Establishment and use of High Nature Value Farmland

Abstract

The conservation and maintenance of biodiversity on agriculturally used areas has become a special concern of agrarian and environmental policy. Therefore, restoration projects with the objective of creating semi-natural grassland have become of increasing importance throughout Europe in recent years. Procedures that are as close to nature as possible have gained special significance. Species-rich semi-natural grassland is the only existing natural source that can provide the source material for restoration and reintroduction of High Nature Value Farmland (HNVF). In recent years, a large number of different harvesting methods and application techniques have been developed for exploitation and application of seed and plant material of regional semi-natural grasslands. In order to ensure and guarantee its use according to nature protection targets throughout Europe, binding European guidelines and an approved certification procedure for such material have to be developed.

Full text

Establishment and use of High Nature Value Farmland
Krautzer B.1, Bartel A.2, Kirmer A.3,Tischew S.3,Feucht B.4,Wieden M.5,Haslgrübler P.1,
Rieger E.4and Pötsch E.M.1
1)AREC
2)Umweltbundesamt
3)Hochschule Anhalt
4)Rieger-Hoffmann
5)Verband der deutschen Wildpflanzen- und Wildsamenproduzenten
Summary
The conservation and maintenance of biodiversity on agriculturally used areas has become a
special concern of agrarian and environmental policy. Therefore, restoration projects with the
objective of creating semi-natural grassland have become of increasing importance
throughout Europe in recent years. Procedures that are as close to nature as possible have
gained special significance. Species-rich semi-natural grassland is the only existing natural
source that can provide the source material for restoration and reintroduction of High Nature
Value Farmland (HNVF). In recent years, a large number of different harvesting methods and
application techniques have been developed for exploitation and application of seed and plant
material of regional semi-natural grasslands. In order to ensure and guarantee its use
according to nature protection targets throughout Europe, binding European guidelines and an
approved certification procedure for such material have to be developed.
Keywords: semi-natural grassland, ecological restoration, biodiversity
Introduction
All over Europe, agricultural intensification and, additionally, the abandonment of large areas,
led to a strong decrease in biodiversity (Pötschand Blaschka, 2003).The 1992 Rio de Janeiro
Convention on Biological Diversity and recent EU regulations promote the protection of
biodiversity and seek to address the strong reduction in biodiversity in Europe. To implement
this aim, the availability of regional, native plant material is of extreme importance. This
requirement is not sufficiently met in Europe, where seed of native ecotypes is still seldom
available inlarge amounts. Extensively managed semi-natural grasslands,which arethe most
widespread type of High Nature Value Farmland (HNVF), can be regarded as the most
important seed source. They are normally rich in species of native provenance and for this
reason can be harvested to obtain valuable seeds useful for restoration and revegetation. The
typical high diversity of HNV grasslands, in terms of species and site conditions, is their
strong point but, at the same time, they pose the main challenge for an economically efficient
harvesting system. Moreover, the normally used techniques to create forage meadows or to
revegetate degraded areas with the help of commercial seed mixtures are not comparable to
ecological restoration done with seed material from semi-natural grassland.
In 2009, an EC-funded Central-Europe project started in order to promote High Nature Value
Farmland (HNVF) as a valuable resource to support sustainable rural development. As a main
target, the project “Semi-natural Grassland as a Source of Biodiversity Improvement”
(SALVERE) intends to contribute to the practical realisation of EU regulations regarding
biodiversity by utilising semi-natural grasslands as potential donor sites of seed to be used for
the establishment of HNV areas (Scotton, 2009; SALVERE,2011). Based on experiences
made and information gained within this project, we present in this paper a short overview on
the current situation of HNVF in Europe, the current state-of-the-art in the selection of donor
sites, the exploitation of seed material, techniques and know-how for the establishment of
semi-natural grassland, as well as the existing the still-necessary regulations.
Grassland Science in Europe 16, 2011

Definition, relevance and state of development of High Nature Value Farmland (HNVF)
Since 2000 the agro-environmental indicator “High Nature Value Farmland” (HNVF) has
been discussed and developed at the European scale, centredon the IRENA –Indicator No. 26
(EEA, 2006). Originally developed as an indicator referencing for the importance of certain
farming practices for biodiversity in cultivated landscapes, it gained importance and relevance
in 2005 as it was selected as an indicator for the Common Monitoring and Evaluation
Framework (CMEF) of Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) according to Council
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. Memberstates are obliged to report on the national area and
maintenance of HNV farming and forestry for the mid-term evaluation in 2010 as well as to
the ex-post evaluation of the Rural Development Programmes in 2015 (EC, 2006). According
to the CMEF, HNVF is used as a “Baseline Indicator” for reference at the beginning of the
RDPs, followed by an interpretation as “impact indicator” and as “result indicator”.
Proposals for defining and mapping High Nature Value Farmland have been developed by the
European Environment Agency (EEA) together with the Joint Research Centre (JRC) since
2003 (Andersenet al., 2004; EEA, 2005; JRC/EEA, 2006). In 2007 a report and separate
guidance document to the Member States on the application of the HNVFindicator was
published on behalf of the European Commission, DG Agriculture (IEEP, 2007;EC, 2009).
Following this document, the core of the HNVF concept is the link from management
practices to biodiversity dependent on farmland habitats. Thus, the concept of HNVF can be
seen as a two-fold approach: looking on the one hand to the state of the resource in terms of
quantity and quality, and on the other hand to the driving forces, i.e. management practices
that produce, influence and maintain the natural values.
The resource HNVF
From the ecological point of view, High Nature Value Farmland is a concept that may lead
the focus on certain farmed areas, and which tend to be marginal in terms of their agronomic
production capacity and to be outside of market-oriented policy interests. It raises the
awareness to large areas of Europe used as extensive grassland, or in a diverse mosaic of
small landscape elements and low intensity use. HNVF is defined as follows:
“High Nature Value farmland comprises those areas in Europe where agriculture is a major
(usually the dominant) land use and
• where that agriculture supports or is associated with either a high species and habitat
diversity, or
• the presence of species of European, and/or national, and/or regional conservation
concern,
• or both.”
Those areas have high overall biodiversity and landscape value, and are dependent on regular
use, often in a traditional way. They have been seen as the ecological backbone of European
cultural landscapes. Three types of HNVF are recognized (Andersenet al., 2004; IEEP, 2007;
EC, 2009):
• Type 1 – Farmland with a high proportion of semi-natural vegetation.
• Type 2 – Farmland with a mosaic of low intensity agriculture and natural and
structural elements, such as field margins, hedgerows, stone walls, patches of
woodland or scrub, small rivers etc.
• Type 3 – Farmland supporting rare species or a high proportion of European or world
populations.

