Experts’ assessments of biodiversity options and supplementary
measures in REPS 4
REPORT
Authors
Carlin, C.1, Gormally, M.1, Ó hUallacháin, D.2 and Finn, J.A.2
1
2
Applied Ecology Unit, NUI Galway
Teagasc, Environment Research Centre, Wexford
January 2010
This is a joint project between Teagasc and NUI Galway.
Funding was provided under the National Development Plan, through the Research Stimulus Fund,
administered by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................. 2
Executive Summary....................................................................................... 3
Key Messages
4
Introduction .................................................................................................... 5
Objectives .................................................................................................... 6
Effectiveness of agri-environment schemes ............................................... 5
Methodology: ................................................................................................. 6
Use of experts to estimate environmental effectiveness ............................. 6
Assessment criteria ..................................................................................... 7
Analyses ...................................................................................................... 8
Results .......................................................................................................... 10
Summary of experts’ discussion of individual measures/options .............. 10
Comparison of measures and options ...................................................... 33
Discussion .................................................................................................... 36
Lessons learned ........................................................................................ 37
Value-for-money ........................................................................................ 39
Strategic objectives ................................................................................... 40
References ................................................................................................... 42
2
Key Messages
In relation to agri-environment measures/options, the experts recommended that the
aims and objectives of the scheme and individual options should be stated with greater
clarity and precision. The objectives should clearly identify the type of biodiversity to be
benefited/ targeted, and better explain how this will be achieved by the management
prescriptions.
A number of recommendations were more relevant to design and implementation
choices at the scheme-scale:
• The experts recommended a move away from a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, and
toward one that better facilitates spatial targeting.
• There is scope for the design stage to consider the additional environmental
effectiveness that may be achieved from spatial targeting or incentivised
participation of groups of farmers. This approach should also consider the level of
participation that is required to achieve specific environmental objectives.
• Experts suggested a reduction in the choice of measures within the agrienvironment scheme. A tiered approach was recommended, with the choice of
options being strongly guided toward those best suited to the farm conditions.
The experts consistently emphasised a number of other comments.
• Biodiversity and habitat conservation objectives should be afforded higher
priority. Experts agreed that too much emphasis was placed on Measure 1, which
detracted from the importance of securing benefits for biodiversity through
appropriate habitat measures. The REPS scheme should improve the provision
of advice for the protection and management of existing habitats. For relevant
habitats, there should be measures that target the achievement of favourable
conservation status.
•
The environmental objectives of the REPS should clearly prioritise and
distinguish among the need for conservation of existing habitats, enhancement of
degraded habitats, and creation of new habitats.
•
There should be greater correspondence between the choice of biodiversity
objectives in REPS and local and national biodiversity priorities, with the aim of
achieving the renewed EU target of halting biodiversity loss by 2020. Guidance
on the latter is provided by the National Biodiversity Plan, relevant policy
documents and other publications e.g. Red List Data books, National Strategy for
Plant Conservation etc.
3
Executive Summary
Objectives
We consulted with a group of eight Irish agri-environmental experts in order to assess
the wildlife value of current supplementary measures and options (hereafter referred to
as ‘options’) in the REPS 4 scheme. In the absence of environmental data from
monitoring, the assessment utilised a novel methodology which used experts’
judgements of the effectiveness of the REPS options and supplementary measures that
are relevant to biodiversity.
Agri-environmental experts combined an evidence-based approach and their experience
to assess features of scheme design and implementation as indicators of the
environmental effectiveness of the REPS options. Key criteria influencing design and
implementation were identified as:
• validity of the cause-and-effect relationship between the intended objective and
the prescribed management,
• degree of institutional implementation,
• degree of farmer compliance,
• the extent to which the measure achieved an appropriate match between the
distribution of environmental issues and participation (targeting) and,
• the extent to which participation was sufficient to achieve the environmental
objective.
Methods
The assessment occurred in two stages. Experts scored each option using a scoring
scale for each of the above five criteria. The scores were then collated and a group
meeting of the experts allowed them to discuss each option, elaborate on the justification
for their decisions and achieve consensus. The geometric mean of each option was
calculated, with higher scores indicating higher effectiveness.
Outcomes
The use of expert groups proved to be an efficient and effective method to:
(i) assess the likely environmental effectiveness of biodiversity options
(ii) identify specific aspects of options that are in need of improvement
(iii) highlight modifications which should improve environmental effectiveness.
Most (but not all) biodiversity options were associated with high scores for both the
cause-and-effect and compliance criteria. Thus, for the majority of measures and
options, correct implementation of the management prescriptions is expected to achieve
the environmental objective, and they are expected to be implemented correctly.
Nevertheless, many measures are unlikely to be as effective as expected. Several
options were expected to have little or no environmental effect, and some of these were
associated with medium to very high participation levels.
The assessment identified specific reasons why specific options were not expected to be
wholly effective. Many options are likely to have low or no effectiveness (at the scheme
scale) because of insufficient participation levels.
The experts identified how the environmental effectiveness of several measures could
be improved, which would only require relatively minor modification in several cases.
4
Introduction
Effectiveness of agri-environment schemes
Following Agenda 2000 reform, the Rural Development Regulation (Council Regulation
(EC) No. 1257/1999) now combines several policy measures, including the adoption of
agri-environmental measures. As a result of these initiatives, large areas of Europe now
participate in agri-environment schemes (AESs), although farmer uptake is variable and
there is considerable variation in the scope and aims of the various national schemes.
Agri-environment schemes in the EU are a major contributor towards CAP objectives to
reverse biodiversity decline by 2010, achieve good water quality by 2015 and achieve
the Kyoto targets for mitigating climate change. Agri-environment schemes are the only
mandatory policy instrument for Member States within Axis 2 of the Rural Development
policy. About 51% (~€34 billion) of the Axis 2 Rural Development budget for the 20072013 period was allocated to agri-environment schemes, which now cover nearly three
million farms across almost 39 million acres in Europe.
Member States are obliged to implement monitoring and evaluation of the
environmental, agricultural and socio-economic impacts of their respective agrienvironmental programmes. The evaluation process is intended to identify the extent to
which policy objectives are being fulfilled, and to identify any changes necessary to
bridge the gap between policy aims and outcomes.
Summary reports on agri-environment policy evaluations, however, have concluded that
there has been insufficient measurement of the precise environmental outcomes from
agri-environment schemes (European Commission 1998, DG Agriculture 2004). In
practice, previous evaluation systems have concentrated on administrative issues such
as: statements of the aims of the policy programme, the levels of farmer participation,
budgetary considerations, administrative structures, the extent of geographical targeting,
obligations of participation and the levels of provision and support from extension
services. Measures of participation levels, such as the number and area of participating
farmers and land, have been widely used to represent the degree of progress made
towards the achievement of particular policy objectives. However, participation in AESs
per se does not guarantee the actual delivery of environmental protection or
improvement (Kapos et al. 2009), and only the monitoring of actual performance and
environmental outcomes can demonstrate the true value and environmental impacts of
agri-environment schemes (Lee and Bradshaw, 1998).
A consequence of the lack of environmental monitoring of schemes is their impaired
ability to identify either successes or failures, and to learn how to improve their
environmental effectiveness.
The Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) is the agri-environment scheme
implemented by the Irish Government. The first version, REPS 1, was implemented in
1994 and the latest version, REPS 4, will have participants until 2013. Since 2005,
REPS has paid over €305 million annually to Irish farmers, and is currently (2009) paying
about €330 million per annum.
The stated objectives of REPS 4 are to:
5
•
•
•
establish farming practices and production methods, which reflect the increasing
concern for conservation, landscape protection and wider environmental
problems;
protect wildlife habitats and endangered species of flora and fauna, and;
produce quality food in an extensive and environmentally friendly manner.
In the most recent iteration, the stated objectives of REPS 4 are:
• To promote:
a) Ways of using agricultural land which are compatible with the protection
and improvement of the environment, biodiversity, the landscape and its
features, climate change, natural resources, water quality, the soil and
genetic diversity
b) Environmentally-favourable farming systems.
c) The conservation of high nature-value farmed environments which are
under threat.
d) The upkeep of historical features on agricultural land.
e) The use of environmental planning in farming practice.
• To protect against land abandonment.
• To sustain the social fabric in rural communities.
• To contribute to positive environmental management of farmed NATURA
2000 sites.
In Ireland, there has not been a national scale programme to monitor the environmental
effects of REPS, and recent studies have highlighted the paucity of data available to
judge the environmental impact of the REPS (O’Brien et al. 2008, Finn 2010). A number
of studies have conducted research on limited geographical areas, specific measures,
and the design of potential new measures (See Finn 2010).
Objectives
In the absence of environmental data from monitoring, we elicited experts’ judgements
on the expected environmental performance of selected elements of REPS. We
consulted with a group of eight Irish agri-environmental experts to assess the wildlife
value of current supplementary measures and options (hereafter referred to as ‘options’)
in the REPS 4 scheme. The assessment utilised a novel methodology which used
experts’ judgements of the effectiveness of the REPS options and supplementary
measures that are relevant to biodiversity.
Methodology:
Use of experts to estimate environmental effectiveness
Due to a lack of environmental data, we used the judgements of a panel of agrienvironmental experts to assess the performance of different factors that are expected to
determine the environmental effectiveness of agri-environment schemes.
Use of an expert group can be a quick, cost-effective and efficient method of estimating
the effectiveness of a scheme (Carey et al. 2005; Finn et al. 2009). In general, experts
were used to engage in a structured discussion and assessment of elements of an agrienvironment scheme. Their quantitative assessment and qualitative information should
6
be highly instructive about reasons for deficiencies and likely opportunities for
improvements.
The selection of experts was based on several criteria: knowledge and experience of
biodiversity, agri-environment policy, applied agro-ecological research and applied
interpretation of REPS policy in advising farmers. In addition, an ability to listen to others
and express a balanced view was crucial. A pool of likely experts with different
backgrounds and competencies was identified. None of those identified had been
involved in the design of the existing REPS scheme and therefore were in an
independent position to highlight strengths and weaknesses associated with the
scheme.
Assessment criteria
The wildlife value of current options in the REPS 4 scheme was assessed by applying a
previously developed approach to investigate the environmental performance of agrienvironment schemes across Europe (Finn et al. 2008, 2009). Within an agrienvironment scheme such as REPS, a number of measures and options are intended to
achieve a number of objectives. The project team selected the main biodiversity
objective for each measure or option based on the information provided in both the
following documents: ‘Farmer’s handbook for REPS 4’ and ‘The specification for REPS
planners in the preparation of REPS 4 plans’. The experts were asked to assess
different factors that underpin the relationship between an agri-environment measure
and achievement of the desired objective.
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the REPS biodiversity options (and in the
absence of monitoring data) experts scored options and supplementary measures for a
number of assessment criteria, as follows:
• Cause and effect:
Prescribed management practices should be capable of achieving the desired
environmental effects and the intended effects should help to realise the chosen
objectives. Thus, there should be a valid cause-and-effect relationship between
management prescriptions and the required magnitude of effect to achieve the
environmental objectives.
• Institutional implementation:
The incorrect implementation of a measure may be due to incorrect or
inadequate information transfer from the implementing institutions, and/or poor
understanding of the ultimate environmental objectives.
• Farmer compliance:
This reflects the degree to which farmers implement the prescribed management
practices as described by the policy.
• Participation rate:
Sufficient farmers must participate in a scheme (or measure) for the
environmental objectives of the scheme to be achievable.
• Targeting:
A specific feature of participation rate is geographical targeting, which aims to
ensure that the distribution of participation in an AES matches the distribution of
local or regional environmental issues that are scheme objectives.
The methodology and approach is described in detail in Finn et al. (2008, 2009). Each of
the assessment criteria was scored by the experts (individually, in advance of a group
7
meeting) on a scale of 0 to 5, where a score of 5 indicated that a measure was ‘fit for
purpose’ for a specific assessment criteria. Attainment of a score of 5 should be a
reasonable expectation for a measure, and did not require a measure to be perfect.
Further detail on the scoring scales for each of the five criteria is provided in Appendix 1.
Overall, we assumed that the environmental performance of a specific measure can be
estimated and related to the assessment scores for each of the criteria. Higher scores
across the different criteria reflect better design and implementation of a measure, which
we assume to be strongly related to its environmental performance.
Each expert initially worked independently to provide a written individual response. The
experts then attended a group meeting at which their scoring of the assessment criteria
was collated and presented to the group. Where there was disagreement among
individuals on their rating of criteria, the facilitator encouraged discussion with the aim of
the expert group reaching a consensus. One can think of this elicitation methodology as
a modified Delphi method. An advantage of this modified approach is the reduction in
time and effort that is associated with iterations of the traditional Delphi method. It also
has the distinct benefit of allowing experts to share knowledge and devote detailed
discussion to the issue in question (O’Hagan, 2005). In addition to generating
quantitative data on the criteria, the discussions among the experts generate specific
discussion that highlighted strengths, weaknesses, uncertainties and opportunities for
improving measures.
Analyses
For each option, the scores that were agreed by the experts were presented for each of
the five assessment criteria, and the main features of the discussion noted. Several
measures were allocated more than one score for particular criteria, and a decision had
to be made how to represent that in the analyses. Within each measure, if a particular
criterion received two or more scores, the values for both are given in the table, and the
text explains the underlying reason. However for analytical purposes, we needed to use
one value only. The choice of which value to use depended on the reason for awarding
two or scores in the first place, as follows:
(a) For the cause-and-effect criterion, one reason for allocating more than one score
recognised the multi-objective nature of several REPS options. For example,
both options 3b and 3c addressed water quality as a primary objective, and
biodiversity as a secondary objective. In such cases, the cause-and-effect score
awarded for the biodiversity objective was used to calculate effectiveness. The
same approach was used for nutrient management (option 9a).
(b) A few measures were awarded different scores because the experts identified
further clarifications to the measure i.e. (7a). Measure 7a concerns creation of a
buffer around archaeological or historical features and monuments. Three scores
were awarded, 1 for protecting the feature and two for biodiversity. Following (a)
above, only biodiversity scores were considered. Given that both scores were for
biodiversity, the average of both scores was obtained and used for all further
calculations. The same approach was applied to supplementary measure 3
‘Traditional Irish breeds’.
(c) In another situation, experts were unable to agree on the specific aim of a
measure. Option 2a is titled ‘Traditional hay meadows’, yet the actual prescription
does not appear to benefit traditional hay meadows. Experts awarded a low
score assuming the measure to be aimed at restoring species-rich grassland, but
8
agreed a higher score if the aim is simply to allow existing plant species (even if
only of low to medium species-richness) to set seed. Based on previous DAFF
reports, we assumed that the aim of the measure was the protection of traditional
hay meadows, and therefore used the lower score. The same approach was
taken with Option 2b: Species-rich grassland.
(d) Several situations occurred where experts gave a range of scores e.g. the causeand-effect criterion for option 4c: ‘Nature corridors’ was scored 0-1. In such cases
(participation: 2e, 9d, SM6 and targeting: 4a), the mid-point of the range was
obtained, and used for all further calculations.
For each of the five criteria, the scores were pooled across all options and
supplementary measures, and the distribution presented as a histogram. For each option
or supplementary measure, the geometric mean of the scores for the five criteria was
calculated.
9
Results
In this section, we first present summaries of the experts’ discussion of the individual
measures and options, with the quantitative scores for the assessment criteria, as well
as qualitative information that reflects the main comments and justifications offered by
the experts. In a following section, we then collate the results from individual measures
and options to better facilitate their comparison.
Summary of experts’ discussion of individual measures/options
Each measure is described in the following manner: A short summary of the individuals’
assessments is followed by the agreed scores for each criterion (in table format).
Highlights of the discussion are noted, in which the group elaborated on the underlying
reasons for their scores of the effectiveness of each measure.
Options associated with grassland and soil management
Option 2a: Traditional Hay Meadows
Overall summary:
The scores for cause-and-effect (1-4) reflect the group’s concern with the ability of this
measure to meet its objective. Implementation also raised concern (2-5 institutional
implementation, 3-5 for farmer compliance). Low scores were allocated for targeting (23) and participation (1-3), reflecting the groups opinion that this measure is only likely to
make a low-moderate contribution towards halting biodiversity loss.
Score
Cause
and
Effect
Institutional
implementation
Compliance
Targeting
Participation
1 or 3
5
3
3
3
Cause-and-effect:
The group agreed that the wording of the objective was insufficiently specific and were
unable to decide if the aim was to create, restore or enhance traditional hay meadows
(score = 1), or if the aim was to allow some grasses and herbs to set seed (score = 3)
and improve the species-richness of the vegetation over time. Two scores were
allocated to the cause-and-effect criterion to reflect this difficulty. As a general measure
aimed at achieving low level biodiversity by allowing some plants to set seed, a score of
3 reflected the groups’ judgement that this measure would make a moderate contribution
towards delivering the environmental objective. The management prescriptions are
generally appropriate to achieve the objective, but with several deficiencies. As an
alternative interpretation, if the objective was a more ambitious one to restore traditional
hay meadows (as a specific type of species-rich grassland, which the phrase ‘traditional
hay meadow’ usually suggests), the group agreed a score of 1 to indicate a minor
contribution towards delivering this environmental objective. The management
prescriptions are limited in their ability to achieve the objective, and possess several
major deficiencies. Specifically, the experts were concerned that the management
prescriptions are not appropriate to any biodiversity objective. The fertiliser and stocking
rates are too high to encourage more flowers or greater diversity of flowers. The timing
of cutting is quite early in the season thereby removing shelter and nectar sources for
many aerial invertebrates (Humbert et al. 2009).
10
Institutional implementation:
The group agreed on a high score because the prescription was straightforward and
easily implemented.
Compliance:
A score of 3 reflected the group’s concern that significant deviations might occur such
as: baling silage without turning it and exceeding the allowed fertiliser and stocking
rates.
Targeting:
No targeting is indicated in the prescription. A score of 3 indicates incomplete overlap
between where this measure is taken up and where it is most needed. Targeting suffers
from the lack of clarity surrounding the objective. No targeting is needed if the measure
is intended to ensure more plants set seed and would therefore score highly. If the
intention is to undertake activities to support species-rich traditional hay meadows, then
this measure should be specifically targeted toward existing hay meadows.
Participation:
The group agreed a score of 3, indicating that participation in this measure was sufficient
to meet a moderate to high proportion of the expected biodiversity output.
Option 2b: Species-rich Grassland
Overall summary:
In general this option scored a little higher than option 2a and there was more
agreement between experts that this option could make a better contribution towards
biodiversity. However, the cause-and-effect scores (2-4) reflect the groups concern with
the ability of this measure to meet its objective. Implementation was also a concern (2-4
institutional implementation, 3-5 for farmer compliance). Low scores were allocated for
targeting (1-4) and participation (1-3), reflecting the group’s opinion that this measure is
not likely to make more than a moderate contribution towards halting biodiversity loss.
Score
Causeand-effect
Institutional
implementation
Compliance
Targeting
Participation
1 or 4*
3.5
4
2
2.5
Cause-and-effect:
Similar to option 2a, this option has a counter-intuitive title and an objective that was
difficult to interpret. Although this management prescription should benefit biodiversity
more than the previous one, the management prescriptions would not be expected to
result in species-rich grassland e.g. the experts considered the stocking rates to be too
high.
Implementation: More guidance is required to enable the farmer to maintain sustainable
stocking rates and still maintain species-rich grassland. This option requires more
botanical knowledge on behalf of the planner than other measures.
Targeting: This option is not appropriate to intensive systems. There is a strong
evidence-base supporting the view that it is too difficult and ambitious to restore
intensive grasslands to species-rich grasslands. This option should be targeted at those
11
farms with marginal habitat containing remnants of species-rich grassland, to help
protect and enhance existing habitats.
Participation
Although the group agreed that participation was good, the score allocated reflects the
overall view that it can only make a low to moderate contribution to achieving the
biodiversity objective. Better targeting and implementation would change this.
Option 2c: Clover in grassland sward
Overall summary:
The scores for cause-and-effect (2-5) reflect the group’s difficulty in agreeing on the
ability of the measure to contribute to biodiversity objectives. Implementation also raised
concerns (3-5 for both institutional implementation and farmer compliance). Scores
allocated for targeting (1-5) and participation (2-5) indicated the range of opinions among
the experts.
Score
Causeand-effect
Institutional
implementation
Compliance
Targeting
Participation
3
3
3
3
5
Cause-and-effect:
This is likely to be a good measure for nutrient management and water quality. There is
evidence that incorporation of clover in the sward results in a reduced need for nitrogen
fertiliser. Clover establishment is less likely under the current allowed fertiliser rates.
Implementation and Compliance
Inspection is receipt-based and therefore non-compliance can easily occur. The experts
recommended field-level inspections that measure clover establishment in the sward.
This is a popular option on derogation farms; however, the permitted high levels of
nitrogen may be counterproductive to clover establishment and persistence. The experts
recommended that maximum allowable fertiliser rates should be reduced in fields where
clover is sown, because of the increased risk of nutrient leaching when high levels of
nitrogen are applied to swards with high clover content.
Targeting:
This is popular on intensive grassland farms but its effectiveness is less likely on such
farms. It could perhaps be promoted in farms bordering watercourses (assuming that
maximum allowable fertiliser rates would be reduced).
