DOCSLIB.ORG

Conversion from Arable Land to Grassland Mitigating Soil Erosion

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conversion from Arable Land to Grassland Mitigating Soil Erosion Best practice manual (BPM): Conversion from arable land to grassland mitigating soil erosion Cluster 3 Final version 19.10.2018 Project co-funded by the European Union funds (ERDF, IPA) Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 3 2. SOIL EROSION RELATED ISSUES IDENTIFIED ON TRANSNATIONAL LEVEL ......... 4 3. CONVERSION TO GRASSLAND AS A SOIL EROSION MEASURE ................................... 7 3.1. Conversion of risk fields and field parts – greening strategies ............................................................. 7 3.2. Grassed waterways ............................................................................................................................. 8 3.3. Grass strips and other protective strips ............................................................................................... 9 3.4. Buffer strips along water bodies ........................................................................................................ 11 4. METHODS TO IDENTIFY RISK AREAS FOR CONVERSION TO GRASSLAND ......... 12 5. EXAMPLE OF PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION - POTENTIALS FOR CONVERSION TO GRASSLAND IN BRNO PILOT AREA ................................................................................... 15 6. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 25 2 Project co-funded by European Union funds (ERDF, IPA) 1. Introduction Simply said, conversion to grassland is the most effective soil erosion prevention in steep areas of arable land. High quality afforesting can be even more effective, but it is much harder to implement and it means complete structural changes in the landscape. Conversion to grassland is not always preventing against pluvial floods, it effectively supports retention only for low intensity rainfalls. For extreme events (of low occurrence) the roughness of the grassed surfaces is low to stop rapid flow accumulation. On the other hands it always protects soil and potential floods are not muddy floods. As known from experiments supporting empirical soil erosion research, permanent grassland can reduce soil erosion 20 times up to 100 times more effectively comparing to arable land in typical agricultural management systems. Expressed by crop and management factor of the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE), comparing to cultivated fallow, the soil loss from permanent grassland is only 0,5% (C=0,005) while on arable land it typically is from 10% to 50% depending on crop rotation scheme (C between 0,1 to 0,5). But grassed areas also have to be maintained properly to reach the highest soil protection effect. Meadows are generally more protective than pastures. On pastures the cattle load has to be taken into account, and the cattle must be evenly moved from overgrazed areas to others. Details such as water sources for cattle at the streambanks can cause a lot of problems with high sediment and nutrient load into waters. Converting to grassland also means changes in structure of agricultural production and for many farmers it is not easy to implement cattle, sheep or other breeds into the farm management structure, even in areas morphologically (naturally) dedicated to grasslands and forestlands more than to arable cultivated land. Promoting a sustainable agriculture requires that farmers / practitioners apply the new agricultural practices based on the most advanced scientific knowledge technologies, especially those environmentally viable. The same way it means to maintain the land the way respecting natural conditions and origin of every place. Our main objective is to provide a wide scope of learning possibilities in the field of agriculture within the Danube river basin. 2. Soil erosion related issues identified on transnational level The main vulnerabilities in the pilot areas have been identified through each project partner activities. All the problems may not occur in all the pilot areas, but it is a possibility that in the future each country may be affected. GAP analysis of the different harmful practices was provided for entire Danube region within CAMARO-D partner countries. The analysis resulted in knowledge that the number of harmful practices related to arable and grass agricultural systems is variable within CAMARO-D countires, but generally it is quite high with impact on water and soil quality related issues. In following tables, the percentages of harmful practices relating to both phenomena are presented. Table 1: Percentage of bad practices from different land management segments contributing to water quality issues. Segments CZ SI HR DE RS BG HU RO AT Arable agriculture 80% 85% 85% 65% 90% 75% 55% 65% 95% Grass agriculture 75% 70% 70% 85% 80% 65% 60% 80% 70% Table 2: Percentage of bad practices from different land management segments contributing to soil functioning. Segments CZ SI HR DE RS BG HU RO AT Arable agriculture 55% 40% 85% 