| 1. |
- Hansson, Helena, et al.
(författare)
-
D5.3 Resilience assessment of current farming systems across the European Union
- 2019
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 2. |
- Hansson, Helena, et al.
(författare)
-
Impact of Covid-19 on farming systems in Europe through the lens of resilience thinking
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Agricultural Systems. - : Elsevier BV. - 0308-521X .- 1873-2267. ; 191
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Context: Resilience is the ability to deal with shocks and stresses, including the unknown and previously unimaginable, such as the Covid-19 crisis. Objective: This paper assesses (i) how different farming systems were exposed to the crisis, (ii) which resilience capacities were revealed and (iii) how resilience was enabled or constrained by the farming systems' social and institutional environment. Methods: The 11 farming systems included have been analysed since 2017. This allows a comparison of preCovid-19 findings and the Covid-19 crisis. Pre-Covid findings are from the SURE-Farm systematic sustainability and resilience assessment. For Covid-19 a special data collection was carried out during the early stage of lockdowns. Results and conclusions: Our case studies found limited impact of Covid-19 on the production and delivery of food and other agricultural products. This was due to either little exposure or the agile activation of robustness capacities of the farming systems in combination with an enabling institutional environment. Revealed capacities were mainly based on already existing connectedness among farmers and more broadly in value chains. Across cases, the experience of the crisis triggered reflexivity about the operation of the farming systems. Recurring topics were the need for shorter chains, more fairness towards farmers, and less dependence on migrant workers. However, actors in the farming systems and the enabling environment generally focused on the immediate issues and gave little real consideration to long-term implications and challenges. Hence, adaptive or transformative capacities were much less on display than coping capacities. The comparison with pre-Covid findings mostly showed similarities. If challenges, such as shortage of labour, already loomed before, they persisted during the crisis. Furthermore, the eminent role of resilience attributes was confirmed. In cases with high connectedness and diversity we found that these system characteristics contributed significantly to dealing with the crisis. Also the focus on coping capacities was already visible before the crisis. We are not sure yet whether the focus on shortterm robustness just reflects the higher visibility and urgency of shocks compared to slow processes that undermine or threaten important system functions, or whether they betray an imbalance in resilience capacities at the expense of adaptability and transformability. Significance: Our analysis indicates that if transformations are required, e.g. to respond to concerns about transnational value chains and future pandemics from zoonosis, the transformative capacity of many farming systems needs to be actively enhanced through an enabling environment.
|
|
| 3. |
- Labajova, Katarina, et al.
(författare)
-
Illusion of control in farmers’ investment and financing decisions
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Agricultural Finance Review. - 0002-1466. ; 82, s. 675-689
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose – People’s tendency to overestimate their ability to control random events, known as illusion of control, can affect financial decisions under uncertainty. This study developed an artifactual field experiment on illusion of control for a farm machinery investment. Design/methodology/approach – In an experiment with two treatments, the individual farmer was either given or not given a sense of control over a random outcome. After each decision, the authors elicited perceived control, and a questionnaire collected additional indirect measures of illusion of control from 78 German farmers and 10 farm advisors. Findings – The results did not support preregistered hypotheses of the presence of illusion of control. This null result was robust over multiple outcomes and model specifications. The findings demonstrate that cognitive biases may be small and difficult to replicate. Research limitations/implications – The sample is not representative for the German farming population. The authors discuss why the estimated treatment effect may represent a lower bound of the true effect. Originality/value – Illusion of control is well-studied in laboratory settings, but little is known about the extent to which farmers’ behavior is influenced by illusion of control.
|
|
| 4. |
- Lagerkvist, Carl-Johan, et al.
