AKIS and advisory services in Spain

Report for the AKIS inventory (WP3) of the PRO AKIS project

April 2014

Authors:

Javier Esparcia, Manuel Mena & Jaime Escribano

Research Institute for Local Development, University of Valencia (Spain)

Contact: [email protected]

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme
for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 311994
Please reference this report as follows:
Esparcia J., Mena M., Escribano J. (2014): AKIS and advisory services in Spain. Report for the
AKIS inventory (WP3) of the PRO AKIS project. Online resource: www.proakis.eu/
publicationsandevents/pubs
Executive summary
The main aim of this report is to provide a comprehensive view of the Agricultural Knowledge
and In-formation System (AKIS) in Spain, with a particular focus on agricultural advisory
services. This description includes some aspects of the recent history, policies, funding, training
system, knowledge exchange, coordination structures, and there is a section about the
implementation and characteristics of Farm Advisory System (FAS).
This report represents an output of the PRO AKIS project (Prospects for Farmers’ Support:
Advisory Services in the European Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems’). One of
the main goals of AKIS is to describe the exchange of knowledge and supporting services
between many different actors, but having farmers as final recipients. AKIS attempts to bring
farmers relevant knowledge and networks around innovations in agriculture. Findings were
presented at several workshops (early 2014), discussed with stakeholders and experts, and
feedback integrated in the report.
Spain has historically had a very important farming sector. During the last two decades its
importance in the national economy has been declining significantly, mainly due to increased
production costs and increasingly smaller farm profitability. Despite this trend, Spain is a major
agricultural and cattle producer in the context of the EU.
The Spanish AKIS system has a complex organization. The strategic decision-making and
funding level includes structures linked both to the central government and to the regions
(because the decentralized administrative system). The national scale remains fundamental as
determine the design and funding of national plans of research and technological development.
The two main centres are INIA and CSIC, funded by central government (but also attending calls
for projects). Meanwhile regional governments have created their own research and development
centres, but with two novelties, they are more specialized in specific subjects in their respective
regions, and they have greater attention to the training tasks (having some of them assumed
formally training responsibilities).
All research centres constitute a huge potential in terms of knowledge generation and innovation.
However, the main weakness is that they have not sufficient mechanisms transferring that new
knowledge and innovations and not sufficiently adapted to the farmers’ needs. For this reason is
so strategic the advisory system itself. In the advisory system there were also changes in recent
decades, with the replacement of the traditional advisory system (being the last vestige the
Agricultural County Offices), traditionally led from the Ministry of Agriculture, by a fragmented
system of different organizations with different nature, targets and with uneven presence in the
territory. Thus there are organizations with relevant role in different and specialised functions,
such as Agricultural Training Centres and Associations for Integrated Treatment in Agriculture
(dealing with plant health issues). However, those which have taken the formal role as Farm
Advisory Services are mostly the professional agricultural organizations and, to a lesser extent,
the agro-food cooperatives. They play a fundamental role close farmers, also addressing issues
not always related to knowledge transfer and innovations but cross compliance with the CAP
requirements.

2
Table of contents

Executive summary ......................................................................................................................... 2

List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................. 4
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 4
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... 5
1. Main structural characteristics of agricultural sector of the country ........................................... 6
2. Characteristics of Agricultural Knowledge and Information System (AKIS) ............................ 7
2.1 AKIS description ............................................................................................................ 7
2.1.1 The framework............................................................................................................. 7
2.1.2 The main agricultural research and innovation system............................................. 7
2.1.3 Other actors in the agricultural research system ....................................................... 8
2.1.4 Declining and emerging actors: from agricultural chambers to agricultural farmers
organizations ......................................................................................................................... 8
2.1.5 Other actors at the bottom of the AKIS map ............................................................ 9
2.2 Knowledge exchange and coordination structures ....................................................... 10
2.3. AKIS main organizations: funding, human resources and planning issues ................ 13
2.3.1 Funding research: source of agro-food knowledge .................................................... 13
2.3.2 Human resources ....................................................................................................... 14
2.3.3 Topics and clients: main orientations ........................................................................ 14
2.3.4 Training system: from knowledge and innovations transfer towards users’ advice .. 15
3. The Farm Advisory System....................................................................................................... 18
3.1 From the Agricultural Extension Service to advisory services. A historical change
towards the new approach .................................................................................................. 18
3.2 New actors in the advisory system: towards the Farm Advisory System (FAS) ......... 20
3.3 Characteristics of Farm Advisory System .................................................................... 22
3.3.1 Main characteristics, services delivered and monitoring issues ................................ 22
3.3.2 Funding issues ........................................................................................................... 23
3.3.3 Main detected problems ............................................................................................. 25
4. Summary, conclusions and main strengths and weaknesses ..................................................... 26
4.1 Key concerns of the current AKIS ............................................................................... 26
4.2. Key characteristics of the Advisory Services and the FAS ......................................... 28
Some observations on the collection of information and gaps elaborating the report .................. 32
References ..................................................................................................................................... 34
9. Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 37
Annex 1: Main topics in the research centres of the National Institute for Agricultural and
Food Research and Technology (INIA) ............................................................................. 37
Annex 2: Budget for FAS (measures 114 and 115 in the Rural Development Programmes,
2007-2013)* ....................................................................................................................... 39

3
List of Acronyms
ADESVA: Technological Centre for Agro-Food (Huelva, Andalucia)
AINIA: Technological Institute for Agro-Food Industry (Valencia)
AKIS: Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System
ASAJA: Agricultural Association of Young Farmers
CTAEX: Agro-Food Technological Centre of Extremadura
CIFA: Centre for Research and Agricultural Training of Cantabria
CITA: Centre for Research and Agro-Food Technology of Aragon
COAG: Coordinator of Organizations of Farmers and Stockbreeders
CSIC: National Research Council
FAS: Farm Advisory System
FAServices: Farm Advisory Services
I+DEA: Centre for Research and Agro-Food Development (Segovia, Castilla y León)
ICIA: Institute for Agricultural Research of Canary Islands
IFAPA: Institute for Agricultural and Fishing Research and Training of Andalusia
IMIDA: Research and Agricultural and Food Development Institute of Murcia
IMIDRA: Research and Rural Development, Agricultural and Food Institute of Madrid
INGACAL: Institute of Agro-Food Quality of Galicia
INIA: National Institute for Agricultural and Food Research and Technology
INTIA: Institute of Technology and Agro-Food Infrastructures of Navarra
IRFAP: Research and Training Institute for Agricultural and Fishing of Balearic
Islands
IRTA: Institute of Research and Agro-Food Technology of Catalonia
ITACYL: Agricultural Technological Institute of Castilla and León
IVIA: Institute for Agricultural Research of the Region of Valencia
OCA: Agricultural County Office
OPAs: Agricultural Professional Organization
OTRI: Office for Transfer of the Results of Research
SECTI: System of Science, Technology and Innovation of Extremadura
SERIDA: Regional Service of Research and Agro-Food Development of Asturias
SITA: Research and Agricultural Technology Service of Castilla-La Mancha
UPA: Union of Small Farmers

List of Figures
Figure 1. Agricultural and Knowledge Information System Diagram .......................................... 12
Figure 2. Distribution of Total Budget devoted to measures 114 and 115. Rural Development
Programmes 2007-2013. ............................................................................................................... 24

4
Figure 3. Total Budget devoted to Farm Advisory Services (measures 114 and 115 in the Rural
Development Programmes, 2007-2013), by regions (in Mill. Euros) ........................................... 25

List of Tables
Table 1. Main Technological Platforms in the Agro-Food System .............................................. 11
Table 2. Consolidated Budget in the Spanish Research Council (CSIC). 2011 and 2012 ............ 13
Table 3. Budged of INIA (General Sub-Directorate of Research and Technology) for activities of
R+D+ Innovation. (in Mill. Euros) ............................................................................................... 13
Table 4. Process of change from extension services to advisory services approach .................... 19

5
1. Main structural characteristics of agricultural sector of the
country
The climate and the geographical characteristics of the country represent optimum
environmental conditions for the practice of agriculture and livestock, and to this it is added the
large area of the country. This has led to an important historical tradition in the agricultural
sector. However in the last two decades the importance of the sector in the national economy has
been declining significantly, being the high production costs and increasingly smaller farm
profitability the main reasons. Two very significant indicators highlighted this trend, the
population employed in the sector (which has been reduced progressively to currently 4.2%) and
the Gross Domestic Product in agriculture, livestock and fisheries (with a similar trend, currently
stabilized at around 2.7%).
Despite the reduction of the importance at national level, Spain is a major agricultural and cattle
producer due to a large number of farms (about one million, being the cereal, followed far
behind by barley and wheat, the main crops, beside fruits and vegetables, such as tomatoes or
oranges) and high amount of heads of cattle (almost 15 million, counting 6 million of pigs, 4
million of beef and 2.3 of poultry, added to the almost 6 million tons of milk). There is also a
very high Usable Agricultural Area (23.7 million hectares under exploitation), and a high
amount of Annual Working Units (nine hundred thousand). As a result the sales of primary
products amount to 34,000 Mill. Euros.
However, subsidies received from the European Union are substantial (almost 7,500 Mill.
Euros), des-tined to about one million of farmers (contrasting for example with Greece has 1,800
Mill. Euros, distributed to about 500,000 farmers).
With respect to the plots’ structure, Spain stands out as smallholder, having the majority of farms
a small size (between 2 and 5 hectares, but with much small average in the citrus and horticulture
farming). This plots’ structure is one of the main factors explaining the reduced profitability of
farms, since about 55% of them obtained an income of less than 5,000 Euros.
The advanced age of farmers marks one of the main features since nearly a third of them are
more than 65 years old, which normally keep their farms with family help coinciding with
increased workload. Also the time spent for these farmers in their farms has been reduced
steadily in recent years, currently being 20% less full-time farmers than those engaged in the
year 2000.
Related to organic farming, it accounts for only 1.5% of the farms and a bit less of 3 % of
farmers, and about 6.7% of the total Usable Agricultural Area. Finally, concerning the use of
polluting products, Spain uses high amount of ammonia, having worsened the evolution of this
indicator since 1990, as has increased nearly 15% until 2010, reaching 343 Ktonnes. In contrast
to this negative evolution in Spain, in practically all countries of the study such emissions have
been reduced between 15 and 26%. Nitrogen used for agricultural practices in Spain is not
excessively high compared to countries of study. Unlike ammonia, the evolution of the
production of nitrogen has been positive since from 2004 it has been slightly reduced (from 97 to
89 kg / hectare). Finally, it should be noted also that the managed areas to support biodiversity
have increased significantly in the last five years, as it is shown by EU statistics.

