implementation of landscape planning and nature conservation in the agricultural landscape—a case...

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 92 (2002) 159–170

Implementation of landscape planning and nature conservation inthe agricultural landscape—a case study from Saxony

M. Lütz, O. Bastian∗Sächsische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Arbeitsgruppe Naturhaushalt und Gebietscharakter,

Neustädter Markt 19 (Blockhaus), D-01097 Dresden, Germany

Received 28 September 2000; received in revised form 17 August 2001; accepted 31 August 2001

Abstract

The interface between environment, agriculture and society needs more attention to improve nature conservation in rurallandscapes. The present paper attempts to identify the conditions on which ecological landscape plans can be implementedin agricultural practice, considering the prevailing conditions of agricultural policy. The case study was carried out in a localauthority area in Saxony (Germany). Calculation of variable margins indicated that most of the measures proposed by thelandscape plan (such as planting hedgerows, reduction of land use intensity, establishment of field margins rich in arableweeds) can be realised without loss of farmers’ income. That is 6% of the agricultural area can be withdrawn from cultivationwithout any negative financial effect for the farmers. In addition, a certain proportion of arable fields and grassland can bemanaged less intensively. Nevertheless, the attitude of farmers towards nature conservation was an obstacle in the realisationof ecological measures, even with generous economic incentives. The method applied was adequate to show that agriculturein this area is dependent on payments from agri-environmental programmes. It is proposed to strengthen the link betweensuch subsidies and more effective agri-environmental measures.© 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Acceptance of agri-environmental measures; Farmers’ income; Landscape planning; Nature conservation; Saxony; Variable margins

1. Introduction

In the recent past, human society in industrialisedcountries has come to recognise that agriculture mustbe multi-functional, making a major contribution topreserving the environment and the beauty of country-side, whilst keeping the social and economic viabilityof rural areas intact. Although today, agriculture’sshare of the EU gross domestic product (GDP) isless than 2%, its significance goes far beyond the

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.:+49-351-81416806;fax: +49-351-81416820.E-mail addresses:[email protected](M. Lütz), [email protected] (O. Bastian).

efficient production of high-quality food and raw ma-terials. Agriculture has to carry out various functionsfor society as a whole, and not only for the econ-omy, which are not revealed in the national economicstatistics. For many centuries, agriculture made anessential contribution to the development of culturallandscapes. Agriculture has shaped the face of mostparts of Europe and other regions of the earth. About50% of the territory of the European Union is coveredby agricultural land (Fischler, 1997).

Modern agriculture, however, has caused seriousenvironmental problems such as soil erosion, pollutionof surface and groundwater with agricultural chemi-cals and sediment, loss of biodiversity, detrimental ef-fects of agricultural chemicals on food quality, hazards

0167-8809/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.PII: S0167-8809(01)00300-0

160 M. Lütz, O. Bastian / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 92 (2002) 159–170

to human and animal health from pesticides and foodadditives (e.g. BSE crisis). On the other side, thecultivated landscape is a nature conservation resourceof great value, with complex ecological relationshipsbetween all species involved. Semi-natural habitatsand high nature value landscapes with an above av-erage biodiversity are an unintentional by-product ofhistorical forms of land use like agriculture.

Currently, agriculture in industrialised countriesis undergoing an intensive transformation which isaccompanied by changing objectives of land use dueto increasing demands for a “healthy countryside”, fornon-agricultural functions of the rural environment,e.g. recreation, nature conservation, protection of nat-ural resources, and cultural heritage (Vos and Meekes,1999; Werner and Seyfarth, 2000). Increasingly, agri-culture is encouraged to contribute to sustainablelandscape quality (Kuiper, 2000).

The negative effects of modern agriculture havealso prompted the development of various demands,concepts, resolutions and programmes to improve theenvironmental situation in agricultural areas. Accord-ing to Simoncini (1999), farmers have a dual andindivisible role, the first being that of an entrepreneurtrying to maximise benefits, the other being that ofa manager of public goods: the environment. In thisrespect, the market mechanism alone cannot workproperly and therefore the idea of paying farmers forthe environmental goods and services they provide isgaining support amongst western European citizens.

One tool for realising ecological goals in Germany(and elsewhere) is a hierarchical system of landscapeplans. The focus of landscape planning is

1. Preservation and regeneration of the landscape-typical biodiversity.

2. Conservation of soils and their functions.3. Maintenance of functioning water cycles.4. Reduction of threats to the bioclimate; supporting

air-exchange and protection of people (and wildanimals) from noise.

5. Conservation of typical scenery (landscape aesthet-ics) and of landscapes favourable for recreation.

The practical implementation of landscape plansalone cannot satisfy (Roth, 1996; Bastian, 1997).One of the main reasons is that the interests andeconomic objectives of land-users are not sufficientlytaken into consideration. For this reason, increasing

attention is being paid to a better understanding of in-teractions between agriculture and society, especiallythe agroecosystem–environmental interface (Carter,2001). However, a complex concept of landscapeprotection and development also needs business man-agement and socio-economic analyses. This paperdevelops an integrating approach to the goals of na-ture conservation and of agriculture which, hopefully,should lead to a consensus.

The objectives of this case study are to: (1) ascertainthe economic feasibility of ecological proposals pre-sented in the landscape plan; (2) calculate the farmers’income on the basis of variable margins before andafter the implementation of the landscape plan; (3)modify the measures proposed by the landscape planin order to influence farmers’ income positively; (4)assess farmers’ acceptance of agri-environmental mea-sures; and (5) discuss the current agricultural policywith regard to the necessary re-organisation of incen-tive payment systems.

2. Methodology

2.1. Study background

This paper presents results of a study (Lütz, 1999)which assessed, in the case of the local authority areaof Promnitztal (Saxony, Germany; see Fig. 1), thechances of implementation of both a local landscapeplan (Grohmann et al., 1997) and of an expert’s re-port for the newly established landscape conservationarea “Moritzburg small-hill landscape” (Bastian et al.,1991) in agriculture.

The case study described here can be regarded as amethodical step, as a contribution to a more compre-hensive study with the acronym AEMBAC which willbe carried out between 2001 and 2003 by membersof the IUCN–European Sustainable Use SpecialistGroup/Agricultural Working Group (Simoncini, 1998)from Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Sweden,Switzerland and the Netherlands. The overall objec-tive of the AEMBAC-project is the definition of acommon European analytical framework for the devel-opment of local agri-environmental programmes. Theproject will develop a methodology to “internalise”positive and/or negative environmental externalitiesarising from different agricultural practices in the

M. Lütz, O. Bastian / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 92 (2002) 159–170 161

Fig. 1. Geographical situation of the test area Promnitztal in the “Moritzburg small-hill landscape” (“Moritzburger Kleinkuppenlandschaft”—Saxony, Germany).

economic performances of the primary sector, usinga very comprehensive and interdisciplinary approach,capable of eliciting the full value of goods and ser-vices provided by agriculture.

2.1.1. Landscape conditionsThe “Moritzburg small-hill landscape” is charac-

terised by a small-scale pattern of small hills andlow ridges with exposed rocks and flat hollows. Thebedrock is dominated by monzonits, but granodior-ite, sandy and holocene substrates also occur. The ba-sic geomorphological pattern causes a high diversityof soil, water and climatic conditions which is re-sponsible for the present vegetation cover and landuse. Effective agricultural production is hampered by

the complicated natural site conditions. Forests andwoods are concentrated on the crests of the rocky andstony hills, arable fields on slopes and grassland inmoist hollows (Fig. 2). Land improvements (especiallydrainage) have tried to diminish this natural hetero-geneity but with little success. Drainage facilities fellinto disrepair after a few years, and the thin soil coveron the hills is an insuperable obstacle for ploughing.The result is a rich-structured rural landscape with anotably high biodiversity and interesting scenery. Thearea is particularly rich in species which are adaptedto less intensive agriculture, e.g. rare arable weeds,plants of field margins, edges and small coppices, birdsbreeding in hedges, woods, grassland and arable fields;amphibians, reptiles and many insect species.


Fig. 2. A typical cross-section (catena) of the “Moritzburg small-hill landscape” (after Mannsfeld, 1965, essentially modified).

2.1.2. History of land use and agricultureHistorical landscape analyses can throw light on the

interrelations between agriculture and landscape, andlead to sustainable land use by the integration of natureconservation into economic processes. The changes inland use during the 19th and 20th century are shownin Table 1.

Political conditions and technical progress were im-portant factors for landscape change in the second halfof the 20th century. After World War II, cattle stockwas at first very low but increased in the 1950s; arablefields were used only with low intensity. Typical croprotations were:

• on nutrient-poor and dry soils: potato (SolanumtuberosumL.; application of muck (i.e. animal ma-nure plus straw) as organic fertiliser)–winter rye(Secale cerealeL.; 2 courses);

• on soils better provided with water and nutri-ents: potato (muck fertilisation)–oats (Avena sativaL.)–winter rye (2 courses);

• on soils with a well-balanced moisture and nutri-ent supply (high muck fertilisation, liming): fodderbeet (Beta vulgarisL.)–summer barley (Hordeumvulgare L.) and clover (Trifolium spp. L.)–wheat(Triticum aestivumL.)–potato or oats.

In the 1950s, private farmers with very small landproperty dominated. Collectivisation (the creation ofcollective farms) began in 1952, and the small pri-vate fields were put together. Field paths and marginswere ploughed out, many meadows and pastures weretransformed to arable land and the water economy waschanged by drainage. These measures favoured theintroduction of modern technologies and large-scaleproduction.

2.1.3. Current agricultural land useToday (1999) six full-time and four part-time farm-

ers work in the study area. Mainly market crops andfodder plants (for milk production) are cultivated.Since 1990, after the political changes in Eastern Ger-many, intensification of agriculture by drainage wasdiscontinued, fertilisation by phosphorus and potashwas considerably reduced, while fertilisation by ni-trogen slightly increased. The area under cultivationalso increased at the expense of field and path mar-gins with negative consequences for wild flora andfauna. In addition, the use of green fodder was nearlydiscontinued, dairy cows were fed with silo-maizethroughout the year, and in the beginning of 1990s, asubstantial proportion of fallow land was maintained.Overall, an impoverishment of crop diversity has


Table 1Landscape changes in the study area (Promnitztal) in the 19th and 20th century

Period Measures, landscape changes

1801–1883 Reduction of coppices in sizeRemoval of many hedges, especially within the fieldsAlmost total loss of riparian woodsStraightening of the most important running watersFilling of many pondsPloughing of grassland (transformation to arable fields)Increase in quarries

1883–1939 Increase and joining of coppicesSome changes between grassland and arable landConstruction of a motorway (finished in 1939) with many impacts and consequences, e.g. fragmentation,pollution of the air and adjacent soils, noise

1939–1960 Moderate increase in the intensity of agriculture while essentially maintaining the landscape structure and landownershipTemporary consequences of World War II (e.g. reduction of livestock)

1960–1990 Drainage of grassland and arable fieldsCanalisation (culverts) of more than 90% of the ditchesEnlargement of arable fields from 22 ha up to maximal 58 ha on averageConsiderable loss of coppices, hedges, field and path marginsReduction of grassland proportion in favour of arable fields and periodical ploughing of the remaining grasslandand new sowingChanges in crop rotationsSignificant increase in the application of inorganic fertilisers, especially nitrogen

taken place. Potatoes, clover and lupines (Lupinusspp. L.) were eliminated from the crop rotations, andoilseed-plants were included. The proportion of cropsbetween 1996 and 1998 was as follows: 55% cereals(winter rye, winter wheat, winter barley, oats), 20%oilseeds (sunflowers—Helianthus annuusL., rape—Brassica napusL., flax–Linum usitatissimumL.) and25% field-fodder plants (maize—Zea maysL.).

The proportion and pattern of crops were de-termined by the natural conditions, variations inrotations, the need for animal food, and environmen-tal restrictions through the programme “Agricultureharmless to the environment” of the Free State ofSaxony. The latter compensates for environmentalmeasures in the cultural landscape, financial com-pensations for economically deprived areas, subsidiesand actual market-prices. The predominating croprotations in the 1990s were as follows:

• winter wheat–winter barley—rape–winter rye ormaize on soils better provided with water andnutrients;

• winter rape or maize–cereals (no wheat) on hillsand near cowsheds.

2.2. Business management analyses

To evaluate the effects of the nature conservationmeasures proposed or demanded by the landscapeplan, a business management analysis in selectedenterprises was carried out. The enterprises were cho-sen with regard to their importance in the test area(Promnitztal consists of three villages with 2000 in-habitants), and the willingness of the farmers to puttheir data at our disposal.

First, the present economic situation of the farmswas analysed with the help of questionnaires. Thestandard variable margin (=gross margin) per hectarewas used as the basis for the evaluation of arablecrops (HAD, 1993). This was done by compar-ing the inputs and the outputs of each productionmethod. Thus, the variable margin is: Agriculturalyield (sum of market-prices, subsidies from the EUand from the programme “Agriculture harmless to theenvironment”, and compensations for deprived areas),less costs of production (seeds, fertilisers, biocides,costs for machines and human labour) (see Fig. 3).

The variable margin was established for eachcrop for three consecutive years (between 1995


Fig. 3. Scheme for the determination of the average variable margin per hectare for field crops through the alteration of the management(from Lütz, 1999).

and 1998) and generalised to the average variablemargin per hectare over the 3 years (see Fig. 3).In this way, the consequences of the implemen-tation of the landscape plan can be representedas the difference from the average pre-existingsituation.

The evaluation for grassland and maize was not car-ried out in monetary terms as for the arable crops,but with the method of fodder supply of metabolis-able energy (“net-energy lactation”). It is a method ofanimal food evaluation, as the metabolic energy of ananimal food is assessed from the energetic content of


Table 2Ecological demands of the landscape plan for the rural municipality Promnitztal and their possible implementation by agricultural measures

Requirements of landscape plan Measures

Arable fields General decrease of production intensity Reduction of nitrogen fertilisers and biocides by 20%Field margins Establishment on all plots of land No nitrogen fertilisers and biocidesBuffer zones Establishment around valuable biotopes

(running waters, woods, wet areas)Natural succession or planted woods on 50% of allbuffer areas, reduction of nitrogen fertilisers andbiocides by 40% on the remaining 50% of buffer areas

Protection of reptiles Reduction of land use intensity at someplaces

Arable fields: reduction of nitrogen and biocideapplication by 40%Grassland: development of rough grassland,renunciation of nitrogen and biocide application

Grassland General decrease of production intensity Reduction of nitrogen and biocide application by 20%,mowing pasture (two cuts)

Planting of woods Development of hedges typical for thearea as well as rich-structured forestedges

Calculation of income-losses due to land abandonment,consideration of positive influences of hedges on yields

digestible nutrients (Menke and Huss, 1987). Usually,this method is applied to dairy cows. The concept ofmetabolisable energy considers the influence of agri-cultural management practices on the available grossenergy and the digestibility of fodder crops.

The demands and restrictions of the existing land-scape plan (Table 2) were incorporated into thevariable margins and fodder evaluations. The conse-quences of the landscape plan implementation findexpression as the difference from the initial situation.The losses in yields were calculated according to Zed-dies et al. (1997) (the production function, see Fig. 3),and by comparisons with data from literature (e.g.Beese and Delling, 1998; Diercks and Heitefuß, 1990;Mährlein, 1993; Menge et al., 1998; Zimmer, 1990).

A constraint assumption in the study was that thesum of energy supply from the basic fodder areas(maize, grassland) should stay constant, i.e. the stockof cattle and the milk production should not be af-fected by these measures. Otherwise, loss of farmers’income would be the consequence. Reductions in en-ergy supply could be due to: (1) decrease in yield bythe reduction of management intensity; (2) increaseof fibre content of the crops; and (3) by a late har-vest of the fodder crops (Menke and Huss, 1987; Zim-mer, 1990). To compensate for these energetic losses,an expansion of maize plots was proposed. Compen-sating payments from agri-environmental programmeswere considered, too. The resulting new managementconcept was presented as a whole to farm-managers

for examination, and the acceptability of the proposedmeasures was ascertained.

3. Results

3.1. The assessment of the landscape planfrom an agricultural point of view

The application of all the proposed measuresled to an increase of the variable margin on arablefields. The reasons for this was the high level ofcompensation payments provided for arable fieldmargins (strips at the margins of arable fields whichare not treated with chemicals to favour the de-velopment of a rich community of arable weeds).The average variable margin of arable fields in-creased in this model because of the total area ofsuch margins by 102/ha (20%) up to 615/ha(Table 3). These positive influences on the variablemargin, however, were balanced by other demandsof the landscape plan: creation of hedges, forestsand forest edges, areas for natural successions, bufferzones, grassland and revitalisation of waters (Table 4).To compensate for the measures of extensification(especially, the reduction of utilisation intensity)(Table 5) 69 ha of arable fields were needed for addi-tional field-fodder cultivation (maize). The effect ofsplitting these area losses on the variable margin wasan annual monetary loss of 58,151totally or 128 /ha


