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.
Multiple economic, ecological, institutional and societal challenges raise concern about the future functionality of agriculture and more specifically of farms in Europe, which leads to an increased need to understand and improve its resilience. We aim to provide a comprehensive overview of farmers' perception and self-assessment of resilience that would serve as a solid basis for further research on farm resilience. In order to achieve the aim, a farmer survey was designed based on theories of risk communication, decision theory and psychometric models. We conducted the survey in 11 case study regions across the European Union. No previous empirical research on farm resilience included so many diverse case studies. ; EU; en; contact: alisa.spiegel@wur.nl
Risk and risk management are essential elements of agriculture and affect the wellbeing of farm households. Farmers react to production, market and institutional risks and challenges by taking measures on or off the farm. Such risk management measures are often costly and have implications for up- and downstream industries as well as the environment. The risk exposure of European farms is increasing. For example, climate change will increase the frequency and magnitude of extreme weather events like droughts, heatwaves and heavy rainfalls that potentially have detrimental effects on agricultural production. Thus, the adaptive capacity and risk management options in European agriculture need to be improved. Policy shall support this process. Policies are needed to support a diversity of risk management solutions and not only focus on a few solutions. Strategies to cope with risk often go beyond the level of the individual farm. Cooperation, learning and sharing of risks play a vital role in European agriculture and shall be strengthened. Thus, coordinated policies targeting beyond the individual farm and considering all the stakeholders involved in the risk management strategies are needed to ensure their effective implementation. Moreover, policies need to facilitate to take full advantage of the rapid technological progress and improved data availability (e.g. based on satellite imagery) to develop a wider set of risk management strategies. ; EU; en; contact: miranda.meuwissen@wur.nl
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.
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.
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. ; EU; en; contact: pytrik.reidsma@wur.nl
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.
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.
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 ...
Europe's agricultural sector faces a range of economic, environmental and social challenges. The accumulation of these uncertainties and their potentially complex interconnections lead to concerns about the long term viability of production of private and public goods, the sustainability of agricultural systems and the vitality of rural areas. Importantly, these risks and uncertainties differ widely across regions, different types of farms and different farming systems, requiring a differentiated response. Responses might try either to reduce stressors or limit their impact, enhance the robustness of farms and farming systems against disturbances, or increase their ability to adapt to changing circumstances. No framework currently exists for a comprehensive assessment of whether policies and governance arrangements effectively enhance the sustainability and resilience of EU farming systems and improve the risk management of EU farms ; EU; en; contact: yann.demey@wur.nl
