R
Resilient Agricultural
Practices
Barbara Sawicka
Department of Plant Production Technology and
Commodities Science, University of Life
Sciences in Lublin, Lublin, Poland
Synonyms
Good Agricultural Practice (GAP)
List of important shortcuts: Good Agricultural
Practice (GAP); Good Management Practice
(GMP); Climate-Resilient Agriculture (CRA);
Integrated Production and Pest Management
(IPPM) program; Farmer Field School (FFS);
Global Environmental Facility (GEF); Organiza-
tion for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD); Passive Sampling Device (PSD); Sus-
tainable Development Goals (SDGs); Integrating
Food Security, Environment and Resilience
(SDG2); Social-Ecological System (SES).
Definition
Resilient Agricultural Practices (RAP) – is a cru-
cial component to food security and sustainable
food systems in developing countries. The resil-
ience of the agricultural value chains, in the con-
text of developing countries, is very important for
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), Zero Hunger,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69626-3_42-1
the agricultural supply chain with regard to the
overall resilience of the food system. It looks at
how to balance between producing food, manag-
ing natural resources, dealing with uncertainty,
and providing a livelihood base for the rural pop-
ulation. It goes beyond the technical sphere and
enters the role and involvement of public, private,
and civil entities to include social, economic,
environmental, and political aspects (Van Apel-
doorn et al. 2011; Himes-Cornell and Hoelting
2015; Swiderska et al. 2016).
Introduction
Agricultural economists were interested in defin-
ing the key dimensions of the functioning of
a food system, which directly affects the well-
being of people and entire societies just in the
early 1960s (Brandow 1977). Over the years,
there has been a consensus on many dimensions
of farming, including product diversity, price
efficiency, technical progress, technological
progress, and social justice (Jesse 1978; Biggs et
al. 2015). Resilient Agricultural Practices (RAP)
identify seven principles that contribute to the
resilience of the Social-Ecological System
(SES), addressing the theory of supply chain man-
agement, and present their application in agricul-
tural value chains. The key element is that the
accuracy of these principles is important for
the assessment of each case individually and
depends partly on the trade-offs between
2 Resilient Agricultural Practices
resistance and other dimensions of the value
chain. Two common tools are integrated, the
Resilience Alliance assessment framework and
value chain analysis techniques to outline an
adaptable participatory approach to assess the
resilience of value chains in agriculture in devel-
oping countries (Van Apeldoorn et al. 2011;
Simmons and Storms 2017; Vroegindewey and
Hodbod 2018). The goal of this approach is to
consolidate awareness of past and potential dis-
tortions that may affect the food security and other
basic services provided by the value chain and
identify improvements that can build resistance
to these key distortions (Biggs et al. 2015). New
challenges related to population growth, political
conflicts, climate change, and degradation of nat-
ural resources may increase the frequency and
magnitude of disturbances such as droughts,
fires, floods, hurricanes, whirlwinds, rapid price
increases, food availability, and food distribution
(Hodbod and Eakin 2015; Simmons and Storms
2017; Srinivasrao et al. 2018). These shocks are
often unpredictable, which limits the possibilities
of standard risk management, which is aimed
at estimating the probability and the effects of
distortions (Vroegindewey and Hodbod 2018).
Understanding the resilience of the nutritional
system to these shocks is now probably the
most urgent for developing countries, where
the vulnerability to such disruptions is much
higher than in developed countries and food and
nutrition security is very weak (FAO et al. 2017;
Srinivasrao et al. 2018). Developing countries are
also very dependent on the agri-food sector,
as well as on jobs, household incomes, and eco-
nomic growth (Vroegindewey and Hodbod 2018).
As part of sustainable development, resilience has
therefore become a very important concept that
allows the analysis of various compromises to
move the system toward more sustainable econo-
mies. Therefore, there is a growing need for both
design and management that can give triple
benefits, social, economic, and environmental,
which in turn means the sustainable development
(Srinivasrao et al. 2018). The ability of food sys-
tems to cope with social, economic, and environ-
mental change is crucial, not only at the level
of agricultural production but in the entire value
chain for agriculture. These are a set of measures
to create value, transforming raw materials into
final products and institutions that combine
these different production links. As the main inter-
mediary between agroecological systems, house-
holds and markets are value chains as an
important part of the structure of the food systems
of a society (Vroegindewey and Hodbod 2018).
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO) has worked with over
200,000 farmers in West Africa since 2001 to
create more efficient farming systems through
the Integrated Production and Pest Management
(IPPM) program. The approach was based on
the Farmer Field School (FFS), a participating
social educational method, combining the princi-
ples of agricultural practice with community
development, nonformal education, agroecology,
and adaptive ecosystem management. The FFS
approach operates on all scales – from small com-
munities to regions and countries – while focusing
attention to small farmers, entities most involved
in daily activities in agriculture (Anonymous
2017; Vroegindewey et al. 2018; Meuwissen et
al. 2018). This program helps farmers understand
how agricultural practices can complement and
build or challenge and destroy the biological pro-
cesses and services of ecosystems, on which their
production systems are built. The program seeks
to answer how the objectives of improved produc-
tion and profit can complement each other and are
not necessarily contradictory to the objectives of
improving the human health and the environment,
social justice, and quality of life. The result of this
program is better management and decision-mak-
ing by better qualified and more competent
farmers. The IPPM program does not propose to
replace more conventional implementation sys-
tems, but rather intends to act as a “facilitator”
and exchange platform to connect the entire
existing “mosaic” of stakeholders, regardless of
the national context (Vroegindewey et al. 2018).
