Improving the link between payments and the provision of ecosystem services in agri-environment schemes

Abstract

. 2014. Improving the link between payments and the provision of ecosystem services in agri-environment schemes.Contact CEH NORA team at noraceh@ceh.ac.ukThe NERC and CEH trademarks and logos ('the Trademarks') are registered trademarks of NERC in the UK and other countries, and may not be used without the prior written consent of the Trademark owner.Improving the link between payments and the provision of ecosystem services in agri-environment schemes in UK peatlands AbstractThis paper considers how agri-environment schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy could be adapted to derive a higher return of ecosystem services from agricultural land, through deliberation with members of the public, land owners, managers and other stakeholders: i) paying for the ecosystem services that are valued most by society; ii) spatially targeting payments to locations where ecosystem services can most efficiently be provided; and iii) providing incentives for cross-boundary collaboration over the provision of ecosystem services that need to be managed at catchment or wider spatial scales. Using UK upland peatlands as a case study, and drawing on experience tackling these issues in the new Glastir agri-environment scheme in Wales, the paper attempts to find a balance between current input-based schemes that pay for land management activities on the basis of income foregone and output-based schemes that pay by results. The paper reviews evidence that spatially targeted, output-based payments may be more economically efficient than current approaches, but identifies a number of challenges, including: scientific uncertainty; pricing of ecosystem services; timing of payments; increased risk to land managers; compliance with World Trade Organisation regulations; and barriers to cross-boundary collaboration in the management of ecosystem services at habitat, catchment or landscape scales. A number of options are reviewed to overcome these challenges, including: the use of process-based models, pressureresponse functions and expert knowledge to establish causal links between management and ecosystem service delivery and reduce the costs of monitoring; the use of competitive bidding or non-market valuation techniques to set prices for ecosystem service delivery; insurance schemes; combining agri-environment schemes with funding from private Payment for Ecosystem Service schemes; and independent facilitation of groups of potential applicants across property boundaries in scheme options that are co-designed with the land management community. Drawing on examples from UK peatlands and experience designing the Glastir scheme, the paper 2 proposes a number of ways in which agri-environment schemes around the world that make payments on the basis of management inputs can better link payments to the provision of ecosystem services.

Agri-environmental collaboratives for landscape management in Europe

“…Collaborative management through (existing) Grazing Association who can apply for entry into AES [19] Pontbren Farmers Group; Wales Agri-environmental collaborative (10 farmer members) undertaking sustainable farming practices [20] Cultural landscape projects, Austria National or regional programme requiring participation of local stakeholders and citizens with a focus on conservation and landscape co-management [21,22] Integrated Local Delivery, England Facilitation process used to deliver integrated management through a local management group of all stakeholders (evolved from FWAG approach) [23] Landcare groups, Germany Agri-environmental collaboratives involved in landscape management, habitat and species management, using AES and other funding [24,[25][26][27] Agrarische Natuurverenigingen (ANV), The Netherlands…”

An overview of the progress and challenges of peatland restoration in Western Europe

“…However, these are not often expressed as tangible outcomes to the landowners. By quantifying ecological benefits arising from peatland restoration in economic terms and communicating them more effectively, we can influence future investment (Reed et al ) and inform the selection of cost‐effective areas to be restored (Adame et al ).…”

An indicator framework to help maximise potential benefits for ecosystem services and biodiversity from ecological focus areas

“…In many respects, this picture is reflected at the farm level where there may also be different actions and initiatives to address different issues, and a more integrated approach is required to ensure all initiatives are pulling in the same direction and/or maximising the chances of increasing desirable outcomes. This is part of a general conceptual shift from compliance towards performance (at both policy and farm levels), such as payments for ecosystem services (Reed et al, 2014;Smith et al, 2013), and thus there is a growing need to be able to assess, measure and monitor this.…”