AGRICULTURAL FUNCTIONS AND BIODIVERSITY

A EUROPEAN STAKEHOLDER APPROACH TO THE CBD AGRICULTURAL

BIODIVERSITY WORK PROGRAMME

Edited by Laura Buguñá Hoffmann,

European Centre for Nature Conservation

2

With contributions from

• Dr Jan-Erik Petersen, Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), London

• Dr Floor Brouwer, Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI), the Netherlands

• Dr Pablo Sastre Olmos & Dr Lola Guillén, Environmental Research Centre ‘Fernando González Bernáldez’ (CIAM), Spain

• Prof. Dr Eckhart Kuijken & Dr Jurgen Tack, Flemish Institute of Nature Conservation (INC), Belgium

• Susi Witteveen, Expertise Centre of the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries, the Netherlands

• Jadwiga Sienkiewicz, Institute of Environmental Protection (IOS), Poland

• Graham Drucker, ECNC, Tilburg

Reviewed by

• Gerard van Dijk, UNEP/ROE, Geneva;

• Visitación García Cidad, the European Sustainable Use Specialist Group of IUCN/SSC (ESUSG of IUCN/SSC), Brussels;

• Dr Liam Lysaght, The Heritage Council, Ireland;

• Peter Botschek, European Fertilizers Manufacturers Association (EFMA), Brussels;

• Mark Felton, English Nature, England;

• Sandra Rientjes, ECNC, Tilburg.

The project has been carried out by the following project partners:

• European Centre for Nature Conservation (ECNC), Tilburg;

• Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), London;

• Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI), the Netherlands;

• Environmental Research Centre ‘Fernando González Bernáldez’ (CIAM), Spain;

• The European Sustainable Use Specialist Group of IUCN/SSC (ESUSG of IUCN/SSC), Brussels;

• Expertise Centre of the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries, the Netherlands;

• Institute of Environmental Protection (IOS), Poland.

The following funders have granted financial support to the project:

• European Commission - Directorate General on Environment;

• English Nature;

• Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries - Department of Nature Management;

• European Centre for Nature Conservation.

3

Acknowledgements The editor wishes to thank all experts that contributed to this publication, especially to the members of the peer review group, to the project partners, and to the speakers of the European Workshop. The editor is also grateful to the ECNC colleagues who reviewed the text, its editing quality and the layout of this report. Finally, the editor wishes to thank the funders: this publication was made possible through the financial support of the European Commission - Directorate General on Environment, English Nature (United Kingdom), the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries (Department of Nature Management) and ECNC.

Citation: Agricultural functions and biodiversity - A European stakeholder approach to the CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme

Laura Buguñá Hoffmann (ed.), Tilburg: European Centre for Nature Conservation, 2001, (ECNC Technical report series), ISBN: 90-76762-10-4

© ECNC: No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of ECNC. The views expressed by the contributors do not necessarily constitute ECNC policy.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the funders.

4

List of Contents Executive Summary 7

PART A - INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 9

Chapter 1: Introduction to the report 9

Chapter 2: Introduction to the current policy framework relevant to agriculture and biodiversity, with a focus on the Convention on Biological Diversity 11 2.1. What is the Convention on Biological Diversity 11

2.2. CBD and agricultural biodiversity 12

2.3. The CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme 13

2.4. European response to the CBD and agriculture 14

Chapter 3: Analysing the linkages between agricultural management practices and biodiversity 16 3.1. Linkages between biodiversity and agriculture 16

3.2. Agricultural management practices and their impact on biodiversity 18

3.2.1. Environmentally sound agricultural practices 19

3.2.2. Extensive farm management practices 21

3.2.3. Benefiting from local and regional know-how 23

3.2.4. The integration of structural (landscape) elements 25

3.2.5. New technologies 25

3.2.6. Sustainable farm models 26

3.2.7. Crop and livestock diversity 26

3.3. Agricultural practices and the protection of wild species 27

3.4. Agriculture and biodiversity in the Central and Eastern European region 29

3.4.1. The biodiversity value of farmland in Central and Eastern Europe 29

3.4.2. Implications of recent agricultural developments for biological diversity in CEE 30

3.4.3. The development of agri-environmental policy in Central and Eastern European 31

3.4.4. Linking agricultural development to the conservation of biodiversity 32

Chapter 4: The socio-economic, cultural and environmental context of agriculture and biodiversity 33 4.1. Services of agricultural biodiversity 33

4.2. Traditional and local knowledge of agricultural biodiversity, cultural factors and participatory processes 34

4.3. Tourism associated with agricultural landscapes 35

4.4. Other socio-economic factors 36

4.4.1. Health and consumer protection 36

4.4.2. Water Management 36

4.4.3. Energy, oil seeds and fibres 37

4.4.4. Medicines 38

5

Chapter 5: Markets and products 39 5.1. Agricultural production in the European context 39

5.2. Public incentives for agri-environmental schemes 41

5.3. The market for organic products 41

5.4. Contracts in the agri-food chain to improve environmental quality 42

Chapter 6: Contributing to the multiple functions of agriculture and its linkages to biodiversity – the role of stakeholders 44 6.1. Farmers 45

6.2. Retailers, agro-industry, cooperatives 46

6.3. Consumers 47

6.4. NGOs 48

6.4.1. Conservationist NGOs 48

6.4.2. Agricultural NGOs 48

6.5. Public authorities and international governmental organizations 49

6.5.1. National governments 49

6.5.2. Governmental agencies 49

6.5.3. International organizations representing national governments 49

6.5.4. Regional authorities 52

6.5.5. Other bodies 52

6.6. Scientific Community 53

6.7. Other stakeholders 54

PART B - EUROPEAN WORKSHOP AND CASE STUDIES 55

Chapter 7: Report of the stakeholder workshop 55 7.1. Workshop Conclusions 56

7.2. Opening, Introduction and setting the scene 57

7.3. Factual introduction about the CBD and its agricultural biodiversity work programme 58

7.4. Biodiversity and multifunctionality in European agriculture: priorities, current initiatives and possible new directions 58

7.5. Economy, ecology and agriculture 59

7.6. Fostering linkage between agriculture and biodiversity: the EU level and the national implementation 59

7.7. Agricultural Intensification and the Collapse of Europe's Farmland Bird Populations 60

7.8. Review of the role of commercial agriculture in delivering biodiversity 60

7.9. Summary of Plenary discussion 61

7.10. Session A: The role of farmers and the business sector in sustaining agriculture and biodiversity 61

7.11. Session B: Biodiversity components and agriculture – defining priority actions for positive linkages 63

7.12. Discussion and final conclusions, chaired by Mark Felton, English Nature 65

6

Chapter 8: Good practice case studies 67 8.1. Wet grasslands and biodiversity: the Polder region between Ostend, Bruges and Knokke (Belgium) 67

8.2. Cereal steppes in Central Spain 70

8.3. How agriculture can support local biodiversity: a small scale case study in Białowieża, Poland 78

8.4. Wielewaal fruit farm: Relationships between biodiversity, agriculture and social developments on a fruit farm (Eindhoven, the Netherlands) 83

PART C - RECOMMENDATIONS 89

Chapter 9: Towards a European stakeholder approach 89

ANNEX 1: Linkages between agricultural management and biodiversity components for the case of dry grasslands 99

ANNEX 2: Overall objectives, approach and guiding principles of the programme of work on agricultural biodiversity 100

ANNEX 3: Activities under the CBD Programme of work on agricultural biodiversity 101

ANNEX 4: Participants list of the European Workshop: Analysing the interaction between agricultural practices and the sustainable use of biodiversity - the role of stakeholders 103

ANNEX 5: Final Programme of the European Workshop: Analysing the interaction between agricultural practices and the sustainable use of biodiversity - the role of stakeholders 105

ANNEX 6: Full papers and presentations of the European Workshop: Analysing the interaction between agricultural practices and the sustainable use of biodiversity - the role of stakeholders 106

Factual introduction about the CBD and its CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme Dr Elzbieta Martyniuk, Chairperson of the working group of agricultural biodiversity, CBD 107

Biodiversity and multifunctionality in European agriculture: priorities, current initiatives and possible new directions Gerard van Dijk, UNEP/ROE, Geneva 123

Economy, ecology and agriculture Risto Volanen, Secretary General, COPA-COGECA 142

Fostering linkage between agriculture and biodiversity: the EU level and the national implementation Jonas Ericson, Working Party on International Environment (Biodiversity), EU Council 150

Agricultural Intensification and the collapse of Europe's farmland bird populations Paul Donald, RSPB, United Kingdom 154

The interaction between agricultural practices and the sustainable use of biodiversity Alastair Leake, CWS, Focus on Farming, United Kingdom 159

The role of retailers and food processors in supporting the multiple functions of agriculture Dr Floor Brouwer, Agricultural Research Institute (LEI), the Netherlands 168

Agricultural rural development programmes in the context of EU enlargement: The SAPARD instrument Mr John Powell, UK National Audit Office, SAPARD Adviser 169

Developing an integrated approach for farmers and local administrators R. Simoncini, the European Sustainable Use Specialist Group of IUCN/SSC 173

ANNEX 7: Directory of stakeholders on agricultural practices and/or biodiversity conservation 182

7

Executive Summary The multi-annual agricultural biodiversity work programme of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was endorsed at the fifth Conference of the Parties to the CBD (Nairobi, May 2000). It includes as one of its activities the promotion and development of assessments of the interactions between agricultural practices and the conservation and sustainable use of the components of biodiversity.

This report aims to raise awareness among stakeholders on the importance of agriculture and agricultural management practices for (wild) biodiversity conservation and to analyse the interactions between agricultural practices and the conservation and sustainable use of the components of biodiversity, as described in the CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme. Achieving this requires the identification and successful implementation of land use systems and management practices that reduce the biodiversity loss and enhance its sustainable use and management in different environmental and socio-economic contexts.

The report reflects the findings of the European project: ‘Work on Convention on Biological Diversity and the COP: raising awareness in stakeholders and international communities on the importance of agriculture and agricultural practices for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity’, which consisted of the following key elements:

• the preparation of an independent technical document, including good practice case studies and facts and figures on the components of agriculture and their relations to biodiversity maintenance;

• the organization of a one day European Workshop, in which awareness has been raised in stakeholders and international communities on the importance of agriculture and agricultural practices for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity; and

• the profiling of the agro-biodiversity decisions of the Convention’s COP5 as relevant to the European Community and the EC accession process, most notably in relation to the CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme.

A broad range of stakeholders is involved in sharing know-how on how sustainable farming practices can provide agricultural commodities jointly with environmental goods and services. The project made clear that the cooperation of all stakeholders, at local, regional and at international level is required. Yet, the communication between farmers, cooperatives, retailers and households needs to go beyond strict price discussions. As most participants in the workshop acknowledged, policymakers must work with the farmers.

The increasing demand to link agriculture with other land uses, such as tourism and recreation opportunities, health aspects, water and energy management, can be regarded as an opportunity to support sustainable agriculture in the pan-European region. Agriculture provides a high variety of goods and services. Increasing awareness of the by-products and services provided by agriculture could trigger a positive response from citizens to support adaptive agricultural management practices, which foster biodiversity conservation and preserve cultural heritage, as well as its products. A challenge in proper resource management is that the individuals and sub-groups who use and value the products of a landscape or ecosystem often have different rights to those products and different endowments with which to capitalize on those rights.

While current economic developments, including agricultural specialization, marginalization and intensification, are the main driving forces behind the decline of biodiversity in farmland in Europe, more recent developments in the agricultural market also favour positive engagement, cooperation, enthusiasm and innovation. Biodiversity goals cannot be achieved simply by regulation; they depend on positive management that requires cooperation and innovative ideas.

Sound agricultural management practices can have a substantially positive impact on the conservation of Europe’s wild flora and fauna, as well as on the socio-economic features of its rural areas. In this context, the European model of agriculture and, in particular, its second pillar on rural development, is to be welcomed as an important contribution as

8

support is being offered to those agricultural management practices that follow the national codes of good agricultural practice.

Traditional farming and typical local productions contribute to safeguard certain existing natural or semi-natural ecosystems. Particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, land abandonment and the withdrawal of historic management have become a threat to farmland. Current nature protection efforts in Europe increasingly include landscapes that have evolved under an extensive agricultural management regime.

Progress made in understanding and monitoring the relationships between biodiversity, land use and management is leading to the identification of land use systems and management practices that reduce biodiversity loss and enhance its sustainable use and management in different environmental and socio-economic contexts. Agro-biodiversity indicators are an important tool for strengthening the positive linkages between agriculture and biodiversity, improving the monitoring of progress and for communicating with stakeholders. Yet, the linkages between agricultural practices and biodiversity conservation are of a complex nature, and need to be analysed within existing market conditions and policy frameworks.

The highly globalized trade in agricultural products can provide many opportunities at the local and regional levels, if all stakeholders join forces in promoting adaptive management practices. The exchange of information on management practices and instruments between countries and regions would not only provide valuable information and help to avoid duplication of research, but could bring about a global change in production and consumption patterns. Retailers, food processors and other stakeholders in the food chain have a major influence in fostering biodiversity-friendly agricultural management.

The communication process on fostering biodiversity-friendly management practices in agriculture among stakeholders has just started. At the project’s workshop, it became evident that the CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme is yet unknown to many stakeholders from the agricultural business. Whilst a one-day workshop is insufficient to engage into long-term cooperation, all stakeholders were still very pleased with this opportunity for debate and awareness raising, and asked for a continuation of the communication process on these issues.

Future policies on agricultural management practices should fully internalise such external benefits of agriculture for Europe’s society, by identifying the appropriate indicators, offering adequate support measures and fostering communication and awareness raising of linkages.

Reflecting both on the independent analysis of the various functions of agriculture as they relate to biodiversity, as well as on the discussions held during the project workshop, it is being proposed that a European response to the agricultural biological diversity work programme of the CBD should be based on:

• sound knowledge of the linkages between agricultural practices and wild biodiversity in Europe;

• common awareness of the benefits of such practices to society and rural areas; and

• cooperation between stakeholders.

This report is intended to get this discussion underway in Europe (and contribute to such a European response) and assist in implementing the CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme in the EU area and in the EU accession countries.

9

PART A - INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Chapter 1: Introduction to the report This report aims to raise awareness among stakeholders on the importance of agriculture and agricultural management practices for (wild) biodiversity conservation. The main policy framework for this report is the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its agricultural biodiversity work programme. One of the activities in the Work Programme, under Programme Element 1, Assessments, is to promote and develop assessments of the interactions between agricultural practices and the conservation and sustainable use of the components of biodiversity.

The report is the outcome of a European project, carried out by ECNC, in close cooperation with the following partners: the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP); the European Sustainable Use Specialist Group of IUCN/SSC (ESUSG of IUCN/SSC); the Dutch Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI); the Spanish Environmental Research Centre ‘Fernando González Bernáldez’ (CIAM); the Polish Institute of Environmental Protection (IOS); and the Expertise Centre of the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries.

The European Commission (DG Environment), English Nature, the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries and ECNC granted financial support to the project, and the Flemish Institute for Nature Conservation hosted the project’s European Workshop.

A key input to the report has been the European Workshop ‘Analysing the interaction between agricultural practices and the sustainable use of biodiversity – the role of stakeholders’, which took place on 23 March 2001 in Brussels. The Workshop brought together fifty-five stakeholders, providing an opportunity to analyse the common understanding of the linkages between agricultural management and biodiversity with regard to different stakeholder positions and expertise.

The report consists of three parts and nine chapters (including this one):

Part A presents background information on the linkages between agricultural production, biodiversity conservation and further land usages, including the CBD policy framework. This part of the report was distributed to the participants in draft prior to the European Workshop:

Chapter 2 is an introduction to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its global agricultural biodiversity work programme, adopted at the 5th Conference of the Parties to the CBD (Nairobi, May 2000). The CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme not only strives for better interaction between agriculture and biodiversity conservation, but also to define adaptive management practices and targeted capacity-building programmes and to support the mainstreaming of those programmes in practice.

Chapter 3 analyses the interactions between agricultural practices and the conservation and sustainable use of the components of biodiversity in Europe. The analysis starts with a review of agricultural policy in Europe and its impact on Europe’s wildlife. It continues with a description of several agricultural management practices and their potential impact on biodiversity, with a special focus on the EU accession countries in the CEE region.

Chapter 4 assesses the multiple functions of agricultural management in relation to biodiversity. In addition to food and manufactured goods, agriculture also provides a series of social and environmental services, such as biodiversity conservation, cleaner water and an increase in land values. Awareness of these links between agriculture, biodiversity and other uses leads to the need for cooperation among stakeholders from a broad range of sectors.

Chapter 5 gives an overview of the current situation in the agricultural market in (mainly western) Europe. The analysis includes the organic agriculture market and the market for Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Retailers and labelling play an important role in the European agricultural market.

10

Chapter 6 lists the main stakeholder groups involved in agricultural production, biodiversity conservation and the management of natural resources in Europe. As well as a short description of their role, information is given on their key activities relating to the subject of this report.

Part B presents examples and reports from the European Workshop, as well as practical case studies.

Chapter 7 summarizes the presentations and discussions of the European Workshop.

Chapter 8 illustrates the links between agriculture and biodiversity in four case studies. The cases analyse the relationship between agriculture and biodiversity conservation at the local level in several regions. Special attention is given to stakeholder involvement and the lessons learned.

Part C (Chapter 9) presents suggestions for a European stakeholder approach to agriculture, biodiversity and other land uses.

11

Chapter 2: Introduction to the current policy framework relevant to agriculture and biodiversity, with a focus on the Convention on Biological Diversity Graham Drucker, ECNC

Adopted in Rio at the Earth Summit, the Convention on Biological Diversity takes a multi-sectorial approach which includes agriculture. The CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme was adopted at the fifth Conference of the Parties to the CBD (Nairobi, 2000). This chapter gives factual information about this global policy framework and its linkages to the EU policy framework and the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy.

Agricultural biodiversity is a broad term that includes all components of biological diversity of relevance to food and agriculture, and all components of biological diversity that constitute the agro-ecosystem: the variety and variability of animals, plants and micro-organisms, at the genetic, species and ecosystem levels, which are necessary to sustain key functions of the agro-ecosystem, its structure and processes, in accordance with annex 1 of decision III/11 of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Source: CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme (Decision V/5 - Fifth Conference of the Parties to the CBD, Nairobi, Kenya; May 2000).

2.1. What is the Convention on Biological Diversity

In June 1992 the global Convention on Biological Diversity and Agenda 21 towards sustainability were signed by over 150 countries and the European Union at the Earth Summit. The Earth Summit confirmed that only through integrating conservation and development can social and ecological challenges be met. No nation can do this alone; a global partnership is needed to achieve sustainable development. This Convention is the first global instrument to take a comprehensive approach to the issues of conserving the world's biological diversity and to using its biological resources in a sustainable way.

The Convention is best seen as providing a framework for conserving biodiversity. Most of its articles set out policy guidelines that Parties can follow, rather than establishing precise obligations or setting targets. The conservation of biological diversity has taken on a new urgency since the UNCED conference. Due to the high level of public awareness and concern in Europe, there is a realization of the need to complement an essentially defensive approach, based on protection, with new policies designed to create or restore nature and wildlife in Europe.

The Convention’s objectives focus on the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources. The Convention is thus the first global, comprehensive agreement to address all aspects of biological diversity: genetic resources, species, and ecosystems. It recognizes – for the first time - that the conservation of biological diversity is ‘a common concern of humankind’ and an integral part of the development process.

The Convention on Biological Diversity contains forty-two articles, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and interim arrangements. The key articles, which form the backbone of the Convention, are the following:

12

• Article 6: General measures for conservation and sustainable use;

• Article 6a: Develop national strategies, plans or programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity;

• Article 6b: Integrate, as far as possible, the conservation ands sustainable use of biological diversity into relevant sectoral or cross sectoral plans, programmes and policies;

• Article 8: In-situ conservation;

• Article 11: Incentive measures;

• Article 12: Research and training;

• Article 13: Public education and awareness;

• Article 14: Impact assessment;

• Article 15: Access to genetic resources;

• Article 16: Access to and transfer of technology;

• Article 17: Exchange of Information;

• Article 18: Technical and scientific cooperation and the clearing-house mechanism;

• Article 19: Biotechnology;

• Article 20: Financial resources.

Ratified by all the countries of Europe and the European Community, the obligations of European Parties relate to the implementation of the Articles of the Convention, its protocol and the decisions of the five Conferences of the Parties to date. The sixth Conference of the Parties is due for April 2002, The Hague, the Netherlands.

2.2. CBD and agricultural biodiversity

In 1996, the third Conference of Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity established a multi-year programme of work on Agricultural Biological Diversity (COP Buenos Aires, Decision III/1). In Nairobi, the fifth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity reviewed the first phase of the work programme on agricultural biodiversity and adopted a multi-annual work programme (COP Decision V/5 - see Chapter 2.3, and Annexes 2 and 3).

The Conference of Parties (COP) to the CBD has recognized 'the special nature of agricultural biodiversity, its distinctive features, and problems needing distinctive solutions' which include the following:

• agricultural biodiversity is essential to satisfy basic human needs for food and livelihood security;

• agricultural biodiversity is managed by farmers; many components of agricultural biodiversity depend on this human influence; indigenous knowledge and culture are integral parts of the management of agricultural biodiversity;

• there is a great interdependence between countries for the genetic resources for food and agriculture;

• for crops and domestic animals, diversity within species is at least as important as diversity between species and has been greatly expanded through agriculture;

• because of the degree of human management of agricultural biodiversity, its conservation in production systems is inherently linked to sustainable use;

• nonetheless, much biological diversity is now conserved ex situ in gene banks or breeders' materials; and

13

• the interaction between the environment, genetic resources and management practices that occurs in situ within agro-ecosystems often contributes to maintaining a dynamic portfolio of agricultural biodiversity.

Agricultural biodiversity has temporal and spatial scale dimensions, especially at agro-ecosystem levels. Within the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity, agricultural biological diversity includes the following dimensions:

• genetic resources for food and agriculture;

• components of agricultural biodiversity that provide ecological services (such as nutrient cycling, pest and disease regulation, pollination, maintenance of local wildlife, watershed protection, erosion control, climate regulation and carbon sequestration);

• abiotic factors;

• socio-economic and cultural dimensions (since agricultural biodiversity is largely shaped by human activities and management practices). These include:

• traditional and local knowledge of agricultural biodiversity, cultural factors and participatory processes;

• tourism associated with agricultural landscapes; and

• other socio-economic factors.

(Source: http://www.biodiv.org/areas/agro/dimensions.asp)

There is a growing number of CBD initiatives that can be of interest for strengthening the linkages between agriculture and biodiversity, such as the possible development of a ‘Global Strategy for Plant Conservation’, to be considered (as per Decision V/10) at the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP). This global strategy for plant conservation will aim at halting the current continuing loss of plant diversity. The Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) will examine this matter at its seventh meeting in November 2001 and make recommendations to COP regarding the development of such a strategy, based on the views of Parties, existing initiatives and the relationship between plant conservation and the thematic work programmes. These views (submitted in May 2001) took into account the proposal contained in the Gran Canaria Declaration (UNEP/CBD/COP/5/INF/32), other relevant resolutions and relevant initiatives referred to in Decision V/10 (www.biodiv.org).

As a COP5 preparatory document quotes, 'few countries describe comprehensive policies, programmes or strategies for agricultural biodiversity, though a number indicate that they plan to develop these' (UNEP/CBD/COP5/INF10). First CBD case studies on agricultural biodiversity had been compiled prior to the Nairobi Conference (www.biodiv.org/agro/ casestudies.html).

2.3. The CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme

The overall aim of the CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme is to promote the implementation of the objectives of the Convention in the area of agricultural biodiversity, in line with relevant decisions of the Conference of Parties, notably decisions II/15, III/11 and IV/6.

The CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme includes the following aims:

• to promote the positive effects and mitigate the negative impacts of agricultural systems and practices on biological diversity in agro-ecosystems and their interface with other ecosystems;

• to promote the conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources of actual and potential value for food and agriculture; and

• to promote the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the use of genetic resources.

The CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme consists of four programme elements:

14

• assessment;

• adaptive management;

• capacity-building; and

• mainstreaming.

A detailed list of the activities for each section can be found under Annex 3. Within this report, the focus is on the first of these four sections – the assessment – and specifically on its activity 1.2. to 'promote and develop assessments of the interactions between agricultural practices and the conservation and sustainable use of the components of biodiversity referred to in Annex 1 to the Convention'.

The Convention on Biological Diversity and its Subsidiary Body for Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) have adopted the ‘ecosystem approach’ as the primary framework of action under the Convention, and are developing a usable definition and guidance for application. The ecosystem approach is also the assessment approach for the CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme: 'In implementing the programme of work, the ecosystem approach adopted under the Convention on Biological Diversity will be applied' (Annex of COP Decision V/5, COP Decision V/6). Analysing the linkages between agriculture and biodiversity on ecosystem level allows scientists and policymakers to take into account factors such as material flow, the interaction between allochtone and autochtone species, and the role of migratory species. In its fifth meeting (January 2000), SBSTTA analysed in greater depth the linkages between biodiversity, abiotic resources, genetic resources and human dimensions, through its focus on landscape and ecosystem levels (see UNEP/SBSTTA/5/10, UNEP/SBSTTA/5/12, among others).

At the fifth Conference of the Parties, a number of organizations were invited to support the development and implementation of the programme of work on agricultural biodiversity (COP Decision V/5). To facilitate this, the Executive Secretary of the CBD is organising a second liaison group meeting on agricultural biodiversity, in collaboration with the Food and Agriculture Organization. The meeting was held in Rome, Italy from 24 to 26 January 2001, at FAO Headquarters. The liaison group meeting reviewed progress to date, and identified opportunities for further activities by international organizations in support of the programme of work.

The 7th SBSTTA meeting (November 2001) will review progress in implementing the CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme. At the 6th Conference of the Parties of the CBD (The Hague, April 2002) the implementation of the CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme will be further reviewed.

Further information on the CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme is available on the web site of the Convention on Biological Diversity (http://www.biodiv.org/agro) as well as in Annexes 2 and 3 to this report.

2.4. European response to the CBD and agriculture

In accordance with the CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme, European Parties to the CBD are following a number of steps in support of agriculture and biodiversity at the regional level:

• Inter-governmental Conference on ‘Biodiversity in Europe’, Riga, Latvia, 2000: ‘Agriculture and Biodiversity’ was one of the six top items on the Agenda at this meeting of European Parties to the CBD, including the EU Member States, and the CEE Parties, along with the Council members of the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS). The conclusions fed directly into COP5 and into the work programme of PEBLDS;

• Within the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS), agriculture has been long regarded as a priority (Council meeting, April 1998, STRA-CO 8 and 10 (1998)). A high level Conference on Agriculture and Biodiversity is currently being prepared, under the auspices of the French Government and the Council of Europe, in collaboration with UNEP. Furthermore, the PEBLDS Secretariat has adopted

15

a new five year Action Plan (2001-2005) which (under Action Theme 2, 'Integration of biological and landscape diversity considerations into sectors’) includes activities on enhancing positive linkages between agriculture and biodiversity conservation;

• EC Biodiversity Action Plan for Agriculture – The European Commission adopted the EC Biodiversity Strategy in 1998 in response to its obligations as a Party to the CBD. The Strategy provides the framework for developing Community policies and instruments to comply with the CBD. The Strategy includes the obligation for the European Commission to work out Biodiversity Action Plans for a number of sectors including Agriculture. The Agricultural Biodiversity Action Plan sets out a series of objectives and actions for their implementation. The Action Plan was launched on 27 March 2001 in Sweden and a stakeholder workshop took place on 22 May 2001, with the aim of raising awareness among major European stakeholders;

• The Agenda 2000 reform of the EU Common Agricultural Policy brought along a stronger emphasis on rural development and agri-environmental measures (analysed in detail in Chapter 3);

• The 5th and the upcoming 6th EU Research Framework Programmes include extensive sub-programmes on sustainable agriculture and healthy food production;

• The 5th and 6th EU Environmental Action Programmes include as priority areas biodiversity conservation and the integration of environmental protection measures into sectors (Cardiff process). In November 1999, the EU Agricultural Council adopted an Integration Strategy on agriculture and the environment (Helsinki. November 1999);

• The EU Sustainable Development Strategy, adopted by the EU Council in Gothenburg in June 2001, includes the protection of natural resources as one of the four priority areas.

Despite the fact that the CBD plays an increasingly important role and is an important catalyst, it is clear that the integration of biodiversity and wider environmental concerns into agricultural policies has a longer history, dating from the 1980s. These sectoral policies are described in Chapter 3, within the context of the linkages between agricultural management practices and biodiversity.

16

Chapter 3: Analysing the linkages between agricultural management practices and biodiversity Laura Buguñá Hoffmann (ECNC) (Section 3.5 with Dr Jan-Erik Petersen (IEEP))

Agricultural management practices and trends have a key impact on biodiversity conservation. The effective implementation of biodiversity-friendly practices depends on the local environment, the economic and legal framework and the transfer of know-how.

'A blend of traditional and newer practices and technologies is used in agriculture, which utilize, or impact on, agricultural biodiversity in different ways, with particular consequences for biological diversity and for the sustainability and productivity of agricultural systems. A better understanding and application of these complex interactions could help to optimize the management of agricultural biodiversity in production systems.'

Source: CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme (Decision V/5), Nairobi

The impacts of intensive agricultural production on biodiversity conservation are widely recognized as particularly threatening. They constitute a wide range of impacts, from water quality, erosion and removal of hedges to socio-economic issues such as land abandonment. Looked at as a whole, we can begin to understand why 50 species are being lost each day (Wilson, 1988) without any conscious effort being made to cause such a high rate of extinctions. Since the 1980s, the agricultural community has been strengthening its efforts to reduce the environmental impacts of agriculture. In 1992, the MacSharry reform of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) – which aimed at reducing the production surplus – for the first time offered support to agri-environmental measures, including the production of biofuels and support for set-aside schemes.

The linkages between agriculture and biodiversity have been further analysed in extensive research and at several European and international conferences (such as the OECD Helsinki seminar on the environmental benefits for agriculture). But, according to the participants of the CBD/COP 5th Conference (Nairobi, 2000), 'understanding of the underlying causes of the loss of agricultural biodiversity is limited, as is understanding of the consequences of such loss for the functioning of agricultural ecosystems' (Decision V/5).

3.1. Linkages between biodiversity and agriculture

It is necessary to raise awareness of the role of biodiversity components in agro-ecosystems in order to foster adapted agricultural management practices. When analysing the linkages between agriculture and biodiversity, a distinction should be made between the following components:

• co-evolved wild species dependent on agro-ecosystems;

• wild species and natural habitats that are directly or indirectly linked to agro-ecosystems (such as wild geese hibernating on grassland);

• wild species’ genomes that may contribute to the continued productivity of crop species;

• biodiversity that contributes to resource productivity and quality (e.g. soil biota such as mycorrhyza and fungi).

Within this report, the focus will mainly be on the first and second components. In Chapter 4, the analysis of the linkages between agriculture and biodiversity will be broadened to include multiple agricultural usages and their linkages to biodiversity, such as landscape management or recreation facilities.

17

Most of the key functions for maintaining stable, robust, productive and sustainable agro-ecosystems include a number of ecological processes for which biodiversity conservation is the precondition. Box 1 illustrates different ecosystem functions, including carbon sequestration and water filtration.

The importance of agricultural land use for biodiversity in Europe has been recognized in the key European policy processes, most notably the UN ‘Environment for Europe’ process, the EC-Biodiversity Strategy, the ‘Biodiversity in Europe’ Inter-governmental Conference,

Riga, Latvia, 2000, the declarations from the Fourth Ministerial Conference ‘Environment for Europe’ in Århus (Denmark) in June 1998, the Dobrís Assessments from the European Environment Agency, and the European Commission’s Communication ‘Directions towards sustainable agriculture’ (COM (1999) 22).

In the European Union, habitats and species of particular importance for conservation have been defined through the EU Birds and Habitats Directives. Member states have been identifying candidate Special Areas of Conservation under the Habitats Directive, which, in combination with the Special Protection Areas designated under the Birds Directive, form the ‘Natura 2000 Network’. While neither the Bird Directive nor the Habitats Directive make any reference to agricultural management practices, the EU Rural Development Regulation (1257/99) establishes in its 5th and 6th chapter compensation schemes for farmers in areas with environmental restrictions and agri-environmental measures: 'Support for agricultural production methods designed to protect the environment and to maintain the countryside (agri-environment) shall contribute to achieving the Community’s policy objectives regarding agriculture and the environment. The EU 6th Environmental Action Programme strives for extending protection to the wider countryside, which would require a deeper and more effective integration of environment and biodiversity into agriculture, landscape, forestry and marine policies' (COM (2001) 31 final). The EU Sustainable Development Strategy calls for a more responsible management of natural resources and sets a concrete target for the EU: ’Protect and restore habitats and natural systems and halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010’ (COM (2001) 264).

In spite of substantial research efforts, agro-biodiversity data on the linkages between types of management practices, biodiversity components and socio-economic impacts are still scarce, as can be shown in the case of soil fertility. The maintenance of soil fertility remains one of the most fundamental gaps in current understanding of terrestrial ecosystems, and losses of below-ground genetic and species diversity from human impacts remain largely undocumented (UNEP Global Biodiversity Assessment, 1995). Soil-dwelling

Box 1: Some key functions for a stable agro-ecosystem

Some of the key functions for maintaining stable, robust, productive and sustainable agro-ecosystems are:

• breakdown of organic matter and recycling of nutrients to maintain soil fertility and sustain plant and consequently animal growth;

• breakdown of pollutants and maintenance of a clean and healthy atmosphere;

• moderation of climatic effects such as maintaining rainfall patterns and modulation of the water cycle and the absorption of solar energy by the land and its subsequent release;

• maintenance and stability of productive vegetative, fish and animal populations and the limitation of invasion by harmful or less useful species;

• protection and conservation of soil and water resources, for example by a vegetative cover and appropriate management practices, and the consequent maintenance of the integrity of landscapes and habitats;

• carbon-sequestration (by plants and soil). (Source: FAO-Netherlands Conference on ‘Multi-Functional Character of Agriculture and Land, Maastricht, 12/17.09.1999)

18

bacteria and fungi fulfil a broad variety of ecological functions such as denitrification, carbon sequestration, and production of natural antibiotics such as streptomycin. Earthworms are excellent examples of keystone species and environmental indicators: earthworm digestion favours certain micro-organisms over others, their litter fragmentation activities promote organism growth and they influence soil structure, creating a habitat for mobile arthropods. Maintaining a high earthworm biomass also contributes to biodiversity (García Cidad, 1999), since around 200 vertebrates (including birds, mammals and reptile/amphibian species) have been identified as earthworm consumers (Granval and Muys, 1996). Earthworms are commonly recommended indicators of soil quality as they have a positive effect on soil fertility and soil structure. Maintaining a high earthworm biomass also contributes to biodiversity (García Cidad, 1999), since around 200 vertebrates (including birds, mammals and reptile/amphibian species) have been identified as earthworm consumers (Granval & Muys, 1996).

In order to implement sustainable agricultural management practices, a common effort at the national and international levels is required (Díaz & Pineda, 1998). Trends in biodiversity loss can be significantly modified through appropriate land management options, which may also contribute to sustained productivity, carbon sequestration, combating degradation and other development goals. A better understanding and application of these complex interactions could help to optimize the positive linkages between agriculture and biodiversity in Europe. Progress made in understanding and monitoring the relationship between biodiversity and land use management is contributing to management practices that reduce biodiversity loss and enhance its sustainable use and management in different environmental and socio-economic contexts (UN-Economic and Social Council, 2000).

3.2. Agricultural management practices and their impact on biodiversity

A variety of practices, methods and techniques are available in order to enhance those agricultural management practices that have a positive impact on biodiversity. This section will present several management practices, but does not analyse whether certain management practices are feasible for wider use in the European region or parts of it. It also does not go into detail over agricultural production techniques and their impact on biodiversity, as this issue is already widely covered in many other publications. Section 3.3 analyses in more detail the linkages between agricultural practices and wildlife conservation.

For centuries, agricultural management developed in a way that would not harm biodiversity, but would even provide open, exposed areas on which many species depend. Spontaneous or man-induced changes in habitat conditions can drive species into extinction but may also provide core habitats for species. Since the early development of agriculture, farmers used to remove nutrients from ‘poor’ soils (such as heathlands and scrub) and use the mowings to fertilize the richer plots. On acid and poor soils unique ecosystems such as pannonic sand steppes or dry Atlantic coastal heaths with Erica vagans developed. Shepherds used to graze their herds on calcareous grasslands, which allowed certain plant families, such as orchids, to subsist. Semi-natural grasslands have replaced natural open spaces, which have almost disappeared from European landscapes.

But current economic developments such as agricultural specialization, marginalization, and intensification are the main driving forces behind the decline of biodiversity on farmland in Europe (Baldock et al., 1996). Perversely, both abandonment and intensification can occur in the same region at the same time.

There are no easy ways of increasing wildlife on arable land. To a large degree this is because the decline of species is the result of a combination of management and land use factors. For instance, the restoration of habitats for large flocks of finches would require leaving stubble on the field during winter and postpone sowing until spring, as well as tolerating broad-leaved weeds through the winter period and in field margins.

19

A variety of methods and techniques are available to enhance agricultural management practices that have a positive impact on biodiversity. These include:

1. Environmentally sound agricultural practices;

2. Extensive farm management practices;

3. Benefiting from local and regional know-how;

4. The integration of structural (landscape) elements;

5. New technologies;

6. Sustainable farm models;

7. Crop and livestock diversity.

3.2.1. Environmentally sound agricultural practices

All agricultural production processes represent an intervention in the natural ecosystem in order to provide food and fibre in a productive and cost-effective manner. Sustainable methods vary, as they have to be adapted and implemented according to the needs of the local conditions, markets, consumer demands and other factors. To be sustainable, production systems must prove their ability to maintain a certain level of productivity without the threat of long-term damage or degradation of the environment or resource base. The sustainable utilization of biological diversity in agriculture contributes to changes in certain practices, by reducing the use of insecticides through the action of beneficial insects, reducing ploughing by increasing soil’s biological activity, and preserving yields by increasing pollination (EU Biodiversity Action Plan for Agriculture, 2001). To grow healthy crops and animals, most farmers employ rotational systems that include crops of at least two or three species, and often use several different varieties.

The European Union is linking approximately a third of its agricultural support to the implementation of Good Agricultural Practices, and Member States are requested to define and monitor such practices. The EU Biodiversity Action Plan for agriculture (European Commission, 2001b) calls for 'developing guidelines or codes highlighting what should be the good agricultural practices as regards biodiversity in a given region'.

The main challenge remains in analysing the feasibility for such practices can support sustainable food production, linked to the conservation of natural resources, the required local know-how and the required economic return.

Environmentally sound agricultural management practices can now profit from a wide knowledge of adapted production methods, some of which are described below. Their impact on the conservation of natural resources depends on a variety of factors, such as the soil quality, the local know-how, the selection of seeds, and public support to the conservation efforts.

Conservation agriculture

Conservation agriculture refers to several practices which permit the management of the soil for agrarian uses, altering its composition, structure and natural biodiversity as little as possible and defending it from degradation processes (e.g. soil erosion and compaction). Direct sowing (non-tillage), reduced tillage (minimum tillage), non – or surface-incorporation of crop residues and establishment of cover crops (of spontaneous vegetation or by sowing appropriate species) under perennial woody crops or between successive annual crops, are some of the techniques which constitute conservation agriculture (García-Torres, L. & González , P., 1997).

Conservation agriculture is extensively practised in many countries such as the USA (over 50% of its annual cropping area), Brazil (> 15 million ha), Argentina (> 8 million ha), Canada and Australia, but unfortunately is poorly represented in Europe. Recently, the EU and national administrations have begun to support some conservationist techniques (EU Regulation 1257/ 1999; Spanish law 4/2001, and others).

The European Conservation Agriculture Foundation (ECAF) gives some suggestions on management practices that enhance biodiversity conservation (see Box 2).

20

Integrated farming practices

Integrated Farming is a holistic approach integrating a wide range of aspects such as nutrient cycles between crop and livestock, or biodiversity and landscape management into the production scheme. Integrated management techniques are a fundamental component of responsible farm management, including both crop and livestock husbandry, which provide the conditions that create the economic stability and the diverse and healthy environments that make sustainable agriculture a reality. For example, in Integrated Crop Management (ICM), the emphasis is on preventing rather than curing nutrient deficiencies, pest outbreaks or soil erosion.

Pest management options that fit into the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach include biological, mechanical and chemical crop protection measures, as well as biotechnology. Modern pest management is based on prevention, careful monitoring of crop health (pressure from disease, weed and pest populations) and expedient interventions. Natural control processes – through techniques such as crop rotation and encouraging beneficial pest predators – also help to avoid outbreaks. Applying integrated approaches to plant nutrition which enhance soil productivity through a balanced use of mineral fertilizers combined with organic sources of plant nutrients, is detailed in an FAO document entitled ‘Guide to efficient plant nutrition management’ (FAO, 1998).

Organic agriculture

In 2000, Europe had 23.58 per cent of all the organically managed agricultural land in the world (Willer & Yussefi, 2001). Organic farming in Europe ranges from approximately 0.3 per cent (Poland) to more than 10 per cent (Austria) of the UAA.

Box 2: ECAF suggestions to enhance biodiversity (provided by L. García-Torres, President of ECAF)

In most, if not all, agricultural systems the following operations/practices are highly recommended:

1. No tillage (or alter the soil profile as little as possible): It is well known that the soil is home to many thousands of invertebrates (earthworms, micro-arthropods, insects), micro-organisms, small mammals and reptiles, among others. Not altering the topsoil profile guarantees the preservation of large populaitons of all these soil organisms. Other advantages include restoring the ‘natural’ fertility as well as decreasing considerably the rates of fertilization.

2. Not burning the stubble; always protect the soil with stubble, crop residues and mulches: Do not leave the soil bare, as is the practice in conventional agriculture. The stubble or crop residues provide food and shelter for wildlife at critical times (of particular benefit to nesting birds and small mammals). In addition, retaining the stubble on the soil has many other very important environmental advantages: reduction of soil erosion and of surface water contamination, the soil acts as an carbon sink, etc. etc.

3. Use of environmental friendly herbicides and rotation of herbicides. Herbicides are extensively used in conventional agriculture. In conservation agriculture the use of herbicides is an important part of the technical package. However, conservationist techniques allows/requires a more environmental friendly use of herbicides (generally ‘post applied’/’not soil-acting herbicides’ with a very short half life and low ecotoxicological indexes) than in conventional agriculture. In any case, rotation of herbicides should also be recommended to enhance biodiversity.

4. Crop rotation is generally recommended in any agri-ecosystem for many reasons and also to increase biodiversity.

(3 and 4 could be considered as part of integrated production techniques)

21

Organic agriculture is a holistic production management system which promotes and enhances agro-ecosystem health, including biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity. The global standards for Organic Production and Processing are based on a number of principles and ideas. These include (IFOAM, 2000):

• to produce food of high quality in sufficient quantity;

• to interact in a constructive and life-enhancing way with natural systems and cycles;

• to consider the wider social and ecological impact of the organic production and processing system;

• to encourage and enhance biological cycles within the farming system, involving micro-organisms, soil flora and fauna, plants and animals;

• to maintain and increase long term fertility of soils;

• to maintain the genetic diversity of the production system and its surroundings, including the protection of plant and wildlife habitats.

Precision farming (combined with landscape elements)

As crop growth varies considerably due to local conditions, it is clear that applying inputs uniformly across large areas is not the right approach. Accurate field mapping with information collected from soil samples, pest monitoring and harvest yield data allows farmers to target the use of plant nutrients and crop protection products, leading to an efficient and judicious use of these products. One of the key issues is to develop strategies for within-field management. This can be either through management zones or continuous moving-window management. For example using fertilizers and their response function for different management zones within the field or as a continuous moving window function of spatial coordinates (McBratney, A., 2001).

Highly developed systems use computers installed in farm machinery such as harvesters, fertilizer spreaders and crop sprayers, combined with mobile satellite Global Positioning Systems, enabling farmers in some situations to spatially vary the rate at which inputs are applied, thereby optimising the growth potential of the crop based on accurate determination of soil and crop needs.

Precision agriculture does not, of course, always require a highly sophisticated technological approach. The principle remains that farmers in all situations can significantly improve the precision of their management techniques by collecting and analysing information from soil and plant testing.

In order to count as a sustainable management practice, precision agriculture needs to integrate landscape elements and biodiversity conservation measures.

3.2.2. Extensive farm management practices

The future of biodiversity on and around farmland is intimately tied to the practices of extensive agriculture. Farmland areas of particular value for biodiversity in Europe include:

• semi-natural areas that consist of extensive tracts of low-intensity agricultural land where more traditional forms of management are still widespread. Extensive farming areas include not only grassland but also extensively managed areas of permanent crops, arable and mixed farming;

• certain agricultural habitat types of value for particular species, especially habitats managed by extensive farming practices, but also including some relatively intensively managed areas of farmland where certain species have adapted to modern agricultural practices, for example in wet grasslands;

• structural elements in the farmed landscape, such as hedgerows, individual trees, ponds or field margins, that contain their own particular flora and fauna and are important resting, nesting and feeding sites for many other species of agricultural habitats (see section 3.2.3.).

22

Current nature conservation efforts in Europe increasingly include landscapes that have emerged as a result of extensive agriculture. Such habitats have become of key importance to biodiversity conservation since they host many endemic species. Indeed, with 60 per cent of the entire land mass of the world classified as rangeland (comprising extensive grasslands or scrub), their contribution to global biodiversity is substantial.

Natural environments can be increased substantially by promoting the adoption of practices that support the sustainable development of livestock production and agriculture, by effectively integrating the management of pastoralism and agriculture to close nutrient cycles, and by promoting the adoption of non-polluting techniques for processing agricultural resources. There is also a clear competition for resources between wild species and agricultural production. For instance, on a sandy soil, it may be advisable to use no-till crops, to prevent erosion; however, enough water and nutrients will be needed if the soil is to be productive enough. The lack of knowledge on the ecosystem’s production capabilities and resilience have led to barren land and depopulation in many areas, such as in Central Spain and East Portugal.

Traditional agro-ecosystems in Europe, such as extensively managed tree plantations (e.g. olive tree plantations in the Mediterranean countries), silvopastoral systems such as dehesas and montados in Spain and Portugal, and pastoral systems in higher mountain areas, account for a high degree of biodiversity. The dehesas and montados in the Iberian peninsula are a well-known example of a biodiversity-rich agricultural land use practice: many dehesas and extensive olive tree plantations host millions of hibernating birds, and scientists estimate that more than forty bird species are strongly linked to the olive tree, including the Song Thrush (Turdus philomelos), Hop (Upupa epos), the Cuckoo (Cuculus canrous) and cranes (Montero, 2000).

High nature value (HNV) farming systems probably account for the management of the greatest farmland area of importance for biodiversity in the EU and accession countries. Estimates of the scale of such farmland vary greatly and further research is necessary. Low-intensity farmland may account for as little as 10 or as much as 82 per cent of the total utilized agriculture area in different EU Member States (Beaufoy et al., 1994). The management of such ‘Environmentally Sensitive Areas’ (ESAs) helps to conserve and enhance the biodiversity of habitats or broad group of species, such as lowland heath or grazing marshes. One aim of ESA-management is to encourage participation by farmers, and all holders of the agreement have to adhere to basic environmental measures.

The EU Regulation 1257/1999 on rural development offers support to farmers in less favoured areas to ensure the continued agricultural land use of the area, to maintain the countryside, to promote sustainable farming systems and to apply usual good farming practices (1257/99, Title II, Chpt. 5). The conservation of HNV-farming areas is being supported under the scheme for agri-environmental measures (1257/99, Title II, Chpt. 6). Member states can further support such measures via cross-compliance and modulation (EU regulation 1259/99, Common Rules Regulation).

Domesticated animal species have an important role to play in agricultural land management and biodiversity although they comprise only approximately twenty mammals and ten bird species in the case of meat production (Sambraus, 1989). Although overgrazing is clearly the more frequent threat to sustaining biodiversity in many dry ecosystems, it is interesting to note that an absence of grazing can also be detrimental (Risser, 1988). Cattle and other grazing species have come to occupy a niche that is now essential for landscape preservation. Without grazers, many highlands and mountain ecosystems would not exist. What would happen to heathlands without local heath sheep breeds? What are steppes such as the Camargue or the Puszta without the local horse breeds? These are just a few examples of remaining rare breeds; in many other cases, local breeds were considered to be not productive enough and have become extinct, and in many cases the landscapes associated with those grazers were also lost.

Many wild plants of semi-natural grasslands disappear when fertilizer applications exceed about 50 kg N/ha per year, while a few weeds (such as White dead nettle) exploit high nitrate levels, and have become competitors to crops. A 20-year experiment in Switzerland has shown that less intensive and organic agriculture can be more efficient in the long run: the yields over 21 years were only 20 per cent less than on conventional fields. Since

23

organic agricultural management uses 30-60 per cent less fertilizer than conventional areas, the input/output ratio was much higher. In addition, less energy was used. Organic agriculture has clearly benefited soil fertility (50-80 per cent more earthworms and 40 per cent more soil bacteria, algae and fungi than on integrated management areas), and the numbers of beneficial insects (rove beetles, spiders, hoverflies) were twice as high as those found on conventionally managed areas (see http://www.fibl.ch). However, manpower inputs were also higher for such farms. Nevertheless, much research still needs to be done on organic agriculture. For example, organic agriculture is not good for earthworms per se. It is good because it increases the amount of organic matter in the soil (Hendrix, 1998), but it can be bad when copper is used in fruit productions (Ma, 1984).

3.2.3. Benefiting from local and regional know-how

Local conditions may have an impact on agricultural management. For instance, irrigation may be beneficial in the continental region, but may cause salinization in dry areas. The linkages between agricultural management practices and regional biodiversity depend on a number of factors:

• local biotic and abiotic conditions; • local know-how; • socio-economic factors; • other functions of agriculture, such as landscape preservation or water management.

To obtain the best balance between efficient agricultural production and the proper conservation of biodiversity, the priorities for agriculture and biodiversity at the local level are of key importance. Furthermore, the economic consequences for all actors involved (local conservation organizations, farmers and agricultural experts) need to be assessed. Such an approach allows the integrated management of resources, and it recognizes that humans and their cultural diversity are an integral component of ecosystems.

At the CBD-COP5 Conference in Nairobi, the Parties to the CBD endorsed the ‘Consideration of options for conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in dryland, Mediterranean, arid-, semiarid-, grasslands and savannah ecosystems’ (Decision V/23), including a programme of work. One of the activities of the draft work programme includes the identification and dissemination of best management practices, while building upon the knowledge, innovation and management practices of indigenous and local communities.

Figure 1 shows the linkages between (international/national/regional/local) policy measures and the consequences at the household level, which again have a socio-economic impact in the region.

Figure 1: Agricultural policy measures and regional effects (adapted after Schütz et al., 2000)

Policy Measures (e.g. subsidies, taxes, etc.)

Farm Household

Application of a specific production method

Society/ Economy/Markets

Ecosystem of the region

24

A wide variety of (local) agricultural management practices influence the biodiversity of a region in different ways. Agricultural management practices need to be developed and assessed in a biogeographic context, in order to fully take into account the carrying capacity of the region. Local management practices have an impact on the global biodiversity conservation status, and this global impact needs to be closely monitored. The Natura 2000 network is based on six Biogeographic Regions determined by the European Commission: Boreal, Atlantic, Continental, Alpine, Mediterranean, Macaronesian (for a map describing the habitats and biogeographic regions, visit the EEA web site at http://natlan.eea.eu.int:80/applications.htm).

For instance, in the Mediterranean region, the support for set-aside led to high levels of erosion, while the remaining fields were managed more intensively. In contrast, Mediterranean agricultural management practices that do not use irrigation can be considered to be fairly sustainable since they use comparably few inputs and are more efficient in the medium term (Díaz & Pineda, 1998). A case study for such a dry and extensive management practice (known as ‘secano’ in Spain) and its linkage to biodiversity is described in Chapter 8.

Traditional farming and typical local production methods contribute to safeguarding certain existing natural or semi-natural ecosystems (Specific Objectives of the ‘EU Agricultural Council Strategy’, Helsinki, November 1999). The exchange of information on management practices and instruments between countries and regions would certainly provide valuable information and would help to avoid duplication of research. The web site of the EU Clearing-House Mechanism can be a useful information tool (http://biodiversity-chm.eea.eu.int/).

The Agriculture Council Strategy underlines the need for rigorous monitoring and evaluation of integration. Agro-biodiversity indicators are an important tool to further the positive linkages between agriculture and biodiversity. According to the CBD, the search for agricultural biodiversity indicators is progressing but not yet sufficient to fulfil the monitoring and reporting needs: 'There is also a lack of widely accepted indicators of agricultural biodiversity' (CBD, Decision V/5). The search for agricultural biodiversity indicators has been motivated mainly by the following needs:

• understanding and quantifying the impacts of agricultural driving forces on biodiversity and landscapes;

• identification of agricultural landscapes with high quality biodiversity (High Nature Value Areas);

• guidance for policy implementation;

• monitoring of changes in agro-biodiversity through time series observations; and

• development of agri-environmental reports.

EU regulation 1750/1999 on support for rural development measures, and its common rules regulation, 1259/1999, require that farmers entering into agri-environment commitments and/or in receipt of compensatory allowances in Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) respect good farming practice across the whole of their farm: 'Usual good farming practice is the standard of farming which a reasonable farmer would follow in the region concerned. Member states shall set out verifiable standards in their rural development plans. In any case, these standards shall entail compliance with general mandatory environmental requirements.' (Article 28, EU regulation 1750/99).

The Rural Development Regulation 1257/99 foresees specific support for those agricultural production methods that comply with environmental protection requirements. Each member state/region may define measures for linking support to local (ecological) needs (Article 3).

As an example, in its rural development plan the Spanish region of Catalonia offers financial support to farmers for the following agri-environmental measures:

• extensification of agricultural production;

• use of environmental technologies that reduce the use of chemical substances;

25

• prevention of erosion in fragile areas;

• flora and fauna protection in wetlands;

• integrated management of extensive animal husbandry management.

(Source: Catalan Department of Agriculture, agri-environmental support measures, 2000).

In a recent report, the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) explains the concept of cross-compliance and the current policy context. It summarizes responses by different EU countries to the new CAP legislation and analyses cross-compliance as a means of addressing concerns such as the protection of water, soil and air, landscape change and the conservation of wildlife. A total of thirty different options are identified and evaluated for their effectiveness and practicality, with five key measures examined in more detail (Dwyer et al., 2000).

3.2.4. The integration of structural (landscape) elements

Structural elements within agro-ecosystems play a key role in biodiversity. In most parts of Europe, hedgerows or fallow land have become redundant owing to the introduction of modern production methods and technologies. Developing a network of windbreaks and green corridors in agricultural environments (referred to as ‘green veining’) not only brings a halt to erosion but also provides habitat for birds and small mammals. Green veins in the farmland are key structures for biodiversity and for combinations of biodiversity (in terms of high or common nature value preservation) and agriculture with other land uses, such as recreation and water retention.

Field margins offer good opportunities to integrate wildlife management with farming practice. Not only do plants such as corn marigold provide food and cover for wildlife; they often also support beneficial insects. This is why some EU countries – such as Germany and Belgium – offer economic compensation to farmers that maintain field margins.

3.2.5. New technologies

The process of globalization and technological development has been and will (in the long term) always be a key driving force behind changes in the agricultural landscape. The EC Biodiversity Strategy, 1998, states, 'there has been an increasing awareness among farmers of the gains to be made by adopting environmentally sound agricultural practices, which have been underpinned by rapid advances in green technologies. However, such practices will not be adopted to the extent necessary unless agricultural and environmental policies give farmers complementary signals.'.

Plant and livestock breeding programmes can have a substantial impact on the agro-ecosystem. According to Díaz & Pineda, sustainable crop varieties should have the following characteristics (Díaz & Pineda, 1998):

• quick establishment after seeding;

• a powerful root system;

• stable and quick growth (in particular for the case of cereals);

• adequate distribution of the stem, branches, and leaves;

• a short vegetative and reproductive production cycle;

• efficiency in assimilating nutrients;

• nitrogen fixation capacity (although the release of the nitrogen fixed from the air by the leguminous plant cannot be managed in a controlled manner and so losses may occur);

• resistance to key pests;

• high efficiency of water storage; and

• resistance to adverse conditions.

26

New technologies are also in place for the following:

• resistance to (specific) pesticides (although this resistance may be overcome by the pest population as tests have shown);

• reduced fertilizer requirements (some plants can extract more nutrients from the soil, e.g. due to more efficient root morphology; however, that may create the need for a greater soil surface area for the same yield); and

• synthesis of specific nutrients (such as enriched vitamin A rice).

In addition to agricultural production technologies, the use of biotechnology in agriculture plays an important role for the agricultural diversity of crops and livestock. Many uniform modern varieties do not resist diseases in the same way that old varieties do (Thrupp, 1989), since modern varieties have been tested and cultivated in very favourable environments. They need good land and heavy applications of fertilizer in order to yield well and are not much use on poor soils.

The use of GMOs in agriculture may entail risks for the environment, such as the transferability of certain resistance genes to wild plants, or the potential mutation of a transferred gene over time. Changes in crop management can be beneficial or damaging to the environment: while a growing number of new crop varieties may need less fertilizer or have a more stable structure that protects them better from physical damage, genetically modified varieties may affect the natural pollinating process of plants, among other impacts. At the end of 2001, the EU has to present a proposal for a European-wide framework directive on environmental liability, including eventual damages caused by GMOs.

At COP5 to the CBD, the Parties recommended that, in the current absence of reliable data on genetic use restriction technologies, without which there is an inadequate basis on which to assess their potential risks, and in accordance with the precautionary approach, products incorporating such technologies should not be approved by Parties for field testing until appropriate scientific data can justify such testing. They should also not be approved for commercial use until appropriate, authorized and strictly controlled scientific assessments of, among other things, their ecological and socio-economic impacts and any adverse effects on biological diversity, food security and human health have been carried out in a transparent manner, and the conditions for their safe and beneficial use have been validated. In order to enhance the capacity of all countries to address these issues, Parties should disseminate information on scientific assessments widely and share their expertise, including through the clearing-house mechanism (Decision V/5, III).

3.2.6. Sustainable farm models

The latest research on sustainable farm management concepts in Europe defines new farm models based on several driving forces, one of which is environmental intervention. In the conventional analysis, communication between farmers, cooperatives, retailers and households is mainly limited to price. The newer models integrate the quality of the product as well as of the whole production process. They propose a system in which consumers are more aware of the production process and can even participate in firms and cooperatives (via investments, information sharing, etc.), while producers receive the required information on consumer needs, including biodiversity conservation measures (Tiago Domingos et al., 2000). It is important to promote the exchange of information on local/national research activities into the linkages between biodiversity and agricultural management practices throughout Europe.

3.2.7. Crop and livestock diversity

As biological diversity is essential to life and ecological stability, it also applies to crop and livestock diversity. Without it, not only important edible plant species and rare livestock species are threatened with extinction, but local know-how and traditional use of these breeds is lost as well.

Just 103 species of food plants contribute 90 per cent of national per capita supplies, while 20 to 30 of these species are regarded as the staples that supply most of human nutritional

27

needs. On the other hand, thousands of species grown locally are scarcely or only partially domesticated and many thousands more are gathered from the wild (FAO, 1999b).

In Mediterranean countries, leafy vegetables and salads are regularly collected from the wild to add variety as well as nutrition to the diet. On the Greek island of Crete, for example, about 200 wild species are eaten and 'mountain greens' are a frequent item on menus both at home and in restaurants.

National gene banks, inter-departmental ministerial committees, in-situ and ex-situ conservation areas and scientific research have to be put in place to stop the ongoing threat of genetic erosion, as required for the implementation of the CBD and Agenda 21 mandates. Current shifts in driving forces in the agricultural sector, such as consumer protection and health, point to the need for a reassessment of research needs, and of the multiple roles that science can play in the policy process. More information about the monitoring and conservation of domesticated species in the world can be found at FAO’s Domesticated Animal Diversity Information System and the Global System on Plant Genetic Resources (www.fao.org).

The interaction between the environment, genetic resources and management practices determines the evolutionary process which may involve, for instance, introgression from wild relatives, hybridization between cultivars, mutations, and natural and human selections. The legal framework for the conservation of genetic resources in the EU is defined under Regulation (EC) No. 1467/94 on the conservation, characterization, collection and utilization of genetic resources in agriculture. On 14 February 2001, the European Parliament adopted a legislative resolution on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee on a European Parliament and Council Directive on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Directive 90/220/EEC.

The question that arises is how does this relate to stakeholder involvement? Small farmers and pastoralists can only be expected to change their practices if they have the appropriate incentive to do so. Farmers, traders, suppliers, retailers, the agro-business, and consumers should be better informed on the status of the genetic resources in Europe and on possible agricultural management practices to support the conservation of threatened and under-utilized species. Furthermore, those market mechanisms that promote the sustainable use of such threatened or under-utilized edible plants and livestock species in Europe need to be fostered.

3.3. Agricultural practices and the protection of wild species

Agricultural production has a direct effect on the conservation of the wildlife of an area. Many species have a direct impact on, and interdependence with, agriculture. The maintenance and enhancement of local wildlife and habitats in their landscape area is of major importance in Europe. Within the CBD's agricultural biodiversity work programme, this enhancement constitutes a component of agricultural biodiversity that provide ecological services. In the EU Biodiversity Action Plan for Agriculture, ‘wild’ biodiversity (wild flora and fauna related to farmland) is one of the three main components of agricultural biodiversity. The Action Plan points out that the special attention which is usually given to threatened species and ecosystems should not lead to the underestimation of this aspect.

The conservation of wild species that live in or pass through utilized agricultural areas (UAA) requires a major economic, social and scientific effort, for which funding and sharing of expertise are needed. Wild plants are important as sources of food and cover for much other farmland wildlife, especially insects. Many crop pollinators depend on wild plants for nectar and pollen. The vast majority of these insects are beneficial to agriculture since they are non-specialist aphid predators, such as hoverflies and ladybirds. Most of these invertebrates are also potential food for birds (such as skylarks) and mammals (such as field mice). For birds, the value of a crop as a foraging place or potential nest site depends on the availability of plant and invertebrate food as well as on the structure and stage of growth of the crops. Autumn-sown crops become too tall and dense by spring for birds to nest in (Andrews & Rebane, 1994).

28

Grasshoppers are important in controlling many weedy species, including some poisonous plants. It may be concluded on the one hand that, without these insects, the rangeland flora undoubtedly would change dramatically and the sustainability of this agro-ecosystem would be compromised (Lockwood, 1993a,b). On the other hand, grasshoppers can be a serious plague as many examples in Africa show. These insects are the primary above-ground herbivores, consuming over 20 per cent of the available forage each year. Some of their roles are subtle but essential, including acting as intermediate hosts for an avian tapeworm (Capinera and Sechrist, 1982). Grasshoppers are also important in structuring the plant communities.

Bumble-bees are vital from the standpoint of agriculture and conservation because they pollinate crops, fruit trees and wildflowers. However, for bumble-bees to be effective, they must have local access to suitable nesting and hibernation sites, as well as to alternative food sources (i.e. wildflowers) during periods when crop plants are not flowering. Research on the habitat preferences of bumble-bees has shown that relatively open landscapes with habitat diversity were preferred by nest-seeking queens rather than wooded landscapes. In the field habitat, nest-seeking queens were observed only in grass ley, which is less disturbed than other crops; one reason being that, normally, no ploughing is carried out for at least three consecutive years. No nest-seeking bumble-bees were observed in fields with annual crops (Svensson et al., 2000).

In most cases, the decline in bird populations is the result of changes in land use and management techniques. The intensification of agriculture is a main factor in 42 per cent of declining species. According to a recent press release from BirdLife International, the future of one third of Europe’s birds rests with the future of farming (BirdLife International, press release, November 22, 2000) (see also Chapter 7, presentation from Paul Donald). Another important factor for the decline is destroyed and damaged habitats, especially in wetlands. Hunting, capture, killing and sale sometimes also have an adverse effect on these threatened species (European Commission, 2000a). Since birds generally cope well with environmental changes it is to be feared that their decline mirrors what is happening to many animal or plant groups: a pronounced deterioration in biodiversity in Europe, both in the distribution and the abundance of species.

In the north-western Mediterranean region, a recent study has been conducted to determine the effect of traditional sheep and goat grazing on the main vegetation components of a Holm Oak woodland, with heavy slopes (Bartolomé et al., 2000). The study concluded that the biological diversity of the area has declined since the area was declared a biosphere reserve, due to a gradual closure of the landscape by trees on the slopes and shrubs on the heath.

Extensive agriculture management practices and organic agriculture are repeatedly mentioned as ‘driving forces’ for increasing biodiversity. This may be true, but to enhance biodiversity in ‘low productivity cropping systems’ but may not be feasible as a general approach. Within conventional agriculture, preference should be given to crop rotation, careful soil management, integrated pest management and the inclusion of set-aside schemes. Another method for increasing biodiversity on farmland is the creation of natural islands within extensive (and large) agricultural areas.

The analysis of the linkages between (wild) biodiversity and agricultural management practices can also be performed the other way around: if the Stone Curlew is to be protected in an area, what is the best adapted agricultural management practice? An example based on the biodiversity components of the Habitats Directive and the linkages with agricultural management practices is provided for dry grasslands in Annex 1.

Another approach to analysing the linkages between agriculture and biodiversity is by integrating economic and social/institutional aspects. Such an approach is been carried out by the Agricultural Working Group of the IUCN – European Sustainable Use Specialist Group. The three different aspects (economy, ecology, social/institutional) are being analysed at parcel, ecosystem, regional and national levels in the European Project AEMBAC: ‘Definition of a common European analytical framework for the development of local agri-environmental programmes for Biodiversity and Landscape Conservation’ (AEMBAC, Nr. QLRT-1999-31666). The approach allows the development of a methodology to ‘internalise’ positive and/or negative environmental externalities deriving from

29

agricultural practices, using a comprehensive and interdisciplinary approach in order to maximize the value of the multiple goods and services delivered by agriculture (IUCN ESUSG/AWG, 2000).

Table 1 summarizes some agricultural management practices and some of the impacts on wildlife conservation. It should be stated that the table only gives a very broad overview, since, for example, a specific type of all-round pesticide may harm one insect, but may benefit another insect through the clearance of the particular weeds.

Table 1: Agricultural management practices and their impact on wildlife conservation (‘Farming & Wildlife’, Andrews & Bane, RSPB, 1994)

Agricultural management system

Impacts on wildlife

Incorporation of organic matter where feasible to stabilise soil structure and water holding capacity

Due to a slower release of nutrients, manure is more suitable for earthworms, rooks, golden plovers, thrushes, lapwings, etc. Manure or slurry (applied with care and not in frosty periods) fosters the growth of nitrophil plants but may also allow some acidophil plant species to grow. Earthworms are able to avoid local spots of high salt concentrations generated by dissolving fertilizer granules. On the other hand, as a consequence of excessive manure application (dumping) in some areas, a typical 'manure flora' with very common, low feed- and low biodiversity value species has developed.

While the farmer who primarily grows arable crops will rely mainly on manufactured fertilizer with a high efficiency, combined with sludge and compost, the livestock farmer will first use the manure and only supplement his farms nutrient needs with manufactured fertilizer.

Use of fallow in the crop rotation, leave stubble on field

Such areas are utilized by a range of weed seeds, insects and birds (such as pheasants or rooks).

Low agrochemical input

Since the introduction of pesticides, broad-leaved plants such as poppy seed or shepherd’s needle are becoming rare. Insects such as leaf beetles and weevils have greatly disappeared, as well as the birds feeding on them, such as the grey partridge.

Field margins They are utilized by a wide range of wild species such as perennial plants, rodents, ground-nesting birds, butterflies, insects and spiders, etc. It will take 2-3 years for margins and ‘beetle banks’ to develop into suitable habitat for overwintering insects and spiders, when they may come to hold densities of over 1,500/m2.

The Central and Eastern European (CEE) region has some of the highest biodiversity in farmland in the whole of Europe (EEA, 1999) and still accounts for vast areas of extensively managed grassland. This is why a special section (below) is devoted to this European region, which could serve as ’testing ground’ for agricultural policies and practices linked to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

3.4. Agriculture and biodiversity in the Central and Eastern European region

Dr Jan-Erik Petersen, IEEP

3.4.1. The biodiversity value of farmland in Central and Eastern Europe

Large areas of farmland in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) have retained a significant habitat value for many plant and animal species, despite intensive agricultural production methods and large land improvement schemes which frequently took place during the communist era. These valuable habitats are often concentrated in areas where traditional forms of land use have persisted. Examples for areas of extensive farming can be found in Polish river valleys, such as the Narew and Biebrza, across the Carpathian mountain chain or in the Slovenian Alps. Data provided by BirdLife International (Tucker and Heath, 1994) show that the populations of most farmland birds, such as the skylark or the white stork,

30

have fared significantly better in Central and Eastern Europe than in similar farmed landscapes in Western Europe. Overall, twice as many European species were found to have declined by more than 33 per cent of their population in Western Europe than in Eastern Europe. These data underline the importance of Central and Eastern Europe for nature conservation on the continent as a whole.

The importance of agricultural habitats for wildlife in the region is clearly shown in studies undertaken for IUCN at the beginning of the 1990s in several applicant countries (IUCN, 1991, 1992a, 1992b, 1993, 1995). A more detailed overview of semi-natural grasslands (accounting for 12 per cent of the farmland in the region) and bird populations in the ten CEE candidate countries is available in the report of the High Level Conference on EU Enlargement: The Relation between Agriculture and Nature Management (Wassenaar, 22-24/1/2001) (Brouwer et al., 2001).

3.4.2. Implications of recent agricultural developments for biological diversity in CEE

Since 1990, the break-up of communist structures, the transition to a market economy, lack of consumption and the loss of important markets has led to a deep crisis for farming in CEE. Arable production declined by about a third during the last decade, while the number of livestock has fallen by almost 50 per cent for cattle and sheep, and 30-35 per cent for pigs and poultry. Fertilizer and pesticide use also decreased considerably, often by more than 50 per cent. The average farm size has become much smaller since collective farms have mostly been privatized and private farming is growing in importance. Many of the new private farms cover only one or two hectares, and are oriented towards providing subsistence or short marketing channels. In Hungary and the Czech Republic a significant minority of mid-sized farmers has also appeared, and could form a larger part of the sector.

The breakdown of communism has led to a collapse of farming in certain areas. This forced ‘extensification’ due to lack of access to credits, technology and because of the unclear property situation.

Trends in farming have been towards production of arable crops and cereals which now account for nearly 60 per cent of the CEEC arable area. The area of wheat planted has increased, although other crops such as barley in Poland and the Czech Republic, rye in Poland, and maize in Hungary and Romania remain important. Production of other arable crops such as potatoes and sugar beet has declined. In the Baltic countries cereals remain relatively less important, and a large amount of arable land is used for fodder crops. Fruit and vegetable production has also fallen, although production of berries in the Baltic and Visegrad countries and stone fruit in Bulgaria and Romania remain important (European Commission, 1998c).

Poland’s SAPARD report proposes that ‘at least 20 per cent of the total agricultural land area should be excluded from agricultural production and afforested or converted into natural condition’ (SAPARD Operational Programme for Poland, 2000). Hungary’s National Agri-environmental Program has horizontal schemes, which cover the whole area of the country, and zonal schemes, which will be introduced for specified areas. The zonal scheme of Environmentally Sensitive Areas includes areas of low fertility soils, which are traditionally cultivated, and therefore have great natural values. The aim of the support is to encourage people living in these areas to maintain traditional forms of farming and so conserve or improve the state of environment (Tamasne, 2000).

The trends in agricultural production outlined above have positive and negative effects on farmland habitats and the associated wildlife in Central and Eastern Europe. On the positive side, the general pollution load from farming on aquatic habitats, groundwater resources, etc. has strongly diminished. Lower use of fertilizers and pesticides in agricultural landscapes also benefits most farmland species, as demonstrated by the twofold increase of grey partridge populations in Hungary between 1992 and 1996 (KSH, 1996). On the other hand, land abandonment and the discontinuation of historic management practices are an increasing threat to many grassland habitats. The survival of these ecosystems, which are dependent on grazing, is threatened by economic difficulties arising from failing livestock systems, reduced livestock numbers and abandonment of grazing practices. The biodiversity value of more natural grassland in particular is reduced by scrub invasion when mowing or grazing are discontinued. Examples of such problems

31

can be found in nearly all applicant countries, especially in valuable river systems, coastal grasslands and mountain areas (see Bartoszuk et al., 1999; Bartram et al., 1999; IUCN, 1995; Lotman et al., 1999; Priednieks, 2000). Only support for extensive grassland management practices can prevent a further loss of biodiversity in such systems.

3.4.3. The development of agri-environmental policy in Central and Eastern European

Land abandonment and the withdrawal of historic management have become a threat to farmland in CEE. An extrapolation of current trends in farming shows that, without intervention, a further concentration of agricultural production on the best soils and in the most productive herds is likely to occur, leading to an irreversible loss of high nature value farming systems. Experiences in the EU show that agri-environment programmes based on Regulation 1257/1999 can be a useful policy tool for maintaining extensive agricultural systems. The introduction of pilot agri-environment schemes under the pre-accession fund SAPARD provides an opportunity for the applicant countries to become familiar with this CAP policy instrument.

However, the concept of support for countryside management is not totally new in Central and Eastern Europe. Several countries introduced aid schemes for marginal farming systems throughout the 1990s to provide support for poor farming communities and the maintenance of valued landscapes. These schemes are often similar to LFA and agri-environment measures in the EU (Petersen, 1999). However, the implementation of full-scale agri-environment programmes according to EU financial rules, administrative procedures and control systems remains a considerable challenge for all applicant countries. A number of technical assistance projects funded by the European Commission and EU governments support them in their efforts.

All applicant countries have now taken up the challenge of developing such agri-environment programmes, mostly within the framework of the SAPARD programme. Agricultural production methods designed to protect the environment and maintain the countryside are covered under SAPARD’s fourth measure. The elaboration of Good Farming Practices is another important requirement for the applicant countries within this preparatory work (European Commission, 2001d). The integration of environmental aspects constitutes one of the cross-sectoral themes within SAPARD. Further information on SAPARD and the text of national plans can be found at:. http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/external/enlarge/publi/index_en.htm. None of the CEE SAPARD Programmes have, as at the end of March 2001, started to be implemented. A SAPARD timetable, however, describes the adoption procedure and the completion process by June 2001. Table 2 shows the situation with regard to pilot agri-environment schemes in CEE countries at the end of 2000.

Table 2: Pilot agri-environment schemes in CEE countries at the end of 2000 (Petersen, J.-E., December 2000)

Country Agri-env. SAPARD measure?

Annual EU contrib. (in

thousand EUR)

SAPARD budget

(%)

Area (in hectares)

Number of pilot areas

Number of farmers

Bulgaria Yes 9,000 2 32,000 ? ?

Czech R. Yes 4,584 3 5-20,000 5 150-200*

Estonia Yes 1,210 1 ? 3+ ?

Hungary Yes 11,330 4 400,000 15 ?

Latvia Yes1 6,970 5 43,000* ? 1,100*

Lithuania Yes 2,124 1 4,700 2+ ?

Poland Yes2 22,920 2 33,000 6 3,500

Romania Yes 26,571 3 36,000 7 3,000*

Slovakia Yes 4,500 4 10,000 5 2,000*

Slovenia No3 - - - - -

32

AC-10 9 of 10 85,209 2 >578,700 43+ >10,000 1 Includes three measures of the plan. 2 Includes afforestation of agricultural land. 3 No specific measures in the SAPARD plan, but a national programme with an annual budget of 28,000,000 Euros is in preparation. *Estimated.

3.4.4. Linking agricultural development to the conservation of biodiversity

Three approaches are often proposed to ensure the survival of low input farming systems that bring important conservation benefits (Petersen, 1999). These are best applied in combination, and include:

• environmental regulations;

• economic incentives; and

• adding value/economic diversification. Central and Eastern European countries often have an extensive network of protected areas that equals or exceeds standards in many western European countries. This network should be maintained where possible and environmental regulations enforced. However, the positive management of agricultural habitats cannot be enforced by law. To be successful on this front, the support and participation of the affected land users and other stakeholders is vital. Economic incentives, as provided by agri-environment schemes, can play a crucial role in obtaining this support. Some of the challenges for the applicant countries in developing these schemes have been outlined above. Such measures still leave important high nature value areas dependent on continuous public support that cannot be guaranteed forever.

In view of this, many people now advocate putting more emphasis on rural development measures that provide added value for quality farm products and allow farming families to gain additional income outside agriculture. Such an approach, which combines economic development with sustainable land use, has been shown to be a potential solution in CEE countries (Beckmann, 2000). However, problems with market access, the education of farmers and consumer demand still affect wider areas in CEE. Where cooperation with farmers and other stakeholder groups has been achieved such an approach provides the best results, as experiences in EU countries show.

It is important, therefore, to provide further support for the building of farm interest organizations in the applicant countries as these can become important advocates for effective rural development measures. Western farmers’ organizations are currently providing support to their Central and Eastern European counterparts to build their capacity in this and many other aspects (Kellner, 1999).

The High Level Conference on EU Enlargement: The Relation between Agriculture and Nature Management, which was held in January 2001 in Wassenaar (the Netherlands), stresses the importance of training, education, information dissemination and extension. Participants also stressed the importance of networking between candidate and member states to discuss common problems and to exchange views on possible solutions to these problems (Brouwer et al., 2001)

33

Chapter 4: The socio-economic, cultural and environmental context of agriculture and biodiversity Dr Floor Brouwer (LEI) & Laura Buguñá Hoffmann (ECNC)

Biodiversity allows farmers to produce foodstuff, non-food products and services. Agrobiodiversity services are becoming increasingly interesting to green investors. Agrobiodiversity is a decisive factor for many social and environmental services. Awareness of the complex inter-linkages of agricultural management practices, biodiversity conservation and agrobiodiversity services needs to be further promoted among stakeholders.

4.1. Services of agricultural biodiversity

Farming practices may jointly provide agricultural commodities with environmental goods and services. The conservation of biological diversity is a decisive factor in agricultural activities: at the core of the various biological processes utilized by agriculture, biodiversity allows farmers to produce foodstuff and non-food products as well as services. (EU Biodiversity Action Plan for Agriculture, 2001). In this context, the European model of agriculture promoted by the European Union places emphasis on a European agriculture that is capable of maintaining the countryside, conserving nature, contributing to the vitality of rural life, and providing further goods and services.

The Parties to the CBD recognized the importance of the sustainable use of biodiversity resources and made it one of their central planks of the Convention, for the benefit of both people and nature. Using renewable resources sustainably means doing so in such a way that it does not threaten a species or a resource by overuse, yet optimizes benefits to both the environment and human beings (IUCN ESUSG/AWG, 2000).

Current economic models of resource management regimes still tend to focus on the advantages and disadvantages of different property institutions for allocating a single resource among a group of homogeneous users, for example water among irrigation farms or grass among grazers. But most natural resources provide a high variety of goods and services. A woodland, for example, might provide several goods – food from plants and animals, medicinal plants, fuel wood, building materials – and services such as erosion control, nutrient cycling, carbon sequestration, habitat for wildlife, reservoir of biological diversity, groundwater recharge, recreation and aesthetic enjoyment (Swallow, 1997).

Agriculture has always provided more than just edible goods. However, many stakeholders might not be fully aware of the broad range of non-edible goods and services, especially those that do not provide a direct economic compensation. Past efforts to value biodiversity in terms of conditional values have relied on various clever analyses of economic systems (e.g. willingness-to-pay studies and shadow markets), health opportunities (e.g. existing pharmaceuticals and potential medicines), agricultural needs (e.g. new varieties and genetic enrichments), and ecosystem services (e.g. watershed management and air quality) (Wilson, 1988; Daily, 1997). Important ecosystem services, such as ecosystem resilience or soil filtering and soil storage functions, provide a key service to sustainable development. For example, the soil can retain and filter many hazardous chemicals, and erosion prevention guarantees safe housing and living conditions.

34

The ecological, socio-economic and cultural dimensions of agriculture, largely shaped by human activities and management practices, have also been defined in the CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme as services of agricultural biodiversity (see Box 3). This Chapter focuses on the ‘socio-economic and cultural dimensions’.

Socio-economic and cultural dimensions need to be considered since agricultural biodiversity is largely shaped by human activities and management practices.

These include:

• traditional and local knowledge of agricultural biodiversity, cultural factors and participatory processes (see section 4.2.);

• tourism associated with agricultural landscapes (see section 4.3.);

• other socio-economic factors (see section 4.4.).

4.2. Traditional and local knowledge of agricultural biodiversity, cultural factors and participatory processes

Many different people value the products provided by agricultural management in very different ways. A challenge in proper resource management is that the individuals and sub-groups who use and value the products of a landscape or ecosystem often have different rights to those products and different endowments with which to capitalize on those rights. Another challenge in the field of managing the sustainable use of biodiversity is the access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing and how these issues relate to intellectual property rights of the particular product in question.

Preserving rare plants and animals and maintaining local cultivation techniques serve the goal of passing on the agro-biodiversity heritage to future generations. This is why the CBD agricultural biodiversity programme encourages countries to set up and maintain local-level forums for farmers, in which indigenous farmers using traditional knowledge, researchers,

Box 3: Services of Agricultural Biodiversity (CBD COP V/5)

1. Components of agricultural biodiversity that provide ecological services. These include a diverse range of organisms in agricultural production systems that contribute, at various scales to, inter alia:

(i) Nutrient cycling, decomposition of organic matter and maintenance of soil fertility; (ii) Pest and disease regulation; (iii) Pollination; (iv) Maintenance and enhancement of local wildlife and habitats in their landscape, (v) Maintenance of the hydrological cycle; (vi) Erosion control; (vii) Climate regulation and carbon sequestration;

2. Abiotic factors, which have a determining effect on these aspects of agricultural biodiversity;

3. Socio-economic and cultural dimensions, since agricultural biodiversity is largely shaped by human activities and management practices. These include:

(i) Traditional and local knowledge of agricultural biodiversity, cultural factors and participatory processes;

(ii) Tourism associated with agricultural landscapes; (iii) Other socio-economic factors.

35

extension workers and other stakeholders take part to build genuine partnerships, including training and education programmes.

Features of the management of natural resource systems are that

• several goods and services of value are produced;

• resource users have multiple objectives vis-à-vis collective management of the natural resource system; and

• sub-groups of resource users are distinguished by their property rights, endowments and preferences.

(Source: Swallow, 1997)

Within the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity, a common appreciation is being developed of the relationship between intellectual property rights and the relevant provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). In particular, on issues relating to technology transfer, the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the use of genetic resources, including the protection of knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity deserve further attention (see CBD/COP IV, Decision IV/15).

Rare or local agricultural products (denominations of origin, underutilized species, etc.) have a high value, not only for the local culture but also for the general market. An example of such underutilized species is rocket (Eruca sativa). It is estimated that of the 7000 edible species around the world only a tiny fraction, approximately 150, is in fact being commercially exploited. Besides culinary uses, rocket is also considered to be a medicinal plant with many reported properties, including its strong aphrodisiac effect, known since Roman times. Among other less intriguing medicinal properties it has a depurative effect and is a good source of vitamin C and iron (Bianco et al., 1995). Greater attention to rocket and to other neglected species represents an important step towards both agricultural and dietary diversification, which ultimately contribute to improving the quality of life.

4.3. Tourism associated with agricultural landscapes

A range of options is available to primary producers to enhance their environmental profile. Agro-tourism, for example, has been stimulated in large parts of Europe. On the one hand, tourism might have led to a reduction in the importance of agriculture, and this trend has been observed in parts of Greece (primarily on the large number of islands) and Portugal (e.g. Algarve). But it can also be a strategy to diversify agriculture. The proper institutional framework is needed and farmers need sufficient skills to develop agro-tourism strategies (Terluin et al., 2000). In addition, new institutional arrangements have been made to promote agro-tourism. Agro-tourism in Greece, for example, was promoted through private initiatives to provide accommodation and the establishment of women’s agro-tourism cooperatives (Iakovidou et al., 1999). These private initiatives have received some support through national programmes to establish the accommodation. Alternatively, some support is also offered for the bed-and-breakfast type of housing, run mainly by farmers.

Tourism is closely linked to the preservation of landscape diversity. Landscapes serve different functions in the sense that they provide an aesthetic value, a cultural meaning, a place for leisure and tourism, and other potential functions, such as water protection zone or places to grow herbs and seeds for the cosmetic and medical industry. The data to be recorded and the methods used for monitoring and evaluating multifunctional landscapes should allow the different types of multifunctional land use to be described (De Blust et al, 2000).

The drawing up of guidelines on sustainable tourism as part of the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity was supported by the participants at the Council of Europe Colloquy on Tourism and Environment: the natural, cultural and socio-economic challenges of sustainable tourism (Riga, 9-11 September 1999). COP Decision V/25 on

36

‘Biological diversity and tourism’ analyses the role of tourism in the sustainable use of biological resources and the potential impacts of tourism on biodiversity.

However, tourism can be a threat to biodiversity conservation, if not managed properly, as expressed by the EU 6th Environmental Action Programme (COM (2001) 31 final), the nature and biodiversity, as well as cultural heritage, if not properly managed, can be seriously affected by uncontrolled tourism development. Fragile areas, such as islands, and coastal and mountain areas provide biodiversity richness that requires particular attention and specific integrated management means when dealing with tourism development.

4.4. Other socio-economic factors

Agrobiodiversity is providing a vast range of further non-edible products and services, such as wood and paper; the production of cosmetics, perfumes, flowers; medicines; sports and recreation grounds; and areas for rural development. It also contributes to aesthetic and land-use values. The report does not cover forest products although in many areas in the world farmers are also foresters. The following products and services are introduced in more detail below (sections 4.4.1-4.4.3):

• health and consumer protection;

• water management;

• energy, oil-seeds and fibres.

4.4.1. Health and consumer protection

The linkage between food production and health goes far beyond direct nutritional aspects and human health. A healthy (rural) environment contributes to clean air, clean water, human health (of farmers and other persons that live or are in the area), ethical values (animal protection), therapeutic uses of nature, the safe production of medicinal plants, and, ultimately, to a higher value of the area.

There are many relationships between health and agricultural areas:

• human and animal nutrition and health;

• area-related health aspects, and

• commercial health products’ potentials.

The relationship between food production and human (and animal) health have been subject to numerous studies, such as in the framework of the key action area on food, health and nutrition of the EU’s 5th Framework Research Programme.

Regarding the commercial potentials, besides the production of medicinal plants, GMOs also have potential in the non-food sector. One innovative example is that of Cynara cardunculus, a thistle grown in Spain for electricity generation. Another example are GM poplars developed in France for paper production which demand less energy and produce less waste during processing. Oil and carbohydrate crops also offer opportunities in the chemical sector. An example is high-erucic rapeseeds used for fuel, lubricants and plastics.

4.4.2. Water Management

There is much talk about how farmers, the guardians of the countryside, are adversely affecting the quality of watercourses in the pursuit of increasing productivity. Considerable attention is also being drawn to the benefits of natural river management – respecting and encouraging the natural physical processes of rivers and streams while at the same time ensuring that they fulfil their essential functions of drainage, fisheries, wildlife, stock watering, etc. But why should farmers bother to think about water management?

The Scottish Farming and Watercourse Management Handbook (Wood-Gee, 1998) identified an extensive list of issues:

• Improved soils, crop yields, animal health and production;

37

• Less risk of land being lost to erosion;

• Reduced erosion means fewer problems from gravel movement choking watercourses and drainage outflows;

• Reduced flooding damage and disturbance;

• Improved wildlife interest;

• Enhanced visual appeal of the farm, which can be important for farms with associated tourist enterprises, or the potential to diversity into this activity;

• Potential to increase farm capital value;

• Voluntary grant schemes may help generate income.

Institutional arrangements exist in several Member States, where drinking water supply companies voluntarily establish contracts with farmers to change their practices (rules include: do not use pesticides that are banned for water protection areas, minimize the use of fertilizers, do not apply organic fertilizer between November and February). Farmers could be compensated for possible income they face in return for meeting the requirements, similar to the case of agri-environmental measures under Regulation 1257/99. The outcomes of such agreements commonly go beyond the standards laid down in environmental legislation. Such voluntary negotiations between farmers and drinking water supply companies are typically characterized by self-regulation and bottom-up processes among the actors involved while governments may refrain from applying mandatory measures, although they often provide a legal framework (Just and Heinz, 2000).

Contracts between farmers and drinking water supply companies have been used in Germany, in particular, and also to a lesser extent in Austria and the Netherlands. They primarily aim to achieve compliance with environmental and drinking water constraints. In Germany, obtaining high quality drinking water seems to be a main driver for the water companies to enter into negotiations with farmers. Most German water suppliers are reluctant to treat drinking water with chemicals or other means. They prefer to protect the raw water sources by preventative measures wherever possible. This attitude is influenced strongly by the Germans’ demand for pure ‘natural’ drinking water and the health concerns related to treated water.

The interaction between agriculture and water management is undergoing major changes in large areas of Europe. In the Netherlands, for example, agriculture needs to be sustained by improving the balance of supply and demand for water. Some support is available in Europe to farmers who improve the water balance on their land. Essentially there is increasing interest in enhancing water storage and the role of agriculture in achieving this.

4.4.3. Energy, oil seeds and fibres

The production of bio-fuels has been supported by the EU since the reform of the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in 1992. After a marked fall estimated at 0.4 million hectares in 2000/01 (due mainly to rapeseed), the ‘food’ oil-seed area is expected to decline further in 2002/03 when the Agenda 2000 CAP reform is fully implemented. It would then gradually recover to levels above 4.6 million hectares. The non-food oil-seed area is estimated to adapt to the level of the set-aside rate and to stabilise at around 0.8 million hectares over the 2000/01–2007/08 period (European Commission, 2000d).

Besides oil-seed production, agricultural production is linked to energy production via the fermentation of agricultural waste products such as manure and via the provision of exposed areas for wind energy usage.

Regarding the production of fibres, it is expected that in future fibres produced on agricultural land will contribute significantly to the world fibre supply. Such fibres may come from residues or from dedicated fibre crops harvested annually. Long fibre crops such as flax and hemp are particularly promising in the EU if production costs are competitive with those in countries producing fibre in the Third World (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 2000).

38

Formal proposals to oblige fuel suppliers to incorporate a certain share of biofuel (produced from grains, oil-seeds or sugar beet) into all EU car fuel in less than 10 years are likely to be published in June or July 2001 (linked to the overall EC aim of reducing CO2 emissions agreed at Kyoto, the aim is to replace 20 per cent of traditional fuels by 2020). Existing car engines could can run on fuel with an 8 per cent fraction of biofuel. If 5 per cent were to be attained by 2008-10, this would require 3 mio hectares of oil-seed production dedicated to biodiesel1.

4.4.4. Medicines

Medicinal plants constitute one of the most important groups of wild plants in terms of their contribution to the economy and wellbeing of farm households. They are commonly grown in home gardens and harvested from common lands and their growth near dwellings is often encouraged. Medicinal and aromatic plants are in fact obtained from a wide range of habitats: tropical forests, temperate forests, secondary forests, scrub, meadows, swidden fallows, agricultural crop fields and gardens, in fact any areas where human societies, both urban and rural, harvest, manage or grow useful plants (FAO, 1999b).

It has been estimated by the World Health Organization (WHO) that 80 per cent of the developing world's population meets its primary health care needs through traditional medicines. In China, for example, about 1,000 million people, both urban and rural, depend largely on plant-based medicines.

Medicinal and aromatic plants are important components of the vegetation of the Mediterranean and semi-arid zones of the world and correspondingly have a significant role in the life of farm households, both for home consumption and for trade. Traditional medicines still play a major part in health care delivery systems in many countries in the world. As the Mediterranean region shows, plants rich in essential oils are much more abundant in arid than in humid habitats. Likewise, plants rich in gums and mucilage are common in arid zones.

Many medicinal plants are under threat from human population growth, ecosystem loss and conversion through deforestation for pasture, cropland, urbanization and other uses and habitat degradation and fragmentation, with a consequent loss of species diversity and gene pools.

1 Information from Peter Botschek, European Fertilizer Manufacturers Association

39

Chapter 5: Markets and products Dr Floor Brouwer (LEI) & Laura Buguñá Hoffmann (ECNC)

Markets play a decisive role in the economic survival of farms and therefore in the viability of 'nature management by farmers'. Current farming activities in Europe are the result of the interaction between a mix of different factors such as agricultural markets, incentive schemes and regulatory mechanisms.

5.1. Agricultural production in the European context

European agriculture supplies a broad diversity of crops and livestock products from a broad range of production systems under differing geographical circumstances. The EU is the world’s largest importer and second largest exporter of agricultural products and has a wide range of farming types. In total, the EU has more than 7.3 million agricultural holdings (Table 3). The average farm size is 18 ha, but this average figure masks huge differences in farm structures. In Southern Europe, more than half of all holdings are less than five hectares in size. In Italy, almost two million holdings are smaller than five hectares. This is equivalent to about 80 per cent of all agricultural holdings in that country. Farming predominantly remains a small-scale operation for these holdings. More than half of the holdings account for less than 10 per cent of farmland. In contrast, the largest three per cent of the holdings occupy more than 20 per cent of the land.

Table 3: Number of agricultural holdings by size class in the EU in 1995 (x 1,000)

Member State < 5 ha 5 - 20 ha 20 - 50 ha 50 - 100 ha >= 100 ha Total

Belgium 23.7 23.0 18.3 5.1 0.9 71.0

Denmark 2.1 26.3 23.3 12.1 5.0 68.8

Germany 179.2 184.0 132.2 51.6 19.9 566.8

Greece 603.3 174.0 21.8 2.7 0.7 802.4

Spain 706.4 358.8 115.3 51.7 45.4 1,277.6

France 200.9 158.2 177.3 128.2 70.3 734.8

Ireland 14.8 61.2 57.2 16.1 4.1 153.4

Italy 1,938.3 398.3 105.3 26.9 13.4 2,482.1

Luxembourg 0.8 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.2 3.2

Netherlands 37.4 38.8 29.8 6.2 0.9 113.2

Austria 87.3 90.7 35.8 5.2 2.8 221.7

Portugal 345.6 80.2 15.1 4.4 5.4 450.6

Finland 10.6 48.3 35.2 6.0 0.8 100.9

Sweden 11.0 34.5 24.7 13.0 5.6 88.8

United Kingdom 32.3 65.6 56.5 40.9 39.3 234.5

EU 15 4,193.6 1,742.3 848.4 370.9 214.8 7,370.0

Source: Eurostat (Farm Structure Survey).

The number of agricultural holdings in the EU is declining. Production is becoming more specialized and the number of farming practices is on the increase as well. As the EU study on risk management tools for EU agriculture (European Commission, 2001a) describes, farmers still rely a lot on public incentives and are not diversifying their production

40

(between 1975 and 1997, the share of non-specialized farms fell from 32 per cent to 17 per cent).

Agricultural concentration is taking place in different ways throughout the EU. In 1997, in countries such as Denmark, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom and France, about 25 per cent of the farm holdings had more than 50 ha of utilized agricultural area (UAA), while in Greece and Italy, for example, bigger holdings account for less than 2.5 per cent of the holdings (Agriculture in the European Union - Statistical and economic information 1999). In 1999, farm incomes were reduced by four per cent.

The total number of holdings has been reduced by more than 20 per cent since the mid-1970s, whereas average farm size has increased during that period from 15 to 18 ha. Agricultural transformation generally entails greater crop specialization, production of marketable surpluses through the use of purchased inputs, and a high reliance on the global market needs. Changes in the farm sector have a direct impact on other actors who provide production inputs (fertilizer, improved seeds, crop protection products) and services such as marketing and processing.

In CEE countries, food chain management was influenced by command economies until the early 1990s. This was characterized by a stable structure of inputs and the movement of intermediate outputs, accomplished within the structure of command firms. There was no need for infrastructure which could facilitate interaction between the chains. Compulsory deliveries from the farm to the state were the primary method of procuring food supplies for urban consumers (Hobbs et al., 1997). The provision of agro-inputs and the development of market instruments in post-command economies (transition period) is a slow evolutionary process that requires capacity-building, targeted support and an adequate policy framework. The question of property rights management is also a complex issue in the CEE region, having a great bearing on both agricultural markets and biodiversity protection.

The agri-business sector operates on a global scale: the world's top ten seed and agro-chemical industries account for an estimated 85 per cent of the world market (FAO, 2000). Agriculture is not a major economic sector in the EU, accounting for a limited share of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in most Member States. The figures range from less than 2 per cent in the United Kingdom to 12 per cent in Greece. Primary agriculture has a share of less than five per cent of total employment in the EU. However, European agriculture is a major user of land, taking up more than 40 per cent of the total territory. Total utilized agricultural area amounts to some 137 million ha, France, Spain, Germany and Italy accounting for well over 90 million ha. Agricultural land shapes the rural countryside and also offers tourism opportunities to urban population.

In order to support the promotion of products, the EU has adopted a Regulation on information and promotion activities for agricultural products in the internal market (EC Regulation 2826/2000). Measures may cover all agricultural sectors and should complement the promotional activities of companies and national and regional authorities.

The direct marketing of agricultural products is considered to be a means to improve farm incomes and safeguard farming in regions unfavourable to agricultural production. Although no precise estimates are available on the importance of direct marketing by farms, Wirthgen and Kuhnert (1997) indicate that around 5 per cent of all farms in Germany are involved in direct marketing. There is growing consumer interest in organic production and local and regional products which support markets for high-nature-value farm products.

There is a broad set of institutional arrangements that support biodiversity within agriculture. First, the farming community is seeking opportunities to promote the environmental profile of their practices. Second, public policies increasingly seek instruments to strengthen food production with protection of the rural environment. Public and private initiatives both play a major role in enhancing the environmental context of agriculture in Europe. Direct marketing by the farming community and public policies to promote the integration of environmental concerns in farming practices are often mutually supportive, and mixtures of the tools are widely adopted. Essentially, a combination of strategies and approaches could strengthen the achievement of all stakeholders towards stimulating positive linkages between agricultural production and other functions.

41

Biotechnology has led to (economic) concentration throughout the agri-food sector, particularly in the seed sector. Genetically modified (GM) crops are expected to bring cost-savings through reduced insect and weed control and/or to achieve higher yields. While the advantages of GM crops resistant to pests and other diseases appear attractive, the risks to nature and human health remain more or less unexplored. The first significant sowings of GM crops (2.6 million hectares) took place in 1996, almost exclusively in the USA. Since 1996, the areas have increased dramatically to reach 41.5 million hectares worldwide in 1999. In some countries the adoption rates for transgenic crops are the highest for new technologies by agricultural industry standards, much faster than has been the case for hybrids. Of the 41.5 million hectares sown in 1999, 53 per cent were soybeans, 27 per cent corn, 9 per cent cotton, 8 per cent rapeseed, 2 per cent tobacco and 0.1 per cent potatoes. In Europe, Spain ranks first with around 10,000 ha GM area, followed by Romania with 2000 ha and France, Portugal and the Ukraine at just 1,000 ha (European Commission, 2000e). The area under GM crops in the EU is less than 1.0 per cent of the EU agricultural utilized area. With the expansion of the European Union to include the Central and Eastern European countries, efforts will have to be made to involve the consumers and farmers of these countries in the debate about food safety and food security. Special attention should be paid to education and capacity building regarding modern biotechnology as part of the integration process. Furthermore, products that contain GM crops should be clearly labelled so that the consumer has a choice.

5.2. Public incentives for agri-environmental schemes

A range of activities and policies at the national and the EU level are available to correct past agri-environmental mistakes and to prevent or limit future ones. The main agri-environmental problems were commonly first recognized in those countries that embarked on agricultural intensification in the 1940s and 1950s, for example France, the UK and the Netherlands, and those countries started to formulate corrective measures soon afterwards.

Support from the EU for agri-environmental schemes has been available since the early 1990s to farmers who deliver environmental 'services' on a voluntary basis. An additional payment can be provided on a voluntary and contractual basis for the provision of environmental services that are defined in the programmes. The costs of agricultural policies are covered by taxation, and the cost of food at least in part is covered by taxation through the public sector. In addition to supporting production through direct payments, public support measures also offer incentives to enhance the environmental context of agriculture. The integration of environmental concerns into agricultural policy is mandatory under EU law, and Member States have developed agri-environmental schemes under Regulation 2078/92. More recently, programmes have been further developed under the new Rural Development Regulation 1257/1999, Chapter II, Section 7, Article 22. This regulation covers both agricultural and non-agricultural developments, including agri-environment and forestry.

5.3. The market for organic products

Organic food production is promoted through governmental support programmes and an increasing demand. Consumers are prepared to pay significantly higher prices for organic products. This price difference reflects the higher production costs (labour) and the excess demand over supply.

Organic farming is probably the most widely known example of a farming system that maintains high environmental standards on the basis of higher market returns (Stolton et al. 2000). Trade in organic food and beverage products is increasing at a greater rate than for conventional products. According to a new market study (ITC, 1999), growth in annual sales will range between 5-40 per cent over the medium term, depending on the market in question. Taken as a whole, the European Union is the world’s largest market, with retail sales of organic food and beverages amounting to more than US$ 5 billion in 1997, followed by the United States of America (about US$ 4.2 billion) and Japan (US$ 1-1.2 billion). The market for organic food products in Austria is very important, in 1997 more than 10 per cent of the land area was managed by organic agriculture. In the United Kingdom the market has grown dramatically in recent years, emerging from a niche market

42

status into a mainstream market. Sales levels for the total European organic food market in 2000 could total nearly 27.6 billion Euro (Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, 2000).

Public support for dairy producers in the organic sector exceeds those for conventional farming. A detailed overview of support measures for organic farming relative to conventional farming in the Netherlands is provided in Brouwer and Helming (2000) (Table 4). If measured in Euro per 100 kg of milk, direct income support for organic milk (Euro 1.75 per 100 kg of milk) is about four times the support for conventional milk (Euro 0.4 per 100 kg of milk).

Table 4: Support measures (excluding market price support) and other revenues for conventional and organic dairy production in 1997 (NLG per 100 kg of milk)

Conventional Organic

Management agreements 0.23 1.83

Stimulation arrangements and projects (incl. Regulation 2078/92) 0.02 1.21

MacSharry premiums 0.66 0.85

Total direct support 0.91 3.89

Source: LEI

Price advantages and the transition payments provide incentives to increase organic milk production. They are needed to offset the differences in variable costs of production and fixed costs. Labour requirements and the cost of equipment and materials, land and buildings on organic farms exceed those on conventional farms. The cost of fodder on organic farms also exceeds that on conventional farms. On average, revenues from organic milk are about 20 per cent higher than those from conventional milk.

5.4. Contracts in the agri-food chain to improve environmental quality

Food processors and retailers have also designed schemes to enhance food quality. Food processors can encourage their suppliers to apply standard production methods, including ‘Codes of Good Agricultural Practice’ (GAP). Production contracts between food processors and farmers may offer a mechanism for securing supplies according to specific production practices. Retailers apply similar strategies in their efforts to guarantee the quality of the agricultural produce they purchase. The market share of the top five retailing chains is highest in countries of north-west Europe (Table 5).

Retailers have also collectively developed quality requirements for their suppliers of fresh produce: In November 1999, fourteen European food retailers2 collaborating in the Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group (EUREP) introduced their Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) verification scheme (EUREP, 1999). The EUREP is a technical working group with the objective of encouraging best agricultural practice by producers of fruit and vegetables. The establishment of EUREP and the introduction of the GAP protocol are a response to increasing consumer interests in food safety and environmental issues. The EUREP GAP Protocol sets out a framework for Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) on farms. It defines essential elements and develops best practice for the global production of horticultural products (e.g. fruits, vegetables, potatoes, salads, cut flowers and nursery stock). It defines the minimum standards acceptable to the leading retail groups in Europe, and will be used as a benchmark to assess current practice, and provide guidance for further development. EUREP GAP is a means of incorporating Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Integrated Crop Management (ICM) practices within the framework of commercial agricultural production (EUREP, 1999).

2. Safeway (UK), Sainsbury (UK), Tesco (UK), Waitrose (UK), Albert Heijn (NL), KF (Sweden), ICA (Sweden), Delhaize (B), GB (B), Promodès (F), Continent (F), Coop (I), Spar (AU), Kesko (F). The Belgian ‘Dienst voor Residucontrole’ is also a member. In June 2000, Laurus – the second largest retailer in the Netherlands – announced that it will join the EUREP group.

