Suchergebnisse

CONTEXT The ability of a farm to cope with challenges is often conceptualised as resilience. Although improving resilience of farms is a major policy goal in the European Union, the current state of resilience is often unknown. Previous resilience assessments have been based either on pre-defined indicators or on perceptions. In particular, empirical research of perceived resilience is still limited and usually restricted to one specific resilience capacity, one challenge, or one function. OBJECTIVE We investigate how European farmers perceive resilience capacities of their farms. Extending beyond previous research, we cover all three resilience capacities (robustness, adaptability, and transformability), consider a broad range of short-term shocks and long-term stresses, and include multiple functions. Furthermore, we analyse farms from diverse farming systems across Europe and investigate whether farms and farmers with similar perceived resilience capacities share characteristics. METHODS We address the complex nature of resilience capacities by accounting for multiple scales formulated as analytical steps of a resilience assessment framework. More specifically, these are 'resilience of what' (farms and farming systems), 'resilience to what' (challenges), 'resilience for what purpose' (functions), and 'what enhances resilience' (resilience attributes). These steps guided the development of a survey with farmers across eleven European farming systems. Based on three indices for each farmer indicating perceived robustness, adaptability, and transformability of their farms, we identified two classes of farmers with particularly strong and weak resilience profiles respectively. Using nonparametric Mann-Whitney U tests, we furthermore compared other parameters collected via the survey across the identified classes. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Our data sample outputs two classes of similar size characterised by all three perceived resilience capacities being above (below) regional average. This finding suggests that the perceptions of robustness, adaptability, and transformability are mutually dependent. Furthermore, we found that farmers who perceive their resilience above the regional averages are characterised by lower risk aversion, greater focus on providing public goods, a higher number of implemented risk management strategies, more active involvement in networks, and greater openness to innovation. SIGNIFICANCE The revealed links between particular characteristics of farms and farmers and different levels of perceived resilience capacities can support policy-makers in developing more targeted resilience-enhancing strategies, as well as in understanding farmers' responses to challenges. Finally, our results can serve as a basis for further research, e.g., for formulating and testing hypotheses on causal effects between perceived resilience and its components, and on links between perception- and indicator-based resilience assessments.

CONTEXT: The ability of a farm to cope with challenges is often conceptualised as resilience. Although improving resilience of farms is a major policy goal in the European Union, the current state of resilience is often unknown. Previous resilience assessments have been based either on pre-defined indicators or on perceptions. In particular, empirical research of perceived resilience is still limited and usually restricted to one specific resilience capacity, one challenge, or one function. OBJECTIVE: We investigate how European farmers perceive resilience capacities of their farms. Extending beyond previous research, we cover all three resilience capacities (robustness, adaptability, and transformability), consider a broad range of short-term shocks and long-term stresses, and include multiple functions. Furthermore, we analyse farms from diverse farming systems across Europe and investigate whether farms and farmers with similar perceived resilience capacities share characteristics. METHODS: We address the complex nature of resilience capacities by accounting for multiple scales formulated as analytical steps of a resilience assessment framework. More specifically, these are 'resilience of what' (farms and farming systems), 'resilience to what' (challenges), 'resilience for what purpose' (functions), and 'what enhances resilience' (resilience attributes). These steps guided the development of a survey with farmers across eleven European farming systems. Based on three indices for each farmer indicating perceived robustness, adaptability, and transformability of their farms, we identified two classes of farmers with particularly strong and weak resilience profiles respectively. Using nonparametric Mann-Whitney U tests, we furthermore compared other parameters collected via the survey across the identified classes. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Our data sample outputs two classes of similar size characterised by all three perceived resilience capacities being above (below) regional average. This finding suggests that the perceptions of robustness, adaptability, and transformability are mutually dependent. Furthermore, we found that farmers who perceive their resilience above the regional averages are characterised by lower risk aversion, greater focus on providing public goods, a higher number of implemented risk management strategies, more active involvement in networks, and greater openness to innovation. SIGNIFICANCE: The revealed links between particular characteristics of farms and farmers and different levels of perceived resilience capacities can support policy-makers in developing more targeted resilience-enhancing strategies, as well as in understanding farmers' responses to challenges. Finally, our results can serve as a basis for further research, e.g., for formulating and testing hypotheses on causal effects between perceived resilience and its components, and on links between perception- and indicator-based resilience assessments.

