IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v131y2023ics0264837723001722.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The prospects of innovative agri-environmental contracts in the European policy context: Results from a Delphi study

Author

Listed:
  • Kelemen, Eszter
  • Megyesi, Boldizsár
  • Matzdorf, Bettina
  • Andersen, Erling
  • van Bussel, Lenny G.J.
  • Dumortier, Myriam
  • Dutilly, Céline
  • García-Llorente, Marina
  • Hamon, Christine
  • LePage, Annabelle
  • Moruzzo, Roberta
  • Prager, Katrin
  • Riccioli, Francesco
  • Yacamán-Ochoa, Carolina

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:131:y:2023:i:c:s0264837723001722
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106706
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837723001722
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106706?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. 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.
    2. François Bareille & Matteo Zavalloni, 2020. "Decentralisation of agri-environmental policy design," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 47(4), pages 1502-1530.
    3. 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.
    4. Pierre Labarthe & Monika Beck, 2022. "CAP and Advisory Services: From Farm Advisory Systems to Innovation Support," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 21(1), pages 5-14, April.
    5. Ranjan, Pranay & Wardropper, Chloe B. & Eanes, Francis R. & Reddy, Sheila M.W. & Harden, Seth C. & Masuda, Yuta J. & Prokopy, Linda S., 2019. "Understanding barriers and opportunities for adoption of conservation practices on rented farmland in the US," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 214-223.
    6. de Loë, Rob C. & Melnychuk, Natalya & Murray, Dan & Plummer, Ryan, 2016. "Advancing the State of Policy Delphi Practice: A Systematic Review Evaluating Methodological Evolution, Innovation, and Opportunities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 78-88.
    7. Zabel, Astrid, 2019. "Biodiversity-based payments on Swiss alpine pastures," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 153-159.
    8. 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).
    9. Manyise, Timothy & Dentoni, Domenico, 2021. "Value chain partnerships and farmer entrepreneurship as balancing ecosystem services: Implications for agri-food systems resilience," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    10. Jasper R. de Vries & Eva van der Zee & Raoul Beunen & Rianne Kat & Peter H. Feindt, 2019. "Trusting the People and the System. The Interrelation Between Interpersonal and Institutional Trust in Collective Action for Agri-Environmental Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-18, December.
    11. Darnhofer, Ika & Schermer, Markus & Steinbacher, Melanie & Gabillet, Marine & Daugstad, Karoline, 2017. "Preserving permanent mountain grasslands in Western Europe: Why are promising approaches not implemented more widely?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 306-315.
    12. Tyllianakis, Emmanouil & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Ziv, Guy & Chapman, Pippa J. & Holden, Joseph & Cardwell, Michael & Fyfe, Duncan, 2023. "A window into land managers’ preferences for new forms of agri-environmental schemes: Evidence from a post-Brexit analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    13. Bredemeier, Birte & Herrmann, Sylvia & Sattler, Claudia & Prager, Katrin & van Bussel, Lenny G.J. & Rex, Julia, 2022. "Insights into innovative contract design to improve the integration of biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    14. Philipp Mennig & Johannes Sauer, 2020. "The impact of agri-environment schemes on farm productivity: a DID-matching approach," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 47(3), pages 1045-1093.
    15. Riley, Mark & Sangster, Heather & Smith, Hugh & Chiverrell, Richard & Boyle, John, 2018. "Will farmers work together for conservation? The potential limits of farmers’ cooperation in agri-environment measures," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 635-646.
    16. Timothy Manyise & Domenico Dentoni, 2021. "Value chain partnerships and farmer entrepreneurship as balancing ecosystem services: Implications for agri-food systems resilience," Post-Print hal-03539208, HAL.
    17. De la Varga Pastor, Aitana & Pons Solé, Joan, 2018. "Innovative legal tools applied in land stewardship for the conservation of ecosystem services in Catalonia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 395-403.
    18. Michael McGann & Emma Blomkamp & Jenny M. Lewis, 2018. "The rise of public sector innovation labs: experiments in design thinking for policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(3), pages 249-267, September.
    19. Rissman, Adena R. & Morris, Amy W. & Kalinin, Alexey & Kohl, Patrice A. & Parker, Dominic P. & Selles, Owen, 2019. "Private organizations, public data: Land trust choices about mapping conservation easements," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    20. Roberto Henke & Theo Benos & Fabrizio De Filippis & Mara Giua & Fabio Pierangeli & Maria Rosaria Pupo D'Andrea, 2018. "The New Common Agricultural Policy: Ηow do Member States Respond to Flexibility?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(2), pages 403-419, March.
    21. Thomas Allen & Paolo Prosperi & Bruce Cogill & Martine Padilla & Iuri Peri, 2019. "A Delphi Approach to Develop Sustainable Food System Metrics," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 141(3), pages 1307-1339, February.
    22. Jordan Hristov & Yann Clough & Ullrika Sahlin & Henrik G. Smith & Martin Stjernman & Ola Olsson & Amanda Sahrbacher & Mark V. Brady, 2020. "Impacts of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy “Greening” Reform on Agricultural Development, Biodiversity, and Ecosystem Services," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(4), pages 716-738, December.
    23. 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).
    24. 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).
    25. Bálint Balázs & Eszter Kelemen & Tiziana Centofanti & Marta W. Vasconcelos & Pietro P. M. Iannetta, 2021. "Policy Interventions Promoting Sustainable Food- and Feed-Systems: A Delphi Study of Legume Production and Consumption," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-43, July.
    26. 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).
    27. 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).
    28. José A. Gómez‐Limón & Carlos Gutiérrez‐Martín & Anastasio J. Villanueva, 2019. "Optimal Design of Agri‐environmental Schemes under Asymmetric Information for Improving Farmland Biodiversity," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(1), pages 153-177, February.
    29. 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)

