A survey exploring private farm advisor perspectives of agri-environment schemes: The case of England’s Environmental Stewardship programme

Article English OPEN
Hejnowicz, A.P. ; Rudd, M.A. ; White, P.C.L. (2016)
  • Publisher: Elsevier BV
  • Journal: Land Use Policy, volume 55, pages 240-256 (issn: 0264-8377)
  • Related identifiers: doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.005
  • Subject: 1107 | 3305 | Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law | Geography, Planning and Development | 2309 | Forestry | 2308 | Nature and Landscape Conservation

Most stakeholder-based research concerning agri-environmental schemes (AES) derives from work engaging with farmers and land managers. Consequently, the voices and opinions of other actors involved in AES tends to be unrepresented in the wider literature. One group of actors that seem particularly overlooked in this respect are private (independent) farm advisors (i.e., the consultants contracted by farmers and land managers to advise-on AES and agronomic matters). To begin to rectify this knowledge gap we developed an exploratory online survey to explore private farm advisor perspectives in the UK; specifically, the situation in England and advisors' experience of Natural England's Environmental Stewardship programme. A total of 251 Natural England registered farm advisors (29.9%) completed our survey. The majority of these had knowledge and expertise in relation to two (31.5%) or three (42.2%) Environmental Stewardship schemes, with proficiency in ELS (93.4%) and HLS (82.8%) being the most common. On average, advisors had 9.6 ± 5.6 yrs of experience and operated (75.3%) in a single region of England. Although our results concentrated upon a relatively simple set of initial topics of inquiry, the survey revealed a number of interesting findings. Firstly; for example, that in the opinion of the advisors working with farmers applying for Environmental Stewardship schemes, the 'knowledge-exchange encounter' occurring between themselves, their clients and Natural England is fundamental to the environmental effectiveness of these schemes as well as their farm business compatibility. Secondly, respondents suggested that beneath this 'encounter' lie tensions arising from the competing agendas and objectives of the different actors involved which can affect the content of agreements; for instance, farmer selection of management options versus Natural England's target environmental objectives. Farm advisors suggested that they had to negotiate this balance whilst also serving the needs of their clients. Thirdly, respondents raised issues concerning the complicated nature of scheme arrangements, both from their own and farmers' perspectives, as well as the adequacy of payments to cover input costs and matters regarding contractual compliance, all of which theyproposed affected farmer participation. Looking ahead, we believe that future AES should account for all of these issues in their design to aid long-term farmer participation, effective agreement implementation and beneficial environmental management.
  • References (135)
    135 references, page 1 of 14

    Allen, B., Hart, K., 2013. Meeting the EU's environmental challenges through the CAP-how do the reforms measure up? In: agri-environment schemes-what have they achieved and where do we go from here? Asp. Appl. Biol. 100, 9-22.

    Baker, D.J., Freeman, S.N., Grice, P.V., Siriwardena, G.M., 2012. Landscape-scale responses of birds to agri-environment management: a test of the English Environmental Stewardship scheme. J. Appl. Ecol. 49, 871-882.

    Balmford, A., Green, R., Phalan, B., 2012. What conservationists need to know about farming. Proc. Biol. Sci. 279, 2714-2724.

    Barreiro-Hurlé, J., Espinosa-Goded, M., Dupraz, P., 2010. Does intensity of change matter?: Factors affecting adoption of agri-environmental schemes in Spain. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 53, 891-905.

    Beckmann, V., Eggers, J., Mettepenningen, E., 2009. Deciding how to decide on agri-environmental schemes: the political economy of subsidiarity, decentralisation and participation in the European Union. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 52, 689-716.

    Billeter, R., Liira, J., Bailey, D., Bugter, R., Arens, P., Augenstein, I., et al., 2008. Indicators for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: a pan-European study. J. Appl. Ecol. 45, 141-150.

    Blainey, L., 2013. Less management prescription, more outcome focus-making environmental stewardship more effective (MESME) trialling project. Natural England Research Reports No. 047. Natural England. (pp. 1-152).

    Boatman, N., Jones, N., Garthwaite, D., Bishop, J., Pietravalle, S., Harrington, P., Parry, H., 2007. Evaluation of the operation of environmental stewardship. Final Report, Defra Project No.MA01028 Central Science Laboratory. (pp. 1-9).

    Boatman, N., Ramwell, C., Parry, H., Bishop, J., Gaskell, P., Mills, J., Dwyer, J., 2008. A review of environmental benefits supplied by agri-environment schemes. Land Use Policy Group, 1-275.

    Boatman, N.D., Jones, N.E., Gaskell, P., Dwyer, J.C., 2010. Monitoring of agri-environment schemes in the UK. In: agri-environment schemes-what have they achieved and where do we go from here? Asp. Appl. Biol. 100, 9-18.

  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark