Agricultural and Environmental Informatics, Governance and ... - UniBuc

Agricultural and Environmental Informatics, Governance and Management: Emerging Research Applications Zacharoula Andreopoulou Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece Basil Manos Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece Nico Polman LEI, Wageningen UR, The Netherlands Davide Viaggi University of Bologna, Italy

Senior Editorial Director: Director of Book Publications: Editorial Director: Acquisitions Editor: Development Editor: Production Editor: Typesetters: Print Coordinator: Cover Design:

Kristin Klinger Julia Mosemann Lindsay Johnston Erika Carter Hannah Abelbeck Sean Woznicki Keith Glazewski, Natalie Pronio, Milan Vracarich, Jr. Jamie Snavely Nick Newcomer

Published in the United States of America by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue Hershey PA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.igi-global.com Copyright © 2011 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher. Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Agricultural and environmental informatics, governance and management: emerging research applications / Zacharoula Andreopoulou ... [et al.], editors. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: “This book is a state-of-the-art reference book that explores how rural policymakers and stakeholders can use information and communication technologies to sustainably manage agricultural and natural resources”--Provided by publisher. ISBN 978-1-60960-621-3 (hbk.) -- ISBN 978-1-60960-622-0 (ebook) 1. Agricultural informatics. 2. Environmental sciences--Methodology. 3. Agriculture--Management--Information technology. 4. Environmental management--Technological innovations. 5. Sustainable agriculture. 6. Agriculture and state. 7. Environmental policy. I. Andreopoulou, Zacharoula, 1965S494.5.D3A39 2011 630.285--dc22 2011001262

British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library. All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.

339

Chapter 18

Agriculture and Conservation in the Natura 2000 Network: A Sustainable Development Approach of the European Union Cristian Ioja University of Bucharest, Romania Laurenţiu Rozylowicz University of Bucharest, Romania Maria Patroescu University of Bucharest, Romania Mihai Niţă University of Bucharest, Romania Diana Onose University of Bucharest, Romania

ABSTRACT The Natura 2000 network represents a new approach in the sustainable spatial planning promoted at the European Union level. Agricultural landscapes comprise 28.6% of the surface area of the Natura 2000 sites, many of which have significant conservation values. Plant and animal species, and approximately 30% of the natural habitats of community interest are directly influenced by the presence of certain agricultural activities. This chapter presents a GIS analysis of the European Union Natura 2000 ecological network: spatial distribution of Natura 2000 sites in EU-27, dynamic agricultural surfaces in Natura 2000 sites, and GIS tools in managing process. GIS techniques must represent the tool by which the efficiency of this ecological network is monitored, as it must be permanently nourished with important financial resources. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60960-621-3.ch018

Copyright © 2011, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Agriculture and Conservation in the Natura 2000 Network

INTRODUCTION Ecologically, agriculture has a dual nature, being considered the main risk affecting biodiversity at a global level (Primack, Patroescu, Rozylowicz & Ioja, 2008) but also the support for sustaining biological communities (Baur et al., 2006; Kuemmerle, Muller, Griffiths & Rusu, 2009; Pykala, 2003; Ruprecht, Enyedi, Eckstein & Donath, 2010). Globally, protected areas embody the most frequently used instrument for limiting threats upon representative samples of species and natural ecosystems (Balmford et al., 2002), but also for preserving and valorising certain traditional agricultural landscapes (Plieninger, Hochtl & Spek, 2006). The intensity of biodiversity threats induced by agriculture is extremely high in EU-27, where agricultural fields comprise 47.4% of the land area (European Commission, 2009). Habitat disturbance, overexploitation, pollution, invasive alien species, and disease characterize the most common threats encountered in the European space in which agricultural activities affect biodiversity (Plieninger et al., 2006; Primack et al., 2008; Schmitt & Rakosy, 2007). Agricultural techniques are becoming increasingly destructive, as the methods are devoted mainly to an increase in productivity (Stoate et al., 2009). This destruction can be minimized by the new orientations of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), promoting agri-environmental schemes (EEA, 2005; Piorr et al., 2009). The CAP will moderate the negative effects of agriculture upon biodiversity (Henle et al., 2008), and reactivate benefits generated by ecosystem services (Hockings, 2003). The new schemes may also be crucial in maintaining the efficiency of agricultural activities (EEA, 2009; Piorr et al., 2009). Illustrative of this issue is the promotion of incentives for high nature value farmland, with the purpose of increasing the conservation of avian species dependant on agricultural habitats (EEA, 2004).

340

In this framework, the Natura 2000 network represents an European Union goal, aimed at promoting the conservation of natural habitats of flora and fauna species, without excluding populated communities and local economy (Mucher, Hennekens, Bunce, Schaminee & Schaepman, 2009; Pullin et al., 2009; Silva, 2009). The enforcement of the Natura 2000 network appeared as a necessity in fulfilling the objectives of reducing species and habitats loss (Pullin et al., 2009). The European Union, through the Convention on Biodiversity, Habitats and Birds Directives, assumed these objectives (Cogalniceanu & Cogalniceanu, 2010). The projected benefits of the Natura 2000 network regarding risk control can confer longterm protection to a greater number of species and habitats, and a more efficient use of the available natural resources (European Commission, 2009; Ioja et al., 2010). Beside their inherent ecological value (Gaston, Jackson, Nagy, Cantu-Salazar & Johnson, 2008) in underdeveloped areas many Natura 2000 sites are created for the potential to alleviate social and/or economic issues (Dimitrakopoulos, Memtsas & Troumbis, 2004; Mauerhofer, 2010; Rauschmayer, van den Hove & Koetz, 2009). The Natura 2000 network is perceived as a “social network” fit for the European Union landscape that intertwines the preservation of nature with the maintenance of a sustainable traditional lifestyle for the local communities (e.g., supply of locally grown products/produce, local employment opportunities, and/or eco-tourism) (Bladt, Strange, Abildtrup, Svenning & Skov, 2009; Maiorano, Falcucci, Garton & Boitani, 2007; Young et al., 2007). Integrating the socio-economic elements among the management objectives of the Natura 2000 sites significantly complicates the management methods (Pullin et al., 2009), the interest in utilizing natural resources, and rendering services being often of higher importance value than conservation (Anthon, Garcia & Stenger,


2010; Berentsen, Hendriksen, Heijman & van Vlokhoven, 2007). To achieve the proposed conservation and social goals, the Natura 2000 network requires a considerable capital infusion of 5.58 billion €/ year for administration in EU developed countries only (Bladt et al., 2009). For comparison, approximately the same amount is invested yearly in conservation worldwide, with developing countries accounting for less than 12% of the total (Bruner, Gullison & Balmford, 2004; James, Gaston & Balmford, 2001). The management process for the Natura 2000 sites is one aimed at transparency in decision making and public disclosure (Maiorano et al., 2007; Papp & Tóth, 2007), and mandates a significant volume of spatial information for sustaining restrictive decisions made in a region (Stolon, 2008). Information relating to the distribution of protected species and habitats (Margules & Pressey, 2000; Moilanen, Arponen, Stokland & Cabeza, 2009; Wilson, Cabeza & Klein, 2009), the manner in which risks are present (Hockings, 2003), the land use (Feranec, Jaffrain, Soukup & Hazeu, 2010), or the habitat carrying capacity are essential in avoiding the emergence of conflicts among the protected areas managers and land owners (Mauerhofer, 2010; Rauschmayer et al., 2009; Young et al., 2007). In this framework, GIS techniques represent an important and integrated support for the process of protected areas management, allowing a systematic conservation planning (Margules & Pressey, 2000; Wilson et al., 2009). For that reason, the existence of spatial databases relating to the distribution of species and habitats, the natural and human risk characteristics, conflict or functional areas in which specific rules must be adhered to, are critical in fundament decisions formulated at local, regional and global level in protected areas (Bock et al., 2005; Boteva, Griffiths & Dimopoulos, 2004; Mucher et al., 2009). GIS techniques