6
2. Characteristics of Agricultural Knowledge and Information
System (AKIS)
2.1 AKIS description
2.1.1 The framework

The Spanish political and territorial organization, based on a decentralized system in which the
regions have much of the responsibilities and decision making power, means that the AKIS system
is configured differently to other countries of the European Union. On the one hand the Spanish
Constitution establishes that the regions may assume competences in promotion of research, and it
is reserved to the central government exclusive competences in the promotion and general
coordination of scientific and technical research, as well as international –scientific- relations. And
on the other hand, all regions have established, in their Statutes of Autonomy (the main legal
reference in each region) the assumption of competences in the field of agricultural research.
The decentralization of competences and responsibilities to the regions marked an intense period
of negotiations between the new regional governments and the central government during the
end of 70s and early 80s. The new regulatory framework between central and regional
governments reflected the functions of the central government which were transferred to each
region, the management and administration of research units agreed in each case, the execution
of research projects included in the national programmes of agricultural research, etc. Meanwhile
central government reserved itself mainly the definition of basic national objectives and
guidelines of the policy of agricultural research, the overall coordination of the projects collected
in national programmes of agricultural research and international scientific relations in the field.

2.1.2 The main agricultural research and innovation system

The National Institute for Agricultural and Food Research and Technology (INIA) established by
the Government Decree 17/1971, was the national public agency responsible for the above-
mentioned functions. In addition, in order to achieve coordination and cooperation between the
central government and the regional governments it was created the Agricultural Research
Coordinating Committee (1987), chaired by INIA and involving several ministries (Economy
and Competitiveness; Agriculture, Food and Environment, and the Ministry of Finance and
Public Administration) as well as representatives of the seventeen regional governments.
Currently INIA’s activity relies mainly of the National Plan of Scientific and Technical Research
and Innovation (2013-2016) developed by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. The
sub-programme that manages exclusively the Coordinating Commission of Agricultural
Research is focused on Food Safety and Quality, Productive and Sustainable Farming, Natural
Resources and Marine Research. It is funded by the Central Government and is developed
exclusively by regional research centres belonging to the system INIA – Regional Governments.
Therefore the INIA leads such a Commission through internal departments, the General Sub-
Directorate of Foresight and Coordination of Programmes (SGPCP), which coordinates and
manages this sub-programme, while R+D activities are managed by the General Sub-Directorate
of Research and Technology (SGIT), through its centres and departments in the whole country.

7
The INIA system (including regional centres) is the traditional and main framework for
agricultural re-search in Spain. One important feature is that calls are restricted to those centres
belonging to the system INIA-regional government centres. But each region independently
design and develops its own agricultural research, with different models of management and
different philosophy and in accordance with their own agenda and objectives, following their
own stated needs.

2.1.3 Other actors in the agricultural research system

However, as a complement to the strong core based on the system INIA-regional government
centres, there are other AKIS organizations who exert a fundamental research function, seeking
for funding for their research projects on open calls at national, regional (although not all regions
maintain a regular open calls) or even EU level (see AKIS diagram). Among them, by size and
human capital, it stands the National Research Council (CSIC), the largest public institution
dedicated to research in Spain and the third in Europe. Among his eight main fields of research it
stands Agricultural Sciences and, in a lesser extent, Science and Food Technology. Agricultural
Sciences are structured in 12 centres and research institutes distributed throughout the country. It
is worth to highlight the importance of this field, not only as reference for agricultural research
in Spain but also at European and worldwide scale, since the CSIC is among three world leaders
along with the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) in the USA and the INRA
(National Institute for Agricultural Research) in France.
Universities and Technological Centres are the organizations that completed the most important
AKIS system in Spain. The universities use their infrastructure and human capital to undertake
research, either basic or applied. For its part, Technological Centres (of a private nature in many
cases, although in practice it has some type of public support, more or less directly as
appropriate) are usually the result of the specific need for a group of companies in the same
sector investing in R+D+I. In this framework there are common partnerships among different
AKIS institutions, generated for specific projects, or even other new research centres or sections
sponsored by such organizations in order to promote research in a specific sector.
Many of the research centres, including universities, have specific Offices for Transfer of the
Results of Research (OTRIs). They were born in 1988 as structures to encourage and facilitate
cooperation in R+D+I activities between researchers and companies, both at national and
European levels. The OTRIs are intermediaries in the system of science-technology -companies,
and its mission is to boost the relations between the system’s agents. For this purpose the OTRIs
seek to identify the technological needs of the socio-economic sectors and to promote the transfer
of technology between the public and private sectors, thus contributing to the application and
commercialization of the results of R+D+I generated in universities and public research centres.

2.1.4 Declining and emerging actors: from agricultural chambers to

agricultural farmers organizations
Agricultural chambers constituted a very solid structure present in all Spanish rural areas (even
at level of many agricultural municipalities), inheritors of times when they was an instrument of
control of the rural areas (hence membership to that agricultural chambers was mandatory). In
1977 a Government Decree (1336/1977) established the regulation and a certain modernization,

8
in an attempt to extend and fix some advisory functions to farmers and stockbreeders. They
remained oriented to the control of compliance with the various regulations from the
government, management of services (e.g. irrigation) and resolution of potential conflicts (e.g.
those derived of the use of common services). At local scale some agricultural chambers
constituted a transfer information point on technical and practical agricultural aspects, most
among farmers themselves than from specific service structures. Their definitive decline came in
the mid-80s (Act 23/1986). Despite they were going to rely on regional governments, the reform
leaved virtually no powers to agricultural chambers. Since the mid-90s, they are being
eliminated in most regions (although in some cases a certain structure of representation at the
provincial level, but with more limited powers, has been maintained).
In parallel with the decline of agricultural chambers there was the emergence of Professional
Agricultural Organizations (OPAs) . Basically currently there are three main OPAs in Spanish
AKIS. First, the Coordinator of Organizations of Farmers and Stockbreeders (COAG), one of the
most powerful agricultural farmer organizations, with a wide presence in practically all Spain.
Second, the Agricultural Association of Young Farmers (ASAJA), result of a merge of several
organizations in 1989, which represents rural business’ interests and agrarian owners, but also
wanted to be a professional and family-farm focused organization. Finally, the Union of Small
Farmers (UPA), promoted by the trade union General Union of Workers (UGT) and the Socialist
Party (PSOE), with originally two sections, a business branch (of self-employed farmers) and
that of employees. Today is very active and represents an important part of farmers in some
regions. Additionally some regional based organizations play crucial role at regional scale (e.g.
L’UNIO in the region of Valencia). But these three major organizations are recognized as major
partners by successive governments, national and regional ones, as it was recognized through the
Act 10/2009, founding the agro-food advisory bodies of the central government.
From the point of view of its activities, the last two decades have been defined by an important
process of modernization and improvement of its service delivery capacity. The cooperatives
also participate significantly in this delivery capacity. The most common services include
Consultation and information services (journals, publications, websites, communication through
new technologies, etc.), Processing of grants (CAP, plans of improvement, youth mainstreaming,
agro-environmental aids, etc.), dissemination of good practices (e.g. through training
programmes), management of agricultural, stockbreeders and forestry insurances, and a diversity
of services (which include technical and legal advice, tax and labour services, services of
management such as marketing and sales, resources, claims, and etc.).
In terms of their budget, more than half of the funding of agricultural organizations comes
mainly from the services provided to farmers. Moreover, government subsidies represent only
between 5-10%. The rest is divided between quotas of affiliates (which covers a very small part,
around 10%) and, where appropriate, commercial activities (e.g. common sale of products
through the organizations themselves). In their structure of expenditures, the staff often assumed
about two thirds.

2.1.5 Other actors at the bottom of the AKIS map

At the bottom of the Spanish AKIS map of actors, in direct contact with the farmers, there are
Agro-food Cooperatives, Agricultural Training Centres, Agricultural County Offices (OCAs),

9
and Associations for the Integrated Treatment in Agriculture (ATRIAs). Being part of the AKIS,
some of them are also part of the official Farm Advisory Services (including private companies,
which play a relevant role in some specific regions and sectors), as it will be highlighted in next
sections. Their main global function is the advice to end users. Other important function is the
transfer of knowledge through training (sometimes agro-food cooperatives, but usually the
Agricultural Training Centres, dependent or counting with license and control of regional
governments). The Associations for Integrated Treatment in Agriculture (ATRIAs) were initially
created in order to comprehensively fight against pest and diseases, currently they exercise
advisory functions on this and other issues, such as environmental practices and sustainable
agriculture. The Agricultural County Offices come from the former Agricultural Extension
Service, dedicated to personalized advice to farmers and stockbreeders; however since they are
being dismantled in many regions, there were they still are operational, they are basically
oriented to the processing of applications for CAP grants.

2.2 Knowledge exchange and coordination structures

The collaboration between institutions and sectors, public and private, is based on formal
agreements for the realization of joint –research- projects as well as through the creation of join
organizational structures. This type of formal collaboration or structures is present mainly
between institutions doing research, but those at the bottom of the system tends to have more
relations with research institutions (vertical links), but scarcely with other similar organizations
(horizontal links) (Fig. 1).
INIA and agro-food research regional centres work closely so that the number of signed
agreements is significant, both among themselves and with other public and private institutions.
Some agreements became in join centres, such as AGROALIMED (Institute for Agricultural
Research of the region of Valencia, Polytechnical University of Valencia, CSIC and INIA),
Agri-biotechnology Institute (Public University of Navarra, CSIC and the Regional Government
of Navarre); Institute for Research in Food Sciences - CIAL (CSIC and the Autonomous
University of Madrid); Centre of Biotechnology and Plant Genomics – CBGP (Polytechnical
University of Madrid and INIA); Science Institute of the Vine and Wine – ICVV- (University of
La Rioja, Regional Government of La Rioja and CSIC). In Catalonia there is a dense network of
join centres, such as Centre of Agro-Genomic Research (Institute of Research and Agro-Food
Technology-IRTA, CSIC, Autonomous University of Barcelona and University of Barcelona),
and Economics and Agro-Food Development –CREDA- (private NGO created by the
Polytechnical University of Catalonia and IRTA).
In addition to this collaboration agreements between public and/or private AKIS organizations,
at national level there are the Technology Platforms, whose goal is to become a formal union of
numerous associations, research centres, universities agricultural and OPAs engaged in a specific
sector. There have been created numerous working groups for specific fields of research as well
as a strategic Innovation Agenda, involving both above-mentioned institutions (universities,
research centres, etc.) as well partners at the international level (other European platforms,
European research centres, etc.).

10
There are currently 15 technological platforms (TP) which, according to its subject or scope, can
be classified into 5 groups (Table 1), to which it should be added those of regional level
(initiated or sponsored by the regional governments). All of them are related with the agro-food
and livestock, either for the processes of production, processing, distribution, marketing or
management. Moreover the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment together with the
Polytechnic University of Madrid have recently articulated a knowledge platform that aims to be
a network for professionals and stakeholders working in the sectors of agro-food, environment
and rural areas in general, helping and contributing to establish relations and information
exchanges between all the involved actors (Chil). It is open to researchers outside the country,
mainly other Spanish speaking countries. The Ministry of Agriculture is doing a big effort trying
to convert it in a very powerful instrument for all those working in these issues, in the different
stages, institutions and related sectors. Although the platform has been founded very recently the
first results on its application and use seems to be very satisfactory.
Obviously, completing this structure there are other means of scientific communication and
knowledge exchange, such as congresses, conferences, seminars, workshops and other similar
activities. Moreover it should be highlighted the importance of the specific training on specific
subjects, performed by research centres for other research centres and AKIS institutions, oriented
to update and incorporate new knowledge to Farms Advisory Services. There is a large number
of this type of non-formal training, designed in response to needs from farmers. However, the
initiative is usually from regional centres, where appropriate in accordance with the Farm
Advisory Services. But increasingly Farm Advisory Services are also designing and offering
training courses, usually with some collaboration of regional centres.

Table 1. Main Technological Platforms in the Agro-Food System

1. Child: Spanish Agro-Food Knowledge Collaborative Platform

Collaborative Platforms
2. FOROAGRO: Agro-Food Tecnological Research and Innovation. Latin America and Spain
1. Spanish TP Food for Life (PTE-FFL)
2. Technological Platform of Sustainable Agriculture (PTAS)
Spanish Technological Platforms of
3. Spanish TP of Fisheries and Aquaculture (PTEPA)
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
4. TP of Wine (PTV)
5. TP of Olive (ALENTA)
6. TP for Water and Irrigation (TEWL)
Spanish Technological Platforms of
7. Spanish TP of Environmental Technologies (PLANET)
Environment and Eco-Innovation
8. Spanish Forest TP (PTFE)
Spanish Technological Platforms 9. Spanish TP of Biomass (BOPLAT)
Power Energies 10. Spanish TP of CO2 (PTECO2)
Spanish Technological Platforms of
11. Spanish Robotics TP (HispaRob)
Industrial Sector
Spanish Technological Platforms of 12. Spanish TP for Animal Health (Vet+i)
Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical
sector 13. Plant Biotechnology TP (BIOVEGEN)
14. Andalusia: Platform Consulting and Knowledge Transfer for Agriculture and Fisheries
Regional Technological Platforms
15. Catalonia: Virtual Community for Agricultural, Food-Industry and Rural World (RuralCat)

Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment, 2013 (http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/).

11
Figure 1. Agricultural and Knowledge Information System Diagram
Source: Elaborated by the authors.

12
 2.3. AKIS main organizations: funding, human resources and
planning issues
2.3.1 Funding research: source of agro-food knowledge
The source of funding for public AKIS organizations in Spain comes mostly from the Central
Government. However, it is growing funding received by contracts of collaboration with other
AKIS organizations as well as from European funds, although the latter assume a very small
percentage of the total amount of the received funding. Table 2 shows sources of funding for the
CSIC. For the area of agricultural sciences, the budget amounted to 66,3 Mill. Euros, five million
less than in the previous year.

Table 2. Consolidated Budget in the Spanish Research Council (CSIC). 2011 and 2012

2011 2012
FUNDING % Budget Budget %
Central Government 60,14 438.260.479,53 418.356.187,48 67,45
Competitive Open calls 38,83 282.949.006,50 191.208.136,04 30,83
Social Eur. Fund / Eur. Regional Develop. F. 1,03 7.505.229,70 10.638.491,38 1,72
TOTAL 100 728.714.715,73 620.202.814,90 100

Source: CSIC, 2013

With respect to the INIA, its general budget comes from Central Government (80%, 81,56 Mill.
Euros in 2011), coming remainder funding from the research activities (Table 3), being this
amount more important for research than the own budget (certainly INIA helps those groups that
did not reach sufficient funds for their projects, but researchers are encouraged to go to public
competitive calls as much as possible). It should be pointed out that external contracts and
services have globally increased significantly last years, although it may have important
variations from year to year.

Table 3. Budged of INIA (General Sub-Directorate of Research and Technology) for activities of R+D+
Innovation. (in Mill. Euros)

2009 2010 2011

R+D+Innovation projects 8,06 9,66 10,48
International funding 1,52 2,07 1,68
National Plan of R+D+I 5,18 5,82 5,89
Other projects (national funding) 1,36 1,77 2,91
Contracts and services 7,57 12,82 10,34
TOTAL ACTIVIDADES DE I+D+I 15,63 22,48 20,83

Source: INIA, 2013

All these activities show the highly significant position of INIA in the R+D+I related to
agricultural and food issues, being between the most relevant in the agro-food research in Spain,
both because the amount of investment and the conjunction of interests of Central and regional

13
governments. INIA acts as the element of coordination between the capacities of the national
system and those from the regions. In order to do this function effectively INIA maintains a
close relation with sections in charge of the agro-food research in the regions through the
Coordinating Commission of Agricultural Research INIA-Regions. In this way INIA is also
contributing to the transmission of knowledge (research centres) to the productive sector
(companies). The European Fund for Regional Development (ERDF) has had an important role
co-financing many of these types of actions.

2.3.2 Human resources

Human resources in the two major national research centres (CSIC and INIA) are governed by
similar guidelines. Both organizations have a senior staff scientist (senior researchers, although
with different categories) supported by a more numerous group of technical support staff.
CSIC has a great size, with about 13,000 employees among scientific staff, support and
management personnel, of which 11% corresponds to staff in the area of agricultural sciences.
The three main functional groups of staff in this area are 35% scientists, 56% of technical
support and 8.9 of staff is devoted to management. These figures are similar to the whole CSIC
(with some less proportion of scientists and a bit more of technical support than the average).
This staff is distributed in the different units and CSIC centres located in the regions, although
the regions that have a greater number of staff are Madrid (with 45%), Andalusia (17%),
Catalonia (14%) and Valencia (7.4 %).
The INIA carries out R+D+I activities in the agro-food sector in the General Sub-Directorate of
Research and Technology (SGIT), through its centres of Forestry Research (CIFOR), Research
in Animal Health (CISA) and Plant Genetic Resources (CRF), as well as departments of
Biotechnology, Environment, Animal Genetic Improvement, Plant Protection, Animal
Reproduction and Food Technology. To carry out its activities the SGIT has counted during the
year 2011 with a staff of 950 people, 2 % of which are researchers and technologists, 40.5% are
technical support, 28.5% are contracted researchers and 6.7% are fellows doing training –
temporary- stays.
With respect to the gender aspect, it should be noted that in Spain, as in many other EU countries
of the EU-27, the proportion of women working as a researches is less than 40% on average.
Moreover, women tend to remain mostly stagnated in the lower categories. Also it has been
proven that there is a negative correlation between the invested budget and the presence of
women, i.e., in organizations with more funding the presence of women tends to be lower.
However those general tendencies, there are some exceptions, for example regarding the gender
of INIA staff. It should be noted that of the 950 employees in 2011, almost 60% are women,
being 51% of researchers and technologists, 57% of staff of technical support, 66% of contracted
staff ad 63% of staff doing training temporary stays. In spite of that distribution, the figures
make the INIA an example in gender equality, including the research sections.

2.3.3 Topics and clients: main orientations

When analysing the orientation and/or contents of the research and clients, many experts agree
that there are two major trends. First, the regional research centres, which tend to focus more on
applied research, due to their greater proximity to the end users and therefore more focused in

14
their demands and needs (farmers, stockbreeders, cooperatives, etc.). In these cases centres try to
solve many – frequently daily – problems affecting to a product or sector (wine, cereals, fruits,
etc.), and to bring improvements to face better those problems and/or to improve their
competitiveness. In this sense we may say that regional centres are more problem-solving
oriented.
Second, there is the research from INIA and CSIC, which could be described as fundamental or
basic research and therefore with a lesser degree of direct application or, at least, would be one
research less depending on the demands of end users. However, although their activities are
more fundamental research oriented (therefore depending on the orientations coming from
national research policy), the INIA, through its SGIT and its different research centres, in a
lesser extent than regional centres also provides scientific and technical advice to public or
private organizations that request them. Thus for example is increasing the number of private
companies asking for collaborations and in some cases for specific research and its outputs (in
most of these cases it is applied research). Therefore, as private demand increases, applied
research is more demanded, although it applies much more for regional centres, it is also present
in national ones.
Obviously both approaches, applied and fundamental research are necessary, and their
complementarity (taking into account the good integration between regional and national
centres) provides a greater strength to the research system. Despite this, the higher or lower
applied component of the agro-food research is discussed in broad sectors, but in any way these
are decisions in the scope of scientific and research policies of the central and regional
governments and the different organizations depending of them.
The activity of INIA, through the Subdirectorate-General for Research and Technology (SGIT)
orients its activities to the implementation of the priority research topics within the National
Programme for R+D+i, focused on the “Society Challenges” (managed by the Ministry of
Economy and Competitiveness). The main topics on which INIA (SGIT) is currently doing
research in relation to the agricultural sector are those in Annex 1.
Some regions develop its own plans, as for example Catalonia. Here there is a Technology
Transfer Annual Plan (PATT), collecting, programming and coordinating research and
experimental actions (continued activities) as well as actions for dissemination of technical
knowledge (dissemination activities) oriented to farmers, advisors and agroindustry. Those
actions are proposed and evaluated regularly by a selected number of players involved in the
sector (Commission for Coordination of Technology Transfer), including representatives of the
regional government working in rural areas, Agricultural Schools, Farmer’s Unions, Producer’s
Associations, Universities and Research Institutes, local governments and LEADER Local
Action Groups.

