Envisioning-sustainable-carbon-sequestration-in-_2022_Environmental-Science-.pdf

1. Environmental Science and Policy 135 (2022) 16–25
Available online 3 May 2022
1462-9011/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Envisioning sustainable carbon sequestration in Swedish farmland
Emma Li Johansson a,*
, Sara Brogaard a
, Lova Brodin b
a
Lund University, Centre for Sustainability Studies, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden
b
MiljöMatematik Malmö AB, Svensk Kolinlagring, Vitemöllegatan 3, Malmö SE-21442, Sweden
A R T I C L E I N F O
Keywords:
Carbon sequestration
Food systems
Future scenarios
Knowledge co-production
Regenerative farming
Transdisciplinary research
A B S T R A C T
Negative trends of climate change and biodiversity loss are closely linked with farming practices, and it is
therefore essential to re-think how agricultural systems can sequester more carbon, and simultaneously create
vital ecosystems. The overall aim of this research is to imagine Swedish farms as carbon sinks rather than sources,
and how to re-design the current farm- and food system to also address other social, economic, and environ­
mental sustainability challenges. This paper is the outcome of two visioning workshops together with partici­
pants in an ongoing initiative called Swedish Carbon Sequestration [Svensk Kolinlagring]. Participants discussed
what alternative futures might look like, how they would function, and how to get there. The farm-level visions
include perennial crops, keyline design, online farmers markets, increased collaboration between farms, and
increased knowledge about soil health. The participants highlight complex interactions between animals, trees,
leys, and crops that can support carbon sequestration. They also emphasize the need to increase both farmer’s
and society’s knowledge about soil health and its multiple positive effects on carbon sequestration. In addition, a
transformation of the farm- and food system would also contribute with positive effects on farmers income and
their autonomy over decision making and long-term planning, in turn also improving farmers’ and consumers’
health. The participants highlight that the food system will be transformed by changes in consumer demand,
increased knowledge and awareness, shortened value chains, and by changing policies and financial support
systems to favor farmers who engage with agroecological principles of farming.
1. Introduction
The agricultural sector and industrial food system is a major
contributor to land cover- and climate change, and particularly
vulnerable to its impacts (IPCC et al., 2019; IPES-Food, 2016). A central
contemporary challenge is to sustainably produce sufficient food, and
simultaneously mitigate climate change and other environmental im­
pacts (Marquardt et al., 2022). Although the fertilizer industry has
contributed to a doubling of food production during the 20th century,
conventional agriculture that favors large-scale annual monocultures,
has at the same time degraded soil organic matter, reduced soil fertility,
and contributed to greenhouse gas emissions (Montgomery, 2017).
While production efficiency has increased, the efficiency of the food
system to deliver nutritious food, sustainably and with little waste, has
declined (Kuylenstierna et al., 2019). Future agriculture needs to offer
key solutions to produce sustainable food, and also mitigate the effects
on planetary boundaries that have already been transgressed (Campbell
et al., 2017; Rockström et al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2015). As agriculture
contributes to 10–12% of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions,
and global soils contain more carbon than both the atmospheric and
above-ground carbon pools (Bateman and Muñoz-Rojas, 2019), the
1.5 ◦
C climate goal can only be achieved by including agricultural land
use into emission reductions (Rogelj et al., 2018).
Agriculture is also a tightly coupled social-ecological system linked
to livelihoods, food security, and land ownership (Paz et al., 2020).
Scientists highlight that current mainstream development pathways are
unsustainable, and that sustainable futures need to be radically different
from the status quo (Bennett et al., 2021; Pereira et al., 2020a; Thorn
et al., 2021). Imagining alternative farming- and food systems that are
not only environmentally sustainable but also just and fair is therefore
imperative in sustainability debates, as visions of sustainable futures can
be used to guide agricultural development (Beck and Forsyth, 2020;
Fanzo et al., 2020; Fazey et al., 2020; Sellberg et al., 2020; Wyborn et al.,
2020). In the context of agriculture, such solutions often challenge a
century of conventional wisdom and commercial interests, and require a
shift in how we think about, and treat our soils. Such a shift requires
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: emma.johansson@lucsus.lu.se (E.L. Johansson).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Environmental Science and Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.04.005
Received 30 June 2021; Received in revised form 18 February 2022; Accepted 12 April 2022

2. Environmental Science and Policy 135 (2022) 16–25
17
guiding visions that explore what agriculture might look like in a new
system that e.g., builds fertile soils instead of depending on chemical
inputs. But, current actions, policies, and power structures influence
what future pathways of development are possible, and also what
pathways will be possible in the future (Anderson and Leach, 2019;
Clark and Harley, 2020).
Although Anderson et al. (2020) highlight severe gaps in Swedish
climate mitigation plans, Sweden aims to mitigate and lower their
greenhouse gas emissions with goals of net-zero emissions by 2045, and
negative emissions thereafter (Ministry of the Environment and Energy,
2017). Even though researchers are in dispute about if Swedish farm­
lands per see are sources or sinks of carbon, Olén et al. (2021) found that
there is currently not a single farm type in Sweden that can maximize
food production, biodiversity, landscape openness, and simultaneously
minimize greenhouse gas emissions. In addition to this, there are also
carbon losses related to croplands and pastures that turn in to urban
areas, as well as indirect emissions embedded in imported food products
(Cederberg et al., 2019). Table A.1 gives an overview of a range of
agricultural approaches and methods that have proved to contribute to
carbon sequestration and building soils, that can be suitable for different
geographic locations, and production systems (e.g., to integrate and
diversify land management, keep soils covered, accumulate root
biomass, enhance soil health, reduce carbon leaching).
The Swedish Carbon Sequestration (SCS) initiative [Svensk Kolin­
lagring] has emerged as a proposed solution to the multiple challenges
related to agriculture and climate change. It is a platform that brings
together different stakeholders of the Swedish food system to design a
structure to incite Swedish farmers to engage with carbon sequestering
farming practices, based on knowledge co-creation among food system
actors. As part of the SCS pilot program 2020–2022, pilot farmers are
paid about 100 Euro per hectare and year to compensate for costs related
to implementing carbon sequestering farming practices. The initiative is
thus offering a local, participatory, and more transparent alternative to
current carbon offsetting schemes established abroad (Carton and
Andersson, 2017). This study aims to develop visions for increased
carbon sequestration in Swedish farmland, together with famers,
farming consultants, and food industry advisors who are part of the SCS
initiative, and imagine what sustainable agricultural systems might look
like, how they would function, and how to get there. More specifically
we explore the transition towards a more regenerative farming system,
while we also include aspects of transformation of the broader food
system.
2. Conceptual background
2.1. Participatory visions for transformative change
The call for societal ‘transitions’ and ‘transformations’ have grown in
response to the increased interests from science and policy for systemic
change (Hölscher et al., 2018). Transitions often focus on tweaking parts
of a system (e.g. technical changes), and neglect the deeper power dy­
namics that create and maintain unequal and unsustainable systems
(Oliver et al., 2018). Transformative change is profoundly political
(Anderson and Leach, 2019) and refer to large, long-term systemic
changes of social-ecological systems, as opposed to minor, marginal, or
incremental changes (Feola, 2015; Lahsen and Turnhout, 2021; Linnér
and Wibeck, 2019; Rana et al., 2020). A sustainable transformation of
the food system thus implies extensive changes in the currently domi­
nating industrial food system that has led to a transgression of multiple
planetary boundaries (Steffen et al., 2015) and the upholding of social
injustices (e.g. access to nutritious food) (Anderson and Leach, 2019).
Recent research has pointed out that far-reaching changes are needed in
production, consumption, and waste disposal, which require radical
shifts – rather than incremental changes – in power structures that
currently lock food systems into negative patterns (Anderson and Leach,
2019). Multiple local initiatives aim to tackle such challenges, and it is
important to ensure that such local actions are scaled up to achieve
transformations at broader scales (Moore et al., 2015; Seto and Reen­
berg, 2014).
