How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? ppt

In vir- tually all countries the uptake of schemes is highest in areas of extensive agriculture where biodiversity is still relatively high and lowest in intensively farmed areas where b

12 2003 40 6 Essay Review Ecological effectiveness of agri-environment schemes

D Kleijn & W.J Sutherland

REVIEW

How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity?

DAVID KLEIJN* and WILLIAM J SUTHERLAND†

Nature Conservation and Plant Ecology Group, Wageningen University, Bornsesteeg 69, 6708 PD Wageningen, The Netherlands; and †Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Conservation, School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

Summary

to the introduction of agri-environment schemes These schemes compensate farmers financially for any loss of income associated with measures that aim to benefit the environment or biodiversity There are currently agri-environment schemes in 26 out of

44 European countries.

Euro-pean Union The main objectives include reducing nutrient and pesticide emissions, protecting biodiversity, restoring landscapes and preventing rural depopulation In vir- tually all countries the uptake of schemes is highest in areas of extensive agriculture where biodiversity is still relatively high and lowest in intensively farmed areas where biodiversity is low.

Euro-pean Union (EU) since 1994, an unknown proportion of it on schemes with biodiversity conservation aims We carried out a comprehensive search for studies that test the effec- tiveness of agri-environment schemes in published papers or reports Only 62 evaluation studies were found originating from just five EU countries and Switzerland (5) Indeed 76% of the studies were from the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, where until

from Germany (6), Ireland (3) and Portugal (1).

effectiveness of the schemes Thirty-one percent did not contain a statistical analysis Where an experimental approach was used, designs were usually weak and biased towards giving a favourable result The commonest experimental design (37% of the studies) was a comparison of biodiversity in agri-environment schemes and control areas However, there is a risk of bias if either farmers or scheme co-ordinators select the sites for agri-environment schemes In such cases the sites are likely to have a higher biodiversity at the outset compared to the controls This problem may be addressed by collecting baseline data (34% of studies), comparing trends (32%) or changes (26%) in biodiversity between areas with and without schemes or by pairing scheme and control sites that experience similar environmental conditions (16%).

decreases in species richness or abundance compared with controls Seventeen percent showed increases for some species and decreases for other species, while 23% showed no change at all in response to agri-environment schemes The response varied between taxa Of 19 studies examining the response of birds that included a statistical analysis, four showed significant increases in species richness or abundance, two showed decreases and nine showed both increases and decreases Comparative figures for

20 arthropod studies yielded 11 studies that showed an increase in species richness

or abundance, no study showed a decrease and three showed both increases and

*Correspondence: David Kleijn fax +31 317 484845 E-mail david.kleijn@wur.nl

general judgement of the effectiveness of European agri-environment schemes We gest that in the future, ecological evaluations must become an integral part of any scheme, including the collection of baseline data, the random placement of scheme and control sites in areas with similar initial conditions, and sufficient replication Results of these studies should be collected and disseminated more widely, in order to identify the approaches and prescriptions that best deliver biodiversity enhancement and value for money from community support.

Introduction

Post-war European agriculture can be considered asuccess in that it has resulted in increased yields and anenhanced capacity for self-sufficiency For example, inthe UK the yields per hectare of wheat, barley, potatoesand sugar beet have tripled since 1950, while over thesame time milk yields have more than doubled (Pretty

et al 2000) However, it is widely accepted that creased agricultural productivity has associated costs

in-in economic, consumer perception and environmentalterms

More recently, there has been a global shift towardsreducing subsidies For example, in the UK, manufac-turing subsidies have been virtually eliminated, yetagriculture remains heavily subsidized at about 40%

of the income The free trade talks of the World TradeOrganization have repeatedly identified agricultural sub-sidies as an area badly needing reform, especially theEuropean Union (EU) Common Agricultural Policy(Yu, Sutherland & Clark 2002) The $16 900 millionannual cost of the European Union Common Agricul-tural Policy largely comprises direct payments to farmers,price support, taxing imports from non-EU countries,subsidizing exports and paying for storage when nomarket is available As a result, prices in the EuropeanUnion exceed those on the international market Theexternal costs of agriculture were estimated by Pretty

et al (2001) to be about $180 per hectare of grasslandand arable, with external benefits equivalent to $17 to

$50 per hectare It is widely accepted that the expansion

of the European Union in 2004 to include Cyprus,Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania,Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia will make thecurrent agricultural support mechanisms financiallyunviable (Donald et al 2002)

Consumers are currently questioning the benefits ofintensive agriculture While the concerns may not nec-essarily always be rational (Beringer 2000), there isclear public mistrust and distaste for some aspects ofmodern agriculture

The intensification of agriculture has resulted inmajor environmental problems in recent decades, not-ably declines in bird populations together with theirassociated food resources (Donald, Green & Heath2000; Benton et al 2002; Robinson & Sutherland 2002)and this is likely to continue (Tilman et al 2001).Future intensification, such as the use of geneticallymodified crops, is likely to have further detrimentalconsequences for biodiversity (Watkinson et al 2000).There are also implications for wider environmentalissues, such as flood risk and effects on water quality(Sutherland 2002)

One response to concerns over biodiversity loss hasbeen the introduction of agri-environment schemes,

in which farmers are paid to modify their farmingpractice to provide environmental benefits The EUagricultural policy first explicitly addressed the impact

of agriculture on the environment in a Green Paperpublished in 1985 (CEC 1985) The reform of the EUagricultural policy in that year (EEC Regulation 797/85) included a novel set of measures for environmentalprotection and Article 19 allowed Member States topay national aid in environmentally sensitive areas(ESAs) In 1992 EEC Regulation 2078/92 was intro-duced, requiring all EU member states to apply agri-environment measures according to environmentalneeds and potential Between 50% and 75% of the costs

of approved agri-environment schemes are co-funded

by the EU, making this regulation a financially ive form of environmental protection Concurrently,extensive agri-environment programmes were developed

attract-in Norway and Switzerland (both non-EU MemberStates) and in Austria and Sweden before their entry intothe EU in 1995 Besides their intended positive effects

on biodiversity and the environment, agri-environmentschemes decouple payments from agricultural output.Thus they continue to provide income transfers to farm-ers, but in a way that does not distort world markets(Potter & Goodwin 1998; Matthews 2002)

More than a decade after the introduction of lation 2078/92, little information is available on the

et al 2001; Peach et al 2001) Most EU countriesare currently implementing their second 5-year agri-environment programme National schemes have beeninitiated in three, and there are plans for pilot incentiveschemes in another six Central and Eastern Europeancountries (Petersen & Feehan 2003) There is an obvi-ous need for an overview that shows exactly what agri-environment schemes achieve in terms of biodiversityconservation We attempt such a review here.

First, we briefly describe the differences in designand implementation of agri-environment programmesbetween countries in Europe Subsequently, we reviewthe effectiveness of agri-environment schemes bysurveying all available literature, with the aim of integ-rating the findings of various studies to produce recom-mendations for improvement We have restrictedourselves to the effects of schemes on biodiversity Weonly consider schemes implemented until 2000, as thenew modified programmes are too recent for properevaluation We do not consider set-aside schemes, asthese are not formally agri-environment schemes but ameans of reducing production, and their ecologicalmerits have been discussed elsewhere (Clarke 1992;

Buckingham et al 1999) Likewise, although organicfarming is an agri-environment scheme and support isco-funded by the EU under Regulation 2078/92, we donot consider the effects of organic farming as this hasbeen discussed extensively elsewhere and the objectivesare not necessarily biodiversity conservation (Weibull,Bengtsson & Nohlgren 2000; Mäder et al 2002)

Design of agri-environment programmes across Europe

For clarity, in this review we distinguish between environment programmes, schemes and measures Weconsider an agri-environment programme to be thecollection of schemes implemented in a country Indi-vidual schemes have different objectives (e.g grasslandextensification or conservation of endangered livestockbreeds) and regularly consist of a set of measures Forexample, in the case of a grassland extensificationscheme, measures (also called prescriptions) may con-sist of a reduction in stocking densities or a cessation offertilizer inputs

agri-Agri-environment programmes vary markedly tween countries in Europe (Table 1) The objectives ofthese programmes usually reflect a combination of themain environmental, ecological and socio-economicproblems associated with agriculture, as well as thepolitical situation in each country In Switzerland, theNetherlands and the United Kingdom, schemes avail-able to farmers concentrate on wildlife and habitat con-servation In Denmark and Germany most schemesoffered to farmers aim to reduce agrochemical emis-sions, while in France the programme is geared towards

be-the prevention of land abandonment in agriculturallymarginal areas In Ireland and Austria, the objectives

of programmes are balanced between environmentalprotection, biodiversity conservation and landscapemaintenance (Table 1)

Schemes can be implemented either horizontallythroughout the country or zonally (also known as ‘tar-geted’ or ‘vertically’) in certain areas that have beenidentified as being particularly vulnerable or a localbiodiversity hotspot (e.g environmentally sensitiveareas (ESAs)) The designation of areas where zonalmeasures can be implemented is usually carried out bygovernmental organizations Most countries have acombination of both approaches because a limited set

of zonal schemes exist that aim to conserve vulnerableecosystems Switzerland and Finland are the onlycountries that have entirely horizontal programmes,although most schemes in the German, Irish andSwedish programmes are applied horizontally Bycontrast, most schemes in the United Kingdom andSpain are implemented in a zonal manner A moreextensive discussion of the history and lay-out of theagri-environment programmes in a range of Europeancountries is given in Buller, Wilson & Höll (2000)

Patterns of implementation of agri-environment programmes

Differences in uptake rate of individual schemes largelydetermine whether and where the overall objectives ofagri-environment programmes can be met In mostcountries uptake is very unequally divided over theavailable schemes, with a single scheme usually com-prising more than 40% of the total area covered by agri-environment schemes (Table 1) Furthermore, schemesare often unequally distributed geographically acrosscountries, with high uptake rates in areas with extensiveagriculture and low uptake rates in areas where agri-culture is more intensive (Emerson & Gillmor 1999;Buller & Brives 2000; Grafen & Schramek 2000) Themechanism resulting in this pattern is illustrated inFig 1(a), which shows that for extensive farmers par-ticipation in an agri-environment programme is asso-ciated with comparatively low costs of adaptation Fewchanges are required to meet the requirements of theschemes (Osterburg 2001) Thus, when uniform pay-ments per hectare (calculated on an average base) areoffered for voluntary measures, most uptake will occur

in less favoured areas The same mechanism probablyexplains why in most countries (especially France andAustria) the low impact / low compensation schemesare those with the highest uptake

The effects of agri-environment schemes on biodiversity

EU members are obliged to evaluate their environment programme with respect to their socio-economic, agricultural and environmental aspects (Article

schemes currently applied in CEE countries are not included UAA, Utilized Agricultural Area; AEP, agri-environmentprogramme; AES, agri-environment scheme; ECA, ecological compensation area

1972) The Austrian programme (ÖPUL) consists of 25 schemes Eight horizontal schemes address extensification and reduction

of the negative impact of agriculture on the environment, the other zonal schemes address specific farming practices, biodiversity conservation and the creation or conservation of landscape elements ÖPUL aims to promote farming with reduced environmental impact, maintain farming in agriculturally marginal areas (Alps) and conserve biodiversity and landscape However, in 1996 83% of the budget was spent on the horizontal schemes and only 17% on schemes aimed at biodiversity and landscape conservation Schemes with the highest uptake: crop rotation stabilization (18% of AEP budget) and the basic subsidy (17%) Source: Groier & Loibl (2000)

van Huylenbroeck 2000) The Walloon programme consists of five horizontal schemes and six zonal schemes The programme addresses environmental and biodiversity aspects more or less equally but in 1997 only 25% of the AEP area was under some scheme addressing biodiversity or landscape conservation issues Highest uptake: planting a cover-crop between two crops (41%) and restricting stocking densities to between 0·6 and 1·4 lifestock units (26% of AEP area) Source: Walot (2002)

1990) The majority of the schemes of the Danish AEP are applied zonally (ESA approach) Schemes aimed at the reduction of nitrogen use, promotion of rygrass as ground cover and organic farming can be implemented throughout the country The main objective of the Danish AEP is to achieve a reduction in nitrogen inputs Landscape and nature protection has been of minor importance so far Highest uptake: maintenance of extensive grasland (52% of AEP area) and organic farming (37%) Source: Andersen, Henningsen & Primdahl (2000)

Protection Scheme’ (GPS) with six compulsory basic measures and five additional measures of which one has to be selected Furthermore, a ‘Special Protection Scheme’ (SPS, 12 measures) exists that is optional but participation is available only in combination with the GPS The emphasis of the Finnish programme is on environmental aspects: one of six compulsory measures and one of five additional measures of the GPS address biodiversity and landscape maintenance Three of the 12 measures of the SPS address promotion of biodiversity and landscape Source: M Kaljonen (unpublished paper)

In France, national and regional schemes exist alongside ‘local operations’ As regional schemes are the same in each region, both the national and the regional schemes can be considered horizontal whereas the local operations are zonal Main goal of the AEP

is to maintain agricultural activities in areas with a high risk of agricultural land abandonment and rural depopulation Highest uptake: the national scheme – maintenance of extensive animal husbandry (70% of the total AEP budget) and local operations (c 15% of AEP budget) By 1997 some 67% of the local operations addressed wildlife and ecosystem protection Source: Buller

& Brives (2000)

The German AEP is difficult to summarize as each federal state (‘Land’) has its own AEP Almost all schemes are horizontal within each federal state with the exception of schemes aimed at the protection of environment, natural resources, countryside and landscape, which are zonal in some of the states German agri-environment schemes can be divided in two main types First, schemes aimed at changing farming practices and second, schemes aimed at the preservation of specific environmentally vulnerable areas, biotopes or species The latter schemes contribute only 9% of the total AEP area (Osterburg 2001), however, in some federal states these schemes operate outside the framework of regulation 2078/92 and are therefore not co-funded by the EU

c 70% of the German AEP budget between 1993 and 1996 was spent by the agriculturally extensive German states Bayern, Würtemberg and Sachsen Highest uptake: environmentally orientated basic payment – only in Bayern and Sachsen (57% of total German AEP budget) and grassland schemes – extensification, conversion to arable land, preservation of specific biotopes (23%) Source: Grafen & Schramek (2000)

So far, five of a projected 13 schemes have been implemented The schemes address organic plant production, organic livestock production, 20-year set aside, reduction of nitrogen pollution and conservation of endangered breeds Highest uptake: reduction

of nitrogen pollution (29·500 ha) Source: Louloudis, Beopoulos & Vlahos (2000), Louloudis & Dimopoulos (2001)

(REPS) consists of one scheme only with 11 compulsory measures and a further six ‘Supplementary Measures’ The basic scheme

is very comprehensive and addresses biodiversity and environmental protection, training courses and keeping of farm and environmental records The REPS aims to conserve wildlife habitats and endangered species of flora and fauna as well as to address environmental problems Five compulsory measures are particularly relevant to biodiversity conservation All Supplementary Measures are primarily aimed at conservation aspects and only apply in designated areas Source: Emerson & Gillmor (1999)

their own agri-environmental programme Within regions most schemes are implemented horizontally The AEP is primarily used

as an instrument to reduce the negative impact of agriculture on the environment Biodiversity conservation is only addressed indirectly through the maintenance of the countryside and the landscape scheme However, 94% of this scheme is implemented

in the provinces of Bolzano, Trento and Valle d’Aosta, and is therefore virtually restricted to the alpine region Highest uptake: reduction of fertilizer and pesticides inputs (37% of AEP area) and maintenance of countryside and landscape (32%) Source: INEA (1999)

Luxembourg, had been implemented in 1997 This scheme addressed maintenance of the countryside and landscape Source: Anonymous (1998).

