The resilience capacities define the possible range of actions to maintain the desired functions of the farming system, i.e. the provision of private and public goods at desirable levels. The selected courses of action in turn also affect the actors, institutions and resources of the farming system and its enabling environment, constituting a feedback loop. Resilience is a latent property of a system. The concept denotes a potential which is activated – and can be observed – only when a system is hit by stress or shocks . It can thus be understood by learning from past trajectories and discussing future scenarios, and from assessing how actual shocks are dealt with . The first approach was used in a systematic assessment of sustainability and resilience over the course of 2017–2020. This provided insight into the multiple factors contributing to resilience. We used the second approachwhen Covid-19 hit European food and agricultural systems. This allowed us to compare the resilience attributes of the system and the resources and institutional support from the enabling environment that were activated to respond to challenges before and during the Covid-19 crisis. The 11 farming systems have been analysed since 2017 in the SURE-Farm project, which has been funded under the EU research program Horizon 2020 and aims to understand and systematically assess the sustainability and resilience of farming systems. Qualitative data on the farming systems during the Covid-19 crisis were collected by members of the SURE-Farm consortium in their respective countries in spring 2020, focussing on exposure to restrictions and sensitivity of the farming system, actions taken by farming system actors in response to restrictions, the role of the enabling environment , stacking pots and discussions and reflections triggered by the crisis .
Due to the short time frame to plan data collection, different methods were used depending on availability and feasibility in each case study. In most case studies, interviews were complemented with a review of media and policy documents . Each case study team interpreted the data with a focus on the anticipating, coping and responsive capacities displayed by the actors in the farming systems, the agility of the actions , the degree of fragmentation or connectedness across actors and the display of leadership, i.e. which actors shaped the interpretation of the situation, and provided guidance and coordination . The findings on the Covid-19 crisis were then compared to previous insights for each farming system, using selected findings from the systematic resilience assessment. These included findings on resilience capacities, the role of the enabling environment, prevailing challenges, and systems’ performance of resilience attributes such as diversity, profitability and openness.Major exposure and sensitivity were observed in the extensive sheep farming system in Northeast Spain and in the small-scale mixed farming system in Northeast Romania, mainly due to severely interrupted sales to restaurants and peasant markets, respectively. In the small-scale mixed system in Northeast Romania also milk collection was interrupted. A medium level of exposure and sensitivity was observed in the fruit & vegetable system in Mazovia. Here the travel limitations for foreign workers created problems. The other farming systems were exposed only to minor degrees. For instance, the dairy system in Flanders faced lower prices, but could continue production and delivery, and in other farming systems the timing of the lockdowns was relatively fortunate, i.e. not affecting harvests but during tillage season or after seeding and planting . In the intensive arable system in Veenkoloni¨en and the extensive cattle grazing system in the Massif Central important markets were barely affected.
Despite only minor exposure and sensitivity in most farming systems, a wide variety of actions was undertaken across all farming systems . Similarities were financial support programs from governments and attempts to set up online-sales channels and home-delivery services. Also, in many farming systems, cooperatives became active. For instance, in the extensive sheep grazing system in Northeast Spain cooperatives kept farm-gate prices at a reasonable level through stimulating national consumption and by developing new markets. In trying to solve shortages of foreign workers, farmers’ associations in the fruit & vegetables system in Mazovia successfully anticipated and started to contact Ukrainian workers directly via Facebook platforms, while the German Farmers’ Association organised flights for migrant workers, among others from Romania and Bulgaria. The Spanish government ensured availability of shearers from Uruguay. In contrast, in the UK the government tried to mobilise local workers, such as through the ‘Pick for Britain’ and ‘Student Land Army’ initiatives, and in the egg & broiler system in South Sweden unavailability of migrant workers was coped with by hiring furloughed labour from companies in the region. Impacts were overall minor . For instance, in the fruit & vegetables system in Mazovia the speed of arranging availability of Ukrainian workers and the switch to less labour-intensive crops reduced the system’s medium exposure and sensitivity to a minor overall impact. The early signalling of the upcoming labour shortage by the farmers’ organisation seemed a pivotal anticipating capacity. Some actions also reduced a system’s exposure and sensitivity. For instance, the agile efforts of Belgian dairy processors to cooperate in order to ensure continuation of milk collection has been an important factor leading to relatively minor consequences in the Flanders dairy system. A somewhat more nuanced view on impacts came from some farming systems which recognised that impacts were unevenly distributed across actors, depending on membership of a cooperative and entrepreneurship . Also, despite minor impacts in the short term, some actors in arable systems expressed concerns about long-term consequences on price levels .
Most of the long list of actions undertaken by farming system actors and the enabling environment suggest coping capacities. This is especially pronounced for the actions undertaken by the enabling environment; only in the hazelnut system in Lazio and the extensive sheep grazing in Northeast Spain the government was partly responsive through changing physical field inspections to georeferencing and by actively engaging in identifying new export markets respectively. We observed more responsive actions at the level of farming systems; in the large-scale arable system in Northeast Bulgaria and in the extensive sheep grazing system in Northeast Spain even the majority of actions by farming system actors were responsive . Anticipation was quite rare and was observed only in the dairy system in Flanders where processors anticipated through crisis protocols, in the arable system in the Altmark where some farmers anticipated and responded by early buying of inputs, and in the fruit & vegetables system in Mazovia in relation to the availability of foreign workers. Although few actions could be classified as responsive behaviour, the discussions and reflections triggered by the crisis dealt with a range of topics which would require fundamental changes in farming systems or food and agricultural sectors in general. Discussions related among others to calls for more self-sufficiency, shorter value chains, reduced dependence on migrant labour, improved fairness and inclusiveness in value chains, more cooperation among farmers, and more innovations . Not much variation in agility could be observed; where needed, actions were taken swiftly . Only in the Hazelnut system in Lazio it was reported that decisions were taken promptly, but that the actual implementation of related actions was slow. Regarding leadership, more differences were observed across farming systems . In the three farming systems with the highest exposure and sensitivity, leadership was taken by actors from the enabling environment in the fruit & vegetables system in Mazovia and in the mixed farming system in Northeast Romania, while in the extensive sheep grazing system in Northeast Spain actors from the farming system itself led important actions. In other farming systems, leadership was jointly taken by actors from the farming system and the enabling environment.
Connectedness was mostly apparent at the level of processing cooperatives or farmers’ associations . Little connectedness was found in the large-scale arable system in Northeast Bulgaria, the extensive beef system in Massif Central, and in the small-scale mixed system in Northeast Romania. In the latter, lack of cooperation along the value chain and between farmers was seen as rooted in the communist history and considered a major problem in developing solutions during the lockdown. In Romania the lack of cooperation was also among the discussion topics . Revealed resilience capacities during the Covid-19 crisis largely coincided with the resilience capacities from the pre-Covid assessment, i.e. also before Covid-19 there was a focus on short-term robustness as indicated by the frequent ‘b’ in Table 4. However, there were a few exceptions. For instance, in the arable system in Northeast Bulgaria and the arable farming system in the East of England the pre-Covid-19 focus of farming systems was on coping capacities while the Covid-19 situation revealed mainly responsive capacities. With regard to actions taken by the enabling environment, the opposite was true in among others the mixed system in Northeast Romania and the egg & broiler system in South Sweden, i.e. there was more focus on supporting coping capacities during Covid-19 than before. A comparison of pre-Covid-19 challenges and those observed during lockdowns shows that a number of challenges persisted during the lockdowns . , observations reported in Table 3 and discussion topics summarised in Appendix B.For instance, each farming system in which labour shortage was already identified as a top- 5 challenge in the pre-Covid-19 assessment also reported labour issues during the lockdowns . Interestingly, in three farming systems respondents reiterated their worries about climate change, i.e. in the arable system in Northeast Bulgaria, the arable system in Veenkoloni¨en, and the fruit & vegetables system in Mazovia, as they feared that exposure, sensitivity and impact of climate change would be much larger than from Covid-19. The Covid-19 crisis also revealed a number of additional challenges . These related to financial distress in the arable system in Northeast Bulgaria and mental stress in the arable system in the Altmark. Actors in three systems also reported problems due to collapse of agritourism activities , while such diversified activities were usually assumed to be less vulnerable to external shocks than agricultural production activities. For the mixed system in Northeast Romania and the sheep grazing system in Northeast Spain also the interrupted sales were an additional challenge. With regard to system characteristics that enhance resilience, grow lights connectedness stood out . Vice versa, lack of connectedness constrained resilience actions. The latter was illustrated by the small-scale mixed system in Northeast Romania in which low connectedness of small farms with value chains hindered small farms to access retail chains when peasant markets closed or were no longer visited by consumers .
System characteristics however did not explain all patterns of Covid-19 resilience actions . In two farming systems we observed that pre-Covid-19 connectedness among farmers was high, but this did not play a role during the Covid-19 crisis. In the hazelnut system in Lazio individual farmers took actions, not the cooperative. Also, in the beef system in Massif Central processors took leadership. The opposite was observed in the fruit & vegetable system in Mazovia where pre-Covid-19 connectedness was low, but the Covid-19 crisis revealed that farmers’ and labour organisations were well able to take joint actions to quickly ensure the availability of Ukrainian workers. In this paper we assessed how and why farming systems in Europe were able to cope with Covid-19. We did so by assessing exposure and sensitivity of farming systems, actions undertaken by farming systemactors and their enabling environment, leadership, connectedness, agility of actions and overall impact. We also assessed discussions triggered by the crisis in media and among stakeholders. Short-term impacts were then compared with pre-Covid-19 knowledge about the farming systems, including systems’ resilience capacities, the role of the enabling environment with regard to resilience, the range of pre-existing challenges and the performance of resilience attributes. In most cases, few anticipatory capacities were observed, even when the impending pandemic became plainly visible through media reports in early 2020. All systems then displayed adequate agility to activate coping capacities. Related actions were led by farming system actors or the enabling environment, or both. Agility was 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.