From: Peeters, A., Questions and Answers: Agriculture and Biodiversity. Council of Europe, November 1997

Farming is an economic activity involving the processing of natural resources into foodstuffs and other products necessary for the requirements of our fast-growing human population. Resources used or affected by farming include the soil, rangelands and grasslands, forests, surface water, ground water, living animal and plant species, air, deposits of fertilising agents and fossil energy stocks. A failure to take the fragility of the environment into consideration in farming activities and methods can result in the deterioration of the physical, chemical and biological properties of these resources. One can deplore pollution of water and its excessive use, degradation of soil, pollution of air, reduced biodiversity, the homogenisation of landscapes and the countryside or the debasement of foodstuffs' organoleptic qualities.

However, humanity's economic development must be sustainable, otherwise put, meet the needs of the present-day population without compromising the possibility for future generations to provide for their own needs. Sustainable development is based on a careful management of the planet's limited resources. This form of management also puts a stop to resource wastage and degradation.

An environmental policy on its own is not enough to achieve the aims of sustainable development. It is important to incorporate the principles of ecological resource management into every area of sectoral policy, such as industry, transport and farming. Actions have to be undertaken at the outset and not merely attempt to rectify the adverse effects of these areas of activity after the fact.

There are two sides to "agricultural biodiversity" :

• the diversity of wild species naturally appearing in farmland, and
• the diversity of domestic species, otherwise put, species and varieties of cultivated plants, and species and breeds of reared animals, as well as their forebears and related wild taxa, even if these latter do not occur in farmed areas.

Many reasons underpin biodiversity conservation in farming activities.

• Biodiversity represents a gene" bank: wild ecotypes" of cultivated species may have advantageous features such as resistance to disease, drought or cold, or a certain tendency to fruit or ripen early. In the foreseeable future, advances in genetic engineering will certainly usher in the use of the genes of each wild species to improve cultivated species.
• In a general way, flora and fauna are a natural heritage with a scientific, cultural, ethical and intrinsic value, and it behoves us to safeguard this, and hand it on to future generations.
• Landscape biodiversity must also be preserved. Shaped to different degrees by humanity's imprint, landscapes have an important place in our traditions and our mind's-eye. Agricultural zones now represent almost half the area of Europe.

The purpose of this reading is to set the issue of "agricultural biodiversity" back in context, to draw attention to the dangers threatening it, and to single out solutions which will improve the current situation.

Farming first appeared some 10000 years ago, in the so-called "Fertile Crescent" of the Middle East. It subsequently spread to Europe, via Greece to start with, and then along the Danube valley into central and western Europe. Another branch spread northwards towards Ukraine, and a third in a westerly direction along the shores of the Mediterranean. It reached northern Europe at a later stage.

Farming developed in Europe more as a result of the migration of peoples with a good grasp of farming technology than through the spread of techniques to new population groups. Farmers hailing from the Middle East brought with them cereals (wheat and barley) and animals (sheep, goats, cattle and pigs) which had been domesticated. Oats, beetroot and certain other vegetables were nevertheless grown in Europe and, in all probability, the aurochs and the wild boar were domesticated in different parts of the continent.

In that early period, farmers cleared the forest and worked the land with hoe and wooden plough, and later with the iron ploughshare. Some 3000 years ago, man had mastered the essential techniques, in particular ploughing using draught animals, hoes, spades and forks, axes, the effects of manure and leguminous plants, irrigation and pumping. Techniques were then not significantly improved until the fodder revolution that took place in the 17th century in England and, above all, the industrial revolution in the 19th century. After the discovery of America, many new species - including maize, potatoes, tomatoes and sunflowers - were introduced into Europe's fields.

The development of farming has had a far-reaching impact on landscapes and ecosystems alike. The climax forest, where man hunted and gathered 8000 years ago, was relatively homogeneous. On the other hand, the environments that emerged as the result of farming activities-such as hedged farmland and open-fields, extensive haymeadows, moorland and pastures subject to low-intensity grazing, chalk downs and scrub heathland grazed by sheep - are habitats that are often richer in species than the natural forests from which they are derived.

Furthermore, by clearing and using different areas of land with differing degrees of intensity, farmers created a patchwork with an extraordinary variety of habitats. And this has been to the advantage of many species such as hare and partridge, open environment butterflies or meadow plants.

Farming, nowadays, is no longer Europe's dominant economic sector, but it still directly involves about 10% of the working population.

Even in countries where farming now employs a mere 2 % of the working population, it is still generally reckoned that about 15% of the population are employed in the agricultural sector in its broadest sense, which includes industries in the initial stages of production (crop protection and farm machinery manufacturing industries, etc.) and those at the final stages (food-processing industries).

A factor specific to farming lies in the scale of the land which it uses, which is about 50% of all European land. So it is still having a tremendous impact on landscapes.

European farming is also hallmarked by the diversity of its methods such as, for instance, hedged farmland in the south of England, Ukraine cereal open-fields, high mountain pasture, intensive stock breeding or terraced vineyards. We find, in particular, intensive' and extensive" systems, and lowland and upland or mountain systems. So there is good reason to talk in terms of "European farming systems" in the plural.

Grassland generally accounts for a major share of the agricultural area in western Europe: 45% on average in northern and western Europe; only 35% in central and eastern Europe, and also in southern Europe.

The use of inputs has risen fast since the 1950s. And, accordingly, yields have shown a steady increase, too. In France, for example, cereal yields are increasing by 100 kilograms per hectare per annum, and milk production by 100 litres per cow per annum. Wheat production in Europe has risen from 2 tonnes per hectare in 1960 to 4.3 tonnes per hectare in 1996. But for some years now the consumption of certain inputs is no longer on the rise. The consumption of fertilisers has even dropped since the 1980s, by about 20 % in the case of nitrogen, and 50% for phosphorus and potassium.

Price-support for agricultural produce was set at a high level in the recent past. But since the 1992 reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in the European Union, and the opening-up of the countries of central and eastern Europe from 1989 on, prices paid to farmers tend to be similar to world prices. In some countries, farmers' incomes are maintained by subsidies paid per hectare or per head of livestock.

In intensively farmed regions, yields will continue to rise in the future, as they strive toward an optimum output. For all this, inputs will have to be used in a thriftier and more thoughtfully planned way.

In the countries of central and eastern Europe, yields often dropped since the market liberalisation. However, we can expect that they will very probably rise faster when the inputs and agricultural market will be more organised. But it will be important to monitor the graph, to avoid the adverse effects of the intensification of farming methods which have occurred in western Europe.

The most conspicuous change that farming will undergo in the future will indisputably be a redefinition of its role and its goals. Food guarantees will still be a major objective, but the role of farming in land management, meeting the wishes of society as a whole, will assume an ever greater importance.

Agriculture, in the past, has played a vital role in the conservation and creation of species-rich environments and habitats. Nowadays, certain types of farming do maintain this diversity. Intensive farming, on the other hand, has simplified ecosystems to such a degree that it is now possible to describe the land it uses as a vast biological desert. What is more, certain marginal areas, in mountainous regions in particular, are no longer enjoying any upkeep. These areas are being colonised by scrub, and then forest.

Many habitats have been destroyed by the modernisation of farming techniques. Yet woods, hedges and wetlands play a crucial part in the survival of many species such as nightingale, snipe, hedgehog, dragonflies or wetland vegetation. In intensively farmed regions, farming landscapes have undergone radical changes, especially since the 1950s. Isolated trees have been felled, hedgerows destroyed, land parcels enlarged, areas

levelled, land drained, ponds filled in, and so on.

At the same time, marginal land, particularly mountain and medium-mountain zones, deemed too unproductive, has been abandoned. E As a result, such habitats then evolve fast, very often in the direction of reduced species diversity. Some areas have been planted with trees. In most of the regions concerned, these schemes involved exotic o species, such as spruce, poplar, pine and eucalyptus.

Prior to the period of agricultural intensification, many parts of Europe had, for example, their own breeds of cattle, sheep and poultry. These were adapted to the particular environmental conditions and local livestock-rearing systems. Today, most of these breeds are threatened with extinction because they are being replaced by a small number of more productive breeds. The fact is that these old breeds represent an inestimable genetic potential, which we may well need in the future. The same situation applies to cultivated varieties, particularly where fruit and vegetables are concerned.

