Umeå University's logo

I landsbygdsprogrammet går det att få stöd för att skapa innovationer inomjordbruks-, trädgårds- och rennäringen. Innovationsstödet kallas EIP-Agri (European Innovation Partnership for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability) och genomförs i många av EU:s medlemsländer. Målet med EIP-Agri-stödet är att skapa innovationer som bidrar till att öka konkurrenskraften på den svenska landsbygden och uppfylla nationella miljö- och klimatmål. Stödet handläggsav Jordbruksverket och kan sökas i två steg: som ett gruppstöd för att bilda en innovationsgrupp som förberedelse för en påtänkt innovation och som ett genomförandestöd för ett planerat innovationsprojekt. Totalt har EIP-Agristödet hittills omfattat 440 miljoner kronor i Sverige.

I den här slutrapporten presenterar vi vår utvärdering av EIP-Agri-stödet i Sverige. Utvärderingen har pågått 2016–2021 och varit löpande lärande, vilket innebär att vi följt och analyserat arbetet med stödet och fört en dialog med berörda tjänstepersoner. I utvärderingens första fas fokuserade vi på själva ansöknings- och beslutsprocessen genom att intervjua involverade tjänstepersoner inom EIP-Agri och samla in uppgifter från de som sökt stöden genom en enkät. Vi intervjuade även personer på landets innovationskontor. I den andra fasen gjorde vi enbredare utvärdering av EIP-Agri-stödets möjliga och upplevda effekter baserat på litteraturstudier, intervjuer med ytterligare nyckelpersoner och fallstudier avgenomförda grupp- och genomförandestöd. Rapporten redogör också för hur EIP-Agri hanteras och hur kunskapsutbyte sker i en europeisk kontext. Slutligen diskuterar vi våra erfarenheter av löpande lärande som utvärderingsform och lämnar våra rekommendationer för framtida arbete.

Blandade erfarenheter av handläggningsprocessenhos de som sökt stödet

Analysen av ansöknings- och beslutsprocessen visar bland annat att

1. rollfördelningen mellan handläggare och berörda beslutsfattare på Jordbruksverket samt innovationssupporten på Landsbygdsnätverket varotydliga till en början men har formaliserats allteftersom, och tolkningen avbegreppet innovation bland dessa aktörer är föremål för fortsatt diskussioninom EIP-Agri

2. majoriteten av de som sökt stödet är missnöjda med ansökningsprocesseneftersom handläggningstiderna varit långa och det funnits många krav påkompletteringar

3. möjligheten att söka gruppstöd är en styrka som kan utökas ytterligare,medan kraven på genomförandestödet bör ses över

4. EIP-Agri-stödets koppling till andra innovationssatsningar har varit mycketbegränsad, men det finns stora möjligheter till samverkan.

Svårt att mäta stödets effekter i samhället

Analysen av EIP-Agri-stödets effekter försvåras av att det finns en stor mängd mål formulerade på olika nivåer som inte går att utvärdera och mäta effekterna av med den information som finns i EIP-Agris databas. Utvärderingen visar att många av de enskilda innovationsprojekten anser sig ha uppnått sina mål, men de vidare effekterna i samhället vad gäller ökad konkurrenskraft och nationella miljö- och klimatmål har inte gått att utvärdera.

Samverkan och breda nätverk framhålls som viktigaframgångsfaktorer

Utvärderingen visar att breda kompetenser inom innovationsgruppen är en viktig förutsättning för framgång. Det är alltså viktigt att både forskare och praktiker ingår och samverkar i innovationsgruppen, något som ofta – men kanske inte alltid – är fallet. Det saknas dock idag en strategisk koppling mellan EIP-Agri och relevanta forskningssatsningar. Likaså bör gruppernas kompetenser längre ut i marknadskedjan stärkas ytterligare.

En annan faktor är vikten av nationella och internationella nätverk. Vissa sådana nätverk har använts, och interna EIP-projektträffar har varit uppskattade. Men nätverken behöver utvecklas och kopplas samman i större utsträckning för att stödja nytänkande, något som brister i dagens kunskaps- och innovationssystem.

Slutligen är det viktigt att en ny innovation når marknaden för att få effekt isamhället. Men marknadstillträde kan EIP-Agri-stödet inte finansiera, vilket gör att man måste söka flera olika stöd. Det behöver därför skapas möjligheter tillsynergier mellan olika myndigheters innovationsstöd.

This article critically examines the state's steering capacity of ‘green innovation’ programs using Sweden's implementation of the agricultural European Innovation Partnership (EIP-AGRI) as a case representing part of the EU's Green Deal. The innovations should promote the competitiveness of rural areas and contribute to national environmental protection and climate goals.

We found that despite expectations, implementation rests on compartmentalized networking within the agricultural sector, prioritizing increased ‘competitiveness’ before ‘green’ development, and interpreting ‘innovation’ mainly in the technical sense. The results indicate that the state´s steering capacity of ‘green innovation’ programs meets several obstacles: the overall goals from the top tend to be both too many and too vague, leaving it to the administration to interpret what kinds of features should be prioritized from below. The state's steering in the case of EIP-AGRI relies mostly on internal agricultural expertise contrary to previous research that suggests a recent ‘de-compartmentalisation’ of European agricultural policymaking.

Quests for devolving more power to local actors for nature protection stem from both international and national policies. Also, there is a growing recognition of the need for local governments to promote green infrastructure for citizens to recreate and learn about their environment. Starting in 2004, the Swedish government has allocated special funding towards these goals through the Local Nature Conservation Programme (LONA). Virtually all Swedish municipalities have received such funding in pursuit of facilitating wide access to nature and promoting recreational activities, including the protection of nature areas, creating pathways, information devices, and promoting these areas among new societal groups to enjoy. This study presents the results of ten years of experience with LONA. A survey with respondents from 191 municipalities and 20 county administrations, together with 20 key informant interviews, show that the programme has been a success in several respects. Not only have most municipalities created a wealth of new ways to engage local organisations and citizens in nature conservation and recreation, but they have also broadened the ways they think about how nature is important to their constituencies. Due to innovative ways to count voluntary work as local matching of funding, smaller and less resourceful municipalities have also become engaged. Still, the local needs for further initiatives are deemed considerable. State support coupled with knowledge sharing is important to show policy priority to such bottom-up initiatives.

The Local Nature Conservation Programme (LONA) was initiated by the Swedish government in 2004 and has now been ongoing more than ten years. The great majority of Swedish municipalities have applied for and received funding for LONA projects. A total of 300 MSEK was allocated to 1 530 projects in 260 municipalities plus at least as much in local funding. After a short break, LONA was taken up again in 2010-2016 with 237 MSEK national funding to 1 524 projects (4 505 measures) in 260 municipalities.

LONA is the largest national investment to achieve greater participation and increased local engagement with nature conservation and recreation, and fulfils the intention of international agreements such as the Convention of Biological Diversity and ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability 2010. LONA’s main objective, to involve a greater range of local actors in conservation efforts, is fulfilled since more than half of the municipalities have done so in their LONA projects. The overall aim with this study is to evaluate more specifically in what ways and how LONA has contributed to local responsibility for nature conservation and recreation measures. The study takes departure in previous commissioned studies by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (reports 5923, 6392, 5605, 6397 and 5811, see references). The results below build on a survey sent out in autumn 2016 to all 290 municipalities (191 responded) and 21 county administrations (20 responded), plus in-depth interviews with key informants from three county administrations, six municipalities and two nongovernmental organisations engaged in LONA. Some interviews were also made in mountain municipalities.

