Prilagodba nacionalnog okvira za dijalog dionika poljoprivrednog sektora o pitanjima Zajedničke poljoprivredne politike prema standardu dijaloga koji se provodi na razini Europske unije važna je zbog kreiranja učinkovitih politika, a posebice sprječavanja netransparentnih političkih odluka.
U istraživanju se polazi od pretpostavke kako nacionalni okvir za dijalog dionika o pitanjima ZPP-a nije strukturno prilagođen formalnom standardu EU-a te dionici poljoprivrednog sektora RH nisu koordinirani za dijalog o pitanjima ZPP-a prema protokolu komunikacije i standardu EU-a.
Cilj ove disertacije bio je ustanoviti razlike između nacionalnog okvira za dijalog dionika o pitanjima ZPP-a i okvira EU-a. Nadalje, cilj je bio identificirati ključne nacionalne dionike i njihovu ulogu u dijalogu te odrediti mogućnosti prilagodbe nacionalnog dijaloga o pitanjima ZPP-a prema standardu EU-a.
Istraživanje je provedeno u pet faza: (1) analiza okvira dijaloga, (2) dubinska analiza dionika poljoprivrednog sektora, (3) analiza stajališta 17 stručnjaka, (4) ispitivanje 31 poljoprivrednika putem fokus grupa (5) testiranje rezultata prethodnih faza istraživanja anketnim ispitivanjem 132 ispitanika.
Rezultati istraživanja pokazali su kako nacionalni okvir za dijalog dionika o pitanjima ZPP-a nije strukturno prilagođen formalnom standardu EU-a te postoje razlike u dijelu analitičkih, organizacijskih i edukacijskih kapaciteta. Prema ispitanicima, nedostaje razmjena informacija i znanja koja je temelj za koordinaciju javnih politika.
Predloženim istraživanjem metodološki su identificirani ključni dionici dijaloga te su znanstveno potvrđeni potreba i mogućnosti prilagodbe nacionalnog okvira dijaloga prema standardiziranom postupku EU-a. Predložena unaprjeđenja moguće je proceduralno primijeniti i na izradu poljoprivrednih politika za druge države koje su u postupcima pregovora za članstvo u EU-u. Istraživanje može poslužiti kao koncept za izradu nacionalnog okvira za transparentan i redovit dijalog u poljoprivrednom sektoru.
The adjustment of the national stakeholder dialogue on questions of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) according to the EU-level dialogue standard is important for the creation of effective policies, in particular the prevention of non-transparent policy decisions.
The research is based on the assumption that the national framework for stakeholder dialogue on CAP is not structurally adjusted to the formal EU standard and that national stakeholders are not sufficiently coordinated for dialogue on CAP questions.
The aim of this dissertation was to find the differences between the national framework for stakeholder dialogue on CAP and the EU framework. Furthermore, the aim was to identify key national stakeholders and their role in the dialogue and to identify options for adapting the national dialogue on CAP to the EU standard.
The research was conducted in five phases: (1) analysis of the dialogue framework, (2) in-depth analysis of the agricultural stakeholders, (3) analysis of the dialogue from 17 expert standpoints, (4) focus groups with 31 farmers on the dialogue framework and stakeholders, (5) questionnaire for 132 relevant stakeholders in order to test previous phases of the research. The proposed research methodologically identified key stakeholders in the dialogue and scientifically confirmed the need and possibilities to adapt the national dialogue framework to the EU standardized procedure.
By analysing the documents, performing individual interviews with experts, examining the four focus groups and conducting a survey, H1 was confirmed, according to which the national framework for stakeholder dialogue on CAP issues is not structurally adjusted to the formal EU standard. The results showed that according to C1, there are differences between the national framework for stakeholder dialogue on CAP issues and the EU framework, especially in terms of analytical, organizational and educational capacities. It was confirmed that although there are a number of formal meetings, e-Consultations do not follow the tempo of the negotiations at EU level as well as standards related to the publicity of data from meetings, the openness of the information system and the time frame for presenting opinions. The general consultations on agricultural policies with public comments are partially covered through the e-Consultation portal. However, abstracts are necessary in order to facilitate the understanding of the documents under discussion, as well as longer time frames. The e-Consultation portal is not a tool that stakeholders can follow yet and additional consultations are needed.
Furthermore, the paper confirms H2, in which the stakeholders of the agricultural sector of the Republic of Croatia are not coordinated for dialogue on CAP issues according to the information, communication and dialogue structure protocol. The results of the second phase survey through C2 and the identification of key national stakeholders and their role in the dialogue on CAP issues according to EU standards, the interviewing of experts and farmers through focus groups and the final survey showed that a large number of different associations, sometimes politically coloured, offer weak arguments during debates and institutions perceive them lightly. Also, the selection of stakeholders is not completely transparent. There is no public invitation to participate in the work of the committees and the selection takes place according to decisions of the officials or heads of the Ministry. There is a need for a transparency register, which could determine who is entitled to present views and be invited to meetings according to certain criteria. Associations initiate meetings themselves and they depend on the good will of the leaders. There is a high level of politicization, mistrust and division in large and small, which contributes to weaker
cooperation among stakeholders compared to EU policies. According to the respondents, there is a need for an institution or a coordinating body that will profile the interests of farmers towards decision makers. The Croatian Chamber of Agriculture (HPK) is most often mentioned as a key institution that should connect the views of farmers and CAP decision makers. The exchange of information and knowledge, which are the basis for policy coordination, were assessed negatively by experts (third phase), farmers (fourth phase) and stakeholders participating in the negotiations (fifth phase).
The component of an analytical approach to planning and joint organized action at the EU level through the linking of the CAP positions of national representatives in the Council, EU representatives and member associations at the EU level is missing.
According to C3, the paper identifies the possibilities of adjusting the national dialogue on CAP issues according to the EU standard. The results showed the need for:
•establishing a regular dialogue on CAP at the national level modelled on the CDG of the EC,
•establishing a transparency register and clear criteria for selecting stakeholders,
•producing summaries that will facilitate the understanding of the documents that are discussed and allow for longer time frames for consultations,
•increasing the number of representatives of the real agricultural sector in the negotiation process, especially those for whom agriculture is of vital importance,
•offering education and accreditation of the stakeholders who participate in CAP negotiations,
•strengthening the overall AKIS (synergy of advisory service, science and farmers) system, bringing the CAP closer to stakeholders in the field with the help of an advisory service and local action groups,
•public disclosure of data from meetings at the Ministry of Agriculture and feedback on the implementation of the agreed changes,
•strengthening the human and financial capacities of associations participating in negotiations at the EU level,
•facilitating the translation of documents that are in the process of negotiation and meetings that include civil society stakeholders.
The proposed improvements can be procedurally applied to the development of agricultural policies and to other countries that are in negotiations for EU membership. The research can serve as a concept for developing a national framework for transparent and regular dialogue in the agricultural sector.