Semi-natural habitats and Ecological Focus Areas on Irish farmland

HIighlights: We surveyed farmland habitats on tillage and more intensive beef and dairy farms. Habitat area was lower than that found in the general countryside, and was dominated by linear features (especially hedgerows). All tillage farms and the majority of pastoral farms in our sample met the current 5% EFA requirement, and the vast majority (93%) met a scenario with a 7% EFA requirement. There is a considerable amount of a broader range of wildlife habitats already present on intensively managed farms that was not included in EFA in Ireland, and is not reflected in policy or legislation. 

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 2014-2020 introduced three mandatory ‘Greening’ measures aimed at improving the environmental performance of EU agriculture. The Ecological Focus Area (EFA) measure within Greening was intended to help improve biodiversity associated with European tillage farms. To improve understanding of the implementation of this measure (and to inform the design of future measures), data are needed on the implementation of Ecological Focus Area measure on tillage farms. In the discussions preceding the last round of CAP reform, there was intense discussion about whether grasslands should be subject to Ecological Focus Areas, or a similar measure. In the end, they were not, but it was reasonable to expect this proposal to surface again in the next CAP reform. With these issues in mind, we conducted a study with the following objectives:

• Measure and compare the area and types of habitats on three intensively managed farming systems in Ireland (arable, beef and dairy).
• Quantify the EFA areas on these farms in relation to current EFA prescriptions.
• Consider the implications of two scenarios in which a) intensive pastoral systems are subject to EFA regulations and b) EFA thresholds increase from 5% to 7% for all farms

These data can help inform management strategies to attempt to halt the decline of farmland biodiversity and associated ecosystem services.

Results: farmland habitat areas

We surveyed 119 intensively managed farms across three farming enterprises (tillage, beef and dairy) in Ireland to estimate the percentage of EFA and other farmland habitats occurring within these farms. The *median* farm habitat area of 5% for tillage, 6% for intensive beef and 6.55% for intensive dairy (see Fig. 1, from the supplementary information in Larkin et al. 2019). 

Linear features such as hedgerows, buffer strips and drainage ditches accounted for 43% of the total area of wildlife habitat surveyed. 

Hedgerows were the most abundant and frequently occurring wildlife habitat, present on 100% of farms and occupying an average of 3% of the total area of every farm. Other semi-natural wooded habitats (semi-natural woodland, isolated trees, field copse) accounted for a further average of 2% area. 

 

Fig. 1. Median farm habitat area on a sample of tillage, intensive beef and intensive dairy farms (from supplementary information in Larkin et al. 2019).

Results: Ecological Focus Areas

Habitats present on farms were categorised into three EFA sub-categories:

a) Irish-eligible EFA (allowed under Irish legislation to qualify as EFA)
b) EU-eligible EFA (allowed under EU legislation to qualify as EFA but were not implemented as EFA in Ireland)
c) ‘non-eligible habitats’ (habitats within the ‘wildlife habitats’ category described above, but which did not qualify as EFA under Irish or EU legislation). 

We measured the area of habitats within these three categories, and applied the EFA conversion and weighting factors. Note that these conversion factors typically result in the area of EFA habitat being greater than the geographical area occupied by the habitats. 

All tillage farms and almost all pastoral farms in our sample met the current 5% EFA requirement (see Fig. 2 below) (see Fig. 3 and Table 3 in Larkin et al. 2019).

Field margins were the most frequently encountered habitat that was ineligible under Irish EFA prescriptions, but which qualifies as EFA under EU legislation. Additionally, a large percentage area (average of 9.5% after application of conversion and weighting factors) of farms sampled was covered by habitats not classed as EFA under EU legislation.  

Fig. 2. Plots of EFA percentages calculated for all farms (tillage n=38, beef=38, dairy =43) and for different scenarios of EFA eligibility (5% and 7%). Lower dashed line on each graph represents the 5% EFA threshold; upper dashed line represents the 7% EFA scenario percentage. Note different scale on the y-axis of 4c. From Larkin et al. (2019). (These data include EFA weighting and conversion factors.) 

What do we learn from this study?

There is a lower absolute area of habitats on more intensive farms, compared to the area of habitats from studies that sample farmland from the wider countryside (Rótches–Ribalta et al., 2020). This is probably not surprising, but is confirmed nevertheless.

If the EFA target increased to 7% (but existing eligibility criteria for habitats remained), only eight farms were below this threshold (3 tillage, 4 dairy, 1 beef; 7% of the farms surveyed) (after application of the EFA conversion and weighing factors).

A large percentage area (average of 9.5% after application of conversion and weighting factors) of farms sampled was covered by habitats not classed as EFA under EU legislation. Including this wider set of habitats will help farms attain threshold levels, and will better ensure biodiversity protection. (See also Rotchés-Ribalta et al. 2020.)

There is a very high dominance of farmland habitats by hedgerows (and these data tell us nothing about hedgerow quality). More generally, the EFA measure includes no specification regarding the quality of habitats, or their effectiveness at supporting biodiversity or providing ecosystem services. One method of improving Greening requirements would be the addition of a quality parameter or some method of quantifying habitat quality to help increase its environmental output e.g. through a results-based approach.

There is a broader range of beneficial wildlife habitats already present on intensively managed farms that is not incorporated into or protected under policy and legislation. There is a surprisingly large area of these ‘unprotected/unrecognised’ habitats. To protect biodiversity, these habitats may be incorporated into future policy instruments, and are highly likely to be of higher biodiversity value than newly created habitats.  Preserving these habitats can help reduce ecological losses, increase biodiversity, promote the sustainability of agricultural systems, and reward/recognise the existing habitats on Irish farmland.

See the Larkin et al. (2019) article for a wider discussion of the additionality associated with the EFA measure.

John Finn and Daire Ó hUallacháin

Reference

Larkin, J., Sheridan, H., Finn, J.A. and Denniston, H., 2019. Semi-natural habitats and Ecological Focus Areas on cereal, beef and dairy farms in Ireland. Land Use Policy, 88: p.104096.

Rotchés-Ribalta R, Ruas S, Ahmed KD, Gormally M, Moran J, Stout J, White B, Ó hUallacháin D. 2021. Assessment of semi-natural habitatsand landscape features on Irish farmland: New insights to inform EU CommonAgricultural Policy implementation. Ambio 50: 346-. 

Acknowledgement

This research was funded by the Teagasc Walsh Scholarship Programme.