breeding in hedges, woods,<br />
grassland and arable fields; amphibians, reptiles and many insect species.<br />
Vegetation and flora<br />
Segetal flora<br />
Rather poor variants of the Aphano-Matricarietum are dominant. Interesting is the Scleranthus annuus-subassociation,<br />
indicating poor and acid soils. Characteristic species are Scleranthus annuus, Spergula arvensis, Arnerosis minima and<br />
Trifolium arvense (Bastian, 1986; 1991). <strong>The</strong> results of the analysis of the floristical maps of Saxony are shown in the<br />
table below. 749 vascular plant species were established, 122 (16.3%) are endangered (Red list Saxony). This is the<br />
highest share of endangered plants among all Saxon <strong>AEMBAC</strong> study areas, (apart from the biosphere reserve “Upper<br />
Lusatian Heath and Pond Landscape” which has the same percentage). However, the biosphere reserve is almost eight<br />
times larger than the Moritzburg study area and is of extraordinary importance for nature conservation. This situation is<br />
a result of the various heterogeneous natural conditions, and the different levels of intensity of agricultural activity<br />
(mostly moderate to low). <strong>The</strong> share of endangered grassland species (19.3%!) is by far the highest among all Saxon<br />
<strong>AEMBAC</strong> study areas. Regarding occurrence of arable weeds, the Moritzburg area occupies second place (8.8% after<br />
the biosphere reserve which has 18.1%).<br />
Grassland flora<br />
<strong>The</strong>se vary depending on the site and type of management. <strong>The</strong> spectrum of grassland communities includes moist and<br />
wet meadows, dry meadows with a lot of xerothermophilic species. Due to intensive agriculture, grassland communities<br />
rich in species have become rare. <strong>The</strong>re are still remnants of Polygono-Cirsietum oleracei, Holcetum lanati and<br />
Molinietum (e.g. with Iris sibirica). Relics of rather original grassland communities still occur in the immediate vicinity<br />
of settlements, at edges of dry and rough meadows, slopes and tracksides (Bastian, 1986).<br />
<strong>The</strong> table 8 below represents an overview of the number of plant species in the study area.<br />
Tab. 8 Number of plant species in the Moritzburg small-hill landscape<br />
Total<br />
Including::<br />
arable field species<br />
Including:<br />
grassland species<br />
Species Red list Species Red list Species Red list<br />
0 1 2 3 R 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3<br />
Total number of species 749 4 11 43 62 2 137 2 0 4 5 57 8 3<br />
No decrease 598 0 4 21 29 2 118 2 3 48 4 1<br />
in % 80 86 84<br />
Decrease 151 4 7 22 33 0 19 2 2 2 9 2 4 2<br />
in % 20 14 16<br />
Extinct since 1949 59 2 1 1 1<br />
Extinct since 1989 40 2 1 1 1<br />
Key: Red list: 0 = extinct or missing; 1 = critically endangered: 2 = endangered; 3 = slightly endangered; R = rare,<br />
decreasing<br />
Fauna<br />
Insects<br />
During the investigation of insects in a part of the study area, an above average diversity was established, thanks to the<br />
existence of many small habitats (Lorenz and Scholz, 1997):<br />
Beetles (Coleoptera) (in total): 1,355 species established (25% of all beetle species in Eastern Germany)<br />
including e.g.:<br />
Carabidae: 158 species (32% of all in Eastern Germany)<br />
38
Coccinellidae: 47 species (67% of all in Eastern Germany)<br />
Curculionidae: 204 species (26% of all in Eastern Germany)<br />
Digger wasps (Sphecidae): 109 species (53% of all in Eastern Germany)<br />
Plant wasps (Symphyta): 225 species (35% of all in Eastern Germany)<br />
Bumble bees (Bombinae): 12 species (41% of all in Eastern Germany)<br />
Hoverflies (Syrphidae): 120 species (33% of all in Eastern Germany)<br />
Grasshoppers (Saltatoria): 21 species (34% of all in Eastern Germany)<br />
<strong>The</strong> partial study area Bärnsdorf-Volkersdorf small hill landscape is a refuge for many endangered insect species of<br />
supraregional importance. 37 beetle, 2 plant wasp, 19 butterfly and 7 moth, about 100 wild bee and one grasshopper<br />
species were established which belong to the category “especially protected” after the German Species Conservation<br />
Regulation. 144 Red list (Germany) species (Blab et al., 1984) were found. Especially remarkable is the discovery of<br />
three plant wasp species belonging to the category 0 (extinct) for the Red list of Western Germany (Blab et al., 1984).<br />
<strong>The</strong> table below shows the number of threatened insect species in the Red list of Saxony.<br />
Tab. 9 Number of threatened insect species in the Red List of Saxony<br />
Saxony Red List category<br />
Insects 0 1 2 3 4<br />
Extinct or Almost Heavily Endangered Potentially<br />
missing extinct endangered<br />
endangered<br />
Carabidae<br />
- -<br />
4 12 3<br />
Scarabaeidae<br />
- -<br />
1 2 2<br />
Cerambycidae<br />
- -<br />
3 3 2<br />
Syrphidae<br />
- 1 7 5 6<br />
Symphyta<br />
- 10 18 18 12<br />
Sphecidae<br />
- 6 12 21 8<br />
Saltatoria<br />
Source: Lorenz and Scholz, 1997.<br />
- -<br />
1 5 -<br />
A detailed field analysis of birds, grasshoppers, and some groups of beetles has been also carried out.<br />
39<br />
R<br />
Rare,<br />
decreasing<br />
3.2.4 - Identification of EMR values and description of the methodology used to analyse data and of<br />
the rationale behind the definition of EMR for each single state indicator selected<br />
<strong>The</strong>re is wide recognition, both scientific and political, of the necessity of establishing baselines (temporal,<br />
counterfactual, benchmarking), against which to measure:<br />
the state of health of an ecosystem;<br />
the sustainability of the intensity of pressures exerted on this; and<br />
the effectiveness and efficiency of policy interventions.<br />
By recognition of the fact that without a certain level of environmental components, structures and processes<br />
both ecological and agricultural systems will experience a decrease in their performances, this project has<br />
introduced a new scientific approach to look at thresholds.<br />
Thresholds in <strong>AEMBAC</strong> were defined by those Environmental Minimum Requirements of agro-ecosystem<br />
components, structures, and processes which are necessary to allow for the performance of the selected<br />
environmental functions.<br />
<strong>The</strong> definition of EMR is in line with:<br />
Article 6(1) of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/CEE, where it is explicitly stated that the necessary<br />
conservation management measures have to correspond: ‘to the ecological requirements of the natural<br />
habitat types of Annex I and the species in Annex II present on the sites’.<br />
STAR documents VI/12004/00 and VI/43517/02, where reference is made to compare effectiveness of<br />
rural development programmes against baselines: Temporal, Counterfactual situation, and<br />
14<br />
-<br />
1<br />
10<br />
6<br />
-<br />
6
Benchmarking (against Norm or best practice).<br />
Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (on Rural Development), Article 2, where there is explicit reference to:<br />
“the preservation and promotion of a high nature value and a sustainable agriculture respecting<br />
environmental requirements”.<br />
<strong>The</strong> concept of “Basic Environmental Requirements” as stated in the Communication of the Commission<br />
of the European Communities, Directions towards sustainable agriculture, COM (1999) 22 final, in<br />
reference to Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 (common rules for direct support schemes), Article 2:<br />
“Member States take the appropriate measures in view of the situation of agricultural surfaces used or in<br />
view of the productions concerned and which correspond to the potential effects of these activities on the<br />
environment. This may allow the Member State to link the granting of aid to compliance with basic<br />
environmental requirements relating to biodiversity.”<br />
In <strong>AEMBAC</strong>, as said, the basic environmental requirements for state indicators selected were called<br />
Environmental Minimum Requirements (EMR). Following the above and having described environmental<br />
function performance by a set of state indicators, baselines had to be assessed for each selected indicator in<br />
each study area.<br />
Environmental Minimum Requirements values of indicators representing critical thresholds for the<br />
performance environmental functions are those values (or range of values, or qualitative aspects) that<br />
constitute a benchmark, a red line below which the performance of the environmental function is<br />
jeopardised.<br />
<strong>The</strong> object of reference in determining the value of EMR has to be the presence/absence of the performance<br />
of the environmental function. <strong>The</strong> crucial question that has to be asked is: what are the minimum values of<br />
the indicators measuring the most critical aspects of the environmental function in the study area, which if<br />
not matched, the performance of the environmental function could be seriously put at risk in the study area?<br />
Fig. 10: Example of possible relationships between environmental function performance and the value<br />
of a state indicator.<br />
In order to assess agricultural impacts, the following methods to identify reference values of state indicators<br />
were suggested for (semi)-natural and agricultural areas respectively (please note that the reference level<br />
adopted in <strong>AEMBAC</strong> corresponds to option three for agricultural area):<br />
40
(Semi)-Natural areas<br />
First best: the actual or closest possible value to the (semi-)natural situation at study area level, if this<br />
information is available (e.g potential natural land cover) – this would indicate the positive/negative off-farm<br />
impacts of agricultural activities (amongst others pressures) on the performance of environmental functions.<br />
Second best: <strong>The</strong> actual value of state indicators in similar (semi-)natural habitats in Protected Areas.<br />
Agricultural areas<br />
First best: the value of the same state indicators in similar agro-ecosystems that have been abandoned for<br />
10, 20, 25, etc. years (depending on the agri-ecosystem type and potential natural vegetation). In fact in some<br />
cases it may happen that biodiversity is richer in agri-ecosystems than in abandoned ecosystem (e.g. richer<br />
plant species in semi-natural pastures than in abandoned fields).<br />
Fig. 11 Assessment of impacts on biodiversity by agricultural activities (Adapted from <strong>AEMBAC</strong><br />
project Sweden <strong>Final</strong> <strong>Report</strong>) (Please notice that this example can be applied under special<br />
circumstances only, e.g. in Sweden for the comparison of semi-natural grassland and arable fields!)<br />
Second best: the value of the state indicator in similar agri-ecosystems that perform the environmental<br />
function resulting in measurable (and sufficient) supply of environmental goods and services.<br />
Third best: the value of state indicators determined by Best Professional Judgement, which would be<br />
expected to ensure the environmental function would be performed adequately.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Best Professional Judgement (BPJ i.e. based on scientific evidence available) is the factor determining<br />
the value of EMR (standard for the study area). This means that the researcher, on the basis of her/his<br />
knowledge and experience, for each state indicator has to identify an EMR value that ensures a positive<br />
contribution of the critical ecological aspect analysed to the environmental function performance. Needless<br />
to say the EMR value can be revised and refined according to the verified correctness of the BPJ assessment<br />
(for instance by field research).<br />
Examples of EMRs can be: what is believed to be the minimum extent of a habitat and the number of key<br />
species present in it for the habitat to fulfil a refugium function; or what is the minimum level of BOD in<br />
41
surface water to ensure maintenance of biological and genetic diversity in water bodies (using a particular<br />
species as bio-indicator for instance); or what is believed to be the minimum vegetation cover needed on hill<br />
slopes for soil erosion to be controlled; or what is believed to be the minimum requirement of diversity in the<br />
scenery for it to have aesthetic value (locally!), etc.<br />
As stated above, to look at what are the values of selected state indicators in natural ecosystems performing<br />
the function of interest, when this is feasible, could be useful in developing the BPJ for certain indicators, as<br />
well as looking at past or particular agro-ecosystems (e.g. in 1920s, organic agriculture, and abandoned field)<br />
where the performance of the environmental function was/is performed successfully.<br />
An important aspect to be taken into consideration when determining EMR values is that these have to be<br />
defined as much as possible scientifically and not politically!!!<br />
In this phase, one of the objectives was to scientifically analyse the environmental function performance<br />
through the use of state indicators measuring ecological characteristics and their respective EMR in the study<br />
areas. Another thing was to define policy targets for agri-environmental programmes, which had to be dealt<br />
with in Phase 2 after social and economic aspects have also been considered. This meant that policy targets<br />
defined for instance in existing environmental regulations (such as that of 50mg/litre of nitrogen in water,<br />
EU Nitrate Directive 98/83/EC, or 1.4 Livestock Unit per hectare) could not be taken as references to<br />
determine EMR, because they are the results more of a political, social and economic compromise with<br />
ecological objectives than of scientific analysis.<br />
<strong>The</strong> recent example of the agreement on the Kyoto protocol on reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, where<br />
the policy target was set at the level of 5–8% reduction of 1990s levels, when the scientific community was<br />
indicating as necessary a reduction of 60%, explains well what a difference in values can exist between the<br />
scientific and political assessment of a phenomenon.<br />
Box 10 - <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: EMR values for plant biodiversity indicators: some examples extracted<br />
from the Maremma study area, Italy (for references in the box see UNIFI-DSE final report)<br />
Number of key plant species<br />
Certain key species, apart from rare and threatened ones, were chosen for their sensitivity to land use changes.<br />
As key species, some orchids, which live in open spaces, are very good indicators of agro-environment. <strong>The</strong>y tolerate<br />
pesticides rather well and can survive in fertilised grasslands. <strong>The</strong>y are however very sensitive to tillage or cultivation.<br />
<strong>The</strong>y disappear after just one tillage, and take a minimum of five years (e.g. Orchis morio) to appear again. In fact they<br />
are herbs with perennial roots and live in symbiosis with a fungus. <strong>The</strong>refore, the mechanical and microbiological<br />
disturbance involved in soil management (i.e. tillage or overgrazing due to wild boar overpopulation) destroys them.<br />
Considering the high mobility of orchid pollen and seeds, cells of 1km 2 are suitable as surface units for the<br />
measurement. Considering the huge geological heterogeneity that makes some sub areas much more suitable than<br />
others, a value of at least one key orchid species per km 2 , in mere terms of presence/absence seems a reasonable EMR.<br />
Number of phytogeographically rare species<br />
Different lists of phytogeographically rare species were compiled. <strong>The</strong> main list includes species that cannot be found<br />
elsewhere, going towards one or more cardinal directions. Evidence of this can be found on special atlases, such as<br />
Atlas Florae Europae. Calluna vulgaris, for instance, is at its European southeastern limit. A second list includes<br />
species with different features, such as fragmented populations, and small local semi-natural habitats. Conservation of<br />
all the species listed as phytogeographically rare is the EMR; no loss is acceptable.<br />
Number of endemic plant species<br />
Endemic plant species have a small area. Both their survival and the opportunity for future evolution much depend on<br />
the conservation of their whole area and, as a consequence, no loss is acceptable. So in the Maremma park the EMR is<br />
11 (all the endemic species).<br />
Local loss of plant species<br />
Two centuries of overexploitation of forests have seriously reduced the number of plant species present in the pilot area.<br />
In the woodland, frequent coppicing selected the less needy species against the most specialised ones. Some herbaceous<br />
42
“internal” species have recently reconquered the coppice, which had been abandoned for over 30–40 years. This is due<br />
to competition for light and topsoil improvement; but the most precious trees have become locally extinct or are<br />
seriously threatened, or even extinct. It is very difficult to distinguish between the two conditions because an accurate<br />
(and not feasible!) investigation is needed to make sure that no individual of a certain species presently lives within the<br />
pilot area. When some available records refer to sites close to the chosen border, everyone should be suspicious and<br />
verify that single individuals can still be found within the pilot area, before assessing the definitive extinction. Moreover<br />
the genes of some species also survive within hybrids so they cannot be considered definitively extinct. <strong>The</strong> problem<br />
can be solved by putting threatened and extinct species into one group. EMR is 0 (no loss).<br />
Population dynamics of key species<br />
A value of 172 individuals per population is commonly accepted as the EMR to ensure a positive dynamic. At any rate,<br />
conversion of semi-natural ecosystems to agriculture influences the phenomenon, making the distance between<br />
populations longer (fragmentation is an important risk of extinction).<br />
Ecosystem quantity<br />
As for the previous indicator, fragmentation of plant populations is an important threat to extinction. Concerning<br />
postcultural ecotones, there is direct evidence that 5% of the territory is the minimum acceptable in order to avoid<br />
extreme fragmentation of the habitat. 5% cannot be concentrated in a small, insulated sub-zone. Effective corridors are<br />
needed and their width has to be larger than 20m in order to maintain all the "internal" species. In fact, a hedgerow may<br />
be an effective corridor for very common shrubs such as Prunus spinosa, but not for species that need sunny,<br />
undisturbed herbaceous spots surrounded by thorny shrubs that protect those herbs from being grazed. <strong>The</strong> value 66,6%<br />
(2/3) of total surface covered by (semi-)natural ecosystems ensures they are the territorial matrix. But this value need<br />
not be rigidly respected because the natural environment, if well connected with suitable corridors and not fragmented,<br />
performs its functions with lower (50%) values as well.<br />
Biotopes and habitats<br />
<strong>The</strong> Maremma Park is one of the few coastal areas in Tuscany safe from tourist and industrial exploitation. <strong>The</strong> most<br />
precious habitats are strictly connected with the sea, being salt marshes and matorral on cliffs. Parts of the natural<br />
ecosystems of the plain were converted to extensive pastures many centuries ago and are still in use for the same<br />
traditional purpose.<br />
EMR for the indicator “threatened habitats” is = 0, meaning that those precious habitats should not be threatened.<br />
3.2.5 Assessment and analysis of impacts: Gaps between EMR and actual values on state indicators<br />
Having defined the value of EMR for each state indicator used at the study area level, it was possible to<br />
produce a list indicating the selected set of state indicators constituting the environmental profile for each<br />
environmental function analysed and their respective EMR and actual (measured) values as in the example<br />
below (Table 10).<br />
Tab. 10 - Examples of EMR and actual values of some state indicators by natural ecosystem and agroecosystem<br />
in the two Estonian study areas, Palamuse (P) and Kilkonna (K)<br />
Indicator EMR values Actual values<br />
Gap between EMR<br />
(Measured or data from<br />
bibliographic/field research)<br />
values and actual<br />
values<br />
Abundance and species Four herb species per 1m<br />
composition of plants in<br />
fields and field edges<br />
2<br />
0…12 plant species in field Varied field by field. In<br />
in the middle of the field edge<br />
some fields less than<br />
EMR.<br />
Number and diversity of Four individuals per trap 9.37 (1.33…55.63), species Generally above EMR.<br />
carabids (Carabidae) in as the mean average of all 5…12<br />
fields and field edges determined biotopes of one<br />
field (edges + middle).<br />
3 carabid species per one<br />
determined biotope<br />
Number and diversity of<br />
earthworm<br />
P – 82 individuals and two<br />
species per 1m<br />
(Lumbricidae)<br />
communities<br />
2 of ground<br />
K – 65 individuals and two<br />
species per 1m 2 P – average 96 individuals<br />
(22…224 individuals) per 1m<br />
of ground<br />
2 ;<br />
Generally above EMR.<br />
In some fields less than<br />
1…6 species<br />
EMR.<br />
K –average 104 individuals<br />
43
Functional structure and<br />
hydrolytical activity of<br />
soil micro-organisms<br />
Presence of protected<br />
species (communities) in<br />
agricultural landscape<br />
Presence of indicator<br />
species in agricultural<br />
landscape<br />
P – hydrolytical activity<br />
0.618 OD/g<br />
K – hydrolytical activity<br />
0.751 OD/g<br />
P − average<br />
K − high<br />
P − 6<br />
K − 10<br />
(0…614 individuals) per 1 m 2 ;<br />
0…6 species<br />
P – hydrolytical activity 0.622<br />
(0.375…1.022)<br />
K – hydrolytical activity 0.756<br />
(0.446…1.128)<br />
<strong>The</strong> analysis of data concerning<br />
functional structure is not<br />
finished yet<br />
P − average<br />
K − high<br />
P − 8<br />
K − 12<br />
44<br />
Generally above EMR.<br />
In some fields less than<br />
EMR.<br />
“0”, stable.<br />
Generally above EMR.<br />
<strong>The</strong> above table, when filled in, clearly showed for each state indicator the gaps between its EMR values and<br />
the actual values which constitute the impact. This information had to be interpreted in order to assess:<br />
the actual performance of environmental function by natural and agricultural ecosystems in the study<br />
area; and<br />
if the effective pressures causing the impacts were imputable to those exerted by agriculture or other<br />
socio-economic activities.<br />
If historic data were available for a state indicator, it was possible also to assess the positive/negative trends<br />
with reference to the EMR. This is important because for instance it pointed out a long-term perspective in<br />
the evaluation of the opportunity to build agro-environmental measures for those key environmental<br />
indicators which despite their actual positive values compared to EMR, show a downward trend.<br />
In interpreting the potential for performance of environmental functions, it was important to consider all the<br />
points mentioned above on the complexity of giving a complete and exhaustive description of all the<br />
ecological aspects and the relationships amongst them. It was also important that researchers put forward<br />
some hypothesis on the reasons why eventual gaps have been measured between EMR and actual values.<br />
This meant to envisage the pressures (coming from the agricultural and/or from other sectors) which were<br />
believed to be responsible for such gaps (i.e. environmental impacts). <strong>The</strong> causality relationships between<br />
assessed impacts and pressures have been further defined in Step 4 after most relevant local agricultural<br />
pressures have been identified in Step 3.<br />
Box 11: Gap between EMR and Actual Values of some state indicators in the Chianti case study, Italy<br />
(UNIFI-DSE final report)<br />
In this section, on the bases of the preliminary work carried out to have the general picture of the diversity of the chosen<br />
groups, we measured the actual values of the definitive state indicators selected. Note that these values have been<br />
assessed (by both standard surveys in farms and BPJ) as average values to be expected to be found on farms in the agroecosystem<br />
studied by a standard survey (see Methodology in chapter 4.1. Animal species biodiversity-related state<br />
indicators). Note also that the EMR value reported have to be intended as values that should be obtained from standard<br />
survey in farms, carried out by professional biologists. <strong>The</strong> definition of the EMR is based on BPJ.<br />
Nevertheless, EMR values could be theoretically higher: on the other hand, we think that it would be unrealistic to give<br />
values that cannot be assessed in short time by field surveys.<br />
To give an example: the number of breeding bird species / km 2 (indicator n.1) as revealed by more intensive surveys on<br />
farms, can reach values of 35-40 species / km 2 ; but these values require a series of surveys along the breeding season in<br />
order to detect both all resident species (nesting and singing early) and long-distance migrants (nesting and singing<br />
later). Moreover, rare species could be also occasionally recorded. So, the value of 30 species (EMR) is chosen by BPJ<br />
as the value that can be recorded in standard field surveys (although probably more species are present in the area).
Tab 11. Definitive state indicators at farm level.<br />
Actual values EMR GAP<br />
1. Total number of breeding birds species / km 2 25 30 -5<br />
2. Number of "forest interior" breeding birds species / km 2 3 6 -3<br />
3. Density of "hedge" breeding bird species / 10 ha 10 15 -5<br />
4. Density of "key" breeding bird species / km 2 2 5 -3<br />
5. Number of reptile species / km 2 3 6 -3<br />
6. Number of reptile species / ha 1 3 -2<br />
7. Density of lacertids / 100 m 3 6 -3<br />
8. Number of butterflies species / ha 5 8 -3<br />
Actual values were computed as average values obtained by field surveys in farms and in the whole area, integrated by<br />
BPJ (see chapter 4).<br />
Total number of breeding bird species/ km 2<br />
<strong>The</strong> number of breeding bird species on a certain area is generally given by habitat diversity and complexity. In<br />
agricultural habitats, landscape features such as hedges, uncultivated plots, shrubland (and also buildings) can increase<br />
breeding bird richness. Particularly in the Mediterranean region, the long-term diversified land use and the periodic<br />
human presence increases bird richness and abundance (Farina 1997), but this is not true when the diversified land use<br />
shifts on large extension of monocultural crops.Although some plots (km 2 ) provide breeding habitats for 30 or more<br />
species, so without gap, the average value for the whole area is below the EMR because of the presence of large<br />
extension of the same crops (e.g. vineyards), where no hedges and even no herbaceous layer are present. Moreover,<br />
anthropic pressure on riparian strips and running waters does not allow the presence of some others species.<br />
Number of ‘forest interior’ breeding bird species / km 2<br />
This indicator measures the degree of fragmentation of woods in agricultural landscape. <strong>The</strong> gap is due to the presence<br />
of patches of wood that are, on average, not large enough to provide habitats for the whole assemblage of forest interior<br />
birds species.<br />
Density of ‘hedge’ breeding bird species / km 2<br />
Although hedges are present in the study area, only in a few cases these habitats are well structured with trees and<br />
bushes. Large extensions of olive- and vineyards are lacking of hedges. Other cases are ‘hedges’ of riparian vegetation,<br />
that are limited in the study area.<br />
Density of ‘key’ breeding bird species / km 2<br />
Key breeding species, as defined above, are present at low density in the study area. This could be due to the lack of<br />
food availability (at least large insects) and probably also for the lack of nesting sites (e.g. holes in old trees).<br />
Number of reptiles species / km 2 (mixed landscape)<br />
<strong>The</strong> gap increases when the area is dominated by extended crops (e.g. vineyards) without hedges, stone walls, riparian<br />
vegetation, and uncultivated field margins. Moreover, it would be also important that the above mentioned land setting<br />
features were connected with (semi-) natural habitats.<br />
Number of reptile species / 1 ha<br />
<strong>The</strong> gap is mainly due to intensive cultivated large areas (vineyards), that are on average larger than 1 ha. Speaking of<br />
crops, we have to distinguish between the field and its edges. <strong>The</strong> crops itself are not a suitable habitat, because they do<br />
not provide the refugium function. Old olive-yards are better in providing refugium function, at least for lizards. On the<br />
other hand crop edges can support some species when at least these are vegetated.<br />
Density of lacertids / 100 m<br />
<strong>The</strong> absence of ecotones (e.g. vegetated field margins, stone walls) drastically reduces or even do not allow the presence<br />
of lizards. <strong>The</strong> gap also increases when ecotones are not interconnected.<br />
Number of butterflies species / 1 ha<br />
<strong>The</strong> gap increases in monocoltural crops (including vineyards) and generally when ecotones with herbaceous and<br />
shrubby vegetation are removed. On the other hand, flowers in small patches of uncultivated land, and also in weeds<br />
around buildings, can attract butterflies of the selected families.<br />
45
In assessing the potential for performance of environmental functions, state indicators could be left separated<br />
as environmental profiles or they could be aggregated into composite indicators.<br />
Environmental profiles required:<br />
formulating criteria for assessing the potentiality for performance of the environmental functions looking<br />
at the values of single indicators (e.g. the majority of indicators are respecting EMR values, or those<br />
which are believed to be the most important), and interpreting the results considering implicitly the<br />
possible influences of the value of one indicator on the overall performance of the environmental<br />
function analysed.<br />
Composite indicators required:<br />
making quantitative assumptions regarding the horizontal relationships between indicators; and<br />
developing a model, an equation to link indicators (e.g. Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) for soil<br />
erosion control).<br />
<strong>The</strong> analysis of the gaps (between EMR and actual values of indicators) which measure the impacts exerted<br />
by agricultural practices and/or other socio-economic activities on environmental function performance, had<br />
to be carried out in detail. <strong>The</strong> outcome from this analysis was the identification of the most important<br />
negative impacts which need to be lessened and positive impacts which can be enhanced and that are<br />
imputable mainly to the agricultural activities. In the case of impacts not imputable to agriculture, these have<br />
not been analysed but simply indicated.<br />
Production of spatial maps (GIS)<br />
A Geographical Information System map was suggested to show the gaps between the actual values of key<br />
indicators of environmental function performance, and their EMR. (see also annex 1)<br />
Explanation of the approach used had to be included. This map will serve to facilitate immediate georeferential<br />
visualisation of the environmental performance in the area. Future GIS works may build upon this<br />
and include maps showing the economic values of the performance.<br />
46
Fig. 13 Example of GIS analysis for the Soil Erosion Control function in the Chianti Area, Italy. (P.<br />
Bazzoffi, R. Napoli).<br />
(A) EMR for soil erosion (tolerable soil erosion); (B) Actual soil erosion risk (by RUSLE model); (C) Gap<br />
analysis (B minus A), (D) Scenario analysis of soil erosion risk, by simulating the application of the agrienvironmental<br />
measure “grass soil cover” to tier +1 (75% soil covered by grass) in Vineyards.<br />
47
3.3 Step 3 - Description of local agricultural systems and identification of the<br />
most important pressures and driving forces on environmental functions<br />
<strong>The</strong> objective of step3 was the analysis of the local agricultural systems in order to identify the most<br />
significant pressures and the underlying driving forces which exert positive/negative impacts over the<br />
environmental functions studied.<br />
<strong>The</strong> description of the agro-environmental characteristics, production, organisation and management of the<br />
agricultural systems at the study area level (or sub-area when this was necessary and feasible), had to be<br />
displayed following the format of the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> agro-environmental questionnaire distributed at the second<br />
<strong>AEMBAC</strong> meeting (and attached in annex 2). Topics and issues peculiar to specific local agricultural<br />
systems of the area studied, were added and analysed enlarging the following guidelines framework, while<br />
agricultural topics not relevant for the area studied, were left blank (e.g. information on irrigation where no<br />
irrigation is carried out).<br />
After an overview of the local agricultural system, the analysis concentrated on the description of the average<br />
farm which is the centre of management decisions (production, agricultural practices, use of inputs, etc.) and<br />
also of the implementation of agri-environmental policy. This analysis was carried out beginning with agrienvironmental<br />
information and proceeding with a more agricultural economic and social perspective. To<br />
have as accurate a picture of the local agricultural system as possible, farms were clustered in three size<br />
categories representing the average small, medium and large farms in the study area:<br />
Example:<br />
0–5ha: small farm<br />
6–50ha: medium farm<br />
more than 50ha: large farm<br />
<strong>The</strong> extent and location of the farms played an important part in the analysis given that the eventual impacts<br />
exerted by agricultural activities on environmental functions have to be identified also from a spatial point of<br />
view.<br />
<strong>The</strong> time dimension was considered and indicated in the description where historic data was available (in<br />
fact some data were gathered for the first time), and in calculating the average data to be included in the<br />
tables (i.e. average of the past three years).<br />
<strong>The</strong> analyses of the environmental, economic and social dimensions of agricultural activities for the average<br />
farm are described in section 3.3.1, 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 respectively. It is worth noting that the socio-economic<br />
information, such as the balance sheet item on income and costs, have been of use in subsequent steps (5 and<br />
6) when the monetary evaluation of direct costs of providing environmental goods and services and of<br />
opportunity costs related, for instance to the reduced production output, had to be analysed. In section 3.3.4<br />
from the results of this analysis, the most meaningful pressures exerted by the local agricultural systems on<br />
the environmental function performances were identified. Environmental, economic and social driving forces<br />
underlying the identified pressures were described and analysed in section 3.3.5.<br />
Also it is pointed out that the scope of gathering some information by the use of the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> questionnaire<br />
at farm level, on environmental aspects which have been already analysed by experts in step 2, such as those<br />
related to soil, water and biodiversity, was that of investigating the farmers’ awareness of the relevant topics.<br />
So, for instance, asking farmers: What is the rate of soil erosion? or How many wild animals are present on<br />
the farms? served the purpose of building agro-environmental measures on environmental problems and<br />
topics which are already recognised and understood by those people who will have to implement them.<br />
Needless to say that where a particular environmental problem or opportunity is discovered by the experts<br />
but not acknowledged by farmers, the need for the dissemination of information on that issue should be<br />
arranged and discussed between experts, rural extension services, local administrators and farmers.<br />
48
<strong>Final</strong>ly, it is important to point out that the analysis of agricultural systems done in this section has been the<br />
basis for developing agri-environmental measures and relative agri-environmental accounting system for<br />
local farms in Step 6 (see below).<br />
Description of the methodology used and the source of information<br />
Sources of information for the description of local agricultural systems were existing scientific literature,<br />
agricultural census, statistics (e.g. communes and province/county level) and the information gathered in the<br />
field through the use of the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> agri-environmental questionnaire distributed at the Park of Maremma<br />
meeting (see Annex 2). <strong>The</strong> purpose of the agri-environmental questionnaire was to overcome the problem<br />
of the, sometimes awkward, juxtaposition between existing statistical data (usually gathered following<br />
administrative boundaries) and the boundaries of the study areas, which usually do not coincide.<br />
Owing to <strong>AEMBAC</strong>’s economic and time constraints, it was suggested to gathered the information and data<br />
(qualitative and quantitative analysis) by this <strong>AEMBAC</strong> survey only on a selected sample of farms, to<br />
describe the local agricultural system.<br />
Being aware of the constraints of using a meaningful statistical sample, it was proposed to select a small<br />
number of farms which could be considered critical or representative cases for the local agricultural system<br />
(critical case sampling method).<br />
In fact, it was reasonable to assume that farms which:<br />
are located in the same area (i.e. operate on the same ecological and socio-economic substrate);<br />
adopt the same cultivation practices; and<br />
have the same organisation and structural features (including size)<br />
would exert similar pressures on the local environment.<br />
In the analysis of the agricultural system, data which were already available at aggregate level (i.e. number<br />
of farms in the area, production output at the commune level within the area, average Utilised Agricultural<br />
Area (UAA) for cultivation in the land registry and land use maps, etc.) could be used for the extrapolation<br />
process from what has been surveyed at farm level to the whole study area. So for example:<br />
the total production of a specific crop could be derived by looking at the average yield per hectare in<br />
the sample farms with the same size and cultivation practices (intensive, extensive, organic, etc.) and<br />
multiplied by the number of hectares which are cultivated with the same crop as derived from land<br />
use and/or land registry maps; and<br />
the total income of small farms in the study area could be derived from the average income of small<br />
farms of the sample multiplied by the number of small farms in the area.<br />
Consequently, to study the agricultural system, it was important to use appropriate classifications to identify<br />
agricultural activities, such as farm Economic Size Unit (ESU), production specialisation, tenure forms, etc.<br />
For this purpose, referring to the document Definitions of variables used in FADN standard results was<br />
strongly recommended (downloadable at the EU FADN web page:<br />
http://europe.eu.int/comm/agriculture/rica/index_en.cfm)<br />
Also it could have been the case, for some areas, that specific ecological and agricultural features would have<br />
been better addressed at a lower/sub-area level. In fact, selection of study areas was done looking more at the<br />
performance of environmental functions than at particular agricultural systems. <strong>The</strong>refore different<br />
agricultural activities could be carried out within a relatively homogeneous environment. In these cases it<br />
was suggested to carry out the analysis at the level of sub-areas for each agricultural system identified.<br />
49
3.3.1 Agricultural system: Qualitative and quantitative description of environmental characteristics<br />
<strong>The</strong> analysis in this section started from the contents of Step 1 and expanded upon these, with a detailed<br />
qualitative description of prevalent agricultural activities, crop and cultivation methods, land management,<br />
biodiversity management, irrigation and water management, and production output of agriculture (and<br />
forestry products if appropriate) at the study area level.<br />
For each study area (and sub-area, where appropriate) the description was supported by quantitative<br />
estimates of data relative to agricultural/rural activities with particular care with regard to land use; prevalent<br />
cultivation; extent of each type of cultivation (ha); production (q./ha); use of inputs; degree of mechanisation<br />
(kW/ha); etc. as is shown below.<br />
Agricultural land use<br />
<strong>The</strong> description of the local agricultural systems in <strong>AEMBAC</strong> started from that of agricultural land use.<br />
Agricultural use, together with climate, geomorphology and soil quality, has shaped the landscape in the<br />
European countryside. <strong>The</strong> history of land use is of great importance in understanding biodiversity and<br />
landscape evolution and also that of the socio-economic aspects, which are to be interpreted as the causes<br />
and the results of agricultural changes in the areas investigated by <strong>AEMBAC</strong>.<br />
Having analysed historical land use and land cover in Step 1 and Step 2 for natural and semi-natural<br />
ecosystems, in this section the actual land use of agri-ecosystems had to be investigated in detail. Different<br />
land uses exert different pressures on the environment, depending on local ecological aspects. Information on<br />
the different uses and their extent, was therefore very useful for identifying impacts exerted by local<br />
agricultural systems on the performance of environmental functions analysed in the study areas.<br />
To have a homogeneous classification of land use categories <strong>AEMBAC</strong> has adopted the Corine Land Cover<br />
Inventory. Unfortunately the minimum mapping unit of Corine (25ha), ideally presenting a square of 5x5mm<br />
on a map of scale 1:100000 (European Commission, 1999a), is not detailed enough for some of the topics<br />
addressed by <strong>AEMBAC</strong> (e.g. agricultural parcels within a farm area). Consequently it was decided that<br />
Partners could use more detailed information and classification starting from Corine level 3. <strong>The</strong> Saxon<br />
Academy of Sciences, for instance, while adopting the Corine-classification as legend, has based the studies<br />
on land cover and biotope maps at the scale of 1:10000 (ColorInfrared-Images), which are very detailed and<br />
provide a suitable source of information.<br />
According to the European Environmental Agency, European Topic Centre on Land Cover (Corine Land<br />
Cover Technical Guide, 1997, web site: http://etc.satellus.se/ ) categories of land cover include:<br />
Non-irrigated arable land: Cereals, legumes, fodder crops, root crops and fallow land. Includes<br />
flowers and tree (nurseries cultivation and vegetables, whether open field or under plastic or glass<br />
(includes market gardening). Includes aromatic, medicinal and culinary plants. Does not include<br />
permanent pasture.<br />
Permanently irrigated land: Crops irrigated permanently or periodically, using a permanent<br />
infrastructure (irrigation channels, drainage network). Most of these crops could not be cultivated<br />
without an artificial water supply. Does not include sporadically irrigated land.<br />
Rice fields: Land prepared for rice cultivation. Flat surfaces with irrigation channels. Surfaces<br />
periodically flooded.<br />
Vineyards: Areas planted with vines.<br />
Fruit trees and berry plantations: Parcels planted with fruit trees or shrubs: single or mixed fruit<br />
species, fruit trees associated with permanently grassed surfaces. Includes chestnut and walnut<br />
groves.<br />
Olive groves: Areas planted with olive trees, including mixed occurrence of olive trees and vines on<br />
the same parcel.<br />
Pastures: Dense grass cover, of floral composition, dominated by graminaceae, not under a rotation<br />
system. Mainly for grazing, but the folder may be harvested mechanically. Includes areas with<br />
50
hedges (bocage).<br />
Annual crops associated with permanent crops: Non-permanent crops (arable land or pasture)<br />
associated with permanent crops on the same parcel.<br />
Complex cultivation patterns: Juxtaposition of small parcels of diverse annual crops, pasture and/or<br />
permanent crops.<br />
Land principally occupied by agriculture, with significant areas of natural vegetation: Areas<br />
principally occupied by agriculture, interspersed with significant natural areas.<br />
Agro-forestry areas: Areas principally occupied by annual crops or grazing land under the wooded<br />
cover of forestry species.<br />
Box 12 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Land use in the Jahna river basin, Germany<br />
<strong>The</strong> Jahna study area is located in central Saxony, in a hilly loess region. <strong>The</strong> headwater region of the Jahna River<br />
(Central Saxon Loess Hill Country) is characterized by a loess cover reaching a thickness of several meters. In the<br />
northern part, the Jahna River crosses the Northern Saxon Plateau and Hills. Aeolic sediments (sandy loesses rich in<br />
silts) are dominant. <strong>The</strong> altitudes extend from 90m above sea level near the mouth to more than 280m. A distinctive<br />
relief step (terrace) of 30–50m (the so-called loess border terrace) divides the study area into two parts.<br />
<strong>The</strong> test area belongs to the region of moderate dry, slightly continental interior climate of the lower hill country and<br />
lowlands. <strong>The</strong> average annual temperature is between 8 and 9°C. <strong>The</strong> annual mean precipitation is 550–600mm<br />
(decreasing from 650–700mm in the headwater region to less than 550mm at the river mouth). It is typical for the loess<br />
plateaux that they are exposed to winds coming mostly from the west.<br />
More than 80% of the test area is covered with arable crops. Winter cereals dominate, followed by maize, root crops,<br />
rape and peas. <strong>The</strong> share in other land use types is very low (see table below). Within the Jahna basin, valuable<br />
ecosystems cover only 20% of the area. This is much lower than the Saxon average. <strong>The</strong>se natural or semi-natural<br />
ecosystems are concentrated in the floodplains. Among these ecosystems, forests and woods with a high degree of<br />
naturalness dominate, e.g. oak-hornbeam forests, riverine and swamp forests. Fruit orchards are typical near the<br />
settlements and fruit-tree rows along roads and paths, willows along rivulets. Further valuable ecosystems are natural<br />
parts of rivulets, ponds, and very few remnants of mesophilic and moist grassland as well as rough meadows, and rocks.<br />
This intensively used agricultural area of the fertile loess region is typically poorly equipped with landscape structural<br />
elements, which leads to low biodiversity and serious problems with soil erosion and accumulation due to high-erosive<br />
loess soils and large field sizes.<br />
Tab. 12 - Land use in the Jahna basin<br />
CORINE classification<br />
No. Land use<br />
51<br />
Area (ha)<br />
0 Without determination 0.00<br />
1.1.1 Town building areas 100.26<br />
1.1.2 Village building areas 814.15<br />
1.2.1 Industrial and commercial area 295.75<br />
1.2.2 –1.2.3 Traffic area 316.34<br />
1.3 Deposit, disposal or excavation area 94.25<br />
1.4 Area for recreation and leisure activities 551.56<br />
2.1 – 2.2 Arable fields and special crops 19,769.97<br />
2.3.1 Meadows and pastures 1751.39<br />
3.1.1 Deciduous forests 276.29<br />
3.1.2 Coniferous forests 10.37<br />
3.1.3 Mixed forests 154.56<br />
3.2 Shrub and herb vegetation 191.57<br />
3.3 Open area with sparse vegetation 12.89<br />
4.1 Moist areas (swamps, bogs) 0.00<br />
5.1 Water 72.70<br />
Total 24,412.05<br />
Source: Olaf Bastian et al., 2002, Germany WP4 report.
Livestock<br />
Given the possible pressures on land such as ammonia effluents, overgrazing, soil erosion, etc. coming from<br />
rearing livestock, it was asked to specify the species, the number and the livestock unit per hectare in detail.<br />
Box 13 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Livestock in Kihelkonna and Lümanda case study, Estonia<br />
Compared to the case in 1998, the number of sheep/goats in the farms has increased and the number of cattle has<br />
decreased.<br />
<strong>The</strong> number of cows is relatively low compared to other communities; there are a lot of hobby farmers with 1-2 cows.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re are 1500 sheep and 30 horses in total in the pilot area. Pig production is nearly hardly occurs in Kihelkonna and<br />
Lümanda. <strong>The</strong>re are seven producers in the Kihelkonna and Lümanda Communities who have Estonian native horses<br />
and one producer who has cows of Estonian native cattle.<br />
Table 13 describes the average numbers of livestock density 3 (LU/ha), based on the data of 20 farms.<br />
Tab. 13 -Number of animals 4 and LU In Small (S) and Medium (M) Farm (2000/2001)<br />
Animal No of farms breeding Annual average Livestock Unit<br />
number per farm<br />
3 /Ha<br />
Milking cows S: 8<br />
S: 2.1<br />
S: 0.08<br />
M: 4<br />
M: 10.8<br />
M: 0.1<br />
Beef cow/ young S: 5<br />
S: 3.7<br />
S: 0.05<br />
cow<br />
M: 4<br />
M: 4.5<br />
M: 0.05<br />
Sheep/goat S: 11<br />
S: 12.3<br />
S: 0.09<br />
M: 2<br />
M: 13.5<br />
M: 0.02<br />
Poultry S: 10<br />
S: 14.1<br />
S: L 0.006<br />
M: 3<br />
M: 16.7<br />
M: -<br />
TOTAL S: 0.15<br />
M: 0.24<br />
Medium farms are more specialised in milk production and the average number of milking cows (10.8) is about 5 times<br />
higher than in small farms (2.1) (tab. 13). Medium farms are breeding more sheep, the average number of sheep in<br />
medium farms is 13.5 compared to 12.3 in small farms. Total average livestock density (calculated on total agricultural<br />
land) in medium farms is a little bit higher than in small farms.<br />
Chemical and organic inputs: Fertilisers and pesticides<br />
According to the EU report Agriculture, environment, rural development – Facts and Figures: “For the EU<br />
as a whole, the main source of nitrogen input to agricultural land is mineral fertiliser, with livestock manure<br />
a close second”.<br />
Over-use of fertilisers can have a big impact on the performance of environmental functions related to<br />
biodiversity conservation. Fertilisers, together with ammonia effluents from livestock, can be responsible for<br />
increasing the nitrate and phosphate concentration of nutrients in water and soils. <strong>The</strong> accumulation of<br />
nutrients pollutes the soils and can impact on the characteristics of semi-natural habitats, affecting the<br />
species living there. Leaching of fertilisers into water bodies gives rise to the eutrophication phenomenon.<br />
(EU Commission, 1999; European Environment Agency, 1998.)<br />
To get a clear idea of the use of chemical fertilisers in the study area, information on fertiliser use, such as<br />
hectares treated, type of fertilisers (e.g. manure, synthetic fertiliser, active ingredients N, P, K,) quantity used<br />
and type of treatment (seed, rows, fields) was assessed for each crop and average farm of each size category<br />
(small, medium and large).<br />
3<br />
1 LU equals: one 500 kg cattle or horse, two beef cows or young cows, six slaughter pigs, hundred chickens or four<br />
hundred broilers<br />
4<br />
Figure shows the number of animals from 20 farms sampling (15 small farms, 5 medium farms)<br />
52
To get a picture of organic fertiliser use, information on use of vegetable residues and animal manure, such<br />
as on farm production, quantity used, processed, sold, disposed and stocked (including assessment of the<br />
unitary cost of final disposal for average small, medium and large farms and of sewage sludge) was also<br />
assessed.<br />
Box 14 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Fertiliser use in the Geldersey Valley, Netherlands<br />
(for references in the box, see WU-NL final report)<br />
Inorganic mineral inputs<br />
<strong>The</strong> problems arising from the over-application of inorganic fertilisers are discussed in WP4. In such crops as grass,<br />
which are not adversely affected by the application of high doses but give lower yields when doses are low, fertilisers<br />
are used generously (LNV, 1995).<br />
For the two dominant farm types in the case study area, dairy farms and pig farms, fertiliser use is given in the table<br />
below. Improved fertiliser recommendations and the replacement of fertilisers by manure have led to a significant<br />
reduction in fertiliser use over recent years. <strong>The</strong> table illustrates that, especially on grasslands used for dairy farming,<br />
significant doses of nitrate fertilisers are being applied.<br />
Tab. 14 - Fertiliser use in kg/ha utilised in agricultural area (the Netherlands)<br />
Average pig farm<br />
1990/91 1994/95 1999/00<br />
Nitrate<br />
(calculated in N)<br />
79 44 26<br />
Phosphate (in P2O5) 20 12 8<br />
Potassium (in K2O) 2 2 3<br />
Average dairy farm on sandy soil<br />
1990/91 1994/95 1999/00<br />
Nitrate (calculated in N) 253 230 200<br />
Phosphate (in P2O5) 30 26 24<br />
Potassium (in K2O ) 28 10 8<br />
Source: elaboration on Farm Accountancy Data Network – data (LEI).<br />
Note: Data is not available at the study area level. However, due to institutional and economic circumstances, farm size<br />
and farming practices are to a large extent homogeneous across the country. For this reason, regional or even at national<br />
data (if specific for e.g. soil conditions), may be considered representative. Possibilities for a dataset more specific to the<br />
region (note: larger than case study area!), on soil type etc., that might better fit the case study area are being considered.<br />
Organic mineral inputs<br />
<strong>The</strong> livestock sector in the case study area produces far more manure than is needed, which in turn leads to the overapplication<br />
of manure on crops. In the last decade the government manure policy has aimed at reducing the surplus of<br />
livestock manure. Manure production rights were introduced to restrict the production of livestock manure and animal<br />
feeds with low mineral contents were promoted (LNV, 1995). Moreover, the sale of high-quality manure and the<br />
redistribution of manure, moving the manure from areas of high stocking densities to areas of lower stocking densities –<br />
arable farming areas – was promoted. Manure reprocessing on a large scale has not come up to expectations in spite of a<br />
whole package of promotion measures. Manure reprocessing has turned out to be far more expensive than was initially<br />
thought due to high costs for the development of new technology, expensive treatment processes and the difficulty of<br />
finding outlets for the reprocessed products.<br />
<strong>The</strong> measures mentioned have proven to be insufficient to solve the manure surplus problem (although significant<br />
reductions have been achieved). <strong>The</strong>refore policy now aims at total restructuring of the intensive livestock sector. For<br />
this purpose an act on the restructuring of the pig sector came into force at the end of 2000. <strong>The</strong> case study area is<br />
among the regions with the highest rates of ammonia emission and nitrate and phosphate production by agriculture in<br />
the Netherlands. <strong>The</strong>refore, the Gelderse Vallei Southwest has been selected as one of the pilot areas for development<br />
and execution of a reconstruction program.<br />
53
Details on the nitrate, phosphate and potassium production and use in the case study area are given in the tables below.<br />
Production of organic minerals is higher than use of organic minerals, indicating that part of production is transported to<br />
other areas and to manure processing plants.<br />
Tab. 15 - Mineral Gelderse Vallei<br />
production per hectare of Southwest<br />
cultivated land 1999<br />
Production of Nitrate<br />
(kg N)<br />
432<br />
Production of Phosphate<br />
(kg P2O5)<br />
193<br />
Production of Potassium<br />
(kg K2O )<br />
563<br />
Source: CBS-data for Woudenberg municipality<br />
(assumed to be representative for whole study area)<br />
Pesticides<br />
54<br />
Tab. 16 - Mineral use per Gelderse Vallei<br />
hectare of cultivated land Southwest<br />
1999<br />
Production of Nitrate<br />
(kg N)<br />
360<br />
Production of Phosphate<br />
(kg P2O5)<br />
141<br />
Production of Potassium<br />
(kg K2O )<br />
496<br />
Source: CBS-data for Woudenberg municipality<br />
(assumed to be representative for whole study area)<br />
Pesticides have negative effects on human health and biodiversity. Pesticides (insecticides, herbicides and<br />
fungicides) are purposely made and used to kill insects, plant and fungi which can damage crop yields.<br />
Depending on the types, ways of application and quantities used, their toxic elements can contaminate water,<br />
soil, air and even food.<br />
According to the EU (1999b), monitoring of pesticide residues in water is difficult and costly and only a<br />
limited number of these have been monitored (e.g. atrazine, simazine and bentazone). It is therefore strategic<br />
to gather more information on their actual qualitative and quantitative use in the fields, than what is actually<br />
is done, namely measuring pesticide use by the quantities sold.<br />
<strong>The</strong> information requested on pesticide use by crop focussed on hectares treated, type of pesticide and active<br />
ingredients, quantity and type of treatment (seed, rows, fields).<br />
Box 15 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Pesticide use in the Vetlanda study area, Sweden<br />
(for references in the box, see SLU final report)<br />
Herbicides stand for the main part of biocide use in Swedish agriculture, when it comes about treated area as well as<br />
quantities of active substance (see table below). Thanks to a – in this respect – favourable climate, but also serious and<br />
durable efforts by the authorities and the farmers, the use is relatively low in European terms and has been cut back in<br />
quantities and even more in negative effects.<br />
<strong>The</strong> use of biocides in the Vetlanda study area and its region is considerably lower than the national average. It is<br />
mainly explained by the high proportion of leys – where hardly any biocides are used. A colder climate reduces the<br />
need for insecticides further.<br />
Herbicides and pesticides still have negative effects on terrestrial biodiversity 4 , thus reducing the positive externalities<br />
of agriculture. Besides the direct toxic effects affecting the soil fauna, insects, plant populations, etc., the fauna may<br />
also be indirectly impoverished by the flora getting poorer, giving less feeding chances. It is forbidden to spray pastures<br />
and meadows, and also anything outside the cultivated field, but it is still voluntary to leave spray-free zones along the<br />
field edges to save the biodiversity of the edge zones.<br />
4<br />
<strong>The</strong> possible, negative externalities on human health and biodiversity of limnic and marine ecosystems are outside the Swedish<br />
<strong>AEMBAC</strong> study.
