IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v54y2016icp69-77.html

Result-based agri-environment measures: Market-based instruments, incentives or rewards? The case of Baden-Württemberg

Author

Listed:
  • Russi, Daniela
  • Margue, Hélène
  • Oppermann, Rainer
  • Keenleyside, Clunie

Abstract

Result-based agri-environment measures are increasingly seen as an interesting way to improve the conditionality and efficiency of the use of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) funding for environmental land management. They differ from classical action-based measures in that they remunerate farmers to achieve a desired outcome, and not for complying with a set of rules. We have analysed MEKA-B4, the result-based agrienvironment measure in place in Baden-Württemberg (Germany) between 2000 and 2014, which aimed to preserve species-rich grassland. In order to do so, we carried out semi-structured face-to-face interviews with participating and non-participating farmers and key institutional actors. We 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). In fact, in general most farmers were motivated to join the scheme by a combination of extrinsic motivations (i.e., the monetary incentive) and intrinsic motivations (i.e., ethical reasons). Increasing the payment, as has been done in the new version of the scheme (FAKT-B3), may help to ensure a wider enrolment in the measure in the long term. However, the interaction with biogas subsidies and other measures of the FAKT programme may hamper the farmers’ enrolment. This shows the need to improve the integration and coherence of environmental policies that have different objectives.

Suggested Citation

  • Russi, Daniela & Margue, Hélène & Oppermann, Rainer & Keenleyside, Clunie, 2016. "Result-based agri-environment measures: Market-based instruments, incentives or rewards? The case of Baden-Württemberg," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 69-77.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:54:y:2016:i:c:p:69-77
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.01.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837716000132
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.01.012?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Muradian, Roldan & Corbera, Esteve & Pascual, Unai & Kosoy, Nicolás & May, Peter H., 2010. "Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1202-1208, April.
    2. Markus Groth, 2009. "The transferability and performance of payment-by-results biodiversity conservation procurement auctions: empirical evidence from northernmost Germany," Working Paper Series in Economics 119, University of Lüneburg, Institute of Economics.
    3. Connor, Jeffery D. & Ward, John & Clifton, Craig & Proctor, Wendy & Hatton MacDonald, Darla, 2008. "Designing, testing and implementing a trial dryland salinity credit trade scheme," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 574-588, November.
    4. Muradian, Roldan & Rival, Laura, 2012. "Between markets and hierarchies: The challenge of governing ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 93-100.
    5. Ferraro, Paul J., 2008. "Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 810-821, May.
    6. Claassen, Roger & Cattaneo, Andrea & Johansson, Robert, 2008. "Cost-effective design of agri-environmental payment programs: U.S. experience in theory and practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 737-752, May.
    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. Hao, Zhengzheng & Nthambi, Mary, 2025. "A comparative analysis of agri-environment schemes in China, Europe and US: Potential for improvement," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(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. Schomers, Sarah & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 16-30.
    2. Börner, Jan & Wunder, Sven & Wertz-Kanounnikoff, Sheila & Tito, Marcos Rügnitz & Pereira, Ligia & Nascimento, Nathalia, 2010. "Direct conservation payments in the Brazilian Amazon: Scope and equity implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1272-1282, April.
    3. Sattler, Claudia & Trampnau, Susanne & Schomers, Sarah & Meyer, Claas & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Multi-classification of payments for ecosystem services: How do classification characteristics relate to overall PES success?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 31-45.
    4. Aguilar-Gómez, Carlos R. & Arteaga-Reyes, Tizbe T. & Gómez-Demetrio, William & Ávila-Akerberg, Víctor D. & Pérez-Campuzano, Enrique, 2020. "Differentiated payments for environmental services: A review of the literature," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    5. Molina Murillo, Sergio A. & Pérez Castillo, Juan Pablo & Herrera Ugalde, María Elena, 2014. "Assessment of environmental payments on indigenous territories: The case of Cabecar-Talamanca, Costa Rica," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 35-43.
    6. Jaung, Wanggi & Putzel, Louis & Bull, Gary Q. & Guariguata, Manuel R. & Sumaila, Ussif Rashid, 2016. "Estimating demand for certification of forest ecosystem services: A choice experiment with Forest Stewardship Council certificate holders," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 193-201.
    7. Liu, Ping & Yin, Runsheng & Zhao, Minjuan, 2019. "Reformulating China's ecological restoration policies: What can be learned from comparing Chinese and American experiences?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 54-61.
    8. Kanehiro Kitayama & Shogoro Fujiki & Ryota Aoyagi & Nobuo Imai & John Sugau & Jupiri Titin & Reuben Nilus & Peter Lagan & Yoshimi Sawada & Robert Ong & Frederick Kugan & Sam Mannan, 2018. "Biodiversity Observation for Land and Ecosystem Health (BOLEH): A Robust Method to Evaluate the Management Impacts on the Bundle of Carbon and Biodiversity Ecosystem Services in Tropical Production Forests," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-15, November.
    9. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Soh, Moonwon & English, Burton C. & Yu, T. Edward & Boyer, Christopher N., 2019. "Targeting payments for forest carbon sequestration given ecological and economic objectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 214-226.
    10. Rolfe, John & Whitten, Stuart & Windle, Jill, 2017. "The Australian experience in using tenders for conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 611-620.
    11. Duong, Ngoc T.B. & de Groot, Wouter T., 2018. "Distributional risk in PES: Exploring the concept in the Payment for Environmental Forest Services program, Vietnam," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 22-32.
    12. Sattler, Claudia & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "PES in a nutshell: From definitions and origins to PES in practice—Approaches, design process and innovative aspects," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 2-11.
    13. Rosa da Conceição, Hugo & Börner, Jan & Wunder, Sven, 2015. "Why were upscaled incentive programs for forest conservation adopted? Comparing policy choices in Brazil, Ecuador, and Peru," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 243-252.
    14. Izquierdo-Tort, Santiago & Ortiz-Rosas, Fiorella & Vázquez-Cisneros, Paola Angélica, 2019. "‘Partial’ participation in Payments for Environmental Services (PES): Land enrolment and forest loss in the Mexican Lacandona Rainforest," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    15. Hejnowicz, Adam P. & Raffaelli, David G. & Rudd, Murray A. & White, Piran C.L., 2014. "Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 83-97.
    16. McGrath, F.L. & Carrasco, L.R. & Leimona, B., 2017. "How auctions to allocate payments for ecosystem services contracts impact social equity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 44-55.
    17. Schilizzi, Steven & Breustedt, Gunnar & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, "undated". "Does tendering conservation contracts with performance payments generate additional benefits?," Working Papers 100883, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    18. Markus Groth, 2009. "The transferability and performance of payment-by-results biodiversity conservation procurement auctions: empirical evidence from northernmost Germany," Working Paper Series in Economics 119, University of Lüneburg, Institute of Economics.
    19. Kathleen McAfee, 2012. "The Contradictory Logic of Global Ecosystem Services Markets," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 43(1), pages 105-131, January.
    20. Lin, Yongsheng & Dong, Zhanfeng & Zhang, Wei & Zhang, Hongyu, 2020. "Estimating inter-regional payments for ecosystem services: Taking China’s Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region as an example," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:lauspo:v:54:y:2016:i:c:p:69-77. 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.