1. Performance and payments in UK agri-environment schemes
Factors affecting participation
Transaction costs
Scheme evaluations and benefit valuation
Socio-economic evaluations
Environmental monitoring

2. Factors affecting Participation
1. Economic research
Farmer’s decision is based on expected profit/utility
2. Contextual factors
Examining a wider set of factors that effect a farmers participation decision
3. Adoption models
- Investigating the process of adoption over time

3. Transaction Costs
Both public and private transaction costs should be taken into account
Transaction costs of ESA are relatively high compared to most traditional grant aid schemes
Public administration costs are an average of 48% of compensation paid
Private transaction costs are estimated at 5% of compensation
What transaction costs bring in terms of enhancing environmental output is the important issue

4. Evidence from economic evaluations
Both ESA and CSS aim to maintain/increase elements of natural capital stock and public access to this stock
Fundamental differences in the way the ESA and CSS schemes have been monitored and evaluated
Economic benefit studies – contingent value method

5. Socio-economic evaluations
Ecoscope report – assessments of ESA and CSS
ESA – focus of the evaluation was on farmers’ response to the scheme, payment rates and impacts on farm management
CSS – should establish performance indicators

6. Environmental Monitoring
Final results from monitoring unavailable
On average 38% of performance indicators achieved
Landscape and historical features are maintained in nearly all ESAs
Limited results for wildlife enhancement
As regards wildlife enhancement, ESA appears less successful than CSS
Different monitoring systems in place – not feasible to compare