One way to create platforms for mutual learning and spur trans­
formation is to develop normative visions that can reveal barriers in
existing economic and socio-cultural mechanisms, and offer guidance
for local sustainable initiatives to expand (Sellberg et al., 2020). People
need visions to imagine, inspire, mobilize, and facilitate constructive
action (Anderson, 2019), and visions can be used to imagine futures
beyond current societal structures and systems, yet linked to existing
initiatives for sustainable change (Bennett et al., 2016). Visions and
visioning processes are meant to be normative, as opposed to scenario
development and scenario planning that aims to explore a range of
alternative futures based on current trends and different development
pathways (Frame et al., 2018; Kishita et al., 2016; Oteros-Rozas et al.,
2015; Pereira et al., 2020b). Visioning is therefore incremental for
transformations, as they can inspire, guide and help people mobilize
towards completely new systems – in this case food systems.
Transdisciplinary research is essential for changing power dynamics
and can be a lever for transformative change (Anderson and Leach,
2019). The lack of inclusion of local people’s needs and voice in envi­
ronmental decision making can create oppositions, and undermine the
support and success of sustainability initiatives (Bennett et al., 2019).
Public participation is therefore central for knowledge co-production
about how to develop transformative future visions that are just and
fair, as participatory approaches often aim to give voice to marginalized
groups by making their knowledge, views, and aspirations part of the
scientific and societal debates (Johansson, 2021; Tengö et al., 2014). It is
however, important to reflect on who should participate, in what, and
for whose benefit (Cornwall, 2008; Johansson, 2021). If we want to
develop visions that challenge current power arrangements, it is a good
idea to favor less powerful actors in the participatory process (Anderson
and Leach, 2019). By purposely inviting actors with little agency – but
with much at stake – to the participatory process, such space can offer
less powerful actors of the food system an opportunity to imagine a new
network of actors and policies that are crucial for reaching an alternative
future farm- and food system that is more just and fair. The insights and
innovations developed in such knowledge system can thereafter be used
as a starting point for further knowledge generation with other stake­
holder groups (Tengö et al., 2014).
2.2. Regenerative farming and agroecology
Regenerative farming is an agricultural movement – and a set of
farming principles – that aims to restore farmland and create sustainable
and resilient farming systems (Hes and Rose, 2019; Soloviev and
Landua, 2016). While regenerative farming focuses on how to transform
farming practices, agroecology is a movement that aims to transform
both the social and environmental dimensions of the whole food system
(Gliessman, 2014) to also become just and fair (Anderson et al., 2019).
Agroecological systems also aims to develop production systems that are
appropriate for local human consumption, alternative markets, promo­
tion of local and indigenous knowledge, campaign for land reforms, and
to promote farmer-to-farmer teaching and learning (Giraldo and Rosset,
2018; Oteros-Rozas et al., 2019). Thus, agroecology contains a funda­
mental political dimension, that producers and citizens should have
increased autonomy and agency to self-organize for sustainable food
production and consumption, and social justice (Anderson et al., 2019).
3. Methods
3.1. Workshop design and participants
This study builds on two vision-making workshops with actors who
are part of the SCS initiative: the first one with farmers only (8), and the
second one with farmers (12), farming consultants (2), and food industry
E.L. Johansson et al.

3. Environmental Science and Policy 135 (2022) 16–25
18
advisors (3). The focus of the first workshop was on the farm-level
system, while the second workshop zoomed out to focus on the food
system. The visions were discussed within a time horizon of 10 years
(2031) as it was considered as a suitable time frame for planning and
taking action on the farm level, and to make it possible to imagine and
reason about potential or desirable changes. In addition, the coming
decade is crucial for achieving substantial reductions in global carbon
emissions. Participants were however asked to also consider long-term
sustainability.
The first workshop took place online (on Zoom) due to the Covid-19
pandemic, over two half-days in January, 2021. In total, 8 farmers
participated in the first workshop together with four core actors of the
SCS initiative, and two researchers in sustainability science (Table A.2).
The farmers are part of the SCS initiative as ‘pilot farms’, and can be
considered as ‘innovators’ or ‘early adopters’ (Diederen et al., 2003) as
they are frontrunners in re-thinking conventional agriculture and agri­
cultural practices towards sustainable alternatives, and many of them
have already worked with innovative farming practices (e.g. regenera­
tive farming) for several years. The second two-day workshop was held
in December, 2021, on one of the pilot farms outside of Stockholm,
Sweden.
3.2. The seeds approach
The first workshop built on ideas from the “Seeds of a Good
Anthropocene” project, which offers a method to explore what a com­
bination of emerging innovations would look like, and how they would
function if they became more dominant in the future (Pereira, 2021).
Seeds are defined as existing initiatives or innovations that are currently
not well-known or widespread (e.g. technologies, economic tools, or­
ganizations, social movements or behavioral changes) but have the
potential to make a substantial contribution towards creating a future
that is just, prosperous, and sustainable (Bennett et al., 2016; Pereira,
2021). Different seeds identified in the workshop were combined and
imagined as the new mainstream, and so called ‘future wheels’ were
designed to identify direct and indirect social, environmental, and
economic effects. Thereafter, narratives were developed to imagine
what such a future could look like, and how it would function, but also to
identify obstacles and possibilities for how to reach such a future. The
seeds-method usually tends to maximize diversity for knowledge
co-creation, both by engaging a wide range of participants and by
combining seeds that are very different from each other (Pereira et al.,
2020a, 2018). This workshop however differed from other
seeds-workshops, as the participants were similar in terms of their in­
terest in carbon sequestration, but differed in farm type and practices.
Also, all seeds were directly related to farming- and food systems, pre­
dominantly in Sweden.
The first workshop started with a joint session to introduce the
purpose of the exercise as to create future visions of what sustainable
carbon sequestering Swedish farming systems that are just and fair could
look like, and how they would function. Inspired by Schultz (2015) and
Pereira et al. (2020b), the lead author described the concept of seeds in
order to spur the joint brainstorming of seeds within five spheres:
environmental, societal, technological, economic, and political (see
predefined and new seeds in Table A.3). We used Mural (i.e. a collab­
orative whiteboard software; www.mural.co) as our digital workspace
for visual collaboration, which made it possible for all participants to
follow the different steps of the workshop in a pre-designed template.
The participants were divided into two focus groups (Table A.2),
where each group was asked to select three seeds that would form the
basis of their future vision. Participants were encouraged to choose three
thematically different seeds from the suggested spheres in order to
imagine unexpected, radically different, but possible futures. Since the
focus was on carbon sequestration, at least one seed had to be related to
farming practices that enhance carbon sequestration. We then asked
participants to imagine the three seeds as the new mainstream, and to
create ‘future wheels’ which entails identifying direct and indirect ef­
fects of each seed on e.g. the environment, people, economy, or society
as a whole. The direct effects were defined to their farm-level conse­
quences (e.g. farm-level economy, farmer health, soil quality), while the
indirect effects were related to the larger scale impacts of society as a
whole (e.g. new consumption patterns, lowered impacts on climate
change, increased biodiversity). After creating three future wheels, each
group was instructed to reflect on how the seeds and their effects might
impact each other in terms of synergies and trade-offs.
The key principles and farming methods from both groups’ visions
were compiled and visualized as a pictorial illustration by the lead
author, and formed the foundation for discussions of the second work­
shop. Participants here discussed how the content of the visualization
related to different farm types and farming systems (e.g. agroforestry,
specialized farms for dairy and meat production), different local con­
ditions (e.g. soils, geology, climate, farm size, access to resources), and
how it would function across scales (e.g. local, regional, global).
Thereafter, the participants of the second workshop discussed carbon
sequestration and the future food system with guidance by the Three
Horizons Framework.
3.3. The three horizons framework
In line with a research design proposed by Pereira (2021), the second
day of workshop one, and the entire follow-up workshop, was guided by
the so-called Three Horizons Framework (Sharpe et al., 2016). The
framework is commonly used when working with complex and intrac­
table problems and uncertain futures, to identify key ideas and actions to
enable a transition from business as usual to an alternative future. The
Three Horizons framework maps two main pathways over time, where
the horizontal x-axis shows three stages of development (the current
system in 2020, a transition period, and the future system in 2030), and
the vertical y-axis represents the dominance of certain practices and
societal systems (Fig. 1). The first horizon H1 (red line) represents a
business-as-usual pathway, i.e., what currently dominates a particular
system but needs to be phased out. The third horizon H3 (green line)
represents the emerging future, and the future vision we want to move
towards. In the middle, there is a second horizon H2 (blue line) that
represents any disruptive innovations or activities that can help induce a
shift to support the future vision (H2+), but need to be designed in a way
so it is not absorbed back to strengthen and maintain business as usual
(H2-).
The participants were guided through the Three Horizons Frame­
work by answering questions across the timeline of Fig. 1. Different
numbers refer to specific questions posed to the participants during the
two workshops (Table A.4), a method inspired by Raworth (2018), and
Rana et al. (2020). Participants were also encouraged to add important
Fig. 1. Numbers indicate points where questions were asked during the
workshop for creating future narratives, and how to get there.
Conceptual figure of the three-horizons framework, adapted from Sharpe
et al. (2016).
E.L. Johansson et al.

4. Environmental Science and Policy 135 (2022) 16–25
19
aspects beyond the guiding questions that were brought up in the
groups. At the end of the two workshops, the working groups presented
their key findings for all workshop participants.
4. Results
4.1. Key components of the future visions
The participants of workshop one used two different sets of seeds to
imagine future visions of carbon sequestration on Swedish farmland,
and to identify their effects across human and natural systems, and
spatial scales (Figure A.1, A.2). Both groups selected ‘increased use of
perennials’ as one of their seeds, while one group also selected ‘keyline
design’ and an ‘online farmers market’ (see descriptions in Table 1). The
other group selected ‘collaboration between farms’, and ‘soil health
knowledge in education and consultation’. Even though the future vi­
sions of the two groups were based on different seed combinations, key
characteristics of the future narratives turned out rather similar (simi­
larities and differences are presented in Table A.5). Fig. 2 is an illus­
tration that compiles the workshop discussions and the diverse features
of a future farming system that sequesters carbon and supports vital
ecosystems. The following sections summarize and describe the key
components of the farming futures as they were described and formu­
lated by participants of the first workshop.
4.1.1. Landscape description
Future farms are dominated by a diverse set of perennial crops, trees,
and bushes that create green landscapes with high biodiversity and
carbon sequestration. In terms of carbon, perennial crops sequester more
carbon than annual crops since they develop large root systems due to a
reduced need to plow the fields. Soil health is also improved as biomass
remains undisturbed, which is beneficial for microbial life and the vi­
tality of soils. Leys consist of a diverse mix of perennials (>10 species),
and farmers sometimes combine perennials and annual crops to make
the best use of the high soil fertility. Perennials have multiple farm-level
benefits by saving the use of seeds, fuels and machinery, in turn reducing
the overall workload and costs for farmers, which might lead to less
stress and improved mental and physical health. To some extent, soils
are fed with microorganisms to build ‘living soils’ that capture more
carbon than what is removed through harvests. More trees and bushes in
the landscape also contribute to an increased aboveground biodiversity
as they create habitats for animals. As trees and farm fields are well
integrated, animals play a key role by grazing between tree rows, leys
and in the forests. The variety of trees reduce the vulnerability to risks
related to climate change and disease, and some trees produce foods that
are rich in fat, protein, and starch (e.g. walnuts, hazelnuts, chestnut),
while other provide pollination, and fiber (e.g. Salix, Populus). Planta­
tions are also established in forests (e.g. mushrooms), and farmers pro­
cess high-value products like concentrated birch sap and linden honey.
4.1.2. Fuels and energy use
The overall demand for fuel and energy is reduced since future farms
have shifted to perennial crops and a keyline design that requires less
soil tillage. Farmers also reduce their transports and energy use by
integrating animals in the farm landscape so that animals can sustain
themselves with fodder, and release their manure where it is needed.
Integrating animals in the landscape also minimizes the excessive for­
mation of manure that otherwise would lead to nutrient loss and N2O
emissions. Biofuels are not used as a substitute for fossil fuels – since
carbon needs to stay in the ground – but the main sources of energy are
provided by hydrogen gas and other low-carbon sources like solar panels
on barn roofs.
4.1.3. Increased demand for quality instead of quantity
In the visions, consumers are more concerned about what they eat
and how food is produced, and the food demand is diverse and adapted
Table 1
Selected seeds and their descriptions and definitions according to the workshop
participants.
Group Seed Description
1 + 2 Increased use of perennials Described as trees, bushes, herbs, grain
varieties, wetland plants, and weeds
that are left to grow for several years.
More specifically, the perennials
mentioned were fruit- and nut trees
(especially apples, plums, and
hazelnuts), and bushes with edible
berries (sea buckthorn, strawberries,
blueberries, raspberries). Also trees like
linden [Tilia cordata] were mentioned,
as they provide honey and have edible
young leaves that can contribute to
replacing meat and dairy protein with
leaf protein. An example of a herb is the
quinoa-like perennial goosefoot [Blitum
bonus-henricus], which has multiple
benefits as both leaves, seeds, and roots
can be used for food and medicinal
purposes. Grains include perennial
wheat (e.g. kernza) and barley.
Furthermore, reeds were mentioned as
a wetland plant suitable for fodder, and
food ingredient when processed. Other
useful perennials are leguminous
vetches [Vicia pisiformis], spring onion
[Allium fistulosum], sea-cale [Crambe
maritima], and greater sea-kale
[Crambe cordifolia]. There are also
some edible perennial weeds that can
be harvested like dandelions, nettles,
ramsons, and chickweed.
1 Keyline design Different agricultural techniques where
farmers make use of the landscape
topography to better distribute water
across the landscape. Keyline plowing
is a contour plowing technique that
redistributes the water across elevation
curves in the landscape through
plowing paths for the water to run up
on higher elevations instead of
gathering in the valleys. Another type
of keyline design is to combine grazing
and tree rows, or to cultivate hillslopes
through terracing.
1 Online farmers market A platform for farmers to get into direct
contact with customers to sell their
products without intermediaries. The
initiative makes it easier for farmers to
upload their products, for consumers to
create orders from a variety of farmers,
and for distributors to offer their
services and deliver the products from
the farms to the customers in an
efficient way.
2 Collaboration between
farms
A variety of practices where farmers
jointly develop farm stores, share
equipment and machinery, but also
share land and animals with each other.
Land can for example be shared
between farmers that grow catch- or
ley-crops that need grazing, and
farmers that have cattle that need
fodder.
2 Soil health knowledge in
education and
consultation
Refers to an increased prioritization of
soil health and biodiversity in the
education system. Consultants need to
be educated about soil health in order
give relevant advice for farmers. This
can for example include farming
practices like planting intermediate
crops to enable high rates of
photosynthesis all year, or to fertilize
soils with compost and foliar
(continued on next page)
E.L. Johansson et al.

