agricultural Nonetheless, a simple requirement to include users in partnerships is unlikely to overcome the barriers to their effective participation. More research is needed on the extent to which these alternative approaches foster co-innovation and on lessons that can be learned concerning novel forms of policy intervention. Secondly, there is an implicit emphasis in the EIP-AGRI on translating research knowledge into practical applications. The second concern is the suitability of the EIP-AGRI for implementation in all regions of the EU. 
In this qualitative study, we investigated pest-related information behavior in depth, from farmers own perspective. Of particular concern is the implicit suggestion that laggards are somehow at fault and can potentially be motivated to innovate or adopt an innovation. Increase user participation in co-innovation and capitalise on any competitive advantage of particular types of intervention to appeal to harder-to-reach groups. <> standards agricultural education ffa agriculture circle ag council ny pathways development sae students User participation in project consortia is to be encouraged, but this is not the only option for participation in co-innovation. Advisors (A) participate in around two-thirds of OGs and are included in more than 50 per cent of H2020 project consortia. National project databases were compiled locally by each LIAISON partner under close supervision. How well do Agricultural Knowledge Systems respond to new challenges? drops aiss nandwana sreenivasulu This is an important topic for further research in order to understand how effective participation could be better incentivised or supported. Nevertheless, an increasing number of smallholder farmers in low- and middle-income countries are using conventional pesticides. Overall, the study found library users' wayfinding behavior to be generally inconsistent over time, but that there are users who stick to predominant segments (those segments used heavily to connect two particular nodes, or stops). single, non-divisible interventions with fixed time schedules and dedicated budgets, as defined by ONeill et al. Despite its merits, therefore, the EIP-AGRI approach has several potential limitations. This prompted farmers to seek information actively, or they received passive information. The evident success of this approach when applied to multi-actor projects (OGs) prompted us to adopt it for our own analysis. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 
endobj 
agricultural agroecology rural innovation systems development 1st edition endobj Earlier, we emphasised the relevance of the embeddedness of users in social networks. The mean score among the 200 projects was 8.2 for innovation, 7.7 for research and acquisition of new knowledge, 7.8 for communication and outreach, and 8.1 for success of implementation (i.e. (2017) observed that farmers tend to be most influenced by proof of successful farming methods by their peers, so-called peer-to-peer learning. For over one hundred years, Land Grant Universities (LGUs) have pushed the frontiers of knowledge; have translated new knowledge into practice for the benefit of farmers, agribusiness and consumers; and have prepared the next generation of agricultural scientists and entrepreneurs. Production changes new production practice/methods (PP) is the dominant type of solution proposed by the reviewed partnerships, accounting for 37.7 per cent of the total sample and exceeding 30 per cent among almost all types of projects and non-project activities except for Interreg and other ESIF-funded and ERASMUS+ projects (Figure 3). 
Also, LIAISON interviewers assessed the level of co-innovation in the reviewed projects. In fact, farmers may be aware of an innovation but conclude that it is not in their best interests to adopt it (Hoffman 2005). what has been achieved (to date) compared to what was initially intended) (Table 4). Even in the EIP-AGRI, there is a continuing dominance of academic partners in our reviewed (especially H2020) projects (Table 3 and Figure 6). The main source (yielding 523 candidates) was the EIP-AGRI project database. Whether farmers used the new information depended on successful trial of the new pest management strategy, and on the credibility of the source. NGOs), and was not available at times when farmers developed an information need. 2016) and certain groups of farms are likely to be disconnected from these and other formal programmes. Organisational and social innovation feature among the reviewed Interreg projects and social innovation dominates among the LIFE+ and LIFE projects. The overall picture is one of the substantial levels of participation by diverse actors in the reviewed partnerships. Furthermore, despite the overall success of the EIP-AGRI in fostering farmer-led co-innovation (Fotheringham et al. Also, the same multi-actor partnerships may be active in different types of projects (e.g. Key: NQ: the number of partners could not be quantified. when encountering a new pest). It enjoys considerable agricultural potential and many small-scale farmers grow cash crops (e.g., coffee, tea, rice) and subsistence crops (e.g., maize, beans, potatoes, bananas) for household consumption and local and export markets. She is a communication and training specialist at the International Potato Center, Sub-Saharan Africa Region, Nairobi, Kenya. Firstly, despite the good results from the EURIC, numerous multi-actor partnerships that are not included in databases will have escaped our notice. The profiles of challenges tackled by each type of partnership are presented in Table 2. Using the theories of Grard Genette, who defined the paratext, and Pierre Bourdieu, this research posits that paratextual utterances serve as an expression and tool of the cultural