Intensity Farming Systems: the Nature of Farming

Defining European low-intensity farming systems: the nature of farming

Eric M. Bignal, David I. McCracken & Heather Corrie

Bignal,E.M., McCracken,D.I., & Corrie,H. 1996. DefiningEuropean low-intensity farming systems:the natureof farming. Wader Study Group Bull.80: 62-68. [Reprintedfrom: Farming on the edge: the nature of traditionalfarmland in Europe, 1995. Ed. by D.I. McCracken,E.M. Bignal& S.E. Wenlock,29-37. Peterborough,Joint NatureConservation Committee.] In 1993 and 1994, the Institutefor EuropeanEnvironmental Policy conducted a study of low- intensityfarming systems in nine Europeancountries (France, Greece, Hungary,ireland, Italy, Poland,Portugal, Spain and the UnitedKingdom). The studywas commissionedby the Joint Nature ConservationCommittee and World Wide Fund for Nature. The objectivesof the study were (1) to compileinformation on the distributionand characterof low-intensityfarming systemswithin each country,(2) to assessthe way in whichthese systemsare changingand (3) to suggestways of influencingfuture change so that their nature conservationvalue is protected. This paper providesan overviewof some of the findingsand serves as an introductionto the three countryreports which follow. E.M. Bignal,Joint Nature ConservationCommittee, Kindrochaid, Bruichladdich, Isle of Islay, ArgyllPA44 7PT, United Kingdom. D.I. McCracken, Joint Nature ConservationCommittee, 25 High Calside, Paisley PA2 6B¾, UnitedKingdom. Present address:Environmental Sciences Department, Scottish Agricultural College,Auchincruive, Ayr KA6 5HW, UnitedKingdom. H. Corrie, World Wide Fund for Nature, European PolicyOffice, Chauss&ede Waterloo 608, 1060 Brussels,Belgium.

INTRODUCTION The results of this work are presentedin three separate forms: a series of individualcountry reports, a summary This paper providessome brief backgroundinformation on reportof these called The Nature of Farming(Beauroy, the report The Nature of Farming (Beauroy, Baldock& Baldock & Clark 1994), and a booklet/posterof the same Clark 1994; Bignalet al. 1994) and servesas an name (Bignal et al. 1994). The aim of the bookletis to introductionto the next three papers in these proceedings, highlightsome key pan-Europeanissues and presentsome i.e. the three countryreports on Spain, Hungaryand Italy of the main resultsfor a wider audience. It is currently (Beaufoy1995; Markus 1995; Petretti 1995). available in English,Spanish and Greek.

In 1993 the Joint Nature ConservationCommittee (JNCC) This paper summarises: and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) ß The methodsused in the studyand the definitionof commissioneda study of low intensityfarming systemsin low-intensityfarming systems. nineEuropean countries. The study,carried out during 1993 and 1994 by the Institutefor EuropeanEnvironmental ß The typologyand distributionof the systemsacross Policy(IEEP), partly emanated from the recommendations the nine study countries. of the third meetingof the EuropeanForum on Nature ß Some of the problemsand issuesencountered during Conservationand Pastoralism(Bignal & McCracken1992; the studyand suggestionsfor future research. Bignal, McCracken& Curtis 1994), but was also a continuationand developmentof the researchwork on low- intensityfarming systems and wildlifealready in progress by both JNCC and WWF. METHODS AND RATIONALE

The studyhad three primaryobjectives: The researchwas conductedas a desk-studyfocusing on seven European Union countries(France, Greece, Ireland. To compileinformation on the distributionand Italy, Portugal,Spain and the UnitedKingdom) and two in characterof low-intensityfarming systems within each eastern Europe(Hungary and Poland). Duringthe initial country. stages, it rapidlybecame clear why nobodyhad ever done ß To assessthe way in whichthese systemsare this work before:there is a severe lack of compatible changing. informationor data. What informationthere is ranges widelyfrom agriculturalstatistics (at varyinglevels and To suggestways of influencingfuture change so that periods)and land-useand agriculturalcapability maps (at their natureconservation value is protected. a varietyof scales)to detaileddescriptive case studies.

62 Table 1. Characteristicsof low-intensitylivestock and crop-basedfarming systems (from Beauroy, Baldock & Clark1994), Lownutrient inputs. Lowoutput per hectare.

Livestock systems Crop systems Lownutrient input; predominantly organic. Lownutrient input; predominantly organic. Lowstocking density. Lowyield per hectare. Lowagrochemical input. Lowagrochemical input (usually no growth regulators).

Littleinvestment in land drainage. Littleinvestment in landdrainage. Relativelyhigh percentage of semi-natural Cropsand varietiessuited to specificregional vegetation. conditions. Relativelyhigh species composition of sward. Moretraditional crop varieties. Lowdegree of mechanisation. Lowdegree of mechanisation. Often hardier,regional breeds of livestock. Use of fallowin the crop rotation. Survivalof long-establishedmanagement More traditionalharvesting methods. practices,e.g. hay-making,transhumance. Relianceon naturalsuckling. Tree cropstall ratherthan dwarf. Limited use of concentrate feeds. Absenceof irrigation.

These 'data' were not consistent between countries and in constraints,rather than adaptingthe environment(and the many cases were not even consistentwithin countries. To livestock)to meet standardised(often industrialised) make matters worse the lack of attention that this kind of productionpractices. farmland has receivedfrom ecologistshas resultedin a relative paucity of informationon the wildlife and The survivalof this integratedmanagement has generally conservation value associated with it. been by default, and in most cases because severe environmentalconstraints have limitedthe degreeto which As a result,the informationvaried greatlywith regardto farming practicescould be intensifiedand mechanised. quality, quantity and availability. It was therefore not However, the important point is that for whatever the possibleto approachthe work in a standardisedpan- reasons, farm management practiceshave survivedthat European way. The pragmatic approach adopted was to we now place value on becauseof the ecological commissionconsultants in each countryto work from a conditionsthat they have producedand that they continue standardisedguidance brief. In essence, the consultants to maintain. This was nevertheir primaryaim, and in the were providedwith lists of featuresand characteristics past ecologistshave often taken for granted the fact that consideredto be indicativeof low-intensitysystems. The certain plants and animals were associated with these focusof the studywas primarilyon the farming systems practices. This we can no longerdo - the widespreadand and not on identifyingor assessingthe nature conservation rapid intensificationof agricultureover much of Europe is interest. The characteristicsused to define low-intensity focusingattention on the importanceof maintainingat livestockand crop-basedfarming systems are shown in least part of the survivingareas of low-intensityfarmland. Table 1. It can be seen that there are two common characteristics(low nutrientinputs and low outputper hectare) as well as a number of system-specificones. TYPOLOGY AND DISTRIBUTION OF LOW- INTENSITY FARMING SYSTEMS In the summary report,the followingdescription is used to describethe managementwithin these farming systems: The Nature of Farming identifiesthe similaritiesin "practiceswhich have been out of fashionfor many agriculturalpractices that existacross the nine study yearsand techniqueswhich are not generallypart countries. They are groupedaccording to livestock,arable, of modern agriculture". mixed and permanentcrop systemsand, although simplified,they form quiterobust groups describing broad Althoughsubjective this oftenprovides a gooddescription types of low-intensityfarming found in western and central of the managementpractices on the farmlandthat we are Europe(Table 2). Usingthis typology,links have been concernedwith. But of course these outdated, more establishedbetween apparently very differentsystems by traditionalmanagement practices vary acrossEurope not identifyingcommon themes. For instance, in the livestock only because of regionaldifferences, but also because of systemsthere are many common issues, e.g. foddering the more rapid rate of agriculturalintensification in some practices,livestock breeds, grazingand pasture areas. However,in general,the characteristicsgiven in managementtechniques. It is worth notingsome of the Table 1 do indicatefarming systems that have adapted variationwithin the four main types. managementtechniques to integratewith environmental

ii Table2. Typologyoflow-intensity livestock, arable, permanent crop and mixed systems (based on Tables 1 to4 in Beaufoy,Baldock & Clark 1994). Livestock systems Arable and permanent crop Mixed systems systems

Low-intensitylivestock raising in upland Low-intensitydryland arable cultivation Low-intensitymixed and mountain areas. in Mediterraneanregions. Mediterraneancropping.

