Development of innovative agri-environmental contracts in contracts2.0 case study regions

Development of innovative agri-environmental contracts in contracts2.0 case study regions

by | Jul 4, 2023 | Results

In three countries that established Contract Innovation Labs in one or several case study regions explicit changes have been made in the policymaking on AECM notably inspired by contracts2.0. Elements of the innovative contract proposals are now being implemented. Many innovation labs found themselves in several stages of implementation (negotiation, testing, mainstreaming) at once. This may be due to the fact that they are working on several contracts at the same time or because only some elements of the proposed contract have moved on to the testing or implementation phase. The main challenges to implementation were, among others, the lack of support from policy, realistically aligning the innovative structures with existing regulations, and the lack of financing for important intermediaries. Some CILs also lacked the interest from farmers or struggled with the need to raise public awareness. This goes to show, that a participatory process needs to be properly set up, and considerable effort is needed for successful continuation. At the same time, the successes make a significant difference and set a motivating example. 

Belgium

In Flanders, Belgium, groups of farmers will be beneficiaries for non-productive investments under the new CAP. Contracts2.0 action partner BoerenNatuur Vlaanderen (BNVL) together with research partner INBO and the support of multiple regional stakeholders also succeeded in including results-based elements in the new AECM on botanical grassland management. Furthermore, one province is willing to scale up an agglomeration bonus for erosion control to more areas in Flanders. The Flemish case study is a good example of the real-life changes contracts2.0 was able to generate. In addition, organisers of local CILs and the PIL observed a high interest in implementing more innovative approaches in the future and while the process of incorporating new measures into the Strategic Plan somewhat exceeds the project running time, the participatory process succeeded in connecting the essential stakeholders to take the processes further. The video produced on the consortium field trip to the Flemish case study regions also depicts the positive practitioner perspectives on the project and the topic (see here).

 

Spain

In the Madrid Region, a new AECM has been added to the Madrid Rural Development Plan thanks to the work of project action partner Heliconia and project research partner UAM. A measure for non-productive investments for agri-environmental objectives now allows land stewardship entities to become beneficiaries of the aid to support farms through contracts. The Spanish project partners have also organised seminars to introduce this new measure to local stakeholders and have presented their work on multiple occasions (e.g. webinars and conferences) in the region to raise awareness. This is a positive impact of the bottom-up approach exercised within the CIL / PIL Madrid where shortcomings of current agri-environmental contracts and consequently possibilities for improvement were identified. Solutions for real-life implementation were discussed with the local stakeholders to ensure a legitimate addition to the AECM and thus, a direct impact on policy design can be reported.

Germany

Several federal states will include a collective approach for AECM, for example following the example of Dutch collectives. The bottom-up participatory approach in contracts2.0 helped foster the international knowledge exchange on the topic significantly.

Although not formally part of contracts2.0 and its CILs/PILs, the case of German federal state of Brandenburg is included here because it offers a further example of the introduction of innovative contracts, namely collective contracts. Brandenburg was the first German state legally implementing collective AECM. Inspired by the Dutch model, collective AECM were introduced with the CAP funding period starting in 2023, though as additional option next to individual AECM (instead of switching the whole system, like in the Dutch case). Jointly with the German Landcare Association (Deutscher Verband für Landschaftspflege, DVL), contracts2.0 project coordinator ZALF worked on developing mandatory and optional criteria for the institutional design and actor constellation within a collective and the design of collective contracts to derive policy implications and recommendations (in accordance with work carried out in WP2 on the analysis of existing contracts). This has been done by integrating results and experiences of contracts2.0 and a series of interviews with farmers in Brandenburg. ZALF also invited the Brandenburg ministry of agriculture, environment and climate protection (MLUK) – which was strongly engaged in promoting the collective approach – to the contracts2.0 CIL/PIL exchange in Germany. The idea of introducing collective AECM to Brandenburg was initiated by the ministry itself. By inviting a driving member of said ministry to CIL/PIL exchanges, practical aspects of the implementation of collectives and their inclusion in Strategic Plans were shared with other German federal states, serving as a successful inspiration for many. Especially interesting was the many detailed insights in the necessary regulatory framework for the legal implementation of collectives as an addition to individual AECM.
The most important aspects gathered from the farmer interviews in Brandenburg were the desire for more flexibility (concerning land tenure, occurrence of extreme weather events, contracting time), a reduction of the bureaucratic workload and financial attractiveness of the new scheme. Generally, farmers are convinced of the ecological effectiveness of the collective approach and expect increased knowledge exchange and the possibility of learning.