realm of publication and can be used for informational purposes in library and information science (LIS) research and practice. Key: I: innovation; K: acquisition of new knowledge; C: communication/outreach; F: fulfilment of initial expectations. Such databases take a lot of resources to maintain and frequently contain errors and omissions, a shortcoming that even applies to the EIP-AGRI project database. People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read. The EIP-AGRI is clearly an important driver of co-innovation in the AKIS, but not the only one. Reflecting the focus of our research on multi-actor partnerships involving users, we selected 200 projects and non-project activities for review that complied with 5 criteria. In fact, these structural differences can lead to different interests and priorities regarding research and innovation funding (Pokrivk, Ciaian, and Drabik 2019). This result may in part be a consequence of the continuing strong emphasis in policy discourse (and in the content of databases) on the research/researcher-led co-innovation paradigm. Aubrac (1977) perceived a cause and effect relationship between the slow development of this sector and a lack of information. 4 Article 113 of {SEC(2018)305final} -{SWD(2018)301final}, p. 109. However, the clumsy use of specialist terminology will discourage potentially interested partners and thus create division between those which are capable of being involved in such projects and those which are not. While the benefits of including farmers, foresters and/or their representative organisations in projects funded by these programmes depend on the topic to be addressed, our results show that they can be involved. {SEC(2018)305final} -{SWD(2018)301final, p. 101. Certain groups of users, such as small and family farms (including semi-subsistence farms, those in remote areas and those managed by women), tend to be less well embedded into social networks (FAO 2014) and are potentially harder to reach. 2019). 39 0 obj IT providers) is also quite strongly represented in the reviewed projects, notably H2020 RIAs, LIFE+ and LIFE projects, and non-project activities. Copyright 2013 Published by Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2013.04.005. Almost all the reviewed multi-actor partnerships claimed medium to high levels of co-innovation. methodological burstein adapted OGs and Interreg). An in-depth report on all the findings derived from the sense-making methodology, however, would require broader data on behavior and decision making than the scope of this article allows. Few H2020 TN consortia exceeded 20 partners, while more than half of all other projects and non-project activities had 10 partners or fewer. This work was conducted within the LIAISON project. We propose that interventions should be conceived with an appreciation of context and affordances from the outset, to support how they engage with the least capable from the very beginning. Synergies can be improved concerning support for the development of co-innovation partnerships. The concept was operationalised into policy mainly by the Standing Committee of Agricultural Research (SCAR) Strategic Working Group (SWG) on AKIS (EU SCAR 2012 and subsequent publications) in consultation with the European Commissions (EC) Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI). But many of these partnerships are, therefore, under the radar of both policy-makers and academia. endobj The H2020 projects are relatively evenly distributed across the challenges. Of the 3205 OGs planned in April 2016, Spain accounted for 849, Italy for 625, Greece for 435, France for 305 and Germany for 203 (EIP-AGRI SP 2016). akis This is in part owing to the potentially weak implementation of the EIP-AGRI in the post-socialist EU Member States. Register to receive personalised research and resources by email. These other actor configurations include networks, platforms, clusters, alliances and partnerships (Knierim, Koutsouris, et al. Some harder-to-reach groups that do not use advisory services could perhaps be mobilised through community-level knowledge brokering hubs as proposed by Fieldsend et al. %PDF-1.7
%
Our data have shown that users and/or their representative organisations are participating in co-innovation partnerships funded by many different programmes, as well as in non-project activities including those without external funding (Table 3). <> 2020). 2009; Docks, Tisenkopfs, and Bock 2011; Knierim, Boenning, et al. 2015) themselves can also foster co-innovation. By contrast, the high incidence (57.1 per cent) of food safety/product quality among the non-project activities without funding hints that the participants may be expecting product development to yield an early return on investment. endobj 2022-05-02T15:02:37-07:00 The subjects consisted of 82 American students and 82 Korean students. Socio-economic sustainability (S) is also the challenge most frequently addressed by the reviewed national/regional level projects, and by non-project activities with funding, and around 40 per cent of these projects tackle resource management issues (R). endobj (2016) observed that only several thousand farms, i.e. 3099067 A review of 200 projects and other partnerships including farmers and foresters, drawn from an integrated database of several thousand such examples, assessed the types of innovation challenges tackled, solutions proposed, innovation supported, parameters of actor participation and the expectations of success in each example. This important activity of co-innovation along the value chain in the AKIS (EU SCAR 2012) is probably under-represented in our sample. Nonetheless, two limitations should be noted. Unsurprisingly, almost all reviewed H2020 RIAs are coordinated by researchers (R) or educational institutions (E) (Figure 6). These categories covered the types of challenges tackled by the project (e.g. Several additional factors play a key role, such as policy, legislation, infrastructure, funding and market developments (Klerkx, van Mierlo, and Leeuwis 2012). <>22]/P 21 0 R/Pg 43 0 R/S/Link>> It is, therefore, necessary to accept the EIP-AGRI as just one part of a complex matrix of multi-actor co-innovation activities across Europe and the interlinking of agriculture, forestry and agri-food chain-related co-innovation programmes as a worthy aspiration. Table 2. 3 0 obj In this way, new concepts, processes, techniques and materials could be developed and flow in the economy with positive social welfare effects. They may give users more space to co-innovate on their own terms. Globally, there has been considerable interest in the integration of farmers' local knowledge with external knowledge systems, as noted by the International Institute for Rural Reconstruction (IIRR, 1996) and others (Lwoga, 2009, Meyer, 2000, Meyer, 2009). Approximately 25 per cent of the reviewed OGs are coordinated by researchers, with advisors (A), NGOs (N), processing or marketing producer organisations (O) and representative/supporting organisations (S) coordinating 10 per cent or more of this type of project. AppendPDF Pro 6.3 Linux 64 bit Aug 30 2019 Library 15.0.4 Administrative demands associated with the projectification of innovation support can lead to the consistent exclusion of some groups (Andersson 2009; Arora-Jonsson 2017). 24 0 obj endobj in view of co-creation and diffusion of solutions/opportunities ready to implement in practice (EIP-AGRI SP 2017, 3). management decision conceptual P'q>&PUy.3>sYeV[1B*j5DB9?m-@F~B #w?G)|0A)y6 DqO|uO2e2afT5ocDj,kqTjiIII-KNp`ok=.>W, Mark Lubell, Meredith T. Niles, and Matthew Hoffman, Extension 3.0: Managing Agricultural Knowledge Systems in the Network Age. (2014) defined four broad groups of actors in the AKIS and these can be equated to the categorisation of Knotter et al. Registered in England & Wales No. 1 These findings illustrate the value of synergies between policies and programmes in fostering user participation. Based on these assertions, we make three general recommendations that are addressed primarily to the EC, as well as national and (where appropriate) sub-national policy-makers and policy implementers. Enabling synergies between its programmes has long been an aspiration of the EU (EC 2014). We thank all partners in the LIAISON consortium for their contributions to this research. With reference to the classification of Lamprinopolou et al. undergoing The EIP-AGRI was represented by 87 projects (Figure 2), including 34 H2020 Research and Innovation Actions (RIA), 16 Thematic Networks (TN) and 37 OGs from 14 EU Member States. We use cookies to improve your website experience. No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Creating synergies between policies and programmes remains challenging but provides potential for improved and differentiated involvement of users. 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council. A helpful step would be to explore the potential for common actions between existing expert contact points, such as the EUs National Contact Points for the H2020, Interreg and LIFE programmes, on the cross-cutting theme of co-innovation. Furthermore, binary notions of adopters and non-adopters provides a poor basis for understanding innovation within complex farming systems. Any analysis of co-innovation involving users must recognise the existence of a multiplicity (projects, non-project activities, formal and informal) of multi-actor approaches. Furthermore, around 20 per cent of non-EIP-AGRI partnerships are coordinated by farmers organisations and almost 30 per cent of non-funded non-project activities are led by individual farmers. in Agriculture from the University of Nairobi, a Post Graduate Diploma in information studies from Curtin University of Technology, Australia, and an M.B.A. in strategic management from the University of Nairobi. The potential success of the co-innovation process was judged to be medium or high in almost all the 200 reviewed multi-actor partnerships. <> This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License. [42 0 R 45 0 R 46 0 R 48 0 R 49 0 R 50 0 R 51 0 R 52 0 R 53 0 R 54 0 R 55 0 R 56 0 R] In this paper, we describe how the EIP-AGRI and a range of other EU-supported and non-EU (formal and informal) co-innovation activities are sharing the space in the AKIS. Every consulted database was uniquely structured and, of necessity, different keywords were used to shortlist projects from each (Fieldsend, Cronin, and Rnningen 2019). The involvement of some groups of actors (G, N) as formal partners is especially low in our sampled H2020 projects and OGs, and non-EIP-AGRI options may be better suited to fostering co-innovation between these actors and farmers and foresters. Farmers are agents who must personalise both information content and processes to produce relevant meanings and to progress their own learning agendas and pathways. LIFE(+) for environment-related issues). 5 0 obj <> Table 4. All the reviewed policy instruments, not just those funded in the frame of the EIP-AGRI, can be used to involve users in co-innovation in agriculture, forestry and related value chains. Any analysis of the co-innovation landscape in Europe by the EC, policy-makers and policy implementers, as well as prospective innovation actors (cf. It might also reflect a distinction between the implicit EIP-AGRI focus on innovation as some kind of broad public good and the private good approach of food chain actors. 