This study aims at analysing the process of introduction and the development of the agri-environment policy of the UK and identifying the implication for the Korean government. The UK introduced the AES policy in order to reduce the negative impact of the farming practice on biodiversity and habitats. The initial process was only possible for the enormous research results on the relationship between the farming and environment. Since the UK launched the ESA scheme in 1987, it has extended the designated areas for four stages. Based on the success of the ESA scheme, it started CSS and other schemes. However, these had a modest success and were integrated into the CSS scheme, which from then on became the main measures of the AES in the UK. The whole process of the UK case tells us that the most important work for the start of the AES in Korea would be the necessity and feasibility of the environment protection measures in Korea which could be identified from academic and scientific research on the impact of agricultural practice on the rural environment in Korea.

This study aims at providing with the implication of the EU agri-environmental policy which modestly started in 1985 as an optional policy for the Member States and developed as one of main measures for the reformed CAP in 2013. The first AES was the ESA scheme which had a focus on specific areas where were regarded as having a high natural value and assisted farmers who were voluntarily participated in the scheme. Such a small scale measure has developed as a main policy of the CAP from several reforming processes. It is now applying for the entire land of the EU and necessary for every Member State to introduce the AES measures in their rural development plan. With the principle of cross-compliance and the whole farm approach, it is possible to encourage the European farmers to change their ways of farming into low-input farming. This is the best way to achieve sustainable farming and rural development. This analysis on the changing process of the AES provides the Korean government with somewhat logical perspective on the reform of agricultural policy. The most important thing is to recognise that protecting and restorating environmental and biological resource must precede economical utilising the rural resource.