Suchergebnisse

Die Landwirtschaft besitzt eine bedeutende Rolle für die Erhaltung und Förderung der Biodiversität, denn rund 50 % der Fläche in Deutschland werden landwirtschaftlich genutzt. Die Zielvorstellungen verschiedenster Akteure, wie Biodiversität in Agrarlandschaften erhalten und gefördert werden kann, weichen zum Teil erheblich voneinander ab. Ein vertiefendes Verständnis von Landwirt-schaft und Biodiversität kann helfen, gemeinsame Zielbilder für die langfristige Entwicklung von Agrarräumen zu entwerfen und auf diese Art und Weise Biodi-versitätsmaßnahmen wirksamer zu gestalten und Transformationsprozesse von Agrarsystemen anzustoßen. ; About 50 % of the area of Germany is used for agricultural purposes. Consequently, agriculture is of utmost importance for maintaining and promoting biodiversity. This responsibility is also formulated by nature conservation and environmental protection as well as by a society that is committed to sustainability. However, the objectives of the respective players sometimes differ widely with regard how biodiversity should be protected, maintained and used in agriculture. A differentiated view of land use and a deeper understanding of biodiversity could help to develop targets for so-called agricultural units to protect and maintain biodiversity in agricultural landscapes while respecting regional and local particularities. Through the participation of society, strategies can thus be devel-oped for implementing concrete measures and transformation processes of agricultural systems. By designing meaningful biodiversity indicators that fit the characteristics of the agricultural units, it is possible to evaluate the measures and transformation processes, and to adapt their design to meet political strategies and objectives.

Deutschland verfügt derzeit über keine national umfassende Datengrundlage zum Zustand und zur Entwicklung der Biodiversität in Agrarlandschaften. Eine wissenschaftlich belastbare Bestandsaufnahme und differenzierte Bewertung der Trends sowie der Ursachen für die Trendentwicklungen für Agrarräume sind daher nur sehr eingeschränkt möglich. Entsprechend fehlt die wissenschaftliche Datenbasis mittels derer die Wirksamkeit von agrarumweltpolitischen Maßnahmen auf die Biodiversität bewertet werden könnte. Daraus ergibt sich die Notwendigkeit, dass als Grundlage für wissensbasierte politische Entscheidungen, im Hinblick auf die zukünftige Ausgestaltung der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik (GAP) der EU und weiterer umweltrelevanter Politiken, dringend Daten aus einem auf die Agrarräume Deutschlands angepassten Biodiversitätsmonitoring (BM)-Landwirtschaft benötigt werden. [.] ; There is no comprehensive national database on the state and development of biodiversity in agricultural landscapes of Germany. Therefore, the prospects for an evidence based assessment of the biodiversity trends and the factors causing these trends across different types of agricultural landscapes are limited. Accordingly, our possibilities to inform policy about success or failure of agri-environmental measures with the aim to provide feedback for future improvement of agri-environmental policy are limited as well. A programme for biodiversity monitoring designed to meet the characteristics of agricultural landscapes of Germany is therefore urgently needed. [.]

Agroforestry systems are currently discussed with respect to their potential as integrative biodiversity conservation measure in agriculture (Jose et al. 2012; Tsonkova et al. 2012). An open question is whether agroforestry, as a cultivated habitat, should be eligible as ecological focus area within the greening of the EU common agricultural policy. One type of agroforestry in Europe is alley cropping for the combined production of food and energy with strips of short rotation coppice (SRC; mainly of fast growing poplar; FNR 2012). So far little is known about the importance of those systems for the effective support of biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes (Jose et al. 2004)

The maintenance of High Nature Value (HNV) farming is a priority for reaching the target of halting biodiversity loss in the European Union by 2020. Nevertheless, since the introduction of the HNV farming concept in the early 1990s and the first call for HNV farmland indicators in 2000, farmland biodiversity has continued to decline in many parts of Europe. The main processes behind this decline are agricultural intensification and abandonment. Past and current agricultural subsidies and conservation measures have mainly failed to safeguard HNV farmland and the respective farming systems. In this paper, we revise current approaches for localizing and characterizing HNV farming, identify shortcomings and describe the next generation of HNV farming indicators; show how HNV farming is related to existing concepts aimed at biodiversity conservation; and provide an overview of EU policy instruments that could help preserve HNV farming. We finish by outlining which steps should be taken so that HNV farming remains a part of our modern agricultural landscape.

