Master Thesis
The influence of a privatized agricultural extension system on
farmers’ acceptance of agri-environmental measures: A case
study in north-east Brandenburg, Germany.
MSc. Thesis
Victoria Viert
September 2018
10717404
University of Amsterdam
Supervisor: Dhr. Prof. Dr. Marc
Davidson
Master Earth Sciences
Co-assessor: Dhr. Dr. Kenneth
Rijsdijk
Track Environmental Management
External supervisor: Dr. agr. Ulrich
Victoria Viert Alttornower Siedlung 7 16259 Bad Freienwalde + 49 1520 3565168 victoria.viert@gmail.com University of Amsterdam
Graduate School of Life and Earth Sciences Master’s Candidate Earth Sciences
Track Environmental Management Student ID: 10717404
Course: Master Thesis Research, Track Environmental Management (5264MTR30Y)
Keywords: Privatized agricultural extension, farmers’ acceptance, agri-environmental measures, environmental agricultural practices, environmental behavior in agriculture, environmental management, agri-environmental policy, Germany
Acknowledgement
At this point I would like to thank all people who have supported me in the preparation, execution and finalization of this Master Thesis research.
A thank goes to all interview partners, who were willing to participate in this research and without whom this Master Thesis would not have been possible.
Special thank goes to Dr. agr. Ulrich Stachow and Claudia Bethwell from the Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) for their support in developing this project. Further more, thanks to Ulrike Knuth from the German Farmers’ Association, who provided me with feedback for the conception of the interview procedure.
I would also like to thank Dhr. Prof. Dr. Marc Davidson from the University of Amsterdam, who was willing to supervise my project from afar and helped me to finalize this research. Another thank goes to Dhr. Dr. Kenneth Rijsdijk, who co-assessed this Master Thesis.
Finally, I must express my very profound gratitude to my parents a for providing me with unfailing support and continuous encouragement throughout my years of study and through the process of researching and writing this thesis. This accomplishment would not have been possible without them. Thank you.
Abstract
Great efforts have been made to reduce environmental impacts of agricultural practices all over the world. Environmental targets are set, programs with manifold agri-environmental measures are developed and policies and regulations are implemented. This research explores the influence of agricultural extension, information transfer and communication on farmers’ acceptance of agri-environmental measures (AEM) and their attitude towards the agricultural environment within the research area of north-east Brandenburg. The Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin (BRSC) is located within the research area. Agricultural extension is the application of new knowledge and scientific research to the agricultural sector through the education of farmers. Within this study extension or advisory will entail the service of advising the clients, product consultation, but also the provision of information as well as the provision of seminars and winter schooling. The federal state of Brandenburg has a privatized agricultural extension system, where farmers have to pay for extension services. However, the BRSC administration offers environmental extension to farmers within the BRSC on a voluntary basis and free of charge. Five interviews with two farmers operating within the BRSC and three farmers operating outside of the BRSC have been conducted, to evaluate the differences of the extension services and their influence on AEM acceptance. The interviews were standardized, semi-structured and followed a predeveloped interview questionnaire. The questionnaire was subdivided into three main parts: (I) Farm and farmer characteristics, (II) AEMs, (III) Agricultural extension. The interviews have been analyzed using a qualitative content analysis scheme according to Mayring (2014). The results indicate that farmers do have a positive attitude towards the agricultural environment and show an environmental awareness. AEMs are perceived as having a positive influence on the agricultural environment. Financial aspects, flexibility, suitability and the outlay of the application process, were identified as important influencing factors for AEM implementation. For an industry depending on fluctuating environmental and climate conditions a greater level of flexibility is requested by the participants of this study. It has also been criticized, that AEMs lack inclusivity and do not target intensive agriculture. General information sources of the participants have been the regional agricultural offices, other farmers, the internet and information events. However, the agricultural offices have the most significant importance for the participants. Due to the fact that they are exposed to nature conservation on a more regular basis, the farmers within the BRSC have a higher aspiration for good quality environmental extension services. They do know where to obtain information on the agricultural environment and make use of private extension services. All participants confirmed a lack of good quality agricultural extension. Furthermore, the information that is provided by public institution is evaluated as mediocre and barely sufficient. Agricultural offices, extension circles and a more flexible and inclusive program design pose great potentials for an increased acceptance and implementation of AEMs within the research area.
Table of Content
Acknowledgement
iii
Abstract
iv
Table of Content
v
Acronyms and Abbreviations
vii
1. Introduction
1
1.1. Research Problem and Research Aim 2
1.2. Research Questions 4
1.3. Social Significance 4
2. Research Area
6
2.1. The Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin 7 2.2. Legal Framework of the Research Area 8
3. Theoretical Framework
12
3.1. Conceptual Definitions 12
3.1.1. Extension 12
3.1.2. Agri-Environmental Measures in Brandenburg 13
3.1.3. Acceptance 14
3.2. Acceptance in the Agricultural Context and the Influence of Agri-Environmental
Extension 15
3.2.1. Object of Acceptance and its Influencing Factors 17
3.2.2. Subject of Acceptance and its Influencing Factors 18
3.2.3. Context of Acceptance and its Influencing Factors 19
3.3. Extension System in Germany and Brandenburg 22
3.3.1. Agricultural Extension in the Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin 24
4. Methodology
26
4.1. Literature Research 26
4.2. Standardized Interviews and Qualitative Content Analysis 26
5. Results
31
5.2. Attitude towards AEMs and the Agricultural Environment 32
5.2.1. AEMs 32
5.2.2. Agricultural Environment 35
5.3. Information Transfer within the Research Area 36 5.4. Evaluation of the Extension System 45 5.5. Differences between Farmers within and outside of the BRSC 47
6. Discussion
48
6.1. Object of Acceptance 48
6.2. Subject of Acceptance 49
6.3. Context of Acceptance 50
7. Conclusion and Outlook
54
8. Research Limitations
56
9. References
I
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AEM Agri-environmental measure
BbgNatSchAG Brandenburg Nature Conservation Act; Brandenburgisches Naturschutzgesetz
BMELV Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection; Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz
BNatSchG German Federal Nature Conservation Act; Bundesnaturschutzgesetz BR Biosphere reserve
BRSC Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin CAP Common Agricultural Policy
EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development EC European Commission
e.g. exempli gratia etc. et cetera
EU European Union
GAK Joint Task of Agricultural Structures and Costal Protection
i.e. id est
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Natur and Natural Resources KULAP Cultural landscape program; Kulturlandschaftsprogramm
LVLF State Office for Costumer Protection, Agriculture and Land Consolidation; Landesamt für Verbraucherschutz, Landwirtschaft und Flurneuordnung
LUA Sate Office for Environment; Landesumweltamt
MLUL Ministry of Rural Development, Environment and Agriculture of the federal state of
Brandenburg; Ministerium für Ländliche Entwicklung, Umwelt und Landwirtschaft des Landes Brandenburg
MAB Man and the Biosphere SD Structural Dimension QCA Qualitative Content Analysis
List of Tables and Figures
Tables:
Tab. 1 Table of the required area percentages of the three zones of biosphere reserves as well as the permitted human activity and their function.
Tab. 2 Categorized factors influencing farmers’ decision to adopt conservation measures. Tab. 3 General characteristic classification of the participants.
Tab. 4 Importance of information sources regarding general matters of the agricultural enterprises. Tab. 5 Importance of information sources regarding environmental matters of the agricultural
enterprises.
Figures:
Fig. A Map of Brandenburg with its administrative districts and marked research area. Fig. B Map of the Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin with marked protected areas. Fig. C Map of the nature conservation areas in the administrative districts of the study area. Fig. D Zoning of the Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin.
Fig. E Model of subject, object and context of acceptance.
Fig. F The agricultural extension systems for the federal states of Germany. Fig. G Content related structuring after Mayring (2014).
1. Introduction
“In our every deliberation we have to consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations”
(Great Law of the Iroquois Confederacy, 1451)
The quote from the Great Law of the Iroquois Confederacy is an indicator, that the idea of sustainability, the intergenerational thinking and possibly also acting accordingly, has its routs in early history and various cultures of mankind. In Middle Europe the idea of sustainability emerged in the 18th century, when the exploitation of the forests for the mining industry caused a scarcity of resources. Consequently Hans Carl von Carlowitz advocated a sustainable use of wood as a natural resource. He saw it as a duty to the following generations and the common welfare. From a modern perspective, the aspect common welfare also includes the functions of recreation, water protection, soil conservation and nature conservation.
In our days sustainability can mean many things to many people. It can be an idea, a manufacturing method, a way of life, an ideology and a crusade all at the same time. But what is sustainability? The most commonly used and accepted definition stems from the Commission on Environment and Development from 1987. With the report “Our Common Future”, the so called Brundtland-Report, a worldwide sustainability discussion was initiated. It is stated in the report, that economic growth and environmental conservation should be possible in all social systems, on the basis of all economic levels (DRL, 2002). Therefor, they define sustainability as follows:
“Sustainable development is the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts: (1) the concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and (2) the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.”
(Brundtland, 1987)
Sustainability is a concept that touches all aspects in life. A commonly used model is the three-pillar model, i.e. the three pillars of sustainability. These include the economic dimension, the social dimension as well as the ecological dimension. The three-pillar model is built around the stipulation, that sustainable development is the combination of equal social, economic and ecological development (Hüther and Wiggering, 1999). Similarly the European Union Commission states, that social, economic and ecological development go hand in hand (Enquete-Commission, 1989).
Within agriculture, sustainability is an intricate idea, but also includes the various dimensions of sustainability, i.e. a sustainable agricultural enterprise should be profitable and contribute to a solid economy (economic), the relationship with the surrounding community should be mutually beneficial and the farm should have a fair work relationship with their workers (social) and it should function with consideration of the environment (ecologic). Within agriculture, environmental sustainability resembles good stewardship of the ecological system and natural resources that agricultural enterprises depend upon. Among others, this includes building and
maintaining healthy soils, responsible management of water resources, the minimization of pollution through fertilizers and pesticides as well as the promotion of biodiversity.
Intensive agricultural practices have been proven to be the cause of severe environmental effects, such as ground and surface water pollution due to nutrients and pesticides, soil erosion by water and wind and many more. These effects cause the deterioration of natural habitats of flora and fauna and the loss of biodiversity.
Over the past decades great efforts have been made to mitigate these negative environmental impacts by agricultural practices and achieve sustainable agriculture. Next to the designation of nature protection areas, e.g. Natura 2000 areas, there are various regulative policies put in place through the European Union (EU) and the individual countries. Especially the agri-environmental measures (AEMs) (chapter 3.1.2.) of the second pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) aim for the implementation of more sustainable and environmentally sound agricultural practices, by promoting organic farming, reduced fertilizer and pesticide use as well as extensification of conventional practices.
However, the greatest efforts will have little effect if these topics are not sufficiently communicated to the regional level. Especially voluntary programs rely heavily on the acceptance of land users. The interface between policy making, scientific findings and the application and implementation is an important but often times neglected subject matter, that can decide over the success and impact of these programs.
Within this master research, more light will be shed on the relationship of information transfer regarding environmental topics and the acceptance of farmers towards AEMs. Specifically I will focus on the private extension that is offered in the area of north-east Brandenburg.
In the following chapters I will lay out my approach on investigating this subject matter as well as the results generated within this research. In the first chapter the research problem and the research aim will be outlined. Lastly, the first chapter will elaborate on the social significance of this research subject. The second chapter will focus on the research area of north-east Brandenburg. It will highlight the nature conservation status as well as the legal framework of the study area. The third chapter will lay out the theoretical framework of this study, including conceptual definitions and a review of the available literature relevant for this research. Subsequently, the methodology will be presented in the fourth chapter. Within the fifth chapter the results will be presented, followed by a discussion of the results with the theoretical framework, that has been established within the third chapter. This master thesis will conclude with a conclusion, an outlook on further research possibilities as well as the research limitation that underly this work.
1.1. Research Problem and Research Aim
Various different factors, influencing a farmers decision to implement agri-environmental measures into their agricultural practices, have been identified and studied over the past decades. Among them are farmer related factors such as the farmers age, education, professional experience and environmental awareness (Wilson and Hart, 2000; Baumgart-Getz et al., 2012; Burton, 2014). Furthermore, farm related factors, e.g. farm size, the economic status of the farm as well as the farming intensity (Schenk, 2000; Nagel et al., 2002; Garforth et al., 2003; Sattler and Nagel, 2010). Moreover, there are societal factors that can be related to a farmers decision-making process, some of which are how a farmer wants to be perceived by other farmers or the community as well as the trust a farmer has in the government (Ducos et al., 2009; Peerling and Polman, 2009; Sutherland et al., 2013; Lastra-Bravo et al., 2015). Lastly, there are informational factors influencing farmers’
environmental behavior, for example the information provision on environmental issues and agri-environmental extension services offered (Nagel et al., 2002; Garforth et al., 2003; Morris, 2004; Polman and Slangen, 2008; Lastra-Bravo et al., 2015). Agricultural extension is the application of new knowledge and scientific research to the agricultural sector through the education of farmers. This can be done by advising or consultancy through an extension agent, product consultation, but also through the provision of information, information events and winter schooling.
