Agriculture in Europe

The agricultural sector has seen tremendous structural changes in recent decades (Weiger 1990; Carolan 2012) due to policy changes in the European Union, industrialization, and intensification of agriculture (Donald et al 2002). Farmers are in a difficult economic situation (Pretty et al 2010). Remote areas in particular are still in relatively good ecological condition and characterized by high biodiversity. There, people’s relations to environmental goods and services (Flint et al 2013; Diaz et al 2015) are expected to be quite strong, borne out of geographical, economic, and ecological limitations in mountain areas and traditional social structures (Fassio et al 2014). But rural depopulation has resulted in agricultural degradation and therefore loss of (agro) biodiversity as well as cultural erosion (Weiger 1990; Campbell and Lopez Ortiz 2011).

People should be able to earn a viable living from farming and conserve nature at the same time (Mölders 2012). However, earning an income is becoming increasingly challenging (Hornfeld 2009) as revenues are decoupled from agricultural productivity and based on subsidies that depend on political decisions (Weiland 2011). Agricultural industrialization and intensification have also caused fundamental environmental problems (Weiger 1990), including unsustainable intensification in some areas (Weiland 2011) and abandonment of agriculture in others (MacDonald et al 2000; Hornfeld 2009; Lauber et al 2014), as well as loss of cultural landscapes and agrobiodiversity (Flade et al 2006). Reforms of the European Union’s Common Agriculture Policy have, however, provided a wide range of environmental incentives (EEA 2007).

Nature conservation and cultural landscapes

Agricultural areas are important for natural resource management (Altieri 1995; Weiland 2011), management of cultural landscapes, and conservation of biodiversity (CBD 1993; Flade et al 2006), which is especially rich in mountain regions (Messerli and Ives 1997). In Alpine regions, low-intensity (extensive) agricultural practices are essential to preserve biodiversity in cultural landscapes with different ecosystems that have evolved over hundreds of years (Weiger 1990; Holzner and Frohmann 2007) and are home to different species and significant genetic diversity. In Alpine regions, conservation of cultural landscapes is equivalent to conservation of agricultural landscapes. Agroecological approaches (Altieri 1995) search for more sustainable agricultural systems, with the goal of sustainable development of areas shaped by agriculture (Campbell and Lopez Ortiz 2011). Local farmers, with their ecological knowledge, fulfill many crucial tasks (Grasser et al 2012), always depending on the priorities of the conservation site.

Solutions must be found that support both nature conservation and agriculture (Abresch 2000). To achieve this, the consideration of local cultural values and a stronger integration of social-scientific knowledge are essential (Hornfeld 2009; Lamarque et al 2011).

Biosphere reserves and participation of local communities

One effort toward this end is the establishment of UNESCO biosphere reserves (BSRs), which are intended to support nature conservation, sustainable human economic and social development, and research and education (UNESCO MAB 1995). They serve as models for ways to integrate these different priorities to achieve sustainable development. At the BSR conference in Seville in 1995, participants agreed that conservation of biodiversity should no longer be regarded in isolation (UNESCO MAB 1995; Lange 2005). Since then it has been clear that people working and living in and around BSRs should participate in decision-making processes and be able to meet their economic, social, cultural, and ecological needs. BSRs are divided into 3 zones, each with different priorities assigned to conservation aims and human needs (Figure 1). The core zone serves as a strict conservation area surrounded by the buffer zone, which allows recreation and sustainable use. The transition zone includes settlements and aims for sustainable development, education, and strengthening of regional economy. BSRs could also be seen as think tanks for sustainable development (Hammer et al 2012; Mölders 2012), which constructively support local interests. BSRs have the potential to demonstrate new ways of agricultural modernization that offer an alternative to intensification and industrialization, which lead to debt and abandonment of labor-intensive mountain farms.

FIGURE 1 

Zoning in BSRs (based on UNESCO documentation).

Participation by local stakeholders is fundamental to the success of BSRs (Jungmeier et al 2010; Keupp 2010). Lessons learned from older BSRs show that local communities need to be approached early in the planning phase and integrated in decision-making processes (Stoll-Kleemann and Welp 2008). This needs to be done with sensitivity to the balance of social power structures (Wallner and Wiesmann 2009).

In the Alpine BSR selected for this study, Salzburger Lungau and Kärntner Nockberge, preservation of the cultural landscape is of high interest. As managers of the land and keepers of traditional ecological knowledge, farmers play an important role in maintaining the Alpine landscape and biodiversity. Traditional knowledge of ecosystem management and mitigation of natural hazards are of the highest interest for BSR management.

