IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v18y2019i2p4-10.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Renewing the Governance of Rural Land after Brexit: an Ecosystems Policy Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Ian Hodge

Abstract

Concerns for rural land policy have widened from a focus on food production to include many other critical values, recognised as ecosystems services. But our governance institutions have failed to reflect this. Brexit provides the UK with an opportunity to rethink the governance of rural land. This requires first an assessment of the rights and duties of land ownership. We should explore further the potential for augmented markets and payment for ecosystem services, but the public good character of ecosystem services means that the state will play a major role, through regulation, facilitation, funding and working in partnership with others. The principle of subsidiarity suggests that decisions should be made at different levels: national and local. National policy will procure services for which there is a national commitment or priority, such as for climate change targets or national parks. Local Environmental Governance Organisations will represent local values and priorities articulated through a natural capital plan. Procurement schemes will take account of the experiences gained from agri‐environment policies, extended to include partnerships or land purchase. It will take time to build these new institutions. We need more research but what is required now is a clear vision of the potential and a road map of the route towards it. Les préoccupations relatives à la politique foncière rurale se sont élargies pour passer de la production alimentaire à de nombreuses autres valeurs essentielles, reconnues en tant que services écosystémiques. Mais nos institutions de gouvernance n'ont pas réussi à refléter cette évolution. Le Brexit offre au Royaume‐Uni l'occasion de repenser la gouvernance du foncier rural. Cela nécessite d'abord une évaluation des droits et devoirs de la propriété foncière. Nous devrions explorer plus avant le potentiel des marchés augmentés et du paiement pour les services écosystémiques, mais le caractère de bien public des services écosystémiques signifie que l’État jouera un rôle majeur, à travers la réglementation, la facilitation, le financement et le partenariat avec d'autres acteurs. Le principe de subsidiarité suggère que les décisions doivent être prises à différents niveaux: national et local. La politique nationale fournira des services pour lesquels il existe un engagement ou une priorité nationale, par exemple pour les objectifs de lutte contre le changement climatique ou les parcs nationaux. Les organisations locales de gouvernance environnementale représenteront les valeurs et les priorités locales articulées dans un plan pour le capital naturel. Les systèmes de passation des marchés prendront en compte les expériences tirées des politiques agroenvironnementales, étendues aux partenariats ou à l'achat de terres. Il faudra du temps pour construire ces nouvelles institutions. Nous avons besoin de plus de recherche, mais il nous faut à présent une vision claire du potentiel et une feuille de route pour définir le chemin à suivre. Der Fokus der Agrarpolitik hat sich von einer Konzentration auf die Nahrungsmittelproduktion auf die Einbindung von anderen wichtigen Werten, die als Ökosystemdienstleistungen bezeichnet werden, ausgeweitet. Unsere britischen Regierungsinstitutionen haben dies bislang jedoch nicht ausreichend berücksichtigt. Der Brexit bietet Großbritannien die Chance, die Verwaltung ländlicher Gebiete neu zu gestalten. Dies erfordert zunächst eine Bewertung der Rechte und Pflichten von Grundeigentümern. Wir sollten das Potenzial für erweiterte Märkte und die Vergütung von Ökosystemdienstleistungen noch genauer untersuchen. Dabei sollten wir beachten, dass die Gemeinwohlfunktionen von Ökosystemdienstleistungen bedeuten, dass der Staat eine wichtige Rolle durch Regulierung, Förderung, Finanzierung und Kooperation mit anderen spielen wird. Das Subsidiaritätsprinzip wiederum legt nahe, dass Entscheidungen auf verschiedenen Ebenen getroffen werden sollten: auf nationaler und auf regionaler Ebene. Die staatliche Politik wird Dienstleistungen bereitstellen, für die es eine nationale Verpflichtung oder eine nationale Priorität gibt, wie beispielsweise für Klimaschutzziele oder für Nationalparks. Regionale Umweltverwaltungsorganisationen werden lokale Wertmaßstäbe und Prioritäten vertreten, die in einem Plan für Naturkapital festgelegt sind. Bei den Beschaffungskonzepten werden die Erfahrungen aus der Agrarumweltpolitik berücksichtigt. Diese Konzepte werden auf Partnerschaften oder den Erwerb von Land ausgedehnt werden. Es wird Zeit brauchen, um diese neuen Institutionen aufzubauen. Wir benötigen daher mehr Forschung. Was wir jedoch jetzt benötigen, ist eine klare Vorstellung von den Möglichkeiten und einen Fahrplan für den Weg dorthin.

Suggested Citation

  • Ian Hodge, 2019. "Renewing the Governance of Rural Land after Brexit: an Ecosystems Policy Approach," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 18(2), pages 4-10, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:18:y:2019:i:2:p:4-10
    DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12233
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12233
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1746-692X.12233?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dwyer, Janet & Hodge, Ian, 2016. "Governance structures for social-ecological systems: Assessing institutional options against a social residual claimant," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 1-10.
    2. Laure Kuhfuss & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Nudging farmers to enrol land into agri-environmental schemes: the role of a collective bonus," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 43(4), pages 609-636.
    3. James Alm & H. Spencer Banzhaf, 2012. "Designing Economic Instruments For The Environment In A Decentralized Fiscal System," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 177-202, April.
    4. Elinor Ostrom, 2010. "Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 641-672, June.
    5. Austin, Zoё & McVittie, Alistair & McCracken, Davy & Moxey, Andrew & Moran, Dominic & White, Piran C.L., 2016. "The co-benefits of biodiversity conservation programmes on wider ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 37-43.
    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. Gloria Salmoral & Benjamin Ababio & Ian P. Holman, 2020. "Drought Impacts, Coping Responses and Adaptation in the UK Outdoor Livestock Sector: Insights to Increase Drought Resilience," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-15, June.

    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. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    2. 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).
    3. Eloi Laurent & Jean Jouzel, 2018. "The Well-being Transition: Measuring what counts to protect what matters," Sciences Po publications 35, Sciences Po.
    4. Erwin Dekker, 2020. "On emancipators, engineers, and students: The appropriate attitude of the economist," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 33(1), pages 55-68, March.
    5. Cooper, Mark, 2018. "Governing the global climate commons: The political economy of state and local action, after the U.S. flip-flop on the Paris Agreement," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 440-454.
    6. Moeliono, Moira & Brockhaus, Maria & Gallemore, Caleb & Dwisatrio, Bimo & Maharani, Cynthia D. & Muharrom, Efrian & Pham, Thuy Thu, 2020. "REDD+ in Indonesia: A new mode of governance or just another project?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    7. Yubo Liao & Bangbang Zhang & Xiangbin Kong & Liangyou Wen & Dongheng Yao & Yuxuan Dang & Wenguang Chen, 2022. "A Cooperative-Dominated Model of Conservation Tillage to Mitigate Soil Degradation on Cultivated Land and Its Effectiveness Evaluation," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-19, August.
    8. Górriz-Mifsud, Elena & Olza Donazar, Luis & Montero Eseverri, Eduardo & Marini Govigli, Valentino, 2019. "The challenges of coordinating forest owners for joint management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 100-109.
    9. van de Water, Antoinette & Henley, Michelle & Bates, Lucy & Slotow, Rob, 2022. "The value of elephants: A pluralist approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    10. David Wilson & John Gowdy, 2015. "Human ultrasociality and the invisible hand: foundational developments in evolutionary science alter a foundational concept in economics," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 37-52, April.
    11. Kaori Tembata & Kenji Takeuchi, 2016. "Collective decision-making under drought: An empirical study of water resource management in Japan," Discussion Papers 1646, Graduate School of Economics, Kobe University.
    12. Abootorabi, Hooman & Wiklund, Johan & Johnson, Alan R. & Miller, Cameron D., 2021. "A holistic approach to the evolution of an entrepreneurial ecosystem: An exploratory study of academic spin-offs," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 36(5).
    13. McCloskey Deirdre Nansen, 2018. "The Two Movements in Economic Thought, 1700–2000: Empty Economic Boxes Revisited," Man and the Economy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-20, December.
    14. Emrah Karakilic, 2022. "Rentierism and the commons: A critical contribution to Brett Christophers’ Rentier Capitalism," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 54(2), pages 422-429, March.
    15. Martin G. Kocher & Fangfang Tan & Jing Yu, 2018. "Providing Global Public Goods: Electoral Delegation And Cooperation," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 381-397, January.
    16. Robert N. Stavins, 2011. "The Problem of the Commons: Still Unsettled after 100 Years," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(1), pages 81-108, February.
    17. Rongyu Wang & Rong Tan, 2018. "Rural Renewal of China in the Context of Rural-Urban Integration: Governance Fit and Performance Differences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-22, February.
    18. Jorge M. Streb & Gustavo Torrens, 2011. "Meaningful talk," CEMA Working Papers: Serie Documentos de Trabajo. 443, Universidad del CEMA, revised May 2017.
    19. Chaoran Chen & Diego Restuccia & Raul Santaeulalia-Llopis, 2022. "The Effects of Land Markets on Resource Allocation and Agricultural Productivity," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 45, pages 41-54, July.
    20. Matthias Buchholz & Oliver Musshoff, 2021. "Tax or green nudge? An experimental analysis of pesticide policies in Germany [A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(4), pages 940-982.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:eurcho:v:18:y:2019:i:2:p:4-10. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    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.