IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v71y2018icp347-354.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Time to look for evidence: Results-based approach to biodiversity conservation on farmland in Europe

Author

Listed:
  • Herzon, I.
  • Birge, T.
  • Allen, B.
  • Povellato, A.
  • Vanni, F.
  • Hart, K.
  • Radley, G.
  • Tucker, G.
  • Keenleyside, C.
  • Oppermann, R.
  • Underwood, E.
  • Poux, X.
  • Beaufoy, G.
  • Pražan, J.

Abstract

Increased use of annual payments to land managers for ecological outcomes indicates a growing interest in exploring the potential of this approach. In this viewpoint, we drew on the experiences of all schemes paying for biodiversity outcomes/results on agricultural land operating in the EU and EFTA countries with the aim of reviewing the decisive elements of the schemes’ design and implementation as well as the challenges and opportunities of adopting a results-based approach. We analysed the characteristics of results-based schemes using evidence from peer-reviewed literature, technical reports, scheme practitioners and experts in agri-environment-climate policy. We developed a typology of the schemes and explored critical issues influencing the feasibility and performance of results-based schemes. The evidence to date shows that there are at least 11 advantages to the results-based approach not found in management-based schemes with similar objectives, dealing with environmental efficiency, farmers’ 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 also 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 in the European Union for the Rural Development programming period for 2021–2028. Nevertheless, 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Herzon, I. & Birge, T. & Allen, B. & Povellato, A. & Vanni, F. & Hart, K. & Radley, G. & Tucker, G. & Keenleyside, C. & Oppermann, R. & Underwood, E. & Poux, X. & Beaufoy, G. & Pražan, J., 2018. "Time to look for evidence: Results-based approach to biodiversity conservation on farmland in Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 347-354.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:71:y:2018:i:c:p:347-354
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837717304866
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.011?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Prazan, Jaroslav & Theesfeld, Insa, 2014. "The role of agri-environmental contracts in saving biodiversity in the post-socialist Czech Republic," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 8(1), pages 1-25.
    2. Astrid Zabel & Göran Bostedt & Stefanie Engel, 2014. "Performance Payments for Groups: The Case of Carnivore Conservation in Northern Sweden," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 59(4), pages 613-631, December.
    3. Steven Schilizzi & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann, 2016. "Incentivizing and Tendering Conservation Contracts: The Trade-off between Participation and Effort Provision," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 92(2), pages 273-291.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Zabel, Astrid & Roe, Brian, 2009. "Optimal design of pro-conservation incentives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 126-134, November.
    7. Alexander Wezel & Maria Zipfer & Christine Aubry & Fabienne Barataud & Alois Heißenhuber, 2016. "Result-oriented approaches to the management of drinking water catchments in agricultural landscapes," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(2), pages 183-202, February.
    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. Berthet, Alice & Vincent, Audrey & Fleury, Philippe, 2021. "Water quality issues and agriculture: An international review of innovative policy schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    2. Sidemo-Holm, William & Smith, Henrik G. & Brady, Mark V., 2018. "Improving agricultural pollution abatement through result-based payment schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 209-219.
    3. Chaplin, S.P. & Mills, J. & Chiswell, H., 2021. "Developing payment-by-results approaches for agri-environment schemes: Experience from an arable trial in England," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    4. Elofsson, Katarina & Hiron, Matthew & Kačergytė, Ineta & Pärt, Tomas, 2023. "Ecological compensation of stochastic wetland biodiversity: National or regional policy schemes?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    5. 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.
    6. Andeltová, Lucie & Catacutan, Delia C. & Wünscher, Tobias & Holm-Müller, Karin, 2019. "Gender aspects in action- and outcome-based payments for ecosystem services—A tree planting field trial in Kenya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 13-22.
    7. 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).
    8. Veronesi, Marcella & Reutemann, Tim & Zabel, Astrid & Engel, Stefanie, 2015. "Designing REDD+ schemes when forest users are not forest landowners: Evidence from a survey-based experiment in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 46-57.
    9. Tianran Ding & Wouter Achten, 2023. "Coupling agent-based modeling with territorial LCA to support agricultural land-use planning," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/359527, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    10. Rodríguez-Ortega, T. & Olaizola, A.M. & Bernués, A., 2018. "A novel management-based system of payments for ecosystem services for targeted agri-environmental policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 74-84.
    11. Markova-Nenova, Nonka & Engler, Jan O. & Cord, Anna F. & Wätzold, Frank, 2023. "A Cost Comparison Analysis of Bird-Monitoring Techniques for Result-Based Payments in Agriculture," MPRA Paper 116311, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Anastasio J. Villanueva & Klaus Glenk & Macario Rodríguez-Entrena, 2017. "Protest Responses and Willingness to Accept: Ecosystem Services Providers’ Preferences towards Incentive-Based Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 801-821, September.
    13. 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.
    14. Yaofeng Yang & Yajuan Chen & Zhenrong Yu & Pengyao Li & Xuedong Li, 2020. "How Does Improve Farmers’ Attitudes toward Ecosystem Services to Support Sustainable Development of Agriculture? Based on Environmental Kuznets Curve Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-16, October.
    15. Pham, Thu Thuy & Loft, Lasse & Bennett, Karen & Phuong, Vu Tan & Dung, Le Ngoc & Brunner, Jake, 2015. "Monitoring and evaluation of Payment for Forest Environmental Services in Vietnam: From myth to reality," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 220-229.
    16. Mensah, Justice Tei & Persson, Jens & Kjellander, Petter & Elofsson, Katarina, 2019. "Effects of carnivore presence on hunting lease pricing in South Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    17. Houdet, Joël & Trommetter, Michel & Weber, Jacques, 2012. "Understanding changes in business strategies regarding biodiversity and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 37-46.
    18. Sattler, Claudia & Trampnau, Susanne & Schomers, Sarah & Meyer, Claas & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Multi-classification of payments for ecosystem services: How do classification characteristics relate to overall PES success?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 31-45.
    19. Simpson, Katherine & Armsworth, Paul R. & Dallimer, Martin & Nthambi, Mary & de Vries, Frans P. & Hanley, Nick, 2023. "Improving the ecological and economic performance of agri-environment schemes: Payment by modelled results versus payment for actions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    20. Johanna Norris & Bettina Matzdorf & Rena Barghusen & Christoph Schulze & Bart van Gorcum, 2021. "Viewpoints on Cooperative Peatland Management: Expectations and Motives of Dutch Farmers," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-16, December.

    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:eee:lauspo:v:71:y:2018:i:c:p:347-354. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.