43

Table 5: Market Share of Top Five Retailers (1995)

Country Market Share Top 5 Retailers (%) Country Market Share Top 5

Retailers (%)

Norway 92 Netherlands 50

Sweden 84 Spain 47

Finland 84 Greece 33

Luxembourg 75 Italy 15

Denmark 72 France 58

Belgium 67 Austria 57

Portugal 67 United Kingdom 51

Switzerland 62 Ireland 51

Germany 61

Source: Baas et al., 1998.

Reduction in the use of agrochemicals is a major goal in the EUREP GAP initiative. In the terms of reference it is stated that EUREP wants to 'encourage adoption of commercially viable ICM schemes for fresh produce, which promote the minimization of agrochemical inputs, within Europe and world wide' (EUREP, 1999). The GAP verification scheme states that all growers must demonstrate that they are committed to reducing the use of agrochemicals. The introduction also stresses the importance of IPM/ICM cultivation methods, stating that EUREP members regard the adoption of IPM/ICM as essential for the long-term improvement and sustainability of agricultural production.

However, the concentration in the agri-food industry also entails risks since retailers have a major influence on the types of products, their prices and food quality.

In addition to the agri-food chain (retailers, food processors) other institutional arrangements also offer incentives to the farming community. These will be further analysed in the following chapters. Within the EU legal and policy framework, the EU Regulation 1750/99 on rural development programmes needs to be more specific when talking about market assessment and capacities (Chapter II, Section 7, Article 22). The market analysis should include an assessment of environmentally friendly production criteria as well as certification and labelling mechanisms.

44

Chapter 6: Contributing to the multiple functions of agriculture and its linkages to biodiversity – the role of stakeholders Laura Buguñá Hoffmann (ECNC)

This chapter discusses a broad range of stakeholders in agriculture and biodiversity. It does not analyse stakeholder involvement, but it shows that different stakeholders have different interests and expertise. The overview is not exhaustive.

The management of agricultural biodiversity involves many stakeholders and often implies transfers of costs and benefits between stakeholder groups. It is therefore essential that mechanisms be developed not only to consult stakeholder groups, but also to facilitate their genuine participation in decision making and in the sharing of benefits.

Source: CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme (Decision V/5)

Raising awareness among all stakeholders (producers, consumers, conservationists, policy makers, etc) of possibilities for linking agricultural practices and biodiversity is the prime objective of this report. This chapter describes the role of farmers and other stakeholders in managing agricultural biodiversity in a way that increases their benefits. In many areas throughout Europe, the environmental services that agriculture used to deliver (see Chapters 3 and 4) have become detached from agricultural production and are often considered as additional costs by farmers and the agri-business who are looking for economic efficiency gains. This separation of biodiversity goals from agricultural production has been recognized as a major impediment for the protection of biological and landscape diversity in all regions of Europe. The liberalization of world trade, increasing competition and consumer expectations of paying less for agricultural products have led to production patterns that often harm the environment.

The interaction between different stakeholders varies for almost each single agricultural product. The example of marketing GMOs, given in Graph 2, shows how different stakeholders may interact. This graph illustrates the legal requirements, but also allows analysis of the driving forces and interactions between the main stakeholders in the food chain.

Graph 2: GMOs in the food chain, stakeholders and issues (Source: European Commission, 2000e)

D O W N S T R E A M

U P S T R E A M

Consultation & Reporting

Technology Fee, Contract Agreement

Contract

GMO Crop Animal’s fedwith GMOs

Marketing GM Product

Risk Assessment & Management, Authorization, Guidelines & Research, Monitoring, Traceability & Labelling Biotechnology

(Seeds, Pesticides)

GOVERNMENT

INPUT SUPPLIERS

FARMERS

ACTIVISTS LOBBY GROUPS

MEDIA

PROCESSORS RETAILERS

CONSUMERS

45

6.1. Farmers

In October and November 2000, a survey carried out in the European member states, commissioned by DG Agriculture of the European Commission analysed the perception of farmers of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). It revealed that 64 per cent of the farmers have a negative perception of the CAP. At the EU level, the survey revealed that, whilst the CAP is generally perceived as being unfavourable for the farmer, it is favourable for agro-business and also for environmental protection (European Commission & Gallup Europe, 2000).

For different geographical, cultural and economic reasons, there are many types of farms and farmers. In addition to that, a complex policy and legal framework, the high instability of many agricultural markets, arbitrary land reforms, unattractive land purchase conditions, and new developments in additives and other chemicals all add to the complexity of farm management. The farmer is only one player in a complex cycle of production, consumption and material flows, that has its main centre of action on the farm and its related ground.

Such structural changes offer both challenges and opportunities for stakeholder involvement. At the Millennium World Farmers' Congress of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers (IFAP) it was stated that ‘an agrarian reform must be accomplished by a consultative and participatory process and must be combined with economic, legal, political and social support measures. In particular, credit and training are crucial for young farmers and for women farmers’. The same accompanying measures apply to the linkage with biodiversity conservation. In 1997, FAO organised an International Workshop, Farming Systems Approaches for the Sustainable Use and Conservation of Agricultural Biological Diversity and Agro-Ecosystems (June 1997, Italy). The outcome of the workshop was a set of conclusions about actions needed in three areas in order to achieve integrated work on agricultural biodiversity:

• increasing information and awareness;

• support to Governments; and

• international level coordination.

Farmers are ‘stewards of biological diversity’ (Dutch nature policy memorandum, Nature for people, people for nature, 2000), hence they have to be properly involved in the country’s nature policy and conservation plans. Farmers‘ organizations fully acknowledge the role of farmers as managers of the countryside, and ask for suitable compensation measures. The president of the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) in England, Ben Gill, said: '… there has never been a more significant time to fight for the survival of the countryside, its people and its many activities and traditions.' (11 January 2001, press release, NFU). British farmers have launched the British Farm Standard - a quality label which guarantees to consumers that the food has been produced to exacting food hygiene, environmental and animal welfare criteria (http://www.nfu.org.uk/info/britishstand.asp). The French farmers organization Confédération paysanne states that ‘natural resources and landscapes, territories and the farmer’s traditional know-how need to be preserved for future generations (http://www.confederationpaysanne.fr/).

In April 1999, FAO organised the Workshop Sustaining Agricultural Biodiversity and Agro-ecosystem Functions. One of the recommendations of the workshop is the application of environmental and/or biodiversity impact assessment of agricultural practices at the farm and landscape levels. The workshop suggested two main areas on which to focus the development of indicators for assessment and monitoring of agricultural biodiversity in ecosystems:

• assessments of landscape/watershed and agro-ecosystem/production systems; and

• assessments of the economic forces that influence agricultural biodiversity, sustainable production, and security of food supply and livelihoods.

46

According to the German Agricultural Report (Agrarbericht 1999), sustainable farm management comprises three key factors:

• a market-oriented economically beneficial farm management that includes the use of best available technologies to produce the requested products in a competitive way;

• the farm is managed in an environmentally-friendly way, with a reduced emission of pollutants, energy-efficient production measures, the maintenance of soil fertility, preferably closed-circle material cycles and an ethical animal husbandry; and

• farm management that provides a high enough standard of living for those working on the farm, enough scope for entrepreneurial creativity and contributes to their social inclusion.

Further information on the Internet:

• http://www.ifap.org/

• http://www.agricoop.org/

• http://www.cpefarmers.org/

• http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/survey/index_en.htm

6.2. Retailers, agro-industry, cooperatives

Retailers, agricultural societies, agricultural economics research institutes and cooperatives are the main links between farmers and consumers. They stand at the crossroads where consumer concerns on food safety, environmental protection and animals’ welfare meet business targets and global competition.

As the farming industry has become increasingly industrialized, the role of retailers and agricultural societies has increased as well. Retailers have much power in the market, particularly in Europe. Western societies are calling for speedy change in agriculture and for the agri-food industries to incorporate new quality criteria into the goods they produce. The BSE crisis has stimulated a lively debate on the effects of industrialization in the agricultural market. Some retailers’ organizations support the development of codes of good agricultural practice, frameworks for benchmarking, guidance for continuous improvement, and the development and understanding of best practice (see EUREP GAP in Chapter 4).

The role of the food chain group has been analysed in depth by a report of the UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), Working together for the Food Chain (1999). The paper states that there is 'the need for improved “understanding” in the chain – of each other, of best practice, of consumer preferences'.

Independent verification and labelling of product identification, authenticity and traceability systems on behalf of major purchasers play an important role in the attempt to improve consumer confidence and allow recognition of products. Benchmarking is one of the many tools that can be used to improve quality in food production and better explain the food chain to the consumer. To gain biodiversity benefits, conservation standards need to be integrated into farming codes of production and labelling.

Statutory codes of Good Agricultural Practice, animal welfare codes, guides for Environmentally Responsible Farming, and further codes are in place in several European countries at the regional or national levels. There are also labels for specific crops, such as the Assured Produce Scheme (APS), which promotes safe and environmentally responsible production of fruit vegetables and salads through the use of Integrated Crop Management (ICM). Regional sourcing initiatives are in place in several European countries, such as Germany, Austria, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

The International Agri-Food Network (IAFN) represents associations and federations at the international level whose members are suppliers of agricultural inputs and raw materials, individual and family farms, cooperative organizations, food processing and transport businesses, from small and medium-sized enterprises through to multinational corporations. In a discussion paper to the UN-Commission on Sustainable Development (8th CSD

47

session, April 2000), IAFN recognizes that 'the challenge lies in using all the knowledge, experience and technologies available to achieve the most sustainable methods of production. For example, the integration of organic and mineral sources of plant nutrients, the adoption of suitable animal husbandry techniques, adapted plant varieties and integrated pest management systems are some of the components of the modern approach to sustainable agriculture'.

Further information on the Internet:

• http://www.eurep.org/index.html

• http://www.fwag.org.uk/

• http://www.agrimine.com/en/agrifiles/quality.html

• http://www.agrifood.net/index.htm

• http://www.ifoam.org/

• http://www.agrifood.net

• http://www.efma.org

6.3. Consumers

A number of food scares in the second half of the 1990s, along with current concerns over the safety of genetically modified (GM) foods, have made consumers in European countries very wary about the general safety of their food, and its sources.

The European Consumers' Organization (BEUC) is calling for a transparent and participatory process when designing food policies and legislation: 'all stakeholders should be informed and consulted on developments regarding the European Food Authority and the Food Policy Action Plan. Given the very direct impact that food safety and nutrition has on consumers, organizations representing consumers' interests must be given equal access to the policy process together with the food industry.'

Because of their changing lifestyle, consumers are demanding greater convenience and variety. Consumers need a simple, clear and honest way of identifying food, without a plethora of different labels. Own-label products have become a tool for retailers to differentiate themselves from others and build an image, attract and retain customers, vary their product line, and offer lower prices and greater value. Innovation has played an important role in the success of private-label products since retailers have evolved from simply producing 'copycat' products to introducing new sophisticated lines of higher-margin value-added products and extended ranges to meet consumer needs.

BEUC argues for the highest standards throughout the food chain in Europe. The best practices from each country must be adopted for the whole of Europe to raise standards throughout. Only by being seen to raise standards will Europe gain the credibility and trust that farmers and food companies need not just from European consumers, but from consumers all around the world.

Based on consumer resistance to GM food products, many food suppliers have taken a negative stance on GM food products. In the EU, many food processors and retailers are trying to avoid or to restrict GM food products, such as the consortium to eliminate genetically engineered ingredients from own-label foods and the GM free working group.

UNEP is hosting the Sustainable Agri-Food Production and Consumption Forum, a web site that ‘is designed to help users access information on key issues related to agri-production and consumption, such as: agro-biodiversity, water, energy, climate change, chemicals, desertification, consumption, trade and poverty. Furthermore, UNEP’s site on Sustainable Consumption provides information on activities and links to networks of experts. The life cycle assessment of agricultural products explains in a clear way to the consumer what is the inputs to the different products are.

Further information on the Internet:

• http://www.who.int/

48

• http://www.beuc.org/

• http://www.agrifood-forum.net/home.asp

• http://www.uneptie.org/sustain/home.html

• http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/ca00250e.html

• http://www.tacd.org/

• http://193.128.6.150/consumers/index.html

6.4. NGOs

6.4.1. Conservationist NGOs

Nature conservation organizations in Europe are a diverse group of organizations and institutions, ranging from public institutions to consultancies, research centres and NGOs. Their prime interest is the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, including natural resources. Given that there is an obviously strong linkage between agriculture and biodiversity, many organizations include in their mission and/or business plan the interaction between economic sectors (such as agriculture) and nature conservation.

Many conservationists have furthered the international debate at the policy level, resulting in the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS), the CBD, and the work carried out by FAO on biodiversity, among others. The process of discussions and partnership for joint development of European policies on nature conservation and economic sectors is only starting.

Further information on the Internet:

• http://www.biodiv.org/

• http://www.strategyguide.org/

• http://www.ecnc.nl/

• http://www.iucn.org/

• http://www.rspb.org.uk/

• http://www.wwf.org/

• http://www.efncp.org/

• http://www.wing-wbsj.or.jp/birdlife/

6.4.2. Agricultural NGOs

Besides NGOs specialized in sustainable agriculture, there are a number of ‘agricultural NGOs’ whose primary focus is support for agricultural production, but their work includes the assessment of adaptive management practices, the enhancement of the use of rare breeds and traditional plant varieties, labelling methods, and communication and information exchange on agriculture and nature conservation.

For instance, organizations such as the European Conservation Agriculture Federation (ECAF) bring together national expertise which promotes soil management and ‘best practice’ aspects of conservation agriculture to Europe’s farmers.

Many of these NGO organizations/consortia have emerged as a product of international research projects on sustainable agriculture. Rural development is another key (research and policy) subject for agricultural NGOs.

Further information on the Internet:

• http://www.ecaf.org/English/englis.htm

• http://www.csare.org/

49

• http://www.oneworld.org/ileia/

• http://www.csdngo.org/csdngo/agriculture/agr_paper.htm

• http://www.ceesa.de/

• http://www.v-label.de/

• http://www.eurep.org/

• http://www.clm.nl/index_uk2.html

6.5. Public authorities and international governmental organizations

6.5.1. National governments

National governments play a key role as stakeholders since they are full parties to the CBD and members of the international organizations mentioned in section 6.4, they (co-) finance research at the European level, and are directly responsible for consumer health and land use management. The direct involvement as parties/members of international organizations and policy frameworks on agriculture and biodiversity is linked to several policy processes, such as:

• CBD implementation process (including national reports, action plans and strategies);

• Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy;

• drafting rural development plans (in the EU) to obtain support via the Agenda 2000 CAP reform (EU RDR 1257/99);

• EU enlargement: SAPARD pre-accession instrument under EC regulation 1268/99;

• UN Commission on Sustainable Development meetings (CSD 8 – which took place in April 2000 – included national reports on sustainable agriculture and rural development: trends in national implementation);

• agriculture negotiations with WTO; and

• the OECD Committee for Agriculture.

Further information on the Internet:

• http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/committees/agri/default_en.htm

• http://www.oecd.org//agr/about_us/co_agfi.htm

• http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/agric_e/negoti_e.htm

• http://www.nalusda.gov/ref/govern.htm

• http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/

6.5.2. Governmental agencies

Most national governments have agencies working in the field of biodiversity conservation and agriculture and biodiversity research, including environmental advisory councils and countryside agencies.

Further information on the Internet:

• http://www.eur-focalpt.org/links-fp.htm

6.5.3. International organizations representing national governments

Many international organizations that work in the areas of agricultural policies and production techniques have taken up the challenge of promoting the linkages between agriculture and biodiversity. In the second Chapter of this report, organizations working on

50

the biodiversity conservation framework and its relation to agriculture (CBD, PEBLDS, EU, etc) have already been introduced. The following list of organizations is given as an introduction to some key initiatives on sustainable agriculture at the international level.

FAO

The FAO considers biological diversity for food and agriculture to be important for FAO’s mandate to promote sustainable agricultural development and ensure global food security. Integrating biodiversity into national agricultural policies, programmes and projects continues to be a top priority for the organization. Current sectorial programmes generate and transfer the information and the technical know-how farmers need to conserve, develop and deploy biodiversity in sustainable and ecologically sound agricultural production systems.

Some relevant FAO bodies and programmes on agriculture and biodiversity conservation are:

• International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture;

• Global Strategy for the Management of Farm Animal Genetic Resources;

• Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture;

• Integrated Management of Biological Diversity for Food and Agriculture;

• Strengthening National Seed Production and Security Systems;

• World Agriculture Information Resource System (WAIR); and

• Regional Agricultural Information Systems (RAIS).

Further information on the Internet:

• http://www.fao.org/biodiversity/

• http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/guides/subject/p.htm

OECD

A sizeable programme of work in the OECD is focused on agricultural policy and its connection with the environment. The organization has established a Joint Working Party of the Committee for Agriculture and the Environment Policy Committee. Amongst other things, this committee has discussed the development of agri-environment indicators, future policies for sustainable agriculture, environmental impacts of trade liberalization, reference levels, ways of integrating agricultural and environmental policies and the provision of 'public goods' by farmers. The concept of multifunctional agriculture has also been analysed by OECD member states. A rigorous analytical framework has been developed at OECD, to define appropriate ways of integrating trade liberalization with good domestic policy practice by internalising the external costs and benefits of agriculture (OECD, 1998). The OECD is also active in environmental policy and has made a number of contributions to biodiversity policy thinking.

At OECD level, the debate about the multifunctional character of agriculture was one of the key points raised by Agriculture Ministers when they met at OECD in March 1998. The OECD regularly organises workshops and seminars on multifunctional agriculture. In June 2000, the OECD organised the workshop 'Towards policies for rural amenities: valuing public goods and externalities'. This workshop focused on the contribution that natural and cultural amenities, including externalities and public goods from agriculture and ecological resources, make to the development and well-being of rural areas in particular, and to the welfare of countries more generally. The workshop also helped identify valuation methods and policy instruments that can help to promote this contribution. OECD and the World Bank Institute have recently held a workshop (Paris, 25–26 January 2001) on creating markets for biodiversity products and services, which focused on analysing examples in which markets assist in the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Finally, the workshop Multifunctionality: Applying the OECD analytical framework-guiding policy design took place on July 2 & 3, 2001 (Paris).

51

Further information on the Internet:

• http://www.oecd.org/agr/

• http://www.oecd.org/env/

European Union

Several EU bodies deal with agricultural management and biodiversity conservation, in terms of policy and legal frameworks and by setting instruments and support schemes and by monitoring and reporting. These bodies include the European Commission, the EU Council, the European Parliament, the European Environmental Agency and the Committee of the Regions.

In 1992, the European Council approved the first reform of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), which included a package of measures called 'the CAP accompanying measures'. Several environment-related measures which had previously been implemented through EU Regulations 2328/91 (VII) and 4115/88 (extensification of agricultural and livestock production) were re-formulated and included in EU Regulation 2078/92 which made the introduction of agri-environmental schemes obligatory for all Member States.

The introduction of incentives for agri-environmental management agreements has been an important change in the CAP, involving environment-related support for about a fifth of the farmed area. Under agri-environment programmes farmers undertake environmental activities, for which they receive payments to cover resulting income losses and costs. Expenditure for the EU-12 rose from ECU 0.1 billion in 1993 to an estimated ECU 1.2 billion in 1998 (ECU 1.7 billion for EU-15). The programmes apply to 900,000 farms and 27 million ha, or 20 per cent of EU farmland, although application is considerably more widespread in five Member States.

Nevertheless, the CAP has been associated with several of the negative environmental consequences of modern farming methods in the Community. The question is how far CAP subsidies, grants and other support have been the cause of the observed change in agricultural land management. The trend towards intensification and specialization is in part a response to general economic developments and technological change (Buckwell, 1989). In 1999, the European Commission issued a Communication ‘Directions towards sustainable agriculture’ (COM (1999) 22). According to this paper, 'sustainable agriculture would call for a management of natural resources in a way that the benefits are also available in the future'.

The EU Agricultural Council adopted the ‘Strategy on the environment integration and sustainable development in common agriculture policy’ (13078/99, 16 November 1999). The concrete objectives address a number of issues, including biodiversity conservation and landscape preservation, biosafety, soil protection, forestry, and enlargement: 'Farmers should observe the reference level of good agricultural practices as a part of the support regimes, but that additional environmental services beyond the reference level and respecting environmental legislation should be adequately compensated by society, for example, through agri-environmental measures'.

The Agenda 2000 reform is a further step towards ‘supporting the sustainable development of rural areas and responding to society’s increasing demand for environmental services by encouraging farmers to use farming practices compatible with environmental protection and natural resources conservation’. (European Commission, Agenda 2000 – Strengthening and widening the European Union, 1999). The Rural Development Regulation (1257/99) retains agri-environmental schemes as the only mandatory measure for Member States, but the planned budgetary increase for these schemes is very limited. Evaluation of the environmental success of schemes has also been hampered by poor baseline data in many countries and a lack of rigorous monitoring, as well as more intractable difficulties such as a shortage of studies comparing changes on land within and outside schemes. The Agriculture Council Strategy underlines the need for rigorous monitoring and evaluation of integration. The European Commission underlines the need to develop agri-environmental indicators as core part of the monitoring process when it states, 'appropriately developed agri-environmental indicators will be particularly important in improving transparency, accountability and ensuring the success of monitoring, control and

52

evaluation. This will contribute significantly to the effectiveness of policy implementation and feed Global Assessment processes' (European Commission, COM (2000), 20 final).

Further information on the Internet:

• http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/envir/index_en.htm

• http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/agriculture/

• http://www.eea.eu.int/

• http://www.europarl.eu.int/committees/agri_home.htm

• http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/

World Trade Organization

The World Trade Organization (WTO) is the international organization dealing with the rules of trade between nations. Negotiations in the agricultural sector (under Article 20 of Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture) tend to be tense. The latest negotiations officially started on 23th and 24th March 2000 in Geneva. The key points of debate appear to revolve around the Blue Box in the Agreement on Agriculture, one section of which is the provision of income support to farmers in return for their withdrawing land from cultivation. This is seen as the root cause of distortion of international trade in agriculture by developing countries. The Green Box provides for the use of direct payments to producers which are not linked to production decisions, so although the farmer receives a payment from the government, this payment does not influence the type or the volume of agricultural production.

The WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is an attempt to narrow the gaps in the way these rights are protected around the world, and to bring them under international rules. Many regional agricultural products are protected under the TRIPS Agreement; well-known examples include 'Champagne', 'Scotch' and 'Roquefort' cheese.

Further information on the Internet:

• http://www.wto.org/

6.5.4. Regional authorities

Many European regions are developing pilot initiatives on linking agriculture and biodiversity in their region, especially where this is tied to other functions such as sustainable tourism or water management. The Committee of the Regions’ Commission on Agriculture regularly analyses the EU policies and regulations on agriculture and rural development. The European Parliament’s Commission on Agriculture and Rural Development, many members of which first became politically active at the local and regional level in their own countries, discusses and adopts EU regulations on agriculture and rural development. Besides these two official EU bodies, the EU supports regions via the structural funds and rural development plans for initiatives that enhance the positive linkages between agriculture and biodiversity.

Further information on the Internet:

• http://www.cor.eu.int/

• http://www.inforegio.cec.eu.int/wbover/over_en.htm

6.5.5. Other bodies

UNEP has launched a web site on sustainable agri-food production and consumption which provides information on sustainable management practices, biodiversity and health issues, and includes a discussion forum.

Further information on the Internet:

• http://www.agrifood-forum.net/practices/index.asp

53

6.6. Scientific Community

Scientific research is fundamental for a better understanding of the linkages between agriculture, biodiversity, economy and society. Research on the linkages between agriculture and biodiversity is conducted at a variety of levels, as the following examples show.

Global level: According to Article 25 of the CBD, the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (see Chapter 2) is established to provide timely advice relating to the implementation of the Convention and to its agricultural biodiversity programme. FAO created the AGRIS international information system for the agricultural sciences and technology.

European level: The ‘quality of life programme’ of the 5th EU Research Framework Programme supports research into the emerging ‘Bio-Society’, Biomedicine and Health, and Agriculture. The EU also supports research on non-food use of crops, such as the study on ‘crops for sustainable enterprises’. The European Science Foundation carries out research on land use and its impact on biodiversity (e.g. CLIMB project). The European Initiative for Agricultural Research for Development (EIARD) serves as a mechanism that enables better coherence between relevant policies - mainly those of research and development - and aims to achieve better co-ordination between the different activities undertaken by the Commission and the Member States. Major objectives are ensuring food security and alleviating poverty while conserving the environment at the global level.

Biogeographical Regional level: the Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Chania (MAICH) in Greece carries out research on Mediterranean ecosystems and on the sustainability of natural resources in the field of agriculture, forestry and water management. In the CEE region, the CEESA project analyses models for sustainable agriculture, and the AEMBAC project analyses the definition of a common analytical framework for the development of local agri-environmental programmes for biodiversity and landscape conservation. In the Mediterranean region, the UNESCO-MAB initiative has also carried out work with farmers and other local stakeholders. UNEP-GRIP ARENDAL carries out research on biodiversity and sectors in the Baltic and arctic regions.

National level: Most countries carry out national research. In France, for example, the ‘Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique’ (INRA) states that spatial planning, environmental protection and sustainable production are key research areas. Research projects include plant resistance to insects and classification of weeds. The Dutch Agricultural Economics Institute (LEI) carries out research on environmental budgeting, the EU Common Agricultural Policy, among other themes. It is one of the major aims of the recently published European Commission paper 'Towards a European research area' to better coordinate the national initiatives with the European research activities and foster the mobilization of researchers among EU countries.

Regional and local level: Within the EU, substantial support on rural development and sustainable agriculture is being offered to the regions via structural funds. The goal of many LEADER projects is to support regional production, prevent continuing land abandonment and offer qualified work to local people.

In addition to the geographic scope, research on agriculture and biodiversity3 is also linked to further uses and new economic models:

• the ‘Environment and Agriculture Programme’ of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP, Canada) strives to maximize the productivity of the rural landscape while minimising the environmental damage to agriculture from the industrialized global economy;

• the World Resources Institute (WRI, United States) provides information, ideas, and solutions to global environmental problems. WRI has analysed the challenges and opportunities for sustainable food security by linking Biodiversity and Agriculture;

3 Note from the editor: this list only mentions a few key initiatives, since the scope of this summary does not allow for an extensive list of relevant activities.

54

• the University of Wisconsin (United States) has developed an introductory workshop module on how to integrate quality of life into farming and community planning;

• the role of corporations in ensuring biodiversity has been analysed by the Wildlife Habitat Council (United States);

• the European Centre for Nature Conservation (ECNC, the Netherlands) is carrying out research to gain a better understanding, and to monitor and evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of European agricultural practices on the environment;

• the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP, UK) is carrying out extensive research into the implementation of agri-environmental programmes; and

• links between policy and science in the field of agriculture and environmental protection have been analysed by the University of London.

The CBD Clearing-House Mechanism to the CBD provides a basis for international scientific cooperation.

Further information on the Internet: • http://www.eiard.org/

• http://www.biodiv.org/programmes/areas/agro/documents.asp

• http://www.fao.org/agris/

• http://www.igc.org/wri/wri/wri/sustag/lba-toc.html • http://biosociety.dms.it/

• http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/quality-of-life/agriresearchconf.html • http://www.georgofili.it/ueaa.htm • http://biodiversity-chm.eea.eu.int/ • http://www.ecnc.nl

• http://www.inra.fr

• http://www.ieep.org.uk/

• http://www.lei.wageningen-ur.nl/lei_engels/HTML/home.htm

6.7. Other stakeholders

Many other stakeholder organizations are directly involved with agriculture, biodiversity and non-trade concerns.

List of further stakeholders: • landowner organizations and institutions;

• consultants, agronomists and other related professional bodies; • banks and financial institutions, including trusts; • water management companies;

• energy companies (biomass, wind, geothermal, etc); • tourism and leisure companies;

• pharmacy, cosmetics, and herbs enterprises; • other natural resources related industries; and

• media organizations.

Further information on the Internet: • European Leisure and Recreation Association (ELRA) http://www.elra.net/

• European Landowners' Organization http://www.elo.org/ • Alternative Crops Technology Interaction Network (ACTIN) http://www.actin.co.uk/

• The EU Environment-Water Task Force http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/tf-wat1.html

55

PART B - EUROPEAN WORKSHOP AND CASE STUDIES

Chapter 7: Report of the stakeholder workshop The aim of the European Workshop 'Analysing the interaction between agricultural practices and the sustainable use of biodiversity - the role of stakeholders' – which took place in Brussels on March 23, 2001, was to raise awareness among European stakeholders on the linkages between agricultural management practices, related agricultural and environmental policies, and the sustainable use of biodiversity. It also analysed the role of stakeholders in fostering those linkages and discussed the potentials for a European response to the CBD agricultural biodiversity programme. This chapter summarizes the main conclusions from the workshop as well as the presentations that were made there. The workshop programme is reproduced in Annex 5 of this report, and the full papers and presentations can be found in Annex 6.

'We learn to understand each other', said Prof. Dr Eckhart Kuijken, Director of the Flemish Institute of Nature Conservation and host of the meeting, at the end of the workshop. Some sixty participants (Participants list, see Annex 4) from thirteen countries from the agri-business sector, international organizations such as the European Commission (Directorates General for Agriculture, Environment and Research), UNEP and the OECD, expert institutes and NGOs attended the gathering. The Workshop was an independent event, organised by ECNC and its partner organizations.

Prior to the workshop, all participants received an extensive background paper. Figure 2 shows the linkages between the policy, science and communication aspects that steered the workshop discussions.

Figure 2: Linkages between the policy framework, the analysis and the workshop

Policy and legal framework • CBD agricultural biodiversity work

programme • EU Biodiversity Action Plan on

agriculture, under the EC-Biodiversity Strategy

• 6th EU Environmental Action Programme

• CAP, rural development regulation • PEBLDS and Riga process

Recommendations from the European Workshop

Analysis of agricultural management practices and the sustainable use of biodiversity • Analysis, know-how • Stakeholder involvement

Raise awareness among stakeholders

56

7.1. Workshop Conclusions

The conclusions can be split up into conclusions regarding the stakeholder involvement and conclusions regarding policies. The workshop programme as well as the discussions focused on the relationship between sound agricultural management practices and wild biodiversity. The assessment of linkages between agricultural management practices and the sustainable use of biodiversity is one of the key activities within the multi-year framework agricultural biodiversity work programme of the Convention on Biological Diversity, endorsed by the 5th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (May 2000, Nairobi). This work programme includes a broad range of aspects that fall within the scope of agricultural biodiversity, 'local wildlife & habitats', related to nature conservation, being only one out of many aspects. However, in Europe this aspect has a very great importance and in fact the workshop focused on that aspect of agro-biodiversity.

There was clear consensus during the workshop that existing policies and instruments on agriculture and biodiversity conservation, if used in a proper way, provide an opportunity for moving closer to a sustainable agriculture which would also have biodiversity benefits. The participants welcomed policy processes from some EU member states that aim at certain percentages of biodiversity-friendly agricultural production systems (such as organic farming and conservation agriculture) or at the integration of biodiversity-friendly production measures into conventional practices. In this context, it was noted repeatedly that EU member states should make better use of the EU agri-environmental measures, in particular in high-nature-value farming areas. Attention was drawn to the significance of biodiversity on farmland in Central and Eastern Europe and the major chances for preserving that biodiversity by using biodiversity-friendly agricultural management practices.

Many speakers and participants clearly expressed their support to the relevant policy processes and stressed repeatedly that this workshop has been a useful meeting to jointly discuss the use and the relevance of such policy processes in one’s practical work. Next to the CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme, participants referred to other policy framework initiatives and instruments such as the launch of the EC-Biodiversity Action Plans in the framework of the EC Biodiversity Strategy, the rural development programmes of the CAP, the EU enlargement process, the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy and the 6th EU Environmental Action Programme.

The growing importance of the CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme was recognized as a helpful tool for a global framework on agricultural biodiversity. It was stated that wild flora and fauna on farmland, in CBD terminology 'local wildlife and habitats' should get more attention under the CBD's agricultural biodiversity work programme. It was agreed that at European scale such targets need to be defined in close consultation with Member States and by involving other stakeholders. The recent developments at European agricultural policy level on integrating biodiversity conservation were recognized as being more developed than in other world regions. But it became also evident that there is a gap between global policies such as the CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme and the practical level. The workshop was welcomed as an important tool to raise awareness among practitioners on such global policy processes.

A number of examples on a more regional scale were referred to during the workshop. In this context, it was mentioned that several member states have policy targets for attaining a certain percentage of more biodiversity-friendly agricultural practices, such as the case of Sweden, that aims for 20 per cent organic farming by 2005. Another useful instrument is the definition and implementation of so-called ‘good agricultural practices’ at member state level, linked to the EU Rural Development Regulation (which is part of the CAP). It has been suggested to establish biodiversity indexes linked to certain agricultural management practices, which in turn need to be clearly assessed, labelled and evaluated.

The workshop participants concluded that the link between science and policy is of key relevance to a successful policy implementation of the particular linkages between agricultural practices and biodiversity conservation. One participant argued that without agriculture we would have ‘monoculture’ whereas others disagreed with this concept,

57

assuming that, although at another scale, natural open spaces and related ecosystems have always existed. Another examples was the role of the current European agricultural policy: some participants perceived the CAP as the main driving force for agricultural intensification, whereas others perceived the CAP as a tool to mitigate agricultural intensification. The term ‘agricultural intensification’ needs to be more clearly specified when analysing the linkages between agricultural management practices and biodiversity since intensification may refer to the extension of monocultures, to the farm structure, to increasing input use.

A number of successful management practices were presented and discussed. The participants took note of a number of management practices that have proven record for their positive impact on biodiversity conservation, such as organic agriculture, conservation agriculture, integrated pest management and extensive agricultural management. Limited time, the various number of issues for debate, and the fact that at European scale it may be rather difficult to evaluate concrete practices, impeded a discussion in depth.

There was a high consensus among participants that an open debate (without previously determining roles and responsibilities) is very useful and should take place on a regular basis. It became clear that sound knowledge and understanding of the linkages between agricultural practices and biodiversity need to be further analysed and shared. The participants did not give recommendations on how concrete biodiversity-friendly agricultural practices should be furthered among European stakeholders. Neither they analysed the role of individual stakeholders within the CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme. The workshop was seen as a necessary step towards enhancing cooperation among stakeholders in the framework of the implementation of the CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme, learning form each other rather than establishing roles and responsibilities. A one-day meeting was considered as being too short to assess and discuss within such a broad group of stakeholders concrete management practices for the CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme.

The role of retailers, processors and other stakeholders in the food chain in influencing agricultural management practices was discussed in depth. It became clear that marketing and labelling initiatives have a major role in focussing the European market of produces. Consumer concerns regarding food safety also play a key role. The farmer needs to be involved as early as possible, one has to work with them rather than only via regulations and measures. The increasing demand for linking agriculture with other uses such as tourism and recreation opportunities, health aspects, water and energy management, among others, was regarded as an opportunity to support sustainable agriculture. The role of communication among stakeholders was also discussed in detail. Next to noting that such a process is very useful and should be repeated, the participants suggested to define a time frame. It was acknowledged that biodiversity goals can not be achieved simply by regulation; they depend on positive engagement, cooperation, enthusiasm and innovative ideas. Current developments in the agricultural market are favouring such goodwill. It was concluded that the mutual understanding and trust is key to a successful partnership, both for more local scales as well as on the European scale.

Sections 7.2 – 7.12 provide a brief overview of the workshop presentations. The full text of all speeches can be found in Annex 6.

7.2. Opening, Introduction and setting the scene

The Workshop was opened by Prof. Dr Eckhart Kuijken, Director of the Flemish Institute of Nature Conservation, which hosted the meeting. Mr Kuijken welcomed the participants; he highlighted the importance of linking policy with science and mentioned the example of wetlands, on which he presented a case study in the afternoon session.

Ms Laura Buguñá Hoffmann, Senior Programme Coordinator at the European Centre for Nature Conservation (ECNC), welcomed the broad participation of stakeholders. She referred to the high interest in the link between agriculture and biodiversity, both among stakeholders and society in general, caused by the unfortunate current events in the agricultural sector such as the outbreaks of foot and mouth disease and BSE. She introduced the participants to the role of the workshop as being a bridge between policy

58

and science: the workshop is linked to the policy process of the agricultural biodiversity work programme of the CBD and aims to develop a European response for assessing agricultural management practices that have a positive linkage with biodiversity conservation. The basis for assessing this linkage is provided by sound scientific advice.

Participants were asked to discuss whether existing instruments and know-how in Europe on the linkages between agricultural practices and biodiversity are sufficiently developed and implemented, whether the linkages need to be better integrated with other land uses such as tourism, water filtration and health, and what role stakeholders have in such a process. Ms Buguñá Hoffmann explained that the workshop discussions would feed into the final report which will present recommendations to the European Commission and other relevant organizations.

Due to the broad participation of stakeholders, the final report could also become an innovative discussion paper on the state of art in Europe on linking agriculture and biodiversity and the feasibility of integrating this linkage with other land use functions (such as tourism and landscape management). The final report will be distributed widely and will include a directory of stakeholders.

7.3. Factual introduction about the CBD and its agricultural biodiversity work programme

Dr Elzbieta Martyniuk, a member of the Polish delegation to COP3, COP4 and COP5 of the CBD, Associate Professor in the Department of Genetics and Animal Breeding (Animal Sciences Faculty, Warsaw Agricultural University), Secretary of the Genetics Commission of the European Association on Animal Production and Chairperson of the working group of agricultural biodiversity to the CBD, presented an overview of the work programme of the CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme.

Ms Martyniuk introduced the scope of agricultural biodiversity within the CBD framework. She then presented the multi-year work programme, adopted in Nairobi in May 2000 (Decision V/5). Participation and communication play a key role in the CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme, the Conference of the Parties to the CBD recognizes 'the contribution of farmers, indigenous and local communities to the conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity and emphasizes the importance of their participation in the implementation of the work programme'.

Ms Martyniuk presented the four elements of the CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme and referred in particular to point 1.4., 'Promote and develop assessments of the interactions between agricultural practices and the conservation and sustainable use of the components of biodiversity' which is the main element to be discussed at the workshop.

A review of the CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme will take place at SBSTTA 7 in November 2001. Ms Martyniuk pointed out that there will be a pre-SBSTTA-7 Symposium: Managing Diversity in Agricultural Ecosystems (Montreal, 8 –10 November, 2001).

Ms Martyniuk also referred to other matters that require further attention in future, such as wider understanding of the functionality of biodiversity in agro-ecosystems; identification of issues related to agricultural biodiversity that are likely to arise in future scenarios (such as under further intensification, under minimum tillage systems, under GMO based crops); the role of Certification Regimes (for organic agriculture, conservation agriculture etc.) in promoting the sustainability of agricultural biodiversity: opportunities, limitations and challenges; the need for understanding terminology use with respect to the differing needs of stakeholders and for necessary rigour; education; and marketing.

7.4. Biodiversity and multifunctionality in European agriculture: priorities, current initiatives and possible new directions

Mr Gerard van Dijk of UNEP’s Regional Office for Europe analysed the concept of multifunctionality of agriculture (related to the European model of agriculture) and how it had developed from national agri-environmental programmes, via an increasing integration

59

of environmental considerations in EU agricultural policies, to the existing policy framework at EU level and beyond. He stated that the concept of multifunctionality is a useful tool for biodiversity conservation, both within the WTO framework (in order to take account of the needs on European farmland), and for successful biodiversity conservation in Europe.

He stated that in Europe biodiversity is a core element in the multifunctionality philosophy and that the credibility of the concept depends on the effective conservation of biodiversity on farmland and the implementation of related policies. On this basis, he gave a series of policy recommendations, focusing on the areas that are still rich in biodiversity (around 20-25 per cent of all farmland). Among these recommendations were the implementation of agri-environmental programmes on the whole remaining area with high nature values, measures for the management of already abandoned land, adequate integration of biodiversity concerns in the EU enlargement negotiations on agriculture and further greening of the CAP. He also stated that much more work on similar questions in the Newly Independent States (NIS) needs to be done. Finally, he advocated that more attention should be paid to the conservation of 'wildlife and habitats' in the CBD' s agricultural biodiversity work programme.

7.5. Economy, ecology and agriculture

Mr Risto Volanen, Secretary General of the European Farmers Union COPA-COGECA, began his presentation by introducing the history of agricultural intensification, and he said repeatedly in his speech that without the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, agriculture in the EU member states would be even more intensive, as vast areas in the United States demonstrate. According to Mr Volanen, Europe’s farmers want to do more than just provide food security, they want to offer the multiple functions sustainable agriculture is meant to provide, but public support measures are required that link economy with ecology.

Mr Volanen presented three possible scenarios for Europe’s agriculture:

1. Fully liberalised agricultural markets: industrialized agriculture will grow; small farms will disappear;

2. Polarised agriculture: the gap between intensive and extensive areas will grow, which is undesirable for ecological reasons;

3. Multifunctional agriculture throughout Europe: working towards a sustainable production system, linked to local needs and possibilities.

Mr Volanen concluded that the third scenario would be the best choice for Europe. The historical influence agriculture has had on current biodiversity was also taken up by Mr Volanen, who pointed out that without agriculture many European areas would now be a ‘monoculture’ of forest (assuming that the potential natural vegetation in most of continental Europe would be forest).

7.6. Fostering linkage between agriculture and biodiversity: the EU level and the national implementation

Mr Jonas Ericson, representing the Swedish Ministry of the Environment, focused his presentation on the Swedish example of linking biodiversity conservation and agricultural management practices. At the time of the workshop, Sweden held the Presidency of the EU Council.

'Nature conservation is actually a larger land user than agriculture in Sweden, covering some 10 per cent of the area' (compared with 7 per cent UAA), Mr Ericson pointed out. Land abandonment constitutes a serious threat for the viability of many rural areas in Sweden, particularly in the northern regions. The Natura 2000 network will cover approximately 15 per cent of the whole EU territory. 'An important step, but not enough to save all species within Europe', Mr Ericson stated. Approximately one third of the total CAP-payments to Swedish farmers is linked to the rural development programme, which will support small farmers and organic farming in particular. At the moment, 10 per cent of Sweden’s agricultural holdings are managed as organic farms. The government’s goal is 20 per cent organic farming by 2005.

60

According to Mr Ericson, existing EU policies and instruments are sufficient to support the current trend towards sustainable farming. In this regard, he referred to the 6th EU Environmental Action Programme, the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (currently being drafted) and the official launch of the Biodiversity Action Plans (March 27 in Sweden).

Mr Ericson recognized the trend towards intensification in agriculture as the greatest threat to the loss of agricultural biodiversity and he backed the previous speaker, Mr Volanen, in stating that this trend is moving forward irrespective of the CAP.

7.7. Agricultural Intensification and the Collapse of Europe's Farmland Bird Populations

Dr Paul Donald, member of the International Research Unit of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), presented a recent study carried out by the RSPB which aimed to establish a link between agricultural management practices and the decline of farmland bird populations across Europe4. It is important to prove that agricultural intensification, rather than other factors such as climate change, is responsible for the decline in farmland bird populations to convince decision-makers that changes in agricultural policy are necessary.

The research set out to answer the question: Can linkages be drawn between political support for agriculture and farmland bird declines across Europe? This was broken down into two steps:

• Does political support explain the variation in agricultural intensity across Europe?

• Does agricultural intensity explain the variation in the decline in farmland bird populations across Europe?

The study revealed that one third of the variance in bird population trends could be explained by cereal yield alone. Declining species, such as Perdix perdix, Alauda arvensis, Passer montanus and Miliaria calandra, were declining more severely in countries with more intensive agriculture, whereas the population trends of stable or increasing species were unrelated to agricultural intensity. Population declines and range contractions across Europe were significantly greater in countries with more intensive agriculture. The study predicts a severe decline of bird populations in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe once they accede to the European Union. ‘EU support for agriculture should make provision to support less intensive types of farming’, Dr Donald concluded.

7.8. Review of the role of commercial agriculture in delivering biodiversity

Mr Alastair Leake, Project Manager at ‘Focus on Farming’, Farmcare Limited, presented the linkages between agriculture and biodiversity from the commercial point of view. Farmcare Ltd has more than 100 years experience in the farming sector; it represents more than 40,000 hectares and more than 1,100 shops. The Focus on Farming project provides specialist technical advice and involves more than 130 trained agronomists.

Mr Leake defined two key roles of agriculture from the commercial point of view: sustainable food production and delivering food in a reliable way. He made a distinction between the in-field environment (which includes the use of fertilizers and pesticides, among others), the ecological infrastructure (including, for example, hedges and field margins) and the catchment area (including the integration of fields and margin management, crop diversity and block cropping).

The ‘Focus on Farming’ project is closely monitoring the impact of agriculture on biodiversity. Mr Leake presented some examples for farmland birds. He concluded that intensive farming could permanently affect some declining species, and that for those species concrete measures should be introduced, to prevent their extinction. Mr Leake also

4 Donald, P.F., Green, R.E. & Heath, M.F. (2001) Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europe’s farmland bird populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (B), 263: 25-29

61

suggested that consumers should become more involved when tackling such concrete measures.

A multifunctional commercial agriculture requires concrete incentives, is knowledge-intensive and calls for an increased stakeholder involvement.

7.9. Summary of Plenary discussion

The discussion reflected the diversity of presentations, touching on a number of issues including the role farmers can play and how we can increase their engagement in applying biodiversity-friendly practices and exploring the relevance of the CBD process for agricultural markets. A large part of the discussion was devoted to scenarios for European agriculture such as having polarised agriculture (intensive and extensive areas) or whether it is feasible to find one European model applicable to the whole region, and which scenario commands the widest support. One participant drew the audience’s attention to the fact that the workshop ought to define Europe’s specific contribution to the CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme. Europe has a key voice and therefore should develop a key strategy, otherwise more damage will be done.

7.10. Session A: The role of farmers and the business sector in sustaining agriculture and biodiversity

Moderator: Chris Maas Geesteranus, Expertise Centre of the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries, the Netherlands

This parallel session was opened by defining three guiding questions:

• What is Europe's role in the CBD process and what sort of recommendations should we make to the COP6 meeting (Netherlands, April 2002)?

• How can we take joint action?

• What can we do ‘at home’?

All participants introduced themselves and said what they expected from this session.

It was clear that most interest was in analysing how much information on good agricultural practice codes is lacking, not properly used or still not a priority for policy-makers and agricultural markets. The degree to which stakeholders shared common expectations was also noteworthy.

Brief report on the presentations:

How agriculture can support local biodiversity - small scale case study in Bialowieza

Jadwiga Sienkiewicz, of the Institute of Environmental Protection, presented a Polish case study, which is described in detail in Chapter 8. She addressed the question of how can the restoration of the Narewka River and the re-introduction of traditional agricultural practices enhance local biodiversity, and how can potential biodiversity impacts be mitigated?

The existing land use in the area is mainly subsistence farming (only 10 per cent of the farms have tractors). Mrs Sienkiewicz focused her presentation on cooperation and communication: there has been strong resistance from local farmers to the restoration of the river, but the municipality and some scientists do not support the plans either. The project shows that in addition to careful biodiversity monitoring there is a need for sufficient resources to ensure communication between stakeholders. Finally, economic diversification needs to be enhanced in addition to the agri-environmental schemes.

The role of retailers and the food processing industry in supporting the multiple functions of agriculture

Dr Floor Brouwer from the Dutch Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI) presented a number of positive examples from retailers and the agri-business sector of codes of good agricultural practice and partnership programmes between producers, manufacturers and consumers (vertical coordination). The driving force for such efforts is mainly increased

62

consumer interest in safe and environmentally friendly products, Dr Brouwer emphasized. Hence, considerable effort has been taken to adapt the quality control systems, certification and labelling processes.

Retailers are a driving force for the rationalization of inputs because of their increasing purchasing power due to concentration and globalization. Dr Brouwer referred to the EUREP group, which has developed a code for good agricultural practice. The Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group (EUREP) initiative for a GAP (good agricultural practice) framework on farms was welcomed. Farmers need to keep more records if they are to respond to such a GAP framework, and they also need to apply integrated crop management (ICM) and adopt the codes of GAP. For example, pesticide use has been reduced under ICM by more than 50 per cent. Floor Brouwer concluded that such cooperation schemes could become even more widespread among other actors with an interest in joint agricultural production, and may also bring in other economic actors such as water companies. Agricultural rural development programmes in the context of EU enlargement: The SAPARD instrument

Mr John Powell, EU SAPARD Adviser from the UK’s National Audit Office, started his presentation by giving an overview on the support currently available under the EU Common agricultural policy (CAP) and in particular the Rural Development Regulation (RDR) and the SAPARD programme. The total EU budget for support under the Rural Development Regulation is 4,339 million Euro a year (30,270 million Eurasia over the 7 years) – equivalent to about 4 per cent of CAP expenditure; total EU budget to Candidate Countries for SAPARD: 520,000m Eurasia (at constant 1999 prices).

SAPARD is intended 'To resolve priority problems in adapting the economies of the applicant countries in a sustainable manner and facilitating the implementation by them of the acquis communautaire, focusing in particular on the Common Agricultural Policy' (EU 1268/99 Regulation).

Mr Powell analysed how agricultural outputs and stakeholder involvement are linked in relation to the role of retailers and markets, the role of agri-tourism, and the possibility of better harmonization of good agricultural practices across the EU, including the accession countries. Report of Parallel Session A from the Rapporteur (Dr Jan-Erik Petersen, IEEP) Dr Petersen highlighted the key conclusions of the session. They are summarized in eight points.

1. The participants agreed that it is necessary to work with the farmers rather than simply using regulations. Biodiversity is a common public good that benefits everyone; therefore, we have a joint responsibility and farmers alone cannot bear the costs of managing the countryside in a sustainable way.

2. European agriculture is very diverse, with clear regional differences within the EU. This diversity is even greater if you include Central and Eastern Europe. This means that regional specific approaches and practices are needed and should be enhanced. There is not just one solution for tackling environmental issues in farmland. Different approaches to dealing with environmental aspects of farming need to be combined and adapted to local or regional situations. Particular attention should be given to opportunities in Central and Eastern Europe, which still harbours a rich heritage of agricultural habitats and wildlife.

3. The different roles played by retailers, consumers, manufacturers, farmers and scientists in promoting sustainable agricultural production were analysed and discussed. The participants agreed that all groups have an important role to play. The role of farmers and retailers was discussed in more detail. Representatives from the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG) in the UK gave examples of voluntary conservation action by farmers which are financially supported by a large supermarket chain. Partnerships between farmers, consumers, retailers and conservation organizations, in different combinations, can be very effective in supporting biodiversity friendly farming practices.

63

4. Several participants outlined options for farm diversification that can have economic as well as environmental benefits and suggested that a better linkage of policy instruments would be useful where they have a cross-sectoral impact, for example where the Rural Development Regulation (RDR) supports nature conservation and tourism projects. One obvious linkage exists between agri-tourism and the maintenance of attractive landscapes and habitats on the farm and in surrounding areas. In the context of 'benefit sharing', an environmental levy on tourist visits in certain areas of the Alps was mentioned. The funds from this levy are used to support the work by farmers to maintain attractive but unproductive landscapes that attract tourists. This allows the farming community to share in the economic benefits from tourism.

5. A number of participants complained that the EU CAP has not yet allocated larger resources to policy instruments that directly or indirectly favour sustainable farming methods. Although progress has been made over the last ten years, further and quicker policy change is required. The EU Member States should also make better use of environmental opportunities under the Rural Development Regulation and other options introduced with the last CAP reform, such as cross-compliance.

6. Participants agreed that a lot of information on sustainable agricultural production is already available (such as codes of good agricultural practice, computer-aided production, technological advice, research on integrated farming methods etc). Representatives from manufacturers and research groups explained the action they are taking in this regard. For example, some have clearly contributed to a more environmentally appropriate use of fertilizers and pesticides. However, it was felt that information exchange on sustainable agricultural practices still needs to be fostered, both within member states and at the EU level. Some participants also suggested that more detailed case studies be made that illustrate the complex linkages between agricultural biodiversity and farming practices.

7. Monitoring and evaluation were regarded as key tools for improving future policy-making. Only if the effects of different farming methods and policy instruments are properly evaluated can the necessary lessons on their impact and effectiveness be drawn. Reporting and monitoring procedures under the Rural Development Regulation already provide very useful possibilities to EU Member States in this regard, which should be used for developing future policy reform proposals.

8. Finally, all workshop participants agreed that the meeting had been very useful in terms of information exchange and establishing new contacts. Suggestions were made for increasing the role of communication in the final report on the project by including a chapter on communication and information.

7.11. Session B: Biodiversity components and agriculture – defining priority actions for positive linkages

Moderator: Mr David Baldock, IEEP, United Kingdom

This parallel session was also guided by three questions:

1. Are we still learning more about agricultural biodiversity?

2. Do we agree on a general strategy?

3. What is the response/conclusion?

After a short introduction by each participant, the presentations focused on showing the linkages between agricultural management practices and biodiversity conservation, and the role of stakeholders in fostering such linkages. After each presentation, participants had the opportunity to ask questions. Brief report on the presentations:

Developing an integrated approach for farmers and local administrators Mr Riccardo Simoncini, joint coordinator of the Agriculture Working Group of the European Sustainable Use Specialist Group of IUCN, presented the European project 'Definition of a common European analytical framework for the development of local agri-environmental

64

programmes for biodiversity and landscape conservation' (AEMBAC Nr. QLRT-1999-31666). The project, launched at a meeting in mid March 2001, aims to define a common analytical framework for agri-environmental measures that will take into account the ecological, social, cultural, economic and institutional diversity of European agriculture. The project methodology will be based on the concepts of ecosystems and multifunctionality and include an evaluation of the environmental goods and services provided by agriculture.

The involvement of different stakeholders (e.g. local farmers and administrators) plays a key role in the project, since it is targeted at the local level. National indicators at the semi-natural ecosystem and agri-ecosystem levels and driving forces/pressure indicators at the farm level (e.g. pesticide and fertilizers use, soil use, energy use) will be identified, in order to measure the sustainability of agricultural practices. In a second and third phase, the project will further analyse how to establish a methodology for agri-environmental policy targets and will assess the feasibility of the analytical framework. Wet grasslands and biodiversity This Flemish case study, described into detail in Chapter 8, was presented by Dr Eckhart Kuijken, Director of the Flemish Institute of Nature Conservation.

Mr Kuijken started by giving background information to the selected area, the Polder region between Ostend, Bruges and Knokke. This area contains ecological gradients from salty to brackish water and therefore supports a high biodiversity, particularly on the wet depressions where brackish water is stagnant. For several bird species, at least 50 per cent of the total Flemish population breed in the polder grasslands. Less vulnerable species (such as Lapwing, Skylark and Meadow Pipit) are still widespread but their numbers are in rapid decline. The area is also of substantial importance to migratory birds.

The agricultural management practices in the area are characterized by growing intensification, which has a big impact on the groundwater level and water quality (eutrophication). Since the habitat and biodiversity loss is a serious threat, valuable historical landscapes have been purchased and declared nature reserves. Farmers can still use them under certain conditions, such as zero level fertilization and later mowing (management agreements in meadow bird areas). According to Mr Kuijken, it was not easy to convince farmers to adopt this cooperation model. Special education for young farmers is required in order to increase the awareness about the importance of biodiversity in ecologically-rich agricultural landscapes. Relationship between agriculture and biodiversity in Central Spain: the case of cereal steppes Dr Pablo Sastre, CIAM (Madrid), presented the case of the cereal steppes of the Madrid Region of Spain (a detailed description of the case can be found in Chapter 8). Dr Sastre began by giving an introduction to the region, its biodiversity and its agricultural management practices. He presented a distribution map for the Iberian steppe ecosystem and then analyse the features of the cereal pseudo-steppe in greater depth. Changes in land use, owing to intensification and land abandonment, have caused impacts on the biodiversity through colonization by natural vegetation. A Natural Resource Management Plan has been prepared for the study area. Changes in agricultural practices were identified as one key problem for the conservation management of the area.

Dr Sastre concluded that Mediterranean ecosystems such as extensive cereal steppes need concrete financial instruments in order to mitigate the low economic output and to carry out landscape conservation measures. Public conservation measures are necessary to prevent spreading urbanization. Finally, close cooperation between stakeholders is required for better coordination between agricultural policy and other sectors (urban planning, water management, nature conservation, etc). Report of Parallel Session B by the Rapporteur (Mihály Végh, ECNC-CEERU) Mr Végh structured his report along the three guiding questions:

1. Are will still learning more about agro-biodiversity?

2. Do we agree on a general strategy?

3. How can we take such a strategy forward; what is our response?

65

1. Are we still learning more about agro-biodiversity?

The clear response emerging from the discussion was ‘yes!’. While a lot of information on the links between agriculture and biodiversity is already available, participants identified the need to foster research into the following topics:

• indicators,

• social, financial and cultural issues;

• the effectiveness of agri-environmental measures;

• monitoring tools;

• describe the multifunctionality of agriculture;

• adequate agricultural structures (open areas/mosaic structure, etc).

It was also agreed that information systems and models should be used to present information better and make available both existing knowledge and new research results. The generation of this information leads to the next question.

2. Do we agree on a general strategy?

There was a clear consensus that a common strategy is needed and that consideration should be given to the following points:

• involvement at the local level;

• development of regional regulations;

• development of adequate institutional background (such as training on information techniques);

• balancing nature conservation and agriculture;

• supporting farmers/producers in creating markets for environmentally friendly products.

3. How can we take such a strategy forward; what is our response?

As expressed earlier at the workshop, this gathering was seen as a useful first step towards improving discussion among stakeholders, as well as establishing mutual trust and understanding. This is first necessary if we are then to provide adequate information and establish a timeframe and well-defined communication process for improving cooperation and awareness among stakeholders.

7.12. Discussion and final conclusions, chaired by Mark Felton, English Nature

Mark Felton, Agriculture Programme Director at English Nature, moderated the final discussion and presented the conclusions. Mr Felton began by saying that everybody had agreed on the need for cooperation between stakeholders.

'During the 1950s, people started to use land mainly for food production purposes and most policies supported the intensification of food production, which would become detrimental to countryside protection', Mr Felton said. He welcomed the ‘ecosystem approach’ used by the CBD because of its holistic approach and said he looked forward to the CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme as a global programme for which targets need to be set at the regional and national level. Mr Felton highlighted that during the morning session it had become clear that there is a different nature to be protected in each country, and that consideration should be given to how people in each country view farming as an activity.

In the final discussion the participants emphasised their desire to have such a meeting again, maybe slightly longer, to allow more time for the assessment of good management practices and the role of stakeholders in fostering such practices. It was also suggested that more case studies be included. A handbook for farmers was another suggestion for bridging the gap between practitioners and consultants.

66

There is still a lot we do not know, Mr Felton stated, but we should not wait. We should act now, and member states have a very important role in this process.

Mr Felton, as well as other participants, again stressed the importance of making best use of the existing policy and legal framework and monitoring that carefully at the local level, rather than continue to redefine policies and processes. According to Mr Felton, the crucial issue is the scale. He presented a graph on which three scales were defined: the biodiversity level, the ecosystem level and the social level. Biodiversity inputs into ecosystems, and ecosystems are the basis for the social functions of agriculture (see Graph 3).

Graph 3: Cooperation at different scales (from M. Felton, 2001)

The Workshop was closed by Laura Buguñá, ECNC, and Eckhart Kuijken, ICN. Laura Buguñá thanked all the speakers and participants for their important contributions. She informed the participants that all the workshop conclusions and presentations would be included in the final report which will be widely distributed. Mr Kuijken concluded that he had learned a lot that day, particularly about how to understand each other. He wished everybody a safe journey home and closed the workshop.

Biodiversity

Ecosystems - attributes - indicators - targets

Social functions

Knowledge - research - education

Ecological services - carbon cylce - water regimes - pollination

Products - food - fuel - medicines

Appreciation - tourism,

recreation - cultural - historical

67

Chapter 8: Good practice case studies

The following case studies illustrate the linkages between agriculture and biodiversity at the practical level, with a regional focus. Agricultural management practices, their impact on biodiversity and the stakeholder involvement are analysed and policy recommendations are made. The case studies serve as an illustration of linking agriculture and biodiversity at the regional level.

8.1. Wet grasslands and biodiversity: the Polder region between Ostend, Bruges and Knokke (Belgium)

By Professor Dr Eckhart Kuijken and Dr Jurgen Tack, Flemish Institute of Nature Conservation (INC), Belgium

Introduction and Aims

The polder region between Ostend, Bruges and Knokke (Belgium) is situated between the North Sea coastal dune area (highly urbanised) and the slightly more elevated sandy hinterland. A number of horizontal landscape ecological relations exist in this polder landscape, notably the flow of ground water. The gradients between fresh and brackish to salt water, together with soil differences (clay, sandy clay and some peat soils) lead to a great variety in the flora and vegetation. Also, the natural relief is important in relation to water supply (relicts of creeks and depressions from former tidal salt marshes before impoldering) and low-lying parcels as a result of superficial peat digging or clay extraction in the late Middle Ages. Specific semi-natural biotopes are related to different grassland types, depending on both the abiotic features and the agricultural land use. Many nature values are presently under high pressure as a result of eutrophication, falling water tables, agricultural land reallocation and consolidation, expansion of camp sites, industry and other factors.

In order to maintain ecological functions and nature values a strategy is to be developed for the conservation of the historical permanent grasslands and their contribution to biodiversity through a set of regional and international legal instruments and regulations. A mixed land use with a balance between sustainable agriculture and biodiversity should present a socially acceptable solution.

Background Information

1. Ecological aspects

Vegetation and flora

Large grassland areas are traversed by a dense network of ditches with reeds. Because of the variation between wet depressions and drier, higher lying parts (most fields) and the transition between brackish and freshwater zones, pastures and meadows are characterized by the occurrence of vegetation types that are rich in species. The most interesting habitats are situated in the wet depressions, especially where brackish water is stagnant. Puccinellion and Agropyron grasslands are mixed with rough marshy vegetations with Carex spp. and Phragmites. Typical salt-tolerant plant species are good indicators (Aster tripolium, Triglochin maritium, Spergularia spp. and Glaux maritima). Other very valuable types are wet, herb-rich meadows with Lychnis flos-cuculi, Lotus uliginosus, Senecio aquaticus, Rhinanthus spp., etc., but these are almost extinct at present. On less fertilized sites that are periodically flooded Lolio-potentillion grasslands occur with indicators species including Eleocharis palustris, Oenanthe fistulosa, Carex binervis, Mentha aquatica. Flowery Cynosurus pastures on drier soils are historical permanent grasslands with Cynosurus cristatus, Hordeum secalinum, Bellis perennis and Leontodon

68

autumnalis. As a result of gradients in moisture, salinity and nutrients these grasslands often appear in mosaic with one another.

Ornithological interest

Open agricultural landscapes in the polders - and the large semi-natural grassland areas in particular - attract large numbers of birds. In winter, wet grasslands are an important feeding area for geese, ducks and waders. For several species such as Pink-footed Goose, White-fronted Goose and Wigeon, numbers are internationally important. In spring and summer, these wintering birds are ‘replaced’ by breeding meadow bird species such as Sedge Warbler and Bluethroat find good breeding opportunities in the dense network of ditches. Some typical breeding birds of rural landscapes such as Field Lark, Yellow Wagtail and Meadow Pipit are at present drastically decreasing, mostly as a result of further intensification of agriculture (notably the disappearance of old permanent grasslands).

Nature values and conservation

The mosaic pattern of intensive agriculture -mainly fields and scattered farms on drier parts- and a variety of historic wet grasslands, brackish depressions, cattle ponds, reeds and marshes on lower ground makes the whole polder ecodistrict of great importance to biodiversity in general. Several species and habitat types are threatened or rare. Therefore the designation of sites of community interest (defined under the EU-Birds and Habitats directives) as well as Ramsar wetlands contribute to the maintenance of representative ecological characteristics of these landscapes. This of course needs management measures (aiming both biotic and abiotic features, such as sufficient water quality, water level and reduced fertilising).

2. Socio-economic background

Within the total area of the Belgian Polder and Dune region 68,375 ha are used by 2,670 farms, of which only a very small part is situated in the Dunes. Ninety-five per cent of the enterprises are family farms, supporting 3,127 full-time and 1,432 part-time jobs. Fifty-two per cent of the farm enterprises are managed by farmers 50 or more years old. Only 24 per cent of them have a successor. In general, agriculture is characterized by a large number of small farmers at the end of their career and a small number of expanding capital-intensive enterprises.

Only about 25 per cent (16,934 ha- 2,200 farms) of the land used by farmers is still permanent grassland with a high concentration located in the case study area. Cattle farms and mixed farms are most common. In the remaining part of the Polder area, except the Ijzer river valley, arable land predominates. During the last decade the area of arable land (mostly maize) has increased steadily both within and outside the study area.

This evolution is partly the result of land reallocation (initiated by Flemish regional or provincial governments) and land consolidation with drainage, excessive lowering of water tables (regulation through gravitational discharge of water to the sea or by pumping stations). This water management is in the hands of autonomous ‘Polder Authorities’ or ‘Water Boards’, with members almost exclusively from the farming community, thus making balanced decisions for ecologically sound regulations extremely difficult. Large-scale agricultural land use heavily influences historical landscape structures and elements (field patterns, ditches, hedgerows, etc.) and the related nature values.

From a qualitative point of view, the pressure from the nearby sandy inland region with large concentrations of pig farms (black spots!) is very high and still increasing. Those farms export (dump) a large proportion of their manure to the Polders. With 602,235 pigs on 912 farms, the Polder and Dune area raise 'only' 8 per cent of the Flemish pig population. The effect of overmanuring on species-rich grasslands is dramatic, resulting in dominance of competitors such as Urtica sp. and a decline of mesotrophic habitats with high biodiversity.

About 62 per cent of the permanent grassland is used for intensive grazing, 38 per cent for mowing (silage grass) only and 32 per cent for mowing followed by grazing. Within the total Polder and Dune region 129,797 animals (cattle) are raised on 1,677 farms. There is a high concentration of cattle breeding within the case study area. The early dates of grazing seasons and silage grass cutting conflict with breeding birds or plant species diversity.

69

The negative effects of increasing agricultural pressure are difficult to stop at the borders of protected areas, many of them being secondarily drained or eutrophicated. Even ‘green’ designations in land use plans do not guarantee the maintenance of sufficient nature quality, which is often affected by the ‘autonomous development’ of single farm enterprises. The official regulations, however, do not provide strict control over negative activities such as ploughing or reseeding historical permanent grasslands.

Implementation

Strategy

Within the case study area a strategy has been developed to protect the historical permanent grasslands and their biodiversity. Valuable grasslands are bought as nature reserves by governmental and non-governmental organizations. Farmers are often given the opportunity to use those managed grasslands free of charge on the condition that they respect a number of restrictions concerning maximum cattle occupation, zero level fertilization, use of pesticides or late mowing dates..

Partners and stakeholders

Partners and stakeholders in the area are farmers, governmental organizations, nature conservation NGOs, tourists (farm tourism), hikers, nature lovers and ecologists and end-users of farm products. Not all of them, especially the farming community, however, are already convinced about the positive cooperation model, which needs to be explained and promoted.

Analysis

Results

There was originally great resistance to the strategy of buying land to establish protected areas. But the fact that use of this land by farmers is free of charge and can be counted when applying for subsidies has encouraged most farmers to actively cooperate in this strategy.

Barriers and Conflicts

A minority of farmers are actively opposed to the strategy and are still trying to convince others not to participate in the nature management agreements.

Lessons Learned

Strategies should be developed in which all stakeholders gain something. Young farmers in particular should be targeted, especially because the number of successors in family farms is extremely low.

Conclusions

The agricultural open area in the Polders – especially in the study case area - offer a remarkable variation of nature and landscape. Thanks to microrelief (wet depressions and drier, higher lying areas) and the transition between brackish and fresh zones, these vast grassland-areas are very rich in species. The mosaic pattern of intensive agriculture and a variety of historic wet grasslands, valleys liable to flooding, brackish depressions, cattle ponds, reeds and marshes on lower grounds makes the whole Polder area important for diversity of flora and fauna.

As a result of further intensification of agriculture, with drainage, and structural changes in parcelling, however, several species and habitat types have become threatened or rare. To reverse the situation a strategy will be developed to further acquire wet grasslands as nature reserve; where possible the farmers are to be allowed to continue using these grasslands, taking into account specific limitations. During the last four years the agricultural community in the case study area has become more favourably disposed to this strategy, but a general scepticism still dominates.

Recommendations for international policy makers

Increasing awareness about the importance of biodiversity in ecologically-rich agricultural landscapes is to be achieved through education and training. In particular, restrictions on

70

land use are needed. Regulations for farming with ‘natural handicaps’, significant reductions of cattle stocks to limit the production of manure, reduced use of fertilizers (also for water quality needs!), and control on application of subventions that are contrary to management agreements are priority needs. The recently adopted Convention on Landscapes and a further strict application of the EU Birds and Habitats Directives must guarantee a positive evolution of nature in future.

Further information/References

A complete description of the state of the nature in Flanders can be found in:

Kuijken, E. (red.), 1999. Natuurrapport 1999. Toestand van de natuur in Vlaanderen: cijfers voor het beleid. Mededelingen van het Instituut voor Natuurbehoud 6, Brussel.

Contact details

Prof. Dr Eckhart Kuijken Instituut voor Natuurbehoud Kliniekstraat 25 1070 Brussels (Belgium) Tel.: 00-32-2-558.18.11, Fax: 00-32-2-558.18.05 E-mail: info@instnat.be Internet: www.instnat.be

8.2. Cereal steppes in Central Spain

By Dr M.D.F. Guillén and Dr Pablo S. Olmos, Environmental Research Centre ‘Fernando González Bernáldez’ (CIAM)

Introduction and Aims

Agriculture has an important role in the management of natural resources and the conservation of biodiversity in the Madrid Region (Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid), Central Spain. On the one hand, changes in agricultural practices (mainly intensification) can produce environmental impacts; on the other hand, agricultural systems are in many cases the habitat of threatened species, and the abandonment of agricultural practices can result in deterioration of the natural values in such areas.

The main natural values of cereal steppes in the Madrid Region are the populations of Great Bustard (Otis tarda) and other steppe birds such as Montagu’s Harrier (Circus pygargus), Pin-tailed Sandgrouse (Pterocles alchata), Black-bellied Sandgrouse (Pterocles orientalis), Little Bustard (Tetrax tetrax), among others. In the Special Bird Protection Area ‘Cereal steppes of Jarama and Henares rivers’ (34,000 ha), agriculture is the dominant land use covering almost the whole area. Non-irrigated cereal crops in rotation with fallow land and legumes are key components of the habitat of these steppe birds.

For this Special Bird Protection Area, the compatibility of agricultural practices and the conservation of bird populations is the main objective of the land use planning and management plan currently in preparation, in which the Environmental Research Centre ‘Fernando González Bernáldez’ (CIAM) is participating.

Background information

Environmental conditions in Mediterranean Europe impose restrictions on the development of modern agricultural practices. Traditional agriculture generated extensive systems and landscapes of high environmental value, permitting the cultivation of a wide variety of crops with sustained production, but with mean yields inferior to those of Atlantic Europe. In recent times, the evolution of agriculture has followed a dual process of more intensive production on more fertile lands and marginalization and abandonment of the least productive land. Both tendencies have been exacerbated by the introduction of the EU Common Agricultural Policy and its related production mechanisms, resulting in environmental deterioration (Pérez, 1990).

Cereal croplands cover an important part of Europe, and 15 per cent of land in Spain. Spanish agriculture, like that of other Mediterranean regions in Europe, is characterized by

71

the diversity of its production systems and the large land area covered by extensive uses. Productivity is low in comparison with Central European countries, with average cereal production of 2.5 tons/ha in Spain compared to 6.0 tons/ha in the whole of the European Union (Tió, 1991). Cereal crops are the most abundant land use in the Madrid Region (approximately 100,000 ha).

The system is changing because of the intensification of agriculture (mechanization, reduction of leguminous crops, reduction of the proportion of fallow land) and the impact of other land uses (urbanization, roads). The particular climate and soil conditions in some areas of central and southeast Spain (extreme temperatures, low and irregular rainfall, salty soils) determines the presence of steppe ecosystems with endemic flora and fauna, similar to those belonging to Russia and covering other parts of Europe and Asia.

The area of natural steppe in Spain has increased over time (fire, deforestation, overgrazing, agriculture, etc.). The agro-ecosystem might be classified as a pastured cereal pseudo-steppe.

Land management

In the area presented in this case study agricultural practices such as lack of irrigation and extensive cattle management have created a pseudo-steppe from the original forest, and many threatened steppe birds have adapted to this system. The main traditional practices are the rotation of crops (cereal, legume, and fallow land) and extensive rearing (including transhumance). Agricultural productivity is very low in the interior highlands and valleys of the Iberian Peninsula. Traditionally, one of the main functions of agriculture in large areas of central Spain is to provide food for livestock in winter. Non-irrigated cereal and leguminous crops are combined mainly with sheep, which is the most important sort of cattle in the Madrid Region (200,000 head).

The maintenance of cereal crop stubble during the autumn is very important for steppe birds (Hidalgo & Carranza, 1990). Agriculture is the dominant land use and more than 80 per cent of the area is under non-irrigated cereal crops. Other agricultural land uses present in the Special Bird Protection Area ‘Cereal steppes of Jarama and Henares rivers’ are low irrigation crops and olive groves (see Table 6).

Table 6: Area of habitat, vegetation and land use types in the study area.

Habitat – Land use Ha %

Non-irrigated herbaceous crops 24430 74.30

Non-irrigated herbaceous crops with trees, etc. 1441 4.40

Suburban and abandoned crops 613 1.90

Olive yards 303 0.92

Irrigated crops 711 2.20

Shrub land (Retama sphaerocarpa) 1201 3.70

Shrub land (Retama sphaerocarpa) with trees 981 2.98

Shrub land (Lavandula, Thymus) 296 0.90

Evergreen oak forest (with pastures, crops, etc.) 417 1.30

Oak forest (Quercus faginea) 8 0.02

Pine forest (Pinus pinea) 9 0.03

Riparian vegetation (Fraxinus, Populus, Salix) 630 1.90

Urban and industrial 1812 5.50

Quarries 28 0.09

Intensification of agriculture leads to monocultures and a reduction of habitat diversity. Fallow land is reduced or eliminated and legumes are excluded. Mechanization and land consolidation lead to the removal of hedgerows and shrubs between fields, which are very important for the conservation of steppe birds in cereal-growing areas (SEO/BirdLife, 1996).

72

Agricultural machinery has negative impacts on steppe birds because of the destruction of nests and disturbance resulting in nest abandonment (Valera et al., 1997). Other practices can produce deterioration of agricultural habitats (e.g. stubble burning);

Abandonment: Agricultural land covers approximately 250,000 ha in the Madrid Region (30 per cent). UAA has been reduced during recent decades: in the 1960’s, there were more than 350,000 ha of UAA. The growth of urban areas over the last few decades has mainly affected agricultural areas, although natural vegetation areas have also suffered the impacts of urbanization. In other cases, abandonment of agriculture is due to a lack of profitability and a lack of young farmers to take over farms. As a consequence, large areas of non-irrigated land have been colonised by natural vegetation. This process can be positive for some species and negative for others. Loss of steppe bird habitats by invasion of shrubs is one of the negative impacts of abandonment of cereal croplands. Extensive livestock has an important role in cereal systems, and the abandonment of this activity implies a reduction in soil organic matter and in available food for other wild animals such as vultures.

Biodiversity

Ecosystems and habitats: Diversity of agricultural habitats in cereal croplands is fundamental for the conservation of the steppe birds (Great Bustard, Little Bustard, Harriers, etc.). These species are adapted to a dynamic agricultural mosaic with cultivated fields and fallow land, using different habitats (recently sown fields, fallow land, stubble) in an annual cycle (SEO/BirdLife, 1996; Hidalgo y Carranza, 1990).

The area is very uniform in relief (flat), geology (fluvial detritic sediments), and soils (luvisol, xeralf). Natural or semi-natural habitats include pasture, scrub, forest, streams and riparian forest. Scattered plots of oaks (Quercus rotundifolia) and shrubs (such as Retama sphaerocarpa) are important elements providing refuge for animals. These plots are located in areas with steep slopes and on the least fertile soils.

Species and communities: The Special Bird Protection Area ‘Cereal steppes of Jarama and Henares rivers’ is a remarkable area for the conservation of threatened birds, with twenty-nine species included in the EU Birds Directive-79/409/CEE (Table 7). Some of the most relevant species and their census data are indicated in Table 8. Other interesting species include Roller (Coracias garrulus), Black-bellied Sandgrouse (Pterocles orientalis), Pin-tailed Sandgrouse (Pterocles alchata), White Stork (Ciconia ciconia), Stone Curlew (Burhinus oedicnemus) and Marsh Harrier (Circus aeruginosus). The total number of bird species in the area is 124 (34 per cent of the Spanish bird species).

Table 7: Number of species of vertebrates and number of threatened species (according to EU Directives) present in the SPA ‘Cereal steppes of Jarama and Henares rivers’

Group Species Habitats Directive (An. II) Birds Directive (An. I)

Fish 11 4

Amphibian 10 1

Reptilian 16 1

Birds 124 29

Mammals 24 5

Table 8: Census data of some of the most relevant threatened birds in the cereal steppe area

Species Census data

Great Bustard (Otis tarda) 400 individuals

Little Bustard (Tetrax tetrax) 300 individuals

Lesser Kestrel (Falco naumanni) 70 pairs

Montagu’s Harrier (Circus pygargus) 64 pairs

Hen Harrier (Circus cyaneus) 23 pairs

73

The most relevant mammals are bats and small carnivores, but the area also has dense populations of Hare (Lepus granatensis) and Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) that are very important for birds of prey breeding in other areas of the Madrid Region, such as Imperial Eagle (Aquila adalberti) and Black Vulture (Aegypius monachus).

Threatened fish species (Tropidophoxinellus alburnoides, Chondrostoma polylepis polylepis, Leuciscus pyrenaicus) are present in one stream, where the riparian vegetation forms the breeding or wintering habitat of some other interesting birds such as Little Bittern (Ixobrychus minutus), Water Rail (Rallus aquaticus), and Night Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax). Water stream communities of invertebrates are important indicators for research into the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.

The cereal steppe area is poor in wild plant species (Table 9). Of the vegetation communities included in the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/CEE), 7 are present in the area (forty-five in the whole Madrid Region) with a total area of 1,320 ha (4 per cent of study area). Evergreen oak forests are present, often mixed with the most abundant ‘habitat’, Mediterranean pre-steppe leguminous shrubs (Retama sphaerocarpa, Genista scorpius). Domesticated plant species present in the area include wheat (Triticum aestivum), barley (Hordeum sativa), oat (Avena sativa), vetch (Vicia sativa) and olive trees (Olea europaea).

Table 9: Vegetation communities included in EU Habitats Directive present in the cereal steppe area

Vegetation community ha

Mediterranean pre-steppe leguminous shrub 864

Evergreen oak forest 294

Endemic leguminous Mediterranean shrub 66

Reedy Mediterranean tall grassland 42

Riparian forest with Salix alba and Populus alba 34

Permanent river with Glaucium flavum 1.5

Ash forest (Fraxinus angustifolia) 0.6

Sheep are the most important domesticated animals in the area. Different breeds are present, playing different roles in the agro-ecosystem. Merino sheep is the most valuable breed in terms of economy (soft wool) and because it is adapted to long distance ‘transhumance’5, with the associated environmental and cultural values. At present, wool is produced at lower prices in other regions of the world (Argentina, Australia), where Merino sheep have been bred to create new breeds adapted to intensive production.

Socio-economic aspects

Agriculture is very important for the conservation of rural areas in the Madrid Region, but it plays a limited role in the regional economy. The number of farmers has decreased rapidly during the last few decades, as in the rest of Spain. The number of farmers in the Madrid Region (20,200 in 1995) is similar to that in adjacent regions. In Spain as a whole, farmers make up 7.8 per cent of the working population, in the Madrid Region they represent only 1.2 per cent, but in some rural villages they make up 20 per cent.

The farmers in the Madrid Region are the oldest of all the Spanish regions (68 per cent over the age of 55). Generally, young people move out of the rural areas. Most of the agricultural production (58 per cent) is sold to other sectors inside the Madrid Region (industry, restaurants, etc.), 18 per cent is consumed directly by the local people, and 23 per cent is exported to other regions. Most of the exports are to destinations in the EU (44 per cent) and Spain (29 per cent). The agricultural and food industries in the Madrid Region employ 26,500 people.

5 Transhumance is a pastoral system that involves moving sheep alternately and periodically between two regions with different climates.

74

Implementation

In the past, intensification has been encouraged by the agricultural authorities in an effort to overcome the traditional structural deficiencies that have encumbered Spanish agriculture, especially with a view to its entry into the Common Market. These circumstances explain why the application of agro-environmental measures established under Regulation EC 2078/92 is an important innovation in Spain, in contrast to many other European countries which already have considerable prior experience (Oñate et al., 1998).

New Rural Development Programmes must guarantee more coherence between the market, rural development measures and environmental policies. The Rural Development Programme of the Madrid Region defines the objectives for the period 2000-2006. The actions and measures to be taken are included in Table 10.

Table 10: Actions and measures included in the Rural Development Program of the Region of Madrid (2000-2006)

Actions Measures

Rural infrastructures Land reallocation, basic services, production infrastructures, prevention of natural disasters

Rural diversification Management services, hand made and high quality products, tourism resources, new activities

Commercialization Transformation, commercialization, financial services

Environment, nature and forest Forest and soil improvement, water management, environmental protection

Strategy

Both intensification and abandonment represent circumstances that are stimulated by the administration but go against a policy that is more in coherence with the maintenance of traditional farming systems. On the one hand, conservation of birds in extensive cereal systems is one of the objectives of the Spanish agro-environmental schemes, but it is also one of the objectives with the lowest financial support (14,700 PTAs. per management unit). On the other hand, the continuing urbanization and chaotic planning is causing serious damage to traditional agricultural systems in large areas of rural Spain, a process that is generally not perceived as negative but much more as indicative for the development of the local community.

Natural Resources Plans and Management Plans are the legal instruments designed to make human land uses compatible with the conservation of natural resources (Spanish Law 4/89). As for any protected area in Spain, Special Protection Areas (SPAs) must have a Plan of Natural Resources before a Management Plan can be drawn up. The role of CIAM is to carry out the preliminary work for the preparation of a Plan of Natural Resources for the case study area.

Activities

The research methodology is based on the analysis of the territory, taking into account a large amount of variables relating to natural values and social and economic features. Geographic information systems and multivariate analysis are the main tools. Species distribution is known for only nine threatened bird species and four fish species. The distribution of a further twenty-four species has been estimated from their habitats. Vegetation and land use maps are used to define the distribution of fourteen different habitats. The distribution of aquatic habitats, not included in the vegetation map, has been determined from information about water communities from the EU Habitats Directive. The probability of the presence of each species in each habitat has been derived from the literature and information provided by experts.

Habitat value and conservation status are determined by consideration of a number of variables such as habitat rarity, fragmentation, and human accessibility. Maps reflect the status of the threatened species and can be combined (via Geographic Information Systems) to obtain general values of the importance of the territory for biodiversity.

75

The information on species distribution and habitat quality is integrated with environmental variables (altitude, slope, orientation, geology, soil, hydrology, vegetation and land use) and socio-economic data (land property, administrative limits, roads, etc.) to identify homogeneous units in the territory in terms of conservation values and management problems. Complementary activities include the revision of socio-economic studies and of agricultural policies (agro-environmental schemes, Rural Development Plan, etc.). Partners and involved stakeholders

Farmers are the most important partners for the conservation and sustainable use of cereal steppes. With technical assistance from environmental authorities damage to a great number of steppe birds nests in harvest time has been avoided. In addition farmers and shepherds collaborate with nature conservation professionals. Farmers associations in the Madrid Region represent 15,000 farmers with a total production of 52,590,000 Euros. Four associations are dedicated to cereal production.

The next phases of the implementation of the Natural Resources Plans will involve consumers, local residents, retailers and so on.

Analysis

Results

The main conservation and management problems in the territory have been identified: the impact of machinery at harvest time, changes in agricultural practices (irrigation systems, use of fallow land in the production cycle), urban development (transport infrastructures, power lines, dispersed houses, industrial areas) and the impact of other activities and land uses, such as hunting and golf courses.

Other results are:

• Distribution maps of threatened species;

• Measures of habitats’ value and conservation status;

• Establishment of conservation and management units;

• Recommendations for the elaboration of management plans.

Barriers and Conflicts

Some constraints on the implementation of adequate policies are the lack of information about the environmental effects of agricultural practices and the centralization of agricultural policies at the European Union level. In some cases, different states and regions can improve on EU policy by adapting it to their particular environmental and agricultural circumstances. Agri-environmental schemes and set-aside programmes contribute to the maintenance of traditional fallow land in the cereal steppes of central Spain. However, in some cases the traditional proportion of fallow land is much higher than the minimum obligatory proportion, and the scheme has the opposite effect to that which is desired because farmers are stimulated to reduce the area of fallow land to this minimum (cultivated land has a higher premium than fallow land).

Lessons Learned

Many political initiatives contribute to the integration of agriculture and biodiversity (technical assistance in harvest time, subsidies for farmers associations, women, young farmers, education, research, transhumance drover road restoration, etc.). However, many other instruments promote both agricultural intensification (modernization, land consolidation, etc.) and abandonment. Subsidies for the reforestation of agricultural land can produce severe impacts on steppe habitats, but in an integrated land planning policy these programmes could be related to the conservation of cereal field margins or the restoration of hedgerows. Information and education programmes for consumers and local residents can play an important role in cereal steppes, promoting products and activities that are compatible with the conservation of biodiversity in extensive agricultural systems.

76

Conclusions and recommendations for international policy makers

Consideration of the particularities of different environmental conditions and different agricultural systems is needed to generate both general recommendations and specific recommendations for different areas.

Promote an integrated policy of land planning: Agricultural policy must be integrated and coordinated with different policies affecting agricultural land (urban planning, water management, nature conservation areas, etc.). This should be done to protect agricultural land from urban development, the development of irrigated croplands in unsuitable areas, and the removal of hedgerows and shrub lines between fields in land reallocation schemes, etc.

Develop an integrated agricultural policy: Different policies and subsidies dedicated to agricultural sector must be integrated (direct subsidies, environmental schemes, rural development, exportation and importation policies, etc.). Environmental and employment concerns must be considered in direct subsidies.

Support Mediterranean extensive agricultural systems: The particular conditions of the Mediterranean region must be considered in the EU agricultural policy. Specific management and conservation strategies for the different extensive systems are needed.

Contact details

Environmental Research Centre ‘Fernando González Bernáldez’ (CIAM) c/ San Sebastián, 71; E-28791 Soto del Real, Madrid; Spain Tel: +34 91 847 89 11 / +34 91 847 72 65 Fax: +34 91 848 00 13 E-mail: cifgb@eucmax.sim.ucm.es Web site: http://dgpea2.comadrid.es

References to the case study:

Alonso J.A., Alonso J.C. and Martón E. (1990). La población de Avutardas de la provincia de Madrid. In: Alonso J.C. and Alonso J.A. (eds): Parámetros reproductivos, selección de hábitat y distribución de la Avutarda (Otis tarda) en tres regiones españolas. ICONA. Colección técnica. Madrid. pp: 58-73

Andrews, J. y Rebane, M. (1994): Farming & Wildlife. A practical management handbook. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

Beaufoy, G. (1994): Agricultura extensiva en Europa. Panda, Otoño 1994. WWF.

Bennett, G. (ed.) (1997): Agriculture and Natura 2000. EU expert seminar, Apeldoorn, the Netherlands.

Benzal J. and de Paz O. (1991). Los murciélagos de la Península Ibérica y Baleares. Patrones biogeográficos de su distribución. In: Benzal J. and De Paz O. (eds): Los murciélaghos de España y Portugal. ICONA. Colección Técnica. Madrid. pp. 37-92.

Benzal J. and Moreno E. (1987). On the distribution of bats in Madrid (Central Spain). In: V. Hanák, I. Horácek & J. Gaisler (eds): European Bat Research 1987. Charles Univ. Press. Praha. pp 363-371.

Bernis, F. (ed.) (1988): Aves de los medios urbano y agrícola en las mesetas españolas. Monografía, 2. SEO, Spain.

Buguñá Hoffmann, L. (Ed.) (2000): Stimulating positive linkages between agriculture and biodiversity. Recommendations for the EC-Agricultural Action Plan on Biodiversity. European Centre for Nature Conservation. Tilburg.

Comunidad de Madrid (1995): Recuperación de productos agrarios en peligro de extinción. Consejería de Economía, Comunidad de Madrid.

Comunidad de Madrid. (1992). Decreto 18/1992 de 26 marzo de protecciÛn de animales y plantas. AprobaciÛn del cat·logo regional de especies amenazadas de fauna y flora silvestres y creaciÛn de la categorÌa de ·rboles singulares. BOCM, 82 y 85: 93-99. Madrid.

77

Consejería de Economía y Empleo de la Comunidad de Madrid (1999): Resolución de 4 de Febrero de 1999, de la Dirección General de Agricultura y Alimentación, por la que se publica el Código de Buenas Prácticas Agrarias [en línea]. [http://www.comadrid.es]. Madrid.

Consejo de las Comunidades Europeas. (1979). Directiva 79/409/CEE relativa a la conservación de las aves silvestres. DOCE, L103: 125-141. Brussels.

Consejo de las Comunidades Europeas. (1992). Directiva 92/43/CEE del Consejo relativa a la conservación de los hábitats naturales y de la fauna y flora silvestres. DOCE, L206: 7-50. Brussels.

De Juana E. (1990). Areas importantes para las aves en España. Monografía 3. S.E.O./ICBP. Madrid.

Del Castillo Cuervo-Arango, F. y Casado Valera, C. (2000): Perfil socioeconómico de los municipios madrileños en los noventa. Una primera aproximación. [en línea].

Doadrio, I.; Elvira, B. and Bernat, I. (1991). Peces continentales españoles. Inventario y clasificación de zonas fluviales. Colección Técnica. ICONA. Madrid. 221pp

EHNE-Unión de Ganaderos y Agricultores Vascos (1996): Alternativa de política de precios para una agricultura sostenible. II Jornadas de Urdaibai sobre Desarrollo Sostenible “Desarrollo rural y medio ambiente: El futuro del sector agrario". Gernika.

G.A.C. (1997). La avutarda (Otis tarda) en las áreas cerealistas del Jarama y Henares. In: Anuario Ornitológico de Madrid. Edt. S.E.O./Montícola. Pp. 41-45. Madrid.

González Bernáldez, F. (1991): Diversidad biológica, gestión de ecosistemas y nuevas políticas agrarias. En: Pineda, F.D.; Casado, M.A.; de Miguel, J.M. y Montalvo, J. (eds.): Diversidad biológica/Biological diversity. F. Ramón Areces. Madrid.

Groome, H. (1996): La importancia del consumidor informado para el mantenimiento de una agricultura sostenible. II Jornadas de Urdaibai sobre Desarrollo Sostenible “Desarrollo rural y medio ambiente: El futuro del sector agrario”. Gernika.

Hidalgo, S.J. y Carranza, J. (1990): Ecología y comportamiento de la avutarda (Otis tarda L.). Universidad de Extremadura.

Institute for European Environmental Policy (1999): Los fondos estructurales de la Unión Europea 2000-2006: conservando la naturaleza, creando empleo. IEEP, London.

Instituto de Estadística. (1998). Anuario estadístico de la Comunidad de Madrid 1998-1999. Consejería de Hacienda, . 692 pp, Comunidad de Madrid.

Lasanta Martínez, T. (1996): El proceso de marginación de tierras en España. In: Erosión y recuperación de tierras en áreas marginales (Lasanta, T. and García Ruíz, J.M. Eds.). Instituto de Estudios Riojanos – Sociedad Española de Geomorfología. 7 – 31, Spain.

Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación (1999): Real Decreto 1893/1999, de 10 de Diciembre, sobre pagos por superficie a determinados productos agrícolas. BOE, 296. 11/12/1999, Madrid.

Ministerio de Medio Ambiente (1996) Inventario Hábitats Madrid. Directiva Hábitats 92/43/CEE. Subdirección General de Conservación de la Biodiversidad, Dirección General de Conservación de la Naturaleza. (digital format) Madrid.

Oñate, J.J.; Malo, J.E.; Suárez, F. y Peco, B. (1998): Regional and environmental aspects in the implementation of Spanish agri-environmental schemes. Journal of Environmental Management, 52: 227-240.

Pérez, M.R. (1990): Development of Mediterranean agriculture: an ecological approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 18: 211-220.

Pineda, F.D. (2000): Importance of the influence of agriculture to wildlife conservation in Spain. Workshop of the Agroenvironment & ELPEN project. Madrid.

78

Pleguezuelos J.M. -Ed.- (1997). Distribución y biogeografía de los anfibios y reptiles en España y Portugal. Asociación Herpetológica Española. Monografías de Herpetología. Volume 3, 542pp.

Universidad de Granada.

Ramírez L.; Alcaide M.T.; Cuevas J.A.; Guillén D.F.; and Sastre P. (1999a). Environmental planning in Natural Protected Areas. A case study in Madrid (Spain). Septembre-1999. EURECO 99. Halkidiki. Greece.

Ramírez L.; Alcaide M.T.; Cuevas J.A.; Guillén D.F.; and Sastre P. (1999b). Environmental planning in Natural Protected Areas. A case study in Madrid (Spain). Journal of Environmental Planning and Management.

SEO/BirdLife (1996): Plan de Conservación de la ZEPA denominada “Estepas Cerealistas de los Ríos Jarama y Henares”. Memoria final. SEO, Spain.

S.E.O./MONTÍCOLA. (1998). Anuario ornitológico de Madrid, 1997. Edt. S.E.O./Montícola. Madrid.

SEO -Martí R., Díaz, M., Gómez-Manzaneque and Sánchez A.- (1994). "Atlas de las aves nidificantes en Madrid". Edt. Agencia de Medio Ambiente de la Comunidad de Madrid.

Suárez, F.; Oñate, J.J.; Malo, J.E. y Beco, B. (1997): Las políticas agroambientales y de conservación de la naturaleza en España. Economía Agraria, 179: 267-296, Spain.

Tellería, J.L.; Santos, T.; Alvarez, G. y Saez-Royuela, C. (1988): Avifauna de los campos de cereales del interior de España. En: Bernis, F. (ed.): Aves de los medios urbano y agrícola. Monografía n.2, SEO. Madrid.

Tió, C. (1991): Reforma de la PAC y su impacto a nivel sectorial en España. Boletín Económico ICE 700: 79-90, Spain.

Tucker, G.M. & Heath, M.F. (1994). Birds in Europe. Their conservation status. Cambridge, BirdLife International. (BirdLife Conservation Series nº 3). 599pp, United Kingdom.

Valera Hernández, F.; Rey Zamora, P.J.; Sánchez-Lafuente, A.M. y Alcántara Gámez, J.M. (1997): Efecto de los sistemas de laboreo sobre las aves. En: García Torres, L. y González Fernández, P. (Eds.): Agricultura de conservación: Fundamentos agronómicos, medioambientales y económicos. Asociación Española de Laboreo de Conservación / Suelos Vivos. Córdoba.

Varela-Ortega, C.; Sumpsi, J.M. e Iglesias, E. (1996): The CAP and the environment in Spain. En: Brouwer, F. (coord.): CAP and the environment. Analysis of the direct and indirect effects of the CAP on the environment, assessment of existing European Union and national environment requirements in agricultural policy. Commission of the European Union, DG Environment, Brussels.

Wascher, D.M. (ed.) (2000): Agri-environmental indicators for sustainable agriculture in Europe. European Centre for Nature Conservation. Tilburg, the Netherlands.

8.3. How agriculture can support local biodiversity: a small scale case study in Białowieża, Poland

By Jadwiga Sienkiewicz, Institute for Environmental Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Introduction

Financial incentives for farmers to support biodiversity conservation in Poland will be introduced on a pilot scale later this year under SAPARD schemes. The pre-SAPARD activities under the Convention on Biological Diversity include support from the State budget to assist ecological farming (EKOLAND) and maintenance of the variety of domestic animals. In addition, WWF-Poland has been conducting a pilot project in the Biebrza River valley to find out how mowing of abandoned meadows affects the diversity of avian populations. There are, therefore, no specific data available on how changes in farming practices can improve the conservation status of a variety of life forms in agricultural

79

ecosystems. For the purpose of this report, advantage was taken of the results of a study project carried out in the Narewka River valley in Białowieża (north-eastern Poland.

The project area was selected to demonstrate how the planned restoration of a river valley including remeandering of the Narewka River and reinstating traditional land use practices will enhance local biodiversity. In addition to thorough hydrological and hydraulic studies a detailed comparative investigation was made to determine the effect of proposed changes in land use on the fauna, flora and vegetation of the river valley area. Furthermore, a socio-economic study was performed to investigate the social implications of restitution of the Narewka River valley. The project was carried out in 1999 by two Danish companies, Kampsax Consult and Amphi Consult, with the help of the Polish Bird Protection Society of Northern Podlasie (PTOP).

Background information

The project area embraces the Narewka River valley mire complex, with marshland habitats of diverse hydrological origin, ranging from eutrophic inundation mire to mesotrophic, groundwater dependent penetration mire. Because of the small degree of drainage and the prevailing mesophilous conditions, the mire complex with semi-natural grasslands is potentially of high botanical value. The mesophilous wet habitats of meadows are especially valuable though generally very vulnerable, since they depend on the purity of ground and surface waters from a large catchment. The area has been in agricultural use since the 18th century. The river was first straightened by the end of the 19th century and final canalization was completed in the 1960s. Farmlands in the valley have been classified as good farming sandy soils with silt fractions.

The traditional regional fragmented land ownership has been maintained until the present, with 70 per cent of farms not exceeding 3 hectares in size. The project area of 900 hectares is owned by about fifty private and public landowners. The latter include the PTOP and the Białowieża municipality. The local population is ageing with 38 per cent of the farm holders being under 50 years, 52 per cent between 51 and 70 years and about 10 per cent over 70 years old. The local holdings are equipped with old, horse-drawn machines and only 10 per cent of the farms have tractors. The source of seeds also reflects traditional farming ways, as most of the farmers produce seeds themselves and only 12 per cent of sow certified seeds.

Crop production is mostly non-commercial, the output being used to satisfy the farmer’s own needs. Only a small number of farmers occasionally sell their surplus. The yields are low, ranging from 2.0 to 2.5 tons/ha for grain and 15 tons/ha for potatoes. Meadows mowed twice a year yield 4.5 tons/ha. Livestock production is also largely non-commercial. Dairy cattle and pigs are the main livestock and horses are kept as working animals. The number of animals in relation to the area of grassland is small, with an estimated of 0.4–0.6 livestock units/ha. Traditional patterns of land use include extensive grazing and haymaking. However, over the last three decades a serious decline in farming practices has been noted, so that abandoned fields and meadows are undergoing secondary succession to shrub and forest vegetation. Peat soil degradation has been observed due to reduced flooding.

Anticipated effects of implementing the Narewka river restoration project

Strategy, Activities, Partners and Stakeholders

The Bird Protection Society of Northern Podlasie (PTOP) is the main stakeholder interested in the restoration of the Narewka River to its former course and dynamics and in the reintroduction of traditional farming practices to enhance local biodiversity. Financial support for the project was provided by the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy through its Department of Cooperation for Environment in Eastern Europe (DANCEE) in 1999. The grant covered the technical assistance to the PTOP for the initiation of the Narewka restoration scheme. The Danish companies (Kampsax Consult and Amphi Consult) carried out the major part of the work, with Polish institutions such as the Institute of Grassland and Melioration, the Agricultural University of Warsaw and other parties also involved. The local community at large was, in principle, not involved in the scheme, although interviews were held with 18 residents; access to the remaining members of the community was difficult (lack of recent addresses).

80

Under the Narewka project the old river meanders that have been filled in will be re-excavated and the remaining ones used again. In the new design the length of the river will be extended by 777 m and water levels raised by 11 to 34 cm. This is expected to stop further degradation of peat soils, since the proposed floodplain will cover an additional eight hectares of land compared to the present situation. It is also hoped that this will halt the secondary succession on low-lying meadows.

The main task before implementing the project is to obtain the approval of private and public landowners in the valley. The results of a local enquiry show that, at the moment, they remain either disinterested or critical of the PTOP activities and the inclusion of planting trees, digging fish-pond and building a water reservoir in future management plans. Only very few of the owners agreed to exchange their land adjacent to the river for parcels offered by the PTOP in other places. It is also clear that after this project is finally implemented, another project is to be launched to maintain the effects of river restoration by traditional farming practices, including mowing meadows and removing shrubs. For the time being, only about 10 per cent of the interviewed farmers cut hay. In the past, extensive agriculture, especially the traditional use of wet meadows for hay cutting and grazing, created highly differentiated growing conditions for plants, resulting in high species diversity. If this diversity is to be maintained, it is clear that extensive hay cutting and grazing regimes, without artificial fertilization, should be more widely adopted.

Botanical features

Farming is of key importance for the maintenance and enhancing of the local biodiversity. Extensive grazing and hay-cutting without the application of fertilizers or pesticides results in the most species-rich vegetation, containing many rare and valuable species, such as orchids. The implementation of the project will help to maintain, among others, the following four groups of plant communities which are considered to be especially valuable and are declining or endangered at the European scale. These are:

1. Mesotrophic meadows and pastures or grazed and regularly mown grasslands on wet peat soils or on low fertility soils; some phytocoenoses, such as Polygalo-Nardetum, Junco-Cynosuretum, have almost disappeared in the research area since previous investigation made in 1966;

2. Meadow communities with dominant Carex nigra; restoration of species-rich Calthion meadows from tall herb succession areas is easy, as diaspores in the soil survive for 30 years or longer; a 3 year period of intensive mowing is necessary to turn the highly eutrophicated and nutrient-storing Filipendulion communities back into species-rich meadows;

3. Mire associations rare in Poland, such as Caricetum diandrae, Carici-Agrostietum canescentis, and Potentilla palustris-Menyanthes trifoliata association (a part of the generally rare Caricion lasiocarpae alliance);

4. Species-rich Nardus stricta grasslands (Polygalo-Nardetum);

5. Another important botanical asset to be protected is the dry Sedo-Scleranthetea grassland that provides habitat for the rare ferns: Botrychium lunaria and Ophioglossum vulgatum. The high coverage of Ophioglossum in these stands and the occurrence of other characteristic species of Molinion alliance together with basiphilous species such as Polemonium coeruleum, may indicate a high potential for the development of Natura 2000-listed basiphilous Molinion-meadows in this area.

Fauna conservation

Natural succession resulting from abandonment of farming practices simplifies the structure of meadow habitats and negatively affects the diversity of bird species. Natural succession, mainly the development of shrubs and woods, affects bird communities in two ways. On one hand, it causes extinction of birds dependent on open mires, such as Grasshopper Warbler (Locustella naevia), Corncrake (Crex crex) and Montagu’s Harrier (Circus pygargus). On the other hand, the number of scrubland species, such as River Warbler (Locustella fluviatilis), Barred Warbler (Sylvia nisoria) and Scarlet Rosefinch (Carpodacus erythrinus), increase. So if we want to enhance the biodiversity of the fauna in the Białowieża region, species typical of open river valleys must be made a high priority.

81

At the moment, birds typical of water and open swampy habitats are represented by only nine species in this area (three additional species in the past). This corresponds to 32 per cent of all breeding species and 18 per cent of the total number of breeding pairs in the Białowieża region. This is the usual situation for canalised and drained river valleys. For some species that feed in the valley, such as White Stork Ciconia ciconia, the area is a kind of ‘ecological trap’. At the beginning of the breeding season the area provides good foraging grounds, but during summer, due to a low water level and tall vegetation, the situation changes dramatically. The population of White Stork in the Białowieża region is one of the greatest in Poland, but reproduction rates are about 40 per cent lower than average values for north-eastern Poland in 1995.

Lack of cattle grazing and mowing is another important factor in the change in structure of the bird community. This kind of management is essential for maintaining the breeding habitat of some species such as Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa),Redshank (Tringa totanus), Garganey (Anas querquedula), and Shoveler (Anas clypeata). Broods of these species have not been found since haymaking and grazing in the river valley was abandoned. The same has happened to the Yellow Wagtail (Motacilla flava), which is common in similar but managed habitats in other parts of Poland.