Table 3Economic effects of the demands set up in the landscape plan Promnitztal

Measures Area (ha) Benefit/loss( /ha)

Share of the variablemargin (%)

Types of areasArable fields (without maize) (N-fertiliser and biocide

reduction by 20%)373.9 −3.9 −0.2

Buffer zones and “reptile protection area” (1.4 ha)(N-fertiliser and biocide reduction by 40%)

17.1 (8.7 km× 18 m) −17.9 −3.5

Field margin (without maize plots) (total renunciationof N-fertilisers and biocides)

81.6 (45.3 km× 18 m) +381.1 +74.2

Average variable margin of arable fieldsa 472.6 +102.0 +20.0

Losses of areaDirect losses: 49.7 ha (Table 4) −128.0Reduction of intensity (indirect losses): 69.1 ha (Table 5)

Average total variable marginb −26.0 −5.0

a By the measures proposed the average variable margin of arable fields increased by 102.0/ha (20%) up to 615/ha.b Total changes of the variable margin taking all measures (see Tables 4 and 5) into account. The benefit of 102.0/ha was balanced

by direct and indirect area losses. In the end, this led to the total loss of−26.0 /ha (−5%).

of remaining arable fields. The average variable mar-gin, therefore, decreased by 26/ha (5%) (Table 3).

The calculations showed that an almost income-neutral realisation of the landscape plan was possible.In order to compensate for financial losses (which arenot acceptable from the farmers’ point of view), it

Table 4Direct area losses resulting from the implementation of the landscape plan Promnitztal (land use changes leading to the reduction of theagricultural area)

Measures Length (m) Width (m) Area (ha)

HedgesBroad (a) 7500.0 12.0Narrow (b) 3050.0 8.0a + b 11.4

Tree rows 2800.0 8.0 2.2Forest edges (on arable land) 7150.0 10.0 7.2Woods 2.5Area for succession (on arable land) 5.5Buffer zones (on arable land) 18.9Rehabilitation of waters (on arable land) 550.0 3.0 0.2Change from arable land to grassland 1.8

Total loss of arable land (Σ) 49.7

Forest edges (on grassland) 1800.0 10.0 1.8Area for succession (on grassland) 0.5Rehabilitation of waters (on grassland) 4200.0 3.0 1.3Reduction of grassland losses by gaining in

addition from arable land−1.8

Total loss of grassland (Σ) 1.8

was necessary to reduce the 49.7 ha of land taken outfrom the agricultural production in favour of hedgesand other ecological measures as proposed in thelandscape plan, to only 45.1 ha. That means, by thiscalculation 5.8% of the agricultural area could be with-drawn from cultivation without negative influences


Table 5Indirect area losses resulting from the implementation of the landscape plan Promnitztala

Measures Area (ha) MJ NEL (ha)b MJ NELtotalb

Arable fields (with maize) 198.6 −12864 −2554503Buffer zones (at maize fields) 3.2 −24841 −80081Buffer zones (grassland) 1.5 −6212 −9504Field margin (at maize fields) 43.4 −53232 −2310763Grassland extensification 73.2 −3217 −235299Extensification of grassland (for reptile protection) 1.1 −6212 −6708Establishment of new grassland 1.8 6212 11181

Sum −5185678

Consideration of grassland losses and favourable effectsof hedges on yields

5244833

Equivalent in arable land with maize 69.1 ha

a Explanation: The implementation of the landscape plan leads to the reduction of yields by extensification, and consequently, to a deficitin fodder for the cattle (expressed in energy units). The sum (=the total deficit) is−5,185,678 MJ. This amount is slightly modified by thedirect grassland losses (negatively, see Table 4), and by yield-influencing effects of hedges (positively). Finally, 5,244,833 MJ have to becompensated by field-fodder (maize). For it, 69.1 ha of arable land are necessary. For the variable margin, these 69.1 ha are lost (Table 3).

b Net-energy lactation (fodder supply of metabolisable energy).

on the income of the farmers. This fact contradictedthe usually poor perception of landscape plans (notonly) among farmers (see Sections 1 and 3.2).

