Rolling green hills with patchwork fields overlaid with digital data streams symbolizing interconnected agricultural practices and ecosystem services.

Greener Pastures: How to Make Agri-Environment Schemes Actually Work

Kai Mendoza in Climate & Environment August 2025 • 5 min read.

"Unlocking the potential of Agri-Environment Schemes (AES) to deliver real ecosystem benefits and promote sustainable farming practices."

For years, governments in the EU and the UK have leaned on Agri-Environment Schemes (AES) as a way to nudge farming towards greener, more sustainable practices. The core idea is simple: incentivize farmers to manage their land in ways that boost biodiversity and support ecosystem services. Yet, a closer look reveals a system struggling to live up to its potential. The funding structures often feel outdated, and the focus remains stubbornly fixed on maximizing productivity, which often clashes directly with environmental goals.

A recent study dug into the effectiveness of these action-based AES, seeking to understand if they truly serve as a reliable mechanism for delivering crucial ecosystem services. By analyzing existing data and using geographic information systems (GIS), the researchers aimed to unravel the complexities of how AES funding is distributed, how the schemes are structured, and the real-world impact on the ground. The study focused specifically on Wales, UK, as a case study.

The findings paint a picture of a system that, while well-intentioned, needs a serious overhaul. A significant portion of funding is spread thinly across many recipients, while a select few receive the lion's share. Moreover, the schemes often lack flexibility, hindering their ability to adapt to local needs and deliver meaningful environmental improvements. But it's not all doom and gloom. The research also highlights the potential for AES to be a powerful tool for promoting long-term behavioral change and protecting our natural resources, provided we're willing to rethink how they're designed and implemented.

The Money Isn't Flowing Where It Matters Most

Rolling green hills with patchwork fields overlaid with digital data streams symbolizing interconnected agricultural practices and ecosystem services.

The study revealed a striking imbalance in how AES payments are distributed. A whopping 84% of those receiving AES payments get less than £10,000 each year. While that might sound like a lot of people are benefiting, this group only accounts for about 35% of the total funding pot. On the flip side, less than 1% of recipients rake in over £100,000, grabbing a hefty 14% of the overall funds. It's a classic case of the rich getting richer, and it raises serious questions about whether the money is actually going where it can make the biggest difference for the environment.

To make matters worse, the research showed that a mere 15 management options (out of approximately 165) accounted for more than 75% of all advanced-level management contracts awarded in both 2015 and 2017. This heavy bias towards a small number of options suggests a 'business as usual' approach, which, in many cases, only prevents existing habitat conditions from deteriorating further. While stopping things from getting worse is certainly a start, it's hardly the ambitious, transformative change needed to address the pressing environmental challenges we face.

Here's a quick breakdown of the key issues:

Funding Disparity: Most recipients get a small slice of the pie, while a few get a large chunk.
Limited Option Uptake: Farmers tend to stick to a handful of familiar management options.
Prescriptive Schemes: The voluntary, over-prescriptive nature of AES limits management option uptake and impact.
Missed Opportunities: The schemes' structure hinders their ability to deliver ecosystem services and promote long-term change.

The researchers argue that the voluntary and overly prescriptive nature of these schemes limits their potential. Farmers may be hesitant to embrace new or innovative approaches, sticking instead to what they know. This not only stifles creativity but also undermines the schemes' ability to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services and truly promote long-term behavioral change. If AES are to deliver the "Public Goods" that future policy demands, then targeted and adequate levels of funding and a willingness to participate must be combined with greater farmer autonomy and clear outcomes to deliver management options at a landscape scale.

A Path Forward: Empowering Farmers and Embracing Flexibility

So, what's the solution? The study points to a need for AES that are more targeted, flexible, and empowering. Farmers need to be given greater autonomy to develop management options that are tailored to their specific land and needs. This requires a shift away from prescriptive, top-down approaches towards a more collaborative model where farmers are actively involved in the design and implementation of the schemes. By combining adequate funding with farmer-led innovation and clear, measurable outcomes, we can unlock the full potential of AES to deliver real, lasting environmental benefits and create a more sustainable future for farming.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.039, Alternate LINK

Title: What Can Management Option Uptake Tell Us About Ecosystem Services Delivery Through Agri-Environment Schemes?

Subject: Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Journal: Land Use Policy

Publisher: Elsevier BV

Authors: David Arnott, David Chadwick, Ian Harris, Aleksandra Koj, David L. Jones

Published: 2019-02-01

Everything You Need To Know

What are Agri-Environment Schemes (AES) and what is their primary goal?

Agri-Environment Schemes (AES) are governmental programs, particularly in the EU and the UK, designed to encourage farmers to adopt sustainable practices that enhance biodiversity and support ecosystem services. These schemes provide financial incentives for farmers to manage their land in environmentally beneficial ways, aiming to integrate agricultural practices with environmental conservation.

What key imbalances in Agri-Environment Schemes (AES) funding distribution were revealed?

The study reveals a significant imbalance in the distribution of Agri-Environment Schemes (AES) payments. A large percentage of recipients (84%) receive relatively small payments (less than £10,000), accounting for only about 35% of the total funding. Conversely, a very small percentage of recipients (less than 1%) receive very large payments (over £100,000), accounting for 14% of the total funds. This disparity raises concerns about whether the funding is effectively directed to maximize environmental benefits.

Why is the limited uptake of diverse management options within Agri-Environment Schemes (AES) a concern?

The research indicates that a limited number of management options (only 15 out of approximately 165) are heavily favored in Agri-Environment Schemes (AES) contracts. This suggests a lack of diversity and innovation in the implementation of these schemes, which may hinder their ability to address complex environmental challenges and promote substantial improvements in ecosystem services. This narrow focus often results in merely preventing further deterioration rather than driving significant positive change.

What key changes are needed to improve the effectiveness of Agri-Environment Schemes (AES)?

To enhance the effectiveness of Agri-Environment Schemes (AES), the study suggests several key changes. These include implementing more targeted funding approaches to ensure resources are directed where they can have the greatest environmental impact, increasing the flexibility of the schemes to adapt to local needs and conditions, and empowering farmers by giving them greater autonomy in designing and implementing management options tailored to their specific land. A shift towards a more collaborative and farmer-led approach is crucial.

How does the prescriptive nature of Agri-Environment Schemes (AES) impact their overall effectiveness?

The over-prescriptive nature of Agri-Environment Schemes (AES) can limit their effectiveness by discouraging farmers from exploring new or innovative management approaches. When schemes are too rigid, they stifle creativity and prevent farmers from tailoring their practices to the specific needs of their land, which undermines the potential for delivering a wide range of ecosystem services and promoting long-term behavioral change towards more sustainable farming practices. A balance between guidance and flexibility is needed.