Category Archives: Deliver2022

Deliverable D3.2 – Farmers and stakeholders opinions on implementation of suggested contract solutions based on survey results

Deliverable D3.2 – Farmers and stakeholders opinions on implementation of suggested contract solutions based on survey results

D’Alberto, R., Raggi, M., Viaggi, D. (UNIBO) Hamunen, K., Tarvainen, O., Haltia, E. (LUKE)

Contributors: 

  • D’Alberto, R. (UNIBO) (2.4.1)
  • Raggi, M. (UNIBO) (3.1.1)
  • Eichhorn, T., Kantelhardt, J., Schaller, L. (BOKU) (2.4.3, 3.1.3) Todorova, K., Nikolov, D. (IAE) (2.4.4)
  • Runge, T. (TI) (2.4.5)
  • Blanco-Velázquez, F.J., González-Peñaloza, F.A., Anaya- Romero, M. (EVENOR) (2.4.6)
  • Le-Gloux, F. (INRAE) (2.4.7, 3.1.4)
  • Bradfield, T. (UCC) (2.4.8)
  • Vergamini, D., Andreoli, M., Olivieri, M. (UNIPI) (2.4.9, 3.1.5) Bartolini, F., (UNIFE) (2.4.9, 3.1.5)
  • ZSA (2.4.10)

Summary

1.1 Scope of Task 3.2
Title of Task 3.2 is Pan-EU survey of farmers and other rural landowners. The task, through a questionnaire, aims at identifying the acceptance and the farmers/forest owners’ behaviour towards the contract solutions proposed in WP1 from the potential contractors. The task also benefits of insights from WP2 and Task 3.1. The survey has been designed to tackle different target groups of farmers in the 12 countries involved in the project. The target sample size of the surveys is in the range between 100 and 300 farmers, forest owners, or landowners (hereafter referred as land managers), per country. Under certain needs, the target sample has been discussed among partners and, depending on the precise survey design and the expected outcomes of the analyses, it has been reconsidered during the project.
The questionnaire includes questions on land managers’ background variables such as socio-demographic characteristics, existing tenure situation and AECPG arrangements, as well as the vision and potential response of land managers about the proposed contract solutions and their design parameters (e.g., length, collective features, parameters for result verification and control, distribution of risk, etc.). It was envisaged that the questionnaire is structured on a common part as well as on a part designed to target the specific issues at stake in each country. A choice experiment analysis to elicit preferences on additional key contract parameters and to estimate their economic value has been included in 5 countries (Italy –both UNIBO and UNIPI partners–, Finland, France, Poland, and the UK), depending on partner availability to conduct such analysis. Austria analysed the intention of Austrian farmers to perform results-based contracts by means of a structural equation model.
The questionnaire has been translated to the respective native language and conducted using the most appropriate means in each country. The task leader guided and supported the formulation and analysis of common questions on the chosen contract solutions in order to secure coherence, comparable results and appropriate policy analysis framework using the aggregated dataset. The report also provides additional elaboration targeted to local specificities and individually relevant policy issues by each partner when deemed locally relevant.
1.2 Scope of Task 3.3
Title of the Task 3.3 is Survey of other key actors and stakeholders. First, each country identified key stakeholders and key actors, different from land managers, who are likely to be involved in the contract solutions that were examined in Task 3.2, also benefiting of the network built in Task 5.1. After this, a survey involving the identified stakeholders and actors was performed. The target sample size of these surveys varied between 30 and 100 respondents in each country. The questionnaires were adapted to the needs and possibilities of each participating country.

Download

Modelling land tenure and land dynamics in AECPGs provision. Reports on the role of land tenure and land dynamics in AECPGs provision

D4.1 Modelling land tenure and land dynamics in AECPGs provision. Reports on the role of land tenure and land dynamics in AECPGs provision

Andreoli, M., Bartolini, F., Dupraz, P., Issanchou, A., Le Gloux, F., Olivieri, M., van Rosmalen, R., Schulp, N., Vergamini, D.

Contributors: 

N/A

Summary

1.1 Scope of Task 4.2
In this task, we focus on one of the contract solutions envisaged in WP1: land tenure contractual solutions. Land tenure-based contracts are contracts including land tenure arrangements with environmental clauses.
The objective of Task 4.2 “Modelling land tenure and land dynamics in AECPGs provision “ is to evaluate how the success of contract solutions is affected by different land tenure systems and how different contract solutions can affect land tenure and land markets.
In particular, this task focuses on:
a) How specific environmental lease contracts can be designed to promote environmental-friendly land use.
b) How the success of contract solutions is affected by different land tenure systems.
c) How different contract solutions can affect land tenure and land markets.
In accordance to the objectives of WP4 (simulations and performance of new contract solutions), modelling exercises are built upon the work carried out in WP1, WP2 and WP3 – respectively addressing the development of end-users-led contractual framework ; diagnostics of existing experiences on agri- environmental and climatic public goods (AECPG) and feasibility of new contract solutions for farmers and other stakeholders. In particular, WP1 and WP2 contributed to propose a theoretical set up of the models developed, while WP3 provided data. The models aim at understanding how contract solutions work and interact with the context and their anticipated results, with a focus on land tenure systems and land markets. When possible, models were complemented with sustainability indicators assessing performance and/or environmental impacts of the contractual solutions.
1.2 Deliverable outline
In this deliverable, we propose to report results of simulations and performance evaluations related to land tenure and land dynamics that have been conducted by the project partners involved in Task 4.2.
In the first part, we propose an agent-based model to investigate the design of environmental lease contracts that promote environmental-friendly land use. The effect of different contract types on a specific AECPG provision is tested, here an increase in biodiversity through the implementation of extensive grassland.
In the second part, we investigate whether land tenure status may have a differentiated impact on the adoption of an innovative result-based AECM compared to conventional action-based AECMs. We consider in particular the level of the land rent, assuming it reflects the agricultural productivity of the land enrolled, and the land tenure status (proportion of land rented). To do that, we identify a panel of observations from the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) of farms (potentially) eligible to RB AECM during the last CAP programming period. We apply two Probit models to estimate on the one hand the probability to participate in a RB AECM, and on the other hand the probability to participate exclusively in action-based AECM.
In the third part, the impact of contract solution on land abandonment and land demand is addressed through the analysis of the effects of entire common agricultural policy (CAP) payments to prevent soil erosion due to climate change in hilly and mountainous areas. We consider explicitly the effects of an instrumental mix of policy on marginal land abandonment, in particular in Ligurian territories. The different policy mix impacts on land demand are simulated, using a mathematical programming model. The farmers’ behaviour is simulated considering different combinations of environmental demand implementation, such as enhanced conditionality, eco-schemes or agri- environmental schemes.

