6. Agri-Environmental Schemes in Other European Countries
In this chapter, a number of important agri-environmental schemes from
other EU countries are reviewed and we focus particular attention on the
Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) scheme operating in Northern Ireland
and the Countryside Stewardship Scheme (CSS) operating in Britain. Some
brief information on agri-environmental schemes in the Netherlands, in
Lithuania and in the Biosphere Reserve Rhön, Germany, is also included.
A basic deficiency in the REPS is the lack of monitoring and evaluation.
Chapter 6 includes a review of monitoring and evaluation which has taken
place in other countries and a brief description of the general approach
that may be taken for monitoring and evaluation. We consider that this
is particularly important considering that the REPS will continue for
a further fifteen years at least, from 1998.
Chapter 6 comprises:
6.1. A review of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA)
Scheme in Northern Ireland
6.2. A review of the Countryside Stewardship Scheme in Britain
6.3. A brief review of examples of agri-environmental schemes
in the Netherlands, Lithuania and Germany
6.4. A review of monitoring and evaluation of agri-environmental
schemes in other EU countries
6.1. The Environmentally Sensitive Areas Scheme in Northern
Ireland
The ESA Scheme was launched by the Department of Agriculture in Northern
Ireland (DANI) in 1986. Its aim was to encourage farmers to help safeguard
areas of the countryside where the landscape, wildlife or historic interest
is of national importance. Currently, there are five ESAs, covering 20%
of the agricultural land area in Northern Ireland. The scheme has a high
farmer uptake, with 54% of the eligible land area (over 119,000 ha) already
under ESA agreements.
The ESA Scheme consists of tiered payments. The rate of payment increases
depending on the quality of the wildlife habitat and the resulting management
restrictions which apply. Participants are expected to farm in sympathy
with the special environment of the designated area. Farmers must ensure
that no pollution occurs by following the Codes of Good Agricultural Practice
as well as following the ESA guidelines. Precision nutrient management
is not a requirement for an ESA agreement. As ESA participants farm within
Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) they are thought unlikely to contribute excess
nutrients to the environment. Prescriptions include a freeze on stocking
rates at 1992 levels. Reclamation, drainage, ploughing and reseeding of
unimproved land, deposition and extraction is precluded.
The tiering system, offering higher payments for quality habitat land,
discourages farmers from removing features before they enter the scheme
as these attract higher payments. Farmers are also aware that the Countryside
Management officer is active in the area and that such activity would
be noted and taken up with the farmer if he subsequently applied to the
scheme. In the Republic, although there is no definitive evidence that
habitats or features are removed before participants enter the REPS, there
is anecdotal evidence from REPS planners that this happens quite regularly.
The ESAs have two tiers of entry which attract annual payments over a
ten year period. All farmland must be entered into Tier 1. The prescriptions
contained in Tier 1 apply to all of the land covered by the ESA agreement.
The rates of payment vary depending on the types of land present on the
farm, namely, improved land, unimproved grassland, and rough moorland
grazing. Tier 2 attracts higher rates of payment and applies to particular
features on the farm such as hay meadows, limestone grassland etc. In
addition there are grants for capital works undertaken as part of an Enhancement
Plan. Over 70% of ESA participants have taken out an Enhancement Plan
to carry out enhancement works on their farms. In contrast, there are
no capital grants for enhancement in the REPS.
6.1.1. The Countryside Management Division (CMD)
The CMD has a staff of 43, including officers, advisers, and management
who run the countryside management schemes. The CMD has 10 years experience
of countryside enhancement measures. DANI therefore has an experienced
team of agriculturalists and environmentalists advising farmers on environmental
measures. The latest recruits are either environmental graduates with
a farming background or agricultural graduates with a postgraduate environmental
qualification. There is no section with similar ecological expertise in
the Department of Agriculture and Food in the Republic.
The ESA scheme is promoted by the division through local and national
media and through free advisory visits. ESA newsletters are posted out
to participants thrice yearly. Fliers are also sent at certain critical
times of the year to remind participants of prescribed cutting and grazing
dates, etc. Farm walks, demonstrations and training days are also held
to encourage participation in the scheme and to give practical experience
of enhancement works e.g. hedge laying. Information sheets are provided
for all of the enhancement works and habitat management prescriptions.
6.1.2. Monitoring of ESAs in Northern Ireland
All farms are inspected at the end of the first year. The visit facilitates
further discussion of the scheme and provides support and motivation.
There is at least one follow up visit over the next four years. Also,
10% spot checks are carried out on targeted habitats. Those farmers in
difficulties are offered an advisory visit. ESA payments are withheld
until the problem is solved.
Quality control of ESA agreements is the remit of ecologist Andrew McMullin
who is a CMD adviser. He visits with the officers at least twice a year.
In a recent recruitment drive for CMD advisers 'people with good environmental
knowledge but with a farming background were sought'. Of the four new
highly qualified recruits, three were ecologists.
To justify public expenditure, scientific monitoring of progress and
regular evaluations take place. The CMD contracted out this work to Queen's
University a year after the launch of the first ESA scheme. The environmental
effects of ESA schemes are being monitored under three headings: ecology,
landscape and invertebrates. It takes time for such schemes to deliver.
Invertebrates are early indicators of progress, followed by plant diversity
and populations. Good monitoring may also show inadequacies of schemes
and pit falls (Irish Farmers' Journal, 3 February, 1996, Page 32). There
are major reviews of ESAs at intervals of five years and minor reviews,
including rates of payments, every two years. These may be loopholes that
are being exploited or ecological problems showing through in the scientific
monitoring e.g. infringement of heather onto moorland.
Socio-economic monitoring of the Mourne Mountains and Slieve Croob ESA
scheme found that there was a noticeable shift towards farming and conservation
amongst participants took place over the five year period (Chilton 1997).
The findings from farmer focus groups suggested that there was still an
important role for education of farmers if the stewardship ethic is to
be taken seriously, given the fact that some hostility existed over the
fact that grants for drainage and reclamation were not included in the
scheme. To many farmers a good environment and ‘good, well kept’
farmland seem inextricably linked. Many farmers still feel rough, wet
undrained farmland is an environmental ‘bad’ whilst neat, green
and drained fields are an environmental ‘good’.
6.1.3. Proposed Countryside Management Scheme in Northern Ireland
The Habitat Improvement Scheme in Northern Ireland has not been a success
and it is proposed that a new Countryside Management Scheme (CMS) should
take its place (DANI, 1997). The proposed scheme is similar to the Countryside
Stewardship Scheme in England, and has been broadly welcomed as a new
wider countryside scheme for Northern Ireland (RSPB, 1996). An Environmental
Audit for each farm is proposed, as well as a Code of Good Environmental
Practice (RSPB, 1997). However, the final scheme document is not yet available.
For the purposes of this study it was thought best to compare the Countryside
Stewardship Scheme in the U.K. with REPS and the protection of the wider
countryside in Ireland.
6.1.4. Comparison of the ESA Scheme with the REPS
The ESA scheme in Northern Ireland is one of the most successful in the
U.K, with over 50% of the target areas under management. Very high rates
of participation have been achieved. The REPS is also successful in terms
of farmer uptake, considering that the scheme was the first of its type
in the Republic.
The ESA scheme follows the whole farm approach which is also advocated
in the REPS. Participants in ESAs must follow a Code of Good Agriculture
Practice, which ensures that pollution does not occur. Nutrient management
plans are not required as the farms are considered to be less intensive
and therefore have a lower risk of nutrient loss. In the REPS, the farmyard
is central to the scheme and nutrient management plans must be prepared.
In the ESAs, farmers receive tiered payments for different land categories.
In the REPS, farmers receive the same payment regardless of the habitat
quality. Tiered payments discourage reclamation of land prior to participation
and highlight the environmental importance of the different land types.
Countryside Management Advisors must mark the habitat status of each field
on the map. Joint visits are carried out each year with an ecological
expert, weaknesses in habitat identification can be addressed. The level
of management required under the scheme prescriptions is reflected in
the optional tiered payments. Farmers in ESAs therefore associate the
higher payments with higher quality habitat areas. However, in the REPS,
there have been constant criticisms of the lack of habitat identification
skills of some planners, especially in relation to unimproved grassland.
The comprehensive monitoring programme for ESAs provides justification
for public expenditure. DANI recognises that the scheme is not just about
the numbers of farmers participating. The success of the ESA schemes will
be measured in terms of the quality of environmental management and the
maintenance and enhancement of the province's biodiversity. A good data
base with scientific monitoring of progress and regular evaluations should
provide this information. In contrast, there was no baseline ecological
or socio-economic research carried out before the REPS was introduced.
There has been no scientific monitoring of the impact of the REPS on biodiversity
since its introduction of the scheme. Considerable compliance monitoring
has been undertaken but this will not provide information on the environmental
impact of the schemes in the long term.
6.2. Countryside Stewardship Scheme (CSS)
The Countryside Stewardship Scheme (CSS) is operated by the Ministry
of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF, 1997) in England. The scheme
aims to make conservation part of farming and land management practice,
and offers payments for changes in management which will improve the natural
heritage.
Its objectives are to:
- Sustain the beauty and diversity of the landscape
- Improve and extend wildlife habitats
- Conserve archaeological sites and historic features
- Improve opportunities for countryside enjoyment
- Restore neglected land or features
- Create new habitats and landscapes
The CSS operates through annual payments that support the enhanced management
of existing areas of each landscape, or their restoration or recreation.
Supplementary payments are offered for more costly and sophisticated regeneration
of landscapes and for the provision of new or improved public access.
Finally, capital funds are provided for a wide range of landscape improvements
and other work related to the specific landscape types.
6.2.1. Analysis
The CSS is operated throughout England, but is focused on priority areas
in each county. These areas are agreed at liaison meetings attended by
representatives of all those organisations with an interest in local conservation
issues. The CSS is the main incentive scheme for the management of the
countryside outside ESAs. In contrast to ESAs, where any farmer inside
a designated area qualifies, entry into the CSS is left to the discretion
of MAFF. MAFF focused on bringing sites which are already known to be
of conservation value into the scheme. Tim Allen, CSS leader, commented
that ‘we are buying the service on behalf of the taxpayer and we
only pay when applicants convince us that what they propose will give
value for money’ (Davies, 1995). Thus, agreements are flexible to
suit local circumstances and specific environmental needs.
Landowners can claim £100 towards the cost of professional help
in preparing an application, and £300 towards any detailed survey
work or the preparation of management plans, which may be required for
some types of agreement. Local conservation organisations often act as
agents to plan farmers into the scheme, and the payments provide an incentive
for their involvement. The RSPB has noted that the environmental effectiveness
of CSS agreements relates to some degree to the quality of technical advice
delivered as part of the agreement package (RSPB, 1995).
The scheme is limited by the budget allocated to each region in any one
year. In 1995/6, the total grant available for the CSS was £5 million.
Independent assessment of the scheme has concluded that the CSS has been
successful in targeting its resources to landscape types and geographical
areas that offer potential for environmental improvement (CEAS, 1995).
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) stated that the scheme
is ‘an impressive achievement by any yardstick. The habitats and
landscape features targeted are all of high conservation priority and
the Countryside Commission has proved flexible and open to new priorities
and technical input’ (RSPB, 1995). Land Use Consultants three year
monitoring and evaluation report shows that the scheme has been able to
target a fraction of the total area of many priority habitats, including
calcareous grasslands (12%), salt marshes (10%), lowland heath (17-26%)
and lowland wet grassland (7%) (Environmental Resources Management (ERM),
1996).
The CSS is still a relatively new scheme and, as yet, there is not sufficient
data to provide a clear indication of its impacts on biodiversity and
the landscape. There is not much monitoring information for the CSS compared
with that for ESAs, although baseline survey data are available for many
of the sites. This is because the local or national wildlife organisations
have an inventory of most of the important wildlife areas based on surveys
they have carried out in the past. MAFF will be monitoring the scheme
in the future, which will provide a valuable opportunity for monitoring
landscape change on a national scale. Monitoring needs to place greater
emphasis on measuring the success of the scheme in terms of set targets
for enhancing biodiversity rather than just on management prescriptions
undertaken. Specific environmental performance indicators need to be applied,
as they are now being applied to ESAs. MAFF CSS advisors are now beginning
to carry out care and maintenance visits which have more of an ecological
monitoring role.
The proportion of holdings and agricultural land in the CSS is small
related to the area of all agricultural land. For example, of the total
number of farms in Cheshire (4397) 1.73% have agreements. This represents
0.61% of the total agricultural area of Cheshire (Morris and Young, 1997).
The major problem with the scheme is that there is insufficient budget
available to offer agreements to all of those who wish to enter in a given
year. Many schemes have to be deferred and there have also been delays
with grant payment delays (Alison Cox, Devon Wildlife Trust, pers. comm.).
The scoring system for the assessment of applications means that it may
not be possible to get an agreement on small grassland sites which are
already in good condition. This is because there needs to be a clear benefit
to wildlife, landscape and/or historical features on the site. In addition,
greater priority is often given to sites which include a number of features,
i.e., old meadows and pastures, hedgerow restoration, traditional orchards
etc. Other factors which are taken into account include whether the site
is visible from the major road, whether there is any public access, proximity
to other sites already in Countryside Stewardship, threat to the site
and County Wildlife status. The budget needs to be increased to include
all of the sites available for inclusion into the scheme.
As the scheme develops, there is likely to be a stronger emphasis on
recreating and restoring habitats, as well as land management. The management
of existing sites is a necessary first step to greater participation in
conservation work by farmers.
A criticism of the scheme is that there may be a potential 'halo effect'
where parts of the farm are managed for conservation, but the remainder
is still used intensively or perhaps even more intensively. The CSS only
encourages environmental management on a limited number of farms. For
the majority of farmers, CSS is not contributing to the development of
'greener' ways of farming (Morris & Young, 1997). This suggests that
CSS is therefore not a suitable vehicle to promote sustainable agriculture
in the future as has been suggested by the British government at present
participation levels.
6.2.2. Conclusions
| I. |
Whereas the REPS follows the whole farm approach to environmental
management, the CSS targets those habitat areas known to be of high
value in the wider countryside. The CSS has been suggested as the
type of scheme which could be introduced into Ireland for intensive
farmers who do not wish to join the REPS. |
| II. |
The CSS is based on targeting known habitat areas of high conservation
value. This was facilitated by the baseline survey data which is
available in most English counties. This survey work has been undertaken
by local conservation organisations and government agencies. It
is clear that considerable survey work would be required in Ireland
to facilitate the targeting of habitats which would benefit most
from a CSS-type scheme. This survey work would also be required
to establish a baseline for the future monitoring of the scheme,
and would also provide a platform for action on threatened species
and habitats under the National Biodiversity Plan (currently in
preparation). |
| III. |
Target areas for inclusion into the scheme could be agreed at
liaison meetings attended by representatives of all those organisations
with an interest in local conservation issues. The effectiveness
of any new agri-environmental scheme would also depend on the quality
of technical advice delivered as part of the agreement package. |
| IV. |
In order to avoid a possible halo effect, where the rest of the
farm may still cause some environmental damage, a Nutrient Management
Plan combined with a Pollution Risk Assessment would also have to
be undertaken as part of the scheme. A provision could be included
for payment for professional advice as an incentive to join the
scheme
|
6.3. Examples of Agri-Environmental Schemes in the Netherlands,
Germany and Lithuania
This brief overview of selected European schemes is based on more detailed
case studies drawn up as part of this study. The consultants felt that
is was not absolutely necessary to include such detailed information in
this report. While reinforcing some of the more general recommendations
made in this report the approaches outlined are not necessarily directly
applicable in the Irish situation. The more detailed case studies can
be made available to the Council upon request.
6.3.1. Less Favoured Areas and Environmentally Sensitive Areas in
the Netherlands
The Netherlands recognised the environmental objectives contained in
the Less Favourite Areas Directive and made use of the relevant provisions
in their implementation of the as part of their policy on agriculture
and nature conservation from 1975 onwards. The proposals in the Agenda
2000 aiming at gradually transforming the LFA support scheme into a basic
instrument to maintain and promote low-input farming systems and the closer
integration of the LFA scheme and the agri-environmental schemes in the
future rural policy would appear to support the Dutch approach.
There is a considerable amount of experience, both positive and negative,
in combining basic environmental cross-compliance in LFA with the achievement
of more specific environmental objectives through agri-environmental programmes
under Reg. 2078/92 and planning controls.
Since 1975 the Relatienota Policy Document has aimed at redressing existing
conflicts between agriculture and nature conservation by means of management
agreements and land acquisition. Following the introduction of the Nature
Policy Plan in 1990 a strong emphasis is also being placed on the rehabilitation
and development of natural and semi-natural areas. The Policy Document
and the Nature Policy Plan were further developed and consolidated into
the Regulation on Management Agreements and Nature Development (RBON)
which was approved as an agri-environmental programme under Regulation
2078/92 in October 1993.
Voluntary management agreements are offered to farmers in designated
areas. The agreements take the form of coherent packages of measures based
on regionalised objectives. Compensatory payments for management agreements
are combined LFA payments and elaborately fixed payments under Reg. 2078/92.
By September 1996 about 6000 farmers had entered into management agreements
covering about 40,000 hectares. The accompanying monitoring programme
indicates a positive effect on both species diversity in grasslands and
abundance of targeted meadow birds.
Further improvements of the scheme are under discussion and include incentives
for positive results of agri-environmental management, field margin management,
extensions of designated areas in which management agreements are available
to include buffer zones and conservation management of land withdrawn
from production through landowners.
6.3.2. Groundwater Protection Against Pollution and Sustainable
Agriculture Development in the Gypsum Karst of Northern Lithuania
In order to combat severe groundwater pollution problems the Lithuanian
government initiated a pilot programme for the development of sustainable
and organic agriculture in the gypsum karst region of northern Lithuania
in 1993. The programme is implemented by a non-profit organisation, funded
by the exchequer and by foreign aid, with a membership consisting primarily
of farming enterprises. Strict management prescriptions apply in the most
sensitive zones of the karst region. Financial incentives for the conversion
to organic farming are provided for local farmers. Some of the funding
is likely to be re-couped through taxation on the use of natural resources
such as water.
In parallel a wide range of Lithuanian and Swedish NGOs, academic and
government institutions have been working successfully together since
1995 on promoting organic farming, research, certification and marketing
in the whole of the country.
The concentration of organic farms in the karst region as well as the
dependence of the certification organisation EkoAgros on state funds shows
that government funding is indispensable in promoting the conversion to
organic farming.
A combination of top-down (imposition of restrictions on land use) and
bottom-up (involvement of and close co-operation with NGOs, farmers, agricultural
partnerships and interested individuals) approaches has been taken in
the implementation of the pilot programme for the development of sustainable
and organic agriculture in the karst region.
6.3.3. Integration of Agri-Environmental Schemes, LIFE Funding and
Structural Funding in the Biosphere Reserve Rhön, Germany
In 1991 the Rhön region, which covers parts of Bavaria, Hesse (Objective
5b regions) and Thuringia (Objective 1 region) in central Germany, was
recognised as a biosphere reserve by UNESCO to serve as a model region
for sustainable regional development. The cultural landscape is marginal
agriculturally and suffered from rural decline. The region harbours many
habitats and species of international conservation importance which are
dependent on low-input agricultural management.
In the context of a Framework Management Programme and a zoning system
containing protection, maintenance and buffer zones, rural development
and nature conservation policies are implemented with close-cooperation
between the three governments of Bavaria, Hesse and Thuringia, local communities,
farming, conservation, tourism and other business interests. The integration
of agricultural and environmental objectives as well as a 'bottom-up'
approach to rural development are central to the development of the region.
