- Email: [email protected]
Current European policies are unlikely to jointly foster carbon sequestration and protect biodiversity
Biological Conservation 201 (2016) 370–376
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/bioc
Discussion
Current European policies are unlikely to jointly foster carbon sequestration and protect biodiversity Sabina Burrascano a,⁎, Milan Chytrý b, Tobias Kuemmerle c,d, Eleonora Giarrizzo a, Sebastiaan Luyssaert e,f, Francesco Maria Sabatini c, Carlo Blasi a a
Department of Environmental Biology, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy Department of Botany and Zoology, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic Geography Department, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany d Integrative Research Institute on Transformations of Human-Environment Systems (IRI THESys), Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany e LSCE-IPSL, CEA-CNRS-UVSQ, Université Paris-Saclay, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France f Department of Ecological Sciences, VU University, 1081 HV Amsterdam, the Netherlands b c
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 23 February 2016 Received in revised form 25 July 2016 Accepted 2 August 2016 Available online xxxx Keywords: Afforestation Carbon management Climate change mitigation Common Agricultural Policy Grassland biodiversity Habitats Directive
a b s t r a c t The extension of forest area is a globally accepted tool to offset CO2 emissions from deforestation and the combustion of fossil fuels. The common assumption is that in addition to the perceived climate benefits increasing forest area will also support biodiversity, thus making afforestation a “win-win scenario”. Based on the existing scientific evidences, we show that joined climate and biodiversity benefits are strongly context-dependent and that the outcome of afforestation is often highly questionable. In Europe, grasslands managed at low intensity contribute substantially to biodiversity conservation and carbon storage. However, many of these grasslands have been lost due to abandonment and subsequent spontaneous succession towards woody vegetation, or due to land use intensification. Moreover, grasslands are the ecosystems most often deliberately afforested in the context of EU carbon-centered policies that may thus counteract biodiversity conservation programmes. By reviewing the main EU policies targeting forests and grasslands, we found a striking ambivalence between policies and funding schemes addressing grassland conservation on the one hand (e.g. Habitats Directive, green payments within the Common Agricultural Policy) and those supporting afforestation on the other (e.g. rural development funds). We suggest three measures towards a better harmonization of the European Union policies that target forest and grassland ecosystems: (1) promoting the alignment of the decisions taken across different policy sectors; (2) focusing on the whole range of ecosystem services and biodiversity issues rather than on carbon management only; (3) valuing systems managed at low-intensity for their multifunctionality. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Climate change and biodiversity loss are two global crises that are often addressed through policies targeting land-use planning in forestry and agriculture. Recently, the global area of temperate forests has been stable or even increasing. Even though this trend is often perceived as creating co-benefits for carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation (Lin et al., 2013; MEA, 2005), this assumption often remains
⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Environmental Biology, Sapienza University of Rome, P.le Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Burrascano), [email protected] (M. Chytrý), [email protected] (T. Kuemmerle), [email protected] (E. Giarrizzo), [email protected] (S. Luyssaert), [email protected] (F.M. Sabatini), [email protected] (C. Blasi).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.08.005 0006-3207/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
unassessed. It is therefore important to consider the land-use processes through which the forest increase is occurring and to explore the full range of their implications for both carbon cycling and biodiversity (Bremer and Farley, 2010). In the temperate zone, forest and grassland ecosystems are often spatially contiguous and tightly linked by successional dynamics. Semi-natural grasslands are usually colonized by woody vegetation once abandoned (hereafter: natural expansion of forest) or are converted to forest through the deliberate planting of trees (hereafter: afforestation). Although both ways of forest expansion have important implications for carbon cycling and biodiversity, there is a weak integration of research on forests and grasslands, as well as of research on carbon sequestration and biodiversity. For example, studies listed in the Web of Science (accessed in May 2016) considering carbon and biodiversity in both forest and grasslands (forest + grassland + management + carbon + biodiversity) are
S. Burrascano et al. / Biological Conservation 201 (2016) 370–376
far less numerous (n = 64) than those focused solely on either forests (forest + management + carbon + biodiversity; n = 787) or on grasslands (grassland + management + carbon + biodiversity; n = 206). Of those studies assessing carbon or biodiversity in forest and grasslands, many assessed the effects on biodiversity of either natural expansion of forest or afforestation. Both processes may have diverging outcomes especially depending on the land cover type on which they occur, with highly detrimental effects especially in grasslands. Indeed, when abandoned, semi-natural grasslands often face a strong decline in plant species richness (Uchida and Ushimaru, 2014), in contrast with what was found for other categories of agricultural land use (Plieninger et al., 2014). The same is true for afforestation, with grasslands globally being the land cover type on which afforestation has the most negative outcome for plant species richness (Bremer and Farley, 2010). In certain cases, even when degraded pastures dominated by exotic species are afforested, no significant increase in biodiversity may occur (Bremer and Farley, 2010). If considering all pastures as a single category, afforested areas at the global scale were found to support higher species richness only for few taxonomic groups (herptiles and birds, but not for mammals, invertebrates and plants) and, more importantly, positive effects on biodiversity were found only in the pastures with no remnant natural vegetation (Felton et al., 2010). Regarding carbon sequestration, forest expansion undoubtedly increases biomass carbon stocks, but a range of studies have also demonstrated that, in pastures, this may lead to declining soil organic carbon by changes in the fine root dynamics (Barcena et al., 2014). Indeed, as a consequence of natural expansion of forests, soil organic carbon losses were found to even offset the increase in plant biomass carbon even after 30 to 100 years in a US region with annual precipitation between 700 and 1000 mm (Jackson et al., 2002). Similarly, a global meta-analysis on the effects of afforestation indicates a net decline in soil carbon stocks after changes from pastures to forest plantation, especially in moist regions (annual precipitation N1200 mm) and if conifer trees are planted (Guo and Gifford, 2002). Likewise, a synthesis for Northern Europe found no significant increase in the carbon stored in soils even 30 years after the afforestation of pastures (Barcena et al., 2014). Overall, the often assumed general co-benefits of increased carbon stocks and biodiversity protection appear questionable where grasslands are converted to forests. In Europe, semi-natural grasslands have been created and maintained over centuries of low-intensity management, such as livestock grazing or mowing. Today they support extremely high biodiversity (Dengler et al., 2014; Chytrý et al., 2015), and significant amounts of soil carbon (Lugato et al., 2014). Due to environmental, demographic, economic and political changes, land management in Europe has caused major fluctuations in the relative proportion of forests and grasslands (Fuchs et al., 2015; Kaplan et al., 2009; Munteanu et al., 2014). While forest extent reached a low-point in many European regions from the 18th to the early 20th century (Kuemmerle et al., 2015), the abandonment of semi-natural grasslands and the expansion of forest have been among the dominating land-use trends in Europe during the last century (Jepsen et al., 2015). For this reason, policies promoting forest expansion at the expense of remaining semi-natural grasslands may risk the overall reduction of biodiversity in the European Union (EU). Here we synthesize the existing evidence on the contribution of EU forests and grasslands to carbon storage and biodiversity conservation, and hypothesize that the limited attention paid to the potential conflicts between carbon management and biodiversity conservation in the scientific community will be reflected in European policies. Where such conflicts exist, they may reduce the overall effectiveness of the EU policies, and are likely to be propagated into the national policies of the individual EU member states. Finally we outline a way to alleviate the existing conflicts and therefore to better balance carbon management and biodiversity conservation in European grasslands.
371
2. Forests and grasslands for carbon storage and biodiversity conservation Together, forests and grasslands cover N50% of the EU land area and host the vast majority of Europe's terrestrial biodiversity (Fig. 1). According to the European Habitats Directive (92/443/EEC), which has been the cornerstone of biodiversity conservation in Europe since 1992, approximately 17% of the forest and 14% of grassland areas are designated as Natural Habitat Types of Community Interest, and a third of this area as Priority Habitat Types (Fig. 1). Considering the role played by forests in offsetting CO2 emissions, the past two decades may be viewed as remarkably positive for Europe. First, mainly due to a socio-economic transformation of rural areas, EU-27 forests underwent a 12.9 million hectare (Mha) expansion on abandoned agricultural land between 1990 and 2015 (Forest
Fig. 1. Role of European grasslands and forests in biodiversity conservation and carbon sequestration. Surface areas are derived from FAOSTAT and Forest Europe (2015); habitat areas from EIONET (http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/article17/index_html/habitatsreport); number of threatened species from EEA (2010) except for vascular plants whose assessment was performed only on those species listed in European and international policy instruments (Bilz et al., 2011); Net Primary Productivity is based on Schulze et al. (2009); Carbon Storage is taken from Pan et al. (2011) for forests (biomass, deadwood, litter and soil); for grasslands, we only report soil carbon (Lugato et al., 2014) with the carbon contained in live biomass estimated as 3.0–4.5 t C ha−1 yr−1 (see Ruesch and Gibbs, 2008). All data refer to the EU-27 except for Net Primary Productivity (EU-25), Carbon Storage for grasslands (EU-28 plus 6 non-member states) and forests (41 European countries).
