The AKIS Concept and its Relevance in Selected EU Member States

Abstract

Recently, Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKISs) have gained considerable attention in scientific and political forums in the European Union (EU). AKIS is considered a key concept in identifying, analysing and assessing the various actors in the agricultural sector as well as their communication and interaction for innovation processes. Using qualitative expert interviews and organizational mapping, the features of national AKISs were investigated in selected EU member states

Farm sustainability data for better policy evaluation with FADN

“…In countries such as Ireland, Spain and Poland, public extension services provide the most frequent interaction with farming households; whereas in the Netherlands, Greece, Finland and Hungary private advisory services are most commonly used. This represents the different institutional (and policy) frameworks across Europe for agricultural knowledge and innovation systems (Figure 2.3) (Knierim et al, 2015). Results of our analysis (see Brennan et al (2016b)) indicate that the extent to which households engage with extension services has implications for the sustainability at the farm-level.…”

The need for coordinated transdisciplinary research infrastructures for pollinator conservation and crop pollination resilience

“…A key concept in discussions about transitions to sustainable agriculture is the 'Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System' (AKIS) (Knierim et al 2015). This is the connected network of actors and groups who share and act upon emerging knowledge about agricultural practice, and has been described as a 'linked set of actors that emerges as a result of networking for innovation' (Engel and Van den Bor 1995, Labarthe 2009).…”

“…This is the connected network of actors and groups who share and act upon emerging knowledge about agricultural practice, and has been described as a 'linked set of actors that emerges as a result of networking for innovation' (Engel and Van den Bor 1995, Labarthe 2009). According to Knierim et al (2015) an AKIS includes five types of service-providing organizations: i) public sector organizations (ministries and subordinated public administration); ii) research and education (universities, research institutes, schools), (iii) private sector (industries, independent consultants and adviceproviding companies), (iv) farmer-based organizations (chambers of agriculture, cooperatives) and (v) non-governmental organizations (for example, charity organizations, environmental groups). The way these organizations work together, exchange knowledge, and test or develop innovations in a particular agricultural landscape are central to the understanding of agroecological approaches to agriculture, or transitions to ecological intensification, which have been identified as key in addressing pollinator decline ).…”

Achieving best-fit configurations through advisory subsystems in AKIS: case studies of advisory service provisioning for diverse types of farmers in Norway

“…This has implications for the boundaries typically drawn around the study of advisory systems and more broadly AKIS, which are often national (Knierim et al 2015;Hermans, Klerkx, and Roep 2015). As opposed to advisory systems that are seen as national and homogenous with best-fit within a given country setting and AKIS (Birner et al 2009), best-fit systems emerge dynamically and have particular configurations within a country setting in response to types of farmer information-seeking and the system's public goals.…”

“…Agricultural advisory services assist farmers in a broad range of issues, for example, technical, financial, business management, ethical (animal welfare), and regulatory, which are often interconnected and thus require complementary or joint efforts between several advisors (Klerkx and Jansen 2010;Phillipson et al 2016). The agricultural advisory system is part of the broader Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) (EU SCAR 2013), which forms a broad governance framework for advisory services in relation to other innovation support arrangements such as research, education, and innovation funding (Knierim et al 2015;Hermans, Klerkx, and Roep 2015). Birner et al's (2009) best-fit framework provides different analytical categories to assess advisory systems: (1) governance structures, (2) capacity in terms of staff numbers and skills, (3) management of advisory organizations, and (4) advisory methods in terms of techniques and styles.…”