Organic farming as policy to address vulnerabilities
of the prevailing European food system based on conventional agriculture?
(Abbreviated version)
Authors: Natalia Brzezinat, Andreas Gerber?, Erik Mathijs?
1 SFERE, KU Leuven, erik.mathij be; natalia.brzezi be
2 system Dynamics Group, University of Bergen; birgit.kopainsky@uib.no
1 INTRODUCTION
Food is of key relevance to human health and survival. Europeans take their food and nutrition security
(FNS) for granted and rely on a food system in which most of the food is produced by conventional farmers [1].
Over the last decades this system has achieved tremendous improvements in productivity [2]. As a result,
nowadays more food is supplied than demanded at historically low prices. This allows European consumers to
spend only a small percentage of their household disposable income on food [1], [3].
These FNS achievements in Europe are, however, far from ideal and looking ahead Europeans may not be
as food secure as they perceive to be. The European consumers rely on a complex system, in which conventional
farmers, driven by profit imization, are conti in ifying, specializing, standardizing, expanding their
operations and becoming even more dependent on the application of off-farm sourced modern tools such as
chemicals to manage fertility and pests, diesel-powered machines, biotechnology and proprietary seeds [2].
These processes and practices, in turn, feed back to the environment and to society with numerous unintended
consequences, inter alia, soil degradation, nutrient runoff, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, biodiversity loss,
pesticide-born health damage and socio-economic decline in rural communities. These consequences pose risks
to FNS and well-being of future generations [4]. Moreover, much of the productivity advances and associated
trends in the European food system were realized in times of relatively stable climate, when natural resources
seemed to be infinite, and the human population was considerably smaller [5,6]. In the face of already observed
changing climate, deteriorating natural resources, growing population as well as many other emerging challenges
and uncertainties, there are growing concerns that the European food system is vulnerable and thus unable to
withstand disturbances without undesirable outcomes [4], [6], [7]—[12].
In order to cope with the challenges and uncertainties, we need a new approach to agriculture in the food
system [7], [8]. Such an approach must change both the farming practices as well as the socio-economic
organization of food production to increase the food system’s resilience and its ability to deliver sustainable and
equitable FNS today and in the future [1,5,7—9]. One of the potential candidates is organic farming [5,7,9,13,14],
which from all the alternate approaches is the only one that has been regulated and supported at EU level by a
vast array of legal, financial and knowledge-based policy instruments for the last several decades [15].
Accordingly, the number of organic farms, the extent of organically farmed land, funding devoted to organic
farming and the market size for organic foods have steadily increased across Europe [15-17].
Organic farming seems to be a promising approach as it is built on four systemic principles formulated by
the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM): health, ecology, fairness and care.
Organic farming thus aims to produce wholesome food in an environmentally-friendly way, as well as to
contribute to economic sustainability and social justice [18]. In research and public debate, however, organic
farming has a history of being contentious [19]. On the one hand, many studies provide evidence for organic
farming’s ability to balance the multiple sustainability goals [19] and build resilience to disturbances, especially
at farm level [20-23]. On the other hand, critics consider organic farming as an inefficient approach to FNS, one
that will become irrelevant in the future, because of too many shortcomings and poor solutions to agriculture
problems [3], [19]-[21] as well as high price of organic food which inhibits access to food [24,25]. Furthermore,
some argue that organic farming undergoes ‘conventionalization’ and is a mere ‘substitution of inputs’ rather
than a ‘system’s redesign’ guided by a holistic understanding of organic principles [26]. Consequently, organic
farming may violate many of the ecologically, socially and economically progressive principles originally valued
[18,27], further exacerbating the vulnerabilities the prevailing European food system [5].
In this paper we adopted a system dynamics approach to understand vulnerabilities of the conventional
European food system’s to various disturbances and to assess whether organic farming has potential to reduce
the vulnerabilities and enhance the resilience of the European food system (Figure 1). Following we involved
stakeholders to develop portfolio of policy interventions for making organic farming a significant contributor to
resilient and sustainable FNS in Europe. Finally, we assessed these policies using Meadows Leverage Points
framework (Figure 1) [28].
Historical perspective of the hotspot
Casual mechanisms of the hotspot
Vulnerabilities’ pathways of the hotspot
Organic farmins as policy to address
the hotspot's vulnerabilities
Figure 1 Structure and approach taken in the paper
2 BAU ANALYSIS
2.1 METHODOLOGY: SYSTEM DYNAMICS APPROACH
Food systems are coupled social-ecological systems (SES) formed by many internal factors and external
drivers that are interconnected through feedback processes at various scales and levels and that determine FNS
along with other environmental and socio-economic outcomes [29-31]. When exposed to various and
unforeseen disturbances, the emergence of undesirable outcomes indicates that somewhere in the food system
a critical capacity is failing and that the structure and processes driving the functioning of the system make it
vulnerable [32]. We thus define vulnerability as a system’s inability to respond to disturbances without generating
undesirable outcomes. In vulnerable food systems, even small disturbances may cause detrimental changes from
which it is difficult to recover [29]. Resilience, on the other hand, is the capacity of a food system to withstand
es and continue providing the same or possibly even improved desirable outcomes [31]. Vulnerability
and resilience are dynamic and normative in the sense that the value judgement of what is desirable and what
constitutes improvement or detriment over what period of time depends on the observer [33]. Hence, to assess
whether a food system is resilient or vulnerable we have to define: (1) the boundaries of the system
(vulnerability/resilience of what), (2) relevant disturbances (vulnerability/resilience to what) and (3) what
constitutes desirable change over what time frame and to whom. We address these questions in our
vulnerability/resilience assessment by adopting a system dynamics approach.
System dynamics is an approach designed to study and manage complex systems that change over time
[34]. The central principle of this approach is that the endogenous structure and feedback processes of a system
determine its dynamic behavior over time and how it responds to disturbances [13,35]. The system dynamics
methodology provides structural thinking tools — stocks, flows, feedback loops and structural diagrams — to
advance understanding of the interrelationships among factors in the system. The structural diagrams represent
the structure and feedback processes underlying a dynamic problem. They provide important qualitative insights
into the system’s behavior [36] and facilitate the identification of leverage points for intervention in the system
[35]. Based on structural diagrams computer simulation models can be created to experiment on how the system
behaves under unanticipated disturbances or policy interventions [13,37]. Quantitative analysis of system
behavior when exposed to disturbances is, however, beyond the scope of this paper.
In this paper we adapt the approach taken by Stave and Kopainsky [13]. They used system dynamics to
promote qualitative structural insights on mechanisms and pathways of food supply vulnerability, arguing that
“any examination of food supply ility to dis es, or ability to wi is es that could lead
to food supply disruption, should start by examining the food system’s components, causal connections, and
feedback mechanisms and describing system interactions in terms of material and information flows that pass
changes in one c on to other c ” [13]. The approach taken in this paper consists of three
iterative steps inspired by the system dynamics modelling process as presented in Figure 2 [34,35].
* Historical perspective of the organic farming policy >)
* Challenges that the organic farming policy aims to address
* Internal factors and external drivers related to the challenges
a © Trends in outcomes of interest related to the challenges
Dynamic )
problem
© Internal causal structure of the system
; + External drivers of change
Dynamic
hypothesis
~
* Vulnerabilities of the prevailing European food systems
* Viability of transition to organic farming as policy to reduce the vulnerabilities and enhance resilience
3 of the system
Qualitative yy
assessment
Figure 2 Adopted system dynamics approach
2.2 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE & CHALLENGES THAT ORGANIC FARMING POLICY
ADDRESSES
Organic farming started at the end of 1920s as a social movement which was initiated by the Austrian
spiritual philosopher Rudolf Steiner. The social movement gathered producers and interested individuals who
were skeptical about the practices of conventional agriculture, in particular the costs and benefits related to the
use of external inputs such as synthetic fertilizers and pesticides [42]. However, instead of protesting against the
conventional way of farming, they opposed it by demonstrating an alternative approach to food production. The
organic farming movement was then diversified by a number of other key people and first versions of organic
standards were formulated by Demeter in Germany (1928) and Soil Association in the UK (1940) [43]. At the
beginning of 1970s Roland Chevriot of Nature et Progrés envisioned the need to coordinate actions of the
different organic farming movements and to enable scientific and experimental data on organic to cross borders.
In order to realize this vision, he invited organic pioneers including Lady Eve Balfour, founder of the UK Soil
Association, Kjell Arman from the Swedish Biodynamic Association and Jerome Goldstein from the Rodale
Institute to join him in Versailles to set the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM)
in motion [44]. IFOAM developed the influential Basic Standards for organic farming based on four principles —
health, ecology, fairness, care. Health means that organic farming intends to produce high quality food without
using mineral fertilizers, synthetic pesticides, animal drugs and food additives that may have adverse health
effects. The ecology principle requires organic farming to fit in the cycles and balances in nature without
exploiting it by using local resources, recycling, reuse and efficient management of minerals and energy. Fairness
relates to organic farming as being a system that provides good quality of life, contributes to food sovereignty,
reduces poverty and enhances social justice, enhances animal well-being and takes future generations into
account. Finally, care is a principle that argues for applying precaution and responsibility before adopting new
technologies in organic farming practices [18].
Until 1993, there was no governmental support available for organic farming. Therefore, the development
of organic farming sector was based on private organic standards set to the IFOAM’s Basic Standards and
depended solely on consumer’s willingness to pay. Originally consumers were motivated to pay price premiums
for organic produce mainly because of more altruistic concerns over the environment, animal welfare and social
justice. However, over time many consumers have increasingly seen organic food as healthier, safer and of higher
quality than conventional food, and for these perceived features they have been willing to pay [15].
Since mid-1980s governments across Europe have started recognizing the potential of organic farming to
address the increasing concerns about the negative environmental and other impacts of post-war agricultural
development [43]. To this end, first governmental initiatives to support organic farming emerged at national level
in countries like Denmark, Austria and Switzerland. At European level, the first regulation on organic farming and
the labelling of organic farm produce and foods was introduced in 1993 (Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91),
which covered initially only plant products, but later rules on animal products were also added [15]. Having
recognized demand from the organic sector for a strategic plan to develop organic farming in Europe, in 2004
the European Commission launched an Action Plan for Organic Food and Farming. The action plan included 21
initiatives to achieve the objectives of developing the market for organic food and improving standards by
increasing efficacy, transparency and consumer confidence. As part of the action plan, the EU regulation has
been substantially revised in 2007, resulting in Council Regulation (EC) No. 834/2007 defining core organic
farming principles and the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 889/2008 setting out the detailed implementing
rules. Both regulations came into force in 2009, with compulsory use of new European organic logo to follow in
2010. Again in 2014, after almost a two year in-depth review of the European policy on organic agriculture, the
European Commission adopted a legislative proposal for a new regulation and approved a new action plan to
help organic farmers, producers and retailers adjust to the proposed policy changes and meet future challenges.
Despite the multiple amendments and revisions of the EU regulation, the core definition of organic farming as
“an overall system of farm management and food production that combines best environmental and climate
action practices, a high level of biodiversity, the preservation of natural resources, the application of high animal
welfare standards and production standards in line with the preference of certain consumers for products
produced using natural substances and processes” has remained unchanged over the years [45].
The EU regulation sets the minimum standards for all EU Member States while stricter rules can be
developed by individual EU Member States or private associations. Nevertheless, since organic farming became
part of a legislative process, the control over the sector has shifted from producers and interested individuals to
commercial and public institutions (i.e., policymakers, research institutes, food industries, etc.) [15]. Against this
background, organic farming has also become more and more an instrument of agriculture policy in the EU.
Specifically, the harmonization of legal framework of rules on organic production at EU level has allowed the EU
Member States to include organic farming as an option under the agri-environmental and other measures of the
rural development programmes as well as extend governmental support for the sector into areas such as
research, market development and consumer promotion [15].
The reason for governmental support to organic farming and using it as an instrument in the European
agriculture policy are manifold [15]. Predominantly the European policy related to organic farming aims to
address the following challenges: (1) correction of previous government intervention, (Il) imperfect competition,
(III) lack of information and transparency as well as (IV) market failure with respect to public goods. First, initially
organic farming was supported by governments to correct the effects of previous state intervention on markets
that led to serious food surpluses, apparent in, for instance, the well-known European Union ‘milk lakes and
butter mountains’ in the 1990s. The lower productivity of organic farming was recognized by policymakers as a
positive advantage and thus organic farming was used as an instrument to address the issue of overproduction
(Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 4115/88). Second, European Commission introduced EU-wide harmonized
rules for organic production (i.e., Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91 and the following versions of the
regulation) to tackle mainly the challenge of market failure with respect to imperfect competition between
organic producers on the European internal agri-food market. Policymakers by introducing European regulation
for organic farming intended to create a level-playing field for all producers within the UE, to enhance market
transparency at all stages of production and processing as well as to improve the credibility of organic products
in the eyes of consumers. Third, with Council Regulation (EC) No. 3/2008 information provision and promotion
measures for agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries, policymakers aimed to address
market failures due to lack of information and transparency and to open up new markets. The regulation was
supported by a toolbox for promoting organic products developed as part of the EU Action Plan on Organic Food
and Farming (2004). Fourth, possibly most importantly, organic farming was used as policy instrument to correct
the market failure in the context of the provision of public goods, since it is considered as a land management
concept that contributes to sustainable development and which is compatible with the need to preserve the
natural environment and landscape and protect and improve natural resources. Accordingly through area
payments under the framework of Common Agriculture Policy, all EU Member States could support conversion
to and maintenance of organic farming.
To conclude, the policies for organic farming developed in Europe since the late 1980s aimed to address the
challenges of food overproduction, heavy reliance on commodity support for conventional agriculture and
deteriorating natural resources due to agricultural intensification. As mentioned earlier, the market for organic
products was originally developed as a means to support the financial viability of farmers trying to deliver
ecologically, socially and economically progressive objectives. Nowadays, however, the conditions that have
impacted on organic farming policy development over the last decades have changed tremendously. Widespread
policy support in most cases has eliminated the need for producers to rely on the market, while at the same time
the success of the organic market has generated its own challenges with respect to organic principles and values.
Besides, organic products are sourced not only locally, but the international trade of organic products is already
a reality. Furthermore, state support for production has been decoupled and increasingly these resources are
being diverted to agri-environmental and rural development programmes. Food surpluses as an issue have been
replaced by renewed concerns about FNS in view of disturbances arising from various drivers of change. For
instance, climate change along with biodiversity loss and pollution pose risks to continuity of the food system’s
ability to produce enough food. At the same time, the global economic crises severely constrain market growth
and government ability to fund support programmes of this type.
From the analysis of historical background as well as present and emerging challenges that organic farming
as policy should address the following questions emerge: is transition to organic farming as currently arranged
(inter alia, EU-wide regulation, direct payments, price premiums) a viable policy to address the current and future
vulnerabilities of the prevailing European food system? What policies are needed to make organic farming a
significant contributor to resilient, sustainable and equitable FNS in Europe?
2.3. CAUSAL MECHANISMS OF THE HOTSPOT: EUROPEAN FOOD SYSTEM BASED ON
CONVENTIONAL AGRICULTURE
In this section, we focus on analyzing causal mechanisms that constitute the European food system based
on conventional agriculture and make it vulnerable to disturbances that emerge from within the system as well
as from external drivers of change. The analysis leads to the following sections 2.4 and 2.5, in which we
respectively identify several pertaining vulnerabilities of the European food system based on conventional
agriculture and assess whether organic farming as policy has potential to address these vulnerabilities and bring
resilience to the system.
2.3.1 Qual
First, we identify internal factors of the European food system based on conventional agriculture that
ication of the hotspot: internal factors and external drivers of change
expose it to impacts of external drivers of change or determine its sensitivity and adaptive capacity. Table 1
provides overview of the most important internal factors along with their justification for leading to vulnerability.
Table 1 Overview of internal factors related to the hotspot
Internal factors Rationale for leading to vulnerability References
Yields indicate how much food can be produced for consumers and
how much profits farmers can gain from a unit of agriculture land.
Yields are point of exposure of the food system Yields losses in
Crop / Animal yield prevailing food system could have major, long-term and wide-range [46-48]
implications for both producers by undermining their livelihoods as
well as consumers by reducing the amount of food available for
consumption.
The majority of food production process takes place on agriculture
land. Agricultural qualities of land (e.g. topography, altitude, soil type,
and natural water and nutrient cycles) set limits on farming practices
Agriculture land (e.g. number and size of livestock) that can take place on the farm.
/ Number of livestock They also affect whether production can be intensive (when there is
little land available) or extensive. The amount of agriculture land is
limited and hence once degraded by inappropriate practices cannot
be renewed easily.
Natural resources, such as healthy and fertile soils, are at the heart of
any food production system and farmer livelihoods. Bad condition of
Natural resources natural resources makes thus conventional farmers sensitive to lack
condition of access to external inputs, especially because the success of most
low external input agriculture systems, depends on the health of
natural resources.
Machinery is a factor of increasing importance for performing food
production activities, not matter whether in conventional or organic
manner. Yet most of current machinery is diesel-powered. This
implies increasing dependence on non-renewable, finite fossil fuels.
In case of any disruptions in supply of fossil fuels, the ability to swiftly
and efficiently produce food is restricted.
Labour is a critical factor of production in farming. Hence access to
enough labourers is a major factors for determining how productive
[49-51]
[13,52]
Machinery 5,53]
Labour [5,9]
a farm can be and whether it is possible to switch between
production systems characterized by different levels of labour
intensity. The less labour intensive are conventional production
systems, the less people are involved in food production and the
lower share of the society knows how to produce food.
Food producers need to know how to combine production inputs
with ecosystems to be able to produce food. Knowledge-
infrastructure (e.g. extension) in place can enable producers (e.g.
Knowledge farmers) to adapt to new conditions in a timely manner and change [54]
the current system. The dominance of conventional farming systems
erodes the knowledge base necessary for successful implementation
of alternative farming systems, in case of disruptions.
Food producers depend on external inputs such as fertilizers,
pesticides, diesel, hormones, antibiotics, feed, etc. to achieve desired
yields. The higher is the dependence on external inputs, the more
sensitive the food system is likely to be to constraints in their supply.
Food producers needs financial resources to purchase production
inputs (i.e., invest in machinery, hire labour, purchase external
inputs). Without sufficient profits or access to credit, farmers may not
Profits be able to acquire inputs and hence reap the benefits of higher crop [55]
yields/productivity, and in turn higher returns on their produce.
Moreover, financial assets are indispensable to switch between food
production systems.
Price of food is one of the most important determinant of consumers
access to food as well as revenues that food producers could gain
Price of food from their operations. Unfair or volatile price of food could [56-58]
undermine how much food can be assessed by consumers as well as
farmers livelihoods.
How much and what kind of food is demanded by consumers
indicates both current sensitivity however also the opportunities for
Food consumption decreased demand. For example, Europeans waste approximately [19]
30% of food annually as well as high resource intensive animal
products constitute considerable share of their diet.
External inputs [5,9,52]
Second, in addition to internal factors, there are many external drivers of change that may disturb the
European food system based on conventional agriculture. In Table 2 we provide overview of our analysis of
external drivers using the categorization provided by TRANSMANGO conceptual framework along with examples
and rationale for causing vulnerability of the food system.
Table 2 Overview of external drivers of change impacting on the hotspot
External driver category _ Examples and rationale
Biophysical = climate change, e.g., extreme weather events such as drought lead to crop failures
environments * crop pests, e.g., Phytophthora infestans (late blight) destroyed potato plantations and
caused the Irish famine
* livestock diseases outbreaks, e.g., BSE caused a global animal health and food safety
crisis with major implications also on the trade and export of animals and derived
products
* human diseases outbreaks, ¢.g., flu pandemic could significantly reduce the labour input
needed in food production
* natural disasters, e.g., ashes from volcanic eruptions could disrupt plant photosynthesis
and cause crop failures
Policy = geopolitical dynamics, e.g. trade arrangements, political tensions between countries
could disrupt supply of external inputs, such as phosphate rock or fossil fuels,
undermining food production in importing countries of the EU
* changes in governmental support and legislative framework, e.g., removal of milk
quotas in the EU, changes in CAP or rules for organic production, introduce uncertainty
and discourage food producers from investments
Society & culture = demographic changes, e.g. population growth or ageing affect the amount and kind of
food that is demanded
* changes in consumer values & ethical stances, habits & dietary preferences, e.g. shorting
towards more meat-based diets puts substantial pressure on the condition of natural
resources
* urbanization leads to loss of agriculture land to other purposes than food production
= social i ion, such as C ity Supported Agriculture (CSA), if up-scaled could
considerably change the functioning of the whole food system
Economy . economic crisis, like in 2007-2008 and 2010-2011 could affect the price of both
production inputs and food
* competition for natural resources from other industries, e.g., biofuels, decrease the
amount of inputs available for food production
* price of natural resources, e.g., fossil fuels, phosphate rock, water, increase price can
affect the farm gate price of production inputs such as fertilizers and thus undermine
achieved yields
Science & . ion, e.g., GMOs, precision agriculture, poses risks
related to their uni impacts (e.g., ication caused by excessive use of
fertilizers) and opportunities related to, for instance more sustainable use of natural
resources
2.3.2 Identification of food system boundaries in relation to the hotspot
We frame the dynamic problem of vulnerability as the concern that the European food system when
subjected to disturbances of different nature and origin would be unable to withstand them and hence cause its
outcomes to considerably or permanently diverge from their desired level. Ericksen [35,36] distinguishes three
groups of outcomes that can indicate vulnerability of the food system, namely failure to provide FNS as well as
collapse of environmental and socio-economic welfare. The prevailing European food system based on
conventional agriculture continuously faces the challenge of reconciling FNS, the viability of rural societies (socio-
economic welfare) and low er impacts ( welfare). Hence, we set the food system
boundaries around this threefold challenge by analyzing trends in its indicative outcomes along with outlining
the associated activities, actors, assets and institutions that condition them as well as external drivers of change
that could disturb the system (Figure 6).
External drivers of change
= biophysical environments: climate change, crop pests and livestock diseases outbreaks , human diseases
outbreaks, natural disasters
= policy: geopolitical dynamics, e.g. trade arrangements, political tensions between countries, changes in
governmental support and legislative framework
* society & culture: demographic changes, changes in consumer values & ethical stances, habits & dietary
preferences, urbanization, social innovation
* economy: economic crisis, competition for natural resources, price of natural resources
. science & fe ical i ‘ion, e.g., GMOs, precision agriculture
we
Internal factors
* activities: producing & consuming food
= assets: agriculture land / number of livestock, machinery, labor, knowledge, production inputs
* actors: food producers (farmers & processors) & consumers
= institutions: agriculture policy, inter alia agri-envi and rural measures, production
rules, research programmes, consumer values & trust
FNS
food availability:
crop / animal yield
Socio-economic welfare
viability of food producers
determined by realized
Environmental welfare
condition of natural
resources, inter alia soil,
water, biodiversity, air, profits
food access:
fossil fuels, and nutrients price of food
Figure 3 Outline of the food system boundaries in relation to the hotspot
2.3.2.1 Food and nutrition security
In the 1950s — 1960s European food producers were primarily concerned with the quantity of food they
needed to supply for consumers to overcome the post-war shortages in food availability [59-61]. Over the years,
the food system throughout the whole EU has moved from being based on traditional farming practices to
intensive agriculture characterized by modern diesel-powered machines and productivity tools based on external
inputs such as synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, artificial irrigation systems as well as proprietary, high-yielding
seeds and breeds [2,62]. As a result, food production has experienced a leap forward, which has been attributed
mainly to yield improvements rather than expansion of agricultural land. The story of English wheat is
emblematic for the European context. It took nearly 1000 years for wheat yields to increase from 0.5 to 2 t/ha,
but only 40 years to climb from 2 to 6 t/ha [2]. Simultaneously, despite the inherent tendency of agri-food
markets to be volatile, the agricultural commodity prices and related food prices have exhibited a rather steady
pattern of decline until about a decade ago. Accordingly, from the perspective of European consumers the food
system has been uninterruptedly delivering desirable FNS outcomes. Food per each European has been available
in surplus quantities — from around 3000 kcal/day in the 1960s to over 3400 kcal/day in the 21* century in
comparison with the needed 2000-2500 kcal/capita/day — and accessible at relatively low prices [1,2,63-66].
Yet within the new millennium several undesirable trends in crop yields and prices have emerged. The crop
yields in some European regions (e.g., wheat in Northwest Europe or maize in South Europe) have reached or
moved close to their plateaus [48,67]. This implies that the yields have not increased for long periods of time
following an earlier period of desired steady linear increase and thus raises concerns over future food availability
[48,67]. As regards the prices of agricultural commodities and food, their volatility has increased in the last
decade. More specifically, sharp increases in food prices in 2007-2008 and 2010-2011 were followed by recurring
periods of often severe price depressions. The high volatility in prices has created an uncertain environment with
many undesirable consequences for consumers’ access to food. The price hikes caused a rapid increase in
consumer food prices, which reduced average EU household purchasing power by around one percent. Low
income households (especially the 16% of EU citizens who live below the poverty line) were hit even harder
[56,68].
Furthermore, despite increasing food availability Europe has not managed to guarantee FNS for all citizens.
About 10% of the European households have been persistently unable to access meat or a vegetarian equivalent
every second day — an amount generally recommended in European dietary guidelines [69]. At the same time,
the proportion of overweight or obese people has continuously increased to reach over 50% in 2010 [70].
Although both of these undesirable trends are more political and distributional problems rather than agricultural
issues per se, they indicate important failures in the socio-economic organization of food production and
downstream food system activities.
2.3.2.2 Socio-economic welfare
FNS and consumers are only one side of the food system. The other side are the food producers, in a broader
sense rural communities, and their viability. While the increase in yields has brought benefits to both consumers
and producers, the decline in prices of agriculture commodities has been undesirable for the latter. Accounting
for inflation, until 2005 European farmers experienced incessant real price declines in output and input prices,
but with the former decreasing faster. Since then the trend in input prices has reverted and they started to
increase, further widening the gap between input and output prices [71,72]. This cost-price squeeze has caused
an undesirable decline in the realized profits from farm operations and threatened the farm’s viability in the long
term.
The widening gap between output and input prices has been counterbalanced by significant gains in labor
productivity. This has been manifested by, inter alia, reduction in farm labor, decrease in number of farms and
increase in the average farm size. To illustrate these trends, only since 2002 until 2010 the agricultural labor input
in the EU decreased by as much as 32% (a drop of 4.8 million full-time equivalent jobs), while between the 2005
and 2013 the annual average rate of decline in the number of agriculture holdings stood at -3.7% and the average
size of each farm in EU-27 rose in terms of hectares from 11.9 to 16.1 as well as in terms of the economic size
expressed in European Size Units (ESU) [71,73,74].
Although the structural changes have diminished the gap between input and output prices, taking into
account the total costs for own and other factors of production (land, labor, capital) still many of the European
farms have been unprofitable with market revenues alone. To this end, throughout the last several decades
governmental support (i.e., subsidies in different forms) has played an increasing role in farm profits [71]. As a
result, the average dependence of farm profits on subsidies in the EU is now as high as 58% [75]. Moreover, in
recent years the farm profits have become volatile and hence created a high level of uncertainty among food
producers [76,77].
2.3.2.3. Environmental welfare
Farmers represent only around 5% of the European Union's (EU's) working population, yet they manage
over 40% of the EU’s land area, and generate important impacts on the environment [78]. Hence in addition to
FNS and other socio-economic welfare, environmental welfare is of great importance as both a condition for and
an outcome of applied agriculture practices.
Over the past decades, the loss of traditional farming to intensive agriculture has contributed to the
transgression of a number of critical planetary boundaries [73]. Inappropriate agricultural practices and land use
have been responsible for adverse impacts on natural resources condition such as pollution of soil, water and
air, fragmentation of habitats and loss of biodiversity. The reforms of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) in the
1990s, 2003 and 2008 have increasingly integrated environmental protection measures, including obligatory crop
rotation, grassland maintenance, and more specific agri-environment measures, aimed at climate change
mitigation and biodiversity conservation. These measures have brought about some improvements such as
decreasing GHG emissions and pesticide use. However, these improvements have not been sufficient as
European agriculture still depends highly on external inputs. Consequently undesirable environmental outcomes
like exceedance of nutrients, diffuse pollution to water and dramatic loss of biodiversity persist, further
diminishing ecosystems’ resilience. More efforts are called for to balance food production and the environment
[81].
2.3.2.4 Signs of vulnerabilities and resilience
Table 3 summarizes our findings on the observed trends in indicative outcomes that the conventional
European food system has delivered so far. In addition, looking through the lenses of sustainability, we outline
the desirable and undesirable trends in the outcomes that could result from an exposure of the system to shocks
and stresses. These trends serve as reference modes to which we refer back throughout the following
vulnerability assessment.
Table 3 Summary of observed trends” in indicative outcomes of the European food system along with their
desired/undesired trends in the face of di based on the vision
Indicative outcome Observed trend + Desirable trend? Undesirable trend +
Food and nutrition security
Food producti ad
pest production supply = demand
Yield and
Price of food? ee ~~ Ay stable
Socio-economic welfare
Profits * —~>
Environmental welfare
Natural resource condition 5 >
uo?
---?
*time range of the observed trends are indicated in the text of the sections 2.3.2.1 — 3; 1 arrow indicates direction of trend in
the particular outcome over time; ?qualitati of ility(V) /resili in Busi Usual scenario, ie.,
to the current impacts of driving forces, where (-) signifies vulnerability, (+) signifies resilience; ? consumer perspective; 4
producer perspective
The European food production — one of the most important FNS outcomes — has been remarkably resilient
to the impacts of distinct drivers of change over the last decades (Table 3). However, much of the food had been
produced during a period of successful regional cooperation and supportive political environment, relatively
stable climate, when farms were predominantly small-scale and diverse, natural resources appeared abundant
and the human population was considerably smaller. Besides, despite the abundance of food production,
apparently too much of the wrong kind of food at the wrong price has been provided, as the double burden of
malnutrition (i.e., undernutrition and overweight) has continued in the EU.
A comparison of the observed trends in the remaining indicative outcomes —i.e., agriculture yield, price of
food, profits, natural resources condition — with their desired levels, reveals emerging signs of the European food
system’s vulnerabilities to disturbances that have been at play so far (Table 3). The productivity of the current
food system has come at the expenses of our natural and human resources. This poses severe risks to its
continuity in delivering the fundamental FNS outcomes.
To conclude the analysis of indicative food system outcomes over time, it seems that the improvement of
FNS outcomes in the last decades have come at the expense of other food system outcomes and that the
European food system is gradually becoming more vulnerable to a wide range of disturbances. If the undesirable
developments continue, the existing vulnerabilities of the food system might be further exacerbated or give rise
to new vulnerabilities endangering the food production.
2.3.3 Description of causal mechanisms
Many processes underlie the trends described in section 3. In this section we adopt a feedback perspective
and describe the underlying causal structure of the European food system likely to be generating the problematic
trends (Error! Reference source not found.). The structure is composed of several reinforcing feedback processes
- mechanization (R1a, Figure 4), intensification (R1b, Figure 4) as well as efficiency maximization (R5, Figure 8) —
that explain why food production grows regardless the direction of change in profits realized by food producers.
When profits rise, food producers (re)invest in machinery and external inputs to increase food production,
whereas when profits fall, food producers feel pressure to reduce production costs by maximizing efficiency and
hence again increase food production using equal or even less inputs. Further, the central processes of
mechanization, intensification and efficiency maximization are linked to other feedback loops of reinforcing (i.e.,
labor reduction (R1c, Figure 4), compensation for degraded natural resources with external inputs (R2, Figure 5),
organization of food production (R3, Figure 6), itution of tacit with i (R4, Figure 6))
as well as balancing (i.e., degradation of natural resources (B2, Figure 5), regeneration of natural resources (B2,
Figure 5), loss of tacit knowledge (B3, Figure 6), supply (B4, Figure 7) demand (B5, Figure 7), trade (B6, Figure 7),
market expansion (B7, Figure 8), cost minimization (B8, Figure 8)) nature. The interconnected feedback structure
relates food production to other FNS, socio-economic and environmental outcomes. Based on this integrated
feedback structure we explain how the ever rising food production emerges from within the same dynamics as
the mounting pressures on human and natural resources that make the food production possible in the first
place.
2.3.3.1. Under conditions of high or rising profits, mechanization and intensification lead to growth
in food production
The structure of causes and effects linked together in a set of reinforcing feedback loops (Figure 4) —
mechanization (R1a), intensification (R1b) and labor reduction (R1c) — operate in every capitalist market system.
Food producers, having profit maximization as a goal, (re)invest in food producing inputs —land, labor (R1c, Figure
4), machinery (R1a, Figure 4) and external inputs (R1b, Figure 4) like fertilizers, plant protection products, seeds,
feed, antibiotics, hormones, etc. The (re)investment is encouraged also by political and financial commitment of
the EU to the agri-food industry (e.g., subsidies in different forms: direct payments, investment grants,
intervention buying, private storage aid or export refunds, etc.). Explicitly, with the subsidies going into
agriculture, food producers have both the security and the finance to (re)invest in production inputs.
The more inputs are used, ceteris paribus, the more output per hectare (or per animal), i.e., yield, can be
achieved. In turn, multiplying the crop (or animal) yield by the limited amount of land area (or the number of
animals) determines the food production that flows into the stock of food available for consumption. Food
production, if sold on market, brings the producers profits. A share of the profits is reinvested in new production
inputs, which are then used to increase the amount of food produced for sale. As long as profits are sufficiently
high, the reinforcing feedback loops — R1a, R1b, Ric (Figure 4) — function in the food system and lead to a boost
in food production.
Yet having a limited budget and a goal of maximizing profits, the investment decision on ‘what’ and ‘how’
to produce involves relevant trade-offs and thus is not straightforward. As regards ‘what’ to produce, shifts
between crop and animal production (not shown in Figure 4 for clarity reasons) result from changes in relative
production profitability and consumption patterns of the population [82]. For instance, a growing demand for
animal-based food products, for example, increases the attractiveness of animal production. Hence, food
producers allocate more land and other production inputs to animal production at the expense of crop
production [82]. Similar tradeoffs occur when considering agricultural production for food and for other uses
than food like biofuels, textiles, etc.
When deciding ‘how’ to produce, no matter whether this concerns crop or animal production (or other
uses), to a certain extent labor can be substituted with machinery and external inputs. The feedback mechanism
in Figure 4 shows that when fossil fuel and other external inputs are available and inexpensive, there is a strong
incentive to invest and use diesel-powered machinery and off-farm sourced inputs instead of labor to increase
yields [11]. In other words, higher costs of labor increase the attractiveness of investing in and using machinery
and external inputs instead. The success of machinery and external inputs in delivering higher yields, translating
into higher food production and accordingly higher profits strengthens itself leading to mechanization (R1a,
Figure 4) and intensification (Rib, Figure 4) of farm practices. Simultaneously, because of decreasing
reinvestment in labor and hence its replacement with machinery and external inputs, the stock of labor is forced
into a reinforcing downward spiral, that gradually leads to labor reduction (Ric, Figure 4) [83,53].
food available
yield *Ne [for consumption|
y * food production food
y consumption
+
2 \
a1 —Subsidies
mechanization profits“
use of external * é [total costs
?
inputs R1b reinvestment in
Intensification ™Chinery & external
inputs
costs of machinery & —
external inputs +costs of labour
= OS cattractneness oF i
+ Aric) machinery & external
labor reduction inputs
reinvestment in
labour
Figure 4 Causal loop diagram representing mechanization and intensification reinforcing feedback loops (respectively
R1a, R1b) driving food production growth under conditions of rising profits; some links are omitted for visual clarity
2.3.3.2 Food p ion is embedded in
This implies that food production is conditioned by natural resources such as soil, water, air, biodiversity,
nutrients and fossil fuels. As the natural resource base is limited, food production cannot grow infinitely. The
worse the conditions of natural resources, the lower yield can be achieved and/or the less agricultural land is
available for food production. The flows — degradation (outflow) and regeneration (inflow) — that influence the
stock of natural resources are determined, among other things, by the implemented management of
agroecosystems (i.e., the ‘what’ and ‘how’ to produce). Intensive food production practices that depend on use
of external inputs tend to degrade the productive natural resources by their overexploitation (e.g. phosphate
rock [52,84,85], fossil fuels [86,87], etc.) and pollution (e.g., nutrient leaching [88], GHG emissions [89], etc.)
[8,90-93]. For instance, the stronger the reinforcing feedback loops driving use of diesel-powered machinery
(Ria, Figure 4) and synthetic nitrogen fertilizers (R1b, Figure 4), the more of the non-renewable fossil fuels [94]
are exploited and the more GHG are emitted to the atmosphere [95]. Likewise, the more pesticides are used to
combat pests and diseases, the lower is the biodiversity and biological control potential on farmland [96,97].
These practices increase the rate of degradation and translate thus into a more degraded natural resource base.
The degradation rate increases with increasing animal production, as animal-based food products are particularly
resource-intensive [98,99]. At the same time, in intensive food production systems practices that treat natural
resources in a more regenerative way are minimal or even none. As the outflow (degradation) of natural
resources is higher than the inflow (regeneration) of natural resources, then the condition of natural resources
worsens, jeopardizing the food production.
There are two balancing feedback loops that regulate degradation (B1, Figure 5) and regeneration (B2,
Figure 5) of natural resources. The goal of the two balancing feedback loops is to maintain the condition of natural
resources in a stable state. The balancing feedback loop B1 (Figure 5) sets limits to overuse or pollution
(degradation) of natural resources as their condition worsens. The limit is signaled to food producers through,
for instance, declining yield or rising costs of acquiring non-renewable natural resources (e.g., phosphate rock,
fossil fuels) when they become scarce. However, the signal is often either missing or too weak and too delayed
for food producers to notice it and implement more environmentally benign practices that decrease degradation
and/or increase regeneration on time [11,13,38]. The longer the food producers do not implement regenerative
practices, the lower is the regeneration and, all else equal, the farther away the conditions of natural resources
move from an optimal level, further increasing the need for regenerating natural resources (required
regeneration) (B2, Figure 5).
Yet, external inputs can imitate some functions of the food producing natural resources (at least in the
short-term). This feature allows food producers to substitute natural resources with external inputs in food
production, when the condition of the former deteriorates [100]. As a result, food producers fall into a reinforcing
spiral of compensating for the degraded natural resources with the application of external inputs (R2, Figure 5)
rather than implementation of regenerative practices, which, in turn, further worsens the condition of natural
resources. The reinforcing feedback loop driving substitution of natural resources with external inputs to produce
food is a vicious circle that locks farmers into dependence on the use of external inputs.
agriculture land
optimal
condition
e
required
regeneration
(00.
consumption
relati
ive
condition 422) implemented |
regeneration
regeneration of _subsidies
natural resources
,
regeneration
natural resources|
con
degradation of
tural resources
| * total costs
use of external
inputs
reinvestment in
(@y machinery & external
degradation inputs
need for external compensation of degraded
inputs natural resources with
machinery & external
inputs
x
* machinery &
labour costs external inputs costs
Figure 5 Causal loop diagrams representing the relationship between food production and natural resources condition
(B2, B3, R3); some links are omitted for visual clarity
2.3.3.3 Food producers require knowledge to know how to best organize food production
Using knowledge food producers try combine so production inputs with ecosystem as to achieve the highest
potential yield holding the costs constant. According to theorists, knowledge is perhaps the most relevant
economic resource and learning the most important process [101]. In principle, the more one has of production
inputs and knowledge, the more can be produced. Hence, the growth in food production is driven by
accumulating inputs (e.g., land, labor, machinery, external inputs, etc.) (R1a, R1b, Ric, Figure 4) as well as
knowledge that drives organization of food production processes (R3, Figure 6) [102].
Food producers gather knowledge while performing their activities and because of new learnings.
Knowledge of food producers is a combination of tacit (or local) knowledge with standardized (or codified)
knowledge [103]. The more knowledge of tacit and/or standardized nature food producers have, the stock of
total knowledge increases and thus food producers are able to organize food production better (at least
theoretically) realizing higher yield (R3, Figure 6).
In contrast to
tacit of food producers implies an intimate knowledge
of their land holdings, its fertility, composition and so on acquired through food producing practices (e.g.,
rotation, ploughing, etc.). The tacit knowledge is localized as it is closely tied to local ecosystem in which food
production takes place. For instance, while the same principles of growing crops are widespread, tacit knowledge
allows food producers to apply these principles differently in different local conditions and hence produce better
results. With the widespread application of external inputs (intensification, R1b, Figure 4), which need not to be
attenuated to local circumstances as simple standardized instructions on their use provided usually by input
industry are sufficient for food producers to achieve desired yield, the relationship between food producers and
local ecosystems is disrupted. Accordingly, the stock of tacit knowledge required to manage the local ecosystems
fades away, whereas uniform and spatially standardized knowledge accompanying use of external inputs builds
up and replaces the former type of knowledge [103]. The function of the balancing feedback loop B3 (Figure 6)
is to signalize loss of tacit knowledge through decreasing yield. Yet the warning sign is hugely disregarded by food
producers or masked by the large and powerful institutions which lie upstream (and downstream) of the farm
[11,103].
The longer the importance of accumulating tacit knowledge for achieving better yield in the long-term
remains unnoticed by food producers, the itution of tacit with i (R3,
Figure 6) progresses. This development locks food producers into a vicious circle (R3, Figure 6) of increasing
reliance on the use of external inputs [103].
eye land
—$—
yield. + \*
fo0%
food production consumption
\ +
= | + — subsidies
43) + profits”
- ~~
loss of tacit total costs
knowledge
reinvestment in
machinery & external
inputs
ts)
organization of fodd
production,
use of external
inputs
(mp costs of machinery &
external inputs
‘subsitution of tacit with |
standarized knowledge
ad fc te I}
bey rete attractiveness of
kc ails machinery & external
P inputs
reinvestment in
labour
Figure 6 Causal loop diagrams representing the relationship between food production and knowledge (B8, R4); some
links are omitted for visual clarity
2.3.3.4 Produced food is supplied on an agri-food market which is a medium that allows consumers
to access food
On a competitive agri-food market, price balances food production with food consumption. The functioning
of such a market is characterized by the interplay between two balancing feedback loops of supply (B4, Figure 7)
and demand (B5, Figure 7), both of which in a globalized setting are influenced by trade arrangements (B6, Figure
7).
On the supply side (B4, Figure 7), a large number of food producers compete with each other. Specifically,
producers reinvest (R1a, R1b, Ric, Figure 4) and produce food, increasing the amount of food available for
consumption. Profits are realized when the amount of revenues gained from producing food exceeds the
incurred production costs. As revenue is the product of the volume of food produced being sold and the price of
the food, the higher the production and/or the higher price, ceteris paribus, the more profits food producers
realize. Rising profits encourage existing food producers to reinvest and increase output (food production) as
well as attract new entrants to the market. However, greater food production increases the stock of food
available for consumption, which in turn, bids the price of food down. Declining price of food, all else equal,
diminishes profits and hence discourages food producers from investing in increasing food production (B4, Figure
7).
On the demand side (B5, Figure 7), the population consumes (and wastes) the supplied food according to
its purchasing power, dietary requirements for health and desires due to its lifestyle. The lower is the price of
food, the more people have access to food and thus the more food is Higher food ion
diminishes the amount of food available for consumption, which translates into, all else equal, higher price of
food (B5, Figure 7).
The state of the stock of food available for consumption indicates the balance between food production (as
proxy for supply) and food consumption (as proxy for demand). The supply (B4, Figure 7) and demand (B5, Figure
7) balancing feedback loops cause the price of food to adjust until, in the absence of market imperfections and
external disturbances, the market reaches an equilibrium characterized by a clearing price at which food
production equals food consumption (i.e., the stock of food available for consumption is stable).
In a globalized world, however, in which markets are committed to open trade, there is an additional
balancing loop B6 (Figure 7). Food producers export surplus of food production or are confronted with
competitive imports, if the domestic food production is insufficient to meet the desired consumption. The
imports add to the stock of food available for consumption, putting an additional downward pressure on price,
and vice versa in case of exports. Hence, protective measures for reasons of food security or employment are a
natural response of governments.
consumer
i +
purchasing power ~
per capita consumption food
required forhealth _* production
a eh food BS . (ep ye
per capita consumption —® consumption
demand supply +
desired due to lifestyle +
subsidies
a
¢ wi ~ total costs
price of food
Figure 7 Causal loop diagram representing competitive market structure characterized by interplay between two
balancing feedback loops of supply (B4, Figure 4) and demand (B5, Figure 4), both of which in a globalized setting are
influenced by trade (B6, Figure 4); some links are omitted for visual clarity
2.3.3.5 Under conditions of low of falling profits, efficiency maximization leads to growth in food
production
In addition to the amount of food sold, its price and subsidies, profits depend also on total costs incurred
during food production. The higher are the total costs of production, the lower are the profits realized by food
producers, all else being equal. If both trends — decreasing or stagnating price and growing costs of production —
occur concurrently, food producers face a cost-price squeeze that causes profits to drop, farm debt to grow and
a general loss of producer power. Food producers usually try to alleviate the undesirable downward pressure on
their profits via a number of balancing processes aimed at cost minimization (B8, Figure 8).
When the profits are negative, many food producers, particularly the small- and medium-scale ones,
abandon the industry altogether (Figure 8). Only those food producers remain in the agri-food business that are
most efficient and/or have the most optimistic expectations on the future price and costs [35,39]. This is evident
in the declining number of farms. Meanwhile, however, the total number of cultivated hectares of land remains
more or less constant. Hence, farm size increases, meaning that overall there are fewer but larger farms. In fact,
scale economies along with technical innovations and specialization reinforce each other are the most common
routes to compensate for the falling profits by minimizing costs of food production through improved efficiency
(B8, Figure 8) [40,41].
Although profits improve when food producers keep on minimizing costs through achieving higher
efficiency (B8, Figure 8), a reinforcing mechanism resulting from efficiency maximization (R5, Figure 8) impedes
their efforts. To produce food more efficiently means to produce more food with the same or less production
inputs. The usual net result of minimizing costs (B8, Figure 7) and maximizing efficiency (R5, Figure 8) is that
globally food production goes up, prices go down, and profits are again no longer possible even with the lower
production costs. Food producers are locked into a vicious circle (R5, Figure 8), in which lower prices of food
create a continuous pressure to minimize costs that forces them to become even more efficient if they are to
survive at all. The farmers who lag behind and do not become efficient enough are lost in the price (or even cost-
price) squeeze and leave room for the more successful food producers to expand [104].
fle oS
farm size, technical food production
innovation, specialization
e oe
tee costs
maximization
i) food —
| consumption) f00d available
+ cost {for consumption,
stsbaienes “
-\ 87
presi . resend
market
expansion
pressure to
minimize costs
AN \ price of food
Sanaa
a
Figure 8 Causal loop diagram representing efficiency maximization reinforcing feedback loop (R4) driving food
production growth under conditions of falling profits; some links are omitted for visual clarity
2.3.3.6 External drivers of change
In addition to the internal causal mechanisms, the functioning of the European food system is driven by the
impact of multiple adverse and favorable external disturbances of various origin (e.g., socio-economic, ecological,
technological, political etc.) [2,105]. Food system disturbances range from rapid and dramatic shocks (e.g., pest
outbreaks, economic and political crises, weather events such as droughts, floods, or storms, fuel shortages,
disease pandemics) to slow and moderate stresses (e.g., climate change, urbanization, population growth,
changing consumption patterns), which do not function in isolation from one another, but co-occur and interact
in many different ways [29,106,107].
2.4 VULNERABILITIES’ PATHWAYS OF THE HOTSPOT
The integrated structure presented in Error! Reference source not found. allows us not only to identify what
shocks and stresses the food system at stake, but also to systemically explore how the disturbances are conveyed
throughout key feedback processes in the food system and generate vulnerabilities.
2.4.1 Vulnerability pathway I: Dependence on external inputs
The strong reinforcing feedback loops that drive food production through intensification (R1b, Figure 4) and
mechanization (R1a, Figure 4) and concurrently degrade natural resources and erode tacit knowledge, give rise
also to two additional strong reinforcing processes through which degraded natural resources are compensated
for with external inputs (R2, Figure 5) and tacit k ledge is it by i (R4, Figure
6). Both of the latter reinforcing feedback loops are examples of unintended processes that increasingly lock food
producers into dependence on external inputs, the companies that provide them and the capitalist relationships
of food production that frame their decisions [5,108]. The use of external inputs considerably changes food
producing practices as well as agroecosystems in which they are applied, giving rise to unintended consequences
(e.g., weed resistance, pollinator decline) that are then stabilized with new external inputs (e.g., stronger
herbicide cocktails) that in turn end up reinforcing the dependency. The result is that food production is based
on continuous reir in engi rather than tacit knowledge and ecosystems resilience
(condition of natural resources). Therefore, if for some reasons (e.g., fossil fuels scarcity, geopolitical tensions,
economic crisis) external inputs were not available for food producers: first, it will take a long time for an
alternative food production paradigm to become effective (because of, for instance, the need to rebuild the
stocks of tacit knowledge and natural resources condition) and second, the outcomes could potentially be far
more undesirable than that of a system which never used those stabilizers. Moreover, relying on a limited range
of ‘stabilizing’ external inputs makes the food system particularly vulnerable to disturbances that operate beyond
their scope of fixes such as unexpected and non-linear climate change and feedbacks.
2.4.2 Vulnerability pathway II: Striving for efficiency while losing r
The conventional European food system manages its growth and expansion based on ideas of maximizing
efficiency realized through inter alia scale i jalization and ical innovation (i.e., balancing
loop of cost maximization (B8, Figure 8) that perpetuates a strong reinforcing feedback loop of efficiency
maximization (R5, Figure 8)). Food producers across Europe experience effects of the cost minimization processes
in many different ways. Scale economies force many small- and medium-scale food producers out of the agri-
food business entirely, which is evident in the declining number of farms. This trend along with the strong
reinforcing spiral of labor reduction (Ric, Figure 4) translates into increasingly fewer people in society with
knowledge and skills to produce food, implying further decline in the stock of tacit knowledge (Figure 6) as well
as disruption in rural communities, both of which have been found crucial for resilience of food systems to shocks
and stresses [14,21,109,110]. Besides, scale economies drive consolidation (i.e., growing farm size), and hence
reduce the diversity of scale at which food producers operate. Specialization is apparent, for instance, in the
trend towards a single dominant activity on farms and widespread monocultures. Currently, in the EU almost
half of the holdings are specialized in cropping and 27% in livestock [111]. Accordingly, as the system specializes,
the diversity of organizational forms as well as crops and animals decreases in the food system. Technical
innovations (e.g., application of more and more specific fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides and genetic
advances) to a great extent are in hands of few multinational corporations [5]. This narrows down sources of
technical innovations as well as the range of choices of ‘what’ and ‘how’ to produce that food producers have.
For instance, commercial seeds and breeds focus on a few traits in a few crops, forcing food producers to base
their production on these traits. The three processes seem to favor each other, so that, for instance, the technical
innovations (e.g., promotion of agrochemical use, biotechnology, single crop machinery, etc.) are most (costs)
through scale ies [46] and ialization [5], [9], [99]. Common feature of all of these processes
is that they increase efficiency of food production, but at the same time decrease diversity of different elements
in the system. The latter is, in turn, crucial for absorption of shocks and stresses, adaptation and alternative
solutions [9], [104]-[106]. Having low diversity in the food system allows disturbances to become augmented,
both economically (e.g., food pricing controlled by few) and ecologically (e.g., contamination on a single farm
can easily effect the entire country). Thus, it seems that through strong efficiency maximization loop (R5, Figure
8) food producers trade-off short-term productivity against long-term resilience.
In essence, vulnerabilities in the conventional European food system arise if disturbances strengthen the
reinforcing feedback loops and further weaken or delays the balancing loops. For instance, climate change
related shocks such as drought, flood or storm, will likely strengthen the intensification reinforcing feedback loop
(R1b, Figure 4) because of yield losses. Yield losses increase the pressure on food producers to produce more,
disregarding the balancing loops of natural resources degradation and regeneration (B1, B2 Figure 5), thus
further lowering the stock of natural resources condition. When the stock depletes, yield declines, and translates
into undesirable outcome of reduced food production and hence food insecurity.
2.5 ORGANIC FARMING AS POLICY TO ADDRESS THE HOTSPOT’S VULNERABILITIES
Based on the analysis in previous sections, we argue that the European food system based on conventional
agriculture is vulnerable. An alternative approach to food system, which does not trade-off long-term resilience
for productivity and stability, is called for [5,7—9]. King [14] lists several potential approaches for a resilient food
system, including organic and biodynamic farming, permaculture, farmers’ markets, community-supported
agriculture and community gardens. In Europe organic farming is the fastest growing of all alternatives to the
conventional food system, which is regulated at EU level and receives considerable public financial support.
However, is transition to organic farming a viable policy for making the European food system more resilient?
2.5.1 Resilience pathway |: Low external input system
2.5.1.1 Potential
Organic farming as per definition is a low external input system with inter alia diversification and nutrient
cycling at its heart. As mentioned in 2.5.1.1 and 2.5.2.1 it preserves higher stocks of natural resources and tacit
knowledge as well as has better recognized and operating balancing loops (B1, B2, Figure 5; B3, Figure 6), food
producers may thus escape from being locked into the dangerous dependence on external inputs (R2, Figure 5 ;
R4, Figure 6).
2.5.1.2 Limitation
However, implementation of organic food production principles in practice is diverse and ranges from mere
‘input substitution’ to fundamental ‘system redesign’ [120]. This implies that there are organic food producers,
of which practices diverge only slightly from conventional practices [27]. As organic food producers are not
rewarded for continuous improvement, but have to comply just with minimum standards, they are incentivized
to simply substitute prohibited with allowed inputs sourced from outside of the system. As a result they will be
again locked into the vicious circles creating dependence on external inputs (R2, Figure 5 ; R4, Figure 6) with all
its consequences for resilience of the prevailing food system.
2.5.2 Resi
nce pathway II: Striving for diversification
2.5.2.1 Potential
In addition to better environmental outcomes, many studies have found that organic food producers
perform better also in socio-economic terms as compared to their conventional counterparts [112]. Simply
looking at comparisons of organic versus conventional short-term profitability, organic seems to be a promising
option to preserve viability of farms. Besides, organic food system is characterized also by diversity of markets
(e.g., specialized organic food stores, farmers’ markets and direct farm marketing, food baskets), through which
organic food is provided to consumers. These two features — better financial performance and diversity of
markets — suggest that potentially the internal market structure of the organic food system is different from the
conventional one and that the system can address the vulnerabilities related to socio-economic organization of
food production inherent in the latter.
2.5.2.2 Limitation
However, there are many signs indicating that organic food system based on certification of food production
methods alone, falls into the same reinforcing mechanisms as conventional system and gives up its resilient
features for efficiency (R5, Figure 8) and itself is vulnerable. For instance, establishing certification put barriers
for smaller food producers to enter the sector, because of costs and because it facilitates larger retailers to sell
organic products [9]. Hence, the organic food system becomes more and more consolidated and losses its
diversity, which has consequences for contributing to resilience of the conventional European food system.
3 CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we have proposed a new way to help policymakers understand the food system’s
vulnerabilities and assess whether organic farming can enhance its resilience. For this, we adopted a system
dynamics approach to capture the dynamic complexity of the food system. We have identified a number of key
systemic vulnerabilities, including the degradation of the natural resource base of food production, the erosion
of its knowledge base, its dependence on external inputs, the latent instability on agri-food markets and the
strive for efficiency. We have argued that organic farming has the potential to address these vulnerabilities, but
at the same time risks of falling into the same systemic pitfalls through a process of conventionalization. More
specifically, organic farming as a food system has to be carefully designed and implemented to overcome the
contradictions between the dominant socio-economic organization of food production and the ability to
implement holistic understanding of organic principles on a broader scale. Further research needs to identify
policy interventions that allow organic farming to reach its full potential avoiding these pitfalls.
4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper originates from an EU FP7 funded project TRANSMANGO “Assessment of the impact of global
drivers of change on Europe's food security”; Grant agreement no: 613532; Theme KBBE.2013.2.5-01. Andreas
Gerber is supported by the Norwegian Research Council through the project “Simulation based tools for linking
knowledge with action to improve and maintain food security in Africa” (contract number 217931/F10).
5 REFERENCES
1. Marten, G. G.; Atalan-Helicke, N. Introduction to the Symposium on American Food Resilience. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2015,
5, 308-320.
2. Hazell, P.; Wood, S. Drivers of change in global agriculture. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2008, 363, 495-515.
3. Household Consumption Expenditure - National Accounts. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
lained/index.ph hold_« i »_-_national_accounts (accessed on 13 April 2016).
4. Kirchmann, H.; Thorvaldsson, G. Challenging targets for future agriculture. Eur. J. Agron. 2000, 12, 145-161.
5, Hendrickson, M. K. Resilience in a concentrated and consolidated food system. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2015.
6. Tansey, G. Food and thriving people: paradigm shifts for fair and sustainable food systems. Food Energy Secur. 2013, 2, 1-
11,
7. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. Agriculture
at a Crossroads - Global Report 2009. Available online:
http; .unep.org/di ports/IAASTD/EN/Agric 620at%20a%20Crossroads_Global%20Report%2
O(English) pdf (accessed on 1 February 2016).
8, The 3rd SCAR Foresight Exercise. Sustainable Food Consumption and Production in a Resource-Constrained World 2009.
Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/research/agriculture/scar/pdf/scar_feg3_final_report_01_02_2011.pdf (accessed on
1 February 2016).
9. Rotz, S.; Fraser, E. D. G. Resilience and the industrial food system: analyzing the impacts of agricultural industrialization on
food system vulnerability. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2015.
10. Godfray, H.C. J.; Crute, |. R.; Haddad, L.; Lawrence, D.; Muir, J. F.; Nisbett, N.; Pretty, J.; Robinson, S.; Toulmin, C.; Whiteley,
R. The future of the global food system. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 2769-77.
11. Sundkvist, A.; Milestad, R.; Jansson, A. On the importance of tightening feedback loops for sustainable development of
food systems. Food Policy 2005, 30, 224-239.
12. Ingram, J. A food systems approach to researching food security and its interactions with global environmental change.
Food Secur. 2011, 3, 417-431.
13. Stave, K.; Kopainsky, B. A system dynamics approach for examining mechanisms and pathways of food supply
vulnerability. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2015.
14. King, C. A. C ity resilience and y agri-ecological systems: reconnecting people and food, and people
with people. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 2008, 25, 111-124.
15. Stolze, M.; Lampkin, N. Policy for organic farming: Rationale and concepts. Food Policy 2009, 34, 237-244.
16. FiBL & IFOAM. The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics & Emerging Trends 2016. Available online:
https://shop.fibl. i hop/169: ‘ganic-world-2016.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2016).
17. Niggli, U. Sustainability of organic food production: challenges and innovations. Proc. Nutr. Soc. U. S. A. 2015, 74, 83-8.
18. Darnhofer, |. Contributing to a transition to sustainability of agri-food systems: potentials and pitfalls
for organic farming. In Organic Farming, Prototype for Sustainable Agricultures; Bellon, S., Penvern, S., Eds.,; Springer:
Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London, 2014; pp. 439-452.
19. Reganold, J. P.; Wachter, J. M. Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nat. Plants 2016, 2, 15221.
20. Food Security Information Network. Resilience Measurement Principles 2014. Available __ online:
http: fao.ore/fi i _upload/droug FSINY ii 20 0201401.pdf (accessed
on 20 March 2016).
21. Milestad, R.; Darnhofer, |. Building farm resilience: the prospects and challenges of organic farming. J. Sustain. Agric. 2003,
22, 81-97.
22. Food and Agriculture Organization. Building Resilience for an Unpredictable Future: How Organic Agriculture Can Help
Farmers Adapt to Climate Change 2006. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-ah617e.pdf. (accessed on 30 March 2016).
23. Darnhofer, |. Strategies of family farms to strengthen their resilience. Environ. Policy Gov. 2010, 20, 212-222.
24. Scialabba, N. E.-H.; Miller-Lindenlauf, M. Organic agriculture and climate change. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2010, 25, 158-
169.
25. LUPG. The Role of Agroecology in Sustainable Intensification 2015. Available online:
http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1652615.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2016).
26. Guthman, J. Agrarian Dreams: The Paradox of Organic Farming in California. University of California Press: Berkeley, Los
Angeles, London, 2004.
27. Ponti, T. De; Rijk, B.; Ittersum, M. K. Van The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture. Agric. Syst.
2012, 108, 1-9.
28. Crowder, D. W.; Reganold, J. P. Financial competitiveness of organic agriculture on a global scale. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.
S.A. 2015, 1-6.
29. Gomiero, T.; Pimentel, D.; Paoletti, M. G. Environmental Impact of Different Agricultural Management Practices:
Conventional vs. Organic Agriculture. CRC. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2011, 30, 95-124.
30. Palupi, E.; Jayanegara, A.; Ploeger, A.; Kahl, J. Comparison of nutritional quality between conventional and organic dairy
products: A meta-analysis. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2012, 92, 2774-2781.
31. European Commission. Farm Economics Briefs. Organic versus conventional farming, which performs better financially?
Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rica/pdf/FEB4_Organic_farming_final_web.pdf (accessed on 10 March
2016).
32. Birkhofer, K.; Bezemer, T. M.; Bloem, J.; Bonkowski, M.; Christensen, S.; Dubois, D.; Ekelund, F.; Flie8bach, A.; Gunst, L.;
Hedlund, K.; Mader, P.; Mikola, J.; Robin, C.; Setala, H.; Tatin-Froux, F.; Van der Putten, W. H.; Scheu, S. Long-term organic
farming fosters below and aboveground biota: Implications for soil quality, biological control and productivity. Soil Biol.
Biochem. 2008, 40, 2297-2308.
33. Bengtsson, J.; Ahnstrém, J.; Weibull, A.-C. The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta-
analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 2005, 42, 261-269.
34. Tuomisto, H. L.; Hodge, |. D.; Riordan, P.; Macdonald, D. W. Does organic farming reduce environmental impacts? — A
meta-analysis of European research. J. Environ. Manage. 2012, 112, 309-320.
35. Ericksen, P. J. Conceptualizing food systems for global environmental change research. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2008, 18,
234-245.
36. Ericksen, P. J. What is the vulnerability of a food system to global environmental change? 2008, 13(2), 14.
37. Hammond, R. a; Dubé, L. A systems science perspective and transdisciplinary models for food and nutrition security. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S. A. 2012, 109, 12356-63.
38. Sterman, J. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. McGraw-Hill Higher Education:
Toronto, 2000.
39. Tendall, D. M.; Joerin, J.; Kopainsky, B.; Edwards, P.; Shreck, A.; Le, Q. B.; Kruetli, P.; Grant, M.; Six, J. Food system
resilience: Defining the concept. Glob. Food Sec. 2015, 6, 17-23.
40. Ingram, J.; Ericksen, P.; Liverman, D. Food Security and Global Environmental Change, Earthscan: London, Washington,
DC, 2010.
41. Quinlan, A. E.; Berbés-Blézquez, M.; Haider, L. J.; Peterson, G. D. Measuring and assessing resilience: Broadening
understanding through multiple disciplinary perspectives. J. Appl. Ecol. 2015, 53, 677-687.
42. Ford, A. Modeling the Environment, 2nd ed.; IslandPress, 2009.
43. Ford, J. D. Vulnerability of Inuit food systems to food insecurity as a consequence of climate change: A case study from
Igloolik, Nunavut. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2009, 9, 83-100.
44, Hoffmann, M. H. G. Cognitive Conditions of Diagrammatic Reasoning. Georgia Tech's School of Public Policy Working
Paper Series 2007, 24 Available online: http://works.bepress.com/michael_hoffmann/1/ (accessed on 20 March 2016).
45. A Sustainability Institute Report 2003. C ity System Challenges Moving inability into the Mai of
Natural Resource Economies. Available online:
http://s3. c |_storage/w i ies.com/ContentPages/707629742.pdf (accessed on 12
December 2015).
46. Varian, H. R., Intermediate Microeconomics, 8th ed.; WW Norton & Co: New York, London, 2010.
47. Rasmussen, S. Production Economics: The Basic Theory of Production Optimisation, 2nd ed.; Springer: Heidelberg New
York Dordrecht London, 2011.
48. Debertin, D. L. Agricultura Production ics, Ind ed.; i ishing Company: New York, USA, 2012.
50. European Commission, 50 years of food safety in the EU 2007. Available _ online:
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/docs/SOyears_foodsafety_en.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2016).
51. Svato8, M. Selected trends forming European agriculture. Agric. Econ. 2008, 54, 93-101.
52. FAO. World Outlook and State of Food and Agriculture - 1950. Available _ online:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/ap638e/ap638e.pdf (accessed on 1 February 1950).
53. Godfray, H.C. J.; Beddington, J. R.; Crute, |. R.; Haddad, L.; Lawrence, D.; Muir, J. F.; Pretty, J.; Robinson, S.; Thomas, S. M.;
Toulmin, C. Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People. Science 2012, 327, 5967, 812-818.
54. Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). 2014. Food security in focus: Europe 2014. Avaliable online:
http://foodsecurityi eiu.com/H D fil U%20GFSI%202014_Europe%20regional%20repo
rt.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2016).
55. Swinnen, J. F. M.; Banerjee, A. N.; De Gorter, H. Economic development, institutional change, and the political economy
of agricultural protection An econometric study of Belgium since the 19th century. Agric. Econ. 2001, 26, 25-43.
56. EU Agricultural Outlook. Prospects for EU agricultural markets and income 2015-2025. Avaitable online:
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/ d-p t itlook/2015/fullrep_en.pdf (accessed on 1 February
2016).
57. de Vries, B. J. M. Sustainability Science; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2013.
58. Brisson, N.; Gate, P.; Gouache, D.; Charmet, G.; Oury, F. X.; Huard, F. Why are wheat yields stagnating in Europe? A
comprehensive data analysis for France. F. Crop. Res. 2010, 119, 201-212.
59. Grassini, P.; Eskridge, K. M.; Cassman, K. G. Distinguishing between yield advances and yield plateaus in historical crop
production trends. Nat. Commun. 2013, 4, 2918.
60. European Commission. EU Agricultural Markets Briefs. Price developments and links to food security - price level and
volatility. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/markets-and-prices/market-briefs/pdf/05_en.pdf (accessed on
10 March 2016).
61. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Food Prices in Europe. COM(2008) 821. Available online: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDE/?uri=CELEX:52008DC0821&from=EN (accessed on 1 February 2016)
62. Loopstra, R.; Reeves, A.; Stuckler, D. Rising food insecurity in Europe. Lancet 2015, 385, 2041.
63. WHO. Obesity Europe. Available online: http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topic: icable-di besity
(accessed on 20 March 2016).
64. European Commission. EC Farm Economics Briefs. Income Developments in EU Farms. Available online:
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rica/pdf/Brief201101.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2016).
65. European Commission. EC Farm Economics Briefs. EU Production Costs Overview. Available online:
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rica/pdf/Brief201102. pdf (accessed on 10 March 2016).
66. European Commission. EU Agricultural Economics Briefs. Structure and Synamics of EU Farms: Changes,
Trends and Policy Relevance. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rural-area-economics/briefs/pdf/09_en.pdf
(accessed on 10 March 2016).
67. European Commission. EU Agricultural Economics Briefs. EU Agricultural Income 2014 — First Estimates. Available online:
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rural-area-economics/briefs/pdf/003_en.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2016).
68. Matthews, A. FADN data highlights dependence of EU farms on subsidy payments. Available online:
http://capreform.eu/fadn-data-highlight: fi bsidy (accessed on 10 March 2016).
69. Enjolras, G.; Capitanio, F.; Aubert, M.; Adinolfi, F. Direct payments, crop insurance and the volatility of farm income. Some
evidence in France and in Italy. New medit Mediterr. J. Econ. Agric. Environ.2014, 13, 31-40.
70. Rabobank. Rethinking the F&A Supply Chain. Impact of Agricultural Price Volatility on Sourcing Strategies. Available online:
http://www.boerderij.n|/pagefiles/35979/002_boerderij-download-agd573390d01.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2016).
71. EEA. Agriculture and Environment in EU-15 — The IRENA Indicator Report 2005. Available online:
file:///C:/Users/u0095636/Downloads/EEA_report_6_2005.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2016).
73. Rockstrom, J. et al. Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol. Soc. 2009, 14.
74, EEA Food Security and Environmenta Impacts. Available online:
http: .eea.europa. eri igreening-agric policy/food-security-and. impacts
(accessed on).
75. Kopainsky, B.; Huber, R.; Pedercini, M. Food provision and environmental goals in the swiss agri-food system: System
dynamics and the social-ecological systems framework. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 2015, 432, 414-432.
76. Olper, A.; Raimondi, V. Patterns and determinants of off-farm migration transfer frictions and persistency of relative
income gaps. Ceps 2013, 32.
77. Trobe, H. L. La; Acott, T. G.; Trobd, H. L. La; Acotp, T. G. Localising the global food system. Int J Sust Dev World 2000, 74,
1350-4509.
78. Cordell, D.; Neset, T.-S. S. Phosphorus vulnerability: A qualitative framework for assessing the vulnerability of national
and regional food systems to the multi-dimensional stressors of phosphorus scarcity. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 24, 108-
122.
79. Neset, T.-S. S.; Cordell, D. Global phosphorus scarcity: identifying synergies for a sustainable future. J. Sci. Food Agric.
2012, 92, 2-6.
80. Cordell, D.; Drangert, J.-O.; White, S. The story of phosphorus: Global food security and food for thought. Glob. Environ.
Chang. 2009, 19, 292-305.
81. Wallgren, C.; Mattias, H. Eating energy — Identifying possibilities for reduced energy use in the future food supply system.
Energy Pol. 2009, 37, 5803-5813.
82. Pfeiffer, D.A. Eating Fossil Fuels; The Wilderness Publications 2003.
83. Stoate, C.; Baldi, A.; Beja, P.; Boatman, N. D.; Herzon, |.; Van Doorn, A.; De Snoo, G. R.; Rakosy, L.; Ramwell, C. Ecological
impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe — A review. J. Environ. Manage. 2009, 91, 22-46.
84. Olesen, J. E.; Schelde, K.; Weiske, A.; Weisbjerg, M. R.; Asman, W. A. H.; Djurhuus, J. Modelling greenhouse gas emissions
from European conventional and organic dairy farms. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 112, 207-220.
85. The 1st SCAR Foresight Exercise. Agriculture and Environment 2006. Available online:
https://ec.europa.eu/research/agriculture/scar/pdf/scar_foresight_environment_en.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2016).
86. ESF/COST Forward Look on European Food Systems in a Changing World 2009. Available online:
http://www.esf.org/fileadmin/Public_documents/Publications/food.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2016).
87. Webb, J. et al. Food security and nutrition and sustainable agriculture. Food Policy 2011, 149, 193-208.
88. Tilman, D.; Cassman, K.G.; Matson, P.A.; Naylor, R.; Polasky, S. Agriculture sustainability and intensive production
practices. Nature 2002. 418, 671-677.
89. Ramirez, C. A.; Worrell, E. Feeding fossil fuels to the soil An analysis of energy embedded and technological learning in
the fertilizer industry. Worrell / Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2006, 46, 75-93.
90. Shcherbak, |.; Millar, N.; Robertson, G. P. Global metaanalysis of the nonlinear response of soil nitrous oxide (N20)
emissions to fertilizer nitrogen. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2014, 111, 9199-9204.
91. Geiger, F. et al. Persistent negative effects of pesticides on biodiversity and biological control potential on European
farmland. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2010, 11, 97-105.
92. Mclaughlin, A.; Mineau, P. The impact of agricultural practices on biodiversity. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1995, 55, 201-212.
93. FAO. _Livestock's Long Shadow Environmental Issues and = Options. Available online:
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2016).
94. Tamminga, S. Pollution due to nutrient losses and its control in European animal production. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2003, 84,
101-111.
95. Goodman, D.; Sorj, B.; Wilkinson, J. From Farming to Biotechnology: A Theory of Agro-Industrial Development. Basil
Blackwell: Oxford, 1987.
96. Lundvall, B.; Johnson, B. The learning economy. J. Industry Studies. 1994. 1, 2, 23-42
97. UNIDO. Determinants of total factor productivity: a literature review 2007. Available online:
http: .unido.org//fileadmit _media/Publicati ch_and_statistics/Branch_publications/Research_and_P
olicy/Files/Working_Papers/2007/WP022007%20-%20Determinants%200f%20total%20factor%20productivity.pdf
(accessed on 20 March 2016).
98. Morgan, K.; Murdoch, J. Organic vs. ional agriculture: power and i ion in the food chain.
Geoforum 2000, 31, 159-173.
99. Cochrane, W. W. Farm price: myth and reality. University of Minnesota Press: St. Paul, 1958.
100. Godfray, H. C. J.; Crute, |. R.; Haddad, L.; Lawrence, D.; Muir, J. F.; Nisbett, N.; Pretty, J.; Robinson,
Whiteley, R. The future of the global food system. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 2769-2777.
101. Adger, W. N. Vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2006, 16, 268-281.
102. O’Brien, K.; Leichenko, R.; Kelkar, U.; Venema, H.; Aandahl, G.; Tompkins, H.; Javed, A.; Bhadwal, S.; Barg, S.; Nygaard,
L.; West, J. Mapping vulnerability to multiple stressors: climate change and globalization in India. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2004,
14, 303-313.
103. Magdoff, F. Food as commodity. Mon. Rev. 2012, 63, 8, 15-22
104. EUROSTAT 2013. Agri-envi Indicator - Specialisation. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
lained/index.php/Agri-envi |_indicator_-_specialisation (accessed on 15 March 2016).
105. Mondelaers, K.; Aertsens, J.; G. Van A meta-analysis of the dif in envi impacts between
organic and conventional farming. Br. Food J. 2009, 111, 1098-1119.
106. Sandhu, H. S.; Wratten, S. D.; Cullen, R. Organic agriculture and ecosystem services. Environ. Sci. Policy 2010, 13, 1-7.
107. Gattinger, A.; Muller, A.; Haeni, M.; Skinner, C.; Fliessbach, A.; Buchmann, N.; Mader, P.; Stolze, M.; Smith, P.; Scialabba,
N. E.-H.; Niggli, U. Enhanced top soil carbon stocks under organic farming. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2012, 109, 18226-31.
108. Morgan, K.; Murdoch, J. Organic vs. ional agriculture: power and i ion in the food chain.
Geoforum 2000, 31, 159-173.
109. Seufert, V.; Ramankutty, N.; Foley, J. a. Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 2012, 485,
229-232.
110. Smit, B.; Wandel, J. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2006, 16, 282-292.
111. Lamine, C. Transition pathways towards a robust ecologization of agriculture and the need for system redesign. Cases
from organic farming and IPM. J. Rural Stud. 2011, 27, 209-219.
112. Crowder, D. W.; Reganold, J. P. Financial competitiveness of organic agriculture on a global scale. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
U.S.A. 2015, 112, 7611-7616.
113. Offermann, F.; Nieberg, H.; Zander, K. Dependency of organic farms on direct payments in selected EU member states:
Today and tomorrow. Food Policy 2009, 34, 273-279.
114. Smith, E.; Marsden, T. Exploring the “limits to growth” in UK organics: beyond the statistical image. J. Rural Stud. 2004,
20, 345-357.
