首页> 外文OA文献 >Partnering for Farmland Biodiversity Conservation: Civil Society and Farmers Working Hand-In-Hand
【2h】

Partnering for Farmland Biodiversity Conservation: Civil Society and Farmers Working Hand-In-Hand

机译:开展农田生物多样性保护合作:民间社会与农民携手共进

摘要

Agriculture has been Macedonia’s backbone for centuries and has always played an important role in Macedonian society. By maintaining landscape and biodiversity through the ages, Macedonian farmers have been the true guardians of an important national treasure – biodiversity. They have been the invisible hand managing landscapes, agricultural habitats and enabling farm-linked biodiversity to provide a range of ecosystem services. Pollination; pest, disease, flood and fire regulation; preservation of genetic resources; and the provision of food, fibre, natural medicine, pharmaceuticals and appealing landscapes are only a few of these services. ududAgricultural biodiversity under threatudMany of the Macedonian landscapes and habitats that are important for conservation have been created by centuries-old practices of extensive grazing and low-input small-scale cropping practices. There is a very strong inter-linkage between farming, biodiversity and maintenance of traditional agricultural landscapes. However, depopulation of farming communities and their ageing, together with the introduction of agricultural machinery and intensive animal husbandry in fertile plains has drastically decreased the number of livestock in marginal areas. Most of these are mountainous regions with poor soils, but with species-rich grassland and other valuable ecosystems. Macedonian agriculture has also become “less mobile”. Traditional pastoral grazing systems, flocks and shepherds are nowadays more a tourist attraction than a common sight. ududA reduction of livestock density results in less moving and grazing, leading to land abandonment and changes in land use. The area of farmland of high natural value and the mosaic of habitats for wildlife in Macedonia has been shrinking due to an invasion by shrubs and other pioneering vegetation. This process results in the growth of coarse vegetation, leads to the development of semi-woody species and eventually closed canopy forests. Such ecosystems have substantially lower biodiversity value than fragmented agricultural landscapes, notably natural grassland. They harbour less bird, butterfly and plant species than managed grassland. Enhanced natural succession also causes a higher risk of fire because the excess biomass is not subject to grazing pressure. If not adequately addressed, the problem of land abandonment and natural succession in Macedonia will cause irreversible damage. ududThe expansion of intensive agriculture in the lowlands is another threat to agricultural biodiversity. Land drainage, removal of hedges and other field margins, usage of pesticides and fertilisers are leading to a decline in agricultural biodiversity and provision of related ecosystem services.ududAgri-environment programmes promise vs. farmers’ realityudThe EU has introduced agri-environment programmes and payments to stop and to reverse these kinds of negative trends. In the accession process, Macedonia is required to design its own agri-environment programmes, compatible with the Common Agricultural Policy. These programmes encourage farmers to continue practising environmentally friendly measures or introduce those that are not economically attractive, but essential from the environmental and biodiversity point of view. Agri-environment payments are an instrument through which society rewards farmers for the public goods and services