View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE

SCHWERPUNKT

Pritchard, B., 2012: Trading Into Hunger? Trading Out Diversity of European Farming of Hunger? International Food Trade and the Debate on Food Security. In: Rosin, C.; Stock, P.; Campbell, Systems and Pathways to H. (eds.): Food Systems Failure. The Global Food Cri- Sustainable Intensification sis and the Future of . London, pp. 46–59 Reisch, L.; Eberle; U.; Lorek, S., 2013: Sustainable by Rolf Meyer, ITAS Food Consumption: An Overview of Contemporary Issues and Policies. In: Sustainability: Science, Prac- European agriculture is confronted with a tice & Policy 9/2 (2013), pp. 7–25 number of ongoing and new challenges. At Scarborough, P.; Appleby, P.; Mizdrak, A. et al., 2014: the level of production, sustainable in- Dietary Gas Emissions of Meat-eaters, tensification is proposed as the way forward. Fish-eaters, Vegetarians and Vegans in the UK. In: Two different pathways for improvement of Climatic Change; doi: 10.1007/s10584-014-1169-1 crop production are grouped under the um- SDC – Sustainable Development Commission, 2009: brella of sustainable intensification: high- Food Security and Sustainability – The Perfect Fit. tech approaches and agro-ecological ap- SDC position paper. London proaches. Because of the high heterogeneity SDC – Sustainable Development Commission, 2011: of agriculture in the EU, these approaches are Looking Back, Looking Forward – Sustainability and not equally appropriate for all European - UK Food Policy 2000–2011. London ing systems and are associated with specific opportunities and limitations. Agro-ecologi- SRU – Sachverständigenrat für Umweltfragen, 2012: cal approaches of sustainable intensification Umweltgutachten 2012 – Verantwortung in einer be- demand not only changes at farm level but grenzten Welt. Berlin also include a transition of the currently dom- Tomlinson, I., 2013: Doubling Food Production to inating technological paradigm and develop- Feed 9 billion: A Critical Perspective on a Key Dis- ment trajectory. course of Food Security in the UK. In: Journal of Ru- ral Studies 29 (2013), pp. 81–90 Die Landwirtschaft in Europa muss sich einer Watson, R.T., 2012: Prologue: Food Security – Now Reihe von bereits bestehenden, aber auch neu- is the Future. In: Rosin, C.; Stock, P.; Campbell, H. en Herausforderungen stellen. Im Bereich der (eds.): Food Systems Failure. The Global Food Crisis landwirtschaftlichen Produktion wird eine „nach- and the Future of Agriculture. London haltige Intensivierung“ als notwendige Weiterent- West, P.; Gerber, J.; Engstrom, P. et al., 2014: Lever- wicklung vorgeschlagen. Unter diesem Begriff age Points for Improving Global Food Security and werden zwei verschiedene Wege zur Verbesse- the Environment. In: Science 345 (2014), pp. 325–328 rung der landwirtschaftlichen Produktion disku- tiert: hochtechnisierte Ansätze und agrarökologi- UN – United Nations, 2011: World Population Pros- sche Ansätze. Aufgrund der hohen Heterogenität pects: The 2010 Revision. United Nations Department der Landwirtschaft in der EU sind diese Ansätze of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Estimate nicht für alle europäischen Landwirtschaftssys- and Projections Section. Rome teme gleichermaßen geeignet. Sie sind jeweils mit bestimmten Chancen und Einschränkun- Contact gen verbunden. Agrarökologische Ansätze der nachhaltigen Intensivierung erfordern nicht nur Dipl.-Ing. Juliane Jörissen Veränderungen in der Praxis der landwirtschaft- Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems lichen Betriebe, sondern auch einen Wandel des Analysis (ITAS) gegenwärtig vorherrschenden technologischen Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) Paradigmas und Entwicklungspfads. Karlstraße 11, 76133 Karlsruhe Tel.: +49 721 608-22994 Email: [email protected] 1 Introduction

Since the 1950s, the intensification of Europe- « » an agricultural production was driven by farm mechanisation and the strong increase in external (purchased) input, increasing the dependency on

Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 23. Jg., Heft 3, November 2014 Seite 11 SCHWERPUNKT

non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels. This impacts. Sustainable intensification is proposed was accompanied by a huge simplification of ag- as an answer to this challenge. ricultural systems at all levels, from field and farm to landscape and region. Agricultural research and development has led to the availability of larger 2 The Concept of Sustainable Intensification machines and buildings which are not only more A prominent starting point in the scientific and efficient in themselves but strongly encourage policy development of the sustainable intensifi- the exploitation of economies of scale, i.e. larger cation concept was the Royal Society (2009) re- fields and , resulting in structural changes in port “Reaping the benefits”.2 Therein, (Davidova et al. 2013, p. 30). Environ- intensification is understood as producing more mental impacts of specialisation and increasing food from the same area of land while reducing labour productivity through simplification of crop the environmental impacts (Godfray et al. 2010). management and greater use of external inputs in- The concept focuses on crop production, chiefly clude water contamination, rising greenhouse gas arable (Garnett et al. 2013). The need for emissions, soil degradation, and loss of biodiver- sustainable intensification is based on the recog- sity. As an alternative, it is proposed that oppor- nition of the following challenges: tunities should be explored to capture ecological interactions among different land use systems to • The global population growing to some 9 bil- make agricultural production systems more effi- lion people by mid-century and the nutrition cient at cycling nutrients, improving , transition associated with wealth growth will preserving natural resources and the environment, lead to remarkably increased food demand. and enhancing (Lemaire et al. 2013). But the necessary extend of increased future The trajectory of technological develop- food production is challenged (Grethe et al. ment, coupled with greater market orientation 2011; Tomlinson 2013). Nevertheless, an of agriculture over time, is driving a process of overall increase in production is regarded as structural change towards fewer and larger farms. essential (Garnett et al. 2013). Despite this ongoing process, a wide variation in • Yields on existing agricultural land should farm structures across the EU-27 is maintained. be increased instead of expanding the area of With the accession of the New Member States, agricultural land to increase gross production farming in Europe is carried out primarily on because the latter would result in losses of vi- small-scale farms. Consequently, in recent years tal ecosystem and biodiversity services (Roy- small-scale farms have received increased atten- al Society 2009, p. 7). tion in the political debate, recognising the role • Agricultural production per unit of non-re- they play in rural areas and the need to improve newable inputs and impacts upon ecosystem their economic and social conditions (EC 2011). services must be improved. It is recognised The United Nations declared 2014 the “In- that there is a need for agricultural systems ternational Year of Family Farming”. Family that achieve the necessary levels of produc- farming dominates EU agriculture,1 with a vast tion with substantially lower reliance on fos- diversity in farm size, labour input and produc- sil fuels (Royal Society 2009, p. 47). There- tion approaches. The European Commission or- fore, sustainable intensification is also about ganised a conference in November 2013 entitled relative efficiencies in food production with “Family farming: A dialogue towards more sus- respect to environmental resources and im- tainable and resilient farming in Europe and the pacts (Fish et al. 2014). world” with around 500 participants (EC 2013a), • Since the 1990s, growth rates of yields and pro- followed this year by a number of events in Eu- ductivity, especially in industrialised countries, rope and worldwide. Part of the challenges fam- have slowed down (Alston et al. 2009). The ily farming is confronted with is to increase pro- 2007/08 food price spike could be the begin- duction with reduced inputs and environmental ning of a period of rising and more volatile food

Seite 12 Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 23. Jg., Heft 3, November 2014 SCHWERPUNKT

prices, indicating mismatching between food ciency, increasing the site-specific yield potential demand and production (Godfray et al. 2010). (Meyer et al. 2013, p. 41). The proposed sustainable intensification is not When identifying technologies or crop pro- without controversy. Major critical arguments are duction systems which can contribute to achiev- that the goals of intensification and sustainabili- ing these objectives, the diversity of European ty are considered to be incompatible; a marriage farming systems must be taken into account. This of sustainable agriculture and is necessary because the need, the suitability and could only result in a continuation of industri- the impacts of technologies and management sys- alised agriculture which is accompanied by envi- tems of crop production depend on the specific ronmental harm and reductions in sustainability. configuration of the respective farming system. Secondly, sustainable intensification would pri- oritise market-orientation as crucial to improving 3 Diversity of European Farming Systems the situation of small-scale , and nearly all proponents would also heavily promote liberalised European agriculture is characterised by high het- trade. Therefore, the vulnerability of poor farmers erogeneity in terms of agro-ecological conditions and poor countries would increase. And thirdly, the and constrains, economic potential and agrarian openness with regard to technological approaches structural conditions, production intensity and would open the door to any technology, includ- environmental performance, and social situation ing those that are specifically adapted to work in and cultural environment. As an example, Figure large-scale commercial, intensive agriculture, to be 1 shows the distribution of farms and their share defined as “sustainable” (Collin/Chandrasekaran of total agricultural area by size class of agri- 2012; review by Garnett/Godfray 2012). cultural holdings. The farming system approach In reaction, Garnett et al. (2013) emphasise identifies groups of individual farms with broad- that sustainable intensification does not mean ly similar production systems and practices, en- business-as-usual food production moderated by terprise patterns, household livelihoods, resource marginal reductions in environmental impacts. bases, and external conditions. Depending on the On the contrary, it demands radical rethinking of objective and scale of analysis, a farming system food production to achieve major improvements in can encompass a few dozen to many millions of sustainability. They propose a more sophisticated farms (Dixon et al. 2001, p. 9). definition, working out the underlying premises. Farm size, production intensity, specialisa- Additionally, important interfaces with other major tion, and integration in food chains are criteria food-system goals and policy areas are discussed used to set up a simplified scheme of farming (ibd.). Overall, the concept of sustainable intensi- systems in the EU.4 As a result, the following fication is still evolving, now also taking into ac- farming systems were identified for the EU-27 count social and economic beneficial conditions. (Meyer et al. 2013, pp. 11–12): The statement “No techniques or technolo- gies should be ruled out” (Royal Society 2009, • Extensive small-scale, semi-subsistence p. ix) leaves open the question of priorities and farming: Over 40 % of all holdings in the EU- most preferable technology options. A distinction 27 produce food for the family and relatives, of different pathways for improving crop produc- only surplus goes to the market. This farming tion is a first step to understand better the diver- system is only of importance in New Member sity of possible approaches. Overall, improved States and Mediterranean countries, with Ro- crop production under changing environmental mania being the most important. Small-scale conditions can be achieved through improving farms apply extensive production methods, yield potential and safeguarding yields by plant partly without external inputs. Only a third of breeding,3 and/or introducing upgraded technol- all semi-subsistence farms operate in less-fa- ogies and management systems of crop produc- voured areas. Semi-subsistence farms have tion. The latter includes different objectives such a share of 7.6 % of total utilised agricultural as reducing yield gaps, improving input use effi- area in the EU-27 (21.6 % in the New Mem-

Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 23. Jg., Heft 3, November 2014 Seite 13 SCHWERPUNKT

Fig. 1: Share of agricultural holdings and of total agricultural area by size class of holdings in the European Union (EU-28) in 2010

60% Share of Holdings

Share of UAA 50,7% 50% 48,0%

EU-28 40%

30%

23,0% 20,6% 20% 15,7% 14,1% 11,2% 10% 7,6% 7,3% 6,5% 5,3% 4,4% 2,4% 0,8% 0% < 2 2-4.9 5-9.9 10-19.9 20-49.9 50-99.9 > 100 Size Class of Holdings in ha of UAA

UAA = Utilised Agricultural Area Source: EC 2013

ber States) and 3.9 % of total standard gross • Intensive, larger-scale crop farming: The re- margin in the EU-27 (20.1 % in the New gions with concentrated and specialised Member States) (Davidova 2011). crop production are at the same time the areas • in less favoured areas: 54 % with a high share of larger-scale farms. Larg- of all farms in the EU-27 are located in less-fa- er-scale farming, based on high external inputs, voured areas. Less favoured areas cover over is concentrated in low-land areas with high pro- 50 % of the total agricultural area in Austria, ductivity. High input farm types are predomi- Czech Republic, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ire- nant in the Netherlands, Belgium, South-East- land, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, ern England, Northern France, North-Western and Spain. Farming in less favoured areas is Germany, Northern Italy, and Northern Greece. characterised by extensive production systems • Large-scale : Large-scale respectively traditional land-use systems, often corporate farming compromises production co- based on . But cereal produc- operatives and various types of farming com- tion is also important in less favoured areas. panies. Overall, they are the result of the tran- • Medium intensive, mixed farming systems: sition process in Central and Eastern Europe Mixed farming systems combine crop and since 1990. In 2010, corporate farms (where livestock production in different ways and are the holder is a legal entity) compromised 2.4 % characterised by a relatively low specialisation and group holdings (owned by a group of nat- level, in contrast to specialised farming sys- ural persons) 0.6 % of all farms in the EU-27 tems such as pure cropping or poor intensive (EC 2013b). Corporate farms held over 50 % livestock production systems, which have be- of the total agricultural area in Bulgaria, Czech come dominant since World War II (Lemaire Republic, and Slovakia. Large corporate farms et al. 2013). Around 13 % of all farms in the tend to specialise in and oil crops. EU-27 are mixed farms. Above-average shares This typology of EU farming systems is centred of mixed farming systems (with over 10 % of on crop production. Further important farming the total agricultural area) can be found in Bel- systems in the EU are intensive and gium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, intensive livestock farming systems, which oc- France, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, cupy only a small part of the agricultural area but Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, and Slovakia. are important in economic terms.

Seite 14 Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 23. Jg., Heft 3, November 2014 SCHWERPUNKT

4 Pathways to Sustainable Intensification ment of soil fertility being an important issue. ,5 system of intensi- A broad spectrum of technologies and manage- fication,6 ,7 integrated crop-livestock ment concepts for crop production can be con- systems, and have in common sidered for achieving the objectives of sustaina- that they formulate fundamental principles and ble intensification. This chapter assesses overall highlight key elements. When it comes to concrete approaches to crop production systems and their application, the principles have to be translated on appropriateness for the EU farming systems. a case-by-case basis into production technologies and practices adapted to local conditions (Meyer 2010). This system-based approach tries 4.1 General Approaches to address the specific agro-ecological, social and Improving input use efficiency is currently a major economic complexity of farms at their specific objective in intensive agriculture. The most prom- location, including local and indigenous knowl- inent example is precision agriculture (PA) – the edge and participatory approaches. In this context, spatially variable management of crop production. organic farming has a specific status as a legally The aim is to apply the right treatment in the right defined production method of food with interna- place at the right time by taking into account in- tional standards, labelling and separated markets. field variations of soil and crop. PA applications High potential for increasing yields is report- can be found in all the main stages of the crop pro- ed for conservation agriculture and for the system duction process, such as nutrient application, ma- of rice intensification in developing countries. nure application, , disease manage- There is a mixed picture for organic farming, with ment, and water management. The manifold PA high yield increases for low external input systems approaches are in different stages of development, in developing countries and yield reductions in de- from research and demonstration to commercial veloped countries. Mixed systems of agroforestry availability, and they use various new or advanced and integrated crop-livestock farming have the po- technologies such as satellite-supported posi- tential to be more productive (Meyer et al. 2013). tioning systems, yield mapping, remote sensing, Agro-ecologically oriented management sys- sensor technologies, geo-information systems, tems imply deeper changes in the current conven- various rate application techniques, and decision tional crop production systems (Meyer et al. 2013). support systems (Meyer et al. 2013). Diversified farming systems at farm and landscape Information-based crop management (also levels aim to include functional biodiversity at called “digital agriculture”) implies a transfer of multiple spatial and/or temporal scales in order to standardised management routines and farmers’ maintain ecosystem services that provide critical knowledge through to automated data collections inputs to agriculture, such as soil fertility, pest and and computerised decision support systems. The disease control, water use efficiency, and pollina- dependence on support suppliers tends to be tion (Kremen et al. 2012). In developed countries increasing. Precision agriculture in most cases with already high land productivity, the challenge only leads to restricted yield increases, in a range is to replace the reliance on external inputs by up to 5 %, due to its adoption mainly in highly re-establishing ecosystem services generated in productive areas with intensive crop production. the soil and the landscape, while maintaining high, Overall, precision agriculture does not call into stable productivity levels (Bommarco et al. 2013). question high external inputs and specialisation Examples for such technologies and practices for in crop production, but intends to make these sustainable intensification are seed mixtures, inter- production systems more effective and environ- cropping, diversified crop rotations, plant associa- mentally friendly (Meyer et al. 2013). tions, green manure and permanent organic-matter In contrast, various other crop production soil cover, , integration of systems aim to use and improve the agro-ecolog- crop and livestock production, hedgerows and/or ical conditions of crop production (site-specific buffer strips. It is important to notice that improve- yield potential), with maintenance and enhance- ments do not result from single measures but from

Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 23. Jg., Heft 3, November 2014 Seite 15 SCHWERPUNKT

locally adapted combinations of elements. Higher Less favoured areas are characterised by input efficiency is here more an impact from pur- relatively low land productivity, and extensive suing the goal of improving site-specific yield po- farming in less favoured areas is dominated by tentials and reducing yield gaps. extensive production systems. Organic farming in Europe is concentrated on extensive farming systems because the agronomic and economic 4.2 Sustainable Intensification in the EU barriers for conversion are relatively low. When Farming Systems using best organic management practices, the yields are close to conventional yields. Organic The overall approaches to sustainable intensifi- yields are often low in the first years after con- cation are associated with different opportunities version and gradually increase over time due to and limitations, depending on the farming sys- improvements in soil fertility and management tem they are applied to. skills (Seufert et al. 2012). Organic farming takes The farming system extensive small-scale part in the overall yield development, but pro- semi-subsistence farming is characterised by low ductivity could be further improved. or no use of external inputs and very limited fi- Traditional agroforestry systems have sur- nancial resources. This represents a good starting vived in a number of less favoured areas so that point for agro-ecological approaches but does there are chances for a revival of agroforestry. not fit with expensive high-tech approaches such Besides the important extensive livestock systems as precision agriculture. The production of certi- based on grazing, integrated crop-livestock farm- fied is generally not feasible due to ing is also of relevance (Meyer et al. 2013). This the missing integration into food chains, the small provides additional potential for sustainable inten- surplus amounts and the costs of certification. But sification. The introduction of conservation agri- elements of organic crop management can well be culture in Europe is lagging behind, but conserva- used for sustainable intensification. Semi-subsis- tion agriculture is highly relevant to less favoured tence farms partly use agroforestry systems and are areas due the risk of soil degradation by erosion. often integrated crop-livestock farms, which offer Research and development, on-farm testing further potential for sustainable intensification. and demonstration, extension services, and farm- Small-scale semi-subsistence farming plays er-to-farmer learning for improving crop man- an important role as part of social safety nets and agement in less favoured areas are still weak in in the provision of ecosystem services but is more Europe. For extensive farming in less favoured or less neglected by agricultural policies. Direct areas, the design of agro-environmental support payments are generally not available due to farm measures by the Member States within Pillar and plot size thresholds, and measures addressed II is crucial for sustainable intensification with to semi-subsistence farming from Pillar II of the agro-ecological approaches. Common (CAP) are given Medium intensive, mixed farming systems low priority and do not fit well (Davidova 2011; are by definition integrated crop-livestock farms Csaki/Forgacs 2009, p. 20). Development con- which are mostly located in intermediate areas cepts are still oriented towards the changes in the (Bonaudo et al. 2013). They range from exten- farm structures in the old EU from the 1950s to sive farms with traditional land-use systems to the 1970s, with the abandonment of small-scale modern farms with intensified grassland and fod- farming (Souchon 2014). But in the face of re- der crop production. There is ongoing econom- stricted employment perspectives outside agri- ic pressure to specialise, and support measures culture such a development is unlikely and would from Pillar II of the CAP still favour investment be associated with high social costs. Therefore, a in specialisation. This tendency is combined with reorientation of research, extension and support farm and land abandonment on the other hand. services is needed to achieve sustainable intensi- Nonetheless, integrated crop-livestock systems fication adapted to this farming system and sus- have the potential to improve economic perfor- taining the benefits of small-scale farming. mance (e.g., by reducing sensitivity to fluctua-

