Blind spots in agri-environmental governance: some reflections and suggestions from Switzerland

Abstract

Attempts of making our food systems more sustainable have (partly) failed. Food production still contributes significantly to biodiversity losses, global warming and depletion of natural resources. Based on the postulation that this failure in the governance of environmental issues in agri-food systems relates notably to social and cultural aspects, this paper explores the literature in the social sciences looking for explanations. A first statement is that research around agrienvironmental governance (AEG) issues remains globally split into two subgroups, one focusing on public policies and the other on the civil society or market aspects of environmental certification, with very little exchange or transversal analysis between the two. Drawing on the literature and on longterm fieldwork and research in Switzerland, I identify three dimensions of AEG that open new paths towards more sustainable food systems: an encompassing approach of the food system; the encouragement of collective knowledge creation and the promotion of autonomy. Joining other emerging scholarships, this paper calls for developments in the research on AEG that produce encompassing theoretical frameworks, which transcends pre-existing categories in order to allow new conceptualisation of governance practices in complex or hybrid systems. The integration of the food, knowledge and autonomy dimensions should help in creating innovative and transformative governance instruments.

“That’s Me I am the Farmer of the Land”: Exploring Identities, Masculinities, and Health Among Male Farmers’ in Ireland

“…Additionally, many social difficulties associated with farming have been noted, such as balancing work and family and working with multigenerational family members ( Cassidy, 2017 ; Roy et al, 2017 ). Emerging literature ( Burns, 2021 ; Burton et al, 2008 ; Forney, 2016 ; Sutherland & Darnhofer, 2012 ) draws attention to changes in agriculture governance as a critical source of stress for farmers. Specifically, the shift from a “productivist” focus on intensification—associated with negative environmental externalities within large scale farming operations (predominantly cattle feedlots, large-scale poultry and grain operations) to more “agri-environmental” farm practices (e.g., price supports for biodiversity development, upkeep of rivers, reducing greenhouse gases, and animal/plant welfare) has had significant implications for farmers’ work practices and livelihoods.…”

Vulnerability of British farms to post-Brexit subsidy removal, and implications for intensification, extensification and land sparing

“…This in turn may drive land-use change (Terres et al, 2015;van Vliet et al, 2015), viz. some farmers will consider taking on increased environmental responsibilities (Burton, 2014;Forney, 2016;WRO, 2010), some will diversify or seek other forms of income (WG, 2017b;WRO, 2010) and some will de-intensify or downsize the farm business (WRO, 2010). In contrast, some may look to intensify production to compete against a potential influx of large overseas agribusiness companies (Foote et al, 2015;Mansell, 2017).…”

The Return of Wooded Landscapes in Wales: An Exploration of Possible Post-Brexit Futures

“…These two factors directly affect the financial viability of Welsh farming, which in turn drives LULC change [51]. Welsh farmers may consider changing their land management practices to qualify for proposed environmental subsidies [52], may diversify or seek alternative employment, or downsize or de-intensify their farming operation [35]. Hubbard et al [47] show that the total land held on farm holdings in Wales exposed to financial risk as a result of Brexit to be around 700,000 ha (out of the 2.07 million ha total), while ∼3.4 million sheep and ∼77,000 beef cows currently graze on land deemed at risk from subsidy policy change.…”