agriculture - securing food, livelihoods and the environment
From a farm perspective
Tove Haugland & Josefine Friberg
Miljövetenskap Kandidatnivå 15 hp
VT-2021
Handledare: Göran Ewald och Yahya Jani
Tack
Vi vill först och främst tacka alla lantbrukare som ställde upp och deltog i vår studie och delade med sig av sin tid och sina erfarenheter! Till er kära kursare, vill vi säga tack för att ni har hjälpt oss att göra vår uppsats bättre genom råd, tips och opponering. Vi vill även tacka familj och vänner som tog sig tid att läsa vårt arbete och har varit ett stort stöd. Slutligen vill vi rikta ett stort Tack till våra handledare Göran Ewald och Yahya Jani för vägledning och motivation i vårt arbete, samt Johanna Nygren Spanne för att du alltid finns tillgänglig.
Abstrakt - Swedish
Konventionellt jordbruk har negativa effekter på miljön, såsom markförstöring, förlust av biologisk mångfald och förorening av omgivande ekosystem, vilket kan förvärras av klimatförändringar. Effekterna kan bli mer eller mindre omfattande beroende på om anpassning genomförs. Jordbruket i Sverige styrs av Europeiska- och nationella lagar som anger regler och möjligheter för anpassning genom ekonomiska och rådgivande stöd. Studien syftade till att undersöka vilka konsekvenser klimatförändringarna kan innebära för jordbruket i Sverige, samt hur den teoretiska och praktiska sidan av anpassningsåtgärder tillgängliga genom regelverket, uppfattas på gårdsnivå. Frågeställningen för undersökningen var således: ‘Hur tillräckliga är existerande regelverk i att möjliggöra svenska jordbrukares anpassning till klimatförändringar?’. Forskningsfrågan undersöktes genom en intervjustudie med svenska lantbrukare. Resultatet analyserades genom det teoretiska ramverket Anpassnings-kapacitet som är ett kriterium för att möjliggöra klimatanpassning. Resultatet visade att det existerar hinder inom regelverket som begränsar anpassning på grund av byråkratisk komplexitet samt en klyfta mellan teori och praktik gällande utvecklingen och effekten av åtgärder, vilket gav slutsatsen att regelverkets ansträngningar i att möjliggöra anpassning är överlag otillräckliga. Resultatet visade att ekonomiskt, human- och socialt kapital som ingår i konceptet Anpassnings-kapacitet kan stärkas för att bättre anpassning ska ske. Diskussionen presenterar flera förbättringar för att regelverket ska kunna anta ett gårds-perspektiv för att göra det möjligt för lantbrukare att anpassa sig till klimatförändringarna.
Nyckelord: Jordbruk, Klimatförändringar, Klimatanpassning, Anpassnings-kapacitet, Klimatscenarier, EU:s gemensamma jordbrukspolitik, Landsbygdsprogrammet
Abstract - English
Conventional agriculture has impacts on the environment such as soil degradation, biodiversity loss and pollution of ecosystems, which could be enhanced further by climate change. The effects can be more or less extensive depending on whether adaptation is carried out. Agriculture in Sweden is controlled by EU- and national regulations that set the rules and possibilities for adaptation through financial and advisory support. This study aimed to examine what impacts climate change will impose on the agriculture in Sweden, as well as how the theoretical and practical side of the adaptation measures available through policy regulations, is perceived on farm level. The question of research was: ‘How sufficient are the agricultural policy regulations in enabling Swedish farmers to adapt to climate change?’, which was investigated by interviewing Swedish farmers. The results were analyzed through the theoretical framework adaptive capacity, as a criterion for successfully enabling climate change adaptation. The results showed that several barriers exist within the regulations which can obstruct adaptation due to bureaucratic complexity and a gap between theory and practice in regard to the effectiveness of measures. The results also showed that economic, human and social capital included in the adaptation capacity concept can be strengthened for better adaptation. The discussion presented several points of improvement for regulations to adopt a practical farm-perspective in order to enable farmers to adapt to climate change.
Key words: Agriculture, Climate change, Climate change adaptation, Adaptive capacity, Climate scenarios, Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, Rural Development Programme
List of definitions and abbreviations
CAB - County Administrative Board (Länsstyrelsen). Every county in Sweden has a CAB which is responsible for everything from being an election authority to coordinating regional crisis preparedness. They also work with issues relating to the environment, nature, business, social development, animal welfare, gender equality, integration, transport, infrastructure and housing.
CAP - EU’s Common Agricultural Policy is a partnership between agriculture and society, and between Europe and its farmers. It is the highest level of agricultural regulation for the European agricultural sector.
Climate change - Global and regional changes in the long-term weather conditions, induced by anthropogenic GHG-emissions and land use.
Conventional farming - farming systems that use external inputs such as synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.
CO2- Carbon Dioxide. One of the most important greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
EEA - European Environment Agency. EEA provides independent information on the environment and is a major information source for those involved in developing, adopting, implementing and evaluating environmental policy, and also the general public.
Financial support systems - In this study it refers to the financial support and measures available for farmers in CAP and the RDP and the application, implementation and inspection processes.
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC is the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change.
RCP - Representative Concentration Pathways. Emission scenarios that chart the change in radiative forcing, induced by increased CO2 concentrations, by 2100 relative to pre-industrial conditions of 2.6, 4.5, 6.0 and 8.5 W/m2, respectively.
RDP - Rural Development Programme. The RDP is the EU member states’ national implementation of CAP.
PPM - Parts Per Million. The most common unit to measure CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. PPM is the relation between two gases.
SBA - Swedish Board of Agriculture (Jordbruksverket). The Swedish Board of Agriculture is Sweden's administrative authority in agriculture, fisheries and rural areas.
SMHI - Sweden's Meteorological and Hydrological Institute. Provides planning and decision support for weather and water dependent activities. It is the Swedish society's expert body in meteorology, hydrology, oceanography and climatology.
Organic farming - To be classified as organic, certain criterions need to be fulfilled, e.g. not use synthetic fertilizers or pesticides as production methods.
Table of contents
1. Introduction 8
2. Climate scenarios and their impacts 10
2.1 Chosen scenarios 10
2.2 Increased atmospheric CO2-concentration and its impacts 10
2.3 Average temperature and its impacts 11
2.3.1 Changing conditions for cultivation 12
2.3.2 Pests and weeds 13
2.4 Precipitation and its impacts 13
2.4.1 More precipitation on agricultural systems 14
2.4.2 Less precipitation on agricultural systems 15
3. Farm-based adaptation strategies 17
3.1 Increased precipitation and soil erosion 17
3.2 Temperature increases and droughts 18
3.3 Pests, weeds and diseases 18
4. Policies, adaptation and governance 20
4.1 Supranational level 20
4.2 National level 22
4.3 Critique towards policy regulations 25
4.3.1 Spatial and contextual differences 25
4.3.2 Dependability on support systems/financial difficulties 25
4.3.3 Insufficient knowledge 26
4.3.4 Bureaucracy 26
5. Adaptive Capacity as a necessity for adaptation 28
6. Methodology interviews 32
6.1 Sampling 32
6.2 Execution 33
6.3 Method of analysis 34
7. Result and analysis 35
7.1 Farmers’ implemented adaptation measures and perception of climate change 35 7.2 Information about CAP, RDP, climate change, and climate change adaptation 38 7.3 Theoretical and practical perceptions and and experiences of the policy regulations 39
7.3.1 Uncertainties regarding approval and money 39
7.3.2 Complexity of policies in theory 39
7.3.3 The practical side of regulations 41
7.3.4 A gap between theory and practice 41
7.4 Designing policy regulations according to farmers 43
7.4.1 Better information 43
7.4.2 Clearer aims and more flexibility 44
7.4.3 Support must benefit finance and environment 44
7.5 So, how sufficient are the policy regulations in enabling Swedish farmers to adapt to
climate change? 45
8. Discussion and conclusion 47
9. References 52
Appendix 1 - Sample of informants 57
Appendix 2 - Interview guide in Swedish, with translation 58
Appendix 3 - Example of categorization and translation 59
Appendix 4 - Climate variable, impacts and adaptation measures 60
Climate change creates an increased risk of extreme weather conditions (SMHI, n.d.). The fact became clear in Sweden in the summer of 2018 when a high pressure lingered over Europe for three months, sustaining extensive heat and drought (Wilcke et al., 2020:1107). What many people remember from this dramatic event might be the wildfires rumbling through the Swedish forests. However, the droughts also created adverse effects, such as major crop failure and feed shortage for the agricultural sector (Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet [SLU], 2019:7). The event made it clear that agriculture is dependent on both weather and climate.
Conventional agricultural practices alter agroecosystems and have several negative environmental effects such as soil degradation, pollution of water and the environment, and contributes to loss of biodiversity, which can be enhanced by climate change (Olesen & Bindi, 2002:242; Maracchi et al., 2005:122; Gliessman, 2015:7-15; Pe’er et al., 2020:305). Climate change and its’ impacts on agroecosystems means that the adaptation of agriculture becomes a matter of sustaining global food security, farmers' livelihood, enhancing resilience, and limiting the adverse effects on the surrounding environment (Wilcke et al., 2020:1107-1108; SLU, 2019:7).
There are several policy regulations that decide the orientation of the agricultural sector.
The policy regulations contain financial support systems and related measures which enable farmers to increase their resilience towards climate change. Many farmers today are well aware of the risks posed by climate change (SLU, 2019:8). However, to adequately adapt their production, farmers must have the basic economic, human, social and natural capital to use resources to adapt (SLU, 2019:9; Vanschoenwinkel et al., 2020:143-144), which is referred to as adaptive capacity (Intergovernmental Panel on climate Change [IPCC], 2014:839; Dixon et al., 2014:185; Vanschoenwinkel et al., 2020:143-144). Furthermore, SLU (2019:34) expresses that in addition to knowledge of what concrete adaptation measures that are necessary, research should also be focused towards how to make changes happen, in society and on the farms. Moreover, Vanschoenwinkel et al. (2020:139) mean that adaptive capacity at the individual farm, rather in the sector as a whole, has been identified as critical for successful climate change adaptation.
This is because farmers are not responding sufficiently to recent climate changes. As a result, this study aims to examine what impacts climate change will impose on the agricultural sector in
Sweden, as well as how the theoretical and practical side of the adaptation measures available through policy regulations are perceived on farm level. The question of research is accordingly:
How sufficient are the agricultural policy regulations in enabling Swedish farmers to adapt to climate change? The sufficiency is determined by if the policy regulations enhance adaptive capacity in theory and in practice. The theoretical perspective is presented through an overview of the policy regulations regarding if they contain measures relating to climate change adaptation, as well as through reviewing existing critique towards the policy regulations. The practical perspective is investigated through a qualitative interview study of farmers, to understand their perception of the policy implementation.
This study investigates the aforementioned in Sweden, as Sweden’s agricultural production is expected to gain importance globally in the future. The reason is that other parts of the world's agricultural production will face more extreme impacts from climate change which could decrease yields significantly in the near future, compared to countries in northern Europe (Juhola et al., 2017:28; Bindi & Olesen, 2011:153). Concerning the agricultural regulatory systems, the policy frameworks analyzed are the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union [CAP] and the Swedish Rural Development Programme [RDP]. The study is also limited to include climate change impacts in crop production, hence excluding impacts on animal husbandry.
2. Climate scenarios and their impacts
The following section provides future climate scenarios and the state of knowledge regarding what environmental impacts the scenarios could impose on agricultural production and the surrounding environment.
2.1 Chosen scenarios
A climate scenario is a spatial and temporal representation of what the future climate could be compared to a baseline scenario. It is used to investigate the potential impacts of climate change, which are induced by greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions, land use, and natural climate variability.
The climate scenarios combine climate models with emission scenarios (IPCC, 2001:743-746), which in this case are Representative Concentration Pathways [RCPs]. The RCP-scenarios chart the increase in radiative forcing (W/m2) by year 2100 relative to pre-industrial conditions, induced by Carbon dioxide [CO2]. The different RCP-scenarios are named according to the radiative forcing-increase they represent: RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0, and RCP 8.5 (Wilby, 2017:88). The climate scenarios created by the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute [SMHI], contains scenarios for future temperature- and precipitation levels, the length of the vegetation period, and how these variables differ in the climate scenario for 2071-2100 compared to a baseline period of 1971-2000 according to the emission-scenarios RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 (SMHI, n.d.). The projected CO2-concentrations for these scenarios are 580-720 parts per million [PPM] for RCP4.5 and >1000 PPM for RCP8.5, compared to <330 PPM in 1970 (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], 2021). This study includes RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, because the most relevant data is found within these scenarios, and it accounts for the highest emission scenario and a middle scenario. The use of two scenarios enables variation in the results.
2.2 Increased atmospheric CO
2-concentration and its impacts
Today, humans affect the atmospheric composition through GHG-emissions. One of the most important greenhouse gases is CO2 (SMHI, n.d.). The RCP4.5-scenario shows a moderate increase in CO2 PPM compared to the baseline scenario and RCP8.5 shows a scenario where the concentration has more than doubled (SMHI, n.d.). Solely increased levels of CO2 can have
significant impacts on the agricultural sector (Maracchi et al., 2005:124; Wolf et al., 2015:62-63;
Trnka et al., 2011:2299). Plants use CO2for photosynthesis, and a higher concentration of CO2in the air contributes to an increase in plant growth (Jordbruksverket, 2017:29; Whirén, 2018:65).
For example, the Swedish board of agriculture [SBA] anticipated in 2007 a general increase of harvest with 5% during the coming 25 years, only due to the increase of CO2in the atmosphere (Jordbruksverket, 2017:29). However, the increased CO2 could also promote fertilization and root establishment of weeds, making them less sensitive to herbicide treatments (Whirén, 2018:66). With a more difficult weed situation, the need for herbicides will increase, contributing to negative consequences for both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (Länsstyrelsen, 2011:38;
SLU, 2019:20).
2.3 Average temperature and its impacts
According to RCP4.5, average temperatures may increase by 3-5°C in Sweden, with an even larger increase in winter. This could result in temperatures above 0°C in winter and above 16°C in summer for most parts of Sweden. According to RCP8.5 however, the increase could be significantly larger with average annual temperature increases of 4-7°C. This could result in temperatures above 0-2°C in winter and above 18-20°C on average in summer for the majority of Sweden (SMHI, n.d.). See Figure 1 and Figure 2 for a visualization of the average temperature increases in Sweden for RCP4.5 and 8.5, compared to the baseline scenario of 1970-2000.
Figure 1 - Temperature increases in °C for the future climate scenario 2071-2100, according to RCP4.5. (SMHI, n.d.).
Figure 2 - Temperature increases in °C for the future climate scenario 2071-2100, according to RCP8.5. (SMHI, n.d.).
An increase in temperature could affect the Swedish agricultural sector in numerous ways. The main features are explained in section 3.3.1 - 3.3.3 below.
2.3.1 Changing conditions for cultivation
The vegetation period is defined as a four-day-period of an average temperature above 5°C. The increase in average temperatures as explained in section 2.3 indicates that the vegetation period is likely to occur earlier in the year (SMHI, n.d.). According to RCP4.5, the vegetation period could start approximately 6 weeks earlier in some parts. However, according to RCP8.5 changes could be even greater with a vegetation period lasting for up to 2-3 months longer than the baseline scenario (SMHI, n.d.). This means that the natural climatic constraints for the Swedish agricultural sector, such as the length of growing season and periods of frost could be reduced
(Trnka et al., 2011:2299; Peters et al., 2014:708-709). An extension of the growing season allows earlier planting of crops in the spring and earlier harvests in autumn (Olesen & Bindi, 2002:246;
Moriondo et al., 2010:667; Bindi & Olesen, 2011:153; Iglesias et al., 2012a:43; Gonzaléz-Zeas et al., 2014:1992). This will in turn allow higher yields (Reidsma et al., 2009:36; Wolf et al., 2015:64; European Environmental Protection Agency [EEA], 2019:19; SLU, 2019:21). On the contrary, Moore & Lobell (2014:4) states that an increase in temperature of only 2°C globally could decrease yields by 15-30%, due to excessive heat patterns. Moreover, warmer temperatures will also increase the turnover rate of soil organic matter. Soil organic matter sustains soil fertility, affecting physical, chemical, and biological soil properties (Olesen & Bindi, 2002:246-247; Bindi & Olesen, 2011:153; EEA, 2019:56). Earlier planting and earlier harvest coupled with improved soil health have positive effects on agricultural production. However, if there is too much inorganic nitrogen built up in the soil, the risk for nitrate leaching increases (Olesen & Bindi, 2002:246-247). Trnka et al. (2011:2311) also explains that the increase in yield could be hindered due to natural climatic constraints in Sweden such as solar radiation.
Furthermore, due to global warming, a shift in cultivation zones northward has been recorded in Europe. This means that some crops that are mostly grown in southern Europe will become more suitable for Sweden (Maracchi et al., 2005:124; Bindi & Olesen, 2011:153; Trnka et al., 2011:2299; EEA, 2019:44-45).
2.3.2 Pests and weeds
Apart from possible increases in yields, warmer temperatures are also favorable for insects and pests (Jordbruksverket, 2017:41; Wiréhn, 2018:66; SLU, 2019:22; EEA, 2019:48). One of the reasons is that many insects can complete more reproductive cycles in a warmer climate. Warmer winters also allow pests to overwinter in areas that previously were restricted due to colder temperatures. The result can be greater and earlier pest infestations. Wetter and milder winters are also likely to increase some winter and annual weeds and longer growing seasons can permit summer weeds to grow in regions further north (Peters et al., 2014:708-709).
2.4 Precipitation and its impacts
Due to climate change, precipitation may reach an average annual increase by 10-25% in Sweden according to RCP4.5, with the largest increase in winter and spring by up to 30%.
Assuming the RCP8.5-scenario, the increase could be even larger. Average precipitation levels could, according to RCP8.5, increase by between 15-40%, with above 35% of the increase occurring in winter and spring (SMHI, 2021). Figures 3 and 4 show the annual average changes in precipitation, compared to the baseline scenario of 1971-2000.
Figure 3. Precipitation changes in percentage (%) for the future climate scenario 2071-2100 according to RCP4.5 (SMHI, n.d.).
Figure 4. Precipitation changes in percentage (%) for the future climate scenario 2071-2100 according to RCP8.5 (SMHI, n.d.).
An increase in precipitation could affect the Swedish agricultural sector in several ways. The main features are explained in section 3.4.1 - 3.4.2 below.
2.4.1 More precipitation on agricultural systems
Agriculture is highly dependent on water. Due to climate change, the increase in precipitation caused by stronger gradients of temperature, pressure, and more atmospheric moisture can result
in a higher frequency of extreme precipitation events (Olesen & Bindi, 2002:246-247; Peters et al., 2014:708-709). Excessive precipitation can severely damage crops and it contributes to a significant risk of floods (Wiréhn, 2018:66). Climate change will also modify evaporation, runoff, and soil moisture storage. The runoff from fields due to increased precipitation will accompany an extended need for fertilizer and pesticides which in turn will have negative environmental effects on surrounding bodies of water (Olesen & Bindi, 2002:246-247; Maracchi et al., 2005:129; Bindi & Olesen, 2011:152). The paradox here is that increased precipitation is expected in spring and winter, when there is already an abundance in Sweden, creating an excess that might bring adverse consequences (EEA, 2019:14).
2.4.2 Less precipitation on agricultural systems
On the contrary to increased precipitation, more frequent severe droughts are expected during the summer months (Peters et al., 2014:708-709; EEA, 2019:14; Wilcke et al., 2020:1108). Even though precipitation levels are not expected to decrease during the summer but rather increase slightly, it is vital to consider precipitation in correlation with temperature. As temperatures in summer are expected to increase, evaporation will be higher and counteract the moisture content in soils from precipitation - leading to risk of droughts. According to RCP4.5, some parts of Sweden could experience an average of 30 days of low soil moisture. According to RCP8.5, the total days of low soil moisture may increase to 35-60 days throughout Sweden, compared to 0-15 days with low soil moisture in the baseline scenario (SMHI, n.d.). Droughts can cause crop failure and loss of arable land (Olesen & Bindi, 2002:246; Bindi & Olesen, 2011:154; Peters et al., 2014:708-709).
To summarize, climate change will have a major impact on the agricultural sector in Sweden (Jordbruksverket, 2017:4). There are adverse and positive impacts to be expected which will have cascading effects on the environment and socio-economic conditions, see figure 5 for an overview of the impacts.
Figure 5. An illustrative summary of climate change impacts on the agricultural sector. Increased CO2in the atmosphere can contribute to plant- and weed growth, excessive heat, shifting cultivation zones, longer vegetation periods, pests, and a risk of droughts. Climate change from increased CO2could also increase precipitation, leading to flooding, crop damage, erosion and nutrient leaching.
The predictions of impacts contain a high amount of uncertainty due to several factors (Adger &
Vincent, 2005:400; Jordbruksverket, 2017:36; SLU, 2019:20). The uncertainties are linked to climate change risk assessments, global climate modeling, climate projections, downscaled scenarios, seasonal forecasts and natural climate variability (Wilby, 2017:87-90; SMHI, n.d.).
Consequently, IPCC (2001:741) recommends including more than one climate scenario when assessing potential impacts. Accordingly, this study includes two climate scenarios to reduce uncertainty. However, according to Wilby (2017:134-135) no forecasts are ever 100% certain.
Thus, difficult judgements regarding actions have to be made to act on the imperfect information.
Furthermore, Wilby (2017:134-135) means that acting despite uncertainty in forecasts will lead to managing risk rather than crisis. As the outlook worsens, protection measures could be invoked and finally a response could be implemented, that is - adequate climate change adaptation strategies.
3. Farm-based adaptation strategies
The following section provides a summarized state of knowledge about the most common farm-based adaptation strategies, coupled with the ecological climate change impact they aim to address.
Climate change adaptation is defined by the IPCC as “reductions in risk and vulnerability through the actions of adjusting practices, processes, and capital in response to the actuality or threat of climate change” (IPCC, 2014:513). However, mitigation, adaptation and environmental protection actions in agriculture can occur simultaneously and interactively (IPCC, 2014:522).
Hence, environmental protection and mitigation activities with spill-over effects positive for adaptation are also included in this study.
3.1 Increased precipitation and soil erosion
To battle impacts from excess water, farmers are using several different adaptation strategies around the world. Light tillage or no-till farming increases the organic content in the soil, improving the soil structure, and the water holding capacity and has been shown to reduce yield loss (Iglesias et al., 2012b:157; Juhola et al., 2017:32). Creating field margins such as permeable buffer zones and buffer strips of vegetation can enhance the absorption capacity and promote biodiversity as well as limit nutrient leaching (Iglesias et al., 2012b:157; Juhola et al., 2017:33;
EEA, 2019:82). An additional measure for managing large water volumes is to improve the drainage system. Drainage of agricultural land will help reduce the impacts of flooded fields, reduce waterlogging, increase infiltration, improve soil structure and reduce runoff, and hence counteract erosion (Wiréhn, 2018:67; EEA, 2019:78).
Crop diversification and rotation spreads the risk of losing an entire year’s production, as different crops respond differently to weather and climate (EEA, 2019:82). For example, by introducing intercropping through alternative farming systems such as agroforestry, excess soil moisture can be utilized by plants with varied root depths (Debaeke et al., 2017:03; Rana &
Moniruzzaman, 2021:5). Furthermore, cover crops can significantly reduce the risk of soil degradation, which can be exacerbated by climate change (Debaeke et al., 2017:5). Cover crops can lead to input cost savings for the following cash crop by adding or recovering nutrients. The
green cover with native flora can also benefit the infiltration and retention of water and the development of beneficial microbial masses and biodiversity (Wiréhn, 2018:70; EEA, 2019:80).
3.2 Temperature increases and droughts
A common strategy to adapt to increased temperatures is the modification of the crop calendar.
The strategy can help farmers take advantage of early season moisture and a prolonged growing season, and it helps minimize drought risk periods during grain filling (Iglesias et al., 2012b:155;
EEA, 2019:80). To battle droughts, water management techniques such as rainwater harvest can be useful (Iglesias et al., 2015:119). Rainwater harvesting means to construct and maintain rainwater and storage systems which in turn increases the resilience of a farm to water scarcity and drought (EEA, 2019:79-80). Furthermore, improvement of irrigation efficiency can significantly reduce water use. For example, conducting night-irrigation when evapotranspiration is low could allow soils to hold moist for longer as well as reduce water usage (Iglesias et al., 2012b:157).
Lastly, to shift crops to better fit new climate conditions could reduce the impact of water scarcity and droughts (Wiréhn, 2018:67; EEA, 2019:81). It can, for example, be crops which are commonly grown in warmer climatic zones. However, the introduction of heat- and drought-resistant crops by plant-breeding or genetic modification is a strategy gaining ground in the literature (Bindi & Olesen, 2011:155; Iglesias & Garrote, 2015:119; Debaeke et al., 2017:8;
Gorst et al., 2018:684; Karimi et al., 2018:10; Prakasj Aryal et al., 2020:5054), as new crop varieties can be modified to require less water and withstand longer periods of low soil moisture.
Wiréhn (2018:67) explains that the introduction of modified or adapted crop- and plant varieties should be bred to handle the Nordic light conditions, as this will enhance the positive effects on production from longer growing seasons.
3.3 Pests, weeds and diseases
To battle pests, weeds and diseases several adaptation strategies are suggested in the literature (Iglesias et al., 2012b:158; Juhola et al., 2017:34). One alternative is to increase pesticide application, which could increase the runoff containing harmful substances to the surrounding environment. Introducing pest-resistant varieties that are naturally more resistant to disease and climate change impacts, developing sustainable pesticides or introducing natural predators, could
be a more organic way to deal with pest-related issues (Iglesias et al., 2012b:158; EEA, 2019:84). Moreover, improving disease surveillance and response, increasing the capacity to forecast climate-sensitive diseases can help reduce response times which have the potential to reduce the costs of outbreaks (EEA, 2019:84).
4. Policies, adaptation and governance
The following section provides the state of knowledge concerning the functions of policies and the adaptation strategies they contain. Background information is provided regarding agricultural policy regulations on European- and national level to create an overview of the levels of governance.
Policies at global, national and regional scales offer opportunities to increase the agricultural sector’s resilience to climate change by supporting adaptation (EEA, 2019:24). However, policies cannot adapt a farm to climate change alone, but they are vital in enabling farmers to adapt. Policies are thus considered an aspect which farmers have to take into account in their planning (Juhola et al., 2017:29). Common functions of agricultural policies are to provide basic funding to farmers, implement national adaptation plans (Howden et al., 2007:19694; Iglesias &
Garrote, 2015:120; Juhola et al., 2017:29), provide agro-meteorological advisory and weather warning systems, enable investment in new technology as well as ensure financial support systems like crop- or weather index insurance (Iglesias & Garrote, 2015:120; Wiréhn, 2018:67;
Prakasj Aryal, et al., 2020:5059). These are vital strategies to make farmers take part in the system and prevent them from turning to last outcomes such as quitting farming altogether (Prakasj Aryal et al., 2020:5060). As mentioned above, the development of adaptation strategies needs to be enabled by policy regulations. An example is collaboration between researchers and farmer’s as they possess knowledge of regional conditions (Adenle et al., 2015:273). Other examples are to enable community-based cooperation between farmers to counteract negative competition and strengthen regional capacity to adapt (Prakasj Aryal et al., 2020:5059; Juhola et al., 2017:33) and research and development in genetically modified crops (Adenle et al., 2015:273).
4.1 Supranational level
Globally, several policies highlight the importance of climate change adaptation in agriculture. A few examples are the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, with the commitment to keep the global average temperature increase well below 2°C (EEA, 2019:26) and Agenda 2030 containing 17 goals for sustainable development (SDGs). The relevant goals for the agricultural sector concerning climate change adaptation
include goal 1 - Zero poverty, 2 - Zero hunger, 6 - Clean water and sanitation, 12 - Responsible consumption and production, 13 - Climate action, and 15 - Life on land (United Nations [UN], 2015; EEA, 2019:27). The global goals, frameworks and conventions directly influence the policy regulations on international, national, regional and local levels through advocating for more sustainability and adaptation (EEA, 2019:27).
The highest level of binding regulations for the agricultural sector in the European Union [EU] is CAP (European Parliament, n.d.). The policy was created in 1962 and is evaluated and updated every 7th year. This study focuses on the 2014-2020 version of CAP, as the 2020-2027 version is yet to be published. The current CAP aims to: 1) support farmers and improve agricultural productivity so that consumers have a stable supply of affordable food, 2) ensure that EU farmers can make a reasonable living, 3) help tackle climate change and the sustainable management of natural resources, 4) maintain rural areas and landscapes across the EU and 5) keep the rural economy alive by promoting jobs in farming, agri‑foods industries and associated sectors (European Commission, n.d.). CAP is divided into two sections (pillar 1 and pillar 2), which are funded by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (European Commission, n.d., EEA, 2019:29). Pillar 1 covers direct payments to farmers including seven categories of payments that are either mandatory or voluntary and are legally represented by EU regulations 1307/2013, 1306:2013 and 2017/2393 (European Parliament, n.d.). The categories of payments are:
● ‘Basic payment’ per hectare,
● ‘Greening payment’ for environmental measures,
● Payment for ‘young farmers’,
● ‘Redistributive payment’,
● Additional support for areas with natural constraints [‘ANCs’],
● ‘Coupled support’ for production,
● Voluntary support for ‘small farmers’ (European Parliament, n.d.).
The ’greening payment’ is the payment connected to the environment and climate and consists of three basic requirements: Crop diversification, maintaining permanent grasslands, and maintaining ecological focus areas. These requirements can be replaced in the RDPs by a set list
of ‘equivalent methods’ of the basic requirements (European Parliament, n.d.). All of these support systems are supposed to contribute to the CAP-objectives (Heyl et al., 2020:04). Hence, CAP contributes to climate related objectives through providing farmers with financial support.
Moreover, other EU policies and strategies aimed at adaptation are mainstreamed into CAP. The EU strategy on adaptation to climate change aims to increase resilience to and preparedness for current and future climate impacts by better integrating adaptation actions into different sectors of the EU. Environmental policies in the field of water management and biodiversity further complement CAP and are thus encouraging adaptation actions (EEA, 2019:27).
4.2 National level
Pillar 2 in CAP covers the RDPs which are the national and regional implementation of CAP.
Each EU member state customizes the RDP according to regional needs and conditions, by approval of the European Commission (European Parliament, n.d.). The Swedish RDP exists to develop rural areas in Sweden. The program contains goals that guide rural development. To achieve the goals, there are various supports and compensations for the environment, sustainability and innovation (Jordbruksverket, 2021). The different supports and compensations are chosen from a set menu included in the second pillar of CAP. Several of the supports directly regard - or can be used for climate change adaptation (European Parliament, n.d.). Hence, adaptation measures are included in the Swedish RDP directly, but also indirectly through the promotion of farmers' capacity to adapt through e.g., knowledge transfer and cooperation and spillover effects from environmental protection and mitigation measures, on adaptation.
The compensation and support systems within the RDP receive their funding from EAFRD. The RDPs receive about 20 percent of the CAP budget (EEA, 2019:73). The Swedish state also funds the national RDP which had a total budget of SEK 37 billion during the period 2014-2020. About 62 percent were supposed to go to environmental and climate objectives (Jordbruksverket, 2021).
The Swedish RDP is divided into six areas of prioritization (Jordbruksverket, 2019a:7) where five have been interpreted to be relevant for adaptation: 1) Promote knowledge transfer and innovation in agriculture and forestry and the countryside, 2) Improve the profitability and competitiveness of all types of agricultural holdings and all regions, as well as promoting innovative agricultural technologies and sustainable forestry, 3) Restore, preserve and promote
ecosystems linked to agriculture and forestry, 4) Promote resource efficiency and support the transition to low-carbon and climate-resistant economics in agriculture, 5) Promote social development and create economic development in rural areas (Jordbruksverket, 2019a:8).
Furthermore, there are several compensations- and support systems included in the Swedish RDP to reach the overall objectives of CAP. The following are a selection of the support systems chosen from the set menu in the second pillar of CAP, interpreted to promote adaptation:
● Support for competence development,
● Support for counseling services,
● Investment support (includes environmental investments),
● Agricultural and business support,
● Support for service, infrastructure and to create an attractive countryside (includes support to environmental investments, restoration of wetlands, and support for implementing two-step ditches,
● Support for environmental and climate friendly agriculture (includes environmental investments in and restorations of pastures and hay meadows, and to build protection zones,
● Support for conversion and reimbursement for organic production
● Reimbursement for animal welfare,
● Grants to support cooperation (such as innovation projects, development and pilot projects, cooperation between stakeholders, cooperation about environmental protection work, and information),
● Financial resources can also be granted to LEADER-programmes, which are locally led groups aimed towards information gathering, innovations, projects and solutions within areas of concern for the particular region (Jordbruksverket, 2019a:8).
The support systems can be applied for by the individual farmer to build capital to be more resilient towards pressures such as climate change. In Sweden, it is the SBA and the County Administrative Boards [CAB] who are dealing with the work of granting support and benefits included in the RDP. CAB is the main supervisory authority and is also responsible for the RDP control mechanisms (Jordbruksverket, 2019a:08). The control of the RDP is performed through
specific regulations, detailed instructions to the controllers, and sets of indicators for evaluating how successful the implementation has been (Eksvärd & Marquardt, 2018:190). To choose the most relevant applications towards the program's prioritizations, there are specific national and regional selection criteria and for every selection criterion, there is a scoring system. The applicants must provide enough information for the CAB to set a score and thus evaluate if the applicant will receive funding for the investment support applied for (Jordbruksverket, 2019a:11-12). Furthermore, there are regional action plans, that is strategies about how the work is conducted at a regional level to reach the overall objectives of national RDP for the given program period. In the action plans, the regional CAB adapts the program to regional conditions.
The prioritizations are identified through a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis and cooperation between experts and relevant stakeholders (Länsstyrelsen Stockholm, 2020:02). Finally, the policy context is within a multi-level governance structure enabling interactions between levels as illustrated by the schematic model below (Figure 6).
Figure 6 - Schematic model describing interactions within the agricultural multi-level governance structure. Climate change affects agriculture and is thus included in global policy-goals. This in turn affects the EU-policies which are implemented nationally through national and regional programmes. The higher instances decide farm-level implementation of adaptation strategies. Farmers can influence the levels above through interest organizations.
Parallel to international and national policies, non-governmental interest organizations on national and subnational level exist as an intermediary through which farmers' opinions can be carried to higher levels (Jordbruksverket, 2021).
4.3 Critique towards policy regulations
4.3.1 Spatial and contextual differences
Even though there are clear ambitions from the 2014-2020 CAP and Swedish RDP to commit towards adapting the sector to climate change, there seem to be common opinions among scholars that vital elements to do so are missing (González-Zeas et al., 2014:1992; Eksvärd &
Marquardt, 2017:203; EEA, 2019:86; Vanschoenwinkel et al., 2020:143-144).
The ecological, environmental, and socio-economic effects of climate change and the conditions regarding adaptation differ between regions. In Sweden there are great differences in development and local climate (Jordbruksverket, 2019b:79). According to Riksrevisionen (2018:40), identifying regional needs has been low prioritized and ignored regarding business support and allocation of funds in the RDP. González-Zeas et al. (2014:1992) and Wolf et al.
(2015:67) mean that it is highly important that policies account for the regional differences. In accordance, EEA (2019:86) states that policymakers should work with researchers, practitioners, and farmers who possess regional expertise to target subsidies relevant for local conditions. In a similar manner, Kuhmonen (2018:693) means that through transdisciplinary collaboration across domains, fields of science and stakeholder groups (e.g., farmers and policymakers), solutions to policy problems could be identified. Furthermore, according to González-Zeas et al.
(2014:1992), each farm has different conditions regarding its economic, social, and natural environment which means that there needs to exist flexibility in the implementation process of relevant measures to reach effective implementation (González-Zeas et al., 2014:1992). This stands in stark contrast to the fixed set of practices as we see in the 2014-2020 version of RDP and CAP (Eksvärd & Marquardt, 2017:203).
4.3.2 Dependability on support systems/financial difficulties
Profitability is generally low in Swedish agriculture (Jordbruksverket, 2020:34). Farmers are therefore highly dependent on support to achieve a tolerable income which in turn leads to
financial vulnerability. In the long run, it contributes to a weak willingness to invest in for example climate change adaptation measures (Eksvärd & Marquardt, 2017:198; Jordbruksverket, 2020:34). Another reason for a low willingness to invest could be that the support payments paid out by the SBA often are delayed for several months beyond the due date, adding another degree of economic insecurity (Eksvärd & Marquardt, 2017:198). As mentioned previously, national and EU policies influence farmers' ability to cope with climate change. However, policies can also constitute barriers as they have limited flexibility in terms of implementation for the individual farmer (Vanschoenwinkel et al., 2020:152). Another type of barrier to adaptation can according to Lipińska (2016:95) be the scale of government actions such as disaster reliefs in terms of tax reliefs or aid measures as they can trigger farmers inaction. Therefore, what needs to be emphasized is that ad hoc measures should be dependent on taking some specified, preventative measures within the farm in advance.
4.3.3 Insufficient knowledge
Farmers are to a large extent aware of the growing impacts of climate change, however, advice on which measures to implement for better adaptation at the farm level is still needed (EEA, 2019:33). The SWOT analysis of the 2014-2020 RDP states that there is a weak knowledge system: “To be able to deal with the threat posed by climate change, new knowledge, investments in new solutions and maintenance of existing buildings and infrastructure are needed” (Jordbruksverket, 2020:65). According to the Swedish RDP (Jordbruksverket, 2019:53-55), it is difficult to design efficient measures because there is a lack of research and distribution of the results about the effects of the environmental measures, to farmers. In Eksvärd and Marquardt's (2017:197) interview study, it was also concluded that the farmers that could deal with the bureaucratic control situations were those who were highly educated or had previous experiences with the support system.
4.3.4 Bureaucracy
The interpretation of rules within the CAP and RDP can hamper development (Jordbruksverket, 2020:40). If the overall goal of the measure is achieved, the farmers will still have to expect to pay back the money if the detailed technicalities are not met, which decreases the willingness to apply. Some farmers in Eksvärd and Marquardt’s (2017:202) study fully or partially stopped
applying for RDP grants as it was perceived as not worthwhile. The difficulties in following the policy regulations and the hard monitoring compliance can even make farmers give up farming (Eksvärd & Marquardt, 2017:202 & 196; Riksrevisionen, 2018:40). Juhola et al. (2017) even states that: “Currently, agricultural policies and regulations are perceived as a greater adaptation challenge than climate change” (Juhola et al., 2017:28). Similarly, SLU (2019:14) explains that financial stress is a reality for many farmers. Long waiting times for payments and the uncertainty of knowing whether their applications will be approved or whether any mistakes will be found can create major drawbacks. An explanation is according to Riksrevisionen (2018:59-63) that the funds to cover administrative costs are not enough and are a reason for the long processing time, i.e., there are limited resources available for the agencies. Finally, according to Grigoryan et al. (2019:50-51), the interest and utilization of several of the supports in the Swedish RDP are low. The above constitutes fundamental flaws which could be one explanation.
5. Adaptive Capacity as a necessity for adaptation
This section provides the theoretical framework which is used to analyze the empirical findings to investigate how sufficiently regulations enable climate change adaptation in the agricultural sector.
Even with an adaptive friendly policy framework, adaptation at the farm level does not necessarily take place (EEA, 2019:86). The lack of adaptation is due to several factors. Some scholars on the subject agree that there needs to be a capacity to adapt (Adger & Vincent, 2005:400; IPCC, 2014:19; Dixon et al., 2014:187). Human societies have adapted to changing climate throughout history, yet it is commonly asserted that future climate changes will push beyond the limits of autonomous adaptation (Adger & Vincent, 2005:400). Forthright, farmers need to possess certain resources to combat future challenges, which is often referred to as adaptive capacity (Vanschoenwinkel et al., 2020:139). In the context of climate change, IPCC defines adaptive capacity as: “The ability of systems, institutions, humans and other organisms to adjust to potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to respond to consequences of climate change” (IPCC, 2014:118).
The link between adaptive capacity and vulnerability is important as vulnerability is considered a function of the exposure and sensitivity of the system to hazardous conditions and the capacity of the system to cope, adapt or recover from the impact of those conditions.
Adaptive capacity is thus regarded as a means of reducing vulnerability, in this case to climate change (Jakku & Lynam, 2010:7), see figure 7.
Figure 7. A visualization of Adaptive capacity and its components, showing how exposure to climate change and sensitivity of the system creates the severity of potential impacts. The potential impact coupled with adaptive capacity will determine the vulnerability or resilience of the system to the potential impact.
There are several features linked with the concept, such as differences in local conditions (sensitivity and exposures) making it quite complex. Therefore, only the key feature - access to resources (Jakku & Lynam, 2010:8; Engle, 2011:649; Dixon et al., 2014:184; Vanschoenwinkel et al., 2020:143-144) are included in this study and together with the state of knowledge constitute the theoretical framework. The resources can be divided into different types of capital (Cf. Engle, 2011:648; Dixon et al., 2014:185; Vanschoenwinkel et al., 2020:143-144). The amount of capital found among farmers will determine their access to resources which need to be high to achieve comprehensive adaptation. Below are the definitions of the capitals used to analyze the empirical findings.
Economic capital refers to economic wealth and diversity, infrastructure, and technology (Jakku & Lynam, 2010:8). The economic capital sets the standard of what investments can be made in for example new technology and infrastructure for a region or the individual farmer (Jakku & Lynam, 2010:8; Vanschoenwinkel et al., 2020:143-144). If there is a lack of resources for investments, the implementation of long-term adaptation measures can be difficult (EEA, 2019:86). According to Vanschoenwinkel et al. (2020:146), the northern European countries have relatively high adaptive capacity in terms of economic capital, namely high gross domestic product per capita, access to technological resources, and infrastructure.
Human capital refers to the ability, awareness, expertise, and knowledge to use resources (Vanschoenwinkel et al., 2020:143-144; Jakku & Lynam, 2010:8). According to Jordbruksverket
(2019b: 42) the level of human capital decides the ability to assimilate, use and generate new knowledge and technology. The human capital also determines the conditions for productivity and competitiveness within a company or business. According to EEA (2019:86) it is critical that knowledge and experience about adaptation in the agricultural sector are shared between regions, different levels of governance and farmers as climatic conditions are changing. Accordingly, IPCC (2014:840) states that it is important to include people with different knowledge, experience, and backgrounds to reach a shared approach to combat challenges from climate change. According to Jordbruksverket (2019b:43) there is a generally high human capital among Swedish farmers which is based on the fact that there is quite a high level of education in Sweden, although there exist regional differences.
Social capital refers to networks, partnerships, norms and trust (Jakku & Lynam, 2010:8).
The amount of social capital is high if communities' have the ability to act collectively in the face of threats posed by climate variability and change. In a similar way, the social capital is high if there is a high trust in agencies, organizations, and institutions (Engle, 2011:649; EEA, 2019:86).
For example, there needs to be trust in supranational and national institutions among farmers to rely on proposed adaptation measures (EEA, 2019:86). If the same institutions fail to plan for risks to the agricultural sector, the trust is limited and the vulnerability to exposures increases (Adger & Vincent, 2005:401). According to Jordbruksverket (2019b:53), Sweden has strong local networks and thus strong social capital in comparison with other member states in the EU.
The challenge to use adaptive capacity in a meaningful way is to define the concept and to find standard determinants at various levels (Adger & Vincent, 2005:400). One could claim that in order to use adaptive capacity as a determinant of adaptation, the concept needs to be standardized. However, different research on the subject uses different definitions of adaptive capacity (Cf. Jakku & Lynam, 2010:8; IPCC, 2014:19:139; Vanschoenwinkel et al., 2020:139), making it difficult to account for all determinants. The paradox is visible in this study as well. By using adaptive capacity as an analytical tool, vital aspects had to be excluded, for example, one definition is used, and the determinant of natural capital, i.e., biophysical endowments and natural resources (Jakku & Lynam, 2010:8) available on the far. The natural capital had to be excluded due to the limited availability to physically visit farms for assessments due to the Covid-19 pandemic. There are also more determinants of adaptive capacity than those mentioned above, such as access to risk spreading mechanisms and the public's perceived attribution of the
source of stress and the significance of exposure on the local environment. However, many of these variables are hard to account for (Adger & Vincent, 2005:402). Therefore, the concept is limited to include economic, human and social capital as we find these aspects to be key in this study to operationalize farmers' perceptions of mechanisms available to adapt to climate change - to investigate how sufficient policy regulations are at enabling adaptive capacity and hence, adaptation.
6. Methodology interviews
This study aims to examine what impacts climate change will impose on the agricultural sector in Sweden, as well as how the theoretical and practical side of the adaptation measures available is perceived on the farm level. Through analyzing available literature on the subject an understanding was gained of the situation from a theoretical point of view. However, by interviewing farmers, a practical perspective is included. The qualitative interview method used in this study aims to answer the research question: How sufficient are the agricultural policy regulations in enabling Swedish farmers to adapt to climate change? We chose a qualitative method as we perceive the farmers as being part of a social context of regulations, state of knowledge, and discourses regarding the agricultural activities that are continuously changing, hence we adopt a constructionist ontological approach (Bryman, 2012:33). The method has an interpretive approach, as the study aims to inductively interpret how individuals, in this case farmers, perceive their social reality. Hence, the study has a hermeneutic epistemological approach (Bryman, 2012:28). The interview study was inspired by the design of Eksvärd and Marquardt's (2017) study where Swedish farmers were interviewed about the response to the agri-environmental protection activities included in the RDP. Eksvärd and Marquardt (2017) manage to capture a holistic picture of the system and identify issues experienced on a farm level which are not accounted for by the policy regulations.
6.1 Sampling
The sample for this study included 10 conventional and organic farmers in different Swedish regions with crop production as main activity. The sample size (10 farmers) was assessed to reach empirical saturation as described by Bryman (2012:421), considering the given time frame, the length of the interviews and the diversification of opinions expressed by informants. To find relevant informants, a purposive selection following Bryman (2012:418) was conducted. The selection was made through the social media platform Facebook (2021), where an open request was sent out in various farming-groups on the platform. Furthermore, some informants were collected through snowball sampling following Bryman (2012:424) and were thus contacts collected through previously interviewed farmers. The selection of informants was based on a set of criteria (Bryman, 2012:419), including that they had active businesses and that they had experience with national- or EU-support systems for farmers. See appendix 1 for a table of the
informants included in this study and their anonymous identification codes. Furthermore, it is difficult to generalize the results of this study to e.g., all Swedish farmers as a relatively small sample has been used (Bryman 2012:390). However, our aim is not to generalize the results to answer for all farmers, rather highlight qualitative insights from individual farmers that could be of interest both within this particular field of research and beyond academia, for example for policymakers.
6.2 Execution
The interviews were semi-structured as an interview guide was used (a detailed interview guide is presented in appendix 2), and because some questions in the guide could generate follow-up questions depending on the answer, in accordance with Bryman (2012:471). The questions included in the interview guide were influenced by the findings in the state of knowledge and background sections and were created as outlined by Bryman (2012:476-480). The interview guide included specific background- and main questions relating to; i) production; ii) climate change adaptation on their respective farms; iii) experience of the support system and implementation of the CAP and RDP measures, as well as opinions and suggestions of improvement. The informants were interviewed through the video meeting software Zoom (n.d.) and not in person due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
The reliability and hence the authenticity is partly about ensuring that the study provides a fair view of the informants (Bryman, 2012:393). The authenticity was achieved by allowing the informants to sign a contract of consensual participation, containing a brief summary of the study and information about their right to withdraw consent, not answer certain questions, or abandon the interview at any time. This ensured the informants’ right to withdraw any material giving a wrongful view of their opinions. The interviews were recorded with a portable dictaphone and transcribed as described by Bryman (2012:482). The recordings, transcription, and personal information of the informants were processed following the principles of General Data Protection Regulation [GDPR] (Regulation 2016/679). To maintain anonymity, each farmer was given an individual ID number for example “Farmer 1” (F1), which they are referred to. The interviews and transcriptions were performed in Swedish but chosen citations were translated into English. Examples of translations can be found in Appendix 3. Furthermore, the method design of interview studies can be difficult to replicate (Bryman 2012:390), as the study is
context-specific. In this case it is specific in regard to national agricultural policy regulations.
Thus, to replicate the study, some factors have to be adjusted, such as to include the relevant RDP and CAP objectives. According to Bryman (2012:390), the researchers can also choose to focus on what they consider to be important while other researchers can believe that other subjects are more meaningful to study. This study counteracts the lack of replicability by providing the interview guide used in Appendix 2.
6.3 Method of analysis
The method of analysis was based on Lindgren's (2014a:45-61) descriptions of coding, categorization, and Lindgren's (2014b:73-86) descriptions of summarization of qualitative interviews. The process was semi-deductive, as codes were identified in the transcriptions as a result of breaking down the aim of the study into headlines. Thereafter, the codes were processed inductively into specific categories, to account for the different opinions expressed by the informants. Moreover, the results of the coding process were operationalized using the state of knowledge, background as well as theoretical framework to answer the research question, in accordance with Hjerm (2014:94). Citations, interpretations of citations, and the categories used are presented in a table in appendix 3.
The interview method touched upon how farmers perceived provided adaptation measures. To investigate this, an interpretive approach was used as mentioned above. However, interpretations can have different outcomes depending on who the interpreter is, which can cause a lack of dependability, thus limiting the reliability (Bryman, 2012:392). By attaching examples of our interpretations of the citations in appendix 3 and by using an auditing approach the results of this study can be cross-examined and thus the reliability increases.
7. Result and analysis
7.1 Farmers’ implemented adaptation measures and perception of climate change
In the interviews, some farmers expressed concern about climate change impacts affecting their production (F3, F5, F7). F5 have been concerned about climate change impacts for several years, stating: “I got the question about what the biggest risks I have as a farmer in 2015 and I answered it to be either drought or excess precipitation” (F5, 2021). However, several farmers had not seen any major changes in climate or had any major impacts from climate change (F1, F2, F8, F9). Some farmers mentioned a longer vegetation period, which enabled F1, F2, and F10 to introduce new crop and plant varieties. As stated by several scholars (Maracchi et al., 2005:124; Bindi & Olesen, 2011:153; Trnka et al., 2011:2299; EEA, 2019:44-45), a shift in cultivation zones northward can be expected due to climate change, thus, some crops that are mostly grown in warmer regions will become more suitable for Sweden. This has been utilized by F10 who have chosen to try out a new plant variety which is more commonly cultivated in warmer regions:
The other big thing is the sweet potato, as it has gotten warmer, it's still a little too cold for it to go as well as it does in America [...] it is possible that it will work better in the future, but today it is still small-scale, and it takes a lot for it to be large-scale (F10, 2021).
A more commonly used adaptation strategy was to modify the crop calendar to take advantage of the positive effects of climate change (F1, F2, F3, F4, F6, F7). F3 explained: “[...] before, we sowed in early August, but we have moved forward so that we have our limit on September 1st”
(F3, 2021). According to Reidsma et al. (2009:36), Wolf et al. (2015:64), and SLU (2019:21) the extension of the growing season allows earlier planting of crops in the spring and earlier harvests in autumn, which in turn allows higher yields.
One farmer (F5) used light tillage as an adaptation strategy to enhance their resilience to climate change: “We are not ploughing to ground, we only use superficial tillage [...]” (F5, 2021), which according to Iglesias et al. (2012b:157) and Juhola et al. (2017:32) is used as a strategy to combat impacts from excess precipitation. Although, even if F5 has implemented light-till farming, concerns were mentioned regarding unpreparedness: “I have not been able to
increase the soil quality yet to be more resilient against drought, therefore I can’t be resilient towards excessive precipitation either” (F5, 2021). However, F5 hoped that the soils will be improved over time as the strategy only has been used for a short time.
Many farmers mentioned that they already had drainage systems implemented since far back. This management technique is implemented to transport excess precipitation from fields to avoid flooding (Iglesias & Garrotte, 2015:119; Wiréhn, 2018:66). F1, F2, F3, F5, and F7 were considering updating their drainage systems to handle excess precipitation better. F8 explained that drainage systems need continuous maintenance and if the drainage systems are not in a good shape, extreme weather events can have severe effects on crop production:
We have improved our drainage systems as drainage does not last forever, only about 40 years, although it is actually continuous work. Because if you end up behind with it, that's when the extreme years get bad. Good years are easy not to notice, but bad years are immediately noticeable (F8, 2021).
The use of cover crops is a strategy that can lead to input cost savings, for the following cash crop by recovering nutrients. The green cover also reduces the risk of soil degradation and benefits water infiltration and biodiversity (EEA, 2019:80). Three out of ten farmers (F1, F2, F5) mentioned that they use cover crops as a strategy. Irrigation is a strategy used to combat droughts (Peters et al., 2014:708-709; EEA, 2019:14; Wilcke et al., 2020:1108). Only two of the farmers mentioned a need for irrigation (F8, F10). The reason is that these farmers farm on land with high sand content, which results in less water holding capacity compared to clay-soils: “There are sandy soils all around [...], so we have expanded irrigation systems, so a lot of water is used, especially now after these drought years” (F10, 2021). F8 has also implemented elevated growing beds as a measure to handle excess precipitation: “Today we sow on benches instead [...], where everything is elevated. That way, the water is removed from the crop” (F8, 2021).
This was however not implemented primarily as an adaptation strategy, merely to increase the plant production capacity. Furthermore, F5 has introduced an alternative farming system,
‘regenerative farming’, which according to F5, means to keep the ground green all year round and not to plough the ground intensively. Two farmers had not implemented any specific adaptation strategies at all (F7, F4). For a visual illustration of the adaptation strategies used by the interviewed farmers, see diagram 1.
Diagram 1. Descriptive statistics over the utilized adaptation strategies by the interviewed farmers out of the most common farm- and policy-based climate change adaptation strategies.
As diagram 1 shows, the mentioned climate change adaptation strategies above are limited to changing time of sowing (F1, F2, F3, F4, F6, F7), changing type of vegetation or crops (F1, F2, F10), light tillage (F5), considering or has already improved the drainage systems (F1, F2, F3, F4, F6, F7, F8), cover crops (F1, F2, F5), irrigation (F8, F10), and alternative techniques such as elevated vegetable beds (F8) and alternative farming systems (F5). Two farmers have not adapted their production at all (F9, F4). This means that many of the strategies presented in chapter 3 are not utilized by the interviewed farmers. This can be interpreted to be due to limited awareness of climate change impacts. Hence, if the human capital (Jakku & Lynam, 2010:8) among the informants were high, one can argue that more preventative strategies would have been implemented to secure production towards adverse effects from climate change. According to EEA (2019:86), knowledge and experience about adaptation in the agricultural sector must be shared with farmers because of the changing climatic conditions, to sufficiently adapt. Other reasons can be that the farmers operate under different farm conditions which means that they need different strategies in different places or that they have not yet perceived a need for adaptation.
7.2 Information about CAP, RDP, climate change, and climate change adaptation
When the farmers were asked if they received any information about the measures included in CAP and the RDP, how climate change is affecting their production and about how to adapt, a few farmers expressed that the information is easily accessible (F4, F6, F7, F9). However, F10 explained that the information about climate change adaptation can be improved:
It is something that can be much better [climate adaptation information], there is not much written about it in the industry or in industry magazines about what measures, for example about new plant varieties. [...] However, it is a long-term job, so it is difficult to say that 'in 20 years you may need this or that', you may already need it in 5 years (F10, 2021).
If the farmers are not provided with adequate information about how climate change is affecting their production and about how to adapt their production, the human capital is bound. Human capital refers to the ability, awareness, and knowledge among farmers to use resources to adapt (Jakku & Lynam, 2010:8; Vanschoenwinkel et al., 2020:143-144). Moreover, F5 expressed the difficulties about advising when there are uncertainties involved:
It is difficult to give advice on something that is preventive. It's a bit like being a doctor, it's easy to prescribe a medicine or a pill, but it's very difficult to say that someone has to change their lifestyle, this is the same way (F5, 2021).
As F5 stated, there exist several uncertainties regarding the severity of local impacts of climate change (Wilby, 2017:87-90; SMHI, n.d.). No forecasts are ever 100% certain and therefore, difficult judgments have to be made despite the uncertainties to deal with risks rather than a situation of crisis (Wilby, 2017:134-135). Moreover, the uncertainty in climate impacts and projections are accounted for in this study by using two climate scenarios following IPCC (2001:741), where both of the scenarios reveal changes in climatic conditions which will create impacts on agricultural production (SMHI, n.d.).