372
S. Burrascano et al. / Biological Conservation 201 (2016) 370–376
Europe, 2015), of which N 1.5 Mha were deliberately afforested (UNECE/FAO, 2011). Second, only 60–70% of the annual increment is currently being harvested in the EU-27 (EC, 2013). This is also because a substantial proportion of European forests, often located in remote or protected areas, are today managed less intensively than in the past, or are abandoned altogether. These phenomena cause an increase in the proportion of late successional forests (UNECE/ FAO, 2011), with renowned benefits for carbon storage (Luyssaert et al., 2008; Burrascano et al., 2013). Forest ageing also affects the diversity of different taxa, though in a more complex way than it affects carbon stocks. Several taxonomic groups, including species of high conservation value, are related both to tree and deadwood habitats, and to semi-open habitats or canopy gaps (Vodka et al., 2009; Kosulic et al., 2016). The joint occurrence of large trees, deadwood and abundant solar radiation may naturally occur in forested landscapes where natural disturbance occur (Brunet et al., 2010). Similar habitat conditions are also maintained through extensive, traditional management systems such as coppicing and wood pasturing (Bergmeier et al., 2010; Fartmann et al., 2013). As these specific management practices are being abandoned, the conversion of coppices to high-forests and the progressive closure of wood pastures may threaten many highly specialized taxa (Vodka et al., 2009). Similarly to forests, semi-natural grasslands provide a wide range of critical ecosystem services, including carbon sequestration, livestock provision, regulation of soil erosion and water flow, and recreation. Indeed, the ecosystem services that are provided by grasslands were recently estimated to be as high as about 2600 euros per hectare per
year on average (Hönigová et al., 2012). In addition to the mentioned services, semi-natural grasslands have a great relevance for the conservation of threatened species, especially of plants and insects. Indeed, even though occupying much smaller areas than forests, grasslands host 15% of the vascular plant species listed in the IUCN threatened categories for Europe (Fig. 1; please note that red list for vascular plants were based on an assessment that considered only species included in conservation policies, see Bilz et al., 2011; EEA, 2010). Also net primary productivity per unit area was found to be greater in European grasslands than in forests, although the total carbon storage is larger in forests than in grasslands (Fig. 1). The outlook for semi-natural grasslands is, however, more negative than that for forests. Semi-natural grasslands exist because of extensive human management, hence, they are threatened by both abandonment and management intensification. Between 1990 and 2013 approximately 5 Mha of grasslands were lost in the EU-27 (FAO, 2015). Although this estimate does not account for the gain in grassland area due to recent farmland abandonment (Estel et al., 2015; Fuchs et al., 2015), the net result is a substantial loss of semi-natural grassland. Across the EU-27, 40% of this loss was caused by conversion to cropland, 30% by urban and infrastructure sprawl, 20 and 10% respectively by forest expansion and afforestation (EEA, 2010). Afforestation and natural forest expansion are more likely to occur in areas with specific natural constraints to agricultural production, for instance in the mountainous areas such as the Apennines (Falcucci et al., 2007), the Carpathians (Kuemmerle et al., 2008), or the Pyrenees (Stuhldreher et al., 2012). Owing to their economic hardship, which is
Fig. 2. Distribution in the EU-27 of high likelihood (N50%) of occurrence of High Nature Value (HNV) areas and Less Favoured Areas for agricultural production. Based on the intersection of these layers, we calculated that 70% of HNV areas is included in Less Favoured Areas.
S. Burrascano et al. / Biological Conservation 201 (2016) 370–376
often caused by natural constraints, these areas have been classified in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) as Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) and within them farmers receive subsidies to maintain management. Nevertheless, both afforestation and natural forest expansion are still common in these areas since subsidies may slow down but not halt strong socio-economic trends such as the abandonment of marginal areas (Fischer et al., 2012). Moreover, subsidies are given to support farmers in maintaining production of either food or wood. Given these trends, it is worrisome that up to 70% of High Nature Value farmland (HNV), i.e. low-input farming systems (Paracchini et al., 2008) occurs within these LFAs (Fig. 2). Management intensification, instead, occurs in areas highly suitable for agricultural production. Grasslands subjected to intensification often face a reduction in species diversity (Uchida and Ushimaru, 2014) owing to increased grazing pressure, fertilizer application, frequent mowing or sowing of a few highly productive species with negative repercussions on carbon sequestration rates (Ward et al., 2016). Soil carbon losses are substantial when grassland is converted to cropland; indeed, mean topsoil organic carbon stocks were estimated as 127 and 60 t C ha− 1, respectively for pastures and cropland (Lugato et al., 2014). This difference is likely to be even greater for HNV grasslands, because these encompass also mires and heathlands, and natural grasslands. Indeed, these ecosystems have a mean content of organic carbon in topsoil of ca. 132 and 68 g kg−1, respectively, substantially higher than pastures in more intensive agricultural areas (59 g kg−1) (data EU-25, de Brogniez et al., 2015). 3. Conflicting policies Several EU policies aim at biodiversity conservation by specifically addressing the issue of grassland maintenance, above all the Habitats Directive, which is mainly implemented through the Natura 2000 network and by the LIFE+ Programme (Fig. 3). For instance, in 2013 the LIFE+ Programme alone invested over 39 million euros in conservation and restoration projects that addressed grassland habitats, either exclusively or together with related habitats (data: LIFE+ project database). In accordance with the recognized need to align agriculture and nature conservation efforts (Hodge et al., 2015), the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP 2014–2020) includes measures aimed at the conservation of semi-natural grasslands. Some of these measures rely on the funding for rural development and support the agricultural practices suitable
Goals
EU documents
Biodiversity Conservation
373
for maintaining semi-natural grasslands in Less Favoured Areas and within the Natura 2000 network (CAP funding of approx. 2 billion and 40 million EUR, respectively, in 2013, see Fig. 3). However, the commitment of the CAP to environmental issues is largely included within the newly established greening measures (about 12 billion EUR per year), which are intended as payments for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment, and should therefore act in synergy with the Habitats Directive. Three greening measures are included in the CAP: crop diversification, the creation of Ecological Focus Areas on agricultural land, and the maintenance of existing permanent grassland (EU Regulation 1307/2013). While crop diversification does not cause substantial changes in land cover, the other two measures have direct effects on the extent of semi-natural grasslands and wooded vegetation. Ecological Focus Areas include for instance nitrogen fixing crops, catch crops, and short-rotation coppices. These land use categories are promoted to help maintain soil and water quality but do not necessarily deliver benefits for biodiversity, especially without specific management guidelines (Pe'er et al., 2014). More importantly, the maintenance of permanent grasslands (Fig. 3) binds farmers to maintain the areas occupied by pastures and meadows, which cannot be reduced or expanded by N 5% of their original extent. However, this measure is not always effective for the conservation of grassland biodiversity for two main reasons. Firstly, it only aims at preserving the extent of permanent grasslands without any specific focus on their management, which is the most important factor to attain environmental benefits (Pe'er et al., 2014). As currently defined, permanent grasslands cover an immense range of farmland types, from intensively managed grasslands that may be heavily fertilized, irrigated and re-sown, to unsown semi-natural pastures under extensive grazing. The introduction of a standard set of rules for such highly diverse types of farmland across the EU gives minimal consideration to the different potential for environmental and agronomic outcomes, and may foster enormous environmental losses both in terms of biodiversity (Pe'er et al., 2014) and carbon storage when management practices are intensified (EFNCP, 2012). Secondly, this specific greening measure ensures that all the grasslands are maintained only within areas specifically designated that include the Natura 2000 sites and additional areas that may (or may not) be identified by each member state (Regulation EU 1307/2013, art. 45, par. 1). Outside these designated areas it is not mandatory to maintain grasslands, but only to keep the ratio between the area of permanent grassland and
Climate Change Mitigation through LULUCF
Common Agricultural Policy
Kyoto Protocol
Management of Natura 2000
Measures for Less Favoured Areas
Voluntary Carbon Market
LIFE+ Nature & Biodiversity
Greening (Permanent Pasture Maintenance)
Habitat Directive
Funding streams
Greening (Ecological Focus Areas)
Energy Supply Security
Renewable Energy Action Plans
Improving Forest Resources Increase in biomass used for energy production
Rural Development Regulation
Outcomes
Drawbacks
Semi-natural grassland conservation and restoration
Deliberate afforestation of marginal areas
Negative effects of afforestation on biodiversity
By 2020 more harvested timber used for energy production Conversion of carbon stocks into carbon dioxide
Fig. 3. Goals, documents, funding streams, outcomes and drawbacks of current policies related to biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation through Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry. Light-green boxes refer to the funds and outcomes addressing the conservation of semi-natural grasslands, dark-green boxes to those addressing afforestation, and blue boxes to actions aimed at increasing the proportion of energy supplied by the use of biomass. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
374
S. Burrascano et al. / Biological Conservation 201 (2016) 370–376
