Search

In recent years, landscape and its management has become a focus of policies and academic conceptualisation. Landscape is understood as a concept of interconnected natural and human systems. Its management must take into account the dynamic interdependencies and diverging interests of various stakeholders at different levels. Bridging organisations can provide an arena for trust-building, conflict resolution, learning and collaboration between relevant stakeholders. This paper draws on two strands of literature - landscape governance and co-management of social-ecological systems - to investigate the contributions of agri-environmental collaboratives (AEC) to sustainable landscape management. Based on data from 41 interviews with key informants and AEC members in Germany and the Netherlands, six fields of contributions were identified: policy implementation and service provision; coordination and mediation; awareness raising and behaviour change; care for 'everyday' landscapes; maintenance and protection of landscapes (including species and habitats); and income generation and economic benefits. Some of the contributions evolve around the specific role of AEC as bridging organisations, but other contributions such as economic benefits emerge beyond this analytical lens. The paper therefore emphasises holistic, bottom up assessment of AEC contributions and argues that governments should support such organisations through i) funding for facilitators and ii) funding for impact monitoring and data management., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Recent European regulations for rural development emphasise the requirement to involve stakeholder groups and other appropriate bodies in the policy-making process. This paper presents two cases involving stakeholder participation in agri-environmental development and policy making, targeted at different policy-making levels. One study was undertaken in Lower Saxony where a local partnership developed and tested an agri-environmental prescription, which was later included in the state's menu of agri-environmental schemes. In Sachsen-Anhalt, state-facilitated stakeholder workshops including a mathematical model were used to optimise the programme planning and budget allocation at the state level. Both studies aimed at improving the acceptance of agri-environmental schemes. The authors gauge the effectiveness of the two approaches and discuss what lessons can be learned. The experience suggests that the approaches can complement one another and could also be applied to rural policy making.

Group extension promises to be more effective than conventional approaches, in particular when combined with participatory approaches, but little is known about how group extension approaches work as part of advisory programmes in a European context and the factors that influence their success. This paper investigates two examples of group extension for knowledge exchange and innovation among farmers: discussion groups within the Beef Technology Adoption Programme (BTAP) in Ireland and monitor farms in Scotland. An analytical framework is developed for the systematic analysis of group extension approaches as embedded in advisory programmes. Drawing on empirical data from qualitative interviews, participant observation and document analysis, we analyse how the design of an extension programme shapes its delivery, its outcomes and the measurability of outcomes. We distinguish levels of learning and adoption, and argue that in general these are higher for discussion groups than for the wider monitor farm participants, although the most substantial practice changes can be expected for the monitor farmer. We conclude that the more structured the group extension approach and the more detailed the programme targets, the more likely it is to achieve the expected (technology adoption) outcomes. However, such a prescriptive programme will struggle to simultaneously encourage farmer-led processes. The more open and flexible the approach, the more potential options for experimenting and learning are created, but this requires farmers to adopt a mindset of being active knowledge creators rather than knowledge consumers, and outcomes are more difficult to measure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agricultural advisory services (AAS) have regained importance for policy makers worldwide and especially in the European Union (EU), because of increased attention to food production and related innovation processes in rural areas. However, a systematic overview of AAS in the EU is missing, and there is a lack of evidence about their diversity and organisational pluralism. With this paper, we systematically explore the variety of advice providing bodies in Europe regarding organisational features, characteristics of service provision and the targeted client groups. The results show a pluralism of organisations that is a widely represented phenomenon across the EU. It implies a variation of service provision quality and targeted clients within and among countries. Moreover, we identify groups among the farming population that apparently are not served by any type of provider. We conclude on impacts of organisational pluralism and especially privatisation of AAS for various client groups, and point out further research needs with the evaluation of AAS performance in general and the potential of farmer-based organisations in particular. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agricultural advisory services are meant to provide farmers with relevant knowledge and networks for innovation, as well as adjustments to policy and markets in agriculture. Despite substantial investment into these services, there has been little evaluation of their performance and impact, in particular at a system level. A system level analysis is especially challenging in countries with a diverse and fragmented advisory community such as the United Kingdom. This paper proposes criteria for assessing advisory services based on a conceptual framework for analysing characteristics of advisory services as a component of the wider Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS). Using the example of the UK, we investigated characteristics pertaining to governance structures, capacity, management and advisory methods. Data were collected in an online survey of 80 agricultural advisory organisations. Findings showed that most criteria for functional advisory services were met: agricultural advisory organisations utilised diverse knowledge sources and cooperated to fill knowledge gaps; there was a stable workforce of advisors who received regular training; advisory organisations were flexible and adaptive; and all relevant advisory topics were covered. However, a number of client groups were not targeted by advisory organisations and some organisations used only a narrow range of advisory methods. The proposed criteria reflect a balance between a thorough assessment of a country’s advisory services and the typically limited time and budget available for regular evaluations. The criteria and associated proxy indicators should be fine-tuned to reflect the individual country’s situation, and quantitative survey data complemented by qualitative data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]