Search

Agri-environmental and climate schemes are an important policy instrument in the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union to maintain biodiversity and safeguard ecosystem services provision for human wellbeing. In the presented dataset, we analyzed 19 innovative contracts for agri-environmental and climate schemes from six European countries, representing examples of four different contract types: result-based, collective, land tenure, and value chain contracts. Our analytical approach comprised three steps: In the first step, we used a method mix combining literature review, web search, and expert consultation to identify potential case examples for the innovative contracts. In the second step, we employed a survey, which was structured in accordance with Ostrom's institutional analysis and development framework to collect detailed information on each contract. The survey was either filled in by us authors, based on information retrieved from websites and other data sources, or by experts directly involved in the different contracts. Based on the collected data, in the third step, an in-depth analysis was conducted on the public, private, and civil actors involved from different governance levels (local, regional, national, or international) and the roles these actors perform in contract governance. The dataset generated through these three steps contains 84 data files, which includes tables, figures, maps, and a text file. The dataset can be re-used by all interested in result-based, collective, land tenure, and value chain contracts for agri-environmental and climate schemes. Each contract is characterized in great detail by 34 variables making the dataset suitable for further institutional and governance analysis.

Innovative agri-environmental contracts are increasingly studied in the literature, but their adoption has been relatively slow and geographically scattered. Action-based agri-environmental measures remain the predominant policy mechanism across Europe. A three-round Policy Delphi study was conducted with policy makers, scientific experts, farmers’ representatives, and NGOs from across 15 different European countries, to investigate how and under which circumstances novel contractual solutions could be implemented more widely. The expert panel perceived result-based and collective contractual elements as the most promising. Although considered beneficial from several aspects, value chain contracts were perceived less relevant to the policy environment. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Pillar 2 measures were highlighted by the experts as the key policy area to implement novel contracts by national or regional authorities, but Pillar 1 eco-schemes, being launched in the CAP 2023–2027, were also considered as a potentially suitable framework for testing and implementation. The Delphi panel envisaged innovative contracts should be adopted by governments in iterative steps and not as a complete substitute for current payment schemes, but rather as an additional incentive to them. Such an incremental approach allows contractual innovations to capitalise on existing best practices. But it also implies the risk that innovative contracts could remain marginal and fail to substantially change farmers’ behaviour, resulting in a failure to improve environmental conditions.

In the presented dataset we have analyzed 19 innovative contracts for agri-environmental and climate schemes from six European countries. The selected contracts represent examples of four different contract types: result-based, collective, land tenure, and value chain contracts. For the analysis we used a three step approach: Step 1: We employed a method mix combining literature review, web search, and expert consultation to identify potential case examples for the innovative contracts, resulting in a final sample of four to five contracts per contract types including contracts from Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Step 2: We designed a survey structured in accordance with Elinor Ostrom’s institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework to collect detailed information on overall 34 variables for each contract, yielding a data matrix with 646 data points. Step 3: We conducted an in-depth analysis for each contract on the involved actors and their roles in contract governance roles, generating a detailed inventory of 179 identified actors where each actor was assigned one or several out of 16 possible governance roles, creating a data matrix of 2,864 data points. The dataset generated through these three steps contains 84 data files, including tables, figures, maps, and one text file. The dataset can be re-used by all interested in the institutional and governance analysis of innovative contracts for agri-environmental and climate schemes. The dataset is linked to Work package 2 (WP2), Task 2.2 (T2.2), and Deliverable 2.2 (D2.2) of the research and innovation action ‘Contracts2.0’ (https://www.project-contracts20.eu/) funded under grant agreement no. 818190 through the European Union’s Horizon 2020 program. This dataset contains the information required to reproduce the results presented in the following research paper: Sattler, C., Barghusen, R., Bredemeier, B., Dutilly, C., Prager, K. (2023). Institutional analysis of

Although the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union has broadened its objectives to integrate social issues, several hard-to-reach groups of farmers and workers continue to be ignored by advisory services and associated policies. Connecting with these groups has a strong potential to increase the economic and social cohesion of European agricultures. We interviewed over 1,000 farmers across Europe and identified features of these groups that are often overlooked by advisory services. We critically reflected on the social cohorts omitted from advisory services and how they could be better reached; they include farm labourers, new entrants or ‘career changers’, and later adopters. We clarify the different types of advisors in the advisory landscape, distinguishing between those who are linked to or independent from sales of inputs or technologies. We make concrete recommendations about how to engage advisors with hard-to-reach groups, with approaches suited to different national contexts of Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS); thus contributing to the ‘AKIS dimension of National Strategic Plans of the next Common Agricultural Policy, 2023–2027. We argue for the more effective use of advances in the social sciences through a better understanding of advice as social interaction which can bolster the inclusiveness of public policies.

Solving grand environmental societal challenges calls for transdisciplinary and participatory methods in social-ecological research. These methods enable co-designing the research, co-producing the results, and co-creating the impacts together with concerned stakeholders. COVID-19 has had serious impacts on the choice of research methods, but reflections on recent experiences of “moving online” are still rare. In this perspective, we focus on the challenge of adjusting different participatory methods to online formats used in five transdisciplinary social-ecological research projects. The key added value of our research is the lessons learned from a comparison of the pros and cons of adjusting a broader set of methods to online formats. We conclude that combining the adjusted online approaches with well-established face-to-face formats into more inclusive hybrid approaches can enrich and diversify the pool of available methods for postpandemic research. Furthermore, a more diverse group of participants can be engaged in the research process.

Dataset for H2020 project Contracts2.0 (GA No 818190), WP2, Task 2.1, Deliverable 2.1. This dataset contains the information needed to reproduce the results in: Bredemeier, Birte; Herrmann, Sylvia; Sattler, Claudia; Prager, Katrin; van Bussel, Lenny, Rex, Julia (submitted): Can the greater integration of biodiversity and ecosystem services into agricultural management be achieved through innovative contract design? Submitted to Ecosystem Services. The Contracts2.0 project aims to develop novel contract-based approaches to incentivise farmers for the increased provision of environmental public goods alongside private goods. Based on a literature review and integration of expert knowledge, we identified a comprehensive set of approaches to innovative contracts deviating from mainstream AECM contracts, and provide an overview of the variety of contracts currently being tested and experimented with. This includes different contract types like innovative Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) approaches, value chain approaches and land tenure contracts, as well as their hybrids. We analysed 62 cases providing insights into characteristics of contract design and contract governance and the wider policy framework. The present dataset contains information on the criteria and specifications used to describe the cases studied, as well as the evaluation of each case. This information has been compiled to the best of our knowledge based on the sources available. For further information on the project Contracts2.0, please visit our website www.project-contracts20.eu.

The aim of this document is to produce a state-of-t he-art of the academic literature in order to identify theories and concepts available for: a) de scribing the structure, the dynamics and the functioning of agricultural advisory services; b) understanding how these services are embedded into national Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Syst ems (AKIS), and into various agricultural and rural policies across the European Union (EU) count ries; c) providing some conceptual elements to support the methodology for an inventory of agricul tural advisory services in EU 27 countries (WP3 of the PRO AKIS project), and for the selection of case studies (WP4 of the PRO AKIS project) . Recent reviews of the literature indicate some challenges for the analysis, the implementation and the evaluation of agricultural advisory services (Faure et al. 2012, Birner et al. 2009). These reviews st ress the need to switch towards a best fit perspective: " promoting "one-size-fits-all" approaches are inappropriate for agricultural advisory services.[. ..] What is important is to build capacity among policy-planners, managers and researchers to identi fy modes of providing and (...) advisory services that "best fit" the specific conditions and develop ment priorities of their countries " (Birner et al 2009). If such debates have a growing importance in the co ntexts of South countries, they need to be intensified in Europe through comparative analyses. The report proposes an analysis of agricultural advisory services according to the diversity of i) their methods, ii) their funding principles and iii ) their aims, beyond their common characteristics. It is al so possible to propose a consistent set of tools fo r describing these three dimensions. All these issues also open a new research agenda. Some of them will be considered in the realm of the PRO AKIS pro ject (e.g. systematic reviews of available knowledge on the effectiveness of farm advisory ser vices carried out in WP2; case s