The specific measures carried in the LONA projects connect to most of the Swedish Environmental Quality Objectives, dominated by ‘A Rich Diversity of Plant and Animal Life’ and ‘A Good Built Environment’. Most measures are relatively minor, with a typical median budget of about 56.000 SEK including the 50% own contribution. About one third of the projects involve non-governmental organisations, which has been made possible since voluntary work is accounted for in the budget as own contribution. The size of the LONA projects as well as the share of voluntary organizations involved has been rather stable over the years.

The majority of LONA projects concern various types of inventories, information dissemination and knowledge production, while about one third are about ecological restoration, conservation and management. During the 2010-2016 period, which this study focuses on – and despite the growing policy attention to social, cultural and recreational values – the share of measures geared towards nature conservation values has increased. Measures to protect cultural values and set aside nature areas are only a small share. More than half of the LONA projects are located in the urban fringe, which is in line with the government’s ambitions, but even smaller municipalities in rural areas have acquired substantial LONA funding. The majority of LONA projects are led by a municipality, while the remainder are led in cooperation between a municipality and a local organisation and fewer by such an organisation alone. There is very little variation in the nature of LONA projects depending on leadership. Even if all counties have municipalities with LONA projects, three of them are the most active: Skåne in the south, Västra Götaland in the south-west, and Stockholm County.

The funding LONA provides is very much appreciated among the municipalities. Eight out of ten municipalities say that the LONA aims are fully in line with the local needs for nature conservation, and seven out of ten claim that this is the case for recreation needs. Many of the large municipalities think that while LONA is a welcome contribution, it is still not a requirement for the municipality’s work for nature conservation and recreation. However, in many small-size municipalities the LONA funding is essential. The allocation of funding from LONA is also larger per inhabitant in small-size municipalities compared to large-size, which reflects such needs.

In the majority of municipalities, LONA funding makes up an important share of the local budget for nature protection, while it is somewhat lower for recreational purposes. Interestingly, LONA has particularly supported measures for nature protection and recreation in those municipalities with an assigned municipal ecologist, suggesting that when they exist, they have a facilitating role. The LONA funding allows for the same project to benefit from other funding as well, such as EU Life and the Rural Development Programme, as long as specific measures are funded separately. This possibility creates an added value of the LONA programme. The simplicity of the application procedure in LONA compared to EU funding is stressed as an advantage by the majority of municipalities.

The results show that LONA has led to increased and widened participation by local actors in nature protection and recreation. At the same time, the nature of such participation differs depending on the municipality size. Small-size municipalities with less resources tend to more often include external actors in the LONA projects, while large-size municipalities can mobilise the necessary resources themselves. Some of the latter municipalities therefore choose not to involve external actors. Our results further suggest that the involvement of non-governmental organisations seems to depend rather on different modes of working than on the requirements of the LONA regulation. Still, the regulation has restricted the involvement of private companies due to remaining question marks over how profit-making companies may lead and implement LONA projects.

Municipally employed ecologists, particularly in large-size municipalities, provide the most leadership in the LONA work, followed by other municipal officers and environment- and recreation-oriented non-governmental organisations. Nongovernmental organisations tend to initiate and engage in the work to a greater extent in small-size municipalities. There are already established networks within the field of nature conservancy, while, according to the respondents, new networks for the initiation and implementation of LONA projects are created in the field of recreation. The importance of coordination between municipalities through the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions is emphasised by several municipalities in this respect. A general trend is that such coordination and exchange of experiences has increased over time. The municipalities’ contacts with various local networks have also amplified.

The perceived need for protecting more areas in urban environments continues to be high, and LONA is seen as an important tool for long-term investment in the protection of nature and recreation values. LONA is regarded as especially important for recreation since there are alternative forms of support in nature conservation at the national level. The small-size municipalities are particularly dependent on LONA in their attempts to safeguard nature protection and recreation values. Many new areas have become accessible for local citizens thanks to LONA, some of which have become popular sites for nature studies, recreation and leisure. Media attention has helped increase their popularity, and assisted in giving high priority to these issues on the municipal political agenda.

LONA has led to learning among local actors, particularly with regard to nature conservation issues. Information gathered through LONA has spurred the development of plans for nature conservation and recreation in many municipalities, which on its part supports long-term thinking. Further, LONA has contributed to the initiation of Nature Schools and pedagogic tools for learning about nature in many pre-schools, which helps children in their understanding of and respect for nature. The effects of LONA in a long-term perspective is still, however, somewhat complex. For example, it appears that the local interest in establishing new protected areas has not generally increased, and only one-third of the municipalities claim that accessibility in existing protected areas has increased as a result of LONA. Likewise, in particularly small-size municipalities with limited resources, there is a risk that continued long-term management of nature protection and recreation does not materialize. One should keep in mind that most LONA projects are rather modest in size and that support from the LONA programme cannot solve all issues of municipal priority-setting.

At the same time, the results both from the survey and interviews suggest that LONA has generally had a positive effect on the interest for nature protection and recreation among local politicians and, even more so, among local citizens. This has in turn led to increased local resources for nature protection, albeit somewhat less so for recreation values. The growing attention given to these values has also led to better integration of nature protection and recreation in the municipalities’ spatial planning. In addition, the use of nature areas in the urban vicinity has increased due to more local investments in projects connected to learning. Finally, LONA has stimulated projects and measures targeting ‘new Swedes’ – and even if still only a minority of municipalities have used LONA for this purpose, there is great likelihood that more municipalities will do so in the near future.

The policy statements in LONA highly emphasize learning, knowledge development and knowledge exchange. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the county administrations have contributed to those goals by various information gathering and communication efforts, including mentoring and networking. Our evaluation of how those methods have worked in practice shows that the respondents greatly appreciate the support given, and that the municipalities have been able to access a wealth of information about previous LONA projects, best cases, relevant expertise and arenas for knowledge exchange. The different methods for mentoring are complementary, with different target groups. On the whole, both the county administration officers responsible for LONA and the municipal LONA officers are satisfied with the ways in which the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has implemented these different methods. They also believe that the methods have been supportive in creating increased participation, local understanding and knowledge for what LONA can and should achieve, and hence that LONA should be considered a success.

There is common agreement that public policy should be formulated based onknowledge of how it works and makes impact. Both scientific knowledge andevaluations can contribute to environmental decision-making and play animportant role to inform policy development. Over the past two decades,systematic review (SR) methods have been proposed to contribute to thispurpose. SRs are literature reviews, using explicit methods for selecting andanalysing empirical data. This dissertation explores the opportunities andchallenges occurring when introducing SR methods into environmental socialscience. Two main research questions are answered: 1) What are theopportunities and challenges of applying SR methods to investigate policy issuesin general, and environmental policy issues in particular?; 2) How have SRs(process and product) been used to inform decision makers, how can they be usedand how can we understand such use?

To this end, I examine how other researchers have used the SR methods (articleI); how project managers, researchers and stakeholders view the usefulness of themethods (article II); I apply a specific SR method to a policy issue (article III);and discuss the relevance of the SR methods in general to political science (articleIV). Multiple methods and materials were used, including an overview ofliterature, a realist review and interviews with project managers, researchers, andstakeholders.

The findings can be summarised into four main points. Firstly, SR methods canbe used to evaluate environmental policy, but the challenges in applying themethods to social science policy research should be kept in mind. SR methodsprovide guidelines for how to make a literature review that is rigorous andmethodologically robust, with a number of benefits such as contributing with newempirical results and developing theory, methods and research design. At the same time, a number of challenges arise when they are to be applied to complexissues, heterogeneous research methods and data.

Secondly, methodological pluralism should be applied in SR. Given how socialscience research is conducted (with many different methods, both qualitative andquantitative) and which issues are examined (often complex), I advocatemethodological pluralism regarding what should be considered an SR method. Itshould include both qualitative and quantitative methods, without any hierarchybetween them.

