agriculture

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

Mugurel I. Jitea , Valentin C. Mihai , Felix H. Arion , Iulia C. Muresan and Diana E. Dumitras *

Department of Economic Sciences, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca, 3-5 Manastur Street, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania; [email protected] (M.I.J.); [email protected] (V.C.M.); [email protected] (F.H.A.); [email protected] (I.C.M.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +40-745-549-320

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 devel- oped 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 Citation: Jitea, M.I.; Mihai, V.C.; biodiversity and cultural values. Current AES could not compensate for the existing innovation gaps. Arion, F.H.; Muresan, I.C.; Dumitras, Although local stakeholders have basic awareness about alternative innovative approaches, they D.E. Innovation Gaps and Barriers in failed in their deployment mainly due to the lack of collective actions. Access to adapted knowledge Alternative Innovative Solutions for reservoirs and the promotion of local innovation catalyzers are essential for the future sustainability Sustainable High Nature Value Grasslands. Evidence from Romania. of HNV farming practices. Agriculture 2021, 11, 235. https:// doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11030235 Keywords: common agricultural policy; environment policy; small-size farming; conservation; high nature value farmland; biodiversity; sustainability Academic Editor: Piotr Prus

Received: 24 February 2021 Accepted: 8 March 2021 1. Introduction Published: 11 March 2021 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 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with, either a high species and habitat diversity or the presence of species of European with regard to jurisdictional claims in conservation concern, or both” [1] (p. 4). Currently, approximately 30% of the European published maps and institutional affil- Union (EU) used agricultural area (UAA) is recognized as HNVf [2]. It is represented by iations. 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 Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. the agricultural practices on ecosystem services and environment [5]. It was also proved Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. that HNV farming provides a wide diversity of ecosystem services such as: high-quality This article is an open access article food and maintenance of local genetic resources, environmental goods (e.g., soil quality, distributed under the terms and pollination, water purification, biodiversity etc.), cultural services (e.g., heritage, recreation, conditions of the Creative Commons ecotourism etc.) [6,7]. However, the HNV areas are presently threatened by intensification Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// and abandonment leading to possible irreversible negative effects on biodiversity in the creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). long-term [8–10].

Agriculture 2021, 11, 235. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11030235 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/agriculture Agriculture 2021, 11, 235 2 of 18

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]. Partner- ships 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 possi- ble 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 Agriculture 2021, 11, 235 3 of 18

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 innova- tions 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 involve- ment 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 Agriculture 2021, 11, 235 4 of 18

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, Bont, ida, Chinteni, and Jucu) have more agricultural land resources (Table1). The remote communes

(Bors, a, Dăbâca, Panticeu, and Vultureni) have more forestry and permanent meadows and pastures areas.

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

Meadows Natura 2000 HNVf Area Population Arable and Commune (Ha) (Number) Land Pastures (1) (2) % in (1) Area % in Population Area % in Population % in (1) (1) % in (2) (1) % in (2) Apahida 10,602 10,685 39 32 4 2 0 0

Peri- Bont, ida * 8038 4856 42 35 10 35 35 100 urban Chinteni 9651 3065 41 33 52 84 0 0 Jucu 8513 4270 40 36 13 10 0 0

Bors, a * 6162 1600 59 32 74 100 32 100 Dăbâca * 5025 1543 33 39 34 100 39 100 Remote 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 (Bors, a, Bont, ida, Dăbâca, and Panticeu). One commune is eligible only for the HNV meadows (Vultureni) while the others have no access to any type of AES (Table1).

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 Agriculture 2021, 11, 235 5 of 18

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, Bont, ida, Bors, a, 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 Bont, ida commune) (Step 1 in Figure1). 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 Figure1), 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 Figure1). 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, Agriculture 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 18

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 ques- tions (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 partici- pants 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 iden-

Agriculture 2021, 11, 235 tify possible HNV innovation gaps (Q3 to Q6 in Figure 1). The eight FGs meetings6 offo- 18 cused on understanding the feelings and the comments of the participants without nec- essary 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 transcriptsand the transcripts were used were afterwards used afterwards to complete to completethe in situ the answers in situ based answers on the based text on anal- the ysis.text analysis.

Figure 1. StepStep by by step step design design and and use of focus groups meetings.

StepStep 2 2 (Figure (Figure 11)) servedserved toto validatevalidate thethe mainmain importantimportant patternspatterns identifiedidentified inin StepStep 11 andand to to describe innovation needs and existing alternative examples together with their deploymentdeployment b barriers.arriers. It It involved involved the the organiz organizationation of of a a final final FG, FG, in in June 2017 in Bonțida Bont, ida commune.commune. The The 24 24 participants participants coming coming from from all communes all communes were divided were divided into three into working three workinggroups. Thegroups. moderator The moderator firstly presented firstly presented the main the important main important patterns identifiedpatterns identified in Step 1 inand Step initiated 1 and discussions initiated discussions at group level. at group Possible level. trends Possible of the HNVtrends farming of the wereHNV discussed farming in a status quo scenario (no change) based on Q7 (Figure1). 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 (Figure1) 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 Agriculture 2021, 11, 235 7 of 18

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 [58–60]. We implement here a deductive analysis of innovation needs and gaps assessment using the typology proposed by the EIP Agri Focus Group on HNV farm- ing 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) (Table2). Most were farmers (77.8%), half being entitled for CAP payments (bigger than minimum eligible threshold CAP size of 1 Ha/farm).

Table 2. Category of participants.

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

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 (Table3). 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.

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

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

4.2. Current Situation in the Study Area Understanding the current situation in the study area is crucial for an accurate iden- tification 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. Agriculture 2021, 11, 235 8 of 18

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 (Bors, a, Dăbâca, Bont, ida, 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. Agriculture 2021, 11, 235 9 of 18

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 devel- opment 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 threat- ened 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 (Table4). Participants have general knowledge about products and market innovations employed in other similar regions (processing capacities; product differentiation; ecotourism). More- over, 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. Agriculture 2021, 11, 235 10 of 18

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

Innovation Needs and Innovation Gaps * Awareness for Alternative Barriers Dimensions Examples Small-scale processing facilities; Sanitary-veterinary regulations; Product differentiation; 1. Added value products 1 Branding; Financial resources; Certification of PDO, PGI, TSG Knowledge products Products and Direct sales; Internet sales; Marketing knowledge; 2. Market access 1 markets Cooperation and association; Mistrust Ecotourism and Cyclotourism; Accommodation facilities; 3. Income diversification 1 Off farm small industry; Information Other: Market knowledge 2; Access Lack of innovation awareness Lack of innovation awareness to funding for small farms 2 Access; Advisory services 1. Appropriate knowledge and Low financial capacity; ;Knowledge resources; entrepreneurial skills 1 Distance; Training programs; Poor internet connection; Long-term involvement; Social and 2. Innovation catalysts 1 Community innovation catalysts; institutional Lack of trust 3. Poor local infrastructure and low Low local governmental Investment programs living standards 1 administrative capacity Other: Population aging 1; Lack of Higher incomes outside the qualified labor force 2; Labor force Support young people region; Access and low financial availability 2 capacity Mowing equipment/methods to 1. Machines and technologies reduce working load. adapted to HNV production needs Processing capacities adapted to Availability; Financial resources; (meadow mowing and hay the sanitary-veterinary Sanitary-veterinary regulations harvesting; milk processing requirements and to the farmers’ facilities etc.) 1 needs Shrubs management; Increase productivity and maintain high 2. Meadows and pasture biodiversity status; Grazing Farm techniques management (lower hay management practices; Natura Lack of innovation awareness and management production; time consumption) 1 2000 and the HNV agri-environment payments management needs; Manure management-personal or community manure platforms; 3. Breeding management 1 Financial resources Feed management; Milk quality management; Other: Farm structure (small households with small plots in the Lack of innovation awareness Lack of innovation awareness HNV areas and large-size farms in the fertile arable land regions) Agriculture 2021, 11, 235 11 of 18

Table 4. Cont.

Innovation Needs and Innovation Gaps * Awareness for Alternative Barriers Dimensions Examples Financial resources; Unclear 1. Land ownership 1 Land cadastre landowners legal status; Fair distribution of direct Eligibility criteria (size; payments (small versus large Regulatory co-financing needs etc.); Land 2. Access to CAP measures farms); Just compensatory framework and cadastre; Bureaucracy; agri-environement payments; policy Information and knowledge Natura 2000 payments; 3. Collaboration with the local state institutions: Sanitary Veterinary; Lack of innovation awareness Lack of innovation awareness CAP payment agencies; municipalities; LAGs; NGOs 2 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.

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 stakehold- ers involved in the production chain was acknowledged among scholars as being a very Agriculture 2021, 11, 235 12 of 18

important prerequisite for the sustainability of these farming systems immediately after Eu- ropean policy makers included it as a priority in the rural development CAP pillar [66–68]. 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 (Table2). 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 farm- ing 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 Agriculture 2021, 11, 235 13 of 18

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’ indi- cates 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 Knowl- edge 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 grass- lands 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 re- search methodology provides a first look at the key patterns of the access to alternative Agriculture 2021, 11, 235 14 of 18

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 in- novation 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 Bio- diversity 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).

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.E.D. and M.I.J.; Data curation, D.E.D. and M.I.J.; For- mal analysis, D.E.D. and M.I.J.; Funding acquisition, M.I.J.; Investigation, M.I.J., V.C.M. and I.C.M.; Methodology, D.E.D. and M.I.J.; Project administration, M.I.J.; Validation, M.I.J. and F.H.A.; Visualiza- tion, M.I.J., F.H.A. and I.C.M.; writing—original draft preparation, D.E.D. and M.I.J.; writing—review and editing, D.E.D., M.I.J. and V.C.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: The research was partially funded by the European Union Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under Grant Agreement No. 696391. Results represent the views of the authors. The Research Executive Agency is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Data Availability Statement: Not applicable. Acknowledgments: Not applicable. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References 1. Andersen, E.; Baldock, D.; Bennet, H.; Beaufoy, G.; Bignal, E.; Brouwer, F.; Elbersen, B.; Eiden, G.; Godeschalk, F.; Jones, G.; et al. Developing a High Nature Value Area Indicator; Final Report; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2003. Available online: https://ieep.eu/uploads/articles/attachments/0e509ffb-d095-4f4e-99cb-07c4f8dc8b09/Developing_HNV_ indicator.pdf?v=63664509693 (accessed on 20 January 2020). Agriculture 2021, 11, 235 15 of 18

2. Lomba, A.; Guerra, C.; Alonso, J.; Honrado, J.P.; Jongman, R.; McCracken, D. Mapping and monitoring High Nature Value farmlands: Challenges in European landscapes. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 143, 140–150. [CrossRef][PubMed] 3. Keenleyside, C.; Beaufoy, G.; Tucker, G.; Jones, G. High Nature Value Farming throughout EU-27 and Its Financial Support under the CAP; Institute for European Environmental Policy: London, UK, 2014; pp. 1–385. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/ environment/agriculture/pdf/High%20Nature%20Value%20farming.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2020). 4. Beaufoy, G.; Baldock, D.; Clark, J. The Nature of Farming: Low Intensity Farming Systems in Nine European Countries; Institute for European Environmental Policy: London, UK, 1994; pp. 1–68. 5. Cooper, T.; Arblaster, K.; Baldock, D.; Farmer, M.; Beaufoy, G.; Jones, G.; Poux, X.; McCracken, D.; Bignal, E.; Elbersen, B.; et al. Final Report for the Study on HNV Indicators for Evaluation; Contract Notice 2006-G4-04; Institute for European Environmental Policy for DG Agriculture: London, UK, 2007. Available online: https://ieep.eu/uploads/articles/attachments/62b84fd4-14c9-4 561-998b-af6d98ea6810/hnv_indicator_report.pdf?v=63664509711 (accessed on 20 January 2020). 6. O’Rourke, E.; Kramm, N. High nature value (HNV) farming and the management of upland diversity. A review. Eur. Countrys. 2012, 4, 116–133. [CrossRef] 7. Plieninger, T.; Torralba, M.; Hartel, T.; Fagerholm, N. Perceived ecosystem services synergies, trade-offs, and bundles in European high nature value farming landscapes. Landsc. Ecol 2019, 34, 1565–1581. [CrossRef] 8. Kleijn, D.; Kohler, F.; Báldi, A.; Batáry, P.; Concepción, E.D.; Clough, Y.; Díaz, M.; Gabriel, D.; Holzschuh, A.; Knop, E.; et al. On the relationship between farmland biodiversity and land-use intensity in Europe. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2009, 276, 903–909. [CrossRef][PubMed] 9. Doxa, A.; Bas, Y.; Paracchini, M.L.; Pointereau, P.; Terres, J.M.; Jiguet, F. Low-intensity agriculture increases farmland bird abundances in France. J. Appl. Ecol. 2010, 47, 1348–1356. [CrossRef] 10. Plieninger, T.; Gaertner, M.; Hui, C.; Huntsinger, L. Does land abandonment decrease species richness and abundance of plants and animals in Mediterranean pastures, arable lands and permanent croplands? Environ. Evid. 2013, 2, 3. [CrossRef] 11. Zisenis, M. Is the Natura 2000 network of the European Union the key land use policy tool for preserving Europe’s biodiversity heritage? Land Use Policy 2017, 69, 408–416. [CrossRef] 12. Olmeda, C.; Keenleyside, C.; Tucker, G.; Underwood, E. Farming for Natura 2000. In Guidance on How to Support Natura 2000 Farming Systems to Achieve Conservation Objectives, Based on Member States Good Practice Experiences; Publications Office of the European Union, European Commission: Luxembourg, 2018. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ natura2000/management/docs/FARMING%20FOR%20NATURA%202000-final%20guidance.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2020). 13. EIP-AGRI. Focus Group Sustainable High Nature Value (HNV) Farming; Final Report; EIP-AGRI: Luxembourg, 2016; pp. 1–56. 14. Beaufoy, G. High Nature Value extensive livestock and grasslands: Can innovation secure a sustainable future? Grassl. Sci. Eur. 2017, 22, 251–258. 15. Sullivan, C.; Moran, J. High nature value farmland management: Innovative approaches to sustainability of HNV grassland systems in Ireland. Grassl. Sci. Eur. 2017, 22, 428–430. 16. Poux, X.; Bernard-Mongin, C.; Lerin, F.; HNV-Link Project Partners. The HNV-Link Atlas: Crossed Perspectives on 10 Learning Areas; Understanding the Field of Play for High Nature Value Innovation Projects; Research Report; CIHEAM-IAMM: Montpellier, France, 2017; pp. 1–78. 17. Farmer, A.M. Manual of European Environmental Policy; Farmer, A.M., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2012; pp. 1–1043. Available online: https://ieep.eu/uploads/articles/attachments/333f18af-b8a0-4094-a906-5c16391064cb/13.2_Agriculture_-_final.pdf? v=63664509869 (accessed on 20 October 2020). 18. Stoate, C.; Báldi, A.; Beja, P.; Boatman, N.D.; Herzon, I.; van Doorn, A.; de Snoo, G.R.; Rakosy, L.; Ramwell, C. Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe—A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 91, 22–46. [CrossRef] 19. Henle, K.; Alard, D.; Clitherow, J.; Cobb, P.; Firbank, L.; Kull, T.; McCracken, D.; Moritz, R.; Niemelä, J.; Rebane, M.; et al. Identifying and managing the conflicts between agriculture and biodiversity conservation in Europe—A review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2008, 124, 60–71. [CrossRef] 20. Sobotta, C. The European Union legal boundaries for semi-natural habitats management in Natura 2000 sites. J. Nat. Conserv. 2017, 43, 261–267. [CrossRef] 21. Directive, E.B. Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds. Off. J. L 1979, 103, 1979. 22. Directive, H. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Off. J. L 1992, 206, 7–50. 23. Evans, D. Building the European Union’s Natura 2000 network. Nat. Conserv. 2012, 1, 22–26. [CrossRef] 24. van Dijka, W.F.A.; Lokhorst, A.M.; Berendse, F.; de Snoo, G.R. Collective agri-environment schemes: How can regional environ- mental cooperatives enhance farmers’ intentions for agri-environment schemes? Land Use Policy 2015, 42, 759–766. [CrossRef]

25. Romanian Ministry for Agriculture and Rural Development. Ghid Informativ Pentru Beneficiarii Măsurilor de Mediu s, i Climă ale Programului Na¸tionalde Dezvoltare Rurală (PNDR) 2014–2020. 2017. Available online: https://www.madr.ro/docs/dezvoltare- rurala/agro-mediu/6._Ghid_MMC_C.2017_v.3.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2020). 26. Romanian Ministry for Agriculture and Rural Development. National Rural Development Programme for the 2014–2020 Period. Official Version 1—1stod July, 2014; 2014. Available online: https://www.madr.ro/docs/dezvoltare-rurala/programare-2014-2 020/PNDR_2014_EN_-_2020_01.07.2014.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2020). Agriculture 2021, 11, 235 16 of 18

27. Lapple, D.; Renwick, A.; Thorne, F. Measuring and understanding the drivers of agricultural innovation: Evidence from Ireland. Food Policy 2015, 51, 1–8. [CrossRef] 28. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Agricultural Innovation Systems: A Framework for Analyzing the Role of the Government; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2013. Available online: https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/agriculture- and-food/agricultural-innovation-systems_9789264200593-en#page7 (accessed on 20 October 2020). 29. World Bank. Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to Go beyond the Strengthening of Research Systems; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2006; pp. 1–157. 30. EU SCAR. Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems in Transition—A Reflection Paper; EU SCAR: Brussels, Switzerland, 2012. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/sites/default/files/standing_committee_on_agricultural_researc_-_ scar.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2020). 31. Datt, R.; Jha, S.K.; Tak, A. Motivational factors involved in development of dairybased innovations. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2016, 11, 2658–2662. 32. Lapple, D.; Thorne, F. The role of innovation in farm economic sustainability: Generalised propensity score evidence from Irish dairy farms. J. Agric. Econ. 2019, 70, 178–197. [CrossRef] 33. European Network for Rural Development (ENRD). Improving Stakeholder Involvement. Eur. Rural. Rev. 2015, 19, 1–51. Available online: https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/sites/enrd/files/publi-enrd-rr-19-2015-en.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2020). 34. European Parliament. Mid-Term Review of the EU’s Biodiversity Strategy (2015/2137(INI)); Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety: Bruxelles, Belgium, 2016. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-20 16-0003_EN.html (accessed on 15 January 2021). 35. Raisiene, A.G.; Skulskis, V. Collaboration turn: Towards understanding stakeholder empowerment for agrarian policy making. Public Policy Adm. 2018, 17, 177–191. 36. Prager, K. Agri-environmental collaboratives for landscape management in Europe. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 12, 59–66. [CrossRef] 37. Whittingham, M.J. The future of agri-environment schemes: Biodiversity gains and ecosystem service delivery? J. Appl. Ecol. 2011, 48, 509–513. [CrossRef] 38. Alcaraz, M.; Bell, S. Sustainability and the contribution of innovation. OIDA Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 7, 11–22. 39. Beaufoy, G.; HNV-Link Partners. The HNV-Link Compendium. Comparative Collection of High Nature Value Innovations, Experiences, Needs and Lessons, from 10 European “Learning Areas”. Cuacos (Spain): EFNCP & Montpellier (France): CIHEAM- IAMM, (HNV-Link H2020 Project). HNV-Link WP2, Deliverable 2.6.1. 2017. Available online: http://www.hnvlink.eu/ download/D2.6_HNVLinkCOMPENDIUM.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2020). 40. Klerkx, L.; Van Mierlo, B.; Leeuwis, C. Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: Concepts, analysis and interventions. In Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic; Darnhofer, I., Gibbon, D., Dedieu, B., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 457–483. 41. Romanian National Institute of Statistics—National Institute of Statistics. Tempo-Online Time Series. Available online: http: //statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/ (accessed on 15 October 2018). 42. Wilson, J.B.; Peet, R.K.; Dengler, J.; Pärtel, M. Plant species richness: The world records. J. Veg. Sci. 2012, 23, 796–802. [CrossRef] 43. Krueger, R.A.; Casey, M.A. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014; pp. 1–560. 44. Massey, O.T. A proposed model for the analysis and interpretation of focus groups in evaluation research. Eval. Program Plan. 2011, 34, 21–28. [CrossRef] 45. Rabiee, F. Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2004, 63, 655–660. [CrossRef][PubMed] 46. Bloor, M.; Frankland, J.; Thomas, M.; Robson, K. Focus Groups in Social Research; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2001; pp. 1–119. 47. Leung, F.H.; Savithiri, R. Spotlight on focus groups. Can. Fam. Physician 2009, 55, 218–219. 48. Bernués, A.; Tello-García, E.; Rodríguez-Ortega, T.; Ripoll-Bosch, R.; Casasús, I. Agricultural practices, ecosystem services and sustainability in High Nature Value farmland: Unraveling the perceptions of farmers and nonfarmers. Land Use Policy 2016, 59, 130–142. [CrossRef] 49. Stokes, D.; Bergin, R. Methodology or “methodolatry”? An evaluation of focus groups and depth interviews. Qual. Mark. Res. 2006, 9, 26–37. [CrossRef] 50. Onwuegbuzie, A.J.; Dickinson, W.B.; Leech, N.L.; Zoran, A.G. A qualitative framework for collecting and analyzing data in focus group research. Int. J. Qual. Meth. 2009, 8, 1–21. [CrossRef] 51. Ochieng, N.T.; Wilson, K.; Derrick, C.J.; Mukherjee, N. The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2018, 9, 20–32. [CrossRef] 52. Flyvbjerg, B. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual. Inq. 2006, 12, 219–245. [CrossRef] 53. Grønkjær, M.; Curtis, T.; de Crespigny, C.; Delmar, C. Analysing group interaction in focus group research: Impact on content and the role of the moderator. Qual. Stud. 2011, 2, 16–30. [CrossRef] 54. Guest, G.; Namey, E.; Taylor, J.; Eley, N.; McKenna, K. Comparing focus groups and individual interviews: Findings from a randomized study. Int. J. Soc. Res. Method 2017, 20, 693–708. [CrossRef] Agriculture 2021, 11, 235 17 of 18

55. Czekaj, M.; Adamsone-Fiskovica, A.; Tyran, E.; Kilis, E. Small farms’ resilience strategies to face economic, social, and environ- mental disturbances in selected regions in Poland and Latvia. Glob. Food Secur. 2020, 26, 100416. [CrossRef] 56. Barbour, R.; Morgan, D. A New Era in Focus Group Research: Challenges, Innovation, and Practice; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2017; pp. 1–430. 57. Fischer, A.; Young, J.C. Understanding mental constructs of biodiversity: Implications for biodiversity management and conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 136, 271–282. [CrossRef] 58. Krippendorff, K. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2018; pp. 1–441. 59. Stewart, D.W.; Shamdasani, P.N. Focus Groups: Theory and Practice; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2015; pp. 1–224. 60. Franzosi, R. Content Analysis; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2008; pp. 1–1696. 61. Loos, J.; Turtureanu, P.D.; von Wehrden, H.; Hanspach, J.; Dorresteijn, I.; Frink, J.P.; Fischer, J. Plant diversity in a changing agricultural landscape mosaic in Southern Transylvania (Romania). Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 199, 350–357. [CrossRef] 62. Papademas, P.; Bintsis, T. Global Cheesemaking Technology: Cheese Quality and Characteristics; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 1–496.

63. Craioveanu, C.; Muntean, I.; Laszlo, R. Variat, ii în comunităt, ile de fluturi diurni din parcele gestionate tradit, ional sau modern din Situl Natura 2000 Dealurile Clujului Est. Buletin de Informare. Soc. Lepidopterol. Română 2016, 2, 13–24. 64.R ákosy, L.; Vodă, R. Distribution of Maculinea genus în Romania. Entomol. Romanica 2008, 13, 9–17. 65. Timu¸s,N.; Vodă, R.; Paulini, I.; Cri¸san,A.; Popa, R.; Rakosy, L. Managementul paji¸stilormezohigrofile de pe Dealurile Clujului Est (Transilvania) pentru protec¸tia¸siconservarea speciei Maculinea teleius (Bergsträsser 1779) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae), Vol. De Lucr. Al Simp. “Biodiversitatea ¸SiManag. Insectelor Di România”. Suceava 2011, 29–46. 66. McCracken, D.I.; Huband, S. Nature conservation value of European mountain farming systems. In Global Change and Mountain Regions; Huber, U.M., Bugmann, H.K.M., Reasoner, M.A., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 573–582. 67. Pinto-Correia, T.; Ribeiro, S.M. HNV farming in 35 countries of Europe: Portugal. In High Nature Value Farmland in Europe; Beaufoy, G., Oppermann, R., Herzog, F., Eds.; Verlag Regionalkultur: Ubstadt-Weiher, Germany, 2012; pp. 336–345. 68. Strohbach, M.W.; Kohler, M.L.; Dauber, J.; Klimek, S. High nature value farming: From indication to conservation. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 57, 557–563. [CrossRef] 69. Opperman, R.; Bosshard, A.; Mestelan, P.; de Sainte Marie, C. Awareness raising among farmers and in the wider public. In High Nature Value Farmland in Europe; Beaufoy, G., Oppermann, R., Herzog, F., Eds.; Verlag Regionalkultur: Ubstadt-Weiher, Germany, 2012; pp. 466–472. 70. Dumitras, D.E.; Pocol, C.B.; Jitea, I.M. Can we reach food sustainability through local food? Evidence from Romania. In Food Futures: Ethics, Science and Culture; Olsson, I.A.S., Ataujo, S.M., Vieira, M.F., Eds.; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 350–357. 71. Benedetti, Y. Trends in High Nature Value farmland studies: A systematic review. Eur. J. Ecol. 2017, 3, 19–32. [CrossRef] 72. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions the European Green Deal; COM: Brussels, Switzerland, 2019. 73. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 Bringing Nature Back into Our Lives; COM: Brussels, Switzerland, 2020. 74. Bernués, A.; Ruiz, R.; Olaizola, A.; Villalbad, D.; Casasús, I. Sustainability of pasture-based livestock farming systems in the European Mediterranean context: Synergies and trade-offs. Livest. Sci. 2011, 139, 44–57. [CrossRef] 75. Akeroyd, J.R.; Sutcliffe, L.M.E.; Popa, R.; Page, N. The LIFE project STIPA: Saving Transylvania’s important pastoral agro-eco systems (Romania). In Steppenlebensräume Europas–Gefährdung, Erhaltungsmassnahmen und Schutz; Baumbach, H., Pfützenreuter, S., Eds.; TMLFUN: Erfurt, Germany, 2013; pp. 341–350. 76. Kazakova, Y.; Stefanova, V. High Nature Value Farming in South-Eastern Europe: Policy Opportunities and Challenges in the EU Accession. European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism. 2011. Available online: http://www.efncp.org/ download/SEE_report_2011.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2021). 77. Pointereau, P.; Paracchini, M.L.; Terres, J.M.; Jiguet, F.; Bas, Y.; Biala, K. Identification of High Nature Value Farmland in France through Statistical Information and Farm Practice Surveys; JRC European Commission: Luxembourg, 2007. 78. Terres, J.M.; Nisini, L.; Anguiano, E. Assessing the Risk of Farmland Abandonment in the EU; JRC European Commission: Luxembourg, 2013. 79. Cocca, G.; Sturaro, E.; Gallo, L.; Ramanzin, M. Is the abandonment of traditional livestock farming systems the main driver of mountain landscape change in Alpine areas? Land Use Policy 2012, 29, 878–886. [CrossRef] 80. Renwick, A.; Jansson, T.; Verburg, P.H.; Revoredo-Giha, C.; Britz, W.; Gocht, A.; McCracken, D. Policy reform and agricultural land abandonment in the EU. Land Use Policy 2013, 30, 446–457. [CrossRef] 81. Pigford, A.A.; Hickey, G.; Klerkx, L. Beyond agricultural innovation systems? Exploring an agricultural innovation ecosystems approach for niche design and development in sustainability transitions. Agric. Syst. 2018, 164, 116–121. [CrossRef] 82. Berthet, E.; Hickey, G. Organizing collective innovation in support of sustainable agro-ecosystems: The role of network manage- ment. Agric. Syst. 2018, 165, 44–54. [CrossRef] 83. Bilali, H. Research on agro-food sustainability transitions: A systematic review of research themes and an analysis of research gaps. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 221, 353–364. [CrossRef] Agriculture 2021, 11, 235 18 of 18

84. Huber, U.M.; Bugmann, H.K.; Reasoner, M.A. Global Change and Mountain Regions: An Overview of Current Knowledge; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 1–662. 85. Toth, G.; Huzui-Stoiculescu, A.; Toth, A.I.; Stoiculescu, R. How do Natura 2000 areas intersect with peoples’ livelihood strategies in High Nature Value farmlands in Southern Transylvania? Land 2020, 9, 484. [CrossRef] 86. Obschonka, M.; Stuetzer, M.; Gosling, S.D.; Rentfrow, P.J.; Lamb, M.E.; Potter, J.; Audretsch, D.B. Entrepreneurial regions: Do macro-psychological cultural characteristics of regions help solve the “knowledge paradox” of economics? PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0129332. [CrossRef] 87. Gouriveau, F.; Beaufoy, G.; Moran, J.; Poux, X.; Herzon, I.; Ferraz de Oliveira, M.I.; Gaki, D.; Gaspart, M.; Genevet, E.; Goussios, D.; et al. What EU Policy Framework do we need to Sustain High Nature Value (HNV) Farming and Biodiversity? Policy Paper prepared in the Framework of HNV-Link (Project Funded by the H2020 Research and Innovation Programme under Grant Agreement No 696391). 2019. Available online: http://www.hnvlink.eu/download/D4.3.HNV-Link_Policy-Brief_v2019-3-25.pdf (accessed on 10 September 2020). 88. Klerkx, L.; Hall, A.; Leeuwis, C. Strengthening agricultural innovation capacity: Are innovation brokers the answer? International. J. Agric. Resour. Gov. Ecol. 2009, 8, 409–438. [CrossRef] 89. Hermans, F.; Stuiver, M.; Beers, P.J.; Kok, K. The distribution of roles and functions for upscaling and outscaling innovations in agricultural innovation systems. Agric. Syst. 2013, 115, 117–128. [CrossRef] 90. Davidova, S.M. Semi-Subsistence Farming in Europe: Concepts and Key Issues. In Proceedings of the Seminar “Semi-Subsistence Farming in the EU: Current Situation and Future Prospects”, Sibiu, Romania, 21–23 April 2010. Available online: http://enrd.ec. europa.eu/enrd-static/fms/pdf/FB3C4513-AED5-E24F-E70A-F7EA236BBB5A.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2021). 91. Wiggins, S.; Kirsten, J.; Llambí, L. The future of small farms. World Dev. 2010, 38, 1341–1348. [CrossRef] 92. Volkov, A.; Balezentis, T.; Morkunas, M.; Streimikiene, D. Who benefits from CAP? The way the direct payments system impacts socioeconomic sustainability of small farms. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2112. [CrossRef] 93. Marini, L.; Klimek, S.; Battisti, A. Mitigating the impacts of the decline of traditional farming on mountain landscapes and biodiversity: A case study in the European Alps. Environ. Sci. Policy 2011, 14, 258–267. [CrossRef] 94. Van Herzele, A.; Gobin, A.; Van Gossum, P.; Acosta, L.; Waas, T.; Dendoncker, N.; Henry de Frahan, B. Effort for money? Farmers’ rationale for participation in agri-environment measures with different implementation complexity. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 131, 110–120. [CrossRef] 95. Kaligariˇc,M.; Cuš,ˇ J.; Škornik, S.; Ivajnšiˇc,D. The failure of agri-environment measures to promote and conserve grassland biodiversity in Slovenia. Land Use Policy 2019, 80, 127–134. [CrossRef] 96. Mikulcak, F.; Newig, J.; Milcu, A.; Hartel, T.; Fischer, J. Integrating rural development and biodiversity conservation in Central Romania. Environ. Conserv. 2013, 40, 129–137. [CrossRef] 97. O’Rourke, E.; Charbonneau, M.; Poinsot, Y. High nature Value Mountain farming systems in Europe: Case studies from the Atlantic Pyrenees, France and the Kerry Uplands, Ireland. J. Rural Stud. 2016, 46, 47–59. [CrossRef]