The monitoring and assessment of agri-environmental (AE) changes and impacts can help to reconcile different land use interests. This paper presents a common methodological framework for assessing changes and, related to that assessment, the effectiveness of AE schemes. The authors use a quantitative farm-level Agri-environmental Footprint Index (AFI), which aggregates the measurement of a range of farm and landscape-level indicators. The involvement of stakeholders is critically important in regionally customizing the index and its actual application. Such involvement raises the awareness of stakeholders about the multifunctionality of landscapes. This research builds on the results of the EU-funded AE-Footprint project.
BromleyD. (1997), ‘Environmental benefits of agriculture: Concepts’, in: OECD, ed, Environmental Benefits from Agriculture: Issues and Policies, OECD Proceedings, Paris, pp 35–53.
2.
Council of Europe (1996), Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy, Council of Europe, Strasbourg.
3.
EEA (2006), Integration of Environment into EU Agriculture Policy – The IRENA Indicator-Based Assessment Report, EEA Report 2/2006, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
4.
European Commission (1998), State of Application of Reg. (EEC) No. 2078/92: Evaluation of Agri-environmental Programmes, DG VI Commission Working Document VI/7655/98, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.
5.
European Commission (1999), ‘Directions towards sustainable agriculture’, Decision 182/1999/EC, EC, Brussels.
6.
European Commission (2000), Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Indicators for the Integration of Environmental Concerns into the Common Agricultural Policy, COM (2000), 20 final, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.
7.
European Commission (2006), Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Development of Agri-environmental Indicators for Monitoring the Integration of Environmental Concerns into the Common Agricultural Policy, COM (2006) 508 final, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.
8.
HenleK.AlardD.ClitherowJ.CobbP.FirbankL.KullT.McCrackenD.MoritzR. F. A.NiemaläJ.RebanM.WascherD.WattA.YoungJ. (2008), ‘Identifying and managing conflicts between agriculture and biodiversity conservation in Europe – a review’, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, Vol 124, pp 60–71.
9.
KasperczykN. (2008), AE-Footprint: Results of the Case Study Rhineland-Palatinate, SSPE-CT-2005-006491, IfLS, Frankfurt (Main).
10.
KingG.ParrisK.FraserN.LeggW. (2004), ‘Meeting recommendations and summary’, Proceedings of the OECD Expert Meeting on Farm Management Indicators for Agriculture and the Environment, 8–12 March, Palmerston North, New Zealand, available from Website: http://webdomino1.oecd.org/comnet/agri/farmind.nsf (accessed 9 June 2006).
11.
KleijnD.SutherlandW. J. (2003), ‘How effective are agri-environment schemes in maintaining and conserving biodiversity?’Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol 40, pp 947–969.
12.
KnickelK. (2000), ‘Changes in farming systems, landscape and nature: Key success factors of agri-environmental schemes (AES)’, in EhrendorferF.PalmeH.SchrammelG., eds, Changing Agriculture and Landscape: Ecology, Management, and Bio-diversity Decline in Anthropogenous Mountain Grassland, EURO-MAB, Vienna, pp 67–74.
13.
KnickelK. (2001), ‘The marketing of Rhöngold milk: An example of the reconfiguration of natural relations with agricultural production and consumption’, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, Vol 3, No 2, pp 123–136.
14.
KnickelK. (2002), ‘Agricultural policy in the European Union and the research needed’, in MinnesmaM., ed, Sustainability Assessment, Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Amsterdam, pp 1–11.
15.
KnickelK.PeterS. (2005), ‘Amenity-led development of rural areas: The example of the Regional Action pilot programme in Germany’, in GreenG. P.MarcouillerD.DellerS., eds, Amenities and Rural Development: Theory, Methods and Public Policy, New Horizons in Environmental Economics Series, Edward Elgar, Northampton, pp 302–321.
16.
KnickelK.SchramekJ. (1998) ‘Changes in farming systems and nature conservation: How successful are agri-environmental schemes in Germany?’ in: PienkowskiM. W.JonesD. G. L., eds, Managing High Nature Conservation Value Farmland: Policies, Processes and Practices, European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism (EFNCP), Argyll, pp 80–88.
17.
LeeD. C.BradshawG. A. (1998), Making Monitoring Work for Managers: Thoughts on a Conceptual Framework for Improved Monitoring Within Broad-Scale Ecosystem Management Efforts, available from Website: www.icbemp.gov/spatial/lee_monitor/preface.html (accessed 18 January 2008).
18.
OñateJ. J.AndersenE.PecoB.PrimdahlJ. (2000), ‘Agri-environmental schemes and the European agricultural landscapes: The role of indicators as valuing tools for evaluation’, Landscape Ecology, Vol 15, pp 271–280.
19.
PearceD. (2005), ‘What constitutes a good agri-environmental policy evaluation?’ in OECD, ed, Evaluating Agri-Environmental Policies: Design, Practice and Results, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, pp 71–97.
20.
PrimdahlJ.PecoB.SchramekJ.AndersenE.OñateJ. (2003), ‘Environmental effects and effects measurement of agri-environmental policies’, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol 67, pp 129–138.
21.
PurvisG. (2009), ‘Conceptual development of a harmonised method for tracking change and evaluating policy in the agri-environment: The Agri-environmental Footprint Index’, Environmental Science and Policy, Vol 12, pp 321–337.
22.
Solagro (2000), DIALECTE – Diagnostics Linking the Environment and the Terrritorial Operating Contract, Operating Manual, available from Website: http://dialecte.solagro.org/ (accessed 14 February 2008).