Participation:
This is a very popular measure, with very high participation levels.
Option 2d: Use of trailing shoe
Overall summary:
This measure was assessed as a climate change mitigation measure. It scored highly in
terms of institutional implementation and farmer compliance (most scores were 4 and 5).
Targeting (1-5) and participation (1-4) scores did vary, indicating a range of opinions
within the group but most scores were 4. The group decided to evaluate its contribution
to nutrient management, not biodiversity. The score would increase greatly if this
12
equipment could be used on more soil types and could be applied on a wider range of
fields. Dedicating some resources to improving those factors would greatly improve its
performance.
Score
Causeand-effect
Institutional
implementation
Compliance
Targeting
Participation
5
5
4
5
1
Cause-and-effect:
This is a good nutrient management and climate change measure.
In information not available at the meeting of experts, recent Teagasc research shows
that same benefit from trailing shoe in summer can be gained by splashplate spreading
with in spring. In a comparison of trailing shoe and splashplate spreading of slurry, the
nitrogen fertiliser replacement value of slurry spread by trailing shoe was consistently
better than that spread by splashplate at any time of year (Lalor, 2008). Nevertheless,
switching the timing of application of splashplate spreading from summer to spring
greatly increased the associated fertiliser replacement value (Fig. 1) and costeffectiveness (Lalor & Schulte, 2008).
Implementation
Implementation is easy, however it is only suitable on certain types of fields and
therefore verification of soil suitability is a factor
Compliance
Compliance will vary depending on the suitability of fields.
Targeting:
Few people would have access to a trailing shoe. Only farmers who have it (or are in
close proximity to a contractor with trailing shoe equipment) are likely to implement this
measure.
Participation:
This has very low uptake and is likely to provide only a negligible proportion of the
expected environmental effects of the stated objective.
Option 2e: Control of invasive species
Overall summary:
The experts emphasised that this option would be better titled “scrub prevention on
grassland” as it is aimed at grassland only and is not intended to address alien invasive
species. It was assessed as an option to prevent scrub on grassland. The scores for all
features varied: cause-and-effect, institutional implementation, farmer compliance and
targeting all scored from 2 to 5 and with participation scoring less (1-3) indicating the
range of opinions within the group. Closer examination of the critical features reveals
that refining institutional implementation and increasing participation would improve its
effectiveness greatly.
Score
Causeand-effect
Institutional
implementation
Compliance
Targeting
Participation
5
2 (see below)
5
5
0-1 (0.5)
13
Cause-and-effect:
The experts considered the management prescriptions to be effective for removal of
scrub from grassland farms.
Implementation
To date implementation has been variable, and often resulted in low participation in sites
where scrub control was required, because there were easier options to choose (such as
the option for nature corridors 4C). (It is debatable whether this issue is more related to
the field-level targeting.) Some of the experts suggested that management prescriptions
should be more tailored, and should recommend more specific methods for removing
named species.
Compliance
Compliance was not highlighted as an issue.
Targeting:
Opinions within the group differed greatly, and was reflected in the range of individuals’
scores. Two experts awarded high scores (4-5) for very different reasons - one expert’s
opinion was that targeting is not required, while another expert considered that it was
very targeted because it was aimed at grassland farms. The experts finally agreed that
targeting was not required (thereby awarding a score of 5). The discussion clarified the
distinction between implementation and targeting: more specific targeting might curtail its
availability throughout the country, which might reduce its potential benefits in some
areas, whereas the measure should be promoted more in key areas because it is not
taken up where needed most (an implementation issue). The group agreed the measure
would best benefit farmers with scrub encroaching on important grassland habitats.
Participation:
The experts agreed that participation rates were very low.
Measures to protect and maintain watercourse, waterbodies and wells
Option 3a: Increase watercourse margins
Overall summary:
Although the scores for all factors varied (2-5), most of the scores for cause-and-effect,
institutional implementation, farmer compliance and targeting were high (4 or 5). The
participation criterion received a low score. Its environmental performance would be
improved by clarifying management requirements, allocating some resources to refining
the institutional implementation, and increasing participation.
Score
Causeand-effect
Institutional
implementation
Compliance
Targeting
Participation
4.5
3
4
5
1
Cause-and-effect:
Despite a relatively high score, the group had serious concerns about the effectiveness
of a 2.5m buffer in terms of protecting water quality. All agreed that run-off could still
enter a watercourse. The group also discussed the merits of different management
regimes (periodic grazing of parts of the margin or rotational flailing) in order to benefit
biodiversity, or leaving an unmanaged margin. The group emphasised that while scrub
14
habitats do benefit biodiversity (especially ancient or old scrub habitats that can have
high biodiversity value), long-term lack of management will create scrubby margins
where this measure is applied and the experts questioned whether this represented the
desired contribution to biodiversity.
Implementation:
Implementation has been variable, and the experts considered that it has often resulted
in low uptake where most needed, at least partly because of the availability of other
options that are easier to implement (such as adding clover to grassland). Some experts
suggested promoting this measure at a landscape scale e.g. incentivising all farms along
a watercourse to maintain riparian margins.
Compliance:
Concerns were raised over the optimal buffer width needed to prevent fertiliser spread or
drift.
Targeting:
The experts considered that participation does not always occur where it may have most
beneficial effects.
This measure is available throughout the country. It should not be limited to a specific
spatial distribution, but it could be implemented to better incentivise group participation
on watercourses across multiple farms.
Participation:
The group agreed that this option has relatively low uptake.
Option 3b: Exclude all bovine access to watercourse
Overall summary:
The scores for all factors varied (2-5), however most of the scores for cause-and-effect,
institutional implementation, farmer compliance and targeting were high (4 or 5).
Participation scores were lower (more scores of 2-3). Clarifying management
requirements, institutional implementation and promoting participation would greatly
improve its effectiveness.
Score
Causeand-effect
Institutional
implementation
Compliance
Targeting
Participation
3.5
3
5
5
4
Cause-and-effect:
Two scores were allocated to cause-and-effect because this is a multi-objective measure
(3.5 for biodiversity, and 5 for water quality). As the focus of this report is on the
effectiveness of REPS options for biodiversity, the cause-and-effect score allocated was
3.5. All agreed that this measure is more effective as a water quality measure than a
biodiversity measure. The group were concerned that erecting fencing on many farms
would favour scrub development. Habitat heterogeneity is not promoted by this measure.
The biodiversity value of a little poaching to create some bare ground for early colonising
species and provide basking areas for large invertebrates was highlighted by one expert.
Implementation
15
The group queried the added value to biodiversity from this measure as the experts
agreed that the same benefits are provided by the basic measure in which watercourses
are fenced and drinking points are established.
No major issues arose in discussing compliance and targeting.
Participation was initially awarded a score of 2 by four experts, 3 by one expert and 5 by
another expert. The group agreed to allocate a score of 4 because although participation
in this measure in REPS 3 was quite high, participation in REPS4 was not as high.
Option 3c: Use of planted buffer zones
Overall summary:
The group agreed that there was a strong relationship between applying this measure
and achieving its objective (all scores were 4 and 5). The scores for institutional
implementation, and targeting varied (2-5) with targeting varying less (3-5) Participation
was scored from 0 – 3; as no farmers participate in this measure, the effectiveness is
zero.
Score
Causeand-effect
Institutional
implementation
Compliance
Targeting
Participation
4
2
5
5
0
Cause-and-effect:
Two scores were allocated to cause-and-effect because this is a multi-objective measure
(water quality scored 5 and biodiversity scored 4). All agreed that this measure is more
effective as a water quality or climate change measure than a biodiversity measure.
Implementation and participation:
The group emphasised the merit of this option, taking into account the effort that is
required to carry it out. Because it is so difficult to do, it is unlikely to be undertaken.
Experts suggested that more emphasis should be given about avoiding planting on
south-facing banks or on existing habitats.
Compliance was judged to be easy.
No targeting is needed and this measure should be available everywhere
The group was concerned that the effort required to implement this option would
discourage farmers from undertaking it.
Measures to retain wildlife habitats
Option 4a: Creation of a new habitat
Overall summary:
The scores for cause-and-effect varied from 1-5, suggesting a range of views. Experts’
scores for implementation (2-4) and compliance (3-5) were closer. Opinions also differed
widely for targeting (0-5) and participation (2-5). Allocating resources to institutional
implementation, targeting and participation could greatly improve its effectiveness, but
the management prescriptions should be re-examined and made more specific. This
16
option could be separated into two different measures: (i) a small proportion of the fund
allocated to creating new habitat on intensively farmed land, and (ii) refocusing the
remainder to safeguard existing habitats of good quality. The majority of the funding
therefore should go to protecting existing habitats of highest value on an individual farm.
Score
Causeand-effect
Institutional
implementation
Compliance
Targeting
Participation
3
1
5
2.5
3
Cause-and-effect:
Three experts allocated low scores because the management advice continues to be
misinformed. All highlighted that the fencing and enclosure of habitats without any
subsequent active management is a practice that only benefits the development of
woodland and scrubby habitats. Some existing habitats may have been damaged prior
to REPS 4, when new habitat could be created on existing habitat.
Implementation
The group highlighted the need for training in order to be able to recognise different
habitats. The group also noted that there was a failing in institutional implementation in
that the measure should be promoted in intensive systems and therefore implementation
was allocated a low score.
No issues were raised in connection with compliance.
Targeting
This feature provoked much discussion. Some experts argued that no targeting is
necessary, therefore the measure scored highly, whereas others gave very low scores
because it is not targeted, and they argued targeting is necessary. This measure is
mostly taken up by extensive farmers. Some experts stressed that the measure should
be made more attractive to intensive farmers, as applying this measure in intensive
systems would provide greater benefits to biodiversity than in extensive farms. The
experts suggested extensive farms should be supported to maintain, restore and
enhance existing habitat as a greater priority than the creation of a new habitat.
Participation:
The group noted that participation in REPS3 was very high, but that fewer farmers would
select it as an option under REPS4 because they could no longer create new habitat on
existing habitat.
Option 4b: Broadleaved Tree planting
Overall summary:
Scores allocated by experts before the meeting ranged from 2-5 for cause-and-effect,
2.5-5 for institutional implementation and targeting, while most experts agreed a closer
score for compliance (3-4) and participation (3-5). This measure was one of the highest
scoring across the entire scheme.
Score
Causeand-effect
Institutional
implementation
Compliance
Targeting
Participation
5
4
5
5
5
17
Cause-and-effect:
Two experts stressed that planting trees is not the same as creating a woodland habitat.
The value of scattered trees in the landscape has been established; in particular they act
as stepping stones in the landscape for a variety of species. Individual trees however
cannot provide the same benefits as a woodland habitat. The experts explained that a
woodland provides greater structural variety which in turn enhances species diversity.