5. Environmental Science and Policy 135 (2022) 16–25
20
to what is seasonally available, locally produced, and nutrient rich (e.g.
dairy products, nuts, and wetland plants). Vital ecosystems contribute to
the production of more nutrient dense food, and farm visits spur debates
and spread knowledge in society, which make people aware that it is
possible to change production and consumption patterns. Chefs get
inspired by the perennial food supply, and play a central role in
providing ideas and develop recipes for new and healthy meals. Future
diets are therefore more diverse, which in turn stimulate farms to
become even more diverse in terms of production. Further, the farms
increasingly strive for quality instead of quantity which also improves
the farmer’s health, as there is a reduced need for artificial inputs, in
turn leading to reduced workload, lower work pace, costs, and less
physical and mental stress. Educational systems related to farming
increasingly focus on soil health and biology (as opposed to bulk pro­
duction determined by time- and cost-effectiveness), and farmers are
taught that high quality food comes from vital and efficient food pro­
duction systems that rely on less external inputs.
4.1.4. Increased collaborations
Collaboration enables farmers to realize new ideas and innovations,
for example through joint farm shops, or in the exchange of labor and
favors between each other. Increased collaboration between farms leads
to shared costs of expensive equipment, machines, and tractors.
Specialized farms increasingly collaborate with each other, for example
by letting cows graze another farm’s ley. The online farmers market is a
platform for collaboration between farmers to produce and provide fresh
and timely products to customers. The platform facilitates efficient
transportation and distribution to customers, which in turn reduces
carbon emissions and creates a better economy for farmers through
fewer intermediaries and retailers along the value chain. The platform
also enables the public sector to place bulk orders, which can create
long-term relationships between the public sector and farmers, and
thereby secure long-term incomes. However, this type of direct trade
also demands new investments on the farm, since on-farm grinding,
packaging, and labelling require new types of labor, as well as cheap,
small-scale, and well-functioning packaging machines. This would on
the other hand create new on-farm job opportunities. Also, young and
new farmers are successful due to the mentorship and support from
experienced farmers. As farmers ally with each other, they can produce
what is needed – and avoid a lot of surplus production – which in turn
increases the profitability of farming. Finally, increased collaborations
can also lead to new and better relationships and a sense of community,
which makes farming more fun.
4.1.5. Farm size and land ownership
There is a diversity of farms and farm sizes, and the future has
everything from small- to large-scale, precision farming and
Table 1 (continued)
Group Seed Description
fertilization instead of adding nitrates
and salts, or to use hot composting in
order to bind salts in organic waste.
Fig. 2. The illustration is based on discussions from the first workshop, and is a collection of ideas and principles of what a sustainable future farm can engage with to
sequester more carbon, create vital ecosystems, and also create positive effects on farmers’ health and income. Farmers can choose different sets of suggested methods
represented in the visualization, but key ideas are to create green landscapes by keeping soils covered all year by an increased use of perennials, bushes and trees, and
that animals are increasingly integrated to the farm landscape.
E.L. Johansson et al.

6. Environmental Science and Policy 135 (2022) 16–25
21
permaculture. There is an increased on-farm diversity, where a
specialized farm often is complemented by a small-scale agroforestry or
vegetable plantation. Already established farmers lease land to a new
generation of farmers, and there are many different types of activities on
the farm where experienced farmers share their knowledge. However,
some workshop participants mean that the leasing system needs to be
abolished, and that a new system makes it possible for people to buy and
own their own land. When farmers have ownership rights to the land,
they are able to make long-term investments in e.g., tree plantations to
develop an agroforestry system, or to construct roads and ditches. The
scale of the farm is not necessarily connected to ownership, but rather to
farming practices, for example to enable healthy and diverse crop
rotation systems that include animals in the landscape.
4.2. How to transform into the future farm- and food system visions
There are many alternative pathways to support increased carbon
sequestration on farmland, and participants mainly discussed carbon
sequestration as an effect of shaping vital ecosystems and healthy soils.
The following section compiles the participants’ discussions about what
needs to change in order to move towards the visions of a future farm-
and food system. Broadly, the participants of the second workshop dis­
cussed how the transformation of the farm- and food system should
happen, and who should drive the transformation.
There is a need for more consumer power, as currently a limited
number of individuals have the power to decide what food should be
available in food stores. Even if consumers want to support local farms,
the selected products on the shelves in the major food chains are stan­
dardized and limit the consumers’ choice. Consumers also need to adapt
their dietary preferences to enable the creation of vital ecosystems, for
example by increasing their protein consumption from legumes, or to eat
more parts of the animals and plants to reduce food waste.
The food industry should help create a demand for sustainable
products by making ‘bad’ food products cost more, and ‘good’ food
products available and affordable. They must also put pressure on
farmers to produce food that are in line with supporting vital and carbon
sequestering landscapes. If carbon cannot be quantified and verified,
food industries need to support farms based on the farmers’ qualitative
description of carbon sequestration. There is a need for flexible and
locally adapted food industries that improve circular food-systems, for
example by supporting food nodes for deliveries and pickups, or by
purchasing more locally produced food instead of being tied to a central
warehouse. An increase in regional mills, butchers, and processing fa­
cilities (e.g., for boiling legumes) can help fill existing gaps in the value
chain. Solutions however need to be diverse and locally adapted since
the infrastructure looks different in the north of Sweden (long distances)
and in the south (bigger cities and shorter distances).
Overall, there is a need to identify farming systems that improve the
environment, and to support them politically and financially. Policies
and financial support systems should benefit farmers that engage with
carbon sequestration in different ways, and there should be political
incitements, economic compensation, and financial support to help
farmers try new and innovative things, e.g., permanent leys for grazing
(as opposed to support for plowing for cereal production), or agrofor­
estry (today farmers lose EU support for such development). Policies and
financial support systems should also be adapted to make it easy for
farmers and other actors of the food system to collaborate.
EU financial support systems should incentivize farmers to integrate
trees into their fields, and to reduce tilling on leys. Small farms with
several activities should be prioritized for financial support from the
government, and there should be a system where farming consultants
can support farmers who want to change their practices. Political action
should control that banks and investment firms are obligated to provide
loans to investments that lead to sustainable farming. Farmer organi­
zations like the Federation of Swedish Farmers [LRF] should renew their
visions and move away from a focus on selling bulk products, to a wider
perspective on food quality and soil health. New tax systems should
benefit those who use land for farming, as opposed to those who own
land as a capital investment to lease to others. Another idea is to remove
the need to pay value-added tax if you are a small-scale farmer, which
makes it possible for small farms to have more employees with good
salaries. Another change in the tax system is to remove employment
taxes and subsidies for fossil fuels (and increase energy taxes), which
would support jobs and not fossil fuels, and in turn benefit those with
many employees and fewer machines.
School education should create knowledge and awareness about how
food is produced, and communicate to students what a healthy and
sustainable food system is. Education for farmers should focus on soil
heath, quality of products, and alternative production systems that
sequester carbon and create vital ecosystems. It is important to
communicate good examples and simple first steps like using catch
crops. There is also a need to acknowledge that there are needs for
different educational content in different geographical locations and
conditions, e.g., the plains and the forests. Researchers need to develop
models of alternative farms, and present concrete solutions, e.g., Perkins
(2019) chicken coup. There is also a need for more research on carbon
sequestration quantification in order to know what approaches store the
most carbon. More research is also needed about microorganisms, living
soils, and humus content, and the new knowledge needs to be made
accessible and communicated to practitioners faster than today, as these
are the pillars of healthy and carbon rich soils.
5. Discussion
As presented in the results, the participants of the two workshops
developed a concrete picture of what sustainable future farming- and
food systems might look like, how they could function, and what needs
to change to get there. Overall, the participants describe current prob­
lems with agriculture as an effect of the mainstream industrial food
system identified in academic literature (Bezner-Kerr et al., 2011;
Campbell et al., 2017; IPES-Food, 2016), and propose alternative ways
for farmers to retain power over their modes of production, income, and
management of the land. All participants shared their different per­
spectives and knowledge, which created rich visions that contain mul­
tiple tools and approaches to sequester more carbon in soils and
vegetation. In this section, we first integrate the participants’ discussions
in the scientific context. Thereafter we will zoom out to discuss the
future visions in a broader context of agroecology and ideas of food
systems transformation. Finally, we will share some reflections on the
workshop methodology and selection of participants.
