The agri-environmental Footprint Index

The Agri-Environmental Footprint project is developing a common methodology for assessing the environmental impact of European agri-environment schemes. The Agri-Environmental Footprint Index (AFI) has been constructed as a customisable approach. It is a farm-level index that aggregates the measurement of agri-environmental indicators. Farm-level impact scores can be aggregated at a regional level to track temporal change and/or to provide comparisons of the success (or otherwise) of an agri-environment scheme.

Conceptual development of a harmonised method for tracking change and evaluating policy in the agri-environment: The Agri-environmental Footprint Index

An aggregated farm-level index, the Agri-environmental Footprint Index (AFI), based on multiple criteria methods and representing a harmonised approach to evaluation of EU agri-environmental schemes is described. The index uses a common framework for the design and evaluation of policy that can be customised to locally relevant agri-environmental issues and circumstances. Evaluation can be strictly policy-focused, or broader and more holistic in that context-relevant assessment criteria that are not necessarily considered in the evaluated policy can nevertheless be incorporated. The Index structure is flexible, and can respond to diverse local needs. The process of Index construction is interactive, engaging farmers and other relevant stakeholders in a transparent decision-making process that can ensure acceptance of the outcome, help to forge an improved understanding of local agri-environmental priorities and potentially increase awareness of the critical role of farmers in environmental management. The structure of the AFI facilitates post-evaluation analysis of relative performance in different dimensions of the agri-environment, permitting identification of current strengths and weaknesses, and enabling future improvement in policy design. Quantification of the environmental impact of agriculture beyond the stated aims of policy using an 'unweighted' form of the AFI has potential as the basis of an ongoing system of environmental audit within a specified agricultural context. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Evaluation of agri-environmental and forestry schemes with multiple objectives

The evaluation of EU policy in the area of rural land use management often encounters problems of multiple and poorly articulated objectives. Agri-environmental policy has a range of aims, including natural resource protection, biodiversity conservation and the protection and enhancement of landscape quality. Forestry policy, in addition to production and environmental objectives, increasingly has social aims, including enhancement of human health and wellbeing, lifelong learning, and the cultural and amenity value of the landscape. Many of these aims are intangible, making them hard to define and quantify. This article describes two approaches for dealing with such situations, both of which rely on substantial participation by stakeholders. The first is the Agri-Environment Footprint Index, a form of multi-criteria participatory approach. The other, applied here to forestry, has been the development of ‘multi-purpose’ approaches to evaluation, which respond to the diverse needs of stakeholders through the use of mixed methods and a broad suite of indicators, selected through a participatory process. Each makes use of case studies and involves stakeholders in the evaluation process, thereby enhancing their commitment to the programmes and increasing their sustainability. Both also demonstrate more ‘holistic’ approaches to evaluation than the formal methods prescribed in the EU Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework.

Environmental evaluation of agri-environment schemes using participatory approaches: experiences of testing the Agri-Environmental Footprint Index

The Agri-Environment Footprint Index (AFI) has been developed as a generic methodology to assess changes in the overall environmental impacts from agriculture at the farm level and to assist in the evaluation of European agri-environmental schemes (AES). The methodology is based on multicriteria analysis (MCA) and involves stakeholder participation to provide a locally customised evaluation based on weighted environmental indicators. The methodology was subjected to a feasibility assessment in a series of case studies across the EU. The AFI approach was able to measure significant differences in environmental status between farms that participated in an AES and nonparticipants. Wider environmental concerns, beyond the scheme objectives, were also considered in some case studies and the benefits for identification of unintentional (and often beneficial) impacts of AESs are presented. The participatory approach to AES valuation proved efficient in different environments and administrative contexts. The approach proved to be appropriate for environmental evaluation of complex agri-environment systems and can complement any evaluation conducted under the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. The applicability of the AFI in routine monitoring of AES impacts and in providing feedback to improve policy design is discussed.

Environmental factors driving the effectiveness of European agri-environmental measures in mitigating pollinator loss – a meta-analysis

In Europe, agri-environmental schemes (AES) have been introduced in response to concerns about farmland biodiversity declines. Yet, as AES have delivered variable results, a better understanding of what determines their success or failure is urgently needed. Focusing on pollinating insects, we quantitatively reviewed how environmental factors affect the effectiveness of AES. Our results suggest that the ecological contrast in floral resources created by schemes drives the response of pollinators to AES but that this response is moderated by landscape context and farmland type, with more positive responses in croplands (vs. grasslands) located in simple (vs. cleared or complex) landscapes. These findings inform us how to promote pollinators and associated pollination services in species-poor landscapes. They do not, however, present viable strategies to mitigate loss of threatened or endangered species. This indicates that the objectives and design of AES should distinguish more clearly between biodiversity conservation and delivery of ecosystem services.

