Browsing by Subject "Agricultural advisory services"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2

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.
Privatization of agricultural advisory services and innovation systems : the case of Brandenburg, Germany
(2021) Knuth, Ulrike; Knierim, Andrea
The European regulations on Rural Development of the last two decades brought Agricultural Advisory Systems back onto the political agenda. Along with the introduction of Cross Compliance (CC), Member states were obliged to review their Farm Advisory System or to build up new infrastructure. The importance of innovation generation, knowledge dissemination and on-going learning in rural areas has been emphasized, and Agricultural Advisory Systems are regarded one important partner. A further development over the last 30 years has been a wave of privatization of Agricultural Advisory Systems (AAS) in Europe due to the pressure of decreasing public budgets. This cumulative dissertation examines the dialectic of increased and changing demands on Farm Advisory Systems on the one hand and the effects of privatization on the other hand. Privatization of agricultural advisory services in European Member States has been a process for decades. Both within Europe and Germany, the German federal state of Brandenburg has an Agricultural Advisory System with a comparatively high level of privatization and commercialization. It was therefore selected as an excellent case to address the development and the impacts of privatization. The goal of this dissertation is to answer the following leading research questions i) What were the consequences of privatization specifically for the situation of advisors, their capacities and competences?, ii) What are the responsibilities of public authorities to steer a (privatized) advisory system and innovation networks within pluralistic Agricultural Knowledge and Innovations Systems (AKIS)?, iii) How was the EU’s obligation to establish Farm Advisory Systems (FAS) implemented and thus, how is advice on Cross Compliance with Farm Management Systems (FMS) as a policy-induced innovation implemented and adopted in Brandenburg and Germany?, iv) How successful are innovation networks as an instrument to fill the interaction gap of the AAS in Brandenburg?. This dissertation contributes to the empirical evidence on the functioning of AKIS and Advisory Systems and provides public authorities in Brandenburg with longitudinal information to be used for future farm advice- and innovation-related policies. The cumulative thesis builds on 4 articles published from 2013 till 2018. The articles analyze qualitatively and discuss the view of agricultural advisors and farmers through a series of semi-structured interviews, analyze applied Farm Management Tools and assess new cooperation forms like innovation networks. Chapter 2 describes the development of the situation of private farm advisors in Brandenburg over a longer period of more than 15 years, from before until complete commercialization of the service in 2000. It shows which topics advisors (can) address and which they cannot, which clients they work with and which they do not, and it provides data on their basic work situation. It also gives insights on their networking activities. The following chapter 3 provides recommendations for public authorities regarding their responsibilities in pluralistic AKIS in Europe, which can also be applied to Brandenburg. Chapter 4 provides an analysis of Cross Compliance advice to farmers with Farm Management Systems (FMS) as one public responsibility in AKIS. A special focus is pointed to farmers’ usage of FMS in Brandenburg and qualitative comparison of FMS in Germany. In chapter 5 the cooperation of various actors from science and practice in Brandenburg is examined using the example of the innovation network for climate change adaptation. Innovation networks can be considered as one important instrument to cope with the challenges of AKIS privatization in Brandenburg by filling the interaction gap. This chapter presents an analysis of collaboration success factors and shows how crucial repeated participation, appropriate information management, and inclusive as well as responsive network practices are. Chapter 6 discusses the results regarding the development of Brandenburg’s AKIS and its Agricultural Advisory System (AAS) during the period of complete privatization (2002 until 2017), in which the research of chapter 2 thru 5 was conducted. Chapter 7 gives an update of Brandenburg’s AKIS and advisory system development from 2017 on, when AKIS and advisory services returned on the political agenda, and new policies emerged, which support innovation networks and advisory services. Chapter 8 concludes policy and research recommendations.