1

International workshop and excursion in the framework of the LIFE-Nature project ‘Lafnitz – cross-linking habitats along an Alpine-Pannonian river’ (LIFE2004/NAT/AT/0001)

Sustainable agriculture, water management supported by LIFE in Natura 2000 sites

across Europe Buchschachen, Lafnitz valley, Nov. 6 & 7 2006 Summary of presentations, grouped according to the following themes (each theme is colour coded for easy reference: the text of the presentations related to the theme is highlighted in the same colour as the theme itself):

1. The overall context of agriculture and nature conservation

2. The Water Framework Directive and its interaction with grassland farming

3. Technical aspects of restoring grasslands and ensuring their appropriate

recurring management

4. Practical examples of collaboration between grassland farmers and nature

conservation

5. Agri-environment programmes designed to promote nature-oriented

grassland farming; effects of CAP reform

6. Making nature-oriented grassland farming economically self-sustaining

NB: The presentations do not necessarily follow the order in which they were given, and some have been split up between themes

2

Theme: The overall context of agriculture and nature conservation

Agnes Schierhuber MEP, Vice-President of the European Parliament’s Agriculture Committee and patron of the international workshop: Austria has designated 212 Natura 2000 sites, covering 16.6% of its territory. The designation process varied from one Austrian region to another; in some the involvement of farmers and foresters is functioning well, in others less so.

For the future funding of Natura 2000, the rural development programme on the one hand

and the nature conservation budgets of the Regions on the other hand, will play a vital

role. Austria negotiated very successfully (during the talks in the Council of Ministers on

the EU budget for the 2007-13 period) for funds to be assigned to rural development,

which has great importance in Austria, where 58% of the total CAP envelope is for the

‘second pillar’.

Concerning the foreseen modification and updating of the two Natura 2000 Directives,

the following demands of agriculture and forestry ought to be taken into account:

• Involvement and agreement of the affected landowners and users is essential. The

fundamental right to property must be respected. Farmers and foresters have

decades of experience and competence in nature management, yet the advantage

of using this knowledge whilst taking the scientific context into account, is often

ignored. In my opinion, contractual nature conservation will achieve objectives

more effectively than statutory nature conservation.

• Sufficient funding must be ensured before designation

• Disadvantages for assets and capital must be compensated

• All hitherto available scientific background on which decisions are based must be

made public; if there is insufficient scientific basis, sites can be reduced or take

out of Natura 2000.

• External effects like climate change should be taken into account and should not

be charged to the landowners or users.

I emphasize how important coexistence between agriculture and nature conservation is,

and hope for a successful exchange of experience. The goal must be to live off, and in the

midst of, a healthy nature and environment.

3

Alois Wilfling, OIKOS In Austria a total of 630 million € (Euro) was available from ÖPUL (Austrian agri-environment programme) in 2006. There are 135,000 farms, of which ¾ received some form of agri-environment support (covering 88% of the agricultural area). In Styria, the southeastern province of Austria, nearly 4,000 out of 24,000 existing farms take part in agri-environmental measures concerning nature conservation. A positive and well-functioning partnership was built up between the farmers and the nature conservation agents over the past years. The main principle of this cooperation is: “Participation is voluntary!” However, with the new CAP and Rural Development Regulation for the 2007-13 period, Austria will have 25% less funding for rural development (ÖPUL). This reduced amount will be focused on Natura 2000 sites, via nature conservation-oriented programmes with 7-year contracts in which farmers perform a land management service. Franz Stefan Hauzinger, Chairman of the Burgenland Farmers Union: In the Burgenland Region, 33% of the territory is under a protection status of one form or another; 15% of the territory is included in Natura 2000. These are the highest % rates of any Region of Austria. A constructive coexistence of farmers and nature conservation is the key to a successful implementation of these protected areas in Burgenland. In practice, this means:

• contractual nature conservation (contracts with farmers who commit themselves to take nature into account)

• payment for services rendered to the benefit of conservation These two together can ensure that ecological and economic goals are met

• intensification of agriculture is to be adapted to the requirements of nature values under protection, with adequate compensation (for reduced agricultural output)

There is a current budget of 11.5 million € in Burgenland for these types of measures. The regional government provides 1.2 million, the Burgenland national parks 4.6 million and the Austrian agri-environment programme (ÖPUL) 5.7 million. Together, by financing measures to prevent land abandonment, to prevent intensification and to support specific management actions for selected sections of land, they preserve the traditional agricultural landscape. The agri-environment measures supported by ÖPUL include:

• programme for the great bustard habitats around Parndorf • programme to preserve old fruit trees (notably cherry orchards) • management of grasslands, e.g. management of abandoned meadows and pastures

as habitat for the short-eared owl • the nature-oriented cattle grazing in the Zickentaler Fen • buffer zones around nature reserves

4

Peter Pal, CEEWEB Rural Development Group: The Rural Development Regulation (1698/2005) is new in the Member States which joined in May 2004; they only have some experience from the pre-accession programme SAPARD. For the 2007-13 period, the financial envelopes available to the new member states for rural development vary from 1041 million € (Latvia) through 2815 million (Czech Republic) or 3800 million (Hungary) to 13,200 million (Poland). Agri-environment and other axis 2 measures, which are the backbone of the RDP for nature-oriented land use, are not a priority in the new Member States’ national strategic plans. Axis 2 envelopes range from 25% of the total national RDP budget (the absolute minimum allowed by the EU) in Romania and 27% in Bulgaria, through 30% (Latvia), 37% (Poland) to 55% (Czech Republic). Sweden, by contrast, is allocating 70% of its national budget to axis 2. LEADER + (Axis 4) budgets are low everywhere (2.5% of total budget in Romania, with Hungary and Czech Republic scoring best at 5-6%). Romania and Bulgaria actually asked the EU to be allowed to allocate only 2.5%. Romania and Bulgaria are focusing on Axis 3, where they are allocating 27% and 31% respectively, compared to 10-20% each for the other new member states. Other than the Czech Republic (22%) 45-55% of national budgets is devoted to axis 1 in the new member states. Laszlo Bolfan, Chairman of Vas Farmers Union, Jenö Horvath, Örseg National Park , (Hungary) Bolfan: The Vas district of western Hungary can profit from the experience acquired in Burgenland. In the past, emphasis in Hungary was on maximum output, ignoring the quality of the food and aspects like ecology. Hungary’s accession and its entry into the CAP mean that the Hungarian agriculture sector has to get used to a new conceptual framework. Horvath: 10% of Hungary (900,000 ha) is under some form of national protection; the area proposed for Natura 2000 covers 1,950,000 ha (21%). Bolfan, Horvath: Although 20% of the territory is being proposed for Natura 2000, financial support for farmers inside Natura 2000, to compensate them for needing to adapt to Natura 2000, will not be possible until 2009. Only then will compensations come into force. This means there is no compensation for farmers during the period 2004-2009, which means 9000 million forint less in total compared to a full application of compensations from 2004 onwards.