are essential in biodiversity management, as the dimension of environmental changes are becoming increasingly dynamic, and decisions must be made by connecting diverse information (Feranec et al., 2010). The failure of global and national politics of biodiversity conservation is proportional to the deficit of vital information (Gaston et al., 2008; Ioja et al., 2010). The objectives of this study are: a) assessing the spatial distribution of the Natura 2000 network by using GIS techniques; b) identifying methods of analysing the relationship among agricultural and conservation activities within Natura 2000, and c) identification of digital tools for assessment and management of conflict situations among agricultural activities and conservation activities. This chapter, evidencing the dual nature of agriculture, is structured into four sections. In the introduction, the theoretical general framework illustrates the relationship among Natura 2000 sites and agricultural activities, as presented at an international level. Section one, Background, presents a structured account of the Natura 2000 network, and correlates conservation activities with agriculture generated issues in the Natura 2000 sites (abandonment of agriculture fields, intensification of agricultural activities, conversion of agricultural fields, development of inadequate utilization practices, and conflict with land owners), at the same time listing the main data sources used in assessing the relationship among agriculture and Natura 2000. Section two identity tools used in land-use analysis in the European Union. The third section presents results obtained by using GIS techniques concerning the spatial distribution of Natura 2000 sites in EU-27 and the dynamics of agricultural surfaces in the sites. The last section of the article presents proposals and future study areas for increasing the knowledge level of the agricultural-conservation activities relationship in Natura 2000 sites.

341


BACKGROUND Globally, a large percentage of the population and their agricultural activities, depend directly and/or indirectly of biodiversity (Primack et al., 2008). The accelerated loss of biodiversity impacts the population’s ability to produce food in balance, promotes poverty and associated problems, decreases the productivity of natural, semi-natural and artificial ecosystems, broadens natural risks, and commonly creates political instability (Balmford et al., 2002; Cogalniceanu & Cogalniceanu, 2010; Mace & Baillie, 2007). At the international level, the main instrument used by countries is the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), with the purpose of increasing the efficiency of conservation measures at a local, regional, and global level (Bock et al., 2005; Mace & Baillie, 2007). CBD is aimed at identifying and applying stimulants for preserving biodiversity, promoting instruments and mechanisms of biological resources use, and the equitable distribution of the benefits of using biological resources (Boisvert & Vivien, 2005).

What is Natura 2000 Network? The European Union’s conservation policy is directed to create a framework allowing member states the organization of an ecological network consisting of protected areas. Its purpose is to optimize the efficiency of protection and management actions for species and habitats of community importance (Araujo, Lobo & Moreno, 2007; Pullin et al., 2009; WG, 2002). The Natura 2000 ecological network is the cornerstone of conservation politics within the European Union, being enacted through the Habitats and Birds Directives (79/409/EEC, 1979; 92/43/EEC, 1992; 2006/105/EC, 2006). Through the Natura 2000 network, conservation status is offered to 198 habitats, 1288 plants species (Chiarucci, Bacaro & Rocchini, 2008) and 1140 animal species, consisting of 986 vertebrates and

342

154 invertebrates (Fontaine et al., 2007; Ioja et al., 2010). From the total habitats of community interest listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive, 16.16% are directly dependent on the continuation of traditional agricultural practices, such as grass cutting, pasturage, apiculture, etc., and others (Henle et al., 2008). As an example, the lack of pasturage activities can determine the progression of areas from pastures to forests, resulting in the loss of numerous species of plants and animals adapted to those prior habitats (Baur et al., 2006; Plieninger et al., 2006; Ruprecht et al., 2010). Additionally, 65 natural habitats and 102 avian species of community importance have an imperil status due to agricultural practices (EEA, 2004). The Natura 2000 network includes SPA (Special Protected Areas, established under the Birds Directive) and SCI (Sites of Community Importance, established under the Habitats Directive), transforming after the letter of advice from the European Commission in SAC (Special Areas of Conservation) (European Commission, 2009; Papp & Tóth, 2007). All Natura 2000 sites follow a maintenance and/or restoration program in a beneficial conservation manner consistent with the state of natural habitat and/or populations of species for which the site is designated (EEA, 2002, 2009).

Problems in Natura 2000 Network Due to Agriculture Activities The Natura 2000 is identified as a “social network”, not only with regards to habitats and community interest species conservation, but also to the sustainable development of human settlements (Cogalniceanu & Cogalniceanu, 2010). More to the point, a series of economic problems, related mainly to agricultural activities, are seen as significant threats for species and natural habitats within the Natura 2000 sites (EEA, 2005; Hartel, Schweiger, Öllerer, Cogalniceanu & Arntzen, 2010; Rozylowicz & Dobre, 2010).


•

•

•

The abandonment of agricultural fields affects between 10% and 50% of the agricultural land mass of EU-27 member states (Henle et al., 2008), with an increased propensity in countries such as the Czech Republic, Ireland, Latvia, Romania, and Bulgaria (Stoate et al., 2009). The abandonment of agricultural fields determines the loss of traditional landscapes, increases the risks of soil erosion, and deteriorates habitats for numerous species (Baur et al., 2006; Muller, 2002). EEA (2004) estimates that between 5% and 65% of Important Birds Areas are threatened by the abandonment of agricultural fields, principally by the transformation of pastures and grasslands into shrubs and forests. The intensification of agricultural activities does not signify a normal reaction to the integration of a territory in the Natura 2000 ecological network, but still is an important risk at the EU-27 level (especially in Ireland, Portugal, Spain and the Baltic countries). Overutilization of a region’s resources can produce a lessening in the natural and semi-natural ecosystems’ capacity of support to biodiversity, through an excessive infusion of pollutants or through the depletion of nutritive substances (Kuemmerle et al., 2009; Schmitt & Rakosy, 2007; Stoate et al., 2009). The conversion of agricultural fields into dissimilar agricultural systems (as an example, from perennial crops into annual) or other categories (particularly forestry, man-made permanent structures or surfaces, and similar categories) demonstrates a serious risk to the biodiversity in EU-27, as these changes suggest the destruction of natural habitats (Stoate et al., 2009). This demands sound recognition of the species’ distribution in the area and their key habitat requirements, which can be realised by using GIS techniques (Feranec et al., 2010).

•

•

The development of ineffective utilization practices represent a risk difficult to formulate without integrating prior experiences concerning spatial databases, which would then assist in the means for decision-making. Ineffective practices involve any manner of intervention affecting the stability of natural ecosystems (as an example, the premature mowing of grassland, mechanized intervention, etc.) (Kallimanis et al., 2008; Muller, 2002; Piorr et al., 2009). The conflicts with farmers represent a major issue amplified by the inclusion of agricultural fields in the Natura 2000 network. Interdictions and restrictions that resulted from those inclusions amplified territorial conflicts, particularly in regions where the resource utilization level was relatively high (Henle et al., 2008).