Thirdly, there is need to nuance the theoretical understanding of how SRs areused and how they can be expected to be used. The findings suggest that bothvaggregative and configurative SRs will be used in different ways, including forinstrumental, conceptual and legitimising purposes. A more positive view oflegitimising use than what is often considered was revealed by the interviews,suggesting that legitimising use can also be helpful to inform policy.

Fourthly, two additional benefits of SR methods can be added in relation to whatresearchers can derive from these. This includes more systematic identificationof knowledge gaps and showing where the evidence is weak or contradictory. Bysearching for all available research and then applying strict criteria for whichstudies to include, SR can provide a clearer picture of what research is availableand not. Furthermore, the very process of conducting an SR means that theresearcher who performs it must be confronted with a wider range of literatureand be forced to study the quality of the studies in a way that is rarely done. Thiscan provide insights into the consequences of different method choices as well asto literature beyond the researchers’ own disciplinary focus.

This article provides an overview of how systematic review (SR) methods have been used to evaluate public policy. It argues that these methods can be applied to the evaluation of environmental public policy, but that certain challenges need to be addressed in order to fulfil the SR methods potential. The article reflects upon two methodological challenges confronting systematic reviewers: how data from the articles should be synthesised; and how to take societal contexts into account. Analysing how these challenges have been addressed in practice contributes to the theoretical discussion about the usefulness of different synthesis methods, and the role of context. Three lessons are drawn as to how systematic review methods can become useful when applied to the evaluation of environmental public policy, namely: (1) to anticipate the heterogeneity in the literature from the beginning in terms of both research design and operationalisation of key concepts; (2) to consider the purpose of the review when deciding whether to take a single- or multi-context approach; and (3) to be methodologically innovative when applying the systematic review methods to complex policies.

There is increasing political interest in the use of voluntary agreements (VA) as a policy instrument. The attraction has grown also in environmental policy, VAs are expected to be less costly, more effective and more cost-efficient than regulation. Using a realist review methodology, our analysis focuses on the effect of contextual factors and mechanisms on private forest owners' willingness to enter into formal voluntary nature conservation agreements. The framework we use to analyse the effects includes: forest owner characteristics, forest attributes, institutional context and process, advisors and other forest owners, and contract design, for contextual factors – and economic attitudes, environmental attitudes, sense of autonomy, sense of justice and fairness, trust as well as knowledge, for mechanisms. The analysis allowed merging findings from different types of VAs in varying contexts in a systematized way, and consolidating evidence of how the mechanisms influence the programme implementation process, and its outcome. 43 reviewed articles, from an originally retrieved set of 2231 papers, provide evidence for environmental attitudes supporting willingness to enter into an agreement. Environmental attitudes are strengthened by forest owners' wishes to protect a heritage, suggesting considerable influence through personal, emotional attachment to the forest. This finding shows the central role played by sense of autonomy, with economic compensation also importantly affecting the willingness to enter a VA. Along with these results, the developed comprehensive analytical framework shows how VAs can become more effective if tailored for different contexts and types of forest owners.

There is a demand for scientific knowledge to make informed decisions in environmental policy. This study examines expectations of knowledge use, and how knowledge stemming from systematic reviews (SR) is being used through an analytical framework that distinguishes between instrumental, conceptual and legitimising evaluation use, as well as between process and product use. Empirically, we investigate knowledge generated from six SRs conducted through the Mistra Council for Evidence-based Environmental Management from the perspectives of those carrying out the SR and their targeted stakeholders. Our study reveals ways in which SRs are used and some characteristics that improve and some that hamper their usefulness. While the systematic method and the comprehensiveness of the SRs contribute positively to the usefulness, we found that the SRs produced were simultaneously too focused (lacking multiple perspectives), and too general (providing evidence on the effects of an intervention only at the general level) thereby restricting their usefulness. The time and resources it takes to produce an SR can also affect its usefulness compared to a traditional review.