Distributional Impacts of Cost-effective Spatially Homogeneous and Regionalized Agri-Environment Payments. A case study of a Grassland Scheme in Saxony, Germany

Markova-Nenova, Nonka and Wätzold, Frank and Sturm, Astrid (2020): Distributional Impacts of Cost-effective Spatially Homogeneous and Regionalized Agri-Environment Payments. A case study of a Grassland Scheme in Saxony, Germany.

Abstract

Economic analysis of agri-environment schemes (AES) has focused mainly on improving their cost-effectiveness. In contrast, the distributional impacts of AES have received less attention in the economic literature, even though the implementation of cost-effective policies can receive much more support, if their distributional impacts are desirable. We combine cost-effectiveness and distributional considerations and investigate empirically for a case study (a grassland program in Saxony, Germany), if trade-offs or synergies exist between improving the cost-effectiveness of an AES and its distributional impacts. We apply an ecological-economic modelling procedure to design two cost-effective AES - one scheme with spatially homogeneous payments and one with regionally differentiated payments. To compare the distributional impacts of the schemes we use the criteria of equality, equity and Rawls’ maximin criterion. Our results suggest that substantial cost-effectiveness improvements can be achieved with the spatially differentiated AES. Regarding distributional impacts, on the federal state level and within the largest region, we find a trade-off between equality and cost-effectiveness, whereas equity generally increases with improved cost-effectiveness of the AES, except in the largest region. On Rawls’ maximin criterion the spatially homogeneous payments are preferred, as they lead to the highest net benefits in the poorest region. This shows the importance of analyzing the distributional implications of cost-effective AES on different spatial levels.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: cost-effectiveness, distribution, fairness, maximin, agri-environmental payments, ecological-economic modelling, spatial differentiation
• Subjects: Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q1 - Agriculture > Q18 - Agricultural Policy ; Food Policy; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q57 - Ecological Economics: Ecosystem Services ; Biodiversity Conservation ; Bioeconomics ; Industrial Ecology

References

Ansell, D., Freudenberger, D., Munro, N., Gibbons, P., 2016. The cost-effectiveness of agri-environment schemes for biodiversity conservation: A quantitative review. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 225, 184-191.

Armsworth, P. R., Acs, S., Dallimer, M., Gaston, K. J., Hanley, N., Wilson, P., 2012. The cost of policy simplification in conservation incentive programs. Ecology Letters, 15 (5), 406-414.

Atkinson, A. B., 1970. On the measurement of inequality. Journal of Economic Theory, 2(3), 244-263.

Babcock, B. A., Lakshminarayan, P. G., Wu, J., Zilberman, D., 1996. The economics of a public fund for environmental amenities: a study of CRP contracts. American journal of agricultural economics, 78(4), 961-971.

Bamière L, Havlíka P, Jacqueta F, Lhermb M, Milleta G, Bretagnollec V., 2011. Farming system modelling for agri-environmental policy design: The case of a spatially non-aggregated allocation of conservation measures. Ecological Economics 70 (5), 891-899.

Bastian, O., Beierkuhnlein, C., Sybe, R.-U., 2002. Landscape change and landscape monitoring. In: O. Bastian and U. Steinhardt (eds.) Development and perspectives of landscape ecology, Springer Science+Business Media, Dordrecht. p. 184.

Buller, H., Brives, H., 2017. France: farm production and rural product as key factors influencing agri-environmental policy. In Buller, H., Wilson, G. A., and Holl, A. eds. (2017). Agri-environmental policy in the European Union. Routledge, 9-30.

Claassen, R., Hansen, L., Peters, M., Weinberg, M., Breneman, V. E., Cattaneo, A., ... and Johnston, P., 2001. Agri-environmental policy at the crossroads: Guideposts on a changing landscape. Agricultural Economic Report No. 794. Economic Research Service/USDA.

Claassen, R., Cattaneo, R., Johansson, R., 2008. Cost-effective design of agri-environmental payment programs: U.S. experience in theory and practice. Ecological Economics, 65, 738-753.

Clayton, S. (2000). Models of justice in the environmental debate. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 459-474.

Cong, R. G., Smith, H. G., Olsson, O., Brady, M., 2014. Managing ecosystem services for agriculture: Will landscape-scale management pay?. Ecological Economics, 99, 53-62. 26

Drechsler, M., Smith, H. G., Sturm, A., Wätzold, F., 2016. Cost-effectiveness of conservation payment schemes for species with different range sizes. Conservation Biology, 30 (4), 894-899.

Ekroos, J., Ödman, A. M., Andersson, G. K., Birkhofer, K., Herbertsson, L., Klatt, B. K., ... and Rundlöf, M., 2016. Sparing land for biodiversity at multiple spatial scales. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 3, 145.