However, because of theirlowagro-economicvalue, those farming systems are prone to
abandonment or - whenever possible – intensification; for example, through irrigation and
fertilizing. Both development paths would endanger the natural values. The concept of HNVF
pulls those systems from behind the curtain and seeks to make them a topic in public
discussion. The future agricultural policy is asked to pay attention to those extensive, large,
and potentially threatened farming systems and areas. Policy should support agriculture in
away that those farming systems can be kept up and natural values can be maintained, even in
a competitive agricultural surrounding.
The indicator HNVF
In the Evaluation Framework HNVF is seen as an indicator, against which the effectiveness
and efficacy of the Rural Development Programmes should be tested. This requires a more
operational definition of HNVF and a decision about what HNVF is and what it is not.
Although theoretically well elaborated in different studies, this separation is not easy in
practice, and may it have great implications on the resulting HNVF area.
Due to the diverse situation in member states regarding data quality and availability, and
important differences in ecological conditions as well as in farming practices, a number of
different approaches for the implementation of this indicator have evolved. Each state has
reported its own baseline figure using different information sources and applying adapted
criteria for the generation of the required area numbers. But those numbers are not really
comparable throughout Europe because they are based on diverse methodologies. Some states
apply a mapping concept, e.g. Germany, which tries to calculate the HNVF area through the
monitoring of a number of stratified random sample plots. Others like France and Finland use
a typology of their farms and evaluate the farming systems.The area calculation is largely
influenced by statistical analysis of farm data and modelling of relationships. If land-use data
are available in sufficient detail and completeness, the area can be calculated drawing on
information systems like IACS (Integrated Administration and Control System) or LPIS
(Land Parcel Information System), e.g. is done in Austria and Greece. Thus the required
parcels can be selected through the application of criteria from land cover and management
and summed up to the total area.
HNVF as a policy tool
At the policy level, HNVF has gained importance with its selection as an indicator for the
evaluation of RDPs. The IRENA-process and studies done subsequently by the European
Environment Agency (EEA) tried to determine the HNVF area for each member state. A map
was produced showing the probability of HNVF throughout Europe. The intention of this map
was to create an overview on the situation in Europe and more the kind of a target-
identification for necessary policy support in those regions. When DG-Agriculture and
regional development took over and defined the CMEF indicator in 2005, the understanding
of its concept was still fuzzy and the method for implementation not well defined. Meanwhile
it has developed towards a monitoring and evaluation approach, but there is still some
obscurity on the target of the evaluation - farming practices at farm level, farming systems in
terms of farm typologies, agro-environmental measures and RDPs, or the biodiversity at the
landscape level? Therefore, as mentioned above the implementation in member states shows
great differences according to what the national emphasis is on. The use of this HNVF
indicator as a trigger for European policy measures such as financing would need a lot of
harmonization and coordination work. It does not seem feasible to reach a Europe-wide
integrated CMEF indicator within the next few years. Nevertheless HNVF, and in particular
the reported changes over the programme period, will definitely serve as a reference for the
programme evaluation and thus influence the development of the next RDP periods.

However, the concept of HNVF has triggered a process in the political discussion. The values
of certain low input / low output farming systems have moved into the public view and the
concept of ecosystem services focuses on additional societal benefits of agriculture besides
the agricultural production. In this context High Nature Value Farmland stands for valuable
nature and bio-diversity.
Aims of semi-natural grassland restoration
Currently, 76% of grasslands of European interest are assessed as being in an unfavourable
conservation status (EU2010 Biodiversity Baseline Report). Therefore, the protection of
natural grasslands containing regional sub-species and ecotypes in region-specific
compositions is of top priority in nature conservation. To reach this goal, not only the high
ecological and aesthetic values of species-rich grasslands should be acknowledged but also
their potential as donor sites for regional seed mixtures.
In general, restoration of species-rich grasslands is limited by several abiotic and biotic
constraints. The success of restoration measures depends on abiotic factors such as nutrient
status, pH-value of soil, and hydrology, as well as the availability of appropriate seed sources.
Hence, restoration success is impeded by depleted seed banks of restoration sites, decrease or
loss of target species in the surroundings and limited dispersal in fragmented landscapes.
Early restoration efforts in the 1970s and 80s were mostly focused on the removal of
nutrients, re-wetting and the re-introduction of an adequate management. In many cases such
measures alone were frustratingly unsuccessful and did not lead to the re-establishment of
target communities even after successful lowering of nutrient levels and productivity (Bakker
andBerendse, 1999). Therefore, the introduction of target species is of decisive importance for
restoration success. Seed mixtures directly harvested in genuine, natural grasslands can be
used in ecological restoration, thereby contributing to the preservation and enhancement of
regional biodiversity. Since the 1990s, different methods for ecological restoration have been
used successfully by several working groups all over Europe (for reviews see Walker et al.,
2004;KirmerandTischew, 2006;Klimkowskaet al., 2007;Kiehlet al., 2010).
The most important grassland types and their suitability as donor-sites
Seed mixtures should be harvested in species-rich grasslands containing a species
composition typical for the selected target community and for the region concerned. It is
decisive to choose donor and receptor sites with similar site conditions (hydrology, substrate,
nutrient status) to ensure that the plant species are optimally adapted to local climatic and
edaphic conditions. Especially hydrology and nutrient status are decisive parameters to
determine suitable donor communities:
• dry, nutrient-poor to mesotrophic sites: dry grasslands (Bromion)
• moist, mesotrophic sites: mesic grasslands (Arrhenatherion)
• wet, nutrient-rich sites: eutrophic floodplain grasslands (Deschampsion)
• wet, nutrient-poor sites: oligotrophic floodplain grasslands (Molinion) and fen grasslands
Criteria for the selection of donorsites
The main obstacle for the implementation of near-natural revegetation methods is the
identification of suitable donor sites for seed harvesting. In Germany, donor-site registers
have already been established in four federal states: Saxony-Anhalt (Hefteret al., 2010),
Thuringia (KirmerandKorsch, 2009), Schleswig-Holstein, and North Rhine-Westphalia.
For example, in 2003the first donor-site register was installed in Saxony-Anhalt. The internet-
based database comprises open habitats and grasslands with high nature conservation value,

suitable for harvesting seeds and seed-rich plant material. The listing of an area as a donor site
in the database does not include permission to harvest seeds. Any kind of harvesting (e.g.
mowing, threshing, collecting seeds) requires a formal authorisation through the respective
nature conservation authority and the approval of land owners and users. At the moment, the
database contains almost 400 potential donor sites. It is embedded into an information system
of nature-oriented greening measures (www.spenderflaechenkataster.de). This internet
platform presents an overview of different restoration methods and gives information for their
planning and implementation, as well as for the costs and the legal framework.
The internet-based database offers users multiple research functions for finding suitable donor
sites, e.g. a general map and a search module. The donor site register allows a quick
assessment of the suitability of potential donor sites according to nature conservation values
and economic aspects. Registered donor sites must fulfil specific criterions:
- representative species composition (typical for the vegetation type and the region)
- low amount of problematic species (neophytes, strong competitors)
- not established or modified with standard seed mixtures containing cultivars from
propagation
- ± regular management (preferably mowing)
- no change of use expected
Such a database enables an efficient inquiry about suitable donor sites and facilitates planning
and realization of nature-oriented greening measures (e.g. harvesting of seeds via mowing,
threshing, brushing, vacuuming). The use of species-rich donor sites in restoration or
revegetation measures supports habitat protection, protects the biological diversity and
preserves the floristic and genetic identity of the region.
Harvesting methods for site-specific seed and plant material
The selected grasslands may only contain a very low amount of problematic or neophytic
species. The optimal harvesting time is when most target species have set seeds. In
Arrhenatherion communities, a first harvest can be done between end of June and end of July.
If the site was mown in early May, the harvesting cut can be delayed until the end of August.
Bromion communities are harvested best between mid-July and beginning of September. Seed
harvest in Molinion and Deschampsion communities should be done between end of August
and end of September because of late-fruiting target species (e.g. Cnidiumdubium). An
additional harvesting cut in May is recommended to transfer early flowering species (e.g.
Cardaminespp., Ranunculusspp.). In general, a later and/or second cut favours the transfer of
herbaceous species whereas an early and/or first cut favours grasses. If harvesting time and
method are different to the normal management regime, the site should not be harvested every
year.
A lot of different harvesting techniques, partly well known for centuries and partly developed
during the last decades, are used for the exploitation of regional plant and seed material
(Krautzer et al., 2004;KirmerandTischew, 2006; Krautzer andPötsch, 2009;Kiehlet al., 2010).
The most common processes and methods are summarised below.
A widelyused method is the mowing of suitable donor sites at the time when most of the
desired species are at an optimum stage of seed maturity (June - August). To avoid excessive
seed losses, the material is cut preferably early in the morning when it is moist with dew, and
then immediately taken to the restoration area (receptor site) for distribution. Another
possibility is to dry and store the mown material for later use. Nevertheless, this method
requires increased manipulation and therefore higher costs. In addition, a large part of the
seed material may be lost (ÖAG, 2000). The hay-flower sowing method uses seed-rich