Data for Natura 2000 Management The management of Natura 2000 sites requires a thorough knowledge of these threats, which must be removed, minimized, or at worst controlled. Towards this objective, GIS techniques present a solid support, already being utilised in this goal. Boteva et al. (2004), based on a multilevelcriteria, analyse the significance of plant formations included in the Natura 2000 sites from the island of Crete. Mucher et al. (2009) models the spatial distribution of 27 Natura 2000 habitats in Europe, identifying, at a continental scale, their specific elements. Bock et al. (2005) uses the GIS techniques in delimiting representative indicators for monitoring biological diversity. Amongst the notable data sources that may be used in analysing the relationship agricultureNatura 2000 network, using GIS techniques, the following are well-known: 1. EUNIS (http://eunis.eea.europa.eu). EUNIS comprises a database created and maintained by the European Topic Centre on Biological

343


Diversity for the European Environmental Agency and European Environmental Information Observation Network, whose principal intent is to facilitate access to information for environmental reports and for the creation of the Natura 2000 network. The database facilitates the extraction of data such as the coherent description of species, habitats and sites from the Natura 2000 network, a description of species, habitats, sites present in international conventions relevant for biodiversity, and offers up-to-date data about EEA activity in this field. EUNIS provides information for over 275,000 European taxa. The degree of derived detail varies, from taxonomic information to populations and distribution. The database provides comprehensive information regarding various habitats (natural or artificial, terrestrial or aquatic) included in the EUNIS classification and in the Annex I Habitats of the EU Habitats Directive. EUNIS also provides information regarding the protected areas at the European Union level: Natura 2000 sites, nationally designated protected areas, and internationally designated protected areas – European Nature Diploma Areas and Biogenetic Reserves. 2. Corine (Coordination of Information on the Environment). Corine Land Cover (CLC) is the first European wide compilation of land cover information. The CLC project is currently implemented in all EU countries, and in Central and Eastern European non-member countries (Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, etc.). The first compilation reflects the situation as it existed in 1990 (CLC1990), with the next two decades being updated and improved (CLC2000 and CLC2006). The compilations resulted in several versions that eliminated the proliferation of errors (geometric and thematic mistakes). The scale (1:100,000), minimum mapping unit (25 ha), and minimum width of linear

344

elements (100 meters) for CLC mapping, represents parameters common for CLC1990, CLC2000, and subsequently CLC2006. The standard CLC nomenclature includes 44 land cover classes, grouped into threelevels, wherein the main level consists of: 1) artificial surfaces, 2) agricultural areas, 3) forests and semi-natural areas, 4) wetlands, and 5) water bodies. CLC 2000 produced a new dataset whose objective was to detect land cover changes (LCC) in Europe occurring between 1990 and 2000, and 2000 and 2006 compilations. The LCC datasets aim to identify changes bigger than 5 ha. 3. Land and Ecosystem Accounting (LEAC) is a means provided by the European Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information that allows for the spatial analysis of land cover change throughout the European Union territory. This process describes how, from a quantitative and qualitative viewpoint, the ecosystems change over time. To perform such an analysis, three online databases are utilized: ◦◦ Land Cover Accounts (LEAC) based on CORINE land cover changes database. This database contains the information on changes provided by CLC2000 and CLC Changes 19902000. This database is available for Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and the United Kingdom. ◦◦ PHARE 1975 – 1990 database. A database that contains information on changes identified using two time horizons (late 1970’s – early 1990’s) at the second level of CLC nomenclature, covering Bulgaria, Hungary,


Romania, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. ◦◦ LaCoast 1975 - 1990 - Eastern Europe Extension. LaCoast aims to quantify the changes of land cover types in a 10 km land strip inland from a coastline. LaCoast uses CLC1990 as its reference dataset and tracks differences of land cover changes using LANDSAT satellite images from the mid-1970s. The dataset will be available for Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, and portions of Spain. An extension for Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia, and Romania is available (LaCoast 1975 - 1990 - Eastern Europe Extension). 4. EURURALIS (http://www.eururalis.eu). EURURALIS is a study consisting of four distinct world scenarios (Global Economy, Global Cooperation, Continental Markets, and Regional Communities). It has a time horizon of three decades, in 10-year time steps: 2000-2010, 2010-2020, 2020-2030, and encompasses EU27 countries. The projects have two objectives: to provide a means for a structured strategic discussion at a European scale, and to develop and/or improve EURURALIS, by which a scientifically sound framework for integrated assessment at the European level may be realized. The results should enable meaningful negotiations among policy makers, stakeholders and scientists from various domains and/ or countries. The results of EURURALIS should potentially summarize what may occur in rural Europe towards 2030, based on conditions that differ in nature, course, duration, and/or place.

NATURA 2000: AGRICULTURE RELATION USING GIS Natura 2000 National Distribution The current dimension of the Natura 2000 network is extraordinary: 22,419 sites of community importance covering 716,992 km2 (13.6% of the continental surface), and 5242 special protected areas, covering 574,819 km2 (11.1% of the continental surface) (European Commission, 2009). The network is not distributed homogenously in member states, their percentage of national territory varying from the average value of 17.4%. Thus, at a national level, the largest percentage of fields managed in a regime of NATURA 2000 site appear in Slovenia (35.5%), Bulgaria (34%), Slovakia (28.9%), and Spain (20.7%). The smallest percentages are in countries such as United Kingdom (7.1%) and Denmark (8.9%). The area of SCI’s (Sites of Community Importance) varies from 6.8% in the United Kingdom to 31.4% in Slovenia, the average value being 12.7% (±6.02%). New EU members have percentages of their national territory devoted to SCI of over 10%, with lowest values in the Czech Republic (10%), Poland (11%), Latvia (11.3%), Cyprus (11.5%), Slovakia (11.7%), with the highest in Slovenia (31.4%), Bulgaria (29.6%), and Spain (24.5%). In countries with a high economic level, the percent of SCI’s is significantly lower, being generally under 10% of their national territory. Numerically, the largest number of SCI’s appears in Germany (4622) and Sweden (3983), and the lowest in smaller countries (Cyprus, Luxemburg, Malta). This represents an important characteristic, particularly for understanding the management effort for these protected areas at the national level, as they have also a notable conservative value (Gaston et al., 2008). Some countries prefer having a greater number of SCI’s, with smaller areas distributed on a larger territory (e.g. Germany, the Czech Republic, Italy, Sweden, Slovakia), while other countries choose

345


SCI’s with larger surfaces, in many cases concentrated in regions with lower population densities (Portugal, Bulgaria, Greece, and Romania). In Romania, the average surface area of an SCI is 120.3 km2. The highest concentration of these SCI’s is found in the Carpathian Mountains and the Danube Delta areas, where the highest preservation degree is recorded (Ioja, et al., 2010). Thus, in a 0 m (delta area) and over 800 m areas (Carpathian Mountain area), the protection of the territory by the Natura 2000 sites exceeds 35%. Lowest values (below 20%) occur at altitudes below 600 m, where the suitability for human activity is much higher (Rey, Groza, Ianoş & Patroescu, 2007) (Figure 1). The distribution of SPA’s (Special Protected Areas) is dependent of the existence of avian preferred habitats, such as wetlands, forestry areas, and/or widespread agricultural fields (Table 1). The percent of SPA’s of the continental surface of EU-27 is 11.9%, ranging from 2.9% of the national territory in Ireland to 25.2% in Slovakia. The smallest percentages (under 10%) are recorded in smaller countries (Malta, Cyprus, Luxemburg) or those with a high percentage of human altered habitats (Ireland, France). The highest percentage occurs in countries that also have large areas devoted to SCI’s, respectively Slovakia (25.1%), Slovenia (23%), Bulgaria (20.4%), and Spain (20.6%). Regarding the distribution of SPA’s average area at a national level, it is observed that the lowest values occur in Malta (1.2 km2), Luxemburg (11.2 km2), Belgium (14 km2), with the highest in Poland (391 km2), Slovakia (322 km2), and Romania (292.7 km2) (Table 1). Using GIS techniques, the sufficiency degree in comprising natural habitats and species of community interest within the Natura 2000 network is revealed. Thus, at a national level, the 40%-60% rule (Papp & Tóth, 2007) is embraced by five countries (Denmark, Netherland, Italia, Belgium, and Finland). Therefore, values under 100% assume a new expansion of the Natura 2000

