Results-Based Agri-Environmental Schemes for Delivering Ecosystem Services in the EU: Established Issues and Emerging Trends

Saba, Andrea

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-64756-2_5

Andrea Saba⁸

Part of the book series: LITES - Legal Issues in Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies ((LITES,volume 1))

632 Accesses
2 Citations

Abstract

Several agri-environmental schemes have been implemented in the last 20 years in Europe. In general, such measures are designed to encourage farmers to protect and enhance the environment through managing agricultural activity, by rewarding farmers for the service of implementing agri-environment commitments. In recent years, the European Union is showing an increasing interest for identifying more cost-effective means of paying for ecosystem services. An option under consideration is the implementation of results-based schemes, where farmers are rewarded not for performing activity-based standards but for achieving set environmental outcomes. From early 1990s, results-based schemes have slowly been increasing in number and scope, even if the majority remains located in northwestern Europe. The paper is aimed at increasing the legal understanding of results-based agri-environmental scheme for the delivery of ecosystem services. It explores the legal emerging concept of results-based measures and the issues that arise when they are put into practice. In conclusion, the paper distils what can be learned in terms of scaling up the implementation of results-based agri-environmental measures for the enhancement of ecosystem services in the EU.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 149.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 199.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 199.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
This brief story-telling is built on the introductive thoughts in Salzman (2005). In this case, imitation is the sincerest expression of flattering.
2.
Gretchen Daily emphasised that a first cognizance dates at least back to Plato that wrote about the services of soil retention more than 2500 years ago. See Daily (1997).
3.
A first articulation of the concept of ecosystem services can be found in the idea of land ethic elaborated by Aldo Leopold in 1949. See Leopold (1949).
4.
A series of paper started to discuss how ‘functions of nature’ serve human society. See, among others, King (1966), Helliwell (1969), and Westman (1977). However, the term was only coined in 1981 by Ehrlich and Ehrlich that capitalised on the previous literature. See Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1981). For a general overview of the historical elaboration of the concept, see Gómez-Baggethun et al. (2010).
5.
See Ehrlich et al. (1977) and Ehrlich and Mooney (1983). On the linkage between ecosystem services and environmental services, see, inter alia, Pesche et al. (2013).
6.
See Sagoff (2002) and Schroter et al. (2014). See also Boyd and Banzhaf (2007).
7.
See Vihervaara et al. (2010). For example, see the EU research project ‘Pegasus. Public Ecosystem Goods and Services from land management – Unlocking the Synergies’. The project received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 633814, for the period March 2015–February 2018. See Dwyer et al. (2015).
8.
For a comprehensive overview of the economic debate on ecosystem service, see Farley (2012); Kumar (2010) and Gómez-Baggethun et al. (2010). See also Jones et al. (2016).
9.
In the past several scholars have pointed out the need for foundational work in this field, particularly in the American legal literature. See, for example, Kysar (2001), Ruhl (1998), and Salzman (1997). See, also, Ruhl and Salzman (2007), p. 22; Tarlock (2014). For the European context, see the recent publication by Kistenkas (2014).
10.
Among others, this fast-moving debate is shown by the very recent call for contributions for the Special Issue on Legal Aspects of Ecosystem Services, promoted by the academic journal Ecosystem Services published by Elsevier. The Special issue, first of its kind, is intended to fill the gap in the academic legal literature that shows a relevant lag in embracing the concept of ecosystem services. See Mauerhofer and Kistenkas (2015). See, also, Costanza and Kubiszewski (2012).
11.
The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment [hereafter, MEA] was set up by the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2000. The MEA involved a wide range of stakeholders, include the private sectors, NGOs and academics to provide an integrated assessment of the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being and to explore the available options for conserving ecosystems. The findings are contained in five technical volumes and six synthesis reports. For access the materials, see the MEA website at http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Index-2.html. Accessed 4 July 2015.
12.
See Hassan et al. (2005), p. 27.
13.
See Hassan et al. (2005), p. 27.
14.
Provisioning services are the products that we obtain from ecosystems, such as food, fibre, fresh water and genetic resources. While, air quality maintenance, climate regulation, water purification are some of the services that we receive from the regulation of ecosystem processes, thus defined as regulating services. Conversely, the services that are essential for the production of all other ES are called supporting services. These may include primary production and soil formation. The last category of cultural services encompasses the non-material benefits that we obtain from ecosystems ‘through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experiences’. See Hassan et al. (2005), p. 29.
15.
For a comprehensive analysis, see Lele et al. (2013), Fisher et al. (2009), and Schroter et al. (2014).
16.
See, inter alia, Costanza (2008), Fisher et al. (2009), TEEB (2010), Wallace (2007), and Haines-Young and Potschin (2010, 2011).
17.
In this regard, the contribution of the Italian legal doctrine is fascinating. The environment is understood in threefold perspective in regard of the agriculture: (1) as a limit in the exercise of agricultural activities, (2) as form of agriculture in terms of environmental constraints on the agri-forestry land, and (3) as a product shaped by agricultural activities with regard to the services provided. See Francario (1988).
18.
See FAO Statistics, available online at www.faostat.fao.org. Accessed 4 July 2015.
19.
It is essential, however, to not underestimate the potential for management to deliver agricultural ‘disservices’, including loss of biodiversity habitat, nutrient runoff, water sedimentation and hypertrophication, and pesticide pollution. See Power (2010). For a comprehensive ecological overview, see, among others, Zhang (2007). See also Balvanera et al. (2016).
20.
See Hassan et al. (2005), p. 27. Through a well-balanced management, agro-ecosystem processes may provide (1) supporting services, such as soil quality regulation, pest control, pollination and genetic diversity needed for future agricultural use; (2) regulating services, including water quality control, climate regulation and carbon storage, flood control; and (3) cultural services, that is scenic beauty, education and recreation. See Power (2010). See also Pardy (2003).
21.
At an international level, one of the major points of reference is in the Convention of Biological Diversity that, in 1992, first acknowledged the value of conservation practices in maintaining ecosystem services. It addressed the challenge of developing an ecosystem approach towards natural resources management. See Convention on Biological Diversity [1992] 1760 UNTS 79. See, also, Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Decision V/6 on the ecosystem approach, principle 5; and Decision VII/11, adopted in 2004, on the ecosystem approach. According to the literature, the Convention attempted to reach an optimum between ecological principle and social economic reasons. For an analysis of the Convention, see, ex multis, Morgera (2015), Morgera (2016), de Lucia (2015), Voigt (2013), Daniel et al. (2014), and Postiglione (1999). More recently, this resulted in the adoption of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, where the Parties to the Convention agreed ‘to take effective action to halt the loss of biodiversity in order to ensure that by 2020 ecosystems are resilient and continue to provide essential services, thereby securing the planet’s variety of life, and contributing to human well-being, and poverty eradication’. Specifically, they adopted the Aichi Biodiversity Targets that includes a number of targets for agricultural ecosystems. See Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Decision X/2: ‘The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets’, adopted in October 2010, para 12. As a party to the Convention of Biological Diversity, the European Union has considered ecosystem services protection as a central point of its biodiversity strategy for the period up to 2020. Its focal target is ‘halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020 and restoring them in so far as possible, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting global biodiversity loss’. See European Commission (2013) and Cooper et al. (2009). For a general overview, see the recent contribution of Platjouw (2016) in which she analyses the legal development of the ecosystem approach in EU. See, in more general terms, Platjouw (2013) and Dickson and Edwards (2004).
