Internship Report
01.04 - 29.07.2016“Middle Elbe” Biosphere Reserve:
Efforts to Sustainable Development; Trends, Potentials and Conflicts.
Within the scope of the Project:
“Landnutzungsstrategien für die Entwicklungszonen der deutschen Biosphärenreservate im
Hinblick auf eine nachhaltige natur- und umweltgerechte Entwicklung in allen Wirtschafts- undLebensbereichen sowie auf ihre Puffer- und Vernetzungsfunktion”
“Land-use strategies for the development zones of german biosphere reserves in regards to sustainable environmentally sound development in all economic and living areas, as well as to their
buffer and connective function”
Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF)
1. Superviser: Dr. Ulrich Stachow (ZALF) 2. Superviser: Dhr. Dr. W.M. de Boer (UvA)
Victoria Viert Universiteit van Amsterdam Master of Earth Sciences Track Environmental Management 5. Semester victoria.viert@gmail.com
TABLE OF CONTENT
Abreviations
III
1. Introduction
1
2. Project description
1
3. Project A
3
3. 1 Biosphere Reserves
3
3. 2 Objectives and theoretical background
4
3. 3 Workshop preparation
8
3. 4. 1 Information gathering
9
3. 4. 2 Consultation with the Biosphere Reserve Middle Elbe
13
3. 5 Profile description Elbe River Landscape Biosphere Reserve and
Biosphere Reserve Rhön
13
4. Project B
15
4. 1 Research objectives
15
4. 2 Grassland land use in the Biosphere Reserve Rhön
16
4. 3 Data base development
17
4. 4 Funding program research
18
5. Personal reflection
22
6. References
IV
7. Annex
VII
7.1 Profile Description Biosphere Reserve Rhön
VII
Abreviations
ZALF Leibniz-Zentrum für Agrarlandschaftsforschung e. V. Müncheberg (Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research)
BR Biosphere Reserves
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
MAB Man and the Biosphere
BRME Biosphere Reserve Middle Elbe
MA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
LU Livestock Units
BRR Biosphere Reserve Rhön
CAP Common Agricultural Policy
1. Introduction
I completed the compulsory internship for the Master of Earth Sciences in the track of Environmental Management at the Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) in Müncheberg, Germany. The ZALF consists of six institutes: the Institute for Soil Landscape Research, the Institute for Landscape Biochemistry, the Institute for Landscape System Analysis, the Institute for Lans Use Systems, the Institute for Landscape Hydrology as well as the Institute for Socio-Economics. Through interdisciplinary research the ZALF provides society with sound information for sustainable use of agricultural landscapes and explains causal relationships in agricultural landscapes. The work of the Zalf is founded on three core topics. “Landscape Functioning” (Core Topic 1) focuses on the natural-science basis of the functioning of spatiotemporally differentiated landscape processes, with the goal to improve the understanding of the relevant processes as well as their interdependencies and interactions in the landscape. The Core Topic 2, “Land Use Impact”, targets agricultural production in a landscape context, with the consideration and utilization of the various feedback mechanisms, that are influencing agricultural landscapes at diverse spatial and temporal scales. Core Topic 3, “Land-Use Conflicts and Governance”, puts the emphasis on the analysis of the distinct preferences of land users and the consequential conflicts regarding the land use at the landscape level. Under investigation are stakeholders, that are relevant for the implementation and development of institutional solutions as well as institutions and instruments that are required to achieve the implementation of sustainable land use (ZALF, 2016).
2. Project description
The internship had the duration of four month, from the 1st of April until the 29th of July in 2016. During my time at the ZALF I had the opportunity to work in both of the two subprojects of the project “Land-use strategies for the development zones of german biosphere reserves in regards to sustainable environmentally sound development in all economic and living areas, as well as to their buffer and connective function” (short: “Land-use strategies for biosphere reserves”) .
“Land-use strategies for biosphere reserves” focuses on the research of land use strategies in the development zones of German Biosphere Reserves (BR). The main goal of the project is a sustainable environmentally sound development in all economic and living areas as well as their buffer and connective functions. The project primarily targets sustainable oriented agricultural land management strategies. The first 10 weeks of the internship I participated in the subproject A.
Subproject A focuses on an integrated impact assessment of land use strategies in regards to sustainable development in the development zones of a specific BR. The remaining 6 weeks I worked on a topic in the Subproject B. This project component deals with the spatial explicit and indicator based analysis of agriculture, forestry and water management. In Germany there are 16 BR, which are generally subdivided into three zones: the core zone, the transition zone and the development zones. While the core and the transition zones of the BR have to follow strict directives and policies, the development zones are rather unrestricted in their land use and regional development. Nevertheless, do the development zones equally have a protective and development function. Despite various activities it has not been successful to reach the high requirements for transition zones everywhere. In the “Land-use strategies for biosphere reserves” Project the following two goals are set: the sustainable and environmentally sound development of the economic and living areas as well as the development of the buffer and connective functions of the core and transition zones but also the development zones.
The land-use types are characterized by agriculture, forestry, water management, tourism and businesses, which are not restricted by strict regulations and policies. However, in line with its status of a model region of biosphere reserves, it should present an ecologically and socially sound land management. Because of its diverse and more intense utilization the development zone is subject to external impacts, and is in danger of deviating from a more sustainable development. For that reason the development zone requires strategies that contribute to a more sustainable development. In the project “Land-use strategies for biosphere reserves” the goal is to develop strategies, that equally encourage a economical and ecological development, to establish a sound equilibrium between conservation and usage of the landscape. Making the use of a participative impact assessment the project “Land-use strategies for biosphere reserves” aims to develop sustainable strategies for the land use of the development zones, in corporation with land users.
This is attempted to be done in three steps. Firstly, the individual characteristics of the 16 BR, the development tendencies of the three land use types (agriculture, forestry, water management) as well as the particular responsibilities and set targets have to be identified. Profile descriptions are developed for each German BR. The second step aims to analyze the current state of a specific BR and to determine the required action, the action potential, the implementation possibilities of sustainable land use options as well as the development of recommendations for the adaptation and renewal of management tools. This is done with the utilization of a scenario-based sustainability impact assessment. The third step will be to review and critically analyze successful approaches in regards to their transferability, funding possibilities and incentive systems for
sustainable practices, which will help to generate a recommendation catalogue applicable for other German BR.
3. Project A
The basis of the Subproject A form profile descriptions of the 16 individual BR of Germany. The profile descriptions contains among others the following information: basic BR characteristics, administrative and structural characteristics, zoning of the nature conservation areas, information of the land use and socio-economic characteristics, specific information of the development zones regarding land use, as well as survey information regarding the three dimensions of sustainability. In Subproject A I was assigned to the Mittelelbe Biosphere Reserve, which is part of a transnational BR (located over 5 states) called Elbe River Landscape Biosphere Reserve. Since the profile description of this BR was not established yet, it was my task to compile information and draw up the profile description (Chapter 3. 4).
In the beginning of the internship I was quite unfamiliar with the topic of biosphere reserves, which is why I started my research by gathering information on the basic concepts of biosphere reserves.
