SURE-Farm Approach to Assess the Resilience of European Farming Systems

Farming systems in Europe are experiencing multiple stresses and shocks that may push systems beyond critical thresholds after which system change is expected to occur. These critical thresholds may lie in the economic, environmental, social and institutional domain. In this paper we take a participatory approach with involvement of farming system stakeholders to assess the presence of critical thresholds in 11 European farming systems, and the potential consequence of surpassing those with regard to system sustainability and resilience. First, critical thresholds of the main challenges, key system variables and their interactions in the studied farming systems were assessed. Second, participants assessed the potential developments of the key system variables in case critical thresholds for main system challenges would be exceeded. All studied systems were perceived to be close, at or beyond at least one identified critical threshold. Stakeholders were particularly worried about economic viability and food production levels. Moreover, critical thresholds were perceived to interact across system levels (field, farm, farming system) and domains (social, economic, environmental), with low economic viability leading to lower attractiveness of the farming system, and in some farming systems making it hard to maintain natural resources and biodiversity. Overall, a decline in performance of all key system variables was expected by workshop participants in case critical thresholds would be exceeded. For instance, a decline in the attractiveness of the area and a lower maintenance of natural resources and biodiversity. Our research shows that concern for exceeding critical thresholds is justified and that thresholds need to be studied while considering system variables at field, farm and farming system level across the social, economic and environmental domains. For instance, economic variables at farm level (e.g. income) seem important to detect whether a system is approaching critical thresholds of social variables at farming system level (e.g. attractiveness of the area), while in multiple case studies there are also indications that approaching thresholds of social variables (e.g. labor availability) are indicative for approaching economic thresholds (e.g. farm income). Based on our results we also reflect on the importance of system resources for stimulating sustainability and resilience of farming systems. We therefore stress the need to include variables that reflect system resources such as knowledge levels, attractiveness of rural areas and general well-being of rural residents when monitoring and evaluating the sustainability and resilience of EU farming systems.

What exactly is resilience and how can it be enhanced? Farming systems in Europe are rapidly evolving while at the same time being under threat, as seen by the disappearance of dozens of farms every day. Farming systems must become more resilient in response to growing economic, environmental, institutional, and social challenges facing Europe's agriculture. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for enhanced resilience has become even more apparent and continues to be an overarching guiding principle of EU policy making. Resilience challenges and strategies are framed within four main processes affecting decision making in agriculture: risk management, farm demographics, governance and agricultural practices. This empirical focus looks at very diverse contexts, with eleven case studies from Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain and Sweden. This study will help determine the future and sustainability of European farming systems. This title is available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.

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

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.

This Special Issue showcases findings from the SURE-Farm research project which aims to assess the resilience and sustainability of farming systems in Europe. The call for greater resilience responds to the accumulating economic, environmental, institutional and social challenges facing Europe's agriculture. Since the Covid-19 pandemic, the need for enhanced re-silience has become an overarching guiding principle of EU policymaking. But what exactly is resilience and how can it be enhanced? How can farming systems prepare for different and often simultaneous types of shocks and stresses, for unexpected and even unknown events? The articles in this Special Issue distinguish three resilience capacities: for some shocks and systems robustness (‘bouncing back’) is adequate, but other circumstances require adaptability and transformability (anticipation, quick learning and change). Putting these capacities central, each article addresses key questions such as: whether current capacities match the resilience needs; which characteristics of a system can enhance resilience; how an enabling environment affects resilience; whether current governance systems constrain resilience; and which actors can actually influence and build resilience capacities. Promisingly, the contributions identify various pathways to enhance resilience. However, many of our suggestions require substantial change compared to current practices and policies. Meuwissen et al. conclude that resilience strategies tend to focus on the farm level, while farming systems include many other actors that also need to actively engage. Reidsma et al. find that resilience strategies in the past were often geared too much towards increasing the profitability of farming systems, and tended to neglect the coupling of agricultural production with local institutions, natural resources, and a facilitating infrastructure for innovation. Spiegel et al. demonstrate the importance of learning as part of resilience-enhancing strategies. Several articles derive specific recommendations to change public policies towards resilience – probably resonating with farmers’ perception that current policies are inadequate (Nicolas-Davies et al.). Buitenhuis et al. recommend policies that could contribute to a better balance between support for robustness, adaptability and transformability of Europe's farming systems. In the ‘Point de Vue’ article Mathijs and Wauters argue similarly that public policies play key roles in determining the resilience of farming systems and should invest more in foresight and resilience structures. Current policies towards addressing the ‘young farmer problem’ are considered to be inadequate. Coopmans et al. propose that more attention is devoted to the stages preceding farm take-over, during which possible entrants develop a ‘successor identity’. On a similar theme, Pitson et al. call for greater focus on increasing the human capital base of the agricultural sector through training, trans-sectoral and trans-regional mobility – including the provision of adequate infrastructure in rural areas to attract a young skilled labour force. The importance of attracting ‘young potential’ is visualised by Slijper in the Parlons Graphiques which illustrates the predominance of negative net migration rates from rural areas in Europe. Vroege et al. stress that the policy environment should more fully enable agricultural insurance innovations to underpin risk management in a rapidly changing global environment. If all of the above issues are capable of being addressed, can resilience of agricultural systems really be enhanced? Or will the prevailing governance systems facilitate unsustainable exploitation of socio-economic and ecological systems that fundamentally undermine their resilience? There are reasons for optimism. Firstly, our research found much spirit for change – and calls for more long-term vision and courage (see for example ‘frequent question’ Q4, Meuwissen et al.). Secondly, the systematic analysis of the multiple components contributing to resilience has enabled us to develop a better understanding of processes of change in agri-food systems, the need to develop greater resilience in Europe's farming systems and the priority areas to be addressed. We record our thanks for the comments of external reviewers of all articles in this Special Issue and to the editorial team for their expert guidance and recommendations. We wish you an inspiring read. The ‘Science talks’ video about this special issue is available at: www.wur.nl/en/project/Resilient-Farming-Systems.html. “Resilience is more than robustness; learning and change are essential.” “La résilience est davantage que la robustesse; l'apprentissage et le changement sont essentiels.” “Resilienz bedeutet mehr als nur Stabilität, denn Lernen und Veränderung sind in diesem Zusammenhang von wesentlicher Bedeutung.” This research was funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme. The content of this issue does not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Responsibility for the information and views expressed herein lies entirely with the authors. Miranda Meuwissen Peter H. Feindt

The European landscape reflects many centuries of dynamic interaction between people and their natural environments. Indeed, much of the current biological and aesthetic value of the wide variety of "cultural" landscapes has been created and is now maintained by long-established farming systems. Such traditional systems (many of which are pastoral based) are generally well integrated with the environment and involve management practices that do not over-exploit the natural carrying capacity of the land. However, the rapid modernisation of agriculture that occurred after the 1939-1945 war resulted in an intensification of many European farming systems and has had severe negative effects on the environment. This modernisation initially occurred primarily in northwest Europe fuelled by the European Union (EU) Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), but with the expansion of the EU it is continuing and is certain to increase in southern, central, and eastern Europe. The response of the EU to this fundamental imbalance between farming and the environment has included the introduction of compulsory regulations to ensure the implementation of minimum environmental standards in the production processes and the promotion of agri-environment programmes to encourage farmers to undertake positive environmental management on their farmland. The ongoing reforms of the CAP will undoubtedly place greater emphasis on agri-environment programmes and increasingly on the concept of "integrated rural development." There is, however, still a pressing need for detailed information to justify to the EU and world markets why certain types of farming system should be central to future European rural development policies.Key words: biodiversity, wildlife value, farming systems, European policy, agri-environment.

Evidence of resilience capacity in farmers’ narratives: Accounts of robustness, adaptability and transformability across five different European farming systems

Health system resilience has become a concept of growing interest among academics, policy and decision makers, practitioners and health service managers over the past decade, given the notable increase in catastrophic events, or shocks, that directly impact health systems. The focus on health system resilience intensified following the global economic crash in 2008 and more recently with the Covid-19 pandemic. Understanding health system resilience has never been more essential. Learning from past shocks is important for health system resilience, building back better rather than reverting to the status quo, thereby poising health systems for better preparedness in the future. In many European countries hardest hit by the financial crisis there were limited learnings and the health system remained in a state of “semi-crisis” when faced with the next shock, the Covid-19 pandemic. However, in contrast to the austerity years, this period was characterised by an influx of funding and resources to the health service, and in many countries this empowered agile decision-making and allowed for innovative service provision. Also in contrast to the financial shock, there was no recovery period following the pandemic, with the onset of the cost-of-living crisis following quickly. This raises the question of whether health systems are entering a state of permacrisis and, if so, what can be done to promote and support health system resilience. The objective of this session is to improved understanding and practice of health system resilience by exploring recent experiences of managing shocks across several health system functions and drawing on country experiences. This session explores and evaluates health system functions that must individually and collectively be addressed in order for health systems to become resilient and sustainable. To accomplish this, four topics will be addressed: 1) building health system resilience in and through service delivery in Europe; 2) the critical role of financing in the development of health system resilience in Europe; 3) how international health system austerity responses impacted health system and workforce resilience, and 4) rethinking health system resilience and reviewing the relationships between absorption, adaptation and transformation in shock and everyday health system resilience drawing on the Irish experience. Bringing together these presentations will allow a collective examination by the audience and presenters of the key challenges and lessons for European health systems alongside some reflection on the development of theory. Each presenter will be given a strict deadline of 10 minutes by the chair and then the audience will be invited to debate the problems identified and strategies proposed to review learnings and next steps for building better understanding and practice of health system resilience across Europe. Key messages • This session will improve understanding of the concept and application of health system resilience to European health systems to allow for better handling of shocks. • Strategies for building health system resilience across financing, governance, service delivery and human resources derived from country studies will be identified, debated and evaluated.

Climate change is one of the biggest challenges for modern society. The health effects of climate change lead to negative impacts on European health systems, and conversely, European health systems contribute significantly to climate change. To overcome challenges posed by the climate crisis, European cooperation is essential. The interdependencies between climate change and public health and its broader impact underline the importance of resilience in European health systems, calling for concrete actions from both EU institutions and national governments. Additionally, the topic of resilient health systems currently ranks high on the European agenda, with the Belgian Presidency promoting health care strengthening as one of its six priorities. The European Commission will also continue its work on this issue for the next five years. The EU has already taken steps in this matter, such as the launch of the European Health Union and the adoption of the EU4Health Programme. However, in order to better prepare for climate resilient health systems, the EU must further develop in this regard. To explore this pressing issue, the round table discussion will focus on how EU actions in climate adaptation can synergistically contribute to the resilience of health systems. Resilience, often associated with adaptation, embodies the capacity to anticipate, withstand, and recover from shocks and stresses related to climate change. By delving into this question, the workshop seeks to uncover ways in which EU and Member State climate initiatives can reinforce health system resilience, thereby fostering a more adaptive and responsive health workforce and infrastructure. Featuring 4 panellists from Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Austrian National Public Health Institute, the Dutch Green Healthcare Alliance and the European Environment Agency, the round table will bring together diverse perspectives on this issue. The added value of the round table is laying out possible ways of how both the EU and Member States can contribute to enhancing the resilience of European health systems. After establishing the necessity for action, the round table discussion will focus on generating ideas to address climate change. Specifically, this discussion will cover examples of national policies, such as from the Netherlands, Austria, and other Member States. Also discussed will be the importance of monitoring and surveillance, and conducting a health and vulnerability assessment. This ensures better understanding of the relevant current and future health impacts, which will inform resilience measures. This will be followed by a discussion with the audience to formulate recommendations for improving the resilience of EU health systems for the next five years. Key messages • Climate change challenges European health systems, emphasising the need for European cooperation in resilience efforts. • Synergising climate adaptation with health system strengthening enhances EU’s capacity for resilience. Speakers/Panelists Chiara Cadeddu Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands Aleksandra Kazmierczak European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark Andrea Schmidt Austrian Public Health Institute, Vienna, Austria Juliette Mattijsen Groene Zorg Alliantie, Rotterdam, Netherlands

Due to a changing risk environment, resilience of European farming systems can no longer be taken for granted. In this paper we define resilience as maintaining the essential functions of EU farming systems in the face of increasingly complex and volatile economic, social, ecological and institutional risks. The aim of this paper is to develop a comprehensive resilience enabling framework for farming systems building on the concept of adaptive cycles. Three main adaptive cycle processes contributing to the essential functions of EU farming systems are considered: agricultural, farm demographics and governance processes. The framework distinguishes five phases: (1) characterising the farming system, (2) appraising key risks affecting the system, (3) framing the essential functions of the system, (4) assessing resilience over time along a spectrum of robustness, adaptability and transformability, and (5) identifying resilience attributes which contribute to the robustness, adaptability and transformability of the farming system. The framework can be applied by researchers to retrospectively understand the dynamics of sustainability of farming systems, and by decision makers to pro-actively identify differentiated resilience-enhancing strategies across EU farming systems depending on context-specific challenges and available resources. The framework is illustrated for arable farming in the Netherlands. Acknowledgement : This framework is developed and applied within the SURE-Farm (Towards SUstainable and REsilient EU FARMing systems) project, funded by Horizon 2020 (). We thank the whole consortium for their contributions to this framework.

In a world of growing complexity and uncertainty, food systems must be resilient, i.e., able to deliver sustainable and equitable food and nutrition security in the face of multiple shocks and stresses. The resilience of the European food system that relies mostly on conventional agriculture is a matter of genuine concern and a new approach is called for. Does then organic farming have the potential to reduce vulnerabilities and improve the resilience of the European food system to shocks and stresses? In this paper, we use system dynamics structural thinking tools to identify the vulnerabilities of the conventional food system that result from both its internal structure as well as its exposure to external disturbances. Further, we evaluate whether organic farming can reduce the vulnerabilities. We argue here that organic farming has some potential to bring resilience to the European food system, but it has to be carefully designed and implemented to overcome the contradictions between the dominant socio-economic organization of food production and the ability to enact all organic farming’s principles—health, ecology, fairness and care—on a broader scale.

Currently, over 100 million European citizens are affected by obesity and non-communicable diseases. These health conditions impact individuals and society economically as well as socially. Therefore, an increasing number of Member States has introduced taxes on foods high in fat, sugar, or salt. However, divergent national fiscal health measures can lead to market distortion or fraudulent activities, revealing that, although the responsibility for implementing fiscal measures lies with national governments, health systems of different Member States are much interlinked. The increasing health risks for European citizens and its broader impact underline the importance of resilience in European health systems more than ever before, calling for early response and effective concrete actions from both EU institutions and national governments. Additionally, the topic of resilient health systems currently ranks high on the European agenda, with the Belgian Presidency promoting health system preparedness and early response and health care strengthening as one of their six priorities. The European Commission will also continue its work on this issue for the next five years. The EU has already taken steps in this matter, such as the launch of the European Health Union and the creation of HERA. However, in order to preserve a healthy society, the EU must further develop in this regard. Therefore, this round table discussion will focus on the question of how fiscal measures in Member States can contribute to resilient health systems. It aims to generate ideas on how Ministries of Health can contribute to resilient health systems via fiscal measures compatible with European Community law that promote health and prevent disease. Panellists from the WHO Regional Office for Europe, the Hungarian Ministry of Health and Ecorys, a research-based consultancy, will provide diverse perspectives on the topic. The added value of the round table is laying out possible ways of how both the EU and Member States can contribute to enhancing the resilience of European health systems. In the discussion, knowledge is derived from various research projects, such as Ecorys’ study for DG TAXUD on health taxes, their study for the Dutch Ministry of Finance on sugar taxes, and their literature study on sugar taxation and VAT reduction on fruits and vegetables. Furthermore, as an example of alternative funding mechanisms for resilient health systems, the Hungarian approach to health taxes will be reviewed, since a portion of the tax revenue from their public health tax is used to finance public health initiatives. From a policy perspective, the round table will aid in formulating recommendations for improving the resilience of EU health systems for the next five years. Key messages • Unhealthy foods and drinks consumption poses significant health risks, impacting economy and society, and requiring evidence-based fiscal measures as part of comprehensive measures. • The round table provides public health stakeholders the opportunity to generate recommendations for improving the resilience of EU health systems for the next five years. Speakers/Panelists Kremlin Wickramasinghe Division of Country Health Programs, WHO/Europe, Denmark Krisztina Biró Ministry of Interior, State Secretariat for Health, Budapest, Hungary Soila Karreinen Tampere University, Tampere, Finland Rana Orhan Pees Ecorys, Rotterdam, Netherlands Sara Cerdas Former Member of the European Parliament, Brussels, Belgium

