Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-3, 2023, 69–83
WILL FARMERS COOPERATE
TO CONSERVE BIODIVERSITY?
THE USE OF COLLECTIVE BONUS
IN THE HIGH NATURE VALUE
FARMLAND IN SLOVENIA
Tanja Šumrada, Emil Erjavec
Traditional agricultural landscape in Slovenia.
A
N
A
 N
O
V
A
K
63-3_acta49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:21  Page 69
Tanja Šumrada, Emil Erjavec, Will farmers cooperate to conserve biodiversity? The use of collective bonus in the High …
70
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.11015
UDC: 631:502(497.4)
Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Tanja Šumrada1, Emil Erjavec1
Will farmers cooperate to conserve biodiversity? The use of collective bonus in the
High Nature Value farmland in Slovenia
ABSTRACT: Nature conservation in farmland is often based on the wide adoption of suitable farming prac-
tices, which are effectively coordinated at the landscape level. However, more advanced policy approaches
to spatial coordination often require cooperation between farmers. We use quantitative analysis of 521 sur-
veyed farmers and qualitative thematic analysis of 123 interviews in Natura 2000 sites Haloze and Kras
in Slovenia to explore farmers’ preferences towards a collective bonus, which could stimulate higher adop-
tion of grassland conservation schemes. Abandonment of farming, low interest in agri-environmental schemes
and changes in social relations (individualisation of farming and distrust among actors) were identified
as critical barriers to farmer cooperation in the context of agri-environmental policy.
KEY WORDS: agri-environmental measures, collective bonus, spatial coordination, collaboration among
farmers, grassland conservation, Common Agricultural Policy, Slovenia
Ali bodo kmetje sodelovali na področju ohranjanja biodiverzitete? Uporaba
skupinskega bonusa v kmetijski krajini visoke naravne vrednosti v Sloveniji 
POVZETEK: Varstvo narave v kmetijskih ekosistemih pogosto temelji na primernih kmetijskih praksah,
ki se morajo izvajati na velikih površinah in morajo biti učinkovito usklajene na krajinski ravni. Napred-
nejši pristopi politik k prostorskemu usklajevanju zato pogosto zahtevajo sodelovanje med kmetijskimi
gospodarstvi. S kvantitativno analizo 521 anket in kvalitativno tematsko analizo 123 intervjujev na območjih
Natura 2000 v Halozah in na Krasu v Sloveniji smo raziskali preference kmetovalcev do skupinskega bonusa,
ki bi lahko spodbudil večje vključevanje v ukrepe za ohranjanje travišč. Kot ključne ovire za sodelovanje
med kmeti v okviru kmetijsko-okoljske politike smo prepoznali opuščanje kmetovanja, nizek interes za
kmetijsko-okoljske ukrepe in spremembe družbenih odnosov, kot sta individualizacija kmetovanja in neza-
upanje med akterji.
KLJUČNE BESEDE: kmetijsko-okoljski ukrepi, skupinski bonus, prostorska koordinacija, sodelovanje med
kmetovalci, ohranjanje travišč, Skupna kmetijska politika, Slovenija
The article was submitted for publication on July 20th, 2022.
Uredništvo je prejelo prispevek 20. julija 2022.
1 University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical faculty, Ljubljana, Slovenia
tanja.sumrada@bf.uni-lj.si (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1297-9108), emil.erjavec@bf.uni-lj.si
63-3_acta49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:21  Page 70
1 Introduction
Voluntary agri-environmental schemes (hereinafter AES) have been established worldwide to pursue a wide
range of environmental policy objectives, such as reducing erosion, protecting water resources and
biodiversity conservation. Together with regulatory approaches, they remain a fundamental policy approach
for tackling the negative environmental side-effects of food and fibre production (Organisation for
Economic … 2015). In the European Union, AES are implemented as part of the Common Agricultural
Policy (hereinafter CAP) and probably represent the biggest source of conservation funding, often match-
ing or exceeding national budgets for implementing biodiversity policy (Batáry et al. 2015). However, the
conservation and ecological effects of AES have proved to be limited (Kleijn et al. 2006; Gamero et al. 2017;
Šumrada et al. 2021a).
One of the critical drawbacks is that AES are often unable to achieve satisfactory results on the level
of landscapes because the enrolment of farmers might be too low and implementation is limited to several
isolated plots (Franks and Emery 2013). Furthermore, most AES are based on individual contracts with
farmers and thus lack incentives for coordinating their efforts (European Network … 2019). The landscape-
level approach is critical for conserving populations of wildlife species because many require large and
unfragmented areas of suitable habitat. In order to enable species’ movement between such areas, agri-
cultural landscapes also need to retain a network of well-connected ecological corridors (Donaldson et
al. 2017). The latter is particularly relevant in intensively-managed farmland, where structural elements,
such as landscape features, can considerably improve conditions for wildlife when implemented on scales,
which correspond to different species’ ecological needs (Kleijn et al. 2011).
Most farms, especially in the parts of Southern, Central and Eastern Europe, are too small to enable
the ecological connectedness described above (Sutcliffe et al. 2015). Furthermore, their land can be high-
ly fragmented and scattered around the local area due to the historical development of land policy (Jepsen
et al. 2015). Both researchers and governments have thus come up with various modifications of the indi-
vidual-based AES design to promote a landscape-level approach to biodiversity conservation (Šumrada
and Erjavec 2020). In some cases, the managing authority can coordinate farmers’ behaviour simply by
providing enough information and advisory support to encourage sufficient uptake of schemes among the
local farms (Franks and Emery 2013). The managing authority can also offer agglomeration or threshold
(collective) bonuses to the individual payment, which incentivise farmers’ efforts to achieve a common
goal, e.g. sufficiently big and unfragmented patches of suitably-managed habitat (Nguyen et al. 2022).
However, in many cases, the complexity of AES objectives requires the establishment of an institutional
setting, which encourages collaborative management at the local level. Such a setting can involve provid-
ing support to groups of farmers who implement AES collectively via cooperatives or other types of farmer
organisations. Alternatively, third-party organisations, such as conservation NGOs, can be recruited as inter-
mediaries between farmers and policy-makers operating at the central level (Kuhfuss et al. 2019). Most
of these approaches have been tested mainly in theoretical and experimental settings, whereas real-world
applications remain relatively rare (European Network … 2019; Nguyen et al. 2022). To establish an effec-
tive AES design and supporting institutions, it is thus essential to understand if and under what conditions
are farmers willing to participate in coordinated or collaborative efforts for biodiversity conservation.
Research on farmers’ preferences shows that they generally prefer individual agri-environmental con-
tracts over collective commitments (Mamine et al. 2020). However, their resistance to coordinating their
activities with other farmers seems surmountable if an additional (bonus) payment is offered (Kuhfuss et
al. 2016). In fact, a recent review shows that such incentives exhibit high potential for increasing farmer
participation, spatial coordination and environmental effectiveness in the AES (Nguyen et al. 2022). These
results suggest that if farmers recognise tangible benefits through monetary incentives or reduced trans-
action costs, coordinated management can indeed become a viable policy approach (Reed et al. 2014).
However, the success of cooperation efforts can be determined by a number of economic, social, cul-
tural and institutional factors. These include the availability of external support in the form of advice or funding,
the level of trust between actors and shared cultural values on collective working (Kuhfuss et al. 2019). Farmers’
willingness to accept the AES can also be increased by social norms, e.g. if other farmers recommend the
scheme (Villamayor-Tomas, Sagebiel and Olschewski 2019) or have high adoption rates (Chen et al. 2009).
Finally, long-term political support and a stable institutional setting are typically needed to establish coop-
eration at the local level and to enable flexible management of the scheme (Organisation for Economic…2013).
Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-3, 2023
71
63-3_acta49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:21  Page 71
Tanja Šumrada, Emil Erjavec, Will farmers cooperate to conserve biodiversity? The use of collective bonus in the High …
72
This research is a part of a broader study on farmers’ decision-making process and preferences toward
alternative designs of AES for grassland conservation in Slovenia (Šumrada et al. 2022). The study took place
in two Natura 2000 sites in Haloze and Kras, which can be considered typical High Nature Value farmlands
in Slovenia (European Environment Agency 2012). Specific geological, climatic and other factors in both sites
contributed to the development of dry grasslands of high conservation value, which require extensive mana-
gement with late mowing or grazing (Jogan et al. 2004). A targeted AES was introduced in 2009 to incentivise
their conservation (Žvikart 2010). However, the uptake by farmers has been very modest (e.g. in 2019, only
12% of target grassland areas were enrolled in Haloze and 52% in Kras) and thus the scheme did not achieve
its conservation objectives (Kirbiš et al. 2020). Therefore, this study aimed to determine whether a different
design of AES can improve farmers’ willingness to maintain extensive use of dry grasslands.
In this paper, we aim to explore farmers’ preferences towards coordination incentives in the AES and
what would be their most suitable design. Given the lack of experience with AES involving cooperation
in Slovenia, a relatively simple economic incentive in the form of a collective bonus payment, which would
be offered to farmers involved in the coordination efforts (Šumrada and Erjavec 2020), was selected as a suit-
able setting for our discussion with farmers. Furthermore, we explore the critical barriers to cooperation
between farmers in the framework of AES.
2 Methods
2.1 Study sites
Natura 2000 sites in Haloze and Kras are located in the eastern and south-western parts of Slovenia,
respectively (Figure 1). Both research areas are characterised by gradual abandonment of farming in
recent decades, followed by changes in land use and overgrowing with shrubs and forests (Žiberna 2012;
Koper
Zagreb
Trieste
Maribor
Ljubljana
Klagenfurt
Nova Gorica
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
0 10 20 30 405
Kilometers
Scale: 1:1,000,000
Content by: Tanja Šumrada
Map by: Tanja Šumrada
Source: Surveying and Mapping Authority of the Republic of Slovenia
© 2023, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical faculty
Figure 1: Map of Natura 2000 sites Haloze and Kras in Slovenia, where the study took place.
63-3_acta49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:21  Page 72
Kaligarič and Ivajnšič 2014). Based on our own analysis of land use and agricultural policy data, in 2019,
most of the study areas were covered by forest (Kras 61% and Haloze 56%) and a significant share was
covered by agricultural land in various stages of overgrowth (Kras 14% and Haloze 9%). Permanent grass-
land occupied 19% of the area in Kras (11,830 ha) and 24% in Haloze (4,176 ha), whereas permanent crops
(mostly vineyards and orchards) covered further 2% of Kras and 5% of Haloze. There were few arable fields
in both areas (0.8% in Kras and 3% in Haloze). As such, both areas represent a typical structure of land use
types in Slovenia with a relatively high coverage of forests (59% in 2019) and a predominant share of per-
manent grasslands among the agricultural land use types (17%). However, the share of agricultural land in
various stages of overgrowth was considerably higher in both study areas than the Slovenian average (4%).
Similar to many other rural regions in the Central and Eastern Europe (Sutcliffe et al. 2015), struc-
tural changes have been relatively slow in both, Kras and Haloze. To this day, a highly fragmented land
structure has been preserved and small farms predominate. In 2019, there were 1,045 farms in the Natura
2000 site Kras and 977 in the Natura 2000 sites in Haloze. More than half of the farms managed less than
5 ha of agricultural land (Kras 52% and Haloze 59%), and a quarter managed 5 to 10 ha (Kras 26% and
Haloze 25%). Only 4% of farms in Kras can be considered large, since they manage more than 50 ha of
agricultural land, whereas in Haloze such farms account for only 1%. This structure is similar to the over-
all farm size structure in Slovenia, where 59% of farms managed less than 5 ha of land, 23% from 5 to 10 ha
and 17% more than 10 ha of land, according to the data on agriculture, forestry and fishery at the nation-
al Statistical Office (2020; https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatDb/pxweb/sl/30_Okolje/). Statistical data show that
in 2010, two-thirds (66%) of farms in Kras were producing predominately for their own consumption and
almost three-quarters in Haloze (74%).
2.2 Data collection
Interviews with farmers took place in March and April 2019 with the help of six trained interviewers (Figure 2).
The sampling population consisted of all registered farms that regularly submit applications for the CAP
income support and manage at least 0.3 ha of grasslands. We focused on farmers who submit their annu-
al CAP application in the local offices of the public agricultural advisory service in Ptuj and Slovenska Bistrica
Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-3, 2023
73
Figure 2: Face-to-face interviews with farmers during the data collection in the study areas.
TA
N
JA
 Š
U
M
R
A
D
A
63-3_acta49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:21  Page 73
Tanja Šumrada, Emil Erjavec, Will farmers cooperate to conserve biodiversity? The use of collective bonus in the High …
(Haloze), and in Sežana (Kras). There were approximately 680 such farms in Haloze and 650 in Kras. All
farmers, who met the above criteria, were invited to participate in a face-to-face interview. A total of 258
interviews (38%) were conducted in Haloze and 263 (41%) in Kras (Table 1).
Interviews followed a structured questionnaire, which consisted of three parts: (1) knowledge of and
experience with agricultural policy measures and attitudes towards grassland conservation; (2) preferences
regarding possible AES designs; (3) demographics and characteristics of the farm. During the interviews,
we expanded the questionnaire with additional questions whenever possible. This provided us with in-
depth answers and explanations from farmers, which were then the subject of qualitative analysis. Before
the interview, we asked each farmer for permission to record the conversation, to which 347 farmers agreed
(159 in Haloze and 188 in Kras). Before the data collection, we tested the questionnaire by surveying 22
farmers in both research areas.
2.3 Quantitative data analyses
The study of farmers’ preferences towards coordination incentives was centred around two research objec-
tives. In the quantitative analyses, we focused on farmers’ preferences towards the bonus type. The collective
bonus was defined as an additional (top-up) payment to each participating farmer if a targeted extent of
grassland area is enrolled in the scheme in the particular Natura 2000 site. After presenting the concept
of a collective bonus to farmers, we inquired what would be the most suitable conditions for the bonus
activation. We offered two options that theoretically require different levels of direct communication between
farmers: (1) a bonus, which would be paid to farmers when the target area is reached at the level of the
whole Natura 2000 site (hereafter »Natura 2000« bonus), and (2) a bonus, which would be awarded to farms
on a local level (e.g. in a couple of neighbouring villages) when a corresponding share of the Natura 2000
site target area would be reached. We aligned the target area for the »Natura 2000« bonus payment with
conservation objectives determined for each site in the Natura 2000 management programme 2015–2020,
i.e. 1,097 ha for Haloze (26% of registered permanent grasslands) and 2,280 ha (24%) for Kras (Vlada
Republike Slovenije 2015). To determine the influence of the farmers’ views on the feasibility of the »Natura
2000« bonus, we provided farmers with a visual presentation of the Natura 2000 site and asked them how
likely the target would be reached in the study area.
Quantitative data analyses of farmers preferences towards different types of collective bonus and its
feasibility, as well as the potential influence of different socio-economic factors were performed in the STATA
(StataCorp, version 16.1). The homogeneity of the nominal variables was checked with the chi-square test
to compare the samples between the two study areas, previous experience with AEM and farm charac-
teristics. We used one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Bonferroni test to verify the averages
of the numerical variables, describing the socio-economic factors and farm characteristics. The Kruskal-
Wallis test was used as a non-parametric alternative. The latter was also used in the case of ordinal variables
(Acock 2014).
2.4 Qualitative data analyses
The second research objective focused on eliciting the critical barriers to cooperation between farmers in
the agri-environmental policy setting. After listening to all the interview recordings, we selected a total
of 123 interview recordings (61 from Haloze and 62 from Kras), in which farmers gave the most in-depth
additional answers and were, therefore, best suited for qualitative analysis (Table 1). Interviews lasted between
22 and 90 minutes. We read or listened to the recordings several times and encoded relevant segments,
where farmers discussed cooperation, social relations, agri-environmental measures and agricultural and
other development trends in the region. The codes were generated inductively while reading the inter-
views. After several stages of reviewing, the codes in this study were then grouped into topics connected
to preferences towards the bonus type and various barriers to farmer cooperation, including individual-
isation of farming, trust between actors, interest of farmers to enrol in the scheme, farm abandonment,
and land structure and fragmentation (Braun and Clarke 2006). Qualitative analysis was conducted in Atlas.ti
(Cleverbridge, version 8.4).
74
63-3_acta49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:21  Page 74
Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-3, 2023
75
Ta
ble
 1:
 In
ter
vie
we
d f
arm
ers
 an
d t
he
ir c
om
pa
ris
on
 to
 th
e w
ho
le 
far
m
er 
po
pu
lat
ion
 in
 th
e s
tu
dy
 si
tes
 in
 H
alo
ze
 an
d K
ras
 in
 20
19
 (A
EM
 –
 cu
rre
nt
ly 
en
rol
led
 in
 th
e a
gr
i-e
nv
iro
nm
en
tal
 m
ea
su
re,
 H
AB
 –
 cu
rre
nt
ly 
en
rol
led
 in
th
e e
xis
tin
g s
ch
em
e f
or
 gr
as
sla
nd
 co
ns
er
va
tio
n)
 (a
da
pt
ed
 fro
m
 In
teg
rat
ed
 ad
m
ini
str
ati
on
 an
d c
on
tro
l s
ys
tem
 (I
AC
S)
 da
tab
as
e o
f S
lov
en
ia 
an
d o
wn
 re
se
arc
h d
ata
). 
Fa
rm
er 
po
pu
lat
ion
 (n
 =
 2,
02
2)
Su
rve
y s
am
ple
 (n
 =
 52
1)
Qu
ali
tat
ive
 su
b-
sa
m
ple
 (n
 =
 12
3)
%
M
ea
n
SD
Ra
ng
e
%
M
ea
n
SD
Ra
ng
e
%
M
ea
n
SD
Ra
ng
e
Fa
rm
 si
ze
 [h
a]
8.8
16
.28
0.5
–2
71
.7
11
.7
26
.59
1.0
–2
71
.7
19
.0
41
.90
1.5
–2
71
.7
Gr
as
sla
nd
s [
ha
]
6.8
15
.02
0.0
–2
71
.7
9.8
22
.70
0.3
–2
70
.0
16
.9
38
.49
0.3
–2
70
.0
Liv
es
to
ck
 or
 m
ixe
d f
arm
s
63
.2
64
.5
70
.6
Ag
e o
f fa
rm
 ho
lde
r [
yrs
]
59
.5
14
.44
20
–9
8
59
.5
13
.74
20
–9
5
59
.3
13
.76
27
–9
4
Ge
nd
er 
- m
ale
67
.4
67
.4
72
.3
AE
M
16
.5
29
.2
30
.3
HA
B
8.0
15
.2
11
.8
63-3_acta49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:21  Page 75
Tanja Šumrada, Emil Erjavec, Will farmers cooperate to conserve biodiversity? The use of collective bonus in the High …
76
3 Results
3.1 Farmers’ preferences towards the type of bonus
About 40% of respondents opted for the »Natura 2000« bonus, whereas slightly more farmers (43%) believed
it would be better if the bonus was awarded to farms on a local level (Figure 3). Farmers in Kras were
statistically more likely to opt for the »Natura 2000« bonus, whereas in Haloze respondents preferred the
bonus, which would be awarded locally (χ2(2) = 5.99, p = 0.05). No other statistically significant differ-
ences between farmers, e.g. in relation to their farms' size (ANOVA, p = 0.779) or production orientation
(χ2(6) = 7.24, p = 0.300), were detected. However, farmers who chose neither of the available options were,
on average, somewhat older than other respondents (ANOVA, p < 0.05).
The reasons for the farmers’ preference toward different types of bonuses could potentially be attrib-
uted to the disbelief in the feasibility of the biodiversity policy objectives. Therefore, we asked them how
likely they think will the target area be reached at the level of the Natura 2000 sites. Interestingly, farmers
who thought that the target was very likely to be reached more often chose the »Natura 2000« bonus option,
whereas those who were less convinced were more likely to opt for the locally-awarded bonus option
(χ2(4) = 17.71, p < 0.01).
A fifth (21%) of the respondents thought that the target was very likely to be reached and almost half
believed that it was possible (47%) (Figure 4). There were no statistically significant differences between
the study areas (χ2(3) = 2.04, p = 0.564). We also did not detect statistical differences in terms of farmers'
knowledge of agricultural policy (K – W, p = 0.565), previous experience with agri-environmental measures
0
15
20
5
10
25
30
35
40
45
50
If the target area is
reached at the level
of Natura 2000 site.
If several
neighboring farms
reach a local target.
I don't know. Neither.
Haloze 34 9. 44 6. 0 8. 19 8.
Kras 44 5. 40 7. 0 8. 14 1.
Total 39 7. 42 6. 0 8. 16 9.
F
ar
m
er
s
(%
)
Figure 3: Possible collective bonus designs to incentivise coordination and higher participation rates in the AES (Haloze n = 258, Kras n = 253,
Total n = 521).
63-3_acta49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:21  Page 76
(χ2(6) = 6.29, p = 0.392), farm size (ANOVA, p = 0.262) or production orientation (χ2(9) = 4.84, p = 0.848).
Older farmers were more likely to state that the realisation of the target enrolment was unlikely, while younger
farmers tended to be more optimistic (ANOVA, p < 0.001).
3.2 Critical barriers to farmer cooperation
In farmers’ opinion, the key barriers to establishing cooperation with their peers in the AES are the abandonment
of farming and rural depopulation (Table 2). In the study areas, both processes might indeed considerably influ-
ence the potential for coordinating activities because farmers pointed out that they have often become relatively
isolated (e.g. the only farm left in the village). Furthermore, many farmers highlighted the ageing of the farmer
population in this context, which might further limit the acceptance of new policy approaches.
The bonus payment (EUR 40/ha) was estimated as too low to overcome the reasons why existing farmers
do not choose to enrol in the scheme, such as decreased fodder quality due to late mowing and administrative
obligations. It is thus not surprising that when farmers were asked to rank five features of the scheme’s design,
the collective bonus was ranked the lowest (avg=4.22, SD=1.069), whereas the most important features were
the technological conditions for receiving individual payment (avg = 2.25, SD = 1.332), such as the mowing
and grazing regime, and the amount of payment (avg = 2.44, SD = 1.170) (Figure 5). This was followed by
the advisory support (avg = 3.03, SD = 1.120) and the monitoring approach (3.06 place, SD = 1.388).
However, drawbacks to cooperation between farmers can also be traced to lifestyle changes in the agri-
cultural community, where farming is becoming increasingly individualised, and other social factors, such
Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-3, 2023
77
Very likely Maybe Not likely I don't know
18 6. 48 1. 22 9. 10 5.
22 8. 46 4. 19 4. 11 4.
20 7. 47 2. 21 1. 10 9.
0
20
10
30
40
50
60
Haloze
Kras
Total
F
ar
m
er
s
(%
)
Figure 4: Farmers’ assessment of the feasibility of reaching the conservation targets (i.e., extent of grasslands enrolled in the scheme) set for their Natura
2000 site in the Natura 2000 management programme (Haloze n = 258, Kras n = 253, Total n = 521).
63-3_acta49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:21  Page 77
Tanja Šumrada, Emil Erjavec, Will farmers cooperate to conserve biodiversity? The use of collective bonus in the High …
78
0
30
40
10
20
50
60
70
80
90
100
Sh
ar
e
o
f 
ra
n
k
in
gs
(%
)
Rank 5 Rank 4 Rank 3 Rank 2 Rank 1
Scheme
requirements
Annual
payment
Advisory
support
Monitoring
approach
Collective
bonus
Figure 5: Share of farmers’ rankings of the importance of different factors when they consider entering the AES for extensive use of grasslands (rank 1 –
most important, rank 5 – least important) (n = 521).
Table 2: Barriers to cooperation between farmers in the framework of AES for extensive use of grasslands (Haloze n = 61, Kras n = 62).
Barrier to cooperation No. of farmers Example quotes
Farm abandonment 37 (Haloze 14, In my village, for example, I have no neighbouring farm because I am the only one [left]. There’s one
and depopulation Kras 23) [farm] more [in the vicinity], but whether they intend to enrol [in the AES] or not, I don’t know. (Kras,
interview 119)
No one will opt for this [bonus] because there are simply no people left to do it. This is the worst thing
that could happen. Even if someone wanted [to coordinate], he himself now mows [the meadows]
when he has time and when there is suitable weather. /…/ When you get older, you can no longer
enrol [in the AES] because you cannot oblige yourself. But there are no young people [to enrol] either.
(Haloze, interview 19)
Low interest in enrolling 21 (Haloze 9, Everything depends on the presence of animals on the farm. Because most farms are now without 
in the scheme Kras 12) animals and thus not tied to produce fodder, they can delay the mowing date a bit and [consequently]
enter this measure. Now, if the feed quality is also important, then these [conditions of the scheme]
are more difficult to reach. There are few animals in the Kras now. I can’t estimate how many ... I have
no idea. But a young farmer will probably find it easier to get involved than the old one. /.../ However,
I don’t think they will. (Kras, interview 152)
Individualisation 20 (Haloze 12, Yeah, it would be great if [the bonus payment] could be organised locally. It would be a tremendous 
of farming Kras 8) success. But here [in my community], there are primarily winegrowers now. There are also those who
came and moved here. You see them with cattle every now and then. [But] we don’t really know each
other. (Kras, interview 159)
Distrust among farmers 20 (Haloze 4, This [bonus payment] doesn’t seem likely to me at all. It ties you to someone else. Farmer should be 
Kras 16) bound only to himself. /.../ You can’t force someone else to work…and then someone does something
wrong and we’re all in it. /.../ You can only rely on yourself, not on a neighbour or someone else,
because sanctions would be on everyone if one does not adhere to conditions. (Haloze, interview 22)
Land fragmentation 9 (Haloze 2, It’s a little specific here [in Kras], because the plots are very small and fragmented. On average, they 
and small size of farms Kras 7) are only one thousand square meters in size. I don’t even know how many parcels I needed to obtain
to somehow reach [the current size of the farm]. (Kras, interview 131)
63-3_acta49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:21  Page 78
as mistrust between farmers with different production orientations and between »native« farmers and »new-
comers«, who set up farms in the area in recent years (Table 2). When comparing the key barriers between
the study areas, the farmers in Kras more often pointed out mistrust and the problems of farm abandonment
and land fragmentation than in Haloze. By contrast, interviewees in Haloze seemed more often concerned
with the individualisation of farming than in Kras (Table 2).
4 Discussion
In areas with highly fragmented farm structure and small farms struggling to respond to market pressures,
farm economic resilience can be increased through cooperation, which can reduce production costs, improve
market access and reduce transaction costs in obtaining agricultural policy funds (Valentinov 2007). In par-
ticular, if additional incentives are offered to reduce the transaction costs related to communication (Reed
et al., 2014). However, research shows that the decision to cooperate goes beyond economic factors and
is much more complex, because it is heavily influenced by social norms, the ability to develop a shared
understanding and commitment, and contextual factors, such as past experience and governance struc-
tures (Ansell and Gash 2007).
Trust between the prospective collaborators has been consistently emphasised in the literature as a foun-
dation for building cooperation among farmers (Kuhfuss et al. 2019). Trust develops by bridging conflicting
perceptions of risk, which can create new opportunities for future collaboration (Slovenc and Erjavec 2021).
In our study, farmers often highlighted the risk of free-riding, where incompliance with the rules of the
AES by some farmers could potentially affect the whole group (Table 2). Farmers often justified their selec-
tion of the bonus, which would be awarded locally, by referring to this risk since they would have more
control by working with the people they know. This shows a potential for establishing peer-based control,
which is considered important for the success of the collective AES (Prager 2015).
The building of trust in the relationships typically develops over time, so past experience can signif-
icantly influence the success of cooperation attempts (Kuhfuss et al. 2019). In Slovenia, the collapse of the
local agricultural cooperatives due to the loss of Yugoslav markets in the 1990s and further negative expe-
rience with attempts to re-establish them has importantly influenced farmers’ perceptions. Furthermore,
this negative cultural experience seems to have passed on to the next generation of young farmers as well
(Slovenc and Erjavec 2021). Although some references were made to these past events, suggesting simi-
lar experiences in the study areas, farmers in our interviews rarely directly connected this legacy and to
potential cooperation in the agri-environmental context. This is in line with the conclusion of Riley et al.
(2018) that farmer-to-farmer relations are not universal and can differ between farming activities.
However, it should be noted that a collective bonus is a relatively simple policy incentive, so the negative
experience with cooperation, albeit from a different context, might still become relevant in the case of more
complex policy designs, such as a collective AES (Prager 2015).
The development of agriculture in the past decades has significantly influenced farmers’ decision-mak-
ing in other ways as well. Dramatic technological, social and economic changes in rural areas after World
War II significantly changed farmers’ identities and how they cooperate. Agriculture has gradually
changed from a common activity, in which all households in the village participated, to a sector where
only a few (semi-)professional farmers operate. Farming has thus become an increasingly individual endeav-
our (Riley et al. 2018). Farmers in our study have highlighted the same process:
»In our village, the abandonment of animal husbandry and farming began [in Yugoslavia] when [the police
officers] started to punish [local farmers] for leading the cattle over the newly built regional road leading to
the coast. /…/ At that time, about a third [of local inhabitants] abandoned farming. The next third went out
of the business when the local dairy cooperatives disbanded [after Slovenia gained independence in the early
90s]. And the last third disengaged when it was no longer allowed to slaughter the animals at home [due to
the new sanitary rules enforced before Slovenia joined the EU]. Now there is only a couple of farms left in the
village« (interview 65, Kras).
This quotation shows that farmers experienced the sector’s transformation in the last decades as a series
of important structural breaks, which have been closely connected to the abandonment of farming. In the
last decades, the agricultural policy may have further promoted individualisation in agriculture, including
Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-3, 2023
79
63-3_acta49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:21  Page 79
Tanja Šumrada, Emil Erjavec, Will farmers cooperate to conserve biodiversity? The use of collective bonus in the High …
by establishing the agri-environmental measure, where payments are based exclusively on individual
contracts (Riley et al. 2018).
Consequently, farmers in the study areas now rarely communicate with each other, especially with peers
that operate mainly in other agricultural sectors (e.g. winegrowers with cattle breeders) (Table 2). Furthermore,
we noted that there is sometimes a tension between »native« farmers and newcomers, who immigrated
to the area and have begun farming only recently, because these farmers often have different worldviews,
including in the field of environmental protection. Similar tension has been highlighted between conventional
and organic farmers in another Slovenian region Goričko (Slovenc 2019), which has some similar natural
and structural characteristics to agriculture in Haloze, where organic farmers are often newcomers in the
local farming community. Lack of communication, particularly on topics related to agri-environmental
management, and social tensions, which inhibit the establishment of shared visions and trust, have been
highlighted as important factors, which could potentially inhibit farmer cooperation (Riley et al. 2018).
Therefore, some farmers in our study felt that a »Natura 2000« bonus payment would make more sense,
because they believed it would be nearly impossible for them to come to an agreement with their peers at
the local level.
Finally, a critical mass to establish cooperation between farms might be difficult to reach in the study
areas due to the abandonment of farming (Table 2). In the interviews, farmers often pointed out that they
were now the only or one of the few remaining farms in their village, so they did not believe there were
enough peers to communicate with. This obstacle was highlighted more often by respondents from Kras
(Figure 5), which could explain the difference in preferences towards the bonus type between the two areas
in the quantitative part of the survey. This difference could stem from the fact that the farm abandonment
process might be more advanced in the Kras (Kaligarič and Ivajnšič 2014), but this was not possible to
confirm in this study.
However, we can conclude that farm abandonment can play a significant role in the potential for col-
laborative agri-environmental management. This problem has been rarely highlighted in the literature,
which might be connected to the fact that the existing examples of collective action in the AES come almost
exclusively from Western and Central Europe (Prager 2015), where this process might have been less inten-
sive. By contrast, it has already been established that the lack of viable farms on the local level can inhibit
economic cooperation between farmers in Slovenia (Slovenc and Erjavec 2021). As farm abandonment is
a complex issue, involving several other factors and trends, including employment opportunities, popu-
lation density, land structure and intensity of farming (Levers et al. 2018), the AEMs can probably serve
only as one of the several complementary rural and regional development policy instruments (Šumrada
et al. 2021b). Due to lack of research, it is currently not clear if collective or collaborative approaches to
AES can be more effective than the schemes based on individual contracts in reaching agri-environmen-
tal objectives in these areas. However, it would be worth exploring if collective AES could also indirectly
stimulate overall farming activity at the local level (Prager 2015).
5 Conclusion
The implementation of the agri-environmental policy often requires coordination of action at the land-
scape level because it is necessary to ensure a sufficient extent of contracted land to achieve the environmental
objectives (Franks and Emery 2013). The design of such incentives may range from information measures
to ensure a sufficient density of individual contracts to collective action, which enables groups of farmers
to submit collective plans for managing a certain area (Šumrada and Erjavec 2020).
This contribution provides one of the first insights into farmers’ preferences for cooperation in the field
of agri-environment in Slovenian agriculture, where low willingness to cooperate among farmers has often
been highlighted (Erjavec et al. 2018). However, the reasons for this, especially in the field of obtaining
agricultural policy funds, are relatively poorly researched (Slovenc and Erjavec 2021). Furthermore, there
has been limited experience in incentivising cooperation in the agri-environmental policy (European
Network … 2019), although some schemes, e.g. mountain grazing, where the management has traditionally
been common, do already allow enrolment of the groups of farmers (Uredba o ukrepih kmetijsko-okolj-
ska-podnebna plačila, ekološko kmetovanje in plačila območjem z  naravnimi ali drugimi posebnimi
omejitvami iz Programa razvoja podeželja Republike Slovenije za obdobje 2014–2020, Uradni list RS 20/22).
80
63-3_acta49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:21  Page 80
Farmers in our study attributed relatively low importance to the collective bonus in their decision-
making process, especially when compared with other aspects of the AES design. However, there was
considerable heterogeneity in farmers’ preferences regarding how the bonus should be awarded. These dif-
ferences were mainly related to the optimism regarding the achievement of the conservation targets, perceived
risk of free-riding, and individualisation in farm management. In both research areas, potential cooper-
ation between farmers could also be considerably limited by the abandonment of farming, which has left
only one or a few active farmers in some villages.
In the study areas and other regions with similar socio-economic contexts, spatial coordination and
sufficient extent of contracted land to achieve conservation goals might thus be more feasible to achieve
by working with farmers on the individual level (Franks and Emery 2013). To achieve this, third-party
organisations, such as local advisory services, protected area management authorities and conservation
NGOs, could be recruited to help with information-sharing and communication (Kuhfuss et al. 2019). In
this sense, the introduction of the collective bonus might still be a useful incentive, because it could indi-
rectly guide the operation of such institutions and help with the promotion of the scheme. However, other
instruments, such as knowledge transfer and cooperation measures within the CAP, are probably more
important and should be prioritised in pursuing this endeavour.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT: We would like to thank the local agricultural advisers from the institutes of agri-
culture and forestry Ptuj and Nova Gorica for their help in collecting data and the participating farmers
for their time and insights. The research work was financially supported by the Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Food and the Slovenian Research Agency (research program P4-0022 (B) and research project
V4-1814).
7 References
Acock, A. C. 2014: A gentle introduction to Stata. College Station.
Ansell, C., Gash, A. 2007: Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 18-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
Batáry, P., Dicks, L. V., Kleijn, D., Sutherland, W. J. 2015: The role of agri-environment schemes in conser-
vation and environmental management. Conservation Biology 29-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12536
Braun, V., Clarke, V. 2006: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 32.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Chen, X., Lupi, F., He, G., Liu, J. 2009: Linking social norms to efficient conservation investment in pay-
ments for ecosystem services. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106-28. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0809980106
Donaldson, L., Wilson, R. J., Maclean, I. M. D. 2017: Old concepts, new challenges: adapting landscape-
scale conservation to the twenty-first century. Biodiversity and Conservation 26. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10531-016-1257-9
Erjavec, E., Šumrada, T., Juvančič, L., Rac, I., Cunder, T., Bedrač, M., Lovec, M. 2018: Vrednotenje slovenske
kmetijske politike v obdobju 2015-2020: Raziskovalna podpora za strateško načrtovanje po letu 2020.
Ljubljana.
European environment agency 2012: Updated high nature value farmland in Europe: An estimate of the
distribution patterns on the basis of CORINE Land Cover 2006 and biodiversity data. Copenhagen.
European network for rural development 2019: RDP analysis: Support to environment and climate change.
M10.1 Agri-environment-climate commitments. Brussels. Internet: https://ec.europa.eu/enrd/sites/
default/files/rdp_analysis_m10-1.pdf (8. 5. 2023).
Franks, J. R., Emery, S. B. 2013: Incentivising collaborative conservation: Lessons from existing environmental
Stewardship Scheme options. Land Use Policy 30-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.06.005
Gamero, A., Brotons, L., Brunner, A., Foppen, R., Fornasari, L., Gregory, R. D., Herrando, S. et al. 2017:
Tracking progress toward EU biodiversity strategy targets: EU policy effects in preserving its common
farmland birds. Conservation Letters 10-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12292
Jepsen, M. R., Kuemmerle, T., Müller, D., Erb, K., Verburg, P. H., Haberl, H., Vesterager, J. P. et al. 2015:
Transitions in European land-management regimes between 1800 and 2010. Land Use Policy 49. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.07.003
Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-3, 2023
81
63-3_acta49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:21  Page 81
Tanja Šumrada, Emil Erjavec, Will farmers cooperate to conserve biodiversity? The use of collective bonus in the High …
Jogan, N., Kaligarič, M., Leskovar, I., Seliškar, A., Dobravec, J. 2004: Habitatni tipi Slovenije. Tipologija.
Ljubljana.
Kaligarič, M., Ivajnšič, D. 2014: Vanishing landscape of the »classic« Karst: Changed landscape identity
and projections for the future. Landscape and Urban Planning 132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.landurbplan.2014.09.004
Kirbiš, N., Čuš, J., Rode, J., Žogan Čokl, N., Klavž, D., Žvikart, M., Jelenko Turinek, I. et al. 2020: Analiza
izvajanja ukrepov Programa upravljanja območij Natura 2000 2015-2020 za obdobje 2015-2019: Sektor
kmetijstvo. Verzija 2.0. Ljubljana.
Kleijn, D., Baquero, R. A., Clough, Y., Díaz, M., Esteban, J., Fernández, F., Gabriel, D. et al. 2006: Mixed
biodiversity benefits of agri-environment schemes in five European countries: Biodiversity effects
of European agri-environment schemes. Ecology Letters 9-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.
2005.00869.x
Kleijn, D., Rundlöf, M., Scheper, J., Smith, H. G., Tscharntke, T. 2011: Does conservation on farmland
contribute to halting the biodiversity decline? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 26-9. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tree.2011.05.009
Kuhfuss, L., Begg, G., Flanigan, S., Hawes, C., Piras, S. 2019: Should agri-environmental schemes aim at
coordinating farmers’ pro-environmental practices? A review of the literature. Proceedings of the 172nd
EAAE Seminar ‘Agricultural policy for the environment or environmental policy for agriculture?’. Brussels.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.289774
Kuhfuss, L., Préget, R., Thoyer, S., Hanley, N. 2016: Nudging farmers to enrol land into agri-environ-
mental schemes: the role of a collective bonus. European Review of Agricultural Economics 43-4. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbv031
Levers, C., Schneider, M., Prishchepov, A. V., Estel, S., Kuemmerle, T. 2018: Spatial variation in determi-
nants of agricultural land abandonment in Europe. Science of The Total Environment 644. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.326
Mamine, F., Fares, M., Minviel, J. J. 2020: Contract design for adoption of agrienvironmental practices:
A meta-analysis of discrete choice experiments. Ecological Economics 176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecolecon.2020.106721
Nguyen, C., Latacz-Lohmann, U., Hanley, N., Schilizzi, S., Iftekhar, S. 2022: Spatial coordination incentives
for landscape-scale environmental management: A  sy https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.
105936stematic review. Land Use Policy 114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105936
Organisation for economic co-operation and development 2013: Providing agri-environmental public goods
through collective action. Paris. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264197213-en
Organisation for economic co-operation and development 2015: Public goods and externalities: Agri-
environmental policy measures in selected OECD countries. Paris. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/
9789264239821-en
Prager, K. 2015: Agri-environmental collaboratives for landscape management in Europe. Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.10.009
Reed, M. S., Moxey, A., Prager, K., Hanley, N., Skates, J., Bonn, A., Evans, C. D. et al. 2014: Improving the
link between payments and the provision of ecosystem services in agri-environment schemes.
Ecosystem Services 9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.06.008
Riley, M., Sangster, H., Smith, H., Chiverrell, R., Boyle, J. 2018: Will farmers work together for conservation?
The potential limits of farmers’ cooperation in agri-environment measures. Land Use Policy 70. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.049
Slovenc, M. 2019: Can a »good farmer« and a »bad farmer« cooperate?: An examination of conventional
and organic farmers’ perceptions of production and environmental protection. Intertwining of
Diverse Minds in(to) Political Ecology: Scientific Texts of Doctoral Students Participating in the Summer
School of Political Ecology. Ljubljana.
Slovenc, M., Erjavec, E. 2021: Cooperation among farmers through the lens of their future orientations: A case
study from Slovenia. Anthropological Notebooks 27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5789103
Šumrada, T., Erjavec, E. 2020: Zasnove kmetijsko-okoljskih ukrepov in njihove značilnosti. Acta agriculturae
Slovenica 116-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14720/aas.2020.116.1.1775
82
63-3_acta49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:21  Page 82
Šumrada, T., Japelj, A., Verbič, M., Erjavec, E. 2022: Farmers’ preferences for result-based schemes for
grassland conservation in Slovenia. Journal for Nature Conservation 66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jnc.2022.126143
Šumrada, T., Kmecl, P., Erjavec, E. 2021a: Do the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy funds negatively affect
the diversity of farmland birds? Evidence from Slovenia. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment
306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.107200
Šumrada, T., Vreš, B., Čelik, T., Šilc, U., Rac, I., Udovč, A., Erjavec, E. 2021b: Are result-based schemes
a superior approach to the conservation of High Nature Value grasslands? Evidence from Slovenia.
Land Use Policy 111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105749
Sutcliffe, L. M. E., Batáry, P., Kormann, U., Báldi, A., Dicks, L. V., Herzon, I., Kleijn, D. et al. 2015: Harnessing
the biodiversity value of Central and Eastern European farmland. Diversity and Distributions 21-6.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12288
Valentinov, V. 2007: Why are cooperatives important in agriculture? An organizational economics per-
spective. Journal of Institutional Economics 3-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137406000555
Villamayor-Tomas, S., Sagebiel, J., Olschewski, R. 2019: Bringing the neighbors in: A choice experiment
on the influence of coordination and social norms on farmers’ willingness to accept agro-environmental
schemes across Europe. Land Use Policy 84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.006
Vlada Republike Slovenije 2015: Natura 2000. Management Programme (2015–2020). Ljubljana.
Žiberna, I. 2012: Spreminjanje rabe zemljišč v Halozah v obdobju med letoma 2000 in 2011. Geografski
obzornik 59-1,2.
Žvikart, M. 2010: Uresničevanje varstvenih ciljev iz programa upravljanja območij Natura 2000 v kmetijski
kulturni krajini. Varstvo narave 24-24.
Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-3, 2023
83
63-3_acta49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:21  Page 83