Abstract
The 'Monitoring and Evaluation of Agri-environment Schemes' study (2004-2008) investigated the effects in Scotland of the Countryside Premium Scheme ( CPS), Rural Stewardship Scheme ( RSS) and Organic Aid Scheme ( OAS) on biodiversity (plants, invertebrates and birds), landscape and cultural heritage (archaeology). The fieldwork was conducted on 331 scheme farms and 240 non-scheme farms, and where possible the scheme farms were paired with similar, nearby non-scheme farms. There was also a separate postal questionnaire survey of 493 scheme and 353 non-scheme farmers comparing their demographics and attitudes.
The study found that the CPS farms (surveyed with their non-scheme partners in one year only), supported significantly more wildlife (individuals and species) of certain groups than the non-scheme farms, and archaeological features were of a higher standard on CPS farms. The RSS farms (surveyed with their non-scheme partners twice with a three year interval) were also significantly richer in wildlife than the non-scheme farms, both at the start of the study and when re-surveyed three years later. Biodiversity measures generally increased significantly over time on both the RSS and non-scheme farms, but there was no difference in the rate, or nature, of change between them. There were also no significant changes over time in either the landscape or archaeology features, although there was no deterioration in the latter either. In both a one-off comparison in one group of OAS farms and non-scheme partners, and when looking for change over time in another group, there were again no differences.
The questionnaire survey of farmers found, amongst other things, that participants generally thought schemes were well-run by the Scottish Government, not onerous to administer (less so for OAS participants) and that payments were largely adequate (less so for OAS farmers). In contrast, it was found that non-participants had not joined schemes because of expectations of interference, too much paperwork and inadequate payments. Importantly, most scheme participants said they would change little on their farms if they were not in the schemes.
The greater biodiversity on CPS and RSS farms relative to their non-scheme partners probably reflects the selection procedure for these schemes: only farms with beneficial features were admitted into the schemes, and little improvement took place thereafter. However, this suggests that some scheme prescriptions do enhance wildlife populations, because the scheme farms had greater biodiversity, but many of the prescription habitats were already in place when the farms joined the scheme.