Improving the resilience‐enabling capacity of the Common Agricultural Policy: policy recommendations for more resilient EU farming systems

One 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

Policies and Farming System Resilience

The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy appears essential for farming systems’ resilience, but its resilience-enabling effects in practice remain underexplored. We assessed how farming system actors perceive the CAP’s effects on resilience. The CAP contains a robustness-oriented approach, which actors expect to buffer stress and shocks, while adaptation receives less support and transformation is neglected. Policies need to a take a broader, integrated approach towards farming systems’ resilience

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

Governance conditions for successful ecological restoration of estuaries : lessons from the Dutch Haringvliet case

Ecological restoration projects may provide solutions for degraded ecosystems in estuaries, but are challenging due to complex governance processes. Scientific studies on the latter are limited. The aim of this paper is to provide a better understanding of the governance process aiming at ecological restoration in estuaries. Based on a literature review, five success conditions for ecological restoration projects in estuaries were formulated. These conditions concern: (1) the presence of options for experimentation; (2) the use of the right communication strategies; (3) a pro-active role of key individuals; (4) sufficient project support; (5) active stakeholder and knowledge integration. These conditions were elaborated upon in a case study on the reopening of the sluices in the Dutch Haringvliet and by conducting seven expert interviews. The case study was a clear “example of failure” due to absence of several conditions. We conclude with some recommendations to enhance future ecological restoration projects

Governance conditions for successful ecological restoration of estuaries: lessons from the Dutch Haringvliet case

Ecological restoration projects may provide solutions for degraded ecosystems in estuaries, but are challenging due to complex governance processes. Scientific studies on the latter are limited. The aim of this paper is to provide a better understanding of the governance process aiming at ecological restoration in estuaries. Based on a literature review, five success conditions for ecological restoration projects in estuaries were formulated. These conditions concern: (1) the presence of options for experimentation; (2) the use of the right communication strategies; (3) a pro-active role of key individuals; (4) sufficient project support; (5) active stakeholder and knowledge integration. These conditions were elaborated upon in a case study on the reopening of the sluices in the Dutch Haringvliet and by conducting seven expert interviews. The case study was a clear “example of failure” due to absence of several conditions. We conclude with some recommendations to enhance future ecological restoration projects

Assessing the ability of public policy to enable or constrain the resilience of the grain farming system in North-East Bulgaria

This analysis assesses the extent to which Bulgarian agricultural policy including associated implementation schemes under pillar 1 and 2 of the CAP affect the resilience of the grain farming system in the North-East region of Bulgaria. Grain production is a traditional one for the Bulgarian economy as the importance of it increases after joining EU. North-East Bulgaria is of crucial importance, known as “the granary of Bulgaria” where on an average 50% of national grain output is produced.The study uses resilience theory, which draws on concepts from ecology and systems theory. It provides a basis for examining the capacity of a bio-based production system (e.g. farming systems) to deal with changes in its environment (Ge et al., 2016). One way of conceptualising resilience is through the three types of response to changes in the environment – robustness, adaptability, and transformability (Anderies et al., 2013). Each type reflects the different extent of adjustment implemented by the system in response to the changes. Robustness represents the ability to persist external change, while adaptability includes small changes. Both types aim to help the system maintain the same functionalities. Transformability represents major changes that lead to rearranging the system towards a new form and new functionalities. Each type of resilience response is examined through four characteristics, including: 1) for robustness: short-term focus; protecting the status quo; buffer resources; and other modes of risk management; 2) for adaptability: middle- to long-term focus, flexibility, variety and tailor-made responses, and social learning; and 3) for transformability: long-term focus, dismantling incentives that support the status quo, in-depth learning, and enhancing and accelerating niche innovations.Agricultural policy in Bulgaria is determined by the CAP and the national policy that is in line with it. Historically, the CAP is based on the assumption that farmers need protection from external changes (Lovec, 2016). Recent reforms have introduced aims for increasing competitiveness and to enhance the environmental and socio-economic sustainability of agriculture. These aims have expanded the idea of achieving resilient farming systems beyond the persistence to external changes.This research uses an analytic framework drawn on resilience theory and developed as part of a research project: “Sustainable Resilient EU farming Systems (SURE Farm)”. The policy resilience assessment tool (ResAT) encompasses robustness, adaptability and transformability in a framework that helps evaluating the influence of policy formulations on the resilience of farming systems. Respectively, the ResAT assesses whether policy goals and instruments enable or constrain farmers’ resilience enhancing strategies and resources (Termeer et al., 2018). The assessment is done by assigning scores to the mentioned key characteristics that enable the resilience-enhancing capacity of policies. The scoring makes it possible to assess the extent, to which the national and EU policy applied in Bulgaria have been supporting or inhibiting the resilience of the grain farming system. This quantitative assessment of resilience characteristics is used in the development of a modified adaptive capacity wheel, which is a visual instrument for assessing the ability of institutions and policies to support resilience (Gupta et al., 2010).Empirical data for this analysis is provided by policy documents at the EU and the national level. The texts are analysed through qualitative techniques that help connecting the policy documents with the concepts and categories from the framework. It starts by considering the most relevant document - the Law for support of agricultural producers. Other relevant documents are added to the analysis until saturation is reached and adding a new document does not lead to additional insight on the examined concepts and categories (Creswell, 2014).Among the three types of resilience – robustness, adaptability and transformability, the policies enable the robustness of the grain farming system. All four characteristics of robustness score high in terms of enabling resilience. This means that short-term orientation is prevailing within the agriculture and rural development policy.The adaptability characteristics of the policy scored lower than robustness. Nevertheless, three of the four characteristics – middle- to long-term, flexibility and variety of tailormade responses scored above average in enabling resilience. This means that the policies have a relatively strong potential for supporting the adaptation of large-scale crop farmers towards desired directions of development. It provides a good range of flexibility instruments that aim to benefit either the farmers or achieve positive externalities for the environment and natural resources (agri-environment).Transformability received the lowest scores among the three resilience types. This suggests that the policies are weak in supporting substantial change of the Bulgarian grain farming system over the long-run. The scores for all characteristics are below average. These results suggest that the policies are not strongly committed to transforming the farming system towards new forms and functionalities