Suchergebnisse

This paper argues that the possible shift towards conservation‐oriented attitudes of farmers through agri‐environmental scheme participation should be seen as a key indicator for assessing the 'effectiveness' of agri‐environmental policy. Through the analysis of two agri‐environmental schemes in the UK, the ESA and Countryside Stewardship schemes, the study suggests that schemes attract different types of farmers and have different results with regard to shifting farmers' attitudes towards conservation. The paper concludes that there is little evidence yet that the ESA scheme is contributing to changes in farmers' attitudes towards conservation, largely because the scheme is aimed at maintenance rather than change. The Countryside Stewardship scheme, meanwhile, generally enrols more conservation‐oriented farmers and also shows greater potential for shifting farmers' attitudes, mainly because it is aimed at enhancement of wildlife habitats which often require farmers to change farm management practices. Results indicate that future policies should put more emphasis on scheme monitoring and farmer environmental education in order to help move farmers along the conservation spectrum. In the ESA scheme, management agreement tiers that require more substantial changes to farm management practices towards conservation‐oriented farming should be made compulsory in order to ensure that farmers are not only 'reacting' to schemes, but that also help farmers re‐think their environmental management practices. The Countryside Stewardship scheme should be further expanded because of its appeal to conservation‐oriented farmers and the resulting potential for sustainable environmental conservation of the countryside.

Based on a large transnational research project that involved questionnaires with 1000 farm households in nine EU countries and Switzerland, this paper investigates factors influencing farmers' participation in agri-environmental schemes (AESs). Analysis of motivations for AES participation highlights that complex patterns of AESs are in operation. Pronounced geographical differences in farmers' reactions towards schemes can be identified, with responses by farmers from northern member states often differing from those in Mediterranean countries, and with arable farmers often responding differently from grassland farmers. Yet, the study also highlights that much common ground exists and that conceptual frameworks for the understanding of farmers' participation in AESs developed in the United Kingdom can be successfully applied outside the British context. Common participation patterns include the importance of financial imperatives and 'goodness of fit', and the influence of similar sets of factors such as farm size, tenure, or farm type. The growing importance of conservation-oriented motivations for AES participation across Europe suggests the emergence of a 'new hypothesis' which highlights that the financial imperative for participation does not necessarily exclude an often equally important environmental concern. The paper concludes by indicating where current agri-environmental policy (AEP) may be failing adequately to address structural and socioeconomic characteristics of targeted farming populations, and by arguing that understanding participation decisionmaking is only the first step in an attempt to assess the 'effectiveness' of AEP. Further comparative research is needed to investigate in detail more complex indicators of scheme success, in particular what effects scheme participation has on farmers' incomes, farmers' environmental attitudes, and on the environmental quality of the countryside targeted by AESs.

There is a growing interest in the conservation potential of linking payments to land managers to ecological outcomes. We drew on the experiences of all schemes paying for biodiversity outcomes on farmland in European countries with the aim of identifying the decisive elements of the schemes' design and implementation as well as the challenges and opportunities of adopting the approach for biodiversity. We used evidence from peer-reviewed literature and technical reports, as well as 20 questionnaire responses and discussions with over 50 key experts in the field of agri-environment-climate policy and results-based schemes (RBS). We identified 36 payment schemes in nine countries that could be called RBS for biodiversity. The majority are in N and W Europe and half are in Germany. Based on the extent to which the schemes' 'payment' and 'control' mechanisms are dependent on a priori specified biodiversity outcomes, we constructed a RBS typology. Payments are based solely on results ('pure' RBS) in only five cases. Most RBS include some basic land management requirements. There is a growing body of research focusing on the approach, also with half of it from Germany. Most studies focus exclusively on the development and testing of ecological indicators and ecological performance. A handful of studies loot at attitudes of payment recipients to the approach. In two countries research integrated ecological, social and economic assessments. The evidence to date shows that there are at least 11 unique advantages to the RBS compared to management-based ones with similar objectives. These deal with environmental efficiency, farmer participation, and development of local biodiversity-based projects. Although results-based approaches have specific challenges at every stage of design and implementation, for many of these the existing schemes provide potential solutions. There is some apprehension about trying a results-based approach in Mediterranean, central and eastern EU Member States. We conclude that there is clear potential to expand the approach under the Rural Development programming period for 2021–2028. Evidence is needed about the approach's efficiency in delivering conservation outcomes in the long term, its additionality, impact on the knowledge and attitudes of land managers and society at large, development of ways of rewarding the achievement of actual results, as well as its potential for stimulating innovative grassroots solutions. We illustrate the approach with a Finnish case that explores ecological, social and economic dimensions. 1. Allen B, Hart K, Radley G, Tucker G, et al. 2014. Biodiversity protection through results-based remuneration of ecological achievement. Report prepared for the European Commission, DG Environment, Institute for European Environmental Policy, London. 2. Herzon I, Birge T, Allen B et al. 2018. Time to look for evidence: results-based approach to biodiversity conservation on farmland in Europe. Land Use Policy ; peerReviewed

This study summarizes the developments of the EU Single Payment Scheme, its national implementation by Member States and provides an economic assessment of the scheme. The various proposals made to change the system of direct payments are examined and possible options for reforms are identified. A new system of direct payments for the next Financial Perspective is suggested. It involves a gradual reorientation of direct payments from income support to remuneration for the provision of public goods. Reform proposals for the remaining income support include cofinancing and a move towards a flatter system with a cap related to labour units. This proposal subscribes to subsidiarity, but the increased weight of remuneration for public goods would also call for a stronger harmonisation of the legislative baseline on which the system of EU payments rests. ; Le document est un rapport du Parlement Européen fait par un groupe d'économistes coordonnés par JC Bureau et HP Witzke, sur les voies de réforme des paiements directes qui représentent désormais l'essentiel du budget de la Politique Agricole Commune. Les propositions des différents états membres, des organisations non gouvernementales et du monde académique sont recensées et examinées. Des simulations de plusieurs voies pour réformer ces paiements directs sont effectuées et la compatibilité des différentes propositions avec le cadre budgétaire et les engagements internationaux sont analysés.

This study summarizes the developments of the EU Single Payment Scheme, its national implementation by Member States and provides an economic assessment of the scheme. The various proposals made to change the system of direct payments are examined and possible options for reforms are identified. A new system of direct payments for the next Financial Perspective is suggested. It involves a gradual reorientation of direct payments from income support to remuneration for the provision of public goods. Reform proposals for the remaining income support include cofinancing and a move towards a flatter system with a cap related to labour units. This proposal subscribes to subsidiarity, but the increased weight of remuneration for public goods would also call for a stronger harmonisation of the legislative baseline on which the system of EU payments rests. ; Le document est un rapport du Parlement Européen fait par un groupe d'économistes coordonnés par JC Bureau et HP Witzke, sur les voies de réforme des paiements directes qui représentent désormais l'essentiel du budget de la Politique Agricole Commune. Les propositions des différents états membres, des organisations non gouvernementales et du monde académique sont recensées et examinées. Des simulations de plusieurs voies pour réformer ces paiements directs sont effectuées et la compatibilité des différentes propositions avec le cadre budgétaire et les engagements internationaux sont analysés.