Landscape Scheme is mainly aimed at maintaining agricultural practices in marginal areas and has general prescriptions that are easy to adapt to The Special Measures for the Cultural Landscape Scheme consists of much more detailed prescriptions, many having objectives aimed at nature conservation Highest uptake: unknown Source: Rønningen (2001)

agricultural pollution and training courses and demonstration projects are applied horizontally, all other schemes are zonal and most of them address specific farming systems Emphasis of the Portugese AEP is on the maintenance of extensive farming systems The schemes with the expected highest uptake rates are those aimed at the maintenance of extensive grazing systems and Holm Oak landscapes (‘montados’) Highest uptake: not available yet Source: Eden & Vieira (2000)

regions but a set of mandatory horizontal and zonal schemes is prescribed by the national government The implementation of the Spanish scheme has met with considerable delay and data on uptake are only preliminary Estimated budget allocation suggests that the emphasis of the Spanish AEP lies on landscape protection (48% of AEP budget) and extensification (30%)

Highest uptake: preliminary data indicate that landscape conservation and fire prevention in extensive grasslands are the two schemes with the highest uptake rates followed by schemes aimed at wildlife protection in extensive croplands Source: Peco et al (2000)

1986) The Swedish AEP consists of four clusters of schemes each having a different objective The ‘environmentally sensitive area’ cluster is zonal, the others are basically horizontal The AEP objectives are to maintain a naturally and culturally valuable and varied landscape, to conserve biodiversity and to minimize nutrient leaching and pesticide use Uptake figures indicate that schemes aimed at the maintenance of open landscapes and conservation of cultural-historical remains are very popular, whereas uptake of schemes aimed at biodiversity conservation remain far below the targeted areas Highest uptake: maintenance of open landscape in forest and northern regions (30% of AEP area) and perennial ley farming (29%) Source: Carlsen & Hasund (2000)

EU-member countries Farmers throughout Switzerland may manage at least 7% of their UAA as so-called Ecological Compensation Areas (ECAs) in order to obtain a basic direct payment The 7% ECA may consist of a variety of biotopes such

as extensive grasslands, traditional orchards, hedges, field margin strips, conservation headlands, ditches, stone walls or unpaved roads Farmers can receive additional management subsidies for some of these biotopes, such as extensive grasslands Some types

of biotopes, such as again extensive grasslands, that meet a certain quality level and/or are located in ecological corridors between important habitats qualify for additional subsidies The overall aim of ECAs is halting the agriculturally induced loss of biodiversity by conserving valuable biotopes, restoring degraded biotopes and creating new biotopes Highest uptake: low-intensity meadows (49% of ECA area) and extensively used meadows (41%) Source: Günter et al (2002)

797/85 and partly outside the EU-context since 1981) The Dutch AEP consists of seven schemes One scheme (management agreements) specifically addresses the maintenance and conservation of biodiversity and landscape and is applied zonally All other schemes address a variety of topics including demonstration projects, training courses and public access to farmland In budgetary terms the zonal scheme is by far the most important Highest uptake: management agreements (90% of AEP area) Source: Anonymous (2000)

797/85 since 1987) The AEP varies somewhat between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland but the basic outline is the same For the whole of the UK nine different schemes exist of which only one, the ‘Organic Aid Scheme’ is truly horizontal Others can either be applied in certain regions or address certain biotopes There is a strong emphasis in the UK AEP on wildlife conservation The concept of Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) was originally developed in the UK and first implemented here under regulation 797/85 and still forms the backbone of the UK AEP Wildlife conservation in the wider countryside is addressed by the Countryside Stewardship Scheme Environmental issues play a minor role (Nitrate Sensitive Areas scheme and Organic Aid Scheme) Highest uptake: ESA scheme (58% of AEP budget and 74% of area) and Countryside Stewardship Scheme (21% of budget and 7% of area) Source: Hart & Wilson (2000)