This study will shed more light on the informational factors that contribute to more environmental friendly agricultural practices. More specifically, how private and public agri-environmental extension services influence farmers’ willingness to implement agri-agri-environmental measures and their attitude towards environmental issues. After extensive literature research, it is proposed that the key to a farmer’s adoption of AEMs may not lie in the individual factors and characteristics of the farmer and his/her agricultural enterprise, but rather in the information and extension services that are provided to the individual agricultural enterprises. Naturally, next to the information provided and the advice given as well as its suitability for the individual agricultural enterprises, another major factor is the availability and affordability of this advice. In a privatized agricultural extension system, such as in Brandenburg, the supply of extension and advice is largely determined by the demand. Farmers are paying for the extension service without governmental subsidies. Because they have to make a choice between agri-environmental extension and other more promising extension services (e.g. economic), it may hinder farmers to receive or even request agri-environmental extension. In the Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin (BRSC) there is a dedicated employee , who is responsible for advising the farmers on environmental aspects. With 1
the help of a “Whole Farm Nature Conservation Plan” (WFNatConPl; “Gesamtbetrieblicher Naturschutzfachplan”) (chapter 3.3.1.), which is specific to each farm and generated in cooperation with experts, farmers and the BRSC Employee, he advises the farmers on which environmental measures are most suitable and how to implement them. It is a voluntary program as well as free of charge.
Except for the core zone and the transition zone of the BR, the areas of the development zone and the area outside of the BR do not significantly differ in their nature conservation status as well as the farming practices. For this reason the areas are suitable for comparison, regarding farmers’ attitudes towards AEMs and their perception of the available agricultural extension services and information provision. AEMs have been chosen, due to the fact, that they are voluntary and governmentally subsidized. Every agricultural enterprise has the same options to implement these measures inside and outside of the BRSC.
To ensure anonymity this employee will be referred to as BRSC Employee throughout the course of this
1
1.2. Research Questions
The main objective of this study is to examine, how extension services in a privatized system effect farmers’ acceptance and implementation of AEMs in the region inside and outside of the Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin in north-eastern Germany.
Consequently, my research will approach the following research questions and sub-questions:
I. How does a privatized agricultural extension system influence the acceptance of agri-environmental measures in Brandenburg, Germany?
i. How is the extension system in Brandenburg organized? ii. How do farmers obtain information on environmental issues? iii. What is the farmers attitude towards the agricultural environment?
iv. How do farmers evaluate the agricultural extension services and information provided in regards to the agricultural environment?
II. How does the information on agri-environmental issues, that is communicated inside the Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin influence the acceptance of agri-environmental measures?
i. How do farmers inside the BRSC receive information on agri-environmental measures? ii. How do farmers evaluate the extension services provided by the biosphere reserve
administration?
iii. What is the farmers attitude towards the agricultural environment?
III. Is there a difference in the acceptance of agri-environmental measures inside and outside of the Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin?
1.3. Social Significance
In today’s society agricultural production plays a vital role. It is not only a major contributor in the economic sector, agriculture also provides employment, contributes to the conservation of cultural landscapes as well as provides habitats for flora and fauna. On the other hand, intensive agriculture is a significant contributor for the issues of soil degradation, loss of biodiversity as well as natural resource scarcity.
Agricultural practices predominantly define the level of food production as well as the condition of the global environment (Tilman et al., 2002). Globally about 37.7 % (2014) of the earth’s land area are in agricultural use, either as croplands (10.9 %) or as pastures (26.3 %) (FAO, 2017). Next to being a primary contributor to the loss of ecosystems, agriculture substantially adds environmentally harmful amounts of phosphorus and nitrogen to our terrestrial ecosystems all over the world (Vitousek et al., 1997; Carpenter et al., 1998). Typically the costs of the adverse environmental impacts of agricultural practices stay unmeasured and often times do not directly affect the farmers or societal choices concerning production practices (Tilman et al., 2002). To decrease the negative impact of agricultural practices on the environment it is essential that farmers change their way of farming to more sustainable practices.
However, the farming community still to this day struggles with the application of nature conservation strategies in a widespread manner. Finding incentives for farmers to adopt sustainable agriculture practices is a key issue facing policy makers and scientists all over the world. This study will increase the knowledge on how extension services could help increase the acceptance of nature conservation measures among the farming community, to further increase the participation in conservation programs.
2. Research Area
The research of this study takes place in North-East Brandenburg in Germany. The study area includes the administrative districts of Uckermark, Barnim, Märkisch-Oderland and Oberhavel (Fig. A).
With 3.058 km², Uckermark is the largest administrative district in Germany. Around 180.000 ha is agriculturally used area, of which approximately 150.000 ha and 30.000 ha is cropland and grassland, respectively. The Uckermark is considered a favorable agricultural area in Brandenburg, especially the northern parts of the administrative district. Important crops include
Fig. A: Map of Brandenburg with its administrative districts and marked research are. (edited after https://
grain, oilseeds and sugars beets. Livestock production in Uckermark is characterized by beef and pig production. Sheep are mainly used for the maintenance and preservation of the dikes of the River Oder and for nature conservation areas (LBV Brandenburg, 2018).
Märkisch-Oderland is the most eastern administrative district of the study area. To the east the river Oder is the country boarder to Poland. A large part of this area used to be marshland, which was drained in the 18th century to make it usable for agricultural purposes. With an area of around 124.000 ha, agriculture is the largest economic sector in Märkisch-Oderland. The agricultural production is very diverse. The majority of the agricultural farms produce cash crops, while the livestock production is often times specialized on dairy cattle and pig production and occasionally cattle fattening. Another specialization is the vegetable cultivation including fresh vegetable production such as salad, cabbage turnip and cabbage, but also industrial mass produce such as spinach, beans and peas. As everywhere in Brandenburg there is also an increase in biogas plants in Märkisch-Oderland (LBV Brandenburg, 2018).
Barnim is the administrative district between Berlin and the Uckermark. Barnim has comparatively light soils with low annual precipitation. As in Märkisch-Oderland and the Uckermark, agriculture is an important economic sector in Barnim around 50.000 ha crop land is cultivated by around 365 agricultural enterprises. Over 55 % of the crop land is used for grain production, followed by approximately 14 % of oilseeds. Around 14,2 % (~ 7100 ha) of the agriculturally used land is cultivated with organic farming practices. In Barnim the livestock production is dominated by cattle farming of which 25 % are dairy cows (LBV Brandenburg, 2018). The administrative district of Oberhavel is located directly north of Berlin and covers an area of around 180.000 ha, with ca. 70.000 ha of agriculturally used land. It has a relatively high share of grassland use and about 47.000 ha is dedicated to crop land. Comparable to Barnim the livestock sector is dominated by cattle farming and pig production. However, many farmers increasingly find source of income in the bioenergy sector. Around 9,5 % of the agriculturally used area is cultivated with organic agricultural practices (LBV Brandenburg, 2018).
2.1. The Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin
The UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin (BRSC) was found within the scope of the national park program of East Germany in 1990 (Biosphärenreservat Schorfheide-Chorin, 2017). It is located in the north-eastern part of Brandenburg, about 75 km north-east of Berlin, and extends over 1291,6 km2. (Fig. B) It lies within the administrative districts of Uckermark, Barnim,
Märkisch-Oderland and Oberhavel, with its majority located in Barnim.
With around 33.000 ha cropland and 9.500 ha grassland the agricultural land use in the BRSC make up one third of the total area of the BR (MLUL f, 2017).
In the BRSC about 33 % (2011) of the agriculturally used area is dedicated to organic farming. On another 13 % of the area there is extensive grassland use in accordance with the EU agricultural funding program. Consequently, around 46 % of the agriculturally used area of the BR is to a great extend subject to a sustainable land use in line with the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) criteria and the recommendations of the Madrid-Action Plan. The objectives of the BRs administration is to successively transition more and more conventional agricultural enterprises to organic farming, and more extensive agricultural practices (MLUL, 2014).
In the recent years, problems emerged from the intensification of the production of bioenergy crops. Corn production increased from few plots in the 1990s to over 4.000 ha. The bioenergy crops are predominantly located in close proximity to the corresponding biogas plants,
with mostly corn as a monoculture planted on the same plots, for time periods of four to five years. This kind of cultivation management is associated with the disturbance of large open landscapes of the BR through the increased application of fertilizers and biocides.
Thus even though a large share of the BR shows sustainable land use practices, there are still problems of intensive conventional land use in some areas.
2.2. Legal Framework of the Research Area
As becomes clear from Fig. C the northeastern part of Brandenburg is covert with an elaborate system of protected areas, including Landscape Protection Areas, Nature Reserves, Natura 2000 areas with FFH Directive protection areas and Birds Directive (SPA) protection areas, Nature Parks and National Parks. In general landscape protection areas have little restrictions regarding their agricultural and forestry use. Usually practices that would change the character of the of landscape, such as the conversion of grassland into farmland are restricted. Furthermore, often times there are no specific restrictions regarding the fertilizer use on grasslands other than the universally valid EU Plant Protection Product Regulation . There are usually harsher restrictions concerning the 2
construction of new structures and buildings within the open landscape of landscape protection areas.
Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 2
concerning the placing of plant products on the market and repealing Council Directive 79/117/EEC
Eberswalde Bad Freienwalde (Oder) Angermünde Gramzow Pinnow Golzow Britz Lichterfelde Finowfurt Finow Groß Schönebeck Ruhlsdorf Friedrichswalde Frauen-hagen Greiffenberg Neugünter-berg Stegelitz Templin Gerswalde Mittenwalde Havel Joachimsthal Althüttendorf Liepe Oderberg Lunow Hohen-wutzen Niederfinow Hohenfinow Schiffmühle Liebenwalde Hammer Haßleben Herzfelde Schwedt/Oder Zehdenick Kurtschlag Potzlow-see Ober- ucker-see Haus-see Stiernsee Petznick-see Templiner See Lübbe- Fähr-see Kölpin-see Grimnitz-see Werbellin-see Parsteiner See Wolletzsee Plagen-see Gr. Präßnick-see Hinten-teich Kuhzer See Trebow-see see Großdöllner See Röddelin-see Havel Havel Temp liner Gewä sser Oder Ucker
Oder-Havel-Kanal Oder-Havel-Kanal
Welse
Welse
Weltnaturerbe
Buchenwald Grumsin A11
B198 A11 B198 B198 B198 L100 L23 B 19 8 L23 L239 L2 42 L2 16 L241 L220 A11 A11 NSG Eulenberge NSG Melzower Forst NSG Gr. Briesensee NSG Labüske-wiesen NSG Arnimswalde NSG Poratzer Moränen-landschaft NSG Krinertseen NSG Buchheide NSG Bollwinwiesen/ Gr. Gollinsee NSG Kienhorst/ Köllnseen/Eichheide NSG Grumsiner Forst/ Redernswalde NSG Schnelle Havel NSG Plagefenn NSG Buckow-seerinne NSG Nieder-oderbruch NSG Endmoränen-landschaft bei Ringenwalde NSG Kanonen- und Schloßberg, Schäfergrund Besucherzentrum NationalParkHaus Informationsbüro und Touristeninformation NABU-Informationszentrum Blumberger Mühle Berliner Tor Verwaltung Biosphärenreservat Schorfheide-Chorin
Übersichtskarte Biosphärenreservat Schorfheide-Chorin: Lage des Weltnaturerbes Buchenwald Grumsin
0 2,5 5 10 km Landesamt für Umwelt, Gesundheit und Verbraucherschutz Januar 2012 LUGV, Ö2 LGB, GIS-Zentrale Bundesamt für Kartografie und Geodäsie, www.bkg.bund.de Biosphärenreservat Schorfheide-Chorin
allgemeine Schutzgebietsfläche Naturentwicklungsgebiet Totalreservat Naturschutzgebiet mit Zonierung
Stand: Quelle: Karte: Geobasis-daten: Autobahn Bundesstraße Regionalbahn mit Bahnhof Staatsgrenze Weltnaturerbe Buchenwald Grumsin
Gewässer Siedlung Wald Landesstraße Besucherinformation / Großschutzgebietsverwaltung Nationale Naturlandschaften
Fig. B: Map of the Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin with marked protected areas. (http://
In 1992 the EU passed the Natura 2000 regulations, setting EU wide binding regulations for the development and maintenance of the protected area network. Primary element of the concept is the protection and conservation of flora and fauna as well as their habitats. Natura 2000 includes the Fauna-Flora-Habitat Directive and the Bird Protection Directive. To meet these regulations, member states have to implement conservation measures on these areas. Natura 2000 areas are strongly interconnected with areas of agricultural use (Europäische Gemeinschaft, 2000; Europäische Gemeinschaft, 2016). All regulations are gradually implemented into the legally binding German Federal Nature Conservation Act (BNatSchG) in addition to the generally valid EU Water 3
Framework Directive as well as the EU Plant Protection Product Regulation (MUGV 2014b). Besides Natura 2000 areas, a nature reserve is the strictest legally protected and regulated area in Germany. The land use in these areas are stringently regulated, legally based on the individual regulations of the nature reserves. The regulations of nature reserves as well as the regulations of the landscape protection areas and the BRSC are all legally based on the
Law on nature conservation and landscape maintenance (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz - BNatSchG)
3
Fig. C: Map of the nature conservation areas in the administrative districts of the study area. (http://www.belo-net.de/
cms/index.php/de/karten.html)
Brandenburg Nature Conservation Act (BbgNatSchAG) . The BbgNatSchAG in return is legally 4
based on the BNatSchG.
According to the BNatSchG, BRs are large-scale areas that show characteristic types of landscapes, where significant shares of the area qualify as nature reserves and landscape protection areas. Primarily they serve the purpose of conservation, development and restoration of diversely used landscapes, that emerged from historical and traditional land use as well as the corresponding diversity of species and biotopes, including former cultural landscapes and economically used animal and plant species. Furthermore, BRs are model regions for sustainable development and the testing for particularly environmentally sound and resource-saving management strategies. As far as the protective function permits, BRs also serve a logistic function of research, observation of nature and landscapes as well as education for sustainable development. Next to the protective and logistic function BRs also include a developing function, targeting the enhanced economic, social and cultural sustainable development (MAB German National Committee, 2007).
To fulfill the criteria set by the MAB program, BRs are, subdivided into three zones: core zone, transition zone and development zone . They are partitioned by different levels of permitted 5
human activity and hold different responsibilities, different surface areas as well as different levels of legal protection (Tab. 1). In the BRSC the core zone covers around 3 % (36 km2) of the BR.
Roughly 19% (241 km2) is allocated to the transition zone. The development zone takes up around
78 % (1014 km2) of the BRSC (Fig. D).
While the majority of the areas of the core and transition zones are designated protection areas, the administration in the development zones does not have a legally binding instrument for
Law on nature conservation and landscape maintenance in the federal state of Brandenburg
4
(Brandenburgisches Naturschutzgesetz - BbgNatSchAG)
The three zones of biosphere reserves are often identified with different names, depending on the literature.
5
E.g. the third zone can be identified as transition as well as development zone. In the following of this master thesis the author will identify the zones as follows: core zone (zone I), transition zone (zone II), development zone (zone III).
Tab. 1: Table of the required area percentages of the three zones of biosphere reserves as well as the permitted human
the sustainable development of land use. Considering the objective of doing justice to the demands of humans and nature, especially the development zone can serve as a model region for sustainable development (AGBR, 1995). Thy hold a pioneer role for the testing and implementation of innovative and sustainable approaches to meet the urgent globally relevant challenges (BfN, 2012).
Considering all of the above it becomes clear that besides the general target settings through the MAB and the status as a BR the development zone of the BRSC does not fall under significantly stricter regulations than many of the regions surrounding the BR. Therefore, the two regions, the development zone of the BRSC and the remaining area surrounding the BRSC, are legitimate areas to be compared in order to answer the research question of this study.
Fig. D: Zoning of the Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin. (https://
www.unesco.de/wissenschaft/biosphaerenreservate/ biosphaerenreservate-uebersicht/br-struktur.html)
3. Theoretical Framework
3.1. Conceptual Definitions
3.1.1. Extension
In general, extension is a process that can be applied to numerous areas of society and can be found in the health and education sector, the industrial sector as well as in agricultural and rural development. Agricultural extension is the application of new knowledge and scientific research to the agricultural sector through the education of farmers. Extension encompasses a vast range of learning and communication activities organized by educators from different fields such as agriculture, health, agricultural economics, agricultural marketing and environmental research. The term “extension” or “advisory” can have various definitions. Albrecht (1969) describes the 6
term extension as the process, in which the extension agent gives his/her client support and tries to evoke actions of the client, that will help them solve their existing problems. Here the extension agent is obligated to the welfare of the client. The responsibility to refuse or accept the given advice as well as the resulting consequences of that decision lie solely with the client. Albrecht’s (1969) definition can be found in various literature, in which it is assumed, that there is a problem, for which an advisor is needed for the problem-solving. He also states, that advisory is not equal to providing information. It provides help and orientation in decisive life situations of the clients.
A different definition stems from Boland (1991) and defines advisory as follows: In the process of advisory the extension agent engages in a partner-like interaction with an “uncertain” advice seeking individual (or group), that has the willingness to work on the situation, with the goal of making the problems and difficulties transparent, encourage him/her and give him/her the capability to initiate a personal and factual development. In this process a dependency to the extension agent should not be developed, but the responsibility of the advice seeker for the implementation of changes should be emphasized.
This definition contains a participative approach and implies a partner-like interactions between the extension agent and the farmer. Both parties have to be active contributors to the problem-solving process. Within the definition of Boland (1991) the farmer has more responsible role compared to Albrecht’s (1969) definition. In Albrecht’s definition the farmer is merely responsible for deciding for or against the advice. The advice or solution for the problem stems solely from the extension agent. The farmer does not seem to be as involved in the problem-solving process.
A further definition by Nagel (2005) points even more to the problem-solving process and how it is organized. The importance of the clarification of the roles of the extension agent and the advice seeker as well as the definition of objectives in advance to the advisory process is emphasized. The realization of the client to recognize his/her problem as a central issue, and to trust and build upon the extension agent and that any given advice is in his best interest and welfare, is seen as a fundamental component of sustainable advisory. Nagel (2005) says that advisory is a
process of communication between a person or a group, which has a problem to solve, and a person
or a group that offer professional help to resolve said problem. The problem-solving approach is systematic and transparent for all involved parties. The extension agent supports the client in developing and reviewing their own objectives. There is a mutual understanding of the required steps, methods, knowledge and resources for the problem-solving process. In advisory the emphasis
In this study both terms will be used with the same meaning.
on the clients objectives is of great importance. If the advice seeker registers a self-interest on the side of the extension agent there is a chance that the advice seeker rejects the advice. A certain level of trust is required for a successful collaboration between client and extension agent.
All of the mentioned definitions assume, that extension is solely the personal service, resulting in individual and site specific solutions, that requires a direct cooperation with the extension agent and the advice seeker. However, extension agents also render services that include other tasks, e.g. billings and applications, that under the former explained definitions does not fall within the definition of extension. Furthermore, information provision and education are not implied under the definitions.
Within this study extension or advisory will entail the service of advising the clients, product consultation, but also the provision of information as well as the provision of seminars and winter schooling.
