No abstract

Agri-environment is one of the most widely supported rural development policy measures in Scotland in terms of number of participants and expenditure. It comprises 69 management options and sub-options that are delivered primarily through the competitive 'Rural Priorities scheme'. Understanding the spatial determinants of uptake and expenditure would assist policy-makers in guiding future policy targeting efforts for the rural environment. This study is unique in examining the spatial dependency and determinants of Scotland's agri-environmental measures and categorised options uptake and payments at the parish level. Spatial econometrics is applied to test the influence of 40 explanatory variables on farming characteristics, land capability, designated sites, accessibility and population. Results identified spatial dependency for each of the dependent variables, which supported the use of spatially-explicit models. The goodness of fit of the spatial models was better than for the aspatial regression models. There was also notable improvement in the models for participation compared with the models for expenditure. Furthermore a range of expected explanatory variables were found to be significant and varied according to the dependent variable used. The majority of models for both payment and uptake showed a significant positive relationship with SSSI (Sites of Special Scientific Interest), which are designated sites prioritised in Scottish policy. These results indicate that environmental targeting efforts by the government for AEP uptake in designated sites can be effective. However habitats outside of SSSI, termed here the 'wider countryside' may not be sufficiently competitive to receive funding in the current policy system.

The analysis and evaluation of European Rural Development Policy (RDP) is challenging because of its delivery at multiple scales by multiple actors. To address this challenge the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF) indicators were introduced. However, these quantitative indicators are limited by data gaps and their inability to address the less tangible aspects of policy performance. In this paper we explore, how to address these limitations through complimentary policy evaluation approaches using evidence from empirical studies. We discuss the strengths and weakness of applying three different quantitative and qualitative evaluation approaches: (1) spatial econometrics; (2) stakeholder analysis; and, (3) qualitative interviews. The findings from the three methods are then triangulated proposing the potential of an integrated methodological approach to inform policy and management. A mixed method approach provides a broader understanding of how policy design, stakeholder's roles, and spatial characteristics impact on implementation and environmental targeting capacity, highlighting the multifaceted nature of the determinants of policy performance.

High Nature Value farming systems cover a large proportion of the agricultural land in marginal and mountain areas of Europe. These large areas face environmental, economic and social challenges and formulating policies that support all these aspects is difficult.Although farmers play an important role in maintaining the ecological diversity of these areas, their differing management styles are often not recognised when land use policies are formulated. This paper examines these issues using an optimisation model based on an extensive livestock farm in Western Scotland, where four farmers' management styles are combined with a series of six alternative future land use scenarios , to provide a more realistic and robust insight of policy impacts on land use and habitat, labour and farm income. The management styles derived from a typology that was based on a composite of both available resources and attitudinal components. The six alternative scenarios encompassed competitive land use diversification options (woodland and wild deer shooting), abandonment of native pasture for agriculture, no support, high market prices for livestock products, and increased animal efficiency. Although diversification via forestry was found to be potentially central to increasing farming incomes, farmers' reticence to adopt forestry or any diversification was a major constraint. This case study also reinforced that managing livestock on these HNV farming systems was not economical unless support subsidies were in place.The only scenario which could enhance the HNV biodiversity value on farms was one with high market prices, resulting in the most varied land use (sheep, cattle and forestry). All others scenarios meant an increase in afforestation (which displaced livestock), an increase in livestock grazing or abandonment of the land, none of which would maintain biodiversity in these areas. Very few scenarios were able to increase on-farm labour demand and although greater flexibility in farm labour was found to be essential, labour scarcity in these marginal mountain areas remained a problem. In conclusion, this case study reinforced that farmers' management style and motivation do play a major role on how they respond to policies, and unless this role is acknowledged by policy-makers, these European HNV areas may not be targeted properly for the most desired outcomes and sustainability.

No abstract