LSIRD NAPLIO CONFERENCE POSTERS

---

Regional targeting of EU Agri-environmental schemes: an integrated methodological approach

Dr. Mark Morgan

---

(Note about accompanying figures)

1. BACKGROUND

Since the very beginnings of the 'Union' a major part of its commitment has been to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Under an economic umbrella which provided guaranteed prices for agricultural produce regardless of the world market value, and through the provision of money in the form of grants for modernisation, land improvement and the development of appropriate infra-structure, the agricultural industry of Europe was able to thrive. Even when the industry became so efficient as to produce a surplus of many products the CAP has provided the means to cover the costs in order to protect the internal market.

Economic growth in the agricultural sector, however, has not been achieved without problems, notably in terms of a change in the social fabric of rural areas, and, increasingly apparent, in terms of environmental degradation. In regions where conditions for agricultural production have been favourable, conflicts between increased production intensity and the environment have become manifest through a dramatic loss of species and habitats and an increased accumulation of persistent toxins in soil and water ecosystems. In more marginal areas of the European Union other problems are predominant. In the peri-Mediterranean regions, where climatic influences strongly limit production, factors such as erosion, salinisation and over-exploitation of water resources are more common problems. In mountainous regions and other areas with a history of extensive livestock rearing, grazing land is often abandoned or afforested as farmers are unable, or unwilling, to continue to be competitive with industrial livestock concerns or imports from abroad. In many cases this is leading to a loss of valuable cultural landscapes and in extreme cases to knock-on environmental problems such as acidification of streams and lakes, forest fires, and loss of touristic value. The pressing need to achieve (short-term) economic growth to compete in the European market-place, and, in view of the GATT agreements, competitiveness of the agricultural sector within the single world market, has meant that, until recently, many of these problems have gone unchecked.

The challenge facing agricultural policy makers throughout Europe today is to find a way of switching production from the current system towards one which is economically, socially and environmentally sustainable in the longer term. A key to achieving this end must come through a redistribution of CAP money to promote more sustainable forms of agriculture. A start has been made following the agreement of EU regulation 2078 made in 1992 whereby a percentage (4%?) of all CAP money has been re-directed for spending on Agri-Environmental Programmes (AEP's). All members states of the EU are now committed to implement schemes under this agreement, albeit under voluntary adoption, in order to combat the negative effects of agriculture on the environment. Schemes introduced to-date throughout Europe have been wide-ranging in type and effect, from measures to rehabilitate and manage landscape features in central-western Europe, to incentives to reduce groundwater extraction in Mediterranean regions. There has, however, been a lack of co-ordinated agreement about what type of measure should be targeted for adoption in any given region, and how best to design and deliver the scheme to the farmers in order to gain widespread acceptance while still providing value for money. Added to this is a need to maintain regional identities across the many diverse European landscapes.

2. THE STRUCTURE OF EU PROJECT AIR3 CT94-1296

Given the problems facing agriculture outlined above the EU has now recognised the need for integrated research to look at ways to improve Agri-environmental Programmes in the future. A central part of this research is covered by the project described here.

The ultimate aim of EU Project AIR3 CT94-1296 is to arrive at scientifically justified recommendations for the optimisation and regionalisation of AEP programmes. Through the methodologies being worked on towards this end it is hoped that it will also be possible to develop tools for monitoring the environmental benefits resulting from AEP.

Two key areas of research are being followed by project participants (Figure 1):

A Europe-wide analysis and evaluation of current AEP scheme design, delivery and acceptance by farmers which will enable future schemes to be designed in an optimum way so as to achieve their desired effects.

An analysis of the current conflicts, both actual and potential, between the environment and agriculture which will allow recommendations to be made concerning regional targets which should be aimed-for in order to move towards more sustainable production.

The final recommendations will be based upon an integration of these two approaches. Results will be tested through a series of planned 'platform discussions' between farmers and policy makers in each study region before final presentation to policy makers in the EU and at national/state level in the member countries. Results will be ready at the end of 1998.

3. BASIC METHODOLOGIES

During the first 2 years of the project, methodological-development and data-collection has been co-ordinated by means of four interdisciplinary sub-groups (Table 1). The four groups work at different vertical levels (geographic and political) within each of the countries and, where possible, apply the methodologies to collect data from study areas selected in each of the countries involved (Table 2). Within each of the study regions an AEP of some form (established there under EU regulation 2078/92) is offered to the farmers. The regions cover a broad range of agri-geographical conditions from intensively-used polders in the Netherlands to the uplands of the Swabian Alb in Southwest Germany.