The IPPM program runs active projects in several
West African countries and new projects in East-
ern and Southern Africa. The program evolves
each year to cover a wider range of topics and
broaden partnerships with governments, NGOs,
farmers’ organizations, research institutions, and
Resilient Agricultural Practices
business partners. The “learning by doing”
approach adopted by the IPPM program ensures
the risk-free discussions, selections, modifica-
tions, as well as experiments with new ideas for
the management of agriculture. The IPPM pro-
gram focuses on training local farmers as advi-
sors, “facilitators,” because it offers the best
method of anchoring the program’s approach to
the rural community. It also leads to a higher level
of success, which means that farmers are moti-
vated to return home and share their knowledge
and skills. In Africa, IPPM implements projects at
the regional and national level, helping various
farming communities to improve productivity
and increase livelihoods using environmentally
sustainable practices. The objectives of the pro-
gram are achieved there due to a number of activ-
ities that currently cover ten countries: Benin,
Burkina Faso, Burundi, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania,
Niger, Senegal, Tanzania, and Zambia (Anony-
mous 2017). IPPM also contributes to global ini-
tiatives such as the “Better global management for
hunger reduction” program, funded by the Euro-
pean Union and FAO, to address global issues that
affect the food security and to improve the coor-
dination of all partners.
Adaptation to Climate Change
The Climate-Resilient Agriculture (CRA) concept
reflects the ambition to improve the integration of
agricultural development and respond to climate
change. Its aim is to achieve the food security and
wider development goals in the conditions of
a changing climate and growing demand for
food. CRA initiatives in a sustainable way
increase productivity and resistance of plants and
animals and reduce greenhouse gases (GHG).
However, they require planning to solve problems
and synergy between three pillars: productivity,
adaptation, and mitigation (FAO 2010, 2013,
2016; FAO et al. 2017; WRI 2017). The resistance
framework explained in this work is based on the
concept of adaptation cycles (Holling and
Gunderson 2002) as heuristics. They represent
various stages (growth, balance, collapse, and
3
reorientation), through which systems pass in
response to the changing environment and inter-
nal dynamics (Fath et al. 2015). Most analyses
of agricultural production systems limited their
conceptual vision to the phases of growth and
balance and neglected the possibility of a break-
down and a phase of reorientation. As a result, the
stages of breakdown and reorientation have been
included in the framework of reflection. Priorities
of different countries and stakeholders are
reflected in the objective of achieving more effi-
cient, effective, and fair food systems that address
societal, economic, and environmental chal-
lenges. Although this concept is new and is con-
stantly evolving, many practices that make up the
CRA already exist all over the world and are used
by farmers to cope with different risks associated
with food production (AFA 2015; Grosjean et al.
2017). Governments at risk of major climate
change have taken important steps to address
vulnerability to climate change and their impact
through economic, social, and environmental
policies and the institutional framework that
focuses on food security, resilience building, and
disaster risk reduction. Different CRA practices
are applied by small farmers in aquaculture sys-
tems (e.g., mangrove restoration and improve-
ment of fish stocks), in animal husbandry
systems (e.g., biogas and composting and alterna-
tive feeding systems), in the production of vege-
tables (adaptive calendars for crops and organic
farming), in integrated agricultural systems (agro-
forestry, soil, and water protection), as well as in
maize and rice crops (use of stress-tolerant culti-
vars and integrated crop management) (Global
Forest Watch 2017). However, the use of CRA
practices in many countries is still low and limited
by poor access to improved seed, insufficient
financial resources to cover investment costs and
limited service resources (AFA 2015; EIU 2017).
Land ownership and lease systems also affect the
level of investments in agriculture and forestry as
well as other sustainable forms of agriculture in
small entities. Investments in water management
and irrigation infrastructure, seed systems, and
extension services are keys to eliminating the
yield gaps, especially in a context where weather
4 Resilient Agricultural Practices
is predicted to be more changing and
unpredictable with increased and more intense
climate shocks. An increasing number of IPPM
projects are financed under the Global Environ-
mental Facility, projects implemented in Mali and
Nigeria as well as pipelines in Senegal and
Burundi (Anonymous 2017). These projects
pose the greatest challenge for the development
of agriculture in the region and require a combi-
nation of all the experience acquired within the
IPPM program.
Protection of Arable Land
Intensive cultivation in developing countries has
caused the soil degradation (e.g., erosion, changes
in cultivation, and depletion of nutrients), affect-
ing the agricultural productivity as well as ecosys-
tem services (Carpenter et al. 2001; Briones 2005;
Dostatny 2013). Changes in the use of arable land
are closely related to changes in forest cover in the
country. The general logging has contributed to
a radical reduction in forest cover over the years,
with an annual loss rate of around 3% (FAO et al.
2017). The most lowland forests in Southeast Asia
continue to be transformed into high-yielding
plantations (Stibig et al. 2007; AFA 2015; FAO
et al. 2017). It caused a significant erosion of soils
in the highlands and loss of their biodiversity. As a
result of tightening the policy governing the clear-
ing of forests, the rate of deforestation is slowly
decreasing in recent years (Swiderska et al. 2016;
SOFA 2016). In Africa, another problem with the
land and its use is growing, where large-scale land
acquisition is widespread. In 2000, Africa became
a “starting point” after global concerns about food
security and fuel supplies. The land, with its avail-
able water potential, was acquired by a group of
private and public entities, including the sover-
eign African governments. Large-scale arable
land was purchased to the detriment of local com-
munities. There are growing tensions with local
communities that suffer from deprivation of land
and natural resources, especially where there are
no transfer mechanisms or compensation. “Green
catching,” justified on environmental grounds,
also affects local livelihoods and food security
(Batterbury and Ndi 2018).
Landscape Protection and Biodiversity
Maintenance
The biodiversity of rural areas is created by arable
crops and livestock, as well as wild plants
and animals. It is also influenced by microflora
and microfauna and soil mesofauna, which is an
important factor conditioning the fertility of soils.
Although there are 20–200 thousand of edible
plant species in the world, only three of them
(rice, maize, and wheat) cover the majority of
human energy demand (FAO 2010, 2016). The
extensive use of such a small number of species
carries the risks associated with the massive
appearance of pests and pathogens of crop plants.
Intensive cultivation, usually in monocultures, of
high-yielding species also involves environmental
hazards that result from the application of high
doses of mineral fertilizers and chemical plant
protection agents often based on the same active
substances, which promotes the immunization of
pests. The cultivation of various species guaran-
tees the availability of a wide range of products
and is able to ensure the food security while lim-
iting the threat to the natural environment. Genetic
diversity preserved by native agricultural knowl-
edge and practices can be an excellent, valuable
source of information for improving food security
and adapting to climate change. Such practices
can significantly increase the productivity,
income, and resistance of plants and animals in
harsh environmental conditions (Swiderska et al.
2016; Pszczółkowski et al. 2017). Segetal vegeta-
tion, acting as a producer in an ecosystem, deter-
mines the species abundance of higher organisms,
including birds. The availability of weed seeds
is important, especially for wintering birds.
Intensification of crops accompanied by chemical
weed control contributes to a reduction in the
number of bird species associated with the agri-
cultural landscape (Staniak et al. 2017). The ben-
efits of high biodiversity are determined by the
Resilient Agricultural Practices
term “ecosystem services,” i.e., a set of producers
and ecosystem services used by a society.
These are supply services (production of food,
biofuels, wood, water, etc.), regulatory services
(maintenance of soil fertility, natural plant protec-
tion, pollination), supportive services (circulation
of elements in chemical and water, habitat func-
tion), and cultural services (recreational, aesthetic,
and educational functions) (Salami et al. 2010;
Stalęga et al. 2016). These services are provided
by various components of the ecosystem, includ-
ing weeds. Therefore, farmers, through the
appropriate agrotechnics, can have the greatest
impact on the biological diversity of segetal flora
(Scheffer et al. 2015; Barbaś and Sawicka 2016).
Landscape diversity is important for farmers.
Due to the spread of the idea of sustainable and
ecological agriculture, weeds have been perceived
not only as competitors of arable crops but also
as an element increasing the biodiversity in
agrocenoses (Marshall et al. 2003). Currently,
instead of completely eliminating weeds, it is
aimed at limiting their number to a level that
does not significantly reduce the yield, taking
into account the so-called harmfulness threshold
(Feledyn-Szewczyk and Kopiński 2015). Benefits
of preserving the biodiversity are difficult to
record in a short period of time; therefore the
idea of protecting the diversity of weeds accom-
panying crop plants does not always meet the
farmers’ approval, although in the long term,
it may bring environmental benefits (Stalęga et
al. 2016).
CRA Technologies and Practices
CRA technologies and practices provide an
opportunity to meet the challenges of climate
change as well as economic growth and develop-
ment of the agricultural sector. One of the goals
of the CRA is adaptation and/or mitigation of the
effects of climate change. Hundreds of technolo-
gies and approaches around the world are covered
by CRA (FAO 2013, 2016; Grosjean et al. 2017;
Vroegindewey and Hodbod 2018). The use of
stress-tolerant varieties (flood, salinity, drought,
and heat tolerance), as well as water collection
5
technologies (e.g., small water retention projects,
alternative wetting and drying, drip irrigation) and
integrated crop management (e.g., Integrated
Production and Pest Management (IPPM) pro-
gram, specific nutrient management), is common
among rice growers in western (wet zone) and
centrals (humid-wet zone) regions of the Philip-
pines and among corn growers in the wet and
humid zone. Although CRA practice can bring
significant benefits in the form of increased reve-
nues and yields, resistance to climate shocks and
variations, as well as emission limitations, many
farmers are not motivated to invest, in agrofor-
estry systems due to the uncertainty of land own-
ership. Farmers cultivating vegetables, e.g., in the
wet-humid zone and wet zone, use adaptive crop
calendars, corrected planting and harvesting
schedules, and other critical periods, based on
weather forecasts and stress-tolerant varieties (e.
g., drought, salinity) due to low investment costs
that these practices require. Organic farming is
also practiced by a minority of farmers cultivating
vegetables, mainly due to the small number of
consumers of such food and the lack of available
plant protection products and organic fertilizers.
Although such treatments can be easily done by
the farmers themselves, however, considerable
technical support is needed to improve their
shelf life and efficiency. Most agricultural prac-
tices are accepted (implemented) by small farmers
(Salami et al. 2010; WIR 2017; Vroegindewey
and Hodbod 2018). In the Philippines, activities
related to the cultivation of pines (e.g., fish pro-
duction in afforestation areas of mangrove),
organic aquaculture (e.g., approach to sustainable
development), and joint storage and reclamation
of fish (e.g., enrichment of fish stocks) by some
small farmers are also undertaken in the wet-
humid zone and in the wet-moist zone. These
practices are mainly related to the management
of climate risk, but also have a significant positive
impact on farm incomes and the sustainable
development of fish production. However, the
level of implementation (adoption) of such CRA
technologies in the field of aquaculture remains
low due to insufficient access to technology and
capacity building (e.g., local mangrove species
and natural sources of feed ingredients). The
6 Resilient Agricultural Practices

application of CRA practices in Asia is also lim- basins through integrated management of produc-
ited by low availability of improved varieties and tion, pests and contaminants” (EP/INT/606/GEF)
seeds (Briones 2014; Himes-Cornell and Hoelting is the first major attempt to comprehensively
2015; Grosjean et al. 2017). monitor the application of pesticides in agriculture
in sub-Saharan Africa. It also continues the work
of IPPM, the aim of which is to build safe, effi-
cient, and sustainable agricultural systems
Reducing the Risk Connected with
through agricultural schools. Previously, as part
Pesticides
of the project carried out in 2009–2014, basic
research on pesticides and water pollution was
The losses of agricultural yields in some regions
carried out (Himes-Cornell and Hoelting 2015;
of the world especially in the developing countries
Anonymous 2017). The project is piloting a new
are higher than in the developed countries. Effort
technology for the first time in Africa, called the
to reduce losses especially during postharvest
“Passive Sampling Device” (PSD), which adsorbs
could be a sustainable approach to increasing
chemicals after immersing in a stainless steel cage
food availability, reducing pressure on natural
for about 2 weeks. A plan for ensuring the quality
resources, eliminating hunger, and improving
of sampling and analysis was also developed,
farmers’ welfare (El-Wakeil 2013; Czaja et al.
which can also be used in other laboratories.
