IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v111y2021ics0264837721004725.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are result-based schemes a superior approach to the conservation of High Nature Value grasslands? Evidence from Slovenia

Author

Listed:
  • Šumrada, Tanja
  • Vreš, Branko
  • Čelik, Tatjana
  • Šilc, Urban
  • Rac, Ilona
  • Udovč, Andrej
  • Erjavec, Emil

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Šumrada, Tanja & Vreš, Branko & Čelik, Tatjana & Šilc, Urban & Rac, Ilona & Udovč, Andrej & Erjavec, Emil, 2021. "Are result-based schemes a superior approach to the conservation of High Nature Value grasslands? Evidence from Slovenia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:111:y:2021:i:c:s0264837721004725
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105749
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837721004725
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105749?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ben White & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Should We Pay for Ecosystem Service Outputs, Inputs or Both?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 765-787, April.
    2. Arnott, David & Chadwick, David & Harris, Ian & Koj, Aleksandra & Jones, David L., 2019. "What can management option uptake tell us about ecosystem services delivery through agri-environment schemes?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 194-208.
    3. Sophia Davidova & Lena Fredriksson & Matthew Gorton & Plamen Mishev & Dan Petrovici, 2012. "Subsistence Farming, Incomes, and Agricultural Livelihoods in the New Member States of the European Union," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 30(2), pages 209-227, April.
    4. Matthew Gorton & Carmen Hubbard & Lionel Hubbard, 2009. "The Folly of European Union Policy Transfer: Why the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Does Not Fit Central and Eastern Europe," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(10), pages 1305-1317, December.
    5. Ribeiro, Paulo Flores & Nunes, Luís Catela & Beja, Pedro & Reino, Luís & Santana, Joana & Moreira, Francisco & Santos, José Lima, 2018. "A Spatially Explicit Choice Model to Assess the Impact of Conservation Policy on High Nature Value Farming Systems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 331-338.
    6. Wezel, Alexander & Vincent, Audrey & Nitsch, Heike & Schmid, Otto & Dubbert, Monika & Tasser, Erich & Fleury, Philippe & Stöckli, Sybille & Stolze, Matthias & Bogner, Daniel, 2018. "Farmers’ perceptions, preferences, and propositions for result-oriented measures in mountain farming," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 117-127.
    7. Sidemo-Holm, William & Smith, Henrik G. & Brady, Mark V., 2018. "Improving agricultural pollution abatement through result-based payment schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 209-219.
    8. McGinlay, J. & Gowing, D.J.G & Budds, J., 2017. "The threat of abandonment in socio-ecological landscapes: Farmers’ motivations and perspectives on high nature value grassland conservation," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 39-49.
    9. Jens Peter Vesterager & Klaus Lindegaard, 2012. "The Role of Farm Advisors in Multifunctional Landscapes: A Comparative Study of Three Danish Areas, 1995 and 2008," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(6), pages 673-702, December.
    10. Kaligarič, Mitja & Čuš, Jure & Škornik, Sonja & Ivajnšič, Danijel, 2019. "The failure of agri-environment measures to promote and conserve grassland biodiversity in Slovenia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 127-134.
    11. Farkas, Jenő Zsolt & Kovács, András Donát, 2021. "Nature conservation versus agriculture in the light of socio-economic changes over the last half-century–Case study from a Hungarian national park," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    12. Katarzyna Kowalczewska & Jelle Behagel & Esther Turnhout, 2018. "Infrastructures of expertise: policy convergence and the implementation of the EU Nitrates Directive in Poland," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 61(14), pages 2512-2530, December.
    13. Sophia Davidova, 2011. "Semi‐Subsistence Farming: An Elusive Concept Posing Thorny Policy Questions," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(3), pages 503-524, September.
    14. Simoncini, Riccardo & Ring, Irene & Sandström, Camilla & Albert, Christian & Kasymov, Ulan & Arlettaz, Raphael, 2019. "Constraints and opportunities for mainstreaming biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy: Insights from the IPBES assessment for Europe and Central Asia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    15. Herzon, I. & Birge, T. & Allen, B. & Povellato, A. & Vanni, F. & Hart, K. & Radley, G. & Tucker, G. & Keenleyside, C. & Oppermann, R. & Underwood, E. & Poux, X. & Beaufoy, G. & Pražan, J., 2018. "Time to look for evidence: Results-based approach to biodiversity conservation on farmland in Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 347-354.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Elmiger, By Noëmi & Finger, Robert & Ghazoul, Jaboury & Schaub, Sergei, 2023. "Biodiversity indicators for result-based agri-environmental schemes – Current state and future prospects," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    2. Katsuya Tanaka & Nicholas Hanley & Laure Kuhfuss, 2022. "Farmers’ preferences toward an outcome‐based payment for ecosystem service scheme in Japan," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 720-738, September.
    3. Kelemen, Eszter & Megyesi, Boldizsár & Matzdorf, Bettina & Andersen, Erling & van Bussel, Lenny G.J. & Dumortier, Myriam & Dutilly, Céline & García-Llorente, Marina & Hamon, Christine & LePage, Annabe, 2023. "The prospects of innovative agri-environmental contracts in the European policy context: Results from a Delphi study," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Simpson, Katherine & Armsworth, Paul R. & Dallimer, Martin & Nthambi, Mary & de Vries, Frans P. & Hanley, Nick, 2023. "Improving the ecological and economic performance of agri-environment schemes: Payment by modelled results versus payment for actions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    2. Zabel, Astrid, 2019. "Biodiversity-based payments on Swiss alpine pastures," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 153-159.
    3. Niskanen, Olli & Tienhaara, Annika & Haltia, Emmi & Pouta, Eija, 2021. "Farmers’ heterogeneous preferences towards results-based environmental policies," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    4. Bartkowski, Bartosz & Droste, Nils & Ließ, Mareike & Sidemo-Holm, William & Weller, Ulrich & Brady, Mark V., 2021. "Payments by modelled results: A novel design for agri-environmental schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    5. Matteo Olivieri & Maria Andreoli & Daniele Vergamini & Fabio Bartolini, 2021. "Innovative Contract Solutions for the Provision of Agri-Environmental Climatic Public Goods: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-22, June.
    6. Kelemen, Eszter & Megyesi, Boldizsár & Matzdorf, Bettina & Andersen, Erling & van Bussel, Lenny G.J. & Dumortier, Myriam & Dutilly, Céline & García-Llorente, Marina & Hamon, Christine & LePage, Annabe, 2023. "The prospects of innovative agri-environmental contracts in the European policy context: Results from a Delphi study," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    7. Clements, Jen & Lobley, Matt & Osborne, Juliet & Wills, Jane, 2021. "How can academic research on UK agri-environment schemes pivot to meet the addition of climate mitigation aims?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    8. Chaplin, S.P. & Mills, J. & Chiswell, H., 2021. "Developing payment-by-results approaches for agri-environment schemes: Experience from an arable trial in England," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    9. Brown, Calum & Kovács, Eszter & Herzon, Irina & Villamayor-Tomas, Sergio & Albizua, Amaia & Galanaki, Antonia & Grammatikopoulou, Ioanna & McCracken, Davy & Olsson, Johanna Alkan & Zinngrebe, Yves, 2021. "Simplistic understandings of farmer motivations could undermine the environmental potential of the common agricultural policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    10. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Farmers’ preferences over alternative AECS designs. Do the ecological conditions influence the willingness to accept result-based contracts?," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334508, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    11. Nilsson, Lovisa & Clough, Yann & Smith, Henrik G. & Alkan Olsson, Johanna & Brady, Mark V. & Hristov, Jordan & Olsson, Peter & Skantze, Karin & Ståhlberg, David & Dänhardt, Juliana, 2019. "A suboptimal array of options erodes the value of CAP ecological focus areas," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 407-418.
    12. Czyżewski, Bazyli & Kryszak, Łukasz, 2023. "Can a pursuit of productivity be reconciled with sustainable practices in small-scale farming? – Evidence from central and eastern Europe," MPRA Paper 117642, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 31 May 2023.
    13. Tsakiridis, Andreas & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Ryan, Mary & Cullen, Paula & Ó hUallacháin, Daire & Sheridan, Helen & Stout, Jane, 2022. "Examining the relationship between farmer participation in an agri-environment scheme and the quantity and quality of semi-natural habitats on Irish farms," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    14. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    15. Massfeller, Anna & Meraner, Manuela & Hüttel, Silke & Uehleke, Reinhard, 2022. "Farmers' acceptance of results-based agri-environmental schemes: A German perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    16. Berthet, Alice & Vincent, Audrey & Fleury, Philippe, 2021. "Water quality issues and agriculture: An international review of innovative policy schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    17. Katsuya Tanaka & Nicholas Hanley & Laure Kuhfuss, 2022. "Farmers’ preferences toward an outcome‐based payment for ecosystem service scheme in Japan," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 720-738, September.
    18. Nguyen, Chi & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe & Hanley, Nick & Schilizzi, Steven & Iftekhar, Sayed, 2022. "Spatial Coordination Incentives for landscape-scale environmental management: A systematic review," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    19. Elmiger, By Noëmi & Finger, Robert & Ghazoul, Jaboury & Schaub, Sergei, 2023. "Biodiversity indicators for result-based agri-environmental schemes – Current state and future prospects," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    20. Markova-Nenova, Nonka & Engler, Jan O. & Cord, Anna F. & Wätzold, Frank, 2023. "A Cost Comparison Analysis of Bird-Monitoring Techniques for Result-Based Payments in Agriculture," MPRA Paper 116311, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:111:y:2021:i:c:s0264837721004725. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.