Croatia has introduced a broad set of policies to tackle the “triple challenge” of food systems. Addressing these issues together requires a co-ordinated approach as the relevant responsibilities are generally distributed across jurisdictions, government agencies and levels of government. This chapter looks into the agro-food supply chain and selected specific food system-related policy areas which are drawing growing attention among OECD Members: market regulation and competition issues, food assistance programmes and food waste. It also examines Croatia’s policies for encouraging healthy diet and consumption choices and its approach for promoting policy coherence and involving stakeholders in the regulatory process.
Policies for the Future of Farming and Food in Croatia
Abstract
Croatia, as most OECD Members, does not have a co-ordination body or mechanism that comprehensively covers food systems policies. Inter-ministerial co-ordination for food systems-related policies is key to facilitating the identification of potential trade-offs and synergies, and to discuss how best to address them.
Food markets are functioning well and are well integrated with global value chains. There is a relatively low degree of market concentration in the value chain. Farmer co-operatives are rare and policy interventions to promote cooperatives have had low up-take to date.
A wide array of policies has been developed to encourage healthier food choices, but the prevalence of obesity is higher than the EU average and is growing at a faster pace. Dietary risks are a major contributor to mortality in Croatia.
Food waste per inhabitant is low and the country expects to further reduce it by 30% by 2028. The capacity to treat this waste stream is growing, but remains well below the EU average. This lack of capacity contributes to the high contribution of waste to overall GHG emissions, which is more than double the OECD average.
Croatia’s regulatory policy framework has shown significant progress in the past decade with the development of a system of regulatory impact assessment (RIA) and a legislative framework for stakeholder engagement. This can help navigate the triple challenge of ensuring food security and nutrition for all, providing livelihoods to farmers and others in the food chain and promoting rural development, while ensuring environmental sustainability. However, the scope of RIAs is limited and stakeholder consultations rarely occur at early stages. The use of these regulatory management tools in the negotiation phase of EU regulations is also limited.
Food systems cover all elements and activities related to producing and consuming food, as well as their effects (OECD, 2021[1]). They comprise all institutions, people, places and activities that participate in growing, processing, transporting, selling, marketing, and consuming food (Food Systems Dashboard, n.d.[2]). This section will describe the landscape of the agricultural supply chain to provide context for the rest of the chapter. While it addresses policies, this section is more descriptive in nature. It presents the distribution of value added across the agro-food supply chain (5.1.1), market concentration in processing and retail (5.1.2), co-operation (5.1.3), logistics and integration into global value chains (5.1.4), and responsible business conduct in agricultural supply chains (5.1.5).
5.1.1. Distribution of value added across the agro-food supply chain
Primary production accounts for the largest share of the food value added in Croatia.
The relative contribution of primary producers to the Croatian food value added has been decreasing over time, but still represents nearly a third of the total food value added (Figure 5.1). The relative share of primary production in the total food value added marginally decreased from 34% in 2010 to 32% in 2020, but remains slightly above the EU average (26%). As discussed in Chapter 1, primary production in Croatia is dominated by low value products and about two-thirds of arable land produces low-value cereals (European Commission, 2020[3]).
Distribution of food value added in Croatia, 2010-20
Source: European Commission (2023). CAP Result indicator RPI_03 Value for primary producers in the food chain, [https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1].
The remaining value added was distributed among food and beverages distribution services (31%), food and beverages manufacturing (26%) and consumer services (11%). The segment with the highest growth has been distribution services, which grew from 24% of the total food value added in 2010 to 31% in 2020.
The processing of food and beverages contributes around one-fifth of the total manufacturing value added in Croatia, but its share has been steadily decreasing. The share of food, beverages and tobacco in the total manufacturing value added was 20% in 2020, down from 27% in 2013 (World Bank, n.d.[4]).
5.1.2. Market concentration in processing and retail
Market concentration is low for food products, high for soft drinks, and moderate for grocery retail
Market concentration in the food and beverages processing sector is low for food products. In 2018, the four main players (CR4)1 in food manufacturing controlled 29% of the market (4 percentage points lower than in 2009). Besides the market leader, there were 12 other companies with a market share of at least 1%, five of which were only present in the Croatian market (Van Dam et al., 2021[5]). Market concentration in soft drinks, however, is high and increasing: in 2018 the CR4 had 63% of the market share, 20 percentage points higher than in 2009. In addition to the leader, there were 12 other companies with at least 1% of market share. Of these 12 companies, four were present exclusively in the Croatian market (Van Dam et al., 2021[5]).
Fortenova Group (formerly Agrokor dd) is the main player across the food supply chain in Croatia. It is a good example of how certain socially-owned enterprises of former Yugoslavia known as agro-kombinats,2 continue to be key players of the food production and processing sector following their privatisation (World Bank, 2016[6]). In 2018, the group had a market share of 10% for food products, 26% for soft drinks, and 19% for grocery retail (Van Dam et al., 2021[5]).
In 2021, consumers predominantly shopped in hypermarkets and supermarkets, which represented more than two-thirds (71%) of the total groceries retail turnover. In 2021, the market concentration for the largest five retailers (CR5) was 66%, while the ten largest players accounted for 83.5% of the market (CR10). According to the Croatian Competition Agency, this structure denotes a moderate market concentration of the grocery retail market (Croatian Competition Agency, 2022[7]). In addition to the market leader, there were nine other companies with more than 1% market share in 2018, six of which were exclusive to the Croatian market (Van Dam et al., 2021[5]).
5.1.3. Co-operation and other interventions to improve farmers’ position in the value chain
Participation of farmers in Producer Organisations and other associative forms is low
Producer organisations (POs), associations of producer organisations (APOs) and inter-branch organisations (IBO) are the main associative structures recognised by the European Union regulation concerning the common organisation of agricultural products (CMO Regulation).3 A PO can be defined as any entity, including co-operatives, that has been formed and is controlled by producers in a specific sector to jointly pursue one or more of the objectives set forth in the CMO Regulation (European Commission, 2018[8]). APOs are associations of POs, while IBOs are groups composed by both farmers and processors and/or traders.
When POs, IBOs and APOs meet certain criteria, they can be recognised by EU Member States, which allows them to receive EU financial support and benefit from certain derogations from competition rules. The regulations of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) have long provided for derogations from EU competition rules for some sectors (e.g. dairy, pork, sugar, fruit and vegetables, wine) to allow farmers to co-operate through POs, APOs, and IBOs. The Omnibus Regulation (EU) No. 2017/2393 extended to all production sectors the possibility for these groups to collectively negotiate contracts for the supply of agricultural products, including price contracts (OECD, 2023[9]).
The number of recognised POs has increased from 6 in 2016 to 26 in 2024, but their relative importance remains low. These POs have 877 members, which represent around 0.6% of farm holdings, and operate in eight different sectors: fruit and vegetables sector (7), poultry meat (1), milk and dairy products (3), cereals (4), beef and veal (3), wine (2), live trees and other plants (2) and other products (potatoes) (4). When contrasting the number of POs with the total number of agricultural holdings, Croatia has 14.5 POs per 100 000 agriculture holdings, while the EU average in 2020 was 41.4
Farmers’ participation in co-operatives is similarly limited. In 2019, there were 613 active co-operatives, representing 0.2% of farmers, and only two of them were recognised as POs (Arcadia International E.E.I.G, European Commission and EY, 2019[10]) (European Commission, 2020[3]). Box 5.1 explores historical reasons behind farmers’ low engagement with co-operatives.
Co-operatives have existed in Croatia since the late 19th century, playing a key socioeconomic role and holding particular importance in the agriculture sector throughout much of the 20th century. They are, however, of little relevance in today’s agro-food sector. While this can result from a variety of factors, historical reasons linked to the socialist era are certainly among them.
During the socialist era, the operation of co-operatives was heavily regulated, with numerous restrictions impeding entrepreneurial initiatives and limiting decision-making freedom. In practice, and despite market-oriented reforms during the 1980s, co-operatives in Yugoslavia were collective, state-controlled institutions in which private property and the original co-operative values faded.
Following independence, political, social, and economic relations in Croatia changed significantly as it transitioned from a centrally planned to a market economy. While transition could have implied a resurgence of the original co-operative concept, co-operatives remained on the margins of political interests, perceived by many as an ideological, uneconomic creation associated with the former Yugoslavia.
More than three decades after Croatia’s independence, many farmers remain reluctant to engage in co-operatives, and the term continues to carry negative connotations for some.
Sources: Božić, Šprajc, Srbljinović (2019[11]), and Kantar (2021[12]).
The contribution of Croatian POs to the economy is very low
Across the European Union, recognised POs play an important role in the fruit and vegetables sector, where 47% of total production was marketed by POs in 2021. In Croatia, the corresponding figure was less than 3% (Figure 5.2). Croatia’s CAP Strategic Plan for 2023-27 (CSP) has set the goal of increasing the share of production marketed by POs in total fruit and vegetable production to 7% by 2027 (Ministry of Agriculture, 2022[13]). In the dairy sector, another indicator used at the EU level to measure the importance of POs in primary production is the share of raw milk delivered by POs and APOs in the total production. Recent information for Croatia is not available, but in 2018 (the last year reported) it was close to 0%, while the average in countries reporting information to Eurostat was 25%.5
Share of production marketed by POs in total fruit and vegetable production, 2021
Note: Data unavailable for Estonia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, and Malta.
Source: European Commission (2023). CAP indicators, Adding Value Indicator OIM_05_1a: % of production marketed by POs and APOs, https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html.
Policy interventions to strengthen the position of farmers in the value chain
For the 2023-27 CAP period, Croatia has budgeted EUR 5.3 million to support the establishment and operation of producer organisations (see also Section 2.3.4) (Ministry of Agriculture, 2022[13]). However, experience shows that interest for some of these measures has been low. For example, in the 2014-20 CAP period, the planned budget for supporting POs was EUR 8 million, then reduced to EUR 5 million; in the end, only EUR 4.2 million were spent.6
The Croatian Recovery and Resilience Plan (RRP) (see also Section 2.4.1) includes investments of EUR 800 000 to strengthen the position and recognition of producers in the fruit and vegetable supply chain. This intervention seeks to educate and support members of POs in the field of management and finance and to encourage them to participate in the management and ownership of the logistics and distribution centres developed under the RRP (Section 5.1.4).
Other interventions under the CSP to improve the position of farmers in the value chain include promoting quality schemes, short supply chains, and local markets. The goal for 2023-27 is that 0.89% of all agricultural holdings (1 200 farms) participate in producer groups, producer organisations, local markets, short supply chains and/or quality schemes that have been granted support under the CAP (Ministry of Agriculture, 2022[13]).
Regarding quality schemes, the number of products with a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication is growing. To date, Croatia has 47 agro-food products, 18 wines, and 6 spirits registered in the EU database eAmbrosia for protected designations of origin and geographical indications.7 Despite this, the original allocation of EUR 6 million for supporting quality schemes under the 2014-20 rural development plan was reduced to EUR 2.5 million due to low uptake (European Commission, 2020[3]), and the actual expenditure in 2015-22 amounted to only EUR 1.8 million. For the 2023-27 CSP, EUR 11.8 million has been budgeted (Ministry of Agriculture, 2022[13]).
Various private and public initiatives have been launched to support short supply chains and local markets. They include an e-commerce platform8 to provide a digital marketplace for Croatian agricultural and food products and a local project (Međimurski štacun) based on a partnership model that brings together producers from Međimurje county to sell food products through short supply chains. Furthermore, through rural development measure M16 of the 2014-22 CAP, nine EIP operational groups received support to promote short supply chains and local markets. The 2023-27 CSP has allocated EUR 2.5 million to support short supply chains and local markets (Ministry of Agriculture, 2022[13]).
5.1.4. Logistics and integration into global value chains
Croatia’s geography underpins the need for good logistics infrastructure
Croatia’s long coastline and high border/area ratio imply that many regions and municipalities are relatively far away from each other. In fact, the four most populated cities after Zagreb are closer to other European capitals than to Zagreb, and two of them closer to non-EU capitals.9 Furthermore, Croatia’s agricultural regions have very different production conditions (Chapter 1).
This particular geographical context underpins the need for good logistics that enable the integration of farmers and other actors in the national, regional, European, and global value chains. While Croatia has historically underperformed in the logistics sector (World Bank, 2016[6]), recent indicators show progress: the World Bank Logistics Performance Index increased from 3.16 to 3.30 between 2016 and 2023, although still below the OECD average of 3.6 (World Bank, 2023[14]). Croatia has also improved in most of the areas covered by the OECD Trade Facilitation Indicators, including on border processes and streamlining of border procedures (Section 2.6.2).
Despite this progress, the government recognises there is a significant lack of cooling capacities and distribution centres, as well as an uneven regional distribution of these facilities (Ministry of Agriculture, 2022[13]). In particular, the lack of adequate post-harvest logistics infrastructure, equipment, and support services for aggregating, processing, distributing and marketing domestic products are seen as a major bottleneck for the development of agro-food value chains (World Bank, 2021[15]).
To address these challenges, the largest share of agriculture-related funds under Croatia’s RRP (EUR 81 million) is devoted to constructing and equipping logistic distribution centres for fruit and vegetables, as well as ancillary capacity building measures to encourage POs to own and manage these centres (Government of the Republic of Croatia, 2021[16]). The first Regional Distribution Centre for Fruits and Vegetables was opened in Osijek-Baranja county in early 2023 and another was under construction at the time of drafting this report (Section 2.4.1).
An interesting example of private sector led development of cooling and storage infrastructure is seen in the dairy sector, where the structure of milk storage and collection is generally well organised. This was possible in part thanks to investment support by milk processors to cooling facilities on the farms of mostly larger livestock operations (World Bank, 2021[15]). Recent efforts have improved access to cold-chain logistic infrastructure for small producers and processors. These include a support program for the reconstruction of milk collection points in 2021 and 2022 and programmes to co-finance milk collection costs for small dairy businesses.
The agro-food sector in Croatia is well integrated into GVCs
As shown in Chapter 1, the food industry in Croatia is better integrated into global value chains (GVCs) than is primary agriculture. The indicators of forward and backward participation in GVCs have increased since 2000, as has the content of foreign services value-added in food exports.
Forty-nine per cent of the value added in Croatia’s domestic demand for food, beverages and tobacco comes from foreign sources. This is similar to the shares recorded in peer countries, slightly below the EU average and above the OECD average. Services were the most important foreign source industry, accounting for 21% of the value added in the food sector’s final demand.
Origin of value added in the domestic demand for food, beverages, and tobacco, 2020
Notes
1. The values for EU and OECD are simple averages of the values of their Members.
2. Countries are sorted according to Domestic Agricultural value in 2020
Source: OECD (2023), Trade in Value Added (TiVA) [database], oe.cd/tiva (consulted in December 2023).
5.1.5. Responsible Agriculture Supply Chains
Croatia has adhered to the Recommendation of the Council on the OECD-FAO Guidance for Responsible Agricultural Supply Chains
Responsible business conduct (RBC) is not a new concept in Croatia. The opening of the economy and Croatia’s accession to the European Union reinforced the legal framework that underpins RBC (OECD, 2019[17]). More recently, Croatia adhered to the Council Recommendation on the OECD Due Diligence Guidelines for RBC (Guidelines) and established its National Contact Point. Croatia also adhered to various other RBC-related OECD legal instruments, including the Recommendation of the Council on the OECD-FAO Guidance for Responsible Agricultural Supply Chains (OECD-FAO Guidance).10 Croatia has also transposed EU regulation on unfair trading practices in the agro-food supply chain (Section 5.2.2).
Croatia’s efforts to support the implementation of the OECD-FAO Guidance Recommendation have focused on awareness raising and promotional activities, including the preparation of a promotional leaflet in Croatian.11 Beyond promotional activities, adherents to the OECD-FAO Guidance Recommendation have taken additional types of measures to encourage the use of this guidance. For instance, some have referenced the OECD-FAO Guidance in domestic regulation, incentivised its use by company management systems or conditioned public procurement on demonstrated implementation of the OECD-FAO Guidance (OECD, 2022[18]). Croatia could improve its overarching enabling environment for RBC by following the recommendations of the OECD Working Party on Responsible Business Conduct (WPRBC).
5.2.1. Addressing the triple challenge of food systems involves policies in multiple domains
Food systems around the world are expected to deliver on a formidable “triple challenge”. The first challenge is to ensure food security and nutrition for all. The second is to provide livelihoods to farmers and others in the food chain and promote rural development. The third is to do all this while ensuring environmental sustainability – i.e. using natural resources sustainably (including protecting valuable ecosystems and biodiversity) and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as well as meeting other societal expectations such as animal welfare (OECD, 2021[1]).
Croatia does not have a food systems law or integrated policy framework that simultaneously looks at these three challenges. Agricultural policy follows the CAP objectives and the strategic vision for the sector is mainly contained in the CSP and the National Agricultural Strategy until 2030 (Section 2.1.4). Additionally, multiple other food systems-related policies co-exist and fall under the responsibility of authorities scattered across jurisdictions, government agencies, and levels of government. This is not uncommon across countries, given the complexity of food systems (OECD, 2021[1]).