they provide, as the market does not recognise their values. However, Macedonian farmers have to be aware of this opportunity and to be prepared for benefiting from agri-environment programmes. ududFor various historical, socio-economic, administrative, and other reasons, in Macedonia – as in some other countries – the human and social capital for administering and implementing agri-environment programmes is limited. The uptake in these programmes in Macedonia is likely to be slow and on a limited scale due to the following obstacles: ud1.Farming in Macedonia, notably in high-nature-value areas is practiced predominantly by small-scale, (semi)-subsistence, elderly and poorly educated farmers. They have limited entrepreneurial skills, financial power and technical know-how. Besides, many operate in the most marginal areas (from an agriculturalist perspective) and under difficult weather conditions and socio-economic realities.ud2.The majority of such farmers are outside of the mainstream economic and administrative systems. They produce mostly for themselves and their extended families, selling their surplus products locally for cash, without any receipts or VAT charged. They are not obliged to practice bookkeeping and are not subject to income tax. The farmland they use, especially grasslands – as well as their livestock is rarely included in the Land and other Registers. These farmers are the “outlaws” of the official systems and as such are not eligible for EU area-based support schemes such as agri-environment payments. Those few such farmers who would like to become a part of the official systems and register their land and livestock, face complicated, unresolved land ownership and land use issues – sometimes going back several generations. ud3.Products (cheese, milk, “kashkaval”, salami, etc.) that are produced in a traditional way do not necessarily meet the respective national or newly harmonised EU sanitary, veterinary or hygiene standards, making their sale through mainstream marketing channels virtually impossible. ud4.Agri-environment payments compensate for additional costs and/or income foregone associated with the implementation of the respective measures. But they do not fully take into account negative agricultural externalities and reward farmers for positive externalities by providing them an additional incentive – an extra, above the costs occurred and/or income foregone.ud5.Very few Macedonian farmers have agricultural or education in nature conservation. A vast majority relies only on practical experience and tradition; and they are not sufficiently aware of the ecosystem services they provide and their value for society as a whole. For most of them farming is not their deliberate choice but an inevitable job – a survival strategy. Many of them are likely to perceive agri-environment as an externally imposed concept that has little to do with their harsh reality and their priorities. ududEnvironmental NGOs can help to remove barriers preventing a better uptake of agri-environment programmesudThe above-mentioned issues are serious obstacles for the enrolment in agri-environment programmes. However, examples from EU Member States facing similar problems, notably Romania, Bulgaria and some Mediterranean countries show that barriers preventing uptake in agri-environment schemes can be removed if a creative approach is applied and social consensus reached. Building farmers’ capacities by providing them various forms of technical and administrative assistance and by setting up an appropriate legislative framework, social/institutional structures and facilities can increase