Master Thesis

The influence of a privatized agricultural extension system on farmers’ acceptance of agri-environmental measures: A case

study in north-east Brandenburg, Germany.

MSc. Thesis Victoria Viert

September 2018 10717404

University of Amsterdam Supervisor: Dhr. Prof. Dr. Marc Davidson

Master Earth Sciences Co-assessor: Dhr. Dr. Kenneth Rijsdijk

Track Environmental Management External supervisor: Dr. agr. Ulrich Stachow

Victoria Viert Alttornower Siedlung 7 16259 Bad Freienwalde + 49 1520 3565168 victoria.viert@gmail.com

University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Life and Earth Sciences Master’s Candidate Earth Sciences Track Environmental Management Student ID: 10717404

Course: Master Thesis Research, Track Environmental Management (5264MTR30Y)

Keywords: Privatized agricultural extension, farmers’ acceptance, agri-environmental measures, environmental agricultural practices, environmental behavior in agriculture, environmental management, agri-environmental policy, Germany

!ii

Acknowledgement

At this point I would like to thank all people who have supported me in the preparation, execution and finalization of this Master Thesis research.

A thank goes to all interview partners, who were willing to participate in this research and without whom this Master Thesis would not have been possible.

Special thank goes to Dr. agr. Ulrich Stachow and Claudia Bethwell from the Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) for their support in developing this project. Further more, thanks to Ulrike Knuth from the German Farmers’ Association, who provided me with feedback for the conception of the interview procedure.

I would also like to thank Dhr. Prof. Dr. Marc Davidson from the University of Amsterdam, who was willing to supervise my project from afar and helped me to finalize this research. Another thank goes to Dhr. Dr. Kenneth Rijsdijk, who co-assessed this Master Thesis.

Finally, I must express my very profound gratitude to my parents a for providing me with unfailing support and continuous encouragement throughout my years of study and through the process of researching and writing this thesis. This accomplishment would not have been possible without them. Thank you.

!iii

Abstract

Great efforts have been made to reduce environmental impacts of agricultural practices all over the world. Environmental targets are set, programs with manifold agri-environmental measures are developed and policies and regulations are implemented. This research explores the influence of agricultural extension, information transfer and communication on farmers’ acceptance of agri-environmental measures (AEM) and their attitude towards the agricultural environment within the research area of north-east Brandenburg. The Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin (BRSC) is located within the research area. Agricultural extension is the application of new knowledge and scientific research to the agricultural sector through the education of farmers. Within this study extension or advisory will entail the service of advising the clients, product consultation, but also the provision of information as well as the provision of seminars and winter schooling. The federal state of Brandenburg has a privatized agricultural extension system, where farmers have to pay for extension services. However, the BRSC administration offers environmental extension to farmers within the BRSC on a voluntary basis and free of charge. Five interviews with two farmers operating within the BRSC and three farmers operating outside of the BRSC have been conducted, to evaluate the differences of the extension services and their influence on AEM acceptance. The interviews were standardized, semi-structured and followed a predeveloped interview questionnaire. The questionnaire was subdivided into three main parts: (I) Farm and farmer characteristics, (II) AEMs, (III) Agricultural extension. The interviews have been analyzed using a qualitative content analysis scheme according to Mayring (2014). The results indicate that farmers do have a positive attitude towards the agricultural environment and show an environmental awareness. AEMs are perceived as having a positive influence on the agricultural environment. Financial aspects, flexibility, suitability and the outlay of the application process, were identified as important influencing factors for AEM implementation. For an industry depending on fluctuating environmental and climate conditions a greater level of flexibility is requested by the participants of this study. It has also been criticized, that AEMs lack inclusivity and do not target intensive agriculture. General information sources of the participants have been the regional agricultural offices, other farmers, the internet and information events. However, the agricultural offices have the most significant importance for the participants. Due to the fact that they are exposed to nature conservation on a more regular basis, the farmers within the BRSC have a higher aspiration for good quality environmental extension services. They do know where to obtain information on the agricultural environment and make use of private extension services. All participants confirmed a lack of good quality agricultural extension. Furthermore, the information that is provided by public institution is evaluated as mediocre and barely sufficient. Agricultural offices, extension circles and a more flexible and inclusive program design pose great potentials for an increased acceptance and implementation of AEMs within the research area.

!iv

Table of Content

Acknowledgement iii Abstract iv Table of Content v Acronyms and Abbreviations vii

1. Introduction 1 1.1. Research Problem and Research Aim 2

1.2. Research Questions 4

1.3. Social Significance 4

2. Research Area 6 2.1. The Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin 7

2.2. Legal Framework of the Research Area 8

3. Theoretical Framework 12 3.1. Conceptual Definitions 12

3.1.1. Extension 12

3.1.2. Agri-Environmental Measures in Brandenburg 13

3.1.3. Acceptance 14

3.2. Acceptance in the Agricultural Context and the Influence of Agri-Environmental Extension 15

3.2.1. Object of Acceptance and its Influencing Factors 17

3.2.2. Subject of Acceptance and its Influencing Factors 18

3.2.3. Context of Acceptance and its Influencing Factors 19

3.3. Extension System in Germany and Brandenburg 22

3.3.1. Agricultural Extension in the Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin 24

4. Methodology 26 4.1. Literature Research 26

4.2. Standardized Interviews and Qualitative Content Analysis 26

5. Results 31 5.1. Farm and Farmer Characteristics 31

!v

5.2. Attitude towards AEMs and the Agricultural Environment 32

5.2.1. AEMs 32

5.2.2. Agricultural Environment 35

5.3. Information Transfer within the Research Area 36

5.4. Evaluation of the Extension System 45

5.5. Differences between Farmers within and outside of the BRSC 47

6. Discussion 48 6.1. Object of Acceptance 48

6.2. Subject of Acceptance 49

6.3. Context of Acceptance 50

7. Conclusion and Outlook 54

8. Research Limitations 56

9. References I

10. Appendix VI

!vi

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AEM Agri-environmental measure

BbgNatSchAG Brandenburg Nature Conservation Act; Brandenburgisches Naturschutzgesetz

BMELV Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection; Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz

BNatSchG German Federal Nature Conservation Act; Bundesnaturschutzgesetz

BR Biosphere reserve

BRSC Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin

CAP Common Agricultural Policy

EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development

EC European Commission

e.g. exempli gratia

etc. et cetera

EU European Union

GAK Joint Task of Agricultural Structures and Costal Protection

i.e. id est

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Natur and Natural Resources

KULAP Cultural landscape program; Kulturlandschaftsprogramm

LVLF State Office for Costumer Protection, Agriculture and Land Consolidation; Landesamt für Verbraucherschutz, Landwirtschaft und Flurneuordnung

LUA Sate Office for Environment; Landesumweltamt

MLUL Ministry of Rural Development, Environment and Agriculture of the federal state of Brandenburg; Ministerium für Ländliche Entwicklung, Umwelt und Landwirtschaft des Landes Brandenburg

MAB Man and the Biosphere

SD Structural Dimension

QCA Qualitative Content Analysis

WFNatConPl Whole Farm Nature Conservation Plan; Gesamtbetrieblicher Naturschutzfachplan

!vii

List of Tables and Figures

Tables:

Tab. 1 Table of the required area percentages of the three zones of biosphere reserves as well as the permitted human activity and their function.

Tab. 2 Categorized factors influencing farmers’ decision to adopt conservation measures.

Tab. 3 General characteristic classification of the participants.

Tab. 4 Importance of information sources regarding general matters of the agricultural enterprises.

Tab. 5 Importance of information sources regarding environmental matters of the agricultural enterprises.

Figures:

Fig. A Map of Brandenburg with its administrative districts and marked research area.

Fig. B Map of the Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin with marked protected areas.

Fig. C Map of the nature conservation areas in the administrative districts of the study area.

Fig. D Zoning of the Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin.

Fig. E Model of subject, object and context of acceptance.

Fig. F The agricultural extension systems for the federal states of Germany.

Fig. G Content related structuring after Mayring (2014).

!viii

1. Introduction

“In our every deliberation we have to consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations”

(Great Law of the Iroquois Confederacy, 1451)

The quote from the Great Law of the Iroquois Confederacy is an indicator, that the idea of sustainability, the intergenerational thinking and possibly also acting accordingly, has its routs in early history and various cultures of mankind. In Middle Europe the idea of sustainability emerged in the 18th century, when the exploitation of the forests for the mining industry caused a scarcity of resources. Consequently Hans Carl von Carlowitz advocated a sustainable use of wood as a natural resource. He saw it as a duty to the following generations and the common welfare. From a modern perspective, the aspect common welfare also includes the functions of recreation, water protection, soil conservation and nature conservation. In our days sustainability can mean many things to many people. It can be an idea, a manufacturing method, a way of life, an ideology and a crusade all at the same time. But what is sustainability? The most commonly used and accepted definition stems from the Commission on Environment and Development from 1987. With the report “Our Common Future”, the so called Brundtland-Report, a worldwide sustainability discussion was initiated. It is stated in the report, that economic growth and environmental conservation should be possible in all social systems, on the basis of all economic levels (DRL, 2002). Therefor, they define sustainability as follows:

“Sustainable development is the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts: (1) the concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and (2) the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.”

(Brundtland, 1987)

Sustainability is a concept that touches all aspects in life. A commonly used model is the three-pillar model, i.e. the three pillars of sustainability. These include the economic dimension, the social dimension as well as the ecological dimension. The three-pillar model is built around the stipulation, that sustainable development is the combination of equal social, economic and ecological development (Hüther and Wiggering, 1999). Similarly the European Union Commission states, that social, economic and ecological development go hand in hand (Enquete-Commission, 1989). Within agriculture, sustainability is an intricate idea, but also includes the various dimensions of sustainability, i.e. a sustainable agricultural enterprise should be profitable and contribute to a solid economy (economic), the relationship with the surrounding community should be mutually beneficial and the farm should have a fair work relationship with their workers (social) and it should function with consideration of the environment (ecologic). Within agriculture, environmental sustainability resembles good stewardship of the ecological system and natural resources that agricultural enterprises depend upon. Among others, this includes building and

!1

maintaining healthy soils, responsible management of water resources, the minimization of pollution through fertilizers and pesticides as well as the promotion of biodiversity. Intensive agricultural practices have been proven to be the cause of severe environmental effects, such as ground and surface water pollution due to nutrients and pesticides, soil erosion by water and wind and many more. These effects cause the deterioration of natural habitats of flora and fauna and the loss of biodiversity. Over the past decades great efforts have been made to mitigate these negative environmental impacts by agricultural practices and achieve sustainable agriculture. Next to the designation of nature protection areas, e.g. Natura 2000 areas, there are various regulative policies put in place through the European Union (EU) and the individual countries. Especially the agri-environmental measures (AEMs) (chapter 3.1.2.) of the second pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) aim for the implementation of more sustainable and environmentally sound agricultural practices, by promoting organic farming, reduced fertilizer and pesticide use as well as extensification of conventional practices. However, the greatest efforts will have little effect if these topics are not sufficiently communicated to the regional level. Especially voluntary programs rely heavily on the acceptance of land users. The interface between policy making, scientific findings and the application and implementation is an important but often times neglected subject matter, that can decide over the success and impact of these programs. Within this master research, more light will be shed on the relationship of information transfer regarding environmental topics and the acceptance of farmers towards AEMs. Specifically I will focus on the private extension that is offered in the area of north-east Brandenburg. In the following chapters I will lay out my approach on investigating this subject matter as well as the results generated within this research. In the first chapter the research problem and the research aim will be outlined. Lastly, the first chapter will elaborate on the social significance of this research subject. The second chapter will focus on the research area of north-east Brandenburg. It will highlight the nature conservation status as well as the legal framework of the study area. The third chapter will lay out the theoretical framework of this study, including conceptual definitions and a review of the available literature relevant for this research. Subsequently, the methodology will be presented in the fourth chapter. Within the fifth chapter the results will be presented, followed by a discussion of the results with the theoretical framework, that has been established within the third chapter. This master thesis will conclude with a conclusion, an outlook on further research possibilities as well as the research limitation that underly this work.

1.1. Research Problem and Research Aim

Various different factors, influencing a farmers decision to implement agri-environmental measures into their agricultural practices, have been identified and studied over the past decades. Among them are farmer related factors such as the farmers age, education, professional experience and environmental awareness (Wilson and Hart, 2000; Baumgart-Getz et al., 2012; Burton, 2014). Furthermore, farm related factors, e.g. farm size, the economic status of the farm as well as the farming intensity (Schenk, 2000; Nagel et al., 2002; Garforth et al., 2003; Sattler and Nagel, 2010). Moreover, there are societal factors that can be related to a farmers decision-making process, some of which are how a farmer wants to be perceived by other farmers or the community as well as the trust a farmer has in the government (Ducos et al., 2009; Peerling and Polman, 2009; Sutherland et al., 2013; Lastra-Bravo et al., 2015). Lastly, there are informational factors influencing farmers’

!2

environmental behavior, for example the information provision on environmental issues and agri-environmental extension services offered (Nagel et al., 2002; Garforth et al., 2003; Morris, 2004; Polman and Slangen, 2008; Lastra-Bravo et al., 2015). Agricultural extension is the application of new knowledge and scientific research to the agricultural sector through the education of farmers. This can be done by advising or consultancy through an extension agent, product consultation, but also through the provision of information, information events and winter schooling. This study will shed more light on the informational factors that contribute to more environmental friendly agricultural practices. More specifically, how private and public agri-environmental extension services influence farmers’ willingness to implement agri-environmental measures and their attitude towards environmental issues. After extensive literature research, it is proposed that the key to a farmer’s adoption of AEMs may not lie in the individual factors and characteristics of the farmer and his/her agricultural enterprise, but rather in the information and extension services that are provided to the individual agricultural enterprises. Naturally, next to the information provided and the advice given as well as its suitability for the individual agricultural enterprises, another major factor is the availability and affordability of this advice. In a privatized agricultural extension system, such as in Brandenburg, the supply of extension and advice is largely determined by the demand. Farmers are paying for the extension service without governmental subsidies. Because they have to make a choice between agri-environmental extension and other more promising extension services (e.g. economic), it may hinder farmers to receive or even request agri-environmental extension. In the Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin (BRSC) there is a dedicated employee , who is responsible for advising the farmers on environmental aspects. With 1

the help of a “Whole Farm Nature Conservation Plan” (WFNatConPl; “Gesamtbetrieblicher Naturschutzfachplan”) (chapter 3.3.1.), which is specific to each farm and generated in cooperation with experts, farmers and the BRSC Employee, he advises the farmers on which environmental measures are most suitable and how to implement them. It is a voluntary program as well as free of charge. Except for the core zone and the transition zone of the BR, the areas of the development zone and the area outside of the BR do not significantly differ in their nature conservation status as well as the farming practices. For this reason the areas are suitable for comparison, regarding farmers’ attitudes towards AEMs and their perception of the available agricultural extension services and information provision. AEMs have been chosen, due to the fact, that they are voluntary and governmentally subsidized. Every agricultural enterprise has the same options to implement these measures inside and outside of the BRSC.

To ensure anonymity this employee will be referred to as BRSC Employee throughout the course of this 1

master thesis.!3

1.2. Research Questions

The main objective of this study is to examine, how extension services in a privatized system effect farmers’ acceptance and implementation of AEMs in the region inside and outside of the Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin in north-eastern Germany. Consequently, my research will approach the following research questions and sub-questions:

I. How does a privatized agricultural extension system influence the acceptance of agri-environmental measures in Brandenburg, Germany?

i. How is the extension system in Brandenburg organized? ii. How do farmers obtain information on environmental issues? iii. What is the farmers attitude towards the agricultural environment? iv. How do farmers evaluate the agricultural extension services and information provided

in regards to the agricultural environment?

II. How does the information on agri-environmental issues, that is communicated inside the Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin influence the acceptance of agri-environmental measures?

i. How do farmers inside the BRSC receive information on agri-environmental measures? ii. How do farmers evaluate the extension services provided by the biosphere reserve

administration? iii. What is the farmers attitude towards the agricultural environment?

III. Is there a difference in the acceptance of agri-environmental measures inside and outside of the Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin?

1.3. Social Significance

In today’s society agricultural production plays a vital role. It is not only a major contributor in the economic sector, agriculture also provides employment, contributes to the conservation of cultural landscapes as well as provides habitats for flora and fauna. On the other hand, intensive agriculture is a significant contributor for the issues of soil degradation, loss of biodiversity as well as natural resource scarcity. Agricultural practices predominantly define the level of food production as well as the condition of the global environment (Tilman et al., 2002). Globally about 37.7 % (2014) of the earth’s land area are in agricultural use, either as croplands (10.9 %) or as pastures (26.3 %) (FAO, 2017). Next to being a primary contributor to the loss of ecosystems, agriculture substantially adds environmentally harmful amounts of phosphorus and nitrogen to our terrestrial ecosystems all over the world (Vitousek et al., 1997; Carpenter et al., 1998). Typically the costs of the adverse environmental impacts of agricultural practices stay unmeasured and often times do not directly affect the farmers or societal choices concerning production practices (Tilman et al., 2002). To decrease the negative impact of agricultural practices on the environment it is essential that farmers change their way of farming to more sustainable practices.

!4

However, the farming community still to this day struggles with the application of nature conservation strategies in a widespread manner. Finding incentives for farmers to adopt sustainable agriculture practices is a key issue facing policy makers and scientists all over the world. This study will increase the knowledge on how extension services could help increase the acceptance of nature conservation measures among the farming community, to further increase the participation in conservation programs.

!5

2. Research Area

The research of this study takes place in North-East Brandenburg in Germany. The study area includes the administrative districts of Uckermark, Barnim, Märkisch-Oderland and Oberhavel (Fig. A). With 3.058 km², Uckermark is the largest administrative district in Germany. Around 180.000 ha is agriculturally used area, of which approximately 150.000 ha and 30.000 ha is cropland and grassland, respectively. The Uckermark is considered a favorable agricultural area in Brandenburg, especially the northern parts of the administrative district. Important crops include

!6

Fig. A: Map of Brandenburg with its administrative districts and marked research are. (edited after https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Brandenburg,_administrative_divisions_-_de_-_colored.svg)

grain, oilseeds and sugars beets. Livestock production in Uckermark is characterized by beef and pig production. Sheep are mainly used for the maintenance and preservation of the dikes of the River Oder and for nature conservation areas (LBV Brandenburg, 2018). Märkisch-Oderland is the most eastern administrative district of the study area. To the east the river Oder is the country boarder to Poland. A large part of this area used to be marshland, which was drained in the 18th century to make it usable for agricultural purposes. With an area of around 124.000 ha, agriculture is the largest economic sector in Märkisch-Oderland. The agricultural production is very diverse. The majority of the agricultural farms produce cash crops, while the livestock production is often times specialized on dairy cattle and pig production and occasionally cattle fattening. Another specialization is the vegetable cultivation including fresh vegetable production such as salad, cabbage turnip and cabbage, but also industrial mass produce such as spinach, beans and peas. As everywhere in Brandenburg there is also an increase in biogas plants in Märkisch-Oderland (LBV Brandenburg, 2018). Barnim is the administrative district between Berlin and the Uckermark. Barnim has comparatively light soils with low annual precipitation. As in Märkisch-Oderland and the Uckermark, agriculture is an important economic sector in Barnim around 50.000 ha crop land is cultivated by around 365 agricultural enterprises. Over 55 % of the crop land is used for grain production, followed by approximately 14 % of oilseeds. Around 14,2 % (~ 7100 ha) of the agriculturally used land is cultivated with organic farming practices. In Barnim the livestock production is dominated by cattle farming of which 25 % are dairy cows (LBV Brandenburg, 2018). The administrative district of Oberhavel is located directly north of Berlin and covers an area of around 180.000 ha, with ca. 70.000 ha of agriculturally used land. It has a relatively high share of grassland use and about 47.000 ha is dedicated to crop land. Comparable to Barnim the livestock sector is dominated by cattle farming and pig production. However, many farmers increasingly find source of income in the bioenergy sector. Around 9,5 % of the agriculturally used area is cultivated with organic agricultural practices (LBV Brandenburg, 2018).

2.1. The Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin

The UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin (BRSC) was found within the scope of the national park program of East Germany in 1990 (Biosphärenreservat Schorfheide-Chorin, 2017). It is located in the north-eastern part of Brandenburg, about 75 km north-east of Berlin, and extends over 1291,6 km2. (Fig. B) It lies within the administrative districts of Uckermark, Barnim, Märkisch-Oderland and Oberhavel, with its majority located in Barnim. With around 33.000 ha cropland and 9.500 ha grassland the agricultural land use in the BRSC make up one third of the total area of the BR (MLUL f, 2017). In the BRSC about 33 % (2011) of the agriculturally used area is dedicated to organic farming. On another 13 % of the area there is extensive grassland use in accordance with the EU agricultural funding program. Consequently, around 46 % of the agriculturally used area of the BR is to a great extend subject to a sustainable land use in line with the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) criteria and the recommendations of the Madrid-Action Plan. The objectives of the BRs administration is to successively transition more and more conventional agricultural enterprises to organic farming, and more extensive agricultural practices (MLUL, 2014). In the recent years, problems emerged from the intensification of the production of bioenergy crops. Corn production increased from few plots in the 1990s to over 4.000 ha. The bioenergy crops are predominantly located in close proximity to the corresponding biogas plants,

!7

with mostly corn as a monoculture planted on the same plots, for time periods of four to five years. This kind of cultivation management is associated with the disturbance of large open landscapes of the BR through the increased application of fertilizers and biocides. Thus even though a large share of the BR shows sustainable land use practices, there are still problems of intensive conventional land use in some areas.

2.2. Legal Framework of the Research Area

As becomes clear from Fig. C the northeastern part of Brandenburg is covert with an elaborate system of protected areas, including Landscape Protection Areas, Nature Reserves, Natura 2000 areas with FFH Directive protection areas and Birds Directive (SPA) protection areas, Nature Parks and National Parks. In general landscape protection areas have little restrictions regarding their agricultural and forestry use. Usually practices that would change the character of the of landscape, such as the conversion of grassland into farmland are restricted. Furthermore, often times there are no specific restrictions regarding the fertilizer use on grasslands other than the universally valid EU Plant Protection Product Regulation . There are usually harsher restrictions concerning the 2

construction of new structures and buildings within the open landscape of landscape protection areas.

Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 2

concerning the placing of plant products on the market and repealing Council Directive 79/117/EEC!8

Eberswalde

Bad Freienwalde (Oder)

Angermünde

Gramzow

Pinnow

Golzow

Britz

Lichterfelde

Finowfurt

Finow

Groß Schönebeck

Ruhlsdorf

Friedrichswalde

Frauen-hagen

Greiffenberg

Neugünter-berg

StegelitzTemplin

GerswaldeMittenwalde

Havel

Joachimsthal

Althüttendorf

LiepeOderberg

Lunow

Hohen-wutzenNiederfinow

Hohenfinow Schiffmühle

Liebenwalde

Hammer

Haßleben

Herzfelde

Schwedt/Oder

Zehdenick

Kurtschlag

Potzlow-see

Ober-ucker-

see

Haus-see

Stiernsee

Petznick-see

Templiner See

Lübbe-

Fähr-see

Kölpin-see

Grimnitz-see

Werbellin-see

Parsteiner See

Wolletzsee

Plagen-see

Gr. Präßnick-see

Hinten-teich

KuhzerSee

Trebow-see

see

Großdöllner See

Röddelin-see

Havel

Havel

Templiner

Gewässer

Oder

Ucker

Oder-Havel-Kanal

Oder-Havel-Kanal

Welse

Welse

WeltnaturerbeBuchenwald Grumsin A11

B198

A11

B198

B198

B198

L100

L23

B198

L23

L239

L242

L216

L241

L220

A11

A11

NSG

Eulenberge

NSG

Melzower

Forst

NSG Gr.

Briesensee

NSG Labüske-

wiesen

NSG

Arnimswalde

NSG

Poratzer

Moränen-

landschaft

NSG

Krinertseen

NSG

Buchheide NSG

Bollwinwiesen/

Gr. Gollinsee

NSG Kienhorst/

Köllnseen/Eichheide

NSG Grumsiner Forst/

Redernswalde

NSG Schnelle

Havel

NSG

Plagefenn

NSG Buckow-

seerinne

NSG Nieder-

oderbruch

NSG Endmoränen-

landschaft

bei Ringenwalde

NSG Kanonen-

und Schloßberg,

Schäfergrund

BesucherzentrumNationalParkHaus

Informationsbüro und

Touristeninformation

NABU-Informationszentrum

Blumberger Mühle

Berliner Tor

Verwaltung

Biosphärenreservat

Schorfheide-Chorin

Übersichtskarte Biosphärenreservat Schorfheide-Chorin: Lage des Weltnaturerbes Buchenwald Grumsin

0 5 102,5km

Landesamt fürUmwelt,Gesundheit undVerbraucherschutz

Januar 2012LUGV, Ö2LGB, GIS-ZentraleBundesamt für Kartografie und Geodäsie, www.bkg.bund.de

Biosphärenreservat Schorfheide-Chorin

allgemeine SchutzgebietsflächeNaturentwicklungsgebiet

Totalreservat

Naturschutzgebiet mit Zonierung

Stand:Quelle:Karte:Geobasis-daten:

AutobahnBundesstraße

Regionalbahn mit BahnhofStaatsgrenze

Weltnaturerbe Buchenwald Grumsin

Gewässer

Siedlung

Wald

Landesstraße

Besucherinformation / Großschutzgebietsverwaltung

NationaleNaturlandschaften

Fig. B: Map of the Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin with marked protected areas. (http://www.mlul.brandenburg.de/media_fast/4055/uebersicht_grumsin.pdf)

In 1992 the EU passed the Natura 2000 regulations, setting EU wide binding regulations for the development and maintenance of the protected area network. Primary element of the concept is the protection and conservation of flora and fauna as well as their habitats. Natura 2000 includes the Fauna-Flora-Habitat Directive and the Bird Protection Directive. To meet these regulations, member states have to implement conservation measures on these areas. Natura 2000 areas are strongly interconnected with areas of agricultural use (Europäische Gemeinschaft, 2000; Europäische Gemeinschaft, 2016). All regulations are gradually implemented into the legally binding German Federal Nature Conservation Act (BNatSchG) in addition to the generally valid EU Water 3

Framework Directive as well as the EU Plant Protection Product Regulation (MUGV 2014b). Besides Natura 2000 areas, a nature reserve is the strictest legally protected and regulated area in Germany. The land use in these areas are stringently regulated, legally based on the individual regulations of the nature reserves. The regulations of nature reserves as well as the regulations of the landscape protection areas and the BRSC are all legally based on the

Law on nature conservation and landscape maintenance (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz - BNatSchG)3

!9

Fig. C: Map of the nature conservation areas in the administrative districts of the study area. (http://www.belo-net.de/cms/index.php/de/karten.html) Note: Some of the nature conservation areas overlap.

Brandenburg Nature Conservation Act (BbgNatSchAG) . The BbgNatSchAG in return is legally 4

based on the BNatSchG. According to the BNatSchG, BRs are large-scale areas that show characteristic types of landscapes, where significant shares of the area qualify as nature reserves and landscape protection areas. Primarily they serve the purpose of conservation, development and restoration of diversely used landscapes, that emerged from historical and traditional land use as well as the corresponding diversity of species and biotopes, including former cultural landscapes and economically used animal and plant species. Furthermore, BRs are model regions for sustainable development and the testing for particularly environmentally sound and resource-saving management strategies. As far as the protective function permits, BRs also serve a logistic function of research, observation of nature and landscapes as well as education for sustainable development. Next to the protective and logistic function BRs also include a developing function, targeting the enhanced economic, social and cultural sustainable development (MAB German National Committee, 2007). To fulfill the criteria set by the MAB program, BRs are, subdivided into three zones: core zone, transition zone and development zone . They are partitioned by different levels of permitted 5

human activity and hold different responsibilities, different surface areas as well as different levels of legal protection (Tab. 1). In the BRSC the core zone covers around 3 % (36 km2) of the BR. Roughly 19% (241 km2) is allocated to the transition zone. The development zone takes up around 78 % (1014 km2) of the BRSC (Fig. D). While the majority of the areas of the core and transition zones are designated protection areas, the administration in the development zones does not have a legally binding instrument for

Law on nature conservation and landscape maintenance in the federal state of Brandenburg 4

(Brandenburgisches Naturschutzgesetz - BbgNatSchAG)

The three zones of biosphere reserves are often identified with different names, depending on the literature. 5

E.g. the third zone can be identified as transition as well as development zone. In the following of this master thesis the author will identify the zones as follows: core zone (zone I), transition zone (zone II), development zone (zone III).

!10

Tab. 1: Table of the required area percentages of the three zones of biosphere reserves as well as the permitted human activity and their function. (MAB German National Committee, 2007)

the sustainable development of land use. Considering the objective of doing justice to the demands of humans and nature, especially the development zone can serve as a model region for sustainable development (AGBR, 1995). Thy hold a pioneer role for the testing and implementation of innovative and sustainable approaches to meet the urgent globally relevant challenges (BfN, 2012). Considering all of the above it becomes clear that besides the general target settings through the MAB and the status as a BR the development zone of the BRSC does not fall under significantly stricter regulations than many of the regions surrounding the BR. Therefore, the two regions, the development zone of the BRSC and the remaining area surrounding the BRSC, are legitimate areas to be compared in order to answer the research question of this study.

!11

Fig. D: Zoning of the Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin. (https://www.unesco.de/wissenschaft/biosphaerenreservate/biosphaerenreservate-uebersicht/br-struktur.html)

3. Theoretical Framework

3.1. Conceptual Definitions

3.1.1. Extension

In general, extension is a process that can be applied to numerous areas of society and can be found in the health and education sector, the industrial sector as well as in agricultural and rural development. Agricultural extension is the application of new knowledge and scientific research to the agricultural sector through the education of farmers. Extension encompasses a vast range of learning and communication activities organized by educators from different fields such as agriculture, health, agricultural economics, agricultural marketing and environmental research. The term “extension” or “advisory” can have various definitions. Albrecht (1969) describes the 6

term extension as the process, in which the extension agent gives his/her client support and tries to evoke actions of the client, that will help them solve their existing problems. Here the extension agent is obligated to the welfare of the client. The responsibility to refuse or accept the given advice as well as the resulting consequences of that decision lie solely with the client. Albrecht’s (1969) definition can be found in various literature, in which it is assumed, that there is a problem, for which an advisor is needed for the problem-solving. He also states, that advisory is not equal to providing information. It provides help and orientation in decisive life situations of the clients. A different definition stems from Boland (1991) and defines advisory as follows: In the process of advisory the extension agent engages in a partner-like interaction with an “uncertain” advice seeking individual (or group), that has the willingness to work on the situation, with the goal of making the problems and difficulties transparent, encourage him/her and give him/her the capability to initiate a personal and factual development. In this process a dependency to the extension agent should not be developed, but the responsibility of the advice seeker for the implementation of changes should be emphasized. This definition contains a participative approach and implies a partner-like interactions between the extension agent and the farmer. Both parties have to be active contributors to the problem-solving process. Within the definition of Boland (1991) the farmer has more responsible role compared to Albrecht’s (1969) definition. In Albrecht’s definition the farmer is merely responsible for deciding for or against the advice. The advice or solution for the problem stems solely from the extension agent. The farmer does not seem to be as involved in the problem-solving process. A further definition by Nagel (2005) points even more to the problem-solving process and how it is organized. The importance of the clarification of the roles of the extension agent and the advice seeker as well as the definition of objectives in advance to the advisory process is emphasized. The realization of the client to recognize his/her problem as a central issue, and to trust and build upon the extension agent and that any given advice is in his best interest and welfare, is seen as a fundamental component of sustainable advisory. Nagel (2005) says that advisory is a process of communication between a person or a group, which has a problem to solve, and a person or a group that offer professional help to resolve said problem. The problem-solving approach is systematic and transparent for all involved parties. The extension agent supports the client in developing and reviewing their own objectives. There is a mutual understanding of the required steps, methods, knowledge and resources for the problem-solving process. In advisory the emphasis

In this study both terms will be used with the same meaning. 6

!12

on the clients objectives is of great importance. If the advice seeker registers a self-interest on the side of the extension agent there is a chance that the advice seeker rejects the advice. A certain level of trust is required for a successful collaboration between client and extension agent. All of the mentioned definitions assume, that extension is solely the personal service, resulting in individual and site specific solutions, that requires a direct cooperation with the extension agent and the advice seeker. However, extension agents also render services that include other tasks, e.g. billings and applications, that under the former explained definitions does not fall within the definition of extension. Furthermore, information provision and education are not implied under the definitions. Within this study extension or advisory will entail the service of advising the clients, product consultation, but also the provision of information as well as the provision of seminars and winter schooling.

3.1.2. Agri-Environmental Measures in Brandenburg

Agri-environmental measures (AEMs) are an important instrument for the accomplishment of environmental goals in the CAP. Next to climate protection the main objectives of AEMs are to enhance biodiversity and soil quality as well as to minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides (BMEL, 2017). The funding of AEMs is an essential component of Germany’s national strategy for the development of rural areas. Agri-environmental schemes and their corresponding AEMs are considered the central element of the cooperation and integration of nature conservation and agriculture (Niens and Marggraf, 2010). The legal basis is the European Union Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 (EUR-Lex, 2017). In Germany the national strategy plan is compiled by the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV). The implementation of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) funding takes place through the “Rural Development Programs”, which are developed for each individual federal state and consequently have to be authorized by the European Commission (EC). The specific design of the AEMs and their implementation fall under the jurisdiction of the individual federal states. Each federal state has their own AEMs. The “Kulturlandschaftsprogramm” (cultural landscape program; KULAP), is the subprogram of the rural development program in Brandenburg, that integrates the regulations for AEMs. It is the directive for the funding of environmentally responsible agricultural production practices and the conservation of cultural landscapes in Brandenburg (MLUL a, 2017). There are five different subsection that can receive 7

funding: continuation or implementation of organic farming methods; particularly sustainable cultivation practices; particularly sustainable practices for permanent pastures and grasslands; particularly sustainable practices for permanent crops and maintenance of extensive fruit tree stocks; conservation of the diversity of the landscape’s genetic resources (MLUL b, 2017). With the integration of AEMs into their agricultural practices farmers commit themselves voluntarily for a period of usually five to seven years. During that period farmers have to comply with the funding and farming regulations developed by the individual federal states (BMEL, 2015). Next to the AEMs some federal states additionally realize nature conservation goals with the help of hardship allowance and contractual nature conservation (chapter 3.3.1).

Richtlinie zur Förderung umweltgerechter landwirtschaftlicher Produktionsverfahren und zur Erhaltung der 7

Brandenburger Kulturlandschaft!13

Farmers can participate voluntarily and in return receive a compensation payment for the performance of agreed upon ecological services. The financial compensation of the AEMs should be an incentive for the farmers to adopt more environmental friendly agricultural practices, by compensating the costs generated through the adoption of the measure. Consequently, the premium amount is oriented towards the implementation cost as well as the loss of income generated by the individual AEM (Arzt et al., 2002).

3.1.3. Acceptance

In order to work with the term acceptance it has to be defined for the context that it will be used in. In everyday language it finds use in various different contexts with often times widely varying implications. For a long time it has been applied in the field of marketing, were it refers to the acceptance of product innovations. Nowadays the term is often used in connection with sociopolitical topics. However, it can not be allocated to one single field like psychology or sociology (Schenk et al., 2007). The Cambridge Dictionary offers various definitions of the term e.g. “general agreement that something is satisfactory or right, or that someone should be included in a group”, “the act of agreeing to an offer, plan or invitation” as well as “the fact of accepting a difficult or unpleasant situation”. Acceptance is a very flexible term, proven by the many synonyms, from “acknowledgement” to “recognition”, affiliated with the term (Cambridge Dictionary, 2018). The ambiguity of the term acceptance may be an advantage when used in political settings, in the scientific world however, it is a problematic term, since it is still unclear, what exactly acceptance means and entails. According to Lucke (1995) acceptance is not a characteristic, but a process that is dependent on the social-cultural context and the specific situation. It is an interaction of subject, object and context of acceptance (Fig. E). As defined by Schenk (2000) acceptance is a subjective evaluation of the parties concerned, that individually formed an opinion leading to the adoption of a certain attitude towards the object of acceptance. Acceptance is generated in various steps, which Lucke (1995) defines with the three-step-model:

- The conscious awareness of the object of acceptance (cognitive level) - The positive evaluation by the subject of acceptance (normative-evaluative level) - The emergence of the willingness, to actively support the object of acceptance or to act

accordingly (conative level)

!14

Fig. E: Model of subject, object and context of acceptance. (after Lucke, 1995)

According to Lucke (1995) acceptance is given, when the subject of acceptance:

- perceives the object of acceptance and its justification and arguments as legitimate - is generally approving of the object of acceptance and is rationally and emotionally

agreeing with the object of acceptance - adopts and approves the entailing suggestions, arguments and measures - is willing to defend the object of acceptance towards others, counter arguments and

alternatives

For the development of acceptance there are a vast number of influencing factors such as the relevance of the problem, competence and credibility, socio-cultural affiliation etc. As previously mentioned acceptance results from the interplay of subject of acceptance, object of acceptance and context of acceptance. Accordingly, the acceptance of nature conservation measures in the agricultural context is dependent on the farmer (subject), the conservation measure (object) and the underlying conditions (context) (Sattler and Nagel, 2010). According to Sattler and Nagel (2010) there are three main factors that impact a farmers decision to implement conservation measures. Firstly, the characteristics of the conservation measure (object-related). Secondly, the intrinsic values and attitude of the farmer (subject-related) and thirdly, the underlying conditions such as financing and site specific factors (context-related). In the chapter 3.2. nature conservation relevant factors will be elaborated on. Corresponding to the research objective of this study, the context-related factor of information transfer in the form of extension services will be examined in more detail.

3.2. Acceptance in the Agricultural Context and the Influence of Agri-Environmental Extension

As has been officially acknowledged by the CAP in the beginning of the 1990s, farmers play a significant role in protecting natural resources and conserving the cultural landscape. Voluntary AEMs have become the central policy instrument for enhancing and conserving the agricultural environment. In compliance with the Council Regulation (EC) No. 1698/2005 , the objective of AEMs is 8

to “further encourage farmers and land managers to serve society as a whole by introducing or continuing to apply agricultural production methods compatible with the protection and improvement of the environment, the landscape and its features, natural resources, the soil and genetic diversity” (European Court of Auditors, 2011). Considering this, farmers have been recognized as the operatives, that will meet these objectives formulated by the CAP and it is expected that farmers and land managers will adjust their practices to achieve the aspired environmental changes (Falconer, 2000). However, AEMs can only be successful and their objectives be fulfilled if they are accepted and implemented by a large quantity of farmers. Previous studies suggest, that the acceptance of measures with environmental benefits by farmers is dependent on various factors, that can promote or hinder the implementation of such measures. Manifold studies and literature researches have been conducted on the topic (Burton, 2014; Burton et al., 2008; Borges et al., 2014; Robert et al., 2016; Gailhard et al., 2012; Knowler

Council Regulation (EC) No. 1698/2005 of 20 September on support of rural development by the European 8

Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)!15

and Bradshaw, 2007 etc.). Even though, a variety of factors have been thoroughly studied and examined, singularly and in correlation with each other, only limited universally valid assumptions can be made about, which characteristics influence a farmers environmental behavior in which way. Knowler and Bradshaw (2007) carried out a literature review, reviewing 31 empirical studies, in order to shed light on the progress made by scientists to grasp the process of farm-level adoption of environmentally sound agricultural practices and conservation measures. They comprised the factors that may impact a farmers decision to adopt conservational measures and divided these into four categories: farmers and farm household characteristics (subject-related), farm biophysical characteristics (context-related), farm financial/management characteristics (context-related) as well as exogenous factors (context-related) (Tab. 2). Even though, the study is already ten years in the past and it does not include object-related factors (e.g. the characteristics of the measure), the factors comprised in this study nicely represent the foci of recent studies. They found, that a majority of studies suggest, that next to the more obvious financial aspects that promote adoption, other non-financial factors such as environmental awareness, social

!16

Tab. 2: Categorized factors influencing farmers’ decision to adopt agricultural conservation measures. (Knowler and Bradshaw, 2007)

capital and the information provision may promote or hinder the adoption of conservational measures. The study identified almost 170 meaningful variables, with only a fraction of financial criteria.

3.2.1. Object of Acceptance and its Influencing Factors

The object of acceptance, the AEM, holds different characteristics, such as time requirement, costs and risks (Sattler and Nagel, 2010). Monetary characteristics of the conservation measures do play an important role in the farmer’s acceptance of conservation measures, however, it is not pivotal in the acceptance process. Nowadays subsidy payments for farmers do make up a significant part of their income. Depending on the financial situation they are more or less dependent on the payments and therefore motivated to participate in such measures. However, this kind of dependency is also considered as restricting by many farmers. This dependency can in this case lead to a forced acceptance. The conservation measures are then accepted due to the dependency and not because of their subject matter (Schenk, 2000). While the economic aspect of AEMs is undoubtably a significant influence on farmers, Wynne-Jones (2013) suggests, that adequate levels of payment alone can not ensure conservation management. A certain level of cultural understanding towards the need of conservation management must be established among participants, for agri-environmental policies to be successful. She recognizes, that farmers may not primarily prioritize financial gain over other factors, but may obtain similar or more value from actions that could benefit society or the environment. Furthermore, the institutional conception of AEMs is an important factor to consider. Several studies suggest, that flexibility of AEMs is a crucial characteristic influencing farmers’ participation. The lack of flexibility and the corresponding fact, that the measures do not fit into the individual agricultural enterprises and management plans may be a reason for non participation (Wilson and Hart, 2002). Ruto and Garrod (2009) discovered, that flexibility is one of the characteristics of AEMs, farmers wished to modify the most. Enabling more freedom to implement AEMs more suitable and aligned with local conditions, could be a way to enhance farmers’ motivation to adopt AEMs (Mettepenningen et al. 2013). Improved flexibility in the implementation of AEMs can also bring enhanced environmental benefits, since farmers’ knowledge of their local conditions often collide with the more universal requirements of the AEMs (Burgess et al., 2000; Morris, 2006). Another aspect Mettepenningen et al. (2013) points out is the level of involvement of farmers and other actors in the design process of agri-environmental policy. They refer to the example of Friesian farmers, who in cooperation with the government designed their own agri-environmental scheme on a local level, which were aligned with the local conditions. This approach utilizes local knowledge to complement expert knowledge. It increases learning opportunities, the acceptance of the AEMs and therefore enhances the overall environmental impact of AEMs (Bruckmeier and Tovey, 2008; Reed, 2008).