5

Bolfan: Compared to the 630 million € for agri-environment which Austria received in 2006, or even the amount reduced by 25% it receives after 2007, there is an incredible difference: Hungary is assigned no more than 150 million € for agri-environment from the EU.. Horvath: The current Hungarian rural development programme does include 5-year contracts for low-intensity livestock husbandry and for integrated/ecological farming. These can include some strict measures, such as no fertiliser use, mechanical weeding only, leaving buffer strips between fields and mowing only after May 15th , leaving 10% unmowed. Peter Pal, Green Agora (Romania): Concerning Romania, 36% of the nation’s work force is in agriculture. The rural population is ageing so land abandonment is a real threat. Partnership in rural development programming is not being implemented in practice, and there is poor communication at all levels (regional and national) between agriculture and environment ministries. Local and regional communities are not aware of the potential value of LEADER, which started very late in Romania (June 2006). A first draft plan for agri-environment measures in Romania was prepared in 2000 by a consortium of west European consultancies, and was the basis for the later SAPARD measures. A second plan was prepared 2005-6 by the Agriculture Ministry together with a Dutch consultancy. It has not yet been published but is known to contain four action areas (organic farming, soil and water protection, agricultural biodiversity, farming with high nature value). For the Natura 2000 process in Romania, the selection of sites to be proposed to the EU is still under way. Many of the sites in the Carpathians concern grasslands (Alpine biogeographic types). In Harghita County (central Carpathians), where CEEWEB member Green Agora is active, grasslands are being abandoned and traditional methods of mowing are disappearing. Green Agora would like to start a model area for an agri-environment programme here, to show farmers what is possible. There already is such a programme in neighbouring Sighisoara County.

6

Theme: the Water Framework Directive and its interaction with grassland farming Drago Pleschko, Austrian Federal Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water: Austria’s implementation of the Water Framework Directive began with the amendment of the Austrian water act in 2003. A survey of the current (ex ante) situation was ready by 2005 for the major rivers; for smaller rivers it will be completed by mid-2007. From this survey, a risk assessment is done, estimating which rivers will not achieve a good ecological status by 2015. This has revealed that in Austria, there are overall few problems with chemical and nutrient parameters (i.e. with pollution) in surface waters, but there are nitrate problems in 6% of the groundwater bodies. Rivers have big ecological deficits due to past interventions in their hydromorphological conditions (such as hydropower plants, river regulation, technical flood and erosion control measures). Consequently, the main area where action is needed is hydromorphology. The next steps will be to build up:

• a catalogue of measures to be taken, • a monitoring network, especially for the new biological parameters which will

have to be monitored, • administrative provisions setting quality objectives, which are focused on

practical implementation. These already exist for chemical parameters, but not yet for biological.

In turn, these steps will yield a programme of measures (expected to be ready 2009, to be implemented by 2012) – measures should be cost-effective! – and they will also feed into the water management planning. Concerning floods, retention of flood waters has priority, because technical flood protection measures at a given point, make floods increase downstream. Retention areas which can be flooded are therefore necessary, as is widening the space occupied by watercourses. Together, these constitute ‘passive flood protection’. Low-intensity land use in such areas needs to be promoted and supported. Concerning relations with farmers in flood retention areas: more frequent flooding means economic damages to farmers. There are two ways to deal with this in Austria: calculate the economic value of the damage and give compensation for it, or buy out the farmer and convert the land to ‘public water management property’ (öffentliches Wassergut). Laszlo Abert, Deputy Director, West Transdanubian Directorate for Environmental Protection and Water Management (Szombathely, Hungary): In Hungary, the water authorities are structured in a manner which means that the different directorates, the level responsible for territorial management of water, are based on catchment boundaries instead of administrative boundaries, which is an advantage for implementing the Water Framework Directive.

7

The Directive has led to an expansion of water management tasks. Concerning restoration of regulated watercourses, the West Transdanubian Directorate is collaborating with its Austrian partners in the LIFE-Nature project ‘Lafnitz – cross-linking habitats along an Alpine-Pannonian river’. Within this project, it is responsible for re-connecting the Lahn stream, which is straightened and now largely dry as a result of past agricultural intensification, to the Lafnitz river. The issue of relations with farmers in flood retention areas is only just starting in Hungary. However, along the Tisza, where there is regular large-scale flooding, there is collaboration between farmers, water authorities and nature conservation. Farmers can be compensated by the government. However, many sections along the Tisza are flood protection areas with no dykes, here farmers work at their own risk. Only where there is an existing protection against floods (e.g. a dyke) and it is removed, is there a right to compensation. Wolfgang Pelikan & Maria Estella Dürnecker, Weideverein Ramsargebiet Lafnitztal: The Weideverein Ramsargebiet Lafnitztal is an association of farmers, agronomists, veterinarians, nature conservationists and hydrological engineers who came together in the 1990s to develop, promote and put into practice forms of agriculture which would fit in with, and help implement, the policy objectives of the water and nature authorities in the Lafnitz river valley (southeast Austria). The water authorities had in the late 1980s and early 1990s acquired large sections of land along the Lafnitz river as ‘public river management property’, where they wanted to create corridors of floodplain habitat where river dynamics and flood waters would be given free rein and a buffer against inflow from intensive arable land would be created. The water authorities consequently did not want intensive forms of arable or silage production on this land for reasons of water quality, flood retention and maintenance of river dynamics. Nor did the nature conservation authorities, who were designating the river and a corridor beside it as Natura 2000 site. As local farming was dominated by intensive cultures like maize, this created a problem of land management. At first, no-one was spontaneously interested in using the public land along the river. The authorities had to contract farmers, at considerable cost to their budget, to carry out essential mowing to keep areas open. The Weideverein saw an opportunity here. Grazing the land could provide the answer. However, livestock husbandry with open-air grazing no longer existed in the district. Since 1998 the Weideverein has therefore been actively supporting the work of a number of local farmers interested in starting up grazing of these riverside grasslands by cattle, coupled to hay production for winter fodder. These farmers organised themselves in the enterprise Weidegesellschaft Krutzler KEG.

8

The Weideverein’s overall goal of coordinating water management, agricultural use of flooding areas and local development through nature-based tourism was implemented in several stages:

1. a first LIFE-Nature project (LIFE II) from 1998 to 2001, which allowed additional land to be bought and consolidated along the river, to help make a coherent corridor of land devoted to preserving the integrity of the fluvial ecosystem.

2. A LEADER I project, which ran about the same time as the LIFE project, which allowed the grazing of the river corridor to be started. It invested in fences, drinkwater troughs, winter shelters and other infrastructure for the grazing.

3. A LEADER II project, which followed, built up the Ramsar Information Centre in Loipersdorf, from which all the Weideverein’s activities for the sustainable development and use of the Lafnitz district are coordinated, as well as an observation tower and other infrastructure for nature-based tourism

4. A LEADER + project which invested in a management plan for the flooding zones and in planning and executing a network of trails for nature tourism along the Lafnitz river based on an intact fluvial ecosystem

5. A second LIFE-Nature project (2004-2007) to restore river dynamics over the full 112 km length of the Lafnitz by 30 different measures:

• removing or bypassing obstacles to free flow and fish migration, such as weirs and dams

• reconnecting former side streams and channels (this increases the volume of river bed available to ‘store’ floodwater)

• installing artificial islands and banks of gravel in straightened sections of the river to re-create sinuous currents.

The combined grazing and hay mowing has so far proved successful, with a spectacular increase in the land under grazing and hay production and in the number of cattle. Starting with 5 cows and a few hectares in 1998, by 2001 50 ha were being grazed by 100 animals and 80 ha mowed. Currently there are over 300 animals and 400 tonnes of hay are mowed annually. Income stems for about 35% from the sale of calves at 3 months – the calves are purchased by a wholesaler and fattened up for slaughter elsewhere – and for about 65% from CAP suckler cow premia and agri-environment payments for the preservation of the grasslands. Nurturing and keeping good relationships with the local community is important: the annual release of the cattle on to pasture is marked by a village festival (the Weidefest); there is an annual platform, organised by the Weideverein, bringing together all local mayors to discuss the Weideverein’s projects, etc.

9

Viktoria Siposs, WWF Hungary, and Attila Lovas, Deputy Director, Middle Tisza District Environment and Water Directorate: Due to river regulation in the past, the way the land is used and recent evolution in the weather, the Tisza plains are marked by regular big floods. WWF Hungary launched a LIFE-Nature project some years ago to show an example of a viable alternative land management, and this project has since been joined by a LIFE-Environment project (‘Sustainable Use and Management Rehabilitation of the Floodplain in the Middle-Tisza District (SUMAR)’) run by the Middle-Tisza District Environment and Water Directorate. In the WWF project, LIFE pays for the restoration work in which sluices are built to better manage floodwaters. The sluices are operated and managed by local municipalities. An example of the restoration is the Toalja subsite, where a 100 hectare maizefield was flooded in 1999 and for many years was just an expanse of water and decaying plants. After the sluices to manage the water had been installed, the LIFE project converted the land to a shallow lake (50 ha) surrounded by reeds and willow shrubs (20 ha), wet grasslands (50 ha) and orchards traditionally typical for a floodplain (6 ha). As at other sites, a Floodplain Association was set up, consisting of local farmers, to manage the restored land. The lake, being shallow, evaporates and shrinks during summer, giving more grassland over summer. At other subsites, plantations of hybrid poplar were cut and converted to grassland, or the invasive shrub Amorpha fruticosa was cleared. For the restored wet floodplain grasslands, grazing is targeted. Farmers sign ten-year contracts to manage the land, WWF provides part of the required cattle (it bought 110 Hungarian grey cattle using LIFE funds), and supports the farmers during the first two years with advice and funding, to get them started. The cattle provided by WWF remain property of WWF but the farmers manage them. So far, 400 ha have been brought under this floodplain management. The LIFE-Environment project, which has been running from 2003 and will be completed in March 2007, continues floodplain rehabilitation along the Tisza. It deals with 54 ha, where infrastructure to regulate water flows has been installed creating wetland habitats in the former clay pits, neophytes have been removed, wet depressions were excavated, grassland has been restored and a nature trail was established. The innovative approach of the project serves three purposes: restoring population to the declining district, improved flood protection and nature conservation. Martin Königsdorfer, Donautal-Aktiv e.V.: The German LIFE-Nature project ‘Schwäbisches Donautal’ runs from Oct. 2006 to March 2011, with a total budget of 2,040,000 €. It concerns 7400 ha (5 subsites) out of the total 40,000 ha of the Swabian Danube floodplain (located between Günzburg and Donauwörth). The Swabian Danube floodplain is fen, and thinly populated as it has always been a flood retention area. It is criss-crossed by ditches and has characteristic features of floodplains such as wet meadows and tall herb vegetation.

10

Besides having a rich invertebrate fauna and many rare plants, it is above all a major staging point on European bird migration routes, with over 260 species recorded. The LIFE project seeks to improve hydrological aspects (ecologically more appropriate management of 31 km of ditches, creation of wet depressions and shallow ponds) and to restore habitat for birds. At the same time, by stimulating grassland instead of arable land, it will increase the area available to act as retention area for floodwater, preventing floods downstream (already, the upper Danube floodplain can store 30 million m³ of floodwater; 13,200 ha of the total 40,000 ha is currently open to flooding by the Danube). Up to 1950 80% was grassland, but this has dropped to 15%, although within the part designated SPA grassland still makes up 35%. However, the grassland left is not the same quality as it once had. Once mowed once or twice a year, it is now mowed intensively (4-5 times a year) to produce silage grass. Much grassland has been converted to arable land. Moreover, a new German law which obliged electricity companies to purchase electricity from small-scale renewable producers, led to a boom in bio-gas – up to 2000 €/ha is paid in the Danube floodplains for maize for electricity generation. This compares to Bavarian agri-environment support for grassland, which ranges from 100 to 950 €/ha, depending on things like date of mowing (higher premia for very late mowing), use of fertilisers etc. There are plans to raise the minimum payment from 100 to 280 €/ha. But only 15% of the grassland is covered by agri-environment agreements, and this % is sinking – there is simply no use for grass from low-intensity farming in the context of the modern farms operating in the Swabian Danube fens. So agri-environment by itself is not sufficient. The Donautal-Aktiv e.V., the organisation running the LIFE project, has begun a study to see if hay from grassland managed extensively, can be integrated into farming. It is studying hay (1200 tonnes) from 165 ha mowed after Aug. 1. Currently 94% is composted on site and used to manure arable land, the rest is used as litter or as fodder. A number of farmers have been contacted who might be interested in using some o fthis hat for litter or fodder, but this will at best only absorb a small part. Already it is clear that the hay is not suited for bio-gas production as its energy value is too low, although it might be mixed with other biomass. More promising might be a new enterprise fattening steer calves, where up to 180 tonnes of hay a year might be used as stable litter, or a composting company which might compost the hay to produce a peat-free gardening substrate. A grazing society, with 30 farmers as members, was established in 2003 to promote grazing and improve the marketing of meat from it. Better market results mean less dependence on premia. Currently 430 ha is involved (270 ha pasture and 160 ha for fodder). Twenty of these farmers keep suckler cows. But the nine different breeds (Angus, Charolais, Galloway, Limousin, etc) making up the grazing society herd, makes marketing of the meat more difficult. Moreover, because grazing only makes technical and ecologic sense when it is done in coherent blocks of at least 5 ha, better 20 ha each, action programmes to consolidate grazing lands will be needed. A land bank of 120 ha has been acquired with public funds, which can be used to build up such coherent blocks through swaps.

