Abstract: Models integration and possible contrasts with up-scaling activities has received increasing attention in recent years especially with respect to the relationship between farm-economics and biophysical assessments. Current bio-economic models that analyse the trade-offs between farm income and interventions on eco-bio-environmental parameters such as maintenance of biodiversity, reduction of erosion and nitrate pollution and more, include static models. Agricultural systems are facing a series of threats, including climate change, land degradation, price volatility and intensification processes, which put their long-term sustainability into question. The University of Basilicata in collaboration with local representatives from various sectors of production in the Basilicata region of Southern Italy has developed an integrated study to define a model system to assess the dynamics at play in rural territories. The study tested the explanatory usefulness of resilience theory for the Basilicata agricultural social-ecological system, applying the adaptive cycle as a diagnostic tool to explore the dynamics and trajectories of change in the coupled social-ecological systems, and evaluating the performance of social, economic and social capitals, which are subject to the same dynamics. The use of dynamic analysis of the social, economic and natural capitals as the key to interpret the various phases of the adaptive cycle of the two agricultural systems proved a powerful tool in analysing the relationships between resilience and sustainable development in rural territories. The adoption of capitals and their inter-relations proved fundamental to the elaboration of adaptation strategies which were compatible with patterns of sustainability. The adaptive cycle heuristic, despite some methodological difficulties, remains useful to describe processes of change in rural socio-ecological systems. There could be enormous potential in adopting these instruments to help identify of the needs of different territories and help the framing and implementation of rural policies. No Label

Abstract: In this report we summarize the contributions made by four groups to the subject of climate dependent yields. The first is by Waldemar Bojar, Leszek Knopik, Jacek Zarski, Cezary Slawinski, Piotr Baranowski and Wojciech Zarski on the subject of “the impact of extreme climate changes on the forecasted agriculture production”. It presents general characteristics of resources and outputs of agriculture in the Kujawsko-Pomorskie (K&P) and Lubelskie regions, based on statistical databases and the literature review. In this study, some statistically significant dependencies between the climatic parameters and yields of selected important crops in the abovementioned regions were worked out on the basis of empirical survey conducted in the University of Technology and Life Sciences and Institute of Agrophysics in Lublin. Efforts were taken to make integrated assessments of forecasted agricultural outputs influenced by climate extreme phenomena on the basis of the found dependencies’ yields – precipitation and the data coming from wide area model regional outputs such as prices, areas of farmland and yields. The second contribution is by Bojar W., Knopik L. and Zarski J. on the subject of “integrated assessment of business crop productivity and profitability to use in food supply forecasting”. It examines the proposals to build a model describing the amount of precipitation and taking into account periods without rain. This model is based on a mixture of gamma distribution and one point-distribution. The third contribution is by Iddo Kan on the Vegetative Agricultural Land Use Economic (VALUE) model. It discusses the sub-task with respect to crops of statistically estimating with statistical methods predictions of expected crop-yield contingent on climate, soil and production cost for use in existing trade models, or refined versions thereof, and how VALUE can contribute to this sub-task. The fourth contribution was made by Christoph Muller and Richard D. Robertson on the subject of “projecting future crop productivity for global economic modelling”. It supplies a set of climate impact scenarios on agricultural land productivity derived from two climate models and two biophysical crop growth models to account for some of the uncertainty inherent in climate and impact models. No Label

Abstract: Stakeholder engagement in research projects can take a number of forms according to the scope of the project and the purpose of the interaction. L4.2. has focused on comparing different approaches to stakeholder engagement in collaborative projects. This report presents a synthesis of the experiences and lessons learnt through the stakeholder engagement activities of LiveM researchers within MACSUR, within an Italian (Oristano) case study, and within the SOLID (Sustainable, Organic and Low Input Dairying) project. An overview of these examples, and some of the lessons drawn from them, can also be found in the MACSUR paper on stakeholder engagement methods being developed by researchers from all three MACSUR themes (Koenig et al. under production). The first part of this report describes the stakeholder engagement strategy within the SOLID project. Stakeholder engagement methods are analysed through observations of activities and using semi-structured interviews with researchers and stakeholders. Two aspects of the SOLID approach are described – the stakeholder panel and the Future Dairying workshop. Transcripts of the workshop and the contribution of the stakeholder panel to the SOLID annual meeting in Helsinki are included (Appendices 1 and 2), as a contribution to the analysis of workshop outcomes being undertaken within the SOLID project. As part of a wider suite of stakeholder engagement activities, the SOLID stakeholder panel provided an example of how ongoing oversight of scientific outputs and direction by stakeholders can be effective in identifying weaknesses in approach and communication, and in suggesting relevant and effective directions for research activities. The stakeholder workshop demonstrated a useful structure for the exploration of stakeholder concerns, their view of ideal states and their solutions for reaching them. Low participation levels demonstrated the need to understand the motivations that drive stakeholders to engage in such projects, and highlighted the value of developing long-term relationships between stakeholders and researchers that allow scientific research to become an accepted part of practical problem-solving. The second part of the report describes stakeholder engagement activities carried out in the context of one of the MACSUR regional pilot studies (Oristanese case study in Sardinia, Italy). The Oristanese case study demonstrates the potentialities and constraints of participatory methodologies in relation to the different categories of stakeholder involved. It highlights the importance of creating new spaces for dialogue between farmers, researchers and policy makers in order to promote the generation of “hybrid knowledge” (Nguyen et al. 2013) for the emergence of more sustainable and longer-lasting strategies to adapt to CC. This would require the promotion of open knowledge generation platforms where multiple stakeholders are encouraged to participate and make their views heard. These approaches are designed in order to overcome the misalignment between scientists’ suggestions and policy implementation. In the third part of the report, the outcomes of a “learning event” held in Sassari (MACSUR mid-term meeting) with decision makers from different EU countries, are discussed. Finally, some reflections are presented on the importance of involving local stakeholders and decision makers in research projects, of sharing views and knowledge between scientists and stakeholders, and on the pros and cons of different methodologies at the different scales of stakeholder engagement, drawing on all three examples of practice. The research approach analysed includes two important components, which are represented by “transdisciplinarity” (to be included in the macro area of “scientific knowledge”) and “local knowledge”, as fundamental elements to fill the Science and Policy Gap. No Label