Experiences with interactive
innovation approaches in European
countries
Reflections of SCAR AKIS 1 and 2
Anne Vuylsteke
1
Content
• Background of SCAR AKIS strategic working group
• AKIS concept
• Experiences with interactive innovation approaches
• Conclusions
2
Background of the SCAR AKIS
strategic working group
• Standing Committee on Agricultural Research (1974, renewed 2005)
• Drivers for a working group on Agricultural Knowledge and
Innovation Systems (AKIS)
• 2006, Krems: request to include advisory services, education, training
and innovation
• 2008, Communication “Towards a coherent strategy for a European
Agricultural Research Agenda”: use SCAR to identify agricultural
knowledge structures in each MS
• SCAR foresight
• 1st (2007): call for a review of the links between knowledge production
and its use to foster innovation
• 2nd (2009): agricultural knowledge systems unable to absorb and
internalise the fundamental structural and systemic shifts that have
occurred
3
Background of the SCAR AKIS
strategic working group
• 2009: start of the working group
• Collaborative working group AKIS 1 and 2: chaired by NL and FR
• Strategic working group AKIS 3: chaired by NL and BE
• Working method
• A network of civil servants and researchers from the Member States
and the European Commission
• No budget, except for some studies in collaboration with EU projects
• Reports
• AKIS 1 (2012): Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems in
Transition – a reflection paper
• AKIS 2 (2013): Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems
towards 2020 – an orientation paper on linking innovation and
research
4
AKIS Concept
• AKIS …
•
•
•
•
exist
are quite different between countries / regions
were restructured considerably in some countries
are governed by public policy but consistent overarching AKIS policies
are not apparent
• AKIS components are governed by quite different (and
sometimes conflicting) incentives
5
AKIS Concept within the food
chain
6
AKIS Concept
7 functions of knowledge and innovation
systems:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Knowledge development and diffusion
Influence on direction of search and
identification of opportunities
Entrepreneurial experimentation and
management of risk and uncertainty
Market formation
Resource mobilisation
Legitimation
Development of positive externalities
(c) M. Hekkert et al.
Science versus innovation driven research
Aspect
Science driven research
Innovation driven research
Incentive to program a
topic
Emerging science that can contribute
to solving a societal issue (or a
scientific question)
In demonstration phase / via research
dissemination
Scientific quality
Research organisations
Linear model
Science / Research Policy
An issue / problem in society that can be
solved by new research, or a new idea to
solve an existing issue
In agenda setting, defining the problem
and during the research process
Relevance (for the sector or a region)
Networks of producers and users of
knowledge
System (network) approach
Innovation Policy
Participation of users
Quality criteria
Focus
Diffusion model
Type of government
policy
Economic line of thinking Macro-economics
Finance
The role of the EU
Typical EU examples
Type of research
Systems of innovation
To a large extent public money: more Public-private partnerships very possible
speculative and large spill over effects / advantageous
Efficiency of scale (member states
often too small), smart specialisation
between member states, create
European research market with
harmonisation of hard- and soft
infrastructures
Horizon 2020, FP7, ERC, some
ERAnets, Joint Programming
Initiatives
Interdisciplinary with absorption
capacity in AKIS (to work with
material science, ICT, chemistry etc.).
Stimulate interaction and learning in
Europe between national/regional AKIS.
Enable in CAP innovation by networks
with farmers
CAP: European Innovation Partnership,
LEADER, European Technology Platforms,
8
EIPs, some ERAnets
Transdisciplinary and translational with
close interactions.
Experiences with interactive
innovation approaches
• Innovation as a process has strong learning aspects: learn how
to do new things, bottom-up
• Alternative: force (or pay for) quality standards, mandates
• Thematically-focused learning networks of different actors can
help
• Generating learning and innovation through interactions
between the involved actors
• Members can include farmers, extension workers, food
industry, researchers, government and ngo representatives
and other stakeholders
9
Experiences with interactive
innovation approaches
• The European perspective of the European Innovation
Partnership (EIP) “Agricultural productivity and sustainability”
• Operational groups, thematic networks, multi-actor projects
• Co-creation and cross-fertilisation as keywords
Farmers
NGOs
Agribusiness
Advisors
Operational
Group
Researchers
"Operational Groups" are no stakeholder networks, no stakeholder boards, no
thematic coordination groups, nor discussion groups
An OG = actors working together in a project targeted at innovation and producing
concrete results
10
Experiences with interactive
innovation approaches
• Incentives for coordination between AKIS subsystems
•
•
•
•
•
Agreenium (France)
Innovation Network (the Netherlands)
European Technology Platforms
Floriculture technology and Innovation Network (Belgium)
Agricultural Research Advisory Board (Turkey)
• Examples of interactive innovation approaches – programs
• RMT + Innovation and Partnership projects - CASDAR (France)
• Better Farm Programme (Ireland)
• LINK programs (UK)
11
Experiences with interactive
innovation approaches
• The example of CASDAR
• Funded by the sector, managed by the ministry
• 2 examples of tenders
• Joint Technological Network
• Strengthen interactions of actors in development, research and education to
promote innovation and knowledge transfer (since 2006)
• Basic and applied research institutes, education, advisors and various
development actors
• Work around themes of common interest and strong challenged for the sector
• RMT propose concrete interactive innovation projects
• Innovation and partnership projects
• Mobilize stakeholders in agricultural and rural development on applied
research and innovation actions
• Produce operational results in a user-friendly way to farmers and to have an
adequate partnership for the project work
• Conducted in partnership between development and advisory services,
research and training agencies, including groups of farmers
12
Experiences with interactive
innovation approaches
• Examples of interactive innovation approaches – projects
• KarkaKompassi (Cow Compass, Finland)
• Improve the quality of Danish beans by heat treatment
(Denmark)
• Control of the Mediterranean Fruit Fly (Spain)
• Riduca reflui (Italy)
• Organic Farmers’ Networks (Belgium)
• Farmersandclimate.nl network (the Netherlands)
• Good Fruit (Estonia & Latvia)
• Système Terre et Eau
13
Experiences with interactive
innovation approaches
• The example of organic farmers’ networks
• One pillar of the Flemish Organic Research & Knowledge Network
• Characteristics
• 7 farmers’ networks: dairy cattle, beef cattle, vegetable & arable crops, goats,
poultry, berries and greenhouse crops
• Coordination by BioForum, the sector organization of the organic sector in Flanders
• Close cooperation with different actors and networks
• Topics are all farm-related ( technical, marketing related)
• Process
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Problem setting
Asking the right questions, relating to existing knowledge, relating to individual
problems
what is needed to tackle the problem? Co-creation
funding project idea
Working together to tackle the problem and disseminating interim and final
results
Evaluation and further steps to take
Taking it further
14
Experiences with interactive
innovation approaches
• Lessons learned
• Drivers or motivations at the start differ
• Problem, risk or challenge, need, opportunity, strategic (policy)
choice
• Key success factors
•
•
•
•
•
•
Composition of the group and way of working
Facilitation
Outcomes
Framework conditions
Availability of tools and learning methods
Appropriate funding model (public and private)
• Good experiences with cross-border collaboration
But often not easy to realize
15
Conclusions
• Several elements are needed to come to a policy that stimulates
interactive innovation:
• Incentives for research, development and innovation
• Stimulation of knowledge exchange, adoption of innovation,
technical application in the production process;
• Support to the activities of facilitators, innovation brokers and
tutoring paths for farmers to implement innovations;
• Valuation of the input and knowledge of farmers;
• Stimulation of cross-border interactions;
• Investment in AKIS-subsystems that have been underdeveloped
• Special attention is needed to incentivize research to be responsive
to the needs of innovation processes
• More can be done than research to promote innovation
• EU market for research and innovation to stimulate cross-border
cooperation
16