farmers’ participation in agri-environment programmes. The feasibility of establishing various forms and institutional settings for collective agri-environment schemes can be explored. In this case a group of small-scale farmers can jointly apply for agri-environment payments (e.g. by setting up a co-operative or through the help of the municipality, etc). Taking part in a collective agri-environment scheme would not only relieve individual farmers from administrative burdens. It is also likely to be more effective and more profitable. Moreover, in many cases, this might be the only way for small-scale farmers to benefit from agri-environment payments. ududEnvironmental NGOs can play a vital role in assisting both farmers and society to understand high-nature value farming and agri-environment programmes. Their members are often well educated, enthusiastic young experts who will potentially over time evolve into opinion leaders and/or decision makers. Environmental NGOs can act as catalysts between farmers, policy makers and society. By increasing understanding, informing and educating various stakeholders they can reinforce farmers’ position and create a win-win situation for all social groups. Environmental NGOs can work on informing both farmers and citizens why it is important to protect biodiversity and how this can benefit them. Protection of biodiversity can only succeed if all stakeholders actively understand and support the conservation vision and objectives set by agri-environment programmes. Policy makers should create an enabling environment for this to happen and NGOs can significantly influence them. However, as policy makers often tend to neglect the needs of small farmers – at the expense of “big producers” – environmental NGOs can act as their guardians and make policy makers and civil society more aware about the "hidden" values they provide. Society often tends to develop an attitude of underestimation towards people living in marginal rural areas. Many people – not only in Macedonia – still think that only “losers” choose to live in these areas, i.e. only those who are not “good” or “competent” enough to find their place elsewhere. The attitude that farming is an occupation chosen by those who are not capable or who are not able to do anything else still prevails today. However, those who have that kind of attitude tend to forget that their economic prosperity and welfare is also due to the hard work of those living in remote rural areas and providing the ecosystem services mentioned in the beginning of this Chapter. Environmental NGOs can lobby to put these kinds of issues higher on the political agenda. Through information dissemination, awareness raising, education, demonstration projects, campaigns, etc., they can enlighten citizens and policy makers about the importance of (agricultural) biodiversity and the ecosystem services provided by marginalised farmers. Besides, NGOs can also serve as watchdogs securing that legislation aiming at protecting agricultural biodiversity is put in place and enforced. Further, NGOs can build networks, coalitions and alliances of like-minded individuals and organizations. They can establish a forum of different yet commonly concerned actors and initiate dialogues across differing perspectives and players. ududThe strengthening of social and human capital in order to ensure a smooth and large-scale uptake of agri-environment measures in Macedonia is a long-term and complex process. It requires understanding and co-operation between relevant stakeholders, a constant exchange of information and capacity building. (Small-scale) Macedonian farmers can continue providing the ecosystem services that are so vital to society only if society is willing to reward them for their hard and honest work. Environmental NGOs are there to help and facilitate that process. This very project has paved the road to a long-lasting partnership between Macedonian farmers, environmental NGOs and policy makers. ududud
