記述言語：英語   掲載種別：研究論文（学術雑誌）   出版者・発行元：{MDPI} {AG}  

<jats:p>Soils form the basis for agricultural production and other ecosystem services, and soil management should aim at improving their quality and resilience. Within the SoilCare project, the concept of soil-improving cropping systems (SICS) was developed as a holistic approach to facilitate the adoption of soil management that is sustainable and profitable. SICS selected with stakeholders were monitored and evaluated for environmental, sociocultural, and economic effects to determine profitability and sustainability. Monitoring results were upscaled to European level using modelling and Europe-wide data, and a mapping tool was developed to assist in selection of appropriate SICS across Europe. Furthermore, biophysical, sociocultural, economic, and policy reasons for (non)adoption were studied. Results at the plot/farm scale showed a small positive impact of SICS on environment and soil, no effect on sustainability, and small negative impacts on economic and sociocultural dimensions. Modelling showed that different SICS had different impacts across Europe—indicating the importance of understanding local dynamics in Europe-wide assessments. Work on adoption of SICS confirmed the role economic considerations play in the uptake of SICS, but also highlighted social factors such as trust. The project’s results underlined the need for policies that support and enable a transition to more sustainable agricultural practices in a coherent way.</jats:p>

DOI： 10.3390/land11060780

researchmap

記述言語：英語   掲載種別：研究論文（学術雑誌）   出版者・発行元：{MDPI} {AG}  

<jats:p>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.</jats:p>

DOI： 10.3390/land11050599

researchmap

記述言語：英語   出版者・発行元：Zenodo  

The Covid-19 pandemic shook the UK’s food system, highlighting differences in long and short supply chains and their ability to respond and cope with disruption. Where long supply chains revealed weakness and suffered from the disruption, especially in the first few weeks of the pandemic, short supply chains stepped up to fill in these gaps and helped the vulnerable. Various reports were published during this time to highlight the relative strengths and weaknesses in supply chains and changes in consumer habits, including from the perspective of local food systems’ actors. The pandemic also coincided with the government’s release of the Agricultural Transition Plan 2021-2024, as well as the National Food Strategy. In this report, we review a selection of key documents (evidence papers, reports, manifestos and strategies) published during the pandemic (Spring 2020 - end of 2021) which examine local food chains and the UK food system, including analysis from non-governmental, government, science and industry organisations. We use these materials to assess how the UK’s local food sector was framed and understood during the first two years of the pandemic (impacts, responsiveness, adaptability, contribution to system resilience, etc.), and to understand what visions and recommendations were being proposed for the sector going forward. Due to differences in perspective and their approach to the food system and supply chains, we group the organisations who have published the reports into two main sets of actors: a ‘local food movement group’ and a ‘mainstream food system group’, the latter including policy, science and industry. Our analysis reveals that: • There is an evident split between those who call for an urgent strategy to create resilience where they posit the food system has failed, and others who claim an existing level of resilience that needs to be strengthened. • There are significant differences between the local food movement group and mainstream food system group in the way local food is framed, understood and imagined as a pathway for systemic food system resilience and security. • Central to this difference is how the two groups position local food in the wider UK food system. For the local food movement group, re-localising food supply chains should be a central part of an improved UK food system, a means to provide multi-benefit solutions (sustainable, fair, etc.), and build capacity for resilience. In contrast, the mainstream food system group focuses on how to support the current system, which it sees as largely resilient. The reports from this group emphasised tweaks (such as making better use of new technologies) to buffer the just-in-time system of supply chain organisation. • In terms of UK food system resilience for the future, and the place of local food within that food future, recommendations from local food movement bodies focused on supporting local food initiatives and short supply chains through funding, infrastructure and skills support. The pandemic was viewed as providing a test of local food resilience, and the initiatives in the main were viewed to have proved their resilient and adaptive capacity. This outcome, these reports concluded, should support further investment in distributed systems, and so is an opportunity to better fund and support the sector. • The mainstream food system group has a more circumspect approach to future resilience regarding local food, in which the focus is on public procurement and associated technology developments. These are posited as a key way to shorten food chains, in part framed as a market opportunity for smaller producers to access new markets via local authority anchor institutes. • The interests of the mainstream and local food groups align around public procurement, which featured prominently in local food movement reports as well as in the mainstream corpus, e.g. in Recommendation 13 of the National Food Strategy (The Plan). • There is no discussion of ‘local food’ in Defra’s Agricultural Transition Plan 2021-2024, and caution around the concept of ‘local’ in the National Food Strategy (Part 1), stemming from historical issues over limits to self-sufficiency.

DOI： 10.5281/ZENODO.6378946

researchmap

掲載種別：研究論文（学術雑誌）   出版者・発行元：Elsevier {BV}  

DOI： 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.10.016

Scopus

researchmap

掲載種別：研究論文（学術雑誌）  

DOI： 10.3389/ffgc.2021.629600

Scopus

researchmap

掲載種別：研究論文（学術雑誌）  

DOI： 10.1111/1746-692X.12255

Scopus

researchmap

出版者・発行元：Springer International Publishing  

DOI： 10.1007/978-3-030-59601-9_5

researchmap

出版者・発行元：Springer Singapore  

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>An innovative approach towards transformative change through multi-stakeholder participation for socio-ecological practices—Integrated Local Delivery (ILD)—has been used to restore the water quality and biodiversity across a catchment in the Cotswolds, South West England. This was triggered by the need to improve the Ecological Status of water as a part of the European Union’s Water Framework Directive. On a landscape scale of roughly 25,000 hectares, multi-stakeholders collaborated through a bottom-up approach to carry out environmental restoration of the catchment.</jats:p><jats:p>Over 3 years, an iterative learning loop of reflection and evolution created increased engagement. Twenty farmers have been empowered as ‘guardians’ to be key contacts between institutions and ensure the sustained environmental quality of the area. Both farmers and communities acted to reduce chemical use, protect river banks from livestock damage and clear waterways to enhance water quality and biodiversity. Local communities fed into the development of a ‘Community Water Guide’ which can be applied internationally for similar projects. Within the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) transformative change framework, the ILD model can also be applied by facilitators to access levers and leverage points in order to enable change.</jats:p><jats:p>Important take home messages from the project include having well-trained facilitators who ensure active engagement, connections and continuity over the long term. Likewise, ensuring all stakeholders feel listened to and clearly communicated with is essential to build trust and motivation.</jats:p>

DOI： 10.1007/978-981-33-6761-6_9

researchmap

掲載種別：研究論文（学術雑誌）  

DOI： 10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103152

Scopus

researchmap

出版者・発行元：Food Foundation, CSA Network UK, Better Food Traders  

researchmap

掲載種別：研究論文（学術雑誌）  

DOI： 10.1111/1746-692X.12286

Scopus

researchmap