Contracts2.0 contributed to the realisation of the collectives in Germany through extensive research on the Dutch model, providing contacts to Dutch colleagues and the series of interviews with Brandenburg farmers that were delivered to the ministry, which took them into account when designing the new collective approach. Including the farmers’ perspectives in the contract design will arguably have a positive impact on their legitimacy and acceptance. Due to the close involvement of project partner ZALF, the German experiences and insights could also be translated into English for the other project partners’ benefit.

Currently, 5 collectives are being established in Brandenburg. The current CAP funding period is considered to be a pilot phase and trial period, in which regulations concerning the collectives are not yet “set in stone” and allow for some flexibility. Due to time constraints, no specific new measures have been introduced yet. In fact, during the current funding period, the previous (individual) measures (AECM) are now possible to be carried out collectively. However, for the following funding periods, the introduction of new collective AECM is planned.

 

© Picture: Eszter Cibik, ONPD, Hungary

Are agri-environmental measures effective in protecting farmland birds?

Are agri-environmental measures effective in protecting farmland birds?

by | Jun 13, 2023 | Results

We assessed the effects of two agri-environmental measures targeting cropland birds implemented by three farmers collectives in the Netherlands. Results show positive effects on the abundance of birds and total number of bird species. However, our results show that some species do not benefit from the implemented measures. Building on these results, the study provides recommendations for the future implementation of AEMs targeting cropland birds in the Netherlands and beyond.

Are agri-environmental measures effective in protecting farmland biodiversity?

A significant share of the CAP budget (in 2020: 17.6%, i.e. 2.5 billion euros) is funding agri-environmental measures (AEM) to protect among others farmland biodiversity. However, past studies on the effectiveness of these measures have shown mixed results. Measures may fail because of inadequate management prescriptions or because insufficient habitat is created at suitable locations. Since farmland species differ in their habitat needs, simple all-around solutions are unlikely to work. In the Netherlands, the collective approach for AEMs was adopted in 2016 partly to address these challenges and to achieve an effective management at suitable locations. In particular, farmers collectives aim to increase the concentration of measures in favorable areas for targeted species. After only six years of implementation, evaluation of the ecological effectiveness of the collective approach is just starting. Our study contributes to this evaluation.

Figure 1: Location of plots with bird observations (in red) (Grondard et al., 2023).

Study objectives and methods

In this study, we assessed the effects of two types of measures targeting cropland birds: bird plots (vogelakkers) and field margins (kruidenrijk akkerranden). Measures were implemented by collectives in the provinces of Groningen, Drenthe and Flevoland between 2017 and 2020. We compared bird abundance on AEM plots with measures, and control plots with conventional practices (see Fig. 1). However, differences in bird abundance between AEM and control plots may be due to other factors than plot management. For instance, a plot located in an open landscape is likely to host a higher number of skylarks than a plot surrounded by forest areas, irrespective of plot management practices, because skylarks breed in open landscapes. Therefore, to uncover the effect of measures, we took into account the effect of landscape characteristics around plots. Furthermore, we assessed if AEM plots located next to each other had a higher bird abundance than isolated AEM plots, to assess the effect of spatially concentrating measures.

Positive effects on four out of seven target species, total number of species and total number of birds

We analysed seven target species individually, the total number of species and the total number of birds (See Fig. 2). Compared to control plots, field margins hosted a higher number skylarks, yellowhammers, common linnets and common kestrels as well as a higher total number of species and birds. Benefits of bird plots were limited to skylarks and total number of birds. The three other species (western yellow wagtails, northern lapwings, Eurasian oystercatchers) did not benefit from any of the studied measures. Landscape characteristics were an important factor explaining the abundance of birds. Species nesting on the ground avoided landscapes with vertical structures (trees, buildings), which was not the case of species nesting in boundary features. AEM plots located next to each other did not have higher bird abundance than isolated AEM plots: yellowhammers abundance was even lower.

