Suchergebnisse

With agricultural areas covering almost half of European land, proper management of agro-ecosystems is key toachieve the European Union's environmental and climate objectives. This requires spatially explicit methods andindicators. We developed an approach for the classification of agricultural land by combining two main di-mensions i) land cover, using detailed geo-spatialized census data covering 63 individual crops; ii) managementintensity, measured as the anthropogenic energy required in the primary crop production. As a result weidentified 10 main crop systems further classified into 30'crop-management systems'at a spatial resolution of 5arcminutes. The resulting maps show the spatial patterns of agricultural management intensity across Europe,both in absolute terms (total energy input per hectare) and relative to the dominant crop system in the spatialunit of analysis. The use of multiple intensity dimensions provides new, more detailed insights on agriculturalintensity by which areas that were previously classified as low-medium intensive - some permanent crops sys-tems or irrigated arable land - appear now as highly intensive. An expert-based evaluation was carried out on theintensity maps and corroborated the obtained results. The generated maps can be used to support decision-making in designing more targeted, context-specific agricultural and territorial policies. In particular,findingscan be relevant in the context of the Common Agricultural Policy post 2020 and the Biodiversity Strategytowards 2030, both of which will benefit from more detailed spatially explicit information to achieve their statedobjectives.

This paper proposes an approach for assessing the effectiveness of those agri-environmental schemes and rural development measures aimed at enhancing the natural value of farmland and, more generally, aimed at releasing the pressure on the environment due to agriculture. Using regional and local data, an indicator derived from the High Nature Value (HNV) concept is elaborated at a LAU1 spatial resolution, for both France as a whole as well as for Midi-Pyrénées NUTS2 region. The effect of rural development measures on the evolution of this indicator in France, between 2007 and 2010, is explored. Given that the indicator is built from three different indices (addressing crop diversity, grassland share, and wooded and afforested farmland) the effect of rural development measures on each of these individual indices is also explored. Results indicate that measures from both 2000-2006 and 2007-2013 rural development programming periods affect the changes in the indicator and indices, and the spatial scale of the analyses matters. Indeed, trends observed at the national scale do not necessarily apply at the regional scale (e.g. impacts of conversion to organic farming, the grassland premium, payments for water and biodiversity protection) underlining the importance of multi-scale assessments. This enables the main structure and the magnitude of policy impacts to be captured and helps with the understanding of why certain objectives were not met. Key findings are relevant in the context of policy monitoring and evaluation, while the methodology proposed, that incorporates spatial effects, is an important contribution to the implementation of the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework by Member States to account for national, regional or local characteristics.

International audience ; Semi-natural vegetation in agricultural land mainly includes extensively managed grasslands, agro-forestry areas and all vegetated features that are not used for crop production, such as hedgerows, buffer strips, field margins and woodlots. Semi-natural vegetation plays a major role in the supply of ecosystem services such as pollination, pest control, water quality control and erosion prevention. The efficiency of ecosystem services for agriculture should therefore depend upon the spatial distribution of semi-natural vegetation. In spite of such a relevance, semi-natural vegetation in agricultural land has never been mapped at the European scale. Therefore, we report here the first 1- km resolution map of semi-natural vegetation in agricultural land at the European Union scale. For that, we use an innovative convergence-of-evidence mapping method. We also present an assessment and a classification of the relation between semi-natural vegetation and ecosystem service supply at the regional scale. The major improvements in our mapping method are the following: (1) both large and small patches of perennial vegetation are detected in fine-resolution satellite images by incorporating the spectral rule-based preliminary classifier, (2) the identification of semi-natural grassland is enhanced, (3) European ancillary maps are used to help mapping of woody vegetation and identification of agro-ecosystems. Validation shows that our output map is 34.3 % more accurate than pre-existing components. In addition, results show that regulating ecosystem services increase with the abundance of semi-natural vegetation in agricultural lands with a coefficient R2 of 0.67. The results also show no specific trend in relation to provisioning ecosystem services. These findings mean that semi-natural vegetation is usually beneficial for regulating services, whereas the relation to provisioning services is strictly context-dependent. Overall our study supports greening measures design in the frame of the Common ...

Pest control by natural enemies (natural pest control) is an important regulating ecosystem service with significant implications for the sustainability of agro-ecosystems. The presence of semi-natural habitats and landscape heterogeneity are key determinants of the delivery of this service. However, to date, synthetic and consistent indicators at large scales are lacking. We developed a pan-European, spatially-explicit model to map and assess the landscape potential to sustain natural pest control. The model considers landscape composition in terms of semi-natural habitats types, abundance, spatial configuration and distance from the focal field. It combines recent high-resolution geospatial layers with empirical results from extensive field surveys measuring the specific contribution of different semi-natural habitats to support insects flying enemies providing natural pest control. The resulting maps facilitate a comparison of the relative biological control potential of different areas and show that currently a large proportion of high-productive agricultural areas in Europe has low potential. The obtained indicator can inform the formulation of policies and planning strategies aimed at increasing biodiversity and ecosystem services and can be used to assess trade-offs between different services. Potential fields of application include the Common Agricultural Policy and the EU Biodiversity Strategy, in particular the implementation of Green Infrastructure.

Green infrastructure (GI), a network of nature, semi-natural areas and green space, delivers essential ecosystem services which underpin human well-being and quality of life. Maintaining ecosystem services through the development of GI is therefore increasingly recognized by policies as a strategy to cope with potentially changing conditions in the future. This paper assessed how current trends of land-use change have an impact on the aggregated provision of eight ecosystem services at the regional scale of the European Union, measured by the Total Ecosystem Services Index (TESI8). Moreover, the paper reports how further implementation of GI across Europe can help maintain ecosystem services at baseline levels. Current demographic, economic and agricultural trends, which affect land use, were derived from the so called Reference Scenario. This scenario is established by the European Commission to assess the impact of energy and climate policy up to 2050. Under the Reference Scenario, economic growth, coupled with the total population, stimulates increasing urban and industrial expansion. TESI8 is expected to decrease across Europe between 0 and 5 % by 2020 and between 10 and 15 % by 2050 relative to the base year 2010. Based on regression analysis, we estimated that every additional percent increase of the proportion of artificial land needs to be compensated with an increase of 2.2 % of land that qualifies as green infrastructure in order to maintain ecosystem services at 2010 levels.

Abstract
In 2022, EFSA was mandated by the European Commission's Directorate‐General for Health and Food Safety (M‐2022‐00070) to provide technical assistance on the list of Union quarantine pests qualifying as priority pests, as specified in Article 6(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 on protective measures against plant pests. As part of Task C, EFSA conducted comprehensive expert knowledge elicitations for 46 candidate priority pests, focusing on the lag period, rate of expansion and impact on production (yield and quality losses) and the environment. This report details the methodology for assessing these candidate priority pests for which the EFSA outputs and supporting datasets were delivered to the European Commission's Joint Research Centre, to feed the Impact Indicator for Priority Pest (I2P2) model and complete the pest prioritisation ranking exercise.

An ecosystem is a dynamic complex of plant, animal and microorganism communities and their non-living environment, interacting as a functional unit. The EU ecosystem assessment analysed the following ecosystems: urban ecosystems, agroecosystems (cropland and grassland), forests, wetlands, heathlands and shrubs, sparsely vegetated lands (beaches, dunes, rocky areas in mountains), rivers and lakes, and marine ecosystems. The boundaries between ecosystem types are often more difficult to draw than this simple classification suggests. For instance, peatlands are considered wetlands but often used and classified as forests or agroecosystems. The EU ecosystem assessment used the Corine Land Cover information system to classify (based on EUNIS habitat classification) and map ecosystems but for wetlands, floodplains and urban areas also dedicated boundaries were drawn. The different ecosystems cover the full EU territory [...]. Ecosystem services are the contributions of ecosystems to economic, social, cultural and other benefits that people derive from ecosystems. For instance, pollination, the provision of food, timber and clean air, water filtration, carbon sequestration and storage or nature-based recreation are all ecosystem services. The above definitions are set in the EU Directives mentioned above (for ecosystem status) as well as in Regulation (EU) 2020/8522 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment.