Abstract
Winter migratory birds gather in paddy rice fields to feed shed rice grains. The Korean Ministry of Environment has practiced a policy program Contract on Paddy Field Management (CPFM) during winter fallow since 2002. This program starts with a contract between local governments and farmers, and the government pays a differential subsidy to farmers who finish spreading rice straw, cultivating barley, letting the whole rice plant without harvest, and submerging paddy fields for winter migratory birds. As more local governments have operated CPFM program, the total area on the contract and subsidy budget has increased yearly since 2002. This program could have its stable position as a successful policy by giving profits to farmers. With the program extended, the population of winter migratory birds has been greatly. For the evaluation of environmental performance of a policy, we analyzed this CPFM program by introducing some indicators in the form of Driving Force-State-Response Framework. The indicators were composed of 3 categorized indicators; the area of paddy land contracted under this program as 'driving force' indicator, population of birds, the number of bird species and the amount of feces as 'state' indicators, and the size of monetary support, the number of farmers or local governments participating, and public perception as 'response' indicators. The contract area of paddy field under CPFM could be a good biodiversity indicator reflecting potential performance of this policy measure in the light of its linkage to the population of winter migratory birds. And the share of CPFM land of the whole agricultural land might also be used as a useful indicator of policy evaluation for improvement of wildlife diversity. The 'state' indicators such as population of birds and the number of bird species could be matched to 'driving force' indicator, but the total CPFM area of each site could not reflect the effect of areas under different management practices. However, the amount of bird feces could reflect differences in environmental performance with management practices as 'state' indicators. The development of indicators indicating 'response' such as farmers' behavior, public perception, and policy makers' willingness is also needed to support a successful implementation and improvement of this policy measure with the development of 'performance' indicators integrating all these indicators.
