This paper explores the connections between farm modernisation, rural development and the resilience of agricultural and rural systems. The paper starts by ascertaining why agricultural and food systems need to change systemically. Evidence from case studies in fourteen countries is used to explore the possibilities for, and drivers and limitations of systemic change in four thematic areas: the resilience of farms and rural areas; prosperity and well-being; knowledge and innovation, and; the governance of agriculture and rural areas. In each area, we identify a major mismatch between visions and strategies on the one hand, and market developments, policy measures and outcomes on the other. The first theme is of growing concern as there has been an observable decrease in the social-ecological resilience of farms and of rural communities in recent decades. The second theme emerges as important as the concentration of production in some regions or some farms is directly linked to the marginalisation of others. The third theme illustrates that local farmer-driven innovations can teach us much, especially since farmers focus on efficiently using the resources available to them, including their location-specific experiential knowledge. Through the final theme we show that informal networks can balance different interests and approaches, which is essential for integrated rural development strategies and projects. Our findings in these four thematic areas have implications for the strategic frameworks and policy of the EU (and beyond) and future research agendas. We explicitly draw these out. The 14 case studies show that practitioners, grassroots initiatives and pilot programmes are already generating a wealth of experiences and knowledge that could be fruitfully used to inform higher-level policy development. The paper concludes that systemic change requires more critical reflection of conventional wisdom and approaches, and openness to ideas and practices that are outside the mainstream.@en

In the past, rural prosperity has been mainly associated with the modernisation of agriculture and the economic benefits that appear to originate from it. Today we know that this simple logic is not correct in several respects. Regionally, structural changes to farms and the modernisation of a few farms have not always contributed to prosperous rural areas. At the level of farm households, we can see that other non-economic aspects such as a minimum level of autonomy, social recognition and social and environmental well-being all play rather significant roles. In this paper, we present an empirically grounded analysis of these questions based on in-depth case studies in seven countries (Spain, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia, Israel, Germany and Denmark). We discuss rural actors understanding of rural prosperity in different countries and contexts, the strategies used to improve prosperity and well-being, and how these strategies can be enabled and fostered. The empirical evidence presented indicates that prosperity in rural contexts is increasingly understood as being multi-dimensional and that people seek to balance economic parameters with human, social and environmental well-being.@en

This paper explores the relations between agricultural modernization and sustainable agriculture. The point of departure is the observable decrease in the sustainability and social–ecological resilience of agricultural and food systems. We ask where, precisely, the notions of agricultural modernization and agricultural sustainability contradict each other. In more concrete terms we ask what forms of modernization makes agriculture more (or less) sustainable. Our literature review shows that while the term ‘sustainable agriculture’, has been extensively debated, the term ‘agricultural modernization’, while carrying a positive and forward-looking connotation, remains poorly defined. To address this gap, we draw on evidence from real-life cases in fourteen countries in an attempt to interpret how the two concepts are perceived in very different contexts. These case studies show that different understandings of modern and sustainable agriculture coexist and that agricultural development follows diverse pathways. We conclude that the growing demands for an agricultural and food system that is more resilient, equitable and inclusive can be met by providing more support for the many divergent trajectories of agricultural modernization that practitioners are actually pursuing: trajectories that are often more attuned to the imperatives of ecology and to changing socio–economic preferences than the classical modernization trajectory.@en

Supermarkets have become a major actor in driving a shift to more sustainable agricultural practices throughout the agri-food value chains, using certification schemes and other instruments known as non-state market driven (NSMD) governance. This paper explores what factors may affect farmers’ willingness to join such mechanism once it is in place, based on the case study of pepper growers in the Arava region in southern Israel. Based on an extensive farmers survey and interviews with other stakeholders in the region, we find that regional characteristics such as export dependency, homogeneity in regional production patterns, prior experience and farm level awareness are tied with NSMD adoption. Adoption is also made possible by the availability of services offering alternative practices to the farmers, and the different ways public policy supports the shift, and in turn is affected by it.@en

The limited resilience of agricultural and food systems, and of rural communities, has become an important concern in rural and agricultural policy. However, while the term has been heavily theorised and discussed, particularly in the natural and environmental sciences, it is sufficiently ambiguous to support divergent and even contradictory policy goals and farmers' strategies. This paper focuses on the more encompassing notion of social-ecological resilience and contends that among the causes of this divergence are the disparate spatial and temporal scales used to assess and plan enhancing resilience. Based on empirical evidence, we show that strategies that may increase farmers' abilities to persist in a difficult economic environment may undermine the resilience of the wider region, while decisions that enhance farmers' resilience in the short term may lock them onto a path that weakens their future resilience. Using case studies from 14 different countries across Europe and beyond, we address two main questions. Firstly, how the notion of resilience is being operationalised at a farm or regional level. That is to say, what are the different strategies that farmers, rural residents and other decision-makers in rural areas are using to enhance resilience? Secondly, we look at how the outcomes of implementing these strategies vary according to spatial and temporal factors.@en

The limited resilience of agricultural and food systems, and of rural communities, has become an important concern in rural and agricultural policy. However, while the term has been heavily theorised and discussed, particularly in the natural and environmental sciences, it is sufficiently ambiguous to support divergent and even contradictory policy goals and farmers' strategies. This paper focuses on the more encompassing notion of social-ecological resilience and contends that among the causes of this divergence are the disparate spatial and temporal scales used to assess and plan enhancing resilience. Based on empirical evidence, we show that strategies that may increase farmers' abilities to persist in a difficult economic environment may undermine the resilience of the wider region, while decisions that enhance farmers' resilience in the short term may lock them onto a path that weakens their future resilience. Using case studies from 14 different countries across Europe and beyond, we address two main questions. Firstly, how the notion of resilience is being operationalised at a farm or regional level. That is to say, what are the different strategies that farmers, rural residents and other decision-makers in rural areas are using to enhance resilience? Secondly, we look at how the outcomes of implementing these strategies vary according to spatial and temporal factors.@en

The widespread transformations in farming practices during recent decades across many parts of Europe - increased capital intensity, scale enlargement, specialization, intensification and mechanization have been accompanied by a quite dramatic shift towards more standardized agricultural information and knowledge. Previous research reveals that transition towards more sustainable agriculture requires a new knowledge base, with new content and forms of knowledge and new processes of learning. In this paper, we explore the relevance of informal farmer knowledge and learning practices in constructing alternative pathways in sustainable agriculture and strengthening agricultural resilience. It is based on 11 case studies carried out within the international RETHINK research programme. The cases reveal the diversity of knowledge sources and learning forms that farmers use and the particular role of farmers' experience-based knowledge. Farmers greatly value local experiential knowledge as they see it as having practical, personal and local relevance. Given the limitations of more standardized information and knowledge, and the urgent need for a transition towards more sustainable and resource-efficient practices, we argue that the potential of local farmer knowledge is not being optimally used and that a better integration of various forms of knowledge is needed. We identify several ways in which different kinds of knowledge can be integrated. For the individual farmer this can be done by synthesising knowledge from different sources. It can also be done through farmer networking - whether or not facilitated by formal agricultural knowledge institutions, through collaboration between farmers and researchers as knowledge co-generators, and through multi-actor knowledge networks that bring together participants from various fields. We conclude that the dynamic contexts, complexity and the local specificity of the current challenges facing agriculture and the many roles it is being asked to fulfil require more inclusive, flexible modes of governing the generation, integration and sharing of knowledge. All stakeholders, including farmers, need to be recognised as equal co-authors of knowledge generation, and all kinds of knowledge, both formal and informal, need be brought together in innovation processes. Knowledge networking and multi-actor knowledge networks that facilitate knowledge exchanges, joint learning and the generation of new more integrated solutions, are crucial if agriculture is to become sustainable and resilient.@en

The widespread transformations in farming practices during recent decades across many parts of Europe - increased capital intensity, scale enlargement, specialization, intensification and mechanization have been accompanied by a quite dramatic shift towards more standardized agricultural information and knowledge. Previous research reveals that transition towards more sustainable agriculture requires a new knowledge base, with new content and forms of knowledge and new processes of learning. In this paper, we explore the relevance of informal farmer knowledge and learning practices in constructing alternative pathways in sustainable agriculture and strengthening agricultural resilience. It is based on 11 case studies carried out within the international RETHINK research programme. The cases reveal the diversity of knowledge sources and learning forms that farmers use and the particular role of farmers' experience-based knowledge. Farmers greatly value local experiential knowledge as they see it as having practical, personal and local relevance. Given the limitations of more standardized information and knowledge, and the urgent need for a transition towards more sustainable and resource-efficient practices, we argue that the potential of local farmer knowledge is not being optimally used and that a better integration of various forms of knowledge is needed. We identify several ways in which different kinds of knowledge can be integrated. For the individual farmer this can be done by synthesising knowledge from different sources. It can also be done through farmer networking - whether or not facilitated by formal agricultural knowledge institutions, through collaboration between farmers and researchers as knowledge co-generators, and through multi-actor knowledge networks that bring together participants from various fields. We conclude that the dynamic contexts, complexity and the local specificity of the current challenges facing agriculture and the many roles it is being asked to fulfil require more inclusive, flexible modes of governing the generation, integration and sharing of knowledge. All stakeholders, including farmers, need to be recognised as equal co-authors of knowledge generation, and all kinds of knowledge, both formal and informal, need be brought together in innovation processes. Knowledge networking and multi-actor knowledge networks that facilitate knowledge exchanges, joint learning and the generation of new more integrated solutions, are crucial if agriculture is to become sustainable and resilient.@en

Farm level changes tend to be connected with alterations in markets (and food chains) on the one side, and with the prosperity of the rural areas in which they are embedded on the other. They are inherently linked to the underlying logics of agro-economic and food systems. Technical 'solutions' often only alleviate the symptoms and ignore wider ramifications. In this paper, we argue that decisions in both, the private and public sector need to pay attention to the systemic nature, and dynamics, of processes, interactions and impacts. The main focus is on rural prosperity, the different ways of understanding the concept and the related parameters and strategies. The discussion incorporates key elements of social learning as well as a range of rural development models. In the analysis, we will examine different farming systems through the "Working with People" model. The basis for the analysis are major case studies from six countries with data from interviews with key actors and stakeholders, focus groups and data on indicators of rural prosperity and wellbeing. @en

Governments all over the world have been searching for ways to build resilience to a myriad of risks, which seem to intensify in frequency and potential impact – from the Covid-19 pandemic to climate change, from AI running loose to economic crises that defy our expectations and understanding. Many have embraced concepts and ideas from resilience thinking, and applied them to particular shocks and stressors, or even as a holistic framework for city resilience in face of multiple shocks and stressors. Thus, a new policy domain emerged – resilience policy. However, unlike other policy domains, such as environmental policy or health policy, it lacks a clear definition of goals, methods of analysis, and trade-offs. This is the gap this dissertation starts to bridge.@en