3.1.2. Agri-Environmental Measures in Brandenburg
Agri-environmental measures (AEMs) are an important instrument for the accomplishment of environmental goals in the CAP. Next to climate protection the main objectives of AEMs are to enhance biodiversity and soil quality as well as to minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides (BMEL, 2017). The funding of AEMs is an essential component of Germany’s national strategy for the development of rural areas. Agri-environmental schemes and their corresponding AEMs are considered the central element of the cooperation and integration of nature conservation and agriculture (Niens and Marggraf, 2010). The legal basis is the European Union Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 (EUR-Lex, 2017). In Germany the national strategy plan is compiled by the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV). The implementation of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) funding takes place through the “Rural Development Programs”, which are developed for each individual federal state and consequently have to be authorized by the European Commission (EC).
The specific design of the AEMs and their implementation fall under the jurisdiction of the individual federal states. Each federal state has their own AEMs. The “Kulturlandschaftsprogramm” (cultural landscape program; KULAP), is the subprogram of the rural development program in Brandenburg, that integrates the regulations for AEMs. It is the directive for the funding of environmentally responsible agricultural production practices and the conservation of cultural landscapes in Brandenburg (MLUL a, 2017). There are five different subsection that can receive 7
funding: continuation or implementation of organic farming methods; particularly sustainable cultivation practices; particularly sustainable practices for permanent pastures and grasslands; particularly sustainable practices for permanent crops and maintenance of extensive fruit tree stocks; conservation of the diversity of the landscape’s genetic resources (MLUL b, 2017).
With the integration of AEMs into their agricultural practices farmers commit themselves voluntarily for a period of usually five to seven years. During that period farmers have to comply with the funding and farming regulations developed by the individual federal states (BMEL, 2015). Next to the AEMs some federal states additionally realize nature conservation goals with the help of hardship allowance and contractual nature conservation (chapter 3.3.1).
Richtlinie zur Förderung umweltgerechter landwirtschaftlicher Produktionsverfahren und zur Erhaltung der
7
Farmers can participate voluntarily and in return receive a compensation payment for the performance of agreed upon ecological services. The financial compensation of the AEMs should be an incentive for the farmers to adopt more environmental friendly agricultural practices, by compensating the costs generated through the adoption of the measure. Consequently, the premium amount is oriented towards the implementation cost as well as the loss of income generated by the individual AEM (Arzt et al., 2002).
3.1.3. Acceptance
In order to work with the term acceptance it has to be defined for the context that it will be used in. In everyday language it finds use in various different contexts with often times widely varying implications. For a long time it has been applied in the field of marketing, were it refers to the acceptance of product innovations. Nowadays the term is often used in connection with sociopolitical topics. However, it can not be allocated to one single field like psychology or sociology (Schenk et al., 2007). The Cambridge Dictionary offers various definitions of the term e.g. “general agreement that something is satisfactory or right, or that someone should be included in a group”, “the act of agreeing to an offer, plan or invitation” as well as “the fact of accepting a difficult or unpleasant situation”. Acceptance is a very flexible term, proven by the many synonyms, from “acknowledgement” to “recognition”, affiliated with the term (Cambridge Dictionary, 2018). The ambiguity of the term acceptance may be an advantage when used in political settings, in the scientific world however, it is a problematic term, since it is still unclear, what exactly acceptance means and entails.
According to Lucke (1995) acceptance is not a characteristic, but a process that is dependent on the social-cultural context and the specific situation. It is an interaction of subject, object and context of acceptance (Fig. E). As defined by Schenk (2000) acceptance is a subjective evaluation of the parties concerned, that individually formed an opinion leading to the adoption of a certain attitude towards the object of acceptance. Acceptance is generated in various steps, which Lucke (1995) defines with the three-step-model:
-
The conscious awareness of the object of acceptance (cognitive level)-
The positive evaluation by the subject of acceptance (normative-evaluative level)-
The emergence of the willingness, to actively support the object of acceptance or to actaccordingly (conative level)
Fig. E: Model of subject, object and context of
According to Lucke (1995) acceptance is given, when the subject of acceptance:
-
perceives the object of acceptance and its justification and arguments as legitimate-
is generally approving of the object of acceptance and is rationally and emotionallyagreeing with the object of acceptance
-
adopts and approves the entailing suggestions, arguments and measures-
is willing to defend the object of acceptance towards others, counter arguments and alternativesFor the development of acceptance there are a vast number of influencing factors such as the relevance of the problem, competence and credibility, socio-cultural affiliation etc. As previously mentioned acceptance results from the interplay of subject of acceptance, object of acceptance and context of acceptance. Accordingly, the acceptance of nature conservation measures in the agricultural context is dependent on the farmer (subject), the conservation measure (object) and the underlying conditions (context) (Sattler and Nagel, 2010).
According to Sattler and Nagel (2010) there are three main factors that impact a farmers decision to implement conservation measures. Firstly, the characteristics of the conservation measure (object-related). Secondly, the intrinsic values and attitude of the farmer (subject-related) and thirdly, the underlying conditions such as financing and site specific factors (context-related). In the chapter 3.2. nature conservation relevant factors will be elaborated on. Corresponding to the research objective of this study, the context-related factor of information transfer in the form of extension services will be examined in more detail.
3.2. Acceptance in the Agricultural Context and the Influence of Agri-Environmental Extension
As has been officially acknowledged by the CAP in the beginning of the 1990s, farmers play a significant role in protecting natural resources and conserving the cultural landscape. Voluntary AEMs have become the central policy instrument for enhancing and conserving the agricultural environment.
In compliance with the Council Regulation (EC) No. 1698/2005 , the objective of AEMs is 8
to “further encourage farmers and land managers to serve society as a whole by introducing or
continuing to apply agricultural production methods compatible with the protection and improvement of the environment, the landscape and its features, natural resources, the soil and genetic diversity” (European Court of Auditors, 2011). Considering this, farmers have been
recognized as the operatives, that will meet these objectives formulated by the CAP and it is expected that farmers and land managers will adjust their practices to achieve the aspired environmental changes (Falconer, 2000). However, AEMs can only be successful and their objectives be fulfilled if they are accepted and implemented by a large quantity of farmers.