Modern intensive cropping systems rely on simple cropping sequences, mineral fertilizers and chemical crop protection. This has led to a reduction of crop diversity, simplified land-scapes and declines in biodiversity. However, even today in intensive farming systems, legume-supported cropping has the potential to deliver many ecosystem services, both directly due to unique trait combinations and indirectly via promoting biodiversity and by facilitating services such as pollination, pest control and soil improvement. This chapter outlines the effects of legume cropping on biodiversity, focusing on legume-specific traits and their interactions with agricultural management. Legumes have complex direct and indirect interactions with the surrounding agroecosystem and its management, so it is not possible to fully separate general crop management effects from effects of management that is specific to legume crops, and legume-trait effects. Legumes can benefit farmland biodiversity when included in highly productive cropping systems. Legume crops qualify for the ecological focus areas in 'greening' of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European Union (EU). Several of the effects of legumes are related to changes in management practices, such as a reduced use of pesticides, fertilizer or soil tillage. Of course benefits for biodiversity may be also partially achieved by other crops and diversified crop rotations. However, legume traits and management practices vary at a species or even cultivar level and so here we provide a general overview of the effects on biodiversity.

1. Concerns about insect declines are growing and the provisioning of ecosystem services like pollination may be threatened. To safeguard biodiversity, greening measures were introduced within the reform of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy. One measure commonly applied by farmers is the cultivation of nitrogen fixing crops. Although underlying studies are largely missing, this measure is criticized as providing no significant biodiversity benefit. 2. Using a landscape-scale approach, we selected 30 paired study landscapes (1 km × 1 km) in Germany, that is, 15 study landscapes with faba bean (FB) fields (Vicia faba L .) a nd 15 w ithout a ny g rain l egumes. F lower-visiting w ild b ees were recorded with transect walks at the field margins of different crops using a stratified sampling approach. We analysed the effect of FB cultivation and landscape composition on the abundance and species richness of wild bees as well as on the functional composition of the bee communities. 3. Bumblebee densities (Bombus spp. Latreille) were more than twice as high in FB compared to control landscapes after the flowering of the beans. Non-Bombus wild bee densities, however, were not affected by FB cultivation, but were enhanced by increasing amounts of semi-natural habitats (SNH). 4. After the beans' blooming had ceased, FB landscapes had a higher proportion of wild bees collecting pollen from Fabaceae than control landscapes. The communityweighted means for bee size, measured as intertegular distance, were not affected by FB cultivation, but we found smaller species and species with shorter tongues with an increasing percentage of SNH. 5. Synthesis and applications. The cultivation of faba bean Vicia faba L . s trongly increased bumblebee densities throughout the season. This indicates that also on-field greening measures can support biodiversity. Nevertheless, since only functional groups adapted to faba bean benefit, measures to promote seminatural habitats in agricultural landscapes need to be implemented. We conclude that the combination of on- and off-field measures is essential to maintain farmland biodiversity and the Common Agricultural Policy should furthermore promote both.

Worldwide, the role of farmlands for biodiversity conservation and the delivery of multiple ecosystem services has been widely acknowledged. In the European Union (EU), societal demands to include environmental conservation concerns within the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) have resulted in the recognition of the importance of maintaining High Nature Value farmlands (HNVf). HNVf constitute complex social-ecological systems, which owe their nature conservation value to the maintenance of specific, mostly low-intensity farming systems, supporting high levels of species and habitats dependent on agricultural practices. Even though HNVf assessment in space and time is essential to evaluate the effectiveness of Rural Development Programmes, the diversity of rural landscapes across EU, the scarcity of data on farming systems, and the lack of common methodological guidelines has hampered the implementation of HNVf mapping and monitoring across Europe. Thus, there is a pressing need to develop and test methodological approaches that may support HNVf assessment across the EU.The Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) which is mandatory for all EU Member States constitutes a system for the management and control of CAP payments to farmers. Essentially, IACS comprises high-resolution, spatially explicit information on the type and intensity of agricultural land-use. Even though such data exhibits high thematic, spatial and temporal resolution, IACS has seldom been used, due to significant access restrictions. Here, the potential to use IACS data to support the assessment of HNVf was evaluated within the German Federal State of Lower Saxony by implementing a recently developed methodological framework. Sets of indicators known to be essential for identifying potential HNVf and underlying farming systems (expressing landscape structure and composition, farming systems, and crop diversity), were derived from IACS. Spatial patterns of indicators were analyzed at two different scales to delineate the potential distribution of HNVf across Lower Saxony. Results highlighted that most regions in Lower Saxony were characterized by intensive farming practices including high livestock density, high share of intensive crops and low density of linear elements.Only 3% of the Utilized Agricultural Area (UAA) of Lower Saxony potentially constituted HNVf, with the majority of HNVf coinciding with mosaics of arable and/or permanent crops and semi-natural features under less intensive farming practices. Semi-natural grasslands, partially under agri-environment scheme management contracts, covered roughly 1% of the UAA and were mostly intermingled with other farmland habitats in extensively managed agricultural landscapes.

