Applying indicators for High Nature Value farming
There are two distinct reasons for designing indicators of HNV farming, and these may require slightly different tools and approaches.
- To measure the approximate extent of HNV farmland in a region or Member State, so that this can be monitored over time, for the purposes of RDP evaluation.
- To enable support measures to be targeted at HNV farming.
Member States were required to estimate their total area (“superficial extent”) of HNV farmland (baseline indicator) at the start of the 2007-13 RDPs. This figure can only be an approximate estimate, because current data sources do not permit an exact calculation.
The aim should be to capture an approximate picture of the total hectarage of land under landuses that meet the basic HNV criteria. Some Member States have taken rather unconvincing short-cuts, such as proposing that the HNV farmland area is equivalent to the farmland within Less favoured Areas, or within Natura 2000 sites. This is not a satisfactory approach as, although considerable overlaps can be expected, these two sets of areas were delineated on very different criteria from the HNV farmland criteria.
Following the lead taken by the European Environment Agency (EEA) with CORINE, some Member States have pursued the land cover approach. Where suitable data on semi-natural vegetation are available at national and regional levels, this is a sensible starting point. However, experience suggests that CORINE is not a suitable data base, in its current format, as it does not distinguish between semi-natural and more intensively managed grassland.
For identifying Type 1 HNV farmland, a recent and comprehensive inventory of semi-natural vegetation types provides an intitial indication of the total area. Inventories of semi-natural grasslands as produced in some countries (see www.veenecology.nl) are more detailed than CORINE-based exercises and may be a valuable tool for identifying the location of this particular type of HNV farmland.
However, not all semi-natural vegetation is under farming use, and some means of verifying the current usage therefore is needed. The CAP Land Use Parcel Identification System (LPIS) should provide this information if it is operating correctly, as the use of all parcels is recorded on an annual basis.
However, not all semi-natural vegetation is under farming use, and some means of verifying the current usage therefore is needed. The CAP Land Use Parcel Identification System (LPIS) should provide this information if it is operating correctly, as the use of all parcels is recorded on an annual basis.
At this stage, the aim should be to establish a baseline area of semi-natural vegetation under farming use (grazing and/or mowing), that can be targeted for policy measures and monitored over time. It probably is not realistic on the basis of existing data to expect to know what are the current management practices on this land, such as livestock densities and grazing regimes, and whether they are optimum for conservation of the nature values.
This question is best addressed when designing and applying CAP support measures, by making such payments conditional on a management regime that is adapted to the conditions of the area (e.g. minimum and maximum livestock densities per hectare of forage). Thus, in this case the land cover data indicate the presence of HNV farmland, and the conditions attached to the support payment that the farming practices are appropriate for an HNV farming system. In practice, this is how existing agri-environment schemes for HNV grasslands are operating in countries such as Bulgaria and Romania.
Identifying Type 2 HNV farmland is more challenging. The type of land cover is more complex, as it includes a mix of semi-natural vegetation and cropped land. Identifying only the semi-natural element (e.g. through inventories) is not a sufficient approach in this case, as the nature value of Type 2 HNV farmland depends partly on the low-intensity cropping and its existence in a mosaic with semi-natural vegetation, with some importance of landscape featrues. Some measurement of the proportion of land under semi-natural vegetation is needed, and ideally this would be combined with a measurement of the intensity of use on the cropped area. More detail on the choice of indicators is provided in the draft Guidance Document (IEEP and Beaufoy, 2007).
At present, data are not readily available on farming practices such as input use. Therefore, as with Type 1 HNV farmland, the realistic approach for the time being is to focus on identifying the land cover patterns (mosaics of semi-natural vegetation and crops) that indicate the probable presence of HNV farmland. Measures then can be targeted at this land, with the eligibility conditions of the measures themselves ensuring that the farming system is appropriate for maintaining nature values.
The choice of threshold values for HNV farming must be supported by information provided in the description of farming types and their nature values. Thus the definition of minimum and maximum stocking densities should be in accordance with ecological criteria for the region or area in question. This is the range of stocking densities considered most favourable to the conservation of species and habitats, which may be lower than the stocking densities considered as agronomically optimum.
It is essential that national choices of thresholds and indicators for HNV farming should be tested at the local level. Better still, the development work at national level should be informed by local-level research that is designed specifically to answer the key questions for identification of HNV farmland. A selection of local case studies from different parts of the country should be undertaken.
The usefulness of mapping HNV farmland
The European Environment Agency (EEA) has worked on the identification of geographical areas where natural values (vegetation types, areas designated for particular habitats and species) coincide with agriculture. This has lead to the production of maps of possible “HNV farmland areas”.