3. 1 Biosphere Reserves
The concept of Biosphere Reserves was initiated by UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), founding the program “Man and the Biosphere” (MAB) in the 16th General Conference in 1970. It is an interdisciplinary and international research program
which prioritizes transnational cooperation and sharing of knowledge. Next to ecological aspects it also considers socio-cultural, economic and ethnic factors within BR (AGBR, 1995). Starting with the first BR in 1976, there are up to now 669 BR worldwide, which are distributed over 120 countries (Deutsche UNESCO-Kommission E. V., 2016).
BR represent model regions, serving to exemplarily realize an ecologically, economically and socially sustainable development. They hold three primary functions such as the protective function, the development function and the logistic function. The protective function aims for the maintenance of ecosystems, landscapes and the biodiversity of plant and animal species. The development function targets the enhanced economic, social and cultural sustainable development. Finally the logistic functions objective is to support environmental education, demonstration projects and educational training (UNESCO, 1996).
BR are subdivided into three protection zones: core zone, transition zone and development zone. They are partitioned by different levels of permitted human activity and hold different responsibility, different surface areas as well as different levels of legal protection. The core zone is required to cover at least 3 % of the BR. Human activity is fully prohibited in this zone. Its main function is to maintain natural processes and ecosystems. At least 10 % of the BR needs to be assigned to be transition zone. The transition zone primarily targets the maintenance of the landscapes and ecosystems that resulted from human influence and use. With locally adapted land use as well as landscape preservation measures the cultural landscape is to be conserved. Together the core and transition zone have to make up at least 20 % of the BR. The remaining parts of the BR is allocated to the development zone. It has to cover at least 50 % of the BR. This zone mainly acts as living, economic and recreational area for the inhabitants. It aims at a sustainable locally adapted land use, environmentally and socially sound tourism and the production and merchandizing of environmental-friendly, locally produced products. While the majority of the areas of the core and transition zones are designated protection areas, the administration in the development zones does not have a legally binding instrument for the sustainable development of land use. Considering the objective of doing justice to the demands of humans and nature, especially the development zone can serve as a model region for sustainable development. (AGBR, 1995)
3. 2 Objectives and theoretical background
To aim for a sustainable development of the land use and develop appropriate sustainability strategies in the Biosphere Reserve Middle Elbe (BRME), sustainability conflict and problems need to be identified. Based on those conflicts, problems and development trends, scenarios are derived, which are presented and discussed within the project and later on in a local workshop in the BR. The workshop’s results will be evaluated and will be used to develop economic, social and ecological locally adapted recommendations for the development zone of the BRME.
My work in the project “Land-use strategies for biosphere reserves” was based on the following research questions:
How can the land use (pasture land/ agriculture/ tourism) in the development zone of the Biosphere Reserve Middle Elbe be sustainably evolved?
• Which alternative, future land use strategies (scenarios) for the Biosphere Reserve Middle Elbe can be discussed?
• How do these scenarios affect the respective economic, social and ecological ecosystem services on a regional level?
• What are the preferences of regional stakeholders regarding the selected ecosystem services?
• Which consequences and possible recommendations for action for the Biosphere Reserve Middle Elbe result from these findings? Are these findings applicable to other Biosphere Reserves?
Before starting to work on preparing the information and the workshop for the BRME, it was of importance to understand the theoretical background of the methodology applied in this project. To meaningfully evaluate the interactions of ecosystem services and society, various concepts have been developed, inter alia the concepts of ecosystem services, landscape functions as well as land use functions.
Even though the concept of ecosystem services was discussed and employed for decades, it was popularized in 2005 by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). It is considered the key concept for the evaluation of the direct and indirect benefits of ecosystems for society and therefore is the interface between social, economic and natural environmental research. The analytical framework of MA is based on the concept of ecosystem functionality as a foundation for all activities and processes on earth (Schößer et al., 2010). In the concept of ecosystem functionality, ecosystems supply ecosystem services and provide an intrinsic value to society. Ecosystem services are subdivided into four categories, which are provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting ecosystem services (Fig. 1).
The concept is embedded into the DPSIR-approach (driver, pressure, state, impact, response). The analytical structure of the DISPR-approach is also typical for environmental impact assessments. It helps to simplify the complex interactions between humans and ecosystems (Smeets and Weterings, 1999; Schößer et al., 2010). Direct and indirect influencing factors, which cause variation in an ecosystem are identified. These factors affect ecosystem services and their intrinsic value, which in return have an impact on human well-being (Schößer et al., 2010).
The concept of landscape functions originates in the field of landscape planning and landscape ecology. There are several definitions of landscape functions. Bastian (1999) for example describes landscape functions as the landscapes capacity to satisfy social demands. Therefore they are the link between all services supplied by landscapes and social needs. They can help with the development of guidelines for landscape management and landscape planning (Schößer et al. 2010). On the grounds of the concepts of ecosystem services and landscape functions as well as the multifunctional land use , the concept of land use functions was developed. The aim of this concept 1
is to demonstrate, how land use change in various sectors, influences the geophysical and socio-economic capacity of landscapes to perform ecological, social and socio-economic functions (Perez-Soba et al., 2008). Accordingly Perez-Soba et al. (2008) defines land use functions as:
„ [...] the private and public goods and services provided by the different land uses that summarise the most relevant economic, environmental and social aspects of a region.”
Consequently nine land use functions were established, which reflect the direct and indirect land use impacts on the environment, society and economy as well as equally represent the three pillars of sustainability. Thus three land use functions are assigned to each of the s u s t a i n a b i l i t y d i m e n s i o n s (environment, society, economy) (Tab.
1). The land use functions however
are linked to (impact) indicators,
The advancement beyond agricultural aspects to all sectors of land use in conjunction with socio-economic
1
and geophysical landscape characteristic, which are influenced by land use (agriculture, forestry, tourism, energy, nature conservation, transport). (Perez-Soba et al., 2008)
which indicate changes of the land use function (Perez-Soba et al., 2008).
The prior explained concepts are than the basis for the FoPIA method (Framework for Participatory Impact Assessment), which is applied in the project “Land-use strategies for biosphere reserves”. The method was developed by Morris et al. (2011) in the scope of European politics and SENSOR-project. In search for an approach to illustrate the impact of different land-use sectors on the rural sustainability, with regards to regional, geophysical and socio-economic characteristics, the concept of the ex ante sustainability impact assessment of policy-induced land-use change was developed within the SENSOR-Project (Helming et al., 2008). With gathering expert knowledge and expertise from national, regional and local stakeholders, the FoPIA method allows the evaluation of the impacts of political action on the national, regional and local sustainability priorities. Specific sustainability issues are analyzed and act as the foundation for the development of scenarios with their focus on the regional politics as well as land-use change (Morris et al., 2011). In the case of BR, experts and stakeholders include among others, representatives from the district administration, the biosphere administration, the agricultural sector (regional), the processing sector (regional) as well as selected interest groups (farmers’ association, tourism etc.). The sustainability impact assessment of land-use strategies in the BR was planned to be conducted within a half-day workshop including the stakeholders and experts. The participants are chosen under the agreement of both, the biosphere reserve administration and the ZALF. According to König et al. (2015) the FoPIA method follows the subsequent analysis steps:
i. Context analysis and scenario development
To develop scenarios for the sustainability analysis, problems and conflicts of sustainability regarding the land use in the region need to be identified. For this purpose a thorough literature research and on-site interviews with experts and stakeholders have to be conducted. With the help of development trends as well as the identified conflicts and problems of sustainable land use in the development zones of the BR, three to four scenarios are developed. These Scenarios are then presented in the workshop.
ii. Ascertainment of the sustainability context
In cooperation with the workshop participants, the land-use functions and indicators (after Perez-Soba et al., 2008) will be adjusted to suit the regional context. Subsequently the participants are asked to weight the land-use functions in regards to their importance for the sustainable development of the development zone of the BR.
iii. Scenario impact assessment
In the next step, the participants will assess and evaluate the scenarios, which illustrate various land-use options and regional developments, in regards to the different indicators. The participants evaluate the impacts on a scale from -3 to +3, in which small values (e.g. 0 and 1) represent little or no impact, while large values (e.g. 2 and 3) represent considerable impact. Negative values indicate a negative impacts and vise versa. In the following the participants will discuss the results and scenarios in regards to the importance for the sustainable regional development of the Development zone of the BR.
3. 3 Workshop preparation
As aforementioned the basis for the workshop is the profile description of the BR, a thorough context analysis and interviews with experts in the BR. The Elbe River Landscape Biosphere Reserve is a long and narrow BR stretching over five federal states. Because in Germany nature protection is controlled by each federal state individually, an analysis of the whole BR would be to elaborate and time consuming (Fig. 2). For that reason the sustainability impact assessment in the project “Land-use strategies for biosphere reserves” is generally conducted in one federal state in a before-chosen characteristic area of the BR. The largest parts of the Elbe River Landscape Biosphere Reserve covers areas in the federal state of Saxony-Anhalt (56.1%; 192.464 ha), which is why the Biosphere Reserve Middle E l b e w a s c h o s e n f o r t h e a n a l y s i s (Evaluierungsbericht FE, 2007).
Fig. 2: The Elbe River Landscape Biosphere Reserve, with the core (brown), transition (yellow) and development (pink) zone. (Evaluierungsbericht FE, 2007)
3. 4. 1 Information gathering
The Biosphere Reserve Middle Elbe (BRME) is the Saxon-Anhaltinian part of the transnational Elbe River Landscape Biosphere Reserve. It originates in the BR Steckby-Lödderitzer Forest, which was the first German BR that was recognized by UNESCO in 1979. Also the “Garden Kingdom Dessau-Wörlitz” was acknowledge by UNESCO as a BR in 1988. Over time both parts were expanded repeatedly, until they were united to the Biosphere Reserve Middle Elbe in 1990. The transnational Elbe River Landscape Biosphere Reserve was established in 1997 (BRME, n.d.). It covers areas in the states of
Schleswig-Holstein, Lower Saxony, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Brandenburg and Saxony-Anhalt. Today the Elbe River Landscape Biosphere Reserve covers an area of about 342.847 ha (Evaluierungsbericht FE, 2007). The BRME comprises the counties Anhalt-Zerbst, Bernburg, Bitterfeld, Köthen, Jerichower Land, Ohrekreis, Schönebeck, Stendal, Wittenberg as well as the administratively independent cities of Magdeburg and Dessau and covers an area of around 192.464 ha (Fig. 3).
The landscape of the BRME, especially the core zone, is characterized by river and floodplain landscapes with near-nature habitats and a cultural landscape that developed and has been shaped over several centuries. It shows characteristic habitats and species such as the Elbe beaver, groves of hard and soft wood and characteristic grassland communities (Rahmenkonzept FE, 2006). The BRME contains the largest continuous floodplain forest in Central Europe, which makes it particularly worthy of protection.
The BRME is characterized by the 303 km of Elbe river running through it. The river meanders through the glacially influenced North German Plain with a low downward gradient of around 17 cm/km. The area of the BR is characterized by sandy fluvioglacial deposits. The post-glacial successive erosion of the Elbe river valley led to the development of lower terraces, with sandy islands in the lowlands and slightly sloping ground moraines. Due to altering erosion and sedimentation as well as recurring flooding the area developed alluvial brown soils. Soils with hydromorphological profile features can be found in the floodplain depressions. The soil type here Fig. 3: The Saxony-Anhaltinian part of the Elbe River Landscape Biosphere Reserve, which is the Biosphere Reserve Middle Elbe. (Map provided by ZALF)
is gleysol, which is subject to pollution and contamination, due to recent chemical and pollutant input. On the lower terraces of the floodplains, distant from groundwater, the soil types are mainly characterized by podsol and brown soil. Valley sediments are mostly alluvial loam and river sands. (Evaluierungsbericht FE, 2007)
The river valley of the Elbe has been under the influence of human activity since the the first settlements. Dyke constructions, hydraulic engineering as well as dam constructions have shaped the stream. The sewage disposal into the river in the 19th century led to declining water qualities as well as enhanced bed erosion. Furthermore, around 80 % of the natural flood planes have been lost, which largely restricts the natural alluvial dynamics in the area. Over time these modifications led to an alteration of the water quality, biodiversity as well as the land-use and biotope distribution. (Evaluierungsbericht FE, 2007)
The BRME shows the largest population share in the Elbe River Landscape Biosphere Reserve. The population density declines towards the northern parts of the BR. Furthermore, is the rural area of the BRME with around 22 inhabitants per square kilometer one of Germany’s most sparsely populated areas.
After the reunion of East and West Germany the area of the BRME experienced drastic economic changes. Many large factories and industries were closed, which led to extensive economic instabilities (Evaluierungsbericht FE, 2007). The unemployment rate for the federal state of Saxony-Anhalt lies with an average of 9.1 % above the German and even the Eastern German average of 6.1 % and 8.2 %, respectively (Statista, 2016). Next to the high unemployment rate the ageing population is a problem, particularly in the rural areas. Many young people are leaving the region, while the older population stays behind. The average age in Saxony-Anhalt lies around 46.8 years (Statistisches Landesamt Sachsen-Anhalt, 2011).
As aforementioned the BR is subdivided into three different zones, that have specific restrictions concerning the land use, which is also reflected in the distribution of land use types. In the core zone for instance any type of agricultural use and human activity is prohibited. Thus the area is characterized by about 58 % forests, 36 % grassland, 3 % of waters, 0.1 % of residential area and no agricultural land use (Tab. 2). In the transition zone the land use is limited and subject to many regulations in order to protect the natural alluvial dynamics in the BR. This zone is defined by 30 % forest, 55 % grassland, 5 % crop land, 11 % of water and still only 0,2 % of residential area. The development zone, which is under little to no restrictions, clearly shows a more intense land use in the distribution of the land-use types. In the development zone there are only 14 % forrest, while grassland and crop land make up 39 % and 34 %, respectively. Water and residential areas lie by
6 % and 4 %, respectively (Evaluierungsbericht FE, 2006) (Tab. 2). It also becomes clear that the dominant land-use type in the whole BRME is grassland use. While in the transition zone the grassland use is somewhat controlled by policies and restrictions, such as programs that support and fund extensification, organic farming and prohibits the conversion of grassland to arable land, the development zone predominantly does not have strict policies on nature conservation or sustainable land use. The target in the development zone is a sustainable land use, the conservation of the historic cultural landscape and a resource-efficient and environmental friendly development of the residential areas (Evaluierungsbericht FE, 2006). In particular land-use intensification causes significant conflicts and problems in the BRME, such as loss of grassland, loss of biodiversity and the limitation of touristic activities through the cultivation of monocultures (corn, energy crops). Another large cause of conflicts in the BR is the agricultural use of floodplains, which causes contaminated water to enter the waterways, erosion and elevated nutrient inputs (Rahmenkonzept FE, 2006).
