Cross Compliance as payment for public goods? Understanding EU and US agricultural policies

Meyer, Claas; Matzdorf, Bettina; Müller, Klaus; Schleyer, Christian

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.08.010

Cited by 35 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In agro‐environmental contexts crowding‐out has been concisely defined as ‘the reduction of willingness to engage in environmentally friendly actions due to being paid to do so’ (Meyer et al . , p. 191). This reduced willingness is on account of the ‘crowding‐out’ of intrinsic motives (those derived from a personal sense of satisfaction/reward in conducting a particular action) by extrinsic motives (those derived from the anticipated material benefits derived from the completion of a particular action).…”

Section: Crowding‐outmentioning

confidence: 97%

What Can and Can't Crowding Theories Tell Us about Farmers’ ‘Environmental’ Intentions in Post‐Agri‐Environment Scheme Contexts?

Darragh

Emery

2017

Sociologia Ruralis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The termination of the Entry Level Stewardship (ELS) Agri‐Environment Scheme in England provides a unique opportunity for testing and exploring the so‐called crowding‐out theory. The theory posits that payment for the provision of public goods leads to a reduction in the intrinsic motivation for their supply. Through a small qualitative case‐study in Southwest England we explore farmers’ intentions to continue with ‘environmental behaviours’ following the cessation of ELS. Contrary to the crowding‐out theory we find that farmers will continue with longstanding ‘environmental practices’ that were financially rewarded by the ELS, but will pick and choose whether to continue with newly introduced practices depending on how they fit with farmers’ existing cultural, economic and instrumental priorities. Moreover, we argue that the crowding‐out theory is based on a set of assumptions and simplifications that do not adequately help us interpret the relationship between farmers’ motives, practices and intentions. In particular, we show that intrinsic and extrinsic motives cannot straightforwardly be separated and that definitions of what constitutes an ‘environmental behaviour’ are far more complex than is often assumed.

show abstract

Section: Crowding‐outmentioning

confidence: 97%

What Can and Can't Crowding Theories Tell Us about Farmers’ ‘Environmental’ Intentions in Post‐Agri‐Environment Scheme Contexts?

Darragh

Emery

2017

Sociologia Ruralis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In European marginal areas, whole-system approaches are more appropriated (Plieninger et al, 2012). These approaches should include: (i) identifying and quantifying few ES (agricultural functions) that are meaningful to society in a given region ; (ii) balancing these ES to cover all ES (and TEV) categories and to represent ES bundles in order to minimize trade-offs (Martín-López et al, 2012); (iii) establishing region-specific targets and related agricultural practices to be promoted, taking into consideration the various spatial and temporal scales at which ES operate (Plieninger et al, 2012); (iv) contrasting payments with measured ES outputs (Meyer et al, 2014). This would allow the agri-environmental schemes that currently support farmers in a horizontal manner to become real payments for ecosystem services.…”

Section: Implications For Policy Design and Limitations Of The Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying the multifunctionality of fjord and mountain agriculture by means of sociocultural and economic valuation of ecosystem services

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These issues cannot be solved in the context of pesticide authorisation alone. Environmental benefits under the CAP are achieved using the Cross Compliance mechanism, whereby farmers are encouraged to fulfil certain environmental conditions in return for governmental support payments (Meyer et al, 2014). With careful selection of efficacious mechanisms, there is therefore the potential to link pesticide-mitigation measures developed during the pesticide-regulation procedure to pesticide use, using the cross-compliance concept already in force.…”

Section: Possibilities To Link Regulatory Era Of Pesticides To Commonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a landscape scale management of pesticides: ERA using changes in modelled occupancy and abundance to assess long-term population impacts of pesticides

Topping

Craig

Jong

et al. 2015

Science of The Total Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citation for published item:oppingD ghris tF nd grigD eter F nd de tongD prnk nd uleinD wihel nd vskowskiD yszrd nd wnhiniD frr nd ieperD ilvi nd mithD o nd ousD tos¡ e ulo nd treisslD prnz nd wrowskyD ulus nd iktkD eldrik nd vn der vindenD on @PHISA 9owrds lndspe sle mngement of pestiides X ie using hnges in modelled oupny nd undne to ssess longEterm popultion impts of pestiidesF9D iene of the totl environmentFD SQU F ppF ISWEITWF Further information on publisher's website: Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. AbstractPesticides are regulated in Europe and this process includes an environmental risk assessment (ERA) for non-target arthropods (NTA). Traditionally a non-spatial or field trial assessment is used. In this study we exemplify the introduction of a spatial context to the ERA as well as suggest a way in which the results of complex models, necessary for proper inclusion of spatial aspects in the ERA, can be presented and evaluated easily using abundance and occupancy ratios (AOR). We used an agent-based simulation system and an existing model for a widespread carabid beetle (Bembidion lampros), to evaluate the impact of a fictitious highly-toxic pesticide on population density and the distribution of beetles in time and space. Landscape structure and field margin management were evaluated by comparing scenario-based ERAs for the beetle. Source-sink dynamics led to an off-crop impact even when no pesticide was present off-crop. In addition, the impacts increased with multi-year application of the pesticide whereas current ERA considers only maximally one year. These results further indicated a complex interaction between landscape structure and pesticide effect in time, both in-crop and off-crop, indicating the need for NTA ERA to be conducted at landscape-and multi-season temporal-scales. Use of AOR indices to compare ERA outputs facilitated easy comparison of scenarios, allowing simultaneous evaluation of impacts and planning of mitigation measures. The landscape and population ERA approach also demonstrates that there is a potential to change from regulation of a pesticide in isolation, towards the consideration of pesticide management at landscape scales and provision of biodiversity benefits via inclusion and testing of mitigation measures in authorisation procedures.

show abstract

Cross Compliance as payment for public goods? Understanding EU and US agricultural policies

Cited by 35 publications

References 27 publications

What Can and Can't Crowding Theories Tell Us about Farmers’ ‘Environmental’ Intentions in Post‐Agri‐Environment Scheme Contexts?

What Can and Can't Crowding Theories Tell Us about Farmers’ ‘Environmental’ Intentions in Post‐Agri‐Environment Scheme Contexts?

Quantifying the multifunctionality of fjord and mountain agriculture by means of sociocultural and economic valuation of ecosystem services

Towards a landscape scale management of pesticides: ERA using changes in modelled occupancy and abundance to assess long-term population impacts of pesticides

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About