In der vorliegenden Stellungnahme werden die GAP-Beschlüsse zum Greening der Direktzahlungen in Bezug auf die nationalen Gestaltungsspielräume für die drei Greening-Komponenten Anbaudiversifizierung, Erhaltung von Dauergrünland und ökologische Vorrangflächen (ÖVF)2 bewertet und Handlungsoptionen vorgeschlagen. Dabei wird der Frage nachgegangen, inwiefern die einzelnen nationalen Umsetzungsoptionen sich auf die Biodiversität auswirken und welche Kosten mit einzelnen ÖVF-Maßnahmen verbunden sind. Weiterhin wird der administrative Aufwand bewertet.

Das Biodiversitätsmonitoring in Deutschland ist disziplinär und institutionell stark fragmentiert – mit der Folge, dass weder der Zustand der Biodiversität noch ihre Entwicklungstrends einheitlich abgebildet werden. Das wäre jedoch die Voraussetzung, damit Deutschland dem Biodiversitätsverlust gezielt entgegentreten sowie seinen nationalen und internationalen Berichtspflichten nachkommen kann. Für ein erfolgreiches Biodiversitätsmonitoring müssen Akteure aus Wissenschaft, Politik und Zivilgesellschaft besser zusammenarbeiten und ihre Strategien zum Biodiversitätsmonitoring abstimmen.

In der vorliegenden Stellungnahme werden die GAP-Beschlüsse zum Greening der Direktzahlungen in Bezug auf die nationalen Gestaltungsspielräume für die drei Greening-Komponenten Anbaudiversifizierung, Erhaltung von Dauergrünland und ökologische Vorrangflächen (ÖVF)2 bewertet und Handlungsoptionen vorgeschlagen. Dabei wird der Frage nachgegangen, inwiefern die einzelnen nationalen Umsetzungsoptionen sich auf die Biodiversität auswirken und welche Kosten mit einzelnen ÖVF-Maßnahmen verbunden sind. Weiterhin wird der administrative Aufwand bewertet.

Das Biodiversitätsmonitoring in Deutschland ist disziplinär und institutionell stark fragmentiert ‐ mit der Folge, dass weder der Zustand der Biodiversität noch ihre Entwicklungstrends einheitlich abgebildet werden. Das wäre jedoch die Voraussetzung, damit Deutschland dem Biodiversitätsverlust gezielt entgegentreten sowie seinen nationalen und internationalen Berichtspflichten nachkommen kann. Fur ein erfolgreiches Biodiversitätsmonitoring mussen Akteure aus Wissenschaft, Politik und Zivilgesellschaft besser zusammenarbeiten und ihre Strategien zum Biodiversitätsmonitoring abstimmen.

Angesichts des rasanten Wandels unserer Umwelt und des drohenden Verlusts ökosystemarer Leistungen sind aussagekräftige Daten zum Zustand und der Entwicklung der biologischen Vielfalt von großer Bedeutung. Um diese für Deutschland zu generieren, erscheint eine Anpassung und Koordination bestehender Monitoringprogramme dringend notwendig. Hierfür sollte eine engere Kooperation zwischen Fachbehörden, wissenschaftlichen Einrichtungen und Gesellschaften sowie relevanten Verbänden angestrebt werden. In diesem Sinne wird folgendes empfohlen: - Gründung einer transdisziplinären Arbeitsgruppe, die ein Konzept für ein bundesweit einheitliches und inhaltlich erweitertes Biodiversitätsmonitoring erarbeitet. - Stärkung des beruflichen Biodiversitätsschutzes sowie des Ehrenamts - Standardisierung der Erhebungsmethoden und langfristige Sicherung sowie Verfügbarmachung von Biodiversitätsdaten, inklusive der Einbettung deutscher Aktivitäten in internationale Netzwerke - Ausschöpfen des Potenzials automatisierter Erfassungsmethoden

Reversing the decline of biodiversity in European agricultural landscapes is urgent. We suggest eight measures addressing politics, economics, and civil society to instigate transformative changes in agricultural landscapes. We emphasize the need for a well-informed society and political measures promoting sustainable farming by combining food production and biodiversity conservation