(författare)
-
Social incentives as nudges for agricultural knowledge diffusion and willingness to pay for certified seeds: Experimental evidence from Uganda
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Food Policy. - 0306-9192 .- 1873-5657. ; 120
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- A transition from low-input subsistence farming in Sub-Saharan Africa will require the use of yield-increasing agricultural technologies. However, in developing countries, most farmers continue to rely heavily on pest-infested and disease-infected recycled seed from own or local sources leading to low yields. This study used a field experiment to examine the effect of a social incentive combined with goal setting on the diffusion of agricultural knowledge and uptake of quality certified seed by farmers. We relaxed the seed access and information/knowledge constraints by introducing improved varieties of sweetpotato in the study villages and providing training to carefully selected progressive farmers who were then linked to co-villagers. We find that social incentives combined with goal setting reduced the likelihood of the trained progressive farmers reaching out to co-villagers to share information and discuss farming. Further, social incentive combined with goal setting had no significant effect on knowledge and experimentation by progressive farmers, and on willingness to pay for improved seed – as elicited through auctions, our proxy for experimentation, by co-villagers. These findings suggest that the combination of goal setting and public recognition acted to crowd-out diffusion effort. We conclude that social incentive combined with goal setting by established progressive farmers already enjoying a certain degree of public recognition is not sufficient to induce effort in learning and experimentation with agricultural innovations. These results have implications for design of policy and extension services to promote adoption of agricultural technologies with proven food and nutrition security benefits in developing countries.
|
|
| 5. |
- Manevska Tasevska, Gordana, et al.
(författare)
-
Adaptability of the High-Value Egg and Broiler Production in Sweden
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Resilient and Sustainable Farming Systems in Europe : Exploring Diversity and Pathways. - : Cambridge University Press. - 9781009098281 ; , s. 249-262
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The Swedish egg and broiler sector faces strict regulation, changes in consumer’ preferences for high-quality food, and a need for constant technological adaptation. The aim of this chapter is to map key characteristics and to assess the resilience of the sector.
|
|
| 6. |
- Manevska Tasevska, Gordana, et al.
(författare)
-
D5.5 Impacts of future scenarios on the resilience of farming systems across the EU assessed with quantitative and qualitative methods : sustainable and resilient EU farming systems (SURE-Farm) project report, EU Horizon 2020 Grant Agreement No. 727520
- 2020
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- For improving the sustainability and resilience of EU farming systems, it is important to assess their likely responses to future challenges under future scenarios. In the SURE-Farm project, a five-steps framework was developed to assess the resilience of farming systems. The steps are the following: 1) characterizing the farming system (resilience of what?), 2) identifying the challenges (resilience to what?), 3) identifying the desired functions (resilience for which purpose?), 4) assessing resilience capacities, and 5) assessing resilience attributes. For assessing the resilience of future farming systems, we took the same approach as for current farming systems, with the addition that future challenges were placed in the context of a set of possible future scenarios, (i.e., Eur-Agri-SSP scenarios).We evaluated future resilience in 11 case studies across the EU, using a soft coupling of different qualitative and quantitative approaches. The qualitative approach was FoPIA-SUREFarm 2, a participatory approach in which stakeholders identified critical thresholds for current systems, evaluated expected system performance when these thresholds would be exceeded, envisaged alternative future states of the systems (and their impact on indicators and resilience attributes), as well as strategies to get there. Quantitative approaches included models simulating the behavior of the systems under some specific challenges and scenarios. The models differed in assumptions and aspects of the farming systems described: Ecosystem Service modelling focused on the biophysical level (considering land cover and nitrogen fluxes), AgriPoliS considered, with an agent-based approach, socio-economic processes and interactions within the farming system, and System Dynamics, taking a holistic approach, explored some of the feedback loops mechanisms influencing the systems resilience from both a qualitative and quantitative approach.Each method highlighted different aspects of the farming systems. For each case study, results coming from different methods were discussed and compared. The FoPIA-SURE-Farm 2 assessment highlighted that most farming systems are close to critical thresholds, primarily for system challenges, but also for system indicators and resilience attributes. System indicators related to food production and economic viability were often considered to be close to critical thresholds. The alternative systems proposed by stakeholders are mostly adaptations of the current system and not transformations. In most case studies, both the current and alternative systems are moderately compatible with 'Eur-Agri-SSP1 – Agriculture on sustainable paths’, but little with other Eur-Agri-SSPs’. From the point of view of ecosystem services and nitrogen fluxes, the more resilient case studies are those able to provide multiple services at the same time (e.g., hazelnut cultivations in Italy and vegetable and fruit cultivation in Poland, able to provide good levels of both food production and carbon storage) and those well connected with other neighbouring farming systems (e.g., the Dutch case study receiving manure by the livestock sectors). The System Dynamic simulation (applied quantitatively for the Dutch and French case study) highlighted the need to develop resources that can increase farmers’ flexibility (e.g., access to cheap credit, local research and development, and local market). It also showed that innovation, networks, and cooperation contribute to building resilience against economic disturbances while highlighting the challenges for building resilience to environmental threats. From the application of AgriPoliS to the German case study it was concluded that changes in direct payment schemes not only affect the farm size structure, but also the functions of the farming system itself and therefore its resilience.The report showed complementarity between different methods and, above all, between quantitative and qualitative approaches. Qualitative approaches are needed for interaction with stakeholders, understand perceptions of stakeholders, consider available knowledge on all aspects of the farming system, including social dimensions, and perform a good basis for developing and parameterizing quantitative models. Quantitative methods allow quantifying the consequences of mental models, operationalizing the impact of stresses and strategies to tackle them and help to unveil unintended consequences, but are limited in their reach. Both are needed to assess resilience of farming systems and suggest strategies for improvement and to help stakeholders to wider their views regarding potential challenges and ways to tackle them.
|
|
| 7. |
- Manevska Tasevska, Gordana, et al.
(författare)
-
FoPIA-Surefarm 2 Case Study Report Sweden
- 2020
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- We investigate the egg and broiler production system in Sweden. The system is undergoing continuous adaptation driven by continuous change in consumer preferences (animal welfare, food quality), continuous change in regulation which also requires technology adoption, as well as stricter standards applying to domestic products than imported products, making it more difficult for Swedish producers to be competitive on international markets. The main functions of the farming system are providing affordable and healthy food, economic viability, and maintaining natural resources in a good condition. Taking good care of animal health and welfare is also among the main functions and is considered a precondition for delivering healthy food. Indicators that are most representative for these main functions (function indicators) are presented in Table 1. On a scale of 1-5, with 1 being very low to 5 being perfect, the performance of the function indicators ranges from 2.8 for viable income, 3 (FoPIA-SURE-Farm 1) and 4 (FoPIA-SURE-Farm 2) for animal health and welfare, 3.6 for delivering healthy products, to 3.9 for maintaining the natural resources in good condition.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Manevska Tasevska, Gordana, et al.
(författare)
-
How do Stakeholders Perceive the Sustainability and Resilience of EU Farming Systems?
- 2020
-
Ingår i: EuroChoices. - 1478-0917. ; 19, s. 18-27
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- An increasing variety of stresses and shocks provides challenges and opportunities for EU farming systems. This article presents findings of a participatory assessment on the sustainability and resilience of eleven EU farming systems, to inform the design of adequate and relevant strategies and policies. According to stakeholders that participated in workshops, the main functions of farming systems are related to food production, economic viability and maintenance of natural resources. Performance of farming systems assessed with regard to these and five other functions was perceived to be moderate. Past strategies were often geared towards making the system more profitable, and to a lesser extent towards coupling production with local and natural resources, social self‐organisation, enhancing functional diversity, and facilitating infrastructure for innovation. Overall, the resilience of the studied farming systems was perceived as low to moderate, with robustness and adaptability often dominant over transformability. To allow for transformability, being reasonably profitable and having access to infrastructure for innovation were viewed as essential. To improve sustainability and resilience of EU farming systems, responses to short‐term processes should better consider long‐term processes. Technological innovation is required, but it should be accompanied with structural, social, agro‐ecological and institutional changes.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
