Literature
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A European perspective on acceptability of innovative agri-environment-climate contract solutions |
2024 |
R. D’Alberto, S. Targetti, L. Schaller, F. Bartolini, T. Eichhorn, E. Haltia, K. Harmanny, F. Le Gloux, D. Nikolov, T. Runge, D. Vergamini, D. Viaggi |
Europe |
Multiple |
|
| What is it about | |||||
The agri-environment-climate measures of the European Union Common Agricultural Policy are incentives aiming to reduce negative environmental impacts and increase positive effects generated from agriculture. Several criticisms have been addressed to their efficiency and effectiveness and thus, the design of innovative contract solutions is currently suggested. Among the novel contractual solutions, there are result-based payments, collective implementation of measures, the engagement of private and business actors in value chains, and new forms of land tenure systems coupled with environmental clauses. Little is known about the factors at interplay influencing farmers’ decision to uptake such contracts. The present paper investigates the acceptability determinants of the above-mentioned novel contractual solutions concerning a sample of nearly 1900 farmers from 10 European Union countries. The analysis is based on a questionnaire built through a common research framework. We apply ordered logistic regressions: both proportional and partial proportional odds models are used. Farmers’ preferences are interpreted by splitting the innovative contractual solutions into 13 individual contractual features which are then modeled in combination with the structural characteristics of the farms and the sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics of the farmers. We estimate farmers’ willingness to enroll in result-based, collective, value-chain, and land tenure contracts and highlight the positive and negative factors potentially influencing farmers’ acceptability of each type of contract. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Assessing watercourse quality using results-based indicators in an agri-environment scheme |
2024 |
Poppy Overy, James Moran, Patrick Crushell, Heather Lally, Dolores Byrne |
Ireland |
Water quality |
|
| What is it about | |||||
Small watercourses are essential contributors to catchment water quality, but they continue to suffer degradation across Europe. A results-based agri-environment scheme, aimed at improving watercourse quality in Ireland, developed a rapid drainage assessment to identify point source risks. The assessment uses a scoring system based on visual indicators of nutrient and sediment risk, linking the outcomes to farmer payments. To understand how this novel drainage risk assessment relates to instream watercourse quality, we used three macroinvertebratebased biotic indices (Q-value, Small Stream Impact Score and Proportion of Sediment Sensitive Invertebrates). Macroinvertebrate kick-sampling and physiochemical analysis were completed in May and July 2021 for 12 ‘At Risk’ and 12 ‘Not at Risk’ small watercourses as identified by the results-based scheme. Results show that the scheme’s drainage risk assessment can identify point source risks but we found it does not directly reflect local instream quality as assessed by the biotic indices. Unexpectedly, the biotic indices showed watercourse degradation in 58% of the upstream (control) sampling points, indicating impacts not captured by the drainage risk assessment. Small watercourses displayed high heterogeneity, with significant species turnover between the sampling months. The Small Stream Impact Score was less influenced by temporal change than the Q-value index. There was a significant relationship between instream watercourse quality and sedimentation, as quantified by the Proportion of Sediment Sensitive Invertebrates. Including a measurement of instream sedimentation in the drainage assessments would improve the identification of risks and management. These results show that by linking farmer payments to the drainage risk assessments results-based payment schemes could positively contribute to improving catchment scale watercourse quality, but further work is required to capture wider sources of freshwater impacts. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Collaborative approaches at the landscape scale increase the benefits of agri-environmental measures for farmland biodiversity |
2024 |
Eliane Meier, Gisela Lüscher, Felix Herzog, Eva Knop |
Switzerland |
Biodiversity |
|
| What is it about | |||||
Ecological focus areas (EFAs) are a key element of European agri-environmental measures, which aim at mitigating the negative impact of intensive agricultural practices on biodiversity. They are mostly implemented at local scale, such as action-based EFAs (prescribed minimum biodiversity-friendly management) and result-based EFAs (prescribed minimum biodiversity outcome). Implementation at the landscape scale as part of a collaborative landscape-targeted approach is less frequent. There, farmers of a given region jointly determine where and which measures are implemented in order to create a biodiversity-friendly landscape. The effectiveness of the three different, but often intertwined approaches to promote farmland biodiversity, has hardly ever been studied. To this end, we analyzed data from 121 1-km2 squares distributed across the Swiss agricultural landscapes. At local scale (10-m2 units), we found that plant species richness was higher in all EFA categories compared to management units outside EFAs, but tended to be highest in result-based and in collaborative landscape-targeted EFAs. At landscape scale (1-km2 units), plant species richness was positively related to a large total area of all EFAs, while butterfly and bird richness were positively related to a large total area of all EFAs with a high share of collaborative landscape-targeted EFAs. We conclude that while result-based, and especially collaborative landscape-targeted EFAs come along with higher transaction costs, they contribute substantially to farmland biodiversity at different spatial scales. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Do farmers prefer result-based, hybrid or practice-based agri-environmental schemes? |
2024 |
Jared Gars, Santiago Guerrero, Laure Kuhfuss, Jussi Lankoski |
Finland, The Netherlands and Sweden |
Multiple |
|
| What is it about | |||||
This study examines farmers’ preferences for practice-based, result-based and hybrid agri-environmental schemes in three countries through a choice experiment conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, focusing on biodiversity, climate and water quality. The results reveal that, in general, farmers tend to prefer practice-based schemes for water quality or climate change mitigation goals over hybrid or result-based schemes. Moreover, the study indicates that only a limited number of hybrid schemes are both preferred by farmers and more socially beneficial compared to equivalent practice- or result-based schemes. These conclusions are further reinforced by a cost-benefit analysis. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Land manager preferences for outcome-based payments for environmental services in oak savannahs |
2024 |
Rubén Granado-Díaz, Anastasio J. Villanueva, Sergio Colombo |
Portugal, Spain |
Biodiversity |
|
| What is it about | |||||
Land managers' preferences towards practice- and outcome-based payments for environmental services are analysed using a labelled choice experiment applied to a Mediterranean oak savannah (dehesa or montado) as a case study. Results indicate that land managers prefer outcome- to practice-based payments, equivalent in terms of environmental targets, most probably because they are opposed to the restrictive practices included as requirements in the latter. This preference strongly depends on the environmental policy objective, with land managers being more willing to participate when the outcome-based payment targets carbon sequestration rather than biodiversity. Willingness to accept (WTA) significantly increases when the payment involves a remote-sensing monitoring system, but only for practice-based payments, hinting at differing views of the monitoring system depending on the scheme type. However, a complementary analysis focusing on acreage decision shows non-significant WTA values for the use of remote-sensing monitoring systems in practice-based payments when the requirement of the area enrolled is relaxed. This suggests that land managers may be trading off monitoring intensity against the probability of defaulting. Significant preference heterogeneity is observed, mostly explained by farms' structural and management characteristics. Results point to strong potential for the use of outcome-based payments with remote-sensing monitoring systems in oak savannahs. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Understanding farmers’ intention to perform result-based agri-environmental schemes for the improved provision of biodiversity and soil quality |
2024 |
Theresa Eichhorn, Jochen Kantelhardt, Lena Luise Schaller |
Austria |
Biodiversity, soil quality |
|
| What is it about | |||||
This article investigates the influence of socio-psychological factors on farmers’ intention to perform result-based agri-environmental schemes for the improved provision of biodiversity and soil quality. We present a Structural Equation Model, which uses an extended Technology Acceptance Model as a theoretical basis for better understanding farmers’ decision-making. Results from a survey of 235 Austrian farmers show that behavioural factors such as self-efficacy, perceived risk, and subjective norm directly or indirectly impact farmers’ intention to perform result-based schemes. Findings stress the importance of farmers’ surrounding networks for the successful implementation of such schemes and the need for including mechanisms into their design, which are suited to diversify risk and increase self-efficacy. In conclusion, our results emphasize that considering the influence of socio-psychological factors on farmers’ decision-making may offer new levers in the design of more environmentally effective and efficient agrienvironmental-climate measures. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A behavioural agent-based modelling approach for the ex-ante assessment of policies supporting precision agriculture |
2023 |
Robert Huber, Karin Späti, Robert Finger |
Switzerland |
Water quality (payments per reduced kg of nitrogen) |
|
| What is it about | |||||
Precision agriculture technologies can help reduce nitrogen losses and the associated negative environmental impacts. As the adoption rate of such technologies in small-scale farming systems is still low, additional policy measures are required to support their broader application. We provide an ex-ante assessment of policy measures (payments for reduced nitrogen, subsidy for the technology or area subsidies) to incentivize the adoption of sensing technologies for site-specific nitrogen fertilization with a specific focus on farmers’ behavioural characteristics such as reluctance to change and their individual perception of the policy measures. We combine a bio-economic optimization model with data from a choice experiment, survey, and census data in an agent-based modelling framework. We simulate the impact of the policy measures on farmers’ adoption decisions in Swiss wheat production. Simulations suggest that for the same level of nitrogen reduction a results-based payment (paying farmers for reduced nitrogen) is 1.5 times more cost-efficient than area-based subsidies and subsidies for technology use. Our results also suggest that considering how farmers perceive costs and benefits decreases the potential to reduce nitrogen input by ~20%. We conclude that disregarding behavioural factors such as the perception of the instrument may result in a significant overestimation of the policy effect. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A window into land managers’ preferences for new forms of agri-environmental schemes: Evidence from a post-Brexit analysis |
2023 |
Emmanouil Tyllianakis, Julia Martin-Ortega, Guy Ziv, Pippa J. Chapman, Joseph Holden, Michael Cardwell, Duncan Fyfe, |
UK |
Multiple |
|
| What is it about | |||||
Securing the provision of environmental public goods from agriculture is central to addressing the critical challenge of ensuring global food security while halting ecosystem degradation. Agri-environment schemes (AES) are considered to have a key role to play in supporting the transition to more sustainable ways of producing food. Existing evidence suggests that farmers are generally willing to enrol in AES for the delivery of environmental features, but robust policy support requires further exploration of land managers’ preferences and how these interplay with contract features to achieve higher environmental targets. We undertook a discrete choice experiment with land managers in post-Brexit UK, with what can be considered a ‘benchmark’ sample of younger AES-inclined land managers. This provides a window into the future of the UK farming landscape, but also, given the revision of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy and other international discussions, it also provides insights into land managers’ preferences for new contract features more widely. Our results suggest that (such type of) land managers are likely to be receptive to a transition to result-based, collaborative schemes supporting landscape-wide interventions in alignment with net zero agendas. These interventions could be done in exchange for levels of compensation similar to current levels. While this raises promise, our results also emphasize challenges, particularly to attract those less generally AES-prone land managers. Payments levels probably need to remain close to the current ones (not lower), farmers’ awareness and support for net-zero agendas need to be reinforced and more interaction between land managers and policy makers will be needed. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adoption and potential of agri-environmental schemes in Europe: Cross-regional evidence from interviews with farmers |
2023 |
Bartosz Bartkowski, Michael Beckmann, Marek Bednář, Sofia Biffi, Cristina Domingo-Marimon, Minučer Mesaroš, Charlotte Schüßler, Bořivoj Šarapatka, Sonja Tarčak, Tomáš Václavík, Guy Ziv, Felix |
United Kingdom, Spain, Germany, Czechia and Serbia |
Multiple |
|
| What is it about | |||||
In Europe and elsewhere, agri-environmental schemes (AES) are designed to reduce agriculture's impacts on the environment. Designing effective schemes requires an understanding of the reasons tht drive farmers' decisions whether to adopt AES. Currently, most insights come from individual case studies or structured surveys based on predefined questions. There is a paucity of studies that do not rely on rigid preconceptions about relevant behavioural factors while also offering a geographically and socio-culturally broad perspective that can address the cultural and institutional context-specificity of behavioural studies. Also, most studies focus on the adoption decision, while implementation decisions and their consequences for the ecological effectiveness of AES remain understudied. In this article, we present the results from semi-structured farmer interviews conducted in five agricultural landscapes across Europe. The results are used to uncover reasons for AES adoption as well as the implications of AES implementation decisions for their ecological effectiveness. The main reason for AES adoption that was common across case study regions is the interplay of opportunity costs and payment levels, which has negative implications for the ecological effectiveness of AES as farmers prioritized marginal land or adopted non-additional AES. Among reasons that vary across regions, tenure relations and the role of ecological reasoning stand out. We find that AES are unlikely to trigger broader shifts towards sustainable management but there is some potential for improvement, mainly by increasing the flexibility, spatial targeting and ecological ambition of the schemes. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Agricultural systems and biodiversity: evidence from European borders and bird populations |
2023 |
Dennis Engist, Robert Finger, Peter Knaus, Jerome Guelat, David Wuepper |
Switzerland, Germany, and France |
Biodiversity |
|
| What is it about | |||||
Countries’ agricultural systems have an important impact on biodiversity, for example bird populations. Here, we estimate such impacts by exploiting a natural experiment in the middle of Europe, where there is a naturally homogenous area that is divided into three countries: Switzerland, Germany, and France. These countries have markedly different agricultural systems and policies. Using a methodologically unified and unusually rich bird dataset available across these borders, both for the 2010s and 1990s, we analyze (a) whether there is a clear pattern that bird diversity systematically changes when crossing these borders and (b) whether this has changed over time. To assess bird populations, we focus on Shannon diversity, species richness and number of territories, as well as the individual effect on 29 common bird species. We find that Switzerland has systematically smaller and less diverse bird populations compared to Germany and France, driven entirely by agricultural differences. At the same time, we find that the difference between the countries was considerably more pronounced in the 1990s than in the 2010s. Yet, to reach the bird friendliness of Switzerland’s neighboring countries, additional policy effort seems required, for example in the form of targeted agri-environmental payments. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Biodiversity indicators for result-based agri-environmental schemes – Current state and future prospects |
2023 |
Noëmi Elmiger, Robert Finger, Jaboury Ghazoul, Sergei Schaub |
Europe |
Biodiversity |
|
| What is it about | |||||
The article investigates how biodiversity indicators for result-based schemes might be designed and implemented. The authors conducted a systematic review of the scientific literature to identify the range of proposed biodiversity indicators. They synthesized the currently used biodiversity indicators in existing result-based agri-environmental schemes and compared the proposed and implemented indicators. The article provides an overview of planned result-based schemes under the 2023–27 reform of the EU Common Agricultural policy and proposes how the schemes and indicators might be improved by drawing from technological advances. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Drivers of PES effectiveness: Some evidence from a quantitative meta-analysis |
2023 |
Legrand D.F. Saint-Cyr, Lionel Vedrine, Sophie Legras, Julie Le Gallo, Valentin Bellassen |
Global (Meta analysis) |
Multiple |
|
| What is it about | |||||
Payments for Environmental or Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes have become a popular tool to address environmental degradation and to promote sustainable management of ecosystem services. We use metaregression analysis on a sample of 110 individual studies to investigate the determinants of the environmental effectiveness, defined as the probability to increase environmental services (ES) provision, of about 149 PESschemes implemented worldwide. We find that increased effectiveness of PES schemes is strongly associated with periodical third-party monitoring, generic reference design and to a lesser extent results-based payments. We further study the determinants of PES additionality, defined as direct changes in ES provision induced by the PES scheme, compared to a baseline without PES, on a smaller sample of 41 studies from which we could obtain the necessary data. The results confirm the role of certain design variables, such as monitoring type, and raise a potential trade-off between enrolment and additionality in the assessment of PES effectiveness. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Institutional analysis of actors involved in the governance of innovative contracts for agri-environmental and climate schemes |
2023 |
Claudia Sattler, Rena Barghusen, Birte Bredemeier, Céline Dutilly, Katrin Prager |
Europe (several countries) |
Multiple |
|
| What is it about | |||||
In this study, we used institutional analysis to investigate the design of innovative contracts for agri-environmental and climate schemes. The aim of such contracts is to better incentivize farmers for the provision of environmental public goods in comparison to current ‘mainstream’ contracts. For the analysis, we differentiated four contract types: result-based, collective, land tenure, and value chain contracts. To represent each type in the analysis, we selected 19 case examples from six European countries. Cases were identified through a mix of methods, combining literature review, web search, and expert consultation. After a structured data collection based on Ostrom’s institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework, we focused our analysis on the involved actors and their roles in contract governance. Our results highlight the great diversity of public, private, and civil actors involved from the local, regional, national or international governance level, each performing one or several critical roles in contract governance. We found that it is highly context-dependent which actors assume certain roles. We also discuss how provision of environmental public goods through the contracts might potentially be impacted by certain roles and their assignment to specific actors. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Results-based agri-environmental schemes can reflect habitat integrity for a non-target taxonomic group: Carabidae |
2023 |
Poppy Overy, James Moran, Patrick Crushell, Dolores Byrne |
Ireland |
Biodiversity |
|
| What is it about | |||||
Results-based agri-environment schemes are emerging as a valuable tool to incentivise optimal management of farmed habitats for biodiversity targets. Results-based payment schemes in Ireland use multicriteria assessments to score habitat integrity for specific targets, linking outcomes to farmer payments. Habitat integrity for a specific target is expected to have indirect co-benefits for wider farmland biodiversity. However, we lack an understanding of how results-based payment scheme assessments relate to other bioindicators of habitat integrity. Our research focuses on a results-based payment scheme which incentivises better terrestrial habitat integrity with the aim of improving watercourse quality. We explore the relationship between non-target carabid beetles, vascular plants and the results-based payment scheme’s multicriteria habitat assessment. It was anticipated that carabid beetle communities would reflect the results-based payment scheme’s definition of habitat integrity across the range of scores. Pitfall trapping for carabid beetles and vegetation surveys were carried out in 19 peatland and 18 wet grassland plots, categorised into high, medium, and low habitat integrity using the scores assigned by the results-based payment scheme. We found that the results-based payment scheme’s multicriteria assessment broadly reflects habitat integrity for non-target carabid beetles in peatlands and grasslands. Eurytopic and disturbance tolerant species showed a greater association with low and medium scoring plots. Higher scoring plots supported greater diversity, with intact peatland being particularly important for hygrophilous specialists. Synthesis and application: Results-based payment scheme’s multicriteria assessments have co-benefits at plotlevel for non-target carabid beetles and incentivising optimal management can have positive conservation outcomes for this group. Inclusion of hydrological result indicators where relevant in results-based payment scheme assessments is recommended to reward wider biodiversity. Carabids are suitable as monitoring taxa where hydrological functioning is a results-based payment scheme priority. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The prospects of innovative agri-environmental contracts in the European policy context: Results from a Delphi study |
2023 |
Eszter Kelemen, Boldizsar Megyesi, Bettina Matzdorf, Erling Andersen, Lenny G.J. van Bussel, Myriam Dumortier, Celine Dutilly, Marina García-Llorente, Christine Hamon, Annabelle LePage, Rober |
Europe (several countries) |
Multiple |
|
| What is it about | |||||
Innovative agri-environmental contracts are increasingly studied in the literature, but their adoption has been relatively slow and geographically scattered. Action-based agri-environmental measures remain the predominant policy mechanism across Europe. A three-round Policy Delphi study was conducted with policy makers, scientific experts, farmers’ representatives, and NGOs from across 15 different European countries, to investigate how and under which circumstances novel contractual solutions could be implemented more widely. The expert panel perceived result-based and collective contractual elements as the most promising. Although considered beneficial from several aspects, value chain contracts were perceived less relevant to the policy environment. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Pillar 2 measures were highlighted by the experts as the key policy area to implement novel contracts by national or regional authorities, but Pillar 1 eco-schemes, being launched in the CAP 2023–2027, were also considered as a potentially suitable framework for testing and implementation. The Delphi panel envisaged innovative contracts should be adopted by governments in iterative steps and not as a complete substitute for current payment schemes, but rather as an additional incentive to them. Such an incremental approach allows contractual innovations to capitalise on existing best practices. But it also implies the risk that innovative contracts could remain marginal and fail to substantially change farmers’ behaviour, resulting in a failure to improve environmental conditions. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Data on farmers’ acceptance of results-based agri-environmental schemes |
2022 |
Anna Massfeller, Manuela Meraner, SilkeHüttel, Reinhard Uehleke |
Germany |
Biodiversity |
|
| What is it about | |||||
The Data presented in this article contains information on farmers’ acceptance of results-based agri-environmental schemes (AES) collected from German farmers in an online survey in spring 2020. Acceptance is measured in the willingness to participate and the intensity of participation in terms of area willing to enroll for the scheme. Personal, farm characteristics and behavioral factors have been considered. We used a between subject design to introduce a social nudge (i.e. information treatment) for one group of participants. The data was collected via the software LimeSurvey. We chose a two-step approach e.g. participants were asked for participation first and then only those who would be willing to participate were asked for the intensity in terms of area willing to enroll. This data is related to the paper Farmers’ acceptance of results-based agri-environmental schemes: a German perspective (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106281). |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Farmers' acceptance of results-based agri-environmental schemes: A German perspective |
2022 |
Anna Massfeller, Manuela Meraner, SilkeHüttel, Reinhard Uehleke |
Germany |
Biodiversity |
|
| What is it about | |||||
Results-based agri-environmental schemes (AES) seek to overcome reluctance to adopt other forms of AES in the European Union. Instead of complying with inflexible land management prescriptions, farmers receive payments after certain contracted environmental results are verified. In addition to reducing the organizational and administrative burdens, this practice allows farmers to focus on which practices can achieve the desired environmental outcomes. Farmer uptake of results-based payments may be limited by risk-adverse behavior, such as fear of not meeting environmental targets and forfeiting the contracted payment. This study investigated participation in a hypothetical results-based AES among arable farmers in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia and the number of hectares enrolled (participation intensity). Our hypothetical scheme sought to foster biodiversity in pollinator and bird species by supporting weed-species richness in intensive arable production. Our split-treatment research design investigated how social nudging influences acceptance and intensity. Approximately 60% of the 63 farmers in our convenience sample expressed a willingness to participate in our hypothetical scheme. Using a Heckman style selection model, we could not detect any effect of the social nudge tested on the likelihood of participation or its intensity. Cognitive factors correlated positively with the likelihood of participation, whereas social and dispositional factors correlated with participation intensity. Perceived lack of control was the main obstacle found to adoption. The findings suggest that policies can mitigate barriers to acceptance by reducing the bureaucratic burden and being transparent over expected costs and ecosystem benefits. This study was the first to investigate farmers' acceptance of a hypothetical results-based AES that targets the enrichment of biodiversity in arable farming and thus may serve as a stepping stone for follow-up studies. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Insights into innovative contract design to improve the integration of biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural management |
2022 |
Birte Bredemeier, Sylvia Herrmann, Claudia Sattler, KatrinPrager, Lenny G.J.van Bussel, Julia Rex |
EU |
Biodiversity |
|
| What is it about | |||||