Raising of the water level in the Narewka River will enable the existence of bird communities rich in species and numbers. Flooding for long periods will also enrich the food resources available to raptors and storks, which will be reflected in the breeding success of these species. For the successful breeding of species such Lapwing, Redshank, Garganey and others, it is essential to restart mowing and grazing in the valley. Wet sedge meadows will provide more food for the wintering raptors and owls. Finally, this area can be more attractive for many migrating species, especially ducks and geese during autumn migration.

Analysis

Results

Results of the study in the Narewka River Valley provide a prognosis of how the local biodiversity could be enhanced following the implementation of farming practices like meadow mowing and grazing. An important outcome of the work done in Białowieża is that vital decisions on the main conservation goals of the semi-natural landscape will be taken at the beginning of the project.

The study has shown, among other things, that if no additional agricultural management is undertaken, the raised water level alone may lead to expansion of less valuable reed, tall sedge- and herb communities. Restoration of species-rich meadows and pastures of the endangered mesophilous type requires that the continuity of local farming must be secured. Therefore, the project should involve proposals for local farmers of the schemes which sustain hay cutting and pasturing.

Barriers and Conflicts

The most important constraints on project implementation at the moment are the lack of communication between the main stakeholders, that is the local farmers, the Białowieża municipality and the PTOP, and the opposition of some scientists employed in the local research institutions to the idea of the project. Possible sources of conflict over the restoration of the Narewka River include such issues as refusal to exchange land, projects for fish-pond digging and the planting of ornamental tree nurseries. Until now the PTOP has tended to concentrate on land acquisition and exchange, but other solutions may be found through further more negotiations and with time.

Lessons Learned

There are some hopes that sustainable tourism currently developing in the region may contribute to the desirable changes in the management of the Narewka River Valley. This could include restoring traditional agriculture, including mowing and grazing in the project area. One option is the development of sustainable tourism. The Narewka Valley offers very good conditions for bird watching, both during migration and in the breeding season, as it is quite narrow.

82

According to the opinions of economists analysing the local socio-economic conditions, it is possible to achieve the landscape changes and leave local agriculture in its present state, without changing the number or size of the farms. The only intervention should be stimulating and supporting pro-productive and pro-ecological activities. At the same time it should be remembered that transforming agriculture involves a number of social and historical challenges, and therefore needs time.

Conclusions

The small-scale project in the Narewka Valley provided many valuable results which may be significant for the implementation of the pilot-scale agri-environmental schemes in Poland. Detailed analyses of wildlife, vegetation and habitat conditions indicate the actual status of biodiversity and enable predictions to be made of the possible beneficial effects of reinstating traditional farming practices. It is especially vital to decide whether the main conservation goal is to protect species and structural diversity or natural processes and dynamics. The socio-economic analysis helped to identify the typical conflicts and directions for further activity in the sphere of social communication for local nature conservation. The outcomes of the Narewka project will be widely distributed as a simplified example of situations that will arise on a large scale, since the agri-environmental schemes will be implemented on a total area of 30 thousand hectares in four regions in Poland.

Recommendations for international policy makers

The following recommendations based on the results of the Białowieża study are proposed:

• there is a clear need to prioritise both interests and outcomes in terms of beneficial effects for various elements of biodiversity when implementing the agri-environmental schemes;

• comparable and reliable biodiversity data are mostly not available for the areas of interest for the agri-environmental projects. Thus it is necessary to carry out customized biodiversity monitoring procedures to provide relevant data (formats, standards, criteria and indicators);

• to effectively implement the agri-environmental schemes it is necessary to develop professional communication processes (stakeholder group analyses, stakeholder management, etc.);

• communication procedures are especially needed in Central and Eastern European countries in view of their former social experiences under a totalitarian regime; and

• a diversified approach is needed to facilitate the implementation of agri-environmental schemes, which are oriented to multifunctional land use, agriculture and biodiversity.

Contacts for the case study:

Kampsax Rugardsvej 55 DK-5000 Odense C Denmark kampsax@kampsax.dk

Amphi Consult Ul. Tropinka 76 17-230 Białowieża, Poland Fauna@ceti.pl

Phone/fax: 0048856812650

Amphi Consult Forskerparken10 5230 Odense M, Denmark Briggs@amphi.spo.dk

83

References

Amphi Consult, Kampsax Consult 2000: Restoration project for the Narewka River at Białowieża. Feasibility Study.

Dyduch-Falniowska A.and Makomaska-Juchiewicz M. 2000: Natural Sites of European Importance in the Agricultural Landscape of Poland. In: NATURA 2000, Rural Development and Ecological Networks. Proceedings of an international Seminar held in Konstancin, Poland (December 15-18, 1999).

Liro A. 2000: Farmers protect the environment. Regional Environmental Centre, The Bulletin, September/October 2000.

Radecka A., Łabętowicz J., Zawadzki B., Opic J. and Starczewski J. 1996: Plans for transformation of agriculture in the Białowieża Primeval Forest. Agriculture in the region of Białowieża Primeval Forest, Warsaw, ISBN 83-86241-91-8

8.4. Wielewaal fruit farm: Relationships between biodiversity, agriculture and social developments on a fruit farm (Eindhoven, the Netherlands)

By Susi Witteveen, collaborator of the Expertise Centre of the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries, the Netherlands

Introduction

Two terms play a key role in the discussion about biodiversity and agriculture: ‘diversity’ and ‘connectivity’. An agricultural system that depends less on external inputs (fertilizers, pesticides etc.) needs, for example, a diversity of breeds and varieties, and a diversity of organisms to maintain the soil and to regulate pests and diseases. The diversity and connection between all these organisms determines the resilience of the agricultural system. And a resilient system is needed when circumstances are changing due to changing water supplies, climate, or consumer wishes. Diversity and connection are also expressed in a regional context. Here, other non-economic values, like cultural-historical and emotional ones, come into the picture.

This case study deals with a fruit orchard in which diversity and ecological connections are conditional for a profitable conduct of business. The overriding philosophy has always been that agriculture and nature do not necessarily conflict, but may enhance each other. This fruit orchard can be seen as one of the many examples in Dutch agriculture.

This case study is an example of how different aspects of agricultural biological diversity can be given due attention at the farm level at the same time. For a better understanding of the broad concept of agricultural biological diversity, we turn first to a brief outline of the global, EU and national context.

The Programme of Work on Agricultural Biodiversity (Decision V/5) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) lists four different ‘dimensions’ of agro-biodiversity, which in turn are divided into 14 ‘sub-dimensions’. As the European Community stated in its recent Biodiversity action plan for agriculture (March 2001), three main fields of agro-biodiversity can be distinguished:

• the genetic variety of domesticated plants and animals;

• wild flora and fauna, related to farmland; and

• life-support systems (including soil microbiota, pollinators, predators, all organisms that support the fertility and productivity of agro-ecosystems).

The first two fields have, over the years, received ample attention from agriculturalists and (nature) conservationists, respectively, and are anchored in EU policies on genetic resources (not very strongly developed), agri-environmental programmes (covering both aspects) and environmental legislation (Birds and Habitats Directives). The third aspect (life-support functions) is not coherently covered yet, but forthcoming work on soil protection may fill part of the gap.

84

In the Netherlands work on the conservation of wildlife and habitats is very advanced, the conservation of wild flora and fauna on farmland has been the subject of government policy for decades. The main two instruments to protect, enhance and restore biodiversity on farmland are management agreements with farmers (included in an ‘agri-environmental programme’) and land acquisition for the creation of nature reserves. This latter instrument is necessary for more demanding species because Dutch agriculture is very intensive. Major targets for management agreements in the Netherlands are breeding and wintering grassland/water birds and the biodiversity of landscape elements such as ditches and hedges.

This case study shows that private initiatives contribute to different aspects of biodiversity. All these different approaches can be mutually supportive.

Background information

For decades the agricultural sector in the Netherlands (including the primary producers, the production chain and policy-making bodies) held a strong interest in the maximization of production, with less dependence on natural conditions, and in a uniform product. Generally speaking, one may conclude that since 1900 the natural diversity of living organisms in agriculture and horticulture has decreased considerably. This is considered to be true for both crop varieties and livestock breeds and for other organisms that form part of the agricultural ecosystem.

As an example, the three main crops in 1950 (rye, oats and potatoes) covered 58 per cent of the total acreage. In 1994 the top three crops (wheat, potatoes and sugarbeets) accounted for as much as 79 per cent. Of the existing 332 species of bees, 60 have not been spotted since 1980. The Ortolan Bunting, a bird occurring in small-scale agricultural landscapes, has nearly disappeared. In 1950 1,200–1,700 individuals were counted, in 1997 300–400 and a few years later only four.

Since the eighties, the agriculture and horticulture sectors have undergone an important transition. An increasing number of initiatives are being made on farms and in the agricultural industry to try to overcome the negative effects of intensive production. Examples are integrated production systems, organic farming, cooperative approaches and management agreements between the government and farmers (as part of national agri-environmental programmes). It is envisaged that increasing use will be made of the natural environment in the conduct of business, instead of fighting it. People are gradually understanding that joining forces with nature works out better. An example of such a system can be found at ECOstyle, a company in Appelscha (a small village in the North of the country) which produces a wide assortment of biological fertilizers. The company also produces a large number of different ‘functional’ insects to be used for pest control. Other examples include experiments in agricultural landscape planning to support ‘functional biodiversity’ (or ‘life support systems’, such as habitats for productive insects and other animals). The last example concerns research in mixed cropping systems as a means to prevent diseases and pests.

At the same time consumers, authorities and farmers are becoming more and more interested in developing new concepts like organic farming.. It is obvious that this tendency is related to the increasing and more active interest in agricultural practices and to changing consumer demands. People are displaying increasingly critical purchasing patterns and expect more information about their food. This rise in interest coincides with the existence of major problems in society relating to health, environment and production and consumers’ readiness to pay extra for better quality.

The way methods of organic agriculture are applied differs from current conventional methods. Instead of being direct, general and system-alien, they are more indirect, preventive and system-typical in character. Direct correctional measures in organic agriculture are limited. Organic farms ‘produce’ a richer flora and fauna than conventional farming is able to. The reasons include not using chemical pesticides, applying organic fertilizer (in solid form), a generous crop rotation, laying out and managing trees and vegetation around property as a refuge for natural enemies of pests and diseases. In organic farming, the farmers have to rely more on their own capacity and experience, taking into account local and regional circumstances.

85

Organic farming requires a lot of knowledge of and insight into disciplines like ecology and soil biology. Table 11 describes the products of organic farming in the Netherlands.

Table 11: Distribution of organic enterprises per sector (1999) in the Netherlands

sector in % horticulture 24.5 fruit farming 6.0 arable farming 24.0 cattle breeding 42.0 miscellaneous (fungi, plant material etc.) 3.5

Source: EKO-monitor, january 2000, Platform Biologica

Organic fruit production

The number of organic fruit farms in the Netherlands is small and growing only gradually. There are now some twenty-six professional organic farms, covering around 280 ha (from 100 ha. in 1998). Ten farms are in transition and produce mainly apples and pears. Last year (2000) organic fruit production was of one per cent of all the fruit produced in the Netherlands. The yield per ha is approximately 15,000 kilo1. Apple and pear production per ha is only half that of traditional cropping systems, and the quality is far lower. Production rates are low because of high losses caused by pests and disease, less than optimal nitrogen fertilization, small fruit, lack of ‘flower-pruning’ methods and ineffective weed control.

Most of this fruit is sold in special ecological shops; 20 per cent finds its way to consumers via supermarkets. The cost price of organic fruit is much higher than conventionally-grown fruit, making distribution through supermarkets far from easy. Financial instruments such as conversion subsidies and low interest green funds support growers who want to change to organic production. A formal certificate, called ‘EKO’, for organic products guarantees consumers environmentally-friendly methods of production.

Wielewaal fruit farm

The Wielewaal fruit farm (named after a bird, the Golden Oreole) lies in the wooded surroundings of the city of Eindhoven. It was founded in the thirties as a relief work experiment to provide cheap fruit for the employees of Philips3. Unemployed Philips workers bred, planted and cared for the fruit trees They were also entitled to buy cases of fruit at a reduced price. The land belonging to the fruit farm was part of the Philips family estate. Since 1995 the fruit garden is leased by a private entrepreneur.

The farm consists of 6.5 hectares of apple plantations (varieties include Elstar, Jonagold, Golden Delicious, James Grieve, Golden Rennet and Alkmene); 3 hectares of these are managed in an organic way. Pears are grown on another 3.5 hectares (varieties include Conference, Doyen de Comice and Gieserwildeman), with plums (varieties include Opal and Victoria) on a further 0.5 hectares. Since 1996, cultivation on the farm has been approved under the Dutch Agricultural Environmental Certificate (Milieu Keur: MK) and is in transition to an entirely organic cultivation system.

Implementation

Strategy

In Dutch supermarkets, consumers can buy all types of fruit from countries all over the world. With this globalization of production and sales it is becoming more and more difficult for Dutch fruit growers to compete on the world market. Growers are forced to develop products which are distinctive and identifiable to Dutch consumers to remain profitable. In their attempts to do this they expect support from government for environmental measures, which include tightening up the approval and use of pesticides, and measures to reduce manure emissions. The starting point in the search for distinctive products at Wielewaal

1 From: ‘Achtergrondinformatie Philips Fruittuin’, 2000 3 Philips is a worldwide electronics company. The first factory started in Eindhoven with the production of light bulbs

86

fruit farm is the grower’s own desire to adopt management methods that aim to establish a more balanced relationship between nature, agriculture and society. Demand is the economic reason for using organic cultivation techniques; at the same time, with a view to the future, the grower also expects a drastic reduction in the permitted range of chemical crop protection methods.

For the farmer in Wielewaal, direct sale is a vital part of his business philosophy. Direct contact with customers leads to a product ‘with a story’: honest, healthy food produced in balance with nature. Damaged products appear to be marketable because customers receive information about how the damage has taken place. Most customers come from the area, but also from farther away4. The farmer has anchored his business well in society. Key words are transfer of knowledge, openness and accessibility of knowledge. Schools, nature conservation groups and colleagues visit his business to learn about ecosystems and organic production methods.

Wielewaal fruit farm has also become a demonstration farm. The purpose of demonstration farms is to demonstrate organic fruit production to fellow growers and, by doing so, to create support for organic methods, and to better understand the process of changing over to organic fruit production. The grower is also a member of the Biodiversity steering group of the agricultural extension institute, delivers lectures and participates in study groups.

The Fruit Farming Research Station and the Dutch research institute for organic farming, ‘Louis Bolk Instituut’, are working to translate research results into practical information useful to the grower. This research is financed by the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries, the RABO bank in Eindhoven, the Bureau for Agricultural Innovation (LIB) and the Southern provinces of Limburg and Noord-Brabant (in collaboration with the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment). These funding organizations also profit from the new knowledge, which is applied in developing their own policies. The bank, for example, uses the fruit orchard as an exemplary business for others. The grower cooperates with landscape experts and nature management organizations to integrate valuable landscape features into the operational management of the farm.

Activities

The grower has a variety of methods for keeping track of the extent of desired and undesired biodiversity on his farm. For the control of pests and diseases, he uses natural predators, for which he ensures good conditions on the farm. He infests new trees with predacious mites from older trees. He has hung nesting boxes for tits, which eat harmful insects, and he deploys bacteria and viruses (e.g. Bacillus thuringiensis to control the young larvae of the winter moth) as a method of biological control. He closely monitors the situation on the farm, conducting a twice-weekly search for pests and diseases, using monitoring traps for codling moth or leaf rollers. He detects pear psyllid (Psylla pyricola) by touch and subsequently sprays the infected plants with water as a method of control. His choice of fruit varieties is based on consumer demand and on disease and pest resistance. To promote soil fertility, he uses spent mushroom compost.

Two low-yielding rows of apple trees that stood along the woodland fringe have been removed. Wild flowers have been sown in place of the trees, in order to give bees a better and more diverse ‘working area’. In consultation with the provincial organization for landscape conservation, Brabants Landschap, the grower has planted a ‘wooded bank’, a traditional landscape feature consisting of native tree and shrub species; this provides habitat for a useful birds and insects like tits and assassin bugs.

The grower has experimented with sowing African marigolds (Tagetus patula) to prevent soil exhaustion caused by the eelworm (Pratylenchus penetrans). This did not turn out to be very effective. In the meantime he had started another experiment, together with one of the research institutes. Eight test plots were sown with different species of grass, combined with a variety of treatments. The grower works with an institute for pollination research on an experiment with bees (Acer rufus) with the aim of getting the bees to nest in the orchard

4 People came from all parts of the country to work in the Philips factories. They settled in Eindhoven, but maintained ties with their families and friends in their own region. Even today, visiting relatives buy fruit at the farm that once produced fruit for them

87

and become permanently established on the farm. The first colonies of bees have settled in the orchard.

The grower has learned much about the agricultural ecosystem on his farm simply through good observation. For example, there seems to be a relation between hoeing against weeds and a decrease in damage to flower buds caused by night frosts in spring.

Another example concerns control of a leaf flea. Before changing to organic farming there were hardly any natural enemies (such as predacious mites) to neutralize this plague in the orchard. Over the last few years, however, the natural balance has been restored.

Analysis

Results

The management methods have led to a considerable increase in the diversity of insects, indigenous plants and birds on the farm. Buttercups, White Clover and Forget-me-nots are growing again, Kestrels, Long-eared Owls and Barn Owls have been spotted again. The condition of the soil has improved considerably; there are many more earthworms, for instance.

The sale margins on the on-farm sales are slightly higher than sales via the fruit auction. Over the last five years, farm turnover has doubled, with agritourism accounting annually for 10 per cent. The farm has a large number of permanent customers. Excursions and on-farm sales lessen the gap between producer and consumer, and attract and retain customers.

The grower has an excellent network of people from a variety of backgrounds who provide him with support for his experiments and ideas. He is considered and consulted as a researcher and innovator in the field of organic fruit farming by other farmers, policymakers and scientists.

During the last four years the farmer has acquired a lot of experience with the Agricultural Environmental Certificate, and he uses half the amount of active ingredients compared with colleagues who use integrated production methods.

Barriers and conflicts

Matching supply to demand, the shortage of disease- and pest-resistant fruit varieties, ignorance of manure strategies and admission problems with pesticides are constraints. More research is needed to resolve these.

Subsidies are not yet available for most experiments designed to benefit both agriculture and nature. The added biodiversity value of the production methods can only be incorporated in the price of the final product to a very limited degree.

Many conventional growers believe that fruit trees on organic farms do not grow very well and that the quality of the fruit is debatable. The high degree of uncertainty surrounding the occupational risks and negative image of organic farming tend to discourage growers from changing over.

The vicious circle of ‘no demand, no action, no supply’ is true for many aspects of organic fruit farming, including the availability of (biological) pesticides, growing lesser known varieties of fruit trees, financing and extension.

It takes an enormous amount of energy and endurance to keep swimming against the tide: the lack of knowledge, lack of financial compensation, lack of examples.

Until recently, the term ‘biodiversity’ was not widely known by the public, policy makers or teachers. With the coming 6th Conference of the Parties of the CBD in the Netherlands in April 2002, this is likely to change!

Lessons learned

• To benefit from biodiversity, an entrepreneur must stop always thinking in a linear way: ‘This part is malfunctioning so I immediately use this solution to prevent further damage.’ It is necessary to look at the whole system: spraying against pear psyllid also

88

kills the useful insects that can help to control other pests. If nature is given space and time, it will come into balance with your aims.

• Much of the biodiversity that had disappeared on the farm will return when farm management is in tune with natural processes.

• To involve stakeholders, such as banks, extension workers, researchers, etc., it is necessary to link up with their missions and goals. This requires much time and energy but especially trust, openness and tact.

• Money is not the only means of payment for services. Access to knowledge, cooperative thinking and the joy of labour are other revenues.

Recommendations for international policy makers

• See pioneers as innovative researchers, and support them accordingly;

• The learning process is valuable for obtaining further understanding about the relationships between biodiversity, agriculture and society, not only between growers, but also between countries;

• Experience and knowledge about these relationships is not only applicable on organic farms, but on bulk production farms at well. Make the most of opportunities;

• Make use of research and experience regarding the approval of pesticides for use in organic farming in foreign countries to break the vicious circle of ‘limited demand, expensive research, lack of finance’ be broken;

• Society itself should pay for the production methods it desires, which includes farming in tune with nature.

Contact details

Chris Maas Geesteranus National Reference Centre for Agriculture, Nature Management and FisheriesGalvanistraat 7Postbus 482, 6710 BL Ede, the Netherlands Tel: +31 318 671564 Fax: +31 318 624737 E-mail: c.maas.geesteranus@eclnv.agro.nl

Mr Carlos Faes Philips Fruittuin Wielewaal Oirschotseweg 14a 5651GC Eindhoven, the Netherlands Tel: +31 40 2621453 Fax: +31 40 26214 58

References

Almasi, Lekkerkerk & Van Vliet. 2000. Kansen en knelpunten biologische productiewijze. IKC-rapport, Ede Guldemond, Klaver en Oerlemans. 1999. Kansen voor biodiversiteit op het boerenbedrijf. CLM-rapport 440, Utrecht Welboren. 1999. Zorgen voor biodiversiteit, kansen voor de land- en tuinbouw. IKC-rapport, Ede Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries, the Netherlands, 1992. Biologische landbouw. Notitie voor de Tweede Kamer der Staten –Generaal. Den Haag DLV, 2000. Demonstratiebedrijf biologische fruitteelt. Informatiemap DLV en fruittuin De Wielewaal Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries, the Netherlands, 2000. Een biologische markt te winnen, beleidsnota biologische landbouw 2001 – 2004. Den Haag

89

PART C - RECOMMENDATIONS

Chapter 9: Towards a European stakeholder approach Laura Buguñá Hoffmann (ECNC)

Participants at the European Workshop 'Analysing the interaction between agricultural practices and the sustainable use of biodiversity - the role of stakeholders' expressed the need to propose a framework for cooperation and communication among stakeholders. This final chapter refers to some relevant international policy initiatives on the multiple functions of agriculture and biodiversity. It analyses useful policy tools and instruments that may be used in the next steps towards a multi-stakeholder approach on implementing biodiversity-friendly agricultural management practices in Europe.

'The success of sustainable agriculture and rural development will depend largely on the support and participation of rural people, national governments, the private sector and international cooperation, including technical and scientific cooperation'.

Source: Chapter 14 of Agenda 21.

Stakeholder participation is an important aspect for a fruitful assessment and implementation of a European agricultural biodiversity work programme. Many organizations that participated at the workshop have been gathering extensive expertise via their daily activities on the linkages between agricultural management and biodiversity. 'Society should be setting the farming agenda', said EU-Commissioner Fischler at the largest agricultural trade fair in Italy (Verona, March 2001). The Commission would be conducting a thorough analysis of the Agenda 2000 reforms this year, as would the Member States, EU Commissioner Franz Fischler said. The European Commission is committed to a mid-term assessment in 2001, which would be an opportunity to further improve the measures needed to meet the demands society makes of agriculture (EU News Service RAPID, IP/01/331).

In June 2001, the EU Council adopted the ‘EU Sustainable Development Strategy’ (Gothenburg, 2001). The Gothenborg conclusions included establishing the following objective in the sphere of ecology and agriculture: 'The Strategy Agricultural policies must promote healthy products of good, quality, ecological cultivation and protect biological diversity'.

Agenda 21, the action programme adopted by the UN's 1992 Earth Summit, dedicated one of its 40 chapters, Chapter 14, to Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development (SARD). FAO was designated Task Manager for Chapter 14 of the Agenda 21. SARD proposed a new vision: an agriculture sector that would not only ensure food security through increased output, but also help rural people satisfy their socio-economic and cultural aspirations, and protect and conserve the natural resource base to meet future needs. In preparation for the ‘Rio+10 Summit’ (South Africa, June 2002), FAO has organised a number of meetings and is also facilitating several electronic conferences to analyse and assess the status quo in sustainable agriculture development. The cornerstone of SARD is building people's capacity to participate fully in their own development. This means access to basic education and technical, environmental and economic knowledge, and sharing information and experience. But much information is unavailable or inaccessible, particularly to poor

90

farmers. Moreover, there are few opportunities to talk about on their concerns. FAO is hosting in October 2001 a congress on Conservation Agriculture (see also section 3.2.7).

If we are to move from dialogue to action, further research and analysis at the European scale of biodiversity-friendly agricultural practices may be necessary. The conclusions of the Versailles Conference ‘Agricultural Research in the European Research Area’ (December 5-6, 2000) state that 'developing a multifunctional agriculture entails research towards a competitive agriculture which is environmentally benign, stimulates rural development, uses natural resources in a sustainable manner, while producing sufficient quantities of safe and affordable food and non-food products, high in quality and diversity, and respectful towards nature. To make this a success, research is needed to quantify the externalities surrounding agricultural production, with respect to issues such as environmental protection, rural development, nature conservation and socio-cultural interactions. These externalities are necessary due to specifications which will arise from future CAP reform, global trade negotiations, and consumer pressure, where quantified information will be essential in any re-shaping of the agricultural sector. Research should also aim to support different EU policies – such as CAP, trade, budget, health or environment – influencing agriculture to become consistent parts of good governance in multifunctional agriculture' (European Commission, 2001c).

Current and future research efforts on high nature value farming, the existence of innovative marketing schemes, and the coverage of all non-trade concerns within rural development should include the involvement of stakeholders. Furthermore, environmental and societal benefits of agricultural options have to be linked to comprehensive assessments of regional development options. Regional and landscape specific assessments of biodiversity goals are needed, linked to a thorough analysis and modelling of the economics of agriculture and other land use options. Because participation is a qualitative process, the extent, the quality and the impact of the participation needs to be regularly assessed.

The United Nations University is organising in November 2001, prior to the 7th SBSTTA meeting, an international symposium on ‘Managing Biodiversity in Agricultural Ecosystems’. One of the key objectives of the meeting is to compare and exchange experiences with encouraging profitable management practices which would also conserve the biodiversity on farms. Another guiding question is how should national and international programmes and policies on biodiversity conservation be adapted to support on-farm management of biodiversity? The meeting aims to make a direct contribution to the CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme.

In Europe, a series of meetings to take place in 2001/2002 are further analysing the relationship between agriculture and biodiversity, including the high-level Conference on Agriculture and Biodiversity (to take place in autumn 2002) in the framework of the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS). At the COP6 (8-26 April 2002, The Hague, the Netherlands), a progress report on the CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme will be presented.

For the policy sector, successful implementation of adaptive management practices requires a multi-step process: after creating a portfolio of policy instruments for implementing sustainable agricultural management practices throughout Europe, objectives need to be established which are then reflected via indicators. Delivery mechanisms need to be designed locally using an appropriate mix of instruments from the portfolio established through the overarching policy. Local circumstances and practical experience are key factors for an adaptive management approach that is achieving environmental goals through agricultural policy mechanisms. Finally, policy measures may be best developed through local adaptive trials to demonstrate what works. The success of wider adoption should be tested by light touch monitoring of simple indicators and more detailed monitoring and evaluation of early trials as well as a small number of sites for more detailed on going evaluation. Participation and stakeholder dialogue is required at each stage, with different audiences having different interests in each stage.

The CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme proposes concrete steps for action. As it states, ‘transparent consultative processes are required to allow exchange of ideas and concerns, negotiation and, as required, conflict resolution between different stakeholders.

91

Effective feedback mechanisms between farmers and researchers and the technical and policy levels are crucial in the identification of issues and priorities, the design of appropriate strategies and actions, and the monitoring and evaluation of the performance and impacts of programmes and actions'. It is particular in the field of communication, awareness and cooperation where the CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme offers considerable potential for a participatory approach.

Based on the analysis of the linkages between agricultural management practices and wild biodiversity as well as on the workshop discussions, the following steps for follow up at European level can be proposed:

• elaborate per region a Europe-wide assessment of biodiversity-friendly agricultural management practices;

• identification of key actors and major institutions linked to agricultural biodiversity;

• publication of best-practice case studies in Europe, per country, which highlight local farming practices that are sensitive to local ecological conditions, and distribute these widely among stakeholders;

• prepare general European guidelines for biodiversity-friendly agricultural management practices, including suggestions for accompanying measures (following up on the proposed actions under the EU Biodiversity Action Plan on Agriculture);

• identify key instruments that sustain the positive interaction between agriculture and biodiversity;

• promote awareness-raising and information exchange among stakeholders (either by means of independent events such the European Workshop organised in the framework of this project, or by establishing an advisory board which would regularly take stock);

• select widely accepted agrobiodiversity indicators at Pan-European level;

• assess progress of the policy aims and targets by means of indicators (following up on the EU framework for indicators for the economic and social dimensions of sustainable agriculture and rural development); and

• reporting and feedback on the implementation results (done by governments and Parties to the CBD).

This report and its recommendations may contribute to foster a broader involvement of stakeholders in Europe, hence furthering a broad awareness on the conservation of agricultural biodiversity among European stakeholders.

92

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ANF Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries, the Netherlands CAP Common Agricultural Policy (of the European Union) CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CEC Commission of the European Communities CEE Central and Eastern Europe CHM Clearing-House Mechanism on Biodiversity Conservation CoE Council of Europe COM Communication COP Conference of Parties (to the Convention on Biological Diversity) DG Directorate General (of European Commission) DG ENV Directorate General for Environment DG AGRI Directorate General for Agriculture EAGGF European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund EC European Community ECNC European Centre for Nature Conservation EEA European Environmental Agency EFMA European Fertilizer Manufacturers Association ELISA Environmental Indicators for Sustainable Agriculture EMAS Environmental Management and Audit Schemes EU European Union ESA Environmentally Sensitive Area FADN Farm Accountancy Data Network Network FAO Food and Agriculture Organization GAP Good Agricultural Practice GMOs Genetically Modified Organisms IBA Important Bird Area IEEP Institute for European Environmental Policy IFOAM International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements IUCN International Union for the Conservation of HNV High Nature Value (-farming) LEADER Liaisons Entre Actions pour le Développement de l’Economie Rurale LEI Dutch Agricultural Economics Research Institute LFA Less Favoured Area LIFE L’Instrument Financier pour l’Environnement MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, United Kingdom OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development PEBLDS Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy RDR Rural Development Regulation SARD Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development SAPARD Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development SBSTTA Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice SPA Special Protection Areas UAA Utilized Agricultural Area UK United Kingdom UNEP United Nations Environment Programme WTO World Trade Organization WWF World Wide Fund for Nature

93

References

Alders, H. (1999). Cultivating our Futures - Report of the Chairman FAO/Netherlands Conference on the Multifunctional Character of Agriculture and Land. 12-17 September 1999, Maastricht, the Netherlands. Aldington, T.J. (1998). Multifunctional agriculture: a brief review from developed and developing country perspectives. FAO, Rome. Andrews, J. & Rebane, M. (1994). Farming & Wildlife. RSPB, United Kingdom. Aylward, B.A. et al. (1993). Economic Value of Species Information and its Role in Biodiversity Conservation: Costa Rica's National Biodiversity Institute. IIED, London. Baas, H.J.A, A.J. van Potten and A.C.M. Zwanenberg (1998). The world of food retailing: Developments and strategies. Rabobank International, Utrecht. Baldock, D., Beaufoy, G., Brouwer, F. & Godeschalk, F. (1996). Farming at the Margins: abandonment or redeployment of agricultural land in Europe. Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), London / LEI-DLO, The Hague. Bartolomé et al. (2000). Grazing alone is not enough to maintain landscape diversity in the Montseny Biosphere Reserve. Agriculture, Ecosystems And Environment, Vol. 77 (3) pp. 267-273. Elsevier Science B.V, Amsterdam et al. Bartoszuk, H, Gorski, A. & Tyburski, J. (1999): The development of management methods to protect wildlife on farmland in the Green Lungs of Poland area. In: Pienkowski, M.W. & Jones, D.G.L. (eds.): Managing high-nature-conservation-value farmland: policies, processes and practices - Proceeddings of the Sixth European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism, 6 - 10 June (1998), Luhacovice, Czech Republic, pp 69-74. European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism, Bridgend, Isle of Islay, Argyll, PA44 7PT, United Kingdom. Bartram, H., Rayment, M, Dixon, J & Nagy, S (1999). Proposal for pre-accession agri-environment schemes in Central and Eastern Europe - a biodiversity based approach. In: Pienkowski, M.W. & Jones, D.G.L. (eds.): Managing high-nature-conservation-value farmland: policies, processes and practices - Proceeddings of the Sixth European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism, 6 - 10 June (1998), Luhacovice, Czech Republic, pp 108-118. European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism, Bridgend, Isle of Islay, Argyll, PA44 7PT, United Kingdom. Beaufoy, G., Baldock, D., & Clark, J. (1994). The Nature of Farming: Low intensity farming systems in nine European countries. Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), London. Beckmann, A. (2000). Initiatives for sustainable development in the White Carpathians. Rural Areas Newslink Issue 9, p. 2; IEEP, London, United Kingdom. Benstead, P.J., José, P.V., Joyce, C.B. & Wade, P.M. (1999). European Wet Grassland. Guidelines for management and restoration. RSPB, Sandy, United Kingdom. Bianco, V.V. (1995). Rocket, an ancient underutilized vegetable crop and its potential. In Padulosi, S., ed. Rocket Genetic Resources Network. Report of the first meeting, Lisbon, Portugal, 13-15 November 1994. Rome, International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI). Bignal, E.M. & McCracken, D.I.(1996). Low-intensity farming systems in the conservation of the countryside. Journal of Applied Ecology, 33:413-424. Bishop, J.T. (1999). The Economics of Non-Timber Forest Benefits: An Overview. IIED, London. Brouwer, F. & van Berkum, S. (1996). CAP and Environment in the European Union: Analysis of the effects of the CAP on the environment and assessment of existing environmental conditions in policy. Wageningen Pers, Wageningen. Brouwer, F. and J. Helming (2000). The effects of support measures on the profitability of organic farming relative to conventional farming: A case study in the Netherlands. Paris, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, ENV/EPOC/GEEI(99)4/FINAL. Brouwer, F., D. Baldock and C. la Chapelle (coordinators) (2001). Agriculture and nature conservation in the candidate countries: Perspectives in interaction. Report of the High Level Conference on EU Enlargement: The Relation between Agriculture and Nature

94

Management (Wassenaar, January 2001). Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries. The Hague, LEI. Buckwell, A., 1989. Economic Signals, Farmers’ Response and Environmental Change. Journal of Rural Studies, 5 (2). Buguñá Hoffmann, L. ed. (2000). Stimulating positive linkages between agriculture and biodiversity: recommendations for the EC-Agricultural Action Plan on Biodiversity. ECNC, Tilburg. Bundesministerium fuer Ernaehrung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten (1999). Agrarbericht 1999. Agrar- und ernaehrungspolitischer Bericht der Bundesregierung, Bonn. Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (1999). The Market for Health Foods, Vitamins and Nutraceuticals in the United Kingdom. Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (2000). The Organic Products Market In The United Kingdom. DFAIT, Canada. Capinera, J. L. and T. S. Sechrist (1982). Grasshoppers (Acrididae) of Colorado: Identification, biology, and management. Colorado State University Experiment Station Bulletin 584S. Convention on Biological Diversity (1997). Review of ongoing activities on agricultural biological diversity. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/3/6, Montreal. Council of Europe, UNEP & ECNC (1996). Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy – a vision for Europe’s natural heritage. Council of Europe, United Nations Environment Programme, European Centre for Nature Conservation. Amsterdam. Daily, G. C. (1997). Nature’s Services. Washington, DC: Island Press. De Blust et al. (2000). Integrated monitoring for the countryside: The Flermish experience. In: Conference proceedings of the Conference on Multifunctional Landscapes, Centre for Landscape Research, Roskilde. Deutscher Bauernverband (2000). Grünbuch für eine nachhaltige Land- und Forstwirtschaft - Die deutsche Land- und Forstwirtschaft als Modell einer nachhaltigen Entwicklung. Deutscher Bauernverband, Bonn. Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries (2000). Dutch nature policy memorandum NBL21 'Nature for people, people for nature'. LNV, The Hague. Dwyer at al (2000). Cross-compliance under the Common Agricultural Policy. Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), London. EEA (1999). Europe’s Environment: The Second Assessment. Copenhagen. English Nature (1999). Inquiry into Agreement on Agenda 2000: CAP Reform. English Nature, Peterborough. English Nature, Scottisch Natural Heritage, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Countryside Commission & Countryside Council for Wales (EN – SNH – JNCC – CC - CCW) (1998). Agenda 2000 – CAP draft regulations 1998. United Kingdom. EUREP (1999). EUREP GAP Verification 2000. EHI-EuroHandelsInstitut, Koln. European Commission (1998a). Communication of the European Commission to the Council and to the Parliament on a European Community Biodiversity Strategy. COM(1998)42. Brussels. European Commission (1998b). Agriculture and sustainability. Principles and recommendations from the European Consultative Forum on the Environment and Sustainable Development. Brussels. European Commission (1998c). Agricultural Situation and Prospects in the Central and Eastern European countries - Summary Report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. European Commission & Gallup Europe, 2000. Flash Eurobarometre 86 - Attitudes des Agriculteurs envers la PAC. Brussels. European Commission (2000a). Report from the Commission on the application of Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (update for 1993-1995), COM(2000) 180 final, Brussels.

95

European Commission, (2000b). Agriculture’s contribution to environmentally and culturally related non-trade concerns. Discussion Paper for the Internat. Conference on Non-Trade Concerns in Agriculture, Ullensvang, Norway. European Commission, (2000c). Directions towards sustainable agriculture (COM (1999) 22). Brussels. European Commission, (2000d). Prospects for agricultural markets 2000-2007. Directorate general for Agriculture. Brussels. European Commission, (2000e). Economic impact of GM crops on the agri-food sector – a first review’. DG AGRI, 2000. Brussels. European Commission, (2001a). Risk management tools for EU Agriculture – with a special focus on insurance. Working Document. Brussels. European Commission, (2001b). Biodiversity Action Plan for Agriculture. Brussels. European Commission, (2001c). Conclusions and Recommendations of the Versailles Conference ‘Agricultural Research in the European Research Area’. Brussels. European Commission, (2001d). SAPARD Annual Report, 2000. (COM(2001)341 final). DG AGRI, 2000. Brussels European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, (2000). Crops for Sustainable Enterprise. Dublin Eurostat (1995). Farm Structure Survey. Eurostat, Luxembourg. FAO (1998). Guide to efficient plant nutrition management. FAO, Land and Water Development Division, Rome. FAO (1999a). Report: Sustaining Agricultural Biodiversity and Agro-ecosystem Functions. FAO, Rome FAO (1999b). Use and potential of wild plants in farm households. FAO, Rome. FAO (2000). The State of Food and Agriculture 2000. FAO Economics Unit, Rome. García Cidad, V. (1999). Introduction of biodiversity concepts into organic agriculture in Europe. Proceedings of the IFOAM workshop : The Relationship between nature conservation, biodiversity and organic agriculture. Vignola, Italy, 1999, pp. 44-51. García Torres, L. & González Fernández, P. (eds), (1997). Agricultura de conservación: Fundamentos agronómicos, medioambientales y económicos. AELCS, Spain. Granval, P. and Muys, B. (1996). Predation on earthworms by terrestrial vertebrates. Proceedings of the XXII International Union of Game Biologists Congress. Sofia. Sept. 1995, pp. 480-490. Hendrix, P. (1998). Earthworms in agro-ecosystems : a summary of current research. In: C.A. Edwards (ed.) Earthworms Ecology. CRC press, 259-272. Hernández Bermejo, J.E. & León, J. (eds), (1992). Neglected crops 1492 from a different perspective. FAO, Rome. Hobbs et al., (1997). The transformation of the agrifood system in Central and Eastern Europe and the New Independent States. CAB International, United Kingdom. Iakovidou, O., Ch. Vlachou, A. Voltsou and M. Partalidou (1999). Mountainous and Disadvantaged areas of Greece. Agrotourism, Thessaloniki: Geotechnical Chamber of Greece (in Greek). IFOAM (2000). Global standards for Organic Production and Processing. IFOAM, Germany. International Agri-Food Network (2000). Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue Segment on Sustainable Agriculture. Discussion paper for the 8th CSD Session. ITC (1999). Organic Food and Beverages: World supply and major European markets. WTO-ITC, Geneva. IUCN (1991). The Lowland Grasslands of Central and Eastern Europe. IUCN East European Programme; Cambridge, United Kingdom. IUCN (1992a). Interactions between Agriculture and Environment in Hungary. IUCN East European Programme; Cambridge, United Kingdom. IUCN (1992b). Interactions between Agriculture and Environment in Poland. IUCN East European Programme; Cambridge, United Kingdom.

96

IUCN (1993). The Wetlands of Central and Eastern Europe. IUCN East European Programme; Cambridge, United Kingdom. IUCN (1995). Interactions between Agriculture and Natiure Conservation in the Czech and Slovak Republics. IUCN East European Programme; Cambridge, United Kingdom. IUCN ESUSG/AWG (2000). Biodiversity and Landscape Conservation in Pan-European Agriculture: The IUCN ESUSG/AWG Approach. IUCN, Switzerland. Jiménez Díaz et al. (1998). Agriculture sostenible. Mundi Prensa. Madrid. Just F. and Heinz I. (2000). Do 'Soft' Regulations Matter? in Brouwer F. and Lowe P (2000) (eds.), CAP Regimes and the European Countryside. Prospects for Integration between Agricultural, Regional and Environmental Policies, CAB International, Wallingford, 241-255. Karl, M. (2000). Monitoring and evaluating stakeholder participation in agriculture and rural development projects: a literature review. SD Dimensions, FAO, Rome. Kampf, H. (2000). About nature policy, large ecosystems in a small and crowded country and the role large herbivores can play. Landschaftsplanung.NET Kellner, H. (1999). Programme to support agricultural organizations in CEE. Rural Areas Newslink Issue 5, p. 3; IEEP, London, United Kingdom KSH (1996). Statistical Almanac for Agriculture and the Food-Industry 1995. KSH, Budapest. Lockwood, J. A. (1993a). Environmental issues involved in the biological control of rangeland grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae) with exotic agents. Environmental Entomology 22: 503–518. Lockwood, J. A. (1993b). The benefits and costs of controlling rangeland grasshoppers with exotic organisms: the search for a null hypothesis and regulatory compromise. Environmental Entomology 22: 904–914. Lockwood, J.A. (1999). Agriculture and biodiversity: Finding our place in this world. Agriculture and Human Values. 16: 365–379, 1999. Kluwer Academic Publishers, the Netherlands. Lotman, A, Mägi, E& Toming, M (1999). Biodiversity and Pastoralism in Western Estonia. In: Pienkowski, M.W. & Jones, D.G.L. (eds.): Managing high-nature-conservation-value farmland: policies, processes and practices - Proceeddings of the Sixth European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism, 6 - 10 June (1998), Luhacovice, Czech Republic, pp 77-78. European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism, Bridgend, Isle of Islay, Argyll, PA44 7PT, United Kingdom. Ma, W.C. (1984). Sublethal toxic effect of copper on growth, reproduction and litter breakdown activity in the aerthworm Lumbricus rubellus, with observations on the influence of temperature and soil pH. Environmental pollution (Series A) 33, 207-219 McBratney, A. (2001). The ‘precision’ approach to the agricultural production-environment relationship. Australian Centre for Precision Agriculture. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (1999). Working together for the Food Chain. MAFF, London. Montero, J.M. (2000). El cultivo mediterráneo. BIOlógica, 12/2000: 55-59, Madrid. Norse & Tschirley (2000). Links between science and policy making. Agriculture, Ecosystems And Environment Vol. 82 (1-3) pp. 15-26. Elsevier Science B.V, Amsterdam et al. OECD (1998). OECD work on Sustainable Agriculture and the Environment. OECD, Paris. Pearce, D. and Moran, D. (1994). The Economic Value of Biodiversity. Earthscan, London. Petersen, J-E (1999). Countryside Support Schemes in Central and Eastern Europe. Rural Areas Newslink Issue 4, p. 3; IEEP, London, United Kingdom. Petersen, J-E (2000). Challenges for Rural Development in Central and Eastern Europe. Rural Areas Newslink Issue 9, p. 3; IEEP, London, United Kingdom. Phillips, A. (1998) Economic Values of Protected Areas: Guidelines for Protected Area Managers. IUCN Publication Services, UK. Prescott J., Gauthier B. and J. Nagahuedi Mbongu Sodi (2000). Guide to Developing a Biodiversity Strategy from a Sustainable Development Perspective, Institut de l’énergie et

97

de l’environnement de la Francophonie (IEPF), Ministère de l’Environnement du Québec, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Québec, Canada. Priednieks, J. (2000): Agriculture and Biodiversity in Latvia. Rural Areas Newslink Issue 8, p. 1; IEEP, London, United Kingdom. Risser, P. G. (1988). Diversity in and among grasslands, in E. O. Wilson (ed.), Biodiversity (pp. 176–180). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Sambraus, H.H. (1989). Atlas der Nutztierrassen, Ulmer Verlag, Stuttgart. Svensson , B. et al. (2000). Habitat preferences of nest-seeking bumble bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in an agricultural landscape. Agriculture, Ecosystems And Environment, Vol. 77 (3) pp. 247-255. Elsevier Science B.V, Amsterdam et al. Swallow, Brent M. (1997). The multiple products, functions and users of natural resource systems. International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington. Schütz et al. (2000). Development of an Evaluation Instrument for Agricultural Policy Measures on a Regional Level with Special Consideration of Regional Sustainability. Paper submitted at the Vienna ESEE 2000 Conference. ESEE, France. Tamasne, V. (2000). Supporting regions by the agri-environmental programme in Hungary. In: European Nature, #5, pp27-28. ECNC, Tilburg. Terluin, I.J., J.H. Post, H. von Meyer and B. van Kaeperen (2000). Lessons for employment creation in rural regions. In: I.J. Terluin and J.H. Post (Eds) Employment dynamics in rural Europe. Wallingford, CABI Publishing, pp. 225 - 239. Terradas, J. et al. (1984). Ecosistemes terrestres. La resposta als incendis i a d’altres pertorbacions. Quaderns d’ecologia aplicada, Diputació de Barcelona. ten Kate & Lard (1999). The commercial value of biodiversity: access to genetic resources and benefit sharing. Earthscan, London. Tiago Domingos et al. (2000). Development and implementation of a model for sustainable farming. Paper submitted at the Vienna ESEE 2000 Conference. ESEE, France. Tivy, J. (1990). Agricultural Ecology, Longman Group Ltd, United Kingdom. Thrupp, L.A. (1989). Farmer Participation in Technology Development: Work with Crop Varieties. Pp. 115-122. In Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research, Robert Chambers, Arnold Pacey, and Lori Ann Thrupp, eds. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Tucker, G.M. & M.F. Heath (1994). Birds in Europe: their conservation status. BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series no. 3). Cambridge, United Kingdom. Tucker, G.M. & M.F. Heath (eds) (1997). Habitats for Birds in Europe. A conservation strategy for the wider environment. BirdLife Conservation Series no. 6. Cambridge, United Kingdom. UN-Economic and Social Council (2000). Integrated planning and management of land resources. Report of the Secretary-General (E/CN.17/2000/6/Add.4). UNEP, 1995. Global Biodiversity Assessment. Nairobi. UNEP, 2000. Report of the fifth meeting of the Conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, UNEP/CBD/COP/5/23, Montreal. UNEP, CBD, SBSTTA (2000a). Agricultural Biodiversity: Assessment of Ongoing Activities and Priorities for a Programme of Work (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/5/10). Montreal. UNEP, CBD, SBSTTA (2000b). Development of Indicators of Biological Diversity. UNEP/CBD/ SBSTTA/5/12). Montreal. US Department of Agriculture (1996). A vision for rangeland research. Agricultural Research Service Program Aid: 1547. Wood-Gee,V. (1998). Farming and Watercourse Management Handbook, Worldwide Fund for Nature Scotland (WWF Scotland). Willer, H. & Yussefi, M. (2001). Organic agriculture worldwide – Statistics and Future Prospects. Foundation Ecology and Agriculture. Germany. Wilson, E. O. (1988). Biodiversity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

98

Wirthgen, B. and H. Kuhnert (1997). Direct marketing of livestock products in Germany. Part I: The direct marketing sector in Germany. In: J. Laker and J. Milne (Eds) Livestock systems in European rural development: First international conference on the LSIRD network held in Nafplio, Greece, 23rd - 25th January, 1997. Aberdeen, Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, pp. 35-36.

Internet references

Agra-Europe: http://www.agra-europe.com/

CBD: http://www.biodiv.org and http://www.biodiv.org/programmes/areas/agro/ 'Agricultural Biodiversity' 'FAO: Sustaining Agricultural Biodiversity and Agro- Ecosytem functions'. The CBD-ClearingHouse Mechansim: http://www.biodiv.org/chm/index.html

CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research: work on multiple functions http://www.ifpri.cgiar.org/divs/eptd/ws/eptws05.htm

EIONET: http://www.eionet.eu.int/

European Centre for Nature Conservation: http://www.ecnc.nl/doc/projects/elisa.html

European Community Clearing-House Mechanism: http://eea.eionet.eu.int/ec-chm/

European Commission DG Agriculture: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg06/envir/report/en/index.htm 'Agriculture, Environment, Rural Development: Facts and Figures – A Challenge for Agriculture'. http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/dg06/envir/report/en/n2000_en/report_en.htm Relationship between Natura 2000 and agriculture

European Commission, DG Environment: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/home.htm DG ENV Nature protection home page

European Fertilizer Manufacturers Association: http://www.efma.org

EFNCP: http://www.efncp.org/agenda2000.html 'Chapter 9: Rural development and nature conservation with special attention to LFAs'

EuroTech Management: EU Conference 'Organic Farming in the European Union – Perspectives for the 21st Century': http://www.eurotech.co.at/html/engl/intro.htm

IUCN-The World Conservation Union’s Sustainable Use Programme: http://www.iucn.org/themes/sui/activities.html

OECD: http://www.oecd.org

PEBLDS: http://www.strategyguide.org/

World Tourism Organization: http://www.world-tourism.org/index2.htm

World Trade Organization, Uruguay Agreement on Agriculture: http://www.wto.org/wto/minist1/07ag_e.htm

Worldwatch Institute: http://www.worldwatch.org

99

ANNEX 1: Linkages between agricultural management and biodiversity components for the case of dry grasslands

Annex 1 of CBD: biodiversity components

Ecosystems and habitats that contain/are ... Features Biodiversity-friendly agricultural

management practices High diversity Gallium verum, Cynosurus

cristatus, carex panicea, Avenula pubescens, Thymus praecox

Consider the farm as a complete unit. Collect information of hedges, dry stone walls, scrubs, etc

• Large number of endemic species

Carex depauperata, gentiana anglica, orchideae ssp., Lucanus cervus

Analyse species-specific requirements, for instance mowing time + height, fertiliser amount, food sources. Prevent irrigation.

• Large number of threatened species

60 – 80% of the selected species in 3 national Red Data Books; up to 30% are endangered, threatened by extinction or already extinct

Field Margins offer considerable potential to maintain features which are of importance to wildlife and landscape

• Required by migratory species

Marsh fritillary, lycaenid butterflies Maintain Hedges and Field Boundaries - hedges, fences, walls, ditches, grass strips or the edge of an adjacent wood, watercourse or other non-crop area.

• Of social, economic, cultural or scientific importance

The BIODEPTH research project showed that the loss of species diversity is detrimental to key ecosystem processes such as primary productivity, hence the (economic) output: plant species richness, location, and species composition explained approximately 18, 28, and 39% of variations in productivity change.

Maintain high species diversity by using less fertilisers, prevent overgrazing (via pasture rotation when grass is grazed to approximately half of its original length), prevent erosion by reseeding, prevent soil compaction by reducing livestock density.

Representative, unique or associated with key evolutionary or other biological processes

Linked mainly to mountanious landscapes

Agricultural management can be combined with tourism and leisure activities, which constitute an extra income.

Species and communities which are Features

• Threatened Pulsatilla vulgaris Low-intensity management required • Wild relatives of

domesticated or cultivated species

Wild-buckwheat Allowing strips alongside field boundaries for wildlife, considerations for steep slopes and awareness of important wildlife areas.

