Contrasting the attitudes of farmers and the general public regarding the ‘multifunctional’ role of the agricultural sector

Using separate nationally representative surveys, this study compared the views and perspectives of farmers towards agricultural related conservation issues with that of the general public. Results suggest that both the general public and farmers expressed similar levels of concern regarding the environment as a whole. This is an encouraging sign when it comes to environmental protection, as it indicates a certain level of agreement between farmers as the group whose activities largely shape the quality of the rural environment, with the views of the general public who are the major consumers of landscape related environmental public goods. The analysis did, however, reveal important differences in attitudes in relation to certain environmental issues such as the relative importance of maintaining wildlife and habitats and having wild flora and fauna in the countryside. These activities could be seen as in conflict with farmers’ productivist attitudes. We found no significant difference in environmental attitudes between farmers who have participated in voluntary agri-environmental schemes and those who did not. Results also suggest that there is significant heterogeneity in public attitudes towards environmental issues. Specifically, age, income, place of residence and presence of children were all significantly associated with environmental preferences. The study concludes that consideration needs to be given to the different views and perspectives of farmers and the general public in formulating policy aimed at providing an optimal mix of agricultural related environmental public goods and services.     

Interaction effects of targeted agri-environmental payments on non-marketed goods and services under climate change in a mountain region

Targeting of agri-environmental measures (AEMs) is a key to increasing the cost-effectiveness of governmental support for biodiversity conservation and the provision of ecosystem services from agriculture. Existing literature, however, often focuses on single measures without considering that policies are usually bundles of different measures addressing multiple non-marketed goods and services. Thus, interaction effects of a set of policies in a given policy mix may influence the cost-effectiveness of single measures. Recently, Swiss agricultural policy was redesigned using the Tinbergen rule as its basis, i.e., a single measure for each policy goal, including additional targeted direct payments. This facilitates testing for interaction effects of multiple targeted AEMs. Here we use a social-ecological, agent-based modelling framework to assess interaction effects of these agricultural policies while accounting for climate change impacts in our analysis. The results from our case study in a mountain region show that ecosystem service provision increases with targeted payments. However, interaction effects of the different targeted policies affect the provision levels of all goods and services. In particular, changes at the extensive margin, i.e., the total amount of land that is under production, largely determine the amount of ecosystem services provided. Thus, climate change driven productivity increases and policies that keep land in production may substantially support the provision of non-marketed goods and services in marginal agricultural production regions with a high potential for land abandonment. Consequently, the effectiveness of targeted policy measures should also consider changes at the extensive margin and be assessed in the context of bundles or portfolios of different policy measures.     

Compliance Monitoring and Agri-Environmental Policy

This paper examines the issue of compliance monitoring in agri-environmental policy when a farmer is risk-neutral and risk-averse. The optimal contract model presented here significantly extends and generalises the results and conclusions of Choe and Fraser (1998). In this paper the environmental agency explicitly chooses monitoring accuracy and monitoring costs as well as rewards for farmers. It is found that, by modelling the environmental agency as being cost-conscious optimal monitoring accuracy may or may not be higher for a risk-averse farmer than for a risk-neutral farmer. Essentially, the environmental agency faces an explicit trade-off between monitoring costs and incentive payments as a means to ensure the desired behaviour from the farmer. The importance of the results derived are discussed in the context of agri-environmental policy design and implementation     

Encouraging collaboration for the provision of ecosystem services at a landscape scale—Rethinking agri-environmental payments

In this viewpoint we draw on insights from participatory agri-environmental policy making, spatial planning and collaborative approaches to environmental management. We propose steps for planning, design and implementation of agri-environmental payment schemes that will encourage collaboration and co-ordinated actions at a landscape scale to contribute more effectively to the continued provision of ecosystem services.     

Farmer participation in agri-environmental schemes: Regionalisation and the role of bridging social capital

European agri-environmental schemes are being criticised for reinforcing rather than negating an opposition between agricultural production and environmental production, and for assuming instead of securing a public willingness to pay for agri-environmental change. This paper explores if a regionalisation of agri-environmental governance may contribute to overcome these criticisms. The paper empirically explores three regionalised agri-environmental schemes from Flanders, Belgium, with the use of 40 qualitative interviews with farmers and other relevant stakeholders. Building on the Bourdieusian theory of capital and the conceptual distinction between bonding and bridging social capital, the paper analyses whether and why the regionalised arrangements incited farmers to integrate environmental production in their farm management to meet other regional stakeholders’ demands for agri-environmental change. In doing so, the paper particularly focuses on the role of bridging social capital in fostering farmer participation in agri-environmental governance, which is a topic that—despite a growing scholarly recognition of the importance of social capital in mediating farmers’ environmental behaviour—has to date received scant conceptual and empirical attention. The paper reveals that farmers principally participated in the regionalised agri-environmental schemes to enhance the long-term viability of their agricultural businesses by building up more cooperative and appreciative, bridging social ties with other regional stakeholders. Notably, such participation is only likely to be substantive and lead to long-term, pro-environmental behaviour change of farmers, if farmers actually succeed in building up bridging social capital by receiving other regional stakeholders’ appreciation for their agri-environmental work. The paper ends with discussing the implications of these findings for the future design and implementation of socially and ecologically robust agri-environmental schemes.     

Natural Areas, the whole countryside approach and sustainable agriculture

Natural Areas are biogeographical zones which reflect the geological foundation, the natural systems and processes, and the wildlife in different parts of England, and provide a framework for setting objectives for nature conservation. This paper argues, with particular reference to agro-ecosystems, that there is a need for an integrated, whole countryside approach to Natural Areas based on the principles of ‘strong’ sustainable development. In practice, this means the delineation of conservation objectives for the whole of each Natural Area and the application of policy instruments designed to address the causes of environmental loss and deterioration. The latter requires, it is argued, a structural analysis of generic environmental issues. A generic issues approach is required in order to avoid the pitfalls of environmental ‘symptom management’ (environmental managerialism), an approach which dominates current environmental and agri-environmental policy. Necessary as such discrete action programmes and measures may be as short-term ‘fire-fighting’ responses to immediate threats, environmental managerialism as a policy framework epitomises a non-holistic and ‘disintegrated’ approach to nature conservation. The paper goes on to discuss the configuration of agri-environmental policy that will be required to address generic agricultural impacts on biodiversity and the constraints and opportunities for its implementation that are likely to arise within the context of further CAP reform and the forthcoming round of WTO negotiations.     

Effects of agri-environment schemes on farm-level eco-efficiency measures: Empirical evidence from EU countries

The European Union (EU) budget allocated to agri-environmental schemes (AES) has increased consistently over the past 20 years. European citizens should expect effective spending of these public funds, so investigation of the effects of these schemes on both environmental benefits and farm efficiency is warranted. We examine the effects of European agri-environmental schemes on farm-level eco-efficiency. Our analysis combines data envelopment analysis and impact assessment methods to evaluate the impact of scheme payments on eco-efficiency measures. Our results suggest that there is considerable scope for eco-efficiency improvements, both for dairy and crop production. Results also show that the average change in eco-efficiency scores does not vary significantly between AES participants and non-participants, which questions the effectiveness of present AES.     

Public preferences for post 2020 agri-environmental policy in the Czech Republic: A choice experiment approach

In November 2017 European Union commission presented a communication report summarizing the reform proposal of the post 2020 Common Agriculture Policy (CAP). The reform aims to address the environmental degradation associated with agricultural production as well as change in the structure of CAP payments. To this end, the Ministry of Agriculture in Czech Republic is preparing to set its priorities towards CAP’s reform. In this study we applied a choice experiment to investigate the public preferences for a set of environmental goods and services delivered by agri-environment-climatic voluntary measures (AECMs). A mixed logit model is employed to elicit preferences and explore their heterogeneity. We find that respondents oppose strongly funding removal. Among environmental attributes, water and food quality are the ones with the highest implicit marginal willingness-to-pay values. Preferences for no funding option are heterogeneous with socio-demographic and attitudinal variables explaining some sources of this heterogeneity. A continuation of national funding for the AECMs is expected to lead to a better state of environment with an anticipated positive welfare change of 669–932 mil EUR as opposed to funding removal. The change reflects the estimated welfare change resulting from moving from a low to a medium or to a high preservation state of agri-environmental attributes. We also project the budget change for AECMs considering the level of national funding and given the transfer share between Pillar I and II. Based on our results, we suggest that national funding can be informed by the welfare change scenarios and transfer shares are projected accordingly.     

Agri-Environmental Stewardship Schemes and "Multifunctionality"

The United Kingdom introduced the first agri-environmental scheme in the European Union in 1986. Since then, the United Kingdom has developed and implemented several other schemes that also feature stewardship payments to improve agriculture's environmental performance. In this article, lessons learned from the United Kingdom's agri-environmental programs are identified. Using the concept of "multifunctionality," which increasingly is influencing agricultural policy in Western Europe, the authors examine key issues associated with potential major expansions of stewardship payment schemes on both sides of the Atlantic.     

Why do we need to integrate farmer decision making and wildlife models for policy evaluation?

Environmental and agricultural policy instruments cause changes in land-use which in turn affect habitat quality and availability for a range of species. These policies often have wildlife or biodiversity goals, but in many cases they are ineffective. The low effectiveness and the emergence of unwanted side effects of environmental and agricultural policies are caused by over-simplistic assumptions in the design of policy instruments as well as difficulties with predicting behaviours of policy subjects. When considering wildlife in agricultural landscapes, policy's performance depends both on human (farmers) actions, which the policies aim to affect, and wildlife responses to land-use and management changes imposed by farmers. Thus, in order to design effective agri-environmental policies, detailed ex-ante assessments of both of these aspects are necessary. Due to the restrictive assumptions and technical limitations, traditional agricultural economic and ecological models fall short in terms of predictions of impacts of agri-environmental measures. The feedback situation between policy, human behaviour and ecological systems behaviour can confound these approaches, which do not take systems complexity into account. Therefore, a solution that integrates both feedback interactions and the differing scales at which these interactions take place is needed. For this, we suggest developing integrated policy assessment tools comprising of simulated farmer decision making, on-farm land-use and wildlife responses in the form of spatially explicit, dynamically connected agent-based models. Although complex and necessitating true inter-disciplinarity, these approaches have matured to the point where this endeavour is now feasible.     

Transatlantic Similarities and Contrasts in Rural Development PoliciesTransatlantische Ähnlichkeiten und Gegensätze bei den Politiken zur Entwicklung des ländlichen RaumsPoints communs et divergences transatlantiques sur le développement rural

Transatlantic Similarities and Contrasts in Rural Development Policies
The United States (US) and European Union (EU) share many general policy aims for rural areas, but they differ in the ways in which they try to achieve these aims. The principal difference lies in the role envisioned by agriculture in overall rural development. EU policies treat agriculture as a provider of public goods, and many of its 'rural' programmes target agriculture. In the US, very few Federal rural development programs are focused solely on agriculture. Differences of approach may be linked to different farm distributions, population densities, historical settlement patterns, and the historical policy process per se . In particular, in the US rural development policy does not cover the environment or income support to farmers; these are addressed through other programmes. In contrast, the EU classifies its agri-environmental programmes as rural development, claiming that more environmentally-friendly farm practices bring benefits to the broader rural economy. US State and local initiatives emphasize many themes found in the EU's Pillar II programmes, such as value-added or sustainable agriculture. Overall, although there are marked differences in the ways in which policies are implemented, the coverage of these policies in the EU and US is rather similar.     

A Note on Imperfect Monitoring of Agri-Environmental Policy

In this note the impact of imperfect compliance monitoring on the implementation of agri-environmental policy is analysed. A principal-agent model is used to demonstrate how imperfections in the monitoring process lead to higher levels of incentive payments to ensure compliance. This means that less accurate compliance monitoring results in higher social costs from policy implementation. Technical enhancements in the accuracy of compliance monitoring will therefore lead to a reduction in social costs. This is an important result with significant implications for the design and implementation of agri-environmental policy.     

The EU societal awareness of landscape indicator: A review of its meaning,utility and performance across different scales

There is increasing recognition that agricultural landscapes meet multiple societal needs and demands beyond provision of economic and environmental goods and services. Accordingly, there have been significant calls for the inclusion of societal, amenity and cultural values in agri-environmental landscape indicators to assist policy makers in monitoring the wider impacts of land-based policies. However, capturing the amenity and cultural values that rural agrarian areas provide, by use of such indicators, presents significant challenges. The EU social awareness of landscape indicator represents a new class of generalized social indicator using a top–down methodology to capture the social dimensions of landscape without reference to the specific structural and cultural characteristics of individual landscapes. This paper reviews this indicator in the context of existing agri-environmental indicators and their differing design concepts. Using a stakeholder consultation approach in five case study regions, the potential and limitations of the indicator are evaluated, with a particular focus on its perceived meaning, utility and performance in the context of different user groups and at different geographical scales. This analysis supplements previous EU-wide assessments, through regional scale assessment of the limitations and potentialities of the indicator and the need for further data collection. The evaluation finds that the perceived meaning of the indicator does not vary with scale, but in common with all mapped indicators, the usefulness of the indicator, to different user groups, does change with scale of presentation. This indicator is viewed as most useful when presented at the scale of governance at which end users operate. The relevance of the different sub-components of the indicator are also found to vary across regions.     

Hybrid knowledge for understanding complex agri-environmental issues: nitrate pollution in Italy

Although agri-environmental policies have been launched by the European Union to mitigate environmental pollution and sustain agricultural development, there is not much understanding of how to manage the asymmetries between the objectives and the effectiveness of the implementation of the policies on local scale. The nitrate directive (ND) is an emblematic case in this context. This research focused on the role of ‘hybrid knowledge’ (scientific and local) and the process of knowledge integration in understanding the nitrate problem as an agri-environmental issue emerging from a complex set of biophysical and social factors. We conducted an integrated analysis of a case study on nitrate pollution in an intensive dairy district under Mediterranean conditions. A participatory action research approach was applied to elicit stakeholders’ knowledge and perspectives and to create new learning spaces among farmers, researchers and policy makers at case study scale. We explored the effectiveness of social learning triggered due to participatory field experiments, by bringing together stakeholders to generate new ‘hybrid knowledge’ for agri-environmental sustainability. The dramatic shift from the initial defensive position of farmers to an agreement on concerted actions proved that the integration between local and scientific knowledge may contribute to an increase in the effectiveness of the ND.     

The Governance of Rural Land in a Liberalised World

Liberalisation of agricultural policies reduces the influence of policy on land‐use decisions, but environmental policy objectives remain. Governance provides an approach that recognises the role of institutions and collective action. The formulation of environmental policy objectives in terms of the provision of public goods raises questions as to the role of economic valuation and as to whether the definition of ‘goods’ may misdirect policy attention. An alternative approach relates to ecosystem services and sees management issues in terms of ecosystem resilience and the adaptive governance of socio‐ecological systems. Governance involves a mix of regulation, markets, government incentives and collective action. Regulation sets the domain within which markets operate and social judgements as to property rights are required as a basis for exchanges. Depending on commodity prices, agri‐environment schemes may be required either to reduce agricultural production intensity or to keep land under production. The diffuse nature of the environmental benefits and costs of land uses, the complexity of ecosystems and the need to co‐ordinate land management decisions indicate a role for local adaptive co‐management of land resources. Governments play a major role in supporting the institutional framework within which this can take place.     

我国公益林经营现状与经济政策改进

从我国公益林建设现状入手,分析公益林经营现存的问题。以经济学理论为支撑,借助森林分类经营理论对公益林进行经济学划分,将其按照非私有物品的特性,分为完全公共物品属性的公益林、非完全公共物品属性的公益林、部分具有私人物品属性的公益林、可参与市场交易的公益林。在这种划分的情况下,采取不同的资金来源方式、补偿方式及管护方式。最后给出了政策创新建议。     

生态系统的商品和服务属性及其提供的环境收入

生态系统具有商品和服务的属性,人类的生产和生活依赖于这些商品和服务。生态系统提供的商品和服务所体现的价值是人类从系统中获取的环境收入。农村家庭从公共共享资源中以不同途径获得的环境收入,用于家庭成员消费和商品交换。公共资源支撑力的衰退,迫使人们加强生态系统支撑能力建设。     

Environmental grants and regulations in strategic farm business decision-making: A case study of attitudinal behaviour in Scotland

This paper addresses the question of farmer responses to agri-environmental programming in light of the Single Farm Payment, focusing on the role of environmental regulations and grant schemes in strategic farm decision-making. Utilising Ajzen's theory of planned behaviour in a qualitative case study of farmers in Upper Deeside, Scotland, it was found that farmer respondents actively consider environmental regulations and grant opportunities as part of their decision rationale in making investments in farm development, such as agro-industrial building construction or securing additional land. Fulfilling agri-environmental regulations is constructed by respondents as being part of ensuring farm viability, while eligibility for agri-environmental schemes is impacting on how tenanted land is valued. The author identifies three mechanisms facilitating farmer up-take of environmental schemes, and makes a case for consideration of farmers as experts in producing environmental outcomes while maintaining economic sustainability of farming operations.