This synthesis report evaluates the integration of agroecological (AE) principles and agroforestry (AF) practices across regional policy frameworks (NUTS 2, NUTS 3, LEADER regions). This review combines qualitative semantic analysis of strategic policy texts with processual policy integration theory. The evaluation focuses on regions and municipalities containing living lab (LL) farms within the framework of the EELAP project across six European countries: Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Switzerland, involving local government, NGOs and forestry or farming representatives. The cross-country comparison reveals a fundamental structural divergence across European regional governance mechanisms: while broad agroecological principles – most notably biodiversity conservation, water retention, and soil protection – enjoy robust strategic backing in regional development plans, the explicit operationalisation of AF as an integrated multifunctional land-use system remains severely lagging. Where AF elements are referenced, they are predominantly addressed through traditional landscape features (e.g., field hedges, shelterbelts, scattered orchards) or narrow LULUCF carbon-accounting frameworks, rather than as dynamic drivers of territorial resilience and circular bioeconomies. Policy frameworks across Europe successfully champion individual AE principles at high strategic levels, but fail to bridge the operational gap to AF. AF remains trapped between rigid agricultural payment codes and strict forestry management laws, requiring urgent administrative harmonization. However, the analysis of existing climate and rural development strategies/policies and regional projects identifies several links and potential opportunities for AE for future policy integration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hübner et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: