An innovative approach towards transformative change through multi-stakeholder participation for socio-ecological practices—Integrated Local Delivery (ILD)—has been used to restore the water quality and biodiversity across a catchment in the Cotswolds, South West England. This was triggered by the need to improve the Ecological Status of water as a part of the European Union's Water Framework Directive. On a landscape scale of roughly 25,000 hectares, multi-stakeholders collaborated through a bottom-up approach to carry out environmental restoration of the catchment. Over 3 years, an iterative learning loop of reflection and evolution created increased engagement. Twenty farmers have been empowered as 'guardians' to be key contacts between institutions and ensure the sustained environmental quality of the area. Both farmers and communities acted to reduce chemical use, protect river banks from livestock damage and clear waterways to enhance water quality and biodiversity. Local communities fed into the development of a 'Community Water Guide' which can be applied internationally for similar projects. Within the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) transformative change framework, the ILD model can also be applied by facilitators to access levers and leverage points in order to enable change. Important take home messages from the project include having well-trained facilitators who ensure active engagement, connections and continuity over the long term. Likewise, ensuring all stakeholders feel listened to and clearly communicated with is essential to build trust and motivation.
The Covid-19 pandemic shook the UK's food system, highlighting differences in long and short supply chains and their ability to respond and cope with disruption. Where long supply chains revealed weakness and suffered from the disruption, especially in the first few weeks of the pandemic, short supply chains stepped up to fill in these gaps and helped the vulnerable. Various reports were published during this time to highlight the relative strengths and weaknesses in supply chains and changes in consumer habits, including from the perspective of local food systems' actors. The pandemic also coincided with the government's release of the Agricultural Transition Plan 2021-2024, as well as the National Food Strategy. In this report, we review a selection of key documents (evidence papers, reports, manifestos and strategies) published during the pandemic (Spring 2020 - end of 2021) which examine local food chains and the UK food system, including analysis from non-governmental, government, science and industry organisations. We use these materials to assess how the UK's local food sector was framed and understood during the first two years of the pandemic (impacts, responsiveness, adaptability, contribution to system resilience, etc.), and to understand what visions and recommendations were being proposed for the sector going forward. Due to differences in perspective and their approach to the food system and supply chains, we group the organisations who have published the reports into two main sets of actors: a 'local food movement group' and a 'mainstream food system group', the latter including policy, science and industry. Our analysis reveals that: • There is an evident split between those who call for an urgent strategy to create resilience where they posit the food system has failed, and others who claim an existing level of resilience that needs to be strengthened. • There are significant differences between the local food movement group and mainstream food system group in the way local food is framed, understood and imagined as a pathway for systemic food system resilience and security. • Central to this difference is how the two groups position local food in the wider UK food system. For the local food movement group, re-localising food supply chains should be a central part of an improved UK food system, a means to provide multi-benefit solutions (sustainable, fair, etc.), and build capacity for resilience. In contrast, the mainstream food system group focuses on how to support the current system, which it sees as largely resilient. The reports from this group emphasised tweaks (such as making better use of new technologies) to buffer the just-in-time system of supply chain organisation. • In terms of UK food system resilience for the future, and the place of local food within that food future, recommendations from local food movement bodies focused on supporting local food initiatives and short supply chains through funding, infrastructure and skills support. The pandemic was viewed as providing a test of local food resilience, and the initiatives in the main were viewed to have proved their resilient and adaptive capacity. This outcome, these reports concluded, should support further investment in distributed systems, and so is an opportunity to better fund and support the sector. • The mainstream food system group has a more circumspect approach to future resilience regarding local food, in which the focus is on public procurement and associated technology developments. These are posited as a key way to shorten food chains, in part framed as a market opportunity for smaller producers to access new markets via local authority anchor institutes. • The interests of the mainstream and local food groups align around public procurement, which featured prominently in local food movement reports as well as in the mainstream corpus, e.g. in Recommendation 13 of the National Food Strategy (The Plan). • There is no discussion of 'local food' in Defra's Agricultural Transition Plan 2021-2024, and caution around the concept of 'local' in the National Food Strategy (Part 1), stemming from historical issues over limits to self-sufficiency.
The Covid-19 pandemic shook the UK's food system, highlighting differences in long and short supply chains and their ability to respond and cope with disruption. Where long supply chains revealed weakness and suffered from the disruption, especially in the first few weeks of the pandemic, short supply chains stepped up to fill in these gaps and helped the vulnerable. Various reports were published during this time to highlight the relative strengths and weaknesses in supply chains and changes in consumer habits, including from the perspective of local food systems' actors. The pandemic also coincided with the government's release of the Agricultural Transition Plan 2021-2024, as well as the National Food Strategy. In this report, we review a selection of key documents (evidence papers, reports, manifestos and strategies) published during the pandemic (Spring 2020 - end of 2021) which examine local food chains and the UK food system, including analysis from non-governmental, government, science and industry organisations. We use these materials to assess how the UK's local food sector was framed and understood during the first two years of the pandemic (impacts, responsiveness, adaptability, contribution to system resilience, etc.), and to understand what visions and recommendations were being proposed for the sector going forward. Due to differences in perspective and their approach to the food system and supply chains, we group the organisations who have published the reports into two main sets of actors: a 'local food movement group' and a 'mainstream food system group', the latter including policy, science and industry. Our analysis reveals that: • There is an evident split between those who call for an urgent strategy to create resilience where they posit the food system has failed, and others who claim an existing level of resilience that needs to be strengthened. • There are significant differences between the local food movement group and mainstream food system group in the way local food is framed, ...
5.2 Aim of This Chapter While other chapters focus more upon economic and production factors and their contribution to resilience, this chapter focuses on environmental sustainability and its inherent importance to resilience. Using Therond et al.'s farming system classification framework and the theory of lock-in in agricultural systems, we assess the environmental sustainability and therefore resilience of three case studies within Europe. We demonstrate how the challenges they face lock them in to their current systems, despite EU policies geared towards agrienvironment schemes. With multi-stakeholder input, we then show how tackling these lock-in factors can create more sustainable and resilient systems.
One of the aims of the post‐2020 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is to improve the resilience of Europe's farming systems. The CAP of the budget period 2014–2020, however, has insufficiently supported the resilience of farming systems. The ongoing CAP reform process offers an appropriate opportunity to integrate a broader perspective on resilience in the CAP. We therefore propose a set of policy recommendations on how to improve the capability of the CAP to support more fully the resilience (i.e. robustness, adaptability and transformability) of farming systems in the EU. The policy recommendations are based on a comparative analysis of six national co‐design workshops with stakeholders and a final EU‐level workshop with Brussels‐based experts. We concluded three key lessons about the CAP's influence on resilience: (1) resilience challenges, needs and policy effects are context‐specific; (2) resilience capacities are complementary, but trade‐offs between robustness, adaptability and transformability occur at the level of policies and due to budget competition; (3) there is a need for a coordinated long‐term vision for Europe's agriculture, which is difficult to achieve through the bargaining processes associated with a CAP reform. We propose specific policy recommendations that could contribute to a better balance between policies that support robustness, adaptability and transformability of Europe's farming systems.
One of the aims of the post‐2020 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is to improve the resilience of Europe's farming systems. The CAP of the budget period 2014–2020, however, has insufficiently supported the resilience of farming systems. The ongoing CAP reform process offers an appropriate opportunity to integrate a broader perspective on resilience in the CAP. We therefore propose a set of policy recommendations on how to improve the capability of the CAP to support more fully the resilience (i.e. robustness, adaptability and transformability) of farming systems in the EU. The policy recommendations are based on a comparative analysis of six national co‐design workshops with stakeholders and a final EU‐level workshop with Brussels‐based experts. We concluded three key lessons about the CAP's influence on resilience: (1) resilience challenges, needs and policy effects are context‐specific; (2) resilience capacities are complementary, but trade‐offs between robustness, adaptability and transformability occur at the level of policies and due to budget competition; (3) there is a need for a coordinated long‐term vision for Europe's agriculture, which is difficult to achieve through the bargaining processes associated with a CAP reform. We propose specific policy recommendations that could contribute to a better balance between policies that support robustness, adaptability and transformability of Europe's farming systems.
The influence of the policy framework on the resilience of European farming systems cannot be understood without analysing the interplay between the CAP and various other policies across sectors and jurisdictional levels from the perspective of regional farming systems. This report shows a bottom-up evaluation of policy framework for farming systems in five regions: dairy farming in Flanders (Belgium), extensive sheep farming in Hoya de Huesca, Aragon (Spain), arable farming in De Veenkoloniën (The Netherlands), large-scale corporate farms in East England (UK), and family fruit and vegetable farms in the Mazovian and Podlasie regions (Poland). The cases have been selected with a view to the variety of EU farming systems and associated challenges, as well as surrounding policy configurations. ; EU; BE; DE; ES; GB; PL; en; contact: yannick.buitenhuis@wur.nl
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.
In its Communication on the future of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) after 2020, the European Commission (2017) declared their ambition to foster a 'resilient agricultural sector'. The study presented in this report identifies various promising options for the CAP, including national implementations, to maximise its contribution to greater resilience of EU farming systems. These options serve as input for ongoing political debates on the reform of the CAP post-2020, the development of the proposed National Strategic Plans that spell out national priorities and implementation choices, as well as the European Commission's "From Farm to Fork Strategy", which aims to foster a circular food system, as part of the European Green Deal. For the UK case study (see below), we reflect on promising courses of action for post-Brexit agricultural policy. ; EU; en ; contact: jeroen.candel@wur.nl
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.
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. 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. 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. ; EU; en; contact: pytrik.reidsma@wur.nl
