The Diversity of European Advisory Services – First Results from

The Diversity of European Advisory
Services – First Results from PRO AKIS
53. IALB Jahrestagung
Terme Tuhelj, Kroatien,19 June, 2014
Prof. Dr. Andrea Knierim
Funded by European Commission
GA 311994
Structure of the presentation
•
•
•
•
•
•
Very brief introduction of PRO AKIS
AKIS in Europe – a comparative view
Diversity of Advisory Services
National AKIS policies and coordinating structures
Observations and conclusions from stakeholders
Conclusions and discussion points
2
PRO AKIS – some figures
• Funded as a Coordination and Support Action in FP 7
• Total funds 1.5 Mio €
• 8 European Research institutes involved
• Dec. 2012 until May 2015 (30 month)
• Overall goal: Contribute to the performance of advisory
services within the European AKISs to provide relevant and
reliable knowledge for farmers and other rural actors
On PRO AKIS
www.proakis.eu
3
PRO AKIS activities and outputs
•
Conceptual framework for the assessment of AKIS
•
Inventory of the AKIS institutions and interactions in the
EU-27 through a set of national reports, interactively
searchable
•
Comparative Analyses of European AKIS through 12
case studies
•
Policy recommendations for strengthening European
AKIS
Aim of the inventory: to create an overview on advisory
systems in the EU given their recent political attention and
the drastic institutional changes they undergo
On PRO AKIS
4
Advisory Services – to be understood as a
part of an AKIS
Very brief historical view
Agricultural advisory systems an important part of agricultural
administrations until the 70ties
In parallel the transformation from ‘extension’ to ‘agricultural
knowledge systems’ in science
Agricultural advisory services commercialised, privatised and
financial fund reduced in the 80ies and 90ies
Since the early 2000 is Agriculture back on the agenda and the
need / search for innovations is a major political driver
Agricultural Knowledge and Innovations Systems become a key
concept for EU and World Bank rural development policies
AKIS in Europe
5
AKIS definition –
information or innovation?
Agricultural knowledge and information system (AKIS) indicates a
system that links people and institutions to promote mutual learning
and generate, share, and utilize agriculture related technology,
knowledge, and information. The system integrates farmers,
agricultural educators, researchers, and extensionists to harness
knowledge and information from various sources for improved
livelihoods. Farmers are at the heart of this knowledge triangle.
Agricultural innovation system (AIS) indicates a network of
organizations, enterprises, and individuals focused on bringing new
products, new processes, and new forms of organization into
economic use, together with the institutions and policies that affect
their behaviour and performance.
World Bank 2012
AKIS in Europe
6
AKIS definition –
information or innovation?
Agricultural knowledge and information/innovation system (AKIS)
according to PRO AKIS
•
an AKIS concept that aims at describing knowledge infrastructures (Klerkx
et al. 2012);
•
- it gives a central role to the analysis of agricultural advisory services
(Assefa et al. 2009);
•
- it aims at better understanding knowledge flows within the system,
focusing on the issue of knowledge access for a diversity of actors (Hall et
al. 2006);
•
- it works at a scale (mostly national or regional) that fits to the aim of
describing the situations in the EU 27 member states.
Labarthe et al. 2013
AKIS in Europe
7
AKIS diagrams
Examples from Ireland
AKIS in Europe
AKIS diagrams
Example
from Bulgaria
AKIS diagrams
Example from France
AKIS diagrams
useful for
- representing range of
organisations
- structuring interviews
- identification of gaps
less appropriate for
- integration of different
perspectives
- qualification of linkages
AKIS in Europe
Examples of the EU AKIS
Weak vs Strong
Fragmented vs Integrated
Greece, Portugal: no or few funds for
public advisory services; unclear
whether farmers are reached
Greece, Portugal, Estonia: weak or no
linkages between different actors
Cyprus: pressure for the
restructuring/downsizing of ps
UK: complex open system that follows
the laissez-faire model
Austria, Ireland: widespread public
support
Austria: public research, education and
extension bodies well connected
France, Germany: dedicated
Ireland: linkages and coordination
resources, powerful actors between public and private actors
AKIS in Europe
Overview of EU AKIS in 2013
Fragmented
(++)
AKIS
+
0
+
Integrated
++
Weak
++
Greece
Portugal
Romania
Estonia
Slovakia
Hungary
+
0
Italy
+
United
Kingdom
Netherlands
++
Strong/
powerful
AKIS in Europe
Latvia
Malta
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Wallonie
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Lithuania
Czech R.
Germany
Finland
Poland
Flanders
Luxembourg
Austria
Denmark
France
Ireland
Appraisal of AKIS organisational structures:
- The sheer number of organisations is impressive
- Similar the diversity of organisational and institutional settings
- Not always are simple and clear-cut distinctions possible
Examples for ‚overlapping‘ organisations
Public
sector
Ireland
France
Private
sector
FBO
Farmers‘ Cooperatives
Ireland
UK
R&E
Private colleges
Parastatals
Farmer based consultancies
NGO
Conclusions on the AKIS in EU MS
Actors considered:
Public administration, public research and education,
private bodies, farmer-based organisations, other NGO
 not always is clearcut definition of actor possible
On the AKIS:
 overall institutional pluralism, not necessarily linked to
fragmentation
 AKIS concept is useful for overview although not widely known
yet; its practical use is restricted
AKIS in Europe
15
The PRO AKIS definition of
advisory services
Agricultural advisory services as the entire set of
organizations that will enable the farmers to co-produce
farm-level solutions by establishing service relationships
with advisers so as to produce knowledge and enhance
skills
A clear definition of the activity, but not a normative
view about the aim, governance, funding and methods
of these services…
16
Main advisory service
providing
organisation
Public admin
(fully public and semipublic)
Public education
(universities, research
Countries
Bulgaria, Finland, Germany (in 5 states),
Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy (some
regions), Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta,
13
Poland, Romania, UK (Scotland, North
Ireland)
Slovakia, Spain
2
institutes)
Belgium (Flanders), Czech Republic,
Estonia, Germany (in 5 states), Italy
(private profit companies, (some regions), The Netherlands, UK
individual consultants)
(England, Wales)
Private
FBOs
(chambers of agriculture,
farmer unions, farmer
associations, farmer
cooperatives)
Austria, Belgium (Wallonia), Cyprus,
Denmark, France, Germany (in 6
states), Italy (some regions), Lithuania,
Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden
7
11
Source: the country reports, 2013
Advisory Services
17
The major target groups by dominant type of advisory
organisations
Type of advisory
organisation
Public
(fully public and semi-public)
Private
(private profit companies,
individual consultants)
FBOs
(chambers of agriculture,
farmers’ unions, farmers’
associations, farmers’
cooperatives)
Type of target group
(by rank / hierarchy)
Medium commercial farms;
Small commercial farms;
Young farmers;
Large commercial farms;
Medium commercial farms;
Small commercial farms;
Medium commercial farms;
Large commercial farms;
Small commercial farms;
Producers’ groups;
Source: the country reports, 2013
Advisory Services
18
Observations and conclusions on
advisory service providers
Similar to AKIS – tremendous diversity in the EU MS:
impossible to get reliable data for all, impossible to
reach all …
Strong role of farmer-based organisations– however,
category encompasses quite different organisational
types
Upcoming and even strong competition among service
providers (F, I, DE, LT)
-> Policy makers and farmers have to deal with this
diversity and make the best out of it!
Advisory Services
19
National policies and coordinating
structures
France
National
AKIS
policies
Coordinating
structures
Bulgaria
Germany
Ireland
Several specific National
policies
RDP
programs for
supporting
farmers
Incentives
through
research
programs
Strategies
Lack of
and policies policies
on
Research
and
production
No
‘national’
programs,
‘crossgovernm.
agri-tech
strategy’
Institutions for
research
planning
and for
coordination of
R&D programs
Joint
ministerial
‘task’;
thematic
working
panels
Teagasc
unites
public
advisory
services,
research &
education;
No
national
coordinatin
g structure
MAF and its
secondary
administrators
Portug.
Rarely
visible
coordinat
ing
structure
UK
The PRO AKIS regional workshops
 Feb/March 2014 with the aim to present and discuss
inventory
Copenhagen: UK and Ireland, Scandinavian and Baltic Countries;
app. 40 participants
Paris: Mediterranean and Eastern European Countries; app. 50
participants
Krakow: Central Europe
from East to West;
app. 60 participants
Stimulated discussions
21
Discussion topics raised in the
Copenhagen Workshop
 Quality of an AKIS – how to appreciate the performance?
 Public and private advisory services – cooperation and
competition
 Industries in the AKIS
 The integration of new actors
 Innovation processes – what changes are needed?
Stimulated discussions
22
Discussion topics raised in the
Paris Workshop
Discussion topics
-
Relations between public and private actors within AKIS
-
Changing role of public administration in pluralist systems
-
The quality and evaluation of services
-
The potential users and issues for advice
Observations
-
Competition and cooperation between different actors is a topic
-
Take economic crises into account
-
Evaluation of services is also a cross-cutting concern
Stimulated discussions
23
Crosscutting questions and topics from the
Krakow Workshop
 Privatisation of agricultural advisory services is now a topic in
mostly all EU MS; one big challenge is private advisors‘ access to
(public research) knowledge
 Public bodies have to comply with new roles and tasks such as
tailoring tenders, subcontracting and coordinating of competing
organisations
 Equally, the roles and tasks of universities changes and they seem
to get more and more disconnected from other AKIS stakeholders,
especially farmers
 There is an increasing trend towards ‚management by programmes
and projects‘ which is not welcomed by public administration
Stimulated discussions
24
Conclusions
Heterogeneity among the AKIS is tremendous
•
a comparative appraisal not useful because of the
multitude of influencing factors;
•
however a functional focus is appropriate to support
comparison and mutual learning
AKIS actors have to cope with privatisation of
advisory services, i.e. clearly address possibilities
and limitations
Farmer-based organisations seem to have specific
strengths to effectively adopt a coordination role in
the AKIS
25
For the discussion
 Increasing actor pluralism incl. market-oriented actors –
who should coordinate and how to govern best?
 Specifically: new roles for the public administration –
how to foster this transition?
 How to cope with competition among the advisory
services providers?
AKIS on the
ground
26
Please visit our Website:
•
-> www.proakis.eu
•
Flyers available in English, Polish and Portuguese
•
Deliverables, Posters and Country reports
•
Inventory – searchable database in preparation
Thank you for your attention !