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.

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.

This systematic review examines existing literature on environmental long‐term agreements (LTAs), such as conservation covenants, to identify the enablers and barriers to adoption and thus their potential for use in new contexts such as across land boundaries. To achieve environmental and societal targets, there is a clear and urgent need for more ambitious, longer‐term agri‐environment funding mechanisms which operate at a large scale. This is, in part, due to the recognition by national governments that shifts in policy for long‐term sustainability are needed since many existing agri‐environment schemes have not had the desired outcomes. The recent inclusion of conservation covenants in the UK's Environment Act demonstrates one such attempt to address this issue. Through critically analyzing the use of LTAs across the world using a systematic rapid evidence assessment approach, this article assesses the potential of these agreements to deliver landscape‐scale environmental benefits and public goods that are increasingly being sought by national governments as they strive for transformative policies to prevent and mitigate environmental and climate catastrophes. Exploring the enablers and barriers to adoption, alongside examples of successful LTAs, we provide an overview from which interested parties—policymakers, land managers, and private enterprises, among others—can begin to understand the opportunities and barriers which surround these agreements. Overall, this literature review identifies several factors likely to affect the uptake of LTAs, including concerns around land managers' and stakeholders' real/perceived capacity to engage, a need for flexibility, finance structures, and how monitoring and evaluation are managed.This article is categorized under: Climate and Environment > Circular Economy Climate and Environment > Ecosystem Services Climate and Environment > Net Zero Planning and Decarbonization Policy and Economics > Regional and International Strategies

Achieving successful multi‐stakeholder collaboration for sustainable outcomes is complex. This paper provides key principles for future co‐design projects aimed at fostering an inclusive approach to research. These have been developed based on a novel methodology that co‐designed the essential components of a long‐term, collaborative agreement for a nature recovery scheme in England. Using an assortment of iterative, deliberative participatory methods, this research engaged a wide variety of stakeholders to produce a template agreement for an agri‐environmental policy. We demonstrate that a flexible, highly reflective approach resulted in positive engagement with previously marginalised stakeholders. The approach also successfully navigated the unequal power dynamics seen both within and between groups. Finally, multiple feedback loops allowed participants to continually build on previous interactions as they developed and reviewed the agreement. By drawing out the complexities of the co‐design process, this paper explains how co‐design efforts can produce potentially transformative outputs. We hope that the principles introduced here offer a useful starting point for those planning to undertake multi‐stakeholder co‐design.

Purpose: This study explores whether farmers across England believe that advice on diffuse water pollution from agriculture (DWPA) which is currently provided for free at the point of delivery is credible, relevant, and legitimate (‘CRELE’) enough to justify paying towards. Methodology: A mixed-methods study consisting of an online questionnaire survey (n = 225) and telephone interviews of farmers (n = 60) and farm advisors (n = 50) was conducted. Findings: Across all methods (n = 330), 63.3% of participants (n = 208) responded negatively to the prospect of paying towards DWPA advice, with just 10% expressing a clear willingness to contribute. The main negative themes related to categorical unwillingness, financial constraints, the presence of alternative sources of advice, the accountability of farmers, and exclusion risk. Factors which may increase willingness included the delivery of high quality, farm-salient advice, or where compliance requires engagement. Practical implications: This paper concludes that governments should continue to provide free advice on DWPA if water quality goals are to be met. Originality/value: This is the first known European study which explores farmer willingness to pay towards advice for DWPA. Theoretical implications: The use of the ‘CRELE’ framework is novel as it is typically used to explore science-policy interfaces.