22.
For a comprehensive overview of the concept of multifunctional agriculture, see Cardwell (2004) and Albisinni (2000). See, also, Buia and Antonucci (2015).
23.
See, in particular, Cardwell (2004).
24.
See Van Huylenbroeck et al. (2007). This research is also considered in Vanni (2014).
25.
According to OECD, ‘the existence of multiple commodity and non-commodity outputs that are jointly produced by agriculture and the fact that some of the non-commodity outputs exhibit the characteristics of externalities or public goods, with the result that markets for these goods do not exist or function poorly’. See OECD (2001), p. 13.
26.
See OECD (2008), p. 7.
27.
See OECD (2008), p. 6.
28.
This definition was first adopted in Barkmann et al. (2004). Among others, the definition was cited in Casini et al. (2004), Van Huylenbroeck et al. (2007), and Vanni (2014).
29.
See Vanni (2014), p. 6.
30.
See Van Huylenbroeck et al. (2007), pp. 10 et seqq.
31.
See Van Huylenbroeck and Durand (2003) and Wilson (2008).
32.
See Vanni (2014), p. 7.
33.
Along this perspective it is possible to locate a number of new farming approaches that are acquiring increasing policy relevance and attracting the interests of academia. Among others, it is worthwhile to mention the sustainable intensification of crop production and smart climate agriculture. Regarding the sustainable intensification, see, among others, FAO (2011, 2013a, b), Campbell et al. (2014), Garnett and Godfray (2012), Godfray (2015), and Godfray and Garnett (2014). Regarding climate-smart agriculture, see, among others, FAO (2013a, b) and Adler (2013).
34.
See, inter alia, Berkes et al. (2002) and McGinnis and Ostrom (2014).
35.
See McGinnis and Ostrom (2014). Compare, mutatis mutandis, with the critics contained in the recent contribution by Oto Hospes, according to him the current the concept of agroecosystems neglects ‘the role of legal orders and social fields in defining benefits, services, values’. Moreover, the concept shows to be ‘reductionistic in leaving out the interconnectedness between agroecosystems and plural legal orders [...]’. See Hospes (2015), pp. 47 et seqq.
36.
This four key principle were applied in CGIAR’s Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE) programme, by building on the research carried out by Walker and Salt. See CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (2014) and Walker and Salt (2006).
37.
See Fischer et al. (2015), p. 146. See, also, McGinnis and Ostrom (2014) and Heemskerk et al. (2003).
38.
Notwithstanding the essential role played by ecosystems in providing vital benefits to people, the law encounters several challenges in protecting and enhancing them. According to James Salzman, these factors may be articulated in three main reasons: ignorance, institutions and immature market. The first aspect is not only linked to the fact that people take ecosystem services for granted—thus, ignoring the source of the services we depend on—but also in acknowledging that the practices we use are causing degradation in the provision of ecosystem services. The institutional obstacle consists in the misalignment of the political jurisdictions with ecologically significant areas, which may translate in the separation of costs and benefits derived from ecosystem services across different jurisdiction. This might be the case of different perspective among upstream and downstream political stakeholders in considering the value of upstream forest conservation relating to water quality. The third obstacle, identified by Salzman, concerns the ‘immature mature’ for ecosystem services, despite their value for the general welfare. Ignorance and the obstacle to the creation of the market are closing related factors in the Salzman’s view. See Salzman (2005). Compare with Kochan (2015), and, mutatis mutandis, Noe and Alrøe (2015), pp. 31 et seqq.
39.
See Ruhl et al. (2007), p. 13.
40.
See Garmestani and Benson (2013), Garmestani et al. (2013). Compare with the interesting perspective of ‘Agroecological Law’ contained in Monteduro (2015), pp. 57 et seqq. See, also, the systematic literature review of adaptive governance scholarship for the period 2005–2014 in Karpouzogloua et al. (2016).
41.
The American legal literature is a pioneer within this debate. See, among others, Garmestani and Allen (2014), Garmestani et al. (2013), Arnold and Gunderson (2013), Humby (2014), and Ruhl (2011).
42.
PES is only one of the instruments among which public authority can choose in designing public policy aimed to ecosystem services protection. In most of the case, a policy mix is, however, operated. James Salzman emblematically describes a toolkit of five basic strategies, called ‘Five P’s’. The toolkit consists in Prescription, Penalty, Persuasion, Property rights, and Payment. See Salzman (2005).
43.
See Rowcroft et al. (2011), p. 30. See, also, Nsoh and Reid (2013); McCauley (2006).
44.
See Engel et al. (2008). See, also, Mauerhofer et al. (2013), Page (2012), and Baranzini et al. (2008). Compare with Huseby (2015).
45.
See, among others, Sattler and Matzdorf (2013).
46.
See Derissen and Latacz-Lohmann (2013). See, also, Rowcroft et al. (2011).
47.
See Muradian (2010) and Rowcroft et al. (2011).
48.
See Perrot-Maître (2006).
49.
See Muradian (2010).
50.
See Greiber (2009), p. 6.
51.
See Wunder (2005), p. 3.
52.
See Wunder (2005), p. 3. For an overview of the use of command-and-control regulations in environmental policy, see, for example, Goulder and Parry (2008). On the distinction between command-and-control regulation and incentive-based regimes, see, for example, Baldwin (1997).
53.
See Wunder (2005), p. 3.
54.
See Greiber (2009), p. 6.
55.
See Greiber (2009), pp. 6 et seqq.
56.
See Wunder (2005), p. 3.
57.
Establishing a baseline is considered a crucial aspect in addressing ES loss and degradation. Indeed, there is no means to determine a change in ES delivery without first establishing a baseline to compare against. See Salzman (2009). See, also, OECD (2010).
58.
For a comprehensive discussion of this aspect, see Sommerville et al. (2009); Kerr et al. (2014); Greiber (2009), pp. 53 et seqq.
59.
See Engel et al. (2008).
60.
See Engel et al. (2008) and Rowcroft et al. (2011).
61.
See Forest Trends et al. (2008).
62.
See, inter alia, OECD (2010).
63.
These principles are also based on the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation’s definition of PES as ‘voluntary transactions where a service provider is paid by, or on behalf of, service beneficiaries for agricultural land, forest, coastal or marine management practices that are expected to result in continued or improved service provision beyond what would have been provided without the payment’. See FAO (2007).
64.
Relevant literature maintains that agri-environmental schemes ‘filled a lacuna’ within the Common Agricultural Policy. Indeed, the initial CAP was largely focused on remunerating agricultural production. No public intervention was established to support the delivery of ecosystem services. This resulted in the damage of valued landscape and habitats in return for farming intensification being incentivised by the production signals under the CAP. The integration of environmental consideration into EU policy was recognised by the Treaty of the European Union. See, among others, Jack (2009), p. 109; Cardwell (2004); Isoni (2015), pp. 185 et seqq. For a discussion of the PES concept in the EU agri-environmental scheme, see Saunders (2015).
65.
See Council Regulation (EEC) No 797/85 of 12 March 1985 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures, OJ [1985] L 93.
66.
See Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside, OJ [1992] L 215. At the time, the EU Commission stated that the strategy on the introduction of environmental aspects in the CAP is that ‘farmers should be expected to observe basic environmental standards without compensation. However, wherever society desires that farmers deliver an environmental service beyond this base-line level, this service should be specifically purchased through agri-environmental measures’. See European Commission, Directions towards Sustainable Agriculture, COM (99) 22 Final, 28. At this regard, it is worth mentioning an interesting research area concerning the critical discourse analysis of EU agricultural commissioners on Common Agricultural Policy. See Erjavec and Erjavec (2009, 2015) and Erjavec et al. (2009).
67.
