Supplementary materials Chapter 3

Sarah Garré

#Annex I – IPCC definitions

Climate change

“Climate change , an alteration in the state of the climate that can be identified by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, is a fundamental reference point for framing the different management themes and challenges....” (Lavell et al. 2012)

Extreme events

“Comprise a facet of climate variability under stable or changing climate conditions. They are defined as the occurrence of a value of a weather or climate variable above (or below) a threshold value near the upper (or lower) ends (‘tails’) of the range of observed values of the variable” (Lavell et al. 2012)

Climate risks

“Climate risk is determined not only by the climate and weather events (the hazards) but also by the exposure and vulnerability to these hazards...” (Cardona et al. 2012)

Climate hazard

“Climate hazard refers to the possible, future occurrence of natural or human-induced physical events that may have adverse effects on vulnerable and exposed elements” (Cardona et al. 2012)

Exposure

Exposure refers to the inventory of elements in an area in which hazard events may occur. Exposure is employed to refer to the presence (location) of people, livelihoods, environmental services and resources, infrastructure, or economic, social, or cultural assets in places that could be adversely affected by physical events and which, thereby, are subject to potential future harm, loss, or damage (Cardona et al. 2012; Lavell et al. 2012)

Vulnerability

“.. to be vulnerable to an extreme event, it is necessary to also be exposed.....vulnerability refers to the propensity of exposed elements such as human beings, their livelihoods, and assets to suffer adverse effects when impacted by hazard events .... While vulnerability is a key concept for both disaster risk and climate change adaptation...... Vulnerability can be seen as situation-specific, interacting with a hazard event to generate risk” (Cardona et al. 2012)

#Annex II – Description of Agri Adapt project

Agri Adapt was and EU Life funded project between the research institutes of: The Lake Constance Foundation (Bodensee Stiftung- Germany), the Estonian University of Life Sciences, Fundación Global Nature (Spain), Solagro (France). “With the LIFE Agri Adapt project, the project partners illustrate the state of agriculture in Europe in terms of current vulnerability to the effects of climate change, how the climate will develop over the next 30 years, and how farms can reduce their future vulnerability through sustainable adaptation measures”.

Figure 1:Schematic of the activities involved in the Life Agri Adapt project (source: AgriAdapt)

The objectives of Life Agri Adapt project was to show that European agricultural systems, livestock, arable and permeant crop systems could become more climate resilient with more tailored adaptation measure implemented at farm level to make them more feasible and sustainable, as well as crosscutting with other environmental issues. To do this Life Agri Adapt collaborated across Europe with 126 farmers in each of the four main EU Climate Risk Regions. This research was conducted over three years in order to learn, test and support farmer who were implementing adaptation solutions at farm level.

Some key findings of AgriAdpt project relevant for this report were:

Ø EU-wide mandatory sustainable adaptation actions are needed to improve soil fertility

Ø Crop diversification is as important as crop rotation - At least 3 crops in the rotation (farms < 30 ha), at least 4 crops in the rotation (farms > 30 ha)

Ø Reduction of bare soil is a further adaptation measures that is not difficult to implement.

Ø Link sustainable climate adaptation to mitigation and biodiversity

Ø European farmers will have to adapt to a changing climate through measures that must be sustainable and go beyond mere adjustments in current agricultural practices.

Ø To raise awareness and train current and future farmers on sustainable adaptation options at farm level

Ø To promote sustainable adaptation measures among farmers, farmers’ associations, technical consultants, food standard organisations and agricultural assurance companies

Ø To transfer best practices and know-how to political, agricultural and food business stakeholders and contribute to the development and implementation of EU, national and regional policies.

For further information on the project, the project documentation can be found here.

#Annex III – Description of CATCH-C project

The CATCH-C project (Grant Agreement N° 289782) was carried out within the 7th Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration, Theme 2 – Biotechnologies, Agriculture & Food. The EU FP7 CATCH-C project aimed to investigate three major goals of better soil management: productivity, mitigation of climate change, and soil quality, and the potential trade-offs between these three goals. The project wanted to understand how these trade-offs played out in farming systems across Europe regarding their productivity, climate change mitigation and soil quality. The FP7 project was carried out by a consortium of 12 partners, led by Wageningen Research (WR), The Netherlands.

Figure 2:Overview of Farm Type Zones identified in CATCH-C project (Hijbeek et al,2013)

There were several work packages involved in the project, but a major facet of the work involved a farmer survey investigating Best Management practices (BMP) in soil management. This was sent to approx. 10,000 farmers in different farm types across all CATCH-C partner countries, 2520 of whom responded. The BMPs in the farmer survey included management options within the following classes: crop rotation, tillage, nutrient management, crop residue management, water management, and grassland management. In total the survey covered 24 major farm type zones (FTZ), across eight partner countries. An FTZ unit is defined by the combination of an agri-environmental zone (with climate, slope, and soil texture as keys) with a farm type (arable-cereal, arable-specialised, dairy, mixed, etc.) See (Renske Hijbeek, Wolf, and van Ittersum 2013) for further information). This was done to try and identify drivers and barriers that farmers had for either adopting or not adopting BMPs. The surveys were designed and analysed using a behavioural approach based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1988; Ajzen, 1991). The theory and details of the results obtained were extensively reported in Deliverable D4.422 of the CATCH-C project (Bijttebier et al., 2014), further relevant results were published in peer reviewed papers, see (R Hijbeek et al. 2017, 2018, 2019; Vonk et al. 2020). Key results from the CATCH-C project relevant for this report include:

  • Design policies not only for soil quality but also for sustainable soil management[1]
  • Raise awareness among stakeholders
  • Prioritize goals locally
  • Target for more ambitious conservation goals
  • Increase incentives for technical innovations and lifelong learning
  • Invest in scientific base for understanding of soil services

For further information on the project, the project reports can be found here.


[1] because a particular practice to improve an aspect of soil quality may jeopardize other aspects of soil quality, or may conflict with other sustainability goals (e.g., climate mitigation, water quality, bird conservation

#Annex IV - List of reviewed Papers

Table 1:Annex III, Summary table of literature studies used in analysis for this report

No.

Study

Country

Risk Reg.

Paper Focus1

Farming Systems

1

(P Sulewski and LBoczko-Gajewska 2014)

Poland

Cont

CC&AD

(Farm risks)

Crop, Orchards, Mixed, Cattle, Pigs

2

(Woods et al. 2017)

Denmark

Atl

CC&AD

Diverse

 

3

(Nguyen et al. 2016)

Italy

S

CC&AD

Dairy cattle, dairy sheep, beef cattle, rice, horticultural,

4

(Macholdt and Honermeier 2016)

Germany

Cont

CC&AD

Conventional field cropping, (cereals, oilseeds, silage, etc.) with the minority practicing organic agriculture. )

5

(Jänecke et al. 2016)

Germany

Cont

CCA

Diverse

6

(Pröbstl-Haider et al. 2016)

Austria

Cont2

CC&AD

(land use)

Conventional: cash crop, short rotation, grassland/ organic (13%)

7

(Asplund 2014)

Sweden

N

CCA

forest, crop & livestock, crop production only, crop & livestock

8

(Barnes and Toma 2012)

Scotland

Atl

CCA

Dairy farmers

9

(Bojovic et al. 2015)(Bonzanigo et al. 2016)

Italy

S

CC&AD

Vine, maize, grassland & soya, orchards, cereals, horticulture, industrial, other

10

(Cohen et al. 2014) RONCHIL

 

Spain

S

CC&AD

(irrigation)

Olive growers

11

(Tzemi and P. Breen 2016)

 

Ireland

Atl

CC&AD

(mitigation)

Grass based livestock

12

(Graveline and Grémont 2021)

 

France

Atl/S

CC&AD

(irrigation)

Vineyards

13

(Hovelsrud, West, and Dannevig 2015)

Norway

N

CC&AD

 

