Biodiversity Performance Tool A tool to assess the

Solagro : 75, voie du TOEC - CS 27608 - 31076 Toulouse Cedex 3 • Association loi 1901 - Siret : 324 510 908 00050 Tél. : + 33(0)5 67 69 69 69 – Fax : + 33(0)5 67 69 69 00 • www.solagro.org - mél : [email protected]

Biodiversity Performance Tool A tool to assess the functional biodiversity potential at farm level Version 1.0 Life Food & Biodiversity

Principles & User manual July 2018

Editors :

• Caroline Gibert, Marine Gimaret, Frédéric Coulon, Philippe Pointereau – Solagro

• Jordi Domingo, Vanessa Sanchez, Laura Garcia Pierna, Amanda del Rio – FGN

• Tobias Lludes, Stefan Hörmann, Udo Gattenlöhner – GNF

• Carlos MC Teixera, Nuno Sarmento – IST

• Kerstin Fröhle, Saskia Wolf, Marion Hammerl – LCF

• Adrien Weitzmann, Martine and Bernard Ollié – AGFG

• Heinrich Schneider, Frank Nierula – AUF!

Biodiversity Performance Tool User’s manual

Solagro – LIFE FOOD & BIODIVERSITY LIFE 15/GIE/000737 – May 2019 Page 2 sur 77

Contents

Preamble .................................................................................................................................... 6

1 What is the Biodiversity Performance Tool? ........................................................................ 6

2 A methodology with 3 main compartments .......................................................................... 7

2.1 Characterization of the environment of the farm through its semi-natural habitats (SNH) .. 7

2.2 Characterization of farming practices ................................................................................ 9

2.3 Characterization of socio-economic factor of the farm ..................................................... 10

2.4 Weighting ........................................................................................................................ 10

3 How does it work? ............................................................................................................. 11

3.1 Data collection ................................................................................................................. 11

3.1.1 First registration ..................................................................................................... 11 3.1.2 Login ...................................................................................................................... 12 3.1.3 Create a new assessment ...................................................................................... 13 3.1.4 How to use the map tool? ....................................................................................... 15 3.1.4.1 For a linear element ........................................................................................... 16

3.1.4.2 For a surface area ............................................................................................. 21

3.2 How to obtain the results? ............................................................................................... 24

3.2.1 Submit your assessment ........................................................................................ 24 3.2.2 Results ................................................................................................................... 24 3.2.3 Farm summary ....................................................................................................... 25 3.2.4 Basic indicators ...................................................................................................... 27 3.2.4.1 How is the score calculated? ............................................................................. 27

3.2.4.2 How to filter results? .......................................................................................... 28

3.2.5 The Strength, Weakness, Opportunities and Threats matrix................................... 31 3.2.5.1 Strength, Weakness, Opportunities ................................................................... 31

3.2.5.2 Continuous improvement: how to display threats? ............................................. 31

3.2.6 Displaying of the Biodiversity Action Plan ............................................................... 32 3.3 Export function ................................................................................................................ 34

3.4 Other functions ................................................................................................................ 36

3.4.1 Duplicate an assessment ....................................................................................... 36 3.4.2 Delete an assessment ............................................................................................ 37

Annex 1: 78 Basic indicators .................................................................................................... 38

3.5 The characterization of the environment of the farm ........................................................ 39

3.5.1 Importance of semi-natural habitats (SNH) ............................................................. 39 3.5.2 Importance of permanent grasslands ..................................................................... 41 3.5.3 Importance of agroforestry ..................................................................................... 42 3.5.4 The diversity of type of SNH (at farm level) ............................................................ 43 3.5.5 Composition of grass strips .................................................................................... 44 3.5.6 Composition of flowering strips ............................................................................... 45 3.5.7 Flowering duration of grassy elements ................................................................... 46 3.5.8 Modality of management of grassy elements ......................................................... 46 3.5.9 Composition of hedge elements ............................................................................. 46 3.5.10 Flowering of hedges .......................................................................................... 46 3.5.11 Composition of agroforestry elements ............................................................... 50 3.5.12 Importance of woody elements .......................................................................... 50 3.5.13 Support of nutritive resources ............................................................................ 50



3.5.14 Support of shelters or overwintering sites or cavities ......................................... 50 3.5.15 Number of strata or vegetation layers ................................................................ 50 3.5.16 Management of hedges and woody elements .................................................... 51 3.5.17 Composition of water elements .......................................................................... 51 3.5.18 Management of ditch and riparian forests cleaning ............................................ 51 3.5.19 Use of fertilizer and/or pesticides on SNH .......................................................... 52 3.5.20 Burning .............................................................................................................. 52 3.5.21 Export of mowing products ................................................................................ 52 3.5.22 Specific result-based measures of SNH management to improve biodiversity ... 52 3.5.23 Landscape diversity ........................................................................................... 52 3.5.24 Share of SNH – plot level .................................................................................. 53 3.5.25 Connectivity of SNH........................................................................................... 53

3.6 The characterization of the farming practices .................................................................. 54

3.6.1 Average plot size .................................................................................................... 54 3.6.2 Average plot width .................................................................................................. 55 3.6.3 Number of breeded species or races ...................................................................... 58 3.6.4 Number of rare or endangered species .................................................................. 58 3.6.5 Number of crop plant species ................................................................................. 58 3.6.6 Number of crop plant varieties for dominant crop ................................................... 58 3.6.7 Number of rare or endangered species/varieties .................................................... 58 3.6.8 Use of GMO ........................................................................................................... 58 3.6.9 Special measures for the protection of species ...................................................... 59 3.6.10 Preventive measures and monitoring ................................................................. 59 3.6.11 Surface area non-treated with synthetic pesticides ............................................ 59 3.6.12 Alternative methods against weeds ................................................................... 60 3.6.13 Alternative methods against other pests ............................................................ 60 3.6.14 Synthetic seed treatment ................................................................................... 60 3.6.15 Herbicide ........................................................................................................... 60 3.6.16 Insecticide including acaricide ........................................................................... 60 3.6.17 Fungicide ........................................................................................................... 60 3.6.18 Other – mollucide, rodenticide ........................................................................... 60 3.6.19 Handling of harmful substances and good practices of storage and application . 61 3.6.20 Mineral nitrogen fertilization for dominant crop system ...................................... 61 3.6.21 Organic fertilization and awareness of richness of N content ............................. 61 3.6.22 Good practices for nitrogen management .......................................................... 62 3.6.23 Irrigation management ....................................................................................... 62 3.6.24 Actions to reduce water consumption ................................................................ 63 3.6.25 Length of crop rotation ....................................................................................... 63 3.6.26 Mass-flowering crops – legumes, oilseed rape, sunflower, orchards, vegetable…

64 3.6.27 Percentage of legumes including temporary grasslands .................................... 64 3.6.28 Soil analysis with SOM ...................................................................................... 64 3.6.29 Soil analysis with soil microbiological activities .................................................. 64 3.6.30 Presence of cover crops .................................................................................... 65 3.6.31 Presence of intercropping .................................................................................. 66 3.6.32 Typology of permanent crops (orchard, vineyard) .............................................. 66 3.6.33 Soil management ............................................................................................... 67 3.6.34 Maximal average livestock density per ha of main fodder area .......................... 67 3.6.35 Type of concentrates ......................................................................................... 69 3.6.36 Quantity of concentrates .................................................................................... 70 3.6.37 Type of forage ................................................................................................... 70 3.6.38 Forage autonomy .............................................................................................. 70 3.6.39 Grazing use ....................................................................................................... 70 3.6.40 Management of permanent grasslands .............................................................. 71 3.6.41 Use of alternative methods for combating diseases and parasitism ................... 72



3.6.42 Implementation of grazing areas including trees for livestock ............................ 73 3.7 Insertion of the farm into the socio-economic system ...................................................... 74

3.7.1 Environmental management system and farmers’ (and workers’) awareness ........ 74 3.7.2 Cooperation and involvement ................................................................................. 74

Annex 2: Scale size and definition of threshold values ............................................................. 76

List of figures

Figure 1. The result of habitat loss on species and species interactions on the Norwood Farm network of networks. The complete network (a) is degraded by sequentially removing the species and interactions that occur in each of the farm habitats. In this case, habitats are removed in order of least management until all semi-natural habitats have gone (b) and when only crops remain (c) Regions with very dense links primarily represent the interactions of generalist seed-feeding birds taken from the literature. In the graph (d) diamonds and squares represent the percentage of species and interactions, respectively, that remain in the network after habitat loss from least to most managed (from Evans et al, 2013). ............................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 2. Interactive effect of temperature and landscape composition on bee species richness. The effect of temperature increase on species richness is displayed for four different levels of percentage of semi-natural areas: (a) 2%; (b) 6%; (c) 10%; (d) 17%. The cover range in the plot starts from the minimum cover of semi-natural areas in our study sites (i.e., 2%) and reaches the maximum coverage observed (i.e. 17%). We, additionally, used 10% (as a representative value for two of our sites) and 6% (as the mean value between 2 and 10% to cover the whole range). The y-axis is displayed on the logit scale. Grey bands indicate 95% confidence intervalscf ref 21. ................................ 41

Figure 3. Permanent grassland in the Bavarian Alps (Public domain) ......................................................................... 42

Figure 4. The plantation in square is the most usual; it allows to mow in both directions. ........................................... 43

Figure 5. Example of flowering strips in France : left, © Gardarin A, AgroParis Tech. Flowering strip with wild chicory (Cichorium intybus), anthemis (Anthemis spp.), wild carrot (Daucus carota), poppy (Papaver rhoeas), sweet clover (Melilotus officinialis), chamomile (Matricaria spp.). center, cc-by-sa 3.0 Nelson M, Solagro. Flowering strip with cornflower (Centaurea cyanus), poppy (Papaver rhoeas), chamomile (Matricaria spp.). right, © GRAB. Flowering grassland. .................................................................................................................................................................... 45

Figure 6. Wild bees need a continuous succession of floral resources throughout the entire vegetation period in order to ensure their survival as most of the species have differing flight periods of only one to two months duration. Colony forming species such as bumblebees require a continuous succession of floral resources from March to October. .. 47

Figure 7. Example of common species of hedges. ...................................................................................................... 48

Figure 8. Example of management of ditch in South of France ................................................................................... 52

Figure 9. Two example landscapes containing approximately the same total area of natural and semi-natural covers. Landscape A has small crop fields and most natural and semi-natural cover is in field edges. Landscape B has large crop fields and most natural and semi-natural cover is in forest patchescf ref 72. ........................................................... 55

Figure 10. Examples of critical distances between ecological infrastructures (ranging from excellent in the top of the picture to poor in the bottom) and of representatives of affected animal species mowing between vital habitats and stepping stones. .......................................................................................................................................................... 56

Figure 11. Ecological distances from the hedges toward the center of the cultivated plot. .......................................... 56

Figure 12. Foraging distances of Hoplitis adunca mason bees at two sites (coloured). Proportion of marked females observed collecting pollen from potted host plants at increasing distances to their nests. While some individual



females travelled more than 1 km, half of the individuals ceased their nesting activities once the foraging distance was increased to 300mcf ref 81 ....................................................................................................................................... 57

Figure 13. Soil biodiversity: functions source Adapted from CTIFL, 2017. .................................................................. 65

Figure 14. Cover crops (oat, faba and radish) in late october (left) and in late december (right) in South of France. .. 65

Figure 15. Left, durum wheat-winter pea intercrop in experimental field. Right, durum wheat-winter faba intercrop in organic farm field. South of France. ............................................................................................................................. 66

Figure 16. Grass cover on inter row on orchard (left) and vineyard (right) .................................................................. 67

Figure 17. Table of conversion of livestock unit (LU) coefficient per year for meat cows (Eurostats value). Coefficients are indicated in the right column for each category of animal. ..................................................................................... 68

Figure 18. Table of conversion of livestock unit (LU) coefficient for dairy cows (Eurostats value). Coefficients are indicated in the right column for each category of animal ............................................................................................ 68

Figure 19. Table of conversion of livestock unit (LU) coefficient for dairy and meat sheep production (Eurostats value). Coefficients are indicated in the right column for each category of animal. ..................................................... 69

Figure 20. Table of conversion of livestock unit (LU) coefficient for goat production (Eurostats value). Coefficients are indicated in the right column for each category of animal. ........................................................................................... 69

Figure 21. Matrix of management of permanent grassland according to a gradient of intensity of defoliation and of fertilization ................................................................................................................................................................... 72

Figure 22. Presentation of seven types of grazing areas (adapted from CAS DAR Parcours Volailles, N Girardin) ... 73

List of tables

Table 1. Description of coloring score ......................................................................................................................... 27

Table 2. List of sub-categories for basic indicators related to Characterization of the environment of the farm .......... 28

Table 3. List of sub-categories for basic indicators related to Characterization of farming practices ........................... 29

Table 4. List of sub-categories for basic indicators related to Characterization of socio-economic system of the farm .................................................................................................................................................................................... 30

Table 5. Classification of semi-natural habitats from Landscape and Infrastructure Sustainable Agriculture project .. 43

Table 6. Examples of list of species that could be chosen to compose the hedges .................................................... 49

Table 7. Plants frequently mentioned as host plants of agricultural pests ................................................................... 49

Table 8. ‘Category’ of average plot size for each crop system defined in the Biodiversity Performance Tool. ............ 55

Table 9. Ecological distances ...................................................................................................................................... 57

Table 10. Characteristics of the main crop families used for cover crops and/or green manure ................................. 66



Preamble The first version of the Biodiversity Performance Tool (BPT) was inaugurated through the project EU Life Food & Biodiversity (LIFE 15/GIE/000737; 2016-2020). This tool is developed and supported by the project partners representing different European institutions and NGOs. This BPT aims at proposing a methodology to quite easily assess the integration of functional biodiversity at farm level for food sector actors (quality product or sourcing managers) as well as for certification companies (certifiers and auditors). This first tool version is subject to project internal testing through the LIFE pilot projects in 4 countries (France, Spain, Portugal and Germany) as well as to external tests with interested food sector actors. Following this pilot phase, a final version of the BPT will be implemented by mobilizing the feedback and critical opinions of the first users, and additionally by seeking advice of further experts to improve the evaluation of the criteria. Solagro acknowledges all EU Life partners, experts and other involved parties for their contribution to the improvement of the Biodiversity Performance Tool. The final version of the BPT will be available by July 2019. The BPT user manual in its short version contains:

- a presentation of the aim of the tool, the method and a short presentation of the indicators - how does it work

1 What is the Biodiversity Performance Tool?

The Biodiversity Performance Tool (BPT) should help farmers and farm advisors to elaborate and implement sound Biodiversity Action Plans which contribute substantially to a better biodiversity performance on farm level. The tool will support auditors and certifiers of standards as well as product, quality and sourcing managers of food companies to better assess the preservation and improvement of integration of biodiversity at farm level. BPT will identify weaknesses and strengths of a farm regarding functional biodiversity and will confirm and illustrate continuous improvement (or not). This methodology aims at highlighting the many initiatives to better integrate functional biodiversity at farm level, to support farmers which are great managers of landscapes, as well as managers of functional biodiversity by managing rivers, grasslands, hedgerows… Some of them are really aware about the precious links between biodiversity, ecosystem services landscapes and agricultural activity (pollination, natural regulation, reduction of soil erosion…) through the implementation and qualitative management of agroecological infrastructures: late mowing or cutting, extensive grazing, the maintenance of the water bodies (ponds, ditches…) and others wetlands, the non-use of fertilizers and pesticides on these habitats and the reduction of pesticides use on crop fields… This tool has been developed to highlight the urgency of biodiversity protection and to facilitate the integration of effective measures into standards and company requirements of the food sector. The objective of such a tool is to identify and assess the state of potential for biodiversity on a farm in order to propose an action plan to preserve or promote biodiversity. This action plan should recommend some relevant actions in the current socio-technical-economical context. This tool should raise farmer awareness on the potential for biodiversity on each farm and how to realize this potential and deploy the learning process could be applied to the whole food chain (quality and product manager; sourcing manager…). BPT is developed from a software of multi-criteria assessment to help decision-making.



The initial assessment requires the main efforts and inputs: At least half a day on field and half day on desk are necessary to well integrate the inventory of semi-natural habitats and their management at farm level. For the elaboration of a BAP and realization of follow up assessments, less than half a day will be needed.