Conservation management for priority habitats in the core zone is predominantly
funded through the EU LIFE fund. Management agreements are funded under
Reg. 2078/92 by the EU and the Federal Governments. Structural Funding
under LEADER I and II is drawn down to finance a variety of rural development
schemes such as regional marketing schemes for agricultural products from
the Biosphere Reserve and tourism initiatives.
The implementation of the trilateral LIFE project placed major emphasis
on the optimal integration with other EU support programmes in the areas
of environmental, agricultural and regional development policies and also
aimed at maximising socio-economic benefits.
Major progress has been made in the region with substantial areas under
management agreements, 300 new jobs created and 300 rural projects initiated
in the past five years, improved financial security and diversification
of incomes for farmers and upward trends in rural tourism supported by
a revived regional identity in a region which had been cut in two by the
iron curtain for forty years.
6.4. Monitoring and Evaluation of Agri-Environmental
Schemes in Other EU Countries (adapted from the report by the IEEP for
this study)
The EU stresses the importance of adequate monitoring procedures and
comprehensive scheme evaluation. This is particularly relevant where there
is no experience with previous schemes and their effectiveness is not
known. New agri-environmental schemes can be improved and provide value
for money if sufficient data are collected on their environmental and
socio-economic effects. The following basic considerations should be taken
into account for monitoring and evaluation, and these are particularly
relevant to the anticipated new REPS :
| I. |
Early and careful planning is essential. |
| II. |
The main purpose of monitoring is to obtain information on the
success of a given programme or scheme in achieving its principal
objectives. Indicators of progress (as are used for Operational
Programmes in the Structural Funds) are useful but must relate directly
to the objectives of the particular scheme. This is only possible
if the objectives are clearly defined. There are three basic categories
of objectives:
- Operational objectives (e.g. uptake targets)
- Specific objectives (e.g. concentration of nutrients in run-off,
botanical diversity, etc.)
- General objectives (protection of biodiversity, financial
viability of less intensive farming systems
|
| III. |
Independent, experienced evaluators should contribute substantially
to this work, alongside officials responsible for the scheme. This
allows a more objective and detached view, thus making evaluation
as objective and comprehensive as possible. |
| IV. |
Links with other policies should be examined, such as the link
between REPS and the Afforestation and Premium Scheme, or REPS and
the Ewe Premium Scheme. |
6.4.1. Monitoring Methods
The following procedures could be used for a REPS monitoring programme:
| II. |
Selection of indicators should be made with simplification, quantification
and communication as primary objectives. The data sources on which
monitoring and evaluation are based should be made explicit. |
| III. |
The results of indicators and monitoring are only meaningful if
they can be compared with certain standards. Three different types
of standards are commonly used:
- Baselines - the situation before the start of a scheme
- Benchmarks - measures by which performance can be assessed
in terms of expected outputs, results and outcomes, such as
good agricultural practice, better protection of certain habitats
- Control farms can be used to measure performance
|
| IV. |
Ideally, where control farms are used, both participating and
non-participating farms should be monitored. The selection should
be as representative and reliable as possible. Both samples should
have similar socio-economic, agricultural and environmental characteristics
so that comparative data are made available for the evaluation of
the impact of the scheme. Where no control sample is available,
general trends in farm management cannot be detected early and changes
due to the scheme's effectiveness are difficult to identify. Not
many countries have followed this route. |
| V. |
Experiences in the UK have shown that monitoring data may only
demonstrate trends but are not sufficient to explain causal links
with scheme conditions or farm management. This means that additional
academic research is often required. Ideally, the academic research
programmes should be integrated into the monitoring and evaluation
of an agri-environmental scheme. |
6.4.2. Scheme Improvements
Monitoring and evaluation should have a practical orientation and lead
to suggestions as to how the scheme may be improved. The basic standards
of success should be analysed:
- Relevance - To what extent are the scheme's objectives still important
(e.g., does the scheme fulfil the requirements of the forthcoming National
Biodiversity Plan?)
- Effectiveness - How far have the scheme's impacts contributed to achieving
its specific and general objectives?
- Efficiency - How economically have the scheme incentives and administrative
resources been converted into outputs and results? Are the payment levels
still appropriate?
6.4.3. Examples of Monitoring in Other Countries
- United Kingdom: a monitoring programme has been initiated for each
ESA (Environmentally Sensitive Area) scheme at the time of its designation
and is continually refined. Botanical monitoring occurs in all 22 of
the English ESAs, with grassland comprising the largest component in
16 ESAs. Rough grazing is monitored in five and the conversion from
arable to grassland in a further three. Heather grazing surveys are
being carried out in six upland ESAs. Bird monitoring is undertaken
in 13 ESAs. Invertebrates are monitored in two ESAs. A combination of
aerial and ground surveys are used for land cover data. Some comparison
of ESA and non-ESA farms is conducted. In 1995-96, the ESA monitoring
programme cost £3.56 million, of which 93% was spent on environmental
monitoring and the remainder on socio-economic surveys and compliance
checks. The effectiveness of each ESA is reviewed every five years and
prescriptions may be adjusted as a result. The monitoring programme
was reviewed by the National Audit Office (NAO, 1997). The equivalent
in Ireland would be a report commissioned by the appropriate Dáil
Committee or the Controller General.
- Denmark has instigated a relatively comprehensive monitoring and evaluation
programme of its ESA scheme. The Ministry of Agriculture has commissioned
independent researchers to develop a monitoring system. Part of the
development process involved an evaluation of the scheme thus far, which
included an interview of 290 farmers, around three-quarters of which
had joined the ESA scheme. The evaluation methodology enables a comparison
of changes to land under current ESA agreements, land formerly under
ESA agreements and neighbouring non-ESA land. The preliminary results
indicate that virtually no negative changes occurred in the land under
current ESA agreement, whereas about 10% of lapsed ESA land and 10%
of non-ESA land has undergone negative changes, although this is now
considered to be an under-estimate.
6.4.4. Conclusions
A number of examples of monitoring and evaluation have been reviewed.
In the light of the absence of a monitoring and evaluation scheme for
the REPS, it is important that the above-mentioned methods be considered
by the Department of Agriculture for future agri-environmental schemes.
So far, few questions have been asked about the value for money and environmental
effectiveness of the REPS, but we consider that it is only a matter of
time before the Department of Agriculture is asked to be accountable.
The best examples of monitoring and evaluation of agri-environmental schemes
would appear to be provided by Northern Ireland, Britain and possibly
Denmark.
References
Chilton, S. M., and Moss J. E. (1997) A Socio-Economic Evaluation of
the Mourne Mountains and Slieve Croob Environmentally Sensitive Area Scheme.
Centre for Rural Studies, The Queens University of Belfast.
DANI (Department of Agriculture Northern Ireland) (1997) Environmentally
Sensitive Areas in Northern Ireland Explanatory Booklets. DANI, Belfast.
DANI (Department of Agriculture Northern Ireland) (1997) Northern Ireland
Countryside Management Scheme: A Consultation Document. Department of
Agriculture for Northern Ireland, Belfast.
ERM (Environmental Resources Management) (1996) Effects of CAP Accompanying
Measures on Biodiversity and Landscape in Northern Member States: Case
Study. Country Stewardship. Report for the European Commission, DG XI.
MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1997) The Countryside
Stewardship Scheme Application Pack. MAFF, U.K.
Morris, C., and Young, C. (1997)/Towards Environmentally Beneficial Farming?
An evaluation of the Countryside Stewardship Scheme. Geography, Vol. 82(4),
pp 305-316.
National Audit Office (NAO, 1997) Protecting Environmentally Sensitive
Areas. Report to the House of Commons National Audit Office, London.
RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) (1995) Environmental
Land Management Schemes in England. Comments by the Royal Society for
the Protection of Birds. RSPB, Sandy, Bedfordshire.
RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) (1997) Northern Ireland
Countryside Management Scheme Consultation Document: Comments from the
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. RSPB, Belfast.
RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) (1996) DANI's Proposal
for a Northern Ireland Wider Countryside Scheme: PreliminarySubmissions
from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. RSPB, Belfast.
|