CONTEXT The ability of a farm to cope with challenges is often conceptualised as resilience. Although improving resilience of farms is a major policy goal in the European Union, the current state of resilience is often unknown. Previous resilience assessments have been based either on pre-defined indicators or on perceptions. In particular, empirical research of perceived resilience is still limited and usually restricted to one specific resilience capacity, one challenge, or one function. OBJECTIVE We investigate how European farmers perceive resilience capacities of their farms. Extending beyond previous research, we cover all three resilience capacities (robustness, adaptability, and transformability), consider a broad range of short-term shocks and long-term stresses, and include multiple functions. Furthermore, we analyse farms from diverse farming systems across Europe and investigate whether farms and farmers with similar perceived resilience capacities share characteristics. METHODS We address the complex nature of resilience capacities by accounting for multiple scales formulated as analytical steps of a resilience assessment framework. More specifically, these are 'resilience of what' (farms and farming systems), 'resilience to what' (challenges), 'resilience for what purpose' (functions), and 'what enhances resilience' (resilience attributes). These steps guided the development of a survey with farmers across eleven European farming systems. Based on three indices for each farmer indicating perceived robustness, adaptability, and transformability of their farms, we identified two classes of farmers with particularly strong and weak resilience profiles respectively. Using nonparametric Mann-Whitney U tests, we furthermore compared other parameters collected via the survey across the identified classes. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Our data sample outputs two classes of similar size characterised by all three perceived resilience capacities being above (below) regional average. This finding suggests that the ...

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European Union is essential to enhance the resilience of Europe's farming systems along three capacities: robustness, adaptability and transformability. The SURE-Farm project conducted the first systematic assessment how the CAP performs in this regard. The findings show that hitherto the CAP has been overly focused on supporting the robustness of an increasingly fragile status quo, with uneven effects, while neglecting adaptability and even constraining transformability. The future CAP needs to allow for a better balance with policy mixes that are tailored to regional needs, based on a shared long-term vision. This impliesreplacing direct payments with measures that specifically address resilience needs, e.g. points-based eco-schemes, agro-environmental programs, coordinated adaptation to shifting markets, ample support for cross-sectoral cooperation, innovation and advice to integrate production and provision of public goods, and participatory and integrative foresight to develop transformation pathways.

Making agriculture sustainable is a global challenge. In the European Union (EU), the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is failing with respect to biodiversity, climate, soil, land degradation as well as socio-economic challenges especially in rural areas. The European Commission's proposal for a CAP post-2020 allows Member States to choose low-ambition implementation. With a new Parliament and Commission in place, the reform process has now restarted. It is therefore time to act on urgent challenges and address citizens' demands for sustainable agriculture, using the full breadth of available scientific evidence and knowledge. Concerned about attempts to dilute the environmental ambition of the future CAP, we call on the European Parliament, the EU's Member States and the European Commission to adopt ten urgent action points for delivering sustainable food production, biodiversity conservation, and climate mitigation towards an evidence-based, future-proof European agriculture. The ; This version of the paper has been made publically available for signatories to support, from 4.11.2019 until 19.2.2020. The final version is available as a paper in People and Nature.

Abstract Making agriculture sustainable is a global challenge. In the European Union (EU), the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is failing with respect to biodiversity, climate, soil, land degradation as well as socio-economic challenges. The European Commission's proposal for a CAP post-2020 provides a scope for enhanced sustainability. However, it also allows Member States to choose low-ambition implementation pathways. It therefore remains essential to address citizens' demands for sustainable agriculture and rectify systemic weaknesses in the CAP, using the full breadth of available scientific evidence and knowledge. Concerned about current attempts to dilute the environmental ambition of the future CAP, and the lack of concrete proposals for improving the CAP in the draft of the European Green Deal, we call on the European Parliament, Council and Commission to adopt 10 urgent action points for delivering sustainable food production, biodiversity conservation and climate mitigation. Knowledge is available to help moving towards evidence-based, sustainable European agriculture that can benefit people, nature and their joint futures. The statements made in this article have the broad support of the scientific community, as expressed by above 3,600 signatories to the preprint version of this manuscript. The list can be found here (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3685632). A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article. ; Peer reviewed

AbstractSocieties worldwide are investing considerable resources into the safe development and use of nanomaterials. Although each of these protective efforts is crucial for governing the risks of nanomaterials, they are insufficient in isolation. What is missing is a more integrative governance approach that goes beyond legislation. Development of this approach must be evidence based and involve key stakeholders to ensure acceptance by end users. The challenge is to develop a framework that coordinates the variety of actors involved in nanotechnology and civil society to facilitate consideration of the complex issues that occur in this rapidly evolving research and development area. Here, we propose three sets of essential elements required to generate an effective risk governance framework for nanomaterials. (1) Advanced tools to facilitate risk‐based decision making, including an assessment of the needs of users regarding risk assessment, mitigation, and transfer. (2) An integrated model of predicted human behavior and decision making concerning nanomaterial risks. (3) Legal and other (nano‐specific and general) regulatory requirements to ensure compliance and to stimulate proactive approaches to safety. The implementation of such an approach should facilitate and motivate good practice for the various stakeholders to allow the safe and sustainable future development of nanotechnology.