Final Report Summary - LANDSCAPEPARTNERS (The contribution of multi-stakeholder partnerships to sustainable landscape management)
The objective of the LANDSCAPEPARTNERS project was to identify, analyse and assess the contribution of multi-stakeholder partnerships to the sustainable management of rural landscapes and to the well-being of communities. This is of particular importance since the work of such partnerships has the potential to contribute to the European Union (EU) rural development policy aim to 'increase sustainable management of agricultural land'. To enhance the understanding of the particular role of local and regional groups that are active in landscape management, agri-environmental collaboratives were studied in Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Up to now, the contribution of such groups has only been described in qualitative terms rather than attempting to quantify it. This study explores this gap.
Methods
Through a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods, data was gathered on:
(a) group characteristics, longevity and resilience, objectives and activities;
(b) group contributions to dimensions of sustainable landscape management; and
(c) indicators that groups use to monitor, record and report on their activities and activities impacts.
Data collection methods included key informant interviews, an online survey of agri-environmental collaboratives in Germany and the Netherlands which received 122 complete responses (44 DE, 78 NL), 25 personal interviews with group members, and document analysis (annual reports, websites, newsletters).
Findings
The agri-environmental collaboratives identified in the United Kingdom as suitable for the cross-country comparison, the farming and wildlife advisory group (FWAG), could not be surveyed because they went into administration (2009 in Scotland, 2011in the rest of the United Kingdom). Therefore, only qualitative interviews were carried out with former FWAG advisors.
The figure shows which share of the surveyed groups (in %) contribute to which one of the three dimensions of sustainable landscape management. 40% of German groups and 27 % of Dutch groups contribute to all three dimensions. When asked for their main focus, 93 % of German groups chose the environmental dimension, while only 67 % of Dutch groups chose the environmental dimension and 26 % said their main focus is on the economic dimension of sustainability.
When it comes to measuring both the output (results) and the outcomes (impact) of their activities, 96 % of the surveyed groups measure at least one indicator (out of 41 possible indicators). The extent of monitoring and recording activities, however, varies considerably between groups. Numerical indicators tend to be measured more often than qualitative, descriptive indicators. While there is no correlation between the size of a group (membership or area covered), we find a significant correlation (at the 0.01 level for German / 0.05 level for Dutch groups) between the number of indicators documented by group and the number of full time staff they employ. This shows the important role that a project coordinator or facilitator can play for the ability of a group to monitor and report on their contributions.
Commonly recorded indicators vary in their popularity between German and Dutch groups, but include: projects implemented, number of members, farmers under contract, size of area managed, number of birds / nest protected, and number of events. Very few groups record nitrate reduction, area under erosion control measures, visiting tourists, or water quality. Possible explanations are that only few groups undertake such activities, the indicators are more difficult to measure, or other bodies are responsible for this kind of data.
Many groups in both countries reported that they do not have the resources to measure certain indicators. Groups tend to monitor and report the impact of those activities that are important to them and in ways that address their members needs. Overall, there is little overlap between indicators that groups measure at the local / subregional level, and the indicators used in the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework at European level. Matching indicators are e.g. the population of farmland birds (biodiversity indicator) and number of (training) events. However, groups would struggle to feed into indicators on water quality, additional number of tourist visits, or number of jobs created. This highlights a lack of compatibility between the assessment of policy effectiveness at European level with the assessment of sustainable land management at the local scale.
75 % of groups document indicators in their annual reports but very few are available online. Hence, much of the data in reports is not readily available for further analysis and some of the data recorded by groups is not compiled in reports. This lack of data and comparability creates difficulties in evaluating and aggregating the contribution of individual groups. In addition, the findings emphasise the important and as yet unresolved issue about how much paperwork the volunteers who make up these agri-environmental collaboratives can be expected to do: should they do the work on the ground or spend their time writing about it? Despite the lack of hard data, the interviews revealed many benefits that agri-environmental collabo-ratives bring to sustainable landscape management. They can only fulfil their functions if they can meet the numerous challenges they face. The following factors influence group resilience:
(a) utilisation of a variety of funding sources rather than dependency of a single funding source;
(b) commitment from local and regional authorities to support groups, both financially but also in-kind and by acknowledging them as valued partners;
(c) successful implementation of locally relevant projects;
(d) influx of new members;
(e) flexible group structures to deal with changing policy and funding environment;
(f) support of a coordinator and/ or diverse skill set among members;
(g) strong umbrella groups.
