INTRO: The abstract deals with different concepts of result-based agri-environmental payments in Europe and investigates the advantages and disadvantages in contrast to management-based payments. The authors identified 36 different payment schemes, primarily located in Germany and tested their classification approach on a case study in Finland. Apart from analyzing the potentials of result-based payments, the authors looked at the scientific background and implementation challenges of each scheme and stated that the majority focused on developing and testing ecological indicators and performances. The main advantages of result-based payments seem to be improving biodiversity at the local scale, integrating land-users and an advanced environmental efficiency. Even if there are some scientific shortcomings in the schemes such as limited information on the improved conservation outcomes in the long term and the extent of rewarding the actual results, the authors conclude that result-based agri-environmental payments should be included in the prospective European Rural Development program.
MERITS: Since the concepts of finically supporting and rewarding land-users for protecting and securing biodiversity at the local scale are discussed all over the world and are implemented more and more, the investigations and results of the abstract are of great scientific importance. If the concept of result-based agri-environmental payments seems to have major advantages to management-based payments, this research can be used to improve its implementation with the support of the EU Member States. Furthermore, the study reveals not only advantages, but also points out where possible constraints can be found and that further research and evidence is needed.
CRITIQUE: Basically, the manuscript has no weaknesses. The only suggestion for improvement can be given, to expand and/or transfer the study and its approach to further land-use systems such as forestry or the fishing industry.
DISCUSSION: In general, the authors give a clear and understandable insight in their research, its methods, results and further requirements. Due to its primary ecological, economic and social importance, the study contributes to the concept of sustainability and the fair use and preservation of global biodiversity.
- - -
INTRO: The abstract presents a study combining ) a literature review of 36 result-based payment schemes for biodiversity conducted in Europe; 2) a survey of 50 experts in the field of agri-environement-climate policy and result-based schemes (RBS); and 3) a Finnish case study.
MERITS: The study is highly timely because it could inform policy-makers in the ongoing CAP reform, which is expected to be more result-driven. The study seems to be based on a high number of RBS and experts, which should guarantee the generality of its findings.
CRITIQUE: The abstract mentions a RBS typology without developping it, mixes results on RBS themselves with results on research conducted on RBS, seems to present opinions rather than objective findings, does not distingsuish outcomes of the review versus outcomes of the survey, and does not explain how the Finnish study case contributes to this general overview.
DISCUSSION: The study has considerable policy relevance and its outcomes, i.e. findings on the benefits and challenges of RBS, should be presented in the clearest and most objective way in order to be convincing to policy-makers. Language could also be improved in several places in order to improve the flow of ideas.
- - -
INTRO: The abstract presents the review of results-based schemes for positive ecological outcomes in agricultural landscapes in Europe. The study identified 36 payment schemes unequally distributed throughout Europe and describe the characteristics of these schemes. The authors mention also advantages and challenges related to these schemes but they do not describe them in detail.
MERITS: The topic of the study is very interesting and timely. It is highly necessary to find ways to increase the efficiency of schemes advancing environmental improvements in agricultural landscapes.
CRITIQUE: The conclusion part of the manuscript could become more interesting is the challenges and the advantages are better described. The manuscript also talks about the apprehension about trying a results-based approach in Mediterranean, central and eastern EU Member States. That sounds very intriguing and I would like to understand more about what the authors are describing here.
DISCUSSION: This study has far-reaching implications and can contribute to the larger discussion of how to incentivize stakeholders into taking actions with positive effects on the environment. The potential impact of the conclusions of this study on policy-making at different governance levels clearly justifies the inclusion of this abstract in the program of ECCB. I think the abstract itself could benefit from a more concrete description of the advantages, challenges and barriers to RBSs.
- - -
INTRO: The authors explore the conservation potential of schemes of payments to land managers based on ecological outcomes (rather than management-based ones), with the aim of identifying the decisive elements of the schemes' design and implementation as well as the challenges and opportunities of adopting the approach for biodiversity.
MERITS: Very interesting work on the potentiality of using results-based payment for agri-environmental measures.
CRITIQUE: No major weakenesses detected.
DISCUSSION: The authors conclude that there are advantages in results based schemes compared to management-based ones with similar objectives, although they have specific challenges at every stage of design and implementation.
- - -
INTRO: This evidence-based manuscript, builds on peer-reviewed literature, technical reports and answers from experts in the field of agri-environment-climate policy and results-based schemes, to identify essential issues of schemes' design and implementation for biodiversity as well as challenges and opportunities to be considered.
MERITS: This manuscript tackles an essential and timely topic, the results-based agri-environment schemes, by reviewing ongoing tools, analysing their implementation and discussing them in the context of tailored schemes.
CRITIQUE: No weaknesses.
DISCUSSION: This manuscript may have important impacts on informing new tools in the context of CAP redesign.