total agricultural land at the national, regional or sub-regional level. Reconverting land into permanent grassland is required if this ratio decreases by N5% (Regulation EU 1307/2013, art. 45, par. 3). However, the environmental benefits conveyed by reconverted grasslands are much lower than those of maintaining existing grasslands. Furthermore, it is iconic that reconversion is not obligatory where a decrease over the threshold is due to afforestation (Regulation EU 1307/2013, art. 45, par. 4). Indeed, while the CAP is paying to maintain permanent grasslands in some areas, it may also be paying to convert similar grasslands into forests through rural development funds (Fig. 3), which supports deliberate afforestation (220 million EUR in 2013). Already in 1992, the EU supported afforestation on agricultural land (Council Regulation 2080/ 92) under the MacSharry reforms, which included subsidies for setaside and afforestation among a series of measures to control agricultural production (e.g. stocking thresholds and retirement promotion). In 1998, while defining the European Forest Strategy (Council Resolution of 15 December 1998), the Commission stated that the afforestation of 500,000 ha of agricultural land between 1993 and 1997 had only a small impact on reducing surplus agricultural production, but generated a number of positive environmental effects (although no specific references were given to support this claim). Since then, the premises for supporting afforestation shifted from production regulation to the protection of the environment, the prevention of natural hazards and fires, and to climate change mitigation (Council Regulation 1698/2005). Even though based on different premises, the afforestation measures formulated in 1992 were kept mostly unchanged in the following Council Regulations on Rural Development (no. 1257/1999; 1698/2005), and are still supported with no substantial variation in the current Rural Development regulation (no. 1305/2013). In addition to European policies, individual countries are also developing national policies to comply with their commitments for the Kyoto protocol. For instance, the Italian government granted 5.25 million euros for projects including forest management, as well as afforestation and reforestation with indigenous plants in marginal land. Also Ireland has national programmes for afforestation, whose annual rate between 1990 and 2002 was around 20,000 ha (Zanchi et al., 2007). Finally, the EU Energy Strategies may play a major role (Fig. 3). To decrease EU energy dependency and CO2 emissions, the European Commission has set a 20% target for primary energy from renewable resources, 42% of which should come from biomass (EC, 2013, Fig. 3). Broad-scale bioenergy production may have important environmental and economic implications, which may not necessarily result in major greenhouse gas emission savings. Indeed, the assumption that forest biomass combustion is carbon-neutral fails to consider the plant growth and consequent carbon sequestration that would occur in the absence of bioenergy production (Hudiburg et al., 2011). Similarly, the large amounts of fertilizers, irrigation, and labour required to produce crop biomass are themselves a source of greenhouse gas emissions, making this kind of bioenergy far less effective for greenhouse gas reduction than biomass deriving from low-input, high-diversity grasslands (Tilman et al., 2006). 4. Moving forward Our evaluation of the scientific data and policies demonstrated that the effects of land management policies on biodiversity and carbon sequestration differ between grasslands and forests. For instance, while afforestation and natural expansion of forest on farmland may support forest-dwelling species and benefit carbon storage, it often has negative effects on biodiversity when it happens on semi-natural grassland habitats, which are mostly in an unfavourable conservation status (EEA, 2015). Furthermore, reduced atmospheric carbon concentrations through land-use changes do not necessarily contribute to climate change mitigation, because carbon sequestration may be offset by concurrent changes in albedo, evapotranspiration, or aerodynamic surface
roughness length (Pielke et al., 2011; Naudts et al., 2016). The overall benefits of land-use changes for climate change mitigation and maintaining biodiversity are thus unclear. We propose three measures that could contribute to more effective policy making based on current understanding of the effects of land use changes on carbon and biodiversity in forests and grasslands: (1) Harmonize the goals pursued by the different Directorates of the European Commission. The current EU administrative organization is composed of sectorial Directorate, each of which influences decisions of the European Commission regarding different ecosystem services that are beneficial for agriculture and rural development, energy production, or the environment. In spite of efforts to align the various decisions, this fragmented structure still results in incoherent land-use policies both across and within sectors. Although unlikely to emerge soon, a simplified administrative structure would probably increase the coherence and effectiveness of land-use-related policy. (2) Focus on the whole range of ecosystem services rather than on carbon management only. Protecting high-carbon ecosystems from land-use change undoubtedly plays a role in a comprehensive approach to greenhouse gas mitigation. Nevertheless, the idea of off-setting CO2 emissions by increasing the uptake of CO2 in land systems, although reiterated in the recent COP21 agreement (COP 21 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Paris 2015), is based on erroneous assumptions since the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems to remove and store CO2 from the atmosphere in the long-term is limited and not comparable to the stock of fossil fuels that are bound to be burnt (Mackey et al., 2013). Several ecosystem services other than carbon sequestration exist that can no longer be provided once carbon management is put in the foreground. These unique services, which range from the regulation of local climate and air quality, to supporting habitats and species diversity, and the maintenance of cultural, recreational and aesthetic values, should be carefully considered in policy decisions that affect land use. Shifting the focus of land management away from carbon management in favour of other ecosystem services is likely to create room for more balanced policy decisions. Given that in Europe the demand for land exceeds by far the supply, land-use policies, no matter how effectively they are planned and carried out, will inevitably result in conflicts between different land uses. (3) Valuing extensively managed ecosystems for their multifunctionality. Although the relevance of semi-natural grasslands for biodiversity and other ecosystem functions is already recognized by several EU resolutions, these grasslands are labeled as ‘marginal’ when land is needed for other more profitable functions. This lack of coherence could be counteracted by valuing extensively managed ecosystems for their multifunctionality. The maintenance of high levels of ecosystem performance is often mediated by their biodiversity, especially if multiple functions are considered (Lefcheck et al., 2015). Indeed, species complementarity has positive effects on different functions, therefore if multi-functionality is to be achieved, managing for high diversity is advisable. For instance, within the current socio-economic context, land uses such as low-intensity grasslands and forests may be maintained for bioenergy production if a lower productivity is accepted in favour of conserving them as relevant habitats and for the other ecosystem services they provide (Tilman et al., 2006). 5. Conclusions The current scientific knowledge on the outcomes of land-use changes between forests and grasslands in Europe demonstrates the critical role of both systems for biodiversity conservation and for carbon
S. Burrascano et al. / Biological Conservation 201 (2016) 370–376
storage. Here we show that the often perceived co-benefits of converting grassland to forest, either through natural forest expansion or afforestation, may not be. Indeed, especially in the case of semi-natural grasslands, negative outcomes both in terms of soil carbon storage and biodiversity, are plausible. Furthermore, our review of the current policy landscape highlights important conflicts between existing policies to mitigate climate change and increase carbon sequestration on the one hand, and farmland biodiversity conservation on the other. At the European scale, current land-use trends clearly suggest a continued abandonment of marginal farmland, especially semi-natural grasslands, and a concomitant increase in forest area. These changes in area are mainly driven by socio-economic shifts that are independent of the EU climate change mitigation policies. Given this reality, the current carbon-centered policy further promoting and allocating funding to afforestation may only marginally contribute to the international commitment to mitigating climate change while resulting in a substantial decline in biodiversity as well as in fewer ecosystem services. We therefore advocate a better harmonization of the European Union policies that target forest and grassland ecosystems, and suggest to: (1) promote the alignment of the decisions taken across different policy sectors; (2) focus on the whole range of ecosystem services and biodiversity issues rather than on carbon management only; (3) value lowintensity managed systems for their multifunctionality. Our recommendations strongly point to an interdisciplinary approach both in science and policy-making that could allow for a thorough scientific evaluation of the measures that should drive land-use changes and for harmonized policies that effectively apply the most appropriate measures. Acknowledgements We thank Cristiano Ballabio, Emanuele Lugato and Maria Luisa Paracchini of the Joint Research Centre (Institute for Environment and Sustainability), and Lorenzo Orlandini of the European Commission DG Agriculture and Rural Development for information on the existing EU datasets. We thank the European Commission for financial support (project HERCULES, No. 603447). We also thank three anonymous reviewers for useful comments and suggestions, and Lewis Baker for the linguistic revision of the text. References Barcena, T.G., Kiaer, L.P., Vesterdal, L., Stefansdottir, H.M., Gundersen, P., Sigurdsson, B.D., 2014. Soil carbon stock change following afforestation in Northern Europe: a metaanalysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 20, 2393–2405. Bergmeier, E., Petermann, J., Schroder, E., 2010. Geobotanical survey of wood-pasture habitats in Europe: diversity, threats and conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 19, 2995–3014. Bilz, M., Kell, S.P., Maxted, N., Lansdown, R.V., 2011. European Red List of Vascular Plants. Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Bremer, L.L., Farley, K.A., 2010. Does plantation forestry restore biodiversity or create green deserts? A synthesis of the effects of land-use transitions on plant species richness. Biodivers. Conserv. 19, 3893–3915. Brunet, J., Fritz, Ö., Richnau, G., 2010. Biodiversity in European beech forests—a review with recommendations for sustainable forest management. Ecol. Bull. 53, 77–94. Burrascano, S., Keeton, W.S., Sabatini, F.M., Blasi, C., 2013. Commonality and variability in the structural attributes of moist temperate old-growth forests: a global review. For. Ecol. Manag. 291, 458–479. Chytrý, M., Dražil, T., Hájek, M., Kalníková, V., Preislerová, Z., Šibík, J., Ujházy, K., Axmanová, I., Bernátová, D., Blanár, D., Dančák, M., Dřevojan, P., Fajmon, K., Galvánek, D., Hájková, P., Herben, T., Hrivnák, R., Janeček, S., Janišová, M., Jiráská, S., Kliment, J., Kochjarová, J., Lepš, J., Leskovjanská, A., Merunková, K., Mládek, J., Slezák, M., Šeffer, J., Šefferová, V., Škodová, I., Uhlířová, J., Ujházyová, M., Vymazalová, M., 2015. The most species-rich plant communities in the Czech Republic and Slovakia (with new world records). Preslia 87, 217–278. de Brogniez, D., Ballabio, C., Stevens, A., Jones, R.J.A., Montanarella, L., van Wesemael, B., 2015. A map of the topsoil organic carbon content of Europe generated by a generalized additive model. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 66, 121–134. Dengler, J., Janišová, M., Török, P., Wellstein, C., 2014. Biodiversity of Palaearctic grasslands: a synthesis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 182, 1–14. EC - European Commission, 2013. A new EU forest strategy: for forests and the forestbased sector. COM(2013) 659 Final, Brussels, 20.9.2013. EEA, 2010. EU 2010 biodiversity baseline. EEA Technical Report No 12/2010. Publications Office of the European Union, Copenhagen, Luxembourg.
375
EEA, 2015. State of Nature in the EU. EEA Technical Report No 2/2015. Publications Office of the European Union, Copenhagen, Luxembourg. EFNCP - European Forum on Nature Conservation and Patoralism, 2012s. Improving Pillar 1 greening and GAEC options for permanent pasture. EFNCP Response to the Commission Services Concept Paper on Greening of 11th May 2012 (http://www.efncp.org/ download/EFNCP-improvements-permanent-pasture-greening-GAEC-and-supportmeasures.pdf). Estel, S., Kuemmerle, T., Alcantara, C., Levers, C., Prishchepov, A., Hostert, P., 2015. Mapping farmland abandonment and recultivation across Europe using MODIS NDVI time series. Remote Sens. Environ. 163, 312–325. Falcucci, A., Maiorano, L., Boitani, L., 2007. Changes in land-use/land-cover patterns in Italy and their implications for biodiversity conservation. Landsc. Ecol. 22, 617–631. FAO, 2015. FAOSTAT, download data. http://faostat3.fao.org/download/R/RL/E (accessed 28.12.15). Fartmann, T., Muller, C., Poniatowski, D., 2013. Effects of coppicing on butterfly communities of woodlands. Biol. Conserv. 159, 396–404. Felton, A., Knight, E., Wood, J., Zammit, C., Lindenmayer, D., 2010. A meta-analysis of fauna and flora species richness and abundance in plantations and pasture lands. Biol. Conserv. 143, 545–554. Fischer, J., Hartel, T., Kuemmerle, T., 2012. Conservation policy in traditional farming landscapes. Conserv. Lett. 5, 167–175. Forest Europe, 2015. State of Europe's Forests 2015. Fuchs, R., Herold, M., Verburg, P.H., Clevers, J.G.P.W., Eberle, J., 2015. Gross changes in reconstructions of historic land cover/use for Europe between 1900 and 2010. Glob. Chang. Biol. 21, 299–313. Guo, L.B., Gifford, R.M., 2002. Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 8, 345–360. Hodge, I., Hauck, J., Bonn, A., 2015. The alignment of agricultural and nature conservation policies in the European Union. Conserv. Biol. 29, 996–1005. Hönigová, I., Vačkář, D., Lorencová, E., Melichar, J., Götzl, M., Sonderegger, G., Oušková, V., Hošek, M., Chobot, K., 2012. Survey on Grassland Ecosystem Services. EEA—European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity, Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 1–78. Hudiburg, T.W., Law, B.E., Wirth, C., Luyssaert, S., 2011. Regional carbon dioxide implications of forest bioenergy production. Nat. Clim. Chang. 1, 419–423. Jackson, R.B., Banner, J.L., Jobbagy, E.G., Pockman, W.T., Wall, D.H., 2002. Ecosystem carbon loss with woody plant invasion of grasslands. Nature 418, 623–626. Jepsen, M.R., Kuemmerle, T., Mueller, D., Erb, K., Verburgf, P.H., Haberl, H., Vesterager, J.P., Andric, M., Antrop, M., Austrheim, G., Bjorn, I., Bondeau, A., Buergi, M., Bryson, J., Caspar, G., Cassar, L.F., Conrad, E., Chromy, P., Daugirdas, V., Van Eetvelde, V., ElenaRossello, R., Gimmi, U., Izakovicova, Z., Jancak, V., Jansson, U., Kladnik, D., Kozak, J., Konkoly-Gyuro, E., Krausmann, F., Mander, U., McDonagh, J., Paern, J., Niedertscheider, M., Nikodemus, O., Ostapowicz, K., Perez-Soba, M., Pinto-Correia, T., Ribokas, G., Rounsevell, M., Schistou, D., Schmit, C., Terkenli, T.S., Tretvik, A.M., Trzepacz, P., Vadineanu, A., Walz, A., Zhllima, E., Reenberg, A., 2015. Transitions in European land-management regimes between 1800 and 2010. Land Use Policy 49, 53–64. Kaplan, J.O., Krumhardt, K.M., Zimmermann, N., 2009. The prehistoric and preindustrial deforestation of Europe. Quat. Sci. Rev. 28, 3016–3034. Kosulic, O., Michalko, R., Hula, V., 2016. Impact of canopy openness on spider communities: Implications for conservation management of formerly coppiced oak forests. PLoS One 11. Kuemmerle, T., Hostert, P., Radeloff, V.C., van der Linden, S., Perzanowski, K., Kruhlov, I., 2008. Cross-border comparison of post-socialist farmland abandonment in the Carpathians. Ecosystems 11, 614–628. Kuemmerle, T., Kaplan, J.O., Prishchepov, A.V., Rylsky, I., Chaskovskyy, O., Tikunov, V.S., Mueller, D., 2015. Forest transitions in Eastern Europe and their effects on carbon budgets. Glob. Chang. Biol. 21, 3049–3061. Lefcheck, J.S., Byrnes, J.E.K., Isbell, F., Gamfeldt, L., Griffin, J.N., Eisenhauer, N., Hensel, M.J.S., Hector, A., Cardinale, B.J., Duffy, J.E., 2015. Biodiversity enhances ecosystem multifunctionality across trophic levels and habitats. Nat. Commun. 6. LIFE + project database, d. url http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/ index.cfm?fuseaction=home.search&cfid=2205347&cftoken=87584984. Lin, B.B., Macfadyen, S., Renwick, A.R., Cunningham, S.A., Schellhorn, N.A., 2013. Maximizing the environmental benefits of carbon farming through ecosystem service delivery. Bioscience 63, 793–803. Lugato, E., Panagos, P., Bampa, F., Jones, A., Montanarella, L., 2014. A new baseline of organic carbon stock in European agricultural soils using a modelling approach. Glob. Chang. Biol. 20, 313–326. Luyssaert, S., Schulze, E.D., Borner, A., Knohl, A., Hessenmoller, D., Law, B.E., Ciais, P., Grace, J., 2008. Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature 455, 213–215. Mackey, B., Prentice, I.C., Steffen, W., House, J.I., Lindenmayer, D., Keith, H., Berry, S., 2013. Untangling the confusion around land carbon science and climate change mitigation policy. Nat. Clim. Chang. 3, 552–557. MEA - Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. Munteanu, C., Kuemmerle, T., Boltiziar, M., Butsic, V., Gimmi, U., Halada, L., Kaim, D., Kiraly, G., Konkoly-Gyuro, E., Kozak, J., Lieskovsky, J., Mojses, M., Mueller, D., Ostafin, K., Ostapowicz, K., Shandra, O., Stych, P., Walker, S., Radeloff, V.C., 2014. Forest and agricultural land change in the Carpathian region—a meta-analysis of long-term patterns and drivers of change. Land Use Policy 38, 685–697. Naudts, K., Chen, Y., McGrath, M.J., Ryder, J., Valade, A., Otto, J., Luyssaert, S., 2016. Europe's forest management did not mitigate climate warming. Science 351, 597–600. Pan, Y.D., Birdsey, R.A., Fang, J.Y., Houghton, R., Kauppi, P.E., Kurz, W.A., Phillips, O.L., Shvidenko, A., Lewis, S.L., Canadell, J.G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R.B., Pacala, S.W., McGuire, A.D., Piao, S.L., Rautiainen, A., Sitch, S., Hayes, D., 2011. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world's forests. Science 333, 988–993.
376
S. Burrascano et al. / Biological Conservation 201 (2016) 370–376
Paracchini, M.L., Petersen, J.-E., Hoogeveen, Y., Bamps, C., Burfield, I., van Swaay, C., 2008. High nature value farmland in Europe. An Estimate of the Distribution Patterns on the Basis of Land Cover and Biodiversity Data. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxemburg. Pe'er, G., Dicks, L.V., Visconti, P., Arlettaz, R., Baldi, A., Benton, T.G., Collins, S., Dieterich, M., Gregory, R.D., Hartig, F., Henle, K., Hobson, P.R., Kleijn, D., Neumann, R.K., Robijns, T., Schmidt, J., Shwartz, A., Sutherland, W.J., Turbe, A., Wulf, F., Scott, A.V., 2014. EU agricultural reform fails on biodiversity. Science 344, 1090–1092. Pielke, R.A., Pitman, A., Niyogi, D., Mahmood, R., McAlpine, C., Hossain, F., Goldewijk, K.K., Nair, U., Betts, R., Fall, S., Reichstein, M., Kabat, P., de Noblet, N., 2011. Land use/land cover changes and climate: modeling analysis and observational evidence. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2, 828–850. Plieninger, T., Hui, C., Gaertner, M., Huntsinger, L., 2014. The impact of land abandonment on species richness and abundance in the Mediterranean Basin: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 9. Ruesch, A., Gibbs, H., 2008. New IPCC Tier1 Global Biomass Carbon Map for the Year 2000. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, UK. Schulze, E.D., Luyssaert, S., Ciais, P., Freibauer, A., Janssens, I.A., Soussana, J.F., Smith, P., Grace, J., Levin, I., Thiruchittampalam, B., Heimann, M., Dolman, A.J., Valentini, R., Bousquet, P., Peylin, P., Peters, W., Rodenbeck, C., Etiope, G., Vuichard, N.,
Wattenbach, M., Nabuurs, G.J., Poussi, Z., Nieschulze, J., Gash, J.H., CarboEurope, T., 2009. Importance of methane and nitrous oxide for Europe's terrestrial greenhouse-gas balance. Nat. Geosci. 2, 842–850. Stuhldreher, G., Villar, L., Fartmann, T., 2012. Inhabiting warm microhabitats and riskspreading as strategies for survival of a phytophagous insect living in common pastures in the Pyrenees. Eur. J. Entomol. 109, 527–534. Tilman, D., Hill, J., Lehman, C., 2006. Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity grassland biomass. Science 314, 1598–1600. Uchida, K., Ushimaru, A., 2014. Biodiversity declines due to abandonment and intensification of agricultural lands: patterns and mechanisms. Ecol. Monogr. 84, 637–658. UNECE/FAO, 2011. State of Europe's Forests 2011. Status and Trends in Sustainable Forest Management in Europe, Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe. Vodka, S., Konvicka, M., Cizek, L., 2009. Habitat preferences of oak-feeding xylophagous beetles in a temperate woodland: implications for forest history and management. J. Insect Conserv. 13, 553–562. Ward, S.E., Smart, S.M., Quirk, H., Tallowin, J.R.B., Mortimer, S.R., Shiel, R.S., Wilby, A., Bardgett, R.D., 2016. Legacy effects of grassland management on soil carbon to depth. Glob. Chang. Biol. 22, 2829–2838. Zanchi, G., Thiel, D., Green, T., Lindner, M., 2007. Afforestation in Europe final version 26/ 01/07, European Forest Institute.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/bioc
Discussion
Current European policies are unlikely to jointly foster carbon sequestration and protect biodiversity Sabina Burrascano a,⁎, Milan Chytrý b, Tobias Kuemmerle c,d, Eleonora Giarrizzo a, Sebastiaan Luyssaert e,f, Francesco Maria Sabatini c, Carlo Blasi a a
Department of Environmental Biology, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy Department of Botany and Zoology, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic Geography Department, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany d Integrative Research Institute on Transformations of Human-Environment Systems (IRI THESys), Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany e LSCE-IPSL, CEA-CNRS-UVSQ, Université Paris-Saclay, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France f Department of Ecological Sciences, VU University, 1081 HV Amsterdam, the Netherlands b c