2015). The IPPM program cooperates with gov-
PSDs have been deployed in six African countries
ernments of many countries, research institutions,
along the Senegal and Niger rivers that have
farmers’ organizations, and other partners to:
detected pesticide residues, including several
POPs. In other studies, the most modern computer
• Raise awareness of the application of toxic
model called ipmPRiME was applied, which was
pesticides in agriculture, and promote alterna-
adapted for the use in West Africa. This model is
tive solutions.
an environmental risk assessment tool and uses
• Assess the current level and risk of pesticide
farmers’ pesticide surveys to provide quantitative
use.
risk estimates for key groups of indicators of
• Improve legislation on pesticides and registra-
aquatic and terrestrial species as well as risk indi-
tion systems.
cators for human health (Anonymous 2017).
• Support the implementation of best practices
To facilitate farmers the adoption of alternative
set out in the International Code of Conduct for
practices that limit or eliminate the application of
the Management of Pesticides.
toxic pesticides without loss of performance, a
• Adopt or develop new tools that can help mon-
balanced intensification through joint IPPM/FFS
itor pesticides in the environment and assess
operations is applied. The project is based on a
potential negative impacts on key indicators of
proven approach to integrated production and pest
biodiversity as well as on human health.
management (IPPM) (Anonymous 2018a). IPPM
• Train farmers in the field of integrated protec-
creates incentives for farmers to eliminate the
tion, which also advises on how to avoid com-
application of hazardous pesticides for alternative
mercial pressure on the application of
low-toxicity measures and, at the same time, con-
pesticides.
ducts practical training to improve broad agro-
• Improve the quality of information provided
nomic practices, helping them increase the
to agricultural communities (Czaja et al.
yields, improve production profitability, and
2015; Stalęga et al. 2016; Anonymous 2017,
increase economic and environmental flexibility
2018b).
(Stalęga et al. 2016).
The multidisciplinary project “Reducing
dependence on persistent organic pollutants and
other agrochemicals in the Senegal and Niger
Resilient Agricultural Practices
Effective Microorganisms
The field-level stress management by means of
microorganisms is used as a springboard for new
applications in agriculture. The range of applica-
tions includes phyto-microbials in maintaining
the production of biofuel plants, impact of agri-
culture on the composition of soil microbial
communities and diversity, microalgae, photosyn-
thetic microorganisms and bioenergetic perspec-
tives, mitigating the abiotic stress in plants due to
the multi-aspect beneficial microorganisms,
methylotrophic bacteria in mitigating the climate
change, protecting the agriculture for resilience to
climate change, mycorrhizal plants that help in
dealing with environmental threats, endophytic
microorganisms, Bacillus thuringiensis, and
microbiological nanotechnology for agriculture
resistant to climate change (Kashyap et al. 2018;
Umachandran et al. 2018). Effective microorgan-
isms (EMs) have great potential for biological
interaction due to specialized enzymes that have
the ability to transform nuisance chemicals into
useful forms. Effective microorganisms send sig-
nals to plants that prepare them for early repulsion
of a pathogen attack and help in the production
of disaccharides, which is, trehalose having the
ability to protect the whole plant when it is under
the stress of drought or is in a high salinity envi-
ronment. Trehalose prevents from the formation
of crystals in water, because hydrogen bonds are
formed, and its dried aqueous solutions form a
glaze, which is an ideal compound in protecting
plants against drought and high temperatures
(Sawicka and Umachandran 2017). Plant extracts
are also a valuable source of bioactive nutrients
and show great potential for growth and develop-
ment of plants, protecting them from biotic and
abiotic stress. The interest in plant extracts is
constantly growing due to the tendencies of sus-
tainable agriculture, which are primarily guided
by environmental protection (Pszczółkowski and
Sawicka 2018a). Much attention is also devoted to
preparations based on natural substances and the
possibility of their use in the cultivation of plants.
Materials are sought for, the extracts of which can
act as biostimulators and plant protection products
and can be used as ingredients of “natural” fertil-
izers (Tamizhazhagan et al. 2017; Pszczółkowski
7
and Sawicka 2018a). Their operation depends,
however, on the type of crop, soil, and environ-
mental conditions (Kashyap et al. 2018;
Pszczółkowski and Sawicka 2018b). Therefore,
considering the sustainable development of agri-
culture, a review of biofertilizers, effective micro-
organisms, and plant extracts and their role in
agriculture was made. There is a further need for
better agricultural practices and the use of ecolog-
ical methods for sustainable crop production. In
this context, Trichoderma species can be model
fungi to maintain crop yields. Currently, they are
widely used as modifiers for biocontrol,
biofertilization, and phytostimulation. They also
improve the efficiency of photosynthesis, increase
the uptake of nutrients, and increase the efficiency
of nitrogen utilization in crops (Kashyap et al.