3.2. The acceptance of agri-environmentalmeasures by the farmers

The attitude of farmers to the proposed concepts wasnot based only on economic aspects. Of course, theirreceptiveness was greater for such measures whencompensating programmes support them. In the pe-riod of this investigation, however, farmers did nottake full advantage of these programmes. If agricul-tural land was demanded irreversibly (e.g. for forests),the farmers’ attitude was less favourable. A generaland absolute preference among farmers for reversiblemeasures, however, could not be established in thisstudy. Increasing variable margins have not lead to agrowing acceptance of restrictions.

The question is why the farmers of the studyarea had not taken part in the agri-environmentalprogrammes of their own accord despite the real in-come benefits. Inadequate knowledge and hostilityto agri-environmental measures seem to be the mainreasons. Traditionally, the farmers’ conception ofthemselves is as producers of material goods. Theirperception of agri-environmental measures is basedon an expectation of reduction in yields and food

production. This view is more or less independentof favourable income effects. Besides, in contrastto nature conservation and landscape management,traditional farming leads to visible, measurable andcomparable results within short periods as a directfeedback of farmers’ work. The most important reac-tions to the management plan, i.e. the newly proposedeconomic and management concept, are summarisedin Table 6.

3.3. The influence of the present promotion ofagri-environmental policy

Environmental impacts, overproduction and perma-nent decrease of the farmers’ income have given causefor complaint about agricultural policy in the past. Itwas only after 1990, that more intensive efforts began,so “that the environment should become an additionalsupport leg for the farmers” as was emphasised bythe EU (Berrer, 1993). The Agenda 2000 outlines anew set of reforms, including further steps towardssubstantial direct payments for agri-environmentalmeasures. The concept of public payment for theprotection of natural resources and the enhancementof the countryside is increasingly gaining acceptanceand offers agriculture and forestry, as the main landusers, both new challenges and fresh opportunities(European Commission, 1997). In anticipation of ex-


Table 6Reactions to the management plan by the farmers

Issues Farmers’ opinions and expected development of land management

Rotation of crops No essential future changes because of the further orientation towards the financialcompensations and subsidiesThe proportion of oil crops will be reduced in spite of high subsidies

Fertiliser use As the most important result, the farm which had not taken part in the programme “Integratedagriculture” until now, intends to reduce fertilisation intensity

Field margins One part of the investigated farms will take part—as a consequence of our contacts—in thisprogrammeThe other farmers gave as the reason for his abstention the assumption that the positiveincome effect would be too low, and that field margins with many weeds would beaesthetically unpleasant

Fallow-land On the current conditions no further withdrawal of low-productive plots can be expected. Theproportion of (periodical) economic fallow-land will stay constant

Grassland The differentiation of farming intensity will continue. Wet, moist and dry meadows andpastures being poor in nutrients and rich in species will be withdrawn more and more

Landscape elements There was a different acceptance concerning the establishment of structural landscapeelements (hedges, margins):The loss of production areas by linear landscape elements was accepted only partly.Especially, larger forests and those aligned across the farmer’s working direction meet withopposition. The planting of hedges along paths and ditches was more toleratedHedgerows and woods of any sort, were more appreciated (with regard to scenery andbiodiversity) than field margins. Farmers insisted on their participation in the choice of sitesfor the hedges; best of all they preferred wet areas in arable fields

pected EU-expansion further reforms of the CommonAgricultural Policy (CAP) will be necessary.

In Saxony, the EU-Regulation 2078/97 is imple-mented by the programme “Environment-friendlyagriculture”. Farmers’ participation is high: 65% ofthe agricultural area gets financial support from it,so-called basic subsidies. In Germany as a whole,however, on average only 40% of the area is involved(DBV, 1999). The reason for this rather high accep-tance in Saxony is the low level of environment-relateddemands combined with these subsidies (take-awayeffect). Only 45% of the area receiving basic subsidiesis also involved in additional payments for environ-ment and soil protecting measures. The participationin additional measures, i.e. in favour of biodiversity, ismuch lower. For example, only 0.097% of the farmersreceiving basic subsidies are involved in the field mar-gin programme (SML, 1998). Thus the major part ofthe EU-financial support spent on “agri-environmentalmeasures” really should assigned to so-called “goodspecialist practice”. In other words, Society at largepays subsidies to conventional agriculture with funds,which are then not available for more urgent measuresof Nature Conservation.

