Agri-environmental collaborative projects: Challenges and perspectives in Italy

Author/s Federica Cisilino, Francesco Vanni
Publishing Year 2019 Issue 2019/2 Language English
Pages 21 P. 459-479 File size 160 KB
DOI 10.3280/ECAG2019-002014
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

One of the main limitations of traditional agri-environmental policies is that the related measures are usually targeted to individual farms, leading to single and disconnected actions. In order to increase the effectiveness of its environmental action, the cap 2014-2020 has tried to stimulate collective approaches in different ways, both in the context of the greening of direct payments and of the voluntary agri-environmental schemes (aes) of rural development policies. Nevertheless, in Italy so far there have been only a very limited number of attempts to implement collective agri-environmental strategies. The overall objective of this paper is exploring and analysing the attitudes of the Italian stakeholders towards the implementation of agri-environmental collective actions, in order to identify, on one side, the main limitations that are preventing their adoption and, on the other side, to co-design possible solutions and practical actions to stimulate collaborative projects. Data were collected during the first National Forum dedicated to agri-environmental issues, organised by the Italian National Rural Network, by using a participatory approach. The research has identified three main challenges that the Italian agricultural system needs to face in order to enhance and spread the adoption of collective agrienvironmental projects: (i) designing policies that are more effective in supporting the early stages of collective actions (network setting and project development); (ii) a better identification and involvement of intermediate institutions in projects’ coordination and implementation; (iii) improving specific assistance to local farmers for collective projects as well as spreading knowledge amongst other rural stakeholders.

Keywords: Agri-environmental policies, collective actions, participatory methods, Italian stakeholders.