60% 100% 80% 60% 90% 55% Grass agriculture 60% 65% 85% 70% 85% 80% 40% 90% 65% Identified most frequent risk practices in arable agricultural and grass agricultural are listed in following table. Already from these three most frequent practices listed we see, that risk practices in agricultural lands in Danube are frequently related to soil erosion by water. Another table presents ten most frequent risk practices in CAMARO-D region on arable lands, and here we see, that all 10 most frequent practices contribute to higher soil erosion risk. 4 Project co-funded by European Union funds (ERDF, IPA) Table 3: Most frequent risk practices in arable and grass agriculture in Danube countries SEGMENT NO. DESCRIPTION FREQUENTLY USED ARABLE 3 Intensive plant production, regardless of soil and SI HR HU AGRICULTURE water conservation 4 Heavy machinery intensive use (soil compaction) CZ DE AT 18 Lack of inspection and control of SI RS BG manure/fertilizer/pesticide application GRASS 22 Practice of keeping cattle indoors in longer period SI HR RS BG AT AGRICULTURE and decreased number of grazing animals in total 23 Drainage of water contaminated from inadequate HR AT storage or application of manure on arable land 28 Management of protected areas; subjects of RS BG protection Table 4: Ten most frequent risk practices on arable lands in Danube countries (sorted by frequency of use) DESCRIPTION USED USED FREQUENTLY NORMALLY INTENSIVE PLANT PRODUCTION, REGARDLESS OF SOIL AND WATER SI HR HU CZ DE RS BG RO AT CONSERVATION HEAVY MACHINERY INTENSIVE USE (SOIL COMPACTION) CZ DE AT SI HR RS RO LACK OF INSPECTION AND CONTROL OF MANURE/FERTILIZER/PESTICIDE SI RS BG HR DE HU APPLICATION SUBSIDY DRIVEN PRODUCTION – TECHNICAL CROPS CZ BG HU DE BG MASSIVE APPLICATION OF PESTICIDES HR RS BG CZ HU INAPPROPRIATE MANURE MANAGEMENT HR AT CZ SI DE RS HU RO AT BURNING OF STUBBLE AFTER HARVESTING RS BG RO HR MONOCULTURE PRODUCTION OF PLANTS WITH LOW SOIL CONSERVATION CZ HU HR DE RS BG EFFECT CULTIVATION OF ARABLE LAND WITH NO BUFFER ZONES ALONG WATER HR DE CZ SI RS HU RO COURSES FERTILIZATION WITH MINERAL FERTILIZERS MAINLY (NO MANURE OR OTHER RS BG CZ SI HR HU RO ORGANIC FERTILIZATION) LOW LANDSCAPE FRAGMENTATION (MEAN SINGLE PARCEL SIZE (HA)) CZ RO HR BG HU NO PESTICIDE CONTROL SI RS HR BG HU IMPROPERLY USED FERTILIZERS CAUSE DIFFUSE WATER POLLUTION HR CZ SI DE BG RO In eroded areas, soil productivity is reduced due to organic matter and nutrients being carried away, thus erosion plays a crucial role in the organic matter decline of soils. Intensive plant production regardless of soil and water conservation, inadequate handling and application of pesticides and fertilizers and cultivation of arable land with no buffer 5 Project co-funded by European Union funds (ERDF, IPA) zones along water courses are recognized as major problems of agricultural land management in relation to the water conservation. Even though pesticides and fertilizers play an important role in agricultural production, reducing the adverse effects of weeds, diseases and pests on crop yield and quality and enhancing crop production, over- fertilization or inappropriate use of pesticides can primarily result in degradation of physical, chemical and biological features of soil and consequently can negatively affect both water quality and quantity. The use of heavy machinery within intensive agricultural areas leads to surface and subsoil compaction and thus increases surface runoff and can also influence water quality. The causes of soil compaction are the intensive treatment and driving on soils especially during unsuitable times (e.g. too high humidity). This leads to a decrease in the pore volume, in particular of the coarse pores, and affects the entire water transport, the infiltration of rainwater through the soil to the groundwater is impeded, the surface runoff is increased and soil erosion intensified. Thus fertilizers and pesticides get into adjacent water resources (e.g. rivers). The percentage of energy crops such as corn used for energy production is increasing. Due to the long phases of bare soil during cultivation, increasing corn production is especially problematic. Generally, the problem with soil erosion on arable land was identified in every CAMARO- D country. The situation varies in developed and less developed countries concerning use of heavy machinery but main difference is among the former eastern countries, where massive collectivization of agriculture took place in 20th century. In CAMARO-D region
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Farmland Investments and Water Rights: the Legal Regimes at Stake
