Innovation Gaps and Barriers in Alternative Innovative Solutions for Sustainable High Nature Value Grasslands. Evidence from Romania

Abstract

Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) proposes environmental policies developed around action-based conservation measures supported by agri-environment schemes (AES). High Nature Value (HNV) farming represents a combination of low-intensity and mosaic practices mostly developed in agricultural marginalized rural areas which sustain rich biodiversity. Being threatened by intensification and abandonment, such farming practices were supported in the last CAP periods by targeted AES. This study aims to identify the most important farming trends in a recognized HNV grasslands Romanian site, subject to public conservation actions. The content analysis of multi-actor focus groups transcripts identifies innovation needs for alternative sustainable HNV farming systems, assessing also the most important barriers for their local deployment. Results show that stakeholders have strong awareness about the existence of HNV farming practices in their territory and their negative trends (abandonment; intensification) that might irreversibly affect biodiversity and cultural values. Current AES could not compensate for the existing innovation gaps. Although local stakeholders have basic awareness about alternative innovative approaches, they failed in their deployment mainly due to the lack of collective actions. Access to adapted knowledge reservoirs and the promotion of local innovation catalyzers are essential for the future sustainability of HNV farming practices.

1. Introduction

The High Nature Value farmlands (HNVf) design European areas “where agriculture is a major (usually the dominant) land use and where agriculture supports, or is associated with, either a high species and habitat diversity or the presence of species of European conservation concern, or both” [1] (p. 4). Currently, approximately 30% of the European Union (EU) used agricultural area (UAA) is recognized as HNVf [2]. It is represented by grasslands, arable lands, permanent croplands, or a mosaic of diverse systems usually managed with low-input farming techniques [3].

The HNV areas were recognized relatively recently in the EU (since the 1990s) [4], together with the acknowledgment of the negative effects caused by the intensification of the agricultural practices on ecosystem services and environment [5]. It was also proved that HNV farming provides a wide diversity of ecosystem services such as: high-quality food and maintenance of local genetic resources, environmental goods (e.g., soil quality, pollination, water purification, biodiversity etc.), cultural services (e.g., heritage, recreation, ecotourism etc.) [6,7]. However, the HNV areas are presently threatened by intensification and abandonment leading to possible irreversible negative effects on biodiversity in the long-term [8,9,10].

The need for appropriate management strategies in these sensitive areas is recognized to be one of the key elements for the success of the EU environmental policy [11]. Partnerships developed at local level between farmers, local communities, authorities, and other stakeholders directly involved in the management process are beneficial for both farm economic viability and the conservation status of the site [12]. Moreover, there is a strong demand for better understanding of the HNV farming systems in terms of socio-economic characteristics, simultaneously identifying the motivation of different stakeholders as a prerequisite for designing successful sustainable public policies [13].

The HNV grassland farming is a low-intensity production system that mostly uses semi-natural forage for livestock feeding. Such systems are usually developed in marginal agricultural areas where the socio-agronomic factors prevent farming intensification [14]. Currently, at the EU level, there is a lack of deep understanding concerning the possible alternative transition pathways of these systems from undesirable negative trends (abandonment or intensification) to sustainability [13]. In recent decades, there are several attempts to identify and better describe innovation examples that showed practical positive outcomes for the HNVf sustainability [15,16]. However, little is done to our knowledge in order to better understand the existing barriers that condition the facile deployment of such innovations at local levels.

In this context, the paper aims to assess the main innovation needs for a sustainable HNV farming system based on the deep understanding of the awareness and knowledge of the local stakeholders in a recognized Natura 2000 site from Romania. To achieve this aim, several objectives were set: (1) to assess the level of knowledge and awareness regarding the HNV farming practices among local actors in order to identify the most important trends for such farming practices while also taking into account current EU agricultural policies and the main important socio-economic local drivers; (2) to reveal and briefly describe any possible local innovations already developed in practice together with the main innovation needs for sustainable HNV farming practices; (3) to evaluate the local stakeholders awareness and access to alternative innovation examples in order to identify the most important enabling deployment conditions for such alternative approaches.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Agri-Environment Schemes in EU and Romania

In recent decades, EU agricultural policies have undergone an important process of reforms that aimed to stir farmers toward better environmentally friendly farming techniques. The 1992 CAP MacSharry reforms introduced the obligation of the Member States (MS) to use agri-environment schemes that sustain “ways of using agricultural land which are compatible with the protection and improvement of the environment, the countryside, the landscape, natural resources, soil and genetic diversity” [17] (p. 5). Starting with the 2003 CAP’s midterm review, all direct payments were subject to cross-compliance rules [18]. Farmers must respect minimum agri-environment rules controlled by each Member State in the frame of good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAECs) as a prerequisite to receive direct payments. Also, a set of 13 statutory management requirements (SMRs) established minimum rules in environment, food safety, animal and plant health, and animal welfare. The SMRs represented the main legislative framework created to maintain or to bring into favorable conservation status a list of natural and semi-natural habitats [19]. They are characterized by the presence of specific habitat types or species listed in the Birds and Habitats Directives [20]. Thus, each Member State defined such sites of community interests (SCIs) that became part of the Natura 2000 network [21,22]. Today, the network represents around 17.5% of the EU territory [23].