While an exhaustive overview of all food system-related policies would exceed the scope of this accession review, this section will briefly look at specific topics related to each of the three challenges faced by food systems:
for food security and nutrition, emphasis will be given to the existence of school meals programmes and food banks, which are two types of food assistance programmes of importance in OECD countries (Giner and Placzek, 2022[19]).
for improved livelihoods of farmers and others, emphasis will be given to market regulation and competition issues.
for environmental sustainability, emphasis will be given to food waste, a topic of growing interest for OECD Members.12
5.2.2. Food assistance programmes
Food insecurity in Croatia is relatively low, but increased following the COVID-19 pandemic
While the prevalence of severe food insecurity in Croatia had consistently been below 1% during the last decade, it increased to nearly 2% during the 2019-21 period (Figure 5.4).13 This trend was seen in other OECD and EU countries following the COVID-19 pandemic.
Prevalence of severe food insecurity in the population
Note: Percentage of the population who live in households classified as severely food insecure. A household is classified as severely food insecure when at least one adult in the household has reported to have been exposed, at times during the year, to several of the most severe experiences described in the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) questions, such as to have been forced to reduce the quantity of the food, to have skipped meals, having gone hungry, or having to go for a whole day without eating because of a lack of money or other resources.
Source: World Bank (2023). World Development Indicators. Accessed November 2023
This section focuses on two food assistance programmes applied by Croatia: the school meals programme and food banks. Governments use other policy tools to improve access to food for households in situations of vulnerability and thereby food security, including food vouchers, which are used by some OECD countries. Policy responses to food insecurity can also focus on more general livelihood assistance programmes such as increasing universal social security payments or providing cash transfers or universal basic income (Giner and Placzek, 2022[19]). When both types of policy responses exist, as is the case of Croatia, policymakers should work on identifying potential synergies and trade-offs.
An EU-funded programme supports the distribution of food in schools
Croatia has a school meals programme in force which in the 2020-21 school year delivered food to 405 000 children in public and private schools,14 and covered 66% of primary and secondary school-age children. According to the 2017-23 National Strategy for the Implementation of the School Scheme, the main objectives are increasing the proportion of fruit and vegetables, milk and milk products consumed by children and promoting healthy eating habits (Global Child Nutrition Foundation (GCNF), 2021[20]). The programme also aims to raise students’ knowledge about the importance of healthy nutrition, and to educate students to reduce food waste.15
The school meals programme in Croatia benefits from resources of the EU school scheme,16 which supports the distribution of fruit, vegetables and milk to schoolchildren ranging from nursery to secondary school, and includes educational measures that seek to increase the consumption of these products and contribute to shaping healthier diets (European Commission, 2022[21]). The accompanying educational activities include the creation and maintenance of school gardens, visits to farms, and lectures. In the school year 2021-22, a total of HRK 14.9 million (almost EUR 2 million) was paid for all of the programme’s activities (Ministry of Agriculture, 2023[22]).
According to a 2021 survey, recent successes in Croatia include the expansion of programme coverage to almost all children and its adaptability to children’s needs and preferences (Global Child Nutrition Foundation (GCNF), 2021[20]). Furthermore, since early 2023, all primary school students have access to at least one free meal per school day (Government of the Republic of Croatia, 2022[23]).
Croatia is promoting the establishment of food banks to facilitate food donations
Food banks are not-for-profit organisations that collect and distribute food to people struggling with food insecurity. While they were initially developed as an emergency tool for a hungry population, they continue to play a major role for food insecure households in many OECD countries and across the world (Giner and Placzek, 2022[19]). In Europe, over 350 food banks from 30 countries are brought together under the umbrella of the European Food Banks Federation (FEBA).
In Croatia, the food donation system has traditionally relied on intermediaries (usually non-governmental organisations - NGOs), which are often overburdened by activities related to reception, transport, and storage. In order to address this, and as part of broader efforts to increase food donations under the 2019-22 National Plan for Food Waste Prevention, a feasibility study for the establishment of a food bank in Croatia was published in 2020. The study concludes that possible models for establishing a food bank system in Croatia are an umbrella organisation, a model of regional co‑ordinators (similar to what is currently in place), or a model of county co‑ordinators (Government of the Republic of Croatia, 2022[24]).
The Croatian Government has opted for co‑ordination at the county-level and it is expected that around 20 county-level food banks will be operating in 2024 (Government of the Republic of Croatia, 2022[23]). County co-ordinators are in charge of receiving food donations, and distribute them to beneficiaries either directly or through other intermediaries in the food donation chain. This measure is expected to facilitate food donation and lighten the administrative burden for intermediaries (Government of the Republic of Croatia, 2022[23]).
Promoting food donations and food banks can reduce waste
Food donations can be made directly to the final recipient or through intermediaries (such as NGOs) registered at the Ministry of Agriculture. In 2018, the Ministry established an electronic channel (e‑donation) for improving interconnections and communication between donors and intermediaries. All food can be donated under the condition that it is safe for consumption (Government of the Republic of Croatia, 2019[25]). The amount of food donated in 2021 was 1 600 tonnes which represents an increase of 6% compared to 2019 (Government of the Republic of Croatia, 2022[24]). Quantities of donated food have been on the rise since 2016 (when monitoring began), and an incentive is provided through a tax relief for food donations (European Commission, 2020[3]).
The Recovery and Resilience Plan contains two specific measures aimed at reducing food waste and increasing food donations. The first one refers to the establishment of an online platform to disseminate best practices, raise awareness and educate about food waste and food donation. The platform was upgraded in 2022 with additional functionalities, especially related to the adaptation of the existing system for regional management (Section 2.4.1). The second measure consists of a support scheme for equipping food banks and intermediaries in the donation chain with infrastructure such as cooling and storage facilities and equipment (Government of the Republic of Croatia, 2021[16]). Specifically under this second measure (C1.5 R.4), nine projects have been undertaken to finance infrastructure equipment for food banks and other intermediaries in the food donation chain.
5.2.3. Market regulation and competition issues
Market regulation and competition in the sector are in line with EU regulation
As explained in Chapter 2, upon accession to the European Union Croatia became part of the EU single market and measures related to the trade of agro-food products, such as tariffs and tariff rate quotas (TRQs), are defined and co-ordinated at the EU level. Croatia also transposed into national law the EU legislation related to Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures and technical barriers to trade (TBT).
Croatia is subject to the common organisation of agricultural products contained in Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013 and Regulation (EU) No. 2021/2017, which regulate the use of market-support tools, exceptional measures, and aid schemes for certain sectors (Publications Office of the European Union, 2021[26]). The CAP includes several measures that can be activated in case of market and economic crises, notably the traditional instruments of public intervention and support for private storage, which were augmented by provisions for exceptional measures for all products in the event of a market disturbance in Articles 219-222 of Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013 (OECD, 2023[9]). These articles provide considerable discretion to the European Commission to handle market crises, including the use of voluntary supply controls and financial support packages. In addition, Member States are authorised to provide national assistance to their farmers under state aid rules, an option often used in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the energy price hike induced by the war in Ukraine (OECD, 2023[9]). Croatia does not have any additional regulation on market organisation measures outside the EU legal framework.
As regards competition in the agro-food sector, the Act on the Prohibition of Unfair Trade Practices in the Food Supply Chain has been in force since 2017. The Act is harmonised with the EU Directive on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain (2019/633), and the entity in charge of its implementation is the Croatian Competition Agency.
EU Directive 2019/633 distinguishes between practices that are always prohibited (often referred to as “black” unfair trading practices), and practices which are only allowed if the supplier and the buyer agree to them beforehand in a clear and unambiguous manner (“grey” practices). Black unfair trading practices include short notice cancellations of perishable agri-food products, unilateral contract changes by the buyer, risk of loss and deterioration transferred to the supplier, or the misuse of trade secrets by the buyer. Grey practices include the return of unsold products; payment of the supplier for stocking, display, and listing; payment of the supplier for promotion, marketing, and advertising.
Product market regulation in Croatia is as competition-friendly as the OECD average
Several reforms in recent years have made Croatia’s regulatory framework more competition-friendly (OECD, 2023[27]). According to the OECD Product Market Regulation Indicators (PMR),17 product market regulation in Croatia is as competition-friendly as in most OECD Member countries (OECD, 2018[28]). While this is an economy-wide indicator, it highlights where Croatia’s regulatory framework stands vis-à-vis OECD Members in several areas which can affect businesses, including those along the food supply chain. For instance, Croatia scores worse (1.80) than the OECD average (1.59)18 on “Simplification and Evaluation of Regulations” due mostly to the lack of rules regulating the interaction between policymakers and interest groups. However, Croatia’s score regarding regulatory restrictions to trade and investment is low (on average 0.51), indicating a better performance than the OECD average of 0.69 (Figure 5.5).
Benchmarking of Croatia’s performance in the economy-wide PMR Indicator, 2018
Note: The PMR values range between (0) and (6) from the most to the least competition friendly regulatory regime. Lower scores indicate a better performance.
Source: OECD (2018), PMR database. Consulted December 2023.
While the PMR sectoral indicators do not cover the agro-food sector, they do cover retail, including specific information on food and beverages retail outlets. According to this, Croatia is slightly less competition-friendly than the OECD average, as a registration in a specific register (beyond a general commercial or trade registry) and an authorisation are both required to establish a new retail outlet selling food and beverages (Figure 5.6).
Conditions to establish a new retail outlet selling food and beverages in Croatia vs. OECD Members
Note: The asterisk (*) indicates Croatia's answers.
Source: OECD (2018), PMR database. Consulted December 2023.
5.2.4. Food waste
Per capita food waste levels are relatively low in Croatia
In 2021, Croatia produced very low levels of food waste per inhabitant (71 kg) compared to the EU average (130 kg) (Figure 5.7). Households accounted for three-quarters (76%) of the total amount, followed by primary production (14%) and food services (6%). The share of food and beverages processing (3%) and food retail (1%) in total food waste seems extremely low when compared to the EU average, which is seven times higher for both sectors (21% and 7% respectively).
Food waste generated by the main economic sectors in Croatia and the European Union, 2021
Note: Economic activity according to NACE rev.2. Food waste consists of parts of food intended to be ingested (edible food) and parts of food not intended to be ingested (inedible food). Food waste is any food that has become waste under these conditions: it has entered the food supply chain, it has then been removed or discarded from the food supply chain or at the final consumption stage, and it is finally destined to be processed as waste.
Source: Eurostat (2023[29]), Environment and energy indicators/Waste stream [env_wasfw]. Accessed October 2023.
Given changes in the methodologies used to measure food waste it is difficult to evaluate Croatia’s progress over time. A rough estimate from the Waste Management Information System for 2017 indicated an amount of 97 kg/inhabitant (Croatian Agency for the Environment and Nature, 2018[30]). Those estimates, however, were not in line with the methodologies for the measurement of food waste adopted at EU level in 2019.19 In order to fulfil the obligations prescribed by EU Waste Framework Directive, comprehensive statistical research was conducted with 2020 as reference year. This was part of the measures to improve measurement and monitoring under the 2019‑22 National Plan for Food Waste Prevention. Food waste values for 2020 and 2021 are nearly identical (Eurostat, 2023[29]). As research under the prescribed methodology started only recently, the collected data continues to have limitations.
In December 2022, Croatia adopted a new National Plan for the Prevention and Reduction of Food Waste for 2023-28. The plan builds on an assessment of the implementation of the 2019-22 National Plan for Food Waste Prevention. It aims at reducing food waste by 30% by 2028. The most important measure of this plan is to encourage food donations, including by establishing food banks to improve the donation system (Section 5.2.2). Other measures include consumer education and information campaigns, promoting voluntary agreements with the private sector to implement good practices, and investing in research work and innovative solutions to prevent and reduce food waste. An estimated EUR 5.7 million are necessary to implement the Plan’s measures, with EUR 4 million coming from EU funds and the remainder from the national budget (Government of the Republic of Croatia, 2022[24]).
Croatia’s capacity to treat food waste has improved but remains far from the EU average
According to the EU hierarchy for prioritisation of food surplus, by-products, and food waste prevention strategies, recycling nutrients is the preferred strategy when prevention, re-use or recycling of food waste is not possible (European Commission, 2020[31]). Recycling of nutrients is usually done through composting or anaerobic digestion, the two most common treatment methods for bio-waste treatment (European Environment Agency, 2020[32]). In Croatia, the use of composting and anaerobic digestion has steadily increased since 2010, but the 22 kg per inhabitant reached in 2021 is still far below the EU average of 95 kg. Moreover, only 5% of all municipal waste generated in Croatia was composted or digested, against 18% at the EU level (Figure 5.8).
While the data for composting and digestion included in Figure 5.8 refers only to municipal waste and does not cover food waste from the food manufacturing sector and agricultural food waste, it is still a useful proxy of a country’s capacity to treat food waste. Bio-waste is the largest component of all municipal waste in Europe (34%) and about 60% of this municipal bio-waste is food waste (European Environment Agency, 2020[32]). Additionally, since households produce 76% of food waste in Croatia (against the EU average of 53%), data on municipal waste is more illustrative for these purposes, compared to other countries.
Evolution of composting and digestion in Croatia and the European Union, 2011-21
Source: Eurostat (2023), Environment and energy indicators/Waste [env_wasmun]. Accessed October 2023
Increasing the levels of composting and digestion requires that bio-waste has a separate collection system (European Environment Agency, 2020[32]). In 2017, Croatia separately collected only 3% of its estimated potential total bio-waste, which is low compared to the EU average of 32%. This percentage decreases to just 2% for food waste,20 also below the EU average of 16% (European Compost Network, 2022[33]). Furthermore, and despite heavy investment in the waste collection infrastructure, in 2021 Croatia separately collected only 25% of its municipal bio-waste, far from the 2022 target of 40% defined in its National Waste Management Plan (NWMP) (Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development, 2022[34]). EU Member States were required to ensure separate collection of bio‑waste by the end of 2023.21
This limited waste treatment capacity is not exclusive to bio-waste. Croatia treats less municipal waste per capita than most OECD Members and the contribution of waste to overall GHG emissions (8%) is much higher than the OECD average (3%) (OECD, 2023[27]). The Recovery and Resilience Plan includes measures for the overall improvement of water and waste management with a budget of EUR 860 million (1.4% of the 2022 GDP including investments for recycling facilities and waste sorting centres, which can help address current limited capacities). The plan includes reforms to promote recycling and reduce landfilling by increasing the responsibilities of producers for waste management and promoting pay-as-you-throw schemes (Government of the Republic of Croatia, 2021[16]) (OECD, 2023[27]).
When reviewing Croatia’s 2023 National Reform Programme, the European Commission encouraged Croatia to increase investment in the composting and digestion infrastructure to improve the country’s strategic autonomy by generating bio-methane and/or producing organic fertilisers (European Commission, 2023[35]).
5.3.1. Selected dietary risks
Overweight in Croatia is higher than the EU average and increasing
Overweight and obesity are major risk factors for cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and certain cancers (OECD/European Union, 2022[36]). Both conditions are leading behavioural factors increasing the risk of disability and cause more than 1.2 million deaths across Europe annually (World Health Organization, 2022[37]).
While projections foresee that obesity rates in OECD Member countries will steadily increase to at least 2030 (OECD, 2017[38]) and the overweight rate increased in almost all EU countries between 2014 and 2019, the situation in Croatia deteriorated much faster than the EU average. The share of the population with overweight (including obesity) increased from 56% in 2014 (50% in the EU27) to 64% in 2019 (52% in the EU27) (Figure 5.9). In the case of teenagers, the overweight rate rose from 18% in 2018 to 24% in 2022, above the EU average (21%) (OECD/European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, 2023[39]). Among school-aged children, the rates of overweight and obesity were 35% and 15% respectively, also higher than the European averages (World Health Organization, 2022[37]).
Evolution of body mass index, share of the population
Note: Underweight: BMI less than 18.5. Normal weight: BMI between 18.5 and less than 25. Pre-obese (overweight): BMI between 25 and less than 30. Obese: BMI equal or greater than 30.
Source: Eurostat (2023), Population and social conditions indicators [hlth_ehis_bm1e]. Accessed October 2023.
Consumption of fruits and vegetables is particularly low amongst young adults
More than one-fifth (22%) of all deaths in Croatia can be attributed to dietary risks, a share well above the EU average of 17% (OECD/European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, 2023[39]). These dietary risks include high sugar and salt intake, as well as low fruit and vegetable consumption.
Most adults in Croatia (71%) consumed at least one daily portion of fruits and vegetables in 2019, slightly above the EU average (67%) (Eurostat, 2023[40]). The share of young adults (aged 15 to 34) consuming no fruits and vegetables (zero portions) daily, however, is higher than in the European Union (Figure 5.10). Another recent trend of concern is that the share of 15 to 24-year-olds consuming zero portions grew from 31% in 2014 to 46% in 2019. This goes against the trend observed for the rest of the Croatian adult population, but also against the EU-wide evolution, where the 15 to 24-year-old population shows better progress than all other age groups (Eurostat, 2023[40]).
Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by age range
Source: Eurostat (2023), Daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by sex, age and educational attainment level [hlth_ehis_fv3e], DOI: 10.2908/hlth_ehis_fv3e. Accessed October 2023.
5.3.2. Policies to encourage healthier and sustainable food choices
OECD Members use a wide range of policy interventions to incorporate public health considerations into food sector policies. OECD analysis of policies that encourage healthier food choices (Giner and Brooks, 2019[41]) suggests a four-track policy approach to reconcile food security and nutrition objectives with wider food systems objectives (Box 5.2).
The large and growing burden that unhealthy consumption habits impose on public health underpins the legitimacy of government intervention. Accordingly, governments have resorted to a wide range of health-related policies, from nutritional guidelines to fiscal policy, to address obesity and other major dietary risks. As in other policy areas, there is no “silver bullet” and the right set of instruments is to be carefully chosen by policymakers, considering the specific characteristics of their respective food systems.
Recognising the diversity of policy responses, the potential synergies among them and the need to find the right policy combination for each context, previous OECD work has proposed a “four-track policy approach” to encourage healthier food choices. This four-track approach can also be easily adapted to encourage more sustainable choices.
The four tracks proposed under this approach are:1
1. Demand-side public interventions (e.g. education programmes or providing dietary information).
2. Voluntary collaborations with the food industry at the supply-demand interface (e.g. food reformulation, food labelling).
3. Firmer regulations when public-private incentives are misaligned (e.g. rules on advertising aimed at children).
4. Fiscal measures to make the price of certain processed food products more closely reflect their social cost (e.g. excise or sales taxes).
1. The four-track approach was developed by Giner and Brooks (2019[41]), while some of the examples were taken from subsequent OECD work (OECD, 2021[1]).
Croatia has implemented diverse policy actions related to nutrition and diet
Food-based dietary guidelines were published in Croatia in 2002, with further guidelines for 7-10 and 11–15-year-olds published in 2008 and 2012, respectively. These guidelines are useful tools to translate nutrient recommendations into easy-to-understand messages for the general public (Breda et al., 2020[42]) and are a common first-track demand-side public intervention in OECD and EU countries. The school meals programme described in Section 5.2.2 contains multiple first-track interventions to encourage healthier diets among pre-school, primary and secondary school-aged children.
While some policies clearly fit into one of these tracks, there are many policies with measures that fit into multiple tracks. This is the case of Croatia’s National Health Promotion Programme “Healthy Living”, adopted in 2015 (Table 5.1). Policies intended to promote healthier diets can also address environmental sustainability concerns and vice versa. This is the case of the 2023-2028 Plan for Food Waste Prevention and Reduction, which is intended for sustainability objectives but also has an impact on diets. Table 5.1 synthesises some of the elements of these policies and their categorisation under the four-track policy approach.
A key element of Croatia’s Healthy Living Programme is a voluntary front-of-pack nutritional label (Table 5.1).22 Box 5.3 describes several of the main features of the Healthy Living label. While some Member States are trying to have their simplified labelling schemes adopted as the mandatory scheme at the EU level,23 Croatia has made no efforts in this regard, perhaps due to the fact that the Healthy Living label goes beyond food composition (e.g. the logo can be seen in parks and walking trails) and is perceived as a more general kind of information.
Examples of Croatia’s policies under the third track (firmer regulations) include mandatory limits for salt in certain cereal products, as well as restrictions on food advertising in primary and secondary schools. As to fourth-track policy interventions, in April 2020 Croatia established a special tax on coffee and non-alcoholic beverages containing high levels of sugar (World Cancer Research Fund International, n.d.[45]).24
As part of its Healthy Living health promotion programme, the Croatian government introduced a front-of-pack nutritional label with the same name. Nutrient criteria for the “Healthy Living” label are based on the recommended daily intake of energy and selected nutrients (total fat, saturated fatty acids, carbohydrates, sugars, proteins, salt) per adult according to the relevant EU regulations.1
Examples of simplified front-of-pack nutritional labelling schemes implemented in OECD countries show a high degree of diversity across various dimensions. The table below looks at some of the elements of the Healthy Living label and compares them with experiences in other OECD and accession countries.
|
Healthy Living |
In other OECD and accession countries |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Implementation method |
Voluntary1 |
Voluntary (e.g. Korea, EU Member States) Mixed (e.g. Israel) Mandatory (e.g. Canada, Chile, Colombia, Brazil, Finland) |
|
Information conveyed |
Positive nutritional composition (logo can be awarded to products meeting common and product-specific criteria defined by group of experts) |
Positive nutritional composition (Denmark, Iceland) Negative nutritional composition (e.g. Canada, Chile, Colombia, Finland) Hybrid -positive and/or negative – nutritional composition (e.g. Israel) Nutrient-specific nutritional information (e.g. Italy, Korea, United Kingdom) Summary rating based on an evaluation (e.g. Australia, France, New Zealand) |
|
Scheme |
|
|
1. As per Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011, EU Member States can only implement simplified nutrition labelling on a voluntary basis, which makes them second-track interventions under the four-track policy approach.
Sources: Giner, Rodriguez and Elasri (2023[46]), and World Cancer Research Fund International (n.d.[45]).
1. EU Directive on the provision of food information to consumers No. 1169 /2011, Annex XIII, Part B, Regulations on the provision of food information to consumers (OG 8/2013).
Croatia could explore further policy actions to encourage healthier food choices
Despite having implemented nutrition and diet-related policy actions across different areas, the evolution of dietary risks, obesity rates and fruit and vegetables consumption in Croatia are cause for concern. The country could explore further action in areas such as public awareness, nutritional education and skills, and children-focused measures. It could also consider setting incentives and rules to create a healthier retail and food service environment. Table 5.2 shows relevant examples of policy measures in these areas across OECD and accession countries.
In the context of the triple challenge, policymakers are faced with multiple objectives and policy instruments, which inevitably involve synergies and trade-offs. Furthermore, policymakers need to overcome disagreements over facts, diverging interests, and differences over values, which often complicate policy design and political decision-making processes (OECD, 2021[1]). This section explores how Croatia is dealing with these paradigms, looking at elements that have proven useful in navigating the complexities of the triple challenge, such as policy coherence, engagement with stakeholders, and the use of scientific research (OECD, 2021[1]).
5.4.1. Regulatory tools for better policy coherence
Croatia has adopted a whole-of-government policy for regulatory quality
Over the past decade, Croatia has made significant progress in strengthening its regulatory policy framework. A key milestone was the introduction of a high-level commitment and vision for better regulation in the form of a whole-of-government policy for regulatory quality. This policy embraces the principles of evidence-based and transparent decision making but has a strong focus on administrative burden reduction efforts. Broadening the scope of the policy to focus also on social and environmental objectives will enable the government to make full use of the potential of better regulation instruments for a holistic approach. The importance of whole-of-government policy packages for the transformation of agriculture and food systems was recognised by the 2022 OECD Declaration on Transformative Solutions for Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems.25
Inter-ministerial co-ordination for food systems-related issues is regulated by different instruments and under the responsibility of different entities
Inter-ministerial co-ordination is essential to achieve food systems transformation. Strong inter-institutional mechanisms should integrate relevant actors and engage them in strategy development. Such mechanisms facilitate the identification of potential trade-offs and synergies, and offer the opportunity to discuss how best to address them (UN Food Systems Coordination Hub, 2021[48]).
As stated in Section 5.2, Croatia does not have a food systems law or integrated policy that simultaneously looks at the three elements of the triple challenge and at areas of interaction between different policies affecting food systems. In addition, and similar to most OECD Members, there is no single co-ordination body or mechanism that comprehensively covers food systems-related issues. Instead, multiple instruments regulate inter-agency co-ordination on food systems-related areas (e.g. the Law on Food for food safety issues or the Law on Agriculture for matters related to Codex Alimentarius).
Better inter-agency co-ordination could help Croatia to address several challenges and constraints to the performance of its agro-food sector. It could, for example, assist in the development of a specific export promotion strategy for the agro-food sector (presently not available), improve the country’s trade facilitation performance (Section 2.6.2), and strengthen co-ordination amongst actors of the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS). The government is undertaking efforts in this area, e.g. an AKIS Co-ordination Body has been created (Section 4.1.1).
Croatia is increasingly using regulatory impact assessments, but could benefit from broadening their scope
Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIA) are increasingly used as a routine “screening” of proposed new laws and regulations (OECD, 2018[49]), and are among the best practices to ensure that policies are based on the best available evidence. Preliminary findings from the OECD Regulatory Policy Committee suggest that Croatia could benefit from broadening the scope of RIAs and extending the requirement to conduct ex post evaluations for regulations that have a significant impact on the economy, citizens, or the environment. In the context of food systems, a better use of RIAs can help bridge disagreements over facts, contribute to policy coherence, and evaluate (or feed into) stakeholder consultations (OECD, 2021[1]).
