Search

In this perspective analysis, we strive to answer the following question: how can we advance integrative biology research in the 21st century with lessons from animal science? At the University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Animal Science, we share here our three lessons learned in the two decades from 2002 to 2022 that we believe could inform integrative biology, systems science, and animal science scholarship in other countries and geographies. Cultivating multiomics knowledge through a conceptual lens of integrative biology is crucial for life sciences research that can stand the test of diverse biological, clinical, and ecological contexts. Moreover, in an era of the current COVID-19 pandemic, animal nutrition and animal science, and the study of their interactions with human health (and vice versa) through integrative biology approaches hold enormous prospects and significance for systems medicine and ecosystem health.

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.

The goal of this article is to assess the agricultural policies of eight countries from the former Soviet Union. They hold great potential for agricultural production, and some are relatively unanalysed from the point of view of agricultural policy. The analysis was conducted using qualitative and quantitative evidence. The key challenges facing the region are food security and competitiveness. Policy approaches range from strong interventionism to almost complete liberalisation. Budgetary support is relatively low compared to EU and OECD averages. Transfers to producers dominate (especially input subsidies and on-farm investment support) in all countries, and support to rural development and general services is weak. While prices for crops are near world prices, prices for animal products are fairly high in some countries, indicating high developmental needs. It is possible to discern four broad clusters of countries.

Namen prispevka je ovrednotiti upravljanje s krajinskimi značilnostmi v Sloveniji in opredeliti ključne potrebe na področju njihove identifikacije, ukrepov in podpornih sistemov za njihovo ohranjanje. Instrumenti kmetijske politike še ne omogočajo ohranjanja krajinskih značilnosti v zadostni meri in so deloma celo spodbudili njihovo izginjanje. Glavni oviri pri oblikovanju učinkovitejših ukrepov sta pomanjkanje podatkovnih virov in neupravičenost večine krajinskih značilnosti do dohodkovnih podpor. Predlagane izboljšave vključujejo natančnejšo opredelitev krajinskih značilnosti, vključitev v ukrepe z jasno intervencijsko logiko ter okrepitev podatkovnih baz in sistemov spremljanja. Prizadevati si je treba tudi za zapolnitev vrzeli v znanju, ki so povezane s tipologijo krajinskih značilnosti, njihovimi interakcijami s kmetijskimi ekosistemi in pristopi k njihovemu dolgoročnemu ohranjanju. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the management of landscape features in Slovenia and to identify key needs in terms of their identification, measures and support systems for their conservation. Agricultural policy instruments do not yet allow for the preservation of landscape features (LF) to a sufficient extent and have partly also encouraged their removal. The main obstacles to forming effective public interventions to conserve LF are the lack of data sources and ineligibility of most landscape features for income support. Consequently, a more precise definition of LF, incorporation into measures with a clear intervention logic and the strengthening of databases and monitoring systems are needed. Knowledge gaps related to LF typology, their interactions with agricultural ecosystems and approaches to long-term preservation should also be addressed.

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.

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...

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.

More environmentally sensitive management of farmland and forestry is needed in Europe in response to increasing public demand and to meet the requirements of EU legislation for example on biodiversity. However, the provision of environmental and social public goods from farmland and forestry is not increasing at the required pace. A step change in approach is required: the opportunity could be provided by the current debate on adopting a more performance focussed model of the Common Agricultural Policy. Current policy mechanisms, including regulation and a range of incentives to individual farmers, meet part of the need but are not sufficient. Detailed analysis of 34 cases across the EU has convinced us that a new approach based on greater engagement with a wider range of key actors through collective actions could have greater ambition. It could aim for greater scale, longevity and coherence of action across a territory or along a supply chain. Building trust and establishing the right form of governance for highly diverse networks and types of cooperation is vital. Commercial actors in the supply chain could play a larger role. Links between flexible and extended forms of policy support, including for new initiatives, multi‐stakeholder partnerships and projects and for facilitators, will be needed.

There is wide consensus that the agricultural and forestry sectors play an important role in the provision of public benefits. Major changes are envisaged by some in the future developments of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) regarding the provision of these benefits. However, while policy can be a powerful driver for change, it is often not sufficient to trigger action by itself; new approaches are required to increase the engagement and commitment of actors in this field. The PEGASUS project aimed to understand new ways of thinking about the way farmland and forests are managed to stimulate long-lasting improvement in the provision of public benefits in the EU. Since the private sector is already actively involved in securing the provision of public benefits e.g. through premium price mechanisms, this article seeks to outline private sector actions for the more effective provision of public benefits arising from EU farmland and forests. The article suggests a number of approaches to be considered when developing policy that seeks to encourage the involvement of the private sector.