2015). endobj regulatory frameworks conducive to innovation, the adoption of innovations and technology The CAP networks that will be set up by the Member States under their forthcoming CAP Strategic Plans will be required to service the information needs of a diversity of AKIS actors, not just academic organisations.4 Their expert support should extend beyond the EIP-AGRI to the wider range of programmes that can support co-innovation. Recognising that these databases would not adequately sample the range of multi-actor partnership approaches that exist, a second source was an EU-wide Rural Innovation Contest (EURIC) held by the LIAISON project aimed at identifying less formal examples of co-innovation. Percentage of each type of project and non-project activity tackling a specific challenge. in Agriculture from the University of Nairobi, a Post Graduate Diploma in information studies from Curtin University of Technology, Australia. Analysis of them can yield further valuable insights into the nature of co-innovation, while some coordination at the policy level might further enhance the impacts of this type of multi-actor partnership. Of the interviewees, 128 described themselves as being coordinator, project leader or in a comparable role, a further 21 occupied evidently senior positions such as managing director and the remaining 51 were project partners or similar. Lower rates of involvement are recorded for Interreg and LIFE+/LIFE projects. Thus, while clear differences in focus between programmes do occur, our data suggest that, in many situations, alternative options to the EIP-AGRI are available to prospective co-innovation partnerships. Other facilitators, such as innovation brokers and champion farmers, should also be encouraged to consider options for co-innovation beyond the EIP-AGRI. Indeed, the AKIS is a space in which numerous knowledge sharing and co-innovation activities are occurring through a matrix of networks and partnerships. Kirinyaga has a high population density and faces many social and economic challenges. Systems, Regulatory framework conducive to innovation, Facilitating adoption of innovations and technology transfers,
While there is considerable overlap between the programmes reviewed in our study concerning the types of challenges addressed, solutions proposed and types of innovations supported, there is also a differentiation between them, and indeed there is a high added value in ensuring different starting points (e.g. Product innovation is especially common among the non-project activities without funding, which again may reflect expectations of an early financial return on investment. The potential contribution of co-innovation to agricultural development is now accepted in global (FAO 2014) and EU policy discourses. Even so, other programmes can learn from DG AGRIs strategy of co-designing the EIP-AGRI with the SCAR SWG on AKIS, which includes users representatives as well as policy-makers and academics, to enhance user participation. Informal co-innovation networks that adopt a localised approach and are more bureaucratically light than project consortia are attractive alternative options for some groups of actors. Key: A: animal health/welfare; B: biodiversity/nature/landscape management; C: climate change; D: plant disease and pest treatment; F: food safety/product quality; O: other; P: pollution; R: resource management; S: socio-economic sustainability. Research carried out in 2011 in Kirinyaga district, Kenya, shows how sense-making theory and methodology can be used to assess the use of local agricultural and external knowledge by small-scale farmers and its effects on small-scale agriculture. Either they or their representatives are involved in all but one OG, are very strongly represented in H2020 TNs and only slightly less so in H2020 RIAs.2 Extensive user participation is also evident in other types of projects and in the reviewed non-project activities with external funding. The OG model is, therefore, being adopted only with extreme caution in the transition economies of Eastern Europe and this geographical imbalance may persist. Using a common methodology, we reviewed the design and implementation of 200 multi-actor partnerships involving farmers and foresters from across Europe. This reflects their wide geographical coverage and big budgets. In Table 3, an additional column (F/S) has been inserted to show the percentage of each type of project containing at least one representative from the two groups. The case study research design included document review of the library's wayfinding information system; unobtrusive observation of library user wayfinding behavior; intensive interviews with library users to discuss their views on wayfinding in the library; and an expert review with library staff and a library wayfinding and signage expert to validate research findings. Findings indicate that the peritext is a rich source for gathering information about authorship and publishing as it reveals contextually relevant information, shares the author's informational tools, constructs the author, markets titles, and provides relevant information for specific age groups and genres. The same system of categorisation of actors was applied to the coordinators of innovation partnerships. In other words, it was necessary for farmers, foresters and/or their organisations to be involved in the co-innovation process, usually as participants in the core partnership, although substantial engagement could occasionally be achieved in other ways in some other actor configurations (such as networks). In this process of co-innovation, actors jointly identify problems and co-create solutions through a collective learning process involving knowledge sharing (Nederlof, Wongtschowski, and Van Der Lee 2011; Dogliotti et al. Unlike projects, they might not be fixed term or be implemented by a consortium (a defined group of partners working on a formal basis).