2.3.4 Training system: from knowledge and innovations transfer towards users’
advice
National and regional centres do not have advisory programmes as such, but educational, more
or less specialized as appropriate. In the national centres the design of these training programs
responds to initiative and proposal of the different institutes, being decision-making bodies who

15
design programming, although in this case six months periods or annual basis. In the last two
years, training programmes in national centres have declined. The INIA for example maintained
a programme especially with Latin America accompanied by international courses, which are
practically suspended. However INIA maintains the seminars programme (with more than 50 in
2012), but oriented to researchers.
Regional centres differ from the national ones for a more relevant training activity and the
orientation to the demands and needs of farmers and stockbreeders in their territory (thus less
research goals than in the national centres). For example, the IVIA (region of Valencia)
organizes during the year 2013 about 100 courses of specialization for farmers and stockbreeders
(although some of them are open for public in general). This programme of "à la carte"
specialized training responds directly to the needs. The needs may have been detected by staff of
the IVIA o those from advisory services, collecting sometimes direct expressions of interest by
the farmers and stockbreeders. The IVIA pays much attention to the specificities related to the
typical crops in the region, but on the other hand it is working hard fostering practices related to
organic farming (from this point of view it takes part of the objectives of the farm advisory
system). In parallel, the IVIA also has a specialized training plan for technicians (many of which
are linked to the official advisory services), more extensive and specialized than the intended for
farmers and stockbreeders. In a similar way are working other regional centres, although the
importance of training programmes could vary significantly.
One of the regional centres which have a more solid and developed training system is the IFAPA
(Andalusia). It maintains five large institutional training projects (coping with mandatory
regulations, related to integrated production, organic production, animal welfare, pesticides and
incorporation to the agricultural enterprise). In addition, it develops three other large projects in
the fishing sector. In parallel, it offers a wide range of short courses of specialization for farmers
and stockbreeders throughout the territory. In the year 2013 there is planned a total of 677
courses of this type (combined classroom and blended mode in any of its 18 training centres in
the region, and online mode via the training platform). To complement to this wide system based
on the IFAPA, there are more than 700 entities officially recognized to provide specific training
in Andalusia. These organizations are in many cases very small, and in spite that they could be
said that they form part of the advisory system (through the training), they are not official FAS
organizations.
Centres usually conduct satisfaction surveys to attendees, which is the main feedback in order to
analyze the usefulness of each of the courses. However, neither in national centres nor in those
of a regional nature it is usual to conduct monitoring and analysis of the impact of training
initiatives, at least in a systematic and consistent way. In addition to the satisfaction surveys,
frequently the assessment is informal, based on communication with those attending seminars
and perceptions that transfer the staff in advisory services. These non-formalized assessments
serve in any case to plan new offer of specialized training. Furthermore, among the organizations
that provide advisory services, some of them repeated in a smaller-scale the scheme of seminars
and courses as and advice to groups of farmers. Others, the less experienced and with less
tradition or less structures, only tend to carry out the individualized advice as training recognized
centres either as FAS. These institutions, whether if they do advice to groups (courses or
seminars) or if it is individualized, usually do not perform systematic procedures of assessment

16
and evaluation. As well as the regional centres, their activities respond more to the specific
demand of farmers and, when planning training or group advice initiatives, it is a short term
planning, annual or referred to the agricultural campaign.

17
3. The Farm Advisory System
3.1 From the Agricultural Extension Service to advisory services.
A historical change towards the new approach
The advisory services to farmers emerged in Spain in the mid-1950s, known as Agricultural
Extension Service, led by the central government. At the end of the 70's (1978), the AES began
to be transferred to the recently created administrative structure of regional governments. As it
was completing the transfer of powers to the regions, central services were also losing functions
of control and supervision over the regional centres. In order to maintain coordination between
Directorate-General (central government) and those in charge of Agricultural Extension Service
in regional governments it was created the Coordinating Board's for Agricultural Extension
(Government Decree 1843 / 24 July 1980). In addition, two new aspects had to be taken into
account, affecting –National- Agricultural Extension Service. Firstly, the extension and research
are put under the same Directorate-General of the Ministry of Agriculture. Secondly, the
Ministry draws up the National Technology Dissemination Plan (PNTD, 1981), which is
intended to promote the modernization of the agricultural sector and encourage adaptation to
new circumstances such as the energy crisis, the revaluation of underutilized resources,
integration into the EEC and the reorganization of the agro-food system.
Both events marked a turning point in the consideration of the functions of Agricultural
Extension Ser-vice. The Ministry gave greater weight in its strategy and objectives to technology
transfer, so it began to articulate to the Agricultural Extension Service with INIA. The Ministry
also decided that the Agricultural Extension Service should to stop work at the request of the
farmers to make it to the agricultural policies, and at this time (with the close perspective to entry
into the EEC) its functions were focused more towards the modernization of agricultural
structures. Therefore, after the PNTD the goals were focused much more on the technical and
economic and much less from social aspects, producing a change in the conception of the
agricultural world (they no longer thought in rural communities but in agriculture professionals).
The Agricultural Extension Service and INIA depended hierarchically of the Directorate-General
of Agri-cultural Research and Training, which from 1988 (Government Decree 1532/1988)
became dependent on the Secretariat of Agrarian Structures in which it was also included the
National Institute of Reform and Agricultural Development (IRYDA). Due to the progressive
decentralization of competencies in the field of agriculture, at the central level, the bodies of the
AES were reduced to the former Central Training School, being their functions reduced to staff
training, coordination and information and the provision of specialized services.
In 1991, the Agricultural Extension Service disappeared definitively as autonomous body after
the reorganization of the Ministry of Agriculture (Government Decree 654/1991), whereas the
human resources were assigned to different units in the IRYDA. Also, the General Secretariat of
Agricultural Structures assumed functions from IRYDA (such as the stimulus to achieve greater
competitiveness in the agricultural sector) and others related to the EU policies. The global loss
of functions of the IRYDA, as well as the transfer of competencies to the regional governments
reduced its importance and through a new modification of the structure of the Ministry
(Government Decree 1055/1995), the IRYDA disappeared joining together with the Institute for

18
the Conservation of the Nature (ICONA, dealing until that moment with the national forest
policies) in the Autonomous Organism of National Parks (dependent of the central government).
Therefore, due to the administrative structure in Spain, the regions have taken large number of
responsibilities and competences since early 80s, including those referring to agricultural
extension services. However the traditional public extension service is not being offered any
more after the transfer of competences to the regions. The change was not only related to which
government, central or regional, was responsible of this service. The change was much more
deeply since it was related to the conception of the service itself (Table 4), coming from a
conception focused on the development and demonstration of agronomic innovations to the
farmers to another one focused on a set of services more oriented to the fulfilment of official
requirements from the CAP.

Table 4. Process of change from extension services to advisory services approach

Process of change
From To
Extension Service (agronomic Advisory Service (general advice and advice
Approach
demonstration) on demand)
Period Until 80s To date
Responsible authorities Central goverment Regional governments
Regional (until 2003/2007)
Scope of regulation National
Adaptation to EU (2007 to date) - FAS
Public: regional research centres (decreasing)
Private: consultants (increasing)
Type of supplier-s Public (central goverment)
Non-profit: agricultural farmer organizations
and cooperatives (highly increasing)
Source: Elaborated by the authors.

The regions did not reach to provide similar services than the previous national extension service
(with the exception of some training). Early the traditional experimental and demonstration
farms (coming from the former extension approach) were oriented into the applied research,
losing most of them the traditional direct contact with farmers. Therefore the traditional
extension functions were disappearing since new OPAs and federations of cooperatives started to
emerge and consolidate themselves as advisory services. Thus administrative decentralization
implied the change from the former national extension service to a range of regional based
providers including mainly OPAs and cooperatives or their federations. This change was not just
about the providers but a change in the approach (conception and type of services to be
delivered) which applies to the whole system. It was a continuous process of change in the
system since the 80s until very recently, reinforced with the EU regulations on Farm Advisory
Services.

19
 3.2 New actors in the advisory system: towards the Farm Advisory
System (FAS)
In summary, as a consequence of the process of change since early 80s, during the last years it
has been set up the current structure of actors in the advisory system, characterized by five main
types of actors, regional research centres, agricultural county offices, professional farmer
organizations, cooperatives and private companies specialized in advisory services. The last
three types of actors are the base of what few years ago was the official Farm Advisory Service
in Spain.
1) Regional research centres and join-centres, with the main functions focused on R+D+I
and technology transfer. Most of them also offer training programmes (with different
level of specialization according to the needs) managed directly or in coordination with
some sections of the regional governments. Some of them also develop functions of –
more or less occasional- advice services (for example through their experimental farms),
as it is the case of IVIA in Valencia, IRTA in Catalonia or IFAPA in Andalucia. In this
last region the Agency Management Agricultural and Fisheries (2011) centralizes
management and processing functions of grants and records on agricultural policies,
assuming also functions of promotion and agricultural extension, management studies
and training.
2) Agricultural County Offices (OCAs). This is the structure linked to former Agricultural
Extension Service. However they have lost the traditional role of personalized advice to
farmers, and currently they have functions focused primarily in the management of grants
to farmers from CAP or some other type of administrative issues linked to the
management of EU regulations.
3) Professional Farmer’s Organizations. With the disappearance of national Agricultural
Extension Service and the loss of functions of OCAs, OPAs have gathered most of them,
exercising functions of technical and specialized advice for its affiliates. They also advise
farmers in the field of public grants, even though the official management for them is the
responsibility of the OCAs or other institutions.
4) Cooperatives, organized formerly in regional federations, which became in confederation
in 1989 after joining two main national organizations. In 2009 they became Agro-Food
Cooperatives Confederation, an umbrella organization for the whole cooperative sector in
the agriculture, livestock and agro-food activities. Although well tuned with OPAs, it
increasingly competes in the advisory system.
5) Private consultancy companies. Finally, as a result of that process of dismantling of the
functions of former public Agricultural Extension Service, the emergence of new needs
such as the management of public funds from EU policies, private organizations
emerged. This has allowed them to incorporate new features into its advisory services.
Like all of the above, this type of private organizations is present in most of the regions,
although (depending on the regional requirements) just some of them became official
Farm Advisory Service.

20
Therefore, before the creation of official advisory services, regulated first by the central
government in 2006, OPAs, cooperatives and some private companies had begun to develop
non-formal functions of advisory services during the 90s. Regional Centres, the only official
actor having the initial responsibilities for extension and advisory services, early focused on
applied research and, in a less extent, training, being this last function the main one coming from
the traditional conception of extension services. However, training programmes delivered by
these regional centres are a very consistent piece in the current advisory system.
With national regulation in 2006 those providers came to the FAS, including all requirements of
the EU and national regulations, but many of them also some additional requirements established
by the regional governments. Due to the different requirements in each region, to become
FAService was more or less difficult depending on the region. For example, in the eight
provinces of Andalucia there are just four official organizations in its FAS (obviously with
offices in all provinces), meanwhile in Extremadura, with two provinces, close to Andalucia and
with similar territorial characteristics, there are more than twenty FAS organizations. In La
Rioja, just one province, there were in 2010 nine official organizations.
The national regulation in 2006 stipulated three important aspects. First, the creation of the
National Registry of FAS. Second, that regional governments were responsible to check the
fulfilment of requirements for organizations acting in their region. Third, that central government
was responsible to check those organizations acting in more than one region. This regulation was
derogated in 2010, and currently each region is responsible to check the fulfilment and control
those organizations acting in its region. Therefore there is no national but just regional registry,
being the organizations forced to be registered in each region in which they are present (instead a
national registry).
Precise information on FAS is not easily to access in all regions, but in spite of the difficulties
we may have a whole picture of the main suppliers in the system. As noted in Table 1 the main
current suppliers are non-profit OPAs as well as cooperatives. The organizations present in
practically everywhere are the three main OPAs1 which take advantage of their high presence in
most rural areas. Beside them there are some other OPAs with regional presence playing a
significant role in their area, such as L’UNIO (Union of Farmers and Stockbreeders) in the
region of Valencia, or Unió de Pagesos in Catalonia. The other important actor is the Agro-Food
Cooperatives, the umbrella organization of much of the cooperatives in the country, being
present in all the regions through their regional federations.
OPAs as well as Agro-Food Cooperatives are the most important part of the current advisory
system in Spain and the ones who are present in all regions and provinces, and probably they
cope with more than 95 % of the services. However it is worth to mention private –usually
small- organizations, which are just present in some regions, although it is hard to compete for
them with the OPAs, farm unions and cooperatives, which have large and experienced structures
coping with the requirements of advisory services. These organisations often offer specialised
services and expertise not available for farmers otherwise.

1
ASAJA (with about 200,000 affiliates), COAG (with about 100,000 affiliates) and UPA (with about 80,000
affiliates).

21
 3.3 Characteristics of Farm Advisory System
3.3.1 Main characteristics, services delivered and monitoring issues
Due to the administrative structure, each region has its own Rural Development Programme,
which establishes the framework in which to develop its respective FAS and FAService.
Particular measures that refer to it are the 114 (Use of FAServices by farmers and foresters) and
the 115 (implementation of FAS, management, replacement and FAServices, as well as Forestry
Advisory Services).
Organizations (whether public, semi-public, or private) providing official FAServices shall be
registered in each of their respective regions. Most of the registered institutions were non-profit
(171), while 21 are private profit-seeking (they usually are small business focused in services to
agricultural sector), and only two of them are public (ADE, 2009). Only non-profit organizations
could receive public help. Usually they are OPAs or Agro-Food Cooperatives Confederation.
Private organizations are not present everywhere, depending on the regional requirements (for
example they are in Canary Islands, Catalonia, Murcia, etc.). It is worth to mention that for
example in Catalonia 27 % of the officially recognised advisory bodies are private organisations.
The Government Decree 520/2006 (modified by Government Decree 108/2010) regulating FAS
organizations established minimum performance requirements for those organizations. The
minimum staff should include one specialist with official degree in Agronomy, one more in
Veterinary Medicine and one more with degree in Biological Sciences, Environmental Sciences
or Forestry. The technical staff at each office must be at least one technician with Professional
Training in one of the above areas. Nevertheless, it is expected that staff should be as polyvalent
as possible. All of them should have specific training in advising with proven experience and
reliability in the field. Their training is done mainly through courses set by regional research
centres, integrated in the system INIA-regional research centres. Although there is no formal
protocol for action in training activities between these research centres and the organizations
devoted to advisory services, they use to be in close contact and in some regions (e.g. Andalusia)
it is frequent that they sign agreements of collaboration, which strengthens networks of
knowledge transfer and training. Regarding the gender issues in the staff, there are no mandatory
rules in the national regulations.
Some regions included additional requirements to those that were mandatory from the EU and
central government. Thus for example in Andalusia organic farming is a mandatory subject, FAS
organizations have to be present and deliver their services across the all eight provinces, and
their staff must demonstrate a minimum of 60 hours training and a commitment to follow
continuing training programmes. In Catalonia three differentiate types of FAS organisations are
recognised depending on the services they deliver, agricultural, livestock and/or integral advice
(including diversification, marketing and business management). It is also required that their
staff follow during their first two years at least 50 hours of training (including cross-compliance
and business management), adding 5 hours yearly. The Basque country requires for staff two
years minimum of experience in all topics of advice, and introduces additional requirements of
training regarding issues such as productivity improvement, analysis of economic and financial
feasibility, and employment, fiscal and legal advice. Cantabria establishes that University staff
should have a minimum 5-year contract, and prohibits subcontracting the advisory activities.

22
Navarre stands out as the boundary requirement that is set to the number of farms to advice on
each office (which cannot exceed the 80).
The delivered FAServices are mainly related to the advice and monitoring of the obligations in
relation to grants from the CAP, such as the cross-compliance (Government Decree 1782/2003
and Government Decree 2352/2004), good agricultural practices and environmental practices
(Government Decree 2352/2004), support to young farmers to initiate the activity, labour safety
standards (Regulation 1698 / 2005), as well as other specific requirements stated by the regional
governments (e.g. annual surface declaration). FAS organizations use a diversity of tools
delivering their services, such as personal advice on-farm (the cost varies according to region
and the nature of advice, being in 2008 between 60 to almost 500 euros, which corresponds to
the 20% paid by the farmer), personal advice outside farm, advice for small groups in the farm
(this service is not given in all regions) or outside the farm, and the most classical ways either
individual (telephone and email) or general (web, publications, brochures, etc.).
In relation to the coordination, although FAS are responsibility of the regional governments, the
Ministry of Agriculture launched monitoring committees. However, since the national registry
was not set up, no real monitoring or control is being done at national scale. Regional
governments are responsible for coordinate advisory services, but again here there are no real –
or effective- coordination mechanisms for the FAServices providers, concentrating mainly in the
compulsory administrative control. There are some exceptions, such as in Catalonia, since the
regional government also conducts different coordinating actions (Code of Good Practices,
yearly meeting of coordination for all Advisory Bodies, and at this time they are about to launch
an Advisory Virtual Community within the system RuralCat).
Conducting monitoring three main methods are used, surveys on farmers’ satisfaction, visits to
FAService providers (in theory between 10 to 20 % of FAServices’ organizations, but in fact
frequently there are just meetings with representatives of each organization, not necessarily with
a sample of offices delivering services), and opinions from staff through surveys, interviews and
informal meetings. Eventually it could be visits to farmers. Nevertheless, it still lacks a
comprehensive system to widely assess FAS in much of the regions, additional to the
administrative and budgetary controls.

3.3.2 Funding issues

Spain is the country with highest use of measure 115 during the period 2007-2013 (the main
source of funding for starting up of FAS), far away from the rest of EU countries (almost 83
Mill. Euros, of which 46 % was private funding), as it is stated in the regional Rural
Development Programmes. Certainly the country needed support for this stage of starting up of
FAS, but some doubts emerge on the efficiency both using better the previous structures and the
opportunity cost not devoting more budgetary efforts helping and encouraging farmers to use the
FAServices (mainly measure 114, to which it has been addressed almost 142 Mill. Euros). Fig. 2
and Annex 2 shows some significant regional differences in the effort devoted to both measures,
which depend on the previous structures, policy orientations and probably different level of
effectiveness using available resources and putting in place the whole system.

23
Figure 2. Distribution of Total Budget devoted to measures 114 and 115. Rural Development
Programmes 2007-2013.

99%

66%

33%

0%

Measure 114 Measure 115

Source: Compiled by the authors from regional Rural Development Programmes, 2007-2013.

Farmers contributions may have co-funding by the EAFRD up to 20 % (measure 114). However,
for many farmers this is not sufficient incentive to use the services widely. Spanish authorities
request an increased EAFRD contribution, so it could be reduce the cost for farmers. The use of
measure 115 is variable but implies lower contribution from EAFRD. Fig. 3 and Annex 2 show a
summary by type of funding and regions. Spain devoted a total of 226 Mill. Euros (of which
almost 38 % is private funding) to both measures, 2/3 to which was addressed to co-funding the
setting-up of the system (45 Mill. Euros) and the use of FAServices by farmers (96 Mill. Euros).
The distribution from EAFRD (80.2 Mill. Euros) and central government (37.6 Mill. Euros) was
the same that total figures, but regional governments do a major effort, with 81 % in measure 114
(being 12.3 their total contribution). Globally, in measure 114 public sector addressed 68 % (of a
total of about 141 Mill. Euros), being private contributions 56 % (of a total of 85.1 Mill. Euros).

24
Figure 3. Total Budget devoted to Farm Advisory Services (measures 114 and 115 in the Rural
Development Programmes, 2007-2013), by regions (in Mill. Euros)

Source: Compiled by the authors from regional Rural Development Programmes, 2007-2013.

3.3.3 Main detected problems

A set of problems in FAS and FAServices could be identified. First it lacks an effective
coordination of FAS both at regional and national scale. This is connected with the wide
possibilities to improve a comprehensive system of evaluation of FAServices, aspect especially
important since they are more and more dealing with critical aspects of the process of change
and adaptation of farms to the most innovative aspects (e.g. environmental issues, new practices,
use of alternative sources of energy, etc.). Second, related to FAServices (which at the end is
also a problem affecting the whole FAS), in some regions and from the perspective of farmers
there is still some confusing overlapping (which could be seen as an inefficient explanation of
allocation of responsibilities) between the FAServices and the County Agricultural Offices, for
example related to the matters related to regulations from the CAP (cross-compliance). Third,
transferring knowledge to FAS, national centres do not play a significant role, although regional
research centres are more suitable to deal with this task, and some of them are doing it
effectively. However, and finally, there is a lack of a consistent protocol in all regions for
training activities for staff delivering FAServices (although certainly they are usually
professionals highly committed with their work).

25
4. Summary, conclusions and main strengths and weaknesses
4.1 Key concerns of the current AKIS
As it has happened elsewhere in other surrounding countries, the agricultural sector is
experiencing significant structural problems. The new agricultural techniques, the training of
farmers, the profitability of farms, and the changes in the CAP, are vital elements for
strengthening the sector. The research in the agro-food sector and the technology and knowledge
transfer by research centres therefore plays a key role in the development and strengthening the
sector.
In Spain AKIS network has a very scattered structure in the territory, not only physically but also
in terms of management or organization. It is necessary to remember that the decentralization
from the central government towards the 17 regions configured a complex administrative
structure, with the assumption of much of the competences transferred to the regional
governments, including that of agriculture, livestock, fisheries and forestry.
At the national level there are two main public centres of research, currently under the Ministry
of Economy and Competitiveness, CSIC (formerly under the Ministry of Education and Science)
and INIA (formerly under the Ministry of Agriculture). Both centres lead and/or coordinate other
centres created in the different regions. CSIC has delegations in all the regions as well as a
research structure which encompasses many scientific areas, among which stands out for its
international recognition, the agricultural sciences. Moreover, since INIA leads the Coordination
Commission of Agricultural Research, partially coordinates the activity of public research
centres dependent on the regional governments (although each of the regional centres are
independent in their budgets, organization and research planning). One important aspect is that
in the decision making structure (Governing Council in the case of INIA and Executive Council
in CSIC), especially at the time to design the research policy, they participate the key
stakeholders involved in the sector (mainly OPAs, cooperatives, regional research centres,
representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture and Economy and Competitiveness in the case of
INIA, and the last one in the case of CSIC, added to the universities also in this case). Moreover,
the strategic programme of CSIC is assessed by an international committee, which brings to the
centre of a high prestige.
In addition to these two main centres and regional institutes, there is a wide variety of centres,
usually public, carrying out important research in different fields of the agro-food issues.
Universities and centres which depend of them play a very important role in this regard. On the
other hand research centres created from contributions from other public as the CSIC, INIA or
different universities centres (new join centres), are increasing their importance since they
contribute to the generation of new and collaborative knowledge but also to the transfer of
knowledge and technology between research centres.
The relationship between AKIS organizations is not only addressed to the creation of these joint
centres but also they sign cooperation agreements and collaborate in projects or joint research.
Furthermore, knowledge transfer between AKIS organizations, although could be significantly
improved, is done normally through training courses, publications or cooperation of available

26
services for this purpose (OTRIs), etc. The Technological Centres participated by private
institutions complete the framework of research in Spain.
National or regional governments participate in the functioning budget of its respective centres.
However, funding for research for those public AKIS organizations comes mostly from the
central government, mainly through the National R+D+I Plan. Central government exert a sort of
coordination since it decides the topics for the research programmes in which are based the
competitive calls. The main programme affecting agriculture research include four main topics,
the challenge in security and quality food, productive and sustainable agricultural activities,
natural resources, and marine research. This programme is managed by the national
Coordinating Committee for Agricultural Research, being exclusively addressed to INIA and the
regional centres included in the system INIA – regions. This means a reserved funding for the
regional research centres and some dependence from INIA guidelines (at least in the way that
this Committee decide what are the topics to be included in each call and that funding is
controlled by the Committee).
The remainder programmes and sub-programmes have non-restricted calls, thus all research
institutions (including universities, CSIC or any other research public or private organizations)
may present their projects in different ways, individually or collaborating with some other
research institutions. If join proposals improve the relationships and knowledge transfer between
institutions, they are increasingly favoured, being one of the criteria to have more possibilities to
obtain funding.
With regard to the type of research carried out in the regional centres, it tends to be usually a
research applied to the needs of the sector. However INIA and CSIC conducts more a
fundamental or basic research since their researchers are not so in contact with the final users at
the basis of the agro-food sector (farmers, stockbreeders, etc.).
The planning of each national (INIA and CSIC) or regional research centre is carried out not
only by Directorate of the Centre but also often there are involved technical committees of the
institutes, external committees from universities, OPAs, representatives of regional governments
and/or national government, etc., according to the issues concerned and the scope of the centre
(we have to remember that both within the INIA and CSIC there are diverse sections and sub-
centres, sometimes with certain autonomy). Thus the planning of activities is done, in principle
and theoretically, with the agreement of all involved stakeholders. CSIC has an additional input
in their programming since after the design of the strategic planning usually this documents are
sent to international committees to check out and asking for suggestions. This way to work
brings high prestige to the centre.
As a conclusion, it may be summarized the main strengths and weaknesses of AKIS in Spain.
Related to AKIS the main strengths are:
 The presence of two national centres, which conducts basic and fundamental research,
and constitutes one of the bases and a fundamental pillar of the Spanish knowledge
system. The –at least formal- participation of stakeholders in their governing councils
should ensure a design of research policy taking into account the needs of the sector.

27
  The extensive network of regional technological centres. They became a crucial pillar of
the knowledge transfer system since they play two fundamental functions. First, their
applied oriented research (whereas the national research centres focus on fundamental
and basic research), needed for the modernization of the agro-food sector. Second, their
training programmes, which are ensuring knowledge transfer to the sector since they
combine applied research with training to the final users.
 In spite that regional technological centres are highly autonomous, there is an important
link with the National Institute for Agricultural and Food Research and Technology
(INIA) through the restricted research programme and the call for proposals just for
researches of the system INIA-regional centres.
However, there are also a number of weaknesses:
 The strong reduction of budgets during the very last years (especially in the National
Research Council, CSIC), which is seriously threatening the viability of many
investigations already underway.
 The reduction of training programmes, among which may have particularly negative
impact in the case of courses, scientific conferences and seminars aimed at knowledge
transfer with researchers from regional centres.
 The lack -or weaknesses- of a system of knowledge transfer between national centres and
regional centres sufficiently established and comprehensive. Transfer currently depends
on individual initiatives, seminars and conferences and the availability of budgets for
their organization and/or assistance to them. On the other hand, the knowledge transfer
from national centres is more frequent within the academic fields (more recognized) than
in the professional ones. This explains the tendency for researchers to be much aware of
the scientific publications than an effective dissemination and knowledge transfer to the
agricultural sector.
Even though the research programme restricted to system INIA-regional centres exerts certain
coordination from the INIA, it lacks a more robust system of coordination focused on strategic
orientations of research policies of AKIS at national level, taking into account the regional
centres. There is not a coordination body of the regional centres nor a solid enough and well
established discussion forum on the strategic orientations of the research policy (if we discard
the initial design). Each centre and or region has their own strategic orientations.

4.2. Key characteristics of the Advisory Services and the FAS

Regarding to Farm Advisory System and Farm Advisory Services, in Spain it was a precedent in
the Agricultural Extension Service (born in 1955) and their County Agricultural Offices (born in
1956). The Agricultural Extension Service (AES) had as main objective, to be implemented
through County Agricultural Offices (OCAs), knowledge transfer and informal training to
farmers and stockbreeders in the country. The AES, with the transfer of competences to the
regions at the end of the 1980s, disappeared as a national and centralized managed service, being
assumed mainly by regional research centres and OPAs, under the control of regional
governments. During the 80s, now belonging to the regional governments, the staff of the OCAs

28
had to change from its traditional role offering extension services to the new one related to the
legal CAP requirements and the challenges posed to the farmers.
Nevertheless, in parallel, after the transfer of competences from the central to regional
governments and the emergence of regional AKIS centres, most of them developed functions of
specialized advice to farmers and stockbreeders beside their research functions. This is a process
of knowledge transfer very necessary for the agricultural sector, even critical because its
modernization depends to a large degree on that transfer. In this regard, some regions developed
a strong training system (for example, Andalusia) oriented to the final users, farmers and
stockbreeders, as well as to the staff members of the FAServices. In fact the training of staff of
the FAServices is done mainly through courses established by those regional research centres
integrated in the system INIA-regions as well as other public research centres very involved in
the knowledge transfer.
During the last decade, and mainly during its second half, regions had to adapt and to develop a
comprehensive system of FAServices for farmers and stockbreeders. Training functions of
regional centres were not sufficiently as advice system. Therefore a large number of
organizations (some of them very small, but many others, the most powerful, linked to OPAs and
regional federations of cooperatives) began to improve their capabilities dealing with the new
requirements from EU, national and regional regulations. A close work with regional centres was
an important aspect to acquire the knowledge to improve their services for farmers and
stockbreeders.
Certainly in the advisory sector we found a wide range of institutions, from OPAs and other
farmers and stockbreeders organizations, Associations for Integrated Treatment in Agriculture
(ATRIAs), agro-food cooperatives and agricultural training centres. County Agricultural Offices
(that traditionally played this role although focused on the administrative tasks related with
grants from the CAP), depending on the region, tried in some way have their place in this new
system. But finally they continued losing power and capacity to act, partially because their
potential functions were more and more in the hands of regional AKIS centres and the new
organizations emerged or developed in the light of the coming FAS.
Regional Governments are just responsible for the records of FAServices organizations, meeting
the requirements set by the European and Spanish legislation. The most powerful are OPAs,
Agro-Food Cooperatives Confederation, and in some regions small organizations present
through the rural areas. For example in Andalusia the regional government has a requirement
that FAServices organizations must be present in all eight provinces. As a result, there are only
four organizations delivering official FAServices. In Extremadura, with other requisites, there is
a dense network, with about 28 official organizations. In Catalonia a total of 106 organisations
are recognised as Farm Advisory Bodies, of which 27 % are of a private nature. In other places it
could be find most noticeable cases, such as a rural saving bank (Cuenca), due to the close
relation between many rural saving banks (regulated officially as credit union) and farmers.
Farmers and stockbreeders have been supported in their costs for advisory services (provided by
the FAServices) mainly through two measures in the Rural Development Programmes in each of
the regions, number 114 (about the use of advice services by farmers, stockbreeders, foresters,
etc.) and number 115 (implementation of services of management, replacement and FAServices,

