Towards an improved legislative framework for organic farming – Overall conclusions and recommendations

Towards an improved legislative framework for organic farming – Overall conclusions and recommendations

Review of Rural Development Instruments: DG Agri project 2006-G4-10. Final Report

The aim of the study was to review the policy instruments under the framework of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), 2007-13, by: • reviewing intervention rationales and instruments and their use against the objectives, priorities and key actions in the EU Strategic Guidelines; • assessing whether and how RD rationales and instruments should be adapted to deliver these more effectively. The study involved 8 tasks, grouped into 3 themes of analysis: 1) the targeting of EU-27 rural development expenditure, 2000-13, including the development of databases of EU-27 rural area characteristics and ‘indicators of need’ for RD; 2) consideration of the adequacy of the current EAFRD framework, based upon an evaluation of instruments’ cost-effectiveness; the a priori development of a typology of RD interventions and catalogue of instruments; an analysis of delivery mechanisms; and assessment of instruments in ‘fiches’; 3) conclusions and recommendations. In the event, progress in finalising national and/or regional RDPs 2007-13 was delayed,over the study period. Thus, the approach was modified to incorporate more qualitative analysis and the expenditure analysis was made using incomplete figures (July 2007), so 4% of total EAFRD planned expenditure was missing

Qualitative Impact Assessment of Land Management Interventions on Ecosystem Services (“QEIA”). Report-1: Executive Summary: QEIA Evidence Review & Integrated Assessment

The focus of this project was to provide an expert-led, rapid qualitative assessment of land management interventions on Ecosystem Services (ES) proposed for inclusion in Environmental Land Management (ELM) schemes. This involved a review of the current evidence base for 741 land management actions on 33 Ecosystem Services and 53 Ecosystem Service indicators by ten teams involving 45 experts drawn from the independent research community in a consistent series of Evidence Reviews covering the broad topics of: • Air quality • Greenhouse gas emissions • Soils • Water management • Biodiversity: croplands • Biodiversity: improved grassland • Biodiversity: semi-natural habitats • Biodiversity: integrated systems-based actions • Carbon sequestration • Cultural services (including recreation, geodiversity and regulatory services). It should be noted that this piece of work is just one element of the wider underpinning work Defra has commissioned to support the development of the ELM schemes

Qualitative impact assessment of land management interventions on Ecosystem Services (‘QEIA’). Report-2: Integrated Assessment

The focus of this project was to provide an expert-led, rapid qualitative assessment of land management interventions on Ecosystem Services (ES) proposed for inclusion in Environmental Land Management (ELM) schemes. This involved a review of the current evidence base for 741 land management actions on 33 Ecosystem Services and 53 Ecosystem Service indicators by ten expert teams drawn from the independent research community in a consistent series of ten Evidence Reviews covering the broad topics of; • Air quality • Greenhouse gas emissions • Soils • Water management • Biodiversity: croplands • Biodiversity: improved grassland • Biodiversity: semi-natural habitats • Biodiversity: integrated systems-based actions • Carbon sequestration • Cultural services (including recreation, geodiversity and regulatory services) These reviews were undertaken rapidly at Defra’s request by ten teams involving 45 experts who together captured more than 2,400 individual sources of evidence. This was followed by the Integrated Assessment (IA) reported here to provide a more accessible summary of these evidence reviews with a focus on capturing the actions with the greatest potential magnitude of change for the intended ES, and their potential co-benefits and trade-offs for the other ES

Results-based agri-environment payments: supporting farmers supporting nature

There is a growing interest in the conservation potential of linking payments to land managers to ecological outcomes. We drew on the experiences of all schemes paying for biodiversity outcomes on farmland in European countries with the aim of identifying the decisive elements of the schemes’ design and implementation as well as the challenges and opportunities of adopting the approach for biodiversity. We used evidence from peer-reviewed literature and technical reports, as well as 20 questionnaire responses and discussions with over 50 key experts in the field of agri-environment-climate policy and results-based schemes (RBS). We identified 36 payment schemes in nine countries that could be called RBS for biodiversity. The majority are in N and W Europe and half are in Germany. Based on the extent to which the schemes’ ‘payment’ and ‘control’ mechanisms are dependent on a priori specified biodiversity outcomes, we constructed a RBS typology. Payments are based solely on results (‘pure’ RBS) in only five cases. Most RBS include some basic land management requirements. There is a growing body of research focusing on the approach, also with half of it from Germany. Most studies focus exclusively on the development and testing of ecological indicators and ecological performance. A handful of studies loot at attitudes of payment recipients to the approach. In two countries research integrated ecological, social and economic assessments. The evidence to date shows that there are at least 11 unique advantages to the RBS compared to management-based ones with similar objectives. These deal with environmental efficiency, farmer participation, and development of local biodiversity-based projects. Although results-based approaches have specific challenges at every stage of design and implementation, for many of these the existing schemes provide potential solutions. There is some apprehension about trying a results-based approach in Mediterranean, central and eastern EU Member States. We conclude that there is clear potential to expand the approach under the Rural Development programming period for 2021–2028. Evidence is needed about the approach’s efficiency in delivering conservation outcomes in the long term, its additionality, impact on the knowledge and attitudes of land managers and society at large, development of ways of rewarding the achievement of actual results, as well as its potential for stimulating innovative grassroots solutions. We illustrate the approach with a Finnish case that explores ecological, social and economic dimensions. 1. Allen B, Hart K, Radley G, Tucker G, et al. 2014. Biodiversity protection through results-based remuneration of ecological achievement. Report prepared for the European Commission, DG Environment, Institute for European Environmental Policy, London. 2. Herzon I, Birge T, Allen B et al. 2018. Time to look for evidence: results-based approach to biodiversity conservation on farmland in Europe. Land Use PolicypeerReviewe