Previous studies suggest, that the acceptance of measures with environmental benefits by farmers is dependent on various factors, that can promote or hinder the implementation of such measures. Manifold studies and literature researches have been conducted on the topic (Burton, 2014; Burton et al., 2008; Borges et al., 2014; Robert et al., 2016; Gailhard et al., 2012; Knowler
Council Regulation (EC) No. 1698/2005 of 20 September on support of rural development by the European
8
and Bradshaw, 2007 etc.). Even though, a variety of factors have been thoroughly studied and examined, singularly and in correlation with each other, only limited universally valid assumptions can be made about, which characteristics influence a farmers environmental behavior in which way. Knowler and Bradshaw (2007) carried out a literature review, reviewing 31 empirical studies, in order to shed light on the progress made by scientists to grasp the process of farm-level adoption of environmentally sound agricultural practices and conservation measures. They comprised the factors that may impact a farmers decision to adopt conservational measures and divided these into four categories: farmers and farm household characteristics (subject-related), farm biophysical characteristics (context-related), farm financial/management characteristics (context-related) as well as exogenous factors (context-related) (Tab. 2). Even though, the study is already ten years in the past and it does not include object-related factors (e.g. the characteristics of the measure), the factors comprised in this study nicely represent the foci of recent studies.
They found, that a majority of studies suggest, that next to the more obvious financial aspects that promote adoption, other non-financial factors such as environmental awareness, social
Tab. 2: Categorized factors influencing farmers’ decision to adopt agricultural conservation
capital and the information provision may promote or hinder the adoption of conservational measures. The study identified almost 170 meaningful variables, with only a fraction of financial criteria.
3.2.1. Object of Acceptance and its Influencing Factors
The object of acceptance, the AEM, holds different characteristics, such as time requirement, costs and risks (Sattler and Nagel, 2010). Monetary characteristics of the conservation measures do play an important role in the farmer’s acceptance of conservation measures, however, it is not pivotal in the acceptance process. Nowadays subsidy payments for farmers do make up a significant part of their income. Depending on the financial situation they are more or less dependent on the payments and therefore motivated to participate in such measures. However, this kind of dependency is also considered as restricting by many farmers. This dependency can in this case lead to a forced acceptance. The conservation measures are then accepted due to the dependency and not because of their subject matter (Schenk, 2000).
While the economic aspect of AEMs is undoubtably a significant influence on farmers, Wynne-Jones (2013) suggests, that adequate levels of payment alone can not ensure conservation management. A certain level of cultural understanding towards the need of conservation management must be established among participants, for agri-environmental policies to be successful. She recognizes, that farmers may not primarily prioritize financial gain over other factors, but may obtain similar or more value from actions that could benefit society or the environment.
Furthermore, the institutional conception of AEMs is an important factor to consider. Several studies suggest, that flexibility of AEMs is a crucial characteristic influencing farmers’ participation. The lack of flexibility and the corresponding fact, that the measures do not fit into the individual agricultural enterprises and management plans may be a reason for non participation (Wilson and Hart, 2002). Ruto and Garrod (2009) discovered, that flexibility is one of the characteristics of AEMs, farmers wished to modify the most. Enabling more freedom to implement AEMs more suitable and aligned with local conditions, could be a way to enhance farmers’ motivation to adopt AEMs (Mettepenningen et al. 2013). Improved flexibility in the implementation of AEMs can also bring enhanced environmental benefits, since farmers’ knowledge of their local conditions often collide with the more universal requirements of the AEMs (Burgess et al., 2000; Morris, 2006).
Another aspect Mettepenningen et al. (2013) points out is the level of involvement of farmers and other actors in the design process of agri-environmental policy. They refer to the example of Friesian farmers, who in cooperation with the government designed their own agri-environmental scheme on a local level, which were aligned with the local conditions. This approach utilizes local knowledge to complement expert knowledge. It increases learning opportunities, the acceptance of the AEMs and therefore enhances the overall environmental impact of AEMs (Bruckmeier and Tovey, 2008; Reed, 2008).
3.2.2. Subject of Acceptance and its Influencing Factors
The relationship towards the object of acceptance (AEM) is dependent on the attitude of the subject of acceptance (the farmer), which begins with their general attitude towards nature protection. If a farmer has a positive view on nature conservation, he/she will be more likely to adopt conservation measures, even if they entail more costs and efforts, compared to those who prioritize economic factors (Sattler and Nagel, 2010). Other farmers perceive nature conservation measures as restricting and carry the opinion, that their agricultural practices are already sufficient in protecting the agricultural environment. They also perceive conservation measures as a disdain of their agricultural work. Therefore, they only see little necessity for these measures. Those farmers with a critical view of their own work, tend to have a more positive attitude towards nature protection, since they also observe the negative effects agriculture has on the environment (Schenk, 2000). Next to farmers’ objectives and values as well as emotional factors, the affiliation to various interest groups and the resulting social constraints are a relevant influencing factor to build acceptance (Schenk et al., 2007).
Beedell and Rehman (2000) and Wynn et al. (2001), identified environmental awareness as one of the most influential factors regarding AEM adoption in England and Scotland, respectively. Furthermore, Wilson and Hart (2000), similarly found that the influence of farmers’ environmental concern on the adoption of AEMs has grown all over Europe. Baumgart-Getz et al. (2012) came to the conclusion, that environmental awareness is a significant predictor for the adoption of AEMs. They categorized environmental awareness into four categories and found the most significant 9
positive influence in “farmers’ knowledge of environmental quality” and their “knowledge of programs” targeted at enhancing the agricultural environment. Over all environmental awareness increases in significance as a motivation to adopt AEMs (Beedell and Rehman, 2000; Wilson and Hart, 2000; Wynn et al., 2001).
Nagel et al. (2002) argue, that environmental problems are to most farmers neither an issue of priority, nor are they explicitly refuted. They point out, that often times the fragile economic situation of a farm as well as existential fears are more pressing issues, which can hinder the adoption of AEMs, even with a strong environmental awareness of the farmer or land manager. Often times the non-participation of farmers in conservation measures does not imply, that land managers and farmers are oblivious to environmental problems (Nagel et al., 2002). In their study, Nagel et al. (2002) found that indeed farmers were able to identify farm level, local as well as regional problems. Beyond those constraints, farmers do observe and know their own farmlands as well as those of their neighbors. Nagel et al. (2002) point out that they do discern positive as well as negative environmental changes in their farmlands.
The experiences and opinions of neighboring farmers concerning AEMs, play an important influencing role for farmers’ acceptance of AEMs and their willingness to adopt these measures into their own enterprises (Defrancesco et al., 2008). According to Burton et al. (2008), farmers are also heavily influenced by the visibility of their good farming skills to other famers. Since many AEMs include extensification and often result in less tidy areas, it may impact the farmers willingness to implement these measures, in fear of being perceived as less skilled among their peers. It is suggested, that the influence of neighboring farmers point to the significant relationships and cultural norms that can often be found in rural areas (Defrancesco et al., 2008). Schmitzberger et al. (2005) found, that even with conservation attitudes becoming more positive amongst farmers, the preference of “tidy landscapes” still remains a dominant factor, and continues to conflict with the
Four categories of environmental awareness, as defined by Baumgart-Getz et al. (2012): cause of degrading
9
quality of environment, consequence of environmentally harming practices, knowledge of environmental quality, knowledge of programs
implementation of more sustainable agricultural practices. Farmers tend to observe the ongoings on their neighboring farms and attach significant importance to the appearance of their farm to their peers (Burton et al., 2008). A change in the traditional mindset of farmers is needed, for farmers to recognize, that a tidy landscape does not necessarily imply ‘good’ sustainable farming.
De Snoo et al. (2013) similarly argue, that nature conservation in areas with agricultural land use is a social challenge, that in the long term can only be truly successful with the active encouragement of the farming community. To effectively implement AEMs among the farming community it is necessary to consider non-economic forms of capital, for example how environmental behavior can enhance farmers’ status and reputation within the farming community (Burton and Paragahawewa, 2011). De Snoo et al. (2013) suggest, that this approach would induce a wider interest in the subject of nature conservation in agriculture and provide incentives for “farming for conservation” in addition to “farming for yields”.
3.2.3. Context of Acceptance and its Influencing Factors
The relationship between the object and the subject of acceptance is integrated into the context of acceptance. The context of acceptance, can be several things. Among others, factors such as the financial position of the farmer or legal restrictions, such as Natura 2000 areas within the farm (Sattler and Nagel, 2010). But also the exchange of information and the possibility of co-operation is part of the context of acceptance. Poor information transfer and a missing inclusion of the persons concerned can lead to a rejective attitude and a disillusionment, when they realize that they have only little influence on the contractually set agreements (Schenk et al., 2007).
Another important variable in AEM adoption among farmers is the approach of the government to implement AEMs in rural areas (Lastra-Bravo et al., 2015). A study by Ducos et al. (2009) shows, that the willingness of farmers to adopt AEMs increases if farmers have trust in the government and can expect mutual benefits through their implementation of AEMs. Peerling and Polman (2009) came to the same conclusion, that institutional trust positively influences farmers adoption behavior. Sutherland et al. (2013), suggests that trust as an influencing factor can be distinguished into two dimensions: institutional trust (Polman and Slangen, 2008; Palmer et al., 2009) and relational or personal trust (Juntti and Potter, 2002). A high level of institutional trust, high quality information provision as well as trust in the individual communicating these information (e.g. extension agent), is an important factor when considering the acceptance of AEMs (Sutherland et al., 2013).
Managing land in a sustainable and environmentally considerate way asks for a specific kind of skill set. However, farmers are educated in agricultural production and seldom receive specified training or schooling in environmental management (Batáry et al., 2014). The importance of information provision on AEMs through agricultural extension services (e.g. on objectives, criteria, eligibility) has been identified as crucial in terms of influencing farmers’ attitudes regarding AEMs (Polman and Slangen, 2008). Morris et al. (2000) found that often times a farmers resistance to AEMs were strengthened by the lack of knowledge regarding the agri-environmental schemes. Furthermore, they explained a high number of non-participants, whose adoption were strongly effected by incorrect or inadequate information provision.
There is a variety in the support and assistance that is provided to the farmer for the adoption and implementation of AEMs and addressing environmental issues. Some of these are information folders, web sites, extension services, technical advisors, social- and agriculture-related organizations, technical media and the government etc. (Mettepenningen et al., 2013; Lastra-Bravo
et al., 2015). Morris (2004) suggests, that a lack of assistance with AEM implementation may lead to frustration among farmers and ultimately the withdrawing from the agri-environmental scheme. She argues, that farmers are also more dependent on extension agents or environmental experts to instruct them on how to implement AEMs, when their knowledge of environmental management is limited. However, Morris (2004) notes, that the quality of the provided advice is not always optimal. Mettepenningen et al. (2013) points out, that farmers that receive information personally through extension agents are more likely to implement AEMs, than farmers that merely receive information through government publications, information folders and the internet.
Polman and Slangen (2008) argue, that depending on the information provided, farmers could have different perceptions of the institutional design of AEMs. For that reason it is important to recognize the role of public and private extension. Public as well as private extension service provision can help to resolve these information deficiencies.
The research of Wilson and Hart (2000) examined farmers’ motivations for their participation in voluntary agri-environmental schemes for nine countries in the EU and 10
Switzerland. They argue, among others, that how the agri-environmental scheme is delivered to the farmer and the information provided by agricultural extension agencies to potential participants are factors to be considered (Wilson and Hart, 2000). The delivery of the agri-environmental schemes as well as the quality of information in the form of extension services is an essential part of the AEM implementation procedure. There were significant differences in the agri-environmental scheme delivery among the investigated countries. Wilson and Hart (2000) identified three main types of agri-environmental policy delivery. (i) Countries that rely on and place power into funded extension services, with the result of enrolling substantial numbers of farmers into agri-environmental schemes, such as Austria and Switzerland. (ii) Countries where there is some information provision through extension services, but in which farmers are often expected to be proactive to obtain information. An infrastructure of extension services exists, however, it is not provided unless requested by the farmer (Germany, Sweden, UK, France, Denmark). (iii) Countries with often gravely underfunded extension services, with the lack of proficiency to provide specific advice on conservation issues (Portugal, Greece, Spain).
Generally, the use of extension services and technical advice, public and private, is found to have a positive influence on farmers’ acceptance of AEMs (Lastra-Bravo et al., 2015; Polman and Slangen, 2008; Mathijs, 2003; Barreiro-Hurlé et al., 2010). A full interaction between user and providers of extension services at all stages, from initiation to the end evaluation, is however crucial for the effectiveness of the provided services (Garforth et al., 2003). Farmers are individuals and diverse in their needs for information and extension service provision, which is why a pluralistic array of extension and information providers is necessary to meet their exigency. At different times farmers and land managers require different types of information, with a different degree of prescription and advice (Garforth et al. 2003). Garforth et al. (2003) point to the importance of integration, which could lead to a synergy between business-oriented and environmental-oriented extension services as well as to an enhanced link between advice, science and training, which would help eliminate inconsistencies in regional coverage and the content of the provided extension service.
To increase farmers participation in conservation measures and consequently agricultural sustainability, the assistance of the public agricultural sector has become increasingly important (Rivera, 2011). Polman and Slangen (2008) suggest, that it is important to distinguish between public and privatized agricultural extension services, when considering the potential influence on
The countries under investigation were Austria, Switzerland, Germany, Spain, France, United Kingdom,
10