An interdisciplinary modelling approach asessing the cost-effectiveness of agri-environmental measures on reducing nutrient concentration to WFD thresholds under climate change: the case of the Louros catchment

The application of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) in the European Union (EU) targets certain threshold levels for the concentration of various nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorous being the most important. In the EU, agri-environmental measures constitute a significant component of Pillar 2—Rural Development Policies in both financial and regulatory terms. Environmental measures also are linked to Pillar 1 payments through cross-compliance and the greening proposals. This paper drawing from work carried out in the REFRESH FP7 project aims to show how an INtegrated CAtchment model of plant/soil system dynamics and instream biogeochemical and hydrological dynamics can be used to assess the cost-effectiveness of agri-environmental measures in relation to nutrient concentration targets set by the WFD, especially in the presence of important habitats. We present the procedures (methodological steps, challenges and problems) for assessing the cost-effectiveness of agri-environmental measures at the baseline situation, and climate and land use change scenarios. Furthermore, we present results of an application of this methodology to the Louros watershed in Greece and discuss the likely uses and future extensions of the modelling approach. Finally, we attempt to reveal the importance of this methodology for designing and incorporating alternative environmental practices in Pillar 1 and 2 measures.

Uptake of agri-environmental schemes in the Less-Favoured Areas of Greece: The role of corruption and farmers' responses to the financial crisis

Vine-growing in the Less-Favoured Areas of Greece is facing multiple challenges that might lead to its abandonment. In an attempt to maintain rural populations, Rural Development Schemes have been created that offer the opportunity to rural households to maintain or expand their farming businesses including vine-growing. This paper stems from a study that used data from a cross-sectional survey of 204 farmers to investigate how farming systems and farmers’ perception of corruption, amongst other socio-economic factors, affected their decisions to continue vine-growing through participation in Rural Development Schemes, in three remote Less-Favoured Areas of Greece. The Theory of Planned Behaviour was used to frame the research problem with the assumption being that an individual’s intention to participate in a Scheme is based on their prior beliefs about it. Data from the survey were reduced and simplified by the use of non-linear principal component analysis. The ensuing variables were used in selectivity corrected ordered probit models to reveal farmers’ attitudes towards viticulture and rural development. It was found that economic factors, perceived corruption and farmers’ attitudes were significant determinants on whether to participate in the Schemes. The research findings highlight the important role of perceived corruption and the need for policies that facilitate farmers’ access to decision making centres.

Social and ecological drivers of success in agri-environment schemes: the roles of farmers and environmental context

1. Agri-environment schemes remain a controversial approach to reversing biodiversity losses, partly because the drivers of variation in outcomes are poorly understood. In particular, there is a lack of studies that consider both social and ecological factors. 2. We analysed variation across 48 farms in the quality and biodiversity outcomes of agri-environmental habitats designed to provide pollen and nectar for bumblebees and butterflies or winter seed for birds. We used interviews and ecological surveys to gather data on farmer experience and understanding of agri-environment schemes, and local and landscape environmental factors. 3. Multimodel inference indicated social factors had a strong impact on outcomes and that farmer experiential learning was a key process. The quality of the created habitat was affected positively by the farmer’s previous experience in environmental management. The farmer’s confidence in their ability to carry out the required management was negatively related to the provision of floral resources. Farmers with more wildlife-friendly motivations tended to produce more floral resources, but fewer seed resources. 4. Bird, bumblebee and butterfly biodiversity responses were strongly affected by the quantity of seed or floral resources. Shelter enhanced biodiversity directly, increased floral resources and decreased seed yield. Seasonal weather patterns had large effects on both measures. Surprisingly, larger species pools and amounts of semi-natural habitat in the surrounding landscape had negative effects on biodiversity, which may indicate use by fauna of alternative foraging resources. 5. Synthesis and application. This is the first study to show a direct role of farmer social variables on the success of agri-environment schemes in supporting farmland biodiversity. It suggests that farmers are not simply implementing agri-environment options, but are learning and improving outcomes by doing so. Better engagement with farmers and working with farmers who have a history of environmental management may therefore enhance success. The importance of a number of environmental factors may explain why agri-environment outcomes are variable, and suggests some – such as the weather – cannot be controlled. Others, such as shelter, could be incorporated into agri-environment prescriptions. The role of landscape factors remains complex and currently eludes simple conclusions about large-scale targeting of schemes.

Assessing the environmental performance of English arable and livestock holdings using data from the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN)

Agri-environment schemes (AESs) have been implemented across EU member states in an attempt to reconcile agricultural production methods with protection of the environment and maintenance of the countryside. To determine the extent to which such policy objectives are being fulfilled, participating countries are obliged to monitor and evaluate the environmental, agricultural and socio-economic impacts of their AESs. However, few evaluations measure precise environmental outcomes and critically, there are no agreed methodologies to evaluate the benefits of particular agri-environmental measures, or to track the environmental consequences of changing agricultural practices. In response to these issues, the Agri-Environmental Footprint project developed a common methodology for assessing the environmental impact of European AES. The Agri-Environmental Footprint Index (AFI) is a farm-level, adaptable methodology that aggregates measurements of agri-environmental indicators based on Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) techniques. The method was developed specifically to allow assessment of differences in the environmental performance of farms according to participation in agri-environment schemes. The AFI methodology is constructed so that high values represent good environmental performance. This paper explores the use of the AFI methodology in combination with Farm Business Survey data collected in England for the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN), to test whether its use could be extended for the routine surveillance of environmental performance of farming systems using established data sources. Overall, the aim was to measure the environmental impact of three different types of agriculture (arable, lowland livestock and upland livestock) in England and to identify differences in AFI due to participation in agri-environment schemes. However, because farm size, farmer age, level of education and region are also likely to influence the environmental performance of a holding, these factors were also considered. Application of the methodology revealed that only arable holdings participating in agri-environment schemes had a greater environmental performance, although responses differed between regions. Of the other explanatory variables explored, the key factors determining the environmental performance for lowland livestock holdings were farm size, farmer age and level of education. In contrast, the AFI value of upland livestock holdings differed only between regions. The paper demonstrates that the AFI methodology can be used readily with English FADN data and therefore has the potential to be applied more widely to similar data sources routinely collected across the EU-27 in a standardised manner.

Measuring societal awareness of the rural agrarian landscape: indicators and scale issues

The work presented in this report is part of the effort to define the landscape state and diversity indicator in the frame of COM (2006) 508 “Development of agri-environmental indicators for monitoring the integration of environmental concerns into the common agricultural policy”. The Communication classifies the indicators according to their level of development, which, for the landscape indicator is “in need of substantial improvements in order to become fully operational”. For this reason a full re-definition of the indicator has been carried out, following the initial proposal presented in the frame of the IRENA operation (“Indicator Reporting on the Integration of Environmental Concerns into Agricultural Policy”). The new proposal for the landscape state and diversity indicator is structured in three components: the first concerns the degree of naturalness, the second landscape structure, the third the societal appreciation of the rural landscape. While the first two components rely on a strong bulk of existing literature, the development of the methodology has made evident the need for further analysis of the third component, which is based on a newly proposed top-down approach. This report presents an in-depth analysis of such component of the indicator, and the effort to include a social dimension in large scale landscape assessment.

Plant-soil interactions and grassland diversity restoration

Restoration schemes aimed at enhancing plant species diversity of improved agricultural grassland have been a key feature of agri-environmental policy since the mid 1980s. Allied to this has been much research aimed at providing policy makers with guidelines on how best to manage grassland to restore botanical diversity. This research includes long-term studies of the consequences for grassland diversity of management techniques such as different hay cut dates, fertiliser additions, seed introductions and grazing regimes. Studies have also explored the role of introductions of Rhinanthus minor into species-poor swards to debilitate competitive grasses. While these studies have been successful in identifying some management features that control plant species diversity in agricultural grassland, they have taken a largely aboveground perspective on plant community dynamics.

The EU societal awareness of landscape indicator: a review of its meaning, utility and performance across different scales

There is increasing recognition that agricultural landscapes meet multiple societal needs and demands beyond provision of economic and environmental goods and services. Accordingly, there have been significant calls for the inclusion of societal, amenity and cultural values in agri-environmental landscape indicators to assist policy makers in monitoring the wider impacts of land-based policies. However, capturing the amenity and cultural values that rural agrarian areas provide, by use of such indicators, presents significant challenges. The EU social awareness of landscape indicator represents a new class of generalized social indicator using a top-down methodology to capture the social dimensions of landscape without reference to the specific structural and cultural characteristics of individual landscapes. This paper reviews this indicator in the context of existing agri-environmental indicators and their differing design concepts. Using a stakeholder consultation approach in five case study regions, the potential and limitations of the indicator are evaluated, with a particular focus on its perceived meaning, utility and performance in the context of different user groups and at different geographical scales. This analysis supplements previous EU-wide assessments, through regional scale assessment of the limitations and potentialities of the indicator and the need for further data collection. The evaluation finds that the perceived meaning of the indicator does not vary with scale, but in common with all mapped indicators, the usefulness of the indicator, to different user groups, does change with scale of presentation. This indicator is viewed as most useful when presented at the scale of governance at which end users operate. The relevance of the different sub-components of the indicator are also found to vary across regions.

The economic dimensions of integrating flood management and agri-environment through washland creation: a case from Somerset, England

In many river floodplains in the UK, there has been a long history of flood defence, land reclamation and water regime management for farming. In recent years, however, changing European and national policies with respect to farming, environment and flood management are encouraging a re-appraisal of land use in rural areas. In particular, there is scope to develop, through the use of appropriate promotional mechanisms, washland areas, which will simultaneously accommodate winter inundation, support extensive farming methods, deliver environmental benefits, and do this in a way which can underpin the rural economy. This paper explores the likely economic impacts of the development of flood storage and washland creation. In doing so, consideration is given to feasibility of this type of development, the environmental implications for a variety of habitats and species, and the financial and institutional mechanisms required to achieve implementation. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.