5.1. Key principles of carbon sequestration in a scientific context
Many of the workshop discussions followed key principles of how to
build soils: to ditch the plow, plant cover crops, and increase crop di­
versity (Montgomery, 2017; Toensmeier, 2016). These principles build
on ideas that the organic carbon content increases in soils the longer
they are covered, as more root biomass is accumulated (Sykes et al.,
2020). This was central in the discussions about perennial crops and
trees that keep soils covered all year. The participants stressed that
healthy soils that are rich in carbon will increase yields and reduce
economic risks for farmers, which is also supported by research showing
how high levels of soil carbon are associated with high yields, and
reduced vulnerability to yield loss under unfavorable weather condi­
tions (Droste et al., 2020; Lal, 2016). However, crop yield and quality
increases are not inevitable outcomes of improved soil health, and yield
outcomes are variable and region specific (Miner et al., 2020). Another
approach to build soil carbon is to return organic material to the fields
by burying organic waste like compost and residues. These are fairly
simple solutions to a pressing problem, but current agricultural policies
and conventional practices discourage farmers from using the right
farming principles (Montgomery, 2017). A more controversial
E.L. Johansson et al.

7. Environmental Science and Policy 135 (2022) 16–25
22
suggestion by some participants was to improve the soil vitality and
production by adding effective microorganisms, which is a claim with
modest, and even conflicting, support in research (Mayer et al., 2010;
Tommonaro et al., 2021).
More controversial ideas relate to discussions about increased
(Swedish) beef consumption. While it is established that integrating crop
production with livestock grazing can enhance soil function and health
(Moraine et al., 2014; Russelle et al., 2007), this view can also be in
conflict with other ideas about what constitutes a sustainable food sys­
tem (Willett et al., 2019), at least under the current meat production
system (Van Selm et al., 2022). The EAT Lancet report claims that a
sustainable diet should contain as little as 0–28 g/day of red meat (beef,
lamb or pork), and in 2021 Swedish consumption was as high as
143 g/day (including chicken) (The Swedish Food Agency, 2021). The
need for new diets were also discussed in the workshop, and possibilities
for this transition has also been emphasized in Vermeulen et al. (2019).
Another strong emphasis from participants was the need for new
knowledge and education systems where farmers learn about food
quality, soil health, and biology to stimulate a shift in current farming
practices. They further highlighted the lack of consultants who can
advise farmers about alternative practices, and often, innovative farmers
instead have to educate the consultants. Challenges related to education,
consultancy, and quantity over quality have also been raised in the
Swedish forestry context (Hertog et al., 2022), and in the context of
regenerative farming for example in Australia (Burns, 2021). Also
Vanloqueren and Baret (2017) emphasized that organizations of agri­
cultural advising, supply chains, and standard setting are locking out the
transition of agriculture towards other models.
5.2. Carbon sequestering landscapes as a transformation to
agroecological systems
Many of the proposed solutions were not directly about carbon per-
se, but about how to create healthy and vital ecosystems, which in turn
sequester more carbon over time. The visions have evident links with
elements of agroecology, as they contain what FAO (2018) defines as
diversity, synergies, efficiency, resilience, recycling, co-creation and
sharing of knowledge, human and social values, culture and food tra­
ditions, responsible governance, and a circular and solidarity economy.
Some ideas that are important within agroecology were not mentioned
in the workshop, like the use of local and cultural plant and seed vari­
eties (Coolsaet, 2016), and attracting insects for pollination and pest
management (Petit et al., 2020).
The visions that emerged from the workshops were in line with
“political agroecological” futures (Anderson et al., 2019; De Molina, M.
G, 2013). Discussions went beyond transitional aspects, of how new
machinery and technologies can help farmers develop within the current
food system, and into identifying broader systemic socio-economic and
power-related changes needed in the agricultural system. Such changes
include initiating social changes such as increased collaborations,
reduced economic risks, and increased autonomy of future farms that
engage in carbon sequestering methods. Aided by an open and safe at­
mosphere in the workshop, participants were able to put forward and
discuss their ideas of an ‘ideal’ future farming system, that could, at the
same time, improve the health of both soils and farmers, increase the
rates of carbon sequestration, increase farm-level and landscape biodi­
versity, as well as change power structures through shortening food
value chains. Participants raised the need for producers and consumers
to define their own food and agricultural system, and the importance of
access to healthy and locally appropriate food produced in sustainable
ways. They further suggested that producers and consumers should have
more control over the food systems and policies, rather than markets and
corporations, which is in line with ideas of food sovereignty as described
in the Nyéléni Declaration (2007).
5.3. How to lead the transformation
There is now a global dedication to halt soil degradation and pro­
mote soil health, fair access to agricultural land, and resilient and sus­
tainable food systems (Global Forum for Food and Agriculture, 2022).
Agroecology has been promoted as one possible solution to agricultural
challenges by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO, 2018). It has been argued however, that when agro­
ecology now meets the world of institutions, policies, and laws, it is
important that it is not de-politicized and reduced to a set of practices,
but that it is scaled up to also change institutions, policies, and laws
(Giraldo and Rosset, 2018). In order for agroecology, or related agri­
cultural paradigms, to stay true to its key principles, it is important to
not only offer tools and technological fixes for the food industry, but to
also scrutinize and question existing power structures. Such arguments
are also one of the main reasons for why we in this study decided to only
include innovative farmers in the knowledge co-production of future
visions, and actively exclude mainstream industries and producers in the
food system. It was not until the second workshop we invited some
representatives from the food industry who are also part of the SCS
initiative. Including such actors to the research process gave an idea
about their current views, and how they need to adapt to reach the
aspired future. Participants expressed that it was good to have a space
where they could elaborate on a future vision without having to
compromise with powerful agricultural actors in the Swedish farm- and
food system as “they have never been innovators”, and “have a
competing vision about what Swedish farmland should look like”. They
would however like to invite more actors from different parts of the food
system in future workshops.
If we want innovations to expand and lead to a societal trans­
formation, there is a need to discuss how to shift the power balance and
change the status quo. It is important to discuss how initiatives like SCS
can provide a platform for farmers to increase their agency and to act
more independently in relation to established agribusinesses, large food
and grocery retailers, and existing agricultural policies. It is also
important to discuss how the food industry can actively support the shift
towards a farming system that sequesters carbon and supports vital
ecosystems. In line with the workshop discussions, De Molina, M.G
(2013) highlight three necessary steps for a societal transition towards
agroecology. Firstly, there is a need for behavioral change amongst
consumers, that people change their eating habits (i.e., to scale deep
according to Moore et al., 2015). Secondly, agroecological experiments
for sustainable production need to be supported, mainly through
strengthening producer and consumer groups and associations (i.e., to
scale up). Thirdly, agroecological initiatives must be expanded and
achieve a sufficient quantitative and qualitative dimension (scale out),
both through political support and collective action (scale up).
One challenge with carbon sequestration as we see it, is related to
carbon quantification, where some farmers and food industry advisors
highlighted the importance for reliable validation and quantification of
carbon in order for the food industry to invest. Later on, participants
discussed that the food industry needs to be flexible in how they plan
their investments, and also be willing to understand qualitative de­
scriptions about the complexities of carbon sequestration, as it currently
is not possible to model carbon with such precision. Although modelling
is a powerful tool, it does not provide useful guidance without accurate
data (Anderson and Leach, 2019). There is also a risk that the systemic
solutions are lost if too much focus is on what stores the most carbon,
and in turn will give the biggest financial compensation, and multiple
benefits of vital carbon sequestering farmlands is likely to become a
secondary priority. Similar processes have been seen in other financial
compensation schemes, where the initial plan was to mitigate climate
through agroforestry quickly turned in to forest monocultures (Carton
and Andersson, 2017). As discussed as Horizon H2, it is important to
develop strategies that hinder innovations to become integrated into
systems that strengthen a few powerful actors of the food system, e.g.,
E.L. Johansson et al.