!17

3.2.2. Subject of Acceptance and its Influencing Factors

The relationship towards the object of acceptance (AEM) is dependent on the attitude of the subject of acceptance (the farmer), which begins with their general attitude towards nature protection. If a farmer has a positive view on nature conservation, he/she will be more likely to adopt conservation measures, even if they entail more costs and efforts, compared to those who prioritize economic factors (Sattler and Nagel, 2010). Other farmers perceive nature conservation measures as restricting and carry the opinion, that their agricultural practices are already sufficient in protecting the agricultural environment. They also perceive conservation measures as a disdain of their agricultural work. Therefore, they only see little necessity for these measures. Those farmers with a critical view of their own work, tend to have a more positive attitude towards nature protection, since they also observe the negative effects agriculture has on the environment (Schenk, 2000). Next to farmers’ objectives and values as well as emotional factors, the affiliation to various interest groups and the resulting social constraints are a relevant influencing factor to build acceptance (Schenk et al., 2007). Beedell and Rehman (2000) and Wynn et al. (2001), identified environmental awareness as one of the most influential factors regarding AEM adoption in England and Scotland, respectively. Furthermore, Wilson and Hart (2000), similarly found that the influence of farmers’ environmental concern on the adoption of AEMs has grown all over Europe. Baumgart-Getz et al. (2012) came to the conclusion, that environmental awareness is a significant predictor for the adoption of AEMs. They categorized environmental awareness into four categories and found the most significant 9

positive influence in “farmers’ knowledge of environmental quality” and their “knowledge of programs” targeted at enhancing the agricultural environment. Over all environmental awareness increases in significance as a motivation to adopt AEMs (Beedell and Rehman, 2000; Wilson and Hart, 2000; Wynn et al., 2001). Nagel et al. (2002) argue, that environmental problems are to most farmers neither an issue of priority, nor are they explicitly refuted. They point out, that often times the fragile economic situation of a farm as well as existential fears are more pressing issues, which can hinder the adoption of AEMs, even with a strong environmental awareness of the farmer or land manager. Often times the non-participation of farmers in conservation measures does not imply, that land managers and farmers are oblivious to environmental problems (Nagel et al., 2002). In their study, Nagel et al. (2002) found that indeed farmers were able to identify farm level, local as well as regional problems. Beyond those constraints, farmers do observe and know their own farmlands as well as those of their neighbors. Nagel et al. (2002) point out that they do discern positive as well as negative environmental changes in their farmlands. The experiences and opinions of neighboring farmers concerning AEMs, play an important influencing role for farmers’ acceptance of AEMs and their willingness to adopt these measures into their own enterprises (Defrancesco et al., 2008). According to Burton et al. (2008), farmers are also heavily influenced by the visibility of their good farming skills to other famers. Since many AEMs include extensification and often result in less tidy areas, it may impact the farmers willingness to implement these measures, in fear of being perceived as less skilled among their peers. It is suggested, that the influence of neighboring farmers point to the significant relationships and cultural norms that can often be found in rural areas (Defrancesco et al., 2008). Schmitzberger et al. (2005) found, that even with conservation attitudes becoming more positive amongst farmers, the preference of “tidy landscapes” still remains a dominant factor, and continues to conflict with the

Four categories of environmental awareness, as defined by Baumgart-Getz et al. (2012): cause of degrading 9

quality of environment, consequence of environmentally harming practices, knowledge of environmental quality, knowledge of programs

!18

implementation of more sustainable agricultural practices. Farmers tend to observe the ongoings on their neighboring farms and attach significant importance to the appearance of their farm to their peers (Burton et al., 2008). A change in the traditional mindset of farmers is needed, for farmers to recognize, that a tidy landscape does not necessarily imply ‘good’ sustainable farming. De Snoo et al. (2013) similarly argue, that nature conservation in areas with agricultural land use is a social challenge, that in the long term can only be truly successful with the active encouragement of the farming community. To effectively implement AEMs among the farming community it is necessary to consider non-economic forms of capital, for example how environmental behavior can enhance farmers’ status and reputation within the farming community (Burton and Paragahawewa, 2011). De Snoo et al. (2013) suggest, that this approach would induce a wider interest in the subject of nature conservation in agriculture and provide incentives for “farming for conservation” in addition to “farming for yields”.

3.2.3. Context of Acceptance and its Influencing Factors

The relationship between the object and the subject of acceptance is integrated into the context of acceptance. The context of acceptance, can be several things. Among others, factors such as the financial position of the farmer or legal restrictions, such as Natura 2000 areas within the farm (Sattler and Nagel, 2010). But also the exchange of information and the possibility of co-operation is part of the context of acceptance. Poor information transfer and a missing inclusion of the persons concerned can lead to a rejective attitude and a disillusionment, when they realize that they have only little influence on the contractually set agreements (Schenk et al., 2007). Another important variable in AEM adoption among farmers is the approach of the government to implement AEMs in rural areas (Lastra-Bravo et al., 2015). A study by Ducos et al. (2009) shows, that the willingness of farmers to adopt AEMs increases if farmers have trust in the government and can expect mutual benefits through their implementation of AEMs. Peerling and Polman (2009) came to the same conclusion, that institutional trust positively influences farmers adoption behavior. Sutherland et al. (2013), suggests that trust as an influencing factor can be distinguished into two dimensions: institutional trust (Polman and Slangen, 2008; Palmer et al., 2009) and relational or personal trust (Juntti and Potter, 2002). A high level of institutional trust, high quality information provision as well as trust in the individual communicating these information (e.g. extension agent), is an important factor when considering the acceptance of AEMs (Sutherland et al., 2013). Managing land in a sustainable and environmentally considerate way asks for a specific kind of skill set. However, farmers are educated in agricultural production and seldom receive specified training or schooling in environmental management (Batáry et al., 2014). The importance of information provision on AEMs through agricultural extension services (e.g. on objectives, criteria, eligibility) has been identified as crucial in terms of influencing farmers’ attitudes regarding AEMs (Polman and Slangen, 2008). Morris et al. (2000) found that often times a farmers resistance to AEMs were strengthened by the lack of knowledge regarding the agri-environmental schemes. Furthermore, they explained a high number of non-participants, whose adoption were strongly effected by incorrect or inadequate information provision. There is a variety in the support and assistance that is provided to the farmer for the adoption and implementation of AEMs and addressing environmental issues. Some of these are information folders, web sites, extension services, technical advisors, social- and agriculture-related organizations, technical media and the government etc. (Mettepenningen et al., 2013; Lastra-Bravo

!19

et al., 2015). Morris (2004) suggests, that a lack of assistance with AEM implementation may lead to frustration among farmers and ultimately the withdrawing from the agri-environmental scheme. She argues, that farmers are also more dependent on extension agents or environmental experts to instruct them on how to implement AEMs, when their knowledge of environmental management is limited. However, Morris (2004) notes, that the quality of the provided advice is not always optimal. Mettepenningen et al. (2013) points out, that farmers that receive information personally through extension agents are more likely to implement AEMs, than farmers that merely receive information through government publications, information folders and the internet. Polman and Slangen (2008) argue, that depending on the information provided, farmers could have different perceptions of the institutional design of AEMs. For that reason it is important to recognize the role of public and private extension. Public as well as private extension service provision can help to resolve these information deficiencies. The research of Wilson and Hart (2000) examined farmers’ motivations for their participation in voluntary agri-environmental schemes for nine countries in the EU and 10

Switzerland. They argue, among others, that how the agri-environmental scheme is delivered to the farmer and the information provided by agricultural extension agencies to potential participants are factors to be considered (Wilson and Hart, 2000). The delivery of the agri-environmental schemes as well as the quality of information in the form of extension services is an essential part of the AEM implementation procedure. There were significant differences in the agri-environmental scheme delivery among the investigated countries. Wilson and Hart (2000) identified three main types of agri-environmental policy delivery. (i) Countries that rely on and place power into funded extension services, with the result of enrolling substantial numbers of farmers into agri-environmental schemes, such as Austria and Switzerland. (ii) Countries where there is some information provision through extension services, but in which farmers are often expected to be proactive to obtain information. An infrastructure of extension services exists, however, it is not provided unless requested by the farmer (Germany, Sweden, UK, France, Denmark). (iii) Countries with often gravely underfunded extension services, with the lack of proficiency to provide specific advice on conservation issues (Portugal, Greece, Spain). Generally, the use of extension services and technical advice, public and private, is found to have a positive influence on farmers’ acceptance of AEMs (Lastra-Bravo et al., 2015; Polman and Slangen, 2008; Mathijs, 2003; Barreiro-Hurlé et al., 2010). A full interaction between user and providers of extension services at all stages, from initiation to the end evaluation, is however crucial for the effectiveness of the provided services (Garforth et al., 2003). Farmers are individuals and diverse in their needs for information and extension service provision, which is why a pluralistic array of extension and information providers is necessary to meet their exigency. At different times farmers and land managers require different types of information, with a different degree of prescription and advice (Garforth et al. 2003). Garforth et al. (2003) point to the importance of integration, which could lead to a synergy between business-oriented and environmental-oriented extension services as well as to an enhanced link between advice, science and training, which would help eliminate inconsistencies in regional coverage and the content of the provided extension service. To increase farmers participation in conservation measures and consequently agricultural sustainability, the assistance of the public agricultural sector has become increasingly important (Rivera, 2011). Polman and Slangen (2008) suggest, that it is important to distinguish between public and privatized agricultural extension services, when considering the potential influence on

The countries under investigation were Austria, Switzerland, Germany, Spain, France, United Kingdom, 10

Greece, Portugal and Sweden !20

farmers’ decision-making. Due to their connection to policy, public extension services may inform farmers in a different way, compared to private extension services that are often times tied to organizations such as processing industries, suppliers and financial advisors. Polman and Slangen (2008) argue, that with public extension services, farmers could potentially have a better understanding of what is expected of them, which would increase their willingness to adopt measures and ultimately increase AEM effectiveness. In their study they found, that public extension services had a positive influence on the adoption of all types of AEM contracts . 11

Moreover, their study suggests, that private extension services have a negative impact on the adoption of contracts, that restrict intensive practices. Wilson and Hart (2000) found, that a significant reason for a reduced participation in agri-environmental schemes is the scheme administrators failure to ensure the provision of adequate information to potential participants. Furthermore, results of their study point to the importance of, what they call ‘street-level bureaucrats’ (local or regional officials, agricultural extension agents, information meetings) in the agri-environmental scheme implementation procedure.

“It particularly underlines the importance of these officials in the provision of advice to farmers, providing a key ‘intermediary’ role at the interface between policy formulation and implementation on the ground.” (Wilson et al. 1999)

Garforth et al. (2003) also suggest, that the government should fund some extension provision, in order to overcome market failures regarding the supply of and demand for information and advice. Public extension can positively influence farmers when advising on measures regarding biodiversity and the implementation of extensive farming practices. Additionally, it is suggested that private extension services do have a negative impact on farmers willingness to implement measures that require the adoption of less intensive practices (Polman and Slangen, 2008; Peerling and Polman, 2009). Contrary to these findings, Barreiro-Hurle et al. (2010) found a positive impact of privatized extension services in regards to high and low intensity AEMs. Considering these findings, Sutherland et al. (2013) points out, that the differences could be caused by the relationship of farmers’ production type (i.e. environmental-oriented or conventional farming practices) and the advisory services they consequently seek. Regardless, often times governments tend to prioritize market competitiveness over sustainability and environmental protection policies. When attempting to become more competitive, farmers may be unaware of the unsustainable use of their natural resource (Rivera, 2011). Rivera (2011) suggests that farmers need extension to assist with environmental management and sustainable practices serving to protect the environment (Rivera, 2011). Therefore, it is of importance for governments to promote environmentally sound practices through a good combination of supportive legislations and regulations, high-quality extension services, adapted technologies as well as economic incentives that encourages farmers to implement more sustainable land use practices (Rivera, 2011). However, in a marked-oriented agricultural sector, extension services tend to be only available to producers who are willing to pay for the services, often on a contractual or fee-based basis, as it is the case in the agricultural extension system of Brandenburg (chapter 3.3). One of the most significant consequences of the privatization of extension systems lies in the fact, that supply is controlled by the demand. There will not be any advice given until the farmer

Types of contracts according to Polman and Slangen (2008) which they divided into three groups: (i) 11

landscape management, (ii) biodiversity protection, (iii) restriction of intensive practices.!21

requests it, which is more often than not related to the benefits and profits a farmer presumes to gain from the advice that is given. This can lead to a neglect of areas of public interest, especially in the fields of environmental protection, water quality management and landscape conservation (Nagel et al., 2002). Because largely commercialized and privatized extension is driven by demand, ways have to be found to incorporate environmental knowledge into the knowledge system, when demand is weak or even non-existent (Nagel et al., 2002). Nagel et al. (2002) found that the more an extension service is subsidized, the higher the possibility for the extension agents to introduce topics on their own initiative. Furthermore, a longstanding personal relationship between the extension agent and the client will, despite payments, allow an extensive exchange of information. Declining income from extension activities may lead to an aversion of risk, by avoiding topics that could be controversial, such as nature conservation in the agricultural landscape. Additionally, the large supply of many different extension agencies makes it hard for farmers to gain a general overview over all the extension services. In a privatized extension system it is difficult to create a synergy between research, administration, and centralized educational services. Privatized extension systems require a certain self initiative of farmers. Therefore, they become lone fighters for their own interests (Thomas, 2007). Since the privatized extension agencies are extremely dependent on the farmers demand, it is possible that there won’t be a geographically wide-spread extension service (Thomas, 2007). Considering the results of the literature research, it becomes clear that communication of environmental topics to farmers is a controversial but important influencing factor in building acceptance of AEMs. Therefore, the next chapter will elaborate on the agricultural extension system in Germany, specifically the extension system in Brandenburg.

3.3. Extension System in Germany and Brandenburg

Generally, agricultural extension services in Germany are diverse. Because the extension systems in Germany are managed by the individual federal states, there are 16 different systems with manifold agencies in place. Germany has a long tradition of publicly supported and promoted agricultural extension services. The origins of agricultural extensions go back as far as the mid-19th-century. Initially, agricultural associations spread all over the german federal territory with the agenda of representing and supporting agricultural interests. Slowly the educational task of the agricultural associations were taken over by ministries of agriculture. An extensive network of agricultural offices was developed, offering public services. However, after the reunion of East Germany and West Germany in 1990, the federal states took different paths of developing their extension systems. Germany is characterized by three main types of extension systems, which can be distinguished by the way they are financed and implemented (Fig. F). Federal states such as Rhineland-Palatinate, Hesse, Baden-Wuerttemberg, Bavaria and Saxony are characterized by official extension systems. The agricultural extension service is officially assigned to the agricultural offices and is integrated into the publicly financed agricultural administration. The federal states Schleswig-Holstein, Lower Saxony, North Rhein-Westphalia and Saarland, are characterized by extensions through chambers of agriculture. Chambers of agriculture are independent administrative institutions of the farmers. They are financed through state grants, fees as well as levies collected from farmers. Lastly, the federal states Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Brandenburg, Saxony-Anhalt and Thuringia, are characterized by a private extension system. These states chose a privatized system, mainly to quickly meet the demand for advisory after the reunion

!22

of Germany in 1990. In a privatized extension system the farmer pays for the services of the advisor. Subsidies in this system are possible over reimbursement of the farmer. Quality control on the part of the federal state happens through offerings of extension training as well as through the release of lists of qualified advisors (Thomas, 2007). The privatization of the extension system in Brandenburg, was at the time not seen as means to trivialize the importance of agricultural extension (Nagel et al., 2002). In 1992 the Brandenburg ministry saw agricultural extension as an important supporting tool to influence the change process in agriculture (Nagel et al., 2002). With the decision making lying in the hands of farmers it was however, a bottom-up approach. The purpose of commercializing and privatizing the extension system was to enhance the organizational flexibility, reduce bureaucracy, ensure client orientation, encourage professionalism and facilitate a participatory approach by only performing directly demanded tasks (Nagel et al. 2002). After comparing different extension organizations in 1993, Jochimsen found the strengths of Brandenburg’s extension system to be the state’s low budget requirements, the eliminated role-conflict between regulatory and advisory function, a high flexibility of employees, highly individualized extension services and that farmers decide on their extension function (“make or buy”). In 1996, Bokelmann et al. found that farmers and extension agents still viewed the privatization of the extension system in Brandenburg as a positive change.

!23

Fig. F: The agricultural extension systems for the federal states of Germany. (Thomas, 2007)

The qualitative situation analysis of the GRANO project however, recovered some disillusionment 12

and skepticism among the extension agents and farmers regarding the privatization, in 2002 (Nagel et al., 2002). When interviewed several extension workers and farmers voiced the wish of undoing the privatization and adopting the extension system of North Rhine-Westphalia with their Chambers of Agriculture (Nagel et al., 2002). From the study it became clear that in the privatized extension system of Brandenburg, environmental aspects will only become part of agricultural practices if farmers actively request advise and information on environmental issues and how to solve them. The present system is not designed to support environmental matters. “There is no organised effort to create or influence this demand, no one to provide wider perspective which may show why agro-environmental topics may be of relevance for the farm.” (Nagel et al., 2002). By now, a stable system of about 57 extension businesses with around 143 working advisors (2010) has been established (Knierim et al., 2017). The farmers decide freely, which service and advisor they want to employ. The publication and recognition of the available extension businesses and advisors by the Ministry of Rural Development, Environment and Agriculture of the federal state of Brandenburg (MLUL) is done only in specific cases, for instance Cross Compliance advisors. There are several extension businesses that also offer advice on Cross Compliance. However, a funding of extension services for the farmers does not exist in the federal state of Brandenburg (Knierim et al., 2017).

3.3.1. Agricultural Extension in the Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin

Until the middle of the 1990s, around 3.000 new agricultural enterprises, from small family farms as main source of income or sideline enterprises, to large scale agrarian societies with up to 4.000 ha operating area emerged, following the large government-owned production cooperations of the German Democratic Republic. This structural transformation was accompanied by a drastic decrease of personnel. During this process the administration of the BRSC supported enterprises to transition to more environmentally friendly land use practices, by offering agricultural extensions, influencing federal funding programs and issuing the legally protected regional brand (“Prüfzeichen”) of the BRSC (MLUL, 2014). To more efficiently achieve the goals of nature conservation the BR administration mobilizes federal funds from the so called contractual nature conservation. As the most important funding instrument it was implemented in 1992 to support the environmentally sound land-use practices (MLUL, 2014). However, the funds of contractual nature conservation have been significantly reduced over the years and transitioned to be utilized to co-finance the EU funding measures. In 2013 the funds for the contractual nature conservation came up to € 119.000, which was only 13% of the original funds available in 1992 (MLUL, 2014). Within the BRSC farmers have the same opportunities as farmers all over Brandenburg. They can make use of the extension services offered in the region and have to pay for those services. However, as has been indicated in chapter 1.1. the administration of the BRSC provides environmental extension services for farmers operating in the BR to promote sustainable agricultural practices. A preliminary expert interview with an employee of the BR administration revealed that the BR administration is currently developing and implementing a “Whole Farm Nature Conservation Plan” (WFNatConPl). The WFNatConPls are set up and carried out by the BR

GRANO research program: "Approaches for Sustainable Agriculture in the North-eastern Brandenburg”; 12

interdisciplinary research program; tested activities aimed at infusion of agro-ecological topics into existing extension system; financed by the Federal Ministry of Research and Education; five year period from 1997 to 2002

!24

administration, farmers and several project groups. They are based on the FFH management plans and are meant to be modification guidelines for nature conserving and sustainable agricultural practices at the field plot level. WFNatConPls for 15 farms have been developed so far (April 2017). The plans are oriented towards nature conservation, aiming at the determination of existing potentials that may act as implementation and planing instrument to obtain farm specific conservation oriented alternatives to the current agricultural practices. The WFNatConPl is a basis for the modification of the practices towards an environmentally sound land use, with a constant, sustainable and long lasting cooperation between BR administration and farmer. Due to the close cooperation with the farmers, the BRSC Employee pointed out, that economic aspects of the farm as well as the farms future perspectives are considered in the WFNatConPl. He also emphasized, that these plans are never really completed, since there are various dynamics (ecological, economic, social) at play that have to be taken into account, to create a feasible plan that benefits every one.

“[…] such a plan is in the end never really completed. […] it is now our working basis, we cooperate constantly, sustainable and long-lasting.” (BRSC Employee)

With the help of the WFNatConPl possible funding options such as AEMs or contractual nature conservation options are worked out and recommended to the farmer. The BRSC Employee also recounted an instance, in which a project plan was developed for the Joint Task of Agricultural Structures and Costal Protection (GAK) to obtain funding for the maintenance of ecologically important habitats on a specific farm, when there were no funds available. This kind of approach might be the reason for the positive uptake of these plans, with a corporation willingness of the farmers, as was indicated by the BRSC Employee. In the preliminary interview it was stated that the 15 farms involved in the WFNatConPls cultivate around 30% of the area in the BRSC that is in agricultural use (acc. to BRSC Employee).

!25

4. Methodology

To answer the afore mentioned research questions the methods of this study have been twofold. Firstly, the theoretical framework based on an extensive literature research to lay the foundation for the subsequent methodological research approach has been established. The chosen methodology of this study is a qualitative content analysis of interviews held with five farmers of the research area. Two of the five interviewed farmers were operating their agricultural businesses within the BRSC, the other three farmers were located outside of the BRSC. For this study a qualitative methodological approach has been chosen, because it is a fairly new research field, with little data to ground a quantitative research on. The generated qualitative data lays the foundation for future research with a quantitative approach and a more elaborate sample size. The approach of a qualitative content analysis aims at generating information surrounding the nature of a problem, how or why it arises and appraising options for the solution of a problem. Qualitative research is able to investigate influences that are to delicate or complex to be explored through quantitative research methods. Therefore, it can be utilized to explore underlying factors that may be causing the issue to arise.

4.1. Literature Research

To lay the grounds for the questionnaire of the interviews, the qualitative content analysis and the discussion part of this master thesis, a literature research has been conducted. It can be subdivided into three parts. Firstly, the legal framework regarding nature conservation in the agricultural sector, within the study area will be presented. The differences of the protection status and target settings will be revealed. Secondly, the same will be done for the extension system in Brandenburg, especially regarding AEMs with a short digression into the CAP. These two parts of the literature research will be primarily based on governmental publications, legal documents, e.g. EU regulations as well as scientific articles. Thirdly, the influence of extension services and information provision on the farmers environmental behavior will be discussed. Basis for this segment of the thesis will mainly be scientific publications.

4.2. Standardized Interviews and Qualitative Content Analysis

The chosen methodology is a case study approach, which took part in two clearly defined study areas with a manageable interviewee number of five farmers. This master thesis utilizes the explorative approach of qualitative data collection and analysis. It allows for an initial assessment of the current situation of the extension system in Brandenburg, with special emphasis on its ability to integrate environmental and ecological matters. Furthermore, it provides conceptual and methodological results for future scientific research (Lamnek, 2010).

“For example, in virtually any enquiry of barriers to service use there will be a role for qualitative methods. Although quantitative research will be able to identify the barriers at a global level - that

!26

is, awareness, access, cost, convenience, applicability and so on - it will be less able to explain the origins of these barriers or how they deter people from service use.“ (Ritchie et al., 2013)

To collect the qualitative data, interviews have been conducted with farmers inside and outside of the BR region. The interviews were based on a standardized questionnaire. The questionnaire was composed of closed and open questions. A standardized questionnaire-based interview is an interview, in which the questions as well as the question order is strictly fixed. The purpose was to create the same conditions for all interviews. Conducting standardized questionnaire-based interviews allowed for a strategic qualitative analysis of the material. To achieve a standardized environment, the interviews were all held in the same manner with a completely neutral interviewer (Prüfer and Stiegler, 2002). A standardized form can deliver a sufficient amount of reliable data. Furthermore, the error rate is relatively low, due to the possibility for additional questions in a personal interview (Friedrichs, 1990). To achieve the objectives of this study, the questions of the interviews will aim at the components of acceptance (object, subject and context of acceptance) (chapter 3.1.3.). The questionnaire will be subdivided into three parts. The first part will include questions of the farmers as well as the farm characteristics. The second part will aim at the farmers involvement in AEMs and other conservational activities. This part of the questionnaire will deliver more detailed information about the farmers (subject of acceptance) attitude towards conservation measures as well as their awareness of their environment and possible issues arising from agricultural practices. Because of the open questions, this part will most likely also provide information about the measures itself (financial aspects, flexibility, etc.). Thirdly the farmers will be asked questions regarding their experiences with the extension system in Brandenburg, with a focus on environmental extension services. These questions are aimed at the context of acceptance, specifically the factor of information transfer and how the current system influences the farmers’ acceptance of conservation measures. The interview questionnaire can be found in the Appendix of this study (Appendix I). The open questions were formulated questions with open answer possibilities. It helped to gain more detail than the closed questions can provide. However, representative results are not possible (Behringer et al., 2000). All interviews were recorded, transcribed and subsequently analyzed by conducting a qualitative content analysis according to Mayring (2014). The qualitative content analysis (QCA) method is a flexible systematic approach to downsize as well as summarize the material via interpreting personal and social meanings in order to describe the key elements (Schreier, 2012). Next to the formal verbal material, content analysis is also able to capture latent semantic content. The collected data is reduced by successively generalizing the level of abstraction, while simultaneously maintaining the essential content to construct an overview that still represents the initial material. Interview-based text material, as was generated in this study, requires interpretation, because information is not always clearly stated. Subjective interpretation and misunderstandings can, to a large part, be prevented with the systematic approach of QCA (Winkelhage et al., 2008). Depending on the context around the material and the research questions, the suitable interpretation technique is chosen for creating the processing scheme of the analysis (Mayring, 2010). Structuring has been chosen as the appropriate form of interpretation for the material gathered within this study. Depending on the context of the material as well as the research questions a way of structuring has to be determined (Mayring, 2010). There are four types of structuring: formal, scaling, typifying and content-related. Content-related structuring has been chosen as the interpretation technique for this analysis. It aims at summarizing the content or content-related aspects of the material (Kuckartz, 2010). Within this proceeding, the material was

!27

summarized within theory-led categories, which consequently form a category system. Lastly, the category system constitutes the main tool to systematically extract text parts from the material for analyzing its meaning (Winkelhage et al., 2008). The processing scheme according to the QCA approach is depicted in Fig. G. The steps of the methodology will be explained in the following paragraphs. Following the scheme, the subsequent sections indicate the analysis of the underlying material. The software MAXQDA, a supporting tool for the qualitative data analysis and Open Office Calc has been used to conduct the analysis.

I. Determining the starting material

The chosen material of this study consist of five interviews with two farmers operating within the BRSC as well as three farmers operating outside of the BRSC. In total 12 farmers, six in each region, have been contacted with a personalized letter, to partake within the study. The letter included a description of the topics included in the interview as well as an abstract of the planned study (Appendix II). Within one week all farmers have been personally contacted by the author to

!28

Fig. G: Content related structuring after Mayring (2014).

determine the participation and arrange an interview date. Five farmers agreed to an interview and have been sent the interview questionnaire, to prepare for the interview. All interviews have been carried out by the author within the 30th of may and the 1st of June. The interviews have been conducted at the location of the corresponding agricultural businesses and the interview durations ranged between 32 minutes and 1 hour and 50 minutes. All interviews have been transcribed (Appendix III). Initially, it was planned to interview 3 farmers for each region as well as only conventional farmers, due to the fact that organic farmers already have to comply to many environmental and ecological standards to be recognized as organic farms. However, due to the timing of the interviews in the end of May, when farmers are generally very busy only two farmers within the BRSC were able to participate in this study. Furthermore, these farmers were operating an organic agricultural businesses. Therefore it was not possible to create the same baseline conditions of the participants of this study.

II. Determination of the structural dimensions

The structural dimensions (SDs) were deducted in a theory-led and deductive way. Three broad dimensions have been created for the subsequent generation of the category system. These dimensions were derived from the interview questionnaire, which has been created on the basis of the research context and the research questions of this study. The three SDs are: (SD1) “Farm and farmer characteristics”; (SD2) “Agri-environmental measures”; (SD3) “Agricultural extension”. The first dimension indicates all aspects related to the general farm and farmer characteristics. Due to the fact, that all aspects of this SD originated from the first part of the questionnaire and most farmers filled out this section of the questionnaire without commentating, this structural dimension was excluded from the qualitative content analysis. Results of this section have been summarized within the results.

III. Determination of characteristics and composition of the category system

Within this step the SDs were further differentiated into 15 main categories and subcategories. Similar to the SDs the main categories and subcategories have been created based on the interview questionnaire in a deductive way. Additionally a fourth SD “Agriculture, nature and society” with corresponding main and subcategories has been created in an inductive way, after examining the material. Those categories seemed to be relevant, but could not be attributed to the existing SDs. The whole category system can be found in the Appendix of this study (Appendix IV).

IV. Formulations of definitions, examples and rules for coding the categories

Before examining the material again, the categories were clearly defined, with corresponding coding rules, to ensure a correct allocation of the text parts to the respective category. For all main categories and subcategories, prime examples have been defined (Appendix V). Within this research, not only words, but also text parts as well as whole paragraphs have been coded.

!29

V. Material review: reference indication & VI. Material review: reference processing and extraction

The fourth step of the processing scheme is an accompanying process, to enable a adjustment of definitions and category boundaries. Within the the sixth step, the coded text parts are highlighted and extracted (Mayring, 2014). In the course of this study, text parts are only assigned to subcategories, unless no subcategories exist. For this case the text parts were assigned to the main category.

VII. Revision, if necessary auditing category system and definition, VIII. Paraphrasing extracted material IX. Summary per subcategory

The adjustment of the category system as well as the repeated revision of the material is essential to guarantee a clear distinction between the categories as well as a comprehensive depiction of the extractions and lastly the results. Extracting the coded text parts leads to an increasing coding frame. To reduce the coding frame and extract the main content of the text parts, the parts were paraphrased. Text parts were rephrased and non-content related text parts were excluded. The subsequent step consists of determining a level of abstraction. Within this research the level of abstraction was set to the level of the sub-category. In cases with no sub-category, the level of abstraction is set to the main category. Therefore the processing scheme will end with the ninth step. In the following the paraphrased material was generalized and reduced. Because the interviews have been conducted in German, the paraphrasing as well as the generalization have been done in German. In the reduction step the material was translated into english. Also significant text parts that have been included within the result section have been translated into english.

!30

5. Results

5.1. Farm and Farmer Characteristics

Within the course of this research five farmers have been interviewed. Two farmers operate organic farming businesses within the BRSC. Three farmers were conventional farmers operating outside of the BRSC. To contain continuity throughout the whole study the farmers outside the BRSC will be referred to as Farmer 1, Farmer 3 and Farmer 5. The participants with an agricultural business within the BRSC will be referred to as Farmer 2 and Farmer 4. The Tab. 3 below presents the general characteristics of all participants, that have been gathered within the first part of the interviews. The following results represent the participants perception of the discussed topics only. Due to the small sample size this study does not deliver quantifiable data, but shows the farmers’ underlying opinions on agri-environmental measures and information transfer in the study area. The purpose of this approach is to determine target areas for future studies that involve a larger sample size to obtain more representative data.

Tab. 3: General characteristic classification of the participants.

Outside of BRSC Inside BRSC

Farmer 1 Farmer 3 Farmer 5 Farmer 2 Farmer 4

Position within the agricultural enterprise

agricultural economist

managing director department head of plant production

manager manager

Legal structure registered cooperation (eG)

limited liability company (Ltd/GmbH)

registered cooperation (eG)

limited liability company (Ltd/GmbH)

limited liability company (Ltd/GmbH)

Operational form cash crops fodder crops livestock production (cattle)

cash crops cash crops fodder crops livestock production (cattle)

cash crops fodder crops livestock production

cash crops fodder crops livestock production (cattle)

Farm size (ha) Cash crops (ha) Fodder crop (ha) Grassland (ha) Employees

1319 924 12 254 13

1884 1884 - - 9

2250 1700 550 - 34

1460 700 ~ 610 ~ 150 13

1200 300 500 400 8

Area within Natura 2000 (ha)

7 no no was not exactly known

95% within the Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin no areas in Natura 2000

Operational management

conventional conventional conventional organic organic

Direct marketing no no Direct marketing of regional products and a milk vending machine

insignificant (shop with regional products)

no

Education agricultural apprenticeship; graduate degree agricultural engineer

BSc and MSc of Agriculture

agricultural apprenticeship with master training

apprenticeship with master training for technician

MSc Agricultural Economist

Prticipation in KULAP

yes no no yes yes

Interview duration 34 min 1h 50 min 1h 15 min 34 min 32 min

!31

5.2. Attitude towards AEMs and the Agricultural Environment

From the interviews it became clear that all farmers do have a positive attitude towards the agricultural environment. All farmers see it as their working basis and strive to protect it as much as possible. Within the following chapter the results on the participants’ attitude towards AEMs as well as the agricultural environment in general will be presented.

5.2.1. AEMs

Several different aspects could be identified as important for the participation in the KULAP. Most frequently mentioned aspects include the financial aspect, the outlay as well as flexibility. Also mentioned, but not in a significant way was protecting the cultural landscape.

Financial aspect

All participants first named the financial aspect to be the most important factor for AEM implementation. Even the two participants that do not partake in the KULAP mentioned the appropriate compensation of implemented measures as one of the most important factors. The participants that do implement AEMs, repeatedly mentioned that they are dependent on these subsidies.

“Well, firstly that all the areas, that are specifically in the KULAP, that we work on with considerable effort, they are also many areas that are “Geringstlandflächen”, specifically our shooting range. Because just considering the fiscal aspect, you can’t generate high yields on these areas, that is obviously not possible. And in that case we are dependent on not only the direct payments and the Greening payments, but that we also get the KULAP payments.” (F1 P. 24) 13

“Brings money. Very simple. You have to process it like a crop. All money sources. You can’t just cultivate half the crop.” (F2 P. 19)

“Mostly financial reasons. They are funding programs, that we make use of. Due to the special location within the biosphere reserve. We have cattle, do extensive farming and that matches our agricultural business. Without causing great restrictions.” (F4 P. 17)

“Yes, well, financial plays an important role, to get back to your question” (F5 P. 32)

Outlay aspect

Another important aspect, that has been commented on by almost every participant is the aspect of outlay. It has been stated that especially regarding the application process of AEMs the administrative outlay can be disproportionately high. Even farmers that indicated a certain experience with the application process mentioned that the outlay, especially for small changes, is very high.

“Well, well-balanced [outlay]. If you don’t have any changes and don’t have to do the EAFRD additionally, then it is okay. But if you have to do the EAFRD in November and have a change of maybe not

Clarification of Citation: F1 P. 24 corresponds to Farmer 1 Paragraph 24 of the interview transcriptions 13

!32

even 1,5 ha to 2 ha, where an area is rented or drops out of the program, than it is quite substantial. Because all area are examined. And thats a little time-consuming. […] I find it a little excessive.” (F1 P. 26)

“As little bureaucracy as possible. […] Should run as smoothly as possible.” (F4 P. 21)

Flexibility

The third aspect that has been consistently mentioned by the farmers is the aspect of flexibility. One farmer specifically complained about the lack of flexibility within the program. Due to unforeseen changes within the program, several areas dropped out of the program. The farmer reported that the changes that were made did not fit into the farm management plan and due to no flexibility they had to exclude those areas. This caused a significant subsidy reduction as well as a considerable amount of repayment of subsidies the participant has already received.

“What bothered us a little with that, we use to have the 810 and that was switched to the 824. And we did not have that option, because we have to keep the animals outside until the end of November. And with this measure the animals have to leave the pasture until October 15th. […] That obviously brought a financial disadvantage for us. […] And there we lost a lot of areas, I can even tell you how many, it was 140 ha that dropped out. And that is of course very severe. And that is a great size. And we do graze those areas with cattle. […] As I said, the repayment is still lying ahead of us. That is not yet in planning, but it is 25.000 € and that I think is quite a lot.” (F1 P. 17; P. 42; P. 46)

A farmer operating within the BRSC mentioned the contractual period of five years in combination with all parameters that can change in the environment as well as the administrative structures, such as lease agreements, as problematic. A similar opinion was mentioned by a farmer outside of the BRSC.

“Well we are set to five years. And generally when I have an area, I want to hold that for five years, but we have many lessors and there are beavers, there are damns, there is water. There is always an area that is dropped. In this respect flexibility is important and currently there is to little of it. In this region I can not say six years in advance, which areas are arable in six years. And not even lease agreements are set for six years.” (F4 P. 23)

“Well, flexibility, is of course an important factor, that these funding programs can not always follow this stiff route. My former instructor used to say, that this here is a production in the open air, we can not just flip a switch in a large hall to turn everything on or off. So flexibility must be ensured. And out of experience, especially when it comes to the CAP, and the KULAP also comes from high above in a way, who decides that. They are not flexible at all. […] Yes, well, the financial aspect plays an large role, to get back to your question. And secondly, I would also see flexibility.” (F5 P. 32)

Cultural landscape and environmental aspect

One farmer in particular mentioned the protection of the cultural landscape as an important factor for the implementation of AEMs. It was the first argument that has been mentioned, when asked about the reasons for participating in the KULAP.

“Essentially, the conservation of the cultural landscape. The way we have it. We don’t want to make changes within the landscape and want to conserve it on a large scale. We don’t want to, I mean, we don’t want to do crop cultivation on grassland, that is essentially not suitable for it. It should not be like that.” (F1 P. 17)

!33

A farmer operating within the BRSC saw it more drastically. He acknowledged the fact that protecting the cultural landscape is an important aspect within agriculture, but was frustrated on how this is managed by politicians and the industry.

“If politics would just be honest and say that we need the landscape for the general public and not listen to the lobby and the industry, than we would have other political conditions, and we wouldn’t need this crap [AEMs]” (F2 P. 37)

However participants also stated, that AEMs are generally beneficial for the agricultural environment and are a useful tool to implement more environmentally sound practices into agriculture.

“Yes. In those areas, where there is specifically no fertilizer use or if there are birds breeding. There I think it has an effect. We would probably also mow or do some things differently. And that you try to benefit nature, without having disadvantages because of it. I think thats justifiable.” (F4 P. 35)

Reasons for non-participation

Two interviewed participants did not take part in the KULAP. When asked on the main reasons for their non-participation, it became clear, that the KULAP program does not target farmers practicing intense conventional agriculture. One farmer specifically stated, that there are no AEMs that would be suitable. Within this particular region the soils are extremely fertile. He states, that farmers that do not have areas of low productivity, will out of economic reasons not convert those fertile areas into KULAP areas.

“When I now look at the Oderbruch soils, yes that is simply, well I am talking about our business and our region here, those are simply good fertile soils, and an extensification would not be beneficial. You just wouldn’t harness the soil’s potential. For that reason I don’t see these measures as sensible for the good Oderbruch soils, or than there has to be an appropriate compensation. That is just the consequence. That the yield losses, caused by AEMs, that they are compensated. But there could also be different programs, that can be environmentally and ecologically beneficial for intensively used fertile soils. I’m just thinking about the cultivation of protein plants, I don’t understand why that is not subsidized more.” (F3 P. 51) The other farmer did not see the need for these measures. He states, that it would not financially benefit the agricultural business, and therefore it was never an option. He also is of the conviction, that for them these AEMs are not required, because they already do enough to protect the agricultural environment.

“And until now, in our case, that we did not do anything, simply because there was no must so far. Let me put it this way, the Greening for example, to get to 5 % for example, we have a lot of leguminous crops, Lucerne in the fodder production alone 200 ha, over 100 ha of peas. I mean we already did Greening in 1990, when nobody was talking about it, yet. Therefore it also concerns the KULAP, until now it was, there is no pattern there, according to my calculations it does not pay out. A lot more would have to come.” (F5 P. 30)

One farmer operating within the BRSC had a very distinct opinion on the subject. He was of the firm opinion, that AEMs are not necessary within agriculture. He states that it is important to protect the environment and implement sustainable practices into agriculture, but was indignant by the fact, that farmers are so dependent on subsidies. In his opinion environmentally sound farm management should be a social standard and should not depend on incentives by politicians, causing a lot of bureaucracy for all farmers. He had the view that there would be better ways to

!34

ensure good environmentally sound practices with different policies and market prices. This kind of attitude represents the general dissatisfaction among farmers, regarding the german agricultural subsidy system. More than one participant mentioned their discontent regarding the bureaucracy and application processes that has been established over the years.

“[on nature conservation in agriculture] It has to be taken into account. No question. We can’t just fertilize and spray without considering nature conservation, […] that is for me good agriculture. Simply that we protect nature. But we also need good yields to live. And I don’t want, that to be particularly subsidized, but I want that to be a social norm. That we practice good agriculture and that it is financially acknowledged, without having to do thousands of applications.” (F2 P. 89)

5.2.2. Agricultural Environment

Generally, farmers had positive attitude towards agricultural environment. All farmers stated in one way or the other, that it is important to find a balance or a good compromise between economy and ecology, to achieve an intact nature as well as have a well working business, with a stable economical income. Farmers do highly value the agricultural environment, because it is their working basis. For that reason all participants emphasized, that they are working with nature and not against it. Therefore, they all try, to their best capacity, to protect the environment. All farmers mention different ways in that they positively influence the environment, regardless of AEMs implementation. When asked on the influence that agriculture has on the environment, all participants agreed that there is a positive impact. Even though the participants are aware of the negative influence of fertilizers and herbicides on the ecosystems, they emphasize the value and importance of agriculture within the region, the cultural landscape and society as a whole.

“Positive and negative [influence of agriculture on environment]. I mean, to start of with the positive. Positive. If there wasn’t agriculture, besides of course our purpose to produce food and that is the core purpose, but in the cold month farmers do not just sit around, but the colleagues work. Maintaining hedges and wanes. And integrate into the village life. We are first contact partner anyways. No matter which village, which parish wants something to be maintained, or to be trimmed. We also do that as a service. You can’t always do that for free, but it is a service. And even if its just the little things. Picking rocks from the fields. Dumped into the hedges and when you check under these rock piles, a whole biotope developed. Yes, if you take away a stone. What kind of life emerged there. I mean we pick up the rocks from the field because they destroy everything, but in a way, I think, overall it is positive. The hedges that we have here, are also historically planted. No one wants to take these away. The whole erosion protection hedges are a lot here. And we also maintain them.” (F5 P.40)

“No that is definitely [positive], we are often times in the media, we do a lot with biodiversity. And not even consciously, but because we work the way we work. And in this region we do have quite some red list species, even some hot-spots in the biosphere reserve. That really is great. And we also have a great influx of young people, that want to live here, where there is organic farming. So not just corn and corn and corn.” (F2 P. 32)

“Well generally we are an organic farming business. We attach great importance to not negatively influence nature. Also out of ideological and personal conviction. It’s a discussion. Nature conservationists certainly do not want agriculture at all in the natural landscape and for them it would be highly valued. As a farmer I try to cultivate my agricultural land in harmony with nature. Personally I think it works. And that we have biodiversity because of agriculture and not despite of agriculture.” (F4 P. 33)

All interviewed farmers generally agreed, that agriculture has a positive influence on the environment. Especially the farmers outside of the BRSC named several measures and practices

!35

they implement to minimize agriculture’s impact on the environment. From making arrangements with local beekeepers, creating ecosystems with rock piles, decommissioning unproductive parts of croplands and sowing flower mixtures. Furthermore, all participants outside of the BRSC were aware of the negative impacts of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides and saw a conscious handling of these products as a vital and necessary requirement for good agriculture. In regards to these issues, many farmers expressed a certain frustration with society and the medial representation of the industry.

“Well, yes. For me it is the most normal in the world. […] Nature conservation and agriculture is normal for me, it is a symbiosis. It can’t be viewed separately, that does not work. And that has never worked. Everyone that claims a farmer, they are all criminals and dump chemicals onto their fields. […] For thousands of years, since humanity settled, is anyone that cultivates something, he wants to also cultivate it in the next year. And how can people be so naive and think that farmers do not automatically, when they simply do their job, also practice nature conservation. […] People have to understand, wait a moment, if he would do that, in 10 years, everything is dead there. He does not have anything then.” (F5 P. 105)

Agriculture and society

Within this line of questions and throughout all interviews, it became clear that the view of agriculture within society and especially the portrayal of agriculture in the media is a topic that almost all participants are affected by. Especially participants operating in conventional farming businesses outside of the BRSC. They repeatedly mentioned, that some extreme cases of agricultural businesses, that do not comply with regulation and restrictions negatively influence the whole image of the industry. Also the lack of knowledge within the general population is a big issue for farmers. Therefore, participants frequently stated how important it is to seek the dialogue with society and also wish for a more well-rounded representation of the agricultural industry in the media. Farmers mention that on the one hand explaining and discussing agricultural practices with interested layman as well as portraying the good agricultural image outwards constitutes an important part of the job as a farmer in todays society.

5.3. Information Transfer within the Research Area

As farmers are a heterogenous group and as such have differing needs and preferences regarding information transfer, the results show that different sources of information have different values to the farmers within the study area. Several information sources have been identified as significant and some as less significant. The participants of this study were asked to give several different information sources a value of importance and comment on their choices. This has been done for information sources concerning the operation of the agricultural business in general and for information sources regarding agri-environmental measures and environmental matters. The results of this inquiry are shown in Tab. 4 and Tab. 5 below. These tables represent the over all significance of each information source with regards to the different purposes. It becomes clear that there are significant differences between farmers operating within and outside of the BRSC. However, similarities can also be identified. In the following paragraphs each information source will be elaborated on with results from the commentary of the farmers. The category “Family” will be excluded for the rest of this research, since non of the participants was operating in a family business, and therefore delivered no valuable results regarding this category.

!36

Tab. 4: Importance of information sources regarding general matters of the agricultural enterprises. (1- totally unimportant; 2 - rather unimportant; 3 - neither; 4 - rather important; 5 - very important)

outside BRSC inside BRSC

Genral Farmer 1 Farmer 3 Farmer 5 Farmer 2 Farmer 4

Personal contact

Extension agent 5 4 3 4 4

Information events 5 4 4 1 4

Farmers’ associations 1 3 3 1 3

Family 1 1 1 1 3

Other farmers 5 5 5 4 4

Public institutions

Agricultural office 5 5 5 5 5

Federal environmental agency 1 1 3 1 1

Regional nature conservation authority

5 1 3 1 1

BRSC administration 1 1 1 3 2

Written information sources

Professional journals 1 4 5 4 4

Newsletters 1 4 4 1 1

Internet 5 5 5 1 4

Official publications 5 5 3 4 5

!37

Agricultural Office

Starting with the overall most significant information source used and highlighted by each individual farmer. Many farmers stated that for any question, regardless of the topic, there first contact partner is the agricultural office. No difference could be seen within this category, regarding the two study areas. All farmers highlighted the importance of the agricultural office for regional farmers.

“Agricultural office, well, yes, that is very important for us.” (F1 P. 117)

“Public institutions. Agricultural office is very important.” (F2 P. 49) “Well, I can only talk for myself. Certainly the agricultural office is my main information source.” (F3 P. 95)

“Public institutions (agricultural office), they have an important role here.” (F4 P. 44)

“Agricultural office. Yes, in my case I find it important” (F5 P. 59)

Tab. 5: Importance of information sources regarding environmental matters of the agricultural enterprises. (1- totally unimportant; 2 - rather unimportant; 3 - neither; 4 - rather important; 5 - very important)

outside BRSC inside BR

Environment Farmer 1 Farmer 3 Farmer 5 Farmer 2 Farmer 4

Personal contact

Extension agent 1 1 1 4 4

Information events 1 1 3 1 4

Farmers’ associations 1 1 4 1 2

Family 1 1 1 1 1

Other farmers 1 1 5 4 4

Public institutions

Agricultural office 5 5 5 5 5

Federal environmental agency 1 1 1 1 1

Regional nature conservation authority

5 1 1 1 1

BRSC administration 1 1 1 3 2

Written information sources

Professional journals 1 1 4 4 2

Newsletters 1 1 3 1 1

Internet 5 1 5 1 2

Official publications 1 1 4 4 5

!38

Especially during the application times farmers seem to rely heavily on their agricultural office. If they run into difficulties filling out the application forms or have questions regarding combination options of the different programs, the agricultural office is the most important information source. Furthermore, it has been stated that farmers do put a lot of trust in the “public hand”. It was argued, that the public institutions are the ones that impose sanctions, if regulations or restrictions are not followed, which is why farmers trust their judgment on these matters. One farmer was asked, if the employees at the agricultural office seem to be working to capacity. He confirmed that especially during the time of the application process regarding agricultural subsidies the agricultural office employees seem to be working to their limits.

“Well, they are really pushed to their limits, and still have their regular work. It is not just a telephone service. […] Thats why I always say, I can only talk commendably about our agricultural office. They always stay friendly. If they don’t have time at all, they always call back.” (F5 P. 83)

Interestingly, the two farmers, Farmer 3 and Farmer 5, that are currently not participating in the KULAP stated, that if they ever decided to implement these measures, the agricultural office would be the first contact partner for more information.

“And there I have to say, you feel [supported], it really is the agricultural office, they are not against you, but they try with you, and of course they also have to comply with the law, and if you mess up, you have to live with it. But otherwise there are here for all questions. And for that reason, if we explicitly decide to do AEMs, they would be the first contact partner. I would probably even, you can also make an appointment in Seelow. I need an hour, I have some questions. They also do that. Yes, it would go like this.” (F5 P. 83)

“Yes. Generally you have take charge on your own, because no one reaches out to you. And the only thing with regards to AEMs, the agricultural office is my main information source. There are to ladies, that specialize on AEM regulations. And with them you can talk to obtain information. But otherwise, as I said, we do not have extension agents, and no extension regarding these topics. You have to take care of it yourself.” (F3 P. 37)

Over all the agricultural office turned out to be the most important and most trusted information source among all farmers. Not one farmer had a negative opinion on the agricultural office. They see it as a valuable resource in obtaining information on any regards.

Internet

Next to the agricultural office, the internet was another significant information source. Most farmers utilize this tool to obtain information on regulations and legislations. Because a large part of the subsidy application process is done online now it is a viable instrument in almost every farmers everyday life. However, it has been mentioned that the older generation could have trouble with the internet development. Several participants referred to earlier days, when farmers used to do everything by hand.

“That’s the way it is. When a manager is over 50, they will probably already have problems with the internet and the digitalization. For them it is obviously even harder, and for the generation over 50, there should be external information provision, because they are not so practiced in the use of the internet.” (F3 P. 93)

Especially farmers within the BRSC mentioned the internet merely as a tool to research legislation changes.

!39

“So, internet only if we want to check on a directive.” (F2 P. 53)

“And in the end I download the regulation and read through it. I worked through the whole fertilizer ordinance. And then I have to apply it somehow. It’s complicated, but it is part of it.” (F4 P. 44)

Participants outside of the BRSC utilize the internet for new information. It is some of the farmers’ first choice research tool. When asked the question on their source of information regarding AEMs two farmers outside of the BRSC answered the following:

“Yes well, mostly from the internet. And out of news letters from the farmers’ association (LBV). And also from the agricultural office of the administrative district.” (F1 P. 36)

“Well, when I do research on this [AEMs], and this does not happen often, because we do not participate in the program, and because there is always enough other stuff to do. But when I do , I do it through Internet. That’s just. We are the generation internet. I believe there you can find everything important that you need to know on this. On official institution websites. Or the second choice would be the telephone, that I would also contact the agricultural office. Even with such questions. Usually you can find someone in the office that is familiar with that.” (F5 P. 34)

Other Farmers

For matters regarding general farm operations, other farmers are an important resource for all participants. The network farmers build themselves among other farmers seems to be a very important and valued aspect in the agricultural community. Farmers of one region see each other frequently and discuss current topics. They trust and value each others opinion.

“Yes, we do communicate with one another. That is very important” (F1 P. 74)

Because nature conservation is not an every day topic outside of the BR, it is not their primary mean of information transfer regarding environmental matters e.g. AEMs.

“VV: Do you talk about these topics [AEMs/environment] among farmers? F3: About these topics not so much. No. Because it is not relevant here. Yes, because not many people, I mean the Oderbruch simply is an intesively used agricultural area. There are few AEMs that can be implemented here.”

This seems to be the opposite case within the BRSC. Here the two farmers indicated a strong appreciation of the interaction with other farmers. One farmer reported, that the regional farming community in cooperation with the local university are working on establishing a circle of farmers that meet six times a year to exchange their knowledge and experiences, similar to an extension circle. The other farmer expressed the wish for a “farmers regulars’ table” of farmers within the region. While outside of the BRSC the communication among farmers is an important aspect of their information transfer, both farmers within the BRSC expressed a wish for an organized exchange of information, experiences and opinions among farmers. The topic of extension circles will be elaborated on within the chapter 6.2. in more detail.

Information events and workshops

Information events and workshops are an important source of information in two ways. First to obtain information regarding on the specific topics of the event, but also for networking

!40

purposes. One farmer mentioned that he specifically attends an annual information event not only for the content of the event, but more importantly to network with other farmers. Information events and workshops can be organized by several different institutions or agencies. Several farmers stated, that information events organized by the agricultural offices are a valuable and trusted resource. Also information events on the open field that include demonstrations and research results, that are usually organized by industry representatives have been mentioned as great information sources. However, some farmers also stated that these events have a tendency to be bias and have to be viewed in a differentiated way. In particular one farmer of the BRSC complained on the bias among external information sources, but also official institution, such as the nature conservation authorities. He expressed a wish for unbiased official extension and information transfer.

“In the end they are always extreme interests that have influence. We have extreme nature conservationists. We have extreme farmers to some extent in this region. But that someone objectively, that there is objective extension, thats a only rarely the cases. Or it is more about… Often times it is to emotional for me, or to influenced from a specific side. Rarely we are objectively informed.” (F4 P. 54)

“Yes exactly. You have to differentiate a little. Is it really external extension, or is it some firm associate. Yes, well, they all come ones a year and than i don’t need them anymore. […] Yes, well, the extension of course always very subjective in the direction of their companies.” (F3 P. 103)

One farmer mentioned seminars and workshops from the German Agricultural Society and the Brandenburg Agricultural Academy as qualitative very good. Although he does not make use of these workshops to obtain information on environmental topics but rather labour law and other crop cultivation topics. Generally, other topics are of higher priority for most of the interviewed farmers outside of the BRSC. Even though the farmers outside of the BRSC do not make use of information events or workshops to improve their environmental knowledge, it shows that these information sources are trusted and valued amongst the farmers.

Federal environmental agency and regional nature conservation authority

The federal environmental agency and the regional nature conservation authority is not an information source of great significants for the participants. Only one out of the five interviewed farmers makes use of the regional nature conservation authority as a source of information regarding AEMs and environmental management. Reason for that was the membership of one manager of the agricultural business in this institution. This connection makes the regional nature conservation authority a trusted contact partner for AEMs and other questions involving environmental management of the farm.

“And also the regional nature conservation authority, there we have someone. Well our manager is a representative in the regional nature conservation authority, because he is part of the Nature Park Barnim. […] And some information comes with it. And than we have, I don’t know, you won’t know him, Mr K. also within the Nature Park Barnim. He also advises us.” (F1 P. 38)

Because the other participants outside of the BRSC did not have any contact points with the federal environmental agency or the regional nature conservation authority, their attitude towards these institution was rather neutral.

!41

“Federal environmental agency, oh god. Regional nature conservation authority, there I can only say neither [regarding importance], we never had any contact points with them. But maybe its better that way.” (F5 P.59)

The farmers within the BRSC however, have had experiences with these institutions and showed a rather negative attitude towards them.

“Well, you can forget the federal environmental agency. And the regional nature conservation authority.” (F2 P. 49)

“Federal environmental agency, we never did that. Regional nature conservation authority preferably not either.” (F4 P. 44)

BRSC administration

The participants operating within the BRSC were asked about their experiences with the administration of the BRSC and specifically on their thoughts on the work of the BR Employee. Both farmers had different opinions on the work of the BRSC administration. One farmer expressed a gratitude for the BRSC administration and especially for the BR Employee. He explained that he does consult with the BR Employee on nature conservation options on the farm, especially concerning the funding aspect. The BR Employee organizes funding for certain conservation measures. If there are currently no available funds he manages other funding options for the farmers. This kind of work has also been indicated by the BR Employee in the course of a preliminary interview. Also the WFNatConPl is positively received as a great inventory of the farms flora and fauna. Generally, there is a positive attitude towards the BRSC administration.

“The BRSC is not really that bad, especially the BR Employee. He is pretty good. But there is not a frequent contact. But he does make sure, that when I register the conversion of crop land to grassland, then he checks where there is something [funding]. And if there is nothing, which is momentarily the case, then he says, well listen, I will get back to you when there is something“ (F2 P. 49)

The second farmer of the BRSC, Farmer 4, was more critical towards the BRSC administration. He said that he does not communicate with them very often and that it is generally not a source of information. He has to discuss the planned environmental measures with the BR Employee, which than “saddles” his conservation measures on top of that. He perceives the work of the BR Employee more as a restriction rather than extension. Both interviewed farmers did not perceive the work of the BR Employee as extension as was presumed by the author and communicated by the BR Employee in a preliminary interview.

Professional journals

For all farmers professional journals were a source of information in one way or another other. Most participants mentioned that they read these journals weekly and value the information presented. However, the information gained from these journals depends highly on the content featured in the specific journals and the subscriptions that farmers have for their agricultural businesses. Therefore a farmer, that does not subscribe to a journal that features content on environmental matters, will not receive environmental information through journals.

!42

The farmers outside of the BRSC did not mention the use of these journals for the acquisition of information on environmental matters. However, they stated that the journals were a valuable source of information regarding the new fertilizer ordinance and other EU-regulation.

Official Publications

Generally, official publications, such as regulation and directives make up an important source of information. Farmers stated, that they use official publications to determine their way of practice and make sure they operate within the law. Because most farmers stated, that they do heavily rely on their own to obtain information regarding their environmental businesses it is only natural that these official publications make up an important basis for their operations. Due to that almost all farmers assigned a rather high importance to the “official publication” category. A difference between the value of official publication can be identified between the participants operating within the BRSC, who assigned a rather high importance to official publication regarding environmental matters. Participants outside of the BRSC did not appoint a significant importance to this category in regards to environmental matters or AEMs.

“And in the end I download the regulation and read through it. I worked through the whole fertilizer ordinance. And then I have to apply it somehow. It’s complicated, but it is part of it.” (F4 P. 44)

“Official publications, well, no. [as information source regarding AEMs and environmental matters]” (F5 P. 61)

Farmers’ associations

Even though non of the farmers indicated farmers’ associations to be a significant resource for obtaining information, they have been mentioned to a point within the interviews. Some farmers receive there information through newsletters from farmers’ associations, others have mentioned the information events they organized regarding the new fertilizer ordinance. It has been stated by a farmer outside of the BRSC that the farmers' association would be an initial contact partner for information regarding environmental matters. However, it was not known if they actually inform about these topics.

“And from newsletters from the farmers' association (Landesbauernverband LBV).“ (F1 P. 39) “Or through the farmers' association. Yes. I never asked there about it and I really don’t know about it [if they provide information regarding environmental topics]” (F3 P. 77)

“[Information obtained on the new fertilizer ordinance] From the farmers' association as well as from the media. I believe the farmers' association had two information events regarding this topic.” (F3 P. 83)

“Associations, unions, yes from our associations I am even a little bit disappointed, I have to say.“ (F5 P. 58)

!43

Extension agents

From the participants only the two farmers operating within the BRSC indicated, that an extension agent is an important information source regarding environmental measures. Because the participants within the BRSC practice organic farming, environmental matters and complying to stricter standards is an everyday topic. Therefore the questions for general information sources and information sources for environmental measures did not differ significantly. Both farmers have to consider the agri-environmental aspect in addition to other general farm matters such as economic aspects at all times. One farmer utilizes a permanent whole farm extension agent. He highlights the importance of this private extension agent for farm specific questions and the application for agricultural subsidies. He sees a great value within an individual private extension.

“Well, individual extension regarding farm specific questions is very important for us. I need individual extension, when I want to work on something and I have a specific question. And that is normally a private extension, that I pay for. And in our case that is of significant importance.” (F4 P. 56)

The other farmer operating within the BRSC stated, that at the moment they do not utilize a private extension agent per se. They do employ an extension agent to help with the application forms, due to recurring inaccuracies by one of their employees. But this extension agent does not consult the specific participant. Additionally he utilized an extension agent for his livestock production. He emphasized the value and benefits of this particular extension agent. However, he also indicates that there certainly is a lack of good quality extension agents targeting crop cultivation. “Well, yes the supply of good quality extension agents is really poor. Might also be due to the fact that I have been working in this business for 20 year and have a decent amount of own experiences.” (F2 P. 63)

“Well, if there was a good quality individual extension then I would make use of it. I do not know anybody, yet. I use to have an individual extension agent, there my yields permanently declined. He had great ideas, but my yields declined. That makes no sense then.” (F2 P. 69)

Interestingly the participants operating outside of the BRSC indicated extension agents to be a useful information resource for general agricultural business matters, but not at all for environmental matters. Non of the participants outside of the BRSC did utilize an extension agent for environmental matters. They indicated, that other extension topics are of more importance as well as the fact that there is no supply of extension agents regarding the environmental aspect of agriculture.

“VV: So in that sense other extension topics are more important. F1: Yes of course. So not in that field.” (F1 P. 110)

“Well, and as I said there are no extension agents here and generally not in that field.” (F3 P. 37)

“Yes extension in that sense not. At the very most, that I would talk with the agricultural office. But I don’t have a private extension agent, or I am not calling specific agencies or something like that.” (F5 P. 54)

!44

5.4. Evaluation of the Extension System

To evaluate the participants thoughts on the current extension and information supply, they were asked, if they feel sufficiently supported with the realization of the environmental requirements that the EU, the country and the federal state demands. Only one of the participants, Farmer 2, answered this question with a clear “yes”. Others criticized the changing programs, laws and regulations they have to comply with, without the relevant information provision. Two farmers outside of the BRSC stated, that they do feel supported by the regional agricultural office. However, that only refers to actual questions. The information provided within Brandenburg as well as information transferred throughout Germany (the individual federal states) can be contradictory and not sufficient. It has been stated, that nobody is actively initiating contact and help. Some participants wished for information to be transferred more quickly and efficiently through the official institutions, especially on changes in subsidy programs and regulations.