2 A methodology with 3 main compartments

2.1 Characterization of the environment of the farm through its semi-natural habitats (SNH)

Heterogeneity of landscape: several scientific publications highlights the importance of landscape mosaics in the conservation of either functional or heritage biodiversity. This heterogeneity relies on the crop diversity, but also on the presence of natural environments and semi-natural habitats such as hedgerows, field margins, woodlots, grasslands with no fertilizers and pesticides. The proportion of SNH is a good indicator of this heterogeneity1. It has been shown than more than 63% of all animal species living in agricultural areas depend on SNH for their survival2, demonstrating the crucial importance of these habitats3. Moreover, the more diverse the mosaic is, the more complex would be the associated food web as illustrated in the figure 145.

1 Billeter R, Liira J, Bailey D, Bugter R, Arens P, Augenstein I, Aviron S, Baudry J, Bukacek R, Burel F, Cerny M, De Blust G, De Cock R, Diekotter T, Dietz H, Dirksen J, Dormann C, Durka W, Frenzel M, Hamersky R, Hendrickx F, Herzog F, Klotz S, Koolstra B, Lausch A, Le Coeur D, Maelfait JP, Opdam P, Roubalova M, Schermann A, Schermann N, Schmidt T, Schweiger O, Smulders MJM, Speelmans M, Sim-ova P, Verboom J, van Wingerden W, Zobel M & Edwards PJ, 2008. Indicators for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: a pan-European study. J Appl Ecol 45:141–150. 2 Duelli P & Obrist MK, 2003. Biodiversity indicators: the choice of values and measures. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98: 87-98. 3 Billeter R, Liira J, Bailey D, Bugter R, Arens P, Augenstein I, Aviron S, Baudry J, Bukacek R, Burel F, Cerny M, De Blust G, De Cock R, Diekotter T, Dietz H, Dirksen J, Dormann C, Durka W, Frenzel M, Hamersky R, Hendrickx F, Herzog F, Klotz S, Koolstra B, Lausch A, Le Coeur D, Maelfait JP, Opdam P, Roubalova M, Schermann A, Schermann N, Schmidt T, Schweiger O, Smulders MJM, Speelmans M, Sim-ova P, Verboom J, van Wingerden W, Zobel M & Edwards PJ, 2008. Indicators for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: a pan-European study. J Appl Ecol 45:141–150. 4 Bohan D, Caron-Lormier G, Muggleton S, Raybould A & Tamaddoni-Nezdad, A, 2011. Automated Discovery of Food Webs from Ecological Data UsingLogic-Based Machine Learning. PLoS ONE 6(12): e29028. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029028; Pocock MJO, Evans DM & Memmott J, 2012. The robustness and restoration of a network of ecological networks. Science 24: 973-977. 5 Ecosystem are structured by flows of energy (biomass) between primary producer plants (arthropods) and consumers (heterotrophs), such as invertebrates, mammals and birds (Lindeman RL (1942) The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology. Ecology 23:399–418.2. Dickinson G, Murphy K (1998) Ecosystems: A Functional Approach. London:Routledge. 190 p)



Figure 1. The result of habitat loss on species and species interactions on the Norwood Farm network of networks. The complete network (a) is degraded by sequentially removing the species and interactions that occur in each of the

farm habitats. In this case, habitats are removed in order of least management until all semi-natural habitats have gone (b) and when only crops remain (c) Regions with very dense links primarily represent the interactions of generalist seed-feeding birds taken from the literature. In the graph (d) diamonds and squares represent the

percentage of species and interactions, respectively, that remain in the network after habitat loss from least to most managed (from Evans et al, 2013)6.

The assessment of the program of the ecological service required with Swiss farms highlights that quantity of SNH is not sufficient to stop the loss of biodiversity and the quality of these habitats must also be promoted through their diversity and management. The inventory of the SNH distributed at farm level resumes the diversity of habitats. Indirectly, it expresses the potential for diversity of hosted species7. Permanent grasslands, as one type of semi-natural habitat, are of special importance because of their role for ecological regulation. Indeed, they offer a perennial soil cover more favorable to biodiversity than arable crops, but the potential of fauna population they host may vary in relation with the applied farming practices. They are composed of many species including some flowering species (legumes…). This floral richness constitutes on one side important nutritive resources for pollinators and on the other side, as they host a lot of insects, they are also very attractive for several birds and bats8. The indicators related to the quantity, quality and diversity of semi-natural habitats need the GIS system and cartographic tools to be calculated and mapped.

6 Evans DM, Pocock MJO & Memmott J, 2013. The robustness of a network of ecological networks to habitat loss. Ecology Letters 16: 844-852. 7 Manneville V, Chanséaume A & Amiaud B, 2014. BIOTEX: une demarche d’évaluation multicritère de la biodiversité ordinaire dans les systèmes d’exploitation d’élevage et polyculture-élevage. Editions Idele, 59 pp. 8 Manneville V, Chanséaume A & Amiaud B, 2014. BIOTEX: une demarche d’évaluation multicritère de la biodiversité ordinaire dans les systèmes d’exploitation d’élevage et polyculture-élevage. Editions Idele, 59 pp.



Focus on local, indigenous, exotic and invasive species The composition of these habitats is also really important to consider. A local wild plant is not easy to define. The ecologist distinguishes the indigenous species (they have their natural distribution area into a specific geographical area) from the exotic species (species that could not reach this specific geographical area without human intervention). By considering the indigenous species, the local wild plant (whose genetic characters were elaborating through local natural habitats) is different to non-wild plant (selected varieties) and/or to non-local wild plant, that will be not adapted to the site-specific conditions or even worse could hybridize to natural population and compete with the local genotypes and achieve cryptic invasions (e.g. Phragmites australis, from Eurasian origin, which invades USA and substituted to the North-American Phragmites)9. In that case, they are designed as an invasive species10. The hybridization phenomenon with local populations is susceptible to weaken genetic diversity and reduce its ability to adapt to environmental changes, a weaker resistance to pests and/or a reduction of plant productivity. The negative impacts of exotic plants on local biodiversity could be important with a modification of some ecological functions (e.g. shift of the flowering period of the Achillea millefolium from New Zealand in comparison of the local ecotype and the cycle of their pollinators). The worst impact could be the biological invasion (Reynoutria japonica or Ludwigia) with consequences sometimes catastrophic for the local ecosystems11.

2.2 Characterization of farming practices

The intensity of farming practices could be indirectly considered at landscape or farm level through the proportion of SNH that often translates the intensity of mechanization and intensification of the system of production. The intensity of farming practices has some direct and indirect effects on biodiversity12.

- The destruction of within semi-natural habitats: destruction of traditional orchards, woodlots, hedgerows…; conversion of permanent grasslands into arable crops; soil drainage… this destruction is all the more important that it could cause the elimination of rare or endangered species.

- The fragmentation of these habitats, providers of nutritive resources and refuges, make impossible the relationships within wild fauna populations.

- An intensive exploitation on very large plots, and a short and non-diversified crop rotation prevent the colonization of agricultural plots by beneficial arthropods. Plot configuration (size and width), as well as the length and diversity of crop rotation are important to consider.

- An intensive use of pesticides and fertilization has a negative impact on the quality of these habitats, on wild flora and associated fauna, in particular beneficial arthropods. It is important to assess what is the proportion of agricultural surface area receiving no synthetic pesticides and fertilizers.

- Repeated high livestock density on grasslands leads to an over-fertilization of these grasslands, with some higher risk of eutrophication, and an impoverishment of present wild flora.

- Invasive species are problematic since they contribute to eliminate the indigenous species - Intensive ploughing or tillage may affect nesting sites and survival of immature beneficial

arthropods on soil and aerial compartments (wild pollinators, micro-hymenoptera,

9 Basilico L, Le Fur E, Daloz A & Malaval S, 2018. Semer et planter local : un défi pour la biodiversité. Les Rencontres n°51. 10 A species that is not native to a specific location (an introduced species) that has a tendency to spread to a degree believed to cause damage to the environment, human economy or human health. 11 http://www.genieecologique.fr/reference-biblio/journee-dechanges-techniques-semer-et-planter-local-un-defi-pour-la-biodiversite 12 Graf R, Jenny M, Chevillat V, Weidmann G, Hagist D and Pfiffner L, 2016. La biodiversité sur les exploitations agricoles. Guide Pratique. FiBL et vogelwarte.ch (Editeurs). 178 p.

http://www.genieecologique.fr/reference-biblio/journee-dechanges-techniques-semer-et-planter-local-un-defi-pour-la-biodiversite



carabids, spiders…)1314. Intensive ploughing releases potentially huge amounts of soil carbon sprung further climate change.

- the proportion of legumes compared to the total agricultural surface area is important because they constitute important nutritive resources for beneficial arthropods.

- The abandonment of grasslands causes shrub and forest development which is really impacting also for social and economic aspects for these territories (tourism activities, rural employment…).

In spite of some relative progress concerning environmental issues, bigger efforts need to be done to stop the biodiversity loss and will be achieved through the change of system of production but also through the change of logics of agri-food supply chain.

2.3 Characterization of socio-economic factor of the farm

Environmental management system and cooperation are also two elements important to consider into the assessment of biodiversity performance. Indeed, environmental management integrates the monitoring of farm performances (engagement of farm in a product certification process, farm map existence, traceability and transmission of information at least once a year, the use of a multi-criteria assessment) as well as the training and update of their knowledge on biodiversity at least of the farmer and if so, of his worker(s). The cooperation integrates both the cooperation with external experts and the involvement in a local network. In conclusion, here the awareness and involvement of the farmer are both considered in the process of preservation and improvement of biodiversity at farm level and their active behavior on this issue.

2.4 Weighting

The characterization of SNH and farming practices are really impacting the biodiversity either at local and landscape levels. The weighting of each category and then of each basic indicator determines the prioritization of actions into the Biodiversity Action Plan.

• The characterization of SNH comprises 38 questions that allow to calculate 24 basic indicators. This section receives a weighting of 45%.

• The characterization of farming practices comprises 44 questions that allow to calculate 42 basic indicators. This section receives a weighting of 45%.

• The characterization of socio-economic factors of the farm comprises 7 questions that allow to calculate 12 basic indicators. This section receives a weighting of 10%.

13 Tsiafouli, M. A., Thébault, E. , Sgardelis, S. P., Ruiter, P. C., Putten, W. H., Birkhofer, K. , Hemerik, L. , Vries, F. T., Bardgett, R. D., Brady, M. V., Bjornlund, L. , Jørgensen, H. B., Christensen, S. , Hertefeldt, T. D., Hotes, S. , Gera Hol, W. , Frouz, J. , Liiri, M. , Mortimer, S. R., Setälä, H. , Tzanopoulos, J. , Uteseny, K. , Pižl, V. , Stary, J. , Wolters, V. and Hedlund, K. (2015), Intensive agriculture reduces soil biodiversity across Europe. Glob Change Biol, 21: 973-985. doi:10.1111/gcb.12752 14 Nicholls C & Altieri M, 2013. Plant biodiversity enhances bees and other insect pollinators in agroecosystems. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 33: 257-274. Springer Verlag/EDP Sciences/INRA.

https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12752



3 How does it work?

3.1 Data collection

3.1.1 First registration

To connect to the BPT, please enter the url http://solagro-biodiversite.devtotem.com/

For the first use of BPT, you need to register (select the button “register” in the menu bar) by entering your fullname, your email address, select your language, enter your organization and enter a password. Once done, a message to activate your registration will be sent to your mail box. Please activate it.

Biodiversity in Standards and Labels for the Food Industry | LIFE15GIE/DE/000737 |

with the financial support of

BPT user manual

1

• Enter the url http://solagro-biodiversite.devtotem.com/

http://solagro-biodiversite.devtotem.com/



3.1.2 Login

You have the possibility to change or modify your settings through your personal account.



2

• Click on « Register »

• Please fill the short

form

BPT User ManualHow to register for the first time ?



3

• Enter a password

• Enter a login

• Validate here

A message to activate your account will be sent to your mail box à Activate it

BPT User ManualHow to login ?



3.1.3 Create a new assessment

The BPT is based on 100 questions maximum. According to the user profile, user could answer less than 100 questions. The BPT questions are organized by four main categories that are displayed into tabs (Figure 2).



4

BPT User ManualAccess to your personal account

• Possibility to modify

your parameters

here



3

• Click on

« Diagnostics »

BPT User ManualASSESSMENT – Create a new assessment (1)





4

• Click here




5

• Indicate a name to

your assessment

• Click here




3.1.4 How to use the map tool?



6

• Filling of the data through 4 tabs

• Previous step

• Possibility to save and

resume filling later

• Next step

• Validate the filling

• Indication on

functions

– Editing : to modify

the assessment

– Reading : to read

without any

modification

– Copy : to

duplicate an

assessment (e.g.

update)




7

• Click on the

pinpoint

• Select one

question where

the pinpoint is

present

BPT User ManualASSESSMENT – SNH Linear or surface areas: how to use the map tool ? (1)



3.1.4.1 For a linear element



8

• the doogal.co.uk tool is

opening

• You have the possibility

to choose either plan or

satellite view here

– satellite view is preferable

to locate SNH elements

BPT User ManualASSESSMENT – SNH Linear or surface areas: how to use the map tool ? (2)



9

• Clear allow to cancel if

necessary

Line Polygon

• You have the choice to

draw a line or a surface

(polygon)

– here we choose “line”

• Full screen mode to

facilitate the location of

SNH elements

BPT User ManualASSESSMENT – SNH Linear or surface areas: how to use the map tool ? (3) EXAMPLE 1: CALCULATION OF LINEAR ELEMENTS





10

• Then zoom in to find

your satellite view of

farm

• Enter the name of

your city, click on

Find

• To start be careful not

to be positioned on a

text box à zoom in or

select the full screen

mode




11

• Draw the line that

corresponds to your

linear element on field

• No need to double click at

the end of your drawings

like on other map tools.

• To create a new

element from the

same category, click

on New Shape






12

• Once all the

elements from the

same category are

drawn, select the

tab KML




13

• Click on

Download






14

• Choose the option

proposed by default

“Download the file”

Note : the file is download into the downloadfolder from your computer. If not, you can find it,

through the search engine of your computer.




15

• Import the previous

file by clicking on the

pinpoint besides the

corresponding

question






16




17

• A summary of your drawn

data appears in a pop-up.

– in the example here, the total

drawn linear of hedgerowsis

equal to 771,1 m.

– there is so many lines than

drawn elements (for one

given type of element)

• You can cancel the import if

the data are not

corresponding.




3.1.4.2 For a surface area



18

• Once you have confirmed

the import, the result will

appear here




19

Polygon• Choose “Polygon” before

strating to draw the

surface (polygon)

BPT User ManualASSESSMENT – SNH Linear or surface areas: how to use the map tool ? (13) EXAMPLE 2: CALCULATION OF SURFACE AREAS





20




21






22




23

• Once drawn the contour of one

element,

– either you click on “new shape” to draw an

other object from the same category

– or you click on the tab “KML” to export

and save

– next step are the same than previously for

a linear element (n°6 - 12)

• Repeat this methodology for each type

of identified elements,

– hedgerows low, bushy, multi-strate, grassy

strips, flowering strips, permanent

grasslands…




3.2 How to obtain the results?

3.2.1 Submit your assessment

3.2.2 Results



24

• The results of the questionnaire will

be calculated once the questionnaire

will be fulfilled concerning,

– the environment of the farm (SNH)

– the farming practices of the farm

– the socio-economic system of the farm

• and once the button “SUBMIT” is

clicked on

BPT User ManualASSESSMENT – Submission



BPT User ManualRESULTS - other shortcut

35

• You can access the results from the

list of assessments by clicking on the

left button from the assessment you

choose to open,



3.2.3 Farm summary



BPT User ManualRESULTS

25

• The results are displayed in 4 tabs: – Farm summary

– Basic indicators

– Strengths and

weakness

– Proposal of actions



BPT User ManualRESULTS – Farm summary (1)

26

• You will find– General

information

– Description of the

farm

– …

• By clicking on

the globe icon





BPT User ManualRESULTS – Farm summary (2) – Map of SNH

27

• A complete map is displaying

– only if the

characterisation of the

SNH elements were

done by using the

doogal map tool

• To keep this

information, you can

save it by an easy

screenshot



BPT User ManualRESULTS – Farm summary (3)

28

• You will find

– …

– Biodiversity information

• colors highlighting if

efforts need to be done

(red color) or to be

maintained (green color)

– you can mention in

Other

• why the farmer is

maintained or

implementing SNH in

his/her farm

• notice any extraordinary

elements

• or any comments



3.2.4 Basic indicators

3.2.4.1 How is the score calculated?

Once the questions are fulfilled, 78 basic indicators are automatically calculated and ordered according a colored scale of values. For each basic indicator, detailed in the annex 1, some threshold values are defined in the annex 2. The minimal score is indicated by a red color and the maximal score by a green one, with some gradients from orange to yellow for some intermediate scores.