8. Environmental Science and Policy 135 (2022) 16–25
23
agribusinesses that look for new ways to legitimize their capital accu­
mulation. Too much focus on carbon quantification might be a key
challenge that might lead to a future ‘hijack’ by the system they aspire to
change, as agribusinesses constantly search for new possibilities to in­
crease their profits by investing in initiatives that makes them look
responsible towards consumers, while maintaining a status quo where
farmers remain dependent on new financial support systems. We suggest
that one way forward is to develop qualitative criteria that focus on the
farm system as a whole, including social and environmental aspects.
Also Garrido et al. (2017) highlight the need for qualitative approaches
to socio-cultural valuations of ecosystem services in the context of
Swedish wood-pasture landscapes, as the values of such landscapes
differed widely depending on what stakeholder group that were asked.
5.4. Reflections about the research process and barriers for
transformation
In scenario exercises it has been found that those actors with much at
stake are often those with little agency (Evans et al., 2006), which is why
we strived to develop future visions with farmers who strive for sus­
tainable change, but are often hindered by different rules and regulation
that create lock-ins of the system. It was therefore important in this
workshop to not engage actors at lower stake and more political power,
as this might have hindered the visionary thinking around a future
sustainable carbon farming system, and created visions with unwanted
compromise (Johansson, 2021). The workshop could have benefitted
from bringing in actors with more theoretical and technical knowledge
about regenerative farming and agroecology, as solutions to problems
like new types of pests are quite theoretical and technical. We could also
discuss and identify trade-offs between producers and the food industry
during the second workshop. A follow-up workshop will benefit from
inviting more innovative actors from the whole food system, but
building on the future visions of the food producers to not lose the focus
on just and sustainable agricultural systems.
The Covid-19 pandemic made it difficult to arrange workshops for
this study, and constrained the participation of some invited actors (e.g.,
more farmers in the first workshop, and more food industry advisors in
the second). Even though the online-nature of the first workshop created
opportunities for farmers to participate as there was a large geographical
spread among participants, the online setting made it difficult to create
lively discussions and social connections. Also, time-constraint and
online-nature of the first workshop might have limited their incitement
to imagine, which often made the participants discuss what was likely to
happen within the current system. This made the role of the facilitator
important, as they frequently remind the participants to imagine a
future beyond the status quo. A larger group of participants could
however meet and continue the discussions in the second workshop.
An evaluation was done after the second workshop where 7 out of 22
participants responded. Overall, the participants felt that the workshop
was valuable, especially for creating dialogue and exchanging ideas with
a new network of people. Participants left the workshop with a feeling
that they are part of a group working on solutions for several climate
challenges, and felt energized with new ideas and perspectives. Some
participants thought the workshop was “too visionary”, and would have
appreciated a focus on more concreate and plausible farm-level solu­
tions (less ideological), as opposed to the more “abstract” systems focus.
So, how do we balance the practitioners’ urge for concrete action
plans with the concurrent need to imagine alternative future visions
together with practitioners? Although the illustration of the future vi­
sions “looks nice”, some participants struggled to see the immediate
benefit of it as it is “not likely to look like that within 10 years”. This
signifies a contemporary challenge, that it is difficult imagine where we
want to go, before we develop plans of how to get there. It is surely
important to clarify and communicate what actions that should be
taken, and by who, but it is also important to develop visions that can
guide those actions. In terms of a wider transformation towards
agroecology, there is a need to confront the political and economic re­
ality of the current agri-food system, and changes in policies and
governance will most probably only be achieved through popular
pressure, e.g., by alliances between farmers and non-farmers, together
with food justice organizations (Oteros-Rozas et al., 2019). Hence, there
is a need for a strong alliance between producers and consumers to spur
collective action, as well as the development of public policies that drive
that transformation of the farm- and food system forward (De Molina, M.
G, 2013).
6. Conclusion
The overall aim of this research was to imagine Swedish farms as
carbon sinks rather than sources, and how to re-design the whole farm-
and food system to also address other social, economic, and environ­
mental sustainability challenges. We did so by developing visions
together with famers, farming consultants, and food industry advisors
who are part of the Swedish Carbon Sequestration initiative. The par­
ticipants focused on a variety of farming principles that align with
regenerative farming and agroecology, and carbon sequestration was
highlighted as an effect of various practices that improve soil health and
ecosystem vitality. Aided by an open and safe atmosphere in the
workshop, participants were able to put forward and discuss their ideas
of an ‘ideal’ future farming system, that could, at the same time, improve
the health of both soils and farmers, increase the rates of carbon
sequestration, increase farm-level and landscape biodiversity, as well as
change power structures through new types of business models that
shorten food value chains. The participants stressed the need for
increased autonomy and ownership over farmland, and that policies and
financial support and tax systems should be changed to enable, rather
than hinder, alternative farm models to expand. Also, other rules and
regulations that currently benefit large-scale monoculture agriculture,
should instead favor diverse agricultural systems that produce high
quality food. A transformation to a just and fair agroecological system
that sequesters more carbon needs to be achieved through producers’
and consumers’ collective action, and with political support.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Emma Li Johansson: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation,
Investigation, Writing, Project administration, Funding administration
Sara Brogaard: Investigation, Writing – reviewing and editing Lova
Brodin: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Resources,
Writing – reviewing and editing, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet)
for financial support (grant number 2019–05474). The second workshop
was financed by Mistra – the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Envi­
ronmental Research (DIA 2019/28), and Formas – a Swedish Research
Council for Sustainable Development, as part of the national research
programme on climate (grant number 2021–00416). Thank you to all
farmers, farming consultants, and food industry advisors who partici­
pated in the workshops that formed the foundation of this research. Also,
many thanks to everyone who took notes and helped to facilitate the
workshop.
E.L. Johansson et al.

9. Environmental Science and Policy 135 (2022) 16–25
24
Appendix A. Supporting information
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the
online version at doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2022.04.005.
References
Anderson, C.R., Bruil, J., Chappell, M.J., Kiss, C., Pimbert, M.P., 2019. From transition to
domains of transformation: getting to sustainable and just food systems through
agroecology. Sustainability 11, 5272.
Anderson, K., Broderick, J.F., Stoddard, I., 2020. A factor of two: how the mitigation
plans of ‘climate progressive’nations fall far short of Paris-compliant pathways. Clim.
Policy 20, 1290–1304.
Anderson, M., 2019. The importance of vision in food system transformation. J. Agric.,
Food Syst., Community Dev. 9, 55–60.
Anderson, M., Leach, M. (2019) Transforming food systems: the potential of engaged
political economy.
Bateman, A.M., Muñoz-Rojas, M., 2019. To whom the burden of soil degradation and
management concerns, Advances in Chemical Pollution. Environmental
Management and Protection. Elsevier,, pp. 1–22.
Beck, S., Forsyth, T., 2020. Who gets to imagine transformative change? Participation
and representation in biodiversity assessments. Environ. Conserv. 1–4.
Bennett, E.M., Biggs, R., Peterson, G., Gordon, L.J., 2021. Patchw. Earth: Navig. Pathw.
just, thriving, Sustain. Futures.
Bennett, E.M., Solan, M., Biggs, R., McPhearson, T., Norström, A.V., Olsson, P.,
Pereira, L., Peterson, G.D., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Biermann, F., 2016. Bright spots:
seeds of a good Anthropocene. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 441–448.