“There can always be more support and information. Due to that, it is that way, you are on your own. And you have to take initiative yourself and research where to find your information.” (F3 P. 91)

“[on feeling supported] Yes, good question. Rather not. Rather not I would say. You have to inform yourself. There is no on that… […] That we are really objectively informed that happens rarely.” (F4 P. 54)

In the course of the interviews, within the third part of the questionnaire, the participants were asked on their thoughts of the extension system within the study area. The results show, that indeed there is a lack of good quality extension services targeting the environmental aspects of agriculture. While it has been stated, that good quality extension services are never too expensive, some farmers complained, that the extension agents, that they employed in the past cost to much money for the little or even no revenue they yielded. Some farmers outside of the BRSC also stated, that they would not know exactly who would offer these kind of services. Farmers are left to find their own information. It has been stated, that no one actively reaches out to the farmers to promote environmentally sound agriculture.

“Exactly. Generally you have to take care of it yourself, because there is no one that reaches out.” (F3 P. 37)

“Consequently, it is the way that you are a on your own. And there you have to take initiative on your own and research where to find your information.” (F3 P. 91)

“Well, you have to inform yourself. There is no one that helps with that.” (F4 P. 54)

As previously mentioned, there is also a problem with bias in the research area. Especially industry representatives, within and outside of the BRSC offer consulting, that is not objective and targeted to profit the corresponding firm. The same has been stated about official nature conservation institutions. These extreme tendencies cause a mistrust towards these extension suppliers as well as makes a well rounded unbiased information supply and transfer more challenging for farmers. It has been stated, that there is a lack of good quality private extension. All Participants agreed, that there is a lack of good quality extension supply, especially regarding the field of crop cultivation. When asked, which topics they would like to have more extension for, two different aspects could be identified. On the one hand extension concerning crop cultivation, on the other hand extension or rather more information transfer regarding changes and combinations of the subsidy programs.

!45

“Well, for cattle we have good extension, but for crops. Well this Stockmanship guy, but we still need crop cultivation. There we are not yet where we need to be.” (F2 P. 75)

“Yes. That’s it. With the combination, thats what I have written. That it suddenly drops out [AEM]. That someone tells you beforehand, no if you really do that on your crop, than it won’t work. Because you do put the work into it and afterwords they say “ätsch”.” (F1 P. 121)

“Generally are changes within the law, that happen permanently always interesting for us. You have laws that you have to comply with, that are rearranged almost weekly. Any laws, regulations, EU requirements even federal. That is always very variable very fast. And always regarding our requirements, laws and frameworks. Because we are dependent on that and we are the ones that have to pay the sanctions in the end. We are faced with inspections all year round. From offices, from various authorities. EU-inspectors. And they all have requirements that I have to comply with. Information for that, to fulfill that all.” (F4 P. 58)

The participants were also questioned on their thoughts regarding public subsidized extension as well as how they would change the existing extension system within the study area. As previously mentioned, several participants indicated the wish for more regional networking among farmers comparable to extension circles. A similar sentiment was expressed by another farmer that wished for more region specific and individual extension.

“Other farmers, there is now a new extension circle. That is very important. […] Well, as I said, we have an extension circle now, I hope that will be good. That is just starting now. It is accompanied by the HNEE [local university], or developed, that I don’t know exactly. Well, I think that will be pretty good. Because an extension agent only transfers information from one farmer to the other.” (F2 P. 49; P.77)

“And thirdly, what would be quite interesting, would be a kind of “regular’s table” of farmers.” (F4 P. 60)

“[…] What I would find quite nice, but that will in our world now not be possible, […] kind of a wishful thinking, but it would be nice, if there was an official extension agent that is responsible for the whole region, that advises all agricultural businesses of the region and that shares his experience within one region with the same soils and the same conditions with everybody. […] Yes. Personally, I would find that most practical or most efficient. […] That I would, such a circle would probably be the best.” (F5 P. 91; P. 93)

“And I think it [extension] should not be generalized over Brandenburg or so, but should be specific for the region. […] That I feel is important, and that the extension is farm specific. And not generalized or trans-regional.” (F3 P. 118; P. 120)

Finally the participants were asked for there opinion on, public extension. Specifically if public extension regarding environmental topics would be accepted and utilized by farmers and furthermore, if public extension could have a positive influence on the acceptance of AEMs. The participants had different opinions regarding this matter. Two farmers were of the opinion, that extension should not be public. They stated, that if there is a good service, they would be willing to pay the price for that service. One participant even suggested, that instead of funding extension it would be more beneficial to invest in better, more inclusive programs.

“Yes of course, but I can easily pay for extension. If its overall good. And I rather pay for extension, than having an official extension agent, that come from somewhere. I rather search for my own, of whom I know that he can help me with problems that I have.” (F2 P. 81)

“But I want the corresponding performance, then I’m also ready to pay for it. If the extension quality is good than you pay for it. Therefore, I don’t see the point in subsidizing extension in itself, but you should rather fund better programs.” (F3 P. 122)

!46

Other participants were of the opinion that public environmental extension would be accepted and beneficial for the acceptance and implementation of AEMs. Two farmers state, that especially small-scale farmers would benefit from these services.

“[regarding positive influence of public environmental extension] Yes, I think so. Well, there are quite a lot large businesses, that know the funding programs. I think, that especially small scale farmers, that don’t occupy themselves with these things everyday, and also that cant invest a lot of time in these things. I think there it makes sense, that a specialist is there and presents them their options. That would convince some agricultural businesses [to implement AEMs]. […] But definitely. Here we have few. There are no Chambers of Agriculture, there is no extension from public authorities like for example in Lower Saxony or Bavaria. So we are used to firms or lobbyists to organize trainings, that try to influence you towards a certain direction. Those are not bad trainings. They are usually free of charge, there are specialists, but they are to some point influencing you in a certain direction. I think to a certain point objective extension would be good for us. Especially for common goods like environment and landscape. Definitely. ” (F4 P. 64; P. 66)

“It does make sense. Certainly. Because I think that a small-scale farmer, that has his 40 ha. Well, a someone like that it is certainly difficult to overlook everything. Firstly to work through all the regulations and to understand them. […] Yes, small-scale businesses. I mean us larger businesses we grow with our tasks by now. (F1 P. 130; P. 132)

One farmer however, did express a certain interest in public subsidized environmental extension and stated that it would be beneficial, due to the fact that environmental management is not an essential part of their business yet.

“[public environmental extension] Yes I could see that. I could even see that here. You don’t deal with that, because it is not a subject. But if there was someone, okay than you would also need some an hour time, but if there is someone that tells you about a couple things, that you don’t even know about. Maybe I say, Because I have not really explored it, maybe I will say in the end, we already do that in a way. We only have to fill out the application. That is always the question. […] And I have to be honest, I don’t even really know what little funding options there really are.” (F5 P. 101)

5.5. Differences between Farmers within and outside of the BRSC

Certainly agricultural land users are a heterogenous group. All interviews produced somewhat different views on AEMs, the agricultural environment and the agricultural extension system within the study area. However, one significant similarity was revealed within this study. The agricultural office is for most farmers an important contact partner for questions regarding their agricultural businesses especially concerning AEMs as well as the subsidy application process. Difference could be identified in the general topics that the farmers outside and within the BRSC inform themselves on or request. Du to their location within the BRSC and the fact that they are operating an organic farming business, the participants within the BRSC seemed to be more informed on environmental matters regarding agriculture. They knew where to receive information or advice on these matters as well as already employed extension agents. Environmental management is an essential part of their job as organic farmers. Farmers outside of the BRSC were not as well informed, where to receive information. Especially the two farmers that did not partake in the KULAP generally did not inform themselves on environmental issues. Due to the differing operational management forms of organic and conventional farming, for the participants within and outside of the BRSC, respectively, it can not be clearly stated, if these differences are caused by the differing management or the location within the BRSC, or a combination of both. Due to this as well as the small sample size, a meaningful and reliable comparison is not possible at this point.

!47

6. Discussion

As has been officially acknowledged by the CAP in the beginning of the 1990s, farmers play a significant role in protecting natural resources and conserving the cultural landscape. Voluntary AEMs have become the central policy instrument for enhancing and conserving the agricultural environment. Within this chapter the results of five interviews with two farmers operating within the BRSC, three farmers operating outside of the BRSC as well as the results from the literature research will be discussed. More light will be shed on the constrains farmers face when deciding on implementing AEMs and conservational measures into their agricultural practices as well as the influence of information transfer on their decision-making.

6.1. Object of Acceptance

As has been presented within the theoretical framework there are various factors influencing the acceptance of AEMs. It has been acknowledged by Sattler and Nagel (2010), that AEMs hold different characteristics, that can impact AEMs acceptance. The results of this study show, that indeed the monetary aspect is one of the most significant characteristics of AEMs. All participants regardless of their participation in the KULAP found the financial aspect to be very important, when considering the implementation of these measures. The participants were indeed dependent on these financial subsidies, and named them as one of the main reasons for participating in the KULAP. The findings of Schenk (2000), of a forced acceptance due to a financial dependency, can be found in some participants that take part in the study. Especially the participant that generally is dissatisfied with the German subsidy system (Farmer 2), argued that he takes part in this program because he needs the money and not because it is a great program. While non of the participants found this dependency on subsidies as restricting per se, the financial aspect of these measures could be identified as a decisive factor for AEM implementation. The lack of flexibility and the corresponding fact, that the measures do not fit into the individual agricultural enterprises and management plans, was also a reason for non participation among the interviewed farmers. These findings cooperate Wilson and Hart (2002) suggestions of flexibility as an important aspect regarding AEM implementation. The current measures of the KULAP do not target agricultural businesses that are primarily focused on crop cultivation, which is why farmers do not have fitting options to implement. There was a wish for more inclusive environmental funding programs, especially targeting intensive crop cultivation. The findings of Ruto and Garrod (2009), that flexibility is one of the characteristics of AEMs, farmers wished to modify the most, could be confirmed for this study. Most participants identified the long term commitment of five years for AEMs and the inflexibility as a significant disadvantage of these programs. In a workspace that is dependent and controlled by natural elements, lease agreement and ever changing regulations, farmers have to be flexible at all times. Similar to Burgess et al. (2000) and Morris (2006) this study also supports the claim that an improved flexibility in the implementation of AEMs could bring enhanced environmental benefits, since farmers’ knowledge of their local conditions often collide with the more universal requirements of the AEMs. Especially the farmers that do not participate within these programs mentioned various practices they implement for a more sustainable farm management. These measures were often modifications of former or current KULAP measures or Greening measures. Hence, farmers do know the conditions on their businesses and are willing to invest in more sustainable practices, even without funding.

!48

With more inclusive and flexible measures, more farmers could be motivated to join conservation programs.

One farmer, outside of the BRSC did show resigned acceptance regarding AEMs. She accepted the fact, that farmers do not have an influence on the conception of AEMs and that farmers do have to accept the way in which the system works.

“Well, okay. If it is that way, we put up with it. You can’t change anything.” (F1 P. 51)

As Schenk et al. (2007) found, a missing inclusion of the persons concerned can lead to a rejective attitude and a disillusionment, when they realize that they have only little influence on the contractually set agreements. Even though non of the other participants did express the same level of resigned acceptance, this sentiment is mirrored to a certain point within the complains on the lack of flexibility. Farmers are generally discontent with the stiff agricultural programs in general. It might even hinder an initial consideration of participation, due to their strict and inflexible guidelines. While some farmers accept the way it is, others might just not participate and forego the subsidies. A fear of the change of the legal status of particular lands to protection areas, as has been suggested by Maertens (2011), has not been expressed by the participants of this study. However, it has been stated that farmers do implement environmental measures without the consideration of funding programs to sidestep stiff restrictions that AEMs might impose. A more flexible and inclusive institutional design with a more regional context could increase the over all AEM acceptance.

6.2. Subject of Acceptance

The relationship towards the object of acceptance (conservation measure) is dependent on the attitude of the subject of acceptance (the farmer), which begins with their general attitude towards nature protection. If a farmer has a positive view on nature conservation, he/she will be more likely to adopt conservation measures, even if they entail more costs and efforts, compared to those who prioritize economic factors (Sattler and Nagel, 2010). Only participant expressed the believe, that the current agricultural practices on his farm are already sufficient in protecting the agricultural environment and saw little necessity in AEMs for his farm. However, he did not perceive conservational measures as a disdain of their work as farmers, as has been suggested by Schenk (2000). Despite this one participant, this sentiment could not be detected among the other participants. Non of the participants perceived AEMs as a way of criticizing their work. All participants had a very positive and conscious view on the agricultural environment and showed an environmental awareness. As Nagel et al. (2002) state, farmers are aware of farm level, local and regional problems within the agricultural environmental problems. Farmers do know and observe their own farmlands, and do discern positive and negative changes of the environment on their farm. Several interviewed farmers expressed a similar sentiment when reporting on the environmental conditions on their farm. One farmer mentioned the “beautiful sight” (F3 P. 124) of flowers he sowed on little areas around his farm. He acknowledges the positive influence these flower strips have on the environment as well as the positive response of the population. The same farmer also acknowledges positive changes of the soil quality that were visible after implementing more environmentally sound soil processing. Almost all farmers mentioned an extremely negative example of an

!49

agricultural business within the region. They were severely worried and vexed by the way one agricultural business influences the environment and ruins on the one hand the soils, and on the other hand the image of agriculture in that region. The findings of this study suggest, that farmers do discern the agricultural environment of their farm but also neighboring farms. The results of this study show that farmers are generally open towards AEMs. All interviewed farmers had a positive image on nature conservation within agriculture, but different exposure, due to their heterogenous farm characteristics, such as the location within the BRSC, business managers being a member within the regional nature conservation authority as well as the financial resources available to each farm. Nowadays a new generation of younger more innovative farmers emerges, that do see the potential of and are generally open to new practices and technology to introduce more sustainable agriculture. As other farmers have been identified as an important information resource, several participants expressed the wish for an extension circle or a regulars’ table of regional farmers. Within an extension circle farmers and one extension agent meet frequently and exchange information and knowledge. This approach can also be found within the extension systems of several other states. As has been presented within the result section all farmers emphasized the importance of the communication among other farmers. Regardless of their agricultural practices and the implementation of AEMs, farmers value networking. Herein lies a great potential for an increased environmental awareness and the implementation of more sustainable agricultural practices such as AEMs. In this regard it might be beneficial to promote interaction between conservation oriented farmers, such as the farmers within the BRSC and conventional farmers. Those farmers, due to their location within the BRSC, have to comply with more restrictions regarding nature conservation and deal with these matters on a day to day basis. They pose a valuable information resource for the improvement of the agricultural environment. Therefore, it could be beneficial to bring together farmers of one region with differing agricultural practices, e.g. organic farmers and conventional farmers. This could help the information and knowledge transfer among farmers, as a trusted source, and enhance the popularity of nature conservation within agriculture. As Garforth et al. (2003) note, farmers are individual and diverse, at different times they require different types of information with a different degree of prescription and advice. Farmers could benefit from each others knowledge as well as the extension agents advice for the diverse support and advice they individually need and seek.

6.3. Context of Acceptance

The information transfer as the context of acceptance plays a pivotal role within the acceptance of AEMs. Besides factors such as the financial position of the farmer or different legal restrictions farmers have to comply with, information transfer has a great potential in influencing farmers towards more sustainable agriculture. Within this study, no questions regarding the financial position of the participants were asked. Besides the importance of financial compensation as a characteristic of AEMs in general, no statements can be made on the financial position of the agricultural businesses as an influencing factor of AEM implementation within this study. The differing legal restriction within and outside of the BRSC however, seemed to be an indicator for the farmers’ awareness of conservation measures as well as their knowledge of appropriate information sources for environmental management. Farmers outside of the BRSC have repeatedly expressed, that they did not know where to obtain information regarding environmental measure, while the two farmers within the BRSC had extension agents, information events and contacts to

!50

the BRSC administration as an information source. Farmers outside of the BRSC merely mentioned, they would contact the agricultural office or the farmers association for these matters. This shows a general lack of information transfer regarding agricultural environmental management within the region, especially for farmers with little exposure to nature conservation. Because AEMs and environmental matters are not a pressing priority for farmers, they do not inform themselves on these topics, without incentives. Repeatedly it has been stated within and outside of the BRSC that farmers are on their own, need to take initiative and self-responsibly inform themselves. While this might not be problematic within the BRSC, due to their enhanced exposure to these topics, it can be hindering for farmers without this kind of exposure. Especially intensive conventional farmers rarely have contact points with nature conservation, which has been frequently stated in the course of the interviews. To achieve a greater acceptance of AEMs and alter the farmers’ mindsets regarding environmental issues, incentives have to be more persuasive to initiate more interest and public institutions have to be more proactive in promoting sustainable agriculture. Since farmers are generally rather dissatisfied with the subsidy system in Germany and the time-consuming application processes, a more proactive and supportive approach would help increase farmers participation. Several studies have suggested that institutional trust is an important influencing factor regarding AEM implementation (Juntti and Potter, 2002; Polman and Slangen, 2008; Palmer et al., 2009; Peerling and Polman, 2009; Sutherland et al., 2013; Lastra Bravo et al., 2015). As presented within the result section, the participants seem to be generally dissatisfied with the German subsidy system. However, the participants exhibited a great level of institutional trust. All participants emphasized the importance of the regional agricultural offices. Especially outside of the BRSC, the agricultural offices seem to be the first contact partner for any type of question. It has been stated by several participants, that the agricultural office would also be the first contact partner regarding environmental issues on their farms. Other farmers are in constant communication with the agricultural office regarding the application processes in the course of the yearly subsidy collection. Polman and Slangen (2008) found that, due to their connection to policy, public extension services may inform farmers in a different way, compared to private extension services that are often times tied to organizations such as processing industries, suppliers and financial advisors. They found, that public extension services could provide farmers with a better understanding of what is expected of them, which would consequently lead to an increased willingness to adopt AEMs. Environmental extension provided by the agricultural offices might be beneficial in involving more farmers in AEMs and enhance sustainable agriculture especially outside of the BRSC. A farmer within the BRSC, that complained about bias among the consultants of industries and lobbyists, mentioned that an objective public extension agent would be a good change and especially beneficial for small-scale farmers, that do not have the resources to get high quality unbiased information through private extension. This shows a high level of institutional trust in the regional agricultural offices. Rivera (2011) also acknowledges the increased importance of the public agricultural sector, for an enhanced participation in conservational schemes. With more connectedness among the agricultural offices and the regional nature conservation authorities as well as a more proactive approach in promoting AEMs and sustainable practices, an increased acceptance and implementation of AEMs could be achieved. The fact that there is a relatively high level of institutional trust, poses a good prerequisite for possible improvements of the information transfer by official institutions. The results of the interviews support these findings. Participants have mentioned, that they trust the official institutions due to the fact, that they are also the institutions to impose sanctions. Morris et al. (2000) found, that farmers’ resistance to AEMs is strengthened by the lack of knowledge of these programs, e.g. objectives, criteria, eligibility. While non of the non-participants showed an explicit resistance towards these measures, it became clear that those farmers were not as

!51

well informed on their options as the farmers participating in the KULAP. They expressed an interest in these matters, but saw other topics as more pressing. A more proactive approach by official institutions as well as the provision of better and more comprehensive information regarding AEM options could help to combat the initial obstacle of gaining information self-responsibly. There is a variety in the support and assistance that is provided to the farmer for the adoption and implementation of AEMs and addressing environmental issues. Some of these are information folders, web sites, extension services, technical advisors, social- and agriculture-related organizations, technical media and the government etc. (Mettepenningen et al., 2013; Lastra-Bravo et al., 2015). In this study, the participants have been questioned on a variety of information sources. As previously mentioned, the agricultural offices play an important role as an information source. Farmers trust and depend on the agricultural offices and their employees for various matters. Even farmers that do not actively inform themselves on environmental issues or AEMs indicated that they would reach out to the agricultural office to gain information. Another quite important information source among the participants constitutes the internet. The internet is for most farmers the initial starting point for the gathering of information. They obtain information on the funding programs, changes in regulations, products etc. A good online coverage of environmental topics, program option and agricultural nature conservation on official sites might have a positive influence on farmers’ acceptance of AEMs. Morris (2004) notes, that the quality of information and advice is not always optimal. This assumption could be confirmed for the study area. Several participants evaluated the provided information as mediocre as well as barely sufficient. Main belief was that there can always be more information. Furthermore, Wilson and Hart (2000) found, that a significant factor for the willingness to adopt AEMs is the scheme administrators failure to ensure the provision of adequate information to potential participants. Farmers from outside of the BRSC mentioned, that the information supply is rather weak, but emphasized, that within the agricultural office, they receive excellent support for further questions. Mettepenningen et al. (2013) suggest, that farmers that receive extension through an extension agent are more likely to implement AEMs, than farmers that merely receive information through government publications, information folders and the internet. Polman and Slangen (2008) mention, that extension in form of an extension agent could help resolve information deficiencies that lead to non-participation. As has been stated within the result section (chapter 5.4) the supply of good quality extension agents, especially regarding agricultural environmental management within the study area is extremely weak. Farmers do wish for better quality extension, especially towards sustainable crop cultivation. Within the course of the interviews it became clear, that farmers outside of the BRSC are more reliant on the agricultural offices than farmers within the BRSC. Farmers operating within the BRSC do make use of private extension regarding their environmentally-oriented farming practices. It has been expressed by a farmer within the BRSC, that he would prefer good quality private extension over funded official extension. Due to their exposure to environmental issues on a day to day basis, they rely on more specific extension services, that might be more efficiently provided by private extension agents. However, it has been stated by another farmer within the BRSC, that funded official extension would benefit small-scale farmers with little resources as well as improve the objectivity of the information supply within the region. While most participants stated, that they would be able and willing to pay for good quality extension services, it became clear that especially for farmers outside of the BRSC, other extension topics would be of a higher priority. Non of the participants outside of the BRSC are currently utilizing private extension services for any matters of their businesses let alone environmental topics. Almost all participants stated that there is a lack of extension supply regarding

!52

environmental farm management, which could be caused by the missing demand for such services. Nagel et al. (2002) found, that this lack of demand can lead to an undersupply of environmental extension services, as it was confirmed by the participants within the study area. Garforth et al. (2003) found, that the government should fund some extension provision, in order to overcome market failures regarding the supply of and demand for information and advice. As Thomas (2007) states, privatized extension systems require a certain self initiative. Therefore, farmers become lone fighters for their own interests. This sentiment was also reflected within the study area. Several participants mentioned the fact that there is no initiative, and they are left alone. However, they also stated that the agricultural office is always there for questions. Within the agricultural office lies, due to the trust that regional farmers put in it, a great potential for the promotion of environmental farm management. It resonated from the interviews, that especially for public goods such as the environment and landscape, public extension would be beneficial. Farmers repeatedly stated, that it is necessary to have an appropriate financial compensation of conservation measures. Goods such as the environment and the cultural landscape have often been identified as goods of public interest, with a certain responsibility lying within public institutions and authorities as well as society to help conserve them. Farmers view the services they do by implementing sustainable practices, as a service for society as a whole. The literature as well as the results of the interviews of this study suggest, that there is a need for more appropriate financial compensation, as well as more active support and information transfer to promote AEMs among farmers and consequently protect the agricultural environment and its ecosystems.

!53

7. Conclusion and Outlook

A qualitative content analysis of interviews with two farmers operating within the BRSC and three farmers operating outside of the BRSC as well as a literature research has been conducted in order to answer the research questions defined for this study. Generally, all farmers have a positive and conscious attitude towards the agricultural environment. They see the value of a functioning nature as their working basis and for society as a whole. AEMs are perceived as having a positive influence on the agricultural environment. Financial aspects, flexibility, suitability and the outlay of the application process, have been identified as important influencing factors for AEM implementation. For an industry depending on fluctuating environmental and climate conditions a greater level of flexibility is requested by the participants of this study. It has also been criticized, that AEMs lack inclusivity and do not target intensive agriculture. The main information source within the research area is the agricultural office. It is a trusted resource for any question. Additionally, other farmers have been identified as a valuable resource among farmers within the study area. Specifically extension circles have been mentioned as a good concept, that would be accepted and utilized by many farmers. Other significant information sources include information events and workshops, the internet as well as official publications. In the course of the study it became clear that, due to the fact that they are exposed to nature conservation on a more regular basis, the farmers within the BRSC have a higher aspiration for good quality environmental extension services. They do know where to obtain information on the agricultural environment and make use of private extension services. To which extend this is influenced by their position within the BRSC or the fact that they operate an organic farming business can not be distinguished within this research. All participants were generally not fully satisfied with the extension system within the research area. There is a lack of good quality agricultural extension. Furthermore, the information that is provided by public institutions is evaluated as mediocre and barely sufficient. It has been stated that there can always be more and better information. Bias among extension providers, especially industry representatives has been indicated as a problem within the research area. Contrary to what the author expected and the BRSC Employee in the preliminary interview implied, the two participants operating within the BRSC did not perceive the work of the BRSC administration and the BRSC Employee as an extension service. One of the participants appreciated the work of the BRSC Employee in arranging funding for measures that otherwise would not be funded. The other participant saw the work of the BRSC Employee more as restricting than as extension. Considering the results of this study for the two participants, the work of the BRSC administration can not be classified as environmental extension through a public extension agent. However, the BRSC administration poses a valuable information source for environmental measures and corresponding funding options for farmers operating within the BRSC, that do aspire to implement more nature conservation measures and sustainable agricultural practices.

As has been suggested throughout this study, there are several areas of improvement within the extension system of the research area. Due to the high level of trust farmers put into agricultural offices they pose a great potential in having a more positive influence on the acceptance and implementation of AEMs. More governmental support within the agricultural offices to provide a public environmental extension agent, advising farmers of the specific region, would help to expose more farmers to agri-environmental issues and increase their environmental awareness. This could be most efficient in the form of extension circles, as the participants of this study have indicated a

!54

great value of other farmers opinions. Regional agricultural offices should implement a more proactive approach of promoting AEMs and sustainable practices in form of information events and the promotion of extension circles, to potentially increase AEM acceptance. This would also provide a more region-specific information exchange and extension supply. Further more, a great potential lies within the institutional design of AEMs. As has been found within the literature research and in the course of this study, agri-environmental schemes lack flexibility and inclusivity. More governmental funding and support is needed to create AEMs that cover the whole agricultural sector. There lies a great potential for protecting the agricultural environment within the development of AEMs that are compatible with intensive agricultural production systems. To ensure a more regional context and suitability, programs should be designed and conceptualized with more farmer cooperation. Farmers do know their farm and the environment they are working with. This knowledge should be utilized to design AEMs more compatible with regional agricultural production systems. A quantitative study, including a larger sample size to investigate the potential of public extension provided by the agricultural offices as well as extension circles to increase AEM acceptance and implementation, following this research might bring more insights on how to promote more sustainable agriculture within the region.

!55

8. Research Limitations

Finally, it should be mentioned that this study faces restraints and limitations due to the small sample size of five interviewees. The results represent the personal opinions of the participants and can not be generalized over the whole research area. The findings of this study only indicate the underlying constrains that farmers face when making decisions on environmental management.

Further more, it would have been more conclusive to investigate how the extension system influences farmers that generally are not obliged to comply with strict environmental regulations, other than cross compliance and other regulations that farmers have to abide all over the EU, Germany and Brandenburg (e.g. Water Framework Directive). However, due to the timing of the interviews in the end of May, when farmers are generally very busy only two farmers within the BRSC were able to participate in this study. These farmers were operating an organic agricultural businesses. Therefore it was not possible to create the same baseline conditions of the participants of this study, which influences the overall comparability of the participants.

!56

9. References

AGBR STÄNDIGE ARBEITSGRUPPE DER BIOSPHÄRENRESERVATE IN DEUTSCHLAND (Hrsg.) (1995): Biosphärenreservate in Deutschland – Leitlinien für Schutz, Pflege und Entwicklung. Springer-Verlag, Bonn.

Albrecht, C., Esser, T., Gisbertz, J., Klein, H., Weglau, J. (2004). Bewertung landwirtschaftlicher Betriebsflächen aus naturschutzfachlicher Sicht. Institut für Landwirtschaft und Umwelt, Bonn.

Amt BR Schorfheide-Chorin (2002): Evaluierungsbericht des Biosphärenreservates Schorfheide-Chorin.

Arzt, K., Baranek, E., Müller, K., Schleyer, C., (2002): Kooperative Partizipation - Eine komparative Analyse der Agrar-Umwelt-Foren. In: Müller, K. (Publ.) Wissenschaft und Praxis der Landnutzung - Formen interner und externer Forschungskooperation, Margraf Verlag, Weikersheim.

Amt des Ministerpresidenten (1990). Verordnung über die Festsetzung von Naturschutzgebieten und einem Landschaftsschutzgebiet von zentraler Bedeutung mit der Gesamtbezeichnung „Biosphärenreservat Spreewald “vom 12. September 1990—Gesetzblatt der DDR. Gesetzblatt der DDR, Sonderdruck, (1471).

Barreiro-Hurlé, J., Espinosa-Goded, M., & Dupraz, P. (2010). Does intensity of change matter? Factors affecting adoption of agri-environmental schemes in Spain. Journal of environmental planning and management, 53(7), 891-905.

Batáry, P., Dicks, L. V., Kleijn, D., & Sutherland, W. J. (2015). The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology, 29(4), 1006-1016.

Baumgart-Getz, A., Prokopy, L. S., Floress, K. (2012). Why farmers adopt best management practice in the United States: A meta-analysis of the adoption lite rature. Journal of environmental management, 96(1), 17-25.

Beedell, J., & Rehman, T. (2000). Using social-psychology models to understand farmers’ conservation behaviour. Journal of rural studies, 16(1), 117-127.

Behringer, J., Buerki, R., & Fuhrer, J. (2000). Participatory integrated assessment of adaptation to climate change in Alpine tourism and mountain agriculture. Integrated assessment, 1(4), 331-338.

BfN (2012): Biosphärenreservate als Modellregionen für Klimaschutz und Klimaan- passung. Dokumentation des Workshops 28.09. - 29.09.2010 Blumberger Mühle, An- germünde. Edited by Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) (BfN-Skripten 316).

Biosphärenreservat Schorfheide-Chorin (2017): http://www.schorfheide-chorin-biosphaerenreservat.de/ (12.06.2017)

BMEL - Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (2015): http://www.bmel.de/DE/Landwirtschaft/Agrarpolitik/_Texte/GAP-NationaleUmsetzung.html (05.01.15)

BMEL - Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (2017): http://www.bmel.de/DE/Landwirtschaft/Foerderung-Agrarsozialpolitik/AgrarUmweltmassnahmen/agrar-umweltmassnahmen_node.html (07.04.17)

Bokelmann, W., Hirschauer, N., Nagel, U. J., Odening, M., (1996). Landwirtschaftliche Beratung in Brandenburg - Eine Evaluierung erster Erfahrungen. Kommunikation uns Bertung, Sozialwissenschaftliche Schriften zur Landnutzung und ländlichen Entwicklung. Ed.: Boland, Hoffmann, Nagel. 1996. 9:59, Markgraf.

Boland, H. (1991). Interaktionsstrukturen im Einzelberatungsgespräch der landwirtschaftlichen Beratung. Wiss.-Verlag Vauk.

Borges, J. A. R., Lansink, A. G. O., Ribeiro, C. M., Lutke, V. (2014). Understanding farmers’ intention to adopt improved natural grassland using the theory of planned behavior. Livestock Science, 169, 163-174.

Bruckmeier, K., & Tovey, H. (2008). Knowledge in sustainable rural development: from forms of knowledge to knowledge processes. Sociologia Ruralis, 48(3), 313-329.

Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Report of the World Commission on environment and development:" our common future.". United Nations.

!I

Burgess, J., Clark, J., & Harrison, C. M. (2000). Knowledges in action: an actor network analysis of a wetland agri-environment scheme. Ecological economics, 35(1), 119-132.

Burton, R. J. (2014). The influence of farmer demographic characteristics on environmental behaviour: A review. Journal of Environmental Management, 135, 19-26.

Burton, R., Kuczera, C., Schwarz, G. (2008). Exploring farmers' cultural resistance to voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Sociologia ruralis, 48(1), 16-37.

Burton, R. J., & Paragahawewa, U. H. (2011). Creating culturally sustainable agri-environmental schemes. Journal of Rural Studies, 27(1), 95-104.

Butler, S. J., Vickery, J. A., & Norris, K. (2007). Farmland biodiversity and the footprint of agriculture. Science, 315(5810), 381-384.

Cambridge Dictionary (2018). Online available: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/acceptance

Carpenter, S. R., Caraco, N. F., Correll, D. L., Howarth, R. W., Sharpley, A. N., Smith, V. H. (1998). Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecological applications, 8(3), 559-568.

Defrancesco, E., Gatto, P., Runge, F., Trestini, S. (2008). Factors affecting farmers’ participation in agri-environmental measures: A Northern Italian perspective. Journal of agricultural economics, 59(1), 114-131.

De Snoo, G. R., Herzon, I., Staats, H., Burton, R. J., Schindler, S., van Dijk, J., Lokhorst, A. M., Bullock, J. M., Lobley, M., Wrbka, T., Musters, C. J. M., Schwarz, G. (2013). Toward effective nature conservation on farmland: making farmers matter. Conservation Letters, 6(1), 66-72.

DRL - Deutscher Rat für Landespflege (2002): Die verschleppte Nachhaltigkeit: frühe Forderungen - aktuelle Akzeptanz. In Schriftenreihe des Deutschen Rates für Landespflege (74), pp. 5–8.

Ducos, G., Dupraz, P., Bonnieux, F. (2009). Agri-environmental contract adoption under fixed and variable compliance costs. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 52 (5), 669-687.

Enquete-Commission. (1998). Konzept Nachhaltigkeit-Vom Leitbild zur Umsetzung. Final report, BT-Drucksache, 13, 1120.

EUR-Lex - Access to European Law (2017). Online available: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32005R1290 (20.08.2017)

European Court of Auditors, (2011). Is Agri-Environmental Support Well Designed and Managed? Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

Europäische Gemeinschaft, (2000). Natura 2000–Gebietsmanagement. Die Vorgaben des Artikels 6 der Habitat-Richtlinie (92/43/EWG). Amt für amtliche Veröffentlichungen der Europäischen Gemeinschaft, Luxemburg.

Europäische Gemeinschaft, (2016). Die europäische Union erklärt: Die Die Gemeinsame Agrarpolitik der EU: für unsere Lebensmittel, unseren ländlichen Raum unsere Umwelt. Luxemburg: Amt für amtliche Veröffentlichungen der Europäischen Union.

EUROPARC Deutschland e.V (2017). Online available: http://www.nationale-naturlandschaften.de/gebiete/biosphaerenreservat-schorfheide-chorin/ (08.08.2017)

Falconer, K. (2000). Farm-level constraints on agri-environmental scheme participation: a transactional perspective. Journal of rural studies, 16(3), 379-394.

FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2017): Online available: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/EL/visualize (15.06.2017)

Friedrichs, J. (1990). Methoden empirischer Sozialforschung.(14. Aufl.)[Original:(1973)] Opladen: Westdt.

Gailhard, I. U., Bavorova, M., Pirscher, F. (2012, September). The influence of communication frequency with social network actors on the continuous innovation adoption: Organic farmers in Germany. In 131st EAAE Seminar'Innovation for Agricultural Competitiveness and Sustainability of Rural Areas', Prague, Czech Republic.

Garforth, C., Angell, B., Archer, J., & Green, K. (2003). Fragmentation or creative diversity? Options in the provision of land management advisory services. Land Use Policy, 20(4), 323-333.

!II

Great Law of the Iroquois Confederacy (1451). Online available: http://www.indigenouspeople.net/iroqcon.htm (15.06.2017)

Hüther, M., & Wiggering, H. (1999). Angemessenes Wachstum: Dauerhaft umweltgerechte Entwicklung. Ökonomisierung der Umweltpolitik.–Berlin: Analytica.–S, 67-97.

Jochimsen, H. (1993). Beratungsdienste in Deutschland-im Vergleich. Ausbildung und Beratung, 46(12), 211-213.

Juntti, M., & Potter, C. (2002). Interpreting and Reinterpreting Agri-Environmental Policy: Communication, Trust and Knowledge in the Implementation Process. Sociologia Ruralis, 42(3), 215-232.

Knierim, A., Thomas, A., Schmitt, S. (2017). Beratungsangebote in den Bundesländern. In B&B Agrar, Online-Spezial 4/2017. Online available: https://www.bildungsserveragrar.de//fileadmin/user_upload/Bilder/Literatur/BuBAgrar/Online-Spezial/BB_Agrar_04_2017_Online_09_September_Bundesl%C3%A4nder_mit_Schutz.pdf

Knowler, D., & Bradshaw, B. (2007). Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research. Food policy, 32(1), 25-48.

Krueger, R. A. & Casey, M. A. (2002). Designing and conducting focus group interviews. Social Analysis, Selected Tools and Techniques, 4-23.

Kuckartz, U. (2010). Einführung in die computergestützte Analyse qualitativer Daten. 3rd ed. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Lamnek, S. (2010). Qualitative Sozialforschung. 5th revised edition. Beltz Verlag, Hemsbach, Germany, 748 pp.

Lastra-Bravo, X. B., Hubbard, C., Garrod, G., & Tolón-Becerra, A. (2015). What drives farmers’ participation in EU agri-environmental schemes?: Results from a qualitative meta-analysis. Environmental Science & Policy, 54, 1-9.

LBV Brandenburg - Landesbauernverband Brandenburg (2018). Online available: http://www.lbv-brandenburg.de/ (24.04.2018)

Lucke, D. (1995). Akzeptanz. Legitimität in der “Abstimmungsgesellschaft”. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, 452 pp.

Maertens, E., (2011). Agromilieumaatregelen: Hoe denken landbouwers erover? Departement Landbouw en Visserij, afdeling Monitoring en Studie, Brussel, p. 71.

Mathijs, E. (2003). Social capital and farmers' willingness to adopt countryside stewardship schemes. Outlook on agriculture, 32(1), 13-16.

Mayer, S. (1998). Critical issues in using data. Chapter 13 in Thomas, A., Chataway, J., Wuyts, M. (1998) Finding out fast: investigative skills for policy and development. The Open University. SAGE Publications Ltd.

Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. 11th ed. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Verlag.

Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution.

Mettepenningenen, E., Vandermeulen, V., Delaet, K., Van Huylenbroeck, G., & Wailes, E. J. (2013). Investigating the influence of the institutional organisation of agri-environmental schemes on scheme adoption. Land use policy, 33, 20-30.

MLUL a - Ministerium für Ländliche Entwicklung, Umwelt und Landwirtschaft (2017). Online available: http://www.eler.brandenburg.de/sixcms/detail.php/bb1.c.211396.de

MLUL b - Ministerium für Ländliche Entwicklung, Umwelt und Landwirtschaft (2017). Online available: http://www.mlul.brandenburg.de/sixcms/detail.php/bb1.c.374948.de

MLUL c - Ministerium für Ländliche Entwicklung, Umwelt und Landwirtschaft (2017). Online available: http://www.schorfheide-chorin-biosphaerenreservat.de/biosphaerenreservat/natur-landschaft/ (08.08.2017)

MLUL d - Ministerium für Ländliche Entwicklung, Umwelt und Landwirtschaft (2017). Online available: http://www.schorfheide-chorin-biosphaerenreservat.de/biosphaerenreservat/natur-landschaft/biotoptypen/ (08.08.2017)

!III

MLUL e - Ministerium für Ländliche Entwicklung, Umwelt und Landwirtschaft (2017). Online available: http://www.schorfheide-chorin-biosphaerenreservat.de/biosphaerenreservat/natur-landschaft/pflanzen-und-tiere/ (08.08.2017)

MLUL f - Ministerium für Ländliche Entwicklung, Umwelt und Landwirtschaft (2017). Online available: http://www.schorfheide-chorin-biosphaerenreservat.de/unser-auftrag/regionalentwicklung/land-und-forstwirtschaft/ (25.07.17)

MLUL - Ministerium für Ländliche Entwicklung, Umwelt und Landwirtschaft (2014). Jahresbericht 2013/14 - Biosphärenreservat Schorfheide-Chorin. Online available: http://ub-ed.ub.uni-greifswald.de/opus/volltexte/2014/2074/

MLUR - Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Umweltschutz und Raumordnung (2004): Biosphärenreservat Schorfheide-Chorin, Landschaftsrahmenplan, Band 2: Grundlagen , Bestandsaufnahme, Bewertung.

MAB German National Committee (2007): Criteria for Biosphere Reserves in Germany. German National Committee for the UNESCO-Programme “Man and the Biosphere” (MAB).

Morris, J., Mills, J., & Crawford, I. M. (2000). Promoting farmer uptake of agri-environment schemes: the Countryside Stewardship Arable Options Scheme. Land Use Policy, 17(3), 241-254.

Morris, C. (2004). Networks of agri-environmental policy implementation: a case study of England's Countryside Stewardship Scheme. Land Use Policy, 21(2), 177-191.

Morris, C. (2006). Negotiating the boundary between state-led and farmer approaches to knowing nature: an analysis of UK agri-environment schemes. Geoforum, 37(1), 113-127.

MUGV (2014b): Brandenburgisches Naturschutzrecht. Brandenburgisches Naturschutzausführungsgesetz, Bundesnaturschutzgesetz, Naturschutzzuständigkeitsverordnung. Edited by Ministry of the environment, health and consumer protection (MUGV).

Nagel, U., Heiden, K., & Siebert, R. (2002). Public goods and privatised extension–the rocky road towards agro-environmental extension. Contracting for agricultural extension. International case studies and emerging practices. Cambridge (USA): CABI publishing.

Nagel, U. J. (2005). Vorlesungsskript Landwirtschaftliche Wissenssysteme. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Berlin.

