Challenges that threaten the performance of farming systems have put resilience high on the agenda. Actions and strategies to stimulate the resilience of farming systems should follow six key principles that describe how actors in the farming system and its environment (governments, value chain businesses, banks, advisors and others) should act. How these principles translate into concrete recommendations is specific to regions and sectors. A co-creation process such as a policy dialogue should be created to develop roadmaps towards supporting resilience. ; en; EU; contact: erwin.wauters@ilvo.vlaanderen.be
Farm succession is a key policy concern of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy and the European Commission's proposals for the future. This article uses the agent‐based model AgriPoliS to study the effects of the availability of potential successors in two agricultural regions, one in Belgium (Flanders) and one in eastern Germany (the Altmark). The analysis provides no indication that considerably fewer successors would threaten the ability of the farming systems to ensure an adequate provision of private and public goods. Most farm closures occur due to the low efficiency of some farms which hinders the ability of famers to cover true long‐term opportunity costs, i.e. the possibility of earning a higher income outside agriculture. In both study regions, a lack of successors leads to adaptations which create new opportunities for other farms and, in Flanders, to higher economic prosperity at the regional level. The adaptations differ between regions due to existing farm structures, labour demands and costs, institutional frameworks, and the ability to exploit economies of scale. The results of the simulations challenge the notion central to many CAP policies – that more farm succession is better for European agriculture. These findings call for a contextualised reconsideration of agricultural policies which support structural change and regional growth – not hinder it. ; EU; BE; DE; en; contact:
Farm succession is a key policy concern of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy and the European Commission's proposals for the future. This article uses the agent-based model AgriPoliS to study the effects of the availability of potential successors in two agricultural regions, one in Belgium (Flanders) and one in eastern Germany (the Altmark). The analysis provides no indication that considerably fewer successors would threaten the ability of the farming systems to ensure an adequate provision of private and public goods. Most farm closures occur due to the low efficiency of some farms which hinders the ability of famers to cover true long-term opportunity costs, i.e. the possibility of earning a higher income outside agriculture. In both study regions, a lack of successors leads to adaptations which create new opportunities for other farms and, in Flanders, to higher economic prosperity at the regional level. The adaptations differ between regions due to existing farm structures, labour demands and costs, institutional frameworks, and the ability to exploit economies of scale. The results of the simulations challenge the notion central to many CAP policies – that more farm succession is better for European agriculture. These findings call for a contextualised reconsideration of agricultural policies which support structural change and regional growth – not hinder it.
Demographic trends affect EU farms' availability of successors and hired labour. If a potential successor is available, generational renewal on family farms occurs in stages: the successor's identity formation, the farm transfer, and the farm development. If generational renewal on the farm level is not possible, adaptations of other farms can ensure the future provision of private and public goods on the regional level if there is a sufficient supply of hired labour.
The challenges faced by agricultural systems call for an advance in risk management (RM) assessments. This research identifies and discusses potential improvements to RM across 11 European Union (EU) farming systems (FS). The paper proposes a comprehensive, participatory approach that accounts for multi-stakeholder perspectives relying on 11 focus groups for brainstorming and gathering suggestions to improve RM. Data analysis is based on content analysis and coding of suggested improvements, and their assessment through the lenses of main challenges faced, farms' flexibility, and dependence on subsidies. First, the results show that necessary improvements differ depending on whether they have their origin in sudden shocks or long-term pressures. Second, farm dependence on direct payments determines a stronger need to improve financial instruments, whereas farm flexibility suggests a need for more accessible and tailored tools for low-flexibility FS, and increased know-what and know-how for high-flexibility FS. Third, our findings indicate a potential for extending stakeholder involvement in RM to new or unconventional roles. Underlying specific improvements, the paper suggests and discusses three main avenues to improve RM as a whole: i) a developed learning and knowledge network; ii) new forms of collaboration; and iii) integrated financial and policy instruments. ; en; EU; contact: daniele.bertolozzi@upm.es
The challenges faced by agricultural systems call for an advance in risk management (RM) assessments. This research identifies and discusses potential improvements to RM across 11 European Union (EU) farming systems (FS). The paper proposes a comprehensive, participatory approach that accounts for multi-stakeholder perspectives relying on 11 focus groups for brainstorming and gathering suggestions to improve RM. Data analysis is based on content analysis and coding of suggested improvements, and their assessment through the lenses of main challenges faced, farms' flexibility, and dependence on subsidies. First, the results show that necessary improvements differ depending on whether they have their origin in sudden shocks or long-term pressures. Second, farm dependence on direct payments determines a stronger need to improve financial instruments, whereas farm flexibility suggests a need for more accessible and tailored tools for low-flexibility FS, and increased know-what and know-how for high-flexibility FS. Third, our findings indicate a potential for extending stakeholder involvement in RM to new or unconventional roles. Underlying specific improvements, the paper suggests and discusses three main avenues to improve RM as a whole: i) a developed learning and knowledge network; ii) new forms of collaboration; and iii) integrated financial and policy instruments.
The challenges faced by agricultural systems call for an advance in risk management (RM) assessments. This research identifies and discusses potential improvements to RM across 11 European Union (EU) farming systems (FS). The paper proposes a comprehensive, participatory approach that accounts for multi-stakeholder perspectives relying on 11 focus groups for brainstorming and gathering suggestions to improve RM. Data analysis is based on content analysis and coding of suggested improvements, and their assessment through the lenses of main challenges faced, farms' flexibility, and dependence on subsidies. First, the results show that necessary improvements differ depending on whether they have their origin in sudden shocks or long-term pressures. Second, farm dependence on direct payments determines a stronger need to improve financial instruments, whereas farm flexibility suggests a need for more accessible and tailored tools for low-flexibility FS, and increased know-what and know-how for high-flexibility FS. Third, our findings indicate a potential for extending stakeholder involvement in RM to new or unconventional roles. Underlying specific improvements, the paper suggests and discusses three main avenues to improve RM as a whole: i) a developed learning and knowledge network; ii) new forms of collaboration; and iii) integrated financial and policy instruments.
Farming systems (FS) operate in biophysical, political, social, economic and cultural environments which are often far from stable. Frequently or unfavourably changing conditions can affect FS performance, i.e., the delivery of FS functions (such as food production or ecosystem services). The aim of this report is to identify principles for an enabling environment to foster (rather than hinder) resilient farming systems in Europe. Fostering FS resilience is done through (re)designing institutions and building and mobilising resources in order to enhance resilience enabling attributes of FS (and remove resilience constraining attributes). These institutions can be both part of the FS and part of an enabling environment, consisting of private actors (such as food processors, retailers, banks, etc.) and public actors (government agencies). Six general principles underpinning patterns that enable FS resilience have been formulated. An important challenge is that FS and enabling environments should always find a good balance between addressing challenges in the short run and dealing with challenges in the long run. ; en; EU; contact: erik.mathijs@ees.kuleuven.be
Farming systems (FS) operate in biophysical, political, social, economic and cultural environments which are often far from stable. Frequently or unfavourably changing conditions can affect FS performance, i.e., the delivery of FS functions (such as food production or ecosystem services). The aim of task 6.1 is to identify principles for an enabling environment to foster (rather than hinder) resilient farming systems in Europe. Task 6.2 will translate these principles into roadmaps that will contain recommendations for both public and private actors and institutions in the enable environment on how to support farming system resilience. A farming system is a system hierarchy level above the farm at which properties emerge resulting from formal and informal interactions and interrelations among farms and non-farm actors to the extent that these mutually influence each other. The environment can then be defined as the context of a farming system on which farming system actors have no or little influence. Hence, actors belonging to the environment may be food processors, retailers, financial institutions, technology providers, consumers, policy makers, etc. Fostering FS resilience is done through (re)designing institutions and building and mobilising resources in order to enhance resilience enabling attributes of FS (and remove resilience constraining attributes). These institutions can be both part of the FS and part of an enabling environment, consisting of private actors (such as food processors, retailers, banks, etc.) and public actors (government agencies). Four archetypical patterns according to which challenges are insufficiently addressed to foster FS resilience have been identified. Six general principles underpinning patterns that enable FS resilience have been formulated. An important challenge is that FS and enabling environments should always find a good balance between addressing challenges in the short run and dealing with challenges in the long run.