Bennett, N.J., Blythe, J., Cisneros-Montemayor, A.M., Singh, G.G., Sumaila, U.R., 2019.
Just transformations to sustainability. Sustainability 11, 3881.
Bezner-Kerr, R., McGuire, K.L., Nigh, R., Rocheleau, D., Soluri, J., Perfecto, I.,
Hemming, D., 2011. Effects of industrial agriculture on climate change and the
mitigation potential of small-scale agro-ecological farms. Anim. Sci. Rev. 69.
Burns, E.A., 2021. Placing regenerative farming on environmental educators’ horizons.
Aust. J. Environ. Educ. 37, 29–39.
Campbell, B.M., Beare, D.J., Bennett, E.M., Hall-Spencer, J.M., Ingram, J.S.,
Jaramillo, F., Ortiz, R., Ramankutty, N., Sayer, J.A., Shindell, D., 2017. Agriculture
production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries.
Ecol. Soc. 22.
Carton, W., Andersson, E., 2017. Where forest carbon meets its maker: forestry-based
offsetting as the subsumption of nature. Soc. Nat. Resour. 30, 829–843.
Cederberg, C., Persson, U.M., Schmidt, S., Hedenus, F., Wood, R., 2019. Beyond the
borders–burdens of Swedish food consumption due to agrochemicals, greenhouse
gases and land-use change. J. Clean. Prod. 214, 644–652.
Clark, W.C., Harley, A.G., 2020. Sustainability science: toward a synthesis. Annu. Rev.
Environ. Resour. 45, 331–386.
Coolsaet, B., 2016. Towards an agroecology of knowledges: recognition, cognitive justice
and farmers’ autonomy in France. J. Rural Stud. 47, 165–171.
Cornwall, A., 2008. Unpacking ‘Participation’: models, meanings and practices.
Community Dev. J. 43, 269–283.
De Molina, M.G, 2013. Agroecology and politics. How to get sustainability? About the
necessity for a political agroecology. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 37, 45–59.
Diederen, P., Van Meijl, H., Wolters, A., Bijak, K., 2003. Innovation adoption in
agriculture: innovators, early adopters and laggards. Cah. D. ’Econ. Et. De. Sociol.
Rural. 67, 29–50.
Droste, N., May, W., Clough, Y., Börjesson, G., Brady, M.V., Hedlund, K., 2020. Soil
carbon insures arable crop production against increasing adverse weather due to
climate change. Environ. Res. Lett.
Evans, K., Velarde, S.J., Prieto, R.P., Rao, S.N., Sertzen, S., Dávila, K., Cronkleton, P., De
Jong, W. (2006) Field guide to the future: Four ways for communities to think ahead.
CIFOR.
Fanzo, J., Covic, N., Dobermann, A., Henson, S., Herrero, M., Pingali, P., Staal, S., 2020.
A research vision for food systems in the 2020s: defying the status quo. Glob. Food
Secur. 26, 100397.
FAO, (2018) The 10 elements of agroecology: Guiding the transition to sustainable food
and agricultural systems, Rome, Italy, p. 15.
Fazey, I., Schäpke, N., Caniglia, G., Hodgson, A., Kendrick, I., Lyon, C., Page, G.,
Patterson, J., Riedy, C., Strasser, T., 2020. Transforming knowledge systems for life
on Earth: Visions of future systems and how to get there. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 70,
101724.
Feola, G., 2015. Societal transformation in response to global environmental change: a
review of emerging concepts. Ambio 44, 376–390.
Frame, B., Lawrence, J., Ausseil, A.-G., Reisinger, A., Daigneault, A.J.C.R.M., 2018.
Adapt. Glob. Shar. Socio-Econ. Pathw. Natl. Local Scenar. 21, 39–51.
Garrido, P., Elbakidze, M., Angelstam, P., 2017. Stakeholders’ perceptions on ecosystem
services in Östergötland’s (Sweden) threatened oak wood-pasture landscapes.
Landsc. Urban Plan. 158, 96–104.
Giraldo, O.F., Rosset, P.M., 2018. Agroecology as a territory in dispute: between
institutionality and social movements. J. Peasant Stud. 45, 545–564.
Gliessman, S.R., 2014. Agroecology: The Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems. CRC
press.
Global Forum for Food and Agriculture, (2022) 14th Berlin Agriculture Ministers’
Conference Final Communiqué 2022, Sustainable Land Use: Food Security Starts
with the Soil. Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture.
Hertog, I.M., Brogaard, S., Krause, T., 2022. Barriers to expanding continuous cover
forestry in Sweden for delivering multiple ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 53,
101392.
Hes, D., Rose, N., 2019. Shifting from farming to tending the earth: a discussion paper.
J. Org. 6, 3–21.
Hölscher, K., Wittmayer, J.M., Loorbach, D., 2018. Transition versus transformation:
what’s the difference? Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 27, 1–3.
IPCC, (2019) Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change,
desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and
greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems, in: [P.R. Shukla, J.S., E. Calvo
Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. P rtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S.
Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J.
Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, J. Malley,
(eds.)]. In press. (Ed.) https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/11/SRCCL-
Full-Report-Compiled-191128.pdf.
IPES-Food, 2016. From uniformity to diversity: a paradigm shift from industrial
agriculture to diversified agroecological systems. International Panel of Experts on
Sustainable Food Systems. Louvain-la-Neuve (Belg. ): IPES 96.
Johansson, E., 2021. Participatory futures thinking in the African context of
sustainability challenges and socio-environmental change. Ecol. Soc. 26.
Kishita, Y., Hara, K., Uwasu, M., Umeda, Y., 2016. Research needs and challenges faced
in supporting scenario design in sustainability science: a literature review. Sustain.
Sci. 11, 331–347.
Kuylenstierna, J., Barraza, H., Benton, T., Larsen, A., Kurppa, S., Lipper, L., Virgin, I.,
2019. Food Secur. Sustain. Food Syst. Res. Support a Sustain., Compét. Innov. Swed.
Food Syst. 2030.
Lahsen, M., Turnhout, E., 2021. How norms, needs, and power in science obstruct
transformations towards sustainability. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 025008.
Lal, R., 2016. Soil health and carbon management. Food Energy Secur. 5, 212–222.
Linnér, B.-O., Wibeck, V., 2019. Sustainability Transformations Across Societies: Agents
and Drivers across Societies. Cambridge University Press.
Marquardt, K., Eriksson, C., Kuns, B., 2022. Towards a deeper understanding of
agricultural production systems in Sweden–Linking farmer’s logics with
environmental consequences and the landscape. Rural landscapes: society. Environ.,
Hist. 9.
Mayer, J., Scheid, S., Widmer, F., Fließbach, A., Oberholzer, H.-R., 2010. How effective
are ‘Effective microorganisms®(EM)’? Results from a field study in temperate
climate. Appl. Soil Ecol. 46, 230–239.
Miner, G.L., Delgado, J.A., Ippolito, J.A., Stewart, C.E., 2020. Soil health management
practices and crop productivity. Agric. Environ. Lett. 5, e20023.
Ministry of the Environment and Energy, 2017. The Swedish climate policy framework.
Gov. Off. Swed. 1–5. 〈https://www.government.se/495f60/contentassets/883ae8e
123bc4e42aa8d59296ebe0478/the-swedish-climate-policy-framework.pdf〉.
Montgomery, D.R., 2017. Growing a revolution: bringing our soil back to life. WW
Norton & Company.
Moore, M.-L., Riddell, D., Vocisano, D., 2015. Scaling out, scaling up, scaling deep:
strategies of non-profits in advancing systemic social innovation. J. Corp. Citizsh.
67–84.
Moraine, M., Duru, M., Nicholas, P., Leterme, P., Therond, O., 2014. Farming system
design for innovative crop-livestock integration in Europe. Animal 8, 1204–1217.
Olén, N.B., Roger, F., Brady, M.V., Larsson, C., Andersson, G.K., Ekroos, J., Caplat, P.,
Smith, H.G., Dänhardt, J., Clough, Y., 2021. Effects of farm type on food production,
landscape openness, grassland biodiversity, and greenhouse gas emissions in mixed
agricultural-forestry regions. Agric. Syst. 189, 103071.
Oliver, T.H., Boyd, E., Balcombe, K., Benton, T.G., Bullock, J.M., Donovan, D., Feola, G.,
Heard, M., Mace, G.M., Mortimer, S.R., 2018. Overcoming undesirable resilience in
the global food system. Glob. Sustain. 1.
Oteros-Rozas, E., Ravera, F., García-Llorente, M., 2019. How does agroecology
contribute to the transitions towards social-ecological sustainability? Multidiscip.
Digit. Publ. Inst. 4372.
Oteros-Rozas, E., Ravera, F., Palomo, I., 2015. Participatory scenario planning in place-
based social-ecological research: insights and experiences from 23 case studies. Ecol.
Soc. 20, 4.
Paz, D.B., Henderson, K., Loreau, M., 2020. Agricultural land use and the sustainability
of social-ecological systems. Ecol. Model. 437, 109312.
Pereira, L., 2021. Imagining better futures using the Seeds approach. Social Innovations.
Journal 5.
Pereira, L., Frantzeskaki, N., Hebinck, A., Charli-Joseph, L., Drimie, S., Dyer, M.,
Eakin, H., Galafassi, D., Karpouzoglou, T., Marshall, F., 2020a. Transformative
spaces in the making: key lessons from nine cases in the Global South. Sustain. Sci.
15, 161–178.
Pereira, L.M., Davies, K.K., den Belder, E., Ferrier, S., Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S., Kim, H.,
Kuiper, J.J., Okayasu, S., Palomo, M.G., Pereira, H.M., 2020b. Developing multiscale
and integrative nature–people scenarios using the Nature Futures Framework.
People Nat.
Pereira, L.M., Hichert, T., Hamann, M., Preiser, R., Biggs, R., 2018. Using futures
methods to create transformative spaces. Ecol. Soc. 23, 1.
Perkins, R., 2019. Regenerative agriculture: a practical whole systems guide to making
small farms work. RP 59N.
Petit, S., Muneret, L., Carbonne, B., Hannachi, M., Ricci, B., Rusch, A., Lavigne, C., 2020.
Landscape-scale expansion of agroecology to enhance natural pest control: a
systematic review. Adv. Ecol. Res. 63, 1–48.
Rana, S., Ávila-García, D., Dib, V., Familia, L., Gerhardinger, L.C., Martin, E., Martins, P.
I., Pompeu, J., Selomane, O., Tauli, J.I., 2020. The voices of youth in envisioning
positive futures for nature and people. Ecosyst. People 16, 326–344.
E.L. Johansson et al.

10. Environmental Science and Policy 135 (2022) 16–25
25
Raworth, K., (2018) Three Horizons Framework - a quick introduction. Doughnut
Economics Action Lab, 〈https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5KfRQJqpPU〉.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin III, F.S., Lambin, E., Lenton, T.
M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., 2009. Planetary boundaries: exploring
the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol. Soc. 14.
Rogelj, J., Shindell, D., Jiang, K., Fifita, S., Forster, P., Ginzburg, V., Handa, C.,
Kheshgi, H., Kobayashi, S., Kriegler, E., 2018. Mitigation pathways compatible with
1.5C in the context of sustainable development. Glob. Warm. 1. 5◦
C. Intergov. Panel
Clim. Change (IPCC) 93–174.
Russelle, M.P., Entz, M.H., Franzluebbers, A.J., 2007. Reconsidering integrated
crop–livestock systems in North America. Agron. J. 99, 325–334.
Schultz, W., 2015. APF Compass, 4. the future is not binary,, Manoa, pp. 4–8.
Sellberg, M.M., Norström, A.V., Peterson, G.D., Gordon, L.J.J.G.F.S., 2020. Using local
initiatives to envision sustainable and resilient food systems in the Stockholm city-
region. Glob. Food Secur. 24, 100334.
Seto, K.C., Reenberg, A., 2014. Rethinking global land use in an urban era. MIT Press,
Cambridge, London.
Sharpe, B., Hodgson, A., Leicester, G., Lyon, A., Fazey, I., 2016. Three horizons: a
pathways practice for transformation. Ecol. Soc. 21.
Soloviev, E.R., Landua, G. (2016) Levels of regenerative agriculture. Terra Genesis
International. http://www. terra-genesis. com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/
Levels-of-Regenerative-Agriculture-1. pdf.
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M.,
Biggs, R., Carpenter, S.R., De Vries, W., De Wit, C.A., 2015. Planetary boundaries:
Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347.
Sykes, A.J., Macleod, M., Eory, V., Rees, R.M., Payen, F., Myrgiotis, V., Williams, M.,
Sohi, S., Hillier, J., Moran, D., 2020. Characterising the biophysical, economic and
social impacts of soil carbon sequestration as a greenhouse gas removal technology.
Glob. Change Biol. 26, 1085–1108.
Tengö, M., Brondizio, E.S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., Spierenburg, M., 2014. Connecting
diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple
evidence base approach. Ambio 43, 579–591.
The Swedish Food Agency, (2021) Meat – beef, lamb, pork and chicken. The Swedish
Food Agency, 〈https://www.livsmedelsverket.se/en/food-habits-health-and-environ
ment/food-and-environment/eco-smart-food-choice/meat–beef-lamb-pork-and-ch
icken〉.
Thorn, J.P., Klein, J.A., Steger, C., Hopping, K.A., Capitani, C., Tucker, C.M., Reid, R.S.,
Marchant, R.A., 2021. Scenario archetypes reveal risks and opportunities for global
mountain futures. Glob. Environ. Change 69, 102291.
Toensmeier, E., 2016. The carbon farming solution: a global toolkit of perennial crops
and regenerative agriculture practices for climate change mitigation and food
security. Chelsea Green Publishing.
Tommonaro, G., Abbamondi, G.R., Nicolaus, B., Poli, A., D’Angelo, C., Iodice, C., De
Prisco, R., 2021. Productivity and nutritional trait improvements of different
tomatoes cultivated with effective microorganisms technology. Agriculture 11, 112.
Van Selm, B., Frehner, A., De Boer, I.J., Van Hal, O., Hijbeek, R., Van Ittersum, M.K.,
Talsma, E.F., Lesschen, J.P., Hendriks, C.M., Herrero, M., 2022. Circularity in animal
production requires a change in the EAT-Lancet diet in Europe. Nat. Food 1–8.
Vanloqueren, G., Baret, P.V., 2017. How agricultural research systems shape a
technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological
innovations 1. Food sovereignty, agroecology and biocultural diversity. Routledge,
pp. 57–92.
Vermeulen, S.J., Park, T., Khoury, C.K., Mockshell, J., Béné, C., Thi, H.T., Heard, B.,
Wilson, B., 2019. Chang. diets Transform. Food Syst.
Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S.,
Garnett, T., Tilman, D., DeClerck, F., Wood, A.J.T.L., 2019. Food Anthr.: EAT–Lancet
Comm. Healthy diets Sustain. Food Syst. 393, 447–492.
Wyborn, C., Montana, J., Kalas, N., Clement, S., Davila Cisneros, F., Knowles, N.,
Louder, E., Balan, M., Chambers, J., Christel, L., 2020. An Agenda For Research And
Action Towards Diverse And Just Futures For Life On Earth. In: Conservation
Biology, 0, pp. 1–12.
E.L. Johansson et al.