Low-intensitylivestock raising in Low-intensityarable cultivation in Low-intensity,small-scale, Mediterraneanregions. temperateregions. traditionalmixed farming.

Low-intensitylivestock raising in Low-intensityrice cultivation. woodedpastures.

Low-intensitylivestock raising in Low-intensitytree crops. temperatelowland regions.

Low-intensityvineyards.

The nine countriescovered by the report The natureof farming Regionswithin which extensive farming systemscan still be found

Figure1. Principalareas within which low-intensity farming systems can be foundin eachof the nineEuropean countries considered by Beauroy,Baldock & Clark(1994).

64 Probablythe mostvariable are the livestocksystems PROBLEMS AND ISSUES ENCOUNTERED whichrange from semi-wildand largelyunmanaged cattle DURING THE STUDY and horsesin remoteregions of Spain,to dairyfarming producingspecialist cheeses and incorporatingclosely Although recentlythere has been a growingawareness of managedhay meadowsin the FrenchJura. Low-intensity the value of low-intensityfarmland for nature conservation sheepsystems are the mostwidespread livestock type we have had great difficultyconvincing others (including coveringlarge areas of upland,mountain or dry pastureof some of our colleagues)of this importance. These grasslandand scrub. Many of the livestocksystems difficultieshave been experiencedwith both research and survive in associationwith communal grazings. conservation bodies as well as with the sectors where a negativereaction would be expected(such as in Arable systemsare generallymuch lesswidespread but agriculture,administration and policy). There is no doubt the drylandarable systemsof Spain, Portugal,southern that amongstsome there is a growingunderstanding of Italy and Greece are significant. These are low yielding the linkagesbetween farmland management, landscape and use fallowing(in associationwith grazing)to maintain characterand biologicaldiversity, and a realisationthat soil fertilityand organic content. They create a 'psuedo- withoutthe continuationof many traditionalfarming steppe'landscape of great importancefor nature techniquesand practicesthe visual and biological conservation(e.g. Goriup, Batten & Norton 1991). On a characterof many areas of Europewould be severely much smaller scale there are local organicor biological affected. In trying to get to the bottom of this problem, systems and traditional rice cultivation. and to understandwhy we shouldhave had such a difficulttask, we have identified a few key reasons: Permanentcrops (such as olives, fruit and vines) are an importantcomponent of the Mediterraneanlands. Most of Perception this cultivationhas been intensifiedin recent years and the survivinglow-intensity systems are generallyin the Conservationistshave done a very good a job in raising poorerarea where farming is less specialisedand inter- awareness of the problemsassociated with intensive cropping(for exampleof olives, almonds,carobs and farming,particularly in the more agriculturallydeveloped cereal with livestockgrazing) is still practiced. parts of Europe (such as the United Kingdom, Holland, Germany, Denmark and France). The ecological There are still several areas of Europe where truly small problemsof pesticideand fertiliseruse and the physical scale mixed systems using far less than conventional destructionof semi-naturalbiotopes and landscape inputs still survive. Some are virtuallysubsistence features in these areas has led to a perceptionthat farming and most are in remote areas where farming is virtually all forms of agricultureare bad. often combinedwith other occupationssuch as fishing, forestryor paid work outsideof agriculture.In some In addition,in these areas the only 'rear-guard'actions places the value of these systems as a componentof that conservationists could take has often focused on 'pluriactivity'which could help to maintainviable rural specificsites or areas peripheralto the main farmi%c communitiesis being recognisedby rural planners operationrather than to the farmland matrix. So in (Rennie 1991). England there has been great emphasis on the wildlife value of small 'islands'of semi-naturalbiotope in a 'sea' of ratherdull farmland. Ponds,hedges and woodland THE EXTENT AND LOCATION OF LOW- copses fall into this category. INTENSITY FARMING SYSTEMS There is nothingintrinsically wrong with this approachin The approximatedistribution of low-intensityfarming the areas where it has developed. It has, however, systemsacross the nine study countriesis indicatedin colouredour perceptionof the possibilitiesfor achieving Figure 1, and more detailedmaps of each countryare nature conservationobjectives on other types of farmland given •n Beaufoy,Baldock & Clark (1994). Low-intensity in othergeographical regions where a more integrated farmland mostly survivesin upland and remote areas approach over the entire farmland matrix would be more (especiallyin the contextof distanceand difficultyof appropriate. transportto markets) where there are considerable physicalconstraints on the developmentand Scale modernisation(especially mechanisation) of agriculture. SouthernEurope (Spain and Portugalin particular) has For many years (and particularlysince 1981 in the United both the most types and the greatest area of land under Kingdom),conservation bodies have focusedon site low-intensityfarming. Althoughthe areas shown on the issuesrather than those affectingthe countryside. This in map are preliminaryand indicative,using the more part reflectsconservation legislation but also the highly detailedfigures available from the countryreports it is fragmentedcharacter of semi-naturalbiotopes in the more estimated that there are more than 30 million hectares of developedcountries. In a pan-Europeancontext a land associatedwith low-intensitylivestock systems significantstimulus for the developmentof a more holistic alone. approachwas the accessionof southernEuropean countriesto the EuropeanCommunity. As the effectsof the CommonAgricultural Policy on the countrysideof these nations(particularly Spain and Portugal)began •o

65 take effect,it helpedraise awareness of the importance which a range of habitatsfor plantsand animals is bothof traditionalregional agricultural practices and also createdby seasonalmanagement operations. We should of the need for conservationiststo understandprocesses think not of "remnantsof habitatbeing left amongst on a wider scale. farmland"and more of a farmlandbiotope for which optimummanagement practices need to be developed. Experience At the same time we shouldbe droppingthe site-based mentalityand consideringmuch more the wider issues that affectmanagement decisions in the countryside. Partlyfor the reasonsmentioned above, many agriculturistsand ecologists have developed their expertiseon issuesassociated with intensive farming. It is quiteremarkable that suchlittle attention has been LOW-INTENSITY, SMALL SCALE, TRADITIONAL directedat the farmlandof Europethat is managedless MIXED FARMING: THE FARMLAND BIOTOPE intensively.This reallyis quitestaggering since many of the biotopesthat conservationistsvalue are integralparts Thetypology presented in TheNature of Farmingprovides of the matrixof traditionalfarmland, and manyof the a goodstarting point for developingthese ideas. To habitats essential for the survival of rare and uncommon illustrateour thinking in a very generalway we have plantsand animals are created by farming operations in chosenan examplefrom the smallscale traditional mixed these areas. The listof examplesis long,and many are farmingsystems that two of us (EMBand DIMcC) know discussedin otherpapers in theseproceedings and in best from the ScottishHebridean island of Islay. The previousForum proceedings (Bignal, McCracken & Curtis islandsupports 108 breeding,183 passageand 121 1994; Curtis,Bignal & Curtis1991; Bignal& Curtis1989). overwinteringbird species including 17 listedon Annex1 of the EuropeanCommunity Wild BirdsDirective. Many Ironicallysome ecologists concerned with nature of the Annex1 breedingbirds (such as the Corncrake conservationand biodiversityin the UK still regardmany Crexcrex, Chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax, Merlin Falco areasof Europeas wildernessor wastelandrather than columbadus,Hen HarrierCircus cyaneus and Golden farmland,e.g. Hambier& Speight(1995) referringto EagleAquila chrysaetos) and wintering birds (such as grasslandsand orchids.In addition,there is a needfor Greenland White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons fiavirostds more researchinto the functionalrelationships on low- and BarnacleGoose Branta leucopsis) have beenshown intensityfarmland. MikePienkowski (in his Prefaceto to be closelyassociated with farmlandand farming theseproceedings) mentions the problemof developing operations(Bignal, Curtis & Matthews1988). demonstrationof these relationshipson the groundto generatewider understanding. Croftingin the ScottishHighlands and Islandsis a form of farmingwhich strictly speaking only occurs on holdings Politics whichhave the legalstatus of beinga "croft"(Crofters Commission1991). Croftsare mostlyworked as a part- We shouldnot be naYveabout the other agendasthat are time occupationby crofterswhose family incomes are involvedin the area of agricultureand environmentpolicy. supplementedby otheractivities (such as fishing,forestry Althoughsome policy-makers do appreciatethe wider or professionalwork). The patternof mixedlivestock socialand environmentalbenefits of supportinglow- rearingpracticed by crofters(utilising an in-fieldsystem of intensityfarming, they are notalways convinced of the cultivatedland, meadowand pastureand a larger justificationfor continuedsupport for agricultural expanseof communalgrazing land), is however productionin theseareas (particularly at a timewhen widespreadin westernScotland. This includes much of there is stillsurplus production within the EU). the Hebrides,where farms are relativelysmall and stillto a highdegree self-sufficient. So our descriptionis of a Equallyit is clearthat somein the agriculturalsector (both styleof farmingwhich is notstrictly "crofting" but which in researchand policy)see the environmental includescrofts, small farms and some partsof larger "bandwagon"as a novelvehicle for directingfunds to mixed enterprises. themselvesor to farmers. Certainlyin partsof the United Kingdom,schemes under the StructuralFunds (e.g. the Central to all these farms is the rearingof livestock, AgriculturalBusiness Investment Scheme in the mostlyregional breeds of cattleand sheep(or first Highlandsand IslandsObjective 1 area) and Regulation crossesof thesebreeds), producing calves and lambsby 2078/92 are beingsold to farmers on the basis of being naturalsuckling to be marketedeach autumn. These are an easy way of maximisingadditional financial support for sold as 'stores'to be fattenedon betterland before being little or no effort or inconvenience. readyfor slaughter.A traditionalcropping pattern of the in-fieldarea producesroots, cereals and hay (or silage Finally,an area in particularwhich we feel needsbetter today)to be fed to the breedingstock during the winter. explanationsurrounds the functionaland habitatreasons why low-intensityfarming systemsare important. It occursto us that one of the key pointsthat we need to get acrossto a wide array of peopleis the conceptof the 'farmlandbiotope' or 1'armlandmatrix' itself having ecologicalvalue. We needto developmuch more the conceptof low-intensityfarmland beingthe biotopewithin

66 Summary of the conservation/ecological value of traditionalharvest is very labour-intensiveand involves the annual farming cycle on Scottish croftland settingup of sheavesto dry (stooking),then buildingthese into hutsto protectthem from wet weather. Finallythe Spring sheavesare stacked and the completedstacks are thatchedwith rushes. Grazing continueson the pastures and graduallybegins to reducethe seasonsgrowth. Hay Spring is the time for spreadingmanure and ploughing aftermathsare used as clean grazingfor lambs. land in the arable rotation,sowing grass leys and moving stock off the in-fieldsthat will be used for hay-making. Grain and 'weed' seeds split duringthe harvestresult in Any winter-housedlivestock (usually young stock) are put feeding opportunitiesfor seed-eating birds and small out to pasture. In some fields breedingewes are concentratedtogether for lambing, whilst others lamb in mammals. These attract predatorybirds such as the hills. peregrines,merlin, hen harrierand barn owls. The invertebrate rich dung on the pastures provide an abundantfood sourcefor Choughs,Starlings Stumus Ploughingprovides ephemeral feeding opportunities for vulgaris,Lapwings Vanel/us vanel/us and other waders as many birds and, after harrowingand sowing, nesting sites well as corvids. Hay aftermaths provide a short-lived for SkylarksAlauda arvensisand waders. The grassland bonanzaof insectsrevealed during mowing. Rush Juncus managementproduces heavily dunged short grass swards spp. pastureswhich have been ungrazedduring summer rich in invertebratesused by feedingChoughs, waders are cut for thatchingrush and this producesthe micro- and small passerines. The herbaceousvegetation habitatfor next years nestingSnipe Gallinagogallinago beginningto grow in the stackyardprovides cover and and the open conditionsneeded to favour floweringmarsh shelterfor Corncrakeswhich arrive in late April, and plants. uncultivatedpatches in the arable fields(together with fallow fields) providecover for Hares Lepus capensisand small mammals. During lambingthere is an abundance Winter of afterbirths and mortalities for Ravens Corvus corax to exploitand live prey for Golden Eagles. Cereal stubblesremain unploughedover the winter. Young livestockare sold and any kept for replacement Summer breedingstock are housed. The breedingcows are not housedand are fed a rationof oat sheaves(two each per day) and hay. Breedingsheep overwinteron the low- During summer the arable rotationproduces a mosaic of intensity pastures with only mineral enriched feed-blocks small fields, or parts of fields,with cropsat different to supplementthe naturalgrazing. Everyday the sheaves stages of development. Livestocknumbers are boosted are taken out of the stack and carted to the pastures by the birth of lambs and calves. Stockingdensities on where they are fed to the animals on the ground. A the grazing pastures rise because other fields are closed differentarea is used for feedingeach day to prevent for growingcrops and hay. Hay-makingbegins. Sheep permanent damage to the pasture. are sheared and dipped. Duringfeeding there is spillageof some grain and also of Field margins grow a dense vegetationcover and the Iow- the thousands of weed seeds that have been harvested •ntensitypastures of semi natural scrub, heath and intothe sheaveswith the corn. This attractsmany birds, grasslandprovide nesting sites for groundnesters such as includingReed BuntingEmberiza schoeniclus,Chaffinch Hen Harrier, Merlin, Short-eared Owl Asio fiamrneus, Fringillacoe/ebs, Yellowhammer Embedza citdnella, CurlewNumenius arquata, Red GrouseLagopus lagopus, GreenfinchChloris chloris, Twite Cardue/isfiavirostris, Skylarkand Meadow PipitAnthus pratensis. Corncrakes Rock Dove Columbalivia, Rook Corvusfrugilegus, Hooded move •ntothe growingcrops for nestingand the hay fields Crow Corvus corone and Jackdaw Corvus monedula. are alsothe habitatfor wild flowerswhich in turn provide Some grainpasses through the cattleentire and intothe food for butterfliesand insects. Barn Owls Tyto alba, Hen dung. This is exploitedby Choughs,Starlings and Rooks Harrisrs,Peregrines Falco peregrinus and Sparrowhawks Accipiternisus are attracted to hunt the abundance of and in the processthey effectivelyspread the dungacross the pastures. The stubblesattract wintering Barnacle and small mammals and breedingpasserines in these fields. GreenlandWhite-fronted Geese and alsoWhooper Swans Choughsfeed in the soilsof the closelygrazed pastures. Cygnus cygnus, corvids and Rock Doves. The abundance Corncrakesraise their first broods. This is the keytime for the developmentof the faunaof the dungof domestic of smallbirds attract predators such as GoldenEagle, Peregrine and Hen Harrier. livestock.The traditionalfield boundaries (drystone walls and earth banks)provide shelter and breedingplaces for birds, mammals and insects. It would be very usefulto researchand describethe functionalrelationships in greaterdetail, using objective Autumn data and for moreof the farmingsystems listed in Table2. For instancethe patternof relationshipsbetween the annualfarming cycle in drylandarable areas, low- The harvestingof oats usingthe reaperbinder is done in inputtree crops(particularly olives) and low-input Septemberand October.Some are cut greenfor feeding vineyardswould be possibleusing existing information. in wholesheaves to cattleduring the winterwhilst a Thiswould help us developour current understanding of smalleramount is cutfully ripened for threshing.The the biologicalimportance of farm management,a clear

67 perspectiveof futureresearch needs and the management REFERENCES incentivesneeded to maintain(or perhapsmimic) the traditionalmanagement system. It would also help to Beauroy,G. 1995. Distributionof extensivefarming systems in buildthe linkagesbetween farm managementand Spain. In: Farmingon the edge: the natureof traditional ecologicalvalue and to make expositionof this more farmlandinEurope, eds. D.I. McCracken,E.M. Bignal& S.E. convincing. Wenlock,46-49. Peterborough,Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

Beaufoy,G., Baldock,D., & Clark,J. 1994. Thenature of farming: THE HUMAN DIMENSION low intensityfarming systems in nine Europeancountries. London,Institute for EuropeanEnvironmental Policy. Another important issue that has been raised duringthis Bignal,E.M., & Curtis,D.J., eds. 1989. Choughsandland-use in and earlier studies(e.g. Bignal, Curtis & Matthews 1988) Europe. Argyll,Scottish Chough Study Group. is the human dimension. Having satisfiedourselves that Bignal,E.M., & McCracken,D.I. 1992. Prospectsfor nature low-intensityfarming systemsare importantfor nature conservationin Europeanpastoral farming systems. conservation and that their future is in the hands of Peterborough,Joint Nature Conservation Committee. farmers, we need to ask ourselveswhy do these farmers Bignal,E.M., Curtis,D.J., & Matthews,J.L 1988. Islay:land-use, continueto farm in these particularways? For example, bird habitats and nature conservation. Part 1: land-use and does a Portuguesefarmer ploughwith mules because he birdson Islay. NatureConservancy Council, CSD Report, wants to, or simply because he cannot afford a tractor? No. 809(1). Do traditionaltechniques survive because farmers prefer to use them or are they caught in an economictrap from Bignal,E.M., McCracken,D.I., & Curtis, D.J., eds. 1994. Nature whichthere is no escape? The answersto suchquestions conservationand pastoralismin Europe. Peterborough,Joint Nature Conservation Committee. are fundamentalto understandinghow the systemworks and more importantlyhow the systemcan be supported Bignal,E.M., McCracken,D.I., Pienkowski,M.W., & Branson,A. into the future. 1994. Thenature of farming:traditional low intensity farming and its importancefor wildlife.Brussels, World Wide Fundfor Nature International. We need policiesthat allow a way of lifewhich is socially and economicallyattractive to the farmers involvedand CroftersCommission. 1991. Croftingin the '90s. Inverness,The maintainland managementpractices which are beneficial Crofters Commission. to the wildlife. The human element cannot be divorced Curtis, D.J., Bignal,E.M., & Curtis,M.A., eds. 1991. Birdsand from nature conservationissues in the European pastoralagriculture in Europe. Argyll,Scottish Chough Study countryside,but we must avoid appearingto encourage Group,and Peterborough,Joint Nature Conservation rural povertyand low standardsof livingbecause they are Committee. associatedwith high natural value farmland. We must understandthe processesthat make the 'traditionally' Goriup,P.D., Batten,L.A., & Norton,J.A., eds. 1991. The conservationof lowlanddry grassland birds in Europe. farmed countrysidebiologically rich and diverse,Dut also Peterborough,Joint Nature Conservation Committeeø find mechanismsto make life easier and more rewarding for the peoplethat manage it. Hambier,C., & Speight,M.R. 1995. Biodiversityconservation in Britain:science replacing tradition. British Wildlife 6:137-147. In 1949 Aldo Leopoldwrote: Leopold,A. 1949. A Sand Countyalmanac and sketcheshere and there. New York,Oxford University Press. "Conservationis a state of harmonybetween Markus,F. 1995. The principalextensive farming systems in man and land. Despitenearly a centuryof Hungary.In: Farmingon the edge: the natureof traditional propagandaconservation still proceedsat a farmlandinEurope, eds. D.I. McCracken,E.M. Bignal& S.E. snairs pace; progressstill consistslargely of Wenlock,43-45. Peterborough,Joint Nature Conservation letterheadpieties and conventionoratory. On Committee. the backforty we sliptwo stepsbackward for Petretti,F. 1995. Examplesof extensivefarming systems in Italy. each forward stride." In: Farmingon the edge: the natureof traditionalfarmland in Europe,eds. D.I. McCracken,E.M. Bignal& S.E. Wenlock, The authorsand sponsorsof The Natureof Farming 38-42. Peterborough,Joint Nature Conservation Committee. hope that the report will help us to proceedfaster Rennie,F.W. 1991. Environmentalobjectives in land-usepractices. than a snail's pace and to translateour knowledge In:Birds and pastoral agriculture in Europe,eds. D.J. Curtis, and understandinginto policies and actions on the E.M. Bignal& M.A.Curtis, 101-105. Argyll,Scottish Chough ground. We are optimistic that the EuropeanForum StudyGroup, and Peterborough,Joint Nature Conservation on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism will make an Committee. important contribution.