29
as well as forestry advisory services). The FAS organizations focus their work on a series of
services, such as advising and monitoring farmers’ obligations in relation to cross compliance
grants (art. 4 and Annex III of Act 1782/2003, and Annex of Act 2352/2004), the good
agricultural and environmental practices (Act 2352/2004), those related to support the initiation
of activities by young farmers, labour safety standards (Regulation 1698/2005), as well as other
issues that are requested in order to provide a comprehensive advice, which requires a polyvalent
and versatile staff, trained in many different fields and with the necessary skills and knowledge
to effectively provide the information to the farmer.
As a conclusion, it may be summarized the main strengths and weaknesses of FAS and
FAServices and in Spain.
The main strengths to be pointed out are:
 Regional centres developed functions of training-advice to the end users, farmers and
stockbreeders.
 Training programmes by the regional centres are close to the needs and demands from
the farmers and stockbreeders and their OPAs.
 Regional centres perform knowledge transfer to end users taking into account the
objectives of modernization, innovation and improvement of competiveness of the
agricultural, livestock and forestry sectors.
 During the last decade OPAs, and many cooperatives (those more powerful and better
established, but mainly through the national Agro-Food Cooperatives Confederation)
were able to convert themselves to become FAServices, using their past experience
working very close with the farmers and extensive knowledge of the agricultural and
livestock sector. The model of a very few number of FAS organizations comes from
Andalusia, but they have presence in all eight provinces through their network of offices.
 In addition to OPAs and regional federations of agro-food cooperatives, in the regions
with significant weight of the agricultural sector, and due to the demand from farmers
and stockbreeders, it emerged a dense network of FAServices with an extensive presence
in the rural areas (such as in Extremadura or La Rioja).
 The close links between farmers and their professional organizations with the industry
(mainly providers) constitutes an increasingly important source of knowledge and
transfer of innovations to the farmers.
However the important amount of organizations being part of the different regional FAS, they
have some weaknesses to deal with:
 It lacks a regional body in charge of the coordination of FAS. The regional ministries of
agriculture only play a role of control, monitoring and registration in this regard, but not
of coordination of the activities of the FAS (with some exceptions as mentioned above).
Obviously each organization is in charge to coordinate their services in the region or area
in which they are present.

30
 The County Agricultural Offices (OCAs) were, from the opinion of some experts,
potentially able to develop such a role as advisory services first, starting during the 80s,
and could have been coordinating FAServices later on, during the 90s and after EU
regulations related to the compulsory implementation of FAS. However, the daily
evolution and the legal framework (within the regions) have shown that duplication and
overlap of functions among OCAs and the FAS organizations were growing. Added to
this regional governments are dealing with this overlap, and for example most of them
have been gradually emptying contents and functions of the OCAs, and in some regions
they have virtually disappeared (as for example in Andalusia).
 National and regional regulations establish a minimum of expertise and grades for each
FAServices organization. However, there are not protocols, homogeneous system and
any commitment for staff members to update themselves and follow some kind of
continuous training programmes (with the exception of some regions). To be updated it
depends very much on their own. The regional governments bring opportunities through
courses and seminars offered by regional centres, but there is not a system to ensure
training update for FAServices staff. The creation of such a protocol would facilitate and
would formalize the relationship and knowledge transfer between research institutions
and advisory bodies.
 From the point of view of staff in organizations coping with advisory services to farmers,
knowledge and innovation transfer to them from research centres is insufficient and not
addressing the real and daily needs of farmers. With the exception of training courses,
those research centres do not do much, sufficient and effective transfer effort to staff in
FAS organizations (and much less to the farmers).

31
Some observations on the collection of information and gaps
elaborating the report
The Spanish AKIS system is diverse and complex because the variety of organizations and the
administrative model, based in regions which have the competences on agricultural policies and
different models of organization of their regional AKIS system. This has been a challenge but
also imply limitations.
Elaborating the report, there were some difficulties. First, the report requires a comprehensive
analysis of the situation and characteristics of a wide and very diverse AKIS system,
decentralized and with different modes of operation. We could not reflect sufficiently this
diversity. Second, due to the variety of organizations and the absence of a national general
coordination body for the AKIS organizations, it has been difficult to adapt and gather the
information on budgets of each type of AKIS organization. To conduct one by one contacts was
not timely efficient.
Third, although the regulations specified that from 2007 it should be properly running the FAS,
some regional governments have not adapted to that framework until 2009, or even later. This
generates a short experience, the absence of reliable results suitable to be properly analyzed, and
a lack of assessment and efficiency evaluation from the regional governments.
Four, mainly due to rejection by relevant policy makers and civil servants to properly complete
the surveys, they were not conducted as much as we wished. Just some technical intermediate
staff in FAServices were able to fulfil it. Policy makers offer to have interviews as well
indications to some publications and reports to complete the needed information. Therefore, we
could conduct interviews at all levels of AKIS system. At the central government, we had three
interviews with persons in charge in the Ministry of Agriculture (in different sections of the
Central Government), and one interview with National Institute for Agricultural and Food
Research and Technology (INIA).
At the regional level, we had interviews with the Institute for Agricultural Research of the region
of Valencia (IVIA), and The Institute for Research and Agriculture and Fishery Training
(IFAPA, in the region of Andalusia). We had other informal conversations with other members
from regional centres. As regard for the FAServices, we had an interview with IVIFA
(Foundation Institute of Research and Training of the region of Valencia, under the trade union
Farmers and Stockbreeders L’UNIO), and informal conversations with several NOGs acting as
FAS. All these interviews offer a view from the stakeholders directly involved in the system.
Catalonia and Navarra have some particularities and we would like to interview persons in
charge. However, problems of agenda prevented to carry out the interviews at time with the
proper persons.
Finally, due to the very large number of AKIS organizations at national level and especially at
regional one, and the absence of comprehensive databases, it was considered out of time (and
even out of interest) to build a detailed table with a complete list of all AKIS organizations.
These apply mainly to the large number of agro-food cooperatives, Agricultural County Offices,
ATRIAs, OPAs, and agricultural training centres.

32
Authors wish to acknowledge the help of decision makers and persons in charge in the Ministry
of Agriculture of the central government, the various regional institutes with which contact has
been established, the Advisory Services. The person in charge from the National Institute for
Agricultural and Food Research and Technology (INIA) gave and excellent information and very
useful view on the Spanish AKIS. We thank the responsible at the Ministry of Agriculture for
the information provided on AKIS records in Spain, as well as the discussion on the preliminary
ideas in this report. We thank to all of them their willingness to interviews and kindness
answering different questions.

33
References
Bibliography

ADE (2009): Evaluation of the Implementation of the Farm Advisory System. Final Report –
Descriptive Part. December 2009.
Arias Aparicio, F. (2010): Organización y Producción del Conocimiento Científico en los
Organismos Públicos de Investigación Agraria: El Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agraria y
Alimentaria (INIA). Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CCHS-CSIC, Documento de
Trabajo, Número 4. http: hdl.handle.net/10261/24434.
CSIC (2013): Annual Report 2012. CSIC. Madrid.
DE LA CUESTA SAENZ, J.M. (200?): El contrato de Asesoramiento a las Explotaciones
Agrarias. Universidad de Burgos. Burgos.
Fundación Alfonso Martín Escudero (2003): La Investigación Agraria en España. Ediciones
Mundi-Prensa, Madrid.
GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, G. (2012): Raising awareness of agricultural knowledge and
information system in Spain: From personalised transfer services to internet platforms. In
OECD, Improving Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems: OECD Conference
Proceedings, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264167445-14-en
INIA (2013): Annual Report 2012. INIA, Madrid.
OECD (2013): Agricultural Innovation Systems: A Framework for Analysing the Role of the
Government, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264200593-en
ORTIZ SOMOVILLA, V. (2012): Investigación y transferencia en la nueva PAC. IFAPA,
Consejería de Agricultura y Pesca (Junta de Andalucía). Fundación de Estudios Rurales.
ANUARIO 2012. (pags 138-146).
PEREZ SEDEÑO, E., et al. (2012): Las Mujeres en ciencia y tecnología: Perspectiva
Internacional y Situación en España. CMYC. Themis, revista Jurídica de Igualdad de Género, nº
11, pp. 25-36.
Sánchez de Puerta, F. (1996): Extensión agraria y desarrollo rural: sobre la evolución de las
teorías y praxis extensionistas. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación, Secretaría
General Técnica, Madrid.
TURRADO, J.A. ( 2012): El Sindicalismo Agrario desde sus Orígenes a nuestros días. Años
1906-2012. Secretario general ASAJA León.
Official documents and Reports

Dockès, A.C., Tisenkopfs, T., Bock, B. (2011): AKIS – Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation
Systems in Transition. WP1: Reflection paper on AKIS. Final version: 29th April, 2011.
EU SCAR (2012): Agricultural knowledge and innovation systems in transition – a reflection
paper, Brussels.

34
Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino (2010): Informe de seguimiento
estratégico. Plan Estratégico Nacional de Desarrollo Rural. 1 de Octubre de 2010. Revisado en
enero de 2011. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino.
Ministerio de Medio Ambiente (2007): Informe Nacional sobre el Estado de la Cuestión de la
Biodiversidad en el Medio Agrario. Dirigido por Georgina Alvarez Jiménez., D.G. para la
Biodiversidad. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente.
Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente (2008 y ss): Marco Nacional de
Desarrollo Rural 2007-2013. Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente.
Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente (2008 y ss): rogramas regionales de
Desarrollo Rural 2007-2013.
Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad. Agenda Estratégica de Investigación. Plataforma
Tecnológica de Agricultura Sostenible.
Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad. Plan Estatal de Investigación Científica, Técnica y de
Innovación (2013 - 2016).
Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad. Plan Nacional de I+D+I (2008 – 2011).
Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of
the Farm Advisory System (FAS) as defined in Article 12 and 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No
73/2009.
Seminars

Bergeret, P. (2012): AKIS – Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems in Transition an

introduction to the EU SCAR Collaborative Working Group. Pascal Bergeret Co-chair SCAR
cwg AKIS Ministry of Agriculture, Paris Brussels, March 5th 2012.
Poppe, K. (2012): AKIS – Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems in Transition.
Findings of the EU SCAR Collaborative Working Group. Krijn Poppe. Co-chair SCAR cwg
AKIS. Ministry of EL&I, The Hague & LEI Wageningen UR. March 5th 2012.
Angileri, V. (2010). Farm Advisory System implementation in the European Union: experiences
and prospects. Results of the FAS workshop. Barcelona 10-11 June 2010.
Pajarón, M. (2007). Servicio de Asesoramiento a las explotaciones Agrarias en España. 20 de
septiembre 2007. Ministerio de Economía.
Sió, J. (2007). Sistema de Asesoramiento a las explotaciones agrarias de Catalunya..
Subdirección General d’Innovació Rural. Departament d’Agricultura, Alimentació i Acció Rural.
Madrid, 25 de abril de 2007.
Marcilla, A. (200?). Asesoramiento a las Explotaciones Agrarias. Departamento Agrario de la
Caja Rural de Cuenca.
Mora., J. A., Guillén, I. (200?). Formación, Asesoramiento y Transferencia en la Región de
Murcia. Región de Murcia.