Engel, S., 2015. Ecosystem Services (Payments for). In Essential concepts of global environmental governance (pp. 62-p). Routledge.

European Commission, 2018. EU budget: the Common Agricultural Policy beyond 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_18_3974, last accessed: 16.12.2019.

European Commission, 2019. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rica/ detailtf_en.cfm?TF=TF8&Version=13185 , last accessed: 26.02.2019.

Friedman, R. S., Law, E. A., Bennett, N. J., Ives, C. D., Thorn, J. P., Wilson, K. A., 2018. How just and just how? A systematic review of social equity in conservation research. Environmental Research Letters, 13 (5), 053001.

Hanley, N., Banerjee, S., Lennox, G. D., Armsworth, P. R., 2012. How should we incentivize private landowners to ‘produce’more biodiversity?. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 28 (1), 93-113.

Homans, G. C., 1974. Social behavior: Its elementary forms. (Rev. Ed.) New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Johst, K., Drechsler, M., Mewes, M., Sturm, A., Wätzold, F., 2015. A novel modelling approach to evaluate the ecological effects of timing and location of grassland conservation measures. Biological Conservation, 182, 44-52.

Klimek, S., Hofmann, M., Isselstein, J., 2007. Plant species richness and composition in managed grasslands: the relative importance of field management and environmental factors. Biological Conservation, 134 (4), 559-570.

Konow, J., 2003. Which is the fairest one of all? a positive analysis of justice theories. Journal of Economic Literature, 41, 1186-1237. 27

Law, E. A., Bennett, N. J., Ives, C. D., Friedman, R., Davis, K. J., Archibald, C., Wilson, K. A., 2018. Equity trade‐offs in conservation decision making. Conservation Biology, 32 (2), 294-303.

Leventhal, G. S., 1980. What should be done with equity theory?. In Social exchange (27-55). Springer, Boston, MA.

Lewis, D. J., Plantinga, A. J., Nelson, E. Polasky, S., 2011. The efficiency of voluntary incentive policies for preventing biodiversity loss. Resource and Energy Economics, 33, 192-211.

Loft, L., Le, D. N., Pham, T. T., Yang, A. L., Tjajadi, J. S., Wong, G. Y., 2017. Whose equity matters? National to local equity perceptions in Vietnam's payments for forest ecosystem services scheme. Ecological Economics, 135, 164-175.

Lu, G., Yin, R., 2020. Evaluating the Evaluated Socioeconomic Impacts of China's Sloping Land Conversion Program. Ecological Economics, 177, 106785.

Markova-Nenova, N., Wätzold, F., 2017. PES for the poor? Preferences of potential buyers of forest ecosystem services for including distributive goals in the design of payments for conserving the dry spiny forest in Madagascar. Forest Policy and Economics, 80, 71-79.

Markova-Nenova, N., Wätzold, F., 2018. Fair to the cow or fair to the farmer? The preferences of conventional milk buyers for ethical attributes of milk. Land Use Policy, 79, 223-239.

McDermott, M., Mahanty, S., Schreckenberg, K., 2013. Examining equity: a multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services. Environmental Science and Policy, 33, 416-427. Mewes, M., Sturm, A., Johst, K., Drechsler, M., Wätzold, F., 2012. Handbuch der Software Ecopay zur Bestimmung kosteneffizienter Ausgleichszahlungen für Maßnahmen zum Schutz gefährdeter Arten und Lebensraumtypen im Grünland (No. 01/2012). UFZ-Bericht.

Mewes, M., M. Drechsler, K. Johst, A. Sturm, Wätzold, F., 2015. A systematic approach for assessing spatially and temporally differentiated opportunity costs of biodiversity conservation measures in grassland. Agricultural Systems, 137, 76-88.

Ministry of Rural Affairs, Food and Consumer Protection Baden-Wuerttemberg, 2016. http://www.foerderung.landwirtschaft-bw.de/pb/,Lde/Startseite/Foerderwegweiser/ Agrarumwelt_+Klimaschutz+und+Tierwohl+_FAKT_ , last accessed: 26.02.2019. 28

Mouysset, L., 2014. Agricultural public policy: Green or sustainable?. Ecological Economics, 102, 15-23.

Narloch, U. L. F., Pascual, U., Drucker, A. G., 2011. Cost-effectiveness targeting under multiple conservation goals and equity considerations in the Andes. Environmental Conservation, 417-425.

Nordin, M., Höjgård, S., 2018. Earnings and Disposable Income of Farmers in Sweden, 1997–2012. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 41(1), 153-173.

Ohl, C., Drechsler, M., Johst, K., Wätzold, F., 2008. Compensation payments for habitat heterogeneity: Existence, efficiency, and fairness considerations. Ecological Economics, 67, 162-174.