Niens, C., & Marggraf, R. (2010). Handlungsempfehlungen zur Steigerung der Akzeptanz von Agrarumweltmaßnahmen—Ergebnisse einer Befragung von Landwirten und Landwirtinnen in Niedersachen. Berichte uber Landwirtschaft, 88(1), 5.

Palmer, S., Fozdar, F., & Sully, M. (2009). The effect of trust on West Australian farmers' responses to infectious livestock diseases. Sociologia Ruralis, 49(4), 360-374.

Peerlings, J., & Polman, N. (2009). Farm choice between agri-environmental contracts in the European Union. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52(5), 593-612.

Polman, N. B. P., Slangen, L. H. G. (2008). Institutional design of agri-environmental contracts in the European Union: the role of trust and social capital. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 55(4), 413-430.

Prüfer, P., Stiegler, A., (2002). Die Durchführung standardisierter Interviews: Ein Leitfaden. ZUMA How-to-Reihe, Nr. 11, Zentrum für Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen, Manheim

Rabiee, F. (2004). Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of the nutrition society, 63(4), 655-660.

Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological conservation, 141(10), 2417-2431.

Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C. M., & Ormston, R. (Eds.). (2013). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. Sage.

Rivera, W. M., (2011). Public Sector Agricultural Extension System Reform and the Challenges Ahead. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 17:2, 165-180.

Robert, M., Dury, J., Thomas, A., Therond, O., Sekhar, M., Badiger, S., ... & Bergez, J. E. (2016). CMFDM: A methodology to guide the design of a conceptual model of farmers' decision-making processes. Agricultural Systems, 148, 86-94.

!IV

Ruto, E., & Garrod, G. (2009). Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52(5), 631-647.

Sattler, C., & Nagel, U. J. (2010). Factors affecting farmers’ acceptance of conservation measures—A case study from north-eastern Germany. Land Use Policy, 27(1), 70-77.

Schenk, A. (2000). Relevante Faktoren der Akzeptanz von Natur-und Landschaftsschutzmassnahmen: Ergebnisse qualitativer Fallstudien. Ostschweizerische geographische Gesellschaft.

Schenk, A., Hunziker, M., & Kienast, F. (2007). Factors influencing the acceptance of nature conservation measures—A qualitative study in Switzerland. Journal of environmental management, 83(1), 66-79.

Schmitzberger, I., Wrbka, T., Steurer, B., Aschenbrenner, G., Peterseil, J., & Zechmeister, H. G. (2005). How farming styles influence biodiversity maintenance in Austrian agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 108(3), 274-290.

Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC. Sage Publications.

Sutherland, L. A., Mills, J., Ingram, J., Burton, R. J., Dwyer, J., & Blackstock, K. (2013). Considering the source: Commercialisation and trust in agri-environmental information and advisory services in England. Journal of environmental management, 118, 96-105.

Thomas, A. (2007). Landwirtschaftliche Beratung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland–eine Übersicht. B&B Agrar, 2(07), 57-77.

Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R., & Polasky, S. (2002). Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature, 418(6898), 671.

Vitousek, P. M., Mooney, H. A., Lubchenco, J., & Melillo, J. M. (1997). Human domination of Earth's ecosystems. Science, 277(5325), 494-499.

Webster, S., & Felton, M. (1993). Targeting for nature conservation in agricultural policy. Land Use Policy, 10(1), 67-82.

Winkelhage, J., Winkel, S., Schreier, M., Heil, S., Lietz, P., & Diederich, A. (2008). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Entwicklung eines Kategoriensystems zur Analyse von Stakeholderinterviews zu Prioritäten in der medizinischen Versorgung. Jacobs Univ., FOR 655.

Wilson, G. A., Petersen, J. E., & Höll, A. (1999). EU member state responses to Agri-Environment Regulation 2078/92/EEC–towards a conceptual framework?. Geoforum, 30(2), 185-202.

Wilson, G. A., Hart, K. (2000). Financial imperative or conservation concern? EU farmers' motivations for participation in voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Environment and Planning A, 32(12), 2161-2185.

Wynn, G., Crabtree, B., & Potts, J. (2001). Modelling farmer entry into the environmentally sensitive area schemes in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural economics, 52(1), 65-82.

Wynne-Jones, S. (2013). Ecosystem service delivery in Wales: evaluating farmers' engagement and willingness to participate. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 15(4), 493-511.

!V

10. Appendix

Appendix I: Interview Questionnaire

Fragebogen für Landwirte

Adresse des Unternehmens:

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Telefon: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Email: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Name des Gesprächspartners: …………………………………………………………………………………..

Position im Unternehmen: ………………………………………………………………………………………

Name des Interviewers: …………………………………………………………………………………………

Datum des Interviews: …………………………………………………………………………………………

Zeitdauer des Interviews: ………………………………………………………………………………………

Fragebogennummer: ……………………………………………………………………………………………

!VI

Charakterisierung des Landwirtschaftsbetrieb

1. Rechtsform

2. Sozialökonomische Klassifizierung

3. Betriebsform

4. Betriebsgröße

Einzelunternehmen

Personengesellschaft (GbR)

Kapitalgesellschaft (GmbH)

e.G.

Sonstige

Haupterwerb

Nebenerwerb

Marktfrucht

Futterbau

Veredlung

Gemischtbetrieb

Tierhaltung

Sonstige

Landwirtschaft

Flächenaustattung ha LF

davon ha (Marktfrucht)

ha (Futterbau)

ha (Grünland)

Ständiger Arbeitskräftebesatz (AK)

Davon Fremdarbeitskräfte (AK)

Davon Familienarbeitskräfte (AK)

!VII

5. Besitzen Sie Wirtschaftsflächen innerhalb des Biosphärenreservat Schorfheide-Chorin

oder in Natura 2000 Gebieten?

6. Wirtschaftsweise

7. Direktvermarktung

8. Berufliche Qualifikation

Ja Nein

Wirtschaftsfläche im Biosphärenreservat Schorfheide-Chorin

Flächenausstattung im Biosphärenreservat

ha LF

davon ha (Marktfrucht)

ha (Futterbau)

ha (Grünland)

Natura 2000 ha

Landwirtschaft Gartenbau

Konventionell

Ökologisch

Verbandszugehörigkeit Wenn ja, welcher Verband?

Ja Nein

Direktvermarktung

Wenn ja, in welcher Form?

Ja Nein

Landwirtschaftliche Lehre

Meister

Studium

Falls sie ein abgeschlossenes Hochschulstudium haben, welches?

!VIII

Agrarumwelt- und Klimamaßnahmen des Kulturlandschaftsprogramm (KULAP)

9. Haben Sie Erfahrungen mit Agrarumwelt- und Klimamaßnahmen (AUKMs)?

☐ Ja, Ich nehme derzeit an AUKMs teil.

☐ Nein, Ich nehme derzeit nicht an AUKMs teil, habe aber in der Vergangenheit schon

an AUKMs teilgenommen.

☐ Nein, Ich habe noch nie an AUKMs teilgenommen.

10. Welche sind die Hauptgründe für Ihre Teilnahme an AUKMs?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

11. Welche sind Ihre Hauptgründe für Ihre Nichtteilnahme an AUKMs?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

12. Welche Aspekte sind Ihnen für die Teilnahme an AUKMs besonders wichtig? (Bsp.

finanzielle Aspekte, betriebliche Strukturen, organisatorische Aspekte, Flexibilität etc.)

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

13. Auf welchen Wegen erhalten Sie Information zu AUKMs in Ihrer Region? (Berater,

Informationsveranstaltungen, Online, über die Ämter etc.)

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

!IX

14. Falls Sie an AUKMs teilnehmen, bzw. in der Vergangenheit an diesen Maßnahmen

teilgenommen haben, markieren Sie diese bitte in der Tabelle . 14

Tabelle nach “Richtlinie des Ministeriums für Ländliche Entwicklung, Umwelt und Landwirtschaft des Landes Brandenburg zur Förderung 14

umweltgerechter landwirtschaftlicher Produktionsverfahren und zur Erhaltung der Kulturlandschaft der Länder Brandenburg und Berlin (KULAP 2014 in der Fassung vom 1. September 2017)” (http://www.mlul.brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php/bb1.c.374948.de)

!X

Maßnahmecode KULAP Brandenburg 2017 In der Vergangenheit Aktuell

FP 810 Extensive Grünlandbewirtschaftung

Verzicht auf mineralische N-Düngung

Verzicht auf jegliche Düngung

Beweidung mit Schafen

Beweidung mit Schafen und Verzicht auf jegliche Düngung

Nutzungseinschränkung bis 15.6.

Nutzung nach dem 1.7.

Nutzung nach dem 15.7.

Nutzung vor dem 15.6. und nach dem 31.8.

FP 810 Späte und eingeschränkte

Grünlandnutzung in Kombination mit FP 50

Natura 2000

Nutzung nach dem 15.6.

Nutzung nach dem 1.7.

Nutzung vor dem 15.6. und weitere Nutzung nach dem 31.8.

Nutzung nach dem 15.8.

FP 820 Pflege von Heiden, Trockenrasen und sensiblen

Grünlandflächen

Beweidung von Heiden mit Schafen

Beweidung von Heiden mit Rindern

Beweidung von Trockenrasen und Grünland unter etablierten lokalen Praktiken mit Schafen

Beweidung von Trockenrasen und Grünland unter etablierten lokalen Praktiken mit Rindern

Pflege von sensiblen Grünlandflächen durch Mahd / keine Beweidung

FP 830 Moorschonende Stauhaltung

FP 840 Nutzung oder Umwandlung von Acker in

Grünland

Nutzung von Acker als Grünland

Umwandlung von Acker in Grünland

FP 850 Pflege von extensiven Obstbeständen

FP 860 Erhalt pflanzengenetischer

Ressourcen

ein- bis zweijährige Kulturen

Dauerkulturen

FP 870 Erhalt tiergenetischer Ressourcen

FP 880 Ökolandbau

Ackerland

Grünland

Gemüse- und Zierpflanzenbau

Dauerkulturen (Kern- und Steinobst)

Dauerkulturen (Beeren-, Strauch- und Wildobst)

15. Erhalten Sie Ausgleichszahlung, für in Natura 2000 Gebieten liegende

Wirtschaftsflächen?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

16. Wie beeinflussen Sie Ihrer Meinung nach mit der Landwirtschaft die Natur und Umwelt

in Ihrer Region? (positiv und negativ)

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

17. Halten Sie AUKMs in der Landwirtschaft für erforderlich? Warum oder warum nicht?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

!XI

Beratung zu AUKMs, Greening und Natura 2000 im landwirtschaftlichen Betrieb

18. Nehmen Sie derzeit Beratung hinsichtlich AUKMs, Greening oder Natura 2000

Gebieten in Anspruch?

☐ Ja, ich nehme derzeit Beratung hinsichtlich dieser Themen in Anspruch.

☐ Nein, ich nehme derzeit keine Beratung hinsichtlich dieser Themen in Anspruch,

habe aber in der Vergangenheit solche Beratung in Anspruch genommen.

☐ Nein, ich habe noch nie Beratung hinsichtlich dieser Themen in Anspruch

genommen.

19. In welcher Form nehmen Sie Beratung zu AUKMs, Greening oder Natura 2000 in

Anspruch?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

20. Falls Sie je von einem Berater hinsichtlich dieser Themen beraten wurden, um welche

Themen ging es in dieser Beratung?

Düngemittel und Pflanzenschutz

Wasserrahmenrichtlinie

Natura 2000 Management

Ökologischer Landbau

Agrarumwelt- und Klimamaßnahmen

Klima und Energie

Tierwohl

Grünland

Sonstige

!XII

21. Bitte markieren Sie die Informationsquellen, die Sie grundsätzlich für Ihren Betrieb in

Anspruch nehmen. Ordnen Sie diesen ein Maß der Wichtigkeit zu und geben Sie an, wie

häufig Sie diese in Anspruch nehmen.

(1 - sehr wichtig; 2 - eher wichtig; 3 - weder noch; 4 - eher unwichtig; 5 - völlig unwichtig)

(A - wöchentlich; B - monatlich; C - vierteljährlich; D - halbjährlich; E - jährlich)

Wichtigkeit Häufigkeit

Nehme ich in Anspruch 1 2 3 4 5 A B C D E

Persönlicher Kontakt

Berater

Informationsveranstaltungen

Verbände/Vereine etc.

Familie

Andere Landwirte

Öffentliche Einrichtungen

Landwirtschaftsamt

Landesumweltamt

Untere Naturschutzbehörde

Verwaltung des Biosphärenreservat Schorfheide-Chorin

Schriftliche Informationsquellen

Fachzeitschriften

Rundbriefe

Internet

Amtliche Veröffentlichungen (Verordnungen)

Sonstige:

!XIII

22. Bitte markieren Sie die Informationsquellen, die sie hinsichtlich AUKMs, Greening

oder Natura 2000 in Anspruch nehmen. Ordnen sie dieser ein Maß der Wichtigkeit zu

und geben Sie an, wie häufig Sie diese in Anspruch nehmen.

(1 - sehr wichtig; 2 - eher wichtig; 3 - weder noch; 4 - eher unwichtig; 5 - völlig unwichtig)

(A - wöchentlich; B - monatlich; C - vierteljährlich; D - halbjährlich; E - jährlich)

Wichtigkeit Häufigkeit

Nehme ich in Anspruch 1 2 3 4 5 A B C D E

Persönlicher Kontakt

Berater

Informationsveranstaltungen

Verbände/Vereine etc.

Familie

Andere Landwirte

Öffentliche Einrichtungen

Landwirtschaftsamt

Landesumweltamt

Untere Naturschutzbehörde

Verwaltung des Biosphärenreservat Schorfheide-Chorin

Schriftliche Informationsquellen

Fachzeitschriften

Rundbriefe

Internet

Amtliche Veröffentlichungen (Verordnungen)

Sonstige:

!XIV

23. Falls Sie Beratung hinsichtlich Agrarumwelt- und Klimamaßnahmen, Greening oder

Natura 2000 in Anspruch nehmen, was hat Sie dazu motiviert?

(1 - zutreffend; 2 - eher zutreffend; 3 - weder-noch; 4 - eher unzutreffend; 5 - unzutreffend)

1 2 3 4 5 Kommentare

Die Umweltberatung war Teil einer anderen Beratung, die ich in Anspruch genommen habe

Beanspruchung von Hilfe bei der Teilnahme an Förderprogrammen

Beanspruchung von Hilfe bei der Verbesserung der ökologischen “Zustände” in meinem Betrieb

Beanspruchung von Unterstützung bei der Einhaltung der EU-Auflagen (Wasserrahmenrichtlinie; Natura 2000; Greening; Richtlinie zum Gebrauch von Pflanzenschutzmitteln)

Die Beratung wird mir auf Grund der Lage meines Betriebes in einem Biosphärenreservat kostenfrei zur Verfügung gestellt

Beanspruchung von Hilfe zur Umstellung zum Ökolandbau

Sonstige:

!XV

24. Falls Sie nicht an Beratung hinsichtlich Agrarumwelt- und Klimamaßnahmen, Greening

oder Natura 2000 teilnehmen, was hält Sie davon ab diese Beratung in Anspruch zu

nehmen?

(1 - zutreffend; 2 - eher zutreffend; 3 - weder noch; 4 - eher unzutreffend; 5 - unzutreffend)

25. Fühlen Sie sich bei den Aufgaben und Ansprüchen an Naturschutzmaßnahmen in der

Landwirtschaft ausreichend informiert und unterstütz?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

1 2 3 4 5 Kommentare

Die Beratungspreise sind zu hoch

Andere Beratungsthemen sind von höherer Priorität

Das Angebot ist zu gering und es gibt nicht genügend Anlaufstellen

Es ist mir unklar, wo genau ich Beratung zu diesen Themen erhalten kann

Ich habe generell kein Interesse an Beratung zu diesen Themen

Ich erhalte für mich ausreichende Informationen zu zu diesen Themen auf anderen Wegen

Sonstige:

!XVI

26. Welche Art von Beratung zu Agrarumweltthemen, wie AUKMs etc. würden Sie

vorzugsweise in Anspruch nehmen?

(Bsp. Einzelberatung, Gruppenberatung etc.; Beratung durch öffentliche Behörden wie Landwirtschaftsamt, Untere

Naturschutzbehörde, kommerzielle Beratungsanbieter (LAB))

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

27. Zu welchen Themen würden Sie sich mehr Beratungsangebote wünschen?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

28. Wie sollte Ihrer Meinung nach das Beratungssystem, bzw. das Beratungsangebot

gestaltet, bzw. verändert werden um eine gesteigerte Teilnahme an AUKMs zu erzielen?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

29. Denken Sie, dass geförderte bzw. teilweise geförderte Beratung zu Themen wie

AUKMs, Greening und Natura 2000 von Landwirten akzeptiert und genutzt werden

würde?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

!XVII

30. Denken Sie, geförderte bzw. teilweise geförderte Beratung zu AUKMs hätte Einfluss

auf die Teilnahme an AUKMs und deren Akzeptanz unter Landwirten?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

31. Was halten Sie davon das Naturschutz in der Landwirtschaft berücksichtigt wird?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

32. Was macht für Sie eine “gute Landwirtschaft” aus?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

!XVIII

Appendix II: Letter sent to the farmers requesting the participation in this research.

!XIX

!XX

Appendix III: Digital links to the interview transcripts

AppendixIIIa: Transcript Farmer 1 - MScThesis_VViert_Appendix_IIIa

Appendix III b: Transcript Farmer 2 - MScThesis_VViert_Appendix_IIIb

Appendix III c: Transcript Farmer 3 - MScThesis_VViert_Appendix_IIIc

Appendix III d: Transcript Farmer 4 - MScThesis_VViert_Appendix_IIId

Appendix III e: Transcript Farmer 5 - MScThesis_VViert_Appendix_IIIe

Appendix IV: Category system of the qualitative content analysis

Appendix IV: Category System of the Qualitative Content Analysis

Structural Dimension Main Category Category

2. SD Agri-environmental measures

2.1. AEMs aspects 2.1.1. flexibility

2.1.2. outlay

2.1.3. cultural landscape

2.1.4. financial

2.2. Influence of agriculture on environment

2.2.1. positive

2.2.2. negative

2.3. Attitude towards AEMs 2.3.1. alternatives needed

2.3.2. not needed

2.3.3. financial

2.3.4. ecological

2.3.5. inconsistencies in Germany

2.3.6. changing programs

2.4. No AEMs 2.4.1. greening

2.4.2. balance

2.4.3. financial

2.4.4. no need for AEMs

Structural Dimension

!XXI

2.5. Specific AEMs

2.6. Natura 2000

3. SD Agricultural Extension

3.1. Information Source 3.1.1. workshops

3.1.2. industry representatives

3.1.3. official publications

3.1.4. biosphere administration

3.1.5. professional journals

3.1.6. university research programs

3.1.7. other farmers

3.1.8. nature conservation authorities

3.1.9. no extension agent

3.1.10 agricultural office

3.1.11. associations

3.1.12. newsletters

3.1.13. information events

3.1.14. private extension agencies

3.1.15. internet

3.2. No Extension 3.2.1. obtains information elsewhere

3.2.2. no interest

3.2.3. to little offerings

3.2.4. not clear where to find

3.2.5. other topics priority

3.2.6. extension prices

3.3. Biosphere Reserve 3.3.1. Whole farm nature conservation plan

3.3.2. BR Employee

3.4. Support in Nature Conservation

3.4.1. older generation

3.4.2. declined information (availability/quality)

3.4.4. no contact point with nature conservation authorities

3.4.5. inconsistent information

3.4.6. bias among officials

3.4.7. bias among external extension agents

3.4.8. self-responsibility

3.4.9. negative

Main Category CategoryStructural Dimension

!XXII

3.4.10 positive

3.5. Adjusting Extension System 3.5.1. type of extension

3.5.2. better extension offerings (topics; information transfer)

3.5.3. funded extension

4. SD Agriculture, Nature and Society

4.1. Nature Conservation in Agriculture

4.2. What is good Agriculture? 4.2.1. intact nature

4.2.2. paying employees

4.2.3. healthy livestock/ healthy soils

4.2.4. economically stable

4.2.5. doing what was once learned

4.2.6. staying up to date

4.2.7. one stop business

4.2.8. negative examples

4.3. Image of Agriculture in Society

4.3.1. “clean” farming

4.3.2. representation in media

4.3.3. public exposure

4.3.4. society

4.4. Underlying Emotions 4.4.1. personal motivation

4.4.2. proud of working as farmers

4.4.3. resigned acceptance

Main Category CategoryStructural Dimension

!XXIII

Appendix V: Category definitions, prime examples as well as the paraphrases, generalization and reduction of the material.

A digital link is available under - MSc_Thesis_VViert_AppendixV

!XXIV

Declaration

I declare that I have developed and written the enclosed Master Thesis completely by myself, and have not used sources or means without declaration in the text. Any thoughts from others or literal quotations are clearly marked.I realize that an infringement of these principles which would amount to either an at- tempt of deception or deceit will lead to institution of proceeding against me.

Berlin, 23.09.2018

Victoria Viert

!XXV