Ilona Rac

Alongside the devolution of decision-making powers to Member States, the latest reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) introduced CAP Strategic Plans to enhance the design and implementation of increasingly complex policy objectives and to reinforce the use of evidence-based policymaking (EBPM). This paper is based on desk research, combining a comparative review of European Union (EU) regulations and programming documents, and insights from the Tools4CAP project, which conducted interviews, surveys, and focus groups across Member States. The gaps in strategic planning are evident in the weak logical connection between individual phases of CSP preparation and the weak evidence-based justification of decisions regarding the selection and design of interventions. Quantitative tools and scientific evidence were underutilised, while political-economy constraints and path dependency dominated decision-making. As a result, CAP Strategic Plans were often developed through a series of disconnected tasks, producing documents with loosely linked sections lacking overall coherence. The upcoming integration of CAP planning into broader National and Regional Partnership Plans may simplify procedures but risks weakening EBPM principles. Systematic integration of science into planning, methodology development, interdisciplinarity, and better communication between researchers and decision-makers are needed to realise the ideal concept of EBPM. Institutional capacities for the use of evidence need to be strengthened, mandatory impact assessments and open data platforms introduced, and dialogue between science and policy enhanced. The limitations include reliance on secondary data and qualitative insights rather than detailed empirical evaluation across all Member States.

This study assesses the process of developing and testing a protocol that integrates a participatory approach for selecting, ranking and assessing ecosystem services (ES), to enhance their integration into the management of protected areas in Slovenia. Through five participatory workshops across ten pilot sites in both protected and non-protected areas, stakeholders have selected and ranked ES relevant to them. In parallel, we developed a typology of (sub)ecosystems and assessed the availability of their geospatial data with a panel of representatives from the participating protected areas and other nature conservation institutions. In assessing ES, we focused on three specific ES: forage provision, pollination and recreation and leisure, which we assessed using different methods. Our findings highlight the critical role of stakeholder involvement in the ES framework, particularly in accurate mapping and assessment processes facilitated by GIS technologies. A comparative analysis of three ES supply revealed generally higher capacities for pollination and recreation and leisure in protected areas, in contrast to provisioning services, such as forage provision, which did not show a similar pattern; however, exceptions were noted. A significant challenge identified was the scarcity of relevant geospatial data, which reduces the potential of generating precise and reliable assessments and maps necessary for uptake into concrete management of protected areas.

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.

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.

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.

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.