Innovative contracts are needed that promote the provision of biodiversity and diverse ecosystem services from land under agricultural production, given that mainstream agri-environment-climate measures (AECM) funded by the public purse have shown limited effectiveness. Recently, various actors from the public, private and third sectors have experimented with and implemented innovative contracts that incentivise farmers for the increased provision of environmental public goods alongside private goods. Due to their evolving and experimental nature, detailed information on characteristics of contract design and governance context of these contracts is lacking, hence preventing them from being used more widely. This paper addresses this gap and reports the findings of an analysis of 62 cases, based on information from a literature review and complemented by expert knowledge. Following an actor-based typology, we identified innovative payments for ecosystem services (PES) as the most common contract type, followed by value chain approaches and very few land tenure contracts. Alternative classifications are possible, with hybrid contracts showing promising combinations of different contract characteristics such as basis of payment (action-based, results-based) and contract parties (collective or bilateral arrangements). The most innovative approaches were value chain contracts. They exhibited more tailored contracts between (single) producers and processors instead of the generic publicly-funded AECM, a stronger bottom-up approach to define the (mostly action-based) measures, and the interest of processors to use these activities for marketing purposes. In contrast, publicly-funded PES contracts appeared to be more innovative with respect to results-based payments rewarding the environmental performance of farmers, and providing them more flexibility and autonomy. Future research should focus on the benefits of such innovative contracts, e.g. with regard to costs and environmental effectiveness. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Result-based payments as a tool to preserve the High Nature Value of complex silvo-pastoral systems: progress toward farm-based indicators |
2022 |
Teresa Pinto-Correia, Isabel Ferraz-de-Oliveira, Maria Helena Guimarães, Elvira Sales-Baptista, Carla Pinto-Cruz, Carlos Godinho and Ricardo Vieira Santos |
Portugal |
Biodiversity Soil quality |
|
| What is it about | |||||
As shown by the Green Deal's ambition, the European Commission is progressively pushing for an environmental shift and climate action in Europe. For the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), this involves a stronger focus on greening policy objectives. For agri-environmental schemes, this entails changes toward performance-based payments, partially replacing traditional activity-based payments. The CAP foresees greater flexibility in national programs and tailor-made solutions centered on results (i.e. environmental outcomes), benefiting farmers who go beyond the minimum environmental performance required. The environmental outcomes of farm practices must be assessed so that changes can be monitored over time and linked to payment delivery. This requires stakeholders to collaborate with researchers to identify farm-based indicators that are easily applicable, to achieve environmental results that are dependent on farm practices, and to assess and monitor changes in outcomes over time. The analysis in this paper is based on a transdisciplinary process that began in 2017 in a Natura 2000 site and its surroundings in Southern Portugal, to identify result-based measures for the Montado silvo-pastoral system. Farmers' understanding of how to adapt their practices to reach better environmental results was combined with scientific knowledge of the relevant environmental outcomes and how these can be assessed with indicators. Ten field-based visual indicators were defined, which farmers applied in the field, and validated by technical staff. These indicators are related to several aspects of the silvo-pastoral system: soil quality, pasture diversity, tree renewal, tree health, singular landscape elements, and biodiversity. The approach used in this process was innovative. We describe each step and present its advantages and drawbacks for designing and implementing result-based payments. Ultimately, their implementation is expected to lead to higher sustainability in the Montado. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Spatial Coordination Incentives for landscape-scale environmental management: A systematic review |
2022 |
Chi Nguyen, Uwe Latacz-Lohmann, Nick Hanley, Steven Schilizzi, Sayed Iftekhar |
Global |
Multiple |
|
| What is it about | |||||
Conventional agri-environmental schemes (AES) have been criticized for failing to exploit conservation synergies that could be obtained from spatial coordination of conservation efforts. Understanding the design and implementation of novel incentive mechanisms explicitly designed to boost spatial coordination of conservation efforts is, therefore, of critical importance. We conducted the first systematic review of such incentives (‘Spatial Coordination Incentives’), including Agglomeration Bonus, Threshold Bonus, and Threshold Payments. The review aims to investigate these incentives’ performance and identify the underlying factors affecting their performance. An extensive bibliographic search was carried out and 55 papers were included in the final analysis. Most papers (89%) are theoretical and experimental studies. Real-world applications of these incentives are rare. The theoretical and empirical evidence suggests that these incentives could potentially promote participation, spatial coordination, and environmental effectiveness. However, the results remain a subject of debate in experimental studies. Performance variation is attributed to scheme design features and contextual factors. We highlight the areas where future work would be most warranted to further validate the performance of these incentives. Insights gained from the review provide important implications for the emerging field of conservation science and ongoing efforts to improve the design of AES for better landscape-scale management. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Are result-based schemes a superior approach to the conservation of High Nature Value grasslands? Evidence from Slovenia |
2021 |
Tanja Šumrada, Branko Vreš,Tatjana Čelik, Urban Šilc, Ilona Rac, Andrej Udovč, Emil Erjavec |
Slovenia |
Biodiversity |
|
| What is it about | |||||
In this study, we explored the potential of the payment-by-results approach in supporting the maintenance of High Nature Value (HNV) grasslands in a typical HNV farming system and Natura 2000 site in Slovenia (Europe) with a high share of small farms, fragmented land ownership and long-term process of land abandonment. We tested the applicability of a hypothetical result-based scheme (RBS) for the conservation of dry grasslands and a set of associated plant indicators, and identified key obstacles to its implementation. Based on a statistical analysis of a survey with 263 farmers and a thematic data analysis of 62 farmer interviews and 10 in-depth interviews and focus groups with researchers, public officials and agricultural advisors, we found that a majority of both farmers and experts support the introduction of RBSs. The selected plant indicators were well-known among the local farmers and monitoring of their presence was preferred over the current system, which demands keeping records on the implementation of farming practices. However, although the RBSs seem to be a superior alternative to the current management-based schemes, their introduction might not be enough to ensure HNV farming systems’ successful conservation. Our results indicate a lack of institutional capacity to implement RBSs on a larger scale, particularly in terms of data support and qualified staff in the advisory service and monitoring agencies. Furthermore, experience to date and mistrust among stakeholders indicate a questionable ability and motivation of authorities to develop locally-based, flexible and innovative agri-environmental measures. RBSs alone also do not adequately address some of the root causes for the disappearance of HNV grasslands, particularly: the lack of knowledge regarding the appropriate modern farming system(s) to ensure their sustainable management in line with conservation goals; specific needs of small farmers; and the need for a socially acceptable land policy reform to enable easier access to land. We argue that systematic investment in closing the existing data and research gaps as well as in increasing the capacity of key institutions at the national and local levels are needed, particularly in European regions of high conservation priority. Furthermore, better integration of nature conservation in different rural policies and a holistic developmental approach in (remote) rural areas are necessary to prevent further abandonment of HNV farming and enable the adoption of biodiversity-friendly farming models. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Comparing effectiveness and return on investment of action‐ and results‐based agri‐environmental payments in S witzerland |
2021 |
David Wuepper, Robert Huber |
Switzerland |
Biodiversity |
|
| What is it about | |||||
Agri-environmental schemes are an important policy tool to foster agricultural sustainability. We assess the effectiveness and return on investment of two different schemes designed to encourage biodiversity conservation in Switzerland: payments for actions and payments for results. Empirically, we exploit a major policy reform that created a natural experiment by abruptly and unevenly increasing both payments across farmers. Using difference in differences, we estimate the effect of the policy reform on farmers for whom only the action- or the results-based payments increased, as well as on those for whom both increased, compared to farmers for whom neither increased. Our findings are fourfold: First, higher payments increased the biodiversity conservation area. A payment raise by 1% increased conservation areas on average by 0.6% in the action based, and by 1% in the results-based scheme. Second, the combination of both schemes increased average effectiveness but also windfall gains. Third, using a benefit transfer approach, we estimate a positive return of investment for all payment increases. Finally, the estimated return on investment for the results-based payments is higher than for the action-based payments. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Developing payment-by-results approaches for agri-environment schemes: Experience from an arable trial in England |
2021 |
S.P. Chaplin, J. Mills, H. Chiswell |
England |
Biodiversity |
|
| What is it about | |||||
There is increasing interest in the potential for payment-by-results approaches to be adopted more widely in agri-environment schemes to address some of the limitations of conventional action-based approaches. To date, researchers have almost exclusively applied the approach in grassland farming systems. This paper reports on the results from an English, pure payment-by-results pilot scheme that tested the delivery of two environmental objectives: provision of winter bird food for farmland birds and provision of pollen and nectar resources for pollinating insects in arable farming systems, and incorporated farmer self-assessments. The method employed an assessment of environmental outcomes using an experimental design, recording the number of plants/seed heads per quadrat for specified species and an analysis of farmers’ attitudes using a qualitative survey. The results from 15 farms revealed improved environmental performance compared to similar measures implemented under conventional agri-environment schemes. The analysis also revealed a high correlation of farmer self-assessment of results with expert assessments. Survey findings also identified farmers’ views on the advantages (flexibility and freedom, fairness) and disadvantages (risk of failure and non-payment) of such an approach. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Exploring the commodification of biodiversity using olive oil producers’ willingness to accept |
2021 |
Melania Salazar-Ordóñez, Macario Rodríguez-Entrena and Anastasio J. Villanueva |
Andalusia, Spain |
Farmland biodiversity |
|
| What is it about | |||||
There is a growing need for innovative new instruments to complement the current schemes aimed at improving farmland biodiversity. Some of the most promising innovations include market-based instruments relying on what is known as the commodification of biodiversity. This paper aims to estimate the compensation farmers would need to receive in order to adopt environmentally-friendly practices aimed at incorporating the provision of biodiversity into food production. The analysis relies on a discrete choice experiment (DCE) that estimates farmers’ willingness to accept (WTA), both in terms of harvest (i.e. €/kg of output) and area (i.e. €/ha), for improving the levels of bird biodiversity in olive groves. The analysis focuses on a case study of mountain olive growers in Andalusia (Southern Spain). Results show that the higher the level of provision of farmland biodiversity, the higher the farmers’ WTA. Harvest-based estimates range from 0.185 €/kg to 1.395 €/kg olive oil for levels of provision of 13 and 30 bird-species/farm, respectively, meaning 58.5 €/ha to 440.0 €/ha in area-based terms. High-yield farms show higher WTA values compared to low-yield farms, with the exception of harvest-based estimates for the least stringent scenario. Taking into account the average farm-gate prices of both regular and organic extra virgin olive oil, the results suggest a great potential for the commodification of biodiversity through olive oil markets. However, further research is needed on the implementation of hybrid governance solutions including market-based and incentive-based instruments. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Farmers’ heterogeneous preferences towards results-based environmental policies |
2021 |
Olli Niskanen, Annika Tienhaara, Emmi Haltiaa and Eija Pouta |
Finland |
Multiple public goods |
|
| What is it about | |||||
Heterogeneity of farmers’ preferences and willingness to accept compensation (WTA) related to a results-based agri-environmental policy were investigated using a choice experiment and latent class analysis. A quarter of farmers would be willing to switch to a results-based agri-environmental scheme (AES) with a moderate compensation request, whereas one quarter supported the status quo. Willingness to reform the AES was found among all farmers, but the current practice-based approach generally appeared to be more acceptable than the new proposed policy. Responses to the results-based AES differed between farmer groups. Therefore, attention should be paid in policy design to ensuring desirable programme coverage among different regions and farm types. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Impacts of management at a local and landscape scale on pollinators in semi-natural grasslands |
2021 |
Michelle Larkin, Dara A. Stanley |
Ireland |
Biodiversity |
|
| What is it about | |||||
1. Managing farmland to benefit biodiversity is becoming increasingly necessary to combat biodiversity declines and maintain ecosystem services. Results-based agri-environmental schemes are a tool used to achieve this by paying farmers based on environmental results delivered. These schemes often utilise plant indicator species to assess results at field scale; however, it is unknown if focusing on enhancing a subset of one biodiversity group within results-based schemes impacts wider biodiversity, and whether local-scale implementation of results-based schemes or/and the wider landscape are more important drivers of biodiversity patterns. 2. Insect pollinators provide important pollination services for many crop and wild plants, and as mobile organisms often experience landscape at large spatial scales. We tested whether insect pollinators are affected at local scale by a results-basedscheme scored based on plant indicators, or if landscape management is more important, and whether there were different responses between taxon-specific groups. Bumblebees, solitary bees, hoverflies and butterflies were sampled using transects and pan traps in 23 fields with varying scores assigned by the scheme, situated in high-intensity (≥65% improved grassland) or low-intensity (≥65% semi-natural grassland) landscapes. 3. Results indicate taxon-specific responses to local and landscape management in semi-natural grasslands. Bumblebees responded positively to local-scale management in fields with higher floral diversity, whereas hoverflies and butterflies responded positively to low-intensity landscape management. 4. Synthesis and applications. Using plant species as indicators for biodiversity in agri-environment schemes can have indirect benefits for non-target taxa like bumblebees, but broader indicators should be developed to incorporate other pollinator groups. Pollinator groups respond differently to local and landscape management in semi-natural grasslands. Agri-environmental management should consider a range of different management measures and landscape scale approaches where possible, to maximise benefits for a range of pollinator taxa. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Management of high nature value farmland in the Republic of Ireland: 25 years evolving toward locally adapted results-orientated solutions and payments |
2021 |
James Moran, Dolores Byrne, Julien Carlier, Brendan Dunford, John A. Finn, Daire Ó hUallacháin and Caroline A. Sullivan |
Ireland |
Multiple public goods and ecosystem services, e.g. biodiversity and habitat quality, carbon storage, and water services |
|
| What is it about | |||||
The effective conservation of high nature value farmland (HNV) will be crucial for the conservation of European and Irish biodiversity, and to meet the growing demand for a wide range of private and public goods and services from farmland. Here, we describe the evolution of policy and management of HNV farmland in the Republic of Ireland over the last 25 years and describe the emerging locally adapted, results-based payment approach that is valorizing a broad range of ecosystem services from these areas, which helps to underpin the future social, ecological, and financial viability of HNV farmland. HNV farmland in the Republic of Ireland covers approximately 33% of the agricultural land, and 50% of these areas coincide with Natura 2000 land. A broad diversity of landscape types dominated by seminatural vegetation from upland areas to lowland areas is a key challenge when designing policy support for HNV farmland areas. To date, action-based agri-environment schemes have struggled to adapt to these conditions, and to provide sufficient incentive and flexibility to deliver the desired environmental outcomes. In response, several projects and programs have implemented results-based payments, which we illustrate using three case studies from the Burren Programme, the Results Based Agri-environment Pilot Scheme (RBAPS), and European Innovation Partnership Operational Groups: The Hen Harrier and Pearl Mussel Projects. We highlight choices in the design and implementation of these case studies that aimed to better achieve the environmental objectives. We conclude with general lessons from the Irish experience with results-based approaches, and how they may be scaled up for wider implementation. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Payments by modelled results: A novel design for agri-environmental schemes |
2021 |
Bartosz Bartkowski, Nils Droste, Mareike Ließ, William Sidemo-Holm, Ulrich Weller, Mark V.Brady |
Not applicable |
Multiple public goods |
|
| What is it about | |||||
From a theoretical point of view, result-based agri-environmental payments are clearly preferable to action-based payments. However, they suffer from two major practical disadvantages: costs of measuring the results and payment uncertainty for the participating farmers. In this paper, we propose an alternative design to overcome these two disadvantages by means of modelling (instead of measuring) the results. We describe the concept of agri-environmental payments by modelled results (PAMR), including a hypothetical example of payments for the protection and enhancement of soil functions. We offer a comprehensive discussion of the relative advantages and disadvantages of PAMR, showing that it not only unites most of the different advantages of result-based and action-based schemes, but also adds two new advantages: the potential to address trade-offs among multiple policy objectives and management for long-term environmental effects. We argue that PAMR would be a valuable addition to the agri-environmental policy toolbox in the EU and beyond, while also reflecting recent advancements in agri-environmental modelling. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Selecting appropriate plant indicator species for Result-Based Agri-Environment Payments schemes |
