Final Report Summary - PRO AKIS (Prospects for Farmers’ Support: Advisory Services in European AKIS)
Executive Summary:
1.1 Executive summary
In times of changing conditions, with strong pressure from markets and citizens to adjust and innovate, European farmers like elsewhere, need timely access to knowledge and information, to training and education, and to facilitating and supporting services. A functioning Agricultural Knowledge and Information/Innovation System (AKIS) is required to tackle challenges such as:
1. giving small-scale farmers access to relevant and reliable knowledge,
2. bridging scientific research topics and farmers’ demands and
3. offering appropriate support for diverse rural actors that form networks around innovations in agriculture and rural areas.
Advisory services are therefore seen as one essential means to enhance problem solving, information sharing and innovation generating processes.
It is with the basis of responding to the above challenges, that the PRO AKIS project (Prospects for farmers’ support: Advisory Services in the European Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems – www.proakis.eu) was funded (Dec 2012 to May 2015). As a European research and action project, it was out to investigate agricultural advisory services within the context of European member states’ AKIS by specifically answering the question: How and from what sources can European farmers get reliable and relevant knowledge, as well as orientation and support, in order to continuously evolve, to successfully solve problems, and to respond to external expectations and development opportunities?
The project consisted of eight research partners from seven EU member states: Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal and the UK. It was accompanied by two advisory boards: the International Stakeholder Board (ISB) – comprising representatives of international agricultural advisory bodies, farmers’ associations and education and training institutions and the Policy Advisors Board (PAB) - which encompassed members of the Directorate General for Agriculture, Research and Innovation, the DG AGRI, the SCAR CWG AKIS, G-FRAS and international experts on AKIS.
Within a period of two and a half years (Dec. 2012 to May 2015), the project has developed a conceptual framework for assessing AKIS, compiled an inventory of AKIS institutions and interactions in the EU-27 as a searchable database and detailed reports. Using selected case studies, specific knowledge systems have been investigated through comparative analysis and assessments revealing successes, strengths and weaknesses which have been discussed in three synthesis seminars. Based on these findings, policy recommendations for strengthening European agricultural innovation systems have been developed.
Project Context and Objectives:
1.2 Summary description of the project context and main objectives
Farmers throughout Europe have been facing changing political conditions and a strong pressure from markets and citizens to adjust and to innovate. They need timely access to knowledge and information, to training and education and to facilitating and supporting services. These new needs for knowledge and information have been acknowledged by the European Commission, with a regulation that makes it compulsory for member states to set up a ‘Farm Advisory System’ (FAS), ensuring that farmers can benefit from reliable information about cross compliance. In addition and in coherence with the EU strategy ‘horizon 2020’, the topic ‘knowledge transfer and innovation’ has been designated as a cross-cutting priority of the new CAP in the period of 2014 - 2020. In this frame, a European Innovation Partnership on Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability has been conceived with the objective to enhance innovation in priority areas. Key acting entities are ‘Operational Groups’ bringing together farmers, advisors, researchers and enterprises.
In this context, the concept of the Agricultural Knowledge and Information/Innovation System (AKIS) is useful to picture and understand the manifold knowledge flows and supporting services between diverse actors from the first, second or third sector in rural areas. A specific focus can be given to complex interactions of cooperation and mutual learning that takes place in innovation processes. Functioning AKIS are needed to tackle challenges like:
• giving small-scale farmers access to relevant and reliable knowledge,
• bridging scientific research topics and farmers’ demands and
• offering appropriate support for diverse rural actors that form networks around innovations in agriculture and rural areas.
Advisory services are one essential means to enhance problem solving, information sharing and innovation generating processes.
In responding to the above challenges, the PRO AKIS project (www.proakis.eu Dec. 2012-May 2015) was funded as a European research and action project that investigated agricultural advisory services within the context of European member states’ AKIS. It specifically aimed at:
1. reviewing international literature sources and debates on AKIS as well as developing a conceptual framework for its assessment.
2. providing an inventory of the AKIS institutions and interactions in the EU-27 countries as a searchable database
3. analysing these challenges towards a functioning AKIS in selected case studies for each topic in parallel within selected EU by investigating challenges around:
a. small-scale farmers’ access to relevant and reliable knowledge (Bulgaria, Portugal, Poland, UK)
b. bridging scientific research topics and farmers’ demands (Bulgaria, Germany, France, Poland) and
c. offering appropriate support for diverse rural actors that form networks around innovations in agriculture and rural areas (Germany, France, Portugal, UK).
4. revealing successes, strengths and weaknesses of the specific knowledge systems through comparative analyses and assessments of these case studies and
5. developing policy recommendations for strengthening European agricultural innovation systems.
The project consisted of eight research partners from seven EU member states: Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal and the UK. It was accompanied by two advisory boards: the International Stakeholder Board (ISB) – comprising representatives of international agricultural advisory bodies, farmers’ associations and education and training institutions and the Policy Advisors Board (PAB) - which encompassed members of the DG Research and Innovation, the DG AGRI, the SCAR CWG AKIS, G-FRAS and international experts on AKIS.
Project Results:
1.3 Description of main science and technology results
Main science and technology results achieved during the project periods are highlighted according to the various work packages and the corresponding lead institutions. This is particularly observed under WPs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the project while WP1 and WP6 were particularly involve with the management and dissemination activities of the project respectively. The following section focuses on the main science and technology outcomes as realised under WP 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the project.
Table 1: main science and technology results since the beginning of project in brief
WP2: lead – INRA, France
⇒ A review of international literature sources and debates on AKIS and a conceptual framework for the assessment of AKIS (month 7)(D 2.1)
⇒ A report about methods available to assess the effectiveness of farm advisory service (D2.2)
⇒ A published article on the effectiveness of advisory services’ interventions (D2.3) presented during the PRO AKIS workshop of the 11th conference of the Internal Farming System Association symposium (Berlin, April 2014)
WP3: lead – UTAK, Poland
⇒ A methodological guide for the inventory of the various national patterns of AKIS in the EU member states (month 5)( D 3.1)
⇒ An inventory of the AKIS institutions and their linkages in EU-27 on the basis of the analytical framework ( month 10)
⇒ A synthesis report on the inventory (month 10)(D 3.2).
⇒ Summarised materials for three regional workshops (D 3.4) organized in Copenhagen, Paris and Krakow
⇒ A web-based interactive database with an opportunity for a continuous registration of Advisory bodies and institutions in Europe even after the project (D3.3)
WP4: lead - UTAD, Portugal
⇒ Organised stakeholder consultation process (month 15) on case studies selection process (D 4.1)
⇒ 12 case studies analysis implemented with a set of four cases for each topic coordinated under WP4.
⇒ A prepared protocol for the case studies’ analysis , including research goals, methodological approach and results (D 4.2)
⇒ Draft synthesis reports for each of the three case study topics
⇒ Draft reports, synthesized and presented - revealing a cross-comparison of the case studies conducted under each of the topics used as inputs for discussion and contributions of the synthesis seminars (D 4.3).
WP5: lead – ZALF, Germany
⇒ A designed methodological approach (D5.1) continuously used for the implementation and monitoring of targeted science-practice interactions and trans-disciplinary assessments’ procedures in PRO AKIS (month 6).
⇒ Three trans-disciplinary assessment reports on the outcomes of multi-stakeholder knowledge generation and exchange (D5.2a D5.2b D5.2c) (month 30).
⇒ A final report on trans-disciplinary assessment methodologies for PRO AKIS (D5.3)(month 30).
WP7: lead – Uni-Plovdiv, Bulgaria
⇒ A fact sheet (D7.1) drafted and this includes summarized key findings and conclusions from WP2, WP3 and WP 4.
⇒ A final synthesis report (D7.2) drafted based on the summarized policy recommendations. This was finalized after sharing and discussing as well as collecting feedback from the Policy Advisory Board, Stakeholders board and international AKIS experts in Brussels, May 2015 (month 30)
1.3.1 Work package 2: Advisory Services within AKIS (International debates); lead partner – INRA, France
Main objectives of WP2
The overall aim of this Work Package has been to produce a state-of-the-art of the academic literature for a better understanding of conditions and effectiveness of pluralistic farm advisory services in practice. It intentionally builds on the existing reviews provided by the SCAR Collaborative Working Group on AKIS in Europe, and findings from recent EU projects (e.g. SOLINSA, INSIGHT, EU-AgriMapping). The objectives have been:
Obj. No 2.1 To review the international literature related to four main sets of questions:
a. What are the theories and concepts to describe the policies, approaches and pluralistic types of farm advisory services and their contribution to various forms of knowledge flows today in Europe?
b. What is the impact of various institutional, organisational and methodological patterns of advisory services on:
i. the involvement of different types of farms in knowledge exchanges (including small, part-time, subsistence farms, holdings managed by women)
ii. the type of knowledge available for public or private advisory bodies and their connection within AKIS (flows of knowledge from research, farmers, brokers, other sectors of activity [tourism]).
c. What are the most efficient advisory methods to support innovation processes in rural areas (face-to-face, group, mass-media)?
d. What are the major knowledge gaps faced by FAS actors?
Obj. No 2.2 To extract key findings from the literature review for targeted discussions on the analysis of the inventory (WP 3) and as analytical guidance for transdisciplinary assessments (WP 5).
Obj. No 2.3 To present the findings of the state-of-the-art in forums involving the various types of AKIS stakeholders (research, extension services, policy makers, etc.) and to discuss about the methods of state-of-the-art, and their value for supporting the transformations of FAS.
Submitted deliverables for WP2 since beginning of project
D2.1: First discussion paper for general orientation and priority setting, targeted for policy makers (Month 7)
D2.2: First synthetic international literature review report with executive summary (Month 18)
D2.3: A scientific paper presenting the literature review structured by the questions presented above in the objective section (Month 30)
Main science and technology results for WP2: reporting period 1
For the 1st reporting period, the task within WP2, coordinated by INRA, was to use academic literature as a primary source of data for i) writing a conceptual note for the project, ii) initiating a work of systemic reviews about the effectiveness of advisory services. This was possible thanks to interactions between the different teams of PROAKIS, but also with the Stakeholders Advisory Board and Policy Advisory Board.
- The PROAKIS conceptual note-
A first aim of WP2 was to use relevant literature to draw a common research framework. An explicit statement of theoretical assumptions was especially needed to drive the design of the inventory of national AKIS and advisory services (WP3), but also for the case studies (WP4).
The methodology relied on the analysis of literature found trough systematic search of international databases combined with papers provided by the different teams of the project that gathers among the best European experts on the issue. A first draft was written by INRA team, and benefited from feedbacks of different PROAKIS teams. There were more specifically some exchanges with UAK and ZALF-UHOH (for instance in Wroclaw, month 3) about some key elements of the concept note vis-à-vis the standardisation of the questionnaire and of the report for the inventory (WP3). This included discussions about the definition of advisory services, the typology of suppliers, and the scheme of public investments in and support to national AKIS. These rich interactions ended in a first version of the draft presented as planned on month 7 (D2.1) to the Policy Advisory Board meeting in Dublin (June 2013). We integrated their feedbacks before publishing the final version of the paper in November 2013, a few months ahead planning (D2.2). This conceptual framework allows us to have a shared definition of farm advisory services, and a shared vision about how they are embedded in AKIS. We agreed on two major choices: i) choosing the AKIS rather than the Agricultural Innovation Systems definition, which fits with the idea of focusing the study on organizations dedicated to knowledge flows; and ii) starting from an infrastructural perspective on AKIS rather than a process view. This later choice implies that we focus on understanding the drivers of knowledge flows (networks, tangible & intangible investments, institutions).The common framework provided important theoretical tools and it has also resulted in practical resources to design the methodology for the inventory of WP3. The concept note, available to everyone, is published on the PROAKIS website.
- Systematic reviews of the effectiveness of farm advisory services
A second aim of the WP2 has been to test and implement some works of systematic reviews about the effectiveness of advisory services. This task is complicated, but tackling this challenge is important as there is a clear gap in the literature about the impact of agricultural advisory services, especially regarding public good issues in the contexts of European countries. This first part of the project has allowed us to have different moments of discussion within the consortium but also with the Stakeholders and Policy Advisory Boards. This allowed us to select three topics for review, including the effectiveness of advisory services programs i) for reducing farm workers’ exposure to pesticides? (health issues); ii) for improving women’ access to knowledge and services (gender issues); iii) for integrating environment issues in a demand driven perspective (policy issues). We have now performed a second stage, which consists in the selection of relevant and robust papers through a standardised and transparent methodology. We used complementary human resources (masters students’ dissertations, joint projects...) in that respect. The third phase in progress is to read the papers and synthetize their findings, with the help of different teams of the PROAKIS consortium. A first paper related to health issues has been written and will be presented at the IFSA symposium in Berlin.
Main science and technology results for WP2: reporting period 2
The activity carried out within WP2 for the second half of the PRO AKIS project dealt with the possibilities to produce knowledge about the effectiveness of farm advisory services, based on new methodologies of systematic reviews of scientific literature.
Our work was organised in two steps:
- In a first step, we have implemented a review of the methods available to assess the effectiveness of farm advisory services, building on former research results (projects funded by the French National Research Agency). It enabled to identify three different goals for evaluation of farm advisory services: i) to measure effectiveness, ii) to understand mechanisms of efficiency of farm advice, and iii) to promote participatory learning with shared assessments. Our work showed that a broad range of methods are available in that respect: quantitative experimental (or quasi experimental) methods for the measurement of effectiveness (RCTs, double difference, matching...); participatory methods (soft system methodology...) to promote learning... The wide range of methods available opens opportunities to use evaluation as a way to design better targeted policies. Our work is focused on the specific methods available to understand and measure the effectiveness of interventions based on the support to farm advisory services. It gives some critical points for evaluating the internal quality of studies based on such methods and for identifying their limits of validity for practice. A key dimension in that the results of impact assessments of farm advice interventions might not be extrapolated beyond the very context where the study was implemented. This statement calls for a need for reviews that combines results from impact assessments implemented in various contexts (e.g. systematic reviews of academic literature).
A synthetic report summarizing this work has been published in a report: the deliverable 2.2 of the PRO AKIS project. The content of the report has been debated with researchers, policy makers and experts from different areas, including during a session of the final conference of the PRO AKIS project (where key findings were discussed by Professor Chris Garforth from Reading University).
- In a second step, we have proposed methodological corner stones for the implementation of systematic reviews about the effectiveness of farm advice. We described the different steps for implementing this methodology, and proposed some examples of analytical tools such as: i) algorithms and diagrams to search and sort the papers; ii) tables to describe and evaluate the quality of papers; iii) criteria to combine evidence from different researches. We tested this methodology on a specific case: the effectiveness of farm advice regarding the reduction of occupational exposure to pesticides of farm labour. The choice of this case study was discussed with and validated by the Policy Advisory Board of the PRO AKIS project (during the board meeting organized in Dublin in June 2013).
An article has been published from this case study. It has been presented during the PRO AKIS workshop of the 11th conference of the International Farming Systems Association (IFSA) conference (organized in Berlin, April 2014) (deliverable 2.3). The results highlight a specific knowledge gap in the European context. There is almost no study of the impact of farm advice on health issues in European agriculture. Nevertheless, the systematic review reveals that some positive effects of interventions (training, advice...) on farmers and workers have been demonstrated in North America (Canada and United States of America).
We couldn’t implement systematic reviews on other issues, due to limitation in human resources. Implementing such systematic reviews for a first time made us aware of the amount of human resources needed to implement them with rigorous and replicable methodologies. A first mapping of the indicators of effectiveness of gender inclusion with different extension methodologies was completed and presented in the EAEPE conference in Nicosia (Jonson M. et al.). But a systematic review on this issue would have involved a number of papers that was too large to be analysed in the time frame of the project. We have chosen to focus our resources on one systematic review only, but in the most comprehensive, rigorous and replicable way; rather than having more superficial approaches of more topics.
1.3.2 Work package 3: AKIS in the EU (The inventory); lead partner – UAK, Poland
Main objectives of WP3
Obj. No 3.1 Construction of a questionnaire for the inventory of the various national patterns of AKIS in the EU member states
Obj. No 3.2 Inventory of the AKIS institutions and their linkages in EU-27 on the basis of the analytical Framework
Ob. No 3.3 Creation of interactive database on AKIS institutions and organisations
Obj. No 3.4 Processing of summarized materials for regional workshops organized on national and EU level
Submitted deliverables for WP3 since beginning of project
D3.1 Report on design of questionnaire for AKIS inventory (Month 5)
D3.2 Synthesis Report on the inventory of AKIS EU-27 (Month 10)
D3.3 Web-based, interactive database (Month 16)
D3.4 Discussion papers and presentation materials for three regional workshops and EU level conference (Month 17)
Main science and technology results for WP3: reporting period 1
Construction of a questionnaire for the inventory of the various national patterns of AKIS in the EU agriculture member states (3.1).
UAK as co-ordinator of WP3 was responsible for constructing a questionnaire for collecting the main factors of agriculture and characteristics of AKIS actors in EU27.
The conception and preparation of the questionnaire has been accomplished in collaboration with project partners. The questionnaire consists following chapters: (a) the main characteristics of agriculture; (b) characteristics of existing AKIS – formal and informal knowledge flow systems, organisation of advisory service in terms of management structure – present and historical changes (in a period of 2004-2012), types of actors (agricultural advisory organisations, agricultural universities and research institutions, other extension organisations, NGOs, farmers, farmers organisations and groups, supply and sale services etc. (and their role in AKIS) (c) the typology of advisory systems, staff, budget and sources of funding; (d) the number and types of research units working for agriculture and rural development (including number of employees, level of budget for implementations and dissemination of research results); (e) the number of agriculture universities and colleges and agricultural faculties at other universities – the number of teachers and researchers, scientific and research personnel (or just the responsible personnel) involved in dissemination of knowledge and information, budget for implementation and dissemination of innovations (the percentage of the total budget for colleges of agriculture/agricultural faculties); (f) investigation of advisory forming FAS in individual countries of EU27 and the results of their advisory work.
Inventory of the AKIS institutions and their linkages in EU-27 on the basis of the analytical framework (3.2)
UAK as the co-ordinator of WP3 was responsible for monitoring the survey in all EU countries, in which survey have been provided by other member of consortium. UAK was also responsible for survey in five countries: Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Lithuania. The survey in these countries has been provided in co-operation of sub-contractors – representatives of: Czech University of Lifes Sciences Prague (in Czech Republic), University of Agriculture in Nitra (Slovakia), Gödöllo University of Agricultural Sciences (in Hungary), Aleksandras Stulginskis University in Kaunas (Lithuania). In Poland the survey and country report was done by University of Agriculture in Krakow.
Then UAK made the technical polishing of all 27 country reports, which have been send by respective partners.
The next task done by UAK was analysis of all country reports and preparation the preliminary version of final report.
Creation of interactive database on AKIS institutions and organizations (3.3)
UAK as the co-ordinator of WP3 was responsible for creation of interactive database on AKIS institutions and organisations. The source for data base is results of survey done in EU27.
The project of data base has been done under discussion with project partners. The content for data base is already prepared, and will be added to the PRO AKIS website after the last decision of project co-ordinator.
Discussion papers and presentation materials for three regional workshops and EU level conference (Months 17) (3.4)
UAK as the co-ordination of WP3 is responsible for processing of materials, which were used during three regional workshops organized on national level and EU level. The sources of these materials were findings coming from analysis of country reports.
UAK prepared following materials for regional workshops:
1) for Copenhagen workshop – (a) handouts with preliminary finding extracted from country reports for: Denmark, Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Ireland, Finland, UK; (b) 8 posters presented the main finding on: main actors of AKIS, description of linkages within AKIS institutions and organisations, type of advisory organisations, main clients, main topics of advisory, sources of funding;
2) for Paris workshop – the same materials, but for 10 following countries: France, Spain, Portugal, Malta, Italy, Slovenia, Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Romania;
3) for Krakow workshops – UAK was the organiser of this workshop, and prepared the same materials like mentioned above, but for 9 following countries: Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands.
The materials presented during three regional workshops and results of discussions during these workshops are the base for final report and presentation on conference on EU level.
Main science and technology results for WP3: reporting period 2
In the second period of PRO AKIS Project we took into consideration remarks and recommendations of our partners and we improved our synthesis report of the inventory of AKIS EU-27 and we produced two volumes: Volume I – Summary findings (105 pp.) and Volume II – Country information (422 pp.).
Under WP-3 objectives we created the interactive database of AKIS institutions and organisations in collaboration with WP-6. The source for database was results of surveys done in 27 EU member states. The database is accessible through the project’s website (www.proakis.eu).
We prepared written material and posters with diagrams of AKIS in EU-27 countries for three regional workshops organised in Copenhagen, Paris and Krakow and the final Conference in Brussels (EU level) in cooperation with WP-5. The source of this material for the final conference was the database of AKIS institutions and organisations – selected posters.
We also took part working intensively for WP-4 – AKIS on the ground: focusing knowledge flow systems, in case study analyses in Poland. In topic 4.1 “The effectiveness of advisory services to respond to the demands of diverse types of small-scale farmers” we studied small-scale agri-tourism farms in the Carpathian Mountains. In topic 4.2 “The capability of extension and advisory services to bridge research and knowledge needs of farmers” we studied demonstration farms in Poland.
We took active part in synthesis seminars in Plovdiv, Berlin and Vila Real. For both case studies we prepared final country reports: “Agritourism farm in the Carpathian Mountains of Poland” (44 pp.), - “Demonstration Farms for Transfer of Knowledge Case Study from Poland” (39 pp.).
We participated in the development of policy recommendations report and in development of teams and questions for further European research and training programs based on the findings of WP-3 and WP-4.
We also made remarks and comments for target group oriented publication (brochure titled “Prospects for Farmers’ Support: Advisory Services in European AKIS – Selected Findings”) under WP-6, translated it into Polish (“Perspektywy wspierania rolników: Instytucje doradcze w Europejskim Systemie Wiedzy i Informacji Rolniczej – AKIS – Wybrane wnioski”) and disseminated in Poland among AKIS stakeholders (500 copies).
1.3.3 Work package 4: AKIS on the ground (focusing knowledge flow systems); lead partner – UTAD, Portugal
Main objectives of WP4
The overall objective of this WP is to comparatively explore and describe selected forms of advisory services and agricultural knowledge flows in Europe, accounting for the diversity on the supply and demand conditions across different countries/regions and diverse types of farmers. Throughout all cases, gender issues and other forms of socio-economic differentiation of actors has been taken into consideration. The specific goals addressed by this WP are the following:
Obj. No 4.1. To investigate the performance of advisory services with regard to small-scale farming, commercial farms as well as semi-subsistence and hobby farming ones. Here, PRO AKIS explores (i) the known and unknown needs for knowledge, skills and services of farmers; (ii) farmers’ access to classical as well as to innovative forms of advisory services; (iii) the capacities of the supply side to respond to these types of clients’ demand.
Obj. No 4.2 To describe the roles, the opportunities and the limits of extension and advisory services to fulfil the bridge function between farmers and research especially with regard to farmers’ provision of public goods and ecosystem services and to their capacities to respond to global challenges. Hereby, the different institutional settings of advisory services (Governmental, privatised, mixed, commodity-based, client-based extension, among others) are explicitly taken into account.
Obj. No 4.3 To explore and identify the possibilities, the conditions and the requirements of rural innovation networks that constitute examples for the ‘European Innovation Partnership’ by increasing farmers’ capacities to create, test, implement and evaluate innovations in cooperation with other rural actors.
Obj. No 4.4 To develop bases for typologies of knowledge flow systems by assessing case studies and best-fit practices for advisory services around the topics developed in the objectives 4.1 – 4.3.
Submitted deliverables for WP4 since beginning of project
D4.1 Procedure for stakeholder consultation (Month 15);
D4.2 Country reports on case studies (Month 24);
D4.3 First synthesis report on case studies, written and oral inputs for synthesis seminars (Month 26);
D4.4 Final synthesis report on the results of the WP 4 (Month 30)
Main science and technology results for WP4: reporting period 1
The effectiveness of advisory services to respond to the demands of diverse types of small-scale farmers (4.1)
The capability of extension and advisory services to bridge research and knowledge needs of farmers (to go beyond cross compliance requirements) (4.2)
How to design, implement and maintain (rural) innovation networks able to enhance farmers’ ability to innovate in cooperation with other rural actors (4.3)
To develop bases for the appraisal of AKIS as a whole and the performance of knowledge flows, including informal ones led by farmers and/or informal networks, specifically, by assessing case studies and best-fit practices for advisory services around the topics developed in the objectives 4.1 – 4.3. (4.4)
UTAD as coordinator of WP4 is responsible for the design of the procedure for stakeholder consultation: [month 15=February 2014]; Country reports on case studies: [month 24]; First synthesis report on case studies and oral inputs for synthesis seminars: [month 26]; and final synthesis report of WP 4: [month 30]
Within this 1st reporting period UTAD, with the collaboration of project partners, has been conceiving and preparing the case studies selection, especially through the discussion of the criteria to the selection of case studies, preparing a draft framework for case studies implementation and also by harmonizing concepts and terminology (glossary). These were the main tasks of the WP4 kick-off.
During this process project partners have been discussing, namely through video-conferences in small groups and e-mail exchange, the criteria for case studies selection along with analysis of possible case-study in terms of ensuring the project goals, namely in respect to assure comparative analysis.
The discussion on the case studies selections, namely the criteria to be consider was extend to the International Stakeholders Board members that have attended the meeting in Copenhagen on 18th February 2014. The consortium has decided in the video conference carried out on October 2013 to involve only the ISB in the case studies selection phase. The local stakeholders will be involved more formally during the case studies implementation.
Next month, March 2014, will be dedicated to end the process of case studies selection and to finalize the framework to support the case studies implementation.
Main science and technology results for WP4: reporting period 2
The stakeholder consultation process was completed by month 15 as expected, during the ISB meeting in Copenhagen) with the collection and integration of feedback from the International Stakeholder Board regarding the case studies selection process (D4.1.). In addition, the team developed a protocol for local stakeholder consultation to help in fine tuning the case studies selection that was implemented by the various partners according to each specific context.
Twelve case studies have been implemented, a set of four cases for each topic addressed by WP4. A protocol for the case studies conduction, including research goals, methodological approach and results was prepared by the team with the leadership of UTAD. The protocols were developed for each topic, and ensured cross-comparison of case-studies within each topic. Within first topic, evidence and insights were obtained regarding the performance of different advisory services models , depending on the regional/national AKIS, in responding the small-scale farmers’ needs and demands, namely in providing them relevant and reliable knowledge, comprising a diversity of small-scale farmers: semi-subsistence in Bulgaria, newly-established in Bulgaria and Portugal, agri-tourism small business resulting from diversification strategies of small-scale farmers in Poland, and crofters, newly-established and successors in Scotland). Under topic 2 was investigated how research matches practice and what is the role performed by different advisory services models in bridging these two components of the AKIS. In Bulgaria, the knowledge transfer system has been analysed in the South-Central region, whereas the case in the Bavarian region (Germany) focused on the roles and function of experimental stations and on how the knowledge they generated and operationalized is passed to farmers. Demonstration farms from a national network system implemented in Poland, built on a funded project, were studied, highlighting the advantages of joining farmers, researchers and advisors in the implementation, testing, evaluation and demonstration of good agri-environmental practices. The French team compared three Decision Support Tools (DSTs), developed by different actors (FBOs with a public/private partnership, public research institute and private company) which are cognitive devices based on ICT (information and communication techniques) which allow bridging directly the scientific knowledge with the farmers. The challenges for advisors role was discussed in all cases studies, with a particular emphasizes in the French case, where this role is apparently bypassed by technological innovation. On topic 3, were identified the rural innovation networks features which appear to enhance the farmers’ ability to co-innovate in cooperation with other actors. The case studies allow collecting insights on how support to these networks could be offered. A project-induced innovation network in the Brandenburg regions was studied by the German team; a rural social innovation network, the ‘Anti-Mafia: from farm to fork’, in Campania region, in Italy was studied by the French team; the Monitor farms in Scotland were studied by the UK team; and the ‘berries networks’ were investigated by the Portuguese team. The case studies’ goals, description and findings were reported in the respective country reports, in a total of 12 (which are available for download on the PRO AKIS webpage).
Draft synthesis reports for each topic were prepared by the UTAD team, with the support of the teams responsible for different case studies (a total of three). These reports synthesised and presented a cross-comparison of the case studies conducted under each of the topics; and were used, together with case-studies presentations delivered by each team, as inputs to discussion and contributions of the stakeholders that attended the synthesis seminars. Three seminars, each on a different topic, were designed and held during the months 26 to 28, respectively in Bulgaria, Portugal and Germany. Finally, the final synthesis reports were prepared by the UTAD team based on the draft versions and on the inputs provided by the stakeholders that attended the seminar.
This WP, as shown by the country reports and the synthesis reports, revealed successes, strengths and weaknesses of the specific knowledge systems through comparative analyses and assessments of these case studies and providing evidence and insights to develop policy recommendations for improving small-scale farmers access to quality advice, better bridging research and practices and to improve the advisors’ performance in this respect, and finally for strengthening European agricultural innovation systems.
1.3.4 Work package 5: AKIS in multiple perspectives (feedbacks and transdisciplinary assessments); lead partner – ZALF, Germany
Main objectives of WP5
The overall objective of WP 5 is to methodologically assure participation of and to integrate view points and judgments from AKIS actors in the project’s course so that their interests with regard to the project’s outputs become visible and have impacts.
Obj. No 5.1 Close and regular exchange of a variety of actors from international political and research institutions, extension and education bodies and from farmers’ interest organisations with the project consortium will warrant timely feedbacks and hints on gaps between research and practice
Obj. No 5.2 Design, implementation and monitoring of methodological approaches for targeted science-practice interactions and transdisciplinary assessments procedures in PRO AKIS
Obj. No 5.3 Feedbacks on and assessments of selected project’s findings and of (interim) outputs from WP 2, 3 and 4 will be provided, synthesised and communicated to the project consortium
Obj. No 5.4 Synthesis and documentation of practiced procedures and evaluation of methodological experiences in a final report for dissemination (WP 6) and policy recommendations (WP 7)
Submitted deliverables for WP5 since beginning of project
D5.1 Draft design for methodological procedures (Month 6)
D5.2: Three transdisciplinary assessment reports with perspectives from stakeholders and policy advisors (Months 8, 17, 30)
D5.3 Final report on transdisciplinary assessment methodologies for CSA (Month 30)
Main science and technology results for WP5: reporting period 1
As part of this WP 5, ZALF, UHOH in collaboration with VFL have compiled the draft design for the methodological procedures (Month 6) which has formed the basis for all interactive activities within the project involving both internal and external exchange (D5.1).
In addition, ZALF, UHOH and VFL have been actively involved in the coordination and organization of, all major project meetings during this first reporting period alongside local organizers (mostly the work package leaders). This included amongst others, 1) the first international stakeholder Board meeting alongside the kick off meeting for the project which took place in Berlin - Dec. 2012 (month 1), 2) the first discussion and assessment meeting with the Policy Advisors Board which took place in Dublin –June 2013 (month 6), 3) the three regional workshops for the assessment of the review results from WP 2 and the inventory results of WP 3 in collaboration with the International Stakeholder Board meeting (Copenhagen only) which all took place in Copenhagen (Denmark), Paris (France) and Krakow (Poland) – Feb/March 2013 (month 14/15). In close collaboration with WP1, the responsible partners for this WP have managed all internal and external communication with the project team and with the external Boards.
A series of Video Conferences, Skype, and email communications have been jointly handled as part of management (WP1) and at the same time guaranteeing a smooth linkage of the project with the external boards and the SCAR members – a component of WP5.
Lastly, a draft of the first amongst the three consecutive trans-disciplinary reports have been produced (D5.2a).
Main science and technology results for WP5: reporting period 2
In the second half of the project, our work under WP5 focused mostly on further making use of the systematic approach for interactive and step-wise feedback and participatory assessments of project’s outputs. It is here that we further implemented and operationalised the drafted multi-stakeholder involvement approach (D5.1) and reported on the outcome of such exchange in form of transdisciplinary assessment reports (D5.2a-c and D5.3). For easy follow through, the assessment reports are organized as follows:
1) D5.2
This is composed of three transdisciplinary assessment reports highlighting the perspectives of stakeholders and policy advisors alongside AKIS experts and other stakeholders on projects’ objectives and findings. D5.2 is further broken up into:
• D5.2a: 1st trans-disciplinary assessment report with focus on outcome of the first three board meetings (ISB meeting of Berlin, Jan. 2012; PAB meeting of Dublin, June, 2013 and; ISB meeting of Copenhagen, Feb. 2014).
• D5.2b: 2nd trans-disciplinary assessment report with focus on outcome of the three regional workshops in Copenhagen, Jan. 2014; Paris Feb. 2014; and Krakow March 2014.
• D5.2c: 3rd trans-disciplinary assessment report on synthesis seminars in Bulgaria, Jan. 2015; Portugal, Feb. 2015; and Germany, March 2015.
2) D5.3
It is called “Final report on transdisciplinary assessment methodologies based on Workshop and Case Study Analyses”. This report gives a detailed overview of the methodological procedures and considerations employed in the course of realizing the planned stakeholder exchange in the PRO AKIS project. As a product of WP 5, its focus hinges on the concept of stakeholder involvement and participation in the knowledge generation, construction and integration process. The reports highlights that through the “stakeholder involvement approach in PRO AKIS” (D5.1) external stakeholders specifically in the form of stakeholders and policy advisors boards were provided the opportunity to accompany and interact with the project’s consortium throughout the course of the project mutually generating knowledge, exchanging and learning from each other, either in the form of seminars, conferences, meetings, groups and/or panel discussions. Because of the systematic framing and implementation of this approach, much synergy was realised with a successful mutual knowledge generation, integration and improvement of project’s activities, realising project goals and achieving quality outputs/products (see website: www.proakis.eu).
1.3.5 Work package 7: Policy recommendations - lead partner – AUP, Bulgaria
Main objectives of WP7
Obj. No 7.1 Draw conclusions from the state-of-the-art review (WP2), the inventory results (WP 3) and case studies (WP 4)
Obj. No 7.2 Develop policy recommendations based on conclusions from the WP 2-4 for the targeting and adjustment of institutional and funding schemes in CAP so that agricultural knowledge and innovation systems are strengthened and support to farmers is improved.
Obj. No 7.4 Make recommendations for the tailoring of research and training programmes (both academic and in-course training) that substantiate the European agricultural innovation system.
Submitted deliverables since beginning of project
D7.1 Fact sheets (Month 30)
D7.2 Synthesis report (Month 30)
Main science and technology results for WP7: reporting period 1
AUP is responsible for co-ordination of this work package. Work on WP7 just started and expected results for identifying and developing policy recommendation are concentrated in the second part of the project. So far, there are initial outcomes only from WP2 and WP3. The results from the WP 2 are (1) created conceptual framework, which provides practical theoretical tools and practical resources to design the methodology for inventory of national AKIS and advisory services for WP3 and (2) tested and implemented some work about the effectiveness of advisory services. The results from WP3 for inventory of EU-27 have been presented during three regional workshops and outcome of discussions during these workshops will be the basis for development of policy recommendations. The results from WP3 and running WP2, WP4 and WP5 will help to present synthesis of PRO AKIS conclusions with regards to policy recommendations on the basis of scientific findings and of the assessments from the stakeholders.
Main science and technology results for WP7: reporting period 2
The project team of AUP was involved in the organization and coordination of policy recommendations for this work package. The work of WP7 was prepared during several events of the project. After each synthesis seminar, participants discussed key findings for each topic of WP4. All findings and results after seminars were summarized and on the bases of that, policy recommendations were proposed. In addition, there was a meeting specially organized by the AUP with some partners for preparing a draft with policy recommendations. This draft was sent to the Policy Advisory Board, Stakeholders board and international experts for feedback. During the final PRO AKIS conference meeting in Brussels, all collected policy recommendations were discussed and summarized in the final synthesis report.
The work of the WP7 was summarized around the two deliverables:
The deliverable 7.1 include key findings and conclusions from WP2, WP3 and WP 4, which were summarized in a document called “fact sheets”. Some of the outcomes included in fact sheets:
- For WP2, work was based on an analysis of the international academic literature on AKIS and farm advisory services. This review of the literature made it possible to propose definitions and conceptual frameworks to describe farm advisory services and to assess their effectiveness.
- For WP3, work was based on inventory conducted in the EU-27. The outcomes of inventory are (1) policy should support all types of cooperation between farmers, advisers, scientists and other actors of AKIS in solving different problems in an innovative way: European Innovation Partnership – EIP, cooperation groups, networks and clusters; (2) policy should support both small scale producers and advisory services not only in the field of agricultural production but also in non-agricultural activities and environmental issues; (3) policy should support public institution or organization as platform of knowledge exchange and coordination body for different suppliers of advisory services, research / education institutions and other actors of AKIS; and (4) policy makers should support the FAS as an important instrument of the Common Agricultural Policy to support farmers to meet cross-compliance requirements and to faster creation of a modern and competitive agriculture; etc.
- For WP4, work was based on several case studies conducted in 6 EU countries: Bulgaria, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal and UK, in three different topics. The outcomes of the case studies are (1) networking to enhance learning between advisors and farmers valuing their experiences and tacit knowledge, already on the ground is a resource largely unexplored; (2) the growing tasks of control and bureaucratic burdens in the public administration and FBO limit the supply of targeted advisory services; (3) there is need to develop and implement specific support to respond to the demands of new entrants for the agricultural and non-agricultural activities; (4) links between farmers and public applied research should be strengthened; (5) advisors have linkages to research and are seen as knowledge and information intermediaries / facilitators / brokers to bridge farmers and research; (6) knowledge transfer from universities and scientific institutes to agricultural producers is performed through various channels, like demonstration on the fields at scientific institutes, advices provided on farm visits and informal channels; (7) networks support and enhance the social interaction and the collective learning processes between multiple actors that underpin the innovation processes; (8) networks promote the development of locally best-fit solutions to agricultural and rural problems, built on the creation of locally-specific knowledge and the conversion of scientific and synthesized knowledge to the local specific contexts; etc.
The deliverable 7.2 presents a final synthesis report with policy recommendations. All discussions of the policy recommendations at the conference meeting in Brussels and feedback from the Policy Advisory Board and international experts were revised and included in the final synthesis report. The report contains main policy recommendations related to policy design, governance of AKIS and support for specific actors (advisors, farmers, networks) and each of the recommendations was supported by results of our scientific work in PRO AKIS. Some of the policy recommendations are (1) policy design to support innovation processes in agriculture as policy measure should take into account the diversity of AKIS and ensure that the measure targets the appropriate level (national, regional); (2) the AKIS concept should be promoted for national and regional-level use as a diagnostic tool for knowledge exchange by public actors and policy makers; (3) policy should encourage research practice, which value knowledge exchange with end users and the orientation towards their needs; (4) long –term support to advisory services that provide public goods and minimum public support to independent private advisory services; (5) policy makers should support training/education and the development of certification schemes to create transparency about quality of advisory services; should support small-scale farm development and rural multi-actor innovation networks.
Potential Impact:
1.4 Potential impact, main dissemination activities and exploited results
1.4.1 General impacts at EU level
As a Coordination and Support Action (CSA) project, PRO AKIS was designed to develop the research topic and in this way, function to enhance the linkages between the research communities and its end users in policies and society. There are two major policy concerns that have been linked with the topic:
1. An increase in the linkages between research and CAP implementation (e.g.
recommendations on how to strengthen FAS)
2. A contribution to the overall goal of the EU strategy 2020 and the specific objectives
of the future directive of rural development (e.g. building up a European Innovation Partnership (EIP) for agricultural productivity and sustainability which relies on innovation generation in ‘operational groups’ in rural areas)
The project has contributed to these topical political questions with specific outputs especially through its close exchange with the PAB, the ISB, the SCAR CW AKIS representatives as well as members of DG AGRI and EU joint research centres.
1.4.2 Specific Impact
A first specific impact is connected with the question of social cohesion in the EU and this has resulted mainly from WP 2, WP3 and WP4. The literature review (WP2) has highlighted linkages between the knowledge system concepts, the understanding of advisory services and social issues in rural areas. Especially the question “who are the farmers groups that benefit from advisory services?” was specified and included in the empirical work. Through its work, PRO AKIS showed that small-scale and semi-subsistence farmers are less addressed by advisory services than medium and large scale farmers. More specifically, women groups, young farmers and farm workers seem to get considerable less attention compared to the average farmer. These findings raised attention in the discussion and assessments of the inventory results in regional workshops with AKIS stakeholders (WP 3, WP 5). Throughout the case studies, a specific focus was given to the situation of small-scale farmers in four EU member states. Building upon these findings, policy recommendations were specified with regard to so far underserved or even neglected social groups.
The second impact is created and will be maintained through the use of the AKIS inventory and the searchable data base of the actors involved in farm advisory services within European AKIS. It has been the general intention of the CAP reform proposal to overcome the gaps between science and practice, by strengthening clusters and networks in rural areas e.g. through the already established LEADER instrument, by introducing the European Innovation Partnership (EIP) for agricultural productivity and sustainability, but also by strengthening and improving existing advisory services. The various actors involved in such agricultural and rural innovation generation and implementation processes are understood as being part of a common AKIS. From the AKIS inventories and the searchable database, there is now a systematic and structured overview of these various advisory service actors throughout the EU member states which might be updated regularly.
A third impact of PRO AKIS has been induced with discussions about methods of assessment of advisory services within AKIS. Such collective discussions with stakeholders and political decision makers have taken place in regional workshops (February to March 2014), synthesis seminars (January to March 2015) and more broadly, during the final conference (May 2015) in Brussels. Policy recommendations have been developed in this regard, discussed and documented together with the SCAR AKIS III working group.
A fourth impact was the awareness creation of characteristics and performances of national AKIS among national and regional policy makers and other AKIS stakeholders. This has been realized with the 3 regional workshops on comparative analyses and assessments of AKIS in the EU (month 14th and15th), and 3 synthesis seminars on comparatively exploring and describing selected forms of advisory services and agricultural knowledge flows in Europe (month 26th, 27th and 28th). More than 200 participants in these events included decision makers, scientists and other interested AKIS stakeholders across EU. As these workshops and seminars were semi-public, sub-contractors, national experts from ministries, extension agencies, education and training bodies as well as secondary formation agencies and private service providing enterprises from rural areas were all invited. These hereby created regional fora enhanced focused international exchange and awareness creation of characteristics and performances of national AKIS.
A fifth impact relates to the realisation of a transdisciplinary component in the project’s approach. With this, the project has practiced cutting-edge research methodology and stands exemplarily for European applied sciences. It has used various methods for producing knowledge e.g. structured and semi-structured interviews to generate the AKIS diagrams and reports (WP3), in-depth case study analysis and reports (WP4) as well as public sharing and dissemination of this knowledge through project website (WP6), which makes it possible a versatile usage in different forum and by various actors. The public awareness about EU AKIS and state of advisory services has especially been made possible via this project through the reports (esp. inventory reports – WP3; case study reports WP4), expert and semi-public discussions (regional workshops and seminars) and, by reviewed publication (e.g. Labarthe P. et al (2013) and, Knierim et al. (2015) (visit www.proakis.eu for full titles and pdf versions).
A sixth impact with regard to private businesses has been achieved through the cooperation with recently founded EUFRAS (European Forum of Rural and Agricultural Advisory Services). During the mapping of AKIS and case study discussions, a specific attention was paid to the situation of private independent advisory entrepreneurs and related policy recommendations were formulated. Even more, a searchable directory of advisory organisations was developed and set up with several hundreds of addresses already. This directory can be complemented continuously through voluntary inscription of public and private bodies; it will most likely be hosted at EUFRAS in the future.
The above outcomes so far have enhanced the overall impact of the project at regional; national and EU level (e.g. see policy recommendations in form of a policy brief and as a deliverable for WP7). The public at large has been reached through the realization of the broad dissemination strategy (WP6). There has been a wide interest in the project findings and approach taken, in particular in the use of AKIS diagrams. One consortium partner (JHI) was invited to report on project findings at a Teagasc (Ireland) event to launch a strategic plan for the regional advisory services in Teagasc 2015 to 2020 (22 June 2015). The audience included Teagasc board and management, advisers, industry stakeholders, private sector consultants, academic staff from University College Dublin, policy makers from Irish and Northern Ireland government ministries. The results from one case study on innovation networks (monitor farms in Scotland) shall be used to complement the formal evaluation of monitor farms and integrate lessons learned into the design of the next Monitor Farm Program and the focus farms under the Farming for a Better Climate Initiative. In Germany, the federal ministry invited one partner to present the PRO AKIS results in the working group on advisory services. And in Portugal, general media took up the PRO AKIS press release in order to address current deficits of the AKIS.
1.4.3 Main dissemination activities and exploitation of results
This activity has been realised under WP6 of the project with JHI as the lead partner institute.
Main objectives initially envisaged under dissemination included the following:
Obj. No 6.1 To support the work of the project research team by ensuring full dissemination of information, evidence and findings between and amongst team members and external stakeholders (additional to those involved with other work packages)
Obj. No 6.2 To provide and supply channels of communication from the project to external stakeholders
Submitted deliverables since beginning of project
D6.1 Web-based portal and website, established by Month 3, and thereafter maintained during the duration of the project
D6.2 Dissemination materials, provided in Months 3, 6, 12, 18; 24
D6.3 Target group oriented publication (brochure) for the final conference (Month 29)
Main dissemination activities and exploitation of results during reporting period 1
A project website was developed and set up by month 3. It includes pages on objectives, project partners, events and outputs. It is maintained regularly, and updated with new material as it becomes available. For example, the conceptual framework, abstracts of presented papers, and information on the regional workshops are available. We set up a mailing list that interested people can subscribe to if they want to be kept in the loop regarding outputs and events from the PRO AKIS project (D6.1)
The project website has an internal part that allows the partners to share draft versions of deliverables and planned conference presentations.
Discussions progressed around how best to link the project website and the webportal holding the searchable database, and various drafts of the database have been designed and tested. There is likely to be more than one database (directory of agricultural advisory organisations including consultants; key advisory organisations and/ or characteristics of AKIS) as the type of contents are too different to sensibly merge.
A project flyer was designed, distributed at relevant conferences, workshops and stakeholder events, and translated into Portuguese and Polish. The flyer is available for download from the website. An updated version was produced in February 2014 (D6.2)
The project received publicity when the country inventories were compiled and a survey undertaken in several countries. For example, the survey invite in the UK was circulated through professional organisations such as Central Association of Agricultural Valuers (CAAV) and The Farm Business Advisor Accreditation Scheme for Scotland (FBAASS) and thus the project publicized to their membership. A press release was not put immediately after the regional workshops because these were project activities worth highlighting and the country inventory reports (WP3) would be nearly finalized at that stage. The project is already being well-publicised through the regional workshop, the stakeholder and policy advisory board and individual networks of project partners, but we plan to promote the project findings to interested audiences at European level.
We have used somewhat fewer person months in the first half of the project due to staff changes. This is likely to be compensated during the case study phase in the second half.
Main dissemination activities and exploitation of results during reporting period 2
The project team was supported by ensuring that all material and presentations where uploaded to either the public or the internal part of the project website as appropriate. Project meetings and email were used to communicate to partners what material and information was available and where to find it, e.g. with regard to the EIP-Agri web platform.
Part of the work in this WP was concerned with refining key project and case study messages with team members. These key messages and project outputs were compiled in the final brochure (D.6.3). The brochure was distributed at the final conference and subsequent events. It is available for download from the website, in English, Portuguese, Bulgarian, Polish, French and German.
Specific dissemination activities included:
• More than 165 subscribers who received 4 project newsletters.
• PROAKIS featured in the February 2015 newsletter on the EIP-Agri website: http://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/content/previousnewsletter
• The project is also listed on this website under ‘interesting project’: http://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/find-connect/research-projects
• JHI prepared 4 press releases which some partners utilized as a basis for writing pieces for their own communications teams. Press releases were also submitted to CORDIS.
• The last press release (just before the final conference) resulted in the project being picked up by BBC4 and a short interview with a project team member was broadcasted on the Farming Today programme on 18 May 2015.
The project website is maintained and kept up to date. The AKIS inventory web-portal (containing the directory of individual advisory organizations, contact details and advisory topics) is also maintained. The dataset underlying this database was updated and passed onto DG Agri.
Project and academic presentations, abstracts, reports and (links to) full papers are available on the project website. The individual case study reports as well as three synthesis reports are available for download. Some of the outputs of the project do not lend themselves to the traditional form of brochures or flyers. We therefore opted to provide the content online. For example, to make the data from the individual country reports more easily accessible, we implemented a searchable database of advisory organisations (www.proakis.eu/inventory)
List of Websites:
1.5 Address of project website and relevant contact details
Project website address: http://www.proakis.eu/
Main contact persons:
For general questions about PRO AKIS please contact the project coordinator:
Prof Dr Andrea Knierim, University of Hohenheim and Leibniz-Zentrum für Agrarlandschaftsforschung (ZALF) e. V. Müncheberg, Germany
If you would like to get in touch regarding the inventory of advisory organisations in the EU-27 and the searchable database, please select the contact for your country
• Violeta Dirimanova (Agricultural University of Plovdiv) – Bulgaria, Romania (v_dirimanova@au-plovdiv.bg)
• Andrea Knierim (University of Hohenheim) - Germany, Austria, Slovenia, Luxembourg (andrea.knierim@uni-hohenheim.de)
• Timothy Koehnen (UTAD) - Portugal, Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Malta(Tkoehnen@utad.pt)
• Pierre Labarthe (INRA) - Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, France (pierre.labarthe@agroparistech.fr)
• Jozef Kania (Krakow University) - Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania (jozef.kania@ur.krakow.pl)
• Katrin Prager (James Hutton Institute) – UK, Ireland (Katrin.Prager@hutton.ac.uk)
• Heidi Hundrup Rasmussen (VFL/ SEGES) - Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia (hhr@vfl.dk)
1.1 Executive summary
In times of changing conditions, with strong pressure from markets and citizens to adjust and innovate, European farmers like elsewhere, need timely access to knowledge and information, to training and education, and to facilitating and supporting services. A functioning Agricultural Knowledge and Information/Innovation System (AKIS) is required to tackle challenges such as:
1. giving small-scale farmers access to relevant and reliable knowledge,
2. bridging scientific research topics and farmers’ demands and
3. offering appropriate support for diverse rural actors that form networks around innovations in agriculture and rural areas.
Advisory services are therefore seen as one essential means to enhance problem solving, information sharing and innovation generating processes.
It is with the basis of responding to the above challenges, that the PRO AKIS project (Prospects for farmers’ support: Advisory Services in the European Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems – www.proakis.eu) was funded (Dec 2012 to May 2015). As a European research and action project, it was out to investigate agricultural advisory services within the context of European member states’ AKIS by specifically answering the question: How and from what sources can European farmers get reliable and relevant knowledge, as well as orientation and support, in order to continuously evolve, to successfully solve problems, and to respond to external expectations and development opportunities?
The project consisted of eight research partners from seven EU member states: Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal and the UK. It was accompanied by two advisory boards: the International Stakeholder Board (ISB) – comprising representatives of international agricultural advisory bodies, farmers’ associations and education and training institutions and the Policy Advisors Board (PAB) - which encompassed members of the Directorate General for Agriculture, Research and Innovation, the DG AGRI, the SCAR CWG AKIS, G-FRAS and international experts on AKIS.
Within a period of two and a half years (Dec. 2012 to May 2015), the project has developed a conceptual framework for assessing AKIS, compiled an inventory of AKIS institutions and interactions in the EU-27 as a searchable database and detailed reports. Using selected case studies, specific knowledge systems have been investigated through comparative analysis and assessments revealing successes, strengths and weaknesses which have been discussed in three synthesis seminars. Based on these findings, policy recommendations for strengthening European agricultural innovation systems have been developed.
Project Context and Objectives:
1.2 Summary description of the project context and main objectives
Farmers throughout Europe have been facing changing political conditions and a strong pressure from markets and citizens to adjust and to innovate. They need timely access to knowledge and information, to training and education and to facilitating and supporting services. These new needs for knowledge and information have been acknowledged by the European Commission, with a regulation that makes it compulsory for member states to set up a ‘Farm Advisory System’ (FAS), ensuring that farmers can benefit from reliable information about cross compliance. In addition and in coherence with the EU strategy ‘horizon 2020’, the topic ‘knowledge transfer and innovation’ has been designated as a cross-cutting priority of the new CAP in the period of 2014 - 2020. In this frame, a European Innovation Partnership on Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability has been conceived with the objective to enhance innovation in priority areas. Key acting entities are ‘Operational Groups’ bringing together farmers, advisors, researchers and enterprises.
In this context, the concept of the Agricultural Knowledge and Information/Innovation System (AKIS) is useful to picture and understand the manifold knowledge flows and supporting services between diverse actors from the first, second or third sector in rural areas. A specific focus can be given to complex interactions of cooperation and mutual learning that takes place in innovation processes. Functioning AKIS are needed to tackle challenges like:
• giving small-scale farmers access to relevant and reliable knowledge,
• bridging scientific research topics and farmers’ demands and
• offering appropriate support for diverse rural actors that form networks around innovations in agriculture and rural areas.
Advisory services are one essential means to enhance problem solving, information sharing and innovation generating processes.
In responding to the above challenges, the PRO AKIS project (www.proakis.eu Dec. 2012-May 2015) was funded as a European research and action project that investigated agricultural advisory services within the context of European member states’ AKIS. It specifically aimed at:
1. reviewing international literature sources and debates on AKIS as well as developing a conceptual framework for its assessment.
2. providing an inventory of the AKIS institutions and interactions in the EU-27 countries as a searchable database
3. analysing these challenges towards a functioning AKIS in selected case studies for each topic in parallel within selected EU by investigating challenges around:
a. small-scale farmers’ access to relevant and reliable knowledge (Bulgaria, Portugal, Poland, UK)
b. bridging scientific research topics and farmers’ demands (Bulgaria, Germany, France, Poland) and
c. offering appropriate support for diverse rural actors that form networks around innovations in agriculture and rural areas (Germany, France, Portugal, UK).
4. revealing successes, strengths and weaknesses of the specific knowledge systems through comparative analyses and assessments of these case studies and
5. developing policy recommendations for strengthening European agricultural innovation systems.
The project consisted of eight research partners from seven EU member states: Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal and the UK. It was accompanied by two advisory boards: the International Stakeholder Board (ISB) – comprising representatives of international agricultural advisory bodies, farmers’ associations and education and training institutions and the Policy Advisors Board (PAB) - which encompassed members of the DG Research and Innovation, the DG AGRI, the SCAR CWG AKIS, G-FRAS and international experts on AKIS.
Project Results:
1.3 Description of main science and technology results
Main science and technology results achieved during the project periods are highlighted according to the various work packages and the corresponding lead institutions. This is particularly observed under WPs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the project while WP1 and WP6 were particularly involve with the management and dissemination activities of the project respectively. The following section focuses on the main science and technology outcomes as realised under WP 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the project.
Table 1: main science and technology results since the beginning of project in brief
WP2: lead – INRA, France
⇒ A review of international literature sources and debates on AKIS and a conceptual framework for the assessment of AKIS (month 7)(D 2.1)
⇒ A report about methods available to assess the effectiveness of farm advisory service (D2.2)
⇒ A published article on the effectiveness of advisory services’ interventions (D2.3) presented during the PRO AKIS workshop of the 11th conference of the Internal Farming System Association symposium (Berlin, April 2014)
WP3: lead – UTAK, Poland
⇒ A methodological guide for the inventory of the various national patterns of AKIS in the EU member states (month 5)( D 3.1)
⇒ An inventory of the AKIS institutions and their linkages in EU-27 on the basis of the analytical framework ( month 10)
⇒ A synthesis report on the inventory (month 10)(D 3.2).
⇒ Summarised materials for three regional workshops (D 3.4) organized in Copenhagen, Paris and Krakow
⇒ A web-based interactive database with an opportunity for a continuous registration of Advisory bodies and institutions in Europe even after the project (D3.3)
WP4: lead - UTAD, Portugal
⇒ Organised stakeholder consultation process (month 15) on case studies selection process (D 4.1)
⇒ 12 case studies analysis implemented with a set of four cases for each topic coordinated under WP4.
⇒ A prepared protocol for the case studies’ analysis , including research goals, methodological approach and results (D 4.2)
⇒ Draft synthesis reports for each of the three case study topics
⇒ Draft reports, synthesized and presented - revealing a cross-comparison of the case studies conducted under each of the topics used as inputs for discussion and contributions of the synthesis seminars (D 4.3).
WP5: lead – ZALF, Germany
⇒ A designed methodological approach (D5.1) continuously used for the implementation and monitoring of targeted science-practice interactions and trans-disciplinary assessments’ procedures in PRO AKIS (month 6).
⇒ Three trans-disciplinary assessment reports on the outcomes of multi-stakeholder knowledge generation and exchange (D5.2a D5.2b D5.2c) (month 30).
⇒ A final report on trans-disciplinary assessment methodologies for PRO AKIS (D5.3)(month 30).
WP7: lead – Uni-Plovdiv, Bulgaria
⇒ A fact sheet (D7.1) drafted and this includes summarized key findings and conclusions from WP2, WP3 and WP 4.
⇒ A final synthesis report (D7.2) drafted based on the summarized policy recommendations. This was finalized after sharing and discussing as well as collecting feedback from the Policy Advisory Board, Stakeholders board and international AKIS experts in Brussels, May 2015 (month 30)
1.3.1 Work package 2: Advisory Services within AKIS (International debates); lead partner – INRA, France
Main objectives of WP2
The overall aim of this Work Package has been to produce a state-of-the-art of the academic literature for a better understanding of conditions and effectiveness of pluralistic farm advisory services in practice. It intentionally builds on the existing reviews provided by the SCAR Collaborative Working Group on AKIS in Europe, and findings from recent EU projects (e.g. SOLINSA, INSIGHT, EU-AgriMapping). The objectives have been:
Obj. No 2.1 To review the international literature related to four main sets of questions:
a. What are the theories and concepts to describe the policies, approaches and pluralistic types of farm advisory services and their contribution to various forms of knowledge flows today in Europe?
b. What is the impact of various institutional, organisational and methodological patterns of advisory services on:
i. the involvement of different types of farms in knowledge exchanges (including small, part-time, subsistence farms, holdings managed by women)
ii. the type of knowledge available for public or private advisory bodies and their connection within AKIS (flows of knowledge from research, farmers, brokers, other sectors of activity [tourism]).
c. What are the most efficient advisory methods to support innovation processes in rural areas (face-to-face, group, mass-media)?
d. What are the major knowledge gaps faced by FAS actors?
Obj. No 2.2 To extract key findings from the literature review for targeted discussions on the analysis of the inventory (WP 3) and as analytical guidance for transdisciplinary assessments (WP 5).
Obj. No 2.3 To present the findings of the state-of-the-art in forums involving the various types of AKIS stakeholders (research, extension services, policy makers, etc.) and to discuss about the methods of state-of-the-art, and their value for supporting the transformations of FAS.
Submitted deliverables for WP2 since beginning of project
D2.1: First discussion paper for general orientation and priority setting, targeted for policy makers (Month 7)
D2.2: First synthetic international literature review report with executive summary (Month 18)
D2.3: A scientific paper presenting the literature review structured by the questions presented above in the objective section (Month 30)
Main science and technology results for WP2: reporting period 1
For the 1st reporting period, the task within WP2, coordinated by INRA, was to use academic literature as a primary source of data for i) writing a conceptual note for the project, ii) initiating a work of systemic reviews about the effectiveness of advisory services. This was possible thanks to interactions between the different teams of PROAKIS, but also with the Stakeholders Advisory Board and Policy Advisory Board.
- The PROAKIS conceptual note-
A first aim of WP2 was to use relevant literature to draw a common research framework. An explicit statement of theoretical assumptions was especially needed to drive the design of the inventory of national AKIS and advisory services (WP3), but also for the case studies (WP4).
The methodology relied on the analysis of literature found trough systematic search of international databases combined with papers provided by the different teams of the project that gathers among the best European experts on the issue. A first draft was written by INRA team, and benefited from feedbacks of different PROAKIS teams. There were more specifically some exchanges with UAK and ZALF-UHOH (for instance in Wroclaw, month 3) about some key elements of the concept note vis-à-vis the standardisation of the questionnaire and of the report for the inventory (WP3). This included discussions about the definition of advisory services, the typology of suppliers, and the scheme of public investments in and support to national AKIS. These rich interactions ended in a first version of the draft presented as planned on month 7 (D2.1) to the Policy Advisory Board meeting in Dublin (June 2013). We integrated their feedbacks before publishing the final version of the paper in November 2013, a few months ahead planning (D2.2). This conceptual framework allows us to have a shared definition of farm advisory services, and a shared vision about how they are embedded in AKIS. We agreed on two major choices: i) choosing the AKIS rather than the Agricultural Innovation Systems definition, which fits with the idea of focusing the study on organizations dedicated to knowledge flows; and ii) starting from an infrastructural perspective on AKIS rather than a process view. This later choice implies that we focus on understanding the drivers of knowledge flows (networks, tangible & intangible investments, institutions).The common framework provided important theoretical tools and it has also resulted in practical resources to design the methodology for the inventory of WP3. The concept note, available to everyone, is published on the PROAKIS website.
- Systematic reviews of the effectiveness of farm advisory services
A second aim of the WP2 has been to test and implement some works of systematic reviews about the effectiveness of advisory services. This task is complicated, but tackling this challenge is important as there is a clear gap in the literature about the impact of agricultural advisory services, especially regarding public good issues in the contexts of European countries. This first part of the project has allowed us to have different moments of discussion within the consortium but also with the Stakeholders and Policy Advisory Boards. This allowed us to select three topics for review, including the effectiveness of advisory services programs i) for reducing farm workers’ exposure to pesticides? (health issues); ii) for improving women’ access to knowledge and services (gender issues); iii) for integrating environment issues in a demand driven perspective (policy issues). We have now performed a second stage, which consists in the selection of relevant and robust papers through a standardised and transparent methodology. We used complementary human resources (masters students’ dissertations, joint projects...) in that respect. The third phase in progress is to read the papers and synthetize their findings, with the help of different teams of the PROAKIS consortium. A first paper related to health issues has been written and will be presented at the IFSA symposium in Berlin.
Main science and technology results for WP2: reporting period 2
The activity carried out within WP2 for the second half of the PRO AKIS project dealt with the possibilities to produce knowledge about the effectiveness of farm advisory services, based on new methodologies of systematic reviews of scientific literature.
Our work was organised in two steps:
- In a first step, we have implemented a review of the methods available to assess the effectiveness of farm advisory services, building on former research results (projects funded by the French National Research Agency). It enabled to identify three different goals for evaluation of farm advisory services: i) to measure effectiveness, ii) to understand mechanisms of efficiency of farm advice, and iii) to promote participatory learning with shared assessments. Our work showed that a broad range of methods are available in that respect: quantitative experimental (or quasi experimental) methods for the measurement of effectiveness (RCTs, double difference, matching...); participatory methods (soft system methodology...) to promote learning... The wide range of methods available opens opportunities to use evaluation as a way to design better targeted policies. Our work is focused on the specific methods available to understand and measure the effectiveness of interventions based on the support to farm advisory services. It gives some critical points for evaluating the internal quality of studies based on such methods and for identifying their limits of validity for practice. A key dimension in that the results of impact assessments of farm advice interventions might not be extrapolated beyond the very context where the study was implemented. This statement calls for a need for reviews that combines results from impact assessments implemented in various contexts (e.g. systematic reviews of academic literature).
A synthetic report summarizing this work has been published in a report: the deliverable 2.2 of the PRO AKIS project. The content of the report has been debated with researchers, policy makers and experts from different areas, including during a session of the final conference of the PRO AKIS project (where key findings were discussed by Professor Chris Garforth from Reading University).
- In a second step, we have proposed methodological corner stones for the implementation of systematic reviews about the effectiveness of farm advice. We described the different steps for implementing this methodology, and proposed some examples of analytical tools such as: i) algorithms and diagrams to search and sort the papers; ii) tables to describe and evaluate the quality of papers; iii) criteria to combine evidence from different researches. We tested this methodology on a specific case: the effectiveness of farm advice regarding the reduction of occupational exposure to pesticides of farm labour. The choice of this case study was discussed with and validated by the Policy Advisory Board of the PRO AKIS project (during the board meeting organized in Dublin in June 2013).
An article has been published from this case study. It has been presented during the PRO AKIS workshop of the 11th conference of the International Farming Systems Association (IFSA) conference (organized in Berlin, April 2014) (deliverable 2.3). The results highlight a specific knowledge gap in the European context. There is almost no study of the impact of farm advice on health issues in European agriculture. Nevertheless, the systematic review reveals that some positive effects of interventions (training, advice...) on farmers and workers have been demonstrated in North America (Canada and United States of America).
We couldn’t implement systematic reviews on other issues, due to limitation in human resources. Implementing such systematic reviews for a first time made us aware of the amount of human resources needed to implement them with rigorous and replicable methodologies. A first mapping of the indicators of effectiveness of gender inclusion with different extension methodologies was completed and presented in the EAEPE conference in Nicosia (Jonson M. et al.). But a systematic review on this issue would have involved a number of papers that was too large to be analysed in the time frame of the project. We have chosen to focus our resources on one systematic review only, but in the most comprehensive, rigorous and replicable way; rather than having more superficial approaches of more topics.
1.3.2 Work package 3: AKIS in the EU (The inventory); lead partner – UAK, Poland
Main objectives of WP3
Obj. No 3.1 Construction of a questionnaire for the inventory of the various national patterns of AKIS in the EU member states
Obj. No 3.2 Inventory of the AKIS institutions and their linkages in EU-27 on the basis of the analytical Framework
Ob. No 3.3 Creation of interactive database on AKIS institutions and organisations
Obj. No 3.4 Processing of summarized materials for regional workshops organized on national and EU level
Submitted deliverables for WP3 since beginning of project
D3.1 Report on design of questionnaire for AKIS inventory (Month 5)
D3.2 Synthesis Report on the inventory of AKIS EU-27 (Month 10)
D3.3 Web-based, interactive database (Month 16)
D3.4 Discussion papers and presentation materials for three regional workshops and EU level conference (Month 17)
Main science and technology results for WP3: reporting period 1
Construction of a questionnaire for the inventory of the various national patterns of AKIS in the EU agriculture member states (3.1).
UAK as co-ordinator of WP3 was responsible for constructing a questionnaire for collecting the main factors of agriculture and characteristics of AKIS actors in EU27.
The conception and preparation of the questionnaire has been accomplished in collaboration with project partners. The questionnaire consists following chapters: (a) the main characteristics of agriculture; (b) characteristics of existing AKIS – formal and informal knowledge flow systems, organisation of advisory service in terms of management structure – present and historical changes (in a period of 2004-2012), types of actors (agricultural advisory organisations, agricultural universities and research institutions, other extension organisations, NGOs, farmers, farmers organisations and groups, supply and sale services etc. (and their role in AKIS) (c) the typology of advisory systems, staff, budget and sources of funding; (d) the number and types of research units working for agriculture and rural development (including number of employees, level of budget for implementations and dissemination of research results); (e) the number of agriculture universities and colleges and agricultural faculties at other universities – the number of teachers and researchers, scientific and research personnel (or just the responsible personnel) involved in dissemination of knowledge and information, budget for implementation and dissemination of innovations (the percentage of the total budget for colleges of agriculture/agricultural faculties); (f) investigation of advisory forming FAS in individual countries of EU27 and the results of their advisory work.
Inventory of the AKIS institutions and their linkages in EU-27 on the basis of the analytical framework (3.2)
UAK as the co-ordinator of WP3 was responsible for monitoring the survey in all EU countries, in which survey have been provided by other member of consortium. UAK was also responsible for survey in five countries: Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Lithuania. The survey in these countries has been provided in co-operation of sub-contractors – representatives of: Czech University of Lifes Sciences Prague (in Czech Republic), University of Agriculture in Nitra (Slovakia), Gödöllo University of Agricultural Sciences (in Hungary), Aleksandras Stulginskis University in Kaunas (Lithuania). In Poland the survey and country report was done by University of Agriculture in Krakow.
Then UAK made the technical polishing of all 27 country reports, which have been send by respective partners.
The next task done by UAK was analysis of all country reports and preparation the preliminary version of final report.
Creation of interactive database on AKIS institutions and organizations (3.3)
UAK as the co-ordinator of WP3 was responsible for creation of interactive database on AKIS institutions and organisations. The source for data base is results of survey done in EU27.
The project of data base has been done under discussion with project partners. The content for data base is already prepared, and will be added to the PRO AKIS website after the last decision of project co-ordinator.
Discussion papers and presentation materials for three regional workshops and EU level conference (Months 17) (3.4)
UAK as the co-ordination of WP3 is responsible for processing of materials, which were used during three regional workshops organized on national level and EU level. The sources of these materials were findings coming from analysis of country reports.
UAK prepared following materials for regional workshops:
1) for Copenhagen workshop – (a) handouts with preliminary finding extracted from country reports for: Denmark, Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Ireland, Finland, UK; (b) 8 posters presented the main finding on: main actors of AKIS, description of linkages within AKIS institutions and organisations, type of advisory organisations, main clients, main topics of advisory, sources of funding;
2) for Paris workshop – the same materials, but for 10 following countries: France, Spain, Portugal, Malta, Italy, Slovenia, Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Romania;
3) for Krakow workshops – UAK was the organiser of this workshop, and prepared the same materials like mentioned above, but for 9 following countries: Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands.
The materials presented during three regional workshops and results of discussions during these workshops are the base for final report and presentation on conference on EU level.
Main science and technology results for WP3: reporting period 2
In the second period of PRO AKIS Project we took into consideration remarks and recommendations of our partners and we improved our synthesis report of the inventory of AKIS EU-27 and we produced two volumes: Volume I – Summary findings (105 pp.) and Volume II – Country information (422 pp.).
Under WP-3 objectives we created the interactive database of AKIS institutions and organisations in collaboration with WP-6. The source for database was results of surveys done in 27 EU member states. The database is accessible through the project’s website (www.proakis.eu).
We prepared written material and posters with diagrams of AKIS in EU-27 countries for three regional workshops organised in Copenhagen, Paris and Krakow and the final Conference in Brussels (EU level) in cooperation with WP-5. The source of this material for the final conference was the database of AKIS institutions and organisations – selected posters.
We also took part working intensively for WP-4 – AKIS on the ground: focusing knowledge flow systems, in case study analyses in Poland. In topic 4.1 “The effectiveness of advisory services to respond to the demands of diverse types of small-scale farmers” we studied small-scale agri-tourism farms in the Carpathian Mountains. In topic 4.2 “The capability of extension and advisory services to bridge research and knowledge needs of farmers” we studied demonstration farms in Poland.
We took active part in synthesis seminars in Plovdiv, Berlin and Vila Real. For both case studies we prepared final country reports: “Agritourism farm in the Carpathian Mountains of Poland” (44 pp.), - “Demonstration Farms for Transfer of Knowledge Case Study from Poland” (39 pp.).
We participated in the development of policy recommendations report and in development of teams and questions for further European research and training programs based on the findings of WP-3 and WP-4.
We also made remarks and comments for target group oriented publication (brochure titled “Prospects for Farmers’ Support: Advisory Services in European AKIS – Selected Findings”) under WP-6, translated it into Polish (“Perspektywy wspierania rolników: Instytucje doradcze w Europejskim Systemie Wiedzy i Informacji Rolniczej – AKIS – Wybrane wnioski”) and disseminated in Poland among AKIS stakeholders (500 copies).
1.3.3 Work package 4: AKIS on the ground (focusing knowledge flow systems); lead partner – UTAD, Portugal
Main objectives of WP4
The overall objective of this WP is to comparatively explore and describe selected forms of advisory services and agricultural knowledge flows in Europe, accounting for the diversity on the supply and demand conditions across different countries/regions and diverse types of farmers. Throughout all cases, gender issues and other forms of socio-economic differentiation of actors has been taken into consideration. The specific goals addressed by this WP are the following:
Obj. No 4.1. To investigate the performance of advisory services with regard to small-scale farming, commercial farms as well as semi-subsistence and hobby farming ones. Here, PRO AKIS explores (i) the known and unknown needs for knowledge, skills and services of farmers; (ii) farmers’ access to classical as well as to innovative forms of advisory services; (iii) the capacities of the supply side to respond to these types of clients’ demand.
Obj. No 4.2 To describe the roles, the opportunities and the limits of extension and advisory services to fulfil the bridge function between farmers and research especially with regard to farmers’ provision of public goods and ecosystem services and to their capacities to respond to global challenges. Hereby, the different institutional settings of advisory services (Governmental, privatised, mixed, commodity-based, client-based extension, among others) are explicitly taken into account.
Obj. No 4.3 To explore and identify the possibilities, the conditions and the requirements of rural innovation networks that constitute examples for the ‘European Innovation Partnership’ by increasing farmers’ capacities to create, test, implement and evaluate innovations in cooperation with other rural actors.
Obj. No 4.4 To develop bases for typologies of knowledge flow systems by assessing case studies and best-fit practices for advisory services around the topics developed in the objectives 4.1 – 4.3.
Submitted deliverables for WP4 since beginning of project
D4.1 Procedure for stakeholder consultation (Month 15);
D4.2 Country reports on case studies (Month 24);
D4.3 First synthesis report on case studies, written and oral inputs for synthesis seminars (Month 26);
D4.4 Final synthesis report on the results of the WP 4 (Month 30)
Main science and technology results for WP4: reporting period 1
The effectiveness of advisory services to respond to the demands of diverse types of small-scale farmers (4.1)
The capability of extension and advisory services to bridge research and knowledge needs of farmers (to go beyond cross compliance requirements) (4.2)
How to design, implement and maintain (rural) innovation networks able to enhance farmers’ ability to innovate in cooperation with other rural actors (4.3)
To develop bases for the appraisal of AKIS as a whole and the performance of knowledge flows, including informal ones led by farmers and/or informal networks, specifically, by assessing case studies and best-fit practices for advisory services around the topics developed in the objectives 4.1 – 4.3. (4.4)
UTAD as coordinator of WP4 is responsible for the design of the procedure for stakeholder consultation: [month 15=February 2014]; Country reports on case studies: [month 24]; First synthesis report on case studies and oral inputs for synthesis seminars: [month 26]; and final synthesis report of WP 4: [month 30]
Within this 1st reporting period UTAD, with the collaboration of project partners, has been conceiving and preparing the case studies selection, especially through the discussion of the criteria to the selection of case studies, preparing a draft framework for case studies implementation and also by harmonizing concepts and terminology (glossary). These were the main tasks of the WP4 kick-off.
During this process project partners have been discussing, namely through video-conferences in small groups and e-mail exchange, the criteria for case studies selection along with analysis of possible case-study in terms of ensuring the project goals, namely in respect to assure comparative analysis.
The discussion on the case studies selections, namely the criteria to be consider was extend to the International Stakeholders Board members that have attended the meeting in Copenhagen on 18th February 2014. The consortium has decided in the video conference carried out on October 2013 to involve only the ISB in the case studies selection phase. The local stakeholders will be involved more formally during the case studies implementation.
Next month, March 2014, will be dedicated to end the process of case studies selection and to finalize the framework to support the case studies implementation.
Main science and technology results for WP4: reporting period 2
The stakeholder consultation process was completed by month 15 as expected, during the ISB meeting in Copenhagen) with the collection and integration of feedback from the International Stakeholder Board regarding the case studies selection process (D4.1.). In addition, the team developed a protocol for local stakeholder consultation to help in fine tuning the case studies selection that was implemented by the various partners according to each specific context.
Twelve case studies have been implemented, a set of four cases for each topic addressed by WP4. A protocol for the case studies conduction, including research goals, methodological approach and results was prepared by the team with the leadership of UTAD. The protocols were developed for each topic, and ensured cross-comparison of case-studies within each topic. Within first topic, evidence and insights were obtained regarding the performance of different advisory services models , depending on the regional/national AKIS, in responding the small-scale farmers’ needs and demands, namely in providing them relevant and reliable knowledge, comprising a diversity of small-scale farmers: semi-subsistence in Bulgaria, newly-established in Bulgaria and Portugal, agri-tourism small business resulting from diversification strategies of small-scale farmers in Poland, and crofters, newly-established and successors in Scotland). Under topic 2 was investigated how research matches practice and what is the role performed by different advisory services models in bridging these two components of the AKIS. In Bulgaria, the knowledge transfer system has been analysed in the South-Central region, whereas the case in the Bavarian region (Germany) focused on the roles and function of experimental stations and on how the knowledge they generated and operationalized is passed to farmers. Demonstration farms from a national network system implemented in Poland, built on a funded project, were studied, highlighting the advantages of joining farmers, researchers and advisors in the implementation, testing, evaluation and demonstration of good agri-environmental practices. The French team compared three Decision Support Tools (DSTs), developed by different actors (FBOs with a public/private partnership, public research institute and private company) which are cognitive devices based on ICT (information and communication techniques) which allow bridging directly the scientific knowledge with the farmers. The challenges for advisors role was discussed in all cases studies, with a particular emphasizes in the French case, where this role is apparently bypassed by technological innovation. On topic 3, were identified the rural innovation networks features which appear to enhance the farmers’ ability to co-innovate in cooperation with other actors. The case studies allow collecting insights on how support to these networks could be offered. A project-induced innovation network in the Brandenburg regions was studied by the German team; a rural social innovation network, the ‘Anti-Mafia: from farm to fork’, in Campania region, in Italy was studied by the French team; the Monitor farms in Scotland were studied by the UK team; and the ‘berries networks’ were investigated by the Portuguese team. The case studies’ goals, description and findings were reported in the respective country reports, in a total of 12 (which are available for download on the PRO AKIS webpage).
Draft synthesis reports for each topic were prepared by the UTAD team, with the support of the teams responsible for different case studies (a total of three). These reports synthesised and presented a cross-comparison of the case studies conducted under each of the topics; and were used, together with case-studies presentations delivered by each team, as inputs to discussion and contributions of the stakeholders that attended the synthesis seminars. Three seminars, each on a different topic, were designed and held during the months 26 to 28, respectively in Bulgaria, Portugal and Germany. Finally, the final synthesis reports were prepared by the UTAD team based on the draft versions and on the inputs provided by the stakeholders that attended the seminar.
This WP, as shown by the country reports and the synthesis reports, revealed successes, strengths and weaknesses of the specific knowledge systems through comparative analyses and assessments of these case studies and providing evidence and insights to develop policy recommendations for improving small-scale farmers access to quality advice, better bridging research and practices and to improve the advisors’ performance in this respect, and finally for strengthening European agricultural innovation systems.
1.3.4 Work package 5: AKIS in multiple perspectives (feedbacks and transdisciplinary assessments); lead partner – ZALF, Germany
Main objectives of WP5
The overall objective of WP 5 is to methodologically assure participation of and to integrate view points and judgments from AKIS actors in the project’s course so that their interests with regard to the project’s outputs become visible and have impacts.
Obj. No 5.1 Close and regular exchange of a variety of actors from international political and research institutions, extension and education bodies and from farmers’ interest organisations with the project consortium will warrant timely feedbacks and hints on gaps between research and practice
Obj. No 5.2 Design, implementation and monitoring of methodological approaches for targeted science-practice interactions and transdisciplinary assessments procedures in PRO AKIS
Obj. No 5.3 Feedbacks on and assessments of selected project’s findings and of (interim) outputs from WP 2, 3 and 4 will be provided, synthesised and communicated to the project consortium
Obj. No 5.4 Synthesis and documentation of practiced procedures and evaluation of methodological experiences in a final report for dissemination (WP 6) and policy recommendations (WP 7)
Submitted deliverables for WP5 since beginning of project
D5.1 Draft design for methodological procedures (Month 6)
D5.2: Three transdisciplinary assessment reports with perspectives from stakeholders and policy advisors (Months 8, 17, 30)
D5.3 Final report on transdisciplinary assessment methodologies for CSA (Month 30)
Main science and technology results for WP5: reporting period 1
As part of this WP 5, ZALF, UHOH in collaboration with VFL have compiled the draft design for the methodological procedures (Month 6) which has formed the basis for all interactive activities within the project involving both internal and external exchange (D5.1).
In addition, ZALF, UHOH and VFL have been actively involved in the coordination and organization of, all major project meetings during this first reporting period alongside local organizers (mostly the work package leaders). This included amongst others, 1) the first international stakeholder Board meeting alongside the kick off meeting for the project which took place in Berlin - Dec. 2012 (month 1), 2) the first discussion and assessment meeting with the Policy Advisors Board which took place in Dublin –June 2013 (month 6), 3) the three regional workshops for the assessment of the review results from WP 2 and the inventory results of WP 3 in collaboration with the International Stakeholder Board meeting (Copenhagen only) which all took place in Copenhagen (Denmark), Paris (France) and Krakow (Poland) – Feb/March 2013 (month 14/15). In close collaboration with WP1, the responsible partners for this WP have managed all internal and external communication with the project team and with the external Boards.
A series of Video Conferences, Skype, and email communications have been jointly handled as part of management (WP1) and at the same time guaranteeing a smooth linkage of the project with the external boards and the SCAR members – a component of WP5.
Lastly, a draft of the first amongst the three consecutive trans-disciplinary reports have been produced (D5.2a).
Main science and technology results for WP5: reporting period 2
In the second half of the project, our work under WP5 focused mostly on further making use of the systematic approach for interactive and step-wise feedback and participatory assessments of project’s outputs. It is here that we further implemented and operationalised the drafted multi-stakeholder involvement approach (D5.1) and reported on the outcome of such exchange in form of transdisciplinary assessment reports (D5.2a-c and D5.3). For easy follow through, the assessment reports are organized as follows:
1) D5.2
This is composed of three transdisciplinary assessment reports highlighting the perspectives of stakeholders and policy advisors alongside AKIS experts and other stakeholders on projects’ objectives and findings. D5.2 is further broken up into:
• D5.2a: 1st trans-disciplinary assessment report with focus on outcome of the first three board meetings (ISB meeting of Berlin, Jan. 2012; PAB meeting of Dublin, June, 2013 and; ISB meeting of Copenhagen, Feb. 2014).
• D5.2b: 2nd trans-disciplinary assessment report with focus on outcome of the three regional workshops in Copenhagen, Jan. 2014; Paris Feb. 2014; and Krakow March 2014.
• D5.2c: 3rd trans-disciplinary assessment report on synthesis seminars in Bulgaria, Jan. 2015; Portugal, Feb. 2015; and Germany, March 2015.
2) D5.3
It is called “Final report on transdisciplinary assessment methodologies based on Workshop and Case Study Analyses”. This report gives a detailed overview of the methodological procedures and considerations employed in the course of realizing the planned stakeholder exchange in the PRO AKIS project. As a product of WP 5, its focus hinges on the concept of stakeholder involvement and participation in the knowledge generation, construction and integration process. The reports highlights that through the “stakeholder involvement approach in PRO AKIS” (D5.1) external stakeholders specifically in the form of stakeholders and policy advisors boards were provided the opportunity to accompany and interact with the project’s consortium throughout the course of the project mutually generating knowledge, exchanging and learning from each other, either in the form of seminars, conferences, meetings, groups and/or panel discussions. Because of the systematic framing and implementation of this approach, much synergy was realised with a successful mutual knowledge generation, integration and improvement of project’s activities, realising project goals and achieving quality outputs/products (see website: www.proakis.eu).
1.3.5 Work package 7: Policy recommendations - lead partner – AUP, Bulgaria
Main objectives of WP7
Obj. No 7.1 Draw conclusions from the state-of-the-art review (WP2), the inventory results (WP 3) and case studies (WP 4)
Obj. No 7.2 Develop policy recommendations based on conclusions from the WP 2-4 for the targeting and adjustment of institutional and funding schemes in CAP so that agricultural knowledge and innovation systems are strengthened and support to farmers is improved.
Obj. No 7.4 Make recommendations for the tailoring of research and training programmes (both academic and in-course training) that substantiate the European agricultural innovation system.
Submitted deliverables since beginning of project
D7.1 Fact sheets (Month 30)
D7.2 Synthesis report (Month 30)
Main science and technology results for WP7: reporting period 1
AUP is responsible for co-ordination of this work package. Work on WP7 just started and expected results for identifying and developing policy recommendation are concentrated in the second part of the project. So far, there are initial outcomes only from WP2 and WP3. The results from the WP 2 are (1) created conceptual framework, which provides practical theoretical tools and practical resources to design the methodology for inventory of national AKIS and advisory services for WP3 and (2) tested and implemented some work about the effectiveness of advisory services. The results from WP3 for inventory of EU-27 have been presented during three regional workshops and outcome of discussions during these workshops will be the basis for development of policy recommendations. The results from WP3 and running WP2, WP4 and WP5 will help to present synthesis of PRO AKIS conclusions with regards to policy recommendations on the basis of scientific findings and of the assessments from the stakeholders.
Main science and technology results for WP7: reporting period 2
The project team of AUP was involved in the organization and coordination of policy recommendations for this work package. The work of WP7 was prepared during several events of the project. After each synthesis seminar, participants discussed key findings for each topic of WP4. All findings and results after seminars were summarized and on the bases of that, policy recommendations were proposed. In addition, there was a meeting specially organized by the AUP with some partners for preparing a draft with policy recommendations. This draft was sent to the Policy Advisory Board, Stakeholders board and international experts for feedback. During the final PRO AKIS conference meeting in Brussels, all collected policy recommendations were discussed and summarized in the final synthesis report.
The work of the WP7 was summarized around the two deliverables:
The deliverable 7.1 include key findings and conclusions from WP2, WP3 and WP 4, which were summarized in a document called “fact sheets”. Some of the outcomes included in fact sheets:
- For WP2, work was based on an analysis of the international academic literature on AKIS and farm advisory services. This review of the literature made it possible to propose definitions and conceptual frameworks to describe farm advisory services and to assess their effectiveness.
- For WP3, work was based on inventory conducted in the EU-27. The outcomes of inventory are (1) policy should support all types of cooperation between farmers, advisers, scientists and other actors of AKIS in solving different problems in an innovative way: European Innovation Partnership – EIP, cooperation groups, networks and clusters; (2) policy should support both small scale producers and advisory services not only in the field of agricultural production but also in non-agricultural activities and environmental issues; (3) policy should support public institution or organization as platform of knowledge exchange and coordination body for different suppliers of advisory services, research / education institutions and other actors of AKIS; and (4) policy makers should support the FAS as an important instrument of the Common Agricultural Policy to support farmers to meet cross-compliance requirements and to faster creation of a modern and competitive agriculture; etc.