remains from the threshing floors of hay barns, which sometimes keep sufficient seed
quantities and qualities.
With brushing and threshing methods (Edwards et al., 2007;Jongepierovaet al., 2007;Scotton
et al., 2009) site-specific seeds can be collected from suitable donor sites. To obtain the
greatest possible number of mature seeds from the preferred species, particular attention has
to be paid to the harvesting time. Seed mixtures with the highest species diversity are
generally achieved by consecutive harvesting of donor sites according to species-specific seed
maturation rates and schedules. In the Alps for example, seed yields are usually between 50-
150 kg ha-1. The relationship of donor area to restoration area thus varies from approximately
1:1 to 1:4. If application of threshed seed material is not possible immediately after harvest, it
must be dried and stored at a dry location.
A good method that is currently practised in several countries is the nursery or large-area
production of seed of suitable species with agricultural andhorticultural techniques. Above all,
species that are used often and in large amounts can be produced at comparatively reasonable
costs and implemented on appropriately large project areas. This method, for example, has
been used successfully in Austria, Germany and Switzerland for restoration projects (Krautzer
andWittmann, 2006;KirmerandTischew, 2006;Rometsch, 2009).Similar approaches are now
being implemented in the French Pyrenees (Malaval, 2006) in Iceland
(AradottirandJohannsson, 2006) and latterly in Norway (ECONADA, 2011).
In cases of land use change, the transfer of seed-rich top soil (mainly the first 5 cm, and at
most the top 20 cm) from suitable donor sites is anoccasionally used method, especially in
cases of technical interventions (e.g. road construction, landscaping). Another possibility is
the transplanting of turfs, in which soil-plant segments from donor sites to restoration sites are
being transferred. Wherever possible the transplanting of turfs should take place as early as
possible at the beginning of the vegetation period or after the start of the autumn vegetation
pause, thus just after the melting of snow or directly before the onset of winter. With proper
planning, grass turfs from building and construction sites can be directly transferred to
restoration sites without intermediate storage (Krautzer and Klug, 2009).
Quality of native seed material
Exploitation, production and trade of regional seeds without any common rules lead to an
unmanageable market for consumers. Wild forms compete against cultivars of the same
plantspecies. Among declared “wild seed products” one will find a wide range of labels in
terms certifications, assertions, documented provenances and qualities. On behalf of nature
conservation, a system of rules is needed in order to support transparency of a European wild
species seed market.On the other hand, seed consumers expect some minimum thresholds for
quality aspects related to the composition of harvesting or propagation material, the
concentration of pure seeds in harvesting materials and their germination capacity. Therefore,
also a sufficient declaration on such quality aspects is important if native seed material is
offered on the market.
Quality in terms of nature conservation
The idea of trading wild seeds is due to the consideration of a regional limitation of
introducing wild plants as a crucial point of genetic adaptation. The commercial seed market
offers several interesting species suitable for restoration, but they are generally to be
described as being of non-local provenance. Through negative interaction with still-available
local provenances their introduction may lead to undesired results such as hybridisation or
displacement (KirmerandTischew, 2006).Only harvesting material and seeds that are
collected, propagated and used in the same region will ensure ecosystem services, which will

not be provided by cultivars and non-local propagation material (Blaschka et al. 2008).
Therefore there is a need to define biogeographical regions to fulfil those benefits.
However, in Germany, Austria and Switzerland a sufficient definition of seed zones already
exists (VWW, 2011; REWISA, 2011;CPS, 2009). One of the most important aspects is the
non-conformance of those biogeographical boundaries with political ones! However, a well-
defined national system of seed zones is inadequate when transnational trade occurs.
Nowadays, the defined regions end at the borders of the member state, even though the
physiographic province extends into the neighbouring country. A basis for a (still missing)
international definition of European biogeographical regions could be the already existing
system at the European Environment Agency (EEA, 2009). However, for a functioning
European market-system with a regional supply of wildseed, transnational zones for
production and use of native seed material have to be defined.
Quality in terms of consumers’ expectations
Contractors are interested to get sufficient information about the quality of sowing material,
especially in terms of seed proportion and germination capacity. Corresponding data are
particularly in demand for large-scale restoration projects and trade. The viability or cost-
effectiveness of the necessary assessmentshas to be proven from case to case.
The actual number of seeds in fresh green hay, hay mulch, stripped material or threshings,as
well as the expenditures connected to the exploitation of the material,is dependent on various
factors, such as the type of meadow, management, time of day, harvesting time in the course
of the year, potential seed production and mechanisation (see Table 1).
Table 1. Share of grasses and herbs, amount of harvested seeds and expenditure of timefor
differing harvesting methods in Arrhenatherion and Molinioncommunities (expenditure for
drying and cleaning is not included)
Harvesting method Harvest time Grasses:Herbs [%] Pure seeds harvested [kg/ha] Duration [h/ha]
Fresh green hay End of June 80:20 100-200 1-2h*
Hay mulch End of June 70:30 40 3-4h**
Threshing (plot thresher) End of June 80:20 60-150 5-10***
Threshing (large thresher) End of June 60:40 50-200 1,5-3*
Stripped seeds End of June 80:20 20-60 1,5-3***
*depending on technical equipment; **including work processes for the drying of hay; ***depending on vegetation type
The species number and the composition of the harvested material are strongly dependenton
the type of vegetation. Another influencing factor is the harvesting date. Later harvesting
generally deceases the share of grasses in the mixture and thus fosters the establishment of
herbaceous species (Hölzel andOtte, 2003). A harvesting date set too early hinders the full
development of the seeds.
The assessment of purity, thousand-seed weight and germinating capacityof seedmaterial
harvested on donor sites is very complex and costly. Therefore, such information in practice
will only be collected if the material is sold on the market or used at a large scale. However,
determination of the purity of the harvested seed and plant materials is important to ascertain
the volume of pure seeds that are contained in the material, which then defines the actual seed
capacity of the entire material. The composition and quality of hay, hay mulch, stripped
material or threshings differs greatly from year to year. The share of chaff and impurities,
such as earth, can be very high.
Assessments on the germination capacity of harvested material are still in progress. First
results from the SALVERE-project group indicate germination capacities between 40 and
70% from Arrhenatherion meadows. On meadows with a high share of species with seed