As above mentioned the land use in the development zone is largely characterized by agriculture and grassland use. The biosphere reserve shows a very heterogenous soil quality, from higher ground points such as 70 on alluvial soils to marginal revenue sites on sandy soils 2
(Rahmenkonzept FE, 2006) . In the federal state of Saxony-Anhalt the land use is rather structured on a large scale. Between 27 % and 49 % of the agricultural enterprises cultivate fields of over 200 ha, which make up around 83 % to 92 % of the arable land (Statistisches Landesamt Sachsen-Anhalt, 2016). The crops that are cultivated on the arable lands depend strongly on the soil type and fertility of the soil.
Ground point scale: 1 low soil quality to 120 high soil quality (LUNG, 2005)
2
Core Zone Transition Zone Development Zone
Forest 58 % 30 % 14 %
Grassland 36 % 55 % 39 %
Agricultural fields - 5 % 34 %
Water 3 % 11 % 6 %
Residential areas 0,1 % 0,2 % 4 %
Tab 2: Distribution of the land use types in the core, transition and development zone of the BRME. (Evaluierungsbericht FE, 2007)
In the counties of Stendal, Jerichower Land and in Wittenberg organic farming practices can be found on 7.2 %, 5.8 % and 9.8 % of the cultivated land, respectively. On the more fertile soils of Salzlandkreis and Anhalt-Bitterfeld however organic farming practices only cover an area of around 1.2 % and 3.3 %, respectively. The livestock density is in all of the counties with 0 - 0.99 LU/ha (Livestock unit per hectare) relatively low.
In order to determine some of the problems and conflicts, that might be potential elements of the workshop and to ensure the current situation in the BR is recorded correctly, a small survey has been carried out. The survey contained statements of the current situation as well as risks/conflicts emerging from the current state. The participants were asked to supplement and correct the statements if needed. The statements and stated risks/conflicts were classified into the three dimensions of sustainability (economic, social, ecologic). Each dimension included three ecosystem services. The participant had to rate the potential for sustainable development for the respective ecosystem service with either high, intermediate or low. The participants saw a high potential for sustainable development in the categories of the economic use of natural resources (primary production), the cultural ecosystem services (identification, landscape appreciation) as well as the regulating ecosystem services (soil, water, climate). Ecosystem services, that received a low potential for sustainable development by the participants were the industry and service sector as well as the recreational sector. Some of the risks/conflicts that could be extracted from the survey, were the following. As previously mentioned the participants confirmed the periodical flooding of agricultural lands to be problematic in the area. In particular on the Mulde river, an inlet to the Elbe river in the BRME, it causes soil contamination. In the agricultural sector there is little to no support and encouragement for organic farming. Furthermore, the region is a structurally weak region with structural change and inhabitants moving away, especially young people leading to a demographic change and a lack of skilled workers and professionals. An additional risk/conflict potential lies in the disruption of the regulating ecosystem dynamics through the modification of the riverbed and floodplains, pollutant input through agriculture, shipping, industries, as well as the decrease of natural floodplains due to intensive agricultural use which leads to modified flooding dynamics, causing increased pollutant influx into the surface water. These modifications also lead to significant disruptions of natural habitats causing a decrease in biodiversity of plant and animal species.
With the help of interviews of experts and interest groups in the BRME these conflicts and problems will be addressed and discussed in a workshop. The aim is to find ways of making
sustainable land use more appealing in the development zone. Incentives promoting sustainable farming and the extensification of grassland use have to be developed and implemented.
3. 4. 2 Consultation with the Biosphere Reserve Middle Elbe
While the context analysis is the general basis for the project it is necessary to gather region specific information of the conflicts and problems, the perspectives and preferences as well as the opportunities of integrating sustainable practices. In the project “Land-use strategies for biosphere reserves” this is done by interviewing experts, stakeholders and representatives from the district administration, the biosphere administration, the agricultural sector, the processing sector as well as representatives from selected interest groups such as (tourism, farmers’ association etc.). For choosing the participants for the interviews as well as the workshop it is of great importance to consult the biosphere reserve administration, since they are already closely working with several important experts and stakeholders. Generally they are able to suggest or recommend people that might be willing to partake in the Project. It was however very difficult to find a suitable time for an initial meeting with the BRME administration, because of other important obligations of the BR. It was not possible to arrange sufficient meetings with the BRME administration and consequently with potential participants in the timeframe of my internship, which is why we decided that I will stop my research at this point and start with a different research project within the project “Land-use strategies for biosphere reserves” (Chapter 4.).
3. 5 Profile description Elbe River Landscape Biosphere Reserve and Biosphere Reserve Rhön
As aforementioned, profile descriptions of all 16 BR are developed within the scope of the project “Land-use strategies for biosphere reserves”. Based on these profile descriptions five of the 16 BR are analyzed in detail (Chapter 3. 3. 1). The BR that were chosen for further investigation were the Bliesgau Biosphere Reserve, the Schaalsee Biosphere Reserve, the Spreewald Biosphere Reserve, the Rhön Biosphere Reserve and the Middle Elbe Biosphere Reserve, which is part of the Elbe River Landscape Biosphere Reserve. For most of the 16 BR the profile descriptions were already developed. The profile descriptions for the Rhön Biosphere Reserve and the Elbe River Landscape Biosphere Reserve were not available yet. Therefore, I was asked to help develop parts of the profile descriptions.
The profile description contains information on the basic characteristics of the BR including their different functions and goals regarding protection and development as well as the
representativeness of each BR. Another part of the profile descriptions are information about their status and administration. Furthermore, information about the nature protection zones and their distribution in the BR, the land use in the BR as well as their socio-economic characterization is included. In the second section of the profile description information on the development zone regarding the protective function and protection goals as well as the land use, in particular agriculture, forestry and fishery and water management is incorporated. The third section consists of surveys that have been carried out in the BR in respect to the dimensions of sustainability (Chapter 3. 3. 1). Furthermore, the profile descriptions contain lists of important administrations, institution and interest groups of the BR.
Most of the information was derived from the conceptual frameworks and the evaluation reports, which have been developed for almost every German BR in the last 10 to 15 years. Also statistical information derived from the respective statistical state offices.
When reaching out to the BR regarding the further analysis and workshop, the BR will receive the profile descriptions to overview and possibly make some suggestions for changes regarding errors or inaccuracies.
