Intensive farming methods have simplified landscapes across Europe, leading to a loss of biodiversity. A recent study has investigated the effects of intensive farming on plants, beetles and birds in Western European regions and found that plants and birds are particularly affected.

In recent decades, changes in agricultural practices have transformed the structure of landscapes across Europe, particularly in the West. Intensification of agriculture has simplified a previously complex landscape, which has been accompanied by a loss of biodiversity in European farmlands. Agricultural intensification (AI) affects biodiversity at all levels of the landscape, from field and farm levels, through to the regional scale.

In this study, the diversity of plants, ground beetles (carabids) and breeding birds was measured at local and regional levels in cereal crop fields in eight European countries: Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Sweden. The total diversity of species at field, farm and regional scales was estimated from the average diversity within communities and from the average diversity between different communities at all three scales.

AI was estimated from fertiliser and pesticide inputs, tillage operations and mechanical weed control used by farmers in the study areas. Based on this information, AI was divided into low, medium and high levels in each region and the impact of AI on biodiversity in the landscape was assessed.

For all regions studied at all three scales (field, farm and regional), AI was linked to reduced diversity of plants and birds, but not ground beetles. This suggests the impact of AI on biodiversity is not uniform and some groups of species are more affected than others. In addition, how mobile the different groups of species are, plays an important role in the pattern of diversity found across the landscape.

• High levels of AI affected plants at all scales: plants are not mobile and the more simplified the landscape became (with associated loss of diverse habitats), the greater the loss of plant diversity.
• High levels of AI especially affected birds at the farm and region scale. However, with low levels of AI, the diversity of birds was increased. Less intensive agricultural management of fields (e.g. less weed control), maintaining a diversity of field margins (such as hedgerows and woodland) and providing semi-natural habitats in arable landscapes are all important for bird diversity.
• Ground beetle diversity found within fields probably benefitted from having various types of field margins and near-by semi-natural areas, which would supply habitats for new recruits of beetles to the fields.

Although the level of intensive agriculture practised locally by farmers affected species diversity at the field scale, biodiversity (especially of birds and ground beetles) found among different communities at the farm scale was more important in terms of regional biodiversity. Therefore, different local farming practices significantly affect the pattern of the landscape structure and the biodiversity found in agricultural landscapes.

Understanding the detailed impacts of AI on different groups of species at field, farm and regional scales is important for the development of effective agri-environmental schemes. Resources can be targeted at areas where high levels of diversity occur and would be affected by a further simplification of the landscape structure through high intensity farming methods.

Source: Flohre, A., Fischer, C., Aavik, T. et al. (2011) Agricultural intensification and biodiversity partitioning in European landscapes comparing plants, carabids, and birds. Ecological Applications. 21: 1772-1781.

[Taken from Science for Environment Policy]

Last week the European Commission announced their plans for the new EU budget. The new budget, known as the Multi Annual Financial Framework (MFF) sets how much will be spent over the years 2014 to 2020, and how this money will be allocated.

Overall few changes have been made to the size of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) budget however there have been significant changes in the way in which this money will be allocated. Of the overall €372 billion budget around two thirds will be allocated to Pillar 1 which makes direct payments to farmers. 30% of direct payments from the CAP will be used to encourage environmentally sound practices, as part of a greening of the CAP. €4.5 billion will be spent on research into food security.

The Pillar 2 budget, which is used to fund agri-environment schemes, will be cut over the period by about 7%, leading some organisations such as WWF to doubt the ability of the new budget to deliver the ambitious environmental goals set out in Europe 2020. Sacrifices in this part of the budget have been made to avoid cutting direct payments to farmers. Another key concern is the new freedom that member states will have to move funding around between pillars 1 and 2 which many anticipate will further reduce the amount spent on environmental projects.

The budget for LIFE+, the EU scheme to fund nature and biodiversity projects has only been increased by a small fraction leading many organisations to doubt the ability of the new budget to maintain the Natura 2000 network of protected areas. National financing plans for Natura 2000 may be the only hope to protect our natural capital

The external budget, which funds initiatives such as the Global Climate and Biodiversity Fund and the European Development Fund, has been increased but it remains unclear how much funding will go specifically to projects to protect biodiversity and ecosystem services. Whether this money will be used in a way that contributes towards the millennium development goals whilst simultaneously delivering solutions for biodiversity remains to be seen, although the budget does state that the European Parliament are committed to contributing financially to help meet commitments on biodiversity and climate change.

Funding for research will focus on projects that cannot be achieved by countries acting alone. The budget states that Horizon 2020, the new framework for research funding, will focus on key sectoral policy priorities such as climate change, food security and unsustainable resource use.

Scientists fear cuts to the EU budget could threaten the continued persistence of wildlife on agricultural landscapes. Up to £400 million worth of funding provided through the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) could be stopped as a result of government spending cuts. Conservation groups are warning such action could prove disastrous for some farmland species, and threaten the recovery of those already endangered such as the cirl bunting and turtle dove.

Under the current terms of the CAP, farmers are able to receive payments in return for developing projects on their land that are designed to encourage local biodiversity. Such incentives have seen great success, and played a vital role in the conservation of species sensitive to agricultural practices that may have otherwise experienced a population decline. However as part of the current CAP reform ‘Pillar 2’ funding – the money available to farmers who practice methods beneficial to the environment and biodiversity could be scrapped.

Martin Harper, Conservation Director of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) said he was “staggered” by the idea, fearing that wildlife corridors such as hedges and water ways could also be affected.

The government has however stated that the current biodiversity subsidies in place are ‘good value’ and that cuts should be targeted towards CAP subsidies assigned for food production instead. Proposals for the new EU budget will be announced later this month on 29th June.

The BES policy team yesterday attended a meeting of the All party Parliamentary Conservation and Wildlife Group. The meeting commenced with a talk about future priorities of Natural England from Dr Helen Phillips, Chief Executive of Natural England, followed by a question and discussion session. The talk focussed on the effects of the budget cuts on the services that natural England provides, and the direction of Natural England’s efforts over the coming years. The recent reform of Natural England has resulted in budget cuts, a ban on lobbying activities, and a keener focus on customer service. However there has been no legislative change and the main purpose of natural England remains the government’s independent advisory body on the natural environment. Dr Phillips explained to the group how Natural England will continue to provide this service despite the funding cuts.

Dr Phillips started by focussing on the successes of Natural England in the past five years, of which there have been many. A survey of farmers enrolled in agri-environment schemes revealed that 84% thought that Natural England gave good or excellent customer service. 70% of agricultural land is now under some sort of environmental management which is up from 45% in 2006. This has made a noticeable difference to protected species and habitats on which agricultural land has an important impact. 96% of (Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) are in good or excellent condition compared with only 73% 5 years ago. A slowing of farmland bird decline has occurred with signs of recovery. 30% of the UK landscape is under some form of protection whether that be SSSIs or national parks. There have also been a variety of very successful programmes to connect people with their environment.

However Natural England faces many challenges in protecting the natural environment. England is still experiencing ongoing habitat losses and biotic homogenisation, with many once common species rare and declining. The natural environment is also experiencing increased pressures from an increasing human population demanding more from the same land area. Importantly Lawton’s vision of more, bigger, better, and joined protected areas still has not been realised. There are lots of imminent opportunities to respond to these challenges: the Defra white paper, European biodiversity strategy, the National Ecosystem Assessment. Natural England aims to make sure that people reconnect with nature, our natural assets are protected and we maximise the opportunities offered to society by a green economy. Dr Phillips noted that there is also strong cross party support for these ideas, improving the chances of success.

The talk ended with Dr Phillips outlining the main strategies Natural England will employ to achieve these goals over the coming years:
• Improving protection of priority species and habitats.
• Continuing the success of the agri-environment schemes.
• Establishing a coherent network of Marine Protected Areas.
• Taking a landscape scale approach to conservation.
• Creating “ecological restoration zones” led and funded by a wide variety of organisations.
• Forming partnerships with businesses, local authorities, and NGOs.

One of the main themes to the questions was the effect of budget cuts on the ability of Natural England to provide sound advice to local people, who have become more involved in local decision making because of the Government’s “Big Society” initiative. Natural England have collaborated with the Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, and Wildlife Trusts to share information and identify priority areas in which to act. Defra is also developing an evidence portal for local people to enable access to sound scientific evidence to empower local communities to make more decisions.
Dr Phillips suggested that the BES could also have an important role to play in ensuring good decisions are made at the local level, by providing accreditation for learning and education programmes. This could be particularly useful when training members of local authorities tasked with making decisions about protected species and habitats in planning applications. She also suggested that the BES could support and contribute to research work done by Natural England, by providing quality assurance or peer review.

Various techniques have been developed for valuing ecosystem services and in a recently published paper in the Journal of Applied Ecology seven methods of valuing nature conservation interest have been assessed and compared by a team consisting of members from The Open University, Cranfield University and the Institute for European Environmental Policy.

The ecosystem approach is gaining increased attention from policy makers and as a result ecologists are frequently being asked to place values on ecosystem services. Valuing ecosystem services allows comparisons between sites and management regimes, however ecosystem services which do not provide direct provisions such as food, are notoriously difficult to value due to a lack of direct monetary worth.

In the Journal of Applied Ecology, Rouquette et al. determined the current land use of five lowland floodplain sites in England and developed four different scenarios of future management. Seven methods of determining value of the land-use and habitats predicted under each scenario were assessed. Methods were based on predefined priorities (Environmental Impact Assessment criteria, UKBAP target achievement and reserve selection criteria), stated preferences of stakeholders and monetary values (agri-environment scheme valuation and contingent valuation; a willingness of people to pay for ecosystem services).

The outcome of each valuation method was generally consistent however each method empathised different aspects of conservation value. For example, contingent valuation placed a high value on wetland habitats whereas the agri-environment scheme placed a low value on this habitat. The advantages and disadvantages of each emphasis between these current methods are discussed. The authors are encouraged by the general consensus between methods and believe that as interest continues in valuing ecosystem services a preferred method will emerge for each type of situation.

For further information please see Rouquette, J. R. Posthumus, H., Gowing, D. J. G., Tucker, G., Dawson, Q. L., Hess, T. M. and Morris, J. (2009) Valuing nature-conservation interests on agricultural floodplains. Journal of Applied Ecology. 46(2): 289-296.

A new study mapping the distribution of European butterfiles has revealed that, even under the best-case scenario, climate change will mean that much of the land occupied by many different butterfly species will become too warm for their survival.

The researchers from the Mapping European Butterflies project used scenarios developed within the ALARM project (Assessing LArge-scale environmental Risks for biodiversity using tested Methods), funded by the European Commission under the 6th Framework Programme:

1. SEDG – ‘Sustainable European Development Goal’
2. BAMBU – ‘Business as Might Be Usual’
3. GRAS – ‘Growth Applied Strategy’ – driven by economic imperatives such as free-trade and globalisation.

Under the GRAS strategy, the researchers’ model predicted that the average European temperature would increase by 4.1C by 2080, and over 95% of the land currently occupied by 70 different butterflies would become too warm for them to survive. Even under the SEDG scenario, Europe would warm by, on average, 2.4C, leaving 50% of the area occupied by 147 butterfly species uninhabitable for them; 9 species would be unable to occupy 95% of their current range.

To mitigate such effects on butterflies, important indicators of impacts on biodiversity, policy should aim to maintain large populations in diverse habitats, creating a permeable landscape to allow species to move as the climate changes. They propose better resourced and more targetted agri-environment schemes, and sustainable management of Natura 2000 sites, as possible tools.

Yesterday saw the launch of the initial results of the 2007 Countryside Survey, with a series of presentations and workshops in London. Opening the event, Hilary Benn, Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, praised the dedication of the ecologists and others behind the work and commented on the ‘fundamental’ importance of the report to Government. He also used the occasion as an opportunity to launch a new fund of over £1 million to improve the recording of wildlife in England. This money will be available from 2009 and will be channelled through the biological recording centres.

The results released yesterday signal just the start of the reporting period of the Survey, with further reports to be released in 2009 (reports for Wales, Scotland and England; raw data from the 500 study sites examined in the survey; land cover map; detailed analysis of soils and freshwater). 2010 will see the publication of an integrated assessment, bringing all these parameters together and examining the ecological impacts of different pressures on ecosystem services.

Some headline results from the Survey, in addition to those highlighted in yesterday’s Blog post, include:

- Species richness in all random plots examined by the survey has declined since 1978.
- There has been a decline too in the species richness of areas adjacent to linear features, such as hedges, streams and roads, which provide refuges for species which cannot survive in intensively managed land.
- Areas targeted by the survey for their particular botanical interest have seen a worrying decline in species over the same period.
- There has been a 6% decrease in the total length of managed hedgerows since 1998. There has been a corresponding increase in the length of lines of trees and relict hedges, indicating a lack of hedge management.
- The number of ponds in Great Britain increased by 11% between 1998 and 2007, but over 80% of ponds in England and Wales were found to be in poor condition. Questions should be asked about the quality of the habitats provided by the new ponds.

Visit the website of the Countryside Survey at http://www.countrysidesurvey.org.uk/

New research published in the British Ecological Society’s Journal of Applied Ecology suggests the impact of wind farms on farmland birds is less serious than previously thought.

Dr Mark Whittingham and co-authors focused their study on farmland birds overwintering in East Anglia, in early 2007. The birds were allocated to functional groups (that is, grouped alongside birds with similar ecological requirements and taxonomic characteristics).

The researchers found no effect of proximity to wind turbines on grain-eating birds, corvids (crows), gamebirds and the skylark. However, the researchers found pheasants, which are widespread across Britain, to be more abundant further away from the wind turbines. Importantly, among the 33 bird species recorded (of which five are red-listed), wind farms were not found to be a threat.

In order to meet growing energy demands and combat climate change, wind farms are one of a suite of potential alternative energy options that could contribute to a shift from our present fossil-fuel dependency. The European Commission has set a target of creating 20% of EU Energy from renewable sources by 2020, and farmland, as the most abundant land cover in Europe is the most likely place to put them. Future EU policy calling for more wind farms on farmland should not be incompatible with existing EU policy (Agri-Environment Schemes) to increase biodiversity on farmland.

Dr. Whittingham said: “This is the first evidence suggesting that the present and future location of large numbers of wind turbines on European farmland is unlikely to have detrimental effects on farmland birds. This should be welcome news for nature conservationists, wind energy companies and policy makers.”

This article received extensive coverage in the media including:

The Today Show, Radio 4
and
The Telegraph

Reference: Claire L Devereux, Matthew J H Denny and Mark J Whittingham. Minimal effects of wind turbines on the distribution of wintering farmland birds. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2008; DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01560.x