Nevertheless, the subsidies maintain agriculturein peripheral regions. The study area “Moritzburgsmall-hill landscape” is categorised as a potentialarea of land abandonment (DRL, 1997). Without thepayments from various programmes, the average vari-able margin for arable fields would fall below minus50 /ha. That means, without subsidies, agriculturalproduction would have ceased, long ago. Loss ofjobs and the consequent depopulation in economi-cally poor regions would follow. EU-wide, eight of10 regions with the highest depopulation are in East-ern Germany. Within the EU, Germany scores thegreatest decline of farms (4.1%), whereas agriculturalproduction has grown by 1.5% per annum since 1995(EUROSTAT, 1999).

Land abandonment and afforestation of fields andgrassland would change and—to a certain extent—destroy the traditional cultural landscape as it canstill be observed in many parts even of industrialisedcountries, e.g. in the Alps or in Tuscany (Farina,1998). Many biotope types very rich in plant and ani-mal species (so-called semi-natural communities) area result of historical agriculture and are dependent onthe continuation of moderate land use or management


practices. Land abandonment would also go againstthe main purpose of the protection of the “Moritzburgsmall-hill landscape” to “maintain typical plant andanimal communities of rich-structured agriculturallandscapes” (prescription for the landscape conserva-tion area).

4. Conclusions

The study showed that the implementation of land-scape plans into agricultural practice is difficult butpossible. Loss of farmers’ income can be avoided ifthe proposals of the landscape planner are modifiedand adapted to the actual economic situation. The eco-logical goals can only be achieved by the use of pub-lic subsidies from agri-environmental programmes.Moreover, such payments are necessary to maintainagriculture even in slightly deprived regions such asthe study area, which suffers from some minor dis-advantages of natural conditions but profits from thevicinity of a large city (Dresden). Calculating variablemargins is a suitable approach to compare economicbenefits and costs resulting from agri-environmentalmeasures.

However, environment-friendly technologies can-not be set up by payments only. The extension of agri-environmental measures as a second economic sup-port leg is only possible if farmers have a seriousinterest in contributing to the maintenance, protectionand development of the cultural landscape in additionto food production. Today, demands from the fields ofnature conservation and landscape management arestill regarded by many farmers as limitations of theirliberty in decision making. They provoke additionalanxieties and resistance if the expected economic re-sult is unfavourable, either really or only supposedly(Knauer, 1995). Obviously, it is still not a commonperception among farmers that, in the long term,agriculture and nature conservation can survive onlytogether.

The study confirms the legitimacy of Simoncini’s(1999) demand that farmers should be paid for thesupply of environmental goods and services, and thatthey should also be held financially accountable forenvironmental damages resulting from unsustainableagricultural practices. The results of the case studyalso show that the acceptance of landscape planning

and nature conservation in rural areas can be increasedby considering socio-economic and agro-ecologicalfactors. The designation of environmental limits andtargets, is equally important as the inclusion of farm-ers in early phases of planning and the orientationof the landscape planner’s demands towards actualguidelines for agri-environmental subsidies, the con-sideration of business management, and the prevailingcircumstances of the agrarian-market, are essential andequally important factors in achieving the acceptanceof landscape plans.

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Dr. J. and M. Sudd (Oswestry,UK) for making improvements in the English of thispaper. We also thank B. Graichen who designed thefigures.

References

Bastian, O., 1997. Landschaftsplanung- Wegweiser für eineökologisch orientierte Raumentwicklung. Erdkundeunterricht49 (1), 9–13.

Bastian, O., Lorenz, J., Scholz, A., Schrack, M., 1991. Schutz-würdigkeitsgutachten für das geplante Landschaftsschutzgebiet“Moritzburger Kleinkuppenlandschaft”, Dresden, 44 pp.

Beese, G., Delling, M., 1998. Zur Intensivierung in derGetreideproduktion. Infodienst für Beratung und Schule derSächsischen Agrarverwaltung 4/98. Sächsische Landesanstaltfür Landwirtschaft, pp. 62–66.

Berrer, T., 1993. Welchen Stellenwert nimmt umweltverträglicheLandbewirtschaftung in der EG-Agrarpolitik ein und mitwelchen Möglichkeiten kann sie diese Entwicklung speziell inden neuen Bundesländern beeinflussen? Schr.-R. d. DeutschenRates f. Landespflege 63, 110–111.

Carter, M.R., 2001. Researching the agroecosystem/environmentalinterface. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 83, 3–9.

DBV—Deutscher Bauernverband, 1999. Deutsche Bauern nehmenden Umwelt- und Naturschutz ernst. Press Report for Agrar.de News, 1999.

Diercks, R., Heitefuß, R., 1990. Integrierter Landbau: Systemeumweltbewußter Pflanzenproduktion. BLV Verlagsgesellschaft,München, 420 pp.

DRL—Deutscher Rat für Landschaftspflege, 1997. Leitbilder fürLandschaften in peripheren Räumen. Schr.-R d. DeutschenRates f. Landespflege 67, 5–25.

European Commission, 1997. Agenda 2000: for a stronger andwider Europe. Press Release IP/97/60.

EUROSTAT—Statistisches Amt der Europäischen Gemeinschaft,1999. http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/eurostat/.html.


Farina, A., 1998. Principles and Methods in Landscape Ecology.Chapman & Hall, London, 235 pp.

Fischler, F., 1997. Agriculture and rural development in Europe.Opening Lecture at the Inauguration Ceremony for the 244thAcademic Year of the Accademia dei Georgofili, Florence,1997, 16 pp.

Grohmann, L., Scheffler, A., Bastian, O., 1997. LandschaftsplanGemeinde Promnitztal, 77 pp.

HAD—Hydro Agri Dülmen GmbH, 1993. Faustzahlen fürLandwirtschaft und Gartenbau. Landwirtschaftsverlag, 618 pp.

Knauer, N., 1995. Naturschutz und Landwirtschaft- aktuelleKonflikte und Perspektiven. NNA-Berichte 2, 108–115.

Kuiper, J., 2000. A checklist approach to evaluate the contributionof organic farms to landscape quality. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.77, 143–156.

Lütz, M., 1999. Integration von Naturschutzzielen in dieagrarische Landnutzung am Beispiel der MoritzburgerKleinkuppenlandschaft. Diplomarbeit TU Dresden, Institut fürAllgemeine Ökologie und Umweltschutz.

Mährlein, A., 1993. Kalkulationsdaten für die Grünlandbewirts-chaftung unter Naturschutzauflagen. KTBL Arbeitspapier 179.Darmstadt, 116 pp.

Mannsfeld, K., 1965. Das Gebiet um Moritzburg in lands-chaftsökologischer Sicht. Sächs. Heimatbl. 11 (1), 49–64.

Menge, M., Ernst, H., Förster, F., Reinhard, W., 1998.Ergebnisse zur Wirksamkeit des Programms “UmweltgerechteLandwirtschaft” in Sachsen. Infodienst für Beratung und

Schule der Sächsischen Agrarverwaltung 8/98. SächsischeLandesanstalt für Landwirtschaft, pp. 52–58.

Menke, K.H., Huss, W., 1987. Tierernährung und Futter-mittelkunde. Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart, 424 pp.

Roth, D., 1996. Agrarraumnutzungs- und Pflegepläne- einInstrument zur Landschaftsplan- Umsetzung. Naturschutz undLandschaftsplanung 28 (8), 237–242.

Simoncini, R., 1998. The IUCN/European Sustainable UseSpecialist Group/Agricultural Working Group Pan–EuropeanProject. Mscr., Florence.

Simoncini, R., 1999. Agricultural use of natural resources inEurope. In: Oglethorope, J. (Ed.), IUCN/Sustainable UseInitiative, Technical Series, Vol. 2, Tenure and Sustainable Use.Gland (Schweiz), Cambridge (UK), 13 pp.

SML—Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Landwirtschaft, Ernäh-rung und Forsten, 1998. Agrarbericht 1997, Dresden, 212 pp.

Vos, W., Meekes, H., 1999. Trends in European cultural landscapedevelopment: perspectives for a sustainable future. LandscapeUrban Plan. 46 (1–3), 3–14.

Werner, A., Seyfarth, W., 2000. Zur Integration ökologischerZiele in die agrarische Landschaftsnutzung. PetermannsGeographische Mitteilungen 144 (2), 6–13.

Zeddies, J., Kazenwadel, G., Löthe, K., 1997. Auswirkungen einerSteuer auf mineralische Stickstoffdünger, Agrarwirtschaft 46,H. 6: 214–224.

Zimmer, E., 1990. Grünlandbewirtschaftung. KTBL-Arbeitspapier140. KTBL, Darmstadt, 184 pp.

implementation of landscape planning and nature conservation in the agricultural landscape—a case...

Documents