Jel codes: Q18, Q58

  1. Blackburn, J. & Holland, J. (1998). Who changes? Institutionalising Participation in development. London: Intermediate Technology Books.
  2. Burton, R.J. & Paragahawewa, U.H. (2011). Creating culturally sustainable agrienvironmental schemes. Journal of Rural Studies, 27(1), 95-104.
  3. Burton, R.J., Kuczera, C. & Schwarz, G. (2008). Exploring farmer’s cultural resistance to voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Sociologia Ruralis, 48(1), 16-37.
  4. Andersen, I.E., & Jager, B. (1999). Scenario workshops and consensus conferences: towards more democratic decision-making. Science and public policy, 26(5), 331-340. DOI: 10.3152/147154399781782301
  5. Bezold, C. (1999), Alternative futures for communities, Futures, 31, 465-473. DOI: 10.1016/S0016-3287(99)00006-3
  6. Chambers, R. (1994). The Origins and Practice of Participatory Rural Appraisal. World Development, 22(7): 953-69. DOI: 10.1016/0305-750X(94)90141-4
  7. Chandra, G. (2010). Participatory Rural Appraisal in “Issues and Tools for Social Science Research in Inland Fisheries”, Central Inland Fisheries Research Institute Ed., Bulletin No. 163, pp. 286-302.
  8. Cisilino, F. (2014) Il valore aggiunto del Partenariato nella costruzione del Programma di sviluppo rurale 2014-2020. Roma: inea (crea).
  9. Cisilino, F., Marangon, F. & Troiano, S. (2015). Conservation and efficient use of natural resources through Payments for Ecosystem Services: the role of cap in supporting a collective approach. In 147th Seminar, October 7-8, 2015, Sofia, Bulgaria (No. 212247). European Association of Agricultural Economists.
  10. Coderoni, S. (2016). Case Study “Valdaso Agri-Environmental Agreement” (Italy). pegasus D4.1. Rome, crea. --
  11. Cumming, G., Cumming, D.H., & Redman, C. (2006). Scale mismatches in socialecological systems: causes, consequences, and solutions. Ecology and society, 11(1).
  12. Davies, B., Blackstock, K., Brown, K. & Shannon, P. (2004). Challenges in creating local agri-environmental cooperation action amongst farmers and other stakeholders. The Macaulay Institute, Aberdeen.
  13. enrd (2018). Background briefing: Collective approaches. Working Document, Thematic Group (TG) on sustainable management of water and soils, European Network for Rural Development, Brussels. --
  14. European Commission (1994). European Awareness Scenario Workshops. Organization Manual I Self Training Manual. The Innovation Programme ecdg XIII D in collaboration with the European Sustainable Cities Campaign dgxid; December 1994 easw – European Awareness Scenario Workshop --
  15. European Commission (2013a) Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009.
  16. European Commission (2013b) 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.
  17. European Court of Auditors (2011). Is agri-environment support well designed and managed? Special Report No. 7. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxemburg.
  18. Franks, J.R. (2011). The collective provision of environmental goods: a discussion of contractual issues. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 54(5): 637-660. DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2010.526380
  19. Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66, 66-75.
  20. Gnaiger, A. & Shroffenegger, G. (2003) Tool-Kit Scenario Workshop, INTERACTS. A Project funded by the European Commission/DG 12 under the Fifth RTD Framework Programme. Contract No. HPV1-CT-2001-60039.
  21. Hatzilacou, D., Kallis, G., Mexa, A., Coccosis, H. & Svoronou, E. (2007) Scenario Workshops: A useful method for participatory water resources planning? Water Resources Research, Vol. 43, W06414.
  22. Hodge, I. & Reader, M. (2007). Maximising the Provision of Public Goods from Future Agri-environment Schemes. Final Report for Scottish Natural Heritage, Rural Business Unit, Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge.
  23. Hodge, I. (2001). Beyond agri-environmental policy: towards an alternative model of rural environmental governance. Land Use Policy, 18(2), 99-111. DOI: 10.1016/S0264-8377(01)00002-3
  24. Josefsson, J., Lokhorst, A.M., Part, T., Berg, A., & Eggers, S. (2017). Effects of a coordinated farmland bird conservation project on farmers’ intentions to implement nature conservation practices – Evidence from the Swedish Volunteer & Farmer Alliance. Journal of Environmental Management, 187, 8-15.
  25. Labatut, A. (2000). European Awareness Scenario Workshop Survey – Systematic evaluation of the easw methodology and development of a use-oriented assessment tool. European Commission, Code inno-163-25322/0. Pax Mediterranea s.l., Sevilla.
  26. Leventon, L., Schaal, T., Velten, S., Danhardt, J., Fischer, J., Abson D.J. &, Newig, J. (2017). Collaboration or fragmentation? Biodiversity management through the Common Agricultural Policy, Land Use Policy 64, 1-12.
  27. Marshall, G. (1998). A dictionary of sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.
  28. Mauchline, A.L., Mortimer, S.R., Park, J.R., Finn, J.A., Haysom, K., Westbury, D.B., … & Vejre, H. (2012). Environmental evaluation of agri-environment schemes using participatory approaches: Experiences of testing the Agri-Environmental Footprint Index. Land Use Policy, 29(2), 317-328.
  29. Mayer, I. (1997), Debating Technologies: A Methodological Contribution to the Design and Evaluation of Participatory Policy Analysis. Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg Univ. Press.
  30. Meinzen-Dick, R., Di Gregorio, M., & McCarthy, N. (2004). Methods for studying collective action in rural development. Agricultural systems, 82(3), 197-214.
  31. Mettepenningen, E., Vandermeulen, V., Delaet, K., Van Huylenbroeck, G., & Wailes, E.J. (2013). Investigating the influence of the institutional organisation of agrienvironmental schemes on scheme adoption. Land Use Policy, 33, 20-30.
  32. Meyer, C., Schomers, S., Matzdorf, B., Biedermann, C., & Sattler, C. (2016).
  33. Civil society actors at the nexus of the ecosystem services concept and agrienvironmental policies. Land Use Policy, 55, 352-356.
  34. Mills, J., Gibbon, D., Ingram, J., Reed, M., Short, C., & Dwyer, J. (2011). Organising collective action for effective environmental management and social learning in Wales. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 17(1), 69-83. DOI: 10.1080/1389224X.2011.536356
  35. oecd (2013). Providing agri-environmental public goods through collective action. Paris: oecd Publishing.
  36. Prager, K. (2015). Agri-environmental collaboratives for landscape management in Europe. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 12, 59-66.
  37. Prager, K., & Nagel, U.J. (2008). Participatory decision making on agrienvironmental programmes: a case study from Sachsen-Anhalt (Germany). Land Use Policy, 25(1), 106-115.
  38. Prager, K., Reed, M. & Scott, A. (2012) Encouraging collaboration for the provision of ecosystem services at a landscape scale – Rethinking agri-environmental payments. Land Use Policy, 29(1), 244-249.
  39. Renting, H., & Van Der Ploeg, J.D. (2001). Reconnecting nature, farming and society: environmental cooperatives in the Netherlands as institutional arrangements for creating coherence. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 3(2), 85-101.
  40. Rete Rurale Nazionale (2015). Linee guida per la gestione agricola ambientale partecipata delle risorse naturali, della biodiversita e del paesaggio attraverso organismi collettivi territoriali. Ed. by Ventura F. Roma: ismea-Rete Rurale Nazionale.
  41. Rete Rurale Nazionale (2017). I progetti agro-ambientali collettivi nella politica di sviluppo rurale 2014-2020. Ed. by Cisilino, F. and Vanni, F. Roma: crea-Rete Rurale Nazionale.
  42. Rotmans, J., van Asselt, M., Anastasi, C., Greeuw, S., Mellors, J., Peters, S., Rothman, D. & Rijkns, N. (2000). Visions for a sustainable Europe, Futures, 32, 809-831. DOI: 10.1016/S0016-3287(00)00033-1
  43. Scoones, I. and McCracken, J. (1989). Participatory Rapid Rural Apaisal in Wollo: Peasant Association Panning for Natural Resource Management. IIE London.
  44. Stiefel, M. and Wolfe, M. (1994). A Voice for the Excluded, popular participation in Development: Utopia or Necessity?. Geneva: unrisd.
  45. Teodosiu, C. & Alexandrescu, I. (2003) The Romanian Scenario Workshop, interacts Report No. 3g, The Science Shop c/o Department of Manufacturing, Engineering and Management at the Technical University of Denmark. A project funded by the European Commission/DG 12 under the Fifth rtd Framework Programme. Contract No. HPV1-CT-2001-60039.
  46. Van Dijk, W.F., Lokhorst, A.M., Berendse, F., & de Snoo, G.R. (2015). Collective agri-environment schemes: How can regional environmental cooperatives enhance farmers’ intentions for agri-environment schemes? Land Use Policy, 42, 759-766.
  47. Vanni, F. (2014). Agriculture and public goods. The role of collective action. Dordrecht: Springer.
  48. Westerink, J., Jongeneel, R., Polman, N., Prager, K., Franks, J., Dupraz, P. & Mettepenningen E. (2017). Collaborative governance arrangements to deliver spatially coordinated agri-environmental management, Land Use Policy, 69, 176-192.

