AGRILINK - Agricultural Knowledge: Linking farmers, advisors and researchers to boost innovation (2 of 2)

Geographical location	France
Main geographical location (NUTS3)	Paris
Keywords	Agricultural production system Farming practice Farming equipment and machinery Pest / disease control Soil management / functionality Supply chain, marketing and consumption Biodiversity and nature management
Main funding source	Horizon 2020 (EU Research & Innovation programme)
Project Identification	Multi-actor project
Project type	Research project
Starting date	2017
End date	2021
Project status	Ongoing
Website	http://www.agrilink2020.eu/

Title (in English):

Objective of the project (native language):

See objectives in English

Objective of the project (in English):

AgriLink aims to stimulate sustainability transitions in European agriculture through better understanding the roles played by farm advice in farmer decision-making. The project will also interactively engage end-users to enhance the contribution of advice to learning and innovation. To this end, AgriLink will analyse and improve the role of farmer advice in 8 innovation areas that combine challenges identified in the “Strategic Approach to EU Agricultural Research & Innovation”. AgriLink builds on the premise that the full range of advice-providing organisations need to be included in the assessment of service provision and innovation adoption.

Project coordinator

Contact person:

INRAE

Address:

INRA UMR AGIR 1248, BP52627, 31326 Castanet-Tolosan Cedex, France

E-mail:

pierre.labarthe@inrae.fr

Phone:

33(5)61285264, mobile 33(0)663831451

Project partners

Contact person:

INRAE

Address:

INRA UMR AGIR 1248, BP52627, 31326 Castanet-Tolosan Cedex, France

E-mail:

pierre.labarthe@inrae.fr

Phone:

33(5)61285264, mobile 33(0)663831451

Contact person:

Agricultural Advisory Centre in Brwinow (AACB)

Address:

Poland

E-mail:

m.sekowski@cdr.gov.pl

Phone:

+48 483656943

Partner category:

Adviser

Contact person:

Agricultural University of Athens (AUA)

Address:

Greece

E-mail:

koutsouris@aua.gr

Phone:

+30 2105294721

Partner category:

Researcher

Contact person:

Innovatiesteunpunt (ISP)

Address:

Belgium

E-mail:

melanie.van.raaij@innovatiesteunpunt.be

Phone:

+32 16286040

Partner category:

Representative of an NGO

Contact person:

Ekotoxa (EKOT)

Address:

Czech Republic

E-mail:

jaroslav.prazan@ekotoxa.cz

Phone:

+420 724118470

Partner category:

SME

Contact person:

Highclere Consulting SRL (HCC)

Address:

Romania

E-mail:

mark@highclere-consulting.com

Phone:

+40 743030198

Partner category:

SME

Contact person:

INRAE Transfert SAS (IT)

Address:

France

E-mail:

luke.lauprete@inra.fr

Phone:

+33 176216204

Partner category:

Other

Contact person:

Instituto Navarro de Tecnologías e Infraestructuras Agroalimentarias SA (INTIA)

Address:

Spain

E-mail:

dmaiz@intiasa.es

Phone:

+34 948013040

Partner category:

Adviser

Contact person:

Baltic Studies Centre (BSC)

Address:

Latvia

E-mail:

talis.tisenkopfs@lu.lv

Phone:

+371 29417173

Partner category:

Researcher

Contact person:

Open University (OU)

Address:

United Kingdom

E-mail:

chris.blackmore@open.ac.uk

Phone:

+44 1908563585

Partner category:

Other

Contact person:

Wageningen University & Research (WUR)

Address:

Netherlands

E-mail:

herman.schoorlemmer@wur.nl

Phone:

+31 320291337

Partner category:

Researcher

Contact person:

Institute for Rural and Regional Research (RURALIS)

Address:

Norway

E-mail:

egil.petter.strate@ruralis.no

Phone:

+47 41638118

Partner category:

Researcher

Contact person:

The James Hutton Institute (HUTT)

Address:

United Kingdom

E-mail:

lee-ann.sutherland@hutton.ac.uk

Phone:

+44 1224395285

Partner category:

Researcher

Contact person:

Universidade de Tras-os-Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD)

Address:

Portugal

E-mail:

lmadurei@utad.pt

Phone:

+351 259359571

Partner category:

Researcher

Contact person:

Ustav Zemedelske Ekonomiky a Informaci (UZEI)

Address:

Czech Republic

E-mail:

konecna.marta@uzei.cz

Phone:

+420 606644439

Partner category:

Researcher

Contact person:

Vinidea SRL (VIN)

Address:

Italy

E-mail:

cristina.micheloni@gmail.com

Phone:

+39 0523876423

Partner category:

SME

Practice summary

Practice abstract 1

Short title (in English):

Implementation of the EU Farm Advisory System in Poland

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

EU Farm Advisory System (FAS) in Poland is widely understood as an agricultural advisory system operating for years in the form of regional agricultural advisory units providing advisory services in accordance with general EU requirements.
This is due to the fact that the farm advisory system in Poland has already carried out many activities, including those formulated in the EU-FAS objectives and tasks. More about EU-FAS implementation in Poland: https://www.agrilink2020.eu/countries/poland/
The EU-FAS is implemented on a regional level. The system is coordinated at the national level by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. The second phase of the FAS implementation includes agricultural advisory services resulting from EU legislation, both mandatory (cross-compliance, practices beneficial for the climate and the environment, farm modernisation, water directive, pesticide directive) and voluntary (diversification of economic activities and information related to climate changes, biodiversity, water). These horizontal services are implemented at the level of all regions. They are available for all farmers all over the country eligible for support from the CAP.
So far, EU-FAS regulation has had limited but significant results, for example, a stronger emphasis on the need to disseminate innovation and closer cooperation with science. The main barriers to the development of agricultural advisory services in Poland are: insufficient employment in regional advisory units, low level of expenditure from the state budget and low wages, ageing of human resources, and still too weak links with the R&D sector.

Short title (native language):

Wdrażanie Systemu Doradztwa Rolniczego (UE-FAS) w Polsce

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

System Doradztwa Rolniczego (EU-FAS) w Polsce jest szeroko rozumiany jako system doradztwa rolniczego działający od lat w postaci regionalnych jednostek doradztwa rolniczego świadczących usługi doradcze zgodnie z ogólnymi wymogami UE.
Wynika to z faktu, że system doradztwa rolniczego w Polsce przeprowadził już wiele działań, w tym sformułowanych w celach i zadaniach EU-FAS. Więcej o wdrażaniu EU-FAS w Polsce: https://www.agrilink2020.eu/countries/poland/
EU-FAS wdraża się na poziomie regionalnym. System jest koordynowany na szczeblu krajowym przez Ministerstwo Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi. Drugi etap wdrażania FAS obejmuje doradztwo rolnicze wynikające z prawodawstwa UE, zarówno obowiązkowe (wymogi wzajmenej zgodności, praktyki korzystne dla klimatu i środowiska, modrnizacja gospodarstw, dyrektywa wodna, dyrektywa pestycydowa), jak i dobrowolne (dywersyfikacja działalności gospodarczej i informacyjna, związane ze zmianami klimatycznymi, bioróżnorodnością, wodą). Te usługi horyzontalne są wdrażane na poziomie wszystkich regionów. Są dostępne dla wszystkich rolników w całym kraju kwalifikujących się do wsparcia w ramach WPR.
Jak dotąd wdrażanie UE-FAS przyniosło ograniczone, ale znaczące wyniki, na przykład większy nacisk na potrzebę rozpowszechniania innowacji i ściślejszej współpracy z nauką. Głównymi barierami rozwoju doradztwa rolniczego w Polsce są: niewystarczające zatrudnienie w regionalnych jednostkach doradczych, niski poziom wydatków z budżetu państwa i niskie płace, starzenie się zasobów ludzkich oraz wciąż zbyt słabe powiązania z sektorem B + R.

Practice abstract 2

Short title (in English):

Implementation of the EU Farm Advisory System in Bulgaria

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

In Bulgaria, advisory services are mainly provided by the National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAAS), which is a public body, along with some private advisory service providers.
The EU-FAS in Bulgaria is widely understood as an agricultural advisory system mainly carried out by NAAS and their regional agricultural advisory offices, following the general EU guidelines. At the regional level, the EU-FAS is represented by 27 regional agricultural advisory offices. The system is certificated, coordinated and controlled by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. The regional advisory offices offer horizontal services to all farmers.
The EU-FAS in Bulgaria guaranties that farmers have access to advisory services and receive information and support based on their specific needs. These services include the compliance with the statutory management requirements and the standards for good agricultural and environmental conditions and agricultural practices for the climate and the environment and maintenance of the agricultural land.
For over a decade, there have been no significant changes in the farm advisory system in Bulgaria. The key component for achieving high-quality outcomes is the well-developed cooperation between NAAS (the main implementing institution) and research institutes and also between NAAS and the Ministry of Agriculture along with the regional authorities. The main drawback in relation to the implementation of EU-FAS is that cooperation among public advisory service and private extension companies has not been achieved, a fact that should be taken into consideration while designing the future development of EU-FAS in Bulgaria.

Short title (native language):

Прилагането на Фермерската системата за консултации на България към Европейския Съюз

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

Консултантските услуги в земеделието за България се предлагат основно от Националната служба за съвети в земеделието (НССЗ), която е публична организация, и от частните консултантски организации.
Фермерската системата за консултации към Европейския Съюз (ФСК-ЕС) в България се разбира, като система за консултации в земеделието, осъществявана главно от НССЗ и техните регионални служби, които следват общите насоки на ЕС. На регионално ниво ФСК-ЕС е представена от 27 регионални земеделски консултантски служби. Системата е сертифицирана, координирана и контролирана от Министерството на земеделието, храните и горите (МЗХГ). Регионалните земеделски консултантски служби предлагат хоризонтални услуги на всички земеделски производители.
ФСК-ЕС в България гарантира, че земеделските производители имат достъп до тези консултантски услуги и получават според техните специфични нужди правилната информация и подкрепа. Тези услуги включват спазване на законовите изисквания и стандарти за добри земеделски и екологични практики, както и практики свързани с опазване на климата и околната среда и поддържането на земеделската земя в добро състояние.
Повече от десетилетие няма значителни промени на ФСК в България. Ключовият компонент за постигане на високи резултати свързани с консултантската дейност в земеделието е добре развитото сътрудничество между НССЗ, а също така и между НССЗ и МЗХГ, заедно с техните областни структури. Основният недостатък във връзка с прилагането на ФСК-ЕС е, че не е постигнато добро сътрудничество и координация на дейностите между консултантски услуги предлагани от НССЗ и от частни консултантски фирми. Този факт трябва да се има предвид при проектирането на бъдещото развитие на ФСК-ЕС в България.

Practice abstract 3

Short title (in English):

Implementation of the EU-Farm Advisory System in Hungary

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

The implementation of the Farm Advisory System in Hungary is the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development by providing government-subsidised consultancy services.
The main structure of the subsidised advisory system is the following: only farmers registered at the Rural Paying Agency may apply for subsidy, if they have reached a certain minimum economic size. Farmers need to make advisory contract with a Technical Advisory Centre. In Hungary, they are called "Territorial” Advisory Centres (TACs) in spite of the fact that they may work nationwide. Private advisors are free to join TACs they prefer as long as they are registered with and licensed by the Ministry of Agriculture.
In Hungary, the Agricultural Advisory System and in particular the supported consultancy has worked since 2007. The development of the system was because of the financing of consultancy from EU sources.
Advice and consultancy in Hungary are currently offered via a very fragmented system. There are four main types of actors/institutions:
1. free advisory services at the national level, funded by the EU and domestic resources;
2. the Hungarian application of the Farm Advisory System;
3. commercial consultancy;
4. free consultancy by input providers.
The implementation of FAS in Hungary could be more successful if there were any simplifications in the context of financial settlement of advisory services. Furthermore, FAS advisors should be included in the national campaigns more, as their involvement would benefit both farmers and FAS network stakeholders.

Short title (native language):

Az EU-Farm Tanácsadó Rendszer bevezetése Magyarországon

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

A mezőgazdasági tanácsadó rendszer magyarországi megvalósításáért a Földművelésügyi és Vidékfejlesztési Minisztérium felel, állami támogatású tanácsadási szolgáltatások nyújtásával.
A támogatott tanácsadó rendszer fő felépítése a következő: csak a Vidéki Kifizető Ügynökségnél bejegyzett gazdálkodók pályázhatnak támogatásra, ha elérik egy bizonyos minimális gazdasági méretet. A gazdáknak tanácsadói szerződést kell kötniük egy műszaki tanácsadó központtal. Magyarországon "területi" tanácsadó központoknak (TAC) nevezik őket, annak ellenére, hogy országosan dolgozhatnak. A magán tanácsadók szabadon csatlakozhatnak, és az általuk előnyben részesített TAC-ok mindaddig, amíg be vannak jegyezve a Földművelésügyi Minisztériumba és engedélyezik őket.
Magyarországon a Mezőgazdasági Tanácsadó Rendszer és különösen a támogatott tanácsadás 2007 óta működik. A rendszer fejlesztése a tanácsadás uniós forrásokból történő finanszírozásának köszönhető.
A tanácsadást és tanácsadást Magyarországon jelenleg nagyon széttagolt rendszeren keresztül kínálják. A szereplőknek / intézményeknek négy fő típusa van:
1. ingyenes tanácsadási szolgáltatások nemzeti szinten, amelyeket az EU és a hazai források finanszíroznak;
2. a mezőgazdasági tanácsadó rendszer magyarországi alkalmazása;
3. kereskedelmi tanácsadás;
4. ingyenes tanácsadás az input szolgáltatók részéről.
A FAS magyarországi bevezetése sikeresebb lehet, ha a tanácsadási szolgáltatások pénzügyi elszámolásával kapcsolatban egyszerűsítések történnének. Ezenkívül a FAS tanácsadókat jobban be kellene vonni a nemzeti kampányokba, mivel részvételük mind a gazdálkodók, mind a FAS hálózat érdekelt felei számára előnyös lenne.

Practice abstract 4

Short title (in English):

Ensuring the quality of EU-FAS advisors through a public procurement in Flanders

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

The Flemish Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has the overall responsibility for the implementation of the “Farm Advisory System”. In the programming period 2016-2020, the name of the implemented measure was "KRATOS" (https://lv.vlaanderen.be/nl/subsidies/bedrijfssubsidies/kratos). It is a completely free advisory system on 13 different advisory topics for farmers. The invoice for services goes directly to the government that makes the payment to the individual accredited advisors. So the control by the government is quite straight forward. The system is also very accessible to the end user by using a "known" online login system, a non-digital alternative is not available The main difference between the EU-FAS implementation from the previous programming period 2017-2013 and KRATOS is working with a public tender. The public procurement rules also apply to the selection of advisors. To guarantee quality advice, the business advisory services must work with business advisors who meet certain competence requirements, as specified in the selection and award criteria. The criteria for business advisors relate, among other things, to diplomas, relevant experience in advising in the agricultural sector and refresh courses. On the other hand, there are no requirements of certification or training. The selection of an advisory service must ensure that a proper audit can take place and relates to administrative requirements and the presence of certain competencies such as qualified advisors. The full document about the selection of advisors within the advisory service and the requirements of the advice given, is available online: https://ted.europa.eu/TED/notice/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:269526-2019:TEXT:NL:...

Short title (native language):

Kwaliteitsborging van het EU-FAS adviessysteem in Vlaanderen via het organiseren van een openbare aanbesteding

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

Het Vlaams Departement Landbouw en Plattelandsontwikkeling heeft de algemene verantwoordelijkheid voor de uitvoering van het "Farm Advisory System". In de programmeringsperiode 2016-2020 was de naam van dit adviessysteem "KRATOS" (https://lv.vlaanderen.be/nl/subsidies/bedrijfssubsidies/kratos). Het is volledig gratis en betreft 13 verschillende adviesonderwerpen voor landbouwers. De factuur voor de diensten gaat rechtstreeks naar de overheid die de individuele geaccrediteerde adviseurs betaalt. De controle door de overheid is daarom eenvoudig. Het systeem is ook zeer toegankelijk voor de eindgebruiker via het online inlogsysteem: E-Loket; een niet-digitaal alternatief is niet beschikbaar. Het belangrijkste verschil tussen de EU-FAS implementatie uit periode 2017- 2013 en KRATOS is het werken met een openbare aanbesteding. De regels voor overheidsopdrachten gelden ook voor de selectie van adviseurs. Om de kwaliteit van het advies te garanderen, moeten de bedrijfsadviesdiensten werken met bedrijfsadviseurs die aan bepaalde bekwaamheidseisen voldoen, zoals gespecificeerd in de selectie- en gunningscriteria. De criteria hebben onder meer betrekking op diploma's, relevante ervaring met advisering in de landbouwsector en opfriscursussen. Aan de andere kant zijn er geen eisen inzake certificering of opleiding. De selectie van een adviesdienst moet ervoor zorgen dat een goede controle kan plaatsvinden en heeft betrekking op administratieve eisen en de aanwezigheid van bepaalde competenties. Hierbij de link naar het volledige document over de selectie van adviseurs en de eisen die aan het gegeven advies worden gesteld: https://ted.europa.eu/TED/notice/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:269526-2019:TEXT:NL:...

Practice abstract 5

Short title (in English):

Building a Knowledge Transfer Network for Good Agricultural Practice in Romania

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

Romania adopted the ‘whole territory’ approach to implementation of the EU Nitrates Directive in 2013. This meant that all farmers applying for Pillar 1 and/or 2 CAP payments / grant support needed to comply with verifiable standards of cross-compliance for reducing the risk of nitrate losses from their land management and the storage / use of mineral fertilisers and manures.
This created a huge challenge for the thousands of small-scale farms that were eligible for CAP support but did not have the knowledge and expertise to implement the cross-compliance rules. In the absence of an accessible EU-FAS for small farmers, the World Bank-funded Integrated Nutrient Pollution Control Project (INPCP) established three regional ‘Knowledge Transfer Networks’ (KTN) covering the broad range of farms and socio-economic conditions that are characteristic of Romania.
Each KTN consists of a carefully selected network of (mainly) on-farm demonstration facilities where farmers, advisors, relevant inspectors and local and regional authorities can go to see, learn and discuss good agricultural practices for nutrient management. Each network is supported by a Help Desk, dedicated information and training materials, team of facilitators and an annual programme of Farmers Discussion Groups and farm visits.
In the first year of operation (2019) a total of 159 discussion groups with 3,100 participants were hosted and facilitated by the three KTNs. Discussions focussed upon “real farm stories” and were adjusted according to the differences that exist between sectors, farm size and region. The most common issue discussed / demonstrated was manure storage on small-scale farms - a major issue for Romania!

Short title (native language):

Construirea unei rețele de transfer de cunoștințe pentru bune practici agricole în România

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

România a adoptat o abordare la nivelul întregului teritoriu pentru punerea în aplicare a Directivei UE privind nitrații în 2013. Acest lucru a însemnat că toți fermierii care solicită sprijin PAC trebuie să respecte standardele verificabile de ecocondiționalitate pentru reducerea riscului de pierderi de nitrați din depozitarea / utilizarea îngrășămintelor minerale și a gunoiului de grajd.
Acest lucru a devenit o provocare uriașă pentru miile de ferme la scară mică care erau eligibile pentru sprijinul PAC, dar nu aveau cunoștințele și expertiza pentru a pune în aplicare regulile de ecocondiționalitate. În absența unui FAS-UE accesibil pentru micii fermieri, Proiectul integrat de control al poluării cu nutrienți (INPCP) finanțat de Banca Mondială a stabilit trei rețele regionale de transfer de cunoștințe (RTC) care acoperă o gama largă de ferme și condiții socio-economice care sunt caracteristice României.
Fiecare RTC constă într-o rețea de ferme demonstrative, unde fermierii, consilierii, inspectorii relevanți și autoritățile locale și regionale pot merge să vadă, să învețe și să discute despre bunele practici agricole pentru gestionarea nutrienților. Fiecare rețea este susținută de un birou de asistență, materiale de instruire, o echipă de facilitatori și un program anual de grupuri de discuții pentru fermieri și vizite la fermă.
În primul an (2019) au fost găzduite și facilitate de cele trei RTC-uri un total de 159 de grupuri de discuții cu 3.100 de participanți. Discuțiile s-au axat pe „povești reale ale fermei” și au fost ajustate în funcție de diferențele care există între sectoare, dimensiunea fermei și regiune. Cea mai comună problemă discutată / demonstrată a fost depozitarea gunoiului de grajd la fermele mici.

Practice abstract 6

Short title (in English):

Mapping national policies impacting the farm advisory regime in Greece

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

The accession of Greece in the EEC/EU in 1981 triggered the bureaucratisation of a centralised but sufficiently operational public extension service, making room for farm input suppliers to almost monopolise the provision of advice. Τhe decentralisation Acts in 1990s resulted in the abolishment of advice provision by public services. Since then, calls for reorganisation did not improve the advisory landscape, which is characterised by pluralism, weak linkages and lack of coordination among AKIS actors.
Currently the key objectives of the relevant national policies focus on:
• the country’s alignment with European policies, aiming at the establishment of an integrated system to support and monitor the provision of advice;
• the use of advisory services in order to improve financial and environmental sustainability at farm level;
• advisors’ training in order to ensure advisors’ ability to provide farmers with impartial and valid advice.
The National Rural Development Plan is the main tool to reach these objectives and transform the advisory landscape. However, the transformation process remains uncertain because of:
• the prolonged waiting period before starting the implementation of important policy measures, such as OGs/EIP Agri and FAS;
• a crisis in identities with regard to the accession of new professions in advice provision but, mainly, the need for a new understanding of the responsibilities and the multidimensional roles that traditional actors (farmers, advisors, authorities and policy makers) have to take on for sustainability.
More at https://www.agrilink2020.eu.

Short title (native language):

Χαρτογραφώντας τις εθνικές πολιτικές που καθορίζουν το καθεστώς των γεωργικών συμβουλών στην Ελλάδα

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

Η είσοδος της Ελλάδας στην ΕΕ/ΕΟΚ το 1981 διόγκωσε την γραφειοκρατία στο συγκεντρωτικό αλλά λειτουργικό δημόσιο σύστημα γεωργικών εφαρμογών και επέτρεψε στους παρόχους γεωργικών εφοδίων σχεδόν να μονοπωλήσουν την παροχή συμβουλών.
Στην συνέχεια, οι αποκεντρωτικές μεταρρυθμίσεις της δεκαετίας του 1990 συνετέλεσαν στην κατάργηση του δημόσιου χαρακτήρα των συμβουλών. Άλλες προσπάθειες αναδιοργάνωσης που ακολούθησαν δεν οδήγησαν στην βελτίωση των συμβουλευτικών υπηρεσιών, που γενικότερα χαρακτηρίζεται από πολυμορφία, αδύναμη διασύνδεση των φορέων και έλλειψη συντονισμού.
Σήμερα οι κύριοι στόχοι των εθνικών πολιτικών εστιάζουν στην:
• εναρμόνιση της χώρας με τις Ευρωπαϊκές πολιτικές, με στόχο την εδραίωση ενός ολοκληρωμένου συστήματος υποστήριξης και παρακολούθησης της παροχής συμβουλών,
• αξιοποίηση των συμβουλευτικών υπηρεσιών για την βελτίωση της βιωσιμότητας των εκμεταλλεύσεων,
• εκπαίδευση των συμβούλων και την διασφάλιση της ικανότητάς τους να παρέχουν αντικειμενικές και αξιόπιστες συμβουλές.
Το Εθνικό Πρόγραμμα Αγροτικής Ανάπτυξης είναι το κύριο εργαλείο για την επίτευξη αυτών των στόχων και την αλλαγή του τοπίου στην παροχή γεωργικών συμβουλών. Ωστόσο, οι αλλαγές παραμένουν αβέβαιες, εξαιτίας της:
• παρατεταμένης καθυστέρησης στην έναρξη της εφαρμογής σημαντικών μέτρων πολιτικής, όπως η «Συνεργασία» και οι «Γεωργικές Συμβουλές»,
• συμπερίληψης περισσότερων επαγγελματικών ομάδων στο μέτρο των «Γεωργικών Συμβουλών» που οδηγεί σε αναταράξεις και, κυρίως, εξαιτίας της ανάγκης για κατανόηση των νέων καθηκόντων και ρόλων που οι παραδοσιακοί δρώντες (αγρότες, σύμβουλοι, πολιτικό προσωπικό) πρέπει να αναλάβουν.
Περισσότερα στην ιστοσελίδα: https://www.agrilink2020.eu.

Practice abstract 7

Short title (in English):

Organisation of the farm advisory system in France

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

In France, the analysis of farm advisory regimes is based on two case studies: the introduction of chickpeas in Gers and the organisation of labour in Pyrénées-Atlantiques.
Beyond the apparent pluralism of suppliers providing services, a few organisations seem to dominate, mostly cooperatives and traders supplying advice jointly with inputs or outputs. The regime of advice service is schematically segmented as follows:
- “private” bodies such as cooperatives that are specialised in the technical dimension of farm production;
- CERFrance, an association present in all the national territory, is responsible for accounting; and
- the chambers of agriculture, semipublic organisations, mainly responsible for providing advice about regulation and support to various advisory policies.
Alternative organisations do exist but carry little weight in the provision of advisory services: few small private consultancy firms and other organisations that stand out such as CIVAM, GAB, AFOCG or ADEAR. They are mostly farmers’ or rural associations that represent alternative models of farming (organic farming, agro-ecology). The way these organisations provide services contrasts with the dominant model, but have a limited capacity of action.
In this general scheme, advice is rarely the primary activity of service suppliers. They generate their financial resources from the provision of other services (sales of inputs, agricultural trading, accountancy or training). Advice is nevertheless a strategic activity that helps to strengthen the commercial relationship.
More information about the case-study can be found at this link: https://www.agrilink2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/AgriLink-EUFAS-as....

Short title (native language):

Organisation du régime de conseil agricole en France

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

En France, l'analyse des régimes de conseil agricole (RCA) s’est basée sur deux études de cas : la réintroduction du pois chiche dans le Gers et l'organisation du travail dans les Pyrénées-Atlantiques. Au-delà du pluralisme apparent des fournisseurs de conseils, quelques organisations semblent dominer, principalement des coopératives et des négociants fournissant des conseils en accompagnement de la vente d’intrants. Le RCA est segmenté comme suit :
- les organismes " privés " tels que les coopératives, spécialisés dans les domaines techniques de la production agricole;
- CERFrance, association présente sur tout le territoire national, fournissant des conseils comptables;
- Les chambres d'agriculture, organismes semi-publics, qui offrent un soutien administratif.
Des organisations alternatives existent mais ont peu de poids dans l'offre de conseil : quelques petits bureaux d'études privés et d'autres organisations (CICAM, GAB, AFOCG, ADEAR) se distinguent. Il s'agit souvent d'associations d'agriculteurs qui représentent des modèles alternatifs d'agriculture. La manière dont ces organisations fournissent des services contraste avec le modèle dominant (on parle d’accompagnement), mais leur capacité d'action est limitée.
Dans ce schéma, le conseil est rarement l'activité principale des fournisseurs. Ils génèrent leurs ressources financières à partir d'autres services (vente d'intrants, commerce agricole, comptabilité ou formation). Le conseil représente néanmoins une activité stratégique qui contribue à renforcer la relation commerciale.
Plus d’informations sont disponibles à ce lien : https://www.agrilink2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/AgriLink-EUFAS-as....

Practice abstract 8

Short title (in English):

Current challenges for agricultural advisory system in Poland

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

The overriding objective of the advisory system in Poland is to provide advisory assistance to farmers in adapting farms to new requirements and to assist in farm management in changing operating conditions.
The current advisory activities are aimed at strengthening the role of agricultural advisory services in the field of disseminating knowledge and stimulating production innovation. For this reason, the scope of consulting tasks has been extended and goes beyond the existing requirements related to the implementation of the direct payment system or meeting the requirements of cross-compliance.
The presented scope indicates a special emphasis on the following thematic issues posed to consultancy: pro-environmental issues and the dissemination of innovation in agriculture, which so far have not been sufficiently covered.
In order to increase the innovative capacity of advisory services, the multi-actor approach is adopted. Interactive pro-innovation projects, in particular "Operational Groups", are the cornerstone of the policy of the European Innovation Partnership for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability (EIP-AGRI). Practice shows that innovation networks can have very different character and connect different stakeholders.
The consulting system itself is also transforming, i.e. in the advisory space there is room for both state and private and commercial consulting. Such coexistence is beneficial (motivating competitiveness, opening to new forms of cooperation, improving knowledge and technical skills) not only for the consultancy itself, but also primarily for the end recipient, i.e. a farmer and an agricultural entrepreneurs.

Short title (native language):

Aktualne wyzwania dla doradztwa rolniczego w Polsce

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

Celem nadrzędnym systemu doradztwa rolniczego w Polsce jest pomoc doradcza rolnikom w dostosowywaniu gospodarstw do nowych wymogów i pomoc w zarządzaniu gospodarstwem w zmieniających się warunkach funkcjonowania.
Obecny działania doradcze zmierzaja w kierunku wzmocnienia roli doradztwa rolniczego w zakresie upowszechniania wiedzy i stymulowania innowacyjności produkcji. Z tego względu zakres zadań doradztwa został rozszerzony i wykracza poza dotychczasowe wymagania związane z wdrożeniem systemu płatności bezpośrednich, czy spełnieniem wymogów wzajemnej zgodności.
Przedstawiony zakres wskazuje na szczególne zaakcentowanie dwóch zagadnień tematycznych stawianych doradztwu: zagadnień proekologicznych i upowszechniania innowacyjności w rolnictwie, które dotychczas nie były dostatecznie uwzględnione.
Mając na celu zwiększanie zdolności innowacyjnych w usługach doradztwa zasadnym jest ich realizacja z wykorzystaniem wielopodmiotowych struktur sieciowych. Interaktywne projekty proinnowacyjne, w szczególności „Grupy Operacyjne”, są podstawą polityki Europejskiego Partnerstwa Innowacyjnego na Rzecz Wydajnego i Zrównoważonego Rolnictwa (EIP-AGRI). Praktyka pokazuje, że sieci innowacji mogą mieć bardzo różny charakter i łączyć różnych interesariuszy.
Transformacji ulega również sam system doradztwa, tj. w przestrzeni doradczej jest miejsce zarówno dla doradztwa państwowego, jak i prywatnego, komercyjnego. Takie współistnienie jest korzystne (motywująca konkurencyjność, otwarcie na nowe formy współpracy, podnoszenie stanu wiedzy i umijętności technicznych) nie tylko dla samego doradztwa, ale także przede wszystkim dla odbiorcy końcowego, czyli rolnika i przedsiębiorcy rolnego.

Practice abstract 9

Short title (native language):

Delivering Farm Advice in England and Gradual Change

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

The Farm Advice Service (FAS) in England has been relatively stable in that not much change has occurred since the commercialisation and privatisation of state-funded advisory suppliers such as ADAS in the late 1990s. The main advisory sources identified for farmers included private consultants (farm conservation advisors, agronomists, vets, land agents), National Park authorities, trusts and conservation organisations, Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG) and suppliers of agricultural inputs, mirroring the diverse range of suppliers contracted from the UK (Westminster) wide level. This diverse and plentiful list of suppliers that farmers recognise as advisors do not always accept this identity and suggests a gap in current farming advisory policies.
One example includes the Facilitation Fund Group to work towards environmental benefits. There were various incentives and reasons why farmers joined a group, and this didn’t necessarily align to the overarching principles behind a Group’s creation. Moreover the Group facilitator was noted as the main advisory source for farmers, yet they themselves did not always identify as an advisor. In some NGOs, there was a high level of staff turnover, and the priorities set by NGOs did not automatically align to those of the farmers involved with a Group. The success of a Group within the CSFF scheme which is operational across the whole of England is largely dependent upon local and regional Group facilitators to build momentum and ensure consistency with the Group objectives. This is also important to ensuring the long-term continuation, funding and success of the Group’s objectives.

Practice abstract 10

Short title (native language):

Farmers’ microAKIS and Advisory Policies in Scotland

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

The Farm Advisory Service (FAS) in Scotland has the mandate to deliver advice to all farmers and farm sizes with a special category for small farms and crofts and is contracted to 2 organisations: SAC Consulting and Ricardo Energy and Environment. This service is both well received and well known by farmers in our case study of the adoption of variable rate precision farming technologies (VRPF) but when it came to implementation, farmers’ microAKIS identified private and commercial companies connected to sales (chemical inputs, machinery) and soil sampling services to be the influential advisors. All advisory suppliers offer multiple methods of delivering advice, but the one-to-one interaction on the farm offered by non-traditional advisors is certainly more tailored, and given the innovation at stake, this is very much appreciated by the farmers.
Training is undertaken by all advisory suppliers, yet the private sector ranked ‘precision farming’ to be their main focus, which is not the case for FAS Scotland suppliers and farmer-based organisations. In addition, the main clients for those in the private sector were solely farmers, compared to a broader range of clients from other advisory suppliers across the sectors. This relationship often built over generations on the same farm is important and within our case study implied that advice coming from commercial entities was to be trusted.
Yet trust and transparency remain key concerns for the future delivery of advice, especially as back office activities are involved in the creation of databases and knowledge platforms. The diversity of such platforms raises questions to future access, ownership and privacy of farm data for the farmers and the public/private advisory sector.

Practice abstract 11

Short title (in English):

EU-FAS policy implementation on Navarra (Spain)

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

The EU Farm Advisory Policy (EU-FAS) in Navarra is implemented through the Institute for Agrifood Technology and Infrastructures of Navarra (INTIA), a public body attached to the Department of Rural Development and Environment of the Government of Navarra, Spain. INTIA is the only advisory organisation accredited by the Government of Navarra to perform the advisory service to farmers who carry out their activities in the region. The target audience of INTIA's advice is every farmer and owner of a farm registered in the Registro de Tierras de Navarra, who can voluntarily access the advisory services. The advisory services are different in agriculture and livestock farming, but in both cases, there is a charter for each service with its specificities.
It is important to bear in mind that INTIA has been carrying out the function of impartial public advice for the past 40 years, being therefore a highly consolidated service well appreciated by farmers. The main strength of the service is in the technical and economic assessment of the production processes of crops and livestock, based on own experimentation results and taking into account existing legislative frameworks, especially in relation to conditionality and the CAP.

Short title (native language):

Aplicación de la política EU-FAS en Navarra (España)

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

La Política de Asesoramiento Agrícola de la UE (EU-FAS) en Navarra se desarrolla a través del Instituto de Tecnología e Infraestructuras Agroalimentarias de Navarra (INTIA), organismo público adscrito al Departamento de Desarrollo Rural y Medio Ambiente del Gobierno de Navarra, España. INTIA es el único organismo de asesoramiento acreditado por el Gobierno de Navarra para realizar el servicio de asesoramiento a los agricultores que desarrollan su actividad en la Comunidad Foral.Los destinatarios del asesoramiento de INTIA son todos los agricultores y ganaderos titulares de una explotación inscrita en el Registro de Explotaciones Agrarias de Navarra (REAN), que pueden acceder voluntariamente a los servicios de asesoramiento. Los servicios de asesoramiento son distintos en agricultura y en ganadería, pero en ambos casos, existe una carta de cada servicio con las especificidades del mismo.
Es importante tener en cuenta que INTIA lleva 40 años realizando la función de asesoramiento público imparcial, siendo por tanto un servicio muy consolidado y bien valorado por los agricultores. El principal punto fuerte del servicio es la evaluación técnica y económica de los procesos productivos de los cultivos y la ganadería, basándose en los resultados de la experimentación propia y teniendo en cuenta los marcos legislativos existentes, especialmente en relación con la condicionalidad y la PAC.

Practice abstract 12

Short title (in English):

Examples of farm advisory regimes in Spain: the case of Navarra and the Basque Country

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

In the framework of the Agrilink project an analysis of Farm Advisory Regimes (FAS) in Spain has been carried out focusing on the regions of Navarra and Basque Country. This has been done through a survey of the main actors involved in the provision of advice in the regions.
Among these organisations, most of them see themselves as providers of various types of services. In Navarra, public organisations are the main agents providing advice linked to training, education and research. While private organisations also offer advice these are mainly linked to commercial activities.
In the case of Basque Country, where most of farms are small, there is a reduced number of organisations providing a wide range of services linked to advice, working close to the farmers.
The results of both regions are a good example of the heterogeneity found in the different regions in Spain regarding the provision of advice and the structure of the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS). However, the presence of well established advisory organisations that work close to the farmers are a common crucial element for an effective knowledge transfer. The support of EU-FAS accreditation and different public funding sources to the key advisory organisation in the AKIS is crucial for a strong advisory system that boosts the sustainability and the innovation capacity of the farming sector.

Short title (native language):

Ejemplos de regímenes de asesoramiento agrícola a las explotaciones en España: el caso de Navarra y el País Vasco

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

En el marco de Agrilink se ha llevado a cabo un análisis de los Sistemas de Asesoramiento Agrícola (FAS por sus siglas en inglés) en España centrándose en las regiones de Navarra y País Vasco. Para ello se ha realizado una encuesta a los principales actores implicados en la prestación de asesoramiento en las regiones.
Entre estas organizaciones, la mayoría se consideran proveedores de diversos tipos de servicios. En Navarra, los organismos públicos son los principales agentes que prestan asesoramiento vinculado a la formación, la educación y la investigación. Mientras que las organizaciones privadas también ofrecen asesoramiento, pero principalmente vinculado a las actividades comerciales.
En el caso del País Vasco, donde la mayoría de las explotaciones son pequeñas, existe un número reducido de organizaciones que prestan una amplia gama de servicios vinculados al asesoramiento, trabajando cerca de los agricultores y ganaderos.
Los resultados de ambas regiones son un buen ejemplo de la heterogeneidad encontrada en las diferentes regiones de España en cuanto a la prestación de asesoramiento y la estructura de los Sistemas de Conocimiento e Innovación Agrarios (AKIS). Sin embargo, la presencia de organizaciones de asesoramiento bien establecidas que trabajan cerca de los agricultores es un elemento común crucial para una transferencia de conocimientos eficaz. El apoyo de la acreditación EU-FAS y de diferentes fuentes de financiación pública a la organización asesora clave en los AKIS es crucial para un sistema de asesoramiento fuerte que impulsa la sostenibilidad y la capacidad de innovación del sector primario.

Practice abstract 13

Short title (in English):

Implementation of the EU Farm advisory system influenced Czech advisory services

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

EU Farm Advisory System (EU-FAS) was announced by EC in the Council Regulation (Reg. No. 1782/2003) in order to motivate Member States to implement advice provision at least on key environmental protection issues. This requirement together with the possibility to support advice from the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) triggered the creation of an advisory accreditation system in the Czech Republic.
Currently (2021), only individuals can be accredited. Financially, EU-FAS related advice is supported from national public funds and mainly in the form of helpdesk (usually by phone), web-based tools, e-mails, and brochures provided mostly by accredited advisors, who are hired by the Ministry of Agriculture. The funds provided by the EU are not used to fund the provision of advice, only training. The main topics covered by the advisory service (under EU-FAS) are cross-compliance, beneficial practices for the climate and the environment, agri-environmental schemes and organic farming, and water, with a special attention given to the Nitrate Directive.
According to the rules in force up to 2020, any advisor willing to apply for public funding needs to be accredited. In the new programming period also non-accredited advisors could be hired by newly eligible beneficiaries of advisory support. The accreditation process is based on a minimum training of the future advisor, followed by an exam and the defence of an advisory project. In order to keep the accreditation, advisors have to attend training related to the area of expertise they are accredited for on an annual basis (advisors get credits at training and they have to reach prescribed level). All these measures are the main factors ensuring the quality of advice in the Czech Republic.

Short title (native language):

Zavedení EU-poradenského systému ovlivnilo české poradenské služby

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

Poradenský systém EU (EU-FAS) byl zaveden Nařízením Rady (Č. 1782/2003) s cílem motivovat Členské státy, aby zavedly poskytování poradenství přinejmenším v oblasti ochrany životního prostředí. Tento požadavek spolu s možností podporovat poradenství z fondů SZP inicioval vytvoření akreditačního systému v poradenství v ČR. V současnosti (rok 2021), jen jednotlivci mohou být akreditováni. Někteří jsou současně zaměstnanci university a výzkumných ústavů. Současné poskytování poradenství v tématech, na které je EU-FAS vázán, je podporováno z národních zdrojů a to zejména jako jednorázové poradenství např. po telefonu, pomocí webových nástrojů, emaily, nebo pomocí brožur. Je poskytováno nejčastěji akreditovanými poradci, které si najímá MZe. Evropské fondy nejsou na podporu individuálního poradenství využívány, jen na podporu vzdělávání. Oblasti nejvíce pokryté EU FAS jsou podmíněnost, postupy příznivé vzhledem ke klimatické změně, podpora agro-environmentálního-klimatického a ekologického opatření, ochrana vod – zejména Nitrátová směrnice. Dle systému do 2020 by poradce, který by se chtěl v budoucnu ucházet o podporu poradenství, musel být akreditován. V budoucnu budou moci participovat na podpoře i neakreditovaní poradci, kteří budou najímáni nově definovanými příjemci podpor poradenství. Akreditace se opírá o definovaný minimální objem výcviku, absolvování zkoušky a obhajobu poradenského projektu. Poradci, kteří chtějí akreditaci udržet, navštěvují semináře každý rok (musí tím naplnit minimální objem kreditů) a to především v oblasti, na kterou jsou akreditováni. Toto jsou nástroje pro udržení kvality poradenství v ČR.

Practice abstract 14

Short title (in English):

Overview of the implementation of the EU-FAS regulation in 16 Member States

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

The EU-FAS regulation is one of the first attempts of the European Commission to set regulations about advisory services. It is a cross-cutting instrument of the Common Agricultural Policy that aims to support the contribution of advisory services to a sustainable development of agriculture. Concretely, Member States (MS) have to set-up farm advisory services covering a number of obligatory fields. The objective is that farmers can access information and knowledge about how to comply with standards dealing with environmental or health-related issues.
AgriLink project implemented an analysis of EU-FAS regulation in 16 MS: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and UK. The aim was to understand how the EU-FAS affected the features of farm advisory regimes, and to identify features/types/convergences in the implementation of the EU-FAS regulation between countries.
The analysis demonstrates that the EU-FAS has not led to a convergence of advisory regimes across countries, but rather reveals the diversity of institutions framing such regimes. Accredited suppliers are very diverse, with a growing share of farmer-based organisations and a lesser role for public actors. The EU-FAS reveals the difficulties of monitoring advisory services in pluralistic landscape and fragmented agricultural knowledge and innovation systems. Its impact on the actual content and method of advice seems to be limited, but some cases highlight efficient support to back-office.
Detailed information about the FAS regulation and the results of the research can be found: D4.1-AgriLink-EUFAS-assesment_without_annexes.pdf (agrilink2020.eu).

Short title (native language):

Aperçu de la mise en œuvre de la réglementation du système de conseil agricole dans 16 États membres

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

La réglemention européenne du « système de conseil agricole » (SCA) est une tentative de la Commission européenne pour établir une réglementation sur les services de conseil. Il s'agit d'un instrument transversal de la PAC dont l’objectif est de soutenir la contribution des services de conseil à un développement durable de l'agriculture. Les États membres (EM) doivent mettre en place des services de conseil couvrant des domaines obligatoires afin de permettre aux agriculteurs d'accéder à des informations autour des normes relatives à l'environnement ou à la santé.
AgriLink a réalisé une analyse de cette réglementation dans 16 EM : Autriche, Belgique, Bulgarie, République tchèque, France, Grèce, Hongrie, Italie, Lettonie, Pays-Bas, Pologne, Portugal, Roumanie, Slovaquie, Espagne et Royaume-Uni. L'objectif était de comprendre comment le SCA a affecté les caractéristiques des régimes de conseil agricoles et d'identifier les caractéristiques/types/convergences dans la mise en œuvre du règlement SCA.
L'analyse démontre que le SCA n'a pas conduit à une convergence des régimes de conseil entre les pays et révèle une grande diversité des institutions encadrant ces régimes. Les fournisseurs accrédités sont divers, avec un rôle accru des organisations de producteurs et un rôle moindre des acteurs publics. Cette réglementation révèle les difficultés du suivi des services de conseil dans un paysage pluraliste et caractérisé par des AKIS fragmentés. Son impact sur le contenu et la méthode de conseil est limité, mais certains cas mettent en évidence un soutien au back-office.
Des informations détaillées sur la mise en œuvre du règlement FAS sont disponibles :D4.1-AgriLink-EUFAS-assesment_without_annexes.pdf (agrilink2020.eu).

Practice abstract 15

Short title (in English):

Analysis of agricultural advisory systems in seven Member States

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

An in-depth analysis of the farm advisory regimes (FAR), understood as the set of institution that frame the delivery of farm advice, was carried out for seven European countries (the Czech Republic, France, Greece, Poland, Portugal, Spain and the UK). We analysed the FAR with five dimensions (through policy analysis and local observations): i) the boundaries of advisory provision, ii) the identities of advisory suppliers, iii) the attributes of the services, iv) the financing schemes, and v) the control of these funding schemes and of the activities of suppliers.
The analysis of official policy statements related to the organisation of farm advisory services shows a variety of models that can be related to ideal-types of regimes. Howewer, the description of FAR at national levels does not acknowledge the many institutional changes that are observable on the ground. In many cases, the diversity of suppliers is broader than expected and services are delivered by organisations that are not specialised in farm advice. According to the innovation area considered, actors of the supply chain (industries, cooperatives, traders) might be important change agents of advice, as well as NGOs, private experts and research institutes. These actors are often overlooked in policy design. Their practices and routines often remain in a blindspot of policy and academic debate.
More details can be found in the respective Practice abstracts for each case study.

Short title (native language):

Analyse des régimes de conseil agricoles dans 7 Etats membres

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

Une analyse des régimes de conseil agricole (RCA), compris comme l'ensemble des institutions qui encadrent les services de conseils agricoles, a été réalisée dans sept pays européens (République tchèque, France, Grèce, Pologne, Portugal, Espagne et Royaume-Uni). Nous avons mobilisé cinq dimensions caractérisant ces régimes (analyse des textes et observations locales): i) les délimitations de la prestation de conseil, ii) les identités des fournisseurs, iii) les attributs des services, iv) les systèmes de financement et v) le contrôle de ces systèmes et des activités des fournisseurs.
L'analyse des politiques officielles montre une variété de modèles qui peuvent être reliés à des idéaux-types. Cependant, la description des RCA au niveau international ne tient pas compte de nombreux changements institutionnels observables sur le terrain. La diversité des fournisseurs est plus large que celle décrite dans les textes officiels et les services sont souvent fournis par des organisations qui ne sont pas spécialisées dans le conseil agricole. Selon le domaine d'innovation, les acteurs de la chaîne d'approvisionnement (industries, coopératives, négociants) peuvent être d'importants agents de changement, tout comme les ONG, les experts privés et les instituts de recherche. Ces acteurs sont souvent négligés dans la conception des politiques. Leurs pratiques restent dans l'angle mort des débats politiques et académiques.
Vous trouverez plus de détails dans le « Practice Abstracts » respectif de chaque étude de cas.

Practice abstract 16

Short title (in English):

Farm advisory regimes in Portugal: An advisory landscape led by farmer-based organisations

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

The analysis of farm advisory regimes in Portugal is based on two case studies, wine-growing in the Douro and irrigated crops in the Lezíria do Tejo (https://www.agrilink2020.eu/our-work/countries-reports/). Both illustrate how the Portuguese farming regime evolved over the last thirty years towards a segmentation according to agricultural subsectors and the lead of farmer-based organisations (FBO). Hence, the strength of the regional farm advisory services depends on the strength of their FBOs. AgriLink enabled three take-home lessons: (1) Advisory organisations' strength is a result of investing in back-office activities; (2) Regional advisory service strength entails high connectivity between the AKIS actors; (3) The effectiveless of advisory organisations and regional advisory services depend on accommodating farmer's heterogeneity. AgriLink evidenced the importance of frontrunner FBOs in the regional advisory landscape. Their strength builds on continuous innovation. They keep pace with the advances of the state-of-the-art in science and technology. They are the key players for strengthening regional farm advisory services in order to set in motion ecological and digital transitions. Recommendations for advisory policies in Portugal include: developing incentives to strengthen the back-office activities of weaker organisations; and enhancing the strength of leading FBOs, to increase regional AKIS connectivity and accessibility of different farmers to knowledge-intensive farm advisory services.

Short title (native language):

Regimes de assessoria agrícola em Portugal: Uma paisagem de aconselhamento liderada por organizações baseadas em agricultores

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

A análise dos regimes de aconselhamento agrícola em Portugal baseia-se em dois estudos de caso, a viticultura no Douro e as culturas de regadio na Lezíria do Tejo (https://www.agrilink2020.eu/our-work/countries-reports/). Ambos ilustram como o regime de aconselhamento agrícola português evoluiu nos últimos 30 anos para uma segmentação por subsectores agrícolas e consolidou a liderança das organizações de agricultores (OAs). A eficácia dos serviços regionais de aconselhamento agrícola depende da força das suas OAs. O projeto AgriLink dá-nos 3 lições importantes. A eficácia das OAs depende do investimento em atividades “back-office”. Serviços de aconselhamento agrícola regionais fortes são fruto de elevada conetividade entre os atores AKIS e da capacidade de responder a diferentes tipos de agricultores. O AgriLink evidenciou a importância das OAs inovadoras. Mostrou que a sua força assenta na inovação contínua e na capacidade de acompanhar os avanços da tecnologia e conhecimento científico. As OAs inovadoras são actores-chave para consolidar o aconselhamento agrícola regional e apoiar os agricultores nas transições ecológica e digital. As recomendações para as políticas de aconselhamento em Portugal são desenvolver incentivos para reforçar o “back-office” das OAs mais frágeis e fortalecer as líderes, promovendo-se assim a conectividade nos AKIS regionais e a facilidade no acesso de diferentes agricultores aos serviços de aconselhamento agrícola intensivos em conhecimento.

Practice abstract 17

Short title (in English):

The rules in farm advisory regimes in the Czech Republic

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

We present rules in advice provision and needs for change in the Czech Republic.
Farm advisory rules were initiated at the late 90s and were changed by the Council Regulation No. 1782/2003. Supported advice is currently focused mainly on CAP environmental rules in the form of simple consultations and, for instance, not sufficiently on chemical plant protection and modernisation. Advice provision is supported only from national public sources in 2021. Accreditation of individual advisors should ensure the quality of advice and it is a precondition for CAP support, but it limits the already low number of advisors integrated in AKIS.
Conditions are: sufficient education/experience, a passed exam, a defended advisory project and regular training. It is possible to make checks of advisory reports and daily records, or visit the farmer. But on-farm quality control is not carried out in practice. No specific methods of one-to-one advice are mentioned in policy documents. Currently the definition of beneficiaries is changing and also non-accredited advisors will have a chance to be integrated in AKIS under CAP.
Advice effectiveness is not evaluated sufficiently yet. Interviewed advisors appreciate mandatory training, but it is not sufficiently targeted at practical knowledge and approaches in advice provision. Farmers and advisors are supported by publications and sophisticated web-based tools (e.g. erosion calculator) to balance the general lack of advisors.
In order to increase advice effectiveness it is recommended to assess the effects of current policies; open CAP support to as many as possible independent advisors; expand advisors' training with practical topics, advisory skills, and missing topics supporting CAP effectiveness.

Short title (native language):

Pravidla, řídící český poradenský systém

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

Představujeme pravidla poskytování poradenství a potřeby odpovídajících změn v ČR. Vznik poradenského systému spadá do konce 90 tých let a doznal změn s Nařízením Rady Č. 1782/2003. Podporované poradenství je v ČR zaměřeno v současnosti především na plnění environmentálních pravidel SZP formou konzultací a např. chemická ochrana nebo modernizace nejsou pokryty dostatečně. V roce 2021 je poradenství podporováno jen z národních zdrojů. Akreditace jednotlivců/poradců má zaručit kvalitu poradenství, je podmínkou žádosti o podporu, ale snižuje však již tak nízké stavy poradců zahrnutých do AKIS. Podmínkou akreditace je vzdělání/zkušenosti, absolvování zkoušky, obhajoba poradenské práce a pravidelné školení. Dále lze kontrolovat zprávy/deníky poradců i výsledky u zemědělce. Dle názoru odborníků není kontrola u zemědělce zpravidla prováděna. V pravidlech není zmíněna metoda poskytování individuálního poradenství. Současná definice příjemců podpor ze SZP se mění a do AKIS budou moci být v rámci SZP zahrnuti také neakreditovaní poradci. Posuzování účinků poradenství není dosud dostatečně prováděno. Oslovení poradci si výcviku cení, ale uváděli, že jejich pravidelná vzdělávání jsou málo orientována na praktické znalosti a na metody poskytování poradenství. Zemědělci i poradci jsou podporování množstvím odborných publikací a užitečných webových nástrojů (např. erozní kalkulačka) což má částečně kompenzovat nízké počty poradců. S cílem zvýšit účinnost poradenství je doporučeno hodnotit efekty stávajících pravidel/nástrojů politik, otevřít podpory i neakreditovaným nezávislým poradcům, rozšířit výcvik poradců o praktická témata, dovednosti v poradenství a chybějící témata, podporující účinnost SZP.

Practice abstract 18

Short title (in English):

Effective advisory services for sustainable farming in Greece

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

In June 2021 a workshop took place in Chania, Crete, aiming to explore the challenges of the current advisory system, the role of advisors and the skills they need to help farmers realise a more sustainable agriculture.
The participants concluded that the farmers’ ongoing problem is ‘whom to ask for advice’. They pointed out that, besides the lack of a robust extension system in Greece, important challenges for both farmers and advisors derive from the poor links between advisory and research services as well as from the lack of a regulatory framework that would ensure advisors’ credibility and reliability. The participants agreed that the principal role of advisors is to help farmers develop a new mindset towards a sustainable future and help them throughout the transition period. To fulfil this role, advisers should:
a. Be outward looking and be aware of the developments in their field of expertise;
b. Combine theoretical/technical knowledge and experience of the field; and
c. Be active listeners and able not only to transfer knowledge but also to establish two-way communication with farmers.
For a better advisory system, the participants recommended:
• Proactive action and coordination between research, advisory services and producers;
• The definition of certification criteria for the front-line advisers that will ensure the provision of reliable advice. The establishment of a framework that ensures impartial advisory processes is deemed necessary;
• Regular training for advisers to update their knowledge and skills;
• Advisers’ training should include communication methods/soft skills and ensure their capacity to come up with practical, sustainable solutions based on the combination of knowledge from diverse sources.

Short title (native language):

Αποτελεσματικές συμβουλευτικές υπηρεσίες για μια βιώσιμη γεωργία στην Ελλάδα

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

Τον Ιούνιο 2021 πραγματοποιήθηκε στα Χανιά ένα εργαστήριο με σκοπό την διερεύνηση των προκλήσεων του υφιστάμενου συστήματος παροχής συμβουλών, του ρόλου των συμβούλων και των απαραίτητων ικανοτήτων τους για την επίτευξη της βιωσιμότητας.
Σύμφωνα με τους συμμετέχοντες τα προβλήματα των αγροτών εκκινούν από το ερώτημα «ποιον να συμβουλευτούν». Οι κύριες προκλήσεις γεωργών και συμβούλων πηγάζουν, πέραν της έλλειψης ενός συνεκτικού συστήματος Γεωργικών Εφαρμογών, από την αποσύνδεση της έρευνας από τις συμβουλευτικές υπηρεσίες και, επίσης, την έλλειψη ενός κανονιστικού πλαισίου που διασφαλίζει την αξιοπιστία των συμβούλων. Ο σύγχρονος ρόλος των συμβούλων είναι να διαμορφώσουν το τρόπο σκέψης των αγροτών για την επίτευξη της βιωσιμότητας και να τους προετοιμάσουν για την μετάβαση σε πιο βιώσιμά συστήματα. Προκειμένου να ανταπεξέλθουν στον ρόλο τους, οι σύμβουλοι πρέπει να:
α. Είναι εξωστρεφείς και ενημερωμένοι στο πεδίο εξειδίκευσής τους,
β. Έχουν θεωρητική/τεχνική γνώση και εμπειρία από το πεδίο,
γ. Είναι «ενεργοί ακροατές» και ικανοί όχι μόνο στην μεταφορά της γνώσης αλλά επίσης αποτελεσματικοί στην αμφίδρομη επικοινωνία τους με τους αγρότες.
Οι προτάσεις για τη βελτίωση των συμβουλών περιλαμβάνουν:
• Την προορατική δράση και τον συντονισμό ερευνητών, συμβούλων και παραγωγών;
• Τον καθορισμό κριτηρίων πιστοποίησης των συμβούλων πρώτης γραμμής, που διασφαλίζουν την αξιοπιστία των παρεχόμενων συμβουλών, και την εδραίωση πλαισίου που διασφαλίζει την αντικειμενικότητα της συμβουλευτικής διαδικασίας;
• Τακτικές εκπαιδεύσεις των συμβούλων;
• Εκπαίδευση των συμβούλων στην επικοινωνία και διασφάλιση της ικανότητάς τους να αναζητούν πρακτικές και βιώσιμες λύσεις, συνδυάζοντας διαφορετικές πηγές γνώσης.

Practice abstract 19

Short title (in English):

Envisioning the future of agricultural advice for sustainable horticulture in Latvia

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

There is ample room for facilitating the uptake of sustainable agroecological farming practices in Latvia. Using the future vision of farming advice in horticulture for 2030-2040 as the basis for a debate involving farmers, advisors, researchers and public officials, a range of challenges faced by farmers as well as weaknesses of the current advisory system, and possible solutions to these, were discussed.
The challenges for farmers relate to knowledge gaps in relation to innovative technologies, difficulties in balancing environmental and financial gains, burdensome formal requirements, lack of reliable markets and an unwillingness to cooperate to strengthen their market position. Frontrunner farmers need continuous access to new ideas, financial support, study trips abroad, and advisors that help them formulate the problems they wish to tackle. Mainstream farmers need easily accessible educational opportunities, hands-on experience, reliable markets, and stimuli for cooperation.
The weaknesses of the current system are the lack of regional advisory presence, a small number of specialists in certain environment-friendly areas of farming, an unwillingness of farmers to pay for agricultural advice, insufficient funds for research, the high costs associated with training and retaining competent advisors, as well as an insufficient connection between research, education, and the advisory system.
Suggested solutions include creating of a dynamic demonstration farm network, providing state support for reimbursing the advisory work carried out by research institutes, ensuring the adoption of a holistic approach to advising farmers, and encouraging international cooperation to facilitate knowledge exchange.

Short title (native language):

Vīzija par lauksaimniecības konsultāciju nākotni ilgtspējīgai dārzkopībai Latvijā

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

Latvijā ir plašas iespējas sekmēt ilgtspējīgu agroekoloģisko lauksaimniecības prakšu ieviešanu. Balstoties uz nākotnes scenāriju par konsultatīvo atbalstu dārzkopībā 2030.-2040. gadā, tika rīkota lauksaimnieku, konsultantu, zinātnieku un valsts amatpersonu diskusija, lai apspriestu lauksaimniekiem aktuālas problēmas, kā arī Latvijas konsultatīvās sistēmas nepilnības un to iespējamos risinājumus.
Lauksaimnieku izaicinājumi saistīti ar nepietiekamām zināšanām par jaunām tehnoloģijām, grūtībām līdzsvarot vides un finanšu apsvērumus, apgrūtinošām formālām prasībām, paredzamu noieta tirgu trūkumu un nevēlēšanos sadarboties savu tirgus pozīciju nostiprināšanā. Inovatīviem lauksaimniekiem nepieciešama piekļuve jaunām idejām, finansiālam atbalstam, ārvalstu pieredzes apmaiņas braucieniem, kā arī konsultantiem, kas palīdz formulēt risināmās problēmas. Citiem ir vajadzīgas viegli pieejamas izglītības iespējas, praktiska pieredze, noieta tirgi un stimuli sadarboties.
Konsultatīvās sistēmas problēmas saistītas ar konsultantu reģionālās klātbūtnes trūkumu, nelielo speciālistu skaitu noteiktās videi draudzīgas saimniekošanas jomās un ražotāju nevēlēšanos maksāt par konsultācijām. Negatīva ietekme ir arī zemajam finansējumam pētniecībai, augstajām konsultantu apmācības un noturēšanas izmaksām, kā arī vājai saiknei starp pētniecību, izglītību un konsultatīvo sistēmu.
Starp rosinātajiem risinājumiem minama dinamiska demonstrējumu saimniecību tīklu uzturēšana, valsts atbalsta sniegšana zinātnisko institūtu īstenotās konsultatīvās funkcijas apmaksai, kā arī holistiskas pieejas nodrošināšana konsultantu darbā un starptautiskās sadarbības veicināšana zināšanu apmaiņai.

Practice abstract 20

Short title (in English):

The future of farming advice in the area of crop protection in the Netherlands

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

The use of crop protection products is strongly regulated because of the risks concerning leakage to the environment and health risks from remaining residues on crops. These regulations will tighten in the years ahead. A workshop with participants from farming advisors, farmers’ representatives and crop protection experts explored the possible future role of farming advice to help farmers cope with related challenges.
A starting point is that advise very much needs to be tailored to a specific farm and farmer and that a relation of trust is essential to be able to do this successfully. One key conclusion is that, to tackle crop related challenges effectively, there is a need to broaden advising on crop protection to advising on sustainable farming more generally. The current advisory system, however, is not well positioned to address this, nor is current policy that regulates various aspects of farming without taking into account how they influence each other.
Furthermore, crop growing becomes increasingly complex, leading to more advice specialisms. This complicates the provision of more integral advice which requires combining advise from various areas of expertise. To achieve this, advisors would need to work more in teams consisting of both specialists and generalists. Such forms of cooperation do currently exist in the Netherlands but need further development to become a more common approach.
A second challenge is to share the experiences of frontrunners and research with the wider farming community to stimulate wider adoption. There is a general lack of sharing knowledge and advisors could try to learn more from frontrunners and research to be better able to advice mainstream farmers, for instance by (co-)organising demonstrations.

Short title (native language):

De toekomst van advies op het gebied van gewasbescherming in Nederland

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

Gewasbescherming is sterk gereguleerd vanwege risico’s op milieuvervuiling en gezondheidsrisico’s door residuen op het gewas. Die regulering zal in de toekomst alleen maar toenemen. Een workshop met deelname van bedrijfsadviseurs, boerenertegenwoordigers en gewasbeschermingsexperts heeft verkend hoe adviseurs boeren in de toekomst zouden kunnen helpen om deze uitdagingen het hoofd te bieden.
Een vertrekpunt is dat advies heel erg maatwerk is en dat een goede vertrouwensband tussen boer en adviseur een vereiste is om dit goed te kunnen doen. De belangrijkste conclusie is dat, om boeren zo goed mogelijk te kunnen ondersteunen, het nodig is om advies over gewasbescherming te verbreden tot meer algemeen advies over duurzamer telen. Het huidige adviessysteem is daartoe niet goed uitgerust. Dat geldt ook voor het beleid waarin diverse teeltgerelateerde zaken zijn gereguleerd zonder rekening te houden met hoe die elkaar beïnvloeden.
Verder wordt telen steeds complexer wat leidt tot meer adviesspecialismes. Dit bemoeilijkt het verstekken van meer integraal advies waarvoor verschillende specialismes met elkaar verbonden zouden moeten worden. Daartoe zouden adviseurs meer in teamverband moeten werken met zowel specialisten als generalisten. Zulke vormen van samenwerking bestaan weliswaar maar zouden meer algemeen in praktijk gebracht moeten worden.
Een tweede uitdaging is om de ervaringen van voorlopers en onderzoek met de boerengemeenschap te delen om verdere toepassing te bevorderen. Er bestaat een flinke kloof in de kennisverspreiding en adviseurs zouden moeten proberen meer te leren van voorlopers en onderzoekers om boeren beter te kunnen adviseren, zowel 1-op-1 als collectief, bijv. via demonstraties.

Practice abstract 21

Short title (in English):

The future of farming advice: Exploring the need for advice to sustain dairy farming in the region of Trøndelag, Norway

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

Starting from 2034 a governmental requirement demands that all dairy farms must have loose housing barns to increase animal welfare. For the small- and medium-sized dairy farms that have not yet invested in such barns this is the hour of destiny. However, economic sustainability is a challenge both for the farmers who have invested and taken large loans and for the smaller farmers who lack resources to invest. A workshop with participation comprising farmers, advisors, and farming experts explored future roles of farming advice to help dairy farmers cope with such challenges.
For pioneer farmers, making the “right” choice of technology is an important challenge. A failure to invest can result in equipment not being adapted to the farmer’s resources. The advisors must take into account the farm and household’s economy, social sustainability, and available farm recourses before suggesting investment in new technology. The advisors have an important role as discussion partners for pioneers in the uptake of new technology. Further, there is a challenge facing advisory services in balancing the need for a holistic perspective with the need for specialised advice also for the majority of farmers. This includes advice for all aspects of farming. To manage such a need the advisory organisations must increase cooperation with relevant actors including technology suppliers. Advisors can also benefit more from new digital technology including, among others, communication with farmers.