11

Already a 48 ha block of arable land along the Danube has been secured. It was converted to grassland by sowing and is being grazed by Angus cattle from two members of the grazing society. Consequently, the 48 ha block can now serve as flood retention area. Nils Spaans, farmer, member of Vereniging voor Agrarisch Natuurbeheer (Holland): Besides bird conservation, the Vereniging ( an association of grassland farmers near Amsterdam committed to nature management)‘also collaborates with the water authorities to improve watercourse management. The thousands of ditches which criss-cross the Waterland district used to be cleaned by digging out the silt and piling it in banks along the ditch. This was very destructive for aquatic life. Now the sediment is vacuum cleaned by a suction pump machine out of the ditches and spread over the land as a thin layer; fish, mussels and other creatures are left behind in the water. The water authorities also have to manage many kilometres of dykes in Waterland. Formerly the dykes were mowed and the hay was sent to a compost factory, which meant costs for the water authorities (transport, fee for the factory). Since a few years the hay is taken by the farmers, who spread it over the fields where it composts and attracts meadow-breeding birds. Farmers are paid 25 €/tonne to take the hay from the water authorities (Nils Spaans alone takes 800 tonnes a year), but this is still cheaper than sending it to the compost factory and it benefits birdlife. Peter Rozsa, farmer, Hortobagy National Park, Hungary: Peter Rozsa’s farm is located within the Hortobagy National Park (100,000 ha). He began in 2000 by purchasing 1.3 ha to which was later added 25 ha of puszta; these are farmed organically. When the Hortobagy Environmental Association began its LIFE-Nature project in 2002 to restore 2,000 ha of degraded puszta steppe, Peter Rozsa was one of the farmers which joined in. He, another individual farmer (Janusz Vos) and a farming enterprise are keeping livestock in the restored land to ensure its on-going management by grazing. Of the 2,000 ha, Peter Rozsa is farming 400 ha. The land in question is a natural shallow depression, which becomes waterlogged whenever the Tisza river floods. These floods constitute its value for birds (90,000 birds resting and foraging in 2005, including 20,000 Grus grus) and the Hortobagy Environmental Association and its partner farmers want to keep this hydrological regime. For the grazing, Peter Rozsa employs traditional breeds: 200 Hungarian grey cattle, 600 Mangalica pigs, 300-400 Racka sheep, 40 goats, 39 donkeys and 20 horses. Each breed has its own manner of grazing and together they create a rich diversity. Initially he faced criticism and difficulties with nature conservationists, who claimed Mangalica pigs would root and destroy the soil. Grazing by pigs is now accepted, however.

12

Julia Kelemen, Distelverein: The Distelverein, an NGO from northeast Austria which brings together farmers, hunters, nature conservationists and water engineers, has been active in the trilateral March-Thaya district (shared between Austria, Slovakia and Czech Republic) for 20 years. Following two LIFE-Nature projects between 1995 and 2002 which, among others, carried out technical works to restore the natural fluvial dynamics to the March and Thaya rivers and their side channels, the Distelverein NGO is now engaged on a project (2004- end 2007) to preserve the Lange Luss floodplain, in the same district. The Lange Luss is a retention area for floods from the Danube and March rivers. It covers 450 ha, currently with a very mixed land use and many landowners, each owning small sections only. The landscape is very open, which is good for birds. The Distelverein’s project seeks to ensure sustainable use of this floodplain within the context of the Water Framework Directive, as a demonstration of how land use is possible in a floodplain without any technical defences against floods. This is to be done by involving all stakeholders in a restructuring of land use, with emphasis on promoting grassland. Besides continuing appropriate land use where it already exists, with support from agri-environment, the intention is also to engage farmers to manage abandoned land under contract. The Distelverein also hopes to raise enough money to buy sections of land and make these available to farmers willing to apply low-intensity use. There will also be land swaps in which the Distelverein purchases land outside the Lange Luss and swaps it against land used intensively in the site, which can then be converted to grassland. However, an unexpected new development has brought a threat to the entire project. The city of Vienna has opened a big new plant to generate electricity from wood chips to supply 48,000 households . It is looking for suppliers within a 50 km radius. Most of the existing forests within this radius are protected, so contracts are being concluded since the end of 2005 with farmers to grow willow and poplar on their land and supply the power plant. The aim is to contract some 5,000 ha over the next few years. The willows and poplars, once they are planted, can be harvested every 4 years, and will keep growing back for 20 years. The net yield per hectare is 700 €/year, about equivalent to the net yield from conventional arable use (but which is more labour-intensive!). It is much more than the yield, even counting CAP premia, from set-aside areas or from converting arable land to grassland. Grassland can reach net yields equal to or even above that of the short-rotation willows and poplars, but only if the farmer qualifies for the high agri-environment premia (375 to 660 €/ha) which are granted for using grassland in ways which are beneficial for nature. Without these premia, the net yield is far below that of the trees. Therefore, as far as the Lange Luss is concerned, the new demand for willow and poplar cultivation is competing with other uses for set-aside land and is an enticing alternative for grassland. Moreover, willow and poplar plantations break the typical wide-open landscape of the floodplains and are thus a threat to Natura 2000 objectives such as the protection of the populations of Annex I birds like the corncrake or white stork.

13

Theme: technical aspects of restoring grasslands and ensuring their appropriate

recurring management

Susanne Forslund, Kalmar County Administration Board (Sweden): In Sweden as a whole, since 1860 arable land has doubled while only 25% of the semi-natural grasslands are left (sown and cultivated grassland has remained steady). Kalmar County in southeast Sweden has 20% of the total resource of semi-natural grassland left in Sweden, most of it on Öland Island which has large areas of semi-natural grassland which have never been ploughed or fertilised. The alvars (a landscape with limestone bedrock, thin soils and a species-rich flora) on Öland have been grazed for thousands of years and have many special and historical elements. The cultural landscape of southern Öland, including Stora Alvaret, is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The great alvar or Stora Alvaret, >25,000 ha, covers the southern third of Öland. It was being abandoned and overgrowing – by 1994 only half was still grazed. A first LIFE-Nature project from 1995 onwards stimulated farmers to clear the abandoned land and start grazing it again. It was a success. Once the project had been launched, farmers spontaneously called Susanne Forslund and other project officers to ask information and how to join. This allowed work to extend beyond the LIFE project and Natura 2000 boundaries. By project end in 1999 nearly 80% of Stora Alvaret was grazed and this trend has continued: in 2006 98% was being grazed, mainly by beef cattle but also sheep and horses. Farmers and local authorities, like the Kalmar County Administration Board, learned to meet, talk and respect each other – this was a very important result. A second LIFE project from 2001 to 2005 covered 21 sites all over the island and involved about 400 farmers. It focused on wetlands like moist grasslands, coastal meadows, and calcareous fens. During these years, 2,000 ha was restored, of which 1100 ha by farmers carrying out the clearing plans they had to submit to qualify for agri-environment funding. In practice, farmers cleared the less difficult areas themselves while areas with really tough overgrowth (mostly Juniperus communis and Potentilla fruticosa) were cleared by the LIFE project, using contractors (900 ha in all). Care was taken around archaeological remains and especially sensitive habitats – such areas were cleared manually. Grazing resumed over 2278 ha, with 1676 ha new land being brought under agri-environment contracts. Today many young farmers are taking over! The LIFE project also excavated shallow lakes and dredged Carex elata and silt from terrestrialised alvar lakes. An important task was parasitological monitoring, as farmers did not want to keep sheep in wet areas, fearing infestation by parasites like Haemunculus contortus. The veterinarian study commissioned by the County Administration Board revealed that, because it cannot survive the winter outside a sheep’s body, the parasite can be eradicated by vaccinating the sheep when they are housed in winter.

