How Will Hydroelectric Power Generation Develop under Climate Change Scenarios?

Climate change has a large impact on water resources and thus on hydropower. Hydroelectric power generation is closely linked to the regional hydrological situation of a watershed and reacts sensitively to changes in water quantity and seasonality. The development of hydroelectric power generation in the Upper Danube basin was modelled for two future decades, namely 2021-2030 and 2051-2060, using a special hydropower module coupled with the physically-based hydrological model PROMET. To cover a possible range of uncertainties, 16 climate scenarios were taken as meteorological drivers which were defined from different ensemble outputs of a stochastic climate generator, based on the IPCC-SRES-A1B emission scenario and four regional climate trends. Depending on the trends, the results show a slight to severe decline in hydroelectric power generation. Whilst the mean summer values indicate a decrease, the mean winter values display an increase. To show past and future regional differences within the Upper Danube basin, three hydropower plants at individual locations were selected. Inter-annual differences originate predominately from unequal contributions of the runoff compartments rain, snow-and ice-melt

Integrated Assessment of the Sustainability and Resilience of Farming Systems : Lessons from the Past and Ways Forward for the Future

This chapter assessed sustainability and resilience of eleven farming systems in their current situation, as well as in hypothetical future systems, using qualitative and quantitative methods. The assessment shows that current farming systems address sustainability dimensions in an unbalanced way and are characterized by poor resilience. Future resilient systems are imagined to promote environmental and social functions in the long term

Application of an O-ring pinch device as a constant-pressure inlet (CPI) for airborne sampling

We present a novel and compact design of a constant-pressure inlet (CPI) developed for use in airborne aerosol mass spectrometry. In particular, the inlet system is optimized for aerodynamic lenses commonly used in aerosol mass spectrometers, in which efficient focusing of aerosol particles into a vacuum chamber requires a precisely controlled lens pressure, typically of a few hectopascals. The CPI device can also be used in condensation particle counters (CPCs), cloud condensation nucleus counters (CCNCs), and gas-phase sampling instruments across a wide range of altitudes and inlet pressures. The constant pressure is achieved by changing the inner diameter of a properly scaled O-ring that acts as a critical orifice. The CPI control keeps air pressure and thereby mass flow rate (≈0.1 L min-1) upstream of an aerodynamic lens constant, deviating at most by only ±2 % from a preset value. In our setup, a pressure sensor downstream of the O-ring maintains control of the pinch mechanism via a feedback loop and setpoint conditions are reached within seconds. The device was implemented in a few instruments, which were successfully operated on different research aircraft covering a wide range of ambient pressures, from sea level up to about 55 hPa. Details of operation and the quality of aerosol particle transmission were evaluated by laboratory experiments and in-flight data with a single-particle mass spectrometer. © Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License

D5.6 Impacts of improved strategies and policy options on the resilience of farming systems across the EU

Resilience is the ability to deal with shocks and stresses, including the unknown and previously unimaginable, such as the Covid19 crisis. The aim of this paper is to assess responses of farming systems (FS) to this crisis and to assess them from the perspective of resilience thinking. We build on a resilience framework developed in the SURE‐Farm project and on ongoing resilience assessments in 11 FS across Europe through which we have an in‐depth understanding of the ‘pre‐Covid19 situation’ in each FS. This includes insights whether an FS has an enabling (or constraining) environment, who are the relevant system actors beyond farms, and what are the social, economic and ecological functions to be delivered by the system. The analysis allows us to understand which resilience resources and strategies were mobilised in different FS and thereby to explain differences in the ability of FS to cope with and respond to the crisis. Furthermore, the approach enables us to put crisis responses in a broader resilience perspective and to assess whether responses might enhance (or constrain) future resilience. Thus, our analysis allows to draw policy and industry relevant conclusions how to increase resilience of farming systems

The Struggle of Farming Systems in Europe:Looking for Explanations through the Lens of Resilience

Many farming systems in Europe are struggling to respond to accumulating economic, environmental, institutional and social challenges. From a resilience perspective, they need three distinct capacities to continue delivering products, income and public goods: robustness, adaptability and transformability. Based on a structured assessment of the resilience capacities of 11 farming systems across Europe we conclude that three mismatches likely contribute to their struggles. First, while farming systems comprised many non‐farm actors, resilience strategies largely focused on farms and their robustness, neglecting other options and opportunities. Second, while the delivery of public goods such as biodiversity and attractive landscapes was seen as a major concern, most resilience strategies focused on the delivery of private goods. Third, while in many farming systems actors expressed the need for transformation, farming systems’ capacity to transform was perceived as low. Building on the differentiated concept of resilience, findings can guide policymakers, farming system actors, consumers and societal interest groups to identify pathways towards more resilient agricultural systems in Europe

How do Stakeholders Perceive the Sustainability and Resilience of EU Farming Systems?

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

D5.3 Resilience assessment of current farming systems across the European Union

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

Impact of COVID-19 on farming systems in Europe through the lens of resilience thinking

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 pre-Covid-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 played before the crisis, they persisted during the crisis. Also, the eminent role of resilience attributes was confirmed. In cases with high connectedness and diversity we found that these system characteristics importantly contributed 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 short-term 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