P a g e |1
Title:
Indicators to assess condition and major pressures
on agro-ecosystems in Europe
Type of Document:
Final Report – task 18413_Ecosystem_pressure
Prepared by:
Anne van Doorn, Rini Schuiling (Alterra, Wageningen UR)
Date:
24.07.2014
Project Manager:
Markus Erhard
Universidad de Malaga
ETCSIA
PTA - Technological Park of Andalusia
c/ Marie Curie, 22 (Edificio Habitec)
Campanillas
29590 - Malaga
Spain
Telephone: +34 952 02 05 48
Fax: +34 952 02 05 59
Contact: etc-sia@uma.es
1
P a g e |1
Document History
Version
Date
Author (s)
0
23-07-2014
Anne van Doorn, Rini
Schuiling
Remarks
1
CONTENTS
1
Introduction .................................................................................... 3
2
Goals............................................................................................... 3
3
Input datasets ..................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4
Fusion of wetlands ............................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
5
Drivers and Pressure indicators ........ Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.1 Driver: Agricultural intensity ....................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.2 Driver: isolation ............................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.3 Driver: Pollution ............................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.4 Driver: climate change ................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.5 Driver: invasive species ............................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
6
Literature ............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
P a g e |3
1
INTRODUCTION
In this analysis the agro-ecosystem is defined as cropland/ arable land. Grasslands and pastures are covered by
the ecosystem grasslands. The condition of the agro-ecosystem is defined in terms of biodiversity, i.e. as the
condition for wildlife habitat (as listed in art 17 of the Birds and Habitat directive). The arable farming system is a
major agro-ecosystem in Europe, it is one of the most widespread forms of land use in Europe today. Although
the agro-ecosystem occupies a large area, arable farming systems of a high ecological quality are rare (Stoate et
al 2009). However, some farming systems created ecological niches for many wildlife species, such as the
skylark. The present range of farmland biodiversity has become established because of the particular mix of crops
and management techniques used.
The arable farming systems with high ecological quality are low intensive and mostly located to southern and
eastern Europe. The higher conservation value has been confirmed in Eastern Europe, where cereal fields and
stubbles offers seed food sources for threatened farm land birds like the Coturnix coturnix and the Perdix perdix
(Pinke
et al., 2008). Also in the Mediterranean a large proportion of species and habitats protected by EU HBD are
associated with arable farmland, for example the Great Bustard (Otis tarda) (Moreira et al., 2005).
The biodiversity that is (to more or less extent) present in arable agro-ecosystems is mainly threatened by the
polarisation of land management: intensification of agricultural practices in the most favourable areas and
farmland abandonment in the most deprived areas (EEA 2010).
Intensification of land use is the most important due to the decline of farmland biodiversity in arable agroecosystems. Increased application of fertilisers and pesticides, drainage and irrigation, simplification of cropping
systems, loss of non-crop habitats, etc has a negative effect on species richness (Stoate et al 2001, 2009).
On the other hand, it leads farmland abandonment also to loss of biodiversity resulting in rapid development of
shrub cover, leading to loss of species and increased risks of wildfires. Declines in some arable bird species were
linked to abandonment in regions with small scale farmland (Wretenberg et al., 2007).
Afforestation and urban sprawl are also causes of loss of agro-ecosystems. The single pressures on the
biodiversity of agro-ecosystems are discussed underneath, starting with the most relevant ones.
2
GOALS
The assessment of the condition and pressures on agro-ecosystems aims at selecting and applying the most
appropriate indicators and accompanying datasets to map the condition of agro-ecosystems and the most
important pressures influencing the ecosystem.
The goal is to come to a comprehensive set of indicators and data focused on pressures on agro-ecosystems.
Therefore, for each pressure the relevance and the availability of indicators are assessed. Subsequently the data
are applied in a GIS and the indicators are mapped and described.