Figure 2: Predicted number of individuals per plot for each of the seven studied species and total bird abundance, and predicted species richness per plot, for control plots, field margins and bird plots. B = species nesting in boundary features (hedges, ditches and trees), G = species nesting on the ground. Vertical bars correspond to 95% confidence intervals (Grondard et al., 2023).

Next steps for Dutch AEMs targeting cropland birds

  • Monitor the quality of habitat created by AEMs: to understand better why field margins and bird plots have different effects on certain species and thus to be able to improve the effects of the measures, it is useful to complete the monitoring of AEMs with observation on the habitat quality created by the measures, such as vegetation structure, composition and changes across the breeding season.
  • Other types of measures for species nesting on bare ground: for western yellow wagtails, northern lapwings and Eurasian oystercatchers, alternative management options are needed. Current field margins and bird plots do not benefit these species, probably because their vegetation grows too quickly early in the season, while these bird species prefer bare or sparsely vegetated soils for breeding.
  • Assess potential synergies with AEMs in other habitats: for the studied measures, regions and species, the spatial clustering of AEM plots does not seem beneficial. However, we analysed only the AEMs implemented on cropland. Clustering of cropland AEMs with AEMs implemented in grasslands or hedgerows may be beneficial, as several cropland species depend also on these other habitats for breeding, foraging or as shelters. Further studies are needed to assess how these measures complement each other.
  • Fine scale spatial targeting of measures: because target species respond differently to landscape characteristics, there is no optimal location for all 16 species targeted by the national policy. Therefore, we suggest that, in their local conservation efforts, collectives target a subset of species for which local landscape characteristics are most favorable and select the most beneficial AEM options for this subset of species.

 

© Text: Nicolas Grondard (Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University), Lenny van Bussel (PBL-Netherlands Environmental Agency).

© Title Picture: K. Karkow 

Detailed results of the study are available in the scientific publication : Grondard, N., Kleyheeg, E., Hein, L., Van Bussel, L.G.J., 2023. Effects of Dutch agri-environmental field margins and bird plots on cropland birds. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 349.

Beyond Research: What’s your favourite contracts2.0 case study?

Beyond Research: What’s your favourite contracts2.0 case study?

by | Dec 1, 2022 | Allgemein, Background, Workshops & Events

Over the past 3.5 years, Contracts2.0 partners have worked on agri-environment-climate-measures in and with various regions and its stakeholders. Many valuable professional but also personal relationships have formed. Some of these unique regions, its people, products and measures are portrayed in these photographs, accompanied by their origin story. 

 

The Small Heath

Germany © Picture: HiPP GmbH & Co. Vertrieb GmbH

The picture shows a Small Heath (Coenonympha pamphilus) at HiPP’s model farm for biodiversity, the Ehrensberger Hof. Value chain approaches have great innovation potential: They have a strong bottom-up approach and can be adapted to the local situation in a targeted way. HiPP and many other organic food companies have been committed to respectful interaction with nature and natural resources for many years. They follow a multifaceted engagement for biodiversity and ecosystem services along their value chains.

Food production depends on numerous biodiversity and ecosystem services. One example is pollination services provided by insects. Insect biodiversity has declined severely in recent decades in Central Europe. For this reason, the HiPP company, in collaboration with the Bavarian State Collection for Zoology (ZSM) and the Bavarian Natural History Collections (SNSB), initiated a study to investigate the impact of organic and conventional farming on insect diversity.

This study was the first to quantitatively and qualitatively demonstrate the effects of different agricultural practices on biodiversity using molecular methods (cf. Hausmann et al., 2020). At HiPP’s model farm for biodiversity, the Ehrensberger Hof near Pfaffenhofen an der Ilm, 260 % more insect biomass was detected compared to the conventional trial farm in 2018.

This shows the importance of promoting organic farming and other biodiversity measures as part of value chain approaches. Please visit the website for more details.

Text: Birte Bredemeier, LUH

Contract Innovation Lab Flanders 

Belgium © Boerennatuur Vlaanderen

Three pictures were created in our case study regions in Flanders, Belgium. In Voeren, a western part of Belgium (where the white cow unsuccessfully tries to escape the camera by hiding behind a tree) we aim to preserve the landscape, biodiversity, and agricultural values by including grasslands and woody elements.