In this qualitative study, we investigated pest-related information behavior in depth, from farmers own perspective. Of particular concern is the implicit suggestion that laggards are somehow at fault and can potentially be motivated to innovate or adopt an innovation. Increase user participation in co-innovation and capitalise on any competitive advantage of particular types of intervention to appeal to harder-to-reach groups. <> standards agricultural education ffa agriculture circle ag council ny pathways development sae students User participation in project consortia is to be encouraged, but this is not the only option for participation in co-innovation. Advisors (A) participate in around two-thirds of OGs and are included in more than 50 per cent of H2020 project consortia. National project databases were compiled locally by each LIAISON partner under close supervision. How well do Agricultural Knowledge Systems respond to new challenges? drops aiss nandwana sreenivasulu This is an important topic for further research in order to understand how effective participation could be better incentivised or supported. Nevertheless, an increasing number of smallholder farmers in low- and middle-income countries are using conventional pesticides. Overall, the study found library users' wayfinding behavior to be generally inconsistent over time, but that there are users who stick to predominant segments (those segments used heavily to connect two particular nodes, or stops). single, non-divisible interventions with fixed time schedules and dedicated budgets, as defined by ONeill et al. Despite its merits, therefore, the EIP-AGRI approach has several potential limitations. This prompted farmers to seek information actively, or they received passive information. The evident success of this approach when applied to multi-actor projects (OGs) prompted us to adopt it for our own analysis. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 
endobj agricultural agroecology rural innovation systems development 1st edition endobj Earlier, we emphasised the relevance of the embeddedness of users in social networks. The mean score among the 200 projects was 8.2 for innovation, 7.7 for research and acquisition of new knowledge, 7.8 for communication and outreach, and 8.1 for success of implementation (i.e. (2017) observed that farmers tend to be most influenced by proof of successful farming methods by their peers, so-called peer-to-peer learning. For over one hundred years, Land Grant Universities (LGUs) have pushed the frontiers of knowledge; have translated new knowledge into practice for the benefit of farmers, agribusiness and consumers; and have prepared the next generation of agricultural scientists and entrepreneurs. Production changes new production practice/methods (PP) is the dominant type of solution proposed by the reviewed partnerships, accounting for 37.7 per cent of the total sample and exceeding 30 per cent among almost all types of projects and non-project activities except for Interreg and other ESIF-funded and ERASMUS+ projects (Figure 3). 
Also, LIAISON interviewers assessed the level of co-innovation in the reviewed projects. In fact, farmers may be aware of an innovation but conclude that it is not in their best interests to adopt it (Hoffman 2005). what has been achieved (to date) compared to what was initially intended) (Table 4). Even in the EIP-AGRI, there is a continuing dominance of academic partners in our reviewed (especially H2020) projects (Table 3 and Figure 6). The main source (yielding 523 candidates) was the EIP-AGRI project database. Whether farmers used the new information depended on successful trial of the new pest management strategy, and on the credibility of the source. NGOs), and was not available at times when farmers developed an information need. 2016) and certain groups of farms are likely to be disconnected from these and other formal programmes. Organisational and social innovation feature among the reviewed Interreg projects and social innovation dominates among the LIFE+ and LIFE projects. The overall picture is one of the substantial levels of participation by diverse actors in the reviewed partnerships. Furthermore, despite the overall success of the EIP-AGRI in fostering farmer-led co-innovation (Fotheringham et al. Also, the same multi-actor partnerships may be active in different types of projects (e.g. Key: NQ: the number of partners could not be quantified. when encountering a new pest). It enjoys considerable agricultural potential and many small-scale farmers grow cash crops (e.g., coffee, tea, rice) and subsistence crops (e.g., maize, beans, potatoes, bananas) for household consumption and local and export markets. She is a communication and training specialist at the International Potato Center, Sub-Saharan Africa Region, Nairobi, Kenya. Firstly, despite the good results from the EURIC, numerous multi-actor partnerships that are not included in databases will have escaped our notice. The profiles of challenges tackled by each type of partnership are presented in Table 2. Using the theories of Grard Genette, who defined the paratext, and Pierre Bourdieu, this research posits that paratextual utterances serve as an expression and tool of the cultural realm of publication and can be used for informational purposes in library and information science (LIS) research and practice. Key: I: innovation; K: acquisition of new knowledge; C: communication/outreach; F: fulfilment of initial expectations. Such databases take a lot of resources to maintain and frequently contain errors and omissions, a shortcoming that even applies to the EIP-AGRI project database. People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read. The EIP-AGRI is clearly an important driver of co-innovation in the AKIS, but not the only one. Reflecting the focus of our research on multi-actor partnerships involving users, we selected 200 projects and non-project activities for review that complied with 5 criteria. In fact, these structural differences can lead to different interests and priorities regarding research and innovation funding (Pokrivk, Ciaian, and Drabik 2019). This result may in part be a consequence of the continuing strong emphasis in policy discourse (and in the content of databases) on the research/researcher-led co-innovation paradigm. Aubrac (1977) perceived a cause and effect relationship between the slow development of this sector and a lack of information. 