Monitoring & support

Overview of process of identifying and monitoring High Nature Value farming

The Forum considers maps of possible “HNV farmland areas” to be a useful strategic policy tool – they illustrate the approximate location and extent of nature values associated with HNV farming, and the overlaps between nature values and certain types of geographical area (e.g. mountains, LFAs, etc.). They have also tested available data sources, illustrating their strengths and weaknesses.

However, the type of maps produced to date are not suitable for calculating the total area of HNV farming in a country (baseline indicator). They also should not be the basis for including or excluding individual farms from support schemes. There are several reasons for this caution with the mapping approach:

• The HNV concept emphatically does not involve the “designation” of HNV areas, in the manner of Natura 2000. This network of European nature areas is already being established, and measures will be targeted at the priority habitats and species within these areas. The idea of designating HNV areas in addition to Natura 2000 is quite misleading and likely to cause negative reactions from some sectors of society, without any benefit for the application of the HNV concept.
• Data used for generating HNV farmland maps to date (location of vegetation types through CORINE, distribution of habitats and species) is imperfect in all countries. The maps therefore show only an approximate picture of where nature values coincide with farming. There is a danger that, once a map is produced, the areas identified become “set in stone” as definitive HNV farming areas.
• By using farm-level indicators (e.g. parcels with semi-natural vegetation, livestock densities below certain thresholds), support payments can be directed towards HNV farms without the need to produce maps. Crucially, this avoids the exclusion of farms from receiving HNV support payments just because they fall outside a boundary that has been drawn on the basis of data bases that were not intended for this use.
• Wildlife species move to take advantage of changing opportunties. The HNV concept aims to maintain broadly beneficial landuses across large areas of territory, thus favouring these natural dynamics. Farming also changes, as different farmers take over the land, technology develops, etc. Drawing static lines on maps flies in the face of these realities.

We believe that when maps based on non-farm-level data are produced, these should use fuzzy boundaries, indicating an approximate density of HNV farmland while avoiding the impression of an exact demarcation between HNV and non-HNV land. Maps should be seen as an information exercise that can inform the more essential work on developing farming systems indicators. In addition, the specific policy purpose of maps should be made clear when they are produced.

Maintaining High Nature Value farming

HNV farming is in decline

Low-intensity, HNV farming faces enormous challenges of socio-economic viability. As intensive farming expands and increases its yields, and as incomes rise in the wider economy, it becomes harder to earn a living from HNV farming. Across vast areas of the EU’s most fragile rural landscapes, HNV farming faces stark choices between abandonment and intensification. Every day, farmers are giving up and selling their stock. Landscapes rich in biodiversity and culture, beneficial for soil conservation and climate change, and resistant to forest fires, are being lost to scrub, dense forest or new intensive uses, such as irrigated cropping.

The main reason is the insufficient income generated by low-intensity farming on generally poor land. The situation is compounded by the relatively small support received from the CAP, compared with more intensive farming on better land, and by CAP subsidies for afforestation and new intensive landuses, such as irrigated crops.

The central objective of the HNV concept is to shift support in favour of low-intensity farming across extensive areas of landscape. This does not require highly sophisticated excercises of mapping and indicators.

We know that the most widespread HNV farming involves low-intensity livestock raising, with semi-natural pasture as an important part of the forage resource. Directing support to this type of farming is not complicated. In the past, the CAP included a payment for extensive beef farming. In order to qualify for this support, a farm had to comply with a stocking density threshold, which was determined by farm-level data on stock numbers and forage area.

There was no need for a delimitation of “eligible areas” for the Beef Extensification scheme. Payments were simply made to farms meeting the eligibility criteria. The main failing of the scheme was that the stocking threshold was too high to be relevant for HNV farming. A similar payment system could be used now to support HNV livestock farming across the EU (for example, at less than 0.2 LU/ha). Article 69 is a suitable mechanism for re-directing part of the existing CAP Pillar 1 regimes in this way.

In addition to a broad system of support payments, there is a need for payments targeted at particular activities that are central to HNV farming. One example is shepherding. This is essential to HNV farming in many parts of southern and eastern Europe in particular, but the cost of shepherds threatens the viability of the farming system. In some countries (e.g. Bulgaria), support for shepherding is provided through agri-environment payments in certain areas. Such support needs to be made much more widespread, through Article 69, through a supplement to LFA payments, or through simple and wide-ranging agri-environment schemes.

Finally, there is a need for investment aid, advice and technical support to be closely targeted on HNV farms. Blanket grant and advisory schemes, as implemented under many RDPs, are of little benefit to HNV farms. They may even have negative effects, as more better-capitalised farms on more productive land absorb the available support, and compete more strongly with low-intensity farms.

One way to ensure close targeting on the farms of most nature value and greatest socio-economic need is through local schemes, as illustrated by pilot projects such as BurrenLIFE in Ireland (www.burrenlife.com). This approach could be targeted on Natura 2000 sites, using the model of Local Action Groups involving farmers.

Developing HNV support measures

The poor socio-economic situation of HNV farming means that support measures are needed urgently, and should be set up as quickly as possible. The support needs can be summarised as:

• Broad support for low-intensity farming systems and for widespread beneficial practices. No such EU-wide scheme exists at present. MS have the possibility for targeting mechanisms such as Article 69 and the LFA scheme on HNV farming, but such initiatives are limited to one or two countries. Some countries use the agri-environment scheme to support HNV systems, but the need to demonstrate that the farmer suffers an “income foregone” make it problematic to use this measure for providing basic income support.
• Local-level initiatives should be established in priority areas. One option is to follow the LEADER approach, by setting up Local Action Groups with an explicit remit for supporting HNV farming, and with a high level of farmer involvement.