Exploring macro-environmental factors influencing adoption of result-based and collective agri-environmental measures: a PESTLE approach based on stakeholder statements

To promote more environmentally-friendly and cost-effective agri-environmental-climate measures in the EU, novel approaches such as result-based and collective schemes are advocated. This study explores macro-environmental factors facilitating or impeding the adoption of such schemes. By means of a PESTLE analysis and based on a survey of 85 stakeholders from Austria and Germany, we identify major adoption factors within the political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental domains. Our results indicate that economic, legal, and social factors are the most influential, with fair payment, clear contract design, and social relations being the most commonly mentioned. Moreover, the unpredictability of nature is a major impediment to the adoption of result-based schemes, while social dynamics and farmers' attitudes are key factors for a successful implementation of collective contracts. Overall, the study provides strategic and practical insights that can support the design and implementation of novel agri-environmental-climate measures under the Common Agricultural Policy

CONSOLE Project - Deliverable 5.1 - "Guidelines for Community of Practice (CoP) management at local level"

The Community of Practice (CoP) is foreseen to play a key role in boosting innovation in the effective and long-lasting delivery of agri-environmental-climate public goods (AECPGs). The CONSOLE CoP will be organized around practitioners experienced in the provision of AECPGs and those interested in it and will be nourished throughout the project lifetime. In line with the definition of Wenger1 the CoP is defined as a group of people (the community) who share a common interest and who learn how to perform better through regular interaction and exchange of experiences. The idea is to set up a pan-European CoP with national and/or local (regional) sub-groups managed by the CONSOLE partners with the aim of developing improved and novel contract solutions in collaboration with its members. This document sets out: (a) the purpose and objectives of the CoP in CONSOLE, (b) the setting up and management of the CoP at European, national and local level, (c) the process for motivating individuals to participate. The CONSOLE CoP is intended to facilitate knowledge exchange and mutual learning, mainly through virtual contacts. Participation in the CoP is based on sharing and reciprocity principle. A core objective of these guidelines is to ensure a sound management and facilitation of the CoP by all CONSOLE partners in view of optimizing the input from CoP members in the project activities. Members within a national or local CONSOLE CoP are: 1) CONSOLE partners; 2) practitioners, mainly farmers and foresters, who test and implement practically the contractual models, and 3) experts, that may have punctual interventions in the CoP. A vibrant CoP with active involvement of its members is crucial for the assessment and testing of improved and novel voluntary measures for the delivery of AECPGs. For each of the CONSOLE countries one national contact person is nominated to take over the role as national focal point for the CoP activities in his country and to serve as facilitator of the CoP. These facilitators are responsible to ensure participation along the various project tasks foreseen within several WPs and to overcome potential language barriers. The national contact person may be supported by other CONSOLE partners from his country for local activities. At local level the CoP benefits from existing contacts of CONSOLE partners to practitioners, including the experts interviewed for the case studies analysis within WP2. The forming/development of a CoP requires promoting exchanges taking on board the interests and needs of the actors involved and to animate them to share their expertise. Collaborative learning within the CoP supported by dedicated training activities will be crucial to ensure the intended major transition towards smarter AECPGs-related practices in Europe. These guidelines focus on the identification of the various tasks where CoP participation is foreseen at local (regional) level and to provide support for the identification of potential members. In the deliverable D5.2 “Guidelines for testing the solutions catalogue by CoP and partners” further details about the involvement of the CoP will be provided

Characteristic retinal atrophy pattern allows differentiation between pediatric MOGAD and MS after a single optic neuritis episode.

