Implementing innovative contract models – results from the Policy Delphi

Implementing innovative contract models – results from the Policy Delphi

The second round of our online Policy Delphi study – focusing on opportunities to implement innovative contract models in the current policy arena – was closed during the summer, and the first results are just fresh out of the oven.

A key characteristic of the Delphi method is that it runs in several consecutive rounds. This allows the researchers to use the findings from the preceding rounds to design questions in the forthcoming rounds. This allows to dig a little deeper into the most exciting (often controversial) topics, which is exactly what happened in Contracts2.0. The results of our first Delphi round were analysed to identify converging and contested topics, which were then turned into questions and statements to test in the second round of the survey. 32 experts from 15 European countries participated in the second round, with almost half of them indicated to have direct policy experience at national or subnational level.

Based on the answers from the first round on how the ideal contract would look like to incentivize farmers for more sustainable farming we could synthesize three prototypes: a) a mixed contract combining action-based and result-based elements, signed bi-laterally between farmers and funding agencies for a medium duration (5-7 years); b) a result-based contract, signed between a group of farmers (collective) and the funding agency, with flexible duration (from short to medium or long term); and c) a value-chain contract, signed between farmers and other actors of the value chain (e.g. food processors, retailers, certifiers), which builds on an existing AECM contract and provides a price premium for more sustainable products. As the figure (above) suggests, the majority of the respondents would choose a mixed, action- and results-based contract for an European level contract prototype, but still almost one-quarter of the respondents would suggest alternative contracts, mainly ones which offer more flexibility to choose collective (landscape-level) agreements or different contract lengths from shorter to longer term.

We also asked what the best way is to implement these novel contracts, and there seems to be an agreement about agri-environmental-and climate measures still being the main target area, where innovative contract characteristics can be implemented as top-ups or additional payments to more mainstream conventional (i.e. action-based) contracts. In terms of funding novel contracts through the Common Agricultural Policy, responding experts underlined the outstanding importance of the Pillar 2 payments. Within Pillar 2 policy instruments, almost 70% of the participants pointed to agri-environmental and climate measures, while voluntary interventions in Pillar 2 for investment, knowledge exchange and cooperation, as well as for ecological constraints were listed by 34.5%. Eco-schemes, which is a part of the new green architecture affiliated with the Pillar 1 payments, were also mentioned by 34.5% of the respondents – with this proportion, eco-schemes seem to be the most promising instrument within Pillar 1 with a considerable potential to integrate innovative contracts.

As we learned from the first round of the Delphi study, available budget is a strong constraint for implementing innovative contracts (beside others, like increased transaction costs or higher uncertainties). Financially supporting environmentally friendly farming through different instruments of the CAP, as suggested by the findings shared above, can be a strategy to alleviate the budget burden. However, it raises further questions such as additionality and potential double-payments received for the same result from different schemes. Fostering coherence within the CAP and between the CAP and other policy areas is a key step forward and will also be a focal topic of the third round of our Delphi study.

written by Eszter Kelemen & Boldizsár Megyesi (ESSRG)

 

For infos on tools and techniques for initiating a policy dialogue on innovative approaches check our Practice Abstracts no. 10

Collective AES – exploring Dutch farmers’ motivation to participate

Collective AES – exploring Dutch farmers’ motivation to participate

To address the degradation of the natural environment, agri-environment schemes (AES) have been designed within the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy. AES have been criticised for showing low ecological effectiveness. To improve the schemes’ effectiveness, a collective approach focusing on a landscape level as opposed to a single field or farm level is recommended. So far, this approach has rarely been applied across Europe. The Netherlands is an exception, where all AES have to be implemented collectively since 2016. Participation for farmers in the schemes is voluntary. Therefore, understanding farmers’ motivation to join is crucial as the uptake and implementation of measures is a prerequisite for achieving any effects.

In early 2021, we interviewed 15 farmers from six Dutch collectives about their motivation to participate in collective AES and assessed the advantages and disadvantages of collective AES from the participating farmers’ perspective.

Overview collectives participating in the study

Figure 1. Overview of participating collectives.

Methodological approach

We carried out a Q-study to learn what motivates farmers to join collective AES. Q methodology explores different perspectives on a topic by combining quantitative and qualitative elements within an interview. For the quantitative part, we asked farmers to sort 37 statements into a grid. The grid ranged from -4 (disagreement) to +4 (agreement) and allowed the participants to sort the statements relative to each other depending on their personal level of (dis)agreement. We developed the statements based on an extensive literature review, capturing as many different aspects of the debate as possible. In the qualitative part of the interview, the farmers could comment on the statements, explain their sorting choices and talk about the advantages and disadvantages of the schemes.

Filled in Q-grid

Figure 2. Example of statement sorting, with red (disagree), green (agree) and grey (neutral) statements.

Motivation to join collective AES

The analysis revealed three motivational views: collective-oriented, business-oriented and environment-oriented. Farmers sharing the collective-oriented perspective (‘the collectivists’) feel a stronger connection to the collective and are proud of common achievements. The business-oriented perspective (‘the business rationalists’) is shared by farmers who think rationally about their farm business and how collective AES and other actions fit the overall operative purpose. Within the environment-oriented perspective (‘the environmental optimisers’), farmers care strongest about the environment and how their farm can actively engage in biodiversity or climate protection.

All farmers share great affection and care for nature. They agree that taking care of the environment is part of being a good farmer. They appreciate the collectives’ collaboration with nature conservationists and citizens. Financial compensation for the measures is important, however, it is viewed as a necessity to enable required changes in farming practices rather than an additional source of income. Individual independence is crucial to all participating farmers, yet, they don’t think that cooperation within the collective threatens their autonomy but rather strengthens it. All farmers strongly reject the idea of having joined the scheme because of fellow farmers’ participation. They do not necessarily trust that their neighbours are good partners for cooperation. At the same time, they are not afraid that someone in the collective would benefit without contributing. While it is central for them that people acknowledge their efforts within the schemes, they do not perceive pressure by society that would influence their actions.

Advantages and disadvantages of collective AES

The collective scheme offers many advantages to farmers, notably improved ecological impacts and support from the collectives. Farmers appreciate that the collectives assist with applications and administrative tasks and facilitate exchange with fellow farmers, creating room for discussions, mutual learning, inspiration, and network building. Another significant advantage is the provision of knowledge and advice with close contact between farmers and the collectives’ field workers, who speak the farmers’ language and know what’s going on in the region.

However, farmers still wish for more flexibility and a better integration of their knowledge and experiences into scheme design and decision-making processes. Policy processes should be transparent and promises should be kept to avoid disappointment and mistrust. The consequences of joining the schemes should be communicated openly to prevent farmers’ concerns about raising conservation standards and land possibly becoming protected and excluded from farming activities. It might be worth evaluating the possibility of providing voluntary long-term contract options for certain measures to allow for better planning. Also, the government should guarantee sufficient funding to enable all applying farmers to join the schemes.

Communication with the public can still be improved to better show farmers’ achievements. Also, between the different collectives, communication could be enhanced to allow for a better exchange. A prime example is the approach to tackle predation in meadow bird management, which in some collectives works better than in others.

Outlook

A large-scale survey-based follow-up study, including non-participants in collective AES, would be needed to reach representative results. Many of the caveats for collective AES described in the literature were not confirmed, some of them were even explicitly dismissed by all participating farmers, for instance, the fear of depending on others or the risk of others benefitting without contributing. The findings indicate a potential to promote the Dutch approach to AES in other regions if organisations similar to the Dutch collectives exist (or develop), which would offer the necessary support for farmers.

In Contracts2.0, we will continue to explore how the Dutch approach can be enhanced and how AES can best be implemented collectively in other European regions, such as the French CIL Hautes-Pyrénées, the Belgian CIL Flanders or the German CIL NRW.

For more information, see Margarethe Schneider’s master’s thesis.

“Food provision in the 21st century” – How Contracts2.0 contributes to the scientific discussion

“Food provision in the 21st century” – How Contracts2.0 contributes to the scientific discussion

Food provision under ever more challenging environmental conditions might soon become a central subject for decision-makers worldwide. In June 2020, Contracts2.0 researchers participated in the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (EAERE) conference. The session “Food provision in the 21st century”, organized by Prof. Mordechai Shechter, brought together researchers from different disciplines examining how to feed the world’s growing population sustainably. In Contracts2.0, we research value chain approaches to support the transformation of the agricultural production system.

Food provision challenges

By 2050 the world’s population is projected to reach a staggering 10 billion people. To keep pace with the growing population’s demand for food, supply must grow by 56 percent by 2050. At the same time, the farming system needs to reduce its impact on the environment.1 Currently, half of the world’s food is produced in an unsustainable way, which in the medium term will further deteriorate natural systems’ productive capacity. Declining biodiversity, water overexploitation and pollution, and the loss of fertile soils are symptoms of the current agricultural practices. Therefore, it is a pressing question whether it is possible to provide enough food for a growing global population while maintaining environmental goals?2

Food gap

Figure 1. By 2050 global food production needs to increase by 56 percent. Source:

wri.org/sustfoodfuture

Scenarios and solutions

The session presented solutions that included the consumption side (e.g., diet changes, reduced food waste) and the production side (e.g., water use, fertilizer use, land management changes, irrigation). Prof. Dieter Gerten (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research) showed scenarios under which on-farm water management can simultaneously boost crop yields and decrease water use. Dr. Claudia Ringler (International Food Policy Institute) emphasized the critical functions of groundwater and presented possible scenarios for its conservation. Yael Pantzer (Slow Food Europe) focused on access to good, clean, and fair food, also highlighting cultural and political aspects. International social justice plays a critical role, as the needs and objectives of low-income countries might differ substantially from those of European countries. She stressed that food security is not only about the production of sufficient amounts of food but also about its quality and accessibility.2

The presented scenarios and solutions show that it is possible to halt environmental deterioration from agricultural activities and maintain food security for a growing population. However, the question remains how mankind will make the necessary changes to deal with the many challenges. Notably, biodiversity loss and climate change are the most burning topics and call for immediate radical changes in food production and consumption. If we continued business as usual, we will soon transgress planetary boundaries.3

Contracts2.0 research on eco-labels

In Contracts2.0, our research supports the necessary transformation towards a more sustainable food system. One example of our work is creating collaborative models to include the value of agri-environmental public goods in product prices. Accomplishing this requires understanding consumers’ demand for environmentally-friendly practices in food production. In 2020 we carried out qualitative interviews with experts in the food industry to explore their preferences and expectations for labeling products for ecosystem services and biodiversity. Labels could signal to consumers the types of public goods produced by farmers, whose work and fields they usually cannot observe, potentially increasing their willingness to pay a price premium. The results, presenting the food industry’s views of product labeling for the effective and efficient provision of ecosystem services, will be published in a paper under the lead of Christoph Schulze.

Currently, we are conducting a study assessing consumers’ willingness to pay a price premium on grocery products labeled as produced by farmers who engaged in nature protection activities. So-called eco-labeling can help to increase the market share of environmentally friendly products, create bottom-up pressure, and incentivize food producers to change their practices. We will assess the demand for eco-labeled products and how they relate to organic products.

Achieving change

The research on industries’ and consumers’ demand for eco-labels is only a snap shot of all of our efforts in Contracts2.0. Together with stakeholders across Europe we develop agri-environmental contracts that fit regional contexts and objectives. With our research we make a small contribution to the sustainable transformation of the agricultural production system in Europe. However, to achieve lasting global change much effort is needed from all of us to reduce the growth in food demand, increase food production without expanding agricultural land, reduce emissions from agricultural production and protect and restore natural ecosystems.

To learn more about the innovative contract designs in Contracts2.0 follow these links:

  1. Limburg – Netherlands
  2. Groningen – Netherlands
  3. Koolstofboeren – Belgium
  4. Gulpdal – Belgium
  5. Northwest England – UK
  6. Hautes Pyrenees – France
  7. Madrid Region – Spain
  8. Bornholm – Denmark
  9. Agora Natura – Germany
  10. Hipp – Germany
  11. North Rhine Westphalia – Germany
  12. Örseg National Park – Hungary
  13. Unione Comuni Garfagnana – Italy
References:

1 Searchinger, T., Waite, R., Hanson, C., Ranganathan, J. (2019). Creating a sustainable food future. A menue of solutions to feed nearly 10 billion people by 2050. World Resources Institute, Washington DC.

2 Policy Session: Food provision in the 21st century, Organizer and Chair: Prof. Mordechai (Moti) Shechter

3 Gerten, D., Heck, V., Jägermeyr, J., Bodirsky, B. L., Fetzer, I., Jalava, M., … & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2020). Feeding ten billion people is possible within four terrestrial planetary boundaries. Nature Sustainability, 3(3), 200-208.

Written by Katarzyna Zagórska from the Faculty of Economic Sciences at the University of Warsaw. This note was taken based on presentations given during selected sessions at the 26th Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, which took place online on June 23 – June 25, 2021. The conference was organised by Technische Universität Berlin (TU Berlin) and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (HU Berlin). More information and the full programme available at the conference website: http://www.eaere-conferences.org/

Practitioners picture desirable farming landscapes for 2040 and ideal agri-environmental contracts

Practitioners picture desirable farming landscapes for 2040 and ideal agri-environmental contracts

“How do agricultural practitioners envision desirable farming landscapes and ideal agri-environmental contracts?” In a detailed report, we collect and present answers to this question. We found that practitioners across Europe envision farming landscapes shaped by viable agricultural practices that strengthen and enhance ecosystem services. It is important that actors in the farming systems share the same values, cooperate and mutually recognise each other’s expertise to make the shared vision a reality. The social setting turned out the most critical change driver, followed by the legal and political framework and land use and environmental conditions. In this post, we share some of our key findings to illustrate what practitioners believe is necessary to unite the socio-economic viability of farming with the production of agri-environmental public goods in our farming landscapes.

Developing desired landscapes and dream contracts

To answer our initial question, we carried out 28 workshops and consultations in 13 Contract Innovation Labs (CILs) in nine countries across Europe, with a total of 354 participants over the past year. With farmers, environmental NGOs, nature associations, researchers, agricultural advisors and public administrations, we envisioned dream farming landscapes and ideal agri-environmental contracts to facilitate the sustainable transformation of the farming system (see Figure 1). This approach is based on the potential of positive future visions to stimulate sustainable change within the farming system in a participatory way.

 

Figure 1. Steps from dream contract development to implementation.

Based on key information provided by stakeholders from each CIL we analysed case-specific situations and problems using swot analysis. We then asked CIL participants to picture a desirable future dream landscape in the year 2040. We encouraged participants to prepare lists of enabling and limiting factors for realising the dream landscape. Finally, we asked them to envision agri-environmental contracts that would facilitate transformation toward the desired state. The participants reflected the contracts from different perspectives such as environmental effectiveness, socio-economic viability, duration and monitoring. Lastly, we developed dream contract trajectories – paths to reach the envisioned state.

Common dream landscape patterns

Based on short descriptions the CILs prepared of the dream landscape, we singled out 99 diverse dream landscape elements, which we clustered into eight landscape building blocks: viable and sustainable agriculture, regulating ecosystem services, social cohesion, biodiversity, multifunctionality, enabling landscape managers, health and wellbeing, and cultural ecosystem services. We ordered these building blocks into four almost-equally weighted categories: multifunctionality, agriculture-related topics, environmental-related topics and social context.

The category multifunctionality is relatively broad and refers to the simultaneous provision of different goods and services of the landscape or through agricultural activities. In the category of agriculture-related topics, the most common landscape element is viable and sustainable agriculture. Viable and sustainable agriculture should be profitable, provide opportunities for new generations of farmers, generate and process quality local produce, apply sustainable farming practices, use and produce renewable energy and optimise livestock production. The category of environmental-related topics includes the landscape elements regulating ecosystem services and biodiversity. Social context consists of the elements social cohesion, health and well-being and cultural ecosystem services. Social cohesion is an essential element indicating the importance of cooperation, shared values, the connection between communities and the landscape, and vibrant rural living (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Representation of the dream farming landscape in CIL Oost-Gronningen. Several dream landscape patterns are illustrated.

Enabling and limiting drivers of change for the dream landscape

Change drivers are natural or human-induced factors that directly or indirectly trigger a change in an ecosystem. Direct drivers, such as habitat conversion and climate change, are pressures that directly affect ecosystem processed. Drivers that operate at a more diffuse level are indirect change drivers, such as socio-political, economic and technological factors.

In total, we identified 130 change drivers in our case studies that we assigned to five themes: social impact, legal policy and political context, land use and environmental impact, agro management viability and economic viability (see Figure 3). Across all cases enabling (N=62) and limiting (N=68) drivers are almost balanced. However, each case has a unique profile, which influences the likelihood of achieving the desired dream landscape. The most common them is social impact. It includes enabling drivers such as increased consumer demand, farmers’ intrinsic motivation and cooperation amongst farmers. The limiting drivers within this theme were a lack of trust and awareness.

 

 

Figure 3. Distribution of change drivers in five themes.

Unlike the three other themes, social impact as well as land use and environmental impact are described mainly by enabling drivers, meaning they are major building blocks for the dream farming landscapes. The limiting drivers are mostly related to economic viability (e.g., market fluctuations), the policy context (e.g., the uncertainty of current and future CAP developments) and agro management viability (e.g., uncertainty on the effects of farming practices) (Figure 4).

 

Figure 4. Limiting and enabling factors across themes.

Dream contracts for dream landscapes

Each CIL developed one or several dream contracts. These dream contracts are legal conduits to strike a balance between farmers’ or land managers’ economic interests and societies’ interests for the provision of environmental public goods and services. We analysed them for general characteristics, benefits, involved actors, payments and monitoring.

General contract characteristics include the targeted land use and contract length. Dream contracts targeted diverse land-use types such as grassland (N=12), arable crops (N=10) and permanent crops (N=7). Often, a contract combines several of these land-use types. The ideal contract length in most CILs ranges from five to ten years.

The dream contracts envision a wide range of benefits that go well beyond mere financial compensations for farmers (Figure 5). Overall, we identified 96 benefits that mostly help either society or farmers.

Figure 5. Envisioned dream contract benefits.

We split the financial benefits for farmers into indirect and direct monetary benefits. Direct monetary benefits include income support, cost savings and product added value.

All cases reported the involvement of one or more intermediary organisations. In eleven out of thirteen cases, a farmer group plays a crucial role to broker knowledge, manage payments, coordinate measures, carry out monitoring and build social cohesion.

In eight out of thirteen cases, funding is envisioned to come from the public sector, for example through agri-environment and climate schemes. Two cases aim for private funding and three cases envision a mix of private and public funding. Generally, we observe great interest for collective and results-based approaches, value-chain contracts and combinations thereof. Six out of thirteen cases like to experiment with combining contracts that include action-based and results-based features.

Almost all dream contracts envision that monitoring is carried out in results-based schemes and action-based schemes. We see a strong willingness from practitioners to be involved in monitoring.

Our results in the greater context

We do not claim that our results represent the whole farming community in Europe as they are entirely based on the perceptions of the participants in our 13 CILs, some of whom participated in several workshops. Furthermore, most participants are already engaged in contracts and are interested in reconciling farmer objectives with societal needs for agri-environmental public goods. Nevertheless, our results give interesting insights into practitioners’ perceptions about desirable changes in present agri-environmental contracts. Practitioners are keen to contribute to societal benefits, experiment with novel contract designs, and play a more active role in designing and monitoring agri-environmental contracts. These findings can support  the design of innovative Agri-environmental contracts and the corresonding policies and Strategic Plans within the New Delivery Model.

To learn more about our findings click HERE.

To learn more about each CIL’s dream landscape and dream contract follow these links:

  1. Limburg – Netherlands
  2. Groningen – Netherlands
  3. Koolstofboeren – Belgium
  4. Gulpdal – Belgium
  5. Northwest England – UK
  6. Hautes Pyrenees – France
  7. Madrid Region – Spain
  8. Bornholm – Denmark
  9. Agora Natura – Germany
  10. Hipp – Germany
  11. North Rhine Westphalia – Germany
  12. Örseg National Park – Hungary
  13. Unione Comuni Garfagnana – Italy

Written by Sven Defrijn (Boerennatuur Vlaanderen), Marina Garcia Llorente (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid), Edward Ott (Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research), Photo Title: © Illiya Vjestica on Unsplash

The future of German agriculture – A task for society as a whole

The future of German agriculture – A task for society as a whole

“German Commission on the Future of Agriculture” (“Zukunftskommission Landwirtschaft”) presented its final report to Chancellor Angela Merkel on July 6, 2021. Various stakeholders unanimously state their commitment to strengthen efforts of environmental and climate action and to improve animal welfare. The Commission stipulates that for the successful transition to a more sustainable agricultural production, economic viability is an indispensable prerequisite. Farmers can only provide environmental services if the farms can secure a sufficient income. Stakeholders also agreed that the transition is a task for the whole of society and that politics needs to provide a conducive policy environment to enable change.

 

Germany as a trailblazer for future-oriented thinking?

