Evaluation on the environmental impacts of RDP 2014-2020

• To what extent does the RDP contribute to the CAP's objective of ensuring sustainable management of natural resources and climate action?
• To what extent do RDP interventions support preventing soil erosion and improving soil management?
• To what extent do RDP interventions support carbon conservation and carbon sequestration in agriculture and forestry?

The main evaluation criterion is effectiveness.

The report combines qualitative and quantitative methods (literature studies, descriptive and comparative analysis, expert panels, descriptive statistics, multivariate statistical analysis, index analysis, trend analysis, counterfactual methods, and spatial analysis).

Regarding limitations, the main challenge was to collect data on soil characteristics, but there were also issues linked to the lack of monitoring data on coal resources stored before the start program and currently, and difficulties in obtaining satellite data due to an insufficient number of cloud-free images.

With regard to the first question, the report concluded:

• The provision of vocational training and skills acquisition on environmental issues, as well as the provision of advisory services on environmental matters, can influence on-farm decision-making to maximise the aid provided under the RDP.
•  Modern machinery allows less fuel per ha and mechanical treatments to replace chemical treatments (e.g., weeders). It is recommended to support the investments that will contribute to the rationalisation of fertilisation and avoidance of emissions / to conservation and sequestration of soil carbon.
• he problem of agricultural drought and related environmental risks has not been sufficiently implemented in the existing RDP measures.
•  It is difficult to assess how LFA support affects climate and resource management, hence it is recommended to consider which scenarios of increasing commitments in LFAs will have measurable environmental effects beyond sustaining the sustainability of agricultural production, including a scenario of discontinuing LFA support in lowland areas.
• The panel experts recommended a slight increase in the level of implementation of the Organic Farming measure. However, the results of the counterfactual analysis indicate that the implementation of the measure may have a negative impact on soils.
• The results of the analysis of agricultural emissions at the national level still indicate a small but steady trend of increasing emissions. The scale of climate impacts should be increased to reduce agricultural emissions by expanding the area of agricultural land on which rational fertilisation practices are applied.

Concerning the second research question:

• It is observed that there is no relation between the location of the Protection of Soils and Waters and Sustainable Agriculture measures with the occurrence of intensified water erosion processes in the mountains and foothills and their concentration in some locations.
• There is a suspicion of insufficient knowledge of the principles of anti-erosion management among farmers. It is advisable to scale up the dissemination of knowledge on anti-erosion management practices and training/advice to show the benefits of proper soil management.
• The counterfactual analysis did not confirm the net effect of Soil and Water Conservation, Sustainable Agriculture and LFA measures, indicating a negative net impact of Organic Farming implementation consisting of a reduction in soil carbon levels and an increase in erosion.
• It is difficult to assess how LFA support affects soils. Counterfactual analysis indicated a downward trend in the country concerning soil pH and carbon and assimilable phosphorus stocks, and did not confirm the net effects of the LFA measure.
• The panel experts recommended a slight increase in the level of implementation of the Organic Farming measure. However, the results of the counterfactual analysis indicate that the measure may have a negative impact on soils.
• Counterfactual analysis indicated mixed net effects of nature packages, consisting of a reduction in erosion and nutrient levels.

Concerning the third question:

• The share of new forests and afforested areas is minimal in the structure of the UAA, and, as a result, Objective 5E is inadequately implemented. There are more than two million hectares of undeclared land in the country that could be afforested. This is not happening due to several reasons, for example, the need to maintain the forest after the end of the commitment. In particular, afforestation is hardly carried out in the surroundings of large cities, as land there is treated as a capital investment.