Have Welsh agri‐environment schemes delivered for focal species? Results from a comprehensive monitoring programme

Abstract

Agri‐environment schemes (AES) have been criticized for being inadequately monitored and for not delivering the expected benefits to nature. Consequently, the Welsh Government funded a comprehensive programme of monitoring of AES between 2009 and 2012. The AES assessment focused on Tir Gofal (which translates as “Land in Care”) but also included the Organic Farming Scheme, and monitoring focused on a range of taxa of conservation importance: arable plants, grassland fungi, bats (six species), butterflies (three species), birds (five species), water vole and brown hare. Field surveys were carried out on matched farms and fields within and outside of AES. Response variables were spatial trends of abundance, occurrence and species richness, and were modelled against AES status. Existing data were also available for two bird species. Few differences were observed between AES and non‐AES farms and fields. Those that were observed were for species that use arable habitats (which are uncommon in Wales): arable plants, yellowhammers and brown hares. The lack of differences in non‐arable habitats may reflect the smaller contrast between AES and non‐AES management in these habitats. It may also reflect the original condition of habitat entered into AES prescriptions, as most non‐arable prescriptions were defined by mandatory management of existing habitats, rather than optional habitat creation or restoration, which is the case for most arable prescriptions. Despite the lack of differences observed, AES may help to maintain populations of species, making it more likely that they will persist in the landscape. There is evidence, from this monitoring programme and elsewhere, that AES can increase the populations of species, when well targeted and implemented. Policy implications. Our results indicate that Welsh Agri‐environment schemes (AES) have been only partly successful in achieving their stated aim of “maintaining and enhancing species abundance”. They can be used to improve AES design and management, both in Wales and more widely, by identifying and promoting effective management interventions, and by identifying ineffective management interventions and seeking alternatives. Comprehensive monitoring of AES, combined with specific targets regarding expected outcomes, is essential to determine whether AES are providing value for money.

Managing hedgerows for nocturnal wildlife: Do bats and their insect prey benefit from targeted agri‐environment schemes?

“…Given that bats are now protected within the European Union and considered to play important roles as bioindicators (Jones, Jacobs, Kunz, Willig, & Racey, 2009) and in pest suppression in agricultural ecosystems (Russo, Bosso, & Ancillotto, 2018), it is crucial to mitigate these negative impacts that directly arise from agricultural intensification (Park, 2015). The restoration, conservation and management of key habitat features in farmland to enhance bat populations have generally been implemented through AESs, yet these prescriptions (excluding organic farming; see Wickramasinghe, Harris, Jones, & Vaughan, 2003) have failed to achieve their objectives (Angell, Langton, MacDonald, Skates, & Haysom, 2019;Fuentes-Montemayor, Goulson, & Park, 2011;MacDonald, Angell, et al, 2019;Taylor & Morecroft, 2009). In England, targeted AESs have been employed to improve conditions for the greater horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum), a threatened bat species that is strongly associated with farmland (Duvergé & Jones, 2003;Froidevaux, Boughey, Barlow, & Jones, 2017).…”

“…Bright et al, ). However, criticisms include that targeted AESs are expensive and therefore not applicable at broad spatial scales, and that their positive impacts are mostly restricted to a small number of priority species even though there is now evidence that non‐targeted species also benefit from these schemes (Helden et al, ; MacDonald, Angell, et al, ; MacDonald, Cobbold, et al, ; MacDonald, Maniakowski, Cobbold, Grice, & Anderson, ; Wilkinson, Wilson, & Anderson, ). Many targeted schemes crucially lack monitoring that prevents an assessment of their outcomes, and this is especially true for those targeting nocturnal endangered species such as bats (Park, ).…”

Model‐based assessment of the impact of agri‐environment scheme options and short‐term climate change on plant biodiversity in temperate grasslands

“…However, doubt has been cast on the effectiveness of AES in delivering desired outcomes (Kleijn & Sutherland, 2003; Norton et al, 2014). Evidence of AES success is mixed and dependent on factors such as starting conditions, focal organism(s), focal habitat, desired public good and the length and intensity of management duration and monitoring (Critchley et al, 2004; MacDonald et al, 2019). While positive outcomes have been found in differing taxa and habitats (Bright et al, 2015; Dadam & Siriwardena, 2019; Keenleyside et al, 2011; MacDonald et al, 2019), others have reported (a) low success (i.e.…”

“…Evidence of AES success is mixed and dependent on factors such as starting conditions, focal organism(s), focal habitat, desired public good and the length and intensity of management duration and monitoring (Critchley et al, 2004; MacDonald et al, 2019). While positive outcomes have been found in differing taxa and habitats (Bright et al, 2015; Dadam & Siriwardena, 2019; Keenleyside et al, 2011; MacDonald et al, 2019), others have reported (a) low success (i.e. maintaining the status quo ); (b) inconclusive effects or (c) lack of sufficient monitoring (Arnott et al, 2018; Critchley et al, 2004; Davey et al, 2010; Kleijn & Sutherland, 2003; Mountford & Smart, 2014; Norton et al, 2014; Staley et al, 2018).…”

Plugging the hunger gap: Organic farming supports more abundant nutritional resources for bees at critical periods

“…Certain AES aim to encourage wildflowers and pollinating insects specifically, including wildflower strips, seed mixes and hedgerow enrichment, many of which have been shown to benefit plant-pollinator communities (Wood et al 2015). Yet AES remain controversial, often benefiting a limited suite of species (Wood et al 2016; MacDonald et al 2019), with doubts on whether they are truly effective for conservation management on farmland (Ansell et al . 2016; Riley et al .…”