Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
- Conference Proceeding (2)
Language
- English (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (4)
Keywords
The Multi-Actor Approach (MAA) is a normative standard the European Commission (EC) formally applies to many of its (co-)funded innovative projects in agriculture, forestry and rural development. The MAA requires projects 1. to build on the activities of partners with complementary types of knowledge, including in particular (representatives of) the targeted users of the project results; and 2. to ensure the joint engagement of these diverse partners in all phases of the innovation process.
Projects that are required to comply with the MAA are officially called ‘Multi-Actor projects’. They include some international research and innovation projects funded under the EC’s Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development Horizon Europe (or its predecessor Horizon 2020), as well as local EIP Agri Operational Groups (OGs), which are co-funded by the EC and the Member States (MS).
As with all public policies, several groups of actors – including the EC itself – have a legitimate interest in learning how well the MAA is being implemented by its intended target actors. A general answer to this question is complicated by the fact that Multi-Actor projects differ in many respects, such as the innovative objectives they pursue, the size and composition of their consortia, the duration of their activity, and their geographic scope. One aspect that makes it particularly difficult to identify general implementation determinants is their embeddedness in distinct multi-level governance settings. For example, while Horizon Europe-funded research project consortia operate under the direct management of the EC’s agencies, OGs are funded under a measure which is formulated by the EC but implemented at the national, or in some MS, regional level. These differences inevitably have an impact on how success in the implementation of the MAA can be achieved.
In this paper, we propose a framework for analysing the factors that determine success in the implementation of the MAA, as well as their interrelations. This framework builds on a review and integration of insights from various fields of social scientific research, notably research on public policy implementation, multi-level governance, and participatory approaches in agricultural policy. To test the framework, we apply it to data from four case studies of OGs that we conducted in 2020 in the frame of the H2020-funded research project LIAISON.
This text offers a critique of a certain development in political discourses on progress, namely the “decoupling” of notions of moral from notions of technological progress. This decoupling yields fatal social, economic and ecologic consequences in practice that ultimately amount to a virtual perversion of progress. The second part of the paper reflects upon the psychosocial drivers of this dynamic. I venture that the only motive that may explain why we reproduce this dynamic even as we increasingly suffer from its consequences is a compulsive avoidance of limitation, i.e. non-satisfaction of needs. Finally, I offer some tentative suggestions as to what a mature approach towards limitation would entail.
A large variety of organisations provides support for cooperative approaches in the field of research and innovation in agriculture, forestry and rural development, and acts as Innovation Support Services (ISS). The findings from ProAkis (2015) show that different types of organisations such as administrative offices, public or semi-public advisory services, rural academies/universities, producer organisations, other NGOs or private consultants engaged in the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) can act as ISS. The funding of ISS can be public, private or a mix of both. A literature review indicates that studies often focus on the
larger “enabling environment” and the structure of the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS). Moreover, many authors pay particular attention to the role of public or semi-public farm advisory organisations (Knierim et al., 2015; Sulaiman 2015). The paper is based on the analysis of more than 200 case studies of publically or privately funded interactive innovation projects within the EU and beyond. The selection of cases took place under the framework of the Horizon2020-funded European research and innovation project LIAISON. European and national databases contain several thousands of projects in agriculture, forestry and rural development. We selected projects applying the interactive innovation approach from a) EU programmes (EIP-Agri, Horizon2020, Interreg, and LIFE+); b) nationally/regionally or privately funded projects; and c) informal initiatives or networks in the agri-food, forestry, bioeconomy or nature conservation area. The results indicate that publically funded IIS play a core role for legal/administrative compliance of projects. Semi-public advisory services take up this role as well, and they are strong in linking farmers with scientists, technicians, entrepreneurs etc. However, they often exist and offer efficient ISS only for those industries that have a long tradition for a sector or area (e.g. dairy, pork, poultry or club fruit). This paper shows that different types of organisations (research institutes, farmers or producer organisations, NGOs, processing or marketing SMEs, or public bodies) provide various forms of support for the studied interactive innovation groups. No particular type of organisation such as the farm advisory services are more suitable than the other organisations for the delivery of ISS. Instead, it depends on former collaboration, the particular topic, objective or capacities available as well as the cultural/political context who engages in interactive innovation and provides innovation support.
CONTEXT
Current research emphasises that agricultural innovation projects are influenced in multiple ways by the Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) in which they operate. Yet little attention has been paid to the reverse direction of this relationship, i.e. how agricultural innovation projects affect AIS in the course of their innovative activities. Accordingly, there are currently no tools to measure such AIS spillovers from agricultural innovation projects.
OBJECTIVE
This paper shows that even where agricultural innovation projects have not been designed with the explicit aim of influencing AIS they can have spillovers on the AIS in which they operate. Based on this finding, it argues that designing agricultural innovation projects in a way that maximises such positive and reduces negative AIS spillovers would be a useful tool for strengthening agricultural innovation capacities in a particular territory or sector.
METHODS
Based on the concept of agricultural innovation projects as Organisational Innovation Systems (OIS) that are embedded in AIS, the paper develops an analytical framework for assessing spillovers of such projects on AIS and applies it to a case study of an Operational Group in the German Federal State of Hessen.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
The case study shows that agricultural innovation projects may yield diverse spillovers on the AIS in which they operate. In addition to considering how agricultural innovation projects are shaped – constrained and/or enabled – by AIS, the research community on agricultural innovation should pay more attention to this side of the interrelation of AIS and agricultural innovation projects. Designing agricultural innovation projects responsibly so that spillovers on AIS are monitored can help to improve national or sectoral AIS.
SIGNIFICANCE
This paper points to an underexplored issue in research on agricultural innovation and, related to this, a thus far unused potential policy tool for improving national and sectoral AIS. It further develops the concept of innovation projects as OIS into an approach for assessing the effects of projects on AIS; an area of project assessment that until now has not been adequately covered.