In this study, we explored the potential of the payment-by-results approach in supporting the maintenance of High Nature Value (HNV) grasslands in a typical HNV farming system and Natura 2000 site in ...Slovenia (Europe) with a high share of small farms, fragmented land ownership and long-term process of land abandonment. We tested the applicability of a hypothetical result-based scheme (RBS) for the conservation of dry grasslands and a set of associated plant indicators, and identified key obstacles to its implementation. Based on a statistical analysis of a survey with 263 farmers and a thematic data analysis of 62 farmer interviews and 10 in-depth interviews and focus groups with researchers, public officials and agricultural advisors, we found that a majority of both farmers and experts support the introduction of RBSs. The selected plant indicators were well-known among the local farmers and monitoring of their presence was preferred over the current system, which demands keeping records on the implementation of farming practices. However, although the RBSs seem to be a superior alternative to the current management-based schemes, their introduction might not be enough to ensure HNV farming systems’ successful conservation. Our results indicate a lack of institutional capacity to implement RBSs on a larger scale, particularly in terms of data support and qualified staff in the advisory service and monitoring agencies. Furthermore, experience to date and mistrust among stakeholders indicate a questionable ability and motivation of authorities to develop locally-based, flexible and innovative agri-environmental measures. RBSs alone also do not adequately address some of the root causes for the disappearance of HNV grasslands, particularly: the lack of knowledge regarding the appropriate modern farming system(s) to ensure their sustainable management in line with conservation goals; specific needs of small farmers; and the need for a socially acceptable land policy reform to enable easier access to land. We argue that systematic investment in closing the existing data and research gaps as well as in increasing the capacity of key institutions at the national and local levels are needed, particularly in European regions of high conservation priority. Furthermore, better integration of nature conservation in different rural policies and a holistic developmental approach in (remote) rural areas are necessary to prevent further abandonment of HNV farming and enable the adoption of biodiversity-friendly farming models.
•A result-based scheme for Eastern sub-Mediterranean dry grasslands was developed.•Farmers recognised plant indicators well and most supported introduction of RBSs.•Lack of institutional capacity may hamper large scale implementation of RBSs.•AEMs alone are not enough to reverse the abandonment of HNV farming systems.•RBSs do not seem better suited than existing AEMs to address needs of small farmers.
The European Union's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has not halted farmland biodiversity loss. The CAP post‐2023 has a new ‘‘Green Architecture,’’ including the new ‘‘Eco‐scheme’’ instrument. How ...can this new Green Architecture help tackle the biodiversity crisis? Through 13 workshops and an online survey, over 300 experts from 23 European Member States addressed this question.
From experts’ contributions, key principles for success include preserving and restoring (semi)natural elements and extensive grasslands; improving spatial planning and landscape‐scale implementation, including through collective actions; implementing result‐based approaches; and improved knowledge exchange. To maximize the effectiveness of Eco‐scheme for biodiversity, experts highlighted the need to prioritize evidence‐based actions, allocate a sufficient budget for biodiversity, and incentivize management improvements through higher payment levels. Additionally, stronger coherence is needed among CAP instruments.
For effective CAP implementation, the European Commission and the Member States should expand investments in biodiversity monitoring, knowledge transfer, and capacity‐building within relevant institutions. The remaining risks in the CAP's ability to reverse the loss of farmland biodiversity still require better design, closer monitoring, greater transparency, and better engagement with farmers. Additionally, greater involvement of scientists is needed to guide the CAP toward restoring farmland biodiversity while accounting for synergies and trade‐offs with other objectives.
Aim of study: The paper explores whether the legislative proposal for the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) after 2021 and the novelty of comprehensive strategic planning at Member State (MS) level ...can bring about a greener, more multifunctional policy paradigm. While existing research has explored long-term policy change over the entire decision-making process, this study aims to demonstrate the usefulness of conducting policy analysis at the inception of the legislative procedure.Area of study: The study applies to the European Union.Material and methods: The research employs a qualitative method of policy analysis, using a combination of three theoretical frameworks – social learning, path dependency and intergovernmentalism. Extensive document analysis and in-depth interviews were applied to evaluate the proposed reform and gauge the responses of key interest groups.Main results: The proposal holds potential for a substantial overall greening of the policy but will be strongly dependent on implementation at the MS level; the institutional framework provides space for increased environmental ambition, but does not guarantee it, as the proposed safeguards are too weak.Research highlights: More accountability is required during the formulation and implementation of Strategic Plans. Due to strong elements of path dependency and intergovernmentalism, an overall paradigm shift at EU level is unlikely. Strengthening the role of MSs is weakening the commonality of the policy that guarantees at least minimal environmental standards.
The main research challenge of this paper is to gain a better understanding of collective action to preserve High Nature Value (HNV) farming in the specific setting of post-transitional EU Member ...States of Central and Eastern Europe, which we explore using Slovenia as a model country. We apply the Social-ecological Systems (SES) framework and combine participatory and action research in considering different options for stimulating collective action of local actors in three social-ecological systems in Slovenia. We describe the systems, focussing on first-tier variables, and provide a comparison of their characteristics influencing the readiness to engage in collective action. Characteristics of system actors had the greatest influence on outcomes, followed by the social, economic and political setting (macro issues) and governance arrangements. Strong leaders enjoying the community’s trust are needed; rules must be transparent and individuals must have a personal interest to engage in cooperation. In a post-transitional setting, overcoming the issue of lack of trust is a limiting factor when attempting to stimulate collective action.
The Latest Common Agricultural Policy reform intends to expand and strengthen environmental and social support and to liberalise the delivery model carried out through strategic planning. This paper ...aims to assess the potential impacts of the new CAP reform on the main agricultural markets in Croatia. The impact assessment is analysed using the AGMEMOD model where, in addition to the baseline scenario, three scenarios of potential changes are developed and compared to the baseline. Changes in market patterns (production, yield and net trade) at the end of the simulated period are compared with the baseline scenario results by 2030. The reduction in support levels to production, abolishment of voluntary coupled supports and introduction of additional environmental constraints have a significant impact on the main Croatian agricultural markets. Crop markets prov to be less dependent on subsidies, so that market pattern changes will not mean the loss of Croatia’s net export status for soft wheat, maize and soy beans, while barley no longer holds this status. Livestock sectors, especially beef and dairy, in addition to demonstrating a distinct lack of competitiveness even before the Croatian accession to the EU, additionally suffer significant production volume losses along with an increase in imports. Although significant, changes to the Croatian agricultural market are not dramatic enough to cause a complete production breakdown by 2030.
Summary
Extending strategic planning to the full range of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) interventions could improve the impacts of this controversial public policy. Science, particularly ...agricultural economics, can play a role in improving the quality of planning and implementation of a reformed CAP. The preparation of Member States' Strategic Plans (SP) is rather formalistic, while the plans are not very rigorously designed. A major weakness is related to the CAP's political‐economic characteristics and lies in the selection and definition of interventions: financially strong but poorly targeted interventions tend to be pre‐fixed, which prevents a stronger focus on the results and quality of planning. The intervention logic functions as a black box, as the links between policy priorities and interventions are merely implied, with no clear, evidence‐based links. Therefore, European decision makers should re‐examine the concept of CAP SP and especially improve a support system and capacity building for SP designers. Greater involvement of academic research and scientific methods and tools in the preparation, monitoring and evaluation of plans, could significantly improve the quality of planning. This would require increased investment in research and dialogue among representatives of academia, government and the nongovernmental sector.
L'extension de la planification stratégique à l'ensemble des domaines d'intervention de la politique agricole commune (PAC) pourrait améliorer les impacts de cette politique publique controversée. La science, en particulier l'économie agricole, peut jouer un rôle dans l'amélioration de la qualité de la planification et de la mise en œuvre d'une PAC réformée. La préparation des plans stratégiques (PS) des États membres est plutôt formaliste, tandis que les plans ne sont pas conçus de manière très rigoureuse. Une faiblesse majeure est liée aux caractéristiques politico‐économiques de la PAC et réside dans la sélection et la définition des mesures d'intervention : celles qui sont financièrement solides mais mal ciblées ont tendance à être déterminées à l'avance, ce qui empêche de se concentrer davantage sur les résultats et la qualité de la planification. La logique d'intervention fonctionne comme une boîte noire car les liens entre les priorités pour les politiques et les interventions sont simplement implicites, sans liens qui soient clairs et fondés sur des preuves. Par conséquent, les décideurs européens devraient réexaminer le concept de plans stratégiques pour la PAC et améliorer un système de soutien et de renforcement des capacités pour les concepteurs de ces plans en particulier. Une plus grande implication de la recherche universitaire et des méthodes et outils scientifiques dans la préparation, le suivi et l'évaluation des plans pourrait améliorer considérablement la qualité de la planification. Cela nécessiterait un investissement accru dans la recherche et le dialogue entre les représentants du milieu universitaire, du gouvernement et du secteur non gouvernemental.