14

Johann Grießner, Mayor of Lamprechtshausen (Salzburg Region, Austria) : The raised bog at the Weidmoos near Salzburg was long exploited for peat, first through small-scale digging, later through large-scale mechanical excavation. When the peat mining finally stopped in 2000, there were various proposals what to do with the vast wasteland which had been left behind (golf course, airfield, rubbish dump..). An ornithological survey revealed a surprising number of birds which were colonising this pioneer habitat and this led to the foundation of a local association, the Torferneuerungsverein (Peat Restoration Society), to keep the Weidmoos as a nature area. Grießner was one of its founding members and the first battles were against the rival proposals for using the Weidmoos. The site was designated SPA in 2001 and a management plan was drawn up. Supported by the regional conservation authorities, the Torferneuerungsverein purchased 80 ha land (the money was compensation for the ecological damage caused by construction of the new Red Bulls Salzburg football stadium). Thanks to LIFE-Nature funding, it has been able to raise water levels by damming the ditches, creating broad expanses of shallow water. The Weidmoos is an important bird site, with steadily rising populations of birds, because its landscape is open. It is therefore vital to keep it open, and so, besides the work to halt succession by raising water levels and to cut or prune trees and bushes, the litter meadows which are an important feature, providing breeding and foraging habitats and acting as buffer zones, must be mowed. This is organised by an annual ‘Streuwiesenversammlung’ (litter meadow meeting) in which the farmers and the Torferneuerungsverein get together and determine the work programme for the year. For each section, it is decided who mows it, and when. Mid-July is the earliest date, with mowing continuing through August. There is a second mowing in the autumn. The SPA management plan indicates, with colour codes, which sections of land ought to be mowed when, but flexibility is important – experience with mowing is collected and if necessary, the date of mowing is changed. In particular, farmers ask for the flexibility to mow a few days before July 15 if it is then fine weather and bad weather is forecast. This can however clash with the administrative provisions in the agri-environment regulations subsidising late mowing. Special tractors with double tyres are needed to mow these wet meadows on peaty soil; for some areas a caterpillar-tracked vehicle formerly used by the peat mining company (and still driven by a former peat employee) is used. Records are kept of the mowing and farmers are encouraged to give suggestions. There is scientific monitoring to observe the reactions of birds to different mowing times. The development of vegetation is also monitored – one of the techniques used is to hang a camera from a balloon and photograph the plot from above.

15

Janis Reihmanis, Latvian Fund for Nature:

The Latvian floodplains LIFE-Nature project runs from October 2004 to June 2008, with 1.6 million € EU contribution. 22 municipalities are partners in the project. In the 16 subsites, both river and lake floodplains, the objectives are to restore abandoned grasslands and ensure their subsequent and continuous management. Habitat types 6230 and 6530, Osmoderma eremita and the bird species Crex crex, Aquila pomarina, Aquila clanga and Gallinago media are the main targets. The methodology used for the restoration of abandoned grassland:in the LIFE-Nature project: Following the clearance of bushes, which is done by hand, there is initial mowing of the grassland to get it back to good condition. There are three methods:

• manual mowing with removal of hay • mechanical mowing with removal of hay • mechanical mowing with shredding of hay and spreading on site

Some controlled burning is also done. Few of the farmers who are partners to the project have livestock, so they mow and then sell the hay, or the hay is shredded in situ and left on the ground, which is beneficial for birdlife. Eckhard Jedicke, Project Manager, DBU-Grünlandprojekt Rhön (Germany) The DBU grassland project in the Rhön hill country is testing various forms of low-intensive grazing in terms of ecological benefits, to find win-win regimes for nature and farmers. So far the conclusions are tending towards:

• Grazing mainly by cattle. Sheep (such as the traditional breed ‘Rhönschaf’ and goats are also used, goats are important for combating any proliferation of woody plants. Wherever possible, multi-species systems, where different species and breeds of livestock are put out to pasture together, is preferred to single-species grazing.

• Grazing should be year-round, instead of in summer only • Stocking density should be low, from 0.3 to 0.6 LLU per hectare. • Prophylactic treatment of parasites should be avoided, as the veterinary medicines

are excreted in the dung and this in turn eliminates coprophagous insects on which other animals depend

An interesting question is whether grazing can ensure a favourable conservation status for Natura 2000 types like mountain hay meadows, which are normally mowed. The DBU project thinks it can but other conservationists are rather sceptic. Monitoring, using butterflies as indicators, is done to compare the effects of mowing with grazing

16

Wolfgang Pelikan, Johann Krutzler (during excursion), Weideverein Ramsargebiet Lafnitztal: The philosophy underlying the grazing management promoted in the Lafnitz floodplains by the Weideverein is the idea of ‘Alm in Tal’ (a mountain pasture in the valley), where livestock is kept in stables in the winter but driven on to the pastures in spring, where they stay until autumn. The cows calve on the pasture and the calves stay with their mothers (suckler cow farming). Part of the grassland is mowed for hay to feed the animals. This model, imitating the practices in the Alps, marks a radical break with the local manner of keeping cattle in the Lafnitz, where the animals have in the past decades been kept indoors permanently and fed maize and silage. As explained during the excursion, much was learned by trial and error. Initially the idea had been to keep the cattle (a crossbreed of Limousin and Fleckrind) outside all winter and feed them hay there. However, the alternation between periods of frost and periods of thaw proved too much. When the ground was frozen, it was dangerously hard for the animals; when it thawed it was trampled to mud which was not good for their hooves either. So stables had to be found. After various renting arrangements over the past years, a large stable complex owned by the grazing enterprise itself was built and taken into use in summer 2006. Its design is innovative (metal frame covered by a textile material which lets in light and air; possibility to open or close sections of this textile material to let in more light and air or protect against wind and cold, large pens allowing group of animals to be together and move around). Straw is used as litter and is regularly removed with the dung; the mixture is sold to farmers and the forestry service as manure. Once the cattle were kept indoors in winter, it was discovered that they needed to be de-horned, as the more assertive cows used their horns to bully others (out in the pastures this was never a problem). It was also discovered that the hay from the floodplain meadows was not enough by itself, but needed to be supplemented by maize stalks and chaff. If these were fed to the animals separately, the stronger individuals ate all the maize leaving the hay for the weaker. So maize and hay had to be mixed by a shredder, specially purchased, and then fed.

