Suchergebnisse

Despite agriculture being a dominant form of land management and a major driver of global change, the pivotal role of low-intensity farming systems for the conservation of agrobiodiversity and the wider provision of ecosystem services has been highlighted (1). High Nature Value farmlands (HNVf) are social-ecological systems in which the maintenance of traditional, low-intensity farming systems support the occurrence of species and habitats, often with high conservation value. HNVf are especially vulnerable to socioeconomic changes, due to rural depopulation and lack of economic viability, resulting in the cessation of traditional farming practices in favour of land abandonment or intensification (1). Maintaining HNVf systems has been identified within the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and Environmental policies as crucial for environmental sustainability and conservation of agrobiodiversity in the EU countryside. A significant proportion of the areas protected as Natura 2000 sites are farmlands, thus maintaining HNVf and farming systems are important to assure the long-term success of the Natura 2000 network (2). Thus, understanding changes in the extent and location of HNVf before and after policy changes is essential to assess their impacts on the nature value of farmlands, particularly the ones included in Natura 2000 areas (2). Here, using a spatially-explicit approach build on indicators expressing the intensity of farming practices, crop diversity and landscape patterns, HNVf were mapped in the agrarian region of Entre-Douro-e-Minho (Northwestern Portugal) for two-time periods - 1990 and 2010. Results were compared and analysed for changes between the two years, inside and outside Natura 2000 sites to achieve deeper insights on how the 2003 CAP reform may have impacted land use and ultimately the nature value of farmlands. Preliminary results show a general decrease in potential HNVf areas from 1990 to 2010, both inside and outside Natura 2000 sites. Further analysis are expected to highlight the impacts of recent policy changes (e.g CAP reform 2003) in land use, ultimately impacting the nature value of farmlands. Results will then be discussed in the context of HNVf conservation and monitoring. (1) Plieninger, T. and C. Bieling (2013). "Resilience-Based Perspectives to Guiding High-Nature-Value Farmland through Socioeconomic Change." Ecology and Society 18(4). (2) Lomba, A., et al. (2015). "Reconciling nature conservation and traditional farming practices: a spatially explicit framework to assess the extent of High Nature Value farmlands in the European countryside." Ecol Evol 5(5): 1031-1044. This research is being developed within the FARSYD project - 'FARming SYstems as tool to support policies for effective conservation and management of high nature value farmlanDs' (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-016664- PTDC/AAG-EC/5007/2014). ; peerReviewed

While multiple ecosystem service benefits are increasingly emphasised in policy as an outcome for land management, most conservation management and legislation is currently focused on conserving specific species and habitats. These management interventions may provide multiple co-benefits for other ecosystem services but more information is needed on where these synergies occur in order to realise these benefits. In this paper, we use expert data obtained from structured interviews with key stakeholders to examine the perceived impacts of 11 species-specific conservation schemes on wider ecosystem services in Scotland, UK. With some exceptions, impacts were perceived to be mostly positive or neutral, suggesting that there are many potential opportunities when looking to manage for the delivery of multiple ecosystem services. Unsurprisingly, 'wild species diversity' and 'environmental settings' are the ecosystem services perceived to benefit the most from species conservation management. Despite the clear benefits of aligning biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service objectives, many challenges remain and future policy and associated management will need to tackle issues of scale as well as the distribution of costs and benefits.

This paper examines the potential impact of agricultural and trade policy reform on land-use across the EU focussing particularly on the issue of land abandonment. Using a novel combined application of the well established CAPRI and Dyna-CLUE models it estimates the extent of change across Europe under removal of Pillar 1 support payments and trade liberalisation. Overall, it is estimated that around 8 per cent less land will be farmed under these reforms than under the baseline situation. However, some regions, areas and farm types face more significant reductions. The reforms are particularly felt on livestock grazing farms situated in the more marginal areas of Europe, which also coincide with areas of high nature value. Therefore, farmland biodiversity is likely to be reduced in these areas. However, using a range of environmental indicators, relating to nutrient surpluses, GHG emissions, soil erosion and species abundance, an overall improvement in the environmental footprint of agriculture is likely. In addition, the economic efficiency of the agricultural sector will probably improve. The paper considers several possible options available to deal with any negative aspects of land abandonment. Following the FAO (2006), it is argued that untargeted, rather general agricultural policy measures which maintain land in production are likely to be an ineffective and inefficient way to address the perceived negative consequences of abandonment. A more holistic approach to rural development is required, tailored to the specific context within each area.

Acknowledgements We thank everyone who helped with fieldwork, particularly Sue Bignal for her ongoing efforts on Islay, and David Jardine, Mike Peacock and Neil Metcalfe for providing information from Colonsay. We thank all landowners and farmers who allowed access to nest sites. We thank Scottish Natural Heritage, and particularly Rae McKenzie, for their ongoing support, and thank the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds for their generous logistical support for AET and JMR. We thank Tom Pennycott and John Mould for undertaking veterinary post-mortems of blind nestlings, and Islay Veterinary Surgery for their help. AET was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council and Scottish Natural Heritage, JMR was funded by the Royal Society, and DMcC was funded by the Scottish Government Rural Affairs & Environment Portfolio Strategic Research Programme 2011–2016, Theme 1: Ecosystem Services & Biodiversity. Data accessibility Data on occurrences of blindness in affected families are available in the Supporting Information. All other data associated with this article are available at the Dryad Digital Repository http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.57t89 (Trask et al. 2016). ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF

Acknowledgements The long-term study could not have been achieved without long-term support from numerous people, including Islay farmers and land-owners who facilitated access to nest sites and observation locations; all current and previous members of the Scottish Chough Forum; and NatureScot and RSPB (summarised in Appendix S2). We particularly thank Rae McKenzie of NatureScot, without whose enthusiasm and willingness to engage with apparently abstract ideas we would likely never have got beyond phase 1. Aspects of the work were funded by Natural Environment Research Council, NatureScot, University of Aberdeen, University of Glasgow, RSPB, Scottish Government's Strategic Research Programme, Scotland's Rural College, Killam Trusts and the Royal Society (details in Appendix S2). We thank David Jardine for his valuable contributions, and Rae McKenzie, Jess Shaw and Morven Laurie (NatureScot), and Jen Smart, Gillian Gilbert, Jack Fleming and Paul Walton (RSPB) for commenting on a manuscript draft. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF

Acknowledgements We thank all Islay landowners and farmers who allowed access to nest sites and supported supplementary feeding, especially Donald Jones and Robert and Tom Epps, and everyone who contributed to fieldwork and data collection. We thank NatureScot for funding supplementary feeding, led by Rae McKenzie, Jess Shaw and Des Thompson, and Royal Society for the Protection of Birds for logistic support. This work was supported by a Natural Environment Research Council iCASE studentship (NE/P009719/1) with NatureScot, and the Scottish Government's 2011-2016 and 2016-2021 Strategic Research Programmes. Open access via Wiley agreement. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF

In Scotland, at the time of the EU referendum, a majority of people saw their future as remaining within the European Union and 62 per cent voted to do so. Following the result Scotland has an opportunity to make new plans and to create a fresh vision for the future that will not only benefit urban dwellers but also rural communities across the country. This poses particular challenges for policymakers, and many of these challenges are specific to Scotland and need consideration from both the devolved Scottish Government and Westminster. Scottish agriculture and its wider rural economy has some unique features, including its greater remoteness and environmental challenges, larger extent of fragile farming systems with high value for nature, and its historical crofting traditions.

In Scotland, at the time of the EU referendum, a majority of people saw their future as remaining within the European Union and 62 per cent voted to do so. Following the result Scotland has an opportunity to make new plans and to create a fresh vision for the future that will not only benefit urban dwellers but also rural communities across the country. This poses particular challenges for policymakers, and many of these challenges are specific to Scotland and need consideration from both the devolved Scottish Government and Westminster. Scottish agriculture and its wider rural economy has some unique features, including its greater remoteness and environmental challenges, larger extent of fragile farming systems with high value for nature, and its historical crofting traditions.

A better, more effective dialogue is needed between biodiversity science and policy to underpin the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity. Many initiatives exist to improve communication, but these largely conform to a 'linear' or technocratic model of communication in which scientific "facts" are transmitted directly to policy advisers to "solve problems". While this model can help start a dialogue, it is, on its own, insufficient, as decision taking is complex, iterative and often selective in the information used. Here, we draw on the literature, interviews and a workshop with individuals working at the interface between biodiversity science and government policy development to present practical recommendations aimed at individuals, teams, organisations and funders. Building on these recommendations, we stress the need to: (a) frame research and policy jointly; (b) promote inter- and trans-disciplinary research and "multi-domain" working groups that include both scientists and policy makers from various fields and sectors; (c) put in place structures and incentive schemes that support interactive dialogue in the long-term. These are changes that are needed in light of continuing loss of biodiversity and its consequences for societal dependence on and benefits from nature.