Delphi study on innovative contracts for agri-environmental payments

The report summarises the results of a Delphi study carried out in the Contracts2.0 project. The reports key findings: The report presents the detailed results of a Delphi survey conducted about innovative agri-environmental and climate measures among European decision-makers, experts, NGOs and farmers. The Delphi had three consecutive rounds between March 2021 and May 2022. The report presents the three rounds without contextualizing the results; a more detailed analysis of the Delphi research can be found as a public deliverable of the project: D4.3. Considering the characteristics of currently typical AECM contracts, respondents highlighted the need for more flexibility, improved monitoring and control mechanisms, and better regional differentiation (i.e.g tailor-made solutions which adapt to regional specificities both in terms of the environmental and the socio-economic context). The overly complicated nature of some of the existing schemes were mentioned as a limitation, based on which some respondents argued for simplified contracts. AECM is the most popular contract type combining the different elements the most popular contract would be an AECM using both result based and action based elements, with a medium long contract signed by individual farmers There is almost a consensus around seeing innovative contract elements in combination with mainstream contracts as top-ups. At the same time, it is clear that respondents are afraid of an increasing bureaucracy, thus they could imagine a re-design of the current AECM administration. Flexibility is a key -point in the adaptability at the EU level; more than half of the respondents think that the ideal model can be implemented at EU level if there is a possibility for regional adaptation; only a minority assumes that the ideal model cannot be implemented. Respondents see ideal contract types highly beneficial: there is a consensus that those will have a positive impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services, on European farmers' knowledge and attitudes towards the natural environment. The impact on livelihood security and the competitiveness of farmers are seen more positively, similarly respondents suppose that ideal contracts have a positive impact on the consumption patterns and European consumers' awareness of environmental issues. Respondents attribute a huge responsibility to the EU agricultural policy in the sustainability transition of the agri-food system. Its role appeared in many different policy arenas, beyond the CAP, like customs, use of pesticides, and trade agreements. The possibility of regional or national level differentiation was also frequently mentioned. According to the participating decision-makers, NGO representatives, and farmers, there are three possible solutions to ensure the room for the innovative contractual elements: the pliable, the practical, and the revolutionary solutions. Focusing on the challenges associated with innovative contracts (budgetary constrains, emerging transaction costs, emerging risks, knowledge and lack of expertise), our respondents expect the solution from EU/state level policy interventions. There is a full consensus that AECMs have a positive impact on economic performance. There are more diverging opinions on the impact of AECMs on farmers' position in the value chain, or on climate change adaptation and mitigation opportunities. In the evaluation of the impact of voluntary measures we also see a positive impact on economic criterion. There is a consensus around the beneficial impact of voluntary measures on the environment, and about their weak impact on climate change. There is a dissensus about the impact of voluntary measures on value-chain. Eco-schemes also have a positive impact on farmers' livelihoods and profitability. Its impacts on environment, value chain and climate change are highly controversial. Market-based certification schemes were considered the most beneficial for the value chain, and less beneficial for climate change The ideal contract received the highest scores for their impacts on the environment and climate change, but also their impacts on economic performance and value chain position were positively assessed. There was not any pairs of policy instruments identified as conflicting – all of the selected measures were considered positively interlinked at least to some extent. AECMs in Pillar 1 shows the most synergies; those are somewhat synergistic with voluntary measures in Pillar 2, Eco schemes in Pillar 1, the ideal contract, and also closer to somewhat synergistic than to no impact in the case of private certification schemes.This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 818190