Journal of Environmental Policy & PlanningJ. Environ. Policy Plann. 3: 137–147 (2001)DOI: 10.1002/jepp.76

Connecting Environmental Management and FarmHousehold Livelihoods: The Rural EnvironmentProtection Scheme in IrelandMONICA GORMAN*, JOE MANNION, JIM KINSELLA AND PAT BOGUEDepartment of Agribusiness, Extension and Rural Development, University College Dublin, Ireland

ABSTRACT This paper presents the relationship between an environmental protection scheme, established in Ireland in1994 under EU Regulation No. 2078/92, and the livelihoods of Irish farm households. It explores this relationship within theframework of the new policy environment for EU agriculture and rural areas as set out in Agenda 2000. At the centre of thisnew policy environment is the European model for agriculture, embodying the concept of multifunctionality, whichrecognizes the pivotal position of an evolving agricultural sector in enhancing the viability of rural areas through broadeningthe assets of farm families. Research undertaken with farm households in the west of Ireland indicates a positive relationshipbetween the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme and the economic and natural assets upon which they build theirlivelihoods. The case of a small-scale dairy farm household is presented, showing clearly the positive impact of the scheme,while also highlighting the vulnerability of these improvements. A major challenge facing policy-makers is the extent to whichacceptable levels of income and an enhanced natural environment on such farms can be sustained. The position of advisoryand research institutions in strengthening human capacities on farms is highlighted and their enhanced role is suggested inorder to give meaning to multifunctional and sustainable agriculture within the context of rural area viability. Copyright© 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Key words: farm household livelihoods; multifunctional agriculture; Ireland; Rural Environmental Protection Scheme

Introduction

This paper initially sets out the changing con-text in which rural area development across theEU is framed. It then explores the concept ofrural sustainable livelihoods within the frame-work of the living countryside agenda that un-derpins the European Union’s policy for its ruralareas. A ‘broadened’ agriculture, whereby farmhouseholds expand the range of goods andservices from which they make their living, isdiscussed as it forms a core part of achievingviable rural communities. The paper then detailsthe Rural Environmental Protection Scheme inIreland, its uptake and its contribution to farmhousehold livelihoods. This scheme is con-sidered a cornerstone in developing positiveaspects of the agriculture–environment relation-

ship, emphasizing agricultural production meth-ods that are compatible with the environmentand the maintenance of the countryside. A casestudy of a small-scale dairy farm household,from the Burren area of County Clare, illustratesthe role and effect of the scheme. By way ofconclusion, the paper highlights a number ofimportant lessons based on the experience ofthe scheme to date, and sets out some of thechallenges facing policy-makers and institutionsin grounding the concept of multifunctionalityin pursuit of a living countryside.

The changing context of Europeanfarming

The rural context is continuously changing.Farmers in Europe constitute an ever-smallersection of the population, and the consumer’spoint of view carries increasing importance.Agricultural and rural policies are more and

* Correspondence to: Department of Agribusiness, Extension andRural Development, Faculty of Agriculture, University CollegeDublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland. Tel: +353 1 7067096; fax:+353 1 2837328; e-mail: monica.gorman@ucd.ie

Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Received 15 January 2001

Revised 5 March 2001Accepted 7 March 2001

M. Gorman et al.138

more targeted to serve society as a whole, andthere is increasing demand by European societyfor public goods provided by agriculture–envi-ronment and animal welfare, high quality land-scapes, etc.

While the production of food and fibre re-mains a primary function of agriculture, there isgrowing concern about the dangers of intensiveproduction, such as the effects that forms ofintensive mono-culture have on landscape (largefields with few trees or hedges) and pollutionproblems linked to high levels of agriculturalproduction. More extensive farming systemscontribute to the quality of the landscape, andto biodiversity. Hamell (2001) points out howintensification and specialization in Europeanagriculture have increased pressure on the envi-ronment and at the same time led to a marginal-ization and abandonment of farming in someregions where small farms predominate.

Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy(CAP) has seen a shift away from market andprice supports for European farmers and anincrease in direct payments. Direct paymentshave greater visibility, so pressure has increasedfrom society to ensure it gets good value fromthe farm sector in environmental as well asagricultural terms. The Agenda 2000 reformsreinforce this trend and propose a model forchange that is distinctly different from thosepursued by the EU’s competitors elsewhere andrecognizes that ‘seeking to be competitiveshould not be confused with blindly followingthe dictates of a market which is far fromperfect’. The European model is designed tosafeguard farming because of its multifunctionalnature and the part it plays in the economy, theenvironment and in society in general (Eu-ropean Commission, 1998).