Die Ausweitung der strategischen Planung auf alle Maßnahmen der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik (GAP) könnte die Auswirkungen dieser umstrittenen öffentlichen Politik verbessern. Wissenschaft, insbesondere die Agrarökonomie, kann eine Rolle bei der Verbesserung der Qualität der Planung und Umsetzung einer reformierten GAP spielen. Die Ausarbeitung der Strategischen Pläne (SP) der Mitgliedstaaten ist eher formalisiert, und die Pläne sind nicht sehr konsequent ausgestaltet. Ein großer Schwachpunkt hängt mit den politisch‐ökonomischen Merkmalen der GAP zusammen und liegt in der Auswahl und Definition der Maßnahmen: Finanzkräftige, aber wenig zielgerichtete Interventionen werden tendenziell im Voraus festgelegt. Das verhindert jedoch eine stärkere Konzentration auf die Ergebnisse und die Qualität der Planung. Die Interventionslogik funktioniert wie eine Blackbox, da die Zusammenhänge zwischen den politischen Prioritäten und den Interventionen nur angedeutet werden, ohne einen klaren evidenzbasierten Bezug. Daher sollten die Verantwortlichen in Europa das Konzept der GAP‐SP überdenken. Sie sollten dabei das Beihilfesystem und den Aufbau von Kapazitäten für SP‐Designerinnen und Designer bei der Ausgestaltung der SPs verbessern. Die Einbeziehung der Forschung und wissenschaftlicher Methoden bei der Vorbereitung, Überwachung und Bewertung von Plänen könnte die Qualität der Planung deutlich erhöhen. Dies würde vermehrte Investitionen in die Forschung und den Dialog zwischen Wissenschaft, Regierung und den nichtstaatlichen Sektoren voraussetzen.
The European Union’s common agricultural policy (CAP), in addition to its primary production and farm income goals, is a large source of funding for environmentally friendly agricultural practices. ...However, its schemes have variable success and uptake across member states (MS) and regions. This study tries to explain these differences by demonstrating differences between policy levels in the understanding of the relationship between nature and farming. To compare constructs and values of the respective policy communities, their discursive construction as it appears in the main strategic EU and MS agricultural policy documents is analysed. The theoretical framework integrates elements from existing frameworks of CAP and environmental discourse analysis; specific agri-environmental discourses, their elements and interplay, are identified. The six discourses suggested here are ‘Productivism’, ‘Classical neoliberal’, ‘Ecological modernisation’, ‘Administrative’, ‘Multifunctionality’ and ‘Radical green’. The discourse analysis of selected documents reveals that there are indeed differences in how farming and the environment are generally conceptualised at different levels of CAP decision-making. At EU level, farming is primarily understood as a sector whose main task is to produce food (‘Productivism’), and the environment is used as a justification for CAP payments (‘Multifunctionality’). At the national/regional level, Rural Development Programmes reflect different value systems: in England, environmental protection is mainly seen as sound management of natural capital (‘Classical neoliberal’); in Finland, a benefit for producers and conscious consumers (‘Ecological modernisation’); in Croatia, a necessity limiting productivity (‘Productivism’) and imposed by an external authority (‘Administrative’ discourse). This diversity shows that differences can visibly manifest despite the Commission constraining the discursive space, helping to explain the differential implementation and success of environmental measures.
External shocks and policy spillovers have facilitated a gradual shift away from the exceptionalism (exclusive role of agricultural interests) in the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). This article ...argues that post-Lisbon decision-making rules and procedures, against some of the expectations, slowed this process. First, the parallel veto-based negotiations on the bloc's finances gave status quo actors the opportunity to influence the CAP indirectly (by blocking the redistribution of CAP funds) and directly (through package deals). Second, the co-decision procedure allowed the ministers of agriculture and the European Parliament's Committee of agriculture to change the proposals of the more reform-minded Commission more easily. The argument is supported by the case of the CAP 2023-2027 reform, which resulted in limited changes given the Brexit-related cut in CAP funding (external shock) and the inclusion of environmental targets as part of the European Green Deal (policy spillover effects).
•Integration of biodiversity policy into the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy is demonstrated on the case of Slovenia.•Approximately 5% of the annual Slovenian agricultural policy budget was allocated ...to biodiversity conservation in the observed period.•A lack of measurable objectives and performance indicators for policy instruments was identified.•Targeted measures are judged to be only partially effective, and policy only partly successful in meeting biodiversity objectives.•The post-2020 CAP lacks key incentives to stimulate better strategic planning in the EU Member States.
In the European Union (EU), the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is considered to be the critical public policy in terms of both impacts and funds dedicated to nature conservation, yet the goal of halting biodiversity loss in the EU remains elusive. The present paper examines the degree of biodiversity policy integration into the CAP and the quality of policy programming in a selected EU Member State in the 2014–2020 period. We use a heuristic model combining an assessment of biodiversity policy integration and a program theory analysis of the policy’s logic model. In addition, the elaboration of the logic model for other agricultural policy objectives, relevance and potential effects of measures and allocation of budgetary funds are evaluated for comparative purposes.
The program logic model was found to be only loosely defined for most objectives of Slovenian agricultural policy. At the strategic level, the integration of biodiversity policy is limited to instruments that remunerate above-standard farming practices, investments and payments to areas with natural constraints. In contrast, the inclusion and consistency of biodiversity conservation in instruments supporting standard practices (e.g. direct payment schemes) is addressed only to a limited extent. Given their design and implementation, fewer than 10 % of relevant measures were judged to have strong or significant potential effects and will thus probably only partly meet the policy objectives. Finally, biodiversity conservation (estimated 5% of the total agricultural policy budget), as well as other environmental objectives (22–23 %), have a significantly lower priority than income- and production-related objectives (54–60 %).
The future CAP should include adequate safeguards and incentives to improve the quality of programming and integration of biodiversity policy, particularly since an increasing emphasis is given to decision-making at the national level. However, although the post-2020 CAP programming system could, in principle, be seen as a step forward, there remains a high risk of underperformance in the field of biodiversity conservation in the EU Member States.
This article analyses the interactions between agricultural policy measures in the EU and the factors affecting GHG emissions from agriculture on the one hand, and the adaptation of agriculture to ...climate change on the other. To this end, the article uses Slovenia as a case study, assessing the extent to which Slovenian agricultural policy is responding to the challenges of climate change. All agricultural policy measures related to the 2007-2013 programming period were analysed according to a new methodological approach that is based on a qualitative (expert evaluation) and a quantitative (budgetary transfers validation) assessment. A panel of experts reached consensus on the key factors through which individual measures affect climate change, in which direction and how significantly. Data on budgetary funds for each measure were used as weights to assess their relative importance. The results show that there are not many measures in (Slovenian) agricultural policy that are directly aimed at reducing GHG emissions from agriculture or at adaptation to climate change. Nevertheless, most affect climate change, and their impact is far from negligible. Current measures have both positive and negative impacts, but overall the positive impacts prevail. Measures that involve many beneficiaries and more budgetary funds had the strongest impact on aggregate assessments. In light of climate change, agricultural policy should pay more attention to measures that are aimed at raising the efficiency of animal production, as it is the principal source of GHG emissions from agriculture.
Policy relevance
Agricultural policy must respond to climate challenges and climate change impact assessment must be included in the process of forming European agricultural policy. Agricultural policy measures that contribute to the reduction of emissions and adaptation, whilst acting in synergy with other environmental, economic and social goals, should be promoted. The approach used in this study combines qualitative and quantitative data, yielding an objective assessment of the climate impact of agricultural policy measures and providing policy makers with a tool for either ex ante or ex post evaluations of climate-relevant policy measures.
PDF