    Farmland Investments and Water Rights: The legal regimes at stake Makane Moïse Mbengue Susanna Waltman May 2015 www.iisd.org/gsi www.iisd.org © 2015 The International Institute for Sustainable Development Published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development. International Institute for Sustainable Development The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) contributes to sustainable development by advancing policy recommendations on international trade and investment, economic policy, climate change and energy, and management of natural and social capital, as well as the enabling role of communication technologies in these areas. We report on international negotiations and disseminate knowledge gained through collaborative projects, resulting in more rigorous research, capacity building in developing countries, better networks spanning the North and the South, and better global connections among researchers, practitioners, citizens and policy-makers. IISD’s vision is better living for all—sustainably; its mission is to champion innovation, enabling societies to live sustainably. IISD is registered as a charitable organization in Canada and has 501(c)(3) status in the United States. IISD receives core operating support from the Government of Canada, provided through the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), from the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and from the Province of Manitoba. The Institute receives project funding from numerous governments inside and outside Canada, United Nations agencies,
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Rangeland Productivity Advisory Panel
    l-'" of nc/:\!IOIOO _.. _­ ... u"' "'"'" ... _ -'-- Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland w, in'... ' .....7 and Rangeland Productivity August 1982 NTIS order #PB83-125013 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 82-600596 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 Foreword This Nation’s impressive agricultural success is the product of many factors: abundant resources of land and water, a favorable climate, and a history of resource- ful farmers and technological innovation, We meet not only our own needs but supply a substantial portion of the agricultural products used elsewhere in the world. As demand increases, so must agricultural productivity, Part of the necessary growth may come from farming additional acreage. But most of the increase will depend on intensifying production with improved agricultural technologies. The question is, however, whether farmland and rangeland resources can sustain such inten- sive use. Land is a renewable resource, though one that is highly susceptible to degrada- tion by erosion, salinization, compaction, ground water depletion, and other proc- esses. When such processes are not adequately managed, land productivity can be mined like a nonrenewable resource. But this need not occur. For most agricul- tural land, various conservation options are available, Traditionally, however, farm- ers and ranchers have viewed many of the conservation technologies as uneconom- ical. Must conservation and production always be opposed, or can technology be used to help meet both goals? This report describes the major processes degrading land productivity, assesses whether productivity is sustainable using current agricultural technologies, reviews a range of new technologies with potentials to maintain productivity and profitability simultaneously, and presents a series of options for congressional consideration.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Biodiversity in Arable Farmland by Means of Indicators: an Overview
    AGRONOMIE – ENVIRONNEMENT Assessing biodiversity in arable farmland by means of indicators: an overview Christian BOCKSTALLER Abstract: Maintaining biodiversity is one of the key issues of sustainable agriculture. It is ¸ Francoise LASSERRE-JOULIN now stated that innovation to enhance biodiversity in arable land requires operational Sophie SLEZACK-DESCHAUMES assessment tools like indicators. The goal of the article is to provide an overview of Severine PIUTTI available indicators. Besides measured indicators and simple indicators based on Jean VILLERD management data, we focus on predictive indicators derived from operational models Bernard AMIAUD and adapted to ex ante assessment in innovative cropping design. The possibility of use Sylvain PLANTUREUX for each indicator type is discussed. Key words: environmental assessment, indicator, model, validation, biodiversity, INRA, UMR 1121 ecosystemic services Nancy-Universite - INRA, IFR 110, Nancy-Colmar, BP 20507, 68021 Colmar France <[email protected]> Maintaining biodiversity is one of the intensification, among them extensifica- Indicators can be basic variables (e.g. key issues of sustainable development, tion and even suppression of chemical amount of input) or simple combination and agriculture is highly concerned in input like in organic farming (Hole et al., of these variables (balance, ratio) as well this perspective. The term was first 2005), reconsideration of field margin as field measurements, the former being suggested in 1985 at a conference on management to enhance semi-natural also called ‘‘indirect’’ and the latter biological diversity in the USA and was area of farmland (Marshall and Moonen, ‘‘direct’’ indicator regarding biodiver- popularized since the Rio Conference in 2002). It is now stated that this process of sity (Burel et al., 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Coal Mining on Agriculture in the Delmas, Ogies and Leandra Districts a Focus on Maize Production
    0 Evaluating the impact of coal mining on agriculture in the Delmas, Ogies and Leandra districts A focus on maize production A report by BFAP Compiled for the Maize Trust May 2012 1 Table of Contents Executive summary .................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 7 An overview of agriculture in Mpumalanga .............................................................................. 8 Cash crop production ..................................................................................................... 8 Arable land potentials for Mpumalanga ........................................................................ 9 Current mining and prospecting ................................................................................... 10 Pilot study area ............................................................................................................. 12 Economic impact of mining on agriculture ............................................................................. 14 Potential loss in maize production ............................................................................... 14 Potential loss in soybean production............................................................................ 16 Economic impact on livestock production ................................................................... 18 Environmental
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating On-Farm Biodiversity: a Comparison of Assessment Methods
    sustainability Article Evaluating On-Farm Biodiversity: A Comparison of Assessment Methods Vanessa Gabel 1,2,*, Robert Home 1 , Sibylle Stöckli 1, Matthias Meier 1, Matthias Stolze 1 and Ulrich Köpke 2 1 Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), CH-5070 Frick, Switzerland; robert.home@fibl.org (R.H.); sibylle.stoeckli@fibl.org (S.S.); matthias.meier@fibl.org (M.M.); matthias.stolze@fibl.org (M.S.) 2 Institute of Organic Agriculture, University of Bonn, D-53115 Bonn, Germany; [email protected] * Correspondence: vanessa.gabel@fibl.ch; Tel.: +41-(0)62-8650414 Received: 27 November 2018; Accepted: 13 December 2018; Published: 17 December 2018 Abstract: Strategies to stop the loss of biodiversity in agriculture areas will be more successful if farmers have the means to understand changes in biodiversity on their farms and to assess the effectiveness of biodiversity promoting measures. There are several methods to assess on-farm biodiversity but it may be difficult to select the most appropriate method for a farmer’s individual circumstances. This study aims to evaluate the usability and usefulness of four biodiversity assessment methods that are available to farmers in Switzerland. All four methods were applied to five case study farms, which were ranked according to the results. None of the methods were able to provide an exact statement on the current biodiversity status of the farms, but each method could provide an indication, or approximation, of one or more aspects of biodiversity. However, the results also showed that it is possible to generate different statements on the state of biodiversity on the same farms by using different biodiversity assessment methods.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Environment State and Outlook 2020
    05. Land and soil 2 Land and soil © Kayhan Guc, Sustainably Yours/EEA 3 par A PART 2 Key messages • Land and its soils are the • Land recycling accounts for only • European policy aims to develop foundation for producing food, feed 13 % of urban developments in the EU. the bioeconomy but while new uses and other ecosystem services such as The EU 2050 target of no net land take for biomass and increasing food regulating water quality and quantity. is unlikely to be met unless annual and fodder consumption require Ecosystem services related to land use rates of land take are further reduced increasing agricultural output, land are critical for Europe’s economy and and/or land recycling is increased. for agricultural use has decreased. quality of life. Competition for land and This leads to growing pressures on intensive land use affects the condition • Soil degradation is not well the available agricultural land and soil of soils and ecosystems, altering their monitored, and often hidden, but it is resources which are exacerbated by capacity to provide these services. It widespread and diverse. Intensive land the impacts of climate change. also reduces landscape and species management leads to negative impacts diversity. on soil biodiversity, which is the key • The lack of a comprehensive driver of terrestrial ecosystems’ carbon and coherent policy framework for • Land take and soil sealing continue, and nutrient cycling. There is increasing protecting Europe’s land and soil predominantly at the expense evidence that land and soil degradation resources is a key gap that reduces the of agricultural land, reducing its have major economic consequences, effectiveness of the existing incentives production potential.