Europe has a vast array of environmentallegislation that is of importance to agriculture.The orientation of the EU environment policyis changing— the 1999 Amsterdam Treaty re-quires the integration of the environment intoother policies, so the CAP is obliged to dealwith environmental issues. Obligations fromglobal agreements such as the Kyoto protocolare also impacting on agro-rural policy. Thenew CAP reform is based on a broadened roleof agriculture, confirming society’s demand that

agriculture should not pollute the environment,nor lead to severe erosion, nor destroy culturallandscapes that are highly valued by society.Hamell (2001) highlights the requirement thatsociety purchases these environmental servicesfrom farmers through agri-environmental mea-sures. In its Cork Declaration, the EuropeanCommission (1996) expressed confidence thatthere is acceptance of the need for public fund-ing for the management of natural resources,biodiversity and cultural landscapes.

Kearney (2000) and Ploeg et al. (2000) pointout that multifunctionality has emerged as oneof the contested issues in the present WorldTrade Organization negotiations. The outcomeof the clash between trade liberalization/mod-ernization and rural development will influencethe capacity for the European Commission toimplement rural development policies.

A living countryside—sustainablerural communities

The notion of a living European countrysideimplies a unity between agriculture, society andthe environment. Europe’s landscape is a farmedlandscape and a landscape that is valued bysociety as a whole. The Cork Declaration artic-ulated the commitment of the European Com-mission to multifunctionality, stressing thatagriculture is and must remain a major interfacebetween people and the environment, and thatfarmers have a duty as stewards of many of thenatural resources of the countryside. Van De-poele (2000) emphasized the value that Eu-ropean society places on the contribution ofagriculture to the viability of rural areas and abalanced territorial development. Many remoteand peripheral areas offer few other possibilitiesof gainful employment.

To create the reality of a living countryside,people must be able to make a qualitativelygood living from the countryside— that is, toconstruct sustainable rural livelihoods. Europeanagricultural and rural development policiesattempt to foster this ‘living countryside’through a variety of mechanisms, such as mea-sures developed from the EU agri-environment

Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Environ. Policy Plann. 3: 137–147 (2001)

Environmental Management and Farm Household Livelihoods 139

regulation (Council Regulation (EEC) 2078/92,OJ no. L 215, 30.7.1992, pp. 85–90).

Our model of a living countryside, presentedin Figure 1, places farming in a vital role,producing food and fibre but also being broad-ened and diversified to provide other goods andservices and complemented by a range of off-farm enterprises and services that enrich thequality of life in rural areas (Kinsella et al.,2000a).

The model suggests that conventional agri-culture ((A) in Figure 1) needs to be revitalizedin order for the production of food and fibre tobe competitive and to maintain its position inthe broader economy. The second area (B) isthe development of other farm-based activities,the broadening of the products of agriculture tocreate goods and services that are valued andcan yield an economic return. This pivot high-lights the need to reinforce the multifunctionalnature of farming, and it is within this categorythat the environmental goods and services pro-duced by farming can make their contributionto the living countryside. The third area (C) isthe wider rural economy that enables the busi-nesses and services to create a vibrant ruralsociety and economy.

The challenge to enable people to constructsustainable rural livelihoods is to realize thenotion of multifunctional agriculture. Cahill &Shobayashi (2000) explain multifunctionality asthe existence of multiple commodity and non-commodity outputs that are jointly produced by

agriculture, with some of these non-commoditygoods exhibiting the characteristics of externali-ties and/or public goods for which markets donot exist or function poorly. Non-commodityenvironmental goods are seen as a key productof the European model for agriculture. Examplesof environmental public goods would includeclean air and water, landscapes and biodiversity.These are not goods that can be easily boughtor sold; society values them for their contribu-tion to the quality of life. Farmers, as the pro-ducers or guardians of these environmentalgoods, need to be able to integrate thesebroader products into their livelihoods in a waythat sustainably enhances their incomes, therebyreconnecting economy and ecology in theirfarming practices.

Farm household livelihood strategies

Farm families employ a variety of strategies toensure their livelihood. These strategies enablethem to convert their assets or resources intogoods and services that are valued by societyand that can earn them a satisfactory income.Figure 2 is useful in understanding the factorsthat influence the livelihood strategies offarmers.

Livelihood strategies emerge in response to acontinuously changing rural context. Thechanging context (as in the changing demandsof European society) influences the base of

Figure 1. The key components of a living countryside. Source: Kinsella et al. (2000b).

Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Environ. Policy Plann. 3: 137–147 (2001)

M. Gorman et al.140

Figure 2. Livelihood strategies of farm households.

livelihood assets that people can draw on insecuring acceptable living standards. This re-quires the farm family to be able to revise theirlivelihood strategy to maximize newly createdopportunities that are created and to bufferthemselves against constraints.

The livelihood assets of farm households arethe human, economic, environmental, social,cultural and political resources available to themfrom which to draw their livelihood and ulti-mately achieve an acceptable standard of living.Human assets include skills, knowledge, self-confidence and motivation. Economic assets in-clude land, capital and labour. Environmentalassets include landscape features, habitats, cleanair and water. Cultural assets might include thehistory, folklore, cultural heritage, gastronomictraditions and language of a particular locality.Social and political assets could include theextent to which people belong to networks thatenhance their quality of life or enable them tohave influence over decisions and policies thataffect them. The value and importance of thedifferent assets evolve and change with contex-tual changes. What once was an important assetgiving access to certain livelihood strategiesmight lose its value due to changes in thepolitical or economic context, or changes in thecontext might open up new opportunities foralternative strategies. Land that was once con-sidered to be of low value because of its limitedpotential for agricultural production might nowbe considered an asset because of its environ-mental qualities.

Making the most of livelihood assets requiresconsiderable human capacity. The EuropeanCommission (1996) recognizes the necessity forresearch and training to enable farmers to real-ize the potential of their assets in a rapidlychanging context. Research also needs to focuson creating linkages between the reality offarmers who live with the natural resources andthe expectations of the broader society.

Diversified agriculture as a strategy

Using the model of rural sustainable livelihoods,rural development can be seen as an attempt toincrease the ‘pool’ of livelihood assets withwhich farm families construct their livelihood.This approach can be embedded in a ruraldevelopment paradigm that seeks to developagriculture along three interacting dimensions:the agri-food supply chain, the mobilization ofresources or livelihood assets and the position-ing of agriculture within a wider rural context(Ploeg et al., 2000). This runs counter to the‘modernization paradigm’, which focused onscale enlargement and intensification, seeing therural area merely as a location for primaryproduction and which aimed to integrate farmsinto agro-industrial food supply chains ratherthan diversifying their pool of livelihood assets.Ploeg et al. (2000) have ‘introduced’ the ruraldevelopment paradigm as seeking to revitalizethe interaction of the three dimensions by di-versifying, deepening and re-grounding the role

Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Environ. Policy Plann. 3: 137–147 (2001)

Environmental Management and Farm Household Livelihoods 141

of conventional agriculture. Diversification re-fers to the development of on-farm, non-foodactivities that create new sources of income andemployment and are oriented at newly emerg-ing markets; examples include nature and land-scape management, agro-tourism and other newon-farm activities. By deepening, they refer tothose activities that extend the involvement ofthe farm in the food supply chain beyond pri-mary production of cheap raw materials bytaking charge of food processing and marketingor guaranteeing specific product qualities, forexample in organic farming, direct selling andhigh-quality food production. Re-groundingrefers to a different alignment of human andnatural resources towards more sustainableforms of agriculture.

Using these conceptual frameworks (the liv-ing countryside, sustainable livelihood strategiesand a rural development paradigm of broaden-ing conventional agriculture) we can analyse theimpact of rural development policy mechanisms,such as the Rural Environment ProtectionScheme, on the relationship between farming,the environment and society.

The role of institutions

The relationship between the context, the assetsand the actual livelihood strategies that peopleadopt are influenced and mediated by institu-tions including governments, policies, regula-tions, support agencies and services etc. Theseinstitutions can enable or inhibit the develop-ment of certain livelihood assets and strategies.At the same time, they influence the contextwithin which livelihood strategies are con-structed. By way of an example, a change ingovernment policy can encourage the develop-ment of different enterprises, the research andadvisory priorities of development agencies cansupport new functions and products, marketsdeveloped by private enterprise can open newopportunities, and farmers’ organizations canuse their influence to negotiate the obstaclesthat inhibit the livelihood strategies of theirmembers.