The findings are of interest to European, national and regional policy makers involved in rural development, landscape, conservation and agri-environmental policy, as well as for agri-environmental collaboratives, other non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and interest groups in these fields. Publications, material and further information are available on the project website: http://www.macaulay.ac.uk/LandscapePartners
Contact: Dr Katrin Prager (katrin.prager@hutton.ac.uk)
Tel: +44-122-4395386
Methods
Through a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods, data was gathered on:
(a) group characteristics, longevity and resilience, objectives and activities;
(b) group contributions to dimensions of sustainable landscape management; and
(c) indicators that groups use to monitor, record and report on their activities and activities impacts.
Data collection methods included key informant interviews, an online survey of agri-environmental collaboratives in Germany and the Netherlands which received 122 complete responses (44 DE, 78 NL), 25 personal interviews with group members, and document analysis (annual reports, websites, newsletters).
Findings
The agri-environmental collaboratives identified in the United Kingdom as suitable for the cross-country comparison, the farming and wildlife advisory group (FWAG), could not be surveyed because they went into administration (2009 in Scotland, 2011in the rest of the United Kingdom). Therefore, only qualitative interviews were carried out with former FWAG advisors.
The figure shows which share of the surveyed groups (in %) contribute to which one of the three dimensions of sustainable landscape management. 40% of German groups and 27 % of Dutch groups contribute to all three dimensions. When asked for their main focus, 93 % of German groups chose the environmental dimension, while only 67 % of Dutch groups chose the environmental dimension and 26 % said their main focus is on the economic dimension of sustainability.
When it comes to measuring both the output (results) and the outcomes (impact) of their activities, 96 % of the surveyed groups measure at least one indicator (out of 41 possible indicators). The extent of monitoring and recording activities, however, varies considerably between groups. Numerical indicators tend to be measured more often than qualitative, descriptive indicators. While there is no correlation between the size of a group (membership or area covered), we find a significant correlation (at the 0.01 level for German / 0.05 level for Dutch groups) between the number of indicators documented by group and the number of full time staff they employ. This shows the important role that a project coordinator or facilitator can play for the ability of a group to monitor and report on their contributions.
Commonly recorded indicators vary in their popularity between German and Dutch groups, but include: projects implemented, number of members, farmers under contract, size of area managed, number of birds / nest protected, and number of events. Very few groups record nitrate reduction, area under erosion control measures, visiting tourists, or water quality. Possible explanations are that only few groups undertake such activities, the indicators are more difficult to measure, or other bodies are responsible for this kind of data.
Many groups in both countries reported that they do not have the resources to measure certain indicators. Groups tend to monitor and report the impact of those activities that are important to them and in ways that address their members needs. Overall, there is little overlap between indicators that groups measure at the local / subregional level, and the indicators used in the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework at European level. Matching indicators are e.g. the population of farmland birds (biodiversity indicator) and number of (training) events. However, groups would struggle to feed into indicators on water quality, additional number of tourist visits, or number of jobs created. This highlights a lack of compatibility between the assessment of policy effectiveness at European level with the assessment of sustainable land management at the local scale.
75 % of groups document indicators in their annual reports but very few are available online. Hence, much of the data in reports is not readily available for further analysis and some of the data recorded by groups is not compiled in reports. This lack of data and comparability creates difficulties in evaluating and aggregating the contribution of individual groups. In addition, the findings emphasise the important and as yet unresolved issue about how much paperwork the volunteers who make up these agri-environmental collaboratives can be expected to do: should they do the work on the ground or spend their time writing about it? Despite the lack of hard data, the interviews revealed many benefits that agri-environmental collabo-ratives bring to sustainable landscape management. They can only fulfil their functions if they can meet the numerous challenges they face. The following factors influence group resilience:
(a) utilisation of a variety of funding sources rather than dependency of a single funding source;
(b) commitment from local and regional authorities to support groups, both financially but also in-kind and by acknowledging them as valued partners;
(c) successful implementation of locally relevant projects;
(d) influx of new members;
(e) flexible group structures to deal with changing policy and funding environment;
(f) support of a coordinator and/ or diverse skill set among members;
(g) strong umbrella groups.
The findings are of interest to European, national and regional policy makers involved in rural development, landscape, conservation and agri-environmental policy, as well as for agri-environmental collaboratives, other non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and interest groups in these fields. Publications, material and further information are available on the project website: http://www.macaulay.ac.uk/LandscapePartners
Contact: Dr Katrin Prager (katrin.prager@hutton.ac.uk)
Tel: +44-122-4395386