Our CIL-case Koolstofboeren (carbon farming) aims to increase the organic matter content in soil by incorporating wood chips from landscape management in the soil, which has a positive effect on the soil structure, water infiltration, erosion control and soil biodiversity as can beautifully be seen in the two pictures showing the soil.

Castiglione di Garfagnana in Early Summer

Italy © Cinzia Lenzarini, Unione Comuni Garfagnana

This small and rare plain enclosed by mountains still offers a manicured and harmonious agricultural landscape, just as we would like our territory to continue to be. In the background, the Apuan foothills give an idea of the orographic complexity and great expanse of the forest, where Chestnut groves survive with centuries-old majestic plants, interspersed with small, ancient orchards rich in biodiversity.

To the right, the Omo Morto chain (Apuan Alps) which dominates the landscape, with its unmistakable silhouette of a sleeping giant.

In the field in the foreground, alternate horticultural species of local varieties now at risk of extinction such as the Nano di Verni corn, the Rossa di Sulcina potato, the Rossetto wheat, the Giallorino della Garfagnana bean, and finally the bales of hay, ready to feed the small flocks and herds of local breeds: white Garfagnina sheep and Garfagnina cow.

In this valley farmers are the custodians of an endangered animal and plant genetic heritage, which has survived the great social and economic changes. It has now fallen to us to capture its flavours, agronomic traditions, myths, and tales that have sprung from it.

In this snapshot we see much of the agricultural Garfagnana, rich in biodiversity and culture, sculpted by the strong identity and tenacity of its inhabitants. It is preserved by the will and passion of custodian farmers, suspended between abandonment and difficult enhancement and redevelopment of life in mountain and interior areas.

Gentian Caching

Hungary © Eszter Cibik, Őrség National Park

Here we are in a molinia meadow, in the Őrség national park. Every condition favours species-rich grassland: high annual rainfall and humidity, mild temperatures, soil moisture…
What other things are necessary for long-term nature conservation? Good relationship and communication with farmers. Results-based payment (RBP), as a planned contract type was discussed and chosen with local stakeholders, including farmers. RBP focuses on species-rich hay meadows in Őrség and some of the farmers take part of the testing.

In the picture, you can see a caught moment, when the farmer and me are monitoring the unmown parcel of the meadow. He was obliged not to cut 5% of the grassland in order to enhance seeding. The marsh gentian (Gentiana pneumonanthe), one of our protected species, is a defined indicator, that scores in RBP. Bingo! We have just found several ones in blossom in the unmown area in that moment. Thus, we are on the right path to increase their numbers.

In the field visit, structure elements, plant and butterfly species are monitored – following an indicator check list. The butterfly net functions also as a modern shepherd’s crook as you can see. Farmers are usually surprized at first, then enthusiastic about counting butterflies.
Farmers are more positive towards AECMs, if they are part of the planning process. They are also willing to and capable of measuring indicators.

Fuenlabrada Agricultural Park

Spain © Inés Gutiérrez Briceño, UAM

Given the paradigms of global change, Fuenlabrada agricultural park was created to support peri-urban agriculture in the metropolitan region of Madrid. Despite the strong urban sprawl during the last decades, horticultural production has been maintained in the area. The agricultural park strengthens this production from an integral perspective and articulates actions based on the needs of the agricultural sector. The maintenance of this activity has also allowed the conservation of traditional varieties and the traditional agricultural practices associated with them, as is the case of the local Fuenlabrada chard.

The photo shows the mountainous area in the north of the region in the background, the city of Fuenlabrada nearby, and in the foreground one of the horticultural productions that make up the agricultural park. Among the chards, a strip of calendula flowers, can be seen, which is planted to attract beneficial insects for the orchard such as pest controllers or pollinating insects. In addition, these flower strips bring many other values, such as cultural and aesthetic values. Furthermore, by strengthening the multifunctional role of this activity and the restoration of the agricultural landscape, these areas are a space where it can be developed for environmental, sports and educational activities. These activities must be compatible with sustainable and local production, which will help to empower farmers who work there.

Will & Zac

England © Annabelle LePage, Natual England

Will is a hill farmer in the Yorkshire Dales. He has a commercial sheep and cattle enterprise based on hardy crossbreeds. He runs his upland farm alongside his brother, and their family have farmed in the valley for many years.

Will is also an active participant in the development of England’s innovative new agri-environment schemes. He was a member of the grassland results-based pilot, and is pictured here with sheepdog Zac in one of his best fields for breeding waders, in which he has seen around 70 curlews at once present in the spring.

In the background behind Will, Zac and their quad bike, we can see some of the excellent habitat qualities like the varied sward and plentiful tussocks which provide shelter for the birds. On the horizon, we can see the dramatic, rolling hills of the beautiful yet challenging Yorkshire Dales landscape in which these farmers provide so many benefits for natural and cultural heritage.

Will is an inspiring example of a hill farmer who is working well for both his own business, for the public, for other farmers and for nature.

Text: Jennifer Dodsworth

The Sunshine Island

Bornholm, Denmark © Louise Vercruysse (left) and Lisa Sharif (right)

One of contratcs2.0’s case study regions is the Danish Island of Bornholm. After the 2022 Consortium Meeting in Copenhagen a few colleagues visited this unique part of Europe. We spent a beautiful sunny day hiking along the coast, inspecting the landscape (we found an orchid!), watching birds, discussing our research, and even taking a dip in the clear cold sea.

The picture of the ocean, taken on an analogue camera by Louise Vercruysse, marks the start of our hike – the dinner plate full of exclusively local products the end of it.
It was a humbling full circle moment: to have spent the day walking through the region where farmers produce the foods on our plates and seeing the positive effects of their landscape management.

International research projects are no walk in the park (neither is hiking with Francis by the way), I learned that much very quickly. But today, it brought us here today, from all over Europe, brought us closer together as colleagues and friends. Let’s remember why it will be worth it: we are working on securing the possibility for future generations to take the same photographs as us on this day – of wonderful local food products, blooming landscapes, and clear water.

Text: Lisa Sharif, DBV

The Danish Jersey Cow

Bornholm, Denmark © Louise Vercruysse, INBO

We encountered these lovely cows during a day-long hike on the island of Bornholm – the Sunshine Island. It was late June, just after the Contracts meeting in Copenhagen, when some of the meeting attendees wanted to explore the natural surroundings where the Danish Contract Innovation Lab was situated, where sustainable grassland contracts were created.

Bornholm carries a fascinating history, as the island has been fought over for centuries. It used to be a Viking stronghold, and we saw some children on a school trip, dressed up as Vikings, as living remnants of that era. Bornholm belonged to Sweden for a while, before becoming Danish territory somewhere in the 17th century. During the second world war, the island was occupied by the Germans and bombed by the Russians. A lot of violence happened on the island. However, when walking the trails, one can only feel a strong sense of peace, being surrounded by the deep blue Baltic Sea and granite rocks. And this peace and joy is what we – humans anthropomorphizing everything – think to see in the faces of the cows we passed.

The Danish jersey cow, lounging in the shade with her new-born calf, seemed pleased. What must she think, overlooking the sea, likely never having touched the salty water? Does she see the humans walking the fields she’s grazing as belonging to a world separate from her, a culture opposed to a nature? Does she see her existence and the birth of her calf as being made possible by humans? Is she biodiversity, part of an environmentally friendly farming system, or quite the opposite, a burden?
Live and let live would be a part of the agriculture that Contracts2.0 aims to contribute to: co-designing contracts with practitioners to sustainably co-design farming systems with all human and non-human actors involved.

And so we continued our hike, finding ourselves a shady spot next to the water to take a rest.

We hope you enjoyed this small insight in our project and its regions and people!

We love them all, so we need you to GIVE YOUR VOTE to your favourite case study picture and story!

Combining collective agri-environmental contracts with a payments-by-results approach

Combining collective agri-environmental contracts with a payments-by-results approach

by | Nov 30, 2022 | Results

In his Master thesis, Max Sonntag analysed the potential for combining collective and payment-by-results elements for agri-environmental contracts, based on interviews with ten intermediaries from England. These intermediaries are facilitators of farmer groups who receive funding from the Countryside Stewardship Facilitation Fund (CSFF) for their work to align the management options of farmers on largely adjoining holdings.

