Search

Grassland management crucially influences the delivery of ecosystem services from permanent grasslands. Variability in management practices is often described along a gradient from ‘low intensity’ to ‘high intensity’. These terms are likely to carry different meanings across European regions that differ in environmental and socio-economic conditions as well as between different groups of stakeholders. We conducted an online survey among grassland stakeholders asking them to characterise what they consider as ‘low’, ‘intermediate’ and ‘high’-intensity management in terms of cutting frequency, grazing intensity, and nitrogen fertilization. The answers of the 125 respondents revealed high variability in the thresholds between management intensity levels. Professional background (‘agriculture’ vs ‘ecology/conservation’) explained only a small percentage of the variability. The biogeographical region on which the respondents’ expertise was based also influenced the evaluation of management practices. Our survey exposed the hidden problem of communicating about grassland management across regions and professional backgrounds, and identifies a need for a common terminology when making general recommendations for sustainable grassland management.

Permanent grasslands cover 34% of the European Union’s agricultural area and are vital for the delivery of essential ecosystem services. Over recent decades, permanent grasslands have suffered a significant decline and land use change continues to threaten their area. We performed a systematic review on the multifunctionality of permanent grasslands in Europe, examining the effects of land use change and management practices on 18 ecosystem service indicators. Based on the evidence in 696 out of 70,456 screened papers, we found that both land use change and intensification decreased multifunctionality. A lower management intensity was associated with benefits for biodiversity, climate regulation and water purification, but had a negative effect on the provision of high-quality animal feed. Increasing the number of species in the sward enhanced multifunctionality of permanent grassland without significant trade-offs such as losses in production. We suggest that a combined approach of protection and management extensification will help secure multiple benefits from permanent grasslands.

The relevance of permanent grasslands (PG) for a large share of European farms is high, and yet understudied. We used single-farm records from the FADN (Farm Accountancy Data Network) database 2017, which included 41,926 farms-with-PG to characterize PG-based farming systems. Each farm was assigned to one class in terms of: (1) main livestock species/category; (2) stocking rate on total farmland; (3) PG share; (4) biogeographic region (BGR). We carried out a Multi Correspondence Analysis (MCA) on the resulting classification, which explained 20% of the variance. The five BGR separated well in the first two MCA dimensions. Alpine farms were predominantly related to beef cattle, with relatively low stocking rates, and intermediate to high PG shares. Atlantic farms also revealed high PG shares, but were linked to higher stocking rates and ‘Mixed bovine’ and ‘Dairy cow’ farming. The dominance of farms without livestock in the Boreal BGR resulted in generally very low stocking rates and showed a limited importance of PG. Continental farms were not clearly related to one specific livestock category or a stocking rate, but consistently showed a share of 10-30% PG per farm. Finally, the Mediterranean BGR separated from the others, being dominated by sheep and goat farming.

The purpose of this report is to identify, map, and evaluate the most relevant European policies seen to influence permanent grassland (PG) management. To accomplish this, an interdisciplinary, crossnational team from the UK, Switzerland, Spain, Czech Republic, and Sweden reviewed over 50 in-depth policy frameworks. With direction from expert stakeholders and a review of the policy landscape, we identified the most relevant policy instruments influencing PGs across five different biogeographic regions in Europe (Alpine, Atlantic, Boreal, Continental, and Mediterranean). The mapping of each country’s policy mix was guided inter-alia by a ‘cascade framework’ to illustrate the entry points, intermediary actors, mechanisms and pathways through which policies deliver their intended effects on PGs. This entailed an in-depth analysis of publicly available government sources documenting the aims, objectives, targets, monitoring systems, outputs and outcomes of each policy instrument. In total, 24 policies were mapped using 50 different criteria, with 15 of the policies unique to the case study countries. This resulted in an extensive excel database of over 3400 unique cells containing rich qualitative data. The excel data were coded in a consistent manner across the country teams so that they could be compared, synthesized, and used to identify patterns in the policy mix and logic of intervention. We show, for instance, that across Europe, the dominant policy logic uses regulations and incentives to influence farmer adoption of desired landscape compositions. This directly influences, but does not guarantee, the range of ecosystem services (ES) that are possible from the landscape. At the same time, we discovered a lack of policies targeting consumer demand for PG ecosystem services and only a few designed to drive sustainable PG management by directly promoting the value of PGs with beneficiaries. To complement the policy mapping, stakeholders’ assessed the perceived effectiveness of the policy mix in each country. This evaluation included over 50 interviews with key stakeholders across Europe representing government, academia, farmers, and special interests, and covered perceptions of democracy, legitimacy, relevance, efficiency and impact in relation to the effectiveness of policies relevant to the management of PG. Our findings reveal generally positive perceptions of grassland policy effectiveness across Europe, with special interest groups being the least positive and governments the most. The in-depth country case studies reveal striking similarities, as well as differences between countries and stakeholder groups, which are illustrative of the problems, challenges, and barriers confronting policy effectiveness. We conclude this report by offering insights and policy implications. In particular, we suggest that the following four points are taken into consideration to improve the PG policy landscape: 1) Reduce complexity and administrative burden to make policies more understandable and accessible. 2) Require stakeholder involvement when developing strategic plans and assessing policy. 3) Encourage consideration of trade-offs between PG management and ES delivery, by designing policies to explicitly target the interaction between landscape structures and ES (or target them in parallel). 4) Encourage a balance of policy logic, by moving away from targeting farmers with regulation or subsidies to manage the landscape towards targeting consumer demand for ES (through information) and the value of ES (such as direct payments for regulating and cultural services).

European permanent grasslands (PG) vary widely in their delivery of agricultural outputs and other ecosystem services and hence in their challenges and opportunities for sustainable grassland management. To facilitate communication and knowledge transfer, improve inventories, ease mapping and provide a framework for future data collection across the whole range of European PG, we have developed a two-level grassland typology that focuses on PG management (defoliation, fertilisation, renewal) and its determinants (productivity potential, presence of woody plants, additional site attributes affecting management). The typology consists of eight first-level and 18 subordinate second-level classes, based on management intensity, productivity potential, presence of woody plants and grassland renewal intervals. It is applicable both at field and regional scales and is cross-referenced with existing classification schemes such as the EUNIS and Natura 2000 habitats classes. We present the typology and its main classification criteria, and discuss options for its future implementation., Grassland Science in Europe, 25, Proceedings of the 28th General Meeting of the European Grassland Federation, ISBN:978-952-326-945-3, ISBN:978-952-326-944-6

Permanent grassland (PG) covers 35% of the agricultural area in the EU-28. Across Europe, PG exists in many contrasting managed or unmanaged environments where it contributes to feed supply, biodiversity, carbon sequestration, aesthetic value, recreation, clean water and prevention of soil loss. The delivery of these PG ecosystem services is under threat by land use change, climate change and sub-optimal management. We carried out a survey among experts to assess the threats within their countries. Respondents described the main PG-types, together with their areas, and assessed to what extent a particular PG-type is threatened by intensification, land use change, climate change or nitrogen (N) depositions. Threats were scored on a three-point scale: no, small or great. Replies were received from 11 countries (CH, CZ, DE, ES, HU, IT, ME, NL, PL, SE, UK), representing the main biogeographic zones in Europe. The dataset contained 83 PG- types on a total area of 25 Mha. Abandonment, heat and drought stress and conversion to temporary grassland were considered as the largest threats, each considered as a great threat on PG-types covering 8 to 9 Mha (~35%). The second largest group comprised N depositions, conversion to arable land and intensification, each as a great threat on PG-types covering 4 to 5 Mha (~20%)., Grassland Science in Europe, 25, Proceedings of the 28th General Meeting of the European Grassland Federation, ISBN:978-952-326-944-6, ISBN:978-952-326-945-3