Table 1: specialisation and responsibilities of the 4 project sub-groups

Table 2: The study regions of project AIR3 CT94-1296

¹ Only the main scheme in each area is indicated. Other schemes are also often available

I. THE INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH

The methodological (and epistemological) approach to understanding the political background of AE Policy and the institutional structure of AEP's in the 5 focal countries relies upon data generated from literature searches and from a series of semi-structured interviews with key actors involved in AEP at EU and country level. The epistemology is based upon policy discourse, drawing attention to the meanings attached by key actors to particular concepts used in debate on the AEP and how these concepts have evolved over time. It is recognised that these meanings are influenced significantly by a range of formal and non-formal 'institutions' in the agri-environment policy world which, in turn, are restructured through their continued exposure to new discourses. The definition of 'institutions' embraces a variety of structures and agencies including:

• the "rules, procedures, organisational standards, governance structures and conventions and customs" affecting the AEP at different administrative levels. As agricultural productivism has been challenged by agri-environment discourses, these intra- and interorganisational procedures have been subject to change in the five Member states;
• the institutional 'mosaic' of organisations with competence for AEP at different administrative levels, determining how policy is formulated and implemented and how 'problems', 'resources', etc. are defined;
• the role of competent organisations as an embodiment of national agricultural and environmental discourses
  

Often control of the substance and direction of the AEP are the sole responsibility of one or an number of key government or EU organisations, for example agriculture Ministries in Member states. Nonetheless the procedures and activities of other groups exerts a growing influence on national and supranational policy-making processes. Key organisations may be closely integrated or more loosely interlinked with these other government and non-government organisations in policy networks.

II. TARGETING APPROACHES

This approach aims to find a methodological way of manipulating commonly available data-base material (climate, soils, geology, topography, land use, etc.) within a GIS in order to define environmental risk or conflict zones at a regional and country level. The definition of risk zones is seen as the first step towards the effective targeting of AEP's designed to stabilise or improve the current situation through the maintenance of, or changes to, the current land use. Using the example of loss of biodiversity the methodology is demonstrated graphically in Figure 2. The finalised methodology will take into account, not only ecological factors, but will also be integrated with socio-economic data obtained through detailed studies carried out at farm level.

III. MODELLING APPROACHES

The project participants working on modelling approaches aim to model, at local and regional scales, the relationships between:

• the natural conditions (climate, soil, topography, etc.)
• the farming systems (farms types)
• the Land Use and Technical Management (cropping systems, grasslands, forests)
• the environmental features (water quality and quantity, biodiversity, etc.)
  

Parallel to model development is an attempt to link all the various models and other available data within the shell of a Decision Support System (DSS)(Figure 3). This, it is hoped, will provide a user friendly tool to aid policy makers in assessing the effectiveness of various AEP strategies, both current and planned.

IV. FARM LEVEL APPROACHES

A survey of over 600 farmers in selected study areas within the UK, Germany, France, Netherlands and Spain has been conducted by the research teams to assess the impact and effectiveness of agri-environmental schemes established under EU regulation 2078/92. Using the common questionnaire presented here (Figure 4), responses have been generated that are being used, on the one hand, to evaluate the social, economic and ecological consequences of scheme participation and non-participation, and on the other hand to identify participating and non participating farmers and compare these groupings in terms of farm, farmer, farm business and farm family characteristics.

4. DATA INTEGRATION; THE STUDY AREA APPROACH

Perhaps the most valuable outcome of the research undertaken through this project will be the development of techniques which can be applied with equal validation to any region of the European Union and which can allow the making of consistent, regionally defined, scientifically-valid recommendations on the optimisation of AEP in the future.

The answer to the problem of how to achieve valid recommendations for each region must come from a careful vertical integration of the results from the various levels within the study regions. This will proceed in two steps. First all data must be collected from the various levels and used to build a complete picture ('leitbild') of the study region. Examples of the factors which should be known for each study region include:

• its agri-geographical location, including the physical environmental characteristics and the limitations they place on agriculture,
• spatially defined agri-environmental conflicts in the area, both actual and potential,
• the history and development of agricultural and environmental policy of the area,
• idealised socio-economic and environmental targets for the region,
• effective measures to achieve these targets which are within acceptable limits,
• an assessment of the effectiveness of actual agri-environmental programmes in the area and the characteristics of farmers who adopt the measures.
  

If all these points are expanded in detail it should be possible to arrive at a good understanding of a region and the unique combination of factors which have given it its present characteristics. It follows that a comparison of regions from around Europe will also be far more valid if each region has been described according to the above factors.

The next phase of integration will be to bring together all the data in each study region according to the scheme given in Table 3. Three new sub-groups have been formed charged with different responsibilities of this process. The first sub-group will concentrate on parts 1 & 2, the second group works on points 3 & 4, while the third group will focus on point 6. The important steps of formulating recommendations (5 & 7) will involve all partners.

Table 3: A methodology for achieving an effective vertical integration

1. Diagnosis and description of Agri-environmental problems; definition of targets and indicators: match and comparison with existing AEP's: idealised regionalised targets and rationales.

2. Breakdown of 1 above in terms of:
a. nature of management changes required on farms
b. scale and location of changes required

3. Description of ACTUAL pattern (location) and scale of participation based on farm survey

4. Assessment of (3) in terms of motives of participants and economic incentives and barriers to participation based on farm survey and economic modelling work.

5. Design optimised schemes on the basis of 2 & 4 and make preliminary recommendations on necessary changes to the current situation.

6. Platform groups to explore and 'market test' preliminary recommendations from 5 above.

7. Make necessary adjustments to recommendations that consider results of 6 and make final policy recommendations:

5. RESULTS

It is unfortunately not possible to present any valid, coherent results on this poster since the work in all the fields described is still on-going. However, a few examples of what is being generated are given below. Figure 5 is the result of a regional-scale landscape analysis of Baden-Württemberg with respect to the need to improve biodiversity and habitat networks in the state. The highlighted priority zones (targets) represent areas where agriculture has a role to play in the maintenance and improvement of core areas of species diversity (Figure 6). Habitat networks between these priority zones should also be improved though appropriate farming systems. These goals should be supported through the use of AEP's.

Figure 7 presents a summary of a small part of the statistical data generated from the farm survey in the 2 UK study regions. Similar data exists from all the other study areas and will be used to look for trends in adopters/adopters in order to distinguish which groups of farmers are more or less likely to adopt AEP measures and to understand the reasons behind this. The results can be used to redesign schemes to be more attractive to a wider range of farmers and thus make them more effective in achieving their aims.

Figure 8 represents an attempt at classifying the French study region by looking for the most dominant farm-type in each community. This represents a key-step in modelling the effects of land use changes at a regional scale, if one wants to model the results of following various AEP strategies.

6. CONCLUSIONS

The work described on this poster is ongoing and will not be complete before the end of 1998. It is unlikely that it will be possible to cover all of the study areas in as much depth as would be desirable, largely due to difficulties in obtaining appropriate geographical data which can be manipulated in a GIS necessary for the targeting and modelling approaches. However, from the outset of the project the main aim has been to develop a methodological approach to optimising AEP's throughout Europe, rather than attempting to make firm recommendations on what should be done in each area. It is believed that through the regionalisation of measures, targeted to match the social, economical and ecological characteristics of any area, future agri-environmental programmes will play an extremely important role in supporting European farmers in a way that integrates viable production with the protection of our diverse natural and cultural European Landscape.

¹ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

The methodological approach and preliminary results presented on this poster represent the work of an integrated research project funded by the European Union under its third framework programme. Ten research groups in five different member states of the EU are participants in this project (No. AIR3 CT94-1296) and are acknowledged here as being joint authors of this work. The full list of participating institutes is given below:

Germany

Baden-Württemberg

Institut für Landschaftsplanung und Ökologie (ILPÖ), Universität Stuttgart, Kepler Straße 11, 70174 Stuttgart. Team Leader: Prof. Dr. G. Kaule

Institut für Landwirtschaftliche Betriebslehre (ILB), Universität Hohenheim, Schloß Osthof, 70593 Stuttgart. Team Leader: Prof. R. Doluschitz

Brandenburg

Zentrum für Agrarlandschafts und Landnutzungforschung e.V. Münchenberg (ZALF), Eberswalder Straße 84, 15374 Müncheberg. Team Leader: Dr. G. Lutze

Landesanstalt für Grobschutzgebiete Eberswalde (LAGS), Stadtsee 1-4, 16225 Eberswalde. Team Leader: Drs. D. Schulzke

France

Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Station S.A.D., Domain du Joly, 88500 Mirecourt. Team Leader: Dr. M. Benoit

Great Britain

Wye College, University of London (WUL), Environmental Section, Wye, Ashford, Kent, TN25 5ED. Team Leader: Dr. C. Potter

Department of Geography, University College London (DGUCL), 26 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0AP. Team Leader: Dr. A. Jones

Spain

Department Economia Applicada, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona (UAB), Edifici B, 08193 Bellatera (Barcelona). Team Leader: Dr. L.Viladomiu

Netherlands

Department of Ecological Agriculture, Wageningen Agricultural University (AMLT), Haarweg 333, 6709 RZ Wageningen. Team Leader: Drs. J.D. van Mansvelt

The Winard Staring Centre for Integrated Land, Soil and Water Research (WSC-DLO), Marijkeweg 11/22, 6700 AC Wageningen. Team Leader: Dr. K. Volker

Institut für Landschaftsplanung und Ökologie,
Universität Stuttgart, Keplerstr. 11, 70174 Stuttgart, Germany