The introduction of Entry Level Stewardship in England: Extension or dilution in agri-environment policy?

Abstract Agri-environment schemes were introduced in the mid-1980s. Their primary objectives have developed from initially aiming to hold back intensification towards stimulating environmental enhancement. The introduction of Entry Level Stewardship (ELS) in England represents a third stage in seeking to extend the coverage of schemes across the majority of agricultural land. This aims to influence land use along the whole of the intensive margin. The ELS offers a wide range of options for which farmers are awarded points. Selection of options equivalent to 30 points per ha in lowland areas entitles farmers to a payment of £30 per ha. By September 2007, 4.4 million ha had been entered into the scheme, equivalent to 47% of the agricultural area. From amongst the options on offer, 34% of points were for boundary options, 20% for intensive grass options, 16% for management plans and 13% for options taking arable land out of production. The choice of options varies across the country with a higher proportion of the agricultural area entered in the East. Entry into the scheme is associated with total agricultural area, cereals farming, larger farms, a lower proportion of area in Environmentally Sensitive Area and Countryside Stewardship schemes and grazing livestock numbers. While the ELS has introduced a large number of new entrants into agri-environment schemes, the extent of the environmental impact is uncertain. Given the large number of options available, it is likely that farmers will have chosen options that involve relatively little change and incur limited cost. At the same time, it would be surprising if the environmental gains were of the types most valued within local areas. The ELS approach implies that public goods provided from agricultural land should be paid for irrespective of what would have happened in the absence of the scheme. While this may be a fairer approach, it may also undermine the idea of land stewardship and imply that payments will continue to be required in the long term in order to sustain provision. The ELS does establish a framework within which incentives could be targeted to deliver specific benefits within particular contexts and suggestions are made as to how policy might be developed for this.

[1]  C. Morris,et al.  Recruiting the new conservationists: Farmers' adoption of agri-environmental schemes in the U.K. , 1995 .

[2]  F. Thorne,et al.  How Decoupled Are Decoupled Payments? The Evidence from Ireland , 2005 .

[3]  M. Whitby Challenges and Options for the UK Agri‐Environment: Presidential Address , 2008 .

[4]  Roel Jongeneel,et al.  Why are Dutch farmers going multifunctional , 2008 .

[5]  C. Potter,et al.  The conservation status and potential of elderly farmers: Results from a survey in England and Wales , 1992 .

[6]  K. Falconer Farm-level constraints on agri-environmental scheme participation: a transactional perspective. , 2000 .

[7]  I. Hodge The Governance of Rural Land in a Liberalised World , 2007 .

[8]  Matt Lobley,et al.  Environmental Stewardship in UK agriculture: A comparison of the environmentally sensitive area programme and the Countryside Stewardship Scheme in South East England , 1998 .

[9]  R. Edwards,et al.  A note on the effect of farmer mental health on adoption: The case of agri-environment schemes , 2006 .

[10]  William J. Sutherland,et al.  How effective are European agri‐environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? , 2003 .

[11]  Bruno S. Frey,et al.  A Constitution for Knaves Crowds Out Civic Virtues , 1997 .

[12]  I. Hodge,et al.  Beyond agri-environmental policy: towards an alternative model of rural environmental governance , 2001 .

[13]  America's Conservation Reserve Program: Rural planning or just another subsidy? , 1988 .

[14]  D. Colman ETHICS AND EXTERNALITIES: AGRICULTURAL STEWARDSHIP AND OTHER BEHAVIOUR: PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS , 1994 .

[15]  J Hunt,et al.  The multi-disciplinary evaluation of a national agri-environment scheme. , 2003, Journal of environmental management.

[16]  B. White,et al.  Efficient Contract Design for Agri‐Environment Policy , 2008 .

[17]  G. Wilson Factors Influencing Farmer Participation in the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Scheme , 1997 .

[18]  Katrin Prager,et al.  Participatory decision making on agri-environmental programmes: A case study from Sachsen-Anhalt (Germany) , 2008 .

[19]  Geoff A. Wilson,et al.  The Australian Landcare movement: towards ‘post-productivist’ rural governance? , 2004 .

[20]  Rob J.F. Burton,et al.  Exploring Farmers' Cultural Resistance to Voluntary Agri-environmental Schemes , 2008 .

[21]  J. Nix Farm management pocketbook , 1980 .

[22]  P. Glasbergen,et al.  Governing Agri-Environmental Schemes: Lessons to Be Learned from the New Institutional-Economics Approach , 2008 .

[23]  I. Hodge Agri-environmental Pelationships and the Choice of Policy Mechanism , 2000 .

[24]  Victoria Haigh,et al.  Environmentally sensitive areas , 1990 .

[25]  J. Caborn Nature conservation in Great Britain: Nature Conservancy Council, Attingham Park, Shrewsbury SY4 4TW, England, 1984, 112 pp., illustrated, paperback, price £7.50, ISBN 0-86139-285-X , 1986 .

[26]  F. Herzog,et al.  Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri-environment schemes in five European countries. , 2006, Ecology letters.

[27]  Alan Swinbank,et al.  Implications for food production, land use and rural development of the European Union’s Single Farm Payment: Indications from a survey of farmers’ intentions in Germany, Portugal and the UK , 2007 .

[28]  S. Mann Farm Size Growth and Participation in Agri-environmental Schemes: A Configural Frequency Analysis of the Swiss Case , 2005 .