Records 1 - 20 / 544
The effectiveness of flower strips and hedgerows on pest control, pollination services and crop yield: a quantitative synthesis
Albrecht, Matthias ; Kleijn, David ; Williams, Neal M. ; Tschumi, Matthias ; Blaauw, Brett R. ; Bommarco, Riccardo ; Campbell, Alistair J. ; Dainese, Matteo ; Drummond, Francis A. ; Entling, Martin H. ; Ganser, Dominik ; Groot, Arjen de; Goulson, Dave ; Grab, Heather ; Hamilton, Hannah ; Herzog, Felix ; Isaacs, Rufus ; Jacot, Katja ; Jeanneret, Philippe ; Jonsson, Mattias ; Knop, Eva ; Kremen, Claire ; Landis, Douglas A. ; Loeb, Gregory M. ; Marini, Lorenzo ; McKerchar, Megan ; Morandin, Lora ; Pfister, Sonja C. ; Potts, Simon G. ; Rundlöf, Maj ; Sardiñas, Hillary ; Sciligo, Amber ; Thies, Carsten ; Tscharntke, Teja ; Venturini, Eric ; Veromann, Eve ; Vollhardt, Ines M.G. ; Wäckers, Felix ; Ward, Kimiora ; Wilby, Andrew ; Woltz, Megan ; Wratten, Steve ; Sutter, Louis - \ 2020
Ecology Letters (2020). - ISSN 1461-023X
agri-environment schemes - Agroecology - bee pollinators - conservation biological control - ecological intensification - farmland biodiversity - floral enhancements - natural pest regulation - pollination reservoirs - sustainable agriculture - wildflower strips
Floral plantings are promoted to foster ecological intensification of agriculture through provisioning of ecosystem services. However, a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of different floral plantings, their characteristics and consequences for crop yield is lacking. Here we quantified the impacts of flower strips and hedgerows on pest control (18 studies) and pollination services (17 studies) in adjacent crops in North America, Europe and New Zealand. Flower strips, but not hedgerows, enhanced pest control services in adjacent fields by 16% on average. However, effects on crop pollination and yield were more variable. Our synthesis identifies several important drivers of variability in effectiveness of plantings: pollination services declined exponentially with distance from plantings, and perennial and older flower strips with higher flowering plant diversity enhanced pollination more effectively. These findings provide promising pathways to optimise floral plantings to more effectively contribute to ecosystem service delivery and ecological intensification of agriculture in the future.
Alles over kringlooplandbouw met Martin Scholten | Food Hub Colleges
Scholten, M.C.T. - \ 2020
Wageningen : Wageningen University & Research
circular agriculture - farmers - citizens - food policy - returns - climate - energy - agri-environment schemes - soil management - feeds - land-based
Kringlooplandbouw is de toekomstvisie voor ons toekomstige voedselsysteem. Maar wat is het nou eigenlijk en wat is het niet? Martin Scholten van Wageningen Universiteit en Research vertelt je alles wat je moet weten over kringlooplandbouw. Als boer en als burger.
A critical analysis of the potential for EU Common Agricultural Policy measures to support wild pollinators on farmland
Cole, Lorna J. ; Kleijn, David ; Dicks, Lynn V. ; Stout, Jane C. ; Potts, Simon G. ; Albrecht, Matthias ; Balzan, Mario V. ; Bartomeus, Ignasi ; Bebeli, Penelope J. ; Bevk, Danilo ; Biesmeijer, Jacobus C. ; Chlebo, Róbert ; Dautartė, Anželika ; Emmanouil, Nikolaos ; Hartfield, Chris ; Holland, John M. ; Holzschuh, Andrea ; Knoben, Nieke T.J. ; Kovács-Hostyánszki, Anikó ; Mandelik, Yael ; Panou, Heleni ; Paxton, Robert J. ; Petanidou, Theodora ; Pinheiro de Carvalho, Miguel A.A. ; Rundlöf, Maj ; Sarthou, Jean Pierre ; Stavrinides, Menelaos C. ; Suso, Maria Jose ; Szentgyörgyi, Hajnalka ; Vaissière, Bernard E. ; Varnava, Androulla ; Vilà, Montserrat ; Zemeckis, Romualdas ; Scheper, Jeroen - \ 2020
Journal of Applied Ecology 57 (2020)4. - ISSN 0021-8901 - p. 681 - 694.
agri-environment schemes - bees - CAP Green Architecture - Common Agricultural Policy - Ecological Focus Areas - habitat complementarity - pollination services - pollinator conservation
Agricultural intensification and associated loss of high-quality habitats are key drivers of insect pollinator declines. With the aim of decreasing the environmental impact of agriculture, the 2014 EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) defined a set of habitat and landscape features (Ecological Focus Areas: EFAs) farmers could select from as a requirement to receive basic farm payments. To inform the post-2020 CAP, we performed a European-scale evaluation to determine how different EFA options vary in their potential to support insect pollinators under standard and pollinator-friendly management, as well as the extent of farmer uptake. A structured Delphi elicitation process engaged 22 experts from 18 European countries to evaluate EFAs options. By considering life cycle requirements of key pollinating taxa (i.e. bumble bees, solitary bees and hoverflies), each option was evaluated for its potential to provide forage, bee nesting sites and hoverfly larval resources. EFA options varied substantially in the resources they were perceived to provide and their effectiveness varied geographically and temporally. For example, field margins provide relatively good forage throughout the season in Southern and Eastern Europe but lacked early-season forage in Northern and Western Europe. Under standard management, no single EFA option achieved high scores across resource categories and a scarcity of late season forage was perceived. Experts identified substantial opportunities to improve habitat quality by adopting pollinator-friendly management. Improving management alone was, however, unlikely to ensure that all pollinator resource requirements were met. Our analyses suggest that a combination of poor management, differences in the inherent pollinator habitat quality and uptake bias towards catch crops and nitrogen-fixing crops severely limit the potential of EFAs to support pollinators in European agricultural landscapes. Policy Implications. To conserve pollinators and help protect pollination services, our expert elicitation highlights the need to create a variety of interconnected, well-managed habitats that complement each other in the resources they offer. To achieve this the Common Agricultural Policy post-2020 should take a holistic view to implementation that integrates the different delivery vehicles aimed at protecting biodiversity (e.g. enhanced conditionality, eco-schemes and agri-environment and climate measures). To improve habitat quality we recommend an effective monitoring framework with target-orientated indicators and to facilitate the spatial targeting of options collaboration between land managers should be incentivised.
Kringlooplandbouw: Hoe kunnen we de natuur benutten in onze landbouw?
Doorn, A.M. van - \ 2019
Wageningen : Wageningen University & Research
circular agriculture - biodiversity - agri-environment schemes
Het gaat niet goed met de biodiversiteit maar natuurinclusieve landbouw kan helpen om daar verandering in te brengen. Anne van Doorn, projectleider Natuurinclusieve landbouw aan Wageningen University & Research vertelt over de mogelijkheden. https://www.wur.nl/kringlooplandbouw
Data from: Landscape context and farm uptake limit effects of bird conservation in the Swedish Volunteer & Farmer Alliance
Josefsson, Jonas ; Pärt, Tomas ; Berg, Åke ; Lokhorst, A.M. ; Eggers, Sönke - \ 2018
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
agri-environment schemes - collaborative conservation - farmland birds - landscape composition - unsibsidised conservation - farmers - organic farming - biodiversity - AES - BACI
In Europe, agri-environmental schemes (AES) have been unsuccessful in halting biodiversity declines to any great extent. Two particular shortcomings of AES include the low farm uptake and the modest efficacy of many AES options. Partly in response to these shortcomings, initiatives encouraging farmers to take an active role in biodiversity conservation have gained in popularity. However, almost no evaluations of such initiatives exist. 2. We evaluated uptake of conservation advice on farms in the Swedish Volunteer & Farmer Alliance, a BirdLife Sweden-coordinated project aimed at farmland bird conservation, and the response of farmland birds to those actions using farm-level survey data, in a before-after implementation assessment. 3. Uptake was higher for unsubsidised (i.e. non-AES) measures than for AES options, and depended on farmers’ interest in nature, farm size (higher uptake on larger farms) and production type (higher on organic farms). 4. In general, abundances of non-crop nesting and field-nesting bird species declined between inventory years (median interval 3 years). Decreases were more marked in agriculturally marginal regions than in more arable-dominated regions, and declines were stronger on organic than conventional farms. 5. Negative abundance trends among non-crop nesting species were reduced by an increasing number of conservation measures at the farm, but only in the more arable-dominated landscapes. Changes in other non-crop species and in field-nesting species did not significantly relate to implemented measures, but the power to detect such effects was generally small due to the small sample size of high-uptake farms as well as high inter-farm variability. 6. Implications: Our results suggest that Volunteer Farmer Alliances and the addition of unsubsidised measures may be successful in changing the local number of non-crop nesting farmland birds at the farm level, and especially so in intensively managed agricultural landscapes. Thus, unsubsidised measures can be a useful addition to the set of agri-environment tools, although their effects on breeding bird numbers are (as with AES) dependent on landscape context, as well as on ensuring high on-farm uptake of different interventions.
