Tipos de enemigos en Cyborgeddon

While agriculture provides suitable habitats for many pollinators it can also have negative effects on them (ECPA, 2011). Pollinators require habitats for both foraging for nectar and pollen as well as nesting. However, farmland biodiversity has drastically declined in the past few decades due to agricultural intensification and a shift to large-scale monocultures has led to the loss and fragmentation of extensively used grasslands (Öckinger & Smith, 2007, IRGC 2009) and other non-crop habitats, such as field boundaries and woodland patches (Hietala-Koivu et al., 2004). In addition to this loss of habitats and therefore loss of foraging and nesting sites pollinators are negatively affected by fertilizer or other agro-chemical use (IRGC, 2009; Klein et al., 2007). The diversity of plant and plant production, which is of utmost importance for agricultural production in turn, also depends on the abundance and diversity of pollinators (Biesmeijer et al. 2006).

The multifaceted connections between farming practices and natural resources have been acknowledged by the European Commission (EC 2011d). Alongside the negative effects listed above positive connections can be found, too. Agricultural land management has created a rich variety of landscapes and habitats over the centuries, including a mosaic of woodlands, wetlands, and extensive tracts of open country sides. The rich variety of habitats facilitated the diversification of species including pollinators. However, as pointed out in the section 7.2, pollination is not the only ESS derived from these landscapes. The ecological integrity and the scenic value of landscapes make rural areas attractive for the establishment of enterprises, for places to live, and for the tourist and recreation businesses.

Taking these and other reasons into account the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has the goal to ensure that its regulations are compatible with environmental requirements and that CAP measures promote the development of agricultural practices preserving the environment and safeguarding the countryside. Three priority areas have been identified in the CAP to protect and enhance the EU’s rural heritage (EC 2011d):

• Biodiversity and the preservation and development of ‘natural’ farming and forestry systems, and traditional agricultural landscapes;

• Water management and use; • Climate change

Even though pollination is not mentioned as one of the priority areas in CAP, all of the three above- mentioned activity areas may have positive effects on pollination through providing and sustaining pollinator friendly environments and conditions.

In CAP the farmers are identified as key stakeholders in maintaining an environmentally friendly countryside (EC 2011d). There are at least two direct incentives targeted at farmers:

• payments are targeted at measures promoting environmentally sustainable farming practices (e.g. agri-environment measures);

• farmers with non-respect for the environmental laws are sanctioned through a reduction in support payments from the CAP.

The first above mentioned incentives are voluntary and aim to create a positive atmosphere for providing environmental services in farming (EC 2011e). Agri-environment measures are suggested as a key element for the integration of environmental concerns into the Common Agricultural Policy. Payments are provided to farmers when implementing the measures to compensate for additional costs arising from the implementation (e.g. due to reduced production). Agri-environment payments may only be made for actions farmers undertake above the reference level of mandatory requirements as currently defined by codes of “good farming practice” (GFP). Agri-environment payments are co-financed by the EU and the Member States (EC 2005).

Some of the agri-environmental measures of the CAP are (EC 2005): • Environmentally favourable extensification of farming;

• Conversion of arable land to grassland and rotation measures; • Management of low-intensity pasture systems;

• Set-aside

• Undersowing and cover crops • Strips (e.g. farmed buffer strips)

• Integrated farm management and organic agriculture; • Input reduction;

• Ensuring genetic diversity;

• Preservation of landscape and historical features such as hedgerows, ditches and woods; • Conservation of high-value habitats; (and)

• Maintenance of existing sustainable and extensive systems.

The objectives of the measures are manifold and benefit a number of ESS. When going through literature related to agri-environmental measures (e.g. Cooper et al., 2009; Hart et al., 2011; EC, 2005) it is evident that conservation and sustainability of fauna and flora as well as biodiversity in general are mentioned as objectives of agri-environmental measures. Further, the quality of soil and water gain a lot of attention. Pollinators or pollination are not mentioned explicitly and the effects of the measures on pollination turn out to be mixed.

Agri-environment schemes are not designed at EU-level but at Member State or even regional levels and can differ widely among Member States. Evaluation of the impact thus becomes very challenging (ECPA, 2011). In Finland, all the farmers who have signed the contract for agri-environmental measures have to apply an array of basic measures. In addition they can also choose from a selection of voluntary special measures, e.g. management of traditional rural biotopes, management of other biodiversity habitats, organic farming and construction of wetlands. The research results of the Finnish MYTVAS project show that agri-environmental schemes in Finland have been much more significant for water purification than pollination. Further, in terms of biodiversity and pollinators the basic measures (e.g. field margins and buffer zones) had a low significance. The voluntary special measures were found to be more effective, especially the maintenance of traditional rural biotopes. The most urgent policy development in Finland is to ensure that the role of biodiversity conservation is integrated more strongly into the common agricultural practices. One way to ensure this is turning the effective, but not so often applied, special measures into a selection of mandatory measures (Kuussaari et al., 2008).

Rollett et al. (2008) suggest coordinated efforts and reward contributions to habitat heterogeneity and encourage appropriate foraging and nesting sites for pollinators. Measures that will promote this could include (Rollett et al. 2008):

• • Flower-rich field margins, set-aside and hedgerows to provide alternative foraging and nesting sites for pollinators;

• Low input and extensive systems;

• Reduced fragmentation of habitat through co-ordinated action at the landscape level; • Reward for heterogeneity through co-ordinated action at the landscape level;

• Specific planting schemes to encourage specific pollinator species; and,

• Appropriate timing of management practices to avoid disturbance to pollinator habitat.

Öckinger and Smith (2007) found that especially the preservation of the remaining extensively used grasslands or re-creation of flower-rich grasslands is essential and can contribute greatly to sustain the abundance and diversity of insect pollinators. Kremen et al (2007) argue, however, that knowledge gaps currently impede development of effective management plans that support pollination services and recommend research that combines multiyear, multiscale monitoring of bee abundance and pollination function in response to habitat modification to restore pollination services in landscapes.

7.3.2.4. Habitats Directive

The European Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora) forms the cornerstone of Europe’s nature conservation policy. It is built around two pillars: the Natura 2000 network of protected sites and the strict system of species protection16_. The directive aims to protect approximately 1000 species and some 220 habitats and the Natura 2000 network has designated areas for species protection, and ideally, the establishment of monitoring programs to measure and ensure species protection (ECPA 2011). Especially in Annex I of the Habitats Directive, several habitat types suitable for pollinators are listed, including some grasslands and wet meadows17_{. The Habitats Directive also lists some butterfly species. However, their role in pollination is} lower than for bees. Yet, if we consider biodiversity, the meaning of these ‘supplementary species’ should not be underestimated.

7.3.2.5. Rural development policies

Policies closely coupled to those mentioned so far are rural development policies, as they influence land use and thereby influence the pollination. The essential regulation for rural development on European level is the Council Regulation 1698/2005/EC to support rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). Examples of measures / projects eligible for funding include18_:

• Payments to farmers to compensate for the cost incurred and forgone in managing Natura 2000 sites on their land;

• Support to private forest owners or forestry associations to cover the cost and income forgone resulting from restrictions aimed at safeguarding Natura 2000 sites;

• Agri-environment and forest environment payments to farmers / landowners;

• Encouraging of tourism activities through the provision of information centres, signposting and access to natural areas;

• Measures to raise environmental awareness.

16 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm

17 Council of the European Communities (1992). Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. OJ L 206, 22/07/1992 P. 0007-0050.