Short title (native language):

Framtida for jordbruksrådgiving: Utforsking av behovet for rådgiving for å ta vare på melkeproduksjonen i Trøndelag

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

Fra 2034 innføres et statlig krav om at alle melkebruk må ha løsdriftsfjøs for å styrke dyrevelferden. For de små og mellomstore melkebrukene som ennå ikke har investert i slike fjøs, er dette en skjebnetime. Økonomien er imidlertid en utfordring både for bøndene som har investert og tatt opp store lån og for de mindre bøndene som mangler ressurser til å investere. Et arbeidsseminar med deltakelse av bønder, rådgivere og andre fagfolk undersøkte fremtidige roller for jordbruksrådgivingen i å hjelpe melkeprodusenter med å takle slike utfordringer. For pionerbønder som går foran er det en viktig utfordring å gjøre det "riktige" valg av teknologi. Feilinvesteringer kan føre til at utstyr ikke er tilpasset brukes ressurser. Rådgiverne må ta hensyn til brukets og husholdningens økonomi, sosiale bærekraft og tilgjengelige ressurser før de foreslår investeringer i ny teknologi. Rådgiverne har en viktig rolle som diskusjonspartnere for pionerbønder i beslutninger om investering av ny teknologi. Det er en utfordring for rådgivingstjenesten å balansere behovet for et helhetlig perspektiv på gården med behovet for spesialisert råd, også for flertallet av bønder. Dette omfatter hele bredden av jordbruksrådgiving. For å håndtere et slikt behov må rådgiverorganisasjonene styrke samarbeidet med relevante aktører, inkludert teknologileverandører. Rådgivere kan også dra mer nytte av ny digital teknologi, blant annet i kommunikasjon med bønder.

Practice abstract 22

Short title (in English):

The future of farming advice: Exploring the need for farming advice in the area of direct marketing in Navarra (Spain)

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

Direct marketing is not widespread in Spain. However, a supply of nearby, affordable and sustainable food products has been consolidating for some years now. Currently, there is no specific advice to help structure the direct marketing sector to meet a growing consumer demand. A workshop with stakeholders was organised to explore the possible future role of farming advice to face this challenge in the Navarra region.
Currently, farmers who sell their products via direct marketing invest much time in distribution. Besides, although European hygienic-sanitary legislation enables to adapt requirements to farm type and size, in Spain it remains poorly developed. Key challenges identified were the creation of joint distribution platforms among farmers and the flexibilisation of hygienic-sanitary regulations, bridging the gap between public administration and farmers. Other important challenges included the development of suitable technology for small farms to process their products at affordable prices and to increase societal awareness of the importance of consuming nearby and seasonal food products.
The main identified weaknesses in the current advisory system were the limited capacity to provide integrated farm advice moving from specific, large-farm-focused advice to smaller-scale and more diverse farm products.
Increasing knowledge of alternative ways of farmers' associations for direct marketing and improving the support offered to meet regulatory and bureaucratic requirements are aspects to consider. Advisors could also improve their skills in specific areas, such as searching for information, learning from pioneer farmers and success stories and organising demonstration events to spread this knowledge.

Short title (native language):

El futuro del asesoramiento agrario: Explorando la necesidad del asesoramiento agrario en el ámbito de la Venta Directa en Navarra (España)

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

La venta directa, pese a no ser muy habitual en España, está empezando a crecer, ofreciendo productos cercanos, asequibles y sostenibles. En Navarra, no existe un asesoramiento específico en este ámbito, por lo que hay un reto relevante por delante para ayudar a estructurar el sector de venta directa en la región.
Actualmente, las explotaciones con venta directa invierten mucho tiempo en la distribución. Además, aunque la legislación higiénico-sanitaria europea permite adecuar los requisitos al tipo y tamaño de la explotación, en España apenas se ha desarrollado. Así, dos desafíos clave identificados fueron la creación de plataformas de distribución conjunta de productores y la flexibilización de las regulaciones higiénico-sanitarias, cerrando la brecha entre los productores y la administración.
El desarrollo de tecnología adecuada y rentable para que las pequeñas explotaciones procesen sus productos y la concienciación de la sociedad sobre la importancia de consumir alimentos cercanos y de temporada, son también tareas relevantes a afrontar.
Las principales debilidades identificadas fueron la capacidad limitada para proporcionar un asesoramiento integrado con una visión holística y pasar de un asesoramiento específico centrado en grandes explotaciones a producciones de menor escala y diversas.
Incrementar el conocimiento sobre asociaciones de venta directa y mejorar el apoyo para cumplir con las regulaciones y los procesos burocráticos son aspectos a mejorar. Los asesores también podrían mejorar sus habilidades en áreas específicas, como la búsqueda de información, el aprendizaje de los agricultores pioneros y las historias de éxito y la organización de eventos de demostración para difundir este conocimiento.

Practice abstract 23

Short title (in English):

The future of farm advice for sustainable soil management in Italian viticulture

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

Italian viticulture nowadays is facing multiple challenges which ask for innovative solutions. An online scenario workshop with farmers, advisors, researchers and policy makers from Northern Italy explored the future role of the advisory system in introducing new strategies for vineyard soil management.
Main challenges for all farmers pertain the environmental domain (SOM preservation, water use optimisation, biodiversity enhancement) and the economic domain (to grant a constant income during climatically uncertain years). Calculation of environmental value of different vineyard management practices, translated into transparent indicators, can trigger farmers and civil society, and facilitate the proper quantification of ecosystem services. Frontrunners need multidimensional training, structured horizontal networks, independent trials and space for participatory research and demo activities. Mainstream farmers need to increase trust, through long term experiences, good examples, consumers’ awareness of farmers’ operations and their value.
A major problem with the current advisory system is extreme fragmentation. Public action is rather weak and often far from real territory needs. Local experiences are often poorly shared and mainstream farmers are often neglected by advisors.
The situation can be improved by implementing a system for the identification of most urgent farmers’ demands. Universities could play a relevant role if their 'third mission', i.e. extension, is triggered. Advisors (public and private) must build awareness of their strategic role and develop an active attitude towards life-long-learning. The proactive role of farmers is crucial in needs identification and knowledge exchange.

Short title (native language):

Il futuro della consulenza aziendale per una gestione sostenibile del suolo in viticoltura in Italia

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

La viticoltura italiana sta affrontando oggi molteplici sfide che richiedono soluzioni innovative. Lo scenario workshop con agricoltori, tecnici, ricercatori ed amministratori del Nord Italia ha esplorato il futuro ruolo del sistema di consulenza nell'introduzione di nuove strategie per la gestione del suolo nei vigneti.
Le principali sfide per gli agricoltori riguardano l’ambiente (conservare SO, ottimizzare l'uso dell'acqua, incrementare la biodiversità) e l’economia (garantire reddito in annate climaticamente incerte). Degli indicatori affidabili del valore ambientale delle diverse pratiche di gestione potrebbero spingere gli agricoltori e facilitare la quantificazione dei servizi ecosistemici. I pionieri hanno bisogno di formazione multidimensionale, di reti orizzontali strutturate, di prove indipendenti e di spazio per la ricerca partecipativa e le attività demo. Gli agricoltori tradizionali hanno bisogno di prendere fiducia, attraverso prove a lungo termine, buoni esempi e la consapevolezza dei consumatori circa il valore delle attività degli agricoltori.
Uno dei principali problemi del sistema di consulenza, oggi, è la sua estrema frammentazione. L'azione pubblica è piuttosto debole e spesso lontana dalle reali esigenze del territorio.
La situazione può migliorare con l’identificazione delle esigenze degli agricoltori. Le università potrebbero giocare un ruolo rilevante se la loro "terza missione", cioè il ruolo tecnico, venisse attivata. I consulenti devono prendere coscienza del loro ruolo strategico e sviluppare un atteggiamento attivo verso l'apprendimento. Il ruolo proattivo degli agricoltori è cruciale nell'identificazione dei bisogni e nello scambio di conoscenze.

Practice abstract 24

Short title (in English):

The future of farming advice: Development of renewable energy sources in rural areas in Poland

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

In May 2021, a workshop explored the current state and prospects for the development of the renewable energy sector in rural areas, with participation from farmers, entrepreneurs, inhabitants of rural areas, agricultural advisors, government and local administration.
The aim of the workshop was to answer a basic question, viz.: "What are the key factors that contribute to the development of advice on increasing the share of renewable energy use in rural areas?"
Farmers can play a key role to increase the use of renewable energy sources, especially the leading farmers / pioneers in this area. Such farmers are an important element to trigger the wider adoption and further development of this type of activity. These farmers, whose ambitions to introduce innovations on their farms are high, can become an inspiring example for mainstream farmers. However, they often lack the resources and support (organisational and technological) allowing for the effective implementation of the planned innovations.
In terms of improving the existing situation, a key starting point is to ensure a stable and practical training system for advisors working in this field, including technological and innovative issues related to the development of the sector. Moreover, increasing the involvement of other entities (research stations, private entrepreneurs, innovation brokers) in innovative advice provision would certainly have a beneficial added value for the entire process.
It is also important to create a transparent training system for advisors, offering expertise on a variety of specialisations, to provide an adequate response to the current needs / technological problems of a modern farmer.

Short title (native language):

Przyszłość doradztwa rolniczego: Rozwój odnawialnych źródeł energii na obszarach wiejskich w Polsce

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

W maju 2021 r. odbyły się warsztaty pogłębionej analizy stanu obecnego i perspektyw rozwoju energetyki odnawialnej na obszarach wiejskich, z udziałem rolników, przedsiębiorców, mieszkańców wsi, doradców rolniczych, administracji rządowej i samorządowej. Celem warsztatu była odpowiedź na podstawowe pytanie, tj.: "Jakie są kluczowe czynniki, które przyczyniają się do rozwoju doradztwa w zakresie zwiększania udziału wykorzystania energii odnawialnej na obszarach wiejskich?"
Rolnicy mają duże znaczenie dla rozwoju wykorzystania odnawialnych źródeł energii, zwłaszcza czołowi rolnicy/pionierzy w tej dziedzinie. Tacy rolnicy są kluczowym elementem dla efektywnego rozwoju tego typu działalności. Rolnicy ci są nieocenionym przykładem dla rolników głównego nurtu, których ambicje wprowadzania innowacji w swoich gospodarstwach są duże, ale często brakuje im zasobów i wsparcia (organizacyjnego i technologicznego) pozwalających na skuteczną realizację zaplanowanych założeń.
W zakresie poprawy istniejącej sytuacji podstawowym działaniem jest zapewnienie stabilnego i praktycznego systemu szkolenia doradców pracujących w tej dziedzinie, obejmującego zagadnienia technologiczne i innowacyjne związane z rozwojem sektora. Ponadto zwiększenie zaangażowania innych podmiotów (stacji badawczych, prywatnych przedsiębiorców, brokerów innowacji) w doradztwo innowacyjne z pewnością miałoby korzystną wartość dodaną dla całego procesu.
Istotne jest również stworzenie przejrzystego systemu szkoleń dla doradców, nastawionego na specjalizacje specjalistyczne, będącego odpowiedzią na aktualne potrzeby/problemy technologiczne współczesnego rolnika.

Practice abstract 25

Short title (in English):

How to support the farmer in his role as energy producer for others?

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

Support to famers can be given in many ways. In June 2021 a workshop in Belgium explored the challenges of the current advisory system and the role and skills advisors need to support farmers to develop a more sustainable agriculture.
In Belgium it is not yet possible to sell energy to others due to a slowly evolving regulation. However, there is significant potential for farmers to play a key role in energy production. They have roofs, space, biomass, machinery, entrepreneurial spirit and they are experts on landscape and seasonal changes.
Halnet is the first farmer-neighbour energy cooperative in Flanders and so far it is the only example. Thus, our knowledge on the farmer as energy producer for others comes from supporting this cooperative in their journey and supporting other farmers based on this experience.
Producing energy for others has specific challenges. New competences are needed: develop support and engagement, provide financial means for the farmer to be able to persuade other farmers and neighbours, and negotiate with others, e.g. solar panel constructors and investors. Farmers also require detailed knowledge on what to invest in (wind, sun) and when, as innovations continuously develop further.
Other challenges include: how to collect relevant energy data from the system and how to learn from it to become more energy efficient? How to match production and consumption and avoid an expensive battery? Those who can store energy, the mainstream, established energy suppliers, stand strong and show resistance to collaborate with small scale energy cooperatives, e.g. in the provision of thicker cables. Varied advice is needed: from roof structure – is it solid enough – and who is accountable, to financial agreements on cooperatives.

Short title (native language):

Hoe de landbouwer te ondersteunen in zijn rol als energieleverancier voor anderen?

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

De ondersteuning van landbouwers kan op vele manieren gebeuren. In juni 2021 vond in België een workshop plaats die het huidige adviessysteem onderzocht evenals de rol en vaardigheden van adviseurs om tot een meer duurzame toekomst te komen.
In België is het nog niet mogelijk om energie aan anderen te verkopen als gevolg van de langzaam evoluerende regelgeving. Er is echter een aanzienlijk potentieel voor landbouwers om een sleutelrol te spelen in de energieproductie. Zij hebben vaak de daken, de ruimte, de biomassa, de machines, de ondernemingszin en zijn experts op het gebied van landschap en seizoenen.
Halnet is de eerste boeren-buren-energiecoöperatie in Vlaanderen en is tot nu toe het enige voorbeeld. Onze kennis over de boer als energieproducent voor anderen komt dus van het begeleiden van deze coöperatie op hun weg.
Energie produceren voor anderen vraagt om nieuwe competenties; om steun, betrokkenheid en financiële middelen te ontwikkelen, moet de boer in staat zijn andere boeren en buren te overtuigen en te onderhandelen met anderen, zoals fabrikanten van zonnepanelen en investeerders. Boeren moeten ook precies weten waarin ze moeten investeren (wind, zon,...) en wanneer, gezien de continue innovaties.
Andere uitdagingen zijn: hoe kunnen relevante energiegegevens van het systeem worden verzameld en hoe kan daarvan worden geleerd om energie-efficiënter te worden? De gevestigde energieleveranciers staan sterk en tonen weerstand ten aanzien van samenwerking met kleinschalige energiecoöperaties, bijvoorbeeld m.b.t. de voorziening van dikkere kabels. Divers advies is nodig, varierend van advies rond de dakconstructie - naar stevigheid en aansprakelijkheid- tot advies over financiële afspraken voor coöperaties.

Practice abstract 26

Short title (in English):

Future of Direct Marketing - small farmers' cooperatives identifies the need for stronger local AKIS

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

During the Foresight analysis workshop organised in Brasov (April 2021), the participating small farmers (all members of a recently established cooperative) reflected on the trends in the consumer purchasing behaviour that have become evident in recent years - including the fact that young people/consumers are mainly buying imported fresh products from supermarkets, whilst claiming they would prefer local products. This indicates that producers and consumers don't know how to reach each other - the producers lack some technological approaches (selling and marketing online), while the young generation is mainly urban and not often accessing the countryside. The specific challenge articulated during the workshop was the need to find solutions for the lack of advisory support for development of the local short supply chain, including the very specific need for skills in promotion and marketing.
Since the public farm advisory services available locally are not active in offering / providing relevant information, the members of the cooperative propose to develop partnerships with other AKIS actors, including the LEADER Local Action Groups (LAGs) in Brasov and the county-level Agricultural High School. Together these offer the potential for vocational training (combined with farm visits and demonstration) and information on local production systems used (organic and extensive), the importance of local products, the impact of climate change in the production conditions, the importance of agricultural biodiversity, etc. This clearly displays the willingness of a cooperative to engage much more proactively in addressing gasps in local advisory provision to address specific challenges they face in their day-to-day business.

Short title (native language):

Viitorul marketingului direct - cooperativele micilor fermieri identifică necesitatea unui AKIS local mai puternic

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

În cadrul atelierului de analiză Foresight organizat în zona Brașov în aprilie 2021, micii fermieri participanți au lmentionat tendința manifestată în comportamentul de consum al consumatorilor.
Producătorii au indicat faptul că, tinerii in special achiziționează produse proaspete din supermarketuri - care de cele mai multe ori produse importate. Ambele părți nu știu cum să se contacteze, deoarece producătorii nu au unele abordări tehnologice (vânzarea și comercializarea online), în timp ce generația tânără se bazează în principal în zonele urbane și nu accesează cu ușurință peisajul rural. Acest fapt impacteaza negativ viitorului produselor locale, precum și o dieta sănătoasă, dar și a unei economii alimentare locale rezistente. Nevoia specifică exprimată în timpul atelierului constă în găsirea de soluții pentru dezvoltarea și diseminarea informațiilor în cadrul lanțului local de aprovizionare scurtă.
Atat serviciile de consultanță, cat instituțiile publice nu sunt active în diseminarea informațiilor și cunoștințelor de-a lungul lanțului alimentar. Astfel, membrii cooperativei propun parteneriate cu grupuri de acțiune locală (GAL-uri) din Brașov, cu liceul agricol activ în zonă (ferma didactică) pentru a se angaja cu furnizarea de informații, cum ar fi sistemele de producție utilizate (organice, extinse) , importanța produselor locale, impactul schimbărilor climatice în condițiile de producție, importanța biodiversității agricole - care trebuie difuzată și facilitată prin GAL-uri, întâlniri cu studenții, vizite la fermă. Agricultorii au arătat că cooperativele au potențialul de a prelua treptat servicii de consiliere pentru întinderea lanțurilor locale de aprovizionare scurte.

Practice abstract 27

Short title (in English):

How to foster sustainability transition in the Douro wine region: Advisory gaps and suggestions to overcome them

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

A scenario workshop was held online in July of 2021, joining winegrowers and advisors from the Douro wine region in Portugal. This AgriLink workshop focused on understanding how farming advice can better support a sustainability transition in Douro.
Over the last decade, a group of winegrowers has started to innovate by adopting and developing more ecological farm practices. These frontrunner winegrowers are supported by the R&D sector and a regional winegrowers' association. This farmer-based association (FBO) offers knowledge-intensive advice services, which are fundamental to develop site-specific sustainable farm practices, such as green cover and enhancement of agro-ecological infrastructures in the mountainous vineyards of the region. To be able to provide these services, advisors need to engage in a long-term co-creation processes with winegrowers and researchers. Such processes are costly in resources, learning, and time. The participants made the following suggestions to overcome the advisory gaps:
• Public funding of advice provision by FBO associates on sustainable farm practices, e.g., in the context of regional eco-schemes;
• Payment for ecosystem services to winegrowers, including access to knowledge-intensive advice paid directly to the advice providers;
• Special support schemes with minimal transaction costs for mainstream winegrowers enabling their engagement with peer-to-peer learning networks (e.g. small demonstration vineyards spread across villages);
• Communities of practice that give farm advisors access to advances in knowledge and technology through interaction 'in the field' with leading winemakers and knowledge-intensive service providers.

Short title (native language):

Incentivar a transição da sustentabilidade na região vitivinícola do Douro: Lacunas no aconselhamento agrícola e sugestões para as ultrapassar

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

Em Julho de 2021, foi realizado, online, um workshop juntando viticultores e técnicos de apoio agrícola do Douro. O workshop AgriLink centrou-se em entender como pode o aconselhamento agrícola ser mais eficaz no apoio à transição para a sustentabilidade da viticultura no Douro. Na última década, um grupo de viticultores vem inovando, adotando e desenvolvendo práticas agrícolas eco-funcionais. Estes viticultores de vanguarda são apoiados por uma associação regional de viticultores e pelo sector I&D. Esta associação oferece serviços de aconselhamento intensivo em conhecimento, que são fundamentais para desenvolver práticas agrícolas sustentáveis específicas a cada local, tais como enrelvamento e melhoria das infraestruturas agroecológicas nas vinhas de montanha desta região. Os técnicos para poderem prestar estes serviços precisam de se envolver com viticultores e investigadores em processos de cocriação a longo prazo. Estes são dispendiosos em recursos, aprendizagem e tempo. Sugestões dos participantes para superar as lacunas do aconselhamento:
• Financiamento público à prestação de aconselhamento agrícola pelas organizações de produtores (p.ex. eco-esquemas regionais)
• Pagamentos por serviços de ecossistemas aos viticultores, incluindo o acesso a serviços de conhecimento intensivo pagos diretamente aos fornecedores
• Esquemas de apoio técnico ao viticultor comum, permitindo o seu envolvimento em redes de aprendizagem entre pares (p. ex. vinhas de demonstração nas aldeias)
• Comunidades de prática que facilitem acesso dos técnicos agrícolas aos avanços no conhecimento e na tecnologia através da interação “no campo” com viticultores de vanguarda e fornecedores de serviços conhecimento intensivo.

Practice abstract 28

Short title (in English):

Improving the role of advisory services for future Czech sustainable farming

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

A scenario workshop was carried out online in July 2021 in the Czech Republic. The objective was to discuss the future role of advice provision in supporting sustainable agriculture.
The participants were farmers, advisors, researchers and representatives from the Ministry of Agriculture.
The major weakness in the current advisory system is the low number of sufficiently skilled and trained advisors, their poor links to research, lack of cooperation, and lack of coordination. Participants suggested as an umbrella measure the systematic implementation of a long-term advisory service strategy, including the creation of a coordination body.
To improve the role of advice, the participants also suggested:
a. Advisors should be financially supported, to allow increasing the number of advisors;
b. Demonstration farms should receive more support;
c. Advisors should be trained in advisory skills (e.g. mediation, facilitation, guiding innovation process) and missing topics while using demonstration farms for that;
c. A long-term goal is to better share the risk of advice provision between the farmer and the advisor;
To improve the advice role in the agricultural knowledge and innovation system the following recommendations were made:
• Various actors, including advisors, and technological platforms should improve their cooperation (e.g. sharing knowledge, new links between advisors and researchers, improved flow of information);
• Advisors and demonstration farms were recommended to establish networks of advisors and networks of demonstration farms;
• Land owners should be advised to require more sensitive soil management from farmers who manage the land.

Short title (native language):

Zlepšení role poradenských služeb pro budoucí české udržitelné zemědělství

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

V červenci 2021 bylo zorganizováno pracovní setkání, kde byly diskutovány scénáře vývoje budoucí role poradenství v rozvoji udržitelnosti českého zemědělství.
Účastníci byli: zemědělci, poradci, výzkumníci a zástupci Ministerstva zemědělství ČR. Jako hlavní slabiny v poradenství byly identifikovány zejména nízké počty poradců s dostatečnými dovednostmi a znalostmi, jejich nedostatečná vazba na výsledky výzkumu, nedostatek spolupráce mezi poradci a nedostatek koordinace v systému. Účastníci doporučili jako zastřešující opatření systematické zavádění dlouhodobé strategie poradenství včetně vytvoření koordinačního centra. S cílem zlepšit roli poradců účastníci dále doporučili:
a. Poradci by měli být finančně podporováni, aby se jejich počet zvýšil;
b. Je žádoucí podporovat více demonstračních farem;
c. Poradci by měli být školeni pro získání dovedností (např. mediace, facilitace, řízení inovačního procesu) a v tématech, která nejsou poradenstvím dostatečně pokryta, přičemž by k tomu měly být využívány demonstrační farmy;
c. Dlouhodobým cílem je rozdělit rizika spojená s poradenstvím mezi zemědělce a poradce.
Aby se zlepšila role poradenství v rámci AKIS bylo doporučeno:
• Aktéři včetně poradců a Technologických platforem mají zlepšit spolupráci (např. pro sdílení znalostí, provázání poradenství a výzkumu, zlepšení toků již existujících informací);
• Poradcům a demonstračním farmám bylo doporučeno, aby vytvořili síť poradců a síť demonstračních farem.
• Majitelům půd by mělo být vysvětleno, aby požadovali od zemědělců ohleduplnou péči o půdu.

Practice abstract 29

Short title (native language):

The future of farming advice: Exploring the need for farming advice in variable rate precision farming in the North East of Scotland

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

A workshop was held in August 2021 in Scotland with farmers, advisors, and precision farming industry representatives, to explore the future of farming advice in more sustainable agricultural systems. The topic of the workshop was variable rate precision farming technologies. Precision farming is often understood as a means to adopting more sustainable farming practices.
The current advisory system was seen to have several weaknesses leading to challenges in adoption and implementation. These weaknesses include: a limited number of advisors with experience to support adoption; a current FAS which does not meet support needs on digital technologies; and a lack of trained advisors with specialist knowledge.
The main future challenges that our participants felt that farmers would face include compatibility issues between hardware and software; knowledge of how to apply data outcomes at a field level; a lack of effective communications on technological advances; challenges concerning time and finances; constantly changing regulations on environment and agricultural practices; and succession challenges, including the potential for lost knowledge on how to work with the precision farming system.
The main areas of future support for farmers include better peer support; support with applying data on the field; support for those in remote locations; affordable independent advice; and virtual networking to benefit both remote and accessible regions. Suggested improvements in the advisory system include mentoring of graduates entering agricultural advice; modernisation of the current FAS system; and implementation of monitor or demonstration farms focusing on technological innovations.

Practice abstract 30

Short title (in English):

The future of farming advice: Exploring the need for improving/reinforcing farming advice to introduce legumes in south west France (Occitania and new Aquitaine)

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

The legume sector is facing several bottlenecks, the levers of which have been identified through research projects (https://www.fileg.org/). A workshop with advisors from various organisations (cooperative, chamber of agriculture, training centre, and technical institute) explored the needs and opportunities for the advisory system to support the wider introduction of legumes.
The adoption of legume crops requires knowledge and expertise, especially on changing the overall production system (reasoning over several years that goes beyond seasonal advice, organisation of work, harvest management and crop rotation), which is more relevant than a crop technical advice.
One proposition to help diffuse the innovation to mainstream farmers was to create a network of 'ambassadors', consisting of early adopters of the innovation in order to disseminate it and to ensure its ongoing evaluation.
In general, the current advisory system shows a lack of a strategic approach. Advisors do not know their clientele well, while the links with research are weak. Another limitation of the current system is the lack of funding for these crops. To tackle these gaps, it is important to promote a set of measures to improve knowledge provision towards users, based on sociological analysis of user behaviour. A first action to be implemented would be to create a common technical knowledge data base. It is necessary to decompartmentalise advisory services by setting up meetings, networks where advisors from all sides can meet, beyond competitive situations that take place in the French context. Regarding the funding of advice, it is necessary to develop direct aid for legumes. Financial support could be provided through advisory vouchers.

Short title (native language):

L'avenir du conseil agricole : exploration des besoins en conseil pour l'introduction des légumineuses dans le sud-ouest de la France (Occitanie et Nouvelle-Aquitaine)

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

La filière légumineuse est confrontée à plusieurs verrous, dont les leviers ont été identifiés (https://www.fileg.org/). La réunion de conseillers de différentes organisations (coopérative, chambre d'agriculture, centre de formation et institut technique) a été l'occasion de discuter des besoins du système de conseil afin de soutenir une introduction plus large des légumineuses.
L'adoption de la culture nécessite des conseils concernant le changement du système de production dans son ensemble (raisonnement sur plusieurs années au-delà du conseil saisonnier, appui à l’organisation du travail et de la rotation des cultures), plutôt que des conseils techniques.
Une proposition pour aider à diffuser l'innovation a été de créer un réseau « d'ambassadeurs », composé d'adoptants précoces de l'innovation afin de la diffuser et d'assurer son évaluation continue.
Le système de conseil actuel souffre d’un manque de méthodes stratégiques. En outre, les conseillers ne connaissent pas bien leur public. Une autre limite réside dans le manque de financement, notamment pour les légumineuses à graines. Les recommandations les plus significatives concernent l'amélioration de la connaissance des producteurs, notamment grâce à une analyse sociologique des acteurs. Une première action à mettre en œuvre pour améliorer les méthodes de conseil serait de créer un socle commun de connaissances. Il est nécessaire de décloisonner le conseil et de créer des rencontres où les conseillers de tous bords peuvent se rencontrer, au-delà de la situation de concurrence. Concernant le financement du conseil, le développement des aides directes pour les légumineuses a été metionné, ainsi que la diffusion de chèques conseil destinés aux agriculteurs.

Practice abstract 31

Short title (in English):

Cooperation to accelerate innovation uptake

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

In the Agrilink project, partners in 13 European countries map out how the transition to more sustainable agriculture can be accelerated. Not only do they explore the innovation uptake processes, but also look at what role various advisors play in those. In this context, the Innovation Support Center in Belgium investigated whether and how agricultural cooperatives boost innovation both at the level of the individual farm businesses of their members and the cooperative. To this end, 52 stakeholders were surveyed, revealing two clear statements.
Firstly, cooperatives and their members can learn from each other. It is important that farmers consult each other, also with regards to the operation of their cooperative. Peer to peer learning remains to be a good method. Cooperatives should focus on strengthening and monitoring the mutual engagement of its members. It is important that, even in large and established cooperatives, every member knows that he/she has a voice and that it is listened to. That is why a representative membership structure in cooperatives is crucial. This is how you build a strong and participatory decision-making structure.
Secondly, cooperation helps to roll out innovative ideas. “What you are too small for doing alone, you should better be doing together”. But this also works vice versa. Existing cooperatives have already proven on several occasions that they stimulate innovation in the individual farm businesses of their members. At the same time, cooperatives also focus on innovation in their organisation. It is a challenge for a cooperative to be of added value for their pioneering members. Yet, for these members, the added value may not always be innovation, but can be the guarantee on payment, cheap packaging, etc.

Short title (native language):

Samenwerken om innoveren te versnellen

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

Het Europees Agrilink-project brent in kaart hoe de transitie naar een duurzamere landbouw kan worden versneld. Ze onderzochten niet alleen de innovatie-processen, maar keken ook welke rol adviseurs daarin spelen. In dit kader onderzocht het Innovatiesteunpunt in Vlaanderen of en hoe landbouwcoöperaties innovatie stimuleren, zowel op het niveau van de individuele landbouwbedrijven van hun leden als op het niveau van de coöperatie zelf. Daartoe werden 52 belanghebbenden ondervraagd, waaruit twee duidelijke stellingen naar voren kwamen.
1. Kennisuitwisseling onderling is cruciaal. Het is belangrijk dat boeren met elkaar overleggen, ook over de werking van hun coöperatie. Peer to peer learning blijft een goede methode. Coöperaties moeten zich richten op het versterken en monitoren van de onderlinge betrokkenheid van hun leden. Het is belangrijk dat, zelfs in grote en gevestigde coöperaties, elk lid weet dat hij/zij een stem heeft en dat er naar hem/haar wordt geluisterd. Daarom is een representatieve ledenstructuur in coöperaties van cruciaal belang. Zo bouw je een sterke en participatieve governance structuur op.
2. Samenwerking helpt om innovatieve ideeën uit te rollen. "Waar je te klein voor bent om alleen te doen, kun je beter samen doen". Maar dit werkt ook omgekeerd. Bestaande coöperaties hebben al meermaals bewezen dat ze innovatie stimuleren in de individuele landbouwbedrijven van hun leden. Tegelijkertijd richten coöperaties zich ook op innovatie in de eigen organisatie. Het is een uitdaging voor een coöperatie om van toegevoegde waarde te zijn voor hun pionierende leden. Toch is de meerwaarde voor deze leden niet altijd innovatie, maar kan het de garantie op betaling, goedkope verpakking, enz. zijn. "

Practice abstract 32

Short title (in English):

Extending farm advice beyond individual farmers towards farms

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

Farm advisory services at the individual farm level are primarily centred on farm owners and principal decision-makers. In the meantime, there are more people who ensure farm’s operation and are involved in daily decision-making. They can include spouses, extended family members, contracted farm workers, hired farm managers and others. These people both possess and require specific knowledge and skills that are used on farms. For instance, grown-up children provide digital skills, knowledge on funds and farm management; workers have very specialised skills to work with agricultural machinery or specific methods, etc. These people thus can have also different knowledge needs to implement their tasks and roles properly. Their education and training matters to farm succession and resilience, and in particular to the uptake of innovations as their introduction often demands systemic adaptions at the whole farm. Advisors need to be aware of farms’ overall knowledge base to which various people contribute, and to adopt their working methods and content accordingly. To properly address knowledge needs of a farm as a whole there is a need for a shift in advice provision from individual approach to group methods at farm level. Advisory and training events can be organised in formats that are more inclusive to farming families and farm workers. Application of group methods implies new soft skill development among advisors, such as group facilitation, conflict management, knowledge brokering and integration, etc.

Short title (native language):

Lauksaimniecības konsultatīvā atbalsta saņēmēju loka paplašināšana saimniecībā

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

Konsultatīvie pakalpojumi lauku saimniecībām ir vērsti galvenokārt saimniecību īpašniekiem un galvenajiem lēmumu pieņēmējiem. Vienlaikus saimniecībās ir plašāks cilvēku loks, kuri nodrošina saimniecības darbību un ir iesaistīti ikdienas lēmumu pieņemšanā. Tie var būt dzīvesbiedri, paplašinātās ģimenes locekļi, strādnieki, nolīgti saimniecību vadītāji un citi. Šiem cilvēkiem ir īpašas zināšanas un prasmes, kas tiek izmantotas saimniecībās un ko nepieciešams atjaunināt. Piemēram, pieaugušie bērni nodrošina digitālās prasmes, zināšanas par finansējumu un saimniecību vadību; strādniekiem ir ļoti specializētas prasmes, lai strādātu ar lauksaimniecības tehniku vai konkrētām metodēm utt. Tādējādi šiem cilvēkiem var būt arī specifiskas vajadzības pēc zināšanām, lai viņi pienācīgi varētu īstenot savus pienākumus un lomas. Šo cilvēku izglītība un apmācības ir būtiskas saimniecību dzīvotspējai, to pārmantošanā un jo īpaši inovāciju ieviešanā, jo tās nereti prasa sistēmiskus pielāgojumus visā saimniecībā. Saimniecību konsultantiem ir svarīgi apzināties saimniecības kopējo zināšanu bāzi, kurā iesaistīti dažādi cilvēki, un attiecīgi piemērot savas darba metodes un konsultāciju saturu. Lai pienācīgi apmierinātu visu saimniecībā iesaistīto vajadzības pēc zināšanām, ir jāpāriet uz konsultāciju sniegšanu no individuālas pieejas uz grupas metodēm saimniecību līmenī. Konsultatīvos un apmācību pasākumus iespējams organizēt formātos, kas ir iekļaujošāki lauksaimnieku ģimenēm un saimniecību darbiniekiem. Grupu metožu ieviešanai var būt vajadzīga jaunu, sociālo prasmju attīstīšanu konsultantu vidū, piemēram, grupu moderēšana, konfliktu vadība, zināšanu brokerēšana un integrācija utt.

Practice abstract 33

Short title (in English):

Trust and relationships in the context of advisory services: how to go beyond the personal links?

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

As learnt in the living labs it takes good listening -without preconceived advice-, reciprocity and time to gain trust from farmers. The same is true in traditional, one on one advice. Once there is trust, a farmer will contact a trusted advisor on a broad range of issues, even private matters that impact the work. But the relationship between a farmer and an advisor might become an exclusive one and is not necessarily extended to the organisation this advisor works for. So the question is how to go beyond a personal link between a farmer and an advisor. Trust on an organisational level matters as a key point for example in new collective ways of advice provision like in living labs that demand trust not only on a personal but also on a broader level. This organisational trust can be built first within organisations: if relevant expertise exists within the organisation of the trusted advisor, he/she can recommend one of his/her colleagues without fearing a loss of trust from the farmer. Secondly, between advisory organisations: during an AgriLink workshop held in France, a need was expressed by advisors for different organisations to be aligned in their advice in order for farmers to grant trust. Thus it seems important to encourage places and times where (regional) advisory organisations could exchange between them to get to know each other and to converge, to even build trust between them, in order to gain farmers' trust. This is no simple task, as learnt in the living labs -e.g. in the Dutch lab-, where often advisors from different organisations are involved but may have different agendas. However, as trust is crucial to move forward in a new advisory system, it might motivate organisations to put their heads together when preparing for a co-design trajectory.

Short title (native language):

Vertrouwen en relaties in de context van advies diensten: hoe verder gaan dan een persoonlijke band?

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

Zoals we leerden in de living lab, vergt het goed luisteren, wederkerigheid en tijd om het vertrouwen van landbouwers te winnen. Hetzelfde geldt voor traditioneel één op één advies. Als er eenmaal vertrouwen is, zal een boer een vertrouwde adviseur consulteren over een breed scala van onderwerpen. Maar de relatie tussen een landbouwer en een adviseur kan exclusief worden en wordt niet per sé uitgebreid tot de organisatie van deze adviseur. De vraag is dus hoe men verder kan gaan dan een persoonlijke band tussen een landbouwer en een adviseur. Vertrouwen op organisatorisch niveau is belangrijk, bijvoorbeeld in nieuwe collectieve vormen van adviesverlening zoals living labs, die niet alleen vragen om vertrouwen op persoonlijk vlak, maar ook op een hoger niveau. Dit organisatorische vertrouwen kan ten eerste binnen organisaties worden opgebouwd: als er relevante expertise bestaat binnen de organisatie van de vertrouwde adviseur, kan hij een van zijn collega's aanbevelen zonder te vrezen voor een verlies aan vertrouwen van de boer. In de tweede plaats tussen adviesorganisaties: tijdens een AgriLink-workshop in Frankrijk werd door adviseurs de behoefte geuit om verschillende organisaties op één lijn te brengen in hun advies, zodat de landbouwers vertrouwen kunnen schenken. Belangrijk dus om (regionale) adviesorganisaties aan te moedigen elkaar te leren kennen en samen af te stemmen om het vertrouwen van de landbouwers te winnen. Dit is geen eenvoudige taak, zoals we zagen in het Nederlandse lab, waar adviseurs van verschillende organisaties verschillende agenda’s hadden. Aangezien vertrouwen echter cruciaal is om verder te komen in een nieuw adviesparadigma, zou dit organisaties kunnen motiveren als voorbereiding op een co-design traject.

Practice abstract 34

Short title (in English):

Skills for facilitating a Living Lab

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

Living Labs (LLs) are increasingly popular amongst a wide range of actors and contexts for supporting interactive innovation using the knowledge and experience of multiple actors. Facilitation is an essential element of a successful LL. It is not possible to provide details of the ideal facilitator since the ideal depends on the needs of stakeholders in a particular context. Each LL is unique, and the facilitator must adjust what they do to meet the needs of the stakeholders and the purposes of the LL. Each LL must be observed, understood, and ‘tailor-made’ interventions must be designed and developed in conjunction with its many participants and stakeholders. Meetings have to be organised and well run, making them as participatory as possible. This uniqueness also requires reflexive monitoring, where the performance of the LL is regularly reviewed by participants and stakeholders, and learnings identified and acted upon. However, openness to ideas, adaptiveness and good knowledge of context, stakeholder relationships and specific issues were particularly valued in AgriLink. Key skills include the ability to develop trusting relationships with other participants, an understanding of group dynamics, good communication and a willingness to engage with other peoples’ framing of situations, interests and concerns. In AgriLink a range of participative techniques and tools were used by facilitators to promote learning and insights and progress the work of the LL. If you want to learn more about facilitation of Living Labs and these participative techniques and tools study our free course 'Creating innovative agricultural advisory services through a Living Lab’.

Short title (native language):

Vaardigheden voor het faciliteren van een Living Lab

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

Living Labs (LL) worden steeds populairder voor het realiseren van interactieve innovatie. Hierbij wordt de kennis en ervaring van meerdere actoren benut. Voor een succesvolle aanpak van een LL is het kundig faciliteren van het proces essentieel. Wat zijn nu de ideale vaardigheden voor een facilitator? Deze hangen af van de behoeften van de belanghebbenden en de doelen en context van het LL. Elke LL is uniek. De facilitator behoort zijn activiteiten hierop af te stemmen. Elk LL-traject moet worden geobserveerd en begrepen. Er moeten interventies op maat worden ontworpen in samenwerking met de vele deelnemers en belanghebbenden. Vergaderingen moeten worden georganiseerd en goed worden geleid, zodat ze zo participatief mogelijk zijn en kennis en ervaring van de deelnemers benut kan worden. Dit unieke karakter vereist ook reflexieve monitoring, waarbij de voortgang wordt geëvalueerd, en waarbij de lessen worden geïdentificeerd en opgevolgd. In AgriLink werd waarde gehecht aan openheid voor ideeën, aanpassingsvermogen, een goede kennis van de context en gevoelige kwesties. Tot de belangrijkste vaardigheden behoren het vermogen om vertrouwensrelaties met andere deelnemers te ontwikkelen, inzicht in groepsdynamiek, goede communicatie en de bereidheid om zich in te leven in de manier waarop anderen situaties, belangen en problemen benaderen. In AgriLink gebruikten de facilitators een reeks participatieve technieken en instrumenten om het werk van de LL vooruit te helpen. Als u meer wilt leren over het faciliteren van Living Labs en deze participatieve technieken en instrumenten, bestudeer dan onze gratis cursus 'Creating innovative agricultural advisory services through a Living Lab'.

Practice abstract 35

Short title (native language):

How can advisors better connect with informal networks?

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

It became clearly understood in the H2020 AgriLink project that informal networks of family members, friends, neighbours and business acquaintances etc. play a very important role in the personal micro-level knowledge systems (microAKIS) that farmers assemble to help guide their day-to-day decision-making.
It was also clear that such informal networks have great potential for exchanging knowledge and sharing ideas with individual farmers or communities of farmers who (for various reasons) might otherwise be ‘harder to reach’ via more formalised channels. However, it can be difficult for farm advisors to establish an effective connection with such informal networks since they are often not “visible” and their existence is unlikely to be immediately apparent.
Advisors must be proactive in looking for and connecting with informal networks. Well-established groups and organisations such as farmers associations, producer groups or marketing cooperatives are a good starting point since they are likely to have extensive informal networks linked to them. However, advisors will firstly need to gain trust and professional respect amongst members of these structures before gaining potential access to friends, families and neighbours etc. that are not participating in their organisation’s activities. Pioneer farmers and other local champions may also be well-connected and (based upon trust and respect) also provide effective connection to their informal networks.
Once connected to an informal network the challenge is then to stay connected and this will involve not only delivering the best possible and most up-to-date advice, but also upon personal investment in fostering good relations and the building of “social capital”.

Practice abstract 36

Short title (in English):

Bridging the gap between farmers and advisors: how to serve the hard-to-reach farmers in agricultural advice?

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

The insights of AgriLink studies revealed a wide variety of hard-to-reach farmers, in the context of provision of advisory services. Their features can be complex and cover several profiles: small and/or remote farmers, new entrants, low-income farmers, women.
From the farmers' point of view, the struggle they are facing to access advice, and more importantly good quality advice, should be emphasised.
The reasons explaining this disconnection are numerous: path-dependant farmers are not seeking advice, farmers are left outside of the classical advice networks, the advice system often only addresses larger farms.
AgriLink recommends raising awareness both on the advisors' and on the farmers' side to bridge the gaps existing between these actors. From the advisors' viewpoint, there is a need to understand who the farmers are and the diversity of their profiles, the specificity of their needs according to their profiles, and the innovation stage they are in. From the farmers' viewpoints, they need to be aware of the diversity of advice sources available for them, including their online resources, the schemes, and programmes that they could be involved in (e.g. demonstration farms or environmental schemes), and specific knowledge on entitlements (the cost of the advice, the existence of subsidies or freely paid advice).
Some more practical recommendations were highlighted. Advice should ensure to cover all the topics that are relevant according to the region of their implementation, and not only on fashionable areas. It should also focus on farmers' (technical) needs rather than on topics dictated by policy.

Short title (native language):

Combler le décalage entre les agriculteurs et les conseillers: comment appuyer les agriculteurs difficiles à atteindre en matière de conseil agricole?

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

Le projet AgriLink a révélé une large variété d'agriculteurs "difficiles à atteindre" dans le cadre de l'accès au conseil agricole. Leurs caractéristiques peuvent correspondre à plusieurs profils : petits agriculteurs et/ou agriculteurs isolés, nouveaux arrivants, agriculteurs à faibles revenus, femmes cheffes d'exploitation.
Du point de vue des agriculteurs, on souligne des difficultés d'accès aux conseils et notamment aux conseil de qualité. Les raisons expliquant cette déconnexion sont nombreuses : des dépendances de sentiers qui restreignent les recherches de conseil, des profils exclus des réseaux de conseil classiques, un système de conseil privilégiant les grandes exploitations.
AgriLink recommande de sensibiliser à la fois les conseillers et les agriculteurs afin de combler le fossé existant entre ces acteurs. Du point de vue des conseillers, il est nécessaire de comprendre qui sont les agriculteurs, la diversité de leurs profils, la spécificité de leurs besoins en fonction de leurs profils, et le stade d'innovation dans lequel ils se trouvent. Du côté des agriculteurs, il faut rendre accessible la diversité des sources de conseil disponibles, y compris les ressources en ligne, les programmes auxquels ils ont accès (par exemple, les fermes de démonstration ou les programmes environnementaux) et les connaissances spécifiques sur les indemnités (l'existence de subventions ou de conseils gratuits).
D'autres recommandations pratiques ont été relevées: le conseil doit veiller à couvrir tous les sujets pertinents en fonction de la région où il est mis en œuvre, et pas seulement les domaines à la mode; et se concentrer sur les besoins (techniques) des agriculteurs plutôt que sur des sujets dictés par la politique.

Practice abstract 37

Short title (in English):

How to deal with bias in farm advisory services: a focus on transparency and robustness to reinforce the impartiality of advice

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

Farm advisory services are expected to play a key role for sustainable transition in the context of the next Common Agricultural Policy. This new regulation engages Member States to draw national strategic visions that guarantee that farmers would benefit from “independent and impartial” advice. Based on findings at the level of farmers’ microAKIS, we argue that it might be very difficult to delimitate the boundaries of such independent and impartial advice. As a consequence, we propose to focus on the guarantee of reliability and transparency of the back-office of farm advice. The reason for this is that bias in farm advisory services may appear at different levels. The most obvious situations are in front-office, when services are delivered jointly with goods: pesticides, fertilisers, machinery, software, etc. But bias might also be linked to the back-office dimension of services. For instance, our results show that some private consultants, who only sell advisory services to farmers and thus could be characterised as independent, have pesticide traders as their main source of knowledge and training. Also, bias might occur in informal network, where the sources of some technical knowledge shared by farmers is hard to trace back. Our interactions with stakeholders enabled to illustrate options to enhance transparency and reliability of farm advice. This includes collective actions from farmers such as the organisation of demonstration activities with advisors from different organisations or training about how to search and sort digital information. Moreover, it appears very important to maintain public investments and/or public organisations that could provide scientific assessment allowing comparison of competing technologies.

Short title (native language):

Comment faire face à la partialité des services de conseil agricole: un accent sur la transparence et la fiabilité pour renforcer l'impartialité des conseils

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

Les services de conseil agricole sont appelés à jouer un rôle clé dans la transition dans le cadre de la prochaine politique agricole commune. Ce règlement engage les États membres à élaborer des visions stratégiques nationales garantissant un service de conseil "indépendant et impartial" aux agriculteurs. Sur la base des résultats obtenus au niveau des microAKIS des agriculteurs, nous avons mis en évidence la difficulté à délimiter les frontières de ces conseils indépendants. Nous proposons alors de nous recentrer sur la garantie de fiabilité et de transparence du back-office du conseil agricole.
La partialité des services de conseil peut apparaître à plusieurs échelles. Les situations les plus évidentes se situent au front-office, lorsque les services sont fournis conjointement avec des biens. La partialité peut également être liée à la dimension "back-office" des services. Certains consultants privés, qui ne vendent que des services de conseil aux agriculteurs et pourraient être qualifiés d'indépendants, se forment principalement auprès de négociants en pesticides. Un biais peut se produire dans les réseaux informels, où il est difficile de retrouver les sources des connaissances techniques partagées par les agriculteurs. Différentes options pour améliorer la transparence et la fiabilité du conseil ont été proposées: actions collectives de la part des agriculteurs, organisation d'activités de démonstration avec des conseillers de différentes organisations ou formations sur la façon de rechercher et trier les informations numériques. Il semble important de maintenir les investissements et/ou les organisations publics qui pourraient fournir une évaluation scientifique et comparer des technologies concurrentes.

Practice abstract 38

Short title (in English):

Towards advisory policies better informed about farmers’ needs

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

Various results of AgriLink points to the risks of a disconnection between the design of public policies related to farm advice and farmers’ actual practices and networks to collect information and knowledge to support their decision to adopt or not an innovation. This is partly linked to a form of path-dependency in the definition of the beneficiaries of farm advice. As trust is a key dimension of the relations between farmers and advisors, advisors tend to work closely and in the long run with same categories of farmers. For instance, private consultants tend to work with bigger farms. Organisations supported by public programmes tend to work with pioneer farmers well integrated in environmental projects. As a result, there is a strong risk that public policies lose little by little track of the needs of other categories of agricultural and rural populations. Our interactions with advisors and policy makers enabled to identify options to capture or explore these unmet needs. This includes using administrative and bookkeeping compulsory activities to identify the characteristics of hard-to-reach farmers. A focus on education and training is also important: collaboration with social scientists (using transect of random samples) could help investigating the needs of a diversity of farmers during advisors’ education or vocational training. In that respect, the concept of microAKIS could be operationalised and simplified to better understand the personal networks of a diversity of farmers and rural workers, either through qualitative interviews and/or broader surveys.

Short title (native language):

Vers des politiques de conseil mieux informées des besoins des agriculteurs

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

Les résultats d'AgriLink mettent en évidence les risques de déconnexion entre la conception des politiques publiques liées au conseil agricole, les pratiques réelles des agriculteurs et leurs réseaux de collecte d'informations et de connaissances pour aider à la décision d'adopter ou non une innovation. Ce décalage est en partie lié à une forme de dépendance de sentir dans la définition des bénéficiaires du conseil. La confiance étant une dimension essentielle des relations entre les agriculteurs et les conseillers, ces derniers ont tendance à travailler avec les mêmes catégories d'agriculteurs. Par exemple, les conseillers privés travaillent davantage avec de grandes exploitations, alors que les organisations publiques ont plus de liens avec des agriculteurs pionniers bien intégrés. Il existe alors un risque que les politiques publiques perdent peu à peu de vue les besoins des autres catégories de populations. Nos interactions avec les conseillers et les décideurs politiques ont permis d'identifier des options pour capter ces besoins non satisfaits. Il s'agit notamment d'utiliser les activités administratives et comptables obligatoires pour identifier les caractéristiques des agriculteurs difficiles à atteindre. Il est également important de mettre l'accent sur l'éducation : une collaboration avec des spécialistes des sciences sociales (à l'aide de transects d'échantillons aléatoires) pourrait permettre d'étudier les besoins d'une diversité d'agriculteurs pendant la formation des conseillers. À cet égard, le concept de microAKIS pourrait être opérationnalisé et simplifié pour mieux comprendre les réseaux personnels des agriculteurs, soit par des entretiens qualitatifs, soit par des enquêtes plus larges.

Practice abstract 39

Short title (in English):

Droppers and non-adopters: Blind spot of innovation support in advisory services

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

Within AgriLink, we consider adopters, non-adopters and droppers of agricultural innovation. Droppers are farmers who initially started working with an innovation but then reduced or stopped working with it. This is a rather unique perspective, since most studies and projects focus on adopters of innovation and what we can learn from them. Such studies typically assume that innovation is desirable. However, in AgriLink we also learned from non-adopters’ and droppers’ Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) and the role of advice in different stages of change through the innovation process. Although those farmers are more difficult to find, we have interviewed 295 non-adopters and 107 droppers across Europe. We found that droppers and non-adopters often have good reasons not to adopt an innovation and in some cases not adopting the innovation is the best choice for an individual farmer in her or his unique circumstances. An important finding is that droppers and non-adopters do not necessarily always have smaller networks or less access to advisory services. Choosing to drop or not adopt an innovation should therefore not automatically be dismissed as farmers being uninformed. For advisors the practical recommendation is to look at droppers and non-adopters with different eyes: to not view them as laggards but legitimise their decision not to adopt an innovation. What are the reasons for not adopting an innovation and what can we learn from that?

Short title (native language):

Droppers en non-adopters: Blinde vlek voor innovatieondersteuning in adviesdienst

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

In AgriLink bestuderen we adopters, non-adopters en droppers van landbouwinnovaties. ‘Droppers’ zijn boeren die een innovatie aanvankelijk implementeerden maar daar later weer mee stopten. Dit is uniek omdat de meeste onderzoeken focussen op adopters van innovaties en wat we van hen kunnen leren. Zulke studies gaan er dan meestal vanuit dat innovatie wenselijk is. In AgriLink hebben we echter ook lessen getrokken uit de Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS) van non-adopters en droppers en de rol van advies in verschillende fases van het innovatie proces. Ondanks dat zulke boeren lastig te vinden zijn, hebben we door heen Europa 295 non-adopters en 107 droppers geïnterviewd. Een van onze bevindingen is dat droppers en non-adopters vaak met goede reden een innovatie niet (meer) implementeren en dat in sommige gevallen niet implementeren de beste keuze is voor een boer in haar/zijn specifieke omstandigheden. Een andere belangrijke bevinding is dat droppers en non-adopters niet per se kleinere netwerken of minder toegang tot adviesdiensten hebben. De keuze om een innovatie te laten vallen of niet te implementeren moet daarom niet automatisch weggezet worden als de keuze van een boer die onvoldoende op de hoogte is van de innovatie. Voor adviseurs is de praktische aanbeveling om met andere ogen naar droppers en non-adopters te kijken: beschouw hen niet als ‘achterblijvers’ maar legitimeer hun keuze. Wat zijn redenen om die keuze te maken en wat kunnen we daarvan leren?

Practice abstract 40

Short title (in English):

Making sense of the whole: Integrated farm advice required to support innovation for sustainable agriculture

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

To support innovation for sustainable agriculture, an integrated farm advisory approach is necessary which covers the whole farming system in the context of society and the food system. Farm advice has become more and more specialised to specific aspects of farming. However, in order to address complex sustainability challenges and implementation of innovation that supports sustainable and resilient farming systems, more integrated and long-term advice is needed. Such an integrated farm advisory approach links up to concepts such as integrated farm management, where it is similarly argued that to achieve sustainable, resilient agricultural systems, economic, environmental and social aspects need to all be taken into account. Farmers’ needs are often focused on short-term problem solving rather than long-term solutions for a more sustainable farming system. While sustainability issues are a problem to society at large, they are often not given priority and urgency by farmers (and therefore advisors) due to this focus on short-term problem solving. For a single advisor it is challenging, or even impossible to offer a complete and integrated farm system view. Moving to a more integrated farm advisory system requires advisors to reassess their role and develop their knowledge and skills. To increase capabilities of offering integrated advice, networks where advisors combine knowledge and effort is a promising way forward.

Short title (native language):

Betekenis geven aan het geheel: Geintegreerd advies nodig ter ondersteuning van duurzaming van de landbouw

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

Om innovatie voor een duurzame landbouw te ondersteunen is een geïntegreerde adviesaanpak nodig die het hele landbouwsysteem in de context van de maatschappij en het voedselsysteem omvat. Landbouwadvies is steeds gespecialiseerder geworden en gericht op bepaalde onderdelen van landbouwbedrijving. Echter, om om te gaan met complexe duurzaamheidsuitdagingen en innovaties te implementeren die de landbouw duurzamer en weerbaarder maken, in een meer geïntegreerde en lange termijn aanpak van advies nodig. Zo een geïntegreerde landbouwadvies aanpak sluit aan bij concepten als integrated farm management (IFM), waarbij ook geredeneerd wordt dat voor duurzame en weerbare landbouwsystemen economische, milieukundige en sociale aspecten meegenomen moeten worden. Adviesbehoeften van boeren zijn vaak gericht op de korte-termijn en het oplossen van (acute) problemen in plaats van lange-termijn oplossingen voor duurzamere landbouwsystemen. Hoewel duurzaamheidsuitdagingen een probleem voor de maatschappij als geheel vormen, geven boeren vaak geen prioriteit en urgentie aan deze uitdagingen als gevolg van de focus op korte-termijn problemen. Voor een individuele adviseur is het een uitdaging, zo niet onmogelijk, om een volledige en geïntegreerde kijk te hebben op alle facetten van het landbouwsysteem. Een meer geïntegreerde landbouwadviessysteem vereist nieuwe rollen voor adviseurs en uitbreiding van kennis en vaardigheden. Netwerken waar adviseurs kennis en vaardigheden voor het bieden van geïntegreerd advies kunnen uitwisselen is een veelbelovende manier voorwaarts.

Practice abstract 41

Short title (in English):

Sustainability matters: balancing farmer’s and societal needs in advice provision

Short summary for practitioners (in English):

Farmers’ needs concern both the long-term sustainability of the farm in the context of societal demands for environmental and social sustainability, on the one hand, and the day to day management of the farm with short-term economic considerations, on the other hand. The farmer-advisor relationship is strongly shaped by solving today's problems and short-term decision-making.
AgriLink findings suggest that in advice provision societal needs and long-term sustainability issues do not get the attention required for the transition to sustainable agriculture. The challenge is how to find a better balance in farm advisory services and provide farmers with advice which addresses both short-term and long-term sustainability considerations. Most advisors tend to focus on their clients’ more immediate demands and short-term concerns. Longer-term sustainability aspects were only properly included in exceptional cases by publicly funded advisors or in situations where the environmental threat had become very evident and urgent.
A stronger governance is needed to change the focus and rebalance the provision of advisory services. Policies, especially agricultural or environmental legislation, need to represent and secure societal needs and thereby create the impetus for farmers and advisors to integrate a longer-term perspective and full-spectrum sustainability considerations in the advice provision. This would enable existing advisors and also invite new providers to co-contribute to develop a more balanced advice provision for a sustainable future.

Short title (native language):

Duurzaamheid is belangrijk: balans tussen boeren- en maatschappelijke belangen in adviesverlening

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

De belangen van boeren betreffen enerzijds het voortbestaan van het bedrijf op lange termijn in de context van de maatschappelijke eisen voor ecologische en sociale duurzaamheid en anderzijds het dagelijks beheer van het bedrijf met economische overwegingen op korte termijn. De agrarische adviesverleing wordt sterk gevormd door het oplossen van hedendaagse problemen en besluitvorming op korte termijn. De bevindingen van AgriLink suggereren dat in adviesverlening maatschappelijke belangen en duurzaamheidsvraagstukken op lange termijn niet de aandacht krijgen die nodig is voor de transitie naar duurzame landbouw. De uitdaging is om een betere balans te vinden in de adviesverlening en om boeren te voorzien van advies dat zowel de korte als op lange termijn in ogenschouw neemt. Logischerwijs hebben de meeste adviseurs de neiging om zich te concentreren op de directe eisen en korte termijn zorgen van hun klanten. Duurzaamheidsaspecten op langere termijn werden alleen in uitzonderlijke gevallen opgenomen in advisering en dat ging meestal om publiek gefinancierde adviseurs of om situaties waarin de milieubedreiging zeer duidelijk en urgent was geworden. Een sterkere governance is nodig om de focus te veranderen en de verlening van advies in evenwicht te brengen. Beleid, met name landbouw- of milieuwetgeving, dient de maatschappelijke behoeften te vertegenwoordigen en te borgen en daarmee boeren en adviseurs stimuleren om een langetermijnperspectief en meer duurzaamheidsoverwegingen in de adviesverlening te integreren. Dit zou bestaande adviseurs in stimuleren, en ook nieuwe aanbieders uitnodigen, om bij te dragen aan de ontwikkeling van een evenwichtiger adviesaanbod voor een duurzame toekomst.

Practice abstract 42

Short title (native language):

Why is it important to have a broad definition of ‘farm advice’?

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

Times are changing and so is our understanding of the nature of farm advice!
The H2020 AgriLink project looked for fresh insights into farm advice and quickly found that farmers are using many different types and sources of information that go well beyond the “usual suspects” of specialised advisory services. In addition to the informal networks of family, friends and neighbours that help guide day-to-day decision-making, there are many important sources of advice linked to the range of services used by farmers. These include book-keepers and accountants, input suppliers, machinery dealers, service engineers, product buyers, etc.
New forms and suppliers of advice are also increasingly coming from outside of agriculture, especially with the emerging importance of digital technologies and online services for farmers.
These new – and often informal – sources of farm advice can be very effective, but their status in the traditional world of farm advisory services is “fuzzy”. Whilst they can easily be identified, they may not be easy to connect with since their motivation to engage with farmers is diverse. But they are often highly trusted by farmers as sources of up-to-date advice that responds to their real needs in the “messy” day-to-day reality of managing a farm or agricultural enterprise.
More attention should be given to the diverse nature of farm advice and the important role of services which are delivered by organisations, businesses and individuals not specialised in farm advice. Greater effort should be given to connecting these less formal advisory suppliers to other parts of the agricultural knowledge and innovation system supporting the transition of European agriculture towards a more sustainable and climate-friendly future.

Practice abstract 43

Short title (native language):

Areas of missing competences in advisors’ profile

Short summary for practitioners (native language):

From several cases analysed within the AgriLink H2020 project, some areas of competence are rarely available among adviors or are owned only by few individuals within the advisory system. It is the case of the use of biological pest control and organic farming in Latvia and Portugal, of digital tools and technology in Norway and France, and of the setting up and successfully managing direct marketing initiatives in Portugal, Italy, Romania and Latvia.
Moreover, a French case study highlighted that the competences related to workers security, health, safety and contractualization are not available in any advisory structure.
In general for non-tech innovation the farmers acquire information either from informal networks or from outside the agriculture domain or from colleagues who pioneered in the topic. They usually count on multiple sources and require long term assessment, both characteristics where advisers can play a role but where, so far, they have not done so.
To face such needs, considering also the fast development of knowledge that makes it difficult for all advisors to stay updated, a change in the role of advisors can be envisaged. Advisors can act more as farmers’ sparring partners, especially in the assessing phase by pioneers, or as collectors of information.
Policy tools should cover the grey areas between agriculture and rural development, where described innovations lay and cover the gaps either training “usual” advisors or empowering informal networks where this knowledge is available and in continuous development.

Further details

Links to other website(s):

AgriLink project's Twitter account

Free online course "Creating innovative agricultural advisory services through a Living Lab" developed as part of the AgriLink project

Section on AgriLink of the BSC website

Blog on the Living Lab being set up in Latvia

Section on AgriLink of the RURALIS website

Audiovisual material:

AgriLink's conceptual framework

AgriLink: Studying direct marketing in Pieriga, Latvia

AgriLink: What triggers change in farming pathways

AgriLink: The struggles behind adopting new technologies, France

AgriLink: Evolution of integrated pest management techniques and the advisory service Navarra, Spain

AgriLink: Farmers are more capable than we think, Czech Republic

AgriLink project's final conferece (video, presentations)

Description of the context of the project:

The context of the project is first of all a political context that puts advisory services back on the agenda. First is the legal framework that imposes specific obligations upon the EU-28 Member States in the form of the European Farm Advisory System (EU-FAS) regulation. The EU-FAS aims to ensure farmers have access to relevant information, knowledge or services on the cross-compliance rules connected with EU farm support payments. However, the EU-FAS regulation remains controversial. A new, more flexible and open version of this regulation will need further studies to better understand its effects. Second, there is a complex financial framework for targeting public funds at the ongoing development of interactive innovation. The European Innovation Partnership “Promoting Productivity and Sustainability” (EIP-AGRI) was launched by the European Commission in 2012 and is positioned as a tool for speeding-up innovation in the agricultural, forestry and rural sectors. The stated objective of the EIP-AGRI is to enable innovation that 'achieves more from less' input and operates in harmony with the environment. The focus is on ‘bottom-up’ approaches and fostering cooperation between farmers, researchers, advisors, businesses and other actors. Further studies are needed to understand how different national governance structures affect the development of open innovation and vice versa. In AgriLink, we also acknowledge that there is no straightforward relation between innovation and sustainable development. Thus, we want to better understand and support the role of farm advice in decision-taking, accounting for the potential trade-off between the different pillars of sustainable development.

Additional information:

At the applied level, the objectives of AgriLink are to: (1) develop recommendations to enhance farm advisory systems from a multi-level perspective, from the viewpoint of farmers’ access to knowledge and services (micro-AKIS) up to the question of governance, also recommending supports to encourage advisors to utilise specific tools, methods to better link science and practice, encourage life-long learning and interactivity between advisors; (2) build socio-technical transition scenarios for improving the performance of advisory systems and achieving more sustainable systems - through interactive sessions with policy makers and advisory organisations; (3) test and validate innovative advisory tools and services to better connect research and practice; (4) develop new learning and interaction methods for fruitful exchanges between farmers, researchers and advisors, with a focus on advisors’ needs for new skills and new roles; (5) guarantee the quality of practitioners’ involvement throughout the project to support the identification of best fit practices for various types of farm advisory services (use of new technologies, methods, tools) in different European contexts, and for the governance of their public supports.