The proposed Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for the period 2021–2027 will be more flexible and, presumably, more effective. To provide for sufficient ambition and prevent a race to the bottom, national strategic plans will be introduced with quantitative targets covering both policy pillars. This article argues that since formal requirements and the evaluation model are weak on actual long-term impact, substantial improvements are unlikely. To test this, programming rules are experimentally evaluated on the implementation of CAP 2014–2020 in Slovenia. The experiment shows that while measures and resources broadly correspond to policy objectives, the specific relevance of measures is generally weak and has potential effects dispersed among several objectives, resulting in high costs for individual objectives at best. Without the effective inclusion of an impact assessment, the outcome will rely on the capacity and benevolence of national governance systems.

Based on the philosophy of science approach and literature analysis, this contribution demonstrates that over time, the focus of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy research has shifted from market distortions to international trade and budgetary decision-making frameworks, as well as broader societal issues, such as food, environment and development. The array of disciplinary approaches has changed accordingly: from (agricultural) economics towards political and social sciences. Some key gaps in the existing research indicate the limits of overly problem-oriented and partial approaches towards science, calling for inter- and trans-disciplinary work when it comes to indivisible layers of the research object.

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.

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.

Local livestock breeds in Slovenia have been eligible for financial incentives in the form of a fixed payment per livestock unit (LU) since 2002. The scheme has however not been successful in reversing the erosion of animal genetic resources (AnGR). This paper investigates an alternative, whereby incentive payments would better reflect breeders’ actual opportunity costs. The paper contributes to the limited existing body of knowledge related to the use of tender mechanisms in the design of the payments for agrobiodiversity conservation schemes (PACS), particularly for AnGR. Empirical findings draw on the results of a stated preference survey involving 301 farmers in Slovenia, engaging, or being potentially able to engage, in the rearing of local pig, sheep and goat breeds. Interval and logistic regression model results suggest that willingness to accept (WTA) conservation support significantly differs from actual payment levels. The estimated WTA was found to be 27% lower for the local sheep and goat breeds and 5% higher for the local pig breed, suggesting that differentiated incentive payments would provide a more cost-effective alternative. Additional analysis of breeders’ preferences and motives for engaging in local livestock breed production further informs understanding regarding AnGR conservation policy and the importance of accompanying actions to reverse negative population trends. These include reducing administrative barriers and enhancing the market valorisation of local breeds.