The challenges faced by agricultural systems call for an advance in risk management (RM) assessments. This research identifies and discusses potential improvements to RM across 11 European Union (EU) farming systems (FS). The paper proposes a comprehensive, participatory approach that accounts for multi-stakeholder perspectives relying on 11 focus groups for brainstorming and gathering suggestions to improve RM. Data analysis is based on content analysis and coding of suggested improvements, and their assessment through the lenses of main challenges faced, farms' flexibility, and dependence on subsidies. First, the results show that necessary improvements differ depending on whether they have their origin in sudden shocks or long-term pressures. Second, farm dependence on direct payments determines a stronger need to improve financial instruments, whereas farm flexibility suggests a need for more accessible and tailored tools for low-flexibility FS, and increased know-what and know-how for high-flexibility FS. Third, our findings indicate a potential for extending stakeholder involvement in RM to new or unconventional roles. Underlying specific improvements, the paper suggests and discusses three main avenues to improve RM as a whole: i) a developed learning and knowledge network; ii) new forms of collaboration; and iii) integrated financial and policy instruments.
In this study, we used insights from a participatory assessment (FoPIA‐SURE‐Farm 1 and 2) executed in in 11 EU farming systems to identify strategies that enhance sustainability and resilience of these farming systems. This participatory assessment was complemented by an expert assessment and system dynamics (SD) modelling, to improve understanding of dynamic processes influencing sustainability and resilience of farming systems, and the conditions that enable such processes. The main aim was to identify past and optional future strategies in farming systems across the EU, to assess how these contribute to the delivery of private and public goods and resilience‐enhancing attributes, and to identify additional interventions needed by farming system actors and the enabling environment. ; EU; en; contact: pytrik.reidsma@wur.nl
Resilience is the ability to deal with shocks and stresses, including the unknown and previously unimaginable, such as the Covid19 crisis. The aim of this paper is to assess responses of farming systems (FS) to this crisis and to assess them from the perspective of resilience thinking. We build on a resilience framework developed in the SURE‐Farm project and on ongoing resilience assessments in 11 FS across Europe through which we have an in‐depth understanding of the 'pre‐Covid19 situation' in each FS. This includes insights whether an FS has an enabling (or constraining) environment, who are the relevant system actors beyond farms, and what are the social, economic and ecological functions to be delivered by the system. The analysis allows us to understand which resilience resources and strategies were mobilised in different FS and thereby to explain differences in the ability of FS to cope with and respond to the crisis. Furthermore, the approach enables us to put crisis responses in a broader resilience perspective and to assess whether responses might enhance (or constrain) future resilience. Thus, our analysis allows to draw policy and industry relevant conclusions how to increase resilience of farming systems.
Farming systems (FS) operate in biophysical, political, social, economic, and cultural environments which are often far from stable. Frequently or unfavorably changing conditions can affect FS performance, i.e., the delivery of FS functions. We defined 6 principles for an enabling environment to foster resilience of farming systems in Europe. This principles are translated into 10 case study specific roadmaps that contain recommendations for both publica and private actors and institutions in the farming systema and the enabling environment on how to support farming system resilience. ; en; EU; contact: erwin.wauters@ilvo.vlaanderen.be
The SURE-Farm project aims to analyse, assess and improve the resilience and sustainability of farming systems in Europe. Farming systems face a whole range of social, ecological, economic and political disturbances and changes, such as sharp market fluctuations, severe weather events, climate change, new technologies, changes in consumer preferences and in governance structures and so forth, operating at a range of scales (local, regional, national and global). Some stresses on the farm system can be predicted (e.g. retirement of farmers), while other shocks are more uncertain and unpredictable (e.g. flooding, sudden price drop, illness). Project's WP2 aims to comprehensively understand farmers' risk behaviour and risk management (RM) decisions, and to develop and test RM strategies and decision support tools that farmers can use to cope with increasing economic, environmental and social uncertainties and risks. WP2 contributes to the development of RM in EU farming systems by understanding and eliciting farmers' risk perceptions and preferences; learning about farmers' adaptive behaviour; learning capacity and preferred improvements of current RM tools; designing and analysing improved strategies to deal with extreme weather; and co-creating improved RM tools and map-related institutional challenges.
For improving sustainability and resilience of EU farming system, the current state needs to be assessed, before being able to move on to future scenarios. Assessing sustainability and resilience of farming systems is a multi-faceted research challenge in terms of the scientific domains and scales of integration (farm, household, farming system level) that need to be covered. Hence, in SURE-Farm, multiple approaches are used to evaluate current sustainability and resilience and its underlying structures and drivers. To maintain consistency across the different approaches, all approaches are connected to a resilience framework which was developed for the unique purposes of SURE-Farm. The resilience framework follows five steps: 1) the farming system (resilience of what?), 2) challenges (resilience to what?), 3) functions (resilience for what purpose?), 4) resilience capacities, 5) resilience attributes (what enhances resilience?). The framework was operationalized in 11 case studies across the EU. Applied approaches differ in disciplinary orientation and the farming system process they focus on. Three approaches focus on risk management: 1) a farm survey with a main focus on risk management and risk management strategies, 2) interviews on farmers' learning capacity and networks of influence, and 3) Focus Groups on risk management. Two approaches address farm demographics: 4) interviews on farm demographics, and 5) AgriPoliS Focus Group workshops on structural change of farming systems from a (farm) demographics perspective. One approach applied so far addresses governance: 6) the Resilience Assessment Tool that evaluates how policies and legislation support resilience of farming systems. Two methods address agricultural production and delivery of public and private goods: 7) the Framework of Participatory Impact Assessment for sustainable and resilient farming systems (FoPIA-SURE-Farm), aiming to integrate multiple perspectives at farming system level, and 8) the Ecosystem Services assessment that evaluates the delivery of public and private goods. In a few case studies, additional methods were applied. Specifically, in the Italian case study, additional statistical approaches were used to increase the support for risk management options (Appendix A and Appendix B). Results of the different methods were compared and synthesized per step of the resilience framework. Synthesized results were used to determine the position of the farming system in the adaptive cycle, i.e. in the exploitation, conservation, release, or reorganization phase. Dependent on the current phase of the farming system, strategies for improving sustainability and resilience were developed. Results were synthesized around the three aspects characterizing the SURE-Farm framework, i.e. (i) it studies resilience at the farming system level, (ii) considers three resilience capacities, and (iii) assesses resilience in the context of the (changing) functions of the system. (i) Many actors are part of the farming system. However, resilience-enhancing strategies are mostly defined at the farm level. In each farming system multiple actors are considered to be part of the system, such as consultants, neighbors, local selling networks and nature organizations. The number of different farming system actors beyond the focal farmers varies between 4 (in French beef and Italian hazelnut systems) and 14 (large-scale arable systems in the UK). These large numbers of actors illustrate the relevance of looking at farming system level rather than at farm level. It also suggests that discussions about resilience and future strategies need to embrace all of these actors. (ii) At system level there is a low perceived capacity to transform. Yet, most systems appear to be at the start of a period in which (incremental) transformation is required. At system level, the capacity to transform is perceived to be relatively low, except in the Romanian mixed farming system. The latter may reflect a combination of ample room to grow and a relatively stable environment (especially when compared to the past 30 to 50 years). The relatively low capacity to transform in the majority of systems is not in line with the suggestion that most systems are at the start of (incremental) transformation, or, at least, reached a situation in which they can no longer grow. Further growth is only deemed possible in the Belgium dairy, Italian hazelnut, Polish fruit and Romanian mixed farming systems. (iii) System functions score well with regard to the delivery of high-quality and safe food but face problems with quality of rural life and protecting biodiversity. Resilience capacities can only be understood in the context of the functions to be delivered by a farming system. We find that across all systems required functions are a mix of private and public goods. With regard to the capacity to deliver private goods, all systems perform well with respect to high-quality and safe food. Viability of farm income is regarded moderate or low in the livestock systems in Belgium (dairy), France (beef) and Sweden (broilers), and the fruit farming system in Poland. Across all functions, attention is especially needed for the delivery of public goods. More specifically the quality of rural life and infrastructure are frequently classified as being important, but currently performing bad. Despite the concerns about the delivery of public goods, many future strategies still focus on improving the delivery of private goods. Suggestions in the area of public goods include among others the implementation of conservation farming in the UK arable system, improved water management in the Italian hazelnut system, and introduction of technologies which reduce the use of herbicides in Polish fruit systems. It is questionable whether these are sufficient to address the need to improve the maintenance of natural resources, biodiversity and attractiveness of rural areas. With regard to the changing of functions over time, we did not find evidence for this in our farming systems.