2017). In addition, they can be used to produce
bioenergy, help plants adapt, and mitigate the
negative effects of climate change
(Pszczółkowski and Sawicka 2018b). Technolog-
ical advancement in the field of high-performance
DNA sequencing and biotechnology has provided
a deep insight into the complex and diverse biotic
interactions established in nature by Trichoderma
spp. Efforts are being made to translate this
knowledge into increased crop growth, disease
resistance, and tolerance to abiotic stress under
field conditions. Discovery of several traits and
genes that are involved in the beneficial effects of
Trichoderma spp. resulted in better understanding
of the field activity and would lead to a more
efficient use of these strains and possibly to their
improvement by genetic modification (Swiderska
et al. 2016). This gives grounds for explaining the
molecular basis of plant growth promotion and
defense activation by Trichoderma spp., gathering
broad perspectives on their functioning and appli-
cation in relation to agriculture exposed to a cli-
mate change (Kashyap et al. 2017; Noaema et al.
2018). In the context of agricultural pest manage-
ment, biological pesticides are best suited for use
in the production of organic food in industrialized
countries, but can play a much larger role in the
production and protection of food in developing
countries. Botanical plants have been used for a
long time to control pests. These compounds offer
many environmental benefits. The improvement
8 Resilient Agricultural Practices
of the understanding of plant mechanisms of
allelochemical activity creates new possibilities
of using these substances in plant protection (El-
Wakeil 2013).
Trends in Smallholder Agriculture
The economy of small agriculture continues to
play a key role in African and Asian agriculture.
The trends, challenges, and opportunities of this
sub-sector in the East of Africa were studied by
Salami et al. (2010), through case studies from
Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda, and Tanzania, and by
Grosjean et al. (2017) in Asia, in the Philippines.
In these economies, based on agriculture, small
farms account for about 75% of agricultural pro-
duction and provide over 75% of employment.
However, the contribution of small agriculture
and agriculture in general to rapid growth in the
region in recent years has been limited. Instead,
the increase was driven by services, especially in
trade. There are weak institutions at the national
level; the access to markets and loans is also
limited. These factors, including insufficient
infrastructure, limit the increase in the efficiency
of a small farm. The necessary measures to
improve the performance of small farmers include
ease of access to land and training measures to
improve skills and encourage farmers to adopt
new technologies and technical, technological,
and biological innovations as well as remove
obstacles to trade. At the regional and global
level, however, international barriers to trade
should be addressed (Barrett et al. 2010; OECD
2017).
Supply Chain in Agriculture
In recent years, there has been increasing interest
in the assessment and construction of the resilient
system of the food system. Three assessment
points were adopted. The first concerns the
national or regional scale of the food system
(Hodbod and Eakin 2015). One of the advantages
of adopting such a large analytical unit is that it
facilitates a holistic view of the set of subsystems
and scales that together must achieve and main-
tain food system services and compromises within
and between scales. Other authors have adopted
a second point of view, examining the flexibility
of households, their close relatives, or local agro-
ecological systems, usually focusing on trade-offs
between agriculture and other activities related to
food security and maintenance. Immunity assess-
ment indicators have been proposed at the level
of the farm or agricultural rural community
(Barrett et al. 2010). Rural community is an
appropriate focal scale to analyze flexibility,
because of the direct social and ecological ties
that are on this scale, as well as because farmers
are perceived as the most vulnerable to stress,
shocks, and threats. The third point is the value
chain, which can also be understood as a complex
socio-ecological system, because it “contains
many complex environmental, social, political,
and economic factors, including accessibility
and use” and covers various spatial, temporal,
and institutional scales as well as compromises
between them (Biggs et al. 2015). The supply
chain system in agriculture has two aspects.
The first aspect, so-called “value supply” chain,
is a resource used by agricultural enterprises and
agribusiness companies (processors, traders,
retailers, and wholesalers) for production and
trade. The resources of companies include their
physical, financial, and human capital, as well
as the ability to conduct complex production and
operational tasks (Staatz and Ricks 2010).
The second aspect is made up of institutions that
manage the use and flow of capital resources and
coordinate all activities throughout the supply
chain. It includes coordination structures that reg-
ulate interactions between enterprises within
a given supply chain segment, such as producer
organizations (farmers) (Vroegindewey et al.
2018). It also includes vertical coordination struc-
tures that govern the company’s interactions in
various segments, such as bilateral agreements
between enterprises, and even wider structures
coordinating many links in the chain, such as
councils participating in supply chains or com-
modity associations (Staatz and Ricks 2010).
Resilient Agricultural Practices
Resilience of System Components
The three SES principles focus on the properties
of the system elements that enhance resilience
to climate change (Hodbod and Eakin 2015).
First, maintaining the diversity and redundancy
of system components (e.g., keeping many
farmers, processors, or distributors in the dairy
supply chain and commercialization of many
processed dairy product lines) provides substi-
tutes for components that can fail in the face of
disruptions and rapid climate change. Second,
connectivity management between components
of the supply system can facilitate the flow and
reduce the spread of disruptions. Infrastructure
links, such as roads, and telephone communica-
tion by a network of mobile phones facilitate the
flow of goods and information when determining
the acquisition of products. Identification systems
in obtaining the raw milk can help to quickly
identify and limit the spread of quality problems.
The third principle is to identify key variables and
feedbacks that interact to manage them. It is based
on the first two principles, because it will depend
on the type of changes, in which the system com-
ponents take place, e.g., whether milk production
increases, decreases, or is stable, as well as the
relationship between components and entities, i.
e., the relationship between milk productivity and
investment in the processing of milk. Two princi-
ples often refer to the structure of supply chain
components. The first is to keep the components
flexible to take different positions and adapt oper-
ations to changing requirements with minimal
time and effort. Flexibility can be linked to the
principle of diversity, as it arises when food chain
actors depend on human resources, products, the
number of suppliers and buyers, and sources of
income (Simmons and Storms 2017; Srinivasrao
et al. 2018; Vroegindewey and Hodbod 2018).
Summary
Still changing climate is affecting the plant pro-
duction in a negative way, and its impact on agri-
culture is currently becoming the main priority in
developing countries. Agriculture resistant to cli-
mate change is the need of the moment in many
9
parts of the world. Understanding the negative
effects of climate change and their impact on
growth and development of plants as well as
development of strategies to counteract these
effects is of great importance for sustainable agri-
culture, resilient to climate change. Were presents
solid, climate-resistant agricultural strategies
that have strong foundations in basic research.