2021 |
Sara Ruas, Roser Rotchés-Ribalta, Daire ÓhUallacháin, Karzan D.Ahmed, Michael Gormally, Jane C.Stout, Blánaid White, JamesMoran |
Ireland |
Biodiversity |
|
| What is it about | |||||
Agri-Environment Schemes (AES) have long been implemented across Europe to incentivise farmers to alter their management practices to improve biodiversity and water, air and soil quality. However, the cost-effectiveness of traditional action-based schemes has been questioned, and Result-Based Payment (RBP) schemes have been recommended as an alternative. To evaluate the effectiveness of management actions, RBP approaches often rely on indicator species to monitor changes in environmental conditions. The selection of appropriate indicator species for RBP follows several steps and criteria. One of the mentioned criteria is that the species should react to the farmer’s management choices. Thus, the main objective of this study is to understand how existing lists of indicator plant species (aimed at assessing ecological integrity of grasslands and hedgerows in Ireland) are suitable for RBP schemes, by assessing how different environmental and management variables are related to the presence of the plant species selected. Extensive field surveys were conducted to assess the presence and cover of indicator species in grasslands and hedgerows in two study regions in Ireland. The indicator plant species occurrence and diversity (species richness and Simpson’s Diversity Index) were correlated with variables within farmers’ control and variables outside farmers’ control. Results showed that grassland indicator species occurrence and diversity was mainly related to grassland semi-naturalness and to the diversity of habitats existing on the farm – both variables within farmers’ control – and thus were appropriate indicators for assessing the effectiveness of management and suitable for use in RBP schemes. Conversely, the occurrence and diversity of hedgerow indicator species was not strongly related to any of the explanatory variables, making them unsuitable for use in a RBP scheme. For a RBP scheme targeted at hedgerows, clear objectives will need to be established and the farmers’ management choices need to be better linked to the selected indicator species. The selection of indicator species needs to undergo scientific scrutiny to develop fair results assessments as shown by the results of this study. The analyses conducted highlight the importance of testing if the species react to the farmers’ management choices and should be a key methodological step before final indicator species lists are implemented in RBP schemes. Recommendations for results assessments in RBP approaches are discussed based on the results of this study. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Technical Guidance Handbook Setting up and implementing result-based carbon farming mechanisms in the EU |
2021 |
COWI, Ecologic Institute and IEEP |
Europe |
Carbon sequestration and soil functionality |
|
| What is it about | |||||
This Technical Guidance Handbook is intended to support the development of result-based payment schemes for carbon farming in the EU. The Handbook has been prepared as part of a wider study Analytical support for the operationalisation of an EU Carbon Farming Initiative, funded by the European Commission, which explores the options for wide-scale adoption of result-based carbon farming schemes or initiatives linked to climate change mitigation and adaptation. Executive summary: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/b7b20495-a73e-11eb-9585-01aa75ed71a1/language-en Annexes case studies: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/99138c98-a741-11eb-9585-01aa75ed71a1/language-en |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The legitimacy of result-oriented and action-oriented agri-environmental schemes: A comparison of farmers' and citizens' perceptions |
2021 |
Annukka Vainio, Annika Tienhaara, Emmi Haltia, Terho Hyvönen, Jarkko Pyysiäinen, Eija Pouta |
Finland |
Multiple |
|
| What is it about | |||||
Farmers’ and citizens’ perceptions of the legitimacy of the current action-oriented and the proposed result-oriented agri-environmental schemes (AES) are poorly known. To help fill this gap, this study analysed such perceptions in the context of Finnish citizens and farmers. Hypotheses on legitimacy, ecosystem service perceptions and environmental values were developed and empirically tested with nationwide surveys of Finnish citizens (n= 1,744) and farmers (n = 1,215) using t-test and multiple linear regression. The results demonstrated that Finnish citizens perceive the proposed result-oriented AES as more legitimate, whereas Finnish farmers attribute greater legitimacy to the current action-oriented AES. Among both groups, a preference for action-oriented AES, and reluctance to change them, was associated with the perception that Finnish agriculture has been successful in producing ecosystem services. Among both groups, environmental preferences were associated with the legitimation of both AES. The conclusion is that in order for a change in AES to be legitimate, that change should be perceived as necessary, justified and based on the values considered important by farmers and citizens. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Determinants for the Implementation of Action-, Result- and Multi-Actor-Oriented Agri-Environment Schemes in Switzerland |
2020 |
Gabriele Mack, Christian Ritzel and Pierrick Jan |
Switzerland |
Farmland biodiversity |
|
| What is it about | |||||
Result- and multi-actor-oriented agri-environmental payment schemes are considered more cost-effective than action-oriented schemes in providing environmental public goods. This study analysed socio-economic determinants influencing the implementation of three types of agri-environmental scheme: action-, result- and multi-actor-oriented payment schemes. We relied on farm-level data from 2015 to 2017 retrieved from the Swiss Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) and individually linked with Swiss agricultural census data. The census data provided detailed information on the proportions of action-, result- and multi-actor-oriented ecological focus areas (EFAs) implemented on each FADN farm. We found evidence that farmers' knowledge and competences are more important for result- and multi-actor-oriented EFAs than for action-oriented schemes: farms managed by young full-time farmers with higher levels of education have significantly higher proportions of result-oriented EFAs. In addition, farmers with higher levels of education who manage larger farms have significantly higher proportions of multi-actor-oriented EFAs. Furthermore, institutional factors such as cantonal authorities strongly influenced the proportions of result- and multi-actor-oriented EFAs. In contrast, the implementation of action-oriented EFAs was strongly driven by farm type. We observed higher proportions of action-oriented EFAs for farm types where implementation led to little change in farming practices (for instance, extensive ruminant farms). This adverse selection behaviour resulting from low compliance costs was not observed for result- or multi-actor-oriented EFAs. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Developing results-based approaches to supporting the management of common grazings – final report, volume 1 |
2020 |
Robyn Stewart and Gwyn Jones |
Outer Hebrides, Scotland |
Biodiversity Climate stability |
|
| What is it about | |||||
This is the final report of a LEADER and NatureScot (NS) funded project to develop a testable results or outcomes-based approach to supporting the sustainable management of common grazings, focussing first and foremost on biodiversity, but having particular regard also to carbon storage and sequestration in blanket bogs. The link to the report is provided below. In addition, you can access the annexes of the report at: http://www.efncp.org/download/OuterHebridescommongrazingsprojectfinalreport-annexes.pdf |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Farming for Nature - the Role of Result-based Payments |
2020 |
Eileen O’Rourke and John A. Finn (Editors) |
Ireland |
Biodiversity |
|
| What is it about | |||||
Agricultural habitats cover approximately half the European Union (EU) and an estimated 50% of all species and several habitats of conservation concern in the EU depend on agricultural management. Reversing the loss of European biodiversity is clearly dependent on the conservation of farmland biodiversity. Results-based approaches are the focus of a growing discussion about improved biodiversity conservation anenvironmental performance of EU agri-environmental policies. This book outlines lessons learned from a collection of Irish case studies that have implemented results-based approaches and payments for the conservation of farmland habitats and species. The case studies include prominent projects and programmes: the Burren Programme, AranLIFE, KerryLIFE, the NPWS Farm Plan Scheme and Result-Based Agri-environmental Payment Schemes (RBAPS) project. This work is intended for an international audience of practitioners, policymakers and academics interested in results-based approaches for the conservation of biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
How to improve the conservation of species-rich grasslands with result-oriented payment schemes? |
2019 |
Thomas Kaiser, M. Reutter and Bettina Matzdorf |
Brandenburg, Germany |
Farmland biodiversity |
|
| What is it about | |||||