dormancy (e.g. litter meadows), the actual germination capacity of harvested seed material
can decrease notably (Haslgrübler, 2011).
Site preparation on receptor sites
A first step in grassland restoration and establishment and an important factor for restoration
success is the site assessment and site preparation on receptor sites, thus creating optimal
conditions for germination and establishment of introduced species. The special demands and
threats of the habitat to be created, in terms of soil properties, nutrient supply, erosion
tendency, competition phenomena with other plant species, sowing and planting time,
availability of the seed and plant materials, etc., are to be determined as exactly as possible
(ÖAG, 2000). Therefore, the choice of proper techniques for harvesting and application of
species-rich grassland requires an assessment of the main factors of natural geographic region,
climate, soil, erosion risk and other possible restoration targets (e.g. agricultural utilization,
use as recreational area).
Site preparation in terms of regenerative measures
For successful species introduction into species-poor grassland, the sward has to be cut to a
height of 3-5 cm, if necessary. Subsequently, the sward has to be opened. For large-area
treatment, the use of curry comb, harrow, rotary hoe or flail chopper is recommended. During
recent years, different specialised machinery for grassland regeneration has been developed
and is available in grassland dominated areas. Several assessments showed that the stronger
the intervention and disturbance of the sward, the higher the rate of successful species
establishment (Walker et al., 2004, Hölzelet al., 2006).
Site preparation of arable land or ploughed grassland
The turning of the soil via ploughing or rotary hoeing is the standard method for the
restoration of former intensively utilized grassland or arable land. Those soils are generally
characterized by a high concentration of plant-available nutrients. One simple but time-
consuming method to impoverish the soil is crop production period of 1-2 years without any
fertilization.
Especially, restoration areas formerly used as arable land can potentially contain enormous
amounts of weeds. Timely harrowing of soil under dry conditions fosters the accumulation of
annual weeds which can then be combated mechanically by harrowing or grubbing several
times before sowing. In humid regions, dry weather conditions are especially necessary for
success when using these measures. In more continental regions with low precipitation, the
germination of weeds from the soil seed bank may depend on moist conditions after grubbing.
If those recommended methods of mechanical weed control are not applicable, the use of low
persistence herbicides (e.g. glyphosate) could be considered (Pywellet al., 2007).
Sites with very nutrient-rich and weed-infested topsoil (particularly soil from arable land) can
be very positively influenced by preliminary deep ploughing or topsoil inversion. To be used
here could be a so-called trench excavator (deep plough), which requires a very powerful
tractor. Thus the soil will be turned over to a depth of 40 cm to a maximum of 80 cm.
Nutrient-rich and seed-rich layers are replaced and nutrient-poor substrate is turned up. The
use of a trench excavator is not always permitted (e.g. Federal Soil Protection Act in
Germany).
Site preparation after technical intervention
Many receptor sites requiring subsequent restoration are created through infrastructural
interventions. Ground work (soil removal, intermediate storage and creation of an appropriate

substrate layer) must only be carried out when the soil is suitably dried and during appropriate
weather conditions. Soils with a clay content of over 30% are especially prone to soil
compaction and are to be handled accordingly with care (BMLFUW, 2009). The general
decision on the re-use of the topsoil-layer,with respect to its thickness, will depend on the
content of nutrients and/or seeds of weeds and unwanted species. The extent of the applied
soil layer, the space in which roots can penetrate, the water-storage capacity and the nutrient
content of the substrates can be appropriately assessed during planning, and adjusted
according to the desired type of vegetation (or vice versa).
Establishment of semi-natural grassland
Practically relevant restoration of semi-natural grassland has been successfully realised on the
most differing sites for many years in different European countries (examples given in
KirmerandTischew, 2006;Donathet al., 2007). The selection of a suitable method depends on
the given aim (e.g. erosion prevention, development of extensive vegetation, compensation
measures) and the site conditions of the receptor site. In general, the restoration method to be
selected is that which enables the desired target community to can be developed with the least
possible expenditure. Availability, practicability, costs, possible subsequent use and
maintenance are to be taken into account. Fundamentally, the method should be adapted to the
particular areas of origin to take into account climatic conditions and also the life cycle of
insects, which are adapted to the regional blossoming period and special content material of
plants local to an area.
A lot of successful techniques and strategies for the establishment of semi-natural grassland
have been developed during the last years. Table 2 gives an overview of the most
recommended techniques and materials depending on the most common initial situations. The
use of seed-rich top soil or plant material from donor sites is, in practice, reduced to the rare
situations where valuable donor sites are destroyed during construction work.
Table 2.Strategies for the establishment of semi-natural grassland.
Initial situation Materials Recommended techniques
species-poor grassland propagated regional seeds overseedingdevice
sievedthreshings band rotavator
ploughedgrassland/arable land/ green hay load wagon and manual or
fallows hay mulch mechanical distribution
threshings rotavator
hayflower agricultural sowing and spreading devices
propagated regional seeds cover crop seeding
raw soils (e.g. road construction, green hay load wagon and manual or
landscaping, open cast mining areas) hay mulch mechanical distribution
threshings agricultural sowing and spreading devices
hayflower cover crop seeding
propagated regional seeds hydro-seeding
raw soilsendangered by erosion green hay mechanical or manual distribution
haymulch
threshings recommended seeding technique plus
hayflower additional protection by
propagated regional seeds a mulch layer or geotextiles