The key research question of this study was “What are potential benefits and challenges of combining a collaborative payment for ecosystem services approach with results-based measures?” The particular focus was the role of the intermediary, here the facilitator of a Facilitation Fund group in England (see Practice Abstract 2 here).

Facilitators are responsible for bringing together a group of (at least four) farmers, covering at least 2,000 ha of (largely) adjoining land. They organise group meetings and farm walks, invite expert speakers and align the Countryside Stewardship management options that farmers enrol in. CSFF is technically not a collective contract, as the payment is transferred only to the facilitator. The degree to which the farmers collaborate depends on their individual engagement in the group. There tends to be less cooperation when there is a high proportion of pre-existing individual agri-environmental contracts within the group (Jones et al., 2020, p. 65) as farmers cannot change their contracts before the agreed end date.

Facilitators in this study worked with groups in the regions where the Results Based Agri-environment Payment Scheme (RBAPS) pilot in Northern England (Wensleydale) and East Anglia (Norfolk and Suffolk) was implemented. Therefore, they had an awareness of what a results-based approach could entail, and some farmers in these areas had made positive experiences with the pilots (more information). 

Combination is promising…

In general, facilitators thought that a combination of collective and results-based elements was a good idea and would work well. Five interviewees commented that the Facilitation Fund groups could be used as a platform by farmers to exchange and share knowledge on how to achieve results, and farmers in the group could more easily be trained to undertake self-assessments of results achieved. Alternatively, the facilitator would be on hand to help with the assessment of their plots. Three interviewees stated the result-based approach could enhance friendly competition among members, and access to results-based payment options could encourage more farmers to join the group. There was also the view that farmers who are members of Facilitation Fund groups already demonstrated an interest in learning and innovation regarding environmental activities and therefore would likely be keen to explore result-based options.

…but are there enough trained facilitators? 

Facilitators stressed that results-based payment are not suitable for every case. Indicators needed to be carefully chosen to ensure they are reliable and do not result in a high administrative workload for the farmers, and results-based payments needed to be coupled with a base payment (e.g. via an action-based measure) to reduce the risk to farmers. Current facilitation fund facilitators were seen to be well placed to work with groups to expand into result-based schemes. However, some interviewees had doubts whether there are enough facilitators with the right skills available to be able to advise farmer groups on results monitoring and effective group work at the same time. This suggested additional training for facilitators would need to be made available if such a combination of approaches was to be rolled out.

Onerous paperwork is a barrier 

Interviewees had concerns about the amount of paperwork. Five facilitators already perceived the administrative work related to the Facilitation Fund as onerous, and were weary of an increase if a results-based approach added to this load. In addition, many Facilitation Fund groups currently have no monitoring activities in place, neither with regard to the outcomes of their agri-environmental management, nor the success and social capital of the group as a whole (Prager, 2022). This lack of experience may be a particular hurdle for setting up a result-based approach and the related assessment and reporting activities.

In a scenario of combined collective and result-based elements, a majority of the interviewed facilitators believe that assessing results of management activities, helping with monitoring and providing 1-to-1 advice would be a key aspect of their new role. Others felt their role would not change much: they would continue to facilitate the group’s work as a neutral third party, organise training and help with spatial targeting.

Facilitator role is similarly important in other countries

In conclusion, facilitators have an important role in supporting farmer groups in environmental management. This is in line with observations from other agri-environment climate schemes, such as the Dutch national collective scheme (Berner, 2021), or the result-based Burren Programme in Ireland (Nietzschmann, 2021, Master thesis, more information), where facilitators are involved in multiple roles. These include, for instance enabling communication and coordination among participating famers, offer advice and extension services, assist with the spatial targeting of measures to the most suitable areas in the landscape, join in the monitoring activities, or re-distribute and administer payments to farmers received from the government.

Facilitators view a combination of collective and results-based approaches favourably and most are ready to embrace the challenge of this innovation. Nevertheless, a number of design and administrative challenges remain to be tackled.

 

To cite: Sonntag, M. (2021): Combining a collaborative PES approach with a payments-by-results approach in England: Process Net-Map interviews with Countryside Stewardship Facilitation Fund’s intermediaries. Master thesis in Integrated Natural Resource Management at Humboldt University Berlin, December 2021.

Supervision: Claudia Sattler (ZALF) & Martin Scheele (HU)

Blogpost written by: Katrin Prager & Claudia Sattler 

Pictures: Jennifer Dodsworth & Katrin Prager (taken at a contracts2.0 stakeholer workshop in Ireland)

Contracts2.0 at the ESP Europe Conference

Contracts2.0 at the ESP Europe Conference

by | Nov 4, 2022 | Workshops & Events

The Ecosystem Service Partnership Conference offered a welcome opportunity to discuss the topics and research of Contracts2.0. From the 10th until 14th of October, the Ecosystem service research community gathered in Heraklion, Crete, to spend five warm autumn days together discussing transformative ecosystem research, the future of education, and values.

Discussing motivating contract design

The researchers working in the Contracts2.0 project were well represented and hosted several sessions. For instance, the session “Motivating contract design for the provision of ecosystem services and biodiversity in agriculture”, facilitated by Bettina Matzdorf, discussed the development and implementation of innovative contract models to produce more biodiversity and ecosystem services in the agricultural landscape.

Eszter Kelemen talked about the results from the Policy Delphi study, which was carried out as part of the Contracts2.0 project and explored how and under which circumstances novel contractual solutions could be better implemented within the European policy context.

Then, in his talk about farmers’ preferences for new agri-environmental-climate measures (AECM), Wojciech Zawadzki presented the results from the stated-preference-based Discrete Choice Experiment, where farmers could choose between practice-based and results-based agri-environmental measures.

Reflecting the implementation of novel contractual models

In the session on “Results-based approaches and other integrated models as drivers for ecological conservation and policy integration”, István Szentirmai gave a presentation on the case study Őrség National Park where new results-based and value chain contracts were designed together with practitioners. Dieter Mortelmans talked about the experiences from the contract innovation labs in Flanders to shift towards results-based agri-environmental measures and simultaneously achieve policy integration in rural municipalities faced with high land pressures.

Making local knowledge count

The last of the sessions that incorporated the Contracts2.0 project was “Making local knowledge count: co-design principles and practices for agri-environmental programmes”, facilitated by Francis Turkelboom. In this session, Louise Vercruysse presented the lessons-learned regarding practitioner participation in the co-design of agro-environmental contracts. Inés Gutiérrez-Briceño held a presentation on how to find incentives to move towards agroecological transition in the Community of Madrid and Jennifer Dodsworth discussed the mapping processes of co-design within Agri-Environment Scheme Development in North-England. Unfortunately, due to technical problems, these last two presentations were quite difficult to follow. The discussion in this session centred around the question of how to deal with local power dynamics and whose knowledge to include.

 

Food for thought: the role of science and researchers

The conference hosted a number of captivating keynote speeches. On the second day, for instance, Contracts2.0 researcher Ezster Kelemen, gave a talk about the inclusion of indigenous knowledge in Ecosystem Service research.

Who do you include? And how do you navigate the different layers of marginalization?

Her presentation made us reflect on our own position and role as researchers in local power fields. Giving a voice to representatives of local communities may not be enough, and true inclusivity is challenging and requires creative methods. These topics would come back at different times during the conference, and especially in the sessions related to participatory contract co-design.

Another remarkable keynote speech was given by Esther Turnhout about transformative ecosystem services research. She addressed the lack of diversity in the science community and the misconceptions about the science-policy-interface by both scientists and policy makers. There is not enough attention given to the interests and power relations within science, and the dominant framing of research problems. Esther calls for epistemic disobedience, for scientists to claim cognitive justice and integrate a plurality of paradigms. Furthermore, science is not an objective source, but should be part of the “messy, democratic game” that is politics. Definitely one to think about.

All in all…

…it was a successful conference for the Contracts2.0 researchers. Not only to present our work and discuss it with fellow researchers, but also to get inspired by people engaged in similar projects, make new connections and networks, and to reflect critically on our own research.

© Text and Pictures: Louise Vercruysse