How effective are European agri‐environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity?

Abstract

Summary 1.Increasing concern over the environmental impact of agriculture in Europe has led to the introduction of agri-environment schemes. These schemes compensate farmers financially for any loss of income associated with measures that aim to benefit the environment or biodiversity. There are currently agri-environment schemes in 26 out of 44 European countries. 2. Agri-environment schemes vary markedly between countries even within the European Union. The main objectives include reducing nutrient and pesticide emissions, protecting biodiversity, restoring landscapes and preventing rural depopulation. In virtually all countries the uptake of schemes is highest in areas of extensive agriculture where biodiversity is still relatively high and lowest in intensively farmed areas where biodiversity is low. 3. Approximately $ 24·3 billion has been spent on agri-environment schemes in the European Union (EU) since 1994, an unknown proportion of it on schemes with biodiversity conservation aims. We carried out a comprehensive search for studies that test the effectiveness of agri-environment schemes in published papers or reports. Only 62 evaluation studies were found originating from just five EU countries and Switzerland (5). Indeed 76% of the studies were from the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, where until now only c . 6% of the EU agri-environmental budget has been spent. Other studies were from Germany (6), Ireland (3) and Portugal (1). 4. In the majority of studies, the research design was inadequate to assess reliably the effectiveness of the schemes. Thirty-one percent did not contain a statistical analysis. Where an experimental approach was used, designs were usually weak and biased towards giving a favourable result. The commonest experimental design (37% of the studies) was a comparison of biodiversity in agri-environment schemes and control areas. However, there is a risk of bias if either farmers or scheme co-ordinators select the sites for agri-environment schemes. In such cases the sites are likely to have a higher biodiversity at the outset compared to the controls. This problem may be addressed by collecting baseline data (34% of studies), comparing trends (32%) or changes (26%) in biodiversity between areas with and without schemes or by pairing scheme and control sites that experience similar environmental conditions (16%). 5. Overall, 54% of the examined species (groups) demonstrated increases and 6% decreases in species richness or abundance compared with controls. Seventeen percent showed increases for some species and decreases for other species, while 23% showed no change at all in response to agri-environment schemes. The response varied between taxa. Of 19 studies examining the response of birds that included a statistical analysis, four showed significant increases in species richness or abundance, two showed decreases and nine showed both increases and decreases. Comparative figures for 20 arthropod studies yielded 11 studies that showed an increase in species richness or abundance, ...

Trade-offs between pasture production and farmland bird conservation: exploration of options using a dynamic farm model

“…Allocating resources where they provide the highest environmental benefit is crucial to improve the costeffectiveness of conservation actions (Teillard et al, 2012). Our results are consistent with other studies suggesting that conservation actions yield higher biodiversity benefits in extensive farms or regions (Kleijn and Sutherland, 2003). Beyond agricultural areas, resource allocation based on cost-effectiveness is also crucial for patrimonial or threatened species conservation (Joseph et al, 2009).…”

The role of fallow in habitat use by the Lesser Kestrel during the post-fledging period: inferring potential conservation implications from the abolition of obligatory set-aside

“…The increased agricultural intensity has produced profound changes in farming practices such as the crop homogenization, simplified rotations, and removal of semi-natural habitats, such as fallows (Petit and Firbank 2006). In order to minimize the environmental impact of intensive agriculture, voluntary agri-environmental schemes were introduced (Kleijn and Sutherland 2003). Some of these measures, such the voluntary set-aside, target on protecting biodiversity and restoring landscape (Kleijn and Sutherland 2003).…”

A comparison of grassland vegetation from three agri-environment conservation measures

“…Evaluation is also necessary to demonstrate value for money to taxpayers, as well as to avoid accusations of trade distortion. However, the effectiveness of AES as a tool to maintain and enhance farmland biodiversity has been questioned (Kleijn and Sutherland, 2003). This may be due to a variety of reasons, including deficiencies in relation to the design, targeting, monitoring, evaluation and flexibility of individual measures and overall schemes.…”

“…The documented decline in the range and quality of semi-natural grassland habitats highlights the need for evidence-based and well-targeted conservation actions to address this decline. Agri-environment schemes (AESs) were established (EU Agri-environmental Regulation [90/20788/EEC]) to promote management practices that are more ecological and environmentally beneficial (Kleijn and Sutherland, 2003). These schemes use public funds to pay for private actions by farmers, as a means of ensuring environmental public goods that are external to market systems (Finn and Ó hUallacháin, 2012).…”