Under moist climate conditions, as well as in mountainous areas, restoration with seeds or
seed mixtures should take place at the beginning of the vegetation period to make optimum
use, on the one hand, of the winter moisture on drier sites, and on the other hand to guarantee
development of the seedlings into plants that are capable of surviving the winter during the
vegetation period. But in principle the application of extensive grassland areas throughout the
entire vegetation period is possible, whereby persistent dry periods (e.g. in high summer) can
lead to failures. In practice the time of restoration is generally in late summer to early autumn
because, in that period, construction measures are to a great extent completed. According to
the authors’ experience, moist conditions and deep topsoil applications favour the
development of grasses, whereasherbs have an advantage on nutrient-poor and dry sites.
Many species of the extensive litter meadows (fen meadows, litter meadows, etc.) are so-
called frost germinators. Therefore, with these types of vegetation sowing in winterhas proved
successful, whereby the seed must be sown from the middle of November to the beginning of
December as long as the soil has no snow cover (Krautzer and Klug, 2010).
Restoration success
Semi-natural, species-rich grasslands are generally created over a very long period through
extensive forms of use. Achieving the strived-for target state is therefore only possible
through appropriately adapted utilizationover a long period, sometimes after a decade or even
longer. It is important that in the first year following the application as many grassland
species as possible are regularly germinated and young plants are to be recognised. Some
types of grassland species will appear only in the second or third year after the application or
become visible even later, because their seeds have a distinct dormancy or the young plants
are very difficult to find. But on no account should a high share of problematic species, such
as common couch grass, creeping thistle, dock species or white clover be visible. The cover of
grasses should generally be not too high, and before the first cut should not exceed 40 -60%.
The share of various functional groups should also be in a balanced ratio (grasses, legumes,
other herbs). For most vegetation types, the vegetation cover should have achieved 40-60 %
after the first vegetation period, depending on vegetation type, to guarantee a receptor state. If
this is not the case, subsequent sowing is required.
With increasing development time, the degree of cover derived from target species and the
increasing similarity to the reference- or target state is decisive for success of the measures.
The success of sowing (restoration) is decisively influenced by conditions on the receptor
area. In the first year after the application, according to vegetation type (moist meadows, litter
meadows, semi-dry grassland) the transfer rate is about 30-50%. On raw soil the transfer rates
are generally higher and can reach 60% in the first year after the application. The transfer rate
is dependent on differing factors, e.g. quality of the seed, soil preparation, site conditions,
weather after the application, natural seed potential of the soil (weeds) and restoration
method.
Regulations and implementation in Europe
To protect the market for licensed varieties, the important fodder plant directive was launched
in 1966 (EEC, 1966). With some amendments it is today the main directive, which causes
problems between many national nature conservation laws and those for seed breeding
protection. In 2010 a new Commission directive was passed, which approves the trade of a
small amount of 5% of "wild" seeds among the cultivars. The European member states have
to implement the directive by the end of November 2011 (EEC, 2010). This is the latest time
for the start of a competition in trade between wild seeds and cultivars. There are only few

