Question

Which question has been addressed in this step?

Identifying measures: What are measures for intervention to enhance grasslanddependent species populations are available, and where should such interventions be targeted?

Why has this question been chosen?

• Private farmers are the most important group for land use measures, as they are the largest owners of land currently suitable for grassland biota. Agri-environmental schemes from public actors provide support to influence farmers maintaining grassland biota.
• Farmers may convert portions of their crop land to maintain migration corridors for threatened species, which will be necessary to ensure biodiversity under changing climate conditions. The corridors are only effective if a sufficient number of farmers contribute.

Which methods have been applied?

• Stakeholder workshops, pilot survey, opens discussions on the awareness and value of grassland biota.
• We focus on the spatial planning of where to target the potential adaptation measures such as new agri-environmental contracts and other management and conservation means.
• Surveys targeted to farmers in South-West Finland and Pirkanmaa.
• This was supplemented by a policy and literature review.

Why have these methods been selected?

• Stakeholder's workshops and open discussions are very effective in identifying adaptation options which are supported by the affected community, i.e. groups of private actors. Their support is important in successful implementation.

What results have been obtained?

• Specific agri-environmental adaptation measures were seen as better adaptation measures for biodiversity conservation measures.
• Farmers consider conservation contracting to be too bureaucratic and time consuming which decreases its popularity among farmers.
• The need for a more holistic approach to biodiversity conservation in a changing climate was emphasized.
• Possible negative effects of adaptation measures should be taken into account in designing measures.

The stakeholder workshop - August 18th 2011

The workshop was held in the old mansion of the Kosken Kartano organic farm (in Salo, South-Western Finland) the 18th of August 2011. The workshop included representatives from the Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment (ELY centre), MTT Agrifood Research Finland, other interest groups and local farmers. Participants were divided into two working groups for discussions. Participants also answered a pilot survey which was a first draft of the larger scale case study survey planned for farmers in South-Western Finland and Pirkanmaa regions.

Farmers felt that climate change and adaptation options are a somewhat distant subject for them. Therefore there is a clear need for more awareness-raising among farmers. Climate change can also have positive impacts on Finnish farming, as it is likely to lengthen the growing season and allow the use of new crop plants. Farmers are also spontaneously adapting to whatever environmental changes they are faced with without necessarily connecting it to climate change.

Most of the adaptation options mentioned in the workshop were related to AES measures. The voluntary special AES measures were considered more suitable adaptation measures for biodiversity conservation than the scheme's basic measures. This was taken into account when developing the larger-scale farmer survey by emphasizing the role of special measures. The current network of protected areas was seen as insufficient to prevent biodiversity from declining. Species translocation was also seen as a possible adaptation option. The question of how to encourage farmers to join conservation schemes was also raised at the workshop. Farmers consider conservation contracting to be too bureaucratic, time consuming and unprofitable. These factors considerably decrease its popularity among farmers. The need for a more holistic approach to biodiversity conservation in a changing climate was emphasized. Possible negative environmental effects of adaptation measures should also be taken into account.

Fig. 9 Present at the workshop were representatives from the Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment (ELY centre), MTT Agrifood Research Finland, interest groups and farmers. Photo: Olga Mashkina

Fig. 10 A summer time rural landscape from the organic farm "Kosken Kartano". Photo: Olga Mashkina

---

The case study survey - April 2012

One of the objectives of the case study was to conduct a questionnaire survey of farmers' views on the condition of wildlife and biodiversity in farmlands and the usefulness of AES measures. Two study areas, South-Western Finland and Pirkanmaa, were selected for the survey. A postal questionnaire was sent at the beginning of April 2012 to a random sample of about 1000 farmers selected for each area. The final overall response rate was 19.3 % (18 % in South-Western Finland and 20.5 % in Pirkanmaa). Farmers were asked if they have noticed changes of the local environment during the time they have lived in the area (Fig. 12). The responses indicate that for some indicators clear changes have been noted by a substantial proportion of respondents that are directly related to ongoing climate variations (e.g. increasing storminess, increasing rainfall and declining frost occurrence). For some other climate indicators the respondents report either little change (e.g. for floods) or opinion is divided. For indicators that are known to be influenced by climate, between a quarter and a half of respondents reported increases in the amount of fungi, insect pests, crop diseases and weeds. Such trends might logically be related to a lengthening and warming growing season, though other factors such as changes in farm management may also have been influential.