BACKGROUND Optic neuritis (ON) is the most prevalent manifestation of pediatric multiple sclerosis (MSped) and myelin-oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody-associated disease (MOGADped) in children > 6 years. In this study, we investigated retinal atrophy patterns and diagnostic accuracy of optical coherence tomography (OCT) in differentiating between both diseases after the first ON episode. METHODS Patients were retrospectively identified in eight tertial referral centers. OCT, VEP and high/low-contrast visual acuity (HCVA/LCVA) have been investigated > 6 months after the first ON. Prevalence of pathological OCT findings was identified based on data of 144 age-matched healthy controls. RESULTS Thirteen MOGADped (10.7 ± 4.2 years, F:M 8:5, 21 ON eyes) and 21 MSped (14.3 ± 2.4 years, F:M 19:2, 24 ON eyes) patients were recruited. We observed a significantly more profound atrophy of both peripapillary and macular retinal nerve fiber layer in MOGADped compared to MSped (pRNFL global: 68.2 ± 16.9 vs. 89.4 ± 12.3 µm, p < 0.001; mRNFL: 0.12 ± 0.01 vs. 0.14 ± 0.01 mm3, p < 0.001). Neither other macular layers nor P100 latency differed. MOGADped developed global atrophy affecting all peripapillary segments, while MSped displayed predominantly temporal thinning. Nasal pRNFL allowed differentiation between both diseases with the highest diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.902, cutoff < 62.5 µm, 90.5% sensitivity and 70.8% specificity for MOGADped). OCT was also substantially more sensitive compared to VEP in identification of ON eyes in MOGAD (pathological findings in 90% vs. 14%, p = 0.016). CONCLUSION First MOGAD-ON results in a more severe global peripapillary atrophy compared to predominantly temporal thinning in MS-ON. Nasal pRNFL allows differentiation between both diseases with the highest accuracy, supporting the additional diagnostic value of OCT in children with ON

Benefits of climate modeling for actors along the food chain - reflections for further engagement between science and practice

In the agricultural practice in Europe climate aspects are still rarely influencing decision-making at farm level, other aspects as short- term economics and legislative constraints being more relevant. But also in Europe farmers are facing shifts in weather patterns with weather extremes, thus showing that there is a need for more information regarding climate change. In this regard models which are able to describe climate phenomena and possible options for (pre-)adaptation are becoming more and more valuable for the farming community. This is in particularly relevant for long -term investments like for livestock buildings or irrigation infrastructures, but also for the choice of crops and management practices and related machinery. At the same time agriculture and in particular the livestock sector is pointed out as an important GHG emitent, in particular for methane. With the Paris agreement, EU Member States are asked to present strategies on how to reduce their emissions. There still is little knowledge about costeffective measures to reduce emissions at national, and especially at regional and farm level. Here sophisticated, consolidated climate models, able to present possible pathways for emission reductions and in particular its costs can be a very helpful tool for the selection of cost-effective mitigation measures. But in order to have realistic model predictions that are accepted by practitioners, it is important that the scenario- building is done in cooperation with those actors which are in the end asked to base their decisions on them. For the actors along the food chain it is very important not only to get information regarding overall benefits and costs, but at operational level. Still too seldom climate models are used to provide sound information about structural effects induced by climate changes as well as by climate change policies. Another important aspect is the consistency of model outcomes - too often there is heterogeneity in the quantitative as well as in the qualitative model results affecting the trust in agricultural model ing, in particular if not sufficiently explained. Here MACSUR has already made great progress by aligning scenario definitions and consolidations within and between crop, livestock and trade models, but still much work is necessary to further enforce the dialogue with stakeholders. This is particularly true for possible pathways to reduce livestock emissions without affecting productivity negatively - or even better looking for synergies. Another aspect that should be looked at in more detail are organic soils under agriculture land use and climate and water optimised fertilisation strategies. Climate models cannot only help farmers and other actors along the food chain, including input and food industries as well as the retail sector to better consider climate aspects in their economic decisions, but are a very powerful tool for decision- makers and for future climate change policies. Here it will become even more relevant in future to address leakage effects

Agrarumweltleistungen durch ergebnisbasierte und kollektive Vertragslösungen - Erkenntnisse aus Befragungen in Österreich und Deutschland