346

Figure 1. Elevation distribution of NATURA 2000 sites in Romania

Figure 2. Representation degree of group species in the Romania SCIs

network at a national level, with impacts on land use dynamics. In Romania, with regards to species classes, it was observed that most of the problems occur within invertebrates and plants, where 40.9% protected invertebrate species, respectively 17.9% protected plant species do not benefit from protection inside a SCI (Ioja et al., 2010; Patroescu, Ioja, Patroescu-Klotz & Necsuliu, 2006) (Figure 2). This is of considerable importance in the network expansion process or in its re-evaluation (European Commission, 2009; Papp & Tóth, 2007). With the use of GIS techniques, the distribution of Natura 2000 sites may be observed in the nine biogeographic regions of the European Union (EEA, 2002), resulting in important information in estimating their degree of conservation. Thus, the best inclusion rate in Natura 2000 sites is


Table 1. NATURA 2000 sites distribution in relation to agriculture in EU-27

% NATURA 2000 areas of NT

SCIs surfaces km2

Austria

13,8

8978

Belgium

12,7

Country

Bulgaria

Average surface per SCI km2

Average surfaces per SPA km2

% SCI of NT

SPA surfaces km2

% SPA of NT

53,4

10,7

9869

102,8

11,8

3269

11,7

10,1

3282

14,0

9,7

34

33430

146,6

29,6

23217

203,7

20,4

Cyprus

17,5

711

19,8

11,5

788

112,6

13,4

Czech

13,9

7854

7,3

10

9684

248,3

12,3

Deutschland

15,4

54342

11,8

9,7

59784

81,0

12,2

8,9

19319

74,0

7,4

14718

130,2

5,9

Denmark Estonia

17,7

11321

21,3

16,7

12592

190,8

13,5

Spain

28,7

131434

90,8

24,5

105032

175,3

20,6

Finland

14,4

48552

28,3

12,7

30838

65,9

7,5

France

12,5

72418

53,0

8,5

76297

200,3

7,9

Greece

21

27798

116,3

16,3

16740

102,7

11,9

21,1

13973

29,9

15

13512

245,7

14,5

Ireland

11,1

13558

32,0

10,7

2827

21,6

2,9

Italy

19,1

45309

19,8

14,3

43777

73,3

13,6

Lithuania

13,9

8822

31,6

13,2

6013

74,2

9

Luxemburg

17,8

399

8,3

15,4

145

11,2

5,6

Latvia

11,3

7856

24,2

11,3

6999

73,7

10

Hungary

Malta

13

50

1,8

13,3

16

1,2

5,1

Netherland

13,8

14342

98,2

8,4

10125

131,5

12,6

Poland

19,4

38003

46,2

11

55228

391,7

15,6

Portugal

20,9

16788

174,9

17,4

10438

176,9

10,7

Romania

17,9

32833

120,3

13,2

31905

292,7

13,4

Sweden

13,8

64468

16,2

13,7

29874

56,3

6,2

Slovenia

35,5

6360

24,6

31,4

4656

172,4

23

Slovakia

28,9

5739

15,0

11,7

12236

322,0

25,1

7,1

29066

46,7

6,8

16114

62,7

6,2

17,6

716992

32,0

12,7

606706

115,7

11,9

United Kingdom Total/ Average

recorded in the Macaronesian and Black Sea bioregions (100%), with the lowest inclusion rates in the steppic, pannonian and continental bioregions (under 90%), the latter supporting the most intense agricultural activities (Feranec et al., 2010; Mucher et al., 2009).

Furthermore, to judge management effectiveness it is important to understand the overlapping levels of SCI’s, SPA’s, and the protected areas of national interest. The overlapping of SCI’s and SPA’s varies in EU-27 from 0% (Latvia) up to 52.8% (Slovenia). In many countries, overlaps of SCI’s and SPA’s occur on over 30% of their

347


total area (Belgium, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Romania, United Kingdom, and Denmark), however, in many circumstances, this is not total overlapping. Thus, areas benefiting from several simultaneous conservation status (protected areas of national interest, SCI, SPA), are subject to difficulties in their administration, for the management of human activities is inherently dissimilar in different categories (Ioja et al., 2010).

Dynamics of Agriculture Areas in Natura 2000 Sites in EU Conservation activities are in direct competition with activities for territorial resources utilization. In Natura 2000 sites, all activities or actions that may affect the conservation state of habitats and species of community interest for which they were designated are restricted or prohibited (Dimitrakopoulos et al., 2004; Mauerhofer, 2010). CORINE Land Cover and EUNIS databases, with the aid of the ArcGis Desktop 9.3, were used to determine the overlapping degrees of agricultural fields in Natura 2000 sites. For identifying the dynamics of agricultural fields between 2000 and 2006, CORINE Land Cover database for the respective years was employed, observing the evolution for the Natura 2000 sites. Agricultural fields with high natural conservation values represent 32% of the agricultural areas of EU-27, with reduced percentages in Baltic countries and Benelux, and with higher percentages in Mediterranean countries, Austria, Bulgaria, and Finland. It is essential to understand the dynamics of agricultural activities in order to administer Natura 2000 sites that comprise 9.2% of the agricultural areas of EU-27 (from 0.9% in Finland to 22.3% in Slovenia) that were being integrated into Natura 2000 sites (Table 2). The greatest percentage of agricultural fields in Natura 2000 sites are located in Mediterranean countries and in some countries from the last enjoinment stages (Bulgaria, Slovenia, and Slovakia). Even if the purpose of the

348

NATURA 2000 network is not that of creating wildlife sanctuaries, allowing economic activities that do not convey perceivable disadvantages, or even assisting preserved elements (such as manual grasslands mowing, pasturing, extensive plants culture, sustainable exploitation of natural resources (wood, forest fruits, mushrooms, fishing, or hunting) (Bladt et al., 2009; Gaston et al., 2008; Phillips, 1994), any protected area imposes narrow to broad restrictions in resources utilization (Cogalniceanu & Cogalniceanu, 2010). For that reason, Natura 2000 sites are areas in which most of the technologies for intensive agricultural utilization are incompatible with conservation objectives (mechanization, the use of fertilisers and pesticides, pest species control, genetic modified organism) (Petrovan, Barrio, Ward & Wheeler, 2010; Plieninger et al., 2006; Pullin et al., 2009). Within EU-27, 15.8% of arable land and 22.8% of pastures and grasslands are utilized in an intensive regimen, and therefore it is important to recognize their overlapping with currently designated Natura 2000 sites. In the European Union, there are three types of agricultural utilization systems recognized as compatible with Natura 2000 sites (EEA, 2004, 2005): type 1 – with a high percentage of semi-natural vegetation; type 2 – farms dominated by lowered intensity agriculture or the existence of natural-cultivate mosaics, and type 3 – farms containing rare species. The importance of agricultural fields is amplified by the reality that 28.6% of the area of Natura 2000 sites is represented by agricultural fields, with the lowest values being recorded in Nordic countries (under 5%), and the highest in Mediterranean countries or in those regions containing a high percentage of plains and low hills (Hungary, Romania, Denmark, and Poland) (Table 2). The management of these areas is made difficult, with agricultural sources framed as diffuse environmental degradations and therefore, challenging to control and monitor (Stoate et al., 2009).


Table 2. Natura 2000 sites distribution in relation to agriculture in EU-27

Country

% agriculture land in NATURA 2000

% HVAF of agricultural land

Agricultural surfaces in NATURA 2000 km2

% agriculture land from NATURA 2000 surfaces

Evolution of agriculture land in NATURA 2000 sites between 2000 and 2006

Austria

11,4

68

4079,6

35,4

Belgia

7,3

19

1304,5

33,6

0,01

Bulgaria

22

37

14815,3

39,3

0,032

Cyprus

1,5

33

95,6

9,5

0,028

Czech

6,4

21

3168,6

28,8

0

Deutchland

9,1

15

19662,7

35,8

No data

Denmark

4,9

5

1688,6

44,0

-0,013

Estonia

No data

5,5

22

932,7

11,6

+0.011

15,5

56

52760,3

36,5

No data

0,9

45

267,0

0,5

No data

France

8,2

22

28955,7

42,1

-0,011

Greece

14,2

59

12953,6

46,7

No data

Hungary

14,5

28

9893,2

50,3

+0.132

Spain Finland

Ireland

3,1

20

1791,0

23,0

+0.130

10,3

33

18910,4

32,9

No data

Lithuania

3,8

15

1580,7

17,4

-0.033

Luxemburg

11

9

156,9

34,0

-0.013

Latvia

6,6

20

1883,4

25,9

0

Malta

5,8

Netherland

4,6

14

1206,0

21,0

-0.18

Poland

10,7

24

21648,1

35,6

+0.003

Portugal

18,5

58

9316,4

48,4

+0.060

Romania

9,6

34

13856,6

32,5

+0.013

Sweden

4,3

24

2046,7

3,6

No data

Slovenia

22,3

78

1682,0

23,4

-0.064

Slovakia

16,3

22

4051,3

28,7

-0.353

3

27

5810,5

33,6

No data

9,23

32

215619

28,6

-0.012

Italy

United Kingdom Total/Average

no data

no data

Additionally, by analysing the prevalence of Natura 2000 sites upon agricultural activities, a decreasing tendency is observed in the 2000-2006 period, especially in countries in which the sites were established prior to 2006. Thus, in countries such as Denmark, Netherlands, or France, reduction of agricultural areas within Natura 2000 sites is already perceivable and forewarns of social

no data

0.026

and economical incidences that may be determined by models such as land use, principally those without economic support (Mauerhofer, 2010; Rauschmayer et al., 2009). In exchange, countries in which the rehabilitation of traditional agricultural landscapes present an advantage for conservation activities from Natura 2000 sites (Portugal) or countries demonstrating a higher

349


development of agriculture (Ireland, Hungary), present expansion of agricultural areas (European Commission, 2009) (Table 2).

Solutions and Recommendations The European Union’s policy in the field of biodiversity is in many aspects inordinate, affecting the already fragile networks of protected areas, principally in new member states (Ioja et al., 2010). The orientation towards social and economic aspects of the management methods does nothing more than sidetrack attention from the priority objective of protected areas, to that of biodiversity conservation (Dimitrakopoulos et al., 2004; Rauschmayer et al., 2009). More to the point, the extensive development of the protected area network does not contribute to alleviating social and economic problems of disadvantaged communities, generating at their level strong regional tensions through imposed restriction and the lack of financial compensation (Anthon et al., 2010; Mauerhofer, 2010; Rauschmayer et al., 2009). The mechanism that offers, just for conservation, financial compensation, although generous (200-450 €/ha/year) (Anthon et al., 2010; Piorr et al., 2009), it is relatively difficult to access, especially for disadvantaged communities; where most of these problems converge (Young et al., 2007). Thus, most financial compensations are directed to countries with lowered biodiversity but a strong economy (France, Germany, and Holland), while countries with lowered development do not portray the capacity of absorbing these funds (Bladt et al., 2009). The large numbers of species that typically benefit from a strict preservation regime, coupled with the tendency of covering large areas, predictably mystify management objectives and the huge funds necessary for management actions (James et al., 2001). It is problematic to create a Natura 2000 network with projected low probability of enforcement (Pullin et al., 2009) without a spatial extend reassessment based on the principles of

350

spatial planning for conservation (Araujo et al., 2007; Ioja et al., 2010; Wilson et al., 2009). The efficiency of protected areas of European regions should be linked to the design of protected areas of controllable dimensions, which bestow favourable habitats, principally for vulnerable, endangered, and critically endangered plant and animal species, and with mechanisms through by which actions affecting natural ecosystems are kept away from protected areas (Ioja et al., 2010). Stimulating eco-labelling and the development of a bio-agricultural product’s market is an objective that may be promoted in the Natura 2000 sites, although the economic efficiency of these activities is uncertain (Bladt et al., 2009; EEA, 2004; Piorr et al., 2009; Plieninger et al., 2006; Stoate et al., 2009). Member states should have greater freedom in prioritizing protected areas and in choosing the types of protected areas they can efficiently manage (Rauschmayer et al., 2009; Rozylowicz, L., Popescu, V. D., Patroescu, M., & Chisamera, G., 2011).

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS In order to benefit from the advantages of the Natura 2000 network, and for establishing a proper management organization, significant financial resources are required, estimated at 6.1 billion € each year (Bladt et al., 2009; WG, 2002), comparable with those spent currently at a global level (Balmford, Gaston, Blyth, James & Kapos, 2003; James et al., 2001). These financial resources are necessary for the management process, but principally for offering compensations and financial incentives to landowners or other entities for the restrictions imposed on them (Anthon et al., 2010). The assignment of any compensation and/or stimulant-necessitates sound awareness of field realities, respectively - the productivity of the land, the presence of threatened habitats and species, losses recorded by various resource users, etc. In this objective, GIS methods should have


an important role, as they permit correlations of multiple parameters needed in the process of Natura 2000 sites management. Spatial databases regarding the Natura 2000 network are in an evolutionary process, and the diversity of future research is extremely high, especially as a well-managed network based on quality data. In this objective, the monitoring of agricultural fields dynamics in Natura 2000 sites is paramount, specifically regarding their conversion and the agricultural methods used. These assessments should be correlated with the state of natural habitats and all species of community importance for which a particular model of agricultural use is applied. This is particularly important because this conservation status may suggest acceleration in the utilization of regional resources. Special attention in the managing process should be given to the monitoring of social and economic benefits of communities from Natura 2000 sites, essential in maintaining this manner of resource use.

CONCLUSION The process of managing Natura 2000 sites is at its beginning in EU-27. Scepticisms concerning the success of this politics of biodiversity social conservation are elevated, as the financial resources necessary for the management process are lacking. Additionally, restrictions imposed in promoting agricultural activities accentuate much of the tensions present in local communities, where important conflicts currently subsist (i.e. Germany). Natura 2000 is an objective of the European Union, being defined as an ambitious conservation program, a position that shapes negative-national conservation politics. Therefore, GIS techniques must represent the tool by which the efficiency of this ecological network is monitored, as it must be permanently nourished with important financial resources.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT We would like to thank Edward F. Rozylowicz for proofreading and valuable comments and anonymous reviewers for their suggestions.

REFERENCES 2006/105/EC. (2006). Council Directive 2006/105/ EC of 20 November 2006 adapting Directives 73/239/EEC, 74/557/EEC and 2002/83/EC in the field of environment, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania: Official Journal L 363, 20/12/2006. 79/409/EEC. (1979). Council Directive 79/409/ EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (Vol. 79/409/EEC): Official Journal L 103, 25/04/1979. 92/43/EEC. (1992). Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Vol. 92/43/ EEC): Official Journal of E.U., L 206, 22.7.1992. Anthon, S., Garcia, S., & Stenger, A. (2010). Incentive contracts for Natura 2000 implementation in forest areas. Environmental and Resource Economics, 46(3), 281–302. doi:10.1007/s10640009-9341-1 Araujo, M. B., Lobo, J. M., & Moreno, J. C. (2007). The effectiveness of Iberian protected areas in conserving terrestrial biodiversity. Conservation Biology, 21(6), 1423–1432. doi:10.1111/j.15231739.2007.00827.x Balmford, A., Bruner, A., Cooper, P., Costanza, R., Farber, S., & Green, R. E. (2002). Ecology - economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science, 297(5583), 950–953. doi:10.1126/science.1073947