机译:几个世纪以来,农业一直是马其顿的骨干力量,在马其顿社会中一直发挥着重要作用。通过长期保持景观和生物多样性,马其顿农民一直是重要的国家宝藏-生物多样性的真正守护者。他们是管理景观,农业生境以及使与农场相关的生物多样性能够提供一系列生态系统服务的无形之手。授粉;病虫害,疾病,洪水和火灾法规;保存遗传资源;提供食物,纤维,天然药物,药品和迷人的风景只是其中的一部分。 ud ud受到威胁的农业生物多样性 ud许多具有保护意义的马其顿景观和栖息地都是由数百年的广泛放牧和低投入的小规模种植实践创造的。农业,生物多样性与传统农业景观的维护之间有着非常紧密的联系。但是,农业社区的人口减少和老龄化,以及在肥沃的平原上引入农业机械和集约化畜牧业,大大减少了边缘地区的牲畜数量。这些地区多数是土壤贫瘠的山区,但物种丰富的草原和其他有价值的生态系统。马其顿的农业也变得“流动性降低”。如今,传统的牧场放牧系统,羊群和牧羊人比平常的景象更吸引游客。 ud ud牲畜密度的降低导致较少的迁徙和放牧,导致土地被遗弃和土地用途的变化。由于灌木和其他开拓性植被的入侵,马其顿具有高自然价值的耕地面积和野生动植物栖息地的镶嵌面积正在缩小。这个过程导致了植被的粗壮生长,导致了半木本植物的发展,最终导致了封闭的冠层森林。这种生态系统的生物多样性价值远低于零散的农业景观,特别是天然草地。他们所管理的鸟类,蝴蝶和植物种类少于管理的草原。由于过量的生物量不受放牧压力的影响,增强的自然演替还导致着火的较高风险。如果没有适当解决,马其顿的土地遗弃和自然继承问题将造成不可逆转的破坏。 ud ud低地集约化农业的发展是对农业生物多样性的另一威胁。土地排水,消除树篱和其他田间边界,使用农药和化肥导致农业生物多样性下降,并提供相关的生态系统服务。 -环境计划和付款,以制止和扭转这些负面趋势。在加入过程中,马其顿需要设计自己的农业环境计划,以符合共同农业政策。这些计划鼓励农民继续实行环境友好的措施或引入那些在经济上不具吸引力但从环境和生物多样性角度来看必不可少的措施。农业环境支付是一种工具,社会可以通过该工具奖励农民他们提供的公共物品和服务,因为市场不承认他们的价值。但是,马其顿农民必须意识到这一机会,并做好从农业环境计划中受益的准备。 ud ud由于各种历史,社会经济,行政和其他原因,在马其顿(与其他一些国家一样),用于管理和实施农业环境计划的人力和社会资本受到限制。由于以下障碍,马其顿在这些程序中的采用很可能会缓慢且规模有限。马其顿的农业,特别是在高价值地区,主要由小规模,(半)自给自足的老年和受教育程度低的农民从事。他们的创业技能,财务能力和技术知识有限。此外,许多地区(从农业主义者的角度来看)是在最边缘的地区,并且在恶劣的天气条件和社会经济现实中运作。 ud2。这些农民中的大多数不在主流经济和行政体系之内。他们主要为自己和大家庭生产产品,将剩余产品在当地出售,以现金支付,不收取任何收据或增值税。他们没有义务进行簿记,也无需缴纳所得税。他们使用的农田,尤其是草原-及其牲畜很少列入土地和其他登记册。这些农民是官方系统的“违法者”,因此不符合欧盟基于地区的支持计划(如农业环境支付)的资格。很少有这样的农民愿意成为官方系统的一部分并注册他们的土地和牲畜,面临着复杂的,尚未解决的土地所有权和土地使用问题-有时可以追溯到几代人。 ud3。以传统方式生产的产品(奶酪,牛奶,“ kashkaval”,萨拉米香肠等)不一定符合各自的国家或新统一的欧盟卫生,兽医或卫生标准,因此几乎不可能通过主流营销渠道进行销售。 ud4。农业环境支付补偿与实施相应措施相关的额外成本和/或收入。但是他们没有完全考虑到负面的农业外部性,并通过给农民提供额外的激励机制来奖励农民积极的外部性,这比发生的成本和/或放弃的收入要额外。马其顿的农民很少有农业或自然保护方面的教育。绝大多数人仅依靠实践经验和传统。他们对自己提供的生态系统服务及其对整个社会的价值认识不足。对他们中的大多数人来说,耕种不是他们刻意的选择,而是一项必然的工作-生存策略。他们中的许多人可能将农业环境视为外部强加的概念,与他们的严酷现实和优先事项没有多大关系。环境非政府组织可以帮助消除阻碍更好地采用农业环境计划的障碍 ud上述问题是加入农业环境计划的严重障碍。但是,来自欧盟成员国面临类似问题的例子,特别是罗马尼亚,保加利亚和一些地中海国家,表明,如果采用创造性的方法并达成社会共识,可以消除阻碍农业环境计划采用的障碍。通过为农民提供各种形式的技术和行政援助以及建立适当的立法框架,社会/机构结构和设施来提高农民的能力,可以增加农民对农业环境计划的参与。可以探讨为集体农业环境计划建立各种形式和机构环境的可行性。在这种情况下,一群小农户可以联合申请农业环境补贴(例如,通过建立合作社或在市政当局的帮助下)。参加集体农业环境计划不仅可以减轻单个农民的行政负担。它也可能更有效,更有利可图。而且,在许多情况下,这可能是小农从农业环境支付中受益的唯一途径。环境非政府组织在协助农民和社会了解高价值农业和农业环境计划方面可以发挥至关重要的作用。他们的成员通常是受过良好教育的,热情的年轻专家,随着时间的推移,他们有可能演变成意见领袖和/或决策者。环保非政府组织可以在农民,政策制定者和社会之间起到催化剂的作用。通过增进了解,通知和教育各种利益相关者,他们可以加强农民的地位,并为所有社会群体创造双赢的局面。环保非政府组织可以努力告知农民和公民为什么保护生物多样性很重要以及这如何使他们受益。只有所有利益相关者都积极理解并支持农业环境计划设定的保护远景和目标,生物多样性保护才能成功。决策者应为此创造一个有利的环境,非政府组织可以对其产生重大影响。然而,由于决策者往往倾向于忽视小农的需求(以牺牲“大生产者”为代价),因此环保非政府组织可以充当其监护人,并使决策者和民间社会更加意识到他们提供的“隐性”价值。社会常常倾向于对生活在边远农村地区的人们形成一种低估的态度。许多人-不仅在马其顿-仍然认为,只有“失败者”选择住在这些地区,即只有那些“不够好”或“称职”的人无法在其他地方找到自己的位置。今天,人们仍然普遍认为,农业是一种无能力或无能为力的人选择的职业。然而那些有这种态度的人往往会忘记他们的经济繁荣和福利也是由于居住在偏远农村地区并提供本章开头提到的生态系统服务的人们的辛勤工作。环保非政府组织可以游说将这类问题放在政治议程上。通过信息传播,提高认识,教育,示范项目,运动等,它们可以使公民和政策制定者了解(农业)生物多样性的重要性以及边缘化农民提供的生态系统服务的重要性。此外,非政府组织也可以充当监督者,以确保制定并执行旨在保护农业生物多样性的立法。此外,非政府组织可以建立志趣相投的个人和组织的网络,联盟和联盟。他们可以建立一个由不同但普遍关注的参与者组成的论坛,并以不同的视角和参与者发起对话。 ud ud加强社会和人力资本以确保马其顿能够顺利和大规模地采用农业环境措施是一个长期而复杂的过程。它需要相关利益相关者之间的理解与合作,不断的信息交流和能力建设。 (小型)马其顿农民只有在社会愿意为其辛勤和诚实的工作来回报他们的情况下,才能继续提供对社会至关重要的生态系统服务。环保非政府组织在那里帮助和促进这一过程。这个项目为马其顿农民,环保非政府组织和政策制定者之间的长期合作铺平了道路。 ud ud ud

著录项

  • 作者

    Znaor Darko;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2012
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 en
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号