35
Main legislation

REAL DECRETO 1113/2007, de 24 de agosto, por el que se establece el régimen de

coordinación de las autoridades de gestión de los programas regionales de desarrollo rural.
BOE núm. 219.
REAL DECRETO 520/2006, de 28 de abril, por el que se regulan las entidades que presten
servicio de asesoramiento a las explotaciones agrarias y la concesión de ayudas a su creación,
adaptación y utilización. BOE núm. 102
REAL DECRETO 521/2006, de 28 de abril, por el que se establece el régimen de los organismos
pagadores y de coordinación de los fondos europeos agrícolas. BOE núm. 117.
Main web resources

European Commission: ec.europa.eu

Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment (Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y
Medio Ambiente): www.magrama.gob.es/
Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, Secretary of State of Research, Development and
Innovation (Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad. Secretaría de Estado de Investigación,
Desarrollo e Innovación): www.idi.mineco.gob.es
AKIS (official web) www.proakis.eu
National Institute for Agricultural and Food Research and Technology (Instituto Nacional de
Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria) (INIA): www.inia.es
Institute for Agricultural Research of the Region of Valencia (Instituto Valenciano de
Investigaciones Agrarias) (IVIA): www.ivia.es
Institute for Agricultural and Fishing Research and Training of Andalusia (Instituto de
Investigación y Formación Agraria y Pesquera): www.ifapa.es
National Research Council (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas): www.csic.es
Asociation for Research in Agro-Food Industry (Asociación de Investigación de la Industria
Agroalimentaria): www.ainia.es
Institute of Research and Agro-Food Technology of Catalonia (Instituto de Investigación y
Tecnología Agraria) (IRTA): www.irta.cat
Technological Platform of Sustainable Agriculture (Plataforma Tecnológica de Agricultura
Sostenible) (PTAS): www.agriculturasostenible.org
Chil Platform (Plataforma Chil): www.chil.org
Confederation of cooperatives: http://www.agro-alimentarias.coop/1/1_1.php

36
9. Appendices
Annex 1: Main topics in the research centres of the National Institute
for Agricultural and Food Research and Technology (INIA)
INIA’s Research Centre Topic
Immunoprophylaxis of vector borne viral diseases
Immunology applied to animal health
Animal Health Research Control strategies of porcine viral diseases
Centre (CISA) Molecular and cellular biology of prions
Emerging and transboundary diseases
Epidemiology and environmental health
Animal parasitology

Population genetics and evolution

Genomics, ecophysiology and biotechnology of forest species
Applied forest ecology
Climate change and damage to forests
Forest Research Centre Silviculture
(CIFOR) Forest fires
Remote sensing of forests
Wood and cork technology
Cellulose and paper
Forest chemistry

Conservation of plant genetic resources

Plant Genetic Resources
Documentation and coordination of plant genetic resources
Centre (CRF)
Characterisation and evaluation of plant genetic resources

Fish genomics and vaccination

Biotechnology of animal viruses
Biotechnology and molecular and cellular biology
Swine immunology
Department of
Biotechnology Plant virus biotechnology
Biology of plant development: biotechnological implications
Cellular division and growth: response to abiotic stimuli
Genetic, molecular and biotechnological analysis of plants of
agronomic interest

Agronomy
Depuration and agricultural use of animal manure and urban wastes
Department of
Endocrine disruption and toxicity of contaminants
Environment
Ecotoxicology and environmental risk assessment
Environmental chemistry

Department of Animal Modelling in selection and conservation programmes

37
 INIA’s Research Centre Topic
Breeding Poultry breeding and conservation
Pig breeding and conservation
Ruminants breeding

Agricultural and forest entomology

Plant Protection Weed control
Department Plant pathology
Plant viruses

Conservation of zoogenetic resources

Physiology and technologies of reproduction in small ruminants
Department of Animal
Molecular embryology, stem cells and transgenesis
Reproduction
Assisted reproduction and preimplantation embryology in bovine
Physiology and technology of reproduction in swine

Food microbiological safety

Department of Food Technology of dairy and meat products
Technology Carcass and meat quality
Biochemistry and safety of plant foods

Technical Directorate for Seeds and nursery plants unit

Evaluation of Plant
Varieties and Plant
Protection Plant protection products unit
Products

The functional composition of different legumes and edible

Food Quality Centre mushrooms
The conservation of genetic resources of food interest

Organic and Mountain Plant varieties for organic agriculture, feeding alternatives for organic
Agriculture Centre livestock, pest and diseases of the chestnut tree, populations of wild
(CAEM) grapevine, climate change and extension of agricultural pests

National R&D Centre for

The feeding regime during the fattening period of Iberian pigs
Iberian Swine

Source: INIA (2013) and www.inia.es (15-06-2013).

38
 Annex 2: Budget for FAS (measures 114 and 115 in the Rural
Development Programmes, 2007-2013)*

UE - Central Regional Total public budget Total private budget Total funding
REGION Measure
EAFRD (€) Govern. (€) Govern. (€) (€ and %) (€ and %) (€)
114 75% 20% 5% 12.488.371 80% 3.122.093 20% 15.610.464
Andalucí a
115 75% 20% 5% 16.268.902 59% 11.276.020 41% 27.544.922

T otal 75% 20% 5% 28.757.273 67% 14.398.113 33% 43.155.386

114 35% 33% 33% 800.500 80% 200.125 20% 1.000.625

Aragón
115 34% 33% 33% 1.123.429 50% 1.123.429 50% 2.246.858
T otal 34% 33% 33% 1.923.929 59% 1.323.554 41% 3.247.483

114 35% 40% 25% 1.000.000 36% 1.800.000 64% 2.800.000

Baleares
115 35% 40% 25% 463.160 61% 300.000 39% 763.160

T otal 35% 40% 25% 1.463.160 41% 2.100.000 59% 3.563.160

114 85% 15% 0% 270.000 70% 116.100 30% 386.100

Canarias
115 85% 15% 0% 119.000 80% 29.750 20% 148.750

T otal 85% 15% 0% 389.000 73% 145.850 27% 534.850

114 50% 25% 25% 2.636.620 52% 2.400.000 48% 5.036.620

Cantabria
115 50% 25% 25% 600.000 57% 450.000 43% 1.050.000

T otal 50% 25% 25% 3.236.620 53% 2.850.000 47% 6.086.620

Castilla La 114 69% 0% 0% 12.119.617 81% 2.826.047 19% 14.945.664

Mancha
115 69% 0% 0% 3.809.273 73% 1.402.954 27% 5.212.227

T otal 69% 0% 0% 15.928.890 79% 4.229.001 21% 20.157.891

Castilla y 114 36% 24% 40% 12.858.563 44% 16.149.127 56% 29.007.690
León
115 43% 29% 29% 1.876.445 32% 3.940.537 68% 5.816.982

T otal 37% 25% 38% 14.735.008 42% 20.089.664 58% 34.824.672

114 24% 76% 0% 5.363.825 61% 3.500.000 39% 8.863.825

Cataluña
115 24% 76% 0% 4.160.155 50% 4.100.000 50% 8.260.155

T otal 24% 76% 0% 9.523.980 56% 7.600.000 44% 17.123.980

Com. 114 22% 72% 6% 950.217 80% 237.554 20% 1.187.771

Valenciana
115 22% 48% 29% 675.054 60% 450.036 40% 1.125.090

T otal 22% 62% 16% 1.625.271 70% 687.590 30% 2.312.861

114 71% 29% 0% 15.932.931 70% 6.674.845 30% 22.607.776

Extremadura
115 71% 29% 0% 1.114.817 51% 1.056.058 49% 2.170.875

T otal 71% 29% 0% 17.047.748 69% 7.730.903 31% 24.778.651

114 66% 34% 0% 14.150.505 80% 3.562.995 20% 17.713.500

Galicia
115 65% 35% 0% 11.459.419 47% 13.171.216 53% 24.630.635

T otal 66% 34% 0% 25.609.924 60% 16.734.211 40% 42.344.135

114 29% 31% 40% 7.266.667 80% 1.816.667 20% 9.083.334

La Rioja
115 29% 31% 40% 169.298 50% 169.298 50% 338.596

T otal 29% 31% 40% 7.435.965 79% 1.985.965 21% 9.421.930

114 50% 25% 25% 300.000 80% 75.000 20% 375.000

Madrid
115 50% 25% 25% 300.000 50% 300.000 50% 600.000

T otal 50% 25% 25% 600.000 62% 375.000 38% 975.000

114 66% 0% 0% 3.270.284 80% 817.571 20% 4.087.855

Murcia
115 58% 0% 0% 748.639 100% 0 0% 748.639

T otal 64% 0% 0% 4.018.923 83% 817.571 17% 4.836.494

114 27% 26% 0% 6.544.983 62% 4.080.000 38% 10.624.983

Paí s Vasco
115 37% 0% 0% 2.117.059 100% 0 0% 2.117.059

T otal 30% 20% 0% 8.662.042 68% 4.080.000 32% 12.742.042

114 55% 26% 10% 95.953.083 67% 47.378.124 33% 143.331.207

T OT AL
115 61% 28% 5% 45.004.650 54% 37.769.298 46% 82.773.948

TOTAL 140.957.733 62% 85.147.422 38% 226.105.155

* There is not budget for 114 and 115 measures in Asturias and Navarre.
Source: Compiled by the authors from regional Rural Development Programmes, 2007-2013.

39