A comparison of extreme value theory approaches for determining value at risk

This paper compares a number of different extreme value models for determining the value at risk (VaR) of three LIFFE futures contracts. A semi-nonparametric approach is also proposed, where the tail events are modeled using the generalised Pareto distribution, and normal market conditions are captured by the empirical distribution function. The value at risk estimates from this approach are compared with those of standard nonparametric extreme value tail estimation approaches, with a small sample bias-corrected extreme value approach, and with those calculated from bootstrapping the unconditional density and bootstrapping from a GARCH(1,1) model. The results indicate that, for a holdout sample, the proposed semi-nonparametric extreme value approach yields superior results to other methods, but the small sample tail index technique is also accurate.

Environmental evaluation of agri-environment schemes using participatory approaches: experiences of testing the Agri-Environmental Footprint Index

The Agri-Environment Footprint Index (AFI) has been developed as a generic methodology to assess changes in the overall environmental impacts from agriculture at the farm level and to assist in the evaluation of European agri-environmental schemes (AES). The methodology is based on multicriteria analysis (MCA) and involves stakeholder participation to provide a locally customised evaluation based on weighted environmental indicators. The methodology was subjected to a feasibility assessment in a series of case studies across the EU. The AFI approach was able to measure significant differences in environmental status between farms that participated in an AES and nonparticipants. Wider environmental concerns, beyond the scheme objectives, were also considered in some case studies and the benefits for identification of unintentional (and often beneficial) impacts of AESs are presented. The participatory approach to AES valuation proved efficient in different environments and administrative contexts. The approach proved to be appropriate for environmental evaluation of complex agri-environment systems and can complement any evaluation conducted under the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. The applicability of the AFI in routine monitoring of AES impacts and in providing feedback to improve policy design is discussed.