The objective of this study is to assess land-use intensity and the related biodiversity in agricultural landscapes of the EU25 for the current situation (2000), and explore future trends, based on the four EURURALIS scenarios up to 2030. Data from the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) were used to classify farm types in 100 regions of the EU15, according to agricultural intensity. For the ten New Member States (EU10), which are not yet considered by the FADN, country level data were used to obtain similar farm types. Three processes were considered for the assessment of future trends in agricultural land-use intensity: (1) land-use change, (2) conversion into organic farming, and (3) changes in productivity of crop and grassland production. An ecosystem quality value was attributed to each farm type according to dose-effect relationships between pressure factors and biodiversity compared to the value for an undisturbed situation. The biodiversity in agricultural landscapes was then calculated as the average ecosystem quality multiplied by the relative area size of each farm type within a region. A similar method of attributing ecosystem quality values to other land-use types allowed comparison between different land-use types. Referring to the current situation, results indicate the lowest ecosystem quality values to be found in intensively used agricultural areas in lowlands (e.g. The Netherlands and northern France) and irrigation systems (e.g. Greece), whereas relatively high values are found in Spain and the New EU Member States. Scenario results show that for the A1 scenario (Global economy), the highest loss in ecosystem quality will take place in all regions in croplands and grasslands. The B2 scenario (Regional communities) provides the best opportunities to improve ecosystem quality of agricultural landscapes. In most scenarios, agricultural land is decreasing, while the remaining agricultural areas tend to be used more intensively. The negative impact of intensification on biodiversity is partly set off by (active or spontaneous) nature development on abandoned agricultural areas, but the overall trend seems to be generally negative. The strength of this methodology is that it provides a quick overview of land-use intensity change and biodiversity trends. Through the use of this farm-type level of analysis we have provided a good picture of the differences in land-use intensity and the related biodiversity between the EU regions and the scenarios.

Goal, Scope and Background. On June 12–13 June 2006 in Guildford (UK) an international workshop was held to address indicators to incorporate land use impacts in LCA. It provided an interdisciplinary forum where soil scientists and biologists met with LCA experts and users to discuss the challenges of including land use impacts in LCA and potential approaches to addressing these challenges. The discussion used as starting point the definitions framed in the past work on land use impacts within the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative (Milà i Canals et al. 2006). However, the presence of soil quality and biodiversity experts allowed for a more in-depth consideration of the nature of land use impacts. Main Features. The discussions were focused on three main themes: general methodological issues to be addressed in including land use impacts in LCA; recommendations for soil quality indicators; and recommendations for biodiversity indicators. Results and Discussion. There is a conflict between the levels of detail at which LCA should assess land use impacts: a coarse assessment may allow the detection of hotspots from a life cycle perspective, whereas a more detailed assessment might allow the distinction between land management modes (e.g. organic vs. conventional agriculture). Different land use processes need to be modelled in consequential and attributional LCA. Land use effects on biodiversity and soil quality are non-linear and also depend on the scale of land use, which is difficult to address in LCA. Soil is multi-functional and many threats affect its quality, which results in a case-specific selection of the most adequate indicator. In the case of biodiversity, two main options for defining indicators were identified at species and ecosystem levels. The main advantage of the former is data availability, but the election of a particular taxon may be arbitrary. Ecosystem level indicators include a higher degree of subjectivity but may be more relevant than species level ones. Conclusions. Land use impacts need to be considered in LCA for all life cycle stages in all types of products. An urgent need for LCA is to incorporate land use impacts particularly in comparisons of systems which differ substantially in terms of land use impacts. The main differences between consequential and attributional LCA are the need for the consideration of off-site effects and marginal vs. average land uses in consequential LCA. In order to define the marginal effects of land use a similar approach to the description of the electricity grid and its marginal technology may be followed. ‘Dose-response’ functions need to be defined for land use interventions and their effects. The main soil degradation processes (considering soil’s vulnerability to different threats) should be captured in a spatial-dependent way in LCA. Criteria and examples to select biodiversity indicators at species and ecosystem levels were proposed in the workshop. Recommendations and Perspectives. The conduction of LCA case studies for relevant systems (especially fossil energy compared to bio-energy systems involving different eco-regions to account for potential international trade) may provide a good platform to further develop the workshop suggestions.

At present on territory of the buffer zone two types of the land use are conducted: agricultural and nature protection. Territorial differentiation of the buffer zone is conditioned by relief, ground, vegetation and system of the land use. The highest degree of the negative influence on biological ecosystems are land reclamation of bogs and agricultural use. The lowering of the negative influence of the agriculture on biodiversity are possible to reach by ecologization. The basic methods of the ecologization are offered. Now one of the leading branches in territory of a security zone "Belavezhskaya pushcha" is the agricultural production with a cattle-breeding bias. A ultimate goal of the present researches is the establishment of optimum land use structure which could support to the full and keep a biodiversity of ecosystems of dense forests ecosystem long enough

Agroforestry parklands face strong pressure from the increasing population of the region. The World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF Sahel) started a biodiversity project with the objective of developing methods to conserve biodiversity and to improve the situation of the poor rural population. In this context the present study examined the influence of land use unit and the prosperity classes of farmers on the biodiversity of woody species. A wealth ranking classification was carried out and applied to the households of two villages in the central plateau of Burkina Faso using the „Participatory Analysis of Poverty and Livelihood Dynamics“ (PAPoLD) method. Thirty farmers of different prosperity classes were chosen and inventories carried out on their different land use units. Statistical analyses show an increase in biodiversity from the village housings. However, no significant influence on biodiversity was observed in connection with a farmer‘s prosperity class.

Predicting and redressing the threat of species extinction is not a success story. The science of estimating extinction rates and risk prediction is approached in a manner that is difficult to apply in the field, and yet current integrated ecosystem management programmes in many parts of the world, which are trying to place the conservation of species into sustainable community projects, need predictive tools for planning land use programmes. Such programmes involve US$100s of millions of multilateral and bilateral aid; many predicated on a site's biodiversity importance, the risks of extinction, sustainable extraction, production forms of land use, community livelihoods, water, and many others factors, but increasingly on ensuring that after the pump-priming funds are finished the programmes are both environmentally and economically sustainable (Swingland 2002, 2003, 2004; Swingland et al. 2003). [Swingland I.R. 2002. In: Swingland I.R., Bettelheim E.C., Grace J., Prance G.T. and Saunders L.S. (eds), Carbon Biodiversity, Conservation and Income: An Analysis of a Free Market Approach to Land-use Change and Forestry in Developing and Developed Countries. Philosophical Transactions Royal Society London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, London; Swingland I.R. (ed.) 2003. Capturing Biodiversity and Conserving Biodiversity: The Market Approach. Earthscan, London; Swingland I.R. (ed.) 2004. CO² e biodiversità. Un approccio integrato a favore del clima e del patrimonio naturale. Edizioni Ambiente, Milano, Italy, 296 pp.; Swingland I.R., Bettelheim E.C. and Niles J.O. 2003. In: Swingland I.R. (ed.), Capturing Biodiversity and Conserving Biodiversity: The Market Approach. Earthscan, London] This involves predictions of ‘what if?’ what if laws are changed to prevent over utilisation and prevent ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’ where land ownership is vested in the state and people degrade the environment, and instead institute private land ownership. In places like China and much of the Far East, biodiversity is over-exploited as nearly all their species are used for food, medicine and construction purposes, and private land ownership in rural areas is rudimentary or absent. Since most species extinction is anthropocentric, research on species extinction needs to be more accessible and focussed on global problems.

Agroforestry is increasingly being acknowledged as an integrated land use that can directly enhance agrobiodiversity and contribute to the conservation of landscape biodiversity, while at the same time increase, diversify and sustain rural incomes. There are valid concerns, however, that the biodiversity benefits of agroforestry may be misunderstood and the risks to biodiversity understated. This chapter therefore reviews some of the growing literature on agroforestry and biodiversity in order to clarify key relationships, including factors and processes that amplify or limit the contributions of agroforestry to biodiversity conservation. Four propositions are presented, with reference to evidence for the propo - sitions and caveats to them. We conclude that agroforestry generally produces higher biodiversity benefits than both annual and perennial monoculture crop production, and that agroforestry is of the greatest benefit to biodiversity when it is a component of an integrated approach to land use. Important knowledge gaps remain, however, regarding the ways in which tree domestication and agroforestry promotion can be designed to stimulate new agroforestry systems that have greater positive impacts on wild biodiversity | B.M Swallow, 'The potential for agroforestry to contribute to the conservation and enhancement of landscape biodiversity', In: Garrity DP, Okono A, Grayson M and Parrott S, (eds.). World Agroforestry into the future. Nairobi : World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), pp.95-101, 2006

Declines in biodiversity weaken attempts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. But some approaches to reducing poverty are likely to increase the rate at which biodiversity is lost. Biodiversity considerations must be integrated into poverty alleviation strategies.<br /><br />Biodiversity refers tothe variety of life on earth. It includes genes, individual species andecosystems. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment recently reported thatbiodiversity is being lost at an alarming rate. Factors causing this lossinclude land use change, climate change, the spread of alien invasive species,the over-use of nutrients (such as nitrogen and phosphorous) and the over-exploitationof resources.Global BiodiversityOutlook 2, a report by the Secretariat of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity, examines the links between poverty reduction and biodiversity. Aloss of biodiversity – such as the loss of species or changes to habitats – canbe bad for poor people, who often depend on these resources for food, a supplyof fresh water and resources from which to make a living. However, actions toachieve poverty reduction, such as expanding agriculture and improving rural transportnetworks, are likely to accelerate the loss of biodiversity in the short term.For this reason, biodiversity considerations need integrating into povertyalleviation strategies.The report also findsthat:Reducingpoverty is the priority for developing countries. Protecting biodiversity isoften not well integrated into development plans, with little funding for this.This trend must change to reach the 2010 target for reducing biodiversity loss.Tradeliberalisation, such as that associated with the Doha Development Round, mayencourage land conversion and a loss of biodiversity in areas of low land andlabour costs. Southern Africa and Latin America are high-risk areas in thisrespect.It is important thatefforts to reach one MDG do not undermine progress towards another.Biodiversity conservation must feature in trade and economic policy andplanning (particularly in relation to energy and agriculture), and in povertyreduction strategies. This would help to ‘mainstream’ biodiversity within developmentthinking and planning. There are several elements to this:It isimportant to recognise the value of biodiversity, especially to poor people,including the goods and services not currently traded in existing markets.Environmentalassessments should be made more sensitive to the concerns facing poor people.Agriculturalstrategies should concentrate on improving productivity and minimisingpost-harvest losses, rather than bringing more land into production. Soilconservation, integrated pest management and improved water and nutrient usecan all help.Guidelinesfor good agricultural practice, certification and labelling schemes canencourage more sustainable farming practices.‘Landscape-level’planning, which involves managing large geographical areas, is necessary toprotect areas of high biodiversity value, or areas that provide important ecosystemservices for poor people.Well-managednetworks of protected areas can help to protect biodiversity. Paying people tonot convert biodiversity-rich areas can be effective.Policiescan encourage greater responsibility by purchasers and processors ofagricultural commodities. For example, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oilagreed that there would be no conversion of primary forests to palm oilplantations after November 2005.

In the process of landscape characterization a diversified sets of geometries need to be considered. These geometries include Land Use geometry with its permanent shifting of the habitat mosaic, Natural Resources geometry depicting the available natural resources and their degree of affectation by land uses, as well as the manifold geometries associated with the different ecological patterns and processes in the landscape (target species, fragile areas, etc.) and Socio-Economical and Political geometries and how decision making at this level reflects in the other geometries. GIS spatial analysis and modelling allows the integration of these geometries with other variables, and allows the development of simulation models for the evaluation of alternative land use scenarios, assessing the sensitivity of biodiversity indicators within different scenarios, and the integrated evaluation of the effects of different development scenarios on biodiversity, economy and cultural aspects. Examples are given on the basis of an ongoing research on Large Scale Grazing Systems (LACOPE)

Biodiversity conservation through land-use systems on private land is becoming a pressing environmental policy issue. Agroforestry, such as shade-coffee production, contributes to biodiversity conservation. However, falling coffee prices force many coffee growers to convert their sites into economically more attractive land uses. We performed an economic evaluation of coffee pollination by bees in two distinct tropical regions: an area of low human impact with forests neighboring agroforestry in Indonesia and an area of high human impact with little remaining forest in Ecuador. We evaluated bee pollination for different forest-destruction scenarios, where coffee yields depend on forests to provide nesting sites for bees. We used two novel approaches. First, we examined how coffee net revenues depend on the pollination services of adjacent forests by considering berry weight in addition to fruit set, thereby providing a comprehensive evaluation. Second, we determined the net welfare effects of land-use changes, including the fact that former forestland is normally used for alternative crops. In both regions, crop revenues exceeded coffee pollination values, generating incentives to convert forests, even if owners would be compensated for pollination services. The promotion of certified "biodiversity-friendly" coffee is a feasible option to maintain shade-coffee systems. This is of special importance in high-impact areas where only small forest fragments remain. We conclude that a comprehensive economic analysis is necessary to adequately evaluate rainforest preservation for the enhancement of ecosystem services, such as pollination.

European land-use has profoundly affected the extent, distribution and structure of Australian native vegetation and these changes have much affected biodiversity and ecosystem processes in agricultural landscapes. We consider the prospects for vegetation and biodiversity under a 'business-as-usual' scenario in which management practices continue as they have been conducted for more than a century. This scenario provides a bleak outlook for ecological health of rural landscapes in southern Australia. The nation is poised at the threshold of a phase of rebuilding rural landscapes, a complex process of managing land-use change for multiple benefits. Assessment of the ecological or biodiversity benefits of revegetation activities is needed for the multi-objective planning processes. Therefore, this paper discusses how landscape reconstruction, and principally revegetation, affect larger, mobile biota such as birds and arboreal mammals. Time-lags in vegetation maturation and senescence are identified as a major influence on the likely success of landscape reconstruction in dealing with probable widespread collapse of terrestrial biodiversity in the wheat-sheep belts of southern Australia.