16, EC Regulation 746/96) Currently, most evaluationstudies simply examine uptake patterns of differentschemes within programmes However, implementation

of schemes does not guarantee that the stated ives of the scheme will actually be met Furthermore,the biodiversity and environmental objectives are rarelydefined clearly at the outset, which hampers properevaluation in a number of countries (Schramek 2001)

object-Table 2 summarizes all those studies that we havebeen able to locate that evaluate the effects of agri-

environment schemes on the abundance or species ness of organisms Initially, we performed an extensiveliterature review However, as most evaluation studiesare published outside the mainstream scientific jour-nals, we also searched the internet and approachedsome 40 key people outside the Netherlands and theUnited Kingdom to ascertain whether they knew ofany evaluation studies in their country or of any personwho might have more information Many studiesclaimed to evaluate the effects of schemes but simply

we are confident that we have conducted a thoroughsearch for studies throughout Europe We located 62studies from just six countries, of which 76% were fromjust two countries (18 from the Netherlands and 29from the United Kingdom) Only 27% (17) of the stud-ies were published in international peer-reviewed jour-nals Excluding the United Kingdom and Ireland, 83%

of the studies were published in the national languageand remain therefore largely inaccessible to people out-side that country (Table 2, Table 3)

   

   

The approaches to evaluation varied enormously, evenwithin individual countries, making it very difficult toascribe a specific study design (Table 2) For example,the most common approach (37% of the studies) com-pared biodiversity in the agri-environment scheme andcontrol areas at one point in time However, some stud-ies compared entire areas with a mosaic of schemes,nature reserves and conventional management withareas that were managed conventionally throughoutand usually were located outside ESAs Other studiescompared the pooled species diversity of all fields withagri-environment schemes with the pooled speciesdiversity of all conventionally managed fields in a sin-gle area that consisted of a mosaic of scheme and con-ventional fields The same difficulties apply to the twoother common study design, examining changes in bio-diversity (26% of the studies) or trends in time in areaswith and without schemes (32%) Only 34% of the stud-ies included baseline data, and 16% used a paired studyapproach to reduce environmental noise (Table 3)

The number of replicates varied from 1 to 398 Thenumber of controls was often similar to the number ofreplicates but in some cases far larger or smaller (161controls for 26 experimental replicates and, of greaterconcern, 2 controls for 82 experimental replicates).Two Swiss studies compared the spatial distribution ofbirds over the landscape and analysed whether siteswith schemes were used by birds more than would beexpected based on a random distribution These stud-ies did not contain formal control areas The data from31% of the studies were not analysed statistically Somereports divided the analysis into a number of groups,such as common vs Red List plant species To avoidreplication and information overload we selected themeasure (usually species richness) that seemed to bestrepresent the results We checked that this was not dis-torting the conclusions

Twenty studies (32%) assessed the effects of schemes

on plants, 20 (32%) on various insect groups andspiders, one (2%) on mammals (brown hare Lepus euro- paeus Pallas) while 29 (47%) studies investigated theresponse of birds

   

   

Our results show that plant diversity may be difficult

to enhance with agri-environment schemes (Table 2).Eleven of the 20 studies addressing botanical diversityfound positive effects of schemes whereas two studiesreported negative effects Considering the subsample

of 14 studies that subjected the data to some form ofstatistical analysis, six studies demonstrated positiveand two studies demonstrated negative effects ofschemes, the remaining seven studies finding no effect

at all The poor performance of the evaluated environment schemes with botanical objectives is inaccordance with results of experimental studies Thesegenerally show that it is extremely difficult to enhance thebotanical diversity of intensively farmed agricultural

agri-Fig 1 Conceptual models describing (a) the relationship between farming intensity and the impact of schemes on a farmer’s

activities (solid line) as well as the uptake of those schemes (dashed line), and illustrating (b) the potential effects of schemes

addressing ‘improvement effects’ and ‘protection effects’ (sensu Primdahl et al 2003) An equal shift in land-use intensity

may result in a more pronounced effect on biodiversity (shaded area) in extensive areas compared with intensive areas

or inside declining less rapidl

Plant species richness incr

ESAs on fields with and without schemes

ESAs on fields with and without schemes