Agri-environment scheme protects diversity of mountain grassland species

• Published in: Land use policy 2012-07, Vol.29 (3), p.569-576
• Main Authors: Kampmann, Dorothea, Lüscher, Andreas, Konold, Werner, Herzog, Felix
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Agricultural land; Agricultural policy; altitude; Biodiversity; Climate; Cross-compliance; Environment; Europe; farming systems; Farmland biodiversity; issues and policy; land use; Land utilization; Land-use intensity; landscape management; landscapes; Marginal farmland; meadows; Mountain grassland; Nature conservation; Part-time farming; Plants; socioeconomics; species diversity; Surveys
• ISSN: 0264-8377; 1873-5754
• DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.09.010

► We investigated the effectiveness of Ecological Compensation Areas (ECA) for biodiversity protection in Swiss mountain grasslands. ► At lower altitudes the ECA scheme protects a few, economically marginal, species rich and botanically complementary sites, important for maintaining the species pool. ► At higher altitudes, ECA made up 40% or more of the farmland. Whilst ECA and control meadows were similar, the ECA scheme contributes to prevent land abandonment. ► The protection of existing biodiversity should be recognized as a valuable benefit of agri-environmental schemes. Most evaluations of agri-environment policies conducted in Europe have focused on biodiversity improvement effects. Their effectiveness with respect to protecting existing biodiversity has been less investigated. Biodiversity and landscape protection effects can be expected in marginal agricultural areas, where farming has been less intensive. We investigated (i) the effectiveness of the Ecological Compensation Area (ECA) scheme for biodiversity protection according to different evaluation criteria and (ii) how the effectiveness of the scheme was influenced by climate, socio-economic conditions and farming structures. Vegetation surveys were carried out in 18 municipalities across the Swiss Alps on 162 randomly selected meadows managed as ECAs and on 162 conventionally managed meadows. Average species richness of ECA-meadows per municipality ranged between 27 and 46 vascular plant species per 25m 2 (conventionally managed meadows: 16–35 species per 25 m 2). In lower altitude municipalities (mainly fulltime farming) where ECA meadows constituted 20% of farmland, the difference in species richness between the two land-use types was highly significant and the contribution of ECA-meadows to the grassland species pool was highest. In higher altitude municipalities (mainly part-time farming) where ECA meadows constituted at least 40% of farmland, higher species richness was found. This was associated with a strong botanical similarity of ECA and conventionally managed meadows. We conclude that at lower altitudes, where farming is relatively intensive, the ECA scheme protects a few, economically marginal, species rich and botanically complementary sites, important for maintaining the species pool. At higher altitudes the ECA scheme contributes to protecting existing biodiversity at the landscape scale. As it is more efficient to protect than to restore biodiversity, the protection effect of