Post on 16-Feb-2019
Agricultural Knowledge Systems in Transition: Towards a more effective and efficient support of Learning and
Innovation Networks for Sustainable Agriculture (SOLINSA)
WP 2 - Understanding the Context
Italy Country Report Gianluca Brunori, Adanella Rossi, Elena Favilli, Patrizia Proietti
June 2011
Dipartimento di Agronomia e Gestione dell’Agroecosistema
University of Pisa
2
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3
2. Research methods........................................................................................................................ 3
2.1. Literature review ................................................................................................................... 3
2.2. Interviews held ..................................................................................................................... 4
2.3. Workshops held and their set – up and focus ....................................................................... 4
3. Overview of the current state and functioning of the Agricultural Knowledge System in Italy ........ 5
3.1. Brief historical context of the AKS ......................................................................................... 5
3.2. Characterisation of the AKS ................................................................................................. 6
3.2.1. Actors involved in the AKS ................................................................................................. 6
3.2.2. Governance of the AKS ..................................................................................................... 9
3.2.3. Financial steering mechanisms ........................................................................................ 12
3.2.4. Linkages in AKS: relations within AKS and between AKS actors and the broader Agricultural Innovation System (AIS) .......................................................................................... 15
4. Agricultural and rural development trends: changes in knowledge needs and demands on AKS 18
4.1. Main societal trends in relation to agriculture and rural development .................................. 18
4.2. Implications of trends for AKS in terms of knowledge supply and demand ......................... 20
5. Place of interactive learning and innovation in the AKS .............................................................. 22
5.1. Working methods for effective support of LINSA................................................................. 22
5.2. Governance mechanisms for effective support of LINSA .................................................... 24
6. Summary of interviews and workshop ........................................................................................ 25
6.1. Strongs points and weak points, opportunities and threats, in the functioning of the AKS ... 25
6.2. Innovation Systems Performance Matrix ............................................................................ 28
7. Conclusions: conditions present or absent for effective LINSA support....................................... 30
8. References ................................................................................................................................. 34
9. Appendix: summary of interviews ............................................................................................... 36
3
1. Introduction
In the last years, Italian agriculture and rural areas have faced a significant reorganization both at
social and economic level. The evolution of their role has favoured the emergence of new
stakeholders, claiming for innovation to meet their needs, and the development of new networks
(between farmers, farmers and institutions, farmers and consumers), modifying the pre-existent
relationships among the actors, both at local and national level.
All these changes require new approaches in drawing up policies for innovation. In this view, the
actual instruments and methods are quite inadequate. The Italian innovation system is still in great
part characterized by the dominant role of the mainstream actors (policy makers, research institutes,
farmers organizations) and of the related approaches in knowledge creation-dissemination (linear and
top-down), which give no room to other voices and claims, and it is not able to valorise local
specificities.
In this context, farmers and other actors or organizations involved in agricultural and rural issues have
started organizing themselves spontaneously in order to solve their problems and those of rural
communities. This has led to the birth of the innovative initiatives and projects concerning, for
instance, food promotion, landscape improvement, biodiversity conservation, rural marketing, direct
selling of local food, providing of social services. A the basis of these experiences there are innovative
approaches to knowledge building, founded on inclusive and interactive learning processes.
The goal of this report is to describe the recent transformation processes in Italian agricultural and
rural areas and the managing of change, in terms of the new demands emerging, both by the formal
innovation systems (AKS) and by new innovation networks not involved in official discourses. It
analyses the capacity of AKS to support LINSA, by considering its enabling and hampering factors,
and the role of these new networks in the transition to AIS.
2. Research methods
2.1. Literature review
Getting data and information through a literature review was the first step to the preparation of this
country report.
We analysed numerous references to understand the functioning of Agriculture Knowledge System
and its relation with the dynamics characterising agriculture and rural areas, in general and more
specifically for the Italian context (see list of references). Through that analysis we tried to identify and
understand the different features of AKS with regard to all its three components (research, education
and extension).
In particular, we selected as main themes to be investigated: the development trends in agriculture
and rural areas and the related demands in terms of knowledge and innovation; the role played in the
diffusion of innovations by the agro-food research in the European, national and regional contest; the
characteristics of extension services both at public and private level; the state of the current
agricultural development services; the access to AKS by farmers. Moreover, the role of new actors
more and more involved in knowledge creation and interactive learning processes were analysed too.
4
The outcomes of this literature review have constituted the basis through which we identified the
aspects to deepen through the direct research by means of the interviews.
2.2. Interviews held
On the basis on the findings of the literature, we so interviewed actors and subjects directly involved
in the AKS as well as the new actors outside it. To that end we defined a grid of questions related to
the main themes to develop in the country report and selected different kinds of actors, divided into
homogeneous groups according to their role within the AKS or in relation with it, to which to address
specific questions.
The issues on which we decided to investigate dealt with the strategic choices in research (public
bodies) and research and development (private bodies), with particular regard to definition of goals
and priorities; organization; financial mechanisms (sources and changes over time); linkages with
other actors involved in the AKS; kinds of services for farmers and degree of farmers’ involvement in
the definition of research goals and priorities.
Ten interviews were held to the following actors:
Tuscany Region Administration and Regional Agency for Agriculture Development and Innovation
(that since 2010 have been integrated);
research institutes;
Farmers’ Unions;
farmers’ product associations;
organizations doing research and providing advisory services (receiving public funds);
organizations providing advisory services (receiving public funds);
private agro-industry companies;
new actors that have organized new networks around knowledge co–production (technicians,
organizations involved in biodiversity preservation);
national association for organic farming (AIAB).
Interviews were conducted directly or by phone and Skype and each conversation was recorded and
then transcribed. Each interview was summarised in an overview table.
Moreover, the tests of interviews were then re-elaborated to produce a synthesis of the main issues
emerged, to be integrated with the information available from the literature review.
2.3. Workshops held and their set – up and focus
The results of the analysis of the interviews constituted the elements on which we developed the
SWOT analysis. This was successively validated by some of the interviewed people, particularly
significant for their wide knowledge about current AKS and its adequacy with respect to the trends
characterising agriculture and the related new needs in terms of knowledge and innovation creation.
5
3. Overview of the current state and functioning of the Agricultural
Knowledge System in Italy
3.1. Brief historical context of the AKS
In Italy, the creation of the current formal AKS was strongly influenced over the 1980s and 1990s by
EEC policies, which promoted a regional experimentation of new procedures for the management of
the advisory services.
The first financial, normative and cultural foundations of a national agricultural knowledge system for
development, named Services for agricultural development (SSA), were laid by the Council Regulation
(EEC) N° 270/79 on the Development of agricultural advisory services in Italy, that co-financed a
government initiative aimed to train experts to be hired by public administrations and professional
organizations.
Over the years, the SSA system has widened its field of action to include research and training (both
for management and farmers) in addition to advisory. The first Structural Funds reform (1989-1993)
gave the opportunity to draw the first Multiregional Operating Programme of Development of
agricultural advisory services (Reg. EEC 2052/88), which promoted a regional experimentation of new
procedures for running advisory services addressed to connect innovation and knowledge resources
with local needs of consulting services and training.
At the beginning of the 1990s, the Government approved the National Plan of Services for agricultural
development and began to discuss the second reform of Structural Funds with the European
Commission. The National Plan of Services for agricultural development established a “Services’
system” and specified the authority of each member and their coordination. Regions have a wide
degree of autonomy: particularly, they hold function of orientation, coordination and control of
information and training activities carried out by private organizations; moreover they promote no
patentable research and experimental activities of collective interest.
The second Multiregional Operating Programme – Activity to support services for agricultural
development (Reg. EEC 2081/93) – strengthened the SSA systems on a wider territorial basis and a
more structured area of action with the aim to improve quality, to widen the range of products, to
reduce production’s unit costs and to guarantee environmental protection.
EEC policies have fostered regional governments to codify innovation services and funding schemes
into regional laws, addressed to define: the goals of innovation agricultural systems, the institutions
and the organizations considered part of the systems, the distribution of roles between the private and
the public organizations and the financial contribution of farmers.
Over the 1990s, the AKS thus developed on a regional basis, giving rise to systems in which the
public institutions (policy makers and technicians of the Regional Agencies for Agricultural
Development - RAAIs that many regional laws set up) interacted with the technical bodies of Farmers’
Unions, universities and research institutes located in the regions. In most of the cases, these systems
followed a neo-corporative scheme and a linear and sectoral approach to innovation.
At the end of the 1990s this concept of agricultural innovation system has reached a crisis and there
were first attempts to restructure it. Regional governments made reforms to the original laws,
introducing competitive bids, entitling additional actors to make part of the system, reducing
progressively the range of tasks directly performed by the RAAIs, making the farmers pay a part of the
6
cost. Moreover, a reform of the training system at national level transferred most of the funds for
training to specialised bodies.
In 2002 a network among Italian Regions (Rete dei referenti regionali) was set up with the aim to
adopt a common methodological approach, to join resources in order to define common projects on
shared issues and to achieve operative synergies. As a result, a new Interregional programme about
Services for agricultural and rural development was started in the following year: it fostered the
comparison on SSA contents and methodologies, the experimentation of innovative services based on
new approaches and modern instruments, the dissemination of agricultural knowledge through
coordinated networks.
In its turn, the review of the CAP has contributed to open new scenarios forcing the setting up of a
farm advisory system able to support transition to more sustainable patterns. In that framework, each
Member State has the obligation (as from 2007) to set up a FAS, aimed at “helping farmers to better
understand and meet the EU rules for environment, public and animal health, animal welfare and the
good agricultural and environmental condition” (according to cross-compliance mechanism that
farmers have to respect). The possibility to use measures contained into the Rural Development Plan
(for member States and farmers) has allowed an integration process between extension services and
rural development support actions. In Italy the FAS was activated in all regions, although with some
delay due to procedural difficulties, such as the appeals of professional bodies and the lack of a
national framework. Because of the heterogeneity of the Italian agricultural extension services system,
which has got a different structure and organization among the Regions, it is however difficult to
realize an accurate and complete monitoring activity, especially with regards to contents and
methodologies and, consequently, it is difficult, at the moment, to evaluate the national farm advisory
systems created.
More recently, new driving forces seem to condition this process of internal reorganisation. In the last
two years, Italian and regional government policies, influenced by economic crisis, have led to a
substantial cut of resources assigned to knowledge system, that affected particularly the agricultural
sector. This determined the dismantling of some RAAIs and is leading to a progressively weakening of
AKS, with a radical decrease of regional activities, especially the extension services.
3.2. Characterisation of the AKS
3.2.1. Actors involved in the AKS
In Italy there is a definite separation between public and private innovation and knowledge system, the
first being represented by the “formal” AKS, organized around research, education and extension and
coordinated and controlled by public bodies (at national and regional level), and the second
represented by the industry provider of technical inputs or chain agreements. In addition to these
actors, outside the formal system, new organizations are more recently emerging, often involving
different actors.
The three main components of the AKS clearly show the dominant role of traditional players.
The system of research in broader terms is centered upon the Ministry of Education, University and
Research (MIUR) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry Policies (MIPAAF). Anyway,
some research activities are funded, managed and carried out also by other national Ministries that
support studies on topics related to their core mission, as food safety, human health, labour, etc. (i.e.
7
the Ministry of Health, the Ministry for Economic Development, the Ministry of Environment and Land
Protection).
More specifically, the agricultural research involves a variety of public or semi-public institutes,
without a central coordination:
- the University, funded and supervised by the MIUR;
- the National Research Council (CNR, characterized by a specific Agri-food Department), funded
and supervised by the MIUR; it has also a role of research manager1 (planning, coordination and
control), performed in 20 Institutes, spread all over the Country;
- the Public Research Institutes funded by the MIPAAF. The main structures institutionally involved
in agricultural research are: the National Institute of Agricultural Economics - INEA; the National
Research Institute for Food and Nutrition - INRAN; the Council for the Research and
Experimentation in Agriculture - CRA (a manager/research body2); the Institute of Food Services
for the Agricultural Market - ISMEA; the Institute L. Spallanzani (animal science);
- the Regions (twenty Regions and the two autonomous Provinces), to which in 2001 changes in the
Italian Constitution recognized a more significant and active role in the agricultural research, in
order to take account of the territorial specificity and the related different exigencies. They run
agricultural research directly or indirectly: some Regions have their own research units, other have
their own research programs implemented through public institutes (Universities and other
structures) situated in their territory or through private institutes selected through competitive bids.
There is then the private agricultural research, that is estimated to be approximately 25% of the total.
The system of education is managed mostly by the public sector. Higher education is run essentially
by the University, organized in Faculties that are distributed over the Italian territory, and it is
implemented through University courses, post-graduate (i.e. grants, masters, etc.) and PhD. courses.
Also the MIPAAF contributes to scientific education (and research training) financing fellowships,
grants and also PhD grants. The Faculties involved are firstly those of Agriculture (24) and of
Veterinary Medicine (Animal health) (14), but other Faculties also play a significant role, as those of
Life Sciences, Economic Science, Medicine, Engineering, etc..
In addition to these institutes there is also a small number of other organizations (agro-food firms, local
institutions and associations) which promote post-graduate courses regarding specific issues. They
still represent a marginal activity if compared to that of the Italian Universities, but are assuming a
considerable role for their capacity to catch the rising needs of the sector.
Also the education at secondary school level is run by the MIUR, who define its contents through
programs and guidelines. According to the recent ministerial reform (2008), the programs of vocational
and technical education (two of the three educational courses) include disciplines related to
1In the past, CNR could act as funding agency supporting agricultural research, but nowadays it uses
almost exclusively external funds, from its supervising Ministry or others. 2The CRA, that recently aggregated at national level the Italian Experimentation Institutes for
agriculture under MIPAAF tutoring, can fund research projects but it is essentially acting as manager
and research body dealing with all agricultural and food-non food production chains.
8
agriculture, rural development, agro-food system, environment management. They involves more than
1500 institutes in the national territory.
Another activity of education on which the public sector has invested during the 2000s is that of the
system of Higher Technical Education-Training, addressed to under-graduate and implemented
through the cooperation of secondary school, University, enterprises, professional training
services/extension. The initiative is defined and funded by the MIUR, in collaboration with the Ministry
of Labour, Health and Social Policies and the Ministry for Economic Development, and is within the
jurisdiction of Regional Administrations. Agriculture is one of the five fields of activity.
The Italian agricultural extension system clearly shows the role of two main sectors: the system of
public services for farmers connected with regional agricultural institutions (in some cases involving
private enterprises to provide the services) and the private sector, mostly connected with the firms of
the agro-food system (from the production of inputs for agriculture to that of food) but also including
private enterprises providing advisory services. The first links the support to the single farms to a
broader strategy of promotion of the development of agriculture and rural territories, the second has as
main objective the competition on the market, as sector and as single enterprise.
The system of public services to farms (Services for agricultural development - SSA) includes both the
activities provided directly by the regional structures (through their personnel and their territorial
articulation) and the services provided by means of the farmers’ professional organizations. The latter
(i.e. Farmers’ Unions3 or agricultural products associations), organized through dedicated structures,
articulated at national, regional and provincial level, play an important role in training professional
advisors and offering extension services, as private bodies but also cooperating with public institutions
and receiving public funding. In comparison with the 1990s, during which these organizations
dominated4, during the 2000s their role has however lost importance in relation to the rising role
played by agricultural products associations or/and of groups of private advisers.
In general, in the last years, all these actors have consistently reduced their “presence” because of
economic crisis or budgeting cuts.
On the other hand, the role played by private system appears more and more significant in transferring
technical knowledge and in driving product and process innovation. In some cases the enterprises of
the agro-food system establish forms of cooperation with the University and research institutes in
order to develop specific programmes of research and dissemination.
As we said at the beginning, in addition to these main actors, many other non-system components
surround and influence the AKS, shaping an “informal” system that shows an increasing ability to
interact with farmers, develop collective planning capacity, influence the consumers' behaviour, lobby
on policy making. They include producers’ associations and cooperatives, the PDO and PGI
Consortia, the Wine Tourism Movement and Slow Food and other organizations involved in promotion
of local and typical food products, sometimes in cooperation with local administrations. The initiatives
3 In Italy there are three Farmers’ Unions, traditionally not cooperating and not coordinated. 4 Over the time they have turn their role from advisory organisms to administrative bodies, who provide
administrative services to farmers (keeping accounts, applying for CAP funding, etc.), often for effect
of laws that officially assign them tasks of intermediation.
9
promoted by these actors stimulates farmers to interact and to focus on the problems they have to
face in order to identify possible solutions. These processes have led to significant changes in
farmers’ behaviours and strategies.
Some environmental organisations also play an important role, both in the formal and in the informal
innovation settings, as they lobby at policy-decision level (more broadly addressed to the different
components of AKS) and contribute to the development of new sensitivities towards environmental
issues and to the diffusion of “good practices” among farmers. A significant role is played by organic
farming organizations, organized both at national level (e.g. Italian Association of Organic Farming -
AIAB) and at regional level, which direct integrate environmental concerns with farming through
educational and training activities.
At local level other organisations can take part in the construction of policies by interacting with public
administrations. They are institutional or informal organisations variously engaged in initiatives of
promotion of the local socio-economic development (i.e. Leader LAG, the various local associations
aimed to valorise specific territorial resources).
More recently, at local scale, new actors are emerging, in many cases representing further alternative
approaches to the creation of knowledge systems in comparison to the mainstream actors. Among
them there are technicians, in many cases become autonomous from traditional extension services,
following different approaches and “acknowledged” in their role by farmers. As important are the new
consumers’ organizations, in some cases structured as formal associations, in other more informal,
such as GAS (the consumers’ groups which collectively establish direct relationships with farmers);
they are expression of the new needs of society and, on that basis, contribute to stimulate the
development of a new discourse around food and new processes of learning among producers and
consumers.
3.2.2. Governance of the AKS
The Italian Agricultural Knowledge System (AKS) is characterized by different organizational models,
contents, working methods in all its three components (Research, Education and Extension). This
situation is made even more complicated by the division of roles between the State and the Regions.
Since 1972, in fact, almost everything concerning agriculture has been within jurisdiction of the twenty
Regions, with a consequent diversification or organizational models and procedures; this autonomy of
Regional governments has further increased through the process of institutional reform of 2000s5.
As far as the division of competences and roles is concerned, in general, Research is under the
responsibility of both the State and the Regions, Education is under the State (national) responsibility,
Extension falls within the competence of the Regions.
About education, it is necessary to distinguish between education and training, that are two separate
spheres (not only for agricultural matters). Training is under Regions’ jurisdiction since 1978; the
Ministry of University and Research (MIUR) is in charge of determining and financing education policy
5 The reform of the Italian institutional structure determined by the Constitutional Law n. 3/2001, which
recognizes the supremacy of the Regions at legislative level.
10
(University and secondary school education) and vocational education that depend on it. The three
policies are not coordinated among them.
In the last decade the national policy for Higher Education in agriculture has had a twofold objective: to
provide theoretical and specialized skills and to rationalize the University structures and their
organization in order to reduce public expenditure. The recent reforms (until the Law N. 240,
December 30, 2010) have contributed to implement that orientation, affecting also the organization of
the Faculties of agricultural sciences, through reductions in the number of degree courses,
departments and faculties.
As we said above, the new attention to technical learning also finds expression in the restructuring of
the secondary school, strongly oriented towards providing technical and vocational education. The
new courses include disciplines concerning agriculture and agro-food system development and
management of rural environment.
Training activities are carried out by specific training agencies that can have both public or private
nature (private agencies engaged in agricultural training are often under the control of Farmers’
Unions). Generally, private agencies organize training courses for farmers and other people interested
in agricultural and rural activities, while the RAAIs are in charge of (free) training of advisors. This
should provide a link between research findings and extension services; however, the results don’t
look very promising, because of the scarcity of funding channelled into training and the negative
attitude of advisors towards training. Moreover, training activities are more focused on procedures
than on contents. Despite the role of training in disseminating knowledge and information to rural
operators and in informing and sensitising public awareness of the agricultural and rural issues, there
is a clear difficulty to design initiatives that could be up their task.
For what concerns research, it is possible to identify two policies:
a national policy, aimed at promoting both basic research (carried out mainly by the Ministry of
Education, University and Research) and applied research (carried out mainly by the Ministry of
Agriculture, Food and Forestry policies), through national programmes (often pluri-annual, as in the
case of the National Research Programmes, PNR) or specific sectoral plans;
a regional policy, aimed at promoting applied research and testing of innovations at local level
through planning and implementation of regional programmes.
With regard the organizational models and the procedures adopted at regional level to manage the
implementation of the research programmes, it is possible to distinguish different situations among the
twenty Regions, on the basis of the degree of direct involvement of regional institution, moving from an
centralized model to a decentralized model. Through the latter, that is the most widespread, the public
bodies contract the research activities out to external private subjects (through public announcements
or direct assignment), adopting specific criteria of selection and, in some cases, of evaluation of the
results.
About the contents of the research promoted by the Regions, the most of the research activities is
coherent with the objectives pursued through the regional RDPs and their specific three axes. A
certain delay, on the other hand, emerges with regard the challenges introduced in 2009 through the
Health Check of CAP. With the exception of the efforts for the defence of biodiversity, only few regions
have undertaken programs to face the problems of climate change and water and energy resources
scarcity.
About extension, we described above the role played by the public system, through both direct and
indirect management of services (these ones mainly run by Farmers’ Unions). Every Region has a
11
specific extension policy, which is regulated by regional laws, regarding also applied research in
agriculture (according to an integrated approach generally developed and introduced in the regional
legislation since 2000). Generally, the main objectives of the regional extension policy are:
technological transfer, farm competitiveness, cross-compliance, rural animation, diversification, food
safety, environmental impact. It is evident the coexistence, in this policy, of public and private goals.
In some regions, the Regional Agencies for Innovation in Agriculture (RAAIs) have contributed to
coordinate the official AKS components. These agencies indeed play a role of interface between the
different actors involved in the regional system (regional government, universities and research
centres, farmers, farmers’ unions, consultants, food artisan, NGOs, local administrations), set strategic
objectives, organize the process of selection of projects, make institutional communication. Their
performance is very different from region to region. As we said, in recent years some of these
Agencies - even the most active and effective ones - have been shut because of budget cuts.
The effect of the economic crisis or budgeting cuts on the activity of the public system is considerable.
Besides the decrease in dissemination initiatives, this reorganization of public support is likely to affect
the above mentioned relation between public and private goals.
This is particularly meaningful considering the increasing role of the private sector, whose services are
addressed to support the competitive strategies of the enterprises. In addition to the activity of
information and technical training provided by the input industry, the significant role played by private
enterprises is mainly linked to the diffusion of contract farming, through which agro-industry
establishes agreements with farmers in order to rationalize the provisioning or control food production
processes to obtain specific qualitative level. There are many different typologies of contracts,
individual or collective (run through farmers’ associations and cooperatives), at local or at regional and
national level (the first are the more binding with reference to specific qualitative features of products,
the latter are mainly focused on price fixation). The production sectors more interested by contract
farming are: chicken and pig farming, barley for malt, hard wheat, tomato, other vegetables and fruit
for processing industry. As we said, the activity of advisory (and sometimes professional training) is in
some cases run within project of cooperation with the University and research institutes (e.g. the case
of the programmes developed in order to improve the quality of hard wheat). The role of these
contractual mechanisms with regard to their impact in terms of influence on knowledge formation and
innovation processes is likely to increase because of the growing importance that the necessity to
control the quality of products assumes for agro-industry, both for human health and environment.
There is then the broader question of the links existing between the world of research, education and
training, consultancy and extension services (policies/strategies definition and their implementation),
and the world of farmers (in their whole diversity, between “old” and “new” farmers, not fully
represented by the mainstream organizations), as well as, less directly, of the relation with the other
“new actors” and the related claims (expression of the claims made by the society at large).
Given the dominant role of public bodies, of the major farmers’ organizations and of private sector in
defining objectives and priorities of research activities, educational and training programmes and
advisory services, the question of the governance mechanisms through which, within the formal AKS,
the demands of new knowledge and innovation emerging at grassroots level can be integrated into the
decision process arises.
With regard to the public system, the development of a system in great part decentralised,
characterised by the Regions’ wide degree of autonomy in holding functions of orientation and
12
coordination of research, extension, training and control on the activities carried out by private
organizations, has strongly influenced the evolution of these mechanisms. Even if through not
homogeneous intensity among the Italian Regions, over the last two decades this institutional context
has to a certain extent favoured the diffusion of new approaches to innovation and knowledge
creation, through the introduction of bottom-up approaches in the policy-making processes. The need
to identify priorities at territorial and farm level has led to the adoption of participative processes and
related methodological tools (stakeholders consultation, call for projects proposed by local public-
private partnerships, etc.).
However, there is still a certain distance between the official discourse and the real practices and
organizational patterns, due to problems of:
representativeness in the official decision making processes (not all the actors now involved in
knowledge creation and innovation processes in agriculture and rural areas are represented; the
same is for the most innovative farmers),
power inequalities (decision making is strongly affected by the pressure of the three main farmers’
organizations),
lack of integrated approach (the different components of AKS are governed by different policy
networks and there is bare communication between them),
ineffectiveness of stakeholders consultation mechanisms (stakeholders involvement is still partial
and has a limited impact on policy making, still dominated by some actors, especially public
administrations and the main farmers’ organizations),
essentially top-down information flow (with needs, priorities and possible solutions being driven by
governments), etc.
monitoring and evaluation systems largely underdeveloped; whereas evaluation exists, it is used
very little as a feedback for adjusting policy measures.
The result is that AKS appears still far to be able to meet the needs expressed by farmers and rural
areas as well as, more generally, by society.
3.2.3. Financial steering mechanisms
Considering the AKS at large, the new agricultural development trajectories that progressively become
apparent over the last twenty years have permeated all agricultural innovation strategies and
programs, orienting them towards new goals, most of which of public nature (sustainability of
production processes, multifunctionality). These new orientations are fairly well represented in the
programs developed through research, education and training activities and advisory services.
The Italian AKS is supported mainly by public sources. The role of private sources is less relevant,
even if its contribution is more difficult to assess.
The role played by the public financial support, coming from national or regional administrations, is
particularly relevant for research, which is so strongly affected in its strategic priorities by political
orientations. The Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR) and the Ministry of
Agriculture, Food and Forestry Policies (MIPAAF) fund almost all the fixed costs of the national
structures and issue calls to promote specific research projects. They therefore support research
directly or through national financial instruments (for example, the National Research Program, PNR,
defined by MIUR and including strategic priorities and actions for agriculture and rural development
proposed by MIPAAF).
In detail, the MIUR finances research through:
13
projects of Relevant National Interest (PRIN), that involve only the university structures on free
research topics,
investment Fund for Basic Research (FIRB), that involves all the Italian research structures on
general research topics promoted by specific public calls,
additional Special Fund for Strategic Research (FISR, D.L. 204/98), that involves all the Italian
research structures on applied research promoted by specific calls,
fund to Facilitate Research (FAR, D.L. 297/99), that involves enterprises on applied research
promoted by specific calls.
The MIPAAF finances specific initiatives dedicated to applied research. It had a relevant role also
regarding to the Interregional Programs funded by a national law (L. 499/1999). Through these funds it
was possible to support the cooperation between Regions having the same type of agriculture6. These
projects were co-financed and coordinated by the MIPAAF and directly managed and implemented by
the Regions.
The Regions can identify research programmes and autonomously fund research projects tailored to
the specific requirements of their local agriculture and agro-industry system7. They finance research
especially through regional laws: their role has increased to reach a funding level comparable to the
amount of national financial resources (in terms of average expenditure per year and per Region).
In particular, agricultural research is funded through:
public calls, defined through a specific set of rules indicating eligibility criteria for applicants,
evaluation criteria for the presented proposals, funding scheme, and issued on the basis of
European and national regulations;
direct assignment, used for relevant research actions of public interest and carried out by specific
expertises;
negotiated procedures, according to pluri-annual programs.
The role of European policy and its instruments and funds for the 2007-2013 period is also particularly
relevant:
the MIUR is responsible for the National Operative Program (PON) about “Research and
competitiveness”, consisting in research and technology transfer activities including also agro-food
issues. The Program has a budget of approximately 6 billion and 200 million euro, half of which will
be established by the European Regional Development Fund (FESR).
the Regions are responsible for Rural Development Programs (RDPs) including a specific
measure aimed at improving the innovation diffusion (Measure 124 “Cooperation for development
of new products, processes and technologies in the agriculture and food sector and in the forestry
sector”).
There is not effective coordination both among the research institutes and the various sources of
funding; as a consequence many measures and initiatives are overlapped with a waste of resources.
6 In the period 2003-2009, eleven Interregional research projects were realized covering specific
topics: vegetable proteins, seeds, fruit farming, organic animal husbandry, olive growing, horticulture,
flower growing, grass-land and animal husbandry, cereal farming, no food productions, wine growing. 7 On the basis of the reform determined by the Constitutional Law n. 3/2001.
14
About the recipients of the public funds, they are represented mainly by universities and public
research institutes. The direct access to them by the private actors – farmers’ organisations, private
enterprises, “new actors” (e.g. consumers’ organizations) – is very limited, mainly represented by the
participation as partners in projects coordinated by research institutes.
As said above, education is mainly financed by the MIUR, while the MIPAAF contributes to scientific
education and research training financing fellowships, grants and also PhD grants.
Agricultural training activities benefit from different sources of funding that increase the occurrence of
overlapping:
the European Social Fund (ESF);
the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural
Development (EAFRD);
the Ministry of labour and welfare services, through Multiregional Operating Programmes (POM);
Regional funds (co-financed by Provinces and Municipalities).
Regarding to extension, the supply of public services for farmers is run by the Regions by using both
European, national and their own funds. During a period of more than ten years, they have promoted
public calls (for public and private bodies), specialized in different services to the farms. In the 2000-
2006 period, the European Commission cut down the funds generally assigned to the development
services but many Regions did not replace them with their own funds, only assuring the functioning of
the public structures and the basic services; as a consequence, the supply of services has been
reduced.
The main fields of Extension services funded by public institution are: specialized technical supports
(33%), basic extension services (32%), specialized extension services (14%), information services
(6%).
The first two fields represent the most traditional extension services in Italy. In particular, “technical
supports” - those activities collecting and processing data useful to the agricultural processes by
means of advanced technical instruments (for example, the meteorological networks and chemical
laboratories) - are usually funded by public institutions because of the high investment costs required.
Despite their cost, their funding has never been put in discussion since these services are extremely
useful for surveys and investigations on the environmental impact or the food quality. A particular
situation is that of Tuscany Region, for which, because of the recent dismantling of the Agency for
development and innovation in agriculture (ARSIA) these services are at the moment at risk of
suspension.
The “basic extension” is a kind of all-purpose assistance given to farmers, but nowadays its use has
been reduced since the farms are often specialized and so they need rather expert advice.
In more recent years, the extension policy has become more connected with the objectives of the
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), in particular regarding the last three points above mentioned.
For the 2007–2013 period, the extension policy is provided by the European Union (EU) that has
instituted the Farm Advisory System (FAS) with the Reg. EC n. 1782/2003. In particular the European
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) has financed some measures of the regional RDPs
above mentioned regarding: vocational training and information actions including diffusion of scientific
knowledge and innovative practices; use of advisory services by farmers and forest holders; setting up
of farm management, farm relief and farm advisory services, as well as of forestry advisory services; a
training and information measure for economic actors; a skills-acquisition and animation measure
addressed to the definition and implementation of local development strategies.
15
Several Regions took advantage of the FAS to replace their existing advisory system, cutting down
their own funds definitively.
For what concerns the funding arrangements for extension services, it is important to distinguish
between codified services and non-codified services.
Codified services are based on regional laws defining the types of services, the delivering
organizations, the targets of the services, the funding procedures. Within codified services we may
distinguish between:
- first level services, delivered to farmers;
- second level services, mainly targeted to technicians and to a broader public.
While most regions have second level services delivered by public bodies (usually regional or
provincial agencies), there are different forms of delivery of first services.
In Southern Italy Regions both first level and second level services to farms are provided by public
bodies (regional agencies or offices of the regional administration). In general, there is a large
dissatisfaction of this state of matters as, apart from a high level of inefficiency, public agencies, more
often than not, follow “hidden agendas” related to regional politics.
In Central and Northern Italy delivery of first level services have largely privatized in the last 15 years.
Regional administrations have introduced funding schemes based on direct assignment to the main
farmers’ organizations or, more recently, on competitive bids (Tuscany, Liguria, Lombardia). In the
debate among Regions, competitive bids are seen as a strong institutional innovation, as they allow to
break the monopoly of farmers’ organizations whose performance is considered largely unsatisfactory.
In all cases there are only timid attempts to distinguish between services of public or private interest,
and in any case there is no different treatment of services aimed at producing or maintaining public
goods.
As far as non-codified services are concerned, there is much more variety of governance schemes
and typologies. Also these services follow, in general, the pattern public funding/private delivery. They
are based on specific projects made by rural groups, farmers’ associations, consortia, partnerships
between local institutions and private organizations, etc. and presented to public or semi-public
bodies.
The most important governance scheme on this regard is the one provided by the LEADER program.
Under the program, Local Action Groups have activated innovative projects through competitive
procedures, opening a lot the range of services provided, introducing collective approaches,
facilitation, participatory research, training-development. Also regional administrations, provincial
administration, public agencies fund projects of this type. Lombardia and Liguria, for example, have
inserted these programs into their Regional Development Plans.
This typology includes the most innovative initiatives. It allows to use innovative approaches and to
open funding schemes to a large variety of rural groups. With schemes like these collective projects of
local food promotion, landscape improvement, rural marketing, innovative solutions for processing,
transporting or selling local food, preservation and restoration of local agro-biodiversity, which would
not fall into the rigid categories provided by codified innovation services, have had the possibility to be
funded. However it must be said that, being ex-ante and ex-post evaluation procedures not well
developed, the stimulus to improve the average quality of the projects has been rather weak.
3.2.4. Linkages in AKS: relations within AKS and between AKS actors and the broader
Agricultural Innovation System (AIS)
16
As we have said above, the Italian “formal” AKS consists of a complex system of actors, decision-
making structures and levels, fields of activity, which are interrelated in an as complex way. The
functioning of this system is strongly conditioned, in each of the three main component of AKS, by the
formal structures defined by law and by the related mechanisms of financial support.
Notwithstanding their “structural” separation, over the decade there have been considerable efforts to
integrate the three components of the system in order to reach a greater interrelation among the
different activities conducted. It is significant, to this regard, what has been done for research and
education. Since the first National Research Program (2001), the Ministries have decided that the
Higher education should be connected with Research and that the projects funded at national level
should include post-graduate (i.e. grants, masters, etc.) and PhD. courses. Also the Ministry of
Agriculture, Food and Forestry Policies allocates financial resources in favor of Higher education
through a specific budget chapter that promotes research training, fellowships for graduate students,
PhD grants in collaboration with the University.
Another important factor influencing the degree of interrelation within the AKS is represented by the
specificity of the Italian institutional structure. As we said, in Italy innovation services are mainly
competence of the Regions, with a consequent variety of governance arrangements.
About especially research, in order to reach a higher level of coordination about research activities in
the various agro-food sectors and to create synergies among them, as already said, in 2001 an inter-
regional organization was established (the Regional Referents Network for agricultural research). On
behalf and through the financial support of this network, since 2002, the National Institute for
Agricultural Economics (INEA) has been managing a database which can be consulted and updated
directly on-line. The overall aim of the project is to provide the regional policy makers with information
about regional agricultural research in terms of funds, objectives and contents, in order to optimize the
allocation of the financial resources available8.
The systems of research and education thus show positive trends of integration and ability to
interrelate with each other and with the policy level, in order to support the definition of programs and
policies. It does not seem the same for extension, which, within the “formal” system, often appears not
sufficiently integrated.
In addition to the level of integration and coordination between the different components of AKS, there
is then the broader question of the links existing between the world of research, education and
training, consultancy and extension services, and the world for which these policies/strategies are
defined and implemented. It includes farmers, in their whole diversity, that is including “old” and “new”
farmers (the latter usually not represented by mainstream farmers’ organizations); but also, the other
“new actors” (particularly citizens-consumers’ organizations, movements engaged around food issues
and rural resources preservation), that are expression of the new claims made by the society at large).
We said above how within the formal AKS this refers to the governance mechanisms through which
the demands of knowledge and innovation emerging from the bottom should affect the definition of
8 The periodic report of the Network, identifying objectives and priorities for research, constitutes a
reference document for the definition not only of the interregional programs, but also of the National
programs of MIUR and MIPAAF.
17
goals and priorities to be pursued. We highlighted how the current functioning of these mechanisms
shows various weaknesses, that do not foster the participation of all actors and the representation of
the related needs. This reduce the potential of success of the activities conducted.
In addition to this, there are also other deficiencies at methodological level. It is the case of the
difficulties of communication between research world and the world of real practices: sometimes the
advisory services themselves have difficulties in running the new knowledge in practical terms,
because of the distance of “language” or the lack of tools to make it practically accessible. In other
case, research chooses priorities for its activities on the basis of its higher capacity to identify the more
urgent issues to be investigated (such as those related to environmental sustainability goals: decrease
of water pollution determined by farming practices, decrease of CO2 emissions, etc.), but this
approach does not take into account the necessity first to help farmers to change their normative
frames (namely, to recognize the problem) and then also to find proper ways to support their learning
processes (how to solve problem, by using what knowledge and through what practices). Moreover, it
underestimates the effect on farmers (and the related Unions) of the lack of visible benefits with
respect, on the other hand, to the increase of costs. Despite of the good aim, this approach continues
to apply a linear model in creating innovation and does not use the potential for change existing
among actors directly involved.
The necessity to effectively interact is even more meaningful considering the integration of food
production-consumption with other spheres of life/activity (land use and territorial planning, health,
food culture, biodiversity conservation, access to food, care and recreational services, etc.) and the
related multiple interrelations potentially involved. This relation between AKS and the other systems of
knowledge and innovation creation, connected to the other spheres involved around food production,
is particularly significant in the perspective of a transition to an AIS.
New dynamics are however emerging in structuring the knowledge system. More recently, in addition
to the formalised paths, new forms of relationship and cooperation between advisory, research,
education, farming, consumption, public administration are developing, in most of the cases at local
scale. They appear as new fruitful spaces of social learning, able to really promote processes of
change in attitudes and practices. At the basis of these experiences there are often different
approaches by researchers (open to direct interaction with grassroots actors) and by technicians (in
many cases, as we said above, coming from mainstream extension organizations, but now operating
in different ways and “acknowledged” in their role by farmers). As important are the new stimuli
coming from the different attitude of “new actors” (first of all farmers and citizens-consumers), holders
of new competences and aspirations that are crucial to build up new learning processes. The
consumers’ capability of self-organizing alternative patterns of food provision and to promote a new
discourse on food models, at local and broader level, is the best expression of the innovative potential
of this mobilization of new players.
These new networks, together with other experiences in which local actors co-operate in defining and
realizing common projects founded on principles of sustainability, are representing important drivers of
transition because of their pressure on institutional and normative frames and on policy system, of
which highlight deficiencies and contradictions, and of their challenge to the cultural and social
patterns, fostering the adhesion to new principles and priorities. Showing alternative paths and putting
new demands to institutions and policy authorities (different services, regulations, advisory, integrated
approaches in problems solving, etc.) they stimulate AKS to change.
18
4. Agricultural and rural development trends: changes in knowledge
needs and demands on AKS
4.1. Main societal trends in relation to agriculture and rural development
4.1.1. Demographic trends
Italian agriculture is strongly characterised by aging. Almost 20% of population is older than 65,
whereas the EU average is 16.6%. This trend is even more evident in rural areas.
On the other hand, data show also a positive net migration rate in rural areas, showing that, in
general, rural depopulation affects only remote areas, while there is an increasing integration between
town and countryside (see below).
4.1.2. Farming
Italian farms are characterised by small size. Structural data on farming show that 73.3% of farms are
smaller than 5 ha, 24.3 between 5 and 50 ha, 2.4% are larger than 50 ha (EU average 70% / 24% /
6%). Age of farmers is very high compared with the rest of Europe. In fact, the rate of farmers younger
than 35 on farmers older than 55 years is 4%, the lowest in Europe together with the UK. The
proportion of semi-subsistence farming is 17%. The proportion of part-time farms is lower than in other
EU countries: 27% of Italian farmers have other gainful activities, while in the EU27 this proportion is
35%. This can be explained by the fact that a high number of part-timers are in the age of retirement.
4.1.3. Rural employment
Rural employment does not differ substantially from urban employment patterns. Like in other sectors,
employment in agriculture is strongly characterised by the contribution of migrant workers. Officially
there are 52.000 migrant workers, but the number may be much higher, as agriculture is strongly
affected by the black labour market. Migrants are crucial when large numbers of workers are required,
as during harvesting of specialized crops like tomatoes, fruits, grapes. In dairy and meat production
they represent a high proportion of workers. The forestry sector has been revitalized when availability
of migrant workers - and entrepreneurship increased. Availability of migrant workers has also changed
agricultural technological paths, as it has allowed intensification.
4.1.4. New actors in rural areas
Rural Italy is strongly affected by a post-productivist trend. With the growth of peri-urban areas the
diversity of actors populating the countryside have increased. Tourists, second house owners,
commuters, migrant workers looking for cheaper housing, care people for the elders develop new
demand and new patterns of social interaction.
4.1.5. Competing demand for resources
19
Only 23% of Italian territory is plain, and most of its population is concentrated in a small portion of the
territory. This also allows to better understand the figure showing that artificial area is 4.7 % of the total
land of the Country. Loss of agricultural land is going to be one of the hottest problems in Italy, and the
2008 food crisis has kindled a debate on this issue. Incentives to alternative energies have increased
the pressure on land, as they have made ground solar and biogas plants competitive with food
production. As land prices are very high, farm turnover is allowed only by internal lines. If there are no
heirs, farmers prefer to leave the land abandoned rather than give it for rent. In the most competitive
subsectors - like in the grape for wine industry and in the agro-tourism - there is a strong trend to land
purchase by corporates in other sectors.
4.1.6 Rural economy
The weight of the agricultural sector on the rural economy is 4.4% of GPV in prevalent rural areas.
Rural economies are strongly based on the tertiary sector, the weight of which is 71% in prevalent
rural areas, more or less like prevalent urban areas (71.8%). Rural tourism is strongly developed, with
4.4 millions bed-places in rural areas (second after France that has 5.7 millions).
There is a 82% of Internet coverage in predominantly rural areas (99% in PU). Take up of Internet
services is 14% in PR compared to 20.9% in PU.
4.1.7. New urban-rural relationships
Apart from remote rural areas, that in Italy coincide with mountain areas, the environment, society and
economy of the countryside are increasingly linked to the towns.
Urban sprawl is one of the most relevant phenomenon in the last years. Decrease of agricultural land
has proceeded at higher rates in Italy than in Europe. Most recent figures available show a loss of
about 140.000 ha of agricultural land between 1990 and 2000 (about 11%), of which about 80.000
transformed into artificial land. This trend has enlarged the width of peri-urban areas, where there is a
multiplicity of land uses and relevant processes are strongly related to urban dynamics.
4.1.8. Competing farming paradigms
In Italy the coexistence of two different worlds of production is more and more evident. EU PDO and
PGI regulations, issued in 1992, have created space for manoeuvre for high quality / low quantity
business models. There are now more than 500 PDO and PGI specialities. 1,1 million ha were
allocated to organic farming (7,9%) in 2007, one of the highest levels in the EU.
Increasingly, quality intended as local specificity – embodied into traditional recipes, local biodiversity,
artisanal manufacture - has become a policy priority. Alongside this growing subsector, conventional
agriculture, mainly based in the Po valley and centered upon intensive animal production and corn
monoculture, still represents an important share of the Italian agriculture.
About trends that affect sustainable agriculture:
Trends of Italian Agriculture
1) High-tech industrial agriculture (farmer as entrepreneur)
introduction of GMOs As there is no a coexistence framework In Italy cultivating GMOs is illegal
20
industrial symbiosis (cradle to cradle) not very developed. Something in the oil seeds and in horticulture
providing food for a growing (world) population
no
competition on global markets wine
2) Multifunctional agriculture (with emphasis on the family farm)
diversification of agrarian activities high number of agro-tourist farms, farms that provide care or educational services
labelling of agricultural products 500 pdo / pgi and other collective labels, interesting wine, olive oil, dairy
self-steering by farmers yes
place of farmers in the production chain growing number of producers to consumers initiatives
3) Regional Development (not the farmer, but the countryside is central)
Growing attention to animal welfare not so central
Tourism and recreation 4.5 million bedplaces
Landscape and nature management an extended network of parks and nature reserves
Regionalisation experiments of agricultural parks, agri-industrial districts
Slow Food 177 Slow Food praesidia; increasing involvement in initiative of promotion of local production together with farmers and their organizations
4.2. Implications of trends for AKS in terms of knowledge supply and demand
In front of the features and trends that characterized agriculture, but also in front of the new role that it
plays and the new relationship between rural and urban areas, the current AKS still appears quite
inadequate. Indeed, it seems not fully able to support the necessary transition process of farms, to
give answer to the new claims coming from society and to give room to the multiplicity of stakeholders
involved and elated interactions.
One of the most relevant aspects to be addressed is the time horizon of AKS activity. In the best of
cases, AKS responds to short term demand, which is mainly related to problems emerging from the
21
existing regime. To be able to respond to new challenges there should be a strategic approach able to
nurture niches of innovation, often based on actors outside the official systems.
Another aspect is related to lack of integration between components of the system. This is apparent,
as we said above, in the approach adopted by the research, which appears still not able to effectively
interact with knowledge users in order to define goals and priorities, as well as to communicate on the
results of its activities. Answers from the interviewed informants show that, if there are no adequate
governance mechanisms, research tend to pursue internal objectives, that in the case of University
and research are mainly based on rigid disciplinary productivity criteria. The role of some agencies,
such as ARSIA in Tuscany (now abolished) and Veneto Agricoltura in Veneto, shows that institutional
arrangements can make the difference.
This lack of effective communication also involves the advisory system, that so cannot give a
significant contribute to make knowledge circulate. The inadequacy of governance mechanisms,
above analysed in detail, doesn’t foster the emergence of all the needs of knowledge and innovation,
especially from those farmers not represented by mainstream organizations or by the other actors
whose role is still not formally recognized in decision-making processes (such as consumers’ groups).
The difficulty to realize an effective interaction on specific needs also hampers the definition of
strategies addressed to support and promote local initiatives or specific projects. The successful
experiences built on the capacity by research institutes and public administrations to open to
interaction and experimentation, on the basis of agreed programmes, testify the potential of this
different approach.
Beyond these few positive experiences, the emergence of new knowledge networks, developing
outside the conventional knowledge system and able to promote more innovative paths, represent the
search for and the experimentation of new models of knowledge building, based on more coherent
pursuing of public goals, and the adoption of different approaches, with regards to object of innovation
(not only technological and not only at farming level) and methodological approaches (not linear and
top-down, but rather inclusive, interactive and democratic processes).
How evidence shows, the need of a paradigm shift and the consequent reorganization of practices
sign the direction of all the innovation programs and projects. At the same time, the democratization
and re-localization of knowledge building processes appears an essential passage. Farmers’ and
other stakeholders’ active participation and cooperation, addressed interaction with institutional actors,
social construction and circulation instead of transfer of knowledge and information seem to be the
components of the AKS in the future.
Interaction based learning processes, generally carried out outside the formal innovation system,
empower actors and allow them to create a not competitive learning context that produces higher
degree knowledge processes. During transition phases cooperative learning become particularly
important as it foster the process of individual change and the creation of new social practices.
As we highlighted above, It is apparent the need for an adequate governance system, able to
represent all the interests and positions and to foster dialog and interaction. This entails to overcome a
series of unresolved problems, with particular regard to: the persistent power unbalance among
representatives, the empowerment of actors at the moment excluded from decision making processes,
the criteria of selection of the kind of intervention, the introduction of monitoring and evaluation
systems to be used as a feedback for adjusting policy measures and initiatives.
22
5. Place of interactive learning and innovation in the AKS
5.1. Working methods for effective support of LINSA
In Italy there are different experiences in which local actors co-operate in defining and realizing
common projects founded on principles of sustainability and that we can consider as LINSA. They can
be classified according to the agreed grid:
1. Consumer oriented networks
2. Non food networks
3. Purely agricultural networks or networks for sustainable land use
Consumer oriented networks
This group is the one that shows greatest vitality in Italy. Within this group we can find:
a) Farmers’ Markets: farmers organize collectively direct selling to consumers in urban places and
to this regard set common rules for inclusion/exclusion, quality requirements, pricing and
establish communication channels with local institutions.
b) Collective farmers’ shops: similar to farmers’ markets, but characterised by a greater continuity in
time.
c) Gruppi di Acquisto Solidale (GAS): consumers’ driven networks linking up to producers to self-
organize the provision of food supply.
d) Local food networks: collective initiatives that link together producers and other local actors in the
promotion of local food through codes of practice, branding, communication initiatives, collective
participation to fairs, technical assistance.
Non-food networks
Within this group we can find:
a) Common bio-energy plants jointly managed and fed by farmers;
b) Joint initiatives in the textile sector based on agricultural raw material: wool, hemp, natural
colours.
c) Agro-tourist promotion initiatives: thematic routes, joint websites, guides
Purely agricultural networks or networks for sustainable land use
a) Farmers custodians: networks of farmers doing in situ conservation of local varieties
b) Seed savers: networks of (mainly organic) farmers exchanging knowledge and seeds for non
commercial varieties
c) Participatory genetic improvement: farmers, under the supervision of technicians, participate to
genetic improvement programs.
d) Farmers land stewards: networks of farmers providing information to the local land authority about
the hydrological state of mountain territory and providing first maintenance operations
In many of these cases it is not possible to fully separate these initiatives, as once established a
network they look for alliances, synergies and economies of scope. So, for example, shepherds who
have started valorisation initiatives have found ways to use sheep wool to start artisan initiatives.
23
Likewise, farmers custodians are often active in the promotion of local products coming from local
varieties.
The characteristics of these initiatives are synthesized in the following table:
Initiators Actors involved Funding Top down /
Bottom up
Farmers’ markets and
collective farms’
shops
Farmers; farmers’
unions
Farmers, farmers’ unions,
local institutions
From fully self funded
to fully publicly funded
A wide range of
options
GAS Consumers Consumers, farmers, food
artisans
Fully self funded Bottom up
Local food networks Farmers, local
associations
Farmers, local associations,
local institutions, other local
economic categories,
Strong support from
local institutions,
development projects
A wide range of
options
Bio-energy plants Farmers,
cooperatives,
farmers’ unions
Farmers, cooperatives,
farmers’ unions, local
institutions. Strong role of
producers or dealers of
bioenergy plants.
From fully self funded
to fully publicly funded
A wide range of
options
Initiatives in the
textile sector
Farmers Textile artisans Fully privately funded Bottom up
Agro-tourist
promotion initiatives
Farmers’ unions,
farmers’ groups
Farmers’ unions, farmers’
groups, local institutions
From fully self funded
to fully publicly funded
A wide range of
options
Farmers custodians Regional Agency
of development
Farmers, research
institutions, farmers’ unions
Fully publicly funded Bottom up.
Regional agency
acted as facilitator
of the network
Seed savers and
participatory
improvement
Non official
extension services,
farmers
Farmers, technicians,
universities, local institutions,
environmental organizations
Almost fully self
funded
Bottom up
Farmers land
stewards
Local land
management
authority
Farmers, farmers’ unions,
local institutions, consultants
Fully publicly funded Bottom up
In Italy many LINSA have emerged and are emerging as new informal organizational arrangements
outside the existing system settings, involving different actors and organisations – most of them are
outside the traditional formal AKS – in new, spontaneous processes of knowledge and innovation co-
creation.
As we have mentioned above, LINSA include structured producers’ associations and cooperatives, the
PDO and PGI Consortia, but also more informal farmers’ organizations, such as those promoting
24
farmers’ markets or collective shops for direct selling. A significant role as promoter is played by
cultural associations, such as the Wine Tourism Movement and Slow Food and other organizations
involved in promotion of local and typical food products, which usually cooperate with local public
institutions. As meaningful is the role played by environmental associations and particularly by organic
farming organizations, organized both at national level (e.g. Italian Association of Organic Farming -
AIAB) and at regional level, which direct integrate environmental concerns with farming through
educational and training activities. These new informal aggregations also include new actors more
specifically dealing with research and advisory services. In many cases they are peripheral or
autonomous from to the mainstream research centres, Universities and extension services and follow
different approaches, but they are “acknowledged” in their role by farmers and effectively integrate
with the other actors (it is the case of the technicians involved in innovative collective project with
farmers, or the researchers engaged in innovative participatory programmes of genetic improvement).
As important are the new consumers’ organizations, structured as formal associations or more
informal (such as GAS), which are expression of the new needs and orientations of society and, on
that basis, contribute to stimulate new processes of awareness rising and knowledge creation.
Outside the rigidity of the system, these new “informal” spaces of learning and innovation show an
increasing ability to promote exchange of knowledge between farmers and other actors and
organizations, sustain cooperation and collective action and planning, favour interactions between
producer and consumers, influence attitudes and behaviours towards more sustainable patterns, and
finally lobbying on policy making.
5.2. Governance mechanisms for effective support of LINSA
In terms of governance, LINSA can be considered a self-organising network that are led by, as we
called them, non-system actors or organizations. They are not the outcome of a the implementation of
top-down projects promoted by the formal AKS but, on the contrary, they emerge as a spontaneous
and not pre-planned process, that progressively aligns in a more coherent design different projects or
individual and collective initiatives. LINSA are based on the recognition of interdependencies. No
single actor has all the knowledge and information and the path of learning and innovation emerges
through horizontal interaction and negotiation among actors.
In some cases, they are fully based on voluntary work and enjoy of virtually no public support. In other
cases, they have been supported through public funds under LEADER programs or regional research
programs.
Evidence shows that, when successful, also the initiatives less “structured” are subject to imitation,
started by official AKS. This has created some tension, as imitations tend to activate flows of public
resources and involve farmers whose main motivation is economic.
Some of the most successful attempts have been based on public-private partnership in which official
AKS is involved. Some initiatives of regional agencies of development are remarkable on this regard
because they have been based on competitive bids and selection of projects based on quality criteria.
On the basis of the experience done so far, to adequately support LINSA some main changes in the
institutional settings and funding mechanisms would be needed:
to open the institutional decision making process to the new actors and to make the consultation
mechanisms really able to give room to all the stakeholders and related claims. As we have already
stressed, even though the consultation mechanisms are actually more open, the stakeholders
25
involvement is still partial and has a limited impact on policy making, which is still dominated by the
main actors;
to shift from a top-down to a bottom-up approach. The policy approach still sees needs, priorities and
possible solutions defined from the top by the central governments. LEADER initiative is an effective
examples of promoting innovation and learning through a process that start from the local actors. In
parallel, in the debate on innovation policy there is a growing interests on participatory-deliberative
mechanism.
to shift from an individual-sectoral to a collective-territorial approach, in order to catch all the potentials
existing at grassroots level. Learning and innovation are social processes and are not restricted within
the borders of sectors. While the traditional approach focus on individual and sector, experiences of
LINSA show the importance of financing collective projects that have a territorial/integrated dimension.
Furthermore, bricolage processes of learning and innovation emerges as a progressively alignment of
dispersed actors, initiatives, other projects into a coherent design. Thus, there is a need of governance
mechanisms and tools of coordination between different policy networks that do not communicate to
each other;
to open to experimentation through innovative institutional arrangements and focus on local
specificities, and on that basis run funding systems. Learning and innovation processes are
characterized by variability, uncertainty and adaptation; also grants should should be relatively
adaptable to the changing conditions. Experience shows that rural development regulation and their
implementation makes funding of these initiatives quite difficult. In fact, they may combine together
research, training, extension as well as investments or other measures, while mechanisms activated
under regional rural development plans are too rigid to allow such a coordination between actors and
between actions9.
6. Summary of interviews and workshop
6.1. Strongs points and weak points, opportunities and threats, in the functioning of
the AKS
Because of its institutional configuration, based on Regions’ autonomy in holding functions of
orientation and coordination of research, extension, training services, the Italian Agricultural
Knowledge System is characterized by a variety of political strategies, organizational models,
governance arrangements in running knowledge and innovation creation processes. It is therefore
9 An interesting example of institutional innovation that can support LINSA are the Integrated Territorial
Projects proposed in the Italian National Strategy Plan for Rural Development. The regional Rural
Development Programmes can finance actions which may refer to measures of a single Axis or a
combination of measures of different Axes organised into a coherent Integrated Territorial Project that
involve different beneficiaries.
26
difficult to access its functioning, identifying its strengths and weaknesses referring to an unique
situation. There are in fact more advanced contexts, which over the last two decades were
characterised by a definite orientation towards sustainable development models and the gradual
adoption of new approaches, through the introduction of bottom-up methods in the policy-making
processes, able to valorise the dynamism of the institutional and social context with regard to
innovation in attitudes and practices. On the other hand, there are contexts still based to old models
and where the role of public bodies and the narrow relationship between these and the most powerful
players (namely the three Farmers’ Unions) dominate the scene, giving no room to the expression of
other voices and related claims.
Anyway, despite of this heterogeneity, through the following SWOT analysis we tried to provide a
synthetic representation of the Italian AKS with regards its adequacy to support processes of
innovation.
SWOT overview about functioning of AKS
Strengths
- New general orientation in policy making towards a model of development based on quality and
sustainability, meeting the new needs of society
- Trends in governance mechanisms towards the adoption of bottom-up approaches (increase of
stakeholders consultation), even if not generalised and really effective
- Positive effects of the decentralisation process: Regions’ autonomy in policy and programmes
definition and implementation. The active role of regional governments in setting policy and
funding schemes can create favourable institutional contexts for stimulating effective innovation
actions
- Small and medium enterprises show a considerable propensity to learn by interacting and doing
- Vitality of actors outside the official discourse of innovation: capacity to undertake original paths,
better meeting their needs, often through cooperation
Weaknesses
- Regional decentralization has not been accompanied by effective subsidiarity mechanisms, and
this has created gaps of efficiency and effectiveness between regions;
- Persistence of a sensible gap between the public discourse and the actual behaviour of actors of
the knowledge systems; difficulty to translate it in coherent programmes and methodological
approaches
- Needs of local actors and the market not addressed correctly by the public research system, which
is self-referential and without real or systematic liaison with the needs of society and of production
world
- A system mainly centred upon farmers, not able to open to the new actors and the related needs;
at the same time, lack of recognition of farmers’ potential role in creating and sharing knowledge
- Large number of policy makers, both at national, regional and local level, with no effective
coordination between them; consequent overlapping of measures and initiatives in favour of
research and innovation
- Excessive number of support organisations, not well coordinated and managed: risk of confusion
among the end users, not rational use of resources, increasing bureaucratic burden
- Insufficient links and coordination between the main components of the system (research,
27
education, training, extension), governed by different policy networks, and consequent not
effective use of resources and difficulty in reaching synergies
- Unresolved problems of governance: problems of representativeness in the official decision
making processes, power inequalities, lack of integrated approach, ineffectiveness of bottom-up
approach (stakeholders consultation of limited impact on policy making, still dominated by the main
actors), essentially top-down information flow (with needs, priorities and possible solutions being
driven by governments), etc.
- Persistence of difficulties (cultural barriers) in public-private cooperation: public and private
research systems are in the most of the cases detached from one another
- Lack of evaluation culture to sustain the policy making process: lack of mechanisms for monitoring
the results and providing feedback
- Insufficient links and coordination with the other systems of knowledge and innovation creation,
connected to the other spheres involved around food production
Opportunities
- Increased awareness of the European Commission of the importance of innovation policies and
their link with agricultural policies (see SCAR activity)
- The rural development regulation under construction may better address the weaknesses of the
system
- Strong emphasis of the EU policy orientation towards production of public goods
- Re-formulation of innovation measures: the policy system tends to encourage the reformulation of
several financial schemes that should be designed with a more focused approach, favouring
thematic calls better responding to local needs, and defining medium-long term implementation
plans to avoid the partial effectiveness of short-term measures
- Signs of concerted actions between the State and the Regions
Threats
- Continuous decrease of resources allocated on the different public services of the three
components of AKS (in many cases, their functioning is ensured essentially by European funds)
- No long-term view on policy making: research and innovation policy intervention characterised by
strong fragmentation of instruments and measures, often conceived as short-term initiatives
- The perception of a crisis of the agricultural sector may bring policy makers to concentrate on
emergency measures rather than on building condition for future development
6.2. Innovation Systems Performance Matrix
Actors
….............
Rules
(system failures)
Public institutions
Research
institutes
Extension
services
(with public
funds)
Farmers’ Unions
Private
extension
services
New actors
other
organisations
Infrastructure
(knowledge)
(+) active policy
makers involved
(+) Regions’ autonomy
in policy and
programmes definition
and implementation
(+) well developed
agricultural research
institutes
(-) negative impact
of reduction of
public funds
(+) array of
public advisory
services
available
(-) negative
impact of
reduction of
public funds
(+) Farmers’
Unions are still
active
(-) progressive
reduction of
technical support
to farmers’
(-) negative impact
of reduction of
public funds
(+) broad array of
private advisory
services available
(-) exclusion
from decision
making process
Hard Institutions:
formal rules and
regulations
(-) difficulty of
interaction among
separate fields of
action
(-) constraints to
flexibility due to
regulations
(-) inadequacy of
current governance
mechanisms
(-) complex founding
mechanisms
(-) dependency of
research priorities
from public funding
(-) dependency
from public
funding
(-) dependency
from public funding
(-) separation
among the
activities of the
three Farmers’
Unions
(-) complex
founding
mechanisms
(-) difficulty of
access to public
funding
Soft Institutions:
Informal values,
norms and
symbols
(+) partial openness to
new approaches
towards farming
(-) distrust between
farmers’ and
(+) partial openness
to new approaches
towards farming
(-) difficult shift from
a linear perspective
(+) partial
openness to
new approaches
towards farming
(+) effort to
(+) partial
openness to new
approaches
towards farming
(-) difficulty to
(+) partial
openness to new
approaches
towards farming
(-) services
(+) openness to
new approaches
towards farming
(+) new
approach to
29
government
(-) persistence of the
linear prospective in
policy and funding
terminology
on innovation
creation and
diffusion towards
more inclusive and
interactive
processes
abandon the
linear
perspective on
innovation
creation and
diffusion
towards more
interactive
processes
abandon the linear
perspective on
innovation creation
and diffusion
towards more
interactive
processes
(-) lack of a
common strategy
in dealing with
innovation (three
separate
organizations)
offered in
dependency of
firms core
business.
innovation:
inclusive and
interactive
learning
processes
Interactions
(strong and weak
network)
(-) weak interaction
and coordination
within different sectors
of regional
administration
(-) policy priorities
defined only in
cooperation with
Farmers’ Unions and,
sometimes, with
research institutes
(-) difficulty to interact
with farmers and other
new actors
(+) interaction with
public government
in research priorities
definition
(-) persistent
difficulty to interact
with farmers and
other actors for
knowledge creation
(-) lack of
interaction among
the three Farmers’
Unions
(+) experiences
of interaction with
research
institutes and
public
administrations
(+) positive
attitude towards
interaction and
cooperation in
order to reach
common goals
Capabilities
(-) difficulty to
abandon traditional
approaches in
knowledge creation
(-) difficulty to
communicate on a
practical level
(-) no
experience with
interactive
learning method
(-) no experience
with interactive
learning method
(-) no experience
with interactive
learning method
(+) more
experience with
interactive
learning method
7. Conclusions: conditions present or absent for effective LINSA support
The main agricultural/ rural development trends in their national contexts and their
implications for LINSA
Agriculture and rural areas has been characterized by deep changes in the last decades, with regard
to the features of rural society, economy, use of resources, urban-rural relationships, farming and rural
development paradigms.
Rural Italy is strongly affected by a post-productivist trend. With the growth of peri-urban areas and the
development of narrow relations between town and countryside the diversity of actors populating the
countryside has increased, arising new demands (social services, housing, etc.) and new patterns of
social interaction. At the same time, the dominance of urban development creates new tensions in the
use of land, as the increasing urban sprawl and the consequent loss of agricultural land are clearly
showing.
Despite the widely acknowledgment of the sustainable rural development model, policy and market
pressures are driving in different direction (as in the case of the incentives for alternative energy
production). Also considering the traditional production function, the coexistence of two different
worlds of production is more and more evident. On one hand, Italy is characterized by a considerable
orientation towards high quality / low quantity business models, favoured by cultural (a long standing
tradition) and political-institutional frameworks (the availability of proper regulations and qualification
tools, public funding). On the other, conventional agriculture, mainly centred upon intensive production
patterns, still represents an important share of the Italian agriculture, which, by means of its links with
agro-industry, considerably condition the knowledge and innovation system.
In this context, the need for change coming from part of agriculture and society have given rise to new
paths of development, more strongly aimed at implementing alternative models of production and
consumption, according to principle of sustainability. The weaknesses or contradictions of the
mainstream model have in many cases become strengths, favouring the alignment of different actors
around shared goals and projects. These processes have first involved more conscious and proactive
farmers and citizen-consumers, but in many cases have soon seen the development of new relations
with public administrations and other organizations, as well as with other actors, such as advisors or
researchers, all looking for sustainable ways to run and promote territorial resources.
Trends in national AKS policies for agriculture, rural development and innovation and their
implications for LINSA
In Italy, the creation of the current formal AKS was strongly influenced over the 1980s and 1990s by
EEC policies, which promoted a regional experimentation of new procedures for the management of
the advisory services that could connect innovation and knowledge resources with local needs of
consulting services and training. Over the years, these systems widened their field of action to include
research and training (both for management and farmers) in addition to advisory.
About the goals of the actions realized through its components (research, education and extension),
during the last two decades they reflected the goals of policies for agriculture and rural development,
in narrow relation with the evolution of EU policies.
31
Over the 1990s, the Italian AKS thus developed on a regional basis, giving rise to systems in which
the public institutions (policy makers and technicians of the Regional Agencies for Agricultural
Development) interacted with Farmers’ Unions’ technical bodies, universities and research institutes
located in the regions. These systems usually followed a neo-corporative scheme and a linear and
sectoral approach to innovation.
At the end of the 1990s this concept of agricultural innovation system reached a crisis point and there
were first attempts to restructure it, by introducing competitive bids, entitling additional actors to make
part of the system, reducing progressively the range of tasks directly performed by the Regional
Agencies.
Despite some efforts of coordination, the Italian context still appears diversified. There are more
advanced systems, which over the last two decades were characterized by the gradual adoption of
new approaches, addressed to enhance the dynamism of the territorial contexts and of the related
institutional and social components. On the other hand, there are systems still based on old models
and where the role of public bodies and the narrow relationship between these and the most powerful
players dominate the scene.
More recently, new driving forces seem to contribute to a further re-organisation of the system. In the
last years, Italian and regional government policy, influenced by economic crisis, has led to a
substantial cut of resources assigned to knowledge system, that affected particularly the agricultural
sector. This determined the dismantling of some Regional Agencies and is leading to a progressively
weakening of AKS, with a radical decrease of regional activities, especially in the extension services.
Institutional determinants in the AKS that enable of constrain AKS in supporting effective
LINSA
The emergence of new knowledge networks, developing outside the conventional knowledge system
and able to promote more innovative paths, represents the search for and the experimentation of new
models of knowledge building, based on more coherent pursuing of public goals, and the adoption of
different approaches, with regards to object of innovation (not only technological and not only at
farming level) and methodological approaches (not linear and top-down transfer of knowledge, but
rather inclusive, interactive and democratic learning process)
Italian AKS show many weaknesses with regard to its capacity to support these innovation networks.
One of the most relevant aspects to be addressed is the lack of the strategic approach that would be
needed in order to nurture niches of innovation. In addition to broadening innovation time horizon, this
approach should also be founded on a shift from an individual-sectoral to a collective-territorial
approach, able to catch all the potentials existing at grassroots level.
Another aspect is related to the lack of integration between components of the system. This is
apparent in the approach adopted by the research, which appears still not able to effectively interact
with knowledge users in order to define goals and priorities, as well as to communicate on the results
of its activities. This lack of effective communication also involve the advisory system, that so cannot
give a significant contribute to make knowledge circulate. The positive role of interface between the
different components of the regional system (regional government, research institutes, farmers and
their organizations, food artisan, consultants, NGOs, local administrations) played by some public
regional agencies shows the importance of appropriated institutional arrangements.
32
The difficulty to adopt an integrated approach is even more evident in the relation between AKS and
the other systems of knowledge and innovation creation, related to the other spheres involved around
food production.
All these aspects are particularly meaningful in the perspective of a transition to an AIS.
The weak capacity to enhance interaction among actors/networks/fields of activity/policies, as an
essential condition in the path towards sustainability, shows how important is the presence of
adequate governance mechanisms and tools of coordination. The inadequacy of governance
mechanisms does not foster the emergence of all the needs of knowledge and innovation as well as of
innovative potentials, especially from those actors/networks not well represented or whose role is still
not formally recognized in decision-making processes (such as many farmers, consumers’ groups,
food movements and other civil society organizations). The difficulty to realize an effective interaction
on specific claims, added to the difficulty to be open to experimentation through innovative institutional
arrangements and focus on local specificities, also hampers the adoption of a territorial approach and
then the definition of integrated strategies addressed to support and promote local initiatives or
specific projects. The successful experiences built on the capacity by public institutions and
administrations and research institutes to open to interaction and experimentation, on the basis of co-
defined projects, testify the potential of this different approach.
Specific demands on AKS emerging in the national contexts (knowledge needs) and its
relation to LINSA
In front of the recent dynamics that characterized agriculture, but also in front of the new role that rural
world is assuming in the relation with urban areas, the current AKS appears quite inadequate.
Despite of its evolution over the last decades and the presence of more advanced situations (within
the heterogeneity of Italian AKS due to its institutional configuration), it still seems not fully able to
support the necessary transition process to give answer to the new and integrated claims coming from
society: food quality, environmental preservation, social justice, food security, animal well-being, etc..
Meeting these needs entails deep changes on technical, organizational and cultural level, that interest
farming but also the broader systems of rules and artefacts in which farms operate. At the same time,
this put the need to take into account the necessary integration of food production-consumption with
other spheres of life/activity (land use and territorial planning, health, food culture, biodiversity
conservation, access to food, care and recreational services, etc.) and the related interactions that
have to develop to that end. The knowledge building processes that are necessary to face these
challenges clearly involve a multiplicity of actors in addition to farmers.
Within this context, LINSA are representing important bottom-up drivers of transition: they put
pressure on institutional and normative frames and on policy system, of which they highlight
deficiencies and contradictions, and challenge the cultural and social patterns, fostering the adhesion
to new principles and priorities. Showing alternative paths, based on radical changes on techniques,
norms, organizational patterns, cultural models, and putting new demands to institutions and policy
authorities (different services, regulations, advisory, integrated approaches in problems solving, etc.)
they stimulate AKS to change.
Characteristics, incidence and main fields of action of LINSA in the national context
33
In Italy there are different experiences in which local actors co-operate in defining and realizing
common projects founded on principles of sustainability and that we can consider as LINSA. They
have emerged and are emerging as new informal organizational arrangements outside the existing
system settings, involving different actors and organisations – most of which are outside the traditional
formal AKS – in new, spontaneous processes of knowledge and innovation co-creation
Consumer oriented networks is the group that shows the greatest vitality in Italy. It includes the
various collective initiatives of direct relationship between producers and consumers and also the local
food networks that link together producers and other local actors in the promotion of local food.
Non-food networks include the joint initiatives around not food products (bio-energy plants, various
artisanal products derived from plants) and providing services for agro-tourist promotion of rural
resources. Also this kind of initiatives, especially the latter, are well represented in Italy.
Purely agricultural networks or networks for sustainable land use include initiatives that see farmers
actively and collectively involved in programmes of natural resources conservation, in many cases in
co-operation with local authorities or research institutes. These experiences are among the most
interesting in terms of knowledge co-creation.
In many of these cases it is not possible to fully separate these initiatives, as often the networks start
to interact, in order to get synergies and economies of scope, or adhere to broader strategies of
valorisation of territorial resources.
These innovation networks have not at the moment a particularly significant economic dimension, but,
as said above, they appear important drivers of transition. Outside the rigidity of the system, these
new “informal” spaces of learning and innovation show an increasing ability to promote exchange of
knowledge between farmers and other actors and organizations, establish new forms of interaction
with institutions, sustain cooperation and collective action and planning, favour interactions between
producer and consumers, influence attitudes and behaviors towards more sustainable patterns, and
finally lobbying on policy making.
Final remarks and recommendations
From the analysis above illustrated it emerges that:
Old structural weaknesses of the Italian AKS have turned in the last years in a crisis caused mainly
by budged cuts;
This crisis preludes to a transition, which will bring to a) further privatization, b) reduction of the
number of relevant actors; c) reduction of the range of activities;
The state of governance of the system and the rigidity of the administrations don’t allow any
optimism over the capacity of the national and regional governments to manage the transition.
In the last years, a growing number of LINSA have developed, initially outside the official AKS and,
after a while, imitated or incorporated into the most advances parts of official AKS. In our view
there is a big potential for LINSA to develop, but the necessary conditions to give them effective
support, funding and governance, are at the moment lacking.
There are, in our view, resources available in the Rural development policy that could be employed
to support LINSA. But in absence of clear policy indications and clear procedures from the EU, is is
unlikely that the system will be able to meet the new challenges of European Agriculture. The
system will be pushed to respond to urgent needs rather than to define and implement long-term
strategies and initiate experimental initiatives.
34
European Union should intervene in this field through the following measures: a) identify criteria for
selecting organizations and professionals able to operate within knowledge systems; b) designing
support measures tailored on networking for innovation addressed to clear sustainability objectives
and making them compulsory; c) strenghtening monitoring and evaluation; d) appealing to the
principle of subsidiarity when national or regional administration don’t perform well in these
aspects.
8. References
Aguglia L, Vagnozzi A. (2005) “ The Sistem of the italian rural development services and the new
European policies” in Proceedings of the 17th European seminar on extension education, ESEE2005,
Izmir Turkiye, META.
Ascione E., Vagnozzi A. (2010) The experience of a monitoring and evaluation activity for Italian Farm
Advisory System., Workshop “Farm Advisory System implementation in the European Union:
experiences and prospects”, Barcelona 10-11 June 2010.
Ascione E., Vagnozzi A. (2011) Some reform proposals of Italian Regions improving efficiency and
effectiveness of Farm Advisory System., Workshop “Farm Advisory System in the European Union:
proposals for improvement”, Warsaw, 8-9 February 2011.
Brunori G., Di Iacovo F., Marescotti A., Pieroni P., Rossi A. (2003) “State of the art in Italy”, TRUC
project (Transforming Rural Communication) – WP3, fifth framework programme, Quality of life and
management of living resources, Dipartimento di Agronomia e Gestione dell’Agroecosistema,
University of Pisa.
Di Paolo I., Giarè F., Ascione E., Schiralli M., Volpi R. (2010) Il sistema della conoscenza in
agricoltura, Annuario dell’agricoltura italiana - INEA, vol. LXIII, 2009, ESI, Napoli.
Esposti R., Materia V.C., Sotte F. (2010) “Far lavorare la scienza per il territorio. Le Regioni come
agenzie di ricerca agricola” , Franco Angeli, Milano.
Esposti, R. (2010) “Ruolo della ricerca per la competitività e sostenibilità del sistema agroalimentare” ,
presentation at the conference “Innovazione, informazione e filiera della conoscenza: le condizioni
necessarie per la crescita dell’impresa e lo sviluppo del sistema”, Padova.
European Commission (2010) Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the
Council on the application of the Farm Advisory System as defined in Article 12 and 13 of Council
Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - COM(2010) 665.
European Trend Chart on Innovation, Annual Innovation Policy Trends and Appraisal Report – Italy
2006, http://trendchart.cordis.lu/tc_country_pages.cfm
Garforth C., Angell B., Archer J., and Green K. (2003), “Improving farmers’ access to advice on land
management: Lessons from case studies in developed countries”. Agricultural Research and
Extension Network Paper No. 125. London: Overseas Development Institute.
ISMEA (2007) “La competitività dell’agroalimentare italiano. Check-up 2007”. Rome, June, 2007
[online] URL: http://www.ismea.it
Kidd A., Lamers J., Ficarelli P., Hoffmann V. (2000), “Privatising agricultural extension: caveat
emptor”. Journal of Rural Studies Vol. 16, pp. 95–102.
Materia V. C. (2010) “La ricerca agroalimentare secondo le prospettive del programma nazionale della
Ricerca 2010-2012”, National Research Programme”, ARE – Agriregionieuropa n. 20, year 6, March
2010, pages 75-79.
35
Materia, V.C., Esposti, R. (2009) “How do public institutions select competitive agricultural R&D
projects? The case of an Italian Region”, in Proceedings of the 113 rd EAAE Seminar, The role of
knowledge, innovation and human capital in multifunctional agriculture and territorial rural
development, December 9-11, Belgrade, 2009.
MIPAAF (2010) “D1.3 Country report, Overview on the research system and research programmes on
Mediterranean agriculture”.
Pahl-Wostl C. (2006), “The importance of social learning in restoring the multifunctionality of rivers and
floodplains”. Ecology and Society 11(1): 10. [online] URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art10/
Paparoni S., Vagnozzi A. (2000) “Il sistema della conoscenza in agricoltura”, I Quaderni del POM,
INEA, Roma, 2000.
Pilati L. and Boatti V. (2006) “Il ruolo della conoscenza in agricoltura”. Franco Angeli, Milano.
Rivera W.M. and Zijp W. (2002) “Contracting for agricultural extension. International case studies and
emerging practices”. Washington D.C.: CABI Publishing.
Roling N. (1995) “What to think of extension? A comparison of three models of extension practice”.
AERDD Bulletin. Reading, UK: University of Reading.
Rossi G. and Russu R. (2006) “Il sistema dei servizi di sviluppo agricolo nel nuovo scenario della
consulenza aziendale”. Working paper, ARSIA, Firenze.
Sabyasachi R. (2003) “Livestock extension services by milk producers cooperatives: Indian
experience”. Paper prepared for AgREN electronic discussion on privatised extension.
Swanson B., Samy M. and O’Rourke P. (2002) “USA Illinois: Contracting for precision agricultural
services”, in W.M. Rivera and W. Zijp (2002) “Contracting for agricultural extension. International case
studies and emerging practices”. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.
Vagnozzi A, Di Paolo I, Ascione E. (2006) “La ricerca agro-alimentare promossa dalle Regioni italiane
nel contesto nazionale ed europeo. Quali peculiarità nei contenuti e nella gestione” in Rivista di
Economia Agraria, n. 4, ESI, Napoli.
Vagnozzi A. (2003) “I servizi di sviluppo agricolo in Italia: problematiche aperte” in Rivista di Economia
Agraria, n. 3, Edizioni scientifiche italiane, Napoli.
Vagnozzi A. (2009) “Italian agricultural extension system: old issues and new ideas” in Proceedings of
the 19th European seminar on extension education, ESEE2009, Assisi, Perugia, September 15- 19,
2009.
Vagnozzi A. and Paparoni S. (2001) “Il sistema della conoscenza in agricoltura, LG. – Roma, INEA.
Vagnozzi A. et al. (2007) “I percorsi della ricerca scientifica e la diffusione delle innovazioni. Il caso
dell’agricoltura piemontese”, INEA, collana Analisi regionali, Roma.
Vagnozzi A., Caldarini C., Paparoni S. (1999) “A proposito di servizi … e di sviluppo”. LG. – Roma,
INEA.
9. Appendix: summary of interviews
The following table provides a summary of interviews held, according to the main questions asked and the answers provided by
different interviewees.
Actors
…...............
Questions
Tuscany Region
Administration and
Regional Agency
for Agriculture
Development and
Innovation
Research
institutes
Farmers’
Unions
Farmers’ product
associations
Organizations
doing research and
providing advisory
services (receiving
public funds)
Organizations
providing advisory
services (receiving
public funds)
Private agro-
industry firms
New actors that have
organized new
networks around
knowledge co–
production
How do you
define your
research
priorities?
… according to
policy direction and
public funding
… on the basis of
importance
attributed to
specific issues, but
also according to
the policy direction
and public funding
… according to
policy directions
and public
funding
… on the basis of
importance
attributed to specific
issues, but also
according to the
policy direction
… according to
policy directions and
public funding
… according to
policy directions and
public funding
… on the basis of the
needs emerging from
farmers and citizens-
consumers, or
however on the basis
of the importance
recognized by all
What are your
strategic
choices in
R&D?
R&D strategies are
connected with the
association’s
institutional role
(commercialisation,
promotion, sector
agreements, etc)
R&D priorities are
defined according to
policy direction
R&D priorities are
defined according to
the company core
business
Respect of
research
priorities, how
do you
operate?
According to
research priorities,
the Agency
organized
consultation tables
in order to define
specific calls for
research
Each sector works
in its own
autonomy
according to
general strategic
objectives related
to the agro-food
context
R&D priorities are
realized through
agreements with
public and private
institutes
Were there
changes in
funding? What
consequences
did they bring
The Agency
operated only with
public funds….
Research activity
is in dependency
of public funding.
Its progressive
reduction could
Services
provided to
farmers are
realized mainly
with public
There’s a difficulty of
access to public
funding.
Activities are
realized with internal
Services offered to
farmer are realized
with public funds…
Services offered to
farmer are realize
with public funds…
There’s a difficulty of
access to public
funding. Activities
are realized with
internal resources
Difficulty of access to
public funding
37
in your
organization
and activities?
have a negative
impact
funds…. resources
Do you reach
synergies with
other actors
involved in the
AKS?
Major synergies are
reached with
Farmers’ Unions at
consultation tables
Major synergies
are reached within
regional
government and
Farmers’ Unions
Major synergies
are reached
within regional
government and
local
administrations
(for some local
project)
Difficulty to reach
synergies with other
actors, especially
with Universities
Major synergies are
reached within
regional government
and Farmers’ Unions
Major synergies are
reached within
regional government
and Farmers’ Unions
Difficulty to reach
synergies, especially
with universities and
Farmers’ Unions.
Sporadic linkage
with public research
institutes
Difficulty to reach
synergy with
Universities and
Farmers’ Unions (with
the latter there are no
many shared goals)
How do you
receive the
knowledge
demand from
farmers’?
Farmers could
express their needs
for knowledge
towards Farmers’
Unions. Lack of
direct linkage
between Institutions
and farmers
Generally, farmers
are receptors of
research results
and innovations,
don’t have a
proactive role
Farmers’ Unions
are the main
context in which
farmers can
express their
needs. But it
happens rarely.
Generally, farmers
are receptors of
innovations, don’t
have a proactive role
Difficulty in receiving
farmers’ needs for
training, because
their activities are in
dependency of the
objectives specified
in public calls.
Difficulty in receiving
farmers’ needs for
training, because
their activities are in
dependency of the
objective specified in
public calls.
Generally, farmers
are receptors of
research results and
innovations, don’t
have a proactive role
Farmers’ knowledge
demand is received
through direct
interaction and
through an exchange
of knowledge among
farmers operating in
different
contexts/countries
Are farmers
able to express
their needs and
obtain the right
kind of
services?
Farmers often
don’t have capacity
to identify and
express their
needs
Farmers
sometimes
express their
needs in term of
technical
services.
Difficulty to
satisfy their
requests
Farmers sometimes
express their needs
in term of technical
services. The
associations offer
technical support
related to the
“product” at the
basis of the
associations
themselves (i.e.
cereals)
Farmers sometimes
express their needs
in term of technical
services . Difficulty
to satisfy their
requests
Farmers sometimes
express their needs
in term of technical
services . Difficulty
to satisfy their
requests
Farmers sometimes
express their needs
in term of technical
services .
Farmers sometimes
express their needs in
term of technical
services . But they
can learn to identify
their other needs