Specific mechanisms for result-oriented payment schemes using vascular plant taxa have been discussed as possible targeted approaches for promoting European species-rich grasslands. Most indicator lists are restricted to a limited number of frequently occurring indicator taxa. However, these lists often do not adequately reflect the most valuable grasslands in terms of conservation. Thus, we developed a procedure for selecting indicator species from an expanded checklist as well as a procedure for weighting indicator species based on their indicator power in terms of conservation criteria. The case study region was the federal state of Brandenburg (Germany). The database contained Brandenburg’s vegetation mapping data and a simple indicator checklist from a previous agri-environmental program. For the conservation quality criteria, we used species number, number of extensive grassland species, number of threatened red list species and indices combining two of these criteria. The new expanded checklist resulted in 71 indicator taxa. We recommended a weighting factor that considers the indicator power of the index that combines extensively used species and red list species. Regression analyses were conducted to test the improvements resulting from each step of the approach. The determination coefficient of the regression between the number of indicator taxa and the quality index increased in the following order: simple checklist, expanded checklist and expanded weighted checklist (0.420, 0.654 and 0.782). The new, more differentiated list allows a 5-step payment approach. Generally, this procedure could be used to compile weighted indicator lists for other regions. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pilot Results-Based Payment Approaches for Agri-environment schemes in arable and upland grassland systems in England |
2019 |
Stephen Chaplin, Vicky Robinson, Annabelle Le Page, David Ward, Damien Hicks, Eva-Marie Scholz, Helen Keep, Jane Le Cocq |
England |
Farmland biodiversity |
|
| What is it about | |||||
This report describes a Results Based Agri-Environment Payment Scheme (RBAPS) developed as a pilot in England from 2016 to 2018. The scheme was delivered by Natural England in partnership with the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority (YDNPA) and co-financed by the European Commission. It operated in Wensleydale (on species rich meadows and grassland for breeding waders) and Norfolk/Suffolk (delivering plots of winter bird food and flower-rich mixes for pollinators). Farmers had complete flexibility on how to manage their land, but the annual scheme payment was linked to their level of success in delivering the biodiversity outcome. The project aimed to test whether this outcomes-focussed approach motivated farmers to deliver better quality habitats for wildlife compared with the conventional approach in schemes such as Countryside Stewardship, where payments are fixed and the way they manage the land is prescribed in an agreement. It also looked at how accurately farmers could self-assess their own results, tested the cost-effectiveness of a RBAPS and explored participant and stakeholder attitudes. The project forms part of the evidence base informing the development of future agri-environment schemes. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Agri‐Environment Scheme Design: Past Lessons and Future Suggestions |
2018 |
Paula Cullen, Pierre Dupraz, James Moran, Pat Murphy, Ronan O'Flaherty, Cathal O'Donoghue, Robert O'Shea and Mary Ryan |
Europe |
Multiple public goods |
|
| What is it about | |||||
This article summarises the views of a panel of experts from the areas of agricultural economics, ecology, agri‐environmental policy and agricultural extension who were bought together for a novel workshop on agri‐environment schemes conducted at the Agricultural Economics Society's 91st Annual Conference. The panel discussed the past, present and future of European Union agri‐environment schemes with emphasis on the movement from top‐down action‐based schemes to participatory‐partnership results‐based schemes. Pierre Dupraz, an expert in economic evaluations of agri‐environment schemes, pointed out past issues of agri‐environment schemes including the conflicting objectives and the growing complexity. James Moran, an ecologist who has been involved in the design of results‐based schemes, identified the importance of designing schemes that are adaptable and incentivise farmers to improve. Ronan O'Flaherty, a senior policymaker involved in new scheme design in Ireland, shone a light on the policy behind agri‐environment schemes and the importance of stakeholder buy‐in. Pat Murphy, a knowledge transfer specialist involved in the implementation of agri‐environment schemes, discussed the importance that knowledge transfer must play in the future of agri‐environment schemes. Together the speakers identified the challenges faced in designing and implementing agri‐environment schemes that improve environmental outcomes whether they be action or results‐based. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Improving agricultural pollution abatement through result-based payment schemes |
2018 |
William Sidemo-Holm, Henrik G. Smith, Mark V.Brady |
Sweden |
Water quality |
|
| What is it about | |||||
This study designed and evaluated a result-based payment scheme for nonpoint-source pollution abatement from arable land. In a case study in southern Sweden, the cost-effectiveness of the new scheme was compared with that of an existing action-based scheme for vegetated buffer strips to prevent the pollutant, particulate phosphorus, from reaching water resources. The results suggest that result-based payment schemes based on modeled outcomes of pollution abatement are feasible and will considerably improve cost-effectiveness compared to action-based schemes, by relocating buffer strips to where they are more effective and not simply where they have the lowest costs for farmers. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Results-based Agri-environment Payments General Guidance Handbook. Step-by-step to designing results-based schemes: lessons from Ireland and Spain. |
2018 |
Maher, C., Moran, J., Beaufoy, G., Berastegi Garciandia, A., Bleasdale, A., Byrne, D., Copland, A., Dunford, B., Edge, R., Iragui Yoldi, U., Jones, G., Lopez Rodriguez, F., McLoughlin, D. and |
Ireland, Spain |
Biodiversity |
|
| What is it about | |||||
This document is a General Guidance Handbook that provides step-by-step guidance to the delivery of resultsbased schemes in general. The RBAPS project developed and adapted the approach taken by existing full or hybrid results-based projects, including the Burren Programme, and guidance provided by the European Commission (Keenleyside et al. 2014). This handbook is accompanied by four Measure Handbooks that provide further specific detail on the measures designed as part of the RBAPS project (Species-rich Grasslands and Mosaic Habitat Suitable for Marsh Fritillary, Breeding Wader Habitat, Shannon Callows Species-rich Floodplain Meadows, Perennial Crops in the Mediterranean Mosaic Landscape). The measure handbooks and supporting guidance documents and project reports are available for download from the project website at www.rbaps.eu/documents. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Results-Based Payments for Biodiversity: A New Pilot Agri-Environment Scheme for the Târnava Mare and Pogány-havas Regions 2015-2018 |
2018 |
Răzvan Popa, László Demeter |
Târnava Mare and Pogány-havas Regions, Romania |
Biodiversity |
|
| What is it about | |||||
The leaflet describes a pilot agri-environment scheme for the Târnava Mare and the Pogány havas / Munții Ciucului regions. The scheme was targeted at hay meadows of High Nature Value and run as a test in these two areas for 3 years from 2016-2018. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Targeted payments for services delivered by farmers |
2018 |
Berkhout, P., A. Doorn and R. Schrijver |
Netherlands, Czech Republic, Germany and Sweden |
Multiple public goods |
|
| What is it about | |||||
This report explores options within the Common Agricultural Policy to strengthen payments to farmers for delivering public services related to land management, with a focus on environmental services. It also discusses the advantages and disadvantages of different payment systems (including results-based payments) in terms of compliance with WTO and EU legal conditions, the administrative burden (both public and private), monitoring and control and uptake by farmers. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Time to look for evidence: Results-based approach to biodiversity conservation on farmland in Europe |
2018 |
I. Herzon, T. Birge, B. Allen, A. Povellato, F. Vanni, K. Hart, G. Radley, G. Tucker, C. Keenleyside, R. Oppermann, E. Underwood, X. Poux, G. Beaufoy, J. Pražan |
EU |
Biodiversity |
|
| What is it about | |||||
The article summarises experiences of all schemes paying for biodiversity results on agricultural land operating in the EU and EFTA countries with the aim of reviewing the decisive elements of the schemes’ design and implementation as well as the challenges and opportunities of adopting a results-based approach. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Result-based agri-environment measures: market-based instruments, incentives or rewards? The case of Baden Württemberg |
2016 |
Daniele Russi, Hélène Margue, Rainer Oppermann, Clunie Keenleyside |
Baden Württemberg, Germany |
Biodiversity |
|
| What is it about | |||||
The authors have analysed MEKA-B4, a result-based agrienvironment measure in Baden-Württemberg (Germany), between 2000 and 2014, which aimed to preserve species-rich grassland. Based on semi-structured face-to-face interviews with participating and non-participating farmers and key institutional actors the authors argue that MEKA-B4 could be considered a Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES), but only if a broad definition is adopted, as the payment appeared to cover the opportunity costs of only some categories of farmers (e.g., part-time farmers, less productive fields, hay producers), but it was too low to cover those of intensive cattle raisers and biogas producers, partly due to the changing market conditions (e.g., fluctuating and decreasing price of hay; incentives to produce biogas). |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
“Flowering Meadows”, a result-oriented agri-environmental measure: Technical and value changes in favour of biodiversity |
2015 |
Philippe Fleury, Claire Seres, Laurent Dobremez, Baptiste Nettier and Yves Pauthenet |
France |
Farmland biodiversity |
|
