No Evidence of Trade-Off between Farm Efficiency and Resilience: Dependence of Resource-Use Efficiency on Land-Use Diversity

Biodiversity-based cropping systems: A long-term perspective is necessary

Biodiversity-based cropping systems are an interesting option to address the many challenges that agriculture faces. However, benefits of these systems should not obscure the fact that creating biodiversity-based cropping systems represents a major change for farmers. To address this challenge, we argue that designing biodiversity-based cropping systems requires transforming ecological concepts into technical opportunities. Indeed, integrating ecological concepts such as plant-soil feedback and plant functional traits more strongly into cropping system design offers promising opportunities for the provision of ecosystem services, such as pest and disease control, crop production (including crop yield stability), climate regulation and regulation of soil quality. Accordingly, we demonstrate that designing biodiversity-based cropping systems requires considering not only the short term but also the long term. This would ensure that the expected ecosystem services have enough time to build up and provide their full effects, that the cropping systems are resilient and that they avoid the limitations of short-term assessments, which do not sufficiently consider multi-year effects. Considering long-term consequences of system change - induced by biodiversity - is essential to identify potential trade-offs between ecosystem services, as well as agricultural obstacles to and mechanisms of change. Including farmers and other food-chain actors in cropping system design would help find acceptable compromises that consider not only the provision of ecosystem services, but also other dimensions related to economic viability, workload or the technical feasibility of crops, which are identified as major obstacles to crop diversification. This strategy represents an exciting research front for the development of agroecological cropping systems.

Considering Ecosystem Services in Food System Resilience

The prevalence and severity of natural hazards pose a serious risk to food systems, undermining their function to provide food security and improved nutrition. The impact of such events is extensive, and the level of damage and recovery significantly depend on ecosystem services, including their own resilience capacity. This paper provides evidence that the role, value, and utilization of local ecosystem services are essential for food system resilience and for food security in parts of the world where high vulnerability and lack of coping capacity exist to combat climate change. Patterns of ecosystem services-based strategies were revealed that can be introduced to cope and adapt to climate-related natural hazards at the smallholder food system level. The study suggests that food system diversification, technological innovations and nature-based practices, and traditional and indigenous knowledge operationalized across the food system components have a potential for sustaining smallholder resilience in the face of natural hazards.

Farming Resilience: From Maintaining States towards Shaping Transformative Change Processes

Resilience is a concept that focuses on change: it includes the ability of a system to maintain its current state despite disturbances, its ability to adapt, and to transform. While resilience covers both stability and change, conceptual developments and empirical studies have put more emphasis on identifying what enables a farm to cope with the impact of a shock, such as a shift in markets or an extreme weather event, while remaining essentially unchanged. Much less emphasis has been put on what enables a farm to shape change, especially transformative change. I argue that this bias is partly due to the ecological roots of the concept, and partly to the use of conventional methods and their underlying substantialist worldview. A process-relational approach might be better suited to capture change. This approach shifts the conceptualization of a ‘farm’ as a stable material structure, to ‘farming’ as an open process of becoming, composed of heterogenous relations that are continuously made and remade. By exploring the differences between these two approaches to farm/farming resilience, I show how a process-relational approach displaces the presumption of structural determination and thus allows to highlight the ever-present openings for change.

Food systems for resilient futures

In this time of the pandemic, nothing is as it used to be. This change creates space for new narratives towards resilience. The resilience perspective implies preparing for shocks as well as various futures that might evolve. Thus, more sustainable food systems cannot only be built to be pandemic proof. This preparation can be facilitated by co-designing contrasting future narratives, identifying means for developing capacity to adapt to those futures and developing tools to enhance that capacity, such as demonstrated here. The capacity of food systems to adapt and transform is enhanced by dialogue, transparency and collective learning in food value chains and networks, sovereignty over resources, and built-in diversity in response to change. In market-led global food chains, supplier-buyer diversity is important, while in public-led regions with some market protection, farm and crop diversity might matter more in response to variability in weather, price and policies. During, for example, an international conflict, or the time of a pandemic, diverse food sourcing from local producer-consumer cooperatives to community-supported and urban agriculture could secure food for citizens. Assessments of critical diversity in response to shocks and volatility can help actors to tailor effective diversity to manage resilience while avoiding the long-feared trade-off between diversity and resource-use efficiency. The interdependence of humanity deserves attention, as food systems are only as resilient as their weakest actor. A truly resilient global food system implies not only preparedness for coming shocks and changes but also a foundation that makes shocks less probable and critical.