Fig. 11 The case study survey was sent to a total of 2000 farmers.

Fig. 12 Have you noticed changes in your local environment during the time you have lived here? (N=385)

When asked about the current state of biodiversity conservation slightly more than half of the farmers thought that the current level of conservation is sufficient. A third of the respondents recognize a need for increased conservation efforts. A tenth of the farmers argued that too much effort has already gone into biodiversity conservation.

Fig. 13 Farmers' opinion about the current state of grassland biodiversity conservation (N=385)

The farmers were also asked whether or not, in their opinion, agri-environmental agreements help protect engangered species and habitats. An overwhelming majority of respondents (three quarters) either somewhat or strongly agreed that they do, with less than one tenth disagreeing with this view. The respondents also indicated the importance of the impacts the AES measures have on the environment (ecosystem services, recreational opportunities and other conservation benefits) (Fig. 14). Nine out of ten respondents stress the importance of clean water with only a fraction of respondents claiming that it's not important. A vast majority of respondents also consider beautiful scenery, conserving habitats and species and strengthening emotional ties to farmland nature to be important conservation impacts for them. The least important conservation impacts for farmers where improving others' recreational opportunities and nature tourism opportunities.

Fig. 14 How important are the following impacts of AES measures for you? (N=380)

Finally the farmers were asked which of the available voluntary biodiversity conservation AES measures (See step 3) they would be willing to implement at their farm (Fig. 15). The responses show that the most popular AES measures were the establishment and management of a nature management field (NMF), buffer zone (BZ) or a traditional biotope (TB). Not all farmers would have suitable habitats on their farms for some of these measures to be applicable (e.g. wetlands), which accounts for the large numbers who didn't answer (and possibly also some who answered no).

Fig. 15 Which of the following agro-environmental measures would you be willing to implement on your farm? EF = Environmental fallow, BZ = Buffer zone, TB = Traditional biotope, OBH = Other biodiversity habitats and W = Wetlands. (N=385)

Reflections on this step

_

In Finland there has never been a single, thorough study where the variation in local butterfly species richness would have been estimated simultaneously over a wide range of different AES measures. However, during the 21^st century there have been several independent case studies which have each concentrated on one or few of the AES measures. Many of these case studies also provided additional information on the variation of butterfly species richness in some other common agricultural habitats (i.e. narrow open ditch margins, abandoned grassland patches etc.). Therefore, it was possible to combine the results of these separate case studies (or more precisely, their trends in the variation of local species richness) by using the shared habitat types between individual case studies as a 'key' for linking them and rescaling their species data into a roughly same measurement scale.

Using this approach, the actual species richness estimates for each measure were replaced with estimates of their relative species richness (Fig. 7). This enabled quantitative comparisons between individual measures and ranking them according to their significance for butterflies. Average species richness on narrow ditch margins was used as a reference level, receiving value 1.

Fig. 7 The relative species richness of butterflies along a gradient of AES measures. The actual species richness values for different measures were rescaled to the reference level of ordinary ditch margins (receiving the value of 1).

The total areas of agricultural land under each biodiversity-related AES measure are rather low (Table 1). The national target level for the management of traditional biotopes has been set for 60 000 ha, but this goal is still far ahead, as the area under AES contracts has remained rather stable for the past decade.

Table 1. The total areas under four AES measures in Finland.

Agri-environmental measure	Extent in 2011, ha	% of UAA
Management of traditional biotopes	21 043	0,9
Management of other biodiversity habitats	8 528	0,3
Environmental fallow	133 939	5,7
Buffer zones	8 691	0,3

Increasing the uptake of the biodiversity-related AES measures among farmers, for both conservation and adaptation needs, may prove to be a difficult task. Especially the management of traditional biotopes is seriously threatened by the on-going trends of increasing productivity and farm size, accompanied with the decreasing number of cattle farms and the farmers' higher specialization to crop farming.