Demographic Dimensions of Resilient Farming Systems in the EU

Although Indonesia has recorded good performance in its national economic development, especially in the agriculture sector during the Covid-19 pandemic, the impact of the pandemic on farming and food systems has not been evaluated yet. This study has evaluated the resilience of the two dominant existing farming systems in West Timor, i.e. (i) wetland farming system and (ii) dryland farming system. This research aims to understand the resilience of farming after the Covid-19 pandemic and to develop strategic policies that could be adopted to increase the resilience of the farming system in West Timor. A quantitative analysis using the Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was employed to evaluate the relationship and impact of the following seven generic aspects: labour movement, sustainability, economy, socio- culture, output markets, input markets, farming system resilience, and 27 reflective indicators. The analysis shows that dryland farming systems are more resilient than wetland farming systems. It might be understood from the size of the regression coefficient, as the impact of exogenous construct variables of the environment, socioculture, input, and output on the resilience of dryland farming systems is more significant than on wetlands. Economic performance rather than labour movement factors will create better resilience of farming systems for wetland or dryland after the Covid-19 pandemic. Finally, the economic recovery process and the ongoing input supply mechanism after the Covid-19 pandemic have increased the resilience of the dryland food system more than the resilience of the wetland farming system.

Increased global agricultural output since the 1990s has been largely driven by innovations that raised the efficiency of use of labour, land, capital and other inputs—referred to as total factor productivity (TFP) growth. Yet debates over the future of farming still weigh heavily on models of agricultural land use and socioecological trade-offs along traditional (partial factor productivity) growth paths of ‘intensification’ or ‘extensification’. Overlooking the role of TFP in the evolution of global agriculture not only obscures the changing drivers of productivity growth but also misses vital linkages with agricultural sustainability and farming system resilience. We describe two pathways for growth—technology-based and ecosystem-based—and link these in a heuristic framework that emphasizes sustainability and resilience outcomes in farming systems. Interdisciplinary research is urgently needed to empirically examine the dynamic interplay of TFP growth, farming system sustainability and resilience. Such insights will help to transform TFP growth as metric into actionable efforts on farms and beyond. Since the 1990s, global agricultural output has been driven largely by innovations that raised the efficiency of using labour, land and other inputs, together called total factor productivity (TFP). This Perspective discusses this reality and suggests two pathways for future growth: technology-based and ecosystem-based. Future research on farm-system sustainability and resilience should leverage these options.

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.

According to stakeholders, many European farming systems are close to critical thresholds regarding the challenges they face (e.g., droughts, price declines), functions they deliver (e.g., economic viability, biodiversity and habitat) and attributes required for resilience (e.g., social self-organization). To accelerate a transition process towards sustainable and resilient agriculture, this study aimed to identify actor-supported alternative systems across 10 European farming systems, and to identify associated future strategies that contribute to strengthening resilience attributes, using a backcasting approach. This paper synthesizes 1) the participatory identification of desired alternative systems and their expected performance on sustainability and resilience, 2) the participatory identification of strategies to realize those alternative systems, 3) the contribution of identified past and future strategies to 22 resilience attributes, and 4) the compatibility of the status quo and alternative systems with different future scenarios, the Eur-Agri-SSPs. Many identified alternative systems emphasized technology, diversification and organic and/or nature friendly farming, while in some farming systems also a focus on intensification, specialization, better product valorization, collaboration, or creating an attractive countryside could increase sustainability and resilience. Low economic viability limited farming system actors to pay attention to environmental and social functions. Further, most alternative systems were adaptations rather than transformations. Many stakeholders had difficulty to envisage systems without the main products (e.g., starch potato in NL-Arable, sheep in ES-Sheep and hazelnut in IT-Hazelnut), but in few cases transformative systems were designed (e.g. local organic farming in PL-Horticulture and RO-Mixed). Sustainability and resilience can be enhanced when alternative systems and strategies are combined, thereby improving multiple functions and attributes at once. In particular, production and legislation need to be coupled to local and natural capital. Identified alternative systems seem only compatible with Eur-Agri-SSP1 ‘agriculture on sustainable paths’. This requires policies at EU-level that stimulate macro-level social, institutional, economic, and technological developments that strengthen this scenario. We conclude that to get stakeholders along, incremental adaptation rather than radical transformation should be sought. The identification of alternative systems is only a start for the transition process. Their analysis, along with the strategies identified, need to trigger the involvement of farmers and other ‘enabling actors’ inside and outside the farming systems to make a change, and where needed, systems can evolve into more transformative systems.

Risk management and resilience of agriculture are among the most important issues in the ongoing discussion on the shape of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Farming systems face various risks that increase their vulnerability, which necessitates the strengthening of their resilience. This raises critical questions whether CAP policies adequately support the resilience of farming systems in addressing these challenges. The study investigates the resilience of the Polish fruit and vegetable farming system within the context of the CAP. Employing a mixed-methods approach that includes interviews and stakeholder workshops, the research identifies critical risks such as market volatility, climate change, labor shortages, or international competition. The study reveals that while farmers adopt various coping strategies, existing CAP measures predominantly support robustness, often neglecting adaptability and transformability, which are essential for addressing long-term risks. Stakeholder feedback highlights bureaucratic inefficiencies, limited access to resources for innovation, and an overemphasis on short-term interventions. Recommendations emphasize the need for policy adjustments to foster long-term adaptability through enhanced vertical and horizontal integration, support for innovation, and knowledge transfer. Under future scenarios, policy priorities vary but consistently call for resilience-focused reforms. These findings underscore the benefits of integrating resilience-thinking frameworks into agricultural policy to enable sustainable development and competitiveness of farming systems.

Finding pathways to more sustainability and resilience of farming systems requires the avoidance of exceeding critical thresholds and the timely identification of viable alternative system configurations. To serve this purpose, the objective of this paper is to present a participatory, integrated and indicator-based methodology that leads researchers and farming system actors in six steps to a multi-dimensional understanding of sustainability and resilience of farming systems in the future. The methodology includes an assessment of current performance (Step 1), identification of critical thresholds whose exceedance can lead to large and permanent system change (Step 2), impact assessment when critical thresholds are exceeded (Step 3), identification of desired alternative systems and their expected improved performance of sustainability and resilience (Step 4), identification of strategies to realize those alternative systems (Step 5), and an assessment on the compatibility of alternative systems with the developments of exogenous factors as projected in different future scenarios (Step 6). The method is applied in 11 EU farming systems, and the application to extensive sheep production in Huesca, Spain, is presented here, as its problematic situation provides insights for other farming systems. Participants in the participatory workshop indicated that their farming system is very close to a decline or even a collapse. Approaching and exceeding critical thresholds in the social, economic and environmental domain are currently causing a vicious circle that includes low economic returns, low attractiveness of the farming system and abandonment of pasture lands. More sustainable and resilient alternative systems to counteract the current negative system dynamics were proposed by participants: a semi-intensive system primarily aimed at improving production and a high-tech extensive system primarily aimed at providing public goods. Both alternatives place a strong emphasis on the role of technology, but differ in their approach towards grazing, which is reflected in the different strategies that are foreseen to realize those alternatives. Although the high-tech extensive system seems most compatible with a future in which sustainable food production is very important, the semi-intensive system seems a less risky bet as it has on average the best compatibility with multiple future scenarios. Overall, the methodology can be regarded as relatively quick, interactive and interdisciplinary, providing ample information on critical thresholds, current system dynamics and future possibilities. As such, the method enables stakeholders to think and talk about the future of their system, paving the way for improved sustainability and resilience.

Cocoa production in Alto Beni, Bolivia, is a major source of income and is severely affected by climate change impacts and other stress factors. Resilient farming systems are, thus, important for local families. This study compares indicators for social–ecological resilience in 30 organic and 22 nonorganic cocoa farms of Alto Beni. Organic farms had a higher tree and crop diversity, higher yields and incomes, more social connectedness, and participated in more courses on cocoa cultivation. Resilience was enhanced by local farmers’ organizations, providing organic certification and supporting diversified agroforestry with seedlings and extension, going beyond basic organic certification requirements.

SummaryOne 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 European Commission has emphasised that a more resilient farming sector is required to better respond to current and future economic, societal, and environmental challenges. Consequently, supporting resilience has become an important aim of the proposals of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) post-2020. However, interactions between public policies and resilience outcomes have hardly been researched in-depth. This study analyses whether and how the CAP and its national implementations enable or constrain the resilience of farming systems. For this purpose, we introduce the Resilience Assessment Tool (ResAT): a heuristic that conceptualises how policy outputs enable or constrain farming systems’ resilience. The tool consists of three dimensions (robustness, adaptability, and transformability) with four indicators each. The ResAT is applied to a Dutch case study: the intensive arable farming system in De Veenkoloniën. We conclude that the CAP and its national implementation strongly support the robustness of this farming system, but that the policy enables adaptability much less and rather constrains transformability. The article ends with a reflection on how the application of the ResAT allows for new insights into how EU agricultural policies influence the resilience of farming systems.

Resilience of French organic dairy cattle farms and supply chains to the Covid-19 pandemic

A framework to assess the resilience of farming systems

Actors and their roles for improving resilience of farming systems in Europe

State support for financial risk management schemes has been introduced in numerous agricultural policies to enhance farming system resilience in response to increased income fluctuations and partially reduced producer support levels in the agricultural sector. In order to better understand how financialisation of risks can contribute to an actual improvement of specific farming systems’ resilience, this study investigates its effects with regards to dairy farming. Based on an in-depth case study of a dairy system in Northwest Germany, multilayered challenges faced by the farm system are identified, resilience strategies investigated and the role of financial risk management evaluated. In doing so, the resilience assessment framework developed by Meuwissen et al. (2019) is applied in order to analyse the systems’ capacity to resist, adapt or transform in response to external challenges threatening the provision of system’ functions. The results indicate a high relevance of insurances and savings with regards to the system’s robustness against short-term shocks. However, to address the various long-term pressures, resilience-enhancing attributes that increase the system’s capacity to adapt and transform would need to be strengthened. In particular, more cooperation and knowledge transfer beyond system boundaries could contribute to a holistic risk management allowing for improved farming system resilience.

The sustainability and resilience of agrifood systems are key concepts to ensure environmental standards in agriculture and food security. Recently, global food security has been seriously affected by the pandemics, geopolitical issues, and conflicts, and climate change factors have become a significant concern for scientists along with farmers, consumers, and citizens. To face these challenges, a systemic resilience in sustainable agriculture is pivotal. The research papers published in the special section of Agronomy Journal, “Agricultural and biological sciences: Plant, soil, animal and environment”, consider the role of sustainability in building greater resilience to current pivotal and diverse problems encountered in agricultural systems. This special section is a collection of coherent research studies that used a multidisciplinary approach. A total of 52 papers were submitted, of which 12 were accepted for publication following a double‐blind reviewing process. The purposes of the present paper were to identify the role of sustainability in the resilience of agricultural systems and to discuss the main results of these published articles. Results suggested that specific issues relevant to forests, crops, horticulture systems, and animal production could be improved and made more resilient by applying modern agricultural tools, efficient use of natural resources, and smart device technology. A sustainable intensification in a changing environment will require resilience at many levels. Key strategies identified included (i) improvement of resource efficiency; (ii) adoption of techniques that generate landscape‐scale resilience; and (iii) use of a combination of different evaluation and planning strategies to advance the knowledge of crop and livestock interactions.

Resilience building and water demand management for drought mitigation