The New Eco‐Schemes: Navigating a Narrow Fairway

This article highlights some key challenges and trade‐offs with which national policy designers have to contend in devising national eco‐schemes for agriculture. We show that policy designers operate in a narrow design space which is constrained by various political and legal requirements. One key c...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:EuroChoices 2022-08, Vol.21 (2), p.4-10
Hauptverfasser: Latacz‐Lohmann, Uwe, Termansen, Mette, Nguyen, Chi
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 10
container_issue 2
container_start_page 4
container_title EuroChoices
container_volume 21
creator Latacz‐Lohmann, Uwe
Termansen, Mette
Nguyen, Chi
description This article highlights some key challenges and trade‐offs with which national policy designers have to contend in devising national eco‐schemes for agriculture. We show that policy designers operate in a narrow design space which is constrained by various political and legal requirements. One key challenge is to design a reward system that allows the uptake of eco‐schemes by farmers to be aligned with a given budget. We present four broad implementation models for eco‐schemes and discuss their merits and shortcomings in light of stipulated requirements. These are the 'greening model', the 'modified greening model', the 'eco‐points model' and the 'AECS model' in the style of the agri‐environmental and climate schemes of CAP Pillar 2. We conclude that the eco‐points model is likely to be the most suitable. By stipulating that individual farmers must reach a certain minimum number of points per hectare (eligibility threshold), but are not entitled to payments for points that exceed a certain upper limit per hectare (cut‐off), it allows demand from farmers for inclusion in a scheme to be steered such that aggregate uptake coincides with the budget; thereby reducing the risk of over‐ or under‐subscription while maintaining flexibility to cater for heterogeneity in site conditions.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/1746-692X.12343
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>wiley_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1111_1746_692X_12343</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>EUCH12343</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3843-73c39f4faf1b3e5643c51d04971e742b197595b9f7ec9c36ae33850cc68b77793</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFj89KAzEQh4MoWKtnT8K-wLbJTv5svMmytUKpB1vwFrIxaSNtV5Li0puP4DP6JO66Kt6cy29mmG_gQ-iS4BFpa0wE5SmX2eOIZEDhCA1-N8d_-lN0FuMzxpRwTAcoW6xtMrdNUpr64-39wazt1sbrZK5f_Urv_W6V6HYIoW6Sifah0YdzdOL0JtqL7xyi5aRcFNN0dn97V9zMUgM5hVSAAemo045UYBmnYBh5wlQKYgXNKiIFk6ySTlgjDXBtAXKGjeF5JYSQMETj_q8JdYzBOvUS_FaHgyJYdcqqk1KdlPpSbgneE43f2MN_56pcFtMf8KoHral3Pqou4r4OKuNc5Aw-AeOeYek</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>The New Eco‐Schemes: Navigating a Narrow Fairway</title><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Latacz‐Lohmann, Uwe ; Termansen, Mette ; Nguyen, Chi</creator><creatorcontrib>Latacz‐Lohmann, Uwe ; Termansen, Mette ; Nguyen, Chi</creatorcontrib><description>This article highlights some key challenges and trade‐offs with which national policy designers have to contend in devising national eco‐schemes for agriculture. We show that policy designers operate in a narrow design space which is constrained by various political and legal requirements. One key challenge is to design a reward system that allows the uptake of eco‐schemes by farmers to be aligned with a given budget. We present four broad implementation models for eco‐schemes and discuss their merits and shortcomings in light of stipulated requirements. These are the 'greening model', the 'modified greening model', the 'eco‐points model' and the 'AECS model' in the style of the agri‐environmental and climate schemes of CAP Pillar 2. We conclude that the eco‐points model is likely to be the most suitable. By stipulating that individual farmers must reach a certain minimum number of points per hectare (eligibility threshold), but are not entitled to payments for points that exceed a certain upper limit per hectare (cut‐off), it allows demand from farmers for inclusion in a scheme to be steered such that aggregate uptake coincides with the budget; thereby reducing the risk of over‐ or under‐subscription while maintaining flexibility to cater for heterogeneity in site conditions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1746-692X</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1478-0917</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1746-692X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12343</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, NJ: Wiley</publisher><ispartof>EuroChoices, 2022-08, Vol.21 (2), p.4-10</ispartof><rights>2022 Agricultural Economics Society and European Association of Agricultural Economists</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3843-73c39f4faf1b3e5643c51d04971e742b197595b9f7ec9c36ae33850cc68b77793</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Latacz‐Lohmann, Uwe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Termansen, Mette</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nguyen, Chi</creatorcontrib><title>The New Eco‐Schemes: Navigating a Narrow Fairway</title><title>EuroChoices</title><description>This article highlights some key challenges