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