points in the new directive supporting the use of wild forms but many formal conditions, like
detailed registrations and declarations of every single mixture, which will hamper the
development of a wild-seed market. To improve the situation of semi-natural grassland in all
European member states, it is inescapable to start activities according to those directives, like
careful implementation into national laws to protect the initiatives dealing with native seeds
that are in the process of emerging. Member states should also start to influence the recently
started process of a review of the European seed legislation. At a national level, only
Germany adapted its nature protection law in view of the harvest, propagation and trade of
native seeds (BNatSchG, 2010).
Prospects for the future
Semi-natural grasslands are the most important category of High Nature Value Farmland and
provide a high level of biodiversity. Due to land abandonment and intensification this type of
grassland is seriously endangered; the maintenance and development of semi-natural
grassland has, therefore, become a special concern of agrarian and environmental policy.
Semi-natural grassland can also be used as a natural source of biodiversity for different
purposes and can itself contribute to the development and restoration of High Nature Value
Farmland.
Ecological restoration of semi-natural grassland is a relatively new field of activity, and as a
result there are still considerable gaps in our knowledge and know-how. Approaches to the
technical aspects vary considerably, and the development of special restoration methods,
especially for extreme site conditions, is partly far from sufficient. The legal standards and
requirements also vary greatly from one country to another. What is commonly accepted or
promoted in some countries is strictly forbidden in others. Above all, despite prohibitions and
restrictions written into various nature-protection laws, the use of non-native plant species is
often ignored or overlooked due to lack of the knowledge about alternatives or ability to
properly identify plant material being offered for sale or used on site. There is also a
considerable lack of information among the authorities concerning what became technically
possible during the last years. According to the subject, the European environmental
legislation seems to be the right address to implement rules for seed supply intended for use in
nature conservation. If there is no political majority for being incorporated into a European
directive, there is at least practical use to launch just a recommendation for a regional wild
seeds market at the European level.
However, the drawing up of binding European rules for the origin, quality, exploitation and
establishment of semi-natural grassland as an essential part of the High Nature Value
Farmland concept is urgently needed.
References
Andersen E.,Baldock D., Bennett H.,Beaufoy G.,Bignal E.,Brouwer F.,Elbersen B.,Eiden G.,Godeschalk F.,
Jones G., McCracken D.I.,Nieuwunhuizen W., van Eupen M.,Hennekens S. andZervas G. (2004) Developing a
high nature value farming area indicator. Internal report for the EEA. June. EEA, Copenhagen.
Sieheauchhttp://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/envirowindows/hnv/library
Aradottir A. andJohannsson M. (2006) Ecological restoration with native species in Iceland.Conference
proceedings Soil Bioengineering: Restoration with native seed and plant material.HBLFA Raumberg-
Gumpenstein, 175-179.
Bakker J.P. andBerendse F. (1999) Constraints in the restoration of ecological diversity in grassland and
heathland communities.Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 14, 63-68.
Blaschka A., Krautzer B.and Graiss W. (2008) Standortgerechte Begrünung im Landschaftsbau als Möglichkeit
zur Lebensraumvernetzung - I. Was ist "standortgerecht"? Böschungen als Standort. Sauteria, Schriftenreihe für
systematische Botanik, Floristik und Geobotanik, Universität Salzburg, Band 16, S. 50-55.

BMLFUW (2009) Rixchtlinie für die sachgerechte Bodenrekultivierung land- und forstwirtschaftlich genutzter
Flächen.Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien,55S.
BNatSchG (2011) Gesetzt über Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege www.bundesrecht.juris.de/bnatschg_2009
CPS (2011) Swiss Commission for Wild Plant Conservation :www.cps-skew.ch(Accessed June 2011).
Donath T.-W., Bissels S., Hölzel N. and Otte A. (2007) Large scale application of diaspore transfer with plant
material in restoration practice - Impact of seed and microsite limitation. Biological Conservation 138, 224-234.
ECONADA (2011) Ecologically sustainable implementation of the ‘Nature Diversity Act’
(Naturmangfoldloven) for restoration of disturbed landscapes in Norway.
http://www.bioforsk.no/ikbViewer/page/tjenester/prosjekt?p_document_id=86296(Accessed June 2011).
EEA – European Environment Agency (2005) Agriculture and the environment in EU-15 – the IRENA Indicator
Report. EEA-Report No. 5. http://reports.eea.eu.int/eea_report_2005_6.
EEA – European Environment Agency (2006) The IRENA operations: http://www.eea.europa.eu/projects/irena.
(Accessed June 2011).
EEA (2009) Biogeographical regions in Europe: www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biogeographical-
regions-in-europe(Accessed June 2011).
EEA – European Environment Agency (2010): Biodiversity Baseline Report.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eu-2010-biodiversity-baseline (Accessed June 2011).
Edwards A.R., Mortimer S.R., Lawson C.S., Westbury D.B., Harris S.J., Woodcock B.A., Brown V.K. (2007)
Hay strewing, brush harvesting of seed and soil disturbance as tools for the enhancement of botanical diversity in
grasslands. Biological Conservation 134, 372-382.
EEC (1966) Fodder plant directive: http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/propagation/evaluation/(Accessed June 2011).
EEC (2010) Preservation mixtures directive
www.fera.defra.gov.uk/plants/consultations/documents/preservationDirective.pdf
EC– European Commission (2006b) Rural Development 2007–2013.Handbook on Common Monitoring and
Evaluation Framework, GuidanceDocument (Entwicklung des Ländlichen Raums 2007–2013. Handbuch für den
gemeinsamen Begleitungs- und Bewertungsrahmen, Leitfaden). September 2006. Brussels.
GeneraldirektionLandwirtschaft.
EC – European Commission (2009) Guidance Document: The Application of the High Nature Value Impact
Indicator. Programming Period 2007-2013. Report prepared for DG Agriculture.
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rurdev/eval/hnv/guidance_en.pdf
Haslgrübler P. (2011) Erste Ergebnisse zu Erträgen und Saatgutqualität von Spenderwiesen (mündliche
Mitteilung)
Hefter I., Jünger G., Baasch A., Tischew S. (2010) Gebietseigenes Wildpflanzensaatgut in Begrünungs- und
Renaturierungsvorhaben fördern - Aufbau eines Spenderflächenkatasters und Informationssystems.Naturschutz
und Landschaftsplanung 42 (11), 333-340.
Hölzel N. and Otte A. (2003) Restoration of a species-rich flood meadow by topsoil removal and diaspore
transfer with plant material. Applied Vegetation Science, 6, 131-140.
IEEP – Institute for European Environmental Policy (2007) Final Report for the study on HNV Indicators for
Evaluation. Contract Notice 2006-G4-04. Report prepared for DG Agriculture.
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/external/evaluation/report.pdf
Jongepierova I., Mitchley J. and Tzanopoulos J. (2007) A field experiment to recreate species rich hay meadows
using regional seed mixtures. Biological Conservation 139, 297-305.
JRC/EEA – Joint Research Centre/European Environment Agency (2006): Background document on the
methodology for mapping High Nature Value Farmland in EU27. M.L. Paracchini, J.M. Terres, J.E. Petersen, Y.
Hoogeveen. October.http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/envirowindows/hnv/library
Kiehl K., Kirmer A., Donath T.W., Rasran L. andHölzel N. (2010) Species introduction in restoration projects -
evaluation of different techniques for the establishment of semi-natural grasslands in Central and Northwestern
Europe. Basic and Applied Ecology 11, 285-299.
Kirmer A.and Korsch H. (2009) Spenderflächenkataster zur Gewinnung von autochthonem Grünland-Saatgut für
Thüringen - Methodik, Stand und Perspektiven. Thüringer Landesanstalt für Umwelt und Geologie (Hrsg.)

Kirmer A. andTischew S. (2006) Handbuch naturnahe Begrünung von Rohböden. Wiesbaden: Teubner B.G.,
195 pp.
KlimkowskaA., Van Diggelen R., Bakker J.P. andGrootjans A.P. (2007) Wet meadow restoration in Western
Europe: a quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of several techniques. Biological Conservation, 140, 318-
328.
Krautzer B., Peratoner G. andBozzo F. (2004) Site-Specific Grasses and Herbs.Seed production and use for
restoration of mountain environments.Plant Production and Protection Series No. 32, Food and Agriculture
Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 112 S.
Krautzer B. and Wittmann H. (2006) Restoration of alpine ecosystems. In: Restoration Ecology, the new
frontier( edited by Jelte van Andel and James Aronson).Blackwell Publishing, pp. 208-220.
Krautzer B. and Klug B. (2009) Renaturierung von subalpinen und alpinen Ökosystemen. In: Zerbe S.
andWiegleb G. (Hrsg.), Renaturierung von Ökosystemen in Mitteleuropa. Heidelberg:
SpektrumAkademischerVerlag, 209-234.
Krautzer B. andPötsch E. (2009) The use of semi-natural grassland as donor sites for the restoration of high
nature value areas. In: Proceedings 15th European Grassland Federation Symposium Brno, Czech Republic, 7-9
September 2009 (Cagas B., Radek M., Nedelnik J., editors). Grassland Science in Europe, 14, 478-492.
Malaval S. (2006) Revegetation with native species in the French Pyrenees mountains. In Krautzer B. and
Hacker E. (editors): Soil bioengineering-Ecological Restoration with Native Plant and Seed Material,
Conference proceedings, 197-200.
ÖAG (2000) Richtlinien für standortgerechte Begrünungen. Österreichische Arbeitgemeinschaftfür Grünland,
LFZ Raumberg Gumpenstein, 54 S.
Pötsch E.M. and Blaschka A. (2003) Abschlussbericht über die Auswertung von MAB-Daten zur Evaluierung
des ÖPUL hinsichtlich Kapitel VI.2.A ‘Artenvielfalt’. Gumpenstein, 37 pp.
Pywell R.F., Bullock J.M., Tallowin J.R.B., Walker K.J., Warman E.A. and Masters G. (2007) Enhancing
diversity of species-poor grasslands: an experimental assessment of multiple constraints. Journal of Applied
Ecology 44, 81-94.
REWISA (2011) RegionaleWildpflanzen und Samen:www.rewisa.at(Accessed June 2011).
Rometsch S. (2009) Recommendations for the production and use of wild flower seeds adapted to local
ecological conditions in Switzerland. Proceedings of the International Workshop of the SALVERE Project, pp
19-20, http://www.salvereproject.eu/sites/default/files/SALVERE_Proceedings_May_2009.pdf (accessed
July 2011).
SALVERE (2011) Semi-natural Grassland as a Source of Biodiversity Improvement: www.salvereproject.eu.
Last visit June 2011
Scotton M. (2009) Semi-natural grassland as a source of biodiversity improvement – SALVERE. Proceedings of
the international Workshop of the SALVERE-Project 2009, Agricultural Research and Education Centre
Raumberg-Gumpenstein, pp. 2-
5http://www.salvereproject.eu/sites/default/files/SALVERE_Proceedings_May_2009.pdf (accessed July
2011).
Scotton M., Piccinin L., Dainese M. andSancin F. (2009) Seed harvesting for ecological restoration: Efficiency
of haymaking and seed-stripping on different grassland types in the eastern Italian Alps. Ecological Restoration
27, 66-75.
VWW (2011) Verband der deutschen Wildpflanzen- und Wildsamenproduzenten: www.natur-im-
vww.de(Accessed June 2011).
Walker K.J., Stevens P.A., Stevens D.P., Mountford J.O., Manchester S.J. andPywell R.F. (2004) The restoration
and re-creation of species-rich lowland grassland on land formerly managed for intensive agriculture in the UK.
Biological Conservation, 119, 1-18.