Agri-Environmental Policies and Their Effectiveness in Norway, Austria, Bavaria, France, Switzerland and Wales: Review and Recommendations

Report 11/2014 Agri-environmental policies and their effectiveness in Norway, Austria, Bavaria, France, Switzerland and Wales: Review and recommendations

Agri-environmental policies

Report from Skog og landskap 11/2014

Agri-environmental policies and their effectiveness in Norway, Austria, Bavaria, France, Switzerland and Wales: Review and recommendations

Christina Blumentrath, Grete Stokstad, Wenche Dramstad & Sebastian Eiter

ISSN 1891-7933 ISBN 978-82-311-0217-5

Cover photos: Top left: France (W. Dramstad) Top right: Austria (O. Bender) Centre left: Norway (S. Eiter) Centre right: Bavaria (N. Siebrecht) Bottom left: Wales (S. Eiter) Bottom right: Switzerland (S. Eiter)

1 Agri-environmental policies

Contents

Acknowledgements ...... 2

Abstract ...... 3

1 Introduction ...... 5 1.1 Aim and scope of this review ...... 6 1.2 Method ...... 7

2 Support measures in European agricultural policies ...... 9 2.1 The Norwegian subsidy system ...... 9 2.2 Rural development policies ...... 13 2.3 Measures of importance for biodiversity, cultural heritage, landscape scenery, and recreation ...... 15

3 Agricultural subsidies for biodiversity ...... 20 3.1 Measures targeted at biodiversity ...... 21 3.1.1 Species diversity ...... 21 3.1.2 Habitat diversity ...... 25 3.1.3 Genetic diversity ...... 28 3.2 Conclusion ...... 30

4 Agricultural subsidies for cultural heritage ...... 32 4.1 Rural Development Plans ...... 33 4.2 Other measures ...... 35 4.3 Conclusion ...... 35

5 Agricultural subsidies for landscape scenery and recreation ...... 37 5.1 Maintaining cultural landscapes ...... 38 5.2 Linear landscape elements ...... 42 5.3 Public access to the countryside ...... 44 5.4 Conclusion ...... 45

6 Overall conclusions ...... 46 6.1 European agricultural support – complex structure but similar aims ...... 46 6.2 RDP as a driving force for changes in landscapes, biodiversity and cultural heritage ...... 46 6.3 Criticisms of scheme design and evaluation difficulties ...... 47 6.4 Acceptance of agricultural support ...... 49 6.5 Scheme success stories and future challenges: "simple" measures and "better" evaluation – in Norway and internationally ...... 49

7 References ...... 52

2 Agri-environmental policies Acknowledgements

C.B. has conducted the major part of the Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, Germany), S. international literature review and intervi- Lauber (Eidgenössische Forschungsan- ews, and compiled most of the stalt WSL, Switzerland), T. Little (Organic manuscript. G.S. has written the introduc- Centre, Wales), F. Lücke (LBV e.V., Bava- tory sections about Norway. W.D. and S.E. ria), C. Marguerat (Eidgenössisches Volks- have supervised the work and revised the wirtschaftsdepartement, Bundesamt für manuscript. They also were responsible Landwirtschaft, Switzerland), K. Naumann for the work as Head of Section and pro- (Staatsministerium für Ernährung, Land- ject leader, respectively. wirtschaft und Forsten, Bavaria), H. Rapey (Cemagref Clermont-Ferrand, France), M. The authors thank the following persons Stadler (Austrian Federal Ministry of Agri- for providing very useful information: C. culture, Forestry, Environment and Water Badertscher (Bundesamt für Land- Management), P. Théodore (DRAAF wirtschaft, Switzerland), A. Bartel Rhône-Alpes, France), L. Treffler (Staats- (Umweltbundesamt, Austria), A. Colom- ministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft bani (Agreste, France), B. Dechambre und Forsten, Bavaria), and J. Williams (Ministère de l'Alimentation de l'Agricul- (Welsh Assembly Government). Thanks ture et de la Pêche, France), K. Eckstein are also due to Gesine Jiménez Martínez (TU Weihenstephan, Bavaria), M. Groier for assistance with making the document (Bundesanstalt für Bergbauernfragen, ready for publication, and to the different Austria), W. Güthler (Staatsministerium für photographers for permission to use their Umwelt und Gesundheit, Bavaria), G. Heu- images. The study was financed by the singer (Landesamt für Umwelt, Bavaria), Research Council of Norway, grant no. Neil Howard (Department for Rural Affairs 186911. and Heritage, Wales), J.-C. Jauneau (ISARA Lyon, France), S. Klimek (Johann

3 Abstract

This review identifies ‘successful’ policies small areas, and for requiring a great deal for biodiversity, cultural heritage, and of organization and implementation work. landscape scenery and recreation in In terms of future developments of the Austria, France, Bavaria (Germany), Wales Norwegian agricultural and agri-environ- (UK), and Switzerland, and a comparison mental subsidy system we recommend with current efforts in Norway. All of these examining the following particular policies countries face similar risks and challenges, more closely: the Organic Farming mostly with regard to mountain areas. scheme in Austria, the Welsh whole-farm Sources used for the analysis were the scheme Tir Gofal, and the Austrian, Bava- evaluations of the national Rural Develop- rian and Swiss measures for cultural lands- ment Plans, and the midway evaluation cape maintenance. and national ex-post evaluations of the Since no ‘best practice’ or ‘standard CAP programme period 2000–2006. An design’ of agricultural support schemes evaluation of the Swiss Direct Payment has been recognized on an international System was available from 2009, as well as level to date, an enhanced evaluation information about further development system will be as important as new and from 2011. Scientific papers and other offi- adjusted schemes. Monitoring data suita- cial reports by, e.g., the OECD, the Euro- ble for comparison should be collected, pean Commission and the European Envi- based on internationally defined indica- ronmental Agency, were used as well. tors. For the time being, we suggest “dou- Expert interviews were conducted by tele- ble-tracked” agri-environmental support: phone and e-mail. mainly measures that have proved to be Measures deemed particularly successful effective; but also measures where posi- often had very specific aims, included tive effects are considered very likely due local information, appeared to involve to well-known cause-effect relationships, fairly simple application and organization even though they may not yet have been requirements, were developed and desig- thoroughly documented and approved, ned in cooperation with farmers and were e.g. because of their long-term character adapted to local characteristics or challen- or due to weaknesses in monitoring and ges. Measures considered less successful evaluation. were criticized for being unfair in terms of regional repartition of grants, for lacking transparency, for being applied only to

Keywords: Agricultural subsidies, Biodiversity, Cultural heritage, Landscape scenery, Recreation 1 Introduction

Expressed aims of Norwegian agricultural policy have been, and still are, food secu- Box 1: PSE rity and preventing loss of the limited agri- The Producers Support Estimate is an indicator of agricultural support developed by the OECD. It is an account of the monetary value of different cultural land resource in Norway (only types of policy measures, such as subsidies, compensation payments for 3.2 % of the mainland area is fully cultiva- charging lower prices, and market price support and polices providing tax ted land; http://www.ssb.no/english/sub- concessions or fee reductions (OECD 2009: 2). jects/01/01/areal_en/, 12.12.2011). In addi- Producer Support Estimate (PSE) per country (OECD 2010) tion, Norwegian Governments stress the 70 % importance of a sustainable land use for biodiversity, maintenance of cultural 60 % landscapes and cultural heritage, and for 50 % promoting recreation opportunities for the public (Plattform for regjeringssamar- 40 % beidet mellom Arbeiderpartiet, Sosialis- tisk Venstreparti og Senterpartiet 2005; 30 % 2006 Politisk plattform for en regjering utgått 2009 20 % av Høyre og Fremskrittspartiet 2013). Not least because of the relevance of agricul- 10 % ture for these ‘public goods’, the Norwe- 0 % gian authorities offer a wide range of Australia Iceland Norway Switzerland European Union forms of agricultural support. (27 countries) According to the OECD, Norway’s Produ- cers Support Estimate (PSE) (Box 1) was 61 % between 2007 and 2009, which

5 1. Introduction

means that 61 % of the gross farm income current Norwegian efforts, we also provide came from government support, thus ran- a brief summary of these. Additionally, we king Norway first among all OECD coun- aim to identify ‘successful’ agricultural tries, followed closely by Switzerland policies and subsidies, that is policies and (58 %) (OECD 2010). subsidies that have been documented to have the desired effects on biodiversity, Despite the high level of support for the cultural heritage, and landscape scenery agricultural sector in many European and recreation. We have chosen to look countries, the number of farms has decli- closer at measures available in five coun- ned in recent years. At the same time, agri- tries: Austria, France, Bavaria (Germany), culture still exerts a high pressure on envi- Wales (UK), and Switzerland. With the ronmental goods (EEA 2009: 34). exception of Switzerland, all are member However, in some regions, cessation of states of the European Union. Even agriculture is a reason for concern also though the agrarian structures differ gre- from an environmental perspective, due to atly among these countries (Table 1), the species loss and landscape changes countries are all facing similar risks and (Hamell 2001). In general, this has led to challenges, mostly with regard to moun- strengthened efforts in terms of research tain areas where the abandonment of and discussions on the effectiveness of farms and decline in summer pastures different kinds of subsidies on national causes a reduction in open landscapes, and international levels (Hamell 2001, with negative impacts on biodiversity and Kleijn & Sutherland 2003, Kleijn et al. the rural cultural heritage (MacDonald et 2004). Moreover, with the long-term al. 2000). Also, all of the countries selec- objective to establish a worldwide fair and ted for the present review have signed the market-oriented trading system, agricul- Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) tural policies in all member states of the (SCBD 2010). The CBD is highly relevant in WTO (World Trade Organization) are this context, as it recognizes the important under debate. role played by decision makers such as In 1995 the WTO members agreed to landowners and farmers in protecting bio- improve market access and reduce trade- diversity. Governments are therefore distorting subsidies in agriculture (Mjør- required to set rules that guide the use of lund & Vårdal 2007; Huige et al. 2010), and natural resources, to develop national bio- even though the current round of trade diversity strategies and action plans, and negotiations (Doha Development Agenda) to integrate these into broader national which started in 2001 has not yet ended, plans for environment and development, there is no doubt that export subsidies explicitly stated as being particularly have to cease and import protection has to important for such sectors as forestry, be reduced (Huige et al. 2010). This con- agriculture, fisheries, energy, transporta- cerns also the Norwegian agricultural sup- tion and urban planning. port system, which has to change towards The European Landscape Convention subsidies without influence on trade or pro- (ELC) has been ratified by France and the duction (the ‘green box’ measures in WTO UK. Switzerland signed the ELC in 2000 terminology) (see Box 2) (Mjørlund & but has not yet ratified it, while the federal Vårdal 2007). Yet in what way can the sup- states of Austria and Germany have not port system be developed? How can we signed the Convention (CoE 2008). The design agricultural subsidies which are European Landscape Convention effective incentives for farmers to promote demands from the signing parties that and maintain public goods, while at the they implement landscape as a theme in same time securing food security through a all policies – also agricultural. Also the ELC continued food production? is focused on stakeholder involvement, and it states explicitly that it applies not 1.1 Aim and scope of this review solely to the extraordinary landscapes of To benefit from existing know-how and high protective value, but equally well to experiences of other countries in the field the "everyday" landscapes. In Norway as in of agricultural policies, the aim of this many other countries, a large proportion review is to give an overview of existent of the "everyday" landscapes have a agricultural subsidies in some European strong agricultural influence. countries. To enable a comparison with

6 Agri-environmental policies

Box 2: The WTO ‘boxes’ of domestic support in agriculture (WTO 2010) Amber box Blue box Green box All domestic support measures Any support that would normally These subsidies must not distort considered to distort production be in the amber box is placed in trade, or at best cause minimal and trade (except those in the the blue box if the support also re- distortion. They have to be go- blue and green boxes). This box quires farmers to limit production. vernment-funded (as opposed to includes measures to support pri- At present there are no limits on charging consumers higher prices and subsidies directly related spending on blue box subsidies. ces).They tend not to be targeted to production quantities. In the at particular products, and include current WTO trade negotiations direct income support for farmers round, various proposals deal with that are not related to (are ‘deco- how much these subsidies should upled’ from) current production be reduced by. levels or prices. They also include environmental protection and regional development programmes.

Table 1: Statistics for agriculture in the countries studied (in 2007) Austria1 Bavaria2 France3 Wales4 Switzer- Norway6 land5 Inhabitants 8,362,000 12,519,728 64,491,000 2,980,000 7,709,000 4,768,212 Total surface area 83,872 km2 70,552 km2 551,500 km2 20,779 km2 41,284 km2 323,779 km2 Agricultural land ( % of 31,900 km2 32,200 km2 293,141 km2 14,599 km2 10,581 km2 10,232 km2 total land area) (38 %) (46 %) (53 %) (70 %) (26 %) (3 %) Grassland (of total agri- 51 % 35 % 33 % 85 % 70 % 17 %7 cultural land) Arable farming (of total 43 % 64 % 62 % 10 % 26 % 83 %7 agricultural land) Agricultural holdings 169,079 121,659 506,900 38,215 61,765 49,935 Average farm size 35 ha 27.3 ha 78 ha 38 ha 17.2 ha 20.7 ha

Notes: 1 Lebensministerium 2009c: 12; 2 StMLF 2008; 3 Agreste 2008; 4 Welsh Assembly Government 2009a, 2009b; 5 Bundesamt für Statistik Schweiz 2010a; 6 Statistisk sentralbyrå 2013; 7 Sown hay meadows in Norway are included arable land.

1.2 Method land) (Bundesamt für Landwirtschaft To identify agricultural policies and subsi- 2010a). dies which are successful with regard to It became apparent that most schemes maintaining and enhancing biodiversity, provided for EU farmers are organized cultural heritage and landscape scenery, under the Rural Development Programme we initially looked more closely at the far- policies for 2007 – 2013 as a part of the ming scheme information websites of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). In respective authorities responsible for agri- Switzerland the agricultural payments, culture: the Welsh Assembly Government called Direktzahlungen (Direct Payments), (Welsh Assembly Government 2010a), are targeted at quite similar objectives but Bayerisches Staatsministerium für they are organized in a different way and Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten they are not limited to a particular pro- (StMELF; Bavaria) (StMELF 2010), gramme period (see Table 2) (Bundesamt Lebensministerium (Austria) (Lebensmi- für Statistik Schweiz 2010b). nisterium 2010a), Ministère de l'alimentation, de l'agriculture et de la pêche The main sources for the analysis of the (France) (Ministère de l'alimentation, de Rural Development Programme policies l'agriculture et de la pêche 2010), and presented in this review were the available Bundesamt für Landwirtschaft (Switzer- evaluations of the national Rural Develop- ment Plans. A summarizing, comparative

7 1. Introduction

and Europe-wide ex-post evaluation of the tural heritage or recreation opportunities programme period 2000 – 2006 as well as were either not included or were insuffici- national mid-term evaluations of the ently considered in the evaluation reports, recent programme period (2007 – 2013) representing a challenge for this work. were not yet available. Thus, the most In addition to the evaluation reports, and recent comparative study of Rural scientific papers, two reports from 2005 Development Plans in Europe can be targeted especially at the so-called agri- found in the results of the midway evalua- environment schemes on a European level tion of the programme period 2000 – (EC 2005; Oréade-Brèche 2005), and also 2006 (European Commission 2005) (cf. reports on agricultural policies and envi- Agra CEAS Consulting 2005). Also the ronmental themes published by the OECD national ex-post evaluation reports for the (2008; 2010), by the European Commis- period 2000 – 2006 were available. These sion (EC 2005), by the European Environ- are more complicated to compare, ment Agency (EEA 2009), and by the however, not the least because of the nati- Institute for European Environmental onal languages, the volume of the studies Policy (Cooper et al. 2009), respectively, (e.g. for France there is a combined total were useful. Furthermore, in the period of 2600 pages), and the lack of standardi- March to August 2010 informal telephone zation in terms of evaluation requirements. and e-mail interviews with experts were The situation regarding Switzerland is conducted (e.g. from the responsible agri- better due to the availability of an evalua- cultural authorities, the universities of tion report from 2009 about the current Weihenstephan (Bavaria) and ISARA Direct Payment System as well as informa- (Lyon/France), and the Swiss Federal tion about the ongoing further develop- Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape ment of the payments from 2011. Research (WSL)) in an attempt to identify While information about effects of the national ‘success stories’ in farming sup- policies on biodiversity and on landscape port with regard to the three themes of was readily available, albeit with a number interest: biodiversity, cultural heritage, and of inconclusive results, topics such as cul- landscape scenery and recreation.

8 Agri-environmental policies 2 Support measures in European agricultural policies

Financial support within agricultural poli- form of AES scheme organisation is prac- cies has a long tradition in all European ticed and reported to be successful elsew- countries and in the Common Agricultural here. Policy (CAP) of the European Union. More than 50 percent of the Produce Sup- However, only a few measures have had a port Estimate for Norway is due to price direct focus on encouraging the provision support in some form, either as a direct of environmental public goods (Cooper et price support (budget support) or as the al. 2009). Norway does, naturally, not have difference between import price and the to follow the Common Agricultural Policy, price in the domestic market (due to toll but the hypothesis underlying this review on import). Such measures are considered is that a review probably would reveal less important for this review; however, more similarities than differences. price in the market in combination with area support and livestock related pay- 2.1 The Norwegian subsidy system ments are important factors when the Subsidizing agriculture appears to be farmer decides whether farming is an widely accepted in the Norwegian popula- economically interesting activity or not. It tion at large, the question about whether also influences what to produce and how this system provides good "value for to grow/produce it on his/her land. This money" has been raised in Norway, as in implies that it influences management many other countries (Wilson and Hart decisions. Thus it also influences the cul- 2011, Kleijn and Sutherland 2003). A key tural landscape. question seems to be whether the system really promotes the public good aspects The subsidy scheme has been relatively of a truly multifunctional agriculture, or stable between years; however, it is based whether the system mainly promotes the on an annual agreement. Subsides and continuing of a primarily productivist far- payments for environmental services are ming society (sensu Wilson 2011). Does administrated at three levels, the national the Norwegian agricultural subsidy system level on which the core fame subsides are contribute to what Green and Vos (2001, administrated, at the county level and at p. 149) described as the need to "conceive, the municipality. design, create and maintain new landsca- The national schemes (production sup- pes fit for the social, economic and envi- port) are administrated by the Norwegian ronmental needs of the twenty-first cen- Agricultural Authority (Statens landbruks- tury"? Or does this system mainly forvaltning). It is at the national level, contribute to conserving a landscape hea- where we find payments that correspond vily influenced by agricultural practices no to the typical pillar 1 payments in the EU. longer viable? In this context it is also The level of payments as price support timely to question whether the Norwegian varies between regions, and is often 0 for system is in line with that of other Euro- the "best region" (Figure 1). pean countries, or whether some other

9 2. Support measures in European agricultural policies

Figure 1: Zones of 'district support' for milk production in southern Norway (2013, NOK/I): Zone A: 0.00, B: 0.12, C: 0.30, D: 0.42, E: 0.52. Support increa- ses basically northwards, up to Zone J (1.78) (Map: Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute, Data: Norwegian Agricultural Authority).

In order to receive production support in for "special environmental measures in general, such as the national acreage and agriculture" (Særskilte miljøtiltak i land- headage support, farmers need to comply bruket, SMIL) will be in focus in this paper. with the Norwegian compliance criteria The National Environmental Scheme for good agricultural practice. Another cri- administered by the Norwegian Agricul- terion is that support is limited to farmers tural Authority is composed of several who have a market income of at least sub-schemes of which the so-called "Area 20 000 NOK (c. 2500 EUR). and cultural landscape support" (AK- Within the Production support system are scheme), is by far the largest, totalling also subsidy schemes that do have certain more than 3 000 MNOK (375 mill. EUR) in environmental aims on the agenda. These 2010 (Figure 2). Payments from this subsidy schemes, the National Environ- scheme are distributed based on farming mental Scheme (Nasjonalt miljøprogram, activities, but not related to the amount of NMP), the Regional Environmental Sche- products achieved. A key aim with the mes (Regionale miljøprogrammer, RMP) national support is to ensure continued and the locally managed support scheme farming in the entire country.

10 Agri-environmental policies

Figure 2: Percent of direct subsidies allocated to different main themes (2010). Data source: Norwe- gian national budget (Statsbudsjettet) 2012.

This particular scheme does not in itself zed, accordingly, for the general and non- support any type of environmentally focu- targeted structure of the environmental sed activity conducted by the farmer. criteria. It deserves to be mentioned, Rather, there are certain requirements as though, that the criteria of the AK-scheme to activities not permitted by farmers grew out of a situation in the 1960s and receiving support, which are part of the 1970s, where mechanization and intensifi- "good agricultural practice". These include cation had large-scale impacts on the agri- the reduction or removal of farm ponds, cultural landscapes in Norway as in most removal of stone fences or rocky outcrops, of Europe (Image 1). At present, the using pesticides on edges or remnants, scheme cannot be said to encourage etc. It is explicitly stated that violation of hardly any extra effort to improve the these restrictions will lead to a reduced environmental situation, but it helps to support. The AK-scheme has been critici- maintain the present situation.

Image 1a, b: Farmland in Østfold county, Southeast Norway, in 1974 (left) and in 2004: Land levelling has made the area suitable for intensive production of cere- als. Photos: a) A.B. Haaje, b) O. Pusch- mann, Skog og landskap.

As regarding the success of the AK- 2010). However the scheme does not con- scheme, there is an ongoing monitoring clude on the reasons thereof. program of Norwegian agricultural lands- “Special payments for ecological farming" capes (“3Q", see Dramstad et al. 2002 for is also a national scheme. It includes acre- details), monitoring state and change in age and headage payments that are given agricultural landscapes and also targeting in addition to the subsidies that the con- most elements mentioned specifically in ventional farmers can apply for. A special the AK-scheme criteria. This monitoring payment applies for the conversion period has documented that the criteria to a large from conventional to ecological farming, extent appears to be satisfied (e.g. Dram- in order to stimulate increased ecological stad et al. 2006, Puschmann & Stokstad production. To promote genetic diversity, there is also a special payment per dairy

11 2. Support measures in European agricultural policies

cow of particularly rare old national once, after the first four years (Puschmann breeds (Image 2). et al. 2008). The proportion of farmers participating is rather variable across the country, ranging from only 33 to more than 80 % due to the type of environmental payments supported in the region. Focusing on the sub-schemes under the heading agricultural landscape management, four main themes have been in focus during the initial phase of this regionally managed system: 1) preventing reforestation on formerly grazed land, 2) maintaining landscapes with particular historical or biological qualities, 3) maintaining cultural heritage values and Image 2: Dølafe, a historical Eastern Norwegian 4) supporting accessibility and recreation. cattle breed eligible for funding from regional agri-environment schemes (RMP). Photo: A. In general, these regional schemes are the Rehnberg, Skog og landskap. main funding opportunity for managing cultural heritage or management for recreation in agricultural landscapes. During recent decades it has been However, only a small number of counties strongly recommended to regionalize at have specific aims targeting this. Accor- least a part of the subsidy system. In ding to the assessment by Puschmann et response to these recommendations, a al. (2008), only three counties had sche- scheme under regional control was initia- mes available for accessibility and recrea- ted in Norway in 2005, partly through the tion during the first period of RMP. amalgamation of some older and less rele- To what extent the scheme produces the vant schemes (SLF 2009). In these new desired public goods has not been tho- schemes, entitled the Regional Environ- roughly assessed. However, positive mental Scheme (RMP), the counties deter- effects have been documented at least mine criteria to be fulfilled by the farmer to regionally, e.g. as result of the support to receive support, but also this scheme is mountain summer farming (dairying in voluntary. seasonally inhabited areas) (SLF 2006). There are two main categories of RMP- Furthermore, certain farming activities are schemes. These are pollution control and funded that would probably cease other- agricultural landscape management. Both wise, e.g. the pollarding of more than the distribution of the total budget bet- 9000 trees. ween these two categories and spending From 2009 onwards, six main focus on more specific measures vary greatly themes have been outlined (SLF, 2008); between counties. On a national level, the • Agricultural landscape management, spending is more or less equal; 49 and 51 % focusing on traditional management respectively. In contrast to farmers recei- and hat which is considered specific ving payments under the AK-scheme only, for the region those who receive subsides from the RMP- • Biological diversity – small biotopes, schemes are required to conduct some rare and threatened habitats as well as type of specific activity. These activities genetic resources e.g. in terms of old are described and prioritised regionally, breeds such as pollarding of trees (Image 3). • Cultural heritage and cultural environ- In 2006 the schemes varied across the ments country, and a total of more than 150 regi- • Accessibility and possibilities for onally distributed sub-schemes, existed. recreation, e.g. through establishing Also these funds (totalling c.400 MNOK in footpaths and possibilities for crossing 2009) are distributed based on the princi- fences ple that all who apply and fulfil particular • Prevention of run-off criteria, will receive payments. The system • Reducing pesticides and ensure safe has been evaluated and slightly modified disposal of waste

12 Agri-environmental policies

Hitherto, an important challenge in focus in several counties has been to increase grazing, and these counties tend to steer a dominant proportion of their available funds towards promoting this. Other counties have given priority to pollution control through establishment of sedimentation ponds, haying of old meadows or management of traditional pollarded trees (Image 3). Also a scheme managed by the local authorities (“SMIL") is established in Norway. Participation is voluntary, and funds from this scheme are only available for those who are willing to conduct particular activities, e.g. use particular species rich areas for haying only or restore an old building. The local scheme differs from the regional in the way, that also people who are not active farmers themselves, e.g. because they have rented out their land, can apply. It is also the only scheme providing support for restoration of old buildings. However, the scheme is much smaller in terms of the funds available, and it has been reported that there is a general lack of funds to match the number of applicati- ons, i.e. there is a larger number of farmers who want to do certain management activities than the ones currently receiving funding (SLF 2006). According to an evaluation published in 2009, the scheme has a positive effect in terms of some themes, e.g. regarding ponds and protected buildings, while effects with regard to certain other to be very specifically targeted, although Image 3: Pollarded tree in Hordaland themes are more variable (SLF 2009). The the RMP does focus on regionally prioriti- County, Norway. evaluation also points out options for sed issues or prioritised areas. Photo: J.Y. Larsson, further improvement, including develo- Skog og landskap. ping the knowledge base in local manage- 2.2 Rural development policies ment authorities and clarifying some of Since the Treaty of Rome (1957), in which the aims. the general objectives of a common agri- To sum up on the part of the Norwegian cultural policy were defined, the CAP has agricultural subsidy system that is been reformed on a number of occasions somehow under the "environmental (Hamell 2001, Kuyvenhoven & Stolwijk umbrella", there appears to be a pronoun- 2010). One event of particular importance ced focus on ensuring continued farming in this context was the Agenda 2000 and on reducing pollution from agriculture reform, which divided the CAP into two while less focus is placed on the other ‘pillars’: production support and rural environmental effects. Also the fact that development (Hamell 2001). Support the schemes are all based on voluntary under the first pillar is provided to secure participation represents a limitation to the farmers’ incomes, in the form of ‘direct environmental effects that can be antici- payments’ (EC 2010a). These payments pated. Furthermore, neither the National can contribute to the maintenance of Environmental Programme nor the Regio- farms and thereby also to the provision of nal Environmental Programme can be said public goods produced through farming

13 2. Support measures in European agricultural policies

(Cooper et al. 2009: 108). However, only les the Welsh Assembly Government is re- measures under the Pillar 2: rural develop- sponsible for the Rural Development Plan ment), are targeted directly at the three (Welsh Assembly Government 2010a). In topics of interest here (biodiversity, lands- Austria, despite its federal structure, there cape, and cultural heritage). Therefore, exists only one national Rural Develop- measures under Pillar 1 are not considered ment Programme (Lebensministerium further in this review. 2010b), whereas France has a national plan for rural development which has to All Rural Development Programmes be completed with a regional part at the (RDPs) in the period 2007 – 2013 are level of the 21 Régions (Ministère de l'ali- grouped under the European Agricultural mentation, de l'agriculture et de la pêche Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). 2009). In Switzerland rural development The general structure of the RDPs is estab- policy does not come in under the agricul- lished by European Council Regulation No. tural policy but it is the responsibility of 1698/2005 on support for rural develop- different sectoral policies (e.g. environment by the EAFRD and has four priorities mental, tourism, and regional policy) (Axes): (Smola 2009). Axis 1: Improving the competitiveness of Figure 3 shows the planned repartition of the agricultural and forestry sector the financial subsidies on the four Axes Axis 2: Improving the environment and within the second pillar of the CAP and for the countryside the technical part (including administra- Axis 3: Improving the quality of life in rural tion). It is particularly noticeable that in all areas and encouraging diversification four countries represented, over 50 % of of the rural economy the total amount of subsidies is distributed Axis 4: Leader (Liaison entre actions de for improving the environment and the développement de l'économie rurale) countryside (Axis 2) and that Wales and (CoE 2005; Thomsen et al. 2010: 384), Austria spend 75 % and 73 % respectively an approach for involving local part- of the amount under Axis 2. In terms of ners in steering the future sustainable Axis 1 (improving the competitiveness of development of their area, e.g. through the agricultural and forestry sector) we a local action group (EC 2006). find a wider margin between Wales (11 %, lowest) and France (35 %, highest). For Within the frame of European Council Re- Axis 3 (Improving the quality of life in rural gulation No. 1698/2005 the member sta- areas and encouraging diversification of tes can adapt their own RDP to fit with the rural economy) and Axis 4 (Leader), national specifics and needs. Due to its fe- there are relatively equal levels of spen- deral structure, Germany has implemen- ding in all four countries. Due to the diffe- ted a rural development policy on the rences in the organization of the rural level of the 16 Länder (e.g. Bavaria). The development policies in Switzerland it was RDPs of the Länder have to conform with not possible to generate comparable data the ‘Nationale Rahmenregelung der Bun- for measures corresponding to the four desrepublik Deutschland für die Entwick- Axes. Regarding the Direct Payment sys- lung ländlicher Räume’ (the German tem, 80 % was used for General Direct Pay- national framework for rural developments, 16 % for Ecological and Ethnologi- ment) (EC 2010b). In the UK, the rural de- cal Direct Payments, and 4 % for payments velopment policy is also implemented at targeted at summer grazing areas (El the level of countries. Accordingly, in Wa- Benni & Lehmann 2010).

14 Agri-environmental policies

Figure 3: Planned amount of financial subsidies in the CAP’s Rural Develop- ment Programmes according to Axes (programme period 2007 – 2010). Not underlying CAP, Swit- zerland is excluded from this figure.

In the following, we will take a closer look national level and, in the case of the EU at Axes 2 and 3 of the Rural Development member states, submitted to the Euro- Plans because they contain measures tar- pean Commission as part of the RDPs (EC geted at environmental themes and the- 2005; El Benni & Lehmann 2010). reby also biodiversity, landscape, and cul- All countries provide subsidies for farmers tural heritage. Although relevant projects in Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) (often divi- may exist under the Leader approach ded into mountain and non-mountain (Axis 4) as well, for practical reasons they areas). In Wales the measure is called Tir have not been included in this review – too Mynydd, and in Switzerland these pay- large is the variety of projects and themes ments are organized under the General under this axis. Direct Payments (El Benni & Lehmann 2010). In Bavaria, Austria and France addi- 2.3 Measures of importance for tional payments (within the agri-environ- biodiversity, cultural heritage, ment measures) exist for farmers whose landscape scenery, and farmland is part of the Natura 2000 recreation system (EC 2010d)). Due to the requirements of European Grants to support organic farming are Council Regulation 1698/2005, the offered in all the considered countries and structure of measures under the Rural they are usually included in the agri-envi- Development Programmes is quite similar ronment schemes. Another similarity is in all EU-countries (Table 2). Only in Swit- that all five countries provide payments zerland they have a somewhat different for sustainable silviculture (e.g. a pro- structure, however, some parallels can be gramme for forest biodiversity in Switzer- found (Smola 2009). Farmers who want to land; Bundesamt für Umwelt 2010) and/or participate in the measures have to for the afforestation of agricultural land. respect the usual ‘good farming practices’ (cross compliance), which are defined on a

15 2. Support measures in European agricultural policies

Table 2: Structure of the Rural Development Programmes Wales Bavaria Austria France Switzerland1 Rural Development Bayrisches Österreichisches Programm Programme de Plan Zukunftsprogramm für die für die Entwicklung des développement rural Entwicklung des ländlichen ländlichen Raums Hexagonal 2007–2013 Raums e.g. young farmers support, farm advisory, education, infrastructure, marketing, modernizati- Agricultural Policy on of farms, regional producer groups… (e.g. social measures,

Axis 1 education etc.) Tir Cynnal Cultural Landscape ÖPUL (AEM) Agri-environmental Ecological Direct Pay- (AEM2) Programme (KULAP) measures (AEM) ments (AEM) (AEM) Tir Gofal (AEM) Contract-based nature General Direct Pay- protection and com- ments pensation payments (VNP) (AEM) Tir Mynydd Aid to farmers in less Aid to farmers in less Aid to farmers in less Improvement of agri- Aid to farmers in favoured areas – moun- favoured areas – moun- favoured areas – moun- cultural infrastructure less favoured tain and not mountain tain and not mountain tain and not mountain areas

Axis 2 Organic Far- Non-productive invest- Non-productive invest- ming (AEM) ments -maintenance of ments hedges & protection of endangered species Natura 2000 Natura 2000 Protected areas policy Cattle pasture manage- Animal welfare for agri- ment culture Better Wood- Sustainable sylviculture Sustainable sylvicultu- Sustainable sylvicultu- Forest policy (e.g. pro- lands (7 sub-measures) re re (4 sub- measures) gram for forest-biodiversity) Implemented Diversification of rural Diversification of rural Diversification of rural Traffic planning & and through local economy economy economy spatial policy partnerships: - Diversification of and services for rural economy - Rural tourism - Village renewal - Conserving the rural heritage Services and infra- Encouragement of ru- Encouragement of ru- Tourism policy structure for rural econ- ral tourism ral tourism omy and population Axis 3 Rural development Enhancement of rural Services and infra- Nature and homeland- concepts with public life quality structure for rural protection policy participation economy and population Village renewal Village renewal Village renewal Services and infrastructure for rural economy and population Enhancement of the ru- Enhancement of the ru- Enhancement of the ral heritage ral heritage rural heritage Vocational training Vocational training Leader Leader Leader Leader Regional development projects (agricul-

Axis 4 tural policy)

1 Smola 2009 2 AEM: agri-environment measures

16 Agri-environmental policies

France and Bavaria provide additional other hand, there are schemes targeted at measures targeted at non-productive specific environmental issues. Such sche- investments for agriculture which are limi- mes include fewer farmers, are more ted to farmers with agricultural land in demanding, and pay correspondingly areas of high natural value and which offer more. Sometimes agri-environment pro- non-recurring payments for the protection grammes include both kinds of schemes of endangered landscape features and (EC 2005, Evans et al. 2002). In addition, species. Examples from France are measu- it is possible to distinguish ‘whole farm res for restoration of peatland and plan- schemes’ (e.g. all schemes in Wales) and ting of hedges (Ministère de l’agriculture measures which can be implemented just et de la pêche 2007). In Bavaria the non- on parts of farms. productive investment payments include a The basic structure of the agri-environ- hedgerow maintenance scheme (StMELF ment schemes in Austria, Bavaria, Wales, & StMUG 2010). and Switzerland has developed without It is noticeable that all countries provide larger changes during the most recent agri-environment programmes which, programme periods (2000 – 2006, 2007 – according to the Institute for European 2013). Only France shows an absence of Environmental Policy (IEEP), are continuity in the proposed schemes through the different programme periods, ‘the most directly focused [measures] on ranging from more demanding, whole the maintenance and improvement of farm schemes to less demanding and nati- agricultural landscapes and farmland bio- onwide schemes (Jauneau 2009, unpub- diversity. As the only compulsory rural lished). development measure, the agri-environment measure is the most significant both The current basic structure of the agri- in terms of its spatial coverage and the environment schemes in the programme financial resources allocated to it’ (Cooper period 2007 – 2013 is shown in Figure 4. et al. 2009). Austria has an agri-environment scheme which includes nationwide measures as Within the agri-environment schemes we well as two measures which are implemen- can find a great variety of measures (EC ted on a regional level. In France there are 2005), but it is possible to identify some eight nationwide measures available. basic principles: in general participation in Additionally, the responsible authorities at the schemes is optional, and activities car- regional level can choose measures for ried out under the schemes have to go implementation in the territory under their beyond the usual ‘good farming practices’. control, from a national catalogue of ‘regi- Two types of agri-environment schemes onal agri-environment measures’. In Swit- can be distinguished. On the one hand, zerland, Ecological Direct Payments are there are schemes tending to include a available for farmers throughout the coun- large number of farmers and cover a wide try as a whole and are divided into Eco- area. These schemes make relatively Payments (e.g. organic farming) and Etho- modest demands on farmers’ practices Payments (e.g. animal welfare) (El Benni & and in return pay relatively little for the Lehmann 2010). provided environmental services. On the

17 2. Support measures in European agricultural policies

Figure 4: Basic structure of agri- environment schemes (programme period 2007 – 2013).

In Bavaria two different kinds of agri-envi- of scheme evaluations. This can be seen in, ronment schemes exist: the Bavarian for example, the introduction of new sche- Nature Protection Contract Programme mes in the middle of a programme period (Vertragsnaturschutz-programm, VNP) (e.g. Tir Cynnal in 2005 due to the fact that and the Cultural the area under Tir Gofal was not as large as expected). In 2012 a new agri-environment Landscape Programme (KULAP). The VNP scheme called Glastir has replaced the is only applied to ecologically valuable existing agri-environment schemes to face habitats with endangered animals and ‘new’ challenges (defined in the CAP plants and is organized under the Bavarian Health Check), such as climate change, State Ministry of the Environment and water management, and biodiversity Public Health, while the KULAP (under the (Welsh Assembly Government 2010b). responsibility of the Bavarian State Minis- try of Food, Agriculture and Forestry) is Measures under Axis 3 (improving quality available for the whole territory. of life in rural areas and encouraging diversification of the rural economy) are mostly Wales has developed a two-level system implemented through local partnerships. with an entrance agri-environment Within this Axis the two most important scheme (Tir Cynnal) and an advanced measures for the three themes of interest scheme (Tir Gofal). In order to participate are ‘Village renewal’ and ‘Enhancement of in the Tir Gofal scheme, farms are assessed the rural heritage’ because they include by external consultants using a scoring support for activities which aim to main- system (Wales Audit Office 2007) (see tain or enhance cultural and natural lands- Box 3). It is also noticeable that the Welsh cape features. Government responds fast to new challenges and problems indentified in the course

18 Agri-environmental policies

Box 3: Tir Gofal – advanced agri-environment scheme of Wales The objectives of Tir Gofal are: - to protect and enhance habitats of importance to wildlife - to protect and enhance the beauty of the landscape - to protect and enhance historic and archaeological features - to provide opportunities for new public access to the countryside - to protect and improve the quality of water, soil and air by measures to reduce pollution Image 4: Hedgerows are planted, maintained or restored with (Welsh Assembly Government 2008d) funds from Tir Gofal. Photo: P. Thorvaldsen Farms are assessed by external consultants using a scoring system and only those farms scoring 100 points or more are admitted to the scheme (Wales Audit Office 2007). The points are calculated depen- ding on the given area and a ‘weighting’ factor, e.g. heathland, wetland, or species-rich meadows are heavily weighed. Other existing features, such as traditional buildings and archaeological sites, will also contribute to the points. In addition, points can be gained by creating habitats, restoring traditional field boundaries, and providing new public access (Morgan 2007). Agreements are for ten years, with a break clause at the mid-point of agreement (Welsh Assembly Government 2008a). They consist of both a mandatory section and a voluntary section. The mandatory section sets basic standards for all farms participating in the scheme, regardless of their type or size, e.g. retain existing traditional field boundaries (e.g. hedgerows, Image 4), safeguard any historic features. The optional section includes management practices or capital works that meet the objectives of the scheme, but which are not considered essential on all relevant farms (Wales Audit Office 2007).

19 3 Agricultural subsidies for biodiversity

Agriculture is the main land use in Europe: 3.1 Measures targeted at biodiversity 34 % of the European terrestrial area is used Most of the measures targeted at maintai- for crop production and 14 % for grassland ning and enhancing biodiversity on farm- (Cooper 2009: 18). Many areas of high nature value farmland exist, providing habitats for a wide range of species (Image 5). Such areas are under threat from both intensification and land abandonment, and for this reason the conservation and promotion of sustainable farming practices in these areas is crucial for maintaining biodiversity (EEA 2009). Throughout Europe, Image 5: Skylark measures have been introduced to reduce (Alauda arvensis), a the negative environmental impact of agri- bird species declining culture on biodiversity through providing due to intensive agri- financial incentives to farmers for adopting culture. Photo: Frank Steinkjellå. environmentally friendly farming practices.

20 Agri-environmental policies

land are set up within the agri-environ- other organizations on national, regional ment schemes. Basically, three types of or local level. One example is the French measures can be distinguished (cf. Vojtech programme Ferti-Mieux (see Box 4) which 2010): is targeted at reducing input levels on farmland. - Measures targeted at maintaining species diversity on farmed land through Measures targeted at species in need of the reduction of inputs (extensification protection of grassland and crop farming, organic Some examples of measures targeted farming, etc.) and through measures directly at species in need of protection targeted directly at species in need of can be found under the agri-environment protection (e.g. late mowing dates) schemes operating in Bavaria, France and - Measures targeted at safeguarding Wales (Table 3). Measures exist to adapt endangered endemic animal breeds or the management of grassland or crop plant varieties fields to the needs of animal species - Measures targeted at the creation and maintenance of habitats and of areas of high natural value (Natura 2000 Box 4: Ferti-Mieux (France) listed sites, wetlands, hedges, field In 1991 the French Association Nationale pour le Developpe- strips, pastures, etc.). ment Agricole (ANDA), in cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment, water agencies, and fertilizer 3.1.1 Species diversity producers and distributors, started the programme Ferti- Mieux. It is targeted at the promotion of rational and environ- An overview of the numerous measures mentally friendly fertilization practices, to protect water qua- which focus on species diversity is given in lity. In every Ferti•Mieux region a guideline is elaborated and Table 3. Within the agri-environment sche- given to farmers, together with advice and information on mes one can mainly distinguish between mineral and organic fertilizers, soil preparation, etc. measures targeted directly at protecting and enhancing specific species in need of Participation in the measure is voluntary. Approved Ferti- protection, and measures where the Mieux operation, which respects the guidelines, is recognized impact on species diversity is more indi- by a label, which is attributed for one or two years, by three rect, e.g. measures favouring less intensive different national bodies. The label serves as a guarantee for farming practices. Most prominent among farmers, advisors, financial bodies, and the general public. As the agri-environment measures are pay- of May 2010, almost 30,000 farmers with a combined total of ments to support the adoption of less 1,800,000 ha land participated in Ferti-Mieux (Association input-intensive and/or more environmen- Nationale pour le Developpement Agricole 2010). tally friendly farming practices. These include integrated crop production (low use of fertilizers and pesticides), extensive management of grassland (livestock gra- (mostly birds), such as the skylark (Aiauda zing with restricted uses of fertilizers and arvensis), Montagu's harrier (Circus pygar- low stocking densities), and organic far- gus), lapwing (VanelIus vanelIus), the ming (Vojtech 201 0). Payments for these European hamster (Cricetus cricetus), and measures are in general offered annually, beaver (Castor fiber), as well as endange- per hectare of land under contract. The red plant species such as the Checkered Swiss Ecological Quality Payments is an Lily (Fritillaria meleagris) (in Bavaria). example of a measure with a particular These measures impose restraints, for and more result-oriented structure. Intro- example in terms of mowing dates, or they duced in 2001, the payments per hectare support the set-aside of agricultural land are made for the biological quality of in areas where, for example, beavers live extensive meadows and pastures, and (in Bavaria) and pay compensation for the specific indicator species are subject to loss of income. Some of these measures periodical surveys on the areas under con- (e.g. the Bavarian Nature Contract Pro- tract (EI Benni & Lehmann 2010). In addi- gramme; StMELF & StMUG 2010) are only tion to governmental programmes, there available in areas of high natural value (e.g. are numerous measures for the protection Natura 2000), while others are accessible of endangered species from, for example, throughout the whole territory. Within the agricultural and environmental NGOs and Bavarian KULAP, only the measure 'inten-

21 3. Agricultural subsidies for biodiversity

sification of meadows with late mowing zations or foundations provide diverse date' is directly targeted at the protection measures to protect endangered species. of species (e.g . birds which breed in One example of such a project on farmed fields). Additionally, environmental organi- land is the 'Skylark plots' (see Box 5).

Table 3: measures aimed at maintaining species diversity within the Rural Development Programmes (2007–2013) Bavaria Austria France Wales Switzerland Kulturlandschafts- ÖPUL 2007 – National measu- – Tir Cynnal (TC) – – Ecological Pay- programm – res (N) Tir Gofal (TG) – ments (Ec) KULAP A– – Regional measu- Organic Farming Vertragsnatursch res (R ) (OF) utz (VNP) Less or no use of Less or no use of Less use of fertili- Conversion of im- Less or no use of fertilizers (KULAP, fertilizers zers and pesticides proved grassland to fertilizers and pesti- VNP) (N) semi-improved cides (Ec) grassland (TG) Grassland – Crop rotation – Field margins – Crop rotation (N) – Unsprayed crops – Field margins (KULAP ) – Less or no use of – Less use of fertili- (TG) – Rotation with fal- – Field margins fertilizers, pestici- zers and pesticides – Field margins, low land (Ec) (KULAP) des and fungicides (N) (TG) – Winter planting – Abandonment of – Winter planting – Winter stubbles (KULAP) silage fodder in cer- on arable farmland (TG) – Conversion from tain regions (N) – Conversation of crop farming to – Winter planting arable land to gras- grassland (KULAP) on arable farmland sland (TG) – No field working between 15 April

arable land arable and 30 June (VNP) – Extensive gras- – Integrated far- 5 % of area wildlife Ecological compen- sland and/or or- ming in pomicultu- habitat (TC) sation (Ec) chard (KULAP) re, viniculture, – Environmentally horticulture friendly viticulture – Maintenance of in mountain areas extensive orchards (KULAP) – Environmental fri- – Extensive fish far- endly farming of ming (KULAP) or herbs and seeds no fish farming in

habitats ponds (VNP) Organic farming Organic farming Organic farming Organic Farming Organic farming (KULAP) (N) (OF) (Ec) Measures for the reduction of inputs the reduction for Measures organic Farming – Late mowing Crop rotation inclu- Manage improved dates for field birds ding lucerne in grassland for bree- (KULAP und VNP) favour of the ding lapwings or – Fallow land in hamster (R) overwintering wild- beaver habitats fowl (TG) (VNP) – Non-productive investments-

species Measures for the protection of en- at endangered endangered at dangered species Measures directed directed Measures Measures targeted at the corncrake (R)

22 Agri-environmental policies

Box 5: Skylark plots (‘Lerchenfenster’) The taller and denser structure of winter wheat crops makes them unsuitable for birds such as skylarks (Alauda arvensis) that nest and forage on the ground within crops. To enhance the situation for these birds the ‘Skylark plots’ project was introduced in Bavaria by the Landesbund für Vogelschutz (Association for the Protec- tion of Birds) in cooperation with the Bay- erischer Bauernverband (Bavarian Farmers Image 6: Undrilled patch within a field, suitablee Association). The project is based on the as a skylark nesting site. Photo: S. Wolfrum. experiences of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in England and the Vogelwarte Sempach (Sempach Bird Observatory/Swiss Ornithological Institute) in Switzerland, and it aims to manipulate crop structure to increase the numbers of skylarks (and other within-crop biodiversity) while minimizing the impact on crop profi- tability. This is done by creating undrilled patches, also known as ‘skylark plots’, within fields with crops (Image 6). There are 2 – 3 skylark plots per hectare, each 20 m2 in size, which is sufficient to enhance the breeding conditions. Participation in the programme is voluntary and no compensation is paid to farmers. In Bavaria in the course of the project in 2009 – 2010 a total of 600 skylark plots were created on 160 fields (Landesbund für Vogelschutz in Bayern e.V. 2010; RSPB 2010). To date, the actual population of skylarks in Bavaria has not been monitored, but the project in England and Switzerland has shown positive results, with a higher density of nests next to the plots and 49 % more chicks raised in a season than in fields without plots (Morris 2009).

Organic farming: an example of hectares under contract. For example, the measures targeted at reducing inputs rates for horticultural land (41 0 EUR/ha in To delimit the scope of this review we Bavaria and 850 EUR/ha in Switzerland, in have chosen one measure promoting less the ongoing programme period) are intensive farming practices, which is offe- higher than those for crop farming (bet- red in all countries considered, namely ween 110 EUR/ha in Austria and 550 EUR/ organic farming. In 2009 organic agricul- ha in Switzerland) and for grassland (bet- ture covered c.6.5 million ha in Europe and ween 100 EUR/ha in France and 240 EUR/ is still increasing (EEA 2009). All coun- ha in Austria) (Ministère de l'agriculture et tries compared offer schemes for the de Ia pêche 2007; Lebensministerium improvement of organic farming, mostly 2009a; StMELF & StMUG 2010; Bunde- in the form of whole farm schemes. To samt für Landwirtschaft 2010b). compensate farmers for loss of income while converting to organic farming (due Effectiveness in maintaining species to higher production costs and missed diversity opportunities to sell produce under an Although the countries have, for example, organic farming label over a 2-year chosen different species, the basic period), Bavaria, France and Wales offer structure of measures to maintain species both a 'conversion to organic farming diversity is quite similar (Table 3). The scheme' with higher payments (2 years in impact of the schemes on species diver- Bavaria and Wales, and 5 years in France) sity has been considered in all evaluation and an 'organic farming maintenance studies, but the available data are not that scheme'. Austria and Switzerland offer conclusive. payments for organic farming too, but Under the Bavarian measure ‘Late these countries do not have special pay- mowing dates for field birds’, between ments for the conversion period. 2000 and 2006 c.24,500 ha was under The annual payments are dependent upon contract annually and it was possible to the type of cultivation and the number of identify more endangered species in mea-

23 3. Agricultural subsidies for biodiversity

dows with a mowing date after 1st of July period 2000 – 2006 states that the spread than in conventionally farmed meadows of organic farming is closely connected (ART 2008: 155). The Bavarian Nature with the agricultural policy framework. In Contract Programme also seems to contri- addition to the payments under the Rural bute to maintaining species diversity. A Development Programme ÖPUL (Öster- study from 2007 showed that more plant reichisches Programm zur Förderung einer species could be found on grassland umweltgerechten, extensiven und den under the Nature Contract Programme natürlichen Lebensraum schützenden than on surrounding conventionally used Landwirtschaft), organic farms receive grassland. However, the decline of field higher direct payments (within the first bird populations continued also in areas pillar of the CAP) per hectare of agricul- under the Nature Contract Programme tural land than conventional farms (Eder (ART 2008). In addition, the effects of the 2006). In Switzerland the proportion of programme on biodiversity were organic farms is high too (10.7 % of total restricted through the fact that the agricultural land) (Niggli 2007; Bunde- scheme is applied to only 2 % (56,564 ha) samt für Landwirtschaft 2009), even of the total farmed land in Bavaria (ART though the Swiss Government, in common 2008). with the Austrian Government, does not provide payments for the conversion to In France the agri-environment measures organic farming. targeted directly at endangered species showed positive effects too: the popula- France has the lowest area under organic tion of two bird species, the corncrake management and the development of par- (Crex crex) and the Little Bustard (Tetrax ticipating farms under the organic farming tetrax), increased after 2002 in regions schemes decreased after a reaching a where they occurred (CNASEA 2008a). peak in 2001. The reasons for this can be The Welsh evaluation only provides infor- found in the replacement of the CTE (Con- mation about the number of hectares trat Territoriaux d’Exploitation, Territorial under the measure 'improved grassland Farming Contract) by the CAD (Contrat for breeding birds' in the Tir Gofal scheme d'Agriculture Durable (Sustainable Agri- (1,112 ha) (EKOS 2008). The evaluation culture Contract)) in 2002, with fewer does not assess whether the measure was payments for organic farming (CNASEA successful in terms of protecting endan- 2008a; Appendix CAB). In Wales the area gered species. In Switzerland measures under organic farming increased by more targeted directly at endangered species than 126 % during the last programme were introduced for the first time with the period (Table 4), but the total amount of new Direct Payments System in 2011 land farmed organically still remains low (Artenförderungsprogramme) (Lanz et al. (5 % of the total farmed land). The evalua- 2010). tion report does not discuss whether this increase is linked to the programme Some evaluation reports quoted below design. However, compared to France and provide quantitative results for the imple- Bavaria, Wales provided relatively high mentation of the organic farming sche- payments for conversion (c.1200 EUR/ha mes. Austria is the leading country in establishment payment, plus for example Europe today in terms of agricultural land 130 EUR/ha grassland) (Welsh Assembly under organic management (15 %) and the Government 2009c). evaluation report for the programme

24 Agri-environmental policies

Table 4: Results of measures targeted at organic farming (OF) Austria1 Bavaria2 France3 Wales4 Switzerland5 Area under the 322,000 ha 120,000 ha Data not 39,670 ha 112,537 ha OF measure (2006) (2006) available (2006) (2008) Farms under 17,300 to 18,500 2000 to 4750 Data not 144 to 683 5930 OF Measure (2000 – 06) (2000 – 06) available (2001 – 06) (2008) Total Area 383,756 ha 152,628 ha 583,799 ha 124,617 ha 112,537 ha under OF (2008)6 (2007) (2008) (2008) (2008) Recent increase + 41 % + 78 % + 61 % + 126 % + 36 % (2000 – 08) (2000 –07) (2000 –08) (2002 –08) (2000 –08) Share of total 15 % 5.8 %7 2.1 % 5 % 10.7 % agricultural area

Notes: 1 Lebensministerium 2008: 88; 2 ART 2008: 108; StMLF 2002: 97; 3 Agence Bio 2001: 4; 2009; 4 EKOS 2008: 107; Defra 2010; 5 Bundesamt für Umwelt 2009: 2; Bundesamt für Landwirtschaft 2009: 213; 6 Bundesanstalt für Agrarwirtschaft 2000; 7 BMELV 2009

Compared to estimating the number of moreover, some evaluation managers con- participant farmers or size of the area sider the scheme monitoring ‘weak’ and it under scheme management, it is more has been mentioned that the ‘lack of base- demanding to quantify and judge the line data makes the assessment of scheme importance of measures for maintaining or effectiveness and the contribution to RDP increasing species diversity. This is not difficult to assess’ (EKOS 2008). least due to the fact that because the habi- However, it is generally assumed that tat requirements of wild species are rarely organic farming is more favourable for the only dependant on farming practices but diversity of species than conventional far- also on climate, food, quality of water and/ ming (EEA 2009), even if effects are diffi- or soils, etc., it is difficult to assign trends cult to prove. Hole et al. (2005), in a review in the development of species populations of comparative studies of organic and to concrete measures of agricultural sche- conventional farming, have tried to deter- mes (Lebensministerium 2008). mine whether organic farming can deliver Often the number of species on farmed biodiversity benefits or not. Among the land under the organic farming schemes is results of this review are that many com- used as an indicator of species diversity parative studies encounter methodologi- and is compared with areas under conven- cal problems, limiting their ability to draw tional farming. However, even in cases quantitative conclusions, the knowledge where comparative studies have shown of the impacts of organic farming in pasto- that species diversity is higher on areas ral and upland agriculture is limited, and under contract, this cannot be readily there remains a need for long-term studies traced back to the successful design of a to compare influences of organic and con- given scheme, due to the fact that areas ventional farming practices. under agri-environment schemes are often already used more extensively prior 3.1.2 Habitat diversity to the start of a scheme and often we do Up to 17 % of EU land areas are included in not have data on the condition of the the Natura 2000 network; in addition are areas prior to the schemes (Knop et al. 16 % protected under national instruments. 2006). Furthermore, a higher number of At the same time, 40 –85 % of habitats of species on land farmed under agri-envi- European interest have unfavourable con- ronment measures does not necessarily servation status. Linked to this is the pro- indicate higher levels of biodiversity: a gressive decline in grasslands and wet- measure may have positive impacts on lands across Europe and rise in urban, common species, while uncommon, woodland and open water habitats (EEA endangered species do not benefit from 2009). The results of a first systematic the measure (Kleijn et al. 2006). In Wales, assessment across the European Union

25 3. Agricultural subsidies for biodiversity

show that the status of most species and under Natura 2000 or protected by natio- habitats of European interest is unfavoura- nal law in an appropriate way. Payments ble (EEA 2009). For this reason, the five are provided for management concepts countries under study in the present and studies, as well as for the maintenance review have introduced subsidies to and improvement of habitats (see Table enable farmers to manage land which is 5).

Table 5: Examples of measures targeted at habitat diversity, under the Rural Development Programmes (programme period 2007–2013)

Austria Axis 2: Natura 2000 Axis 2: ÖPUL – Maintenance of orchards (Streuobstwiesen) Axis 2: ÖPUL – Maintenance of areas of high natural value or value for water protection (Erhaltung und Entwicklung naturschutzfachlich wertvoller oder gewässerschutzfachlich bedeutsamer Flächen) Axis 3: Enhancement of the rural heritage – Nature protection (Verbesserung des Ländlichen Erbes – Naturschutz) Bavaria Axis 2: Natura 2000 Axis 2: Nature Protection Contract Programme (VNP) Axis 2 KULAP: Maintenance of orchards (Streuobst) France Axis 2: Regional agri-environment measures (Natura 2000, European Water Framework Directive & other environmental issues) (MAET: Na- tura 2000, Directive Cadre sur l’Eau.& autres enjeux environnementaux) Axis 3: Enhancement of the rural heritage (Conservation et la mise en valeur du patrimoine rural)

Wales Axis 2: Tir Gofal Axis 2: Tir Cynnal Switzerland General and Ecological Direct Payments (Direktzahlungen)

In Bavaria, compensation is not paid for Measures targeted at habitat diversity the loss of income resulting from the main- outside protected areas can be divided tenance of Natura 2000 habitats because into measures which aim to create new the Bavarian Act on Nature Conservation habitats, such as Tir Gofal in Wales, and already prohibits the degradation of measures to maintain habitats, such as the Natura 2000 sites (BayNatSchG 2005: orchard programmes in Bavaria and Art. 13c), although measures exist to pay Austria which provide annual payments for the renaturation and/or reconstruction per fruit tree (EUR 5, in Bavaria) or per of such habitats. hectare (EUR 120, in Austria).

26 Agri-environmental policies

Box 6: Prairies Fleuries (Flower Meadows) In 2010 the Fédération des Parcs naturels régionaux (Federation of the Regional Natural Parks), the Parcs nationaux de France (National Parks in France), and the Assemblée Permanente des Chambres d'agriculture (Permanent Assembly of the Chambers of Agriculture) launched the first agri-ecological contest Prairies Fleuries (Flower Meadows). Cooperating partners are the cheese-quality and trade organizations as well as bee-keeping and environmental associations. The prize for ‘agri- ecological excellence’ is awarded to farmers in Natural Parks whose permanent meadows represent the ‘best balance between the production of fodder of high quality and biodiversity in the meadow’. The three categories are: unimproved fodder meadows, fertilized fodder meadows, and Parc naturel régional du Massif des Bauges – grazed meadows at local and national level. Fédération des Parcs naturels régionaux de The meadows can also include hedges, France stone walls, and groups of trees. The contest proceeds in two stages. A local jury visits the meadows between May and July, at a date fixed in each Park according to the maturity of the vegetation. Then, the jury will choose two farms to participate in the national contest. The national prize winner will receive honorary awards and EUR 600 for ‘ecosystem service’ to the Prairies Fleuries (Boughriet 2010).

In Switzerland and Wales ‘wildlife habitats’ areas, and even measures that are not part are created and/or maintained under the of agri-environment schemes (e.g. Prairies General Direct Payments and Tir Gofal, Fleuries; Box 6) can contribute to the respectively. These two programmes diversity of habitats on farmland. require the designation of ‘eco-compensation areas’ which must cover at least 7 % Effectiveness of measures targeted at and 5 % of the participants’ farmland in maintaining and/or improving habitat Switzerland and Wales, respectively diversity (Welsh Assembly Government 2008d: 34; Different organization and objectives of El Benni & Lehmann 2010). the measures targeted at habitat diversity make them difficult to compare. Generally, The measures Erhaltung und Entwicklung the evaluations of such schemes are often naturschutzfachlich wertvoller oder limited to a description of the size of the gewässerschutzfachlich bedeutsamer area under contract and of the number of Flächen in Austria, the Nature Contract participants. Measures limited to Natura Programme (VNP) in Bavaria, Tir Gofal in 2000 areas were not provided in any of Wales, and the former CTE in France are the considered countries under the last all quite similar. They are based on indivi- programme period, due to the fact that dual contracts and management plans the designation of Natura 2000 areas had which are elaborated by the farmers, eco- not been completed. logists, and/or representatives of local nature conversation authorities. In Bavaria, measures for the renaturation and/or reconstruction of habitats (under Also measures not explicitly targeted at Natura 2000) received financial support ‘habitats’ (Table 3) such as the creation of totalling 14.3 million EUR between 2000 field margins, the maintenance of moun- and 2006 (ART 2008). tain pastures, and the afforestation of agricultural land in intensive crop farming

27 3. Agricultural subsidies for biodiversity

In Austria participation in the programmes to fulfil the requirements of the Conven- for the maintenance of habitats increased tion on Biological Diversity, opened for in the course of the programme period, signing in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 (EC but acceptance of the programmes remai- 2010c). This strategy recommends in situ ned low in general (Lebensministerium conservation (i.e. within the natural envi- 2008). The three main measures targeted ronment) and ex situ (i.e. in gene banks, at the creation and maintenance of habi- laboratories, zoos and botanical gardens) tats were implemented on just 3.5 % of the conservation of species and ecosystems. total farmed land (Lebensministerium The European Commission introduced in 2008). addition an Action Plan which includes objectives to halt the decline of biodiver- In Switzerland the eco-compensation sity and measures by 2010 (EC 2007). In areas covered c.120,000 ha (c.11 % of the addition to wild species, both documents total farmed land) in 2008. Nevertheless, also concern cultivated plants and breeds, the biodiversity (in this case number of because it is assumed (e.g. by the Food species) decreased on farmed land, alt- and Agriculture Organization of the hough the evaluation detected a slight United Nations) that most of the existent improvement due to the existence of eco- genetic diversity of cultivated plants and compensation areas (Bundesamt für domestic breeds is no longer used in pro- Landwirtschaft 2009). duction (FAO 2010). The populations of In Wales the total area under Tir Gofal was native, well-adapted breeds have largely c.332,600 ha. ‘Although the Assembly been replaced by a few highly productive Government does not know precisely how breeds. Therefore, many native breeds much of each main habitat type is covered with limited populations are in danger of by Tir Gofal the prescriptions are likely to extinction, which would contribute to deliver environmental benefits’ (EKOS increased biodiversity loss (EEA 2009). 2008). However, ‘[t]here is also a risk that To maintain the biodiversity of cultivated payments have little beneficial effect on plants and endemic breeds, the conside- habitats, because applicants are frequen- red countries have introduced correspon- tly paid for maintaining existing practices ding programmes and subsidies (Table 6) as well as for restoring or creating habi- for farmers either within their Rural tats. The maintenance of existing practices Development Programmes (France, may add value in protecting existing habi- Austria), and thus co-financed by the EU, tats if the scheme discourages landhol- or exclusively financed by national grants ders from making changes that would (Switzerland, Bavaria). In Austria, France have an adverse environmental impact. and Switzerland the programmes are tar- However, no evidence is available on the geted at breeds and cultivated plants extent to which this has happened’ (EKOS while the programmes in Bavaria and the 2008). UK (including Wales) are mainly targeted 3.1.3 Genetic diversity at breeds alone, although collections of plant genetic resources (e.g. gene banks) In Europe the Communication of the Euro- exist too (Defra 2003a). For these pro- pean Commission to the Council and to grammes the countries set up lists of the Parliament on a European Community endangered endemic breeds and cultiva- Biodiversity Strategy, set up in 1998, ted plants, which are revised regularly. established a general framework for the development of policies and instruments

28 Agri-environmental policies

Table 6: Examples of measures targeted at genetic diversity

Austria Axis 2 (ÖPUL): Rare cultivated plants (Seltene landwirtschaftliche Kul- turpflanzen) Axis 2 (ÖPUL): Rare breeds (Seltene Nutztierrassen) Bavaria Conservation of endangered breeds in agriculture (Förderung von Maß- nahmen zur Erhaltung gefährdeter einheimischer landwirtschaftlicher Nutztierrassen) 1 France Axis 2 (AEM regional): Protection of endangered breeds (protection des races menaces) Axis 2 (AEM regional): protection of endangered cultivated plants (pré- servation des ressources végétales menacées de disparition) Wales UK National Action Plan on Farm Animal Genetic Resources Switzerland Action Plan for the Protection and Sustainable Use of the Genetic Resources of Cultivated Plants (Nationaler Aktionsplan zur Erhaltung und nachhaltigen Nutzung pflanzengenetischer Ressourcen für Er- nährung und Landwirtschaft) National Plan of Action for Animal Genetic Resources (Nationaler Aktionsplan Tiergenetische Ressourcen)

Notes: 1 AEM: agri-environment measures

Schemes for the establishment of gene example, Welsh Black Cattle (The Welsh banks and the collection of information Black Cattle Society 2010, N. Howard (e- about the cultivation or breeding of mail interview)) and the Pedigree Welsh endangered species are not primarily Pig (Pedigree Welsh Pig Society 2010). directed at farmers (e.g. the Swiss Natio- naler Aktionsplan zur Erhaltung und Effectiveness of measures targeted at nachhaltigen Nutzung pflanzengenetis- maintaining and/or improving genetic cher Ressourcen für Ernährung und Land- diversity wirtschaft). Of greater interest are pro- In Austria the programme for the protec- grammes which aim to support and/or tion of genetic diversity seems to be provide for the cultivation or breeding of successful, at least to some extent. The endangered species (Image 4) on farms in numbers of farms involved in the scheme situ, which are generally calculated in increased during the last programme terms of the loss of income, due to the period, and c.90 % of the listed domestic reduced productivity of endangered breeds are included in projects (Lebens- types compared to more common and ministerium 2008) (Image 7). According more productive types (e.g. Ministère de to the ex-post evaluation, without the l’agriculture et de la pêche 2007; Lebens- ministerium 2009a). In Wales it has been decided that there is little reason to provide payments for indigenous breeds unless there is a realistic and viable market for the products derived from such breeds. However, the Welsh Govern- ment supports campaigns to promote, for

Image 7: Tiroler Steinschaf ("Tyro- lean rock sheep"), a predominantly Austrian domestic livestock breed, offi- cially recognised as being endangered and subject to agri- environmental support. Photo: L. Iwon, Arche Warder.

29 3. Agricultural subsidies for biodiversity

grants there would have been insufficient marketing possibilities of these types and numbers of male breeding animals to breeds. Furthermore, there is no nation- ensure successful breeding (Lebensminis- wide monitoring of the numbers of terium 2008). Endemic plant species have livestock of endangered endemic types also increased during the course of the and breeds or the total areas they cover. programme period. In addition, some spe- Recapitulatory information about UK sup- cies (e.g. crop species and types) were port for the maintenance of farm animal more successful than others (e.g. some genetic resources was not available. types of vegetables) (Lebensministerium However, in a report by the Department 2009: Annexe 1 (J)). for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs In Bavaria an aid scheme to support (Defra) on the Policy on Genetic Resour- animal breeding was introduced in 2004 ces for Food and Agriculture it is mentio- with a total budget of 2 million EUR and to ned that the vast majority of farm animal be available until 2011 (EC 2009b). Infor- genetic resources exist on-farm (in situ). mation about the number of supported Ex-situ collections are mostly held by projects on farms, etc., was not found. breeders (Defra 2003b). Additionally, While Bavaria does not have a programme three NGOs – the Rare Breeds Survival for the protection of plants, the ex-post Trust, Rare Breeds International, and the evaluation of the Rural Development Plan Sheep Trust – work for the conservation of 2000 –2006 for Wales considers the follo- rare or heritage farm animal breeds (Defra wing agri-environment measures to be 2003a). Regarding the protection of plant favourable to the use of endemic cultiva- genetic resources, the UK holds collected plants: organic farming, crop rotation tions (e.g. the Commonwealth Potato Col- (the farmer receives higher payments for lection, the Vegetable Genebank, and the rare plants), and maintenance and plan- National Fruit Collection) but there is little ting of orchards. However, it has not been in situ conservation. Some of 66 native UK possible to assess how many hectares of species of economic value ‘may be protec- farmland were planted with traditional ted by chance in nature reserves and plants in the period 2000 –2006 (ART through agri-environment schemes. 2008). However, these species are not monitored or recorded’ (Defra 2003b). In France the effectiveness of the programme targeted at the protection of The basic structure and objectives of the endangered breeds in the period 2000 – measures targeted at maintaining and/or 2006 has been judged in the ex-post eva- improving genetic diversity are very luation as very low because of the low similar in the five countries under review, level of participation by farmers and also but systematic comparison between the the fact that only 5 % of the listed endan- different kinds of programmes targeted at gered endemic breeds were affected by maintaining genetic diversity was this measure (CNASEA 2008a). The restricted by the limited information avai- scheme in the previous programme period lable about concrete programme design did not cover plants and as a consequence and also the lack of comparable datasets we do not have any information on the relating to the implementation in practice. genetic variety of cultivated plants. However, as shown above, most of the countries considered their measures tar- In Switzerland the existent measures for geted at genetic biodiversity as success- the protection of endangered endemic ful, because endangered breeds of species show positive effects (Bundesamt livestock have been protected to some für Landwirtschaft 2009). Between 1999 extent. and 2009, 40 projects for endangered Swiss breeds were supported by the Bun- desamt für Landwirtschaft (C. Marguerat, 3.2 Conclusion e-mail interview) but the Swiss evaluation A high number of schemes in the countries report states that the bare number of pre- under review aim to maintain or increase served types and breeds does not tell biodiversity on farmed land. However, in anything about their importance for pro- recent years there has been some debate duction (Bundesamt für Landwirtschaft about the effectiveness of schemes for 2009). This is mostly dependant on the delivering biodiversity, linked to the difficulties in quantifying the environmental

30 Agri-environmental policies

benefits (cf. Kleijn & Sutherland 2003; (Streamlining European 2010 Biodiversity Kleijn et al. 2006; Knop et al. 2006; Wit- Indicators SEBI of the EEA (EEA 2010)), tingham 2007; EEA 2009). the Biodiversity Indicators for National Use by UNEP (UNEP 2010), and the cur- The impacts of the schemes on biodiver- rent EU-funded research project BioBio – sity have been an important part in all eva- Indicators for Biodiversity in Organic and luation reports studied but it seems to be Low-input Farming (http://www.biobio- difficult to state positive effects on biodi- indicator.org). versity due to missing scientific and/or quantitative data. Some of the main diffi- Another way to improve the efficiency and culties can be seen in the relatively short effectiveness of subsidies for biodiversity evaluation periods, which are not adapted is presumed to be a stronger emphasis on to the long-term effects within biodiver- ‘result-oriented measures’ (also called sity. Other important explanatory factors payment-by-results, performance-based, are the fact that biodiversity is not only or output-oriented incentives) (Schwarz influenced by agricultural use but also by et al. 2008; Matzdorf & Lorenz 2010). In other factors such as climate and the con- contrast to payments which compensate dition of water, soils and other habitat for loss of income or hectares under agre- structures. Results relating to the develop- ement, these subsidies are paid for the ment of species populations cannot there- desired and proved outcome (e.g. number fore easily be traced back directly to the of plant species per hectare). It is assumed applied measures. that these measures can improve the efficiency of agri-environment measures It seems easier to judge the effectiveness because they motivate participating far- of the measures targeted at genetic diver- mers to be more interested in the positive sity alone, because the objectives are well development of the area under contract defined and it is easier to assess numbers (ART 2008). The disadvantages of the of domestic animals and types than num- payments per area scheme are the higher bers of wild, especially migrating animal administration costs and more complica- species. ted evaluation processes. I may also be seen as problematic that to Even if it is not possible to quantify the a large extent the results depend on what effects of the schemes on biodiversity species groups are surveyed and what exactly, the OECD (OECD 2008) and IEEP index of diversity is used (Kleijn et al. (Cooper et al. 2009) have stated that the 2006). The Austrian evaluation report for pressure of agriculture on biodiversity in the programme period 2000 –2006 the European countries has eased. underlined the need for more precisely Furthermore, based on evidence that defined objectives for biodiversity for the sustainable land use and more extensive country as a whole because this could farming practices are profitable for the contribute to improving the efficiency and abiotic factors and hence also for species, effectiveness of the agri-environment we can assume that the provided schemes scheme ÖPUL. Possible criteria mentioned have positive effects on species diversity. were, for example, population density, At the same time, however, the EEA has reproduction of endangered species, and pointed out that, for example, nitrogen the desired extent of a habitat type surpluses (the difference between all (Lebensministerium 2008). nitrogen inputs and outputs on agricul- To solve these problems, the definition of tural land) are declining but generally indicators for biodiversity is emphasized remain high (particularly in Western in research on national level (Umwelt- Europe), indicating high productivity and Kernindikatorensystem des Umweltbun- also that pressure on biodiversity still desamtes, Germany (Umweltbundesamt remains (EEA 2009). 2010)) as well as on international level

31 4 Agricultural subsidies for cultural heritage

In many regions of Europe agriculture has Most European countries stress the econ- played an important role in shaping and omic, social and environmental impor- preserving cultural heritage in rural areas. tance of maintaining agriculture rather Examples of important elements are for than the relation to cultural heritage example archaeological and built heritage, directly (Daugstad et al. 2006). This can such as farmhouses, barns, boundaries, also be underpinned by the fact that the terraces, which also forms the basis for number of agricultural subsidies available rural tourism (Cooper et al. 2009). for farmers and which are targeted at the maintenance and restoration of rural cul- Today, agriculture is seen as both a careta- tural heritage on farmland is relatively ker and a threat to cultural heritage, due to lower than the number of measures for the the fact that heritage on agricultural land maintenance of biodiversity or for soil and is threatened by changes in farming prac- water protection (an exception is Wales). tices (e.g. drainage, modern freestall These findings were also confirmed in the barns) as well as loss of function, such as course of the interviews, when the intervi- the abandonment of farms (Daugstad et ewees stated that scheduled ancient al. 2006). monuments and listed buildings are pro-

32 Agri-environmental policies

tected by legislation and that the support ted in all of the considered EU member and protection of (listed) cultural heritage states. Measures including the main- is the responsibility of cultural heritage tenance and enhancement of cultural her- administration (e.g. Denkmalschutzbehör- itage were mainly ‘renovation and den in Bavaria and Austria, Cadw in Wales development of villages’ and ‘protection (Cadw 2010)) and not the objective of the and conservation of the rural heritage’ agricultural policies. In Switzerland the (Table 7). Austria provided the additional Bundesamt für Kultur (Federal Office of measure ‘protection of the countryside’, Culture) together with the cantons is which supported non-recurrent measures responsible for measures relating to the such as the creation and maintenance of protection of cultural heritage, archaeo- landscape elements (Lebensministerium logy, and the visual appearance of settle- 2008). ments (cities and villages), and hence no In the most recent Rural Development subsidies targeted at cultural heritage are Plans (2007 –2013) the measures for integrated into agricultural payments enhancing cultural heritage are almost the (Direct Payments) (Bundesamt für Kultur same as in the previous programme 2010). period: ‘Village renewal’ and ‘Enhance- However, within the Rural Development ment of the rural heritage’. They are now Programmes of Austria, Bavaria, France, organized under Axis 3 (Improving the and Wales some measures exist which are quality of life in rural areas and encoura- targeted at enhancing the quality of life in ging diversification of the rural economy), rural areas through the enhancement and and one of their objectives is to improve maintenance of cultural heritage. In addi- the physical environment and economic tion, the restoration or renovation of cul- situation of villages and to conserve the tural heritage Europe-wide is often funded rural heritage. Both measures are mainly by NGOs or foundations (private or addressed at local partnerships or authori- governmental). ties but are also available for farmers (Table 7). An exception is Wales, where the 4.1 Rural Development Plans Axis 3 payments are not directly accessi- To identify successful agricultural policies ble for farmers, but require the elaboration with positive impact on cultural heritage of planning concepts and/or programmes on farmed land in the five countries under with public participation and implementa- review, we considered the results of the tion through local partnerships (Welsh evaluation reports from the previous pro- Assembly Government 2008b). gramme period (2000 –2006) as well as The ‘Enhancement of the rural heritage’ those under the most recent Rural measures in Austria, France, and Wales are Development Plans in order to identify targeted at both natural and cultural rural measures which have been continued over heritage, while the corresponding pro- time and are thus probably successful in gramme in Bavaria only provides pay- enhancing cultural heritage. ments for measures which invest in the In the programme period 2000 –2006 natural heritage and the renaturation of measures targeted at promoting the water bodies (StMELF & StMUG 2010). A development of rural areas, including villa- further characteristic of the Bavarian pro- ges, and thereby also the protection and grammes is that the amount of subsidies is conservation of the rural heritage, are dependent on the type of applicant. This mentioned in Article 33 (Promoting the means that measures from local partners- Adaptation and Development of Rural hips or municipalities may receive up to Areas) of European Council Regulation 100 % support while measures from pri- No. 1257/1999 (CoE 1999). The measures vate persons (including farmers) receive mentioned in Article 33 are not compul- 30 –60 % support (StMELF & StMUG 2010). sive but nevertheless they were implemen-

33 3. Agricultural subsidies for biodiversity

Table 7: Measures targeted at cultural heritage (within the Rural Development Plans) (Beneficiaries: (P) initiatives with public participation; (F) farmers) Programme period 2000 –2006 Programme period 2007 –2013 Austria1 Article 33: Village renewal Axis 3: Village renewal (F, P) Article 33: Protection of the coun- Axis 3: Rural heritage (F, P) tryside Bavaria2 Article 33: Village renewal Axis 3: Village renewal (F, P) France3 Article 33: Village renewal Axis 3: Village renewal (F, P) 5 6 7 AEM : CTE /CAD (F) Axis 3: Enhancement of the rural heritage (F, P) Wales4 Article 33: Village renewal (P) Axis 3: Village renewal and protec- AEM: Tir Gofal, Tir Cynnal (F) tion of the rural heritage (P) Axis 2 (AEM): Tir Gofal, Tir Cynnal (F)

Notes: 1 Lebensministerium 2009a: 434; 2 StMELF & StMUG 2010: 669; 3 Ministère de l’agriculture et de la pêche 2007: 272 –279; 4 Wales Audit Office 2007; Welsh Assembly Government 2008b; 5 AEM: agri-environment measures; 6 Contract Territoriaux d`Exploitatation; 7 Contrat d'Agriculture Durable

A feature of the Welsh Rural Development environmental benefits, and the large dif- Plan is that the agri-environment schemes ferences between the number of applicati- Tir Gofal and Tir Cynnal require partici- ons and size of grants awarded in the dif- pants to maintain all historic features on ferent regions (Ministère de l’agriculture et their land. Furthermore, Tir Gofal as well as de la pêche 2006). A further reason lies in the French measure Contract Territoriaux the fact that in 2003 – due to political d`Exploitatation (CTE: Territorial Farming changes – the CTE was replaced by the Contract; only available in the programme Contrat d'Agriculture Durable (CAD: period 2000 –2006) have supported the Sustainable Agriculture Contract), which improvement of historical features on was directed more towards environmental farmland. Both measures have been whole issues. This disruption has also been criti- farm agri-environment schemes. Whereas cized in the ex-post evaluation 2000 – in Wales Tir Gofal continues under the cur- 2006, because the CTE also marked the rent programme period, the CTE in France end of the dynamic of ‘interesting pro- was ended due to the complex require- jects’ (CNASEA 2004). ments and application process, unproven

34 Agri-environmental policies

4.2 Other measures

Box 7: Fondation du patrimoine (France) The Fondation du Patrimoine (Heritage Foundation) is a private, non-profit organization with the goal of protecting unregis- tered cultural heritage which is not protected by the state. The Fondation du Patrimoine is based on a network of departmental and regional representatives. In obtaining the Fondation du Patrimoine’s stamp, a private landowner with cultural heritage (of particular cultural significance but not protected or listed as a historical monument) on his or her land, becomes eligible for tax deductions when carrying out maintenance or restoration works. In addition, the Fondation du Patrimoine can support the restoration of heritage under public or associate ownership by providing financial aid through subsidies (Image 8). The Fondation du Patrimoine can collect Image 8a, b: "Moulin de la Tranchère" in Cey- donations to finance a project where the rat, Clermont-Ferrand, France: Historic water project is insured by a commune or by an mill renovated with financial support from the association. The funds raised are then Fondation du Patrimoine. Photo: J.-P. Brun, handed to the builder (minus a 3 % mana- Compagnons de la Tranchère. gement fee). Supported projects between 2000 and 2008: – 6600 stamps (tax deduction) for traditional buildings and so-called small cultural heritage sites – 1676 projects supported with subsidies and collected donations (Fondation du Patrimoine 2010).

Other than the measures presented above, (France) (Box 7), and the Fond für information relating to measures or subsidies Landschaft Schweiz (Switzerland). available for farmers to maintain or enhance cultural heritage on their land is either rather 4.3 Conclusion limited and/or difficult to access. In preparing this review it was not possible The Bavarian Förderwegweiser (Guide to to assess the amount of subsidies paid by Payments Accessible to Farmers) contains cultural heritage authorities or funds paid one additional measure to protect and/or to farmers. However, in terms of available enhance the cultural heritage on mountain capital the foundations are in general not pastures: KULAP B (Box 8). This pro- as effective as, for example, the measures gramme is not co-financed by the EU. The under the Rural Development Programmes. objectives of KULAP B are to encourage The lack of comparable data (see Table 8) measures (e.g. renovation of buildings and and lack of reference data (e.g. amount fences) which invest in mountain pastures and condition of cultural heritage on (Alm). farmed land within and outside the mea- Another support possibility for farmers or sures) make it difficult to assess and evalu- other owners of historic buildings or ate the effectiveness of measures. The monuments are funds or foundations theme ‘cultural heritage’ has not received (often financed by government), such as further attention either in the evaluation the Historic Buildings and Conservation reports of the Rural Development Pro- Area Grant of the Cadw (Wales) (Cadw grammes or in other international evalua- 2007), the Fondation du patrimoine tions reports of the EU, the OECD, or the

35 3. Agricultural subsidies for biodiversity

IEEP. If considered at all, any evaluation is [article 33] is limited to a description of restricted to quantitative aspects, as con- the organization and finances of the mea- firmed in the following quote: ‘l’analyse de sure and the realized projects) (CNASEA 7 mésures du chapitre IX se limite à un 2008c). However, some final conclusions descriptif physique et financier de la pro- regarding the effects of the measures are grammation et des réalisations’ (the analy- possible, and these are summarized in sis of the 7 measures under Chapter 9 Table 8.

Table 8: Results of measures targeted at cultural heritage (2000–2006)

Austria Village renewal: 896 projects in 663 villages. Amount of grants: c.8.4 million EUR, of which 40 % was for the ‘renovation of objects’ and 14 % for the maintenance of village character (Lebensministerium 2008: 206)Protection of the countryside: Grants: c.22 million EUR (1507 Projects) and 6.8 million EUR for measures investing in mountain pastures and for ‘cultural landscape elements’ (Lebensministerium 2008: 235) Bavaria Village renewal: 1244 measures with a total cost of 42 million EUR were supported: Re-use, protection & renovation of rural buildings: 68 measures (16.6 million EUR) Boundaries: 10.6 km; 265 measures (6.8 million EUR) Small cultural heritage sites: 446 measures (6.1 million EUR) (ART 2008)

KULAP B: In 2006: 916,000 EUR (Bayerischer Landtag 2007) France Village renewal (incl. the protection and conservation of rural cultural heritage) 6511 measures (15.9 million EUR), of which 83 % were implemented under CTE (CNASEA 2008c) Wales Tir Gofal: A total of 16,382 historic features were supported: 2489 traditional farm buildings 651 scheduled ancient monuments 13,242 other historic features 3449 ha historic parks and gardens (EKOS 2008)

The most comprehensive programme for ween 2000 and 2006 the average was 1.7 the maintenance and enhancement of cul- million EUR per year) (StMELF (L. Treffler, tural heritage on farms seem to be the interview)) was paid to farmers with moun- schemes in Wales, where the ‘protection tain pastures (1400 mountain pastures in of the historic environment’ is even defi- total in Bavaria). However, detailed infor- ned as one of the main objectives of the mation about the number and type of mea- agri-environment schemes. Despite the sures is not available (StMELF (L. Treffler, considered data being fragmented, the Tir interview)). In general, the measure is con- Gofal programme is seen as successful in sidered successful and will be integrated terms of enhancing cultural heritage: ‘Alt- into the new Bergbauernprogramm (Box 8) hough little monitoring and evaluation In Austria an overall assessment of the have been carried out available evidence measure Landschaftsschutz is considered [outputs are used as indicator of outco- as being hardly possible because its vari- mes] suggests that Tir Gofal is protecting ous sub-measures operate quite diffe- the historic environment’ (EKOS 2008). rently. However, even if both target areas Thus, a comparison of the schemes shows and effects of Landschaftsschutz are that Tir Gofal has supported the highest restricted to local or sub-regional level, it number of historical features (although we is considered to contribute to the protec- do not have information about the extent tion of cultural landscapes and natural or dimension of the projects). resources and to have fruitfully comple- Also of interest is the programme targeted mented respective ÖPUL measures at mountain pastures: the Bavarian KULAP (Lebensministerium 2008). B. In 2006, a total of 916,000 EUR (bet-

36 5 Agricultural subsidies for landscape scenery and recreation

Over time most of the landscapes in abandonment of farms (El Benni & Leh- Europe have been transformed by agricul- mann 2010). Where the character of a ture and many of them have become landscape is under threat of degradation, highly appreciated. They vary significantly the demand for public intervention is high. between localities and are seen as a This is particularly important for the main- resource in terms of rural tourism and tenance of relic features which provide a recreation (El Benni & Lehmann 2010). clear environmental or cultural benefit, but However, not all agricultural landscapes which no longer serve an agronomic func- are valued as desirable public goods. Cer- tion and may be an economic disadvan- tain landscapes have been intensified and tage in the present-day farm business denuded through, for example, large-scale (Cooper et al. 2009). specialization, mono-cropping, and the

37 5. Agricultural subsidies for landscape scenery and recreation

However, not only measures targeted - Measures supporting the maintenance directly at maintaining traditional lands- of cultural heritage (e.g. terraces, old cape features have an influence on the farmhouses) scenic quality of a landscape. Almost all - Measures enhancing public access and subsidies offered to farmers have direct or recreation opportunities. indirect effects on the appearance of the landscape they relate to. Some examples Measures targeted at the creation of habi- are: tats and the extensification of farming practices, as well as to cultural heritage, - Measures aimed at maintaining far- have been discussed in the preceding sec- ming in marginal (less favoured) areas tions. Therefore, the main focus in the fol- such as mountainous areas. These lowing sections will be on measures measures contribute to the maintenan- targeted at maintaining cultural landsca- ce of cultural landscapes and creating pes, maintaining and creating linear ele- a mosaic of different land uses. ments in the landscapes (e.g. hedges and - Measures which promote fixing boundaries), and enhancing public access elements in cultural landscapes (e.g. to the countryside. maintenance and/or creation of small landscape elements) 5.1 Maintaining cultural landscapes - Measures providing more extensive The abandonment of farms in less produc- land use, such as crop rotation or less tive areas, often followed by regrowth of use of fertilizers. These measures the formerly farmed land, has undesirable contribute to, for example, a greater effects on landscape scenery. For this variety of cultivated plants and wild reason specific measures for maintaining flowers in the landscape. farms in such areas have been instituted, - Measures promoting afforestation or also within the European common agricul- maintenance of agricultural land tural policy (MacDonald et al. 2000) (Table 9).

38 Agri-environmental policies

Table 9: Measures targeted at maintaining cultural landscapes Programme period 2000 –2006 Programme period 2007 –2013 Austria Compensation payments for less Axis 2: Compensation payments for favoured areas (Ausgleichszahlun- less favoured areas (Ausgleichs- gen für naturbedingte Nachteile zahlungen für naturbedingte Nach- zugunsten von Landwirten in teile zugunsten von Landwirten in Berggebieten) Berggebieten)

ÖPUL: Keeping up cultural landscapes (Of- Axis 2 (ÖPUL): Mowing grassland on steep hill- fenhaltung der Kulturlandschaft) sides (Mahd von Steilflächen)

ÖPUL: Alpine pasture and herding (Alpung Axis 2 (ÖPUL): Maintenance of Bergmähdern und Behirtung) (alpine fodder meadows, often very steep) (Erhalt von Bergmähdern im Alpinen Bereich

Axis 2 (ÖPUL): Alpine pasture and herding (Al- pung und Behirtung) Bavaria Compensation payments for less favoured Axis 2: Compensation payments for less favou- areas (e.g. mountains) (Ausgleichszulage in red areas (e.g. mountains) (Ausgleichszulage benachteiligten (Berg)gebieten) in benachteiligten (Berg)gebieten)

KULAP: Mowing grassland on steep hillsides Axis 2 (KULAP): Mowing grassland on steep (Mahd von Steilhangwiesen) hillsides (Mahd von Steilhangwiesen)

KULAP: Alpine pasture and herding (Behir- Axis 2 (KULAP): Alpine pasture and herding tungsprämie für anerkannte Almen und Al- (Behirtungsprämie für anerkannte Almen und pen) Alpen)

KULAP B: scrub clearance (Schwendpro- KULAP B: Scrub clearance (Schwendpro- gramm) gramm) France Axis 2: Compensation payments for less fa- Axis 2: Compensation payments for less favou- voured areas (Les Indemnités Compensatri- red areas (Paiements destinés aux agriculteurs ces du Handicap Naturel) situés dans des zones de montagne qui visent à compenser les handicaps naturels) 1 Payments for pastures/grassland (Prime her- Axis 2 (AEM ): Payments for pastures/gras- bagère agroenvironnementale (PHAE) Réuti- sland (PHAE) liser les milieux en dynamique de déprise) Wales Tir Mynydd (supports livestock production in Axis 2: Tir Mynydd (supports livestock produc- less favoured areas) tion in less favoured areas) Switzerland General Direct Payments (Incl. payments for agriculture on steep hillsides) (Allgemeine Di- rektzahlungen (inkl. Hangbeiträge)) Payments for summer pastures (Sömmerungsbeiträge)

Note: 1 AEM: agri-environment measures

All countries considered in this review pro- and infrastructural conditions. LFAs are vide subsidies for Less Favoured Areas designed to maintain the countryside and (LFAs), which are often divided into the biodiversity through farming practi- mountain and non-mountain areas. In ces. Since 1975, when they were introdu- Wales the measure is called Tir Mynydd ced, LFA payments have been one of the and in Switzerland the payments are orga- most financially strong measures under nized under the General Direct Payments Axis 2 (c.32 % of total payments in Austria; (El Benni & Lehmann 2010). The aim of 52 % in Bavaria, and 22 % in Wales) (Welsh these measures is to maintain farming in Assembly Government 2008a; Lebensmi- areas where agricultural production or nisterium 2009a; StMELF & StMUG 2010). activity is more difficult because of natural They are granted annually per hectare of

39 5. Agricultural subsidies for landscape scenery and recreation

utilized agricultural area, sometimes While all countries provide for the main- linked to the number of grazing animals tenance of grassland for the whole terri- (Cooper et al. 2009) or the size of the tory (e.g. Tir Gofal in Wales and PHAE in farm. In the five countries in focus, the France), Austria, Bavaria, and Switzerland level of payment varies between a mini- provide additional measures which are mum of c.25 EUR/ha for farms in ‘inter- exclusively directed towards mountain mediate designations’ (e.g. in Wales areas: to prevent overgrowth in such (Welsh Assembly Government 2010b: 38) landscapes, the mowing of fields with a and Bavaria (StMELF & StMUG 2010: 352)) slope of more than 25 % in Austria, > 35 % and a maximum of c.850 EUR/ha for in Bavaria, and > 18 % in Switzerland, is small-scale farms in high mountain areas subsidized. Farmers must mow at least (in Austria (Lebensministerium 2009a)). one time per year and they have to cart Furthermore, the measure in Wales is only the swath away. Austria provides an addi- targeted at maintaining livestock produc- tional measure with higher payments, tion. Since 2003 the payments for less which is limited to grassland in alpine favoured areas have been under review by areas (Bergmähdern), where grazing is the EU, particularly with regard to the not possible (Lebensministerium 2009a; designation of ‘intermediate LFAs’ and the StMELF & StMUG 2010; Bundesamt für lack of targeting of this form of aid (EC Landwirtschaft 2010b). In Bavaria the 2009a). Accordingly, the Welsh measure KULAP B measure (see Box 8) supports Tir Mynydd has not been continued in the the clearance of scrubs on mountain pas- new agri-environment programme Glastir, tures, which are recognized and listed as which came into force in 2012 (Welsh Alm. Assembly Government 2010c).

Box 8: KULAP B and Bergbauernprogramm From 1 January 2011, KULAP B has been integrated into the Bavarian mountain farmers programme (Bergbauernprogramm), which is directed at farms with registered Alm (summer pastures). The aim of this programme is to maintain typical mountain pasture landscapes and thereby also the basis for rural tourism in the Bavarian Alps. The scheme can be divided into four measures: A (former KULAP B): Clearance of scrub and other restoration work on summer pastures (e.g. after an avalanche) B (former KULAP B): Support of measures which invest in, for example, cattle sheds or enclosures on summer pastures C Investments in farms located in valleys, which use summer pastures (e.g. small cattle sheds, hay barns, or mowers for hillsides) D Diversification of the economy of mountain farms, e.g. through rural tourism

The Bergbauernprogramm, in contrast to KULAP B, will be co-financed by the EU (total annual budget: c.5.4 million EUR) (L. Treffler, oral communication)

Furthermore, Austria, Bavaria (Behirtung- (Lebensministerium 2009a; StMELF & sprämie für Almen), and Switzerland StMUG 2010; Bundesamt für Land- (Sömmerungsbeiträge) provide special wirtschaft 2010b; El Benni & Lehmann payments for roughage consuming ani- 2010). mals that graze on mountain pastures in the summer. The aim of this form of sup- Effectiveness of measures targeted at port is to maintain the extensive summe- maintaining cultural landscapes ring pastures in mountainous regions. The A high amount has been spent on the less payments are dependent on area under favoured areas schemes (see Table 10). contract and the number of animals, and Representatives in almost all of the coun- stand in direct correlation with the acces- tries regarded the subsidies as having sibility of the Alm (summer pasture). In positive effects on the landscape, but they addition, Austria and Bavaria offer special also point out that it was not possible to payments for mountain shepherds quantify to what extent farming (and

40 Agri-environmental policies

hence also the open, farmed landscape) programme periods: ‘The decline in small had been maintained with help of the LFA and medium-sized holdings, referred to as measure in recent years: "structural change", would take place much more rapidly [without the compen- Wales: ‘Although not measured in quanti- satory allowance]. The continued exis- tative terms, Scheme Managers and PMC tence of a major part of Austria’s cultiva- [Programme Monitoring Committee] ted landscape, which constitutes a members feel that Tir Mynydd has decisive precondition for tourism, would successfully contributed to maintaining be in danger. For this reason the compen- the beauty of the Welsh landscape, and satory allowance also has to be an integral enabled hill farmers and their families to component of a comprehensive ecologi- keep in business’ (EKOS 2008: 18). cally and socially-oriented overall pro- Bavaria: The effects of the compensatory gramme in the future’ (Lebensministerium allowance on the cultural landscape 2009b: 35). cannot be quantified. However, it is assu- In Wales Tir Mynydd will not be continued med that the compensatory allowance, in the next programme period. One reason with its structure conserving effects, can given is that the ‘main weakness of the contribute to maintain farming over the compensatory payment scheme was whole territory (ART 2008: 530). thought to be its lack of environmental France: In the mountainous areas the pay- focus, and/or alignment of payments to ments of the Rural Development Program- certain environmental actions which mes, and especially the payments for the would help changing farmer’s attitudes less favoured areas, play an important role and farming practice’ (EKOS 2008: 18). In because they represent 40 % of farmer’s Switzerland too, the general payments are income. Despite the inability to quantify under discussion. For the further develop- the effects, the maintenance of the pro- ment of the Direct Payment System (2011), duction system (surfaces, livestock) shows there are plans to introduce Kultur- that the countryside is maintained (CNA- landschaftsbeiträge (cultural landscapes SEA 2008b: 156). payments), which will be offered for main- In Austria the measure seems to be appre- tenance of the landscape (Lanz et al. ciated and will be continued in the future 2010).

Table 10: Results of measures targeted at less favoured areas Austria2 Bavaria2 France3 Wales4 Total participating farms 97,039 (2008) 74,883 (2006) 96,000 (2007) 66,268 (2007) Farms in mountain areas 68,000 (2008) 9277 (2006) 67,000 (2007) –5 Total hectares in million 1.55 1.5 (2006) 4.3 1.0 Total amount per year 275 million EUR 133 million EUR 517 million 53 million EUR6 (2008) (average EUR (2007) (average 2000 –2006) 2000 –2006) Average annual investment/ha c.175 EUR c.90 EUR c.120 EUR 55 EUR

Notes: 1 Lebensministerium 2009b: 21ff.; 2 ART 2008: 32; 3 CNASEA 2008b: 26, Agreste 2009: 30; 4 EKOS 2008: 13; Welsh Assembly Government 2008a: 45; 5 The Welsh programme does not differ between ‘mountain’ and ‘not mountain’ areas, but between ‘severely disadvantaged areas’ and ‘disadvantaged areas’; 6 GBP 36 million, exchange rate from 31 December 2006

Compared with the controversial Less Austria and 1700 ha in Bavaria were under Favoured Areas payments, the measures contract (the high difference may be which are designed directly to maintain partly due to the fact that the mountai- landscapes through mowing or grazing nous area in Bavaria is smaller than in seem to be more effective with regard to Austria and also the Bavarian definition of landscape issues. steep hillsides is more strict). Within the measures ‘mowing grassland In Austria almost 8000 farms participate on steep hillsides’ in 2005 c.187,983 ha in in measures targeted at maintaining and

41 5. Agricultural subsidies for landscape scenery and recreation

enhancing alpine pastures and herding, profitable (ART 2008; Lebensministerium and thereby also typical cultural landsca- 2008). pes, with 475,000 ha (the area under con- Austria, Bavaria, and Switzerland all deter- tract decreased between 2000 and 2006 mined that these measures play an impor- by 75,000 ha) (Lebensministerium 2008). tant role in maintaining summer pastures In Bavaria 1200 farms participate with in mountainous regions (Lebensministe- 25,000 ha (ART 2008) and in Switzerland rium 2008; Bundesamt für Landwirtschaft 7200 farms (Bundesamt für Land- 2009, StMELF & StMUG 2010) and there wirtschaft 2009). It was not possible to are plans to continue these measures in identify from the evaluation reports what future programme periods (Lanz et al. proportion of summer pastures was mana- 2010; StMELF (L. Treffler, interview)). ged by shepherds. It is noteworthy that in Austria the hecta- 5.2 Linear landscape elements res and number of participating farms in Measures targeted at linear fixed elements both measures (mowing grassland on in the landscape, such as hedges, bounda- steep hillsides and on alpine pastures) ries, and stone walls, exist in all of the decreased between 2000 and 2006. The countries under review. They are organi- reasons for this include the general aban- zed differently (see Table 11) but we can donment of farms in mountain areas as distinguish between measures principally well as in the fact that farmers used the targeted at maintenance and measures fields for other measures which were more targeted at creating new linear elements on farmed land.

Table 11: Measures targeted at maintaining and creating linear landscape elements (within the Rural De- velopment Plans and/or Direct Payment System. Programme period 2000 –2006 Programme period 2007 –2013 Austria ÖPUL: Creation of landsca- Axis 3: Enhancement of the rural heritage – pe elements (Neuanlegung cultural landscapes (Landliches Erbe – Kul- Landschaftselemente) turlandschaft, Landschaftsgestaltung & - entwicklung) Bavaria Land consolidation (Flurbereinigung) Axis 1: Land consolidation (Flurbereinigung)

Conservation of the countryside & Na- Axis 3: Enhancement of the rural heritage – Conserva- tural Park Directive (Landschaftspfle- tion of the countryside & Natural Park Directive (Erhal- ge- und Naturpark-Richtlinien) tung und Verbesserung des landlichen Erbes - Landschaftspflege- und Naturpark-Richtlinien)

Axis 2: Maintenance of hedgerows (Heckenpflege-Pro- gramm) 1 France AEM: Maintenance and planting of Axis 2 (AEM regional): Maintenance of hedgerows hedgerows and maintenance of dit- (MAET- entretien des haies) ches (entretien de haies, réhabilitation Axis 2: Aid for non-productive investments (Aide aux de fossés, création de haies) investissements non productifs) Axis 1: Planting plan for farms (Plan végétal pour l’environnement- modernisation des exploitations agricoles)

Switzerland Payments for ecological compensation (Ökologischer Ausgleich) Wales Tir Gofal Axis 2 (AEM): Tir Gofal Tir Cynnal Axis 2 (AEM): Tir Cynnal

Note: 1 AEM: agri-environment measures

42 Agri-environmental policies

The structure and the objectives of these scheme offers annual payments, calcula- measures have remained largely unchan- ted on hedge length (1 EUR/m hedgerow), ged between the two programme periods while Tir Cynnal simply requires the main- (2000 –2006 and 2007 –2013). Measures tenance of all linear elements on farmed targeted at maintaining the existent linear land. structures include the agri-environment schemes Tir Cynnal (Wales) and the Hec- kenpflegeprogramm (Bavaria). The latter

Box 9: Flurneuordnung (Land consolidation) One of the oldest agricultural support programmes in Bavaria is the Flurneuordnung, introduced in 1886. The main aim was the allotment of farmed land and the creation of roads in rural areas. With the 1976 German Federal Act on the Consolidation of Farm- land (Flurbereinigungsgesetz), social and environmental aspects became more important. Thus, in addition to the improvement of the agrarian structure, financial support includes also the creation of landscapes elements and recreation opportunities as well as ecological improvements, preventive flood protection, and the challenge of conciliating in conflicts over land use.

Photo: W. Dramstad, Skog og landskap.

The creation of new linear elements is pro- Effectiveness of measures targeted at vided through programmes such as the linear elements regional agri-environment measures ‘créa- While measures targeted at linear lands- tion de haies’ (France) or the Flurneu- cape elements (often hedgerows) are ordnung (Bavaria) (Box 9), while some widespread, the absence of reference data measures provide both payments for for linear elements (e.g. the existence and maintenance and the creation of lands- length of linear elements for the whole ter- cape elements. The latter measures ritory) make objective judgements and include the ‘Enhancement of the rural her- comparisons of such measures difficult. itage’ (Austria) and the advanced agri- For example, due to changes in assess- environment scheme in Wales (Tir Gofal). ment method in France, it was not possi- Some payments for the creation of linear ble to assess the evolution of the number elements are calculated based on the and length of linear elements in the coun- length of the element (e.g. Tir Gofal – plan- try during the last programme period ting of hedges: EUR 3 per metre) (Welsh (CNASEA 2008a). Assembly Government 2010d), while However, the evaluation reports of the others provide payments as a percentage Bavarian, French, and Welsh Rural of the total costs (e.g. Enhancement of the Development Plans include at least basic cultural heritage in Austria). information about the creation of new Only Switzerland does not have a corre- landscape elements. Also, the creation of sponding programme in support of the 3500 km (under Tir Gofal) in Wales, 2400 creation of landscape elements. However, km (under MAET) in France, and 56 km there are plans to integrate payments for hedgerows (under Flurbereinigung) in the creation of structural elements such as Bavaria were supported (ART 2008; EKOS hedgerows or orchards into the new Direct 2008; CNASEA 2008a). In Austria the Payment System (2011) (El Benni & Leh- length of linear elements decreased des- mann 2010). pite the availability of support to maintain

43 5. Agricultural subsidies for landscape scenery and recreation

and enhance them (Lebensministerium 2008, Appendix). The reason for this has been seen in the fact that linear landscape elements (with the exception of hedgerows) are not protected by regulations (Lebensministerium 2008, Appendix). Despite the deficits in the evaluation and assessment of linear landscape elements, the fact that the schemes have been continued over programme periods shows that the measures are appreciated by the authorities concerned.

5.3 Public access to the countryside The countryside represents one of the most important recreational facilities for the public. Substantial areas of European countries are under agricultural use and the role of farms in providing recreation Axis 3 are not exclusively directed at Image 9: "Kissing gate", opportunities for the public has also been farmed land but also at public and other a gate without latches, taken into account in the agricultural sub- private land, and in Wales they even preventing livestock to sidies (Table 12). pass through while require implementation through local giving easy passage to Within the current Rural Development partnerships. Thus, the Welsh advanced one person at a time. Programmes, measures targeted at impro- agri-environment scheme Tir Gofal provi- Photo: P. Dennis. ving public access to the countryside (e.g., des payments for farmers targeted at enhancement of the rural heritage, village better public access on their land. Unlike renewal and encouragement of rural tou- other measures which offer payments cal- rism) can mostly be found under Axis 3 of culated as a percentage of the total cost, the Rural Development Programmes. the payments list of Tir Gofal is very pre- These measures include the offer of pay- cise (e.g. creation of 1 metre of footpath: ments to create viewpoints, rest areas, EUR 9; a bench seat: EUR 37; and a kissing benches, gates, cycle paths and footpaths, gate (Image 9) of Welsh oak: EUR 180) fitness trails, and small bridges. As menti- (Welsh Assembly Government 2010d). oned earlier in this review, measures under

Table 12: Measures targeted at enhancing public access to the countryside (within the Rural development Plans) Programme period 2007 –2013 Austria Axis 3: Encouragement of rural tourism (Förderung des Frem- denverkehrs) Axis 3: Enhancement of the rural heritage – Nature protection (Ländliches Erbe – Naturschutz: Infrastrukturmaßnahmen für die landschaftsgebundene Erholung wie insbesondere Besucher- leitsysteme) Bavaria Axis 3: Village renewal (Dorferneuerung) France Axis 3: Encouragement of rural tourism (Promotion des activités touristiqu- es)

Axis 3: Enhancement of the rural heritage – Nature protection (Conservation et mise en valeur du patrimoine naturel) Wales Axis 2: Tir Gofal Axis 3: Encouragement of rural tourism

44 Agri-environmental policies

It was not possible to gather information 5.4 Conclusion about agricultural policies or grants desig- Programmes and schemes with influence ned explicitly to enhance public access to on the appearance of landscapes are the countryside in Switzerland, neither in numerous and diverse, but parallel literature nor in the course of the intervi- developments in the design of the support ews (Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, possibilities in the compared countries can Snow and Landscape Research, inter- be observed (e.g. payments for less favou- view). However, a wide range of grants red areas, mowing and grazing on moun- exist for rural tourism, such as Innotour, tain pastures). While maintenance of bio- founded by the Swiss Government (for the diversity, landscape coherence and open period 2008 –2011, with a budget of 16.1 landscapes are some of the main objecti- million EUR) (SECO 2010). ves of the rural development policies in most of the countries (Cooper et al. 2009), Effectiveness of measures targeted at the creation of recreation opportunities on enhancing public access to the farmed land has not been emphasized. countryside The only exceptions are the schemes in The evaluation reports from Austria and Wales. One reason for this may be that in France do not contain information about Wales, in contrast to the other countries whether or not and/or to what extent under consideration, public rights of measures for creating better access for access agricultural land and forests are the public to the countryside have been more restricted (Enclosure Acts; Country- supported. In Bavaria the measure Flurbe- side and Rights of Way Act (2000)). reinigung provided for the creation of The effects of the different schemes on c.5000 km cart tracks in the period 2000 – landscape issues are part of most evalua- 2006 (ART 2008), which are mainly also tion studies of the Rural Development accessible to the public (ART2008). In the Plans. Unfortunately though, the evalua- case of support for village renewal in tion system is not sufficiently detailed and Bavaria, 1 rest area, 19 benches, and 54 km comprehensive to compare the effective- of cycle paths and footpaths were suppor- ness of the measures with regard to the ted in the same period. However, most of maintenance of landscapes, the main- the constructions were probably underta- tenance of linear elements, and recreation ken within villages rather than the wider opportunities. One of the main problems countryside, because the main focus of has been regarded as the lack of reference Flurbereinigung is the villages (ART data, and there is also a lack of precisely 2008). defined aims. Regarding the payments for One of the four main objectives of the less favoured areas, the effects for main- Welsh agri-environment scheme Tir Gofal taining landscapes are seen as questiona- is to increase opportunities for public ble. However, most of the other schemes access to the countryside. Under the are judged as important and effective for scheme 428 km of footpaths and 4220 the maintenance of rural landscapes educational farm visits were supported. (Lebensministerium 2008; Bundesamt für However, a study by EKOS found that the Landwirtschaft 2009; StMELF & StMUG condition of public rights of way on Tir 2010; ART 2008). Gofal farms was only slightly better than The question of whether or not the above- the average for Wales (EKOS 2008). mentioned measures (Cooper et al. 2009) None of the evaluation reports included also have positive impacts on the variety information on whether, how, and to what of landscapes and landscape identity (cf. extent people used the new access oppor- European Landscape Convention) (CoE tunities. 2000) has not been considered further in the evaluation reports.

45 6 Overall conclusions

6.1 European agricultural support – 1698/2005). In Switzerland the objectives complex structure but similar of the schemes are very similar to those of aims the EU member states (e.g. agri-environ- Agricultural policies and payment systems ment payments and payments for moun- in Europe have a long history and are tain pastures), although their organization organized in a very complex manner. This differs. complexity, the high number of schemes and measures provided, national specifics 6.2 RDP as a driving force for and terms, different responsibilities, and changes in landscapes, the changes in programme design have biodiversity and cultural heritage proved problematic for this review of agri- For the three themes of interest (i.e. biodi- cultural support aimed at maintaining versity, landscape, and cultural heritage), and/or enhancing biodiversity, cultural the measures under Axes 2 and 3 of the heritage and landscape. However, through Rural Development Programmes (CAP studying and comparing the schemes in Pillar 2) were the most important. These Austria, Bavaria, France, and Wales it two Axes and particularly the agri-envi- became apparent that they are generally ronment schemes (in Switzerland, Ecolo- organized and targeted in a quite similar gical Direct Payments) dispose of an enor- manner (cf. Table 2), and this can be mous amount of funding and have been traced back to, for example, the fact that applied across a large geographical area in the European Council regulates the objec- the European Union (Whittingham 2007: tives and components of the schemes in a 1) (e.g. 88 % of Austria’s agricultural area is very concrete manner (cf. EC Regulation covered by the agri-environment pro-

46 Agri-environmental policies

Figure 5: European budget for agriculture and rural development (EUR-Lex 2010)

gramme ÖPUL (Lebensministerium 6.3 Criticisms of scheme design and 2008)). As a consequence, they have pro- evaluation difficulties bably a high level of influence on farmers’ Criticisms of the design of agri-environ- decisions and land use practices, and ment schemes and of the Rural Develop- hence also the provision of public goods. ment Plans are numerous. They range However, other forms of agricultural sup- from the criticisms related to short-term port, such as the direct payments under programme design (6 years, which con- the first pillar of the European CAP (Figure flicts with the goal of long-term effects on 5) and the General Direct Payments in biodiversity), regarding the problem that Switzerland (Bundesamt für Statistik only fragmented areas are involved (rese- Schweiz 2010c) have higher value and arch focuses on the importance of matrix), thus might have more significance for far- and that frequent changes in programme ming decisions. Additionally, other driving design leave farmers feeling insecure and forces, such as markets, legislation, and have negative impacts on scheme partici- infrastructure, also influence the provision pation (cf. Organic Framing under the CTE of public goods through agriculture. in France) (Appendix CAB in CNASEA Furthermore, all of these factors, as well as 2008a), to the problem that schemes are the subsidies, are influenced by global often only implemented in areas which policies beyond Europe (e.g. WTO poli- have not previously been used intensively cies) (cf. Cooper et al. 2009; Primdahl & and where intensification is not profitable Swaffield 2010). (and therefore they do not lead to environ- With regard to expected changes in agri- mental improvements) (Kleijn et al. 2006; cultural support policies and the corre- Knop et al. 2006; Whittingham 2007; Lanz sponding requirements of the WTO et al. 2010). (reduction of measures which are conside- Apart from criticisms of the schemes red to distort production and trade) and themselves, their evaluation has been cri- the EU (new programme period 2013 – ticized too. The following citation from the 2020), the discussion on the effectiveness Welsh evaluation reveals some of the main and improvement of the CAP, the Rural criticisms with regard to scheme evalua- Development Programmes, and the agri- tion: environment schemes will be in greater focus in the coming years.

47 6. Overall conclusions

None of the current schemes operating in do not allow us to draw lessons from the Wales have extant commissioning docu- ongoing schemes. The evaluations, espe- ments that precisely define the scheme cially those on international levels – mea- benefits, outcomes or outputs to be deli- sured on the duration of a 7-year pro- vered, although Tir Gofal, for example, gramme period – take a relatively long does have defined (although non-targe- time. Thus, the design of the schemes for ted) objectives. [...] There is some evi- the next programme period is mainly dence to suggest that the activities based on the results of the mid-term eva- funded by the scheme should benefit luation of the ongoing programme period habitats. However, there is only limited evi- (mid-term is after 3.5 years). This could be dence about the extent to which beneficial judged critically because it seems difficult changes to habitats can be attributed to to assess effects of the measures in an Tir Gofal rather than other factors. Also, appropriate manner after such a short there is a lack of comprehensive data on period of time, especially with regard to Welsh habitats and how they are changing long-term effects on landscape changes over time. This makes it difficult to put the or biodiversity. achievements of Tir Gofal into context. Lack of specifically defined objectives – The point to be emphasised here is not The lack of specifically defined objectives that Tir Gofal has failed to deliver benefits of the schemes (e.g. ‘maintaining or but that evaluation of the delivery of those enhancing biodiversity or cultural heri- benefits is problematic (Welsh Assembly tage’) makes it difficult to measure their Government 2008c: 8). effectiveness. For this reason, discussion In the following, the main difficulties con- and research relating to indicators (e.g. cerning scheme evaluation are described. SEBI of the EEA) (EEA 2010) has been emphasized in recent years. Other trends Timescales involved – Because of the criti- to simplify the measurement of the effec- cisms of the evaluations and the effective- tiveness of schemes include the introduc- ness of the provided schemes during the tion of results-based payments, such as mid-term evaluation of the programme those in Switzerland, where payments for period 2000 –2006, the Council of Europe less favoured areas will be replaced by has already with Regulation 1698/2005 payments based on the number of hecta- established requirements regarding res of farmland maintained. scheme evaluation: each member state has to set up a monitoring committee to Limited availability of data – A further pro- ensure that a given programme is imple- blem is the limited availability of data. mented effectively. In addition, the mana- From this review, it is apparent that a gement authority for each programme is general lack of reference data has often obliged to send an annual report to the been discussed and criticized during European Commission on the implemen- scheme evaluation because this informa- tation of the programme. The rural tion is important for judging the outcomes development policy and its programmes of a given measure. How can we, for exam- have to be evaluated ex-ante, mid-term, ple, judge the importance of a given and ex-post to improve the quality, effici- length of hedgerows created in area, if we ency, and effectiveness of the implemen- do not have reference data on the length tation of the Rural Development Program- of hedgerows prior to implementing the mes. A further aim of evaluations is to scheme, or a quantified goal for the length draw lessons for future rural development of hedgerows to be established through policy by identifying factors that have the scheme? contributed to the success or failure of Other difficulties concern the limited data programme implementation (EC 2009c). on scheme implementation and documen- However, in a literature review, identifica- tation, especially under Axis 3 of the Rural tion of the most effective schemes or ‘best Development Plans. There is often a lack practice examples’ regarding the themes of detailed information about the type of of interest was constrained by the lack of projects supported, as well as about the available evaluation studies. Studies are quality of outcomes, e.g. the quality of the only available for the last programme created recreation opportunities on farm- period (which ended in 2006), and they land.

48 Agri-environmental policies

Vaguely formulated results – Vaguely for- 6.5 Scheme success stories and mulated results, such as ‘it was assumed’ future challenges: "simple" or ‘it was felt’, when used for example in measures and "better" evaluation the argument that the less favoured areas – in Norway and internationally scheme has positive effects on the lands- As outlined above, there are various con- cape (ART 2008: 530), are very common straints in using a literature review and in the reviewed evaluation studies. They interviews to identify the most effective represent a level of uncertainty, especially schemes or ‘best practice examples’ for with regard to results which go beyond a the themes of biodiversity, cultural heri- description of the output of the schemes tage, landscape scenery and recreation. (e.g. number of participants, area under For example, the feasibility of comparing contract). As seen in the evaluation of the and quantifying agri-environmental mea- Welsh scheme Tir Gofal (above), these sures and their results internationally is, to uncertainties originate in, for example, the some extent, constrained by the fact that fact that it is difficult to trace results (e.g. the character of the landscape is the positive development in a bird population) underlying basis for agricultural support back to single support measures, due to systems. Landscapes differ in different the complexity of environmental issues, countries, and even the same type of the high number of driving forces and sta- landscape may be valued differently in dif- keholders, and also the combination of ferent countries, in the light of other nati- and interaction between applied measures onal resources and priorities. Combinati- (Welsh Assembly Government 2008c; ons of history, culture and politics may Cooper et al. 2009)). lead to country-specific characteristics in policies, and farmers’ interests and cultural 6.4 Acceptance of agricultural inclinations will also influence which poli- support cies are successful. Moreover, there is a As a consequence of all of the above-men- general lack of objective data, and in the tioned evaluation difficulties it is in turn course of the interviews it was difficult to difficult to present the success of the identify ‘best practices’ judged as effec- schemes to both farmers and the public. tive by more than one person. This could be seen as problematic However, the countries in this review were because the acceptance of the schemes is selected based on their expected simila- already lower than hoped for (cf. ART rity to Norway in terms of landscape cha- 2008; Lebensministerium 2008, Appen- racteristics and challenges related to agri- dix) and public resources become more culture and agricultural landscapes. It is of and more under pressure from other sec- great interest, therefore, that we were able tors, so that there is a need to achieve and to identify a number of features in the present outcomes (Primdahl & Swaffield agricultural support schemes of Austria, 2010). Reasons for the low acceptance of Bavaria, France, Wales and Switzerland some schemes – besides the influence of that are considered successful in terms of other driving forces – can be identified as creating or maintaining multifunctional a lack of insufficient information on the landscapes with high species diversity, objectives (the environmental benefits) rich cultural heritage, and attractive and and/or a missing regional and/or local representative landscape scenery. We adaptation of the measures (cf. ART 2008: would advise examining these more clo- XXXIII; Lebensministerium 2008, Appen- sely when considering future develop- dix). To handle these deficits, approaches ments of the Norwegian agricultural and to enhance information work as well as agri-environmental subsidy system. schemes implemented on a local and/or regional level were implemented. The Organic Farming scheme in Austria Examples include the collective approac- has been mentioned several times as a hes which used local expertise to solve successful scheme under the Rural environmental problems, such as the Development Programmes, because of former CTE in France or the Environmen- the high percentage of organic farmland tal co-operatives in the Netherlands (Pol- achieved. Also the Austrian authorities man et al. 2010) judge the scheme as successful.

49 6. Overall conclusions

In terms of maintaining or enhancing onal repartition of the grants, for lacking recreation opportunities and cultural heri- transparency, for being applied only to tage on farmland, the Welsh agri-environ- small areas, and for requiring a great deal ment programmes seem to be the most of organization and implementation work advanced and highly approved. The fact (CNASEA 2008a). that both topics are included in the main Schemes that are adapted to local or regi- objectives of the Welsh schemes, stands in onal challenges and characteristics, are contrast to other countries’ schemes already part of the Norwegian agri-envi- where these topics are not emphasized to ronmental support system (Regional Envi- the same degree. Also the Welsh Tir Gofal ronmental Schemes, RMP, and special appears to be the most successful of the environmental measures in agriculture, schemes reviewed in terms of the number SMIL). However, these are fairly restricted of projects carried out. in their scope, often focusing solely on With regard to cultural landscape main- pollution or on the preservation of agricul- tenance, the Austrian, Bavarian and Swiss tural practices. In our opinion, measures measures (e.g. mowing on steep hillsides, addressing other environmental aspects summer pastures) are outstanding of agriculture deserve more consideration. because they are directly targeted at In addition, as for the other countries revi- maintaining cultural landscapes. Conside- ewed, it has been suggested that Norwe- ring the fact that in Austria the number of gian agricultural support schemes would participants and area under contract benefit from having more specific objecti- declined in the last programme period, the ves (Puschmann et al. 2008). Exchange of programmes in Bavaria and Switzerland information about measures considered seem to be of most interest for countries effective can thus be considered a joint wanting to maintain their cultural landsca- international task. pes in mountainous regions. Furthermore, This review has also shown that no ‘best from 2011 both countries planned to practice’ or ‘standard design’ of agricul- change and extend their programmes tural support schemes has been recogni- regarding seasonally inhabited mountain zed on an international level to date. It farms. seems probable that there will be greater Interestingly, when asked for examples of emphasis on scheme design and effective- successful measures, interviewees often ness in future evaluations of ongoing pro- referred to smaller programmes or foun- grammes, in discussions of the design of dations which are not organized under the programmes for new periods, and with Rural Development Programmes, such as regard to WTO requirements. the ‘Skylark plots’ or ‘Ferti-Mieux’. We sus- An enhanced evaluation system will there- pect that a major reason for this is that, fore be as important as new and adjusted although they are not that financially schemes themselves, and will allow for strong, they have very specific aims. These more lessons to be learned across national aims are probably easy to relate to locally, boundaries. In our view, an enhanced eva- as they also often include local informa- luation should include collection of moni- tion. Furthermore, they appear to involve toring data suitable for comparison, prefe- fairly simple application and organization rably taking particular national challenges requirements. and aims of the schemes into account. Schemes are also generally evaluated as Also the definition of international indica- more positive and effective if they are tors (e.g. biodiversity) and effective evalu- developed and designed in cooperation ation techniques appear important. with farmers and if they are adapted to However, the extent to which this has local characteristics or challenges. This already been taken into account in the applies, for example, to the Welsh whole framework for the common monitoring farm scheme Tir Gofal and to the Vertrags- and evaluation of the programme period naturschutzprogramm in Bavaria. In 2007 –2013 by the European Commission France, however, these kinds of schemes could not be considered in the course of (former CTE) were met with more critical this review. assessment. In particular, schemes were Careful design of agri-environmental mea- criticized for being unfair in terms of regi- sures can probably help to overcome

50 Agri-environmental policies

many of the difficulties involved in evalua- to document them. For certain measures, tion. Important aspects will be, for exam- cause and effect may not yet be well- ple, addressing precisely defined objecti- known, and rely on anecdotal information ves, including timescales for expected or traditional knowledge. In most, if not all positive effects, and linking to monitoring cases, there will be a multitude of factors, data documenting the situation before many of which occur outside agriculture, and after implementation. This will also that influence the outcome of agri-envi- enhance the comparability of schemes ronmental measures. Therefore, we sug- and, through increased knowledge about gest prioritizing "double-tracked" agri- the characteristics of effectiveness, enable environmental support: On the one hand improved effectiveness of future schemes. supporting measures that have already A European standard for how to record proved to be effective; on the other hand suitable monitoring data may further supporting measures where positive enhance comparability internationally. effects are considered very likely due to well-known cause-effect relationships – However, development of more enhanced even though they may not yet have been evaluation techniques will take time, thoroughly documented and approved, during which agri-environmental policies e.g. because of their long-term character will continue to be implemented. More- or due to weaknesses not yet solved in over, measurable effects of some policies monitoring and evaluation systems. will be of a longer-term character, which requires a correspondingly long timeframe

51 7. References 7 References

Agence Bio 2001: Les chiffres de la Bio Tabelle1OekolandbauInD.html 2001. http://www.agencebio.org/pa- (10.08.2010). geEdito.asp?IDPAGE= 143&n2=134 Boughriet, R. 2010: Lancement du conco- (23.08.2010). urs agri-écologique ‘Prairies fleuries’. Agence Bio 2009: L'agriculture biologique http://www.actu-environne- en France. http://www.agencebio.org/ ment.com/ae/news/ pageEdito.asp? IDPAGE=120&n2=130 concours_lancement_prairies_ (11.06.2010). fleuries_9692.php4 (03.03.2010). Agra CEAS Consulting 2005: Synthesis of Bundesamt für Kultur 2010: Bundesmittel rural development mid-term evaluati- und Finanzhilfen http://www.bak.ad- on. Final Report for the European min.ch/ themen/ kulturpflege/00513/ Commission. 00519/index.html?lang=de Agreste 2008: Statistique agricole annuel- (09.06.2010). le – Résultats 2006 –2007 définitifs et Bundesamt für Landwirtschaft 2009: Di- 2008 semi-définitifs. Agreste Chiffres rektzahlungen. Bedeutung der Direkt- et Données Agriculture n° 207. http:// zahlungen; Allgemeine agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr/IMG/file/ Direktzahlungen; Ökologische Direkt- resultats207.pdf (20.05.2010). zahlungen. Agreste 2009: Graphagri France 2009. Bundesamt für Landwirtschaft 2010a: Di- Structures agricoles. Actions sur les rektzahlungen und Strukturen. http:// structures. 27 –29. www.blw.admin. ch/ themen/ 00006/ ART (Forschungsgruppe Agrar- und Regi- index.html?lang=de (08.06.2010). onalentwicklung Triesdorf) 2008: Ex- Bundesamt für Landwirtschaft 2010b: Di- post Bewertung von Programmen des rektzahlungen and die Landwirtschaft Plans zur Entwicklung des ländlichen im Überblick. Stand Februar 2010. Raums in Bayern im Zeitraum 2000 bis Bern. 2006.Triesdorf. Bundesamt für Statistik Schweiz 2010a: Association Nationale pour le Développe- Strukturen – Landwirtschaftliche Nutz- ment Agricole (Secrétariat Technique fläche. http://www.bfs. admin.ch/bfs/ de Ferti-Mieux Direction de l'eau) portal/de/index/themen/07/03/ 2010: Ferti-Mieux. http://www.unifa.fr/ blank/ind24.indica- 03_environnement/fertim.htm (06.05. tor.240204.2402.html (08.06.2010). 2010). Bundesamt für Statistik Schweiz 2010b: Bayerischer Landtag 2007: Subventionen Landwirtschaft und Wald – Ökologis- der Almwirtschaft. Schriftliche Anfrage che Direktzahlungen. http:// der Abgeordneten Ruth Paulig BÜND- www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/in- NIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN vom 01.03.2007. dex/themen/02/06/ind13.indica- BayNatSchG 2005: Gesetz über den tor.130504.1305.html (04.05.2010). Schutz der Natur, die Pflege der Bundesamt für Statistik Schweiz 2010c: Landschaft und die Erholung in der Umfeld – Direktzahlungen. http:// freien Natur (Bayerisches Naturschutz- www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/ portal/de/in- gesetz – BayNatSchG). As amended on dex/themen/07/03/blank/ind24.indi- 23.12.2005. http://by.juris.de/by/ cator.240104.2401.html (07.07.2010). NatSchG_BY_2005_rahmen.htm Bundesamt für Umwelt 2009: Biologisch (14.12.2010) bewirtschaftete Fläche. Basisdaten aus BMELV (Bundesministerium für Er- dem Biodiversitäts-Monitoring Sch- nährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbrau- weiz. http://www.biodiversitymonito- cherschutz) 2009: Ökologischer ring.ch/pdfs/dt/ Landbau nach Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 800 %20335.10 %20Produkt %20M5 %2 834/2007 in Deutschland im Jahr 0V4.pdf (05.08.2010). 2009. http://www.bmelv.de/Shared- Bundesamt für Umwelt 2010: Waldpro- Docs/Standardartikel/Landwirtschaft/ gramm Schweiz: Umsetzung. http:// Oekolandbau/ www.bafu.admin.ch/ wald/01152/

52 Agri-environmental policies

01154/01157/index.html?lang=de September 2005 on support for rural (08.07.2010). development by the European Agricul- Bundesanstalt für Agrarwirtschaft 2000: tural Fund for Rural Development. Grüner Bericht 2000. Excel-Tabellen. CoE (Council of Europe) 2008: Chart of Tabelle 3.1.14 http://www.agraroeko- signatures and ratifications. http:// nomik.at/index.php?id=gruenerbe- conventions.coe.int/Treaty/ Commun/ richt&K=0 (27.08.2010). ChercheSig.asp?NT=176&CM=8&DF=1/ Cadw (Welsh Assembly Government) 18/2008&CL=GER (01.06.2010). 2007: Historic Buildings and Conserva- Cooper, T., Hart, K. & Baldock, D. 2009: tion Area Grants. http://www.ca- The Provision of Public Goods Through dw.wales.gov.uk/upload/ Agriculture in the European Union. Re- resourcepool/ port Prepared for DG Agriculture and Historic %20Buildings %20Grant %20b Rural Development. Institute for Euro- ooklet %20E10000.pdf (03.08.2010). pean Environmental Policy (IEEP). Cadw (Welsh Assembly Government) London. 2010: Welcome. http://www.cadw.wa- Daugstad, K., Rønningen, K. & Skar, les.gov.uk/default.asp?id B.2006: Agriculture as an upholder of =10&lang=helpforowners cultural heritage? Conceptualizations (30.06.2010). and value judgements—A Norwegian CNASEA (Centre National pour l’Aména- perspective in international context. gement des Structures des Exploita- Journal of Rural Studies 22: 67 –81. tions Agricoles) 2004: Evaluation à mi- Defra 2003a: Defra Review of Policy on parcours concernant le soutien au dé- Genetic Resources for Food and Agri- veloppement rural. Soutien à l’agroen- culture. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environnement. Synthèse du rapport vironment/biodiversity/ d’évaluation (chapitre VI). Marché geneticresources/documents/an- CNASEA n° 26 –02. Paris. nexes.pdf (30.07.2010). CNASEA (Centre National pour l’Aména- Defra 2003b: Defra Review of Policy on gement des Structures des Exploita- Genetic Resources for Food and Agri- tions Agricoles) 2008a: Evaluation ex culture. Annexes. http://www.de- post du Plan de Développement Rural fra.gov.uk/environment/biodiversity/ National. Soutien à l'agroenvironne- geneticresources/documents/an- ment- Rapport d’évaluation. Marché nexes.pdf (30.07.2010). CNASEA n° 22 –07.Paris. Defra 2010: Organic Statistics. Time series. CNASEA (Centre National pour l’Aména- http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/ gement des Structures des Exploita- statistics/foodfarm/ enviro/organics/ tions Agricoles) 2008b: Evaluation ex index.htm (12.08.2010). post du Plan de Développement Rural Dramstad W.E., W.J. Fjellstad, G.H. Strand, National. Aides aux zones défavori- H.F. Mathiesen, G. Engan and J.N. Stok- sées-Rapport d’évaluation. Marché land 2002: Development and imple- CNASEA n° 21 –07.Paris. mentation of the Norwegian CNASEA (Centre National pour l’Aména- monitoring programme for agricultural gement des Structures des Exploita- landscapes. Journal of Environmental tions Agricoles) 2008c: Evaluation ex Management 64: 49 –63. post du Plan de Développement Rural Dramstad W.E., M. Sundli Tveit, W.J. Fjell- National. Actions sur les structures. stad, G.L.A. Fry 2006: Relationships Rapport d’évaluation. Marché CNASEA between visual landscape preferences n° 20 –07. Paris. and map-based indicators of landsca- CoE (Council of Europe) 1999: Council Re- pe structure, Landscape and Urban gulation No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 Planning, Volume 78, Issue 4, Pages on support for rural development from 465 –474 the European Agricultural Guidance EC (European Commission) 2005: Agri- and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and environment Measures Overview on amending and repealing certain Regu- General Principles, Types of Measures lations. and Application. CoE (Council of Europe) 2005: Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20

53 7. References

EC (European Commission) 2006: The pa.eu/information/indicator/ Leader approach. A basic guide. Brus- F1090245995/ (14.07.2010). sels. EKOS 2008: Ex Post Evaluation of the Ru- EC (European Commission) 2007: Action ral Development Plan 2000 –2006. Fi- Plan for biodiversity. http://europa.eu/ nal Report for The Welsh Assembly legislation_summaries/ environment/ Government. Appendix B. EKOS Limi- nature_and_biodiversity/ ted, Glasgow. l28176_en.htm (20.05.2010). El Benni, N. & Lehmann, B. 2010: Swiss EC (European Commission) 2009a: Revi- agricultural policy reform: landscape ew of the Less Favoured Area (LFA) changes in consequence of national scheme. http://ec.europa.eu/agricul- agricultural policy and international ture/rurdev/lfa/review/index_en.htm competition pressure. In: Primdahl, J. & (13.07.2010). Swaffield, S. (eds.): Globalisation an EC (European Commission) 2009b: State Agricultural Landscapes. Cambridge. aid/Germany (Bavaria). Aid scheme 73 –93. No. N 407/2008. Conservation of en- EUR-Lex 2010: General budget 2010. Title dangered breeds in agriculture. Brus- 05 – Agriculture and rural develop- sels. (14.06.2010). ment. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/bud- EC (European Commission) 2009c: Euro- get/data/D2010_VOL4/EN/nmc- pean Agricultural Fund for Rural De- titleN123A5/index.html (24.08.2010). velopment (EAFRD). http:// Evans, A. D., Armstrong-Brown, S., Grice, europa.eu/legislation_summaries/ P. V., 2002, The role of research and agriculture/general_framework/ development in the evolution of a l60032_en.htm (02.08.2010). "smart" agri-environment scheme, As- EC (European Commission) 2010a: The pects of Applied Biology 67: 253 –264. common agricultural policy – A glossa- FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization ry of terms. http://ec.europa.eu/agri- of the United Nations) 2010: Genetic culture/glossary/index_en.htm#pillars Resources. http://www.fao.org/biodi- (14.04.2010). versity/geneticresources/en/ EC (European Commission) 2010b: Rural (14.07.2010). development plans in Germany: The Fondation du Patrimoine 2010: Préservons national framework and 5 "Länder". aujourd´hui l´avenir. http://www.fon- http://europa.eu/rapid/pressRelease- dation-patrimoine.net/en/fondati- sAction.do?reference=MEMO/07/311& on.php4 (31.08.2010). format=HTML&aged=0&language %20 Hamell, M., 2001, Policy aspects of the =EN&guiLanguage=en (26.03.2010). agriculture – environment relationship, EC (European Commission) 2010c: Biodi- Tearmann: Irish journal of agri-environ- versity strategy. http://europa.eu/ ment research 1: 1 –10. legislation_summaries/environment/ Hole, D.G., Perkins, A.J., Wilson, J.D., Ale- nature_and_biodiversity/ xander, I.H., Grice, P.V. & Evans, A.D. l28183_en.htm (03.08.2010). 2005: Does organic farming benefit bi- EC (European Commission) 2010d: Natura odiversity? Biological Conservation 2000 network. http://ec.europa.eu/ 122: 113 –130. environment/nature/natura2000/ Huige, R., Lapperre, R. & Stanton, G. 2010: index_en.htm (09.12.2010) The WTO context. In: Oskam, A.; Mees- Eder, M. 2006: Der biologische Landbau in ter, G. & Silvis, H. (eds.): EU policy for Österreich: Eine Erfolgsgeschichte. In: agriculture, food and rural areas. Wa- Darnhofer, I., Walla, C. & Wytrzens, H.K. geningen. 89 –101. (eds.): Alternative Strategien für die Jauneau, J.-C. 2009 (not published): L’ap- Landwirtschaft. Wien. 89 –100. plication des mésures agri-environne- EEA 2009: Progress towards the Europe- mentales en France. Un soutien an 2010 biodiversity target Environ- deguisé à l’agriculture où/et une remu- mental Policy. London. neration de service environnementaux? EEA 2010: SEBI2010 – Streamlining Euro- ISARA. Lyon. pean 2010 Biodiversity Indicators. Kleijn, D. & Sutherland, W.J. 2003: How ef- http://biodiversity-chm.eea.euro- fective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting

54 Agri-environmental policies

biodiversity? Journal of Applied Ecolo- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Was- gy 40: 947 –969. serwirtschaft. Wien. Kleijn D., Berendse F., Smit R., Gilissen N., Lebensministerium 2010a: Ländliche Ent- Smit J., Brak B. and Groeneveld R. wicklung 07 –13 / Grüner Pakt. http:// 2004. Ecological effectiveness of agri- land.lebensministerium.at /article/ar- environment schemes in different agri- chive/4959 (22.06.2010). cultural landscapes in the Netherlands. Lebensministerium 2010b: Österreichis- Conservation Biology 18: 775 –786. ches Programm für die Entwicklung Kleijn, D., Baquero, R., Clough, Y., Diaz, M., des Ländlichen Raums 2007 –2013. De Esteban, J., Fernandez, F. Gabriel, http://land.lebensministerium.at/arti- D., Herzog, F., Holzschuh, A., Jöhl, R., cle/articleview/60417/1/21433 Knop, E., Kruess, A., Marshall, E., Stef- (20.05.2010). fan-Dewenter, I., Tscharntke, T., Ver- MacDonald, D., Crabtree, J.R., Wiesinger, hulst, J. West, T. & Yela, J. 2006: Mixed G., Dax, T., Stamou, N., Fleury,P., Gu- biodiversity benefits of agri-environ- tierrez Lazpita, J. & Gibon, A. 2000: ment schemes in five European coun- Agricultural abandonment in mountain tries. Ecology Letters 9: 243 –254. areas of Europe: Environmental conse- Knop, E., Kleijn, D., Herzog, F. & Schmid, B. quences and policy response. Journal 2006: Effectiveness of the Swiss agri- of Environmental Management 59: 47 – environment scheme in promoting bio- 69. diversity. Journal of Applied Ecology Matzdorf, B. & Lorenz, J. 2010: How cost- 43: 120 –127. effective are result-oriented agri-envi- Kuyvenhoven, A. & Stolwijk, H. 2010: De- ronmental measures?—An empirical veloping countries and EU agricultural analysis in Germany. Land Use Policy and food policy: opportunities and 27: 535 –544. threats. In: Oskam, A., Meester, G. & Sil- Ministère de l’agriculture et de la pêche vis, H. (eds.) 2010: EU policy for agri- 2006: Ensemble 124. Mésures agro-en- culture, food and rural areas. vironnementales. Sommaire. Janvier Wageningen. 117 –134. 2006. Paris. Landesbund für Vogelschutz in Bayern Ministère de l’agriculture et de la pêche e.V. 2010: Hilfe für den Himmelsvogel: 2007: Programme de développement Ökolandwirte legen 600 Lerchenfen- rural hexagonal 2007 –2013 TOME 2 : ster an. http://www.lbv.de/arten- Chapitres 5 à 16. Version 2 notifiée à la schutz/voegel/feldlerche/lbv-projekt- Commmission le 21 décembre 2007. lerchenfenster.html (27.08.2010). Ministère de l'alimentation, de l'agriculture Lanz, S., Barth, L., Hofer, C. & Vogel, S. et de la pêche 2009: Le Programme de 2010: Weiterentwicklung des Direkt- Développement Rural Hexagonal zahlungssystems. Agrarforschung Sch- (PDRH). Paris. weiz 1: 10 –17. Ministère de l'alimentation, de l'agriculture Lebensministerium (Bundesministerium et de la pêche 2010: Europe et Interna- für Land und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt tional. http://agriculture.gouv.fr/sec- und Wasserwirtschaft) 2008: Ex-post- tions/thematiques/europe- Evaluierung des Österreichischen Pro- international (23.06.2010). gramms für die Entwicklung des länd- Mjørlund, R. & Vårdal, E. 2007: Kjerringa lichen Raums. Wien. mot strømmen: Om Norges tilpasning Lebensministerium 2009a: Österreichis- til WTO-regelverket. Økonomisk Fo- ches Programm für die Entwicklung rum 9: 1 –5. des Ländlichen Raums 2007 –2013. Morgan, M. 2007: Support Payments for Fassung nach 3. Programmänderung. Farmers in Wales. ADAS. Genehmigt mit Entscheidung am Morris, T. 2009: Hoffnung im Getreidefeld: 25.10.2007, zuletzt geändert mit Feldlerchenfenster. Der Falke 56: 310 – Entscheidung am 14.12.2009. Wien. 315. Lebensministerium 2009b: Ausgleichszu- Niggli, U. 2007: Eidgenossen bleiben Spit- lage und Kulturlandschaft. Eine frucht- ze. Ökologie & Landbau 1: 22 –23. bare Beziehung. Wien. OECD 2008: Environmental performance Lebensministerium 2009c: Grüner Bericht of agriculture in OECD countries since 2009. Bundesministerium für Land- 1990.

55 7. References

OECD 2009: Agricultural support: How is Schwarz, G., Moxey, A., McCracken, D., Hu- it measured and what does it mean? band, S. & Cummins, R. 2008: An ana- http://www.oecd.org/ data oecd/23/ lysis of the potential effectiveness of a 7/44924550.pdf. (02.08.2010). Payment-by-Results approach to the OECD 2010: Producer Support Estimate delivery of environmental public goods (PSE) and related indicators by coun- and services supplied by Agri-Environ- try. OECD Database 2010 –B. http:// ment Schemes. Final Report. LUPG. stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSet- SECO (Staatssekretariat für Wirtschaft) Code=PSE_2010 (01.06.2010). 2010: Innotour – Instrument zur Ver- Oréade-Brèche 2005: Evaluation des besserung von Struktur und Qualität mésures agro-environnementales. Fi- des Schweizer Tourismus-Angebots. nal report. Study funded by the Euro- http://www.inno-tour.ch/web/in- pean Commission. Auzeville. dex.php? section=home (12.07.2010). Pedigree Welsh Pig Society 2010: The Pe- SLF 2006: Miljøvirkemidler i landbruket. digree Welsh Pig Society – Croeso / Rapport-nr.: 6/2006, 06. mars 2006 Welcome. http://pedigreewelshpigso- SLF 2008 Nasjonalt miljøprogram. Nasjo- ciety.com/ (06.09.2010). nale prioriteringer og virkemidler i Plattform for regjeringssamarbeidet mel- jordbrukets miljøinnsats Rapport-nr.: lom Arbeiderpartiet, Sosialistisk Ven- 20/2008, 24. oktober 2008 streparti og Senterpartiet 2005: Soria SLF 2009: Spesielle miljøtiltak i jordbruket Moria 13. oktober 2005. (SMIL) er evaluert. https: // Politisk plattform for en regjering utgått av www.slf.dep.no/no/nyhetsarkiv/miljo- Høyre og Fremskrittspartiet 2013: og-okologisk/spesielle- Sundvollen 7. oktober 2013. milj %C3 %B8tiltak-i-jordbruket-smil- Polman, N., Slangen, L. & van Huylenbro- er-evaluert (02.06.2010) eck, G. 2010: Collective approaches to Smola, S. 2009: Fördermaßnahmen der agri-environmenal management. In: Europäischen Union und der Schweiz Oskam, A., Meester, G. & Silvis, H. (eds.) in der ländlichen Entwicklung. Geoma- EU policy for agriculture, food and rural tik Schweiz 7: 365 –367. areas. Wageningen. 363 –368. Statistisk sentralbyrå 2013: Jord, skog, jakt Primdahl, J. & Swaffield, S. 2010: Landsca- og fiskeri. http://www.ssb.no/jord- pe transformations and policy challen- skog-jakt-og-fiskeri (14.01.2013) ges. In: Council of Europe (ed.): StMELF (Bayerisches Staatsministerium Landscape and driving forces. 8th me- für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und eting of the Council of Europe Forsten) 2010: Förderwegweiser. workshops for the implementation of http://www.stmelf.bayern.de/agrar- the European Landscape Convention. politik/programme/foerderwegwei- 143 –149. ser/ (06.05.2010). RSPB (The Royal Society for the Protecti- StMELF (Bayerisches Staatsministerium on of Birds) 2010: A decade of saving für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und skylarks at Hope Farm. http:// Forsten) & StMUG (Bayerisches Staa- www.rspb.org.uk/news/de- tsministerium für Umwelt und Gesund- tails.asp?id=tcm: 9 –255497 heit) 2010: Bayerisches (23.08.2010). Zukunftsprogramm. Agrarwirtschaft Puschmann, O., Reid, S.J. & Lågbu, R. und Ländlicher Raum 2007 –2013. 5. 2008. Evaluering av RMP-2006. Kul- Änderungsantrag (genehmigte Fas- turlandskapstiltak. Oppdragsrapport sung). fra Skog og landskap 02/08: 95 s. StMLF (Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Puschmann, O. & Stokstad, G. 2010. Status Landwirtschaft und Forsten) 2002: og utvikling i jordbrukets kulturland- Bayerischer Agrarbericht 2002. skap i Nordland, Troms og Finnmark. München. Rapport fra Skog og landskap 06/10: StMLF (Bayerisches Staatsministerium für 91 s. Landwirtschaft und Forsten) 2008: SCBD (Secretariat of the Convention on Bayerischer Agrarbericht 2008. Aic- Biological Diversity) 2010: List of Par- hach. ties. http://www.cbd.int/biosafety/ The Welsh Black Cattle Society 2010: The signinglist.shtml (03.06.2010). Society. http://www.welshblackcatt-

56 Agri-environmental policies

lesociety.com/ index.php/society.html Welsh Assembly Government 2008d: Sin- (06.09.2010). gle Application Rules Booklet. Thomsen, K., Berkhout, P. & Constantinou, Welsh Assembly Government 2009a: Wa- A. 2010: Balancing between structural les’s Population. A Demographic Over- and rural policy. In: Oskam, A., Meester, view. http://wales. gov.uk/docs/ G. & Silvis, H. (eds.): EU policy for agri- statistics/2009/ culture, food and rural areas. Wagenin- 090326walespop09en.pdf gen. 377 –392. (21.05.2010). Umweltbundesamt 2010: Das Umwelt- Welsh Assembly Government 2009b: Kernindikatorensystem des Umwelt- Welsh Agricultural Statistics 2008. bundesamtes (KIS). http://www.um- http://wales.gov.uk/ docs/statistics/ weltbundesamt-daten-zur-umwelt.de/ 2009/090513was08ency.pdf umweltdaten/public/theme.do? (21.05.2010). nodeIdent=2702 (21.06.2010). Welsh Assembly Government 2009c: The UNEP (United Nations Environment Pro- Organic Farming Conversion Scheme. gramme) 2010: Biodiversity Indicators Explanatory Booklet. for National Use (BINU). http:// Welsh Assembly Government 2010a: Far- www.unep-wcmc.org/collaborations/ ming and countryside. http://wa- BINU/binu_cbd.aspx (15.07.2010). les.gov.uk/topics/ Vojtech, V. 2010: Policy Measures Addres- environmentcountryside/farmingand- sing Agrienvironmental Issues. OECD countryside/farming/?lang=en Food, Agriculture and Fisheries. Wor- (21.04.2010). king Papers 24. OECD. Welsh Assembly Government 2010b: Wales Audit Office 2007: Tir Gofal. Report Glastir. New Sustainable Land Manage- presented by the Auditor General for ment Scheme for Wales. Wales to the National Assembly for Welsh Assembly Government 2010c: Glas- Wales on 15 November 2007. tir. A guide to Frequently Asked Ques- Welsh Assembly Government 2008a: Ru- tions. ral Development Plan for Wales 2007 – Welsh Assembly Government 2010d: Tir 2013. Gofal. Payments. March 2010. Welsh Assembly Government 2008b: Ru- Wittingham, M.J. 2007: Will agri-environ- ral Development Plan for Wales 2007 – ment schemes deliver substantial bio- 2013 Axes 3 and 4. Scheme Guidance. diversity gain, and if not why not? Welsh Assembly Government 2008c: Journal of Applied Ecology 44: 1 –5. Sustaining the Land. A Review of Land WTO 2010: Agriculture negotiations: Management Actions Under Axis 2 of background fact sheet. http:// the Rural Development Plan for Wales www.wto.org/english/ tratop_e / 2007 –2013. agric_e/agboxes_e.htm (02.07.2010).

Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute PO Box 115, NO–1431 Ås +47 64 94 80 00 [email protected] skogoglandskap.no

Regional office Western Norway Fanaflaten 4, NO-5244 Fana

Regional office Central Norway PO Box 2609, NO-7734 Steinkjer

Regional office Northern Norway PO Box 2270, NO-9269 Tromsø

Norwegian Genetic Resource Centre PO Box 115, NO-1431 Ås