1

2010Kalev Sepp

Landscape changes and agriculture

Kalev Sepp

Estonian University of Life Sciences

Kalev Sepp

2

2010

Landscape definition

� LANDSCAPE EUROPE adopts the definition of Wascher et al. (1998):

“Landscapes can be identified as spatial units where region-specific elements and processes reflect natural and cultural goods or history in a visible, spiritual and partly measurable way".

� EUROPEAN LANDSCAPE CONVENTION, 2000

“Landscape” means an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors

2

Kalev Sepp

3

2010

How to approach landscapes?

� Landscape as a way of using (resource: land-use

(agriculture, production, capital, etc.)

� Landscape as a way of communicating (institution:

customary law, social order, etc.)

� Landscape as a way of seeing (scenery:

representation, etc.)

� Landscape - a notion of natural and social sciences

� Etc.

Kalev Sepp

4

2010

Landscape interfaces

USEPRESERVATION

SMALL SCALELARGE SCALE

LAY PERSONEXPERT

NATURAL SCIENCEHUMANITIES

NATURAL/MATERIALHUMAN

FUTUREPAST

CULTURE BCULTURE A

SPACETIME

3

Kalev Sepp

5

2010

Why landscape management?Why landscape approach?

� In their diversity and quality, the cultural and

natural values linked to European landscapes

are part of Europe’s common heritage

�European countries have a duty to make

collective provisions for the protection,

management and planning of these values

�The relationship between man and landscape

undergoes a crisis in the 21th century!

Kalev Sepp

6

2010

Conceptual graph of the frequency and magnitude of landscape evolution in Europe (Antrop 2000)

4

Kalev Sepp

7

2010

Unprecedented change in structure and function of ecosystems (landscapes)More land was converted to cropland since 1945 than

in the 18th and 19th centuries combined

Cultivated Systems in 2000 cover 25% of Earth’s terrestrial surface

(Defined as areas where at least 30% of the landscape is in croplands,

shif-ting cultivation, confined livestock production, or freshwater

aquaculture) www.MAweb.org

Kalev Sepp

8

2010

5

Kalev Sepp

9

2010

•• About 20% of the land is arable About 20% of the land is arable land and 6% is pasture landland and 6% is pasture land

•• Arable land dominates in Poland Arable land dominates in Poland and around the edge of the Baltic and around the edge of the Baltic Proper, in Germany, Denmark Proper, in Germany, Denmark and Sweden. and Sweden.

6.7

41.4

8.2 0.1 7.7

3.1

5.70.7

7.51.5

4.9

3.7

0.18.5

BelarusCzech Repub.DenmarkEstoniaFinlandGermanyLatviaLithuaniaNorwayPolandRussiaSlovak Repub.SwedenUkraine

Agriculture in the Baltics

Kalev Sepp

10

2010

Land cover change inHiiumaa- 1956 and 1998

From 6167 land use patches in 1956 ... A

39%

30%

14%

12%4% 1%

Grasslands - 2048 patches

Fields - 2127 patches

Pastures - 872 patches

Forests - 566 patches

Bushes - 246 patches

Other - 308 patches

Are Kaasik, Estonian University of Life Sciences

... to 163 recla imed fields and grasslands in 1998 B

5335 ha ; 100%

Fields - 163 patches

6

Kalev Sepp

11

2010* 2004 - only cultivated field patches are taken into account

Total area of f ields

1781

17

4669

1690

832

1811

28882846

953

4536

970

2893

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

1956 1984 1998 2004

Are

a/h

aVanamõisa Hellamaa Total area

Maximum size of a f ield patch

11,09,0

71,070,8

72,572,6

37,7

20,3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1956 1984 1998 2004

Are

a/h

a

Vanamõisa Hellamaa

Mean size of f ield patch

0,6

8,3

11,6

4,2

6,4

4,3

8,1

0,9

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1956 1984 1998 2004

Are

a/h

a

Vanamõisa Hellamaa

Total number of f ield patches

1439

4118

154204

2007

449

667

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1956 1984 1998 2004

Nu

mbe

r

Vanamõisa Hellamaa

Some basic statistics about fields

Kalev Sepp

12

2010

Agriculture and landscapes

� Landscapes are dynamic, both in time and in space.� Landscapes express interaction between human

societies and culture with the natural and physical environment.

� Increase of agricultural land area has been taking place parallel to the decreased forest and wetland areas.

� The impact of enlarging open fields and grasslands has had major impact

� It enhanced agricultural production but at the same time led to negative consequences, decreasing biodiversity of wetlands and virgin forests

7

Kalev Sepp

13

2010

Human impact in landscapes1. Disruption of ecological processes

2. Habitat loss

3. Habitat fragmentation

4. Changes in relative share of different plant species,

e.g. dominant species in forests.

5. Agriculture enhanced spreading of weed and other

invasive species

6. Changes of soils nutrient content– both became

poorer (agricultural crops) as well as more rich

(fertilisation

7. Changed landscape mosaic – especially share of

open areas and forests.

Kalev Sepp

14

2010

Factors influencing (driving forces) landscape change

� Former land-use structure and change

� General economic environment

� Policies in agriculture, forestry, energy (biofuels)

� Environmental conditions, shortest of natural

resources

� Social context

� Globalization and global change (climate change)

� Policies related to land-use planning

8

Kalev Sepp

15

2010

Scale in Landscape

�There is no single natural scale at which

landscape phenomena should be studied;

systems generally show characteristic

variability on a range of spatial, temporal,

and organizational scales."

Kalev Sepp

16

2010

9

Kalev Sepp

17

2010

Our decisions today define the mosaics of landscapes in future

Kalev Sepp

18

2010

Changes in landscape diversity

10

Kalev Sepp

19

2010

Spatial measures having impact on landscapes

� Landscape planning

� Landscape restoration

�� AgriAgri--environmental environmental mmeasureseasures

�� RuralRural DevelopmentDevelopment ProgramProgram

� Recultivation of mining areas

� Spatial planning

� Infrustructure planning and building (road, railways, gas pipes etc)

� Nature Conservation (Management Plan)

� Management Plan for the watersheds etc

Kalev Sepp

20

2010

Use of landscapes

�The goals are often conflicting

�Agricultural practices can be in conflict with

important landscape values such as

biodiversity, services of ecosystems, hunting,

recreation, aesthetics, cultural heritage

management

�Therefore landscape maintenance and land

use optimisation is needed

11

Kalev Sepp

21

2010

Management at farm level

Kalev Sepp

22

2010

12

Kalev Sepp

23

2010

Key elements of landscapes

� Landscape structures or appearance, including environmental features (e.g. habitats), land use types (e.g. crops), and man-made objects or cultural features (e.g. hedges)

� Landscape functions, such as a place to live, work, visit, and provide various environmental services

� Landscape values, concerning the costs to farmers of maintaining landscapes and the value society places on agricultural landscape, such as recreational and cultural values

Kalev Sepp

24

2010

Functions and values ofagricultural landscapes

(

Value

CulturalValue

JobSatisfaction

Value

Security andStability Value

HistoricalValue

AgriculturalProduction

andConsumption

Value

SpiritValue

ExistenceValue

Biodiversityand Ecosystem

Value

Scenic andAesthetic

Value

RecreationUse Value

Function

Place to Live

AgriculturalProduction

Water Supply

Soil Filters andSinks

Place to Visit

Space

Biodiversityand

Ecosystem

Place to Work

StructureMan-made Objects

(e.g. paths, farm buildings)

Land UsePatterns

(e.g. crops)

EnvironmentalFeatures

(e.g. habitatmosaic)

13

Kalev Sepp

25

2010

Food and Fiber Production

Provision of Clean and Sufficient Water

Maintenance of Biodiversity

Maintenance of Human Health

Storage and cycling of Carbon, Nitrogen, Phosphorus

Agricultural Lands CoastalZones

ForestLands

FreshwaterSystems

Arid Lands & Grasslands

�Environmental functions were defined as "the capacity of

natural processes and components (landscapes and

biodiversity) to provide goods and services that satisfy

human needs, directly or indirectly" (De Groot, 1992)

Kalev Sepp

26

2010

1. Agricultural landscapes – cultural

2. Agricultural landscapes – ecological

3. Farmland biodiversity

4. Climate stability – carbon storage

5. Reduced risk of flooding

6. Reduced risk of fire

7. Soils of high functionality

8. Water of high quality

9. Water availability

10. Climate stability – reduced GHG emissions

11. Air of high quality

12. Animal welfare

13. Food security

14. Rural vitality

After P. Koorberg

Public Goods of

agriculture

14

Kalev Sepp

27

2010

Rural development support

Mio € (current prices) overall p.a. overall p.a. p.a. %Austria 3.379,1 482,7 3.911,6 558,8 76,1 14%Belgium 391,2 55,9 418,6 59,8 3,9 7%Cyprus 74,8 24,9 162,4 23,2 -1,7 -7%Czech Rep. 709,4 236,5 2.815,4 402,2 165,7 41%Denmark 347,4 49,6 444,5 63,5 13,9 22%Estonia 207,3 69,1 714,7 102,1 33,0 32%Finland 2.488,7 355,5 2.079,7 297,1 -58,4 -20%France 6.444,0 920,6 6.442,1 920,3 -0,3 0%Germany 9.138,1 1.305,4 8.112,3 1.158,9 -146,5 -13%Greece 3.768,4 538,3 3.707,2 529,6 -8,7 -2%Hungary 915,1 305,0 3.805,9 543,7 238,7 44%Ireland 2.633,3 376,2 2.340,1 334,3 -41,9 -13%Italy 8.198,6 1.171,2 8.292,2 1.184,6 13,4 1%Latvia 419,9 140,0 1.040,9 148,7 8,7 6%Lithuania 612,4 204,1 1.743,7 249,1 45,0 18%Luxemburg 94,7 13,5 90,3 12,9 -0,6 -5%Malta 31,1 10,4 76,3 10,9 0,5 5%Netherlands 529,2 75,6 486,5 69,5 -6,1 -9%Poland 4.059,1 1.353,0 13.230,0 1.890,0 537,0 28%Portugal 3.722,7 531,8 3.929,1 561,3 29,5 5%Slovak Rep. 578,3 192,8 1.969,1 281,3 88,5 31%Slovenia 305,2 101,7 900,2 128,6 26,9 21%Spain 9.355,7 1.336,5 7.214,2 1.030,6 -305,9 -30%Sweden 1.311,3 187,3 1.825,6 260,8 73,5 28%UK 1.714,8 245,0 1.909,6 272,8 27,8 10%sum 61.429,8 10.282,6 77.662,2 11.094,6 812,0 7%

Difference(new MS: 2004-06)

2000 - 2006 2007 - 2013

Kalev Sepp

28

2010

Do we know BD and landscapestatus in Europe?

� Measuring and reliable reporting of trends and changes in biodiversity requires that data and indicators are collected and analysed in a standard and comparable way

� At present, all responsible authorities (over 100 national and regional agencies) have different and uncoordinated approaches

� A fully integrated system based on key biodiversity indicators and implemen-tation within an institutional framework operating at the European level.

15

Kalev Sepp

29

2010

EU evaluation questions for landscapes

�To indicate the differentiation(homogeneity/ diversity) of farmland that has been maintained or enhanced

�To indicate the cultural identity(homogeneity/ diversity) of farmland that has been maintained or enhanced

�To indicate the coherence (homogeneity/ diversity) of farmland that has been maintained or enhanced

Kalev Sepp

30

2010

National Inventory of Landscapes in SwedenNationell Inventering av Landskapet i Sverige

Johan Svensson, SLU. 090506

Assessment of landscape biodiversity

conditions and changes in terrestrial

environments in Sweden

� Forests

� Agriculture land

� Alpine environments

� Wetlands

� Shores

� Urban areas 631

16

Kalev Sepp

31

2010

Application of NILS data

� Documentation, assessment and refinement of the

environmental quality objectives

� Background data for national policy and strategic planning

� International reporting (incl. Natura 2000)

� Platform for other environmental monitoring

� Platform for (applied) research: data, technology, methodology

� Dataforum

� Empirical approach

� On demand – requires developed sector cooperation

Kalev Sepp

32

2010

17

Kalev Sepp

33

2010

Kalev Sepp

34

2010

18

Kalev Sepp

35

2010

Shannon Diversity Index (SHDI), Shannon Diversity Index (SHDI), 0 0 -- no diversity (the landscape contains only one class), no diversity (the landscape contains only one class), increases as the number of different patch types (or classes) inincreases as the number of different patch types (or classes) increases and/or the proportional creases and/or the proportional distribution of area among patch types becomes more balanced. distribution of area among patch types becomes more balanced.

Kalev Sepp

36

2010

Some elements ofVladislav Miko’s vision… related tolandscapes (EC)

(1) skeleton: existing high value areas with highest priority for natural processes (concept of wild areas missing)

(2) space for nature: defining of minimum area necessary for keeping the nature working – Natura 2000 then contributing even if climate change occurs – need for proper management and (flexible) conservation objectives

(3) defragmentation, increased connectivity: land use, ecological planning, landscape protection (broader policy for landscape protection missing)

(4) restoration of deteriorated habitats with a potential to contribute overall ecological stability

(5) ‘creation of new nature’ where previous impossible

(6) special protection (iconic species, endemites, rare species, beauty etc.)

19

Kalev Sepp

37

2010

Some elements ofVladislav Miko’s vision related tolandscapes (EC)

�Definition of success: science support and

political framework

�Spiritual and aesthetic value not to be forgotten:

how to take account of it?

�Are we ready for honest debate on what our

fellow citizens want their landscape to be? And

– can we trust them to get the right answer?

�Good scientific base – careful preparation and

early start of discussion necessary

� Solving conflicts of interests and functions–land-use

(ecological) planning concept –to be discussed.

Kalev Sepp

38

2010

Some final remarks

� Landscapes inc. traditional land use must become a mainstream in political concern

� Our decisions today define the mosaics (values, functions) of landscapes in future

� We must combine different environmental measure (agri-environment, RDP, spatial planning, management plans NC, Forestry, landscape monitoring etc) for preserving landscape values

� We should know how policy (agricultural. Forestry etc) is realizing in landscape

� We need a better, more representative monitoring and evaluation schemes