In this report we present the survey results from Germany and Austria on two agri-environmental measures that are not yet well established in practice in these countries, namely result-based and collective environmental protection. Farmers and stakeholders were surveyed separately. The two questionnaires per country were conducted in spring 2021 at a time when the European legal framework for the CAP after 2022 was already known. In this framework, both result-based payment and collective implementation are offered as options for agri-environmental and climate measures (AECM). At the time of the survey, the respective national arrangements of the CAP had not yet been published. Agri-environmental measures compensate farmers for environmental and climate services on a contractual basis. Farmers will only decide to participate on a voluntary basis if the measures are attractive to them. Within the framework of Agri-environmental measures compensate farmers for environmental and climate services on a contractual basis. However, farmers will only decide to participate on a voluntary basis if the measures are attractive to them. In order to find out which contractual characteristics positively influence the willingness to participate in the two types of contracts examined here, farmers in Austria and in Germany were surveyed online. In addition, the opinions on the practicability and economic efficiency of the result-based and collective contracts were surveyed. A total of 152 surveys from Austria and 146 from Germany were analysed. Since a large number of stakeholders are involved in the conception, implementation and/or monitoring of AECM, stakeholders in Austria and Germany were also interviewed in writing. Stakeholders were also asked to indicate which external factors, beyond the control of the farmers themselves, they believe inhibit or encourage participation in result-based or collective contracts. For this purpose, the PESTLE2 approach, originally developed for strategic business decisions, was adapted to this question. In this way, it was possible to explore in detail which political, economic, social, technological, legal and environmental factors play a role in result-based or collective contracts. 34 questionnaires from stakeholders in Austria and 51 from Germany were analysed. Both Austrian and German farmers prefer the result-based contract type for future participation over other new types of contracts such as collective, value chain-oriented contracts and land leases with environmental requirements. Specific contract characteristics are of crucial importance here. The proportion of farmers who indicated that they were likely or very likely to participate in result-based contracts was significantly higher than for the collective contract. The result-based contract was also rated better than the collective contract in terms of practical feasibility and economic efficiency by farmers as well as stakeholders from both countries. There are differences in the countries especially in the assessment of the Austrian stakeholders regarding the practical feasibility of the collective contract. There was particularly little agreement here. In both countries, stakeholders rate the economic efficiency of collective agreements significantly higher than farmers. Environmental aspects that stakeholders and farmers say can be improved well with a result-based contract type are "biodiversity" and "landscape and scenery", but "soil quality" was also mentioned relatively often. In collective contracts, all parties mentioned "landscape and scenery" most frequently, followed by "biodiversity". Moreover, German stakeholders can well imagine that collective contracts are suitable for improving "water quality". In terms of the external factors that the stakeholders surveyed believe to influence farmers' adoption and participation in result-based and collective contracts, the responses cover a wide range of hindering and facilitating factors. For result-based contracts, economic factors were most frequently mentioned, especially a comprehensible premium calculation as well as adequate financial remuneration; for collective approaches, it was social factors. The calculation of premiums in result-based contracts was considered difficult, as environmental results are not always immediately visible or attributable to individual farmers. In addition, (extreme) weather events can affect environmental outcomes, putting payments to farmers at risk. To overcome such difficulties, combinations of basic payments and additional performance payments or staggered payments for reaching intermediate targets have been proposed. In collective approaches, a positive group dynamic is seen as crucial for success. "Together" and "we-feeling" were mentioned as core prerequisites for a good functioning. Trust within the group of farmers as well as with the authorities and other actors involved is also seen as conducive. As a major obstacle to collective approaches, several participants mentioned the additional coordination and communication effort that requires adequate funding. Clear rules and a clearly defined distribution of tasks were also emphasised, among other things to avoid free-rider behaviour. In summary, the comparative examination of the attitudes and opinions of German and Austrian farmers made it possible to identify contract-specific commonalities and differences between the two countries. Differences become apparent, inter alia, in the future willingness to participate and the assessment of the suitability of result-based or collective contracts for the protection of selected environmental goods

Agrarumweltleistungen durch ergebnisbasierte und kollektive Vertragslösungen: Erkenntnisse aus Befragungen in Österreich und Deutschland

In dieser Studie stellen wir die Befragungsergebnisse aus Deutschland und Österreich zu zwei bisher in diesen Ländern noch wenig in der Praxis etablierte Agrarumweltmaßnahmen vor, nämlich den ergebnisbasierten und den kollektiven Agrarumweltschutz. Es wurden Landwirt*innen und Stakeholder*innen getrennt befragt. Die zwei Befragungen pro Land erfolgten im Frühjahr 2021 zu einem Zeitpunkt, wo der europarechtliche Rahmen für die GAP nach 2022 bereits bekannt war. In diesem wird sowohl die ergebnisbasierte Bezahlung als auch die kollektive Umsetzung als Option für Agrarumwelt- und Klimamaßnahmen (AUKM) angeboten. Noch nicht veröffentlicht waren zum Zeitpunkt der Befragung die jeweilige nationale Ausgestaltung der GAP. [...] Zusammenfassend lässt sich sagen, dass die vergleichende Betrachtung der Einstellungen und Meinungen der deutschen und österreichischen Landwirt*innen es erlaubte, vertragsspezifische Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede zwischen beiden Ländern herauszuarbeiten. Unterschiede zeigen sich u. a. bei der künftigen Teilnahmebereitschaft und der Einschätzung der Eignung von ergebnisbasiertem bzw. kollektivem Vertrag zum Schutz ausgewählter Umweltgüter.In this report we present the survey results from Germany and Austria on two agri-environmental measures that are not yet well established in practice in these countries, namely result-based and collective environmental protection. Farmers and stakeholders were surveyed separately. The two questionnaires per country were conducted in spring 2021 at a time when the European legal framework for the CAP after 2022 was already known. In this framework, both result-based payment and collective implementation are offered as options for agri-environmental and climate measures (AECM). At the time of the survey, the respective national arrangements of the CAP had not yet been published. [...] In summary, the comparative examination of the attitudes and opinions of German and Austrian farmers made it possible to identify contract-specific commonalities and differences between the two countries. Differences become apparent, inter alia, in the future willingness to participate and the assessment of the suitability of result-based or collective contracts for the protection of selected environmental goods

Exploring macro-environmental factors influencing adoption of result-based and collective agri-environmental measures: a PESTLE approach based on stakeholder statements

To promote more environmentally friendly and cost-effective agri-environmental- climate measures in the European Union, novel approaches such as resultbased and collective schemes are advocated. This study explores macro-environmental factors facilitating or impeding the adoption of such schemes. By means of a PESTLE analysis and based on a survey of 85 stakeholders from Austria and Germany, we identify major adoption factors within the political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental domains. Our results indicate that economic, legal, and social factors are the most influential, with fair payment, clear contract design, and social relations being the most commonly mentioned. Moreover, the unpredictability of nature is a major impediment to the adoption of result-based schemes, while social dynamics and farmers’ attitudes are key factors for a successful implementation of collective contracts. Overall, the study provides strategic and practical insights that can support the design and implementation of novel agri-environmental-climate measures under the Common Agricultural Policy

Die ökonomische Bedeutung von Bodenbiodiversität – Entwicklungspfade bis 2050 am Beispiel des Weizenanbaus

Die landwirtschaftliche Produktion hängt in hohem Maße von zahlreichen Bodenprozessen ab, die von Bodenorganismen angetrieben werden. Dennoch findet die Bodenbiodiversität bei Szenarioanalysen zur Zukunft der europäischen Landwirtschaft bisher kaum Beachtung. In einem iterativen partizipativen Prozess wurden vier Entwicklungspfade entwickelt, die sich hinsichtlich der Berücksichtigung des Bodenlebens bei der Bewirtschaftung unterscheiden. Dabei wurde ein besonderes Augenmerk auf Zielkonflikte und Synergien zwischen externen technologiebasierten Leistungen und den durch die biologische Vielfalt im Boden erbrachten Ökosystemleistungen gelegt. In Modellrechnungen wurden am Beispiel der Weizenproduktion die Effekte der Bodenbiodiversität auf Ertragshöhe und -stabilität bis 2050 quantifiziert

Plural values associated with soil biodiversity among farmers in Europe

National audienc

Plural values associated with soil biodiversity among farmers in Europe

International audienc