The steps followed to define the indicators are:
•
Check the availability and evaluate the coverage and suitability of data reported Abdul Malak (2013),
•
Analyse their relevance to assess pressures,
•
Select the input datasets, according to their relevance and importance in contributing to the pressures
assessment,
3
P a g e |4
•
1
Provide a workflow on assessing pressures on agro- ecosystem with selected input data.
CONDITION OF AGRO-ECOSYSTEMS
To refine the general ecosystem condition map for agro-ecosystems, the pan-European High Nature Value
farmland map is used. The area of High Nature Value farmland indicates an area that historically has been
managed at low intensity and not been converted to intensive farming. This area represents important biodiversity
in agricultural systems. They have one or more of following characteristics:
•
•
•
dominated by semi-natural vegetation;
dominated by a mosaic of different low intensity agricultural land uses and natural and structural
elements,
hosting rare species or supporting a high proportion of their European or global populations.
The HNV-farmland map is based on CORINE land cover (CLC 2006). The selection of HNV relevant categories
was based on the environmental stratification of Europe, expert rules (e.g. relating to altitude, soil quality) and
country specific information. To fine tune the results biodiversity data with European coverage were used, like
NATURA 2000, Important Bird Areas, Prime butterfly areas, in addition to national biodiversity data sets.
For more meta-information, see the template describing this data set.
The HNV-farmland map covers both farmed pastures and arable land with high nature values. To avoid overlap
with the grasslands ecosystem, HNV pastures where excluded by overlaying the HNV map with the agricultural
categories1 of Corine land cover map of 2006. The resulting map marks the areas of High Nature Value arable
land. This information is used to refine the general condition map, whereby areas in good condition (in terms of
presence of indicator species) are highlighted.
As the arable ecosystem is the most intensively managed ecosystem type, presence of species and biodiversity
values are, in general low. Therefore we decided that it will be sufficient to refine the condition map with only
highlighting the areas in a good condition, in terms of high nature value. So, no extra decision rules were used to
distinguish made between bad or moderate condition.
Corine 2006
agricultural
categories
Selection of
‘arable’ HNV
HNV map
General
Overlay of
Refined
condition
‘arable’ HNV
condition map of
map (art 17)
with general
agro-ecosystems
condition
1
Agro-ecosystems include the following CLC-categories: Non-irrigated arable land (211), Permanently irrigated
land (212), Rice fields (213), Vineyards (221), Fruit trees and berry plantations (222), Olive groves (223),
Annual crops associated with permanent crops (241); complex cultivation patterns (242); land principally
occupied by agriculture, with significant areas of natural vegetation (243); and agro-forestry areas (244),
4
P a g e |5
PLEASE PROVIDE CAPTION PROVIDING A MEANING FOR THE SCALE YOU HAVE USED IN THE LEGEND
(is 0 bad and 100 good?)
2
PRESSURE INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT.
2.1 DRIVER: LAND MANAGEMENT
Over-exploitation or the total lacks of agricultural land management are the most important pressures on agro-ecosystems. In
the most valuable agro-ecosystems decades of traditional low-intensive agricultural management has resulted in an agroecosystem with specific characteristics offering a habitat for farmland species. In case the balance of low-intensive management
is disturbed by either intensification of agricultural practices or abandonment, the habitat of these species is threatened.
Because of these processes, decline of biodiversity values is most steep in the agro-ecosystems.
2.1.1 Single pressure: intensity of land management
Land use
Map with areas of
intensity map
Select arable
extensive and
(Temme &
management classes
intensive land use
Verburg 2011)
5
P a g e |6
For the purpose of mapping pressure of land use intensity, a suitable indicator has to be able to map both areas
where land management is intensive, thus putting a pressure on biodiversity, and areas where land management
is extensive, thus supporting biodiversity values.
The indicator developed by Temme and Verburg (2011) provides that possibility. They proposed to use a
combination of European level databases to construct land use intensity maps with separate methodologies for
arable land and grassland, whereby CLC2000 land cover data were re-classified in respectively 3 classes of
intensity of agricultural management for arable land and 2 classes of intensity for grassland.