and trade‐offs with which national policy designers have to contend in devising national eco‐schemes for agriculture. We show that policy designers operate in a narrow design space which is constrained by various political and legal requirements. One key challenge is to design a reward system that allows the uptake of eco‐schemes by farmers to be aligned with a given budget. We present four broad implementation models for eco‐schemes and discuss their merits and shortcomings in light of stipulated requirements. These are the 'greening model', the 'modified greening model', the 'eco‐points model' and the 'AECS model' in the style of the agri‐environmental and climate schemes of CAP Pillar 2. We conclude that the eco‐points model is likely to be the most suitable. By stipulating that individual farmers must reach a certain minimum number of points per hectare (eligibility threshold), but are not entitled to payments for points that exceed a certain upper limit per hectare (cut‐off), it allows demand from farmers for inclusion in a scheme to be steered such that aggregate uptake coincides with the budget; thereby reducing the risk of over‐ or under‐subscription while maintaining flexibility to cater for heterogeneity in site conditions.</description><issn>1746-692X</issn><issn>1478-0917</issn><issn>1746-692X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><recordid>eNqFj89KAzEQh4MoWKtnT8K-wLbJTv5svMmytUKpB1vwFrIxaSNtV5Li0puP4DP6JO66Kt6cy29mmG_gQ-iS4BFpa0wE5SmX2eOIZEDhCA1-N8d_-lN0FuMzxpRwTAcoW6xtMrdNUpr64-39wazt1sbrZK5f_Urv_W6V6HYIoW6Sifah0YdzdOL0JtqL7xyi5aRcFNN0dn97V9zMUgM5hVSAAemo045UYBmnYBh5wlQKYgXNKiIFk6ySTlgjDXBtAXKGjeF5JYSQMETj_q8JdYzBOvUS_FaHgyJYdcqqk1KdlPpSbgneE43f2MN_56pcFtMf8KoHral3Pqou4r4OKuNc5Aw-AeOeYek</recordid><startdate>202208</startdate><enddate>202208</enddate><creator>Latacz‐Lohmann, Uwe</creator><creator>Termansen, Mette</creator><creator>Nguyen, Chi</creator><general>Wiley</general><scope>OT2</scope><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202208</creationdate><title>The New Eco‐Schemes: Navigating a Narrow Fairway</title><author>Latacz‐Lohmann, Uwe ; Termansen, Mette ; Nguyen, Chi</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3843-73c39f4faf1b3e5643c51d04971e742b197595b9f7ec9c36ae33850cc68b77793</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Latacz‐Lohmann, Uwe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Termansen, Mette</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nguyen, Chi</creatorcontrib><collection>EconStor</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Wiley Free Archive</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>EuroChoices</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Latacz‐Lohmann, Uwe</au><au>Termansen, Mette</au><au>Nguyen, Chi</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The New Eco‐Schemes: Navigating a Narrow Fairway</atitle><jtitle>EuroChoices</jtitle><date>2022-08</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>4</spage><epage>10</epage><pages>4-10</pages><issn>1746-692X</issn><issn>1478-0917</issn><eissn>1746-692X</eissn><abstract>This article highlights some key challenges and trade‐offs with which national policy designers have to contend in devising national eco‐schemes for agriculture. We show that policy designers operate in a narrow design space which is constrained by various political and legal requirements. One key challenge is to design a reward system that allows the uptake of eco‐schemes by farmers to be aligned with a given budget. We present four broad implementation models for eco‐schemes and discuss their merits and shortcomings in light of stipulated requirements. These are the 'greening model', the 'modified greening model', the 'eco‐points model' and the 'AECS model' in the style of the agri‐environmental and climate schemes of CAP Pillar 2. We conclude that the eco‐points model is likely to be the most suitable. By stipulating that individual farmers must reach a certain minimum number of points per hectare (eligibility threshold), but are not entitled to payments for points that exceed a certain upper limit per hectare (cut‐off), it allows demand from farmers for inclusion in a scheme to be steered such that aggregate uptake coincides with the budget; thereby reducing the risk of over‐ or under‐subscription while maintaining flexibility to cater for heterogeneity in site conditions.</abstract><cop>Hoboken, NJ</cop><pub>Wiley</pub><doi>10.1111/1746-692X.12343</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1746-692X
ispartof EuroChoices, 2022-08, Vol.21 (2), p.4-10
issn 1746-692X
1478-0917
1746-692X
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1111_1746_692X_12343
source Wiley Online Library All Journals
title The New Eco‐Schemes: Navigating a Narrow Fairway
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T16%3A00%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-wiley_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20New%20Eco%E2%80%90Schemes:%20Navigating%20a%20Narrow%20Fairway&rft.jtitle=EuroChoices&rft.au=Latacz%E2%80%90Lohmann,%20Uwe&rft.date=2022-08&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=4&rft.epage=10&rft.pages=4-10&rft.issn=1746-692X&rft.eissn=1746-692X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/1746-692X.12343&rft_dat=%3Cwiley_cross%3EEUCH12343%3C/wiley_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true