Do Farmers Prefer Agri-Environmental Schemes with Group Options?

A new project policy brief reveals that almost 100% of surveyed farmers preferred contracts offering the option for collaborative landscape-scale conservation

A new project policy brief shares findings that nearly all European farmers surveyed as part of FRAMEwork prefer agri-environmental contracts offering the option to join a farmer cluster or equivalent group. A discrete choice experiment with 761 farmers presented hypothetical five-year contracts requiring six-metre field margins. Results were striking: 758 farmers (99.6 per cent) preferred contracts granting the option to join a cluster.

This consensus reveals something important about farmer preferences—they want the opportunity to collaborate with peers. Yet all farmers also disliked being forced to join, demonstrating equally strong preference for voluntary participation. Farmers value choice as much as they value collaboration. The finding has profound implications for conservation policy design.

---

What many Farmers actually want

Beyond clusters, farmer preferences shed light on scheme design. Farmers preferred contracts organised by government over those organised by retailers or NGOs, suggesting trust in public institutions as scheme administrators. On average, farmers preferred per-hectare payments over price premiums for labelled produce, indicating preference for compensation rather than market-based incentives. These preferences provide clear guidance for policymakers about what matters to farming communities.

The study design enabled researchers to isolate each preference and examine how different design elements interact to shape farmer responses. These findings reveal a fundamental mismatch in conventional agri-environmental schemes. Traditional schemes focus on farm-level management of ecosystem services. Yet conservation goals, such as biodiversity enhancement, are more effective at the landscape scale. Current schemes have struggled with persistent criticism: low farmer participation rates and inconsistent environmental outcomes. The gap reflects a design problem—policy that prioritises individual farm management overlooks the need for coordinated landscape-scale action where neighbouring farms create coherent habitat networks.

Moving toward landscape-scale conservation

Farmer clusters offer a practical solution. These farmer-led groups supported by facilitators enable members to exchange knowledge and coordinate conservation efforts at the landscape level rather than the farm level. FRAMEwork research shows that accompanying agri-environmental scheme implementation with cluster establishment enables landscape-scale coordination, potentially increasing farmer participation. This approach moves beyond individual compliance with scheme requirements toward collective action driven by peer learning and shared environmental goals. The cluster structure harnesses social dynamics and peer influence to sustain commitment.

For policymakers, the evidence is clear. Investing in cluster infrastructure enhances existing scheme effectiveness. Policy recommendations include establishing optional collaborative groups alongside agri-environmental contracts, allowing farmers to exchange and coordinate at landscape scale. Setting up clusters at larger scales and extending successful FRAMEwork pilots would provide an empirical basis for understanding farmer responses to collaborative conservation approaches.

Connecting and supporting cluster establishment may prove cost-effective for both increased scheme participation and improved environmental outcomes. This could inform and catalyse a fundamental shift in conservation policy design toward community-led and landscape-scale approaches.

Read the full policy brief at https://zenodo.org/records/15681856. Explore more FRAMEwork research at https://www.framework-biodiversity.eu/publications.