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 23 February 2016 Received in revised form 25 July 2016 Accepted 2 August 2016 Available online xxxx Keywords: Afforestation Carbon management Climate change mitigation Common Agricultural Policy Grassland biodiversity Habitats Directive
a b s t r a c t The extension of forest area is a globally accepted tool to offset CO2 emissions from deforestation and the combustion of fossil fuels. The common assumption is that in addition to the perceived climate benefits increasing forest area will also support biodiversity, thus making afforestation a “win-win scenario”. Based on the existing scientific evidences, we show that joined climate and biodiversity benefits are strongly context-dependent and that the outcome of afforestation is often highly questionable. In Europe, grasslands managed at low intensity contribute substantially to biodiversity conservation and carbon storage. However, many of these grasslands have been lost due to abandonment and subsequent spontaneous succession towards woody vegetation, or due to land use intensification. Moreover, grasslands are the ecosystems most often deliberately afforested in the context of EU carbon-centered policies that may thus counteract biodiversity conservation programmes. By reviewing the main EU policies targeting forests and grasslands, we found a striking ambivalence between policies and funding schemes addressing grassland conservation on the one hand (e.g. Habitats Directive, green payments within the Common Agricultural Policy) and those supporting afforestation on the other (e.g. rural development funds). We suggest three measures towards a better harmonization of the European Union policies that target forest and grassland ecosystems: (1) promoting the alignment of the decisions taken across different policy sectors; (2) focusing on the whole range of ecosystem services and biodiversity issues rather than on carbon management only; (3) valuing systems managed at low-intensity for their multifunctionality. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Climate change and biodiversity loss are two global crises that are often addressed through policies targeting land-use planning in forestry and agriculture. Recently, the global area of temperate forests has been stable or even increasing. Even though this trend is often perceived as creating co-benefits for carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation (Lin et al., 2013; MEA, 2005), this assumption often remains
⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Environmental Biology, Sapienza University of Rome, P.le Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Burrascano), [email protected] (M. Chytrý), [email protected] (T. Kuemmerle), [email protected] (E. Giarrizzo), [email protected] (S. Luyssaert), [email protected] (F.M. Sabatini), [email protected] (C. Blasi).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.08.005 0006-3207/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
unassessed. It is therefore important to consider the land-use processes through which the forest increase is occurring and to explore the full range of their implications for both carbon cycling and biodiversity (Bremer and Farley, 2010). In the temperate zone, forest and grassland ecosystems are often spatially contiguous and tightly linked by successional dynamics. Semi-natural grasslands are usually colonized by woody vegetation once abandoned (hereafter: natural expansion of forest) or are converted to forest through the deliberate planting of trees (hereafter: afforestation). Although both ways of forest expansion have important implications for carbon cycling and biodiversity, there is a weak integration of research on forests and grasslands, as well as of research on carbon sequestration and biodiversity. For example, studies listed in the Web of Science (accessed in May 2016) considering carbon and biodiversity in both forest and grasslands (forest + grassland + management + carbon + biodiversity) are
S. Burrascano et al. / Biological Conservation 201 (2016) 370–376
far less numerous (n = 64) than those focused solely on either forests (forest + management + carbon + biodiversity; n = 787) or on grasslands (grassland + management + carbon + biodiversity; n = 206). Of those studies assessing carbon or biodiversity in forest and grasslands, many assessed the effects on biodiversity of either natural expansion of forest or afforestation. Both processes may have diverging outcomes especially depending on the land cover type on which they occur, with highly detrimental effects especially in grasslands. Indeed, when abandoned, semi-natural grasslands often face a strong decline in plant species richness (Uchida and Ushimaru, 2014), in contrast with what was found for other categories of agricultural land use (Plieninger et al., 2014). The same is true for afforestation, with grasslands globally being the land cover type on which afforestation has the most negative outcome for plant species richness (Bremer and Farley, 2010). In certain cases, even when degraded pastures dominated by exotic species are afforested, no significant increase in biodiversity may occur (Bremer and Farley, 2010). If considering all pastures as a single category, afforested areas at the global scale were found to support higher species richness only for few taxonomic groups (herptiles and birds, but not for mammals, invertebrates and plants) and, more importantly, positive effects on biodiversity were found only in the pastures with no remnant natural vegetation (Felton et al., 2010). Regarding carbon sequestration, forest expansion undoubtedly increases biomass carbon stocks, but a range of studies have also demonstrated that, in pastures, this may lead to declining soil organic carbon by changes in the fine root dynamics (Barcena et al., 2014). Indeed, as a consequence of natural expansion of forests, soil organic carbon losses were found to even offset the increase in plant biomass carbon even after 30 to 100 years in a US region with annual precipitation between 700 and 1000 mm (Jackson et al., 2002). Similarly, a global meta-analysis on the effects of afforestation indicates a net decline in soil carbon stocks after changes from pastures to forest plantation, especially in moist regions (annual precipitation N1200 mm) and if conifer trees are planted (Guo and Gifford, 2002). Likewise, a synthesis for Northern Europe found no significant increase in the carbon stored in soils even 30 years after the afforestation of pastures (Barcena et al., 2014). Overall, the often assumed general co-benefits of increased carbon stocks and biodiversity protection appear questionable where grasslands are converted to forests. In Europe, semi-natural grasslands have been created and maintained over centuries of low-intensity management, such as livestock grazing or mowing. Today they support extremely high biodiversity (Dengler et al., 2014; Chytrý et al., 2015), and significant amounts of soil carbon (Lugato et al., 2014). Due to environmental, demographic, economic and political changes, land management in Europe has caused major fluctuations in the relative proportion of forests and grasslands (Fuchs et al., 2015; Kaplan et al., 2009; Munteanu et al., 2014). While forest extent reached a low-point in many European regions from the 18th to the early 20th century (Kuemmerle et al., 2015), the abandonment of semi-natural grasslands and the expansion of forest have been among the dominating land-use trends in Europe during the last century (Jepsen et al., 2015). For this reason, policies promoting forest expansion at the expense of remaining semi-natural grasslands may risk the overall reduction of biodiversity in the European Union (EU). Here we synthesize the existing evidence on the contribution of EU forests and grasslands to carbon storage and biodiversity conservation, and hypothesize that the limited attention paid to the potential conflicts between carbon management and biodiversity conservation in the scientific community will be reflected in European policies. Where such conflicts exist, they may reduce the overall effectiveness of the EU policies, and are likely to be propagated into the national policies of the individual EU member states. Finally we outline a way to alleviate the existing conflicts and therefore to better balance carbon management and biodiversity conservation in European grasslands.
371
2. Forests and grasslands for carbon storage and biodiversity conservation Together, forests and grasslands cover N50% of the EU land area and host the vast majority of Europe's terrestrial biodiversity (Fig. 1). According to the European Habitats Directive (92/443/EEC), which has been the cornerstone of biodiversity conservation in Europe since 1992, approximately 17% of the forest and 14% of grassland areas are designated as Natural Habitat Types of Community Interest, and a third of this area as Priority Habitat Types (Fig. 1). Considering the role played by forests in offsetting CO2 emissions, the past two decades may be viewed as remarkably positive for Europe. First, mainly due to a socio-economic transformation of rural areas, EU-27 forests underwent a 12.9 million hectare (Mha) expansion on abandoned agricultural land between 1990 and 2015 (Forest
Fig. 1. Role of European grasslands and forests in biodiversity conservation and carbon sequestration. Surface areas are derived from FAOSTAT and Forest Europe (2015); habitat areas from EIONET (http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/article17/index_html/habitatsreport); number of threatened species from EEA (2010) except for vascular plants whose assessment was performed only on those species listed in European and international policy instruments (Bilz et al., 2011); Net Primary Productivity is based on Schulze et al. (2009); Carbon Storage is taken from Pan et al. (2011) for forests (biomass, deadwood, litter and soil); for grasslands, we only report soil carbon (Lugato et al., 2014) with the carbon contained in live biomass estimated as 3.0–4.5 t C ha−1 yr−1 (see Ruesch and Gibbs, 2008). All data refer to the EU-27 except for Net Primary Productivity (EU-25), Carbon Storage for grasslands (EU-28 plus 6 non-member states) and forests (41 European countries).
372
S. Burrascano et al. / Biological Conservation 201 (2016) 370–376
Europe, 2015), of which N 1.5 Mha were deliberately afforested (UNECE/FAO, 2011). Second, only 60–70% of the annual increment is currently being harvested in the EU-27 (EC, 2013). This is also because a substantial proportion of European forests, often located in remote or protected areas, are today managed less intensively than in the past, or are abandoned altogether. These phenomena cause an increase in the proportion of late successional forests (UNECE/ FAO, 2011), with renowned benefits for carbon storage (Luyssaert et al., 2008; Burrascano et al., 2013). Forest ageing also affects the diversity of different taxa, though in a more complex way than it affects carbon stocks. Several taxonomic groups, including species of high conservation value, are related both to tree and deadwood habitats, and to semi-open habitats or canopy gaps (Vodka et al., 2009; Kosulic et al., 2016). The joint occurrence of large trees, deadwood and abundant solar radiation may naturally occur in forested landscapes where natural disturbance occur (Brunet et al., 2010). Similar habitat conditions are also maintained through extensive, traditional management systems such as coppicing and wood pasturing (Bergmeier et al., 2010; Fartmann et al., 2013). As these specific management practices are being abandoned, the conversion of coppices to high-forests and the progressive closure of wood pastures may threaten many highly specialized taxa (Vodka et al., 2009). Similarly to forests, semi-natural grasslands provide a wide range of critical ecosystem services, including carbon sequestration, livestock provision, regulation of soil erosion and water flow, and recreation. Indeed, the ecosystem services that are provided by grasslands were recently estimated to be as high as about 2600 euros per hectare per
year on average (Hönigová et al., 2012). In addition to the mentioned services, semi-natural grasslands have a great relevance for the conservation of threatened species, especially of plants and insects. Indeed, even though occupying much smaller areas than forests, grasslands host 15% of the vascular plant species listed in the IUCN threatened categories for Europe (Fig. 1; please note that red list for vascular plants were based on an assessment that considered only species included in conservation policies, see Bilz et al., 2011; EEA, 2010). Also net primary productivity per unit area was found to be greater in European grasslands than in forests, although the total carbon storage is larger in forests than in grasslands (Fig. 1). The outlook for semi-natural grasslands is, however, more negative than that for forests. Semi-natural grasslands exist because of extensive human management, hence, they are threatened by both abandonment and management intensification. Between 1990 and 2013 approximately 5 Mha of grasslands were lost in the EU-27 (FAO, 2015). Although this estimate does not account for the gain in grassland area due to recent farmland abandonment (Estel et al., 2015; Fuchs et al., 2015), the net result is a substantial loss of semi-natural grassland. Across the EU-27, 40% of this loss was caused by conversion to cropland, 30% by urban and infrastructure sprawl, 20 and 10% respectively by forest expansion and afforestation (EEA, 2010). Afforestation and natural forest expansion are more likely to occur in areas with specific natural constraints to agricultural production, for instance in the mountainous areas such as the Apennines (Falcucci et al., 2007), the Carpathians (Kuemmerle et al., 2008), or the Pyrenees (Stuhldreher et al., 2012). Owing to their economic hardship, which is
Fig. 2. Distribution in the EU-27 of high likelihood (N50%) of occurrence of High Nature Value (HNV) areas and Less Favoured Areas for agricultural production. Based on the intersection of these layers, we calculated that 70% of HNV areas is included in Less Favoured Areas.
S. Burrascano et al. / Biological Conservation 201 (2016) 370–376
often caused by natural constraints, these areas have been classified in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) as Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) and within them farmers receive subsidies to maintain management. Nevertheless, both afforestation and natural forest expansion are still common in these areas since subsidies may slow down but not halt strong socio-economic trends such as the abandonment of marginal areas (Fischer et al., 2012). Moreover, subsidies are given to support farmers in maintaining production of either food or wood. Given these trends, it is worrisome that up to 70% of High Nature Value farmland (HNV), i.e. low-input farming systems (Paracchini et al., 2008) occurs within these LFAs (Fig. 2). Management intensification, instead, occurs in areas highly suitable for agricultural production. Grasslands subjected to intensification often face a reduction in species diversity (Uchida and Ushimaru, 2014) owing to increased grazing pressure, fertilizer application, frequent mowing or sowing of a few highly productive species with negative repercussions on carbon sequestration rates (Ward et al., 2016). Soil carbon losses are substantial when grassland is converted to cropland; indeed, mean topsoil organic carbon stocks were estimated as 127 and 60 t C ha− 1, respectively for pastures and cropland (Lugato et al., 2014). This difference is likely to be even greater for HNV grasslands, because these encompass also mires and heathlands, and natural grasslands. Indeed, these ecosystems have a mean content of organic carbon in topsoil of ca. 132 and 68 g kg−1, respectively, substantially higher than pastures in more intensive agricultural areas (59 g kg−1) (data EU-25, de Brogniez et al., 2015). 3. Conflicting policies Several EU policies aim at biodiversity conservation by specifically addressing the issue of grassland maintenance, above all the Habitats Directive, which is mainly implemented through the Natura 2000 network and by the LIFE+ Programme (Fig. 3). For instance, in 2013 the LIFE+ Programme alone invested over 39 million euros in conservation and restoration projects that addressed grassland habitats, either exclusively or together with related habitats (data: LIFE+ project database). In accordance with the recognized need to align agriculture and nature conservation efforts (Hodge et al., 2015), the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP 2014–2020) includes measures aimed at the conservation of semi-natural grasslands. Some of these measures rely on the funding for rural development and support the agricultural practices suitable
Goals
EU documents
Biodiversity Conservation
373
for maintaining semi-natural grasslands in Less Favoured Areas and within the Natura 2000 network (CAP funding of approx. 2 billion and 40 million EUR, respectively, in 2013, see Fig. 3). However, the commitment of the CAP to environmental issues is largely included within the newly established greening measures (about 12 billion EUR per year), which are intended as payments for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment, and should therefore act in synergy with the Habitats Directive. Three greening measures are included in the CAP: crop diversification, the creation of Ecological Focus Areas on agricultural land, and the maintenance of existing permanent grassland (EU Regulation 1307/2013). While crop diversification does not cause substantial changes in land cover, the other two measures have direct effects on the extent of semi-natural grasslands and wooded vegetation. Ecological Focus Areas include for instance nitrogen fixing crops, catch crops, and short-rotation coppices. These land use categories are promoted to help maintain soil and water quality but do not necessarily deliver benefits for biodiversity, especially without specific management guidelines (Pe'er et al., 2014). More importantly, the maintenance of permanent grasslands (Fig. 3) binds farmers to maintain the areas occupied by pastures and meadows, which cannot be reduced or expanded by N 5% of their original extent. However, this measure is not always effective for the conservation of grassland biodiversity for two main reasons. Firstly, it only aims at preserving the extent of permanent grasslands without any specific focus on their management, which is the most important factor to attain environmental benefits (Pe'er et al., 2014). As currently defined, permanent grasslands cover an immense range of farmland types, from intensively managed grasslands that may be heavily fertilized, irrigated and re-sown, to unsown semi-natural pastures under extensive grazing. The introduction of a standard set of rules for such highly diverse types of farmland across the EU gives minimal consideration to the different potential for environmental and agronomic outcomes, and may foster enormous environmental losses both in terms of biodiversity (Pe'er et al., 2014) and carbon storage when management practices are intensified (EFNCP, 2012). Secondly, this specific greening measure ensures that all the grasslands are maintained only within areas specifically designated that include the Natura 2000 sites and additional areas that may (or may not) be identified by each member state (Regulation EU 1307/2013, art. 45, par. 1). Outside these designated areas it is not mandatory to maintain grasslands, but only to keep the ratio between the area of permanent grassland and
Climate Change Mitigation through LULUCF
Common Agricultural Policy
Kyoto Protocol
Management of Natura 2000
Measures for Less Favoured Areas
Voluntary Carbon Market
LIFE+ Nature & Biodiversity
Greening (Permanent Pasture Maintenance)
Habitat Directive
Funding streams
Greening (Ecological Focus Areas)
Energy Supply Security
Renewable Energy Action Plans
Improving Forest Resources Increase in biomass used for energy production
Rural Development Regulation
Outcomes
Drawbacks
Semi-natural grassland conservation and restoration
Deliberate afforestation of marginal areas
Negative effects of afforestation on biodiversity
By 2020 more harvested timber used for energy production Conversion of carbon stocks into carbon dioxide
Fig. 3. Goals, documents, funding streams, outcomes and drawbacks of current policies related to biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation through Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry. Light-green boxes refer to the funds and outcomes addressing the conservation of semi-natural grasslands, dark-green boxes to those addressing afforestation, and blue boxes to actions aimed at increasing the proportion of energy supplied by the use of biomass. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
374
S. Burrascano et al. / Biological Conservation 201 (2016) 370–376
total agricultural land at the national, regional or sub-regional level. Reconverting land into permanent grassland is required if this ratio decreases by N5% (Regulation EU 1307/2013, art. 45, par. 3). However, the environmental benefits conveyed by reconverted grasslands are much lower than those of maintaining existing grasslands. Furthermore, it is iconic that reconversion is not obligatory where a decrease over the threshold is due to afforestation (Regulation EU 1307/2013, art. 45, par. 4). Indeed, while the CAP is paying to maintain permanent grasslands in some areas, it may also be paying to convert similar grasslands into forests through rural development funds (Fig. 3), which supports deliberate afforestation (220 million EUR in 2013). Already in 1992, the EU supported afforestation on agricultural land (Council Regulation 2080/ 92) under the MacSharry reforms, which included subsidies for setaside and afforestation among a series of measures to control agricultural production (e.g. stocking thresholds and retirement promotion). In 1998, while defining the European Forest Strategy (Council Resolution of 15 December 1998), the Commission stated that the afforestation of 500,000 ha of agricultural land between 1993 and 1997 had only a small impact on reducing surplus agricultural production, but generated a number of positive environmental effects (although no specific references were given to support this claim). Since then, the premises for supporting afforestation shifted from production regulation to the protection of the environment, the prevention of natural hazards and fires, and to climate change mitigation (Council Regulation 1698/2005). Even though based on different premises, the afforestation measures formulated in 1992 were kept mostly unchanged in the following Council Regulations on Rural Development (no. 1257/1999; 1698/2005), and are still supported with no substantial variation in the current Rural Development regulation (no. 1305/2013). In addition to European policies, individual countries are also developing national policies to comply with their commitments for the Kyoto protocol. For instance, the Italian government granted 5.25 million euros for projects including forest management, as well as afforestation and reforestation with indigenous plants in marginal land. Also Ireland has national programmes for afforestation, whose annual rate between 1990 and 2002 was around 20,000 ha (Zanchi et al., 2007). Finally, the EU Energy Strategies may play a major role (Fig. 3). To decrease EU energy dependency and CO2 emissions, the European Commission has set a 20% target for primary energy from renewable resources, 42% of which should come from biomass (EC, 2013, Fig. 3). Broad-scale bioenergy production may have important environmental and economic implications, which may not necessarily result in major greenhouse gas emission savings. Indeed, the assumption that forest biomass combustion is carbon-neutral fails to consider the plant growth and consequent carbon sequestration that would occur in the absence of bioenergy production (Hudiburg et al., 2011). Similarly, the large amounts of fertilizers, irrigation, and labour required to produce crop biomass are themselves a source of greenhouse gas emissions, making this kind of bioenergy far less effective for greenhouse gas reduction than biomass deriving from low-input, high-diversity grasslands (Tilman et al., 2006). 4. Moving forward Our evaluation of the scientific data and policies demonstrated that the effects of land management policies on biodiversity and carbon sequestration differ between grasslands and forests. For instance, while afforestation and natural expansion of forest on farmland may support forest-dwelling species and benefit carbon storage, it often has negative effects on biodiversity when it happens on semi-natural grassland habitats, which are mostly in an unfavourable conservation status (EEA, 2015). Furthermore, reduced atmospheric carbon concentrations through land-use changes do not necessarily contribute to climate change mitigation, because carbon sequestration may be offset by concurrent changes in albedo, evapotranspiration, or aerodynamic surface
roughness length (Pielke et al., 2011; Naudts et al., 2016). The overall benefits of land-use changes for climate change mitigation and maintaining biodiversity are thus unclear. We propose three measures that could contribute to more effective policy making based on current understanding of the effects of land use changes on carbon and biodiversity in forests and grasslands: (1) Harmonize the goals pursued by the different Directorates of the European Commission. The current EU administrative organization is composed of sectorial Directorate, each of which influences decisions of the European Commission regarding different ecosystem services that are beneficial for agriculture and rural development, energy production, or the environment. In spite of efforts to align the various decisions, this fragmented structure still results in incoherent land-use policies both across and within sectors. Although unlikely to emerge soon, a simplified administrative structure would probably increase the coherence and effectiveness of land-use-related policy. (2) Focus on the whole range of ecosystem services rather than on carbon management only. Protecting high-carbon ecosystems from land-use change undoubtedly plays a role in a comprehensive approach to greenhouse gas mitigation. Nevertheless, the idea of off-setting CO2 emissions by increasing the uptake of CO2 in land systems, although reiterated in the recent COP21 agreement (COP 21 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Paris 2015), is based on erroneous assumptions since the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems to remove and store CO2 from the atmosphere in the long-term is limited and not comparable to the stock of fossil fuels that are bound to be burnt (Mackey et al., 2013). Several ecosystem services other than carbon sequestration exist that can no longer be provided once carbon management is put in the foreground. These unique services, which range from the regulation of local climate and air quality, to supporting habitats and species diversity, and the maintenance of cultural, recreational and aesthetic values, should be carefully considered in policy decisions that affect land use. Shifting the focus of land management away from carbon management in favour of other ecosystem services is likely to create room for more balanced policy decisions. Given that in Europe the demand for land exceeds by far the supply, land-use policies, no matter how effectively they are planned and carried out, will inevitably result in conflicts between different land uses. (3) Valuing extensively managed ecosystems for their multifunctionality. Although the relevance of semi-natural grasslands for biodiversity and other ecosystem functions is already recognized by several EU resolutions, these grasslands are labeled as ‘marginal’ when land is needed for other more profitable functions. This lack of coherence could be counteracted by valuing extensively managed ecosystems for their multifunctionality. The maintenance of high levels of ecosystem performance is often mediated by their biodiversity, especially if multiple functions are considered (Lefcheck et al., 2015). Indeed, species complementarity has positive effects on different functions, therefore if multi-functionality is to be achieved, managing for high diversity is advisable. For instance, within the current socio-economic context, land uses such as low-intensity grasslands and forests may be maintained for bioenergy production if a lower productivity is accepted in favour of conserving them as relevant habitats and for the other ecosystem services they provide (Tilman et al., 2006). 5. Conclusions The current scientific knowledge on the outcomes of land-use changes between forests and grasslands in Europe demonstrates the critical role of both systems for biodiversity conservation and for carbon
S. Burrascano et al. / Biological Conservation 201 (2016) 370–376
storage. Here we show that the often perceived co-benefits of converting grassland to forest, either through natural forest expansion or afforestation, may not be. Indeed, especially in the case of semi-natural grasslands, negative outcomes both in terms of soil carbon storage and biodiversity, are plausible. Furthermore, our review of the current policy landscape highlights important conflicts between existing policies to mitigate climate change and increase carbon sequestration on the one hand, and farmland biodiversity conservation on the other. At the European scale, current land-use trends clearly suggest a continued abandonment of marginal farmland, especially semi-natural grasslands, and a concomitant increase in forest area. These changes in area are mainly driven by socio-economic shifts that are independent of the EU climate change mitigation policies. Given this reality, the current carbon-centered policy further promoting and allocating funding to afforestation may only marginally contribute to the international commitment to mitigating climate change while resulting in a substantial decline in biodiversity as well as in fewer ecosystem services. We therefore advocate a better harmonization of the European Union policies that target forest and grassland ecosystems, and suggest to: (1) promote the alignment of the decisions taken across different policy sectors; (2) focus on the whole range of ecosystem services and biodiversity issues rather than on carbon management only; (3) value lowintensity managed systems for their multifunctionality. Our recommendations strongly point to an interdisciplinary approach both in science and policy-making that could allow for a thorough scientific evaluation of the measures that should drive land-use changes and for harmonized policies that effectively apply the most appropriate measures. Acknowledgements We thank Cristiano Ballabio, Emanuele Lugato and Maria Luisa Paracchini of the Joint Research Centre (Institute for Environment and Sustainability), and Lorenzo Orlandini of the European Commission DG Agriculture and Rural Development for information on the existing EU datasets. We thank the European Commission for financial support (project HERCULES, No. 603447). We also thank three anonymous reviewers for useful comments and suggestions, and Lewis Baker for the linguistic revision of the text. References Barcena, T.G., Kiaer, L.P., Vesterdal, L., Stefansdottir, H.M., Gundersen, P., Sigurdsson, B.D., 2014. Soil carbon stock change following afforestation in Northern Europe: a metaanalysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 20, 2393–2405. Bergmeier, E., Petermann, J., Schroder, E., 2010. Geobotanical survey of wood-pasture habitats in Europe: diversity, threats and conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 19, 2995–3014. Bilz, M., Kell, S.P., Maxted, N., Lansdown, R.V., 2011. European Red List of Vascular Plants. Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Bremer, L.L., Farley, K.A., 2010. Does plantation forestry restore biodiversity or create green deserts? A synthesis of the effects of land-use transitions on plant species richness. Biodivers. Conserv. 19, 3893–3915. Brunet, J., Fritz, Ö., Richnau, G., 2010. Biodiversity in European beech forests—a review with recommendations for sustainable forest management. Ecol. Bull. 53, 77–94. Burrascano, S., Keeton, W.S., Sabatini, F.M., Blasi, C., 2013. Commonality and variability in the structural attributes of moist temperate old-growth forests: a global review. For. Ecol. Manag. 291, 458–479. Chytrý, M., Dražil, T., Hájek, M., Kalníková, V., Preislerová, Z., Šibík, J., Ujházy, K., Axmanová, I., Bernátová, D., Blanár, D., Dančák, M., Dřevojan, P., Fajmon, K., Galvánek, D., Hájková, P., Herben, T., Hrivnák, R., Janeček, S., Janišová, M., Jiráská, S., Kliment, J., Kochjarová, J., Lepš, J., Leskovjanská, A., Merunková, K., Mládek, J., Slezák, M., Šeffer, J., Šefferová, V., Škodová, I., Uhlířová, J., Ujházyová, M., Vymazalová, M., 2015. The most species-rich plant communities in the Czech Republic and Slovakia (with new world records). Preslia 87, 217–278. de Brogniez, D., Ballabio, C., Stevens, A., Jones, R.J.A., Montanarella, L., van Wesemael, B., 2015. A map of the topsoil organic carbon content of Europe generated by a generalized additive model. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 66, 121–134. Dengler, J., Janišová, M., Török, P., Wellstein, C., 2014. Biodiversity of Palaearctic grasslands: a synthesis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 182, 1–14. EC - European Commission, 2013. A new EU forest strategy: for forests and the forestbased sector. COM(2013) 659 Final, Brussels, 20.9.2013. EEA, 2010. EU 2010 biodiversity baseline. EEA Technical Report No 12/2010. Publications Office of the European Union, Copenhagen, Luxembourg.
375
EEA, 2015. State of Nature in the EU. EEA Technical Report No 2/2015. Publications Office of the European Union, Copenhagen, Luxembourg. EFNCP - European Forum on Nature Conservation and Patoralism, 2012s. Improving Pillar 1 greening and GAEC options for permanent pasture. EFNCP Response to the Commission Services Concept Paper on Greening of 11th May 2012 (http://www.efncp.org/ download/EFNCP-improvements-permanent-pasture-greening-GAEC-and-supportmeasures.pdf). Estel, S., Kuemmerle, T., Alcantara, C., Levers, C., Prishchepov, A., Hostert, P., 2015. Mapping farmland abandonment and recultivation across Europe using MODIS NDVI time series. Remote Sens. Environ. 163, 312–325. Falcucci, A., Maiorano, L., Boitani, L., 2007. Changes in land-use/land-cover patterns in Italy and their implications for biodiversity conservation. Landsc. Ecol. 22, 617–631. FAO, 2015. FAOSTAT, download data. http://faostat3.fao.org/download/R/RL/E (accessed 28.12.15). Fartmann, T., Muller, C., Poniatowski, D., 2013. Effects of coppicing on butterfly communities of woodlands. Biol. Conserv. 159, 396–404. Felton, A., Knight, E., Wood, J., Zammit, C., Lindenmayer, D., 2010. A meta-analysis of fauna and flora species richness and abundance in plantations and pasture lands. Biol. Conserv. 143, 545–554. Fischer, J., Hartel, T., Kuemmerle, T., 2012. Conservation policy in traditional farming landscapes. Conserv. Lett. 5, 167–175. Forest Europe, 2015. State of Europe's Forests 2015. Fuchs, R., Herold, M., Verburg, P.H., Clevers, J.G.P.W., Eberle, J., 2015. Gross changes in reconstructions of historic land cover/use for Europe between 1900 and 2010. Glob. Chang. Biol. 21, 299–313. Guo, L.B., Gifford, R.M., 2002. Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 8, 345–360. Hodge, I., Hauck, J., Bonn, A., 2015. The alignment of agricultural and nature conservation policies in the European Union. Conserv. Biol. 29, 996–1005. Hönigová, I., Vačkář, D., Lorencová, E., Melichar, J., Götzl, M., Sonderegger, G., Oušková, V., Hošek, M., Chobot, K., 2012. Survey on Grassland Ecosystem Services. EEA—European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity, Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 1–78. Hudiburg, T.W., Law, B.E., Wirth, C., Luyssaert, S., 2011. Regional carbon dioxide implications of forest bioenergy production. Nat. Clim. Chang. 1, 419–423. Jackson, R.B., Banner, J.L., Jobbagy, E.G., Pockman, W.T., Wall, D.H., 2002. Ecosystem carbon loss with woody plant invasion of grasslands. Nature 418, 623–626. Jepsen, M.R., Kuemmerle, T., Mueller, D., Erb, K., Verburgf, P.H., Haberl, H., Vesterager, J.P., Andric, M., Antrop, M., Austrheim, G., Bjorn, I., Bondeau, A., Buergi, M., Bryson, J., Caspar, G., Cassar, L.F., Conrad, E., Chromy, P., Daugirdas, V., Van Eetvelde, V., ElenaRossello, R., Gimmi, U., Izakovicova, Z., Jancak, V., Jansson, U., Kladnik, D., Kozak, J., Konkoly-Gyuro, E., Krausmann, F., Mander, U., McDonagh, J., Paern, J., Niedertscheider, M., Nikodemus, O., Ostapowicz, K., Perez-Soba, M., Pinto-Correia, T., Ribokas, G., Rounsevell, M., Schistou, D., Schmit, C., Terkenli, T.S., Tretvik, A.M., Trzepacz, P., Vadineanu, A., Walz, A., Zhllima, E., Reenberg, A., 2015. Transitions in European land-management regimes between 1800 and 2010. Land Use Policy 49, 53–64. Kaplan, J.O., Krumhardt, K.M., Zimmermann, N., 2009. The prehistoric and preindustrial deforestation of Europe. Quat. Sci. Rev. 28, 3016–3034. Kosulic, O., Michalko, R., Hula, V., 2016. Impact of canopy openness on spider communities: Implications for conservation management of formerly coppiced oak forests. PLoS One 11. Kuemmerle, T., Hostert, P., Radeloff, V.C., van der Linden, S., Perzanowski, K., Kruhlov, I., 2008. Cross-border comparison of post-socialist farmland abandonment in the Carpathians. Ecosystems 11, 614–628. Kuemmerle, T., Kaplan, J.O., Prishchepov, A.V., Rylsky, I., Chaskovskyy, O., Tikunov, V.S., Mueller, D., 2015. Forest transitions in Eastern Europe and their effects on carbon budgets. Glob. Chang. Biol. 21, 3049–3061. Lefcheck, J.S., Byrnes, J.E.K., Isbell, F., Gamfeldt, L., Griffin, J.N., Eisenhauer, N., Hensel, M.J.S., Hector, A., Cardinale, B.J., Duffy, J.E., 2015. Biodiversity enhances ecosystem multifunctionality across trophic levels and habitats. Nat. Commun. 6. LIFE + project database, d. url http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/ index.cfm?fuseaction=home.search&cfid=2205347&cftoken=87584984. Lin, B.B., Macfadyen, S., Renwick, A.R., Cunningham, S.A., Schellhorn, N.A., 2013. Maximizing the environmental benefits of carbon farming through ecosystem service delivery. Bioscience 63, 793–803. Lugato, E., Panagos, P., Bampa, F., Jones, A., Montanarella, L., 2014. A new baseline of organic carbon stock in European agricultural soils using a modelling approach. Glob. Chang. Biol. 20, 313–326. Luyssaert, S., Schulze, E.D., Borner, A., Knohl, A., Hessenmoller, D., Law, B.E., Ciais, P., Grace, J., 2008. Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature 455, 213–215. Mackey, B., Prentice, I.C., Steffen, W., House, J.I., Lindenmayer, D., Keith, H., Berry, S., 2013. Untangling the confusion around land carbon science and climate change mitigation policy. Nat. Clim. Chang. 3, 552–557. MEA - Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. Munteanu, C., Kuemmerle, T., Boltiziar, M., Butsic, V., Gimmi, U., Halada, L., Kaim, D., Kiraly, G., Konkoly-Gyuro, E., Kozak, J., Lieskovsky, J., Mojses, M., Mueller, D., Ostafin, K., Ostapowicz, K., Shandra, O., Stych, P., Walker, S., Radeloff, V.C., 2014. Forest and agricultural land change in the Carpathian region—a meta-analysis of long-term patterns and drivers of change. Land Use Policy 38, 685–697. Naudts, K., Chen, Y., McGrath, M.J., Ryder, J., Valade, A., Otto, J., Luyssaert, S., 2016. Europe's forest management did not mitigate climate warming. Science 351, 597–600. Pan, Y.D., Birdsey, R.A., Fang, J.Y., Houghton, R., Kauppi, P.E., Kurz, W.A., Phillips, O.L., Shvidenko, A., Lewis, S.L., Canadell, J.G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R.B., Pacala, S.W., McGuire, A.D., Piao, S.L., Rautiainen, A., Sitch, S., Hayes, D., 2011. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world's forests. Science 333, 988–993.
376
S. Burrascano et al. / Biological Conservation 201 (2016) 370–376
Paracchini, M.L., Petersen, J.-E., Hoogeveen, Y., Bamps, C., Burfield, I., van Swaay, C., 2008. High nature value farmland in Europe. An Estimate of the Distribution Patterns on the Basis of Land Cover and Biodiversity Data. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxemburg. Pe'er, G., Dicks, L.V., Visconti, P., Arlettaz, R., Baldi, A., Benton, T.G., Collins, S., Dieterich, M., Gregory, R.D., Hartig, F., Henle, K., Hobson, P.R., Kleijn, D., Neumann, R.K., Robijns, T., Schmidt, J., Shwartz, A., Sutherland, W.J., Turbe, A., Wulf, F., Scott, A.V., 2014. EU agricultural reform fails on biodiversity. Science 344, 1090–1092. Pielke, R.A., Pitman, A., Niyogi, D., Mahmood, R., McAlpine, C., Hossain, F., Goldewijk, K.K., Nair, U., Betts, R., Fall, S., Reichstein, M., Kabat, P., de Noblet, N., 2011. Land use/land cover changes and climate: modeling analysis and observational evidence. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2, 828–850. Plieninger, T., Hui, C., Gaertner, M., Huntsinger, L., 2014. The impact of land abandonment on species richness and abundance in the Mediterranean Basin: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 9. Ruesch, A., Gibbs, H., 2008. New IPCC Tier1 Global Biomass Carbon Map for the Year 2000. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, UK. Schulze, E.D., Luyssaert, S., Ciais, P., Freibauer, A., Janssens, I.A., Soussana, J.F., Smith, P., Grace, J., Levin, I., Thiruchittampalam, B., Heimann, M., Dolman, A.J., Valentini, R., Bousquet, P., Peylin, P., Peters, W., Rodenbeck, C., Etiope, G., Vuichard, N.,
Wattenbach, M., Nabuurs, G.J., Poussi, Z., Nieschulze, J., Gash, J.H., CarboEurope, T., 2009. Importance of methane and nitrous oxide for Europe's terrestrial greenhouse-gas balance. Nat. Geosci. 2, 842–850. Stuhldreher, G., Villar, L., Fartmann, T., 2012. Inhabiting warm microhabitats and riskspreading as strategies for survival of a phytophagous insect living in common pastures in the Pyrenees. Eur. J. Entomol. 109, 527–534. Tilman, D., Hill, J., Lehman, C., 2006. Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity grassland biomass. Science 314, 1598–1600. Uchida, K., Ushimaru, A., 2014. Biodiversity declines due to abandonment and intensification of agricultural lands: patterns and mechanisms. Ecol. Monogr. 84, 637–658. UNECE/FAO, 2011. State of Europe's Forests 2011. Status and Trends in Sustainable Forest Management in Europe, Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe. Vodka, S., Konvicka, M., Cizek, L., 2009. Habitat preferences of oak-feeding xylophagous beetles in a temperate woodland: implications for forest history and management. J. Insect Conserv. 13, 553–562. Ward, S.E., Smart, S.M., Quirk, H., Tallowin, J.R.B., Mortimer, S.R., Shiel, R.S., Wilby, A., Bardgett, R.D., 2016. Legacy effects of grassland management on soil carbon to depth. Glob. Chang. Biol. 22, 2829–2838. Zanchi, G., Thiel, D., Green, T., Lindner, M., 2007. Afforestation in Europe final version 26/ 01/07, European Forest Institute.