At this regard, it is worth mentioning an interesting research area concerning the critical discourse analysis of EU agricultural commissioners on Common Agricultural Policy. See Erjavec and Erjavec (2009, 2015) and Erjavec et al. (2009).
68.
For a comprehensive analysis of the introduction of cross-compliance and the greening components in the CAP, see Jack (2015), pp. 127 et seqq; Baldock (2015); Scaramuzzino (2015); Bianchi (2003); Russo (2007).
69.
See, among others, Jack (2009), p. 109.
70.
It is worth mentioning that an increasing body of literature is discussing PES schemes developed outside the scope of EU Common Agricultural Policy. In most of these cases, self-organised private is operated in which ecosystem service beneficiaries contract directly with the providers via localised exchange arrangements. Two cases are regarded as emblematic in the literature: the Exmoor Mires project in England, and Vittel mineral waters scheme in France. It shows the existing potential for designing PES schemes beyond the CAP. On this aspect, see Jack (2015), pp. 145 et seqq. See, also, Forest Trends et al. (2008). For the Exmoor Mires project, see, for example, Couldrick (n.d.). For the Vittel case, see Perrot-Maître (2006).
71.
See Jack (2009), p. 109.
72.
See Council Decision 2006/144/EC on Community strategic guidelines for rural development (programming period 2007–2013), OJ [2006] L 55. See, also, Jack (2009), p. 109. See, also, Regulation 1305/2013, Art. 28(5).
73.
See Österreichisches Institut für Raumplanung (2012) and Kantor Management Consultants (2012).
74.
See European Commission (2005).
75.
See European Commission (2005). See, also, Wildlife Link (1995), p. 6.
76.
For this reason, agri-environmental scheme has been traditionally classified in two broad categories: broad brush versus deep and narrow schemes. Broad schemes, also defined as entry level, encompass a wide land area and require modest commitments in return for a relatively small payment, thus attracting a large number of participants. Conversely, narrow schemes target ‘site-specific environmental issues’, by requiring more demanding commitments and providing substantial payment in return. These lasts are deemed to provide a significant intervention in protecting and enhancing ecosystem services through the introduction of management practices. See European Commission (2005) and Kantor Management Consultants (2012).
77.
On the qualification of farmer and land manager for the purpose of agri-environmental scheme, see Carmignani (2007).
78.
For a detailed overview of the discussion, see Jack (2009), pp. 109 et seqq; Jack (2015), pp. 141 et seqq; Carmignani (2008); Adornato et al. (2011), pp. 567 et seqq. Even though it is less recent than the previous references, see also Adornato (1999).
79.
See Germanò and Rook Basile (2014), p. 364.
80.
See Germanò and Rook Basile (2014), p. 364. See, also, Adornato et al. (2011), p. 591.
81.
See Sect. 2.1 above.
82.
See Germanò and Rook Basile (2014), p. 364.
83.
See, also, Adornato et al. (2011), p. 591.
84.
See, inter alia, Adornato et al. (2011), p. 591.
85.
Ibid.
86.
See Adornato et al. (2011), p. 592.
87.
On the concept of ‘incomplete contracts’, see, among others, Williamson (1979), Hart and Holmstrom (1987), and Baker and Krawiec (2006). See, also, Bellantuono (2000), Bellantuono (2001), and Granieri (2007).
88.
See Polman and Slangen (2007). See, also, Falconera and Saunders (2002).
89.
See Polman and Slangen (2007). Compare, mutatis mutandis, with Hirokawa and Porter (2013).
90.
It is interesting to note the suggestion of Paul Ferraro in using ‘screening contract’ and ‘procurements action’. See Ferraro (2008). Furthermore, this may result in failing to attract the most valuable lands in terms of ecosystem services potential. Agri-environmental contract may target the ‘wrong’ farmers, thus providing an adverse selection. See Polman and Slangen (2007) and Latacz-Lohmann and Schilizzi (2005). Indeed, a greater incentive to adopt agri-environmental commitments is placed on farmers with a low potential for delivering high quality ES, than farmer with high ES potentials. A farmer who has already adopted a low-input farming practice has a greater incentive in enter an agri-environmental contract than a farmer with a high-input farming method. This is due to the comparatively higher changes to current farming methods that the high-intensity farmer should adopt. In the past, several evidences are been provided on different EU Member States. See, for example, Hodge (1991) and Whitby (1994). Similarly, Jack takes into consideration environment rates in agri-environmental schemes against the amount of high nature value land within individual Member States. See Jack (2015), pp. 127 et seqq. Excluding Finland, Austria and Slovenia, less than 10% of high nature value land was enrolled. See European Commission (2013). According to Jack, the findings suggest that Member States failed to use agri-environmental schemes in protecting ecosystem services protection and targeting environmental priorities. See Jack (2015), pp. 127 et seqq. This is due to poor design by Member States, and the co-funding rate required by the European Union. The Court of Auditors, for example, has found that in some cases national agri-environmental programmes had not sought to address environmental pressures that had specifically been identified in the own national rural development. See Court of Auditors, ‘Is Agri-Environment Support Well Designed and Managed?’, Special Report 7/2011 (Publications Office of the European Union, 2011), para 30. See, also, Jack (2012).
91.
James Salzman, on the same line, recognises three broad categories, which headline may be: (1) holdout and free riders, which is framed in collective action problem; (2) rent-seeking, in which potential providers channel the funds to themselves and to increase further their funding; (3) moral hazards that may encourage undesirable behaviour. See Salzman (2005).
92.
See Latacz-Lohmann and Schilizzi (2005), p. 5. See, also, Fraser (1995, 2002, 2004).
93.
See Latacz-Lohmann and Schilizzi (2005), p. 5.
94.
See Rowcroft et al. (2011), pp. 18, 30.
95.
Ibid. See, also, Greiber (2009), p. 6.
96.
See, mutatis mutandis, Carmignani (2008).
97.
This aspect was observed in early times; see Hodge (2000), pp. 216, 240. Cf. Wilson and Hart (2001).
98.
This factor is complicated by the criteria of additionality set out in the EU law, which requires that payments should be based on the additional cost that land managers have occurred or the income have forgone in implementing agri-environmental commitments. See Regulation 1305/2013, Art. 28(6). This requirement further reflects the conditions under the GATT Agreements on Agriculture. See 1994 GATT Agriculture Agreement, Annex 2, para 12(b). Taking no account of the value of the delivered ecosystem services, agri-environmental scheme, however, limits its effectiveness in addressing environmental targets. Areas with high environmental value have unsurprisingly limited agricultural productivity, thus being subject to farm abandonment due to the low income obtained. See Jack (2012).
99.
On this aspect, see, among others, Latacz-Lohmann and Schilizzi (2005), p. 6 et seqq.
100.
See FAO (2007).
101.
Jack describes a policy cohesion issue between the requirements of cross-compliance and the greening component within agricultural production policy and the requirements under the agri-environment scheme within rural development policy. According to the author, the separation does not exist in practice. This results, for example, in farmer in one Member States receiving agri-environmental payment for commitments that are considered cross-compliance requirements in others. See Jack (2015), pp. 127 et seqq.
102.
On this aspect a fascinating and well-developed literature exists. See, among others, Wilson and Hart (2001).
103.
On this, see Cardwell et al. (2003). See, also, Cardwell and Smith (2013).
104.
See Burton and Schwarz (2013).
105.
These aspects are widely explored in literature and concern fundamentally the issues of environmental benefits, the cost-effectiveness of the schemes and the ability to promote long-term cultural change. For the first element, it is worthwhile to note that ecological research has found that environmental outcomes are often poor in term of both targeted species protection and general biodiversity. See, for instance, Kleijn and Sutherland (2003). For the second aspect, see Green (2004) and Quillérou and Fraser (2010). On the cultural change issues, see Burton and Paragahawewa (2011).
106.
See Burton and Schwarz (2013).
107.
See Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, The CAP towards 2020: Meeting the food, natural resources and territorial challenges of the future, COM [2010] 672 final, 11.
108.
See European Network for Rural Development and European Commission (2010).
109.
For example, a recent online platform has been established by the European Union with the aim of capitalise the findings in the area of research, particularly on biodiversity. See the website at ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/rbaps/index_en.htm. Accessed 4 July 2015.
