Rethinking agri-environmental schemes. A result-oriented approach to the management of species-rich grasslands in France

Abstract

Recent evaluations of agri-environmental schemes have questioned the effectiveness of using management prescriptions to achieve intended outcomes. This paper explores an alternative approach to the delivery of biodiversity objectives to French farmers. It presents an analysis of an innovative collaborative programme focusing on ecological results rather than management prescriptions. In particular, the argumentation to which this new focus has given rise within the community of nature managers is examined. It reveals the re-shaping of the notion of grassland habitats which has been carried out by innovators and has allowed a reconciliation of biodiversity conservation goals with farmers' work and values. In this sense, the 'Flowering Meadows' programme combines the creation of a public good with the generation of a public for that good. The effectiveness and potential of the result-based approach are discussed, with emphasis given to the design of the outcome and possible future policy developments.

‘Farming on the Edge’: Wellbeing and Participation in Agri‐Environmental Schemes

“…Annual surveys, farm visits and discussions about how many acres, seeds and species they have are processes through which the farmers judge one another's performance, and contribute to the symbolic value with which they determine ‘good farmer’ status (Burton ). CFP flowers have particular significance: their aesthetic appeal provides a sense of satisfaction for farmers but they are also a visible, comparable medium denoting conservation farmer expertise through familiar criteria such as yield and acreage, mirroring farmers’ behaviour in wildflower projects described by de Sainte Marie () and Fleury et al . ().…”

Ways of farming and ways of thinking: do farmers’ mental models of the landscape relate to their land management practices?

“…The efficiency of such conservation policies is, however, increasingly being questioned (Pe'er et al 2014, Batáry et al 2015. The way they are designed, through centrally defined management prescriptions, was suggested as a potential reason for their failure (e.g., PintoCorreia et al 2006, de Sainte Marie 2014. Pinto-Correia et al (2006) and de Sainte Marie (2014) advocate for more contextual, results-based and place-related approaches to reconcile conservation goals with farmers' work and values.…”

Fit-for-Purpose Institutions? An Evaluation of Biodiversity Conservation in the Agricultural Landscape of the Tasmanian Midlands, Australia

“…Gaining a better understanding of the interactions between biodiversity and property rights and their expression in a multifunctional landscape can help drive reform (Berman, Quinn, & Paavola, 2012), and has already led to innovative collaborative institutions among landholders, scientists, and governments for deciding which landscape functions should be prioritized and protected and how (e.g. de Sainte Marie, 2014). Collaboration sits at the heart of overcoming the issues associated with property rights and the multiple objectives of a multi--functional landscape.…”