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Resources
    3 Freshwater Resources Coordinating Lead Authors: Blanca E. Jiménez Cisneros (Mexico), Taikan Oki (Japan) Lead Authors: Nigel W. Arnell (UK), Gerardo Benito (Spain), J. Graham Cogley (Canada), Petra Döll (Germany), Tong Jiang (China), Shadrack S. Mwakalila (Tanzania) Contributing Authors: Thomas Fischer (Germany), Dieter Gerten (Germany), Regine Hock (Canada), Shinjiro Kanae (Japan), Xixi Lu (Singapore), Luis José Mata (Venezuela), Claudia Pahl-Wostl (Germany), Kenneth M. Strzepek (USA), Buda Su (China), B. van den Hurk (Netherlands) Review Editor: Zbigniew Kundzewicz (Poland) Volunteer Chapter Scientist: Asako Nishijima (Japan) This chapter should be cited as: Jiménez Cisneros , B.E., T. Oki, N.W. Arnell, G. Benito, J.G. Cogley, P. Döll, T. Jiang, and S.S. Mwakalila, 2014: Freshwater resources. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 229-269. 229 Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 232 3.1. Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Wind Energy and Biogas on Farmland Prices
    land Article The Influence of Wind Energy and Biogas on Farmland Prices Olena Myrna, Martin Odening and Matthias Ritter * Department of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Phillippstr. 13, 10115 Berlin, Germany; [email protected] (O.M.); [email protected] (M.O.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +49-(0)30-2093-46851 Received: 11 December 2018; Accepted: 11 January 2019; Published: 15 January 2019 Abstract: In the context of the rapid development of renewable energy in Germany in the last decade, and increased concerns regarding its potential impacts on farmland prices, this paper investigates the impact of wind energy and biogas production on agricultural land purchasing prices. To quantify the possible impact of the cumulative capacity of wind turbines and biogas plants on arable land prices in Saxony-Anhalt, we estimate a community-based and a transaction-based model using spatial econometrics and ordinary least squares. Based on data from 2007 to 2016, our analysis shows that a higher cumulative capacity of wind turbines in communities leads to higher farmland transaction prices, though the effect is very small: if the average cumulative capacity of wind turbines per community doubles, we expect that farmland prices per hectare increase by 0.4%. Plots that are directly affected by a wind turbine or part of a regional development plan, however, experience strong price increases. Keywords: farmland prices; wind energy; biogas; hedonic pricing model; spatial econometrics 1. Introduction During the past decade, a significant increase in wind energy and biogas production has been observed in Germany.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Resource Curse in Nepal with Emphasis on Deforestation and Violence
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Plan B and other Reports Graduate Studies 8-2011 Natural Resource Curse in Nepal with Emphasis on Deforestation and Violence Abhinav Pathak Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/gradreports Part of the Economics Commons Recommended Citation Pathak, Abhinav, "Natural Resource Curse in Nepal with Emphasis on Deforestation and Violence" (2011). All Graduate Plan B and other Reports. 55. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/gradreports/55 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Plan B and other Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NATURAL RESOURCE CURSE IN NEPAL WITH EMPHASIS ON DEFORESTATION AND VIOLENCE SUBMITTED TO: APPLIED ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY SUBMITTED BY: ABHINAV PATHAK AUGUST 2011 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………… 3 2. LITERATURE REVIEW……………...…………………………………………………….. 8 3. RESOURCE CURSE IN NEPAL……………………........................................................... 11 4. RESOURCE CURSE HYPOTHESIS- REGRESSION……………………………………. 18 4.1 EMPIRICAL FINDINGS AND RESULTS……………………………………………. 20 5. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS………………………………………………………… 23 6. CONCLUSION…………….……………………………………………………………….. 25 7. APPENDIX…………………………………………………………………………………. 27 8. REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………... 32 1 LIST OF TABLES AND ILLUSTRATIONS Table 1: Gini Index: Income and Inequality……………………………………….……………..6 Table 2: Average Annual Growth Rates (%) of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Population, and Per-capita GDP…………………………………………………………………………………. 11 Figure 1: Percent of households using different sources of fuel energy in Nepal……………….13 Table 3: Average Gross Domestic Product (GDP, %), Arable Land (hectares per person), and Net Forest Depletion (current US$)……………………………………………………………...14 Figure 2: Deforestation and Violence Trend in Nepal………………………………………….
    [Show full text]
  • Reversing the Degradation of Arable Land in the Ethiopian Highlands
    Managing Africa’s Soils No. 23 Reversing the degradation of arable land in the Ethiopian Highlands Tilahun Amede, Takele Belachew and Endrias Geta May 2001 Areka Research Centre Managing Africa’s Soils No. 23 Reversing the degradation of arable land in the Ethiopian Highlands Tilahun Amede, Takele Belachew and Endrias Geta May 2001 Areka Research Centre About the authors Tilahun Amede is a systems agronomist. Having obtained a PhD from the University of Hohenheim in Germany, he served as assistant professor in Agronomy and Dryland Physiology at Awassa College of Agriculture, Ethiopia, and has been working for the International Centre of Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) – African Highlands Initiative, since 1999, based in Ethiopia. He can be contacted at PO Box 361, Awassa, Ethiopia, and by E-mail: [email protected] Takele Belachew is a soil conservation expert who works for the Areka Research Centre. Endrias Geta is a socio-economist who manages the Areka Research Centre. These two authors can be contacted at PO Box 79, Soddo, Wollayta, Ethiopia. About NUTNET NUTNET is a network that aims to improve the management of soil fertility in Africa. It is a partnership of fifteen organisations from six African and two European countries: INERA, Burkina Faso; SOS Sahel, Ethiopia; KARI, KIOF & ETC East Africa, Kenya; IER, Mali; Environment Alert & University of Makerere, Uganda; IES, Zimbabwe; IIED & IDS, United Kingdom; and AB/DLO, LEI/DLO, SC/DLO, ETC & KIT, The Netherlands. NUTNET is funded by DGIS, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in The Netherlands. About Enhancing soil fertility in Africa: from field to policy-maker This project builds on the work done by the NUTNET network, which has been extended to include the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), the Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM) and the National Agricultural Research Foundation (NAGREF) from Greece.
    [Show full text]
  • Finland Land Cover Country Fact Sheet 2012
    Country fact sheet Land cover 2012 Finland September 2017 Photo: © Toni García, My City/EEA Finland Land cover 2012 Overview of land cover & change 2006-2012 The land cover development in Finland has similar intensity and structure as in the previous period, with only slightly lower overall change rate. With a mean annual change rate of 0.35% of total area, the dynamics of development in the Finish landscape is rather high, compared to other European countries. The extent of forest conversions in the country is huge, which is caused by extensive forest coverage itself. These conversions will always be the most powerful driver of development of the Finish landscape. The intensity of these internal forest flows is comparable to the previous period. On the other hand, conversions from forested and natural land to agriculture, which were remarkable during the period 2000- 2006, lost most of it intensity in the 2006-2012 period. The speed of urban sprawl in Finland remains stable, with an annual artificial land take rate of about 0.4%, which is slightly above the European average. Sprawl is driven by the extension of mines and quarrying areas, as well as dump, construction and industrial or commercial sites. On the other hand, the extensions of residential and sport and leisure areas, which were major sprawl drivers in the period 2000- 2006, show significant decline. Note: The results presented here are based on a change analysis of 44 land cover types mapped consistently on a 1:100.000 scale across Europe over more than decade between 2000-2006-2012 - see Corine land cover (CLC) programme for details.
    [Show full text]
  • ICELAND September 2017
    Country fact sheet Land cover 2012 ICELAND September 2017 Photo: © Toni García, My City/EEA Iceland Land cover 2012 Overview of land cover & change 2006-2012 The pace of land cover development in Iceland shows slight acceleration, compared to the previous period. However, in the European context, it is relatively low, reaching about one half of the average value. The landscape exchange is driven mostly by the changes due to natural and multiple causes. The intensity of the other land cover flows is significantly lower, compared to these conversions. Both sprawl of economic sites and infrastructures and forest creation and management occur with significantly decreased intensity than in the previous period 2000-2006. On the other hand, the intensity of water bodies creation and development is several times higher, compared to the period 2000-2006. Although it covers a significantly smaller area, compared to the above mentioned conversions of natural land, the artificial development in Iceland is quite significant. With the annual artificial land take rate of 0.36%, its speed reaches the European average. However, compared to the previous period, its intensity is much lower. Also in the latest period, the land take is driven mostly by the sprawl of sport and leisure facilities and by construction. It has to be mentioned, that these two flows, which were very extensive in the previous period, lost most of their intensity and the sprawl of industrial or commercial sites and urban fabric almost disappeared from the Icelandic landscape in the 2006-2012. Note: The results presented here are based on a change analysis of 44 land cover types mapped consistently on a 1:100.000 scale across Europe over more than decade between 2000-2006-2012 - see Corine land cover (CLC) programme for details.
    [Show full text]