Germany already has developed standards that are considerably higher than the EU average regarding various sectors, particularly in the field of animal welfare: It is the world’s first country to ban the culling of male chicks (offspring of laying hens) by the end of 2021. This follows the ban on castrating piglets without anesthesia at the start of 2021. Almost in passing, a leading discounter recently announced that it would only sell meat that was produced in line with higher animal welfare standards by 2023. These new trends ask for quite significant adjustments in livestock keeping. Therefore, they raise the question, if the legal requirements (e.g. construction law, clean air act) will be adjusted to support the modifications needed for higher animal welfare and if there will be enough incentive for livestock farmers in Germany to make it happen.

A diverse committee acknowledging various interests

The final report of the Commission on the Future of Agriculture, a toughly negotiated agreement, runs in a similar vein and summarizes pragmatic concessions from different interest groups for the sake of the greater good. Thirty-one committee members representing agriculture, trade, animal welfare, consumer organizations, environmental protection and science, were asked to develop a shared vision, recommendations and guidelines for a sustainable and future-oriented German agriculture. Established in September 2020 by Chancellor Angela Merkel the committee met regulary. Ideas how to reduce external costs and to preserve nature for future generations while at the same time maintaining food security in Germany were exchanged. The report presents pathways for sustainable agricultural production systems that consider economic, ecological, and social objectives as well as animal welfare.

Transformation needs support from the society as a whole

Traditionally, perspectives on controversial topics, such as animal welfare standards and the economic compensation for farmers who carry out additional conservation practices, differ widely between agriculture and nature conservation. Considering the partially hardened positions of the two professions, it is commendable that the Commission on the future of agriculture reached a consensus under a constructively supporting chairmanship. Guiding principle and starting point for the committee’s work was the notion that environmental efforts must translate into economic success and societal recognition. Support of the whole society is necessary for a successful transformation. Putting responsibility only on farmers will not do the job. More likely, it will lead to the exhaustion of families and abandonment of farms.

Key outcomes

The 190-page document combining the diverse expertise of the committee members is worth a read. It features familiar ideas as well as progressive thinking.

Most significant outcomes from a farmer’s perspective are the following:

  • The German agri-food sector continues to walk the path towards a more sustainable future.
  • Agriculture alone cannot bear the massive cost necessary for the transformation process.
  • Both, companies and society need to invest in German agriculture.
  • Only sufficient income will secure the future viability of farms and motivate new agricultural practitioners.
  • A shift of agricultural production abroad (leakage effects) through unbalanced (and underfinanced) regulations needs to be prevented.
  • The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) should be further developed and (together with national funding) support the transformation while securing the urgently needed planning and investment certainty for farmers.
  • New breeding techniques should be used to develop plant varieties adapted to challenges posed by climate change and pests.
  • Requirements for animal welfare should be (financially) supported to secure the perspective for high-quality livestock farming in Germany.
  • Research and innovation should provide the knowledge base for resource-, animal-, and climate-friendly practices.
  • Digitalization offers the potential to reduce the use of fertilizer and plant protection products through precision agriculture.
A Common Agricultural Policy

CAP support will play a key role in financing and managing the transition to a sustainable food system in Germany. Provided that farms can operate sufficiently competitive, CAP support has to enable farmers to contribute to additional ecological and social achievements. The uphill struggle in the course of the EU trialogue negotiations on the CAP 2023-2027 has shown how hardened positions of different interest groups can endanger the necessary financial support for farmers. At the end of June 2021 a compromise was reached, just in time to not fail the millions of European farmers relying on the CAP’s financial income support.

Cooperation is the key to success

In the long term, the “Zukunftskommission Landwirtschaft” suggests for Germany that area-based direct payments should be gradually converted into payments supporting specific measures to reach societal goals (such as clean water or sustaining biodiversity) within the next two CAP funding periods. The committee emphasizes that during the transition process, farmers should not suffer a net loss to their income. Furthermore, instead of regulation, Cooperation should be fostered to motivate farmers to implement ecologically effective measures on their farms. To increase the effectiveness of agri-environment-climate measures (AECM) a collective implementation (e.g.  Dutch collective model) is specifically mentioned as being a promising solution due to its landscape scale approach. The report also emphasizes the necessity for consumers to accept fair prices for agricultural products. They should integrate the higher production costs, to maintain the profitability of agricultural enterprises.

A blueprint for a greener future?

Although not a legally binding document, policy makers will hardly be able to ignore the report. In the eyes of the committee members, the recommendations of the commission  should serve as a blueprint for policy innovation. The next German government is likely to be judged according to its efforts regarding the support of the transformation process. The recommendations have the potential to get politics moving and motivate society to live up to the commitment to make this ambitious vision come true.