¿Qué promueven los programas agroambientales? Investigación sobre los objetivos agroambientales del programa europeo de desarrollo rural 2000-2006
Resumen
En este artículo se ofrece un análisis de la importancia que los distintos agentes implicados conceden a los objetivos ambientales de los programas agroambientales de la política europea. Durante los últimos 20 años, el aumento de la sostenibilidad de la agricultura ha sido una de las mayores preocupaciones en Europa. Sin embargo, la importancia que los objetivos ambientales específicos tienen en los programas agroambientales ha sido escasamente cuantificada, lo que dificulta la evaluación de la eficacia de este tipo de programas. En este artículo se utiliza una metodología basada en el uso del concepto de «peso» como una medida cuantitativa para evaluar la importancia de cada uno de estos objetivos. Los objetivos han sido identificados utilizando una jerarquía de indicadores que se deriva del propio marco europeo para la evaluación obligatoria de los programas agroambientales. Se realizó la cuantificación de los pesos mediante un cuestionario presentado a más de 70 agentes en 10 regiones de diferentes países de la UE. Los resultados ponen de manifiesto la existencia de diferentes perfiles regionales, que revelan estrategias muy diferentes en cuanto a la especialización de los programas agroambientales. Estos van desde programas focalizados en un aspecto ambiental muy específico, como el paisaje y la biodiversidad, a programas que tienen un enfoque ambiental más general, atendiendo a varios objetivos ambientales simultáneamente. Estos resultados subrayan la necesidad de integrar las evaluaciones académica e institucional con mecanismos de medida de prioridades políticas, de cara a permitir evaluaciones más sólidas de la eficacia de los programas agroambientales.
Descargas
Citas
Alfaro-Fernández A, Córdoba-Sellés C, Tornos T, Cebrián MC, Font MI, 2011. First report of Eggplant mottled dwarf virus in Pittosporum tobira in Spain. Plant Dis 95: 75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-07-10-0491
Al-Musa AM, Lockhart B, 1990. Occurrence of Eggplant mottled dwarf virus in Jordan. J Phytopathol 128: 283-287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0434.1990.tb04275.x
Aramburu J, Galipienso L, Tornos T, Matas M, 2006. First report of Eggplant mottled dwarf virus in mainland Spain. Plant Pathol 55: 565. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3059.2006.01419.x
Babaie GH, Izadpanah K, 2003. Vector transmission of Eggplant mottled dwarf virus in Iran. J Phytopathol 151: 679-682. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0434.2003.00788.x
Della Giustina W, Javoy M, Bansept P, Morel E, Balasse H, Goussard N, Passard C, 2000. Les cidadelles du genre Anacertagallia vectrice du virus responsable de la maladie de la peau de crapaud du concombre. PHM Rev Hort 420: 40-43.
De Stradis A, Parrella G, Vovlas C, Ragozzino A, 2008. Vein yellowing of Hibiscus rosa-sinensis caused by Eggplant mottled dwarf virus in Southern Italy. J Plant Pathol 90: 359-361.
Lockhart BEL, 1987. Evidence for identity of plant rhabdoviruses causing vein-yellowing disease of tomato and Hibiscus rosa-sinensis. Plant Dis 71: 731-733. http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PD-71-0731
Aczél J., Alsina C., 1986. On synthesis of judgments. Socio Econ Plan Sci 20, 333-339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0038-0121(86)90044-3
Babcock B.A., Lakshminarayan P.G., Wu J., Zilberman, D., 1997. Targeting tools for the purchase of environmental amenities. Land Economics 73, 325-339. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3147171
Bartolini F., Gallerani V., Samoggia A., Viaggid., 2005. Methodology for multicriteria analysis of agrienvironmentalschemes. ITAES project, document number: WP10-P6-D11.
Bartolini F., Gallerani V., Viaggi D., 2007. Consolidated report on multicriteria analysis of agri-environmental schemes. ITAES project, document number: WP10-P6-D21.
Bonnieux F., Brougherara D., Desjeux J., Dupraz P., Latouche K., Paoli J.C., Tafani C., 2005. Consolidated report on case studies. ITAES project, document number: WP3-P1-D3.
Borcherding K., Eppel T., Von Winterfeldt D., 1991. Comparison of weighting judgments in multiattribute utility. Manage Sci 37, 1603-1619. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.37.12.1603
Choe C., Fraser I., 1999. Compliance monitoring and agrienvironmental policy. J Agr Econ 50, 468-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1999.tb00894.x
Duke J.M., Aull-Hyde R., 2002. Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process. Ecol Econ 42, 131-145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00053-8
Easley R.F., Valacich J.S., Venkataramanan M.A., 2000. Capturing group preferences in a multicriteria decision. Eur J Oper Res 125, 73-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00196-4
EC, 2000. Common indicators for monitoring rural development programming 2000-2006. VI/12004/00 COM (2000). European Commission.
EC, 2005. Agri-environment measures. Overview on general principles, types of measures, and application. European Commission.
EC, 2006. Rural Development in the European Union. Statistical and economic information. Report 2006. European Commission.
EC, 2008. Eurobarometer, Public Opinion in the European Union. European Commission.
Finn J.A., Bartolini F., Bourke D., Kurz I., Viaggi D., 2009. Ex post environmental evaluation of agri-environment schemes using experts' judgements and multicriteria analysis. J Environ Plan Manage 52, 717-737. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640560902958438
Fraser I., Fraser R., 2006. Targeting monitoring resources to enhance the effectiveness of the CAP. Eurochoice 4, 22-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-692X.2005.00013.x
Gass S.I., Rapcsàk T., 1998. A note on synthesizing group decisions. Decis Support Syst 22, 59-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(96)00061-9
Girardin P., Bockstaller C., Van Der Werf H., 2000. Assessment of potential impacts of agricultural practices on the environmental: the AGRO*ECO method. Environ Impact Asses 20, 227-239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(99)00036-0
Gómez-Limón J.A., Atance I., 2004. Identification of public objectives related to agricultural sector support. J Policy Model 26, 1045-1071. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2004.07.005
Gren I.M., 2004. Uniform or discriminating payments for environmental production on arable land under asymmetric information. Eur Rev Agric Econ 31, 61-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/erae/31.1.61
Hanley N., Whitby M., Simpson I., 1999. Assessing the success of agri-environmental policy in the UK. Land Use Policy 16, 67-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0264-8377(98)00041-6
Hayashi K., 2000. Multicriteria analysis for agricultural resource management: a critical survey and future perspectives. Eur J Oper Res 122, 486-500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00249-0
Herzog F., 2005. Agri-environment schemes as landscape experiments. Agric Ecosyst Environ 108, 175-177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.02.001
Howlett M., Ramesh M., 1995. Studying public policy: policy cycle and policy subsystems. Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, UK. 244 pp.
Kleijn D, Sutherland W., 2003. How effective are European agri-environmental schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? J Appl Ecol 40, 947-969. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2003.00868.x
Latacz-Lohman U., 2001. A policy decision-making framework for devising optimal implementation strategies for good agricultural and environmental policy practices. OECD document n° com/agr/ca/env/epoc(2000)56/final, Paris, France.
Moxey A., White B., Ozanne A, 1999. Efficient contract design for agri-environmental policy. J Agr Econ 50, 187-202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1999.tb00807.x
OECD, 2009. Inventory of policy measures addressing environmental issues in agriculture. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [online]. Available in http://www2.oecd.org/agr-envdbo/index.asp.
Olson D.L., Moshkovichh.M., Schellenberger R., Mechitov A.I., 1995. Consistency and accuracy in decision aids: experiments with four multiattribute systems. Decision Sci 26,723-748. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1995.tb01573.x
Oreade-Breche, 2005. Evaluation des measures agro-environnementales [online]. Available in http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/measures/fulltext.pdf.
Pearce D. 2005. What constitutes a good agri-environmental evaluation? In: Evaluating agri-environmental policies. Design, practice and results. OECD Publishing, Paris, France. pp. 71-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264010116-6-en
Pöyhönen M., Hämäläinen R.P., 2001. On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods. Eur J Oper Res 129, 569-585. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00467-1
Primdahl J., Peco B., Schramek J., Andersen E., Oñate J.J., 2003. Environmental effects of agri-environmental schemes in Western Europe. J Environ Manage 67, 129-138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4797(02)00192-5
Roy B., Mousseau V., 1998. A theoretical framework for analysing the notion of relative importance of criteria. J Mul Crit Dec Anal 5, 145-159. 3.0.CO;2-5" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1360(199606)5:2<145::AID-MCDA99>3.0.CO;2-5
Saaty T.L. 1980. The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, NY, USA.
Schoemaker P.J.H., Waid C.C., 1982. An experimental comparison of different approaches to determining weights in additive utility model. Manage Sci 28, 182-196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.28.2.182
Smith K., Weinberg M., 2004. Measuring the success of conservation programs. Amber Waves 2, 14-21.
Stewart T.J., 1992. A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice. Omega 20, 569-586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(92)90003-P
Tsiporkova E., Boeva V., 2006. Multi-step ranking of alternatives in a multi-criteria and multi-expert decision making environment. Inform Sciences 176, 2673-2697. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2005.11.010
Van Der Horst D., 2007. Assessing the efficiency gains of improved spatial targeting of policy interventions; the example of an agri-environmental scheme. J Environ Manage 85, 1076-1087. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.11.034 PMid:17350157
Vatn A., 2001. Transaction costs and multifunctionality. Contributed paper at the OECD. Workshop on Multifunctionality, Paris, 2-3 July. 23 pp.
Weber M., Borcherding K., 1993. Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multiattribute decision making. Eur J Oper Res 67, 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(93)90318-H
Weiss C., 1998. Evaluation. Prentice Hall, NJ, USA. 372 pp.
White B., 2002. Designing agri-environmental policy with hidden information and hidden action: a note. J Agr Econ 53, 353-360.
Wünscher T., Engel S., Wunder S., 2008 Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: a tool for boosting conservation benefits. Ecol Econ 65, 822-833. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.11.014
Xabadia A., Goetz R., Zilberman D., 2008. The gains from differentiated policies to control stock pollution when producers are heterogeneous. Am J Agr Econ 90, 1059-1073
© CSIC. Los originales publicados en las ediciones impresa y electrónica de esta Revista son propiedad del Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, siendo necesario citar la procedencia en cualquier reproducción parcial o total.
Salvo indicación contraria, todos los contenidos de la edición electrónica se distribuyen bajo una licencia de uso y distribución “Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0 Internacional ” (CC BY 4.0). Consulte la versión informativa y el texto legal de la licencia. Esta circunstancia ha de hacerse constar expresamente de esta forma cuando sea necesario.
No se autoriza el depósito en repositorios, páginas web personales o similares de cualquier otra versión distinta a la publicada por el editor.
