Overcome the obstacles

Overcome the obstacles

Recently, we have added a prominent space to the CONSOLE project website so that the Deliverables can be more easily consulted.

Among them, we have uploaded the Deliverable called “Draft framework” which aims to inform about the draft for the provision of AECPG, and where the first solutions are included.

UNIBO is going to show examples of experiences and practices and successful; as well as improved solutions for contractual relationships; and that – in turn – allows managers of agricultural spaces:

  • Choosing between possible new contract solutions as alternatives or combinations with the currently dominant practice/action based approaches;
  • Design contractual solutions from the preparatory phase to the conclusion of the contract and measure the implementation;
  • Consider adding custom recipes.

How has it been done?

A careful analysis of each case study has been carried out, the approaches that coincide with the characteristics of the objective contract have been identified in the conceptual framework of the CONSOLE project. All of this makes it possible to identify initiatives that can help overcome obstacles to the implementation of certain types of innovative contracts.

Subsequently, four main categories were identified, each case study had 4 main points: description of the case study, data/facts of the contract, background information and reasons for success, as shown below (Table 1)

ATAT3Result‐based Nature Conservation PlanX
ATAT4The Humus Program of the koregio Kaindorf (Carbon market)X
FIFI6Nature value bargaining (Luonnonarvokauppa)X
FRFR4ECO‐METHANE – Rewarding dairy farmers for low GHG emissions in
IRLIRL2RBAPS ‐ The Results‐based Agri‐Environment Payment Scheme (RBAPS)
Pilot in Ireland
ITIT5Farmers as Custodian of a TerritoryX
LVLV3Bauska Nature Park tidy up of territoryX
NLNL3Biodiversity monitor for dairy farmingXXX
NLNL4Biodiversity monitor for ARABLE farmingXXX
FRFR2Terres de Sources ‐ Public food order in Brittany, FranceXX
DEDE2Organic farming for biodiversity XX
BEBE1Participation of private landowners to the ecological restoration of the
Pond area Midden‐Limburg/ the 3watEr project
BEBE3Wildlife Estates Label in FlandersXX
BEBE4Flemish nature management planXX
DEDE1Viticulture on steep slopes creates diversity in the Moselle valleyXX
DEDE4Agro-ecological transition pathways in arable farmingXX
FRFR5HAMSTER – Collective AECM to restore habitats of the European
Hamster in Alsace (France)
IRLIRL1BurrenLife ProjectXX
IRLIRL3BRIDE ‐ Biodiversity Regeneration in a Dairying EnvironmentXX
FIFI2Protected areas of private forests as tourism destinationXXX
BEBE2FLANDERS– Flemish Forest GroupX
DEDE6Forest conversion from coniFerous to deciduous stands – an eco‐account
ITIT1Incentives for collective reservoirsX
ITIT2Cooperation in Natura 2000 area benefiting biodiversityX
UKUK1Delivering multiple environmental benefits in the South PenninesX
UKUK2Using natural flood management to achieve multiple environmental
UKUK3Building natural flood management knowledge and capacity in
UKUK4Natural Flood Management in the River Swale catchment in YorkshireX
UKUK5Environmental improvement?across a whole catchment: Esk ValleyX
NLNL1Kromme Rijn Collective managementX
LVLV4Forest ManagementX
PLPL1Natural grazing in Podkarpackie RegionXX
PLPL2Program “Sheep Plus”XX
FIFI1Forest Bank – a forest conservation program in Indiana and Virginia, USXX
FIFI5Green jointly owned forest ‐ TUOHIXXX
NLNL2Green Deal Dutch SoyXX
ATAT1ALMO – alpine oxen meat from AustriaX
BGBG2Organic honey from Stara Planina mountain sitesX
BGBG3"The Wild Farm" organic farmersX
FRFR3Esprit Parc National ‐ Food and services in the national park of
PLPL3Program “Flowering meadows”X
PLPL4Bio‐Babalscy – Organic Pasta Chain Preserving Old Varieties of CerealsX
DEDE5Water protection bread (Wasserschutzbrot)X
ITIT4“Carta del Mulino” – BarillaX
ESES1Cooperative rice production in coastal wetlands in Southern SpainX
ESES2Organic wine in Rueda, Spain (Rueda)X
ESES4Integrated production in the olive grovesX
FIFI3Carbon Market (Hiilipörssi) – a marketplace for the restoration of
ditched peatlands
BGBG1Conservation of grasslands and meadows of high natural value through
BGBG4Conservation and restoration of grasslands in Strandzha and Sakra
DEDE3Collaboration for sustainability between institutional landowners and
tenant farmers
FIFI4Pasture bank ‐ a platform for pasture leasingX
FRFR1Eco‐grazing ‐ Grazing for ecological grasslands maintenance in the green areas of Brest MetropoleX
ITIT3Rewilding of detention basin in Massa LombardaX
*Contract types: RB/RO: Result‐based/result‐oriented contracts; CO/COP: Collective
implementation/cooperation; VC: Value chain‐based contracts; LT: Land tenure‐based contracts

Feasibility of new contractual solutions

Work Package 3 was focused on assessing the feasibility, including the acceptability and applicability of innovative contract solutions through surveys involving a wide range of farmers, landowners and other stakeholders.

The acceptability, preferences, technical constraints and economic perception, as well as the likely behavior (and its drivers) on the part of farmers, forest owners and other actors potentially involved in innovative AECPG contracts are being investigated through a collection of secondary data and through aligned/coordinated surveys between the partner countries of the project. The results of these activities are being further evaluated, validated and synthesized through a series of local workshops. The preliminary results will be used as inputs in this document. The final analysis will help design the final framework.

Model Contracts

We call “Model Contracts” those combinations that can be considered for each type of contract based on the most frequent combinations:

Result-based (RB). Based on contracts that specify an outcome rather than the implementation of management measures (e.g., the delivery of a specific AECPG is the subject of the contract and serves as a reference parameter for payment);

Collectives (CO). Based on implementation and/or collective cooperation, farmers and/or public/private landowners voluntarily enter into a joint collective association to achieve a specific objective of the AECPG. That is, they cooperate with each other to achieve a certain objective;

Land Tenure (LT). That is, landowners (private or public) lease their land to farmers, foresters or third parties under certain conditions. These conditions serve to achieve some form of ecological or environmental improvement;

Value Chain (VC). Some contract solutions consider the production of AECPG in relation to the production of private goods. These solutions are motivated by the participation of the entire value chain and the environmental benefits provided by the supplying farms are often part of the marketing strategies of food companies/retailers. Farmers obtain monetary support through financing from market players. In such contracts, producers must meet certain environmental requirements. For example, reduced nitrogen use, higher animal welfare standards, preservation of biodiversity, organic farming.

Hybrid Contracts

The types of contracts do not have to be pure, but different contractual solutions can be combined (hybrids). They are useful tools to reduce risks for farmers, increase collaborative approaches, and provide a multitude of public goods.

Hybrids results-based and collective contracts were the most common form found in the CONSOLE project. For example, the BurrenLife Program (IRL1) is a hybrid case combining results-based and collective approaches, in which participating farmers are rewarded annually for their environmental performance individually and at the same time have access to a common fund to carry out self-appointed projects“conservation support actions” to help improve this performance over time.

Another interesting form of RB/CO hybrid is the joint and several liability contracts that present a collective acceptance of a payment for results. The innovative part lies in the measurement of the result that is carried out on a sample of collective farms (not in each farm) and therefore facilitates monitoring. Very interesting, that hybrid form also allows for economies of scale (a larger collective allows for lower monitoring costs).


We recommend that you consult the contract models and their characteristics by downloading the deliverable; but you can also check the characteristics of the payments and the duration of the contracts (benefits, disadvantages, examples, etc.), supervision and compliance, sanctions or conditions of participation.

But, in addition, in section 6 you can consult the “Design Guide” of decision trees for types of innovative contracts.

Download the document

You can download the document by clicking the button. And don’t forget to subscribe to our Newsletter.

Please follow and like us:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *