photo: Jan van de Kam
Barba-Escoto, L., Howison, R.A., Fokkema, R.W., Duriaux-Chavarría, J.Y., Stessens, M., van der Velde, E., Hooijmeijer, J.C., Piersma, T. and Tittonell, P.A., 2024. Are they even there? How agri-environment schemes investments reach their target species in Dutch dairy-farmland, the case of meadow birds. Global Ecology and Conservation, 56, p.e03286.
In the European Union, Agri-environment schemes (AES) and site-protected areas are key tools for biodiversity conservation. AES provide farmers with financial compensation for activities that support wildlife, such as creating habitats or protecting species during critical life stages. Since 2016, Dutch AES have been managed by farmer collectives, coordinating efforts regionally.
The objectives of our study was to examine the implementation of AES for meadowbird protection, focusing on the national bird of The Netherlands the Black-Tailed Godwit (in Dutch: grutto or Frysian: Skries), in South-West Friesland (2016–2022). We analysed the diversity of AES applied, their combinations, monetary compensation schemes, coverage areas, and the godwit population they host compared to site-protected areas (managed by conservation organizations) and intensive agriculture.
Our key findings are summarized here next. Regarding AES diversity, AES packages varied widely and after grouping them within 11 broader categories, we grouped field by how AES were combined, we constructed 4 field types named and described as: 1) Nest Protection Fields focused on safeguarding nests, 2)Delayed Mowing Fields featured postponed mowing and fertilization, 3)Herb-Rich Grasslands minimal fertilizer use with diverse herbs and 4)Inundation Fields Inundated field patches with botanic-rich margins. Although the names represent the AES that cover most of the field area, variation of AES combined in this categories is still big as shown in the original paper.
Regarding the Coverage & Population of AES and protected areas, together they covered 26% of the study area, hosting 76% of the godwit population AES fields hosted 52.1% of the godwits, site-protected areas 24.7% (Figure 1). Delayed mowing fields hosted 28.6% of the godwits in just 6% of the landscape. Herb-rich grasslands hosted 9.1% of the godwits in only 1.1% of the area.
Comparing the density of godwits between managements we found that site-protected areas hosted 0.5 godwits/ha, AES fields: 0.46 godwits/ha and Intensive agriculture: 0.063 godwits/ha. Zooming into AES field types herb-rich grasslands had the highest godwit densities(1.25 godwits/ha), followed by delayed mowing(0.66 godwits/ha), inundation fields (0.36 godwits/ha), and nest protection (0.2 godwits/ha). Regarding costs: Most compensation funds went into supporting delayed mowing and herb-rich grasslands. Nest protection was less costly but covered the largest area, although this AES type was associated with lower godwit densities than any other AES.
We concluded that AES are highly diverse and are often combined in multiple complex ways. Herb-rich grasslands associated with the highest godwit densities compared to other management types, including site-protected areas.Upgrading existing AES fields could enhance their performance, particularly by incorporating strategies like herb-rich grasslands.