351


Balmford, A., Gaston, K. J., Blyth, S., James, A., & Kapos, V. (2003). Global variation in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benefits, and unmet conservation needs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100(3), 1046–1050. doi:10.1073/ pnas.0236945100 Baur, B., Cremene, C., Groza, G., Rakosy, L., Schileyko, A. A., & Baur, A. (2006). Effects of abandonment of subalpine hay meadows on plant and invertebrate diversity in Transylvania, Romania. Biological Conservation, 132(2), 261–273. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2006.04.018 Berentsen, P. B. M., Hendriksen, A., Heijman, W. J. M., & van Vlokhoven, H. A. (2007). Costs and benefits of on-farm nature conservation. Ecological Economics, 62(3-4), 571–579. doi:10.1016/j. ecolecon.2006.07.026 Bladt, J., Strange, N., Abildtrup, J., Svenning, J. C., & Skov, F. (2009). Conservation efficiency of geopolitical coordination in the EU. Journal for Nature Conservation, 17(2), 72–86. doi:10.1016/j. jnc.2008.12.003 Bock, M., Rossner, G., Wissen, M., Remm, K., Langanke, T., & Lang, S. (2005). Spatial indicators for nature conservation from European to local scale. Ecological Indicators, 5(4), 322–338. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.03.018 Boisvert, V., & Vivien, F. D. (2005). The convention on biological diversity: A conventionalist approach. Ecological Economics, 53(4), 461–472. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.06.030 Boteva, D., Griffiths, G., & Dimopoulos, P. (2004). Evaluation and mapping of the conservation significance of habitats using GIS: An example from Crete, Greece. Journal for Nature Conservation, 12(4), 237–250. doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2004.09.002

352

Bruner, A. G., Gullison, R. E., & Balmford, A. (2004). Financial costs and shortfalls of managing and expanding protected-area systems in developing countries. Bioscience, 54(12), 1119–1126. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[1119:FCAS OM]2.0.CO;2 Chiarucci, A., Bacaro, G., & Rocchini, D. (2008). Quantifying plant species diversity in a Natura 2000 network: Old ideas and new proposals. Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2608–2618. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.024 Cogalniceanu, D., & Cogalniceanu, G. C. (2010). An enlarged European Union challenges priority settings in conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(5), 1471–1483. doi:10.1007/ s10531-010-9777-1 Dimitrakopoulos, P. G., Memtsas, D., & Troumbis, A. Y. (2004). Questioning the effectiveness of the Natura 2000 special areas of conservation strategy: The case of Crete. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 13(3), 199–207. doi:10.1111/j.1466822X.2004.00086.x EEA. (2002). Europe’s biodiversity—biogeographical regions and seas (Vol. 1). Copenhagen, Denmark: European Environmental Agency. EEA. (2004). High nature value farmland - characteristics, trends and policy challenges (Vol. 1). Copenhagen, Denmark: European Environment Agency. EEA. (2005). Agriculture and environment in EU-15—the IRENA indicator report (Vol. 6). Copenhagen, Denmark: European Environmental Agency. EEA. (2009). Progress towards the European 2010 biodiversity target (Vol. 4). Copenhagen, Denmark: European Environmental Agency. European Commission. (2009). Natura 2000 barometer - December 2008. Natura 2000. European Commission DG ENV Nature Newletter, 8-9.


Feranec, J., Jaffrain, G., Soukup, T., & Hazeu, G. (2010). Determining changes and flows in European landscapes 1990-2000 using CORINE land cover data. Applied Geography (Sevenoaks, England), 30(1), 19–35. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2009.07.003 Fontaine, B., Bouchet, P., Van Achterberg, K., Alonso-Zarazaga, M. A., Araujo, R., & Asche, M. (2007). The European Union’s 2010 target: Putting rare species in focus. Biological Conservation, 139(1-2), 167–185. doi:10.1016/j. biocon.2007.06.012 Gaston, K. J., Jackson, S. E., Nagy, A., CantuSalazar, L., & Johnson, M. (2008). Protected areas in Europe - principle and practice. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1134(1), 97–119. doi:10.1196/annals.1439.006 Hartel, T., Schweiger, O., Öllerer, K., Cogalniceanu, D., & Arntzen, J. W. (2010). Amphibian distribution in a traditionally managed rural landscape of Eastern Europe: Probing the effect of landscape composition. Biological Conservation, 143(5), 1118–1124. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.006 Henle, K., Alard, D., Clitherow, J., Cobb, P., Firbank, L., & Kull, T. (2008). Identifying and managing the conflicts between agriculture and biodiversity conservation in Europe - a review. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 124(1-2), 60–71. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2007.09.005 Hockings, M. (2003). Systems for assessing the effectiveness of management in protected areas. Bioscience, 53(9), 823–832. doi:10.1641/00063568(2003)053[0823:SFATEO]2.0.CO;2 Ioja, C. I., Patroescu, M., Rozylowicz, L., Popescu, D. V., Vergheleţ, M., & Zotta, M. I. (2010). The efficacy of Romania’s protected areas network in conserving biodiversity. Biological Conservation, 143(11), 2468–2476. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.06.013

James, A., Gaston, K. J., & Balmford, A. (2001). Can we afford to conserve biodiversity? Bioscience, 51(1), 43–52. doi:10.1641/00063568(2001)051[0043:CWATCB]2.0.CO;2 Kallimanis, A. S., Tsiafouli, M. A., Pantis, J. D., Mazaris, A. D., Matsinos, Y., & Sgardelis, S. P. (2008). Arable land and habitat diversity in Natura 2000 sites in Greece. Journal of Biological Research-Thessaloniki, 9, 55–66. Kuemmerle, T., Muller, D., Griffiths, P., & Rusu, M. (2009). Land use change in Southern Romania after the collapse of socialism. Regional Environmental Change, 9(1), 1–12. doi:10.1007/ s10113-008-0050-z Mace, G. M., & Baillie, J. E. M. (2007). The 2010 biodiversity indicators: Challenges for science and policy. Conservation Biology, 21(6), 1406–1413. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00830.x Maiorano, L., Falcucci, A., Garton, E. O., & Boitani, L. (2007). Contribution of the Natura 2000 network to biodiversity conservation in Italy. Conservation Biology, 21(6), 1433–1444. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00831.x Margules, C. R., & Pressey, R. L. (2000). Systematic conservation planning. Nature, 405(6783), 243–253. doi:10.1038/35012251 Mauerhofer, V. (2010). Missing links: How individuals can contribute to reserve policy enforcement on the example of the European Union. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(3), 601–618. doi:10.1007/s10531-009-9737-9 Moilanen, A., Arponen, A., Stokland, J. N., & Cabeza, M. (2009). Assessing replacement cost of conservation areas: How does habitat loss influence priorities? Biological Conservation, 142(3), 575–585. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.11.011

353


Mucher, C. A., Hennekens, S. M., Bunce, R. G. H., Schaminee, J. H. J., & Schaepman, M. E. (2009). Modelling the spatial distribution of Natura 2000 habitats across Europe. Landscape and Urban Planning, 92(2), 148–159. doi:10.1016/j. landurbplan.2009.04.003 Muller, S. (2002). Appropriate agricultural management practices required to ensure conservation and biodiversity of environmentally sensitive grassland sites designated under Natura 2000. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 89(3), 261-266. doi: S0167-8809(01)00235-3 Papp, D., & Tóth, C. (2007). Natura 2000 site designation process with a special focus on the biogeographic seminars (2nd ed., p. 36). Budapest, Hungary: CEEWEB Office. Patroescu, M., Ioja, I. C., Patroescu-Klotz, I., & Necsuliu, R. (2006). Umweltqualitat in Rumanien. In Kahl, T., Metzeltin, M., & Ungureanu, R. (Eds.), Rumänien. Raum und Bevölkerung. Geschichte und Geschichtsbilder.Kultur. Gesellschaft und Politik heute. Wirtschaft. Recht undVerfassung. Historische Regionen (p. 984). Münster/Hamburg/ Berlin/Wien, Germany; London, UK; Zürich, Switzerland: LIT Verlag. Petrovan, S. O., Barrio, I. C., Ward, A. I., & Wheeler, P. M. (2010). Farming for pests? Local and landscape-scale effects of grassland management on rabbit densities. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 57(1), 27–34. doi:10.1007/ s10344-010-0394-9 Phillips, A. (1994). The IUCN action plan for protected areas in Europe. Conserving Europe’s Natural Heritage, 69-73. Piorr, A., Ungaro, F., Ciancaglini, A., Happe, K., Sahrbacher, A., & Sattler, C. (2009). Integrated assessment of future CAP policies: Land use changes, spatial patterns and targeting. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(8), 1122–1136. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2009.01.001

354

Plieninger, T., Hochtl, F., & Spek, T. (2006). Traditional land-use and nature conservation in European rural landscapes. Environmental Science & Policy, 9(4), 317–321. doi:10.1016/j. envsci.2006.03.001 Primack, R. B., Patroescu, M., Rozylowicz, L., & Ioja, C. (2008). Fundamentele conservării diversităţii biologice. Bucureşti, Romania: AGIR. Pullin, A. S., Baldi, A., Can, O. E., Dieterich, M., Kati, V., & Livoreil, B. (2009). Conservation focus on Europe: Major conservation policy issues that need to be informed by conservation science. Conservation Biology, 23(4), 818–824. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01283.x Pykala, J. (2003). Effects of restoration with cattle grazing on plant species composition and richness of semi-natural grasslands. Biodiversity and Conservation, 12(11), 2211–2226. doi:10.1023/A:1024558617080 Rauschmayer, F., van den Hove, S., & Koetz, T. (2009). Participation in EU biodiversity governance: How far beyond rhetoric? Environment and Planning. C, Government & Policy, 27(1), 42–58. doi:10.1068/c0703j Rey, V., Groza, O., Ianoş, I., & Patroescu, M. (2007). Atlas de la Roumanie. Montpelier/Paris, France: Reclus. Rozylowicz, L., & Dobre, M. (2010). Assessing the threatened status of Testudo hermanni boettgeri Mojsisovics, 1889 (Reptilia: Testudines: Testudinidae) population from Romania. North-Western Journal of Zoology, 6(2), 190–202. Rozylowicz, L., Popescu, V. D., Patroescu, M., & Chisamera, G. (2011). The potential of large carnivores as conservation surrogates in the Romanian Carpathians. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20(3), 561–579. doi:10.1007/s10531-010-9967-x


Ruprecht, E., Enyedi, M. Z., Eckstein, R. L., & Donath, T. W. (2010). Restorative removal of plant litter and vegetation 40 years after abandonment enhances re-emergence of steppe grassland vegetation. Biological Conservation, 143(2), 449–456. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.11.012

Young, J., Richards, C., Fischer, A., Halada, L., Kull, T., & Kuzniar, A. (2007). Conflicts between biodiversity conservation and human activities in the central and eastern European countries. Ambio, 36(7), 545–550. doi:10.1579/00447447(2007)36[545:CBBCAH]2.0.CO;2

Schmitt, T., & Rakosy, L. (2007). Changes of traditional agrarian landscapes and their conservation implications: A case study of butterflies in Romania. Diversity & Distributions, 13, 855–862. doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2007.00347.x

ADDITIONAL READING

Silva, C. N. (2009). Protected areas and regional development in Europe: Towards a new model for the 21st Century. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 100(1), 129–131. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9663.2009.514_2.x Stoate, C., Baldi, A., Beja, P., Boatman, N. D., Herzon, I., & van Doorn, A. (2009). Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe - a review. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(1), 22–46. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.07.005 Stolon, S. (Ed.). (2008). Assessment of management effectiveness in European protected areas. Sharing experiences and promoting good management. Bonn, Germany: Bundesant für Naturschutz. WG. (2002). Working Group on Article 8 of the Habitats Directive. Final Report on Financing Natura 2000. Retrieved from www.eeb.org/activities /biodiversity/Financing-Natura- 2000-WGfinal-report-art8.pdf Wilson, K. A., Cabeza, M., & Klein, C. J. (2009). Fundamental concepts of spatial conservation prioritization. In Moilanen, A., Wilson, K. A., & Possingham, H. P. (Eds.), Spatial conservation prioritization. Quantitative methods & computational tools (pp. 16–28). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Baylis, K., Peplow, S., Rausser, G., & Simon, L. (2008). Agri-environmental policies in the EU and United States: A comparison. Ecological Economics, 65(4), 753–764. doi:10.1016/j. ecolecon.2007.07.034 Brooke, C. (2008). Conservation and Adaptation to Climate Change. Conservation Biology, 22(6), 1471–1476. doi:10.1111/j.15231739.2008.01031.x Bunce, R. G. H., Metzger, M. J., Jongman, R. H. G., Brandt, J., De Blust, G., & Elena-Rossello, R. (2008). A standardized procedure for surveillance and monitoring European habitats and provision of spatial data. Landscape Ecology, 23(1), 11–25. doi:10.1007/s10980-007-9173-8 Costanza, R., dArge, R., deGroot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., vandenBelt, M. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630), 253–260. doi:10.1038/387253a0 Engel, S., Pagiola, S., & Wunder, S. (2008). Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological Economics, 65(4), 663–674. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.011 Garrod, G. (2009). Greening the CAP: how the improved design and implementation of agrienvironment schemes can enhance the delivery of environmental benefits. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52(5), 571–574. doi:10.1080/09640560902958099

355


Gerard, F., Petit, S., Smith, G., Thomson, A., Brown, N., & Manchester, S. (2010). Land cover change in Europe between 1950 and 2000 determined employing aerial photography. Progress in Physical Geography, 34(2), 183–205. doi:10.1177/0309133309360141 Gibbs, J. P., Hunter, M. L. Jr, & Sterling, E. J. (Eds.). (2008). Problem-Solving in Conservation Biology and Wildlife Management. WileyBlackwell. doi:10.1002/9781444319576 Gohin, A. (2006). Assessing CAP reform: Sensitivity of modelling decoupled policies. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57(3), 415–440. doi:10.1111/j.1477-9552.2006.00058.x Guzy, M. R., Smith, C. L., Bolte, J. P., Hulse, D. W., & Gregory, S. V. (2008). Policy Research Using Agent-Based Modeling to Assess Future Impacts of Urban Expansion into Farmlands and Forests. Ecology and Society, 13(1). Retrieved from: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org /vol13/ iss1/art37/ Haberl, H., Gaube, V., Diaz-Delgado, R., Krauze, K., Neuner, A., & Peterseil, J. (2009). Towards an integrated model of socioeconomic biodiversity drivers, pressures and impacts. A feasibility study based on three European long-term socio-ecological research platforms. Ecological Economics, 68(6), 1797–1812. doi:10.1016/j. ecolecon.2008.11.013 Herzog, F. (2005). Agri-environment schemes as landscape experiments - Preface. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 108(3), 175–177. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2005.02.001 Hynes, S., & Garvey, E. (2009). Modelling Farmers’ Participation in an Agri-environmental Scheme using Panel Data: An Application to the Rural Environment Protection Scheme in Ireland. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 60(3), 546–562. doi:10.1111/j.1477-9552.2009.00210.x