110.
See, on a more general level, Kistenkas (2014).
111.
See Schwarz et al. (2008), Klimek et al. (2008), and Groth (2009).
112.
See Höft et al. (2010), Latacz-Lohmann (2010), and Lockie and Carpenter (2010).
113.
See Gerowitt et al. (2003), Oppermann (2003), Höft and Gerowitt (2006), and Matzdorf and Lorenz (2010).
114.
See Haarena and Bathkeb (2008).
115.
See Burger (2006).
116.
See Zabel and Holm-Müller (2008) and Zabel and Roe (2009).
117.
See Burton and Schwarz (2013), p. 630. See, also, White and Hanley (2016).
118.
Ibid. See, also, Schwarz et al. (2008).
119.
See Burton and Schwarz (2013), p. 637.
120.
See Keenleyside et al. (2014), p. 1.
121.
See, also, Allen et al. (2014), pp. 6 et seqq.
122.
Ibid.
123.
See Burton and Schwarz (2013), pp. 636 et seqq.
124.
Ibid.
125.
See Schwarz et al. (2008).
126.
See Mayrand and Paquin (2004).
127.
See Oppermann (2003).
128.
See, for example, Wittig et al. (2006).
129.
See, among others, Matzdorf and Lorenz (2010).
130.
See, for example, Musters et al. (2001).
131.
See Buckingham et al. (1998).
132.
See Oppermann (2003).
133.
These factors include ‘i) the broader history and level of ambition with agri-environment implementation to date; ii) socio-cultural issues, such as capacity and experience within the Managing Authorities; iii) varying levels of mutual trust between farmers and Managing Authorities; iv) resistance from land managers, due to concerns about non-payment if results are not achieved for reasons beyond their control and v) concerns about potentially higher operating costs (although this latter concern is also true of moving to more tailored and targeted management-based schemes). Understanding and overcoming these barriers will be critical in developing results-based approaches further in the EU’. See Allen et al. (2014).
134.
See Sattler and Nagel (2010).
135.
On this aspect, see Matzdorfa et al. (2008).
136.
So far, no sufficient attention has been paid on the fact that results-based payment are not likely based on income forgone and additional costs occurred by land managers, thus potentially in a state of non-compliance with the WTO requirements. See Hasund and Johansson (2016); Siebert (2010) and Schwarz et al. (2008).
137.
See Sect. 3.1 above.
138.
For example, see the results-based MEKA-B4 programme in place in Baden-Württemberg (Germany) between 2000 and 2014. See Russi et al. (2016) and Burton and Schwarz (2013).
139.
Cf. Greiber (2009), p. 45.
140.
The ‘cooperation for grassland bird protection’ (‘Gemeinschaftlicher Wiesenschutz’) scheme, implemented in various regions of Schleswig-Holstein, involves only verbal agreements. Specific management requirements are agreed verbally between the farmer and the contact person at the beginning of the bird breeding season. Martina Bode, Kuno e.V. (personal communication, interview).
141.
Cf, mutatis mutandis, Greiber (2009), pp. 45 et seqq.
142.
Cf. Greiber (2009), pp. 46 et seqq.
143.
See Sect. 2.2 above.
144.
Cf. Greiber (2009), pp. 6 et seqq.
145.
See Keenleyside et al. (2014). Cf. Salzman (2009), pp. 25 et seqq.
146.
See Keenleyside et al. (2014).
147.
See Allen et al. (2014).
148.
Cf. Salzman (2009), pp. 25 et seqq.
149.
Mutatis mutandis, the case of Bavaria Brewery in the province of North-Brabant, in Netherlands, provide useful insights in this vein. Even if it is not a results-based scheme, the initiative in this case is largely taken by the private stakeholders. The case concerns one brewery, a network of about 70 farmers and other stakeholders, including the regional water board, the municipality and the province of North-Brabant. There are similar cases on freshwater management in other areas in the Netherlands. See van der Heide and Polman (2016).
150.
Cf. Greiber (2009).
151.
See Franks (2008), Franks and Mc Gloin (2007a), and Franks and Mc Gloin (2007b). Even if there are less recent, it is interest to confront with Renting and van der Ploeg (2001) and Wiskerke et al. (2003).
152.
Article 28(2) of the EU 1305/2013 provides that ‘agri-environment-climate payments shall be granted to farmers, groups of farmers or groups of farmers and other land-managers who undertake, on a voluntary basis, to carry out operations consisting of one or more agri-environment climate commitments on agricultural land to be defined by Member State’. See Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, OJ [2013] L 347/487. On the contrary, the repealed Regulation 1698/2005, under article 39 (2), limited only to farmers the option for granting agri-environmental payments. See Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), OJ [2005] L 347/487.
153.
In policy there is a variety of term that are used to refer to the mentioned act of transferring, such as to compensate, to reward, to incentivise, etc. Notwithstanding the fact that they are used in an interchangeable way in practical situations, significant difference exists. Cf. Russi et al. (2016), p. 70.
154.
Cf. Greiber (2009), pp. 6 et seqq.
155.
See Keenleyside et al. (2014), p. 6.
156.
See Keenleyside et al. (2014), p. 15.
157.
See Keenleyside et al. (2014), pp. 18 et seqq.
158.
For the 2014–2020 period, Rural Development Programmes are required to explicate how an agri-environment-climate scheme can be expected to deliver an environmental benefit, by proving any suitable evidence. See European Commission (2013).
159.
See Keenleyside et al. (2014), p. 9.
160.
See Keenleyside et al. (2014), p. 10.
161.
In this vein, it is worth mentioning the case of a number agri-environment cooperative in the Netherlands that have continued to operate a form of results-based meadow bird agreement since the previous scheme under European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development was terminated in 2004. See de Lijster and Prager (2012).
162.
On this, Prager (2012, 2015), Reed et al. (2014), and Prager et al. (2012).
163.
Cf. Keenleyside et al. (2014), pp. 13 et seqq.
164.
Cf. Greiber (2009), pp. 53 et seqq.
165.
See Keenleyside et al. (2014), pp. 13 et seqq.
166.
See Sect. 2.1 above. See, also, Karkkainen (2002).
167.
See Burton and Schwarz (2013), pp. 633 et seqq. Also, cf. Westerlink et al. (2008) and Aviron et al. (2010).
168.
See Westerlink et al. (2008), p. 25.
169.
For a comprehensive discussion of relational contract, see, among others, Goetz and Scott (1980) and Macneil (1985).
170.
See Goetz and Scott (1980), pp. 1111 et seqq.
171.
See, among others, Feinman (2000) and Diathesopoulos (2010).
172.
Cf. Allen et al. (2014), pp. 99 et seqq.
173.
Ibid.
174.
See Keenleyside et al. (2014), p. 18.
175.
Ibid.
176.
Mutatis, mutandis, see Ayres and Gertner (1989a, b), pp. 91 et seqq.
177.
Ibid.; Goetz and Scott (1980), p. 1300. See, on a more general perspective, Schwartz (1994).
178.
Cf. Greiber (2009), p. 54.
179.
Cf. Burton and Schwarz (2013).
180.
See Garmestani and Benson (2013) and Garmestani et al. (2013). Compare, also, with Cumming (2013).
181.
See Ostrom (2009) and Liu (2007).
182.
See Garmestani et al. (2008).
183.
Ibid. See also Chen (2003).
184.
See Garmestani and Benson (2013). See, also, Karkkainen (2002). Finally, it is interesting to compare with Simon (2006), pp. 37 et seqq.
185.
Cf. Wiskerke et al. (2003).
186.
Cf. Karkkainen (2002); Garmestani and Allen (2014).
187.
Cf. Gunningham (2009).
188.
See Zumbansen (2007) and Grundmann et al. (2015).
189.
See Zumbansen (2007), p. 233.
190.
Ibid.
191.
See van Kersbergen and van Waarden (2004), Zumbansen (2007), and, mutatis mutandis, Williamson (1998). For a comprehensive analysis on the use of term ‘governance’ in literature, see, among others, Burries et al. (2008).
192.
See Grundmann et al. (2015), pp. 41 et seqq; Möslein and Riesenhuber (2009), pp. 248 et seqq.
193.
Ibid.
194.
An increasing literature is debating the relationship between legal research and behavioural sciences. See the recent publication edited by Mathis (2015).
195.
For a comprehensive discussion of the concept of ‘adaptive law’, see, among others, Arnold and Gunderson (2013), Walker and Salt (2006), Humby (2014), mutatis mutandis, Baker (2015), Angelo (2008), and Ruhl (2005). In relation to the design of adapting institutions, see Boyd and Folke (2012).
196.
See Arnold and Gunderson (2013), pp. 4 et seqq.
197.
See Arnold and Gunderson (2013), p. 36. See, also, Humby (2014) that discusses the general features of the law and resilience literature. The author notes that these concepts are gaining increasing attention among legal scholars.
198.
For a comprehensive discussion of the concept of ‘reflexive law’, see Garmestani and Benson (2013), Teubner (1983), Scheuerman (2001), Orts (1995), Gaines (2003), and Fiorino (1999).
199.
See Garmestani and Benson (2013), pp. 3 et seqq; Teubner (1983).
200.
See Nolon (2009), p. 9. See also Tamanaha (1999).
201.
See Orts (1995).
202.
See Garmestani and Benson (2013) and Teubner (1983).
203.
See Fiorino (1999) and Allen et al. (2011). Cf. Dedeurwaerdere (2005).

References

Adler RW (2013) Climate change adaptation and agricultural and forestry law. In: Verschuuren J (ed) Research handbook on climate change adaptation law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton, pp 214–249
Chapter Google Scholar
Adornato F (1999) Evoluzione dell'intervento pubblico e contrattazione programmata in agricoltura. Giuffrè Editore, Milan
Google Scholar
Adornato F et al (2011) Le misure agroambientali. In: Costato L, Rook Basile E, Germanò A (eds) Trattato di diritto agrario, vol 2. Utet, Turin
Google Scholar
Albisinni F (2000) Azienda multifunzionale, mercato, territorio. Nuove regole in agricoltura. Giuffrè Editore, Milan
Google Scholar
Allen CR et al (2011) Adaptive management for a turbulent future. J Environ Manag 92:1339–1345
Article Google Scholar
Allen B et al (2014) Biodiversity protection through results based remuneration of ecological achievement. Report prepared for the European Commission, DG Environment, Institute for European Environmental Policy. ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/rbaps/handbook/docs/rbaps-report.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Angelo MJ (2008) Stumbling toward success: a story of adaptive law and ecological resilience. Nebraska Law Rev 87:950–1007. digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol87/iss4/3. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Google Scholar
Arnold CA, Gunderson L (2013) Adaptive law and resilience. Environ Law Rep 43:10426–10443
Google Scholar
Aviron S et al (2010) Effects of wildflower strip quality, quantity, and connectivity on butterfly diversity in a Swiss arable landscape. Restor Ecol 19(4):500–508. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00649.x/full. Accessed 10 Aug 2015
Article Google Scholar
Ayres I, Gertner R (1989a) Filling gaps in incomplete contracts: an economic theory of default rules. Yale Law J 99:87–130
Article Google Scholar
Ayres I, Gertner R (1989b) Strategic contractual inefficiency and the optimal choice of legal rules. Yale Law J 101:729–773
Article Google Scholar
Baker SH (2015) Adaptive law in the anthropocene. Chicago-Kent Law Rev 90:563–584. scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol90/iss2/7. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Google Scholar
Baker S, Krawiec KD (2006) Incomplete contracts in a complete contract world. Fla State Univ Law Rev 33:725–755
Google Scholar
Baldock D (2015) Twisted together: European agriculture, environment and the common agricultural policy. In: McMahon JA, Cardwell M (eds) Research handbook on EU agriculture law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Google Scholar
Baldwin R (1997) Regulation: after command and control. In: Hawkins K (ed) The human face of law. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Balvanera P et al (2016) The links between biodiversity and ecosystem services. In: Potschin M et al (eds) Routledge handbook of ecosystem services. Routledge, London and New York
Google Scholar
Baranzini A et al (2008) Understanding the private demand for international ecosystem services – public attitudes and preferences towards REDD. IUCN, Gland. http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/ruig_ipes_final_report_0603_complet.pdf. Accessed 7 Mar 2016
Google Scholar
Barkmann J et al (2004) Multi-land. Multifunctional landscapes: towards an analytical framework for sustainability assessment of agriculture and forestry in Europe. Fifth framework programme 1998–2002, thematic programme: environment and sustainable development, final report
Google Scholar
Bellantuono G (2000) I contratti incompleti nel diritto e nell'economia. Cedam, Padua
Google Scholar
Bellantuono G (2001) Razionalità limitata e regole contrattuali: promesse e problemi della nuova analisi economica del diritto. LUIC Papers n. 4, Serie Etica, Economia e Diritto
Google Scholar
Berkes F et al (eds) (2002) Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Bianchi D (2003) La condizionalità dei pagamenti diretti o della responsabilità dell'agricoltore beneficiario dei pagamenti diretti nell'ambito della PAC. Diritto e giurisprudenza agraria, alimentare e dell'ambiente 11:597–600
Google Scholar
Boyd J, Banzhaf S (2007) What are ecosystem services? The need for standardised environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ 63:616–626. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800907000341. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Boyd E, Folke C (eds) (2012) Adapting institutions. Governance, complexity and social-ecological resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Buckingham H, Chapman J, Newman R (1998) Meadows beyond the millennium: the future for Hay Meadows in the Peak District National Park. Peak District National Park Authority, report. resources.peakdistrict.gov.uk/pubs/hmp/hmp.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Buia G, Antonucci M (2015) The rural development programme (RDP) as a strategic tool for linking legal and agroecological perspectives. In: Monteduro M et al (eds) Law and agroecology. A transdisciplinary dialogue. Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, pp 151–182
Chapter Google Scholar
Burger W (2006) Creating wildlife habitat through federal farm programs: an objective-driven approach. Wildl Soc Bull 34:994–999. www.jstor.org/stable/4134308?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Burries S et al (2008) Changes in governance: a cross-disciplinary review of current scholarship. Akron Law Rev 41:1–66
Google Scholar
Burton RJF, Paragahawewa UH (2011) Creating culturally sustainable agri-environmental schemes. J Rural Stud 27:95–104. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743016710000720. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Burton RJF, Schwarz G (2013) Result-oriented agri-environmental schemes in Europe and their potential for promoting behavioural change. Land Use Policy 30:628–641. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837712000853. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Campbell BM et al (2014) Sustainable intensification: what is its role in climate smart agriculture? Curr Opin Environ Sustain 8:39–43. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343514000359. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Cardwell M (2004) The European model of agriculture. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Book Google Scholar
Cardwell M, Smith F (2013) Renegotiation of the WTO agreement on agriculture: accommodating the new big issues. Int Comp Law Q 62:865–898. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9061001. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Cardwell M et al (eds) (2003) Agriculture and international trade: law, policy, and the WTO. CAB Publishing, Wallingford
Google Scholar
Carmignani S (2007) Misure agroambientali e competenze integrate. Riv Dirit Agrar 2(4):666–678
Google Scholar
Carmignani S (2008) Le misure agroambientali: considerazioni sulla natura giuridica. Collana di studi Pietro Rossi, Studi in onore di Remo Martini. Giuffrè Editore, Milan
Google Scholar
Casini L et al (2004) Research report on the analytic multifunctionality framework. MEA-Scope. http://tran.zalf.de/home_meascope/website/publications/mea-scope_vol1_analytic_multifunctionality_framework.pdf. Accessed 7 Mar 2016
Google Scholar
CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE) (2014) Ecosystem services and resilience framework. International Water Management Institute, report. www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/wle/corporate/ecosystem_services_and_resilience_framework.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Chen J (ed) (2003) The jurisdynamics of environmental protection: change and the pragmatic voice in environmental law. Environmental Law Institute, Washington
Google Scholar
Cooper T et al (2009) The provision of public goods through agriculture in the European Union. Institute for European Environmental Policy, report prepared for DG agriculture and rural development. ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/external-studies/2009/public-goods/report_en.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Costanza R (2008) Ecosystem services: multiple classification systems are needed. Biol Conserv 141:350–352. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320707004715. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Costanza R, Kubiszewski I (2012) The authorship structure of “ecosystem services” as a transdisciplinary field of scholarship. Ecosyst Serv 1:16–25. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041612000034. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Couldrick L (n.d.) Restoring river catchment function using payments for ecosystem services’ West Country Rivers Trust. www.broads-authority.gov.uk/news-and-publications/publications-and-reports/conservation-publications-and-reports/water-conservation-reports/4.-Water-PES-Guide-A3.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Cumming GS (2013) Scale mismatches and reflexive law. Ecol Soc 18(1):15. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss1/art15/. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Daily G (1997) Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington
Google Scholar
Daniel CD et al (2014) The convention on biological diversity’s ecologically or biologically significant areas: origins, development, and current status. Marine Policy 49:137–145
Article Google Scholar
de Lijster E, Prager K (2012) The use of indicators in agri-environmental management in the Netherlands. Report produced as part of the Landscape Partners project of particular interest to ANV members and Landcare groups. www.macaulay.ac.uk/LandscapePartners/ReportAnalysisLandscapePartners_July.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2015
de Lucia V (2015) Competing narratives and complex genealogies: the ecosystem approach in international environmental law. J Environ Law 27:91–117. jel.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/11/28/jel.equ031. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Dedeurwaerdere T (2005) The contribution of network governance to sustainable development. Working paper series “Les séminaires de l’IDDRI”, n°13. www.iddri.org/Evenements/Seminaires-reguliers/s13_dedeurwaerdere.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2016
Derissen S, Latacz-Lohmann U (2013) What are PES? A review of definitions and an extension. Ecosyst Serv 6:12–15. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041613000119. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Diathesopoulos M (2010) Relational contract theory and management contracts: a paradigm for the application of the theory of the norms. MPRA Paper No. 24028/2010. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/24028/. Accessed 12 Jul 2016
Google Scholar
Dickson B, Edwards S (2004) Comparing the ecosystem approach with sustainable use. IUCN, Gland
Google Scholar
Dwyer J et al (2015) Public goods and ecosystem services from agriculture and forestry—a conceptual approach. Project Deliverable, EU H2020 Project number: 633814. goo.gl/vQpIdZ. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Ehrlich PR, Ehrlich AH (1981) Extinction: the causes and consequences of the disappearance of species. Random House, New York
Google Scholar
Ehrlich PR, Mooney H (1983) Extinction, substitution and ecosystem services. Bioscience 33(4):248–254. www.conserv.missouri.edu/forms&papers/Ehrlich%20and%20Mooney%201983%20Ecosystem%20services.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Ehrlich PR et al (1977) Ecoscience: population, resources, environment. Freeman, San Francisco
Google Scholar
Engel S et al (2008) Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecol Econ 65(4):663–675. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800908001420. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
ENRD (2010) Report on the contribution of the European Network for rural development to the public debate on the common agricultural policy after 2013. enrd.ec.europa.eu/enrd-static/fms/pdf/DAB81B97-9E9B-F50F-6F18-C76EBF6B1A4A.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Erjavec K, Erjavec E (2009) Changing EU agricultural policy discourses? The discourse analysis of commissioner’s speeches 2000–2007. Food Policy 34(2):218–226. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919208000894. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Erjavec K, Erjavec E (2015) Greening the CAP—just a fashionable justification? A discourse analysis of the 2014–2020 CAP reform documents. Food Policy 51:53–62. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919214002115. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Erjavec K, Erjavec E, Juvančič L (2009) New wine in old bottles: critical discourse analysis of the current common EU agricultural policy reform agenda. Sociol Rural 49(1):41–55. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2008.00477.x/abstract. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
European Commission (2005) Agri-environment measures overview on general principles, types of measures, and application, unit G-4—evaluation of measures applied to agriculture, studies. ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/reports/agrienv/rep_en.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
European Commission (2013) Rural development in the European Union: statistical and economic information. ec.europa.eu/agriculture/statistics/rural-development/2013/full-text_en.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Falconera K, Saunders C (2002) Transaction costs for SSSIs and policy design. Land Use Policy 19(2):157–166. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837702000078. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
FAO (2007) The state of food and agriculture 2007: paying farmers for environmental services. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a1200e/a1200e00.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
FAO (2011) Save and grow. A policymaker’s guide to the sustainable intensification of smallholder crop production. www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2215e/i2215e.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
FAO (2013a) Climate-smart agriculture. Sourcebook. www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3325e/i3325e.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
FAO (2013b) Policy support guidelines for the promotion of sustainable production intensification and ecosystem services. Integrated Crop Management 19. www.fao.org/AG/CA/CA-Publications/ICM19.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Farley J (2012) Ecosystem services: the economics debate. Ecosyst Serv 1(1):40–49. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041612000071. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Ferraro P (2008) Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ 65:810–821
Article Google Scholar
Feinman JM (2000) Relational contract theory in context. Northwest Univ Law Rev 94(3):737–748
Google Scholar
Fiorino DJ (1999) Rethinking environmental regulation: perspectives on law and governance. Harv Environ Law Rev 23:441–469
Google Scholar
Fischer J et al (2015) Advancing sustainability through mainstreaming a social–ecological systems perspective. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:144–149. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343515000548. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Fisher B et al (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 68(3):643–653. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800908004424. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Forest Trends et al (2008) Payments for ecosystem services: getting started. www.unep.org/pdf/PaymentsForEcosystemServices_en.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Francario L (1988) L'impresa agricola di servizi. Jovene, Naples
Google Scholar
Franks JR (2008) A blueprint for green co-operatives: organisations for coordinating environmental management across farm holdings. Int J Farm Manag 4(3):1–24
Google Scholar
Franks JR, Mc Gloin A (2007a) Environmental co-operatives as instruments for delivering across-farm environmental and rural policy objectives: lessons for the UK. J Rural Stud 23:472–489. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743016707000265. Accessed 10 Aug 2016
Article Google Scholar
Franks JR, Mc Gloin A (2007b) Joint submissions, output related payments and environmental co-operatives: can the Dutch experience innovate UK agri-environment policy. J Environ Plan Manag 50(2):233–256. www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09640560601156482. Accessed 10 August 2016
Article Google Scholar
Fraser R (1995) An analysis of management agreement bargaining under asymmetric information. J Agric Econ 46:20–32
Article Google Scholar
Fraser R (2002) Moral hazard and risk management in agri-environmental policy. J Agric Econ 53:475–487. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2002.tb00033.x/abstract. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Fraser R (2004) On the use of targeting to reduce moral hazard in agri-environmental schemes. J Agric Econ 55:525–540. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2004.tb00113.x/abstract. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Gaines SE (2003) Reflexive law as a legal paradigm for sustainable development. Buffalo Environ Law J 10:1–14
Google Scholar
Garmestani AS, Allen CR (2014) Social-ecological resilience and law. Columbia University Press, New York
Book Google Scholar
Garmestani AS, Benson MH (2013) A framework for resilience-based governance of social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 18:9. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss1/art9/. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Google Scholar
Garmestani AS et al (2013) Can law foster social-ecological resilience? Ecol Soc 18:37 et seqq. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss2/art37/. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Garmestani AS et al (2008) Panarchy, adaptive management and governance: policy options for building resilience. Nebraska Law Rev 87(4):1036–1054. digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1048&context=nlr. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Google Scholar
Garnett T, Godfray HCJ (2012) Sustainable intensification in agriculture. Navigating a course through competing food system priorities. In: Food climate research network and the Oxford Martin Programme on the future of food. University of Oxford, Oxford. www.fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/SI_report_final.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Google Scholar
Germanò A, Rook Basile E (2014) Manuale di diritto agrario comunitario. Giappichelli Editore, Turin
Google Scholar
Gerowitt B et al (2003) Rewards for ecological goods—requirements and perspectives for agricultural land use. Agric Ecosyst Environ 98:541–547. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880903001129. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Godfray HCJ (2015) The debate over sustainable intensification. Food Sec 7(2):199–208. link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12571-015-0424-2. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Godfray HCJ, Garnett T (2014) Food security and sustainable intensification. Philos Trans R Soc B 369:20120273. rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/369/1639/20120273.full.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Goetz CJ, Scott RE (1980) Enforcing promises: an examination of the basis of contract. Yale Law J 89:1261–1300
Article Google Scholar
Gómez-Baggethun E et al (2010) The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecol Econ 69:1209–1218. www.cepal.org/ilpes/noticias/paginas/7/40547/the_history_of_ecosystem.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Goulder LH, Parry IWH (2008) Instrument choice in environmental policy. Rev Environ Econ Policy 2(2):152–174. reep.oxfordjournals.org/content/2/2/152.abstract. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Granieri M (2007) Il tempo e il contratto. Itinerario storico-comparativo sui contratti di durata. Giuffrè Editore, Milan
Google Scholar
Green M (2004) More environment—less agri. Ecos Br Assoc Nat Conserv 25(1):43–47
Google Scholar
Greiber T (ed) (2009) Payments for ecosystem services. Legal and institutional frameworks. IUCN environmental policy and law paper no. 78. IUCN, Gland. cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/eplp_78_1.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Google Scholar
Groth M (2009) The transferability and performance of payment-by-results biodiversity conservation procurement auctions: empirical evidence from northernmost Germany. Working paper series in economics No. 119. www.leuphana.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Forschungseinrichtungen/ifvwl/WorkingPapers/wp_119_Upload.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Grundmann S et al (eds) (2015) Contract governance. Dimensions in law and interdisciplinary research. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Gunningham N (2009) Environment law, regulation and governance: shifting architectures. J Environ Law 21(2):179–212
Article Google Scholar
Haarena C, Bathkeb M (2008) Integrated landscape planning and remuneration of agri-environmental services. Results of a case study in the Fuhrberg region of Germany. J Environ Manag 89(3):209–221. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479707002423. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2010) The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli DG, Frid CLJ (eds) Ecosystem ecology. A new synthesis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 110–139
Chapter Google Scholar
Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2011) Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES). Report to the European Environment Agency, Centre for Environmental Management, University of Nottingham, Nottingham. unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seeaLES/egm/Issue8a.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Hart O, Holmstrom B (1987) The theory of contracts. In: Bewley T (ed) Advances in economic theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 71–155
Chapter Google Scholar
Hassan R, Scholes R, Ash N (eds) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends, vol 1. Island Press, Washington
Google Scholar
Hasund KP, Johansson M (2016) Paying for environmental results is WTO compliant. EuroChoices 15(3):1–6. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1746-692X.12110/pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Heemskerk M, Wilson K, Pavao-Zuckerman M (2003) Conceptual models as tools for communication across disciplines. Conserv Ecol 7(3):8. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol7/iss3/art8/. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Helliwell D (1969) Valuation of wildlife resources. Reg Stud 3:1–7
Article Google Scholar
Hirokawa KH, Porter EJ (2013) Aligning regulation with the informational need: ecosystem services and the next generation of environmental law. Akron Law Rev 46(4):963–991. ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1038&context=akronlawreview. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Google Scholar
Hodge I (1991) The provision of public goods: how should it be arranged? In: Hanley N (ed) Farming and the countryside: an economic analysis of costs and benefits. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 179–196
Google Scholar
Hodge I (2000) Agri-environmental policy: a UK perspective. In: Helm D (ed) Environmental policy: objectives, instruments and implementation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 216–240
Google Scholar
Höft A, Gerowitt B (2006) Rewarding weeds in arable farming—traits, goals and concepts. Z Pflanzenkrankh Pflanzenschutz 20:517–526. http://www.ulmer.de/artikel.dll/02-Gerowitt_MTAyNTQ4.PDF?UID=90C72354A6B9E7B3184A94476511D309E5C9482A4716784A72. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Google Scholar
Höft A et al (2010) Vegetation indicators for grazing activities on grassland to be implemented in outcome-oriented agri-environmental payment schemes in North-East Germany. Ecol Indic 10(3):719–726. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X09002003. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Hospes O (2015) Addressing law and agroecosystems, sovereignty and sustainability from a legal pluralistic perspective. In: Monteduro M et al (eds) Law and agroecology. A transdisciplinary dialogue. Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, pp 47–56
Chapter Google Scholar
Humby TL (2014) Law and resilience: mapping the literature. Seattle J Environ Law 4(1):85–130. digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjel/vol4/iss1/4. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Google Scholar
Huseby R (2015) Should the beneficiaries pay? Polit Philos Econ 14:209–225. ppe.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/10/21/1470594X13506366.full.pdf+html. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Isoni A (2015) The common agriculture policy (CAP): achievements and future prospects. In: Monteduro M et al (eds) Law and agroecology. A transdisciplinary dialogue. Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, pp 185–206
Chapter Google Scholar
Jack B (2009) Agriculture and EU environmental law. Ashgate, Surrey
Google Scholar
Jack B (2012) Ecosystem services and the rural environment: reforming European agricultural law. Eur Energy Environ Law Rev 21(6):258–273
Google Scholar
Jack B (2015) Ecosystem services: European agricultural law and rural development. In: Monteduro M et al (eds) Law and agroecology. A transdisciplinary dialogue. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 127–150
Chapter Google Scholar
Jones L et al (2016) Stocks and flows of natural and human derived capital in ecosystem services. Land Use Policy 52:151–162. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026483771500410X. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Kantor Management Consultants (2012) Ex-post evaluation of rural development programmes 2000-2006. Commissioned by European Commission, DG Agriculture and Rural Development. ec.europa.eu/agriculture/evaluation/rural-development-reports/ex-post-evaluation-rdp-2000-2006_en.htm. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Karkkainen BC (2002) Collaborative ecosystem governance: scale, complexity, and dynamism. Va Environ Law J 21:189–244
Google Scholar
Karpouzogloua T, Dewulfa A, Clark J (2016) Advancing adaptive governance of social-ecological systems through theoretical multiplicity. Environ Sci Pol 57:1–9. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S146290111530112X. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Keenleyside C et al (2014) Results-based payments for biodiversity guidance handbook: designing and implementing results-based agri-environment schemes 2014-20. Prepared for the European Commission, DG Environment, Contract No. ENV.B.2/ETU/2013/0046, Institute for European Environmental Policy. ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/rbaps/handbook/docs/rbaps-handbook.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Kerr JM et al (2014) Incentives, conditionality and collective action in payment for environmental services. Int J Commons 8:595–616. www.thecommonsjournal.org/articles/10.18352/ijc.438/#. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
King R (1966) Wildlife and man. N Y Conserv 20:8–11
Google Scholar
Kistenkas FH (2014) Innovating European nature conservation law by introducing ecosystem services. Gaia 23:88–92
Google Scholar
Kleijn D, Sutherland W (2003) How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? J Appl Ecol 40:947–969. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2003.00868.x/full. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Klimek S et al (2008) Rewarding farmers for delivering vascular plant diversity in managed grasslands: a transdisciplinary case-study approach. Biol Conserv 141(11):2888–2897. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320708003297. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Kochan DJ (2015) Economics-based environmentalism in the fourth generation of environmental law. J Environ Sustain Law 21:47–97. scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1439&context=jesl. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Google Scholar
Kumar P (ed) (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundation. Earthscan, London and Washington
Google Scholar
Kysar D (2001) Sustainability, distribution, and the macroeconomic analysis of law. Boston Coll Law Rev 43:1 et seqq. lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2195&context=bclr. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Latacz-Lohmann U (2010) Beyond the green box: the economics of agri-environmental policy and free trade. Agrarwirtschaft 49:342–348
Google Scholar
Latacz-Lohmann U, Schilizzi S (2005) Auctions for conservation contracts: a review of the theoretical and empirical literature. Project NO: UKL/001/05, Report to the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department. www.gov.scot/resource/doc/93853/0022574.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Lele S et al (2013) Ecosystem services: origins, contributions, pitfalls, and alternatives. Conserv Soc 11(4):343–358. www.conservationandsociety.org/text.asp?2013/11/4/343/125752. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Leopold A (1949) A sand county almanac. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Liu J (2007) Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317(5844):1513–1516. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/317/5844/1513.full. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Lockie S, Carpenter D (2010) Agriculture, biodiversity and markets: livelihoods and agroecology in comparative perspective. Earthscan, London
Google Scholar
Macneil IR (1985) Relational contract: what we do and do not know. Wisconsin Law Rev:483–525
Google Scholar
Mathis K (ed) (2015) European perspectives on behavioural law and economics. Springer, Heidelberg
Google Scholar
Matzdorf B, Lorenz J (2010) How cost-effective are result-oriented agri-environmental measures? An empirical analysis in Germany. Land Use Policy 27(2):535–544. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837709000805. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Matzdorfa B et al (2008) Developing biodiversity indicator to design efficient agri-environmental schemes for extensively used grassland. Ecol Indic 8:256–269. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X07000271. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Mauerhofer V, Kistenkas FH (2015) Introduction into a special issue: legal aspects of ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 16:I–II. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041615000923. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Mauerhofer V et al (2013) From polluter pays to provider gets: distribution of rights and costs under payments for ecosystem services. Ecol Soc 18:41. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss4/art41/. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Mayrand K, Paquin M (2004) Payments for environmental services: a survey and assessment of current schemes. Report by Unisféra International Centre for the Commission for Environmental Co-operation of North America. www.cec.org/files/PDF/ECONOMY/PES-Unisfera en.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
McCauley DJ (2006) Selling out on nature. Nature 443:27–28
Article Google Scholar
McGinnis MD, Ostrom E (2014) Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecol Law 19(2):30–42. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss2/art30/ES-2013-6387.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Google Scholar
Monteduro M (2015) From agroecology and law to agroecological law? Exploring integration between Scientia Ruris and Scientia Iuris. In: Monteduro M et al (eds) Law and agroecology. A transdisciplinary dialogue. Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, pp 57–86
Chapter Google Scholar
Morgera E (2015) The ecosystem approach under the convention on biological diversity: a legal research agenda. Working Papers, no. 2015/17. Scottish Centre for International Law, University of Edinburgh. www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/files/19927951/Elisa_Morgera_SCIL_Working_Paper_7_FINAL_for_publication.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Morgera E (2016) Ecosystem and precautionary approaches. In: Razzaque J, Morgera E (eds) Encyclopedia of environmental law: biodiversity and nature protection law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Google Scholar
Möslein F, Riesenhuber K (2009) Contract governance—a draft research agenda. Eur Rev Contract Law 5:248–298
Article Google Scholar
Muradian R (2010) Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ 69(6):1202–1208. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800909004558. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Musters CJM et al (2001) Breeding birds as a farm product. Conserv Biol 15(2):363–369. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.015002363.x/abstract. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Noe EB, Alrøe HF (2015) Regulation of agroecosystems: a social systems analysis of agroecology and law. In: Monteduro M et al (eds) Law and agroecology. A transdisciplinary dialogue. Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, pp 31–45
Chapter Google Scholar
Nolon JR (2009) Climate change and sustainable development: the quest for green communities. Plan Environ Law 61:3–10
Google Scholar
Nsoh W, Reid CT (2013) Privatisation of biodiversity: who can sell ecosystem services? Environ Law Manag 25(1):12–20. discovery.dundee.ac.uk/portal/files/4502134/SLSAarticleFINAL_1.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Google Scholar
OECD (2001) Multifunctionality: towards an analytical framework. OECD. www.oecd.org/tad/agricultural-policies/40782727.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
OECD (2008) Multifunctionality in agriculture: evaluating the degree of jointness, policy implications. OECD
Google Scholar
OECD (2010) Paying for biodiversity: enhancing the cost-effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services. OECD. www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/environment/paying-for-biodiversity_9789264090279-en. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Oppermann R (2003) Nature balance scheme for farms—evaluation of the ecological situation. Agric Ecosyst Environ 98:463–475. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880903001051. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Orts EW (1995) Reflexive environmental law. Northwest Univ Law Rev 89:1227–1340
Google Scholar
Österreichisches Institut für Raumplanung (2012) Synthesis of mid-term evaluations of rural development programmes 2007-2013. Commissioned by European Commission, DG Agriculture and Rural Development. ec.europa.eu/agriculture/evaluation/rural-development-reports/synthesis-mte-2007-2013_en.htm. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325:419–422
Article Google Scholar
Page E (2012) Give it up for climate change: a defence of the beneficiary-pays principle. Int Theory 4(2):300–330
Article Google Scholar
Pardy B (2003) Changing nature: the myth of the inevitability of ecosystem management. Pace Environ Law Rev 20:675–692. digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1179&context=pelr. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Google Scholar
Perrot-Maître D (2006) The Vittel payments for ecosystem services: a “perfect” PES case? International Institute for Environment and Development. pubs.iied.org/pdfs/G00388.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Pesche D et al (2013) Ecosystem services and payments for environmental services: two sides of the same coin? In: Muradian R, Rival L (eds) Governing the provision of ecosystem services. Springer, Dordrecht and New York, pp 67–86
Chapter Google Scholar
Platjouw FM (2013) The need to recognize a coherent legal system as an important element of the ecosystem approach. In: Voigt C (ed) Rule of law for nature: new dimensions and ideas in environmental law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 158–174
Chapter Google Scholar
Platjouw FM (2016) Environmental law and the ecosystem approach: maintaining ecological integrity through consistency in law. Routledge, Abingdon
Google Scholar
Polman N, Slangen L (2007) The design of agri-environmental schemes in EU: lesson for the future. Specific Target Research Project, n. SSPECT- 2003-502070, ITAES WP9 P2 DR01. cordis.europa.eu/docs/publications/1247/124722971-6_en.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Postiglione A (1999) Il diritto alla biodiversità. Diritto e giurisprudenza agraria e dell’ambiente 11:581–583
Google Scholar
Power AG (2010) Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philos Trans R Soc B 365:2959–2971. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/365/1554/2959.full.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Prager K (2012) Collective efforts to manage cultural landscapes for resilience. In: Plieninger T, Bieling C (eds) Resilience and the cultural landscape. Understanding and managing change in human-shaped environments. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 205–223
Chapter Google Scholar
Prager K (2015) Agri-environmental collaboratives for landscape management in Europe. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 12:59–66
Article Google Scholar
Prager K et al (2012) Encouraging collaboration for the provision of ecosystem services at a landscape scale—rethinking agri-environmental payments. Land Use Policy 29:244–249
Article Google Scholar
Quillérou E, Fraser R (2010) Adverse selection in the environmental stewardship scheme: does the higher level stewardship scheme design reduce adverse selection? J Agric Econ 61(2):369–380. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2010.00240.x/abstract. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Reed MS et al (2014) Improving the link between payments and the provision of ecosystem services in agri-environment schemes. Ecosyst Serv 9:44–53. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041614000667. Accessed 10 Aug 2016
Article Google Scholar
Renting H, van der Ploeg JD (2001) Reconnecting nature, farming and society: environmental co-operatives in the Netherlands as institutional arrangements for creating coherence. J Environ Policy Plan 3:85–101
Article Google Scholar
Rowcroft P et al (2011) Barriers and opportunities to the use of payments for ecosystem services. Final report prepared for Defra, URS Scott Wilson. www.cbd.int/financial/pes/unitedkingdom-barriers.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Ruhl JB (1998) Valuing nature’s services—the future of environmental law? Nat Resour Environ 13:359–361
Google Scholar
Ruhl JB (2005) Regulation by adaptive management: is it possible? MN J Law Sci Technol 7(1):21–57
Google Scholar
Ruhl JB (2011) General design principles for resilience and adaptive capacity in legal systems—with applications to climate change adaptation. North Carolina Law Rev 89:1374–1401
Google Scholar
Ruhl JB, Salzman J (2007) The law and policy beginnings of ecosystem services. J Land Use 22:157–172. scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3032&context=faculty_scholarship. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Google Scholar
Ruhl JB et al (2007) The law and policy of ecosystem services. Island Press, Washington
Google Scholar
Russi D et al (2016) Result-based agri-environment measures: market-based instruments, incentives or rewards? The case of Baden-Württemberg. Land Use Policy 54:69–77. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837716000132. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Russo L (2007) La condizionalità da condizione a fine. Riv Dirit Agrar 1:231–245
Google Scholar
Sagoff M (2002) On the value of natural ecosystems: the catskills parable. Politics Life Sci 21:19–25
Article Google Scholar
Salzman J (1997) Valuing ecosystem services. Ecol Law Quart 24:887–904
Google Scholar
Salzman J (2005) Creating markets for ecosystem services: notes from the field. N Y Univ Law Rev 80:870–961. www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-80-3-Salzman.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Google Scholar
Salzman J (2009) A policy maker’s guide to designing payments for ecosystem services. Duke Law Faculty Scholarship, Paper 2081. scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/2081. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Sattler C, Matzdorf B (2013) PES in a nutshell: from definitions and origins to PES in practice—approaches, design process and innovative aspects. Ecosyst Serv 2:6–11. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221204161300082X. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Google Scholar
Sattler C, Nagel UJ (2010) Factors affecting farmers’ acceptance of conservation measures—a case study from north-eastern. Germany Land Use Policy 27:70–77. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837708000252. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Saunders FP (2015) A discussion of the debates underpinning agri-environmental schemes as a form of payment for ecological services. Working paper 5, Södertörn University. sh.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:876436/FULLTEXT01.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Scaramuzzino A (2015) Il pagamento d’inverdimento nella nuova riforma Pac 2014-2020. Riv Dirit Agrar 2:281–294
Google Scholar
Scheuerman WE (2001) Reflexive law and the challenges of globalization. J Polit Philos 9(1):81–102
Article Google Scholar
Schroter M et al (2014) Ecosystem services as a contested concept: a synthesis of critique and counter-arguments. Conserv Lett 7:514–523. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12091/epdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Schwartz A (1994) The default rule paradigm and the limits of contract law. Yale Law School, Faculty Scholarship Series, Paper 1085. http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/1085. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Schwarz G et al (2008) An analysis of the potential effectiveness of a payment-by-results approach to the delivery of environmental public goods and services supplied by agri-environment schemes. Report to the UK Land Use Policy Group. publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/5845249057357824. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Siebert R (2010) The ‘green box’: multifunctionality and biodiversity conservation in Europe. In: Lockie S, Carpenter D (eds) Agriculture, biodiversity and markets: livelihoods and agroecology in comparative perspective. Earthscan, London, pp 269–286
Google Scholar
Simon W (2006) Toyota jurisprudence: legal theory and rolling rule regimes. In: de Búrca G, Scott J (eds) Law and new governance in the EU and the US. Hart Publishing, Portland, pp 37–64
Google Scholar
Sommerville MM, Jones JPG, Milner-Gulland EJ (2009) A revised conceptual framework for payments for environmental services. Ecol Soc 14:34 et seqq. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art34/. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Tamanaha BZ (1999) Realistic socio-legal theory. Pragmatism and a social theory of law. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Book Google Scholar
Tarlock D (2014) Ecosystems. In: Bodansky D, Brunée J, Hey E (eds) The Oxford handbook of international environmental law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundation. Earthscan, London
Google Scholar
Teubner G (1983) Substantive and reflexive elements in modern law. Law Soc Rev 17(2):239–286
Article Google Scholar
van der Heide M, Polman N (2016) Boer Bier water—farmer, beer and water. Case study: The Netherlands, final version D.1.4, EU Project Pegasus under grant agreement No 633814. pegasus.ieep.eu/system/resources/W1siZiIsIjIwMTYvMDkvMjYvOHJ4dXR4YWsxYV9OTF8wMl9GYXJtZXJzX0JlZXJfV2F0ZXJfZmluYWwucGRmIl1d/NL-02_Farmers_Beer_Water_final.pdf?sha=437048658e72068f. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
van Huylenbroeck G, Durand G (2003) Multifunctional agriculture. A new paradigm for European agriculture and rural development. Ashgate, Burlington
Google Scholar
Van Huylenbroeck G et al (2007) Multifunctionality of agriculture: a review of definitions, evidence and instruments. Living Rev Landsc Res 1(3):5–43. lrlr.landscapeonline.de/Articles/lrlr-2007-3/download/lrlr-2007-3Color.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Google Scholar
van Kersbergen K, van Waarden F (2004) Governance as a bridge between disciplines: cross-disciplinary inspiration regarding shifts in governance and problems of governability, accountability and legitimacy. Eur J Polit Res 42(3):143–171. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2004.00149.x/abstract. Accessed 10 Aug 2016
Article Google Scholar
Vanni F (2014) Agriculture and public goods. The role of collective action. Springer, London
Book Google Scholar
Vihervaara P, Ronka M, Walls M (2010) Trends in ecosystem service research: early steps and current drivers. Ambio 38:314–324. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3357705/. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Voigt C (ed) (2013) Rule of law for nature: new dimensions and ideas in environmental law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Walker B, Salt D (2006) Resilience thinking: sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Island Press, Washington
Google Scholar
Wallace KJ (2007) Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biol Conserv 139:235–246. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320707002765. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Westerlink J et al (2008) European lessons for green and blue services in the Netherlands. Working paper for the 6th Framework Programme PLUREL-Project, Governance and Strategic Planning Scenarios, Module 3. edepot.wur.nl/37597. Accessed 10 Aug 2016
Westman W (1977) How much are nature’s services worth. Science 197(4307):960–964. science.sciencemag.org/content/197/4307/960. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Whitby M (ed) (1994) Incentives for countryside management: the case of environmentally friendly areas. CAB International, Wallingford
Google Scholar
White B, Hanley N (2016) Should we pay for ecosystem service outputs, inputs or both? Environ Resour Econ 63(4):765–787
Google Scholar
Wildlife Link (1995) Agri-environment management agreements: their benefits and future. Wildlife Link, London
Google Scholar
Williamson OE (1979) Transaction-cost economics: the governance of contractual relations. J Law Econ 22:233–261. www.jstor.org/stable/725118. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Williamson OE (1998) Transaction cost economics: how it works; where it is headed. De Economist 146(1):23–58
Article Google Scholar
Wilson GA (2008) Multifunctional agriculture: a transition theory perspective. CABI, Wallingford
Google Scholar
Wilson GA, Hart K (2001) Farmer participation in agri-environmental schemes: towards conservation-oriented thinking? Sociol Rural 41:254–274. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9523.00181/abstract. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Wiskerke JSC et al (2003) Environmental cooperatives as a new mode of rural governance. NJAS Wageningen J Life Sci 51:9–25. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1573521403800246. Accessed 10 Aug 2016
Article Google Scholar
Wittig B et al (2006) An indicator species approach for result-orientated subsidies of ecological services in grasslands—a study in North-western Germany. Biol Conserv 133:186–197
Article Google Scholar
Wunder S (2005) Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. CIFOR occasional paper No. 42. www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-42.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Zabel A, Holm-Müller K (2008) Conservation performance payments for carnivore conservation in Sweden. Conserv Biol 22:247–251
Article Google Scholar
Zabel A, Roe B (2009) Optimal design of pro-conservation incentives. Ecol Econ 69:126–134. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800909003127. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar
Zhang W (2007) Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecol Econ 64:253–260
Article Google Scholar
Zumbansen P (2007) The law of society: governance through contract. Indiana J Glob Leg Stud 14(2):191–233. www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijgls/vol14/iss2/2. Accessed 5 Jul 2016
Article Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

DIRPOLIS - Institute of Law, Politics and Development, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy
Andrea Saba

Authors

Andrea Saba
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Saba .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

DIRPOLIS - Institute of Law, Politics and Development, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy
Mariagrazia Alabrese
DIRPOLIS - Institute of Law, Politics and Development, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy
Margherita Brunori
DIRPOLIS - Institute of Law, Politics and Development, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy
Silvia Rolandi
DIRPOLIS - Institute of Law, Politics and Development, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy
Andrea Saba

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Saba, A. (2017). Results-Based Agri-Environmental Schemes for Delivering Ecosystem Services in the EU: Established Issues and Emerging Trends. In: Alabrese, M., Brunori, M., Rolandi, S., Saba, A. (eds) Agricultural Law. LITES - Legal Issues in Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64756-2_5

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64756-2_5
Published: 06 October 2017
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-64755-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-64756-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics