IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aiea15/207357.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Agri-Environmental Policies design in Europe, USA and Australia: is an auction more cost-effective than a self-selecting contract schedule?

Author

Listed:
  • Vergamini, Daniele
  • White, Benedict
  • Viaggi, Davide

Abstract

Various alternative agri-environmental payments approach have been theoretically and empirically designed in Europe (EU), United States (US) and Australia (AUS) with the aim to reduce information rent and increasing the costeffectiveness of the measures. Despite much theoretical analysis on incentive-compatible agri-environmental contracts and wide experimentation of conservation auction in the US and AUS, the main debate on the EU agri-environmental payment still focused on problem of efficiency instead of facing the effectiveness. The main obstacle to designing and implementing more efficient and targeted agri-Environmental Payments (AEP) is limited information on the side of policy makers which can give rise to adverse selection and moral hazard limiting the effectiveness of the schemes and making them expansive to run. Auctions are a category of innovative policy mechanism designed to address adverse selection and to induce farmers to reveal, through competitive bidding, their compliance costs to the government. This paper provide a simulation of an input based menu of contracts model, and of a one-shot procurement auction with data from Farm Accountancy Data Network 2012 (FADN) of Regione Emilia-Romagna (RER), in order to test the relevance of the two methods for designing more cost-effective AE payments. The case study developed for EmiliaRomagna (E-R) demonstrates the heterogeneity in compliance cost. The results of the auction model highlight a significant cost saving compared with the traditional flat rate schemes. The result of the contract model confirm that the recourse of the revelation principle and mechanism design have a potential to reduce information rent and negotiation cost. However, though not directly addressed in this paper, there are several recognized limitation in the literature, which could affect both simulation results and the ability of the methods to contribute in the design of cost-effective AE payments.

Suggested Citation

  • Vergamini, Daniele & White, Benedict & Viaggi, Davide, 2015. "Agri-Environmental Policies design in Europe, USA and Australia: is an auction more cost-effective than a self-selecting contract schedule?," 2015 Fourth Congress, June 11-12, 2015, Ancona, Italy 207357, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aiea15:207357
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.207357
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/207357/files/Agri-Environmental%20Policies%20design%20in%20Europe_%20USA%20and%20Australia%20is%20an%20auction%20more%20cost-effective%20than%20a%20self-selecting%20contract%20schedule.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.207357?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew Moxey & Ben White & Adam Ozanne, 1999. "Efficient Contract Design for Agri‐Environment Policy," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 187-202, May.
    2. Jean-Jacques Laffont & Jean Tirole, 1993. "A Theory of Incentives in Procurement and Regulation," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262121743, December.
    3. Gallerani, Vittorio & Raggi, Meri & Viaggi, Davide, 2008. "Evaluating The Potential Contribution Of Contract Auctions To Aep'S Efficiency," 107th Seminar, January 30-February 1, 2008, Sevilla, Spain 6660, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. 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.
    5. Riley, John G & Samuelson, William F, 1981. "Optimal Auctions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(3), pages 381-392, June.
    6. Chongwoo Choe & Iain Fraser, 1999. "Compliance Monitoring and Agri‐Environmental Policy," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(3), pages 468-487, September.
    7. 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.
    8. Rob Fraser, 2002. "Moral Hazard and Risk Management in Agri‐environmental Policy," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 475-487, November.
    9. JunJie Wu & Bruce A. Babcock, 1996. "Contract Design for the Purchase of Environmental Goods from Agriculture," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(4), pages 935-945.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Robert G. Chambers, 1992. "On the Design of Agricultural Policy Mechanisms," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 74(3), pages 646-654.
    13. 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.
    14. Maskin, Eric S & Riley, John G, 1984. "Optimal Auctions with Risk Averse Buyers," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(6), pages 1473-1518, November.
    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. Ferraro, Paul J., 2008. "Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 810-821, May.
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. Yano, Yuki & Blandford, David, 2008. "Use of Penalties and Rewards in Agri-Environmental Policy," 82nd Annual Conference, March 31 - April 2, 2008, Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, UK 36873, Agricultural Economics Society.
    5. Yano, Yuki & Blandford, David, 2008. "Agri-Environmental Policy and Moral Hazard under Output Price and Production Uncertainty," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44323, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Salas, Paula Cordero & Roe, Brian E. & Sohngen, Brent, 2012. "Addressing Additionality in REDD Contracts when Formal Enforcement is Absent," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124505, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Paula Cordero Salas & Brian E. Roe & Brent Sohngen, 2018. "Additionality When REDD Contracts Must be Self-Enforcing," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(1), pages 195-215, January.
    10. Lankoski, Jussi E. & Lichtenberg, Erik & Ollikainen, Markku, 2008. "Agri-environmental program compliance under heterogeneous conditions," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44381, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Kentaro Kawasaki & Takeshi Fujie & Kentaro Koito & Norikazu Inoue & Hiroki Sasaki, 2012. "Conservation Auctions and Compliance: Theory and Evidence from Laboratory Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 52(2), pages 157-179, June.
    12. 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.
    13. Bartolini, Fabio & Gallerani, Vittorio & Raggi, Meri & Viaggi, Davide, 2005. "Contract Design and Targeting for the Production of Public Goods in Agriculture: The Impact of the 2003 Cap Reform," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24559, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Peter Bardsley & Ingrid Burfurd, 2008. "Contract Design for Biodiversity Procurement," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 1031, The University of Melbourne.
    17. 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).
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Colman, David & Pascual, Unai & Hodge, Ian, 2010. "Evolution of Land Conservation Policy," 14th ICABR Conference, June 16-18, 2010, Ravello, Italy 188082, International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aiea15:207357. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aieaaea.html .

    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.