This is why after assessing critical thresholds, participants should also be stimulated to think about adaptations to improve their system to desired sustainability and resilience levels . Be it by steering away or actual exceeding critical thresholds to arrive at higher sustainability levels. Paas et al. suggest a back-casting approach, but other solution-oriented methods such as participatory multi-criteria decision analysis may also be appropriate . In any case, starting with a threshold assessment before solution-oriented participatory methods may create path-dependency, resulting in adaptations that lead to a reconfirmation of the current system where a transformation might actually be more appropriate. This path-dependency is likely to be reinforced by only inviting participants from within the farming system. Farming system actors are for instance probably biased regarding depopulation and a loss of attractiveness of the rural area, as it is related to farm closure. Considering the possibility that the closure of individual farms could be good for the farming system as a whole might go beyond the mental models of some farming system actors. Participatory methods involving so-called “critical friends” that have no direct stake in the system might help to overcome this obstacle . Involving external actors is especially required in unsustainable systems that persist through the agency of only a subset of stakeholders. It should be noted that critical thresholds are never static as they depend on the context .Critical thresholds may change because of slowly changing variables , which is also acknowledged in this study by presenting interacting thresholds across levels and domains in multiple case studies. Different domains could be addressed by including a variety of social, dutch bucket hydroponic economic, institutional and environmental challenges, function indicators and resilience attributes.
Using the framework of Kinzig et al. forced in particular researchers in some case studies to reflect on critical thresholds in the social domain, while focus of participants was more on economic and environmental processes. The framework of Kinzig et al. can hence show where knowledge of stakeholders is limited. This is an asset as exposing the limits of local knowledge is often lacking in participatory settings . Explicitly adding the institutional domain and a level beyond the farming system to the framework of Kinzig et al. may further reveal the limits of knowledge and improve the understanding of farming system dynamics. To further stimulate co-production of knowledge, the figures with interacting thresholds could be fed back to farming system stakeholders in a follow-up workshop. In addition, farming system actors could be stimulated to think about representative indicators for resilience attributes. These representative indicators could add local meaning and thus improve stakeholders’ understanding and assessment of the resilience attributes and resilience mechanisms . Becoming aware about a threshold can help reducing the likelihood of exceeding one . Indeed, assessing critical thresholds may bring the awareness that is needed to move away from the conditions that have caused them. Participatory methods that are more specifically aimed at social processes could bring about awareness of system actors. However, interrelatedness with processes in other domains are consequently likely to be lost out of sight. Still, specific attention for social processes in the conducted workshops can improve the integrated nature of the assessments, for instance by pre-selecting at least one indicator related to a social function and a resilience attribute related to social conditions.
For some case studies in this study, this would imply a suggestion that new functions and system goals are needed. Although top-down, this could initiate the process of system actors picking up this signal as being valuable and the process of redirecting the system as a whole to an alternative state . The study presented in this paper is a resilience assessment that is partly objectively and partly subjectively defined: we worked with a set of function indicators and resilience attributes selected in a previous workshop by stakeholders based on lists prepared by researchers . Such an approach may not be feasible at EU scale, but has proven effective for postulating candidate indicators for monitoring frameworks such as the CMEF. More participatory workshops in a diverse range of EU farming systems are advised to find more of these indicators that can enrich those monitoring frameworks. It should be noted however, that assessments inclining towards a subjective definition and evaluation of resilience are poorly researched and that translation issues and cultural biases can limit these kind of assessments . Further elaboration and study of participatory methodologies is therefore necessary to improve its use for evaluating sustainability and resilience at farming system, national and EU level. Specifically the desired or acceptable degree of objectivity vs. subjectivity in assessments across different levels and domains should be discussed. Low-carbon societies and carbon neutrality have become key goals in combating climate change . Carbon neutrality is expected to both contribute to climate change mitigation and require adaptation in the agricultural sector. Developing the systems required by a low-carbon society is a process based on natural and agricultural sciences. For example, carbon neutrality needs changes in land use practices in farming. However, as it also involves political, social, and economic processes, the systemic change required in its implementation is extensive. The inclusion of farmers in the transition process and an understanding of their perspectives on the change are required, in part, to achieve carbon neutrality. Studies on farmers’ climate change perceptions have predominantly reported a majority of them being skeptical of both the anthropogenic nature of climate change , and its risks to their livelihoods . Consequently, it seems unlikely that farmers would be willing to proactively make considerable investments in carbon-neutral farming methods.
To improve the acceptability and adoptability of low-carbon policies and to better acknowledge their unwanted consequences, especially to vulnerable groups, the concept of a “just transition” has emerged and gained momentum. An example is the European Union’s Green Deal program . This concept, as the name suggests, focuses on the fairness of the transition towards low-carbon societies . The concept, which could be an important tool in improving low-carbon policies and policy-making processes, has expanded and become both more theoretically robust and academically interesting . However, it has been insufficiently utilized in the agricultural sector, although there is growing interest therein . Conversely, consideration of private companies’ perspectives, for both the agricultural and transitional processes, is also important. Private companies operate dairy chains, and dairy farms are an essential part of these chains. Dairy production currently faces many challenges, majorly in relation to discussions about its environmental impact. Demands for decreasing meat and milk production have increased , while the legitimacy and continuity of dairy farming; practices, livelihoods, and the entire sector have been disputed. In Finland, the combined agricultural emissions from the EU’s effort sharing sector and land-use are about 20% of the total carbon emissions . Much of the agricultural emissions come from the use of peatlands, which are strongly connected to dairy production . The level of the agricultural emissions has remained stable and there is a pressing need to find ways to reduce these emissions. Within this challenging situation, we scrutinize the transition towards carbon-neutral dairy farming in Finland. The aim of this study is to clarify how to shift towards carbon-neutral dairy farming in Finland, such that dairy farmers can see the systemic change as equitable. The study focuses on Valio’s carbon-neutral milk program. We acknowledge that the environmental measures promoted by the program are produced in this context. These measures are geared towards improving the practices and the profitability of the dairy sector. The program does not involve critical elements such as promoting the reduction of dairy consumption or limiting the number of livestock, although these would have beneficial climate impacts. This study does not aim to analyze the environmental impacts of the program but focuses on understanding farmers’ perspectives on the role of such private sustainability initiatives for the promotion of a just transition. We used a case study methodology to answer these research questions. First, we outline the theoretical framework of the study. Second, we describe our research data and the methods used. Third, we present the results of the study.
The results are divided into three sections according to the three main themes that arose in the interviews: 1) the profitability of farming, 2) concerns and blame in the context of dairy farming, and 3) use of agricultural peatlands. Finally, we discuss the results in terms of the two research questions and draw meaningful conclusions. The concept of a just transition has evolved in relation to sustainability transition studies and various interlinked conceptualizations, such as environmental, energy, dutch buckets system and food justice . In the environmental justice literature, it is common to consider a just transition in terms of a set of justice dimensions. The most commonly used dimensions include distributive, procedural, and recognitive justice . As compensation for injustice may be required, the dimension of restorative justice is also relevant. Distributive justice focuses on the distributive impact of a transition. Traditionally, at the core of sustainability discourse, there has been an interest in intergenerational equity: that is, a concern for the needs of future generations. However, distributional concerns need to account for intragenerational equity too , aiming for a balanced distribution of drawbacks and benefits among different actors in contemporary society . If an unjust distribution cannot be avoided, restorative justice can be used to compensate for the harm caused. For farmers, this could mean subsidies for changing farming practices or production lines. Procedural justice highlights the decision-making procedures used to reach and implement a sustainability transition in which every party should have an equal opportunity to participate. Finally, recognitive justice is related to procedural justice, but extends towards the recognition of different livelihoods and ways of knowing and being in society. In particular, this means the equal valuing of different cultures, with particular attention paid to vulnerable groups and elements of society, such as indigenous peoples . While farmers are not generally recognized as a group potentially at risk, owing to climate-related policies , their vulnerability in the food system has been acknowledged . As climate policies are shifting from a focus on energy to other key emission-producing areas, it is important to consider farmers and other workers in the land use sector.
Despite the recent interest in the concept of a just transition, empirical studies have largely focused on energy justice and the transition from coal in the context of coal mine closures . While farmers have not been studied previously in the context of a just transition, their perspectives on agri-environmental policies, climate change, and associated justice issues have been widely studied, providing important insights. The changes required in agricultural production also raise questions related to regional viability and livelihoods, which are at the core of current EU agricultural policies. Despite efforts to provide sufficient livelihoods from agricultural production and to support investments in and changes to production lines, farmers may perceive the support system as unjust. In particular, this relates to gaining a livelihood from food production, versus so-called quasi-farming, where fields are maintained without productive goals. Another distributive justice issue for farmers relates to profit distribution among food system actors, visible in the food sovereignty movement , and the emergence of diverse alternative food systems, which farmers may see as a way of obtaining equal payment for their work . The transition literature discusses restorative justice as a means of compensation for or alleviation of the distributive harms caused to particular groups, owing to transition or related policies . Restorative justice involves means, such as adjustment periods, education, and direct subsidies, to support structural changes. In the EU, agri-environmental subsidies follow the logic of compensation for the additional costs that implementation of environmental measures incurs. Undoubtedly, subsidies can also serve as a basic income. However, the changes required to reduce the climate impact of food production are likely to require more than mere adjustments to farming practices. Thus, the measures required for just compensation may also need to be wider in scope. Farming generally means more than just gaining a livelihood. It is a way of life, intertwined with one’s family, home, and local environments . These issues can be considered in the light of recognitive justice. For instance, similar to farmers, for mine workers and the mining community, the coal mine represents more than just a job.