Search

Result-based agri-environment measures are increasingly seen as an interesting way to improve the conditionality and efficiency of the use of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) funding for environmental land management. They differ from classical action-based measures in that they remunerate farmers to achieve a desired outcome, and not for complying with a set of rules. We have analysed MEKA-B4, the result-based agrienvironment measure in place in Baden-Württemberg (Germany) between 2000 and 2014, which aimed to preserve species-rich grassland. In order to do so, we carried out semi-structured face-to-face interviews with participating and non-participating farmers and key institutional actors. We argue that MEKA-B4 could be considered a Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES), but only if a broad definition is adopted, as the payment appeared to cover the opportunity costs of only some categories of farmers (e.g., part-time farmers, less productive fields, hay producers), but it was too low to cover those of intensive cattle raisers and biogas producers, partly due to the changing market conditions (e.g., fluctuating and decreasing price of hay; incentives to produce biogas). In fact, in general most farmers were motivated to join the scheme by a combination of extrinsic motivations (i.e., the monetary incentive) and intrinsic motivations (i.e., ethical reasons). Increasing the payment, as has been done in the new version of the scheme (FAKT-B3), may help to ensure a wider enrolment in the measure in the long term. However, the interaction with biogas subsidies and other measures of the FAKT programme may hamper the farmers’ enrolment. This shows the need to improve the integration and coherence of environmental policies that have different objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The different approaches that other countries take to land use reflect many national variables, including planning systems, institutional structures, socio-cultural characteristics, population pressures and environmental priorities. Literature reviews of relevant land-use issues in Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Sweden provided the background material for this paper. Other European countries appear to offer models of more pro-active and indicative land-use planning, in contrast to the adversarial system in the UK, and a much stronger regional focus. This seems to have made it easier to implement other policies, for example on renewable energy. Experience with liberalisation of agricultural markets, and the promotion of environmentally sustainable farming are both relevant to an increasingly polarised agricultural sector in the UK. Cutting across all these themes is a reflection on governance of land use. Of the countries considered, Sweden''s focus on environmental sustainability, international responsibility and long-term consistency of direction appears to be most closely aligned to the coming land-use challenges. When drawing conclusions from this review it is important to bear in mind the effect of differences in bio-geographic factors, socio-economic conditions and political culture, both in other countries and within the UK. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]