As an appropriate indicator for the intensity of arable land management nitrogen application was selected.
Nitrogen application has a high relevance to agro-biodiversity (e.g. (Kleijn et al., 2009)) and is commonly used as
a land use intensity indicator (Herzog et al., 2006). Because of a lack of high spatial resolution EU wide data on
nitrogen application, NUTS2/3 data from the Farm Structure Survey (FSS) were disaggregated using the Land
Use/Cover area Frame Statistical Survey (LUCAS) observation on crop types (Jacques and Gallego, 2005 ).
Multinominal regression, including factors as topographic conditions, soil and climate conditions, population
density and accessibility, was used to predict the intensity classes (Temme and Verburg, 2011).
The resulting map shows the area’s with extensive, moderately intensive and intensively managed arable land.
PLEASE PROVIDE CAPTION
6
P a g e |7
2.1.2 Single pressure: farmland abandonment
Another important threat to farmland biodiversity in arable agro-ecosystems is farmland abandonment. Mainly due
to the declining viability of small scale and / or extensive farming systems, farmers are sometimes forced to give
up the land management which allows for natural succession, and eventually can lead to an increased dominance
of shrubs and forest growth. This process might result in new wilderness, but it can also threaten biodiversity,
especially in the so-called High Nature Value (HNV) farmlands, including ecologically valuable grasslands.
To map the areas that are at risk of farm land abandonment, use was made of the study of Terres et al. (2013),
who define three broad categories of drivers of farmland abandonment:

natural handicaps: poor environmental / biophysical suitability for agricultural activities.

low farm stability and viability.

negative drivers in the regional context.
The main result of the Terres et al study was a final risk indicator of Farmland Abandonment in which the
meaningful indicators were integrated into a composite index.
The composite index includes indicators like low farm income, lack of investments on farm, farm holders’ age, low
population density and remoteness. The composite index, normalised at EU-level (S4) was used to map the areas
that are at risk of farm land abandonment.
The data are at NUTS2 level, which is quite coarse. So within these regions, the CLC2000-2006 was used to
downscale the results, by selecting areas that show changes from agriculture to forest / shrub land1.
Risk of farmland
abandonment
(data of JM
High light NUTS2
Corine 2006
with high risk
agricultural
Terres)
CLC 2000-2006
categories
Select changes from
agriculture to forest /
shrubs
1
Map with hotspots
of land
abandonment
Selected CLC categories: 311 Broad-leaved forest, 312 Coniferous forest, 313 Mixed forest, 321 Natural
grasslands, 322 Moors and heathland, 323 Sclerophyllous vegetation, 324 Transitional woodland-shrub, 333
Sparsely vegetated areas, 334 Burnt areas
7
P a g e |8
PLEASE PROVIDE CAPTION PROVIDING A MEANING FOR THE SCALE YOU HAVE USED IN THE LEGEND
2.2 DRIVER: HABITAT CHANGE
2.2.1 Single pressure: land use change
Land use changes other than intensification or land abandonment also put pressures on agro-ecosystems. Urban
sprawl is another important pressure. Increase of artificial surface is 1,5% per year (CLC 200-2006) and almost
half of this spread was on to farmland.
To map this pressure, Corine land cover change 2000-2006 was used. The agricultural classes (see previous
paragraph for corresponding CLC-categories) were selected. Next a sub-selection was made of the areas that
changed to ‘artifical’ categories 1.
Select changes from
CLC 2000-2006
agriculture to non-
Map with hotspots
agricultural (including
of land use change
land take)
1
Selected CLC categories: 111 Continuous urban fabric, 112 Discontinuous urban fabric, 121 Industrial or
commercial units, 122 Road and rail networks and associated land, 23 Port areas, 124 Airports, 131 Mineral
extraction sites 132 Dump sites 133 Construction sites, 141 Green urban areas, 142 Sport and leisure facilities
8
P a g e |9
2.3 SINGLE PRESSURE: CLIMATE CHANGE
It is predicted that climate change will influence both the management and ecology of farming systems (Stoate et
al 2009). This will differ between northern and southern Europe. According to the Espon study (2013) climate
change is expected to have the highest environmental impacts in the south and north of Europe.
In the Mediterranean the drier and hotter climate will increase the likelihood of forest fire occurrence as well as
soil erosion (Espon 2013, Stoate et al 2009, Nunes et al., 2008). In northern Europe climatic conditions might
enhance, with mild temperatures and high precipitation, to grow a wider range of crops. Climatic variability might
result in a reduction in suitable areas of traditional crops (Marrachi et al.,2005).
Forest fires, soil erosion and reduction of traditional crops might impact populations of farmland birds. However, to
what extent these impacts will have an effect on the condition of the habitat is hardly known as little research has
been done. Nevertheless, areas with high risks of effects of climate change were mapped by ESPON (2013).
These data are projected on the area of the agro-ecosystem.
climate change
on agriculture
forest (ESPON)
Map with hotspots of effects of
Corine 2006
climate change on agro-
agricultural
ecosystems
categories
9
P a g e | 10
10
P a g e | 11
3
REFERENCES
Abdul Malak D, Antonio Sánchez Espinosa, Christoph Schröder, Stefan Kleeschulte, Gerard Hazeu, Gerbert
Roerink, Raquel Ubach, Camino Liquete, Annemarie Bastrup-Birk (2013) Towards a Pan-European Ecosystem
Assessment Methodology. ETC SIA final report task 5.2.5_3
EEA, 2010 Biodiversity baseline (technical report No 12/2010). Copenhagen: European Environmental Agency.
Espon (2013) ESPON Climate Climate Change and Territorial Effects on Regions and Local Economies Applied
Research 2013/1/4
Herzog F., B. Steiner, D. Bailey, J. Baudry, R. Billeter, R. Bukácek, G. De Blust, R. De Cock, J. Dirksen, C.F.
Dormann, R. De Filippi, E. Frossard, J. Liira, T. Schmidt, R. Stöckli, C. Thenail, W. Van Wingerden, R. Bugter
2006 Assessing the intensity of temperate European agriculture at the landscape scale European Journal of
Agronomy, 24 (2006), pp. 165–181
Jacques P., F.J. Gallego 2005 The LUCAS project—the new methodology in the 2005–2006 surveys Workshop
on Integrating Agricultura and Environment: CAP Driven Land Use Scenarios, Belgirate (2005)
Moreira F., M.J. Pinto, I. Henriques, T. Marques 2005 The importance of low-intensity farming systems for fauna,
flora and habitats protected under the European “Birds” and “Habitats” Directives: is agriculture essential for
preserving biodiversity in the Mediterranean region? A.R. Burks (Ed.), Trends in Biodiversity Research, Nova
Science Publishers, New York (2005), pp. 117–145
Pinke, G., Pa´ l, R., Kira´ ly, G., Mesterha´zy, A., 2008. Conservation importance of the arable weed vegetation on
extensively managed fields in western Hungary. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection 21, 447–452.
Stoate C., A. Báldi, P. Beja, N.D. Boatman, I. Herzon, A. van Doorn, G.R. de Snoo, L. Rakosy, C. Ramwell, 2009
Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe – A review, Journal of Environmental
Management, Volume 91, Issue 1, October 2009,
Stoate C., N.D. Boatman, R. Borralho, C. Rio Carvalho, G. de Snoo, P. Eden 2001 Ecological impacts of arable
intensification in Europe Journal of Environmental Management, 63 (2001), pp. 337–365
Temme, A. & Verburg, P.H. (2011). Mapping and modelling of changes in agricultural intensity at the European
extent. Agriculure, Ecosystems & Environment 140, 46-56. Kleijn et al., 2009
Terres JM – L Nisini – E Anguiano (2013) Assessing the risk of farmland abandonment in the EU. JRC Scientific
and Policy reports, Ispra
Wretenberg J., A. Lindstrom, S. Svensson, T. Part 2007 Linking agricultural policies to population trends of
Swedish farmland birds in different agricultural regions Journal of Applied Ecology, 44 (2007), pp. 933–941
11
P a g e | 12
4
ANNEX: META INFORMATION HNV MAP
Name of the data set:
Area of High nature value farmland
Description of the information content:
Source:
EEA
Link:
Available at Eionet
Policy relevance:
The EC promotes that agri-environment payments should be targeted to HNV farming systems (stated in the
proposals for the regulation for support for the rural development by the EAFRD) but specific targeting is not
obligatory.
Environmental monitoring and evaluation of EU policies and measures are becoming more important. The EC
has given priority to the development of environmental indicators as these are necessary to monitor agrienvironment
programmes, to provide the contextual situation, to identify environmental issues related to
European agriculture, to help target programmes and measures and to understand linkages between agricultural
practices and the environment. HNV farmland is an important indicator for the issues related to agro-biodiversity.
The share of HNV of the total utilized agricultural area is used as an indicator to measure the impact of rural
development policies (RDP), and is as such part of the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF).
The HNV indicator consists of three sub indicators:
Relevant information:
'High nature value farmland area' (ha) indicates the area where farming systems are sustaining a high level of
biodiversity. They are often characterized by extensive farming practices, associated with a high species and
habitat diversity or the presence of species of European conservation concern. This indicator is based on three
sub-indicators and shows trends in area (as proportion of the total utilised area)
Type 1: farmland with a high proportion of semi-natural vegetation;
Type 2: farmland with a mosaic of low intensity agriculture and natural and structural
margins, hedgerows, stonewalls, patches of woodland
elements, such as field
or scrub, and small rivers;
Type 3: farmland supporting rare species or a high proportion of European or world
populations.
Spatial coverage:
The HNVmap includes all EU27 member states as well as Switzerland,
Iceland, Norway and non EU Central and Eastern European countries like
Map if available
Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, FYR of Macedonia, Kosovo under
12
P a g e | 13
UNSCR 1244/99, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey
Temporal coverage:
The present HNV map is based on Corine land cover data of 2006
Resolution:
1 km2
Format
Data availability:
Available at EEA
Shortcomings / limitations / gaps:


The current approach relies to a large degree on CORINE land cover data to estimate the distribution of
HNV farmland in Europe. But Corine faces a couple of constraints (based on Paracchini et al 2008):
o There is a great discrepancy between the area of farmland as identified through Corine and the
UUA as been indicated by the agricultural statistics.
o The minimum mapping unit of CORINE land cover data is 25 ha - below this size objects are
not mapped. As for HNV farmland this implies that e.g. landscape elements are not well
represented, consequently HNV type 2 is difficult to map
o the photo-interpretation techniques show some limits in the identification of structurally
complex classes
o The CORINE mapping methodology does not allow for identification of different levels and
intensity of farm management. Therefore it is not certain that all of the mapped areas are under
farming use. This is the case for various types of scrubland, heaths and moorlands, which
historically are associated with grazing, but are not necessarily grazed by domestic livestock at
present.
o Even if Corine will be updated every 5/6 years instead of the 10 year first cycle, the regularity is
not considered to be sufficient for monitoring area changes.
The current data sets at European level only allow providing area estimates at NUTS2 level.
Status of the underlying methodology
Published (Andersen et al 2003, EEA 2012)
EEA 2012 Updated High Nature Value Farmland in Europe An estimate of the
distribution patterns on the basis of CORINE Land Cover 2006 and biodiversity data.
EEA technical report
13