Seite 16 Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 23. Jg., Heft 3, November 2014 SCHWERPUNKT

tions of input and output prices) and environ- decades, larger-scale crop farms have abandoned mental effects (e.g., by reducing chemical inputs, livestock production. The potential for reintegra- improving nutrient cycling, increasing diversity tion of crop and livestock production is limited by of farm land use) (Ryschawy et al. 2012). the absence of operational structure and manage- Overall, the prospects of agro-ecological ment skills for livestock in specialised crop farms management systems are good. Mixed farming and large capital requirements for change (Meyer is a key element of many organic farms so that et al. 2013). Overall, agro-ecological approaches the conversion potential is in many cases high. to sustainable intensification require major chang- Conservation agriculture and agroforestry can es in crop management and farm organisation and be integrated in mixed farming, restricted by the will only take place in intensive, larger-scale crop already existing complexity of farm operations. farming with substantial incentives. In contrast, the relevance of precision farming is Large-scale corporate farms specialise in low due to the relatively high investment costs capital-intensive production and in products with and learning requirements (Meyer et al. 2013). low labour monitoring requirements. Therewith, The farming system intensive larger-scale they have a comparative advantage and mostly crop farming is located in areas with high land specialise in cereal and oilseeds production (Ci- productivity. It has high potential for the ap- aian et al. 2009). In transition countries with a high plication of precision agriculture with the aim share of large-scale farming companies, labour to enhance input use efficiency and to reduce productivity growth is very strong due to high production costs. To date, precision agriculture reductions in agricultural employment (Swinnen/ techniques in Europe have mainly been adopted Vranken 2010). In the case of large-scale corpo- in highly productive areas of Denmark, France, rate farming, economics of scale are favourable Germany, and United Kingdom (Meyer et al. for the introduction of precision agriculture. Po- 2013). Their wider successful application de- tential barriers to implementation are missing pends on progress in the development of scientif- management skills and the associated workload. ically and economically sound decision support The picture is ambiguous for agro-ecological systems to handle the increasing amount of data approaches. Conservation agriculture is a relevant and complexity of management decisions. approach for maintenance and enhancement of soil In intensive crop farming systems, the fertility. Mindset and lower profitability of diversi- maintenance and enhancement of soil fertili- fied crop rotations can be barriers. Large-scale cor- ty is becoming of increasing importance. Here, porate farms have successfully converted to organ- a suitable approach is conservation agriculture. ic farming. But conversion implies major changes For a wider spread of conservation agriculture in farm organisation and marketing. Hence, ade- to be achieved, the following requirements must quate transformation capacity is a prerequisite. be met: change of mindset in order to replace Agroforestry is at odds with mechanisation and long-established conventional soil cultivation specialisation. Modern forms of agroforestry sys- by no-tillage, change of weed management, and tems are therefore not easy to introduce. In parts, increased profitability of alternative crops for di- corporate farms are integrated crop-livestock op- versified crop rotations (Meyer et al. 2013). erations. Integration of livestock production in The competitiveness of organic farming is rel- corporate farms specialised on crop production is atively low, and higher conversion rates can only limited by high investment costs and missing man- be expected when new marketing channels with agement skills for livestock (Meyer et al. 2013). attractive price premiums can be opened up and/or public support schemes are improved. Silvoarable 5 Outlook agroforestry has vanished in intensive crop farm- ing due to the impediment of highly mechanised A recent study of the International Food Policy cultivation and unfavourable economic incen- Research Institute (IFPRI) assesses the effects of tives. Barriers to the introduction of modern agro- a broad range of agricultural technologies for the forestry systems are relatively high. Over the last key stable crops , rice and with a glob-

Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 23. Jg., Heft 3, November 2014 Seite 17 SCHWERPUNKT

al modelling approach and indicates important Beyond the controversy on organic yields, contributions to yield increase and food availabili- approaches are envisioned which develop crop ty. Crop production technology impacts differ sub- production systems towards low input/high output stantially by crop, technology, region, and within systems, and which integrate historical knowl- regions (Rosegrant et al. 2014). Of interest here are edge and agro-ecological principles that draw on the relevant potential contributions to sustainable the capacity of nature (Freibauer et al. 2011, p. 8). intensification, not the detailed numbers since they However, so far mostly isolated examples of the strongly depend on assumptions about baseline successful introduction of agro-ecologically based growth, future availability of technologies, adop- production systems have been reported. It is cer- tion pathways, and other model specifications. tainly not a one-size-fits-all situation (Davidova For these potentials to be realised, more et al. 2013, p. 39). There is no single technology investment in agricultural research and develop- or crop production system that is equally suitable ment and extension services are needed – but not for all farming systems. Addressing the different sufficient (Rosegrant et al. 2014). The past and European farming systems is important because current technological paradigm and trajectory of small-scale farmers have been largely overlooked modern industrialised agriculture favours high- by research and innovation policies so that they tech approaches to intensive crop production, can neither benefit from advances in science and such as precision agriculture. This persistence of technology, nor participate in knowledge creation a research and technology development trajec- as co-producers (Freibauer et al. 2011, p. 103). tory creates path dependence. This process can This means that small-scale and semi-subsistence lead to technological lock-in situations in which farmers need perspectives beyond commerciali- the dominant technology cluster excludes or hin- sation and growth. Important elements for main- ders competing technology approaches (Vanlon- streaming agro-ecological approaches are: queren/Baret 2009). • Niche innovations: Niches play a crucial role Agro-ecological approaches to sustainable in the stimulation of radical innovations that intensification require not only changes at farm deviate from path dependence and lock-in, level but also major changes in the whole inno- and as laboratories to explore the possibili- vation system. The need for a paradigm change ties for wider changes (Vanlonqueren/Bar- is called into question in the debate: for example, et 2009). This includes the development of Conner and Mínguez (2012) argue for an evo- new business models since agro-ecological lutionary change of farming systems, while the innovations are not per se saleable products. Standing Committee on Agricultural Research Therefore, niche innovations need support (SCAR) regards a radical change in food con- and an enabling environment. sumption and production in Europe as “unavoid- • Transdisciplinarity: Farmers are needed as able to meet the challenges of scarcities and to co-creators of knowledge and innovation for make the European agro-food system more resil- site-specific agro-ecological approaches. In or- ient in times of increasing instability” (Freibauer der to enhance two-way information exchange et al. 2011, p. 9). Key point in the debate is whether and strengthen adoption of new technologies, increases in yields and production can be achieved participation of farmers or farmer-managed with low-input and organic systems. Different me- trials is recommended as part of research pro- ta-analyses on yield comparisons between organic grammes. This type of research needs to be and conventional agriculture (Badgley et al. 2007; funded by the EU and Member States because Ponti et al. 2012; Seufert et al. 2012) indicate that it does not attract private funding (Freibauer et organic yields are lower in areas with intensive al. 2011, p. 8). Methods have to be further de- production in developed countries, that organic veloped that allow farmers’ knowledge to be and semi-organic yields are higher compared to combined withintegrated or fed into scientific locally prevalent low-input systems in develop- knowledge and innovation (Doré et al. 2011). ing countries, and that yield differences are highly • Agricultural extension: The traditional exten- contextual (Meyer et al. 2013, p. 74). sion service concept was conceived as a link in

Seite 18 Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 23. Jg., Heft 3, November 2014 SCHWERPUNKT

the distribution network that moves technolo- 3) Plant breeding is not discussed in this paper. gies and crop management schemes from re- Breeding goals and approaches also depend on the search centres towards peripheral end-users. A conditions and problems of farming systems. 4) Meyer et al. (2013) developed a similar scheme new understanding of agricultural extension re- of farming systems for crop production at the volves around tasks of communication and in- global level. novation, network building, co-design, and ne- 5) Conservation agriculture is based on the three key gotiation (Garb/Friedlander 2014). Extension principles of continuous no- or minimal mechan- services show high diversity between Member ical soil disturbance, permanent organic-matter States, with some countries having completely soil cover, and diversified crop rotations with the privatised their extension services. For the new aim to prevent soil degradation und to preserve and/or enhance soil fertility. tasks, a revitalisation of publicly funded exten- 6) The system of rice intensification is an innovation sion services reaching all farming systems is in rice production systems, which is basically a set demanded (Meyer et al. 2013, p. 197). of modified practices for managing rice plants, in- • Common Agricultural Policy (CAP): The cluding soil, water and nutrient management. In transition to agro-ecological approaches will the meantime, it is also transferred to other crops. be strengthened or eroded by government 7) Agroforestry systems are land use systems that simultaneously combine deliberately interplanted policies and the economic structures they annual crops and trees. Agroforestry consists of a promote (Darnhofer 2014). Direct payments set of reasoning and design principles rather than to farmers under the CAP are neutral in re- fixed planting schemes. Countless agroforestry gard to the applied crop production systems. systems have been developed across the globe. A more enabling environment for sustainable intensification would require a longer-term References transformation of the CAP with a phase out of Alston, J.M.; Beddow, J.M.; Pardey, P.G., 2009: Ag- direct payments, replaced by public payments ricultural Research, Productivity, and Food Prices in linked to the provision of societal benefits the Long Run. In: Science 325 (2009), pp. 1209–1210 (Meyer et al. 2013, pp. 17). Badgley, C.; Moghtader, J.; Quintero, E. et al., 2007: Besides the possibilities to directly adapt and Organic Agriculture and the Global Food Supply. In: Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22 (2007), transform crop production systems, the resilience pp. 86–108 of farms and farming systems is of increasing in- Bommarco, R.; Kleijn, D.; Potts, S.G., 2013: Ecolog- terest. This addresses the capability to handle pos- ical Intensification: Harnessing Ecosystem Services sible economic and environmental crises in the for Food Security. In: Trends in and Evolu- future: “To achieve resilience requires a creative tion 28/4 (2013), pp. 230–238 tension between maintaining the system despite a Bonaudo, T.; Bendahan, A.B.; Sabatier, R. et al., 2013: shock and changing the system, as well as dynam- Agroecological Principles for the Redesign of Inte- ic interplay between incremental and transforma- grated Crop-livestock Systems. In: European Jour- tional changes.” (Darnhofer 2014, p. 9–10) nal of (2013); http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. eja.2013.09.010 Ciaian, P.; Pokrivcak, J.; Drabik, D., 2009: Transac- Notes tion Costs, Product Specialisation and Farm Structure in Central and Eastern Europe. In: Post-Communist 1) Sole-holder family farms accounted for 85 % of all Economics 21 (2009), pp. 191–201 EU farms in 2010 (Davidova/Thomson 2014, p. 9). Conner, D.J.; Mínguez, M.I., 2012: Evolution Not Rev- 2) The term “sustainable intensification” was origi- olution of Farming Systems will Best Feed and Green nally coined in the 1990s in the context of pro- the World. In: Global Food Security 1 (2012), pp. 106– poor, smallholder-oriented development of Afri- 113 can agriculture, where yields are often very low Csaki, C.; Forgacs, C., 2009: Small Farms in Central and environmental degradation is a major concern and Eastern Europe: Is There a Future for Them? 111 (Garnett/Godfray 2012, p. 8). EAAE-IAAE seminar “Small Farms: decline or per-

Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 23. Jg., Heft 3, November 2014 Seite 19 SCHWERPUNKT

sistence”, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK, June Garnett, T.; Appleby, M.C.; Balmford, A. et al., 2013: 26–27, 2009 Sustainable Intensification in Agriculture: Premises Collin, E.D.; Chandrasekaran, K., 2012: A Wolf in and Policies. In: Science 341 (2013), pp. 33–34 ’s Clothing? An Analysis of the “Sustainable Garnett, T.; Godfray, C., 2012: Sustainable Intensifi- Intensification” of Agriculture. Amsterdam cation in Agriculture. Navigating a Course Through Darnhofer, I., 2014: Resilience and Why It Matters Competing Food System Priorities. Oxford, UK for Farm Resilience. In: European Review of Agricul- Godfray, H.C.J.; Beddington, J.R.; Crute, I.R. et al., tural Economics (in press) 2010: Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Bil- Doré, T.; Makowski, D.; Malézieux, E. et al., 2011: lion People. In: Science 327 (2010), pp. 812–818 Facing Up to the Paradigm of Ecological Intensifica- Grethe, H.; Dembélé, A.; Duman, N., 2011: How to tion in Agronomy: Revisiting Methods, Concepts and Feed The World’s Growing Billions. Understanding Knowledge. In: European Journal of Agronomy 34 FAO World Food Projections and their Implications. (2011), pp. 197–210 Berlin Davidova, S., 2011: Semi-subsistence Farming: An Elu- HLPE – High Level Panel of Experts on Food Secu- sive Concept Posing Thorny Policy Questions. In: Jour- rity and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food nal of Agricultural Economics 62 (2011), pp. 503–524 Security, 2013: Investing in Smallholder Agriculture Davidova, S.; Dwyer, J.; Erjavec, E. et al., 2013: for Food Security. Rome Semi-subsistence Farming: Value and Directions of Kremen, C.; Iles, A.; Bacon, C., 2012: Diversified Development. Study prepared for the European Par- Farming Systems: An Agroecological, System-based liament Committee on Agriculture and Rural Devel- Alternative to Modern . In: opment, IP/B/AGRI/IC/2012-65 Ecology and Society 17/4 (2012), p. 44 Davidova, S.; Thomson, K., 2014: Family Farming in Lemaire, G.; Franzluebbers, A.; Carvalho, P.C.F. et Europe: Challenges and Prospects. Study prepared for al., 2013: Integrated Crop-livestock Systems: Strat- the European Parliament Committee on Agriculture egies to Achieve Synergy Between Agricultural Pro- and Rural Development, IP/B/AGRI/CEI/2011-097/ duction and Environmental Quality. In: Agriculture, E027-SC2 Ecosystems and Environment (2013); http://dx.doi. Dixon, J.; Gulliver, A.; Gibbon, D., 2001: Farming org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.08.009 Systems and Poverty. Improving farmers’ Livelihoods Meyer, R., 2010: Low-Input Intensification in Agricul- in a Changing World. Rome/Washington, DC ture. Chances for Small-Scale Farmers in Developing EC – European Commission, 2011: What is a Small Countries. In: GAIA 19 (2010), pp. 263–268 Farm? EU Agricultural Economics Briefs No 2 Meyer, R.; Ratinger, T.; Voss-Fels, K.P., 2013: Options EC – European Commission, 2013a: Conference on for Feeding 10 Billion People – Plant Breeding and Family Farming. A Dialogue Towards More Sustain- Innovative Agriculture. Report prepared for STOA, able and Resilient Farming in Europe and the World. the European Parliament Science and Technology Op- November 29, 2013. Summary of proceedings tions Assessment Panel, under contract IP/A/STOA/ EC – European Commission, 2013b: Structure and FWC/2008-096/LOT3/C1/SC3. Institute for Technol- Dynamics of EU Farms: Changes, Trends and Policy ogy Assessment and System Analysis (ITAS), Karls- Relevance. EU Agricultural Economics Briefs No 9 ruhe Institute of Technology, member of ETAG, the Fish, R.; Winter, M.; Lobley, M., 2014: Sustainable European Technology Assessment Group Intensification and Ecosystem Services: New Direc- Ponti, T. de; Rijk, B.; van Ittersum, M.K., 2012: The tions in Agricultural Governance. In: Policy Science Crop Yield Gap Between Organic and Convention- 47 (2014), pp. 51–67 al Agriculture. In: Agricultural Systems 108 (2012), Freibauer, A.; Mathijs, E.; Brunori, G. et al., 2011: pp. 1–9 Sustainable Food Consumption and Production in a Rosegrant, M.W.; Koo, J.; Cenacchi, N. et al., 2014: Resource-constrained World. The 3rd SCAR Fore- Food Security in a World of Natural Resource Scar- sight Exercise. Brussels city. The Role of Agricultural Technologies. Wash- Garb, Y.; Friedlander, L., 2014: From Transfer to ington, DC Translation: Using Systemic Understandings of Tech- Royal Society, 2009: Reaping the Benefits. Science nology to Understand Drip Uptake. In: Ag- and the Sustainable Intensification of Global Agricul- ricultural Systems 128 (2014), pp. 13–24 ture. London

Seite 20 Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 23. Jg., Heft 3, November 2014 SCHWERPUNKT

Ryschawy, J.; Choisis, N.; Choisis, J.P. et al., 2012: Food Waste Generation in Mixed Crop-livestock Systems: An Economic and Environmental-friendly Way of Farming? In: Animal Europe 6 (2012), pp. 1722–1730 Reasons, Scale, Impacts, and Seufert, V.; Ramankutty, N.; Folex, J.A., 2012: Com- Prevention Strategies paring the Yields of Organic and Conventional Agri- culture. In: Nature 485 (2012), pp. 229–233 Souchon, P., 2014: Theodors Honig. In Rumänien by Carmen Priefer, Juliane Jörissen, and produzieren Millionen Kleinbauern für den Eigenbe- Klaus-Rainer Bräutigam, ITAS darf. Die EU will das ändern. In: Le Monde diploma- tique (2014), pp. 7–8 The reduction of food waste is seen as an im- Swinnen, J.F.M.; Vranken, L., 2010: Reforms and Ag- portant lever for achieving global food securi- ricultural Productivity in Central and Eastern Europe ty, freeing up finite resources for other uses, and the Former Soviet Republics: 1989–2005. In: Jour- diminishing environmental risks and avoiding nal of Productivity Analysis 33 (2010), pp. 241–258 financial losses. Although the estimates of Vanlonqueren, G.; Baret, P.V., 2009: How Agricultur- global losses along the food chain are based al Research Systems Shape a Technological Regime on highly uncertain data, there is no doubt that that Develops but Locks Out considerable amounts are at stake. In its road- Agroecological Innovations. In: Research Policy 38 map for a resource-efficient Europe, the Euro- (2009), pp. 971–983 pean Commission has set the target to halve the generation of food waste by 2020. The present paper gives an overview on the scale, Contact reasons, and impacts of food wastage in Eu- PD Dr. Rolf Meyer rope and addresses prevention measures un- Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems der discussion. The authors conclude that up Analysis (ITAS) to now, mainly soft instruments like awareness Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) campaigns, round tables and information plat- Karlstraße 11, 76133 Karlsruhe forms have been implemented, whereas more Phone: +49 721 608-24868 rigorous approaches like amendments to EU Email: [email protected] regulations and financial incentives have been circumvented.

« » Die Reduzierung der Lebensmittelverschwen- dung gilt als ein wichtiger Hebel zur Sicherstel- lung der Welternährung, zur Freigabe begrenzter Ressourcen für andere Nutzungen, zur Verrin- gerung von Umweltbelastungen und zur Ver- meidung finanzieller Verluste. Auch wenn die Abschätzung der globalen Verluste entlang der Lebensmittelkette auf einer höchst unsicheren Datenbasis beruht, besteht kein Zweifel, dass es um beträchtliche Mengen geht. In ihrer Road- map für ein ressourceneffizientes Europa hat die Europäische Kommission das Ziel festgelegt, die Lebensmittelabfälle bis zum Jahr 2020 um die Hälfte zu reduzieren. Der vorliegende Artikel gibt einen Überblick über das Aufkommen, die Gründe und Auswirkungen der Lebensmittelver- schwendung in Europa und behandelt Vermei- dungsmaßnahmen, die in der aktuellen Debatte eine wichtige Rolle spielen. Der Artikel kommt zu dem Ergebnis, dass bislang hauptsächlich „wei- che“ Instrumente wie Aufklärungskampagnen,

Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 23. Jg., Heft 3, November 2014 Seite 21