17

Theme: practical examples of collaboration between grassland farmers and nature

conservation

Janis Reihmanis, Latvian Fund for Nature: The Latvian floodplains LIFE-Nature project subsites cover 14,000 ha in total and include 800 landowners. The central strategy is for farmers to do the land restoration and subsequent management, so the project has to show them it makes economic sense to join in. Two difficulties to overcome:

• Farmers are not very aware of the nature value of abandoned grassland – it’s ‘just farmland’ to them.

• With accession to the EU in 2004, agri-environment began in Latvia, but farmers had little knowledge of it or experience in applying for it. Yet there is a sub-measure within the current Latvian agri-environment programme called ‘Preservation of biodiversity in grasslands’.

So every year the Latvian Fund for Nature sends two letters to farmers directly. It organises local seminars for farmers about biodiversity and how to apply to agri-environment (government officials are invited to come and explain the procedures). Study tours to demonstration farms (one in Finland, one in Estonia) have been organised. The Latvian Fund for Nature is currently preparing a handbook collecting best practical experience of grassland restoration. Farmers are paid to cut shrubs on abandoned grassland and they then commit themselves to apply for agri-environment support for the restored grassland, thereby ensuring on-going management for the next 5 years. So far 200 agreements for grassland management have been concluded with farmers. They cover 3060 ha (1100 ha of shrub cutting, 1900 ha of initial mowing and 60 ha of wooded pasture management). Nils Spaans, farmer, member of Vereniging voor Agrarisch Natuurbeheer (Holland): The Waterland district near Amsterdam covers about 11-12,000 ha and has peaty soils. It has been settled since the 11th century, when ditch digging began, which over the centuries created a pattern of small fields criss-crossed by watercourses. Many farmers can only reach their fields by boat. Farming is mainly dairy, with a few beef cattle (suckler cows). Nils Spaans’ own farm covers 115 ha, divided into 80 fields of 1.5 ha each on average. This makes farming difficult. The Vereniging voor Agrarisch Natuurbeheer (Association for nature management through farming) began in 1995 with 50 farmers, but now has 300 members, 80% of all farmers in Waterland. The Vereniging has a board of seven farmers. It employs 10 part-time employees. It handles 2.2 million € of agri-environment payments (mainly from the

18

Dutch CAP second pillar programmes for meadow bird protection) for its members annually, in addition to funds from the water authorities for carrying out services and income from specific Natura 2000-related projects. Nils Spaans expects the CAP reform to provide more opportunities than threats for the Vereniging and its farmers, as modulation means more money should become available for this type of nature-oriented farming. Farmers who want to join must first do a three-day training course, and accept a nature plan for their farm in which it is explained what the farmer must do in terms of nature-oriented land use. Focus of the nature-oriented land use which the Vereniging promotes is meadow bird protection. ¼ of the European population of Limosa limosa breeds in Waterland, so that local farmers have a major role to play in protecting this species. Measures to protect the nesting birds include:

• protecting nests against accidental trampling and grazing by cows, by putting frames over the nest. It is hard to find nests in the pastures, fortunately the Vereniging can count on 450 volunteers from amongst the citizenry who help locate birds’ nests each April-May.

• mowing around the nests • no mowing at all until after June 15, when the birds leave. Farmers who do this

are compensated for the lower quality of the hay To boost foraging opportunities for the breeding birds, there is a mosaic management of land when mowing. Having cows out on the pasture grazing is also very important to provide insects for Limosa limosa because the dung from the cows attracts flies and other invertebrates. Paul Evans, Ingleborough National Nature Reserve, Natural England: The Yorkshire Dales limestone country extends over 11,100 ha; it is the most important limestone area in the UK and includes 1500 ha limestone pavement (half the total UK resource). It is a typical farm landscape, very open (only 1% is wooded). In the 13th century monasteries built up large-scale sheep grazing, which had the biggest historical impact on the landscape, and from the 18th century onward thousands of cattle were brought down from Scotland yearly to be fattened here. Changes to these traditional land uses began in the 1950s and were accelerated when the CAP arrived in the UK (1970s). Farming has now become economically marginal, because of the poor soils and climate. It is totally dependent on the CAP, with subsidies accounting for 70% and more of farm income. Agri-environment is popular, with 60% of the land under contract. Cattle numbers, stable for over a century, declined since the 1970s, especially during the BSE scare, and in 2002 the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic meant nearly all remaining cattle were killed. Sheep have been increasing continuously since the 1870s and are now the dominant land use, causing overgrazing. In the late 1990s the conservation bodies (Yorkshire Dales National Park, English Nature etc) realised this was becoming an ecological problem, which could not be solved by the

19

agri-environment schemes of the time. They spoke to 100 local farmers to see if solutions could be found. Getting the farmers involved at this very early stage has proved very important, as because of this the farmers feel ownership of the project which has since developed. Compared to sheep, which are selective grazers, cattle are non-selective and they trample the soil – both of these are good for the ecological management of the limestone country grasslands. The problem was that cattle were no longer profitable and farmers no longer had the appropriate breeds to graze the high rough pasture of the hills and which could survive winters on only small amounts of supplementary fodder. Nor was there any of the infrastructure left which is needed to support cattle. The traditional native breeds of cattle were adapted to the hill country conditions – they have big stomachs which can convert low-grade forage to good-quality meat, and can graze outside in winter. Therefore, grazing by these rustic breeds would be ideal. To put this into practice, a LIFE-Nature project was applied for and granted by the Commission. The LIFE project, if the farmer is interested, carries out an ecological audit in which the nature values on the whole farm, not just the part of it located inside the Natura 2000 boundaries, are surveyed. It then sits down with the farmer and makes a whole-farm plan based on this inventory, which in turn can lead to management agreements about appropriate grazing between farmer and project. As part of this management agreement, the project, through the Limestone Country Grants, pays capital costs like traditional cattle livestock, a drinking water supply system, pens…as well as certain annual costs (transition costs). The farmer however must first enter an agri-environment scheme ensuring appropriate longer-term land use. So far 17 farmers have entered management agreements, covering 2,000 ha. A study on the ecological effects of the grazing by rustic cattle, financed by LIFE, will be ready in Dec. 2006; first results are encouraging. Cattle have been equipped with GPS collars to monitor their grazing behaviour. Eckhard Jedicke, Project Manager, DBU-Grünlandprojekt Rhön (Germany) The Biosphere Reserve Rhön extends across three German regions (Hessen, Thuringia and Bavaria) and covers 185,000 ha, of which 32% is grassland and abandoned grassland, 40% forest and 18% arable. Because the grasslands include several Annex I habitat types, large sections have been included in Natura 2000 and there were two LIFE-Nature projects which among others carried out grassland restoration. The second project ended in 2002. Currently, several projects are continuing the work. The Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt DBU (a foundation) is financing a project to continue and expand the grassland work in the Bavarian Rhön. This project began in 2004 and is coordinated by the local authority Landkreis Rhön-Grabfeld, with 16 partners. The project staff is housed in the offices of the local farmers’ union, one of the partners.

