By Dr. Tim Sandle
EDITOR AT LARGE SCIENCE
DIGITAL JOURNAL
September 8, 2025
Despite the challenges, the organic farming sector has surged in Tunisia since the turn of the millennium - Copyright AFP/File STR
Farmers should redesign agricultural systems by prioritising resilience over efficiency and supporting farmers through gradual, practical transitions rather than forcing them to choose between conventional and organic farming extremes. This is according to Saskia Visser (Land use, agri-food and sustainable bio-economy orchestrator at Climate KIC).
According to Visser there are different philosophical positions taken for food production: “There’s no shortage of opinions when it comes to the future of agriculture. Across Europe and beyond, the debate is often framed as a clash of philosophies: on one side, the chemical-intensive, efficiency-maximising model of conventional farming; on the other, the organic, regenerative, agroecological movements fighting to restore balance and sustainability.”
For Visser this binary framing oversimplifies the challenge and threatens to slow progress at the very moment we need to accelerate it. In her opinion, the process requires change, starting not with ideology, but with design.
Resilience first, not efficiency first
Visser’s concept of change begins with identifying the problem: “Today’s dominant agricultural systems have been designed to optimise efficiency above all else. And that narrow focus has come at enormous cost: to ecosystems, to communities, and to the farmers themselves.”
She proposes a new hierarchy for redesigning food systems:Resilience
Sufficiency
Efficiency
In terms of interpreting these:
Resilience comes first. Not just climate resilience, but social, inspirational and economic resilience too. Can this farm survive the next flood, heatwave, or price shock? Can the farmer earn a dignified income? Can the next generation imagine themselves thriving in this profession?
Next, sufficiency. Are we producing enough, without over-extracting from people or planet? Are we staying within planetary boundaries while meeting social expectations, such as fair wages and clean water? Do we respect local cultures and values?
Only once these two are secured should we talk about efficiency: how we deliver what’s needed with precision, innovation, and as little waste as possible.
Visser says: “This may sound intuitive. But when we look at how most policies, technologies, and debates are structured, we find the reverse: a race for efficiency that often undermines resilience and skips the critical question of what ‘enough’ really means.”
The danger of extremes and the power of first steps
Visser notes that change needs to be controlled: “Too often, the pressure to pick a side: organic or conventional creates paralysis. Farmers feel accused, communities feel divided, and the result is resistance, not transformation. Real change doesn’t start with moral judgment. It starts with small, credible steps that invite farmers on a journey, not away from who they are, but toward what’s possible.”
As an example, she discusses Farm Gebroeders Ham in the Netherlands. This is a 100-hectare farm began its transition by converting just two hectares to a self-harvest garden.
Visser states: “That modest shift not only matched the income from the remaining 98 hectares of monoculture onions in rotation with sugar beets; it also inspired the farmers to imagine more, explore alternative uses of fertilizer at the remaining 98 hectares, open a farm shop and educate young children about the food that grows on the farm. Small steps, well supported, can be catalytic.”
This builds on the design principles of resilience, sufficiency, and efficiency. Visser says these “sit within this broader frame, and they must include space for creativity, curiosity, and entrepreneurship; eventually providing the 4 returns: inspiration, environment, social wellbeing, and economy.”
Shared responsibility, systemic impact
In terms of achieving this, Visser finds: “The resilience–sufficiency–efficiency model works best when it’s supported throughout the food system, not just by farmers, but by every actor in the value chain.”Farmers play a core role by designing for resilience first — but they can’t do it alone.
Municipalities shape land-use and permit decisions that can support or hinder resilient practices.
Banks and investors can offer preferential terms for farmers who commit to resilient system design.
Consumers and communities shape the cultural and economic signals that drive adoption.
A call for systemic humility and ambition
To drive this forward, Visser says: “We need systemic humility and serious ambition. That means letting go of false binaries, and leaning into complex, context-sensitive solutions that meet the moment. It means acknowledging that climate-resilient farming is not a destination, but a design process. One that starts not with what we think is right, but with what will actually work, wherever farmers are starting from.”
September 8, 2025
Despite the challenges, the organic farming sector has surged in Tunisia since the turn of the millennium - Copyright AFP/File STR
Farmers should redesign agricultural systems by prioritising resilience over efficiency and supporting farmers through gradual, practical transitions rather than forcing them to choose between conventional and organic farming extremes. This is according to Saskia Visser (Land use, agri-food and sustainable bio-economy orchestrator at Climate KIC).
According to Visser there are different philosophical positions taken for food production: “There’s no shortage of opinions when it comes to the future of agriculture. Across Europe and beyond, the debate is often framed as a clash of philosophies: on one side, the chemical-intensive, efficiency-maximising model of conventional farming; on the other, the organic, regenerative, agroecological movements fighting to restore balance and sustainability.”
For Visser this binary framing oversimplifies the challenge and threatens to slow progress at the very moment we need to accelerate it. In her opinion, the process requires change, starting not with ideology, but with design.
Resilience first, not efficiency first
Visser’s concept of change begins with identifying the problem: “Today’s dominant agricultural systems have been designed to optimise efficiency above all else. And that narrow focus has come at enormous cost: to ecosystems, to communities, and to the farmers themselves.”
She proposes a new hierarchy for redesigning food systems:Resilience
Sufficiency
Efficiency
In terms of interpreting these:
Resilience comes first. Not just climate resilience, but social, inspirational and economic resilience too. Can this farm survive the next flood, heatwave, or price shock? Can the farmer earn a dignified income? Can the next generation imagine themselves thriving in this profession?
Next, sufficiency. Are we producing enough, without over-extracting from people or planet? Are we staying within planetary boundaries while meeting social expectations, such as fair wages and clean water? Do we respect local cultures and values?
Only once these two are secured should we talk about efficiency: how we deliver what’s needed with precision, innovation, and as little waste as possible.
Visser says: “This may sound intuitive. But when we look at how most policies, technologies, and debates are structured, we find the reverse: a race for efficiency that often undermines resilience and skips the critical question of what ‘enough’ really means.”
The danger of extremes and the power of first steps
Visser notes that change needs to be controlled: “Too often, the pressure to pick a side: organic or conventional creates paralysis. Farmers feel accused, communities feel divided, and the result is resistance, not transformation. Real change doesn’t start with moral judgment. It starts with small, credible steps that invite farmers on a journey, not away from who they are, but toward what’s possible.”
As an example, she discusses Farm Gebroeders Ham in the Netherlands. This is a 100-hectare farm began its transition by converting just two hectares to a self-harvest garden.
Visser states: “That modest shift not only matched the income from the remaining 98 hectares of monoculture onions in rotation with sugar beets; it also inspired the farmers to imagine more, explore alternative uses of fertilizer at the remaining 98 hectares, open a farm shop and educate young children about the food that grows on the farm. Small steps, well supported, can be catalytic.”
This builds on the design principles of resilience, sufficiency, and efficiency. Visser says these “sit within this broader frame, and they must include space for creativity, curiosity, and entrepreneurship; eventually providing the 4 returns: inspiration, environment, social wellbeing, and economy.”
Shared responsibility, systemic impact
In terms of achieving this, Visser finds: “The resilience–sufficiency–efficiency model works best when it’s supported throughout the food system, not just by farmers, but by every actor in the value chain.”Farmers play a core role by designing for resilience first — but they can’t do it alone.
Municipalities shape land-use and permit decisions that can support or hinder resilient practices.
Banks and investors can offer preferential terms for farmers who commit to resilient system design.
Consumers and communities shape the cultural and economic signals that drive adoption.
A call for systemic humility and ambition
To drive this forward, Visser says: “We need systemic humility and serious ambition. That means letting go of false binaries, and leaning into complex, context-sensitive solutions that meet the moment. It means acknowledging that climate-resilient farming is not a destination, but a design process. One that starts not with what we think is right, but with what will actually work, wherever farmers are starting from.”
No comments:
Post a Comment