Introduction
Increased agricultural intensification associated with large amounts of fertilizers, pesticides, and monocultures threatens biodiversity and negatively affects the environment and ecosystem service provisioning (Tscharntke et al.
2005; IPBES
2019). Ecosystem services and biodiversity are essential to provide a good quality of life. Given the need to provide food for an increasing population, strategies to reduce the impacts of agricultural practices have to be sought (IPBES
2019). The importance of strengthening environmentally friendly agriculture has also been acknowledged by changes in the agricultural policy system and related subsidies. In the case of the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union (CAP), agri-environmental schemes (AES) have been supported since 1992 (Mennig and Sauer
2019). Farmers who participate in these voluntary schemes receive financial compensation for the loss incurred by lower productivity that may occur due to the utilization of less intensive and more environmentally friendly farming practices (Batáry et al.
2015). Between 2014 and 2020, around 24.4% (99.59 billion €) of the CAP budget was allocated for rural development. From this share for rural development, at least 30% had to be spent on environmental and climate-related objectives, including AES (Massot
2021).
The large CAP budget offers great potential to improve the environmental state in agriculturally dominated landscapes, though ongoing discussions about allocating this money most efficiently remain (Heyl et al.
2021). Integrating perspectives from various stakeholders, including farmers and personnel involved in nature management and protection (nature managers), represents a valuable way to exploit this potential and improve schemes (Toderi et al.
2017). In our study, nature managers represent a variety of actors working or volunteering in organizations and agencies related to nature protection and management of greenspaces (see Section “
Survey of farmers and nature managers”). The involvement of stakeholders can further improve the attractiveness of schemes. Given the voluntary nature of AES, this is essential to increase participation and achieve environmental targets (Espinosa‐Goded et al.
2010). A study by Prager and Freese (
2009) showed that including farmers’ practical knowledge in AES could increase the attractiveness and acceptability of schemes.
Given that farmers’ incomes depend on agricultural production, it can be expected that they would formulate ideas emphasizing production-integrated measures, addressing feasibility and practicalities. On the other hand, professionals in nature protection might focus more on nature conservation than agricultural productivity. Thus, incorporating the perspectives of nature managers and farmers could support the creation of attractive schemes that aim to minimize trade-offs between additional work, productivity loss, and environmental benefits. Additionally, flexibility and adequate compensation are important to increase attractiveness for stakeholder groups (Lastra-Bravo et al.
2015).
Many studies have addressed the design and acceptability of AES (Uthes and Matzdorf
2013) by examining factors for participation (Defrancesco et al.
2008; Lastra-Bravo et al.
2015; Buschmann and Röder
2019), the ecological or cost-effectiveness of schemes (Ekroos et al.
2014; Batáry et al.
2015; Ansell et al.
2016), and the connection between AES and ecosystem services (Früh-Müller et al.
2018). Some studies discuss specific measures. For example, Sattler and Nagel (
2010) investigated the risks, practicability, and costs of certain AES. Christensen et al. (
2011) as well as Mante and Gerowitt (
2009) analyzed single measures, including pesticide-free buffer zones and field margins, respectively. Many studies evaluated factors for the attractiveness of AES based on choice models, with a predefined set of answer options, which gives little room for comments from the survey respondents (Buschmann and Röder
2019; Defrancesco et al.
2008; Ruto and Garrod
2009).
It is important to note that the opinions of non-farmer stakeholders involved in AES are underrepresented in the literature. Some rare examples address the attitudes of both farmers and policy administrators (Schulze and Matzdorf
2023), perspectives of farm advisors (Hejnowicz et al.
2016), the role of landscape management associations as bridging institutions that support collaboration and coordination (Prager
2015; Josefsson et al.
2017), as well as the impact of landscape management associations on the implementation of AES (Schomers et al.
2015). However, investigating the perspectives of these stakeholders is particularly important, given their role as implementing entities or advisors. Considering the intensity with which the agricultural sector shapes landscapes, there is a need to engage multiple stakeholders, including practitioners in nature protection, in the design of AES (Prager and Freese
2009).
Likewise, too little attention has been paid to the impact of various farmer characteristics on their perspectives regarding AES. Previous studies have been primarily based on single variables, such as the farm system (conventional, organic) or farmer education status. However, multiple other economic, social, and farm characteristics, including factors like the operation mode (full-time, part-time) and the farm size, have been identified as factors playing a role in the acceptability of AES. Differences can also be expected due to varying levels of environmental awareness (Lastra-Bravo et al.
2015). Investigating the preferences of distinct groups can help design more targeted measures, potentially increasing participation rates (Barreiro-Hurlé et al.
2010).
Our study fills a gap by systematically asking farmers and nature managers (stakeholders involved in nature management and protection) about their ideas for improving funding schemes for protecting nature and landscapes in agricultural areas. By analyzing data from a large-scale survey in Bavaria, Germany, we aim to identify recommendations and required adaptations for agri-environmental schemes by addressing the following research questions:
1.
What suggestions do farmers and nature managers have to improve AES in Bavaria, and how do these differ between farmers and nature managers and among farmers?
2.
How does the frequency of suggested AES compare to current AES participation rates in Bavaria?
Conclusion
The goal of our study was to assess farmers’ and nature managers’ recommendations and adaptations for agri-environmental schemes. Our results show that both groups have various ideas for improving current schemes and are willing to share their experiences. Policymakers should aim for a more active integration of stakeholders across the policy-making process. In addition, this study provides evidence that farmers’ needs depend on underlying background conditions, including social, demographic, and economic factors, as well as farm characteristics. This suggests that a more nuanced design of AES, with a more regional adaptation as well as different levels of flexibility, practicability, and nature protection value, is important in developing future AES. With the new CAP eco-schemes having started in 2023, some of the discussed measures, such as a shorter commitment period, have been put into action. However, many practitioners’ suggestions are not reflected in the schemes yet. Thus, there is still ample room for improvement, both in terms of practicality and impact. Additionally, future research should focus more on considerations of nature managers, as their views are particularly helpful in connecting species protection and farming better.
Specifically for the farmers, the study reveals deficits in the knowledge about ecosystem services. Farmer suggestions often targeted familiar farming practices based on external inputs rather than using benefits provided by ecosystem services (Bommarco et al.
2013). This implies that better ways of incorporating benefits from nature protection and ecosystem services into the subsidy system could be found. Additionally, raising farmers’ awareness about ecosystem services and how their enhancement can promote agricultural performance would be a promising step.
Acknowledgements
This study was performed within the LandKlif project as part of the Bavarian Climate Research Network (bayklif,
https://www.bayklif.de), which was funded by the Bavarian Ministry of Science and the Arts. We are grateful to all institutions and persons who supported the survey, which were, first of all, the survey participants, the Bavarian Ministry for Nutrition, Agriculture and Forestry (StMELF) for allowing surveys at their offices, the newspapers writing about our survey, all the other associations like the Bavarian State Forests (BaySF) spreading the invitation to the survey as well as all researchers and student assistants who helped to implement the survey. We also thank Prof. Dr. Florian Kaiser (Institute of Psychology, University of Magdeburg) for suggesting improvements to the draft questionnaire. We are also grateful for the feedback of three anonymous reviewers that helped improving the manuscript.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.