The main research challenge of this paper is to gain a better understanding of collective action to preserve High Nature Value (HNV) farming in the specific setting of post-transitional EU Member States of Central and Eastern Europe, which we explore using Slovenia as a model country. We apply the Social-ecological Systems (SES) framework and combine participatory and action research in considering different options for stimulating collective action of local actors in three social-ecological systems in Slovenia. We describe the systems, focussing on first-tier variables, and provide a comparison of their characteristics influencing the readiness to engage in collective action. Characteristics of system actors had the greatest influence on outcomes, followed by the social, economic and political setting (macro issues) and governance arrangements. Strong leaders enjoying the community’s trust are needed; rules must be transparent and individuals must have a personal interest to engage in cooperation. In a post-transitional setting, overcoming the issue of lack of trust is a limiting factor when attempting to stimulate collective action.

Social-ecological systems, Post-transitional setting, HNV farming, Conservation, Resource management

Traditional European extensive agricultural systems are not only a source of food and fibre and farmers’ incomes, but also the main reason for the historical development of species-rich semi-natural habitats and cultural landscapes considered to be public goods (Cooper et al. 2009). A substantial proportion of European biodiversity (including domesticated plants and animals) depends on extensive High Nature Value (HNV) farming systems, a concept introduced in the 1990s to describe farming systems associated with high biodiversity and mostly with low chemical inputs and stocking densities (Hoogeveen et al. 2004). These farming systems, which tend to be labour-intensive but create low incomes from the market (O’Rourke and Kramm 2012), are being abandoned across Europe due to either intensification of production or farm abandonment (European Union 2018; Díaz et al. 2016; McGinlay et al. 2017; Sutcliffe et al. 2015; Ustaoglu and Collier 2018). Consequently, there are strong Europe-wide trends of declining farmland biodiversity (European Union 2018; European Commission 2019), farmland abandonment, overgrowth (Perpiña Castillo et al. 2018) resulting in loss of production potential, and depopulation (ESPON 2017). Therefore, the question arises as to how farmers as land managers can be incentivised to continue managing their land in a way that preserves environmental and social benefits, such as farmland biodiversity, cultural landscapes and rural vitality (Dwyer et al. 2018). This paper builds on previous research demonstrating the potential of doing this through improved market valorisation of products stemming from marginal production systems through collective action of smallholders, which helps to reduce transaction costs through resource-pooling (e.g. Kruijssen et al. 2009, Gruère et al. 2009).

Being resource management systems, HNV farming (and agricultural systems in general) can be conceptualised as social-ecological systems (SES) (Ostrom 2007, 2009; McGinnis and Ostrom 2014). This means that we consider them to be an inseparable combination of social and ecological elements. They consist of the human system, i.e. people and their interactions, and the natural system or ecosystem. The main advantage of the SES framework in analysing resource management systems is that it takes into account both of these sub-systems and their interactions. It thus examines systems’ building blocks in order to understand how institutions and people co-produce outcomes in terms of appropriation and governance of natural resources (Schoon and Van der Leeuw 2015). It builds on empirical work on managing common pool resources, as well as research on institutions and collective action (Partelow 2018); although today the framework is viewed more as a diagnostic tool for assessing the sustainability of systems (Ostrom 2009), the aspect of collective action for sustainable resource management remains very relevant.

The basic framework organises SESs into four basic interacting entities or sub-systems: resource units extracted by resource users from a resource system. Resource users determine the maintenance of the resource system according to a certain governance system (rules and procedures) and in the context of ecological systems and broader socio-political-economic settings. The processes of extraction and maintenance represent the most important forms of interactions and outcomes and are located at the centre of the framework (Cumming 2014; McGinnis and Ostrom 2014). One of the framework’s advantages is its flexibility; it has been expanded and applied to numerous different situations in assessing the sustainability of SESs (Partelow 2018). One such expansion of the framework is the conceptualisation of agricultural and forestry systems as not only extractors of biomass, but as systems in which human action and natural processes interact to jointly provide environmental and social services (Dwyer et al. 2018); this application draws on the concepts of ecosystem services (Costanza et al. 1997; Daily 1997) and public goods (Samuelson 1954; Musgrave 1959). It is this conceptualisation that is used in the present paper, applied to HNV farming systems, in which farmers are seen not merely as resource users but as actors interacting with the ecological system to provide certain services that would otherwise not exist, i.e. agricultural landscapes, biodiversity specific to these landscapes and rural vitality.

