Browsing by Person "Ingram, Julie"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3

AKIS in England - overview and spotlights
(2024-11-11) Knierim, Andrea; Ingram, Julie
A situation analysis of the AKIS in England was undertaken in the time from January to May 2024 with a special focus on the private sector advisory subsystem’s actor constellation and performance based on grey and peer reviewed literature, expert and stakeholder interviews. Results show a particular diversity of actor types, characterised by different organisational features. Thus, it seems that in many places in England, farmers have many choices among service providers when it comes to making use of advisory services. Secondly, the public actor, the governmental department for environment, food and rural affairs (DEFRA) plays a fostering role for offering advisory services in combination with setting up ecosystem service and climate mitigation related measures. Thirdly, a shared conviction of the advantages of peer-to-peer learning formats among all service providing actors in the AKIS was observed as well as a readiness to collaborate with other AKIS actors across all organisational types and subsystems. On the other hand, there is a widely expressed need of coordination among AKIS actors, but no strategic planning or initiative in this regard. Former significant actors have shifted or reduced their roles and influence and, there is a considerable number of hybrid initiatives and innovation networks emerging, which represent and promote an array of new farming practices, technologies and food (production) styles and bridge various communities of farmers, researchers, consumers, citizens and other actors. Although the present study fulfils its objective of providing a (snapshot) overview of the AKIS in England, it equally reveals the blind spots and information deficits with respect to farmers’ needs and interests and the degree to which they are satisfied through the diversity of service actors.
Do agricultural advisory services in Europe have the capacity to support the transition to healthy soils?
(2022) Ingram, Julie; Mills, Jane; Black, Jasmine E.; Chivers, Charlotte-Anne; Aznar-Sánchez, José A.; Elsen, Annemie; Frac, Magdalena; López-Felices, Belén; Mayer-Gruner, Paula; Skaalsveen, Kamilla; Stolte, Jannes; Tits, Mia
The need to provide appropriate information, technical advice and facilitation to support farmers in transitioning towards healthy soils is increasingly clear, and the role of the Agricultural Advisory Services (AAS) in this is critical. However, the transformation of AAS (plurality, commercialisation, fragmentation, decentralisation) brings new challenges for delivering advice to support soil health management. This paper asks: To what extent do agricultural advisory services have the capacity to support the transition to healthy soils across Europe? Using the ‘best fit’ framework, analytical characteristics of the AAS relevant to the research question (governance structures, management, organisational and individual capacities) were identified. Analysis of 18 semi-structured expert interviews across 6 case study countries in Europe, selected to represent a range of contexts, was undertaken. Capacities to provide soil health management (SHM) advice are constrained by funding arrangements, limited adviser training and professional development, adviser motivations and professional cultures, all determined by institutional conditions. This has resulted in a narrowing down of access and content of soil advice and a reduced capacity to support the transition in farming to healthy soils. The extent to which emerging policy and market drivers incentivise enhanced capacities in AAS is an important area for future research.
Perennial biomass cropping and use: Shaping the policy ecosystem in European countries
(2023) Clifton‐Brown, John; Hastings, Astley; von Cossel, Moritz; Murphy‐Bokern, Donal; McCalmont, Jon; Whitaker, Jeanette; Alexopoulou, Efi; Amaducci, Stefano; Andronic, Larisa; Ashman, Christopher; Awty‐Carroll, Danny; Bhatia, Rakesh; Breuer, Lutz; Cosentino, Salvatore; Cracroft‐Eley, William; Donnison, Iain; Elbersen, Berien; Ferrarini, Andrea; Ford, Judith; Greef, Jörg; Ingram, Julie; Lewandowski, Iris; Magenau, Elena; Mos, Michal; Petrick, Martin; Pogrzeba, Marta; Robson, Paul; Rowe, Rebecca L.; Sandu, Anatolii; Schwarz, Kai‐Uwe; Scordia, Danilo; Scurlock, Jonathan; Shepherd, Anita; Thornton, Judith; Trindade, Luisa M.; Vetter, Sylvia; Wagner, Moritz; Wu, Pei‐Chen; Yamada, Toshihiko; Kiesel, Andreas
Demand for sustainably produced biomass is expected to increase with the need to provide renewable commodities, improve resource security and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with COP26 commitments. Studies have demonstrated additional environmental benefits of using perennial biomass crops (PBCs), when produced appropriately, as a feedstock for the growing bioeconomy, including utilisation for bioenergy (with or without carbon capture and storage). PBCs can potentially contribute to Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) (2023–27) objectives provided they are carefully integrated into farming systems and landscapes. Despite significant research and development (R&D) investment over decades in herbaceous and coppiced woody PBCs, deployment has largely stagnated due to social, economic and policy uncertainties. This paper identifies the challenges in creating policies that are acceptable to all actors. Development will need to be informed by measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) of greenhouse gas emissions reductions and other environmental, economic and social metrics. It discusses interlinked issues that must be considered in the expansion of PBC production: (i) available land; (ii) yield potential; (iii) integration into farming systems; (iv) R&D requirements; (v) utilisation options; and (vi) market systems and the socio‐economic environment. It makes policy recommendations that would enable greater PBC deployment: (1) incentivise farmers and land managers through specific policy measures, including carbon pricing, to allocate their less productive and less profitable land for uses which deliver demonstrable greenhouse gas reductions; (2) enable greenhouse gas mitigation markets to develop and offer secure contracts for commercial developers of verifiable low‐carbon bioenergy and bioproducts; (3) support innovation in biomass utilisation value chains; and (4) continue long‐term, strategic R&D and education for positive environmental, economic and social sustainability impacts.