 Agri-environment
schemes in Europe are largely ineffective
Wageningen University
and Research Centre
Agri-environment schemes (AES) in Europe appear to be largely
ineffective as policy instruments. Research in five European
countries has shown that common species of birds, insects
and plants do not benefit very much from this kind of nature
management and rare species benefit much less. There are virtually
no benefits for threatened species (listed in the Red Data
Books). These conclusions were drawn by researchers from six
European research institutions during a conference on 30 and
31 January at Wageningen University. They proposed that much
clearer and more measurable goals should be established in
the future and that the policy should focus more on the protection
of specific species.
Agri-environment schemes intend to counteract the negative
effects of modern agriculture on natural habitats. Farmers
are given financial incentives to use environmentally-benign
methods for cultivating the land, such as mowing pastures
later in the season, spreading less manure or spreading manure
later in the season. Agri-environment schemes are important
policy instruments for many European countries. The European
Union has recently obligated all its Member States to implement
these schemes. In 2003, an estimated € 3.7 billion was
spent on such measures. In 2005, approximately 25% of the
total agricultural area in the 15 older Member States of the
European Union was subjected to this policy. Agri-environment
schemes are one of the most important tools for protecting
biodiversity in agricultural areas. In addition, it has turned
out that subsidies for AES provide European countries with
the possibility of indirectly supporting the agricultural
community in situations where direct support is under pressure
due to the resulting distortion of international trade.
Research
During the past three years, researchers from the Netherlands,
Germany, the United Kingdom, Switzerland and Spain have conducted
research in their own countries especially into the effect
of AES on biodiversity. As part of this research, the presence
of specific plants, birds, bees, grasshoppers, crickets and
spiders was compared on 202 plots with AES and the same number
of plots without AES. This research, which was made possible
by the European Union as part of its Fifth Framework Programme,
was published in the scientific journal Ecology Letters.
The participants in the study were the following:
• Nature Conservation and Plant Ecology Group, Wageningen
University (the Netherlands);
• Departamento de Ciencias, Ambientales, Facultad de
Ciencias del Medio Ambiente, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha,
Spain;
• Department of Agroecology, University of Göttingen,
Germany;
• Agroscope FAL Reckenholz, Swiss Federal Research Station
for Agroecology and Agriculture, Zürich, Switzerland;
• Marshall Agroecology Ltd, Barton, Winscombe, Somerset,
United Kingdom.
Conference
On 30 and 31 January, approximately 75 researchers from 12
countries met in Wageningen to discuss the results of their
research. Their most important conclusions were that AES has
a small positive effect on the maintenance of biodiversity
and the protection of threatened species, but in its current
form this policy instrument is not sufficient to bring a halt
to the downward trend. However, there were enough examples
from the large-scale study that showed when and under which
conditions such measures are effective. Based on these findings,
the researchers concluded that AES, if it is to be effective,
must be conducted differently than at present.
The conference participants came to the following final conclusions:
1. At the present time, Agri-Environment Schemes (AES) do
not adequately protect farmland biodiversity at a European
or national scale, but there are enough examples of individual
schemes which do protect biodiversity to suggest that, given
an appropriate evidence base, design, targeting and funding,
AES could provide adequate protection for biodiversity. Ecological
information on the impacts of schemes on land abandonment
and the associated biodiversity implications are lacking.
2. In order for them to work and to demonstrate that they
have worked (or not), AES need clear objectives and targets.
These objectives and targets should be area-specific, realistic
and quantitative in terms of changes in abundance, range or
diversity of specified species or species groups and be time
delimited.
3. For future improved success of AES, region-specific farmer
training and advice will be a key issue to enhance farmland
biodiversity.
4. In general, there is sufficient ecological insight and
geographical information to identify the objectives, outcomes
and targeting for potential AES prescriptions. However, ecological
insights are often lacking for spatial scale effects and for
temporal and ecosystem service effects.
5. Wide-scale ecological evaluations, well-integrated in
scheme design and implementation should be linked to specific
case studies on the causes of effectiveness or lack thereof.
Ecological insights into cause and effect are important for
the design/re-design process, for which monitoring and clarity
of objectives are essential. Ecological assessment should
be transparent, inclusive and carried out by skilled ecologists.
6. The results of evaluation and cause-effect studies should
be used to improve the design of schemes. Agri-environment
schemes should be regarded as working hypotheses that need
constant adjustment.
Click
here for a complete list of books about farming and wildlife
|
