Private Sector Actions to Valorise Public Benefits from Agriculture and Forestry

Abstract

Summary There is wide consensus that the agricultural and forestry sectors play an important role in the provision of public benefits. Major changes are envisaged by some in the future developments of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) regarding the provision of these benefits. However, while policy can be a powerful driver for change, it is often not sufficient to trigger action by itself; new approaches are required to increase the engagement and commitment of actors in this field. The PEGASUS project aimed to understand new ways of thinking about the way farmland and forests are managed to stimulate long‐lasting improvement in the provision of public benefits in the EU. Since the private sector is already actively involved in securing the provision of public benefits e.g. through premium price mechanisms, this article seeks to outline private sector actions for the more effective provision of public benefits arising from EU farmland and forests. The article suggests a number of approaches to be considered when developing policy that seeks to encourage the involvement of the private sector.

Payments for Conservation of Animal Genetic Resources in Agriculture: One Size Fits All?

“…Such an outcome requires a long-term development process along the value chain [ 62 ]. Private sector approaches may include price premiums based on labeling or branding schemes [ 68 ], often based on some form of quality, social or environmental certification [ 69 ]. As a note of caution, though, Narloch et al [ 4 ] warn that niche product market development may raise the financial profitability only of those characteristics that closely match consumers’ current tastes and preferences.…”

Fostering resilient agro-food futures through a social-ecological systems framework: Public–private partnerships for delivering ecosystem services in Europe

“…Such systems have traditionally given relatively less emphasis to the social, cultural and environmental benefits and costs of production, such that consumers cannot readily interrogate these aspects when making purchasing choices. In these situations, the supply of all ES, other than provisioning, can be seen as a positive externality, and the benefits of these services characterised as PG, which are largely unrewarded by the market but nonetheless valued by society (Brouwer et al, 2018). It is a situation lacking in social and environmental resilience which is increasingly recognised as such by producers and consumers in many different situations (Marechal et al, 2018a).…”

The Role of Localized Agri-Food Systems in the Provision of Environmental and Social Benefits in Peripheral Areas: Evidence from Two Case Studies in Italy

“…By re-adapting the classification proposed by Wunder [34], we can distinguish at least four market-based mechanisms [33]: (a) premium price payments; (b) compensations for additional costs; (c) certification schemes (e.g., organic production or environmental certification); (d) integrated and development projects. Initiatives aiming at the provision of ESBs can be supported at the same time by public policies and market-based mechanisms in a complementary way, since the co-existence of public and private payment schemes in the same territory is very frequent [35]. This means that the driving factors are not only in the market forces but also in civil society demand for new values as public participation, natural resource conservation and social cohesion.…”

“…One of the most serious limitations of the present policies is given by the too narrow focus: the majority of funding instruments has been addressed to specific activities, whereas investments in infrastructure or payments for environmental land management have been characterized with agreements negotiated in a rather atomistic way, that is, by land managers. Although measures aimed to enabling advice provision, capacity building, cooperation and community-led local development exist, to date their use in EU programs has often been fairly limited [35,40].…”