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 de- veloped by the OECD. It is an account of the monetary value of different cultural land resource in Norway (only types