Search

Agri‐environment schemes (AES) have been criticized for being inadequately monitored and for not delivering the expected benefits to nature. Consequently, the Welsh Government funded a comprehensive programme of monitoring of AES between 2009 and 2012. The AES assessment focused on Tir Gofal (which translates as "Land in Care") but also included the Organic Farming Scheme, and monitoring focused on a range of taxa of conservation importance: arable plants, grassland fungi, bats (six species), butterflies (three species), birds (five species), water vole and brown hare.Field surveys were carried out on matched farms and fields within and outside of AES. Response variables were spatial trends of abundance, occurrence and species richness, and were modelled against AES status. Existing data were also available for two bird species.Few differences were observed between AES and non‐AES farms and fields. Those that were observed were for species that use arable habitats (which are uncommon in Wales): arable plants, yellowhammers and brown hares. The lack of differences in non‐arable habitats may reflect the smaller contrast between AES and non‐AES management in these habitats. It may also reflect the original condition of habitat entered into AES prescriptions, as most non‐arable prescriptions were defined by mandatory management of existing habitats, rather than optional habitat creation or restoration, which is the case for most arable prescriptions.Despite the lack of differences observed, AES may help to maintain populations of species, making it more likely that they will persist in the landscape. There is evidence, from this monitoring programme and elsewhere, that AES can increase the populations of species, when well targeted and implemented.Policy implications. Our results indicate that Welsh Agri‐environment schemes (AES) have been only partly successful in achieving their stated aim of "maintaining and enhancing species abundance". They can be used to improve AES design and management, both in Wales and more widely, by identifying and promoting effective management interventions, and by identifying ineffective management interventions and seeking alternatives. Comprehensive monitoring of AES, combined with specific targets regarding expected outcomes, is essential to determine whether AES are providing value for money. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Improved water quality, through a reduction in diffuse pollution from agricultural sources, is an expected benefit of agri-environment schemes, but this has yet to be demonstrated in practice. Here, we evaluate the impact of Welsh agri-environment schemes on water quality and freshwater ecosystem condition through a combined monitoring and modelling framework., To determine the influence of the agri-environment schemes on ecosystem condition, spatially independent catchments dominated by a single scheme (>40% of catchment) were compared to control catchments dominated (>70%) by agricultural land that was not part of any scheme. Biological indicators of water quality were monitored at the outfall of each catchment and a spatially explicit modelling framework of diffuse pollutant emissions applied to each of the 80 catchments., Direct comparison (scheme/non-scheme) was unable to identify any significant effect of agri-environment scheme participation. However, derived biological indicators that reflected organic pollution, eutrophication and pesticide run-off were strongly correlated with modelled concentrations of corresponding diffuse pollutants, thus providing a ground-truth for the models. Scenarios that assessed the correct counterfactuals (i.e. the influence of scheme entry on pollutant output) were developed for the whole of Wales. The models indicated an important effect of scheme entry on water quality, but this effect was not evenly distributed across the landscape., Synthesis and applications. Our results indicate that agri-environment schemes can deliver improvements in water quality, through a reduction in diffuse pollution from agricultural sources. However, it is not easy to demonstrate scheme effectiveness; the combination of field survey and modelling used here provides a framework for addressing these difficulties. A spatially targeted approach for agri-environment scheme options to protect water resources from diffuse pollution is likely to be most effective at delivering water quality improvements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights • Land-use and habitats were broadly similar between TG and control farms. • New hedges, uncropped margins and young trees were more prevalent on TG farms. • Encounter rates of target bat species were high, and occurrence similar, on both TG and control farms. • Where present, the intensity of activity of N. noctula / Nyctalus group was higher on control farms. • There were no relationships between bat activity and time under TG management. Abstract Agricultural intensification was a major driver of declines in western European wildlife populations during the twentieth century, including those of bats. Agri-environment schemes are advocated as the key government-funded mechanism to restore biodiversity, but evidence for their effects has been mixed. We examined the response of six bat species to Tir Gofal (TG), a Welsh AES that operated from 1999 to 2011. A large-scale multi-site study compared bat activity and key habitat variables on TG farms paired with control farms not in the scheme. Observations were made over three years (2009 to 2011) using three types of bat detector survey. Pipistrellus pipistrellus , P. pygmaeus , Myotis daubentonii , Rhinolophus hipposideros and R. ferrumequinum showed similar overall and foraging activity on TG and control farms (occurrence, intensity of activity where present). Occurrence of Nyctalus noctula and Nyctalus group was also similar on both farm types, but where they were present, the intensity of their activity was higher on control farms. The lack of influence of TG status on bat activity may reflect the close similarity in occurrence and condition of many key habitats on the two farm types and should be seen in the context of a mainly traditional extensively farmed landscape. Habitat prescriptions may have been insufficiently mature, implemented at too low density or lacking roosting provision to stimulate a species response, or may have had greater impact in a more intensively farmed landscape where less high quality bat habitat was available. A more targeted approach to creating and enhancing field and landscape scale roosting, foraging and commuting resources may be needed to effect positive responses in bat populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]