In a strengthening of the rural developmentscenario, farmers and the wider society give a

high priority to the care and conservation of theenvironment and to the creation of a livingcountryside. The people who live with and usethe natural resources are central to the manage-ment of the resources. One of the downsides ofthe modernization paradigm is the disconnec-tion it has created in this respect. Resentment athaving to comply with society’s demands forenvironmental goods can result when farmerssee their livelihoods threatened by regulationsof distant bureaucrats. The challenge for ruraldevelopment is to create a win–win scenario inwhich research helps to articulate the perspec-tive of farmers and gives them a meaningfulplace in society’s debates on environmentalmanagement and in the formulation of policy.This scenario would facilitate farmers to inte-grate agriculture and environment at the core oftheir farming strategies and enable them tosecure acceptable living standards.

The story of the Rural EnvironmentProtection Scheme

Reform of the CAP in Europe has had a strongenvironmental dimension aimed at promotingcare for nature and the environment since 1992.Council Regulation 2078/92, which came intobeing in June 1992, saw farmers as managersand custodians of the rural environment as wellas producers of food. Each member state wasmandated to implement this regulation, al-though participation is voluntary for farmers.

In Ireland, the regulation was implementedthrough the introduction of the Rural Environ-ment Protection Scheme (REPS) in 1994. It wasthe first nation-wide scheme to encourage farm-ers to protect natural and cultural heritage.Farmers who join the scheme enter into a 5-yearcontract with the Department of Agriculture,Food and Rural Development to farm in accor-dance with an agri-environmental plan drawn upby an approved planning agency. The maximumarea for which payment is made under REPS is40 ha, while the basic rate of payment tofarmers in the scheme was €160 per ha in 1999.There are 11 measures in the scheme that aredirected towards controlling nitrogen use and

Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Environ. Policy Plann. 3: 137–147 (2001)

M. Gorman et al.142

stocking rates, controlling waste and effluentaround the farm-yard, and protecting waterquality, hedges and features of archaeological orhistorical importance on the farm. The ap-proved planning agencies include Teagasc (theAgriculture and Food Development Authority)and private agricultural consultants. When afarmer applies, a planner will assess eligibilityfor the scheme and outline areas that need to beaddressed on the farm. The planner will thendraw up a 5-year farm plan in consultation withthe farmer. The plan, along with the applicationform, farm map and other supporting documen-tation is submitted to the Department of Agri-culture, Food and Rural Development. Paymentfollows upon approval.

In addition to the basic premium, extra pay-ments can be made to farmers who undertakesupplementary measures within the scheme.There is a supplementary measure to aid in thepreservation of certain endangered species byassisting farmers who rear animals of certainlocal breeds. There is a supplementary measurefor organic farming, another one for farmerswho undertake to give public access to theirland for environment-friendly leisure and sport-ing activities and another one for long-termset-aside of land on the banks of certain desig-nated rivers. Of particular importance are sup-plementary measures for farmers whose land is(partly) designated as Natural Heritage Areas1

or Special Areas of Conservation.2

Many of the degraded areas within the Natu-ral Heritage Areas include land held in commonownership— that is, commonages. The REPSrequires that an Agri-Environmental FrameworkPlan is drawn up for these, which includes agrazing regime for the total area of the com-monage, an overall grassland management planand measures for habitat protection. Each com-monage shareholder must submit a detailedREPS plan that conforms with the frameworkplan and other specified conditions

Uptake of REPS

By late 1999, about 43000 farmers were partici-pating in the scheme covering an area of ap-proximately 1.5 million ha (31% of agricultural

land). The highest uptake of the scheme hasbeen with drystock farmers, especially sheepfarmers, while the lowest uptake has been withintensive dairy farmers, illustrating the differentdirection of the modernization paradigm andperhaps its negative jointedness to environmen-tal protection.

An evaluation of REPS (McEvoy, 1999) illus-trates demographic characteristics of farmerswho participate in the scheme as follows:

� on average, REPS farmholders are slightlyyounger (50 years of age) than extensivenon-REPS farmholders (53 years of age) butslightly older than intensive non-REPsfarmholders (47 years of age);

� 81% of REPS farmholders were married,compared with 63% of extensive non-REPSfarmholders and 69% of intensive non-REPSfarmholders;

� more REPS farmers had off-farm income(33%) than either the extensive (30%) orintensive (22%) non-REPS farmholders.

Impact of REPS

In the context of the earlier discussion aboutenhancing the livelihood strategies of farmfamilies through a diversification of livelihoodassets, we detail the impact that REPS has hadin Ireland, where the general consensus is that itconstitutes a very successful agri-environmentalscheme. Data from an evaluation of the schemefor the Department of Agriculture, Food andRural Development (Fitzpatrick & Associates, inMcEvoy, 1999) is used.

Economic assetsNational Farm Survey data were used to exam-ine the impact of REPS on farm gross outputand gross margin. The performance on REPSand non-REPS farms in 1997 relative to 1994was examined, and it was found that, on REPSfarms, gross output increased by 5% excludingREPS payments and 22% when REPS paymentswere included. In that same period, gross outputincreased by 1 and 2% on extensive and inten-sive3 non-REPS farms, respectively. In 1998,family farm income on REPS farms was €431per hectare compared with €363 and €732 for

Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Environ. Policy Plann. 3: 137–147 (2001)

Environmental Management and Farm Household Livelihoods 143

extensive and intensive non-REPS farms, respec-tively. REPS also contributed to the physicalassets of the farm. Machinery investment andbuilding investment costs were also higher onREPS farms than on extensive non-REPS farms,but lower than on intensive non-REPS farms(Sinnott, 1999).

Environmental assetsWater pollution is a major threat to groundwa-ter sources for human drinking water and athreat of eutrophication, particularly of marineand coastal environments. Reduction in the useof inorganic phosphorous and nitrogen werekey adjustments required of farmers participat-ing in REPS. This impacted on the national useof inorganic phosphorous, which fell by approx-imately 17000 tonnes per annum to 45000tonnes per annum since the mid-1990s. How-ever, Sinnott (1999) points out that recent waterquality reports show that a major effort is stillrequired in the storage and management of farmwaste.

Kavanagh (1999) reported on a study thatlooks at the relationship between farm practicesand the environment in the Burren region inCounty Clare, where approximately 700 farm-ers, accounting for 50% of the area, are REPSparticipants. While it is perhaps too early tomeasure ecological changes after only 4 years ofoperation, there are early indications that thescheme is playing an important role in support-ing farming where it might otherwise have beenabandoned. If farming were neglected in theBurren, the likely encroachment of scrub wouldincreasingly threaten the unique landscape.

While it is difficult to distinguish the impactof REPS from the myriad of other factors influ-encing biodiversity on a farm, there are indica-tions of a positive relationship. Studies areunderway to evaluate the impact of REPS on thenatural environment, using birds as biologicalindicators, and to predict the impact of specifichedgerow management prescriptions, as set outunder REPS, on different species of birds. Thereis also a study aiming to establish a system formonitoring biodiversity by surveying plants andselected invertebrates on REPS and non-REPSfarms. A protocol for a monitoring scheme isbeing devised.

Protecting wildlife and biodiversity does nothave universal approval of farmers. In a study ofcommon grazing areas in a Special Area ofConservation in County Kerry, one farmer ex-pressed anxiety about an increase in the foxpopulation (Carroll, 1998).

Cultural assetsAwareness of sites of historical or archaeologicalinterest has been raised by participation inREPS. Kavanagh (1999) reported on the posi-tive outcome of REPS on the identification andprotection of features of historical and archaeo-logical interest, as well as an increased numberof newly discovered features identified by REPSplanners in conversation with farmers. A REPSfield survey in five counties yielded 65 newfeatures and pointed to a much greater archaeo-logical catalogue. Since REPS commenced, noneof the features recorded in agri-environmentalplans have been destroyed.

Human assetsTraining and the development of knowledgeand skills were a core component of REPS. Theoverall objective of the training is to foster a‘culture of conservation’ among REPS partici-pants. Twenty-one thousand farmers partici-pated in REPS training programmes, and thismade a significant contribution to increasedfarmer awareness of agri-environmental issues.Banks & Marsden (2000) also identified this‘culture of conservation’ in relation to Tir Cy-men in Wales. Sinnott (1999) points out theeducational benefit that also accrued from theconsiderable record keeping that was requiredby the scheme.

REPS and sustainable livelihoods

We can examine the place of REPS in the newrural development paradigm through its contri-bution to the broadening of conventional agri-culture. From the evaluation, it would appearthat REPS has made a substantial contributionto improving the pool of livelihood assets for aliving countryside. It is enabling a broadening inthe sense of producing/recognizing non-foodenvironmental goods. It has assisted farmers to

Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Environ. Policy Plann. 3: 137–147 (2001)

M. Gorman et al.144

recognize and value the environmental assetsin their care. Furthermore, these environmentalgoods represent a broadening of the pool oflivelihood assets from which the farm familycan generate an acceptable standard of living.They can be purely public goods or they canhave a marketable nature, for example providethe basis for a tourism or recreation enterprise.If they are limited to purely public goods,there will be continued dependence on publicfunding if these are to contribute to the liveli-hoods of farm families. Such continued depen-dence will impact on sustainability. Efforts atbroadening the range of environmental goodsneed to exploit the ‘commercial’, as well asthe ‘public good’, nature of environmental as-sets if their value is to be fully developed.

