Time to look for evidence: Results-based approach to biodiversity conservation on farmland in Europe

Abstract

Increased use of annual payments to land managers for ecological outcomes indicates a growing interest in exploring the potential of this approach. In this viewpoint, we drew on the experiences of all schemes paying for biodiversity outcomes/results on agricultural land operating in the EU and EFTA countries with the aim of reviewing the decisive elements of the schemes' design and implementation as well as the challenges and opportunities of adopting a results-based approach. We analysed the characteristics of results-based schemes using evidence from peer-reviewed literature, technical reports, scheme practitioners and experts in agri-environment-climate policy. We developed a typology of the schemes and explored critical issues influencing the feasibility and performance of results-based schemes. The evidence to date shows that there are at least 11 advantages to the results-based approach not found in management-based schemes with similar objectives, dealing with environmental efficiency, farmers' participation and development of local biodiversity-based projects. Although results-based approaches have specific challenges at every stage of design and implementation, for many of these the existing schemes provide potential solutions. There is also some apprehension about trying a results-based approach in Mediterranean, central and eastern EU Member States. We conclude that there is clear potential to expand the approach in the European Union for the Rural Development programming period for 2021-2028. Nevertheless, evidence is needed about the approach's efficiency in delivering conservation outcomes in the long term, its additionality, impact on the knowledge and attitudes of land managers and society at large, development of ways of rewarding the achievement of actual results, as well as its potential for stimulating innovative grassroots solutions.

Action needed for the EU Common Agricultural Policy to address sustainability challenges

“… Promote innovative approaches to design and implement measures addressing the environmental challenges , such as result‐based remuneration of AECM (e.g. oriented to target species or habitats, Herzon et al, 2018), collective measures to support landscape‐level management (see below) or the introduction of a points system to reward farmers for their ambition and/or investments, as also proposed by several farmer organizations (e.g. Neumann, Dierking, & Taube, 2017).…”

“…This will require guidance by the Commission, as well as close monitoring of implementation and outcomes. Revise the set of indicators to ensure they are supported by the best available science and comply with the indicators of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the United Nations' Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Implementing a result‐based approach requires both result and impact indicators to be adequate and meaningful (Herzon et al, 2018). For example, well‐established biodiversity indicators such as the Butterfly Grassland Indicator (Van Swaay et al, 2019) should be added to complement the Farmland Bird Index, and the indicator of High Nature Value farming should be maintained and improved.…”

A simple biodiversity assessment scheme supporting nature-friendly farm management

“…In recent years, result oriented measures (ROM), which target the actual changes in biodiversity due to farmers' management decisions have been developed and implemented (Burton and Schwarz, 2013;Herzon et al, 2018;Nitsch, 2014). ROM are for example the occurrence of specific, rare or protected species or a certain number of different species, these measures are independent of the management T actions applied and offer farmers more flexibility, strengthen their responsibility and facilitate a critical and reflective analysis of farming practices and the implications for biodiversity conservation (Herzon et al, 2018). ROM have been applied exemplarily in Switzerland (as quality payments), France (the 'flowering meadows' measure), Germany (species-rich grasslands) and Austria (the results-based nature conservation plan, ÖPUL) (Nitsch, 2014).…”

“…To empower farmers to contribute to environmental and biodiversity protection, they need educational opportunities, farm-scale advisory service (Herzon et al, 2018) and user friendly tools for assessing easily biodiversity (Stoeckli et al, 2017). A suitable biodiversity assessment scheme provides farmers with reliable and cost-effective indicators to monitor and quantify different aspects of biodiversity on their farm.…”

Prioritising Support for Cost Effective Rare Breed Conservation Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

“…While incentive schemes are an improvement on the status quo (i.e., do nothing), they are prone to cost inefficiencies (Pascual and Perrings, 2007). Numerous approaches may be employed to improve scheme effectiveness including better targeting (Naidoo et al, 2006); collective bonuses (Kuhfuss et al, 2015); results-based approaches (Herzon et al, 2018) and improved monitoring (Lindenmayer et al, 2012). This paper focuses on developing more targeted conservation approaches, a key policy goal of the Global Plan of Action (GPA) for FAnGR that stresses the need to construct indicators to better monitor breed attributes and develop more systematic conservation responses (FAO, 2007).…”