| What is it about | |||||
Maintaining biodiversity in farming areas has become an important issue. Several public policies, including agri-environmental measures (AEMs), incite farmers to adapt their practices to preserve biodiversity. Yet many authors hold that farmers must undergo a cultural change by developing an environmental ethic and mind-set in order for these changes in practice to be sustainable. Looking at this issue from these two perspectives, via changes to practices and the values and influence of local social contexts, we analysed the implementation of a new result-oriented AEM: the “Flowering Meadows” AEM. Covering the Bauges, Haut-Jura and Vercors Regional Natural Parks in France, the survey was based on semi-structured interviews with farmers and other stakeholders such as environmentalists and local elected officials. We will show how the various actions accompanying this measure (training sessions, the “Flowering Meadows” competition, etc.) led to a consensus on the positive values of biodiversity. Although farmers committed to this measure for a variety of reasons (economic, environmental and social), most welcomed the idea of result-oriented payments, which they interpreted as a sign acknowledging their skills and knowledge. Changes to farming practices have nevertheless been limited to date. Here we show that the “Flowering Meadows” measure's innovation, together with the various actions to promote it, lies in its ability to build a positive social norm with respect to “meadow flowers,” seen as a symbol of biodiversity, rather than in its limited impact on changing farming practices. In conclusion, we discuss the potential of result-oriented agri-environmental schemes and their policy implications, as well as their outlooks. The particular way in which a result-oriented AEM is implemented is vital to its success in biodiversity conservation, and we make three recommendations for its improvement: anticipating a two-level payment structure better rewarding farmers who have improved biodiversity; paying particular attention to the formulation of a wording expressing the measure's finality in which all actors, not only environmentalists, may find their place; and keeping flexibility in the measure's implementation to account for the local context (existing networks of actors, intensity and quality of relations between farmers and other stakeholders). Instead of looking exclusively at the payment structure – that is, the result- and/or action-oriented AEM – our approach encourages a broad perspective on the conception of pro-biodiversity measures at the scale of an AEM scheme combining several actions: the AEM per se, plus other actions including training, education, advising and support for new governance processes. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Improving the link between payments and the provision of ecosystem services in agri-environment schemes |
2014 |
Mark S. Reed, Andrew Moxey, Katrin Prager, Nick Hanley, James Skates, Aletta Bonn, Chris D. Evans, Klaus Glenk, Ken Thomson |
UK |
Multiple public goods |
|
| What is it about | |||||
This paper considers how agri-environment schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy could be adapted to derive a higher return of ecosystem services, by spatially targeting the services most valued by society and providing incentives for cross-boundary management of certain ecosystem services at catchment or wider spatial scales. The paper reviews evidence that spatially targeted, outcome-based payments may be more economically efficient than current approaches, but identifies a number of challenges, including: scientific uncertainty; pricing of ecosystem services; timing of payments; increased risk to land managers; compliance with World Trade Organisation regulations; and barriers to cross-boundary collaboration in the management of ecosystem services at habitat, catchment or landscape scales. Options are reviewed to overcome these challenges, including: the use of pressure–response functions and modelling approaches to establish causal links between management and ecosystem service delivery and reduce the costs of monitoring; non-market valuation techniques to set prices for ecosystem service delivery; insurance schemes; combining funding from public and private Payment for Ecosystem Service schemes; and options to facilitate cross-boundary management of ecosystem services. Using examples from UK peatlands and the Welsh Glastir agri-environment scheme, the paper suggests ways to link payments for management inputs more effectively to the provision of ecosystem services. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Results-based Payments for Biodiversity Guidance Handbook Designing and implementing results-based agri-environment schemes 2014-2020 |
2014 |
Clunie Keenleyside, Geoff Radley, Graham Tucker, Evelyn Underwood, Kaley Hart, Ben Allen, Hetty Menadue |
EU |
Biodiversity |
|
| What is it about | |||||
This Guidance Handbook and accompanying supplements are part of a package of materials designed to support the development of results-based agri-environment payment schemes across the EU. These have been prepared within the context of a wider study reviewing results-based approaches to biodiversity delivery on farmland in Europe. The main study report and all the materials can be found on the European Commission website: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/rbaps/index_en.htm |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Agri-environment schemes: Farmers’ acceptance and perception of potential ‘Payment by Results’ in grassland—A case study in England |
2013 |
Lilli A.Schroeder, Johannes Isselstein, Stephen Chaplin and Stephen Peel |
England |
Farmland biodiversity |
|
| What is it about | |||||
The implementation of a ‘Payment by Results’ (PBR) approach to agri-environment schemes (AES) can further increase their ecological and economic efficiency. The aim of this case study was to assess farmers’ perception and acceptance of potential PBR using the example of England and to evaluate aspects of importance to the implementation of PBR. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 32 farmers in the English region of ‘Yorkshire and The Humber’. A semi-standardised questionnaire, which included an example-PBR-option for maintaining and enhancing species-richness in grassland, was developed. The results show that the majority of farmers in this case study accepted PBR. Acceptance was significantly influenced by farmers’ age, experience with AES, farm size and abundance of pre-existing environmental features. If PBR was introduced, farmers would seek more advice. However, the actual willingness of farmers to join a full PBR scheme instead of an action-based option is still questionable. An approach combining a maintained with an enhanced PBR element with different target levels emerged as a possible way forward. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Indicator-based agri-environmental payments: A payment-by-result model for public goods with a Swedish application |
2013 |
Knut Per Hasund |
Sweden |
Biodiversity Landscape Cultural heritage |
|
| What is it about | |||||
Biodiversity, cultural heritage, and scenery are major public goods produced in the agricultural landscape. Theoretically, Indicator-based Agri-Environmental Payments have the properties of providing socially efficient production. A system of seven composite state indicators, expressing the public goods of the respective fields or field elements, was developed and tested to assess if the model worked in practical policy implementation. The evaluation indicated a more efficient resource allocation, better dynamic incentives and lower transaction costs, compared to the current Swedish payment programs. A disadvantage is that such value-differentiated payments do not comply with tailoring and with present WTO- or CAP-regulations of cost-based payments. |
|||||
| Title | Year of publication | Author(s) | Country / Region | Public good | PDF or link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Result-oriented agri-environmental schemes in Europe and their potential for promoting behavioural change |
2013 |
Rob J.F. Burton and Gerald Schwarz |
Europe |
Multiple public goods |
|
| What is it about | |||||
Increasing interest is being shown in result-oriented agri-environmental schemes. Such schemes have the advantage of encouraging farmers to innovate to produce environmental goods – thus promoting the development of new skills and knowledge and, theoretically, ensuring that farmers are paid for provision rather than for performing management behaviours that may, or may not, lead to provision. In Europe a number of projects have trialled result-based payments over the last decade and calls for a stronger connection between agri-environmental payments and outcomes are growing. However, while the amount of information available on result-oriented schemes is increasing, there is currently no overview of the approach in the literature. This paper seeks to address this gap through a review of existing literature. It discusses why we might consider the use of result-oriented schemes, outlines two key ‘problem areas’ (the increased risk schemes represent to farmers, and the difficulties of developing and monitoring indicators), and, finally, proposes a framework for examining the strength of results orientation based on three dimensions – proportion of result-oriented payments, sensitivity of payments, and duration of schemes/payments. Although economic and ecological arguments are outlined, our focus in the analysis is on how the result-oriented approach is likely to institute cultural/social change, and how to optimise schemes to ensure cultural embeddedness. |
|||||
Article in
Rural Connections Magazine
The article highlights the potential for results-based payment schemes (RPBS) to be an important tool in well-designed, targeted and results oriented agri-environment measures and shows the advantages of RBPS over management-based payment schemes.
Photo: analogicus on Pixabay
Our recommendation
“Targeted payments for services delivered by farmers : possible approaches”
Berkhout, P., A. Doorn and R. Schrijver (n.d.)