Overview of three PEGASUS case studies in Portugal

By amarechal.

By Rocio Juste, Évora University (Portugal)

The University of Évora, Portugal, as one of the partners of the PEGASUS project, carried out three case studies in Portugal during Spring and Summer 2016. Our team looked at the case of Montado agro-pastoral systems, small scale farming and intensive olive groves.

We can say that these three case studies are representative of the rural reality of this country, characterised by an increasing intensification of farming while, at the same time, traditional farming still remains an important sector of the Portuguese economy. Also, while there is an important migration of people leaving rural areas to cities, in recent years some people have returned to the countryside looking for a better quality life.

What we identify in these first steps of the case study work in Portugal is that in all three contexts, there is some provision of environmental and social benefits – albeit to varying degrees - which contribute to the way of living in the rural Portugal.

One of the case studies (PT-1) focused on the typical Montado landscape. The Montado is a Mediterranean and multifunctional silvo-pastoral land-use system, dominated by cork and holm oaks trees. Traditional production practices in Montado systems often provide biodiversity-rich habitats and support high nature value type of farming. They also enable the maintenance of this highly valued landscape which contributes to a sustainable use of environmental resources, cultural value and attractiveness for leisure.

In our case study on small-scale farming (PT-2), the mosaic landscape shaped by small scale farms, visible from the towns, was found to be of foremost importance to the inhabitants, and a core element of their appreciation of the local landscape. We found that the mosaic landscape depends on land use-based activities often not taken in account by policies including at the local scale. Beyond maintaining a cultural landscape, small scale farmers and land managers in this region provide a range of other environmental and social benefits to society. In PT-3, we have analysed the case of intensive olive groves production in an area where extensive practices quickly intensified for a number of economic and social reasons, and have major implications for the sustained provision of environmental outcomes in particular.

In all three PEGASUS case studies, we adopted a participatory approach based on regular interactions with the local stakeholders. For this reason, the choice of pursuing one case study in the in-depth phase has been difficult. At a PEGASUS meeting in Estonia, we finally agreed to the small-scale farming case study was the best for the PEGASUS project as a whole. While this is settled, our main challenge is now going to be how to interact with stakeholders in a way we can get the information for the in-depth analysis while also ensuring the work in PEGASUS benefits them.


For more information about what is the PEGASUS team going to do for the next steps, check this link!


Photo credit: David Cruz


Half-time for PEGASUS case study work!

By amarechal.

by Karlheinz Knickel (IfLS) 

Our recently published PEGASUS report (Deliverable 4.2) presents the main results and insights gained from ‘broad and shallow’ analyses of 34 case studies in ten EU countries (Estonia, Czech Republic, Germany, Netherlands, France, Italy, Slovenia, Austria, Portugal and the UK).

This first phase of case study research involved two steps:

·         Step 1: Sketching out the particular “social-ecological system” in the case study area; and

·         Step 2: Analysing the conditions for a successful provision of environmental and/or social benefits in that system, checking these against current priorities and determining what changes would be required to enhance the provision of such benefits.

The 34 PEGASUS case studies have generated a wealth of information on the particular situations surrounding the provision of environmental and/or social benefits associated with a range of different farming and forestry systems in the EU. Overall, the case studies are predominantly concerned with biodiversity outcomes (25 case studies), landscape character (22 cases), water quality and/or availability (17) and rural vitality (17). Other important topics include: soil issues, public outdoor recreation, education and demonstration activities. Initiatives which aim to tackle globally relevant issues such as carbon sequestration or the reduction of GHG emissions are less frequent, as their impact/importance is more difficult to grasp at the local level. However these issues often feature as secondary or co-benefits of the initiative.

You can find all the results of the PEGASUS case studies here.

What have we learned so far?

1. Our case studies show that the connections between farming and forestry and the provision of environmental and/or social benefits are complex and dynamic, and are influenced by manifold factors or drivers. Most often we found that different drivers interact, sometimes reinforcing each other, but sometimes neutralising each other’s effects. The Italian case studies are an example as here it is very clear that the application and success of public policy measures is mainly explained by their consistency with the market-driven strategies of local entrepreneurs. In the tomato district case study, the economic rationale and related voluntary, private sector-led certification are reinforced by financial support provided through public policies as well as the adoption of European, national and regional protection legislation and quality standard requirements.

2. Agricultural policy, and here in particular the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), and its interpretation and implementation at the level of Member States and regions, plays an important role in our case studies, affecting directly and/or indirectly the provision of benefits. We also found that policies always interact with other drivers in a number of ways.

3. Markets for primary products and changes in markets, can have a massive influence on land use, cropping and land management changes and therefore also on environmental and social conditions. For instance, this is the case in the Montado case study in Portugal where the deterioration of the cork market and coupled payments to livestock had a substantial impact leading to an intensification of the use of land and the degradation of Montado habitats (characterised by holm and cork oaks). Similarly, in the Traditional Orchards case study in Germany, the industrialisation of apple cultivation and processing has led to the abandonment of traditional orchards with lower productivity that in the past surrounded rural villages and towns. The trend has been reinforced by the increasing demand for build land suitable for built development.

4. The private sector can be an important driver, evident in several case studies. An example is the French Volvic Waters Society case where the Public Private Partnership of local authorities and land owners with Danone contributes to sustainable water management as well as income generation and employment, driven partly by the societal and corporate interest in supporting biodiversity conservation. The Dutch Skylark case focuses on a private sector initiative that is fully financed by supply chain companies and participating arable farmers. Skylark has set its own sustainability criteria for arable farming and some supply chain companies create a demand by preferring Skylark farmers.

5. A combination of policy support with private sector and market mechanisms can be particularly effective. A typical example is the private marketing initiative on organic grass-fed beef meat in Estonia. This private sector initiative controls the whole supply chain with joint standards and labelling while being strengthened through various public funds like organic support, semi-natural habitat management support and marketing support and the quality of the meat is championed by well-known chefs in the region. The Austrian Murau case focuses on a private labelling initiative and successful marketing project that would not be possible without basic public support (through the Rural Development Programme) which accounts for a substantial share of mountain farmers’ income.

6. Looking across all 34 case studies, four broad types of determinants emerge as playing a more important role in enabling and indeed fostering transformative practice. These are: engagement of people - at an individual level as well as in the form of collective action; institutional factors and policy frameworks; good and effective communication within initiatives and with external audiences; and the ability to learn and innovate. Governance arrangements and institutional frameworks and the interplay between different actors also play a very important role. For instance, the Hope Farm case study provides a rather telling summary statement: “It’s about people, persuasion, networks, knowledge, trial and trust”.

Importantly, these preliminary findings will be investigated further in a more in-depth comparative analysis as well as the 12 in-depth case studies in the coming months.

When selecting the case studies to be subject to more in-depth analysis, we have prioritised initiatives which apply a ‘social-ecological systems’ perspective, i.e. where human/social system is considered alongside the natural system under one holistic frame. This should allow us to simultaneously pay attention to economic, social and environmental interactions within the same area, as well as related areas such as public health and rural vitality.

In the next phase of the case study work, together with practitioners and other stakeholders, we will continue to apply action-oriented research methods to explore potential pathways towards an enhanced provision of environmental and social benefits from agriculture and forestry (scaling-up, multiplication, etc.). Particular attention will be paid to the interplay between different factors, settings and conditions that stimulate collective or other innovative actions, the role of the private sector and its interplay with civil society, institutional and policy frameworks.



The influence of market, socio-cultural, institutional and policy drivers in our case studies

By amarechal.

by Francesco Mantino (CREA)

The report on “Socio-political, economic and institutional drivers. A cross-country comparative analysis” concludes an important phase for the PEGASUS project.  We sought to understand better the main market, institutional, policy and other socio-economic settings that influence the provision of environmental and social benefits from agriculture and forestry in a variety of different situations in ten different EU countries. A draft of this report was first discussed at an EU-level seminar in Brussels (April 2016), where the authors received many useful inputs and comments from a wide range of stakeholders.

To investigate the range of drivers and factors which may influence the provision of environmental and social benefits, we looked at the situation in 34 case studies in ten different countries, and complemented the findings with a literature review.

Influential “market factors” investigated included: (i) drivers linked to the demand for sustainable food (such as organic, integrated, healthy food) and (ii) drivers linked to certification schemes that farms and agri-food firms may adopt to differentiate their products. By looking at 34 different situations in the case studies, it is clear that understanding what influences the provision of environmental and social outcomes from farming and forestry activities cannot be explored and analysed only by looking at the production sphere and at the primary sector, but must also consider the relationship that farming and forestry has with the processing industry, retailers, the public sector as well as with final consumers. In addition, in many of the case studies examined, private and ‘public’ goods and services are produced jointly. Creating the right market signals is key to achieving win-win solutions, generating economic, social and environmental outcomes from farming and forestry systems.

A further set of socio-cultural drivers were identified which can be grouped as follows: (i) social and cultural dynamics, (ii) institutional change and (iii) demand for leisure/recreation, health and education. A favourable social and cultural context may lead to increased awareness and knowledge from local communities about environmental and social issues faced by farmers and foresters. In turn, this may empower local actors to take responsibility for the development of local initiatives aiming to enhance the provision of environmental and social benefits. These drivers show that it is too simplistic to suggest that the provision of environmental and social outcomes from farming and forest systems are supported by the government while private goods are delivered by the market. Often, it is necessary to adopt more innovative approaches, based on mixed public-private arrangements and on solutions which directly involve the population in the definition and delivery of environmental and social benefits. One example of this is the increasing demand for leisure/recreation, health and education which provides opportunities for rural tourism, which in turn could be a source of potential growth for rural areas.

The role of policy in providing environmental and social benefits is a complex matter: in a same area or territory, several institutional actors as well as different types of policies may have overlapping competences. This is true, for example, in the tomato food chain in Italy where in spite of high productivity and intensive production practices, this supply chain as a whole organised itself to collectively initiate the changes needed to address pressing water and soil issues in the area and to ensure long term compliance with European and national rules on water, nitrates and pesticides use. There is a broad spectrum of policy instruments used by farmers and the tomato industry in this area to support the process of reorganisation towards more sustainable practices and technologies, especially through structural measures in the regional Rural Development Programme. This is also true in a radically different situation such as the extensive Landscape Protected Area of the White Carpathians in Czech Republic. Here, dry meadows support local beef production while national law regulates the intensity of fertilisers and pesticide use and grazing. The maintenance of dry meadows is strongly related to the continuation of beef production over time. Farmers can receive payments for tailored management of the most environmentally valuable sites in this protected area. The role of different policies is pivotal in many of the PEGASUS case studies, including for instance in the Slovenian municipalities of Ljubljana and Celje, where peri-urban forests are developed and used for public health and leisure. In this case, the initiative has been driven by the national regulatory framework (the Forest Act grants free access even to private forest land) as well as by the national forest management plan, and is included as a priority in the plans of the two municipalities. The most relevant difference with the previous case studies is that in this peri-urban setting, local municipalities play a major role in the definition and the management of policy instruments targeted to ensure access to all recreation facilities. The case studies show that the relevant policy mix may vary according to the type of “socio-ecological” system and the type of environmental or social benefit targeted.  Within a given policy mix, overarching regulatory frameworks often play a crucial role, not only at the European level, but also at national/regional level and sometimes at local level too.

Public policies are not the only available mechanism to enhance the provision of environmental and social benefits. There is a wealth of literature on the different types of market-based mechanisms and in particular on the use of payments for ecosystem services (PES). We can distinguish at least four market-based mechanisms:

a)      Premium price payments;

b)      Compensation for additional costs;

c)       Certification schemes;

d)      Integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs).

The co-existence of public and private payment schemes in the same area is very frequent in PEGASUS case studies. According to our classification, premium price payments and compensation for higher costs can be defined as types of private PES. Private schemes are not only driven by market forces, but also by civil society demands for public participation, natural resource conservation and social cohesion. These motivations are more evident in ICDPs. Both in PES and in certification schemes a crucial variable emerges as a key to success: the capability of setting up better contractual agreements between producers within the supply chain and between producers and final markets. This implies that PES or certification schemes alone are unlikely to be sufficient to influence sustainable outcomes.

Finally, the effectiveness of both regulating public policies and market-based mechanisms is highly dependent on institutional and governance settings - some of those we have found are quite innovative - and on the different ways in which public and private actors cooperate. Regarding the concrete provision of environmental and social benefits, collective action involving groups of citizens, farmers, environmental stakeholders and institutional actors were often found to be particularly beneficial. According to institutional economists, collective action becomes advantageous when the potential benefits of cooperating outweigh the transaction costs of developing and setting up the new form of organisation. The initiatives studied in the PEGASUS case studies are characterised mainly by the presence of multiple cooperating actors with a will to enhance the provision of public goods and ecosystem services in their area. An important difference is in the type of actors promoting/coordinating the action, and the setting up of the organisation needed to carry out the project. In the private-driven cases NGOs and supply chain actors (in partnership) often play dominant roles, suggesting that farmers and food industries may create new alliances to cope with environmental challenges and competitiveness. These cases are of considerable interest in the next steps of the research.



Working with stakeholders: How to get access to the field

By amarechal.

by Kerstin Huelemeyer, Institut für Ländliche Strukturforschung (IfLS, Germany)

To be honest: What's in it for us? We have been researched last year by another research project; I as the initiative’s secretary had to fill out hundreds of questions, work hard to resemble all information they asked for, and haven’t heard anything since.

Wow. This was the first reaction of the secretary of a German initiative for traditional orchard cultivation – tough start for trying to get this initiative to work with us in PEGASUS as a case study. And I think, this is the downside of the actually positive fact that interaction with stakeholders is now often called for in Horizon 2020 and other research funding programmes. Researchers can easily burn the ground for future research with practitioners: if you hold a workshop with different stakeholders and don’t facilitate it well, you may stimulate conflicts among different groups; if you go into the field and think you already know it all, stakeholders note down that researchers are arrogant and will not open up; and, as we see here, if people devote their time to you and you never get back to them, the chances decrease considerably that they will do it again.


Coming back to the woman I am just talking to on the phone and her question. What's in it for stakeholders? Well yes, that can be a tricky question. And I know, it is more than giving a good answer: I need to be personally convincing, because it all depends on this first call if we will be able to work with them or not. To be upfront with it, this initiative ultimately became one of our PEGASUS case studies. And here I tell you how.


Explain in simple words what you do 

The acronym PEGASUS (Public Ecosystem Goods And Services from land management – Unlocking the Synergies) doesn’t even translate well into German, and the message the project title tries to get across -  that we look at the concepts of public goods and ecosystem services in a different way - simply sounds as if somebody didn’t pay enough attention while translating it. Besides, can I really convince people to work with us by explaining the theoretical background our consortium has put a lot of effort in? Instead, I started by explaining what we do in PEGASUS and what our objectives are: we know that agriculture and forestry produce more than food, fodder and timber, and that those activities can also deliver a broad set of environmental and social benefits to society. In PEGASUS, we want to analyse how new forms of land management can help stimulating or at least maintaining the provision of these benefits. We want to know what the challenges and barriers are to this improvement, as well as the supporting factors. Also, PEGASUS aims to ensure that land managers learn from each other to be able to promote better what they do.


The secretary of the initiative stays on the phone, so it seems I haven’t put her off so far. Maybe she feels that I believe in the PEGASUS approach and that we may really have something to offer that will benefit them.

Judge realistically the role you can play for them

Though it is tempting to think so, most of the time researchers (like me) are not perceived by stakeholders as saviours. Still there is a lot I can offer this time: in PEGASUS we have agreed to implement action-oriented research, which means there are resources to work with the people on a question or burning issue they have themselves, and then, following our own research agenda, meta-analyse the processes and interactions as well as the framework conditions in which they happen. So here we are and during our talk it turns out that the initiative has recently been faced with a difficult issue: this traditional orchards project heavily depends on voluntary work, and volunteers are either aging or are workers who are not able to carry on with this side activity. They have been thinking about setting up a project group for exploring the future of the initiative, but didn’t have anybody who would be able to initiate and run such a process.


What a brilliant opportunity for us to come in, I think. 

Listen to stakeholders

We continue talking and I get a lot of information about the history of the initiative (one of the first surcharge initiatives for orchard meadows in Germany, which is by the way one of the reasons we have selected this initiative), the current set-up of the initiative and the problems of the secretary as well as the challenges of orchard cultivation. As we speak, it becomes obvious that there is a broad set of factors which will be relevant for the future of the initiative, and that there are a number of players in the field who need to get involved. There seems to be differences between the secretary and the executive board; the initiative covers a broad territory and most of the members don’t even know each other; there are networks which are not working anymore and initiatives which might be relevant for networking in the future. There are funding programmes which haven’t been checked out as they were perceived as too complex etc. While we slowly unveil all these issues, the secretary seems to become more relaxed, opens up and obviously starts to trust us and the benefit our work might have for them. In the end we agree that we will set up together a project group on the future of the initiative and that we will facilitate and manage the whole process.

Perfect for PEGASUS

After the call is finished I am euphoric. Not only that we now have an initiative to work with, it is perfect for PEGASUS. We have an example of a collective action, which has been started with a lot of enthusiasm and now, after 25 years, is facing the problem of finding successors who will continue the work – which is probably an issue for a lot of brilliant initiatives which have been set up on the shoulders of one or two engaged people. And, interestingly, while the environmental beneficial outcomes of traditional orchards have been the motivation for starting the initiative, the social benefits have not been recognised so far. Great, there is so much interesting stuff in there – I am looking forward to start working.


As I am writing these lines, we already had the first workshop with them. It lived up to my expectations and brought already good results. But that will be the content of another article. Meanwhile, you can consult the results of the 34 PEGASUS case studies are available here.


Some notes from an excellent event: the Conference of the Society for Ecological Restoration 2016

By amarechal.

Text and photo by Klára Čámská, the Institute of Agricultural Economics and Information (ÚZEI), Prague.

The 10th European conference on ecological restoration was held in Freising in Germany, Bavaria, on August 22 – 26, 2016. The host was the Department of Ecology and ecosystem management, School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technische Universität München. The quiet atmosphere of this old bishop town, the hospitality of the conference team and the excellent quality of the Bavarian beer were highly appreciated by approximately 300 participants, some of them coming from outside Europe. The PEGASUS project was also represented at the event by Klára Čámská and Jaroslav Parzan from the Institute of Agricultural Economics and Information in Czech Republic.

The conference titled “SER 2016 Best Practice in Restoration Ecology” covered a wide range of habitats: forests, agricultural land (cropland and grassland), peatland and fens, wetlands, rivers and floodplains, urban areas, sandy habitats and abandoned mines. From all the cases presented, the conference helped the Czech PEGASUS team to draw lessons as to what makes a restoration project successful. First there should be detailed information and knowledge about the state of degradation and ecosystem functions provided/underprovided. Second, there should be a clear understanding and agreement from stakeholders on which habitat/species/ecosystem function the project should target. The same goes for the methods to be used to carry out restoration works. A fourth important point (and central to the PEGASUS project) is to seek a good level of involvement of stakeholders in decision processes so that their ideas and preferences are heard. A cost benefit analysis of options is also useful. Finally, the realisation of the project should include a monitoring plan to assess the improvement in the state of the habitat, the species and/or the ecosystem functions provision targeted.  

 The conference of restoration ecology was a fascinating mix of theoretical and practical knowledge across a range of disciplines from natural sciences to social sciences or economics. The common aim was to find a way to meet the target to restore 15% of biodiversity degraded habitats in the EU by 2020 (Target 2 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy). It is an ambitious plan. For instance, the working group for ecological restoration in Finland evaluated the level of degradation of all its habitats and estimated the costs of meeting the 15% restoration target under three scenarios (2016-2050). In the first scenario, where all ecosystems are restored evenly, the costs would amount to €38.5 billion, i.e. €1.1 billion annually. In the prioritized scenario where restoration is carried out “at any cost”, this would amount to €22.8 billon, i.e. €0.7 billion annually. Finally, in the prioritized scenario where cost-efficiency is applied, this would be €18.0 billion, i.e. €0.5 billion annually (S. Kuusela, J. S. Kotiaho, A. Moilanen: Balancing costs and natural values in prioritization schemes – examples from the Finland prioritization plan; Session 17-03). What was interesting from an agri-environmental policy viewpoint is that agricultural land habitats in Finland are deemed 100% degraded and the costs for their restoration are the highest under the first scenario in the study. However, the priority of its restoration is considered low because those habitats tend to have a comparatively lower biodiversity than the others examined in the study while high management costs usually arise from their restoration. The study also presents a good example of how to meet the restoration target on forest land (A. Tolvanen: New approaches to reconsolidate restoration within the multiple land use scheme; Keynote).

In terms of agricultural habitats a close attention was paid on semi-natural grasslands, especially those with high natural value as defined by the EU Habitats Directive and the Natura 2000 network. The restoration projects presented at the conference were often funded under the European LIFE programme. Many projects focused on degraded grasslands. Grassland habitats degradation is caused by multiple factors: the intensification of agriculture (including ploughing during the socialist era, e.g. in White Carpathians species rich grasslands in the Czech Republic), the abandonment of land mostly due to political changes in the late 80s in Eastern Europe and/or economic drivers, as occurred notably in the steppe vegetation in the Hungarian Puszta or extensive grasslands in Estonia and Lithuania, and in the former East Germany military districts. The common positive element of the restoration projects is the great level of financial investments (buying or collecting the seed, landscaping, removal of shrubs, purchase fences and other equipment, etc.) and human/social capital (building project administration skills, learning complex approach and solution skills, building confidence among partners and stakeholders, dissemination activities etc.). A common weakness – according to me – is the uncertainty of the sustainability of the project results. The agri-environment and climate schemes funded under the Common Agricultural Policy can provide some guarantee as regards sustainability, but these schemes often lack adequate coordination and complementarity at the national and European levels. Another reason for increasing communication and coordination between the agri-environment and climate schemes and LIFE is that grassland restoration projects offer a rich reservoir for scientific research and practical experience in a variety of natural, environmental and social conditions and variations in the management.

The need of including both ecological and socio-economic incentives into any restoration project planning and to assess the economic value of the enhanced provision of ecosystem services were other topics presented and discussed in some of the presentations at the conference. For example, N. Hanley from Scotland, University of Stirling, showed in the keynote presentation Economic benefits and aims to restore habitat the principles and the possibilities of payments for ecosystem services. S. Swart and J. Zevenberg also presented Utilitarian and non-utilitarian valuation of nature and natural resources: A game-theoretical approach of valuation (Session 27-O1). Such topics provide an excellent background introduction to our poster presenting the PEGASUS project “Applying of Socio-ecological System for better understanding and delivery of public goods/ecosystem services: PEGASUS case studies in the Czech Republic” (K. Čámská and J. Pražan; Session 27-P3). It can be concluded that a further research of success factors and barriers of stakeholders’ involvement in activities beneficial to the environment improvement and multilateral dissemination and political discussion of the research results are still necessary. 

There were a lot of inspiring studies and projects presented in the conference, which also covered the identification and dynamics of the main factors causing habitat degradation, e.g. climate change, social and political changes. The PEGASUS team attending the conference would like to thank the organisers, especially Dr. J. Kollmann and Dr. J.-M. Hermann.



Exploring innovative and participatory approaches for ESBO delivery

By amarechal.
By Karlheinz Knickel (IfLS)

The case studies are a core element of the PEGASUS project, enabling us to identify a diverse range of approaches being used in different parts of the EU to increase the appreciation and provision of ESBOs from agriculture and forestry. We want to learn from the many initiatives that we can find in practice in very different situations. Each case study will involve analysing and understanding the context in which agriculture and forestry operates and identifying the potential strategies to improve provision in these particular circumstances. In each of the 34 case studies, PEGASUS partners will first gain a better understanding of the relationships between farming/forestry management and the associated quantity and quality of ESBOs. To facilitate this task, we use the socio-ecological systems (SES) framework, examine the appreciation of ESBOs among key actors and identify key motivational, institutional and socio-economic factors that influence this.

Together with our stakeholders in the case studies, we explore the interplay between policy, market and social, cultural and institutional factors, and examine the mechanisms and governance arrangements that are in place. We examine what works already and why. This will then allow us to explore the main trade-offs and strengths and weaknesses of different approaches in order to inform policy development, create a more enabling environment for similar initiatives, scaling up, replication, multiplication, and maybe eventually a wider regime change. The ultimate goal is to incentivise and enable transformative practice on the ground.

A rapid appraisal for 34 ‘broad and shallow’ case studies is currently underway. Based on this, a more in-depth analysis will be carried out in 10 case studies, with much more intensive action-oriented engagement of the research team with key actors and stakeholders. The 10 in-depth case studies will be chosen from the broad and shallow case studies. The key considerations for selection will be the interest of stakeholders in continuing the cooperation, the desire to select particularly innovative cases with a high potential for scaling up and/or multiplication, and the need to ensure a good coverage of situations, drivers and mechanisms.

For all 34 cases studies, a map of the social-ecological system is drawn, using participatory methods and local, regional or national data sets. In addition, we explore the conditions for successful ESBO provision, based on initial interviews with stakeholders and triangulation with local environmental and socio-economic data. This work will be completed by June 2016 with a short report for each broad and shallow case study. The 10 in-depth case studies will enable deeper analysis and the identification of potential future actions with stakeholders for increasing ESBO provision further in the case study areas, considering also any changes required in institutional arrangements.

A series of focus groups and workshops will be organised during November/December 2016 where governance arrangements and actions to foster ESBO provision will be discussed. This in-depth analysis will be completed in January 2017 with a report and a joint commitment to further action.

For all the case studies, it is critically important to engage with practice, facilitate, listen actively, and be ready to co-learn. Feedback loops with stakeholders, key actors and those leading other work packages are very important. The systemic and visualisation approaches (mind-maps, network mapping) we are using is intended to facilitate this.


Market, institutional and socio-economic drivers that support and inhibit the provision of environmental and social benefits from EU agriculture and forestry

By amarechal.
Analysis is currently underway in ten countries to identify and understand the relationships between key groups of socio-political, economic and institutional factors considered crucial for influencing the levels of provision and appreciation of environmental and social benefits in different EU contexts. These include the different farming/forestry systems, socio-ecological conditions and policy instruments used.

The final analysis intends to provide an example-based contribution to improve our understanding of the most important drivers that have supported or inhibited the provision of ESBOs until now and how this might change in the future. This includes looking at regional/local institutions, market drivers and relevant associations and partnerships to explain the varying levels of provision experienced in different situations. It also aims to identify the types of policy instrument that appear to play a major role in providing the necessary conditions to stimulate collective or other innovative action by farmers and foresters in relation to the provision of environmental and social benefits (e.g. regulatory framework, financial support, climate for enabling action). The analysis also recognises that other drivers, e.g. sectoral or natural drivers such as climate change also have an impact; and their varying roles will be developed in the PEGASUS case studies and in the EU as a whole.

The PEGASUS team held an EU-level seminar on 26 April 2016 in Brussels to discuss and review emerging findings. The seminar brought together EU and national level stakeholders, researchers and institutional representatives.

The report is expected to be published on the PEGASUS website during June 2016.


Mapping and assessment of Public Goods and Ecosystem Services provision in relation to the diversity of EU farming and forestry systems in the EU

By amarechal.
Figure 1: Forest management regimes. Source: Hengeveld, G.M., Nabuurs, G., Didion, M., Wyngaert, I.V.d., Clerkx, S., Schelhaas, M., (2012): A forest management map of European Forests.

By Marta Pérez-Soba (DLO-Alterra) and Maria Luisa Paracchini (JRC).

Agriculture and forestry activities influence the availability and quality of Public Goods (PG) and Ecosystem Services (ES) supplied by farming and forest ecosystems through management activities. There is a large spatial variation across Europe in the nature and management of farming and forestry systems, their biogeographic conditions and their social, economic and institutional context. Spatial analysis can help improve our understanding of the nature of PG/ES provision, the positive and negative interactions between provision and management in different situations, as well as the demand for different PG/ES in different locations. However, many different methodological approaches and different sets of indicators are currently being used to assess individual PG/ES at national/regional level, which makes it difficult to make comparisons between different Members States.

PEGASUS is building a consistent mapping approach, to achieve a more comprehensive and more operational inventory and geospatial understanding of the occurrence, condition and interactions of PG/ES in the diverse forestry and farming systems in the EU. This will be achieved by critically reviewing existing inventories, methodological approaches and indicator datasets for mapping. On this basis, current mapping and data collation and comparison will be extended to enable a more comprehensive analysis of PG/ES distribution in the EU, including the identification of areas of high and low supply. The analysis of variations in governance, institutional and market drivers and influences upon PG/ES and their status will complete the picture. Feedback from the broad range of real-world case studies will help to refine the framework and make it more operational.

A crucial outcome of the spatial analysis (at EU-28 level and in the case studies) is to reveal the relevant spatial scales at which agriculture and forestry systems provide PG/ES. There are some PG/ES that are strongly influenced by land management activities wherever they occur (e.g. GHG emissions) whilst others are dependent on the local context; some are produced in the vicinity of the locations that benefit from them, whilst others are produced much farther afield. For example urban areas can be many kilometres away from their sources of clean water, which could be a forest located in a mountain area in the region. The novelty of the analysis compared to existing frameworks is to identify where changes in management and/or governance are needed in order to improve provision, or where systems already providing high levels of PG/ESS need to be maintained.