Post-transitional EU member states have retained relatively large species-rich areas (Sutcliffe et al. 2015; ESPON 2017). Although the threats of future abandonment or intensification are highly likely in these countries, literature on managing common resources and on stimulating collective action here is scarce, as opposed to the rich practical and scientific experience in Western Europe (Sandberg et al. 2013; Mike and Megyesi 2018). However, previous research has shown that trust, social capital and readiness to cooperate (preconditions for collective action) are generally low in post-communist countries, regardless of whether they belonged to the Soviet bloc or the ‘softer’ more market-orientated “socialism” (Estrin 1991; Uvalić 2018) of (ex-)Yugoslavia (e.g. Swain 2000; Murray 2005; Sapsford and Abbott 2006; Lawrence 2008; Scrieciu 2011). In prior research, promoting the sustainable management of biodiversity (specifically in protected areas) in post-communist countries through markets has been explored and shown to be challenging (Otto and Chobotova 2013). However, the potential for stimulating collective action and commercial cooperation is less explored (Scrieciu 2011), although it is particularly pertinent for the same farm structure that is the most relevant for HNV farming (i.e. predominantly low-input, labour-intensive subsistence farming). The main research challenge of this paper is to gain a better understanding of collective action to preserve HNV farming in the specific setting of post-transitional EU Member States of Central and Eastern Europe, taking Slovenia, a former socialist EU Member State with a high proportion of HNV farmland (ARSO 2008), as a model case. Our research question, which asks which are the main factors influencing the willingness and ability of local actors to engage in this kind of collective action, is approached by considering different options for stimulating it in three social-ecological systems in this country.

As many inhabitants of traditional farming landscapes are poor (Fischer et al. 2012) and extensive HNV farming practices are largely being abandoned due to their low profitability (O’Rourke and Kramm 2012), our research explored the possibility of stimulating collective action to engage in a form of improved market valorisation of value-added products from protected areas (in the present case, Landscape parks as defined by the Slovenian Nature Conservation Act, and Natura 2000 areas) and the area of the wider communities in which they are embedded, in order to improve local livelihoods and thus hopefully detract from abandonment or intensification. Namely, previous research shows that it is possible to add value to existing products stemming from HNV farming by better communicating to consumers their provenance, which is becoming increasingly relevant in light of changing consumer preferences (e.g. World Bank 2007; Jarvis et al. 2011; Scrieciu 2011). This potential, if appropriately harnessed, could have wide-ranging implications for the numerous small, semi-subsistence farms in the European Union in general and the Central and Eastern European countries (CEEC) in particular – in 2010, farms smaller than 5 ha represented 67% of all holdings in the EU-27 and this amounted to 78% of farms in New Member States (Davidova et al. 2013).

The paper is organised as follows. Following a description of the methods of analysis, we provide an analytical description of the main elements of each SES, applying the modified framework developed by Dwyer et al. (2018). This is followed by the results of our attempt at stimulating collective action towards improving the valorisation of the products stemming from these systems and a comparison of findings from all three systems. We then discuss our findings against the backdrop of previous research and finish with some concluding thoughts.

The study combined participatory (Cornwall and Jewkes 1995) and action (McIntyre 2007) research, meaning that the research group was actively engaged in attempting to affect the trajectories of the social-ecological systems (Ostrom 2007, 2009; McGinnis and Ostrom 2014). The research mainly took place in the period 9/2015–7/2016, with some information gathered in follow-up interviews in 2018 (for total number and structure of people engaged, see Table 1). Authors conducted coding manually and independently, with regular checking of the coding process to limit potential inconsistencies.

