Long-Term Vision For Rural Areas

Food Policy Modelling Responses to Current Issues, 2022

Studies in Agricultural Economics, 2013

This study draws on multiple methods. A review of the available literature provided an overview of the history and present state of AKS. We also conducted eleven semistructured interviews with experts and different stakeholders (four governmental, two educational and fi ve NGO representatives). Our objective was to involve the main infl uential actors with possibly confl icting views on AKS and sustainable agriculture and rural development. The interviews were recorded, summarised and analysed, with the aim of identifying the main issues, confl icts and dysfunctions of the system. Based on this work we produced a discussion paper that was distributed to a range of AKS stakeholders. AKS stakeholders were then invited to a national stakeholder workshop held in Budapest. The 17 participants NEMES Gusztáv* and Christopher HIGH** Old institutions, new challenges: the agricultural knowledge system in Hungary This paper explores and analyses the Hungarian institutional system for the creation and the transfer of knowledge in the fi eld of agriculture and rural development. We consider the constitution and operation of the Agricultural Knowledge System (AKS) in Hungary, focussing on the formally organised aspects, and suggest that both the structure and content of the knowledge needed in the sector have signifi cantly changed during the past decades. These changes, especially in relation to the sustainability of agriculture, pose signifi cant challenges to traditional AKS institutions, which often have failed to change in line with the new requirements. Based on a literature review, interviews and a national stakeholder workshop, we offer an analysis of Hungarian AKS institutions, their coordination , cooperation and communication with each other and with Hungarian rurality, and of the arising issues and problems concerning the creation and the fl ow of knowledge needed for sustainable agriculture. We also briefl y explore characteristics of emerging bottom-up structures, called LINSAS (learning and innovation networks for sustainable agriculture), and explore the signifi cance of the fi ndings in this article for the study of AKS in Europe. This article is based on preliminary results of the SOLINSA research project, supported by the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme.

Wieś i Rolnictwo / Village and Agriculture 2 (183): 7-30, 2019

Digitalisation of rural areas and agriculture is a vital thread in the EU debate now, at the time of developing the 2021-2027 programming perspective and defining the CAP goals. However, in this debate selected geographic and social factors influencing the process of digitalisation-according to the literature-do not seem to be taken into account. This leads to simplifications and generalisations of the rural reality. Given that satisfying different groups of stakeholders in different areas of Europe poses a big challenge to any of the EU policy, efforts to make them more effective should be stepped up. This paper is to serve that role. Its main aim was to discuss the gaps in the EU debate on digitalisation of rural areas and agriculture. The simplifications and generalisations present in the debate come down to the marginalisation of the role of place and people in the process. These in turn stem from perceiving the rural reality through the prism of binary division of rural society and economy. The former is seen to be constituted by farmers and non-farmers, while the latter by agricultural and non-agricultural functions of rural areas.

Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy

Purpose The paper aims to define a model for rural development, able to stimulate collaborations between actors involved in the agrifood chain and based on digital technologies as enabling factors for such collaborations. Design/methodology/approach An exploratory research, based on a qualitative approach, is conducted, using both constructivist grounded theory and Gioia methodology. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and roundtables administered to Italian key players. Findings The authors identify five actions (definition of territorial identity, involvement of internal and external supply chain actors, definition of quality standards, cooperation intra and infra supply chains, communication through technology) for collaboration in the development of rural areas that policymakers should encourage and actors in the supply chains must implement. The paper also entails both theoretical and practical implications. From the theoretical point of view, this study cont...

Rural Areas and Development, 2017

Increasing attention is being given to the role of innovation in promoting rural development and sustainable intensification of agriculture. By means of quantitative data and semi-structured interviews with representatives of the main actors in the rural and agricultural innovation chains, this paper compares and contrasts the status and role of innovation among rural actors and farmers in Hungary and Romania. In both countries, many NUTS3 regions are predominantly rural (PR), showing the importance of promoting innovation in agriculture and rural areas. In Hungary the percentage of households in PR regions having subscribed to broadband Internet connection was almost double that of Romania and the selected education and training indicators (both among the general population and among farmers) were also higher. The state of innovation in farming in the two countries is assessed by the interviewees to be weak and it was confirmed that many farmers are either simply followers of innovation, or do not attach importance to innovation. In Romania, foreign/multinational firms/companies are believed to be the major producers of innovation. Although in both countries the state is perceived to have a major role in the mediation of innovation, governmental organisations could do more to improve innovation. It remains to be seen whether the current policy interventions will stimulate an increase in innovation in the two countries.

Bulletin of University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca: Horticulture, 2006

Because of the transformation processes related to the membership of the European Union and the changing world economy, it is necessary to deal wit h such economic institutions that can strengthen th e efficiency of the production and the producers' mar ket force. It is a known method to help the produce rs to form organizations, institutions. In this analysis I cla rify the economic theoretical background of the rol e of institutions at rural development, take a closer lo ok at the agro innovation system of Bekes county, a nd than I give suggestions on creating an institution network for rural development. This study summarizes the r esults of a former research made at the Hungarian Scientific Ac ademy Centre of Regional Studies Great Plain Scientific Institute Department of Bekescsaba. A lot of countr y-wide and local experts with international experie nces took part at the work, there were made plenty of intervi ews and hundreds of questionaries completed. The consequent resu...

This synthesis report is one deliverable of the European project PRO AKIS (Prospects for Farmer’s Support: Advisory Services in European AKIS). The project focus was to investigate the agricultural advisory services across Europe within the context of Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems (AKIS). One of the project components (Work Package 4) was to explore and describe selected forms of advisory services and agriculture knowledge flows in Europe within the broader context of AKIS by focusing three major themes (Topics 1, 2 and 3) through a case study approach. Topic 1 investigated the effectiveness of advisory services to respond small‐scale farmer’s needs and demands; Topic 2 the capability of AS to bridge research and knowledge needs of farmers; Topic 3 analysed how rural/agricultural networks enhance farmer’s ability to innovate in cooperation with other rural actors. Research in each topic was based on a set of four case studies, and a total of 12 case studies were conducted in different European countries, including both cases with regional and national scope. The selected case studies provide an overview of the diversity of situations across the European Union (EU) respecting the strengths and gaps of AS for each of the research topics covered by the analysis. Each case study was reported by the respective responsible team through a ‘country report’. A total of 12 ‘country reports’ were elaborated. The synthesis reports summarise in a comparative way the main findings for each of the three research topics, based on the country reports and including the contributions of stakeholders that have participated in the respective topic seminar. Three synthesis seminars have been organised, each one corresponding to a different research topic, and finally three synthesis reports were elaborated. The report here presented synthesises the research conducted under the PRO AKIS project for the topic 3: Designing, implementing and maintaining agricultural/rural networks to enhance farmers’ ability to innovate in cooperation with other rural actors. It includes a brief description of the five case studies undertook under this research topic, which were: 1) policy‐induced agricultural innovation network in Brandenburg, Germany (‘Adapting seeds to climate change’); 2) the ‘Anti‐Mafia innovation network: from land to fork’ (abbreviated as ‘Anti‐Mafia’), a rural network situated in the Northern part of the Campania region in Southern Italy; 3) the ‘Cluster of Small Fruits’ (CSF), a sectoral and nationwide Portuguese network; 4) a berry pest‐monitoring local network, situated in the Central‐North of Portugal; and 5) the ‘Monitor Farms’ which are farmer‐driven networks set‐up by the Scottish Monitor Programme implemented by the Scottish government with delivery partners including levy bodies such as Quality Meat Scotland. The case studies selected evidenced that the agricultural and rural innovation networks’ configuration and dynamic exhibited a high degree of heterogeneity. This is largely explained by the diversity of problems and solutions they addressed, whereas being as well a result of other factors, namely: 1) the presence of substantial differences in the national and regional AKIS across Europe; 2) different funding opportunities; 3) the diversity of the socio‐economic and cultural contexts where they were established. Notwithstanding the heterogeneity displayed, all the selected networks played a role in the local or regional, or even national AKIS, by filling gaps or complementing the functions of other players. All the studied networks can be evaluated as best‐fit cases of advisory models by themselves. However their success regarding this advice function is heavily depending on the quality of the supporting services from the existent knowledge and advisory infrastructure. In addition, in most of the cases, the networks are temporary and for that reason they shouldn’t be envisaged as an alternative to conventional advisory models. All the selected networks underpin well‐performing knowledge flows namely respecting the exchange of knowledge, information and experiences. These are a result and at the same time an input of the co‐creation of knowledge and innovation processes taking place within the networks. The interactive collective learning processes stimulated by the networks enhance farmer’s ability to co‐create knowledge and innovations by sharing common problems and looking collectively for solutions 5 (problem‐solving focused innovation) and also by discovering new ways of doing things and thinking as a result of exchanging ideas, information and experiences with different actors within different contexts. Hence, these innovation networks leverage most notably small‐scale and incremental innovations, non‐tech innovations, such as organizational, behavioural or social innovations, and innovation with low R&D incorporation, which produce small and cumulative changes and improvements that often go unnoticed. The networks ability to induce well‐performing knowledge flows respecting the co‐creation of knowledge and innovation along with the exchange (and the storage in same cases) of data and information enable them to fill gaps in the conventional linkages of the research sector both, with the advisory services, and with the farmers knowledge needs. In addition, the networks might show a useful model to generate technical locally‐specific knowledge and the adaptation of scientific and synthetized knowledge to the local specific contexts (which are fundamental aspects of an AKIS enabling to overcome the productivity and sustainability challenges of EU agriculture). The effectiveness demonstrated by the networks to enhance the processes of co‐creation and knowledge exchange and of co‐innovation are largely a result of three main features: 1) the multiple actor’s dimension, by joining together actors from the various areas of the AKIS, which are often apart, in particular researchers, farmers and advisors; 2) the horizontal and multi‐directional social interactions between individual and grouped actors within the network, which also bring‐in to the network the knowledge, skills and information the actors get from their connections outside the network; 3) supporting multiple formats and methods of interaction, since formal talks, workshops, field trials, farm visits and in‐farm experiences, to ICT communication and demonstration activities, which extent largely the scope, duration and the intensity of the interactions between the actors. The network features which show decisive data to encourage the farmer’s adherence encompass: 1) offering effective opportunities to meet and interact with diverse actors, in particular researchers, experienced technicians, leader (or ‘good’, or’ pioneer’) farmers, and other advisors (e.g., from whom they can get advice on legislation or business management aspects); 2) addressing topics which are relevant for farmers, in particular when addressed in a practical manner (e.g., on‐farm demonstrations, or involving farmers in problem‐solving); 3) facilitating the enter/exit of the network and the absence of fees attached to the participation(in addition to the costs the farmers show willing to bear, related with time, traveling and also their own land for experiment and trials); 4) the previous inter‐personal and/or professional interactions, along with the opportunity of socialising and creating and/or enlarging own personal and professional social networks. The conclusions of the case studies together with the stakeholder’s contributions suggested a number of leading recommendations, from which are stated:  Do not overlook the need to account for the diversity of eventually supported networks, diversity in structure, contents and dynamics.  Target diversity, i.e., small, simple, easily manageable solutions versus complex, more fuzzy solutions, also with a broader variety of actors, which might have more transformative potential.  Support innovative, ‘strong’ actors, which can provide more resources and have an advantage specifically in the field of new technologies and supporting a variety of socio‐economic groups, which will develop innovations fitting their specific needs.  Acknowledge and support small‐scale and incremental cumulative innovation patterns as well as smart mixes of technical, social, organisational and institutional innovation.  Account for farmer’s innovation as main drivers, which comprise productivity and sustainability, but also profitability and other social gains.  Do not underestimate the farmers’ role as co‐creators and converters of knowledge as well as innovators.  Try to find a good balance between flexibility and stability of supported networks

CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, 2021

Proceedings of 56th Croatian and 16th International symposium on Agriculture, 2021

The current readiness of the agricultural sector in Croatia to transform is limited. Creating and using an open data ecosystem in which data truly is the main force of the innovation process offers an opportunity to strengthen cooperation in this sector. The stakeholders of the agricultural data ecosystem in Croatia were not investigated until now. The main goal of this paper was to identify key stakeholder groups in the Croatian agricultural data ecosystem using a complex query. Five groups of stakeholders with different roles were identified. Their needs are focused on greater cooperation in the sector and they all strive for the economic, environmental, and social sustainability.