Success of agri-environment schemes in conserving biodiversity: review of mid-term evaluation reports of selected member states on the rural development regulation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56617/tl.4363Keywords:
agri-environmental schemes, mid-term evaluation, biodiversity, monitoringAbstract
Integration of environmental and biological diversity conservation considerations into agriculture is a fast developing priority in European agricultural policy. Agri-environment schemes (AESs) are the main vehicles to deliver this integrative approach at the moment. Member States’ mid-term rural development review reports (2003) and within that Member States’ response to the European Commission’s Common Evaluation Questions (CEQs), in particular, are seen as being the most recent official information source to get an overall picture on the status and environmental efficiency of AESs in contributing to biodiversity conservation. The objectives of this paper is to provide an overview of the results and quality levels of AES monitoring and evaluation with special regard to biodiversity conservation in some Member States (MS) and to summarise some best practice examples. It is concluded that Member States had short time so far to assess and quantify the environmental outcomes of agri-environmental (AE) measures of the 2000–2006 programming period. Overall, based on indirect assessments and some actual research there are signs of positive effects of AE measures on biodiversity but in many case these do not always fully meet the scientific criteria. More comprehensive environmental monitoring systems should be based on adequate scheme administration and procedures that also record aspects to be used as basis for environmental monitoring, proper monitoring data management system and techniques linked to planned and representative monitoring research and regular fieldwork.
References
ADAS CONSULTING LIMITED AND SQW LIMITED 2003: The Mid-Term Evaluation of the England Rural Development Programme. Prepared for: Rural Development Division Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. December 2003.
ADE S.A. (2003) Plan de Développement Rural Wallon. Evaluation à mi-parcours. Rapport final. Décembre 2003. Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
ADE S.A. – ECAU. 2003: Plan de développement rural du Grand Duché de Luxembourg. Evaluation à miparcours. Rapport final du 30 décembre 2003. Ministère de l’Agriculture, de la Viticulture et du Développement Rural. Luxembourg.
AFCON MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS IN ASSOCIATION WITH UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK 2003: CAP Rural Development Plan 2000–2006. Mid-Term Evaluation. Ireland.. September 2003. AGRICONSULTING S.P.A. SOCIETÀ PER LA CONSULENZA E LO SVILUPPO DELLE ATTIVITÀ AGRICOLE E AMBIENTALI 2003: Valutazione Intermedia del Piano di Sviluppo Rurale 2000–2006 Sicilia. Asessorato Regionale Agricoltura e Foreste. Dicembre 2003.
AGRICONSULTING S.P.A. SOCIETÀ PER LA CONSULENZA E LO SVILUPPO DELLE ATTIVITÀ AGRICOLE E AMBIENTALI 2003: Valutazione Intermedia del Piano di Sviluppo Rurale 2000–2006 della Regione Toscana. Giunta Regionale. Dipartimento dello Sviluppo Economico Servizio Programmi Comunitari ed intersettoriali in materia agricola Dicembre, 2003.
AGRICONSULTING S.P.A. SOCIETÀ PER LA CONSULENZA E LO SVILUPPO DELLE ATTIVITÀ AGRICOLE E AMBIENTALI 2003: Valutazione Intermedia del Piano di Sviluppo Rurale 2000–2006 della Regione Veneto. Giunta Regionale. Segretaria Regionale del Settore Primario. Dicembre, 2003.
CEFAG – ERENA – CIDEC 2003: RURIS – Plano de Desenvolvimento Rural de Portugal Continental. Estudio de avaliacao intercalar do plano de desenvolvimento rural de Portugal Continental. Relatório de Avaliação Intercalar.
Donald P. F., Sanderson F. J. , Burfield I. J. et al. 2006: Further evidence of continent-wide impacts of agricultural intensification on European farmland birds, 1990–2000 Agriculture ecosystem and environment 116: 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.02.007
DTZ PIEDA CONSULTING 2004: Mid-Term Evaluation of Measures Funded by the EAGGF. Final Report. Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2000: Common Evaluation Questions with Criteria and Indicators http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rur/eval/evalquest/b_en.pdf
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2002: Guidelines for the mid term evaluation of rural development programmes 2000–2006. DOC. STAR VI/43517/02. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rur/eval/index_en.htm
Hoogeveen, Y., Petersen, J. E., Balazs, K., Higuero I. 2004: High nature value farmland - Characteristics, trends and policy challenges. EEA Report No 1/2004.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2007 Balázs Katalin
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
A folyóirat Open Access (Gold). Cikkeire a Creative Commons 4.0 standard licenc alábbi típusa vonatkozik: CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0. Ennek értelmében a mű szabadon másolható, terjeszthető, bemutatható és előadható, azonban nem használható fel kereskedelmi célokra (NC), továbbá nem módosítható és nem készíthető belőle átdolgozás, származékos mű (ND). A licenc alapján a szerző vagy a jogosult által meghatározott módon fel kell tüntetni a szerző nevét és a szerzői mű címét (BY).