- For WP4, work was based on several case studies conducted in 6 EU countries: Bulgaria, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal and UK, in three different topics. The outcomes of the case studies are (1) networking to enhance learning between advisors and farmers valuing their experiences and tacit knowledge, already on the ground is a resource largely unexplored; (2) the growing tasks of control and bureaucratic burdens in the public administration and FBO limit the supply of targeted advisory services; (3) there is need to develop and implement specific support to respond to the demands of new entrants for the agricultural and non-agricultural activities; (4) links between farmers and public applied research should be strengthened; (5) advisors have linkages to research and are seen as knowledge and information intermediaries / facilitators / brokers to bridge farmers and research; (6) knowledge transfer from universities and scientific institutes to agricultural producers is performed through various channels, like demonstration on the fields at scientific institutes, advices provided on farm visits and informal channels; (7) networks support and enhance the social interaction and the collective learning processes between multiple actors that underpin the innovation processes; (8) networks promote the development of locally best-fit solutions to agricultural and rural problems, built on the creation of locally-specific knowledge and the conversion of scientific and synthesized knowledge to the local specific contexts; etc.
The deliverable 7.2 presents a final synthesis report with policy recommendations. All discussions of the policy recommendations at the conference meeting in Brussels and feedback from the Policy Advisory Board and international experts were revised and included in the final synthesis report. The report contains main policy recommendations related to policy design, governance of AKIS and support for specific actors (advisors, farmers, networks) and each of the recommendations was supported by results of our scientific work in PRO AKIS. Some of the policy recommendations are (1) policy design to support innovation processes in agriculture as policy measure should take into account the diversity of AKIS and ensure that the measure targets the appropriate level (national, regional); (2) the AKIS concept should be promoted for national and regional-level use as a diagnostic tool for knowledge exchange by public actors and policy makers; (3) policy should encourage research practice, which value knowledge exchange with end users and the orientation towards their needs; (4) long –term support to advisory services that provide public goods and minimum public support to independent private advisory services; (5) policy makers should support training/education and the development of certification schemes to create transparency about quality of advisory services; should support small-scale farm development and rural multi-actor innovation networks.
Potential Impact:
1.4 Potential impact, main dissemination activities and exploited results
1.4.1 General impacts at EU level
As a Coordination and Support Action (CSA) project, PRO AKIS was designed to develop the research topic and in this way, function to enhance the linkages between the research communities and its end users in policies and society. There are two major policy concerns that have been linked with the topic:
1. An increase in the linkages between research and CAP implementation (e.g.
recommendations on how to strengthen FAS)
2. A contribution to the overall goal of the EU strategy 2020 and the specific objectives
of the future directive of rural development (e.g. building up a European Innovation Partnership (EIP) for agricultural productivity and sustainability which relies on innovation generation in ‘operational groups’ in rural areas)
The project has contributed to these topical political questions with specific outputs especially through its close exchange with the PAB, the ISB, the SCAR CW AKIS representatives as well as members of DG AGRI and EU joint research centres.
1.4.2 Specific Impact
A first specific impact is connected with the question of social cohesion in the EU and this has resulted mainly from WP 2, WP3 and WP4. The literature review (WP2) has highlighted linkages between the knowledge system concepts, the understanding of advisory services and social issues in rural areas. Especially the question “who are the farmers groups that benefit from advisory services?” was specified and included in the empirical work. Through its work, PRO AKIS showed that small-scale and semi-subsistence farmers are less addressed by advisory services than medium and large scale farmers. More specifically, women groups, young farmers and farm workers seem to get considerable less attention compared to the average farmer. These findings raised attention in the discussion and assessments of the inventory results in regional workshops with AKIS stakeholders (WP 3, WP 5). Throughout the case studies, a specific focus was given to the situation of small-scale farmers in four EU member states. Building upon these findings, policy recommendations were specified with regard to so far underserved or even neglected social groups.
The second impact is created and will be maintained through the use of the AKIS inventory and the searchable data base of the actors involved in farm advisory services within European AKIS. It has been the general intention of the CAP reform proposal to overcome the gaps between science and practice, by strengthening clusters and networks in rural areas e.g. through the already established LEADER instrument, by introducing the European Innovation Partnership (EIP) for agricultural productivity and sustainability, but also by strengthening and improving existing advisory services. The various actors involved in such agricultural and rural innovation generation and implementation processes are understood as being part of a common AKIS. From the AKIS inventories and the searchable database, there is now a systematic and structured overview of these various advisory service actors throughout the EU member states which might be updated regularly.
A third impact of PRO AKIS has been induced with discussions about methods of assessment of advisory services within AKIS. Such collective discussions with stakeholders and political decision makers have taken place in regional workshops (February to March 2014), synthesis seminars (January to March 2015) and more broadly, during the final conference (May 2015) in Brussels. Policy recommendations have been developed in this regard, discussed and documented together with the SCAR AKIS III working group.
A fourth impact was the awareness creation of characteristics and performances of national AKIS among national and regional policy makers and other AKIS stakeholders. This has been realized with the 3 regional workshops on comparative analyses and assessments of AKIS in the EU (month 14th and15th), and 3 synthesis seminars on comparatively exploring and describing selected forms of advisory services and agricultural knowledge flows in Europe (month 26th, 27th and 28th). More than 200 participants in these events included decision makers, scientists and other interested AKIS stakeholders across EU. As these workshops and seminars were semi-public, sub-contractors, national experts from ministries, extension agencies, education and training bodies as well as secondary formation agencies and private service providing enterprises from rural areas were all invited. These hereby created regional fora enhanced focused international exchange and awareness creation of characteristics and performances of national AKIS.
A fifth impact relates to the realisation of a transdisciplinary component in the project’s approach. With this, the project has practiced cutting-edge research methodology and stands exemplarily for European applied sciences. It has used various methods for producing knowledge e.g. structured and semi-structured interviews to generate the AKIS diagrams and reports (WP3), in-depth case study analysis and reports (WP4) as well as public sharing and dissemination of this knowledge through project website (WP6), which makes it possible a versatile usage in different forum and by various actors. The public awareness about EU AKIS and state of advisory services has especially been made possible via this project through the reports (esp. inventory reports – WP3; case study reports WP4), expert and semi-public discussions (regional workshops and seminars) and, by reviewed publication (e.g. Labarthe P. et al (2013) and, Knierim et al. (2015) (visit www.proakis.eu for full titles and pdf versions).
A sixth impact with regard to private businesses has been achieved through the cooperation with recently founded EUFRAS (European Forum of Rural and Agricultural Advisory Services). During the mapping of AKIS and case study discussions, a specific attention was paid to the situation of private independent advisory entrepreneurs and related policy recommendations were formulated. Even more, a searchable directory of advisory organisations was developed and set up with several hundreds of addresses already. This directory can be complemented continuously through voluntary inscription of public and private bodies; it will most likely be hosted at EUFRAS in the future.
The above outcomes so far have enhanced the overall impact of the project at regional; national and EU level (e.g. see policy recommendations in form of a policy brief and as a deliverable for WP7). The public at large has been reached through the realization of the broad dissemination strategy (WP6). There has been a wide interest in the project findings and approach taken, in particular in the use of AKIS diagrams. One consortium partner (JHI) was invited to report on project findings at a Teagasc (Ireland) event to launch a strategic plan for the regional advisory services in Teagasc 2015 to 2020 (22 June 2015). The audience included Teagasc board and management, advisers, industry stakeholders, private sector consultants, academic staff from University College Dublin, policy makers from Irish and Northern Ireland government ministries. The results from one case study on innovation networks (monitor farms in Scotland) shall be used to complement the formal evaluation of monitor farms and integrate lessons learned into the design of the next Monitor Farm Program and the focus farms under the Farming for a Better Climate Initiative. In Germany, the federal ministry invited one partner to present the PRO AKIS results in the working group on advisory services. And in Portugal, general media took up the PRO AKIS press release in order to address current deficits of the AKIS.
1.4.3 Main dissemination activities and exploitation of results
This activity has been realised under WP6 of the project with JHI as the lead partner institute.
Main objectives initially envisaged under dissemination included the following:
Obj. No 6.1 To support the work of the project research team by ensuring full dissemination of information, evidence and findings between and amongst team members and external stakeholders (additional to those involved with other work packages)
Obj. No 6.2 To provide and supply channels of communication from the project to external stakeholders
Submitted deliverables since beginning of project
D6.1 Web-based portal and website, established by Month 3, and thereafter maintained during the duration of the project
D6.2 Dissemination materials, provided in Months 3, 6, 12, 18; 24
D6.3 Target group oriented publication (brochure) for the final conference (Month 29)
Main dissemination activities and exploitation of results during reporting period 1
A project website was developed and set up by month 3. It includes pages on objectives, project partners, events and outputs. It is maintained regularly, and updated with new material as it becomes available. For example, the conceptual framework, abstracts of presented papers, and information on the regional workshops are available. We set up a mailing list that interested people can subscribe to if they want to be kept in the loop regarding outputs and events from the PRO AKIS project (D6.1)
The project website has an internal part that allows the partners to share draft versions of deliverables and planned conference presentations.
Discussions progressed around how best to link the project website and the webportal holding the searchable database, and various drafts of the database have been designed and tested. There is likely to be more than one database (directory of agricultural advisory organisations including consultants; key advisory organisations and/ or characteristics of AKIS) as the type of contents are too different to sensibly merge.
A project flyer was designed, distributed at relevant conferences, workshops and stakeholder events, and translated into Portuguese and Polish. The flyer is available for download from the website. An updated version was produced in February 2014 (D6.2)
The project received publicity when the country inventories were compiled and a survey undertaken in several countries. For example, the survey invite in the UK was circulated through professional organisations such as Central Association of Agricultural Valuers (CAAV) and The Farm Business Advisor Accreditation Scheme for Scotland (FBAASS) and thus the project publicized to their membership. A press release was not put immediately after the regional workshops because these were project activities worth highlighting and the country inventory reports (WP3) would be nearly finalized at that stage. The project is already being well-publicised through the regional workshop, the stakeholder and policy advisory board and individual networks of project partners, but we plan to promote the project findings to interested audiences at European level.
We have used somewhat fewer person months in the first half of the project due to staff changes. This is likely to be compensated during the case study phase in the second half.
Main dissemination activities and exploitation of results during reporting period 2
The project team was supported by ensuring that all material and presentations where uploaded to either the public or the internal part of the project website as appropriate. Project meetings and email were used to communicate to partners what material and information was available and where to find it, e.g. with regard to the EIP-Agri web platform.
Part of the work in this WP was concerned with refining key project and case study messages with team members. These key messages and project outputs were compiled in the final brochure (D.6.3). The brochure was distributed at the final conference and subsequent events. It is available for download from the website, in English, Portuguese, Bulgarian, Polish, French and German.
Specific dissemination activities included:
• More than 165 subscribers who received 4 project newsletters.
• PROAKIS featured in the February 2015 newsletter on the EIP-Agri website: http://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/content/previousnewsletter
• The project is also listed on this website under ‘interesting project’: http://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/find-connect/research-projects
• JHI prepared 4 press releases which some partners utilized as a basis for writing pieces for their own communications teams. Press releases were also submitted to CORDIS.
• The last press release (just before the final conference) resulted in the project being picked up by BBC4 and a short interview with a project team member was broadcasted on the Farming Today programme on 18 May 2015.
The project website is maintained and kept up to date. The AKIS inventory web-portal (containing the directory of individual advisory organizations, contact details and advisory topics) is also maintained. The dataset underlying this database was updated and passed onto DG Agri.
Project and academic presentations, abstracts, reports and (links to) full papers are available on the project website. The individual case study reports as well as three synthesis reports are available for download. Some of the outputs of the project do not lend themselves to the traditional form of brochures or flyers. We therefore opted to provide the content online. For example, to make the data from the individual country reports more easily accessible, we implemented a searchable database of advisory organisations (www.proakis.eu/inventory)
List of Websites:
1.5 Address of project website and relevant contact details
Project website address: http://www.proakis.eu/
Main contact persons:
For general questions about PRO AKIS please contact the project coordinator:
Prof Dr Andrea Knierim, University of Hohenheim and Leibniz-Zentrum für Agrarlandschaftsforschung (ZALF) e. V. Müncheberg, Germany
If you would like to get in touch regarding the inventory of advisory organisations in the EU-27 and the searchable database, please select the contact for your country
• Violeta Dirimanova (Agricultural University of Plovdiv) – Bulgaria, Romania (v_dirimanova@au-plovdiv.bg)
• Andrea Knierim (University of Hohenheim) - Germany, Austria, Slovenia, Luxembourg (andrea.knierim@uni-hohenheim.de)
• Timothy Koehnen (UTAD) - Portugal, Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Malta(Tkoehnen@utad.pt)
• Pierre Labarthe (INRA) - Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, France (pierre.labarthe@agroparistech.fr)
• Jozef Kania (Krakow University) - Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania (jozef.kania@ur.krakow.pl)
• Katrin Prager (James Hutton Institute) – UK, Ireland (Katrin.Prager@hutton.ac.uk)
• Heidi Hundrup Rasmussen (VFL/ SEGES) - Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia (hhr@vfl.dk)
