IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/roafes/v104y2023i2d10.1007_s41130-023-00194-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Designing carbon markets connecting farmers and companies: stakeholders claiming territorial-based devices to promote synergies between diverse environmental challenges

Author

Listed:
  • B. Thareau

    (LARESS, ESA, USC INRAE)

  • N. Seyni

    (INRAE, l’Institut Agro, SMART)

  • T. Coisnon

    (l’Institut Agro, INRAE, SMART)

  • P. Dupraz

    (INRAE, l’Institut Agro, SMART)

Abstract

Because of its capacity to provide numerous ecosystem services, agriculture is an essential lever in the fight against climate change and the preservation of biodiversity. However, trade-offs between economic strategies and environmental outputs, as well as between environmental challenges themselves, remain an important issue. In this paper, we seek to better understand how the different stakeholders manage these contradictions, based on a specific case study exploring the potential of setting up a local and voluntary carbon market in Western France involving farmers, companies, and local authorities. Applying a survey approach, we identify and discuss the preferences and trade-offs made by the potential stakeholders of this scheme. Our results show a strong preference for solutions that emphasize the provision of environmental co-benefits (biodiversity and landscapes) rather than strict carbon storage. We also show that criteria such as the duration of commitment or the scope given to the length of committed hedges are important components of stakeholders’ preferences. Our results allow us to discuss the potential of different types of market systems, depending on traceability, governance, control method, and technical support, in relation to the respondents’ heterogeneous preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • B. Thareau & N. Seyni & T. Coisnon & P. Dupraz, 2023. "Designing carbon markets connecting farmers and companies: stakeholders claiming territorial-based devices to promote synergies between diverse environmental challenges," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 104(2), pages 167-191, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:roafes:v:104:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s41130-023-00194-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s41130-023-00194-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41130-023-00194-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41130-023-00194-6?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fleming, Aysha & Stitzlein, Cara & Jakku, Emma & Fielke, Simon, 2019. "Missed opportunity? Framing actions around co-benefits for carbon mitigation in Australian agriculture," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 230-238.
    2. McCann, Laura & Colby, Bonnie & Easter, K. William & Kasterine, Alexander & Kuperan, K.V., 2005. "Transaction cost measurement for evaluating environmental policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 527-542, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Ekin Birol & Phoebe Koundouri, 2008. "Choice Experiments Informing Environmental Policy:A European Perspective," DEOS Working Papers 0801, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    5. Bertille THAREAU & Mathilde FABRY & Manon GOSSET, 2015. "Mobiliser les agriculteurs pour le climat sans en parler. . . Réflexions sur des apprentissages inachevés," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 96(4), pages 569-598.
    6. Bertille Thareau & Clara Pailleux & Guilhem Anzalone, 2020. "How broadening social connections changes farmers’conceptions about biodiversity. Multiple links to biodiversity explored through the different socioprofessional paths of farmers," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 101(2-3), pages 241-259.
    7. Jouhaina Gherib & Sandrine Berger-Douce, 2012. "Entrepreneurial Profile and Environmental Commitment of SMEs: A Comparative Analysis in Franceand in Tunisia," Post-Print emse-00712826, HAL.
    8. Ekin Birol & Phoebe Koundouri (ed.), 2008. "Choice Experiments Informing Environmental Policy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 4102.
    9. Thareau, Bertille & Pailleux, Clara & Anzalone, Guilhem, 2020. "How broadening social connections changes farmers’ conceptions about biodiversity," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 101(2-3), April.
    10. 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.
    11. Pierre Dupraz & Abdoul Nasser Seyni Abdou & Thomas Coisnon & Bertille Thareau, 2019. "Towards the establishment of a voluntary carbon compensation market: the contributions of a choice experiment method," Post-Print hal-02503308, HAL.
    12. Bertille Thareau & Clara Pailleux & Guilhem Anzalone, 2020. "How broadening social connections changes farmers’ conceptions about biodiversity," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 101(2), pages 241-259, December.
    13. Christensen, Tove & Pedersen, Anders Branth & Nielsen, Helle Oersted & Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Hasler, Berit & Denver, Sigrid, 2011. "Determinants of farmers' willingness to participate in subsidy schemes for pesticide-free buffer zones--A choice experiment study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1558-1564, June.
    14. Eric Ruto & Guy Garrod, 2009. "Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 631-647.
    15. THAREAU, Bertille & FABRY, Mathilde, 2015. "Mobiliser les agriculteurs pour le climat sans en parler... Réflexions sur des apprentissages inachevés," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 96(4), November.
    16. Schirpke, Uta & Marino, Davide & Marucci, Angelo & Palmieri, Margherita & Scolozzi, Rocco, 2017. "Operationalising ecosystem services for effective management of protected areas: Experiences and challenges," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 105-114.
    17. 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)

    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. 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.
    2. Lienhoop, Nele & Schröter-Schlaack, Christoph, 2018. "Involving multiple actors in ecosystem service governance: Exploring the role of stated preference valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 181-188.
    3. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    4. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Liesbeth Colen & Sergio Gomez y Paloma & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Marianne Lefebvre & Raphaële Préget & Sophie S. Thoyer, 2015. "(How) can economic experiments inform EU agricultural policy?," Post-Print hal-02519194, HAL.
    7. Le Coent, Philippe & Préget, Raphaële & Thoyer, Sophie, 2017. "Compensating Environmental Losses Versus Creating Environmental Gains: Implications for Biodiversity Offsets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 120-129.
    8. Kaczan, David & Swallow, Brent M. & Adamowicz, W.L. (Vic), 2013. "Designing a payments for ecosystem services (PES) program to reduce deforestation in Tanzania: An assessment of payment approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 20-30.
    9. Graversgaard, Morten & Jacobsen, Brian H. & Hoffmann, Carl Christian & Dalgaard, Tommy & Odgaard, Mette Vestergaard & Kjaergaard, Charlotte & Powell, Neil & Strand, John A. & Feuerbach, Peter & Tonder, 2021. "Policies for wetlands implementation in Denmark and Sweden – historical lessons and emerging issues," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    10. Breustedt, Gunnar & Schulz, Norbert & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2013. "Kalibrierung von Vertragsnaturschutzprogrammen mittels eines zweistufigen Discrete-Choice-Experimentes," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 62(04), pages 1-17, November.
    11. Zandersen, Marianne & Oddershede, Jakob Stoktoft & Pedersen, Anders Branth & Nielsen, Helle Ørsted & Termansen, Mette, 2021. "Nature Based Solutions for Climate Adaptation - Paying Farmers for Flood Control," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    12. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    13. Pierre Gasselin & Nathalie Hostiou, 2020. "What do our research friends say about the coexistence and confrontation of agricultural and food models? Introduction to the special issue," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 101(2), pages 173-190, December.
    14. Cranford, Matthew & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Credit-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 503-520.
    15. Bougherara, Douadia & Lapierre, Margaux & Préget, Raphaële & Sauquet, Alexandre, 2021. "Do farmers prefer increasing, decreasing, or stable payments in Agri-environmental schemes?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    16. Pierre Gasselin & Nathalie Hostiou, 2020. "What do our research friends say about the coexistence and confrontation of agricultural and food models? Introduction to the special issue," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 101(2-3), pages 173-190.
    17. Franzén, Frida & Dinnétz, Patrik & Hammer, Monica, 2016. "Factors affecting farmers' willingness to participate in eutrophication mitigation — A case study of preferences for wetland creation in Sweden," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 8-15.
    18. Kuhfuss, Laure & Jacquet, Florence, 2012. "Le dispositif des MAEt pour l’enjeu eau : une fausse bonne idée ?," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 93(4).
    19. Kanchanaroek, Yingluck & Aslam, Uzma, 2018. "Policy schemes for the transition to sustainable agriculture—Farmer preferences and spatial heterogeneity in northern Thailand," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 227-235.
    20. Lim, Siew & Wachenheim, Cheryl, 2022. "Predicted enrollment in alternative attribute Conservation Reserve Program contracts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).

    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:spr:roafes:v:104:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s41130-023-00194-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.