Written evidence submitted by the UK Research
Councils' Rural Economy and Land Use Programme
SUMMARY
1. This Paper presents lessons from recent research
for the reform and implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy
(CAP) of the European Union (EU). It focuses on findings from
over 20 projects funded by the UK "Rural Economy and Land
Use" programme (Relu). The Rural Economy and Land Use Programme
is an interdisciplinary collaboration between the Economic and
Social Research Council (ESRC) Biotechnology and Biological Sciences
Research Council (BBSRC) and the Natural Environment Research
Council (NERC) with additional funding provided by the Scottish
Government and Defra. See www.relu.ac.uk for more information
about the Relu programme. A full version of the paper "Informing the Reform and Implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy" may be downloaded from the Relu website.
2. Relu projects offer findings of particular
relevance to the further development of "agri-environment
schemes". These support land managers in delivering a range
of ecosystem services which would not otherwise be provided through
the market ("environmental public goods").
3. The scientific evidence provided by Relu projects
will help policy-makers tackle a range of questions about the
further development and implementation of agri-environment schemes.
4. It covers:
- What ecosystem services should be supported by
the schemes?
- What spatial scales are appropriate for planning
and management?
- How should stakeholders be involved in designing
and delivering the schemes?
- How can co-ordinated, collaborative action be
obtained across farms?
- How can long-term environmental benefits be secured?
- Could providing formal training help to deliver
the schemes?
- How should the benefits of ecosystem services
be valued?
- How should successful land management be measured?
- Should agri-environment payments change if other
support is reduced?
ON THE
BASIS OF
THE RESEARCH
FINDINGS, AND
TAKING ACCOUNT
OF THE
WIDER POLICY
CONTEXT, THE
FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS
ARE OFFERED
FOR CONSIDERATION
BY POLICY-MAKERS
5. An ecosystem services framework: Agri-environment
schemes should be retained as a critical delivery mechanism within
the CAP. They should be explicitly designed and implemented within
the framework provided by the "ecosystem services approach".
This embraces services rewarded by the market (eg producing food
and fibre) and the provision of environmental public goods. The
framework will assist in managing the varied demands on land,
setting priorities, and identifying and tackling conflicts.
6. Funding: The resources made available
at EU level to support the schemes should be increased radically,
to recognise their critical role in delivering environmental commitments.
The schemes should receive a higher proportion of the EU CAP budget
and/or be supported at a higher rate of EU co-financing. Payments
for scheme options should be increased as necessary to ensure
that desired environmental public goods can continue to be delivered
following any reductions in the Single Farm Payment.
7. Developing scheme options: The menu
of scheme options, in any one area, should be based on a systematic
assessment of all the environmental public goods which
could be provided by farms. Management options should be developed
at the most appropriate scale (eg "catchment" for water
quality, or "landscape" for farmland birds). Management
prescriptions should be tailored, as far as possible, to local
conditions.
8. New priorities: The schemes should
include actions to: promote carbon storage, and integrated pest
management; reduce risks to public health from livestock waste
in water; and respond to new pest and disease threats. The use
of the schemes to convert conventional farms in highly-productive
EU regions to organic farming systems should be reviewed. An alternative
might be to use the schemes to create networks of areas managed
primarily for biodiversity around intensively-managed fields on
conventional farms, enhancing the benefits by using "no-till"
or "low-input" approaches.
9. Promoting collaborative approaches:
The scale at which scheme agreements are planned, negotiated,
funded and delivered should shift, over time, from the individual
farm to the local community of farms. This will help to
ensure that: farmers are fairly rewarded for the added benefits
of co-ordinated action; farmers outside agreements cannot negate
the work of those within agreements; and different environmental
public goods are delivered at the most appropriate scale.
10. Involving stakeholders: Advice from
local farmers and other stakeholders on scheme options, their
delivery, and how to co-ordinate action between farmers, should
become far more important in designing and delivering the schemes.
More use should be made of tools to support deliberation on objectives
and priorities, and to help resolve conflicts. Participatory Geographical
Information Systems offer one useful approach.
11. Securing long-term benefits: The schemes
should incorporate, or be supplemented by, new contractual mechanisms
which will secure the long-term public interest in land management,
over periods of decades rather than years. This will be particularly
important in managing carbon, and in restoring, re-creating or
linking wildlife habitats.
12. Calculating payments: The payments
offered under the schemes to secure changes in land management
reflect income foregone and additional costs incurred. World trade
rules preclude the inclusion of any incentive element. There are
some differences between Member States in the approach taken to
calculating income foregone. This experience should be shared
with the aim of establishing consistent practices which provide
appropriate rewards for the provision of environmental public
goods.
13. Payment by results: Where scheme outcomes
are easy to measure, some element of the payment should be based
on results, rather than on mere participation. Prescribing
the desired outputs rather than the inputs (eg "a sward of
a certain composition and height" rather than "the timing
and density of grazing") would enable farmers to measure
outcomes themselves, and to check and adjust management practices
accordingly.
14. Supporting farmers with training:
Investment in formal training, targeted on novel or technically-difficult
options, should become an integral part of all schemes, to help
improve their effectiveness. This will help farmers to understand
scheme objectives, and to support them in exercising their skills
to deliver appropriate management.
December 2010
| 
