I denna rapport gors en uppfoljning av utvecklingen for trad-, busk- och impedimentsrika

betesmarker och slatterangar. Bakgrunden ar att Sverige andrat reglerna

for vilka angs- och betesmarker som berattigar till gardsstod och miljoersattning.

Andringen ar gjord p.g.a. att EU-kommissionen kritiserat Sverige for att stod

beviljats for mark som enligt kommissionen inte var jordbruksmark, bl.a. pa grund

av antalet trad. Rapporten fokuserar pa hur nu gallande betesmarksdefinition

bidrar till eller utgor hinder for att miljomalet Ett rikt odlingslandskap ska nas.

Annat som paverkar miljomalsuppfyllelsen, som lonsamheten i produktionen

inkluderas inte. Foreslagna atgarder avgransas ocksa till justeringar i stodreglerna

samt hur man kan fanga upp ytterligare marker inom nuvarande stodsystem.

En risk med den nya betesmarksdefinitionen ar att stodsystemet tappar i fortroende

bland brukarna. Till 2011 minskade arealen inom miljoersattningarna med

30 000 ha jamfort med innan betesmarksdefinitionen andrades. Det har inte gatt

att utreda har hur stor del av minskningen som beror pa andringar av blockgranserna

och hur mycket som beror pa att man valt att inte langre soka ersattningen.

Enligt en enkatstudie finns sju procent av betesmarksarealen hos brukare som

overvager att inte langre soka miljoersattningen. Skalen varierar och tycks spegla

dels missnoje med regelverket och dels sviktande lonsamhet i branschen.

Merparten av den areal som inte langre inkluderas i betesmarksblocken saknar

sadana naturvarden att den kan klassas som en havdgynnad naturtyp. En liten del

av den bortritade arealen ar exploaterad for andra andamal. Det mesta ar skog och

igenvuxen betesmark. Det finns dock aven marker med hoga natur- och kulturvarden

som fallit ur stodsystemet och den regionala variationen ar stor. Det ar viktigt

att fanga upp dessa marker via radgivning och sakra havden av dem framover.

Dels bor radgivningen forsoka fanga upp de marker som utan atgard skulle kunna

berattiga till en eller flera stodformer. Dels bor den syfta till att rojningar genomfors

i ratt marker och pa ratt satt utifran natur- och kulturmiljovardena.

Brukarna har rojt mer i och med regelandringen. Det ar i sig positivt eftersom

igenvaxning ar ett stort hot mot betesmarkerna. Dock har jattetrad och grova trad

rojts bort i minst lika stor utstrackning som andra trad. Darmed forloras stora

natur- och kulturvarden som inte gar att aterskapa inom overskadlig tid. Att sa

sma ytor som 100 respektive 1 000 kvadratmeter betraktas som icke stodberattigande

innebar att man inte kan ha en helhetssyn pa betesmarkerna med gallande

definition. Redan nu kan tendenser till en minskad variation i betesmarkerna ses,

vilket ar ett problem for miljomalsuppfyllelsen. Det uppstar ocksa konflikter med

art- och habitatdirektivet. Redan i tidigare direktivsrapportering lag Sverige langt

under de forekomster som behovs for manga av odlingslandskapets naturtyper.

Sverige kan forvantas ha annu samre resultat i nasta rapportering 2013, delvis pa

grund av regeltillamningen inom CAP.

I forhandlingarna kring EU:s framtida jordbrukspolitik ar det viktigt att arbeta for

en annan hantering av betesmarkerna. Den gemensamma jordbrukspolitiken bor

vara ett kraftfullt verktyg for bevarandet av gemensamt utpekade bevarandevarda

naturtyper. Det kraver att betesmarkerna hanteras pa ett annat satt an akermark.

Betesmarkerna maste behandlas med en helhetssyn som speglar betydelsen av

variationen och traditionella inslag i betesmarkerna.

This report presents a follow-up concerning the development of meadows and pastures

rich in trees and bushes, as well as those which are largely barren. Sweden

has changed the rules concerning which meadows and pastures are applicable for

the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) and Agri-Environmental Payments (AEP).

These changes have been made after criticism forwarded by the EU-Commission

regarding support to land that, according to the Commission, is not agricultural

land e.g. due to a high coverage of trees. The report focuses on how the current

definition of permanent grassland contributes to or constitutes an obstacle for

reaching the national environmental objective for amount of permanent grassland

used. Other factors that affect the fulfillment of the environmental objective, for

instance profitability in production, are not included. Suggested measures are limited

to adjustments in the support rules as well as how the management of additional

land could be secured within the current support system.

A risk with the new grassland definition is that farmers are losing confidence in

the support system. Up until 2011 the pastureland area included in environmental

schemes decreased with 30 000 hectares compared to before the definition was

changed. It has not been possible to investigate how much of the decline that is due

to changes in parcel boundaries and how much that can be ascribed to farmers

choosing not to apply for support. According to a questionnaire, farmers who say

they will not apply for environmental support any longer hold seven percent of the

pastureland. The reasons given for that vary and seem to reflect a discontentment

with support regulations as well as diminishing profits in the sector.

The majority of the area, which no longer entitles to neither SPS nor AEP, lacks

such qualities that it may be classified as a management dependent habitat type

listed in the Habitats Directive. A small portion of the deleted area is exploited for

other uses, but the major part is forest and overgrown pastureland. However, one

fifth of what has been withdrawn from the Land Parcel Identification System is

constituted by such listed habitats. I.e. land with high biodiversity levels and often

with high cultural heritage qualities. It is important to identify this land through

advisory services and to secure continued management of it. The advisory services

should try to secure the land that, without any measures, could entitle to one or

several forms of support. It should also aim at securing that clearing is performed

in the right pastures and in a correct way from a biodiversity and cultural heritage

point of view.

Due to the changed definition, farmers have increased land clearance. Typically,

this is positive, as overgrowth is a considerable threat for pastureland. However,

old trees and veteran trees have been cleared in the same extent as other trees.

Thus, biodiversity and cultural heritage values, that cannot be recreated within a

foreseeable time are lost. The fact that areas as small as 100 and 1 000 square

meters respectively is considered as ineligible for support means that a comprehensive

view on pastureland is not possible using the current definition. A tendency

of a diminished variation in pastureland can be seen already, which is a

problem from an environmental objective point of view. Conflicts with the Habitats

Directive also arise. According to the last report on the Habitats Directive

(2007), Sweden had an unfavorable conservation status for most directive habitats

and species that are dependent on management. Sweden can be expected to have

an even poorer result in the next reporting in 2013, in part due to the regulation

enforcement within the CAP.

In the negotiations concerning the future agricultural policy of the EU, it is important

to aim for an alternative handling procedure of pastureland. The common

agricultural policy should be a powerful tool for the preservation of the commonly

identified habitats worth preserving. This requires that pastureland is submitted to

a different set of support rules compared to arable land. Pastureland must be managed

in a comprehensive way that reflects the importance of variation and traditional

elements in pastureland.