Farmers’ preferences for nutrient and climate-related agri-environmental schemes: A cross-country comparison
- 114 Downloads
We use data from a survey of 2439 farmers in 5 countries around the Baltic Sea (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Poland and Sweden) to investigate their preferences for adopting agricultural practices aimed at reducing nutrient leaching and greenhouse gas emissions. The measures considered are set-aside, catch crops and reduced fertilization. Contracts vary with respect to the area enrolled, contract length, possibility of premature termination, availability of professional advice and compensation. We quantitatively describe farmers’ preferences in terms of their willingness-to-accept compensation for specific attributes of these contracts, if implemented. The results vary substantially between farm types (farmers’ characteristics) and between the 5 countries, and support differentiation of contract obligations and payments to improve the uptake of Agri-Environmental Schemes. The results can be readily used to improve the design of country-specific nutrient reduction policies, in accordance with the next Common Agricultural Policy.
KeywordsAgri-environmental schemes Baltic Sea Choice experiment Farmers’ preferences Willingness to accept
This research was funded by BONUS GO4BALTIC (BONUS, Art 185), funded jointly by the EU and national funding institutions in Denmark (the Innovation Fund), Estonia (Estonian Research Council ETAG), Finland (Academy of Finland), Poland (NCBR) and Sweden (FORMAS). The research has also received funding from Stockholm University Baltic Sea Center—project Baltic Eye. MC gratefully acknowledges the support of the National Science Centre of Poland (Sonata 10, 2015/19/D/HS4/01972). KZ gratefully acknowledges the support of the National Science Centre of Poland (Preludium 10, 2015/19/N/HS4/03365).
- Ahtiainen, H., J. Artell, M. Czajkowski, B. Hasler, L. Hasselström, A. Huhtala, J. Meyerhoff, J.C.R. Smart, et al. 2014. Benefits of meeting nutrient reduction targets for the Baltic Sea – a contingent valuation study in the nine coastal states. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy 3: 278–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2014.901923. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Choi, B.C.K., and A.W.P. Pak. 2005. A catalog of biases in questionnaires. Preventing Chronic Disease 2: 1–20.Google Scholar
- Doeser, B. 2018. WFD and agriculture Assessment of Member States ‘2nd River Basin Management Plans. Update from the European Commission. Presentation at European Commission workshop on Water and Agriculture—Addressing Diffuse Water Pollution through the post-2020 CAP in Soroe, Denmark, November 2018.Google Scholar
- ECA. 2011. Is agri-environment support well designed and managed? Special Report No. 7. The European Court of Auditors, European Union.Google Scholar
- ECA. 2017. Greening, a complex income support scheme, not yet environmentally effective. Special Report No. 21. The European Court of Auditors, European Union.Google Scholar
- Eriksen, J., P.N. Jensen, B.H. Jacobsen, I.K. Thomsen, K. Schelde, G. Blicher-Mathiesen, B. Kronvang, E.M. Hansen, et al. 2014. Virkemidler til realisering af 2. generations vandplaner og målrettet arealregulering, vol. 052, DCA—Nationalt Center for Fødevarer og Jordbrug, DCA—Blichers Allé 20, 8830 Tjele. DCA Rapport, vol. 052.Google Scholar
- European Commission, Agriculture and Rural Development. 2019. The post-2020 common agricultural policy: environmental benefits and simplification. DG Agriculture and Rural Development. European Union. https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/future-cap.
- Eurostat. 2013. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/agriculture/data/database.
- Hanley, N., and M. Czajkowski. 2017. Stated preference valuation methods: An evolving tool for understanding choices and informing policy. Department of Economics Working Paper 1(230), University of Warsaw.Google Scholar
- HELCOM. 2013. Summary report on the development of revised Maximum Allowable Inputs (MAI) and updated Country Allocated Reduction Targets (CART) of the Baltic Sea Action Plan. Helsinki: Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission, HELCOM.Google Scholar
- HELCOM. 2018: Sources and pathways of nutrients to the Baltic Sea. HELCOM PLC-6. Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings No. 153. Helsinki Commission, Helsinki.Google Scholar
- Nainggolan, D., B. Hasler, H.E. Andersen, S. Gyldenkærne, and M. Termansen. 2018. Water quality management and climate change mitigation: Cost-effectiveness of joint implementation in the Baltic Sea region. Ecological Economics 144: 12–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.07.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Olesen, J.E., U. Jørgensen, J.E. Hermansen, S.O. Petersen, J. Eriksen, K. Søegaard, F.P. Vinther, L. Elsgaard, et al. 2013. Effekter af tiltag til reduktion af landbrugets udledninger af drivhusgasser DCA rapport Nr. 027.Google Scholar
- Poinello, M. 2018. Common Agricultural Policy post 2020—Water relevant aspects. Presentation at European Commission workshop on Water and Agriculture—Addressing diffuse water pollution through the post-2020 CAP in Soroe, Denmark, November 2018.Google Scholar
- Salomon, E., and M. Sundberg. 2012. Implementation and status of priority measures to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus leakage. Summary of Country Reports. Baltic Compass, Work Package 3. Available January 24, 2017, from http://www.balticcompass.org/_blog/Project_Reports/post/Prioritized_measures_by_Work_Package_3_/.
- Science for Environment Policy. 2017: Agri-environmental schemes: how to enhance the agriculture-environment relationship. Thematic Issue 57. Issue produced for the European Commission DG Environment by the Science Communication Unit, UWE, Bristol. Available from http://ec.europa.eu/science-environment-policy.
- Villenueva, A.J., M. Rodríguez-Entrena, M. Arriaza, and J.A. Gómez-Limón. 2017. Heterogeneity of farmers’ preferences towards agri-environmental schemes across different agricultural subsystems. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 60: 684–707. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2016.1168289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar