IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v18y2019i2p4-10.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Renewing the Governance of Rural Land after Brexit: an Ecosystems Policy Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Ian Hodge

Abstract

Concerns for rural land policy have widened from a focus on food production to include many other critical values, recognised as ecosystems services. But our governance institutions have failed to reflect this. Brexit provides the UK with an opportunity to rethink the governance of rural land. This requires first an assessment of the rights and duties of land ownership. We should explore further the potential for augmented markets and payment for ecosystem services, but the public good character of ecosystem services means that the state will play a major role, through regulation, facilitation, funding and working in partnership with others. The principle of subsidiarity suggests that decisions should be made at different levels: national and local. National policy will procure services for which there is a national commitment or priority, such as for climate change targets or national parks. Local Environmental Governance Organisations will represent local values and priorities articulated through a natural capital plan. Procurement schemes will take account of the experiences gained from agri‐environment policies, extended to include partnerships or land purchase. It will take time to build these new institutions. We need more research but what is required now is a clear vision of the potential and a road map of the route towards it. Les préoccupations relatives à la politique foncière rurale se sont élargies pour passer de la production alimentaire à de nombreuses autres valeurs essentielles, reconnues en tant que services écosystémiques. Mais nos institutions de gouvernance n'ont pas réussi à refléter cette évolution. Le Brexit offre au Royaume‐Uni l'occasion de repenser la gouvernance du foncier rural. Cela nécessite d'abord une évaluation des droits et devoirs de la propriété foncière. Nous devrions explorer plus avant le potentiel des marchés augmentés et du paiement pour les services écosystémiques, mais le caractère de bien public des services écosystémiques signifie que l’État jouera un rôle majeur, à travers la réglementation, la facilitation, le financement et le partenariat avec d'autres acteurs. Le principe de subsidiarité suggère que les décisions doivent être prises à différents niveaux: national et local. La politique nationale fournira des services pour lesquels il existe un engagement ou une priorité nationale, par exemple pour les objectifs de lutte contre le changement climatique ou les parcs nationaux. Les organisations locales de gouvernance environnementale représenteront les valeurs et les priorités locales articulées dans un plan pour le capital naturel. Les systèmes de passation des marchés prendront en compte les expériences tirées des politiques agroenvironnementales, étendues aux partenariats ou à l'achat de terres. Il faudra du temps pour construire ces nouvelles institutions. Nous avons besoin de plus de recherche, mais il nous faut à présent une vision claire du potentiel et une feuille de route pour définir le chemin à suivre. Der Fokus der Agrarpolitik hat sich von einer Konzentration auf die Nahrungsmittelproduktion auf die Einbindung von anderen wichtigen Werten, die als Ökosystemdienstleistungen bezeichnet werden, ausgeweitet. Unsere britischen Regierungsinstitutionen haben dies bislang jedoch nicht ausreichend berücksichtigt. Der Brexit bietet Großbritannien die Chance, die Verwaltung ländlicher Gebiete neu zu gestalten. Dies erfordert zunächst eine Bewertung der Rechte und Pflichten von Grundeigentümern. Wir sollten das Potenzial für erweiterte Märkte und die Vergütung von Ökosystemdienstleistungen noch genauer untersuchen. Dabei sollten wir beachten, dass die Gemeinwohlfunktionen von Ökosystemdienstleistungen bedeuten, dass der Staat eine wichtige Rolle durch Regulierung, Förderung, Finanzierung und Kooperation mit anderen spielen wird. Das Subsidiaritätsprinzip wiederum legt nahe, dass Entscheidungen auf verschiedenen Ebenen getroffen werden sollten: auf nationaler und auf regionaler Ebene. Die staatliche Politik wird Dienstleistungen bereitstellen, für die es eine nationale Verpflichtung oder eine nationale Priorität gibt, wie beispielsweise für Klimaschutzziele oder für Nationalparks. Regionale Umweltverwaltungsorganisationen werden lokale Wertmaßstäbe und Prioritäten vertreten, die in einem Plan für Naturkapital festgelegt sind. Bei den Beschaffungskonzepten werden die Erfahrungen aus der Agrarumweltpolitik berücksichtigt. Diese Konzepte werden auf Partnerschaften oder den Erwerb von Land ausgedehnt werden. Es wird Zeit brauchen, um diese neuen Institutionen aufzubauen. Wir benötigen daher mehr Forschung. Was wir jedoch jetzt benötigen, ist eine klare Vorstellung von den Möglichkeiten und einen Fahrplan für den Weg dorthin.

Suggested Citation

  • Ian Hodge, 2019. "Renewing the Governance of Rural Land after Brexit: an Ecosystems Policy Approach," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 18(2), pages 4-10, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:18:y:2019:i:2:p:4-10
    DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12233
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12233
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1746-692X.12233?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. Dwyer, Janet & Hodge, Ian, 2016. "Governance structures for social-ecological systems: Assessing institutional options against a social residual claimant," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 1-10.
    2. Laure Kuhfuss & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Nudging farmers to enrol land into agri-environmental schemes: the role of a collective bonus," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 43(4), pages 609-636.
    3. James Alm & H. Spencer Banzhaf, 2012. "Designing Economic Instruments For The Environment In A Decentralized Fiscal System," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 177-202, April.
    4. Elinor Ostrom, 2010. "Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 641-672, June.
    5. Austin, Zoё & McVittie, Alistair & McCracken, Davy & Moxey, Andrew & Moran, Dominic & White, Piran C.L., 2016. "The co-benefits of biodiversity conservation programmes on wider ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 37-43.
    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. Gloria Salmoral & Benjamin Ababio & Ian P. Holman, 2020. "Drought Impacts, Coping Responses and Adaptation in the UK Outdoor Livestock Sector: Insights to Increase Drought Resilience," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-15, June.

    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. 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).
    2. 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).
    3. Eloi Laurent & Jean Jouzel, 2018. "The Well-being Transition: Measuring what counts to protect what matters," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03458057, HAL.
    4. Moeliono, Moira & Brockhaus, Maria & Gallemore, Caleb & Dwisatrio, Bimo & Maharani, Cynthia D. & Muharrom, Efrian & Pham, Thuy Thu, 2020. "REDD+ in Indonesia: A new mode of governance or just another project?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    5. Górriz-Mifsud, Elena & Olza Donazar, Luis & Montero Eseverri, Eduardo & Marini Govigli, Valentino, 2019. "The challenges of coordinating forest owners for joint management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 100-109.
    6. McCloskey Deirdre Nansen, 2018. "The Two Movements in Economic Thought, 1700–2000: Empty Economic Boxes Revisited," Man and the Economy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-20, December.
    7. Martin G. Kocher & Fangfang Tan & Jing Yu, 2018. "Providing Global Public Goods: Electoral Delegation And Cooperation," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 381-397, January.
    8. Jorge M. Streb & Gustavo Torrens, 2011. "Meaningful talk," CEMA Working Papers: Serie Documentos de Trabajo. 443, Universidad del CEMA, revised May 2017.
    9. Andy Gouldson & Rory Sullivan, 2014. "Understanding the Governance of Corporations: An Examination of the Factors Shaping UK Supermarket Strategies on Climate Change," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(12), pages 2972-2990, December.
    10. David Klenert & Franziska Funke & Linus Mattauch & Brian O’Callaghan, 2020. "Five Lessons from COVID-19 for Advancing Climate Change Mitigation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(4), pages 751-778, August.
    11. Thomas Vendryes, 2014. "Peasants Against Private Property Rights: A Review Of The Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 971-995, December.
    12. Michael Peneder & Spyros Arvanitis & Christian Rammer & Tobias Stucki & Martin Wörter, 2022. "Policy instruments and self-reported impacts of the adoption of energy saving technologies in the DACH region," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 49(2), pages 369-404, May.
    13. Meyer, Camille, 2020. "The commons: A model for understanding collective action and entrepreneurship in communities," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 35(5).
    14. Haucap, Justus, 2017. "The rule of law and the emergence of market exchange: A new institutional economic perspective," DICE Discussion Papers 276, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    15. Hervé Charmettant & Yvan Renou, 2021. "Cooperative conversion and communalization: Closely observed interactions between the material and the mental," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 92(1), pages 55-77, March.
    16. Sophie King & Peter Kasaija, 2018. "State-movement partnership in Uganda: Co-producing an enabling environment for urban poverty reduction?," Global Development Institute Working Paper Series esid-098-18, GDI, The University of Manchester.
    17. Snower, Dennis J., 2019. "Toward global paradigm change: Beyond the crisis of the liberal world order," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 13, pages 1-19.
    18. Nomfundo Sibiya & Mikateko Sithole & Lindelani Mudau & Mulala Danny Simatele, 2022. "Empowering the Voiceless: Securing the Participation of Marginalised Groups in Climate Change Governance in South Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-20, June.
    19. Natalia Ciobanu & Ali Kerem Saysel, 2021. "Using social–ecological inventory and group model building for resilience assessment to climate change in a network governance setting: a case study from Ikel watershed in Moldova," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 1065-1085, January.
    20. Bluffstone, Randy & Dannenberg, Astrid & Martinsson, Peter & Jha, Prakash & Bista, Rajesh, 2020. "Cooperative behavior and common pool resources: Experimental evidence from community forest user groups in Nepal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).

    More about this item

    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:bla:eurcho:v:18:y:2019:i:2:p:4-10. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.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.