2025/12/01 by Uwe Latacz‐Lohmann, Nicolas Lampkin, Christine Krämer +2 · 1 voice
Agricultural and Biological Sciences · Environmental Science · #Agricultural Economics and Policy #Agricultural Innovations and Practices #Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
paper · pdf · doi:10.1111/1746-692x.70019
openalex publication_date 2025/12/01 · openalex created_date 2026/01/08 · openalex updated_date 2026/05/21
Summary This paper attempts to bring together the threads from the various articles in the Special Issue and draw overarching conclusions. It does so by classifying the policy models according to specific design criteria in order to highlight similarities, differences and special features. It then discusses the merits and challenges of the design features in the presented models. Results‐based schemes harness farmers’ self‐interest and increase ‘buy‐in’ but involve the risk for famers of low payments. Hybrid schemes, combining action‐ and results‐based payments, can be a suitable remedy, as are payments based on modelled (rather than measured) results. Point systems, besides having a motivational effect on farmers, facilitate the targeting of policies to regional circumstances and are particularly well suited for communicating the societal benefits achieved. Thresholds that must be achieved to trigger payment can nudge farmers to improve their environmental performance, but are not entirely incentive‐compatible. A bonus for diversity of measures at farm level can encourage innovation and engagement, but can also make the uptake of measures less predictable. These ideas can all contribute to an enhanced focus on rewarding farmers for the actual delivery of environmental outcomes, consistent with the public money for public goods ethos. However, the policy models for a fundamental re‐orientation of the CAP presented appear to only have limited compatibility with the EU Commission’s proposal for the next CAP reform.