Download

Report on performance and design of solutions for the provision of AECPGs in value chain perspective

D4.4 Report on performance and design of solutions for the provision of AECPGs in value chain perspective

Matteo Zavalloni, Davide Viaggi, Pierre Dupraz Elodie Letort, Fanny Le Gloux, Tania Runge

Contributors: 

  • VC_INRAE: Elodie Letort, Fanny Le Gloux, Pierre Dupraz;
  • VC_UNIBO: Francois Bareille, Matteo Zavalloni, Davide Viaggi;
  • VC_TI: Tania Rungem

Summary

Deliverable D4.4. reports on the modelling exercises and results related to “ Task 4.5 Modelling AECPGs in value chain perspective”. Three models have been developed. Two of them assume a theoretical perspective based on the impure public-good framework focusing on the effect of different labels and on the optimal source of agri- environmental public good financing. The third model simulates the up-scale of a local initiative targeting fertiliser reduction. The main finding of the deliverable is that market- based instruments cannot substitute public policies, while they can be seen as complementary.

Download

Report on performance and design of collective approaches to AECPGs provision

D4.3 Report on performance and design of collective approaches to AECPGs provision

Author/ s: Matteo Zavalloni, Davide Viaggi, Maria Andreoli, Fabio Bartolini, Hannah G. S. Böhner, Matteo Olivieri, Tania Runge, Stefano Targetti, Daniele Vergamini

Contributors: 

  • CO_UNIBO_1: Matteo Zavalloni, Stefano Targetti, Davide Viaggi
  • CO_UNIBO_2: Matteo Zavalloni, Davide Viaggi
  • CO_TI_UNIBO: Tania Runge, Hannah G. S. Böhner, Matteo Zavalloni
  • CO_UNIFE_UNIPI_TI: Daniele Vergamini, Matteo Olivieri, Maria Andreoli, Fabio Bartolini, Tania Runge

Summary

This deliverable summarizes the finding from the modelling exercises developed in “Task 4.4 Modelling collective approaches to AECPGs provision”. Within the task, four models have been developed, all focusing on biodiversity protection, but with different perspectives. The models show that under certain conditions collective approaches can be more effective than traditional agri-environmental schemes. However, the specific design of the schemes and institutions implementing it matters for their effectiveness.

Download

EIP-AGRI Report on performance and design of result- based/outcome oriented approaches for AECPGs provision

D4.2 Report on performance and design of result- based/outcome oriented approaches for AECPGs provision

Author/ s: Matteo Zavalloni, Davide Viaggi, Maria Andreoli, Fabio Bartolini, Paweł Kobus, Edward Majewski, Agata Malak-Rawlikowska, Matteo Olivieri, Grzegorz Rawa, Stefano Targetti, Daniele Vergamini, Adam Wąs

Contributors: 

  • RB_UNIBO_1: Stefano Targetti, Matteo Zavalloni, Davide Viaggi;
  • RB_UNIPI_UNIFE: Matteo Olivieri, Maria Andreoli, Daniele Vergamini, Fabio Bartolini;
  • RB_UNIBO_2: Matteo Zavalloni, Stefano Targetti, Davide Viaggi;
  • RB_SGGW: Adam Wąs, Paweł Kobus, Edward Majewski, Agata Malak-Rawlikowska, Grzegorz Rawa.

Summary

This deliverable summarizes the findings generated by the models developed in “Task 4.3 Modelling result-based/outcome-oriented approaches for AECPGs provision”. Four models, focusing on different aspects of the effectiviness of result-based schemes, have been developed in this task. The models suggest that result-based schemes do not necessarily provide effectivines improvement given the uncertainty in the rewards that they create. Specific design options (setting schemes based on modelled results) and technological improvements can increase their effectiviness.

Download

EIP-AGRI abstract on acceptance and behaviour by actors about AECPG contract design

D3.4 EIP-AGRI abstract on acceptance and behaviour by actors about AECPG contract design

Summary

The acceptance of the new contract solutions for increasing the provision of agri- environmental-climate public goods (AECPG) were studied from the land managers’, i.e. farmers and forest owners who make the land-use decisions on the land they manage, and the other stakeholders’ point of view. The stakeholders represented organisations acting at different levels (local, regional, state) and in different roles regarding the land-use. The studied types of contracts were result-based, collective, value chain and land tenure.
The results showed that land managers prefer the result-based and, secondly, the value chain contract solutions. These contract solutions were perceived as both easier to understand and apply on their holdings, as well as more economically beneficial. In contrast, land tenure and collective contract solutions were considered less easy to understand, and less economically beneficial for the holdings. The land manager survey data consisted of 2,721 individual responses from 12 European countries.

Download