Fundamental rules are presented, compliance
of which will ensure safety on the one hand
(both for consumers and farmers) at the stage of
raw material production and, on the other hand,
will ensure the quality of raw material for further
processing stages. The combination of farmers
and processors in the production and marketing
of safe food is aimed at ensuring the consumer
safety. At present, there are foundations for
the protection of limited natural resources
by implementing appropriate agricultural prac-
tices with the promise of a sustainable future.
The role of Resilient Agricultural Practices
(RAP) focuses on seven priority areas that can
broadly be divided into the following categories:
(Anonymous 2017) combating pests and plant
diseases; (Anonymous 2018a) control of cross-
border animal diseases (TAD); (Anonymous
2018b) food security and information systems
about natural resources, disaster risk manage-
ment, and policy development; (Asian Farmers’
Association for Sustainable Rural Development
(AFA) 2015) generating new jobs and employ-
ment in rural and suburban areas; (Barbaś and
Sawicka 2016) agricultural production; (Barrett
et al. 2010) management of natural resources;
and (Batterbury and Ndi 2018) food safety and
nutrition.
Integrating environmental persistence and cli-
mate resilience has enabled SDG2 to achieve the
following benefits:
• Achieving food security, sustainable develop-
ment, and resilience through the use of genetic
diversity and indigenous knowledge.
• Preserving the genetic diversity of seeds, ara-
ble crops, farmed and domesticated animals,
and their related wild species, grazing, fishery,
or forest resources.
10
• Getting more support for the innovations and
practices of the natives, so as not to lose the
genetic diversity and knowledge they possess,
with the same priority for preserving and
improving the resistance of local ecotypes,
species, and varieties, through the community,
seed banks, community-managed landscapes,
active plant breeding, and market links for
traditional products.
• Increasing the productivity of crop species and
animals, especially in marginal areas already
affected by climate change, without causing
loss of genetic diversity for future generations.
Local species and varieties are often more
resistant to drought and pests than their modern
counterparts, as well as more valuable and
more nutritious.
• Ensuring sustainable production and imple-
mentation of resilient farming practices to
help maintain ecosystems, strengthen adapt-
ability to climate change and extreme events,
and improve the quality of arable land and
undeveloped agricultural soils.
• Risk diversification and management. Many
farmers, in developing countries, have started
cultivating different varieties of the same
species together, including resistant local vari-
eties, to reduce the risk of crop failure.
In Kenya, hybrid, improved, and traditional
varieties of corn and manioc were planted,
which reduced the yield decrease. Domesti-
cated wild and medicinal trees were tamed to
mitigate climate change and increase their
income.
• Soil and water protection. In the Potato Park,
micro-water tanks that combine traditional
technology of obtaining water (aruna) with
modern materials and techniques ensure the
availability of water for irrigation and con-
sumption. New composting techniques have
improved soil fertility and humidity, resulting
in higher yields and efficient water use.
Reintroduction of traditional cultivation and
Resilient Agricultural Practices
fertilization techniques to reduce soil erosion.
Restoring traditional intercrop crops to
improve soil fertility and composition.
• Aerating the soil by plowing and adding
manure, which increases its ability to retain
water. Planting trees with nitrogen binding in
food crops, which improves soil fertility and
increases crop production.
• Natural pest control. Traditional techniques
combining, e.g., organic cultivation of rice
with the production of ducks and fish provide
natural pest control. Reintroduction of tradi-
tional biopesticides using herbs and chili.
As a result of developing the high technologies
in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, most coun-
tries in the world began to pay more attention to
reliability in food production and food consump-
tion safety (Global Forest Watch 2017). For this
reason, many initiatives have been carried out in
an international context. The CRA practices pro-
vide an opportunity to meet the challenges of
climate change as well as economic growth and
development of the agricultural sector. The most
important goal of CRA is to mitigate the effects of
climate change. Many technologies and
approaches around the world involve CRA. The
application of stress-tolerant varieties (flood, salt-
ing, drought, tolerance to high or low tempera-
tures), as well as water collection technologies
(small water retention projects, wetting
and drying, drip irrigation) and integrated crop
management (e.g., against pests (IPPM), specific
management of nutrients). The word “resilience”
is used very often. It is expected that one should
retrospectively understand the dynamics of sus-
tainable development in various agricultural sys-
tems and decision-makers should actively identify
differentiated features, i.e., strategies for increas-
ing the resilience in farming systems, depending
on the risk associated with available natural
resources.
Resilient Agricultural Practices
Cross-References
▶ Agricultural Biodiversity
▶ Agricultural Extension Systems Towards SDGs
2030: Zero Hunger
▶ Agricultural Productivity
▶ Agricultural Supply Chain
▶ Agricultural Value Chain
▶ Breeding and Productivity
▶ Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA)
▶ Conservation and Sustainable Use of Plant and
Animal Genetic Resources for Better Human
Health
▶ Ecosystem Based Approach for Sustainable
Agricultural Development in Addressing Food
Security and Nutrition
▶ Ecosystem Based Management
▶ Genetic Diversity
▶ Globalisation Versus Localisation
▶ Inorganic Fertiliser
▶ Nutrient Use Efficiency
▶ Organic Fertilizers
▶ Permaculture, Clean Production and Food
Security
▶ Pesticides’ Impact on Pollinators
▶ Post-Harvest Losses of Agricultural Produce
▶ Resilient Agricultural Practices
▶ Rural Development
▶ Smallholder Farming
▶ Soil Health
▶ Sustainable Agriculture: Implication for SDG2
(Zero Hunger)
▶ Sustainable Agro-Food Production
▶ Technology Transfer
References
Anonymous (2017) Building resilient agricultural systems
through farmer field schools. Integrated Production and
Pest Management Programme (IPPM). http://www.fao.
org/3/a-i4411e.pdf
Anonymous (2018a) Resilient and sustainable food sys-
tems for a food secure future. Farming in a dynamic
and uncertain world. Wageningen, CDI is ISO
9001–2008 certified. Centre for Development Innova-
tion, Wageningen, 9–20 Apr 2018. https://www.wur.nl/
upload_mm/a/c/0/6d67bb3d-53b6-4751-b74acb9e19a
73dd4_25_01_2018_resilient_food_system.pdf
11
Anonymous (2018b) Integrated pest production and man-
agement program in Africa. http://www.fao.org/agricul
ture/ippm/projects/regional/ep-int-606-gef/en/
Asian Farmers’ Association for Sustainable Rural
Development (AFA) (2015) A Magna Carta of Young
Farmers. http://asianfarmers.org/wp-content/uploads/
2015/02/5-Young-Farmers.pdf. Accessed 5 May 2018
Barbaś P, Sawicka B (2016) Impact of weeding methods on
the content of nitrates in potato tubers. Nauk Przyr
Technol 10(4):49. https://doi.org/10.17306/J.NPT.
2016.4.49
Barrett CB, Carter MR, Timmer CP (2010) A century-long
perspective on agricultural development. Am J Agric
Econ 92:447–468
Batterbury S, Ndi FA (2018) Acquiring land in Africa.
In: Binns JA, Lynch K, Nel E (eds) The Routledge
handbook of African development. Routledge,
Editorial Staff, Florence
Biggs R, Schlüter M, Schoon ML (2015) Principles
for building resilience: sustaining ecosystem services
in social-ecological systems. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, MA
Brandow GE (1977) Appraising the economic perfor-
mance of the food industry. In: In agricultural econom-
ics research. Washington, DC, U.S. Department of
Agriculture Economic Research Service
Briones N (2005) Environmental sustainability issues in
Philippine agriculture. Asian J Agric Dev 2(1/2). http://
ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/165781/2/AJAD_
2005_2_1%262_6Briones.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2018
Briones R (2014) The role of mineral fertilizers in trans-
forming Philippine agriculture. Discussion paper 14.
Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS),
Manila
Carpenter S, Walker B, Anderies JM, Abel N (2001) From
metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to what?
Ecosystems 4(8):765–781
Czaja K, Góralczyk K, Strucinski P, Hernik A, Korcz W,
Minorczyk M, Łyczewska M, Ludwicki JK (2015)
Biopesticides – towards increased consumer safety in
the European Union. Pest Manag Sci 71:3–6
Dostatny DF (2013) The role of small farms in maintaining
a balance in agroecosystems. In: 19th international
farm management congress, small & green. 1 July
2013, ISBN 978-92-990062-1-4
Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) (2017) Global
food security index 2016. London. http://foodsecur
ityindex.eiu.com/Resources. Accessed 21 May 2018
El-Wakeil N (2013) Botanical pesticides and their mode
of action. Gesunde Pflanzenphysiol 65:125–149.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10343-013-0308-3
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, WHO (2017) The state
of food security and nutrition in the world 2017.
In: Building resilience for peace and food security.
Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization
Fath BD, Dean CA, Katzmair H (2015) Navigating the
adaptive cycle: an approach to managing the resilience
of social systems. Ecol Soc 20(2):24
12
Feledyn-Szewczyk B, Kopiński J (2015) The comparison
of sustainability of agricultural production of organic
and conventional farms using the rise model. J Res
Appl Agric Eng 60(3):28–32
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO) (2010) “Climate-smart” agriculture. Policies,
practices and financing for food security, adaptation
and mitigation. FAO, Rome
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO) (2013) Climate-smart agriculture sourcebook.
FAO, Rome
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO) (2016) AQUASTAT. Rome. http://www.fao.
org/nr/aquastat/. Accessed 12 July 2018
Global Forest Watch (GFW) (2017) Country profile – the
Philippines. Global Forest Watch. http://www.globalfor
estwatch.org/country/PHL. Accessed 14 Aug 2018
Grosjean G, Nowak A, Leyte JED (2017) Climate-
resilient agriculture (CRA) considerations. https://
www.researchgate.net/publication/318814626_Cli
mate_Resilient_Agriculture_in_Philippines. Technical
report
Himes-Cornell A, Hoelting K (2015) Resilience strategies
in the face of short- and long-term change: out-migra-
tion and fisheries regulation in Alaskan fishing com-
munities. Ecol Soc 20(2):9. https://doi.org/10.5751/
ES-07074-200209
Hodbod J, Eakin H (2015) Adapting a social-ecological
resilience framework for food systems. J Environ Stud
Sci 5:474–484
Holling CS, Gunderson LH (2002) Resilience and adaptive
cycles. In: Panarchy: understanding transformations in
human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington,
DC, pp 25–62
Jesse EV (1978) Measuring market performance:
quantifying and non-quantifiable. http://ageconsearch.
umn.edu/bitstream/202897/2/WP-15.pdf. Accessed 22
June 2018
Kashyap PL, Alok R, Srivastava A, Kumar S (2017)
Trichoderma for agriculture resistant to climate change.
World J Microbiol Biotechnol 33, 155(8). https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11274-017-2319-1
Kashyap PL, Srivastava A, Tiwari SP, Kumar S (2018)
Microbes for agriculture resistant to climate change.
Wiley, Hoboken. ISBN 978-1-119-27592-3
Marshall EJP, Brown EJP, Boatman ND, Lutman PJW,
Squire GR, Ward LK (2003) The role of weeds in
supporting biological diversity within crop fields.
Weed Res 43(2):77–89. https://doi.org/10.1046/
j.1365-3180.2003.00326.x. Accessed 11 July 2018
Meuwissen M, Paas W, Slijper T, Coopmans I,
Ciechomska A (2018) Report on resilience framework
for EU agriculture. Work performed by P1 (WU) in
cooperation with all partners. http://surefarmproject.eu/
wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/SURE-Farm_
Deliverable-D1.1-Resilience-Framework.pdf.
Accessed 23 July 2018
Noaema AH, Sawicka B, Pszczółkowski P, Kiełtyka-
Dadasiewicz A (2018) Effective microorganisms in
Resilient Agricultural Practices
Agricultura and food processing. In: 3rd international
conference “ecology of human:” 19–20 June 2018,
Lublin. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30039.98725
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) (2017) OECD statistics. Paris. http://stats.
oecd.org/. Accessed 14 Aug 2018
Pszczółkowski P, Sawicka B (2018a) Effect of the fungi-
cides, microbiological preparations and extracts with
herbs on the yield of potato. Fragm Agronomica 35
(1):17–28. (in polish)
Pszczółkowski P, Sawicka B (2018b) The effect of appli-
cation of biopreparations and fungicides on the yield
and selected parameters of seed value of seed potatoes.
Acta Agrophysica 25(2):239–255. https://doi.org/
10.31545/aagr/93104
Pszczółkowski P, Sawicka B, Kiełtyka-Dadasiewicz A
(2017) The role of ProBioEm technology in shaping
soil quality. In: Conference of sciences. ‘Biodiversity
of the environment – significance, problems, chal-
lenges’. IUNG-PIB, Puławy, pp 150–151. 30–31 May
2017, IBSN: 978-83-7562-258-4
Salami A, Kamara AB, Brixiova Z (2010) Smallholder
agriculture in East Africa: trends, constraints and
opportunities. Working papers series N 105 African
Development Bank, Tunis
Sawicka B, Umachandran K (2017) The natural, social,
economic and legal aspect of the ecological manage-
ment system. International Research Journal of Natural
and Applied Sciences (IRJNAS) 4(5):49–75. ISSN:
2349-4077
Scheffer M, Barrett S, Carpenter SR, Folke C, Green AJ,
Holmgren M, Hughes TP, Kosten S, Van de
Leemput IA, Nepstad DC, Van Nes EH (2015) Creating
a safe operating space for iconic ecosystems. Science
347(6228):1317–1319
Simmons E, Storms R (2017) Food insecurity, political
instability, and conflict; a report of the Center for
Strategic and International Studies Global Food
Security Product. Center for Strategic and International
Studies, Washington, DC
Srinivasrao CH, Arun K, Shankar SCH (2018) Agriculture
resistant to climate change – strategies and perspec-
tives. In Techopen, ISBN: 978-953-51-3896-9. https://
doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.68382
Staatz JM, Ricks D (2010) Value chain participant coun-
cils: a tool for improved market coordination and
broad-based growth. In: Trijp HV, Ingenbleek P (eds)
Markets, marketing and developing countries: where
we stand and where we are heading. Wageningen,
Wageningen Academic Publishers, pp 97–102
Stalęga J, Brzezińska K, Stańska M, Błaszkowska B,
Czekała W, Feledyn-Szewczyk B, and others (2016)
Code of good agricultural practices conducive to bio-
diversity. Institute for the Cultivation of Fertilization
and Soil Science – National Research Institute, Puławy,
p 306, ISBN: 978-83-7562-225-6 (in polish)
Staniak M, Haliniarz M, Kwiecińska-Poppe E, Harasim E,
Wesołowski M (2017) Diversity of agrocoenoses in the
Resilient Agricultural Practices
Lublin region, Poland. Acta Agrobot 70(4). https://doi.
org/10.5586/aa.1722
Stibig H, Stolle F, Dennis R, Feldkotter C (2007) Forest
cover in Southeast Asia – the regional pattern. Euro-
pean Commission Joint Research Centre, Ispra
Swiderska K, Argumedo A, Song Y, Rastogi A, Gurung N,
Wekesa CH (2016) SDG2: achieving food security,
sustainability and resilience using genetic diversity
and indigenous knowledge. Briefing. Food Agric 1–4.
http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/17410IIED.pdf. Accessed 24
June 2018
Tamizhazhagan V, Pugazhendy K, Baranitharan M,
Sakthidassan V, Jayanthi C, Sawicka B, Thushimenan S,
Nwani CD, Humphrey A (2017) Pest potential of
Pisonia alba extracts and fractions against mosquito-
borne disease (Diptera: Culicidae). Int J Pharm Sci Res
8(5):51–59. ISSN: 0975–9492. www.ijpsr.info/docs/
IJPSR17-08-05-003.pdf
The State of Food and Agriculture (SOFA) (2016) Climate
change, agriculture and food security - FAO. http://
www.fao.org/3/a-i6030e.pdf
13
Umachandran K, Sawicka B, Mohammed A, Noori ANN,
Antonella P (2018) Relevance of nanotechnology
in food processing industries. Int J Agric Sci 10
(7):5730–5733. ISSN: 0975-3710 & E-ISSN: 0975-
910
Van Apeldoorn DF, Kok K, Sonneveld MPW, Veldkamp T
(2011) Panarchy rules: rethinking resilience of
agroecosystems, evidence from Dutch dairy-farming.
Ecol Soc 16(1):39. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/
vol16/iss1/art39/
Vroegindewey R, Hodbod J (2018) Resilience of agricul-
tural value chains in developing country contexts:
a framework and assessment approach. Sustainability
10(916):1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10040916
Vroegindewey R, Theriault V, Staatz J (2018) Coordinat-
ing cereal farmers and buyers: evidence from mali. J
Agribus Dev Emerg Econ 88(2):34–255. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JADEE-11-2016-0075
World Resources Institute (WRI) (2017) Climate data
explorer. Washington, DC. http://cait.wri.org.
Accessed 28 July 2018