Farmers and the Environment Assessing the Factors That Affect Farmers’ Willingness and Ability to Cooperate with Biodiversity Policies
Dr Mark Toogood Karen Gilbert Sandra Rientjes
Case studies and other material contributed by the BIOfACT project team: Dr Floor Brouwer, Dr Rolf Groeneveld, Dr José Antonio Manzanera, Dr Matti Nieminen, Dr Rosemarie Siebert, Klará Szekér, Dr Teunis van Rheenen, and Juan Urbano Lopez de Meneses Illustrations by Lawrence Jones-Walters BIOfACT Advisory Committee:
Noelle Aarts, Wageningen UR Andrew Clark, COPA-COGECA Mark Felton, English Nature Begoña Peco, Autonomous University of Madrid 2004 © ECNC: No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of ECNC. ISBN 90-76762-19-8
Contents Foreword
4
Introduction
6
1
Farmers and Biodiversity Policy
2
Factors Influencing Farmers’ Participation in Biodiversity Policy
8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
3
Farmers, Policy Processes and Biodiversity Policy
1 2 3 4
Introduction Factors that affect farmers’ participation Choosing the right policy instruments Economic incentives for participation Policy design Effective communication increases participation Farming knowledge, farming culture Farm characteristics Individual characteristics of the farmer Positive and negative impacts of factors on farmers’ participation
12 12 13 16 16 19 22 25 25 25
Introduction The policy cycle Interactive policymaking Stakeholders and networks Guide for interactive policymaking and stakeholder involvement
28 28 31 32 33
Conclusion
38
References
39
BIOfACT
40
Project Team Contacts Abbreviations and acronyms
40
3
Foreword
Farmers are among the main guardians of the landscapes and habitats upon which the majority of European biodiversity depends for its existence. It is, therefore, highly important to support farmers to adopt practices that contribute to sustainable agriculture and promote biodiversity protection. To date, the main way the European Union and Member States have sought to encourage farmers to protect and conserve nature has been through specific, sometimes geographically categorized schemes which pay farmers for undertaking certain activities beneficial to nature going beyond good farming practice. Farmers’ participation in these schemes, as the BIOfACT research points out, is often driven by economic factors. However, whilst economic factors are crucial to allow changes in farming to be made, it is important to consider the other factors that affect farmers’ decision making about getting involved in biodiversity initiatives. BIOfACT provides a valuable overview of the other key factors that relate to farmers’ participation, including the social, cultural, and geographical factors.
Michael Hamell European Commission Head of Agriculture – DG Environment
4
• This book is based on the BIOfACT research project which was funded as an Accompanying Measure under the European Union’s 5th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (Thematic Programme: Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources - Key Action 5: Sustainable Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry). The BIOfACT project was coordinated by the European Centre for Nature Conservation (ECNC). • The book is primarily written for policymakers involved in biodiversity policy from the European to the local level as well as those in national and regional institutions responsible for policy implementation. • The purpose of the book is to help increase farmers’ participation in biodiversity programmes. • The book focuses on the factors involved in farmers’ participation or non-participation in biodiversity policy. We recognize the importance of involving people, especially land managers, in developing and implementing biodiversity policies. Hence this document focuses strongly on the interactive process leading to the development and implementation of biodiversity policies.
5
Introduction
The purpose of this book is to assist policymakers in increasing the participation of farmers in biodiversity programmes and in assisting farmers to incorporate biodiversity programmes into their agricultural practice. It is a product of the BIOfACT project: a collaborative research project between institutions from Finland, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK. The research was commissioned by the European Commission as part of the Fifth Framework Programme, Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources - Key Action 5: Sustainable Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Integrated Development of Rural Areas Including Mountain Areas. It is widely acknowledged that farmers‘ willingness and ability to participate in undertaking conservation activities will have a significant impact on the future level of success of biodiversity policies. When surveyed as part of the research that forms the basis of this book, 67% of respondent national decision makers thought that, currently, farmers are insufficiently involved in biodiversity policy. This book aims to provide insight into what is known about farmers as land managers: the individuals and groups of individuals on the ground who play a key role in shaping Europe’s biodiversity and rural environments, and their involvement in biodiversity policies. In particular it will focus on factors affecting the willingness and ability of farmers to participate in biodiversity policies. Better understanding of these factors is important to improving the conservation and agricultural policy at European, national or regional levels. Insights into what motivates a farmer to get involved in conservation and enhancement of biodiversity may inform the creation of policies more likely to be understood and endorsed by farmers. Of course, the individual farmer’s involvement in biodiversity policy is greatly influenced and structured by the policy circles that generally work beyond his or her direct experience. This policy world includes expert groups, scientists, decision makers at all geographical levels as well as farmers’ representatives such as unions. We take this wider policy process into account as well. There is a range of tools and instruments that policymakers can use for achieving biodiversity policy aims: legislation and regulation; direct payments; codes of practice; training and advice, communication and education programmes. This book investigates these instruments and gives recommendations concerning
6
their relevance and most appropriate use when aiming to ensure farmers’ involvement in biodiversity policies. The European research literature primarily focuses upon farmers’ relationship to instruments promoting voluntary land management, and the BIOfACT research reflects this.
Chapter 1 of this book sets out the context of the research: the role of farmers in biodiversity policy.
Chapter 2 provides an overview of the factors, especially noneconomic factors, that affect the willingness and ability of farmers to participate in biodiversity conservation policies.
Chapter 3 is an analysis of how the biodiversity policy process could take account of the above factors in a way likely to enhance farmers’ participation. This analysis may increase the effectiveness of policy by providing better measures and instruments appropriate to specific regional and local contexts.
Summary of the BIOfACT project The research for this handbook was carried out in six EU member countries (Finland, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK). The research consisted of the following: • a systematic overview of currently available knowledge concerning relevant factors and variables influencing farmers’ involvement in biodiversity or biodiversityrelated instruments. The project analysed 160 studies produced within the policy and academic domains, which directly researched farmers. Reviews for each country in the BIOfACT study are available from the project website (via www.ecnc.org); • a survey of 183 national policymakers including those officers on the ground responsible for implementing policy, plus interviews with 27 national and international decision makers. This survey is available from the project website (via www.ecnc.org). This project was a ‘Coordination Action’ and, therefore, aimed to pull together knowledge and networks of researchers and policymakers within Europe. By definition, as a Coordination Action, the project did not set out to undertake new research into farmers’ attitudes. Based on six European countries and EU-level research, general findings emerge from BIOfACT, which are relevant to all Member States.
7
1 Farmers and Biodiversity Policy
Over the last 40 years, food has become relatively less expensive. At the same time, public concern about the harmful effects of modern agriculture on biodiversity, landscapes and the well-being of rural society has increased. The original five objectives for European agriculture as set out in Article 33 of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) focused upon increases in productivity, optimal utilization of the factors of production, increased standard of living of producers, the stabilization of markets and the guarantee of food at reasonable prices to consumers. However, the modernization of agriculture and food supply has contributed to a ‘rural crisis’ of over-production and of profitability jeopardising sustainability. This has resulted in environmental degradation, loss of biodiversity, and negative changes in rural society. In parts of the expanded EU, there are also pressing issues surrounding the restructuring of farming and the prospects of vast numbers of small, semi-subsistence farmers having to adapt to modern demands. A central issue for EU rural policy is to determine how such economically and politically marginalized farmers can be encouraged to protect and enhance the high nature value of their land. Such farmers often deliver the highest biodiversity and landscape benefits. A new ethos for the reform of agriculture in the EU has emerged, one that emphasizes agriculture’s multifunctionality and responds to the needs of society. This ethos is being considered not only in economic terms, but also by protecting natural resources, conserving nature and contributing to aspirations for a progressively more diverse rural socio-economy. This is the new European model of agriculture, an approach that continues to be advanced through the 2nd Pillar of the CAP.1
1
See, for example, the Rural
Development Regulation (published in draft by the Commission on 15 July 2004)
8
Since the McSharry reforms of the CAP in 1992, the Agenda 2000 reforms of 1999, and the more recent Mid Term Review (MTR), direct aids to farmers have been advanced by the European Commission. This is partly because they offer possibilities of providing support to farmers in return for the provision of public goods in the rural environment, especially the protection and improvement of biodiversity. Also, since 1992, the EU and many Member States have adopted biodiversity strategies which recognize that the rural environment supports the greater part of Europe’s biodiversity. A central aim of these strategies has been to establish biodiversity as a major consideration within all areas of private and public economic activity. As agriculture
Conservation (designated under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)) will be subject to enhanced rules above and beyond GAEC.
represents 50% of the land use activity in Europe, food and agriculture policies have increasingly aimed to encourage the management of farmland so as to lower the negative effects of farming and to conserve and increase biodiversity. Indeed, European biodiversity protection will not be achieved unless European agriculture fully integrates biodiversity imperatives. Governments have used a range of policy responses to this broad aim that include mandatory cross-compliance and market instruments. It is worth examining some of these instruments. Firstly, under reforms to the 1st Pillar of the CAP, farmers will be subject to minimum cross-compliance conditions (known as Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions – GAEC) in order to access their subsidy payments. (These requirements are regarded as generally undemanding on the farmer.) Certain of these conditions relate to compliance with a range of EU directives. Secondly, new and enhanced regulations have increased powers to protect species and high nature value sites.
Thirdly, there are programmes which are not primarily aimed at biodiversity maintenance and enhancement or wider environmental issues, but which may support biodiversity conservation. Examples include the SAPARD (Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development) and LEADER (Liaisons Entre Actions de Développement de l’Economie Rurale) programmes. The aim of SAPARD is to help the ten countries of Central and Eastern Europe deal with the problems of the structural adjustment in their agricultural sectors and rural areas. LEADER is a series of programmes (LEADER I, II and LEADER+) implementing rural development policy that takes a bottom-up role in aiding rural areas make structural adjustments in order to effectively meet the challenges of the increasing demands of consumers, environmental pressure, the rapid spread of new technology, the ageing population and rural depopulation. Finally, many instruments to complement regulatory measures have been developed. Perhaps the most notable of these have been CAP rural development measures supported by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (known as the 2nd Pillar of the CAP). The most prominent of these instruments are Agri-Environment Schemes and Less Favoured
The following are the five ‘baseline’ directives in the area of agriculture and the environment: 1. Birds Directive 2. Groundwater Directive 3. Sewage Sludge Directive 4. Nitrates Directive 5. Habitats Directive. Farmers whose land falls within a Special Area of
9
Participation in biodiversity policy instruments The farmers in some Member States have above average participation in biodiversity policy instruments (Finland, Austria, Sweden, Germany) and some have below average (Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Spain and the Netherlands). The reasons for this are not well understood, but may very likely be related to variations from country to country in the interaction of a number of factors: • the novel qualities of the measures; • their intricacy; • the problems they present for Member States’ administrations; • the relationship between central and regional authorities, especially in Member States with a federative structure; • financial difficulties faced by some Member States and regions in cofinancing measures; • the ambivalence of farmers towards these measures; • the profitability of intensive farming; • bio-geographical conditions; • established farming practice and farming traditions.
Area Schemes that make a valuable input to broad objectives for conserving the rural environment. The present process of modulation (the compulsory shift in support from 1st Pillar to 2nd Pillar) should increase funds for these programmes. There is widespread acceptance in the literature and amongst policymakers in Member States that 2nd Pillar measures are a significant channel to encourage farmers’ voluntary participation in biodiversity maintenance and enhancement. There is also an expectation that 2nd Pillar measures will be vital to aspirations for multifunctional farming in the future. In relation to biodiversity conservation and enhancement, two principles in respect of such measures are well established. One is to encourage the farmer to voluntarily participate in environmental use that is beneficial to biodiversity. The other is to encourage the farmer to refrain from or modify practices that may detract from biodiversity. Most research by universities, government organizations and other parties interested in the relationship between agriculture and the protection of biodiversity has focused upon agrienvironment programmes. There is debate as to whether these voluntary mechanisms actually benefit biodiversity. It has been suggested that many biodiversity measures have in fact been agricultural subsidies without real benefit to biodiversity (Klein et al., 2001; Kleijn & Sutherland, 2004). There is also lack of evidence whether scheme based measures are an efficient means of producing the desired outcomes based on voluntary participation (Hanley et al., 1999). Similarly, there are questions as to whether payments for conservation are adequately targeted at the most high nature value farmland in Europe (EEA, 2004). This book is not primarily concerned with debating the efficacy of policy in delivering biodiversity gains. Rather, it is focused on involving and motivating farmers and other land managers, as important stakeholders, in issues concerning biodiversity that will have a positive effect on the support for biodiversity policies. Actual cooperation with biodiversity policies by farmers is one farmer in seven covering about 900,000
10
farms, or 20% of the EU utilized agricultural area.2 Whilst there is a definite upward trend in European farmers’ cooperation with such policies, particularly policies for biodiversity conservation, such participation is uneven across Europe. Although CAP reform will still permit intensive production methods where there is a positive return, there will be increasing scope for more farmers to be encouraged to participate in agri-environment measures and for such measures to be designed to better reflect biodiversity objectives. It is therefore crucial to better characterize and understand what works or does not work in policy. Even though we know something about farmers’ reasons for non-participation, there is a need to obtain better information to enhance policy and, ultimately, to achieve better rates of participation. In developing a better understanding of the motivations of individual farmers arguably policymakers will be able to design policies that are more relevant to particular farmers in particular localities. Additionally, BIOfACT found widespread agreement amongst policy actors that, in the near future, biodiversity and agri-environment programmes will become more important for farmers. It should be noted that farmer participation is not a simple function of economic support. As the next chapter demonstrates, there are complex factors in determining farmers’ cooperation in biodiversity policies.
2
Chapter 1 Summary • The integration of environmental concerns into agriculture is fundamental to EU environmental and biodiversity policy. • Whilst regulation is of key importance, and whilst cross-compliance places requirements on farmers to take account of the environment, evidence suggests that specific measures encouraging nature-friendly farming are essential to increasing farmers’ participation in biodiversity policy. • There are various reasons for the unevenness of participation in measures that advance biodiversity-friendly farming: political, economic, and ‘farmer factors’. It is these non-economic farmer factors that this book seeks to better understand. • Financial incentives are essential to farmers’ participation. Research has also found that participation is not a simple function of such incentives. This book highlights the significance of other factors affecting farmers’ participation.
Source: Eurostat
11
2 Factors Influencing Farmers’ Participation in Biodiversity Policy
Introduction European farmers face many pressures that place different demands upon them. Individual farms are complex businesses that deal with variables such as the cyclic nature of crop and livestock husbandry, climate, soil condition and fertility, pests and diseases. The majority of farmers have long-established strategies for dealing with these variables and these are part of their decision making. There are additional pressures for farmers from the market and from the policy environment of farming. These include: the effects of currency movements on price support; constraints on land-use decision making arising from the CAP; national legislation and World Trade Organization (WTO) rules. Farmers also have to deal with the considerable uncertainties of depressed markets, CAP reform, increasing liberalization of trade, changing public demands, as well as expectations to increase their ability to deliver environmental goods. Expectations to conserve biodiversity add pressures to an already complex situation for farmers. Even the interested farmer faces many hurdles, such as complex application processes, variations in eligibility criteria, and start-up costs he or she might have to bear. This chapter will discuss reasons why farmers participate or not in biodiversity policy. It is based on the review of European literature and the survey of policy actors from the BIOfACT research project. The chapter will also evaluate the limiting or enabling factors affecting the willingness and ability of farmers to take part in biodiversity. These points will be illustrated by reference to practical case studies from various countries.
2.1 Factors that affect farmers’ participation The BIOfACT project reviewed the current state of knowledge on factors influencing farmers’ willingness and ability to participate in biodiversity programmes. It also carried out research into the perceptions of actors involved in the policymaking about the willingness and ability of farmers to take on biodiversity initiatives. From the research findings, the following key themes relating to farmers’ willingness and ability to participate in biodiversity were identified: • the use of policy instruments and the role of policy scheme design; • the role of economic incentives;
12
or - alternatively - levies and taxes can discourage bio-diversity-unfriendly farming. • Provisions, i.e. making available facilities, amenities, and infrastructure that facilitate biodiversity-friendly farming. These could be material, such as making available equipment, or immaterial, such as providing training programmes and expert advice. • Social pressure: mobilising public opinion or the opinion of peer groups in order to influence farmers towards participation. • Communication, either in support of other instruments or as an instrument on its own. In the latter case policymakers will try to change people’s behaviour by influencing the knowledge and attitudes of farmers through communication campaigns.
• the role of communication; • the role of farmers’ culture and wider social influences on farmers’ attitudes; • characteristics of the farm; • individual characteristics of the farmers. Two tables summarize the above findings and their implications for policymakers. Table 1 presents the key factors relevant to understanding farmers’ willingness and ability to participate in biodiversity policy. The factors listed in the table are further elaborated in the rest of this chapter. Table 2 indicates how certain factors can have positive and negative dimensions. The findings in the tables are not rigid. The key for policymakers is to determine how they can be applied in national, regional and/or local contexts.
2.2 Choosing the right policy instruments
Basically the instruments fall into two categories: instruments that make biodiversity-friendly farming compulsory (regulation and certain types of economic instruments, such as environmental taxations), and instruments that aim for a voluntary change towards such farming. The BIOfACT research suggests that a targeted policy with a mixture of instruments is needed. These may be compulsory instruments, voluntary instruments, or a mixture of both. This is to enable a match between the variety of factors impacting upon the farmer’s decision and the context within which the factors are being considered. There are strong indications that the more cooperation-oriented the policy design, including voluntary participation and the recognition of farmers’ knowledge and competencies, the better policy acceptance and uptake. Furthermore, the BIOfACT research has also shown that the use of compulsory instruments for biodiversity protection frequently causes reactance, protest and resistance.
There are several ‘instruments’ that policymakers can use in order to ensure the involvement of farmers in biodiversity policies. • Regulation – the introduction of official and binding rules of conduct such as laws, statutes, etc. which will compel farmers to undertake measures in support of biodiversity. • Economic instruments such as subsidies, grants and loans can support biodiversity-friendly farming,
13
Table 1
Summary of factors that affect farmers’ participation
Finding(s)
Reason(s)
Economic factors
Farmers require financial incentive to take on biodiversity initiatives.
The farmer will not take on biodiversity initiatives if they mean financial loss.
Economic incentives are complex.
Continuity of payments, level of payment and targeting of payments are important to the farmer’s decision to participate.
Communication factors Communication is important. Good institutional communication on the part of the authorities increases acceptance of biodiversity initiatives.
Official communication plays an important role in providing information and advice on biodiversity initiatives. The level of influence depends on the confidence and understanding between individual advisors and farmers. Interactive communication is much more effective than one directional transmission type communication.
Officials can have a negative impact.
An ‘enemy image’ of official conservationists has been observed amongst farmers. Official views of education as a ‘one-way’ process, science as a dominant form of judgement, technical procedures and evaluations can alienate farmers and be perceived as dismissive of farmers’ ‘local knowledge’ of the land and ways of management.
Farmers’ culture and wider social reasons Farmers perceive themselves as stewards of the land, particularly for their family and future generations.
Farmers may have more interest in biodiversity programmes if they consider them to be in line with their own stewardship values.
Traditional views of the property rights of the farmer influence participation.
Traditional views of land management favour independent decision making on private land.
Misunderstanding and conflict between land managers and advisors.
Policy often regards the farmer instrumentally (i.e. as an ‘instrument’ to achieve policy results) and devalues ‘local’ knowledge in science-driven biodiversity policy.
Social interaction influences farmers’ attitudes and behaviours towards biodiversity initiatives in a supportive or opposing way.
Social interaction can be a positive or negative influence. Peer group and community pressure promote or hinder biodiversity programmes.
Some farmers will undertake biodiversity initiatives for cultural or social reasons without formal compensation.
The BIOfACT research found that some farmers are not solely motivated by maximizing their output but may have other reasons. These reasons may be connected to ethics, sports (e.g. hunting), natural history, identification as stewards of the land.
The farmer as an individual Age
14
Age may have a partial although not a deciding influence. Biodiversity initiatives are viewed as innovation by some younger farmers. Although more traditional in outlook, older farmers at times find biodiversity attractive because of lower labour requirements.
Gender
Experience with biodiversity initiatives
Education
Through the BIOfACT research survey there was some indication that women are more inclined to participate in biodiversity programmes than men. Previous participation in a biodiversity initiative strongly favours participation in further initiatives. Participants in biodiversity initiatives generally have higher levels of education than non-participants. However, research indicates that more intensive production methods applied by highly trained farmers are more environmentally damaging than production by farmers with general education.
The use of policy instruments There are strong indications that the more cooperation-oriented the policy design, including voluntary participation and the recognition of farmers’ knowledge and competencies, the better policy acceptance and uptake. A targeted policy with a mixture of instruments is needed. This can include compulsory instruments as well as a mixture of voluntary instruments.
The use of compulsory instruments for biodiversity protection frequently causes reactance, protest and resistance.
This is to enable a match between the variety of factors impacting upon the farmer’s decision and the context within which the factors are being considered.
The role of policy scheme design Cooperation-oriented policy improves policy acceptance and uptake.
Schemes designed with simplified administrative and accounting arrangements increase likelihood of farmers’ participation.
Farmers’ willingness to participate increases if scheme contracts are adaptable to a range of farming types and to variations in the farming environment.
Interactive communication and the formation of cooperative networks of official institutions, NGOs and farmers lead to successful policy. Farmers’ willingness to participate increases if scheme contracts are adaptable to a range of farming types and to variations in the farming environment. They also need to be flexible enough to change if the circumstances of the individual farmer also change. The ‘hassle factor’, i.e. hidden application, capital and running costs associated with participation, should be restricted as much as possible. The more adaptive a scheme or other policy measure is to an individual farmer’s characteristics and motivations, the better chance it has of being relevant to that farmer.
Characteristics of the farm To take part in a biodiversity initiative, farm characteristics have to fit into the scheme design. Scheme options that insufficiently account for variation in farm environments often lead to disdain on the part of the farmer and, sooner or later, to nonparticipation.
To allow for participation, a farm must have the characteristics appropriate to the scheme. Farmers in the ‘ordinary countryside’ may well have a latent willingness to participate that cannot be satisfied if a scheme design is geographically limited, thus restricting the spread of good stewardship as standard farming practice.
Land tenure
Tenant farmers are less likely to participate in biodiversity initiatives as the benefits of any initiative may go solely to their landlords. The lack of secure property rights and therefore the inability to pass the farm down to future family generations has also been cited as influencing participation.
15
2.3 Economic incentives for participation One of the key motivations for farmers to become involved in biodiversity policy is the level of financial incentives. The BIOfACT research shows the need for a wide range of factors to be considered when assessing the influence of incentives as a factor encouraging participation. A major factor is the continuity of payment and especially the amount of certainty that farmers have about this. Moreover, there is some consensus that targeted payments at levels above the ‘good practice’ base point, that is to say above the minimum required conditions as defined by cross-compliance (Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions) are most likely to bring about relevant farm management practices (e.g. Baldock & Dwyer, 2000, 8). Research suggests that, for the majority of farmers, financial incentive is important in bringing about participation in formalized biodiversity policy mechanisms. However, incentives that compensate farmers, based on what a farmer could earn from the same land if it were put to another economically more profitable use, have long been a controversial aspect of policy measures. A common observation is that farmers regard biodiversity conservation and enhancement as a substitute for other activities. For certain less profitable farmers in particular, research demonstrates that schemes can have a positive effect on farm incomes. In other words, the way incentives have been presented has not contributed to an ethos of biodiversity stewardship. This very pragmatic attitude to biodiversity schemes also seems to have been reinforced by the lack of continuity of payments in some contexts – so that farmers are given the impression that biodiversity is not central to their, or policymakers’ concerns. In other schemes where a minimum incentive level is maintained during the entire life of the agreement, farmers’ willingness to participate – both those reapplying for schemes, and neighbours influenced by participants – is higher. From the BIOfACT research we know that decision makers widely support a European level re-evaluation of the system of payments for agri-environment measures where minimum incentive levels are guaranteed. It is also acknowledged that there should be a much greater capacity in European and national policies for increased levels of regional and local variation in policy to reflect local geographical and ecological contingencies, as well as differences in farmers’ needs and circumstances.
16
There is a lack of evidence about whether a shift away from compensation towards payments for actual work carried out, or environmental goods produced, will increase participation. What such schemes promise is greater emphasis on a positive ethos: that biodiversity management is worthwhile in its own right, and is not second best to more productive farm activity (see Box 1 for a German case study). There are questions related to such schemes, however. Some general benefits, such as the reduction of a nutrient, cannot be targeted and do not lend themselves to a tendering approach (farmers being paid for their results rather than for simply entering a scheme). Additionally, there is the question of what exactly is being paid for. For example, how do you decide if the inability of a farmer to deliver the target for an individual species is linked or not linked to farm management? This might imply the necessity of increased scientific mediation in such schemes.
