The project’s conceptual framework tackles the concept of contracts and combines disciplinary strands of Payment for Ecosystem Services literature, agri-environmental policy schemes, and contract governance. The potential impacts will largely be in the academia but, following engagement and presentations at European and national levels may also impact policy stakeholders and their decision making. Contracts2.0 considered a variety of participatory and scientific methods, and case studies. We were therefore able to consider diverse perspectives resulting in relevant interdisciplinary outputs.
Most contracts are hybrids. Therefore, we revised our contract typology, which now uses ‘collective’ and ‘results-based’ as descriptors of characteristics. We distinguish “design process” and “design principles” to reflect the importance of the temporal dimension in designing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating new contracts. “Design principles” consist of contract characteristics and governance context. While new contracts offer promising solutions, many questions remain about their technical and institutional setup. Different barriers hinder the implementation of new contracts. The interplay between these barriers creates context-specific conditions, which need to be considered when designing and implementing new contracts.
CILs and PILs mobilised a variety of agro-ecological, socio-economic, institutional, and legal practitioners. They address real-life needs and create open, inclusive participation, cooperation, and reflective social learning spaces. The CILs self-evaluated regional and national contracts for their environmental effectiveness, economic viability, and longevity. Based on this evaluation, they co-designed new contracts. The PILs assessed how the practitioners’ suggestions can be integrated in current policies, how they may inform new policies and what enabling policy frameworks could look like. Facilitating the exchange and communication are paramount in the process of designing contracts.
Control, simplification, and a more prominent role of farmers and farmers’ advisory services support implementing different contract types. Although there are no ready-made solutions, combining opportunities can create synergies. The exchange between the PILs with a similar focus was encouraged to strengthen the collective learning process by sharing differing and complementing experiences and ideas on the design and implementation of new approaches.
The DCE provide new insights into farmers’ preferences for results-based contracts and consumers’ preferences for labels. Our review of DCE studies provides a framework that researchers can use for studies in this field, impacting future research and policy-making processes. These results will provide building blocks for the inclusion of results-based agri-environment measures in the policy mix of the European Union and worldwide.
In addition to contributing to the knowledge base surrounding the topic described above, contracts2.0 also reflects on the methodology, especially the participatory co-design process, and provides valuable insights on how to manage and foster stakeholder involvement and collaboration in research projects, a topic that is currently gaining in relevance in both the academic and political sphere. Contracts2.0 facilitated exchange between practice and policy, complemented by scientific evidence and knowledge provided by the diverse project consortium.