To exemplify a profile description, the BRR profile description can be found in the
4. Project B
After ending my work on the Project A, I was assigned to work on the Biosphere Reserve Rhön (BRR). The BRR covers areas on the federal state of Thuringia, Hesse and Bavaria and is part of the Mittelgebirge ridge. This area is referred to as the “land of open distance” and characterized by unforested mountain ranges, which are often times used as grassland. In the conceptual framework of the BRR it is stated that one of the main goals for the development of the agricultural land use of the BRR is to keep the landscape “open” through a sustainable use. To achieve that goal it is of importance to preserve and maintain the grassland in the BRR, since it is the main component of that characteristic of the BRR. The land use in the BR shows a mosaic pattern. The south of the Bavarian part of the BRR is mostly characterized by elaborate areas, that are used for crop cultivation, while the grassland is concentrated in the centre of the BRR. In this region the grassland can mostly be found in the transition zone, while the crop cultivation takes place in the development zone. In the Thuringian and Hessian parts of the BR the grassland, forest and crops are distributed in small areas, which are closely interlocked. Here all land use types can be found in the development zone.
In the second part of my internship the main focus was put on the grassland use in the BRR. Due to its highly valued openness, grassland use poses an important land use type in the BRR. For that reason my new topic consisted of researching strategies of the BR to secure the preservation of these areas in the development zone.
4. 1 Research objectives
The research objectives for the new project can be formulated as followed:
How can the protective function of the Biosphere Reserve Rhön be improved by assessing the impacts of diverse land use strategies on indicator plant species in the development zone?
• What are the protection worthy plant species in the grassland of the Biosphere Reserve Rhön? (selection of 4-5 Species)
• What land use strategies are beneficial/harming for the plant populations?
• What management strategies can be applied to improve the quality of the grassland?
• Are there incentive systems available for the development zone of the Biosphere Reserve Rhön?
4. 2 Grassland land use in the Biosphere Reserve Rhön
With a maximum of 89 plant species per square meter, extensive grassland is recognized to be one of t h e s p e c i e s r i c h e s t b i o t o p e s worldwide (Wilson et al., 2012). In Central Europe over 400 plant species are most prevalent in grassland communities (Korneck and Sukopp, 1988). Due to drastic intensification and land-use change, the biodiversity of the grassland as well as the overall grassland are significantly declining. In the BRR about 28,6 % (60.921 ha) are being m a n a g e d a s g r a s s l a n d (Erweiterungsantrag Rhön, 2013) (Fig. 4). Grassland provides many important ecosystem services in all
four categories of ecosystem services defined by the MA. It is an important provider of fodder and therefore is directly involved in milk and meat production. Furthermore, it contributes to soil and water conservation as well as erosion protection. Grassland contributes to remaining the soil fertility, to carbon fixation, has a habitat function as well as esthetic, recreational and touristic value. Grassland is also considered a cultural heritage.
In the BRR grassland is predominantly used to produce fodder and therefore is primarily a valuable resource for the production livestock products. Also the landscape is substantially shaped by the distribution and characteristics of prevalent grassland, especially in the BRR which is referred to as the “land of open distance”.
Overall the grassland area is declining, due to the tillage and the transformation of grassland into cropland. Especially extensive grassland is threatened by abandonment and intensification. Large scale extensive pasture systems (e.g. sheep farming) as well as extensively managed grassland that is mowed for hay production contributes significantly to maintain the grassland biodiversity. Therefore a protection and conservation of these grassland uses through effective
n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n mnm n mnm n m n m n m n m n mnm 9 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 16 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 15 14 13 12 11 10 Fulda Bad Neustadt Bad Salzungen Bad Kissingen Aura Tann Vacha Geisa Hünfeld Gersfeld Fladungen Hammelburg Bischofsheim Wartmannsroth Bad Brückenau Kaltennordheim 0 5 10 20 Kilometer
¯
Verbandsnaturschutzprojekte Grünland Legende Fließgewässer Grünland n m Naturschutzprojekte Grünland 1 Thüringer Rhönhutungen LPV BR Thüringische Rhön 2 Berghexenprojekt, Tagfalterschutz LPV BR Thüringische Rhön3 Freilandexperimente: Großfl. Beweidungssysteme
Phillips-Universität Marburg
4 Erhaltung von Offenlandflächen im "Grünen Band"
Stiftung Naturschutz Thüringen/ Schäferei Lückert
5 Grünes Band
BUND Thüringen
6 Pflege eines Standorts seltener Orchideen
Alte Warth (NABU)
7 Pflege eines Standorts seltener Orchideen
Alte Warth (NABU)
8 Lupinen-Bekämpfung
Bergwacht
9 Beweidungspläne für Orchideenstandorte
Alte Warth (NABU), LPV Thüringische Rhön, ...
10 Das Rhönschaf-Projekt
Verein Natur- und Lebensraum Rhön, BUND Hessen
11 Schafsbeweidung Kalkmagerrasen
NABU OG Dreienberg
12 Handmahd Kalkquellsümpfe
NABU OG Dreienberg
13 Erhalt der Sumpf-Fetthenne
Botanische Vereinigung für Naturschutz Hessen
14 Birkwild in der Rhön
Wildlandstiftung Bayern, ...
15 Projekt Feuerberg, Wiesenschutz
Wildlandstiftung Bayern, ...
16 Schaffung von Rohböden
LPV Bad Kissingen
17 geplante, extensive Großflächenbeweidung Rhön
SINNALLIANZ
18 Betreuung wertvoller Trockenrasen
Bund Naturschutz OG Hammelburg
19 Birkhuhn-Lebensraumverbesserung
BJV KG Bad Neustadt und KG Mellrichstadt
20 Schafbeweidung LPV Rhön-Grabfeld 21 Ziegenbeweidung LPV Rhön-Grabfeld 22 Gehölzentfernung LPV Rhön-Grabfeld 23 Lupinenbekämpfung LPV Rhön-Grabfeld
24 Mahd von Waldwiesen
LPV Rhön-Grabfeld
25 Pflege von Mager- und Trockenstandorten
LPV Bad Kissingen
26 Pflege von Feuchtstandorten
LPV Bad Kissingen
27 Wiesenbrüterschutz
LPV Bad Kissingen
weitere Projekte in Bayern: Pflege von Kreuzenzianwiesen
LBV
Pflege von Trockenrasen
LBV
Pflege von Feuchtwiesen
LBV
Fig. 4: Grassland distribution in the Biosphere Reserve Rhön. (BRR, 2015)
incentive and funding systems is of great importance (Evaluierungsbericht BRR, 2013). A way to determine the grassland quality and the level of biodiversity is to determine the presence of plant species, characteristic for species rich grassland.