    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. Bredemeier, Birte & Herrmann, Sylvia & Sattler, Claudia & Prager, Katrin & van Bussel, Lenny G.J. & Rex, Julia, 2022. "Insights into innovative contract design to improve the integration of biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    2. Johanna Norris & Bettina Matzdorf & Rena Barghusen & Christoph Schulze & Bart van Gorcum, 2021. "Viewpoints on Cooperative Peatland Management: Expectations and Motives of Dutch Farmers," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-16, December.
    3. 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).
    4. 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).
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Bartolini, Fabio & Vergamini, Daniele & Longhitano, Davide & Povellato, Andrea, 2021. "Do differential payments for agri-environment schemes affect the environmental benefits? A case study in the North-Eastern Italy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    9. Gerling, Charlotte & Drechsler, Martin & Keuler, Klaus & Sturm, Astrid & Wätzold, Frank, 2022. "Time to consider the timing of conservation measures: designing cost-effective agri-environment schemes under climate change," MPRA Paper 113877, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Olga A. Chernova & Baraa Ali, 2021. "Cooperative strategies of food enterprises amid the COVID-19 pandemic," Upravlenets, Ural State University of Economics, vol. 12(5), pages 70-83, November.
    11. José-Luis Alfaro-Navarro & María-Encarnación Andrés-Martínez, 2021. "A longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis of the distribution of Common Agricultural Policy aids in European countries," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 67(9), pages 351-362.
    12. 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.
    13. Prager, Katrin, 2022. "Implementing policy interventions to support farmer cooperation for environmental benefits," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    14. Shi, Daojin & Chen, Lunsong & Wang, Xiaoli & Xu, Xiuying & Yang, Lixia, 2022. "Rural venture investments with credits mortgaged on farmer's forests—A case study of Zhejiang, China," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    15. 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).
    16. Sattler, Claudia & Schröter, Barbara, 2022. "Collective action across boundaries: Collaborative network initiatives as boundary organizations to improve ecosystem services governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    17. 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).
    18. Runge, Tania & Eichhorn, Theresa & Schaller, Lena, 2023. "Agrarumweltleistungen durch ergebnisbasierte und kollektive Vertragslösungen - Erkenntnisse aus Befragungen in Österreich und Deutschland," Thünen Working Paper 337991, Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut (vTI), Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
    19. Bourceret, Amélie & Amblard, Laurence & Mathias, Jean-Denis, 2022. "Adapting the governance of social–ecological systems to behavioural dynamics: An agent-based model for water quality management using the theory of planned behaviour," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    20. Runge, Tania & Eichhorn, Theresa & Schaller, Lena, 2023. "Agrarumweltleistungen durch ergebnisbasierte und kollektive Vertragslösungen: Erkenntnisse aus Befragungen in Österreich und Deutschland," Thünen Working Papers 218, Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute, Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.

    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:131:y:2023:i:c:s0264837723001722. 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.