Stakeholder engagement has improved for primary laws and subordinate regulations, but consultations occur late in the regulatory process
The lawmaking process applicable to all pieces of national legislation and to the transposition of EU legislation is defined by the Law on Better Regulation Policy Instruments,26 in force since early 2024. This law strengthens the framework for impact assessment and evaluation, and includes additional standards for public consultation (European Commission, 2024[50]). It also introduces ex post regulatory impact assessment. Additional requirements apply to the transposition of EU law, including the preparation of a correspondence table between the provisions of EU and national regulations.
Croatia has developed an advanced framework for public consultations at the central state administration level, with a focus on online consultations in the later stage of the law-making process. Public consultation was first adopted in 2009 through a Code of Practice and later incorporated into law through an amendment to the Law on the Right of Access to Information. Draft laws and regulations must be published on an internet portal for a minimum of 30 days. Since 2015, public consultations are conducted through the online portal e-Savjetovanja27 (e-Consultations). Participation is open to all interested parties. Registration requires a personal identification number, which can be awarded to foreign parties (natural or legal persons) under the conditions established by law. Stakeholders such as business chambers, including from non-EU countries, often use the platform to provide comments on legislative proposals of interest.28 As a result of this public consultation framework, Croatia performs better than most OECD Members when it comes to stakeholder engagement in developing both primary laws and subordinate regulations.
Specifically for the agro-food sector, the Ministry of Agriculture makes efforts to inform the public and stakeholders about draft agricultural legislation and its implementation. Stakeholders are included in the working groups in charge of drafting new legislation, and consultations are conducted regularly on specific topics, including EU legislative proposals in relevant areas. A good example of stakeholder engagement can be seen in the run-up to the 2023-27 CSP (Box 5.4) and the definition of the national Agricultural Strategy up to 2030 (Section 2.1.4). Nevertheless, early-stage consultations are not systematically undertaken as part of Croatia’s policy making process.
Following the mandate of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115, the government made significant efforts to ensure that stakeholders were engaged in the preparation of the 2023-27 CAP Strategic Plan (CSP) of Croatia. Activities were diverse in nature and included a wide range of stakeholders. The following is a brief description of three key means of engaging stakeholders throughout the process:
Meetings of the Monitoring Committee: The body in charge of monitoring the 2014-20 CSP devoted an important part of their sessions to discuss the new CSP and the transition period this entailed. The Committee was composed of over 40 entities ranging from national, regional, and local governments to farmer associations, academia, and other private sector representatives.
Online consultations: Continuous online engagement by the Ministry of Agriculture included workshops, document and email exchanges, surveys, interactive thematic presentations, and sector-specific communications.
Field consultations: Three rounds of in-person consultations were organised in different regions of Croatia:
June-July 2021: The first draft documentation was discussed in five hybrid meetings open to the general public and key stakeholders. More than 4 000 people participated.
October 2021: This round focused on environmental issues and started with a two-day conference in Zagreb, followed by meetings with stakeholders in different regions of the country. Entities from all levels of government interacted with civil society organisations, local action groups, and farmer associations. Over 2 500 stakeholders participated in this second round. This round was followed by the 4th Croatian Rural Parliament, which gathered stakeholders from rural areas, with outputs from the discussion also feeding into the preparation of the CSP.
May-June 2022: The final round of discussions took place in Zagreb and followed a structured approach, focusing on targeted feedback from key stakeholders on specific areas of the CSP. Approximately 150 participants from a wide range of stakeholders provided detailed feedback.
Source: Appendix 3 of CSP 2023-2027 (Ministry of Agriculture, 2022[13]).
5.4.2. Engagement at the EU and international levels
Stakeholder engagement for proposals at the EU level in Croatia is limited
In shared competence policy areas such as agriculture, EU Member States benefit more from the negotiations if they arrive at the negotiation phase with a good understanding of the potential impact of EU directives and regulations, including on domestic citizens and businesses. The regulatory management tools used by the European Commission are key to this end, and EU-wide impact assessments are a resource for EU Member States and are made available several weeks in advance of the negotiations. EU citizens are offered several opportunities to contribute to EU law-making process as it evolves, including through public consultations. In the context of these consultations, most EU Member States play an important role in ensuring that their stakeholders are informed of proposals that affect them (Figure 5.11, panel a). Some Member States go further and require national stakeholder consultations and/or RIAs to define their negotiating positions. In the case of Croatia, unlike most EU Member States, neither regulatory management tool is required during the negotiation stage (Figure 5.11).
Source: Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (REG) Survey 2021
Croatia does not systematically inform its stakeholders about consultations at the EU level and only on some occasions does it use the European Commission’s consultation results to inform its national position (OECD, 2022[51]).
Relying solely on the results of the European Commission’s consultations means that input by stakeholders is considered by Croatian authorities at a relatively late stage, losing the benefits of early-stage consultations. Furthermore, considering the different interests and methods of work of the EC and EU Member States, the same stakeholder input could influence policy development differently if submitted to the European Commission than if presented to an individual Member State (OECD, 2022[51]).
International engagement: The case of the Food Systems Summit
The UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) took place in September 2021. This summit gave participants an opportunity to discuss five axes or action areas, with follow-up stocktaking meetings to take place every two years.29 Engagement by OECD Members has been high in relation to the different official and unofficial initiatives in the context of the UNFSS. For example, 33 of the 38 OECD Member countries and the European Union have participated in at least one of the UNFSS coalitions, and 27 OECD Members and the European Union have presented national pathways (Figure 5.12). Despite its participation in the UNFSS and preparatory events, Croatia has not directly participated in any of the coalitions created in the context of the UNFSS, nor has it presented a national pathway.
Note: *Besides OECD Members and accession candidate countries, the list also includes the European Union.
Source: UN Food Systems Coordination Hub (n.d.[52]).
Food markets in Croatia are functioning correctly and are well integrated into global value chains. Market concentration is mostly moderate to low across the value chain. To improve and increase the position of farmers in the food value chain, Croatia’s 2023-27 CSP includes interventions seeking to promote co-operation, quality schemes, and short value chains. However, past experience has shown that uptake and interest from farmers for these types of interventions has been low. Planned investments under the RRP can potentially strengthen some producer organisations and encourage farmers to participate in associative groups or organisations.
Croatia has adhered to the Council Recommendation on the OECD Due Diligence Guidelines for RBC and has established a National Contact Point. It has also adhered to the Recommendation of the Council on the OECD-FAO Guidance for Responsible Agricultural Supply Chains. Croatian authorities have undertaken promotional activities to support these Recommendations, but there is space for further action to disseminate the OECD-FAO Guidance and its active use by various stakeholders.
Croatia does not have a food systems law or integrated policy that simultaneously looks at the three elements of the triple challenge. As most OECD countries, Croatia has multiple policies guiding specific food system-related issues with responsible authorities scattered across jurisdictions, government agencies, and levels of government. Furthermore, agriculture policies are to a large extent decided at the EU level and governed by the CAP, and the participation of Croatian stakeholders in EU regulation processes is limited. Inter-ministerial co-ordination for food systems-related policies is key to identifying potential trade-offs and synergies, and how best to address them. Croatia, as most OECD countries, does not have a co-ordination body or mechanisms that comprehensively cover food systems policies. Multiple arrangements regulate horizontal co-ordination for specific topics or policy areas.
This chapter examined a selected set of issues that are important for food systems and which are drawing growing attention among OECD Members. Overall, Croatia has been taking action on shared OECD priorities with respect to meeting the triple challenge.
Significant progress has been made in measuring and preventing food waste, including an improved framework for food donations and the creation of county-level food banks. Treatment of food waste through composting and digestion has been steadily progressing, but per capita levels remain well below the average seen across the European Union. This situation contributes to municipal waste having a relatively large share in overall GHG emissions. Increasing food waste treatment requires the separate collection of bio-waste. Despite a recent EU mandate, Croatia does not have a separate bio-waste collection system that is convenient and accessible to most citizens across the country. Recommendations of the OECD Working Party on Resource Productivity and Waste (WPRPW) will be key to reducing the high contribution that municipal waste has to overall GHG emissions.
To encourage healthier consumption habits, Croatia has implemented an array of policies, including a school meals programme and a health promotion programme (“Healthy Living”). However, overweight and obesity are higher than the EU average and are increasing at a faster pace. The consumption of fruits and vegetables is decreasing in adults aged 15-34, a trend contrary to the one seen in most EU Member States. These trends suggest there is space for Croatia to strengthen its policy mix to encourage healthier food choices. To this end, Croatia could consider some of the measures implemented so far by other OECD and accession countries.
Agro-food policies, as policymaking in general, has benefitted from significant improvements in Croatia’s regulatory framework over the past decade. Encouraging early-stage stakeholder engagement, a strategic use of ex post assessments, and broadening the scope of RIAs could further result in better food system policies. There is space for Croatia to make better use of regulatory management tools when defining its national position to draft EU legislation. Other recommendations made by the OECD Regulatory Policy Committee will also be key to increasing policy coherence.
Croatia’s participation in UN Food Systems Summit’s initiatives seems to be lower than that of most OECD and accession countries. A more active engagement in initiatives such as coalitions or national pathways could help Croatia strengthen its food systems vision, improve the capacity of its policymakers, and increase the country’s influence at the international level.
References
[10] Arcadia International E.E.I.G, European Commission and EY (2019), “Study of the best ways for producer organisations to be formed, carry out their activities and be supported - Final report”, https://doi.org/10.2762/034412 (accessed on 8 December 2023).
[11] Božić, J., I. Šprajc and A. Srbljinović (2019), “Croatian co-operatives’ story of revival: Overcoming external obstacles”, Journal of Co-operative Organization and Management, Vol. 7/2, p. 100090, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcom.2019.100090.
[42] Breda, J. et al. (2020), “Towards better nutrition in Europe: Evaluating progress and defining future directions”, Food Policy, Vol. 96, p. 101887, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101887.
[30] Croatian Agency for the Environment and Nature (2018), Improvement of the system for collection of data on biowaste and food waste - output result 1, https://www.haop.hr/sites/default/files/uploads/dokumenti/021_otpad/Projekti/SC18-313%20Biootpad%20i%20otpad%20od%20hrane%20-%20rezultat%201%20FINAL%20ZA%20WEB%20(bez%20podataka%20MP%20i%20PRILOGA)_rev.pdf (accessed on 3 April 2024).
[7] Croatian Competition Agency (2022), 2021 CCA’s Groceries Retail Market Inquiry (automatic translation), https://www.aztn.hr/ea/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Prikaz-tr%C5%BEi%C5%A1ta-trgovine-na-malo-mje%C5%A1ovitom-robom-prete%C5%BEno-hranom-pi%C4%87ima-i-higijenskim-proizvodima-za-doma%C4%87instvo-u-Republici-Hrvatskoj-u-2021.-godini-1.pdf.
[50] European Commission (2024), 2024 Rule of Law Report - Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia (SWD(2024) 811 final), https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/9abb25c0-0dfe-4006-8753-257844de834e_en?filename=27_1_58065_coun_chap_croatia_en.pdf.
[35] European Commission (2023), 2023 Country Report - Croatia - Accompanying the document Recommendation for a COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION on the 2023 National Reform Programme of Croatia and delivering a Council opinion on the 2023 Stability Programme of Croatia, https://economy-finance.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-05/HR_SWD_2023_611_en.pdf (accessed on 5 December 2023).
[21] European Commission (2022), Synthesis of evaluation reports from Member States regarding their national strategies for sustainable 2013-2018 operational programmes in the fruit and vegetables sector, https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/cap-overview/cmef/products-and-markets/synthesis-evaluation-reports-member-states-regarding-their-national-strategies-sustainable-2013-18_en.
[31] European Commission (2020), Brief on food waste in the European Union, https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/KCB-Food%20waste%20brief_print_HQ.pdf.
[3] European Commission (2020), Commission recommendations for Croatia’s CAP strategic plan, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020SC0384.
[8] European Commission (2018), The contribution of producer organisations to an efficient agri-food supply chain, https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/79e708ae-dc23-4409-9bf1-542b43dff6d2_en?filename=conference-pos-brochure-sept2018_en.pdf.
[44] European Commission (n.d.), EU Food Loss and Waste Prevention Hub, https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food_waste/eu-food-loss-waste-prevention-hub/eu-member-states (accessed on 11 December 2023).
[33] European Compost Network (2022), Guidance on Separate Collection: The untapped potential and steps forward for separate collection of household food waste for high-quality recycling, https://www.compostnetwork.info/download/ecn-guidance-on-separate-collection/.
[32] European Environment Agency (2020), Bio-waste in Europe — turning challenges into opportunities, https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/bio-waste-in-europe.
[29] Eurostat (2023), Environment and energy indicators/Waste stream [env_wasfw], https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/env_wasfw/default/table?lang=en (accessed on 12 October 2023).
[40] Eurostat (2023), Population and social conditions indicators - Health determinants ([hlth_ehis_fv3e]), https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/HLTH_EHIS_FV3E__custom_1588514/default/table?lang=en.
[53] Eurostat (n.d.), European Commission (2023). CAP indicators C.17 (Agricultural holdings) and OIM_05 (Producer Organisations)), https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html (accessed on 29 February 2024).
[55] FAO (2023), Hunger and food insecurity, FAO | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, https://www.fao.org/hunger/en/ (accessed on 11 December 2023).
[2] Food Systems Dashboard (n.d.), About food systems, https://www.foodsystemsdashboard.org/information/about-food-systems (accessed on 9 April 2024).
[41] Giner, C. and J. Brooks (2019), “Policies for encouraging healthier food choices”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 137, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/11a42b51-en.
[19] Giner, C. and O. Placzek (2022), “Food insecurity and food assistance programmes across OECD countries: Overcoming evidence gaps”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 183, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/42b4a7fa-en.
[46] Giner, C., D. Rodriguez and A. Elasri (2023), “Developing food labels for improved health outcomes: Insights into simplified nutrition labelling policies”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 203, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c1f4d81d-en.
[20] Global Child Nutrition Foundation (GCNF) (2021), Global Survey of School Meal Programs Country Report, Croatia, https://gcnf.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Croatia_05_01.pdf (accessed on 11 November 2023).
[24] Government of the Republic of Croatia (2022), Decision on the adoption of the Plan for the prevention and reduction of food waste in the Republic of Croatia for the period from 2023 to 2028, Official Gazette, https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2022_12_156_2535.html.
[23] Government of the Republic of Croatia (2022), Fuchs: From the second half of the year, the Government provides HRK 544 million for school meals (automatic translation), https://vlada.gov.hr/vijesti/fuchs-od-2-polugodista-za-skolske-obroke-vlada-osigurava-544-milijuna-kuna/37571 (accessed on 11 December 2023).
[16] Government of the Republic of Croatia (2021), Nacionalni plan oporavka i otpornosti 2021-2026. (National recovery and resilience plan 2021-2026), https://planoporavka.gov.hr/UserDocsImages//dokumenti//Plan%20oporavka%20i%20otpornosti,%20srpanj%202021..pdf (accessed on 29 January 2024).
[25] Government of the Republic of Croatia (2019), Decision on Adoption of the Plan for Prevention and Reduction of Food Waste Generation, https://poljoprivreda.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/hrana/doniranje_hrane/Decision_Plan_Prevention_Reduction_Food_WasteRH2019-2022.pdf (accessed on 22 August 2023).
[12] Kantar, S. (2021), “Velika Pisanica poljoprivredna zadruga: primjer dobre prakse poljoprivrednog zadrugarstva u Hrvatskoj (Velika Pisanica agricultural cooperative: an example of good practice of agricultural cooperatives in Croatia)”, Agroeconomia Croatica, Vol. 11/1, pp. 146-155, https://hrcak.srce.hr/269950 (accessed on 21 November 2023).
[22] Ministry of Agriculture (2023), Godišnje izvješće o stanju poljoprivrede u 2022. godini (Yearly report on the state of agriculture in 2022), Directorate for Agricultural Policy, EU and International Cooperation, https://poljoprivreda.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/poljoprivredna_politika/zeleno_izvjesce/2023_11_16%20Zeleno%20izvje%C5%A1%C4%87e%202022%20web.pdf (accessed on 19 January 2024).
[13] Ministry of Agriculture (2022), Strategic Plan of the Common Agricultural Policy of the Republic of Croatia 2023 - 2027, https://ruralnirazvoj.hr/files/Strateski-plan-Zajednicke-poljoprivredne-politike-Republike-Hrvatske-2023.-2027..pdf (accessed on 25 October 2023).
[34] Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development (2022), Izvješće o komunalnom otpadu za 2021. godinu (Municipal Waste Report for 2021), https://www.haop.hr/sites/default/files/uploads/dokumenti/021_otpad/Izvjesca/komunalni/OTP_Izvje%C5%A1%C4%87e%20o%20komunalnom%20otpadu%20za%202021.%20godinu_FV.pdf.
[56] OECD (2025), “Beyond food loss and waste reduction targets: Translating reduction ambitions into policy outcomes”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 214, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/59cf6c95-en.
[54] OECD (2024), Agricultural Supply Chains and the Environment, https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/OECD-Agricultural-Supply-Chains-and-the-environment.pdf (accessed on 5 March 2024).
[27] OECD (2023), OECD Economic Surveys: Croatia 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4f945053-en.
[9] OECD (2023), Policies for the Future of Farming and Food in the European Union, OECD Agriculture and Food Policy Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/32810cf6-en.
[51] OECD (2022), Better Regulation Practices across the European Union 2022, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6e4b095d-en.
[47] OECD (2022), Healthy Eating and Active Lifestyles: Best Practices in Public Health, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/40f65568-en.
[18] OECD (2022), Report on the Implementation of the OECD Recommendation on the OECD-FAO Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct [C(2022)99], https://one.oecd.org/document/C(2022)99/en/pdf (accessed on 5 March 2024).
[1] OECD (2021), Making Better Policies for Food Systems, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ddfba4de-en.
[17] OECD (2019), OECD Investment Policy Reviews: Croatia 2019, OECD Investment Policy Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2bf079ba-en.
[28] OECD (2018), OECD Product Market Regulation (PMR) Indicators, https://www.oecd.org/economy/reform/indicators-of-product-market-regulation/.
[49] OECD (2018), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2018, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264303072-en.
[38] OECD (2017), Obesity Update, https://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Obesity-Update-2017.pdf.
[39] OECD/European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies (2023), Croatia: Country Health Profile 2023, State of Health in the EU, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8a7eadc9-en.
[36] OECD/European Union (2022), Health at a Glance: Europe 2022: State of Health in the EU Cycle, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/507433b0-en.
[26] Publications Office of the European Union (2021), Glossary of summaries - Common organisation of agricultural markets (CMO), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=LEGISSUM:common_agricultural_markets.
[43] Stimac, D. et al. (2016), “Croatian National Health Promotion Program– Living Healthy”, European Journal of Public Health, Vol. 26/suppl_1, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckw169.012.
[48] UN Food Systems Coordination Hub (2021), Policy Brief - Governance of Food Systems Transformation, https://www.unfoodsystemshub.org/docs/unfoodsystemslibraries/fss-community/chapter-2/policybrief_governanceunfss.pdf?sfvrsn=edae3afc_1 (accessed on 1 March 2024).
[52] UN Food Systems Coordination Hub (n.d.), UN Food Systems Coordination Hub Website, https://www.unfoodsystemshub.org/en (accessed on 18 December 2023).
[5] Van Dam, I. et al. (2021), “A detailed mapping of the food industry in the European single market: similarities and differences in market structure across countries and sectors”, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, Vol. 18/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-021-01117-8.
[14] World Bank (2023), World Bank Open Data: Logistics Performance Index, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/LP.LPI.OVRL.XQ (accessed on 29 February 2024).
[15] World Bank (2021), Supporting the Transformation of Producer Organizations for a Competitive, Sustainable, and Resilient Agri-Food Sector in Croatia, World Bank Group, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/114931621250512591/pdf/Supporting-the-Transformation-of-Producer-Organizations-for-a-Competitive-Sustainable-and-Resilient-Agri-Food-Sector-in-Croatia-Guidance-Note-Pilot-1.pdf.
[6] World Bank (2016), Assessment of the Global Value Chain (GVC) in Croatia: Sustainable Food Production and Processing, https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/610401632388244962/assessment-of-the-global-value-chain-gvc-in-croatia-sustainable-food-production-and-processing-stpa.
[4] World Bank (n.d.), World Development Indicators: Food, beverages and tobacco (% of value added in manufacturing), https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.MNF.FBTO.ZS.UN.
[45] World Cancer Research Fund International (n.d.), Nutrition policy database, https://policydatabase.wcrf.org/nourishing-moving-search (accessed on 21 February 2024).
[37] World Health Organization (2022), WHO European Regional Obesity Report 2022, https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/353747 (accessed on 22 August 2023).
← 1. Van Dam et al. (2021[5]) considered CR4 values below 40% to represent a competitive market. An indicator between 40% and 60% was considered a market with limited competition, while values above 60% were considered to indicate markets with limited competition and dominant firms in place.
← 2. As explained in Chapter 1, in the former Yugoslavia an important share of agricultural land was in the hands of large socially owned enterprises (agro-kombinats) that were often horizontally and vertically integrated.
← 3. Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.
← 4. In 2020, there were 3 719 recognised POs and APOs and 9 067 300 agricultural holdings at the EU level (Eurostat, n.d.[53]).
← 5. 2018 data is available in Eurostat for Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain.
← 6. Information reported by Croatia to the OECD in the context of the yearly agricultural policy monitoring.
← 9. The most populated cities after Zagreb are Split, Rijeka, Osijek, and Zadar.
← 10. The OECD-FAO Guidance helps business operating along agricultural supply chains, as well as investors in the sector, operationalise risk-based due diligence in line with the recommendations of the OECD Due Diligence Guidelines for RBC (OECD, 2024[54]).
← 11. Government of Croatia (n.d.), Brochure on the OECD-FAO Recommendations for Responsible Supply Chains in Agriculture, https://investcroatia.gov.hr/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Preporuke-OECD-a-i-FAO-a-za-odgovorne-lance-opskrbe-u-poljoprivredi.pdf.
← 12. The 2022 OECD Declaration on Transformative Solutions for Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems refers to food loss and waste both in the commitments section, as well as in the call for the OECD to develop data, common metrics and analysis that helps measure progress. The OECD Trade and Agriculture Directorate published a stocktaking of food loss and waste policies (OECD, 2025[56]).
← 13. Food insecurity is defined by FAO as the "lack of regular access to enough safe and nutritious food for normal growth and development and an active and healthy life” (FAO, 2023[55]).
← 14. This includes children in pre-school, primary, and secondary school.
← 15. Information reported by Croatia to the OECD in the context of the yearly agricultural policy monitoring.
← 16. In 2017, an EU aid scheme for the supply of fruit and vegetables, bananas, and milk in educational establishments, known as the ‘school scheme’, was established by combining two previous schemes (the school milk scheme and the school fruit and vegetables scheme) under a single framework. See https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/market-measures/school-fruit-vegetables-and-milk-scheme/school-scheme-explained_en.
← 17. The OECD’s Product Market Regulation Indicators assess the alignment of a country’s regulatory framework with internationally accepted best practices. The Economy-wide Indicator measures the distortions to competition that can be induced through the involvement of the State in the economy, as well as the barriers to entry and expansion that domestic and foreign firms face in different sectors of the economy.
← 18. The PMR indicators range from 0 to 6. A lower value represents a more competition friendly regulatory regime.
← 19. Commission delegated decision (EU) 2019/1597 (supplementing Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards a common methodology and minimum quality requirements for the uniform measurement of levels of food waste).
← 20. Bio-waste is composed of food waste and garden waste.
← 21. Article 22 of Directive 2008/98/EC indicates that by 31 December 2023 Member States shall ensure bio-waste is either separated and recycled at source or is collected separately and is not mixed with other types of waste.
← 22. Simplified nutrition labelling policies provide supplementary nutritional information in an easy-to-understand label displayed on food products at the front-of-pack (Giner, Rodriguez and Elasri, 2023[46]).
← 23. The adoption of a mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling within the European Union was announced in its Farm to Fork Strategy of May 2020. The European Commission is to base its proposal on a full impact assessment of different policy options, as well as consultations with Member States and stakeholders and scientific advice (Giner, Rodriguez and Elasri, 2023[46]).
← 24. Sugar in soft drinks is taxed depending on the amount of sugar in 100 millilitres of soft drink. The tax ranges from EUR 0.00 for drinks with up to two grammes of sugar per hectolitre to EUR 7.96 per hectolitre for beverages with more than 8g/hl.
← 25. One of the commitments under this legal instrument is to “to support the transformation of agriculture and food systems towards more sustainability and resilience through a comprehensive approach by (…) Developing and implementing coherent, effective whole-of-government policy packages (…)”.
← 26. Official Gazette No. 155/2023.
← 28. As indicated by Croatia to the OECD Committee for Agriculture in July 2024. In addition, all interested parties, including from non-EU countries, have access to the public consultations conducted by the European Commission.
← 29. (1) Nourish All People; (2) Boost Nature-based Solutions; (3) Advance Equitable Livelihoods, Decent Work and Empowered Communities;(4) Build Resilience to Vulnerabilities, Shocks and Stresses; and (5) Accelerating the Means of Implementation.