In selecting the cases, we sought areas that are typical cases of HNV farming systems that contain important habitats under the European Union’s Natura 2000 (N2K) network and are currently socially (depopulation, low incomes and educational levels) and/or ecologically (habitat degradation, biodiversity loss) threatened. The three cases were selected to be rounded (geographically, administratively or socially) social-ecological systems, representative of HNV farming systems in different geographical areas and of different sizes and to represent different levels of agricultural management intensity (CS1 – low intensity; CS2 – medium intensity; CS3 – high intensity) and different levels of familiarity with nature conservation in the form of Landscape parks (CS1 – 28 years; CS2 – 13 years; CS3 – not established). Thus, CS1 (Solčavsko) covered agri-forestry in low-intensity systems in a sub-alpine region; CS2 (Goričko) covered medium-intensity subsistence farming in a hilly region; and CS3 (Središče) covered high-intensity farming in river lowlands, adjacent to a riparian forest. Despite the fact that the concept of High Nature Value farming has been around since the 1990s, indicators and monitoring methods are still not fully developed (Lomba et al. 2014, Keenleyside et al. 2014). The only national assessment of HNV farming in Slovenia known to the authors was quite broad-brushed, based on Corine Land Cover and national land use data and estimated 60–80% of utilised agricultural area (UAA) in Slovenia as HNV farmland (ARSO 2008). Since we could not rely exclusively on this assessment, we used the Natura 2000 classification and association with Landscape Parks (defined by the Nature Conservation Act as “area(s) of high quality and long-lasting interconnection of man and nature of great ecological, biological or landscape value”) as indirect indicators that they are indeed associated with high biodiversity, as both systems rely on using expert conservation guidelines and indicator species to merit classification as Natura area/Landscape Park.

We deliberately sought out partners seeking help in stimulating collective action for improved market valorisation in concrete cases – regional developers in CS1, a Landscape Park director in CS2 and a national NGO in CS3. We looked for partners whom we knew to have a good knowledge of local dynamics, as well as a stance that sought to reconcile nature-related considerations with social ones.

The research approach consisted of two parts (see Fig. 2). In the first part, we described the social-ecological systems (Fig. 1), focussing on first-tier variables: actors, resource system, resources (environmental and social services), governance (rules and institutions) and broader macro issues – social, economic and political setting (Table 3). The action situation in our cases is associated with the attempt to stimulate collective action for improved market valorisation (Table 4) and was the focus of the second, action-based part of our research. In describing the variables, we took a broad-brush approach, as the aim of analysis was not to describe every detail, but to understand the functioning of the systems as a whole. Specifically, the focus in this analysis was more on the human aspects of the system than on the physical quantification of resource extraction and service provision, as our aim was to explore the factors influencing the ability and willingness of the systems’ actors (mainly land managers, but depending on the specific context in each case study area; see next section) to engage in collective action. Qualitative methods of analysis are preferable to quantitative ones in cases when understanding of human behaviour is sought, as it allows for the understanding of context and processes (Maxwell 2012), while the relative level of abstraction of the SES framework, which organises elements of systems into variables, still allows for some level of comparison between systems (Partelow 2018).

Figure 1. 

The SES diagram. Source: PEGASUS project, based on McGinnis and Ostrom, 2014.

Figure 2. 

Depiction of the workflow of the research.

The first part of the research was conducted in several steps:

– Initial screening of scientific and grey literature, statistical data and web pages on the case study areas for information on their demographic, economic, geographical, biodiversity-related and agricultural production characteristics, as well as historical development.

– Preparation of preliminary textual descriptions of the basic elements of each SES that were then distilled into tables briefly describing each system’s first-tier variables as listed above.

– Verification at meetings with one or several key informants for each case, whom we knew, based on prior experience (e.g. through preceding project collaboration or the persons’ prominence in certain fields), to be knowledgeable regarding the respective systems. These gatekeepers helped us to improve the descriptions by providing additional information and to assemble a list of the main actors (land managers who are local opinion leaders, municipality officials, tourist operators, advisory service officials, business owners, NGOs – local associations and other locally prominent persons) in each case study who were then invited to participate in a focus group meeting.

– Presentation of the descriptions of each SES and its main elements to focus group participants and gathering of further feedback at meetings. Subsequently, we discussed with each group the possibility of stimulating local collective action that could, in their view, contribute most to improving the valorisation of their products, while preserving HNV farming.

In the second part of the study, we prepared questionnaires for each case, based on the findings of focus groups, and conducted a total of 53 semi-structured interviews with actors (farmers, entrepreneurs, representatives of local non-governmental organisations and advisory services, municipal officials). In these interviews, we checked the readiness for, attitudes towards and obstacles to collective action, whose specific nature differed in each case. The lists of persons to be interviewed were provided by the local gatekeepers, based on their familiarity with their economic activity and willingness to cooperate. Based on the interviews, our research group prepared a proposal for action, which was presented back and discussed in the broader community at a public final event in each case. Based on any new information provided, our own observations and internal discussions, we revised the SES description as needed. Each addition or elimination was discussed and agreed amongst the authors of this paper.

The success of the initiatives to achieve collective action served as an indirect indicator of the sustainability of the three systems. We used a simple three-step scale to assess this success:

1. Unsuccessful: no interest to engage in collective action was found in the community;

2. Partly successful: some interest was stated or demonstrated, but there was no follow-through;

3. Successful: interest was clearly demonstrated and followed by action, whether by building on existing initiatives or initiated by our research.

Table 2 provides an overview of the basic ecological and socio-economic characteristics of the three case studies and of Slovenia as a whole.

Our findings indicate that the most important components of the observed SES influencing sustainable trajectories fall into the categories Actors, Macro issues – Social, Economic and Political Setting, and Governance Systems; the systems of natural resources themselves seemed to be less influential, while the private and public goods (resource units) derived from them appear more as a dependent variable. Below, we discuss the major sets of influential variables.

Generally, it can be said, based on our research, that there is some awareness amongst farmers from HNV farming systems of the importance of valorising products through markets by turning the fact that they provide a socially-desirable service into a marketable trait – an attribute of value-added. On the other hand, the notion of cooperating to achieve market access more easily is not entertained nearly as much as the one that the state ‘ought’ to make this value better recognised somehow (preferably through measures like price control or import charges, supposedly a thing of the past in the EU). While they view that the larger collective must recognise the service that they make to it, they do not – ironically – take the individual responsibility that is required for the success of collective action; in many cases, this may simply be attributed to the farmers’ relatively high age and low levels of education, but it is also a still-pervasive communist mindset, legacy of the communist period (1945–1990, see also Scrieciu 2011).

Some of the mistrust towards collective action, encountered in our case studies, may also be attributable to the anomalies and controversy occurring during the process of privatisation of socially-owned property (Lorenčič 2016) and which still plagues the Slovenian media space today. By contrast, the relative success of our research group as representatives of a respectable institution in functioning as a cohesive element (granting credibility to the initiatives; cf. Lawrence 2008) suggest the possibility that, in communities where trust is low, external institutional support may be an appropriate interim way of stimulating collective action. This includes policy measures, of which the Rural Development Policy (RDP) measure applied to by the Wood initiative is an apt example.

Our research confirmed the importance of leaders that was found in previous similar studies on community resource management conducted in Western contexts (e.g. Olsson et al. 2004; Folke et al. 2005); interestingly, this issue does not seem to have received as much attention in literature focussing on community-based resource management in the CEEC, with the exception of Mike and Megyesi (2018), who highlight the presence of a leader as an important determinant of success in Common Pool Resource (CPR) management. However, the presence or absence of leaders is a factor that is particularly difficult to influence.

HNV farming ecosystems are complex SESs in which the private and the public intersect. While they can be considered as private resource management systems, there is also a distinctive element of commonality in them, as they collectively provide a number of public goods to society, necessitating collective action to ensure their future sustainable provision. Thus, the problem with which we are faced in managing them is somewhat different from the classical conceptualisation of SESs as (collectively) managed systems of resource abstraction. Dwyer et al.’s (2018) modification of the framework that conceptualises agri-food systems as joint providers of environmental and social services (benefits) has proven its utility in our analysis of such systems.

While HNV farming systems that are declining due to intensification are somewhat more straightforward in that ensuring their sustainability ‘only’ demands limiting the overuse of resources, systems declining due to abandonment are not ‘solved’ as easily. Here, the interplay of the social and ecological elements of the systems comes readily to the forefront, as the desired outcomes would not be produced by either sub-system alone. This aspect also confirms the appropriateness of adopting an SES-based approach to analysis.

Admittedly, the definition of a sustainable SES and desirable outcomes is value-laden. It is precisely values that offer themselves as an obvious factor determining system trajectories. In addition to determining our definition of what constitutes a sustainable system (i.e. one that preserves wild and man-made biodiversity, cultural landscapes and sustains rural communities), the internalisation of common values is a precondition for collective action (Wright 2009). Perhaps the transition from communism to capitalism as a transition between value systems (Musek 1997) helps to explain why collective action seems difficult to achieve. We conjecture that, given the facts that Slovenia is amongst the westernmost of the post-communist countries that remained closest to the West-European value circle (ibid.) and was a constituent of (ex-)Yugoslavia with its market socialism (Estrin 1991), its transition should also be easiest; this may mean that other post-communist countries may experience difficulty in achieving sustainable resource management through market-based collective action for even longer. Historical context will, in our view, likely play an important role in the specific developments in each country (cf. Tickle and Clarke 2000; Scrieciu 2011).

Moreover, there is a more current transition between clashing value systems that is particularly visible in agriculture, namely that of farmers adhering to the productivist credo and environmentalists (cf. Burton and Wilson 2006). This is not simply a clash of ideologies; to many farmers, these changing societal values represent a threat to their livelihoods; the natural response of numerous, especially older farmers, is indignation.

Turning to the limitations of our study, the fact that many of the variables described are unmeasurable represented a serious research obstacle. While it is true that the primary intent of our study was not to exactly measure all SES elements, but to understand the system and its interactions, the lack of quantifiable variables makes comparison between the physical elements of different systems difficult. The second drawback of our research is its relatively short time span and definition of the ‘success’ of the action situation (i.e. stimulating collective action); truly observing the system and its dynamics would undoubtedly require longitudinal research.

Preserving HNV farming plays an important role in conserving biodiversity. This paper attempts to address the gap related to sustainable resource management that exists in the commons literature in the CEEC by exploring ways to motivate land managers to engage in collective action that would enable them to receive remuneration for their provision of public goods through the market.

We used the Social-ecological systems framework to describe the observed systems and approached our comparative analysis in two steps; in the first, we described the systems’ main variables, while in the second, we attempted to actively influence their trajectories. This was done in cooperation with local actors. We found that the characteristics of system actors had the greatest influence on outcomes, while wider social, economic and political influences are those that are pushing the systems out of balance in the first place, but are also providing new opportunities.

While we have attempted to provide a cross-case synthesis, it is clear that it is very difficult to construct a single success formula, as every system is different; however, we can conclude that it seems necessary that a strong leader (or leaders) is present who enjoys the community’s trust; rules must be transparent and individuals must have a personal interest to engage in cooperation. Considering the post-transitional settings, overcoming the issue of lack of trust was certainly the limiting factor in all cases when attempting to stimulate collective action. Despite increasing amounts of policy support, this rather unfavourable setting is unlikely to be conducive to large-scale shifts towards environmentally-conscious collective market action; rather, what we are more likely to witness in the foreseeable future are individual success stories.

The research described in this paper was partly conducted under the EU Horizon 2020 project PEGASUS – Public Ecosystem Goods and Services from land management – Unlocking the Synergies, under grant agreement No 633814.