Search

Stimulating an effective provision of public goods and ecosystem services from Europe’s farmland and forests is a critical challenge for policy-makers. In this paper we focus on three aspects of this challenge. Firstly, we explore the different drivers that influence the provision of public goods and ecosystem services by farming and forestry. Secondly, we identify the key motivational, institutional and socio-economic factors that can encourage the provision of these benefits. And thirdly, we examine the role of governance arrangements, of new forms of cooperation and of institutional change in enhancing the provision of public goods and ecosystem services. The paper is based on a comparative analysis of 34 sectoral, multi-sectoral and territorial real-life case studies spread across 10 EU countries which were carried out as part of the EU-funded PEGASUS project. The analysis pays attention to the functional inter- and intra-relationships between farming and/or forestry, and the quantity and quality of public goods and ecosystem services that these activities provide. This analysis allowed us to identify the key factors that enhance the provision of social and environmental benefits. These include involving a wide range of actors in initiatives and actions, the establishment of appropriate governance arrangements in multi-actor partnerships, the key roles of coordination, cooperation and trust, and the importance of finding common interests and creating synergies and win–win situations. In most of the case studies, we found a complex interaction between different drivers, actors, motivations and interests. In general, we found that the provision of public goods and ecosystem services from farmland and forests is stimulated by policy interventions, planning and regulations that encourage, and support, the engagement of the private sector, and of civil society, in joint actions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ability to learn from each other plays a central role in successful transdisciplinary (TD) collaboration. This article systematically investigates how learning to collaborate allows researchers and practitioners to navigate the challenges of collaborative TD work. Drawing on social learning theory, we emphasise the processual nature of social learning in TD research as learning to collaborate. We examine collaborative learning processes in three Living Labs located in different socio-cultural and institutional contexts in Europe. The Living Labs explored the conditions for mutually beneficial rural-urban relations. We use data from a systematic monitoring of a 4-year Horizon 2020 research project. Our analysis illustrates how learning in and through collaboration can enhance individual and collective capacities to deal with different perspectives, priorities, and approaches, enabling the achievement of transformative objectives. We also show how particular factors and conditions lead to differing learning histories and a lack of attention to learning processes may result in challenges to collaboration. This provides a more encompassing understanding of the complex learning dynamics underpinning TD research. We argue that an intentional focus on collaborative learning processes is essential to fulfil the aspiration of TD research to contribute to creating knowledge and capacities for the co-production of sustainable futures. • Social learning in TD research is essential for generating knowledge and building capacities to co-create sustainable futures. • Operationalisation of the collaborative epistemic living space concept; empirical investigation of social learning. • Learning in and through collaboration can enhance capacities to cope with differences and enable transformative outcomes. • Social dimension catalyses learning processes, while epistemic and symbolic dimensions are the most challenging to navigate. • Professional facilitation fosters safe spaces and helps teams to rebalance power dynamics and work through disagreements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This introductory paper provides an overview of the emergence of the concept of 'the multifunctionality of agriculture and rural areas', with particular emphasis on its historical and research dimensions and how it is interrelated with the notion of 'territory'. The paper is based on a state-of-the-art review of the different conceptualizations of the multifunctionality of agriculture and rural areas in policy related discourses. It examines how the concept of multifunctionality was taken on board and operationalized, in scientific analyses, strategic policy analysis and evaluation. In this special issue we focus on policy related analyses and discourses and the related analytical frameworks. We argue that scientific research should dissociate itself from political and interest driven discourses where multifunctionality tends to be primarily defined in economic terms (with a focus on the difference between private and public goods terms), and instead treat multifunctionality as a valuable conceptual framework. This paper emphasizes the important analytical and strategic links between multifunctionality and sustainability. In so doing it also closely links the notions of territory and territorial development with those of multifunctionality and sustainability. The adoption of a wider territorial development perspective has several implications in terms of governance and policies and these will be discussed. Theoretical and empirical gaps relating to these issues are identified, some of which are addressed in the other papers within this special issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the problems that arise when seeking to evaluate policies for the multifunctionality of agriculture (MFA) and rural areas. The focus is on the conceptual frameworks, methods, tools and data that are used to evaluate policies and regulations that impact upon or are targeted at agriculture and rural space. The paper builds upon a review of policy evaluation practice and experiences in six different EU member states and a summary review among Central and Eastern European Countries, carried out as part of the EU-funded MULTAGRI research project (for more information on the project see www.multagri.net). The evaluation methods and the agricultural functions that the policies address differ widely between countries. Until now, the focus of MFA has primarily been on nature protection, environmental concerns and landscape conservation. Other dimensions of multifunctionality, such as community services, renewable energy sources, recreation and leisure and linkages with non-agricultural development (for example in gastronomy and tourism) have been largely neglected. As a result, multifunctionality is not yet understood as a way of addressing concerns about economic, social and environmental sustainability. This paper argues that classic evaluation tools, such as cost-benefit analysis and other economic models are not, by themselves sufficient to evaluate the MFA and rural areas. It argues that more comprehensive and integrated approaches need to be adopted, that are more focussed on the potential of agriculture to fulfil new societal goals, contribute to rural employment and improve the viability of rural, particularly less favoured areas (this potential of MFA is described in more detail in the introductory article to this issue). The concluding section argues the need to build better links between quantitative tools and qualitative, discursive and consultative approaches. Ways are sketched out for developing more comprehensive and integrated evaluation approaches that might provide more detailed insights into the complex interrelationships between policy impacts, the MFA and rural areas and their future development. The suggested improvements draw on the notions of joint learning, holistic systems approaches and trans-disciplinary knowledge production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The role of farming previously dedicated mainly to food production changed with an increasing recognition of the multifunctionality of agriculture and rural areas. It seems obvious to expect that farmers and rural actors adapt themselves to these new conditions, which are innovative and redefine their job. In many regions farmers can increase their income basis as rural entrepreneurs, developing new services and exploring new markets. Often, however, there is a gap between the need for change and farmers' willingness to adjust, and the insufficient capacities of innovation agencies and advisory services to effectively support changes. In this contribution we discuss the kinds of gaps between present societal demands, the related farm-level adjustments, and the capacities of innovation agencies and advisory services. We explore a conceptual framework that understands innovation processes as the outcome of collaborative networks where information is exchanged and learning processes happen. We argue that technical and economic factors used to analyse drivers and barriers alone are not sufficient to understand innovation processes. The related social and institutional aspects of cross-sector as well as intra-sector processes are explored. Overall, we emphasize that innovation functions as a process where farmers' and rural entrepreneurs' knowledge, motivations and values play an important role. We emphasize that institutions, administrations and extension services, whose mission it is to support changes, can become barriers to innovation if they do not acknowledge that the needs of farmers and of society have changed. The paper builds on the conceptual level work carried out in the on-going EU funded IN-SIGHT research programme with multidisciplinary teams from seven European countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This last paper aims to summarise reflexions made in the preceding papers of this Special Issue. We will first show the common conclusions of the different reviews on multifunctionality, and discuss the global state-of-the-art: multifuntionality does not yet appear as a very stabilised concept, and its scientific use suffers from confusions with political discourses. We suggest therefore that research should detach itself from multifunctionality as a political goal and should instead consider multifunctionality as a useful conceptual and analytical framework. In order to support this recommendation, directions for this analytical framework are sketched out, by referring to three main elements which appear in previous papers: functions and their interrelations, reembedding agriculture in society, and linking multifunctionality and sustainability. From this global picture, theoretical, methodological and empirical research gaps are identified. To conclude this paper, we suggest other inputs for research on multifunctionality, from other disciplines which deal with functionalism, and discuss the potential of this concept for rural development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A status-quo analysis of the way the question of the multifunctionality of agriculture and of rural space is dealt with in policy evaluation is given. Focus is on conceptual frameworks, tools and methods. The paper builds on a review of policy evaluation practice and experiences in six different EU member states and of a summative review for Central and Eastern European countries (CEE). It is argued that European level evaluation procedures and guidelines that fully correspond with the concept of a multifunctional agriculture and rural space yet have to be developed. In terms of future research it is concluded that more holistic concepts need to be adopted, focussed on the potential of agriculture to fulfil new societal goals, to contribute to rural employment, to improve the viability of rural areas, particularly in less favoured areas. Quantitative tools must be linked in more effective ways with qualitative, discursive and consultative approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]