• Insecticides used on crops have destroyed not only insect pests, but a large part of the remaining microfauna too. This has reduced the food supplies for animals feeding on this fauna, such as skylarks, partridges and other ground-nesting birds.

• Pesticides have often been criticised for their adverse affects on fauna, and on people, too, for that matter. Some pesticides are also responsible for the poisoning of fauna causing death, abortions, embryo malformation, and lower vitality. Their toxicity does however vary a great deal from product to product. The most dangerous products, like DDT and atrazine, have been banned, or are in the process of being banned.

Research carried out by phyto-pharmaceutical companies has helped to market less and less harmful molecules. But much remains to be done in this respect.

• In grassland, fertilisers have encouraged productive species - grasses in the main - which have supplanted slower-growing species. So out of the 50 plant species living on 100 m² of extensive haymeadow, only 10 to 20 are now to be found in intensively farmed grassland. The disappearance of plants goes hand in hand with that of the insects associated with them, some butterflies, for example. Much grassland, which is unproductive but species-rich, has been ploughed up to introduce crops -maize in particular- or re-sow artificial grassland.

• Changed methods also affect the survival of species. Let us use two examples:

• the practice of making silage from pasture grass encourages earlier mowing than hay production. Once this happens, grass-land plants can no longer produce seeds, and birds nesting in them are destroyed during the hatching and rearing periods;
• powerful machinery makes it possible to plough faster than in the past. After the harvest, cereal seeds that have fallen on to the ground and been quickly covered by ploughing are thus no longer available for the corn bunting. This simple fact helps to explain the declining numbers of this bird.

Not all types of pollution invariably have a direct effect on wildlife. Some types have an indirect influence on fauna and flora.

Large animal concentrations in intensive pig and poultry farms, like high densities of cattle, emit ammonia into the atmosphere. When this ammonia falls back to earth with rain, it contributes to forest dieback and the eutrophication of environments normally poor in nutrients like moors and peat-bogs.

Nitrates coming from farming, as well as certain herbicides, may filter down into ground water and end up in rivers and streams. These surface waters are possibly enriched in turn by the run-off of

nitrates, phosphates and pesticides caused by surface erosion. The water becomes eutrophic (rich in dissolved nutrients), and the proliferation of algae blocks the ecosystem. Aquatic species used to pollution-free habitats, such as Salmonidae, vanish. Herbicides can also destroy the flora, if their concentration in water is too high.

After polluted streams have been dredged, the mud thrown up on the banks is colonised by common species such as nettle, thriving in nitrogen-rich soil.

Despite this somewhat gloomy prognosis, we can foresee an evolution in farming methods towards sustainable development.

The espousal of the concept of sustainable development prompts us to sign and seal a new pact with nature. Throughout the history of humankind, people transformed nature but the impact on the environment remained generally tolerable. Today, technology provides us with such powerful weapons for transforming the environment that there is a risk of the planet's major balances becoming destabilised.

These changes have already led to a wholesale extinction of species. In this day and age, it is vital for man to take up with the laws governing the way the biosphere works. At every technical level, from the most rudimentary to the most sophisticated, it is necessary to define a method of sustainable development, not least sustainable farming practices.

Much of the destruction of wildlife in farming was caused over a lengthy period by the dictates of competitiveness. Against a backdrop of stagnating or falling agricultural prices, farmers had no option but to step up their production, to maintain incomes comparable to those of other areas of activity. The whole of society which has benefited from the productive momentum of farming is thus also responsible for the destruction of biodiversity.

It is possible to encourage farmers to reduce pollution levels by sound farming practices. This reduction in the wastage of inputs may also often put more money in their pockets, too. On the other hand, initiatives for landscape maintenance and upkeep and biodiversity conservation should benefit from the backing of the society as a whole. From this viewpoint, the 10% of farmers who have 50% of Europe's land should not be saddled alone with financial responsibility for these actions, but they do have a moral duty to manage the land in the general interest. It is thus important to draw up a social contract to define the commitments and undertakings of everyone.

We need to promote a new kind of agriculture which is economically, socially and environmentally sustainable : farmers' income must be sufficient, rural area management must be a source of well-being both for farmers and for citizens living in the vicinity, and agriculture impact on the environment must be as positive as possible.

In this respect, integrated farming and organic farming are in the stream of sustainable farming. Both these types of farming attempt to make maximum use of natural cycles.

Integrated farming entails using inputs in a rational way, taking advantage of all available knowledge and techniques in order to achieve an optimal yield from the agronomic and economic points of view. It is based in particular on the following techniques and principles:-better use of natural resources, recycling of organic matter, optimum organisation of crop rotation, maximum ground cover, use of pesticides based on a warning or indicator system and not in a systematic way, and use of crop associates whenever possible (biological pest control).

Organic farming is based on the choice rejecting the use of synthetic products (chemical fertilisers, pesticides) in favour of the use of natural products such as manure, compost, simple mineral substances like crushed rock, copper sulphate, etc. It differs from integrated farming in this specific respect. In organic farming, therefore, the following elements play a vital part: best possible use of organic matter by composting either in heaps or spread on the ground, nitrogen fixing by means of leguminous plants, use of varieties and breeds that are disease-resistant, mechanical weeding, etc.

A pesticide-free environment is the major plus point of organic farming where biodiversity is concerned but also for human health.

It is sad to relate that sound farming practices applied by integrated farming to productive farms and which create little pollution are not enough to guarantee biodiversity conservation. It is thus necessary to take specific positive steps to encourage biodiversity in agricultural areas.

In order to encourage biodiversity in agricultural areas, it is beneficial to retain or rebuild an ecological infrastructure on the edges of plots and in specific areas where farm production is restricted for various reasons. This infrastructure consists of a network of linear features and isolated features:

• the former consist of long, narrow areas such as hedgerows, unweeded and unfertilised edges of fields, strips of turf alongside watercourses, woods and roads that are left fallow or subject to late mowing;

• the latter are formed by plots of varying sizes, sometimes fairly large, such as haymeadows and extensive pasture, moors, scrubland, old orchards, as well as smaller features like isolated trees, small expanses of water, etc.

These two types of factors may have both a habitat function where organisms can feed, reproduce and live, as well as a dispersal function which helps organisms to move about and colonise new areas.

The establishment of ecological corridors, the adoption of legislation to control the use of phytosanitary products or the late mowing of grassland are all actions favourable for biodiversity which should be adopted at the most appropriate level.

Thus, ecological corridors sometimes have to cross borders and need international co-operation; integration of environmental concern into national agricultural policies must become a reality and simple measures at farm level are also crucial for biodiversity conservation.

All the different socio-economic sectors concerned must work together and citizens must be kept properly informed.

Five years after the Earth Summit, attended by more than 172 nations in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, world-wide awareness of the threats hanging over biodiversity has made considerable progress.

The implementation of the Agenda 21 programme, adopted at the conference, was assessed by the United Nations General Assembly in New York in 1997. Two Agenda 21 chapters deal specifically with farming, with the topics "Sustainable farming and rural development", and "Conservation of biodiversity" (chapters 14 and 15). The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) is one of the main international organisations involved with their application.

Agriculture represents a major challenge in the negotiations undertaken with the World Trade Organisation (WTO). By allowing direct payments to producers, the WTO recognises the multi-functionality of agriculture. Thus, non-food producing services provided by agriculture, for example environmental services, can therefore be legitimately remunerated through direct government payments to farmers.

The goal of the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy, approved at the 1995 "Environment for Europe" ministerial conference in Sofia and implemented jointly by the Council of Europe and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), is to safeguard biological and landscape diversity throughout the European continent with a view to sustainable development.

It is essential that the principles of the Strategy should be given the broadest possible consideration in all the economic and social sectors concerned (Action Theme No. 2). The participation of the agricultural sector is crucial. Five other action themes specifically affect farming: conservation of landscapes, river ecosystems, grassland ecosystems, forest ecosystems and mountain ecosystems (Action Themes Nos. 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10).

The Council of Europe has been contributing for many years to the thinking on types of interaction between farming and biodiversity. Recommendations and resolutions have been adopted, seminars have been held, and various studies have been published. Mention can thus be made of work on the importance of hedgerows, on farming and wildlife, on European rural landscapes, on soil degradation and on a seminar on environmental training in agricultural circles. In 1987-88 a European Campaign for the Countryside was organised. A recommendation for sustainable development and use of the countryside, with a special focus on the protection of wildlife and landscapes, was adopted by the Committee of Ministers in 1994.

The 1995 European Nature Conservation Year (ENCY) was organised around the theme of nature conservation outside protected areas.

Moreover, the Bern Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats (1979) specifically covers the conservation of animal and plant species as well as the protection of natural habitats.

Within the European Community, farming was one of the earliest areas of co-operation between member states: the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was established in 1962. In 1972, an Environmental Action Programme (EAP) was adopted. The CAP was initially aimed at guaranteeing both self-sufficiency in food and farmers' incomes. Before very long, it was encouraging intensive farming which contributed in many different ways to the deterioration of the environment. From 1984 on, production quotas were introduced for certain sectors, but it was not until 1992 that the European Union Council of Ministers embarked on the most decisive reform.

Henceforth, environmental protection and the conservation of natural resources must be taken into account within the CAP Different measures are foreseen :

• the twofold goal of the Agri-Environment Programme is to improve the state of the agricultural environment and reduce production ;
• the Farmland Afforestation Programme makes it possible to subsidise the planting of forest plots, wooded strips and hedgerows. Some states and some regions only grant premiums for the planting of indigenous species;
• the CAP reform also includes a limit on production by the introduction of a set-aside system. Farmers producing more than 92 tonnes of cereals must set aside a certain proportion of their land if they wish to receive compensatory sums for their cereal, oilseed and protein-rich crops. In exchange, they receive a bonus paid per hectare of fallow. The set-aside period for a plot may range from 7 months to several years, and up to 20 years in the case of wooded set-aside land.

The agreements negotiated at international level and strategies and programmes adopted at European level must be enforced by the states. Governments must incorporate biodiversity conservation into their national farming policies. Thus, it is essential that the relevant ministries co-operate and co-ordinate their work.

For this, different measures can be considered.

• Fiscal and economic measures. In Austria, organic farming and integrated farming are encouraged by important financial aid. Likewise, extensive exploitation of mountain meadows and the conservation of landscapes and threatened species are supported by subsidies to farmers. The United Kingdom with its Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) programme, is focusing its financial support on areas of greater biological value.
• More stringent legal systems like in Switzerland for example where 5% of the area of each farm in intensively farmed regions must be given over to the creation of an ecological infrastructure known as an area of "ecological compensation".
• Training and awareness-raising programmes for farmers; for example, in the mountain pastures of the eastern Carpathians, in Slovakia, a comprehensive study has culminated in practical recommendations and a greater awareness on the part of farmers, resulting in an improvement of grassland biodiversity in an area of 20000 hectares, which is both a landscape protection area and a biosphere reserve.

• Fund research into new solutions to ensure that biodiversity is given higher priority in efficient farming systems.

In the central and eastern European countries, there remain vast areas that are farmed using traditional, low-intensity methods. These areas have a very high biological value.

Since the political turnabout of 1989, the use of inputs has often dropped even more in these countries. Future priorities will have to focus on :

• a cautious development of intensive farming, involving the training of farmers in sound practice;
• the conservation of areas of outstanding interest by the signing of management contracts encompassing economic incentives for the adoption of methods beneficial to fauna and flora;
• the restoration of habitats severely degraded by erosion or polluted by industry;
• the introduction of an agri-environment programme and an afforestation programme, taking the particular socio-economic nature of the respective countries into account.

These objectives will only be achieved if structures are adapted and if incomes permit a satisfactory standard of living. Training and instruction at every level must also be developed to achieve the economic goals by means of environment-friendly methods.

Depending on the administrative organisation of the respective states, these measures may come within the competence of either national or regional authorities.

The regional and local levels are particularly relevant for defining and implementing policies adapted to the specific ecological and socio-economic features of each agro-ecological area or region.

At this level it is desirable to :

• define priorities between sub-regions as well as for habitats and species requiring protection. Should restoration of the most degraded zones and/or enhancement of zones still rich in wildlife be carried out first?
• advertise the practical achievements of farmers among the general public and naturalist associations, ideally in collaboration with farming unions ;
• guarantee the promotion of agri-environmental measures among farmers, farming development agencies, agricultural schools and farming unions;
• support research to do with the real effects on wildlife of the measures in question, particularly with regard to specifically regional aspects.

Action on the part of public and private development organisations, farming federations, as well as universities and agricultural schools, is vital in this area.

In towns and villages, many initiatives can be introduced to improve roadside ecological maintenance and protect communal land. These areas are also crucial parts of the ecological network. Contracts can also be drawn up between farmers and local authorities to:

• avoid excessive soil enrichment;
• plan haymaking at the most appropriate time and export the hay produced ;
• avoid the systematic destruction of plant cover by herbicides; - organise local control of plants that are bothersome for farming (thistles, nettles) ;
• maintain wooded areas and hedgerows.

The precise forms of this partnership can be drawn up with the help of environmental consultants.

These locally "tailor-made" policies allow for taking into the experience of "people on the spot" and make possible a concerted effort between the different parties involved.

Farmers themselves can embark on many types of action to help biodiversity. They are closely acquainted with the land which they manage, and they can apply simple solutions on a day-to-day basis, with the help of naturalists if necessary.

• Simple solutions: some examples

• When grassland is being mown, starting at the middle of the plot or field and finishing at the edges gives animals taking refuge in the crop cover a chance to escape. In addition, the tractor can be fitted with chains which hang down into the vegetation in front of the mower, which prompts animals to take flight and prevents them from being killed by the blades.

• In conjunction with farmers, ornithologists can locate birds' nests (black-tailed godwits, greenshanks, Montagu's harriers), organise protective devices in meadows to avoid nests being trampled by livestock, and place stakes beside nests in grassland, so that the farmer can avoid cutting the grass in these places.

• An electric fence can be set up along rivers and streams. This stops livestock having direct access to the water, where they contribute to water pollution and disturb the aquatic fauna and flora. In addition, this inexpensive enclosure helps the growth of a grassy strip along the riverbank, where hygrophilous plants can develop, and where waterfowl (moorhens, ducks) find cover to nest. Needless to add, a place must be provided where livestock can drink from the stream or river.

• The protection of hedgerows by a simple electric wire prevents their damage by livestock. Branches can then regrow from the base. As we know, many species of birds need hedgerows that are thick at the bottom to nest in. In this situation, herbaceous plants can also flourish and produce seeds at the foot of the trees.

• Barns and cowsheds can be arranged, in a very simple way, to encourage bat access and birds nesting. A single nail driven into a beam will serve as the point around which a swallow will build its nest.

• Digging a pond, just a few square metres in area, in a place of no value for farm production, may encourage a burgeoning aquatic community, as long as access is barred to livestock.

• Modern farm buildings are often eyesores in the landscape. They can be disguised by planting clumps or lines of indigenous trees.

• Where agri-tourism is concerned, the improvement of the landscape and the development of biodiversity are bound to be advantageous for country holiday accommodation. The spectacular flowering of poppies, cornflower and the like along an access road or track can make a farm cottage that much more attractive. Hedgerows of indigenous shrubs and trees will make it blend more harmoniously with the surrounding landscape.

All these simple and inexpensive measures offer just a handful of examples of what can be done. Each one of us can devise solutions appropriate for our own situation, and we can all seek advice from qualified people.

Encouraging biodiversity in our own immediate surroundings depends above all on our own outlook on life.

• Consumers must be given the choice:

For any given product, be it meat, fruit, or any other kind of food, production methods can vary considerably and, as a result, have very different impacts on the environment and on biodiversity. Certain farming methods already take biodiversity into account. These systems now produce not only food but a setting favourable to wildlife too.

Such farming methods are more developed in certain countries such as Austria, Switzerland or Germany and they can spread even more if consumer demand for the products they offer increases.

Consumers can be helped in their choice thanks to quality labels. Certain labelling systems already include in their criteria the impact of farming methods on biodiversity. In this way, the produce of organic farming, obtained without the use of pesticides, results in cultural practices which can be more favourable to biodiversity. It is important that these labels are clear, reliable and effective beyond national frontiers. Consumer associations can inform the public on the different ecolabels and their criteria for attribution.

Farming of tomorrow depends on the choices we make today: in our lifestyles, our consumer habits, we can all contribute to environment conservation and the safeguarding of biodiversity.