Jens Peter Vesterager

Current use of impact models for agri-environment schemes and potential for improvements of policy design and assessment.

Agri-Environment Schemes (AES) to maintain or promote environmentally-friendly farming practices were implemented on about 25% of all agricultural land in the EU by 2002. This article analyses and discusses the actual and potential use of impact models in supporting the design, implementation and evaluation of AES. Impact models identify and establish the causal relationships between policy objectives and policy outcomes. We review and discuss the role of impact models at different stages in the AES policy process, and present results from a survey of impact models underlying 60 agri-environmental schemes in seven EU member states. We distinguished among three categories of impact models (quantitative, qualitative or common sense), depending on the degree of evidence in the formal scheme description, additional documents, or key person interviews. The categories of impact models used mainly depended on whether scheme objectives were related to natural resources, biodiversity or landscape. A higher proportion of schemes dealing with natural resources (primarily water) were based on quantitative impact models, compared to those concerned with biodiversity or landscape. Schemes explicitly targeted either on particular parts of individual farms or specific areas tended to be based more on quantitative impact models compared to whole-farm schemes and broad, horizontal schemes. We conclude that increased and better use of impact models has significant potential to improve efficiency and effectiveness of AES.

Assessing long-term sustainable environmental impacts of agri-environment schemes on land use

The lack of generic methods to assess the environmental consequences of agricultural practices and the lack of consensus on monitoring and evaluation of environmental, agricultural and socio-economic effects of agri-environment schemes (AES) in EU Member States call for better evaluation methods. The ‘Agri-environmental Footprint’ project proposed to deal with these problems by establishing a new evaluation method, the Agri-Environmental Footprint Index (AFI). The AFI is an index customised to local stakeholder preferences, using expert knowledge for assessment of impacts and sensitivity, and indicators of the environmental state at farm level. In a Danish test case, agricultural practices at twenty-five farms in two groundwater protection zones were assessed. Data was collected from databases, registers, maps and interviews with farmers. The index was calculated for 1996/7 and 2006/7 to track temporal development and effects of entering an agri-environmental scheme. The Danish case demonstrated that the index can be used to track changes in environmental impacts and that entering agri-environmental scheme had a positive impact on the index value. However, the index should be used with caution. It is important to consider the robustness of each indicator: to assess whether changes will occur over time; whether changes are linked to management practices or external factors; and whether data are available up to date. Indicators dependent upon uptake data from agri-environmental schemes should be used with great caution. Retrospective use of stakeholder preferences is subject to uncertainty because preferences may have changed over time.

The Role of Farm Advisors in Multifunctional Landscapes: A Comparative Study of Three Danish Areas, 1995 and 2008

Abstract This study investigates the influence of farm advisors on farmers’ decisions regarding ‘Multifunctional landscape commons’, a concept covering environmental and landscape values that benefit the public but which depend on farmers’ management practices. The influence of advisors is analysed by combining data about the source of advice with evidence of land use and landscape changes and participation in subsidy schemes. The study compares three agricultural areas in Denmark. Structured interviews were carried out with all farmers possessing more than 2 ha land in 1995–6 and in 2008. Vertical, production and business-oriented advisory services predominate, together with legal and organisational spatial competence networks. A new group of hobby farmers and pensioned farmers tend not to be included in traditional advisory networks, leaving them to carry out landscape changes and multifunctional landscape commons without professional guidance and consultancy. This means the horizontal coordination among farmers, that is, the territorial competences, decrease.