20

A parallel project, funded by the German federal government, is supporting the grazing by sheep of (calcareous) grasslands in the Thuringian Rhön. A third project is being prepared to restore the floodplain grasslands along streams by year-round low-intensity grazing. These projects address the problems facing nature-oriented grassland use in the Rhön:

• natural handicaps (wet soils, many boulders and stones in the soil) • unfavourable farm structures: in Hessen and Bavaria farms are small and often

run as a part-time activity besides other employment • changes linked to the manner in which the CAP reform is implemented in

Germany, which will affect small farmers in particular These problems mean grassland farming is withdrawing, so that grasslands fall prey to succession and become woodland. This in turn reduces the attractiveness of the landscape for tourism, which is the main economic activity in the Rhön. The DBU project began with workshops bringing together farmers, nature conservation organisations, local authorities (at which beef from traditional breeds was served as food). 12 individual farmers and 4 grazing associations are participating so far (a 5th association is being established), accounting for 32 sections of land (10-100 ha each) covering 775 ha. In the Bavarian Rhön, the fragmentation caused by inheritance customs sharing property between all children, means sections are often 0.3 ha or less. The project wants to work with sections of 10 ha minimum. To solve this, land owners and land users get together and agree on a voluntary land swap, valid for 10 years, in which sections are unbureaucratically exchanged and merged into coherent blocks.

21

Theme: agri-environment programmes designed to promote nature-oriented

grassland farming; effects of CAP reform

Alois Wilfling, OIKOS: In Austria nature conservation-oriented agri-environment measures within the Austrian rural development programme play a major role in the implementation of Natura 2000 and the maintenance of biodiversity in general. The authorities responsible for Natura 2000 have thus charged nature conservation agencies (such as OIKOS in Styria) to promote 7-year management contracts (2007-2013) for ecologically beneficial land use in close cooperation with the farmers. Altogether in 2006 about 3500 contracts were negotiated. Each farm is visited by the agency which carries out an inventory and proposes measures the farmer could carry out for the benefit of nature and biodiversity. In addition, whole-

farm nature conservation plans are drawn up in Natura 2000 sites. The nature conservation agents, who have of course been specially trained, give personal advice to the farmers. The idea is to give individual consulting and support. The farmer and his ‘conservation adviser’ go out together to look at the land and discuss possible management measures. If the farmer is willing to conclude contracts, the nature conservation agent (staff from OIKOS) negotiates the details and draws up a written contract. The contract is registered by the Austrian national agricultural clearing house AMA (Agrar Markt Austria) in Vienna, whose staff is responsible for controlling and checking application of the contract and for penalties if the contract is not strictly adhered to. In 2006, for the first time, a standard manual and catalogue of possible measures, valid Austria-wide, was developed. Measures can be entered directly by the adviser into the central database NAON (“Naturschutz-Online”, i.e. nature protection online), part of the AMA. NAON will pop up a screen with the negotiated measures on one side and the possible agri-environmental premia on the other. Besides, as a basic tool, GIS-based data, digital aerial photographs and online processing are available for each agent. The system works well, but there are few problems:

• farmers are used to top-down nature conservation where the authorities imposed obligations and prohibitions, so they tend to be suspicious of whether this new voluntary and contractual system of conservation leads to permanent restrictions on their entrepreneurial freedom.

• farmers lack the specialist knowledge to understand why certain tasks or restraints are demanded, e.g. in relation to land management for Crex crex. Therefore, three brochures have been produced for farmers and the general public explaining aims, species and habitats covered by Natura 2000.

22

For the future the main goals are: • working on continuity and intensifying the partnership between farmers and

nature conservation; • evaluation and monitoring of the measures taken during the past years; • increasing the efforts in public relations and advanced training; • trying to increase the efficiency of the invested financial resources.

Janis Reihmanis, Latvian Fund for Nature: For the mowing management by farmers of the grassland restored within the LIFE-Nature project on floodplains, there are the following payments possible within the Latvian CAP and rural development context:

• single area payment (15 €/ha) • payment for areas with a handicap (less favoured areas) (33-64€/ha) • Natura 2000 payment (26-38€/ha) • payment for biologically valuable grasslands (138 €/ha)

So, by adding payments, farmers can get a maximum of 200-250 €/ha. Paul Evans, Ingleborough National Nature Reserve, Natural England: The CAP reform, notably the single farm payment, should have positive effects on the way in which the limestone grasslands of the Yorkshire Dales are used. Coupled to the disappearance of headage payments, it should mean that farmers keep less sheep, so that overgrazing declines. Numbers of cattle (whose grazing is ecologically more beneficial) may also be reduced, but if livestock farming overall becomes more extensive the net effect will be positive. Agri-environment, to support the ecologically most significant forms of grazing, will remain important and that is why the project is pressing officials to invest funds from modulation into such agri-environment schemes. The project has lobbied successfully that the new UK agri-environment schemes for the period 2007-13 includes a programme to support cattle grazing in ecologically valuable areas. The lobbying was successful because the LIFE project captured the public interest, the media reported on it and, as it seemed a success, three ministers visited it. The project staff spent much time walking the hills with government officials and giving them tasty beef to eat. All these positive impressions must have helped decision-makers to look favourably on its request for a special agri-environment programme. Susanne Forslund, Kalmar County Administration Board (Sweden): As a result of both LIFE-Nature projects to restore and manage species-rich grasslands, the Kalmar County Administration Board decided that not all the Natura 2000 areas on Öland needed strict legal protection as nature reserve, because contractual arrangements with agri-environment were proving sufficient to reach the conservation objectives. Moreover, there was no need for the public authorities to purchase land to ensure its conservation – it is still private and being managed correctly. This does, however, mean that adequate agri-environment measures are vital.

23

The County Administration Board had many discussions with the Swedish agriculture ministry about support for grazing, and this did lead to better agri-environment opportunities geared to the special grasslands on Öland. During the 2000-2006 Rural Development Programme, grazing on the alvars (stocking density 1 LLU per 6 ha!) received 109€/ha/year agri-environment support on well-cleared open land. To qualify for the premium, the alvar land had to be well-grazed every season and the farmers had to clear bushes. Clearing plans stated what they had to clear during the agri-environment contract period. Coastal meadows (stocking density 1.5-2 LLU per hectare) received a premium of 260€/ha for well-grazed open land. The RDP for 2007-13 has not yet been decided in Sweden, but Kalmar County Administration Board hopes that support for the grassland management will increase. Martin Königsdorfer, Donautal-Aktiv e.V.: A new, coherent experimental agri-environment scheme has been developed for the upper Danube floodplains of Bavaria by the ARGE Schwäbisch Donaumoos (the local land management organisation) to preserve and expand grassland in areas which are ecologically valuable and affected by flooding:

• whole-farm approach, instead of piecemeal contracts per individual section of farmland which ignore the big picture at farm holding level. to be able to join in the new schemes, farmers would have to agree to carry out certain basic services for free (like a commitment not to plough grasslands, not to modify the microtopography, not to use certain types of fertiliser)

• a basic financial support is granted for keeping at least 20% of the holding in grass, and converting an additional 5% of the holding from arable to grassland

• extra payments for additional services like late mowing, keeping animals on the pasture instead of in stables, deploying traditional breeds, using solid instead of liquid manure etc.

• Points are given per section of land where these additional services are carried out. Payments are per point.

Unfortunately, the scheme was refused for LIFE funding by the Commission, but has been carried out nonetheless by the ARGE with own funds on 4 pilot farms, involving 85 ha. The new Bavarian rural development programme is likely to include it, so that CAP cofinancing would then be obtained.

24

Theme: making nature-oriented grassland farming economically self-sustaining

Eckhard Jedicke, Project Manager, DBU-Grünlandprojekt Rhön (Germany) A marketing concept (slogan in German: ‘nicht Masse, aber Klasse’) and strategy has been elaborated. The objective is to fully and successfully market livestock from nature-oriented grassland farming in the Rhön at a higher price and as higher quality product. This should create sufficient economic basis to make this nature-oriented farming a viable and self-supporting alternative for farmers. Targeted are consumers who are quality-oriented and willing to pay higher prices for quality, within the regional market (=within 150 km radius). How is this translated into practice?

• sale from the farm itself, can be coupled to tours of the farm and the pastures • weekly markets in villages and towns – through a system of horizontal

cooperation, farmers present their produce together which means less individual effort

• direct delivery to consumers who subscribe to buy in bulk • special events, such as the Rhön Sausage Market, at which only local produce was

sold and which attracted 20,000 people over two days • the Rhönhöfe (Rhön Shops) which sell produce from the Rhön • local butcher’s shops

There are plans to also market through the Tegut and Edeka supermarket chains and through organic and health food stores, to examine possible sales to professional kitchens supplying office or school meals, and to see if Milupa (a baby food manufacturer) might be interested in buying meat. A specific programme which has already functioned for some years is linking with local gastronomic enterprises which agree to promote dishes made with ingredients produced locally (‘Aus der Rhön für die Rhön, Rhöner Charme). The intention is to intensify it and focus on the quality of the meat from nature-oriented grazing. A problem in marketing is the ‘undesirable meat’ – everyone wants steaks, but the less noble parts of the animal are hard to sell. One solution found in the Rhön has been the ‘Rhön Schdegge’, a salami made of bits of mutton shaped like a walking stick and sold to tourists. An overall brand ‘Rhön” has been developed to cover all produce originating in the Rhön, with additional labels to indicate produce which has specific qualities (like being organic). On the supply side, the farmers are encouraged to join together in producer associations such as the Verein Rhöner Biosphärenrind or the Rhöner Weideochsen.

25

Peter Rozsa, farmer, Hortobagy National Park (Hungary): Like his two colleagues who are also partners in the LIFE project to restore a degraded section of the Hortobagy Steppes, Peter Rozsa does not sell his surplus livestock. Instead, they are slaughtered locally and converted to meat products. It did take a lot of time and effort to get the necessary permits from the authorities, e.g. to smoke meat. The meat is sold on the farm, at local markets and to organic food wholesalers. In addition, Peter Rozsa keeps 50 milking cows outside the restored land for cheese-making. He has a farm shop which stocks 140 traditional Hungarian products. Once a year an ‘open day’ is held at which tours are given of the grazed puszta and its birdlife, there is traditional music and dance and people can taste the meat and other produce. Rozsa has only agri-environment support for 49 ha and, although he gets 8,000 €/year premia for keeping traditional rare breeds, the sale of produce is the economic backbone of his holding. Franz Stefan Hauzinger, Chairman of the Burgenland Farmers Union (Austria): The answer of the Burgenland Farmers’ Union to globalisation is regionalisation, which means developing regional products which have unique characteristics. This is being implemented through so-called ‘Genußregionen’ (‘districts to enjoy’); pilot projects under this banner include the Seewinkel vegetables, the steppe cattle from the Neusiedler See national park, nuts from central Burgenland, fen oxen from the Zickentaler Fen and the south Burgenland geese. In turn, these projects link to tourism and recreation – agriculture, nature conservation and tourism have every reason to collaborate. Paul Evans, Ingleborough National Nature Reserve, Natural England: The Limestone Country Beef Producers Group is marketing the beef from the nature-oriented grazing in the Yorkshire Dales as ‘grass-fed beef with direct benefit for wildlife’. The meat is sold through local butchers and restaurants, also directly to customers over the internet, and a celebrity chef on British TV has been endorsing it! There is a huge demand for ‘nature beef’ from the Yorkshire Dales, more than farmers can currently produce. Issues like low food miles and high quality are becoming important among the British public, so one can be confident that niche beef will stay popular. There is a project, by DEFRA and Bristol University, to study the economic aspects: is there a future for this sort of meat? If so, what criteria must it conform to (taste quality, healthiness in terms of fat or omega acid content)? This study will be ready by Dec. 2006.

26

Johann Grießner, Mayor of Lamprechtshausen (Salzburg Region, Austria) : The hay material from the late mowing of the litter meadows in the Weidmoos near Salzburg is used as litter in stables. Demand has been driven by recent shifts towards solid instead of liquid manure in animal husbandry (result of laws to restrict spreading of liquid manure) and towards stalls more suited for animal welfare. In districts with arable land straw is cheap, but around the Weidmoos there is no arable farming so straw has to be brought from elsewhere, raising its price to 0.15 € /kg. This makes the material from mowing litter meadows an interesting alternative. Consequently, the farmers are more than willing to mow the litter meadows for free if they can keep the mowed material (which would never work in areas where arable straw is cheap). To be suitable as litter, the material must be dry, which is not a problem in the higher, drier parts of the Weidmoos, but in the wetter areas it has to be dried in situ by turning it two or three times; this works providing the summer is not too wet. Conclusions of meeting

Partnership between grassland farmers and nature conservation and/or water management bodies is possible and is beneficial for both sides There is immense scope for exchange of experience and opinions on grassland restoration and management, techniques which can be used, monitoring of their efficacy for fauna and flora, support from agri-environment and means to achieve economic viability. Further contacts between initiatives where grassland farming benefiting nature and water values is being developed, promoted and carried out, would be both useful and desirable. Concrete possibilities to do such networking will be investigated by the Weideverein Ramsargebiet Lafnitztal. The presence of several farmers at this workshop is extremely positive, enriching the debate, and future workshops ought to strive towards parity in participation between farmers, nature conservationists and water managers.