Assessment of capacity for ecosystem services in agricultural areas, focusing on areas with natural constraints (ANC)

The aim of the ecosystem service assessment of ‘Areas with natural constraints’ (ANC, Articles of Council Regulation (EU) 1305/2013) at European level is to gain insight into the current status of ecosystem services (ES) supply, to develop a classification system based on ES supply, and to evaluate the performance of the scheme. The report shows the actual status of nine ecosystem capacities in less favoured agricultural areas compared to agricultural areas out of the scheme. The comparison covers three aspects of ecosystem capacities: (1) the quantitative level, (2) the relationships (trade-offs and synergies) among capacities and (3) the level of multi-functionality. Furthermore some examples are presented for comparison and classification of administrative units regarding to the ecosystem capacities of their less favoured areas. The methodology can be applied for the areas with natural constraints when their delineation will be ready. It can contribute to the evaluation of the performance of the ANC scheme as well as to its better targeting.JRC.H.4-Monitoring Agricultural Resource

Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services: An EU ecosystem assessment

This report presents an ecosystem assessment covering the total land area of the EU as well as the EU marine regions. The assessment is carried out by Joint Research Centre, European Environment Agency, DG Environment, and the European Topic Centres on Biological Diversity and on Urban, Land and Soil Systems. This report constitutes a knowledge base which can support the evaluation of the 2020 biodiversity targets. It also provides a data foundation for future assessments and policy developments, in particular with respect to the ecosystem restoration agenda for the next decade (2020-2030). The report presents an analysis of the pressures and condition of terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems using a single, comparable methodology based on European data on trends of pressures and condition relative to the policy baseline 2010. The following main conclusions are drawn: - Pressures on ecosystems exhibit different trends. - Land take, atmospheric emissions of air pollutants and critical loads of nitrogen are decreasing but the absolute values of all these pressures remain too high. - Impacts from climate change on ecosystems are increasing. - Invasive alien species of union concern are observed in all ecosystems, but their impact is particularly high in urban ecosystems and grasslands. - Pressures from overfishing activities and marine pollution are still high. - In the long term, air and freshwater quality is improving. - In forests and agroecosystems, which represent over 80% of the EU territory, there are improvements in structural condition indicators (biomass, deadwood, area under organic farming) relative to the baseline year 2010 but some key bio-indicators such as tree-crown defoliation continue to increase. This indicates that ecosystem condition is not improving. - Species-related indicators show no progress or further declines, particularly in agroecosystems. The analysis of trends in ecosystem services concluded that the current potential of ecosystems to deliver timber, protection against floods, crop pollination, and nature-based recreation is equal to or lower than the baseline value for 2010. At the same time, the demand for these services has significantly increased. A lowered potential in combination with a higher demand risks to further decrease the condition of ecosystems and their contribution to human well-being. Despite the wide coverage of environmental legislation in the EU, there are still large gaps in the legal protection of ecosystems. On land, 76% of the area of terrestrial ecosystems, mainly forests, agroecosystems and urban ecosystems, are excluded from a legal designation under the Bird and Habitat Directives. Freshwater and marine ecosystems are subject to specific protection measures under the Water Framework and Marine Strategy Framework Directives. The condition of ecosystems that are under legal designation is unfavourable. More efforts are needed to bend the curve of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation and to put ecosystems on a path to recovery. The progress that is made in certain areas such as pollution reduction, increasing air and water quality, increasing share of organic farming, the expansion of forests, and the efforts to maintain marine fish stocks at sustainable levels show that a persistent implementation of policies can be effective. These successes should encourage us to act now and to put forward an ambitious plan for the restoration of Europe’s ecosystems.JRC.D.3-Land Resource

Impact of environmental policy on soil quality: organic carbon and phosphorus levels in croplands and grasslands of the European Natura 2000 network

In this study, the Natura 2000 nature protection network of the European Union is assessed in the context of soil quality management. We explore the hypothesis that the soil quality of croplands and grasslands — as indicated by soil organic carbon and phosphorus levels — is better in terms of environmental parameters within the Natura 2000 network than outside it. The soil organic carbon and phosphorus content of 479 cropland and 450 grassland sites within Natura 2000 were compared with their nearest neighbours outside the network. The comparisons were repeated for pairs of both cropland and grassland sites by soil texture groups. The study revealed that organic carbon content was significantly higher in Natura 2000 sites than in nonprotected areas for both croplands and grasslands. For croplands, this was true only for those with signs of ploughing, whereas for croplands without signs of ploughing there were no significant differences between Natura 2000 and non-protected areas. Areas with sand and loamy sand soils had significantly higher soil organic carbon content within the Natura 2000 network than outside it, for both croplands and grasslands. This was the only texture class that showed a significant difference in the case of croplands, whereas three further texture groups had higher soil organic carbon content in Natura 2000 grassland sites than on grassland sites outside this network. There was no significant difference in soil phosphorus content between areas within the Natura 2000 network and non-protected areas, except for grasslands with light textured soils, where soil phosphorus levels were significantly lower within Natura 2000 sites than outside them. The results suggest that the management of croplands and grasslands of Natura 2000 sites tends to perform better than that of adjacent areas with similar land cover in terms of soil carbon conservation. The difference is more evident for sites with certain soil characteristics. On the other hand, the nutrient input - as determined by phosphorus levels - of Natura 2000 croplands and grasslands generally does not appear to be less intensive than that of surrounding areas outside the network.JRC.D.5-Food Securit

Potential for ecosystem service provision in less favoured agricultural areas compared to other agricultural areas in the European Union

The new Biodiversity Strategy of the EU (European Commission, 2011) aims to halt the loss of biodiversity and also the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020. As it has been proved that focusing only at protected areas and species is not enough, semi-natural and agricultural land are also targeted in the strategy. (Maes et al., 2011) Though the effects of extensive agricultural activity are complex and local nature conservation objectives and trade-offs between different ecosystem services have to be taken into account (Fors et al., 2012), good management practices may turn trade-offs into opportunities and can maintain ecosystem functions (Power, 2010). Our aim was to compare the capacity of less favoured agricultural areas for delivering various ecosystem services to other (more productive) agricultural areas at EU level. Less favoured areas are distinguished based on an EU scheme, ‘less favoured areas’ (LFA, Articles of Council Regulation (EC) 1305/2013) which designates areas where agricultural production or activity is more difficult because of natural handicaps and therefore there is a significant risk of agricultural land abandonment.JRC.H.4-Monitoring Agricultural Resource

The Need for Harmonizing Methodologies for Assessing Soil Threats in Europe

Central to the EU thematic strategy for soil protection is that areas affected by soil degradation through erosion, soil organic matter (SOM) decline, compaction, salinization and landslides should be identified in a clear and consistent way. However, the current methodologies to achieve this often differ and this can result in different perceptions of risks amongst EU Member States. The aims of this paper are to: (i) assess the current status of assessment methodologies in Europe (EU27) associated with erosion, SOM decline, compaction, salinization and landslides and (ii) discuss the issues associated with harmonization of these methodologies throughout the EU27. The need for harmonization is assessed using the relative share of common elements between different methodologies. The results demonstrate that the need for harmonization in methodology is greatest for erosion and compaction and least for SOM decline and landslides. However, many of the methodologies which were investigated are still incomplete and there are significant differences in terms of: (i) understanding the threats, (ii) methods of data collection, (iii) processing and interpretation and (iv) risk perception. We propose two options for the harmonized assessment of soil threats: (i) a two-tiered approach based on data availability and spatial scale and (ii) a combination of standardization and harmonization for each assessment methodology. Future assessments should focus on the advantages and disadvantages of these options as the current situation will result in endless discussions on differences and the merits of particular methodologies instead of taking appropriate measures to reduce or eliminate the actual threats.JRC.H.7-Climate Risk Managemen