SummaryThe resilience of European farms and farming systems has become prominent on the policy agenda, but the definition of resilience tends to be interpreted narrowly as the ability to withstand shocks and maintain the status quo. We argue that resilience encompasses the capacity of farms, farmers and farming systems to anticipate, cope and respond to shocks and stresses. This capacity is not only influenced by resources held and developed by farmers, but also by resources invested and allocated in farming systems by government and society at large. Furthermore, resilience is not only about coping with crisis, it is also about building up capacity to adapt or even transform farming systems. This should be done by reflecting on three key questions: (1) what characteristics of a farming system enable or constrain anticipating, coping and responsive capacities; (2) which actors can – or even should – play which role in building and mobilising resources to develop these capacities; and (3) how should institutions govern investment in and use resources and capacities? The Common Agricultural Policy – but also other policies – play a key role in determining farming system resilience. However, they tend to put more resources into developing safety nets than into stimulating adaptation and especially transformation.

SummarySufficient generational renewal is an important contributor to resilient farming systems but across the EU there is widespread concern over the so‐called ‘young farmer problem’. This article recommends several policy areas to support generational renewal. The first need is to clearly define the exact generational renewal challenge, since available data provide no clear‐cut evidence of an existing young farmer problem that is uniform across the EU. Second, while current policies seem effective in supporting the farm transfer process and providing aid during the early career phase of farmers, they lack targeting of the stage preceding farm take‐over, during which possible entrants develop a successor identity. Increasing the attractiveness of farming as both an occupational and a lifestyle choice appears to be important in stimulating entry into farming. Third, policymakers should give high priority to facilitating access to land and labour, and to accommodating the capital‐intensive nature of farming. Fourth, a mix of policies at different levels and domains that coherently contribute to the achievement of predefined goals regarding generational renewal is needed. Fifth, support for farm‐specific advice and personal coaching holds underexploited potential for addressing the specificity of on‐farm challenges regarding generational renewal.

The study presents an assessment of the impact of structural factors on the financial stability of pension systems in European countries. The purpose of the study is to determine the internal structural factors that have the most significant impact on the financial stability of pension systems in European countries. A review of the scientific literature dealing with the study of the financial stability of European pension systems is carried out. The correlation between the concepts of "financial stability" and "financial resiliency" is determined, the structural factors of pension models are identified and their grouping is carried out. The ranking of European pension systems by the level of their stability (including periods of financial crises) is carried out. The reasons for the decline in the stability and resiliency of European pension systems at this stage of development are identified. The study shows the internal structural factors that have a positive or negative impact on the degree of financial stability and financial resiliency of European pension systems. The conclusions obtained in the study can be used in the formation of the state pension policy of European countries and the choice of directions for reforming pension systems