Farmers (coastal regions)

14

(Ibrahim and Johansson 2021)

Sweden (Øland)

N

CC&AD

 

The majority of these are livestock farmers (beef or dairy producers) and to a much lesser degree sheep and pig farmers

15

(Jørgensen and Termansen 2016)

Denmark

Atl

CC&AD

 

Arable, pig farmers

16

(Käyhkö 2019)

Finland

N

CC&AD

 

Mostly crop farmers, organic farmers

17

(Li et al. 2017)

Hungary

Cont2

CC&AD

 

Arable, mixed, viticulture farmers

18

(Menapace, Colson, and Raffaelli 2015)

Italy

S

CCA

Perennial crops -apple, grapes

19

(Merloni et al. 2018)

Italy

S

CC&AD

 

Perennial crops - wine

20

(Galdies et al. 2016)

Malta

S

CC&AD

 

Crop & fruit cultivation, livestock dairy farmers

21

(Eggers, Kayser, and Isselstein 2015)

Germany

Atl/Cont

CCA

Dairy and ruminant livestock production

22

(Hamilton-Webb et al. 2017)

 

England

Atl

CC&AD

 

Mixed farm, livestock farms arable, horticultural

23

(Hyland et al. 2016)

England

Atl

CCA

(mitigation)

Beef/sheep farmers

24

(Sorvali, Kaseva, and Peltonen-Sainio 2021)

Finland

N

CC&AD

(mitigation)

Broad spectrum of farmers

1.CCA = Climate change awareness /CC &AD = climate change awareness and Adaptation

2.While in the Pannonia region, according to the Agri Adapt it is identified as being in the Continental climate risk region

 

Studies for which the focus is distinguished with bold font and underlined are those which included a soil focus approach

#Annex V - List of excel categories for organising

Author
Publication year
Country
Region
Farm system (s)
Other stakeholders included
Paper focus
Climate change perception of Risk
Climate change Perceived
Climate changes affect them
Notes
Climate Occurrences/Events mentioned
Notes
Adaptation measures
Adaptation measures
Notes
Determining factors for climate perception and adaption measures
Barriers
Drivers
Both depending on context
Notes
Additional notes
Key aspects
Soil explicitly mentioned

#Annex VI – Statement classes and summaries for barriers and drivers

Table 2:Statement classes and summaries identified in reviewed papers which were used to aggregate them to a particular category

Category

Statement classes and summaries

Awareness of CC & Perception of Risks

  • Uncertainty regarding the magnitude of climate changes
  • Awareness of changing environmental conditions
  • Uncertainty of climate changes
  • Lack of awareness of climate change risks
  • Awareness of Climate change agricultural Risks
  • Experience of CC

Access to Information on CC & Adaptation

  • Access to Information on adaptation
  • Better climatic information (e.g., weather forecasts)
  • Access to information
  • Access to appropriately breed Cvs for region (e.g., can deal with ice)
  • Available advisory support (for adaptation e.g., cv choice, soil management)
  • Lack of advisory/knowledge support (on climate change adaptation options)
  • Access to advisory/extension services

Social capital

  • Social capital
  • negative view of social capital
  • Social capital (e.g., Farmer networks and social learning)

Financing

  • Higher percentage of income from agriculture
  • Economic (low price of olive oil)
  • Economics (Risk aversion)
  • Financial
  • Ability to renovate larger storage facilities
  • Access to sustainable financial capital
  • Farm income
  • insurances against natural disasters
  • Investment costs for adaptation
  • Financial assistance or reward schemes
  • Investment costs for adaptation
  • Better financial situation
  • Lack of financial resources to adapt

Policy/regulations

  • Environmental and climate regulations
  • Farming policy regulations
  • Irrigation policy and regulations
  • Policies to support farmers
  • Policy and regulations
  • Lack of clear policy and regulations for adaptation

Relationship & Access to technologies

  • Relationship to technologies
  • Improved (irrigation) technologies
  • irrigation system to cope with drought
  • Training courses (for new technologies)

Other statement classes and summaries were also found, however with a more modest frequency than those added directly into the report (i.e., once). These include: More important worries (e.g., economic situation), Land-Use conflicts, Personality traits of Farmer, Farm Size, Successor, farmers’ “belief in individual vulnerability”, Identifying new opportunities.

To note, in the Woods et al. 2017, only the most significant barriers are mentioned here, although a long list of barriers was suggested to farmers, in the most case they remained neutral to them so difficult to know if they were indeed barrier to adaption.

#Annex VI – CATCH-C Definitions Tillage and Cover crops

Taken from the Catch report of (Bijttebier et al. 2014). Full report can be found: http://www.catch-c.eu/index.php/downloads

Table 3:*Annex VI * - From CATCH-C Report D4.422 definitions for non-inversion tillage and other types of tillage practices applied depending on country and FTZs. Sourced Directly (Bijttebier et al. 2014)

Germany

a tillage system without ploughing. A farmer applies NIT if he does not turn the soil on a particular field plot for at least an entire year

Austria

Tillage without inversion, at a reduced depth (e.g., 5-15 cm), with specific equipment (e.g., grubber/cultivator) only or more than once a year. About 30% of soil cover after seeding (or the incorporation of organic matter >1120 kg/ha).

Poland

a tillage system in which the soil is not turned. Applying RT farmers use specific machines (grubber/cultivator) and do not use plough. In RT about 30% crop residues remaining on the field.

Spain

From one to three plough passes per year without inverting soil profile and performed with a harrow, chisel, cultivator, or similar implement. (FTZ-11P)

Surface tillage (5-10 cm) without soil inversion using a cultivator or a light harrow, every 5-7 years. (FTZ-12C)

France

deep reduced tillage: use of chisel plow or field cultivator at more than 15 cm depth; reduced tillage: use of chisel plow or field cultivator in between 5 and 15 cm depth; strip till: this type of tillage is performed with special equipment, to till up an 8-to-10-inch row, and at the same time incorporate fertilizers or chemicals, and just behind, seed.

Belgium

a tillage system in which the soil is not turned. Alternatively, it is called plough less cultivation. A farmer applies NIT if he does not turn the soil on a particular field plot for a least an entire year while he sows at least one crop during that year. Only applying non-inversion tillage before sowing cover crops but ploughing before the main crop is not considered to be NIT.

Italy

Soil tillage at a reduced depth, using one or more machinery that do not invert the soil, compared to the traditional ploughing that is practiced in the area.

The Netherlands

The soil is not being ploughed for at least one year. Other cultivation methods may be used, such as superficial, mechanical soil loosening operations (disks, chisels, sweeps, etc.)

Table 4:From CATCH-C Report D4.422 where the definitions of cover crops deviated depending on country and FTZs (Bijttebier et al. 2014)

Germany

cover crops

The coverage of the soil during the whole year with either the main crop or a cover crop. Cover/catch crops are harvested or incorporated into the soil. Double cropping (two different crops grown on the same area in one growing season) is here included.

Austria

cover/catch crops, green manure >25%

The growing of different species of crops in a crop rotation with >25% coverage with cover/catch crops. Double cropping (two different crops grown on the same area in one growing season) is here included. Cover/catch crops are harvested. The growing of different species of crops in a crop rotation with >25% coverage with green manure crops. Green manure crops are incorporated into the soil.

Poland

cover crops

The growing of different species of crops sowing after the harvest of the main crop and incorporated into the soil in the spring

Spain

cover crops

Spontaneous or sown vegetation strips along the inter tree rows for controlling soil erosion purposes.

France

cover crops

Soil is covered by specific crops from at least November to March

Belgium

cover crops

The coverage of the soil during the whole year with either the main crop or a cover crop. Cover/catch crops are harvested or incorporated into the soil. Double cropping (two different crops grown on the same area in one growing season) is here included.

Italy

green manure

a specific crop sowing, which is not harvested, but entirely incorporated in the soil, or left on the ground if sod seeding is adopted. The crop residues incorporation is not classifiable as green manure. Sowing and growing a crop, which is not harvested but completely buried (or left on the soil in case of no-tillage). Incorporation of crop residue in the soil is not classified as green manuring.

The Netherlands

green manure

The cultivation of a crop as an alternative for fallow land. The crop is not harvested.

Annex VII – The development of the adaptability scale

Table 5:List of studies and their associated contexts, behavioural assessment method, farmer type and grouping variables

Study1

Country

Farmers

Focus

Method

Farmer Type

Grouping Variables

1

Austria

cash crop1,

srgs

organic (13%)

CCA

Land use

CE

Traditional

Dynamic Large

Land own.

part -time

age

successor

organic orientation

farm size

CC risks

 

2

Scotland

Dairy

CCA

Survey, PCA

Reg Sceptic

Commercial Ecologist

Innovator

Disengaged

Negativist

Positivist

PRM

PO

EO

IB

PCC

NCC

PsCC

SR

3

Finland

Crop

Organic

CC&AD

PMT

Risk aversive

Opportunity seeking

Experimental

 

CC risks

Adaptation intention

Adaptation measures

 

4

Germany

Grass based ruminant livestock

CCA

Survey

Traditionalist

Idealist

Modernist/innovative

yield optimiser

 

Farm size

Part-time

Organic

Bus. Diver

Grassland Int

LPA

Irrigation

FE

GS

OM

5

England

Beef

Sheep

CCA

(mitigation)

Survey, PCA

Environmentalist

Productivist

Countryside steward

Dejected

 

CCA

Env. Respon

Productivism

Perceived Risk

6

Austria

diverse

CCA

MPPACC

Climate change adaptors

 

Integrative adaptors

cost-benefit calculators

Climate change Fatalist

CC appraisal

CCA

CC Risk

Adapt Appraisal

PAE

SE

Adapt Costs

Avoidance

Farm characteristic.

Farm Succession

Reg. Charact

Adapt. Intent

1. Studies are the following: 1= (Pröbstl-Haider et al. 2016), 2= (Barnes and Toma 2012), 3= (Käyhkö 2019), 4= (Eggers, Kayser, and Isselstein 2015), 5= (Hyland et al. 2016), 6= (Mitter et al. 2019).

2.For explanation of acronyms please see list of acronyms and abbreviations

Table 6:Studies which indicated farmers of the “innovation type”

Study

Innovator types

Statements for allocation to this group

(Barnes and Toma 2012)

Innovator

“Innovator” category

(Pröbstl-Haider et al. 2016)

Dynamic Large

Dynamic, innovative large farms

(Käyhkö 2019)

Experimental

Visionary mentality; ‘passion for farming’; ‘innovation farmers’

(Eggers, Kayser, and Isselstein 2015)

Modernist/Innovative

Modernist/Innovative category

(Mitter et al. 2019)

Climate change adaptors

“Belief in CC, AC perceived as high but necessary for future success”

Table 7:Studies which indicated farmers of the “Conservative Type”

Study

Conservative/Traditional

Statements for allocation to this group

(Pröbstl-Haider et al. 2016)

Traditional

Traditional farm” grouping

(Eggers, Kayser, and Isselstein 2015)

Traditionalist

“Traditionalist” Category

(Mitter et al. 2019)

climate change fatalists

“personal characteristics - conservative, trust in habits and traditions”

(Käyhkö 2019)

Risk aversive

“limiting factors for conservative or
careful behaviour”

Table 8:Studies which indicated farmers of the “Profit maximiser”

Study

Profit maximiser

Statements for allocation to this group

(Mitter et al. 2019)

cost-benefit calculators

“the adaptation costs of adaptation

... perceived too high, compared to expected benefits”

(Eggers, Kayser, and Isselstein 2015)

Yield optimiser

“Profit maximization, Efficiency” Farming characteristics

(Hyland et al. 2016)

The productivist

“production dictates

management decisions... primarily as a business, ..... to produce a profit”