Implementation
Some experts allocated low scores because non-native species were permissible.
Another issue raised was the location of planted trees i.e. should avoid planting beside a
stone wall. Other experts noted the value of planting a tree along an existing hedgerow.
Compliance
An Inspector can see if the tree is present or absent, so compliance is easily achieved
and assessed.
Targeting:
No targeting necessary. The group discussed whether this option should be heavily
promoted on a landscape scale in regions with little wooded cover.
Participation:
The group agreed that participation was sufficient to benefit biodiversity.
Option 4c: Nature corridors
Overall summary:
Scores allocated by experts before the meeting ranged from 1-4 for cause-and-effect, 25 for institutional implementation and compliance and 1-5 for targeting and participation,
suggesting a range of views.
Score
Causeand-effect
Institutional
implementation
Compliance
Targeting
Participation
0-1
5
2
5
5
Cause-and-effect:
The group discussed the value of the measure and distinguished between its role as a
habitat refuge and as a corridor. They were highly critical of its effectiveness as a nature
corridor. The experts questioned the value of recommending ‘ill-considered connections
everywhere’. By ‘ill-considered’, experts explained that the corridor either does not link
habitats together, i.e. the corridor may act as an isolated field margin, or can provide a
connection which may enable the dispersal of alien invasive species. For example grey
squirrels can use hedgerows to colonise new woodlands, which could further threaten
the red squirrel. The experts also commented that this option requires ongoing
management to act as corridor for biodiversity; simply fencing it off will be insufficient to
maintain its function as a corridor.
Nature corridors may provide a mechanism that enables wildlife passage through the
landscape. In principle, habitat corridors are widely supported as a beneficial action to
reduce the ecological impacts of habitat fragmentation (Haddad & Tewksbury 2005)
despite the lack of empirical evidence demonstrating that dispersal of species benefits
by this landscape measure (Sutcliffe et al. 2003). Debate centres on whether investing in
18
connectivity, or the existing site is better, particularly for those species with poor
dispersal abilities. The debate is also about scale – to focus efforts on one site and
improve patch size and quality there (which may change in time and with climate change
impacts), or to invest in several ‘patches’. In spatial ecology terms, this is better
described as a stepping-stone concept than a corridor (Dover & Settele 2009). For some
species, creating and maintaining corridors has little impact because their occurrence
was limited by habitat quality (Wood & Pullin 2002). Research has also shown that
corridors need active management to be maintained but that use of them by wildlife
varied widely.
Implementation
This measure does not require much effort and is easily implemented; however, its
effectiveness would benefit from more information relating to selection, location and
management.
Compliance
Many concerns were raised over the prescribed distances intended to prevent fertiliser
spread or drift.
Targeting:
The group agreed the measure has widespread application. The group questioned
whether this option should be promoted on a landscape scale to link isolated habitats
e.g. connect woodlands by a network of hedgerows.
Participation:
This option is very popular and has good uptake except on intensive farms where it
might be most effective.
The group agreed that participation was sufficient to benefit biodiversity.
Overall, the group suggested that due to concerns regarding the selection, siting and
management of the nature corridor, the money expended on this measure could be
better spent on a well designed field margin measure for grassland farms.
Option 4d: Farm woodland establishment
Overall summary:
Experts were in close agreement on several criteria (3-5) e.g. cause-and-effect (most
were 5), institutional implementation and compliance (most were 4); however, experts
held a range of views on targeting (2-5) and participation (1-3).
Score
Causeand-effect
Institutional
implementation
Compliance
Targeting
Participation
5
3
5
5
3
Cause-and-effect:
The group discussed the value of the measure and emphasised the importance of
woodland habitats to biodiversity. One of the experts highlighted the effort required to
undertake this measure in comparison to other measures.
19
Implementation
Although most experts scored this highly, the group discussion resulted in a lower score.
This measure is easily implemented; however, its effectiveness would benefit from more
information such as spacing distances among trees, how to create woodland with glades
and rides, and linkages with hedgerows and ditches. There was concern that woodland
habitat may be created on existing habitat. Experts questioned the use of non-native
species.
Compliance
No issues were raised.
Targeting:
This option has wide applicability. One of the experts questioned whether this option
should be promoted on a landscape scale to create a network of woodlands with
linkages provided by a network of hedgerows (this could work well if implemented with
another option).
Participation:
This option was judged to initially have had poor uptake; however, it now seems to be
quite popular and has good uptake.
Measure 5: Maintain Farm and Field Boundaries:
Option 5a: Coppicing of hedgerows
Overall summary:
Experts were in relatively close agreement on several criteria (3-5) e.g. cause-and-effect
(most were 4 or 5) and institutional implementation; however, opinions ranged more
widely for compliance, targeting (2-5) and participation (2.5-5).
Score
Causeand-effect
Institutional
implementation
Compliance
Targeting
Participation
5
2
3
5
5
Cause-and-effect:
The group discussed the value of the measure and several concerns were raised.
Experts queried the suitability of all hedgerow species for coppicing and the impact that
coppicing might have, in the short term, on the function of a hedgerow as a connective
network.
Implementation:
Some experts noted that this measure was much more precise with more specific
information detailed in the prescription. However experts were concerned about
selecting the right species, the location of hedgerows selected on farm for coppicing and
the lack of information on fencing. For example, coppicing removes all growth to a little
above ground level. All broadleaf species can be coppiced, but regeneration from the
stumps does not rejuvenate all species to the same degree. Species such as hazel and
birch regenerate best because their root buds and other dormant buds are close to the
stump, unlike wild cherry and poplar which have poor subsequent growth. This resulted
in the experts agreeing a relatively low score. The experts highlighted the risk posed by
20
coppicing hedgerows that might be used by bats or birds as a flight route. Finally the
experts expressed a wish for information on the fencing specifications and installation.
Compliance: Poor selection of hedges and a lack of experience in managing hedgerows
were highlighted as concerns.
Targeting: Targeting is not required.
Participation: The group agreed that participation was sufficient to achieve the intended
biodiversity benefits.
Option 5b: Laying Hedgerows
Overall summary:
Experts’ judgments varied on several criteria (2-5) e.g. cause-and-effect (though most
scores were 4 or 5), institutional implementation and targeting. There was closer
agreement on compliance (3-4.5) and participation (2-4).
Score
Causeand-effect
Institutional
implementation
Compliance
Targeting
Participation
5
3
4
5
2.5
Cause-and-effect:
Experts agreed there was a high cause-and-effect relationship.
Implementation
Some experts suggested that more information on local styles of hedgerow should be
provided. These concerns resulted in the experts reducing the score.
Compliance: Experts’ views differed greatly in the amount of work required by this
measure, and that would influence compliance and participation. Concerns were raised
about the use of some equipment e.g. the bucket digger which could damage hedgerow
flora.
Targeting: Targeting is not required.
Participation: Experts agreed uptake is low for two reasons: the expertise and effort
required relative to other options (see above comment re extent of work required).
Option 5c: Planting new hedgerows
Overall summary:
Experts judged this measure to be quite effective. There were a wide range of views held
e.g. 3-5 for cause-and-effect (though most scores were 5) and compliance, targeting (25) and participation (2.5-5). There was closer agreement on institutional implementation
(4-5). Monitoring to estimate farmer compliance may increase its performance.
Score
Causeand-effect
Institutional
implementation
Compliance
Targeting
Participation
5
4.5
3.5
5
5
21
Cause-and-effect:
Experts agreed there was a high cause and effect relationship in that planting a new
hedgerow had known biodiversity benefits.
Implementation: Easily implemented although concerns were raised about aftercare.
Compliance: Experts were unsure of this as there was not much experience of
compliance/non compliance.
Targeting: Targeting is not required.
Participation: The group agreed that participation was sufficient to benefit biodiversity.
22
Option 5d: Additional stone wall maintenance
Overall summary:
Experts judged this measure to be an effective measure that completely meets the
biodiversity objective. There were a wide range of views held e.g. 2-5 (for cause-andeffect (though most scores were 5) and participation) and 3-5 (for compliance and
targeting). There was closer agreement on institutional implementation (4-5).
Score
Causeand-effect
Institutional
implementation
Compliance
Targeting
Participation
5
5
5
5
5
Cause-and-effect:
Some experts had initially scored this low because they considered it a measure aimed
at landscape heritage and stock-proofing (rather than directly benefiting biodiversity).
Opinions were revised as other experts highlighted the biodiversity benefit of stone walls
in terms of shelter (e.g. lizards basking on south-facing walls) and providing a
specialised habitat for plants, ferns, mosses, invertebrates and mammals. Opinions
varied about the extent to which stone walls function as a nature corridor, and one
expert pointed out that it might be a barrier for some species. Experts agreed that there
is a lack of evidence to support the function of stone walls as a nature corridor.
Implementation: Easily implemented
Compliance: One expert highlighted that non-compliance occurs if inspectors see a map
with a stone wall indicated and on site visit, find stone walls with hedgerow growing over
it. Removing the hedgerow would be compliant but removes a valuable habitat for
biodiversity. To be compliant, planners should indicate that both stone wall and
hedgerow are present.
Targeting: Measure is aimed at farms with stone walls.
Participation: The group agreed that participation was sufficient to benefit biodiversity,
primarily in the west of Ireland.
23
Option 7a: Increased buffer margins for archaeological and historical features
Overall summary:
This is a good example of a multi-objective option in which the farming practice will also
influence its effectiveness. A wide range of views were evident, based on experiences of
this measure in the context of different farming systems. Different scores were allocated
by experts to reflect this.
Cause-and-effect
Institutional
implementation
5 for protecting
feature
3 in tillage*
Score 0 in grassland
4.5
Compliance
Targeting
Participation
5
5
5 in grassland,
0 in tillage
Average scores to calculate effectiveness (geometric mean).
Score
Causeand-effect
Institutional
implementation
Compliance
Targeting
Participation
1.5
4.5
5
5
2.5
Cause-and-effect:
Experts all agreed that the buffer margin was effective at conserving archaeological
features; however, they did not agree that the additional buffer margin was effective at
conserving biodiversity. Furthermore they differentiated between the wildlife value of the
buffer margin in grassland and in tillage systems. They placed a higher wildlife value on
the buffer margin in tillage systems than in grassland systems.
Implementation: Easily implemented although there was an issue raised about sites that
were not listed on the Register of Monuments and Places, and the difficulty with sites
that were present but not visible above ground.
Compliance: No issues were raised
Targeting: The option is targeted at farms with features of archaeological or historical
interest.
Participation: The group again differentiated between participation in tillage and in
grassland systems. They highlighted that there is low participation in tillage systems,
where it would benefit biodiversity, and high uptake in grassland systems where they
questioned the contribution of the measure to biodiversity.
Option 8a and SM2: Traditional Irish Orchards
Overall summary:
Experts’ judgments agreed closely on several criteria e.g. cause-and-effect, institutional
implementation and compliance were all 4-5. Targeting was similar with one expert
scoring it lower than all the others. A wider range of views was held about participation
(1-4.5)
24
Score
Causeand-effect
Institutional
implementation
Compliance
Targeting
Participation
5
3.5
5
4
1
Institutional implementation and Participation: One expert highlighted that this measure
focused on the creation of new orchards and did not give sufficient recognition to farms
with existing orchards.
Option 8b: Install bird and bat boxes
Overall summary:
Most experts assigned scores of 4-5 for cause-and-effect, with low scores (2-3) from two
experts. A wider range of views were held about institutional implementation (2-4) and
targeting (2-5) while most agreed on the score assigned to compliance (4-5) and
participation (3-4).
Score
Causeand-effect
Institutional
implementation
Compliance
Targeting
Participation
5
2
5
4
5
Cause-and-effect:
Low scores were initially awarded by two experts because they questioned whether
there was a shortage of suitable nesting or roosting sites existing on farms and whether
this measure would enhance farmland biodiversity. After discussing the measure, the
group agreed that available evidence supported their use by bat and bird species, and
confirmed that on a short-term scale, farmland biodiversity would be enhanced.
Implementation: Easily implemented, although the group agreed that better and more
specific information could be provided.
Compliance: No issues were raised, although aftercare may be an issue.
Targeting: No targeting is required in general, although this measure could be promoted
in areas where bat or bird numbers are lower than expected, if this is known.
Participation: This is a very popular option and uptake is certainly sufficient to provide
maximum levels of the objective. Participation probably exceeds the level required to
achieve the expected environmental effects of the biodiversity objective.
Measure 9: Tillage crop production
Option 9a: Green cover establishment
Overall summary:
This is an example of a multi-objective measure. Experts held a wide range of views on
cause-and-effect and institutional implementation (3-5) while most agreed on the scores
(4-5) assigned to compliance and targeting. Participation scored low (1-3).
Cause-
Institutional
Compliance
Targeting
Participation
25
Score
and-effect
implementation
2.5*
5
5
5
0.5
Cause-and-effect:
Two scores were allocated to cause-and-effect* because this is a measure with multiple
objectives. Experts agreed that this measure is more effective as a nutrient management
measure (scoring 5) than a biodiversity measure (scoring 2.5). The contribution to
biodiversity is relatively low: as a winter crop it provides a temporary shelter and food
source.
No issues were raised in connection with implementation and compliance.
Targeting: This measure is targeted at tillage farmers.
Participation: The absolute level of uptake is very low; however, because it is targeted at
tillage farmers, the total number of eligible farms is also low.
Option 9c: Increased arable margin
Overall summary:
Experts agreed on the scores (4-5) allocated to cause-and-effect and institutional
implementation (though one expert assigned a lower score to implementation). Experts
held a wider range of views on compliance and targeting as reflected in the scores (2-5).
Participation scored low (1-3).
Score
Causeand-effect
Institutional
implementation
Compliance
Targeting
Participation
5
4
5
5
0.5
Cause-and-effect:
The group highlighted that this was an excellent evidence-based measure for
biodiversity, benefitting small mammals, partridges, ground beetles and noted specific
aims also to create tussocks for over-wintering insects and avoid disturbance to skylarks
and meadow pipits.
Implementation: This measure is easily implemented, but one expert suggested it should
be tweaked to benefit rare arable weeds. The group agreed with this.
Compliance: The margin is visible therefore there should be high compliance
Targeting: This measure is appropriately targeted at tillage farmers.
Participation: There is very low uptake, which makes it difficult to achieve the expected
environmental effects for biodiversity. Given the substantial evidence base for the
effectiveness of arable field margins (in international literature), the experts
recommended that greater participation in this option should be encouraged among
arable farmers.
Option 9d: Low Input Spring Cereals: SM6
26
Overall summary:
Experts broadly agreed on the scores (4-5) allocated to cause-and-effect, institutional
implementation, compliance and targeting (though in the cases of implementation and
targeting, one expert assigned a lower score). Participation scored low (1-3)..
Score
Causeand-effect
Institutional
implementation
Compliance
Targeting
Participation
5
5
5
5
1.5
Cause-and-effect: Experts agreed that this option was an excellent one, which can
provide food for birds and wildlife over winter in grassland farms.
Implementation (and targeting): This measure is intended to mitigate the reduction in
mixed farming and spring cereals. The experts awarded low scores to both criteria due
to the fact that although this measure is targeted at grassland farmers, it is mainly taken
up in areas where tillage is practised. Few grassland farmers select it as a
supplementary measure, therefore the experts recommended that more guidance and
input at the implementation would increase numbers and participation in areas where it
will benefit biodiversity most, i.e. grassland dominated regions.
Targeting: This measure is appropriately targeted at grassland farmers but see comment
above.
Participation: More needs to be done to incentivise grassland farmers to participate in
this measure. There is very low uptake to achieve the expected environmental effects for
biodiversity.
Option 9e: Minimum Tillage SM7
Overall summary:
Experts held a wide range of views on cause-and-effect, institutional implementation and
targeting as the scores indicated (3-5). Most experts agreed on the scores assigned to
compliance (4-5). Participation scored low (1-3).
Score
Causeand-effect
Institutional
implementation
Compliance
Targeting
Participation
5
5
5
5
1
Cause-and-effect:
The group agreed this measure was mainly intended to prevent soil erosion, and
promote nutrient management but two experts also indicated that it could benefit soil
biodiversity.
Participation: There is very low uptake to achieve the expected environmental effects of
the biodiversity objective.
27
Supplementary Measures:
SM1: Conservation of Wild Birds Habitat
Overall summary:
Experts were broadly in agreement, with most criteria scoring 4-5. Participation scores
varied a little more (3-5). Experts judged this measure to be effective. The biggest issue
lay with the title and prescription. The measure is intended for wild birds but is only
available for corncrakes due to funding shortages.
Score
Causeand-effect
Institutional
implementation
Compliance
Targeting
Participation
5
5
5
5
5
Cause-and-effect:
The group highlighted that this was an excellent evidence-based measure but
emphasised that it is a good example of a successfully implemented measure whose
objectives can fail due to external environmental factors i.e. summer flooding in Shannon
Callows.
Implementation:
This option was only available in the Shannon Callows up to REPS 3. REPS 4 extended
it to west Connaught and Donegal, where summer flooding has not been such an issue.
As a priority, the group recommended that the measure be broadened to cover other
vulnerable bird populations.
SM2 see option 8A for relevant comments
SM3: Conservation of Animal Genetic Resources
Overall summary:
Experts all agreed that the prescription was appropriate to achieve the objective of the
measure (cause-and-effect scores were all 5 and compliance scored 4-5); however,
scores varied for implementation and targeting (3-5). Lower scores were assigned to
participation (2-4). This could be altered with more resources to promote participation for
all other breeds apart from equines. While additional funds are always welcome the
group were concerned that wider market forces were influencing the uptake of most
traditional breeds with the exception of the Connemara pony and the Irish draught horse.
More marketing and targeted promotion may help improve the market value of the other
breeds.
Score
Causeand-effect
Institutional
implementation
Compliance
Targeting
Participation
5
5
5
5
3.75*
Cause-and-effect:
28
This measure should make a major contribution to achieving the biodiversity objective;
however the group warned that this might change if the market value of the equine
breeds changed.
Implementation: This measure is easily implemented.
Targeting: This measure is appropriately targeted but it needs to be incentivised as the
success of the measure is due to the market value for the equine breeds.
Participation: There is relatively low uptake to achieve the expected environmental
effects of the biodiversity objective, especially for the non-equine breeds.
SM4: Riparian Zones
Overall summary:
Experts held similar views on cause-and-effect (scores 4-5) but held a wider range of
views on institutional implementation, compliance and targeting as reflected in the
scores (3-5). Participation scored low (1-3).
Score
Causeand-effect
Institutional
implementation
Compliance
Targeting
Participation
4
4
5
3
1
Cause-and-effect:
The group highlighted that this measure had potential benefits for pearl mussel
particularly, if undertaken properly.
Implementation: This measure is easily implemented, but there were concerns about the
long-term management of the buffer zone.
Compliance: The issue of run-off or fertiliser drift getting into the watercourse was raised.
Although the riparian zone is fenced off by the end of the first year to exclude livestock,
and spraying is generally not permissible, experts’ experience of fenced margins was
that fertiliser was still getting into watercourses in some cases. Fears were expressed
that this would continue to happen despite the increased buffer width in a riparian zone
because spraying occurs right up to the fence, and drift from the spray would certainly
reach the buffer strip.
Targeting: This measure is targeted at salmonid, pearl mussel and crayfish rivers, but it
should be incentivised along the entire stretch of a particular watercourse. Such spatial
targeting will not only benefit key species such as salmon, crayfish and freshwater pearl
mussel, but otters too. Research has shown that habitat improvement at the individual
farm scale may benefit mink, whereas habitat improvement by farms contiguous with a
particular watercourse is beneficial to otters (Lundy & Montgomery 2009,2010). The
landscape benefit may be reduced or lost if all farms along a watercourse do not apply
this measure.
Participation: There is very low uptake to achieve the expected environmental effects for
biodiversity.
29
SM5: LINNET
Overall summary:
Experts agreed on the scores (4-5) allocated to cause-and-effect and institutional
implementation (though one expert assigned a lower score to implementation). Experts
held a wide range of views on cause-and-effect, institutional implementation (2-5) and
targeting (1-5). Their scores were closer in agreement for compliance as reflected in the
scores (4-5). Participation scored low (1-3). This measure could be improved with better
targeting and more resources to promote participation.
Score
Causeand-effect
Institutional
implementation
Compliance
Targeting
Participation
5
5
5
1
3.5
Cause-and-effect:
The group highlighted that there was good evidence from research studies in the UK to
support the validity of such approaches for the benefit of grain-feeding birds, especially
those for which grain was a limiting food source in winter.
Implementation:
This measure is easily implemented. However concerns were raised about
interpretation. Greater guidance is needed to ensure that plots are spread across a farm
and away from each other, to ensure the optimum output for biodiversity. At present this
seems to be a grey area. This measure works well in the first two years but more
guidance is needed for years 3-5 to reflect the fact that it gets harder to maintain the
plots. Better implementation might help ensure this measure is taken up in grasslanddominated areas.
Compliance: The plot is visible therefore there should be high compliance; however, the
experts highlighted that the experience on the ground was that plots were placed close
together as the interpretation of the guidance on proximity of plots varied.
Targeting: This measure is appropriately targeted at grassland farmers but it is largely
adopted in tillage areas. For that reason, a low score was agreed.
Participation: There is insufficient uptake to achieve the expected environmental impact.
SM6: see Option 9D for relevant comments
SM7: see Option 9E for relevant comments
30
SM8: Traditional sustainable grazing
Overall summary:
Better management prescriptions and more resources to incentivise participation could
improve this measure.
Score
Causeand-effect
Institutional
implementation
Compliance
Targeting
Participation
3
3
4
5
1
Cause-and-effect:
The emphasis should be placed on sustainable grazing, because traditional grazing is
not necessarily sustainable. Management prescription should change. The measure
currently attempts to prevent undergrazing by allowing overgrazing to occur. The current
stocking rate is too high for many vulnerable habitats e.g. machair, dune grassland,
turloughs and callows. At the current recommended stocking rate, the above habitats
would be damaged. A better option would be to set the current minimum grazing level as
the maximum level.
Implementation:
The wording of the prescription is vague and therefore implementation may suffer. There
is research available on what is an appropriate level of grazing for different habitats,
timing etc. This could be provided in summary form for farmers, with greater detail for
advisors. Training is needed to ensure advisors and farmers can recognize different
types of grassland – e.g. wet and dry grassland. Different ranges of management
practices could be provided to allow some flexibility.
Compliance: There should be high compliance because it should be easy to verify if
traditional breeds are on farm and at appropriate stocking densities. These should be
monitored and modified if necessary.
Targeting: This measure is appropriately targeted at grassland farms with marginal
habitat. With an appropriate prescription, this option could be promoted in High Nature
Value farmland areas.
Participation: Uptake is not sufficient to achieve the expected environmental effects for
biodiversity.
SM9: see Option 2C for relevant comments
SM10: Mixed Grazing
Overall summary:
Experts held a wide range of views on cause-and-effect (0-4) institutional implementation
(2.5-5) and targeting (1-5). Most experts broadly agreed on the scores assigned to
compliance (4-5) and participation (2-3). Overall, the experts considered that this is not
an effective measure for biodiversity.
31
Score
Causeand-effect
Institutional
implementation
Compliance
Targeting
Participation
0
4
4
1.5
5
Cause-and-effect:
The group highlighted that while mixed grazing management has been used to maintain
species-rich grassland, especially on High Nature Value farmland, this prescription will
not achieve the objective of restoring intensive grassland to species-rich grassland. The
experts suggested that the measure should specify reducing sheep numbers. Mixed
grazing in the one field creates different vegetation structures, as long as overgrazing
does not occur. The group expressed serious concerns about the cause-and-effect
relationship for this measure.
Implementation: A criticism of REPS 2 and 3 was that they did not provide sufficient
measures that were appropriate for implementation by hill farmers. This option may have
been designed to remedy that, based on mixed grazing and High Nature Value farmland,
but demonstrates a misunderstanding about mixed grazing. The current prescriptions for
stocking densities are high, and are likely to result in overgrazing.
Compliance: There should be high compliance because an inspector must be able to
see cattle and sheep in same field.
Targeting: This measure is appropriately targeted at land in danger of abandonment.
However it is a popular measure on intensive sheep farms, which are less likely to have
difficulties with land abandonment. Targeting therefore needs to be directed at specific
areas of the country where land abandonment is a recognised problem. If the measure
stipulates that sheep numbers should be reduced, in line with additional cattle, this
option may result in higher participation by both sheep farmers and hill-farmers.
Participation: Uptake appears to be high in the west of Ireland and other areas where
sheep farming predominates.
32
Comparison of measures and options
In this section, we collate the results from the individual measures and options (from
above) to better facilitate their comparison.
The distribution of scores among the scoring categories (Fig. 1) varied considerably
among the different assessment criteria. The cause-and-effect criterion was dominated
by scores in the highest category, although there were several measures/options that
received very low scores. The implementation criterion was distributed across scores
from 2 to 5, indicating many measures/options with implementation that can be
improved. Scores for the compliance criterion were generally high. The targeting criterion
was dominated by scores in the 5 category. The participation criterion had a distinct
distribution with many measures/options for which the experts considered to be
adequate, and many others that were considered to have such low participation as to
completely or almost completely limit the achievement of the associated environmental
objective.
The separate presentation of the distributions of scores facilitates an overview of which
criteria are generally performing best. Alternatively, it can indicate which criterion is
generally most in need of improvement, although some care is required about whether
all criteria are equally important e.g. one might prioritise the criteria for cause-and-effect
and participation.
To facilitate an assessment and comparison of the overall performance of individual
measures, we assume that the multiple criteria that produce environmental effects act
dependently i.e. if one of the criteria completely fails, then the aggregate environmental
output is nil. This corresponds to a multiplicative relationship among the criteria, which
can be represented as a geometric mean of the different criteria scores for an individual
option. Thus, the geometric mean can be used as an overall estimate of the
environmental effect of an option.
The estimated environmental performance of the different options and supplementary
measures is presented in Fig. 2. This should be used as a guide of the relative
environmental effectiveness of different options; it is likely that the small changes in a
few scores would result in some shift in the rank order of the measures. Nevertheless,
the rank order is likely to represent broad patterns of the estimated effectiveness of the
different options.
About half of the measures/options have a value <3.5. Some combinations of factor
scores that result in a value of about 3.5 include: [1, 5, 5, 5, 5]; [3, 3, 3, 4, 5]; [2, 3, 4, 5,
5]; [2, 2, 5, 5, 5,] and of course [3.5, 3.5, 3.5, 3.5, 3.5]. Thus, for options with a value of
about 3.5, there are usually three or four criteria displaying some deficiencies (at best),
or one or two criteria that display serious deficiencies (a score <2). The quantitative and
qualitative information for each individual option indicates where the most obvious
deficiencies occur, according to the experts (see above).
33
Causality
Percentage Distribution
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
Scores
Compliance
70
70
60
60
Percentage Distribution
Percentage Distribution
Implementation
50
40
30
20
10
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
0
1
2
3
4
0
5
1
2
4
5
3
4
5
Scores
Scores
Participation
Targeting
70
70
60
Percentage Distribution
Percentage Distribution
3
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
1
2
3
Scores
4
5
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
1
2
Scores
Figure 1. Percentage distribution of scores
across all five criteria for each measure or option (n=33). Categories (0 = 0 – 0.99, 1 = 1
– 1.99, 2 = 2 – 2.99, 3 = 3 – 3.99, 4 = 4 – 4.99, 5=5)
34
REPS
measures
and
options
SM1
5d
4b
SM3
5c
4d
3b
8b
SM6
9d
5b
5a
SM7
9e
2d
SM5
7a
SM9
2c
3a
SM2
8a
9c
SM4
SM8
2a
9a
4c
2e
4a
2b
SM10
3c
0
1
2
3
4
5
Geometric mean
Figure 2. Estimated relative environmental effectiveness of biodiversity measures and
options based on experts’ judgements. Bars represent the geometric mean of scores of
assessment criteria, where higher scores indicate better environmental performance.
35
Discussion
In addition to eliciting quantitative data on each of the assessment criteria, the experts’
discussions provided a rich source of qualitative information that clarified and justified
the quantitative score for each criterion, especially those with low values. Such
information explained and gave insight into the experts’ justifications of why a measure
was considered to deliver sub-optimal levels of environmental effectiveness.
Importantly, this approach can contribute to learning how to improve the environmental
effectiveness of the measures. Based on the value of the qualitative information,
therefore, we believe that the process of conducting the expert consultation can be a
significant opportunity for scheme designers to learn how to improve (a key aim of
evaluation). Of course, it also assists the aim of evaluators not just to assess the current
environmental status of AESs, but also to suggest modifications to enhance
environmental performance.
Finn et al. (2008) discuss in further detail how expert panels can be used for learning
how to improve agri-environment schemes with a number of examples, as follows:
1. In the design stage of a new scheme (or new policy cycle), the assessment criteria
used above could be used as a checklist to ensure that important attributes of
environmental performance are not omitted from consideration.
2. Ex ante (or mid-term) evaluation could use experts judgements’ of the assessment
criteria to predict the likelihood of environmental effectiveness of measures in the
proposed scheme design. Such an approach could harness the expertise of ecological
and environmental experts in a systematic manner, and highlight measures for which
there is more uncertainty about the effectiveness.
3. Ex post evaluation could also benefit from the use of experts’ expertise to attain a
consistent and valid synthesis and interpretation of the effectiveness of measures. A
consistent evaluation could use experts’ judgement of available empirical data as a basis
for scoring elements of a policy against the key criteria that underpin the delivery of
environmental effectiveness.
4. Once a new scheme (or new policy cycle) is implemented, unforeseen problems may
arise. The quicker a scheme identifies necessary changes for improvement, and the
more responsive it can be in implementing recommended changes, and the more likely it
is to be effective. The use of experts’ judgements to conduct a rapid evaluation would
address a genuine need to learn about the progress of a scheme, and would seem
particularly appropriate soon (e.g. one year) after the implementation of new or
substantially modified schemes.
It is important to stress that the measure of environmental effectiveness presented in
Fig. 2 is an estimate, based on the best available evidence to the experts, and including
a strong element of tacit knowledge. This methodology does not remove the need for
measurement of the environmental performance of schemes. However, when
environmental monitoring detects a failure to achieve the expected level of
environmental performance, this methodology can help to more specifically identify the
36
reason for such failure. In addition, the best implementation of this methodology will be
achieved when experts’ judgements are based on a collation of relevant evidence from
research studies. In these ways, we see this methodology as complementing the
research and monitoring that should be conducted as part of the effective environmental
evaluation of AESs.
Lessons learned
While many measures/options are not performing as they should, the results highlight at
least one and often two features that need to be modified in order to improve the
effectiveness of the measures. In many cases, the biggest issue is that participation is
insufficient to achieve the objective of the measure.
In the Results section (above), we presented detailed comments from the experts on
specific measures and options. At a higher level of scheme design that takes a more
holistic perspective across the different measures and options, several overarching
issues arose during the discussion among the experts.
Several comments addressed the overall structure of REPS:
• A significant proportion of the REPS planners’ time has been devoted to the
implementation of Measure 1 (Nutrient Management Plan), and the experts
highlighted several benefits of removing this measure from REPS. This is not
because such issues are unimportant, but because they address crosscompliance only, generate a small payment (for soil sampling and analysis), and
detract attention from the wildlife elements of the REPS plan.
• One expert suggested removing all of the options that apply under cross
compliance in order to place a greater focus on wildlife and emphasise the
positive contribution that can be made to safeguarding biodiversity.
• Another suggestion was to move away from the one-size-fits-all approach in
favour of a more tiered approach; however, there were also strong
recommendations not to provide more options.
• The experts suggested that the current implementation of REPS can facilitate
choices that may produce relatively small benefits for biodiversity. The REPS
format should be able to create a package of measures that would be tailored to
the environmental priorities on a farm and optimise the benefits for biodiversity
depending on its location, and farm type. For example a suite of riparian
measures – e.g. riverside margins (3a) should be undertaken by all farms on
banks of any river or other large watercourse, and such farmers should be
precluded from selecting less relevant options for their farm e.g. adding clover to
a grassland sward (this is also relevant to issues that address targeting and
institutional implementation)
The experts suggested that the scheme would benefit from better decision-support
systems to improve the spatial targeting of measures/options.
• Experts questioned whether the achievement of targeting and linkage of specific
environmental objectives to regional areas should be planned at the design stage
of the scheme (incorporating it as part of institutional implementation) rather than
simply being at the discretion of individual planners? Such an approach would
prioritise different objectives that reflect the most pressing environmental issues
in different areas (e.g. at the county-or provincial scale. For an example from the
37
UK, see Natural England (2010).
in some cases, there is relatively little financial incentive to select options that
may require more input or time. At the least, measures and options should
ensure that they fully pay for farmers’ costs (direct costs and transaction costs) to
reduce any financial obstacles to undertaking what are perceived to be more
demanding options.
•
The need for targeting arises due to the one-size-fits-all approach that
characterises the REPS. Targeting may be achieved through regional objectives
and priorities (see above) but also through targeting of named farming systems.
Thus, there could be clearly differentiated priorities for intensive dairy systems,
extensive beef systems, lowland pasture, coastal grassland, uplands etc with a
corresponding differentiation of appropriate measures/options. The benefits
arising from most options will differ across those farmland systems, and a way
that depends on the conservation status of the habitats on the farm and the
biodiversity targeted.
In addition, the experts considered how the biodiversity objectives in REPS might be
afforded higher priority and targeting:
• Greater clarity is needed in the environmental objectives. The intention of the
objectives is sometimes non-specific and difficult to interpret. Titles often suggest
one intended outcome while the prescriptions indicate a somewhat different one–
e.g. species-rich grassland, traditional hay meadows and traditional sustainable
grazing.
• Not all biodiversity options are targeted at named species and habitats. Even
where this detail is clear, the experts indicated a lack of correspondence between
many of the biodiversity objectives selected by REPS and the biodiversity
objectives associated with protected or vulnerable habitats and species at localand/or national-scale (see below).
• More specific measures with more specific aims and prescriptions should be
made available to target species at greatest risk of extinction.
• The experts suggested that management prescriptions for Measure A farmland
habitats (Natura 2000, SAC, SPA, NHA) may not be sufficient to restore or
maintain habitats in favourable conservation status (see also NPWS 2008).
• The REPS could better differentiate between the aim of protecting and managing
existing habitats and that of creating new habitat. More advice is needed on
when to conserve and protect habitats or when to opt for creating new habitats.
Conservation should have higher priority in high value habitats such as speciesrich grassland or traditional hay meadows.
• The experts pointed to examples of environmental marketing where the high
biodiversity value of farmland is linked to a commercial product from that farm or
that area (e.g. in the Burren, West Cork, Yorkshire and France). In this way,
farmers and consumers link the value of an existing habitat or species to the
quality and price of the product. There are several added benefits to this
approach. The link between biodiversity and farm products encourages bottomup support for environmental quality. It encourages farmers’ knowledge of the
habitat or species, beneficial management management, and likely threats and
risks.
38
Value-for-money
Although this study focused on the assessment of environmental effectiveness, it is
difficult to assess agri-environment schemes without some consideration of their
economic efficiency. Although this issue is beyond the scope of this study, our results
impinge on any assessment. Indeed, this is a topical issue, as the value-for-money of
REPS was mentioned in the Report of the Special Group on Public Service Numbers
and Expenditure Programmes:
It would be timely to conduct another in-depth value-for-money review of the
scheme for the effectiveness of REPS in protecting water courses, supporting the
rural environment, highlighting impacts on biodiversity particularly in sensitive
regions, as well as the impact on the economy in rural areas. The outcome of the
review should inform decisions on the future scope and shape of the REPS
Scheme in Ireland.
(McCarthy et al. 2009, Vol II, p. 12)
Some general remarks may highlight the relationship between environmental
effectiveness and costs, and how an understanding of this relationship may inform
decision-making. Here, we assume that the total costs only represent the total payments
made for a measure (the product of participating hectares and per hectare rate), rather
than the cost per hectare for a measure (and we ignore public and private transaction
costs). In general, any measure that has low or no effectiveness will not achieve the
intended objective, and therefore deliver poor value-for-money. In general, measures
that address higher priority objectives would be expected to be allocated more funding
than low priority objectives. In this way, the priority level of the objectives is another
important factor in decision-making on value-for-money, and a further justification for the
clear prioritisation of different objectives (Finn et al. 2009, Finn 2010.
Effective measures that are associated with low costs and address highest priority
objectives represent (in this example) the ideal from the perspective of policymakers and
the efficient use of public funds (Fig. 3, bottom right). Ineffective measures associated
with high costs (Fig. 3, top left) should be a priority for evaluation and identification of
remedial action. For measures with medium effectiveness, those that are low- or
medium-cost represent an opportunity to improve effectiveness (without increasing the
cost). Measures with high effectiveness and high total costs (Fig. 3, top right) could be
examined to determine whether there is a lower-cost option that does not compromise
effectiveness (Fig. 3, bottom right).
39
Very low value
Good to high
value for higher
priority objectives
Low to
medium value
Excellent value
total
cost
effectiveness
Figure 3. Illustration of the value-for-money implications of different combinations of
environmental effectiveness and total cost of a measure.
Strategic objectives
Finn (2010) pointed out that:
“Ultimately, it is only by their contribution to national-scale priority issues that
the success of agri-environment schemes can be judged. It is important to
point out that monitoring of implemented measures can only assess the extent
to which measures fulfil their immediate objectives for each individual
measure; it is the role of evaluation to conduct an overarching judgement of
whether the initial choice of measures was appropriate to achieve the
objectives of a scheme, and that the scheme objectives themselves address
national priorities for e.g. biodiversity, water quality and mitigation of climate
change. This issue is summarised in the distinction between doing the right job
versus doing the job right, which contrasts strategic decision-making (that
informs task selection) with the proper execution of tasks.”
The biodiversity goals of agri-environment schemes might be expected to reflect stated
policy priorities as provided in e.g. Biodiversity Action Plans, Ireland’s National
Biodiversity Plan (www.npws.ie), the National Strategy for Plant Conservation
(http://www.botanicgardens.ie/gspc/inspc.htm) and the Rural Development Programme.
For example, schemes supported by modulation funds are intended to address specific
challenges that include climate change, renewable energies, water management and
biodiversity. For biodiversity, halting the loss of biodiversity and protection of High Nature
Value farmland are headline performance indicators. A consideration of such policies
and appropriate consultation should guide the prioritisation of the different types of
biodiversity that policymakers can choose to prioritise. A greater differentiation of
farmland biodiversity could include, for example:
- priority habitats that occur on Natura 2000 sites;
- priority habitats that occur outside of Natura 2000 sites e.g. traditional lowland
hay meadows, calcareous grasslands and many others;
- rare and threatened species that are named in Red Data Books;
- species that receive legislative protection and are listed on the Wildlife Act, 1976,
the Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 2000 and the European Union (Natural Habitats)
Regulations, S.I. 94/1997 (as amended S.I. 233/1998 & S.I. 378/2005),
40
Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) e.g. barn
owl, otter, natterjack toad, marsh fritillary;
- other rare and threatened species;
- species that are declining, but are not yet rare or threatened;
- common farmland habitats;
- common farmland species (e.g. frog, hedgehog, cowslip, wren);
- creation of farmland habitat to support named species;
- creation of common farmland habitats
- minor restoration of common farmland habitats.
In July 2009, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced the closure of
REPS 4 to new entrants. However, there will continue to be a significant number of
REPS 4 participants (and associated expenditure) up to 2013. A new agri-environment
scheme will take effect in 2010, although the details of objectives, implementation and
budget are not yet clear. An outline of the new agri-environment scheme was released
on 7th August 2009. All of the 20 proposed measures (as of August 2009) have been
previously available as basic measures, supplementary measures or options in REPS 4
(Table 1). The new scheme will not be a whole-farm scheme.
The issues raised by the experts would be relevant to any evaluation of the design and
structure of existing measures that may be included in future agri-environment schemes.
However, highest priority should go towards :
•
strengthening links between the biodiversity objectives of REPS and national
conservation priorities. This will be necessary to meet the new EU target of
halting biodiversity loss by 2020, and;
•
monitoring and measuring the environmental effectiveness of REPS. Where
necessary, monitoring would also learning how improve any measures with
deficiencies. Most importantly, the aim of monitoring would be to demonstrate the
environmental benefit of well-designed measures and options.
Acknowledgements
We thank the members of the panel of experts for their valuable contribution.
This is a joint project between Teagasc and NUI Galway. Funding was provided under
the National Development Plan, through the Research Stimulus Fund, administered by
the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
41
References
Aughney, T. and Gormally, M. (2002). The nature conservation of lowland farm
habitats on REPS and non-REPS farms in County Galway and the use of traditional farm
methods for habitat management under the Rural Environment Protection Scheme
(REPS). Tearmann: Irish Journal of Agri-Environmental Research, 2: 1-14.
Carey, P.D., Manchester, S.J. and G. Firbank, L.G. (2005). Performance of two agrienvironment schemes in England: a comparison of ecological and multi-disciplinary
evaluations. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 108: 178–188.
DAFF. (2007a). REPS Facts and Figures 2007. Dept. of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,
Dublin.
Dover, J. and Settele, J. (2009). The influences of landscape structure on butterfly
distribution and movement: a review. Journal of Insect Conservation, 13:3–27.
Feehan, J., Gillmor, D. and Culleton, N. (2005) Effects of an agri-environment scheme
on farmland biodiversity in Ireland. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 107: 275286.
Finn, J.A. (2010) Monitoring the environmental impacts of the Rural Environmental
Protection Scheme: a scoping study. End-of-project report for RMIS project 5757.
Teagasc, Oak Park.
Finn, J.A., Bourke, D., Kurz, I. and Dunne, L. (2007). Estimating the environmental
performance of agri-environmental schemes via use of expert consultations. Final Report
for EU FP6 ITAES project.
http://merlin.lusignan.inra.fr/ITAES/website/Publicdeliverables/WP5%20Final%20Report.
pdf (Accessed March 2009).