REPS also enables a re-grounding of con-ventional agriculture away from intensive mod-ernization towards reduced inputs, extensiveproduction and more efficient use of resources.McEvoy (1999) concluded that, since REPSfarms had achieved an increase in gross out-put, while at the same time reducing expendi-ture on fertilizers per livestock unit, substantialefficiency benefits may be attributed to REPSin terms of planning and management of nu-trients.

REPS and dairy farms in CountyClare

Over the 1997–1999 period some 250 small-scale4 dairy farm households in County Clare(in the west of Ireland) were involved in apartnership action-research programme to testtheir ability to achieve viable farm businesses(Kinsella et al., 1999). Within the context offarm business expansion (emphasizing in-creased production of quality milk in an envi-ronmentally sound way) and related practicechanges, the research examined the extent ofuptake of the REPS and its effects at farmlevel.

The uptake of the REPS amongst the pro-gramme farmers was almost twice the nationalaverage (65% farms involved in REPS in1999), due largely to the high percentage of

relatively young farmers, the size of theirfarms and the relatively extensive farming sys-tems practised. The research found that REPSplayed an important role in building the phys-ical infrastructure of these farms, enabling in-vestment in pollution control structures andfarm roadways while assisting in the cash flowof the farm households. Farmers in the schemestrengthened their appreciation of environmen-tally sound farming practices, in particularwith regard to fertilizer use as well as protec-tion of natural habitats and waterways.

The case study of a small-scale dairy farmpresented in this paper is based on a farmhousehold involved in the action-research pro-gramme. The farm is located within the Bur-ren area of County Clare and typifies theexperience of the REPS amongst farm house-holds in the area.5

One farmer’s experience of REPS

Liam is a 35-year-old farmer living in the Bur-ren area of County Clare. He is married toMona and they have three children. Mona hasa full-time job in the nearby town. The farmis 50 ha in total, of which half is on themountain. They milk 24 dairy cows and alsohave 15 suckler cows, 50 beef cattle and 60ewes.

REPS on the farm

Liam joined the REPS in 1997. Even thoughhis primary motivation was financial, he wasalso interested in maintaining the environment,in particular preserving the landscape and oldfarm buildings. At the time of joining REPS,he did not have adequate housing for hisdairy cows. They were outwintered on themountain until February and subsequently on asacrifice paddock, a practice that was difficultfor both man and beast. He wanted to con-struct winter housing for his cows and REPSprovided him with the opportunity to fundthe investment. The main effect on his man-agement was reduction in nitrogen usage.

Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Environ. Policy Plann. 3: 137–147 (2001)

Environmental Management and Farm Household Livelihoods 145

Livelihood assets enhancement

During his first 3 years in the scheme, Liamused the REPS payments to meet the costs ofcompliance to the scheme, which included: farmwaste management facilities, fencing and gen-eral farm improvements. By the fourth year ofthe scheme, most of the REPS payment wentdirectly into farm income, and it now augmentsincome by €7500 per year, contributing onequarter of overall farm net margin. ThroughREPS, Liam has been able to invest in extrahousing facilities for his livestock, therebyadding to the value of his physical infrastructureand taking some of the drudgery out of theoutwintering of stock.

The scheme has acted as an incentive for himto tidy up his farm-yard and to restore old farmbuildings, which he feels is very important forthe area’s heritage and should be encouragedfurther. Liam would place a high value on thenatural asset that is the Burren. Apart from theintrinsic value of its flora and fauna, he alsoappreciates its value in attracting tourists andvisitors to the area. While he is not directlyinvolved in any tourism enterprise, he feels thatthe public should have access to farmland in thearea, although he pointed out the problems thatarise, such as damage to boundary fences, thatcan lead to REPS penalties for farmers. He doesnot believe that the REPS has led to increasedtourism in the area, but it has improved theimpression that people get of the area. Hethinks there is more wildlife in the area nowthan there was 5 years ago and feels that farm-ers should be encouraged to return native spe-cies, including pheasants and corncrakes, as partof the REPS. He believes that these species willnow have a greater chance to survive than inthe past.

Liam feels that his involvement in the REPS,and the measures which he has undertakenwithin his REPS contract, has given him a betterunderstanding of the range of natural and cul-tural assets and potentials on the farm. He alsoattended the mandatory REPS training pro-gramme in his area and found it particularlyuseful for information on regulations related toenvironmental management.