4 Article 113 of {SEC(2018)305final} -{SWD(2018)301final}, p. 109. However, the clumsy use of specialist terminology will discourage potentially interested partners and thus create division between those which are capable of being involved in such projects and those which are not. While the benefits of including farmers, foresters and/or their representative organisations in projects funded by these programmes depend on the topic to be addressed, our results show that they can be involved. {SEC(2018)305final} -{SWD(2018)301final, p. 101. Certain groups of users, such as small and family farms (including semi-subsistence farms, those in remote areas and those managed by women), tend to be less well embedded into social networks (FAO 2014) and are potentially harder to reach. 2019). 39 0 obj IT providers) is also quite strongly represented in the reviewed projects, notably H2020 RIAs, LIFE+ and LIFE projects, and non-project activities. Copyright 2013 Published by Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2013.04.005. Almost all the reviewed multi-actor partnerships claimed medium to high levels of co-innovation. methodological burstein adapted OGs and Interreg). An in-depth report on all the findings derived from the sense-making methodology, however, would require broader data on behavior and decision making than the scope of this article allows. Few H2020 TN consortia exceeded 20 partners, while more than half of all other projects and non-project activities had 10 partners or fewer. This work was conducted within the LIAISON project. We propose that interventions should be conceived with an appreciation of context and affordances from the outset, to support how they engage with the least capable from the very beginning. Synergies can be improved concerning support for the development of co-innovation partnerships. The concept was operationalised into policy mainly by the Standing Committee of Agricultural Research (SCAR) Strategic Working Group (SWG) on AKIS (EU SCAR 2012 and subsequent publications) in consultation with the European Commissions (EC) Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI). But many of these partnerships are, therefore, under the radar of both policy-makers and academia. endobj The H2020 projects are relatively evenly distributed across the challenges. Of the 3205 OGs planned in April 2016, Spain accounted for 849, Italy for 625, Greece for 435, France for 305 and Germany for 203 (EIP-AGRI SP 2016). akis This is in part owing to the potentially weak implementation of the EIP-AGRI in the post-socialist EU Member States. Register to receive personalised research and resources by email. These other actor configurations include networks, platforms, clusters, alliances and partnerships (Knierim, Koutsouris, et al. Some harder-to-reach groups that do not use advisory services could perhaps be mobilised through community-level knowledge brokering hubs as proposed by Fieldsend et al. %PDF-1.7
%
Our data have shown that users and/or their representative organisations are participating in co-innovation partnerships funded by many different programmes, as well as in non-project activities including those without external funding (Table 3). <> 2020). 2009; Docks, Tisenkopfs, and Bock 2011; Knierim, Boenning, et al. 2015) themselves can also foster co-innovation. By contrast, the high incidence (57.1 per cent) of food safety/product quality among the non-project activities without funding hints that the participants may be expecting product development to yield an early return on investment. endobj 2022-05-02T15:02:37-07:00 The subjects consisted of 82 American students and 82 Korean students. Socio-economic sustainability (S) is also the challenge most frequently addressed by the reviewed national/regional level projects, and by non-project activities with funding, and around 40 per cent of these projects tackle resource management issues (R). endobj (2016) observed that only several thousand farms, i.e. 3099067 A review of 200 projects and other partnerships including farmers and foresters, drawn from an integrated database of several thousand such examples, assessed the types of innovation challenges tackled, solutions proposed, innovation supported, parameters of actor participation and the expectations of success in each example. This important activity of co-innovation along the value chain in the AKIS (EU SCAR 2012) is probably under-represented in our sample. Nonetheless, two limitations should be noted. Unsurprisingly, almost all reviewed H2020 RIAs are coordinated by researchers (R) or educational institutions (E) (Figure 6). These categories covered the types of challenges tackled by the project (e.g. Several additional factors play a key role, such as policy, legislation, infrastructure, funding and market developments (Klerkx, van Mierlo, and Leeuwis 2012). <>22]/P 21 0 R/Pg 43 0 R/S/Link>> It is, therefore, necessary to accept the EIP-AGRI as just one part of a complex matrix of multi-actor co-innovation activities across Europe and the interlinking of agriculture, forestry and agri-food chain-related co-innovation programmes as a worthy aspiration. Table 2. 3 0 obj In this way, new concepts, processes, techniques and materials could be developed and flow in the economy with positive social welfare effects. They may give users more space to co-innovate on their own terms. Globally, there has been considerable interest in the integration of farmers' local knowledge with external knowledge systems, as noted by the International Institute for Rural Reconstruction (IIRR, 1996) and others (Lwoga, 2009, Meyer, 2000, Meyer, 2009). Approximately 25 per cent of the reviewed OGs are coordinated by researchers, with advisors (A), NGOs (N), processing or marketing producer organisations (O) and representative/supporting organisations (S) coordinating 10 per cent or more of this type of project. AppendPDF Pro 6.3 Linux 64 bit Aug 30 2019 Library 15.0.4 Administrative demands associated with the projectification of innovation support can lead to the consistent exclusion of some groups (Andersson 2009; Arora-Jonsson 2017). 24 0 obj endobj in view of co-creation and diffusion of solutions/opportunities ready to implement in practice (EIP-AGRI SP 2017, 3). management decision conceptual P'q>&PUy.3>sYeV[1B*j5DB9?m-@F~B #w?G)|0A)y6 DqO|uO2e2afT5ocDj,kqTjiIII-KNp`ok=.>W, Mark Lubell, Meredith T. Niles, and Matthew Hoffman, Extension 3.0: Managing Agricultural Knowledge Systems in the Network Age. (2014) defined four broad groups of actors in the AKIS and these can be equated to the categorisation of Knotter et al. Registered in England & Wales No. 1 These findings illustrate the value of synergies between policies and programmes in fostering user participation. Based on these assertions, we make three general recommendations that are addressed primarily to the EC, as well as national and (where appropriate) sub-national policy-makers and policy implementers. Enabling synergies between its programmes has long been an aspiration of the EU (EC 2014). We thank all partners in the LIAISON consortium for their contributions to this research. With reference to the classification of Lamprinopolou et al. undergoing The EIP-AGRI was represented by 87 projects (Figure 2), including 34 H2020 Research and Innovation Actions (RIA), 16 Thematic Networks (TN) and 37 OGs from 14 EU Member States. We use cookies to improve your website experience. No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Creating synergies between policies and programmes remains challenging but provides potential for improved and differentiated involvement of users. 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council. A helpful step would be to explore the potential for common actions between existing expert contact points, such as the EUs National Contact Points for the H2020, Interreg and LIFE programmes, on the cross-cutting theme of co-innovation. Furthermore, binary notions of adopters and non-adopters provides a poor basis for understanding innovation within complex farming systems. Any analysis of co-innovation involving users must recognise the existence of a multiplicity (projects, non-project activities, formal and informal) of multi-actor approaches. Furthermore, around 20 per cent of non-EIP-AGRI partnerships are coordinated by farmers organisations and almost 30 per cent of non-funded non-project activities are led by individual farmers. in Agriculture from the University of Nairobi, a Post Graduate Diploma in information studies from Curtin University of Technology, Australia, and an M.B.A. in strategic management from the University of Nairobi. The potential success of the co-innovation process was judged to be medium or high in almost all the 200 reviewed multi-actor partnerships. <> This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License. [42 0 R 45 0 R 46 0 R 48 0 R 49 0 R 50 0 R 51 0 R 52 0 R 53 0 R 54 0 R 55 0 R 56 0 R] In this paper, we describe how the EIP-AGRI and a range of other EU-supported and non-EU (formal and informal) co-innovation activities are sharing the space in the AKIS. Every consulted database was uniquely structured and, of necessity, different keywords were used to shortlist projects from each (Fieldsend, Cronin, and Rnningen 2019). The involvement of some groups of actors (G, N) as formal partners is especially low in our sampled H2020 projects and OGs, and non-EIP-AGRI options may be better suited to fostering co-innovation between these actors and farmers and foresters. Farmers are agents who must personalise both information content and processes to produce relevant meanings and to progress their own learning agendas and pathways. LIFE(+) for environment-related issues). 5 0 obj <> Table 4. All the reviewed policy instruments, not just those funded in the frame of the EIP-AGRI, can be used to involve users in co-innovation in agriculture, forestry and related value chains. Any analysis of the co-innovation landscape in Europe by the EC, policy-makers and policy implementers, as well as prospective innovation actors (cf. It might also reflect a distinction between the implicit EIP-AGRI focus on innovation as some kind of broad public good and the private good approach of food chain actors. 2015). endobj regulatory frameworks conducive to innovation, the adoption of innovations and technology The CAP networks that will be set up by the Member States under their forthcoming CAP Strategic Plans will be required to service the information needs of a diversity of AKIS actors, not just academic organisations.4 Their expert support should extend beyond the EIP-AGRI to the wider range of programmes that can support co-innovation. Recognising that these databases would not adequately sample the range of multi-actor partnership approaches that exist, a second source was an EU-wide Rural Innovation Contest (EURIC) held by the LIAISON project aimed at identifying less formal examples of co-innovation. Percentage of each type of project and non-project activity tackling a specific challenge. in Agriculture from the University of Nairobi, a Post Graduate Diploma in information studies from Curtin University of Technology, Australia. Analysis of them can yield further valuable insights into the nature of co-innovation, while some coordination at the policy level might further enhance the impacts of this type of multi-actor partnership. Of the interviewees, 128 described themselves as being coordinator, project leader or in a comparable role, a further 21 occupied evidently senior positions such as managing director and the remaining 51 were project partners or similar. Lower rates of involvement are recorded for Interreg and LIFE+/LIFE projects. Thus, while clear differences in focus between programmes do occur, our data suggest that, in many situations, alternative options to the EIP-AGRI are available to prospective co-innovation partnerships. Other facilitators, such as innovation brokers and champion farmers, should also be encouraged to consider options for co-innovation beyond the EIP-AGRI. Indeed, the AKIS is a space in which numerous knowledge sharing and co-innovation activities are occurring through a matrix of networks and partnerships. Kirinyaga has a high population density and faces many social and economic challenges. Systems, Regulatory framework conducive to innovation, Facilitating adoption of innovations and technology transfers,
While there is considerable overlap between the programmes reviewed in our study concerning the types of challenges addressed, solutions proposed and types of innovations supported, there is also a differentiation between them, and indeed there is a high added value in ensuring different starting points (e.g. Product innovation is especially common among the non-project activities without funding, which again may reflect expectations of an early financial return on investment. The potential contribution of co-innovation to agricultural development is now accepted in global (FAO 2014) and EU policy discourses. Even so, other programmes can learn from DG AGRIs strategy of co-designing the EIP-AGRI with the SCAR SWG on AKIS, which includes users representatives as well as policy-makers and academics, to enhance user participation. Informal co-innovation networks that adopt a localised approach and are more bureaucratically light than project consortia are attractive alternative options for some groups of actors. Key: A: animal health/welfare; B: biodiversity/nature/landscape management; C: climate change; D: plant disease and pest treatment; F: food safety/product quality; O: other; P: pollution; R: resource management; S: socio-economic sustainability. Research carried out in 2011 in Kirinyaga district, Kenya, shows how sense-making theory and methodology can be used to assess the use of local agricultural and external knowledge by small-scale farmers and its effects on small-scale agriculture. Either they or their representatives are involved in all but one OG, are very strongly represented in H2020 TNs and only slightly less so in H2020 RIAs.2 Extensive user participation is also evident in other types of projects and in the reviewed non-project activities with external funding. The OG model is, therefore, being adopted only with extreme caution in the transition economies of Eastern Europe and this geographical imbalance may persist. Using a common methodology, we reviewed the design and implementation of 200 multi-actor partnerships involving farmers and foresters from across Europe. This reflects their wide geographical coverage and big budgets. In Table 3, an additional column (F/S) has been inserted to show the percentage of each type of project containing at least one representative from the two groups. The case study research design included document review of the library's wayfinding information system; unobtrusive observation of library user wayfinding behavior; intensive interviews with library users to discuss their views on wayfinding in the library; and an expert review with library staff and a library wayfinding and signage expert to validate research findings. Findings indicate that the peritext is a rich source for gathering information about authorship and publishing as it reveals contextually relevant information, shares the author's informational tools, constructs the author, markets titles, and provides relevant information for specific age groups and genres. The same system of categorisation of actors was applied to the coordinators of innovation partnerships. In other words, it was necessary for farmers, foresters and/or their organisations to be involved in the co-innovation process, usually as participants in the core partnership, although substantial engagement could occasionally be achieved in other ways in some other actor configurations (such as networks). In this process of co-innovation, actors jointly identify problems and co-create solutions through a collective learning process involving knowledge sharing (Nederlof, Wongtschowski, and Van Der Lee 2011; Dogliotti et al. Unlike projects, they might not be fixed term or be implemented by a consortium (a defined group of partners working on a formal basis).
