IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v14y2024i10p1825-d1500211.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Successes and Failures of the Implementation of the Rural Development Programme 2014–2020 Measure “Agri-Environment and Climate” in Lithuania

Author

Listed:
  • Aistė Galnaitytė

    (Institute of Economics and Rural Development, Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences, A. Vivulskio Str. 4A-13, LT 03220 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Irena Kriščiukaitienė

    (Institute of Economics and Rural Development, Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences, A. Vivulskio Str. 4A-13, LT 03220 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Virginia Namiotko

    (Institute of Economics and Rural Development, Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences, A. Vivulskio Str. 4A-13, LT 03220 Vilnius, Lithuania)

Abstract

The focus on environment and climate-friendly farming is increasingly important in the European Union (EU) Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Activities of the Measure M10 “Agri-environment and Climate” of the Rural Development Programme (RDP) 2014–2020 were those policy instruments that pursued environmental and climate goals over large areas under agricultural activities, but their effectiveness is still being questioned. After evaluating implementation successes and failures of the activities of the Measure M10 “Agri-environment and Climate” of the Lithuanian RDP 2014–2020, we aim to contribute to policy instruments that are better designed, more effective, and more attractive for farmers to achieve environmental and climate goals. This research was conducted in several stages: (1) a thorough analysis of the Measure M10 and its implementation; (2) analysis of the Measure M10 activities’ contribution to the policy target areas; (3) multi-criteria evaluation of the activities; (4) survey of beneficiaries and discussions in the focus groups. The data available from the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Lithuania, Agricultural Data Center, and National Paying Agency under Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Lithuania was used for the analysis. Analysis of the strategic documents and data on the implementation of Measure M10 was supplemented with results from studies focused on the environmental impact of the implementation of Measure M10 in Lithuania. Multi-criteria evaluation methods were used to arrange the activities of the Measure with respect to the selected indicators. The results from the survey of beneficiaries and discussions in the focus groups let us better clarify the motives, experiences, and preferences of farmers’ participation in the activities of Measure M10. The questionnaire was distributed to 2455 beneficiaries through the National Paying Agency and 342 answers were received back, i.e., 13.9%. Five discussions in focus groups, formed from farmers participating and not participating in the activities, representatives of implementing institutions, and employees of consulting and scientific institutions, were organized. The research has revealed areas for improvement in Measure M10, and suggestions for improvement were prepared to better achieve environmental and climate objectives.

Suggested Citation

  • Aistė Galnaitytė & Irena Kriščiukaitienė & Virginia Namiotko, 2024. "Successes and Failures of the Implementation of the Rural Development Programme 2014–2020 Measure “Agri-Environment and Climate” in Lithuania," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-22, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:14:y:2024:i:10:p:1825-:d:1500211
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/14/10/1825/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/14/10/1825/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marianne Lefebvre & Maria Espinosa & Sergio Gomez y Paloma & Maria Luisa Paracchini & Annette Piorr & Ingo Zasada, 2015. "Agricultural landscapes as multi-scale public good and the role of the Common Agricultural Policy," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(12), pages 2088-2112, December.
    2. Riccardo D’Alberto & Matteo Zavalloni & Meri Raggi & Davide Viaggi, 2018. "AES Impact Evaluation With Integrated Farm Data: Combining Statistical Matching and Propensity Score Matching," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-24, November.
    3. Parthena Chatzinikolaou & Davide Viaggi & Meri Raggi, 2018. "Using the Ecosystem Services Framework for Policy Impact Analysis: An Application to the Assessment of the Common Agricultural Policy 2014–2020 in the Province of Ferrara (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-20, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. D'Alberto, Riccardo & Zavalloni, Matteo & Raggi, Meri & Viaggi, Davide, 2021. "A Statistical Matching approach to reproduce the heterogeneity of willingness to pay in benefit transfer," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    2. Bartolini, Fabio & Vergamini, Daniele & Longhitano, Davide & Povellato, Andrea, 2021. "Do differential payments for agri-environment schemes affect the environmental benefits? A case study in the North-Eastern Italy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    3. Yao Zhu & Shousheng Chai & Jieqi Chen & Ian Phau, 2024. "How was rural tourism developed in China? Examining the impact of China’s evolving rural tourism policies," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(11), pages 28945-28969, November.
    4. Heider, Katharina & Quaranta, Emanuele & García Avilés, José María & Rodriguez Lopez, Juan Miguel & Balbo, Andrea L. & Scheffran, Jürgen, 2022. "Reinventing the wheel – The preservation and potential of traditional water wheels in the terraced irrigated landscapes of the Ricote Valley, southeast Spain," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 259(C).
    5. Oriana Gava & Fabio Bartolini & Francesca Venturi & Gianluca Brunori & Angela Zinnai & Alberto Pardossi, 2018. "A Reflection of the Use of the Life Cycle Assessment Tool for Agri-Food Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, December.
    6. van Zanten, Boris T. & Zasada, Ingo & Koetse, Mark J. & Ungaro, Fabrizio & Häfner, Kati & Verburg, Peter H., 2016. "A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 87-98.
    7. Matteo Zavalloni & Meri Raggi & Davide Viaggi, 2016. "Assessing Collective Measures in Rural Policy: The Effect of Minimum Participation Rules on the Distribution of Benefits from Irrigation Infrastructure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-19, December.
    8. Lajos Baráth & Imre Fertő & Štefan Bojnec, 2020. "The Effect of Investment, LFA and Agri‐environmental Subsidies on the Components of Total Factor Productivity: The Case of Slovenian Farms," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 853-876, September.
    9. Mara Balestrieri & Amedeo Ganciu, 2018. "Landscape Changes in Rural Areas: A Focus on Sardinian Territory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, January.
    10. Apostolos G. Papadopoulos, 2015. "The Impact of the CAP on Agriculture and Rural Areas of EU Member States," Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy, Centre for Agrarian Research and Education for South, vol. 4(1), pages 22-53, April.
    11. Bari, MD. Abdul & Khan, Ghulam Dastgir & Katayanagi, Mari & Yoshida, Yuichiro, 2024. "Gender dynamics of the impact of cash transfer on female educational expenditure of informal settlements in Bangladesh," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 34(C).
    12. Thomas Dax & Karin Schroll & Ingrid Machold & Martyna Derszniak-Noirjean & Bernd Schuh & Mailin Gaupp-Berghausen, 2021. "Land Abandonment in Mountain Areas of the EU: An Inevitable Side Effect of Farming Modernization and Neglected Threat to Sustainable Land Use," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-17, June.
    13. Reinhard Uehleke & Heidi Leonhardt & Silke Hüttel, 2024. "Counterfactual evaluation of two Austrian agri‐environmental schemes in 2014–2018," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 55(1), pages 27-40, January.
    14. Javier Castaño & Maria Blanco & Pilar Martinez, 2019. "Reviewing Counterfactual Analyses to Assess Impacts of EU Rural Development Programmes: What Lessons Can Be Learned from the 2007–2013 Ex-Post Evaluations?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-22, February.
    15. Amer Ait Sidhoum & Carolin Canessa & Johannes Sauer, 2023. "Effects of agri‐environment schemes on farm‐level eco‐efficiency measures: Empirical evidence from EU countries," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 551-569, June.
    16. Merari Torreblanca & Flavio Choquehuanca & Javier Martínez & Michael Alfaro, 2024. "Indicators of Cultural Ecosystem Services for Peri-Urban Agricultural and Natural Areas at an Intermediate Scale: A Case Study of Arequipa, Peru," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-24, October.
    17. Cisilino, Federica & Bodini, Antonella & Zanoli, Agostina, 2019. "Rural development programs’ impact on environment: An ex-post evaluation of organic faming," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 454-462.
    18. Markuszewska Iwona, 2019. "Sentimentality versus Transformation of the Historical Traditional Rural Landscape (A Case Study: The Landscape of Dutch Law Settlement in Poland)," Quaestiones Geographicae, Sciendo, vol. 38(1), pages 53-70, March.
    19. Tsakiridis, Andreas & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Ryan, Mary & Cullen, Paula & Ó hUallacháin, Daire & Sheridan, Helen & Stout, Jane, 2022. "Examining the relationship between farmer participation in an agri-environment scheme and the quantity and quality of semi-natural habitats on Irish farms," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    20. Robert Huber & Robert Finger, 2020. "A Meta‐analysis of the Willingness to Pay for Cultural Services from Grasslands in Europe," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(2), pages 357-383, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:14:y:2024:i:10:p:1825-:d:1500211. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.