The first step in the work (review of relevant datasets and approaches available at EU level to categorise and map PG/ES) has just been finalised. We found indicators or proxies to map PG/ES relating to the supply of 16 out of the 19 beneficial outcomes identified in PEGASUS. Available indicators describe the ecosystem service itself, or the ecosystem function underpinning the service. Moreover, most of the indicators available describe the potential service – the capacity of the ecosystem to deliver a good or service, also called stocks or assets. Only in rare cases are there indicators and data available that allow the actual service (linked to the demand) to be mapped.

Many times the indicator is clear but relevant data are not available to measure it, and proxies need to be used. For example, the PG/ES “provision of habitat”, of which biodiversity is a key variable, cannot be described through one indicator only - there is no one-measure-fits-all. The lack of pan European monitoring data especially for agrobiodiversity (existing only for birds), implies the use of proxies (including pressures) in PEGASUS. Concerning management, a good number of indicators and maps are available for both agriculture and forestry (see Figure 1 for forestry), especially for agriculture where many data are regularly collected through EU wide agricultural surveys. The socio- economic descriptors for farming and forestry are sufficiently populated, though indicators are mostly available at coarse resolutions (NUTS2, NUTS0) and in this case the agricultural sector benefits from the fact that being subsidised, its economic aspects are much more closely monitored and modelled than forestry.

In the coming months we will develop an operational classification system of different types of relationships between farming/forestry management systems and PG/ES, taking into account the relevant spatial and temporal scales. Preliminary analysis will inform the case study work and the case studies will also be used to check the assumptions underpinning this classification system and refine it over the course of the project.


Introducing the social-ecological system framework: a review of public goods and ecosystem services theories and concepts

By amarechal.
1 comment
by Anne Maréchal, Janet Dwyer and Kaley Hart (CCRI and IEEP).

Rural land in the EU provides a wide range of key functions and services on which society depends – from production of food, feed and fibre to multiple environmental and social goods and services, such as climate mitigation, soil functionality, biodiversity, cultural landscapes or recreation. Yet the processes sustaining these environmentally and socially beneficial outcomes from farming and forestry are often under-valued in conventional markets. Current policy approaches to strengthen supply of these outcomes often is constrained by a combination of adverse market factors and failures as well as governance and delivery challenges.

The goal of PEGASUS is to investigate the factors influencing the provision of environmentally and socially beneficial outcomes (ESBOs) from agriculture and forestry, looking at drivers that encourage and inhibit the necessary management activities and examining the potential for positive change. In so doing, it aims to propose new ways to incentivise better ESBO delivery, finding ways to achieve long-term systemic changes towards a better balance of environmental, social and economic outcomes from agriculture and forestry in Europe.

In PEGASUS, we embrace the parallel concepts of “public goods” – an economic notion used to refer to goods that cannot easily be traded in markets, as opposed to private goods – and “ecosystem services”, a concept rooted in ecological science describing the set of complex, dynamic interactions taking place in an ecosystem and upon which we depend. PEGASUS uses the insights from both concepts to explore what agriculture and forestry can deliver that is beneficial for all in society. For the purposes of the project, we call these environmentally and socially ‘beneficial outcomes’ (ESBOs).

To achieve ‘beneficial outcomes’, it is essential to consider not only positive agricultural and forestry practices that actively enhance the provision of benefits for society, but also solutions that can reduce the occurrence or the impact of damaging practices (in other words, the mitigation of negative externalities). PEGASUS therefore examines both factors that support as well as inhibit the implementation of positive practices.

The innovative approach proposed by PEGASUS is to look at both environmental and the social dimensions of these systems together a means of finding long-term solutions. In 34 case studies across 10 EU countries, the PEGASUS teams are assessing the environmental and social resilience of the systems examined, adopting the analytical framework of social-ecological systems (SESs). This framework recognises the importance of understanding interactions between human and natural components in producing ESBOS through farming and forestry, and it provides an approach for examining these interlinkages and identifying scope for improvement.

Using the SES framework, the case studies are investigating contrasting approaches to encourage more balanced land management decisions and stimulate practical action with environmentally and socially beneficial outcomes. This includes examining different institutional settings, working closely with market incentives, understanding collective action/partnerships, identifying new forms of incentive provision and ways to facilitate behavioural change.



Comment on our articles and interact with our authors. See also discussions on our LinkedIn account.