356

Keulartz, J. (2009). European Nature Conservation and Restoration Policy-Problems and Perspectives. Restoration Ecology, 17(4), 446–450. doi:10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00566.x Kleijn, D., Baquero, R. A., Clough, Y., Diaz, M., De Esteban, J., & Fernandez, F. (2006). Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri-environment schemes in five European countries. Ecology Letters, 9(3), 243–254. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00869.x Knickel, K., Kroger, M., Bruckmeier, K., & Engwall, Y. (2009). The Challenge of Evaluating Policies for Promoting the Multifunctionality of Agriculture: When ‘Good’ Questions Cannot be Addressed Quantitatively and ‘Quantitative Answers are not that Good’. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 11(4), 347–367. doi:10.1080/15239080903033945 Ladle, R. J., & Whittaker, R. J. (Eds.). (2011). Conservation biogeography. Oxford: WileyBlackwell. Lobianco, A., & Esposti, R. (2010). The Regional Multi-Agent Simulator (RegMAS): An opensource spatially explicit model to assess the impact of agricultural policies. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 72(1), 14–26. doi:10.1016/j. compag.2010.02.006 Louette, G., Maes, D., Alkemade, J. R. M., Boitani, L., de Knegt, B., & Eggers, J. (2010). BioScoreCost-effective assessment of policy impact on biodiversity. Journal for Nature Conservation, 18(2), 142–148. doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2009.08.002 Macedo-Sousa, J. A., Soares, A., & Tarazona, J. V. (2009). A conceptual model for assessing risks in a Mediterranean Natura 2000 Network site. The Science of the Total Environment, 407(3), 1224–1231. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.09.052 Maguire, D., Batty, M., & Goodchild, M. (Eds.). (2005). GIS, Spatial Analysis, and Modeling. Esri Press.


Manly, B. F. J. (2008). Statistics for Environmental Science and Management, Second Edition (Chapman & Hall/CRC Applied Environmental Statistics): Chapman and Hall/CRC. Margules, C. R., & Sarkar, S. (2007). Systematic conservation planning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Metzger, M. J., Bunce, R. G. H., Leemans, R., & Viner, D. (2008). Projected environmental shifts under climate change: European trends and regional impacts. Environmental Conservation, 35(1), 64–75. doi:10.1017/S0376892908004529 Mouro, C., & Castro, P. (2010). Local Communities Responding to Ecological Challenges-A Psycho-social Approach to the Natura 2000 Network. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 20(2), 139–155. doi:.doi:10.1002/ casp.1025 Mucher, C. A., Klijn, J. A., Wascher, D. M., & Schaminee, J. H. J. (2010). A new European Landscape Classification (LANMAP): A transparent, flexible and user-oriented methodology to distinguish landscapes. Ecological Indicators, 10(1), 87–103. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.03.018 Opdam, P. F. M., Broekmeyer, M. E. A., & Kistenkas, F. H. (2009). Identifying uncertainties in judging the significance of human impacts on Natura 2000 sites. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(7), 912–921. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2009.04.006 Pereira, J. M. C., & Duckstein, L. (1993). A multiple criteria decision-making approach to gis-based land suitability evaluation. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 7(5), 407–424. doi:10.1080/02693799308901971 Piorr, A., Ungaro, F., Ciancaglini, A., Happe, K., Sahrbacher, A., & Sattler, C. (2009). Integrated assessment of future CAP policies: land use changes, spatial patterns and targeting. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(8), 1122–1136. doi:10.1016/j. envsci.2009.01.001

Primack, R. B. (2010). Essentials of Conservation Biology (5th ed.). Sinauer Associates, Inc. Primdahl, J., Vesterager, J. P., Finn, J. A., Vlahos, G., Kristensen, L., & Vejre, H. (2010). Current use of impact models for agri-environment schemes and potential for improvements of policy design and assessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(6), 1245–1254. doi:10.1016/j. jenvman.2009.12.012 Randolph, J. (2003). Environmental Land Use Planning and Management. Island Press. Reidsma, P., Tekelenburg, T., van den Berg, M., & Alkemade, R. (2006). Impacts of land-use change on biodiversity: An assessment of agricultural biodiversity in the European Union. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 114(1), 86–102. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2005.11.026 Scott, J. M., Davis, F., Csuti, B., Noss, R., Butterfield, B., & Groves, C. (1993). Gap analysis - a geographic approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monographs, (123): 1–41. Stephan, J. Goetz, F. B. (Ed.). (2009). New Perspectives on Agri-environmental Policies: A multidisciplinary and transatlantic approach (Routledge Explorations in Environmental Economics): Routledge. Stokes, D. L., Hanson, M. F., Oaks, D. D., Straub, J. E., & Ponio, A. V. (2010). Local Land-Use Planning to Conserve Biodiversity: Planners’ Perspectives on What Works. Conservation Biology, 24(2), 450–460. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01356.x Thiel, A. (2009). The use of ex-ante modelling tools in European Impact Assessment: What role does land use play? Land Use Policy, 26(4), 1138– 1148. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.02.005 Vandermeulen, V., Gellynck, X., Van Huylenbroeck, G., Van Orshoven, J., & Bomans, K. (2009). Farmland for tomorrow in densely populated areas. Land Use Policy, 26(4), 859–868. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.10.014

357


Verboom, J., Alkemade, R., Klijn, J., Metzger, M. J., & Reijnen, R. (2007). Combining biodiversity modeling with political and economic development scenarios for 25 EU countries. Ecological Economics, 62(2), 267–276. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.04.009 Verburg, P. H., Eickhout, B., & van Meijl, H. (2008). A multi-scale, multi-model approach for analyzing the future dynamics of European land use. The Annals of Regional Science, 42(1), 57–77. doi:10.1007/s00168-007-0136-4 Verburg, P. H., van de Steeg, J., Veldkamp, A., & Willemen, L. (2009). From land cover change to land function dynamics: A major challenge to improve land characterization. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(3), 1327–1335. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.08.005 Vereijken, P. H., & Hermans, C. M. L. (2010). A quick scan tool to assess the relative prospects of European regions for sustainable agriculture in a liberal market. Land Use Policy, 27(2), 440–448. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.06.002 Westhoek, H. J., van den Berg, M., & Bakkes, J. A. (2006). Scenario development to explore the future of Europe’s rural areas. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 114(1), 7–20. doi:10.1016/j. agee.2005.11.005 Yang, W. H., Bryan, B. A., MacDonald, D. H., Ward, J. R., Wells, G., Crossman, N. D., & Connor, J. D. (2010). A conservation industry for sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes. Ecological Economics, 69(4), 680–689. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.028

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Agriculture Land Use Change: Process that contribute to habitat degradation through which one habitat-type is removed and replaced with

358

another habitat-type due to agriculture expansion. In the process of land-use change, plants and animals which previously used the site are displaced or destroyed, reducing biodiversity. Agri-Environmental Schemes: Term used to describe communitarian, national or local schemes that pay farmers to farm in an environmentally sensitive way. Biodiversity Conservation: How to protect and restore biodiversity, or the diversity of life on Earth. To preserve biodiversity, scientists must answer three general questions. First, how is the diversity of life distributed around the planet? Second, what threats does this diversity face? Third, what can people do to reduce or eliminate these threats and, when possible, restore biological diversity and ecosystem health? Birds Directive: The EU Directive on the conservation of wild birds (79/49/EEC) seeks to protect all wild birds and the habitats of listed species, in particular through the designation of special protection areas (SPA). Geographical Informational System: Any system that captures, stores, analyzes, manages, and presents data that are linked to location. The term describes any information system that integrate, store, edits, analyzes, shares, and displays geographic information. Habitats Directive: Council Directive 92/43/ EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. The aim of this directive is to contribute towards ensuring biodiversity through the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora in the European territory of the Member States to which the Convention on Biological Diversity applies. NATURA 2000: The key instrument to protect biodiversity in the European Union based on the 1979 Birds Directive and the 1992 Habitats Directive. It is an ecological network of protected areas, set up to ensure the survival of Europe’s most valuable species and habitats.