2.4 Policy design Aspects of the policy itself - such as the way it is structured, transparency, and ‘user friendliness’ - can be a major factor in influencing farmers’ formal participation. Current knowledge indicates certain aspects of negative correlation between farmers’ willingness to participate and scheme design, particularly in relation to: a) The ‘hassle factor’: the hidden application, capital and running costs associated with participation that are not realistically met by payments; b) Scheme complexity: frustration with the bureaucratic processes involved in application and implementation; c) The perceived lack of trust in advisors and experts amongst farmers, as scheme design also relates to the way advisors are meant to deliver it to farmers. Schemes should be designed with simplified administrative and accounting arrangements so as to be as streamlined as possible for the user. There is evidence that farmers are perplexed by policies that may protect one aspect of the environment, but then contradict, or are perceived by the farmer to contradict, other environmental objectives (see Box 2).
MEKA II Grasslands rich in valuable species in BadenWürttemberg, Germany The MEKA I programme (1992-1996), devised by the Land Government of Baden-Württemberg, aimed to support the extensive use of high biodiversity value agricultural grasslands. The programme was a measure-oriented compensation scheme that was rigid for farmers and did not produce the desired ecological outcomes. Its successor programme - MEKA II (from 2000), changed the form of incentive from compensation to rewarding the delivery of ecological goods. The change is an example of good practice.
Box 1 Case study
Rewarding farmers for ‘deliverables’
Farmers were contacted directly by advisors, and information about target species, ecology and other aspects of grassland management was prepared and distributed. Officials and experts organized information meetings for farmers, with between 400 and 1400 farmers participating per district. The officials received support to enhance their knowledge of valuable grassland habitats. Subsequently, they organized a series of grassland field trips with farmers – not only during the daytime, but also in the evening because of the extraordinary high number of part-time farmers in BadenWürttemberg. This programme is based on the voluntary engagement of farmers for biodiversity protection and enhancement. When farmers can show that at least 4 out of 28 endangered flowering plant species exist on their pastures and meadows, they can apply for a financial reward, irrespective of the precise detail of the practices used. MEKA II has circa 35,000 ha of grassland enrolled, roughly 12% of the grassland area in Baden-Württemberg. Although monitoring and control of the results proved to be easier than those of the former measures, for those running the scheme their workload increased. However, a group of advisors concluded that the introduction of the results rewarding programme worked surprisingly well. The acceptance among farmers was very high and their self-esteem and adaptation to the reward system improved in line with their knowledge of the target species.
17
Box 2 Case study
Schemes designed to protect one part of the environment may inadvertently impact on another Problems of nitrate leaching, eutrophication and ammonia volatilization from farm activities resulted in the European Union and national governments setting standards to control this pollution. In the Netherlands this policy has had unintended consequences on farmers’ maintenance of wildlifefriendly farm habitats. Dairy systems where cattle spend time on outdoor pastures offer less opportunity for nitrate control than a system in which cattle are kept indoors. Dutch dairy farmers have increasingly switched to indoor systems, partly because it makes it easier to comply with nitrate regulations. This, however, has led to ecological change. For example, as traditional barns used by nesting birds are converted to modern industrial cattle units and as the high biodiversity value varied grass sward created by cow grazing becomes more uniform, this policy has led to a much less attractive landscape and lower recreational value.
18
Literature and survey research also demonstrate that another important factor is scheme flexibility. Farmers’ willingness to participate increases if scheme contracts are adaptable to a range of farming types and to variations in the farming environment. They also need to be flexible enough to change if the circumstances of the individual farmer change. Another problem may be the contradictions associated with targeting. On the one hand, scientists and policymakers want to target priority species and habitats with the highest biodiversity values. On the other hand, certain farmers in the ‘ordinary countryside’ may well have a latent willingness to participate that cannot be satisfied if a scheme design is geographically limited (see the case of the Netherlands in Box 3), thus restricting the spread of good stewardship as standard farming practice. Research indicates that measures with broad management options, regular payment reviews, and increased geographical coverage, which can be relied on over longer periods, are likely to increase willingness to participate. Additionally, if a scheme is designed so that it applies to more features of any particular farm environment and/or activities, it increases the likelihood of participation. Perhaps of key importance for future scheme design is how a policy measure aimed at promoting biodiversity conservation relates to the array of other development and environmental land-use programmes. At one level, there is a challenge as to how to make farmers more aware of the possibilities for other funding that could apply to them, without increasing complexity and the ‘hassle factor’ for the farmer. This may simply be a case of more ‘joined up’ policy, that is, coordinated policy across all sectors that contributes to the objectives of conserving and enhancing wildlife. However, at another level, there is the challenge to policymakers of creating more complementary national policies that aim to bring biodiversity into every dimension of landuse and other resource policies.
farmers’ contribution to the development of measures appropriate to specific geographical circumstances. There is considerable scope for the Commission and national policymakers to investigate possibilities to integrate biodiversity schemes with other programmes. An integrated approach is likely to result in greater coherence in delivery and therefore increase the likelihood of farmer participation. Biodiversity and agri-environment policy could develop good models from LEADER of how to engage with farmers and provide more positive support to develop human ‘capital’. There are already in existence good examples of flexible cross-cutting integrating regional and local projects or programmes, such as the Contrat d’Agriculture Durable in France, Farming Connect in Wales (UK), and the agrarische natuurverenigingen in the Netherlands (see Box 3).
2.5 Effective communication increases participation Communication between official or non-statutory bodies and the farmer is crucial in introducing biodiversity programmes into farming. Communication should be recognized at all levels as a key policy instrument. Poor communication, even at the most basic level, can contribute to significant problems in the implementation of biodiversity policies. This can affect the rate of recruitment of farmers. Perhaps more significantly, even if farmers’ participation is secured, damage to policymakers’ credibility and to farmers’ goodwill may well have longer-term implications to the success of the policy (see Box 4).
The strategic approach to rural development set out in the draft Rural Development Regulation (RDR) emphasizes the theme of land management. The approach advanced in the draft regulation is the integration of the LEADER bottom-up approach into rural policy delivery. The design of biodiversity policy measures can benefit from adopting this approach. For example, this approach could provide opportunity to increase
19
Box 3 Case study
20
Nature cooperatives In the Netherlands, agricultural nature management through cooperative organizations, generally called agrarische natuurverenigingen or agricultural nature cooperatives, is increasing rapidly. Since the first nature cooperatives were established in the early 1990s, their number has grown to 110. The aim of most nature cooperatives is to enhance and conserve biodiversity and landscape in a particular region. In addition, most nature cooperatives have objectives such as (i) contributing to an economically and environmentally sustainable agriculture; (ii) rural development; (iii) improving the relation between farmers and citizens; (iv) stimulating agro-tourism; (v) improving access to funding for nature and landscape conservation; and (vi) disseminating knowledge among the participants. For policymakers the cooperatives potentially offer a way to address problems such as habitat fragmentation or rural development in an integrated and region-specific manner. Almost 60% of nature cooperatives collaborate with nature conservation organizations (NGOs as well as government agencies). Financial support for the cooperatives generally comes from participants’ contributions, but sometimes also from farmers’ unions or the local or regional government. Although the nature cooperatives are generally dominated by farmers, about half of the organizations also have citizen participants. This indicates that not just farmers are interested in agricultural nature management as, especially in the western regions of the Netherlands, citizens play an increasingly important role. About one-third of the cooperatives complain about problems with policy and funding. These complaints refer to the rigidity of agri-environment policy, slow payment of subsidies and compensations, complex procedures, uncertainty with regard to the continuity of funding and the lack of funding for nature and landscape conservation outside the area designated under national policies.
FARMERS AND NATURA
2000 in Finland
Box 4 Case study
The consequences of miscommunication –
In the Finnish planning of NATURA 2000 network, strong opposition emerged from landowners and their organizations. There are several reasons for this. In most cases, officials made no personal contacts with landowners during the planning process. This resulted in the landowners’ perception of being treated as mere objects in the administrative process. The process was criticized for being bureaucratic and secretive. The fact that the European Union was behind the network was also discouraging for the farmers. Farmers felt that they were not properly informed of the programme and its consequences. They felt that their own views were not listened to, and that areas to be protected were chosen in an arbitrary manner. It was felt that the top-down planning of NATURA 2000, which followed the logic of scientific expertise, violated traditional values of Finnish land ownership, and disregarded farmers’ local knowledge. The environmental administration defended itself by appealing to its limited work and time resources. In the case of NATURA 2000, almost 16,000 complaints were made and handling them caused a remarkable delay. The negative experiences from NATURA 2000 still affect many Finnish farmers’ views on biodiversity policies. They are often suspicious of new policies, even if they are offered participation at the early stages of the policy cycle.
21
Farmers’ participation in biodiversity conservation and enhancement is directly related to their interaction with officials representing statutory, non-statutory or other expert bodies. This is clear from the research: land managers respond well to relations of trust, but they mistrust jargon and experts who may be perceived to have an instrumental, one directional, attitude to farmers’ knowledge and farming methods. Farmers may often regard policymakers and their official representatives as an ‘insider’ group with its own concerns, language and way of operating. The scientifically-derived concept of biodiversity has been shown in several studies to be confusing to farmers.
2.6 Farming knowledge, farming culture Understanding Culture Understanding farming culture - that is, farmers‘ knowledge, traditions, attitudes and beliefs - is crucial to understanding the willingness, or lack of willingness, of farmers to participate in biodiversity policy. The evidence particularly relates to how farmers see their role as producers of environmental goods, how they relate to a policy measure, and how they interact with policy actors on the ground. A key focus of studies is the relationship between official expertise and farmers’ knowledge. Many studies have indicated that farmers’ knowledge of nature results from their direct experience and the practical skills developed through close interaction with the unique characteristics of a particular place. Farmers are knowledgeable about nature management, but this management is not necessarily framed in terms biodiversity experts would use. Farmers are more likely to relate their notions of nature and of nature stewardship to their own family traditions, to the definitions of good land management within their family, to the local rural community and the broader farming world.
22
Mutual misunderstanding Differences in knowledge about nature can result in misunderstanding and conflict between land managers and those advisors and experts responsible for gaining their involvement in biodiversity. For most land managers, nature is a very conventional thing, experienced in a particular locale on a day-to-day basis. Observation of it is not independent of other customary management activities and does not rely on specialist approaches to learn about it. The technical advisor’s understanding of biodiversity is more likely to be based on scientific understanding developed at university, through professional interactions and scientific and natural history literature. The misunderstanding becomes more important as cultural differences are reinforced. They can be passed on from the farmers’ networks so that negative views of expertise become accepted wisdom among farmers locally or further afield. Authorities trying to promote biodiversity conservation in farming have frequently attempted to change farmers’ attitudes towards biodiversity so that participants are enthusiastic and highly motivated. (This appears to be the case of MEKA II in Germany, see Box 1.) The thinking here is that if authorities were successful in changing attitudes then it could be assumed that this would likely increase willingness to participate. However as can be seen in Box 5 participation in a biodiversity scheme does not routinely bring about changes in attitudes for the individual farmer. Policymakers tend to group farmers according to their type of holding, or some other farm characteristics, rather than their willingness to participate. However, there is increasing appreciation of the diversity of farmers and their motivation for participation. It would be counterproductive, therefore, to devise ‘one-sizefits-all’ policy measures. Knowledge of what motivates or deters farmers allows policymakers to understand the complexities behind farmer attitudes (see Table 3). This table illustrates that as far as participation in biodiversity policy is concerned, the more adaptive a scheme or other policy measure is to an individual farmer’s characteristics and motivations, the better chance it has of being relevant to that farmer. Furthermore, knowledge of farmers’ motivations is essential to creating better stakeholder consultation in the future.
Box 5
Do biodiversity schemes change farmers’ values towards nature? It is an assumption of biodiversity conservation that an increased uptake in agri-environment and other related schemes will correlate with more positive attitudes amongst farmers towards biodiversity conservation. For example, in the UK, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs states that agrienvironment schemes may help change farmers’ self-image in relation to the sustainable use of the rural environment. However, research indicates that agri-environment measures do not necessarily lead to a substitution of values and attitudes amongst farmers. Why is this? According to British research, many policy tools permit and legitimize a definition of good farming practice, which continues to emphasize intensive production methods. The willingness to participate in a scheme does not routinely bring about changes in the ideas and wider agricultural practices of the individual farmer (Morris et al., 2002).
23
Table 2
The impact of factors that influence farmers’ willingness to participate in biodiversity conservation and enhancement measures
2.7 Farm characteristics Several farm characteristics influence farmers’ ability to participate in biodiversity programmes. Many biodiversity policies are targeted at certain farm types, whether or not the farmer is ‘biodiversity minded’. An important aspect of the farm environment is how the environmental characteristics of the farm compare to those of the scheme itself. Scheme options that insufficiently account for variation in farm environments often lead to disdain on the part of the farmer and, sooner or later, to non-participation. Similarly, if a farm environment is susceptible to pest infestations, then a scheme that does not allow the farmer to deal with the infestation limits the farmer’s ability to participate (Morris et al., 2000, 249). As many investigators report, farmers with more extensive farms are more likely to participate in measures aimed to enhance biodiversity. This is partly because management changes are less drastic, but also because there is less effort in meeting required criteria. A problem with some of the more intensive farms participating is the so-called ‘halo effect’. This is where farmers participating in incentive schemes find them attractive because they provide funds to increase overall productivity. Parts of the farm can be intensively used, thus giving rise to an intensive zone and a (generally much smaller and isolated) conservation zone on the same holding. Land tenure Land tenure is an important influence on farmers’ ability to participate effectively in Agri-Environmental Schemes (AES). In particular, owner-occupied holdings are more likely to be involved in more than one AES than are mixed tenure, or tenanted holdings. Because the benefits of the schemes accrue solely to their landlords, the willingness of non-owners to participate is lessened. An additional factor connects holding type and the farm family. The ability to pass the farm down to future family generations has been cited as an influencing factor in the ability to participate. Tenant farmers are unlikely to have secure property rights with respect to intrafamilial succession.
and that older farmers are more conservative and less flexible. However, some studies suggest that older farmers without successors also look upon participation in biodiversity policy favourably because it results in having to do less physical work associated with conventional production. Whilst higher levels of education do correlate with an ability or a willingness to participate, many authors argue that what is missing from the agricultural sector is an environmental ethos rather than education per se. Farmers tend to be risk averse, avoiding uncertainty as much as possible. Any policy, therefore, has to be consistent with a farmer’s past experience, values, needs and practices. Previous experience with policy schemes increases the likelihood of further participation. (How experience shapes attitudes has not been extensively studied, however.) The length of residency in an area may also influence participation.
2.9 Positive and negative impacts of factors on farmers’ participation Table 2 indicates how certain factors have positive and negative effects on influencing the willingness of farmers to take on biodiversity initiatives. The key for policymakers, in the context of the implementation of national policy, is to determine which of these factors can be improved within the policy cycle to strengthen biodiversity policy. The next chapter addresses the issue of how to develop the policy process so that it increases farmer involvement and opportunities for participation.
2.8 Individual characteristics of the farmer Relative youth of the farmer correlates with participation as does possible financial insecurity and higher levels of formal education. Two possible explanations are that younger farmers tend to be more innovative
25
Table 3
Characteristics of styles of participation and non-participation (adapted from Fish et al., 2003)
Style of participation or non-participation
Attitude to conservation
Result
Accumulation. Compensation for activities already undertaken (least productive areas pay)
No change to land-use practices
Modifying participation
Survival. Helps cope with declining income (from farm or specific part of farm)
Modified practices undertaken
Catalysing participation
Facilitation. Provides means (financial and otherwise) to embark on conservation
Modified practices undertaken
Keenness. Scheme educates, rewards sense of duty towards environment
Modified practices undertaken
Disempowered nonparticipation
Lacks ability. Actively interested in nature conservation but specific circumstances prohibit improved practices
Minimal practices to meet scheme requirements
Disinterested non-participation
Reticence. Conservation regarded as income forsaken
Minimal practices to meet scheme requirements
Abstaining non-participation
Self-denial. Objection to receiving payment for stewardship
Non-participation in scheme but maintains conservation practices
Antipathy. Dislike of official interference in land-use decisions. Perception of bias in favour of larger holdings. Scheme objective less valid than other objectives
Non-participation
Opportunist participation
Enthusiastic participation
Sceptical non-participation
26
Chapter 2 Summary and recommendations •
Economic incentives are central to encouraging farmers’ participation in programme based policy instruments. The assumption that income is the primary determinant of participation is a narrow one; the significance of the other factors (i.e. those identified in Tables 1 and 2) should also be taken into account in policy development of noneconomic factors.
•
Poor communication, low levels of appropriate advice, and instrumental assumptions about farmers have a negative impact on participation.
•
Scheme design factors, such as participation in policy and coordination between policy tools, are crucial to farmers’ willingness to participate.
•
Farmers’ culture and social world have also been shown to be central to their willingness to participate.
27
3 Farmers, Policy Processes and Biodiversity Policy
Introduction It is up to the policymaker to determine at what scale engagement and support of farmers should take place. In deciding this, the policymaker should be guided by ecological or landscape issues that define a particular area, and the characteristics of a particular policy scheme. There is an opportunity to engage stakeholders at the local landscape or ecological scale. This is reflected in the successful cases shown in LEADER where policy has been implemented in effective and economically efficient ways. Involving local stakeholders in policy and still delivering national and international targets is an important concept. The BIOfACT research highlighted the increasing recognition of the need to consider the network of people involved in interactive biodiversity policymaking. Understanding how policymakers, farmers and NGOs interact and behave can help the policymaker in creating effective biodiversity policies. However, this requires an approach to policy design and implementation on the local scale that is different from conventional approaches. This appears demanding of time and resources, but the gains in value for money and in effectiveness are significant. This chapter will: • define interactive policy and the key principles of interactive policymaking; • explore issues of participation in the policy process; • explain stakeholder analysis; • consider the use of networks; • suggest methods for participation.
3.1 The policy cycle Box 7 provides a simplified explanation of the stages that a policymaking process goes through. It starts with Agenda setting where problems are identified, this continues with formation of policy and decision making in respect of what type of policy should be used. The policy is then implemented. Evaluation of policy occurs at varying stages of the policy cycle. This is a theoretical model and in reality these stages can occur in a different order and also at the same time. However, the main use of this box is as a guide when analysing policy processes.
28
Box 6
Why encourage farmers’ participation in the biodiversity policymaking process? • To define priority concerns – such as what biodiversity policymakers aims are and, on the other hand, what farmers’ central aims are. • To represent those who have an interest, such as farmers, farm advisors, ecologists and conservationists. • To promote effective communication and cooperation between all people involved in delivering biodiversity policy. • To aid in the development of measures for achieving outcomes (such as joint development of targets related to farming practices). • To aid in the development of biodiversity initiative delivery, e.g. participation from scheme managers and stakeholder representatives. • To aid in the development of biodiversity policy/initiative monitoring and review. • To evaluate the success of policy measures in practice and to implement changes to enhance their effectiveness.
29
The policy cycle
tion
▲
ple me nta
n i si o Dec
ki ng
▲
atio n
Initial situ
yi
30
▲
▲
lic Po
m
Box 8
Evaluation
▲
▲
ion rmat
▲
▲ Policy results
▲
y fo lic Po
Autonomous development
a setting
▲
▲
nd Age
▲
Box 7
a m
The ladder of participation as related to farmers
Level 1
Manipulation
Assumes farmers are a passive audience who need simple or even partial information. Generally these levels serve the interests of official bodies
Level 2
Education
Is usually defined as farmers having a ‘knowledge deficit’ about biodiversity… therefore they need to be moved toward the policymakers’ understanding of the issue
Level 3
Information
Tells farmers what the scheme will be, what its rules are, and how they can qualify
Level 4
Consultation
Gives farmers a voice, especially at the national scale. There is no obligation to involve regional or local farmers but this could be advantageous
Level 5
Involvement
Allows farmers’ views to have an influence but decisions are left to authorities
Level 6
Partnership
Allows farmers to negotiate with authorities over agreed roles, responsibilities, outcomes, etc.
Level 7
Delegated power
Delegate some policy power
Level 8
Control
Delegates full decision making
3.2 Interactive policymaking Interactive policymaking is a process where all those people (stakeholders) who will be affected by a policy are involved in policymaking. The extent of this involvement can vary and this is explained in further detail in this chapter. Stakeholder participation and the use of interactive policymaking is increasingly recognized as an important aspect of European Union policy affecting farmers. Examples of this can be seen in policies such as the Water Framework Directive (article 14); the Environmental Policy Review (COM 2003), Agenda 21 (1992); EU Aarhus Convention (1998), as well as in a part of the spirit of the Cardiff process on policy integration. In theory, stakeholders’ understanding and ownership of the policy will develop during the process rather than being created after the event. In this interactive policymaking model, farmers are included along with ecologists, conservationists and agri-environment advisors. The European Union’s Water Framework Directive defines ‘active involvement’ as allowing people to influence policy planning and implementation processes. This is thoroughly different from notions of consultation that are conventionally carried out in an instrumental way. Participation in this sense is a process of partnership building that requires flexible and complementary policy as well as funding. Arnstein’s ladder of participation is useful for conceptualizing different levels of influence in policymaking (see Box 8), but it should be noted that, in reality, each rung of the ladder gets harder to climb as policymakers try to promote higher levels of participation. It is important for decision makers to realize that interactive policymaking is not solely confined to tangible, measurable objectives. A more participatory approach is more likely to deliver intangible benefits, which can include better understanding of the motivations of individual farmers and the development of new working relationships between farmers and the statutory authorities or other conservation organizations.
all parties who could affect the performance of policy; • making connections between apparently unconnected policy areas such as agricultural, rural development, landscape, water and biodiversity issues. This helps avoid a solution in one policy area becoming a problem in another. It can also ensure that resources are identified and coordinated so that the disbenefits of sectoral funding are avoided as much as possible; • integrating into the policy process practical ideas from stakeholders directly involved in implementation. The benefits from adopting these principles may include: • clarifying the interests of stakeholders at an early stage so they can be dealt with more effectively; • bringing stakeholders together, so that the different problems are linked and the solution to a farmer’s problem does not become a problem for the advisory agency; • taking account of deeper policy issues relating to different forms of knowledge of biodiversity policy, e.g. farmers’ knowledge of the land; • building stakeholder support, or ‘ownership’, so that stakeholders will understand why the policy has been created. This may lead to better acceptance. In a policy process involving interaction, the parties have to be aware of the powers they have and those they do not. It is necessary to explain what can and cannot be negotiated. Otherwise, ineffective explanation of participatory powers can lead to frustration and block the communication process. The European and national policy cycle currently involves two modes of farmer involvement: • the national or European political process through
The principles of interactive policymaking can be summarized as: • identifying at the earliest opportunity in the policy cycle, the assumptions, interests and objectives of
31
farmers’ representative organizations; • the local participation of farmers or farmer groups in the specific development, design, appraisal, monitoring and adaptation of policy available to them. At the European and national level, there is a form of interactive policymaking in operation through the involvement of a range of representative groups and unions in the policy cycle. However, it is at regional and local levels that policymaking often appears as top-down, seeking either to bring about behaviour change in farmers by compulsory means (such as legislation), or to give rise to voluntary change of behaviour in an instrumental fashion. A more interactive model might involve: • national-level stakeholders working together to develop a policy context, to provide the necessary political and institutional framework and to define outcomes and goals that are needed to meet biodiversity targets; • local stakeholders (perhaps defined by ecological similarity or shared landscape characteristics) working together to develop and demonstrate a local portfolio of measures, based on specified contribution to the outcomes delivered through farming and other land-use management.
3.3 Stakeholders and networks Identifying stakeholder groups Interactive policymaking is all about involving stakeholders: all the people or organizations that are involved in a given issue. To identify stakeholder groups, you ask yourself the following questions: Primary stakeholders • Whose permission, approval or (financial) support do I need to reach my policy goals? • Who is directly affected by the policy? • Who will benefit? Who will suffer loss or damage? Secondary stakeholders • Who is indirectly affected? Tertiary stakeholders • Who is not directly involved, but can influence opinions? Stakeholder analysis Stakeholder analysis is usually the first step towards developing a process of interactive policy development.
32
The idea of stakeholder analysis is to: • identify and define the characteristics of key stakeholders; • assess the manner in which they might affect or be affected by the policy; • understand the relations between stakeholders, including an assessment of the real or potential conflicts of interest and expectations; • assess the capacity of different stakeholders to participate. Table 1 demonstrated that there are complex reasons behind farmers’ attitudes to participation and that there may be different ‘styles’ of participating in biodiversity measures. The typology in Table 3 classifies participants according to their main ‘drivers’. For example, an opportunist participant is a participant whose main driver is money. Research has also shown how farmers’ perceptions may change depending on type of area of the farm. For example, if an area is not profitable for production, then the farmer may decide to enter that particular area into a scheme for biodiversity protection. A further classification is the catalyst participant. This is a participant who would do little to protect biodiversity. However, if money is provided for better biodiversity protection, then he/she will take further steps to enhance the value of the holding. Networks When creating biodiversity policy through interactive policy processes there is often a variety of stakeholders involved who are interconnected in a ‘network’.
For biodiversity policymaking that focuses upon farming, these actors may be: • farmers • policymakers • non-governmental organizations (NGOs). If the policymaker can understand how these different actors behave and interact in the network, it can help him to create more effective biodiversity policies. Box 9 illustrates the factors that affect farmer, policymaker and NGO behaviour within this network. These are: • social organization • knowledge construction • motivation. These factors need to be effective in order for interactive biodiversity policy to be effective. For example, if the farmer has no ‘Motivation’ to interact with the other actors, this may be due to no incentive or no ambition to become involved, then the network and therefore the policy will be ineffective. A further example can be seen with the factor ‘Knowledge construction’. If the policymaker does not take local knowledge into account then it is possible that the network will be ineffective due to resistance from the farmers as their knowledge has been ignored. With regards to ‘Social organization’ if a farmer does not have an established formal or informal network in the farming community this can create a weakness in the ability to participate in the interactive policymaking process. Throughout this network there needs to be a balance of power and trust between the three actors, the farmer, the NGO and the policymaker, in order for interactive policy development to work.
3.4 Guide for interactive policymaking and stakeholder involvement This section concludes the chapter by giving a brief overview of the methodology that has been used in policymaking for enhancing stakeholder involvement. It is not meant to be a definitive practical guide; rather the intent is to indicate those methodologies which have been used to improve the interactivity of the policy cycle so that, in effect, they become a policy network (see Box 9). Policymakers can use the checklist of factors that affect farmers’ participation in biodiversity initiatives, by refering to Table 1. This checklist can assist the
policymaker in the formation of policy by identifying applicable factors and analysing the analysis and recommendations associated with the factors to see how they apply in their own country (see Box 10). Identifying participants Interactive policymaking at the appropriate local level involves: • identifying the problem: developing an inventory of relevant target groups, informing them of the issue; • analysing the issues: identifying important stakeholders; identifying and discussing with stakeholders links to other problems; • implementing: exploring solutions, conducting debate among stakeholders, continuously monitoring, regularly discussing during implementation, revising where necessary; • evaluating. The policymaker needs to carefully plan the development of the policy cycle in a way that is inclusive. The first step is to identify who should participate in the process and at what level (for an example see Table 4). If it is not the intention to include a farmer in the final decision making, then it should be made clear at the policy formation stage. It is important to be clear on the powers and responsibilities of those involved. Otherwise, misunderstandings can cause conflict later on. The timing of participation is crucial. From the outset of the development of the biodiversity policy cycle, farmers’ representatives connected to the context and local culture should be in an influential position. Additionally, it is essential to effective participation that, rather than merely being consulted (as illustrated in Box 8), individual farmers and/or groups of farmers at the regional or local scale should have an early involvement. This can be accomplished through identifying the key biodiversity management issues on farmland and in the decision and implementation stages of the policy cycle. Effective biodiversity policymaking should include comprehensive knowledge of the stakeholders by organizations responsible for the implementation of biodiversity and land-use policy initiatives in order to understand why they cooperate in biodiversity policy. In policymaking this process is known as stakeholder analysis and is crucial to understanding who should participate and what their stake in the policy process is.
33
Box 9
A biodiversity policy network model (adapted from Vermunt et al., 2003) Social organization
▲ Formal & informal networks Internal network structure External embedding of the network
▲ Tr u
s
Trust and
pow er
lati er re pow nd
re l
ta
s ion at
ons
Biodiversity enhancement
Knowledge construction
Motivation
▲
Table 4
Tru st
ns and power relatio
Dependencies (interest) Incentives (intrinsic and external) Ambitions
An example of a ‘summary participation matrix’ for developing a biodiversity measure such as an initiative to protect farmland birds* Stage in policy cycle
Type of participation Inform
Consult
Partnership
Identification of the issues
Farmers’ representatives
Farmers
Statutory agencies Expert groups Ministry Farmers’ representatives NGOs
Planning
Rural resource users NGOs
Farmers
Ministry Farmers’ representatives Statutory agencies
Implementation
Ministry Farmers’ representatives
Rural resource users
Advisory officials Farmers/farmers’ groups
Ministry
Ministry
Advisory officials Farmers/farmers’ groups Statutory agencies
Monitoring
34
▲
Social knowledge Scientific knowledge Local knowledge
*N.B. Specific actors that should be involved will depend on the scale of the measure, e.g. local, regional, national or European
(Table 1)
Box 10
How to use the BIOfACT checklist of factors 1. Identifying an applicable factor: What specific factors listed in the BIOfACT checklist apply to your situation? 2. Carrying out an analysis of the factor: a) Is it applicable in my country? b) Does it fit the processes, networks and policy cycles in my country? c) Do farmers in my country fit in with the perception identified in the factor? 3. Analysing the viability of recommendations associated with the factor: How viable are the recommendations associated with the factor within my country? Policy instruments may only be suitable under a specific set of circumstances that may not apply to the country in question. For example, voluntary programmes will only work if there is willingness of the farmers to participate. Timing in policymaking is also vitally important, as only when the timing is right will certain policy instruments work. For example, educating farmers may be an important instrument to encourage acceptance of biodiversity initiatives. However, the farmer must be in agreement in order for the education to be effective.
35
The questions a policymaker might ask include: • What are the stakeholder's expectations of the policy measure? • What benefits are likely for the stakeholders? • What resources will the stakeholder wish to commit (or avoid committing) to the policy? • What other interests does the stakeholder have which may conflict with the measure? • How does the stakeholder regard others in the list? One way to determine whom to involve is to identify, at the appropriate scale (perhaps the landscape scale) who the key or primary stakeholders are. These could be statutory agencies, professional groups, farmer groups, unions, and individual farmers. The establishment of a forum of key interested organizations and individuals to help manage and influence farmer participation has been recommended as a useful policy tool by several European projects such as LEADER and the LIFE-funded Wise Use of Floodplains project. Such fora can be very useful in expanding the appraisal of policies and initiatives. In the past these stakeholder appraisals have used techniques such as conventional cost-benefit analysis, qualitative assessments of non-market benefits and disbenefits, and multi-criteria analysis. Additionally, many locally based groups have thought up their own techniques for appraisal (see Toogood, 2000). Key parts of such fora are: adapting participation methods to the context and conditions in a particular locality; allowing sufficient preparation time to raise awareness of the process and issues; and ensuring that the findings of such appraisals are interpreted in locally meaningful terms. In the BIOfACT research it was found that farmers’ willingness to participate was enhanced by the way advisors and others ‘on the ground’ actually implemented the policies in specific locations. A key factor in this respect is having effective agents from statutory authorities dispensing information and expert advice. Their capacity to be more than scheme ‘policemen’ should be raised. In an enhanced role, such people would have the knowledge and ability to understand the specific needs and demands farmers face. In combination with more adaptable and innovative instruments and funding, these agents are in a position to interact with farmers to form partnerships. This will increase the legitimacy of biodiversity policy by discussing what biodiversity or conservation means to the farmer’s farm plan. An enhanced role for these
agents and advisors will greatly assist in removing barriers to farmers’ willingness to participate. Communication is necessary at all stages of the biodiversity policy cycle. It can be used as an agendasetting function and to initiate discussion at the beginning of a policy process, for example, when participation is required to solve a problem. It can also be used during policy formation to gain support for a proposed policy. It should continue during implementation to ensure that it is effective. Finally, at the evaluation stage, communication, including feedback, is vital to review a policy and to identify its strengths and weaknesses. Common communication mistakes made by policymakers can include: • Self-referentiality Communication is only based on the needs of the policymakers and fails to respect the world view of the farmer. • Instrumental thinking The main purpose is to have the farmers carry out a given set of tasks and the policy is simply transmitted to them in order to cause them to participate in a way defined by the policy organization. • Incorrect use of methods The use of one-way communication such as letters or leaflets because they are often simpler to use within the framework of official operations. Interactive communication involving face-to-face meetings and round tables, for example, is far more effective. See Box 11 for guidance on starting a process on interactive communication. Trust - A lack of trust cannot be solved solely by improved communications. The issue of trust may be far-reaching. It may require developing candour in institutional culture and practices on the part of policymaking bodies. Lessons learned from other EU-funded research in relation to science and public attitudes to risk3, suggest institutions are more likely to increase trust if they: • are honest about previous mistakes; • explain how uncertainty about biodiversity management is taken into account in making decisions; • utilize contributions and feedback from all relevant sources, not just scientific expertise; • are transparent about the decision-making process; • show that the views of farmers are recognized, respected and taken into account within the policy process, even if they cannot all be met.
3
36
Adapted from the findings of the PABE research
project (FAIR CT98-3844)
For interactive processes to have a chance of success: • people should have reason to participate in the process. There has to be a goal which they share with you; • all stakeholders with significant interest in the issue should have the opportunity to be involved. Particular attention is needed to involve those groups traditionally excluded in the past; • participation should be voluntary. People should be there because they want to, not because they are threatened with sanctions if they do not participate; • all stakeholders should have equal access to relevant information. Nothing is more damaging to a process based on trust than withholding information from certain groups; • all stakeholders should have the opportunity to participate effectively. Sometimes this requires the provision of funds to support participants lacking resources; • acceptance of diverse values, interests and knowledge of the parties in the negotiations is essential. All participants should be willing to accept that their view is one of many possible views, and that it is only logical that people in a different position have different ideas.
Box 11
When can you successfully start a process on interactive communication?
(adapted from the Canadian Round Tables, 1993)
What methods are there for interactive communication? There are several methods that can be used in interactive processes. We tend to think mainly of meetings, hearings, round tables, etc. But printed material also plays an important role – provided there is a good opportunity for feedback and the reactions received are taken seriously.
Timing and mixing In an interactive communication process you will probably have to select several of these possible methods and combine them. Always keep in mind that the methods should not just be good for you – they should also be efficient and easy to use for the other stakeholders.
Outside help In an interactive process it can be very useful to involve neutral outsiders to guide discussions and steer the process. However, they should be really neutral and not in any way associated with one of the stakeholders.
37
Conclusion
Farmers respond positively to face-to-face interaction with experts when the official representative ‘speaks their language’ and avoids the mistakes that organizations commonly make when communicating. There is a need to bridge the gap between the jargon and technicalities about biodiversity conservation and the farmers’ understanding of it. There are signs that communication with farmers is being taken more seriously. For example, the strategic approach to rural development set out in the draft Rural Development Regulations places a central emphasis on the provision of better advice and programme management. In respect of this, the following examples of good practice have been noted in the literature: • Having capacity within the policymaking organization to allow advisors to tailor policy advice so that it is appropriate to local contexts. • Emphasizing the positive. Official regulation and farm plans within schemes frequently place emphasis on what farmers are not allowed to do under a scheme. There is evidence that stressing the importance of biodiversity conservation as a positive and socially valued enterprise would bring a positive response from farmers. • Acting as entrepreneurs, or as animateurs. Often biodiversity or agri-environment scheme advisors do not have the capacity to act proactively in this fashion. Such officials are frequently obliged to wait for interested farmers to approach them. The Commission and national governments should increase the capacity of local and regional official experts to implement interactive communication strategies that engage farmers in biodiversity conservation and agri-environment programmes.
38
In this book we have examined some of the key barriers and opportunities related to farmers’ participation in biodiversity policy. We have sought to advance a model of an interactive policy process that has potential benefits for biodiversity policymaking, not least because of the increased ownership of the policy process by all the actors involved. A more interactive approach by official bodies to stakeholders has the potential to produce a range of benefits. These include: getting the right measures taken up by farmers in the most appropriate locations; tailoring measures to suit local contexts; ensuring measures have a better fit with existing farm management; identifying ideas to test and improve measures in partnership with farmers and thereby improve outcomes. To achieve such benefits, policymakers need to work with all stakeholders to develop and build a commitment to this approach to policymaking and delivery. It may be argued that sustainable long-term rises in farmers’ willingness to participate in such policy, especially their willingness to deliver higher levels of biodiversity conservation above the baseline of Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions, are doubtful without more interactive and inclusive approaches to biodiversity policy.
References
Baldock, D., J. Dwyer with S.M. Sumpsi Vinas (2000) Environmental Integration and the CAP. A Report to the European Commission, DG Agriculture - London, Institute for European Environmental Policy. Commission of the European Communities (2004) Integrating Environmental Considerations into other Policy Areas A Stocktaking of The Cardiff Process – Brussels, COM(2004) 394. European Environment Agency (2004) High Nature Value Farmland: Characteristics, Trends and Policy – Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Fish, R., S. Seymour and C. Watkins (2003) Conserving English landscapes: land managers and agrienvironment policy. Environment and Planning 35: 19-41. Hanley, N., M. Whitby and I. Simpson (1999) Assessing the Success of Agri-Environmental Policy in the UK. Land Use Policy 16: 67-80. Klein, D., F. Berendse, R. Smit and N. Gilissen (2001) Agri-environment schemes do not effectively protect biodiversity in Dutch Agricultural Landscapes. Nature 413: 723-725. Kleijn, D. and W. Sutherland (2004) How effective are agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? Journal of Applied Ecology 40, 6: 947-969. Morris, C., N. Evans and M. Winter (2002) Conceptualizing Agriculture: A Critique of Post-Productivism as the New Orthodoxy. Progress in Human Geography 26, 3: 313-332. Morris, J., J. Mills and I.M. Crawford (2000) Promoting Farmer Uptake of Agri-Environment Schemes: the Countryside Stewardship Arable Options Scheme. Land Use Policy 17: 241-254. Rientjes, S. (Ed.) (2000) Communicating Nature Conservation: A Manual on Using Communication in Support of Nature Conservation Policy and Action – Tilburg, European Centre for Nature Conservation. Toogood, M. (2000) Techniques for Talking: A Review of Participatory Techniques for Land Use Planning – Sandy, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Vermunt B., N. Aarts and C. van Woerkum (2003) Gebieden der Wijzen: een analysekader voor onderzoek naar leren en innoveren in netwerken - Wageningen, Alterra.
39
BIOfACT Project Team Contacts Project Coordination
Abbreviations and Acronyms AES • Agri-Environmental Schemes
Karen Gilbert Project Coordinator
CAP • Common Agricultural Policy
European Centre for Nature Conservation PO Box 90154 • 5000 LG Tilburg • The Netherlands
[email protected] • www.ecnc.org NL Dr Floor Brouwer
GAEC • Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions LEADER • Liaisons Entre Actions de Développement de l’Economie Rurale
Agricultural Economics Research Institute LEI Wageningen UR
LFA • Less-favoured areas
PO Box 29703 • 2502 LS The Hague • The Netherlands fl
[email protected] • www.lei.nl E
MTR • Mid term review NGO • Non-governmental organization
Prof. Dr José Antonio Manzanera ETSI Montes
RDR • Rural Development Regulation
Universidad Politecnica de Madrid Ciudad Universitaria s.n. • 28040 Madrid • Spain
[email protected] • www.montes.upm.es SF Dr Matti Nieminen University of Jyväskylä Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy PL 35, 40351 • Jyväskylä • Finland
[email protected].fi • http://www.jyu.fi/yhtfil/sosiologia/ D Dr Rosemarie Siebert Centre for Agricultural Landscape and Land Use Research ZALF Eberswalderstrasse 84 • Müncheberg • Germany
[email protected] • www.zalf.de H Klará Szekér Central European University Department of Natural Sciences and Policy Nádor U.9. • 1051 Budapest • Hungary
[email protected] UK Dr Mark Toogood University of Central Lancashire School of Natural Resources Preston • LA1 3ES • UK
40
[email protected] http://www.uclan.ac.uk/facs/science/envman/index.htm
SAPARD • Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development WTO • World Trade Organization