• Of medicinal, agricultural or other economic value

Diplotaxis tenuifolia, Diplotaxis muralis: much appreciated in cuisine, medicinal plant

Extra income via medicinal plants

• Of social, scientific or cultural importance

• Of importance for research into the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, such as indicator species

Pulsatilla vulgaris can be considered as a key indicator for the decline of sub-atlantic very dry calcareous grasslands in West- and Central - Europe

Described genomes and genes of social, scientific or economic importance

* Main source: 'Indicator: Grassland species under threat', report elaborated by D.M. Wascher, ECNC, for the EEA, November 2000

100

ANNEX 2: Overall objectives, approach and guiding principles of the programme of work on agricultural biodiversity 1 The overall aim of the programme of work is to promote the objectives of the Convention in the area of agricultural biodiversity, in line with relevant decisions of the Conference of Parties, notably decisions II/15, III/11 and IV/6. This programme of work will also contribute to the implementation of chapter 14 of Agenda 21 (Sustainable agriculture and rural development). The scope of agricultural biodiversity is described in the appendix hereto.

2 More specifically, the objectives, as spelt out in paragraph 1 of decision III/11 of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, are: a. To promote the positive effects and mitigate the negative impacts of agricultural systems and practices on biological diversity in agro-ecosystems and their interface with other ecosystems; b. To promote the conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources of actual and potential value for food and agriculture; c. To promote the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the use of genetic resources.

3 The proposed elements of the programme of work have been developed bearing in mind the need: (a) To support the development of national strategies, programmes and action plans concerning agricultural biodiversity, in line with decision III/11 of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, and to promote their integration in sectorial and cross-sectorial plans, programmes and policies; (b) To build upon existing international plans of action, programmes and strategies that have been agreed by countries, in particular, the Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, the Global Strategy for the Management of Farm Animal Genetic Resources, and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC); (c) To ensure harmony with the other relevant programmes of work under the Convention on Biological Diversity, including those relating to forest biological diversity, inland water biological diversity, marine and coastal biological diversity, and dry and sub-humid lands, as well as with cross-cutting issues such as access and benefit-sharing, sustainable use, indicators, alien species, the Global Taxonomy Initiative, and issues related to Article 8(j); (d) To promote synergy and co-ordination, and to avoid duplication, between relevant programmes of various international organizations and between programmes at the national and regional levels established under the auspices of international organizations, while respecting the mandates and existing programmes of work of each organization and the intergovernmental authority of the respective governing bodies, commissions and other fora.

4 In implementing the programme of work, the ecosystem approach adopted under the Convention on Biological Diversity will be applied. The application of this approach implies, inter alia, intersectorial cooperation, decentralization of management to the lowest level appropriate, equitable distribution of benefits, and the use of adaptive management policies that can deal with uncertainties and are modified in the light of experience and changing conditions. The implementation process will also build upon the knowledge, innovations and practices of local communities and thus complement Article 8(j) of the Convention. A multi-disciplinary approach that takes into account scientific, social and economic issues is required.

5 The proposed programme of work has been developed in the light of the basis for action annexed to decision III/11. Its implementation, particularly the implementation of programme element 1, will shed further light on the status and trends of agricultural biodiversity.

101

ANNEX 3: Activities under the CBD Programme of work on agricultural biodiversity Programme element 1. Assessments Operational objective

1.1 Support the ongoing or planned assessments of different components of agricultural biodiversity, elaborated in a country-driven manner through consultative processes.

1.2 Promote and develop specific assessments of additional components of agricultural biodiversity that provide ecological services.

1.3 Carry out an assessment of the knowledge, innovations and practices of farmers and indigenous and local communities in sustaining agricultural biodiversity and agro-ecosystem services.

1.4 Promote and develop assessments of the interactions between agricultural practices and the conservation and sustainable use of the components of biodiversity.

1.5 Develop methods and techniques for assessing and monitoring the status and trends of agricultural biodiversity and other components of biodiversity in agricultural ecosystems, including:

a. Criteria and guidelines for developing indicators to facilitate monitoring and assessment of the status and trends of biodiversity.

b. An agreed terminology and classification for agro-ecosystems and production systems to facilitate the comparison and synthesis of various assessments and monitoring of different components of biodiversity in agricultural ecosystems.

c. Data and information exchange on agricultural biodiversity in particular through the clearing-house mechanism under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

d. Methodology for analysis of the trends of agricultural biodiversity and its underlying causes, including socio-economic causes.

Programme element 2. Adaptive management

2.1. Carry out a series of case studies, in a range of environments and production systems, and in each region:

a. To identify key goods and services provided by agricultural biodiversity, needs for the conservation and sustainable use of components of this biological diversity in agricultural ecosystems, and threats to such diversity;

b. To identify best management practices; and

c. To monitor and assess the actual and potential impacts of existing and new agricultural technologies.

2.2. Identify and promote the dissemination of information on cost-effective practices and technologies, and related policy and incentive measures that enhance the positive and mitigate the negative impacts of agriculture on biological diversity, productivity and capacity to sustain livelihoods, through:

a. Comprehensive analyses in selected production systems of the costs and benefits of alternative management practices;

b. Comprehensive analyses of the impacts of agricultural production and identification of ways to mitigate negative and promote positive impacts;

c. Identification, at international and national levels of appropriate marketing and trade policies, legal and economic measures which may support beneficial practices.

2.3. Promote methods of sustainable agriculture that employ management practices, technologies and policies that promote the positive and mitigate the negative impacts of agriculture on biodiversity, with particular focus on the needs of farmers and indigenous and local communities.

102

Programme Element 3. Capacity Building

3.1. Promote enhanced capabilities to manage agricultural biodiversity by promoting partnerships among researchers, extension workers and farmers in research and development programmes for biological diversity conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in agriculture. To achieve this, countries should be encouraged to set up and maintain, inter alia, local-level forums for farmers, including indigenous farmers using traditional knowledge, researchers, extension workers and other stakeholders to evolve genuine partnerships, including training and education programmes.

3.2. Enhance the capacity of indigenous and local communities for the development of strategies and methodologies for in situ conservation, sustainable use and management of agricultural biological diversity, building on indigenous knowledge systems.

3.3. Provide opportunities for farmers and local communities and other stakeholder groups, to participate in the development and implementation of national strategies, plans and programmes for agricultural biodiversity, through decentralized policies and plans, and local government structures.

3.4. Identify and promote possible improvements in the policy environment, including benefit-sharing arrangements and incentive measures, to support local-level management of agricultural biodiversity.

3.5. Promote awareness about the value of agricultural biodiversity and the multiple goods and services provided by its different levels and functions, for sustainable productivity amongst producer organizations, agricultural co-operatives and enterprises, and consumers, with a view to promoting responsible practices

3.6. Promote networks of farmers and farmers' organizations at regional level for exchange of information and experiences.

Programme Element 4. Mainstreaming

4.1. Support the institutional framework and policy and planning mechanisms for the mainstreaming of agricultural biodiversity in agricultural strategies and action plans, and its integration into wider strategies and plans for biological diversity.

Support for relevant institutions in the conduct of assessments on the status and trends of agricultural biodiversity within the context of ongoing biodiversity and sectoral assessments;

b. Development of policy and planning guidelines, and training materials, and support for capacity-building initiatives at policy, technical and local levels in agricultural and environmental forums for the development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies, programmes and actions for the conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity; and

c. Improved consultation, coordination, and information-sharing within countries among respective focal points and lead institutions, relevant technical committees and coordinating bodies, to promote synergy in the implementation of agreed plans of action and between ongoing assessments and intergovernmental processes.

4.2. Support the development or adaptation of relevant systems of information, early warning and communication to enable effective assessment of the state of agricultural biodiversity and threats to it, in support of national strategies and action plans, and of appropriate response mechanisms.

4.3. Promote public awareness of the goods and services provided by agricultural biological diversity, and the value and importance of such diversity for agriculture.

4.4. Promote ongoing and planned activities for the conservation, on farm, in situ, and ex situ, in particular, in the countries of origin, of the variability of genetic resources for food and agriculture, including their wild relatives.

103

ANNEX 4: Participants list of the European Workshop 'Analysing the interaction between agricultural practices and the sustainable use of biodiversity - the role of stakeholders' (Brussels, 23 March 2001)

NAME (alphabetic order)

ORGANIZATION COUNTRY

Apostolatos, Gerasimos European Commission, DG Research Belgium

Baldock, David Institute for European Environmental Policy United Kingdom

Bettley-Smith, Robert Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group United Kingdom

Blum, Winfried University of Agricultural Sciences – Institute of Soil Research Austria

Born, Charles-Hubert Université Catholique de Louvain (UCL) Belgium

Botschek, Peter European Fertiliser Manufacturers' Association Belgium

Brouwer, Floor Agricultural Economics Research Institute Netherlands

Buguñá, Laura European Centre for Nature Conservation Netherlands

De Angelis, Antonio European Commission, DG AGRI Belgium

De Cleer, Kris Flemish Institute of Nature Conservation Belgium

De l’Escaille, Thierry European Landowners Organization Belgium

De Jong, Siemen Aventis Crop Science Netherlands

De Vliegher, Alex European Grassland Federation Belgium

Deschryver, Hans Flemish Ministry for Nature Conservation Belgium

Dijk, Gerard van United Nations Environment Programme Switzerland

Donald, Paul Royal Society for the Protection of Birds United Kingdom

Duarte, Manuel Portuguese Institute for Nature Conservation Portugal

Drucker, Graham European Centre for Nature Conservation Netherlands

Ericson, Jonas Ministry of the Environment Sweden

Felton, Mark English Nature United Kingdom

Galle, Walter Flemish Ministry for Nature Conservation Belgium

García Cidad, Visitación European Sustainable Use Specialist Group (ESUSG) of IUCN/SSC Belgium

García-Torres, Luis European Conservation Agriculture Federation Belgium

Guldemond, Adriaan Centre for Agriculture and Environment Netherlands

Hamell, Michael European Commission, DG ENV Belgium

Hepburn, Ian ADAS International United Kingdom

Kaarsemaker, Sjoerd DLV Advisory group Netherlands

Kleijn, David Wageningen University and Research Centre Netherlands

Knight, Richard Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group United Kingdom

Kuijken, Eckhart Institute of Nature Conservation Belgium

Lanszki, Imre Ministry of Environment Hungary

104

NAME (alphabetic order)

ORGANIZATION COUNTRY

Leake, Alastair CWS Focus on Farming United Kingdom

Legg, Wilfrid Organization for Economic Cooperation and Developement France

Lysaght, Liam The Heritage Council of Ireland Ireland

Maas Geesteranus, Chris Expertise Centre ANF Netherlands

Martens, Els Flemish Ministry for Nature Conservation Belgium

Martyniuk, Elzbieta Warsaw Agricultural University Poland

Meiresonne, Fien European Leisure and Recreation Association Netherlands

Mitchell, Karen English Nature United Kingdom

Nijssen, David University of Antwerpen Belgium

Petersen, Jan-Erik Institute for European Environmental Policy United Kingdom

Powell, John Ministry of Agriculture and Regional Development Hungary

Reijnders, Eddie Committee of the Regions Belgium

Sastre Olmos, Pablo Centre for Environmental Research of the Province of Madrid Spain

Sharp, Robin European Sustainable Use Specialist Group (ESUSG) of IUCN/SSC United Kingdom

Sibbald, Alan EAAP Livestock Farming System Working Group United Kingdom

Sienkiewicz, Jadwiga Institute of Environmental Protection Poland

Simoncini, Riccardo European Sustainable Use Specialist Group (ESUSG) of IUCN/SSC Italy

Swinkels, Lambik International Agricultural Centre Netherlands

Tack, Jurgen CONNECT Belgium

Turner, Simon ADAS International United Kingdom

Végh, Mihály ECNC/CEERU Hungary

Verwimp, Nico Flemish Ministry for Nature Conservation Belgium

Vieira, Luis Miguel IDRGA Portugal

Volanen, Risto COPA/COGECA Belgium

Witteveen, Susi Expertise Centre ANF Netherlands

Wolterink, Manon DLV Advisory Group Netherlands

105

ANNEX 5: Final Programme of the European Workshop: 'Analysing the interaction between agricultural practices and the sustainable use of biodiversity - the role of stakeholders' (Brussels, 23 March 2003) Introduction Chaired by E. Kuijken, Flemish Institute of Nature Conservation (INC) 10.00 h 10.05 h

Welcome, by Eckhart Kuijken, Director, INC Introduction and setting the scene, by Laura Buguñá, Senior Programme Co-ordinator ‘Economy and Ecology’, ECNC

10.10 h Factual introduction about the CBD and its agricultural biodiversity work programme, by Elzbieta Martyniuk, Chairperson of the working group of agricultural biodiversity, CBD

10.25 h Biodiversity and multifunctionality in European agriculture: priorities, current initiatives and possible new directions, by Gerard van Dijk, UNEP/ROE

10.40 h Economy, ecology and agriculture, by Risto Volanen, Secretary General, COPA-COGECA 10.50 h Fostering linkage between agriculture and biodiversity: the EU level and the national

implementation, by Jonas Ericson, Working Party on International Environment (Biodiversity), EU Council

11.05 h Agricultural intensification and the Collapse of Europe's Farmland Bird Populations, by Paul Donald, RSPB, United Kingdom

11.20 h Review of the role of commercial agriculture in delivering biodiversity, by Alastair Leake, CWS Agriculture

11.35 h Questions and remarks

12.00 h – 13.30h Lunch Break

Parallel sessions

Group A Group B

13.30 h – 16.00 h

The role of farmers and the business sector in sustaining agriculture and biodiversity

Biodiversity components and agriculture – defining priority actions for positive linkages

Agricultural rural development programmes in the context of EU enlargement: The SAPARD instrument, by John Powell, Advisor to Hungarian Ministry

Developing an integrated approach for farmers and local administrators, by R. Simoncini, the European Sustainable Use Specialist Group of IUCN/SSC

Case study from Bialowieza, by Jadwiga Sienkiewicz, IOS, Warsaw

Wet grasslands & biodiversity, by E. Kuijken, INC, Brussels

The role of retailers and food processors in supporting the multiple functions of agriculture, by Floor Brouwer, LEI

The case of cereal steppes in Central Spain, by Pablo S. Olmos, CIAM, Madrid

Discussion Moderator: Chris Maas Geesteranus, EC-ANF

Moderator: David Baldock, IEEP

Rapporteur: Jan-Erik Petersen, IEEP Rapporteur: Mihály Vegh, ECNC-CEERU

16.00 h Coffe break

16.30 h - 17.10 h Concluding Plenary Chaired by Mark Felton, English Nature

Recommendations from the 2 workshops, by the 2 Rapporteurs

Conclusions and Closing, by ECNC & Flemish Institute of Nature Conservation

106

ANNEX 6: Full papers and presentations of the European Workshop: 'Analysing the interaction between agricultural practices and the sustainable use of biodiversity - the role of stakeholders' (Brussels, 23 March 2003) This Annex documents all the presentations and speeches. In some cases, more extensive papers have been elaborated, they are included as well. The three case studies can be found under Chapter 5 of this publication. The authorship of the presentations fully lies with the presenters (this also explains the different style of the presentations). All presenters’ contact details can be found in the directory of stakeholders (see Annex 7).

Factual introduction about the CBD and its CBD agricultural biodiversity work programme

Dr Elzbieta Martyniuk, Chairperson of the working group of agricultural biodiversity, CBD

Convention on BiologicalDiversity

and its Work Programmeon Agricultural Biological Diversity

Elzbieta Martyniuk

107

CBD Conference of the Parties decisionson agrobiodiversity

II/15 – recognition of specific features of agro-biodiversity, which require specific solutionsIII/11– major set of decisions on agrobiodiversity and agricultural practices;IV/6 – additional decisions (GURTs) and welcome of the ITWG-AnGRV/5 – adoption of the Programme of Work on Agrobiodiversity

International Initiative on Polllinators Gene use restriction technologies

and V/6 – Principles of Ecosystem Approach

Appendix to decision V/5

THE SCOPE OF AGRICULTURALBIODIVERSITY

Identified dimensions of agricultural biodiversity:

a. Genetic resources for food and agriculture, including:

(i) Plant genetic resources, pasture and rangeland species, trees that are an integral part of farming systems;

(ii) Animal genetic resources, including fishery genetic resources, and insect genetic resources;

(iii) Microbial and fungal genetic resources

108

Appendix to decision V/5

THE SCOPE OF AGRICULTURALBIODIVERSITY

b. Components of agricultural biodiversity that provideecological services. These include inter alia:

(i) Nutrient cycling, decomposition of organicmatter and maintenance of soil fertility;

(ii) Pest and disease regulations;(iii) Pollinators;(iv) Maintenance and enhancement of local

wildlife and habitats in their landscape;(v) Maintenance of hydrological cycle;(vi) Erosion control;(vii) Climate regulation and carbon sequestration.

Appendix to decision V/5

THE SCOPE OF AGRICULTURALBIODIVERSITY

c. Abiotic factors, which have a determining effects on theseaspects of agricultural biodiversity;

d. Socio-economic and cultural dimensions, which include:

(i) Traditional and local knowledge of agricultural biodiversity, cultural factors

and participatory processes;(ii) Tourism associated with agricultural

landscapes;(iii) Other socio-economic factors.

109

5th Conference of the Partiesto the Convention on Biological Diversity

Nairobi, 15-26 May 2000

AGR ICULTURAL BIOLOGICA L D IVERSITY:

Review of Phase I of the Programme of Workand adoption of a Multi-Year Work Programme

I. PROGRAMME OF WORK(paragraphs 1-14)

(based on SBSTTA recommendations V/9)

5th Conference of the Parties, inter alia:

• Endorses programme of work on agricultural biologicaldiversity, contributing to the implementation of decision III/11;

• Urges Parties, Governments international and regionalorganizations, civil societies and other relevant bodies topromote and carry out the programme of work and topromote regional and thematic cooperation within thisframework;

• Recognizes the contribution of farmers, indigenous andlocal communities to the conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity andemphasizes the importance of their participation inthe implementation of the work programme;

110

5th Conference of the Parties, inter alia:

• Requests the ES to undertake the necessary steps for the full implementation of the programme of work;

• Request the ES to prepare a progress report for SBSTTA’s consideration prior to the 6th meeting of the COP, in form of:

(a) A timetable for implementation activities, including milestones;

(b) A schedule for reporting on further progress;

(c) Resource requirements; and

(d) Responsibilities of partners and collaborators.

5th Conference of the Parties, inter alia:

• Invites Parties, and bilateral and international funding agenciesto provide support for the implementation of activities… inparticular, for capacity building and case studies in developingcountries and countries in economy in transition;

• Invites Parties to support actions to raise public awareness;

• Recognizes the potential contribution that the revised IU onPGR , would have to assist in implementation of this programme;

• Urges the CGRFA to finalize its work on revision of the IU on PGR and affirms its willingness to consider a decision of the FAO Conference that the IU become

a legally binding instrument.

111

ANNE X

PROGRAMME OF WORK ONAGRICULTURAL BIODIVERSITY:

A. Overall objectives, approach and guiding principles

B. Proposed elements of a programme of work

For each programme element:

Operational objective,

Rationale,

Activities,

Ways and means,

Timing of expected outputs

Program m e ele m ent 1: A SS E S SE M E N T S

T o p rovide a com preh en sive analys is o f s tatu s and trend s ofworld’s agricu ltur al biodive rsi ty and their u nd erlyin g causes(in clud in g a focus on the goods an d services agr icul tu ralbi od ivers ity provide s) as w ell as local k nowl edge of itsm an ageme nt

Ac ti vi ties1 .1 Support t he on goin g or plann ed assessmen ts of

di ffe re nt c om ponents o f agricultu ral b iodivers ity1.2 Prom ote and develop speci fic assessm ents on

addi tional com ponents of a gric ul tural b iodi ve rs itythat p rovide ec ol ogic al serv ice s

1.3 Ca rry out assessme nts of the k now ledge, inn ovation s and practice s of fa rm ers andindi genous and local com m unit ies

112

Programm e element 1. ASSESSEMENTS

1.4 Promote and develop assessments of the in teractions between agricu ltural practices and the conservation and sustainable use of the components of biodiversity;

1.5 Develop methods and techniques for assessing and monitoring the status and trends of agricultural biodiversity andother components of biodivers ity in agricultural ecosystems,including:

(a) Criteria and guidelines for developing indicators

(b) An agreed terminology and cl assification for agro-ecosystems and production sys tems

(c) Data and information exchange(d) Methodology for analysi s of trends of

agricultural biodivers ity and its underlying causes, including socio-economic causes.

Programme element 1: ASSESSEM ENTS

Ways and means:Country-driven assessments of Genetic Resources of importancefor food and agriculture (including FAO programmes)

Timing and expected outputs:A menu of potential indicators of agricultural biodiversity and agreed terminology on production

environm ent, by 2002Reports on the state of the world’s genetic resourcesleading towards comprehensive assessment and unserdtanding of agricultural biodiversity, with focus

on goods and services it provides, by 2010

113

Program me elem ent 2. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

To identify management practices, technologies and policiesthat promote the positive and mitigate the negative impactsof agriculture on biodiversity, and enhance productivity andcapacity to sustain livelihoods, by expanding knowledge,understanding and awareness of the multiple goods andservices provided by the different levels and functions ofagricultural biod iversity.

Programm e element 2. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

Activities

2.1 Carry out a series of case-studies, in range of environments and production system s, and in each region:

(a) To identify key goods and services provided byagricultural biodiversity;

(b) To identify best management practices;

(c) To monitor and assess the actual and potentialimpacts of existing and new agricultural technologies.

114

Programm e element 2. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

2.2 Identify and promote the dissemination of information on cost-effective practices and technologies, and related policy and incentive measures through:

(a) C omprehensive analyses in selected production systems of the costs and benefits of alternative management practices

(b) C omprehensive analyses of the impacts of agricultural production, including their intensification and extensification , on the environment; (c) Identification, at i nternational and national levels, in close collaboration with relevant international organizations, of appropriate marketing an d trad e policies, l egal and economic m easures which may support beneficial practices

Programme element 2. ADAPTIVE MANAG EMENT

2.3 Promote methods of sustainab le agriculture that employ m anagement practices, technologies and policies thatpromote the positive and mitigate the negative impacts ofagriculture on biodiversity, with particular focus on needs offarmers and indigenous and local communities.

Ways and meansThirty selected case-studies , published and

disseminated by 2005.The case studies should be representative of regionalissues and prioritize best practices and lessons learned that can be broadly applied.

115

Programme element 3. CAPACITY-BUILDINGTo strengthen the capacities of farmers, ind igenous and localcommunities and their organizations and other stakeholders , tomanage sus tainably agricultural biodivers ity so as to increasetheir benefits, and to promote awareness and responsible action.

Activities

3.1 Promote enhanced capabilities to manage agricultural biodiversity by promoting partnershipam ong researchers , extens ion workers and farmers inresearch and development programmes;

3.2 Enhance the capacities of indigenous and local communities for the development of strategies

and methodologies for in-situ conservation, sustainable use and management of agricultural biological diversity;

Programm e element 3. CAPACITY-BUILDING

3.3 Provide opportunities for farmers and local com munities, and other stakeholder group to participate in the develop- ment and implem entation of national strategies, plans and programmes for agricultural biodiversity;

3.4 Identify and promote possib le improvements in the policy environm ent, including benefit sharing arrangements and incentive measures;

3.5 Promote awareness about the value of agricultural biodiversity and m ultiple goods and services provided by its different levels;

3.6 Promote networks of farmers and farmers’ organizations at regional level.

116

Programm e element 3. CAPACITY-BUILDING

Timing and expected outputs

Progressive es tablishment of local level forums and regional networks, with a coverage target of at leas t

1.000 comm unities by 2010

Examples at country level of operational mechanismsfor participation by a wide range of stakeholder groups,

including civil society organizations, by 2002

Involvement of farmers and local communities in the

majority of national programmes by 2010

Programme element 4. M AINSTREAM ING

To support the development of national p lans or strategies forthe conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biod iversityand to promote their mainstreaming and integration in sectoraland cross-sectoral plans and programmes.

Activities

4.1 Support the institutional framework and policy and planning m echanisms for the mains treaming of agricultural biodiversity in agricultural s trategies and action plans, and its integration into w ider strategies and plans for biological diversity,

117

Programm e element 4. MAINSTREAMING

4.2 Support the development or adaptation of relevant systems of in formation, early warning and communication .

4.3 Promote public awareness of the goods and services provided by agricu ltural b iological diversity , and the value and im portance of such diversity for agriculture and for society in general.

4.4 Promote ongoing and p lanned activities for the conservation , on farm, in -situ , and ex-situ, in particular, in the countries in origin, of the variability of genetic resources for food and agriculture, including their wild relatives .

Programme element 4. M AINSTREAM ING

Timing and expected outcomes

• Progressively increased capacity at national level for information management, assessm ent and com munication. Over 100 countries to participate in various assessments

under activities 1.1 and 1.2 by 2005

• Coordination between sectoral assessments and plans of action

at national level in the majority of countries by 2005

• Range of guidelines published at international level (on topics to be determ ined according to needs at national and regional levels).

118

Ma in str ea mi n g

Assessm ents

Ad aptiveManag em en t

Cap ac ityBu i lding

1

2

3

4

CASES & ANALY S IS

CASESDE MO NS TRA TI ON

E NAB LINGE NVI RONM E NT

INFORM AT ION

LE S S ONSLE A RNED

Mu tually re in forc in g pro g ram m e elem ents

Second CBD Liaison Groupon Agricultural Biodiversity

FAO headquarters Rome, 24-26 January 2000

Representatives of: CBD Secretariat FAO IPGRI (also on behalf of CGIAR) GEF Secretariat ILRI UNDP(GEF) CABI UNEP TSBF World Bank IUCN UNU/PLEC programme

Resource persons:CAMBIA, OECD

from organizations involved with farmers, ind igenous and local communities.

119

The Liaison Group agreed that:

In soliciting additional case studies priority should be givento those that address :

* Various aspects of landscapes * Involvement of the Private sector * Functionality of b iodiversity in agro-ecosystems and integration between the various dimensions of agricu ltural b iodiversity, (for example between

crops and crop-associated diversity) * Ecosystems under change (for example, through I intensification)

* Restoring degraded ecosystems .

The Liaiso n G roup ag reed tha t:

P riority sho uld no w be g iv en to synthesising and a naly zingcases in order to elucidate lessons learnt fo r policy a ndcapac ity building.

M ore empha sis needs to be g iven to pro mot ing local capa citybuilding as in pro gra mm e e lement 3, using successfulexam ples such as the f arm er field scho ols used for IP M .

120

Activities prior to SBSTTA-7 in November 2001

(a) Preparation of short papers on the following topics , eachproviding a synthesis of, and lessons learned from case studies,leading to recommendations for capacity bu ild ing and policy:

•Pollinators , (participants in the International Pollinators Initiative)•Below ground biodiversity (TSBF, FAO, others)•Crop pests and natural enemies (Crop Associated Biodiversit y) (ICIPE& CABI)•On farm management of crop genetic diversity (IPGRI in consultationwith others)•Animal genetic resources (FAO and ILRI)•Diversity in agricultural landscapes (UNU/P LEC)•Relationship between agriculture and wild biodiversity (IUCN)•Management of agricultural biodiversity in Biosphere reserves(UNES CO-MAB )

Activities prior to SBSTTA-7 in November 2001

(b) A study of technologies that may be developed and applied asindicators or measures of biodiversity in agricultu ral ecosystems(starting with below ground biodiversity) (CAMBIA and ILRI)

(c) A progress report on the country-led d evelop ment of the Report on the State of the W orld’s Animal genetic resources (FAO)

(d) A Con ceptual framework on agricultural ecosystemmanagement. (FAO in consu ltation with the Liaison Group ),indicatin g: complexity and interdependency; m ultip le spatial andtemporal scales; human uses; terminology; and challenges.

(e) A pre-S BSTT A-7 Symp osiu m: “Man aging Diversity in Agricultural Ecosystems” , M ontreal, 8 –10 Nov, 2001. (UNU/PLEC and IPGRI with SCBD and others).

121

Activities prior to SBSTTA-7 in November 2001

Work by OECD and FAO on indicators and the categorisationof production environments:

(a) M embers of the Liaison Group would be invited to participate inthe OECD process on developing en vironmental indicators foragriculture, in particular the plan ned E xp ert Meeting on ind icatorsfor biod iversity and wildlife habitats in late 2001.

(b) Funding permitting, a technical workshop on indicators wou ld beorgan ised by FAO during 2001 to develop furth er the matter in linewith the program me of work.

(c) Existing approaches to the categorisation of produ ctionenvironments wou ld b e collated by FAO/AGLS and made availableto Liaison Grou p m embers.

Activities prior to SBSTTA-7 in November 2001

Paper on Impacts of Trade Liberalization on AgriculturalBiodiversity (See COP decision IV/6 para. 10)

Development of study on G URTs in consultation with variousstakeholders through:

• Letter to representatives of indigenous and local communities toCB D 8j (Feb 01)

• Side-event at SB STTA-6 March 01• The ITWG/PGR (June 01) and the C GRFA (Sep 01)• UNEP (sub-)regional workshops on biosafety (June 01– March 02)• Side-event at SB STTA-7 (Nov 01)• CB D WG on 8j+ (Feb 02)

122

Activities prior to SBSTTA-7 in November 2001

Other matters that required further attention in future:• W ider unders tanding of functionality of biodivers ity in agro-

ecosystems;

• Identification of issues related to agricultural biodiversity that are likely to arise in future scenarios , such as under further intensification, under minimum tillage systems, under GMO based crops ;

• The role of Certification R egimes (for organic agriculture, conservation agriculture etc) in promoting the sustainability of

agricultural biodiversi ty: opportunities, limitations and challenges.

• The need for understanding of terminology used with respect bothfor differing needs by different stakeholders and for necessary rigour

• Education, and marketing

THANK YOU

123

Biodiversity and multifunctionality in European agriculture: priorities, current initiatives and possible new directions

Gerard van Dijk, UNEP/ROE, Geneva

The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect UNEP's official policy.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

0. Executive Summary

I. Introduction and issues on the ground I.1. Introduction and brief overview of the process of integration of biodiversity into agricultural policies.

I.1.1. Introduction and contents of this paper I.1.2. Intergovernmental processes and organizations relevant to the theme of this paper I.1.3. The role of NGOs I.1.4. The use of the concepts ‘environment’ and ‘biodiversity’ I.1.5. Acknowledgements

I.2. Biodiversity at stake on European farmland I.2.1. Values and issues on the ground I.2.2. General priority setting regarding biodiversity on farmland I.2.3. ‘Agro-biodiversity’ under the Convention of Biological Diversity I.2.4. Components of biodiversity on farmland: priority targets and indicators

I.3. Strategies for the conservation of biodiversity on farmland: integration and segregation I.3.1. Integration and segregation: general aspects I.3.2. Integration and segregation of nature and agriculture: different potentials I.3.3. The problem of abandoned land

II. Current initiatives related to the integration of biodiversity into agricultural policies II.1. Agri-environmental programmes: bottom-up integration of environment in agriculture

II.1.1. Twenty-five years of agri-environmental programmes II.1.2. Coverage of agri-environmental programmes by environmental policies

II.2. The emergence of the concepts of ‘integration of environment in agricultural policies’, ‘rural development’ and ‘multifunctionality of agriculture’ in the EU in the 1990s.

II.3. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS) and the Community Biodiversity Strategy

II.3.1. The Convention on Biological Diversity II.3.2. The ‘Environment for Europe’ process and PEBLDS II.3.3. The EU Community Biodiversity Strategy

II.4. The integration of environment (including biodiversity) into the Common Agricultural Policy. II.5. The integration of biodiversity in the agricultural section of the EU enlargement process III. The development of the concepts of ‘environmental benefits of agriculture’ and ‘multifunctionality of agriculture’ in global frameworks III.1. The concept of ‘environmental benefits of agriculture’ in the OECD III.2. Preparations for WTO negotiations: some general aspects III.3. The Ullensvang conference on multifunctionality of agriculture and EU

comprehensive proposal III.4 ‘Cultivating our Future’, the FAO/Netherlands Conference on the Multifunctional

Character of Agriculture and Land, Maastricht, the Netherlands, 12–17 September 1999

124

Executive Summary This paper analyses the genesis of the concept of multifunctionality in agriculture in relation to the integration of environmental concerns into agricultural policies, which has a much longer history. It shows that this integration started as a bottom-up process, especially with the introduction of national agri-environmental programmes. These were later covered by corresponding EU policies, which themselves are now being covered by global policies, especially by the Convention on Biological Diversity. Now that these higher frameworks are well established, they are becoming catalysts for ‘work on the ground’.

The development of the concept of ‘multifunctionality of agriculture’ (a concept that has been used in forestry for decades), is due to:

1 The growing attention given to environmental issues within agriculture;

2 Increasing recognition of ‘environmental benefits of agriculture’ as public goods;

3 Increasing attention for marginal areas and the need for rural development;

4 Continuous pressures for ongoing CAP reform (especially in relation to the new WTO- round).

The concept of multifunctionalty of agriculture includes more than biodiversity alone. However, biodiversity can be considered a core element in the multifunctionality of agriculture in Europe, the areas richest in biodiversity being ‘core areas of multifunctionality’. These latter areas probably cover somewhere between 20% and 25% of the farmland of western and central Europe, although the wider countryside still supports lower levels of biodiversity as well as valuable landscapes. The biodiversity-rich areas are remnants of a much larger area of mainly semi-natural habitats. These latter can be considered as substitutes for natural open habitats, which have almost disappeared. If the remaining strongholds of biodiversity continue to shrink, the concept of multifunctionality of agriculture will lose much of its value and credibility. This makes it highly urgent to analyse how these farmland areas of high biodiversity can be conserved.

We now list a number of actions that can contribute to the conservation of the remaining ‘biodiversity-rich areas’ of farmland, although a number of ‘horizontal’ measures to sustain lower levels of biodiversity in the wider countryside are also necessary, such as environmental legislation (nitrates, pesticides), spatial planning, promotion of sustainable (including organic) agriculture, etc.

Priority actions are:

1 .Governments should identify priority areas for biodiversity conservation on farmland as soon as possible where this has not yet been done yet (I.2.4). Priority for farmland biodiversity should be given to semi-natural grasslands, areas important for breeding and/or migratory birds, areas rich in landscape features and some southern European habitats, such as dehesas (I.2.4).

2 Integration (management by farmers) and segregation (management without farmers) of agriculture and nature are mutually complementary approaches to the management of biodiversity-rich areas. However, the integration approach, in particular through agri-environmental programmes, can yield the quickest results over large areas and therefore merits the highest priority (I.3.2).

3 There is an urgent need to bring all biodiversity-rich areas (20–25% of all farmland in western and central Europe) within agri-environmental programmes. Currently 20% of the EU’s farmland is under agri-environmental agreements, but these areas only partly coincide with the biodiversity-rich areas.

4 The economic survival of agriculture as such is a prerequisite in areas where agricultural management is essential from a biodiversity point of view. Agri-environmental programmes are not sufficient, although they may contribute, especially in marginal areas. The survival of agriculture depends on a complex of revenues from the market and different support measures. In the EU candidate countries this is even more urgent (see also 9).

5 The segregation approach – setting up grazing units managed by stakeholders others than farmers – may be a good alternative on semi-natural land already abandoned by

125

agriculture (I.3.3). Both rural development funds (for which also non-farmers should be eligible) and environmental funds should contribute to such measures. Such actions are very urgent as developments in many areas will become irreversible if no action is undertaken. Presently, the situation seems to be most serious in the EU candidate countries.

6 In addition, segregation may be necessary in regions where agriculture is too intensive for the reintroduction of traditional farming practices or where habitat restoration is desired (this is already practised in Denmark, parts of Germany and the Netherlands).

7 The attention currently given to the multifunctionality of agriculture in WTO talks (II.4, III.2,3), and to its biodiversity component in particular, is welcome. This may lead to the continuation of biodiversity management measures. However, it should also lead to better implementation of such measures by countries. Further work on the nature of the ‘Green Box’ measures is needed. This should recognize that agri-environmental programmes are not the only measures important for biodiversity, but that other measures also contribute to the survival of farming in areas where farming is essential to biodiversity.

8 A further greening of the EU Common Agricultural Policy is welcome. In relation to the above-mentioned WTO talks, a gradual evolution of agricultural support to a system of payments for public goods seems possible (II.4). However, optimal use of existing instruments could also improve the situation. In case of a strengthening of the total package of rural development measures, enhanced strategic environmental assessment and environmental impact assessment are very important, in order to avoid negative impact on biodiversity and landscape.

9 In the agricultural section of the EU-enlargement process (II.5) due attention should be paid to biodiversity, in line with the recent Community Action Plan for Biodiversity in Agriculture. Both the conservation of the general environmental quality (also relevant for rivers, wetlands etc.) and the conservation of biodiversity-rich farmland areas present a challenge. For the latter, there is an urgent need for good agri-environmental programmes and economic provisions to ensure the survival of farming. Such provisions could include well-designed livestock policies and Less Favoured Area support for the candidate countries in the framework of the EU enlargement process. In addition, the speed at which their markets are opened up within the EU merits attention, as many farms in CEE may not be able to face full competition from the EU immediately. Transition periods may be appropriate.

10 In candidate countries that need more time for EU accession than the ‘first wave countries’, the pilot agri-environmental projects now possible under SAPARD should be followed up soon with substantially larger programmes, in order to stop biodiversity decline.

11 Now that there is a fairly clear view of the priority measures needed in the existing and future EU countries, it is also necessary to get a similar picture for other European countries, including the NIS.

Finally, two recommendations relating to the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD):

1 It should be considered whether the ‘sustainable use principle’ of the CBD could provide ‘environmental backing’ for agri-environmental programmes. As member states are reluctant to designate farmland under the Natura 2000 network, many areas important to biodiversity are not covered by the Birds and Habitats Directives. The wider ‘sustainable use’ concept could perhaps fill the gap. In a similar way, the ‘wise use of wetlands’ approach in the Ramsar Convention also applies to non-listed areas (II.1.3).

2 In the framework of the implementation of the CBD more attention should be given to ‘wildlife and habitats’ as a component of ‘agro-biodiversity’. It is desirable to raise the profile of this component and pay corresponding attention to it (II.3.1). This would be relevant for the whole Pan-European region.

126

1. Introduction and issues on the ground

I.1. Introduction and brief overview of the process of integration of biodiversity into agricultural policies

I.1.1. Introduction and contents of this paper

This paper presents an overview of the gradually increasing integration of environmental considerations into agricultural policies and the emergence of the concept of ‘multifunctionality of agriculture’ in the 1990s. In section I some basic questions, such as the biodiversity at stake on farmland and general conservation strategies, are dealt with. Section II addresses various policy developments, mainly in the EU, but also on a global level, and the implementation of these global policies in Europe. Both (agri-) environmental policies and the integration of biodiversity in agricultural policies are discussed.

For many years the integration process was characterized by a focus on mitigating the negative impact of agriculture on the environment (including biodiversity). During the 1990s more and more attention was given to positive impact of agriculture on the environment and the factors that might endanger this positive impact. During the last few years the positive impacts of agriculture on the environment, in particular biodiversity, led, together with other ‘benefits’ of agriculture, to an increasing use of the concept of ‘multifunctionality of agriculture’, alongside concepts such as ‘rural development’ and the ‘European model of agriculture’. This development in the EU is briefly described in section II.2 and is dealt with in a global context in section III.

Multifunctionality of agriculture means that agriculture produces more than food alone. The opinion of the proponents of this concept, which include the European Union and countries such as Norway and Switzerland, is that governments must be able to pay farmers for such ‘public goods’. There are several of such public goods (see section III) but in this paper we will focus on the role of (multifunctionality of) agriculture for biodiversity.

The paper concludes that the credibility of the concept of multifunctionality of agriculture depends on the measures taken to conserve biodiversity, one of the main pillars of the concept. On the basis of that statement, a number of recommendations on improving the conservation of biodiversity were identified. These recommendations are mentioned by subject throughout the text and summarized in the Abstract.

Today there is a hierarchy of biodiversity-related policies which has not always existed: the Convention of Biological Diversity at the global level, EU policies at the regional level (as far as applicable) and the implementation of EU policies and national policies at the national level. Instead of policy development ‘down the ladder’, there were also bottom-up developments, as in the case of the agri-environmental programmes. For ‘pioneers’ like the Netherlands and the UK this was a bottom-up process: their policy initiatives were later covered by EU policies. For other countries, the introduction of such programmes was, however, the (obligatory) implementation of EU policies.

The same can be said of the integration of the environment (including biodiversity) into EU policies. Although the CBD was signed in 1992, it was not until 1998 that the Community Biodiversity Strategy contained a detailed policy of integrating biodiversity into sectoral EU policies. In March 2001 this was worked out in more detail in four biodiversity action plans. Now, indeed, we can assume that the CBD is a stimulus for such integration, but it has not always been like that.

For these and other reasons, this paper cannot always follow a logical hierarchy of policy development.

I.1.2. Intergovernmental policy processes and organizations relevant to the theme of this paper

The strongest policies for biodiversity and agriculture have been developed within the European Union. Although the EU only comprises 15 countries, through the enlargement process it now has a growing impact on roughly half (28) of all European countries. Key sectoral policies are the Birds and Habitats Directives and the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive on the biodiversity side, and the Common Agricultural Policy (including a range of regulations) on the agricultural side. The integration of biodiversity

127

considerations into other policies, however, is not limited to areas under the Birds and Habitats Directives (‘Natura 2000’). The integration process is driven by the Treaty (formerly Article 130r, now Article 6), the successive Environment Action Plans, the Community Biodiversity Strategy and four related Action Plans and the ‘Cardiff process’ on the integration of environment into sectoral policies.

On the pan-European level the ‘Environment for Europe’ process, led by the UN’s Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE) and the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS) have had a catalytic effect, although the real impact is difficult to assess. Currently, the PEBLDS secretariat is provided jointly by the Council of Europe and the Regional Office of UNEP in Europe (UNEP-ROE).

The Council of Europe has been active in the field of nature conservation (biodiversité avant la lettre) for decades and has included the relationship between agriculture and nature in that work. It has been active in the field of awareness-raising for a long time, both through publications (Naturopa), conferences and by relevant policy instruments, for example the Bern Convention and the European Landscape Convention.

UNEP-ROE helps to implement UNEP’s programme in Europe. Assistance in the implementation of the CBD is one aspect of that. Activities in the field of agriculture and biodiversity can be seen as part of the implementation of both the CBD and PEBLDS. Although UNEP-ROE has a broad environmental mission, it has become more and more active in the field of biodiversity over the years. In cooperation with IUCN, ECNC and REC it manages a Biodiversity Service to assist CEECs in implementing the CBD. UNEP-ROE also collaborates closely with the Council of Europe and France in the preparation of a Pan-European Conference on Agriculture and Biodiversity, planned for 2002.

Since the mid-1990s the OECD’s Joint Working Party on Agriculture & Environment (JWP) has also contributed significantly to biodiversity conservation as part of its environmental work, which also involves a range of non-European countries. This Joint Working Party of the agriculture and environment directorates has organized and carried out innovative seminars and studies to stimulate the integration of environmental concerns in agricultural policies. This has had a strong impact on EU policy development (see also section III.1).

I.1.3 The role of environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs)

The integration of environment into sectoral policies has been the subject of debate for more than ten years, and, as said before, the European Union plays an important role in this policy development, though in the beginning not always in a positive way. The greening of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and of the Structural Funds in the early 1990s can partly be ascribed to criticism from NGOs on the use of community funds at the expense of biodiversity, as in the case of drainage schemes and integrated Mediterranean programmes. During the 1990s, however, EU policies such as the Habitats Directive and the obligatory implementation of agri-environmental programmes clearly acted as a stimulus for work at the national level.

Although policy development is a complex process of considerations and debate within and among the Commission, member states and the European Parliament, NGOs have been, and are, important catalysts in this process.

During the eighties and early nineties much work was done by the Institute for European Environmental Policies (IEEP), BirdLife International and in particular its UK partner the RSPB, WWF-EPO in Brussels and the European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism. These organizations were involved in studies, conferences and policy initiatives, sometimes sponsored by one or more member states.

During the 1990s the European Centre for Nature Conservation (ECNC) also became active in this field. The European Programme of IUCN, formerly focusing on Central and Eastern Europe, which always payed attention to agriculture, is now active across Europe.

I.1.4 The use of the concepts ‘environment’ and ‘biodiversity’

In the environmental debate NGOs often focus on biodiversity, and in practice on nature conservation issues. In intergovernmental processes, however, such as ‘Environment for Europe’, and in EU policy development, such as reforms of the CAP and the Structural

128

Funds, successive Environment Action Programmes and the ‘Cardiff process’ (on the integration of environment in sectoral policies) a broad environmental approach was usually taken. Biodiversity was taken on board as part of ‘environment’.

A more recent development is the ‘pure’ biodiversity approach, as a consequence of the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Europe. This has resulted in a Community Biodiversity Strategy (1998) and four Action Plans by sectors (2001). However, it can be argued that Article 6 of the Habitats Directive (1992) contained similar provisions much earlier. In the sixth Environment Action Programme (2001) biodiversity is seen as one of the four priority areas within this broad environmental programme.

I.1.5 Acknowledgements

Useful comments on early drafts of this paper were received from Ms Rebecca Parzer of the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries, Ms Laura Buguñá and Mr Rob Wolters of the European Centre for Nature Conservation, Mr S. Nagy of BirdLife International and Mr Frits Schlingemann, director of UNEP-ROE.

I.2. Biodiversity at stake on European farmland

I.2.1. Nature values and conservation issues on the ground

This section examines nature values, or the ‘nature of biodiversity’ on farmland and a possible subdivision and priority setting. Conservation issues are simplified to ‘intensification’ and ‘abandonment’, an approach increasingly found in the literature, including EU documents. Most agricultural developments that are negative to biodiversity can be summarized under ‘intensification’, although the concept can be broken down into a range of factors such as (increasing) fertilizer use, drainage, early mowing, over-grazing, ploughing and reseeding of grassland, etc. Land abandonment is often negative in areas where agricultural management is essential to biodiversity.

I.2.2. General priority setting regarding biodiversity on farmland.

The concept of biodiversity encompasses more than wild flora and fauna. However, in this paper we focus on these, in line with the traditional concept of nature conservation. Further on in this paper we will see that perhaps 20–25% of the farmland in western and central Europe can still be considered of special importance to biodiversity. The future of biodiversity on Europe’s farmland depends most of all on the implementation of effective policies in these priority areas. Such areas are also referred to as ‘High Nature Value areas’ (Baldock and Beaufoy, 1993), a terminology which is also used in the EU Rural Development Regulation 1257/99. Most of these areas are grasslands, either semi-natural grasslands under low-input livestock farming, or, partly, more intensively used grasslands, which are important for birds. However, some other categories exist, especially in southern Europe.

This does not mean that biodiversity conservation is no issue at all on the remaining 75–80% of the land. Here some basic level of biodiversity protection can be important to dispersed and wide-ranging species, but also to agriculture itself, as in the case of pollinators and predators, and to the public using the countryside for outdoor recreation. In addition, environmental quality policies in these areas are important for adjacent nature and forest areas (especially in buffer zones) and for the quality of groundwater, brooks, rivers, wetlands and coastal and marine environments. Instruments that can be used for such ‘wider countryside policies’ include environmental legislation, spatial planning, cross-compliance, promotion of sustainable agriculture and horizontal agri-environmental programmes.

I.2.3. ‘Agricultural biodiversity’ under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Under the Convention of Biological Diversity wild flora and fauna on farmland has a (potential) relationship with the themes ‘agricultural biodiversity’, often referred to as ‘agro-biodiversity’, ‘dry and sub-humid lands’, ‘sustainable use’ and ‘mountains’. In the CBD’s ‘Multi-year work programme on agricultural biodiversity’ (Decision V/5, adopted in 2000) ‘nature conservation’ is covered by the ‘dimension’ ‘ecological services’ and in particular by the sub-dimension ‘Maintenance and enhancement of local wildlife and habitats in their landscape’. This is only one of seven sub-dimensions of the four main dimensions of

129

agricultural biodiversity described in the Appendix of Decision V/5. The word ‘local’ in this sub-dimension may be misleading because much of this ‘wildlife and habitats’ must be regarded as being of international importance (see also section II.3.).

In Europe ‘wildlife and habitats’ have a far more prominent place in practice. In the national reporting to the CBD some countries even emphasize this component of agro-biodiversity. In a paper drawn up by IUCN and the Dutch government for the Riga conference of European CBD parties (March 2000) three main pillars of agro-biodiversity were identified:

(1) Wild flora & fauna;

(2) Genetic resources of cultivated plants and domestic animals;

(3) ‘Life support functions’ (pollinators, soil organisms etc.).

A similar subdivision is used in the Community Action plan for biodiversity in agriculture (March 2001).

Because of the focus of this paper, the term ‘biodiversity’ will here be used in the sense of ‘wildlife and habitats’.

I.2.4. Components of biodiversity on farmland: priority targets and indicators

The three concepts, ‘components’, ‘targets’ and ‘indicators’, each have a different scope. Components are broadest, targets are selected from components and indicators represent features whose state is indicative for a range of species and/or habitats. However, in practice they sometimes coincide, as in the case of semi-natural grasslands or certain bird populations. The OECD plays a leading role in the development of agri-environmental indicators. Among the main indicators developed so far, three are relevant for ‘biodiversity’ in the sense of ‘wild flora and fauna’: ‘biodiversity’, ‘habitats’ and ‘landscapes’. Although under ‘biodiversity’ no choice has yet been made regarding species or assemblies of species (e.g. biodiversity index), the indicator ‘semi-natural habitats’ under ‘habitats’ can be directly applied. It can be used to quantify the area of semi-natural grasslands, for example, a key farmland habitat for biodiversity.

This paper, as in the author’s previous paper (Van Dijk, 1995), proposes a practical subdivision of farmland areas important for biodiversity, comprising semi-natural grasslands, bird areas and areas rich in natural features. These categories are seen here as priority targets for conservation policies. In addition, their status and distribution can serve as indicators for biodiversity on farmland, although the monitoring of their quality requires selection of additional indicator species. This can often best be done on a national or sub-national level, taking account of international data when setting priorities.

Semi-natural grasslands are of extreme importance to many species of wild flora and fauna, including invertebrate fauna dependent on specific vegetations. However, some other species use more intensively managed farmland or combinations of this with other habitats. Examples include breeding and wintering water birds in the Netherlands, Belgium and northern Germany, and species (e.g. badgers, certain birds) of hedgerow landscapes in France, UK and Ireland. The overview below also includes the Spanish dehesas and Portuguese montados. This is a unique Iberian habitat, with a combination of a tree layer and rotational arable and livestock farming.

Against the above background, the simplest overview of areas in Europe rich in biodiversity could be as follows (see Table 1).

Table 1: Overview of areas in Europe rich in biodiversity

1. Semi-natural habitats (grasslands)

2. Specific bird areas 2.1. areas important for breeding birds

2.1.1. breeding areas for steppe birds

2.1.2. breeding areas for water birds (‘meadow birds’)

2.2. areas important for migratory water birds

130

3. Areas rich in natural features (bocage, hedgerows, ditches etc)

4. Dehesas, montados In a recent paper (Brouwer et al., 2001) Veen made an estimate of the share of semi-natural grasslands in the 10 EU candidate countries. The average was 12%, with an exceptional 50% in Slovenia. In the lowlands around the North Sea it is probably less than 3%, while large parts of France, mountain areas and southern Europe still contain a high proportion (Van Dijk, 1991). In southern Europe there are some additional categories of ‘High Nature Value areas’ such as dehesas, garrigue, etc. Exact figures cannot be given, although Van Dijk (1991) and Baldock and Beaufoy (1993) give some estimates. OECD has recently produced interesting figures on semi-natural habitats as well (OECD, 2001).

An impressive amount of information is available on ‘Important Bird Areas’ (Heath and Evans, 2000). However, in Table 1 the ‘official’ term ‘IBA’ was not used, for the following reasons. IBAs are certainly a very important contribution to Natura 2000 designations and, mutatis mutandis, the Emerald Green Network. For agri-environmental programmes, however, many more bird areas are likely to qualify in some countries. Instruments such as agri-environmental programmes and Less Favoured Area payments can be effective instruments for birds over a larger area. This is the case in many farmland areas important for breeding birds (e.g. Limosa limosa) in the Netherlands, few of which were classified as IBAs. In certain CEECs the situation seems to be comparable. It may, therefore, be good to develop a wider countryside approach for birds in addition to the solid IBA approach. Finally, areas rich in hedgerows and small woods (bocage) are concentrated in Ireland, the UK and France, although smaller concentrations can be found elsewhere.