Europe: the paradox of landscape change : A case-study based contribution to the understanding of landscape transitions
Sluis, Theo van der - \ 2017
Wageningen University. Promotor(en): B.J.M. Arts, co-promotor(en): G.B.M. Pedroli. - Wageningen : Wageningen University - ISBN 9789463438094 - 227
europe - case studies - landscape - change - landscape conservation - land use dynamics - cultural landscape - regions - urbanization - rural areas - policy - ecosystem services - agri-environment schemes - europa - gevalsanalyse - landschap - verandering - landschapsbescherming - dynamiek van het ruimtegebruik - cultuurlandschap - regio's - urbanisatie - platteland - beleid - ecosysteemdiensten - agrarisch natuurbeheer
This thesis explores the processes of change in European rural landscapes. Landscapes have evolved over millennia as a result of human influence on the physical environment. Europe has a wide variety of landscapes that can alter within a relatively short distance, and which often form part of the national cultural identity of a European country. Central to this thesis, however, are insights into the processes of landscape change.
In this context, the overall objective of this thesis is: To assess the dynamics of landscape change and increase the scientific understanding of the underlying processes and policies that have shaped the rural landscapes of Europe after establishment of the EU.
The focus is on the period following the establishment of the European Economic Community in 1965, which is hypothesised as the main driver of landscape change. European policies have an important direct impact on national and regional policies. The way that European policy transposition took place, existing governance structures and policy cultures also defined how ‘European policy’ influenced countries and regions. The object of this study is in particular the changing rural landscape, including the role of European agricultural policies, such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and conservation policies (for example Natura2000) in these changes.
The thesis uses an integrated approach to assess the various processes of landscape change: land use transitions, urbanisation of the countryside, land use intensification, extensification or abandonment. These processes are linked to drivers of landscape changes, the role of policies, and how these affect the landscape processes.
The research objective requires unravelling the correlations between land-related policies and landscape change in the EU, the drivers of landscape change and in particular how policies affect the European landscape. To operationalise this objective, the following research questions are addressed:
What are the major landscape change processes occurring in different regions of Europe?
What are the drivers of landscape change in different regions of Europe, and what is the role of EU-policies in particular?
How do landscape changes affect the provision of landscape services?
How does the implementation of conservation policies affect processes of landscape change?
Which effective strategies and future pathways can be followed to conserve valuable cultural landscapes?
The thesis consists of an introductory chapter, five chapters each addressing one of the research questions, and a concluding synthesis: putting the findings together and indicating their potential significance for research and policy. The first chapter introduces the theoretical framework, which focusses on the benefits (goods and services) that landscapes provide, satisfying human demands directly or indirectly. The framework recognises the institutions, the policies (indirect drivers), as well as natural and anthropogenic drivers of landscape change. The five central chapters have each been submitted to international peer reviewed scientific journals, three of which have been accepted, and one has been revised and resubmitted.
Research question Q1, ‘What are major landscape changes occurring in different regions of Europe?’ is addressed by interviewing 437 farmers in six selected study areas in Denmark, the Netherlands, Austria, Greece and Romania (Chapter 2). The aim of this survey was to acquire a better understanding of farmer’s decision making, the environmental conditions and the landscape change processes taking place. The focus is on intensification and extensification processes in the case-study areas and regional similarities and differences. A statistical analysis of land use intensity was carried out on the basis of the interviews.
Research question Q2, ‘What are the drivers of landscape change in different regions of Europe, and what particularly are the role of EU-policies?’, discusses the factors and drivers of change in a meta-study of six countries (Chapter 3). This study is based on stakeholder’s interpretations of change processes, using Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping. Groups of landscape experts participated in five workshops to jointly construct a cognitive map of landscape change processes over the past 25 years. The study examines in particular the storylines of the processes of landscape change. Two cases of Mediterranean and Boreal landscapes, are detailed.
Question Q3, ‘How do landscape changes affect the provision of landscape services?’ is addressed in Chapter 4, and discusses five European case studies with regard to changes in landscape services. The analysis is based on observed landscape changes by comparing maps for periods of up to 25 years. The changes were interpreted in terms of the consequences for landscape services, and related to European policies of landscape change.
Question Q4: ‘How does the implementation of conservation policies affect processes of landscape change?’ is discussed in Chapter 5 through focus on landscape governance. The transposition of European policy is assessed using the case of the Habitats Directive in four countries: Denmark, Greece, The Netherlands and Romania. It is assessed how legislation is locally translated and how this ‘fits’ the national governance system.
The last Question, Q5: ‘Which effective strategies and future pathways can be followed to conserve valuable cultural landscapes?’ is addressed in Chapter 6 on Mediterranean landscape change. Two ‘iconic’ Greek and Italian cultural olive yard landscapes were compared. Both landscapes have a centuries-old farming system. Long-term data sets on landscape change (exceeding 100 years) were combined with map data, interviews and literature, to discuss the characteristics of cultural landscape management, opportunities and potential risks for the future of these cultural landscapes.
The final chapter, Chapter 7, reflects on the results and presents the conclusions of the previous chapters, and on the scientific and societal significance of the thesis as a whole. It is concluded that the landscape in Europe is permanently changing as a result of complex interacting drivers. Policy has been one of the important drivers, but the landscape changes that have taken place are the outcome of various economic drivers and policies. The paradox is that the intentions of different European and regional spatial policies have been ambitious with regard to rural development, environmental quality, conservation of natural habitats and cultural heritage. In the end however, the complex interactions among direct and indirect drivers led to unintentional changes negatively affecting landscape value, resulting in land degradation, loss of cultural values and biodiversity. In other words, dominant drivers of landscape change (global economy, European policies) resulted in an outcome of landscapes that are preferred by the majority of the agricultural and forest sector, but otherwise no specific stakeholders were targeted, an outcome which was not envisaged by the policies.
Without efficient allocation of land resources and failing to regulate sustainable use, the landscape services are declining One approach to meet the diverse demands for landscape services is to focus on the provision of multiple benefits, using a multifunctional land use approach. The assumption thereby is that a multifunctional landscape has all aspects of a sustainable, liveable and biodiverse landscape.
The case studies landscapes in this thesis are characterised by different approaches that differ in multifunctionality: the marginal areas in southern Europe are less embedded in the global economy, and demonstrate high multifunctionality. Denmark and The Netherlands show typical ‘lowland agriculture’, that are weakly multifunctional. The Eastern European landscape cases in Romania and Estonia have higher multifunctionality, but the opportunities for change towards multifunctionality are less than in Western Europe. The opportunities are mostly dictated by environmental conditions, in particular the marginality of land, and the economy. Farming in these regions may have been profitable in the past, but abandonment is looming if no measures are taken to counteract economic driving forces.
The cultural landscapes such as in Lesvos and Portofino are particularly highly multifunctional. These old social systems are in decline: landscapes have deteriorated and changed since they have not been well maintained. The discontinuance of traditional management has occurred due to ageing populations, a lack of labour, skills and high costs. If iconic cultural landscapes are to be preserved for the future, deterioration must be halted. Traditional knowledge, skills and techniques are key for maintaining valuable cultural landscapes, such as in Italy and Greece, but also cultural landscapes in Western Europe like England or France, or traditional landscapes in Hungary or Poland. Solutions must be found to preserve the knowledge and traditions of landscape management, but also funds and labour are required to maintain these landscapes.
European landscapes have been permanently changing as a result of complex interacting drivers. Policy is one of the important drivers, but the landscape changes that take place are not the outcome of ‘a’ policy which steers the landscape development, but as the outcome of globalisation, economic drivers and policies; mostly the CAP, Rural Development Plan (RDP) and national forest policies which affect to a large measure the landscapes. There is no European policy for landscapes: landscape is not a prerogative of the EU.
Therefore, a tailor-made approach is essential for European policies implemented in each member state, taking into account the structure and functioning of existing national institutions, without losing sight of the overall aims of the policy. This requires input from the recipient countries in designing regulations, adapting them to existent institutions and modifying historical and current practices.
Holmes’ framework for changing modes of occupancy (use of rural space) has been used, whereby landscape transitions are considered the result of a changing balance between societal consumption, conservation and production. Landscapes where (agricultural or forestry) production is less dominant, may allow for more multifunctional policies that counterbalance the dominant position of production. Most countries do not have policies that fill the ‘gap’ of multifunctional landscape management. Gaps exist for landscapes not subject to Natura 2000, high nature value farming areas, outside urban zones, locations not affected by the Water Framework Directive or national forest policies, or those insufficiently covered at present by effective planning for multifunctional land use.
Existing (sectoral) schemes need to be re-examined with respect to multifunctionality. Potential multifunctional impacts should be considered in policymaking, e.g. payment schemes in the CAP or in Natura 2000, and about appropriate target areas for measures. Making more funds from CAP and RDP available for multifunctional land use could lead to more land sharing.
Landscapes, particularly iconic cultural landscapes, can benefit from mechanisms that allow the costs incurred by lower agricultural production to be covered. Payments for regulating and cultural services could be integrated in funding programs, e.g. through better targeting of Agri-Environment Schemes (AES) at smaller farmers in these valuable landscapes. Funding schemes should ensure that small, multifunctional farmers particularly in need support benefit. Better use must also be made of the added value potential of multifunctional effects. Increased multifunctionality would benefit the attractiveness of the countryside for residence, recreation and tourism.
Countries implement policies differently, but key success factors for multifunctional landscapes are the existence of locally- appropriate institutions that implement multifunctional policies. Building of new institutions can be time consuming and requires staff development.
Policy instruments on their own may be insufficient to harmonise the different aims of multifunctionality. Despite the AES, biodiversity and landscape quality is declining. The domination of some functions requires interventions and choices about trade-offs to be made (Arts et al. 2017). Given the dominant power of globalisation and European markets, payment for landscape services alone is ineffective, requiring additional incentives for the valorisation of these services, and to stimulate multifunctionality. Regional integrative approaches could be supported, with positive examples provided in the cases of alternative funding schemes, and how obstructions for such experiments can be tackled.
Finally, stakeholder involvement in landscape governance appears promising as a way to better meet the socio-ecological context within a landscape, provided that stakeholders address different scale levels. This requires a dynamic process to mobilise stakeholders, and flexibility of the government towards negotiations and conflict management at the landscape level. In particular, these last issues can be decisive for successful landscape governance. Different landscape governance arrangements are currently being tested in Europe which demonstrate new avenues. Notwithstanding some successful stakeholder involvement in landscape management, there are also challenges: in all such processes, there is a risk that collaboration results in power inequalities that affect the outcome, or may give certain groups more benefits than others, which may make the process unsustainable. It remains, therefore, important that the concept of multifunctional landscapes is integrated in existing legislation and regulations, and further integrated into land-related policies.
Collaborative governance arrangements to deliver spatially coordinated agri-environmental management
Westerink, J. ; Jongeneel, R.A. ; Polman, N.B.P. ; Prager, K. ; Franks, Jeremy ; Dupraz, Pierre ; Mettepenningen, Evy - \ 2017
Land Use Policy 69 (2017). - ISSN 0264-8377 - p. 176 - 192.
agri-environment schemes - landscape approach - farmer groups - cooperation - adaptive governance
Several studies show that agri-environment schemes (AES) are likely to be more effective if they are designed at the landscape scale. However, this requires spatial coordination of environmental management across multiple farm holdings and collaboration among governmental and other actors, including, possibly, groups of farmers. In this study we analyse alternative approaches to spatial coordination and collaboration. Through case studies from five EU member states in North West Europe we analysed collaborative governance arrangements, from the perspective of the distribution of governance tasks among collaborating actors and changes to these over time. Of these governance tasks, spatial coordination had our particular interest. The collaborative governance arrangements were shaped in various ways. In four out of five case studies a group of farmers had become involved in the performance of more governance tasks over time. In all cases a professional(ized) organisation (governmental organisation or a group of farmers) was responsible for spatial coordination, possibly due to the complexities inherent to a landscape approach. In relation to the change of schemes over time, we argue that adaptive collaborative governance, incorporating learning, monitoring and evaluation in the governance arrangements, is key to effective agri- environmental management.
Vergroening, agrarisch natuurbeheer en collectieven : praktijkideeën voor een groenere landbouw
Terwan, P. ; Miltenburg, José van; Guldemond, A. ; Doorn, A.M. van - \ 2017
Utrecht : BoerenNatuur.nl - 60
agri-environment schemes - circular agriculture
In the Netherlands, there is a strong political and societal commitment to an ambitious greening of agriculture. Besides national and market incentives, the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is seen as an important instrument to enhance the basic level of greening in Pillar 1 and to provide further-reaching and more targeted agri-environment measures in Pillar 2. Now that the dust has settled after a protracted greening discussion, the implementation of the greening measures has got underway and the discussion on the CAP post-2020 has already begun, there is an increasing sense of urgency to improve the greening’s ‘value for money’. Even within the farming community – usually not the strongest advocate of strengthened greening – there is a growing awareness that the current system is not fit for the future and that the legitimacy of spending public money is at stake. Moreover, the current system is perceived to be unfair as many farms are exempt from the greening obligations and arable farms carry most of the burden. For this reason, BoerenNatuur.nl, the farmers’ organisation for agri-environment, has investigated grass-roots ideas for an improved greening of agriculture in a project financed by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs. Note that the ideas outlined below do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BoerenNatuur.nl and/or the Ministry.
Kennissysteem agrarisch natuurbeheer: aandacht voor inpasbaarheid en validatie
Melman, Dick ; Schotman, Alex ; Vanmeulebrouk, Bas ; Staritsky, Igor ; Meeuwsen, Henk - \ 2016
Wageningen : Wageningen Environmental Research (Wageningen Environmental Research rapport 2791) - 65
agrarisch natuurbeheer - weidevogels - habitats - kennissystemen - agri-environment schemes - grassland birds - habitats - knowledge systems
Van chemie naar ecologie: niet straks maar nu!
Vet, Emely de - \ 2016
plant protection - pesticides - biological control - golf - agriculture - agri-environment schemes - ecosystems - biodiversity
'Van chemie naar ecologie. Niet straks maar nú!'
Vet, Emely de - \ 2016
golf - pesticides - agri-environment schemes - biological control - agriculture - plant protection - sports grounds - golf green soils - ecosystems - biodiversity - golf courses
Youtube registratie van de presentatie 'Van chemie naar ecologie. Niet straks maar nú!'
Hens Runhaar | Beheer biodiversiteit in agrarisch landschap
Runhaar, Hens - \ 2016
Wageningen University & Research
biodiversiteit - agrarisch natuurbeheer - biodiversity - agri-environment schemes
Hens Runhaar vertelt over zijn onderzoek dat zich richt over biodiversiteit in agrarisch landschap. Zijn onderzoek richt zich op de vraag hoe je dit sector nou zo kan sturen en stimuleren dat er weer meer ruimte is voor de natuur.
Boeren tussen de weidevogels
Melman, Dick - \ 2016
agri-environment schemes - netherlands
De samenstellers van het boek Agrarisch Natuurbeheer in Nederland draaien er niet omheen: sinds 1975 zijn de meeste doelen niet bereikt. Maar dat betekent niet dat je kind met het badwater moet weggooien . Wel laten ze doorschermeren dat ze hopen op grotere maatschappelijke betrokkenheid.
Ex-ante-evaluatie ANLb-2016 voor lerend beheer : een eerste blik op de omvang en ruimtelijke kwaliteit van het beheer in het nieuwe stelsel
Melman, Th.C.P. ; Schotman, A.G.M. ; Meeuwsen, H.A.M. ; Smidt, R.A. ; Vanmeulebrouk, B. ; Sierdsema, H. - \ 2016
Wageningen : Wageningen Environmental Research (Rapport / Wageningen Environmental Research 2752) - 75
agrarisch natuurbeheer - natuurbeheer - habitats - weidevogels - natuurbescherming - agri-environment schemes - nature management - habitats - grassland birds - nature conservation
Een ex-ante-evaluatie is uitgevoerd van het beheer zoals dat in het vernieuwde stelsel voor agrarisch natuur- en landschapsbeheer (ANLb-2016) wordt uitgevoerd. Bekeken zijn omvang, de ligging van de beheerde percelen t.o.v. kansrijke gebieden, de ruimtelijke samenhang en de kwaliteit van weidevogelhabitat. Voor ruimtelijke omvang en ligging is een vergelijking gemaakt met de situatie uit 2010: het eerste jaar van het agrarisch natuurbeheer onder het Subsidiestelsel Natuur en Landschap (SNL). Aandacht is geschonken aan vier agrarische leefgebieden: open grasland, open akker, droge dooradering en natte dooradering. De focus is gelegd op het weidevogelbeheer: daarover is de meeste kennis en is het leeuwendeel van het beheerde areaal. De omvang van het beheer is in absolute zin gedaald van ca. 143.000 naar 90.000 ha (waarvan ca. 23.000ha zgn. doorlopers waarvan op termijn zal blijken welk deel ervan wordt gecontinueerd). Van het weidevogelbeheer ligt ca. 62-64% in kansrijk gebied (was 58% in 2010); 65% ligt redelijk geconcentreerd, 35% verspreid tot zeer verspreid. Met het zware beheer, voor zover binnen kansrijk gebied liggend, wordt voor ca. 50% een redelijke tot goede habitatkwaliteit gerealiseerd. Om tot een verdere verbetering van het beheer te kunnen komen, zijn geobjectiveerde, door alle betrokkenen gedeelde inzichten onontbeerlijk over onder andere kansrijkdom van gebieden, ondergrenzen voor ruimtelijke samenhang en habitatkwaliteit. Hier kan lerend beheer veel betekenen.
Towards 'nature-inclusive' agriculture
Runhaar, Hens - \ 2016
Wageningen : Wageningen University - ISBN 9789462579132 - 36
biodiversity - agri-environment schemes - agriculture - nature conservation - governance - netherlands - biodiversiteit - agrarisch natuurbeheer - landbouw - natuurbescherming - governance - nederland
Goed voor elkaar : over omgaan met krachtenvelden en lerend beheren in het nieuwe stelsel ANLB
Nieuwenhuizen, W. ; Westerink, J. ; Gerritsen, A.L. ; Och, R.A.F. van - \ 2016
Wageningen : Alterra, Wageningen-UR (Alterra-rapport 2709) - 19
agrarisch natuurbeheer - natuurbeheer - landschapsbeheer - participatie - samenwerking - agri-environment schemes - nature management - landscape management - participation - cooperation
Deze brochure is gemaakt ten behoeve van het nieuwe stelsel agrarisch natuur- en landschapsbeheer.
Kennissysteem agrarisch natuurbeheer : ondersteuning voor lerend beheer in het agrarisch natuurbeheer
Melman, T.C.P. ; Buij, R. ; Schotman, A.G.M. ; Vos, C.C. ; Verdonschot, R.C.M. ; Sierdsema, H. ; Vanmeulebrouk, B. - \ 2016
Alterra, Wageningen-UR (Alterra-rapport 2702) - 109
agrarisch natuurbeheer - kennissystemen - weidevogels - vogels - ecologie - biodiversiteit - agri-environment schemes - knowledge systems - grassland birds - birds - ecology - biodiversity
In het nieuwe stelsel agrarisch natuurbeheer (ANLb-2016) heeft het collectief dat een beheeraanvraag indient een verantwoordelijkheid voor het realiseren van de natuurresultaten. Kennis over vóórkomen en ecologische vereisten van de soorten krijgen daarin een steeds belangrijker plek. Kennisontsluiting is daarvoor nodig. Voor alle 67 soorten waarvoor ANLb-2016 doelstellingen heeft, zijn al eerder opgestelde fiches aangevuld, met name wat betreft dispersieafstanden en minimumareaal. Er is een format ontwikkeld om deze informatie op handzame wijze te ontsluiten en op een aantrekkelijke manier te presenteren: het kennissysteem ANB. Om er met het beheer gemakkelijker grip op te krijgen, is per leefgebiedtype een poging gedaan de soorten in enkele clusters te groeperen. Het kennissysteem ANB is een topografisch gestuurde, web-based ontsluiting van deze kennis. Voorkomen, ecologische randvoorwaarden en beheer worden daarin opgenomen en zijn interactief benaderbaar. Voor weidevogels is het in voorgaande jaren opgebouwde systeem verder ontwikkeld en kan nu in de praktijk worden beproefd. Voor akkervogels, droge dooradering en natte dooradering is voor enkele voorbeeldsoorten het concept van kennisontsluiting ontwikkeld. Voor elk leefgebiedtype is een Prezipresentatie gemaakt die de gebruiker inleidt in het concept van het kennissysteem. Deze is bedoeld om gebruikers te ondersteunen bij verdere wensen ten aanzien van de ontwikkeling van het kennissysteem.
Data from: How much would it cost to monitor farmland biodiversity in Europe?
Geijzendorffer, I.R. ; Targetti, Stefano ; Schneider, Manuel K. ; Brus, D.J. ; Jongman, R.H.G. ; Knotters, M. ; Bogers, M.M.B. ; Staritsky, I.G. - \ 2015
Wageningen University & Research
species richness - farmland biodiversity - habitat - plants - spiders - bees - earth worms - agriculture - agri-environment schemes - biodiversity indicator - common agricultural policy - empirical data - farming system - sampling design - species trend - power analysis
To evaluate progress on political biodiversity objectives, biodiversity monitoring provides information on whether intended results are being achieved. Despite scientific proof that monitoring and evaluation increase the (cost) efficiency of policy measures, cost estimates for monitoring schemes are seldom available, hampering their inclusion in policy programme budgets. Empirical data collected from 12 case studies across Europe were used in a power analysis to estimate the number of farms that would need to be sampled per major farm type to detect changes in species richness over time for four taxa (vascular plants, earthworms, spiders and bees). A sampling design was developed to allocate spatially, across Europe, the farms that should be sampled. Cost estimates are provided for nine monitoring scenarios with differing robustness for detecting temporal changes in species numbers. These cost estimates are compared with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) budget (2014–2020) to determine the budget allocation required for the proposed farmland biodiversity monitoring. Results show that the bee indicator requires the highest number of farms to be sampled and the vascular plant indicator the lowest. The costs for the nine farmland biodiversity monitoring scenarios corresponded to 0·01%–0·74% of the total CAP budget and to 0·04%–2·48% of the CAP budget specifically allocated to environmental targets. Synthesis and applications. The results of the cost scenarios demonstrate that, based on the taxa and methods used in this study, a Europe-wide farmland biodiversity monitoring scheme would require a modest share of the Common Agricultural Policy budget. The monitoring scenarios are flexible and can be adapted or complemented with alternate data collection options (e.g. at national scale or voluntary efforts), data mobilization, data integration or modelling efforts.
PAS: meer milieutechniek bij stal naast natuurgebied : Stikstofdepositie sleutel bij combinatie van natuur, landbouw en stallenbouw
Dekking, A.J.G. - \ 2015
Ekoland 2015 (2015)11. - ISSN 0926-9142 - p. 23 - 25.
veehouderij - emissiereductie - stikstof - ammoniakemissie - landbouw en milieu - agrarisch natuurbeheer - milieubescherming - biologische landbouw - vergunningen - natuurbeschermingsrecht - wetgeving - livestock farming - emission reduction - nitrogen - ammonia emission - agriculture and environment - agri-environment schemes - environmental protection - organic farming - permits - nature conservation law - legislation
Boeren beheren steeds meer natuurgebieden door natuurbeheer te combineren met landbouw, recreatie of zorg. Tot voor kort zette dreigende ammoniakvervuiling elk plan van deze boeren voor bedrijfsontwikkeling op slot. De overheid bedacht een oplossing: een veehouder mag groeien, mits hij milieuwinst behaalt. Voor stikstofdepositie is dat geregeld via de ‘PAS’. Hoe werkt dat?
Veldleeuwerik heeft meer nodig dan faunaranden : themanummer Agrarisch natuurbeheer
Kuiper, M.W. ; Ottens, H.J. - \ 2015
Vakblad Natuur Bos Landschap 12 (2015)115. - ISSN 1572-7610 - p. 38 - 40.
vogels - fauna - populatie-ecologie - foerageren - agrarisch natuurbeheer - habitats - broedplaatsen - akkerbouw - birds - fauna - population ecology - foraging - agri-environment schemes - habitats - breeding places - arable farming
Lange tijd is er weinig aandacht geweest voor akkervogels. Zo is in de afgelopen 50 jaar de populatie veldleeuweriken met 96 procent afgenomen. Het is van belang om de juiste maatregelen uit te voeren om deze negatieve trend stoppen.