WP1 – Scoping and Framing of Pathways Towards SFS. D1.2: Mapping lock-ins, interventions and transition pathways to SFS

The ENFASYS project aims to stimulate a just and robust transition to sustainable, productive, climate-neutral, biodiversity friendly and resilient farming systems (SFS) by finding effective policies and business strategies that encourage farmers to change their production systems. In this deliverable, we aim to provide partners, and other researchers, with tools to enable mapping of barriers, interventions, and transition pathways in order to improve our collective understanding of challenges and opportunities for the development of a just and robust transition to sustainable farming systems. Specifically, this deliverable contains 1) an examination of the constructs used by project partners to understand transformation initiatives, and 2) a review of a broad selection of transformation initiatives. The task of finding a shared “understanding of pathways towards SFS by all partners” followed an approach based on personal construct theory, using the initiatives identified in the light touch review process of Task 1.3. Gaining a common understanding, within the ENFASYS consortium of transformation pathways means collating the ways in which the project partners think about transformation pathways in their individual contexts and identifying common and individual constructs. The repertory grid technique was used to identify 107 personal constructs, which were grouped into the 11 thematic clusters. Their correlation with transformation potential was calculated to indicate their relevance for transformation. The resulting structure was discussed in a validation workshop to which all partners were invited to attend. The consolidated structure of transformation pathways will serve as a tool to reflect on i) potentially diverging understandings, ii) the characteristics of the pathways stimulated in case study work, and iii) the existence, or non-existence, of certain pathways in the ENFASYS project overall. The aim of the "Light Touch Review" was to collect and classify relevant case studies from previous and ongoing EU and national projects in order to i) gain insights into the impact, successes and failures of on-going and already implemented initiatives and ii) contextualise the selected ENFASYS case studies. Initiatives were selected according to project partners’ local knowledge and expertise on their domestic agrifood systems. In addition to meeting the definition of a transformation initiative, initiatives were eligible for inclusion on the condition that they directly or indirectly impact farming practice; have ambitions that go beyond the currently dominant farming practices and standards regarding climate, ecology, and social, and/or animal-welfare; and are either located in a European country or are a European-based branch/spin-off of a global initiative. Each partner used a standardised questionnaire to conducted telephone interviews with real world transformation initiatives. A total of 101 case studies were analysed to identify and describe pathways, barriers, behavioural factors, and implemented interventions. The results of the personal construct interviews revealed five main clusters containing constructs that correlate particularly strongly with transformation potential: the degree of stakeholder inclusion, the degree of anchoring in farming, the degree of autonomy and self-determination, the scope of ambitions for change, and the scope of ambitions of reach. The light touch review revealed a range of barriers that hinder initiatives reaching their transformation potential, including technological and knowledge barriers (which are commonly related to insufficient collaboration), an insufficient degree of autonomy (which are commonly related to insufficient resources), regulatory and policy issues, insufficient community support, and a self-imposed narrow scope of ambitions. These activities combine to provide a common understanding of transformation pathways that may be used by ENFASYS project partners in their case study work and by other researchers interested in facilitating transformation to SFS in other contexts. In particular, we recommend that mapping of barriers, interventions, and transition pathways should include consideration of the following factors: initial development, goals and activities, actors and governance, influence and impact, financial support, challenges and external influences, and success factors. The success factors should be examined in particular detail to include the degree of autonomy, policy and regulatory frameworks, collaboration and collective efforts, scope of ambitions, and community support for farmers, along with success factors specific to initiative types.