Search results

Over half of the European landscape is under agricultural management and has been for millennia. Many species and ecosystems of conservation concern in Europe depend on agricultural management and are showing ongoing declines. Agri-environment schemes (AES) are designed partly to address this. They are a major source of nature conservation funding within the European Union (EU) and the highest conservation expenditure in Europe. We reviewed the structure of current AES across Europe. Since a 2003 review questioned the overall effectiveness of AES for biodiversity, there has been a plethora of case studies and meta-analyses examining their effectiveness. Most syntheses demonstrate general increases in farmland biodiversity in response to AES, with the size of the effect depending on the structure and management of the surrounding landscape. This is important in the light of successive EU enlargement and ongoing reforms of AES. We examined the change in effect size over time by merging the data sets of 3 recent meta-analyses and found that schemes implemented after revision of the EU's agri-environmental programs in 2007 were not more effective than schemes implemented before revision. Furthermore, schemes aimed at areas out of production (such as field margins and hedgerows) are more effective at enhancing species richness than those aimed at productive areas (such as arable crops or grasslands). Outstanding research questions include whether AES enhance ecosystem services, whether they are more effective in agriculturally marginal areas than in intensively farmed areas, whether they are more or less cost-effective for farmland biodiversity than protected areas, and how much their effectiveness is influenced by farmer training and advice? The general lesson from the European experience is that AES can be effective for conserving wildlife on farmland, but they are expensive and need to be carefully designed and targeted. ; This is the final published version. It first appeared from Wiley ...

Over half of the European landscape is under agricultural management and has been for millennia. Many species and ecosystems of conservation concern in Europe depend on agricultural management and are showing ongoing declines. Agri-environment schemes (AES) are designed partly to address this. They are a major source of nature conservation funding within the European Union (EU) and the highest conservation expenditure in Europe. We reviewed the structure of current AES across Europe. Since a 2003 review questioned the overall effectiveness of AES for biodiversity, there has been a plethora of case studies and meta-analyses examining their effectiveness. Most syntheses demonstrate general increases in farmland biodiversity in response to AES, with the size of the effect depending on the structure and management of the surrounding landscape. This is important in the light of successive EU enlargement and ongoing reforms of AES. We examined the change in effect size over time by merging the data sets of 3 recent meta-analyses and found that schemes implemented after revision of the EU's agri-environmental programs in 2007 were not more effective than schemes implemented before revision. Furthermore, schemes aimed at areas out of production (such as field margins and hedgerows) are more effective at enhancing species richness than those aimed at productive areas (such as arable crops or grasslands). Outstanding research questions include whether AES enhance ecosystem services, whether they are more effective in agriculturally marginal areas than in intensively farmed areas, whether they are more or less cost-effective for farmland biodiversity than protected areas, and how much their effectiveness is influenced by farmer training and advice? The general lesson from the European experience is that AES can be effective for conserving wildlife on farmland, but they are expensive and need to be carefully designed and targeted. ; peerReviewed

Over half of the European landscape is under agricultural management and has been for millennia. Many species and ecosystems of conservation concern in Europe depend on agricultural management and are showing ongoing declines. Agri-environment schemes (AES) are designed partly to address this. They are a major source of nature conservation funding within the European Union (EU) and the highest conservation expenditure in Europe. We reviewed the structure of current AES across Europe. Since a 2003 review questioned the overall effectiveness of AES for biodiversity, there has been a plethora of case studies and meta-analyses examining their effectiveness. Most syntheses demonstrate general increases in farmland biodiversity in response to AES, with the size of the effect depending on the structure and management of the surrounding landscape. This is important in the light of successive EU enlargement and ongoing reforms of AES. We examined the change in effect size over time by merging the data sets of 3 recent meta-analyses and found that schemes implemented after revision of the EU's agri-environmental programs in 2007 were not more effective than schemes implemented before revision. Furthermore, schemes aimed at areas out of production (such as field margins and hedgerows) are more effective at enhancing species richness than those aimed at productive areas (such as arable crops or grasslands). Outstanding research questions include whether AES enhance ecosystem services, whether they are more effective in agriculturally marginal areas than in intensively farmed areas, whether they are more or less cost-effective for farmland biodiversity than protected areas, and how much their effectiveness is influenced by farmer training and advice? The general lesson from the European experience is that AES can be effective for conserving wildlife on farmland, but they are expensive and need to be carefully designed and targeted.

The decline of bees and other invertebrate pollinators is cause for global concern, with modern intensive agriculture identified as a key driver. Government-run agri-environment schemes (AES) have the potential to restore the local landscape to benefit bees. Bee abundance, species richness and foraged plants were surveyed over a season on 18 farms in Shropshire, UK, classified into three treatment groups for comparison: Conventional, Entry-Level Stewardship AES (ELS), and Higher-Level Stewardship AES (HLS). Bee abundance and species diversity were significantly higher on AES-compliant farms: there were only small or non-significant differences between ELS- and HLS-compliant farms. ELS and HLS farms had higher diversity of floral foraging resources than conventionally managed farms. Cirsium, Heracleum sphondylium, and Rubus fruticosus were important resources for bees through the season. Synthesis and applications: These results highlight that key ELS actions, such as set-aside of uncultivated field margins, hedgerow restoration, late-cut meadows and sowing of nectar-rich flower mixes, are effective AES options to improve the landscape for bee communities. Many plants considered agricultural weeds are important forage resources for bees.

© 2020 The decline of bees and other invertebrate pollinators is cause for global concern, with modern intensive agriculture identified as a key driver. Government-run agri-environment schemes (AES) have the potential to restore the local landscape to benefit bees. Bee abundance, species richness and foraged plants were surveyed over a season on 18 farms in Shropshire, UK, classified into three treatment groups for comparison: Conventional, Entry-Level Stewardship AES (ELS), and Higher-Level Stewardship AES (HLS). Bee abundance and species diversity were significantly higher on AES-compliant farms: there were only small or non-significant differences between ELS- and HLS-compliant farms. ELS and HLS farms had higher diversity of floral foraging resources than conventionally managed farms. Cirsium, Heracleum sphondylium, and Rubus fruticosus were important resources for bees through the season. Synthesis and applications: These results highlight that key ELS actions, such as set-aside of uncultivated field margins, hedgerow restoration, late-cut meadows and sowing of nectar-rich flower mixes, are effective AES options to improve the landscape for bee communities. Many plants considered agricultural weeds are important forage resources for bees.

Incentive-based mechanisms, such as payments for ecosystem services (PES) are increasingly being employed to encourage adoption of biodiversity conservation practices in agriculture. Farmers' participation in a PES depends – amongst other factors – on their interactions with previous programs and schemes. This research analyses how the institutional characteristics and interactions of incentive-based mechanisms shape the type of farmers' participation and the achievement of desired socio-ecological outcomes. This research focusses on the institutional frameworks of two programs in the Province of Quebec, Canada: the 'Prime-Vert' Program (public agri-environment scheme) and the 'Alternative Land Use Services' (ALUS) initiative (a privately-funded "PES" scheme). The institutional prescriptions of these two programs were examined and compared through the lenses of the Institutional Analysis and Development framework. We reveal the impact of the institutional framework on farmers' participation by assessing the degree of farmers' engagement in the implementation and management of schemes. Our results showed a strong dependence of the private PES on the public scheme, rendering both programs ultimately managed under the remit of the provincial government. While the complementarity of both programs diversifies sources of funding for farmers, the presence of rigid rules governing these incentives tend to treat farmers as passive beneficiaries of a network of centralized subsidies which they have little control over. This compromises farmers' autonomy as the rigidity of rules impedes any attempt to achieve active participation in the design and implementation of agri-environmental practices.

The conservation of biodiversity on private land is both a high priority and a considerable challenge. An effective response to this challenge requires a combination of legislative and incentive mechanisms, coupled with preparedness by government to review and revise administrative arrangements. Preliminary results from the Environmental Stewardship Program, established by the Australian Government, highlight that there is a role for market-based approaches. However, implementation of this program through a Commonwealth bureaucracy was not without its challenges. Here we provide an overview of the program's implementation from 2007 to 2012, followed by discussion of some key lessons learned. ; Peer Review

Learning from agri-environment schemes in Australia is a book about the birds and the beef — more specifically it is about the billions of dollars that governments pay farmers around the world each year to protect and restore biodiversity. After more than two decades of these schemes in Australia, what have we learnt? Are we getting the most out of these investments, and how should we do things differently in the future? Involving contributions from ecologists, economists, social scientists, restoration practitioners and policymakers, this book provides short, engaging chapters that cover a wide spectrum of environmental, agricultural and social issues involved in agri-environment schemes.

Intro -- Preface -- List of figures -- List of tables and boxes -- List of acronyms and abbreviations -- Contributors -- Introduction: Framing the agri‑environment -- Part I. The agri‑environment in the real world -- Working effectively with farmers on agri-environment investment -- The Environmental Stewardship Program: Lessons on creating long-term agri-environment schemes -- Do farmers love brolgas, seagrass and coral reefs? It depends on who's paying, how much, and for how long! -- The vital role of environmental NGOs: Trusted brokers in complex markets -- Agricultural land use policy in the European Union: A brief history and lessons learnt -- A brief history of agri‑environment policy in Australia: From community-based NRM to market-based instruments -- Part II. The birds and the beef -- Can recognition of ecosystem services help biodiversity conservation? -- A perspective on land sparing versus land sharing -- Restoring ecosystem services on private farmlands: Lessons from economics -- Scaling the benefits of agri‑environment schemes for biodiversity -- Social dimensions of biodiversity conservation programs -- Contract preferences and psychological determinants of participation in agri‑environment schemes -- Accounting for private benefits in ecological restoration planning -- Part III. Planning, doing and learning -- Defining and designing cost‑effective agri-environment schemes -- Transaction costs in agri‑environment schemes -- What a difference a metric makes: Strong (and weak) metrics for agri-environment schemes -- Public benefits, private benefits, and the choice of policy tool for land-use change -- Controls and counterfactual information in agro-ecological investment -- Achieving greater gains in biodiversity from agri‑environment schemes -- Lessons for policy from Australia's experience with conservation tenders