Technical insights from Effect

Degradation of groundwater quality and contamination of drinking resources is one of the most widespread and harmful impacts of over-fertilisation in agriculture. As part of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), agri- environment schemes (AES) have as main objective the protection and management of the farm environment, including groundwater quality. In this article a spatial econometric model is applied to evaluate the impact of AES on groundwater nitrate concentrations. Bavaria, a federal state of Germany, is used as a case study, due to the findings of high nitrate concentrations in the groundwater. A significantly negative effect is found between AES expenditures focusing on grassland management and nitrogen concentrations, while AES focusing on crop management, organic farming and preservation of cultural landscape did not show a significant effect. The assessment of other factors such as cereals and forage showed a statistically positive effect on nitrate concentrations. However, loam soil texture, rainfall, and residential area were found to negatively affect nitrate concentrations.

This paper employs the Institutional Analysis and Development framework across six ecosystem delivery measures in the European Union to develop a configurational explanation of (un)successful outcomes. By undertaking comparative institutional analysis, we systematically examine the effect of variation across rule types and generate insights on how different institutional configurations result in varying degrees of successful implementation of ecosystem delivery measures.

Eco-schemes are conceptually similar to the agri-environmental and climate schemes (AECS) of CAP Pillar 2 and participation is voluntary. A key difference is that farmers are legally entitled to eco-scheme payments, whereas a granting procedure is used to allocate AECS payments. Unlike the previous greening measures that were defined at EU level, Member States are free to choose eco-scheme measures as long as they respect the legal requirements in Article 31 of the Strategic Plan Regulation.

This study explores whether a ‘smart market’ cap-and-trade scheme between non-point sources can offer meaningful, robust and policy amenable, advantages over alternative approaches for nitrogen management in a realistic setting: 6504 individual farms in Limfjorden catchment, Denmark.

This article is a systematic review of 55 papers investigantig the performance Agro- Environmental Schemes (AES) and identifying the underlying factors affecting their performance. The theoretical and empirical evidence suggests that these incentives could potentially promote participation, spatial coordination, and environmental effectiveness. However, the results remain a subject of debate in experimental studies. Insights gained from the review provide important implications for the emerging field of conservation science and ongoing efforts to improve the design of AES for better landscape-scale management.

Since 2016, only joint applications through agrarian/nature collectives have been eligible for subsidies for agri-environmental management in the Netherlands. The agrarian collective submits a ‘territorial application’ that specifies which agri-environmental activities the collective will perform in their territory, and how these will contribute to the realization of the goals of the provincial nature management plan. Collective subsidies are granted only after the territorial application has been approved by the province. In EFFECT, Noardlike Fryske Wâlden (NFW) is the agrarian collective that on behalf of its members submits a territorial application for agri-environmental subsidies and makes agreements with farmer-members on agri-environmental management practices and remuneration. The report on EFFECT Case Study #1 includes stakeholders' interviews to explore, the pros, cons, opportunities and priorities in this area.

Case study #3 deals with a results-based grassland conservation scheme targeting plant species conservation in the German federal state of Bavaria. It rewards biodiversity conservation efforts of participating farmers by offering them a payment if pre-defined plant species can ex post be found on land enrolled in the scheme. How to reach the goal of having plant species diversity on fields under the scheme is left up to the farmers, i.e. no management prescriptions are made by the authorities managing the programme. The current report on EFFECT Case Study #3 includes stakeholders' interviews with specific open questions regarding agri-environment schemes in Bavaria and the context of the innovation case in a 1:1 situation.

This article departs from the assumption that the chal-lenge of putting the Farm to Fork Strategy (F2F) intoaction stems from the broader challenge of attainingcross-sectoral policy integration. Policy integration hasbeen part of the EU's policy approach for a long timeand has predominantly been achieved in the form ofenvironmental policy integration (EPI). However, thescope of the F2F extends beyond EPI, as it includes theintegration of climate-related concerns into sectoralpolicies, for instance. Consequently, we contend thatattaining policy integration in the case of the F2F isparticularly challenging and calls for an innovativeapproach to policymaking

Report on the economic performance of existing schemes considering potential trade-offs and synergies when it comes to ecosystem services output.