Tab. 17 - Use of pesticides in arable crops by treated area (TA) in percent of arable land, and active substance<br />
(AS). Kg/ha and metric tonnes. 1998<br />
Pesticide County of Jönköping Production area Götalands skogsbygder<br />
Total crop area (ha) 92 400 482 500<br />
Treated area % 16 24<br />
Herbicides<br />
Fungicides<br />
Insecticides<br />
Total<br />
AS on TA kg/ha 0,61 0,50<br />
AS on TA tonnes 9,1 57,9<br />
Treated area % - 3<br />
AS on TA kg/ha - 0,82<br />
AS on TA tonnes 1,5 10,8<br />
Treated area % 6 5<br />
AS on TA kg/ha 0,09 0,06<br />
AS on TA tonnes 0,5 1,4<br />
Treated area % 17 24<br />
AS on TA kg/ha 0,72 0,59<br />
AS on TA tonnes 11,0 70,1<br />
Source: SCB, 2000a.<br />
Land Management<br />
Land management is an important agricultural activity usually carried out to prevent physical, chemical and<br />
biological deterioration. According to the European Environmental Agency, in Europe (including the<br />
European part of the CIS) over 7% of the total land area (64 million ha) has been degraded by bad land<br />
management and in Southern Europe land degradation is believed to threaten over 60% of land (<strong>The</strong> Dobris<br />
assessment, 1995).<br />
<strong>The</strong> report Agriculture, environment, rural development – Facts and figures (European Commission, 1999b)<br />
identifies certain farming practices which are held responsible for land degradation and others which instead<br />
contribute to land conservation. Amongst the former are to be included practices such as deforestation,<br />
intensive grazing, ploughing up grasslands and clearing hedgerows, amongst the latter traditional farming<br />
such as erosion control measures, integration of organic matter, crop rotation, maintenance of crop residues<br />
in the fields, etc.<br />
<strong>The</strong>refore the analysis concentrated on main agronomic practices of land management such as: maintenance<br />
of straw/litter on the fields (ha), cover crops (ha), traditional crop rotations (specify the type for 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd ,<br />
etc. years) (ha), other rotations (ha), green manuring (ha), maintenance of hedgerows at field boundaries (m),<br />
set aside/fallowing (ha), time of mowing (date), and any other practices existing in study areas.<br />
Box 16 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Main agronomic practices in the Fricktal study area, Switzerland<br />
(for references in the box, see FiBL report)<br />
Tab. 18 - Main agronomic practices Small Medium Large<br />
Maintenance of straw/litter on the fields (ha) 0 ha 0 ha 0 ha<br />
Cover crops (ha) n.a. n.a. n.a.<br />
Traditional crop rotations (specify the type for 1 st , 2 nd ,<br />
3 rd , etc. years) (ha)<br />
<strong>The</strong>re are no traditional but typical crop rotations:<br />
1. temp. fodder<br />
2. temp. fodder<br />
3. maize for silage<br />
4. winter wheat<br />
5. winter barley (alternatively: rape, sun flowers)<br />
6. maize for silage<br />
7. winter wheat<br />
8. winter barley<br />
cover crop after winter barley<br />
55
Other rotations (ha) n.a. n.a. n.a.<br />
Green manuring (ha) temporary meadows 1.2 77.5 233<br />
Maintenance of hedgerows with hemline (ha)<br />
Maintenance of hedgerows without hemline (ha)<br />
0.01<br />
0.23<br />
Set aside/fallowing (ha) See 1.1.1 see 1.1.1 See 1.1.1<br />
Time of mowing (date) mid May mid May mid May<br />
Source: Swiss federal statistical office, structure survey statistic 2000, interviews with advisers.<br />
For those study areas where forestry activities carried out at farm level were important, it was requested to<br />
highlight information on forest extension and use such as coppice (ha), high forest (ha), conversion from<br />
coppice to high forest (ha), recent reafforestation (ha), abandoned woodland (ha), etc.<br />
Tillage<br />
In the process of tilling or cultivating the land, the topsoil is inverted and mixed by means of a plough, disc<br />
or simply a hoe. <strong>The</strong> way in which soil is tilled can have a significant impact on the retention of soil,<br />
nutrients and water. <strong>The</strong>se problems usually occur during the period between sowing and the growth of<br />
sufficient vegetative cover to prevent soil erosion by water or wind. In order to avoid these problems,<br />
conservation tillage, where the soil surface is disturbed as little as possible, can be adopted. (Jules N. Pretty,<br />
1995). Information analysed regarding the depth of tillage (e.g. Deep > 60cm, Medium 30–60cm, Minimum<br />
60 cm - - 50 43 -<br />
Medium 30-60 cm - 25 - - 47<br />
Minimum < 30 cm 100 75 50 57 53<br />
Zero-tillage - - - - -<br />
Total 100 100 100 100 100<br />
Source: elaboration on <strong>AEMBAC</strong> questionnaire
From the survey, we have noticed that the presence of man-made land settings (hard landscape features and structures)<br />
is quite different between medium and large conventional farms. Open fields are more prevalent in large farms, while<br />
up-down ditching arrangements, being the most used method of cultivation both for medium and large farms, are more<br />
widespread in medium farms. Up-down ditching and contour ditching arrangements are only present in large farms,<br />
while terraces are prevalent in medium farms.<br />
Tab. 20 - Existence of man-made land settings (% of UAA)<br />
Man-made settings Conventional farm Organic farm<br />
Medium Large Total Small Medium Large Total<br />
Open fields 12 28 19% 40 23 77<br />
Up-down ditching 66 58 63% - 48 -<br />
Contour ditching and similar - 8 4% 60 29 23<br />
Walls of terracettes 12 6 6% - - -<br />
Total 100 100 100% 100% 100% 100%<br />
Source: elaboration on <strong>AEMBAC</strong> questionnaire<br />
Consequently:<br />
On large conventional farms, in general we have noticed that there are mainly up-down ditching (58%) and open fields<br />
(28%), while contour ditching and walls of terracettes are marginal (respectively 8% and 6%). This probably derives<br />
from the progressive acquisition of small holdings leading to the formation of large farms, and low wine prices<br />
especially up to the 1980s. In fact, for a long time while wine prices were low (when high labour costs reduced<br />
profitability), large farms cut down on land amelioration, limiting their activities to the maintenance of the existing<br />
structures; they have only in recent years started new land amelioration especially up-down ditching, leaving the<br />
remaining areas to the original settings;<br />
On medium conventional farms, in general we have witnessed an adaptation capacity to the economic adversity of<br />
market, using family labour for the maintenance and progressive renewal of land settings. As a consequence, medium<br />
farms have slowed the substitution of old settings with up-down ditching, leaving old terraces where this was not<br />
possible;<br />
On organic farms, the situation is quite different. In fact open fields and contour ditching are the prevalent land settings,<br />
independent of farm size. It is reasonable to believe that organic farmers have maintained and/or changed the existing<br />
land settings, preferring these to up-down ditching.<br />
Regarding the state of stone walls, it appears that they are better maintained in vine cultivation than in olive groves due<br />
to the difference in care regimes. (Fonseca, Guiducci, 2000). Nevertheless, new olive plantations on terraces are usually<br />
in better condition than the stone walls of plantations after the frost in the middle of the 1980s. Consequently, although<br />
there are strong moves towards transforming share-farming land settings with new up-down ditching vineyards due to<br />
the massive investment of some large farms, we note that in the last few years there is also a slight trend towards the<br />
maintenance of existing stone walls by some farmers due to the increase in crop gross margin.<br />
In general, stone walls are usually in a state of abandonment and carelessness (Fonseca, Guiducci, 2000): the state of<br />
conservation and maintenance of hydraulic-agrarian settlements depends directly on crop state on terraces, both for<br />
olives and wine, while cultural interventions are not always likely to be adequate for settlement conservation 5 . <strong>The</strong> main<br />
obstacle to the maintenance of stone walls is low labour force availability and high labour costs.<br />
Water Resources<br />
Water is fundamental to natural and agricultural ecosystems, and its scarcity or over-abundance can create<br />
problems for agricultural production. Humans have always tried to control water to enhance agricultural<br />
production. Where there is an excess of water, drainage is carried out in order to lower the groundwater<br />
table, or to convert wetlands into arable fields. Where water is scarce, irrigation schemes are built and<br />
maintained to allow water to flow into the fields.<br />
Needless to say, both drainage and irrigation can have serious environmental impacts on biodiversity and on<br />
5 <strong>The</strong> maintenance of hydraulic-agrarian settlements also depends on family traditions of land management, which is<br />
handed on from father to son. Consequently it is reasonable to believe that this kind of work is usually carried on by<br />
small–medium farms, rather than large farms which are market-oriented.<br />
57
natural and semi-natural ecosystems, some of which, according to the European Commission (1999b), are as<br />
follows:<br />
• lower groundwater and river flow levels as a direct result of water abstractions;<br />
• the disappearance of wetlands, oxygen deficits in rivers leading to the possible extinction of species of<br />
flora or fauna or the gradual salinisation of ground water in coastal areas;<br />
• natural ecosystem conversion through the construction of dams and the diversion of water-courses for<br />
irrigation purposes; and<br />
• increased nitrate and pesticide leaching, and the pollution of ground water and rivers.<br />
<strong>The</strong> proportion of irrigated land is about 5% of Europe (EEA, 1995). According to the European<br />
Commission (1999b) in the European Union of 15 Member States, the irrigable area rose from 6.5 million<br />
hectares in 1961 to 11.6 million hectares in 1996, trends varying considerably from one Member State to<br />
another: climate (the average water consumption per hectare is higher in Mediterranean countries because of<br />
low precipitation and high temperatures), soil characteristics, cultivation practices, crop types, the state of<br />
infrastructure and irrigation methods, are all factors influencing the water demand.<br />
<strong>The</strong> analysis of: availability and supply of water resources; water-uses; irrigation; and drainage schemes was<br />
necessary to give a clear picture of possible environmental pressures coming from water use by the<br />
agricultural system in the study areas:<br />
Water availability within the holdings for agriculture and tourism activities for the average farm of each<br />
size category (small, medium and large farm).<br />
Trends in the levels of the groundwater table in the past 5 years (Increasing, Stable, Decreasing,<br />
Unknown) and possible causes.<br />
Usual on-farm water supply (quantity in cubic meters) for the average farm in each category (ponds,<br />
well, watercourses and streams, water reservoirs, other).<br />
Usual off-farm water supply for the average farm in each category (municipal water supply, co-operative<br />
system, tank truck system, marsh drainage, other).<br />
Water uses (quantity) and supply systems, (irrigated ha, submersion, rain, sprinkler, drop, other methods)<br />
per crops cultivation and other agricultural activities (e.g. livestock, product processing, agree-tourism,<br />
etc.) for the average farm in each size category.<br />
Description of any maintenance and checking of the irrigation system carried out.<br />
Description of any drainage, diversion or extraction works carried out in the area.<br />
Box 18 - <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Water management in the Geldersey Valley study area, Netherlands<br />
(for references in the box, see WU-NL report)<br />
Intensification of agricultural activities in the Netherlands has contributed to the lowering of groundwater levels<br />
through: (i) the intensified drainage of agricultural areas in order to raise production, (ii) increased agricultural<br />
groundwater extraction for sprinkling purposes and (iii) the enhanced evapotranspiration of crops, as a result of<br />
increased crop yields (Hellegers, 2001). <strong>The</strong> topic of agricultural groundwater extraction is dealt with in more detail<br />
below. Lowering of groundwater levels for agricultural purposes is an important contributor to the desiccation problem.<br />
Agricultural groundwater extraction. Agricultural extractions contribute heavily to the desiccation problem, since<br />
these are shallow extractions (2–3m below the soil surface). Details of agricultural groundwater extraction (LEI, 2000)<br />
in the Netherlands are given in the tables below. <strong>The</strong>se data are not available at the study area level. However, it is<br />
assumed that they are also valid for the case study area.<br />
Tab. 21 - Average groundwater extraction per farm<br />
type in the Netherlands<br />
Average per farm (1.000m 3 )<br />
Grazing cattle farm 5.2<br />
Factory farm 3.6<br />
Source: elaboration on LEI-data in LEI (2000).<br />
58
Tab. 22 - Average agricultural water usage by application (m 3 /farm) in the Netherlands<br />
Sprinkling Drinking water Cleaning Cleaning TOTAL<br />
for cattle machinery farm<br />
buildings<br />
Grazing<br />
livestock farm<br />
7,447 (73.9%) 2,499 (24.8%) 48 (0.5%) 78 (0.8%) 10,072<br />
Factory farm 5,817 (67.1%) 2,617 (30.2%) 55 (0.6%) 185 (2.1%) 8,674<br />
Source: elaboration on LEI-data in LEI (2000).<br />
Tab. 23 - Agricultural water usage by source (percentage) in the Netherlands<br />
Ground water Surface water Tap water Rain water<br />
Sprinkling 63.3% 36.6% 0.0% 0.0%<br />
Cattle drinking 43.4%<br />
water<br />
11.9% 44.7% 0.1%<br />
Cleaning<br />
machinery<br />
41.2% 0.7% 58.1% 0.1%<br />
Cleaning farm 47.5%<br />
buildings<br />
1.2% 50.9% 0.5%<br />
Source: elaboration on LEI-data in LEI (2000).<br />
Tab. 24 - Average sprinkling with ground<br />
water for selected crops (mm/ha)<br />
Grass 42<br />
Maize 39<br />
Source: elaboration on LEI-data in LEI (2000).<br />
Soil Resources<br />
Soil is made by mineral and organic particles and is formed by the physical and chemical alteration of the<br />
parent rock and from the biological and biochemical transformation of organic residue.<br />
Soil is characterised by the presence of organic and mineral components deeply influenced by climate. Soil<br />
dynamically interacts with atmosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere and is responsible for several<br />
ecological and socio-economic functions of vital interest (Blum, 1990; 1998). Among these functions, the<br />
most important are: the biomass production function, the biological filter and substance transformation<br />
action, the CO2 sink action, the biological habitat and genetic reserve function, the conservation of<br />
paleontological and archeological patrimony, etc. (Bazzoffi, 2001; European Commission, 1999; European<br />
Environmental Agency, 1995).<br />
Because of its functions and its very slow formation rate (100–400 years/cm of topsoil), according to the<br />
European Commission (1999b) “soil must be considered as a non-renewable resource and must be<br />
preserved”.<br />
Among the soil qualities which are important for agriculture, soil fertility, texture, organic matter content, are<br />
the most frequently cited. It is therefore strategic to gather the relevant information for the study area, to<br />
verify both the suitability and maintenance of local soil quality for agricultural production and their<br />
acknowledgement by farmers. Information on soil texture (% of clay, sand, silt) for the average farm in each<br />
category and on Soil fertility and organic matter content at the level of agro-ecosystem (% of total UAA) was<br />
to be analysed.<br />
Soil is affected by physical, chemical and biological degradation. Agricultural activities contribute to these<br />
negative impacts. <strong>The</strong> most significant forms of physical degradation of the soil due to agriculture are<br />
decreased fertility, erosion, desertification, water-logging and compaction.<br />
<strong>The</strong>refore the analysis concentrated on information relating mainly to the state of soils in the local agro-<br />
59
ecosystems and to possible pressures coming from local agricultural activities.<br />
<strong>The</strong> information relating to pressures which may be responsible for chemical damage exerted by agricultural<br />
practices, such as leaching, acidification, salinisation, contamination by micro-pollutants such as pesticides,<br />
heavy metals and fertilisers, leading mainly to poisoned soil and eutrophication of water courses were<br />
gathered already while analysing livestock, use of chemical inputs, and water above. Also for biological<br />
damage to soil, such as impacts on soil biodiversity and humus, information on the pressures responsible<br />
could be derived from information on livestock, on use of chemical inputs, and on land management already<br />
analysed above.<br />
<strong>The</strong> analysis concentrated also on soil fertility trends (increasing, stable, decreasing, unknown) in the last<br />
five years, on the main reasons for an eventual decrease in soil fertility (e.g. crop selection, lack of rotation,<br />
monoculture, soil erosion, other) for the average farm of each size category (small, medium and large farm).<br />
Soil erosion is a major socio-economic and environmental problem throughout Europe and it reduces the<br />
productivity of the land and degrades the performance and the effectiveness of the ecosystems (European<br />
Commission 1999b). Soil erosion is present almost everywhere in Europe on sloping land, but particularly in<br />
the Mediterranean countries, Central and Eastern Europe, Ireland and Iceland (EEA, 1995; 1998).<br />
Soil erosion and salinisation are factors which increase the risk of desertification in the most vulnerable<br />
areas, particularly in the Mediterranean region. Among the factors causing soil erosion are steep slopes,<br />
climate, soil conditions and agricultural practices. <strong>The</strong>refore, in those study areas where soil erosion was a<br />
problem, the analysis had to focus on the quantity of UAA on slope (level ground - 0-3%, moderate hills- 4-<br />
15%, steep slope –16-20%) for the average farm in each category, the average soil depth at the level of agriecosystem<br />
(% of total surface), the main reasons for soil erosion (land morphology, cultivation methods,<br />
poor maintenance of land settings, other) on the average farm for each size category.<br />
Besides erosion, other forms of physical soil degradation are soil compaction and salinisation. Soil<br />
compaction is caused by the use of heavy machinery and results in the loss of organic matter and soil<br />
structure. According to the EEA (1995) this is the most widespread physical degradation in Europe involving<br />
around 90% of those areas affected by physical degradation of soils. Here the analysis had to concentrate on<br />
the use of heavy machinery related to soil compaction phenomena (number of tractors, overall tractor power<br />
HP, number of powered cultivators HP, number of other engine-driven machinery, etc.)<br />
Salinisation of soils is the result of using saline water for irrigation and creates problems of alkalinisation and<br />
damage to soil structure. According to the EEA (1995), it is more intense in Mediterranean and eastern<br />
European countries. For the above reasons, it was important to include information on the existence,<br />
intensity and causes of both soil compaction and salinisation in the description of local agricultural systems.<br />
Box 19 - <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Soil resources in Palamuse study area, Estonia<br />
<strong>The</strong> analysis of soil resources is based on the data from ten farms (four small farms and six medium farms).<br />
<strong>The</strong> bedrock in the Palamuse area is composed of Lower Silurian limestone (in the north-western part) and Lower<br />
Devonian sandstone (in the south-eastern part of the community). <strong>The</strong> thickness of quaternary sediments (mainly<br />
moraine) is 30–40m on the drumlins and 10–20m between them. <strong>The</strong> predominant sediment types are moraine and<br />
fluvioglacial deposits (sand and gravel), but also clay, peat and lake chalk etc. is found.<br />
<strong>The</strong> soils are rather fertile. <strong>The</strong> dominant soil-texture classes are silt, sandy clay and others. <strong>The</strong> soil is not very stony.<br />
Tab. 25 - Soil Texture (%) Small Medium<br />
Silt 25 50<br />
Sandy clay 25 17<br />
Clay - -<br />
Sand - -<br />
Other 50 33<br />
60
<strong>The</strong> dominant soil-texture classes on the small farms are silt (25%) and sandy clay (25%); in 50% of farms, there are<br />
other classes, mainly mixed silt/sand and sandy clay/sand. On the medium farms, silt dominates (50%) and other classes<br />
(33%) are mainly silt/sand and silt/sandy clay.<br />
Content of organic matter (%)<br />
<strong>The</strong> average content of organic matter is 3.1% on small farms, which is a little bit higher than on medium farms (2.8%).<br />
<strong>The</strong> overall average 2.9%.<br />
Soil fertility trends in the last five years<br />
According to the results of the questionnaire, soil fertility has increased in 50% of the small farms in the last five years,<br />
compared to 20% of medium farms (see below). In 80% of the medium farms, soil fertility is stable and in 20% of<br />
farms it has increased.<br />
In the last five years very few farmers have adopted crop rotation. It was (and is still) very common to grow grain in<br />
monoculture, which is the main reason for the loss of soil fertility.<br />
Tab. 26 - Soil fertility trends (% of farms)<br />
Trend Small Medium<br />
Increasing 50 20<br />
Stable 25 80<br />
Decreasing 25 -<br />
Soil erosion and erosion reasons<br />
<strong>The</strong> main problems originate from the intensive agriculture of the Soviet period. Considering that the Palamuse pilot<br />
area is a classical drumlin area, with characteristic features such as series of drumlins ranging from the north-west to the<br />
south-east with long, narrow lakes and wetlands between them, inadequate agricultural practices have caused severe soil<br />
erosion problems.<br />
Wind erosion is caused by changing original mosaic landscapes (loss of landscape elements and field margins) and<br />
establishing large fields. Inappropriate soil tillage (considering the landscape relief), insufficient use of winter cover<br />
crops and use of very heavy machinery, which causes soil compaction, are the main reasons for water erosion.<br />
In the Palamuse pilot area, soil erosion is still a serious problem in many cases, although the overall situation has<br />
improved.<br />
Soil compaction<br />
As mentioned above, the intensive agriculture of the Soviet period caused many severe problems, including soil<br />
compaction – the result of using very heavy machinery. Soil compaction problems are mentioned in 30% of the<br />
questioned farms. Compared to the situation five years ago, soil condition has improved in 45% of the farms surveyed.<br />
Biodiversity resources<br />
Biodiversity has a dual relationship with agriculture. At one and the same time, it is influencing agricultural<br />
production and is influenced by agricultural practices.<br />
Many of the aspects related to this relationship need to be considered. Amongst the on-farm and off-farm<br />
impacts exerted by agricultural practices are the following (EEA, 1995; European Commission, 2000):<br />
Positive impacts:<br />
• maintenance of semi-natural habitats and traditional landscape;<br />
• fire control;<br />
• conservation of breeds and varieties of local agro-biodiversity; and<br />
• regulation of water run-off.<br />
Negative impacts:<br />
• conversion of natural ecosystems and habitats, for instance by the elimination of wetlands and<br />
hedgerows (see land use, soil and water sections);<br />
• reduction in number of species and varieties used and simplification and homogenisation of ecosystems<br />
61
y monocultural and intensive agriculture;<br />
• introduction of alien species;<br />
• impacts on the quality of soil (acidification) and water (eutrophication) by excessive use and consequent<br />
leaching of chemical fertilisers (see chemical inputs, soil sections);<br />
• killing of non-target animal and plant species by pesticides (see chemical inputs section);<br />
• the overgrazing and pollution consequences of excessive livestock intensity (see land use section); and<br />
• removing breeding habitat for wild species by early mowing.<br />
Data and information required to identify the pressures causing the above impacts have already been<br />
addressed in earlier sections, while the quantitative and qualitative state of natural and semi-natural<br />
ecosystems, biotopes and wildlife have been studied in step 2 when biodiversity-related functions have been<br />
analysed.<br />
In this section the attention was more on the (genetic) in-situ conservation of local varieties and breeds and<br />
their use, and on the farmers’ knowledge of local biodiversity. <strong>The</strong> former type of information can help<br />
assess what use agriculture is making of local agrobiodiversity at the gene level, the latter type will be of use<br />
when control and monitoring measures have to be built into agro-environmental measures in collaboration<br />
with farmers and local administrations (Step 6).<br />
<strong>The</strong> identification of local animal breeds and plant varieties and their uses for farmers (e.g. for flowers,<br />
aromatic herbs, medicinal plants, fruits, vegetables, cereals, etc.) and the assessment of farmers’ knowledge<br />
of (semi-natural) habitats and wild animal species that can be found within their farm boundaries (e.g. foxes,<br />
roe-deer, birds, wolves, etc.), were therefore the topics analysed in this section.<br />
Box 20 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Biodiversity in farms in the Maremma case study, Italy<br />
<strong>The</strong> presence of different ecosystems is almost completely absent in conventional farms, this being limited to modest<br />
pastures and to hedges on boundaries only in the largest farms. <strong>The</strong> situation in organic farms is certainly more varied<br />
and more consistent in terms of surface. Particularly in large organic farms, wooded areas represent around 30% of the<br />
total area. In medium-sized farms, we surveyed the presence of woods, hedgerows and semi-natural areas which<br />
account for about the 20% of the total farm area.<br />
Amongst farms interwieved only a large one has recently reconverted a limited area (3,7 ha) to woodland. <strong>The</strong> planted<br />
species are pine wood, ilex, cork-tree, ash-tree and flowering ash.<br />
In fams surveyed, the diversity and quantity of plant species is very limited. Only cypressus, aromatic plants and pine<br />
tree are present in more than one farm. However, the presence of particular plant species in largest farms and organic<br />
ones is worth noting. <strong>The</strong>se species are completely absent in small and medium conventional farms which are oriented<br />
towards a more intensive agriculture.<br />
Courtyard animals (rabbit, turkey cock, chicken, hen, goose, pig, horse, peageon, etc.) are present in all the interwieved<br />
farms. <strong>The</strong> total number is however very limited. <strong>The</strong>se animals are used for family self-comsuption and only a small<br />
part is sold on the local market.<br />
Animal biodiversity is quite interesting given that within farm boundaries there are many wild animals and it is<br />
possibile to get sight of migratory birds. <strong>The</strong> presence of wild animals is not linked to farm size or to conventional or<br />
organic farms. Farmers have a good awareness of animal species present in their farms.<br />
Tab. 27 - Wild animal species detected within the farms boundaries (% of farms)<br />
Wild boars 88,9<br />
Foxes 88,9<br />
Roe-deer 77,8<br />
Hares 88,9<br />
Pheasants 100,0<br />
Sedentary birds 88,9<br />
Migrant birds 88,9<br />
Lizards 100,0<br />
62
Snails 100,0<br />
Frogs 88,9<br />
Mice 100,0<br />
Hedgehogs 100,0<br />
Porcupines 88,9<br />
Badgers 44,4<br />
Tortoises 22,2<br />
Fallow deer 22,2<br />
Beech-martens 11,1<br />
Weasels 11,1<br />
Among permanent birds, the more common are: buzzard, seagull and duck-hawk; among migrant birds: heron, little<br />
heron, cormorant, lapwing and plover.<br />
3.3.2 Agricultural system: qualitative and quantitative description of economic characteristics<br />
In this section the local agricultural systems have been studied from an economic perspective. <strong>The</strong> analysis<br />
started from the description of the farm structure and management which influences the performance of the<br />
primary sector.<br />
Description of farm structure of the area<br />
<strong>The</strong> structure of the local agricultural system refers to the number of farms, total farm area, average utilised<br />
agricultural area (UAA), tenurial forms, average economic size unit, type of farming, vertical and horizontal<br />
integration and marketing of agricultural products.<br />
<strong>The</strong> information to be obtained (for small, medium and large farms 6 ) from the analysis of data relative to the<br />
above aspects of agriculture was as follows:<br />
Number of farms: this is useful for determining the degree of competition for the same natural<br />
resources and the parcellisation or spatial distribution of the agricultural activities present within the<br />
study area;<br />
Total farm area: defines the total territorial extent of the farms and serves to identify the type and<br />
proportion of agricultural holdings in the study area;<br />
UAA: defines the extent of the area actually under agricultural production, compared to the overall<br />
area of the farms. It is relevant to the analysis of environmental impacts;<br />
Tenurial forms: indicates the ownerships and types of agreement/contract existing to use the land.<br />
Land tenure is an important factor influencing the management of farms and the sustainability of<br />
agricultural activity. It is in general believed that the more defined the land-use rights are, the more<br />
users will take into account the long-term impacts of their actions (also in case of community<br />
ownerships);<br />
Economic Size Unit 7 : refers to the economic size of farms expressed in European size unit<br />
categories (Reg. 85/377/EEC). This information describes the economic magnitude of the farming<br />
activities by a European standard gross margin. One ESU is 1200 ECU of standard gross margin.<br />
Eight ESU is believed to be the minimum size for a full-time holding (Paul Brassley, 1997)<br />
Type of farming: refers to the kinds of agricultural activities carried out within the farms;<br />
Degree of vertical and/or horizontal integration: Vertical integration occurs when two or more<br />
firms operating at different levels in the production, processing and marketing chains, join together<br />
under single ownership or through contracts specifying collaborative relationships. Horizontal<br />
6 In the context of <strong>AEMBAC</strong>: 0–5ha - small farm; 6–50ha - medium farm; more than 50ha - large farm<br />
7 For exact definition of each item please see the document of the EU Community committee for the farm accountancy data network<br />
(RI/CC 882 rev. 6.1 text Definition of variable in EU- FADN standard result.doc) in the web<br />
site:http://europe.eu.int/comm/agriculture/rica/index_en.cfm<br />
63
integration refers to the combination of firms operating at the same stage of the production,<br />
processing and marketing processes. In agriculture this occurs when a number of small producers<br />
join to sell their products together in order to achieve stronger contractual power in commercial<br />
transactions.<br />
Box 21 - <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Details on farm structures in Oberes Fricktal study area, Switzerland<br />
(for references in the box, see FiBL report)<br />
Tab. 28 - General information on farm structure at the study area level<br />
Small Farms Medium Farms Large Farms<br />
Number of Farms*** 47 80 66<br />
Number of Farms**** 61 87 64<br />
TOTAL FARM AREA*** 160 996 1’844<br />
Average Utilised Agricultural Area (UAA)*** 2.3 11.3 29.9<br />
Tenurial forms:****<br />
Private ownership<br />
<br />
Public ownership<br />
Open access<br />
<br />
Rented<br />
0.8 5.6 16.3<br />
n.a. n.a. n.a.<br />
n.a. n.a. n.a.<br />
1.8 5.9 12.5<br />
Average Economic size unit (ESU)**** 6‘493<br />
5.4 ESU<br />
TYPE OF FARMING (TF)<br />
*** Reference: Swiss federal statistical office, structure survey statistic 2000<br />
**** Reference: Swiss federal statistical office, mechanical survey statistic 1996<br />
64<br />
34'430<br />
28.7 ESU<br />
87'820<br />
73 ESU<br />
34% of the farms in the Oberes Fricktal area are large farms which cultivate 61% of the total UAA in the study area.<br />
41% are medium farms, cultivating 33% of the total UAA, and 24% are small farms. Compared to other regions in<br />
Switzerland, in the Oberes Fricktal area, there are a relatively high proportion of small farms. 55% of the cultivated area<br />
of large farms is owned by the farm whereas small farms only own 35% of their cultivated land. Due to the high<br />
proportion of tenured land, small farms have a higher risk of land losses as a consequence of tenure termination.<br />
<strong>The</strong> proportion of main-occupation farms amounts to 63% (122 farms) which cultivate 86% of the UAA.<br />
Degree of horizontal and vertical integration<br />
Identification of the presence of meso-economic organisation in the study area, such as co-operatives,<br />
associations of producers, consortiums, upstream and downstream enterprises (number of organisations,<br />
members, date of foundation). Complementary activities. Extension services.<br />
Access to market and integration<br />
Information on most important geographical markets, distribution channels, marketing activities in general<br />
for farm and for co-operatives (including contribution and remuneration of products) for the local<br />
agricultural production was analysed. This information is useful to determine the costs of transportation of<br />
products to the market, the type of clients and the contractual power of farmers.<br />
Box 22 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Access to market and integration in the Selaön study area, Sweden<br />
(for references in the box, see SLU report)<br />
Especially for some more remote districts in Sweden, the long distances and poor services for production are significant<br />
threats to cultivation or husbandry, and consequently also to the preservation of landscape amenities. High fees for<br />
collecting the milk or for visits by veterinary services may, for example, reduce profitability significantly. Below some<br />
size and distance limits, no service is available at all.<br />
<strong>The</strong> dairy as well as the slaughter markets in Sweden are characterised by a very few enterprises having almost regional<br />
monopolies. Although these are farmer co-operatives, a single farmer has in practice little choice and has to accept<br />
given prices and delivery conditions.
As regards slaughterhouses, the Selaön study area is situated in an area that is covered by the Swedish slaughter<br />
enterprise Scan Foods. <strong>The</strong> closest slaughterhouse is located in Linköping, approximately 200km away. <strong>The</strong>y do not<br />
apply any extra fee depending on distance to the farm or animal quantity. If the number of animals is too low for some<br />
farms in the same area they try to combine the delivery days. <strong>The</strong> only restriction applied is that there can be a<br />
maximum of 8 hours’ drive from the farm to the slaughterhouse (animal welfare reasons). <strong>The</strong>re are also fees applied<br />
for the collection of pigs and sheep. For any number of pigs, Scan Foods charges 13,5 Euro 8 for each collection and for<br />
less than six sheep they charge 16,2 Euro (Scan Foods, 2001).<br />
As regards dairy plants, Selaön is situated in the area covered by the dairy enterprise Arla Foods. 90% of the milk<br />
produced in Selaön is delivered the dairy plant in Stockholm, approximately 100km away. About 10% goes to the dairy<br />
plant in Norrköping, 150km away. Arla has a general rule that they can cancel a supplier that produces less than 100<br />
litres on each occasion, which is every second day. Farms can be periodically cancelled as suppliers to the plant if<br />
production goes below 100 litres on five consecutive collection opportunities. This can periodically affect those farms<br />
with many milk cows but a synchronised milking period for all the cows and, more often, farms with around 10 milk<br />
cows or less. Arla also applies an administrative fee, the same for all farms for each collection, of 3,5 Euros. This fee is<br />
in general more likely to have strongest effects on those with a lower delivery than 1 700 litres of milk per collection<br />
occasion. However, in the Selaön area there is only one dairy supplier and the farm’s production is big enough not to<br />
suffer from any cancellation (Edvindsson, 2001).<br />
Ecological production<br />
<strong>The</strong> idea of the organisation KRAV is to contribute to sustainable development through a market label that farmers can<br />
get if they comply with specific criteria for ecological production. <strong>The</strong> label involves production without chemical<br />
fertilisers and biocides, where animals are well treated, and where no genetically modified crops are allowed.<br />
<strong>The</strong> total area of certain KRAV approved crops is 2 440ha. Oats are the most common crop and count for 33% of the<br />
total area. Potatoes, on the other hand, constitutes only 0.2% of the total area for certain KRAV approved crops in the<br />
county of Södermanland.<br />
Production<br />
All data referring to agricultural production are gathered together in this section, starting from crops and<br />
livestock production output and costs, and processing output and continuing with agro-environmental goods<br />
and services.<br />
Raw productions were analysed by looking at physical yields per crop or livestock (including livestock<br />
products such as eggs, milk, wool, etc.), quantity of product sold and of product unprocessed, and identifying<br />
the monetary values of output, selling price and grant and subsidies obtained per crops or livestock.<br />
Information on the main marketing channels used was also analysed.<br />
Costs, output and gross margin of cultivation (seeds purchase, fertilasers purchase, crop protection, rented<br />
machinery and equipment, other specific costs, home-produced seeds and dung used, labour, total specific<br />
costs, total output, and gross margin) and those of rearing animals (feedstuff purchased, fodder, strawlitter<br />
purchased, other costs, home produced feedstuff, fodder and straw litter used, labour costs, total output<br />
(meat), total output, gross margin) were analysed in detail for crops and livestock respectively.<br />
<strong>The</strong> physical quantities and monetary values of product processing outputs and costs were calculated for the<br />
three farm categories. Information on marketing channels for raw and processed products was also analysed.<br />
<strong>The</strong> information resulting from the analysis of the above data was to be used to calculate the average<br />
economic results for the average farm of the three categories (see below farm income statement). <strong>The</strong><br />
economic information on outputs and costs relating to crops and livestock production have also been of use<br />
when the comparison with the economic value of environmental goods and services production was done in<br />
<strong>AEMBAC</strong> phase 2, and for the calculation of the economics of agri-environmental measures to be proposed.<br />
8 Calculated with the average exchange rate for 2001<br />
65
Box 23 - <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Crop production in the Chianti study area, Italy<br />
(for references in the box, see UNIFI-DSE report)<br />
<strong>The</strong> gross margin per hectare has only been calculated for olive and vine crops. Other crops are not considered in our<br />
analysis because of their low importance in the local economy and the absence of historical data in FADN.<br />
For olive and wine cultivation, we have disaggregated the results distinguishing between medium and large farms (see<br />
table below).<br />
<strong>The</strong> first analysis of the results from the period 1997–2000 showed up an interesting fact, namely a great difference in<br />
gross margin between wine and olive crops: the former has a gross margin about 8,37 times greater than the latter.<br />
For both, the gross margin is greater in medium farms than in large ones (95% for olives and 138% for wine,<br />
respectively). This is due to a difference in crop yield and a different cost structure: in fact medium farms usually have<br />
plantations in better condition and in full production, while large farms have built new plantations especially in recent<br />
years according to the favourable trend in wine market prices.<br />
It is important to note that the selling price of wine and olives is calculated according to the local price paid by the<br />
cooperative industry of transformation. We retain that the gross margin is quite different in those large farms which are<br />
market-oriented. In fact it is likely that they are able to attribute a greater value to raw materials by processing them on<br />
their own.<br />
Tab. 29 - Average gross margin for conventional farms for principal crops of the area in the period 1997–2000<br />
(€/ha) Labour costs excluded<br />
CROP OLIVE VINE<br />
Average<br />
medium<br />
Average<br />
large<br />
66<br />
Total<br />
average<br />
Average<br />
medium<br />
Average<br />
large<br />
Total<br />
average<br />
A)Total production 2.024,47 1.070,19 1.398,08 21.748,76 9.910,28 11.970,41<br />
Seed purchase costs (replanting) 4,63 0,00 1,58 16,12 44,56 42,84<br />
Fertilisers purchase costs 54,75 35,72 42,20 78,06 123,12 124,68<br />
Crop protection costs 20,35 5,26 10,39 255,73 381,33 388,79<br />
Rented machinery and equipment costs 8,99 0,00 3,06 7,05 134,88 121,83<br />
Other specific costs 2,69 39,65 27,07 157,91 326,19 321,12<br />
Home grown seed used 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00<br />
Home grown dung used 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00<br />
B)Total current costs 91,42 80,63 84,30 514,87 1.010,08 999,26<br />
Gross margin (A-B) 1.933,05 989,56 1.310,57 21.233,89 8.900,20 10.971,15<br />
Grant and subsidies 515,11 452,84 474,02 412,76 1.016,61 911,53<br />
Source: elaboration on local FADN<br />
Of the other crops, the only economic data available is for irises which are cultivated for the production of bulbs for the<br />
perfume industry. <strong>The</strong> profitability of the crop is quite low and so it carries on through family tradition rather than<br />
economic convenience 9 . Although this crop represents a good family income integration in some small farms in the<br />
area, not one of them specialises in its cultivation. <strong>The</strong> bulbs are usually gathered by a cooperative (external to the study<br />
area), which sells them to industry.<br />
Livestock Production<br />
Box 24 - <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Dairy farming in Gelderse Vallei Southwest, Netherlands<br />
Dairy prices were under pressure in the second half of 1998 and 1999; however, in 2000 the dairy market recovered<br />
(LEI, 2001). Due to an increase in world market prices – which was mainly the result of the strong US dollar, export<br />
subsidies and intervention – stocks in the EU were reduced. Mainly as a consequence of higher milk prices, the average<br />
family farm income for dairy farms increased slightly between 1999/2000 and 2000/01. <strong>The</strong> higher production costs and<br />
9 From WP4 Italy elaboration on FADN, we have determined that the gross margin for this crop is around 6.500 €/ha.<br />
<strong>The</strong> cultivation labour intensive, which drastically reduces its profitability. So it is progressively substituted by more<br />
profitable crops, grapes in particular.
the BSE crisis somewhat counterbalanced the positive results at the end of 2000. <strong>The</strong> effects of the Foot and Mouth<br />
Disease crisis on income are not yet clear.<br />
Milk is the main grassland-based livestock farming product in the case study area. Some key figures on outputs and<br />
costs of milk production are given in the table below.<br />
Tab. 30 - Specification of gross margin per dairy cow (1999/00) for an<br />
average dairy farm on sandy soil in the Netherlands<br />
(costs and outputs in EURO)<br />
Milk yield per dairy cow (1999/00, kg) 7,625<br />
Factory price per 100kg (1999/00, EURO) 33.36<br />
Output milk 2,505<br />
Output and change in volume dairy cattle 322<br />
Other output 64<br />
TOTAL OUTPUT 2,886<br />
FEED COSTS<br />
Concentrates 340<br />
Milk products 32<br />
Roughage (inc. stock changes) 50<br />
Total feed costs 422<br />
OUTPUT MINUS FEED COSTS 2,464<br />
Veterinary costs, breeding costs, etc. 177<br />
Other specific costs 113<br />
GROSS MARGIN 2,169<br />
Costs milk quota 399<br />
Source: LEI, Farm Accountancy Data Network<br />
Note: Data included in this table is not available at the case study area level. However, due institutional and economic circumstances,<br />
farm size and farming practices are to a large extent homogeneous across the country. For this reason, regional or even national level<br />
data (if specified for e.g. soil conditions) may be considered representative. Possibilities for a dataset more specific to the region<br />
(note: larger than case study area!) for soil type etc., better fitting the case study area, are being considered.<br />
Environmental goods and services production<br />
It was suggested to gather data on the production of environmental goods and services by the average farm in<br />
each size category in order to assess both the their supply and the quantity of production and labour spent on<br />
them. This information, when available, was used to assess the labour costs of environmental goods and<br />
services produced. Information on subsidies obtained for this agro-environmental activity is also relevant to<br />
the analysis on the economics of agro-environmental measures. Environmental goods and services<br />
considered here were those related to biodiversity conservation (such as ecosystems managed, number of<br />
indigenous species managed, number of wild and cultivated/reared local varieties/breeds), maintenance of<br />
landscape traditional features, and works done for mitigation of soil erosion and water run-off.<br />
Labour<br />
Data analysed were on labour spent on each agricultural activities carried out in the study area such as agroenvironmental<br />
practices, agro-tourism, production of crops and rearing of livestocks, etc. This information<br />
was used to calculate labour inputs into agricultural productions, and relative costs.<br />
67
Box 25 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Labour in Oberas Fricktal, Switzerland<br />
Tab. 31 – Labour in Farms<br />
Unpaid labour (family) Valley area<br />
Dairy farms<br />
Mixed farms<br />
Total hours 3,510 3,483<br />
Annual average hours for agro-environmental practices: n.a. n.a.<br />
Annual average hours for tourism n.a. n.a.<br />
Annual average hours for crops n.a. n.a.<br />
Annual average hours for livestock n.a. n.a.<br />
Annual Work Units (AWU) 1.3 1.29<br />
Social security costs<br />
Total Paid Labour<br />
1,410 1,436<br />
Total regular hours 1,026 1,134<br />
Annual average hours for agro-environmental practices: n.a. n.a.<br />
Annual average hours for tourism not relevant n.a.<br />
Annual average hours for crops not available not available<br />
Annual average hours for livestock not available not available<br />
Annual Work Units (AWU) 0.38 0.42<br />
Wages and social security costs 10,315 SFr.<br />
10,921 Fr.<br />
7,014 E<br />
7,426 E<br />
Total casual and seasonal: hours 1,026 1,134<br />
Annual Work Units (AWU) 0.38 0.42<br />
Wages and social security costs 10'315 Fr.<br />
10'921 Fr.<br />
70014 E<br />
7'426 E<br />
Labour use:<br />
In 1996, a total of 616 persons working on farms were registered in Oberes Fricktal, corresponding to 385 AWU in total<br />
(0,13 AWU/ha UAA). 77% of AWU are working on main-occupation farms, 23% on part-time farms.<br />
Main-occupation farms: 2,4 AWU/farm, 0,11 AWU/ha<br />
Part-time farms: 1,0 AWU/farm, 0,22 AWU/ha.<br />
Small farms: 1,3 AWU/ha<br />
Medium farms: 0,17 AWU/ha<br />
Large farms 0,09 AWU/ha.<br />
Statement of assets and liabilities for the average farm each category<br />
<strong>The</strong> balance sheet serves to provide an indication of the farm’s financial situation at a given point in time.<br />
This information describes how the farm is performing and how it is managed. In fact the measure of<br />
liquidity assesses the capacity of the farm to match its financial obligations. This solvency state indicates the<br />
degree of financial sustainability of the farm management which has important implications for the viability<br />
and expected profitability of the business.<br />
<strong>The</strong> information on financial status is also useful for the definition of agri-environmental measures when the<br />
value resulting from the implementation of environmental land improvements, which have the character of<br />
being fixed assets, has been calculated and accounted for.<br />
In <strong>AEMBAC</strong> it was suggested to use the balance sheet proposed in the document of the EU Committee for<br />
the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) (RI/CC 882 rev. 6.1 text Definition of variable in EU- FADN<br />
standard result.doc). <strong>The</strong> reason for this choice was that it is recommendable to use existing information and<br />
categories of items which are already harmonised at a European Union level.<br />
For an exact definition of each item please see the document of the EU Community committee for the farm<br />
accountancy data network (RI/CC 882 rev. 6.1 text Definition of variable in EU- FADN standard result.doc)<br />
in the web site:http://europe.eu.int/comm/agriculture/rica/index_en.cfm )<br />
68
Please note that land improvements (such as environmental ones) in <strong>AEMBAC</strong> were included in the category<br />
Land, permanent crops and quotas.<br />
<strong>The</strong> subsidies on assets were to be included in each asset item. <strong>The</strong> amount of subsidies on assets has been<br />
identified as an item of net worth. Details on subsidies are given below.<br />
Box 26 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Statement of assets and liabilities in Gelderse Vallei Southwest,<br />
Netherlands<br />
For the two dominant farm types in the case study area, dairy and pig farms, the statement of assets and liabilities is<br />
given. <strong>The</strong> solvency ratio for pig farmers is lower than that of dairy farmers.<br />
Tab. 32 – Statement of assets and liabilities<br />
ASSETS (1999/00, in Euro) Average<br />
dairy farm<br />
69<br />
Average<br />
pig farm<br />
Intangible fixed assets (e.g. quota) 103,961 39,933<br />
Land (inc. investments) 527,973 180,378<br />
Farm buildings 148,432 281,616<br />
Machinery and equipment 65,48 84,902<br />
Breeding live stock 55,225 59,037<br />
Other fixed farm assets 0 227<br />
Farmhouse 72,605 90,484<br />
Other fixed assets private 21,827 39,887<br />
Total fixed assets 891,542 736,531<br />
Investment in agr. cooperatives 14,476 2,042<br />
Long-term loans 590 6,988<br />
Total financial fixed assets 15,066 9,03<br />
Non-breeding live stock 6,943 77,415<br />
Other stocks 17,471 5,945<br />
Accounts receivable for products delivered 17,153 9,666<br />
Other account receivable 1,815 227<br />
Stocks and shares 11,571 14,521<br />
Saving accounts with banks 26,773 9,802<br />
Current accounts with banks 5,808 8,123<br />
Cash 454 272<br />
Total liquid resources 33,035 18,242<br />
Total current assets 87,943 125,969<br />
Total of balance sheet 1,098,557 911,463<br />
LIABILITIES (1999/00, in Euro)<br />
Net worth 823,656 475,108<br />
Loans by banks (incl insurance companies) 234,831 387,211<br />
Loans by the state 3,903 4,629<br />
Loans by farmers’ relatives 26,909 17,879<br />
Loans by other private persons 908 7,487<br />
Total long-term loans 266,505 417,206<br />
Current accounts with banks 2,768 2,95<br />
Accounts payable 4,992 15,292<br />
Other short-term liabilities 635 908<br />
Total short-term liabilities 8,395 19,195<br />
Total liabilities 274,9 436,4<br />
Total of balance sheet 1,098,557 911,463<br />
Solvency ratio 75 52
Source: LEI, Farm Accountancy Data Network.<br />
Average dairy farm figures are for average dairy farms on sandy soils in the Netherlands. Average pig farm figures are<br />
for average pig farms in the Netherlands<br />
Note: Data included in this table is not available at the case study area level. However, due to institutional and<br />
economic circumstances, farm sizes and farming practices are to a large extent homogeneous across the country. For<br />
this reason, regional or even at national level data (if specified for e.g. soil conditions), may be considered<br />
representative. Possibilities for a dataset more specific to the region (note: larger than case study area!), on soil type<br />
etc., better fitting the case study area, are being considered.<br />
Farm income for the average farm each category at study area level<br />
<strong>The</strong> Profit and Loss Statement (Farm Income) gives a picture of the revenues and expenses of the farm over<br />
a given period, usually one year. From the difference between these, the calculation of the final profit or loss<br />
for the farm for the relevant period is made. <strong>The</strong> farm income is useful to determine the payoff for each<br />
single different farming activity and for their total (i.e. return on inputs: land, labour and capital). This<br />
information will be also of use in the tailoring of agri-environmental measures (e.g. definition of incentives<br />
proposed for supplying of environmental goods and services) to the local agricultural systems.<br />
<strong>The</strong> farm income proposed here, as for the balance sheet above, is drawn from that presented in the<br />
document of the EU Committee for the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) (RI/CC 882 rev. 6.1 text<br />
Definition of variable in EU- FADN standard result.doc). <strong>The</strong> reason for this choice was that it is<br />
recommendable to use existing information and categories of items which are already harmonised at<br />
European Union level.<br />
For an exact definition of each item please see the documente of the EU Community committee for the farm<br />
accountancy data network (RI/CC 882 rev. 6.1 text Definition of variable in EU- FADN standard result.doc)<br />
in the web site:http://europe.eu.int/comm/agriculture/rica/index_en.cfm )<br />
Box 27 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Economic account at area level and for farm size (€) in the Chianti study<br />
area, Italy<br />
<strong>The</strong> average farm account for the area was estimated by considering data gathered through the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> questionnaire,<br />
direct interviews and the total number of farms in the three categories present in the area as reported in WP4.<br />
<strong>The</strong> aggregated farm output increases according to size. <strong>The</strong> different output items vary within this aggregated output.<br />
<strong>The</strong> agritourism activities outputs, in particular, (the only activities complementary to the agriculture ones in the area)<br />
are inversely proportional to the farm size, from 17% of total output in small farms to 6,5% in large ones. <strong>The</strong> low<br />
presence of livestock activities and the absence of actual statistical data do not allow valuations of these at area level.<br />
<strong>The</strong> specific costs in term of total output are substantially similar in small and medium farms (round to 6,5% of total<br />
output), while large farms have current costs slightly higher in percentage (8,5%). According to the different incidence<br />
of agritourism activities related to farm size, it results that in the composition of current costs, for these activities, total<br />
specific costs are about 54% in small farms, and 18% in the large ones.<br />
In the large farms current costs for agricultural activitities are far higher than those of the small and medium farm.<br />
Following the different relative importance of current costs, gross farm income is around 93% of total output for small<br />
and medium farm while it is a little lower for large farms.<br />
<strong>The</strong> depreciation quota imputable to the annual current costs results has a high incidence in the small farms compared to<br />
that in the large ones.<br />
<strong>The</strong> annual quota of depreciation in small farms is represented mainly by plantation and machinery according to<br />
renewal process in the last years. Conversely, large farms hold consistent investments which are mostly depreciated.<br />
<strong>The</strong> labour costs are greater on large farms (12% of total output) whereas they are quite low on small farms (8%)<br />
because of the large use of family labour.<br />
In consequence of the different incidence of costs on total outputs due in particular to depreciation quotas, the large<br />
farms have a profitability of (taxes excluded) around 70% of total output, while this value is less for small ones (40%),<br />
although the latter present more favourable results in current management.<br />
70
Tab. 33 - Average farm account at area level for farm size (€) Average small Average medium Average large<br />
for the year 2000<br />
farm<br />
farm<br />
farm<br />
(€) (€) (€)<br />
a) Total output 24.625 76.014 441.621<br />
· Total output: crops and products 20.954 69.196 415.221<br />
· Total output: livestock product 0 0 0<br />
· Total tourism receipts 3.671 6.818 26.400<br />
· Total output: environmental goods and services --- --- ---<br />
b) Total cost 1.694 4.611 37.781<br />
b1) Total specific costs: 1.694 4.611 37.781<br />
· Specific crop costs 625 1.969 27.628<br />
· Specific livestock costs 0 0 0<br />
· Specific tourism costs 910 2.124 7.141<br />
· Specific environmental costs 158 518 3.012<br />
b2) Total farm overheads<br />
Balance current subsidies<br />
· Total subsidies (excl. invest.) 748 3.404 30.902<br />
· Total crop production support 748 3.404 30.902<br />
· Total livestock production support - -<br />
· Total structural support * * *<br />
· Total rural development support (reg. 1257/99) * * *<br />
Gross farm income 22.931 71.402 403.840<br />
Depreciation total 11.036 11.036 41.199<br />
· Plantation 4.645 4.645 22.122<br />
· Machinery 4.668 4.668 5.360<br />
· Buildings 1.723 1.723 13.718<br />
Farm net value added 11.895 60.366 362.641<br />
· Total external costs 2.013 6.587 54.537<br />
· Wages paid 2.010 6.581 54.517<br />
· Rent paid - - -<br />
· Interest paid 3 6 20<br />
Farm income 9.882 53.779 308.104<br />
Details on balance of government payments and taxes<br />
In order to define the entity of public contributions given to farms in general (compensation payments,<br />
subsidies to export, etc.) and that of payments for environmental amelioration of the land, the following<br />
information was analysed:<br />
Detailed description of any compensation payments (per hectare and headage) and subsidies to<br />
export received;<br />
Detailed description of any public contribution for soil conservation, maintenance of land settings,<br />
landscape conservation, etc.;<br />
Detailed description of any public contributions regarding biodiversity conservation (EEC<br />
reg.2078/92) and forest management (EEC.reg.2080/92); and<br />
Description of taxes in details.<br />
<strong>The</strong> above information will give a fairly accurate picture of public intervention on local agriculture and how<br />
much of it is allocated to environmental issues. Needless to say this will be considered in developing agrienvironmental<br />
measures (e.g. building on existing ones).<br />
71
Box 28 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Details on subsidies in Palamuse study area, Estonia<br />
Since 1998 the Estonian government has offered direct subsidies to farmers. <strong>The</strong> types of support that influence the<br />
agricultural sector are: direct support, capital support, interest subsidy, motor fuel excise subsidy, co-financing of land<br />
amelioration works, support to liming works, animal breeding, and support for using extension services.<br />
In 2001 the direct state subsidy for dairy cow breeding was 72.37 euros per cow (for native cattle 108.97 euros) and the<br />
grain subsidy was 25.64 euros per hectare. Organic farming support in pilot areas (different administration and<br />
requirements as nationally) was 40.38 euros (organic) and 53,85 euros (converted from Estonian currency); nationally<br />
14.73 euros for permanent and natural grassland; 44.19 for crops in arable rotation and 132.57 for vegetables and fruits.<br />
In 2001, the Pilot Agri-environmental <strong>Project</strong> started. Related to the project, the following measures are supported in<br />
the Palamuse pilot area:<br />
Environment-friendly management – obligatory for every applicant and offering baseline payment;<br />
Supplementary measures (available in any combination and providing additional payments for additional undertakings);<br />
Organic farming (different payment levels in-conversion, organic);<br />
Endangered breeds (Estonian Native Horse);<br />
Management of abandoned land;<br />
Creation of ponds and wetlands; and<br />
Planting of hedges.<br />
Tab. 34 - <strong>The</strong> structure of support (%) based on the data from ten farms (four small, six medium)<br />
FARM TYPE<br />
Agri-<br />
environment<br />
support<br />
Dairy cow<br />
subsidyt<br />
72<br />
Grain subsidy<br />
Advisory<br />
support<br />
Interest support<br />
No. of recipient farms 4 - 2 - -<br />
Small farms 96.7 - 3.3 - -<br />
No. of recipient farms 6 3 6 - 3<br />
Medium farms 65,8 5,7 27.2 - 1.3<br />
A significant part of the support received in 2001 in the farms surveyed, is made up of agri-environment support,<br />
especially in small farms (96.7% of all support in small farms and 65.8% in medium farms). <strong>The</strong>re are remarkable<br />
differences between small and medium farms as regards other support received: while small farms received only grain<br />
subsidies (3,3% from all support) in addition to the agri-environment support, medium farms received grain subsidies<br />
(27,2%), dairy cow subsidies (5,7%) and interest support (1,3%) as well.<br />
Tab. 35 - Average amounts of support (EUR) per Farm<br />
FARM TYPE<br />
Agri-<br />
environment<br />
support<br />
Dairy cow<br />
subsidy<br />
Grain subsidy<br />
Advisory<br />
support<br />
Small farms 2 448.8 - 168.5 - -<br />
Medium farms 4 908.7 844.3 2 036.4 - 196.8<br />
Average TOTAL 3 924.7 844.3 1 569.4 - 196.8<br />
3.1.3 Agricultural system: Qualitative and quantitative description of social characteristics<br />
Interest support<br />
In this section starting from the historical profile of the area with particular reference to the agricultural<br />
history presented in Step 1, farmers were asked to give a brief description of the social characteristics of the<br />
rural population in the study area. Topics relating to education, employment, age, part time [time series if<br />
possible], cultural traditions were investigated in this section.<br />
Box 29 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Historical and social information on the Palamuse study area, Estonia<br />
Palamuse parish is one of the oldest parishes in Estonia. It was first mentioned in 1234 in Pope Gregorius IX’s letter.<br />
Earlier the Palamuse parish comprised also Maarja-Magdaleena parish, but in 1641 these two parishes were separated.<br />
At the end of the Swedish period Palamuse was a wealthy parish with 220 farms. <strong>The</strong> first written mention of the farms<br />
originates from 1584. <strong>The</strong> farms belonged to manors.<br />
During the Great Northern War (1700–1721) the population decreased by 50%. In 1785 Palamuse parish had 170 farms
with 2,200 inhabitants. In 1795 there were already 3,000 inhabitants, but it still took about twenty years to restore the<br />
economy and way of life of the parish after the damages of the war.<br />
Serfdom was finally abolished in North Estonia in 1816 and in South Estonia in 1819 but without any rights to land. This<br />
meant that every peasant got the right to buy land. Intensive renting and purchasing for perpetuity began, as the landlords felt<br />
there was a possibility to make money. Mainly land lots in marginal areas were distributed for instance in 1852, when four<br />
farms were bought from Luua manor. Active buying started in 1864 and by the end of 1880, the majority of farms had<br />
been bought out from the manor. <strong>The</strong>re were 13 manors in Palamuse parish. <strong>The</strong> first two decades of the 20 th century<br />
changed little in the land-use structure in Estonia. <strong>The</strong> same processes of renting and buying for perpetuity of land from<br />
landlords continued up to 1918, when the Republic of Estonia was declared independent. <strong>The</strong> land reform proclaimed on<br />
February 17, 1919, was one of the first important acts of the independent state. All land belonging to the 1,149 estates of the<br />
Baltic-German landlords, was nationalised and later distributed to Estonian peasants.<br />
In the Palamuse parish the land of 10 manors was divided into 195 plots. 170 of them were given to the farmers by<br />
virtue of temporary lease as normal farms, one to the farmer by virtue of private agreement, 7 to industrial enterprises, 2<br />
to companies and municipal institutions, 14 to the employees and 1 was left for backlog-land.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re were 280 farms in the Palamuse community. 208 farms were bought and 72 were leased.<br />
7543.4 ha (35.1% of the total land area) was fields and gardens, 4983.5 ha (23.2%) meadows, 2949.4 ha (13.7%)<br />
pastures, 3989.4 ha (18.6%) forests and 1999.7 ha (9.4%) was out of use.<br />
When at the second half of the 19 th century the communities were formed, Palamuse parish was divided into four<br />
communities: Kuremaa, Kudina, Kaarepere and Roela. In 1945, the Palamuse community was formed from Kuremaa<br />
community. In 1972 the area of Palamuse community was 247km² and it had approximately 2,900 inhabitants.<br />
In 1964 there were 25 villages in Palamuse. Three of them had less than 9 families, 10 had 10–19 families, 3 had 20–29,<br />
2 had 30–39, 5 had 40–49, 1 had 60–69 and 1 had more than 100 families. <strong>The</strong>se villages were mostly agricultural<br />
villages. there were two collective farms in Palamuse, “Uus tee” in Kudina and “V. Kingisepa nimeline kolhoos” in<br />
Varbvere village.<br />
In 1991 Palamuse got local government status.<br />
Nowadays the area of the community is 216km² and the population consists of 2,650 people. <strong>The</strong> sex and age group<br />
structure is presented in the table below. <strong>The</strong> average population density is 12,3 inh/km².<br />
Tab .36 - Population of the Palamuse municipality by sex and age groups (01.01.00)<br />
Population<br />
Age groups<br />
01.01.00 0–14 15–24 25–39 40–54 55–64 65+<br />
Palamuse M 1 302 263 246 284 251 132 126<br />
F 1 348 267 194 246 234 147 260<br />
TOTAL 2 650 530 440 530 485 279 386<br />
Most of the employees in the community work in Palamuse, less than 10% (9,4) of employees are working outside the<br />
municipality, compared to 12,6% in 1998. <strong>The</strong> number of employees has increased compared to 1998.<br />
Tab. 37 - Employees by actual place of residence in the Palamuse municipality (01.01.00)<br />
Total number of Working out of rural %<br />
employees<br />
municipality<br />
1998 1999 2000 1998 1999 2000 1998 1999 2000<br />
Palamuse 872 1 054 1 038 110 99 98 12.6 9.4 9.4<br />
3.3.4 Identification of most relevant pressures exerted on environmental functions by local agricultural<br />
system<br />
From the analysis of the local agricultural system above it has been possible to identify significant pressures<br />
that may have causal relationships with impacts on state indicators values measuring the level of<br />
performance of the environmental functions of interest (see Step 2 above).<br />
Amongst the many possible pressures exerted by agriculture on environmental functions a selection had to be<br />
made by looking at results of analysis of information gathered in the above sections. Four broad classes of<br />
pressure indicators were suggested herewith following. <strong>The</strong>se are pressures related to:<br />
73
Table 38 - Pressure indicators<br />
Please note that the list below is general Descriptions<br />
and only indicative. Other pressures may<br />
have been used depending on the case<br />
study<br />
a) Nutrient management indicators<br />
a1) Farm gate nutrient balance Balance of N and P purchased in fertiliser and feed, plus fixation of atmospheric N by<br />
legumes minus amount of N and P in product sold from farm: Nitrogen surplus Kg/ha;<br />
Phosporus surplus kg/ha; Ammonia evaporation kg/ha; Nitrogen leaching kg/ha.<br />
a2) Adjusting application rates to crop needs Matching application rates to expected crop yields increases nutrient use efficiency - used<br />
in precision fertiliser systems.<br />
a3) Timing of nutrient applications Applications of N at time of maximum plant uptake<br />
a4) Crop rotations System of alternation of cultivation of crops<br />
a5) Placement of fertilisers Time and type of application of fertilisers such as on the fields, on vegetation rows or just<br />
near the seeds<br />
a6) Fertilisers used per hectare Amount of fertilisers used per hectare<br />
a7) Livestock density (LU/ha) Number of livestock unit per hectare<br />
b) Soil and land management indicators<br />
b1) Land use Utilisation of the territory for different purposes<br />
b2) Soil cover, mowing, hay cutting, grazing; N° of days that soil is covered, factored by the % of soil cover provided by vegetation and<br />
crop residues. Plant and crop residue cover protects soils from erosion, reduces runoff of<br />
nutrients and pesticides and provides habitat for biodiversity (OECD, 1998)<br />
b3) Land management Use of reduced and zero tillage and other best management practices. % of crop land<br />
cultivated using minimum and zero tillage practices, crop rotations, grassed waterways,<br />
contour strip cropping, etc. (OECD, 1998)<br />
b4) Landscape management Reflects the removal of fencerows, walls, hedges, wetlands and woodlands, as well as the<br />
fencing of riparian areas to protect them from damage by livestock. Areas of buffer strips<br />
and fenced land along ditches and watercourses can also be included (OECD, 1998)<br />
c) Irrigation and water management<br />
indicators<br />
c1) Water use efficiency Volume of agricultural produce per unit of irrigation, water volume consumed; Volume of<br />
agricultural produce per unit area of rain fed agriculture, water volume consumed (OECD,<br />
1998)<br />
c2) Irrigation delivery systems % of irrigation applied by flooding, high pressure rain guns, low pressure sprinklers and by<br />
drip-emitters. Indicate the probable water use efficiency, and risk of over-irrigation (OECD,<br />
1998)<br />
c3) Drainage/diversion/extraction processes Area drained, or the length of of drain pipe or surface drains installed, or outlet drains<br />
excavated. Proportion of total surface and groundwater resource diverted/extracted for all<br />
purposes; proportion of total surface and groundwater resource diverted/extracted for<br />
agricultural production; proportion of total annually renewable water resource used by<br />
agriculture. Are indicative of disturbance of fish and wildlife habitat, and of lowering of the<br />
water table (OECD, 1998)<br />
d) Pesticide use indicators<br />
d1) Pesticide use per ha Measured in the amount of active ingredients (kg/ha) and standard doses (kg/ha) (OECD,<br />
1998)<br />
d2) Use of integrated pest management (per Area of crops where integrated pest management is used (OECD, 1998)<br />
area and timing)<br />
d3) Use of alternative (non-chemical) pest Area of crops where pest control is achieved without use of chemicals (OECD, 1998)<br />
control methods<br />
d4) Timing of herbicide use % of use only when required by weed pressure, rather than pre-plant and pre-emergence<br />
which are used as insurance (OECD, 1998)<br />
d5) Timing of insecticide use % of insecticide use only after determining level of infestation (use only as required by<br />
insect infestation) (OECD, 1998)<br />
d6) Toxicity of pesticide used e.g. the total amount of LD50 doses applied per ha<br />
Main source: OECD Workshop on Agri-Environmental Indicators, York, UK, 1998, ECNC, Agri-environmental<br />
indicators, 2000.<br />
74
Box 30 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Identified pressures in the Geldersey Valley study area, Netherlands<br />
A summary and short explanation of pressure indicators for both functions is presented in the tables below. <strong>The</strong><br />
recreational appeal of the area is partly determined by its ‘natural beauty’, including the plant and animal species to be<br />
spotted by tourists. In this respect all the pressures identified for the ‘habitat function’ are also relevant for the<br />
‘recreation function’. Due to data-availability problems, in this stage of the project, precise quantification of pressures<br />
has not yet been undertaken.<br />
Tab. 39 - Habitat function pressures<br />
Pressure<br />
Land use<br />
Unit of account Explanation<br />
Area agricultural land Percentage of total<br />
area<br />
Agricultural land increase is at the expense of forests and other<br />
natural elements.<br />
Average field size Hectares Many species depend on the border zones between different<br />
agricultural fields and fields and natural areas. (length of border zones<br />
is negatively affected by increase in average field size).<br />
Nutrient Management<br />
Net organic and inorganic<br />
kg per hectare High mineral input and ammonia emission levels have negatively<br />
input of N<br />
affected the vitality of the wetlands, canals and other natural elements<br />
Net organic and inorganic kg per hectare<br />
input of P<br />
Net organic and inorganic kg per hectare<br />
input of K<br />
through eutrophication.<br />
Wet atmospheric<br />
deposition of NH4<br />
kg per hectare<br />
Dry atmospheric<br />
deposition of NH4<br />
Land management<br />
kg per hectare<br />
Mowing period grassland First date of mowing / Mowing period is especially relevant for hatching field birds, which<br />
last date of mowing are heavily disturbed by mowing activities during the breeding<br />
Mowing intensity Number of cuts season. Both mowing intensity and grazing intensity are relevant for<br />
grassland<br />
during mowing the plant species richness of fields. Specific management of field<br />
period<br />
edges is of great importance, since on average, edges account for the<br />
Grassland grazing Number of grazing majority of total species richness of a field.<br />
intensity<br />
cows per hectare<br />
Total length of 2m wide<br />
uncultivated field edges<br />
Pesticide use<br />
Metres<br />
EPA-category-1 active kg per hectare of Pesticide use causes pollution of soil, groundwater and surface water,<br />
ingredient applied cultivated land which affect the habitat quality of the agro-ecosystem and adjacent<br />
EPA-category-2 active kg per hectare of nature areas.<br />
ingredients applied cultivated land<br />
EPA-category-3 active kg per hectare of<br />
ingredients applied<br />
Water management<br />
cultivated land<br />
Direct shallow m3 per hectare Intensification of agricultural activities has contributed to the<br />
groundwater<br />
lowering of groundwater levels, leading to desiccation of the agro-<br />
extraction by agriculture<br />
ecosystem, causing a decline in ‘moist and ‘wet’ species.<br />
Drainage Percentage of total<br />
cultivated<br />
drained<br />
land<br />
Groundwater level Decrease (in metres)<br />
decrease<br />
since 1900<br />
(cultivation improvement<br />
related)<br />
Note: since the pressure exerted by pesticide use in the case study area is relatively minor (see WP4 report), inclusion of<br />
75
the related indicators in the analyses of phase 2 and 3 of the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project is still under consideration.<br />
Tab. 40 - Recreation function pressures<br />
Pressure<br />
Land use<br />
Unit of account Explanation<br />
Area agricultural land Percentage of total Agricultural land increase and increase in average field size poses a<br />
area<br />
threat to forests and other natural elements (large field sizes tend to<br />
Average field size<br />
Nutrient Management<br />
Hectares<br />
be correlated with less diverse and less structured landscapes). <strong>The</strong>se<br />
elements are assumed to be highly valued by tourists.<br />
Net organic and inorganic kg per hectare High organic mineral application on fields causes nuisance of<br />
input of N<br />
manure-related odours, which might deter tourists. High mineral<br />
Net organic and inorganic kg per hectare input and ammonia emission levels might also negatively affect the<br />
input of P<br />
Net organic and inorganic kg per hectare<br />
input of K<br />
quality of recreational waters.<br />
Wet atmospheric<br />
deposition of NH4<br />
kg per hectare<br />
Dry atmospheric<br />
deposition of NH4<br />
Land management<br />
kg per hectare<br />
Grassland grazing Number of grazing <strong>The</strong> presence of grazing cattle on fields (captured by the pressure<br />
intensity<br />
Pesticide use<br />
cows per hectare indicator ‘number of cows per hectare of grassland’) is assumed to be<br />
a fundamental attribute of rural landscapes, as perceived by tourists.<br />
EPA-category-1 active kg per hectare of Through pollution of ground and surface waters, pesticide use can<br />
ingredient applied cultivated land have a negative impact on the quality of recreational waters.<br />
EPA-category-2 active kg per hectare of<br />
ingredients applied cultivated land<br />
EPA-category-3 active kg per hectare of<br />
ingredients applied cultivated land<br />
Note: since the pressure exerted by pesticide use in the case study area is relatively minor (see wp4 report), inclusion of<br />
the related indicators in the analyses of phase 2 and 3 of the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project is still under consideration.<br />
3.3.5 Analysis of aspects acting as driving forces (environmental, economic and social) for the<br />
pressures identified<br />
This section identifies and analyses the main driving forces behind agricultural pressures on the environment<br />
identified in section 3.3.4 above. It is important to determine what are the relevant factors which drive the<br />
farmers’ decision-making process, such as environmental, economic and social conditions, and which of<br />
these result in impacts on the performance of environmental functions. <strong>The</strong>se decision-making processes can<br />
result in changes in cultivation practices such as that from crop rotation to intensification and monocultural<br />
cultivation (specialisation effect), or in changes between agricultural activities and complementary ones<br />
(substitution effect), or in conversion of natural ecosystems into agricultural ones and vice versa, etc.<br />
Starting from the results of the analysis in the previous section on most important pressures driving forces<br />
such as the social structure, markets, institutional functioning, agricultural policy, etc., were identified in<br />
detail and their roles in promoting the pressures impacting on environmental function performance were<br />
described and analysed.<br />
Regarding this it was useful to distinguish between local and foreign driving forces.<br />
Local driving forces, are those which originate from local socio-economic realities, e.g. traditional<br />
76
knowledge or specific local economies of scope or local specialisation. <strong>The</strong>se could be a great<br />
entrepreneurial spirit of farmers, good road infrastructure, nearby location to high nature value areas which<br />
allow to develop agritourism activities, etc.<br />
Foreign driving forces are those which originated and/or are imposed from upper scales such as national,<br />
international and world levels (e.g. National policy, CAP, WTO agreements, etc.). <strong>The</strong>se could be CAP<br />
subsidies coupled to production and export subsidies, national fiscal policy favouring big farms, etc.<br />
<strong>The</strong> results of this analysis were important because they allowed the issues to be identified (and at what<br />
level) that have to be addressed through agri-environmental programmes, aiming to lessen pressures<br />
impacting negatively or enhance those impacting positively on environmental functions.<br />
Environmental driving forces<br />
This section enlarges the description of Step 1 concerning environmental features of the area studied. Hydrogeological,<br />
morphological, climate, general ecological site conditions which can be considered driving forces<br />
of the decision-making process, such as fires, changing climate, slope, soil quality, sun exposure, etc. were<br />
identified and described here.<br />
Box 31 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project. Environmental driving forces in the three German study areas<br />
Jahna river basin<br />
Restrictions on production methods, which go beyond good professional practice do not exist. Endeavours to protect<br />
parts of the study area (valleys covered with grassland between plateaus with arable land) as a “Landscape protection<br />
area” failed due to opposition from the farmer.<br />
Große Röder river basin<br />
Large parts of the Große Röder river basin are protected by several “Landscape protection areas” (e.g. Moritzburg<br />
small-hill landscape). But there are no restrictions for the farmers.<br />
<strong>The</strong> heterogeneity of soil conditions are responsible for a partly small-structured landscape (small plots which are often<br />
bordered by hedges). Moist and wet hollows favour a higher proportion of grassland than in the Jahna river basin.<br />
Biosphere reserve “Upper Lusatian Heath and Pond Landscape”<br />
In the biosphere reserve area, soil fertility is the lowest among the Saxon study areas chosen. <strong>The</strong>re are marginal soils<br />
and the region is categorised as a potential area of land abandonment (DRL, 1997).<br />
Because of the different suitability of sites for plant production, proportions of livestock increase in Saxony from West<br />
to East (in general) (sandy soils, low precipitation, high differences between temperatures in summer and winter).<br />
Heterogeneity in soil conditions led to an heterogeneous land use mosaic and extensive use in history, which is in large<br />
parts preserved till today. <strong>The</strong>refore, the whole region is protected as the biosphere reserve “Upper Lusatian Heath and<br />
Pond Landscape”.<br />
Economic driving forces<br />
To identify economic driving forces it was suggested, for each prevalent agricultural production, to analyse<br />
the resulting economic indicators in section 3.3.3 above. For instance it was suggested to look at gross<br />
production, current cost (e.g. detail of chemical inputs), and gross margin profit, because these, amongst<br />
others, can be very useful in determining the economic driving forces which have led to the present situation.<br />
For example it can be interesting to analyse shifts among cultivation according to changes in gross margin<br />
profits.<br />
Other factors analysed in order to identify economic driving forces were:<br />
Factors which lead to rural economy diversification at farm level, such as the substitution/synergies<br />
between strictly agricultural activity and other types of activity (e.g. economies of scope);<br />
<strong>The</strong> role and the influences of horizontal (e.g. economies of scale) and vertical integration processes in<br />
the local agricultural system, including the resulting contractual power of farmers and farm structure, and<br />
77
the role which farm associations can play in the agricultural changes at local level;<br />
<strong>The</strong> principal agricultural and environmental subsidies; and<br />
<strong>The</strong> evolution of market demand in general for typical local products, environmental and cultural<br />
amenities, at local, regional national and international level.<br />
<strong>The</strong> analysis of aspects acting as local driving forces concentrated on:<br />
• Identifying the socio-economic aspects considered acting as driving forces in reference to the<br />
agricultural pressures identified in Step 3;<br />
• Explaining in detail what are the relationships between the driving forces identified and the pressure<br />
exerted, and how the former could vary to cause a change in the latter. <strong>The</strong> explanation had to be<br />
supported by clear and science-based arguments; and<br />
• Envisaging what should be done to reduce driving forces related to negative impacts and enhance those<br />
related to positive impacts.<br />
Box 32 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Economic and technological driving forces in Selaön study area, Sweden<br />
A first, tentative analysis indicates that the economic driving forces are decisive, although not in sole power. High costs<br />
of labour, combined with low profitability in milk production, cattle and sheep husbandry appear as the major economic<br />
obstacles to the preservation of biodiversity and other landscape amenities. Among the many reasons for low<br />
profitability are high taxes, not just on farming but also, for example, high petrol taxes which harm those living in the<br />
country-side with long distances to any service.<br />
<strong>The</strong> economic forces behind the development of agriculture and landscape on Selaön are otherwise the same as in<br />
general throughout Sweden and Western Europe. Changing relative prices is an expression of these forces, but the<br />
price mechanisms are also a means by which these forces act. As prices of labour have increased relative to machinery,<br />
fertilisers and biocides, there has been a long and far-reaching substitution between these production factors. Between<br />
labour and land there are – on the contrary – various kinds of complementarity, implying that land has been substituted<br />
for chemicals when labour costs have increased. Prices of land have furthermore increased in the historic perspective<br />
relative chemicals, reducing the demand for cultivated or grazed land. High taxes on labour have reduced the work<br />
force, not only in traditional agriculture giving biodiversity and other values as joint products, but also for directed<br />
landscape management. Another, significant example is how the relative prices of imported concentrates became more<br />
competitive than locally produced feedstuff, reducing the demand for land further. Prices of agricultural commodities<br />
have decreased relative inputs and a basket of other consumption products, making the land use less profitable and<br />
leading to abandonment of vast areas. (Hasund 1986)<br />
Underlying the changes of supply and demand of agricultural land via changing relative prices are the universal forces<br />
of technical developments, changing preferences, increasing purchasing powers, population growth, changing resource<br />
accessibility, etc. <strong>The</strong> subject is too comprehensive to be analysed here, although it is of the utmost importance for the<br />
long-term development of the agricultural landscape and its qualities. If pointing to some examples, the importance of<br />
technical innovations like fertilisers, biocides, drainage, sowing machines etc. that have increased the hectare<br />
productivity cannot be underestimated, as they have reduced the total demand for land. Other technical developments<br />
that have improved the productivity of the used land in a wider sense include plant and animal breeding, veterinary<br />
science, or more efficient harvesting and storing techniques. Tractors have replaced about 600 000 horses in Sweden<br />
over the last century that needed hundreds of thousands of hectares of arable land and pastures to be reared. <strong>The</strong><br />
inventions of the barbed or electric wires have, on the other hand, decreased the costs of using pastures in the animal<br />
production significantly. Without them, there would probably be hardly any pastures remaining in Scandinavia. <strong>The</strong><br />
new, efficient techniques for producing poultry and pork give cheaper meat that drive out beef or mutton from the<br />
market, with manifest consequences for the pastures and their biodiversity. High income-elasticities for meat in general<br />
or growing preferences for riding just partially balance in the other direction.<br />
Economies of scale and the further development of the market economy have led to a far-reaching specialisation of<br />
farming – with profound consequences for the landscape. <strong>The</strong> access to markets for agricultural commodities, as well as<br />
the protection of the domestic market, was a determining factor for the development of Swedish agriculture from the<br />
opening of oat exports to Western Europe in the 19 th century to the import barriers between the 1930s until membership<br />
of the EU. (Pettersson 2001)<br />
78
Box 33 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project – Driving forces in Chianti study area, Italy<br />
(for references in the box see UNIFI-DSE report)<br />
<strong>The</strong> first observation is that the market power of Chianti wine has strongly influenced territorial development.<br />
<strong>The</strong> increase of the prices recorded in the last five years – 100 Kg. of wine in Chianti are usually sold at 157 € (RICA;<br />
2002) - has influenced prices and decisions of the producers such as: the general conversion of the olive cultivation into<br />
vineyards and the relevant increase in prices of agricultural land.<br />
Market Driving Forces<br />
Management of soil cover<br />
<strong>The</strong> introduction of the new P.O.C. (Protected Origin Controlled) "Olio Chianti Classico" (D. M. 4 December 2000) has<br />
indirectly influenced the “management of soil cover” with the covering the soil 10 on olive-producing land. Nowadays,<br />
soil grass cover is not a normal agricultural practice for vineyards but a lot of agronomic practices underline the<br />
usefulness of soil grass cover to improve the quality of wine (a smaller yield per plant improves the total production<br />
quality). Appropriate “management of soil cover” is very important as it can decrease soil erosion.<br />
Hedgerows conservation<br />
Market forces produce negative effects on “hedgerow conservation”.<br />
Hedgerow conservation improves the refugium function and the scenic diversity of the landscape. <strong>The</strong>re are two<br />
different problems connected with improving hedgerow conservation:<br />
<strong>The</strong> plantation of hedgerows on field margins could produce problems in the use of mechanical tractors which could<br />
add time to farmers tasks; and<strong>The</strong> total quantity of wine will be reduced by the set of hedgerows on the line of<br />
maximum slope.Land use conversion<br />
Lastly, referring to land use conversion we can assert that the market is a negative driving force and pushes towards the<br />
specialisation of vine cultivation (i.e. mono-culture), which gives a greater income than olives, woodland strips and<br />
pastureland. Other driving forces are determined from the disciplinary P.O.C. where the cultivars admitted 11 are<br />
indicated, limiting the possibility of using other varieties. However, in contrast with this fact, there is a growing demand<br />
for market products that use new varieties (Merlot, Cabernet, Sauvignoun…).<br />
Fig. 14 Example of land levelling before plantation<br />
Clearance of semi-natural vegetation by heavy<br />
machinery<br />
(P.Bazzoffi, ISSDS, 2003)<br />
Public intervention Driving Forces<br />
79<br />
Removal of Fertile topsoil (brown) from the top<br />
and replacement at the foot of the hill before<br />
vineyard plantation (P.Bazzoffi, ISSDS, 2003)<br />
Management of soil cover<br />
<strong>The</strong> management of soil cover was provided for in the measures of Reg.2078/92 through the practice of "green<br />
manure" 12 as well as grass soil cover but it has not received remarkable uptake.<br />
Hedgerows conservation<br />
<strong>The</strong> effect of the public sector on "hedgerow conservation" can be determined by local and non-local driving forces. In<br />
10<br />
<strong>The</strong> grass cover is helped by Art. 6 that obliges the oil "Chianti Classico" to be produced only with fresh olives, put with the best agronomic<br />
technique ( this means a olive-harvesting from the tree and not from the soil) and the indirect possibility of leave the grass soil cover.<br />
11<br />
Some examples of the variety of vines and olives: san giovese, canagliolo, trebbiano, malvasia (vines); pendolino, frantoio, leccino, muraiolo<br />
(olives).<br />
12<br />
For the green manure pratices we can use leguminose, composite, crucifere and graminacee.
the first case, we consider the Forest Law at regional level, while in the second case, we refer to the European<br />
regulation 2080/92. <strong>The</strong> Italian forest law considers forest 13 as "all the shrubs and the plants living on land abandoned<br />
for a period of 15 years", (Art.5 L.R. 39/2000). <strong>The</strong> direct consequence of this law is that it is impossible to modify the<br />
forests without authorisation. This has the effect that farmers coppice the strip margin vegetation in order to avoid any<br />
possible future impediment. <strong>The</strong> application of Reg. 2080/92 produces positive effects on hedgerow conservation but<br />
does not permit the development of semi-natural habitat.<br />
At a provincial level the regulations have been adopted 34 times from 1994 to 2001 (267,98ha were under<br />
implementation) for the improvement of the woodlands and the windbreak function of hedges. Unluckily in the new<br />
Reg. 1257/99 for the Measure 8.1 "Afforestation of agricultural lands", Greve is not considered a priority municipality<br />
(BURT 2001). In the last three years several companies working in the study area applied for measures of the European<br />
Regulation on wood forestry 2080/92, and preferred to give back the grants they received in order to substitute the<br />
woodland with vineyards (interview with an employee of the public provincial administration).<br />
Land use conversion<br />
<strong>The</strong> tendency to convert olive groves and forests into vineyards, shown in the Wp4, is in part reduced by the<br />
Reg.1493/1999 and by the trend of the last decade. From 1982 to 1990 in the municipality of Greve, the land covered<br />
by vineyards decreased by 13%, while the relative surface area covered by of the olive production increased by 18%<br />
(Dini, 1997 Pg. 169). In any case the field visits in 2002 demonstrated that the situation is not under control and in a<br />
few years vineyards could be planted anywhere.<br />
<strong>The</strong> vine sector does not receive a general subsidy for the production of vine but only an eventual subsidy after the<br />
adoption of the Reg. 2078/92 (INEA, 2002). We consider, finally, that the tendency to use certain types of cultivar<br />
comes from the principles of Good Farming Practice in the Rural Development Plan, where the use of transgenic<br />
cultivars for wine and olive sectors is forbidden (BURT, 2001).<br />
Social driving forces<br />
Social driving forces underlying pressures on the local agricultural system were identified analysing the<br />
social, historical and cultural components of local milieu, such as cultural heritage and/or traditional<br />
knowledge which influence the cultivation practices, tenurial forms, environmental awareness of farmers,<br />
land abandonment, etc.<br />
Box 34 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Land policy and land reform as social driving forces in Palamuse study<br />
area, Estonia<br />
Land policy<br />
National land policy is a part of social policy. Land policy forms the basis for all economic sectors, which are directly<br />
tied to the land: agriculture, forestry and construction. <strong>The</strong> economic aspects of land policy can be regulated mainly via<br />
land prices and land taxes. Land policy is primarily land-use policy with which, on the basis of the country’s historical<br />
background, the social, legal and economic relationships in the country are regulated.<br />
Today’s land policy is characterised by the allocation of land ownership – returning of land to the former owners,<br />
privatisation through sale, but also nationalisation and municipalisation of land.<br />
National land policy has an important role in the resolution of environmental protection issues. This happens via the<br />
respective legal acts, which safeguard and regulate land as real-estate. Land policy should consider mainly the<br />
following environmental aspects: soil conditions, landscape mosaic, groundwater quality, surface water conditions, the<br />
condition of livestock farms, hazardous waste. From now on we should take the aims of biological and landscape<br />
diversity conservation into account. <strong>The</strong> condition of land that is no longer used for agricultural production must be<br />
evaluated from an environmental protection point of view and the possibilities for its use in the new production<br />
environment should be considered.<br />
Land reform<br />
<strong>The</strong> Land Reform Act defines the principles applicable to the reorganisation of land ownership (land reform), the rights<br />
and obligations of land users, and it establishes the basis for other legislation regulating land ownership. <strong>The</strong> basic<br />
principle of the Estonian land reform is that anyone who was a landowner before June 16 th , 1940, or who is an heir of<br />
such a person, has the right to demand return, substitution or compensation for land that was unlawfully alienated. Thus,<br />
those who did not wish to receive the land, would be compensated, and those whose land was no longer available<br />
13 For the L.R. N. 39 / 2000 a wood is every area with an extension of at least 2000 square meters and a width of more than 20 meters, covered by<br />
spontaneous or artificially implanted trees, in every stagre of growth, with a density bigger than 500 plants per hectare. Woods are also chestnuts and<br />
cork forest.<br />
80
ecause of, e.g., urban development or the construction of Soviet military bases would be permitted to receive<br />
alternative land. <strong>The</strong> land that is nationalised and the land that can be given either for money or free of charge to private<br />
legal persons, public legal persons or to municipalities is defined within the land reform.<br />
<strong>The</strong> main objective of the land reform is to establish the owner of the territory of Estonia. <strong>The</strong> planned stages to achieve<br />
this objective were: definition of land retained in state and municipal ownership, return and compensation for<br />
expropriated land (this initially included replacement of land, while in reality mostly compensation and privatisation<br />
were applied), and privatisation of land for which no restitution claims were submitted.<br />
About 66% of the territory of the Palamuse Pilot area is currently entered in the state land registry.<br />
A slow and incomplete privatisation process and inadequate rural policy have been the main reasons for arable land<br />
abandonment. This creates several environmental problems – decrease in biodiversity and aesthetic value of the<br />
landscape, distribution of weed seeds and danger of fire.<br />
3.4 Step 4 - Assessment of ecological sustainability of local agricultural pressures<br />
and development of recommendations on how to lessening/eliminating negative<br />
impacts and enhancing positive ones<br />
3.4.1 Definition of the causal relationships with pressure indicators of the local agricultural<br />
system<br />
In Step 2, Environmental Minimum Requirement (EMR) values of state indicators, describing relevant<br />
ecological aspects contributing to the performance of the environmental functions, were identified at local<br />
level. Comparisons between EMRs and actual values of state indicators have elicited a positive/negative gap<br />
in reference to the EMR. In Step 4 researchers had to identify causal relationships between the measured<br />
gaps and agricultural pressures studied in Step 3.<br />
Following conclusions from step 2 on gap analysis between EMR and actual values of state indicators, and<br />
those from Step 3 on identified most relevant local agricultural pressures, a matrix on state, pressures,<br />
impacts (see Fig. 15 below) was constructed, to show at a glance what the causal relationships between state<br />
and pressures indicators and the resulting impacts are. <strong>The</strong> measured gaps were ranked by qualitative order<br />
of magnitude of positive/negative impacts (using colour coding: green = low impact, yellow = medium<br />
impact, red = high impact and +/- signs for positive and negative impacts respectively).<br />
For each environmental function analysed, the matrix represents in the vertical column the state indicators<br />
used to describe it (environmental profile) and in the horizontal axis the pressure indicators of the local<br />
agricultural system which are responsible for detected impacts (through gap analysis).<br />
From the analysis of the causal relationships (vertical) between state and pressure indicators and the<br />
identified relevant impacts, the following results and conclusions were achieved:<br />
Detailed explanation and conclusions on why agricultural pressures are impacting on the value of state<br />
indicators through the causal relationships identified; and<br />
Detailed indications on what actions are most needed to lessen negative impacts relative to agricultural<br />
pressures to achieve sustainability for the performance of the environmental function selected, or what<br />
actions are suggested to increase positive impacts. In cases where good information on dose-effects<br />
relationships between pressures and impacts were available, it was possible to understand what would be<br />
the effects of reducing the intensity of pressure of the agricultural system on the relevant impacts, so as to<br />
achieve or enhance environmental performance more effectively.<br />
81
Fig.15 Habitat Function<br />
(Biodiversity conservation):<br />
Evaluation of performance by Natural<br />
Ecosystem and Agro-Ecosystem at<br />
local level. Example of positive<br />
impacts exerted by land use, soil<br />
cover maintenance and negative<br />
impacts exerted by use of pesticide<br />
(Semi)Natural Ecosystem (NE) state<br />
indicators<br />
(data from bibliographic/field research)<br />
Plant genetic and species<br />
di In situ itPlant<br />
Genetic<br />
RNumber of<br />
Number i of rare<br />
Number i of endemic<br />
Number i of varieties for each plant<br />
Threatened i and extinct<br />
Species i population<br />
dAnimal i genetic and species<br />
di Breed it<br />
Breed b drichness<br />
Threatened and extinct<br />
bNumber d of<br />
Number i of rare<br />
Number i of endemic<br />
Threatened i and extinct<br />
Species i population<br />
dEcosystems i and habitats<br />
di Ecosystem it quantity as % of the area<br />
Ecosystem it<br />
Natural lit Capital Index<br />
(NCI) Biotopes/Habitats variability and<br />
hThreatened t ithabitat<br />
tSpecies abundance, richness in<br />
h<br />
Faunistic<br />
bit t<br />
activity in<br />
h bit t<br />
. Agro-Ecosystem (AE) pressure<br />
indicators(data from questionnaire<br />
bibliographic/field d<br />
h)<br />
a) Nutrient management<br />
a1) Farm gate nutrient<br />
b l<br />
a2) Adjusting application rates to crop<br />
d<br />
a3) Timing of nutrient<br />
li i<br />
a4) Crop<br />
i<br />
a5) Placement of<br />
f<br />
a6) Fertilisers used per<br />
h t<br />
a7) Livestock density<br />
(LU/h )<br />
Box 35 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Analysis of the causal relationships between main agricultural pressures<br />
and state indicators describing the aesthetic quality of the landscape, Chianti study area, Italy<br />
On the basis of the analysis carried out in Step 2 and Step 3 in the Greve study area, the following causal relationships<br />
between agricultural pressures and measured impacts on the environmental functions have been identified as the most<br />
probable given the local ecological and agricultural context.<br />
Land use conversion (pressures)<br />
Land use conversion is the most important pressure detected: in fact it has very strong negative impacts on boundaries<br />
water/land and linear and punctual features. Boundaries and water land is impacted because riparian ecosystems are<br />
seriously below their EMRs due to agriculture and urbanisation.<br />
Linear and punctual features are impacted because agriculture is practised in riparian environment.<br />
Land management (pressures)<br />
Boundaries and water land is impacted by logging and coppice cutting and habitat fragmentation because of repeated<br />
82<br />
b) soil and land<br />
b1) Land use<br />
b2) soil cover, mowing, hay cutting,<br />
i<br />
b3) Land management<br />
b4) Landscape<br />
(WP5) 4. Hypothetical Impacts<br />
no impact significant<br />
low high<br />
c) Irrigation and water<br />
t<br />
c1) Water use<br />
ffi i<br />
c2) Irrigation delivery systems<br />
c3) Drainage/diversion/extraction<br />
d) Pesticide use<br />
d1) Pesticide use per<br />
h<br />
-<br />
-<br />
-<br />
-<br />
d2) Use of integrated pest<br />
t<br />
d3) Use of alternative pest control<br />
h d<br />
d4) Timing of herbicide<br />
d5) Timing of insecticide use<br />
d6) Toxicity of pesticide<br />
d
coppice cutting. Strips of uncultivated land within farms are very marginal in extension. This fragmentation of linear<br />
boundaries is negative for the aesthetic appreciation of landscape.<br />
Naturalness of forests is degraded by logging and coppice.<br />
Linear and punctual features are impacted because of cutting of riparian vegetation.<br />
Season compliance is not fully respected because of the diffusion of summer crops (e.g. maize and sunflower),<br />
encouraged by the CAP. Without contribution from EU to summer crops, farmers surely would be much interested in<br />
forcing natural seasonal cycle. Seasonal compliance is also affected by crop diversity in a controversial way. Traditional<br />
cultivation such as of olives and vines respect the seasonal compliance, while the summer crops encouraged by the CAP<br />
have a negative impact as said above.<br />
Landscape management (pressures)<br />
Diversity of scenery is impacted because incoherent suburbs and infrastructures have been introduced in a<br />
heterogeneous agriculture landscape. Heterogeneity is increased so loosing the previous matrix and does obtaining a<br />
worse quality.<br />
Harmonisation of the landscape is impacted because landscape in the main ridge, traditionally occupied by pastures<br />
and heaths, nowadays is conquered again by woodlands or artificially afforested, thus loosing its qualities of open<br />
space.<br />
Boundaries and water land is impacted because of riparian woodland, which is the most precious habitat, is seriously<br />
threatened by the present landscape management.<br />
Protected areas are impacted because in Chianti only the highest part of the main ridge is classed as site of interest for<br />
the Community. At any rate, it is not yet actually protected.<br />
Fig. 16 Landscape-related function:<br />
evaluation of performance by natural<br />
ecosystem and agro-ecosystem at a local<br />
level (Chianti study area, Italy)<br />
Pressure indicators (data from<br />
questionnaire and<br />
bibliographic/field research)<br />
83<br />
Land use conversion<br />
Logging and coppicing<br />
Shrub cutting<br />
Soil cover<br />
Land management<br />
(Semi-)natural ecosystems (NE) state<br />
indicators<br />
Diversity of the scenery (no. of classes) - - +/- -<br />
Harmonisation of the landscape - - + -<br />
Openness versus closedness + matrix<br />
fragmentation +/- +<br />
Biotopes and habitat types<br />
Land cover diversity (Shannon index)<br />
Boundaries: water/land - - - -<br />
Naturalness - - -<br />
Linear and point features - - -<br />
Protected areas -<br />
Number of protected species<br />
Season compliance +/- - _ +/- -<br />
High impact<br />
Significant impact<br />
Low impact<br />
No impact<br />
Crop diversity<br />
Uncultivated field margins<br />
Hedge conservation<br />
Habitat fragmentation<br />
Presence of land settings<br />
Landscape management
Following this approach, an analysis was carried out to assess if the causes, responsible for each gap<br />
identified, could be completely imputable to agricultural pressures or if some part of the measured gap was<br />
also due to pressures exerted by other socio-economic sectors (see section 3.4.1.1 below). <strong>The</strong> assessment of<br />
the relative importance of agricultural impacts on the measured gap between EMR and the actual value of<br />
state indicators was necessary, in the light of developing agri-environmental measures around those<br />
positive/negative impacts exerted mainly by agricultural pressures.<br />
3.4.1.1 Identification of the part of the gap between EMR and actual value of state indicators directly<br />
imputable to agricultural pressures<br />
<strong>The</strong> assessment of what is the part of the gap between EMR and the actual value of state indicators measured<br />
in Step 2, which could be directly attributed to agricultural pressures, serves a double purpose.<br />
Firstly it indicates whether the gap between EMR and actual value of a state indicator can be totally<br />
imputable to agricultural impacts. If this is not the case (i.e. the total % of impacts which can be attributed to<br />
agriculture would not cover the 100% of the gap), other pressures coming from other socio-economic<br />
activities or other causes could also be partially responsible for the measured gap.<br />
Secondly this assessment serves to give a better picture of the relative importance of different agricultural<br />
pressures impacting simultaneously on the same state indicator. It may be the case that more than one<br />
agricultural pressure is responsible for the gap measured in Step 2 on a single state indicator (e.g. removal of<br />
hedgerows and pesticide use on key animal species). This information has been useful later on to assign<br />
priorities to ease or remove different pressures through agri-environmental measures.<br />
This analysis required making a more precise assessment of how much of the gap (difference between EMR<br />
and actual value of state indicator) was thought to be attributed to the agricultural pressures identified, for<br />
each state indicator. In other words, it had to be assessed how much of the gap measured in Step 2 can be<br />
explained by agricultural pressures identified in Step 3 and correlated to the gap in Step 4, section 3.4.1<br />
above.<br />
Carrying out this analysis in quantitative terms requires very good knowledge and information on the doseeffect<br />
relationships between pressures and resulting impacts on the value of state indicators. At present this<br />
knowledge and information is limited for some of the aspects analysed. However, for some other state<br />
indicators it was possible to estimate a rough percentage value of the gap directly attributable to agricultural<br />
pressures, as it can be the case, for instance, for the percentage of encroachment of (semi-) natural habitats<br />
by agricultural and other land uses.<br />
<strong>The</strong>refore to analyse how much of the gaps identified and measured in Step 2 could be directly attributed to<br />
agriculture, the following was proposed:<br />
• For those gaps where the scientific knowledge, information and data were available, to envisage the<br />
relative importance of agricultural impacts, in percentages of the measured gap, using Best Professional<br />
Judgement (BPJ).<br />
• Otherwise, using BPJ to indicate qualitatively for each single state indicator whether the gap could be<br />
totally attributed only to agricultural pressures (specifying what these were), or whether other socioeconomics<br />
pressures could be responsible for the gap, and explaining why.<br />
In fig 17, an example of the analysis in % terms is shown for the refugium function. <strong>The</strong> analysis starts by<br />
looking at the gap between the EMR and the actual value studied for each state indicator in Step 2 (left<br />
column). Each measured gap had to be analysed through the causal relationships with pressures exerted by<br />
the local agricultural system (identified in Step 3 and correlated to the gap in section 3.4.1 above), in order to<br />
assess for how much of it, in percentage terms, agricultural pressures are responsible.<br />
84
Measured gaps between EMR<br />
and actual values of state<br />
indicators<br />
Fig. 17 Refugium Function: Example of hypothetical relative importance<br />
of agricultural impacts in % terms<br />
Refugium Function: Example<br />
on hypothetical relative<br />
importance of agricultural<br />
impacts in % terms<br />
(WP4) 3. Agro-Ecosystem<br />
(AE) pressure indicators (data<br />
from questionnaire and<br />
a) Nutrient management<br />
a1) Farm gate nutrient balance<br />
a6) Fertilisers used per hectare<br />
b) soil and land management<br />
b1) Management of hedgerows<br />
or seminatural habitats<br />
b2) Management of soil cover,<br />
mowing, grazing<br />
Box 36 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Area of biotope types valuable for biodiversity in Greifensee, Switzerland<br />
Tab. 41 - Gap between actual values and EMR for the indicator “Area of biotope types valuable for biodiversity”<br />
in the study area Greifensee and the estimated level of responsibility of agriculture.<br />
Area Land Cover (ha) Responsibility (%)<br />
Land Cover Measured<br />
∆<br />
value<br />
EMR agriculture others<br />
Surface standing water & waterside vegetation 1158 -2 1160 90 10<br />
Low input pastures and meadows 957 -171 1128 90 10<br />
Wetland 408 -93 501 90 10<br />
High stem orchards (extensive) 286 -15 301 80 20<br />
Small wood lots and hedgerows 163 -39 202 90 10<br />
Groups of trees 86 -6 92 90 10<br />
Surface standing water & waterside vegetation<br />
46<br />
within Greifensee and Pfäffikersee<br />
-2 48 90 10<br />
Ecological compensation area on arable land 37 -103 140 100 0<br />
Total 90 10<br />
Many of the landscape elements were created by cultivating the land (extensively used meadows, high stem orchards).<br />
That is why agriculture was responsible for such a high diversity of species in cultivated land. <strong>The</strong> clearing of the open<br />
landscape (“Flurbereinigung”), land “improvements” and rationalisation measures led to the removal of exactly those<br />
high biodiversity landscape elements. <strong>The</strong>refore agriculture has a high impact and influence on these valuable biotope<br />
types. This also corresponds with linear features, for example the removal of hedgerows or the channelling and taming<br />
of water bodies.<br />
85<br />
b3) Management of field size<br />
a7) Livestock density (LU/ha)<br />
b4) Landscape management<br />
c) Irrigation and water manage<br />
c1) Water use efficiency<br />
c2) Irrigation delivery systems<br />
c3) Drainage/diversion/extraction<br />
d) Pesticide use<br />
d1) Pesticide use per ha<br />
d6) Toxicity of pesticide used<br />
Total % of relative importance<br />
ofimpacts correlated to<br />
agricultural pressures<br />
Total % of relative importance<br />
ofimpacts correlated to other<br />
socio-economic pressures<br />
(WP3) 1. (Semi)Natural<br />
Ecosystem (NE) state<br />
indicators<br />
(data from bibliographic/field research)<br />
Plant genetic and species diversity Number are % of relative importance of impact on measured gap<br />
In situ Plant Genetic Resources:<br />
-7 Number of species -100 100% 0%<br />
-3 Number of varieties for each plant specie -100 100% 0%<br />
Animal genetic and species diversity<br />
-12 Number of species -30 -30 -30 90% 10%<br />
-3 Number of rare species -70 70% 30%<br />
-9 Number of endemic species -60 -30 90% 10%<br />
Ecosystems and habitats diversity<br />
-32 Ecosystem quantity as % of the area unit -60 -10 70% 30%<br />
qualitative Ecosystem quality -70 10 60% 40%<br />
-3 Biotopes/Habitats variability and heterogeneity -80 80% 20%<br />
Species abundance, richness in<br />
-4 habitats<br />
-70<br />
70% 30%
Box 37 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Quantitative assessment of % of impacts imputable to agricultural<br />
pressures in Northwest Overijssel, Netherlands<br />
Quantitative example: nutrient management.<br />
Although the estimates for the sustainability tiers have been made using BPJ, in line with the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> methodology,<br />
there is one case for which data availability is sufficient to allow for a quantitative analysis of the tiers of sustainability:<br />
the issue of nutrient management, in the form of inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus into the system. <strong>The</strong>se indicators<br />
strongly relate to the overall state indicator of dissolved oxygen in surface water, the higher the nutrient loads, the lower<br />
the dissolved oxygen concentration.<br />
<strong>The</strong> main indicators for the nutrient status of the surface water are Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosphorus (TP). <strong>The</strong><br />
total input of these two nutrients in Northwest Overijssel is presented in Table 44. It appears that agriculture inside the<br />
study area is responsible for 35% of the input of TN, and 41% of the TP. However, also for the water entering the area<br />
from the agricultural area upstream of Northwest Overijssel, an important share of the nutrients is from agricultural<br />
sources. For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that this share is equal to the share inside the study area: 35, and 41<br />
percent for TN and TP, respectively. This means that agricultural input of nutrients equals: 16 + 0.35 times 20 = 23<br />
kgN/ha/yr (or 50%) for TN, and 0.95 + 0.41 times 1.1 = 1,40 (or 60%) of the TP input (including agriculture inside and<br />
outside the study area).<br />
Tab. 42 - Total nutrient input in Input of Total Nitrogen<br />
Input of Total Phosphorus<br />
Northwest Overijssel<br />
(kgN/ha/year)<br />
(kgP/ha/year)<br />
Residues waste water treatment plants 2 0.10<br />
Agriculture 16 0.95<br />
Input from outside the area 20 1.10<br />
Deposition 7 0.08<br />
Other 1 0.10<br />
Total 46 2.33<br />
Source: Grontmij, 1999 and Groot-Salland Water Board, 2000<br />
3.4.2 Assessment and linking of degrees of sustainability to agricultural pressures by looking at the<br />
impacts exerted<br />
In section 3.4.1.1, researchers indicated, in qualitative and/or quantitative terms (where there was sufficient<br />
scientific knowledge and data), the part of detected impacts which could be attributed directly to local<br />
agricultural pressures.<br />
In this section, by adopting a qualitative approach, they then linked different tiers of sustainability to local<br />
agricultural pressures by looking at the environmental impacts exerted. <strong>The</strong> proposed approach was used to<br />
rank the sustainability of the local agricultural pressures in reference to the most relevant impacts exerted on<br />
environmental functions performance.<br />
It is important to note that this analysis has been carried out for each environmental function by studying<br />
impacts on all relevant state indicators, but analysing these impacts separately. In reality, the critical aspects<br />
measured by state indicators describing the same environmental function are all inter-linked (e.g. number of<br />
species linked to biotope/habitat variability and heterogeneity; species abundance, richness in habitats to<br />
ecosystem extension, etc.). <strong>The</strong> ideal would have been to find out, for each environmental function, what<br />
were the main relationships linking the value of one state indicator to the value of another 14 so as to assess<br />
more precisely the level of the environmental performance analysed, after that the effects emerging from the<br />
totality of impacts would have been acknowledged and their relative importance taken into account. This<br />
would have allowed the degree of sustainability of a local agricultural system to be assessed considering the<br />
overall performance of the environmental function, not just the sustainability of agricultural pressures by<br />
measuring the exerted impacts on single state indicator values separately.<br />
Obviously where the relationships between state indicators were available or could be scientifically defined,<br />
they had to be analysed and the results taken into consideration when assessing the overall performance of<br />
14 the so called “horizontal relationships” between state indicators, see Step 2, section 3.2.2.<br />
86
the environmental function studied. Unfortunately lack of sufficient scientific knowledge existing on<br />
ecosystem functioning (and for some aspects also time and resource constraints in <strong>AEMBAC</strong>), have forced<br />
the analysis to be carried out only on separated ecological aspects (i.e. single state indicators) describing the<br />
environmental function analysed.<br />
<strong>The</strong>refore, summing up the above, in this section 3.4.2, the linking of degrees of sustainability to local<br />
agricultural pressures was done in reference to the gaps defined in Step 2, for each state indicator which was<br />
directly imputable to agricultural pressures. However, this approach, while not producing a judgement on the<br />
sustainability of the total impacts (i.e. considered altogether and simultaneously) on the environmental<br />
function performance, had the advantage of indicating what were the most important impacts to be<br />
considered when developing agri-environmental measures for local agricultural systems.<br />
3.4.2.1 Qualitative ranking system in reference to sustainability of local agricultural pressures<br />
<strong>The</strong> focus of <strong>AEMBAC</strong> is on sustainability of local agricultural systems measured through the impacts<br />
exerted on the performance of selected environmental functions within study areas.<br />
<strong>The</strong> objective of ranking degrees of sustainability to local agricultural pressures (identified through the<br />
analysis of causal relationships of the environmental impacts exerted) is to provide a tool for selecting and<br />
defining agri-environmental policy targets to be reached through agri-environmental measures.<br />
In fact, after the ecological sustainability of the pressures of local agricultural systems was ranked into tiers<br />
in this section, and socio-economic aspects were studied and considered in Step 5 below, it was then possible<br />
to identify agri-environmental targets and to develop the appropriate agri-environmental measures to reach<br />
these in Step 6.<br />
<strong>The</strong> matrix linking the environmental profile (set of indicators) describing the environmental function<br />
analysed with the local agricultural pressures exerting impacts on the values of state indicators developed in<br />
section 3.4.1 above, indicated the envisaged causal relationships and what was the intensity of the impacts<br />
(low, medium, high) and its positive/negative characther.<br />
Section 3.4.1.1 indicates (in quantitative and/or qualitative terms) the part of the measured gap between<br />
EMR and the actual value of state indicators, which could be directly attributed to agriculture, by BPJ. In<br />
order to associate different tiers of sustainability to agricultural pressures, in this section researchers were<br />
asked to look at the impacts which had been identified and analysed, and link a degree of sustainability to the<br />
corresponding causal pressures of the local agricultural systems (see fig.18).<br />
<strong>The</strong> following qualitative ranking criteria were proposed to associate different tiers of sustainability to<br />
agricultural pressures:<br />
Tier +2 = Presence of only high positive impact (red)<br />
Tier +1 = Presence of only positive impacts (yellow)<br />
Tier 0 = respect of EMR= ecological sustainability of agricultural practice = no impacts or only low<br />
positive/negative impacts (green) exerted by agricultural practices<br />
Tier -1 = Presence of moderate negative impacts exerted by agricultural pressures (yellow)<br />
Tier -2 = Presence of high negative impact (red)<br />
87
Fig. 18 Refugium Function: Example of qualitative ranking of pressures resulting from causal<br />
relationships between performance of environmental function and impacts exerted by the agricultural<br />
system at a local level.<br />
Refugium function<br />
(WP4) 3. Agro-Ecosystem (AE)<br />
pressure indicators (data from<br />
questionnaire and<br />
a) Nutrient management<br />
a1) Farm gate nutrient balance<br />
a6) Fertilisers used per hectare<br />
b) soil and land management<br />
As can be seen in the example in Fig 18, the ranking of pressures is done simply by looking at the qualitative<br />
intensity of the impacts exerted by agricultural pressures. When there was more than one impact exerted by<br />
the same pressure on different state indicators, due to the impossibility of aggregating the simultaneous<br />
effects of different impacts exerted by the same pressure on the performance of the environmental function<br />
studied (e.g. because of lack of sufficient scientific knowledge), it was proposed to associate a tier to the<br />
relevant pressure by considering the impacts grouped together (using BPJ and explaining the reasoning of the<br />
given valuation). See the following example referring to fig. 18 above:<br />
Management of hedgerows and/or semi-natural habitats exerts 4 negative significant impacts and 2 high<br />
negative impacts on state indicators (relative to plant and animal species and ecosystems) because there are<br />
very sporadic field margins with hedgerows and no semi-natural ecosystem is maintained. This pressure is<br />
ecologically very unsustainable. It therefore ranks: Tier –2<br />
Management of soil cover exerts a significant negative impact on the number of plant species/varieties, a<br />
high negative impact on the number of animal species, and a significant negative impact on the number of<br />
rare animal species. <strong>The</strong>se impacts make this pressure very unsustainable ecologically because the soil is left<br />
without any cover for most of the year even in the uncultivated borders, which does not offer the opportunity<br />
88<br />
b1) Management of hedgerows or<br />
seminatural habitats<br />
b2) Management of soil cover,<br />
mowing, grazing<br />
b3) Management of field size<br />
a7) Livestock density (LU/ha)<br />
b4) Landscape management<br />
(WP3) 1. (Semi)Natural Ecosystem<br />
and/or agroecosystem (NE) state<br />
indicators<br />
(data from bibliographic/field research)<br />
Plant genetic and species diversity<br />
In situ Plant Genetic Resources:<br />
Number of species -<br />
Number of varieties for each plant specie -<br />
Animal genetic and species diversity<br />
Number of species - - -<br />
Number of rare species -<br />
Number of endemic species -<br />
Ecosystems and habitats diversity<br />
Ecosystem quantity as % of the area unit - -<br />
Ecosystem quality - +<br />
Biotopes/Habitats variability and heterogeneity -<br />
Species abundance, richness in<br />
habitats<br />
Ranking tiers of agricultural sustainability in<br />
reference to pressure indicators<br />
-<br />
S 0 0 NS -2 -2 0 -1 A NS -2<br />
c) Irrigation and water manageme<br />
c1) Water use efficiency<br />
c2) Irrigation delivery systems<br />
c3) Drainage/diversion/extraction pr<br />
d) Pesticide use<br />
no impact significant impact<br />
low impact high impact<br />
S=Sustainable<br />
NS=Not Sustainable<br />
A=Absent<br />
d1) Pesticide use per ha<br />
d6) Toxicity of pesticide used
for animal and plant species to colonise the field borders: Tier –2.<br />
Management of livestock density exerts a slightly positive impact on ecosystem quality but not enough to<br />
encourage the establishment of permanent natural pastures.<br />
However, this pressure is sustainable: Tier 0<br />
Landscape management exerts a significant negative impact on the extension of diverse ecosystems, as<br />
traditional rotational systems have been replaced by a more intensive system. This unsustainable pressure<br />
therefore ranks: Tier –1<br />
Pesticide use exerts two high negative impacts. This pressure is very unsustainable because the<br />
indiscriminate use of pesticide is also killing valuable non-targeted species: Tier –2<br />
Obviously this qualitative ranking system of sustainability risks being subjective, depending on the<br />
availability of information and on the researcher who is making the assessment. However, despite this, the<br />
proposed qualitative assessment offers the opportunity to provide an overall starting point for a more<br />
analytical picture of what degree of sustainability can be associated to individual pressures of the local<br />
agricultural system. In synthesis the ranking system has to be interpreted as a policy tool, based on the best<br />
scientific knowledge available, to identify where action is most required locally through the building up of<br />
agri-environmental measures.<br />
Box 38 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Qualitative ranking system of pressures in Egyek-Pusztakócs Pilot Area,<br />
Hungary<br />
Explanation<br />
Figure 19 Qualitative ranking of impacts<br />
resulting from causal relationships<br />
between biodiversity function in agriecosystems<br />
and pressures exerted by<br />
agricultural system at local level<br />
rotations<br />
State indicators Crop<br />
Ind.No. Biodiversity - agri-ecosystems<br />
s3 Length of habitat boundaries<br />
s7 Number of agricultural habitat blocks<br />
s8 Presence of organic farming - + - -<br />
s9 Grazing in endemic grasslands - -<br />
s10 Adequate land use for characteristic species<br />
s11 Number of nesting bird species - -<br />
s12 Number of migrating bird species -<br />
s13 Number of protected bird species -<br />
s16 Number of cultivated plant species or varieties - -<br />
s17 Number farm animal breeds -<br />
s18 Number of local plant species or varieties - -<br />
s19 Number of local farm animal breeds -<br />
s20 Integrated pest management - - -<br />
Ranking tiers of agricultural sustainability in<br />
-1<br />
reference to pressure indicators<br />
0 -2 -1 -1 -2<br />
Sustainability NS S NS NS NS NS<br />
89<br />
p1<br />
Fertilizer application rates<br />
p2<br />
Timing of nutrient applications<br />
p3<br />
Livestock density (LU/ha)<br />
p4<br />
Land use intensity<br />
p5<br />
Pesticide use per ha<br />
p6<br />
Toxicity of pesticide used<br />
p7<br />
Gene preservation<br />
p8<br />
Water management<br />
p9
Crop rotations (P1): this pressure exerts low negative impacts on presence of organic farming and significant negative<br />
impacts on the number of cultivated plant species or varieties, number of local plant species or varieties and integrated<br />
pest management. Traditional (conventional) crop rotation using a small number of plant species is the main farming<br />
practice. Moreover some farmers insist on monocultures that are very unreasonable on this poor land. This lowbiodiversity,<br />
monoculture-like crop rotation excludes organic farming. <strong>The</strong> number of cultivated plant species or<br />
varieties is low – there are only a few species grown, so this range needs to be improved. <strong>The</strong> low number of local plant<br />
species/varieties present in the agri-ecosystem limits the effectiveness of integrated pest management, with this kind of<br />
crop rotation, chains of infection cannot be broken and the natural restriction of pests is impossible.<br />
It therefore ranks: Tier –1<br />
Fertiliser application rates (P2): this pressure exerts a low positive impact on presence of organic farming because the<br />
use of fertilizers is at low or medium level. <strong>The</strong> current state of this pressure is sustainable but can be improved as the<br />
emphasis on nitrogen fertilisers may cause change in soil pH-value. It therefore ranks: Tier 0<br />
Livestock density (LU/ha) (P4): this pressure is very unsustainable because there is a very low grazing density in the<br />
area so that pastures dependent on human impact (regular mowing, grazing etc.) have started to deteriorate. Aggressive<br />
plant species have started dominating, which reduces bio-diversity and aesthetic landscape value. It has a strong<br />
negative impact on grazing in endemic grasslands. It therefore ranks: Tier -2<br />
Pesticide use per ha (P6): this pressure is unsustainable. It has a low negative impact on presence of organic farming<br />
as pesticide use automatically excludes organic farming. Pesticide use has two other significant negative impacts; on the<br />
number of nesting bird species - this pressure disturbs nesting bird species both via food supply and by toxicological<br />
effects including accumulation from the food chain and mutation - and integrated pest management - this is<br />
underdeveloped as production is focused on reasonable yields with no regard to other considerations. Farmers apply<br />
dosages recommended in packaging but sometimes apply extra as a precaution. A more serious issue is that the<br />
equipment is not modern enough to assure precision application, and to avoid spillage and leakage (chemical waste).<br />
<strong>The</strong>refore more chemicals therefore get onto a unit of arable land than intended. It therefore ranks: Tier -1<br />
Toxicity of pesticide used (P7): this pressure is unsustainable. Although farmers use a small quantity of pesticides,<br />
they use herbicides with active hormone ingredients or other ones with a long decomposition period and which can be<br />
transported in inland waters. Moreover some active ingredients used belong to the so-called “clear-field technology” so<br />
that they kill a wide spectrum of species/varieties totally. For insecticides we also find chemicals with wide-spectrum<br />
active ingredients, and there are also poisons with multi-annual effects. This pressure also exerts significant negative<br />
impacts on presence of organic farming (organic farming obviously excludes pesticide use), the number of nesting,<br />
migrating and protected bird species (toxicity causes decrease in biodiversity) and integrated pest management (there is<br />
no integrated pest management in this area). It therefore ranks: Tier -1<br />
Gene preservation (P8): this pressure is not sustainable. This pressure exerts significant negative impacts on grazing in<br />
endemic grasslands (currently there is no grazing or the level of grazing is low – occasionally with several animal<br />
types), on the number of cultivated and local plant species or varieties and exerts high negative impacts on the number<br />
of farm and local farm animal breeds. Grazing pressure, especially by farm animals (not endemic species) is too low,<br />
resulting in the loss of plant species adapted to grazing. One of the most important reasons for this negative impact is<br />
that the pesticides used are not selected to be gentle enough not to damage bio-diversity. <strong>The</strong> National Park regulations<br />
provide some protection as the 70% of the study area is protected, but on the remaining 30% situation is not regulated<br />
enough. It therefore ranks: Tier -2<br />
3.4.3 Recommendations on how to lessen/eliminate negative impacts and enhance positive ones<br />
After having analysed the pressures causing the identified environmental impacts, possible solutions were<br />
analysed. Recommendations on how to reduce negative impacts and enhance positive impacts exerted by<br />
agricultural pressures on environmental functions were proposed. Two main kinds of recommendations can<br />
be envisaged:<br />
1. Those intended to change existing agricultural practices; and<br />
2. Those intended to create new environmental practices.<br />
1) Recommendations to change existing agricultural practices<br />
This required further consideration of the pressures identified in Step 4 as responsible for the detected<br />
90
impacts. Here some cases presented as examples. Please note these are not necessarily complete or<br />
exhaustive and that recommendations have to be designed for local agri-environmental situations.<br />
a) Nutrient management<br />
In the case that nutrient management is responsible for impacts on the performance of environmental<br />
functions, solutions have to be recommended in order to solve the problem and achieve a sustainable nutrient<br />
balance, e.g. through the following operations:<br />
a1) Select the most appropriate fertilisers for the fields according to soil and crop requirements<br />
a2) Adjust application rates to crop requirements<br />
a3) Respect the timing of nutrient applications in order to avoid leaching<br />
a4) Make use of crop rotations to fertilise the soil<br />
a5) Identify the most appropriate technique for the placement of fertilisers<br />
a6) Reduce fertilisers used per hectare: e.g. X kg. of nitrogen per hectare in total in one year<br />
a7) Others<br />
b) Land use and land management<br />
In the case that land use and land management are responsible for impacts on the performance of<br />
environmental functions, solutions have to be recommended in order to solve the problem and achieve<br />
ecologically sustainable land use and management, e.g. through the following operations:<br />
b1) Change land use in order to protect and maintain all habitats, biotopes, trees, shrubs and landscape point<br />
and linear features<br />
b2) Reduce livestock density (LU/ha) to a level that ensure that grazing pressure is sustainable and respect<br />
grazing periods appropriate for maintaining biodiversity (LU=Livestock Unit)<br />
b3) Adopt practices for land management, e.g. soil cover, mowing, hay cutting, tillage which do not<br />
compromise the performance of environmental functions<br />
b4) Protect and maintain all landscape features such as stone walls, field boundaries, hedges, ditches, banks<br />
etc.<br />
b5) Others<br />
c) Irrigation and water management<br />
In the case that irrigation and water management are responsible for impacts on the performance of<br />
environmental functions, solutions have to be recommended in order to solve the problem and achieve<br />
ecologically sustainable management, e.g. through the following operations:<br />
c1) Avoid all waste of water in order to increase efficient water usage<br />
c2) Promote sustainable irrigation delivery systems and their correct maintenance<br />
c3) Avoid drainage/diversion/extraction processes if this can damage habitats<br />
c4) Others<br />
d) Pesticide use<br />
In the case that pesticide use is responsible for impacts on the performance of environmental functions,<br />
solutions have to be recommended in order to solve the problem and achieve ecologically sustainable use,<br />
e.g. through the following operations:<br />
d1) Reduce or eliminate pesticide use on a per ha basis<br />
d2) Promote use of integrated pest management<br />
d3) Promote use of alternative pest control<br />
d4) Adopt the appropriate timing of herbicide use in order to avoid collateral damages to biodiversity<br />
d5) Adopt the appropriate timing of insecticide use in order to avoid collateral damages to biodiversity<br />
d6) Reduce the toxicity of pesticide used<br />
d7) Others<br />
91
2) Recommendations to create new environmental practices<br />
In some cases, a fundamental shift of land use away from agriculture-oriented activities to environmentoriented<br />
activities, including cessation of agricultural activity, could be recommended. Here follow some<br />
possible cases presented as examples. Please note that these are not necessarily complete or exhaustive and<br />
that recommendations have to be designed for local agri-environmental situations.<br />
- Creation or re-establishment of natural habitats<br />
- Monitoring of biodiversity<br />
- Starting eco-tourism activities<br />
- Starting ecosystem management<br />
- Cessation of agricultural activity<br />
Following the above two points, researchers were asked:<br />
• To provide recommendations for each detected impact, on how to eliminate or lessen negative impacts<br />
and enhance positive ones, providing appropriate agricultural practices and detailed explanations; and<br />
• Where specific environmental practices are recommended, including the cessation of agricultural<br />
activity, to provide a detailed description and explanations.<br />
Box 39 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Recommendations for the Selaö study area, Sweden<br />
In the Selaö study area it is most urgent to increase the area of maintained semi-natural pastures. Enhancing the<br />
environmental qualities of pastures and field elements are certainly also important measures. Concerning the more<br />
specific measures, it is difficult to pick out any single most important proposal. Increasing the number of grazing heads<br />
is crucial, but depends itself on many practical measures to reduce costs and increase profitability. Concrete measures<br />
that appear to have a considerable potential that could relatively easily be realised in the study area include:<br />
- grazing preferentially on semi-natural permanent grasslands/pasture rather than arable leys;<br />
- clearing invading brushwood;<br />
- restoration of wetland pastures; and<br />
- forest edge development.<br />
Grazing preferentially on semi-natural permanent grasslands/pasture rather than arable leys<br />
Not just high-yielding milk-cows, but also heifers, beef cattle, sheep and horses are grazing leys on arable land instead<br />
of cultivated or semi-natural pastures. This is partly caused by subsidies (this is an example of a policy failure) to<br />
convert cultivated fields into leys, with the aim of reducing the surplus of cereal production. In areas like Selaön, which<br />
have a deficit of grazers or browsers, there is a big potential for transferring cattle from arable fields to help maintain<br />
the semi-natural pastures. <strong>The</strong> biological, cultural and social benefits to society would be considerable.<br />
Clearing of invading brushwood<br />
Bushes and trees that invade the pastures can have positive impacts on some species, but damage the biodiversity,<br />
cultural and social qualities of the grasslands if allowed to advance too far (see the wp3 report). Grazing and browsing<br />
animals normally inhibit the establishment and proliferation of such woody scrub species, especially under a high<br />
grazing intensity. Sheep and some cattle breeds are better than other grazers in this respect. This control by grazing still<br />
needs to be supplemented by manual clearing at varying intervals, depending on the site conditions. <strong>The</strong> interval<br />
between the clearings is determined by soil conditions, the presence of surrounding trees, etc.<br />
<strong>The</strong> clearing can be carried out with hand tools or tractor machinery. Any cutting entails additional work, like the<br />
removal of branches. This is a major measure if the agricultural landscape services are to be preserved in the long run.<br />
As reported from the wp3 surveys of the study area, there are several pastures covering many hectares where the<br />
clearing has been neglected.<br />
Expanding the acreage of permanent pastures<br />
Almost all land that was not tilled served as combined open forest, mowed grasslands or permanent pastures for long<br />
periods in Selaön’s past. <strong>The</strong> recommended land use optimal for this ecologically rich landscape is the maintainance (or<br />
re-conversion into) permanent pastures, with or without some trees depending the site conditions. However, only a very<br />
small fraction of these are maintained as cultivated or semi-natural pastures: 93 ha in total. A further 16 ha are maintained<br />
as grazed forest, according to GIS and survey data.<br />
To reconvert more land into permanent pastures would be a major measure for promoting biodiversity and the sociocultural<br />
landscape services demanded in the area. Expanding the acreage of permanent pastures is an overall measure, a<br />
product of a set of other measures. Land restoration, increasing the number of grazing animals in the area, or grazing<br />
92
every second year are among the more specific measures that can be applied to succeed with the expansion.<br />
Forest edge development<br />
<strong>The</strong> permanent edges between open, agricultural land and forest are important to the biodiversity, the landscape<br />
scenery, etc. (see wp3-report). Selaön is moderately rich in forest edges, but they vary drastically in quality. Many are<br />
poor in biodiversity and landscape respects. <strong>The</strong>re is a big difference between a closed wall of spruces and a stratified<br />
zone of grass and herbs mixed with bushes, low, flowering trees and large deciduous or conifer trees. <strong>The</strong> grass<br />
vegetation along the forest edges are remnants of mowed or grazed land in the past.<br />
Developing the forest edges for the sake of biodiversity and landscape may have an initial restoration phase and<br />
continuing maintenance phases. It involves selective thinning bushes and trees, and in extra ambitious cases also<br />
planting trees. <strong>The</strong> edge could be cleared for tracks where rambling is requested. <strong>The</strong>re is little motivation for this in<br />
Selaön. Where feasible, the fences could be moved 10, 20 or 30 m into the forest from the field or grassland boundary<br />
to make grazing of the edge zone possible and preserve their openness.<br />
Once recommendations on how to change agricultural practices so as to lessen the negative impacts<br />
identified and enhancing positive ones were analysed, an agronomic feasibility analysis of the most<br />
important constraints and opportunities for their implementation had to be carried out (e.g. is there the<br />
agronomic knowledge and capacity to change agricultural practices according to the recommendations? How<br />
feasible is it for farmers to adopt the recommended agricultural practice? What are the foreseeable<br />
constraints and opportunities for their adoption from an agronomic perspective?).<br />
Please note that this part constituted an important basis for building up local agri-environmental programmes<br />
in Step 6, together with the socio-economic constraints and opportunities that have been analysed in the<br />
following Step 5.<br />
3.4.3.1 Feasibility analysis of the most important constraints and opportunities for implementation of<br />
recommendations<br />
In this section an agronomic analysis was carried out on the feasibility of the proposed recommendations on<br />
how to lessen the negative impacts identified and enhance positive ones. Researchers were asked to analyse<br />
the feasibility of the recommendations proposed in the context of the local agricultural system, pointing out<br />
which were more appropriate ones considering current agricultural practices and socio-economic<br />
characteristics and driving forces (studied in Step 3).<br />
Examples(not exhaustive) on the information to be analysed:<br />
• Agronomic knowledge of the practices recommended<br />
• Availability of the necessary know-how and capability of implementation<br />
• Effects on production yields, mechanisation and labour<br />
• Required adjustment of current agricultural practices<br />
Box 40 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: feasibility analysis of recommendations proposed for Landscape related<br />
environmental functions, Chianti study area, Italy<br />
Feasibility analysis (area level)<br />
Farmers are not interested in permanently reducing their UAA (Utilised Agricultural Area) or converting short-term coppice to high<br />
forest; clear evidence of this is provided by the scarce interest in subsidised afforestation measures (Reg. 2080/92). <strong>The</strong> forestry<br />
measures of Rural Development Plan (Reg. EC 1257/99) even were less successful and almost no-one asked for contributions in the<br />
pilot areas.<br />
From the farmers’ point of view, this behaviour is perfectly understandable, because those measures produce their definitive effects<br />
in terms of landscape and income too many years after they have subscribed them, usually after the death of the farmer.<br />
In other countries (e.g. UK, Norway) experimental farms work effectively in public-owned land following special conservation<br />
projects. A small percent of UAA managed in this way in selected high priority areas could produce similar results as a higher<br />
percent of private land managed according to schemes accepted by private owners, randomly scattered in the territory.<br />
A command and control system could perhaps work in selected areas, but the establishment of protected areas is (currently, at least)<br />
not a priority for local authorities. In this case, funding should be given only to farms submitting accurate projects of conservation of<br />
cultural or natural heritage, i.e. aiming to reach Tier +2. Of course, only farms not far from tier +2 will be interested. In this way, a<br />
process of self-selection of farmers in terms of location and landscape quality is expected, and protection of high priority areas could<br />
become a spontaneous phenomenon.<br />
93
Nevertheless, some projects appear reasonably feasible, such as diversifying the forest management system, because the resulting<br />
improved woodland would be self-regenerating and would not need more maintenance work compared to current management<br />
methods. Experimental farms with the task of conserving cultural landscape and open spaces are terribly expensive, because they<br />
need continuous attention to fight against both the historic-economic and the natural trends. It is as expensive as restoring urban<br />
cultural heritage, and this is reasonably feasible only if and where new social functions develop, such as eco-tourism.<br />
Some farmers are already voluntarily involved in restoration programs of archaic features and public funds have already been<br />
given for this purpose.<br />
Feasibility analysis of the implementation of changes in agricultural practices (agro-ecosystem level)<br />
We must remember that a distinction between micro (farm) and macro (socio-economic) level will be taken into account, whenever<br />
possible, when assessing the actual feasibility of the proposed changes in current agricultural practices.<br />
Avoiding agricultural land use in relevant ecotones, such as riparian strip and shrub strips along existing woodland and property<br />
boundaries, will greatly help to sustain habitats where most wild species live and grow. This change will be difficult to achieve<br />
because it will require influencing farmers’ behaviour, but it is also true that operating in such patches is often difficult, and that setaside<br />
rules already impose restrictions on the amount of cultivable land within the farm.<br />
Moreover, in strategic water catchment areas, this kind of measure is already under careful scrutiny by the competent Water<br />
Authorities, so its implementation might become mandatory, even without economic compensation.<br />
Introducing updated and more sensitive guidelines for reafforestation patterns will benefit a relevant portion of landowners who do<br />
not intend to develop intensive farming practices, and should prevent the creation of forest “monocultures”, often introduced via the<br />
implementation of EEC regulation 2080/92, which in Tuscany basically favoured three species (poplar, chestnut and walnut). <strong>The</strong><br />
underlying principle should be to join wood production with other relevant land uses (eg. honey production, light and extensive<br />
recreation uses, mushroom cultivation, etc), aiming at multipurpose reafforestation patterns that can be fairly accepted by farmers.<br />
<strong>The</strong> respect of traditional management structures (features such as terraces, earthworks, stonewalls, etc.) remaining in the<br />
countryside would represent a key change in current agricultural systems. <strong>The</strong> main problem is that, contrary to most other state<br />
indicators, this one has a high level of irreversibility. In addition, most traditional terraces have been destroyed in order to enlarge<br />
field sizes. Although it is true that farmers could well rebuild those structures, a series of problems affect the feasibility of such<br />
operations:<br />
First, walls were usually destroyed to plant new vineyards or olive plantations that are supposed to stand there for at least 30 years.<br />
Secondly, there is a serious shortage of craftsmen able to properly rebuild such structures (although relevant technical documentation<br />
is available for the Province of Florence). Thirdly, we may not possess the relevant documentation to locate the walls where they<br />
were previously standing.<br />
A potential solution might be to favour their conservation in farms offering quality (e.g. environmentally friendly) accommodation,<br />
to further sustain income diversification.<br />
Diversification of existing farm production lines implies searching for niche-markets to be exploited at the prevailing advantage of<br />
small and medium size farmers. This process should be based on local species/varieties and on the recovery of traditional land<br />
arrangements and processing techniques suitable for such varieties. <strong>The</strong> feasibility degree appears fairly good, given the special<br />
momentum gained by quality food all over the world.<br />
Proper maintenance of traditional drainage structures carries with it respect for traditional land management structures and manmade<br />
works, together with an increased awareness of soil/water relationships that is fundamental for conserving soil resources in the<br />
long term. <strong>The</strong> feasibility is average, mainly hampered in small farms by the time/money available, but several solutions can be<br />
worked out at reasonable costs, given that professional advice will be provided to farmers. This issue must be dealt with by strongly<br />
linking the respect of traditional land management structures (including stonewalls) with soil conservation and appropriate<br />
drainage (e.g. ditch maintainance). <strong>The</strong>se all tend to be affected by the maximisation of field size.<br />
<strong>The</strong> voluntary introduction of new, higher quality environmentally friendly standards for farm-tourism is a process already<br />
experienced in some parts of Europe and the world (partly related to eco-tourism development). Considering the enormous success of<br />
this sector in Tuscany (nearly 2700 farms), some entrepreneurs are beginning to realise that it is vital to distinguish themselves from<br />
the crowd, and are willing to move further in such a positive direction.<br />
<strong>The</strong> introduction of restraints to the maximum field size regarding new olive and vineyards plantations (and every other arboriculture<br />
use) has the advantage of impacting positively on various landscape indicators. Its feasibility base lies in the principle that the Chianti<br />
area (as many other famous landscapes) sells its image together with its produce. Consequently, most farmers should accept the<br />
principle that to compensate the added value of a beautiful and well-managed countryside some restrictions are needed on farms<br />
seeking to utilise economies of scale. We chose the case of plantations because it is nowadays the most important cause for concern<br />
affecting landscape changes (e.g. land levelling), but in the future the same reasoning might apply to every farm field.<br />
Another issue concerning this suggested change is the possibility of enforcing a mandatory requirement regarding specialised rowcrops,<br />
that should have at least a 30% angle to maximum slope gradient, to prevent soil erosion and harmful water run-off.<br />
94
3.4.4 Analysis of relations between degrees of sustainability and different hypothetical intensities of<br />
pressures of local agricultural systems.<br />
Following on from the analysis above, once each relevant pressure had been linked to the corresponding tier,<br />
and recommendations were proposed about what agricultural practices should be adopted in order to<br />
eliminate or lessen negative impacts and enhance positive ones, it was important to envisage which different<br />
intensities of the same pressure would have corresponded to impacts ranking different tiers in the system<br />
proposed in section 3.4.2.1 above. <strong>The</strong> definition of relationships between degrees of sustainability and<br />
different intensities of pressures using tiers, was the basis for the economic calculation of undertaking cost<br />
and opportunity costs to be carried out in Step 5 and the definition of agro-environmental policy targets in<br />
Step 6.<br />
So for instance, if the actual pressure “maintenance of hedgerows or semi-natural habitats” had been ranked<br />
as Tier –2 (i.e. very bad maintenance) through the analysis of the exerted impacts, then also what<br />
hypothetical intensities of the same pressure “maintenance of hedgerows or semi-natural habitats” would<br />
have ranked Tier –1, Tier +1 and Tier +2 had to be envisaged, as well as the value of the pressure ranking<br />
Tier 0 = respecting of EMR = no gap or only low impacts.<br />
It is important to point out that the above correlation was intended only as indicative, given the presently<br />
limited scientific knowledge and the difficulty of assessing the effects of a change of a pressure exerting on<br />
more than one impact simultaneously. In fact, pointing out hypothetical correlations on dose-effects<br />
relationships constitutes the first step of assessing their scientific validity, to be tested by empirical field<br />
research.<br />
Following the example in fig.18 in section 3.4.2.1 and possible recommendations studied in section 3.4.3,<br />
researchers envisaged, by looking at the impacts exerted, what different intensity of the pressure would have<br />
ranked in different tiers, as in the following example:<br />
Actual situation: Maintenance of hedgerows and/or semi-natural habitats exerts 4 negative significant<br />
impacts and 2 high negative impacts on state indicators relevant to plant and animal species and ecosystems<br />
because there are very sporadic field margins with hedgerows and no semi-natural system is maintained.<br />
This pressure is ecologically very unsustainable. It therefore ranks: Tier –2<br />
Envisaged correlations between different tiers and intensity of the pressure “maintenance of hedgerows<br />
or semi-natural habitats” at the study area level:<br />
Tier +2 = Presence of only high positive impacts (red) = e.g. 20% of existing UAA reconverted to (semi-<br />
) natural habitat. This is expected to have very positive effects on plants, animals and ecosystems.<br />
Tier +1 = Presence of only significant positive impact (yellow) = e.g. 5% of existing UAA reconverted<br />
to (semi-)natural habitat. This is expected to have positive effects on plants, animals and ecosystems.<br />
Tier 0 = respect of EMR = no impacts or only low positive/negative impacts exerted by agricultural<br />
practices = e.g. field margins with hedgerows 3 meters wide for at least 30 % of the total length of field<br />
margins in the area. This is expected to have sustainable impacts on plants, animals and ecosystems.<br />
Tier -1 = Presence of significant negative impact exerted by agricultural pressures (yellow) = e.g. field<br />
margins with hedgerows 3 meters wide for at least 10 % of the total length of field margins in the area. This<br />
is expected to lessen negative impacts on plants, animals and ecosystems.<br />
Tier –2 = Presence of high negative impact (red) = e.g. very sporadic field margins with hedgerows =<br />
actual situation.<br />
95
Box 41 - <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Ranking different intensities of pressures for Kihelkonna study area<br />
Estonia<br />
Two environmental functions related to biodiversity and landscape conservation, were analysed in 2 study areas -<br />
Palamuse and Kihelkonna. <strong>The</strong> analysis of qualitative and quantitative relative importance of agricultural impacts in<br />
causing the gap measured between EMR and the actual value of state indicators was carried out. <strong>The</strong> most relevant<br />
agricultural pressures in both communities were the abandonment of agricultural land, livestock density, crop rotation,<br />
land use intensification, nutrient management and land improvement. Abandonment of traditional methods and<br />
changing to large-scale production has significantly decreased the area of semi-natural habitats during the last decades,<br />
which causes the decrease in biodiversity (as abandonment of arable management leads to the replacement of diverse<br />
wildlife with more common and widespread species) and aesthetic value of the landscape, distribution of weed seeds,<br />
fire risk, overgrowth of bushes over large areas, etc.<br />
<strong>The</strong> sustainability of local agricultural pressures causing the impacts detected was identified using a qualitative ranking<br />
system. For each relevant pressure the recommendations for enhancing positive and minimising negative impact were<br />
given and the analysis of relations between degrees of sustainability and intensity of pressures of local agricultural<br />
systems were determined. For instance the recommendations for the land abandonment (Tier –1) were as follows:<br />
- ploughing, sowing, establishing drainage systems, using pesticides and fertilisers and the artificial changing of species<br />
composition is prohibited;<br />
- wooded meadows must be mowed from 1 July at least once a year, the hay must be collected and removed, the share<br />
of the land covered by the crowns of bushes must be kept low (0.2–0.5), after mowing the grazing pressure has to be<br />
lower than 0.5 LU/ha;<br />
- the grazing pressure on alvars should be 0.2−1.0 LU/ha and on wooded pastures 0.3−1.0 LU/ha, the share of the land<br />
covered by crowns of bushes must be kept respectively at least 0.2 and at 0–0.4 respectively; and<br />
the grazing pressure on coastal meadows should be 0.4−1.3 LU/ha, at least half of the grazed area has to be short as a<br />
sward as a result of grazing (Appendix to the State Herald, 2002, 67, 1061).<br />
<strong>The</strong> analysis was carried out on the relations between degrees of sustainability of different envisaged intensities of the<br />
pressures identified as exerting the actual impacts, for each relevant pressure. An example of the correlation between<br />
different tiers and abandonment in Kihelkonna pilot area was as follows:<br />
Tier –1 = the area of managed semi-natural habitats is 345 hectares (actual situation)<br />
Tier 0 = the area of managed semi-natural habitats is 1,200 hectares<br />
Tier +1 = the area of managed semi-natural habitats is 1,676 hectares (meaning all semi-natural habitats with medium<br />
or high value are managed)<br />
Tier +2 = the area of managed semi-natural habitats is more than 1,676 hectares.<br />
3.4.5 Identification of the multifunctional character of the local agricultural systems in reference to the<br />
performance of more than one environmental function<br />
In the context of <strong>AEMBAC</strong>, the term “multifunctional” was used to indicate the performance of more than<br />
one environmental function.<br />
As seen in Step 2, each environmental function requires that certain levels (EMR) of critical environmental<br />
aspects/qualities (abiotic, biotic, and aesthetic) of natural resources, measured by state indicators, are<br />
satisfied. To address more than one environmental function to be performed by the agro-ecosystem, a first<br />
analysis was done to check what pressures the local agricultural system is exerting on the critical<br />
environmental aspects (abiotic, biotic, and aesthetic) needed to perform more than one function.<br />
This latter aspect is fundamental in assessing the sustainability of the local agricultural system in relation to<br />
multifunctionality (i.e. performance of more than one environmental function).<br />
In fact the agricultural use of the natural environment can be defined as competing or complementary in<br />
utilising those critical environmental resources (biotic, abiotic, aesthetic, etc.) which also allow the<br />
performance of environmental functions. In this sense the production of food could be regarded as an<br />
96
environmental function.<br />
In <strong>AEMBAC</strong>, competing agricultural practices are those agricultural pressures exerting negative impacts<br />
that are excluding or reducing the possibilities for environmental function(s) (other than food production) to<br />
occur. A classic example of this kind of relationship is that of intensive agricultural production that is<br />
impairing the possibility of habitat or recreation function taking place.<br />
In the case of agricultural practices competing with the performance of more than one environmental<br />
function, some values of “critical state indicators” can be affected simultaneously for both functions by<br />
agricultural pressures. From the analysis above on the causal relationships between impacts and pressures, it<br />
can result that reducing a certain agricultural pressure can simultaneously have beneficial effects for the<br />
performance of more than one environmental function, so adding value (because of expected production of<br />
more environmental goods and services) to the development of agri-environmental measures.<br />
<strong>The</strong> term complementary agricultural practices, in <strong>AEMBAC</strong>, addresses those agricultural pressures<br />
exerting in positive or neutral impacts for the performance of environmental functions. Also this kind of<br />
agricultural use can be analysed in relation to having beneficial effects on the performance of more than one<br />
environmental function (as it should result from the analysis of state indicators). If this is the case there will<br />
be an added value (resulting in increasing the sustainability of the multifunctional character of the local<br />
agricultural systems) in designing and implementing incentives through agri-environmental measures in<br />
order to enhance the adoption by farmers of practices beneficial to multifunctionality.<br />
<strong>Final</strong>ly it is worth noting that some agricultural practices can conflict with some environmental functions<br />
while complementing others. An example can again be the case of an agricultural landscape which has<br />
shaped the natural one with beneficial effects for human recreation but negative impacts for wild species.<br />
<strong>The</strong> figure below shows an example of possible pressures of the local agricultural system that impact on<br />
more than one function.<br />
Fig.20 Example of pressures exerting<br />
impacts on more than one environmental<br />
functions<br />
Environmental Functions<br />
Biodiversity related function<br />
Landscape related function<br />
Soil erosion control<br />
Water run-off control<br />
Agro-Ecosystem (AE) pressure indicators<br />
(data from questionnaire and bibliographic/field<br />
research)<br />
a) Nutrient management<br />
a1) Farm gate nutrient balance<br />
a2) Adjusting application rates to crop needs<br />
a3) Timing of nutrient applications<br />
a4) Crop rotations<br />
97<br />
a5) Placement of fertilizers<br />
a6) Fertilisers used per hectare<br />
a7) Livestock density (LU/ha)<br />
b) soil and land management<br />
b1) Land use<br />
b2) soil cover, mowing, hay cutting, grazing<br />
(WP4) 4. Hypothetical Impacts<br />
b3) Land management<br />
b4) Landscape management<br />
no impact significative<br />
low high<br />
c) Irrigation and water management<br />
c1) Water use efficiency<br />
c2) Irrigation delivery systems<br />
c3) Drainage/diversion/extraction processes<br />
d) Pesticide use<br />
d1) Pesticide use per ha<br />
d2) Use of integrated pest management<br />
d3) Use of alternative pest control methods<br />
d4) Timing of herbicide use<br />
d5) Timing of insecticide use<br />
d6) Toxicity of pesticide used
In the matrix above, the pressures from land use, soil cover, mowing, hay cutting, and land management<br />
impact on more than one function (related to biodiversity and landscape, and soil erosion and water run-off<br />
control), while pressures such as livestock density and pesticide use impact on one function only (soil<br />
erosion control and biodiversity-related function respectively).<br />
Box 42 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Analysis of agricultural pressures impacting simultaneously on more than<br />
on environmental functon in the Chianti case study, Italy<br />
<strong>The</strong> agricultural system in the Chianti study area simultaneous impacts the performance of more than one function.<br />
From the analysis carried out the pressures of, land use conversion, logging and coppice cutting, crop diversity, habitat<br />
fragmentation and presence of land settlings, appear to be particularly important. In fact:<br />
Land use conversion impacts on:<br />
1. <strong>The</strong> refugium function (biodiversity): because patterns of land use in the last period of fifty years showed a swift<br />
by share farming system to specialised agriculture which has carried to a conversion of wide areas abandoned after<br />
the share farming decay. <strong>The</strong> reconversion is prevalent on low hilly areas, while the high hilly areas and mountains<br />
are not affected by this process. <strong>The</strong> impact is negative on the refugium function, because the specialisation towards<br />
monocultures causes a decreasing of species number (animal and plant);<br />
2. <strong>The</strong> Landscape related functions: because patterns of land use in the last period of fifty years showed a swift by<br />
share farming system to a specialised agriculture which has lead to a re-conversion to agriculture of wide areas<br />
abandoned after the share farming decay. It has negative impacts on landscape related function, particularly on<br />
diversity of the scenery, because the increasing of cultivated areas often erodes woodland of recent formation<br />
(ecotone) causing heavy repercussions on the landscape. Moreover the recent trend of creating wide and<br />
uninterrupted vine or olive plantations break the landscape harmony because the characteristic Chianti landscape is<br />
that of alternation between olive-yards, vine-yards and woods.<br />
3. <strong>The</strong> Soil erosion and water run-off control: because the increasing of cultivated lands to the detriment of natural/<br />
semi-natural areas can favour the run-off speed of rain water even more if it is not associated with good agricultural<br />
practice and correct land management. <strong>The</strong> main risks are an increasing of potential erosion and a decreasing of<br />
slope stability (landslide).<br />
Logging and coppice cutting impacts on:<br />
1. <strong>The</strong> refugium function (biodiversity): because the wood management practised can affect biodiversity of birds,<br />
reducing the number of species linked to mature woods.<br />
2. <strong>The</strong> Landscape related functions: because two centuries of repeated coppice cutting simplified the previous forest<br />
mosaic made with different elements, such as oak high forest.<br />
3. <strong>The</strong> Soil erosion and water run-off control: because forestry activities are carried out by non-specialised workers<br />
with consequences for erosion control.<br />
Habitat fragmentation impacts on:<br />
1. <strong>The</strong> refugium function (biodiversity): because increasing farm dimension causes different pressures according to<br />
farm size and management (family farm/ capitalistic farm). It has a negative impact on Refugium function, because<br />
the farm size increasing damages shrub and wood areas, causing a negative pressure on ecotone.<br />
2. <strong>The</strong> Landscape related functions: because the increasing farm size leads to the destruction of ecotone.<br />
3. <strong>The</strong> Soil erosion and water run-off control: because the elimination of edges and shrubs in order to enlarge vine<br />
yards extension has impact on the soil erosion control.<br />
Presence of land settings impacts mainly on:<br />
1. <strong>The</strong> Soil erosion and water run-off control: because the maintenance of new and old land settings is substantially<br />
absent. In fact we do not survey landscape management in the farms. In the past landscape management concerning<br />
stone walls, terraces and agrarian hydraulic works was part of the local farmers traditional culture. Nowadays the<br />
maintenance of stone walls is not considered by commercial farms because the returning benefits are in the long<br />
term. Obviously the risk of soil erosion is increasing. <strong>The</strong> bad condition state of maintenance of land settling favors<br />
the possibility of indiscriminate increasing the speed of run-off, both on surface and depth.<br />
Crop Diversity impacts on:<br />
1. <strong>The</strong> refugium function (biodiversity): because it is scarcely present due to increasing olive and vine specialisation<br />
in some particular species. It has a negative impact on Refugium function, because the presence of scarce cultural<br />
diversification offers rare occasions to refugium of different animal species. Besides, the cultural specialisation leads<br />
to a reduction of local varieties in advantage of standardised varieties fixed by disciplinary; <strong>The</strong> risk is prevalent in<br />
plant diversity, because new plantations (vine in particular) are composed by standard species according to DOCG<br />
Chianti Disciplinary, to the detriment of local variety species which are progressively disappearing.<br />
2. <strong>The</strong> Landscape related functions: because the increasing size of homogeneous cultivation (i.e. vineyards) of<br />
landscape units (substantially uniform in their exasperate likeness) can make the complex vision for observer worse.<br />
Nevertheless the landscape remains agreeable in those areas which are not transformed by new specialised<br />
98
plantations.<br />
3. <strong>The</strong> Soil erosion and water run-off control: the specialisation of vineyard cultivation has negative impacts on soil<br />
conservation because the cultural specialisation is sometimes accomplished by land settings wich are not compatible<br />
to land morphology. In fact new plantations are usually established mainly according to exposure and soil<br />
composition, rather than the slope of the hillside. This fact can favour the potential risk of soil erosion phenomena<br />
especially if plantations are arranged by up-down ditching: however we retain that also in new up-down ditching<br />
plantations the soil conservation is strictly linked to agriculture practices<br />
Shrub cutting impacts on:<br />
1. <strong>The</strong> refugium function (biodiversity): Because in shrubland this destroys an exclusive habitat for some species of<br />
birds and reptiles<br />
2. <strong>The</strong> Landscape related functions: Because avoiding their overgrowth, shrub cutting in semi-natural<br />
shrub/grassland keeps the succession in states that are appreciated as landscape features for their peculiar season<br />
compliance and openness.<br />
Fig. 21 – Multifunctionality: evaluation<br />
of performance by Natural Ecosystem<br />
and Agro-Ecosystem at local level<br />
(Upper basin of Greve River)<br />
Pressure indicators<br />
99<br />
Land use<br />
Land use conversion<br />
Soil cover<br />
Logging and coppice cutting<br />
Shrub cutting<br />
Crop diversity<br />
Uncultivated field margins<br />
Hedge conservation<br />
Habitat fragmentation<br />
Presence of land settings<br />
Land management<br />
Biodiversity Refugium function - - - - - - - *<br />
Landscape related functions - - + - - -<br />
Soil erosion control - - - - - - - -<br />
Summarising the above, while in Step 2 the relevant state indicators have been analysed for each<br />
environmental function, here state indicators were analysed simultaneously for more than one function,<br />
pointing out those which were indicating crucial aspects commonly affected by the same pressure(s).<br />
In fact it may also be the case that some of the key environmental aspects which are crucial for the<br />
performance of one function would also be crucial for the performance of another. This can be the case for<br />
instance of the indicator extent of ecosystems for the performance of refugium function and recreative<br />
function even if it may also be the case that for the value of respective EMR to be matched in order to allow<br />
for performance there would be differences (see Box 43 below).<br />
Box 43 - Common state indicators for multifunctional performances and relationships with EMR<br />
Having first identified the critical environmental aspects common to the performance of more than one environmental<br />
function, the next step is to analyse what are the values of EMR for the state indicators (describing the common critical<br />
environmental aspects) that are allowing the simultaneous performance of the environmental functions selected. This<br />
will come out just confronting results on EMR values for the common state indicators used to describe simultaneously<br />
different environmental functions.<br />
Two cases can result from this analysis:<br />
1. <strong>The</strong> same EMR value of a state indicator for performance of one environmental function that also satisfies the<br />
condition to allow the performance of another one; or<br />
2. A different EMR value of a state indicator to allow the performance of different environmental functions. In this<br />
case two further situations can be observed:<br />
2a. Stricter values of the EMR to perform one function than that needed to perform others: this can be the case for<br />
instance of the refugium function which may need a particular habitat to cover a greater area than that needed for the<br />
Rain fall water management<br />
Pesticide use
ecreation function (i.e. a stricter value of the EMR for the state indicator extension of ecosystem describing refugium<br />
function).<br />
2b. Conflicting values of the EMR for the same state indicator to perform different environmental functions: this can be<br />
the case, for instance, when for the refugium function it can be good to have a large extension of the same ecosystem to<br />
conserve species living there, while from an aesthetic point of view the diversity of the scenery is advocated, so in this<br />
case the EMR value of the indicator Patchiness is conflicting between refugium (often but not always low patchiness)<br />
and aesthetic function (often but not always high patchiness).<br />
It is worth noting that the values of some indicators (other than those in common) can have an influence on<br />
the values of other indicators describing a different environmental function. This should at least have been<br />
highlighted even if it couldn’t be analysed in case studies.<br />
3.5 Step 5 – Economic valuation of negative/positive impacts and identification<br />
of externalities<br />
3.5.1 Translation of results of environmental functions analysis into economic information.<br />
<strong>The</strong> information on positive/negative impacts resulting from the local agricultural system analysed in<br />
previous sections, has to be translated into economic information in order to build up agri-environment<br />
programmes.<br />
Adopting the perspective of looking at ecosystems functioning through the provision of environmental goods<br />
and services now offers the opportunity to concentrate on what has value for humankind. This approach which<br />
has already the character of being utilitarian and anthropocentric, facilitates the integration between natural and<br />
social sciences and also the understanding of the importance of environmental goods and services by non-natural<br />
scientists.<br />
To start the economic analysis, two considerations were made. <strong>The</strong> first concerned what was the objective of the<br />
economic valuation, the second how the economic valuation had to be carried out.<br />
In <strong>AEMBAC</strong> the objective of economic valuation was to indicate in economic terms what is the value of the<br />
increase/impairment, resulting from positive/negative impacts exerted by the local agricultural system, on the<br />
provision of environmental goods and services by environmental functions performance.<br />
More precisely, looking at each agricultural pressure ranked in Step 4, sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.3, the economic<br />
valuation had to be carried out to assess the benefits and costs to achieve upwards tiers associated to hypothetical<br />
impacts starting from the actual situation (i.e. real impacts).<br />
Once an indicative economic value had been assessed, it was then be possible to work out, for instance, what<br />
would be the costs to have farmers compensated for supplying environmental goods and services.<br />
Regarding how this economic valuation could be carried out, two possibilities were envisaged:<br />
1) <strong>The</strong> first approach was to calculate the “Total (partial) economic value 15 ” of agricultural positive/negative<br />
impacts on the environmental goods and services provided by the environmental functions, using the most<br />
suitable economic valuation techniques (see box 44 below) for the case study. This comprehensive approach is<br />
usually undertaken when there is a need to demonstrate the economic convenience of one use of natural<br />
resources compared to another through a cost-benefit analysis. This kind of economic evaluation is done for<br />
instance, when the economic value of environmental benefits of conserving a natural ecosystem have to be<br />
compared with the economic value of benefits of an alternative development plan. In this case the valuation of<br />
15 Total Economic Value is usually given by the aggregation of the following values: Use Values (Direct, Indirect and<br />
Option values) and Non-Use Values (Bequest and Existence values). (Pearce and Moran, 1994)<br />
100
environmental goods and services can be done, for instance, by measuring the willingness to pay to conserve the<br />
natural ecosystem and then this value is measured against the opportunity costs of giving up the benefits of the<br />
alternative plan, once the undertaking costs and savings have been accounted for, for both alternatives.<br />
This kind of economic valuation could be adopted in <strong>AEMBAC</strong> by calculating both the benefits and costs of<br />
the positive/negative impacts associated with the agricultural activities in terms of supply of environmental<br />
goods and services. This involves understanding in economic terms, what are the benefits of achieving EMR<br />
(i.e. by definition the minimum environmental requirements to allow performance of the environmental<br />
function), or what are the benefits of having a situation above EMR and comparing these benefits with their<br />
corresponding undertaking and opportunity costs.<br />
Box 44: Examples of environmental economic valuation techniques<br />
Are the environmental function performances protecting assets? <strong>The</strong> following valuation techniques can be used to assess<br />
the economic value of positive/negative impacts on the environmental goods and services provided by the environmental<br />
functions:<br />
• Cost of replacement<br />
• Rehabilitation costs<br />
• Value of lost production<br />
• Cost of relocation<br />
Is the value of the environmental functions performance reflected in the land value or some other composite price? <strong>The</strong><br />
following valuation techniques can be used to assess the economic value of positive/negative impacts on the environmental<br />
goods and services provided by the environmental functions:<br />
• Hedonic pricing<br />
Do the environmental function performances support production or tourism? <strong>The</strong> following valuation techniques can be<br />
used to assess the economic value of positive/negative impacts on the environmental goods and services provided by the<br />
environmental functions:<br />
• Production function approach<br />
• Net factor income<br />
• Travel cost method<br />
Are there market prices for similar environmental function performances? <strong>The</strong> following valuation techniques can be used<br />
to assess the economic value of positive/negative impacts on the environmental goods and services provided by the<br />
environmental functions:<br />
• Substitute price<br />
• Indirect substitute price<br />
Is the environmental function performance not subjected to market transactions and are there also no close substitutes? <strong>The</strong><br />
following valuation techniques can be used to assess the economic value of positive/negative impacts on the environmental<br />
goods and services provided by the environmental functions:<br />
• Contingent valuation<br />
(adapted from Rosemary F. James wetland valuation, Asian wetland bureau – Indonesia, 1991<br />
Moreover, if it could also be possible to estimate the marginal benefit (and the marginal cost) of having a<br />
further unit of the environmental good or service, this approach could have permitted to assess what would<br />
be the quantity of the environmental good or service that maximises the social utility.<br />
<strong>The</strong> intention of <strong>AEMBAC</strong> was not to discourage those who wish to try to look for such values, nor to start a<br />
theoretical debate on the validity of monetary evaluation techniques. However it must be pointed out that the<br />
present knowledge on ecological functioning does not allow to formulate such estimates on a solid scientific<br />
basis, not to mention the difficulties of considering the ethical aspects of associating an economic value, for<br />
instance, to the existence of living beings.<br />
2) A second, more pragmatic approach (albeit partial and less elegant from a theoretic point of view) adopted<br />
in <strong>AEMBAC</strong> to carry out the economic analysis of the positive/negative impacts resulting from agricultural<br />
pressures, was that of calculating only the undertakings and opportunity costs and relative savings of<br />
lessening impacts and of providing the environmental good and service (i.e. achieving upwards tiers starting<br />
from the actual situation). In fact the assessment of costs could be done in both the cases that the objective<br />
was to calculate the cost of filling in the negative gap between EMR and the actual value (negative impact),<br />
101
or to calculate the costs of filling in the positive gap between the actual value and EMR (positive impact).<br />
This second possibility was therefore to adopt “only” a partial economic valuation of what has to be done (or not<br />
to be done!) by farmers to allow for the supply of environmental goods and services, through the “cost<br />
assessment method”. In the case of <strong>AEMBAC</strong>, the willingness of European citizens to conserve biodiversity<br />
and landscape expressed through, for instance, the ratification of the Convention on Biodiversity by the EU,<br />
could be considered as a proxy for the demand of conserving biodiversity and landscape. Thus there would be no<br />
need to demonstrate the economic convenience of conserving biodiversity, but instead what the undertaking and<br />
opportunity costs would be of doing so, and who needs to be compensated in recognition of their provision of<br />
environmental goods and services.<br />
Following the two approaches to the economic valuation described above, researchers were asked to carry<br />
out two sub-sequential steps:<br />
Step one: Analysis of the supply of environmental goods and services by agricultural practices had to start<br />
from looking at the positive/negative (real and hypothetical) environmental impacts exerted by agricultural<br />
pressures on the performance of environmental functions. <strong>The</strong>se impacts were ranked by qualitative tiers in<br />
section 3.4.4. <strong>The</strong> outcome of this step was a list of the ranked agricultural impacts (positive and/or negative<br />
that had to be evaluated in economic terms) as in the example in the following table 43:<br />
Tab. 43 - Tiers, impacts, recommendations and economic assessment<br />
Tiers Associated impacts Recommended necessary Option 1: Total/partial Option 2:<br />
agricultural practices<br />
Economic Value<br />
Costs Assessment<br />
Tier Presence of only high 10% of existing UAA reconverted to Assessment of environmental Assessment of<br />
+2 positive impacts (red) (semi-) natural habitat is expected to benefits and opportunity and opportunity and<br />
have very positive effects on plants, undertaking costs to achieve undertaking costs to<br />
animals and ecosystems<br />
the tier from actual situation achieve the tier from<br />
actual situation<br />
Tier Presence of only Field margins with hedgerows 3 Assessment of environmental Assessment of<br />
+1 significant positive meters wide for at least 50 % of the benefits and opportunity and opportunity and<br />
impact (yellow) total length of field margins in the undertaking costs to achieve undertaking costs to<br />
area, is expected to have sustainable the tier from actual situation achieve the tier from<br />
impacts on plants, animals and<br />
ecosystems<br />
actual situation<br />
Tier 0 respect of EMR = no Field margins with hedgerows 3 Assessment of environmental Assessment of<br />
impacts or only low meters wide for at least 30 % of the benefits and opportunity and opportunity and<br />
positive/negative total length of field margins in the undertaking costs to achieve undertaking costs to<br />
impacts exerted by area, is expected to have sustainable the tier from actual situation achieve the tier from<br />
agricultural practices impacts on plants, animals and<br />
ecosystems<br />
actual situation<br />
Tier Presence of significant Field margins with hedgerows of 3 Assessment of environmental Assessment of<br />
-1 negative impact exerted meter width for at least 10 % of the benefits and opportunity and opportunity and<br />
by agricultural pressures total length of field margins in the undertaking costs to achieve undertaking costs to<br />
(yellow)<br />
area, is expected to lessen negative the tier from actual situation achieve the tier from<br />
impacts on plants, animals and<br />
ecosystems<br />
actual situation<br />
Tier Presence of high very sporadic field margins with Assessment of environmental Assessment of<br />
–2 negative impact (red) hedgerows = actual situation costs and opportunity and opportunity and<br />
undertaking costs to do not undertaking costs of<br />
change actual situation not changing the actual<br />
situation<br />
Step two: this consisted of elaborating on the physical data, measuring the impacts of agricultural practices<br />
on the environment (derived from step 1), and translating environmental impacts into economic values<br />
(monetary) orders of magnitude.<br />
• In the case that for some objects to be evaluated there were economic valuation studies already existing,<br />
these had to be presented and described here (i.e. what had been valued, who was the valuing subject,<br />
year, etc). (see Box 45 below)<br />
102
Box 45 – Contingent Valuation Methods and Benefits transfers – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project Switzerland,<br />
(for references in the box see the FiBl <strong>Report</strong>)<br />
For the Swiss study regions we choose the following mixed strategy in order to approach the valuation of the landscape.<br />
First, various European contingent valuation (CV) studies were analysed to get a rough idea of possible values for<br />
diverse environmental goods. <strong>The</strong> problem of value transfer was discussed and conclusions drawn for our special case.<br />
Tab. 44 - Results from different CV studies:<br />
Source Country Persons interviewed Topic in question Value collected<br />
a)<br />
Degenhardt,<br />
Hampicke et al.,<br />
1998<br />
Kämmerer, 1994<br />
(cited in<br />
Geisendorf, 1998)<br />
Jung, 1994 (cited in<br />
Geisendorf, 1998)<br />
DE Inhabitants of three rural<br />
areas<br />
Expenditures for definite<br />
measures to protect and<br />
develop grassland<br />
landscape<br />
DE Local population Agricultural use of fallow<br />
land<br />
DE Local population Aesthetics of agricultural<br />
landscapes<br />
Bullock et al., 1997 UK Inhabitants of Central<br />
Southern Uplands of<br />
Scotland<br />
Zimmer, 1994 DE Users of the landscape in<br />
the german districts<br />
“Emsland” and “Werra-<br />
Meißner-Kreis”<br />
Holm-Müller, 1991<br />
(cited in<br />
Geisendorf, 1998)<br />
Cordes, 1994 (cited<br />
in Geisendorf,<br />
1998)<br />
Hampicke, 1991<br />
(cited in<br />
Geisendorf, 1998)<br />
103<br />
14 – 33<br />
€/hh*year<br />
Oberes<br />
Fricktal<br />
€/ha b)<br />
Greifensee<br />
€/ha b)<br />
18 - 43 86 - 203<br />
25 €/hh*year 32 154<br />
29 €/hh*year 38 178<br />
Endangered species 52 €/hh*year 67 320<br />
Landscape change by<br />
grazing intensity<br />
DE Local population Preventing species going<br />
extinct<br />
DE Tourists Landscape conservation<br />
(inhabitants)<br />
German population Protection of endangered<br />
species<br />
60 €/hh*year 78 369<br />
Landscape 86 €/hh*year 111 529<br />
97 €/hh*year 126 596<br />
111 €/hh*year 144 682<br />
124 €/hh*year 161 762<br />
Drake, 1992 SE Swedish population Landscape 78 €/p*year 260 1309<br />
Correll et al., 1994 DE Rural and urban<br />
population of the German<br />
district “Lahn-Dill-<br />
Bergkreis”<br />
Roschewitz, 1998 CH Inhabitants of the region<br />
“Zürcher Weinland”<br />
Agricultural influenced<br />
landscape<br />
Value of cultural landscape 163 €/p*year or<br />
163 €/hh*year c)<br />
Jäggin, 1999 CH Day tourists Value of protection of<br />
endangered species<br />
Pruckner, 1994 AT Summer tourists (foreign<br />
and domestic)<br />
Landscape conservation 0,66<br />
€/visitor*day<br />
105 €/p*year 349 1762<br />
542<br />
or 211 c)<br />
2735 or<br />
1002 c)<br />
253 €/p*year 842 4246<br />
Not<br />
possible<br />
Not<br />
possible<br />
Notes:<br />
a) Exchange rates for the different currencies in which the values were originally collected date from the year the study<br />
was conducted. It is important to note that this extrapolation is just a rough calculation. Adaptations according to<br />
different levels of purchasing power in the different regions are not carried out. Also inflation rates are not taken into<br />
account so that the time factor is not considered.
) <strong>The</strong> values for Oberes Fricktal and Greifensee (column 6 and 7) are calculated as follows: the value from column 5<br />
(value collected) is multiplied by either the number of inhabitants or the number of households according to the<br />
aggregation level on which is was collected. It is then divided by the number of hectares of UAA in each region.<br />
It should be mentioned that other authors extrapolate their collected “willingness to pay” to the whole region by<br />
considering only the number of inhabitants older than 18 years (Roschewitz). This would, in our case, lead to figures<br />
about 25% less (corresponding to the share of under-aged inhabitants in both regions) for those figures which are given<br />
on a per person level (lines 11-14).<br />
Data used for calculations for “Oberes Fricktal”: 9008 inhabitants / 3505 households<br />
2707,5 ha UAA<br />
Data used for calculations for “Greifensee”: 125914 inhabitants / 46122 households<br />
7503,1 ha UAA<br />
c) For further calculation, Roscehwitz takes the collected values as per household figures. <strong>The</strong> “tax“ payment tool<br />
justifies this. In Switzerland it is mostly the household that is taxed, not the individual person. Consequently, giving a<br />
minimum level of “willingness to pay” of the population for conserving landscape she thus uses the lower figure for<br />
further calculations. (p = person)<br />
Conclusions for the Swiss situation<br />
<strong>The</strong> results of Roschewitz are rather high compared to other CV studies carried out in Europe (cf. Tab. 8.2.1). She<br />
explains these findings with two characteristics of the region: <strong>The</strong> high income level on the one hand, for nearly all<br />
Switzerland, including our study regions. On the other hand, the environmental good in question (cultural landscape) is<br />
rather scarce. Roschewitz further notes that her results are rather under- than overestimated and gives three reasons for<br />
this. First, the design of the question. As a payment tool she proposes a tax. This tool normally is a rather unattractive<br />
one and, thus, people questioned may be more conservative in their expressions of willingness to pay. She justifies her<br />
choice of this payment tool with its close relation to Swiss political reality. After public referendums this tool is often<br />
applied to realise a policy. Consequently, she interprets the values given as willingness of tax payment per household,<br />
not on per person level. Second, Roschewitzrecognised a high willingness to answer among the people questioned,<br />
which limits the danger of bias. Only 4% of them did not want to respond at all to the question of their “willingness to<br />
pay”. She estimates the credibility of the results as very high as no unrealistically high values were given. Third, the<br />
distribution of results is skewed and the median is lower than the mean value. Roschewitz uses the median value so that,<br />
again, the result is rather lower than higher. She concludes that due to her conservative assumptions her results show the<br />
minimum level of the value of cultural landscape of the region studied.<br />
• <strong>The</strong>n, if it was feasible to translate the environmental impacts attributable to agriculture into orders of<br />
magnitude of economic (monetary) values, using the most appropriate environmental economic<br />
valuation techniques (e.g. rehabilitation cost, hedonic pricing, travel costs, etc. see box 44 above) to<br />
assess the economic value (in orders of magnitude) of the benefits/costs of positive/negative impacts on<br />
environmental functions (e.g. habitat function, recreation function etc.), this would correspond to option<br />
1 in the table above;<br />
• If this was not possible the economic valuation could be carried out estimating “only” the undertaking<br />
and opportunity costs and relative savings of providing the environmental good or service (see box 46<br />
below) starting from the actual situation. This case would correspond to option 2 in the table above and<br />
has been the one adopted in the vast majority of case studies (see <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project National <strong>Final</strong><br />
<strong>Report</strong>s).<br />
Box 46: Example of costs calculation<br />
In the option of calculating “only” the costs of supplying environmental goods and services, the following example was<br />
proposed:<br />
Suppose the result from the analysis carried out is that the absence of hedgerows at field margins is responsible for a<br />
high negative agricultural impact on the performance of the refugium function. Also from section 3.4.4 it is shown that<br />
the agro-environmental measure necessary to supply a suitable habitat for key species (i.e. to achieve tier +1) is planting<br />
3 meter wide hedgerows at field margins, for at least 50 % of the total length of field margins in the area, while to only<br />
reduce the negative impact to tier 0, it would be necessary to plant 3 meter wide hedgerows for at least 30% of the total<br />
104
length of field margins in the area.<br />
<strong>The</strong>n, in order to calculate the value in economic terms of the costs of achieving tier +1 or tier 0, the assessments of the<br />
undertakings and opportunity costs have to be carried out for both the targets tier +1 and tier 0. In terms of economic<br />
value these consist of reduced yield per ha, the cost of planting a variety of indigenous shrubs and managing hedgerows<br />
per meter. Undertaking savings such as reduced inputs used, have also to be accounted for and subtracted from the<br />
costs.<br />
<strong>The</strong> same procedures can also be applied in the case that the detected agricultural impact is positive (i.e. the situation is<br />
above the EMR), in order to assess the costs of the positive contribution of agriculture to the supply of environmental<br />
goods and services by agro-ecosystems.<br />
Here it has to be pointed out that the European Union is rightly stating that payments to farmers should be made only<br />
when there is a real provision of environmental goods and services taking as reference the respect of good farming<br />
practice. <strong>The</strong> Tiers ranking system identified in <strong>AEMBAC</strong>, while giving a baseline for provision of environmental<br />
goods and services (i.e. Tier 0 = respect of EMR) is also allowing a certain elasticity for assessing the level of good<br />
farming practices at different levels (e.g. Tier –1). This flexibility could be useful for instance when a traditional good<br />
farming practice believed to be ecologically sustainable, would not be so anymore, because of the climate change<br />
consequences.<br />
Box 47 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Cost assessment in the Chianti case study, Italy (for references in the box<br />
see UNIFI-DSE report)<br />
In order to evaluate the necessary costs for the application of the measure regarding hedgerow conservation in vineyards<br />
it is necessary to refer to three cost typologies:<br />
• Opportunity Cost (Value of lost production, Income foregone). To calculate the income foregone the total gross<br />
production of the single permanent crop (vine or olive) where the measure is applied has been used. <strong>The</strong> total gross<br />
production is an indicator, which refers to every product and which is based on the economic results obtained by<br />
the Farm Accounting Data Network (F.A.D.N.) on the 14 farms of the Chianti sample. <strong>The</strong> value of the gross<br />
production will be adjusted in our calculations considering the costs saved (see below).<br />
• Additional cost (Undertaking cost). <strong>The</strong>se are the costs we connected to the environmental suggestions. Such costs<br />
are usually fixed during the period of the measure (5 or 10 years), but they can vary because of different operations<br />
as, for example, happens with hedgerows: cost of plantation for the first year, maintenance costs of hedgerows in<br />
the following years.<br />
• Cost saving. Production costs which are no longer necessary because the land use changed after a reduction of the<br />
UAA.<br />
Among the variable costs we will consider that of seasonal labour - € 1,453.32/ha (Franchini, 2002) together with the<br />
costs of pesticides and manures. <strong>The</strong> fixed costs amounting to a total value of € 2,326/ha, on the contrary, will not<br />
compose the cost saving as they are partially independent from UAA reductions. Data for the evaluation of costs linked<br />
to measures regard the three years average situation (1998, 1999, 2000), obtained by the Farm Accounting Data<br />
Network sample.<br />
Tab. 44 - VINES<br />
1998 1999 2000<br />
Average<br />
1998/2000<br />
Total Gross Production<br />
(€/ha)<br />
Grants and subsidies<br />
10681,36 9880,34 10038,89 10200,20<br />
(€/ha) 553,13 603,74 499,93 552,26<br />
Average fields size (ha) 15,22 15,22 15,22 15,22<br />
Specific costs (€/ha) 981,78 784,50 853,70 873,33<br />
Gross margin (€/ha) 9699,58 9095,84 9185,19 9326,87<br />
105<br />
Source: Elaboration of data from F.A.D.N. 2002<br />
Tab. 45 – OLIVES<br />
1997 1998 1999 Average<br />
Total production (€/ha) 1112.5 1493.1 1542.7 1383<br />
Grant and subside (€/ha) 565.0 631.6 636.3 611<br />
Average area (ha) 12.4 12.4 12.2 12<br />
Gross margin (€/ha) 978.7 1431.6 1488.4 1300<br />
Source: F.A.D.N. 2002<br />
Hedgerows Conservation cost assessment<br />
Definition: Hedgerows are linear boundaries with trees and/or bushes between fields, different from shrubs and needing<br />
artificial plantation and maintenance.
In Chianti, a desirable value for hedge density depends on which historical landscape is supposed to be worthy of<br />
protection. If we choose as a desirable model the archaic agriculture (still surviving in some places), hedgerows should<br />
be dense (as they were in the 15th century). If we choose as a model the landscape of the Hapsburg age, hedgerow<br />
density should be moderate and stone walls should be abundant. <strong>The</strong> present specialised agriculture keeps the previous<br />
medium value of hedgerow density and has a typical trend to maximise UAA but it also destroys stone walls. (Angiolini<br />
2003, personal comunication). <strong>The</strong> building up of hedgerows permits the division of properties and habitats for fauna.<br />
Fields can either be owned by a single owner or many. This recommendation is valid for all the land uses of Chianti.<br />
Starting from the total gross production of 10,200 €/ha in vineyards and of 1,398 €/ha in olives groves without<br />
hedgerows the income foregone on the basis of the length of the 3 meter wide hedgerows has been calculated. For<br />
planting hedgerows the additional cost is around 0.60 €/m 2 (PRS, Trento). For the hedgerows it was assumed that the<br />
cost per plant is 3€ and they were planted 2,5m from each other. <strong>The</strong> resulting value has been added to the additional<br />
costs of the first year. Starting from the second year it has been considered that the cost for the management of<br />
hedgerows is 0.40€/m2 (PRS, Trento). In olive groves the cost saving reaches very low levels due to the large use of<br />
family labour instead of temporary labour.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Regional Price List of Tuscany 1996 (including the increase of 10% of 2001) reconsiders the price of plantation of<br />
hedgerows with bushes and trees in a double line, whith local plants of 2-3 years old and 80 cm of height (Ref. 311)<br />
fixing it at around 5€ per meter. (Regional analytical and synthetic price list for the infrastructure improvement in<br />
agriculture and forestry. Decree of the Regional Council 29/10/1996, n.954)<br />
<strong>The</strong> following tables suppose the introduction of hedgerows in vineyards (Tab. 48) and olive groves (Tab. 49). <strong>The</strong><br />
costs concern plantation for the first year and maintenance for the second year.<br />
Tab. 46 - Hedgerows conservation in vineyards<br />
Level Farm Level<br />
Vineyards<br />
Length of<br />
hedgerows<br />
Additional cost<br />
first years<br />
106<br />
Additional<br />
cost each<br />
following year<br />
Income<br />
foregone<br />
Cost saving<br />
Total cost first<br />
year<br />
Total cost<br />
following<br />
years<br />
Suggestion Creating or maintaining hedgerows meters € euro (€/ha) euro/ha (€/ha) (€/ha)<br />
Tier +2<br />
90 - 110 m/ha length of hedgerows<br />
100<br />
with 30% of trees<br />
197 108 306 70 433 344<br />
Tier +1<br />
60 - 80 m/ha length of hedgerows<br />
80<br />
with 30% of trees<br />
154 84 245 56 343 273<br />
Tier 0 60 - 80 m/ha length of hedgerows 60 103 60 184 42 245 202<br />
Tier -1<br />
Tier –2<br />
20 - 40 m/ha length of hedgerows<br />
30<br />
with 10% of trees<br />
38 24 92 21 109 95<br />
Hedgerows not forming a<br />
continuous feature (actual situation) 10<br />
Tab. 47 - Hedgerows conservation in olive groves<br />
Level Farm Level<br />
Length of<br />
hedgerows<br />
Additional cost<br />
first years<br />
Additional<br />
cost each<br />
following year<br />
Suggestion<br />
Olive<br />
Planting<br />
hedgerows<br />
or maintaining<br />
meters (€/ha) (€/ha) (€/ha) (€/ha)<br />
Tier +2<br />
90 - 110 m/ha length of hedgerows<br />
with 30% of trees<br />
100 197 108 39 13 223 134<br />
Tier +1<br />
60 - 80 m/ha length of hedgerows<br />
80<br />
with 30% of trees<br />
154 84 32 11 175 105<br />
Tier 0 60 - 80 m/ha length of hedgerows 60 103 60 24 8 119 76<br />
Tier -1<br />
20 - 40 m/ha length of hedgerows<br />
30<br />
with 10% of trees<br />
38 24 12 4 46 32<br />
Hedgerows not forming<br />
Tier –2 continuous<br />
situation)<br />
features (actual 10<br />
Income<br />
foregone<br />
Cost saving<br />
Total cost first<br />
year<br />
Total cost<br />
following years
3.5.2 Identification of externalities<br />
Externalities are defined by Pearce and Turner (1990) as: “An external cost [benefit] exists when the<br />
following two conditions prevail: 1) an activity by one agent causes a loss [gain] of welfare to another agent;<br />
2) the loss [gain] of welfare is uncompensated [unpaid]”.<br />
Externalities are often caused because of market failures. As far as markets are concerned, some important<br />
factors allowing them to operate efficiently can be distinguished:<br />
• Property rights; i.e. the ownership and the right to alienate or to use what is exchanged in markets must be<br />
clearly defined;<br />
• Business and contract law, able to deal with all the possible situations coming out of transactions, must be<br />
established;<br />
• Quality and safety standards as terms of reference for markets functioning are often necessary;<br />
• Perfect competition (i.e. large numbers of buyers and sellers) to avoid problems of monopoly; and<br />
• Adequate information, required in order to overcome problems such as asymmetric information, high<br />
transaction costs, risks and uncertainties.<br />
If one or more of the above factors are absent, the presence of externalities would be likely. <strong>The</strong> topics<br />
studied in the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project are affected by the lack of some of these factors.<br />
In fact, biodiversity and landscape conservation are characterised by incomplete scientific knowledge on<br />
some ecological aspects. This corresponds to a lack of the factors regarding adequate information and<br />
quality and safety standards listed above, as two of the causes of not allowing markets to function properly.<br />
Incomplete information on positive/negative impacts exerted by agricultural pressures on the environment is<br />
often the reason why losses or gains of welfare are not accounted for.<br />
<strong>The</strong> goods and services related to environmental functions performance studied in <strong>AEMBAC</strong> have the<br />
character of public goods. <strong>The</strong> term public goods refers to those goods which have the characteristics of nonexclusivity<br />
and non-rivalry in consumption. Many environmental goods and services belong to this category.<br />
<strong>The</strong> supply of public goods, such as landscape management or conservation of biodiversity by farmers would<br />
not receive any compensation through free markets given the impossibility of excluding non-buyers from<br />
benefiting from them. In economic jargon this fact is referred to as “free-rider problem” (e.g. the landscape<br />
produced by farmers are enjoyed by passing travellers). In other words, benefits and costs resulting from<br />
supplying public goods cannot be exchanged exclusively through markets because the gain or loss of welfare<br />
is unpaid or uncompensated. This leads to a situation where the above factor of adequate business and<br />
contract law is lacking.<br />
<strong>The</strong> aforementioned factors certainly impair the ability of markets to signal the appropriate values of<br />
conserving biodiversity and landscapes to farmers, natural resources managers and the general public.<br />
This is not to say that government intervention is always a better option. Often, incomplete information is<br />
also the cause of government failures because environmental problems are not addressed and regulated or<br />
some negative effects of policy intervention are not taken into account (e.g. government-led perverse<br />
incentives).<br />
Despite the above problems, in some occasions externalities are, more or less consciously, somehow<br />
internalised. This could be the case for instance when the costs of maintaining the aesthetic qualities of the<br />
landscape are already internalised in the prices of staying in the agri-tourism houses managed by the same<br />
farmers who are taking care of the landscape; or when a subsidy is already given to farmers to not cultivate<br />
on field borders resulting in the positive impact on biodiversity eventually measured in previous sections<br />
(e.g. this could be the case of set aside adopted with a cross-compliance scope: reducing surplus and<br />
conserving biodiversity); or when the cost in terms of reduced yields of not using chemical pesticide is<br />
already internalised by a higher price of biological products (in this case eco-labelling allows for the 5<br />
107
factors of well functioning markets to be put in place by associating the selling of a public good to a<br />
commodity. <strong>The</strong> price may also reflects then the added value of using agricultural practices which are more<br />
friendly towards biodiversity conservation not just the quality of the product).<br />
<strong>The</strong>refore, following the above, in <strong>AEMBAC</strong> there was a need to identify externalities through the<br />
assessment of the fact that economic values of the environmental impacts were or were not reflected in the<br />
market prices or in governmental interventions.<br />
If the analysis had shown that the economic value of environmental impacts had not yet been internalised,<br />
then it would have been necessary to study what approach would be the most suitable for the local situation<br />
to internalise the economic value of externalities through agri-environmental measures.<br />
Basically there are three main approaches to do so: market, quasi-market and command and control<br />
instruments. <strong>The</strong> most suitable instruments to internalise externalities depend on the ecological, economic,<br />
social, institutional, and ethical aspects of the local situation.<br />
Considering the above and suggestions from the task force, for the assessment of the externalities of the<br />
economic value of detected agricultural impacts, researchers were asked:<br />
• To assess, for each agricultural impact measured, if the economic value was or not not already<br />
internalised in the economics of the local agricultural economy (e.g. incomes, costs, prices, incentives,<br />
investments, etc.) or in policy interventions; and<br />
• To provide a list of externalities to be internalised through the development of agri-environmental<br />
measures.<br />
Box 48 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: List of externalities –UD-CEMP report, Hungarian case studies<br />
Assessment of the status of externality of the economic value of detected agricultural impacts<br />
<strong>The</strong> list of externalities to be internalised through the development of agro-environmental measures is the following:<br />
Ex1 Impacts exerted on elements of environment<br />
<strong>The</strong> basic elements of environment are air, soil, and water which can be polluted by agricultural activities such as<br />
pesticides and fertilisers used, soil tilling and irrigation technologies, and equipment used for farming etc. To force or<br />
drive farmers to change technologies into protective ones entails sacrifices in economic terms in consideration of<br />
comprehensive features of the elements.<br />
Ex2 Impacts exerted on landscape<br />
In well-cultivated arable lands and grasslands, grazing animals are a valuable contribution to the scenic value of the<br />
landscape. This generates the “tidy countryside” feeling that is a social benefit and improve the attraction of the area<br />
which has positive impacts on businesses related to recreation and eco-tourism.<br />
Ex3 Gene preservation role<br />
Keeping and protecting local and endemic species and breeds are valuable contributions to the image and improve the<br />
attractiveness of the area. <strong>The</strong>y also protect genetic information that cannot be protected in other ways or would cost so<br />
much that society and the economy could not afford to do so.<br />
Ex4 Maintenance of bio-diversity<br />
Maintaining diversity partly contributes to gene preservation but mainly secures the biological balance of an ecosystem.<br />
Accepting a certain level of weed infection on arable lands provides habitats and feed for many breeds of<br />
insects which has benefits for the whole food chain. We can protect animals, micro-organisms and plants which can be<br />
used as agents in biological plant protection, also as herbs or raw materials for medicine production when discovered<br />
through research. Most of them are not sufficiently well known.<br />
Ex5 Health protection<br />
If healthier foods are produced, the producer is often not not compensated enough in the price paid for them.<br />
Consumption of such foods contributes to a healthier society. That can help reduce costs of social security and save<br />
energy and costs of medicine production in consideration of the energy consumption and waste materials produced.<br />
Reduced chemical usage can prevent health problems for the labour force working with those chemicals e.g. cancer and<br />
108
various allergies.<br />
Ex6 Energy consumption<br />
Energy saving results from reduced usage of oil, reduced quantity of pesticide and fertiliser use, which also save<br />
packaging materials and the costs of handling these dangerous waste. Reduced quantity of used chemicals help save the<br />
energy consumption of the production so that preserve the energy resources.<br />
Ex7 Impacts on employment<br />
Increasing environmentally friendly activities and work-processes of farming and related activities such as creation of<br />
routes for tourists, maintenance of canals etc., creating jobs. Job creation reduces unemployment rate and it creates<br />
positive spin-offs such as less unemployment benefit being necessary, reducing the burden on the economy (social<br />
network). Earning and working also have a positive effect on the mentality of rural people, as well as reducing the<br />
number of people using crime as a source of livelihood.<br />
3.6 Step 6 – Studying local sustainable agri-environmental policy targets and<br />
measures.<br />
3.6.1 Analysis of existing agri-environmental measures and comparison with recommendations<br />
developed<br />
Before defining the agri-environmental policy targets and measures, it was useful to compare the most<br />
important agri-environmental impacts and proposed recommendations identified in section 3.4.3 with already<br />
existing agri-environmental programmes in the study area, both qualitatively (i.e. checking if the<br />
environmental aspects addressed were the same in the existing programs and in proposed recommendations)<br />
and quantitatively (i.e. checking if the existing agri-environmental measures were aiming at the same<br />
physical, chemical or biological targets to be reached by the recommendations proposed in section 3.4.3).<br />
Conclusions on similarities and/or differences between the agri-environmental measures to be developed<br />
through the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> methodology and those already existing were drawn out in detail at this stage.<br />
It is worth noting that the already existing agri-environmental measures are supposed to have some effects on<br />
the local ecological and socio-economic situation studied. Researchers were asked to point out these effects<br />
here and consider these in the definition of the agri-environmental measures. (E.g. if the potential negative<br />
impacts coming from agricultural pressures were already partially lessened by the existing agrienvironmental<br />
measures, then this had to be accounted for accordingly in building the new one.)<br />
Box 49 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Comparison of recommendations with existing agri-environmental<br />
measures in Gelderse Valley Southwest Case study, Netherlands<br />
<strong>The</strong> recommended agri-environmental measures for the Gelderse Valley Southwest area focus on the three agricultural<br />
pressures that were identified as the most important: nutrient management, mowing and maintenance of field edges (see<br />
the WP7 report for a full description).<br />
Nutrient use. A series of measures can be identified to reduce the nutrient outflow of dairy farms. <strong>The</strong> precise choice of<br />
the optimal mix of measures will depend on the farm. Potential measures include: (i) reduction of manure levels; (ii)<br />
reduction of livestock density; (iii) change of animal feed; (iv) timing of manuring; and (v) use of field edges (Ministry<br />
of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Nature Conservation, 1995; CLM, 2001). Unfortunately, all these measures have a<br />
negative impact on agricultural productivity.<br />
• Reduction of manure levels. It depends on the local circumstances how large the reduction should be (in particular<br />
on the groundwater depth as well as the distance to waterways), but, assuming a linear relation between nutrient use<br />
and nutrient outflow 16 , an average reduction of nutrient use of 10 to 15% may be required;<br />
• Reduction of livestock density. This reduction would also lead to a reduction of nutrient outflow. It has been<br />
estimated that a reduction of milk production with 1000 kg/ha/year of milk would lead to a reduction of 5 to 10%;<br />
hence a reduction with around 2500 kg/ha/year of milk would be required.<br />
16 using BPJ<br />
109
• Change of animal feed; reducing the nitrogen (protein) content of the feed would also lead to reduced nitrogen<br />
output. A maximum reduction of 5% has been estimated by Mesu (1998).<br />
• Timing of manuring; spreading of manure in spring rather than autumn would increase denitrification and lead to<br />
less nitrogen output. However, this would, for many farmers, require the construction of larger storage basins; also<br />
it would not reduce the output of TP (Total Phosphorus), as phosphorous is not broken down.<br />
• Use of field edges. Excluding an area of around 1 meter from the ditches would in many cases allow for substantial<br />
reduction of eutrophication of surface water as it would reduce the direct flow of manure into ditches. However, its<br />
precise impact is hard to estimate.<br />
Mowing. That mowing dates have a profound impact on birdlife and butterflies is hardly disputed, and mowing dates<br />
are included in many current agri-environmental measures. However, there are not yet any scientific grounds for<br />
establishing a best practice regime. This makes the definition of ecological targets, in terms of packages of ‘optimal’<br />
mowing dates next to impossible. However, some recommendations can be given based on current experiences (CLM,<br />
2000).<br />
It appears as if many of the agri-environmental measures related to mowing that are now being implemented do not lead<br />
to significant improvements in the survival of endangered species. <strong>The</strong> reason is that most measures focus on a late<br />
mowing obligation – for all farmers (!). This means that once the target date is passed, all farmers immediately go to<br />
their fields and mow the complete terrain. From one day to the next, many species cannot find any shelter, nor food.<br />
Even though many birds may have hatched after these dates (e.g. the 15 th of June is commonly used in Dutch agrienvironmental<br />
schemes), they die because of lack of food. In addition, many bird species require a mix of long and<br />
short grasses, which they used to find in old fashioned, small scale agriculture, but which is increasingly rare.<br />
<strong>The</strong>refore, it is increasingly being recognised that the current measures are not effective. Much better would be a system<br />
where, in the course of end May, June and July, all fields would gradually, part by part be mowed. This would not<br />
necessarily bring enormous costs to the farmers, as some fields may be mowed earlier, however it would require a<br />
rethinking of the management of their fields 17 .<br />
In order to have a substantial impact on bird-life, it would be required that a substantial part of the fields, say 50%,<br />
would be mown according to this schedule. <strong>The</strong> costs relate to the somewhat reduced availability of grass in the springtime,<br />
and possibly to a decrease in quality of the grass harvested in July.<br />
Field edges including hedgerows. <strong>The</strong> use of field edges is part of several agri-environmental packages applied by<br />
farmers in the Netherlands (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Nature Conservation, 1995).. Often they concern the<br />
promotion of more varied grass and plant species, and less frequent mowing regimes (CLM, 2000). This is beneficial<br />
for a variety of animals, in particular many bird and butterfly species. A particular case of field edges is the use of<br />
hedgerows. Hedgerows should not be established where there are important nesting areas for field birds, as they could<br />
lead to increased predation of eggs and young (because they attract foxes and rats). However, hedgerows can also fulfil<br />
an important corridor function for a variety of animals, including badgers, martens, some species of mice, etc. (Van<br />
Laar, 1980). This is most relevant as, under the development of the Ecological Main Structure, there should be corridors<br />
established between the forested areas west (Utrechtse Heuvelrug) and East (Veluwe forests) of the Gelderse Valley<br />
(SVGV, 2001). Thorough assessment of the required field edges is outside the scope of <strong>AEMBAC</strong>. It can, on a tentative<br />
and preliminary basis, be assumed that in total some 3000 ha of grassland (or around 10% of the total grassland area of<br />
the case study area) should have field edges (based on the IUCN norm of 10% of naturally managed areas per region).<br />
It is obvious that there is a whole range of agri-environmental measures currently being implemented in the Gelderse<br />
Vallei Southwest, resulting from EU, national, provincial and local policies, including laws, regulations and other<br />
initiatives. Nutrient management, mowing and field edge management are included in some of the SAN packages, and<br />
in addition the province of Utrecht is (generously) supporting the pruning of willows around the fields (which can be<br />
seen as a specific type of field edge). <strong>The</strong>re are two major types of SAN packages, the ones focussed on meadows birds<br />
and the ones focussed on plants. In each type, there are different degrees of restrictions on land management – from<br />
relatively light packages (with low compensation) to much more stringent packages (with payments in the order of 1000<br />
euros/ha/year). Nutrient restrictions are higher in the plant packages, whereas the bird packages have more restrictions<br />
regarding mowing dates. Field edges is in a separate package. A major issue, however, is the effectiveness of the SAN<br />
packages – e.g. Kleijn et al (2001) found in an elaborate research effort that there was very little or no impact of most<br />
packages even after they had been implemented for 5 or more years. This is highly troublesome, and may be related to<br />
the fact that the requirements of the packages are not strict enough, or that the participation level (percentage of an area<br />
under a contract) is generally too low). In the course of <strong>AEMBAC</strong>, it could be examined if the concept of EMR could<br />
be used to help to explain the low effectiveness of these agri-environmental measures.<br />
17 a related measure that may be required is to sow the field with a mix of different grass species, in order to<br />
increase the variety of food for birds, as well as the timing at which the food is available.<br />
110
3.6.2 Analysis of aspects likely to be influenced by agri-envrionmental policy<br />
<strong>The</strong> information on the socio-economics of rural areas, gathered in step 1 above, was used in this and the<br />
following sections to build up the most appropriate agri-environmental measures according to the local<br />
situation, to analyse their suitability for enrolment by farmers, to assess the socio-economic feasibility of<br />
implementation and to identify what could be the transaction costs of local agri-environmental measures<br />
proposed.<br />
<strong>The</strong> analysis of aspects likely to be influenced by agri-environmental policy concentrated on:<br />
• Socio-economic aspects which were considered likely to be influenced by agri-environmental policy;<br />
• How the selected socio-economic aspects were likely to be influenced by agri-environmental policy;<br />
and<br />
• Socio-economic indirect or induced possible changes were desirable to be taken into account by agrienvironmental<br />
policy.<br />
Box 50 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Socio-economic aspects likely to be influenced by AE policy, Germany<br />
(for references in the box, see the SAW report)<br />
<strong>The</strong> major socio-economic aspects that are likely to be influenced by agri-environmental policy are:<br />
agricultural incomes;<br />
farm succession;<br />
viability of rural areas;<br />
image of region and potential for rural tourism; and<br />
reduced societal costs of environmental pollution and low food quality.<br />
Agricultural incomes<br />
<strong>The</strong> costs of agricultural production (input costs, costs of land management) as well as revenues (yield levels, product<br />
prices) are directly influenced by agri-environmental policy. It is a declared agricultural policy goal at the European and<br />
national level that agricultural incomes become comparable with incomes in other sectors of the economy (society)<br />
(BMVEL, 2002; European Commission, 1996, 1999). <strong>The</strong> internalisation of environmental costs (see below) has a<br />
direct effect on farm income levels and the competitive position of the farm in food markets.<br />
Farm succession<br />
Potential successors make their decision above all in terms of income potential, job satisfaction and the recognition of<br />
farmers and farming in society. Farm succession and the retention of young people in rural areas is generally considered<br />
vitally important for the future of rural areas (European Commission, 1996).<br />
Viability of rural areas<br />
Changes in type, scale and intensity of agricultural activity and land use have direct and indirect, multiplier and synergy<br />
effects on the rural economy. <strong>The</strong> viability of rural areas is a declared goal at the European and at the national level<br />
(BMVEL, 2002; European Commission, 1996; Künast, 2001).<br />
Image of region and potential for rural tourism<br />
Landscape amenity and biodiversity can be understood as economic potentials. Case studies indicate that substantial<br />
regional incomes can be based on these potentials (Knickel, 2001; Knickel, Renting & van der Ploeg, 2003).<br />
Reduced societal costs of environmental pollution and low food quality<br />
Agri-environmental policy directly or indirectly leads to a better internalisation of environmental costs into the<br />
economics of agricultural production. For example, relevant costs are the cost of water purification or health costs. This<br />
effect is in fact claimed by many representatives of the environmental lobby and it is supported by environmental and<br />
resource economics theory. Other assets can hardly be expressed in monetary cost terms but in society they clearly have<br />
a value. Examples are landscape amenity or biodiversity (Baldock & Lowe, 1996). More environmentally friendly and<br />
sustainable land use and food production can be linked with a higher quality of food products and better living<br />
conditions in rural areas (Knickel, 2001). Both will be reflected in public health and the costs of public health systems.<br />
Desirable indirect or induced socio-economic impacts<br />
111
Based on the discussion of the major socio-economic aspects that are likely to be influenced by agri-environmental<br />
policy it is now asked whether some of these indirect or induced socio-economic impacts may indeed be desirable. <strong>The</strong><br />
same five effects are examined again.<br />
Table 48 provides an overview of desirable indirect or induced socio-economic impacts. In the assessment it is assumed<br />
that agri-environmental policy measures are designed in the best possible way taking due account of farm, regional and<br />
societal level goals.<br />
<strong>The</strong> assessment given indicates that almost all indirect or induced socio-economic impacts are desirable. <strong>The</strong> only<br />
exception is the farm and regional level assessment of income effects. <strong>The</strong> main question here is whether additional<br />
costs and/or revenue foregone are indeed fully compensated. In agri-environmental incentive schemes according to Reg.<br />
(EC) 1257/99 member states are obliged to fully compensate additional costs and/or revenue foregone and, more than<br />
that, it is up to them to increase compensation by up to 20 % as an incentive element (European Council, 1999). <strong>The</strong><br />
latter would lead to a positive income effect at farm and at regional level. Command and control policies, in contrast,<br />
would normally lead to a reduction in income that is undesirable from the farmers and - in some agricultural areas - also<br />
from the regional point of view.<br />
Table 48 - Overview of desirable indirect or induced socio-economic impacts<br />
Indirect or induced socio-economic impacts<br />
Desirability<br />
Farm Region Society<br />
Agricultural incomes ? ? ++<br />
Farm succession ++ + 0<br />
Viability of rural areas + ++ ++<br />
Image of region and potential for rural tourism + ++ ++<br />
Reduced societal costs of environmental pollution and low food quality<br />
Source: Karheinz Knickel (subcontractor)<br />
+ ++ ++<br />
3.6.3 Analysis of aspects related to design and implementation of agri-environmental measures<br />
<strong>The</strong> analysis of aspects related to design and implementation of agri-environmental measures focused on:<br />
• Identification of socio-economic and institutional aspects related to agri-environmental measures design<br />
and implementation;<br />
• Explaining how these could influence the formulation and effects of agri-environmental measures; and<br />
• Envisaging what were the aspects to be taken into account to maximise the effects of the agrienvironmental<br />
measures.<br />
Box 51 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Relevant socio-economic aspects in designing AEMs in “Oberes Fricktal”<br />
study area, Switzerland<br />
After the survey of socio-economic parameters in “Oberes Fricktal” and according to experts in charge of the agrienvironmental<br />
programme (AEP) “Natur2001” we can conclude that following aspects should be taken into account<br />
when introducing agri-environmental measures:<br />
• Quality of advisory service<br />
• Level of education<br />
• Income effect, financial design of measures<br />
• Working charge<br />
• Farm type/structure<br />
• Participation level of farmers<br />
In general, it can be stated that farmers in “Oberes Fricktal” act rather conservatively. That means that only little<br />
initiative is taken by them to change the situation of agriculture. As it has been shown in the past while implementing<br />
the AEP “Natur2001”, the advisory service plays an outstanding role in the successful implementation of new measures.<br />
<strong>The</strong> openness of farmers for new ideas or programmes corresponds with their level of education, which is already<br />
considerable among the younger generation. On the other hand, the extension service has to keep on working quite<br />
112
intensively if more new ideas are to be introduced.<br />
For farmers, the best argument for signing up to the AEP is the expected effect on income. <strong>The</strong> attractive payments for<br />
the “Natur2001” programme did much for its acceptance. In the initial stage, the advisory service was also free of<br />
charge, which made it easier for farmers to introduce the programme on their farms. Only when this pioneer phase has<br />
succeeded and this success is well promoted in public, can one expect farmers to be willing to pay for additional<br />
extension services.<br />
For some farmers the reason for taking part in an AEP is to reduce their working charge or at least to have a better<br />
distribution of work throughout the year. This fact may also indicate why farmers in the studied region are not so<br />
interested in converting their farms to organic production. On the one hand, it would be attractive from an economic<br />
point of view, but, on the other hand, the working charge would increase instead of decrease. All in all, this makes<br />
organic production not too attractive compared with the opportunities offered by the AEP.<br />
Furthermore, the actual structure of the farm might or might not be favourable for taking part in an AEP. An already<br />
quite diverse farm can more easily decide to shift labour input from one activity to another or to dedicate one piece of<br />
land to the AEP. This does not automatically change the core activities of the farm. A highly specialised farm, however,<br />
attaches its available labour to only one or a few activities to which it is then bound. <strong>The</strong> question for such a farm is to<br />
focus on one activity and be as productive as possible.<br />
Another important point for successful development and implementation of the AEP is to actively involve the farmers.<br />
A good example could be recognised in the study region, where farmers set up an association for those taking part in the<br />
AEP. This association – again accompanied by some publicity – importantly fostered the acceptance of the agrienvironmental<br />
programme among colleagues.<br />
3.6.4 Studying locally sustainable agri-environmental policy targets and their definition<br />
In <strong>AEMBAC</strong> Phase 1 the Environmental Minimum Requirement (EMR) for the main ecological aspects<br />
believed to contribute to environmental function performance were identified and analysed. Once the socioeconomic<br />
aspects of the agricultural system were also studied, it was then possible to study what were the<br />
most feasible and environmentally effective policy targets to be reached. <strong>The</strong> analysis of setting the<br />
appropriate policy targets required the consideration of the local social and economic situation, studied in<br />
section 3.6.3 above.<br />
<strong>The</strong> tiers of sustainability (environmental goals) defined in Step 4, were the starting points for defining<br />
realistic and effective policy targets to be achieved through agri-environmental measures after socioeconomic<br />
aspects were considered.<br />
For example, by looking at each tier defined in Step 4, through the chosen ranking system, which had the<br />
scope to create an interface between science and policy building, and for which the relative undertaking and<br />
opportunity costs (and savings) were assessed in Step 5, an analysis of what policy targets were feasible for<br />
the local situation had to carried out. <strong>The</strong> following procedure was proposed:<br />
Task one: Identification of agri-environmental management practices<br />
<strong>The</strong> association between different tiers identified in section 4.4, and the relative agri-environmental<br />
management (undertakings) necessary to reach them identified in section 4.3 (i.e recommendations on how<br />
to lessen the negative impacts identified and enhance positive ones), had to be carried out as in the following<br />
example on the performance of the refugium function:<br />
Tier +2 = Presence of high positive impact (red) = 10% of existing UAA reconverted to (semi-)natural<br />
habitat<br />
Tier +1 = Presence of positive impact (yellow) = 5% of existing UAA reconverted to (semi-)natural<br />
habitat<br />
Tier 0 = respect of EMR= ecological sustainability of agricultural practice = no impacts or only low<br />
positive/negative impacts exerted by agricultural practices = field margins with hedgerows 3 meters wide<br />
for at least 30 % of the total length of field margins in the area<br />
113
Tier -1 = Presence of negative impact exerted by agricultural pressures (yellow) = field margins with<br />
hedgerows 1 meter wide for at least 10 % of the total length of field margins in the area<br />
Tier -2 = Presence of high negative impact (red) = actual situation = very sporadic field margins with<br />
hedgerows<br />
For each agri-environmental measure a detailed explanation of the effects its adoption could have on<br />
reaching the associated tier had to be provided.<br />
Task two: Assessment of the agri-environmental management costs to reach the different policy targets<br />
(Tiers)<br />
This simply required inserting the results of the analysis carried out in Step 5, relative to the costs of the<br />
undertakings necessary to reach different tiers, and commenting on these.<br />
Please note that the opportunity costs, following the example above, of not cultivating the field margins, (i.e.<br />
reduced yields) together with the savings on relative production costs (i.e. less fertilisers or labour) had also<br />
to be considered later in section 3.6.5 below, on the definition of eventual payments to farmers by agrienvironmental<br />
measures. <strong>The</strong> analysis of the local agricultural system carried out in Step 2 was clearly of<br />
help for calculating undertaking and opportunity costs and relative savings.<br />
<strong>The</strong> outcome of the above analysis resulted, for each identified tier, in the relative necessary management<br />
undertakings costs/savings and opportunity costs.<br />
Task Three: Identification of the most appropriate policy target for the study area<br />
<strong>The</strong> choice of the policy target will always be a political decision. However, the approach proposed in task<br />
one of this section (on linking different degrees of sustainability to different agri-environmental<br />
managements) will help decision makers to define the policy targets with relevant information based on the<br />
available scientific knowledge.<br />
Moreover, the information identifying the undertakings and opportunity costs (task 2 above), assessed for<br />
each policy target (i.e. tiers in the ranking system), will further help to select objectives of the agrienvironmental<br />
policy after that the social and economic feasibilities of the proposed policy targets have also<br />
been analysed.<br />
Many socio-economic issues need to be taken into account in the selection of the policy targets, such as:<br />
farm economic and financial data (gross margin, fixed and current costs, farm income, etc.); environmental<br />
awareness of farmers; local institutional functioning; the financial resources available for agri-environmental<br />
policy; the commitment of the local and national government to achieving agricultural sustainability (e.g.<br />
ratification of the CBD, PEBLDS, etc.), and so on.<br />
<strong>The</strong> local economic, institutional and social features of agriculture studied in Step 2, Step 5 and section 3.6.3<br />
above, played an important role here, as well as the results of the analysis carried out in section 4.3.1 (i.e.<br />
agronomic feasibility of the most important constraints and opportunities for implementation of<br />
recommendations). In addition, some agricultural pressures were impacting on more than one environmental<br />
function studied (this was analysed in section 4.5), this creating the opportunity of obtaining a “value added”<br />
(i.e. the performance of more than just one environmental function) if these were addressed by agrienvironmental<br />
measures. <strong>The</strong> existence of already similar agri-environmental measures was a factor to be<br />
analysed in this selection of proposing policy target.<br />
<strong>The</strong> results of this section allowed suggestions to decision makers to be formulated on what were the most<br />
appropriate targets to be reached for the local situation, once the local agronomic and the main socioeconomics<br />
features were accounted for.<br />
114
Box 52 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Definition of agri-environmental policy targets, Germany<br />
Agri-environmental management practices (or changes in land use) are identified on the basis of the shift in tiers needed<br />
to reach from the existing situation to a more sustainable situation. <strong>The</strong> relationships given are based above all on<br />
"Recommendations on how to lessen the negative impacts identified and enhance the positive ones".<br />
Based on the information given and on the results of the economic analysis, the costs of the undertakings necessary to<br />
reach the different tiers are given in Table 49.<br />
As has been explained in detail, the opportunity costs, for example of not cultivating field margins (i.e. the reduction in<br />
crop output and returns) together with the savings in production costs (i.e. less fertilizers or labour) has been taken into<br />
account where relevant. <strong>The</strong> consideration of this indirect costs and benefits is particularly important in the calculation<br />
of payments to farmers.<br />
Table 49- Changes in Agri-environmental management practices and the related costs in the three study areas<br />
Study area Changes Costs (€ / ha)<br />
Jahna Röder ULHPL* Jahna Röder ULHPL<br />
Landscape conservation<br />
-2 -1/0 -2 -1/0 Reduction in field sizes 59 59 -<br />
Habitat function<br />
-2 0 Valuable wet meadows - - 200<br />
-2 0 -2 0 Maintenance of new biotopes 156 a 156 a -<br />
0 +2 0 +2 " 90 90 -<br />
Soil function<br />
-1 0 Maintenance of fishponds - - 626<br />
-1 0 Increase in cropping diversity 0 a - -<br />
-2 0 -1 0 Soil conservation tillage 83 83 -<br />
(0 +1) 0 +1 Raising livestock density - 17 b -<br />
Water function<br />
-1/0 +1 -1 0 -1 0 Lowering agro-chemical use 114 114 80<br />
-2 0 -2/-1 -2 0 Establishment of buffer strips 92 56 36<br />
* ULHPL = study area of the biosphere reserve “Upper Lusatian Heath and Pond Landscape<br />
Source: Investigations of Karlheinz Knickel based on several Work Package reports, carried out by the SAW and subcontractors; a<br />
not including cost of establishment and opportunity cost of land; b savings in fertiliser cost slightly exceed reduction in crop returns;<br />
Identification of appropriate policy targets for the study area<br />
<strong>The</strong> choice of policy targets will be always a political decision. This section tries to pull together relevant information<br />
from previous analysis. This information can support decision-making and policy formulation at policy level. Based on<br />
previous analyses, the following aspects ought to be taken into account:<br />
Different degrees of sustainability could be linked to specific pressures related to agriculture and agricultural land<br />
use. For all the management practices dealt with in-depth and in economic terms, the relationships between<br />
pressures and impacts appear sufficiently strong to allow direct agri-environmental policy intervention.<br />
For the four environmental functions dealt with in the Saxony study areas and for specific ecological aspects and<br />
goals, relevant practices and necessary adjustments in management can be given.<br />
A reduction in field sizes and establishment of linear structures can very significantly improve landscape and<br />
habitat functions and also contribute to a reduction in soil erosion. <strong>The</strong> income losses and compensation payments<br />
necessary far outweigh regional-level benefits.<br />
Several changes proposed mainly address habitat functions: the maintenance of valuable wet meadows, the<br />
establishment and maintenance of new biotopes, and, specifically in the ULHPL study area, the maintenance and<br />
protection of fish ponds. Again, the income losses and compensation payments necessary far outweigh regional<br />
level benefits.<br />
For the changes that are proposed in respect of improving soil functions it must be asked where precisely good<br />
115
agricultural practice ends and where compensation payments are really justified. Examples of such management<br />
practices are an increase in cropping diversity (in the present situation cropping systems are extremely specialised<br />
resulting in additional fertiliser application and soil damage) and soil conservation tillage. <strong>The</strong> agronomic<br />
feasibility of these measures is very high. Income losses that could result from changes tend to be very small -<br />
mainly because the measures also lead to farm level cost savings and higher yields.<br />
Reintroducing livestock definitely is a measure that goes far beyond what can be achieved with agri-environmental<br />
programmes. It must also be asked whether there are no alternatives such as green manuring. <strong>The</strong> raising of<br />
livestock density could be an option in regions and on farms that still have livestock (cattle). A shift from slurry to<br />
straw-based husbandry systems requires investment support, i.e. the linkages between agri-environmental measures<br />
and other support measures are important. This corresponds well with the orientation of Reg. (EC) 1257/99.<br />
<strong>The</strong> last function that has been addressed is the water function. Here a lowering of the application of agri-chemicals<br />
and of nutrient surpluses has been proposed, plus the establishment of buffer strips along running waters and<br />
valuable biotopes (e.g. fish ponds in the ULHPL). At least some of the measures require more consideration in<br />
respect of the polluter pays principle. Some measures are already prescribed in relevant legislation. A consideration<br />
of the social and economic feasibility of the proposed policy targets again may mean that some compensation is<br />
appropriate, e.g. for buffer strips along running waters and valuable biotopes.<br />
<strong>The</strong> environmental awareness of farmers, the local institutional functioning, the financial resources available for<br />
agri-environmental policy and the commitment of the local and national government of achieving agricultural<br />
sustainability are other aspects that still ought to be examined in more depth. Please refer to wp4 and wp8 for<br />
further details about this.<br />
3.6.5 Studying locally suitable agri-environmental measures to reach policy targets.<br />
Once the most approriate agri-environmental policy targets for the local situation were identified, it was then<br />
possible to develop the agri-environmental measures to achieve them.<br />
Generally speaking it is possible to envisage the following 3 situations regarding the type of approach (i.e.<br />
policy instruments) used to achieve the agri-environmental targets set in section 3.6.4 above:<br />
Command and control:<br />
(e.g. laws and standards to be<br />
respected): the adoption of this<br />
approach could be necessary for<br />
instance when the ecological<br />
impact is so widespread and<br />
negative that the intervention has to<br />
be done through a law which<br />
guarantees that environmental<br />
impacts are eliminated or lessened.<br />
Fig. 22 Approaches to develop agri-environmental instruments<br />
Delivering of Agri-environmental goods<br />
and services<br />
Quasi-market:<br />
the adoption of this approach is the one<br />
used in Reg, (EC) 1257/1999. In<br />
<strong>AEMBAC</strong> the underlying philosophy<br />
for this approach is that the scaling up<br />
of positive tiers should allow the<br />
practical development of rewards for<br />
environmental friendly farming, while<br />
the scaling down (on reference to EMR<br />
or good farming practices) to negative<br />
tiers should allow to finally put in<br />
practice the polluter pays principle<br />
when translated in agri-environmental<br />
measures.<br />
Other important tools for implementation of agri-environmental measures are supportive measures such as<br />
training, extension services, research, etc. Agri-environmental education and training courses could often be<br />
the key to the success of implementing an agri-environmental measure.<br />
116<br />
Market:<br />
This type involves the exchange of agrienvironmental<br />
goods and services<br />
between Producers and Consumers<br />
through the market mechanisms (e.g.<br />
Organic product).<br />
Quality Standards or fiscal levies can<br />
also be used by governments to<br />
orientate the market.
In principle the approach used to build up agri-environmental measures, can be correlated to the exclusivity<br />
and rivalry in consumption characters (i.e. public/private good nature) of the agri-environmental goods or<br />
services to be delivered. OECD (2001) identifies 6 categories 18 of public goods. Below, only four categories<br />
linked to public/private characters of agri-environmental goods are taken into account:<br />
• Pure public goods: Are those goods which have the characteristics of non-excludability and nonrivalry<br />
in consumption such as biodiversity. <strong>The</strong>se kinds of goods can be governed by government<br />
intervention only given the impossibility to exclude non-buyers benefiting from them.<br />
• Common goods: are those goods whose use can be governed by open access or common property<br />
regimes such as forest or pasture.<br />
• Club goods: are those goods whose use can be restricted to members of a club such as a private<br />
hunting reserve.<br />
• Private goods: these goods can be governed by the market mechanism (e.g. organic produce).<br />
So, depending on the public/private nature of the agri-environmental goods or services to be delivered,<br />
markets, quasi-markets, or government interventions may be more or less suitable for delivering<br />
goods/services. <strong>The</strong> private goods, for instance, may be produced and exchanged through the market but also<br />
by the government intervention, as it may be in the case of the public utility of the goods and services to be<br />
produced (e.g. medical care services). On the contrary, in the situation where the agri-environmental good or<br />
service has a pure public good character, this can only be delivered by the government intervention, thorugh<br />
regulations or quasi-market instruments because of the “free rider” problem (see also Section 3.5.2 above).<br />
It is worth noting that to internalise externalities through market mechanisms (i.e. to promote transactions<br />
between agents) one needs to consider the difficulties arising from the pervasive character of the sources of<br />
agricultural pollution, and the administrative costs of the great numbers of parties involved (administrative<br />
costs will be considered in section 3.7.4 below). To internalise externalities through government<br />
intervention, a well-defined framework of environmental public laws, regulations and environmental rights<br />
had to be put in place.<br />
After having identified the most suitable approach for delivering the specific agri-environmental good or<br />
service locally, in order to define what would be the most suitable agri-environmental measure for the local<br />
situation (e.g. depending on the targets to be reached, the management prescription to be adopted, the<br />
associated costs, farmers’ environmental awareness, etc.), researchers analysed the following issues:<br />
• Zonal or horizontal schemes<br />
Identification of the most suitable scheme, zonal (e.g. Environmental Sensitive Areas in the UK) or<br />
horizontal (e.g. conversion to organic farming scheme), to achieve the target. In general it can be said that<br />
zonal schemes are more effective in reaching a well-defined target in a circumscribed area, whereas<br />
horizontal schemes are more effective when applied in wider regions.<br />
• Time period of agri-environmental measures<br />
Analysis of the time period necessary for an agri-environmental measure to be implemented before obtaining<br />
some results and whether the agri-environmental measure has to be permanent or implemented only for a<br />
certain time span. E.g. in the case that the starting point is Tier –1 and to achieve Tier 0 is considered the<br />
only feasible target in a relatively short time (given the local socio-economics conditions), the time plan to<br />
reach Tier +1 (if this is the final objective) in the longer term has to be developed.<br />
• <strong>The</strong> minimum rate of enrollment by farmers necessary to achieve the environmental goal<br />
<strong>The</strong> minimum uptake rate by farmers of the prescribed management in order for the agri-environmental<br />
measure to be effective (i.e. to reach the target) had to be calculated. So, for instance, if the target to reach<br />
Tier 0 is field margins with hedgerows 3 meters wide for at least 30% of the total length of field margins in<br />
18 <strong>The</strong> categories are: Pure Public Goods, Local Pure Public Goods, Open Access Resources, Common Property<br />
Resources, Excludable and Non-Rival Goods, Club Goods.<br />
117
the area, then it will be necessary that at least enough farmers to represent a feasible 30% of the existing total<br />
field margins will adopt the agri-environmental measure.<br />
• Eligibility criteria for farmers<br />
Here (obviously depending on the target to be reached) the criteria for farmers to be eligible for enrollment<br />
had to be defined. So following the example in the point above, an eligibility criterion could be that only<br />
farmers who have X meters of feasible field margins on their farm are eligible (in order to avoid<br />
administration costs for smaller length), or that those with already a certain length of hedgerows have the<br />
priority for enrollment (in order to lessen costs of planting new hedgerows) and so on.<br />
• Payments to farmers<br />
<strong>The</strong> calculation of payments to enrolled farmers requires the consideration of: the expected loss of income;<br />
the additional costs incurred to comply with the necessary agri-environmental undertakings (starting the<br />
calculation from a baseline of Good Farming Practice which <strong>AEMBAC</strong> assumes to coincide with EMR); the<br />
savings on expenditure e.g. on reduced production operations, etc.; plus if appropriate, an incentive which as<br />
a rule should not exceed 20% of the loss of income forgone and the additional costs incurred (see Reg. (EC)<br />
1750/1999, art.18).<br />
This latest consideration covers a strategic aspect in defining agri-environmental measures. It is reasonable<br />
that farmers should be compensated for the environmental goods and services they provide 19 , considering the<br />
efforts undertaken or opportunity costs incurred in supplying them, and not just for the eventual mere<br />
ecological sustainability. In other words, if a particular environmental function is already maintained by<br />
current agricultural practices at Tier 0, farmers should not be compensated for the sustainability of their<br />
agricultural system in respect of that particular environmental function. If they cause this situation to<br />
deteriorate they should be held responsible (the polluter pays principle), if they enhance it they should be<br />
compensated for meeting an agri-environmental policy target (i.e. delivering environmental goods and<br />
services), as well as if they are already doing so in their farms (at tier +1 or tier +2).<br />
At the end of this process, policy targets to be achieved through agri-environmental programmes had to be<br />
defined clearly. Monitoring and evaluation procedures will be dealt with in section 3.7 below.<br />
Box 53 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Suggested agri-environmental measures. Oberes Fricktal, Switzerland<br />
Low input grassland<br />
a) Description of measure Extensively used meadows<br />
• Minimum botanical quality (to be defined)<br />
• No fertilisation<br />
• Very restricted application of herbicides (only single plant treatment allowed)<br />
• 1-3 cuts yearly; depending on the botanical quality and the site more cuts can be allowed (after consultation of<br />
an advisor)<br />
• No mowing before the 15 th of June (valleys) / 1 st of July (hilly regions) / 15 th of July (mountain regions)<br />
• Autumn grazing allowed, except on Mesobrometum meadows<br />
• Removal of the grass cut<br />
• Min. one cut per year is left on the soil for hay production (“Bodenheu”)<br />
• Leave grass piles and wood stacks as refugium for animals<br />
• Min. area of lot 5 ares<br />
• If the botanical quality is low, the sowing of special seed mixtures is required<br />
Requirements for the high quality scenario (Tier > 0):<br />
• Graded cut (for areas larger than 0.5 ha): the whole surface is divided in different plots, which are mown at<br />
different times (time gap of 2-3 weeks)<br />
• Use of mowing bars (recommendation: cutting height 8 cm)<br />
• No use of forage crimper<br />
• No silage allowed<br />
19<br />
As well as that they may be considered responsible for causing environmental damages, i.e. when they do<br />
not follow Good Farming Practices):<br />
118
• min. one cut per year is left on the soil for hay production (“Bodenheu”)<br />
• Meadows with high botanical biodiversity (corresponding to “Magerwiesen” and “Fromentalwiesen”)<br />
• Meadows within a biotope network, or lots with a high potential ecological value<br />
• Dry and sunny location<br />
• Soil poor in nutrients<br />
Tab. 50 - Aspect of measure Extensively used meadows<br />
Tool implemented Quasi-market<br />
Type of scheme Zonal with emphasis on the landscape types “Bergland”, “Hügelland Ost”, and<br />
“Hügelland West” (where more low input grassland is possible and is needed). In<br />
the rest of the region, conservation of the status quo. For more details, please refer<br />
to WP3-Refugium function.<br />
Time period At least 10 years.<br />
Eligibility criteria - Conservation of the existing field structure and small structured landscape: no<br />
enlargement of single lots, conservation of the mosaic of different crops,<br />
conservation of the areas of permanent and perennial crops<br />
- Conservation of existing livestock density: no further increment<br />
- Maintenance of the overall fertilisation intensity in the study area: no decrease in<br />
unfertilised area of the UAA, conserve the actual input per area of nitrogen and<br />
phosphate and conserve a well balanced nutrient balance on the farm<br />
Payments per ha per ha 946 €<br />
Target value for area involved<br />
total (EMR) 342 ha<br />
New (Difference to EMR) 75 ha<br />
Minimum number of farmers necessary At least 50% of the farmers in the landscape types “Bergland”, “Hügelland Ost”,<br />
and “Hügelland West” = ca. 65 farmers. Each farm increases the area of<br />
extensively used meadows by an average of 1.15 ha.<br />
Box 54 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Suggested the agri-environmental measures. Chianti Classico, Italy.<br />
Considering that the decrease of water runoff is strongly determined by the same factors affecting the decrease of soil<br />
erosion, the proposed agri-environmental measure “Soil cover” can reduce the harmful effects of both soil erosion and<br />
runoff. Under an agronomic point of view, the temporary grass soil cover from September to March is a well-known<br />
practice in the Chianti area, as a local farmer said in an interview.<br />
<strong>The</strong> recommendations proposed are re-formulated in the following table according to difference between actual soil<br />
erosion risk and EMRs for soil erosion and runoff coefficient. To determine the Tier for a field in the Chianti area it is<br />
possible to use the above mentioned excel-USLE spreadsheet calculator available at www.issds.it<br />
Tab. 51 - Tiers according to soil cover<br />
Tier +2 Establishment of sufficient percent of soil cover and set-up of proper field length to reduce soil erosion to<br />
less than 0.5 t/ha/year<br />
Tier+ 1 Establishment of sufficient percent of soil cover and set-up of proper field length to reduce soil erosion to<br />
0.5- 2 t/ha/year<br />
Tier 0 Establishment of sufficient percent of soil cover and set-up of proper field length to reduce soil erosion to<br />
2-4 t/ha/year<br />
Tier – 1 Establishment of sufficient percent of soil cover and set-up of proper field length to reduce soil erosion to<br />
4-10 t/ha/year<br />
Tier – 2 Insufficient percent of soil cover and proper field length that determine >10 t/ha/year of soil erosion<br />
119
Fig. 23 Visual examples of grass cover in vineyards (P. Bazzoffi, ISSDS, 2003).<br />
(Figures do not reflect the soil erosion value necessary to comply the Tier value, but only the most probable surface<br />
conditions when different Tiers are achieved). User should calculate soil erosion risk through the USLE calculator to<br />
determine the necessary percent grass cover, according to soil quality, slope and other site conditions.<br />
Tier –2: No cover, soil<br />
tilled and exposed to<br />
rain splash and runoff<br />
Tab. 52 - Measure on soil cover<br />
Description of the<br />
measure<br />
Tier –1 Tier 0: Natural<br />
sparse cover (Tier 0)<br />
with many exposed areas<br />
(Tier-1 on top-hill),<br />
runoff on wheel tracks.<br />
Tier +1: Cover crops<br />
on alternate rows<br />
120<br />
Tier +2: Grass cover<br />
on almost 100% of<br />
vineyard<br />
Tier 0: Commitment necessary in vineyards and olive groves<br />
Compulsory grass soil-cover for lands with more of 15% of slope and with a mix. Length of rows<br />
of m 150.<br />
Tier 1: Commitment necessary in vineyards and olive groves<br />
Artificial or Natural grass soil cover in vineyards and olive grove. Grass soil cover of rows<br />
connected to marginal areas (perimeter). In the artificial grass soil cover the suggested species are:<br />
Poa pratensis, Festuca Rubra, Festuca Ovina, Lolium Perenne, Acrostis Tenuis. <strong>The</strong> choice of the<br />
best mix is done according to soil texture of the land to be protected from soil erosion and<br />
excessive runoff. Prohibition of herbicide use in olive groves and vineyards<br />
Grass soil cover at field-margins and between the vine rows. Grass soil cover should not be<br />
mowed before 15 April (dates could be change considering the variety of season raining)<br />
Tool implemented Quasi-Market<br />
Type of scheme Horizontal scheme in vineyards and olive groves<br />
Time period Min. 6 years<br />
Priority Vineyards at up-down ditches (rittochino)<br />
Eligibility criteria Minimum surface of 1 ha of UAA. Slope more than 2,5 %. Agricultural managers, also associated,<br />
according to art. 2135 of the C.C.<br />
Payments per ha 150 € first year 100 € following years<br />
Area agreement Plus 10% of the payment<br />
<strong>The</strong> procedure proposed for the definition of agri-environmental measures, while providing a common<br />
framework throughout the whole European territory, allows also for local socio-economic conditions to be<br />
taken into account in the definition of policy targets.<br />
Socio-economic acceptability of the designed agro-environmental programmes by relevant stakeholders and<br />
institutional sustainability (functionality and administrative and transaction costs to be incurred in by local<br />
administrations) are analysed in sections 3.6.6 and section 3.7.4 respectively, following (as reference) the<br />
guidelines given by OECD on environmental policy evaluation criteria (OECD 1991, 2001) as shown in the<br />
example in box 55 below.
Box 55 - Environmental policy evaluation criteria (OECD 1991, 2001) and example on its application<br />
on a case study base<br />
Environmental policy evaluation criteria (OECD 1991, 2001)<br />
• Economic efficiency<br />
• Cost-effectiveness<br />
• Flexibility (characteristic of the development of <strong>AEMBAC</strong> methodology)<br />
• Enforceability<br />
• Transparency (characteristic of the development of <strong>AEMBAC</strong> methodology)<br />
• Equity/fairness<br />
• Policy compatibility<br />
• Political acceptability<br />
Example of application on a hypothetical case study basis<br />
1) <strong>The</strong> environmental impact is important in conserving biodiversity and the country has ratified the Convention on<br />
Biological Diversity (policy compatibility)<br />
2) <strong>The</strong>re is the agronomic know-how and capacity of farmers to adopt the recommendations (cost-effectiveness,<br />
economic efficiency);<br />
3) <strong>The</strong>re is a growing awareness by farmers of the environmental problem (policy acceptability)<br />
4) <strong>The</strong> cost of reaching tier 0/+1 is reasonable (and lower than the supposed economic benefits of doing so); (costeffectiveness,<br />
economic efficiency)<br />
5) <strong>The</strong>re is a production surplus in the area and incentives for production are no longer justifiable under CAP reform<br />
and WTO rules (policy compatibility)<br />
6) In adopting the agri-environmental measure, no group is unfairly disadvantaged or favoured (equity)<br />
7) <strong>The</strong> agri-environmental measure has a flexible approach considering local farming traditions (flexibility)<br />
8) Monitoring can be done by remote control (enforceability)<br />
3.6.6 Direct involvement of local farmers and administrators in the final definition of agrienvironmental<br />
targets and measures<br />
In order to develop agri-environmental measures suitable to be implemented by farmers and effective in<br />
reaching their environmental objectives, the involvement of different stakeholders is necessary. Following<br />
the procedure set up in previous sections, this task had to be undertaken when the agri-environmental<br />
measures had already taken shape, but still were not finalised, so to present sufficiently detailed material to<br />
relevant stakeholders, who eventually will have to implement the agri-environmental measures so identified,<br />
and have the opportunity to consider also their views before final definition.<br />
Agri-environmental measures to be presented were those defined in section 3.6.5, taking into account the<br />
agronomic practices to be adopted, the minimum amount of enrolment by farmers to achieve the<br />
environmental goal at the area level, the eligibility criteria for farmers to enrol, the amount and type of<br />
payments eventually to be made, etc.<br />
<strong>The</strong> relevant stakeholders to be contacted were those who have a direct interest in the agri-environmental<br />
measures proposed, such as farmers, local administrators, environmental organisations, agro-industries,<br />
consumers associations, etc. <strong>The</strong> reason to involve these stakeholders was to have a first feedback in terms of<br />
understanding, acceptability, and feasibility, to finalise the measures proposed and to identify farms that<br />
would be available in the area for carrying out an eventual pilot project on agri-environmental measures<br />
implementation.<br />
Farmers are the most relevant stakeholders, being those who will have to implement agri-environmental<br />
measures and those who will be affected greatly by their adoption in terms of diversified incomes,<br />
production choices, rights of use of natural resources, way of living, culture, and know-how. Whereas in the<br />
study areas farmers were already contacted to be interviewed with the agri-environmental questionnaire (see<br />
Step 2 above), it was recommended to continue collaboration, presenting the identified agri-environmental<br />
121
measures to them and asking their opinion about these. A list of farmers interviewed had to be produced.<br />
Whereas this would have been difficult, it was advised to contact the representatives of local farmers<br />
associations and collaborate with them before finalising the agro-environmental measures proposed.<br />
<strong>The</strong> involvement of farmers and their associations focussed on the following topics:<br />
• Participation in the already existing agri-environmental measures, difficulties and /or opportunities<br />
experienced;<br />
• Awareness of the environmental positive/negative impacts detected and of the agricultural practices<br />
related to those impacts identified;<br />
• Awareness of the necessary changes to the agricultural practices recommended to overcome the<br />
negative impacts and/or enhancing the positive ones;<br />
• Assessment of the necessary agri-environmental knowledge and capacity to eventually implement<br />
and monitor the effectiveness of recommended measures; and<br />
• Agreement on the methods of assessment and identified amount of the undertaking and opportunity<br />
costs of adopting the recommended practices and eventual incentives.<br />
Box 56: Examples of some questions related to the participation by farmers in already existing and<br />
new agri-environmental measures<br />
1) How important has been the availability of existing agri-environmental measures in orienting farmers decisions on<br />
agricultural management? 1 (not important), 2 (slightly important), 3 (important), 4 (very important)?<br />
2) Regarding agri-environmental management decisions undertaken, how many of these would be maintained if the<br />
agri-environmental measures would be withdrawn? 1 (none), 2 (only some, indicating which), and 3 (all).<br />
3) What is the agri-environmental measure, amongst those already existing, which farmers believe to be the most useful<br />
for their farm?<br />
4) What environmental aspect do farmers believe should be addressed as a priority by new agri-environmental measures<br />
in their areas?<br />
5) What would be the minimum payments they would accept to adopt a measure addressing that environmental aspect?<br />
Local administrators are those who will run the proposed agri-environmental measures. <strong>The</strong>y will deal with<br />
administrative aspects (e.g. issuing contracts to farmers) and transaction costs (e.g. making payments) to be<br />
dealt with in section 3.7.4, monitoring the implementation of the measures, evaluate their efficiency and<br />
effectiveness, etc. (see below sections 3.7.1 and 3.7.2). <strong>The</strong>y usually also have important understanding that<br />
should be considered when developing new agri-environmental measures, having had prior experience with<br />
those already existing.<br />
<strong>The</strong> involvement of local administrators focussed on the following aspects:<br />
• Major difficulties/opportunities experienced in implementing the existing agri-environmental<br />
measures;<br />
• Awareness of the environmental positive/negative impacts detected and of the agricultural practices<br />
related to those impacts identified, and of synergies or differences with eventual existing agrienvironmental<br />
measures;<br />
• Awareness of the necessary changes to the agricultural practices recommended to overcome the<br />
negative impacts and/or enhancing the positive ones, and eventual aspects to be taken into account in<br />
their implementation;<br />
• Assessment of the necessary agri-environmental knowledge and capacity to monitor the<br />
effectiveness of recommended measures and envisaged difficulties in implementing these; and<br />
• Agreement on the methods of assessment and identified amount of the undertaking and opportunity<br />
costs of adopting the recommended practices and eventual incentives.<br />
Environmental, hunting and fishing organisations and protected areas authorities usually have a good<br />
understanding of the most important ecological aspects of an area. <strong>The</strong>y can be a useful source of<br />
information on the most urgent environmental aspects to be addressed by the new measures and on the<br />
122
effectiveness of the existing ones, suggesting also practical methods to monitor impacts.<br />
Consumers associations’ interests such as those related to the quality and safety of the agricultural produce<br />
(i.e. healthy food) and of the landscape, can offer new societal demands and ideas (such as sustainable<br />
production labelling) that could be useful to consider when developing agri-environmental measures.<br />
<strong>The</strong> points of view of agro-industries, retailers and agri-tourism agencies, being those stakeholders closer to<br />
the final users of the agri-environmental production chains, also can confirm a certain trend in consumer<br />
demand for food quality and leisure activities, and therefore being of help in finalising proposed agrienvironmental<br />
measures.<br />
<strong>The</strong> final outcome of this process was the integration of stakeholders points of view in the final definition of<br />
agri-environmental measures at the farm level. A list of selected farms where to conduct pilot projects had to<br />
be produced in consideration of an eventual implementation of the AEMs developed.<br />
Box 57 - <strong>AEMBAC</strong> <strong>Project</strong>: Direct involvement of actors, identification of farms for pilot projects in<br />
the Hungarian case studies<br />
<strong>The</strong> appropriateness and adequateness of the present (currently running) AEP, and the proposed AEP measures was<br />
tested. <strong>The</strong> panel were the actors directly or indirectly involved in the implementation of the programme: mainly by<br />
farmers operating in the pilot areas. In order to check the opinion of administration (e.g. Chamber of Agriculture, local<br />
agricultural adviser) and authorities (national parks, etc.) – i.e. those who will implement the programme – the<br />
questionnaires were also filled by the representatives of these bodies.<br />
Results of the questionnaire<br />
26 of the 40 participants filled in the questionnaire. <strong>The</strong> panel of the questionnaire cultivate/manage more than 23.200<br />
hectares (in and around the pilot areas), of which 6.500 are already in the existing AEP programme. According to the<br />
administrative officers, there is intention to increase the AEP area with additional 5.800 hectares. This means, that the<br />
rate of land in AEP will be increased from 25 to 53% in the near future (Figure 24).<br />
Incr.<br />
25,1%<br />
Present<br />
28,2%<br />
Out of<br />
AEP<br />
45,7%<br />
Total area: 23.265 ha<br />
Fig. 24 Farming area covered by those who filled in the questionnaire<br />
<strong>The</strong> farmers were also asked whether they would increase the area currently under AEP. <strong>The</strong>y provided positive<br />
answers, some of them would even buy/rent land to increase the current area (100%), as it is shown Figure 25.<br />
(questionnaire No 2, 3 and 4.)<br />
123
120<br />
100<br />
80<br />
60<br />
40<br />
20<br />
0<br />
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12<br />
Rate (%) of land in AEP Planned increase (%)<br />
Fig. 25 Rate of managed land currently in AEP and the planned increase<br />
(selected questionnaires)<br />
300<br />
250<br />
200<br />
150<br />
100<br />
50<br />
0<br />
It has been concluded, that most of the interviewed farmers (87%) were applying for an AEP programme (organic,<br />
ESA, grassland or wetland scheme), and the vast majority (92%) were successful. This means that an AEP in its present<br />
form is already known and considered by the local farmers, however their opinion on the implementation, control and<br />
financial management is less than satisfying. Figure 26. presents the cumulative scores (level of satisfaction) in<br />
percentage. According to this, significant measures are needed to improve the financial management and the<br />
implementation of the programme.<br />
100%<br />
80%<br />
60%<br />
40%<br />
20%<br />
0%<br />
33,3<br />
62,5<br />
13,6<br />
Implementation Control Financial mgmt.<br />
Fig. 26 Opinion on the existing agri-environmental measures<br />
Stakeholders have also been asked to give proposals for improvement. <strong>The</strong> reply by groups is summarised as follows:<br />
• Farmers – authorities are to keep deadlines, improve information flow, and increase sums<br />
• Administration – improved control, informatics (data processing) and information flow<br />
• Authorities – co-operation between control authorities, improved control, keeping deadlines, institutional<br />
development<br />
In the second phase the AEP measure proposed by the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project was tested.<br />
<strong>The</strong> farmers’ replies regarding the proposed measures in shown in Figure 27.<br />
<strong>The</strong> opinions were asked in three categories: (1) applicability of the proposed measure (on the operation area), (2)<br />
appropriateness for the elements to meet the proposed measure, and (3) adequateness of the sums to meet the measure.<br />
As one can conclude by the cumulative results (level of appropriateness) the proposed measures are well applicable in<br />
(and around) the pilot areas (score 71-89%). This is relatively high, considering that the farmers are rather from<br />
specialised field of activity (e.g. arable or grassland, etc.). <strong>The</strong> elements of each measure are considered to be<br />
appropriate (score 89-100%). As regards the financial aspects of the measures: the adequateness of the proposed sums<br />
vary (score 38-89%).<br />
124
%<br />
100<br />
80<br />
60<br />
40<br />
20<br />
0<br />
1. Crop rotation<br />
93 93<br />
78 77 79 77<br />
71<br />
64<br />
38<br />
2. Nutrient man.<br />
3. Farm animals<br />
89<br />
4. Land-use<br />
100 100<br />
69<br />
77<br />
5. Plant protection<br />
55<br />
6. Gene preserv.<br />
90 89 89<br />
82<br />
67<br />
71<br />
125<br />
7. Water man.<br />
Applicability Appropriateness of elements Adequateness of sum(s)<br />
Fig. 27 Questionnaire results (proposed measures)<br />
<strong>The</strong> financial aspects for the measures are under reconstruction though, in one hand the NAEP figures are higher than<br />
that of the previous years, and, in the other hand the proposed (<strong>AEMBAC</strong>) measures can be combined so, that the<br />
finances of the measures can be added.<br />
In Figure 28. the opinion of farmers and administrators is shown. Among the proposed measures the appropriateness<br />
(score) for 1. Crop rotation and 2. Nutrient management and 4. Land-use is higher among farmers than administrators.<br />
<strong>The</strong> 3. Farm animal, 6.Gene preservation and 7. Water management is similar, and only 5. Plant protection is lower in<br />
case of farmers. <strong>The</strong> differences are in most of the cases not significant. <strong>The</strong> reason for the farmers giving higher scores<br />
are the fact that usually they do not consider labour costs at realistic level (often they do not calculate their own labour<br />
cost at all), and their estimation for the evaluation is rather based on their practical experiences, instead of economic<br />
calculations. On the contrary, the administrators include the issues of implementation and e.g. the incentives into their<br />
opinion, resulting in lower scores for some of the proposed measures.<br />
%<br />
100<br />
80<br />
60<br />
40<br />
20<br />
0<br />
1. Crop rotation<br />
100 100 100<br />
100 100 100 100 100 100 100<br />
93<br />
90<br />
93<br />
89 88<br />
90 89 89<br />
63<br />
78 77<br />
64 63<br />
79<br />
75 77<br />
71<br />
80<br />
75<br />
69<br />
77<br />
67<br />
82<br />
67<br />
80<br />
75<br />
71<br />
55<br />
50<br />
20<br />
38<br />
2. Nutrient man.<br />
3. Farm animals<br />
4. Land-use<br />
33<br />
5. Plant protection<br />
6. Gene preserv.<br />
7. Water man.<br />
Applicability (auth.) Appropriateness (auth.) Adeq. of sum(s) (auth.)<br />
Applicability (farmers) Appropriateness (farmers) Adeq. of sum(s) (farmers)<br />
Fig. 28 Questionnaire results (proposed measures) – authorities and farmers<br />
<strong>Final</strong>ly the applicability of the proposed measures in regional context was asked. <strong>The</strong> panel – actually managing 23.200<br />
hectares, and having information about a much larger area – approved the programme as shown in Figure 29. Most of<br />
the proposed measures are on a good level (69-84%). Only those with no or limited history in the region (Gene<br />
preservation and Water management) scored lower (50 and 63%), but this is due to the limited experiences regarding<br />
them and the latter doesn’t concern the total area. However the idea is not unknown, and considered to be applicable,<br />
the farmers are moderately optimistic on the implementation. In this case pilot scale implementation is to be considered<br />
to convince farmers on the applicability of the measure.
%<br />
100<br />
80<br />
60<br />
40<br />
20<br />
0<br />
1. Crop rotation<br />
76 75<br />
2. Nutrient man.<br />
3. Farm animals<br />
69<br />
4. Land-use<br />
77<br />
5. Plant protection<br />
84<br />
6. Gene preserv.<br />
50<br />
7. Water man.<br />
Fig. 29 Applicability of the current measure on the farmland<br />
3.6.7 Identification of farms agri-environmental accounting systems.<br />
Once the agri-environmental measures were finally defined, taking into account the stakeholders points of<br />
view, it was important to identify the most relevant aspects to be considered for their effective<br />
implementation and monitoring.<br />
A first step in this direction was the definition of the data that have to be recorded at farm level for testifying<br />
and reporting to the local authorities the correct implementation of the agri-environmental measures and their<br />
effectiveness.<br />
From the analysis carried out in Step 3, it has emerged that usually data relative to agri-environmental<br />
aspects, such as, for instance, the time spent on maintenance of land settings or hedgerows, is not reported on<br />
accounting books by farmers. <strong>The</strong> lack of data of this kind can seriously impair the possibility to assess, both<br />
at local and regional level, the real costs relative to agri-environmental measures implementation.<br />
Moreover, the involvement of farmers in recording data on the most important environmental aspects, such<br />
as the number of species seen or the soil erosion levels witnessed on-farm, allows the growing of their<br />
environmental awareness, the appreciation of progresses in the environmental situation on their farm<br />
(evaluation culture), and the understanding of the utility of implementing the agri-environmental measures.<br />
Keeping agri-environmental accounting also helps comparisons with field data recorded by experts of local<br />
administrations so contributing, for instance, to the monitoring and evaluation activities 20 .<br />
In building up an agri-environmental accounting system for local farms it is important to keep the paper<br />
work at the minimum so to not burden further that which already must be done. To do so it was strongly<br />
recommended to focus only on the most important data, necessary to be reported by farmers, on the correct<br />
implementation of the local agri-environmental measures and on their effectiveness.<br />
Three broad classes of data were used: those related to the environment, the agricultural practices and the<br />
socio-economic aspects. <strong>The</strong> analysis carried out in Step 2 (e.g. state indicators describing the performance<br />
of the environmental function at farm level and their relative EMR values) helped to define those state<br />
20 On this point see also the e-conference on bio-monitoring ''Auditing the ark - science based monitoring of biodiversity'', 5-20<br />
September 2002, organised by <strong>The</strong> European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy (EPBRS), the Danish Biodiversity<br />
Platform and the BioPlatform <strong>The</strong>matic Network, whose proceedings are available at the web address:<br />
www.gencat.es/mediamb/bioplatform<br />
63<br />
126
indicators which could be reported by farmers and those which require the intervention of specialised<br />
personnel. Also indicators used in Step 3 were used for developing the agri-environmental accounting system<br />
dealing with environmental, agricultural and socio-economic data at farm level.<br />
<strong>The</strong> agri-environmental accounting had to be developed according to the local agri-environmental measures<br />
proposed.<br />
Below are two examples of the kind of environmental accounting that is expected to be achieved.<br />
Example 1: the agri-environmental measure is relative to the refugium function and consists of planting<br />
hedgerows at field margins of a certain width, height and length, and maintaining them for at least ten years;<br />
then the agri-environmental accounting will focus on the following information (please note to be integrated<br />
with further information or adjust according to case study requirements):<br />
Tab. 53 - Agri-environmental data (farm level)<br />
Environmental data<br />
Hedgerows status<br />
Unit of measurement Year<br />
1<br />
Hedgerows width, height and length (older than 10 meter<br />
years)<br />
Hedgerows width and length (younger than 10 meter<br />
years)<br />
Plant used in new hedgerows (local shrubs) species<br />
Hedgerows of 2 meter width total length<br />
Associated biodiversity<br />
meter<br />
Bird key specie X (increasing, stable, decreasing) Individuals seen in one<br />
(old hedgerow)<br />
week during spring time<br />
Bird Key specie Y (increasing, stable, decreasing) Individuals seen in one<br />
(new hedgerow)<br />
month during summer time<br />
Reptile Key specie Z (increasing, stable, Individuals seen in one<br />
decreasing)<br />
week during spring time<br />
Plant Key specie W (increasing, stable, decreasing)<br />
Agricultural data<br />
Number of individuals in<br />
100 meters lenght<br />
Hours spent on field margins hours<br />
Hours spent on hedgerows hours<br />
Reduced inputs Kg/ha<br />
Reduced yields<br />
Socio-economic data<br />
Kg/ha<br />
Agri-environmental payments received per ha Euros/ha<br />
Agri-environmental payments total<br />
Hedgerows management<br />
Euros<br />
Undertaking costs of restoring and managing Euros<br />
habitat<br />
Costs of planting new hedgerows Euros<br />
Opportunity costs (reduced yields on field margins) Euros<br />
Saved costs (reduced inputs) Euros<br />
Employment changes Hours/person<br />
Training hours Hours<br />
Example 2: <strong>The</strong> agri-environmental measure is relative to the aesthetic function of the landscape, and<br />
consists of a progressive reduction of field size through semi-natural strips and/or introducing different crops<br />
cultivation in order to performed coherence with the traditional landscape patchiness; then the agrienvironmental<br />
accounting will focus on the following information (please note to be integrated with further<br />
information or adjusted according to case study requirements):<br />
127<br />
Year<br />
2<br />
Year<br />
3<br />
Year<br />
….<br />
Year<br />
9<br />
Year<br />
10
Tab. 54 - Agri-environmental accounting system (Farm level) Unit of Year Year<br />
Environmental data<br />
Field size status<br />
measurement 1 2<br />
Fields size on farm ha<br />
Fields extension Reduced<br />
Associated biodiversity<br />
Ha/square meters<br />
Birds key specie X (increasing, stable, decreasing) (old Number of<br />
hedgerow) Individuals seen in one week during spring time individuals/ha<br />
Birds Key specie Y (increasing, stable, decreasing) (new Number of breeding<br />
hedgerow) Breeding pairs seen in one month during summer pairs/ha<br />
time<br />
Reptiles Key specie Z (increasing, stable, decreasing) Number of<br />
Individuals seen in one week during spring time<br />
individuals/ha<br />
Plants Key specie W (increasing, stable, decreasing) Number Number of<br />
of individuals in 100 meters length<br />
Associated Aesthetic attractiveness<br />
individuals/ha<br />
Agri-tourism<br />
Associated cultural/scientific events<br />
Number of<br />
presence/year<br />
Documentaries, movies, pictures on the habitat;<br />
Number of<br />
Educational/demonstration visits and scientific research events/year<br />
carried out on the habitat<br />
Agricultural data<br />
Hours spent on reducing fields size hours<br />
Reduced yields Q/ha<br />
Reduced inputs (labour, fertilasers, etc.) Kg/ha<br />
Different crops cultivation introduced ha<br />
Length and width of natural strips<br />
Socio-economics data<br />
Square meter<br />
Agri-environmental compensation payments received per m2<br />
reduced<br />
Euros/mt<br />
Agri-environmental payments total Euros<br />
Undertaking costs of reducing field size Euros<br />
Opportunity cost lost (lost income on reduced yields) Euros<br />
Saved costs (reduced inputs) Euros<br />
Employment changes Hours/person<br />
Box 58 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> <strong>Project</strong>: Identification of farms’ agri-environmental accounting systems related to<br />
the agri-environmental measures in Chianti, Italy<br />
To keep the paper work to a minimum, it is strongly recommended to focus only on the most important and easilyreported<br />
data. <strong>The</strong> analysis carried out (e.g. state indicators describing the performance of the environmental function at<br />
farm level and their relative EMR values) helps in the construction of the indicator for the accountability but here other<br />
indicators are also utilised. <strong>The</strong> guidelines suggest employing three classes of data related to the environment, to the<br />
agricultural practices and to the socio-economic aspects. However, in the following tables we decided to consider few<br />
aspects connected with socio-economic aspects, useful to increase, in our opinion, the awareness of farmers on<br />
environmental data.<br />
For any agri-environmental measure we will suggest indicators able to be monitored by farmers once in a year. Some of<br />
those indicators will be specific for the related measure; others will be more comprehensive: total field size, field size<br />
under measure, cost of implementation and the presence of swallows.<br />
BirdLife International estimated that the European population of swallows has fallen by 40% between 1970 and 1990.<br />
Many are the causes: the intensification of the agricultural practice reduced the quantity of hedgerows, ditches and grass<br />
fields, (their natural hunting area); the use of pesticides damages the swallows also indirectly by killing small insects 21<br />
(their food); the restoration of rural buildings (as sheds) does not permit them to nest. (Tucker & Heath, 1994)<br />
21 Every day a barn swallow hunts insect for 7-8 times its weight, for a total of about 170gr of insects.<br />
128<br />
Year<br />
3<br />
Year<br />
….<br />
Year<br />
9<br />
Year<br />
10
Agri-environmental measures on Grass Soil cover<br />
This measure consists of producing a lateral grass strip at least 3m wide as well as of grass soil cover between vine rows<br />
and olive groves both already existing or newly introduced and in maintaining them for at least five years.<br />
<strong>The</strong> agri-environmental measure’s accounting scheme is based on the information of the following table.<br />
In the agri-environmental report no reptile is considered but only active swallow nests’ presence (Hirundo rustica),<br />
because they are easy to be monitored and, at the same time, they can help the farmer to discover the direct effects of<br />
the agricultural practice on biodiversity. Such an indicator is indirectly related to the grass soil cover and can also be<br />
used for other measures.<br />
Plant diversity indicators are also avoided here, because in five years (last of the measure) it is very unlikely that<br />
orchids or other key species will be found in vineyards. <strong>The</strong> only indicator able to be monitored and connected to the<br />
landscape is a change in grass colour in different seasons. Applied to Soil erosion indicators, the visual estimation of<br />
soil grass cover, made by the farmer, can be utilised for the calculation of C factor in the USLE model.<br />
It would be significant at the moment of the application of this measure to provide the farmer, together with the<br />
agricultural report, with an educational handbook containing the necessary information to implement and report agrienvironmental<br />
data. It would be interesting, for example, to show different pictures of Barn Swallow nests (Hirundo<br />
rustica) and Houses Martin 22 nests (Delicon urbica) as a lesson of biodiversity, (see below).<br />
This is the scheme to be fulfilled every year:<br />
Tab. 55 - Agri-environmental data at farm level Unit of Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5<br />
for grass soil cover<br />
measurement<br />
Total Field size ha x x x x x<br />
Field size under measure / UAA<br />
BIODIVERSITY<br />
% x x x x x<br />
How many active* swallow nest are in the farm? Number x x x x x<br />
How many young fledged swallows are born in your farm Number<br />
each year?<br />
LANDSCAPE<br />
x x x x x<br />
Is the grass growing without problem? Yes/NO x x x x x<br />
Is there some surface where the grass is scarce or yellow? Yes/NO x x x x x<br />
Can you define the surface affected by the problem? < %<br />
30%, 30-50%, 50-70%, >70%<br />
SOIL<br />
x x x x x<br />
Can you define the % of grass soil cover?<br />
10%, 30-50%, 50-70%, >70%<br />
SOCIOECONOMIC DATA<br />
x x<br />
Hours spent on planting and maintenance of grass soil Hours/ha<br />
cover<br />
x x x x x<br />
Costs of operation (Labour include) Euro/ha x x x x x<br />
* active nest = nest regularly occupied during breeding season, regardless of reproductive success’.<br />
22<br />
<strong>The</strong> house martin lives more in cities: it usually nest under the roofs. It is a common species but, like the barn swallows, it<br />
decreased in number.<br />
129
A guide to species identification for farmers - Birds / 1: Barn Swallow and House Martin<br />
<strong>The</strong>se two species are common in towns and farmland, where they play an important role as specialized feeders of<br />
insects captured during flight. Only a few attention is required to identify the two species and their nests.<br />
Fig. 30 House Martin<br />
From above: white rump evident and contrasting with black upper-parts. Tail shorter and less forked than Barn<br />
Swallow. From below: all under-parts white, throat also.<br />
Nest: a rounded half-cup built on to a vertical surface, so close to the overhanging projection above that only a narrow<br />
entrance is present at the top. Nest generally found on outer walls of a building under the caves<br />
Fig. 31 Barn Swallow<br />
From above: all upper-parts blue-blackish, pointed wings, long and well forked tail with small white spots (only seen at<br />
closer range). From below: red throat contrasting with white breast (red appearing dark at distance). Nest: an open cup<br />
stuck against a vertical surface, but requiring some support. Nest generally found inside buildings, barns, sheds<br />
appearing more ‘muddled’ than House Martin’ one.<br />
3.7 Step 7 – Studying agri-environmental measures implementation: Definition<br />
of monitoring, evaluation procedures and contracts; analysis of administrative<br />
and transaction costs and overall economic and financial aspects<br />
In order to accomplish the development of the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> methodology, it was necessary to define the<br />
procedures to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the agri-environment measures in<br />
reaching their policy targets.<br />
In case of implementation of AEMs, the information obtained through the monitoring and evaluation<br />
procedures has to allow to understand if the agri-environmental measures are effective as they have been<br />
developed, or have to be reoriented and ameliorated.<br />
3.7.1 Definition of monitoring procedures<br />
Two main objectives can be identified in relation to the definition of monitoring:<br />
• the first concerning the agri-environmental objectives of the measures (e.g. associated biodiversity or<br />
130
landscape benefits), but also the impacts that the implementation of the measure can exert on<br />
agricultural and socio-economics aspects.<br />
• the second regarding the operational objectives of the measures (e.g. number of demands to enrol<br />
presented, number of farmers enrolling the scheme, cost of implementing the measures, etc.)<br />
3.7.1.1 Monitoring on achievements of agri-environmental objectives<br />
To fulfil the first objective, the definition of monitoring requirements was carried out for environmental,<br />
agricultural and socio-economic aspects. <strong>The</strong> data identified as those to be gathered through the agrienvironmental<br />
accounting system, developed for the farm level (see section 3.6.7 above) and data to be<br />
gathered by experts on-farms and study area level, were analysed in relation to the overall agrienvironmental<br />
objectives to be achieved at the level of the area where the scheme should be implemented.<br />
<strong>The</strong> selection of what environmental objectives have to be monitored came out straightforwardly thanks to<br />
the methodology developed to build up locally tailored agri-environmental measures. In fact, by looking at<br />
the pressure/s addressed by the agri-environmental measure and at the correlated impacts (identified in the<br />
matrix developed in Step 4) on relative state indicators (these latest analysed for agro-ecosystem and farm<br />
levels Step 2), researchers immediately identified the most important environmental aspects to be monitored.<br />
On the agricultural production side, the indicators to be defined in order to be monitored were those directly<br />
affected by the implementation of the agri-environmental measure proposed, and varied from production<br />
quantity and quality, to inputs used, from technological innovations applied to land use conversions, etc.<br />
Such indicators were already analysed in Step 3 for the analysis of the local agricultural system, in section<br />
3.4.3 to identify agri-environmental practices and in section 3.6.7 above.<br />
On the socio-economic side, the indicators more directly affected by the implementation of the agrienvironmental<br />
measure should also be monitored. <strong>The</strong>se, as the others indicators to be monitored, will<br />
depend on the agri-environmental measures developed, however aspects such as farm income, employment,<br />
farmers environmental awareness, training, etc. are likely to be common to many agri-environmental<br />
monitoring schemes. <strong>The</strong>se aspects were already analysed In Step 1, Step 6 at area level and in Step 2 at<br />
farm level. Here they were just “converted ” into socio-economic indicators to be monitored.<br />
Researchers made a list of data requirements to be monitored at farm and study area levels and commented<br />
on these through the use of the state-pressures matrix. Please note that an overall estimation of monitoring<br />
costs relative to the agri-environmental measures proposed was provided in Step 7, section 3.7.4 when the<br />
analysis of administrative costs relative to the AEMs developed was carried out.<br />
Below are two examples (built on those of sections above) of what kind of environmental data to be<br />
monitored are presented for the refugium and landscape aesthetic functions respectively:<br />
Box 59 – Monitoring Agri-environmental Measures<br />
Example 1: Environmental data monitoring on biodiversity function<br />
At Farm Level, Monitoring of the data gathered by farmers following the accounting system and integrated by other<br />
field monitoring on biodiversity by experts whereas necessary (some indicators to be monitored could be too<br />
“technical” for non-experts)<br />
At an Area level, if the measure proposed is addressing the pressure “management of semi-natural habitats and<br />
hedgerows”, envisaging that hedgerows of a certain type and dimension should be present in at least X% of the total<br />
field margins in the area, the matching of this target will have to be monitored at this level. Further monitoring on the<br />
expected environmental benefits will have to be carried out at the area level. So, for instance if the measure proposed is<br />
thought to be sufficient to reduce the gap (detected in Step 2) on the state indicator “species abundance” at the area<br />
level, when applied for 5 or 10 years, at the end of the period, the monitoring should allow the success of the<br />
implementation of the agri-environmental measure in reaching the relative environmental goal to be assessed. This<br />
means that “species abundance” should also be monitored (see the example in fig. 32a below where the pressures<br />
addressed by the agri-environmental measure and the correlated state indicators, corresponding to those to be<br />
monitored, are in italics).<br />
131
Fig. 32a Pressure addressed by the agri-environmental measure and the correlated state indicators to be<br />
monitored (in italics)<br />
Refugium function<br />
(WP4) 3. Agro-Ecosystem<br />
(AE) pressure indicators<br />
(data from questionnaire and<br />
bibli hi /fi ld h)<br />
Example 2: Environmental data monitoring on landscape aesthetic function<br />
a) Nutrient management<br />
a1) Farm gate nutrient balance<br />
At Farm Level, Monitoring of the data gathered by farmers following the accounting system and integrated by other<br />
field monitoring on biodiversity by experts (some indicators to be monitored could be too “technical” for not experts).<br />
If the measure proposed addressing the pressure “management of fields” has been developed in order to maintain or<br />
enhance the landscape aesthetic quality of agri-ecosystems in the area, through a maximum field size allowed, then the<br />
matching of this target will have to be monitored at the farm level.<br />
At the area level, further monitoring of the expected environmental benefits will have to be carried out. So, for instance<br />
if the measures proposed is thought to be sufficient in reducing the gap (detected in Step 2) on the state indicators<br />
“traditional land use”, “traditional crops diversity”, “Ecosystem patchiness” and “habitat diversity/heterogeneity” at the<br />
area level, when achieving the desired field size, at the end of the period of implementation, the monitoring should<br />
allow the success of the implementation of the agri-environmental measures in reaching the relative environmental goal<br />
to be assessed. This means that “traditional land use”, “traditional crops diversity”, “Ecosystem patchiness” and “habitat<br />
diversity/heterogeneity” (in red italics) should be monitored.<br />
132<br />
a6) Fertilisers used per hectare<br />
b) soil and land management<br />
b1) Management of hedgerows<br />
or seminatural habitats<br />
b2) Management of soil cover,<br />
mowing, grazing<br />
b3) Management of field size<br />
a7) Livestock density (LU/ha)<br />
b4) Landscape management<br />
(WP3) 1. (Semi)Natural<br />
Ecosystem and/or<br />
agroecosystem (NE) state<br />
indicators<br />
(data from bibliographic/field research)<br />
Plant genetic and species diversity<br />
In situ Plant Genetic Resources:<br />
Key species abundance -<br />
Number of varieties for each plant specie -<br />
Animal genetic and species diversity<br />
Key species abundance - - -<br />
Number of rare species -<br />
Number of endemic species -<br />
Ecosystems and habitats diversity<br />
Ecosystem quantity as % of the<br />
area unit<br />
Ecosystem quality as<br />
- -<br />
Biotopes/Habitats variability and<br />
heterogeneity<br />
- +<br />
Species abundance, richness in<br />
habitats<br />
Ranking tiers of agricultural sustainability in<br />
reference to pressure indicators<br />
-<br />
S 0 0 NS -2 -2 0 -1 A NS -2<br />
c) Irrigation and water manage<br />
c1) Water use efficiency<br />
c2) Irrigation delivery systems<br />
c3) Drainage/diversion/extraction<br />
d) Pesticide use<br />
S=Sustainable no impact significant impact<br />
NS=Not Sustainable low impact high impact<br />
A=Absent<br />
d1) Pesticide use per ha<br />
d6) Toxicity of pesticide used
Fig. 32b Pressure addressed by the agri-environmental measure and the correlated state indicators to be<br />
monitored (in italics)<br />
Aesthetic function<br />
(WP3) 1. (Semi)Natural<br />
Ecosystem and/or<br />
agroecosystem (NE)<br />
indicators t t<br />
(data from bibliographic/field<br />
Landscape h) puntual and linear<br />
fNumber t of isolated trees in fields<br />
(WP4) 3. Agro-Ecosystem<br />
(AE) pressure indicators<br />
Data from questionnaire<br />
bibliographic/field research)<br />
a) Nutrient management<br />
a1) Farm gate nutrient balance<br />
a6) Fertilisers used per hectare<br />
133<br />
b) soil and land management<br />
b1) Management of hedgerows<br />
or seminatural habitats<br />
Length of stone walls<br />
Length of natural corridors -<br />
Landscape coherence<br />
Traditional land use<br />
Tradition crops diversity on farm<br />
Traditional rotations<br />
Ecosystems and habitats<br />
di it<br />
Ecosystem patchiness -<br />
b2) Management of soil cover,<br />
mowing, grazing<br />
b5) Landscape management<br />
b3) Management of field<br />
b4) i Livestock density<br />
(LU/h )<br />
(stone walls, isolated trees, etc.<br />
c) Irrigation and water<br />
management<br />
Biotopes/Habitats variability and<br />
heterogeneity<br />
-<br />
Ranking tiers of agricultural sustainability<br />
-<br />
ireference to pressure indicators S 0 0 NS 0 0 -2 0 -1 A<br />
c1) Water use efficiency<br />
c2) Irrigation delivery systems<br />
c3) Drainage/diversion/extractio<br />
no impact significant im<br />
low impact high impact<br />
S=Sustainable<br />
NS=Not Sustainable<br />
A=Absent<br />
+ -<br />
-<br />
-<br />
-<br />
-
Fig. 33 – <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Identification of monitoring indicators by looking at agri-environmental measures<br />
proposed on pressure and state indicators concerning the Refugium function in the study area Greifensee,<br />
Switzerland<br />
Refugium function<br />
State Indicators<br />
Pressure indicators<br />
Percentage of area of organic<br />
production<br />
Cultivated grassland intensity<br />
Cultivated arable land intensity,<br />
Mechanical stress<br />
Plant species indicators 0 - - - - + 0 0 - - 0<br />
Animal species indicators 0 - - - 0 - + 0 0 + - - 0<br />
Umbrella plant species 0 - - - 0 0 + - 0 - - 0<br />
Umbrella animal species 0 - - - 0 - + - 0 + - - 0<br />
Area of biotope types valuable<br />
0 - - - - 0 + - 0 - - 0<br />
for biodiversity<br />
Linear landscape elements 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0<br />
Punctual landscape elements 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0<br />
Natural Capital Index 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0<br />
Accessibility 0 - - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0<br />
Fragmentation 0<br />
SUSTAINABILITY 0 NS NS NS NS 0 0 NS 0 0 NS NS 0<br />
Tiers of sustainability 0 -2 -2 -2 -1 0 0 -1 0 0 -1 -1 0<br />
3.7.1.2 Monitoring on agri-environmental measures functioning<br />
Nitrogen balance on the farm<br />
In order to assess the rate of implementation and the functioning of the agri-environmental measure some<br />
data on its operational aspects have to be identified in order to fulfil monitoring requirements (see tab.58<br />
below to be considered not exhaustive).<br />
This is the only type of monitoring usually carried out by administrations at present.<br />
Tab. 56 - Operational indicators Unit of<br />
Area eligible for the measure<br />
measurement<br />
Square meter<br />
or ha<br />
Area covered by the measure Square meter<br />
or ha<br />
Number of holdings in the area Number<br />
Number of eligible farmers Number<br />
Number of beneficiaries Number<br />
Number of enrolled farms/number of farms in<br />
the area<br />
Ratio<br />
Main type of farms enrolling the scheme (size, Type of farms<br />
structure, production typology, etc.)<br />
Average payment per unit Euro<br />
Total payments Euro<br />
134<br />
Year<br />
1<br />
Phosphate balance on the farm<br />
Year<br />
2<br />
Soil cover index of arable crops per<br />
farm<br />
Year<br />
3<br />
Diversity of land use on the farm<br />
Year<br />
4<br />
Number of arable crops and area share<br />
of major crop species<br />
Plot size<br />
Year<br />
5<br />
Relation annual/perennial crops<br />
Year<br />
6<br />
Percentage of area and number of<br />
ecological compensation areas<br />
Year<br />
7<br />
Perc. of area with synthetic chemical<br />
pest and disease control<br />
Year<br />
8<br />
Livestock density<br />
Year<br />
9<br />
Year<br />
10
3.7.2 Evaluation procedures<br />
<strong>The</strong> evaluation procedures are meant to verify the relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of the agrienvironmental<br />
measures proposed (as well as other programmes under reg. 1257/99). Evaluation is usually<br />
carried out by independent advisors, local administrators and Commission services. Obviously in <strong>AEMBAC</strong><br />
these evaluations could not be carried out given that the project was not developed to implement, but only to<br />
identify local AEMs.<br />
It was, however, useful to have a clear idea on evaluation procedures in order to select the most appropriate<br />
data to be monitored in the section above and to assess how the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> methodology was fulfilling<br />
evaluation procedures requirements.<br />
In Box 60 below, some aspects of evaluation procedures are described for this scope.<br />
In the following sections researchers were asked to highlight the feasibility of the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> methodology in<br />
reference to the evaluation requirements relative to effectiveness and efficiency aspects.<br />
Box 60 – Evaluation procedures<br />
Reg. (EC) 1750/1999, art.41, points out the obligations for Member States to carry out monitoring and evaluations<br />
reporting. Art.49 of Reg. (EC) 1257/1999 (replaced by Reg. (EC) 445/2002), states that the evaluation of agrienvironmental<br />
measure has to follow the rules defined in Reg. (EC) 1260/1999 arts. 40-43 and it has to cover<br />
environmental, socio-economic and agricultural aspects.<br />
<strong>The</strong> evaluation process is usually divided in 5 steps: structuring, data collection, analysis, judgement and reporting.<br />
Regarding structuring (i.e. what are the effects to be evaluated, criteria and observation tools,) and data collection<br />
system, the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> methodology it is clearly of help in defining both. Previous WPs have analysed in detail the<br />
impacts to be addressed by the agri-environmental measures, and what are relevant data to be gathered (see wp3 and<br />
wp4) following the criteria of assessing sustainability of the local agricultural system in relation to some environmental<br />
functions performance. For what concerns the analysis, having assessed baselines (e.g. EMR values for state indicators)<br />
already in wp3, pays back now in terms of having a benchmark for comparisons against which the effectiveness of agrienvironmental<br />
measures can be measured. This will consequently facilitate the formulation of a judgement on the<br />
results of implementation of measures and its reporting for what regards agri-environmental objectives to be achieved.<br />
Evaluation has to be ex-ante, mid-term and ex-post and has to consider the relevance, the effectiveness and the<br />
efficiency of the agri-environmental measure proposed.<br />
Ex-ante evaluation concerns mainly the relevance and validity of the state and pressure indicators selected for<br />
describing the analysed environmental function and the local agricultural system respectively, and the agrienvironmental<br />
objectives and measures presented. This evaluation is supposed to be carried out by independent experts<br />
and Commission services to assess the validity of the agri-environmental measures presented by the local<br />
administrations.<br />
Mid-term evaluation assesses the effectiveness and efficiency of the agri-environmental measure by looking at the first<br />
measurable results 23 and the correctness of measures implementation. It offers the opportunity to eventually reorient the<br />
objectives and tools of the measures.<br />
Ex-post evaluation has to assess both the effectiveness and efficiency of the implementation of the agri-environmental<br />
measure.<br />
For these last two types the evaluation of effectiveness and efficiency is the basis of the evaluation process and has to be<br />
carried out by independent advisors, local administrators and Commission services.<br />
23<br />
Please note that it maybe often the case that some results would materialise only time after the agri-environmental<br />
measure implementation.<br />
135
3.7.2.1 Effectiveness<br />
In order to assess the effectiveness of the agri-environmental measures, farmers, local administrators,<br />
independent evaluators and Commission officers, should be supplied with the necessary information<br />
regarding environmental objectives to be reached by the agri-environmental measure and against which to<br />
compare and evaluate the results of agri-environmental measure implementation.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>AEMBAC</strong> methodology has been developed in a way that facilitates the evaluation of effectiveness on<br />
achieving agri-environmental targets. In fact by following the environmental problems/opportunities oriented<br />
approach of <strong>AEMBAC</strong>, already in phase one, state indicators describing environmental function<br />
performance were defined, their actual and EMR values assessed (to be used as a baseline for monitoring),<br />
the impacts resulting from local agricultural system were identified, and the correlation with agricultural<br />
pressures envisaged. Building upon this information the agri-environmental policy targets and measures were<br />
proposed in Step 6, in such a way that they were supposed to reduce the negative gap between actual value of<br />
state indicators and their EMR values (negative impacts) or enhance further the positive gap between EMR<br />
and actual values (positive impacts).<br />
So, for instance, starting from a current situation ranking Tier –1, if the policy target for the agrienvironmental<br />
measure of example 1 (see section above) was set at Tier 0 after the first 5 years of<br />
implementation, and Tier +1 after ten years of implementation, evaluators would automatically have the<br />
intensity of the pressure and the envisaged correlated impact against which to make their evaluation of the<br />
achievement of the environmental targets.<br />
Tier +2 = Presence of high positive impact (red)= 20% of existing UAA reconverted to (semi-)natural<br />
habitat<br />
Tier +1 = Presence of positive impact (yellow) = 5% of existing UAA reconverted to (semi-)natural<br />
habitat<br />
Tier 0 = respect of EMR = agriculture ecological sustainability = no impacts or only low<br />
positive/negative impacts exerted by agricultural practices = field margins with hedgerows 3 meters wide<br />
for at least a length equal to 30 % of existing total field margins in the area,<br />
Tier -1 = Presence of negative impact exerted by agricultural pressures (yellow) = current situation =<br />
field margins with hedgerows 3 meters wide for at least a length equal to 10 % of existing total field<br />
margins in the area<br />
Tier –2 = Presence of high negative impact (red) = very sporadic field margins with hedgerows<br />
It is important to point out the advantages that the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> methodology offers for the assessment of<br />
effectiveness in the case of agri-environmental measures implementation on the following points:<br />
• Identification of indicators to be monitored;<br />
• Definition of locally tailored baselines against which to evaluate the effectiveness of AEMs proposed; 24<br />
24 It is worth also pointing out how the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> methodology will facilitate comparisons to be carried out in the evaluation process<br />
following the three main types of comparisons proposed by the Commission (European Commission, STAR Document VI/12004/00<br />
<strong>Final</strong> and STAR document VI/43517/02):<br />
• Temporal: having selected the agro-environmental targets on the basis of the analysis of positive/negative impacts detected<br />
as gap between actual and EMR values for relevant indicators, allows to have a clear idea on what is the starting situation<br />
against which to compare the results achieved after 5, 10 or more years of implementation;<br />
• Counterfactual situation: having identified relevant state indicators to measure the performance of the environmental<br />
function of interest, allows to measure the same indicators also in farms not enrolling in the agro-environmental scheme<br />
and compare the results achieved in those farms who instead are implementing the measure.<br />
• Benchmarking: having assessed Environmental Minimum Requirements values for relevant state indicators allows a direct<br />
comparisons with the values of the same indicators after agri-environmental measure implementation, so providing a direct<br />
measure of its effectiveness both at farm and area levels. Moreover this comparison will also serve to assess the possible<br />
presence of exogenous factors in changing the value of state indicators to be evaluated (see below in effects<br />
contextualisation), or if this would not be the case and the measurement of their actual or EMR values was not assessed<br />
with sufficient scientific precision, it will provide useful new scientific information to re-orient the analysis.<br />
136
• Whereas baselines were determined without enough scientific precision because of lack of data, the<br />
<strong>AEMBAC</strong> methodology will signal the need for further scientific research to be carried out on specific<br />
topics;<br />
• Definition of objectives to be reached and evaluated; and<br />
• Transparent logic on how those objectives have been defined and evaluation carried out;<br />
<strong>The</strong> socio-economic effectiveness of the agri-environmental measures also has to be assessed. <strong>The</strong>se impacts<br />
are usually called collateral effects (European Commission, document VI/12004/00 <strong>Final</strong>). <strong>The</strong> evaluation of<br />
these aspects concerns the analysis of combined effects (direct and indirect) resulting from the<br />
implementation of the agri-environmental measures:<br />
• Regarding the agricultural data, the results achieved after a certain time span of implementation have to<br />
be checked and interpreted against the envisaged changes on agricultural systems such as productivity<br />
and reduced yields, reduced inputs, land use conversion, etc. (<strong>The</strong>se aspects were already taken into<br />
account in general in previous Step 6).<br />
• Regarding socio-economic data, the results achieved after a certain time span of implementation have to<br />
be checked and interpreted against the envisaged changes. <strong>The</strong> aspects to be evaluated depend on the<br />
agri-environmental measure implemented and concern aspects such as employment, environmental<br />
growing awareness, income, competitiveness and markets, etc. (<strong>The</strong>se aspects were already taken into<br />
account in general in previous Step 6)<br />
Other very important issues to be considered in assessing the feasibility of the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> methodology for<br />
evaluation procedures were:<br />
1. Synergies/conflicts in achieving the agri-environmental policy targets with other agricultural and<br />
rural development policies, and other socio-economic sectors’ policies:<br />
When proceeding with the evaluation of effectiveness of the agri-environmental measure, it is important to<br />
acknowledge also the possible effects that other factors could have on the achievement of the policy targets.<br />
In fact the agri-environmental measures will not be implemented in a vacuum, but rather in very complex<br />
realities where other factors such as different policies operate. Some of these factors capable of influencing<br />
the effectiveness of agri-environmental measures implementation have been dealt with in Steps 1, 3 and 6.<br />
2. Collateral benefits on environmental multifunctionality<br />
By the same token it may be the case that the results of the implementation of an agri-environmental measure<br />
for a specific environmental function, would bring also benefits to the performance of other environmental<br />
functions. This could be the case, for instance, if the maintenance of a semi-natural habitat for the<br />
performance of the refugium function, simultaneously brought benefits to the performance of the aesthetic<br />
quality of the landscape (as it is in the two examples above in section 3.7.1), or to the soil erosion function<br />
and so on. In this case to evaluate only the targets achieved for the refugium function would underestimate<br />
the real benefits of the implementation of the agri-environmental measure.<br />
It was therefore appropriate for researchers to indicate what were other environmental multifunctional<br />
benefits which could be expected to materialise by the eventual implementation of the agri-environmental<br />
measures proposed (e.g. planting hedgerows on hill slopes will enhance biodiversity and reduce the water<br />
run off). (<strong>The</strong>se aspects were already taken into account in general in previous section 3.4.5)<br />
3.7.2.2 Efficiency<br />
Efficiency concerns the analysis of the most important elements of the measure implemented through the<br />
relationships between key outputs (possibly results) and the inputs necessary to produce them (EU Document<br />
137
VI/43517/02). It is worth pointing out that as for effectiveness, also for efficiency the evaluation could be<br />
meaningful only once the agri-environmental measure has fully expressed its results.<br />
It was suggested to separate the analysis of the efficiency in achieving the objectives of the agrienvironmental<br />
measure from the efficiency in administering it. It was considered important to assess the unit<br />
of costs for both the above-suggested analyses, and compare these with a suitable baseline, but lack of data<br />
impaired this analysis.<br />
As regards efficiency in achieving the agri-environmental objectives, the ideal benchmark against which to<br />
make comparisons is the costs resulting from the implementation of other measures to achieve the same<br />
objective. A probable feasible benchmark for efficiency comparisons would be the cost unit of agrienvironmental<br />
measures already implemented in the area. <strong>The</strong>se costs however would have to be weighted<br />
against the importance of the results achieved. This is probably a tricky point because it is unlikely that in the<br />
same area the existing agri-environmental measure would have presented measurable results as it is instead<br />
proposed for those developed through the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> methodology (i.e. the measures proposed are more in<br />
depth and targeted and it is more likely that their unit costs would be higher, but on the other hand, their<br />
effectiveness would also probably be greater).<br />
As regards efficiency of the administering of the agri-environmental measure (this point is treated in more<br />
detail in section 3.7.4), the cost unit could probably be measured against the benchmark of the average<br />
administrative cost unit of other public policy implemented by the same administration. It must, however, be<br />
borne in mind, that analysis of efficiency also in this case should take into account the effectiveness of the<br />
implementation of results (more effective policies would probably have higher administering costs).<br />
Conclusions on the feasibility of the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> methodology for the evaluation of the agri-environmental<br />
measure have been drawn out linking the results on terms of effectiveness and efficiency.<br />
3.7.3 Studying procedures for drawing up contracts for the supply of environmental goods and<br />
services by farmers<br />
On the basis of the agri-environmental measures which were identified in section 3.6, and fine tuned taking<br />
into account stakeholders points of view, it was then possible to identify the procedures for drawing up<br />
contracts to deliver agri-environmental goods and services for the local situation.<br />
Following up the three approaches identified in section 6.5, the following situations regarding the need for<br />
issuing contracts to deliver the agri-environmental goods and services were envisaged:<br />
Command and control:<br />
No needs for contracts but of<br />
regulations or laws (e.g. EU Nitrate<br />
Directive)<br />
Fig. 34 Agri-environmental policy instruments<br />
Delivering Agri-environmental goods<br />
and services<br />
Quasi-market:<br />
This type involves contracting<br />
between governments and farmers<br />
(e.g. UK Countryside Stewardship<br />
Scheme)<br />
138<br />
Market:<br />
This type involves an exchange of agrienvironmental<br />
goods and services<br />
between Producers and Consumers<br />
through market mechanisms (e.g.<br />
Organic production)
As shown in figure 34, in the case that from Section 6.5, the approach selected to deliver the specific agrienvironmental<br />
good or service (i.e. the instrument identified to achieve the policy target) would have been<br />
one of command and control, it was obvious that no contract between governments and farmers would have<br />
been needed. Similarly also for the case that the approach selected was that of using the market mechanism,<br />
contracts between governments and farmers would not have been necessary (some caution regarding this has<br />
to be pointed out because it may be the case that certain quality standards or codes of practice to operate in<br />
the market would be set up by agreements between Institutions and Farmers Associations as is the case for<br />
organic product labelling).<br />
On the contrary, if the approach selected to deliver the environmental good and/or service could be included<br />
in the category of quasi-market then a situation where farmers act as suppliers of the agri-environmental<br />
goods or services and governments act as consumers (i.e. representing the interests of the client “public<br />
society”) would have materialised, so requiring some type of contract to be issued.<br />
<strong>The</strong>refore in the case of quasi-market, the most suitable type of contracts for the “purchase” by governments<br />
of the specific agri-environmental good or service delivered by farmers in the local situation was studied.<br />
In carrying out this analysis, some crucial aspects in defining the most suitable type of contract were pointed<br />
out by looking at the “what, where, who and when” characteristics of the object of transaction between<br />
farmers and public administrations.<br />
What: Starting from what was the agri-environmental measure defined in Step 6 (e.g. planting hedgerows,<br />
reducing fertilisers or pesticide use, maintaining a semi-natural pasture or a stone wall, etc.), it was necessary<br />
to define clearly the object of the transaction and how this had to be written down in the contract. This could<br />
range for example from just a constraint on quantity and quality of pesticides to be used or simply on not<br />
cultivating some hectares on the farm, to more complex and integrated operations such as respecting specific<br />
rotations and mowing operations in the fields.<br />
Depending on the complexity of the operation also some training hours could be envisaged in the contracts<br />
beside a well-defined list of undertakings to be carried out at specific times.<br />
For each operation requiring the farmers to do or deliver something, the corresponding payment had to be<br />
stated clearly in the contract, linking it to the appropriate unit of measurement (e.g. Euros per meter length of<br />
hedgerows 3 meters wide planted).<br />
Also the routine and occasional controls of compliance had to be considered in the contracts, envisaging the<br />
availability of farmers to collaborate, for instance by keeping an environmental accounting book (see section<br />
3.6.7 above) and allowing inspectors within their farms.<br />
Penalties for non-compliance also should have been clearly stated and linked to the object of transaction.<br />
Eventual further conditions for enrolling in the agri-environmental measure (such as following an<br />
environmentally friendly general behaviour and respecting existing relevant legislation), as well as<br />
specifications to collateral activities ineligible for enrolling, must be stated in the contracts.<br />
Where (on-farm): depending on the spatial characteristics of the agri-environmental measure (zonal or<br />
horizontal measures) identified in Step 6, and of the good or service to be exchanged, contracts had to<br />
address where the agri-environmental measure was to be implemented within the farm. In fact some<br />
measures may interest specific sites (e.g. contracts addressing only specific ecosystems such as riparian ones<br />
or planting hedgerows at fields margins) or on the contrary the whole farm area (e.g. reduce tilling operation<br />
or fertilizers-use).<br />
Who: Depending on the social characteristics of the local community it could have been possible to deal<br />
with a group or associations of farmers (e.g. the French system of Contracts Terretoriaux d’Exploitation)<br />
instead of with single farmers. Clearly the former case would allow savings on transaction costs given that<br />
the government agency would deal with fewer actors instead of many) and probably also savings on<br />
compliance controlling costs, being part of these would be passed on to the farmers association side.<br />
When: In the contract it was also important that the time of implementation of the agri-environmental<br />
139
measure would have been put forward explicitly as well as the time of the operations to be undertaken and<br />
the time of payments to be done.<br />
For each agri-environmental measure to be implemented through the quasi-market approach, researchers<br />
were asked to develop the following contract format type:<br />
Tab. 57 – Agri-environmental measure’s contract type<br />
Agri-environmental<br />
measure title:<br />
Implementation<br />
requirements to<br />
achieve the desired<br />
tier:<br />
Object of transaction<br />
(what):<br />
Agricultural practice<br />
required<br />
(undertakings and/or<br />
constraints):<br />
Eventual further<br />
collateral<br />
conditions/practices<br />
for enrolling<br />
Compensation paid<br />
for income foregone<br />
(per meter/square<br />
meter/ha etc):<br />
Payments for<br />
additional costs<br />
incurred (per<br />
meter/square meter/ha<br />
etc):<br />
Incentive paid (per<br />
meter/square meter/ha<br />
etc):<br />
Implementation site<br />
(where): (whole farm<br />
or specific sites)<br />
Contracting subject<br />
(who):<br />
(single farmer or<br />
groups)<br />
Time plan of<br />
implementation<br />
(When):<br />
Inspections on farms<br />
Penalties for noncompliance<br />
Relevant<br />
Environmental<br />
legislation related to<br />
the AEM<br />
Other<br />
Tier –1<br />
(to be considered only<br />
if politically<br />
determined “Good<br />
Farming Practice” is<br />
coincident with Tier –<br />
2 despite this not<br />
being ecologically<br />
sustainable)<br />
Tier 0<br />
(to be considered only<br />
if politically<br />
determined “Good<br />
Farming Practice” is<br />
coincident with Tier –<br />
1 despite this not<br />
being ecologically<br />
sustainable)<br />
140<br />
Tier +1<br />
(real ecological<br />
supply of<br />
environmental goods<br />
and services)<br />
Tier +2<br />
(real ecological<br />
supply of<br />
environmental goods<br />
and service)
Box 61 - <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Issuing contracts: example from the Jahna study area, Germany<br />
<strong>The</strong> most important kind of intervention for achieving environmental improvements that are above GAP is the payment<br />
of premiums in combination with supportive measures such as information and advisory services or the provision of<br />
relevant tools (fertiliser planning software; calculation sheets).<br />
Typical examples where incentive payments appear most suitable are the re-conversion of arable land to grassland,<br />
incentives for wider crop rotations and an increase in cropping diversity, incentives for a reduction in field sizes, the<br />
maintenance new biotopes, soil conservation tillage, the lowering of agri-chemical use and the establishment of buffer<br />
strips.<br />
In all these examples, the necessary adjustments go beyond to what is required in regulations or laws (e.g. the EU<br />
Nitrate Directive and its national implementation). Ordinary market mechanisms again will not work alone because in<br />
all these instances we are dealing with public goods (i.e. they are not operational in private markets). Organic farming is<br />
an example where a market mechanism significantly contributes to achieving environmental improvements (because<br />
consumers pay more for organic products and this in turn leads to some compensation of the higher costs of organic<br />
production).<br />
It follows that we are clearly in a situation of a quasi-market that requires contracting between governments and<br />
farmers. In this situation the farmers have the role of suppliers of agri-environmental goods or services and the<br />
government represents the interest of public society.<br />
<strong>The</strong> relationship between the farmer and the government is expressed in a contract that is to be issued. <strong>The</strong> contents of<br />
the contracts must comprise the kind of management services and environmental goods to be delivered, the spatial<br />
characteristics of the goods and services (e.g. a particular field, the entire utilised agricultural area, the agricultural<br />
landscape at communal level), the precise definition of the contract parties (commune, district, state on the one hand,<br />
and farmer or farmers group on the other), and finally, the time of implementation and the time of payments. Table 60<br />
provides an example from the Jahna study area.<br />
Tab. 58 - Specification of the contracts in the Jahna study area: (1) Lowering agri-chemical use and (2)<br />
Establishment of buffer strips (two examples)<br />
Aspect Kind of information Example (1) Example (2)<br />
What Kind of management services Lowering agri-chemical use<br />
and environmental goods to<br />
be delivered<br />
Establishment of buffer strips<br />
Corresponding payment 114 € per hectare and year 92 € per hectare and year<br />
Documentation and control Fertiliser accounts and field records; Map and field records; random field<br />
receipts for fertiliser purchases visits (checks) by inspectors from local<br />
administration or accredited advisors<br />
/agencies<br />
Where Spatial characteristics of the Particular field or the entire utilised Along rivers and valuable biotopes; to be<br />
goods and services<br />
agricultural area; to be clearly clearly specified in map<br />
specified in farm level field parcel<br />
register and administration level<br />
IACS<br />
Participation is only possible if land is<br />
located in assigned regions<br />
Who Precise definition of the Individual farmer and Federal state Individual farmer (or farmer group, e.g.<br />
contract parties<br />
(Saxony) represented by the regional Landschaftspflegeverband) and Federal<br />
administration (agricultural office) state (Saxony) represented by the<br />
regional administration (agricultural<br />
When Time of implementation and Cropping season (with<br />
office) or water authorities<br />
the Calendar year or, preferably, multi-<br />
time of payments<br />
possibility of multi-annual annual contracts; payment after contract<br />
contracts); payment after contract has been signed<br />
has been signed<br />
Source: Karlheinz Knickel (subcontractor); IACS: Integrated Administration and Control System<br />
141
3.7.4 Analysis of administrative and transaction costs.<br />
Depending on the type of instruments used in the agri-environmental measure, on the ownerships of rights of<br />
resources use (e.g. to pollute or to not be polluted), on the level where “good farming practices” references<br />
are politically set in order to be entitled to receive agri-environmental payments (e.g. coincident or not with<br />
the ecological sustainability level for the environmental performance set at tier 0 in <strong>AEMBAC</strong>), on the level<br />
of asymmetric information, etc., different administrative and transactions costs may arise.<br />
For each type of approach used (i.e. command and control, quasi-market and market) the detailed assessment<br />
of the fixed-variable entities of relative private-public costs (i.e. from the side of the farmer and of the<br />
institution) amongst the following administrative and transaction issues was necessary 25 :<br />
Agri-environmental measure design: these costs refer to scientific research and information gathering<br />
associated costs, integration of ecological and socio-economic information, definition of agri-environmental<br />
measures, etc.;<br />
Application to EU for approval of agri-environmental measures proposed and reporting (quasi-market 26<br />
approach): these costs refer to the drafting of the proposal, submitting to EU and following the process with<br />
EU liaison Officers, etc.;<br />
Gathering/giving information and advice from/to farmers, institutions and general public (command and<br />
control, quasi-market and market approaches): <strong>The</strong>se costs refer to consultation with farmers,<br />
environmental, consumers associations and the like, on the draft programme, promotion of the measure (farm<br />
visits and publicity, extension services, training to farmers), information gathering about the agrienvironmental<br />
good and/or service in quasi-markets and markets 27 approaches, etc.;<br />
Dealing with applications (quasi-market approach): these costs refer to provide assistance to applicants,<br />
gathering applications submitted, examination and approval, etc.;<br />
Contracting and management of payments (quasi-market approach): these costs refer to negotiations with<br />
farmers, administrations and control of payments, etc.<br />
Compliance controlling (command and control, quasi-market and market where standards and certifications<br />
are set up): these costs refers to farm inspections, monitoring by experts by remote sensing, farm<br />
environmental accounting cross checks, etc. (see also wp12);<br />
Evaluation of policy effectiveness (command and control, quasi-market and market approaches): these costs<br />
refer to evaluation of impacts on environmental, agricultural and socio-economic aspects (see wp12), writing<br />
the evaluations reports, etc.<br />
Feedback on policy design and development (command and control, quasi-market and market approaches):<br />
these costs refer to the rethinking of the agri-environmental policy design after implementation has been<br />
evaluated.<br />
For each agri-environmental measure to be dealt with, through one or more of the three types of approaches<br />
proposed (Command and control, quasi-market and market), researchers were asked to assess and comment<br />
in detail on the above administrative and transaction fixed and variable costs 28 , using the table below:<br />
25 Under Reg. (EC) 1257/99 only agri-environmental measures based on voluntary agreements rewarding farmers for providing<br />
environmental goods and services going beyond “Good Farming Practices” are envisaged, and therefore only the approach “quasimarket”,<br />
in principle would need such analysis. However, in <strong>AEMBAC</strong> it was decided that also other types of instruments would be<br />
considered to deliver agri-environmental goods and services (such as command and control and markets), and therefore the costs<br />
assessment has to be carried out also for these.<br />
26 Following the above this kind of expenditure would occur only when local government has to submit application to EU (i.e. quasi-<br />
market approach).<br />
27 Please note that gathering information costs would be incurred in also privately by farmers both in quasi-market and market<br />
options and by consumers in market option.<br />
28 Fixed costs: permanent personnel/hours, durable equipment, office rent, overheads, personnel training hours, travel costs, etc.<br />
Variable costs: Temporary personnel employed (e.g. Consultants)/hours, extra equipment hired, extra office space, overheads,<br />
personnel training hours, travel costs, etc.<br />
142
Tab. 59 – Administrative and transaction costs<br />
Agri-environmental measures<br />
title:<br />
Agri-environmental measure approaches (Assessment of the costs for the feasible<br />
instruments)<br />
Administrative and Command and control Quasi-market<br />
Market<br />
transaction costs<br />
(Public costs)<br />
(Public and private costs) (Private and Public costs)<br />
Agri-environmental measure Fixed costs:<br />
Fixed costs:<br />
design<br />
Variable costs:<br />
Variable costs:<br />
Application to EU for approval<br />
Fixed costs:<br />
of agri-environmental measures<br />
proposed and reporting<br />
Variable costs:<br />
Gathering/giving information Fixed costs:<br />
Fixed costs:<br />
and advice from/to farmers,<br />
institutions and general public<br />
Variable costs:<br />
Variable costs:<br />
Dealing with applications Fixed costs:<br />
Variable costs:<br />
Contracting and management<br />
Fixed costs:<br />
of payments<br />
Variable costs:<br />
Compliance controlling Fixed costs:<br />
Fixed costs:<br />
Variable costs:<br />
Variable costs:<br />
Monitoring policy effectiveness Fixed costs:<br />
and evaluation<br />
Variable costs:<br />
Feedback on policy design and Fixed costs:<br />
development<br />
Variable costs:<br />
Total administrative and Fixed costs:<br />
transaction costs<br />
Variable costs:<br />
Fixed costs:<br />
Variable costs:<br />
Fixed costs:<br />
Variable costs:<br />
Fixed costs:<br />
Variable costs:<br />
143<br />
Fixed costs:<br />
Variable costs:<br />
Fixed costs:<br />
Variable costs:<br />
Checking Market functioning<br />
Fixed costs:<br />
Variable costs:<br />
Fixed costs:<br />
Variable costs:<br />
Fixed costs:<br />
Variable costs:<br />
Fixed costs:<br />
Variable costs:<br />
Box 62 - <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project Analysis of administrative and transaction costs in the Dutch case study,<br />
Netherlands (for references in the box see WU-NL report)<br />
This section aims to quantify the administrative and transaction costs 29 that arise as a consequence of the<br />
implementation of the proposed agri-environmental measures. Transaction costs can be considered as the costs of<br />
running the economic system (Williamson, 1985); goods or services being transferred across a technologically<br />
separable interface (Williamson, 1981). Basically, they comprise costs of information gathering, contract making and<br />
control. In the case of agri-environmental policy, such transactions are organised through the use of contracts, which<br />
have been discussed in section two. <strong>The</strong> presence of transaction costs causes certain transactions not to be carried out,<br />
that otherwise would have been, because costs of these transactions do not outweigh their benefits. This explains the<br />
absence of private markets for agri-environmental goods and public goods in general. Government intervention is<br />
therefore desirable and ‘should be structured to remove impediments to voluntary transactions, especially by reducing<br />
transaction costs’ (Coase, 1960).<br />
As a result, when transaction costs are decreased, resource allocation will become more efficient. This decrease<br />
demands an adaptation of the institutional arrangements that cover the relevant resource. In the case of agrienvironmental<br />
policy this implies that the contracts used should be set up in such a way that transaction costs are<br />
minimised. However, the issue is not to minimise transaction costs solely, but to minimise the total costs of achieving a<br />
specific objective. When only transaction costs are minimised, the precision of a contract may decrease and the<br />
transaction will be less effective. ‘Hence there is a trade-off to resolve: transaction costs should be optimised jointly<br />
with other costs (namely payments to farmers) to fulfil all the objectives of policy-making’ (Falconer et al., 2001). It<br />
might not be beneficial to decrease transaction costs by for instance cutting on monitoring efforts when the resulting<br />
costs of lost precision are higher (due to an increased number of violations of the terms of contract).<br />
Transaction costs – by their nature – are not incurred by only one party, but instead by both the government and<br />
farmers. Both parties will have to spend time on for instance information gathering and administrative tasks. For this<br />
reason, this analysis of transaction costs includes both farmers’ and government’s transaction costs.<br />
A general problem that we face when estimating transaction costs for the proposed measures is the selection of a<br />
reference situation. When the current situation is chosen as a reference, transaction costs of the proposed measures are<br />
very low, because the complete infrastructure for communication, implementation and monitoring is already in place<br />
29 From here on, when the term ‘transaction costs’ is used, this includes administrative costs as well.
under current regulations. <strong>The</strong> other way around, when the reference situation is one without any agri-environmental<br />
policy, transaction costs would be very high. <strong>The</strong> latter option does not seem to be very realistic although it offers a<br />
better insight into the absolute level of transaction costs of different policy measures. Here, we will focus on the first<br />
option, assuming that the following presentation of transaction costs of current regulations suffices to have a good<br />
overview of the absolute level of transaction costs.<br />
Mowing dates<br />
Farmers’ transaction costs: <strong>The</strong> mowing dates measure is based on contracts as they are currently applied in the SAN<br />
regulation. Farmers’ transaction costs of the SAN regulation have been studied by Polman (2002). In his survey among<br />
farmers in the Netherlands he assessed and monetarised the amount of time spent on contract-making before and after<br />
concluding a contract. This is one of four methods of determining transaction costs, described by McCann & Easter<br />
(2002). Tables 42 and 43 provide an overview of the results. Using the salary level from the collective agreement for<br />
the agricultural sector, approximately EUR 20/hour, it is possible to calculate transaction costs to the farmer. Onetime<br />
transaction costs equal EUR 180, while annual transaction costs equal EUR 50 (Polman, 2002).<br />
<strong>The</strong>se results are slightly contrasting with a large survey among farmers in the Netherlands by Hilhorst et al. (2003)<br />
who estimate onetime transaction costs at EUR 214 and annual transaction costs at EUR 216. Although both studies<br />
have made use of the method of estimating the opportunity costs of time spent on transacting, especially the annual<br />
transaction costs differ quite a bit, see tables 62 and 63.<br />
Tab. 60 - Farmers’ onetime transaction costs of the current SAN regulation<br />
Category Average time involved<br />
(hours/contract)<br />
Costs according to<br />
Polman (2002)<br />
(EUR/contract)<br />
144<br />
Costs according to<br />
Hilhorst et al. (2003)<br />
(EUR/contract)<br />
Average<br />
Information gathering 1.8 36.00 N/A 39.40<br />
Analysis of possibilities 1.9 38.00 N/A 41.58<br />
Analysis of opportunity<br />
costs<br />
1.0 20.00 N/A 21.89<br />
Negotiation and 2.2 44.00 48.16<br />
discussion<br />
{214.00<br />
<strong>Final</strong>ising contract 2.1 42.00<br />
45.97<br />
Total onetime<br />
180.00 214.00 197.00<br />
transaction costs<br />
Source: Elaboration on Polman (2002) and Hilhorst et al. (2003)<br />
Tab. 61 - Farmers’ annual transaction costs of the current SAN regulation<br />
Category Average time involved<br />
(hours/contract)<br />
Transaction costs<br />
(EUR/contract)<br />
according to<br />
Polman (2002)<br />
Transaction costs<br />
(EUR/contract)<br />
according to<br />
Hilhorst et al. (2003)<br />
Average<br />
Administration of 0.8 16.00 42.56<br />
results<br />
Administration<br />
labour input<br />
of 1.2 24.00<br />
{216.00<br />
63.84<br />
Consultation 0.5 10.00 N/A 26.60<br />
Total annual<br />
50.00 216.00 133.00<br />
transaction costs<br />
Source: Elaboration on Polman (2002) and Hilhorst et al. (2003)<br />
<strong>The</strong> last column in tables 62 and 63 shows the average transaction costs of both surveys. <strong>The</strong> distribution of average<br />
transaction costs over different categories is done proportionally according to Polman’s (2002) distribution. For reasons<br />
of practicality, in the remainder of this report we will use these average values for both the onetime and annual<br />
transaction costs (last column in tables 62 and 63). From tables 62 and 63, we know that farmers’ transaction costs<br />
equal EUR 197 onetime costs and EUR 133 annual costs. Using the current management contract duration of six years,<br />
it is possible to calculate the total transaction costs of concluding one contract: EUR 995 (EUR 197 + 6 times EUR 133)<br />
divided by 6 is EUR 166.<br />
<strong>The</strong> increase in farmers’ transaction costs – as a result of implementation of the proposed measure – is solely based on<br />
an increase of the number of participating farmers from 10% to 50%, see WP 9. <strong>The</strong> transaction costs per farmer are not<br />
expected to change, because the proposed ‘mowing practices-measure’ fits well into the current SAN regulation. For
this reason, it is also no problem to use the data from tables 42 and 43 to calculate the additional transaction costs. An<br />
increase of 40% of total farmers (40% times 537 is 215) will have to switch to the new measure. This implies an<br />
increase of farmers’ transaction costs by 215 times EUR 166 is EUR 35,690.<br />
Government’s transaction costs: <strong>The</strong> government, being the contract-making party, covers a substantial part of total<br />
transaction costs. Transaction costs to the government of agri-environment schemes have been studied by Falconer &<br />
Whitby (1999) in a broad survey covering eight European countries. Although this study does not cover the<br />
Netherlands, it is possible to draw some general conclusions from the study. First, the transaction costs per agreement<br />
made fall with time over the period since scheme implementation. Second, there exist economies of scale in agrienvironmental<br />
scheme administration.<br />
A comparable evaluation of transaction costs to the government in the Netherlands of the current agri-environment<br />
scheme has not yet been conducted. It would have been useful to perform this evaluation for the <strong>AEMBAC</strong>-project, but<br />
this was not possible due to time and means constraints. However, a recent evaluation of the Dutch programme for<br />
nature conservation can serve as a baseline to assess the level of transaction costs (Hilhorst et al., 2003). <strong>The</strong> level of<br />
transaction costs that is mentioned in this study covers both contracts for agri-environmental measures as well as<br />
contracts for conventional nature conservation. <strong>The</strong>refore we have to use the rough assumption that transaction costs<br />
for both types of contracts are equal per hectare and calculate the percentage of total transaction costs that is<br />
attributable to agri-environmental contracts (column three of table 64). Calculated transaction costs are presented in<br />
table 64. Transaction costs of the Dutch programme are comparable with other European schemes. Obviously, one<br />
would expect a decrease in transaction costs over time, because the number of participants will stabilise. Nevertheless,<br />
it is clear from table 64 that transaction costs have risen rapidly in the second year.<br />
Tab. 62 - Government’s transaction costs of the current SAN regulation<br />
Year Total transaction<br />
costs (EUR)<br />
Share of transaction costs<br />
attributable to agrienvironment<br />
schemes (%)<br />
Number of agrienvironmental<br />
contracts<br />
2000 5,000,000 17.6 1,968 447<br />
2001 7,900,000 43.3 3,512 974<br />
2002 11,900,000 26.9 5,073 631<br />
Source: Elaboration on Hilhorst et al. (2003)<br />
145<br />
Estimated annual<br />
transaction costs<br />
(EUR/contract)<br />
Causes for the high level of transaction costs and the rapid increase in the second year are found in both the available<br />
data and some explanatory circumstances (Hilhorst et al., 2003), see WP 13 for details.<br />
Estimating the change in government’s transaction costs is, for simplicity reasons, based on the assumption that 50% of<br />
government’s transaction costs is fixed and 50% is variable (50% times EUR 631 is EUR 315), see table 64). <strong>The</strong><br />
increase in government’s transaction costs – as a result of implementation of the proposed measure – is solely based on<br />
an increase of the number of participating farmers from 10% to 50%, see WP 9. Increasing the number of participants<br />
to 50% of the total number of farms, the following calculation can be made. <strong>The</strong> increase of government’s transaction<br />
costs of the proposed measure equals 285 (see WP 13) times EUR 315 is EUR 67,725, see table 65.<br />
Total transaction costs: <strong>The</strong> hereunder table provides an overview of the change in transaction costs as a result of<br />
implementing the proposed measure in mowing practices.<br />
Tab. 63 - Transaction costs of the proposed measure in mowing practices<br />
Total annual<br />
transaction costs per<br />
contract (EUR)<br />
Additional number of<br />
farms participating<br />
Farmers’ transaction costs 166 285 47,310<br />
Government’s<br />
transaction costs<br />
variable 315 285 89,775<br />
Total administrative and<br />
transaction costs<br />
481 30 285 137,085<br />
Source: Elaboration on Polman (2002), Hilhorst et al. (2003) and this report<br />
Additional transaction costs in<br />
Northwest Overijssel (EUR)<br />
30 In the Netherlands, the agricultural sector takes up 2,326,047 ha of agricultural land and includes 89,580 farms (CBS, 2003). Thus,<br />
the average farm size is approximately 26.0 ha. Approximately 62,843 ha of this land is managed under SAN regulation, involving<br />
5,073 contracts (Hilhorst et al., 2003). Hence, the average number of hectares per contract equals 12.4 ha. Taking into account that<br />
annual transaction costs per contract equal EUR 481, average national transaction costs per ha equal approximately EUR 38.8 for the<br />
mowing practices measure.
