High Nature Value Farmland (HNVF) in Austria

Methodology & Results1

The concept of High Nature Value Farmland

in Austria – Good practice Workshop ”High Nature Value

Farmland and Forestry”, Edinburgh, 20 February 2012

2

Umweltbundesamt

Environment Agency Austriawww.umweltbundesamt.at

Kontakt und Information:

Elisabeth SchwaigerLand Use & Biosafety Environment Agency AustriaT: +43-(0)1-313 04/3640F: +43-(0)1-313 04/3533elisabeth.schwaiger@umweltbundesamt.at

Presentation overview

1. Identification of HNV Farmland

Database

Methodology

Type 1 –farmland with high proportion of seminatural vegetation

Type 2 –farmland with mosaic of low intensity agriculture & natural/structural elements

Combination of criteria & area determination

2. Results „Baseline 2007“ & „Changes 2009“

Overall results

Detailed results

3. Plausibility check

Examples of HNVF in Austria

extensive grasslands structured by hedges…

alpine pastures; orchard meadows…

Examples of HNVF in Austria

diverse patchwork of small-scaled structures and microclimates; extensive vineyards; hollows & embankments; species-rich field margins

Database

1. IACS -Integrated

Administration and

Control System: (cover

97% UAA in Austria)

Land use/management of

agricultural parcel

Yield index

Agricultural parcel size

Livestock unit (LU)

Selected agri-environment

measures (ÖPUL)

2. Biotope type

catalogue

red list of endangered

biotope types in Austria

(ENVIRONMENT AGENCY AUSTRIA

2004 & 2005)

3. Orthophotos

Approach

TYPE 1 HNVF

1. selection of single agricultural

parcels corresponding to

HNVF selection criteria

2. assignment of agricultural

parcels to 1 km² raster cells

3. creation of two categories of

HNVF type 1 (general; most

valuable;)

4. summarizing total area for AT

TYPE 2 HNVF

1. assessment of the structure ofsingle raster cell [1km2]

2. Transforming of the value toHNVF area (UAA)

3. summarizing to total area forAustria

RESULT

total area type 1

total area type 2

not directlysummable

TYP 3 HNVF not yet estimated

HNVF TYPE 1: Assessment of single agriculturalparcels on basis of land use

Objective:

Identification of farmland with high proportion of seminatural vegetation

Methodology:

Identification of local biotope types of high natural value:

15 extensively agricultural FFH-habitat types in Austria = 47 biotope types

+ 15 additional agricultural biotope types that are valuable and/orendangered red list Austria (ENVIRONMENT AGENCY AUSTRIA 2004 & 2005)

in total 62 agricultural used biotope types of high natural value identified

Analysis of the management needs

selection of landuse/management practices from IACS Indicators/

selcetion criteria for the natural value of agricultural land

Selection criteria for HNVF type 1

Landuse of agriscultural parcelss 2007 (IACS) and AEP-measures HNV type 1- „most valuable“ HNV type 1 – „general“

Grassland & meadow orchards

mountain meadow x x

litter meadow x x

one-cut meadow x x

rough grazing 0 < LU /ha < 1 x

meadow/ pasture two cutswith nature conservation measures

(valuable area) 0 < LU / ha < 1

maintainance of meadow orchards (AEP-measure) x x

landscape element G with nature conservation measures (AEP) with nature conservation measures (AEP)

meadow/ pasture three and more cuts with nature conservation measures (AEP)

permanent pasture with nature conservation measures (AEP)

GAEC G x

alpine pasture (forage area) 0 < LU / ha < 1

Arable land

landscape element A with nature conservation measures (AEP) with nature conservation measures (AEP)

set aside with nature conservation measures (AEP) x

arable land with nature conservation measures (AEP)

arable land without root crops, rape seed, field vegetables and maizeWith AEP-measure „organic farming“ AND yield

index/ ha < 25% quantilw

arable land without root crops, rape seed, field vegetables and maize

With AEP-measure „renunciation of means of

production which increase yield” AND yield index/

ha < 25% quantile

lucerneWith AEP-measure „organic farming“ AND yield

index/ ha < 25% quantile

Vineyards and special crops

area in terrasse farming x

HNVF Type 2: assessment of landscapestructure

Objective:

Identification of farmland with mosaic of low intensity agriculture andnatural and structural elements at landscape level

Methodology:

1. Field density= number of parcels /ha UAA

2. Crop density= number of crop types /ha UAA

(F + C) * sqrt(C/ F)

