Agri-environmental measures (MAE) are measures introduced in the European Union as part of the Common Agricultural Policy, in return for payments to voluntary farmers. They are one response to the growing concerns of the public, consumers, local authorities and certain elected representatives about the ecological impact of the intensification of agriculture, which developed strongly throughout the 20th century, relying on crop mechanization, chemical inputs, off-farm breeding and, more recently, biotechnologies integrating the transfer of genes from one species to another (transgenesis).
Objectives These measures are mainly aimed at protecting rural landscapes, watercourses, flora, and fauna.
These credits are generally for maintenance (management), not investment ( they finance hedge management, not hedge planting). They are governed by the European "agri-environmental" regulation of June 30, 1992, which resulted from the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in May 1992. Each member state has developed its subsidiary version.
In France, the 2007-2013 programming period classifies MAEs into nine schemes:
the Prime Herbagère Agroenvironnementale or PHAE the rotational MAE aid for input-saving polyculture-breeding forage systems (SFEI) aid for conversion to organic farming (CAB) support for maintaining organic farming (MAB) protection of endangered breeds (PRM) Preservation of endangered plant resources (PRV) aid for beekeeping MAE territorialized (MAET)
In the case of MAET, only certain types of measures are eligible, and only on certain territories; for example, in Natura 2000 areas, in regional nature parks, in areas vulnerable to erosion, etc. (they are said to be territorialized). These measures can be financed by the State via the DIREN, or by the Water Agencies (protection of water catchment areas, etc.), but also by local authorities (regional councils, general councils, etc.). They are co-financed up to 55% by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).
Examples of agri-environmental measures (MAE)
grassed strips along watercourses agri-environmental grassland premium (PHAE) fertilizer ban on certain natural grasslands. maintenance of rangelands restoration and maintenance of hedges and hedgerows agroforestry Limitation of phytosanitary treatments conversion to organic farming Topographical equivalent surface (SET)
MAET and biodiversity From 2011 to 2013, the following are eligible as "biodiversity areas (BA)":
Permanent grassland, moorland, rangeland, alpine pastures, estates located in Natura 2000 zones; 1 ha of grassland in Natura 2000 = 2 ha of SB, and 1 ha of SB = 0.5 ha of grassland in Natura 2000; Perennial grassed buffer strips located outside watercourses, established as part of GAEC; 1 ha of buffer strips = 1 ha of SB and 1 ha of SB = 1 ha of buffer strips; Fixed fallow (excluding industrial set-aside); in strips 10 to 20 m wide 1 ha fallow = 1 ha SB 1 ha SB = 1 ha fallow; Herbaceous areas set aside and withdrawn from production; 1 m length = 100 m2 of SB 1 ha of SB = 100 m length set aside; High-stem orchards; 1 ha of high-stem orchards = 5 ha of SB and 1 ha of SB = 0.2 ha of high-stem orchards; Peat bogs; 1 ha of peat bogs = 20 ha of SB and 1 ha of SB = 5 ares of peat bogs Hedges 1 linear meter = 100 m2 of SB 1 ha of SB = 100 m of hedges; Tree lines; 1 linear meter = 10 m2 of SB and 1 ha of SB = 1 km of tree lines; Isolated trees; 1 tree = 50 m2 of SB and 1 ha of SB = 200 isolated trees; Forest edges, copses; 1 meter of edge = 100 m2 of SB and 1 ha of SB = 100 m of forest edge; Ditches, watercourses, gullies; 1 linear meter = 10 m2 of SB and 1 ha of SB = 1 km of ditches; Ponds, potholes; 1 meter of perimeter = 100 m2 of SB and 1 ha of SB = 100 m of perimeter; Low walls, terraces with low walls, clapas; 1 meter of low walls = 50 m2 of SB and 1 ha of SB = 200 m of low walls; Certain types of moorland, grazing land, mountain pastures, estivates (defined at the departmental level by the prefect); Certain permanent grasslands defined at the departmental level (wet meadows, coastal meadows, etc.);
The Prefect, by prefectural decree, may add to this list certain types of permanent grassland or extensive grazing areas of particular interest for the protection of biodiversity (wet meadows or coastal meadows, for example).
Assessments, evaluations Despite Natura 2000 programs and over 20 years of agri-environmental subsidies, across the northern hemisphere as a whole, most agricultural biodiversity indicators show worrying problems, including in most areas where agri-environmental measures have been applied since the 1990s. This is also true of France, where we are witnessing a trivialization of flora and fauna, with a sharp reduction in biodiversity. These measures have slowed the phenomenon, but not stopped it. Research on agricultural biodiversity and finance peaked between 2000 and 2003, with limited subsequent integration into newer work on corporate sustainability reporting or conservation finance instruments.
Qualitative and financial assessments are difficult to establish for several reasons:
systems that compensate farmers financially for the loss of income associated with measures deemed beneficial to the environment or biodiversity vary from country to country and from period to period; thus, in some cases, the main objectives are a sharp reduction in emissions of chemical or non-chemical inputs (chemical fertilizers or nutrients brought in excess in other forms); pesticides. These objectives do not seem to have been achieved in 2013 in France, for example, where nitrates and pesticides continue to pose serious eutrophication and ecotoxicological problems.) Other objectives include protecting biodiversity and its habitats, through renaturation (restoration of ponds, hedges, reintroduction of species, etc.), rural landscapes, and preventing rural exodus; a geographical area may be affected by pesticide inputs (mainly airborne or runoff) or by turbidity phenomena induced by agriculture outside the area concerned, or upstream of the watershed; program content, requirements, and indicators vary from country to country and region to region, and not all European countries benefit from agri-environmental programs (only 26 out of 44 European countries had such a program at the beginning of the 2000s; however, some of the countries not benefiting from such programs had more extensive agriculture, and a priori less destructive of biodiversity); logically, areas of extensive agriculture (where biodiversity is still relatively present) were more targeted by these programs, while areas of intensive agriculture (where biodiversity had already been greatly reduced, continued to deteriorate).
In the United States; a tradition going back more than 70 years In the United States, agricultural subsidies (and even crop insurance) are much more subject to cross-compliance than in Europe. This environmental conditionality has been an integral part of American agricultural policy since the 1930s, following the observation of severe soil degradation caused by the intensification of agriculture.
In 1985, the United States introduced three separate cross-compliance programs for field crops (corn, wheat, barley, sorghum, oats, rice, cotton, and soybeans, which receive aid via commodity programs). These three programs were set up under the 1985 Farm Bill. They are overseen by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
conservation compliance", aimed primarily at combating soil erosion and degradation (with 41 million hectares eligible); sodbuster", designed to protect vulnerable soils from plowing and cultivation; the "swam-buster", targeting wetlands (6 million hectares)
In 2013, "about 80% of U.S. farmers use crop insurance as an essential risk management tool to manage price volatility and climate variability; Farmers and ranchers pay a premium for this insurance, but about 60 percent of the actual cost of this premium is covered by taxpayers via USDA subsidies". Thus, the public may legitimately want crop insurance payments to be conditional on environmentally sound agricultural performance, argues Bruce Knight, Director of Strategic Conservation Solutions and former Secretary of Marketing and Regulatory Programs at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) from 2006 to 2009, after having headed the Natural Resources Conservation Service (from 2002 to 2006).
In Europe: mixed results In Europe, eco-conditionality has been enshrined in the horizontal regulations of the "Berlin Agreement" since 1999. However, for reasons of subsidiarity, it is the member states of the European Union who define the precise content of the programs, and who must ensure, through appropriate controls, that they are properly applied on their territory.
In 2003, a study estimated that around 24.3 billion euros had been spent on agri-environmental programs in the European Union (EU) between 1994 and 2002, but it was not possible to assess how much of this was spent on biodiversity; an exhaustive search of studies that had sought to test the effectiveness of agri-environmental programs in the press showed that only 62 evaluation studies had been published, carried out in just 5 EU countries and Switzerland; 76% of the studies were carried out in the Netherlands and the UK, where at that time only 6% of the EU's agri-environmental budgets had been spent. A few studies concerned Germany Ireland and Portugal; and 31% of these studies contained no statistical analysis. What's more, when an experimental approach was used, its conclusions were generally weak and biased towards the most favorable indicators. The most common experimental design (used by 37% of studies) was to compare biodiversity in agri-environmental scheme areas and areas presented as control areas, but with biases, for example when farmers or coordinating authorities selected the agri-environmental scheme sites studied. In such cases, the sites were likely to have higher biodiversity at the outset than the control sites; this problem can be solved by collecting a wider range of baseline data (34% of studies), comparing trends and not just inventories or inventories (32%) or studying changes (26% of cases) in biodiversity depending on whether or not the area benefits from agri-environmental measures, or better (done in only 16% of studies) by matching control sites and those that have benefited from agri-environmental measures so that their environmental conditions are similar.
only just over half (54%) of the indicator species or groups studied showed an increase. And 6% of these indicators showed a decrease in species richness (fewer species) or abundance compared to the control sites. At 17% of sites, some species seemed to benefit from the measures, while 23% showed no change at all, with a highly variable response depending on the taxa observed. Of 19 studies that examined bird response and included statistical analysis, only 4 concluded that there was a significant increase in bird richness or abundance. Two studies even showed a decrease, while 9 others showed both increases and decreases. About arthropods, comparisons with control sites were made by 20 studies; only 11 studies showed an increase in species richness or abundance, but none showed a decrease, and three showed both increases and decreases depending on the taxon.