Pascual, U., Muradian, R., Rodríguez, L. C., Duraiappah, A., 2010. Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: A conceptual approach. Ecological Economics, 69, 1237-1244.

Randrianarison, H., Waetzold, F., 2017. Are buyers of forest ecosystem services willing to consider distributional impacts of payments to local suppliers? Results from a choice experiment in Antananarivo, Madagascar. Environmental Conservation, 44(1), 74.

Rawls, J., 1999. A theory of justice. (revised edition) Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Robins, L., 2018. More than 30 years of ‘Landcare’in Australia: five phases of development from ‘childhood’to ‘mid-life’ (crisis or renewal?). Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 25 (4), 385-397.

Saxon State Institute for Agriculture, 1999. Die Landwirtschaftlichen Vergleichsgebiete im Freistaat Sachsen, https://publikationen.sachsen.de/bdb/artikel/13524, last accessed: 26.02.2019.

Saxon State Ministry of the Environment and Agriculture, 2014a. Buchführungsergebnisse der Landwirtschaft im Wirtschaftsjahr 2012/2013 https://publikationen.sachsen.de/bdb/artikel/16472, last accessed: 26.02.2019.

Saxon State Ministry of the Environment and Agriculture, 2014b. Agrarbericht in Zahlen, 2013, Dresden. https://publikationen.sachsen.de/bdb/artikel/22323 , last accessed: 26.02.2019. 29

Saxon State Ministry of the Environment and Agriculture, 2015. Directive „Agri-environmental measures and forest increase“ 2007 (Richtlinie „Agrarumweltmaßnahmen und Waldmehrung“ 2007) https://www.smul.sachsen.de/foerderung/94.htm, last accessed: 26.02.2019.

Saxon State Office for the Environment, Agriculture and Geology, 2014. Agri-economic Regions in Saxony (GIS data) https://www.landwirtschaft.sachsen.de/wirtschaftsgebiete-im-freistaat-sachsen-15306.html, last accessed: 26.02.2019.

Saxon State Office for the Environment, Agriculture and Geology, 2020. https://www.landwirtschaft.sachsen.de/landwirtschaftliche-vergleichsgebiete-im-freistaat-sachsen-15188.html, last accessed: 15.10.2020.

Schlosberg, D., 2009. Defining environmental justice: Theories, movements, and nature. Oxford University Press.

Schlör, H., Fischer, W., Hake, J. F., 2013. Sustainable development, justice and the Atkinson index: Measuring the distributional effects of the German energy transition. Applied Energy, 112, 1493-1499.

Soil Estimation Act, 2007, Germany. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bodsch_tzg_2008/BJNR317600007.html, last accessed: 06.09.2020.

Statistical Office Saxony, 2010. Landwirtschaftszählung 2010 - Ausgewählte Merkmale nach Landwirtschaftsgebieten. https://www.statistik.sachsen.de/download/100_Berichte-C/C_LZ_2010_8_SN.pdf , last accessed: 26.02.2019.

Sturm, A., Drechsler, M., Johst, K., Mewes, M., Wätzold, F., 2018. DSS-Ecopay–A decision support software for designing ecologically effective and cost-effective agri-environment schemes to conserve endangered grassland biodiversity. Agricultural Systems, 161, 113-116.

Tinbergen, J., 1952. On the Theory of Economic Policy. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Uthes, S., Sattler, C., Zander, P., Piorr, A., Matzdorf, B., Damgaard, M., ... and Fischer, H., 2010. Modeling a farm population to estimate on-farm compliance costs and environmental effects of a grassland extensification scheme at the regional scale. Agricaltural Systems, 103, 282-293.

Wätzold, F., Mewes, M., van Apeldoorn, R., Varjopuro, R., Chmielewski, T. J., Veeneklaas, F., Kosola, M. L., 2010. Cost-effectiveness of managing Natura 2000 sites: an exploratory study for Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and Poland. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19 (7), 2053-2069.

Wätzold F, Drechsler M., 2014. Agglomeration payment, agglomeration bonus or homogeneous payment?. Resource and Energy Economics, 37, 85-110.

Wätzold, F., Drechsler, M., Johst, K., Mewes, M., Sturm, A., 2016. A novel, spatiotemporally explicit ecological-economic modelling procedure for the design of cost-effective agri-environment schemes to conserve biodiversity. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 98 (2), 489-512.

Whitehouse, E., 1995. Measures of inequality in Stata. Stata Technical Bulletin. STB-23. http://www.stata-press.com/journals/stbcontents/stb23.pdf , last accessed: 26.02.2019.

Wu, J., D. Zilberman, and Babcock, B.A. 2001. Environmental and Distributional Impacts of Conservation Targeting Strategies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 41, 333–350.

Wu, J., Yu, J., 2017. Efficiency-equity tradeoffs in targeting payments for ecosystem services. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 99 (4), 894-913.