Finn J.A., Kurz, I. and Bourke, D. (2008). Multiple factors control the environmental
effectiveness of agri-environment schemes: implications for design and evaluation.
Tearmann: Irish Journal of Agri-Environmental Research, 6: 45-56.
Finn, J.A., Bartolini, F., Kurz, I., Bourke, D. and Viaggi, D. (2009). Ex post
environmental evaluation of agri-environment schemes using experts’ judgement and
multicriteria analysis. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52: 717-737.
Haddad, N.M. and Tewksbury, J.J. (2005). Low-quality habitat corridors as movement
conduits for two butterfly species. Ecological Applications, 15: 250-257.
Humbert, J-Y., Ghazoul, J. & Walter, T. (2009). Meadow harvesting techniques and
their impacts on field fauna. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 130:1–8.
42
Kapos, V., Balmford, A., Aveling, R., Bubb, P., Carey, P., Entwistle, A., Hopkins, J.,
Mulliken, T., Safford, R., Stattersfield, A., Walpole, M. and Manica, A. (2009).
Outcomes, not implementation, predict conservation success. Oryx, 43: 336-342.
Kleijn, D. and Sutherland W.J. (2003). How effective are European agri-environment
schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? Journal of Applied Ecology, 40: 94769.
Kleijn, D., Baquero, R.A., Clough, Y., Diaz, M., De Esteban, J., Fernandez, F.,
Gabriel, D., Herzog, F., Holzschuh, A., Johl, R., Knop, E., Kruess, A., Marshall,
E.J.P., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Tscharntke, T., Verhulst, J., West, T.M. and Yela, J.L.
(2006). Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri-environment schemes in five European
countries. Ecology Letters, 9: 243-54.
Lalor, S. (2008). Slurry application management for optimum fertilizer value. In National
REPS Conference 2008: Helping to build sustainable Rural Communities pp. 73-80.
Teagasc.
Lalor, S. & Schulte, R. (2008). Slurry application using trailing shoe - potential benefits
come at a price. In TResearch, Vol. 3. pp. 35-37. Teagasc: Oak Park, Carlow.
Lundy, M. and Montgomery, I. (2009). Habitat associations of riparian mammals. First
All Ireland Mammal Symposium, Waterford. November 2009.
Lundy, M. and Montgomery, I. (2010). Summer habitat associations of bats between
riparian landscapes and within riparian areas. European Journal of Wildlife Research,
56: 385-394
McCarthy C. et al. (2009). Report of the Special Group on Public Service Numbers and
Expenditure Programmes. Government of Ireland Publication, Dublin.
Natural
England
(2010).
Higher
Level
Stewardship
Targeting.
http://www.naturalengland.gov.uk/ourwork/farming/funding/es/hls/targeting/default.aspx
NPWS (2008). The Status of EU Protected Habitats and Species in Ireland. National
Parks and Wildlife Service.
O’Brien, M., Spillane, C., Meade, C, and Mullins, E. (2008). An insight into the impact
of arable farming on Irish biodiversity: A scarcity of studies hinders a rigorous
assessment. Biology and Environment: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 108B:
97–108.
Potts, S.G., Bradbury, R.B., Mortimer, S.R. and Woodcock, B.A. (2006).
Commentary on Kleijn et al. Ecology Letters, 9: 254-256.
43
Primdahl, J., Peco, B., Schramek, J., Andersen, E. and Oñate, J.J. (2003).
Environmental effects of agri-environment schemes in Western Europe. Journal of
Environmental Management, 67: 129-138.
Sheridan, H., Finn, J.A., Culleton, N. and O’Donovan, G. (2008). Plant and
invertebrate diversity in grassland field margins. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment, 123: 225-232.
Sheridan, H., Finn, J.A. and O’ Donovan, G. (2009). Botanical rejuvenation of
grassland field margins and benefits for invertebrate fauna. Biology and Environment:
Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 109B: 95–106.
Sutcliffe, O.L., Bakkestuen, V., Fry, G. and Stabbetorp, O.E. (2003). Modelling the
benefits of farmland restoration: methodology and application to butterfly
movement. Landscape and Urban Planning, 63: 15–31
Van Rensburg, T.M., Murphy, E. and Rocks, P. (2009). Commonage land and farmer
uptake of the Rural Environment Protection Scheme in Ireland. Land Use Policy, 26:
345–355.
Wood B.C. and Pullin A.S. (2002). Persistence of species in a fragmented urban
landscape; the importance of dispersal ability and habitat availability for grassland
butterflies. Biodiversity Conservation, 11: 1451–1468
44
Appendix 1
Scoring criteria used to judge effectiveness of each measure or option:
Features
Cause and Effect
Workability*
(5/5) (fit for
purpose
achievement,
not
an
unattainable
goal)
The measure should
make
a
major
contribution towards
delivering
the
environmental
objective.
Measure
participation
wholly or almost
wholly matches
the distribution
of the relevant
environmental
need/impact
More than enough farms
undertake measure to
provide maximum levels of
the objective. Participation
exceeds the level required
to achieve the expected
environmental effects of
the stated objective.
Score of 4/5
The measure should
Measure
make a moderate to
participation
major
contribution
mostly matches
towards
delivering
the distribution
the
environmental
of the relevant
objective.
The
environmental
need/impact.
management
prescriptions
are
mostly appropriate to
achieve the objective,
with
some
deficiencies.
The measure should Quality
of The measure is Measure
make a moderate implementation
usually
Participation
contribution towards by
responsible implemented
usually matches
Participation rates provide
all or almost all of the
expected
environmental
effects of the stated
objective.
Score of 3/5
Quality
of Degree
or
institutional
extent
of
implementation
farmer
compliance
High quality of Implementation
implementation
of
measure
by
responsible wholly or almost
institutions
wholly
in
accordance
with
management
prescriptions.
No
deviation
occurs.
Quality
of The measure is
implementation
mostly
by
responsible implemented
institutions
is according to the
management
medium to high.
prescriptions.
Minor
deviations may
occur.
Degree
of Degree of Participation
targeting
to
distribution
Participation rates provide
a
moderate
to
high
proportion of the expected
45
delivering
the institutions
environmental
medium.
objective.
The
management
prescriptions
are
appropriate
to
achieve the objective,
with
several
deficiencies.
Score of 2/5
The measure should
make a minor to
moderate
contribution towards
delivering
the
environmental
objective.
The
management
prescriptions
are
limited in their ability
to
achieve
the
objective,
with
several deficiencies.
Score of 1/5
The
measure
or
option should make a
minor
contribution
towards
delivering
the
environmental
objective.
The
management
prescriptions
are
is according to the
management
prescriptions.
Significant
deviations often
occur.
the distribution
of the relevant
environmental
need/impact. A
significant
amount
of
participation
falls outside the
distribution
of
the
relevant
environmental
need.
Quality
of The measure is Participation
implementation
seldom
appears
random
in
by
responsible implemented
institutions is low according to the relation to the
management
to medium
distribution
of
prescriptions.
the
relevant
Significant
environmental
deviations
need/impact.
usually occur.
environmental effects
the stated objective.
Quality
of
implementation
by
responsible
institutions is low.
Participation rates provide
only a negligible proportion
of
the
expected
environmental effects of
the stated objective.
The measure or
option is rarely
implemented
according to the
management
prescriptions.
Significant
deviations
Participation
mostly fails to
match
the
distribution
of
the
relevant
environmental
need/impact.
of
Participation rates provide
a low proportion of the
expected
environmental
effects of the stated
objective.
46
Score of 0/5
limited in their ability
to
achieve
the
objective,
and
possess
several
major deficiencies.
The
measure
or
option
does
not
contribute to
the
environmental
objective.
almost
occur.
The responsible
institutions fail to
achieve
appropriate
implementation.
always
The measure or
option is not
implemented
according to the
management
prescriptions.
Significant
deviations
always occur.
Participation
There is no participation
completely fails
to match the
distribution
of
the
relevant
environmental
need/impact.
47
Appendix 2
Table 1a. List of biodiversity options in REPS 3 and REPS 4 and whether they
were included in this study
Biodiversity
option
2A
2B
2C
2D
2E
3A
3B
3C
4A
4B
4C
4D
5A
5B
5C
5D
7A
8A
8B
9A
9B
9C
9D
9E
Title
Traditional Hay Meadows
Species-rich Grassland
Use of Clover in Grassland
Swards
Use of Trailing Shoe Technology
Control of Invasive Species
Increased Watercourse Margin
Exclude bovine access to
watercourses
Use of Planted Buffer Zones
Creation of a New Habitat
Broad Leaved Tree Planting
Nature Corridors
Farm Woodland Establishment
Hedgerow Coppicing
Hedgerow Laying
New Hedgerow Establishment
Additional Stonewall Maintenance
Increase in Archaeological Buffer
Margins
Traditional Irish Orchards
Bird and Bat Boxes
Green Cover Establishment
Environmental Management of
Setaside
Increased Arable Margins
Low Input Spring Cereals
Minimum-tillage
Notes
Contribution
REPS 3 & 4
REPS 3 & 4
Only REPS4
Included
Included
Included
Only REPS4
Only REPS4
REPS 3 & 4
REPS 3 & 4
Included
Included
Included
Included
Only REPS4
REPS 3 & 4
REPS 3 & 4
REPS 3 & 4
Only REPS4
REPS 3 & 4
Only REPS4
REPS 3 & 4
REPS 3 & 4
REPS 3 & 4
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Only REPS4
Only REPS4
REPS 3 & 4
REPS 3 & 4 but
now ended
REPS 3 & 4
Only REPS4
Only REPS4
Included
Included
Included
Excluded
Included
Included
Included
48
Table 1b. Supplementary measures in REPS 3 and REPS 4 and details about their
inclusion in this study
Code
Supplementary measure
Notes
Contribution
SM1
SM2
Wild Bird Habitats
Traditional Irish Orchard
REPS 3 & 4
REPS 3 & 4
SM3
Conservation of Animal Genetic
Resources
Riparian zones - Salmon/Crayfish, pearl
mussel
LINNET habitats
Organic Farming
REPS 3 & 4
Included
Same as
option 8A
Included
REPS 3 & 4
Included
REPS 3 & 4
REPS 3 only
Included
Excluded
Low Input Cereals
Only REPS4
SM7
Minimum-Tillage
Only REPS4
SM8
SM9
Only REPS4
Only REPS4
SM10
SM11
Traditional Sustainable Grazing
Incorporation of clover into grassland
swards
Mixed Grazing
Lakes and Catchments
SM12
Heritage Buildings
Only REPS4
Same as
option 9D
Same as
option 9E
Included
Same as
option 2C
Included
Pilot
excluded
Excluded
SM4
SM5
SM6
2007
SM6
Only REPS4
Only REPS4
49
50