This document discusses High Nature Value Farmland (HNVF) as an indicator for evaluating rural development programs in Europe. It provides definitions of HNVF from the European Environment Agency and describes three types of HNVF landscapes. The document also outlines challenges with the area approach to defining HNVF and proposes a system approach instead. Implementation efforts in Austria and Germany are described. Finally, a four step process is proposed for developing HNVF as a robust rural development program indicator.

1. High Nature Value Farmland
as an European evaluation indicator
Andreas Bartel
26. Mai 2009
SALVERE Project Workshop
AREC Raumberg-Gumpenstein
1

2. Overview
 What is HNF F
 Indicator for Evaluation of rural development programmes (=RDP)
 History: Priciple and Definition (IRENA, EEA,  RDP)
 From area approach to system approach
 What for: Indicator whithin CMEF (Baseline - Result - Impact)
 What: farming charateristics – Land cover (Habitats) – Species
 How: implementation in AT (so far); DE (Fr,BE)
 outlook: four steps proposed
2

3. Definition HNV Farmland: EEA/JRC
HNV farmland comprises those areas in Europe
where
agriculture is a major (usually the dominant) land use and
where that agriculture supports, or is associated with,
either a high species and habitat diversity or
the presence of species of European , and/or national,
and/or regional conservation concern,
or both’
(Andersen et al. 2003/2007).
3

4. Definition of HNV Farmland: EEA/JRC
 Type 1: Farmland with a high proportion of
semi-natural vegetation
 Type 2: Farmland with a mosaic of low
intensity agriculture and natural and
structural elements, such as field margins,
hedgerows, stonewalls, patches of woodland
or scrub, small rivers etc.
 Type 3: Farmland supporting rare species or
a high proportion of European or World
populations. 4

5. HNVF in Austria -what we have in mind
Alpine pastures,
extensive grassland
with hedges, orchards,
… 5

6. HNVF in Austria -what we have in mind
Mosaic landscapes,
vineyard terraces,
narrow passes, species
rich field margins 6

7. HNVF in Austria -what we don‘t have in
mind
Monotone fields of
maize, rape, cereals,
vegetables, …
7

8. Limits of the „area-approach“
 CLC Class 322 (moors and heathland) - Problem
inconsistant picture across Europa
 Representation on 1km² cells: Share of HNV area and
UAA (Alpen!)
 Coarse spatial resolution (CLC-based) –> scale gap
between management and evaluation
 Not suitable as a change Indicator (static picture)
 Grassland focused
 Intensivly used areas in Upper Austria
 Mixed cultivation patterns in Lower Austria
8

9. RD 07-13: Evaluation Indicator
 CMEF: Common Monitoring and Evaluation
Framework
 DG Agri (IEEP): guidelines 2007/2008
9

10. The system approach
10

11. Implementation in Austria
 study Umweltbundesamt 2008 (Birdlife)
 Based on the „area-approach“:
- Verification & identification of HNVF 2007-2008
- from viewpoint biodiversity
- landscape-level
 Distribution of habitat-types and bird species
- „farming Habitat-types“
- Land use
- Farmland bird species
 Share of „habitat suitable land use“
 Species number of birds: difference to an expected
mean value
 Threshold and combination
11

12. Draft HNV Areas
13

13. Open questions
 Striking discrepancy between criteria
 Biodiversity and height
 HNVF share related to area or UAA?
 Implementation as RD-indicator:
 Scale of evaluation ?
 Dynamics ?
 AEM as indicators for HNVF ?
14

14. Implementation in Germany
 Sample area approach, (coupled to bird
monitoring); stratified sampling design
 2 a mapping rythm (n=2357), begin 2009
 Level of detail: habitat types; selected HNV
types
 Goal: national area sum and changes (yearly)
 For qualitative indication a bigger sample is
needed
 First guess: ca. 5% of UAA is HNVF
15

15. Four steps towards a RDP-Indicator
 1. Describing and characterising the main types of HNV
farming and forestry; (habitats, management, nature values
associated)
 2. Developing indicators to identify the extent of HNV farming
- representative local case studies;
 3. Developing indicators for monitoring changes in the
extent and condition of HNV farming and forestry;
 Monitoring of extent indicators and the agricultural practice
 sample surveys of farming practices and biodiversity (condition);
 4. Assess quantitative (extent) and qualitative (condition)
changes in HNV farming in the context of the rural
development programmes.
16

16. Conclusions
 RD - Indicator is not yet developed to out of
the box evaluation
 Will not be an one value indicator, rather a set
of different single aspects
 HNV is strictly conservation focused;
(re)development of HNV-systems is not its
objective
17