Liam’s analysis of REPS

After almost 4 years’ experience of the scheme,Liam is generally positive about its impact onhis family’s livelihood and about its impact onthe Burren area in general. He is also aware ofthe shortcomings of the scheme, which need tobe addressed if the positive impacts are to besustained in the longer term.

In terms of his own farm, Liam feels REPS ismaking a major contribution to the viability ofthe farm through annual direct payments for apublic good. If the scheme were to end, hewould have to increase fertilizer usage and thestocking rate on the farm to compensate for theloss of income. This highlights the vulnerabilityof the REPS payments and the need for thebroadened role of agriculture to be embeddedmore in the market place. Liam fears that ifenvironmental payments such as REPS werediscontinued, most farmers in the area wouldhave to engage in intensive production prac-tices, and the environmental gains that havebeen achieved would be lost.

The relationship between farm families andthe Burren is long established over many gener-ations. Overall, Liam feels that REPS has had apositive effect on the Burren in terms of bettermanagement of farm-yard waste; eliminating thepractice of feeding stock on the Burren; restor-ing stone walls, gates and boundaries; removingplastic and twines; and, in general, making theplace look better. However, he warns that thecurrent grazing regulations are actually an envi-ronmental problem and will have a detrimentaleffect on the vegetation of the Burren. For, overgenerations, farmers carefully managed the Bur-ren and grazed a small number of stock on itthroughout the year. The low stocking rateallowed for a build-up of grass, but it also meantthat trees, gorse and shrubs were not allowed totake over. Within the existing environmentalregulations, farmers are only allowed to havestock on the mountain for one week betweenApril and October. This has led to excessivegrowth of shrubs and trees, which is posing athreat to the unique flowers for which theBurren is famous throughout the world.

Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Environ. Policy Plann. 3: 137–147 (2001)

M. Gorman et al.146

Conclusions

At the centre of the new policy environment forEU agriculture and rural areas, as set out in theAGENDA 2000 Agreement, is the EuropeanModel of Agriculture (EMA). The EMA embod-ies the concept of multifunctionality, which rec-ognizes the pivotal position of an evolvingagricultural sector in enhancing the viability ofrural areas and farm households. This paper setout to examine whether a broadened role foragriculture, to include care of the environment,can make a sustainable contribution to farmhousehold incomes and enhancement of thefarmed environment. The evidence presented inrelation to the REPS in Ireland shows that thereis a positive relationship between scheme partic-ipation and the enhancement of the economicand natural assets upon which farm familiesbuild their livelihoods. However, the researchalso raises a number of questions about thevulnerability of the advances made and therealization of a sustainable multifunctionalagriculture.

� REPS has played an important role in en-hancing farm family livelihoods, particularlyits contribution to natural resources, eco-nomic capital and human capacity. How-ever, because of the almost completedependence on public funding, the enhance-ment of livelihood assets remains vulnerable.There is almost a complete disconnectionbetween the broadened functions of agricul-ture, farm households and the market (forexample, farm-based environmental and cul-tural tourism).

� Realizing a broadened role for agriculturerequires farm households with the capacityto convert an array of livelihood assets intostrategies and livelihood outcomes. Humancapacity is at the core of broadened agricul-ture— farm families require the skills andconfidence to recognize and realize the po-tential of environmental and other possiblelivelihood assets. Research, training andother support mechanisms remain central toenhancing human capacities.

� An institutional support base, which incor-porates a multifunctional agriculture knowl-

edge system, is needed to help farm familiesmake the most of their potential livelihoodassets and, where possible, to exploit thecommercial value of those assets in order toground them in a sustainable fashion.

� Development and conservation agencies alsoneed to develop their capacity to recognizeexisting, ‘indigenous’, good practice and toengage with farmers in planning appropriateand sustainable management strategies forthe natural environment that are rooted inthe local reality. The role of research needsto be expanded to enable farmers’ voices tobe heard in policy formulation.

Connecting multifunctionality and an enhancedfarmed environment to farm family livelihoodsin a manner that is achievable and sustainable isa key challenge in having a living countryside.There is some evidence that achieving this ob-jective may be possible. Findings from the TirCymen Conservation Scheme in Wales (Banks &Marsden, 2000) show that agri-environmentalschemes— if appropriately designed and region-ally embedded—may make a significant contri-bution to rural development and be instrumentalin supporting the transition to a new type ofagriculture that is commensurate with theparadigm shift to rural development.

Notes

1. National Heritage Areas (NHAs) are areas ofnational and international significance selected onthe basis of their habitat richness, species diver-sity, species rarity or habitat rarity. They includethe best of Ireland’s remaining natural habitats.

2. Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) are siteschosen by the National Parks and Wildlife Ser-vice as those NHAs that best meet the criteria ofthe EU habitats directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC, OJ no. L 206, 22.7.1992, pp. 7–50).Member states have to provide specific site man-agement plans for SACs. REPS farmers in SACsare paid a rate of €250 per ha.

3. Extensive farms are those that produce less than170 kg of organic nitrogen per ha per year.Intensive farms are those that produce more than170 kg organic nitrogen per ha per year.

4. ‘Small scale’ refers to dairy farm businesses withless than 157000 litres of milk quota. This

Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Environ. Policy Plann. 3: 137–147 (2001)

Environmental Management and Farm Household Livelihoods 147

category represented 90% of dairy farms in Co.Clare and almost 70% of dairy farms in Ireland.

5. The Burren is a unique place in the south west ofIreland— the largest karstic limestone formationin western Europe, occupying approximately 300square kilometres. The name Burren is from theIrish bhoireann, meaning a stony place; it is a harshrocky landscape softened by the effects of windand water. The distinctive microclimate of thearea has enabled a unique mix of flora to growgiving the area a great interest for botanists.There are relics of human habitation datingback almost 6000 years. This area has some ofthe finest archaeological megalithic tombs inIreland, if not in Western Europe. Source:www.moytura.com/burren.htm

References

Banks J, Marsden T. 2000. Integrating agri-environ-mental policy, farming systems and rural develop-ment: Tir Cymen in Wales. Sociologia Ruralis 40:466–480.

Cahill C, Shobayashi M. 2000. The concept ofmulti-functionality of agriculture: results of OECDresearch. Paper presented to the Agricultural Eco-nomics Society of Ireland Meeting, Teagasc,Sandymount, Dublin, 2 November.

Carroll J. 1998. A study of commonage grazing areasin the Dingle peninsula. MSc thesis, UniversityCollege Dublin.

European Commission. 1996. The Cork Declara-tion—a living countryside. Statement by the Eu-ropean Commission at the European Conferenceon Rural Development, Cork, 9 November.

European Commission. 1998. Agenda 2000—Thefuture for European agriculture. Explanatory mem-orandum, European Commission, Brussels.

Hamell M. 2001. Policy aspects of the agriculture–environment relationship. Tearmann: Irish Journal ofAgri-Environmental Research 1.

Kavanagh B. 1999. Approaches to evaluatingsome REPS measures. Paper presented at TeagascConference on ‘REPS— Impact and FutureDirections’ Johnstown Castle, Wexford, 11November.

Kearney B. 2000. Agricultural policy scenario andfocus on the environment: some reflections. Paperpresented at National REPS Conference, Teagasc,Dublin, 28 November.

Kinsella J, Mannion J, Bogue P, Slattery P.1999. Creating a New Future for Dairy Farm Households:A Key Element of Rural Renewal. The County ClarePartnership Dairy Action–Research Programme 1997–1999. Department of Agribusiness, Extension andRural Development, University College Dublin:Dublin.

Kinsella J, Bogue P, Mannion J. 2000a. Rural renewalthrough business development by dairy farmhouseholds. Paper presented to the AgriculturalEconomics Society of Ireland, 21 February.

Kinsella J, Wilson S, Jong F de, Renting H. 2000b.Pluriactivity as a livelihood strategy in Irish farmhouseholds and its role in rural development. Soci-ologia Ruralis 40: 481–496.

McEvoy O. 1999. Impact of REPS: analysis from the1998 Teagasc National Farm Survey. Paper pre-sented at Teagasc Conference on ‘REPS— Impactand Future Directions’ Johnstown Castle, Wex-ford, 11 November.

Ploeg JD van der, Renting H, Brunori G, Knickel K,Mannion J, Marsden M, de Roest K, Sevilla-Guzman E, Ventura F. 2000. Rural development:from practices and policies towards theory. Sociolo-gia Ruralis 40: 391–408.

Sinnott M. 1999. REPS evaluation and its implica-tions. Paper presented at Teagasc Conference on‘REPS— Impact and Future Directions’ JohnstownCastle, Wexford, 11 November.

Van Depoele L. 2000. The European Model ofAgriculture— rhetoric of reality? Implications forrural areas. Paper presented at the Agri-Food Eco-nomic Conference 2000, Dublin.

Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Environ. Policy Plann. 3: 137–147 (2001)