<strong>The</strong> increase in total transaction costs as a result of the proposed measure equals EUR 137,085 of which almost 2/3 is<br />
incurred by the government. This number should be used with care, especially because the estimated government’s<br />
transaction costs are solely based on the very rough assumption that 50% of transaction costs is variable (e.g. costs<br />
related to contracting and monitoring). <strong>The</strong> increase in farmers and government’s transaction costs – as a result of<br />
implementation of the proposed measure – is solely based on an increase of the number of participating farmers from<br />
10% to 50%. Hence, both farmers’ and government’s transaction costs do not show an increase of these costs per<br />
contract as a result of the proposed measure.<br />
3.7.5 Analysis of overall economic and financial aspects for the local implementation of agrienvironmental<br />
measures.<br />
In this section, the assessment of the overall direct, indirect and induced costs and benefits related to<br />
development and implementation of proposed agri-environmental measures, was carried out. Whereas it<br />
would have been difficult to assess the quantitative order of magnitude of benefits, it was suggested to<br />
indicate and comment in detail on the qualitative nature of these.<br />
For each agri-environmental measure proposed for the relative case study, and considering the minimum<br />
critical mass of enrolment necessary to make AEM effective in delivering the agri-environmental goods and<br />
services, researchers assessed and commented the following orders of economic costs and benefits:<br />
Costs<br />
• Total amount of compensation costs for reduced yields and other foregone income, required<br />
undertakings operation, land use conversion and so on;<br />
• Total amount of incentives envisaged to enhance the uptake of agri-environmental measures;<br />
• Other indirect and induced costs according to the local situation; and<br />
• Administrative and Transaction costs (see section above).<br />
Benefits<br />
• Agri-environmental goods and services provided (i.e. beyond tier 0);<br />
• Agri-environmental negative impacts which would arise if not dealt with through agri-environmental<br />
measure including also command and control based AEM (i.e. actual and foreseen impacts below<br />
tier 0);<br />
• Reduced production costs (e.g. reduced inputs used);<br />
• Diversification of the rural economies;<br />
• Enhanced scientific research and ecological knowledge; and<br />
• Other indirect or induced benefits according to the local situation.<br />
Comments on the overall costs and benefits related to the implementation of the measure were to be included<br />
here.<br />
Box. 63 - <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project: Costs and benefits of agri-environmental measures implementation in the<br />
case studies from Germany<br />
In this section the direct, indirect and induced costs of the proposed agri-environmental measures are contrasted with<br />
the expected benefits. Since it is not possible to assess the benefits in monetary terms, they are described in qualitative<br />
terms.<br />
<strong>The</strong> relations between costs and benefits are discussed on the basis of a comparison with the present AEP in Saxony.<br />
<strong>The</strong> main questions asked are where there are additional costs and benefits or reduced costs and benefits. A more<br />
quantitative assessment would require additional data that in general are not available.<br />
In Table 64 the expected changes in costs of implementation of AE measures are given on the basis of a comparison<br />
with the present AEP in Saxony. Reference is made to compensation costs (reduced yields, other income foregone,<br />
undertaking costs), the incentives that are to be paid to encourage uptake, administrative and transaction costs, and other<br />
indirect and induced cost items specific to the local situation.<br />
146
Tab. 64 - Comparison of the expected changes in costs of AE measures implementation as compared with the<br />
costs of the present AEP in Saxony<br />
Cost aspect 'New' AEP in comparison with existing AEP<br />
Total amount of compensation<br />
costs for reduced yields and other<br />
foregone income<br />
Total amount of incentives<br />
envisaged to enhance AE measures<br />
uptake;<br />
Other indirect and induced costs<br />
• additional information<br />
• additional marketing<br />
schemes<br />
Administrative and transaction<br />
costs<br />
• administration<br />
• compliance control<br />
• evaluation<br />
It is expected that the total amount of compensation costs could be reduced<br />
by 15-20% as compared with present levels of compensation. <strong>The</strong> decrease<br />
is achieved by a more precise targeting of measures and the renunciation of<br />
measures that have little positive environmental benefits. In the past,<br />
regions with higher uptake often had less intensive production systems<br />
already before the introduction of the schemes. a<br />
<strong>The</strong> total amount of incentives is expected to decrease slightly in line with<br />
the total amount of compensation costs (the assumption is that a maximum<br />
of 20% of compensation for reduced yields and other foregone income can<br />
be added as incentive element and that this is sufficient). It is also taken<br />
into account that cross-compliance regulations will substantially increase<br />
farmers motivation to participate in AEM<br />
It is estimated that the costs of additional information gathering and<br />
processing could increase by as much as 30-50%. <strong>The</strong> main reason for this<br />
increase is the more precise targeting if AEM.<br />
<strong>The</strong> costs of additional marketing schemes can not be estimated because<br />
more precise analysis would be needed. It is expected, however, that a<br />
substantial proportion of these costs can be covered by the GAK (Federal<br />
level RDP) and the Saxon RDP (with co-financing from the EU, Reg.<br />
1257/99)<br />
Total administrative and transaction costs per contract were estimated to be<br />
at least 250 - 350 € per contract. It is estimated that this is 40-60% higher<br />
than costs at present. <strong>The</strong> main reason for this increase is the more precise<br />
targeting if AEM, the more stringent compliance controls that should be<br />
envisaged and the increased emphasis on providing AE consultations and<br />
AE advisory services for farmers<br />
Source: Karlheinz Knickel (subcontractor); a Knickel & Schramek (1999); Knickel et al. (2000)<br />
Table 65 gives a breakdown of the benefits of implementing AEMs and a comparison with the present AEP in Saxony.<br />
Reference is made to the AE goods and services provided, the negative AE impacts that are avoided because the AEMs<br />
are being implemented, the reduced production costs, the expected positive impacts on the diversification of the rural<br />
economies, the enhanced research and ecological knowledge, and other indirect or induced benefits according to the<br />
particular situation in Saxony.<br />
<strong>The</strong> main additional benefits that are expected are: First, the measures are more precisely targeted at the particular<br />
agricultural and production structures as well as the particular AE situation and problems. It is expected that this will<br />
lead to a very considerable increase in direct and longer-term environmental benefits. <strong>The</strong> main criticism against present<br />
schemes is that many AEMs are insufficiently targeted. Closely related with that, uptake in intensively used regions,<br />
with greater proportions of fertile arable land, tends to be relatively low. In particular, measures which require<br />
significant adjustments, and/or a significant level of investment, find less acceptance. Conversely, the uptake of AE<br />
measures is clearly concentrated in the less favoured areas such as the ULHPL study area where many farms that get<br />
support have production systems that had been extensive even before the introduction of the scheme. Environmental<br />
improvements therefore tend to be small. To improve the schemes it is necessary to target scarce budgets more<br />
carefully.<br />
Second, the positive impact on the diversification of the rural economies. Until now little efforts are being made to<br />
actively construct synergies between a higher level of environmental quality and the development of economic activities<br />
that build on this potential (gastronomy, tourism, leisure businesses) (Knickel, 2001).<br />
147
Tab. 65 - Benefits of implementing AEMs and comparison with the present AEP in Saxony<br />
Cost aspect Existing AEP 'New' AEP<br />
AE goods and Some measures are not sufficiently targeted at <strong>The</strong> AEM that have been proposed are<br />
services provided the particular agricultural and production based on a more profound analysis of the<br />
(beyond tier 0) structures as well as the particular AE situation particular AE situation and problems. It is<br />
and problems (e.g. the support given to expected that they will be more effective<br />
environmentally-friendly arable farming / in terms of environmental improvements<br />
integrated arable production (Umweltgerechter<br />
Ackerbau; UA; Grundförderung),<br />
and actual outcomes.<br />
AE negative Longer term changes are not sufficiently taken <strong>The</strong>re are several measures proposed that<br />
impacts avoided into account. An example is the decrease in also address longer term structural<br />
(below tier 0) high-nature-conservation-value systems on improvements: the reduction in field sizes<br />
marginal mountainous land (dry meadows), as and increase in linear landscape<br />
well as in lowland areas (wetlands and structures, the support given to the<br />
seasonally flooded areas). Both have had been maintenance of valuable wet meadows,<br />
decreasing significantly resulted in very the establishment and maintenance of new<br />
substantial reductions in flora and fauna<br />
biotopes, the reintroduction of livestock<br />
and/or raising of livestock density, and the<br />
establishment of buffer strips along<br />
running waters and valuable biotopes<br />
Reduced<br />
<strong>The</strong> AEM lowering of fertiliser application and nutrient surpluses significantly reduce input<br />
production costs costs (costs of fertiliser and joint inputs such as PPP). <strong>The</strong> same applies to the AEM increase in<br />
cropping diversity that will lead to a reduction in PPP use<br />
Diversification of Until now little efforts are being made to Reference has been made to the<br />
the rural actively construct synergies between a higher importance of actively constructing<br />
economies<br />
level of environmental quality and the synergies. <strong>The</strong> more precise linkages,<br />
development of economic activities that build however, have not been examined because<br />
on this potential (gastronomy, tourism, leisure this had been outside the scope of this<br />
businesses) (Knickel, 2001)<br />
project<br />
Enhanced research Accompanying research so far has been It is hoped that the results of this project<br />
and ecological relatively scarce. Continuous AEP improvement have shown that there is a need for<br />
knowledge<br />
is not yet understood as a learning process.<br />
Most available research relates to high-naturevalue<br />
land and not to agriculturally used land<br />
accompanying research.<br />
Other indirect or Income and employment opportunities that can <strong>The</strong> more precise effects could not be<br />
induced benefits be expected as a spin-off from environmental examined because this had been outside<br />
management activities (Knickel, 2001)<br />
the scope of this project<br />
Source: Karlheinz Knickel based on several Work Package reports carried out by the SAW and subcontractors<br />
3.7.5.2 Studying of the most suitable financing source for the agri-environmental measures proposed<br />
Once the overall costs and benefits of each agri-environmental measure proposed for the relative study area<br />
were identified and commented, the next and final task was to envisage the possible financing sources for<br />
implementing the AEMs.<br />
<strong>The</strong> definition of the most suitable and realistic sources of funding served the scope of finally assessing the<br />
financial feasibility for the agri-environmental programme developed.<br />
In this section it was asked to highlight if the developed AEM consisted of a revision of an already existing<br />
measure or of a new one.<br />
In the former case, by looking at the current sources of funding for the existing agri-environmental<br />
programmes, it had to be assessed what would be the differences in the financial requirements needed by the<br />
implementation of proposed AEM for each case study, both in quantitative and qualitative terms.<br />
In the latter case, for each new AEM proposed for the local case study, the suitability of the use of the<br />
existing financial instruments had to be assessed, both in quantitative and qualitative terms.<br />
It was suggested to carry out this analysis by keeping separate what the European, National and Regional<br />
financing sources were.<br />
148
For both the new and the already existing AEMs, in case the usual financial sources were not suitable or<br />
sufficient, researchers were asked to put forward some hypothesis on new financial sources. <strong>The</strong>se could be<br />
for instance:<br />
• Using the funds coming from application of the Polluter Pays Principle;<br />
• Using fiscal incentives;<br />
• Adopt green taxes;<br />
• Reducing agricultural production incentives (moving funds from the first to the second pillars of the<br />
CAP); and<br />
• Others.<br />
Box 64 - Studying of the most suitable financing source for the agri-environmental measures proposed<br />
in Estonia<br />
<strong>The</strong> definition of the most suitable and realistic sources of funding will serve the scope of finally assessing the financial<br />
feasibility for the agri-environmental programme developed.<br />
Existing agri-environmental measures are so far funded only by the Estonian state budget. <strong>The</strong> total budget for agrienvironmental<br />
support in 2000 was 0.3 mln EUR, increased to 2.4 mln EUR in 2003 (administrated by the Ministry of<br />
Agriculture). Besides that, 1.2 mln EUR for management and restoration of semi-natural habitats (under Ministry of<br />
Environment) was spent in 2003.<br />
From 2004, after joining the EU and implementing Rural Development Plan, 80% of agri-environment measures (and<br />
other rural development measures) expenditures are financed by EU. By the preliminary information 14 mln EUR is<br />
foreseen for implementation of agri-environmental measures in Estonia in 2004 (Ministry of Agriculture). It means<br />
basically, that there is no need to increase national funds for agri-environment measures and increase of total budget<br />
foreseen for agri-environmental measures is possible using EU co-financing. Average EU contribution planned for agrienvironmental<br />
measures in 2004 - 2006 is 19.1 mln EUR per year (table 3).<br />
Tab. 66: Financing of agri-environmental measures of RDP 2004 - 2006<br />
2004 2005 2006<br />
National 2.8 3.9 4.8<br />
EU co-financing 11.2 15.3 19.4<br />
TOTAL, EUR 14 19.2 24.2<br />
Proposed measures will fit within current agri-environment scheme and there is also no need to search for a “new”<br />
financing system i.e. combination of national funds (20% of total budget) and EU co-financing (80%) can be used also<br />
for proposed agri-environmental measures.<br />
Implementation of “new” financial sources like fiscal incentives, adoption of green taxes etc. is not foreseen in the near<br />
future in Estonia. Reducing agricultural production incentives (moving funds from the First to the Second Pillar of the<br />
CAP) is unlikely as well (rather it could be the opposite).<br />
149
4. Discussion<br />
Partners’ work has shown that the overall approach of the project, based on the study of the functioning of<br />
natural and agricultural ecosystems by looking at the state of agro-ecosystems ecological processes and<br />
components, is a very promising method to address the identification and measurement of the impacts<br />
exerted on the environment by agricultural activities.<br />
This approach in fact, while looking at the performance of environmental functions), is capable of providing<br />
information on the state (processes, structures and components) of the (semi-)natural and agricultural<br />
ecosystems studied, and also on the environmental goods and services supplied.<br />
One of the most interesting aspects of the work carried out has been the dialogue between experts of<br />
different scientific disciplines such as landscape ecologists, biologists, agronomists, foresters, economists,<br />
geologists, etc. This has resulted in looking at the issues to be addressed by the project from very different<br />
perspectives which have brought, after mutual understanding was reached, an enrichment of the answers<br />
given to the scientific tasks required.<br />
<strong>The</strong> eight meetings (minutes available on the project web site) provided the scope to analyse in detail the work to<br />
be done, clarifying the topics for research and an understanding of what was the purpose of the project in the<br />
light of the overall objectives to be reached.<br />
Also interesting was the almost straightforward confirmation by the work of Partners of the possibility of<br />
describing and analysing the environmental functions by indicators measuring the most important attributes,<br />
processes and components of the ecosystems necessary for their performance. <strong>The</strong> definition of what values<br />
(Environmental Minimum Requirements) have to be matched by the selected key state indicators, in order to<br />
allow for the performance of the environmental functions, and how the different state indicators used to describe<br />
the most important attributes of the functions shall be seen in relation to each other, was a less straightforward<br />
aspect to be analysed and raised very interesting debates.<br />
This work focussed mainly on the analysis of information required to assess with precision the exact<br />
Environmental Minimum Requirement (EMR) values that have to be matched by the state indicators selected in<br />
order to be sufficiently confident that the relevant environmental function would be performed.<br />
From the very beginning it emerged by exchange of opinions and experiences between partners, that the<br />
information needed to assess exact EMRs was high and that in some cases there was insufficient scientific<br />
knowledge to achieve a definitive result. It was also pointed out that a risk analysis would have to be carried out<br />
in order to assess, with scientific precision, what the value of state indicators would have to be in order to<br />
“guarantee” the environmental performance. This was the case, for instance, with the subjective nature of<br />
evaluating the attractiveness of landscape features as well as the difficulties of assessing minimum<br />
requirements for these in order to have environmental function related to landscape performed.<br />
However, this fact has not impaired the overall validity of results and conclusions achieved regarding the<br />
analytical framework developed, but only the assessment of precise environmental minimum requirements of<br />
state indicators describing some ecological and landscape aspects. In fact, when values for EMR of indicators<br />
could not be identified with more scientific rigour, these were assessed anyway on the basis of Best<br />
Professional Judgement by using the scientific information, data and expertise available. <strong>The</strong> confirmation of<br />
the proposed tentative values of EMRs to achieve the performance of selected environmental functions<br />
locally, could be the object of further scientific studies, and in some cases the EMR values pointed out in<br />
<strong>AEMBAC</strong> will provide the first step to address certain ecological aspects.<br />
Beside the acknowledgement of the difficulties in assessing some EMR values, the work carried out led to the<br />
conclusions that baselines for the values of indicators were necessary anyway, both to assess the impacts of<br />
150
agricultural activities and to develop effective agri-environmental measures (e.g. monitoring and evaluation),<br />
even if in some cases lack of data or sufficient scientific knowledge limited their exact definition.<br />
To have reached an agreement on the necessity of defining environmental minimum requirement values to be<br />
matched by indicators describing environmental functions performance, allowed to set up the work, from the<br />
very beginning, with the recognition of the existence of thresholds in order to achieve environmental functions<br />
performance. This recognition can be interpreted as the adoption in <strong>AEMBAC</strong> of the concept of strong<br />
sustainability, where natural and man-made “capital” are substitutable only up to a limit. <strong>The</strong> consequences of<br />
this for the next phases of the project focussing on translating ecological analysis into economics were very<br />
important but probably not so obvious.<br />
In fact, in order to satisfy the preferences expressed by the general public on conserving biodiversity (through for<br />
instance the ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity by governments), environmental thresholds<br />
(i.e. environmental minimum requirements) will have to be respected. This condition will allow a trade-off<br />
between natural and man-made “capital” only up to the point at which those environmental minimum<br />
requirements are not in danger of being breached.<br />
Other problems encountered in Phase 1 also related to lack of existing data and/or of sufficient scientific<br />
knowledge for some ecological aspects to be analysed.<br />
Regarding the problem of using a scale of analysis based on ecological boundaries different from the<br />
administrative level (i.e. commune, province/county, region) where usually socio-economic data are gathered,<br />
the solution used by some Partners was to adapt data at commune and province level if these were considered<br />
also representative for the same topics analysed in the study areas. Other Partners obtained data through field<br />
research and the use of an agri-environmental questionnaire built to gather data at farm level through interviews<br />
with farmers (see annex 1). Given the resource constraints to making a complete survey of local farms, use of a<br />
crucial sampling method was suggested, using a few farms which were considered very representative of the<br />
local agricultural system.<br />
Concerning the lack of historical data time series for some environmental aspects it can be said that this problem<br />
affected mainly the analysis of the dynamic dimension of (semi-)natural and agricultural ecosystem extent and<br />
uses. Where it was feasible the use of old maps showing past land cover and uses was a valid substitute for data.<br />
Where old maps were missing some Partners used old literature on agriculture carried out in the region of the<br />
study areas in the past to formulate hypothesis on past land cover and use of the territory.<br />
For the problem of lack of existing scientific knowledge on some environmental aspects, in this circumstance,<br />
all that <strong>AEMBAC</strong> Partners could do was to point out the need for further scientific research indicating in<br />
some cases what should be done. However, the lack of scientific knowledge on some ecological and<br />
landscape aspects was already known.<br />
<strong>The</strong> work undertaken to accomplish the tasks of <strong>AEMBAC</strong> Phase 2, was built on the results of Phase 1 and<br />
followed the interdisciplinary approach, based on environmental functions and the DPSIR (Driving Pressure<br />
State-Impact Response) analysis.<br />
This approach, while looking at the performance of environmental functions is capable of providing information<br />
on the state (processes, structures and components) of the (semi-)natural and agricultural ecosystems studied, by<br />
looking at the impacts exerted by local agricultural practices on these, and it also enables to point out the<br />
environmental goods and services actually being supplied.<br />
Taking the perspective of looking at ecosystem functioning through the provision of environmental goods and<br />
services has offered the opportunity to concentrate on what value exists for human kind. This approach, already<br />
utilitarian and anthropocentric, has enabled integration between the natural and social sciences, and has been<br />
very useful to “translate” the results of the ecological analysis of Phase 1 into economic values for the<br />
development of agri-environmental measures in Phase 2.<br />
151
<strong>The</strong> work done in Phase 1 on the identification of Environmental Minimum Requirements (EMR) values for<br />
selected state indicators describing the environmental functions performance; on the measurement of their actual<br />
values through field and bibliographic research in the study areas; and on the analysis of causal relationships<br />
between most significant pressures and impacts detected on the value of state indicators (i.e. gaps between EMR<br />
and actual values), have represented the corner stones upon which to build, in Phase 2, a ranking system to<br />
associate degrees of sustainability to pressures and corresponding impacts.<br />
This ranking system has resulted in a practical tool, useful to expand the analysis further to envisage different<br />
impacts correlated to different intensities of the most important pressures, and to propose recommendations on<br />
how to change current agricultural practices in order to lessen/eliminate negative impacts and enhance positive<br />
ones.<br />
It is important to point out that in some cases, scientists have found difficulties in assessing the degrees of<br />
sustainability to be ranked amongst tiers. This was because of a lack of sufficient scientific information and of<br />
current scientific knowledge on certain aspects (mainly on dose-effect relationships), to assess with scientific<br />
accuracy the exact correlation between causal pressures and corresponding impacts. <strong>The</strong>refore the conclusions<br />
achieved have to be considered as only indicative, not definitive.<br />
Despite these difficulties, which where largely expected given the complexities of the topics studied (e.g. doseeffect<br />
relationships between pressures and state of agro-ecosystems), the ranking system proposed has proved to<br />
be a very promising approach to connect scientific analysis and policy recommendations. In fact, it clearly<br />
indicates, at least qualitatively, what are the environmental aspects and agricultural pressures relevant for the<br />
development of local agri-environmental policy and where further scientific analyses are needed because of lack<br />
of scientific knowledge (e.g. on dose-effect relationships).<br />
Clearly, in the current research project, the basis for this future analysis could only be pointed out, but the<br />
identification of particular fields where further research is recommended can be considered an added value of<br />
<strong>AEMBAC</strong> results. Formulating indications of dose-effects relationships and assessment of sustainability of<br />
agricultural pressures can be seen as a starting point for future empirical analyses to be carried out in order to<br />
deepen scientific knowledge regarding some specific environmental aspects not yet well studied or known (see<br />
Partners final reports).<br />
Regarding the economic valuation of the impacts (both positive and/or negative) exerted by local agricultural<br />
practices on the supply of environmental goods and services, two options were offered to researchers: that of<br />
calculating both the costs and benefits of reducing the negative impacts and/or enhancing the positive ones; and<br />
that of calculating only the costs to allow the provision of the environmental goods and services analysed,<br />
assuming the societal demand for these goods is positive (e.g. using the ratification of the Convention on<br />
Biological Diversity by the EU and European Governments as a proxy).<br />
Given the time and funding constraints in carrying out a comprehensive valuation of the benefits of providing<br />
environmental goods and services (e.g. through for instance the contingent valuation method), or the difficulties<br />
of using other techniques prone to criticism (e.g. benefits transfer), researchers opted for the second option of<br />
calculating only the costs of reducing/eliminating negative impacts or enhancing positive ones. (FiBL analysed a<br />
list of Contingent Valuation studies on landscape carried out around Europe.)<br />
<strong>The</strong> ecological and socio-economic information gathered through the analyses carried out was then used to<br />
define the agri-environmental policy targets and measures at local level. This information proved to be far more<br />
detailed and substantial both in the identification of targets and instruments to developed agri-environmental<br />
policy at local level than that currently used. Moreover, the fact that in all the 15 case studies, Partners, building<br />
upon this information, have identified suitable AEMs can be regarded as the confirmation of the feasibility of<br />
using the analytical framework developed and of its flexibility in taking into account the ecological, social and<br />
economic diversity of the European Union.<br />
152
<strong>The</strong> feasibility of the methodology to develop agri-environmental measures was interestingly confirmed also by<br />
the involvement of local stakeholders (i.e. local farmers and administrators) who in the majority of interviews<br />
demonstrated a good awareness of the environmental problems and/or opportunities in their area and an<br />
understanding of the proposed recommendations to overcome the former and enhance the latter.<br />
<strong>The</strong> environmental function approach proposed, being based on indicators and baselines identified in Phase 1,<br />
has proved to be very suitable also in promoting a far better definition in Phase 3 of monitoring and evaluation<br />
procedures to assess the effectiveness of the agri-environmental measures compared to the actual status quo. In<br />
fact if the developed AEMs are eventually implemented in the case study areas then indicators and baselines to<br />
carry out counterfactual, benchmarking and temporal comparisons to assess their effectiveness in the supply of<br />
environmental goods and services would already be available.<br />
Regarding the assessment of overall costs and benefits of an eventual implementation of agri-environmental<br />
measures developed by using the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> methodology, the analyses carried out in case studies did not<br />
show greater public expenditure administrative and transaction costs than current ones for zonal agrienvironmental<br />
measures, and showed similar or little greater expenditure in reaching tier 0, while a possible<br />
greater amount of money was envisaged to achieve upwards tiers (i.e. tiers +1 and +2).<br />
Obviously to pay farmers to reach tier 0, which in the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> methodology is considered the<br />
sustainability level and not the one which allows for the supply of environmental goods and services (set<br />
from tier +1 and +2) would be a political decision. However in case the principle of rewarding farmers only<br />
from tier 0 (assimilated in <strong>AEMBAC</strong> to the reference level of “good farming practices”) upwards is<br />
maintained, this would free extra financial resources to pay those farmers that supply real environmental<br />
goods and services (also those who already are doing so without being paid at present).<br />
It is also very important to point out that, on the benefits side, from the analyses carried out far greater<br />
environmental benefits can be expected in case so detailed and locally tailored agri-environmental measures<br />
would be implemented in the study areas.<br />
In phase 3, the most important problem encountered was the impossibility of carrying out economic valuations<br />
of benefits in supplying environmental goods and services due mainly to constraints in funding and time.<br />
However, also for economic valuation future research could be carried out in identifying the economic value of<br />
benefits resulting from the supply of environmental goods and services, by using the appropriate monetary<br />
evaluation techniques.<br />
Considering the complexity of the topic analysed, and for certain aspects the innovative character of the research<br />
carried out, it can be said that the problems encountered throughout the whole duration of the project in the<br />
definition and testing of the methodology proposed were physiological in nature, largely not unexpected, and did<br />
not undermine the theoretical basis, and most importantly, the eventual practical use of the analytical framework<br />
defined.<br />
As mentioned above, the most important problems related to lack of existing data and/or of sufficient scientific<br />
knowledge for some ecological aspects to be analysed (such as the exact definition of EMRs for some State<br />
indicators and the dose-effects relationships between pressure and state indicators). However it was noted that<br />
formulating tentative values can be seen as a starting point for empirical analysis to be carried out in future<br />
research to augment the scientific knowledge regarding some specific environmental aspects not yet well studied<br />
or known. Clearly, in the current research project, the basis for this future analysis could only be pointed out, but<br />
the identification of particular fields where further research is needed can be considered an added value of<br />
<strong>AEMBAC</strong> results.<br />
<strong>The</strong> work carried out by Partners is available on the project web site www.<strong>AEMBAC</strong>.org (intranet section,<br />
password: project).<br />
153
5. Conclusions<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project has defined a common European analytical framework for the development of local<br />
agri-environmental programmes for biodiversity and landscape conservation. This result can be sub-divided<br />
in three main results according to the three main phases of the project:<br />
• Definition of a methodology to assess the impacts exerted by agricultural pressures on the local<br />
environment:<br />
Phase 1 (Steps 1, 2, and 3) of the project has resulted in advanced research in the area of integration of<br />
biodiversity and landscape conservation into the agricultural sector. This result was achieved through a<br />
wide range of activities from bibliographic research and data gathering in the field to the development of<br />
tools and instruments. <strong>The</strong> main result of phase 1 is a methodology to build a DPSIR model to identify<br />
impacts exerted by pressures of the local agricultural systems on the performance of environmental<br />
functions.<br />
• Definition of a methodology to develop Agri-environmental measures at local level:<br />
Phase 2 has built on the outcomes of the first phase, starting from the analysis and identification of<br />
causality relationships between detected impacts on environmental functions performances and locally<br />
most relevant agricultural pressures. <strong>The</strong> main outcome of Phase 2 (steps 4, 5 and 6) has resulted in a<br />
methodology to connect science and policy in order to develop agri-environmental measures, locally<br />
tailored to the most relevant impacts exerted by agriculture, to fostering the supply of environmental<br />
goods and services by farmers (and to discourage unsustainable agricultural practices).<br />
This has been achieved by developing a detailed, flexible and transparent methodology to integrate<br />
scientific results, economic values, social aspects, ecological objectives and stakeholders’ points of view<br />
into agri-environmental policy formulation.<br />
Policy targets and instruments have been defined by the scientific analyses carried out in the study areas,<br />
taking into account both the ecological and socio-economic sustainability of the local agri-environmental<br />
situation in relation to the performance of environmental functions studied, of the agri-environmental<br />
targets and measures identified and recommended and of existing agri-environmental policies through<br />
comparison with those proposed. Following this approach a clear distinction has been made between<br />
ecological thresholds in agriculture and realistically achievable results for the short term (i.e. agrienvironmental<br />
policy targets) at the local level.<br />
• Definition of a methodology to implement the Agri-environmental measures developed:<br />
<strong>The</strong> methodology developed in previous phases 1 and 2 have clearly demonstrated in Phase 3 its validity<br />
in identifying indicators for monitoring the correct implementation of agri-environmental measures<br />
developed and baselines (i.e. reference values) for evaluating the effectiveness of AEMs in achieving<br />
environmental benefits. <strong>The</strong> results of Phase 3 have included the analysis of transaction costs and overall<br />
economic and financial aspects for the eventual implementation of agri-environmental measures<br />
developed.<br />
Beside the above, the work carried out has allowed scientific topics to be identified where further research<br />
will have to be carried out in order to enhance the scientific rigour of the results achieved. <strong>The</strong> most<br />
important topics are the following:<br />
• Integration of different scales of analysis and of socio-economic data with environmental ones (e.g.<br />
ecological and administrative boundaries, FADN);<br />
• Validation of EMR and of dose-effect relationships between pressures and impacts by field research (e.g.<br />
Ecosystems functioning and resilience); and<br />
• Integration of ecological thresholds in economic evaluations and valuation of environmental benefits<br />
(e.g. consequences of irreversible ecological situations).<br />
<strong>The</strong> results obtained from the testing of the analytical framework defined in 15 study areas in the seven<br />
countries, show that the analytical framework for the development of local agri-environmental programmes<br />
154
is very promising in its foreseeable practical implementation and that it can be applied to very different<br />
ecological, economic, social, etc. situations. In fact, feedback from case studies has indicated that:<br />
• <strong>The</strong> <strong>AEMBAC</strong> methodology is a flexible and practical European tool to develop local AEM for<br />
biodiversity and landscape conservation tailored to site specific ecological, social and economic<br />
needs/opportunities;<br />
• In all 15 case studies the testing of the methodology has allowed clear policy targets and instruments for<br />
implementing AEMs to be identified (e.g. recommendations on how to halt soil erosion caused by<br />
planting vineyards in Italy, on mowing dates to be partly adapted to suit bird life in the Dutch case<br />
studies);<br />
• No particular new technological undertakings are required by AEMs developed in <strong>AEMBAC</strong> compared<br />
with the existing ones (e.g. managing landscape in the traditional way in Estonia and Sweden, change<br />
from rotational to mowing bars in meadows in Switzerland, reduce fertilisers inputs Germany and<br />
Netherlands, etc.). However, more efforts and longer time implementation may be needed to achieve real<br />
supply of environmental goods and services than in current AEMs (e.g. increasing semi-natural areas by<br />
biotope maintenance, by ecological corridors and/or by planting hedgerows in Germany, Hungary, Italy,<br />
Switzerland, Netherlands);<br />
• <strong>The</strong>re is sufficient awareness among farmers of local Environmental problems/opportunities, but also<br />
there is a tendency to underestimate consequences; <strong>The</strong> less the long term commitment and required<br />
changes to farm management the greater the acceptance of AEMs which apparently is in contrast with<br />
the need of more lasting AEMs to achieve environmental benefits (but securing long-term payments may<br />
change this attitude);<br />
• Payments are important but also other factors concur in deciding to participate in AEMs (e.g. age,<br />
environmental awareness, AEMs flexibility, etc.);<br />
• In achieving EMRs, developed AEMs show similar or slightly higher payments (per ha) and similar<br />
transaction costs (per contract) than current ones 31 , but far greater benefits can be expected from more<br />
environmental effectiveness and overall efficiency; However, in case the principle of rewarding farmers<br />
only from tier 0 (assimilated in <strong>AEMBAC</strong> to the reference level of “good farming practices”) upwards is<br />
confirmed, this would free extra financial resources to pay those farmers that supply real environmental<br />
goods and services (also those who already are doing so without being paid at present).<br />
6. Exploitation and dissemination of results<br />
IUCN and the seven European Partners participating in the project have benefited from the results of the<br />
project, gaining in experience and knowledge. Apart from being useful to Partners, the results coming out<br />
from the project clearly will be of use to other universities, farmers’ organisations, environmental<br />
organisations, producer co-operatives, processing industry, local authorities, policy-makers and the EU<br />
institutions.<br />
It is important to note that the methodology developed by the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project, would need to be made<br />
operative before becoming a standardised tool in the agri-environmental policy development process. This<br />
could be done by building on the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project results in at least four ways:<br />
1. <strong>The</strong> high value nature sites approach: by adapting the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> methodology to the definition of agrienvironmental<br />
measures in high natural value sites. This could be done for instance by a research project<br />
aiming at defining indicators, EMR values, recommendations and socio-economics aspects for the<br />
development of agri-environmental measures necessary to finance the implementation of NATURA<br />
2000 in designated sites by member states.<br />
2. <strong>The</strong> agro-ecosystem typologies approach: by adapting the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> methodology to the definition of<br />
31 Only in the German case studies it is estimated that transacton costs would be 40-60% higher than costs at present. <strong>The</strong><br />
main reason for this increase is the more precise targeting of AEM, the more stringent compliance controls that should<br />
be envisaged and the increased emphasis on providing AE consultations and AE advisory services for farmers<br />
155
agri-environmental measures for the main European agro-ecosystem typologies in relation to the most<br />
important environmental functions to be performed locally. This could be done by a project aiming to<br />
define the indicators, EMR values, recommendations, and socio-economics aspects to be taken into<br />
account while developing AEMs throughout Europe according to the agro-ecosystem type to be<br />
addressed.<br />
3. <strong>The</strong> multifunctionality approach: by studying further the adaptation of the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> methodology to<br />
assess and enhance the multifunctional character of the European agriculture.<br />
4. <strong>The</strong> multisectoral approach: by a project adapting the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> methodology to different socioeconomic<br />
sectors such as forestry, fisheries, tourism, etc.<br />
Regarding dissemination of the results:<br />
An <strong>AEMBAC</strong> booklet on introductory guidelines for administrators and policy makers will be published in<br />
September<br />
A publication special issue in a scientific Journal on the scientific topics analysed in <strong>AEMBAC</strong> is foreseen<br />
for the first months of 2005<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>AEMBAC</strong> web site will be maintain and administered by IUCN and the final reports will be made<br />
public in the near future.<br />
An <strong>AEMBAC</strong> workshop and conference has been held at the European Parliament in Brussels on 5 th<br />
February 2004<br />
<strong>The</strong> Scientific Co-ordinator presented the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project at the following international and national/local<br />
conferences and workshops has been as follows:<br />
• OECD expert meeting on agri-environmental indicators, held in Zurich, 5–8 November 2001;<br />
• Workshop “Research for Sustainable Land Use and Regional Development”, 3 rd – 4 th April, 2003,<br />
European Commission Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy;<br />
• Workshop on Rural Development organised by DG Research, held in Brussels 18 November 2003;<br />
7. Policy related benefits<br />
As the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> project aims at the “definition of an analytical framework for the development of local<br />
agri-environmental programmes for biodiversity and landscape conservation”, there could be many benefits<br />
through integrating the scientific results into policy development.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>AEMBAC</strong> methodology is based on the idea of a knowledge-driven Agro-environmental policy and<br />
Sustainable Rural Development. It is therefore logical that the scientific results achieved present clear policy<br />
related benefits both European and local level as follows:<br />
At European level:<br />
• <strong>The</strong> research results, besides clearly being useful for the development of agri-environmental policy and<br />
rural development in the EU (Reg. (EC) 1257/99), will also be very useful in the context of the European<br />
Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the<br />
environment (art.12, point 4, where the Commission is asked to report on the relationship between this<br />
directive and Reg. (EC) 1257/99), the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC), the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC),<br />
the Convention on Biodiversity, the Convention on Landscape, and the Water and Nitrogen Directives.<br />
• Regarding the wider objective of conserving biodiversity and landscapes, the project focuses on studying<br />
the feasibility and opportunities of linking biodiversity conservation to the maintenance of ecological<br />
processes and to the performance of human activities. <strong>The</strong>se are seen as interrelated, not conflicting,<br />
156
aspects. This approach is very promising in the further study and understanding of the interdependencies<br />
between the natural environment and the quality of life for human populations. <strong>The</strong> development of<br />
dynamic programmes for agricultural sustainability and conservation of European biodiversity and<br />
landscapes would benefit from the adoption of the <strong>AEMBAC</strong> methodology for instance in the<br />
implementation of NATURA 2000;<br />
• <strong>The</strong> <strong>AEMBAC</strong> methodology would favour a smooth transition from compensation payments coupled to<br />
production to a more socially acceptable agri-environmental payments for supply of environmental goods<br />
and services, in line with the recent CAP reform.<br />
• <strong>The</strong> <strong>AEMBAC</strong> methodology will also enhance the transparency and a wider application of the subsidiary<br />
principle in managing agri-environment programmes and will increase of environmental awareness<br />
amongst EU citizens;<br />
• <strong>The</strong> <strong>AEMBAC</strong> methodology will provide scientific support to the concept of multifunctionality in<br />
agriculture (e.g. in relevant international fora such as WTO) by measuring the real supply of<br />
environmental goods and services; and<br />
• <strong>The</strong> results of such research will also foster European agricultural competitiveness in a scenario of<br />
growing liberalisation of global agricultural markets, in which it is expected that payments to farmers will<br />
only be allowed in return for supplying real environmental goods and services which do not distort trade.<br />
At the local level, scientific results will allow policy related benefits through providing:<br />
• <strong>The</strong> selection of scientifically based suitable indicators to analyse and measure the supply of<br />
environmental goods and services by agriculture;<br />
• Clear distinction between ecological sustainability in agriculture (i.e. respect of EMR) and realistically<br />
achievable results for the short term considering socio-economic aspects (i.e. agri-environmental policy<br />
targets). (i.e. scientific based definition of “good farming practices” at local level);<br />
• More precise ecological, economic and social information to make trade offs between different rural<br />
development objectives (i.e. clearer definition of risks and uncertainties with regard to unsustainable<br />
agricultural practices) and therefore achieving a sustainable diversification of rural economies;<br />
• <strong>The</strong> possibility to take into account the assessment of Environmental Minimum Requirements (EMR)<br />
while developing agri-environmental policy, which will guarantee a better monitoring and evaluation of<br />
the AEM effectiveness and efficiency;<br />
• Devolution to local farmers and administrators of the fine-tuning of policy measures in local agriculture,<br />
thereby creating an "evaluation culture”; and<br />
• <strong>The</strong> assessment of the sustainability of the agricultural systems in relation to the performance of<br />
environmental functions studied, and the project methodologies integrating ecological goals within the<br />
development of socio-economic sectors will set the foundations for analysing environmental topics with<br />
a comprehensive and holistic approach; this could become a routine procedure to be applied throughout<br />
Europe. <strong>The</strong> approach adopted could also be used for studying the sustainability use of natural resources<br />
by other socio-economic sectors (e.g. forestry, fisheries, tourism, etc.).<br />
8. Literature<br />
Avalon, Veen Ecology, Institute for European Environmental Policy, Agri-environmental programmes in<br />
CEECs, EU <strong>Project</strong> 2078 CEE 78, 1998.<br />
157
Bähr, H.-P. and Vögtle, T. (1999). GIS for Environmental Monitoring. – Stuttgart, Schweizerbart.<br />
Baldock David, Bennet Harriet, Petersen Jan-Erik, Veen Peter and Verschuur, Developing agrienvironmental<br />
programmes in Central and Eastern Europe – A Manual, final draft, personnel<br />
communication, May 2002.<br />
Balmford Andrew et al., Economic Reasons for Conserving Wild Nature, in Science Magazine, Volume 297,<br />
Number 5583, Issue of 9 Aug 2002<br />
Barbier B.E. (1989). Economics of Natural Resource Scarcity and Development: Conventional and<br />
Alternative Views, London, Earthscan Publications Limited.<br />
Bastian Olaf. (2001). Landscape Ecology - towards a unified discipline? in: Landscape Ecology, Kluwer.<br />
Bazzoffi, P. Impact of human activities on soil loss. Direct and indirect evaluation. International Conference<br />
on Sustainable Soil management for environmental protection – Soil physical Aspects, Florence 2-7 July<br />
2001. [In press]<br />
Blum, W.E.H. (1991). <strong>The</strong> challenge of soil protection in Europe. Environmental Conservation 17. In:<br />
World Resources Institute, 1991. Accounts Overdue. Natural Resource Depreciation in Costa Rica. Oxford<br />
University Press, Oxford and New York.<br />
Blum, W.E.H. (1998). Soil degradation caused by industrialization and urbanization. In: Blume, H.P., Eger,<br />
H., Fleischhauer, E., Hebel, A., Reij, C. and Steiner, K.G. (Eds.). Towards Sustainable Land Use, Vol. I,<br />
755–766, Advances in Geoecology 31, Catena Verlag, Reiskirchen.<br />
Brassley, P. (1997). Agricultural economics and the CAP: an introduction, Blackwell Science.<br />
Brink, B.T.(2000). Biodiversity indicators for the OECD Environmental Outlook and Strategy: A feasibility<br />
study, RIVM <strong>Report</strong> commissioned by OECD, Global Dynamics and Sustainable Development Programme,<br />
Globo <strong>Report</strong> Series N°25, February 2000.<br />
Brittan, L., Sir. (1999). Speech of 5 January 1999, EU website, http://europa.eu.int<br />
Buckwell, A. (1997). If... Agricultural economics in a brave liberal world, Proceedings of the 8th Congress<br />
of the E.A.A.E., ‘Redefining the Roles for European Agriculture’, 3-7 September 1996, European review of<br />
agricultural economics, volume 24.<br />
Buckwell, A. (1997). Towards a Common Agricultural and Rural Policy for Europe, <strong>Report</strong> convened by<br />
Commission of European Community.<br />
Coase, R.H., <strong>The</strong> problem of Social Cost, Journal of Law and Economics 3, pag. 1-44, 1960<br />
Commission of the European Communities. (1999). Directions towards sustainable agriculture, COM<br />
(1999) 22 final, Communication from the Commission to the Council; the European Parliament, the<br />
Economic and Social Committee, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions,<br />
Brussels, 27.01.99.<br />
Commission of the European Communities. (2000). Indicators for the integration of environmental concerns<br />
into the Common Agricultural Policy, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the<br />
European Parliament, COMM.(2000) 20 final, Brussels 26.01.2000.<br />
Commission Européenne. (1997). Agriculture et Environnement, Cahiers de la politique agricole commune,<br />
Direction générale de l’agriculture, Bruxelles, Luxembourg.<br />
158
Council of Europe, UNEP, French Government, High-level Pan-European Conference on Agriculture and<br />
Biodiversity: Towards integrating biological and landscape diversity for sustainable agriculture in Europe,<br />
proceedings and background documents, Maison de l’Unesco, Paris, 5-7 June 2002.<br />
De Groot, R. (1992) Functions of Nature, Evaluation of nature in environmental planning, management and<br />
decision making, Wolters-Noordhoff.<br />
De Groot, R. (1994) Identification of indicators for measuring sustainable use of environmental functions,<br />
contribution to the 3rd meeting of the International Society for Ecological Economics, San Jose, Costa Rica,<br />
24–28 October, 1994.<br />
De Groot, R., Wilson, M.A. and Boumans, R.M.J. (2002). A Typology for classifications, descriptions and<br />
valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services, in Ecological Economics vol.41, Special Issue: <strong>The</strong><br />
dynamics and value of Ecosystem services: Integrating economic and ecological perspectives, Elsevier,<br />
August 2002.<br />
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, (2002), Good Farming Practices with regard to the<br />
Environment, North Ireland, January.<br />
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Countryside Management Scheme, Explanatory Booklet,<br />
North Ireland.<br />
Dobbs Thomas L. and Pretty Jules N. (2001). <strong>The</strong> United Kingdom's Experience with Agri-Environmental<br />
Stewardship Schemes: Lessons and Issues for the United States and Europe, South Dakota State University<br />
Economics Staff Paper 2001-1 e University of Essex Centre for Environment and Society Occasional Paper<br />
2001-1.<br />
Duke Joshua M. and Aull-Hyde Rhonda, (2002), Identifying public preferences for land preservation using<br />
the analytic hierarchy process, in Ecological Economics vol.42, Elsevier.<br />
European Commission. (1995). Agricultural Situation and Prospects in the Central and Eastern European<br />
Countries, Summary <strong>Report</strong>s, Directorate-General for Agriculture.<br />
European Commission. (1997). Agenda 2000: For a stronger and wider Europe, press release IP/97/60, EU<br />
internet site, 16 July 1997.<br />
European Commission. (1998a). Understanding Biodiversity, Ecosystem Research <strong>Report</strong> No 25, Catizzone,<br />
M., Larsson, T.B. and Svensson, L. (Eds.).<br />
European Commission (1998b). Agricultural Situation and Prospects in the Central and Eastern European<br />
Countries, Summary <strong>Report</strong>, DGVI Working document, June 1998.<br />
European Commission. (1999). DGVI Working Document VI/7655/98, State of application of regulation<br />
(EEC) n°2078/92, "evaluation of agri-environment programmes".<br />
European Commission. (1999a). From land cover to landscape diversity.<br />
European Commission. (1999b). Agriculture, environment, rural development – Facts and figures.<br />
European Commission, COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1750/1999, laying down detailed rules for<br />
the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the<br />
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Official Journal of the European<br />
Communities, 23 July 1999.<br />
159
European Commission, COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1257/1999,on support for rural<br />
development from the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and<br />
repealing certain Regulations, Official Journal of the European Communities, 17 May 1999.<br />
European Commission. (2000). Biodiversity Action Plan for Agriculture.<br />
European Commission. (2000). DG Agriculture, Community Committee for the Farm Accountancy Data<br />
Network (FADN) Definitions of Variables used in FADN standard result, RI/CC 882 Rev. 6.1, Brussels, 27<br />
October 2000.<br />
European Commission (2002). DG Agriculture, Common Indicators fro monitoring Rural Development<br />
Programming 2000-2006, Commission Working Document VI/43512/02 FINAL: 26.2.2002, February 2002<br />
European Commission (2002). DG Agriculture, Guidelines forthe mid term evaluation of ruraldevelopment<br />
programmes2000-2006 supported from theEuropean AgriculturalGuidance and Guarantee Fund,DOC.<br />
STAR VI/43517/02.<br />
European Conference on Rural Development, <strong>The</strong> Cork Declaration: A Living Countryside, Cork, Ireland,<br />
7–9 November 1996.<br />
European Environmental Agency. (1995). Europe’s Environment: <strong>The</strong> Dobrís Assessment, Stanners, D. and<br />
Bourdeau, P. (Eds.). European Commission DGXI and Phare.<br />
Eurostat. (1995). Europe’s Environment: Statistical Compendium for the Dobrís Assessment, European<br />
Commission.<br />
European Environmental Agency. (1998). <strong>The</strong> Second Assessment, Elsevier Science Ltd.<br />
European Environmental Agency. (1999). Environment in the European Union at the turn of the century.<br />
EU. (1998). First report on the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity by the European<br />
Community, Directorate-General Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection.<br />
Falconer Katherine and Whitby Martin. (1999). Transaction and Administrative costs in countryside<br />
stewardship policies: an investigation fro eight European Member States,Research report, University of<br />
Newcastle, Department of Agricultural Economics and Food Marketing.<br />
Falconer, K., Dupraz P. e Whitby M. (2001). An Investigation of Policy Administrative Costs Using Panel<br />
Data for the English Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Journal of Agricultural Economics, January 52 (1),<br />
pag. 83-103, 2001.<br />
Farber C. Stephan, Costanza Robert, Wilson A. Matthew, Economic and ecological concepts for valuing<br />
ecosystems services, in Ecological Economics vol.41, Special Issue: <strong>The</strong> dynamics and value of Ecosystem<br />
services: Integrating economic and ecological perspectives, Elsevier, 2002.<br />
FAO, the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Government of the Netherlands. (1999).<br />
Sustaining Agricultural Biodiversity and Agro-ecosystem Functions, FAO, Rome.<br />
FAO, <strong>The</strong> Government of the Netherlands. (2000). Cultivating our Future, proceedings of the Conference on<br />
the Multifunctional Character of agriculture and land, held in Maastricht in September 1999.<br />
Ferraro J. Paul and Kiss Agnes. (2002), Direct payments to conserve biodiversity, in Science vol.298.<br />
160
Gallopìn, (1997), in Sustainability Indicators: <strong>Report</strong> of the project on sustainable development indicators,<br />
Moldan and Billharz (Eds.).<br />
Howarth Richard B., Farber Stephen. (2002). Accounting for the value of ecosystem service, in Ecological<br />
Economics vol.41, Special Issue: <strong>The</strong> dynamics and value of Ecosystem services: Integrating economic and<br />
ecological perspectives, Elsevier, August 2002.<br />
Hulylenbroeck Guido van, and Durand Guy. (2003). Multifunctional Agriculture: A new paradigm for<br />
European Agriculture and Rural Development, Ashagate Publishing Limited.<br />
IUCN. (2000). Sustainable Use within an Ecosystem Approach, Information Paper prepared by the IUCN<br />
Sustainable Use Initiative for the 5th meeting of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific, Technical and<br />
Technological Advice to the Convention on Biological Diversity, held in Montréal, Canada on the 31<br />
January–4 February 2000.<br />
James Rosemary F. (1999). <strong>The</strong> Valuation of Wetland: Approaches, Methods and Issues, Asian Wetland<br />
Bureau – Indonesia.<br />
James Rosemary F. (1999). Wetland Valuation, Guidelines and Technique, Asian Wetland Bureau –<br />
Indonesia.<br />
Jordan Geraldine J. and Fortin Marie-José. (2002). Scale and topology in the ecological economics<br />
sustainability paradigm, in Ecological Economics vol.41, Issue 2, Elsevier, May 2002.<br />
Limburg Karin E., O’Neill Robert V., Costanza Robert, Farber Stephen. (2002). Complex systems and<br />
valuation, in Ecological Economics vol.41, Special Issue: <strong>The</strong> dynamics and value of Ecosystem services:<br />
Integrating economic and ecological perspectives, Elsevier, August 2002.<br />
Lima e Santos José Manuel, (2001). Demand measurement of non-commodity outputs, paper, Technical<br />
University of Lisbon.<br />
Lütz M. and Bastian Olaf, (2002). Implementation of landscape planning and nature conservation in<br />
agricultural landscape – A case study from Saxon, in Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, vol.92,<br />
Elsevier, 2002.<br />
Mahé, L.P. (1997). Environment and quality standards in the WTO: New protectionism in agricultural<br />
trade? A European perspective, Proceedings of the 8th Congress of the E.A.A.E., ‘Redefining the Roles for<br />
European Agriculture’, 3-7 September 1996, European review of agricultural economics, volume 24.<br />
Mansvelt, van, J.D. and Lubz, van der, M.J. (1999). Checklist for Sustainable Landscape Management,<br />
Elsevier.<br />
Mcneely J.A. and Scherr, S.J. (2001), Common ground, common future. How eco-agriculture can help feed<br />
the world and save wild biodiversity, IUCN, Future Harvest.<br />
Moxey, A., Whitby, M. and Lowe, P. (1998). Agri-environment indicators, issues and choices, in Land and<br />
Use Policy, Vol.15, N°4.<br />
Noss, R. F., (1990), Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach, Conservation Biology.<br />
Nowicky, P. (1999). Background study on developing a policy on agriculture and biodiversity, IUCN.<br />
OECD. (1991). Environmental policy: How to apply Economic Instruments, Paris.<br />
161
OECD. (1993). Agricultural and Environmental Policy Integration, Recent Progress and New Directions,<br />
Paris.<br />
OECD. (1996). Saving Biological Diversity: Economic Incentives, Paris.<br />
OECD. (1998). <strong>The</strong> environmental effects of reforming agricultural policies, Paris.<br />
OECD. (2001). Environmental Indicators for Agriculture, Methods and Results, Volume 3.<br />
OECD. (2001). Multifunctionality – Towards an analytical framework, Paris.<br />
Pagiola, S. and Kellenberg, J., with Vidaus, L. and Srivastava, J. (1997). Mainstreaming Biodiversity in<br />
Agricultural Development: Toward good Practice, <strong>The</strong> World Bank.<br />
Pearce, W.D. and Turner, R.K. (1990). Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment, Harvester<br />
Wheatsheaf.<br />
Pearce David and Moran Dominic. (1994). <strong>The</strong> economic value of biodiversity, IUCN – <strong>The</strong> World<br />
Conservation Union, Earthscan Publications Ltd, London.<br />
Peters, G.H. (1995). Agricultural economics: an educational and research agenda for nations in transition,<br />
Agricultural Economics n°12.<br />
Petersen, J.-E. and Badlock, D. (1999). "Special Update on the Agenda 2000 Decisions in March 1999",<br />
Institute for European Environmental Policy, London.<br />
Prescott-Allen, R. (1998). Manual on Assessment of Biodiversity, IUCN International Assessment Team,<br />
IUCN.<br />
Pretty, N.J. (1995). Regenerating Agriculture, policies and practices for sustainability and self-reliance,<br />
Earthscan Publications Ltd, London.<br />
Settle Chad, Crocker Thomas D. and Shogren Jason F.. (2002). On the joint determination of biological and<br />
economic system, in Ecological Economics vol.42, Elsevier.<br />
Tangermann, S. (1996). Reforming the CAP: a prerequisite for eastern enlargement, Rivista di Economia<br />
Agraria, n°3.<br />
Treweek, J. (2001). Integrating Biodiversity with National Environmental Assessment Processes: A Review<br />
of Experiences and Methods, report produced for the Global Environment Facility, Biodiversity Planning<br />
Support Programme, pages 5–7, Komex Bond Ltd, Bristol, UK, September 2001.<br />
Villa Ferdinando, Wilson Matthew A., de Groot Rudolf, Farber Steven, Costanza Robert, Boumans Roelof<br />
M.J.. (2002). Designing an integrated knowledge base to support ecosystem services valuation, in Ecological<br />
Economics vol.41, Special Issue: <strong>The</strong> dynamics and value of Ecosystem services: Integrating economic and<br />
ecological perspectives, Elsevier, August 2002.<br />
Wascher, D.W. (Ed.) (2000). Agri-environmental indicators for sustainable agriculture in Europe, European<br />
Centre for Nature Conservation (ECNC), Tilburg, <strong>The</strong> Netherlands.<br />
Williamson, O.E. (2002). <strong>The</strong> economics of organization: the transaction cost approach, American Journal<br />
of Sociology, 87 (3), pag. 548-577.<br />
162
Wilson, A. Matthew, Howarth, B. Richard, (2002). Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services:<br />
establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation, in Ecological Economics, Special Issue: the<br />
dynamics and value of ecosystem services: Integrating Economic and Ecological Perspectives, n° 41, pag.<br />
431-443, Elsevier.<br />
Winpenny James T.. (1991). Values for the Environment – A Guide to Economic Appraisal, Overseas<br />
Development Institute, HMSO London, 1991.<br />
Wu JunJie and Skelton-Groth Katharine. (2002). Targeting conservation efforts in the presence of threshold<br />
effects and ecosystem linkages, in Ecological Economic, August 2002.<br />
163