4. 3 Data base development
Fortunately the evaluation report of the BRR did already provide a very detailed list of valuable plant species of the BR (Evaluierungsbericht BRR, 2013). My job was now to create a data base out of these species including additional information, that will help to analyze the impact of different land use strategies on the specific plants. Among these information was the hemeroby, which is a measure for human influence on a natural ecosystem. It indicates the degree of naturalness in which a species can occur. The hemeroby scale covers the different states from ahemerob, which is natural, to polyhemerobic, representing non-natural (Biolflor, n.d.). Another characteristic included in the data base was the utilization value numeral (“Nutzungswertzahl”). On the one hand it provides information regarding the tolerance of a certain plant species to withstand specific mechanical interference, such as grazing, trampling or mowing. On the other hand it is an indicator for the value of the plant species for livestock (fodder value) (Biolflor, n.d.). Furthermore, the ecological strategy types were incorporated into the data base. The ecological strategy categorizes plant species into their strategies of adjusting to different habitats. The three main groups are the competitive strategy for habitats where the resources are abundant and disturbances are rare, the stress tolerant strategy, in which the the habitat provides scare resources and conditions are extreme, with the absence of disturbances and lastly the ruderal strategy, where the habitat provides abundant resources, but the disturbance levels are high. Furthermore, there are intermediate categories which are composed out of combinations of the previously mentioned strategy types (Klotz and Kühn, 2002 a). Another characteristic that was added to the data base was the sociology. Because every plant is in some way specific to plant communities it is likely to grow, Schubert et al. (2001) categorize all plants into phytosocial units in which they can occur (Klotz and Kühn, 2002 b). Furthermore, the biotope types for all species, that have been defined by Haeupler (2002), are comprised in the data base. (Annex 7.2)
The characteristics were initially comprised into Microsoft Excel tables. Firstly all the characteristics for every plant species from the indicator list of the evaluation report were gathered into one table. Because in some cases there were multiple values for one characteristic, I created individual truth tables for each characteristic. The characteristics where allocated to the columns, while the plant species where assigned to the rows. Was a characteristic true for a plant species the
number “1” was appointed, in the case of false the number “0” was assigned. In that way the tables could later be interconnected and filtered with various conditions to determine and analyze, which land use practices are beneficial for the grassland communities as well as to find the best ways to sufficiently preserve the grassland in the BR. The final data base was generated with the program Microsoft Access. All tables were inserted into the program to compose one final database. After examining and reviewing the plant species and respective characteristics it became clear, that the plant species included in the evaluation report were very specific to the grassland of the transition and core zones. These plant species were quite rare and very unlikely to be present in the grasslands of the development zones. While the plant species of that list are suitable indicators for the grassland in the core and transition zones, the BRR is lacking an appropriate indicator list for the farmers managing grassland in the development zone. The BRR does not provide a strategy to sufficiently determine the species and consequently the quality of the grassland within the development zone to help determine the best management practices.
4. 4 Funding program research
Considering all of the above as well as the fact, that most parts of the development zone are not restricted by nature protection, I now researched alternative incentives that might already be available in the BRR that are provided by the federal states of Hesse, Thuringia and Bavaria.
In that regard I started researching the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which is the agricultural policy of the European Union (European Parlament, 2016). The funds provided via the CAP support farmers and the development of rural areas. For agricultural support in Germany an annual funding of about 6.2 billion Euros in community resources is provided in the scope of the funding period from 2014 to 2020. The CAP is divided into two pillars. The first pillar comprises direct payments to farmers, granted per hectare of farmland, if the requirements are met. The second pillar is composed of defined aid programs for rural development and environmentally sound and sustainable farming (BMEL, 2015). Its main goal is to create an attractive future for people inhabiting rural areas. The central funding instrument for the implementation of the common EU-focal points for the development of rural areas is the European Agricultural Rural Development Fund (EAFRD). The priorities in the second pillar of the CAP lie in strategic longterm objectives: to develop a strong competitiveness of the agricultural sector, a sustainable management of natural resources as well as the support of the economy in rural areas. A significant part of the second pillar of the CAP are the voluntary agri-environment-climate measures (AECM). Member states are required to utilize at least 30 % of the second pillar EU-funds among others for extensification
measures, organic farming or regions that are confronted with natural constraints. Next to the objective of protecting the climate, the main goals of the AECM is to increase biodiversity, improve the soil structure and to reduce the use of fertilizers and pesticides (BMEL, 2015). With the AECM various aspects of sustainable land use, nature protection measures and rural development are funded. Inter alia the extensification and protection of grassland.
In the individual federal states of Germany the majority of the AECM are funded through federal state resources and co-financed with EU co-financing resources. Each federal state incorporates the funding measures of the second pillar of the CAP into their own federal agricultural funding programs (BMEL, 2015).
For the implementation of the AECM of the funding period from 2014 to 2020, the federal states developed programs that incorporate the different funding measures (Fig. 5). These are designed to meet political priorities and requirements of national programs. Consequently there are funding programs for Bavaria, which is the Cultural Landscaping Program ( K U L A P - B a y r i s c h e s Kulturlandschaftsprogramm), for Hesse, which is the Hessian Program for agri-environment and landscape-conservation measures (HALM -
Hessisches Programm für Agrarumwelt- und Landschaftspflege- Maßnahmen) and for Thuringia, which is the Program for the Funding of environmentally and climatically sound agriculture, conservation of the cultural landscape, nature protection and landscape conservation (KULAP - Thüringer Programm zur Förderung von umwelt- und klimagerechter Landwirtschaft, Erhaltung der Kulturlandschaft, Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege).
Among the several other measures for the protection of grassland, there is one for indicator plant species. Each federal state, incorporating this indicator specific measure, developed a site specific indicator list of about 30 indicator species, to determine the quality of the grassland and receive funding for their conservation efforts. The individual farmers generally have to verify the
Fig. 5: Funding programs for agriculture and rural development of the individual federal states of Germany for the Period of
existence of four to eight indicator plant species. To help that process the farmers obtain indicator lists with pictures of the plants and specific characteristics that make it easy to identify the species (e.g. LfL, 2015 ). Most federal states also offer a training for the farmers, by experts on how to correctly identify the indicator plants.
To receive fundings there are several requirement the farmers have to follow. The Bavarian funding requires the farmer to detect at least four of the species included in the indicator list. For four species the farmer will receive a funding of 250 EUR per eligible ha. For six indicator species the farmers are able to collect 320 EUR per eligible ha (EPLR, 2016). For this measure the state of Bavaria introduced the result-oriented remuneration for species-rich grassland, which means that the farmers have no restrictions regarding the management of their grassland. Merely the occurrence of the indicator species is decisive of funding. The responsible authority in the case of Bavaria is the Bavarian State Ministry for Nutrition, Agriculture and Forest.
The state of Hesse provides a funding of 190 EUR/eligible ha, 280 EUR/eligible ha or 340 EUR/eligible ha for the verification of four, six and eight indicator species, respectively. In contrast to Bavaria the Hessian farmers have to follow several additional restrictions. They have to renounce pesticides and fertilizers, they are restricted of any kind of tillage and they have to use the grassland at least once per year in the vegetation period. Changing the area, that is receiving funding is not permitted and any type of management activity has to be documented. The responsible authority in Hesse is the Hessian Ministry for Environment, Climate Protection, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (HALM, 2015).
In Thuringia the verification of four indicator species will earn the farmer 180 EUR/eligible ha, six indicator species will bring 280 EUR/eligible ha and the verification of eight indicator species is worth 300 EUR/eligible ha. Similar to the Hessian funding Program HALM, the KULAP also prohibits any kind of tillage. The grassland regeneration can only take place in the form of reseeding and any kind of management activity has to be documented. The responsible authority in Thuringia is the Ministry for Infrastructure and Agriculture (KULAP Thuringia, 2015).
In all three funding programs the participants are required to verify the existence of the indicator species, by identifying the required amount of indicator species using the indicator list, every year over the period of five years.
To determine the acceptance of this grassland protection measure I contacted the responsible authorities in Bavaria and Hesse. The authorities in Thuringia where already contacted by colleagues that are also working in the project. In Bavaria only 14 enterprises do make use of this funding measure. It seems that in Bavaria there are other, more beneficial and less time consuming
measures for farmers to receive funding for more sustainable land use practices. In the two Bavarian counties of Bad Kissingen and Rhön-Grabfeld, which both have regions that are part of the BRR, only 10 and 14 agricultural enterprises are funded with the measure of verifying indicator species, respectively. Considering that in Bad Kissingen there are around 600 and in Rhön-Grabfeld there are over 900 agricultural enterprises that are funded through the AECM, it is a very small fraction of farmers taking advantage of this type of funding.
In Hesse however the funding of sustainable grassland use is not yet available to farmers. The responsible authorities (Katja Preusche) explained, that there are not yet sufficient support systems established. Hesse aims to establish consultation offices as well as supply expert training for the farmers to be able to determine the indicator plant species on their grassland, before implementing this AECM. Additionally they attempt to first test the AECM in a chosen area to make the implementation as efficient as possible. Thuringia experienced a stronger response towards the AECM. Due to the fact, that there were so many applications for the verification of four indicator species, the responsible authorities decided to adjust the funding measure to a minimum of six indicator species. Therefore in Thuringia the AECM is considerably more utilized than in Bavaria.
Although the implementation and acceptance of the AECM using indicator plant species in order to conserve species rich grassland and promote extensive grassland use is not equally successful in all federal states of the BRR, the example of Thuringia shows that this measure certainly has potential. Further research is needed to determine why this measure is so differently adopted in areas with such close proximity. Possible factors such as the grassland distribution influencing the adoption of this measure as well as the other more lucrative offers that might interfere with the adoption of this measure need to be investigated and analyzed. In Thuringia for example the grassland distribution is more condensed, compared to Bavaria (Fig. 4). This could have an effect on the prioritizing of the farmers to protect their grassland or make use other AECM. Additional research is necessary at this point.
Applying this measure does not only have the benefit of extensification of the grassland use, but also is a way of determining and monitoring the different plant species occurring on the grassland. Especially for the BRR this would be a great way to document the status of the grasslands not only for the highly protected species of the grassland in the transition zone, but also in the development zone. This way more sustainable and regionally specific land use strategies could be developed. Possibly the biosphere reserve administration could consider creating indicator plant lists, that are more suitable for the grasslands in the development zones, or find ways to
support the AECM measure by providing support and advice for farmers to help verifying the plant species in the areas of the development zone. Further research is needed at this point.
5. Personal reflection
The internship at the ZALF in the project “Land-use strategies for biosphere reserves” was very educational and gave me insight into the work of a research institution dedicated to agricultural landscape research. To me it was an exciting new experience to work in a research institution and be part of a project that incorporates both scientific research, but also active corporation with parties outside of the research institution, for example the various biosphere reserves, experts and stakeholders.
At the ZALF I felt very welcomed and at all times as an equal staff member. It was a very open and constructive atmosphere all over the institute. Not only did I learn a lot about several German biosphere reserves, but also about what it means to work in a group of researchers each contributing and depending on each others work for the project.
During my research at the ZALF I not only gained a lot of knowledge on many different aspects of biosphere reserves but was also able to do research towards the political side of sustainable land use (funding programs, implementation of protection measures etc.). This was a quite new topic for me, which I really enjoyed to explore.
Next to working in the project “Land-use strategies for biosphere reserves” I also had the chance to take part in several other aspects of working in a research institute. I was able to attend a few colloquiums, that were held by PhD students presenting their research as well as scientist of the ZALF and Universities that the ZALF is in cooperation with. It was a great opportunity and very inspiring to learn about the different research fields the ZALF has to offer. The colloquiums usually included PhD students and scientists from two different institutes, which gave the staff the chance to exchange knowledge and ideas across the institute “boundaries”.
Furthermore, I was able to accompany a technical employee several times(1.5 weeks) to go into the field to different testing areas of the ZALF. Together we evaluated the weed compositions on specified areas of crop fields (bonitieren). This gave me the chance to experience the field work of agricultural land-use research as well as learn about the different herb species common on agricultural fields.
Another interesting part of the internship was a staff meeting I was able to attend, in which it was discussed if a topic is suitable for research at the ZALF. The topic under discussion was the
monitoring of wolfs in Brandenburg. Discussed were the possible effects of an increased population on the land use, such as forestry and livestock farming in Brandenburg. It was great to see the process, of how the research projects are chosen and how many different members of the ZALF are involved in the decision-making process.
Over all I think it was a successful internship, with many enriching and educational experiences. Fortunately I was given the opportunity to also write my master thesis in the project “Land-use strategies for biosphere reserves” and I’m looking forward to further work within and contribute to the project.
6. References
AGBR STÄNDIGE ARBEITSGRUPPEDER BIOSPHÄRENRESERVATEIN DEUTSCHLAND (Hrsg.) (1995): Biosphärenreservate in Deutschland – Leitlinien für Schutz, Pflege und Entwicklung. Springer- Verlag, Bonn.
Bastian, O. (1999). ‘‘Leitbilder fu¨ r Naturra¨ume auf der Basis von Landschaftsfunktionen (Ecological
goals for (natural) landscape units on the basis of landscape functions.),’’ Natur und Landschaft, 74,361–373.
Erweiterungsantrag Rhön (BR Rhön) (2013): Erweiterungsantrag des Freistaats Bayern für das
UNESCO-Biosphärenreservat Rhön. Online verfügbar unter http://biosphaerenreservat-rhoen.de/_upl/br/_pdf/ erweiterungsantrag.pdf.
EPLR - Program zur Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums (2016): Herausgeber: Bayrisches Staatsministerium
für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten (StMELF), Staatsministerium für Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz (StMUV), Programmplanungszeitraum 2014-2020 [28.01.2016]
Evaluierungsbericht FE (2007): Bericht zur Überprüfung des Biosphärenreservates „Flusslandschaft Elbe“,
(2007): Herausgeber: Ministerium für Landwirtschaft und Umwelt des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt; Ministerium für Ländliche Entwicklung, Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz des Landes Brandenburg; Niedersächsisches Umweltministerium; Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und Verbrau- cherschutz Mecklenburg-Vorpommern; Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein; Biosphärenreservatsverwaltung Mittelelbe;
Biosphärenreservatsverwaltung Flusslandschaft Elbe – Brandenburg; Biosphärenreservatsverwaltung Niedersächsische Elbtalaue; Naturparkverwaltung Mecklenburgisches Elbetal; Landesamt für Natur und Umwelt.
Evaluierungsbericht BRR (2013): Bericht zur Überprüfung des Biosphärenreservates Rhön 2013:
Herausgeber: Bayrisches Staatsministerium für Umwelt und Gesundheit; Hessisches Ministerium für Umwelt, Energie, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz; Thüringer Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Forsten, Umwelt und Naturschutz
Haeupler, H. (2002). Die Biotope Deutschlands. BiolFlor—Eine Datenbank zu biologisch-ökologischen
Merkmalen der Gefäßpflanzen in Deutschland, 247-272. ISO 690
HALM - Hessisches Programm für Agrarumwelt- und Landschaftspflege Maßnahmen, Richtlinien vom
21.09.2015: Herausgeber:Hessisches Ministerium für Umwelt, Klimaschutz, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz. Online zu finden: https://umweltministerium.hessen.de/sites/default/files/media/ hmuelv/halm_richtlinien_vom_21.09.2015_0.pdf
Helming, K., Tscherning, K., König, B., Sieber, S., Wiggering, H., Kuhlman, T., ... & Dilly, O. (2008). Ex
ante impact assessment of land use changes in European regions—The SENSOR approach. In Sustainability Impact Assessment of Land Use Changes (pp. 77-105). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Klotz, S. & Kühn, I. (2002 a). Ökologische Strategietypen. Schriftenreihe für Vegetationskunde, 38,
Klotz, S. & Kühn, I. (2002 b). Soziologische Bindung der Arten. BIOLFLOR–Eine Datenbank zu
biologisch-ökologischen Merkmalen der Gefäßpflanzen in Deutschland. Bonn (Bundesamt fur Naturschutz, Schriftenreihe fur Vegetationskunde.
König, H.J., Podhora, A., Zhen, L., Helming, K., Yan, H., Du, B., Wübbeke, J., Wang, C., Klinger, J., Chen,
C. & Uthes, S. (2015): Knowledge Brokerage for Impact Assessment of Land Use Scenarios in Inner Mongolia, China: Extending and Testing the FoPIA Approach. In: Sustainability 2015/6.
Korneck, D., & Sukopp, H. (1988). Rote Liste der in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland ausgestorbenen,
verschollenen und gefährdeten Farn-und Blütenpflanzen und ihre Auswertung für den Arten-und Biotopschutz.
KULAP Thuringia - Thüringer Program zur Förderung von umwelt- und klimagerechter Landwirtschaft,
Erhaltung der Kulturlandschaft, Naturschut und Landschaftspflege (2015): Herausgeber: Freistaat Thüringen, Ministerium für Infrastruktur und Landwirtschaft. [14.04.2015] Online: https:// www.thueringen.de/mam/th9/tmblv/eler/entwurf_kulap_2014.pdf
LUNG - Landesamt für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Geologie (2005): Beiträge zum Bodenschutz in
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Böden in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Abriss ihrer Entstehung, Verbreitung und Nutzung, 2. Auflage
LfL - Bayrische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft (2015): Artenreiches Grünland - Ergebnisorientierte
Grünlandnutzung: Bestimmungshilfe ab 2015. Herausgeber: Bayrische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft, Freising-Weihenstephan. Online: http://www.lfl.bayern.de/mam/cms07/ publikationen/daten/informationen/artenreiches-gruenland-ergebnisorientierte-
gruenlandnutzung-2015_lfl.-information.pdf
Morris, J. B., Tassone, V., de Groot, R., Camilleri, M., & Moncada, S. (2011). A framework for participatory
impact assessment: Involving stakeholders in European policy making, a case study of land use change in Malta. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 12.
Pérez-Soba, M., Petit, S., Jones, L., Bertrand, N., Briquel, V., Omodei-Zorini, L., ... & Wascher, D. (2008).
Land use functions—a multifunctionality approach to assess the impact of land use changes on land use sustainability. In Sustainability impact assessment of land use changes (pp. 375-404). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Rahmenkonzept FE (2006): Rahmenkonzept für das länderübergreifende UNESCO-Biosphärenreservat
“Flusslandschaft Elbe“: Herausgeber: Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und
Verbraucherschutz Mecklenburg Vorpommern; Ministerium für Landwirtschaft und Umwelt des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt, Magdeburg; Ministerium für ländliche Entwicklung, Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz des Landes Brandenburg, Potsdam; Niedersächsisches Umweltministerium, Hannover; Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig- Holstein, Kiel;
Schößer, B., Helming, K., & Wiggering, H. (2010). Assessing land use change impacts–a comparison of the
SENSOR land use function approach with other frameworks. Journal of Land Use Science, 5(2), 159-178.
Schubert, R., Hilbig, W., & Klotz, S. (2001). Bestimmungsbuch der Pflanzengesellschaften Deutschlands.
Smeets, E., & Weterings, R. (1999). Environmental indicators: Typology and overview (p. 19).
Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.
Wilson, J. B., Peet, R. K., Dengler, J., & Pärtel, M. (2012). Plant species richness: the world records. Journal
of vegetation Science, 23(4), 796-802.
UNESCO (1996): Biosphärenreservate: Die Sevilla-Strategie und die Internationalen Leitlinien für das
Weltnetz. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn, 20-23.
Online References
BIOLFLOR – Eine Datenbank zu biologisch-ökologischen Merkmalen der Gefäßpflanzen in
Deutschland, (n.d.): http://www2.ufz.de/biolflor/overview/familie.jsp
BMLE - Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (2015): http://www.bmel.de/DE/
Landwirtschaft/landwirtschaft_node.html
BRME- Biosphärenreservat Mittelelbe (n.d.) : http://www.mittelelbe.com/mittelelbe/biosphaerenreservat/
biosphaerenreservat-mittelelbe/biosphaerenreservat-flusslandschaft-mittlere-elbe.html
BRR - Biosphere Reserve Rhön (2015): http://biosphaerenreservat-rhoen.de/_upl/br/_pdf/
2015_lebensraum_und_projektkarte_gruenland.pdf
Deutsche UNESCO-Kommission E. V., (März 2016): http://www.unesco.de/
wissenschaftbiosphaerenreservate/biosphaerenreservate-weltnetz.html
DVS - Netzwerk Ländliche Räume (2016): https://www.netzwerk-laendlicher-raum.de/themen/
eler-2014-2020/laenderprogramme/
European Parlament (2016): http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?
ftuId=FTU_5.2.6.html
Statista, (2016): http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/36651/umfrage/arbeitslosenquote-in-
deutschland-nach-bundeslaendern/ [Stand September 2016]
Statistisches Landesamt Sachsen-Anhalt, (2011): https://www.statistik.sachsen-anhalt.de/Internet/Home/
Veroeffentlichungen/Pressemitteilungen/2012/08/69.html [Stand 08.08.2012]
Statistisches Landesamt Sachsen-Anhalt, (2016): http://www.stala.sachsen-anhalt.de/Internet/Home/
Daten_und_Fakten/4/41/411/index.html
ZALF (2016a): Projekte – STRATESphäre; http://www.zalf.de/de/forschung_lehre/projekte/Seiten/