3. Size of structure-rich areas increases the value

(F + C) * sqrt( C / F ) * log (UAA + 1)

For every single raster cell structural value was estimated

Input parameters forstructural value

HNVF Type 2: Transformation of structural valueto area

Structural value is attribute at

landscape level

Threshold:

if structural value > threshold

value

total UAA of the raster cell

[km2] indicates HNVF

Definition of threshold value:

2 versions 15% & 10% of cells

with the highest structural values

Percentile e.g. 2007

85 % 90 %

Proportion of UAA 10,3 % 6,4 %

Cell with high proportion on arable land HNVF type 1 and 2

structuralvalue= 2,25 total areaHNVF= 100%

HNVF type 1 „mostvaluable“= 7,3 haHNVF type 1 „general“= 24,8 ha

Result: areas HNVF type 1 and type 2

HNVF type 1: total area of high value agricultural parcels (in two valuecategories)

HNVF type 2 (structural value > treshold value): total agricultural area of theraster cells = HNVF (in two value categories)

raster Cells with exclusively type 1 areas (0 to 100% of the agricultural area/ cell)

raster Cells with exclusively type 2 areas (0 or 100% of the agricultural area/ cell)

HNVF types 1 and 2 can overlap!!!

Overall results for the HNVF types 1 + 2

ha 2007 % of UAA 2007 ha 2009 % of UAA 2009difference

[ha]

change [ha]

compared to 2007

HNV general, 85%ile 1.137.779 40,7% 1.131.940 41,0% -5.838 -0,5%

HNV general, 90%ile 1.056.055 37,7% 1.049.098 38,0% -6.957 -0,7%

HNV most valuable,

85%ile382.807 13,7% 391.703 14,2% 8.896 2,3%

HNV most valuable,

90%ile278.978 10,0% 286.228 10,4% 7.250 2,6%

changes whithin HNVF are more meaningful than the total area

UAA…. total Agricultural Area

Detailed results

Total area HNV Farmland

regarding land use (type 1) ha 2007

% of UAA

2007 ha 2009

% of UAA

2009

difference

[ha]

changes [ha]

compared to 2007

„most valuable“ 110.843 4,0% 116.974 4,2% 6.131 5,5%

„general“ 925.775 33,1% 918.146 33,2% -7.629 -0,8%

Total area HNV Farmland

regarding the structural

value (type 2)

„HNVF type 2 at 85%ile

treshold“

288.907 10,3% 293.571 10,6% 4.664 1,6%

„HNVF type 2 at 90%ile

treshold“

6,4% 181.917 6,6% 2.224 1,2%

Detailed results

HNVF type 1 „most valuable“

increasing area from 2007 to 2009

Partly due to the increased participation of AE nature conservation measures

most extensive grassland management practices decreased (rough pastures, one-cutmeadows, litter meadows)

HNVF type 1 „general“

Slightly decreasing area from 2007 to 2009

Corresponding with the decrease of alpine pastures (forage area) and set asides(Regulation (EC) No 73/2009; end of the set aside obligation)

Decrease of species-rich grassland with medium-intensive management

Increase of organic arable land (AEP-measure „organic farming“) and grassland with AE nature conservation measures

Plausibility check

1. Field investigations

Investigation of several

raster cells [1km2]

containing HNV Farmland

Example of a raster cell:

HNVF- Type 1:

app. 50% of UAA HNV „general“

app. 30% of UAA HNV „most

valuable“

HNVF-type 2:

0%

structural value 1,5

Plausibility check

2. Orthophoto

interpretation

review of the structural value

results (HNVF type 2)

structural diversity and

particularly the incidence of

landscape elements can easily

be assessed at landscape level

3. Comparison of the HNVF

results with relevant

biodiveristy studies

Conclusions of the plausibility checks

criteria used for identification of HNVF type 1 indicate highly

valuable agricultural areas (particularly true for grasslands)

differentiation between the value categories of HNVF type 1

is not always significant

HNVF type 2 can be applied best for arable farmland and

mosaics of grassland and arable land small scaled

landscapes often correlate with the occurence of landscape

elements

structural diversity of grassland-dominated areas is often

classified too low

methodological proposals to improve the validity of the

results

„One-cut meadow“– HNVF type 1

„rough pasture“ – HNVF type 1

„meadow/ pasture two cuts + 0 < LU / ha < 1“– HNVF type 1

„meadow/ pasture three and more cuts + nature conservation

measure“ HNVF type 1

arable land –HNVF type 1?