IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i12p6936-d578443.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Innovative Contract Solutions for the Provision of Agri-Environmental Climatic Public Goods: A Literature Review

Author

Listed:
  • Matteo Olivieri

    (Department of Agriculture, Food and Agri-Environmental Sciences (DAFE), University of Pisa, 56124 Pisa, Italy)

  • Maria Andreoli

    (Department of Agriculture, Food and Agri-Environmental Sciences (DAFE), University of Pisa, 56124 Pisa, Italy)

  • Daniele Vergamini

    (Department of Agriculture, Food and Agri-Environmental Sciences (DAFE), University of Pisa, 56124 Pisa, Italy)

  • Fabio Bartolini

    (Department of Chemical, Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Sciences (DOCPAS), University of Ferrara, 44121 Ferrara, Italy)

Abstract

Lack of public funding and environmental deterioration are promoting the search for innovative mechanisms enabling to boost farmers’ provision of agri-environmental climate public goods. This work aims to contribute to the current debate by highlighting the role of innovative contractual solutions through a systematic review of more than 60 articles. The review analyses the potential of result-based and collective contracts as innovative solutions compared to action-based instruments, which are those currently most used. The design of innovative contracts and other mechanisms, e.g., auction and screening contracts, can reduce the policy failures due to asymmetric information. The paper emphasises the trade-off between an accurate design of agri-environmental schemes and the related administrative burden, highlighting the need for a better understanding of the role of mechanisms design into the policy cycle. Some new instruments were not analysed in the review, due to the scarcity of literature, and there is the need of more case studies providing information on the effectiveness of instruments when implemented in different contexts. We fill the gap in empirical evidence through a SWOT analysis that evaluates the effectiveness and acceptability of innovative instruments for policy purposes.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:12:p:6936-:d:578443
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/12/6936/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/12/6936/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ben White & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Should We Pay for Ecosystem Service Outputs, Inputs or Both?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 765-787, April.
    2. 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.
    3. Nida Akram & Muhammad Waqar Akram & Hongshu Wang & Ayesha Mehmood, 2019. "Does Land Tenure Systems Affect Sustainable Agricultural Development?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-15, July.
    4. Maria Espinosa‐Goded & Jesús Barreiro‐Hurlé & Eric Ruto, 2010. "What Do Farmers Want From Agri‐Environmental Scheme Design? A Choice Experiment Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 259-273, June.
    5. Ian Hodge, 2007. "The Governance of Rural Land in a Liberalised World," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 409-432, September.
    6. Schilizzi, Steven & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2013. "Conservation tenders: linking theory and experiments for policy assessment," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 57(1), pages 1-23.
    7. J. A. Finn & F. Bartolini & D. Bourke & I. Kurz & D. Viaggi, 2009. "Ex post environmental evaluation of agri-environment schemes using experts' judgements and multicriteria analysis," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 717-737.
    8. Steven Schilizzi & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann, 2013. "Conservation tenders: linking theory and experiments for policy assessment," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 57(1), pages 15-37, January.
    9. Ozanne, Adam & White, Benedict, 2008. "Hidden action, risk aversion and variable fines in agri-environmental schemes," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(2), pages 1-10.
    10. Reed, Mark S. & Moxey, Andrew & Prager, Katrin & Hanley, Nick & Skates, James & Bonn, Aletta & Evans, Chris D. & Glenk, Klaus & Thomson, Ken, 2014. "Improving the link between payments and the provision of ecosystem services in agri-environment schemes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 44-53.
    11. Niskanen, Olli & Tienhaara, Annika & Haltia, Emmi & Pouta, Eija, 2021. "Farmers’ heterogeneous preferences towards results-based environmental policies," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    12. Vergamini, Daniele & Viaggi, Davide & Raggi, Meri, 2020. "Evaluating the Potential Contribution of Multi-Attribute Auctions to Achieve Agri-Environmental Targets and Efficient Payment Design," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    13. Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Gunnar Breustedt, 2019. "Using choice experiments to improve the design of agri-environmental schemes," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 495-528.
    14. Connor, Jeffery D. & Ward, John R. & Bryan, Brett, 2008. "Exploring the cost effectiveness of land conservation auctions and payment policies," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 1-17.
    15. Daniele, Vergamini & Viaggi, Davide & Raggi, Meri, 2017. "Integrating spatial econometric information and optimisation models to improve Agri-Environmental payment design: A resource allocation model for Emilia-Romagna (Italy)," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 0(Issue 2), July.
    16. Zabel, Astrid, 2019. "Biodiversity-based payments on Swiss alpine pastures," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 153-159.
    17. Yuki Yano & David Blandford, 2009. "Use of Compliance Rewards in Agri‐environmental Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 530-545, September.
    18. Zabel, Astrid & Bostedt, Göran & Ekvall, Hans, 2018. "Policies for forest landscape management – A conceptual approach with an empirical application for Swedish conditions," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 13-21.
    19. Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe & Hodge, Ian D., 2003. "European agri-environmental policy for the 21st century," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(1), pages 1-17.
    20. Viaggi, D. & Raggi, M. & Gallerani, V., 2012. "Evaluating the potential contribution of contract auctions to Agri-Environmental Policy efficiency: A simulation model for Emilia-Romagna (Italy)," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 11(2), pages 1-11.
    21. Bateman, Ian J. & Balmford, Ben, 2018. "Public funding for public goods: A post-Brexit perspective on principles for agricultural policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 293-300.
    22. Derissen, Sandra & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2013. "What are PES? A review of definitions and an extension," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 12-15.
    23. Wezel, Alexander & Vincent, Audrey & Nitsch, Heike & Schmid, Otto & Dubbert, Monika & Tasser, Erich & Fleury, Philippe & Stöckli, Sybille & Stolze, Matthias & Bogner, Daniel, 2018. "Farmers’ perceptions, preferences, and propositions for result-oriented measures in mountain farming," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 117-127.
    24. Canton, Joan & De Cara, Stéphane & Jayet, Pierre-Alain, 2009. "Agri-environmental schemes: Adverse selection, information structure and delegation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 2114-2121, May.
    25. Lennox, Gareth D. & Armsworth, Paul R., 2011. "Suitability of short or long conservation contracts under ecological and socio-economic uncertainty," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(15), pages 2856-2866.
    26. 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.
    27. Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Carel Van der Hamsvoort, 1997. "Auctioning Conservation Contracts: A Theoretical Analysis and an Application," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(2), pages 407-418.
    28. Adam Ozanne & Tim Hogan, 2001. "Moral hazard, risk aversion and compliance monitoring in agri-environmental policy," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 28(3), pages 329-348, October.
    29. Giulia Maesano & Giuseppe Di Vita & Gaetano Chinnici & Gioacchino Pappalardo & Mario D'Amico, 2020. "The Role of Credence Attributes in Consumer Choices of Sustainable Fish Products: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-18, November.
    30. Adam Ozanne & Ben White, 2007. "Equivalence of Input Quotas and Input Charges under Asymmetric Information in Agri‐environmental Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(2), pages 260-268, June.
    31. Kanger, Laur & Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Noorkõiv, Martin, 2020. "Six policy intervention points for sustainability transitions: A conceptual framework and a systematic literature review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    32. Fabio Bartolini & Vittorio Gallerani & Meri Raggi & Davide Viaggi, 2012. "Modelling the Linkages between Cross-Compliance and Agri-Environmental Schemes Under Asymmetric Information," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(2), pages 310-330, June.
    33. Ferraro, Paul J., 2008. "Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 810-821, May.
    34. Jeremy Franks, 2011. "The collective provision of environmental goods: a discussion of contractual issues," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(5), pages 637-660.
    35. Pierre Dupraz & Maria Espinosa Goded & Jesus Barreiro-Hurle, 2013. "Identifying additional barriers in the adoption of agri-environmental schemes: the role of fixed costs," Post-Print hal-01208850, HAL.
    36. Emmanuelle Quillérou & Rob Fraser, 2010. "Adverse Selection in the Environmental Stewardship Scheme: Does the Higher Level Stewardship Scheme Design Reduce Adverse Selection?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 369-380, June.
    37. Rob Hart, 2005. "Combating moral hazard in agri-environmental schemes: a multiple-agent approach," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 32(1), pages 75-91, March.
    38. Quillerou, Emmanuelle & Fraser, Rob W. & Fraser, Iain, 2010. "Adverse Selection in the Environmental Stewardship Scheme: Evidence in the Higher Level Stewardship Scheme?," 84th Annual Conference, March 29-31, 2010, Edinburgh, Scotland 91676, Agricultural Economics Society.
    39. Leonidou, Erasmia & Christofi, Michael & Vrontis, Demetris & Thrassou, Alkis, 2020. "An integrative framework of stakeholder engagement for innovation management and entrepreneurship development," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 245-258.
    40. Wonjoo Cho & David Blandford, 2019. "Bilateral Information Asymmetry in the Design of an Agri‐Environmental Policy: An Application to Peatland Retirement in Norway," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(3), pages 663-685, September.
    41. Hodge, Ian & McNally, Sandra, 2000. "Wetland restoration, collective action and the role of water management institutions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 107-118, October.
    42. Fabio Bartolini & Daniele Vergamini, 2019. "Understanding the Spatial Agglomeration of Participation in Agri-Environmental Schemes: The Case of the Tuscany Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, May.
    43. Thilo W. Glebe, 2008. "Scoring two-dimensional bids: how cost-effective are agri-environmental auctions?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 35(2), pages 143-165, June.
    44. François J Dessart & Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé & René van Bavel, 2019. "Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: a policy-oriented review," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 417-471.
    45. Derissen, Sandra & Quaas, Martin F., 2013. "Combining performance-based and action-based payments to provide environmental goods under uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 77-84.
    46. Markus M. Bugge & Teis Hansen & Antje Klitkou, 2016. "What Is the Bioeconomy? A Review of the Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-22, July.
    47. Jeffery D. Connor & John R. Ward & Brett Bryan, 2008. "Exploring the cost effectiveness of land conservation auctions and payment policies ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 303-319, September.
    48. Defrancesco, Edi & Gatto, Paola & Mozzato, Daniele, 2018. "To leave or not to leave? Understanding determinants of farmers’ choices to remain in or abandon agri-environmental schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 460-470.
    49. Geraldine Ducos & Pierre Dupraz & Francois Bonnieux, 2009. "Agri-environment contract adoption under fixed and variable compliance costs," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 669-687.
    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. 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.
    2. Susanne Klages & Christina Aue & Karin Reiter & Claudia Heidecke & Bernhard Osterburg, 2022. "Catch Crops in Lower Saxony—More Than 30 Years of Action against Water Pollution with Nitrates: All in Vain?," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-27, March.
    3. 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).
    4. 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.
    5. Francesco Riccioli & Mario Cozzi, 2021. "Modelling the Economic, Social and Environmental Components of Natural Resources for Sustainable Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-3, August.
    6. 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).

    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. Vergamini, Daniele & Viaggi, Davide & Raggi, Meri, 2020. "Evaluating the Potential Contribution of Multi-Attribute Auctions to Achieve Agri-Environmental Targets and Efficient Payment Design," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    2. 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).
    3. Lapierre, Margaux & Le Velly, Gwenolé & Bougherara, Douadia & Préget, Raphaële & Sauquet, Alexandre, 2023. "Designing agri-environmental schemes to cope with uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    4. Fabio Bartolini & Daniele Vergamini, 2019. "Understanding the Spatial Agglomeration of Participation in Agri-Environmental Schemes: The Case of the Tuscany Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, May.
    5. 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).
    6. Latacz-Lohmann, U. & Schilizzi, S. & Breustedt, G., 2012. "Auctioning outcome-based conservation contracts," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 47, March.
    7. Marie Asma Ben-Othmen & Mariia Ostapchuk, 2023. "How diverse are farmers’ preferences for large-scale grassland ecological restoration? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 104(3), pages 341-375, December.
    8. Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe & Schilizzi, Steven & Breustedt, Gunnar, 2011. "Auctioning Outcome-Based Conservation Contracts," 51st Annual Conference, Halle, Germany, September 28-30, 2011 114523, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    9. 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.
    10. Messer, Kent D. & Duke, Joshua M. & Lynch, Lori & Li, Tongzhe, 2017. "When Does Public Information Undermine the Efficiency of Reverse Auctions for the Purchase of Ecosystem Services?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 212-226.
    11. Sauer, Johannes & Walsh, John, 2011. "ESS versus NVZ – The Cost-Effectiveness of Command-and-Control versus Agreement Based Policy Instruments," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108963, Agricultural Economics Society.
    12. Sharma, Bijay P. & Cho, Seong-Hoon & Yu, T. Edward, 2019. "Designing cost-efficient payments for forest-based carbon sequestration: An auction-based modeling approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 182-194.
    13. 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.
    14. Schilizzi, Steven & Breustedt, Gunnar & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2011. "Does tendering conservation contracts with performance payments generate additional benefits?," Working Papers 100883, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    15. 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).
    16. Cho, Wonjoo & Blandford, David, 2015. "Bilateral information asymmetry and irreversible practice adoption through agri-environmental policy: an application to peat land retirement in Norway," 89th Annual Conference, April 13-15, 2015, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 204212, Agricultural Economics Society.
    17. Sergei Schaub & Jaboury Ghazoul & Robert Huber & Wei Zhang & Adelaide Sander & Charles Rees & Simanti Banerjee & Robert Finger, 2023. "The role of behavioural factors and opportunity costs in farmers' participation in voluntary agri‐environmental schemes: A systematic review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 617-660, September.
    18. Calvet, Coralie & Le Coent, Philippe & Napoleone, Claude & Quétier, Fabien, 2019. "Challenges of achieving biodiversity offset outcomes through agri-environmental schemes: Evidence from an empirical study in Southern France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 113-125.
    19. Vergamini, Daniele & Viaggi, Davide & Raggi, Meri, 2016. "Agri-environmental measures and farmers’ rent: evaluating the potential contribution of auctions to increase the efficiency of Agri-environmental schemes in Emilia-Romagna (Italy)," 2016 Fifth AIEAA Congress, June 16-17, 2016, Bologna, Italy 242443, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    20. Whitten, Stuart M., 2017. "Designing and implementing conservation tender metrics: Twelve core considerations," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 561-571.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:12:p:6936-:d:578443. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.