Study on soil erosion impacts and soil management, carbon conservation and carbon sequestration in agriculture and forestry 

• 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, an expert panel, descriptive statistics, a multivariate statistical analysis, an index analysis, a trend analysis, counterfactual methods and a spatial analysis).

Regarding limitations, the main challenge was collecting data on soil characteristics, but there was also a lack of monitoring data on coal resources stored before the start of the programme. In addition, it was difficult to obtain satellite data due to an insufficient number of cloud-free images.

With regard to the first question, the report concluded that:

• The provision of vocational training and skills acquisition on environmental issues, as well as advisory services on environmental matters, can influence on-farm decision-making to maximise the aid provided under the RDP.
• Modern machinery uses less fuel per hectare while mechanical treatments replace chemical treatments (e.g. weeders). It is recommended that investments continue to support precise fertilisation, avoiding emissions, and conserving and sequestering soil carbon.
• The existing RDP measures have not sufficiently addressed the problem of agricultural drought and related environmental risks.
• It is difficult to assess how less-favoured areas (LFA) support affects climate and resource management. Therefore, it is recommended to consider scenarios of increasing commitments in LFAs that have measurable environmental effects beyond sustaining sustainable agriculture 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. Still, the results of the counterfactual analysis indicate that the measure's implementation 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. To reduce agricultural emissions, the scale of climate impacts should be increased by expanding the area of agricultural land on which precise fertilisation practices are applied.
• With regard to the second research question:
• There is no relation between the location of the measures that protect soils and waters and sustainable agriculture with the occurrence of intensified water erosion processes in mountains and foothills and their concentration in some areas.
• 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 measures on soil and water conservation, sustainable agriculture, and LFA. It indicated 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. The 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 implementing the organic farming measure. Still, 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.
• With regard to the third question:
• The share of new forests and afforested areas is minimal in the structure of utilised agricultural area, 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.