Table 1. Description of coloring score

Score and colour Performance

Very unfavorable Unfavorable Favorable Very favorable

Very unfavorable Unfavorable / favorable Very favorable

Very unfavorable Very favorable



BPT User ManualRESULTS – Basic indicators (1)

29

• You will find the score

for each basic

indicator for the

questions you

answered for

– according to the scale

size (on 2, 3 or 4 points)

a color indication is

given corresponding to

the value for the basic

indicator:

• red : low

• yellow : medium

• light green : high

• dark green : very high



3.2.4.2 How to filter results?

To allow a proper analysis of the scores and to identify the points for improvement, the scores are presented per main topic, corresponding to characterization of semi-natural habitats or environment, characterization of farming practices and characterization of socio-economics of the farm, with the possibility for user to go down in the sub-categories.

Table 2. List of sub-categories for basic indicators related to Characterization of the environment of the farm



BPT User ManualRESULTS – Basic indicators (2)

30

• You have the

possibility to filter the

results with

– Main domain &

Category

• characterization of SNH

• characterization of

farming practices

• characterization of socio-

economic system

Category for outputs Sub-category for outputs List of basic indicators

Importance of SNH

Importance of permanent grasslands

Importance of agroforestry

Diversity of SNH Diversity of type of SNH

Composition of grass strips

Composition of flowering strips

Flowering duration

Functional management of

SNH Modality of management

Composition of hedges

Flowering of hedges

Composition of agroforestry elements

Importance of woody elements

Support of nutritive resources

Support of shelters or overwintering sites or

cavities

Number of strata or vegetation layers

Management of hedges and woody elements

Composition of water elements

Management of ditches ripisylves ponds

Use of fertilizers and pesticides

Burning of SNH

Export of mowing products

Specific result-based measures of SNH

management to improve biodiversity

Share of SNH plot scale

Connectivity of SNH

Characterization of

SNH

Quantity of SNH

Functional composition of

SNH

Functional composition of

SNH

Functional management of

SNH

Diversity of SNH



Table 3. List of sub-categories for basic indicators related to Characterization of farming practices


Average plot size

Average plot width

Number of breeded species or races

Number of rare or endangered species

Number of crop plant species

Number of crop plant varieties for dominant

crop

Number of rare or endangered species

Use of GMO

Special measures for the protection of species

Preventive measures and monitoring

Surface area non treated with chemical

pesticides

Alternative methods against weeds

Alternative methods against other pests

Chemical seed treatment

Herbicide

Insecticide

Fongicide

Other

Handling of Harmful Substances Good

practices storage and application

Mineral nitrogen fertilization for dominant crop

system kg N per ha

Organic fertilization and awareness of N

content richness

Good practices for N management

Water management Water management

Actions to reduce water consumption

Length of crop rotation

Mass-flowering crops such as legume oilseed

rape sunflower orchards vegetable

Percentage of legumes including temporary

grassland

Soil analysis with SOM

Soil analysis with soil microbiological activities

Presence of cover crops

Presence of intercropping

Typology of permanent crops such as

orchards or vineyards

Soil management

Maximal Average Livestock Density LU per ha

of main fodder area

Type of concentrates

Quantity of concentrates

Type of forage

Forage autonomy

Grazing use

Management of permanent grasslands

Inputs management

(fertilizer, pesticide, …)

Use of alternative methods for combating

diseases and parasitisms

LivestockImplementation of grazing areas including

trees for livestock such as poultry

Characterization of

farming practices

Promotion of cultivated and

wild biodiversity

Inputs management

(fertilizer, pesticide, …)

Soil management

Livestock



Table 4. List of sub-categories for basic indicators related to Characterization of socio-economic system of the farm


Engagement of farm in a product certification

process

Farm map existence

Traceability

Multi-criteria diagnostic existence

Training sessions organized by standards or

farmers association or cooperative etc

Qualification on pesticide use positive and

negative lists

Exchange with assessors and or experts from

standard or farmers association or

cooperative

Qualification of workers and update of

knowledge

Exchange with suppliers or millers or

distributors and exchange experience on

biodiversity aspects

Self-learning about agroecology and

alternative methods

Cooperation with external experts such as

NGOs or administration or scientific institutes

Involvement

Characterization of

socio-economic

system

Farm performances

monitoring

Awareness of farmer and

worker

Cooperation



3.2.5 The Strength, Weakness, Opportunities and Threats matrix

3.2.5.1 Strength, Weakness, Opportunities

The SWOT analysis is automatically generated by the BPT.

Strengths Weaknesses

List indicators that are in green You can prioritize the strengths based on their weighting

List indicators that are in orange and red You can prioritize the strengths based on their weighting

3.2.5.2 Continuous improvement: how to display threats?

Threats functionality allow end-user to observe how basic indicators evolve from previous to new assessment. Threats will display only the basic indicators where score has decreased with an indication on how much it decreases (-1, -2 or -3).



BPT User ManualRESULTS – Strengths and weakness (1)

31

• You will find here the SWOT

matrix

– Strengths of the farm

– Weakness of the farm

• to be improved by actions

to implement and to find

into the tab “Proposal of

actions”

– and on the

Opportunities



3.2.6 Displaying of the Biodiversity Action Plan

A list of actions is automatically generated by BPT. Each action fact sheet will contain the following information:

• Objective

• Farming system

• Action description

• Basic indicators

• References

• Strategy :

o E pour Efficiency o S pour Substitution o R pour Redesigning

• Issues : o Biodiversity o Soil o Water o Air o Climatic change

• Feasability: o Technical o Economical o Social

• Scale impact o Farm o Landscape/Territory

It is possible to filter through basic indicators, strategy (E, S, R) and priority. Additional filters should be implemented by farming system and context (vulnerable zone, Natura 2000…).



BPT User ManualRESULTS – Strengths and weakness (2) : show threats

32

– Threats

• This

functionality

allows you to

compare how

the farm evolves

from the later

assessment and

to know on

which basic

indicators the

score was lower

• 1) Enter the name of the previous

assessment in the research bar

• 2) Show threats





BPT User ManualRESULTS – Proposal of actions (1)

33

• You will find

– a list of action to

implement to improve

the biodiversity

preservation at farm

level

• You have the

possibility to filter the

results with


• Filter with

– Priority

• decreasing order

– Strategy

• E for Efficiency

• S for Substitution

• R for Reconception



BPT User ManualRESULTS – Proposal of actions (2) – Details per action

34

• Synthetic view of action

– General information

– Level to be achieved

– Environmental benefits

– Effective deadline for

biodiversity

– Implementation information

– Technical / Economic and

Social feasability



3.3 Export function



BPT User Manual

RESULTS – Export file (1)

36

• You can access the export file from

the list of assessments by clicking on

the left button from the assessment

you choose to open,



BPT User Manual


37

• Open the file





BPT User Manual


38

• The file is composed

of 3 tabs:

– Farm summary



BPT User Manual


39

• The file is

composed of 3

tabs:

– Farm summary


• score with detail on

its calculations



3.4 Other functions

3.4.1 Duplicate an assessment

For example, to update an assessment and save some time, the possibility to duplicate an assessment is proposed to the end-user.



BPT User Manual


40

• The file is

composed of 3

tabs:

– Farm summary


• score with detail on

its calculations

– SWO matrix



41

BPT User Manual

ASSESSMENT – Copy function



3.4.2 Delete an assessment



49

• You can delete some of your

assessment by choosing ‘Delete’

function

• You need to confirm to achieve it

BPT User Manual

ASSESSMENT – Delete function



Annex 1: 78 Basic indicators Characterization of the environment of the farm

1 Importance of SNH

2 Importance of permanent grasslands

3 Importance of agroforestry

4 Diversity of type of SNH

5 Composition of grass strips

6 Composition of flowering strips

7 Flowering duration of grassy elements

8 Modality of management of grassy elements

9 Importance of woody elements

10 Composition of hedges

11 Flowering of hedges

12 Composition of agroforestry elements

13 Support of nutritive resources

14 Support of shelters or overwintering sites or cavities

15 Number of strata or vegetation layers

16 Management of hedges and woody elements

17 Composition of water elements

18 Management of ditches ripisylves ponds

19 Use of fertilizers and pesticides on SNH

20 Burning of SNH

21 Export of mowing products

22 Specific result-based measures of SNH management to improve biodiversity

23 Share of SNH plot scale

24 Connectivity of SNH

Characterization of farming practices

25 Average plot size

26 Average plot width

27 Number of breeded species or races

28 Number of rare or endangered species

29 Number of crop plant species

30 Number of crop plant varieties for dominant crop

31 Number of rare or endangered crop species or varieties

32 Use of GMO

33 Special measures for the protection of species

34 Preventive measures and monitoring

35 Surface area non-treated with synthetic pesticides

36 Alternative methods against weeds

37 Alternative methods against other pests

38 Synthetic seed treatment

39 Herbicides

40 Insecticides (including acaricides)

41 Fungicides

42 Other (Mollucides, Rodenticides)

43 Handling of harmful substances Good practices storage and application

44 Mineral nitrogen fertilization for dominant crop system kg N per ha

45 Organic fertilization and awareness of N content richness

46 Good practices for N management



47 Water management

48 Actions to reduce water consumption

49 Length of crop rotation

50 Mass-flowering crops such as legume oilseed rape sunflower orchards vegetable

51 Percentage of legumes including temporary grassland

52 Soil analysis with SOM

53 Soil analysis with soil microbiological activities

54 Presence of cover crops

55 Presence of intercropping

56 Typology of permanent crops such as orchards or vineyards

57 Soil management

58 Maximal average livestock density LU per ha of main fodder area

59 Type of concentrates

60 Quantity of concentrates t per LU

61 Type of forage

62 Forage autonomy

63 Grazing use

64 Management of permanent grasslands

65 Use of alternative methods for combating diseases and parasitisms

66 Implementation of grazing areas including trees for livestock such as poultry

Insertion of farm in the socio-economic system

67 Engagement of farm in a product certification process

68 Farm map existence

69 Traceability

70 Multi-criteria diagnostic existence

71 Training sessions organized by standards or farmers association or cooperative etc

72 Qualification on pesticide use positive and negative lists

73 Exchange with assessors and or experts from standards or farmers association or cooperative

74 Qualification of workers and update of knowledge

75 Exchange of experience with suppliers, millers, distributors on biodiversity aspects

76 Self-learning about agroecology and alternative methods

77 Cooperation with external experts

78 Involvement in a local network

3.5 The characterization of the environment of the farm

The environment of the farm is described through the semi-natural habitats that are present at farm scale both in richness (quantity) but also in quality (composition and management).

3.5.1 Importance of semi-natural habitats (SNH)

There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that the simplification of land uses associated with a strong dependence on agrochemical inputs is decreasing environmental quality and threatening biodiversity15. The percentage of SNH is a normative indicator revealing the overall potential of a farm for hosting wild species16.

15 Evenson and Gollin, 2003; Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005 16 Biobio leaflet http://www.biobio-indicator.org/deliverables/guidebook.pdf

http://www.biobio-indicator.org/deliverables/guidebook.pdf



Agricultural landscapes range from structurally simple, dominated by arable crops, to structurally complex with high amounts of non-crop area. Non-crop habitat such as hedgerows, field margins, fallows and meadows are temporally more stable and heterogeneous environments than annual, arable crops. They provide a number of important resources for parasitoids and predatory arthropods such as permanent vegetation cover suitable for over-wintering, refuges from disturbance, as well as resources such as alternative prey, pollen and nectar1718.

Indeed, there is evidence of a threshold value of 20% non-crop area (in a radius of 1,5 km around a crop field) above which differences in parasitism levels in field edges and field centers disappeared, that means pest control is observed throughout the fields19. The optimum total surface of natural areas to maintain an adequate diversity of species is estimated to be close to 15%. A minimum of 5% of farmland is required by International Organization of Biological Control to be designed as “Ecological Infrastructures”. This step is therefore a step into the right direction but not necessarily the final objective20. SNH become even more important under changing temperature conditions as they can mitigate the negative effects of increasing temperatures on wild bee species richness and total abundance. Research has found a strong negative relationship between wild bee species richness and temperature. Papanikolaou et al (2016)21 found that having a high proportion (around 17%) of SNH in agricultural landscapes can considerably decrease the detrimental effect of short-term temperature rises on bee species richness and abundance.

17 reviews in Landis et al., 2000; Cronin and Reeve, 2005; Bianchi et al., 2006 18 Tscharntke T, Bommarco R, Clough Y, Crist TO, Kleijn D, Rand TA, Tylianakis JM, van Nouhuys S & Vidal S, 2007. Conservation biological control and enemy diversity on a landscape scale. Biological Control 43: 294-309 19 Tscharntke, T., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Kruess, A., Thies, C., 2002. Contribution of small habitat fragments to conservation of insect communities of grassland-cropland landscapes. Ecol. Appl. 12, 354–363. 20 IOBC, 2004. Integrated Production: principles and technical guidelines. 3rd edition. IOBC/WPRS Bull. 27, 50pp. 21 Papanikolaou AD, Kühn I, Frenzel M & Schweiger O, 2016. Semi-natural habitats mitigate the effects of temperature rise on wild bees. Journal of Applied Ecology 54: 527-536.



Figure 2. Interactive effect of temperature and landscape composition on bee species richness. The effect of temperature increase on species richness is displayed for four different levels of percentage of semi-natural areas:

(a) 2%; (b) 6%; (c) 10%; (d) 17%. The cover range in the plot starts from the minimum cover of semi-natural areas in our study sites (i.e., 2%) and reaches the maximum coverage observed (i.e. 17%). We, additionally, used 10% (as a representative value for two of our sites) and 6% (as the mean value between 2 and 10% to cover the whole range).

The y-axis is displayed on the logit scale. Grey bands indicate 95% confidence intervalscf ref 21.

This concurs with other EU funded research findings22 that a sufficiently large proportion of SNH and landscape features in farmland, between 10% and 20%, could largely buffer the negative effects of agriculture intensification on biodiversity and decrease its sensitivity to climate change.

3.5.2 Importance of permanent grasslands

The open surface areas are important for beneficial arthropods such as hoverflies by offering

shelters and nutritive resources, especially when mass-flowering crops are missing23. Different species of hoverflies should find nutritive resources in these surface areas (meadows, permanent grasslands…), so their presence close to cultivated plots could be beneficial for these

populations24.

22 Billeter et al., 2008; Indicators for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: a pan-European study. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 141-150. 23 ACTA, 2015. Modes d’emploi des Arbres multicritères AuxiMore : DEXi-Syrphes, DEXi-Coccinelles, DEXi-Chrysopes, DEXi-ParasitoidesDePucerons. CasDAR Auximore (2012-14). 60p. 24 Meyer B, Jauker F & Steffan-Dewenter I, 2009. Contrasting resource-dependent responses of hoverfly richness and density to landscape structure. Basic and Applied Ecology 10: 178-186.



Figure 3. Permanent grassland in the Bavarian Alps (Public domain25)

We consider here both the surface area and the extensive management of these habitats. At least 10% of grasslands extensively managed (no pesticides neither fertilizers and one grazing or mowing a year) should positively contribute to enhance the presence of pollinators and predators/parasitoids.

3.5.3 Importance of agroforestry

In Central Europe, there is a wide range of agroforestry system from traditional orchards to dehesas and montados in Spain and Portugal. In agroforestry systems, either composed of forests and crops or forests, grasslands and animals, the density of trees per hectare will be a good indicator for biodiversity. Indeed, in a dry climate (< 500 mm/year), dehesas density for holm oak (Quercus ilex) could vary between 30 to 60 trees/ha (tree coverage varying from 5% to 20%) and could reach 80 trees/ha for cork oak (Quercus suber)26. They allow a diversified production (forage, cork, acorn…)

Traditional orchard is defined as a permanent grassland, either mowed or grazed, with fruit trees but where forage production is dominant. The fruit tree density is often less than 100 trees/ha (Figure 4)27.

Tree species

Distance on the row (m)

Distance inter-row (m)

Usual density (trees/ha)

Apple 10-12 10-12 90-100

Pear 10-12 10-15 70-80

25 Par Nikater — Travail personnel, Domaine public, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=19759539 26 SOLAGRO, 2002. Arbres et biodiversité, rôle des arbres champêtres. 30p. 27 SOLAGRO, 2017. Concevoir son pré-verger et valoriser ses fruits. 16p. https://osez-agroecologie.org/images/imagesCK/files/bibliographie/f63_brochure-pre-verger-web.pdf

https://osez-agroecologie.org/images/imagesCK/files/bibliographie/f63_brochure-pre-verger-web.pdf

https://osez-agroecologie.org/images/imagesCK/files/bibliographie/f63_brochure-pre-verger-web.pdf



Cherry 10-12 12-15 70-80

Plum – Prunus domestica subsp. syriaca

7-10 10-14 100-120

Walnut 12-14 15-18 40-50

Figure 4. The plantation in square is the most usual; it allows to mow in both directions.

3.5.4 The diversity of type of SNH (at farm level)

Semi-natural habitats of different kinds may not host the same community (e.g. permanent grassland vs. woodland) but share the fact of promoting species persistence at the landscape

level2829. Therefore, on landscape level, it is important for biodiversity to include many different SNH. The classification system for habitats/SNHs that we use in the BPT is derived from LISA project (Landscape and Infrastructure Sustainable Agriculture project30), except for field tracks that are not considered in our classification because we consider it as a poor provider of biodiversity due to repeated number of passages of agricultural machinery.

Table 5. Classification of semi-natural habitats from Landscape and Infrastructure Sustainable Agriculture project

LISA classification

Name of feature Example of criteria for definition in the glossary of the BPT

Biodiversity issue

Woody elements Solitary trees, in-field trees Min. 1-m of diameter of the crown (to avoid juvenile stage tree)

The capacity of shelter increases with the tree development (crown diameter)31

Low hedges (< 1 m of height) min. 2-m width Under 2-m width, the hedge is considered not to be functional.

Bushy hedges (1 to 7 m of height)

min. 4-m width To play some significant roles either physical (windbreak, reduction of run-off) or biological, the minimal width is considered to be equal to 4 m.cf ref 13

Monospecific tree hedges (> 7 m of height) (m)

min. 4-m width

Forest edges (m) min. 4-m width

Shrub patches (ha)

Woodlots patches (ha) < 0.5 ha Upper than 0.5 ha, woodlots patches are considered as a forest patch

Row of trees Min. 4-m of diameter of the crown and a spacing between crown less than 5 m

Not included for the moment into the BPT

Grass-herb elements

Surface area of fallow lying land (ha)

Surface area of permanent grasslands extensively managed (ha)

Surface area of meadows (ha)

28 http://www.biobio-indicator.org/factsheets/habrich.pdf 29 Gibert C, Pointereau P, Moonen C, Jeanneret P, van der Werf W, Lof M, Balint B, Kiss J, Yalew S, Rossing W, Bianchi F, Paracchini ML, Rega C, Miquelbartual A, Wallis D, Cresswell JE, Sutter L, Albrecht M, Veromann E, Pfister S, Entling M, Schirmel J, Winkler K, Helsen H, Szalai M, Barbara S, Picchi M, Giffard B & Holland H, 2017. QuESSA Quantification of ecosystem services for sustainable agriculture. http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/3ccd83_be97d9ce265b4776942e222aef9f482c.pdf 30 http://www.ifab-mannheim.de/LISA%20report%202014-final%20July%202015.pdf 31 Humanité et Biodiversité et Groupe Casino, 2013. Améliorer la biodiversité dans son exploitation. Des outils à destination des agriculteurs. 48p.

http://www.biobio-indicator.org/factsheets/habrich.pdf

http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/3ccd83_be97d9ce265b4776942e222aef9f482c.pdf

http://www.ifab-mannheim.de/LISA%20report%202014-final%20July%202015.pdf



Surface area of mountain pastures (ha)

Surface area of flowering grasslands (ha)

Linear length of flower strips (m)

min. 2-m width

Linear length of buffer strips (including those that are next to watercourse – mandatory), grass strips and field margins (m)

min. 5-m width

Water elements Number of ponds

Average surface area of ponds (ha)

Surface area of wetlands including peat-bogs (ha)

Linear length of ditches or small streams (m)

5-m width

Stone/rock elements

Linear length of dry stone walling or terraces (m)

50-cm width

Complex elements Linear length of multi-strata hedges including riparian galleries (m)

min. 4-m width

Surface area of agroforestry (ha)

forest + crops

Traditional orchards / montados / dehesas

Fruit trees or forest + grasslands + animals

3.5.5 Composition of grass strips

Ernoult et al. (2013)32 show that grassy strips initially sown with seed mixture (Lolium perenne and Trifolium repens) harbored similar animal diversity (i.e., small mammals, syrphids, and carabid beetles) to other habitats of the agroecosystem, such as hedgerows and cultivated fields. These results were obtained for species groups that have (i) different ecological functions, (ii) different ecological responses to landscape modification, and (iii) could be observed in different semi-natural and disturbed habitats throughout the landscape mosaic. Grassy strip plant communities are mainly influenced by the landscape context (mainly influenced by semi-natural habitats that are present within a landscape context, i.e., at a scale >500 m). However, the role of grassy strips may be enhanced by improving the biodiversity of these disturbed ecosystems as shown by Woodcock et al. (2008)33 who showed the effects of floristic composition of field margins on ground beetles diversity. Indeed, the sowing mix of grassy strips was poor, composed systematically of clover and ryegrass. Yet, within two years of the grassy strips being sown, the biodiversity of the plant community had evolved. This was probably achieved through propagule colonization from surrounding sources and through local seed pools. Such plant biodiversity may favor faunal biodiversity, notably by offering vegetal resources (such as pollen, nectar, and vegetal tissues; Öckinger and Smith, 2007)34 or alternative prey items (such as soil invertebrates and phytophagous arthopods like aphids; Blanco and Leyva, 200935).

32 Ernoult A, Vialatte A, Butet A, Michel N, Rantier Y, Jambon O & Burel F, 2013. Grassy strips in their landscape context, their role as new habitat for biodiversity. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 166: 15-27. 33 Woodcock BA, Westbury DB, Tscheulin T, Harrison-Cripps J, Harris SJ, Ramsey AJ, Brown VK, Potts SG, 2008. Effects of seed mixture and management on beetle assemblages of arable field margins. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 125 : 246–254. 34 ÖCkinger E, Smith HG, 2007. Semi-natural grasslands as population sources for pollinating insects in agricultural landscapes. J. Appl. Ecol. 44: 50–59. 35 Blanco Y, Leyva A, 2009. Weeds and its associated entomofauna in corn (Zea mays, L.) crop after the critical competition period. Cultivos Tropicales 30 : 11–17.



Being more stable than cultivated fields, grassy strips may also play an important role as refuges and dispersal corridors for animals (Collinge, 2000)36. Field margins offer suitable nesting habitats for avifauna and important nutritive resources in arthropods for gray partridge chicks37. Buffer strips are also of mandatory importance for water quality as well as for wild fauna and flora.

3.5.6 Composition of flowering strips

Flower diversity significantly impacts on the species diversity of wild bees, as almost half of the central European species collect pollen exclusively from a single plant genus or family38. As well as for the hedges, the richness of the floral mixture is favorable to beneficial arthropods, e.g. hoverflies. Indeed, the importance of flowering, the number of flowers, the richness in pollen and nectar… The objective of a flowering mixture is - to provide a diversity of floral plant to target (to tailor) a diversity of pests - to provide some stable habitats, some floral resources (floral and extra-floral nectar, pollen) and alternatives preys for the beneficial arthropods: - a majority of perennial plants - a synchrony between flowering periods and need of resources for pollinators (from early spring to late autumn) - accessible floral resources according to the morphology of the flower (either Asteraceae, Labiaceae families only for long tongue bees or Apiaceae for bees with short tongue. - presence of legume species to host specific aphids (alternative preys) - Functional redundance into the mixture - Local and adapted species (ecotypes) - Avoid non-authorized species39

Figure 5. Example of flowering strips in France : left, © Gardarin A, AgroParis Tech. Flowering strip with wild chicory (Cichorium intybus), anthemis (Anthemis spp.), wild carrot (Daucus carota), poppy (Papaver rhoeas), sweet clover

(Melilotus officinialis), chamomile (Matricaria spp.). center, cc-by-sa 3.0 Nelson M, Solagro. Flowering strip with cornflower (Centaurea cyanus), poppy (Papaver rhoeas), chamomile (Matricaria spp.). right, © GRAB. Flowering

grassland.

36 Collinge SK, 2000. Effects of grassland fragmentation on insect species loss, colonization, and movement patterns. Ecology 81, 2211–2226. 37 Le Bris C, 2016. Les bordures extérieures de champs en Beauce, des espaces à valoriser : ne laissons pas la biodiversité au bord du chemin. Agronomie Environnement & Sociétés 6 : 59-64. 38 Zurbuchen A & Müller A, 2012. Wildbienenschutz – von der Wissenschaft zur Praxis. Bristol-Stifftung, Zürich. Haupt-Verlag, Bern. 39 Warlop F., Nauleau M., Gardarin A.,Wartelle R., Lambion J., Gibert C., Mary S., Giffard B., Cornillon M., Magro A., 2018. Synthèse du projet Casdar Muscari, 24 pages.



Ideally, with local and adapted species, the floral mixture should be sown in early autumn (mid September - mid October). By introducing both annual and perennial plants into the flowering mixture, the objective is to have a first flowering the first spring, and a perennial cover the years after (some example of 25-year old flowering fallows in Germany)40

3.5.7 Flowering duration of grassy elements

As mentioned for the flowering duration of hedges, the interests are to provide nutritive resources for both pollinators, parasitoids, predators… during their period of emergence and reproduction but most of all just before the period of overwintering (reserves). Botanically diversified grass strips provide a multitude of additional nectar and pollen sources if maintained properly and mown only once relatively late in the growing season41.

3.5.8 Modality of management of grassy elements

The late mowing aims to preserve the role of shelter and resources as long as possible. Ideally, the mowing should be performed out of bird or arthropods nesting periods between early September and late January. Mowing is preferred to grinding42. This late mowing implies that the strips supplied flowers likely to be visited by the syrphids, in particular yellow flowers such as Lotus corniculatus (Fabaceae), Sonchus asper asper (Asteraceae) or Ranunculus sp. (Ranunculaceae)43.

3.5.9 Composition of hedge elements

Conifers are generally poorly favorable to biodiversity even if they can contribute to host some squirrels species. Hardwood species are more favorable to biodiversity by offering different nutritive resources, different types of habitats (hairy or smooth leaves, network of leaf veins more

or less apparent…). …).

3.5.10 Flowering of hedges

Many wild bees, parasitoids, hoverflies have short periods of flight activity lasting only a few weeks with different species flying in spring, early and late summer respectively. Therefore, the provision of a succession of floral resources from early spring to late summer is essential to maintain a species diversity in a given landscape (Figure 6)44. Important aphid predators, such as hoverflies and lacewings, as well as parasitoids, require in their adult stage, a continuous supply of nectar and pollen45. Early flowering period corresponds to early spring (February-March) and late flowering period corresponds to late summer and autumn.

40 http://cbnpmp.blogspot.com/2014/12/le-programme-ecovars-et-la.html 41 Boller EF, Häni F & Poehling H-M, 2004. Ecological infrastructures: Ideabook on Functional Biodiversity at the Farm Level Temperate Zones of Europe. English-German, 1st edition August 2004. 42 IBIS http://www.hommes-et-territoires.asso.fr/images/PDF/Outils/IBIS_Conseil.pdf p6 43 Ernoult A, Vialatte A, Butet A, Michel N, Rantier Y, Jambon O & Burel F, 2013. Grassy strips in their landscape context, their role as new habitat for biodiversity. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 166: 15-27. 44 Pffifner L & Müller A, 2016. Wild bees and pollination. Factsheet FiBL. 8p. https://shop.fibl.org/chen/mwdownloads/download/link/id/656/ 45 Boller EF, Häni F & Poehling H-M, 2004. Ecological infrastructures: Ideabook on Functional Biodiversity at the Farm Level Temperate Zones of Europe. English-German, 1st edition August 2004.

http://cbnpmp.blogspot.com/2014/12/le-programme-ecovars-et-la.html

http://www.hommes-et-territoires.asso.fr/images/PDF/Outils/IBIS_Conseil.pdf

https://shop.fibl.org/chen/mwdownloads/download/link/id/656/



Figure 6. Wild bees need a continuous succession of floral resources throughout the entire vegetation period in order to ensure their survival as most of the species have differing flight periods of only one to two months duration. Colony

forming species such as bumblebees require a continuous succession of floral resources from March to October46.

46 Pffifner L & Müller A, 2016. Wild bees and pollination. Factsheet FiBL. 8p. https://shop.fibl.org/chen/mwdownloads/download/link/id/656/

https://shop.fibl.org/chen/mwdownloads/download/link/id/656/



Dog rose (Rosa canina47) Blackthorne (Prunus spinosa48)

Fly honeysuckle (Lonicera xylosteum49)

European blackberry (Rubus fruticosus50)

Common dogwood (Cornus sanguinea51) Common hazel (Corylus avellana52)

Figure 7. Example of common species of hedges53.

47 Michaël Martinez [CC BY-SA 2.0 FR], via Tela Botanica 48 CC BY-SA 3.0 49 Public domain Johann Georg Sturm (Painter Jacob Sturm) - Figure from Deutschlands Flora in Abbildungen at http://www.biolib.de 50 Jan Kops [Public domain], Flora Batava v15 51 Sten Porse [CC BY-SA 3.0]http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ 52 User:Kilom691 [Public domain] ; Original book source: Prof. Dr. Otto Wilhelm Thomé Flora von Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz 1885, Gera, Germany Source: www.biolib.de 53 Boller EF, Häni F & Poehling H-M, 2004. Ecological infrastructures: Ideabook on Functional Biodiversity at the Farm Level Temperate Zones of Europe. English-German, 1st edition August 2004.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Sturm

http://www.biolib.de/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

http://www.biolib.de/



Table 6. Examples of list of species that could be chosen to compose the hedges54

Strata Name species Comments

Low shrub (up to 3 m height)

Dog rose (Rosa canina) In June-July

Wild privet (Ligustrum)

Blackthorn (Prunus spinosa) Provider of food source from March till May

Fly honeysuckle (Lonicera xylosteum) In June-July

Bramble (Rubus fructicosus) Only in low numbers because it is a dominant plant species

Blackberries Provide some protected shelters

Juniper*

Holly

Middle-sized and high shrubs (up to 10 m)

Dogwood (Cornus sanguinea)

Hazelnut (Corylus avellana) In low numbers because dominant plant species

Guelder rose, wayfaring tree (Viburnum opulus, V. lantana)

Provider of food source in May

Japanese spindle (Euonymus europeaus)

Buckthorn (Rhammus catharticus)

Glossy buckthorn (Rhammus frangula)

Elder (Sambucus spp.)

Climbers Honeysuckle (Lonicera periclymenum) In June-July

Ivy (Hedera helix) Flowering from August until October

Hop (Humulus lupulus)

Trees English oak (Quercus robur)

Hornbeam (Carpinus betulus)

Wild cherry, gean (Prunus avium)

Field maple (Acer campestris)

Ash (Fraxinus excelsior)

* see table 7 plants

While the plant listed below (Table 7) are frequently mentioned as host plants of agricultural pests, their damaging potential is either contradictory or much lower than their potential usefulness as habitat of important beneficials55:

Table 7. Plants frequently mentioned as host plants of agricultural pests

Name species Comments

Cotoneaster spp. Must not be planted in pome production areas because they are host plants for fireblight (Erwinia amylovora). Minimum distance to orchard 500 m.

Firethorn (Pyracantha)

Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.)

Rowan / service tree (Sorbus spp.)

Barberry (Berberis vulgaris) Black rust of cereals

Juniper (Juniperus spp.) Host of pear rust (Gymnosporangium sabinae)

Fly honeysuckle (Lonicera xylosteum) alternate host plant of European cherry fruit fly (Rhagostis cerasi); modest risk only where honeysuckle is planted in groups outside hedges and in atypical sun-exposed positions

Hazelnut (Corylus avellana) Rose tortrix moth (Cacoecia = Archips rosana)

Blackthorn (Prunus spinosa) Willow beauty moth (Boarmia rhomboidaria) in viticulture

54 Adapted from Boller EF, Häni F & Poehling H-M, 2004. Ecological infrastructures: Ideabook on Functional Biodiversity at the Farm Level Temperate Zones of Europe. English-German, 1st edition August 2004. 55 Boller EF, Häni F & Poehling H-M, 2004. Ecological infrastructures: Ideabook on Functional Biodiversity at the Farm Level Temperate Zones of Europe. English-German, 1st edition August 2004.