  • Co-design approaches in land use related sustainability science – A systematic review Maria Busse, Jana Zscheischler, Felix Zoll, Sebastian Rogga, Rosemarie Siebert, in Land Use Policy 106623/2023 pp.106623
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106623
  • The opportunities and challenges to co-designing policy options for tree health with policy makers, researchers and land managers Bianca Ambrose-Oji, Julie Urquhart, Gabriel Hemery, Gillian Petrokofsky, Liz O’Brien, Glyn D. Jones, Berglind Karlsdóttir, in Land Use Policy 106974/2024 pp.106974
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106974
  • Sustainability Goals and Firm Behaviours: A Multi-Criteria Approach on Italian Agro-Food Sector Lucia Briamonte, Raffaella Pergamo, Brunella Arru, Roberto Furesi, Pietro Pulina, Fabio A. Madau, in Sustainability /2021 pp.5589
    DOI: 10.3390/su13105589
  • Designing Rural Policies for Sustainable Innovations through a Participatory Approach Federica Cisilino, Alessandro Monteleone, in Sustainability /2020 pp.9100
    DOI: 10.3390/su12219100
  • Introducing the SWOT Scorecard Technique to Analyse Diversified AE Collective Schemes with a DEX Model Janja Rudolf, Andrej Udovč, in Sustainability /2022 pp.785
    DOI: 10.3390/su14020785
  • ‘We’re Farmers Not Foresters’: Farmers’ Decision-Making and Behaviours towards Managing Trees for Pests and Diseases Bianca Ambrose-Oji, Alice Goodenough, Julie Urquhart, Clare Hall, Berglind Karlsdóttir, in Forests /2022 pp.1030
    DOI: 10.3390/f13071030

Federica Cisilino, Francesco Vanni, Agri-environmental collaborative projects: Challenges and perspectives in Italy in "ECONOMIA AGRO-ALIMENTARE" 2/2019, pp 459-479, DOI: 10.3280/ECAG2019-002014