Research objective

Numerous studies have been conducted on the conflict between nature conservation and agriculture (eg Pongratz 1994; Plachter et al 2004; Knierim and Siebert 2005; Flade et al 2006), mainly from the perspective of conservation, protected areas management, regional development, or economic feasibility. In comparison to studies by Wallner (2005) and Lamarque et al (2011), which focused on the perspective of local communities, this study specifically explores the interest group of farmers. As mentioned earlier, farmers living and working in the BSR occupy a central position in the selected study areas, but it seems that their point of view has been largely ignored by research to date. While Hornfeld (2009) explored farmers’ acceptance of a national park, this study deals with Alpine BSRs that developed in a bottom-up process based on strong participatory approaches already in the initial phase.

The research presented here is part of a larger study based on interviews with farmers in BSRs that focus on the role of agriculture; the significance of the cultural landscape, nature conservation, and the BSR for agriculture in general and their farms in particular; and knowledge transfer. The study is being conducted in Austria and Switzerland, in three BSRs with similar geographical features but different years of declaration, to explore and compare farmers’ perceptions and different points of view on the mentioned issues.

This article examines the farmers’ perceptions of the BSR Salzburger Lungau and Kärntner Nockberge. What is their point of view regarding the BSR and do they see an influence of the BSR on agriculture and on their farm?

Study area

The BSR Salzburger Lungau and Kärntner Nockberge has only been in existence since 2012, but the area containing it has been settled for millennia. It covers about 1500 km² (46°45′58"N–47°17′44"N; 13°19′04"E–13°59′47"E), and elevation ranges from just under 600 m above sea level (masl) in the valleys to 3000 masl (Box 1; Figure 2). It is an outstanding example of richly structured inner Alpine landscape, with typical ecosystems such as mountain meadows, marshes, and quaking bogs (UNESCO 2012). The conservation of cultural landscapes and integration of local traditional knowledge in ecosystem management is of high interest for the BSR (Lange 2005).

FIGURE 2 

Location of the BSR Salzburger Lungau and Kärntner Nockberge. (Map by Kati Heinrich)

A mission statement, goals, and areas of activity for this BSR were developed with public participation in 2014. The preservation and development of the cultural landscape and agricultural sector were defined as top priorities. The mission statement acknowledged farmers’ key functions in regional development, nature and landscape conservation, tourism, promotion of traditional and ecological knowledge, and rural culture and society.

The BSR includes 2 administrative authorities in 2 Austrian federal states: Regionalverband Lungau in Salzburg and Biosphärenpark Nockberge in Carinthia. In Carinthia in 1980, a citizen initiative stopped a planned ski resort in the Nockberge region, which in 1987 was designated as a national park by the Carinthian government, with a focus on extensive alpine pasture management. Given its anthropogenic influence, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classified the region as a category IV area—ie a habitat and species management area. In 2004, efforts began to redesign the area as a BSR, together with the Salzburger Lungau, and it was so designated in 2012. The core zones are located on the edges of the area.

In Salzburg state, more than 50% of the farms are organic (Strauß and Darnhofer 2014). The high number of large farms (>50 ha) is a result of large, privately owned, extensively used mountain pastures and, especially in Carinthia, forestry, an important source of income. The narrow valleys and steep slopes in the area around Nockberge do not allow crop farming, while the Salzburg part of the BSR is known for its potatoes (Lungauer Eachtling) and rye (Tauernroggen). Of the 20 farmers with whom interviews were conducted, 19 raised cattle, and activities included dairy farming (7 in Lungau and 3 in Nockberge), suckling calf husbandry (3 in Lungau and 4 in Nockberge), and fattening and breeding (6 in Lungau and 5 in Nockberge) (Table 1).

TABLE 1 

Characteristics of farms visited for the survey.

Positive significance

Farmers (n  =  16) expected that the BSR label would increase appreciation of their local products and lead to a strengthened value chain, especially in regional markets, and that this would help to keep family farms viable. They saw the BSR label as a great opportunity for direct marketing, for example, by providers of the “biosphere breakfast” in Lungau and other niche products. Local caterers and hotels offering regional products were seen as important outlets for agricultural producers. They said that this would require strong networks of cooperation, for example, to meet the volumes needed by a hotel, but these were expected to develop over time. The added value was also recognized in relation to the cultural landscape, which is of central importance for the BSR. The farmers said that the BSR supported them and appreciated their services:

In the Nockberge region, mountain pastures and agricultural management are widespread and important in terms of cultural identity. Farmers were therefore more in favor of a BSR than another nature reserve classification, as BSR values aim to maintain cultural landscapes and heritage in the buffer and transition zones and impose strict conservation only in the core zone, contrary to other nature reserve classifications. In addition, compensation payments for land owned in the core zone in Carinthia is highly appreciated by farmers. In the face of declining European agricultural subsidies, the BSR is seen as a way to continue farming.

Little significance

Almost half of the interviewees (n  =  8) said that the region is becoming better known, and they perceived the UNESCO title as good publicity for tourism enterprises, including restaurants and private room rentals. For agriculture, however, they saw only indirect benefits from the increase in tourism: “We are benefiting, but making a living on agriculture in the biosphere reserve is not possible,” a male farmer in Lungau said. Locally, the BSR is recognized, but its ideas rarely are. It is not yet clear that it can be used by the people themselves to seek support and a voice for their own ideas. In many cases there is a lack of information and commitment and time to obtain information. In the opinion of farmers, the BSR is of higher significance for other sectors, like nature conservation and tourism. Some farmers said they did not identify with the BSR because they do not have properties in the core zone.

No significance

Lack of awareness is the major reason why the BSR had no significance at all for many farmers (n  =  8), who said it did not influence their daily routine either positively or negatively. Numerous conversations conducted during the study gave the impression that the community in general was not aware of the functions of a BSR and the possibility of participating. Exceptions included people who were involved in projects or had participated in the development of the mission statement. Farmers saw benefits for other sectors but not for themselves, and thus did not pay close attention to it. A male farmer from Lungau said that farmers took a wait-and-see attitude when the mission statement was developed:

Participation is time-consuming and requires long-term commitment to an intense process. A small number of people carry out a wide range of functions within the community; the BSR is seen as another time-consuming demand on already busy schedules.

Negative significance

After the BSR designation, fears were raised that the BSR label might bring further regulations for farmers. Altogether, 5 farmers perceived negative impacts, 4 in Nockberge and 1 in Lungau. In their words, they felt virtually expropriated because they were no longer allowed to decide themselves how to cultivate their land. From their perspective, too many regulations govern agriculture, and agricultural subsidies are linked to conservation measures. They said they did not perceive applying for agricultural subsidies as a free choice because it is an important part of their income. Due to recent discussions concerning the designation of the core zone, in the Carinthian part of the BSR more farmers said they were expecting negative impacts from the BSR. Prohibition of road construction and restrictions on hunting were mentioned in this context.

Summary of Results

Figure 3 shows that the largest group of interviewees had a supportive stance toward the BSR. As the interviews were processed in an anonymized form that enhanced trust, the results are very positive for the BSR. Almost all interviewees (16 altogether; 7 in Lungau and 9 in Nockberge) reported some positive associations with the BSR. The BSR was seen as the future path for the region, and sustainable development was seen as “suitable for the grandchildren,” providing a livelihood for young people after graduation. Outmigration of young people is a major problem in the area (Fuchshofer et al 2001). The potential of the BSR to provide a regional added value for the whole community was highlighted by numerous interviewees. The rising demand for regional products is a positive effect not only for farming but also for other sectors like tourism and restaurants. Especially in the Nockberge region, numerous products promoted by the BSR are appreciated by farmers as both producers and consumers. Indeed, the interviews showed that many felt like welfare recipients and would prefer being paid for their products—and being paid more for higher-quality products, confirming Schermer’s (2005) finding. Promotion of BSR products would also increase farmers’ motivation to adopt BSR status. The BSR is recognized as a platform to bring different stakeholders together and strengthen cooperation between sectors.

The number of interviewees who saw the BSR as having only minor significance was quite high (n  =  8). These participants knew about the BSR and its opportunities, but they did not know how their farm, or agriculture in general, could benefit from it. Overall, they were curious about the BSR; their future experiences are likely to influence them to support or oppose the BSR, and it may take only a little effort by BSR management to win their support.

For 8 people, 4 from each location, the BSR had no significance. There are various reasons for this: they consider themselves bystanders in the BSR; they rely on entrenched structures; or they lack information, interest, and time. This shows once more that participatory processes take time, and a period of 2 years since the BSR’s declaration may not be enough to identify with the BSR and recognize its benefits.

When the BSR was declared, enthusiasm was widespread in the community, but much of this has evaporated. The first participatory meetings to develop the mission statement in Lungau were recognized as very positive, and the motivation of individual staff members was mentioned by almost all interviewees. Some interviewees said that the initial discussions contributed to an appreciation for their work as regional producers, while for others the process has come to a halt: “It lasted for one year. All the time ideas were collected, projects planned, and so on. It was a mass of opportunities, which appeared all of a sudden. I think the biosphere people [managers] more or less drowned in them” (male farmer, Lungau).

Only 2 interviewees mentioned that farmers are significant for the BSR because the cultural landscape, which would not exist without farmers, is given priority in the mission statement.

In the Nockberge region, implementation involved lengthy and difficult negotiations, though no interviewee offered any details about these discussions. This explains the difference in “negative impact on agriculture” responses between Lungau (n  =  1) and Nockberge (n  =  4). People emphasized their appreciation of the long-desired agreement. The Carinthian part of the BSR has a tremendous advantage in the experiences, structures, and concepts gained from the Carinthian national park, which predates the BSR.

Eleven interviewees pointed to the need for improved cooperation with the BSR management. Interviewees said they expected the BSR management to work transparently, to work without bias, and to not be influenced by various local groups. A point of criticism concerned the balance of power in the participation process. There is a desire for cooperation within different groups and for openness.