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.

    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).

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.