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/[email protected]
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?