3.5.11 Composition of agroforestry elements

The species diversity (insectivorous birds, bats, beneficials) allows to preserve the biological equilibrium of these habitats. Pest populations (aphids) that consume leaves, buds and fruits (caterpillar…) are present but in low density since a lot of antagonists are also present. The wild variety are more resistant to diseases. The high-stem orchard offers a large range of micro-habitats: herbaceous plants, flowers, fruits, cavities, dead branches, bark… Another important factor creating diversity is the extensive farming practices such as mowing or grazing. In the same way of the natural grasslands and hedges, the high-stem orchard accommodates many animal and floral species in decline or threatened. The simultaneous presence of these species in decline constitute an indicator of the high value environment represented by this habitat, both animal food sources, shelter, reproduction and hibernation sites. In France, 14 of 27 bird species in decline are present in these high-stem orchards. Among them: Eurasian wryneck (Jynx torquilla), Hoopoe (Upupa epops), Eurasian tree sparrow (Passer montanus), Parus palustris, Common redstart (Phoenicurus phoenicurus), and litte owl (Athena noctua). Emblematic, this latter likes the cavities exhibited in the old fruit trees, in which it raises its brood. From 25 to 100 trees/ha, the multi-production and the attraction of the specific fauna of the traditional orchards is guaranteed. A higher density (100-150 trees/ha) could mitigate the biological value of the agroforestry system while a density higher than 150 trees /ha could be assimilated to intensive orchard with a low biodiversity within.

3.5.12 Importance of woody elements

The presence of woodlots and forest edges close to cultivated plots could provide shelters to lacewings (Chrysoperla lucasina and C. carnea) during the day and provide overwintering sites during winter56 as well as for ladybirds (e.g. Harmonia axyridis)57. They could also have a windbreak role in a windy agricultural landscape, and provide habitats and resources for avifauna.

3.5.13 Support of nutritive resources

The regular presence of species producing fruits during autumn and winter periods (more than 3 trees/200 m of hedge): such as Juniper sp., Mountain ash, Viburnum, Black elder, Wild apple tree, holly, ivy, privet, yew58... offer some nutritive resources for a lot of bird species during a period where resources are generally scarcer.

3.5.14 Support of shelters or overwintering sites or cavities

Dead branches are important for nesting activities of wild bees and for a lot of cave birds (little owl, …). The presence of defensive plants provides some protected habitats for birds and their brood.

3.5.15 Number of strata or vegetation layers

The importance of the number of strata needs to be associated to the importance of the number and diversity of habitats and micro-habitats that are present at farm level. The stratification of the landscape offers a wider diversity of habitats in a given perimeter and provide more resources

56 Villenave J, 2006. Étude de la bio-écologie des névroptères dans une perspective de lutte biologique par conservation. Relations entre l’environnement des cultures de choux (végétation et structure paysagère) et l’abondance, la distribution et le comportement. Thèse Université d’Angers. 241p. 57 Bianchi JJA & van der Werf W, 2004. Model evaluation of the function of prey in non-crop habitats for biological control by ladybeetles in agricultural landscapes. Ecological Modelling 171, 177-193. 58 Humanité et Biodiversité et Groupe Casino, 2013. Améliorer la biodiversité dans son exploitation. Des outils à destination des agriculteurs. 48p.



that are beneficial for the whole food web. The micro-habitats of forest edges are particularly favorable to wild bees (cavicolous species that would find some soil cavities, nesting sites of small mammals or dead wood to shelter or terricolous species that nest on non-ploughed soils)59. Hoverflies would be more abundant in presence of diversified floral strips between cultivated plot and the hedge60. The different strata of a hedge can accommodate different species of ladybirds. Coccinella septempunctata and Hippodamia undecimnotata usually lay eggs on low plants (0-50 cm of height) while Propylea quatuordecimpunctata and Adelia variegata lay eggs on bushy plants (50 cm to 2 m) and Adelia bipunctata, Oenopia conglobate and Adelia decempunctata needs trees of more than 2 m of height61.

3.5.16 Management of hedges and woody elements

This indicator helps to determine a frequency of management of these habitats. Either too frequent management or no management will lead to a disappearance of certain habitats62.

3.5.17 Composition of water elements

The wetlands, ponds, ditches… provide some functional conditions to a very specific fauna and flora species. This high specific plant diversity provides food and shelters to many invertebrates, mollusks or insects which are themselves preys for many invertebrates or vertebrates, in particular amphibians (tritons, frogs…). They also constitute a shelter site, a spawning support for amphibians that stare their eggs on the vegetation, a hibernation site for insect larvae that burrow into the mud.63 The water elements also contribute to ecological services such as:

• water regulation (to prevent flood),

• purifying function (to eliminate pollutants such as phosphorous, nitrogen, heavy metals… sometimes with plants) by positioning the humid areas at the head of the watershed

• providing pure water (to feed the water tables, for livestock or wild fauna watering…); this function becomes more and more important in a climate change context.

• landscape aesthetics and recreational function

3.5.18 Management of ditch and riparian forests cleaning

The late management (mowing) allows the shelter and food roles as long as possible. Ideally, the management of the ditches should be performed out of the reproduction period of amphibians (beginning in January) the nesting periods of birds and emergence periods of dragonflies (March to August). The best is to mow every 2 years between early September until end of January. The ditch or riparian forests cleaning is useful to maintain the water flow. Inside the ditch, check whether the water circulation is correct before mowing. Prefer a manual cleaning, only the bottom but avoiding the over digging, and leaving the vegetation on slope; one side at a time alternated at least 1 year out of 264.

59 ACTA, 2015. Modes d’emploi des Arbres multicritères AuxiMore : DEXi-Syrphes, DEXi-Coccinelles, DEXi-Chrysopes, DEXi-Parasitoides De Pucerons. CasDAR Auximore (2012-14). 60p. 60 MacLeod A, 1999. Attraction and retention of Episyrphus balteatus DeGeer (Diptera : Syrphidae) at an arable field margin with rich and poor floral resource. Agriculture, Ecosystem & Environment 73: 237-244. 61 Iperti G, 1999. Biodiversity predaceous coccinellidae in relation to bioindication and economic importance. Agriculture, Ecosystem & Environment 74 : 323-342. 62 Humanité et Biodiversité et Groupe Casino, 2013. Améliorer la biodiversité dans son exploitation. Des outils à destination des agriculteurs. 48p. 63 Humanité et Biodiversité et Groupe Casino, 2013. Améliorer la biodiversité dans son exploitation. Des outils à destination des agriculteurs. 48p. 64 Humanité et Biodiversité et Groupe Casino, 2013. Améliorer la biodiversité dans son exploitation. Des outils à destination des agriculteurs. 48p.



Figure 8. Example of management of ditch in South of France65

3.5.19 Use of fertilizer and/or pesticides on SNH

To be most functional, the semi-natural habitats should receive neither chemical fertilization nor pesticides in their surface areas.

3.5.20 Burning

Burning practice is prohibited on these habitats to let them functional and avoid pollution (by burning garbage and/or residues) and destruction of ecosystems within these habitats.

3.5.21 Export of mowing products

The removal of mowing products allows to maintain poor soil that are favorable to plant diversity.

3.5.22 Specific result-based measures of SNH management to improve biodiversity

The implementation of at least one specific action or result-based measure on management of SNH that contribute to preserve and improve the biodiversity has to be promoted and considered into the BPT. Some concrete examples are proposed (non-exhaustive list): for montado or dehesa systems, management measures to prevent degradation/promote regeneration by limiting the livestock density, by maintaining a minimum area of shrubs in regeneration areas, non-destructive shrub control methods, implementing plant protection structures. For grasslands: special measure (result-based) to maintain the species richness in wild pollinators with "plant diversity" (3 bioindicator plants are present in a buffer of 6-m radius) characterizing an extensive grazing, to remove mesh wire fencing and replace them by biodiversity friendly fences. For all habitats: management of alien invasive species.

3.5.23 Landscape diversity

This indicator is a rough proxy of the landscape heterogeneity that corresponds to the presence of semi-natural networks (framework) and a mosaic of habitats (crops, grasslands, woodlots…) inside a close landscape surrounding the farm. Burgio & Sommagio (2007) have shown that the more complex landscapes are, the more abundant hoverflies are apparent. Sommagio (1999)

65 http://www.gers.gouv.fr/Politiques-publiques/Environnement/Gestion-de-l-eau/Cours-d-eau-fosses-et-drainages-agricoles/Les-fosses-obligations-et-preconisations



observed twice more hoverflies (species richness and abundance) in a heterogeneous landscape

with hedges in comparison with a homogeneous landscape without hegdes66. A mosaic of grasslands and woodlots (with a fine grain ~100 m around the cultivated plot) is more

efficient than the connectivity of grasslands for conservation of butterflies (Maniola jurtina)67.

3.5.24 Share of SNH – plot level

One type of SNH correspond to the categories that we derived from the LISA project, that is . The more diverse the type of SNH per plot are, the more diverse the fauna diversity would be. Mixing water, grassy and woody elements offer water and a wide floral diversity providing nectar, pollen and alternative preys for predators, parasitoids and pollinators.

3.5.25 Connectivity of SNH

Promoting the implementation of the Green Infrastructure through the « Nature-based solutions », that improves and enhances habitats to support beneficials in farming landscapes. As promoted by EU (COM(2013)249)68 and by the recent study of Harvey et al. (2016)69, the idea is to promote a strategically planned network of natural and semi-natural areas, food webs to achieve goals of conserving and enhancing biodiversity, ecosystem processes and ultimately landscape-scale delivery of ecosystem services. The network of ecological infrastructures is composed of 3 basic elements with distinct functions70:

• Large permanent habitats of the fauna (large surfaces of low intensity grassland, of poor grassland, of forests with their grass strips, of ruderal areas and high-stem tree orchards…)

• Stepping stones (rather concentrated and small sized structures like woodland patches, stone piles or ponds) are habitats of smaller size allowing the build-up of temporary animal populations

66 ACTA, 2015. Modes d’emploi des Arbres multicritères AuxiMore : DEXi-Syrphes, DEXi-Coccinelles, DEXi-Chrysopes, DEXi-Parasitoides De Pucerons. CasDAR Auximore (2012-14). 60p. 67 Villemey A, Van Halder I, Ouin A & Archaux F, 2015. Mosaic of grasslands and woodlands is more effective than habitat connectivity to conserve butterflies in French farmland. Biological Conservation 191: 206-215. 68 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:d41348f2-01d5-4abe-b817-4c73e6f1b2df.0014.03/DOC_1&format=PDF 69 Harvey E, Gounand I, Ward C L & Altermatt F, 2016. Bridging ecology and conservation: from ecological networks to ecosystem function. J Appl Ecol. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12769. 70 Boller EF, Häni F & Poehling H-M, 2004. Ecological infrastructures: Ideabook on Functional Biodiversity at the Farm Level Temperate Zones of Europe. English-German, 1st edition August 2004.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:d41348f2-01d5-4abe-b817-4c73e6f1b2df.0014.03/DOC_1&format=PDF



• Corridor structures (hedges, grass strips, wildflower strips, ditches and brooks…) assist animal species in moving between large habitats and small stepping stones.

3.6 The characterization of the farming practices

Unlike semi-natural habitats, cultivated fields are generally thought to be subject to major disruption due to agricultural practices. Pest and natural enemy populations may depend on arable fields as a source of potential hosts or preys, pollen and nectar resources, and diapause and overwintering areas. This dependence is particularly strong when the proportion of semi-natural habitats in the landscape is low. In this case, natural enemies are highly susceptible to the effects of crop management at the field scale71.

3.6.1 Average plot size

Landscapes with smaller fields and more field edges have more biodiversity in crop fields than landscapes with large fields, even when the total area of SNH is the same. These are the findings of the Fahrig et al. 201572 comparison of mixed agricultural landscapes in Canada, where field sizes are similar to intensive arable regions in Europe, such as East Anglia in the UK (i.e. average around 4.5 ha). This indicates that putting strips or patches of grass and flowers into these fields could increase biodiversity and associated ecosystem services.

71 Rusch A, Valantin-Morison M, Sarthou JP & Roger-Estrade J, 2010. Chapter 6 : Biological control of insect pests in agroecosystems : effects of crop management, farming systems, and seminatural habitats at the landscape scale : a review. Advances in Agronomy 109: 219-259. 72 https://carleton.ca/glel/wp-content/uploads/Fahrig_et_al-2015-Farmlands-with-smaller-crop-fields-have-higher.pdf

https://carleton.ca/glel/wp-content/uploads/Fahrig_et_al-2015-Farmlands-with-smaller-crop-fields-have-higher.pdf



Figure 9. Two example landscapes containing approximately the same total area of natural and semi-natural covers. Landscape A has small crop fields and most natural and semi-natural cover is in field edges. Landscape B has large

crop fields and most natural and semi-natural cover is in forest patchescf ref 72.

The table 8 helps in defining the ‘category’ of average plot size for each crop system into the Biodiversity Performance Tool.

Table 8. ‘Category’ of average plot size for each crop system defined in the Biodiversity Performance Tool.

Small Medium Large

Arable crops < 5 ha 5 – 10 ha > 10 ha

Orchard, vineyard < 1 ha 1 – 2 ha > 2 ha

Vegetable < 0.5 ha 0.5 – 1 ha > 1 ha

3.6.2 Average plot width

The “hedge mesh” defines the unit base of the bocage, since it generates a network of hedges connected between them and with the woodlots. The size and mesh conditions the presence and the density of the species dedicated to these habitats. Until 150 m between linear of hedges (plot size between 2 and 5 ha), it is possible to preserve some species becoming rare or threatened (e.g. little owl Athene noctua). Between 150 and 300 m (that is plot size between 5 and 15 ha), the biological monitoring is really poor. Above 300 m, the distance is too important so that species dedicated to these habitats could survive, e.g. Emberiza citronella73.

73 SOLAGRO, 2002. Arbres et biodiversité, rôle des arbres champêtres. 30p.



Figure 10. Examples of critical distances between ecological infrastructures (ranging from excellent in the top of the picture to poor in the bottom) and of representatives of affected animal species mowing between vital habitats and

stepping stones74.

Figure 11. Ecological distances from the hedges toward the center of the cultivated plot75.

In addition to the argument from the basic indicator “Average plot size”, the requirement of the individual animal species with respect to size of the ecological infrastructure and maximum distances between them depends on the size and mobility of the species concerned. Many beneficial insects and predatory mites of economic importance in agriculture have modest mobility76. Many predators (insectivorous birds, shrews or common toad) are feeding inside the cultivated plot but without ever getting too far from

74 Boller EF, Häni F & Poehling H-M, 2004. Ecological infrastructures: Ideabook on Functional Biodiversity at the Farm Level Temperate Zones of Europe. English-German, 1st edition August 2004. 75 Solagro, 2002. Arbres et biodiversité, rôle des arbres champêtres. 30p. 76 Boller EF, Häni F & Poehling H-M, 2004. Ecological infrastructures: Ideabook on Functional Biodiversity at the Farm Level Temperate Zones of Europe. English-German, 1st edition August 2004.



their favorite shelters. Most of them do not move out over 30 m. Bats follow the forest edges or the ripisylves and hedges to hunt77.

Table 9. Ecological distances78

Scale Distance Comment

Field 0-10 m Distance of most intensive herbivore pest – antagonist interactions; critical range of pesticide drift from field crops into off-crop areas.

10-50 m Operational distance of many crawling, flying or wind-borne antagonists migrating from their habitats into the crop area (e.g. parasitoids, predatory mites)

50-100 m Increasingly reduced operational range of important short distance movers (such as many parasitoids, predatory beetles, and windborne wingless antagonists like predatory mites)

Farm 100-500 m Strongly reduced range of many antagonists; presence of middle and long range movers possible (e.g. hoverflies, lady beetles, predatory bugs such as Orius and Anthocoris species).

Landscape > 500 m A certain population exchange of a limited number of strong fliers (e.g. hoverflies, lacewings) is still possible between distant ecological infrastructures (e.g. hedges) and crop fields.

The perimeter of the farm’s neighborhood with significant influence on functional biodiversity at the farm level measures apparently some 100-200 m, that is 150 m, which is our higher threshold79. As wild bees must fly back and forth a lot between food plants and nesting sites in order to provision their brood cells, the spatial distance between nesting sites and suitable food plants is critical to their reproductive success. For most wild bee species the maximum flight distance between nesting and food habitats is between 100 and 1500 m80,81.

Figure 12. Foraging distances of Hoplitis adunca mason bees at two sites (coloured). Proportion of marked females observed collecting pollen from potted host plants at increasing distances to their nests. While some individual

females travelled more than 1 km, half of the individuals ceased their nesting activities once the foraging distance was increased to 300mcf ref 81

77 Solagro, 2002. Arbres et biodiversité, rôle des arbres champêtres. 30p. 78 Adapted from Boller EF, Häni F & Poehling H-M, 2004. Ecological infrastructures: Ideabook on Functional Biodiversity at the Farm Level Temperate Zones of Europe. English-German, 1st edition August 2004. 79 Boller EF, Häni F & Poehling H-M, 2004. Ecological infrastructures: Ideabook on Functional Biodiversity at the Farm Level Temperate Zones of Europe. English-German, 1st edition August 2004. 80 Zurbuchen A, Bachofen C, Müller A, Hein S & Dorn S, 2010. Are landscape structures insurmountable barriers for foraging bees? A mark-recapture study with two solitary pollen-specialist species. Apidologie 41: 497-508. 81 Zurbuchen A, Landert L, Klaiber J, Müller A, Hein S & Dorn S, 2010. Maximum foraging ranges in solitary bees: only few individuals have the capability to cover long foraging distances. Biological Conservation 143: 669-676.



3.6.3 Number of breeded species or races

The more species or races are present at farm level, the more diverse the livestock and thus, the more resistant to diseases and/or parasitism will be.

3.6.4 Number of rare or endangered species

The presence of more rustic race inside the livestock is a guarantee against climatic or biological accident. Some cooperatives or food industries financially encourage or incite to introduce this type of rare or endangered species within the livestock of their farmers in order both to maintain a genetic diversity as well as a quality for milk production for example. In French pilot project, it is the case with the cooperative Jeune Montagne, that only authorized two milky races, Simmental and newly the Aubrac. For this latter race, farmers key a bonus. These two races offer a milk production adapted to the potentialities of the territory (climate, altitude…), and production is limited to 6000 L/cow/year.

3.6.5 Number of crop plant species

The number of crop plant species or the crop diversity at farm level is considered since Billeter et al (2008)82 has shown that it was positively associated with the species richness of arthropods, and particularly of bees, carabids and bugs. In the BPT, the higher score is obtained when more than 7 crop species are cultivated on farm, and the lowest one when less or equal to 3 crop species are cultivated on farm.

3.6.6 Number of crop plant varieties for dominant crop

Mixing different varieties within a crop field and/or at a watershed level presents a lot of interests:

• firstly, for crop protection, dominant crop is less exposed in case of pest outbreak since the different varieties could present various profile of sensitivity; from farmers’ point of view, this practice could induce some pesticides economy.

• secondly, for market diversification as well as in a climate change adaptation, since various varieties of a same crop could harbor different precocity and thus be less exposed to climatic events (period of droughts, long rainy spring...)

3.6.7 Number of rare or endangered species/varieties

The presence of more rustic species and/or varieties inside the crop fields is a guarantee against climatic or biological accident. In France, there are some Conservatoire of rare or endangered species/varieties such as the one of orchard species/varieties in Aquitaine83.

3.6.8 Use of GMO

In France, use of GMO is prohibited. For the other countries of the European Union and from the world, questions about GMOs will be maintained since no common regulation is applied. GMOs is not encouraged through the BPT since they could contribute to impoverish both local wild and cultivated genetic biodiversity.

82 https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01393.x 83 https://www.conservatoirevegetal.com/?pg=presentation

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01393.x

https://www.conservatoirevegetal.com/?pg=presentation



3.6.9 Special measures for the protection of species

Some artificial implementations to replace semi-natural habitats while they are becoming functional, could be a really good initiatives to preserve at field and farm scale some important beneficial arthropods (predators of butterflies) such as

• Bats: with the implementation of artificial shelters, with a black color and in height to maintain high temperature and heat.

• Raptors: perchers

• Cavity birds: artificial nesting boxes. The size (diameter) of the hole will determine the species that could nest inside.

- 25 mm for Cyanistes caereleus, Parus ater and Poecile palustris.

- 28 mm for Parus major, Passer montanus and Ficedula hypoleuca.

• Dry wood piles are recommended for weasels (efficient against Microtus arvalis or Arvicola amphibious) or hedgehog.

3.6.10 Preventive measures and monitoring

This basic indicator helps in better understanding the farmer’s crop protection approach: is it a systematic or a preventive approach? If so, the farmer will implement a cascade of preventive actions from the choice of its plant material to an efficient pest and natural enemies monitoring to adapt and focus the pesticide application only when necessary.

3.6.11 Surface area non-treated with synthetic pesticides

In Bio-Bio project84, they found a correlation between Treatment Frequency Index and surface area non-treated with chemical pesticides, that’s why we used the surface area non-treated with chemical pesticides since it is a basic indicator easier to retrieve than the Treatment Frequency Index that needs to be calculated for each crop (by considering the sum of each category of pesticides – Herbicides and not herbicides), before being calculating at farm level. This is considered as a pressure indicator. The use of chemical pesticides is significantly restricted in organic farming according to the organic regulations EC 834/2007 and EC 889/2008. This restriction results in a reduced input of pesticides in organic systems compared to conventional systems, e.g. a 97% reduction was found by Mäder et al. (2002)85. Organic systems rely on a variety of practices (crop rotation, biological control, mechanical weed control…) to manage weeds and invertebrates pests instead. This avoids direct and indirect pesticide effects, as follows:

• Direct effects: herbicides are a significant factor in decline of many common arable flowers in Europe86. Insecticides have a major negative influence on invertebrates87.

84 Agroscope, 2012. Guidebook ‘Biodiversity Indicators for European Farming Systems’. BioBio project FP7. 85 Mäder et al., 2002. Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science 296 : 1694-1697. 86 Andreasen C et al, 1996. Decline of the flora in Danish arable fields. Journal of Applied Ecology 33: 619-626. Fried G, Chauvel B & Reboud X, 2015. Weed flora shifts and specialisation in winter oilseed rape in France. Weed Research 55, 514– 524.. 87 Hole DG et al., 2005. Does organic farming benefit biodiversity? Biological Conservation 122: 113-130.



• Indirect effects: weed communities were found to have a higher diversity on organic farms than on conventional ones88. Chemical pesticides lead to a reduction in plant food resources and invertebrate abundances89. This is a factor in the declines of a range of farmland bird species90.

3.6.12 Alternative methods against weeds

Some alternatives to herbicides use exist to help farmers in controlling weeds such as

• mechanical weeding (false sowing, hoeing, weeder harrow...),

• solarization,

• weeding steam,

• biofumigation (plants rich in glucosinolates, mainly Brassicaceae. When they are degrading, the glucosinolates are transformed into isothio et thiocynates, volatile and toxic molecules for some soil organisms)

• mulching

• others (e.g. by enhancing carabids population that eat weed seeds). The bigger the carabids are the bigger the size of weed seed they eat.

The proportion of surface area they represent according to the crop system, could help to prioritize the actions to implement.

3.6.13 Alternative methods against other pests

In a similar way, some alternatives to chemical fungicides and insecticides exist to help farmers in controlling diseases and pests:

• Biocontrol o Macro-organism release (invertebrates, insects, mites or nematods) o Micro-organism release (fungi, bacteria, viruses...) o Chemical mediators (insects pheromons and kairomons) o Use of natural substances such as kaolin, vegetable oil, whey...

• Conservation biological control o Use of service plants (nutritive resources or habitats for beneficial

arthropods)

• Use of physical protection (insect proof net...)

3.6.14 Synthetic seed treatment

3.6.15 Herbicide

3.6.16 Insecticide including acaricide

3.6.17 Fungicide

3.6.18 Other – mollucide, rodenticide

These indicators, for which, a binary response is expected, should help the food actors to better know which is/are the dominant chemical pesticide(s) used according to the product and/ or the crop system, in order to propose some alternatives when it is possible.

88 Tyser GW et al, 2008. Community structure and metabolism through reconstruction of microbial genomes from the environment. Nature 428(6978): 37-43. 89 Dubois et al, 2003. Influence of organic farming and different cultures on the earthworm fauna. In: Freyer B (Ed.) Contributions to the 7th Scientific Conference on Organic Farming: Organic farming in the future. Vienna, University of Agricultural Sciences, 24 -26 February 2003. pp 445-446. 90 Hole DG et al., 2005. Does organic farming benefit biodiversity? Biological Conservation 122: 113-130.



3.6.19 Handling of harmful substances and good practices of storage and application

This indicator gathers several actions that need to be implemented regarding the regulation : a room to store harmful substances; the remove of oil, plastic and sewage; to ensure that the contractors’ disposal and recycling methods do not pose risks to natural ecosystems, drinking water supplies, or the health and safety of people living near the disposal sites; to ensure that people responsible for pesticide application is trained and awareness about good practices for pesticide application/spraying (e.g. in France Certiphyto); the respect of good practices for pesticide spraying

3.6.20 Mineral nitrogen fertilization for dominant crop system

Several studies have shown that herbivorous insects usually select their host plants on the basis of potential quality as a host and as a source of food91. Moreover, plant resistance to insect pests varies considerably with age, growth stage, and physiology of the plant92. Nitrogen fertilization may, therefore, play an important role in population dynamics and performances of herbivores by affecting plant resistance, host selection mechanisms, or the ability of plants to recover from the damage inflicted by herbivores (Plant Stress Hypothesis and Plant Vigor Hypothesis)93. The number of vascular plant species was negatively related to the percentage of intensively fertilized land94. This can be readily understood, as fertilizer application is known to reduce plant species richness in both arable fields and agricultural grasslands95,96,97. The numbers of birds were also negatively correlated with the mean input of N. In this case, the effect is likely to be indirect: high levels of agrochemicals have been associated with both a lower availability of weed seeds – which are an important component of the diet of many farmland birds98,99 – and with a lower biomass of many insect species100.

3.6.21 Organic fertilization and awareness of richness of N content

Organic fertilization is an alternative to reduce the use of mineral nitrogen fertilization. Several organic fertilizer could be used in agricultural land such as manure, slurry, compost, sewage slush, digestate from farm methanizer, green manure, other (hen droppings and feathers,...). In order to preserve soil and avoid some nitrophilous plants,

91 Dosdall LM, Herbut MJ, Cowle NT & Micklich TM, 1996. The effect of seeding date and plant density on infestations on root maggots, Delia spp. (Diptera: Anthomyiidae) in Canola. Can J Plant Sci 76: 169-177; Finch S & Collier RH, 2003. Host-plant selection by insects – the “missing link”. Bull OILB/SROP 26: 103-108; Hopkins RJ & Ekbom B, 1996. Low oviposition stimuli reduce egg production in the pollen beetle Meligethes aeneus. Physiol Entomol 21: 118-122. 92 Altieri MA & Nicholls CI, 2003. Soil fertility management and insect pests: harmonizing soil and plant health in agroecosystems. Soil Tillage Res 72: 203-211. 93 Rusch A, Valantin-Morison M, Sarthou JP & Roger-Estrade J, 2010. Chapter 6 : Biological control of insect pests in agroecosystems : effects of crop management, farming systems, and seminatural habitats at the landscape scale : a review. Advances in Agronomy 109: 219-259. 94 Billeter R, Liira J, Bailey D, Bugter R, Arens P, Augenstein I, Aviron S, Baudry J, Bukacek R, Burel F, Cerny M, De Blust G, De Cock R, Diekötter T, Dietz H, Dirksen J, Dormann C, Durka W, Frenzel M, Hamersky R, Hendrickx F, Herzog F, Klotz S, Koolstra B, Lausch A, Le Coeur D, Maelfait JP, Opdam P, Roubalova M, Schermann A, Schermann N, Schmidt T, Schweiger O, Smulders M, Speelmans M, Simova P, Verboom J, Van Wingerden W, Zobel M & Edwards P, 2008. Indicators for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: a pan‐European study. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45: 141-150. 95 Ditommaso A & Aarssen LW, 1989. Resource manipulations in natural vegetation – a review. Vegetatio 84: 9–29. 96 Gough L, Osenberg CW, Gross KL & Collins SL, 2000. Fertilization effects on species density and primary productivity in herbaceous plant communities. Oikos 89: 428–439. 97 Myklestad A & Saetersdal M, 2005. Effects of fertilization and afforestation on community structure of traditionally managed hay meadows in western Norway. Nordic Journal of Botany 23: 593–606. 98 Watkinson AR, Freckleton RP, Robinson RA & Sutherland WJ, 2000. Predictions of biodiversity response to genetically modified herbicide‐tolerant crops. Science 289: 1554–1557. 99 Marshall EJP, Brown VK, Boatman ND, Lutman PJW, Squire GR & Ward LK, 2003. The role of weeds in supporting biological diversity within crop fields. Weed Research 43: 77–89. 100 Di Giulio M & Edwards PJ, 2003. The influence of host plant diversity and food quality on larval survival of plant feeding heteropteran bugs. Ecological Entomology 28: 51–57.



the objective remains to moderately apply organic fertilizer and in a rotational approach (not on the same plot every year). This implies that farmers are aware about the richness at least in N content of the type of organic fertilizer they use.

3.6.22 Good practices for nitrogen management

The use of mineral and/or organic nitrogen fertilization should be well managed in order reduce the impact on environment and increase the efficiency of the nitrogen input:

• Splitting of N inputs

• No more than 1/3 of the total N in early stages or with bare soil to minimize the risk of nitrogen leaching

• Immediate burying on the ground, less than 4 hours after spreading of organic fertilizer to minimize the volatilization

• Implementation of a manure plan

• Implementation of a post-harvest nitrogen balance

• Register book completed The indicator has the lowest score when only the splitting of nitrogen inputs (at least at three specific crop stages) is performed; medium when 2 or 3 actions are implemented and highest when 4 or more actions are implemented.

3.6.23 Irrigation management

The drainage infrastructure has induced the remediation of cultivated soils101 and the cultivation of very large areas102. However, this practice has had radical effects on the diversity of species associated with wetlands, by favoring the development of cultivated plants, and can also lead to an increase in pH which will also strongly influence the structure of the plant community103. Drainage has also a negative impact on aquatic invertebrate communities because of habitat loss at local (ditches, ponds…) and regional scales (larger wetlands)104. In addition, drains leading directly into watercourses or drainage ditches completely negate the potentially beneficial effects on biodiversity of buffer zones and riverine riparian areas105. Irrigation has different effects depending on the situation on the soil fauna, depending on the salinity and management mode: in arid environments, it favors the maintenance of macroinvertebrate populations. The abundance of macrofauna in temperate soils decreases with decreasing soil moisture. Irrigation has also modified the weed communities, on the one hand by standardizing the environments, on the other hand by favoring the development of plant species either indirectly (modification of the environment) or directly (bringing new species with the waters of irrigation). The progression of a number of maize-related weed species (Panicum capillare and other

101 Borie V, 1892. Les travaux des champs, 4ème ed., Bibliothèque du Cultivateur, Librairie Agricole de la Maison Rustique, Paris, 180 p. 102 McLaughlin A & Mineau P, 1995. The impact of agricultural practices on biodiversity. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 55(3): 201-212. 103 ter Braak C & Wiertz J, 1994. On the statistical analysis of vegetation change: a wetland affected by water extraction and soil acidification. Journal of vegetation Soil Science 5: 361-374. 104 Barton DR, 1996. The use of Percent Model Affinity to assess the effects of agriculture on benthic invertebrate communities in headwater streams of southern Ontario, Canada. Freshwater Biology 36(2): 397-410. 105 Barton DR & Farmer MED, 1997. The effects of conservation tillage practices on benthic invertebrate communities in headwater streams in southwestern Ontario, Canada. Environmental Pollution 96: 207-215.



panicoids, some of which are allochthonous106 - Cyperus esculentus107) is directly attributed to the possibility of irrigating cultivated plots. Water consumption during critical period, that is during low water period (in South of France during summer), could be also considered. For now, it is not included into the BPT.

3.6.24 Actions to reduce water consumption

The end-user will have the choice to implement a series of actions (1 to more than 4) in order to reduce his water consumption. These actions consist either on:

• Consultative information: irrigation newsletters, wheather forecast and monitoring of specific agroclimatic indicators adapted to his crop system, updating of the irrigation management according to the watershed management plan yearly revised

• Or Use of management tools at soil and plant level

• Or Preventive measures: adaptation of seeds or planting material to local conditions, use of system of rainwater harvesting

3.6.25 Length of crop rotation

Rotation of annual crops has been empirically developed by farmers to reduce and control soil-borne pests and diseases proliferation. By the mid-twentieth century, a well-developed rotation consisted of six to eight different crops in sequence108. An increase in economic pressure and food demand led farmers to make greater use of pesticides and to maximize land use. The rotation was reduced to a few species, leading to an increase in pest proliferation and a decrease in biodiversity of beneficial species. Büchs et al (1997) studied the effects of different crop rotation intensities on the arthropod community in a sugar beet rotation and an oilseed rape rotation 109 and O’Rourke et al (2008)110 studied the effects of rotations on ground beetle populations by comparing assemblages between a system involving conventional chemical and a 2-year rotation system, and a system with low-input levels and a 4-year rotation. They showed both on the one hand, that certain pest species were favored whereas some beneficials were unable to establish stable populations in arable crops with intensive rotations; and on the other hand, that carabid beetle activity density and species richness were higher in the low-input, 4-year rotation than in the conventionally managed, 2-year rotation.

106 Jauzein P, Montégut J, 1983. Graminées (Poaceae) nuisibles en agriculture, École Nationale Supérieure d'Horticulture de Versailles, Aubervilliers (France), 537 p. 107 Jauzein P, 1996. Les souchets tubéreux. «Comestibles» ou «ronds» il faut apprendre à les connaître. Phytoma, la défense des végétaux 484: 27-21. 108 Häni FJ, Boller EF & Keller S, 1998. Natural regulation at the farm level. In Enhancing biological control - Habitat management to promote natural enemies of agricultural pests, (Pickett C.H., Bugg R.L., eds.), University of California Press, Berkeley - Los Angeles - London: 161-210. 109 In Rusch A, Valantin-Morison M, Sarthou JP & Roger-Estrade J, 2010. Chapter 6 : Biological control of insect pests in agroecosystems : effects of crop management, farming systems, and seminatural habitats at the landscape scale : a review. Advances in Agronomy 109: 219-259. 110 In Rusch A, Valantin-Morison M, Sarthou JP & Roger-Estrade J, 2010. Chapter 6 : Biological control of insect pests in agroecosystems : effects of crop management, farming systems, and seminatural habitats at the landscape scale : a review. Advances in Agronomy 109: 219-259.



3.6.26 Mass-flowering crops – legumes, oilseed rape, sunflower, orchards, vegetable…

Some crops, such as the insect-dependent crops, will be more favorable to hoverflies. Legume (pea, bean, soya…) or oilseed rape are really crucial for hoverflies life cycle111. They are also important for wild pollinators.

3.6.27 Percentage of legumes including temporary grasslands

Legumes have a potentially significant role to play in enhancing soil carbon sequestration. They can also have considerable additional benefits beyond their importance regarding nitrogen fixation and high protein feeds. These include positive impacts on biodiversity and soil quality112.

3.6.28 Soil analysis with SOM

Soil and biodiversity are both the engine of the agroecology approach. For the farmer, a soil with a ‘good quality’ is crucial to have some efficient productions. By regularly analyzing his soil, a farmer could adjust his tillage practice, the introduction of cover crops, adapt the composition of the cover crops or the crop rotation. Some biological measures are now more and more used on field to better know about the biological activities of soil, that will help us understanding where a soil is compacted, where the soil is lacking of some minerals, or why a soil has a correct biological functioning (e.g. through the composition of nematods present or the presence of a lot of mycorrhizae).

3.6.29 Soil analysis with soil microbiological activities

Soil biodiversity is essential for ecological services (decomposition, soil fertility, natural regulation...). 5 functional groups are identified:

• 1) fragmentors (macro and micro-arthropods, epigeic and enchytraeidae earthworms),

• 2) decomposers (fungi and bacteria),

• 3 chemical engineers (fungi, bacteria, roots and mycorhiza),

• 4) biological microregulators (nematods, mites and protozoans),

• 5) bioturbators (ants, endogenous and anecic earthworms, roots) For each biological group, some analyses can be done to have an idea of the soil biological functioning activity (Berlèse test, respirometry, soil analysis for nematods activity...).

111 ACTA, 2015. Modes d’emploi des Arbres multicritères AuxiMore : DEXi-Syrphes, DEXi-Coccinelles, DEXi-Chrysopes, DEXi-Parasitoides De Pucerons. CasDAR Auximore (2012-14). 60p. 112 http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1880e/i1880e08.pdf

http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1880e/i1880e08.pdf



Figure 13. Soil biodiversity: functions source Adapted from CTIFL, 2017.

3.6.30 Presence of cover crops

In fact, cover crops, including green manure, function as a major ‘ecological turn-table’ which activates and influences key processes and components of the agroecosystem such as provision of habitat for beneficial insects, activation of soil biology, addition of organic matter, N fixation, microclimate modification, etc. Novel agroecological approaches aim at breaking the monoculture structure, taking advantage of the effects of the integration of plant and animal biodiversity which enhances complex interactions and synergisms and optimizes ecosystem functions and processes, such as biotic regulation of harmful organisms, nutrient recycling, and biomass production and ac-cumulation, thus allowing agroecosystems to sponsor their own

functioning113.

Figure 14. Cover crops (oat, faba and radish) in late october (left) and in late december (right) in South of France.

Cover crops are sown during the period between two major crops in order to limit environmental impacts (soil erosion, nitrate leaching) and/or to improve soil fertility, pests, weeds and diseases management. A large diversity of cover crops species exists that covers a large range of situations.

113 Altieri MA, 1999. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 74: 19-31.



The main crop families that could be used for cover crops and/or green manure are presented in the table 10.

Table 10. Characteristics of the main crop families used for cover crops and/or green manure114

Effect on the structure of soil surface

Effect on the depth-structure of soil

Reduction of nitrate leaching

Enrichment of the soil for nitrogen

Depressive effect (on weeds)

Poaceae +++ -- ++ - -

Fabaceae -- +++ + +++ ++

Brassicaceae - +++ +++ ++ ++

3.6.31 Presence of intercropping

Intercropping is broadly defined as the agronomic practice in which two or more crops are grown simultaneously in the same area of land115. This farming system may be a practical application of ecological principles based on biodiversity, biotic interactions and other natural regulation mechanisms116,117, allowing efficient weed and insect pest management with low reliance on off-farm inputs. In addition, intercropping may contribute not only to enhance planned biodiversity, which is associated with the crop types managed by the farmer in an agroecosystem, but also the associated biodiversity, which is the spontaneous biota occurring in agroecosystems118,119.

Figure 15. Left, durum wheat-winter pea intercrop in experimental field. Right, durum wheat-winter faba intercrop in organic farm field. South of France120.

3.6.32 Typology of permanent crops (orchard, vineyard)

The presence of grass cover inside the permanent crops influence the hoverflies populations121.

114 http://www.agrobioperigord.fr/upload/article-couvert-&-engrais-verts-en-viticulture-bio-auxilliaire-bio-frab-mai-2017.pdf 115 Vandermeer H, 1989. The Ecology of Intercropping Cambridge University Press. 116 Shennan C, 2008. Biotic interactions, ecological knowledge and agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Biological Science, 363: 717-739. 117 Malézieux E, Crozat Y, Dupraz C, Laurans M, Makowski D, Ozier-Lafontaine H, Rapi S, Tourdonnet S de & Valantin-Morison M, 2009. Mixing plant species in cropping systems: concepts, tools and models, A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 29: 43-62. 118 Altieri M, 1999. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agriculture Ecosystem and Environment, 74: 19-31. 119 Vandermeer JH, Lawrence D, Symstad A & Hobbie SE, 2002. Effect of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning in managed ecosystems. Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti (Eds.), Biodiversity and Ecosystem functioning, Synthesis and perspectives, 19, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 221-236. 120 Bedoussac L, Journet E-P, Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Naudin C, Corre-Hellou G, Jensen ES, Prieur L & Justes E, 2015. Ecological principles underlying the increase of productivity achieved by cereal-grain legume intercrops in organic farming. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, Springer Verlag/EDP Sciences/INRA 35: 911-935. 121 ACTA, 2015. Modes d’emploi des Arbres multicritères AuxiMore : DEXi-Syrphes, DEXi-Coccinelles, DEXi-Chrysopes, DEXi-ParasitoidesDePucerons. CasDAR Auximore (2012-14). 60p.

http://www.agrobioperigord.fr/upload/article-couvert-&-engrais-verts-en-viticulture-bio-auxilliaire-bio-frab-mai-2017.pdf



Ladybirds could hibernate in the grassy herbs122.

Figure 16. Grass cover on inter row on orchard (left)123 and vineyard (right)124

3.6.33 Soil management

Soil tillage is known to have major effects on local habitats, soil-inhabiting organisms, and relationships between organisms (El Titi, 2003; …)125. In particular, the intensity of soil tillage, the method used, the number of operations, the frequency and the period of soil cultivation seem to have an impact on predatory arthropods. Reduced tillage systems create a more stable environment, encouraging the development of more diverse species (including decomposer communities) and slower nutrient turnover (Altieri, 1999)126.

3.6.34 Maximal average livestock density per ha of main fodder area

The total number of livestock unit at farm level is calculated by using these tables of LU coefficients (Figures 17-20). These values are valid for Europe (Eurostat values).

122 Bianchi FJJA & van der Werf W, 2004. Model evaluation of the function of prey in non-crop habitats for biological control by ladybeetles in agricultural landscapes. Ecological modelling 171: 177-193. 123 https://osez-agroecologie.org/franc-galerie-photos 124 https://www.herbea.org/fr/culture/1247/Vigne 125 In Rusch A, Valantin-Morison M, Sarthou JP & Roger-Estrade J, 2010. Chapter 6 : Biological control of insect pests in agroecosystems : effects of crop management, farming systems, and seminatural habitats at the landscape scale : a review. Advances in Agronomy 109: 219-259. 126 In Rusch A, Valantin-Morison M, Sarthou JP & Roger-Estrade J, 2010. Chapter 6 : Biological control of insect pests in agroecosystems : effects of crop management, farming systems, and seminatural habitats at the landscape scale : a review. Advances in Agronomy 109: 219-259.

https://osez-agroecologie.org/franc-galerie-photos

https://www.herbea.org/fr/culture/1247/Vigne



Figure 17. Table of conversion of livestock unit (LU) coefficient per year for meat cows (Eurostats value). Coefficients are indicated in the right column for each category of animal.

Figure 18. Table of conversion of livestock unit (LU) coefficient for dairy cows (Eurostats value). Coefficients are indicated in the right column for each category of animal



Figure 19. Table of conversion of livestock unit (LU) coefficient for dairy and meat sheep production (Eurostats value). Coefficients are indicated in the right column for each category of animal.

Figure 20. Table of conversion of livestock unit (LU) coefficient for goat production (Eurostats value). Coefficients are indicated in the right column for each category of animal.

The maximal average livestock density is an indicator of the intensity of grazing on grasslands. This indicator is used on the Climatic and Agri-Environmental Schemes concerning the preservation of biodiversity on grasslands. A distinction is done between vulnerable areas to nitrate from farming origin and other areas. In vulnerable area, the maximal subsidiary is given if the maximal average livestock density is comprised between 0,6 and 1,4 LU/ha of main fodder area, but a lower but significant subsidiary is even given if the maximal average livestock density is comprised between 1,4 and 1,8 LU/ha of main fodder area. In our description, we based our thresholds on these data but in order to be more ambitious and to reward more extensive productions respecting local biodiversity, the higher score is obtained if the maximal average livestock density is lower than 0,5 LU/ha of main fodder area.

3.6.35 Type of concentrates

The dependency to the concentrates bought outside farm could be prejudicial to local biodiversity. Indeed, most of concentrates produced outside EU are likely to contain soya, most of time including some GMO soybean produced mainly in the South-America and/or some oil and cattle cake from palm plantations. On one hand, GMO could contribute to impoverish both local wild and cultivated genetic biodiversity; on the other hand, palm plantations compete for deforestation and thus contribute to eliminate the primary forests, that are the orangutan habitats. To produce concentrates, the question of the use of chemical pesticides is also crucial concerning biodiversity issue. As soon as GMO or imported oil and cattle cake are crossed, the basic indicator is equal to 1 (red color).



If imported soybean is crossed, the basic indicator is equal to 2 (orange color). If concentrates both contain cereals (GMO-free) and legume or oil crop or roots, the basic indicator is equal to 4 (green color). Otherwise, the basic indicator is equal to 3 (light green color). Unknown composition will be automatically degraded to the worst score (red color). If GMO-free is not crossed, that will mean the concentrate contains some GMO, so it will be automatically degraded to the worst score.

3.6.36 Quantity of concentrates

The total quantity of concentrates is the sum of the quantity produced on farm and bought outside the farm and is expressed in t/LU.

3.6.37 Type of forage

The presence of fermented products (including silage) into the forage provided to livestock is likely to be prejudicial to local biodiversity since the system of production is often based on a majority of grass or maize silage, traditionally associated to the most intensive system of production for milk production. Moreover, the early cutting dates for silage lead to a loss of grassland diversity and potential disturbance to ground nesting birds 127.

3.6.38 Forage autonomy

Forage autonomy gives information of the balance between livestock and local pedoclimatic conditions. Pasture preservation and management is strongly linked with the forage autonomy at farm scale. Forage autonomy (%) = Forage harvested and grazed on the farm (t DM) / total forage consumption (t DM) Total forage consumption (t DM) = Forage harvested on the farm (t DM) + forage grazed + forage bought – forage sold + start stock – end stock With DM = dry matter

Forage sufficiency relies on two main goals128: (i) increasing current forage production in order to reduce or even avoid hay purchases and (ii) improving resistance and resilience to disturbances and climatic stresses, forage production in the mountain regions (e.g. the Alps) being increasingly affected by recurrent summer droughts, late frosts in spring129,

and outbreaks130. Addressing this issue, of increasing forage production while improving its resilience and environmental quality, is a relevant ecological intensification process131.

3.6.39 Grazing use

The grazing use is the grazing uptake rate by herbivores (% of grass in the ration).

127 Alliance Environnement, 2008. Evaluation of the environmental impacts of milk quotas. Final Deliverable Report. 30/07/2018. 174p. 128 Dobremez et al. 2013 129 Sérès, 2010. 130 Delattre et al. 1999 131 Loucougaray G, Debremez L, Gos P, Pauthenet Y, Nettier B & Lavorel S, 2015. Assessing the effects of grassland management on forage production and environmental quality to identify paths to ecological intensification in Mountain grasslands. Environmental Management 56(5).



Grazing is a natural process affecting the composition and structure of plant communities. It is generally accepted that grazing is an essential tool with which to achieve nature conservation objectives in grassland. The key objectives are the control of successional change towards scrub and woodland and the creation of structural heterogeneity in the vegetation to enhance or maintain overall biodiversity value. The study of Tallowin et al (2005)132 suggest that grazing pressure should be such as to maintain an average sward surface height of more than 10 cm if desired biodiversity outcomes are to be achieved. botanical diversity and the abundance of positive indicator species of nature conservation value over a 5-year period. These extensive grazing treatments also enhanced faunal diversity and abundance reflecting improvements in spatial, architectural and temporal structure. However, while botanical diversity was maintained, there was no enhancement in positive indicator species in any treatment and there was also an increase in pernicious weeds (Cirsium spp.). These results suggest that grazing alone may not be sufficient to deliver all the biodiversity goals for these grasslands and that additional management interventions may be required. While this leads to significant faunal diversity benefits at the field scale, even in botanically species-poor grassland, there is a need to ensure that these patch and field scale benefits also provide biodiversity benefits at the landscape scale by effectively integrating this extensively managed grassland into the whole farmed landscape.

3.6.40 Management of permanent grasslands

The matrix aims at assessing the biodiversity of permanent grasslands according to a gradient of intensity of defoliation and of fertilization133. This method orders the permanent grasslands in relation with the pressure of farming practices on the local fauna and flora. The periods of harvest combined with the fertilization gradient leads to 3 categories:

• Permanent grasslands score = 3: regulation potential with high potential

• Permanent grasslands score = 0: regulation potential with moderate potential

• Permanent grasslands score = -2: regulation potential with low potential

132 Tallowin J R B, Rook A J, & Rutter S M, 2005. Impact of grazing management on biodiversity of grasslands. Animal Science, 81(02). doi:10.1079/asc50780193 133 Manneville V, Chanséaume A & Amiaud B, 2014. BIOTEX : une démarche d’évaluation multicritère de la biodiversité ordinaire dans les systèmes d’exploitation d’élevage et de polyculture-élevage. CasDAR INDIBIO 2011-13. 55p.



Figure 21. Matrix of management of permanent grassland according to a gradient of intensity of defoliation and of fertilization134

The permanent grassland is a shelter area if it is extensively managed. This is a regulation area because this permanent grassland offers a stock of available biodiversity able to recolonize the impoverished habitats such as arable crops areas. There is a dynamic that is initiated between grasslands, cultivated areas and the semi-natural habitats135. Permanent grasslands could be both mown or grazed, the objective is to find the trade-offs between production and preserve floral richness with an adapted nitrogen fertilization. The over-fertilization of a grassland gives a short-term response by increasing the forage yield in spring. In a mid-term, the floral diversity is reduced to nitrophilous and earlier species. In a long-term, the forage yield will be very limited and the initial adaptation to summer water stress of some specific species will disappear.

3.6.41 Use of alternative methods for combating diseases and parasitism

The use of alternative methods for combating diseases (instead of antibiotics) or parasitisms through phyto or aromatherapy, or progressive grazing or good management of grazing allows to avoid the use of veterinary medicines (antibiotics and anti-helminthic worming agents, e.g. avermectins). Pasture invertebrate assemblages are potentially threatened by modern livestock endo-parasite control practices. The best-studied group of endo-parasitic treatments in terms of potential environmental impacts, are the avermectins, which have been widely used for the past thirty years136. While these chemicals offer very effective endo-parasite control, they do not decomposed well and remain active in cattle dung at least 5 weeks after treatment137. Avermectins are extracted in the faeces of treated animals and, being insecticidal, may reduce the number and the diversity of invertebrates associated with

134 Manneville V, Chanséaume A & Amiaud B, 2014. BIOTEX : une démarche d’évaluation multicritère de la biodiversité ordinaire dans les systèmes d’exploitation d’élevage et de polyculture-élevage. CasDAR INDIBIO 2011-13. 55p. 135 Manneville V, Chanséaume A & Amiaud B, 2014. BIOTEX : une démarche d’évaluation multicritère de la biodiversité ordinaire dans les systèmes d’exploitation d’élevage et de polyculture-élevage. CasDAR INDIBIO 2011-13. 55p. 136 Hester RE & Harrison RM, 2007. Biodiversity Under Threats. Issues in Environmental Science and Technology. Impacts of Agricultural Change on Farmland Biodiversity in the U.K. Royal society of Chemistry. 290p. 137 Spratt DM, 1997. Int. J. Parasitol. 27: 173-180.



dung, many of which are important prey items for birds138. A large number of birds feed on insects within cow dung (for example starling, rooks (Corvus frugeligus) and jackdaws) particularly in winter when other food sources are scarce and in spring when beetles emerge (coinciding with nesting)139. Direct effects of avermectins on birds are not evident; however, indirect effects may be caused by a reduction in dung insects, which would have greatest impact at critical times of year, such as during the breeding season, or when chicks begin to forage. In addition to direct mortality, avermectins cause non-lethal effects such as reduced invertebrate fecundity. This could depress sensitive populations of dung beetles such as Aphodius spp.140

Dung, particularly that from cattle, is an important source of invertebrate prey for several bat species. For bat species such as the lesser horseshoe (Rhinolophus hipposideros) and Natterer’s (Myotis nattereri), dung-associated dipterans are an important food source and for larger species such as the serotine (Eptesicus serotinus), dung beetles are particularly important in the diet in late summer and autumn when the young bats are preparing for hibernation. A shortage of suitable prey could have serious consequences for these bat species.141

3.6.42 Implementation of grazing areas including trees for livestock

Figure 22. Presentation of seven types of grazing areas (adapted from CAS DAR Parcours Volailles, N Girardin)

138 Vickery JA, Tallowin JR, Feber RE, Asteraki EJ ; Atkinson PJ, Fuller RJ & Brown VK, 2001. J. Appl. Ecol. 38: 647-664. 139 McCracken DI, 1993. Vet. Parasitol. 48b: 273-280. 140 Strong L, Vet. Parasitol. 48: 3-17. 141 Cox J, 1999. British Wildlife 11: 28-36.



The implementation of grazing areas with trees for livestock such as poultry, provide good conditions to optimize the use of these areas by poultry. These arrangements can be very varied as shown in the figure . Indeed, by implementing some trees alignment until the end of grazing areas, poultry are invited to explore all the resources, while they are protecting from their predators, but also against bad weather (drafts, rainy or hot periods). These elements provide them an alternation of shadow and light.

3.7 Insertion of the farm into the socio-economic system

3.7.1 Environmental management system and farmers’ (and workers’) awareness

Concerning first the monitoring of farm performances, it consists on binary questions about:

• The existence of a farm map, that is annually updated

• The engagement of farm in a product certification process

• The traceability (a farm baseline assessment is documented, reviewed, updated at least once per year) and transmission of a registration form at least once a year

• The use of a multi-criteria diagnostic (self-assessment or assessment with an advisor)

Indeed, in a continuous improvement approach and in order to objectify some farm characteristics, the implementation of a farm map, the registration of inputs, farming practices, management of SNH and the monitoring of some indicators related to biodiversity issues could help farmers to implement some actions to improve its production efficiency while decreasing his/her environmental footprint. Agroecology depends on context-specific knowledge. It does not offer fixed prescriptions – rather, agroecological practices are tailored to fit the environmental, social, economic, cultural and political context. The co-creation and sharing of knowledge plays a central role in the process of developing and implementing agroecological innovations to address challenges across food systems including adaptation to climate change. Through the co-creation process, agroecology blends traditional and indigenous knowledge, producers’ and traders’ practical knowledge, and global scientific knowledge. Producer’s knowledge of agricultural biodiversity and management experience for specific contexts as well as their knowledge related to markets and institutions are absolutely central in this process142. It is important that farmers should be regularly trained to low-input or organic or agroecological farming practices, through training sessions proposed by the standards, the farmers’ association or the cooperative they worked with as well as they should keep informed about pesticide regulation but also about alternative methods.

3.7.2 Cooperation and involvement

To better know about relationships between farmer and his/her socio-economic environment, questions about

• cooperation with external experts (e.g. NGOS, scientists, beekeepers, veterinarian, naturalists) about their involvement into research or demonstrative projects are asked for

142 FAO, 2019. The 10 elements of agroecology. Guiding the transition to sustainable food and agricultural system. http://www.fao.org/3/I9037EN/i9037en.pdf

http://www.fao.org/3/I9037EN/i9037en.pdf



• as well as concerning involvement in local networks (landscape food project, group of farmers for environments, in local initiative for biodiversity monitoring...)



Annex 2: Scale size and definition of threshold values

Category for

outputs

Sub-category for

outputs Id List of basic indicators

1 Importance of SNH

2 Importance of permanent grasslands

3 Importance of agroforestry

Diversity of SNH 4 Diversity of type of SNH

5 Composition of grass strips

6 Composition of flowering strips

7 Flowering duration

Functional

management of SNH8

Modality of management

9 Composition of hedges

10 Flowering of hedges

11 Composition of agroforestry elements

12 Importance of woody elements

13 Support of nutritive resources

14Support of shelters or overwintering sites

or cavities

15 Number of strata or vegetation layers

16Management of hedges and woody

elements

17 Composition of water elements

18Management of ditches ripisylves ponds

19 Use of fertilizers and pesticides

20 Burning of SNH

21 Export of mowing products

22Specific result-based measures of SNH

management to improve biodiversity

23 Share of SNH plot scale

24 Connectivity of SNH

25

Average plot size

26 Average plot width

27 Number of breeded species or races


29 Number of crop plant species

30

Number of crop plant varieties for

dominant crop


32 Use of GMO

33

Special measures for the protection of

species

34

Preventive measures and monitoring

35

Surface area non treated with chemical

pesticides

36 Alternative methods against weeds

37 Alternative methods against other pests

38 Chemical seed treatment

39 Herbicide

40 Insecticide

41 Fongicide

42 Other

43Handling of Harmful Substances Good

practices storage and application

44Mineral nitrogen fertilization for dominant

crop system kg N per ha

45 Organic fertilization and awareness of N

46 Good practices for N management

Water management 47 Water management

48 Actions to reduce water consumption

49 Length of crop rotation

50

Mass-flowering crops such as legume

oilseed rape sunflower orchards

vegetable

51Percentage of legumes including

temporary grassland

52 Soil analysis with SOM

53

Soil analysis with soil microbiological

activities

54Presence of cover crops

55 Presence of intercropping

56 Typology of permanent crops such as

57 Soil management

58 Maximal Average Livestock Density LU

59Type of concentrates

60 Quantity of concentrates

61 Type of forage

62 Forage autonomy

63 Grazing use

64 Management of permanent grasslands

Inputs management

(fertilizer, pesticide,

…)

65 Use of alternative methods for combating

diseases and parasitisms

Livestock 66Implementation of grazing areas including

trees for livestock such as poultry

67Engagement of farm in a product

certification process

68 Farm map existence

69 Traceability

70 Multi-criteria diagnostic existence

71Training sessions organized by standards

or farmers association or cooperative etc

72Qualification on pesticide use positive and

negative lists

73

Exchange with assessors and or experts

from standard or farmers association or

cooperative

74

Qualification of workers and update of

knowledge

75

Exchange with suppliers or millers or

distributors and exchange experience on

biodiversity aspects

76Self-learning about agroecology and

alternative methods

77 Cooperation with external experts such as

78 Involvement >=2 actions

Diversity of SNH

Never Every 3 months Monthly

CooperationNone 1 action 2-3 actions >= 4 actions

None at least 1 action

Never 1-2 / year >= 3 /year


Awareness of farmer

and worker


Never 1 / 5 years >= 1 /year


Characterization

of socio-

economic system

Farm performances

monitoring

no yes

no yes

no yes

no yes

Note = -2 Note = 0 Note = 3 (extensive use; no mineral fertilization; occasional to regular organic inputs)

no yes

no yes

< 30% of forage 31-50% of forage 51-80% >80%

zero grazing or < 15% 15 - 40% 40-70% > 70%

0.8<= < 1,2 0.4 <= < 0.8 < 0.4

Fermented products (including silage) Fermented products and hay Only hayLivestock

> 1.7 LU/ha of main fodder area 1.1 - 1.7 LU/ha of main fodder area 0.5 - 1.1 LU/ha of main fodder area < 0,5 LU/ha of main fodder area

Imported oil and cattle cake from palm or Imported soybean or unknown composition

Imported cereals or legumes or roots or other OR oil and cattle cake

from palm or soybean from certified plantation or production Cereals or legume or roots or other produced on farm

Cereals (GMO-free) and Legume or oil crop (pea, soya, lupin) or roots or other produced

on farm and GMO-free

>= 1,2

Bare soil (inter-row and row) Grass cover < 1 inter-row out of 2 AND chemical weeding on the row Grass cover >= 1 inter-row out of 2 and mechanical weeding Grass cover on inter-row and on the row (or mulch on the row)

Conventional ploughing (depth or superficial) Reduced tillage (no ploughing but disc or teeth machine) Superficial tillage (strip-till and disc or teeth machine < 15 cm) No-tillage - including non-destructive shrub control - Direct sowing or Direct

No cover crops : Bare soil Leaving the stubble in the field after harvest until the next crop / Mulching

Growing land cover crop < 30% of the cultivated land during critical period

(e.g. autumn/winter) and/or early destruction

Growing land cover >=30% of the cultivated land during critical period and/or late

destruction (long cover crops)

No intercropping Intercropping

> 30%

None or > 6 years Yes, between 3 to 6 years Yes < 3 years

None or > 6 years Yes, between 3 to 6 years Yes < 3 yearsSoil management

< 2 years 2-4 years >= 5 years

No mass-flowering crops < 30% 30 - 60% > 60%

< 10% of arable crops 10-30%

Drainage of at least one plot during last 3 years No drainage during last 3 years but no presence of a water book register No drainage during last 3 years and Water book register or rainfed system

< 2 actions concerning use of irrigation management tools for improving water use efficiency 2 <= <= 3 actions implemented >= 4 actions implemented or rainfed system

At least splitting at least two actions implemented 4 actions implemented

> 120 kg N/ha 50 - 120 kg N /ha < 50 kg N/ha

Sewage slush or slurry OR no knowledge on the richness of N content for organic Manure or digestate > 50% of cropped surface area Manure or digestate < 50% of cropped surface area Compost / Green manure AND knowledge on the richness of N content for organic

yes no

yes no

None 1-2 actions implemented >= 3 actions implemented

yes no

yes no

yes no

None Solarization or weeding steam Combination of 2 and more alternative methods different than solarization or weeding steam

None Only chemical mediators Combination of 2 and more alternative methods different than chemical mediators

None 1-3 actions implemented >= 4 actions

Inputs management

(fertilizer, pesticide,

…)

None 1-3 actions implemented (including <= 1 mandatory action) >= 4 actions including 2 mandatory actions

None to 24% 25-49% >=50%

<= 2 varieties 3-5 varieties >= 6 varieties

no yes

yes no

<= 1 species or race (livestock with pure race if this species is present at more than 80% of the number of

animals)

2-3 species or races (a different race or species is considered if at least it represents at least 20% of the number of

animals) >= 4 species or races

no yes

<= 3 crops 4-6 crops >= 7 crops

Discontinuity Network of biological corridors

Characterization

of farming

practices

Promotion of

cultivated and wild

biodiversity

Large Medium Small

Large (> 300 m) Medium (150 < < 300 m) Small (<= 150 m)

< 1 type of SNH per plot (in average at farm scale) 1 type of SNH per plot 2 types of SNH per plot >= 3 types of SNH per plot

No

of SNH of residues and/or garbage close to SNH No use of burning practice

no yes

no yes

At least 2 types of water elements (ponds, wetland, ditch…) with permanent water + Presence of buffer strips

around > 2/3 of water elements

No management Yes but not at adequate period

Yes, in autumn, only the bottom (leave vegetation on slope), one side at a time alternated at least 1 year out of 2

and/or a management adapted to protected species

use of fertilizer + pesticides use of fertilizer or pesticide No use of fertilizer nor pesticide

no hedge or no agroforestry/dehesa/montado Only low (< 1 m of height) or bushy strata (1-7 m of height) - no grass Low or bushy AND tree strata - no grass strip Low OR Bushy strata AND Tree strate AND grass strip

Functional

management of SNH

None Yes, but early or with brush cutter every two years Yes during winter and spaced (once every 3-5 years); no use of brush cutter

None

At least one pond of min. 25 m2 with permanent water + presence of buffer strips around 1/3 to 2/3 of water

elements;

No production of fruits Rare production of fruits during autumn and winter periods Regular production of fruits during autumn and winter periods

No defensive plants nor dead trees and stumps Rare presence of defensive plants or dead trees and stumps Rare presence of defensive plants and dead trees and stump Regular presence of defensive plants and / or dead trees and stumps

Agroforestry/Dehesa/montados: number of trees > 150 /ha Agroforestry/Dehesa/montados: number of trees > 100 -150 /ha Agroforestry/Dehesa/montados: number of trees = 25 to 100 /ha

< 1% of UAA 1 <= < 2% > 2%

Ploughing or no management Early grinding (before flowering period) OR Late grinding OR Early mowing Late mowing (after flowering period)

Functional

composition of SNH

Hedge: None indigeneous species and dominance of conifers Between 1 and 4 indigeneous species in average OR equitability between conifers and hardwood species >= 5 indigeneous species OR dominance of hardwood species

No hedges or hedge without any flowering species hedges with spring flowering or late flowering hedges with continuous flowering from february until october

Functional

composition of SNH

No grass strip Only composed of monocotyledons Both composed of mono and dicotyledons - spontaneous vegetation

No flower strips or only exotic species Only annual flowering plants but locally adapted Local seeds - perennial and annual flowering plants

< 3 months 3 < < 6 months >= 6 months

Agroforestry [forest + crops] < 30% or [forest + animal] < 10% >= 10% of UAA of agroforestry [forest + animal] or >= 30% [forest + crops]

0-1 type of semi-natural habitats (1 type is considered if it represents at least 1% of SNH) 2 types of semi-natural habitats 3-4 types of semi-natural habitats >=5 types of semi-natural habitats

Scale size and definition of threshold values

Characterization

of SNH

Quantity of SNH

S < ou = 5 % of UAA 5 % < S < 10 % of UAA S > ou = 10% of UAA

none 0%< < 10% of UAA without any pesticide nor fertilizer ; one grazing and/or mowing >= 10% of UAA without any pesticide nor fertilizer; one grazing and/or mowing

none



Documents

Biodiversity Performance Tool A tool to assess the