There are considerable overlaps between HNVf and the Natura 2000 network areas. Nevertheless, important parts of the HNVf territory remain outside the Natura 2000 network. The connection between the two approaches is represented by the farming practices in use. Once the traditional agricultural practices are threatened, the conservation management activities of both types of areas are being affected, sometime in irreversible ways [12]. Most of the territory covered by the Natura 2000 network/HNVf is eligible for different types of AES. These types of payments were reinforced in the last two CAP programming periods (2007 to 2013; 2014 to 2020) becoming one of the most important policy instruments to orientate farmers toward conservation farming practices [24]. More freedom was also left to the national authorities in their implementation at national level, with varying level of payments and minimum farm management requirements [3]. One of the AES applied at a large scale in the EU is rewarding farmers that applied action-based measures which aim to conserve the rich biodiversity of the HNV grasslands.

In Romania, an important part of the used agricultural area became eligible for such AES. Between 2014 and 2020 approximately two million hectares were recognized in the National Rural Development Program as HNV meadows eligible for such payments, covering approximately 51.4% of the Romanian Natura 2000 territory [25]. Approximately 565 thousand hectares of the permanent meadows became eligible for an AES designed for birds (Crex crex, Lanius minor, and Falco vespertinus) and respectively 23 thousand hectares for butterflies conservation. The minimum action-based measures assumed by farmers over a five-year contract are [26]: (1) HNV meadows (90 EUR/Ha/year): the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides is prohibited; traditional use of natural manure is allowed up to the equivalent of maximum 40 kg N active substance/Ha; mowing can start only after first of July (for grasslands located above 600 m altitude) or after the 15th of June (altitude below 600 m); grazing allowed with a maximum of one livestock unit (LSU) per hectare; (2) Meadows for bird/butterfly conservation (261 EUR/Ha/year): mowing only after the 31st of July and no later than the 15th of October; grazing with a maximum of 0.7 LSU per hectare; mechanized works allowed only with light machineries.

2.2. Innovation and Farm Sustainability

Scholars and practitioners worldwide recognize that the efficiency of agricultural activity can be increased through innovations [27]. It is worth mentioning that innovation does not always involve an invention, it can be the result of information and knowledge used in a useful and new way, of minor or major improvements related to product, process, marketing, or organizational practices in a specific territory [28,29]. Moreover, innovations are recognized as main facilitators of agriculture due to the success in higher productivity and quality of agricultural products [28].

Farmers are one of the main sources of innovation in agriculture [30,31], the innovations resulting from the need to find sustainable alternative solutions at farm level or for various problems faced by local communities.

However, the successful deployment of innovations depends on the degree of involvement of all actors [28], the exchange of ideas and experiences contributing to the economic sustainability of farms [32]. Stakeholder participation in agriculture policy decision-making process is recognized as fundamental for developing and implementing programs that respond to the local needs [33]. The importance of involving all stakeholders is also noted in the evaluation report of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy which states that innovation is essential to meet important environmental targets, also underlined by the EU Green Deal [34]. Still, little is known about how local stakeholders were involved in this process and how several groups of stakeholders collaborated for the previous and current CAP [35].

Practice proves that collaboration among farmers and other stakeholders is crucial for the success of agri-environment conservation programs [36]. Farmers’ inclusion in the design of AES should be encouraged [37] even though many are reluctant or lack self-empowerment [35].

Innovations can support sustainability [38]. This is also the case of HNVf, where the need for innovation was emphasized by the HNV EIP Agri Focus Group that identified four interdependent innovation areas as potentially promoting sustainable HNV systems: social and institutional; regulatory framework and policy; products and market; farm techniques and management [13]. According to Beaufoy [39] (p. 4) “HNV innovation” is a “change in the social, institutional, regulatory, market or farming approach that makes it more able to conserve the HNV farming and its characteristics” generating at the same time self-sufficient incomes for farmers and rural communities. Innovation should respond to the current needs of farmers and of local communities, thus the participation of various local actors in the identification of innovation gaps is crucial [40]. However, in practice, little is known about the stakeholder perception related to the main gaps existing in the above-mentioned innovation areas and about the barriers that prevent innovation deployment at local level.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Site Description

Dealurile Clujului Est study area is situated in the middle of the Romanian historical region of Transylvania. Administratively, it is divided into eight communes located near Cluj-Napoca city, the second biggest Romanian city in terms of population. Agriculture plays an important role. The communities located in the peri-urban area (Apahida, Bonțida, Chinteni, and Jucu) have more agricultural land resources (Table 1). The remote communes (Borșa, Dăbâca, Panticeu, and Vultureni) have more forestry and permanent meadows and pastures areas.

Table 1. Key statistics for the study area (in 2018).

Commune		Area (Ha) (1)	Population (Number) (2)	Arable Land % in (1)	Meadows and Pastures % in (1)	Natura 2000		HNVf
						Area % in (1)	Population % in (2)	Area % in (1)	Population % in (2)
Peri-urban	Apahida	10,602	10,685	39	32	4	2	0	0
	Bonțida *	8038	4856	42	35	10	35	35	100
	Chinteni	9651	3065	41	33	52	84	0	0
	Jucu	8513	4270	40	36	13	10	0	0
Remote	Borșa *	6162	1600	59	32	74	100	32	100
	Dăbâca *	5025	1543	33	39	34	100	39	100
	Panticeu *	9030	1844	25	42	13	13	42	100
	Vultureni **	7112	1516	28	33	57	58	33	100
Total		64,133	29,379	38	35	29	14	20	65

Note: Calculation based on data provided by Romanian National Institute of Statistics [41]. * Communes eligible for the AES—HNV meadows and pastures important for butterflies conservation; ** Communes eligible for the AES—HNV meadows and pastures.

Table 1. Key statistics for the study area (in 2018).

Commune		Area (Ha) (1)	Population (Number) (2)	Arable Land % in (1)	Meadows and Pastures % in (1)	Natura 2000		HNVf
						Area % in (1)	Population % in (2)	Area % in (1)	Population % in (2)
Peri-urban	Apahida	10,602	10,685	39	32	4	2	0	0
	Bonțida *	8038	4856	42	35	10	35	35	100
	Chinteni	9651	3065	41	33	52	84	0	0
	Jucu	8513	4270	40	36	13	10	0	0
Remote	Borșa *	6162	1600	59	32	74	100	32	100
	Dăbâca *	5025	1543	33	39	34	100	39	100
	Panticeu *	9030	1844	25	42	13	13	42	100
	Vultureni **	7112	1516	28	33	57	58	33	100
Total		64,133	29,379	38	35	29	14	20	65

Note: Calculation based on data provided by Romanian National Institute of Statistics [41]. * Communes eligible for the AES—HNV meadows and pastures important for butterflies conservation; ** Communes eligible for the AES—HNV meadows and pastures.

A Natura 2000 site (code ROSCI0295 in natura2000.eea.europa.eu) is at the core of the study area, unique due to the presence of the populations of four endangered Maculinea butterfly species on the permanent semi-natural grasslands. This landscape is probably unique in Europe at present. It is a mosaic of parcels that are farmed using different agricultural techniques and at different times of the year. Some parcels are still manually mowed, and others are used only for summer grazing. Due to such farming techniques, the xero-mesophilic grasslands on a basic substrate hold the “world record” in terms of the number of plant species per surface unit (0.1 square meters and respectively 10 square meters) [42]. Although the Natura 2000 site area is present in all eight communes, the AES distribution has high inconsistencies between communes. Some of them are eligible for an AES designed to support the conservation of Maculinea butterflies (Borșa, Bonțida, Dăbâca, and Panticeu). One commune is eligible only for the HNV meadows (Vultureni) while the others have no access to any type of AES (Table 1).

3.2. Data Collection and Analysis

Data was collected through the focus group technique, within the framework of HNV-Link H2020 thematic network project (http://www.hnvlink.eu/ (accessed on 15 January 2021)). The focus groups (FG) research is a qualitative technique that uses a “carefully planned series of discussions in a permissive, nonthreatening environment” [43] (p. 26). Such meetings involve between five and up to 12 people [44] that are not necessarily a representative sample for a specific population [45]. Bigger groups are criticized because they have the tendency to fragment [43]. In discussions no longer than two hours [46], the group can provide qualitative data about their attitudes toward a concept, product, or idea [47]. Participants might have contrasting views about the topic in discussion [48]. Compared to other methodologies (surveys or interviews) the FG research has some extrinsic advantages such as high speed and the reduced costs for data collection [49]. Other merits refer to the possibility to include an increased number of participants in the study [43], to obtain valuable qualitative data from group interaction or to create the feeling of a safe environment favorable for sharing information between participants [50]. In recent years, the FG was extensively used in conservation research because it can better reveal the stakeholders’ perceptions and their socio-cultural backgrounds that are essential in the decision-making process on natural resources [51]. On the other hand, statistical extrapolation is not possible in the FG research, but it can reveal important principles or patterns that can be generalized [52]. Other drawbacks refer to an increased risk of moderator bias in group interaction [53] and the reduced data availability on per-stakeholder basis [54]. In our case, the FGs were built to provide answers regarding the current and possible future sustainability trends of the HNV systems from the villages located in the Natura 2000 site Dealurile Clujului East identifying at the same time the main innovation gaps for sustainable HNV farming systems in the region. It also targets small and medium-size individual farmers who are reluctant to share information over direct interviews; that creates difficulties for statistical representativeness as it also was acknowledged in other previous studies [55].

The data collection involved two steps. First, one FG meeting was organized in all eight communes (Apahida, Bonțida, Borșa, Chinteni, Dăbâca, Jucu, Panticeu and Vultureni) between January and May 2017. They involved 90 participants, including 70 farmers (the smallest group of eight participants was in Apahida commune and the biggest one with 12 people in Bonțida commune) (Step 1 in Figure 1). One of the key issues for the success of the FGs is to have sufficient diversity in the group to encourage discussions and at the same time not to be too heterogeneous such as to avoid conflicts [56]. Thus, in each commune, a multi-actor focus group was created. They were composed of NGO’s representatives, researchers, administration workers, local leaders (priests, educators, doctors), Local Action Group members, advisors, farmers, and farmers’ representatives. As suggested by Rabiee [45], the participants in the FGs were selected based on the principle that they had something to say regarding the HNV farming system in the region. A desk review using the on-line search engines was used to identify the stakeholders that are active at the local level. Farmers were identified based on data collected from the local town-halls. In each group, farmers represented at least one third of the group. Emails and phone invitations were sent to all selected participants communicating the discussion topic, the venue, and the hours for the meetings. Each meeting was conducted by a moderator who used open-ended questions arranged in a logical sequence in a predetermined interview guide. The questions were phrased such as to be easy to understand and logical to the participants as suggested by Barbour and Morgan [56]. Each discussion lasted on average for about two hours. At the beginning of the meetings, the moderator presented the main goals of the FGs followed by a presentation of all participants. The introduction into the subject was done with two initiation questions (Q1 and Q2 in Figure 1), followed by a clarification of the meaning of the HNV farming system and the HNV innovations to avoid the possible insecurity of the participants as suggested by Fischer and Young [57]. Following, four questions were discussed for a better understanding of the current innovations’ status in the territory and to identify possible HNV innovation gaps (Q3 to Q6 in Figure 1). The eight FGs meetings focused on understanding the feelings and the comments of the participants without necessary reaching a consensus. The main answers were recorded on a standard written sheet by one designated team member. Also, the sessions were sound recorded, and the transcripts were used afterwards to complete the in situ answers based on the text analysis.

Step 2 (Figure 1) served to validate the main important patterns identified in Step 1 and to describe innovation needs and existing alternative examples together with their deployment barriers. It involved the organization of a final FG, in June 2017 in Bonțida commune. The 24 participants coming from all communes were divided into three working groups. The moderator firstly presented the main important patterns identified in Step 1 and initiated discussions at group level. Possible trends of the HNV farming were discussed in a status quo scenario (no change) based on Q7 (Figure 1). Furthermore, alternative HNV innovations were discussed around the four themes [13]: social and institutional; regulatory framework and policy; products and market; farm techniques and management. For this purpose, Q8 (Figure 1) was addressed. All discussions were typed-recorded using standard sheets. A reporter devoted to each group presented the main gaps acknowledged and the awareness related to alternative innovation examples. These were further debated by all participants until consensus was reached as regards to the ranking of the main three gaps within each dimension, existing alternative innovation examples and the main important barriers to their use in the region.

Findings from these meetings were reported in a Regional Meeting organized in May 2018 as part of the Agraria Fair, the biggest agricultural fair in Romania. There were 76 registered participants from the study area and invited speakers from the EU EIP Agri, Romanian Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Environment, local administration representatives, NGOs, and farmers associations.

The text transcripts and the sound recordings were analyzed using content analysis methodology [58,59,60]. We implement here a deductive analysis of innovation needs and gaps assessment using the typology proposed by the EIP Agri Focus Group on HNV farming in identifying HNV innovations [13]: social and institutional; regulatory framework and policy; products and market; farm techniques and management innovations.

4. Results

4.1. Knowledge and Awareness Regarding the HNV Farming Resources

The focus groups participants organized in Step 1 were grouped by main activity (farming or non-farming) and geographical position (remote or peri-urban communes) (

Table 2. Category of participants.

Category	Sub-Category/Communes	All Communes (n = 90)		Remote Communes (n = 55)		Peri-Urban Communes (n = 35)
		N	%	N	%	N	%
All (n = 90)	Farmer	70	77.8	45	64.3	25	35.7
	Non-farmer	20	22.2	10	50.0	10	50.0
Farmer (n = 70)	Farmer entitled for CAP payments	35	50.0	21	60.0	14	40.0
	Farmer not entitled for CAP payments	35	50.0	24	68.6	11	31.4
Non-farmer (n = 20)	Employee at city hall/ local administrative structure/Local Action Group	12	60.0	5	41.7	7	58.3
	Other (veterinary doctor, member of NGOs etc.)	8	40.0	5	62.5	3	37.5

). Most were farmers (77.8%), half being entitled for CAP payments (bigger than minimum eligible threshold CAP size of 1 Ha/farm).

Most stakeholders stated that they are familiar with the HNV concept and that they are aware of the HNV farming practices existing in their communes (

Table 3. Knowledge regarding the HNV farming in Dealurile Clujului Est (%).

		All Communes (n = 90)	Communes (n = 90)		Farmers (n = 70)
			Remote (n = 55)	Peri-Urban (n = 35)	Remote (n = 45)	Peri-Urban (n = 25)
Knowledge of HNV farming concept	Yes	77.8	74.5	82.9	80.0	80.0
	No	22.2	25.5	17.1	20.0	20.0
Awareness of HNV resources in the communes	Yes	73.3	74.5	71.4	80.0	68.0
	No	26.7	25.5	28.6	20.0	32.0

). However, in the remote areas, farmers seem to be better informed than non-farmers, as about 80% claimed that they have heard about the HNV farming concept.

4.2. Current Situation in the Study Area

Understanding the current situation in the study area is crucial for an accurate identification of the HNV farming trend and innovation gaps. The analysis was conducted on the four innovation dimensions: social and institutional; regulatory framework and policy; products and market; farm techniques and management based on the focus groups organized in Step 1.

4.2.1. Social and Institutional

Several institutional developments were identified in the region:

(1)

Farmers’ associations and cooperatives. Several initiatives were developed in the sheep breeding and cow milk sector. Mostly, they have policy purposes, giving medium-size farmers (above 15 milking cow heads and 50 mother sheep) access to different types of direct CAP payments and agri-environment measures that are conditioned by membership in an association. The farmers continue to be divided between small associative initiatives and they do not work together, especially when buying inputs and selling outputs. One cooperative from the dairy cow sector collects and transforms the milk. It is also a member of a regional agro-cluster which gives them access to the local market. Subsistence and semi-subsistence farmers (less than 3 LSU) were not involved in such initiatives, thus almost disappearing in recent years.

(2)

Environmental NGOs become very active in the region lobbing for the conservation of the existing rich biodiversity. They push for the national recognition of the Natura 2000 site (Dealurile Clujului Est) and the implementation of a special grassland AES (meadow important for Maculinea butterflies conservation).

(3)

Advice organizations and local administrative units are in charge: to implement the CAP measures at the local level (through a local government payment agency); and to guide and advise the rural dwellers through a small network of private advisors targeting mostly the large farms (through Local Action Groups activity).

4.2.2. Regulatory Framework and Policy

After 2014, some communes (Borșa, Dăbâca, Bonțida, and Panticeu) have become eligible for the AES—meadows important for butterflies’ conservation. Another one (Vultureni) is entitled for the AES—High Nature Value meadows while others (Chinteni) have no such policy incentive. Moreover, the minimum farming management requirements vary greatly in these AES, referring to: livestock unit density per hectare (0.7 LSU/Ha in the butterflies schemes versus 1 LSU/Ha for HNV grasslands); accepted management farming practices (mowing after 15 of July versus 25 of August). This territorial inconsistency has caused significant discontent from farmers. The transcripts showed that these AESs are perceived by farmers unattractive due to the high bureaucratic burden multiplied by the lack of existing information and advice. Compared to the minimum agri-environment payments conditions, the Natura 2000 site management plan is asking for much more complex farming management practices. The requirements are differentiated by the type of protected habitats. Thus, a farmer must apply different management conditions in the same farm depending on the type of habitat. It was noticed a latent conflict between environmentalists and farmers, the latter arguing that they were not properly consulted in the process of designing the Natura 2000 site management plan and that there are no specific Natura 2000 payments.

4.2.3. Products and Market

HNV farming in the region is linked with the seminatural grasslands (meadows and pastures). The main products obtained from HNV farms are represented by milk and meat (cow and sheep). They are mainly sold as raw materials to intermediaries and processors without being properly differentiated from other similar products when selling to the final consumer. The local cooperatives and the regional agro-cluster targeted only the farms bigger than a certain minimum threshold level (15 milking cows and 50 mother sheep). Moreover, due to the existing lack of customer awareness, there were not any local HNV brands. Thus, the products are sold as raw materials with low added value. Besides, the small-size farmers mostly sell their raw products on the gray market.

4.2.4. Farming Techniques and Management

The most important trends identified consist of:

(1)

Sharp reduction in the number of animals farmed by the family households. Common summer grazing for the common land almost disappeared in recent years.

(2)

The permanent pastures and meadows are used by specialized sheep farms. The national CAP implementation and the sanitary-veterinary burdens favored the development of these types of agribusiness to the detriment of traditional cow breeders. These farms are mainly owned by capital coming from outside the rural communities. There has been a deterioration of low intensive traditional grazing systems where the necessary winter fodder is mainly obtained by manual mowing of natural meadows.

4.3. Trends in the Study Area

Discussions at the beginning of the focus group organized in Step 2 aimed to find out the opinion of participants regarding the main current and future trends of HNVf in the study area. They are summarized as follows:

(1)

The arable land is currently consolidated into farms with capital coming mainly from outside the rural communities. Such farms intensify the agricultural technologies on relatively large scales (around 300 Ha/farm). Large areas of monoculture could be observed, especially for corn and/or sunflower, in low fertile areas.

(2)

Near the communes, the traditional households still cultivate small plots of arable land in the traditional system. Most of the agricultural land located outside the villages was mainly leased or sold to the newcomers.

(3)

The permanent grasslands also underwent important changes. Hay mowing for winter fodder becomes an exception in recent years. The land is used mainly on a lease basis and the plot areas are often below the 0.3 Ha threshold, which does not make them eligible for subsidies (direct payments or agri-environment payments). The ownership structure of these land areas has not been clarified even after almost 30 years since the change of ownership (post 1989 communist regime).

Thus, the foundation of existing local biodiversity (low intensive agricultural practices; traditional agriculture; manual seminatural grasslands mowing, etc.) is currently threatened by the pressure of the common market and the possibility of obtaining higher incomes outside the community. As such, many of the households that still function will act in the next period either in the direction of intensification or in the direction of abandonment.

4.4. Innovation Gaps and Needs for Sustainable HNV Farming Systems

Transcripts from Step 1 were used to identify keywords for each of the four innovation dimensions related to the HNV farming sustainability, for further investigations conducted within Step 2. In the ‘products and market’ domain, the main gaps are represented by the need to transform the HNV farming products (cow, sheep milk and meat) into high added value final products, followed by market access and income diversification (

Table 4. Innovation gaps and needs within the studied area.

Innovation Dimensions	Gaps *	Innovation Needs and Awareness for Alternative Examples	Barriers
Products and markets	1. Added value products 1	Small-scale processing facilities; Product differentiation; Certification of PDO, PGI, TSG products	Sanitary-veterinary regulations; Branding; Financial resources; Knowledge
	2. Market access 1	Direct sales; Internet sales; Cooperation and association;	Marketing knowledge; Mistrust
	3. Income diversification 1	Ecotourism and Cyclotourism; Off farm small industry;	Accommodation facilities; Information
	Other: Market knowledge 2; Access to funding for small farms 2	Lack of innovation awareness	Lack of innovation awareness
Social and institutional	1. Appropriate knowledge and entrepreneurial skills 1	Advisory services ;Knowledge resources; Training programs;	Access; Low financial capacity; Distance; Poor internet connection;
	2. Innovation catalysts 1	Community innovation catalysts;	Long-term involvement; Lack of trust
	3. Poor local infrastructure and low living standards 1	Investment programs	Low local governmental administrative capacity
	Other: Population aging 1; Lack of qualified labor force 2; Labor force availability 2	Support young people	Higher incomes outside the region; Access and low financial capacity
Farm techniques and management	1. Machines and technologies adapted to HNV production needs (meadow mowing and hay harvesting; milk processing facilities etc.) 1	Mowing equipment/methods to reduce working load. Processing capacities adapted to the sanitary-veterinary requirements and to the farmers’ needs	Availability; Financial resources; Sanitary-veterinary regulations
	2. Meadows and pasture management (lower hay production; time consumption) 1	Shrubs management; Increase productivity and maintain high biodiversity status; Grazing management practices; Natura 2000 and the HNV agri-environment payments management needs;	Lack of innovation awareness
	3. Breeding management 1	Manure management-personal or community manure platforms; Feed management; Milk quality management;	Financial resources
	Other: Farm structure (small households with small plots in the HNV areas and large-size farms in the fertile arable land regions)	Lack of innovation awareness	Lack of innovation awareness
Regulatory framework and policy	1. Land ownership 1	Land cadastre	Financial resources; Unclear landowners legal status;
	2. Access to CAP measures	Fair distribution of direct payments (small versus large farms); Just compensatory agri-environement payments; Natura 2000 payments;	Eligibility criteria (size; co-financing needs etc.); Land cadastre; Bureaucracy; Information and knowledge
	3. Collaboration with the local state institutions: Sanitary Veterinary; CAP payment agencies; municipalities; LAGs; NGOs 2	Lack of innovation awareness	Lack of innovation awareness

Note: Gaps are listed according to the fiche; ¹ Keywords identified in Step 1 focus groups; ² Additional gaps identified in Step 2; * Ranking established in Step 2 based on common consent.

). Participants have general knowledge about products and market innovations employed in other similar regions (processing capacities; product differentiation; ecotourism). Moreover, some medium and large-size farmers located in the studied area are members in a cooperative specialized in milk processing. Also, some participants recalled the case of a local biofarm that uses alternative ways of distribution via online platforms (i.e., home delivery). However, a combination between the high sanitary-veterinary bureaucratic burdens, the lack of appropriate knowledge and access to investments funding prevent their deployment in the study area.

The main innovation gaps for the ‘social and institutional’ dimension are the lack of appropriate knowledge and low entrepreneurial skills of the local stakeholders. Also, the need for innovation catalysts that can act as innovation brokers at the local level on the long run was pointed out to be another key local need. Some participants raised the issues of population aging and the need for a specialized work force, mainly caused by net migration toward urban areas. The participants have information about social innovations deployed in other Romanian regions, especially by innovation brokers. There was discussion around two social innovations promoted by ADEPT NGO [61] or a farmer association that developed the ‘Telemea de Ibanesti’ PDO [62]. The main barriers to implement such innovative alternatives are represented by the lack of trust between the members of the communities, their low financial capabilities and long-term community engagement. The low administrative capacity of the local authorities may explain the existing poor infrastructure quality.

The ‘farm techniques and management’ domain exposed the lack of customized machines and technologies to the specific HNV farming needs and the AES requirements. The participants also acknowledge the need for better pasture and meadows use and manure management. They have only partial examples of innovations that can respond to their technological needs. Thus, an innovation example refers to the efficient use of some light mowing machinery as an alternative way to the traditional manual work. It proved not to harm the butterfly communities [63]. However, for key environmental issues like pasture and manure management, innovative alternative knowledge is currently missing.

Within the ‘regulatory framework and policy’, participants agreed on the important drawbacks as land ownership structure and the difficult access to different direct and agri-environment payments, especially for small-size farms. Compared to other regions, there are some locally developed innovations such as the AES for butterfly conservation and the management plan for the Natura 2000 site. The agri-environment package was created exclusively for the Maculinea sp. conservation [64]. Also, the management plan of Natura 2000 site Dealurile Clujului Est includes specific measures for conservation [65]. The land ownership structure and the need to better understand the management requirements of the CAP agri-environment measures and the Natura 2000 management plan are important barriers for the successful regulatory framework.

5. Discussion

5.1. Reflection on the Level of Knowledge and Awareness Regarding the HNV Farming

The need to raise awareness for the HNV farming among farmers and other stakeholders involved in the production chain was acknowledged among scholars as being a very important prerequisite for the sustainability of these farming systems immediately after European policy makers included it as a priority in the rural development CAP pillar [66,67,68]. In this study, it was found that local stakeholders from a well-recognized Romanian Natura 2000 site have knowledge about the existence of the HNVf resources in their communes and about their cultural and environmental values (Table 2). However, the sustainability of HNV farming resources depends not only on the level of knowledge and awareness of the local stakeholders, but also on their engagement in the agricultural chain and on the capacity to valorize its values on the market [3]. These become a challenge considering that farmers’ efforts to maintain HNV farming resources are hardly recognized [69]. Besides, in the same study area, scholars [70] have previously shown that biodiversity and HNV farming resources are not well valorized in the actual market value chain.

5.2. Reflection on the Needs to Foster the Sustainability of HNV Farmland

The sustainability of HNV farmland is equally important for the local communities and for the entire society due to its important cultural and environmental values [71]. For the next decades, the European Union established ambitious targets to tackle important environmental and climate challenges through the European Green Deal [72]. High Nature Value farming sustainability and the conservation of protected areas through the Natura 2000 sites are essential components of the EU Biodiversity Strategy [73].

Local stakeholders acknowledge that on the medium- and long-term, the HNV farming systems are threatened by abandonment and intensification. This is divergent with the existing main CAP environmental objectives. The process of abandonment of the marginal areas and the concentration in more favorable areas were also identified as trends in other HNV territories [4,74,75]. In the studied area, the negative effects of land abandonment and intensification on the biodiversity were also identified by Craioveanu et al. [63].

The investigation on the four innovation dimensions offers a detailed insight into the most important issues to be addressed in the future to foster the sustainability of such HNV grasslands farming systems. Regarding ‘products and markets’ innovations, the focus groups participants acknowledge the local incapacity to properly transform the HNVf resources into sustainable income sources as the main important sustainability gap. There is a need for small-tailored processing capacities, local brands linked to the unique HNV farming values and appropriate access to markets. The lack of capacity to obtain sufficient incomes in HNV areas was also pointed by Bernués et al. [74] in other HNV areas. Public societal recognition of HNV farming products plays a significant role in this process and may be attained by revealing their societal benefits through promotion and marketing activities to increase the level of consumer awareness of the direct and indirect benefits of HNV farming products [76]. Products’ certification may contribute to the economic stability of the farm, prevent land abandonment and intensification [77,78].

The abandonment of traditional farming practices in the study area is explained mainly by the availability of labor force needed in manual grass mowing and its high financial costs, similar to other studies [79,80]. Also, abandonment is explained by the access to target technical innovation. The HNV farming practices need individual [81] or collective [82] niche cross-sectorial technical innovations that are not promoted by the main producers of agricultural technologies due to their relatively restrained market share as compared with intensification techniques that target large farms as the main market stream [83].

The innovation gaps within the ‘social and institutional’ domain reveal the need for a better information and knowledge system to face the economic pressures and to prevent the migration of young generations. Low incomes encourage the exodus of young people toward more developed communities [75,84,85]. The participants proved to have awareness about alternative innovative solutions for their most important needs, but they are missing the abilities and skills to put them into practice. Shortcomings such as knowledge and entrepreneurial abilities were also pointed out in previous studies as essential to foster the local economic vitality [86]. Nevertheless, the discussion about alternative innovative solutions reveals the need to promote the innovation catalysts development that can provide access to appropriate knowledge needs (NGO, farmer associations, research institution etc.). Thus, sustainability of such fragile systems can be achieved only in a long period of time that can allow local communities to slowly engage in projects that can prove tangible economic benefits [87]. Innovation brokers that are currently missing in the region, play a pivotal role to give access to knowledge reservoirs as also pointed out in other studies [88,89].

Farmer participants are willing to cooperate, whereas non-farmer participants are willing to support such associations. The participants are aware that such entities can contribute to the sustainability of the HNV farming system by improving the access to inputs and markets as also proved by previous studies [90]. They are reluctant to association mainly due to their high mistrust toward their counterparts as also pointed out by [91].

The analysis of the innovation gaps linked to ‘regulatory framework and policy’ indicates that the current public policies need further adjustments to meet farmers and societal expectations. Especially the small-size farmers argue that they are penalized through the CAP eligibility criteria when applying for payments (plot minimum size of 0.3 Ha). Other previous studies have shown that the current disparities in the subsidy allocation between different farm sizes represent important drawbacks for current EU agricultural policies [92]. The traditional farming techniques based on low-input capital and the extensively labor use were observed to be rapidly abandoned in the study area, although the CAP AES tried to compensate farmers for their extra costs linked especially to the manual grass mowing. In some studies, it was argued that conservation measures based on AES can contribute to the survival of such farming practices [93], but our evidence suggests that the economic drivers acting outside the rural communities such as alternative higher urban income are far too important. In some cases, the current AES do not entirely compensate farmers for their productivity losses when applying the management conservation measures as pointed out in other previous studies [94]. Low-hay production and the expensive manual working costs together with their unavailability push farmers not to be interested by such compensation measures. Some participants argued that they do not have knowledge about the management practices imposed through the agri-environmental measures and the management plan of the Natura 2000 site. The lack of appropriate information at the farmer level together with the high administrative bureaucratic burdens are key aspects that must be solved by future CAP policy reforms to increase the impact of such measures as also pointed out in other previous studies [95,96].

Overall, results suggest that identifying, promoting, and adapting innovations at the local level require the involvement and active participation of all actors interested in ensuring the sustainability of HNV farming. Actions at local level are conditioned by the ability to have access to information presenting innovative sustainable solutions. Even though it is not an easy task, the reality has proved that a strong Agricultural Knowledge and Information System (AKIS) can deliver better outcomes, especially for activities supporting policy targeted to environment and biodiversity (sustainability) results [30]. A public funded Farm Advisory System (FAS) available for the small farmers coming from the remote communes can improve the policy effects [30,97]. This type of advisory system would provide the best support for sustainable HNV farming in the area through the involvement of local stakeholders who represent the key actors as they have the best knowledge and understanding of the local current needs. To obtain better outcomes, it is thus recommended to Member States to create in the future CAP strategic plans (2022–2027) a functional Farm Advisory System (FAS) for these HNVf areas.

6. Conclusions

The present study uses a two-step focus group approach in a recognized HNV grasslands site from Romania to collect data about the level of awareness and knowledge of a multi-actor stakeholder group regarding the HNV farming trends. The qualitative research methodology provides a first look at the key patterns of the access to alternative innovation solutions important for farming sustainability and the existing barriers in their local deployment. As in other similar studies, the data are descriptive in nature, thus statistical extrapolation of the results is not possible [48,57]. However, this limitation can be addressed in future work by using quantitative approaches.

The content analysis of the FG meetings transcripts reveals that there are still important miscorrelations between the current public agricultural policies objectives that established the HNVf conservation among its main objectives and the negative trends of these systems identified in practice. Although local stakeholders have strong awareness concerning the HNVf resources from their communes, AES were implemented to support the conservation of HNV low-intensity meadow farming practices while the territory belongs to a Natura 2000 site, the HNVf still remain threated by intensification and abandonment. The innovation gaps in product and marketing, farm techniques and management, and social and institution farming dimensions explain the lack of positive results achieved by the current public policies. Local stakeholders show awareness about innovative examples that correspond to their main important needs, but they are unsuccessful in their use at the local level. Such alternative examples refer to: small-scale processing facilities and product differentiation for the product and market area; community action programs for the social and institution innovation areas; and machines and technologies adapted to HNV production characteristics. The lack of appropriate knowledge and entrepreneurial skills together with the need for innovation brokers that can gain the trust of the local stakeholders at the community level are one of the most important local barriers. The results obtained within this study are valuable for designing future public policies targeted to maintain low-intensity HNV grasslands farming practices, which are among the EU Biodiversity Strategy targets. The sustainability of HNV grasslands practices should rely on a holistic long-term approach, targeting local innovation barriers from different perspectives (economic; social; technical) that may vary greatly between regions and farming systems. This can be possible only by promoting strong intervention measures that aim to improve the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS) in future CAP strategic plans (2022–2027).