IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v18y2019i3p10-17.html

How Efficient is the French Less‐Favoured Area Programme?

Author

Listed:
  • Dominique Vollet
  • Alessandra Kirsch

Abstract

Evaluation of the French Less Favoured Area (LFA) agricultural programme over the period 2007–2013 calls into question the cost‐efficiency of this multi‐objective programme. This article confirms the multiplicity of objectives assigned to this programme, namely to maintain a sustainable agriculture in mountainous areas through income support for farmers in these disadvantaged areas; and thus more indirectly, to enhance the attractiveness of these agricultural areas. The environmental assessment of farms in the FADN network showed that the French LFA programme did help to support the most environmentally friendly dairy and cattle farms in mountainous areas via support for the income levels of these livestock farms. However, the analysis also shows that the LFA criteria are not sufficiently specific to have the required impacts on grassland management practices that would lead to specific defined environmentally friendly practices and improvements. Overall, and in spite of its longstanding and multi‐objective nature, the French LFA programme has been effective both from an economic perspective in that it inspires confidence among economic agents; and also to some extent from a general environmental perspective by providing support for farms which hold most of the permanent grassland, and associated amenities. L’évaluation du programme agricole français en faveur des zones défavorisées sur la période 2007–2013 remet en question le rapport coût‐efficacité de ce programme à objectifs multiples. Cet article confirme la multiplicité des objectifs assignés à ce programme, à savoir: maintenir une agriculture durable dans les zones montagneuses grâce au soutien des revenus des agriculteurs de ces zones défavorisées; et donc plus indirectement, renforcer l'attractivité de ces zones agricoles. L’évaluation environnementale des exploitations du réseau RICA a montré que le programme français en faveur des zones défavorisées contribuait effectivement à aider, dans les zones montagneuses, les exploitations laitières et d’élevage bovin les plus respectueuses de l'environnement en soutenant leur niveau de revenu. Cependant, l'analyse montre également que les critères du programme ne sont pas suffisamment spécifiques pour avoir les impacts requis sur les pratiques de gestion des prairies, permettant de conduire à des pratiques respectueuses de l'environnement préalablement définies et à des améliorations en la matière. Globalement, et malgré sa longévité et ses objectifs multiples, le programme en faveur des zones défavorisées français s'est révélé efficace tant du point de vue économique en ce qu'il inspire confiance aux agents économiques; que, dans une certaine mesure, d'un point de vue environnemental général, en fournissant un soutien aux exploitations qui possèdent la plupart des prairies permanentes et les aménités associées. Die Bewertung des französischen Förderprogramms für benachteiligte Gebiete (LFA) im Zeitraum der Jahre 2007 bis 2013 wirft die Frage nach der Kosteneffizienz dieses Programms mit seinen vielfältigen Zielen auf. Der vorliegende Beitrag bestätigt die zahlreichen Zielsetzungen in diesem Programm, nämlich den Erhalt einer nachhaltigen Landwirtschaft in Bergregionen. Als Instrument diente eine Einkommensstützung für landwirtschaftliche Betriebe in diesen benachteiligten Gebieten, wodurch auf indirektem Weg auch die Attraktivität dieser landwirtschaftlichen Regionen gefördert wird. Die Analyse von Betrieben aus dem InformationsNetz Landwirtschaftlicher Buchführungen (INLB) ergab, dass das Programm durch eine am Einkommen orientierte Beihilfe diejenigen Milchvieh‐ und Rinderhaltungsbetriebe in den Bergregionen förderte, die am umweltfreundlichsten wirtschafteten. Auf der anderen Seite zeigt die Analyse jedoch, dass die Kriterien für benachteiligte Gebiete nicht spezifisch genug sind. Dadurch treten nicht die erforderlichen Wirkungen auf die Grünlandbewirtschaftung ein, die zu bestimmten, genau definierten umweltfreundlichen Praktiken und zu Verbesserungen führen würden. Insgesamt war das französische Förderprogramm für benachteiligte Gebiete ‐ trotz seiner langjährigen Laufzeit und den vielfältigen Zielsetzungen ‐ aus ökonomischer Sicht wirksam, da es die Vertrauensbildung zwischen Wirtschaftsakteuren angeregt hat. Auch aus allgemeiner ökologischer Sicht war das Programm in gewisser Weise erfolgreich, da es die Betriebe, die den größten Anteil an Dauergrünland und die damit verbundene Ausstattung besitzen, unterstützt hat.

Suggested Citation

  • Dominique Vollet & Alessandra Kirsch, 2019. "How Efficient is the French Less‐Favoured Area Programme?," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 18(3), pages 10-17, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:18:y:2019:i:3:p:10-17
    DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12241
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12241
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1746-692X.12241?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. Chabé-Ferret, Sylvain & Subervie, Julie, 2013. "How much green for the buck? Estimating additional and windfall effects of French agro-environmental schemes by DID-matching," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 12-27.
    2. Stefan Mann & Simon Lanz, 2013. "Happy Tinbergen: Switzerland's New Direct Payment System," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 12(3), pages 24-28, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Henderson, Stuart & Davidova, Sophia & Bailey, Alastair & Latruffe, Laure & Vedrine, Lionel & Desjeux, Yann, 2021. "Ecological Agriculture and Return to Skills: A Comparison between France and the UK," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315217, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Grenestam, Erik & Nordin, Martin, 2018. "Estimating the impact of agri-environmental payments on nutrient runoff using a unique combination of data," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 388-398.
    3. Pont-Grau, Alex & Lei, Yu-Hsiang & Lim, Joel Z.E. & Xia, Xing, 2023. "The effect of language training on immigrants’ integration: Does the duration of training matter?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 160-198.
    4. Laure Kuhfuss & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer & Nick Hanley & Philippe Le Coent & Mathieu Désolé, 2016. "Nudges, Social Norms, and Permanence in Agri-environmental Schemes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 92(4), pages 641-655.
    5. Fleming, Patrick & Lichtenberg, Erik & Newburn, David A., 2018. "Evaluating impacts of agricultural cost sharing on water quality: Additionality, crowding In, and slippage," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 1-19.
    6. Roggendorf, Wolfgang & Schwarze, Stefan, "undated". "Die Wirkung von Agrarumweltmaßnahmen auf betriebliche Stickstoffbilanzen – Empirische Ergebnisse aus Nordrhein-Westfalen," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305604, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    7. Wang, Yanbing & Schaub, Sergei & Wuepper, David & Finger, Robert, 2023. "Culture and agricultural biodiversity conservation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    8. Herring, Matthew W. & Garnett, Stephen T. & Zander, Kerstin K., 2022. "Producing rice while conserving the habitat of an endangered waterbird: Incentives for farmers to integrate water management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    9. Daria Loginova & Stefan Mann, 2022. "Institutional contributions to agricultural producer price stability," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 10(1), pages 1-22, December.
    10. Weltin, Meike & Hüttel, Silke, 2019. "Farm eco-efficiency: Can sustainable intensification make the difference?," FORLand Working Papers 10 (2019), Humboldt University Berlin, DFG Research Unit 2569 FORLand "Agricultural Land Markets – Efficiency and Regulation".
    11. Michler, Jeffrey D. & Baylis, Kathy & Arends-Kuenning, Mary & Mazvimavi, Kizito, 2019. "Conservation agriculture and climate resilience," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 148-169.
    12. Meike Weltin & Silke Hüttel, 2023. "Sustainable Intensification Farming as an Enabler for Farm Eco-Efficiency?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(1), pages 315-342, January.
    13. Fleming, Patrick & Lichtenberg, Erik & Newburn, David, "undated". "Water Quality Trading Program Design with Heterogeneous Behavioral Responses," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274429, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Philippe Le Coent & Coralie Calvet, 2016. "Challenges of achieving biodiversity offsetting through agri-environmental schemes: evidence from an empirical study," Working Papers 16-10, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier.
    15. Chabé-Ferret, Sylvain, 2017. "Should We Combine Difference In Differences with Conditioning on Pre-Treatment Outcomes?," TSE Working Papers 17-824, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    16. Marita Laukkanen & Céline Nauges, 2014. "Evaluating Greening Farm Policies: A Structural Model for Assessing Agri-environmental Subsidies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(3), pages 458-481.
    17. Lichtenberg, Erik, "undated". "Additionality of Conservation Cost Sharing," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 259939, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Luc Behaghel & Karen Macours & Julie Subervie, 2018. "Can RCTs help improve the design of CAP," Working Papers hal-01974425, HAL.
    19. Luc Behaghel & Karen Macours & Julie Subervie, 2019. "How can randomised controlled trials help improve the design of the common agricultural policy?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 473-493.
    20. Chabé-Ferret, Sylvain & Voia, Anca, 2019. "Are Grassland Conservation Programs a Cost-Effective Way to Fight Climate Change? Evidence from France," SocArXiv cx8j6, Center for Open Science.

    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:3:p:10-17. 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.