No complete overview of the area covered by these types of priority areas exists, nor of their location. The identification of these areas is a prerequisite for effective policies and, therefore, an urgent issue. Mapping of semi-natural grasslands is currently underway in several CEE countries, while in some EU countries (e.g. Sweden, several German Bundesländer) good information already exists.

Although no precise figures exist, in this paper we assume that the above categories of particular importance to biodiversity together cover 20–25% of the farmland in western and central Europe. Buffer zones around nature and forest areas are not included and will account for some additional area.

No comprehensive information for the NIS is known to the author.

I.3. Strategies for the conservation of biodiversity on farmland: integration and segregation

I.3.1. Integration and segregation: general aspects

‘Integration’ means the integration of biodiversity or nature management in agriculture; in other words, management of biodiversity by farmers. ‘Segregation’ means management without farmers, whether on land withdrawn from agriculture or on land already abandoned by agriculture. In this paper the focus is on the ‘integration’ option, but some attention will be given to the ‘segregation’ option as well.

The integration option often requires regulatory measures as well as incentive measures. The integration of environment in EU policies is dealt with in sections I.1.2 and II.2. The integration of the environment in agricultural policies requires a range of provisions, including taking account of the environment in agricultural policy development as such, environmental conditionality (‘cross-compliance’) on agricultural support, and incentive schemes (agri-environmental programmes). In addition, environmental policies, such as the Nitrates Directive, the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive, also have impact on the environmental performance of agriculture, although often limited to certain zones.

I.3.2. Integration and segregation of nature and agriculture: different potentials

In some countries – especially the Netherlands, but to a lesser extent also in the UK, certain German Länder, France (Conservatoire du littoral), Belgium and Hungary– another

131

approach is important: the ‘segregation’ of nature and agriculture. This involves land acquisition and the creation of special management units, usually protected areas. Segregation is an important option where agriculture is too intensive to deliver the desired management (usually traditional farming practices) or where nature restoration is an important objective, as in Denmark and the Netherlands. In addition, it could be a valuable approach at the other end of the spectrum, where land is being abandoned. Segregation gives optimal possibilities and continuity, if the right management can be guaranteed, but it requires much time and resources, while agri-environmental programmes can be established in a few years. Segregation does not exclude the integration approach, but complements it for the more demanding habitats and/or species. Integration by means of agri-environmental programmes, however, can be made operational over large areas much more quickly and therefore has a high priority in efforts to stop the decline of biodiversity.

Segregation again can be divided into:

• Nature management with semi-natural communities as a target;

• Nature management or restoration with a maximal degree of naturalness (which does not exclude, but often requires extensive grazing).

Recent studies suggest that the natural vegetation climax of western and central Europe may not have been a closed forest cover, but rather a mosaic of forest, scrub and natural grassland (Geiser, 1982; Vera, 1997,1998). Therefore, semi-natural habitats could be seen as substitutes of natural habitats that have now become rare or that have disappeared. This may explain their high priority in nature conservation.

In Dutch nature management policies, management objectives include both the management of semi-natural habitats and the restoration of natural processes, leading to more natural habitats, in different areas. In both cases, segregation is the dominant strategy, while the first option (semi-natural habitats) is still realistic under the integration approach in several other countries. In the Netherlands, however, the integration approach is also important, especially in both the breeding and wintering areas of grassland and water birds.

The segregation approach, with semi-natural habitats as a management objective, can be split up in management with or without management input (e.g. grazing animals) from neighbouring farmers. In the Netherlands all these divisions have been the subject of long debates. In practice, both the government and site managing organizations have realised that all of these different options have their own merit and all of them are applied, depending on the situation and the objectives (see Table 2).

Table 2: Segregation and integration approaches

Integration exclusively with farmers

Segregation Semi-natural habitats with the help of neighbouring farmers

without farmers, with own stock and/or professional staff

near natural habitats without farmers, with own stock

I.3.3. The problem of abandoned land

Many papers advocate efforts to prevent abandonment. However, in many places abandonment is already taking place and is particularly visible in the CEE countries. Once abandoned, the vegetation on semi-natural grasslands can soon become simplified (due to accumulation of litter and dominance of some course species) with a great loss of biodiversity, long before scrub and forest encroach. In bird areas, abandonment of more intensively used land can also have negative impact.

Withdrawal of land from agriculture can, however, also be beneficial to biodiversity. On intensively used land this will often be the case. In the Netherlands, land acquisition is a cornerstone of nature conservation policy, in a two-track approach in which management agreements (agri-environmental programmes) are the second track. Some 100 million euros

132

per year is spent on land acquisition. In the Dutch case the results are very different from spontaneous abandonment; acquisition is followed by professional nature management.

Spontaneous abandonment of land, however, is a serious threat to farmland rich in biodiversity in many marginal regions. And the biodiversity-rich areas are often concentrated in such marginal areas. Abandonment does not always leave and identifiable mark on the landscape because this land may be used for afforestation in some countries.

Given the urgent need for measures to tackle the problem of abandoned land, especially in the Central and Eastern European countries but also in parts of the EU, it is urgent that besides efforts to avoid abandonment, techniques are promoted and financial instruments are developed to reintroduce grazing management on already abandoned land.

One approach could be the introduction of management by protected area managers, municipalities, non-farmers, etc. In this case the use of agri-environmental funds by non-farmers should be allowed, and the use of environmental funds might also be an option. Environmental funds, such as LIFE, ISPA (pre-accession fund) and national funds could be used to prepare abandoned land for the reintroduction of grazing management by farmers, followed by the introduction of agri-environmental programmes (see also Aussibal and Dimanche in Bennett, 1997).

Finally, a few words on disasters and land abandonment. Although not covered in the news, the Bosnian and Kosovo wars may have had a great impact on land use. With the departure of the population, traditional, centuries-old land management has been interrupted. It should be investigated how long land has not been managed and, where appropriate, if restoration of grazing practices and other forms of traditional land use are still possible. Also the recent veterinary crises in EU countries, leading to the slaughter of many thousands of grazing animals, may sooner or later have an impact on semi-natural areas.

II. Current initiatives related to the integration of biodiversity into agricultural policies.

II.1. Introduction

In this section we will see that ‘integration of environment into agricultural policies’, as already mentioned in I.1.1, has sometimes been a bottom-up process, starting with national agri-environmental schemes. Possible improvements in coverage and the relationship with environmental policies will be discussed.

II.1.1. Twenty-five years of agri-environmental programmes

Agri-environmental programmes cover a range of incentive measures designed to improve the environmental performance of agriculture in terms of biodiversity, landscape, water quality, organic farming, etc. In this form, they were first introduced by the MacSharry reform of the CAP in 1992. However, they have a longer history. In the 1970s and early 1980s, a small number of EU countries, the Netherlands, the UK and possibly one or more German Bundesländer, developed national systems of management agreements with farmers. Sweden had developed such a programme before its EU accession. The first initiatives were covered by EU policies and eligible for EU co-funding under Regulation 797/85, later improved and substantially broadened in the Agri-environment Regulation 2078/92 of the MacSharry reform (obligatory for member states) and included in the Rural Development Regulation 1257/99 of the Agenda 2000 reform of the CAP (obligatory again). Comparable national programmes exist in some non-EU countries.

In the European Union the conservation of wild flora and fauna on farmland by means of agri-environmental programmes is now widespread. However, although we know that 20% of the EU’s farmland is under some form of agri-environmental agreement (contracts with farmers), the share of agreements targeted on biodiversity has not been calculated, but it is certainly substantially less than 20%. As we saw earlier, probably at least still 20% of the farmland in western and central Europe is of particular importance to biodiversity. The fact that 20% of the EU’s farmland is under agreement for different objectives, implies that an insufficient area is under biodiversity-related agreements. This is certainly true with regard

133

to the Mediterranean countries, where large strongholds of extensive farming areas still exist.

II.1.2. Coverage of agri-environmental programmes by environmental policies

Ideally agri-environmental programmes would be backed by Natura 2000 designations, but in practice this option has proved not to be realistic, as member states are reluctant to designate much agricultural land under the Birds and Habitats Directives. A far larger area than covered by Natura 2000, at least in several countries, should be considered of international or national importance and merits measures to conserve its biodiversity, as in particular agri-environmental programmes.

However, backing up agri-environmental policies with environmental policies should still be welcomed. It could be investigated if here the Convention on Biological Diversity, with its wider approach of sustainable use, could fill the gap. This could be comparable to the wise use concept of the Ramsar convention, which also applies to non-listed sites.

II.2. The emergence of the concepts of ‘integration of environment in agricultural policy’, ‘rural development’ and ‘multifunctionality of agriculture’ in the EU in the 1990s

Multifunctionality of agriculture is a rather new concept, although one of its roots, the integration of environmental concerns in agricultural policies, is much older. What is new is that care for the environment has evolved from conditionality (and some limited incentives) to a series of recognized functions of agriculture. Multifunctionality of agriculture is now at the heart of global negotiations on agriculture and trade. It is largely promoted by the EU, Norway and Switzerland, as well as some non-European countries.

The recent development of the concept of multifunctionality of agriculture in the EU was prompted by increasing attention to the ‘environmental benefits of agriculture’ within the OECD, which will be dealt with in section III. In reality, internal developments within the EU and developments in OECD reinforced each other. While the EU significantly raised the profile of the environment within the CAP with the MacSharry reform of 1992, the OECD was the first to collect national case studies of EU member states (and other OECD countries) for the Helsinki seminar in 1996. The EU countries and the Commission played a very active role in the Helsinki seminar of OECD and in the Joint Working Party on Agriculture & Environment (see also II.6).

Agri-environmental programmes can be used in areas with intensive agriculture as well as in marginal areas. Although some member states had not really fully exploited the potentials of agri-environmental programmes in marginal areas, a series of memoranda on mountain and other weaker areas was put forward by member states in the mid 1990s, suggesting a range of new measures. As a response from the European Commission to these ‘memoranda’, the Cork conference on rural development was organized in November 1997. Here the Commission strongly promoted the concept of rural development as a means to help weaker areas, but also to develop a vision for the entire EU agricultural territory. The Cork Declaration was not received very warmly by the member states, but developments did not stop.

Meanwhile, the process of the integration of environment into agriculture received a new stimulus through the so-called ‘Cardiff Integration Strategy’ (June 1998), rooted in the new Article 6 of the Amsterdam Treaty. In November 1998 the Agricultural Council formulated the ‘European model of agriculture’ explicitly mentioning ‘conserving nature’ as one of the roles of agriculture. The Commission’s philosophy of giving greater attention to the multiple functions of agriculture was given shape in the proposal, part of the Agenda 2000 reform of the CAP, to combine and modernize various existing EAGGF instruments to form a second pillar of the CAP, rural development. The legal instrument became the Rural Development Regulation 1257/99.

The final decisions on Agenda 2000, taken by the Berlin Summit in March 1999, however, restricted this ‘second pillar’ to a fixed ceiling of about 10% of the CAP budget (although ‘modulation’, the transfer of regular support to such measures, can give some relief). Under the 2000–2006 rural development plans about 50% of the resources are earmarked for agri-environmental programmes (formerly Regulation 2078/92), making this the most important

134

component of EU rural development measures. However, due to this ceiling, the growth in agri-environment programmes is likely to have slowed down and may have come to a stop, while many areas rich in biodiversity are still in need of such programmes. In spite of the budgetary constraints, the philosophy of rural development was well established and is likely to play an ever increasing role.

What is now the link between ‘rural development’ and ‘multifunctionality’? Rural development supports both food production and environmental functions, and therewith stimulates multifunctionality, but involves rather limited resources.

In the same period in which the modern concept of ‘rural development’ was developed, the concept of ‘multifunctionality of agriculture’ was used in the EU’s preparations for the new WTO round. The difference is understandable, because here not only the small ‘second pillar’, but also the other 90% of CAP expenditure is at stake. And, indeed, this larger part of the CAP also has a partial link with multifunctionality.

Although the EU should be willing to continue to reduce levels of agricultural support, it can be expected to want to maintain a substantial share of CAP support. During the WTO talks in Seattle in 1999 the concept of ‘multifunctionality of agriculture’ was not accepted by a majority of countries, but the environmental role of agriculture as such was not a problem. Even during the FAO-Netherlands conference on ‘Multifunctionality of Agriculture’ in September 1999 a number of exporting countries proved to have substantial problems with the concept. Nevertheless, the EU maintained this terminology in its input in the WTO negotiations on agriculture. In early 2001, however, the atmosphere around the EU position seemed to be improving.

II.3. The Convention on Biological Diversity, the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS) and the Community Biodiversity Strategy

II.3.1. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

The Convention on Biological Diversity was signed in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Over the years, this convention has become increasingly important for EU and national policies. In paragraph I.2.3 it was shown that biodiversity on farmland is currently covered by the CBD’s work programme on agricultural biological diversity, although the ‘wildlife and habitats’ aspect of agro-biodiversity does not have a very prominent place. European countries, which attach more importance to this aspect than most other countries, could take steps towards upgrading the status of ‘wildlife and habitats’ under the CBD work programme on agricultural biological diversity.

II.3.2. The Environment for Europe process and PEBLDS

In October 1995 the pan-European Environment Ministers’ conference in Sofia endorsed the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS), which is a European initiative to support implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Attached to the Strategy was an Action Plan 1996–2000, with 11 different Action Themes. Six of these themes deal with specific ecosystems and a European Ecological Network, uniting areas of European importance; one focused on the integration of biological and landscape diversity into sectors. This latter theme has gradually become one of the major action themes. Although the number of actions directly coordinated in the PEBLDS framework may have been limited to some extent, a much wider number of actions, including those independent of but very much in the spirit of PEBLDS, has taken place. Examples are the ever increasing role of agri-environment programmes in the EU (20% of the farmland covered by agreements), the preparations by 10 candidate member states for their implementation and the submission of pilot agri-environmental projects for EU co-funding by most of the candidate countries. The continued greening of the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU in Agenda 2000 can also be mentioned, and the implementation of many agri-environmental schemes in both EU countries and candidate countries.

A new PEBLDS work plan is currently under preparation and will address the issue of the integration of biodiversity into agricultural policies. In the framework of the PEBLDS process a Pan-European conference on agriculture and biodiversity is planned to be held mid 2002, hosted by France and organised by the Council of Europe in cooperation with

135

UNEP. Also, preparations for the Kiev conference in 2003, part of the ‘Environment for Europe’ process, are expected to pay due attention to integration.

II.3.3. The EU Community Biodiversity Strategy

In June 1998 the Environment Council of the EU adopted the Community Biodiversity Strategy, which complements the national biodiversity strategies of member states. From the beginning the strategy focused on the integration of biodiversity into economic sectors and on sectoral policies based on the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive. Four action plans were published in March 2001, one on Natural Resources (sectoral nature policies) and three on the integration of biodiversity into the economic sectors of agriculture, fisheries, and development and economic cooperation. Although the action plans, inevitably, include many actions that are already underway, the constant influence of the CBD is likely to stimulate the ongoing greening of EU policies. It should be noted, though, that the reform process in the EU started several years before the CBD really became operational.

II.4. The integration of environment (including biodiversity) in the EU Common Agricultural Policy

An aspect that has not been discussed so far is the role of agricultural (Common Market organizations) and rural development policies (Regulation 1257/99) in general Agri-environmental policies, which are also covered by "rural development" , were already dealt with in section II.1.1. The gradual evolution of the CAP was at first driven by NGOs and public opinion, and by various considerations within the Commission. It has now also come under the influence of the CBD (and the resulting Community Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans) and the EU’s own environmental processes, such as the Cardiff process and the 5th and 6th Environmental Action Programmes.

As explained in section I.2.1, the main causes of biodiversity decline on farmland can be summarized as ‘intensification’ and ‘abandonment’. The first phenomenon has a relationship with the CAP, although it also occurs in other countries. Moreover, the creation of the internal market as such has probably had an impact as well, by making intensification in the better areas profitable as potential market outlets increased enormously. This again has led to intensification and related drainage schemes, etc.

Abandonment of land, however, could be reversed by certain CAP measures, as may have happened when Spain joined the EU (personal comment from G. Beaufoy). In the past, EU policies have been widely criticized for encouraging intensification by simulating production through price support and headage premiums (which encourage farmers to increase the numbers of animals). The MacSharry reform and the Agenda 2000 reform have reduced these effects.

Support measures, though, can also have a positive impact. They play an essential role in the survival of farming in marginal areas, often the areas where most biodiversity is concentrated. This support is far more substantial than the agri-environmental payments, however important these may be from both the ecological and economic viewpoints. An important proportion of these support measures are part of the WTO ‘Blue Box’. Increasing pressure is expected from the WTO against these support schemes. Transferring some of these Blue Box measures to the Green Box and greening their provisions, or a further greening of the Blue Box itself through enhanced cross-compliance are possible solutions.

The relevance of the rural development measures to the environment and biodiversity is even clearer. They contain elements such as the agri-environmental measures (about 50% of rural development expenditure), Less Favoured Area support, LFA support for reasons of constraints by environmental legislation, training, conversion to organic farming (though not explicitly mentioned) and environmental investments. From this latter component the Netherlands used substantial sums for land acquisition for nature conservation!

All these achievements of Agenda 2000 can certainly be welcomed. However, in the final Agenda 2000 decisions a strict ceiling on rural development expenditure was introduced. This ceiling has no doubt inhibited a further growth of agri-environmental programmes, giving rise to doubts about the real level of progress under Agenda 2000. A way out,

136

however, is to transfer regular support to agri-environment schemes, the so-called ‘modulation’.

Pressures for further reform come from at least four sides:

• Pressure from the WTO negotiations, which may lead to further reduction of support and increased competition, and a further greening of policies. Theoretically, this could have opposing effects: the first two phenomena may increase the risk of marginalization and abandonment, as well as further rationalization of farming in better areas, while the greening of policies could help to improve the environmental performance of farms;

• Pressure from environmental organizations has been exerted since the 1980s. However, the environmental performance of farming under the current and even the former CAP system could have been much better if member states had made better use of the possibilities offered by available instruments;

• Pressure from the EU enlargement process as such. As the EU does not yet offer the candidate countries the same sort of CAP support the EU member states currently receive; as there can only be one CAP in the end, this can be expected to accelerate the reform process in the EU itself. Even now, some member states are pressing for a stronger role for rural development;

• Pressure from traditional pro-reform countries, recently joined by Germany, although for different reasons, in response to the recent veterinary crises. Reactions to these crises, are, however, not restricted to these countries (see Berthelot, 2001).

The result of these different pressures may be a system that evolves more towards payments for public goods, including biodiversity, and to rural development. Rural development includes a whole range of measures that are beneficial to the environment. The available options under this broad umbrella also include investments, for example in agricultural water management. Such measures received a lot of criticism from NGOs during the 1980s and so continuous improvement of the system of environmental appraisal and environmental impact assessment in rural development will remain a high priority.

II.5. The integration of biodiversity in the EU enlargement process.

The outcome of the EU enlargement process will have a great effect on biodiversity. Many areas important to biodiversity may be added to the EU, but they are also under serious threat. Special attention is paid to this process here. For the EU enlargement negotiations the candidate countries have drawn up position papers, and the EU has its Common Positions for each of the six countries of the first wave. These position papers are split up into dossiers, such as environment, agriculture, etc. There seem to be no major problems with the environmental acquis. Both sides seem willing to give due priority to the implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives, in other words to the Natura 2000 network.

In the papers on agriculture, however, hardly any attention has been given to the environment. While the integration of environment in agriculture has received full attention in the EU for several years now, this integration has been missing from the enlargement process, both under environment and agriculture. In view of this, the Dutch government held a conference on EU enlargement, agriculture and nature management in January 2001. The conference highlighted the linkages between EU agricultural and rural development policies on the one hand and nature management/biodiversity on the other hand, without directly interfering with the negotiation process. The result of that conference is an enhanced awareness about the importance of biodiversity in the context of agricultural policies, which will hopefully be useful in the course of the future enlargement process. The report of the conference and the background document was published in May 2001 (Brouwer et al., 2001).

The needs and possible solutions of the candidate countries are very similar to those of the existing EU member states. Land abandonment in biodiversity-rich areas is the greatest problem at the moment, while intensification, which was stopped and reversed after the 1989 changes, will probably reappear in the foreseeable future.

The existing situation is characterized by:

137

• Overall rather good environmental quality, due to decreased inputs

• High biodiversity on perhaps 15% to 20% of farmland (on average; in Slovenia about 50%)

Two main concerns are important in the immediate future:

• The survival of farming on the most important 20% or so of the land (variable by country)

• Agri-environmental programmes to ensure the management required for biodiversity

To ensure these factors, the following questions are particularly important:

• Will agriculture in the biodiversity-rich areas survive a sudden integration of markets (EU and CEEC)? Are transition periods necessary? This will partly depend on the amount and the nature of support for CEE agriculture, especially in the biodiversity-rich areas. In this context, the shaping of livestock policies in enlargement framework will be particularly relevant; good LFA schemes can also play an important role.

• Will there be sufficient EU and national resources for LFA schemes and agri-environmental programmes? This applies in particular to biodiversity-rich areas. However, as these countries have more objectives than biodiversity alone, it should be possible to bring more than 20% of the farmland under agri-environmental agreements.

Section 4.2.8 of the recent European Community Action Plan for biodiversity in agriculture deals with EU enlargement. The Action Plan states that habitat and species loss must be prevented. It also says that due attention should be paid to the survival of those forms of land use that support high biodiversity values, and that this should be taken into consideration when determining the desirable agricultural development and possible granting of transition periods for the integration of the accession countries’ markets into the internal market. According to the Action Plan, attention should be paid to good overall environmental quality of farmland in the CEECs (probably referred to by error as ‘EU farmland’). It is to be hoped that due attention will be paid to these aspects during the enlargement process. If not, further irreversible losses can be expected within a very few years.

III. The development of the concepts of ‘environmental benefits of agriculture’ and ‘multifunctionality of agriculture in global frameworks

III.1. The concept of ‘environmental benefits of agriculture’ in the OECD

In the mid-1990s the OECD felt the necessity to pay attention not only to the negative effects of agriculture on the environment, but also to the positive effects. Negative effects are usually related to pollution and the loss of biodiversity. Positive effects are related to the maintenance of habitats for a great number of species of flora and fauna, especially those species that can no longer rely on natural habitats alone.

So, biodiversity can be influenced by agriculture in a positive and in a negative way. In the 20th century the negative impact, however, has become very strong on the majority of Europe’s farmland. To attract more attention to the positive impacts of agriculture, OECD organized the ‘Seminar on Environmental Benefits of Agriculture’, held in Helsinki in September 1996. In this seminar the provision of environmental benefits (biodiversity, landscape, etc), elsewhere often referred to as part a ‘public good’, were discussed, as well as conditions to be set on payments for them. The seminar was followed up by an impressive amount of OECD work, especially in the JWP on Agriculture & Environment.

III.2. Preparations for WTO negotiations: some general aspects

In the agricultural agreement of the GATT Uruguay round, agri-environmental measures were protected against obligatory reductions by including them in the ‘Green Box’. This is important, as policies at the regional and national level are largely dependent on such agreements.

The European model of agriculture and the concept of multifunctionality of agriculture now form the basis of the EU position in the ongoing new WTO round, as discussed in

138

paragraph III.3. Similar positions are taken by a number of other countries, such as Norway and Switzerland, as well as some non-European countries.

Continued justification of payments for public goods is important for biodiversity. However, such payments cover far more than current agri-environmental programmes, accounting for about 5% of the CAP budget, and all rural development measures (about 10%). Earlier, we saw that agricultural support in the framework of the ‘Common Market Organizations’ (CMOs) are also, at least partly, relevant to the survival of farming. These measures belong in the Amber Box and the Blue Box. The Blue Box may be greened in the future, and thus continue to play a role.

III.3. The Ullensvang conference on multifunctionality of agriculture and the EU comprehensive proposal

The concept of multifunctionalty of agriculture was discussed by ‘40 countries and economies’ in the conference ‘WTO and Agriculture: International conference on non-trade concerns’ in Ullensvang, Norway, 2–4 July 2000. The EU Agricultural Council of November 2000 adopted the position paper ‘WTO negotiations on agriculture-EC Comprehensive negotiating proposal’, building on two earlier papers by the European Commission submitted to the Ullensvang conference.

In the ‘Comprehensive proposal’ multifunctionality of agriculture is connected to ‘non-trade concerns’. It describes agriculture as a provider of public goods. The multiple role of agriculture is specified as follows: contribution to sustainable development, protection of the environment, sustained vitality of rural areas and poverty alleviation (taking the needs of developing countries into consideration).

The Commission’s paper ‘Agriculture’s contribution to rural development’, presented to the Ullensvang conference, describes four broad categories of the role of farming:

• Employment

• Related economy

• Maintenance of economic viability of remote and peripheral areas

• Provision of environmental and cultural services.

The Commission paper ‘Agriculture’s contribution to environmentally and culturally related non-trade concerns’ gives special attention to:

• Conservation of biological diversity

• Maintenance of landscape features

• Presence of cultural features

• Protection against disasters.

To summarize, in the EU’s view multifunctionality of agriculture is more than biodiversity conservation, even more than environmental services as a whole. It includes a wider range of functions important to society. Nevertheless, biodiversity and landscape are clearly at the heart of the concept in developed countries. From a biodiversity point of view, this should be welcomed, as it can contribute to the acceptance in WTO framework of measures that are necessary to maintain biodiversity on farmland. In addition, the use of the concept of multifunctionality of agriculture exerts a moral obligation on countries that support this concept to really conserve the remaining biodiversity on their farmland.

Whether the concepts of ‘multifunctionality of agriculture’ or ‘environmental benefits of agriculture’ are used, both can be helpful for the conservation of biodiversity on farmland, although the first has turned out to be highly politically sensitive. It is to be regretted, however, that such an approach was not developed 50 years earlier. The loss of biodiversity that has occurred in the meantime might have been considerably less. This conclusion reinforces the need for action. In May 2001 a second conference on multifunctionality of agriculture was hosted by Mauritius. The papers presented to that conference were not available before completing this paper.

139

III.4. ‘Cultivating our Future’, the FAO/Netherlands Conference on the Multifunctional Character of Agriculture and Land, Maastricht, the Netherlands, 12–17 September 1999

This conference was attended by participants from more than 100 countries and 30 organizations, and so the scope of the concept of ‘multifunctionality of agriculture’ was different than if it had been a European conference. While the background papers to the conference contained some discussion of biodiversity on farmland, the chairman’s report on the conference, based on the discussions during the conference, made no explicit mention of biodiversity.

The report recalled that the multifunctional aspect of agriculture was already mentioned in Agenda 21 (Chapter 14), adopted at the Rio conference in 1992.

The report mentions three key findings:

• Increasing the joint use of the multiple functions tends to increase the sustainability of agriculture and land use.

• The ability to exploit the multiple functions depends on the level of social capital/institutional strength.

• The use of the multiple functions to achieve sustainability depends on the level of natural capital: the richer the natural resources, the less the need to use the various functions, at least in the short term.

Literature

There is an enormous amount of documentation in the field of agriculture and biodiversity, particularly in the West European context; less so in the eastern parts of the continent. It is beyond the purpose of this paper to present an overview. A selection of titles is mentioned below.

Baldock, D., G. Beaufoy, G. Bennett & J. Clark, 1993. Nature Conservation and New Directions in the Common Agricultural Policy, IEEP, London.

Baldock,D., G. Beaufoy, F. Brouwer & F. Godeschalk, 1996. “Farming at the Margins; Abandonment or redeployment of agricultural land in Europe”. IEEP-LEI, London& The Hague.

Beaufoy, G., D. Baldock & J. Clark, 1994. “The Nature of Farming”, IEEP, London.

Bennett, G.(ed.), 1997. EU Expert Seminar “Agriculture and Natura 2000", Apeldoorn, the Netherlands.

Berthelot, J., 2001. Un autre modèle pour l’ agriculture. Le Monde Diplomatique, April 2001.

Bignal, E.M. & D. McCracken (ed.), 1994. “Nature Conservation and Pastoralism in Europe” Proceedings of the Third European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism (1992) in Pau.

Brouwer, F.M., D. Baldock & C. la Chapelle (ed.), 2001. High level Conference on EU Enlargement: The Relation between Agriculture and Nature Management, Wassenaar, 22-24 January 2001.

Convention on Biological Diversity: visit the website at www.biodiv.org. In particular the programme of work on agricultural biological diversity (Decision V/5).

Dijk, G. van, 1991.The status of semi-natural grasslands in Europe" in: Goriup (1991).

Dijk, G. van, 1996. Land use policy and plant conservation, especially regarding grasslands, in Newton (1996).

European Environmental Agency, 1998, “Europe’s Environment, the second assessment”, European Environmental Agency

Geiser, R., 1983. Die Tierwelt der Weidelandschaften. Akademie für Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege. Laufener Seminarbeiträge 6/83.

140

Goriup, P., L. Batten & J.A. Norton (ed. ), 1991 “ The conservation of lowland dry grasslands in Europe”, Proceedings of an international seminar, held in Reading, 1991.

Hagemeijer, W.J.M. and Colin Bibby, 2000 “The Status of Birds in Europe and the impact of the EU Birds Directive”. Proceedings of the conference on twinty years Birds Directive, held in Helsingör, 1999..

Heath, M.F. & M.J. Evans, 2000. Important Bird Areas in Europe-Priority sites for conservation. Birdlife International.

McCracken, D. & E.M. Bignal, 1995 “Farming on the edge: the nature of traditional farmland in Europe”. Proceedings of the Fourth European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism, held in Trujillo, 1994.

Newton, J. (ed.) Proceedings of the 1st Planta Europa Conference on the Conservation of Wild Plants, Hyères, 1995.

Nowicki, P.L. et al., 1999. “Background study for the Development of an IUCN European policy on Agriculture and Biodiversity”. IUCN European Regional Office, Tilburg.

OECD, 1997. “Environmental Benefits of Agriculture: Issues and Policies”. Proceedings of The Helsinki seminar, 1996.

OECD, 2001. Environmental Indicators for Agriculture.Volume 3: Methods and Results.

Pain, D.J. & M.W. Pienkowski (ed.), 1997 “Farming and Birds in Europe”. Academic Press, London.

Pienkowski, M.W., 1999 (ed.). “Managing high nature value farmland: policies, processes and practices”. Proceedings of the Sixth European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism held in Luhacovice, 1998.

Poole, A., M. Pienkowski, D.I. McCracken, F. Petretti, C. Brédy & C. Deffeyes (ed.) 1998: “Mountain livestock farming and EU policy development. Proceedings of the Fifth European Forum on Nature Consrrvation and Pastoralism, held in Cogne in 1996.

Simoncini, R., 2000. Agricultural use of natural resources in Europe. In: Stolton et al., 2000.

Stolton, S., B. Geier & J.A. Mc Neely, 2000. The relationship between nature conservation, biodiversity and organic agriculture. IFOAM/IUCN/WWF.

Stanners & Bourdeaux, 1995. “Europe’s Environment. The Dobris Assessment”. EEA, Copenhagen.

Synghe, H. & J. Akeroyd, 1998. Proceedings of the Second Planta Europa Conference, Uppsala, June 1998.

Tucker, G.M. & M. F. Heath (ed.) 1994. “Birds in Europe”. Birdlife Conservation Series No. 3.

Tucker, G.M. & M.I. Evans, 1997, Habitats for Birds in Europe. A Conservation Strategy for the Environment. Birdlife International.

Vera, F.W.M. 1999 “Grazing ecology and forest history“ (in press), translation of “Metaforen voor de wildernis”, dissertation, Wageningen, 1997.

Vera, F.W.M. 1999. “Large Herbivores and the Management of Natural Landscapes”, in Synghe&Akeroyd, 1998.

Wascher, D.M., 2000. Agri-environmental indicators for sustainable agriculture in Europe. (ELISA project). ECNC.

141

Economy, ecology and agriculture1

Risto Volanen, Secretary General, COPA-COGECA

Comments on the BSE debate between the German Chancellor and German professors. DIS(01)04

The new BSE crisis has provoked an extraordinary agricultural debate. The obvious landmarks in this discussion have been German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder’s declaration and 42 German professors’ criticism of it. The German Chancellor said at the Bundestag that a new perspective for agriculture should be developed and industrial agriculture should end. The professors, among them well-known agricultural economist Professor Tangermann, responded that today there is no real industrial agriculture in Europe but, in future, concentration is unavoidable for trade reasons.

The new high-level green wave was earlier initiated by President Chirac last November when he demanded a total ban of meat and bone meal and when he soon after that at the Hague Conference took a strong position on climate change. Chancellor Schröder was followed by new German Minister Künast who demanded that in ten years time 20% of agriculture should be organic.

Agriculture Commissioner Fishler also went on ecological tone when at the Berlin Grüne Woche he declared empathically that we must not make cows cannibals. So we hear now from the Commission, that MBM is safe on scientific grounds, it is forbidden because of bad business management, it cannot be forbidden in import products on WTO grounds, and it is wrong on ethical grounds. A week later the agriculture Commissioner went further in the European Parliament blaming the EU Member States and the farmers´ unions for the problems in the Common Agriculture Policy.

There are also several recent statements that Europe should work both for further liberalization and for tighter environmental and safety regulations in agriculture. This divided approach was to be found some time ago in a European Commission memo, which responded to the German discussion. After praising the Commission’s recent policy for "promoting environmentally friendly farming", the note states: "The term "industrialised agriculture" is often used in a negative way, although it is far from clear what it actually means. If it means increased productivity, it should be remembered that this is a main feature of market economies - not of policy". "Higher productivity means more prudent use of scarce natural resources", the Commission says.

So, we have now high level arguments for several options. First, for ecological reasons we should return to more extensive production. Secondly, for economic reasons we should continue concentrating structures and intensifying production. Thirdly, we should do both at the same time.

Only four years ago, at the end of the first BSE crisis, we all thought that the nightmare would stop soon so that we could go back to normal business. Then more and more "new issues" started to surface on the agriculture political agenda: hormones, antibiotics, nitrates, new environmental regulations, cross-compliance, animal welfare, biodiversity, veterinary medicines, pesticides, dioxin, sludge, etc. It is important to recognise that the second BSE turmoil is the worst step in our economic and ecological problems, but it is not the only one.

It is now necessary to seek the basic structural reasons for the accumulating challenges - in order to find the structural solutions. This search is now urgent also because the present debate will shape much of the opinions that will decide the European agriculture policy in the next few years in the context of WTO, eastern enlargement, financial perspective and much more.

1 Speech in AGRO-FOOD 2001; 7. 2. 2001; Tampere, Finland

142

Farmers’ story

So where to start? Perhaps at the beginning.

It all started roughly ten thousand years ago somewhere around the Eufrat and Tigris rivers. The early millennia of agriculture were continuous cycles of ecological and social catastrophes. Better yields increased the population and that demanded more production. But this led to the degradation or salinization of land because of overwork on it. In mountain regions new fields led to erosion because of declining forest coverage. Modern archaeology has found the same process all over the world from the Mediterranean regions to old China or the Easter Island. Needless to say, this pattern reminds us of what has happened in modern days in several developing countries. To say the least, agriculture has from the very beginning had multiple functions: food production and land management have been two sides of the same coin.

In this historical perspective the later European history is not a unique but an unusual success story. Two major events seem to have been decisive in protecting the productivity of land or living nature. First, Charlemagne’s three field farming systems meant that since the 9th century much of our fields did not become degraded. Secondly, the practical management of natural resources took place at the local community level, although long time under feudal regime.

Although most of the European agro-ecosystem survived to our times, it should not be forgotten that daily life of most people was for centuries full of hunger and suffering. It was only the British and German Enlightenment of the late 18th century that recognised that you don’t need only protect the productivity of the land or animals - you can also improve it. Then Adam Smith proposed a further solution. He said that if farmers were made free from the feudal regime, they would have an interest to develop the productivity of their land. It took some revolutions and European farming was put into motion until our days.

Quite soon after Adam Smith, his compatriot David Ricardo foresaw that increased productivity or capital intensity would be accompanied by concentration of capital ownership in all the sectors of the economy. For industry workers, Ricardo promised a salary just making it possible "to subsist and to perpetuate… race". For farmers the Ricardian concentration of capital promised an exit from the farm and also from the stage of history.

But there was also another development from Smith to Ricardo that today seems to have been fatal. The French Physiocrats, the German Enlightenment agriculturists and Adam Smith himself recognised the productive and fragile character of land or living nature. Therefore, they even argued that a rent of land must be paid as a compensation of its productive work. However, against Smith’s opinion Ricardo defined all nature as "indestructible" and in this way he deported ecology from economy - until recent times.

Needless to say, as to the production factor "work", Ricardo got his counterforce in Karl Marx and this led to the epoch-making conflict between capital and labour. But both Ricardian liberals and Marxist socialists had a common problem: what to do with the farmers who were not willing to leave the farm and who united on their farms all the production factors: work, capital and land - although their theories said that these production forces should be separated.

Ricardo went to politics to fight for free trade, and he got the British corn import tariffs abolished in 1846 in the name of his celebrated theory of comparative advantage. Two years before, Marx predicted that forthcoming free trade would force farmers off their farms and they would then support the revolution. But when this did not happen Marx demanded in his 1848 Manifest socialization of land and active industrialization of agriculture. After a long debate also the German Social Democrats - like most other European socialist parties - accepted in their 1892 Erfurt programme concentration or industrialization of agriculture.

In practice the political development has been more complicated. In the beginning of the last century all European societies had 50-70% of population in, or close to, agriculture. In those conditions the socialist ethos and tactics inside the rural communities became a pro small farmer movement. This again developed a socialist double agrarian strategy on national level for both "industrialization" and for support to small farmers. The same

143

ideological dilemma created much of the political drama of the 20th century, from the tragedy of the Soviet collectivization of agriculture to policies of "popular front". Reflections of this history - and its re dramatization in 1960´s - can still be found in today’s discussion about European agriculture. Globally enlightenment, science and technology as well as liberalism and socialism set the stage for the first modernization wave in Europe. Society asked more, cheaper and safer food and farmers responded to this request. Farmers organised their unions and their co-operatives to defend themselves but also to adapt themselves. This first phase of change was driven by the market and supported by mechanical innovations. It ended after the First World War in the crisis of the 1920’s.

Developing the CAP

The second phase of modernization was policy driven. The post-war European Common Agriculture Policy learnt a lot from President Roosevelt’s pre-war New Deal policy. For forty years, both European and American agriculture policy did their best to balance market and policy, and they were supported by new technologies, chemistry and cheap energy.

In the historical perspective, the 1957 Rome Treaty was a compromise between the different European interests of agriculture. The CAP was set up to increase productivity, to stabilise the market, to guarantee reasonable income for farmers as well as reasonable consumer prices.

The phases of the Common Agriculture Policy are well known. It took ten years since the 1958 Stresa Conference to establish common prices and common markets for main the products. Then Commissioner Mansholt made the productivity target a priority, and in March 1968 proposed a radical structural policy plan "Agriculture 1980". The Council rejected it and therefore the Commission angrily froze the annual price decisions. In 1971, COPA and COGECA organised a 100,000 farmers’ demonstration which got out of control. A few areas in Brussels were badly damaged, the Council building was invaded and one farmer died. In 1972, the Council finally accepted Mansholt’s directive but decided on its own a high price increase of 8-12%.

Higher prices led to increased production. After several phases of production ceilings and 1984 milk quotas the Commission published in 1985 its Green Book that led to the 1992 CAP reform. The grand targets of 1992 Reform were to get production, stocks and the budget under control in the face of the changing international trade landscape. The grand instruments were the price cuts, partially compensated by direct payments. Compensations were mostly financed by the savings from the instruments no longer needed for financing the imbalances.

In addition to internal overproduction and increasing budget problems the international trade landscape shaped the great turn from developing prices to restrictive price policy. The 1992 reform also opened the way to the 1994 GATT Agreement. In many ways, the Agenda 2000 Reform was a continuation of the basic ideas of the 92 reform and it also paved the way to the next WTO Agreement. The effort to develop competitiveness through restrictive price policy is dramatised by an example that after the 92 and 99 reforms, EU cereal prices are 40% and beef prices 32% lower than at the beginning of last decade.

So, the key target of the 1992 Reform was competitiveness through price cuts but it also included environmental and extensification as well as rural and regional policy elements. Slight ecological aspect fitted well to help the overproduction problem of the day and the rural aspect paralleled with the well-known structural effects of restrictive price policy. Rural development or the second pillar was largely dealt with also in the Agenda 2000 discussion, but without any major financial consequences in the final Berlin package.

Simultaneously with the Agenda 2000, the effects of the first BSE crisis were felt in constructing the new President Prodi Commission. Most of the food safety issues were moved from DG Agriculture and Rural Development to DG Health and Consumer Affairs. This has further dramatised the in-built problem of the 1992 and the 1999 reforms: there has never been an in depth analysis or discussion about the relation between the economic and ecological targets of the agriculture policy. This has for years reflected as an inconsistency in the Commission and the whole EU policies. This inconsistency is now dramatised also in the high-level BSE debate asking agriculture to go simultaneously the economical way of price cuts and ecological way of cost increases.

144

Where are we?

As a result of this modern history, the share of farmers in society has decreased from 70-90% in the early 19th century and from 30% in 1950 to 7 million, and 5% today. Roughly 5 million of the 7 million farmers live in Southern Europe.

European agriculture daily feeds EU’s 370 million people, who pay on the market annually roughly 750 billion EUROs for their food. This is a GNP of a nation of roughly 35 million people. Somewhat more than a quarter of these 750 billion EUROs, 210 billion EUROs come to agriculture, while 33 billion come also from the EU budget. When farmers have paid their costs, 180 billion EUROsro, the income of 7 million farmers makes roughly 70 billion EUROs a year. This is 9% of what consumer-citizens pay for their food.

Today European consumers pay 17 % of their income for food, while fifty years ago consumers paid 30%. This means that the farmers’ income takes 1.5% of the consumers’ disposable income. Europe exports and imports now food for more than 50 billion EUROs. This makes one quarter of the value of agriculture production. Europe is the largest importer and the second largest exporter of food in the world.

This progress and these massive figures should not veil the fact that European agriculture is economically very fragile. In the late 1990’s, the direct payments from the EU budget to agriculture are roughly 33 billion EUROs. But we should not forget that the market prices include price support for roughly 40 billion - a figure that makes the difference between European and world market prices. Price support and direct payments are together 70 billion EUROs and incidentally this is roughly the same as the farm income in Europe. So, take away the EU budget and liberalise the market and you lose European farm income. Of course some farmers might still continue, because some others’ support is now more than their net income - covering also costs.

This fragile construction was already under attack in the context of the Agenda 2000, before the Berlin Conference two years ago. However, at that time Europeans accepted multifunctional European model of agriculture. The idea is that in addition to food, agriculture creates plenty of positive externalities of public goods that are worth financing from the public budget. However, today our problems are the real and scared negative externalities that now risk putting into the shadow both our basic normal production function and our multiple additional positive functions performed by farmers.

What next?

Given this history and this situation, where do we go now?

The German professors are right that we don´t have in Europe a real industrial agriculture, but they forget to tell that their own liberal globalization programme would create it.

Out of 7 million European farms, 5 million are still less than 10 hectares. Our average size is by any measure modest and our largest farms are on the low side of average American farms. After two hundred years of hard pressure and productivity development, European farms - with very few exceptions - are still family-run farms integrating in the same hands’ land, capital ownership and some aspects of work in the farm. On 7 million European farms, there are 15 million working people - including the farmer’s family - creating annually roughly 7 million working years.

With the grave problems of today we should not forget the fundamental problems of tomorrow. Any honest and informed observer can say that solely in a competitive market - without regulating policy - the production structure will be determined by the market and the available technology giving highest return on investment. During the last decades only the CAP or the European model of balancing market and policy has prevented markets and new technology to speed up radically technological intensity and capital concentration that goes far beyond family-run farms. The same honest and informed observer also knows that solely competitive market production will concentrate not only company-wise but also regionally to countries and continents where - natural and technological - productivity is high and costs are low.

145

The closest possible vision on "industrialization" can be seen on the other side of the Atlantic. In the US, there are already corporate owned clusters of 80,000-100,000 beef lots or pig units as well as 4000-5000 dairy units. But much more is now behind the corner.

Those who developed today’s concept of agribusiness in Harvard Business School are now developing strategies for "life science" or "bio-material" industries. The vision is that the global market and newest technologies will integrate agriculture step by step to control the globally concentrating clusters of food processing, medical and chemical industries - roughly in the same way as what is happening in communication, banking, car or air plane industries. These visions say that in future life science industries and some parts of the genomically controlled biomass productions will be detached from the land. In this case the primary biomaterials are recomposed in processing industries to remind us of historical grandparents’ time products. If you follow today’s most chic life style magazines you can learn that in future only the very richest people will be able to afford natural food from their private pig, cow or vegetable lots.

It is natural and necessary to restart the agricultural debate from the basis of our current problems, but it is also now necessary to recognise that the forthcoming WTO Agreement, enlargement, the EU budget, the CAP, food safety, environmental decisions not only influence our present problems but also decide our long range future.

In the neo-liberal vision, the future should be clear and bright. Professor Tangermann and his colleagues are not so concerned - as farmers are - about short-term problems in Chancellor Schröder’s or Minister Künast’s statements. The professors are concerned about the long-term effects of the increasingly ecological attitude of the political leaders.

Professor’s blind spot

In the case of food, the main-stream professor Tangermann's and his colleagues’ neo-classical economics seem to have a blind spot in the beginning and at the end of the food chain: in the understanding of the production factor "land" or "nature" and in the understanding of the modern food consumer.

As mentioned above, the first founding fathers of modern agriculture from the French Physiocrats to British and German enlighteners and to Adam Smith recognised the special productive and fragile character of nature in agriculture production. They even said that this should be compensated to the owner by a rent of land. Then David Ricardo with his followers defined nature as "indestructible" and made the economics of living nature equal with economics of dead nature. He tried the same kind of trick to production factor "labour", but labour reacted quite quickly - creating the epoch-making conflict of the last two centuries. Land, however, does not speak.

The Enlightenment and Modern strategy of agriculture - that you should not only protect but also increase productivity of land and living nature - has created so far a quite great success story for mankind. The Malthusian vision of permanent famine has been avoided as well as new ecological catastrophes in Europe. In the last century, the world population quadrupled while farmland only doubled - making it possible to save lots of forests. Europeans’ quantitative and qualitative nutrition have never been as high as it is now. For the starving 800 million people in the developing countries, it is the decent modern methods of production and modern trade that can give hope.

But now we have got BSE, dioxin and tens of other "new problems". Some of them are measured or they have triggered technology risks which create more and more precaution and even food scare in society. In analysing our present problems, mainstream economics is a good start. We have added some two hundred years of technology inputs into the European agro-ecosystem and it seems that we are now in some parts of Europe getting diminishing returns especially if externalities - as valued by citizens - are also counted. One step forward in the analysis could be that both in the BSE and dioxin case, we had an industrial technology input from outside the farm and its technology risk triggered when matching with fragile living nature on the farm.

In economical terms our growing problem is now that the 1992 and 1999 reforms as well as WTO pressures decrease prices and press a farmer either to give up his activity or to increase his productivity through intensifying production. In several parts of the European

146

food system there is still room for this. But in some parts of the system, increasing intensity manifestly leads to diminishing returns because of risks, precaution, or food scare. If a risk is triggered, this leads to further precautionary measures, higher regulation costs and lower productivity.

So, consumer retail chains and trade policy demand lower prices. Lower prices demand higher productivity but this leads to political pressure to decrease productivity. Farmers face pressures to decrease and to increase their productivity at the same time. The more society, retail chains or trade policy put price pressure on agriculture the more they either force farmers to stop their activity or to develop more intensive production including its risks.

The European dilemma

A usual response to the recent problems has been that there is no such thing as zero risk. It is true and it is also true that European consumers have never had food as safe as it is now. In any other sector 0.1 promille risk of mistaken product or 2 grams wrong material in thousands of tons would be a good record, but not in agriculture. Food consumers are not economists’ quasi-rational risk takers like smokers or car drivers. After hundreds of years of famine and natural food risks we have now some generations that have experienced that you can have sufficient safe food at a reasonable price. The consumer now says that it is not reasonable to take new risks.

What holds at the farm level is relevant also at the European level. We have the European agro-eco system that we cannot basically change. In modern times, we have changed our strategy from protecting its productivity to increasing its productivity through increasing technological inputs. So far we have been able in this way to serve better and better the European consumer and the whole of society. We have now these "new problems" that our science or economics have not been able to predict or even to explain.

The obvious thing is that through the foreseen successive agriculture trade liberalization rounds, we simply cannot intensify - some people say industrialise - the European agro-ecosystem in such a way that it could be competitive with those who don’t care about European ecological or safety concerns or who have by nature an agro-ecosystem of higher productivity - often accompanied by lower labour costs.

Let’s face it. The European agricultural model would not survive economically or ecologically in a global free trade. This would not underestimate the vital importance of trade for the hungry world, for European consumers or for European farmers. We should underline that we have a now well functioning global trading system. It should be developed pragmatically step by step on the basis of real mutual interests - not on the basis of neo-liberal theoretical experiments, which have immediately after first dose pushed American agriculture to a crisis. Hungry world as well as Europe need necessarily well organised trade in the food sector, but food is a special case. We should contain the neo-liberal extremism as the opposite extremism was contained after the Second World War.

Consumers and farmers have now the same basic interest: to demand consistency from the political decision-makers. Our political leaders have got the message, now they should act really on it. We should ask first Chancellor Schröder, President Chirac and Minister Künast to discuss with Commissioners Lamy, Verheugen, Schreyer and Fischler to ask them to adapt their policies to find a balance between economy and ecology in order to ease the economic pressure on farmers - so that they would not be compelled either to leave the farm or to pass the pressure to nature. This is not just a rhetoric remark but a very concrete real life, real time question.

Today’s policies

Europe doesn’t work by sitting down and deciding where to go. The future of agriculture will be decided in forthcoming years through several processes. The stakes are highest in WTO, in Eastern enlargement and in the EU budget.

Only two years ago, the European Summit decided in Berlin on agriculture until 2006. The decision gave straight instructions for the WTO negotiations. It did not reserve resources for agriculture policy in an enlarged Europe, but it mandated the Commission to submit a report in order to make any adjustment deemed necessary". In addition to this, there were

147

clauses for reports and reviews on cereals before the season 2002/2003, oilseeds in the first half of 2002, dairy in 2003 and expenditure in 2002.

For the time being, the market development - for most sectors other than beef - does not show any major needs for changing review reports to premature reforms. However, there is now an accelerating pressure against the Berlin Summit conclusions, because so many are trying to use the BSE crisis to correct what they did not like in the Berlin Summit. There will be a tough debate, possibly a tough fight. This time we can see a situation where consumers and environmentalists will understand that it is not in their interest to press the farmers more.

In addition to this, the Commission’s road map for the CEECs agriculture negotiation plans to finalise this process before mid 2002. In Eastern enlargement, there are all possibilities to live till 2006 within the limits of the present financial perspective, if the timing and transition processes are formulated in the common interest of both the new and the old member countries.

As to the financial perspective, the main serious concern is financing the BSE crisis, because we see already that the available 1.2 billion EURO margin is not enough. For this basically new public health question, we ask new funds without changing the existing commitments.

In our European timetables, it is also important to take into account the American plans. Their present agriculture legislation expires in April 2002. Therefore, the Congress must decide on a new bill in very early 2002. In spite of the big words, the Americans have in the last few years come closer to the European approach. In 1996, they planned to cut their agriculture budget from 8 billion Dollars to 2 billion Dollars. In fact they have increased their farm budget in three years from 8 to 29 billion Dollars. They cannot change their policy and budget overnight. A cool analysis would tell that we should after tough talks have a reasonable solution - but we don’t know yet. In Europe, we have inconsistency between economy and ecology in agricultural policy. The American policy is also inconsistent. They have supportive policy for themselves and liberal policy for the others.

So far, the EU position in the WTO negotiation process has been in line with the Berlin commitments – the only unfortunate exception has been commissioner Lamy’s as so called "everything but arms" initiative.

As I mentioned before, the European farmers’ income, 70 billion EUROs - roughly the sum of price support, being the difference between EU and world prices - and direct payments from the budget. In WTO jargon, almost all of the price support of 40 billion EUROs is the so called yellow box and the direct payments are the so called blue box. There is no new money easily available to compensate price support or the yellow box. At the same time this yellow box depends strongly on the production coupled supply management instruments - financed by blue box direct payments as well as on the import and export mechanisms. Touch one part and the whole house shakes.

One more argument for respecting the Berlin agreement is that it is difficult to believe that Germany and the Heads of States and Governments would accept a weakening of the credibility of the Summit decisions by changing them immediately after they have been taken. When governments think how they could take into account the ecological needs of consumers, citizens, and the agro-ecosystem, the first and in the short term most important conclusion is to strongly defend the results of the Berlin Summit.

The solution

Who could have thought some years ago that the 21st century would start in Europe with an agricultural debate?

We are now in some position in a long-term cycle that started two hundred years ago. The first modern wave was characterised by emerging market forces and it ended in the 1920’s crisis. At the beginning of this period, agriculture productivity increased but its structure divided from the feudal regime to family farms. After the Second World War the second modern wave - CAP - has been based on balancing market and policy. This wave increased productivity and concentrated structures, while keeping them in Europe mostly within family-run farm. With all its problems, the Common Agriculture Policy has been and must be

148

in future the corner stone of the European agriculture. The question is now, what is really progress in its development. If there is a change in the change outside the CAP there should be a reform of reform inside it.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the 1992 CAP reform, many observers have understood that the third wave of modernity has started integrating agriculture into general neo-liberal globalization. Farmers have strongly resisted, but - in order to survive - they have had to adapt and to prepare for the next step.

But now the Americans have completely failed in the very beginning of their neo-liberal experiment, and in Europe completely new counter forces have emerged. In Europe, for the first time in modern history we have now important powers - social democratic and green - outside agriculture and its traditional political allies that also put questions on eternal concentration and intensification of agriculture. First this new situation reflects painfully on farmers as a simultaneous economic price pressure and ecological cost pressure. But we should not fall in the trap to resist economic pressure by using an ecological argument and to resist ecological pressure by using economic argument. In that case, we would continue to lose on both sides. I believe that it is important to respond to new messages by an open and frank dialogue both with socialists and with greens - about the future of European agriculture and its multifunctional family-run farm.

Our first replica could be that we ask from European governments and the Commission consistency between food safety, agriculture, trade, enlargement, environment, and budget policies. Now farmers are pushed simultaneously by these policies to opposite directions. Our second replica could be that every consumer must have an access to safe, sustainable food at reasonable prices. Policy or market should not be polarised to serve elite or specific market segments to the detriment of this basic principle of the European model.

Our third replica could be that the European model of multifunctional family-run farms is the ideal strategy and structure to reconcile ecological, safety, and economic interests in agriculture. The only alternative to the European decentralised family-run model is capital driven industrial concentration - possibly decorated by some special productions or special regions.

But we can already now see what the new messages ask from farmers. One question concerns the farmers’ responsibility in the food chain. The "family-run farm” is not just a nostalgic epithet. Historically, it means that a farmer has a double function on the farm. His or her production responds to the immediate need of the consumer and his or her land management takes care of sustainability in the interest of the next family generations. So far farmers have trusted the public authority to rule and control the rules outside the farm. Now they have got a message to take a broader responsibility for the whole food chain and its environment. I believe that farmers accept this and we want to invite the other partners in the food chain to share this mission.

The whole idea of multifunctionality means that agriculture through its multiple functions responds also to needs that cannot be satisfied through the market. Now farmers’ immemorial land management function is also more and more recognised as a public good. It has always accompanied the production function in order to manage farmland’s nature in good shape for the next generation. I believe that farmers respond positively to this emerging recognition. Otherwise there are other active people in society who try to take over the task of farmland management.

We can see that in future decentralised and - through co-operatives - networked European agriculture a farmer will be a professional expert like a doctor or psychologist because he or she needs highly complex expertise in food production and in land management under exceptionally high professional and moral standards.

But the farmer’s job is today undervalued and underpaid compared to his job description. Something went wrong in the early modernity when Ricardo and his followers dismantled living nature from its unique creative but fragile character - and therefore from something worth of positive rent or compensation. Today we should find a way to finance increasing needs for guarantees of food safety or quality and for solving the tension between economy and ecology.

149

Therefore I suggest that we again revitalise and revise the historical positive rent of land in such a way that the farmers’ land management function reflects - directly or indirectly - in the value of the product. This could practically mean for instance that when the citizens increase through political decision farmers’ ecological land management costs they could pay this through global budget or through a specific levy in the final product.

So, what can we say about the German way to have a European debate on agriculture?

Obviously the German professors are right about the present situation - there is not yet industrial agriculture in Europe. But it is extremely positive that Chancellor Schröder understands the basic problem much better than the German professors: we should not have industrial agriculture, either in future. In this respect the German Chancellor seems to be in his recent statements quite close to President Chirac’s attitude, as we as European farmer representatives have understood the French president in our recent discussions with him.

As it is said in a Finnish novel, in a war the real problem is understood only at the top and at the bottom. What we now need is that the farmers in the fields, consumers in their kitchens, and the whole European political leadership together develop the conciliating wisdom for our food, nature and agriculture of the 21st century. It will be an important part of the further construction of Europe. The Europeans need a strong, democratic, well functioning Europe. For the European farmers - and for whole food sector - such Europe is absolutely necessary.

150

Fostering linkage between agriculture and biodiversity: the EU level and the national implementation

Jonas Ericson, Working Party on International Environment (Biodiversity), EU Council

Nature and Agriculture

Fostering links between agriculture and biodiversity at the EU level…

It is a hard task to give a speech on that. I find it almost impossible to summarize all the different options and measures and initiatives within 15 member states with numerous biogeographical regions, all with their specific circumstances and to reach a conclusion on that.

Instead I will give you a short glimpse of what have been achieved in Sweden the few years we have been members of EU and what implications that may give too the further work of integrating biodiversity and agriculture.

First, some background on Sweden:

The Swedish agricultural landscape is a quite a scarce commodity in a country with a vast forest area. Today only 7 % of the total land area constitutes arable land and 1.5 % grazing land. Nature conservation is actually a larger landuser than agriculture in Sweden, covering some 10 % of the area. However, the circumstances are very different in various parts of Sweden.

In the southern parts of Sweden, we have about the same environmental problems as most of Europe, namely nutrient leakage and loss of biodiversity due to intensification. On the other hand – in most parts of Sweden the problem is the opposite – loss of biodiversity due to undergrazing, forestation and decreased variation of the landscape and abandonment of land. For example: in northern Sweden, almost half of the agricultural land has been abandoned or reforested during the last 50 years.

Natura 2000

Natura 2000, including the bird and habitat directives, is a measure that is designed to conserve biodiversity and will include even agricultural land. I have no figures on the share of agricultural land in the Swedish proposals for Natura 2000, I have some indications that it still may be a little bit less than it would deserve, taking in account that many species are dependent on agriculture, but the completion of site-proposals is still going on so I am confident that the chosen sites in the end will represent a fair share of agro-biodiversity.

However, the directives do not address all biotopes within agriculture, unless the connection between the use of a certain cropland and biodiversity in a listed habitat is very evident (e.g. if the use of pesticides on a cropland cause harm to an adjacent habitat). To my understanding this implicates that the directive itself may have difficulties to protect e.g. species that demand a mixture of biotopes if not all of them are listed as habitats.

Natura 2000 is the most extensive programme on biodiversity in the EU. It may, fully implemented, consist of some 15 % of the EU’s total area. This is almost the size of Germany and of course Natura 2000 will make a huge contribution to the conservation of EU’s biodiversity. Still this is not sufficient to save all species within Europe. Many species demand several different habitats, in close connection to each other, which Natura 2000 not

Ministry of the Environment Stockholm, Sweden

Division for Natural Resources

Jonas Ericson

Telephone +46 8 405 29 54

E-mail

Jonas.Ericson@environment.ministry.se

151

always may provide. Many species will still be isolated and exposed to inbreeding, genetic drift or extinction by mere random causes.

My conclusion of this is that also the landscape outside Natura 2000-sites has to be of such a quality that it can host most species, at least temporarily – to serve as connecting links between specific habitats, to fulfil more general demands that a species may have, and to be the “outback” for species that thrive within the Natura 2000-site to expand into.

CAP including RDP

In the negotiations preceding the entering into EU, a main Swedish concern was to keep and to develop the environmental objectives, strategies and programmes that already was in force. To great extent, this request was fulfilled, and today about one third of the total CAP-payments to Swedish farmers goes through the EU Rural Development Programme (RDP). The Swedish programme has been developed through joint efforts from the Board of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Board of Antiquities, but also environmental NGOs, farmer’s unions, organic farmers and others have had great impact.

The programme (≈370 million €) consists of:

1. Environmentally sustainable agriculture (90 % of the costs)

• production of public services such as conservation of biodiversity, genetic diversity and our cultural heritage;

• maintenance of an open farmed landscape through environmentally friendly ley;

• promotion of organic production; and

2. Economically and socially sustainable rural development (10 % of the costs).

This has also shown results. The continuous evaluation that is carried out by the Board of Agriculture, the Board of Antiquities and the Environmental Protection Agency shows that:

• the RDP is crucial for the continued maintenance of semi-natural habitats and cultural heritage. RDP gives a chance for small farmers to continue farming and particularly to maintain semi-natural grasslands. For the first time in fifty years, the area of maintained semi-natural habitats is increasing.

• RDP has contributed to the reduction in the use of pesticides, and is likely to reduce nutrient leakage, (though this has not yet been possible to verify by measuring)

• the long lasting trend of taking farmland out of production has slowed down, though not ceased totally

• organic farming has increased to almost 10 % of the cultivated area. Sweden has set an objective that 20 % of the farmed area and 10 % of the animal stock should be organic by 2010. It seems possible to reach that objective

• The joint work in elaborating the programme has created a great consensus on the importance of environmental concerns among all participants, and the farmers have to great extent entered into the RDP.

To conclude, I would say that the trend is a slow movement towards a sustainable agriculture system.

In this essence, you may argue that the measures and options that already exist are sufficient. As shown by the Swedish example it is possible to integrate biodiversity into agriculture already with the use of the RDP, and according to the principle of proportionality, you should not launch stricter measures than necessary.

On the other hand, an OECD-report that has followed the status and trends from the mid-80s up to today, reports that – with exception for use of pesticides and fertilization which has decreased by some 10 % and the increasing interest for organic farming – many environmental indicators in agriculture show no change or negative trends in most OECD countries.

152

In the latest red-list of threatened species in Sweden, about 50 % of the species belong to the agricultural landscape. Moreover, I am quite confident that the next speaker will show us striking examples of the lack of integration of biodiversity into agriculture.

Apparently, there are still things to do.

There are still many measures to be taken, both in Sweden as well as in other Member States. We need to stop superfluous fertilizing, we need to reduce the use of pesticides and the preventive use of medicines which knocks off insects and may cause tolerance among bacteria, we need to save and maintain small biotopes that create variety and habitats for species, we need to maintain the remaining semi-natural habitats.

We have a tool for these measures in the RDP. Though this tool is not designed for environmental conservation, and hence may cause some difficulties in achieving what we want, we have not fully explored the whole potential of this tool. I am sure that a closer integration between Natura 2000 and the RDP at national level may increase the effectiveness of both these policies.

However, the greatest threat towards biodiversity in agriculture is the still ongoing trend towards regional concentration and intensification. This concentration and intensification leads to inter alia nutrient leakage and erosion in intensely farmed areas and to loss of biodiversity, both in intensely farmed areas and in areas that are abandoned.

This is true for all countries, including Sweden. I know of no EU country that has been able to change these trends, in spite of the fact that a large part of the RDP is directly addressing these problems. This development is not due to the CAP, it occurs in all countries throughout the world, but the CAP is amplifying the trend.

The future

Personally, I think that we in the long run have no other choice but phasing out subsidies that – intentionally or unintentionally – leads to intensification and regional concentration. BSE, Foot-and-mouth disease, reports on animal welfare etc. has lead to a growing number of consumers starting to question the rationale of the present CAP, we are facing the challenge of enlargement (an other priority of the Swedish presidency), which means that we have to reduce costs and finally, the WTO is demanding phasing out unfair subsidies.

The Swedish evaluation of CAP’s environmental effects, which I mentioned before, has also calculated the outcomes of such scenarios and these studies indicate that lowering subsidies for export, acreage payment and headage payment would lead to an improved environment. This does of course not surprise anyone, but what was surprising was that the study indicated unchanged prices for consumers and mainly unchanged incomes for producers.

However, there will be a redistribution of incomes among farmers and landowners and quota-holders will have reduced incomes. This is of course politically sensitive and the changes have probably to be done gradually.

Sustainable Development Strategy and the 6th EAP

As you all know, Environment is one of three priorities during the Swedish presidency. The aim is to launch the EU Sustainable development strategy and the 6th EU Environmental Action Programme at the Gothenborg summit in June 2001.

A main concern in the Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS) is to turn all EU policies into sustainable ones and from what I have seen of proposals and drafts so far, I am quite confident of the serious intention of all parts.

The Commissions proposal for a 6th EAP is addressing biodiversity as one of four main topics. The programme proposes i.a. to undertake reviews of all community policies.

Biodiversity strategies and action plans

As a tool for this integration of biodiversity into sectoral policies, we might use the Commission’s Biodiversity Action Plans (BAP), which are prepared to fulfil the undertakings of CBD. According to my latest knowledge, the BAP are to be adopted the 27th of March. Once we have decided on using the BAP as tool for integration of BD into policies, we have

153

started a process where we can improve them and bring them up to date with the development within the CBD.

Conclusion

To conclude I would like to say that I am hopeful. The EU has got good options to integrate biodiversity into agriculture. The tools are there, or will be in a very near future. What still has to be achieved is the willingness to use them. I am convinced that a prerequisite for fostering linkages between agriculture and biodiversity, at the EU-level, as well as on local level, is to involve all stake-holders in agriculture.

Thank you.

154

Agricultural Intensification and the collapse of Europe's farmland bird populations

Paul Donald, RSPB, United Kingdom

155

156

157

158

159

The interaction between agricultural practices and the sustainable use of biodiversity

Alastair Leake, CWS, Focus on Farming, United Kingdom

European Centre forEuropean Centre forNature ConservationNature Conservation

The interaction between agriculturalThe interaction between agriculturalpractices and the sustainable use ofpractices and the sustainable use of

biodiversitybiodiversity

ALASTAIR LEAKEALASTAIR LEAKEProject ManagerProject Manager

Focus on Farming PracticeFocus on Farming Practice

Focus Project ObjectivesFocus Project Objectives

• Profitable farming

• Technically innovative

• Minimise environmental impact

160

Focus Project Sponsors:Focus Project Sponsors:

• Farmcare Ltd - 105 years of farming

• 40,000 ha

• 7 million consumer members

• 1100 shops

Focus Project Sponsors:Focus Project Sponsors:

• Agrovista UK Ltd

• 130 trained Agronomists

• Specialist technical advice

• Part of largest European Crop• Protection distributor group

161

Focus Project Sponsors:Focus Project Sponsors:

• Hydro Agri UK

• Precision Crop Nutrition

• Largest fertiliser manufacturer inthe world

The Role ofThe Role ofCommercial Agriculture ICommercial Agriculture I

• Sustainable food production

• Deliver affordable food reliably

162

The Role ofThe Role ofCommercial Agriculture IICommercial Agriculture II

• Multi-functional

• Biodiversity

• Low emissions

• Bio-remediation

• Sustainable food production

The effect ofThe effect ofagriculture upon:agriculture upon:

• The in-field environment

• Ecological infrastructure

• The catchment

163

In-field EnvironmentIn-field Environment

• Cultivations and crop residues

• Pesticides

• Fertilisers

• Sowing date and sowingrate/rotation

• Crop type

Ecological InfrastructureEcological Infrastructure

• Field margins

• Hedges

• Non-cropped areas

• Woodland

• Water courses

• Manure heaps

164

The CatchmentThe Catchment

• Integration of fields andmargin management

• Crop diversity

• Block cropping

Biodiversity of FarmingBiodiversity of FarmingCommercial SystemsCommercial Systems

• Mixed vs specialist

• Conventional

• Integrated

• Organic

165

LROS/CWS Stoughton FarmCommon Birds Survey - Skylark

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

64 66 68 70 7 2 74 76 78 80 8 2 84 86 8 8 90 92 94 96

Y e a rs

Num

ber

of b

reed

ing

pair

s

LROS/CW S Stoughton FarmCommon Birds Survey - Chaffinch

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94Years

Num

ber

of R

ecor

ded

Ter

rito

ries

166

Total number of birds found onconventional and integrated paired plots

1996 - 1997

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Skylark TreeSparrow

Linnet Chaffinch YellowH ammer

ConventionalIntegrated

Current KnowledgeCurrent Knowledge

• 80% of biodiversity is in the non-cropped area

• Crop effect is greater than system effect

• Intensive farming can permanentlyaffect some species

• Other species recover quickly

167

Future KnowledgeFuture Knowledge

• Identify the key limitations to B.A.P.species

• Introduce measures to target thesespecies

• Provide the knowledge/economicincentives

• Role of consumers?

ConclusionConclusion

In the current climate in Europe,there is a need to move towards a

multi-functional commercialagriculture. This will be:

• Knowledge intensive

• Requires incentives

• Increased stakeholder involvement

168

The role of retailers and food processors in supporting the multiple functions of agriculture

Dr Floor Brouwer, Agricultural Research Institute (LEI), the Netherlands

Features for consideration Rise in personal income tends to increase demand for higher quality food, convenience products and more variety of food products Public concerns regarding environment, food safety and ethics gain importance Response taken by the agri-food sector (food processors and retailers)

Efforts taken by agri-food sector Quality control systems throughout the whole supply chain Differentiate products to reach new food markets Certification of products (labeling)

Features of the agrifood chain Concentration and internationalization (mainly in northern European countries) to eliminate large differences in producer prices between countries and strengthen market of large retailers Vertical co-ordination among companies, which could enhance efficiency of production and guarantee safety and quality Fresh produce by supermarkets (more than 60% in northwestern Europe) and control of product quality ICM gains importance (United Kingdom, Denmark, Netherlands, but less so in Germany)

EUREP (Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group) Framework for Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) on farms Minimum standards acceptable to the leading retail groups in Europe GAP developed for fruits, vegetables, potatoes, salads, cut flowers. Also adopted for livestock production

Implications for farming Keeping records of all on-farm activities (crop varieties, pesticide use, irrigation and nutrient management) Apply Integrated Crop Management (ICM) Programmes Adoption of Codes of Good Agricultural Practice

Albert Heijn (Dutch retailer) Almost all fruit and vegetables under ICM programme (applied also to foreign suppliers) Fruit and vegetables without chemical herbicides and sale of residue-free products Experimental studies for herbicide-free cultivation methods (e.g. potato production) Pesticide use has been reduced under ICM by more than 50 per cent

Unilever Sustainable Agriculture Initiative to reduce dependence of external substances Partnership programmes established with growers and other stakeholders involved (extension service, expert groups, research, public authorities, NGOs)

Linkage with public policy Strategy for internalization of external effects in farming practice Public-private partnerships may be the way forward for meeting societal demands to the agricultural sector Other actors could also have an interest in adopting multiple functions of agriculture (e.g. drinking water supply companies)

169

Agricultural rural development programmes in the context of EU enlargement: The SAPARD instrument

Mr John Powell, UK National Audit Office, SAPARD Adviser

1. Introduction to theme

In relation to the theme of my presentation today, I should like to stress that I see my role to be more of a ‘thought provoker’ than a ‘solution provider’. I also propose not to argue one specific point but rather to raise a number of the key issues, which, as I see them, are currently confronting EU Member States and EU applicant countries in respect of the EU’s agricultural rural development policy, particularly in the context of enlargement.

I would like to address these issues in the context of how the EU’s agricultural rural development policy is intended primarily to address the economic development of agriculture and the rural economy but also how this is done through the integration of social and particularly in relation to today’s theme, environmental and biodiversity outputs.

First some facts:

• Total EU budget for Commodity support under the CAP: 43.1bn euros (1998 figures)

• Total EU budget for support under the Rural Development Regulation: 4,339 million euros a year (30,270 million euros over the 7 years) – equivalent to about 4% of CAP expenditure.

• Total EU budget to Candidate Countries for SAPARD: 520,000m euros (at constant 1999 prices).

• The area of land organically farmed in EU (as a percentage of the total land farmed in 1998-99) ranges from: 10% in Austria, 6% in Finland, 1% in UK and less than 1% in France.

2. Aim of EU agricultural and rural development policy

The aim of and the purpose behind the creation of the EU’s Rural Development Regulation was that a common rural development policy should accompany and complement the other instruments of the Common Agricultural Policy. This new policy also takes account of the particular nature of agricultural activity, which results from the social structure of agriculture and from structural and natural disparities between the various agricultural regions. Given its relationship to the CAP, the rural development policy is therefore known as the second pillar of EU agricultural policy. Over time the intention is that the emphasis of agricultural expenditure within the EU will shift from direct support for commodities to support for the enhancement and development of agricultural structures and rural development and to creating a more diverse but viable agricultural sector and rural economy.

The aim of the EU’s Rural Development Regulation

• A common rural development policy that will accompany and complement the other instruments of the Common Agricultural Policy.

The policy also took account of

• The particular nature of agricultural activity, which results from the social structure of agriculture and from structural and natural disparities between the various agricultural regions.

• Intended over time to increase support for the enhancement and development of agricultural structures and rural development and

• to creating a more diverse but viable agricultural sector and rural economy.

i. The Rural Development Regulation

The Rural Development Regulation allows Member States to run a range of agricultural and rural grant schemes, which are part-funded by the European Community, and which can be tailored to meet the widely differing needs and circumstances in individual countries and

170

regions. Most of these schemes were previously available in separate uncoordinated legislation but they have now been brought together into one Regulation. The framework builds on the fact that greatest benefit is achieved where the approach to implementation is integrated rather than piecemeal and is developed as far as possible by and with local interests rather than being imposed from the centre. It also recognises that environmental benefits and change within agriculture and the rural economy are not achieved overnight.

It is clear that many Member States still use this Regulation to concentrate a relatively high proportion of support on infrastructure funding related to on-farm investments or to the processing and marketing of primary agricultural products. These investments must not, of course, result in any direct increase in primary agricultural production. The support available can also be used to fund investments that enhance environmental activity, for example in improved on-farm waste treatment facilities. Where necessary, investments must also adhere to all relevant environmental standards. However, there is still little specific incentive within these more agricultural targeted investment measures to focus the provision of support on increasing and improving biodiversity.

Having said that, it is interesting that the only obligatory measure within the Rural Development Regulation is that related to support for agri-environment. This now accounts for some 40% of total expenditure under the Rural Development Regulation. However, while the basis of the support that is made available – the Rural Development programme - has to be approved by the EC Commission, subsidiarity means that, by and large, the content of the programme is left to the individual Member State authorities. This gives a large amount of freedom for support to be targeted as the Member States themselves see fit.

Member States also have the possibility of utilising two further CAP instruments to add value to environmental support. These are modulation, where proceeds from capping farmers payments under the CAP direct support subsidies can be redirected to help fund more environmental support, as is happening in the United Kingdom and, I believe, France. The second is cross compliance. This applies environmental conditions to CAP schemes. Two examples of how this is being used in the United Kingdom are in relation to the Arable Area Payment Scheme where set aside land has to be managed in accordance with strict rules to provide environmental safeguards and benefits and second under livestock subsidies where aid can be withheld or reduced for overgrazing or environmentally damaging feeding practices.

The operation of the Rural Development regulation raises two immediate questions. Should the more agricultural targeted investment measures be re-focused to enable the provision of support to be more targeted on increasing and improving biodiversity? And should agri-environment funding be used as a tool to link more directly the award of support to specific environmental and biodiversity targets?

ii. SAPARD

SAPARD is the EU’s pre-accession instrument intended to prepare Candidate Countries for the agricultural and structural funds support that will be available under the Rural Development Regulation. SAPARD is the English acronym for the 'Special Accession Programme for Agricultural and Rural Development'. But, according to Regulation 1268/99, it is intended :

• "To resolve priority problems in adapting the economies of the applicant countries in a sustainable manner and facilitating the implementation by them of the acquis communautaire, focusing in particular on the Common Agricultural Policy" (Whereas Clause 6 of EC Regulation 1268/99)

The specific objectives of SAPARD as listed in Article 1 of EC Regulation 1268/99 are

• Contribute to the implementation of the acquis communuataire concerning the common agricultural policy and related policies;

• Solving priority and specific problems for the sustainable adaptation of the agricultural sector and rural areas in the applicant countries.

However, the Commission has identified certain specific priority areas within the SAPARD Regulation on which support should be targeted, notably:

171

• ". . . Shall ensure that priority is given to measures to improve market efficiency, quality, and health standards and measures to create new employment in rural areas..."

You will see from this that SAPARD like – although perhaps more so - the EU Rural Development Regulation, is primarily an instrument for aiding the provision of capital investments with the aim of developing economic activity. There is the opportunity for Candidate Countries to select and operate a measure available under SAPARD to pilot agri-environment schemes prior to accession. But it is not obligatory on them. Should it be? But would concentrating support on agri-environment measures affect the ability of these countries to meet the requirements for accession and thereby hinder their ability in the longer term to meet higher and more focused environmental standards?

Stakeholders

I am conscious that I have addressed the question of what the EU’s rural development policy is, but not considered who the stakeholders are in respect of this policy. I suggest that there are three levels :

• Those who receive directly financial support under the schemes implemented in Member States/Candidate Countries.

• Those who indirectly benefit from the financial support that is awarded.

• Those involved at the higher strategic level in both drawing up the plan under which EU support will be based and in monitoring its implementation.

It is a requirement that those involved in the drawing up of both the Rural Development and SAPARD plans reflect the wider partnership who will be directly involved in the success of its implementation. Therefore economic, social and environmental bodies covering the government, non-governmental and private sectors. This is intended to ensure that the plan submitted to the European Commission for approval is balanced and reflects consensus across a broad coalition of partners. This would include agreement on objectives and outputs. A key issue is therefore how to develop these partnerships in both Member States but perhaps particularly in Candidate Countries, where this concept is still a relatively new one.

Linked issues:

Following from this, let me briefly touch upon three issues, which are linked to the operation of agricultural rural development policy within the EU and in the context of enlargement and which raise specifically on the basis of current legislation, the possibility for greater integration of environmental and biodiversity objectives and outputs.

• Retail and marketing.

• Agricultural tourism

• Agricultural Practices

i. Retail and marketing

Should support be targeted at:

• Encouraging more of a move to the marketing benefits available through improving the environment and enhancing biodiversity?

• Eco-labelling

• Promoting the use of traceability

• Incorporating environmental factors into production techniques?

• Promoting local environmental/biodiversity characteristics

There is clearly more interest from consumers and an increasing demand from them for more environmentally friendly agricultural and food products. Could and should support from the Rural Development Regulation and SAPARD be focused on activities that

172

compliment these pressures? Should the support measures be more targeted at encouraging the marketing benefits available through improving the environment and enhancing biodiversity? Should beneficiaries of aid be encouraged to make greater use of eco-labelling, of promoting the use of traceability, of incorporating environmental aspects in production techniques, and/or promoting the local environmental and biodiversity characteristics of regions? How too might awareness of these and other related issues be raised, considered and incorporated into active Member State and Candidate Country programmes?

ii. Agricultural tourism

Should this support be focused on supporting investments which:

• Protect and enhance the countryside,

• Meet consumer demand for greater access to the countryside, and

• Rewarding green tourism - introduction of a 'green star' award system for tourism and recreational facilities that adhere to certain EU/National environmental and biodiversity standards.

An increasingly important aspect of both the Rural Development Regulation and SAPARD is encouraging diversification particularly a move from primary agriculture into agri-tourism. Should aid in this area be focused on investments that more closely coincide with the interests of consumers and the environment by supporting projects that will protect and enhance the countryside and meet consumer demand for greater access to the countryside? Is there also scope for rewarding green tourism projects through the introduction perhaps of a 'green star' award system for those tourism and recreational facilities that adhere to certain EU or national environmental and biodiversity standards. Again, how might awareness of these sort of issues be raised and considered so that Member States and Candidate Countries can both be persuaded of the benefits of moving in this direction and as a result incorporate them into active programmes.

iii. Agricultural Practices

• Better harmonization between agricultural practices and the enhancement of biodiversity?

• More clarity on what is meant and accepted on an EU-wide basis by “good agricultural practice”?

• How can stakeholders and the wider public be made more aware of the linkages between biodiversity and agricultural practices?

This is too big an issue to go into it in any depth this afternoon. But, agricultural practices are an important element of the provision of support for agricultural investment and agri-environment projects under both the EU Rural Development Regulation and SAPARD. Could there be better harmonization between agricultural practices and the enhancement of biodiversity. For example, more clarity on what is meant and accepted on an EU-wide basis by “good agricultural practice”. Also how can stakeholders and the wider public be made more aware of the linkages between biodiversity and agricultural practices?

Conclusion

I accept that in the time available all I have been able to do is raise issues in the hope of encouraging discussion. These are challenging times in which we live. The future of agricultural rural development support within the EU as well as its link to the enlargement of the EU to the East will bring many challenges to agriculture, not just, as many believe, those related to the size of the agricultural budget post accession. It is clear that the environment and biodiversity conservation are an integral part of the debate concerning the future sustainability of agriculture and the rural economy and therefore, I believe, issues that we should be aware of and attempting to address sooner rather than later.

Thank you for your attention.

173

Developing an integrated approach for farmers and local administrators

R. Simoncini, the European Sustainable Use Specialist Group of IUCN/SSC

Agri-environmental Measures: Developingan integrated approach for scientists,

farmers and local administrators

The following presentation is based on a project funded byThe fifth Framework Programme of the EuropeanCommission, conceived by the Agriculture WorkingGroup of IUCN-ESUSG and co-ordinated by IUCN-ERO:

Project title: “Definition of a common European analyticalframework for the development of local agri-environmental programmes for biodiversity and landscapeconservation”

Acronym: “AEMBAC”

Presentation structure:

• Objectives, strategies• Project description• Involvement of Stakeholders: the University of Florence

project• Expected outcomes

174

Objective of the research project:

To suggest a methodology for the identification, developmentand evaluation of agri-environmental measures. These willbe:

• scientifically based• locally targeted• contributing to biodiversity and landscape conservation• ecologically, economically and socially sound

Scope of the AEMBAC projectEuropean agriculture is very diverse from an ecological,

social, cultural, economic and institutional point of view.

For a common analytical framework for agri-environmentalmeasures to be effective, this should be designed to takethis diversity into account and to allow room for it to bemanaged.

In order to represent European diversity the 3 years projectwill be carried out in 7 different countries: Estonia,Germany, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden,Switzerland

.

175

Strategies:To analyse the complexity of the issue the project will be based on:

• an holistic approach considering ecological, social and economic aspects;

• a methodology based on Ecosystems and Multifunctional approaches;

• an evaluation of environmental goods and services;

• internalisation of positive/negative externalities coming from agriculturalactivities through agri-environmental measures;

• the involvement of different stakeholders: the Pan-European project proposedwill be carried out in three interdependent phases, which will be developedwith close involvement of different stakeholders (e.g. local farmers andadministrators).

176

* Problems and issues:•Identification•Information assembly•analysisAll Sub-contractors

•Definition of objectives•Trade-offAll Sub-Contractors

•Priority setting•Policy formulationSub-Contractors N°1, 2, 3

•Costs of policy implementation•Financial sources•Capacity BuildingSub-Contractors N° 1, 2, 3, 6

ImplementationAEMBAC follow-up?

Communication with/Participation of stakeholdersAll Sub-contractors

Monitoring and evaluationAll Sub-contractors

Feedback into review andrevisionAll Sub-contractors

Adapted from: "Strategies for National Sustainable Development" IUCN (The World Conservation Union) IIED (International Institute forEnvironment and Development), 1994

The strategy cycle

Project description• The first phase will be used to identify the performances of different

agricultural systems in relation to the conservation of biodiversity andlandscape in different countries. This involves:

• Identification and assessment of agricultural impacts on themultifunctional character of ecosystems and agri-ecosystems, using:

- “state indicators” at the semi-natural ecosystem and agri-ecosystem levels (e.g. species diversity and composition,landscape features, soil fertility, water quality), and

- "Driving forces/pressure indicators" at the farm level (e.g.pesticide and fertilisers use, soil use, energy use, etc.).

• Identification of Safe Minimum Standard values of selected indicatorsto be used as reference benchmark in developing agri-environmentalmeasures

• Measuring of the sustainability of agricultural practices

177

The second phase will be a co-ordinated analytical study to develop a method forthe identification of agri-environmental policy targets:

• This phase will point out the social-institutional and economic realities in theareas studied.

• It will concern the “translation” of the physical values of environmental impactsresulting from phase 1, into economic orders of magnitude (where feasible);

• On the basis of environmental impacts defined in phase 1 and socio-economicrealities resulting at local level, agri-environmental policy targets will be definedlocally;

• Development of most suitable agri-environmental programmes to achieve policytargets, such as regulatory and/or economic tools;

• Assessment of local feasibility of market oriented and/or command and controlinstruments to be used as incentives for the supply of environmental goods andservices by farmers and for abandonment of unsustainable agricultural practices.

The third phase will build on the first two and will consist of:

• testing, assessing and monitoring the understanding andmanagement feasibility of the analytical framework and toolsproposed for a Pan-European agri-environmental policy at theregional/local level by farmers and administrators.

• An analysis of the administrative and transaction costs to befaced by administrations and environmental accountingprocedures to be adopted also by farmers at local level.

• assessment of the overall economic and financial aspects of theimplementation of the agri-environmental measures.

178

Sub-Contractor No1: Agenzia Regionale per lo Sviluppo e l’Innovazione inAgricoltura, governmental organisation, Tuscany Region, Italy,ARSIA will collaborate in:

• providing relevant information regarding the areas to be analysed. Data will concernlocal agri-ecosystems and environmental functions.

•Studying Agri-environmental indicators

• providing technical personnel and expertise.

•identifying locally sustainable agri-environmental policy targets and the most suitabletypes of agri-environmental measures to reach these.

•defining monitoring and evaluation procedures.

•contacting local farmers Associations during the studying of procedures for concludingcontracts to supply environmental goods and services by farmers.

Stakeholders involvement

Sub -Contractor No2: Istituto Regionale per la ProgrammazioneEconomica della Toscana, governmental organisation,Tuscany Region, Italy,IRPET will collaborate in:

•Studying of the local social structure, cultural identity, rural economicactivities, institutional functioning, legislation and relationships betweenagriculture and other sectors.

•identifying locally sustainable agri-environmental policy targets and the mostsuitable types of agri-environmental measures to reach these.

•studying administrative and transaction costs of contracts to supplyenvironmental goods and services, and

•studying the overall economic and financial aspects for the localimplementation of agri-environmental measures.

Stakeholders involvement

179

Sub-Contractor No3: Istituto Nazionale di Economia Agraria, TuscanyObservatory, governmental organisation, ministry of Agriculture, Italy,INEA will collaborate in:

•studying what are the characteristics of agricultural systems of selected areasintegrating the data coming from the farm management accounts data (Farm AccountData Network) with those gathered through an Agro-environmental questionnaire atfarm level,

•developing farms' environmental accounting systems tailored on locally specificagri-environmental targets,

• studying monitoring and evaluation procedures to be adopted locally with theinvolvement of local farmers and administrators.

•promoting the involvement of local farmers in final definition of agri-environmentaltargets and measures and identification of farms where to conduct pilot projects.

•studying procedures for concluding contracts to supply environmental goods andservices by farmers.

Stakeholders involvement

Sub-Contractors 4, 5 and 6 are:•Accademia Italiana Scienze Forestali, Private Non Profit organisation, Italy,•Istituto Sperimentale per la Salvaguardia e la Conservazione del Suolo, governmentalorganisation, Ministry of Agriculture, Italy.•Associazione Italiana per l’Agricoltura Biologica (AIAB), Private Non Profit organisation,Italy,

They will collaborate in:

•Studying the relevant environmental functions in the area to be analysed. Data will concern localagri-ecosystems and environmental functions (geographical, geological, hydrological, ecological,biological, agricultural, etc.)

•Providing technical personnel and expertise.

•Identifying state and driving forces/pressures indicators to measure the environmental impactsof agricultural activities on the performance of environmental functions at landscape/farm levels.

•Defining for chosen indicators the "safe minimum standards"(SMS) values that allow theecosystems and agro-ecosystems to perform the environmental functions indicated.

•AIAB will collaborate in involving its associates in farm pilot projects.

Stakeholders involvement

180

ARSIARegionalGov.

IRPETRegionalGov.

INEAMinistryof Agr.

ISSDSMinistryof Agr.

AIABOrganicFarmersAss.

AISFScientists

Univ. ofFlorenceScientists

Phase 1: Identification of areas,state and pressures indicators,Identification of safe minimumstandards, agri-environmentalquestionnaire, pilot Farms

X X X X X X

Phase 2: Analysis of localsocio-economic situation,Identification of agri-environmental policy targetsand measures based onregulatory and/or market basedtools

X X X X

Phase 3: Assessment ofunderstanding, feasibility, andmonitoring by local farmers andadministrators

X X X X X

Stakeholders involvement

Expected outcomesThe AEMBAC project will provide the links between scientifically based information and

policy decisions for agri-environmental programmes. These will:

• Relate to detailed environmental objectives, such as Safe Minimum Standards, whichwill help the determining agri-environmental policy targets and measures

• Allow for a more effective monitoring of impacts on the environment other thanmeasuring the impact of agri-chemicals by the quantity used (tons/ha) or sold.

• Enhance transparency and promote a wider application of the subsidiarity principle inmanaging agri-environment programmes.

• Give responsibility at local level (devolution farmers and administrators) on the fine-tuning of policy measures in local agriculture will make stakeholders more responsible,thereby creating an "evaluation culture”

• All this is fundamental for the development of an environmental ethic.

181

Expected outcomesThe AEMBAC project, in promoting a clear distinction between ecological

sustainability in agriculture and a realistically achievable results for the shortterm (i.e. agri-environmental policy targets) at the local level, will also allowfor:

• - The development of dynamic programmes for the transition phase towardssustainability;

• - The promotion of technological innovation and environmental awarenessamongst EU citizens;

• - A clearer definition of risks and uncertainties with regard to unsustainableagricultural practices; and

• - A trade off between different objectives with more precise information.

182

ANNEX 7: Directory of stakeholders on agricultural practices and/or biodiversity conservation This directory of addresses compiles a list of organisations and experts working in the field of agriculture and/or biodiversity conservation. The list is not meant to be complete, but it lists the main international commercial associations, key institutes and research organisations as well as further stakeholders.

1. International (non-commercial) organisations

World Trade Organization Centre William Rappard Rue de Lausanne 154 1211 Geneva 21 Switzerland UNCTAD/WTO International Trade Centre Mr R. Kortbech-Olesen Palais des Nations 1211 Geneva 10 Switzerland Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Developement Mr W. Legg 2, Rue André Pascal 75775 Paris Cedex 16 France United Nations Environment Programme European Regional Office Ir G. van Dijk PO Box 356 1219 Châtelaine Switzerland Council of Europe Mr G. Silvestrini 67075 Strasbourg Cedex France European Landowners Organization Mr T. de l'Escaille Avenue Pasteur, 23 1300 Wavre Belgium

Committee of the Regions Mr E. Reijnders Rue Belliard 79 1040 Brussels Belgium European Environment Agency Mr. J.E. Petersen Kongens Nytorv 6 1050 Copenhagen Denmark European Commission DG Agriculture Mr A. De Angelis Wetstraat 200 1049 Brussels Belgium European Commission Directorate General Environment B2 Mr M. Hamell Beaulieulaan 9 1160 Brussels Belgium European Commission DG Research Mr G. Apostolatos Wetstraat 200 1049 Brussels Belgium

183

Institute for European Environmental Policy Mr D. Baldock Dean Bradley House 52 Horseferry road SW1P 2AT London United Kingdom Food and Agricultural Organisation of the U.N. Mrs L. Colette Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 00100 Rome Italy World Business Council for Sustainable Development Mr A. Fry 4, Chemin de Conches 1231 Conches-Geneva Switzerland IUCN The European Sustainable Use Specialist Group Mr R. Sharp CB 30 Windermere Avenue NW6 6LN London United Kingdom Wetlands International Ph. D. J. Brouwer PO Box 7002 6700 CA Wageningen Netherlands European Centre for Nature Conservation Laura Buguñá PO Box 1352 5004 BJ Tilburg Netherlands World Wide Fund for Nature European Policy Office Ms A. Bamber Jones Eurolink Business Centre Effra Road SW2 1BZ London United Kingdom

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions Wyattville Road CO. Dublin Ireland Centre Européen d'Interet Rural et Environnemental Mr P. Collignon R.E.D., Rue des Portiers 6717 Attert Belgium European Federeation for Information Techn. in Agri. Food & the Environment Mr M. Harkin 32, Cluny Grove Killiney, Co Dublin Ireland European Association for Animal Production Livestock Farming System Dr A. Gibon BP 27 31326 Toulouse Cedex France European Public Health Alliance Mr G. Jensen 33, Rue de Pascale 1040 Brussels Belgium BEUC Mrs C. DeRoo Avenue de Tervueren 36 -bte4- 1040 Brussels Belgium BirdLife International Ms M. Heath Wellbrook Court Girton Road CB3 0NA Cambridge United Kingdom

184

European Food Information Council 1 Place de Pyramides 75001 Paris France European Environmental advisory councils Mrs I. Niestroy c/o SRU Postfach 5528 65180 Wiesbaden Germany European Centre for Eco-Agro Tourism Mr N. Kusters PO Box 10899 1001 EW Amsterdam Netherlands World Travel and Tourism Council Green Globe 21 Mr G. Lipman 30 Grosvenor Gardens SW 1W 0DH London United Kingdom European Leisure and Recreation Association Mr F. Meiresonne Tjotterkade 69 2725 GZ Zoetermeer Netherlands European Parliament Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development Rue Wiertz - Office C2 -73 1040 Brussels Belgium

European Society for Rural Sociology Mr C. Ray University of Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU Newcastle upon Tyne United Kingdom World Health Organization Ms C. Knai Scherfigsvej 8 2100 Copenhagen Denmark European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism Dr M. Pienkowski Lower Barn, Rooks Farm Rotherwick G27 9BG Hook, Hampshire United Kingdom Genetic Resources Action International Mr H. Hobbelink Girona 25, pral E-08010 Barcelona Spain International Union of Soil Sciences Prof. Dr. Winfried Blum University of Agricultural Sciences Gregor Mendel-Str. 33 1180 Vienna Austria

2. Business associations, companies and producers International Fertiliser Society PO Box 4 YO32 5YS Strensall, York United Kingdom

European Fertilizer Manufacturers Association Dr P. Botschek Avenue E. Van Nieuwenhuyse 4 1160 Brussels Belgium

185

International Fertilizers Association 28 Rue Marbeuf 75008 Paris France International Association of Plant Breeders Chemin du Reposoir 7 1260 Nyon Switzerland Global Crop Protection Federation 143 Avenue Louise 1050 Brussels Belgium International Seed Trade Federation Chemin du Reposoir 7 1260 Nyon Switzerland International Association of Plant Breeders (ASSINSEL) Mr G. Sage Member Sustainability Committee Stocks Barn West Lower End CB5 OHT Cambridge United Kingdom International Dairy Federation 41 Square Vergote 1030 Brussels Belgium European Crop Protection Association Mr P. Urech Avenue E. van Nieuwenhuyse 6 1160 Brussels Belgium European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) 1 rue Le Nôtre 75016 Paris France

International Federation of Agricultural Producers Mr C. Kabuga 60 Rue Saint-Lazare 75009 Paris France International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) 34, chemin des Colombettes CH-1211 Geneva 20 Switzerland Comité des Organisations Professionnelles Agricoles de L'Union Européenne (COPA-COGECA) Mr R. Volanen 23-25 Rue de la Science 1040 Brussels Belgium European Farmers Coordination Mr G. Choplin Rue de la Sablonnière 18 1000 Brussels Belgium International Co-operative Alliance Route des Morillons 15 1218 Grands Saconnex Switzerland Euro-Coop Mrs C. Naett Rue Archimède, 17 1000 Brussels Belgium EUREP / EHI Mr K. Moeller Spichernstrasse 55 50672 Cologne Germany

186

Aventis Crop Science Mr S. de Jong P.O. Box 147 4900 AA Oosterhout Netherlands Syngenta Global Headquarters PO Box 4002 Basel Switzerland European Conservation Agriculture Federation Dr L. Garcia-Torres Rond Point Schuman, 6, Box 5 1040 Brussels Belgium IFOAM Mr B. Geier c/o Ökozentrum Imsbach 66636 Tholey-Theley Germany EuropaBio Avenue de L'armée 6 1040 Brussels Belgium Groene Kring VZW Mr P. Mertens Druimeren 1 1540 Herne Netherlands Nestlé, S.A. Mrs I. du Bois Avenue Nestlé 55 1800 Vevey Switzerland

Carrefour Direction Generale 6, avenue Raymon Poincaré BP 419.16 75769 Paris Cédex 16 J Sainsbury plc Alison Austin Stamford House Stamford Street London SE1 9LL UK Koninklijke Ahold Environmental Affairs Postbus 3050 1500 HB Zaandam Netherlands British American Tobacco International Development Affairs Manager Mr S. Opukah Globe House, 4 Temple Road WC2R 2PG London United Kingdom CWS Agriculture Focus on Farming The White House Stoughton Leicester LE2 2FL United Kingdom

3. Institutes, Universities, Research groups

Flemish Institute of Nature Conservation Prof. Dr Ir E. Kuijken Kliniekstraat 25 1070 Brussels Belgium

Institute for Ecological Agriculture Mr H. Bovin Box 45 S-824 21 Hudiksvall Sweden

187

Université Catholique de Louvain Séminaire de droit de l'urbanisme et de l'environment (SERES) Mr Ch. H. Born 2, Place Montesquieu 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve Belgium University of Agricultural Sciences Prof. W.H. Blum Gregor Mendel Strasse 33 1180 Vienna Austria International Agricultural Centre Mr B. Beuming PO Box 88 6700 AB Wageningen Netherlands Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI) Dr F.M. Brouwer PO Box 29703 2502 LS The Hague Netherlands Portuguese Institute for Nature Conservation Mr M. Duarte Rua Ferreira Lapa 38 1150-159 Lisboa Portugal Centre for Agriculture and Environment Mr A. Guldemond PO Box 10015 3505 AA Utrecht Netherlands Stuurgroep Goede Voeding Postbus 85700 2508 CK The Hague Netherlands

Warsaw Agricultural University FAO National Focal Point for Animal Genetic Resources Dr. E. Martyniuk ul Sokolowska 3 01-142 Warszawa Poland Wageningen University and Research Centre Prof. Dr F. Berendse Bornsesteeg 69 6708 PD Wageningen Netherlands Humboldt University of Berlin Department of Agricultural Economics and Social Sciences Prof. Dr K. Hagedorn Luisenstrasse 56 10099 Berlin Germany International Plant Genetic Resources Institute Via delle Sette Chiese, 142 Rome 00145 Italy Atlantica University Prof. Dr T. Pinto Correia Fábrica de Pólvora 2745 Barcarena Portugal ILEIA, the Centre for Information on Low-External-Input and Sustainable Agriculture ETC Netherlands BV PO Box 64 3830 AB Leusden the Netherlands Environmental Research Centre ‘Fernando González Bernáldez’ (CIAM) c/San Sebastián 71 28791 Soto del Real (Madrid) Spain

188

The Allerton Research and Educational Trust Mr A. Leake Loddington House Main Street LE7 9XE Loddington Leicestershire United Kingdom Expertise Centre, Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries Mr C. Maas Geesteranus PO Box 30 6700 AA Wageningen Netherlands Forschungsinstitut für biologischen Landbau Dr U. Niggli Ackerstrasse CH-5070 Frick Switzerland Austrian Network Environmental Research Mrs S. Matouch Theobaldgasse 16/4 1060 Vienna Austria University of Louvain-la-Neufe Laboratoire d’ècologie des prairies Faculté des Sciences Agronomiques Prof. A. Peeters Place Croix du Sud5, Bte 1 B-1348 Lovain-la-Neuve Belgium University of Antwerp Dept. Biology Mr D. Nijssen Universiteitsplein 1C 2610 Wilrijk (Antwerp) Belgium

Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC) Centre of Research and Development Dr J. Isart Jordi girona 18-26 08034 Barcelona Spain Phillips University Marburg Prof P. Poschlod 35032 Marburg Germany CONNECT Dr J. Tack c/o Institute of Nature Conservation Kliniekstraat 25 1070 Brussels Belgium Instituto para o Desenvolvimento Rural é Gestão Mr L. Vieira Rua Gil Vicente 60-4 1300 Lisbon Portugal International Agricultural Centre Mr J.B. Schriere PO Box 88 6700 AB Wageningen Netherlands Institute of Environmental Protection Dr J. Sienkiewicz Krucza 5/11 00-548 Warsaw Poland University of Alcalá de Henares Mr P. Sastre Olmos Km.33,6 28871 Alcalá de Henares Spain

189

IAMZ-CIHEAM Network on Mediterranean Agro-Ecosystems Apartado 202 50080 Zaragoza Spain Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) 147, rue de l'Université 75338 Paris Cedex 07 France

Institute for Ecological Agrciulture Mr Hans Bovin Lundvaegen 31 S-82065 Forsa Sweden

4. National organisations

Council for the Protection of Rural England Warwick House 25 Buckingham Palace Road SW1W 0PP London United Kingdom National Rural Environment Mr D. Ball Stoneleigh Park CV8 2LZ Warwick United Kingdom Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Mr P. Donald The Lodge, Sandy SG19 2DL Bedfordshire United Kingdom NABU Mr F. Schoene Postfach 30 10 54 D-53 190 Bonn Germany Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group Mr R. Bettley-Smith Stoneleigh Kenilworth CV8 2RX Warwickshire United Kingdom

English Nature Dr M. Felton Northminster House PE1 1UA Peterborough United Kingdom Association française de production Fourragère Mrs V. Ferry F-78026 Versailles Cédex France Netherlands Society for Nature and Environment Mr G.U. Kuneman Donkerstraat 17 3511 KB Utrecht Netherlands The Heritage Council of Ireland Dr L. Lysaght Cill Chainnaigh Kilkenny Ireland Terre-Net Avenue des Censives 50333 60600 Beauvais Cedex France

190

Association Française de Production Fourragère Mr J.M. Chabosseau La Chêne 86600 Lusignan France Federation of Swedish Farmers Mr S. Jonsson Rue d' Arlon 82 1040 Brussels Belgium Deutscher Bauernverband e.V. Godesberger Allee 142-148 53175 Bonn Germany Danish Farmers Union Mr N. Norring Axelborg, 4th floor Vesterbrogade 4A 1620 Copenhagen Denmark Verband der Deutschen Milchwirtschaft Ms I Coldewey Meckenheimer Allee 137 53115 Bonn Germany

Dutch Society for the Conservation of Nature Mr T. Prins PO Box 9955 1243 ZS 'S-Graveland Netherlands Leisure Innovation Centre Ir. J. Klüppel Raamweg 19 2596 HL The Hague Netherlands DLV Advisory Group Mr S. Kaarsenmaker PO Box 7001 6700 CA Wageningen Netherlands Arbeitsgemeinschaft Ökologischer Landbau e.V. Dr. K.P. Wilbois Brandschneise 1 D-64295 Darmstadt Germany

5. Foundation, trusts & others

Stiftung Ökologie & Landbau Secretariat of Organic Europe Ms H. Willer Weinstrasse Süd 51 D-67098 Bad Dürkheim Germany Association of Preservation Trusts Clareville House 26/27 Oxendon SW 1Y 4EL London United Kingdom

TRUST Mr E. Barroso Pza. De la Constitución 1, 1a of. 28430 Alpedrete (Madrid) Spain Rabobank Netherlands Mr B.J. Krouwel PO Box 17100 - UHB 634 3500 AG Utrecht Netherlands

191

Triodos Bank Ms M.G.H.E. van Goldstein-Brouwers PO Box 55 3700 AB Zeist Netherlands The National Trust Mr R. Macklin 33, Sheep Street / Cirencester GL7 1RQ Gloucestershire United Kingdom SAVE Foundation (Safeguard for Agricultural Varieties in Europe) Head Office Paradiesstr. 13 D-78462 Konstanz Germany

ADAS International Mr I. Hepburn Wolverhampton United Kingdom Royal Dutch Touring Club ANWB Mr R. Sinke Wassenaarseweg 220 2596 EC The Hague Netherlands