Landscape features in the EU Member States : a review of existing data and approaches

Agricultural landscape features are small fragments of natural or semi-natural vegetation in agricultural land which, compared to their relatively small size, provide important contributions to ecosystem services and biodiversity. They have long-standing historical and cultural roots in the agricultural landscapes of Europe, but with the advent of intensive agriculture, landscape features became threatened. Nevertheless, landscape features can have a major role in making European agriculture more resilient to the key environmental challenges of the 21st century, including climate change and biodiversity decline. In this report we analysed the main strategies and approaches followed by the Member States (MS) to mainstream landscape features (LF) in their implementation of the CAP during the 2014-2020+ programming period. All of the available instruments (GAEC, EFA, RDP) have been popular among the MS, but there was a high diversity in the selection of instruments for particular LF types. Similarly, the MS applied highly diverse definitions and criteria for identifying LF, customized according to the national needs and traditions. Several lessons can be drawn from these definitions, including a representative set of geometric specifications and definitional criteria, which can support the future MS and EU-level LF applications. We also reviewed the available geospatial information on LF at the MS-level in a dedicated search on the EU INSPIRE geoportal. We found 75 relevant datasets from 18 MS, while for 9 MS there seem to be no relevant datasets documented in the EU INSPIRE geoportal. Only few datasets were developed with the explicit aim to address landscape features. Most data are available for wet LF, which are often covered to some degree national topography maps. Woody LF types are also often addressed by the MS, while there is almost no data for grassy and stony LF. The datasets found also come with highly diverse technical specifications, semantics, and thematic scope. While these heterogeneities prevent the direct use of these data in EU-level assessments, they are still fundamental sources of information for MS-level quantifications, which are also discussed briefly in this report. Finally, we also explored the main factors (constraints and opportunities) determining the success of LF measures in national CAP implementations, as experienced by Paying Agencies and national CAP Program Coordinators. These factors include obstacles limiting the voluntary participation of farmers, and challenges for the coordinating institutions. For the farmers the low level of obtainable subsidies was the first limiting factor, which does not compensate for their physical and administrative efforts. At the level of the coordinating institutions the most important challenge is the lack of efficient and reliable methodologies for delineating and monitoring LF. These lessons, in combination with the data and techniques applied in the Member States and their regions, establish research needs for the upcoming CAP programming periods, so that the ubiquitous presence of wellfunctioning landscape features could be a major driver of a transition towards a more sustainable agriculture in all parts of Europe.